Talk:Scottish independence/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Recent changes explained

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have consolidated the history section into easier to understand sections (main themes): the home rule movement that went on (and off) from the late 19thC until the mid 20thC, the two devolution movements, then the current referendum process. I have deleted the largely unsourced material about the early SNP because it was of no great political importance until the election of Winnie Ewing in 1967. Regarding the 2014 referendum, there was a large amount of material about the possible illegality of a referendum. This is all now irrelevant because the Edinburgh Agreement meant that Westminster made the referendum legal.

For each section outlining opposition and support for independence, I have consolidated the "difference over form of government" sections into the "political parties" section.

The European Union section was going into far too much detail about what various individuals have said and then quoting them excessively. It is an important issue, but other issues (particularly the economy) are more important to most voters. What the reader needs is to know the basic facts of the arguments, i.e. what each side believes would happen in the event of independence, then citing the various opinions that have been offered one way or another. The previous version was also quite disorganised, e.g. the opinions offered by European Commission figures (Barroso and Reding) should be together because they represent the same body. It also went into too much detail about what various Spanish officials have said about the reaction (if any) of that country. We have quotes from the Spanish Prime Minister - that should be sufficient to represent the view of the Spanish Government (unless and until it changes). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It does not appear to me that these are improvements, so unless you are able to achieve a consensus for this then you must cease these deletions. I am definitely against such deletions and have again reverted them. SSHamilton (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do you believe these are not improvements? These are not simply deletions of content. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I also do not believe that these changes constitute improvements. They remove much detail from both sides, probably biasing the article towards the Nationalist PoV. The changes also tend to downplay the fact that the EU have given a definitive answer that if Scotland leaves the UK, then Scotland will no longer be a part of the EU. That is not to be dismissed as "an opinion"! ElectricTattiebogle (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have opened an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SSHamilton because it appears to me that the ElectricTattiebogle account is being used by SSHamilton as a sock puppet. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to remove uncited information, and to improve the organization, but DO NOT remove properly cited information from this article. As an example, your continuous meddling with the information I added on the EU question, including the essence of the question and the essence of the response (supported by links to the letters on the Scottish Parliament website) is completely unacceptable. If the content is properly referenced, leave it in the article. ElectricTattiebogle (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:IINFO. I have restored the changes I have made, but have also added back the context in which Christine McKelvie made her query of the EU commissioner. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Jmorrison230582 - you must stop putting your personal spin on this and reframing the article from you peresonal PoV. The letters are a matter of public record, and should not be followed by a history of third party comment which took place before the definitive letter was written. ElectricTattiebogle (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

1) Jmorrison230582's changes improved the article for context and readability.

2) It seems clear this was socking to try and bait an editor into breaking 3RR, it didn't work but a false edit warring report was lodged anyway.

3) Noting (1) & (2) I've restored the text. WCM_email 17:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Removing information which is key to an understanding of the exchange of letters is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an improvement! There is clearly politically motivated manipulation going on here, and that is not acceptable. A neutral PoV must be maintained - which cannot be achieved by suppressing the facts. ElectricTattiebogle (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Your charge of politically motivated manipulation is false, as is the charge of suppressing the facts. In cases like this, I am often reminded of WP:OWB, in particular No.1 "When someone complains loudly about censorship, you may be certain they are up to no good." To make the point clear, I restored Jmorrison230582's changes as they improved the article for context and readability. Instead of addressing this point you have chosen to make a fairly blatant personal attack and so clearly you don't have much of an argument. Personally I try to observe a 2RR rule and I sincerely hope another editor sees the merit in my comments and reverts you. WCM_email 19:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further changes

I think this article should be a) a general history of the Scottish independence movement; b) a summary of the pros and cons of the idea and c) details of who broadly supports and opposes it. I think we should avoid excessive detail on this article about the 2014 horse race and arguments used in it; these should be in the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 article. An argument deployed for or against independence now may not be valid 10 years in the future, or may not have been valid 10 years ago (e.g. the political trends in the rest of the UK, or the present state of the economy). What I would like to avoid is this article being a duplication of the 2014 referendum article, because the arguments greatly pre-date the referendum and will likely continue irrespective of its outcome (i.e. nationalists will continue to argue for it if the vote is no, while unionists will continue to argue that it is a bad idea if the vote is yes). Other thoughts on this are welcome. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Jmorrison is taking the article in the right direction, for the right reasons. It would be good if other editors (with similar wiki-principles) could get onside to make the process collaborative. Personally, I have too many questions to which I have not found published answers - I am sure there is plenty of material in the National Library of Scotland, but I'm not travelling to Edinburgh to do research! It does seem to me that it is odd to mention the Stone of Destiny being pinched, but not to mention the first SNP member of parliament - but as this is a work-in-progress, I will wait to see how it progresses. Godd Luck, anyway 86.17.152.168 (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I also support the sentiment of Jmorrison230582 (talk); however, my revision of the "Reasons" for independence were made prior to reading his contribution. Fortunately, my edits do not clash with his intent and I have instead removed unwarranted formatting, expanded citations, elaborated on points that benefit from further explanation and added Wiki/Wikt links. I will continue to monitor this page, as the subject is of interest to me. At the very least, duplication of the content in other pages must be avoided.--Soulparadox (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Contemporary popular culture is also shared to some extent," ?

"Contemporary popular culture is also shared to some extent," This is a very odd form of phrasing. What does it mean? It seems to suggest that most popular culture isn't shared between Scotland and other parts of the UK. But the obvious and visible daily reality is that almost all 'popular culture' is common to all - same TV stations, same books, same movies, same popular music, same text speak, same food, same fashions (kilts aside)etc etc. For the sake of factual accuracy I'd simply delete the words 'to some extent'. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.9.198 (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, sounds like weasel words; now removed. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Omitted Key Facts and References

In the interests of objectivity and completeness, certain key facts should be added (rather than unsupported assertions in the form of either side's claims) - that shed light on the viability of Scotland as an independent country.

For example: Scotland would be Europe’s largest oil producer, and 2nd largest gas producer. Scotland has oil reserves worth up to £1.5 trillion in the North Sea which can sustain jobs and revenues until “well after 2055” (according to the UK government).

An independent Scotland would be richer than the rest of the UK and in the top 20 countries globally. Financial Times, Feb 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.50.84 (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

New Union Jack

I moved the discussion from the Talk-page of Great Britain. It should fit better to this page:Flk-Brdrf (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I created the possible new Union Jack. Just in case...possibly we have to change it in the article in some weeks.

File:Fahne des UK von England Wales und Nordirland.png

UK without Scotland

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flk-Brdrf (talk • contribs) 11:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, appears to be original research, I dont see any evidence or reason that the flag will change in the foreseable future. MilborneOne (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It has been suggested but I don't see it happening simply because I think that the right answer will win through on election day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting the date of the suggestion which you linked. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I expect more suggestions will be available at the beginning of Q2 2015. --Boson (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

These have already been thought up. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(e/c) Other proposals exist. Any real proposals for change will become apparent in due course, and there is indeed no reason to give any credibility to any particular idea at present. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Oh, then I was not the 1st one with this thought. But in your reference there are little gaps between the St. Patricks Cross and the English cross. I think these gaps, necessary for the "Scottish part" so far will not more necessary for the new Union Jack.

Today I got from the German media that now exists a little majority for a "Yes", means a independence of Scotland (51 Yes, 49 No). This means that the independence in some weeks is likely and that me need to update the UK-articles.Flk-Brdrf (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Little Britain

And here a little map, just in case:Flk-Brdrf (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We must alos think about the new name:

• United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland
• United Kingdom of Little Britain and Northern IrelandFlk-Brdrf (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW: A new map of the new UK was published in the German Wiki hereFlk-Brdrf (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Flk-Brdrf the proposed date for Scottish independence (if the vote goes that way) is the 25 March 2016 so nothing will change for a while, no evidence that the name of the United Kingdom or the flag would need to change. As that is a least 18 months away then nothing is going to happen in the next few week other than a result of a ballot, nothing will change here for a while if at all so not much point in continuing this speculation, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that, in the case of Scots voting 'yes', independence would not happen with immediate effect; negotiations and planning will mean that independence will not come into effect for, at least, several months or, more probable, a couple of years! Preparing new maps and new flags at this time is not necessary. -- Hazhk^Talk 14:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Out of interest, where is the name "Little Britain" coming from? If Scotland became independent the rest of the state would still be called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Likewise, the rest of the UK would be under no obligation to change its flag (a flag which predates the Acts of Union). -- Hazhk^Talk 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it comes from the the television programme. Either that or a mistranslation of something else. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's probably a misunderstanding of the name "Great Britain", and it shouldn't be used anywhere on Wikipedia.
P.S. Thanks for sorting out the indentation! I overlooked MilborneOne's comments which are the same as mine. I didn't realise there was an official date for independence, but it is nearly two years away as I expected (so we shouldn't be worrying about maps and flags yet)-- Hazhk^Talk 14:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why User:Hazhk thinks that "the rest of the state would still be called the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". That seems unlikely - "Great Britain" refers to either the whole geographical island, or to the union of England and Wales with Scotland. If Scotland became independent, the term Great Britain in either sense would be clearly wrong. We don't know what the name might be, but it could be "United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland". The term "Little Britain", by the way, has various meanings including, historically, Brittany. User:Flk-Brdrf's map is also wrong in showing the Isle of Man as part of the UK - it isn't. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect nothing will change in this area if Scotland becomes independent, and it will become a point of dispute between the new and continuing states. Cf "United States of America" and South Americans' complaints of the use of "American" and "America" meaning USian. DeCausa (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

To all: The term "Little Britain" is not only my idea. In the German media here they talked about "Klein Britannien" that I translated with "Little Britain". But possibly there is a better translation, "Small Britain" perhaps.

Isle of Man: Under which control this island will become? I think London and not Edinburgh. But of course I can remove the Isle of Man from the map as part of the future kingdomFlk-Brdrf (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I also wonder how small GB/ LB/ SB would become with less the 1/2 size of Germany onlyFlk-Brdrf (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• the Little Britain motto is an offensive mockery. Even tiny nations are not called "puny", it's against human rights!
  
• that fake flag proposal is also an offensive mockery. The flag will not change, and that prank-flag is NOT harmonious to be vexillologically accepted, the person that composed the main text is a pranker. Pranks against the nation are considered a major crime, and Scotland has nothing to do with that moron. Even if Scotland leaves our vexillological committees never will accept non harmonious flags designed by mockers (the flag is historic and will remain, it contains 3 Christian banners, and it's a way to oppress our atheists and muslims, that cannot change, like it or not), and the Little Britain name is disrespectful to human beings, not even Rwanda and Burundi are called little Rwanda and puny Burundi. Mockery is not a method to cause laughter to thinkers.

Opinion Polling

Recently, some polling companies have produced polls showing public opinion to having another referendum and how they would now vote if a referendum were to occur tomorrow.

References

As the issue of scottish independence is far from resolved due to many factors, would it therefore be appropriate to add a section to this article with the published opinion polls on this issue. Humongous125 (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wording in History Section

It seems highly misleading to state "Scotland was an independent country from its foundation in the Early Middle Ages, with some historians dating its foundation from the reign of Kenneth MacAlpin in 843". During the early middle ages the modern concept of a "country" would be completely alien. Rather than talk about a foundation of Scotland it would be better to talk about an emergence of Scotland. Further this sentence, "English monarchs claimed Scottish territory on many justifications, which were usually sent to the Pope and other foreign rulers to explain their military aggression" seems highly suspect as well. In the middle ages local rulers in Scotland would have been fighting against kings controlling lands in France as well as England. These kings would be better described as Angevin and Norman. Moreover military aggression appears as a loaded term when something more neutral such as expansionism could be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.207.85 (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the intro can raise the hackles, but I think it is probably unrealistic to expect a brief introduction to encompass the reality that there is no equivalence between modern concepts and those in 'use' in the Middle Ages. It seems to me there is not even a 1-to-1 correspondence between ideas 'then' and ideas 'now'. There is no doubt (in my mind) that: <"Scotland was an independent country from its foundation in the Early Middle Ages, with some historians dating its foundation from the reign of Kenneth MacAlpin in 843"?> is not a TRUE statement; but it serves a purpose really quite well, it seems to me. That purpose is to 'set the scene' for a reader whose previous knowledge on the topic may be quite sketchy. I think that, for example, <"Scotland emerged as an 'independent' country in the early Middle Ages, with some historians dating its foundation from the reign of Kenneth MacAlpin in 843"> is less misleading, and would therefore improve the article - why don't you suggest some specific form of words on the talk pages, and try to get consensus? Bear in mind that the intro needs to be brief and 'accessible'; perhaps consider also - who might look to Wikipedia to find out about Scottish Independence?. Good Luck. 86.17.152.168 (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Scottish independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070127214434/http://www.tomorrowproject.net:80/pub/1__GLIMPSES/Individuals__identity_and_values/-138.html to http://www.tomorrowproject.net/pub/1__GLIMPSES/Individuals__identity_and_values/-138.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090717060941/http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/sovereignty.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/sovereignty.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scottish independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070204060251/http://news.scotsman.com:80/topics.cfm?tid=447&id=134592007 to http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=447&id=134592007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scottish independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110525075552/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;?xml=/opinion/2007/04/11/do1101.xml to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;?xml=/opinion/2007/04/11/do1101.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Libdems stance

Libdems stance is unclear right now: http://stv.tv/news/politics/1358703-lib-dem-members-lobby-party-to-back-independence-referendum/ --2A02:908:C30:3680:4049:781B:55BF:5254 (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Polling

Where was it established that only polls from British Polling Council members are acceptable? Normally the fact that a poll was conducted for, and reported in, a major newspaper would be sufficient for notability and legitimacy to be satisfied. You can't just unilaterally impose a criterion after the fact. Please demonstrate justification for this requirement, and why the Scotpulse poll should be excluded while one with a sample of just 626 is allowed. Anna Lertreader (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

See Opinion polling for the Scottish independence referendum, 2014. No tables have been made available for the Scotpulse poll. We don't know what the basis for their findings is. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Several polls on that page also have no tables available (eg YouGov/The Sun 15–17 Sep), so that clearly isn't good enough as a reason. The Sunday Post is a reputable newspaper and Scotpulse have been used by several media outlets. Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The YouGov site is linked in a few instances because the original links to their tables no longer work. Please provide examples of Scotpulse's work. It looks like a dubious result, given the other recent polling, in a poll conducted by a company with a limited track record. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Scotpulse is part of STV, which I presume you consider a legitimate source. http://www.stvplc.tv/blog/2012/06/stvs-unique-and-dedicated-online-research-panel-scotpulse-captures-mood-of-the-nation https://www.mrs.org.uk/event/network/stv_panel_research/course/1295 Anna Lertreader (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I've no strong opinion either way on this, but it does seem sensible to establish some kind of level of authority for opinion polls included. Otherwise we could have any old rubbish in there. Please also do not keep reverting disputed additions. Establish consensus, then edit. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Scotland's largest commercial broadcaster and one of its oldest established newspapers seem an eminently reasonable level of authority. I don't know what would count if those weren't sufficient. The personal endorsement of the First Minister? Edit comments noted. Anna Lertreader (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus during the EU Referendum, was only polls by BPC members should be included on the main table. This establishes a level of quality, as all polls included are held to the same standards of polling. All non-BPC member polls were mentioned elsewhere in the article, or on a separate table. The same is done at Proposed second Scottish independence referendum. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I asked you some time ago where evidence of this consensus could be found. I seem to be still waiting. Anna Lertreader (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

From looking at the Scotpulse site, I don't see any other political polls or any supporting material for their one poll on Scottish independence. As their result was wildly out of line with other more creditable sources, it seems legitimate to question the veracity of their poll. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

'Scottish kings and by the Norman and Angevin rulers of England ' - Misleading.

'The level of independence of the Scottish kingdom was fought over by the Scottish kings and by the Norman and Angevin rulers of England '

The above sentence gives a somewhat false impression of history. Following the Norman Conquest of Scotland, an invasion nominally headed by the usurper David I, the aristocracy of Scotland was just as Norman as that of England. Robert the Bruce for example would have thought himself no less Norman than King Edward. The daily language of the Scottish court as in England at that time was French, until English was eventually adopted. The implied distinction between Scottish kings and the Norman rulers in England is misleading. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.226.167 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Scottish independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720151006/http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2231446.0.Calman_devolution_commission_revealed.php to http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2231446.0.Calman_devolution_commission_revealed.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scotland.gov.uk/About/programme-for-government/2009-10/summary-of-bills/referendum-bill
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6820542.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910042038/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-084.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-084.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826203754/http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/why-does-scotland-matter to http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/why-does-scotland-matter
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140827192346/http://www.respectparty.org/scotland/ to http://www.respectparty.org/scotland/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140831191633/http://www.britishtogether.co.uk/index.php to http://www.britishtogether.co.uk/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Scottish independence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6DlN80mED?url=http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0015/13272/TheScottishParliament_18312-6142__S__.pdf to http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/electoral_commission_pdf_file/0015/13272/TheScottishParliament_18312-6142__S__.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141009014543/http://www.britainfirst.org/statement-of-principles-2/ to https://www.britainfirst.org/statement-of-principles-2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024091614/http://bettertogether.net/blog/entry/the-european-union-and-the-united-kingdom-union to http://bettertogether.net/blog/entry/the-european-union-and-the-united-kingdom-union
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024091617/http://bettertogether.net/blog/entry/nationalist-plans-on-currency-and-tax-are-falling-apart to http://bettertogether.net/blog/entry/nationalist-plans-on-currency-and-tax-are-falling-apart

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 31 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

---

Scottish independence → Scottish independence movement – Per the similar move of Catalan independence to Catalan independence movement, which recently passed following my request. This article is about the movement for independence, not about the topic of independence itself.  ONR  (talk)  06:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It is customary to explain *why* you are requesting a page move. Please outline your case so that other users can begin to consider it.Mais oui! (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Done.  ONR  (talk)  15:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It would more accurate to say 'modern' movement, but that makes it more clumsy.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. The most-frequently indicated form at Category:Independence movements is, in fact, "independence movement". —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose This article covers the topic of Scottish independence as well as multiple independence movements/referendums. Naming it as you suggest implies only a single movement. The comparison with Catalan breaks down here I think. -- Netoholic @ 06:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is a much broader article, for example the section on the Kingdom of Scotland is nothing to do with the modern movement. Neither is the section on legitimacy. This article deals broadly with the topic of Scottish independence. If somebody wants to create a sub-article on the modern movement, feel free. Mais oui! (talk) 07:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. I'm a huge fan of WP:CONSISTENCY, but it doesn't apply when the scope doesn't match. A viable approach would be a WP:SUMMARY split, so we have a consistent article on the modern movement, summarized here, and keep this broader article on the overall arc, which is of much more historic importance that the current political stuff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should Scottish nationalism redirect here?

I found that article when trying to read this one, and I noticed that it's a largely abandoned page that has been marked as needing "immediate" attention since 2012; after all these years, it's still only one paragraph. I was about to nominate it as a candidate for today's article for improvement & contact WikiProject Scotland about how such a significant and controversial topic has such a poor article, but then I realized it was the wrong article.

In short, it seems that more information about Scottish nationalism can be found on this article, and Scottish nationalism is a topic that's effectively inseparable from the Scottish independence movement; the Scottish nationalism article is duplicitous and provides no information that's not covered better by this article.

I'm posting here because this seems like the more likely of the two pages to get a reply from any interested editors, but if there's too little commentary (which is likely given that the most recent posts on this talk page were from 2017) or if it's too controversial of a proposed merge, I could instead try to bring this suggestion to the attention of third party editors by listing it as a requested merger.

Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 08:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit sceptical of this. Certainly the two concepts are closely entwined *now*, but for a long time Scottish nationalism manifested itself in other ways, e.g. National Covenant (1949 petition for home rule), Claim of Right 1989. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

After having some time to think about it, I absolutely agree with you. We certainly wouldn't want the page Scottish nationalism to link to Scottish independence in the event that Scotland eventually does become independent, as the meaning of "nationalism" would obviously no longer refer only to the desire for independence, and you've accurately pointed out that pushes for increased autonomy have been done many times before. The best course of action for the Scottish nationalism article would simply be to expand it into a better article. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Historical Kingdom of Scotland

In the post Pictish period of Scotland, until James I ascends to the English throne, two major events define Scotland. First is the Battle of Brunanburh , fought in 937 between Æthelstan, King of England, and an alliance of Olaf Guthfrithson, King of Dublin; Constantine, King of Scotland and Owen, King of Strathclyde which ended in a draw, but also meant that Scotland would not be so easily swallowed into a united England as other areas. The second is the better known crisis of succession upon the death of Margaret, Maid of Norway, which was capitalized by Edward I, leading to the wars of Scottish independence.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Just as today, issues of the time became intertwined so James and Charles promised that they would rescind the Act of Union, just as today, the FM promises an independent Scotland would stay (or at least return) to the EU. The issues got mixed in the 1700s, just as they get mixed today and are used by the countries leaders, just as they get used today. Jacobitism and repeal of the Act of Union became connected as the hope of Scots for one, lay with the other.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Writing about the history of Scottish independence is made difficult by the changing meaning of terms such as 'the Scots' and 'Scotland' over time. Most writers are very careless of these terms.

The Scots originally inhabited the Highlands, and thus only the Highlands were 'Scot-land'.

The Lowlands, eventually part of 'Greater Scotland', were not home to Gaelic-speaking Scots but to Angles or 'English' people.

The south and east had been 'English' since at least the 7th century, about the same time that the Scots first settled in the north and west.

The south east was first the Anglian kingdom of Bernicia, later part of the English Kingdom of Northumbria, later still the Kingdom of Lothian. The Angles were joined by Saxon refugees and immigrants after the events of 1066.

'Greater Scotland' - what we now think of as the Kingdom of Scotland - was not fully established until the reign of King David. David was however sustained only by a Norman-French army, and he based himself in Edinburgh in the Anglo-Saxon lowland part of his kingdom. David's new Kingdom of 'Scotland' was in reality a Norman-ruled northern English kingdom with an unruly and almost un-governable northern territory - the original Scot-land after which, somewhat ironically, the whole kingdom would take its name. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.166.6 (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Sinebot is correct. The "Kingdom of Scotland", as we'd recognise it, probably dates from the reign of David; and even then it's debatable whether royal rule extended effectively into the Highlands. A cynic might suggest that Scotland only became a "unitary state" after 1746. In any event, the current boundaries of Scotland weren't established until 1468-9 when the Northern Isles were acquired. The Gaelic language and culture is specific to the Scots (i.e. people of Irish origin) and is not native to the Picts, Britons, Northumbrians, Vikings and Anglo-Normans from whom the majority of the Scottish population is descended. In spite of its name, the current Nation of Scotland is the successor of the Anglo-Norman "Pictish" Kingdom, not the Celtic "Scottish" one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.108.92.22 (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Legality vs. Parliamentary sovereignty

The article takes on the constitutional doctrine of "parliamentary sovereignty" as a main legal principle to assess the question of legality of independence of a proposed sovereign state. However, it is well known through the legal precedent that "parliamentary sovereignty" refers only and strictly to the British Parliament's ability to give a force of law to statutes and other legislative instruments. As a matter of law it has no right to give interpretation of its own Acts or have retrospective power to legislate on international treaties prior to its existence (from 1707 onwards). Thus a reference to the legal principle of sovereignty of the Crown, which is both divisible and resting on a legal structure of the corporation sole, and also predates the Treaty of Union of 1706 - would be highly necessary for a balanced view of this subject.

The article should include: "The question of legality of the Scottish independence is debatable and can be wieved from either perspective of legislative authority alone, or from the perspective of the state in its modern incarantion within international law, as represented by the British Crown."

--CitoyenU (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect Reference to Kingdom of Ireland leaving the UK

The article states "The 26 southern counties of Ireland left the Union in 1922, which became known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.", however, I propose that this text be rewritten based on the following justification.

The entire 'Kingdom of Ireland' left the UK on the 5th December 1922, via the Irish Free State Constitution Act.

On the 7th December, the Northern Ireland Parliament resolved to make the an address to the UK King to opt out of the Irish Free State and then rejoin the Kingdom of Great Britain as an autonomous region, not as a Kingdom.

Hence, the text should rather state "The Kingdom of Ireland left the Union in 1922, however the region of Northern Ireland subsequently rejoined, which became known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

This also raises the questions as to why the London invented St. Patrick's flag (never used by neither Ireland nor NI) remains in the Union Jack, where only Kingdoms are represented, which explains why Wales are not represented.

S2mhunter (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Technically, according to still active Crown of Ireland Act 1542 the Crown is still the head of state in NI, which makes the distinction between a "kingdom" and a "region", or dominion, or an autonomy irrelevant in this case, considering the current structure of concessional government under the GFA.

--CitoyenU (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Stating expressly framed opinions as facts

As per Wikipedia policy, editors are not to do this. Cambial foliage❧ 10:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you understand the point of the "reasons" sections. They aren't saying e.g. "Scotland would be worse off economically as an independent nation state", because that is impossible to prove without a real world comparison. The point of those sections is to say this is what the proponents of union/independence claim, and then providing examples of them doing that. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand why they are there. This doesn’t impact the requirement for individual or institutional opinions to be attributed. Cambial foliage❧ 11:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

(And for their views on the subject to be sufficiently notable for weight) - some independence supporters argue that the major UK political parties outside of Scotland are massively, endemically corrupt with no possibility of redemption, but that doesn’t mean we include them. Cambial foliage❧ 11:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

As pointed out on a different page, the phrase seeks to is not just supported by multiple academic sources, but in fact directly lifted from them. Citing a policy in the edit summary of an edit which breaks that same policy is uncivil, in my view. Cambial foliage❧ 21:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Secession or independence

@Arrowe6365:, thank you for your efforts to improve this article. Since you are making a major change to the article, (replacing uses of independence with secession) could you please explain your reasons for doing so here? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

It has been widely accepted that the word 'independence' has within it inherent biases. In itself, the word 'independence' implies a positive. Clearly, neutral discussion on the dissolving of the Union must use a neutral word. 'Independence' is not neutral and therefore a word like 'separation' or 'secession' should be used. It is also important to note that due to the laws that created the Union, in the event of the dissolving of the Union, Scotland would not 'become' independent as she is already and has always been independent, Scotland would be, in fact, seceding from the Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrowe6365 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of reliable sources use the word independence. Cambial foliage❧ 22:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

As true as that may be - that does not make it unbiased and factual. The goal of an encyclopaedia is to be accurate not just go with the wind. 'Seccession is simply the more accurate term. (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The way we determine accuracy is by reading reliable sources. They predominately use independence and we should too. I agree that independence has positive connotations. Secession has negative connotations. We should aim to be as neutral as possible while sticking with commonly used and understood language and terms. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Fabricated claims

The sentence restored in this edit is not supported by the source. Evan Davis does not make the claim attributed to him. If editors believe otherwise place quotes here, otherwise stop adding original research (i.e. fabricated claims). Cambial foliage❧ 01:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Nothing in the article comes close to the text added in that edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"Scexit"

There seems to be some dispute about the use of this term. It does seem to have some use, but mainly amongst critics of independence. I think a reasonable compromise (for now) is to include the term in the "comparison with Brexit" section, as it is clearly that process that has inspired use of the term. diff Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Your contextualisation of its use is entirely appropriate. Cambial foliage❧ 12:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It's most certainly not widespread enough to be included in the lead. From the sources I can find it's used almost exclusively - and perhaps even tongue in cheek - when Brexit is also being discussed so I don't think it should be mentioned outside of that section at all. Now that my attention has been drawn to it, I don't think the Brexit section itself should be included in the article.

Scottish independence has been compared with the process of the UK leaving the European Union between 2017 and 2020. Proponents of Brexit and Scotland's independence share relatively similar, but incompatible, objectives and difficulties. The Centre for Constitutional Change stated during the 2016 EU referendum campaign that the "international relations aspect of the Brexit debate looks somewhat similar to the debate about Scottish independence".

I don't see why it needs its own section when it's really just reiterating already vague statements from two sources (in the case of the former, said statement is lifted verbatim from the abstract). Brexit's impact on the independence movement is already mentioned in the support/against sections. I feel editors could expand on this if they wished, rather than adding a largely pointless "Comparison with Brexit" section. ToeSchmoker (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

References

GERS Figures

Cambial foliage❧ GERS Figures that are published by Scot Gov can be used as a valid source. Arrowe6365 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The byline of the FT article states "Economists say country can afford to leave the UK but FT analysis suggests it would need to raise taxes or cut spending." (emph added). The first sentence of the FT article ends "according to a Financial Times analysis." Journalists at the FT understand where it is appropriate to frame something as a specific analysis. Where a source expressly frames something as their view, we do not then report it as fact in WP voice. see WP:NPOV WP:V etc. The sources previously added regarding GERS figures discuss current calculations. They do not refer to projected figures for an independent Scotland. See WP:V and WP:NOR for why sources must directly support the material. n.b. Ping templates are here, copying and pasting someone's signature will not work. It is unnecessary to ping me; this article is on my WL. Cambial foliage❧ 22:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

English wanting Scottish Independence

Should we include the millions of English that want Scotland to be independent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyspeed20 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Not if it's original research deduced from a Twitter hashtag, no. ToeSchmoker (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Legal position and Parliamentary Sovereignty

I feel that this section as well as the whole debate on this topic lacks a qualified understanding of the term "sovereignty" in the context of the unwritten constitution and the legal construct of the Crown. The main point is that the English concept of Parliamentary sovereignty (Crown-in-Parliament) relates only to lawmaking (courts consider Acts of parliament as law) and to the fact that the Crown is unilaterally part of all three branches of state power in the UK - Parliament, Government and courts. It does not relate to the sovereignty of the UK or its constituent parts. The concept of the Crown, however, does. And, according to the judicial practice, the Crown is divisible. I.e. the sovereignty in the UK is already divided (hence Scots Law, Parliament and kirk). --CitoyenU (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: Creation of issues section

At present, the issues at debate about Scottish independence are placed under "arguments for" and "arguments against" headings. I think this lends itself to creating one-sided siloed portrayals of the different issues at debate. Instead, I suggest we reformulate these parts of the article under a new "Issues" section, split into subsections, e.g. Currency, Trade, EU membership, so a more rounded, NPOV and less opinionated portrayal of each of these issues can be achieved. For example, under Currency, the position of both official pro-independence and anti-independence viewpoints can be put forward (including their evolution), with further links to expert reliable sources reactions to each of these issues and more generally on the topic. Jèrriais janne (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Secession

This terminology needs to be removed. If any of the 4 nations/countries/regions vote for independence, then the UK of GB & NI is no more, is obliged to changes its name and hence becomes a new sovereign state itself. Scotland independence ends the Treaty of Union and hence GB no longer exists, ergo UK of GB & NI no longer exists. Otherwise, the article is saying that if England was to vote for independence, then all of the British institutions (Whitehall, BoE, Museums) would have to move out of of England. England would have no central bank and currency. However, the rest of the world would only look on Scotland, Wales and NI as British and some form of continuation of the UK...? S2mhunter (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is anything like as clear cut as that. Countries can change their names without becoming different countries. Conversely, France is on its fifth republic but it is still called the République Française. Independence could well lead to a new name for the UK but there is no legal obligation to do so. The whole point of the UK's "Unwritten Constitution" is that we just make it up as we go along and it hard enough to say how it will be construed at any time, nevermind one as momentous as any part of the UK leaving. One thing we can be fairly sure of is that Scottish independence would not be a "rewind", in which the Act of Union is repealed and the original Kingdom of Scotland comes back into existence. It would be far more likely to be modelled on the ways in which other countries have separated in recent decades, particularly the ones that have gone relatively smoothly. It wouldn't be all "1707 this" and "1603 that".

More practically, can you point to any specific parts of the article where you think we have got it wrong? Please say how it needs to be changed, providing reliable sources to support the modified text. The word secession (and its variants) only appear in the main body of the article three times, all in one paragraph where it talks about whether a unilateral declaration of independence could be legal. I'm no expert on that but nothing about that paragraph strikes me as fishy. It admits that the situation is unclear and explains the issue without endorsing any particular view on it. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The term secession is only used twice in the article body. "Secession" is used in reliable sources (e.g. Nationalism, unionism and secession in Scotland. Secessionism and Separatism in Europe and Asia). Secession is also commonly defined as "becoming independent" [1].

I doubt there's any reliable source which says the UK would need to change its last name, or that the Treaty of Union would "no longer apply" as in be repealed. There would certainly need to be frameworks for the past 315 years of UK law to continue applying for example. As DanielRigal notes, Scottish independence would most likely happen in the form of a new state (likely the Kingdom of Scotland) being formed, not a direct continuation of the old Kingdom of Scotland. It is unlikely for example that the old Parliament of Scotland would be re-established and the roles of First Minister etc. abolished, but that the current Scottish Parliament would be upgraded to a sovereign parliament and First Minister redesignated Prime Minister under a broadly Westminster system of government. Simiarly, the UK is not going to be split into the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Ireland, but the UK will continue and likely be recognised as a direct continuation of the UK we know today, given it would use the same institutions the current UK does, such as Parliament, the Supreme Court, Whitehall, the Bank of England etc.

England to "secede" from the Union before Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is laughably hypothetical. But given that the only way to achieve legal independence under the constitution is by Act of Parliament, the UK Parliament would have to declare England independent, then England would have to set up entirely new political structures, while Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland take on the old Kingdom of England's structures, presumably moving Westminster, Whitehall etc. to Cardiff? I think that's so unlikely it's ridiculous to base an argument upon it. Jèrriais janne (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)