Talk:Scottish independence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

old comment

• Before I begin making some drastic changes, I thought I should save the original text here for reference. --Gerald Farinas 15:33, 21 July 2004 (UTC)

Scottish independence refers to the idea that Scotland should be an independent sovereign state separate from the British state.

Until the Act of Union 1707 Scotland was an independent country (see: Wars of Scottish Independence), whose crown was in personal union with England for a hundred years.

Scottish independence is supported by the Scottish Independence Party, Scottish National Party, Scottish Socialist Party,and the Scottish Green Party, as well as by a number of independent members of the Scottish Parliament.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Article is littered with Sectarianism

Some of the lanuage used this article is rather dubious.

"The Presbyterian majority, significant Episcopalian minority and the few Catholics" there are no accurate numbers of Episcopalians and Catholics in the Highlands at this time so it near impossible to say just a "few Catholics".

This article should be protected if this is to continue.

It should say anglicans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The rewrite

Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I hope this article is going to become much more balanced. 80.229.39.194 16:28, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some random comments on the article as it stands

The modern movement for Scottish independence was revived as a result of the 1974 United Kingdom general elections. Tail wagging the dog. The revival caused them to be able to get enough votes to win the MPs, not the other way round.

The Scottish people voted the resolution down hoping to fight for more progressive . Please. Many Scots are Unionists and oppose devolution or independence.

Thatcher's conservative party made aggressive efforts . I don't remember seeing any tanks in Edinburgh. The Conservative Party has continually had MPs in Scotland (apart from 1997-2001).

Tony Blair became prime minister and personally led an effort to accommodate the concerns of the Scottish independence movement.. So this comes out of a vacuum? Devolution had been labour policy for ages now. They never abandoned it, I think.

the fervent desire for complete independence continued. Nationalist political parties were strengthened with new supporters and efficient organizations. Sheer cheerleading.

80.229.39.194 16:33, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your points :

1 "The modern movement for Scottish independence was revived as a result of the 1974 United Kingdom general elections. Tail wagging the dog. The revival caused them to be able to get enough votes to win the MPs, not the other way round."

The modern movement doesn't begin here. If you're looking for a starting point, 1979 (post referendum and beginning of Thatcherism), or the late 1960s where the SNP had a dramatic rise in support are better.

2 "The Conservative Party has continually had MPs in Scotland (apart from 1997-2001)"

The Conservative Party is the fourth in Scotland, not the opposition. This is notable. Their representation is mainly due to two things they vehemently opposed - devolution and proportional representation. Their hitting rock bottom was due in part to their handling of Scottish issues, which have alienated many in this country, including within the party itself.

3 "So this comes out of a vacuum? Devolution had been labour policy for ages now. They never abandoned it, I think."

I think that it can be said that they have - the ILP was set up with this as one of its planks, but they frequently abandoned it, and factions within the party were pro- and anti- devolution.

--80.176.147.202 19:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of these crudities are now corrected, but various sections still read like an SNP pamphlet, e.g. the bit on the Scandinavian countries. --Nmcmurdo 14:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I substantially agree with the point of Nmcmurdo. Actually, the medieval part is Heavily biased and needs a professional control: You can't simply assume a conquest by Dalriada over the Picts (and a supposed kngdom of Fortriu), you can't speak of a unified, consistent kingdom before - at least - the 11th century. And I could go on for a While. Spree85 (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Tweak

Tried to tweak this a bit to improve NPOV. Still desperately needs background 1707 - 1920 and development of scotnats to 1974 -dave souza 22:17, 13 October 2004 (UTC)

Misc. Comments

"A popular argument is that the Scottish economy wouldn't be able to flourish on its own" - this may be a popular argument, but it is just that, arguable.

In ref. to some of the statements above -

"Many Scots are Unionists and oppose devolution or independence."

A minority oppose devolution, so "many" is quantitive. The figure who supported Scottish devolution in 1997 is at least more quantifiable than those who support actual independence, although of course there is an overlap. Support for Scottish independence has never been contiguous with that for the Scottish National Party.

(altered wording to a 'sizeable minority'. For reasons as above.)

Recent polls show most in favour of independence from 46% to 52% in favour of independence for example Yougov's recent survey. So that is a convincing reason to have "strong body" as opposed to "sizeable minority". Thanks Globaltraveller 18:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Conservative Party has continually had MPs in Scotland (apart from 1997-2001)."

The Scottish Conservative Party has fared extremely poorly since Thatcher's leadership, and is often in fourth place in Scotland.

Remember to sign your posts! It may be that only a minority of Scots oppose devolution, but that doesn't mean they aren't Unionists - the majority of those who voted last time did not vote for the SNP, they voted predominantly Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative, three parties which fervently oppose Scottish independence, but not necessarily devolution. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Opposition

I somehow got logged out as I was making my last edit, so I thought I should note here that it was mine. My reason for renaming the "criticism" section "opposition to independence" and beefing it up is a POV issue - as it was, this section was setting up pro-union arguments in order to knock them down again. This article needs to give a balanced view of this debate, of its history, and of the arguments on both sides. And that means there must be at least one section which gives the anti-independence point of view without value judgments. I should say that the immediate reason for this is that we are about to delete the very shoddy article Unionists (Scotland) and make it redirect here. This article therefore has to cover both sides. --Doric Loon 16:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge request

Mais oui! has put a merge tag on this article. This is not strictly accurate, as what is being proposed is a redirct, not a merge. But that is perhaps splitting hairs. At any rate we need a consensus. To keep the discussion in one place, please do NOT comment here - go to Talk:Unionists (Scotland) to see what is being said and why, and have your say there. --Doric Loon 23:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Legal Basis?

I believe it may be useful to put in a section on the legal basis. The act of union 1707 says that the union will be 'forever' but due to both the creation of the irish free state, and more recently the UK position that it supports self determination in northern ireland as respect to which country they belong, the actual legality of succession becomes rather more blurred. Its probably important to put legal ramifications in somewhere. --Warmaster 20:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any legal problems as this quote from Parliament of the United Kingdom shows:

"One well-recognised exception to Parliament's power involves binding future Parliaments. No Act of Parliament may be made secure from amendment or repeal by a future Parliament. For example, although the Act of Union 1800 states that the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland are to be united "forever", Parliament permitted southern Ireland to leave the UK in 1922."

Jizz 23:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well that's not accurate in respects Scotland, MacCormick v. Lord Advocate etc. However I think what the provision would be considered to mean is that it formed one state and that the Parliament of Scotland or England could not be recalled and vote for matters while the UK still existed. If the UK Parliament wanted to sever a part of the country, it would be free to do so just like any other state. --Breadandcheese 14:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Patriotism redirect

I question the appropriateness of Scottish patriotism redirecting here. Surely it's perfectly conceivable for a Scottish patriot to not be in favour of Scottish independence?--Nydas 10:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, very naughty. Now redirects to Scottish national identity. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

"Surely it's perfectly conceivable for a Scottish patriot to not be in favour of Scottish independence?" - not really, but I have heard of stranger things. Surely such a person would be a British patriot.--MacRusgail 19:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Or a ninety-minute patriot, altogether the more common variety. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, given that a patriot is commonly defined along the lines of 'someone who supports, defends and loves his / her country'; then being a Scottish patriot and supporting a union with England and Wales is perfectly compatible, if you believe that being in a union with England and Wales is in Scotland's best interests. A British patriot would be patriotic towards England, Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland and so is different - a Scottish patriot can support a union with England, if they believe it to be in Scotland's best interests, whilst being entirely indifferent to the culture & history (and general wellbeing!) of England.DixDaxDox (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Are all English patriots pro-secession? Maybe some Scottish patriots belive in federalism, or are patriotic in the sense that they value the contribution Scottishness has made to Britishness. In France, many Bretons are fighting for Bretagne to have status equivalent to Scotland. Would you say they aren't patriotic? Patriotism is a really vague term anyway. What does it even mean, apart from thinking the country you are from is really good, or wanting it to be good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.239.189 (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

How about Sovereignty-association for the nations of the United Kingdom? A form of confederalism where certain matters are dealt with by common institutions but the nationas are essentially independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.238.171 (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced material

Section removed as unsourced as per wiki rules: 'An increasing influence in the independence movement is the current attitude of the British Government towards immigration and civil liberties. Opposition to deportations and dawn raids on people living in Scotland has highlighted the need for local control over Scottish residents and their status. The proposed imposition of a British ID card with data on Scottish citizens being held by the UK government is another bone of contention.' All info must be sourced and referenced to be included in Wikipedia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Weggie (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

Quite a lot of these are for blogs and forums and stuff. Might it be worth a cull? There's a large number of links at the foot of the page as it is.--Nydas 18:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Culled a dead link and a blog that hadn't been updated for a year. --Nydas 18:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Co-operate

I noticed the word "co-operate" mentioned in this article. I would have changed it to cooperate, but I noticed that British spelling used in this article and thought this may be the common spelling used in Britland. Could someone please tell me if "co-operate" is the most common spelling used in Britland? Thanks! Jecowa 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably it is in Scotland. The Co-operative movement (spelled that way) was a big deal, and still has a fair number of shops, although far fewer than there once were. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Both work fine and are equally accepted in common usage. Good grammar dictates not using a hyphen in the middle of the word, but English is a fairly relaxed language these days. DixDaxDox (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC).

TimeZone

I think the recent discussions about time zone changes in England and Wales, along with possible attacks from Scotland, should be mentioned. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6093560.stm Thoughts? Popher 02:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Attacks from Scotland? Sounds serious. Unsurprisingly enough the issue of Timezones doesn't feature in arguments for or against Scottish independence. Thanks Globaltraveller 23:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it probably will. If this ever goes ahead and if it applies to Scotland against the wishes of the majority then this could easily have a negative effect in that they will see this as something imposed by the central government to benefit England even though it is not something the Scottish want. Of course, this is pure speculation in the absense of references and it's not likely to be much of an issue unless the change goes ahead Nil Einne 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: The Economic Viabilty of Scotland as a Sovereign Nation

The debate often focuses on oil revenues or the reliance of Scotland on the Barnet Formula for the devolved Parliament's finances but there are no studies readily available on the potential for the Scottish economy if or when the link with Westminster is broken.

The Scottish National Party has cogently argued its case based on the experience of Norway (which has a similar economic mix) but sourcing accurate independent figures from all sources is fraught owing the methodology of Exchequer accounting and the adjustment for sums considered to be UK tax income as opposed to regional tax income - Oil revenues are a case in point. The Unionist economic case appears to rely on this fiscal chaos to 'prove' Scotland could not survive 'independently' within the European Union.

The hard figures obtainable from Yougov sources indicate that Scotland, not including oil revenues, contributes around 11.5% of the total UK Exchequer tax take. This is surprisingly high per head of population but has to take into account the Scotch Whisky Industry and the fact that Edinburgh is the fifth most important financial centre in the world. Yougov figures show that in 2005-2006 the financial sector in Scotland showed a growth of 15%. Scotland also currently has the headquarters of one of the world's biggest and most profitable banks in the Royal Bank of Scotland and independent financial companies in Standard Life. There is no reason for Scotland to move outside the sterling zone unless the economic indicators show an advantage for doing so - as is currently the case on the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (both of whom are independent of Westminster).

60% of Scotland's GDP output is derived from SME's - a fact often overlooked when wild claims of businesses departing for the SE of England are waved at Scottish Independents of all colours. It is interesting to see in the Scottish Press how many of these SME's are currently investing large sums in their infra structure. Howie's in Dalbeattie are investing £15 million on a state of the art saw mill and an international paper manufacturers in Greenock a similar sum on new paper production plant.

Scottish SME's are also leading the world in reasearch and development. Two areas come to mind - genetic engineering and recovery of oil using carbon neutral techniques in fields declared non viable by the big producers. Scotland's Universities also have world leading departments in areas such as optical computing and information technology - key economic drivers in the future.

Currently Scotland exports 24% of all electrical power generated to England and with the increasing reliance on Russian gas to generate power in many areas of England securing a stable power supply is going to be a major issue for the SE of England. Here Scotland has a business opportunity using its renewable energy generation resources and biomass generation capacity to provide a more secure supply of power.

Calm analysis tends to cut through the hysteria of a collapsing Scottish economy on 'independence'. The reality is that Scotland will have to cut its cloth in many areas of Governmental spending but there is clearly fat in the current overblown structure that can be trimmed, many of the current Quangos could be shut down with little impact on the Scottish economy but with large savings to the public purse.

--Slaitemha 10:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... Certainly points worth mentioning in the article. Out of interest, and perhaps to be included in a section like that in the article, at least briefly, what affects would Scottish Independance have on the rest of the United Kingdom? Popher 23:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Points worth mentioning so long as they are referenced, and not original research. No pick and mix on Wikipedia! There was a Radio 4 program on some Treasury documents from the 1970s which were prepared in the run-up to the 1979 referendum. There might be something useful here. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We certainly need some discussion of the economic and political pros and cons of Independence within the article. The success of the Irish economy in recent years, despite an almost total lack of natural resources, could be a useful focus for debate - eg is Ireland a success because of independence, because it is subsidised by the EU, or for some other reason?

In fact, is having natural resources necessary or sufficient for a healthy economy? Japan has no coal or oil. Most European countries have to import energy and raw materials, as does the USA - whilst oil-rich countries are often rich in oil only, and can actually be economic basket cases. Wandering off the subject a little, but I do wonder whether the traditional area of debate - does Scotland have sufficient resources - is actually beside the point.

Exile 16:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Living in Scotland I entirely believe the Scottish will never achieve their high-quality life without English subsidies. They seem to be on one hand pining for independence and on the other pining for more money from the South of the border to achieve a higher quality life. It seems foolish to maintain such an ungrateful and unproductive region of the United Kingdom.

madkaffir 20.53, 17 March 2007 (BST)

Er... when you actually count ALL of the tax revenue (and not just the personal taxes) Scotland actually contributes more in tax to the UK treasury than it receives in public spending. Cynical 23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And also to point out there is no such thing as English subsidies England along with the UK runs with a nice fat deficit --Barry O'Brien entretien 23:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but does this take into account areas of spending such as the military, foreign aid, embassies, etc.? Bistromathic 16:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If a person was to live and work in Scotland for a company registered and headquartered in England, where would that person's income tax be registered? Where would the profits the company made from that person be registered? Where would the corporation tax be registered? Unless there's a clear division of these, Scotland's economic viability will always be debated. Of course, both pro-independence and pro-union politicians have a vested interest keeping these figures blurred, otherwise there would be no argument regarding viability.--ML5 12:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the sterling zone, surely it would depend whether the EU allows Scotland to maintain the sterling or if they would consider them a new member in which case AFAIK the euro will be compulsory... Nil Einne 23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Under the 1978 Vienna Convention and given the examples of the USSR and Yugoslavia, it's pretty clear that Scotland would be a "newly independent state" under international law; full successor state status would go the Westminster state. As EU membership requires ratification of an accession treaty by all EU members, Scotland (as a "newly independent state") would have to apply for EU membership; it would not automatically gain membership. (And let's notice the Treaty of Nice limits the EU to 27 members, and the EU already has 27; a more general revision of the EU would have to be passed to add Scotland in any case.) So the EU might grant a special waiver for Scotland on the Euro that differs from the rules for other applicant states, but it is merely a possibility, not a certainty; no existing commitment from all 27 EU members states that an independent Scotland could simultaneously join the EU and retain the pound sterling. 24.162.194.75 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Opposition to independence

This section starts with the following:

"The term Unionist is used infrequently in Scottish political debate, partly because it suggests parallels with the situation in Northern Ireland."

I think this should be removed for the simple fact that is is untrue; the term "Unionist" is used frequently.

The term 'Unionist' tends to be used frequently by the Scottish National Party and supporters when describing their opponents. The parties in question tend to refer to themselves as 'against independence' - or 'supporting the status quo' and have, so far, avoided fixing on a label such as 'unionist', precisely because of the negative connotations of the term (and also because they prefer to be seen to treat independence as a largely unimportant 'non-issue' and prefer to classify themselves along more traditional left/right lines).DixDaxDox (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Links

Can some of the links be culled? If they are really that important they should be mentioned in the text. I know this is a busy page, so wont start culling until there is feedback. Ms medusa 01:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Permanent Members of the Security Council

In the Opposition to Independence section, it states, "Others argue that as part of a unitary British state, Scots have more influence on international relations, although they would be entitled to a permanent security council seat." Personally I don't think this is correct, if we look at the example of the break up of the USSR. Russia, being the biggest and most influential Soviet Republic, with the capital and seat of government, succeeded the USSR as the permanent member of the Security Council. And of course so did the PRC from the Republic of China.

So if the union was to break up, England would naturally succeed the United Kingdom as the permanent seat on the Security Council. If we look at the facts, England has a larger population, larger economy and a global city as its capital. RSieradzki 02:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that Mr Salmond of the SNP recently stated on a BBC interview that he would cede control of the nuclear deterrent, the primary factor governing security council placement to England/UK with the removal of the Vanguard SSBNs from Faslane to an English/Union naval base. It has also been mentioned that if the SNP gains a majority and decides on pursuing independence - all non-Scottish personnel and all equipment would be ceded to England/UK, but that's hearsay as far as I'm concerned

Seeing as it is unsigned, I'm not sure how old this comment is. But the equipment wouldn't be ceded to England/UK. The procedure (in the event of full independence as opposed to more powers for the SP or LibDem-style federalism) would be to calculate the value of all the assets of the UK state, and then decide on Scotland's share (how to do - by population, share of tax revenue or some other method - is not hugely relevant to this issue). Let's hypothetically that Scotland's 'share' of UK assets is judged to be 8% (that's just a simple guess roughly based on population).

In some cases, it would be very simple to allocate Scotland's 'share' of UK assets - for example, for military equipment the simplest method would be for units based in Scotland to retain their equipment and become part of the Scottish armed forces. In other cases, there may be political (e.g. the Trident fleet) or practical reasons (e.g. foreign embassies) why such simple division would be inappropriate. In such cases the entirety of the asset in question would be retained by England, with a monetary payment being given to Scotland equivalent to the value of its 'share' of the asset (such money then being used to purchase replacement assets for the new state) - for example if the Trident fleet was valued at £25 billion, then England/Union would retain the fleet and Scotland would receive a payment equivalent to 8% of £25 billion (not going to bother working that out).

Military personnel (the first strand of your argument) would be slightly more tricky - there are a fair number of English people serving in the Scottish regiment, and there are several thousand Fijians due to lack of willing Scots[8]. However if the independent Scotland were to retain the Queen as head of state (as the SNP wants to) then the new state would be a member of the Commonwealth, and English and Fijian personnel could continue to serve in the Scottish armed forces (assuming they wanted to of course) in much the same way that Commonwealth soldiers (such as the aforementioned Fijians) currently serve in the British armed forces.

I'm not suggesting putting any of this in the article by the way, I just added it as a response to the above questions.Cynical 21:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The new nation would probably be called; the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. So what would the new military be called? Would they still retain the name, the British army? Obviously the titles, Royal Navy and RAF can be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.11.233 (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If Scotland were to become independent, and retained the Queen as Head of State, then would it not still be in the United Kingdom? Just a thought80.195.38.188 (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If Scotland was to become independent it would no longer be part of the United Kingdom, there for it would lose its place on the UN security council and would have to reapply with UK permission to join international organisations such as the United Nations, European Union etc. Sharing the same monarch like we do with Canada / Australia wouldnt mean Scotland is part of the UK or can be represented by it.

This is why this article is such a disgrace, its simply pushing bias crap and fails to educate anyone on the real issues. The separatists may say they want Scotland to keep the Queen, but this is only because they do not have the guts to take on the monarchy and the union at the same time. Alex Salmond is a republican, and if anyone thinks an independent Scotland is going to retain the British monarch, they are living in a dream world. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Election 2007"

I just rewrote this section, bringing it up to date, and linking it to the article, which it did not seem to do before. I am not sure if what I have written requires a source, but if it does, either find one and put it in, or tell me to go find one, which I would be happy to do. Josh 22:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Better than UFOs

Someone self-published a paperback "Harry Potter Code" book here in Hungary, the gist is that Joanna K. Rowling is supposed to be a distorted form of Joanna Karoling, that is she claims to be a direct descendant of Charlemagne's dinasty and thus wants to lay a claim to the throne. This is presented as obvious from the many cipher messages hidden in her HP fantasy novels. She would become Joanna, Queen of Scots as soon as independence comes and the huge revenue she collected from the wizardry books is directed towards this effect.

From then on, the secret society would try to get the Irish to break from Britain and then Queen JKR would rule the scots and the irish in a personal union system and make the catholicized Tony Blair regent of the EU. QEII better be worried ... 82.131.210.162 14:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

,chortle> Does it explain what claim a Carolingian has to any throne in the British Isles? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Supposedly the Pope crowned Charlemagne to be "Holy Roman Emperor". The ancient roman empire did include the islands at the time of its height.

The lower half yes, but they never laid low mighty Caledonia. Thecrystalcicero (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, only the part where most Scots live these days - Antonine Wall, anyone? Simhedges (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Robert Burns

The reference to Robert Burns expressing the mood of Scotland in 1707 is inappropriate. Burns wasn't born until 1759. The quotation has no historical value and should be removed. Kjb 17:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Effect on 'British' elections

It is a bit speculative, but should the article mention that if Scotland becomes independent, it gives the Conservative Party almost automatic election to power in London, even with no support from NE England, the M62 corridor or Wales, because Labour is dependent on Scottish constituencies for its majority, not to mention most of its ministers. 81.105.245.251 08:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Labour Party still came first in the last General Election if only English constituencies are counted. Speculating on what may come about in such a situation is not the job of an encyclopaedia and there are plenty of options: minority government, coalition (with the Lib Dems?) --Breadandcheese 11:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Scottish independence v. Scottish nationalism

It seems rather anomalous to me that this page is to be found at Scottish independence whilst the similar movements in the other parts of the UK are to be found under "(Place name) nationalism".--Breadandcheese 11:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Of course I'd expect extensive material on a Scottish nationalism article about Scottish independance, but I agree there should be a consistent approach.... Not to mention Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and Scottish independance doesn't (yet - rightfully or wrongfully) exist. I would urge a page move. Jza84 23:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Any progress on this? Most other nationalist movements have their own page: Welsh nationalism, Irish nationalism, Catalan nationalism, Basque nationalism, English nationalism, Breton nationalism, consistency would be nice. -- Ajf07

Title

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the name of this article. "Scottish independence" sounds like like a politicised sound bite to me, and one from the pro-camp (independence implying there is somekind of incarceration going on). Surely this article should be a at very least named Independence of Scotland or something, but maybe something (admittedly more radical) like Sucession of Scotland from the United Kingdom. I'm also concerned about how this article fits in with "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" and "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what WP:CRYSTAL has to do with this as the article descibes a political movement, Independence of Scotland would be a title to refer to the event itself rather the movement. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that's just it... the title Scottish independence describes a political state of being, not a political group - it's a soundbite. What is the Scottish Independence Movement? I've never heard of it or them. That aside, it isn't particularly clear - independence how? Independent from Europe? Independent from NATO? Independent of the world? Is it independent in trade, in custom, in treaty? Even taking the trans-British common-knowledge into consideration, how exactly would Scotland be independant? A sovereign Scotland would most certainly have dependency on other states for its economy, imports, exports, tourism, international affairs.... it most certainly would not be independent from its neighbours in virtually every sense bar government; the term is misleading.

Also, so called "Scottish independence" may mean the Kingdom of Scotland as a sovereign kingdom - independent of English rule specifically (but certainly dependent on France, Ireland, Norway or other military alliances of the age). OR, the Wars of Scottish Independence. Thus, this term "Scottish independence" could very easily apply to something that has already happened. I therefore stand by my case that "Scottish independence" to describe the "desire" by a (significant) minority of political groups for Scotland to suceed from Northern Ireland, Wales and England, is a soundbite that implies some sort of incarceration by the other three countries. Even if we take the stance that this is a fairly well understood term, it is still something that has either happened, and should therefore describe that, or something that has never happened and thus should be scrutinised by policy with maximum effect. Surely? I'm just doing some critical thinking here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The term is well known to apply to the secession of Scotland from the UK WP:COMMONNAME would apply here, as for the Scottish independence movement, it is exectly what it says on the tin a movement that supports the independence of Scotland, Im suprised you have never heard of this seeing as one of the parties that supports this is currently the Scottish Government --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 03:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the minority govenment (it didn't form a coilition - there is no homogeneous movement as such) that does advocate this is misleading - A sovereign Scotland wouldn't be independent in any sense; it'd probably be more dependent. My point being that this is a soundbite from the SNP. It's kind of like wanting a "Free Scotland" (!) - pure scare tactics, weasel wording and propaganda that we here should be avoiding if we are to write to a NPOV. I'm not comfortable with pandering to a particular political group's compromised propaganda when the term isn't correct.

I did a google search for "Scottish independence movement" - some mixed quality sources, but I'm more concerned that we have a category under this name - this should be something like "Advocates of the secession of Scotland from the United Kingdom". Some of these groups want federalism, which is still a union and still dependent on each other. I really do think this should be reconsidered, perhaps renamed to "Independence for Scotland"? I won't loose any sleep over this, but do think the article would benefit from a rethink. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the current title is appropriate. "Scottish independence" and Independence of Scotland" are rather interchangeable, but I don't see the need for a change. - Francis Tyers · 12:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I respect the principles of WP:COMMONNAME, but do think that we should treat the term with some objectivity, and be mindful of its political origin and misleading meaning. Certainly some of the material and organisation surrounding this issue needs to be toned down for neutrality, particularly the aforementioned categorisation. -- Jza84 · (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article needs work the Others argue and some claim sentences are a joke also on the issue of objectivity I do not think placing the the contentious word separatist in the lead is neutral, as for the cat Category:Scottish independence movement all entries are relevant to Scotland leaving the UK. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Aye, "separatist" is out, we don't see "unionist" all over the unionist parties pages. - Francis Tyers · 11:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't we? Anyway, I'm coming late to the debate, but I'd personally like to see it altered to Scottish nationalism in commonality with the pages on Welsh nationalism, English nationalism and Irish nationalism. --Breadandcheese (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No we don't, and there is already a Scottish nationalism page. - Francis Tyers · 12:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We do, actually. In all of the three main non-SNP parties, you will find a reference to Unionism in their articles. As for there being a Scottish nationalism page, it is a disambiguation page. I advocate moving this article there. --Breadandcheese (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree. 'Scottish nationalism' is typically seen as being more-or-less synonymous with the SNP. The Scottish independence movement is rather broader than that, even if most of the other parties and organisations are smaller. The Greens are in favour of independence, for example, but I doubt they think of themselves as 'nationalists'. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 14:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Content Problems

It is disappointing that large parts of this article resemble little more than an essay, or some kind of manifesto. Just as this article has, I think, avoided becoming some kind of litany of reasons for independence (which should be kept off this article, IMO to keep it "balanced"), I can't quite understand why it has become so unbalanced in the opposite direction. In short there is too much political propaganda on this article, and too many opinions of irrelevant people.

The problems with a lot of this article are many and varied, but stem from the Opposition section. Keeping in mind some of the basic tenents:

WP:NOR

WP:VERIFY

Reliability, with a caveat to neutral, unbiased sources.

Here's a few examples.

Many Unionists have also contested claims by the SNP that Scotland currently underperforms economically, relative to other small countries in the region; such as Norway, Finland and Ireland. which is "referenced" by this website [9]. I wouldn't consider Jim Devine or Bristow Muldoon - one Labour MP, one ex-Labour MSP to be representative of "many unionists" (they are but two Unionists). Neither would I call that a worthwhile third party, neutral or unbiased source. The same goes for the content of the statement, in the current set-up.

Moving on

Unionists claim this would be difficult to sustain after independence, without raising taxes, as North Sea oil revenues will decline in the longer-term

"referenced" by this [10] - an article from the Scotsman which isn't available. Another large problem with this section of the article is the supreme over-reliance of content from the Scotsman newspaper - a newspaper which is not unbiased or neutral in political issues - and indeed has general stated positions on political issues. Even so, I can't see it referencing the idea that "many unionists" believe this. Many politicians may well (source?)

Moving on still

Some within Scotland who oppose further integration of the European Union also claim that independence within Europe outside the EU three would, paradoxically, mean that Scotland would be more marginalised, as a relatively small independent country applying to join the EU, Scotland would be unable to resist the whims and demands of larger member nations, such as being obliged to adopt the Euro and have no greater influence over the formation of treaties like the Common Fisheries Policy

referenced by this [11] an opinion piece by Lorna Thomas. I don't know who she is, but I don't see any caveat where she is speaking on behalf of "Some in Scotland", let alone many unionists - unless we had some reference backing this up, which would support the statement.

This wonderful gem amused me:

"There are others who view a desire for independence as symptomatic of the so-called parochial "Scottish cringe" and assert that some nationalists are Bigoted or Anglophobic Chauvinists in their attitude towards the Union." [12]

which suffers from the same problems as above.

Even worse however we get to

As a result, many unionists emphasise the historical and contemporary cultural ties between Scotland and the rest of the UK, from the Reformation and Union of Crowns, to Scottish involvement in the growth and development of the British Empire and contribution of the Scottish Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, to a shared solidarity during the Battle of Britain to shared contemporary Popular culture, primarily through the prevalence of the English language and a shared currency, to the current demographics, where almost half of the Scottish population have relatives in England, almost a million Scots living and working in England and 400,000 Anglo-Scots now living in Scotland.

Unreferenced. Nothing more than propaganda masquerading as opinion. Both of which have no place in Wikipedia, let alone a sensitive article such as this.

I could go on, there are plenty of other examples.

Even without all of these problems, the article is pretty one-sided, by inclusion of much of this section. I haven't gone plastering the article with tags - yet, but it is pretty clear we have problems with a lot of this stuff. Thanks Globaltraveller (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree; while I have no investment in this article, rather just came across it randomly, reading it forced me to pull over to the talk page, to say this: To me, this article reads "Scottish Nationalists are stupid, here's why!" Controversial topics are very difficult to run on wikipedia, especially when it comes to political topics, as sources are more opinions than anything else. While I no doubt won't come back to this topic unless it hits the news, I have to say that reading this article disappointed me. Wikipedia isn't a place for one, or multiple, people to tout their political opinions. In the same manner in which the public often demands to hear the ideas of all political parties (or all that have regard to an election, etc), I think it is right to give fair and balanced coverage to both sides of this issue - whether it's a stupid issue or not. Also, this Anglophobic bit made me do an "American Cringe" - from my own learnings of history, the commentator's opinions of what happened seem to be against what I learned regarding 1707 and all that came with it. And it's just that, too - a commentator. While it is cited in the wikiarticle as opinion, I don't believe that it's an opinion that belongs them. In fact, it reminds me a bit of (and I'm sure it's harsh, but it's in my head reverse racism, especially in the way he goes on that since Scots whine about hardships endured because of the English, they're fools. That's a real well-written argument, there. I'm sorry, but that lot doesn't belong on the wiki, and I agree, a more balanced presentation of this issue.

Maybe I'll even register and see what I can't do, but I prefer adding well-sourced content instead of removing content. 165.134.194.139 (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been a wee while since I raised this, and not much has improved. Clearly the section in question has many issues. I've now tagged many of the areas, making it a bit clearer and have discovered other problems in the process. There are some factual issues as well - for example the statement that the UK would under "Succession Laws" retain its place on various bodies. I don't believe the UK is a signatory to the "Succession Laws" in question - neither are the vast majority of countries in the world. Other, more serious problems include referencing - where the issue at hand is not discussed in the reference. For example:

Many opposed to independence argue that the Economy of Scotland has performed well in recent years, with consistent economic growth,[44] urban regeneration,[45] a growing population,[46] historically low unemployment rates,[47] Edinburgh's position as Europe's fifth largest financial centre[48] and Scottish GDP per capita being the largest of any part of the United Kingdom after Greater London.

The aspects inferred are referenced (not by quality sources becoming of an article like this) but the point that is being made isn't referenced. There are other examples of this too. There is a heavy reliance too on low grade, highly biased and political opinion pieces by sundry jounalists of little importance being used to cite fact. Blogs, opinion pieces and unverified research is also being used as if it were "encyclopaedic quality" fact. IMO WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY especially are not being held to in large parts of this article. Thanks Globaltraveller (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless (and I speak as an English unionist) the article seems to me to fairly accurately represent the arguments put both in support of independence, and against it (whether those arguments are correct, unbiased, or hold up is another matter). So although the sources may be problematic, the actual descriptions of the positions of both sides seems to be fairly reasonable. Simhedges (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, what it represents is opinion that may or may not be widely held (unverified) and whilst that may accord with your view, it doesn't make the article neutral. You'll also note from the article there are few similar or opposing arguments in support of Scottish independence. We're here to portray fact, not foist propaganda on readers. In essence, this section/article is not "Neutral", particularly with respect to Bias and Undue Weight, both of which are in addition to the content problems outlined previously. Thanks Globaltraveller (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the basic problem with this section, in that it sets out to argue why those who oppose independence do so. There is very little of this on the Support side. The reader is left largely in the dark about their motivations, other than simple nationalism or perhaps a desire for North Sea oil cash. Either we remove these arguments and summarise who opposes independence, or we balance the opposition reasoning with the support reasoning. This would not be a trivial task, and by their very nature they will be non-neutral opinions, but there is no reason why they can't be presented in a neutral way.

The second problem the section has is it appears to be mostly a jumble of opinions from people of little note. That is not to say their opinions aren't valid or not representative of those who oppose independence, but the reader can't really assess the weight they should put on them. I'm not sure how this can be addressed, as the difficulty is that there isn't really a central organisation of Unionists, in the same way the Supporters have the SNP. Any balancing of supporters opinions against opposers is always going to look like the SNP manifesto against a random collection of individuals, MPs and journalists.

Sorry I don't really have an answer to these problems, but I hope I've helped pin down exactly what they are. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, much of this is what I am getting at, with some other issues added in as well. Thanks Globaltraveller (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Public Opinion not reliable.

The Times says that 49% of Scottish people supported independence. That is only 49% of people who replied to the optional poll in the Times. So not every Scottish person answered it because it was optional and because it was only for Times readers. Also the " Hawthorne effect may have applied too when answering the poll. Ijanderson977 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the section it's mentioned in makes it clear that the polls are unreliable, and can only give the broadest of indications as to opinion. But newspaper polls are the most unreliable of all, being essentially self selecting. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 00:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A poll for the Sunday Herald here, although showing Alex Salmond as popular, puts the pro-independence numbers at 23%. I doubt too much credibility can be given to polls when there seem to be such a massive margin of difference and a complete lack of consistency. --Breadandcheese (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Surely that could simply mean that Scottish voters see Alex Salmond / the SNP as a good choice for running a devolved Scotland, but do not want to go ahead with independence (based on the poll numbers)? In many ways there are two parts to the SNP - one part that runs the devolved Scottish government within the UK and one part that campaigns for independence. Scottish voters may just support one but not the other. I don't think you can really argue that polls are inconsistent or worthless on those grounds.DixDaxDox (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Practical effects

As independence (under the SNP) draws near (now very likely within 10 years), should the article have more discussion of a list of things that would probably happen, or would need to legally happen to separate the countries:

Would Scotland:

• "Expel" nuclear forces?
• Adopt the Euro?
• "Join" NATO and therefore remain in military alliance with the US, UK and Europe? Or be Swedish and neutral due to lack of any threats. Attacks on Glasgow Airport and disputes with Iran (and Iceland) notwithstanding?
• Change its tax structure?
• Take up full council and parliamentary representation in Brussels.

etc.

--81.105.243.17 (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty would be that no-one knows what the practical effects might be. So any discussion would be very speculative. For example would Scotland alone have to re-apply to remain in the EU? Or would 'independence' mean the dissolution of the Great Britain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and so throw the whole question of EU membership up in the air?

To rephrase in more specific terms - what legal and constitutional effect would the undoing of (or significant change to) the Union of 1707 have for the status of the UK of GB and NI? Would there have to be new entity called the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Or is such a question not relevant to Scottish Independence? Alistairliv (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very difficult to say what an Independent Scotland will or will not do, after all , it won't be a one party state. The SNP would of course have the initial term in office and set their own policy, but thereafter who knows which party would be elected. Scotland has traditionally been a socialist country, so that counts the Labour party out! As for the status of the remainder of the UK, the most obvious consequence would be the scrapping of the Union Jack. --Jack forbes (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one, the above questions are possible future predictions. Wikipedia is categorically not a crystal ball. To be drawn into such discussion - no, I don't think Scottish independence is remotely likely in the next ten years, nor do I think the SNP's policies are particularly relevant here: save massive political shift, they will always be a minority party in the Scottish Parliament and have to co-operate on issues like everyone else, and I actually imagine if Scotland became independent the Union Jack would remain in use in England, Wales and Northern Ireland out of a lack of anything different - and would probably still remain in wide use in Scotland too, as it has found a place in Canada etc. --Breadandcheese (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You only have to take a quick glance at my user page to figure out that I'm going to disagree with you here. I can almost guarantee you that Scotland will be independant within ten years. Did you see the news today? Wendy Alexander tried to force the SNP into having a referendum as soon as possible. Now why do you think she did this? She did it because she knows that Independance is becoming more and more popular as time goes on, so the sooner the vote the better chance she has of getting a no vote. And farce upon farce, what happens? Gordon Brown overrules her which makes Labour in Scotland look ridiculous once again! --Jack forbes (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is neither "almost guaranteed" that Scotland will be independent by 2018, nor is it only "remotely likely". It is quite possible that Scotland will be independent by 2018, but by no means a foregone conclusion.Simhedges (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Could everyone please keep in mind that this talk page is not a forum for discussing the pros and cons of Independence, but for improving the article. Also worth taking note how "Independence" is spelt.

Otherwise. No, it would not be worth having a list of what may or may not happen, as that would be pure speculation. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No need for sarcasm!! --Jack forbes (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended, just bog-standard smart-alecness I'm afraid. Couldn't help myself. :) --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Smart-alecness? :) --Jack forbes (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

UNITED KINGDOM OF SOUTHERN GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.97.206 (talk) 01:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Graffiti

Regarding the recent addition of a photograph of chalk on a wall. Anyone have an argument for keeping this? I really can't see what it adds to the article. Besides, it looks rather fake to me. Photograph of wall, plus 'chalk' paintbrush on computer graphics program. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Pointless. Remove. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it is real and have seen it (or something like it) myself by the corner of The Mound and Princes Street, although it probably has been removed by now. I agree that it is at least in the wrong section of the article, perhaps it could be moved to the public opinion section? Edd17 (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Gross overuse of tags to prove a point

It seems someone is trying to prove a point by using grossly excessive tags in the opposition section or this article. There is obviously a lack of sources on this article but to single out a section which they obiously don't agree with and tag it to death is just plain stupid. They even tagged things with citations as being unrefereced. I have removed a few of the most stupid tags and I hope some others will keep a NPOV and delete some more or at least replace with citations. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite so. The 'neutrality disputed' ones should be removed instantly - they are pointless without first raising a complaint about neutrality on the talk page. --Breadandcheese (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a header entitled "Content Problems" further up this page, what is tagged in the article relates to this section, raised previously, by myself. I would be excruciatingly delighted to expand on these problems should people wish me to do so. Secondly, and much more fundamentally, the tags are not there to "prove a point", they are there to illustrate the gross deficiencies and significant neutrality problems with the article/section of the article. Kind regards Globaltraveller (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well please do by all means. The purpose of the Opposition section, whilst far from GA status I grant you, is to outline unionist arguments against independence. Many of the statements made have been suitably verified by references, indeed more comprehensively so than other sections of the article. In contrast to your claim that "It does not cite any references or sources". The purpose of academic dialectics is to present two contrasting points of view both in favour and against of a proposition in order to allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. From your own apparent political bias it would appear that this may have affected your ability to objectively comprehend this concept, certainly going by the deliberate targeting of this specific section of the article. For example you seem to dispute that North Sea oil is going to run out in the long term, the ranking of Scottish GDP relative to the rest of the UK and also look to require a definitive citation for the claim that unionists make up 60% of the Scottish parliament, whilst making no similar demands of the claim that 40% of the parliament consists of pro-independence candidates. Also how does stating pretty obvious facts such as that an independent Scotland will not be part of a Great Power as it is now classed as a biased statement within the context of this sub-heading? There are also similar vindictive and gratuitous uses of tagging, such as in stating that unionism has never emerged as a homogenous movement, such statements are taken as fact by virtue of the preceeding comment that several mainstream parties hold such a consensus, thus demonstrating that this is the case in contrast to nationalism, which has is propogated by only one mainstream party, the SNP.

I agree however that the article as a whole requires rebalancing, particularly in respect of a more delailed outline of pro-independence arguments, but to plaster this sub-section with tags to the extent that it becomes virtually illegible is counterproductive. 82.23.120.74 (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you should read the documented problems at the "Content Problems" section further up this talk page, where the issues have been raised and are in the process of being discussed. Many of the issues are concerned with Wikipedia pillars such as Neutrality and Verification. I'm not going to tread where I, and others, have already been with respect to the article. Essentially, the problem is that this section is trying to present an argument and viewpoints, as if this were some kind of debating forum. There are issues with some of the "sources" that are used as citations. When it comes to citations, these are vital to illustrate the points being made and need to come from neutral, third-party sources. Clearly many of these "sources" are no such thing as has been demonstrated above. Irrelevant journalists with opinions give Undue weight and credence to some of the points expressed. Also please pay due respect to WP:NPA (No personal attacks) and WP:AGF (Assume Good Faith] when interacting with other editors on Talk pages and in other areas of the Wikiproject. Thanks Globaltraveller (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the use of perfectly acceptable Tags is still causing problems. I think, the best way forward, if this is going to continue to be the case, is the removal of the disputed content from the article itself as a next step. Globaltraveller (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm a unionist, I find myself agreeing somewhat considerably (but not wholly) with Globabltraveller. Really we should be able to improve the referencing here in what is already a terrible article (the title alone should be Scottish nationalism per the rest of WP, IMHO). However, we need to work in the spirit of WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:CONSENSUS - is it really necessary to tag so many specific statements - particular ones outlining a certain viewpoint? I think not, at least for now. But I do think some of the bolder statements should be tagged per Global's concerns. Whatever the outcome though, edit warring isn't going to bring about a resolution - dialogue here is. Can we look at each making some concessions before moving on? --Jza84 |  Talk  11:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

However, on review of the Opposition section - I don't think that culling and tagging is necessary - it's not a bad section at all. --Jza84 |  Talk 

It clearly is a bad section, as has been pointed out, at length in the section Content Problems section above - specifically with respect to the language used and the sources juxtaposing the points made :-) I'm sorry, but I am going to tag the points I have concerns with, again. I don't think we should be removing tags, when editors are attempting to make direct points about them on the Talk Page, I don't see that as Good Faith on anyone's part. Much better energy would be spent engaging with the multifarious points above (please read the existing section and points raised before) :

So I will try again (and repeat what I have said previously above and now below):

Opponents of independence argue that the Economy of Scotland has performed well in recent years, with consistent economic growth, urban regeneration, a growing population, historically low unemployment rates, Edinburgh's position as Europe's fifth largest financial centre and Scottish GDP per capita being the largest of any part of the United Kingdom after Greater London.

There is no source saying that opponents of independence suggest these claims. If there is it should be directly attributed to who has suggested this, and why their view merits inclusion in the article. Tagged in the mean time.

As a result of this, Unionists believe Scotland is economically stronger as a part of the United Kingdom Economy, and that a country as relatively small as Scotland is comparatively better able to prosper in an increasingly globalised world with the international influence and stability derived from being part of an economically powerful state.

Unpublished or unverified research as part of an opinion/blog piece. Doesn't even mention half the claims referred to in the preceding sentence, or paragraph. (Source also referred to below) and Tagged in the mean time

Many Unionists have also contested claims by the SNP that Scotland currently underperforms economically, relative to other small countries in the region; such as Norway, Finland and Ireland.

The source is not neutral, from one previous Labour MSP and a current MP. It is unverified, unpublished research. It doesn't claim to speak for many Unionists either - it speaks for Bristow Muldoon and Jim Devine MP. Not good enough and Tagged in the mean time.

Also, with the Treasury's Barnett formula, Scotland is currently able to sustain higher levels of per capita public spending relative to the rest of the UK, because of its disproportionate contribution of tax revenues from oil production.

A highly contentious claim (on all sides), that doesn't have the level of source to match such a claim. Evan Davis is indeed an Economics Reporter, but I would point out that it is not "because" of the Barnett Formula Scotland has higher per capita public spending, it is a great deal more complicated than this simplistic myth replicated here. Essentially, the Barnett Formula has no bearing on the per capita expenditure bases of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Tagged in the mean time

Some within Scotland who oppose further integration of the European Union also claim that independence within Europe outside the EU three would, paradoxically, mean that Scotland would be more marginalised, as a relatively small independent country applying to join the EU, Scotland would be unable to resist the whims and demands of larger member nations, such as being obliged to adopt the Euro and have no greater influence over the formation of treaties like the Common Fisheries Policy,

A very poor opinion source, from an irrelevant journalist, in an irrelevent web-based publication. Undue Weight issues. Not neutral. Tagged in the mean time

There are others, such as the historian Niall Ferguson, who view a desire for independence as symptomatic of the so-called parochial "Scottish cringe" and assert that some nationalists are Bigoted or Anglophobic chauvinists in their attitude towards England.

Why is a piece by Bruce Anderson (who?), writing in the independent being used as a reference here? The Language is not neutral. Very strong, very biased claims being made by a journalist who is an irrelevance. Undue Weight problems. There are others such as "Niall Ferguson" who suggest this. Where is the reference to suggest there are multiples of "others", who agree with Niall Ferguson, in whatever he has got to say? If Niall Ferguson says something, then to be precise, one would expect that we would word this "Niall Ferguson" says. If Niall Ferguson claims lots of people agree with him, then we would obviously say that. There is none of this here and it is giving a wider implication to what is being said. Tagged in the mean time

As a result, many unionists emphasise the historical and contemporary cultural ties between Scotland and the rest of the UK, from the Reformation and Union of Crowns, to Scottish involvement in the growth and development of the British Empire and contribution of the Scottish Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, to a shared solidarity during the Battle of Britain to shared contemporary Popular culture, primarily through the prevalence of the English language and a shared currency, to the current demographics, where almost half of the Scottish population have relatives in England, almost a million Scots living and working in England and 400,000 Anglo-Scots now living in Scotland

Reference problems again - in fact their doesn't appear many to substantiate some of the claims. Many Unionists? Where does it suggest this? An opinion piece from Eddie Barnes in The Scotsman not even mentioning half the claims in the preceding section. I don't see anything about Scotland's contribution to the Empire, Enlightenment in this referenceHe doesn't seem to be talking on behalf of many Unionists. He mentions the opinions of a few irrelevant people in his piece which is not precise enough to quantify as being "Many Unionists". Tagged in the mean time

Another argument in favour of a continued union is that as part of a unitary British state, Scotland has more influence on international affairs and diplomacy, both politically and militarily, as part of NATO, the G8 and as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Citation? Sure plenty of people may say this, but we'd really need some evidence that "as part of.....Scotland has more influence". Gordon Brown might say things like this (hint, hint) but isn't likely to provide any evidence Tagged in the mean time

According to the laws governing Successor states, in a similar manner to the way Russia succeeded the former Soviet Union's position within the international community, the rest of the United Kingdom would retain all its diplomatic links and membership of international organisations, with Scotland having to raise its own Armed Forces, establish its own diplomatic contacts and apply for separate membership of international organistions such as the United Nations, as the rest of the UK would continue to maintain its seat on the Security Council.

The first part, still tagged I see, which is good. As for the rest, well it's the old Scotsman reference problems again. The reference is no longer online (only a discussion forum is left) I have been however and checked this article. It mentions nothing about much of what is in this section - with respect to Foreign Embassies and the UN, rather reports on the comments by EU Fisheries Commissioner, Joe Borg, about EU membership which were later retracted - by Joe Borg. Gossip, inneundo and not neutral. Tagged in the mean time

There is also a mainstream body of opinion opposed to Scottish independence and in favour of the continuation of the union with England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This has never emerged as a homogeneous movement, but rather represents a general consensus of the main British political parties and other prominent commentators. Specifically within the Scottish Parliament. The Union is supported by the Scottish Labour Party, Scottish Conservative Party and Scottish Liberal Democrats, who since the 2007 election, collectively hold 79 of the 129 seats, over 60% of the Parliament. Opposition to Scottish independence is also held by many individual figures such as George Galloway, it is also opposed by many smaller political parties such as the Scottish Unionist Party and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). It is a broad viewpoint that ranges from those in support of the United Kingdom as a centralised unitary state governed exclusively by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, to those who support varying degrees of devolved transfer of administrative and legislative responsibilities from Westminster to Holyrood, including those who support a solution to the controversial West Lothian question, such as Federalism, similar to Germany, Canada or the United States.

Citations please, even if it is just to verify the numbers.

So, essentially we're back to square one. An over reliance on non-neutral articles, weasal words, claims with nothing to back them up, an over reliance on some sources articles eg The Scotsman. This section needs some heavy weight references for some of the claims it makes, which there are in academia and journals. Editorials, blogs and opinions are being used to speak for a large tranche of people (Many, some etc), when they clearly do no such thing, as demonstrated. Some of these issues can easily be rectified, I think, with good quality sources and more precision in the use of language. I'm most certainly not against an Opposition section whatsoever, but as was pointed out by myself and Escape Orbit above, it currently unbalances the article in addition to the problems outlined above, but that's not the most pressing concern - at the moment. Kind Regards Globaltraveller (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the main problems is that the opposition section of the article has been scrambled over for every possible chance while not a single other part has been touched leading to an assumption (correct or not) that whoever tagged it is in many cases biased and does not like it, just to give an example

The discovery of North Sea oil and the subsequent revenues that went to the United Kingdom treasury have been argued to have benefited Scotland little, with many conservative estimates suggesting over £200 billion of revenue have been amassed thus far. There are also a number of other organisations with a primarily nationalist ideological orientation, from Siol nan Gaidheal, which seeks to revitalise the independence movement through primarily cultural means, to the militant Scottish National Liberation Army.

there are no citations in this section at all and while the previous citation mentions some of the groups there everything else has no backing at all including the use of the word conservative and how that it has benefited Scotland little whit no idea who argues this nor any evidence to support it? Also some backing for the nationalist groups would be good just to be certain

It demonstrates the article is significantly hit on purpose and if the same person would like to go over all sections of the article that would be best

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljspeltdutch (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

I think a section on what would happen to NI if scotland got independence. the serious unionists in NI all seem to be presbyterian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

For instance, what would be the name of the British rump state if Scotland got independence? There is no obvious collective term for England, Northern Ireland & Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.86.1 (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The remenants of the union would be called: the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The name Great Britain cannot be used as it refers to the British mainland. Without Scotland, Great Britain is not a sovereign state, its just an island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.11.233 (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually they could call themselves anything they want. That is the prerogative of sovereign countries. cf. Macedonia (FYR). DixDaxDox (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Any such section would be speculation that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant it would pose a question about what would Happen to NI. Do consider Ian Paisley and co. are mostly of scottish descent and are presbyterian. NI would have a few options:

• Stay in a "United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland".
• To join the Republic of Ireland.
• To be partioned into scottish/presbyterian/scots-speaking, english/anglican/Mid Ulster English speaking and Irish/catholic/Irish and Hiberno-english-speaking areas which would join scotland, england and ireland respectively.
• To become it's own country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 08:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the obvious speculative nature of the question, don't you think it's possible that, if it were so important to the Northern Irish people, they could negotiate their way into the new Scottish state? And it's hardly a fact that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish state could not use Great Britain in it's name. One needs only look to the west for an example of a country's name claiming the entirety of an island when it infact only posses 2/3. -MichiganCharms (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If scotland were to be independent the english would not be aiming to eventually rule the whole island like the irish do/did. england was also called england before 1707. what else would ireland call it's self, Republic of Munster, Leinster, Connacht and parts of ulster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.59.87 (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The name of the UK after a Scottish departure would be "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", regardless of factual accuracy, until the state got round to agreeing a new name (which could be a significant task in and of itself), enacting it and having its name changed in the relevant international bodies it is a member of. Note that the name was officially "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" for five years after 1922 and for that matter the name "Yugoslavia" (lit: "South Slavia" or "Land of the South Slavs") was retained for years after key parts left (and indeed it never contained all the South Slavs in the first place). Timrollpickering (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actual Prevalence

The article is rather good, except... I can't get a clear picture of just how mainstream this movement is. Obviously, with the SNP in government it's clearly a major movement... but then agin, the majority didn't vote for them so we're back at square one. Is there no consensus on this issue ever? Do the polls just randomly fluctuate as shown? I come away from this article unsure if Scotland really wants independence or if a large minority do. Anyway we can work on that? This cite in particular seems to give a more clear view: (see here)-MichiganCharms (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Much as we'd love to give you an answer ether way 79 of our overlords refuse to ask us the question! 86.111.162.127 (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately comprehensive polls on Scottish views on independence have only really been commissioned in the last few years, as a result of a SNP government in Holyrood - and polls are only really useful for measuring broad trends over time - as a yardstick of public opinion at any one time they are quite unreliable. I would suggest monitoring the SNPs share of a vote, as a proxy - but it is far from assured that everyone who votes for the SNP would vote for independence in a referendum (but a sizeable proportion probably would)DixDaxDox (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC).

And conversely, everyone who votes for a "Unionist" party, like Labour, won't necessarily vote "no" to independence in a referendum. There is only one way to find out for sure, but the opposition parties are to afraid to lose. Scroggie (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well im sure we aint meant to be discussing this here but the "opposition parties" made very clear before the election that they would defend the union. It may sound simple but if people want to end the union they shouldnt vote for parties who are committed to defending it. Its commonsense. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspect the cost (in terms of money and parliamentary time) might be a factor in opposition to a referendum. Is it worth including anything on the current situation - reasons for and against a referendum? DixDaxDox (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Additions by Jw2034, comments by Escape Orbit

I have reverted again the additions by User:Jw2034. While these are good faith additions, I don't think he/she appreciates what is eaxctly wrong with them in relation to Wikipedia policies. Please refer to policies on original research, original synthesis, speculation and verifiability before reinserting this paragraph.

Thank you for your kind opinions Escape Orbit. Since you are so keen on strict wikipedia rules, and reading the tone of your article, I should direct you to Wikipedia:No personal attacks before I address your arguements. Perhaps my talk page would've been best.Jw2034 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• It should be noted however

- This is either a superfluous phrase, or a untidy way of getting the reader to ignore the content above, because what's written below is much more important in the writer's opinion. The actual content should be the proof of importance, not the introduction.

This is your opinion. The phrase links a large section on 'Referendum before 2010' which sounds very npov to a contradictory section on the mechanics of any such referendum. I've aded this section purely to give a non-UK resident a balanced understanding of the UK and Scottish parliamentary system and purely the mechanics of any referendum or unilateral bid for independence. Nothing I've added cannot be verified either in the Scotland Act itself or in supporting literatureJw2034 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• that any referendum for Scottish independence or any Scottish parliamentary bill seeking to change the constitutional status of Scotland as determined by the Scottish Parliament would not be legally binding on the UK Government, nor would the UK Government be legally obliged to recognise or act on such a referendum; under the Scotland Act 1998 the United Kingdom parliament holds absolute parliamentary sovereignty and any changes to the constitutional status are reserved as a matter for Westminster<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980046_en_1 Scotland Act 1998 (c. 46)<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>.

- The cite to this merely leads to the Act itself. Who is providing this interpretation of the Act (plus linked Wikipedia articles) is therefore unknown, so we must presume it is the original research and opinion of User:Jw2034. Whether this editor is an expert or not is irrelevant. We have no way of verifing this and Wikipedia does not do original research or synthesis. Wikipedia can also not function as a cite for itself.

Read the act itself. Read the page 'Refurendums of the UK'. A referendum in this case is not legally binding, it is a point fact, not opinion. If necessary, a further reference outside wikipedia can be found to support this Jw2034 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Further, the UK Parliament has the right to amend, alter or repeal the Scotland Act and remove the constitutional status or powers of the Scottish Parliament at any time, allowing it to effectively block any move for independence - although such an action would have significant political ramifications . Modification of the Act - either with regards to independence or increase in Scottish Parliament powers - would require broad cross-party support (possibly as a result of the ongoing findings of the Calman Commission on devolution <ref>http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk/</ref>)

- Uncited original research and opinion, finished off by a piece of speculation on something not yet determined. The cite leads to the main page of a commission and we are given no indication what this website verifies and where it does it, if at all. It may actually just be an external link in reference to the speculation.

Again, the starting sentence is a fact: read the Scotland Act! The Calman Comission is essential to any discussion on Scottish Independence, since it is presently conducting a review into devolution and its conclusions are likely to infulence any further transfer of power. See the SNP website for a piece on this.Jw2034 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• and/or the backing of one (or several) of the major UK parties to succeed due to the low number of SNP MPs (holding only 6 seats of 59 in Scotland itself, out of a total of 646 sitting MPs)<ref>http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/parties/snp-mps-$1215199.htm</ref>.

- Uncited original research. The cite here merely backs up the count of SNP MPs, no where are we told where this interpretation has been sourced. So again original research and opinion by User:Jw2034

This is obvious. There are 6 SNP MPs who back Scottish independence, if they follow their party line. They require support outside the SNP at Westminster for any vote on the Scotland Act to succeed. THis is not immediately obvious. If one was to read the rest of the article without this clear fact and comming from outside the UK, one would have the impression such a vote would be routine. Prehaps a better wording.Jw2034 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that Jw2034 has chosen to revert once again his additions. Please stop doing this until you have addressed the concerns with on this talk page. Edit wars are not helpful. I'm also disappointed that Jw2034 apparently still hasn't read the policies. So, to clarify a few points;

• First, please indicate where I have personally attacked you. This talk page is for discussing edits to the article. It doesn't help gain consensus by discussing things in private on user talk pages.
• You state in several places that what you are adding is true. If you would read Wikipedia policy on verifiability you would see that the Wikipedia works to what is verifiable, not what is 'true'. The cites you are providing simply indicate what documents you are interpreting. This is not citing; this is indicating original research.
• If you believe that the article overlooks certain aspects then cite where these issues have been discussed in reputable sources. Until you do this no-one has any way of verifying what is being said within the article. Asking people to read the Scotland Act is simply not good enough. Does the act actually say (paraphrased or otherwise) "any referendum for Scottish independence or any Scottish parliamentary bill seeking to change the constitutional status of Scotland as determined by the Scottish Parliament would not be legally binding on the UK Government" ? If not, it is clearly an interpretation of the Act, so who is doing the interpretation? How do we know their interpretation is correct? Notice that I am not saying it is wrong. I am saying it is not verifiable.
• Telling people to read other Wikipedia articles to verify things is not acceptable. Wikipedia cannot cite itself, it requires external reliable sources.
• The Calman Comission may be essential. But we can not speculate on what its findings may say, or what the effects of those findings may be. If reputable sources have done this, then cite them.
• If there are just six SNP MPs, and if they need further support, then who has determined this? It doesn't matter if it is obvious. This is something that someone has determined by looking at the facts and we need cites for who this may be. How else are we to verify if this consideration is relevant?

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reduced the technical aspects with regards to parliamentary sovereignty to the facts and added some citations in. parliamentary sovereignty is not an interpretation of the act - it is an explicit legal position that underpinned devoluton for both scotland and wales; theere are numerous sources for this. reading from the Scotland act when you are discussing the powers granted under the act is more than sufficient by the way! (or else where are you getting your facts from...). linking to other elevant wikipedia articles is more than acceptable, since they can go into more detail - particularly on referenda - than this article can. i've added details on the calman commission and national conversation but limited speculation. i've stated the level of support for any changes to the scotland act is uncertain (since no parties outside scotland have expressed a clear opinion) - however i've added a cted reference to gordon brown's opposition, and left that the SNP only have 6 MPs in - this is important for those outside the UK to understand that it is not a formality for the SNP to force a wesminster vote or UK govenment into independence/increase of power. i think the section on unilateral or de facto independence is relevant (the first question i'd ask is 'why cant scotland/england/wales/NI declare themselves independent regardless?'!) although i'm not a legal expert - i've backed it with a few citations but more probs required. Jw2034 (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these additions. The section is much improved and no longer looks like personal opinion and original research. However, cite 54, to the Times letter pages is weak. This is simply the opinion of an unknown barrister that was considered interesting enough to publish. There is nothing to indicate his notability or its reliability, so it's only marginally better than a forum or blog posting. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Useful sources

I have added a reference to a book from about five years ago which is quite authoritative on the hypothetical procedures (and even outcomes) of independence. There was also an article in The Guardian last week which is useful. At least these reliable sources support what may otherwise look like original research. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks, more citations are good - Guardian comment tends to be a bit dodgy though as a citation however, that's why i didnt use it. perhaps someone who's any sort of legal bod on constitutional law would be better off making any further edits, since it all gets a bit murky! (sorry for the rv btw, was mid edit at the time!)Jw2034 (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Request move

Scottish independence → Scottish nationalism — As noted above in older discussions between posters. The name of this article is not consistant with other articles on nationalist movements. It contains an emotive and politically bias word in the title, "independence" could just as soon from the other side of the opinion, to Scots Unionists be termed "seperatism" or "treason". Scottish nationalism is thus the neutral title.

The history section, which itself is written from the perspective of a romanticised sepratist also seems to be more a general history of Scotland than specific to the subject at hand, perhaps this also needs seeing to. It even includes much information from before the UK was formed. Scottish nationalism is the correct title and it is in following with other such articles for uniformity across Wikipedia; Basque nationalism, English nationalism, Breton nationalism. William Bawl (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support, as explained in the nomination. - William Bawl (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Whilst i agree this article is clearly biased and has multiple issues and love the term you used to describe it i think the name is correct. The problem is theres no separate article on "Scottish Nationalism". This article is about the issue of Scottish Independence. There should be one on nationalism that says nationalists support "independence" linking to this article. The trouble is the term "nationalist" should not always be considered to mean supporter of independence. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Agreed, and a history of Unionist Nationalism in Scotland and a clear distinction between nationalism and supporting full independence can be made. What I think is the question is whether 'Scottish independence' would merit a different article from 'Scottish nationalism' - I doubt it. --Breadandcheese (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is at the moment this entire article is only on the Scottish independence issue which i believe does justify its own article. Considering theres a Welsh Independence aritcle, clearly Scottish independence is far more of an issue. Thats why i think Scottish nationalism should stop redirecting to this page and some information placed there about "Scottish nationalism" explaining the difference with unionism in Scotland etc. Renaming this Scottish nationalism would just make matters worse. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - for reasons given and as a matter of consistency. --Breadandcheese (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support its a more suitable title Ijanderson (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - as the disambiguation says "Scottish nationalism" can refer to "Scottish independence", "Scottish national identity" (not necessarily pro-independence) and the SNP. Scottish nationalism can also cover historic support for devolution (pioneered by nationalists), cultural movements etc. In fact Scottish nationalism comes in many forms, some of which may post-date any possible future independence.

"other such articles for uniformity across Wikipedia" - the trouble is that these are not the same. Some nationalism is mainly linguistic e.g. Welsh, some mainly for devolution, e.g. Cornish. British nationalism is a very different beast to Scottish nationalism too, and doesn't revolve around an independence issue.--MacRusgail (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose It may be that the articles need rewriting somewhat to follow a clearer distinction between the two concepts, but the two are not the same by any stretch of the imagination. The Scottish Socialist Party for example is above all a socialist party and its members would object strongly to being put into the "nationalist" camp. Yet, they strongly support independence.

Many of Wikipedia's articles on independence movements/nationalism suffer from similar problems, mostly because the people most likely to get involved are those with the strongest feelings on both ends of the spectrum, which overall does not always lead to the clearest articles. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per MacRuasgail - "nationalism" is a far broader term than "striving for independence". --Duncan MacCall (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Akerbeltz. The two are related but different and I can't see any a priori reason why they cannot have their own articles. The Green Party and SSP are pro-independence but not nationalist organisations, the Tartan Army, whilst nationalist in the broadest sense, is not especially pro-independence. However, there may be little room for an article about political nationalism in the modern era that is significantly broader than History of the Scottish National Party. Ben MacDui 19:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per BenMacdui, above. The terms "pro-independence" and "nationalist" describe attitudes that do not overlap completely, or in some cases at all. Lianachan (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Quebec nationalism and Quebec sovereignty movement (which Quebec Independence redirects to) seems like a good example of how things should be. One article on Scottish Nationalism and one on Scottish Independence.. Which should actually be factual and lay out both positions fairly. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wales articles have the correct setup in my opinion and presents the issue in a more balanced way. There is an article for Welsh Nationalism as well as an article for Welsh Independence. Perhaps someone who understands this matter could try and split this article into two like Wales has, that might also help resolve some of the clear bias problems with this article currently. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)