Jump to content

Talk:2007 Scottish Parliament election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arbuthnott Commission

[edit]

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).[reply]

Opinion polls

[edit]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done--Sjharte 10:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Its OK, I found it. Added. --Mais oui! 11:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

Good idea. Please have a look at:
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)[reply]
Should you have any problems, I'll gladly help. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 16:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of support for further devolution and Scottish independence

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's very interesting. Support for independence has been constantly between 40% and 50% in Quebec (Canada), where a similar independence movement exists. Here, we're mostly talking about "sovereignty-association". However, it seems to be extremely difficult to bring support over 50%. I hope that if the SNP is ever to organize a referendum, they will make sure the "winning conditions" are present. A failed referendum would be embarrassing. Hugo Dufort 21:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Conflicting" polls

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is this really a General Election?

[edit]

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)[reply]

I agree with you. Catchpole 16:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too--Sjharte 16:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]

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

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

I am pretty sure that the Scotland Act 1998 itself refers to elections to the Parliament as General Elections. It would therefore in my opinion be entirely correct to refer to it as a general election. Big Jim Fae Scotland 15:20, 24 January 2007

Box - a thought?

[edit]

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)[reply]

2007 Scottish Parliament Election - Party Leaders
Labour Scottish National Party Conservative Liberal Democrats
File:Annabel goldie.jpg
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


















  • 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)[reply]

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).[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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

Sorry if this is in the wrong place - but Alex Salmond is NOT the First Minsiter, that is incorrect and should be removed - the first minister has to be decided by the Scottish Parliament and it's not yet Alex Salmond. MG

Benchmarking

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Naming convention

[edit]

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)[reply]

SSP not standing in constituency seats?

[edit]

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)[reply]

This article [1] 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)[reply]

In 2003, the SSP stood in the majority of the constituency seats, but have only contested a few in the 2007 election. They don't seem to be doing too well- with 2 MSPs out at this time, and support collapsing- the British National Party beat them in the Glasgow Region. Thunderwing 13:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What are the issues ?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Election time - WikiProject Scotland discussion

[edit]

Please comment/contribute at:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Other parties

[edit]

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)[reply]


Incidents

[edit]

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)[reply]

Results

[edit]

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)[reply]

What *are* the sources - none seem to be cited?TrumpingTon 19:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Target seats

[edit]

Anyone got any objections to me adding a further column to the tables which describe the main parties' target seats? This column would show what the eventual swing in each seat was, and therefore provide a more detailed summary of what happened in that seat. I don't want to start on the work if anyone has a serious objection, as it could be a big waste of time. --Jim (Talk) 20:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a better idea to remove the target seat section entirely (since it's not particularly informative; all it is is a list of seats where the parties were close in 2003). A replacement would show all of the seats that changed hands and the winning and losing parties and candidates. —Cuiviénen 02:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plus also the Boundaries are going to be changed for the 2011 election. Maybe a not should be attached to the Target seats section perhaps? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.228.253 (talk) 14:27, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
I am in the process of updating the regions once that is completed the results could be copied here. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 14:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High number of rejected votes

[edit]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

A '1' instead of a cross for a constituancy vote certainly should not have made it invalid, and the guidance given to counters made that clear. The important point however is that these decisions were not made by the e-counting machines - they were made by humans. If the machine could not count a paper - it was passed to a human to look at, not simply marked 'invalid'. The machines were in no way responsible for invalid votes - people were. I have yet to see any evidence that a machine marked a single ballot as invalid. --Worm 11:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Scottish, so I would not edit this section just based on BBC stories, but I am concerned by the "almost certainly" assertion at this point. Some more analysis has been done since then and the electoral commission's inquiry is still trying to get access to the data, but the issue of high correlation with poverty and low education has already been established. The population's relatively low level of understanding of the new electoral system, a few elections after it was introduced, is surely a factor. As I understand it, previous ballots were separate, and so voters' fundamental misunderstandings about the electoral system would not as easily have translated into spoiled ballots. But that is just an opinion and therefore until the inquiry finds supporting data, it does not belong in the text. Tono-bungay 14:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If you want to know what really happened, take a look at articles like: 

 http://www.epop07.com/papers/Gilmour-Pre-Conf-Paper-31Aug07.pdf

and read the submission from Fairshare Voting Reform to the Scottsih Elections Review: 

 http://www.fairsharevoting.org/Fairshare-Submission-Scottish-Elections-Review-31Jul07.pdf

Maybe these should be linked to this page. James Gilmour 23:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

I am considering placing a request move for this and the other two Scottish elections articles to Scottish general election, 2007, this would be the correct title and this is what the other sub-national legislatures use like the old Northern Ireland parliament (Northern Ireland general election, 1969) and the Nova Scotia House of Assembly Nova Scotia general election, 2006 --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 02:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it the "correct" title? I've never heard Scottish Parliamentary elections called "general elections", that's a term that tends to be reserved for Westminster elections.
It also wouldn't fit with the article titles for the other devolved institutions of the UK: Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007, National Assembly for Wales election, 2007, London_Assembly_election,_2004 -- none of them talk of general elections. Mendor 11:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the other ones would need to be moved also it was a General election to the Scottish Parliament, just like UK ones are general elections to the British House of Commons. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 15:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Scotland Act 1999 refers to elections to this body as general elections, we should rename this article accordingly. See: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/part/I/crossheading/general-elections Ciaran.london (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article Length

[edit]

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)[reply]
Yeah we can lose boths the polls and the detailed results to sub-pages. Catchpole 13:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballot paper

[edit]

An illustration of a sample ballot paper would clarify the discussion of the problems with the voting system. In particular, it is difficult to judge just how complicated these papers were without seeing the instructions that were presented to the voter.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.192.96 (talk • contribs)

Diagram

[edit]

Is the diagram (at the top of the article) how the various parties actually sit post-May 2007?

As far as I recall, prior to 2007, the Tories sat furthest on the left, then the LDs, then Labour, then the various SSP/Solidarity/Green/Inds, then the SNP. (And at the very beginning, in 1999, I seem to recall that it was Con-Lab-LD-Inds-SNP, ie. the Lib Dems soon jumped over to the left-hand side of Labour).

Should we not show this diagram as they actually sit in reality? --Mais oui! 12:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the Webber Shandwick predictor shows the layout as Con-LD-Lab-SNP-Grn/Margo:
--Mais oui! 12:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a diagram of how the parties generally sit for the Members of the 3rd Scottish Parliament article it could be modifed to fit the article. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 16:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misnamed breakout article

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

If you are going to break out into sub articles please at least have the common sense to name the sub-article per Wikipedia's standard naming conventions. This breaking out of an opinion polls section of an election article is unprecedented AFAIAA. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Government formations

[edit]

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)[reply]

Page Move

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Scottish Parliament election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scottish Parliament election, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

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

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acts of Union

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Scottish_Parliament_election&oldid=1256972435"