Talk:Scottish Parliament election, 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Contents 1 Arbuthnott Commission 2 Opinion polls 3 Evidence of support for further devolution and Scottish independence 4 "Conflicting" polls 5 Is this really a General Election? 6 Box - a thought? 7 Benchmarking 8 Naming convention

[edit] Arbuthnott Commission

Looks to me like most of the content under Electoral system belongs somewhere else, perhaps in an article called Arbuthnott Commission. It is about the electoral system in general, not about a particular election. Laurel Bush 09:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Opinion polls

Is this article set to become a record of every opinion poll result between now and the election, which is still eight or so months away? Laurel Bush 10:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

Good question. One contributor chose to record one and any reader would be mislead if they were not aware that the opinion poll orginally recorded was inconsistent with another published a few days before. If we are to record them at all then we should give an accurate impression. Maybe someone could create a table that will show the various polls numerically and take away some of the editorial comment?--Sjharte 10:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be a grave error to present the findings of non-BPC polling firms as being somehow equivalent to the findings of bona-fide BPC companies. There is a world of difference. The System 3 data, was apparently, somewhat surreally, collected over a 3 month (!) period, while the interviewers were doing their usual market research fieldwork. There is no evidence at all if System 3 weighted the findings at all, and if so, which method they used to do so.

I would not worry too much about us being snowed under with survey results: there are likely to be very few. --Mais oui! 10:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

YouGov has been subject to criticism and so perhaps judging the relative merits of a polling organisation by reference to its trade association membership (or otherwise) may not be conclusive.--Sjharte 10:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I accept your point. The best thing (in fact the only thing) we can do here at Wikipedia is present Verifyable facts, and let the readers make their own minds up. On that very point, could you please link to the correct Herald article (I cannot find it), because otherwise that poll finding is unsourced. --Mais oui! 10:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Done--Sjharte 10:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm... that ain't a link to the Herald article: it is to a cut and paste job on a 3rd-party website. --Mais oui! 11:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Its OK, I found it. Added. --Mais oui! 11:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking I would like to see a simple, short section about opinion polls in general, with a 'footnote' reference to a list of sources. Seems to me this sort of thing will have to be done anyway when, in time, the article becomes one about an historic event, not speculation about a future event. Can we plan now for the shape of the post-election article? Otherwise, I can see it becoming something very difficult to sort into a readable article when the event becomes history. Laurel Bush 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

Good idea. Please have a look at:

• New_Zealand_general_election,_2005#Polls
• New_Jersey_gubernatorial_election,_2005#Polling

There are probably lots of other examples.

I am going to nick those formats and apply it to this article. While I am doing it I will stick up the {{inuse}} template. Wish me luck: tables/templates and me have had our difficulties in the past! --Mais oui! 16:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Should you have any problems, I'll gladly help. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 16:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of support for further devolution and Scottish independence

User:Sjharte has removed the following bit from the findings of the Sunday Times/YouGov survey, with the Edit Summary: "deleting info not relevant to the SP election - perhaps anotehr article can be found for this information?".

"In addition the survey found that 44% were in favour when asked "If there were a referendum tomorrow on whether Scotland should become an independent country, separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, how would you be inclined to vote." 42% were against, with 15% don't know."

"64% were in favour of giving the Scottish Parliament more powers, with 19% disagreeing."

Considering that the constitutional question/independence referendum is going to be a prominent, if not the most prominent, issue in this campaign (as it always is in Scotland), is it not reasonable to present readers of indicators of public opinion on this topic? It certainly is not accurate to say "info not relevant to the SP election". --Mais oui! 10:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

and I see you have reinserted the other wording. I have no issue with this being in Wiki but I suggest that it not be in this article or - if it is - it be seperated from a section that will be useful for showing the trends in party support. Perhaps you could find anotehr place for it - is there an article (or perhaps you could start one) on Scottish public opinion on independence? We also have to be careful in making sure that we don't accidentlaly spin our revisals in a way that could be thought of as more pro one party than another.--Sjharte 12:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Conflicting" polls

The word "conflicting" has been used in relation to the two polls as they each send a contradictory message - one that the SNP have ove rtaken labour, the other that the Labour lead is safe. Diofferent policticians have been spining these two polss in different ways and so the "conflict" of the polls is noteworthy.--Sjharte 13:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Any opinion on this poll? The SSP are spinning this as evidence that Solidarity is dead in the water. How reliable is it? SSP MSP Rosie Kane writes for the paper that conducted the poll, which may or may not have anything to do with anything. Jonobate 00:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this really a General Election?

I wonder whether the description 'General Election' is appropriate here? This is the term used on the Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board/to do and in the first paragraph of the article. On Wikipedia, General Election is said to be 'usually used to refer to elections held for a nation's primary legislative body'. Since Scotland is not an independent state, the 'primary legislative body' continues to be the UK parliament at Westminister, which covers Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Westminster, and conventionally the term 'General Election' refers to elections to that body. I think that 'Scottish Parliamentary Election' is the correct term.--Slackbuie 16:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Catchpole 16:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree too--Sjharte 16:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. It is not a by-election. It is a 'general' election to the parliament. Cant think of a better disambiguator. Also, 'Scottish Parliamentary Election' can be read as meaning a Scottish election to Westminster, just as 'Scottish constituency' can be read as meaning a Scottish constituency of the House of Parliament, not of the Scottish Parliament. And 'usually' does not mean 'always'. Laurel Bush 17:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

It is inaccurate as it currently reads - it should be the fifth general election in Scotland since 1999 as you would have to count 2001 and 2005. Which is just confusing. Catchpole 17:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A by-election is when you have an election to fill only one seat of any legislature- there has just been a by-election in Inverness for the Highland council, for example. So it wouldn't be that. Most of us usually speak about 'Scottish parliament elections' and treat Westminster elections as General Elections, and that was the point I wanted to make. I have never heard of a Holyrood election referred to as a 'general election'. I wonder what they call state elections in the US or Provincial elections in Canada? However...- I just checked the Scotland Act http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1998/80046--a.htm#2; it refers to 'general elections' in Section 2. I think that's a bit legalistic, however- it may be the legal termn but it's not the everyday parlance! User:Slackbuie

All by-elections to the Scottish Parliament are also 'Scottish parliament elections'. Therefore we need a term to distiguish er ... what can we call them? General elections? And the next will not be the fifth to the Scottish Parliament, it will be the third. Laurel Bush 09:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

Exactly, that's why I added to the Scottish Parliament. Catchpole 09:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheers. That change does improve the article.
Will admit that while comfortable with 'United Kingdom general election' I am less comfortable with 'Scottish general election', tending to prefer 'Scottish Parliament general election'. (Dont think I am seeing any actual examples of 'Scottish general election'.)
Laurel Bush 10:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

I'm just new to Wikipedia and I caused all this argument! Oh dear! But I'm happy with the new wording 'the third general election to the Scottish Parliament', which I think makes things clear. Until I had a look at the Scotland Act I had never heard of a Holyrood election being described as a 'general election', so I stick to what I said in reply to Catchpole on September 19 (sorry I forgot to sign and date that contribution previously!). I take the point about differentiating from Scottish Parliament by-elections --Slackbuie 16:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Box - a thought?

I saw this on another article on recent elections, and modified it slightly for the Scottish Parliament Elections. It briefly sums up the Party Leaders and can be modified to contain more/less information about them. It looks quite good on other pages. I don't know if it is maybe too unwieldy here or not - plus I can't find any fair use images of Nicol Stephen and Annabel Goldie (I'm also totally ignorant of copyright law). I've pasted it here in the first place to see whether it is a non-starter or not. Thanks Globaltraveller 08:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

2007 Scottish Parliament Election - Party Leaders
Labour		Scottish National Party		Conservative		Liberal Democrats
Jack McConnell First Minister of Scotland		Alex Salmond Leader of the Scottish National Party		Annabel Goldie Scottish Conservative Leader		Nicol Stephen Deputy First Minister of Scotland
Parliament	7 years	Parliament	n/a	Parliament	7 years	Parliament	7 years
Leader since	2001	Leader since	2004	Leader since	2005	Leader since	2005
Profession	Teacher	Profession	Economist	Profession	Lawyer	Profession	Solicitor

• • No objection to the box itself, but I don't like the big globs of colour. Catchpole 08:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think it is because there are no images of the leaders in the Conservative/Liberal columns it makes it look a lot more psychadelic than it actually would be if it had large images there. That said, there does need to be some colour distinction between the parties, if the box was to be used, even if it is just the top header, although I don't think the effect would be quite as good. The effect is good here and here, where the concept is also used. The wording could be cut down in some of the columns as well to narrow them down a bit. Globaltraveller 09:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And what about other parties represented at Holyrood? Important because no single party is likely to have an over-all majority, and smaller parties could be involved in a post-election coalition. Laurel Bush 12:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC).

• The other uses of it are for major parties only, and that is fair enough, I think. Certainly the other minor parties should be mentioned but not in this way. It is accepted wisdom that Labour, the SNP, the LibDems and the Tories are the main parties in Scotland. Globaltraveller 14:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The Tasmanian box obliterates a load of text in my browser. Catchpole 13:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Must be a problem with your browser, then, although I the box could probably be placed in its own section rather than at the side of the text - necessary in this case, because of the bigger number of main parties. Globaltraveller 14:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Re Globaltraveller's contribution, above. The Scottish Parliament, unlike the House of Commons, is elected by a PR system. Also, the way the Scottish Parliament system is working at present, no single party is likely to gain an aver-all majority. The sense of 'major party' which may be appropriate re the House of Commons is quite inappropriate re the Scottish Parliament. The proposed box must include smaller parties. One or more of them may be included in the next Executive. Laurel Bush 16:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC).

Firstly the box isn't being added to anything when there are no images of the LibDem leader or the Tory one. Secondly the proposed box just simply isn't able to handle the various leaderships of the SSP, Solidarity, the Greens the SSCUP and the multitudes of independent candidates - that may or may not make a difference at next years election. I could possible see the extension of the Greens into the proposed box, but not the other much smaller parties. Whether they do make a difference or not is irrelevant as they are extremely likely to receive a lot less seats than the 4 bigger parties (and that is the point, about them being minor - it isn't their possible and hypothetical status as king-makers in next years elections which is purely up for conjecture at this stage, it is about their relative size and weighting at the current time - remembering that atm, this article is about an upcoming election rather than the outcome of that election - and all the minor parties are still very much in the minority, currently). The only possible way of getting round that is creating another "box" for the smaller minor parties, but with less information/photographs indictaing their minor status. Thanks Globaltraveller 16:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The article is about a coming election, and it should not present images which appear to presume too much about the outcome. Also, I note the "Politics and government of Scotland" box now in use seems designed for articles listed in the box itself, and the "Scottish Parliament election, 2007" article is not listed. I am thinking it might be a good idea to replace that with a more relevant box, running down the page. The new box could include a list parties, in order of current size, with photos of leaders if available. Laurel Bush 11:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC).

I think there should be a separate section for the Party Leaders anyway, giving more information on them, and giving more information on the party leaders of the the minor parties and I think that the box that I've proposed would complement that section. When the outcome of the election is known, and if the SSCUP end up forming a coalition with Solidarity, for example, then when the article is amended after the election, the party leaders of those parties would be given due relevance. Therefore, would it be OK to put in the box into the article, as it is (hopefully with the other images, when I can get them)? Thanks Globaltraveller 18:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Box lookin good. May I just suggest though, that in order to conform with NPOV, the parties are shown in the order Lab-SNP-Con-LD, as that was the order in which they placed last time. --Mais oui! 21:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OK....Done ;) Globaltraveller 22:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added the box in its own section, with some blurb beneath it, which needs some expansion or editting, as well as text on the smaller party leaders. Thanks Globaltraveller 13:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benchmarking

Out of interest, please have a look at the Next United Kingdom general election article. It is a heck of a lot more comprehensive than this one, and that election is (very likely to be) years away! Does anybody know of any Featured articles or Good articles on an election, or even just a few ones that we like that we could nick ideas from? --Mais oui! 21:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also out of interest, please have a look at European Parliament election, 2009 and United Kingdom local elections, 2007; and current redlinks: European Parliament election, 2009 (UK) and Scottish local elections, 2007. --Mais oui! 23:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming convention

I would like to resurrect my previous idea to change the current naming convention for elections. The current convention is:

Use the format "Demonym type election, date", for example "Canadian federal election, 1867"... (WP:NAME#Elections}

I propose this is changed to allow two alternatives, as follows:

Use either this form: political division type election, date, or this form: political division election of date. For example, Canadian federal election, 1867 or Canadian federal election of 1867. Where an article has been created using one form, do not move the article to the other form.

This new option would make linking more natural and make the article names more encyclopedic.

Please comment on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#New elections proposal

Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)