Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:38, 27 November 2014

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European Union High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Scotland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from 2014 Scottish independence referendum appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 September 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know ... that the Scottish Referendum Bill 2010 proposes that a referendum on Scottish independence be held on St. Andrew's Day 2010, Scotland's official national day? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2009/September.

This article is written in Scottish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Prior to this, the Kingdom of Scotland had been a sovereign state for over 800 years - Questionable

"Prior to this , the Kingdom of Scotland had been a sovereign state for over 800 years" is that really true? Only at a stretch. One might just as well say (and just as doubtfully) that England too had been a soveriegn state for over 800 years. The idea of sovereign states is an 18th century concept. Moreover 800 years before 1707 Britain was still in the process of consolidating smaller kingdoms, of which the original 'Scot-land' was then still but a part of what later became the Scotland we think of today. If modern England were instead called Wessex we'd think it odd. But because Northern Britain perpetuated the name of one of its earler constituent kingdoms we don't notice and thus mistakenly assume direct continuity. Furthermore the exact status of Scot-land and its kings between the Norman Conquest after 1066 and its independence under Robert the Bruce in the early 14th century seems difficult to describe in modern constitutional terminology. But the very concept of gaining independence suggests that Scotland was not until then a sovereign state as the term is now used. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.3.199 (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I noticed this sentence when I popped on Misplaced Pages the other day and gave this article a brief glance. I can't personally deal with articles like this one at this time, but given the early date I'm not sure that "sovereign state" is ever going to the appropriate term to use. The use of the approximating "over" probably at least in part demonstrates why. It's a loose sentence really, and should be expressed much better. I don't comment on anything else because I haven't looked though it. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have re-written the history section quite extensively - any thoughts would be welcome. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Erm? Malcolm III through to Alexander III could not be described as other than sovereign, especially during the reign of King David. Brendandh (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Having a sovereign" and "being a sovereign state" are very different things. Scotland as we know it today was not a unified nation under a single government/monarch (or other legal system/system of rule) from 907AD to 1707AD... that would be much like going to the England article and talking about the Kingdom of Mercia... a very different nation which later combined with others to form England. For exactly the same reason, we have to be careful not to confuse "Scot Land", a small area of modern day Scotland, with the modern day nation. Audigex (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The modern definition of a sovereign state in Europe dates back only to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. Before this, it can be difficult to define a "sovereign state" in any meaningful sense. But it makes no difference because the claim is no longer in the article. Kahastok talk 18:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Results Map

As the counting areas for the referendums are the 32 Scottish Councils all we simply need is a blank map of the council areas with maybe the slight addiction of a close up of the councils areas within the central belt, I also propose the colours is green for "yes" and red for "no" the map should like this but could a close up of Central Scotland be added at all? (90.198.143.132 (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC))

Won't this mislead readers into thinking that votes are counted on a regional basis, like votes in a general election? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I get what you mean and I have been listening to the BBC during the course of today and it's confirmed that unlike the referendum held in 2011 on AV there are only two layers of counting, the thirty two local counting areas and the national count and we don't want to give a impression of a regional count at all so I suggest we now don't do that however I do recommend that the map could be adjusted say that it's a bit closer out by having the Shetland Islands as a separate box as it is a separate counting area to the Orkney Islands so I suggest we go along with something like that instead. (90.200.228.123 (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC))

I mean the local results will not affect the overall final result. It's just easier counting votes locally than having the ballot papers transported to a single central counting point. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, why hasn't the results section been set up especially as we are now just twelve hours away from the first results being declared so could the map and results from all thirty two councils please be urgentlyset up so it's ready for filling in tonight, I also propose that we use the same format be used for the results in each of the 32 councils in the 1997 Scottish devolution referendum page so it looks very similar to the following.

(90.200.228.123 (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC))

Looks very good to me! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Tables are already there; they're just not displayed on the page yet, to deter vandalism. EddieHugh (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I re-added the "update" template because, although all results are now in, the Highland area is still grey on the map. There isn't even any explanatiom of what grey means in the key. I think the editor who was very kindly updating the map may now have gone to bed! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I see the map is now correctly updated. But I notice that the key shows only two colours, while the areas on the map have colours of various saturations. Should the colours used all be explained, or does it not matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure the colour scheme reflects the position appropriately. Take Highlands, for example, there 47% voted Yes. That, by any imagination, should represent a fairly slender shade of red. Cripipper (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Graph Colours

I don't know if it's just me, but I prefer the second (bottom) table over the current (top) one. The top one seems to be harder to read and is causing more eye strain.

Current:

Proposed:

Anyone else like the idea? I changed it but saw it changed right back shortly after. -- Kndimov (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Y Agree. Orcair (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Y Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC) or else, if we had some nice vertical brown stripes for the columns, maybe we could get a nice tartan going?

Y Me too. Original colour scheme is excessive. I will support if you (or anyone else who knows how) does the change.--A bit iffy (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Y Agree. Sotakeit (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Y Agree. Freeman501 (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Y I don't. No More 18 (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If everyone here agreed on the second scheme, why does the article still contain the first one? Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Y Agree. Metheglyn (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC) I can't say why it's still set to the first since I don't see Kndimov's edit or the subsequent reversion listed in the edit history, but I agree that the second version is definitely easier to read and would prefer it.

I've made an edit along the lines suggested but I'm not an expert on tables so perhaps someone can improve it. I wish people would stop moving this article. (OK now, the persistent mover has been blocked. See the move comments further below. ) Dbfirs 07:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: the way I structured the table on the night was to echo the table at Scottish devolution referendum, 1997 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'm not fussed either way, although I've made some edits to the table for mostly semantic reasons. Sceptre 00:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks better, and more like Kndimov's original suggestion. Should we change the 1997 table to match? Dbfirs 06:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. And yes, I think we should change the 1997 table as well. -- Kndimov (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Biased Violence In Glasgow

This section seems heavily favoured towards the Yes voters, somewhat demonizing the No votes - the mention of Nazi salutes especially leaves a sour taste in the mouth. Irockz (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Nazi stuff is in the source, but the phrasing in this article is one-sided. I think that the section should be removed, unless there are further reports of violence specifically related to the referendum. If we included every fight on a Friday night in Scotland in Misplaced Pages we'd have a lot of trivia. If it's an isolated incident (and as it's probably not really referendum-specific), then it can be removed. EddieHugh (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Agreed I have difficulties with the wording of the section. To equate people with violent or disruptive behavior, who also make Nazi salutes, with the unionists as a group seems highly problematic to me. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This was much more than a drunken brawl after closing time; this was a "riot" in the heart of Scotland's biggest city, involving over 700 people, sparked by the referendum result. The content and phrasing is taken directly from the sources: The Guardian and The Scotsman (two mainstream newspapers which both backed a 'No' vote). Had 'Yes' supporters acted the same way, that would've been put into the article too, but we can only report what happened. Also, I don't see why we should avoid reporting the violence just because it's only happened once (so far).

How should the section be re-worded? ~Asarlaí 03:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this section is relevant, although it seems a bit biased especially as there is no mention of the widespread intimidation by the Yes side during the campaign. There were countless media reports of such intimidation and also reports of the Union flag having been desecrated, so perhaps including this would make this section a bit more balanced? EgilOrndal (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The section currently deals only with the violence in the aftermath of the referendum result. It may be appropriate to create a new section dealing with in-campaign intimidation and violence, providing there is a sufficient number of high quality references. BananaLanguage (talk) 07:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that violence in Glasgow needs to be reported. Was it a significant feature of the referendum? Isn't there always violence in Glasgow? Dbfirs 08:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It was a significant feature of the reaction to the result, the section it is included. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The troublemakers are identified as "loyalists". However, they seem to have been fascists parasitical on the general loyalist movement. Wikiain (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Significant only in Glasgow? I suppose it's worth a passing mention since some newspapers reported it. Dbfirs 16:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

They were UDA / UDF supporters. It was significant beyond Glasgow in that it revealed the voting reasons of a section of the population - though it might be hard to find usable sources (sectarian issues are not well reported, if mentioned at all). I know the issue was reported in Irish republic media, revealing that "loyalists" in Northern Ireland (and their offshoot population in central Scotland) firmly believed a Yes vote would mean the inevitable eventual unification of Ulster with the rest of Ireland. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox map error?

The current version of the Results by council area map in the Infobox appears to have assigned a colour to Republic of Ireland. This colour may be intended to be grey but it looks too similar to the colour of some of the light red regions. Could someone please redraw the map to address this concern? BananaLanguage (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
• C-Class European Union articles
• High-importance European Union articles
• WikiProject European Union articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• High-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• C-Class Scotland articles
• High-importance Scotland articles
• All WikiProject Scotland pages
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use Scottish English