Talk:Proposed second Scottish independence referendum/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Proposed second Scottish independence referendum. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
JL Partners poll
Please see Talk:Opinion_polling_on_Scottish_independence#JL_Partners_poll for a query on how the data from this poll should be reported. Grinner (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
'Once in a generation'
The current wording of the article surrounding this seems to suggest that the Scottish Government made this declaration apropos of nothing in particular, and, elsewhere, this quote is the basis of the idea that this was a promise made by them, and thus any proposed second referendum is breaching this promise. However, a wider quote from the same cited source indicates that this is more in the nature of an observation of the then-current circumstances, not a statement of intent, or promise, or anything of that nature. I have tried to edit the article to reflect the context, but this has been reverted on the basis that 'It doesn't really add anything to the quote'. I disagree. 31.185.236.155 (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't agree with that interpretation. If anything, that pre-amble you want to add emphasises the point that the 2014 referendum was a one-referendum deal: there was no agreement to have further referendum(s). This contributed to the Scottish Government's view that the 2014 referendum was likely to be a "once in a generation" event. Circumstances could change, and arguably have, but political logic and historic experience (devolution) would suggest that there would have to be a substantial interval until any future referendum. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- You're missing that the point is not simply that they held that view. It was not that they were saying this should be the case, and/or they were making a commitment to this, it was that they were simply noting that circumstances were such that this was the case. 31.185.236.155 (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Page 556, in response to the question "If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date?", states "The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence. It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent." In this even-wider context (including the question), Jmorrison230582's interpretation is the obvious one, and is adequately covered by the existing text. The Edinburgh Agreement point highlighted the need to hold a vote by the end of 2014; the SNP/government could have stopped after that point, but chose to add the 'once in a generation' part too. It meant 'if you want it, vote for it now, because the chance won't come again for a generation'. It wasn't a formal commitment (that would have had no validity anyway), but it was an official statement of the SNP/government stance. EddieHugh (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm confused. The wider debate being held is whether or not the Scottish Government made such a commitment, and the argument that they did is based on the 'once in a generation' quote in isolation - which is what is currently included in this article. I am saying a wider quote that puts it in context actually suggests this is wrong, and you appear to be agreeing that the quote, in context, appears to indicate they did not make such a commitment, but then saying Jmorrison was right to remove that context. 31.185.236.155 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- This discussion isn't going anywhere. The wider quotation, in the context of the question, if anything weakens the weak argument that "once in a generation" was merely a comment on circumstances. EddieHugh (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but if the Scottish Government were not committing to or endorsing this, which you seem to agree is the case, what else can it be but a comment or statement on the then-current circumstances? 31.185.236.155 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- There's a difference between a commitment and a formal, legally binding commitment. The SNP's choice to label the referendum a "once in a generation opportunity" is what makes lots of people treat it as being a commitment, even though it wasn't a legally binding commitment. (Compare the Brexit vote – formally, it was advisory, but it was treated by most people as being binding, because that's how a referendum is normally treated and that's what most major groups said it would be.) EddieHugh (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, so you're saying it WAS them committing, but not legally (even though the concept of a 'legal commitment' isn't really valid here). Sorry, but, given that the SNP is a party that has pursuit of Scottish independence as one of their main reason to exist, that doesn't really make sense, unless you can offer some reason why they were being forced into that position. They were saying that, due to the only actual definite arrangements being for a single referendum by the end of 2014, and, in their view, referendums, particularly on the same matter, don't come around too often (like 'once in a generation'), the answer to the question posed is basically 'probably not, so you should get out and vote for this if you want it'. They weren't approving of this situation, endorsing it, or committing to it, they were simply stating that is what the situation was, and, frankly, I don't see the problem with reflecting what they were saying by actually more fully quoting what they were saying in the part of the article talking about what they were saying. However, frankly, I've spent too much time on this, and have better things to do, but I will note that this discussion has been very illuminating on why Wikipedia has a reputation of not always being terribly accurate. 31.185.236.155 (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- There's a difference between a commitment and a formal, legally binding commitment. The SNP's choice to label the referendum a "once in a generation opportunity" is what makes lots of people treat it as being a commitment, even though it wasn't a legally binding commitment. (Compare the Brexit vote – formally, it was advisory, but it was treated by most people as being binding, because that's how a referendum is normally treated and that's what most major groups said it would be.) EddieHugh (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but if the Scottish Government were not committing to or endorsing this, which you seem to agree is the case, what else can it be but a comment or statement on the then-current circumstances? 31.185.236.155 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- This discussion isn't going anywhere. The wider quotation, in the context of the question, if anything weakens the weak argument that "once in a generation" was merely a comment on circumstances. EddieHugh (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm confused. The wider debate being held is whether or not the Scottish Government made such a commitment, and the argument that they did is based on the 'once in a generation' quote in isolation - which is what is currently included in this article. I am saying a wider quote that puts it in context actually suggests this is wrong, and you appear to be agreeing that the quote, in context, appears to indicate they did not make such a commitment, but then saying Jmorrison was right to remove that context. 31.185.236.155 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Page 556, in response to the question "If Scotland votes No, will there be another referendum on independence at a later date?", states "The Edinburgh Agreement states that a referendum must be held by the end of 2014. There is no arrangement in place for another referendum on independence. It is the view of the current Scottish Government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. This means that only a majority vote for Yes in 2014 would give certainty that Scotland will be independent." In this even-wider context (including the question), Jmorrison230582's interpretation is the obvious one, and is adequately covered by the existing text. The Edinburgh Agreement point highlighted the need to hold a vote by the end of 2014; the SNP/government could have stopped after that point, but chose to add the 'once in a generation' part too. It meant 'if you want it, vote for it now, because the chance won't come again for a generation'. It wasn't a formal commitment (that would have had no validity anyway), but it was an official statement of the SNP/government stance. EddieHugh (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- You're missing that the point is not simply that they held that view. It was not that they were saying this should be the case, and/or they were making a commitment to this, it was that they were simply noting that circumstances were such that this was the case. 31.185.236.155 (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The Edinburgh Agreement specified that both sides would "respect the result" of the 2014 referendum. The Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding was the basis for the legality of the vote. Arguably rerunning the vote a few years afterwards isn't respecting the result, though it should be said that calling it a once in a generation vote is a post hoc construction on that Agreement. Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 15:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)