Talk:Scottish independence

Future of the "competence of Parliament" section

Given the UKSC decision that the power to hold an independence referendum is outwith the competence of ScotParl, what do other editors believe the future of this section should be? Much of the content relates to the debate around whether the Parliament is or isn't comeptence, which given the UKSC decision was unanimous, is unlikely to be further questioned. Of course, it is possible that nationalist parties do not accept the ruling, but I personally find that unlikely.

In my view, the section should be mostly deleted and replaced with a paragraph detailing the official position and another outlining how that was reached (i.e. giving the opposing argument that the Parliament should have been ruled competent). Jèrriais janne (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Your suggested change does not maintain WP:NPOV, which we are obliged to adhere to. All significant views which have been reported in reliable sources are covered. A court judgement does not obviate that requirement. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the section should adhere to WP:NPOV. Hence why I said that the Supreme Court decision should be balanced by views opposing that outcome. However, given that the matter is likely to be settled (I don't think any editing should take place until the response of the Scottish Government & Nationalist parties is clear), a more consice section would now be appropriate.

Even if editors think the length of the section continues to be appropriate, I think in light of the decision, especially if it is not appealed etc., then discussion of the best way to organise the section to 'tell the story' of how the decision came about, is appropriate. Jèrriais janne (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that description of the process by which the court was asked to give a judgment (and, as RS report on it, how they came to their judgement) should be included. We must not give it undue weight. You suggested that the section should be mostly deleted and replaced with a paragraph detailing the official position and another outlining how that was reached: that would not adhere to NPOV, privileging as it does the views of one group to the exclusion of all others (including scholarship etc). Cambial — foliar❧ 10:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I misspoke when suggesting parts should be deleted. Rather, possibly sections such as the 2022 Supreme Court case and the 2019 Martin Keatings declarator should be moved to the History section once the fallout from today's announcement has been settled (however long that may take), such that this section can be focussed on the legal facts and the contesting views over them which exist today.

Though it should be noted that there is currently no scholarship cited in the section beyond House of Commons briefing reports written by David Torrance, except two rather dated quotes attributed to two academics in the late 90s without citation. Jèrriais janne (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I realise that in terms of UK law the ruling essentially settles the matter. But Wikipedia is not a part of the UK legal system, and its judgments do not automatically define fact on Wikipedia. For example, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Church of Scientology is a religion, but that does not mean that Wikipedia now always refers to it as a religion. We represent all views according to their prominence, and the fact it is a court ruling does not make it special relative to reliable journalism, academia, and other noteworthy views reported in reliable secondary sources. I oppose moving all other views to "history"; they remain relevant to this section. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Third option - Confederation?

Is a confederation really the “third option” in the debate? I believe Devo-max or Federalism is known more than Confederalism? The source used relates to Wales not Scotland. Seems a bit WP:SYNTH. DankJae 09:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Red Clydeside - Seemingly very absent from article.

Surely at least a mention of Red Clydeside is in order?

John Maclean has became almost a martyr to many in the Pro-Indy Left.

He advocated for revolution and was incredibly popular when alive.

He was imprisoned due to his anti-First World War stance and just shortly after being released due to him going a 4 month uninterrupted hunger strike. Theslipperylemur (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Length of article

This is a very long article which I think needs to be shortened considerably. Do we need the issues section? AlloDoon (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The McCrone report, discussion requires

While it’s often said the McCrone report was hidden, according to Gavin McCrone himself, it wasn’t hidden. Newmate12 (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)