Talk:Proposed second Scottish independence referendum

Delete

This article is blatant SNP propaganda. No "second Scottish independence referendum" has been organised. Let's wait until it's an actual thing, and not just rhetoric. --Fahrenheit666 (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

If you feel like that, propose it for deletion or (more likely) nominate it for deletion. I can see your point that there is more than an element of WP:CRYSTAL about this, given that Nicola Sturgeon said yesterday that it's only an "option" at this stage. It's not "SNP propaganda" though, as it's being widely discussed in reliable sources. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

But it's not a thing. There has been no "second Scottish independence referendum" and nor is one scheduled. Why have an article about something that doesn't yet exist? --Fahrenheit666 (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion started here - MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is based on comments made by the First Minster of Scotland that a second referendum on Scottish independence is "highly likely". The Scottish government have not legislated for a second independence referendum. This page is inaccurate and based purely on the comments of the First Minster of Scotland, who does not hold the power to actually call a second referendum on independence: that power is reserved to the British Parliament. --Brythones (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Many abstract ideas do not 'exist'. The idea that the First Minister of Scotland is operating unilaterally, on her own account, is not correct. The idea of a second referendum was included in the 2016 SNP party manifesto should there be a material change in circumstance and the European issue was specifically cited. The SNP were elected to be the Scottish Government on the basis of this manifesto. The idea of a second referendum is clearly being discussed by commentators in London and around the world. To delete this page on the grounds of partisan opinion would be an error. This is not to say that it's currently a great page. RichardSSS (talk)

Sunday Times poll

Could someone please add the Sunday Times poll to this please? 52% for independence and 48% against independence, with a sample size of 620 adults. I would add it, but I don't really know how, and I also don't have access behind the Times' paywall. Thank you!  Seagull123  Φ  09:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

If you see Proposed_second_Scottish_independence_referendum#Opinion_polling, I think the poll you're talking about is already there. —ajf (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

(or was added after your comment) —ajf (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ajfweb: Yep, thanks! I noticed that later .  Seagull123  Φ  21:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutral POV?

This article appears to clash with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, with sources used in the article being heavily in favour of Scottish independence. The article heavily quotes members of the Scottish National Party. I would ask contributors to ensure that all sources used are of a high standard, and that they try to the best of their ability to incorporate a wide range of views and opinions when contributing to the article. Brythones (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place to push your personal point of view. I don't think someone with big UK flags on their user page should complain about lack of neutrality regarding Scottish independence. It is only natural that an article about a possible Scottish independence referendum quotes the Scottish government. --Tataral (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It included unnecessary biased quotes from Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon. The article was effectively fully composed of quotes from members of the SNP, much of which was irrelevant personal opinion. I have tried to rectify this as best as possible. I want the article to be Neutral Point of View, which may surprise you in spite of whatever generalisations you may hold based on my user page. Brythones (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that Nicola Sturgeon is the First Minister of Scotland and is the person who would call the referendum, so therefore quotes from her are useful within the article in terms of whether Scotland would hold another referendum. There is, currently, only one quote from Alex Salmond in the entire article, as well as quotes from Tony Blair and neutral MEPs. Therefore, I do not believe that the article has any bias due to the quotes used in favour of independence. Also, keep in mind that the article has just been created, so I believe it would be best to add quotes that you feel are relevant and would help the neutrality of the article. I note that you (Brythones (talk · contribs)) have already done so and I encourage others to help. Clyde1998 (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

As this page is about an issue on which there is considerable difference of opinion I appreciate that establishing and maintaining a neutral POV is going to be difficult. I have just qualified a paragraph which cites the first paragraph under the heading 'Scotland's future relations with the EU'. This is wholly focused on a single briefing document. I consider it unusual and gratuitous for all of the organisations which are signed up to be part of the 'The European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation' to be listed, as if such a list adds particular authority. This is 'just' a briefing document from a European Centre. More particularly, the briefing document does not address the particularities of the Scottish and UK positions. It is therefore irrelevant to this page and should be deleted. I have not deleted it because I am new but, as a matter of integrity, I would appreciate it if someone more senior could do so in order that the focus of this page is consistent with its title.RichardSSS (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC) I qualified a paragraph, and set out the reasons why. My qualification has been deleted without discussion so I have now deleted the paragraph as it is not relevant to a discussion of Scottish Independence. RichardSSS (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 4th July 18:10

Regarding ScotPulse Opinion Poll

Seeing as my opinion of adding a tag stating that the poll was conducted by an organisation that isn't a member of the British Polling Council, despite the EU membership referendum opinion polling article, the next UK election opinion polling article (Wales section) and the 2015 UK election opinion polling article including them in the main polling table, I have re-added the ScotPulse opinion poll in a new section of "Polls by other organisations", as per the 2014 referendum opinion polling article. The poll is still relevant to the article, regardless of whether it was conducted by a member of the British Polling Council. Clyde1998 (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the poll should be included. What matters is whether the poll has received coverage in reliable sources, which it has. It has really no relevance whether it was conducted by a member of the British Polling Council, a private association based in London. --Tataral (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to include polls from non-BPC members. I, only, introduced the extra table to stop people removing it from the main table. Clyde1998 (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

England and Wales polling

I'm not sure how changes in the views of the general public down south are not relevant here, especially since there has been a significant shift? It would be like arguing that the fact only x% of EU nationals outside the UK still want the UK in the EU would be irrelevant in the Brexit article. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Because it's not a poll about what E&W voters want. It's a poll about what E&W voters think voters in Scotland want. Including such a thing is bizarre, especially when we have multiple polls that report what voters in Scotland directly say they want. It's like my asking you what you want to eat and getting the answer "steak", then asking your friend what he thinks you want to eat and getting the answer "squirrel pie", and then my reporting both as equally valid accounts of what you want to eat... EddieHugh (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

If this was a poll about attitudes in, dunno, Kenya, you might have a point but how people in the other constituent part of the UK view Scottish independence, especially if there's a shift, is not relevant. And it's not about what E&W voters think voters in Scotland want. It's about what E&W voters think voters in Scotland will do. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Why would I ask your friend what you want to eat when you've already told me what you want to eat? We know what answer people in Scotland have given, so what's the point in reporting what other people think about how people in Scotland will answer? (The poll has nothing to do with what other people think about independence.) EddieHugh (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This is less like asking what your friend in Kenya things about your food choices but more about whether your partner thinks you are or are not going to leave them permanently. And if that's not relevant to a relationship, then I don't know what is. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

When your partner is the only one who chooses to stay or leave and that partner has already told everyone whether of not s/he will leave, then you giving your opinion of what you think your partner will do is of no relevance. EddieHugh (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

YouGov Polls

It is my humble opinion that the opinion polls from YouGov dated for July and August should not be included in the main opinion polls table. My reasoning is that they are not representative samples of the likely franchise for the proposed vote as they do not include 16 and 17 year olds. This affects the conclusions which could be drawn from the data in the table (ie. that support for a No vote has increased dramatically). If all of the other polls include 16 and 17 year olds then for the sake of continuity, these two should.

I am, however, not in favour of removing them entirely as they are still relevant. The way I see it, there are two options:

• Include a "Notes" column on the table to quickly sum up any quirks in the polling data.
• Move the two polls to a different table.

As we already have two tables, I would rather the first option. This would also allow the reintroduction of the polls from the "Polls by other organisations" table to the main table with a note about the fact that the company conducting the poll is not a member of the BPC.

As I can already see from other responses within this Talk page, this article is stirring up some animosity. I therefore do not mean to hide my opinions on the subject matter. I am pro-independence and I make no bones about it. However this bears no relevance to my proposal, so please don't cast any aspersions about my intentions. This is purely an intellectually enterprise.

iMarc89 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. We don't know for sure that the franchise for any second referendum would include 16 and 17 year olds. The bigger factor is that they wouldn't make that big a difference in the outcome. You're only talking about two year groups, who have a lower propensity to vote anyway. Therefore they would only represent a few % of the total sample. Unless they voted vastly differently to older age groups, it would only shift the overall balance by a fraction of 1%. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

To give harder data, this tweet from the Electoral Commission advises that the 16 and 17 year olds who registered for the Scottish Parliament election, 2016 constituted 2% of the total electorate. That simply isn't going to make that much of a difference in the overall result of an opinion poll. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that 16-17 year olds aren't sampled should be noted, but if 16-17 year olds only count for being 2% of the expected electorate, it's still okay to include them in the main table. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. The fact that 16-17 year olds only constitute 1 or 2pc of the franchise is not a relevant factor in this discussion. If a poll was published which excluded the views of, for example, Scottish Asians - who also only represent around 2pc of the franchise - would we not consider it a faulty methodology? It is also worth clearing up that 16-17 year olds almost certainly will be a part of the franchise for a future referendum as the Scottish Parliament has made provisions for all future Scottish elections to include them in the franchise.

Regardless, the point is that the ScotPulse poll was placed on a separate table because the company used an unusual methodology. Sampling is part of methodology. Ergo the unusual choice not to include an entire demographic in their sample would justify the movement of the YouGov polls to the same table as the ScotPulse poll. If I were being pedantic, I could point out that that is a matter of balance. I am not, however. What I am recommending is a column on the far right of the main table for notes and that we condense all of the available opinion polls down to a single table.

I ask that future comments on this thread pertain to these suggested amendments. iMarc89 (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Excluding 16 and 17 year olds is not wholly unreasonable, given that there are still elections in Scotland for which they are not eligible to vote (i.e. UK general elections). ScotPulse was put in a different table because we have no idea what their methodology was, as data tables for that poll have never been published. We have no idea what the political or demographic composition of their sample was. We are able to analyse YouGov's methodology because they published tables which clearly showed that they did not include 16 and 17 year olds, for example. This is a requirement of their membership of the British Polling Council. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)