Talk:2007 Scottish Parliament election

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arbuthnott Commission 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Evidence of support for further devolution and Scottish independence 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Conflicting" polls

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Is this really a General Election? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: OK....Done ;) Globaltraveller 22:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Box - a thought?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Benchmarking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Naming convention 

message: What's the basis for this? As far as I was aware (as an SSP member) the decision on whether to stand at constituency level was being left to the local branches. Now I am a dozy bugger who has a tendency not to keep up so I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure we're not adopting the Green policy of only standing on the list. Mendor 15:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article  says "On electoral strategy, the SSP will focus more heavily on list, and not constituency, seats" Hardly conclusive! AndrewRT(Talk) 20:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: They only ran a candidate in one constituency, and I believe the candidate (and association) ran against the wishes of the party. I don't recall which constituency it was. —Cuiviénen 02:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SSP not standing in constituency seats? 

message: The article is useful but too technical. We need a summary of the major issues which will be decidinng people how to vote. Johncmullen1960 07:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What are the issues ?

message: Please comment/contribute at:
*Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#It.27s_election_time_folks.21.21
While you are there, please feel free to sign up as a member of the WikiProject, or just give it a "Watch". Ta. --Mais oui! 09:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the constituencies now have elections results for both the 99 and 03 election as well as list of candidates of the current one. --Barryob  Vigeur de dessus 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election time - WikiProject Scotland discussion 

message: There are numerous minor parties contesting the election, shoul we not add these to the results table, else our results won't total 100%, or are they are just to be considered Independent? GullibleKit 12:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Other parties 

message: does anyone know much about the postal vote problems? i feel it should be added into the section of the article entitled "incidents" but i'm afraid i don't really understand the issue very well. perhaps someone could add it in? Princesskirsty 16:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidents 

message: Has anyone noticed that, when you add up all the percentages of votes the parties had received, they add up to about 102%? I would ask someone to take another look at the sources, and fix this... Sideshow Bob 20:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Results

message: 'Many blame e-counting for the increase in rejected papers' - this is fair enough, I have seen plenty of people expressing concern over the e-counting.  However, the final line 'nearly all invalid ballots would have been spoiled no matter how they were counted' implies that the e-counting was, in fact, partially to blame.  As far as I know, not one single invalid ballot was counted solely by the e-counting system (is there any evidence otherwise?) - all invalid ballots had to be checked by a real person to confirm whether they were able to be counted or not. --Worm 06:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hav the impression that the rules were made very tight to make it easy for the e-counters.  For instance it seems that to use a 1 instead of a cross for the constituacy vote made it invalid where as the preferance of the voter would have been clear. We need to get good sources for what the reasons for rejections were but for the moment some mention of the e-counting seems appropriate. Dejvid 08:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  High number of rejected votes 

message: It's getting pretty long, nearly 100kb which is the "trigger" point for breaking it up or deleting a lot of info. Personally I prefer the first option as all the info on the page is accurate and relevant. However, I think the leaders from the 2003-07 session section needs to go as it looks pretty amateur without pics and strikes me as being a space filler from before the election. Things to move/reduce in size:
:1) The opinion polls-there's loads of them, hardly any predicted anything close to what the final result was. Either both sections (constituency and list) should be moved to a sub-page with a few select ones left in the main article or both should be moved en-masse.
:2) The results section is huge. Not sure the target seats is hugely interesting or relevant to most readers who are just wanting a general overview of the election and results. Again, a sub-page would probably be the best solution. Any further observations??GiollaUidir 13:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah we can lose boths the polls and the detailed results to sub-pages. Catchpole 13:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Length 

message: I note that a user is attempting to break out the opinion polls section into a separate article. Why? Apart from anything else the name of the breakout article is completely contrary to Wikipedia standard naming practices. --Mais oui! (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support moving the polls to a subpage to help cut the article down at a more manageable length as per Wikipedia:Article size. Catchpole (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been discussed and agreed (see above)to move the polls section to a sub-page. The page as it stands is far too large and filled with superfluous info.GiollaUidir (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you could suggest a name that fit with the naming conventions. How about Forecasts of the Scottish Parliament election, 2007 or similar? I see we have an article about the US Presidential polls here - Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 Catchpole (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a problem with the name of a sub-article that's hardly justification for deleting the page and sticking the info back into the main article against consensus.GiollaUidir (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. The appallingly mis-named sub-article just makes Wikipedia look even more lightweight and amateurish than it is already. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whereas having a massive article that takes ages to load with inaccurate opinion poll data makes it look professional... Hmm...GiollaUidir (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha!! Now we get to the root of it. Why exactly do you claim that the information in that section is "inaccurate". It is about the best referenced piece in the entire Wikipedia coverage of Scottish politics!! (By the way, just discovered this: Opinion polling in the next United Kingdom general election.)--Mais oui! (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "Opinion polling in the foo election, 200x" seems to be the "standard". Eg. Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2006 and one or two others. But still seems daft if you ask me. --Mais oui! (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see a place for the polls prior to the election, but once the results are known I think the opinion polls become of secondary importance. Í've asked Xolox to undelete the article so it can be moved to a different title. Mais oui!'s suggestion seems fine. Catchpole (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnamed breakout article 

message: There is not discussion of the election. How did the SNP govern? Cant be with the support of the green because they are still some 15 seats short to claim a government. Who backed them to get the magic number?Lihaas (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government formations 

message: It has come to my attention that there is not a standardised way of naming articles about the elections to the Scottish Parliament. A debate on this has been set up at Talk:Scottish Parliament general election, 2003#Standardisation of elections to the Scottish Parliament naming convention and the conclusion drawn from this will therefore be applied to all articles about these elections (including this article) anyone whishing to contribute to this discussion should do so on the 2003 talk page as a means of having only one debate taking place at the same time, any discussion on this talk page will not be taken into account in the debate. Shatter Resistance (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Move 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Scottish Parliament election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060222145859/http://news.scotsman.com:80/topics.cfm?tid=104&id=513662005 to http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=104&id=513662005
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070326002557/http://news.scotsman.com:80/topics.cfm?tid=1091 to http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1091&id=1616472006
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Scottish Parliament election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070506232352/http://www.glasgow.gov.uk:80/en/News/councilcandidates2007wards8to14.htm to http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/en/News/councilcandidates2007wards8to14.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There's a problem with your map. Link  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.119.22 (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Scottish Parliament election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030042925/http://www.alba.org.uk/scot07/retiring.html to http://www.alba.org.uk/scot07/retiring.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007001923/http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/site/id/3936/title/SCOTTISH_GREEN_PARTY_ELECTS_NEW_PARTY_CO_CONVENERS_First_Party_In_Scotland_To_Elect_Gender_Balanced_Leadership.html to http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/site/id/3936/title/SCOTTISH_GREEN_PARTY_ELECTS_NEW_PARTY_CO_CONVENERS_First_Party_In_Scotland_To_Elect_Gender_Balanced_Leadership.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: This election, which saw the separatist party win power for the first time, overlapped with the 300th anniversary of the union of England and Scotland into the Kingdom of Great Britain. Was this remarked upon at the time? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acts of Union