Talk:2014 Scottish independence referendum
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2014 Scottish independence referendum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
![]() | 2014 Scottish independence referendum was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Hands Across The Border page were merged into 2014 Scottish independence referendum on 25 July 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
Russian Interference in 2014 Indy Ref
[edit]I can’t seem to find any reference to the findings of the 2019 ISC report, seems odd that something so crucial has been left from the article.Roland Of Yew (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's because there was hardly anything in the ISC report about Scotland. There was a passing mention that Russian media had cast aspersions on the counting process, which is already mentioned in this article (see below). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
“ | According to official Russian observers, the conditions under which the votes were counted were not up to international standards and that the procedure used made it impossible to check on irregularities.[462] Russia's criticism came just months after the international community had rejected the results of a Kremlin-backed referendum held in the Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory of Crimea.[462] Russian officials said that the strong performance of the Scottish National Party (SNP) at the 2015 UK general election confirmed their suspicions about the Scottish independence referendum.[463] | ” |
Dispute
[edit]Section created and mostly edited by blocked sock. Discussion from other users was replying to the sock. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I have tried to insert the following text into the article: Both sides agreed prior to the referendum that the result would be binding for a generation.[1] However, the SNP now seek a second independence referendum during the next Scottish Parliament term.[2] Jmorrison230582 has removed this text with the bare assertion that it is 'nonsensical'. I disagree. The text reflects the provided sources faithfully and accurately. I would therefore invite Jmorrison230582 to explain his or her contention that this is 'nonsensical'.Xylophus (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
You're synthesising different comments and making an interpretation of it that is not warranted. Before the referendum, the politicians were saying they would accept the result. That has happened - the majority voted No to independence, and Scotland has not become independent. They also expressed an opinion that it was likely that the referendum would be an once in a generation opportunity, because they believed that the political circumstances would not develop in such a way that would allow another referendum to happen in a shorter timeframe. That remains to be seen - it could still be proven correct. What you're doing is to combine those two statements into a single pledge that was never made. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I have looked at those sources. I think the Ferret is entirely in line with my stance. That source criticises (and purports to debunk) the specific claim that an agreement had been signed. That is consistent with the previous sources (and my suggested text). I do not say there existed a signed agreement committing the country to one vote. However, the Ferret goes on to say that various leading figures nevertheless said that the referendum result would be adhered to for a generation (completely in line with what I am attempting to say). I quote the relevant text that I rely on in full:
My difficulty with the National is that it is an openly partisan source. It is expressly the Newspaper that supports an independent Scotland after all. Thus, it is always going to advocate for the view that people did not say at the time that there would only be one vote this generation, regardless of whether that stance is actually right. Now, if the National is right in its analysis, then there ought to be better more neutral sources (such as, for instance, the BBC, the Herald, the Guardian, the Times, the Independent, the Telegraph etc) that say the same. Thus, I consider that the suggested claim - Both sides made clear prior to the referendum that they would abide by the result for at least a generation - is further supported by the Ferret and not materially undermined by the National. Xylophus (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
References
|
Proposed laws of Scotland category
[edit]Is there any particular reason why this article is in that category? If not I'll remove it. Llewee (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Change of map
[edit]There's been a new map added (right) which has flat colours for a binary yes/no for each region. Personally I think I prefer the older one (left) which has varying intensity, and might help better illustrate that it was a relatively close result and that some areas were quite marginal It also keeps the red No / green Yes that's used in the results section, rather than switching to red/blue. On the other hand, the council labels are a little distracting on the old one, so swings and roundabouts.
-
original map
-
new map
I don't think the map's been discussed much before since it was put in, so flagging it up here for discussion. @Scottishmapfixer: who produced the new map. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have added a new map which I believe is the best compromise between the two
- If there is a consensus that the original (not mine) is better then it should be changed back. Scottishmapfixer (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
- My preference is the original map of varying intensity rather than the binary and heat maps. AlloDoon (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I should add, strongly dislike the misleading nature of the "heat map". It makes it look like North Lanarkshire was won by Yes by a wider margin than the likes of Stirling was won by No, when in actual fact Stirling voted 60% no and North Lanarkshire only voted 51% Yes; same is true for Glasgow (53% Yes) compared to East Renfrewshire (63% No), map should be kept as is, only change I think could be appropriate would be changing colours from green-red to blue-red to accommodate those who are colourblind. AlloDoon (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Postal vote count concerns IDOX
[edit]Irregular activities involved in the postal vote counts and the extent IDOX was involved! !! 185.55.16.20 (talk) 03:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
- Personally it could have been. Switch to Individual registration from household, use MI5 to gain access to voter rolls, add a bunch of voters, then use like 50 people working around the clock. You then take these postal ballots and return them to unsecured ballot boxes. You talk up overly high turnout and postal in general. Then immediately after the election you switch back to household registration and delete the fraudulent entries and if anyone questions it, they only wanted to vote in the Indy Referendum. Some Guy online laid these steps out and basically said it could have happened. 76.210.254.132 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Was the referendum only "advisory" or was it legally "binding"?
[edit]The Wikipedia article does not specifiy whether the referendum was only "advisory" (like the Brexit referendum) or legally "binding". Could a legal expert please enter this information at a prominent place in the article? At present there is only a newspaper citation what David Cameron's "beliefs" were related to this point. Thank you. 86.158.200.170 (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- Wikipedia Did you know articles
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- B-Class Elections and Referendums articles
- WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
- B-Class European Union articles
- High-importance European Union articles
- WikiProject European Union articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- High-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
- B-Class Scotland articles
- High-importance Scotland articles
- All WikiProject Scotland pages
- B-Class 2010s articles
- High-importance 2010s articles
- WikiProject 2010s articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report