The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This redirect is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was nominated for deletion on 19 July 2023. The result of the discussion was redirect.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
It's clearly defined as a "Potential" event in the title and there's also a potential referendum in October next year for Scottish independence. I would say now is a good time to publish this. Titus Gold (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles of a similar nature (such as Belgium and Kosovo), as well as various political proposals. It has been increasingly mentioned more in the media in recent years, although the current draft still needs more emphasis on its potential nature. Some language may have to be re-worded to show this. Some sections of this draft does go too into promotional language than I prefer, so lot more copyediting to be done. Many Thanks DankJae17:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would recommend we wait until (assuming the UK gov't turns down the proposal) the UK Supreme Court makes its ruling, concerning the proposed 2023 Scottish independence referendum. That ruling, would (I think) have an effect on the content of this potential page. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not expect this article will be moved for a while yet, in my opinion this article is still way too early to move to the mainspace. The ruling will set back the legal avenues of a indyref2, making such a scenario more delayed if it were to occur, however there is still the issue of NI which could also have a poll (which is required by the GFA), and other plans the SNP try to do, even down the path of Catalonia, so not 100% impossible, so therefore still relevant although the current text may need to be re-written. Plus rejections of a indyref2 come from the current UK government, there is no guarantee succeeding governments (soon or a few years from now) hold the same view, but there is no guarantee this scenario will even happen, but not disputing its been increasingly mentioned recently (for good or bad), therefore I made a draft. Nonetheless, the article still needs balancing, the sections on indyref2 may be cut down if they're too detailed and the recent proposals were quickly dead in the water. DankJae17:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In editing the Formation section, I came across (and fixed) a number of cases of WP:EGG, where the word linked takes the reader to somewhere completely different. Would the prime movers of this article please check all the wikilinks for such misbehaviour and correct them, please? John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article looks like a combination of parts of what's covered in other articles. What's in this article that isn't in others? Much of the content appears to be a mix of WP:OR and the narrower WP:SYNTH. The Reasons for secession section asserts that its list applies to all parts of the UK, but the first bullet point is sourced from an article that's only about Scotland; the second bullet point is based on a source that's only about Scotland, plus an opinion poll (there's nothing connecting these to "reasons for secession"); the third bullet point has an opinion piece as its only source; the fourth bullet point has as its only source a pro-independence publication by the Scottish government. Most of the contents of the Potential aftermath section are actually about Scotland, but we get "The break-up of the union, and in particular the departure of Scotland..." when in fact the source is entirely about Scotland leaving. I could continue, but the point is made. Don't these things belong on the various pages that already exist for each of the 4 parts of the UK? (And I guess that they are already there.) EddieHugh (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EddieHugh fully understand the concerns, tbh since draft, the article has gone in a direction I didn't fully plan, and believe some may be too WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for my liking. I largely cut the sections in an earlier edit addressing your concerns, and open to fully cutting/moving potentially synth sections. I even doubt the article is appropriate in its current state. I wasn't entirely supportive when another editor moved it from draft. I largely started a simple draft as the topic had been brought up in media and some academia, although largely referring to Scots indy, and that partition of Belgium and dissolution of Russia exist decided to try. I am open to the article being re-written to purely the sources discussing a break-up rather than the individual movements, or tbh even deleted as its become a sore for me as the techinical creator. Thanks DankJae14:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This terminology needs to be removed. If any of the 4 nations/countries/regions vote for independence, then the UK of GB & NI is no more, is obliged to changes its name and hence becomes a new sovereign state itself. Scotland independence ends the Treaty of Union and hence GB no longer exists, ergo UK of GB & NI no longer exists. Otherwise, the article is saying that if England was to vote for independence, then all of the British institutions (Whitehall, BoE, Museums) would have to move out of of England. England would have no central bank and currency. However, the rest of the world would only look on Scotland, Wales and NI as British and some form of continuation of the UK...?
To underline S2mhunter's point, when the Irish Free State left the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland [the s word was not used], the name was changed to UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (Even that was being economical with the truth because the original "United Kingdom" united the Kingdom of Great Britain with the Kingdom of Ireland. Since most of Ireland had left, it was "creative accounting".) If Scotland leaves, I guess it would have to be the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland (though maybe Wales might finally get a look in). But this, like the article itself, is teetering on the edge of WP:CRYSTAL. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article's title is "Breaking Up" whereas it contradicts itself by then having sections about "secession". I have provided more sources to support the former, so the latter should be replaced by the former. S2mhunter (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@John Maynard Friedman, aren't the Kingdom of Scotland and England abolished? They merged into a new Kingdom of Great Britain. The re-establishment of a Kingdom/Republic of Scotland is not the same entity pre-1707. Eliz was legally the II in all of the UK, until some Scots didn't like the number on their postboxes. I really doubt a Kingdom of England would be re-established, following Scots Indy, let alone how that will go for Wales and NI being part of England. The SNP contintually refer to the entity they'll leave as "remainder UK" not "England".
This UK Gov speech states the following: "Thus in the event of independence, the remainder of the UK – as the continuator state - would continue as before, and Scotland would form a new, separate state." This transcript discusses this debate over whether Scotland leaving would dissolve the entire union tbh.
None of the sources @S2mhunter has added specifically state the depature of Scotland would cause the full break-up of the UK, the sources largely discuss a break-up from a concatenation point, where a successful Scots movement causes NI and Welsh separatists to be potentially more successful and unionism weaker. DankJae15:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh agree the article has gone way far into WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as I intially planned in draft (although another editor moved it into the main space) I would support major cutting or even the deletion of the article tbh. DankJae15:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But if you two agree, that Scottish Independence would be the only one to break-up the UK, then I am open to re-writing the article to only be about Scottish Independence. DankJae15:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the article seriously needs a long cold hard look because this is serious crystal ball stuff and the whole article suffers from SYNTH and CRYSTAL. Time to get the blue pencil out.
My opinion, FWIW, is as I said in my edit summary: If the Kingdom of Scotland leaves, the "United Kingdom" ceases to exist because the only kingdom left is England (Wales is a principality and the Kingdom of Ireland has already left) Charles will be Charles III of England and I of Scotland (like James I and VI) But my opinion is just that, an editor opinion. What matters is what reliable sources say. I mean serious, credible constitutional experts. Not the .uk.gov source you quote above, an unambiguous case of WP:Mandy Rice-Davies applies if ever I saw one. But pending the major clean-up I suggest is needed, "break-up" is a far more honest assessment irrespective of what happens to NI (given that most of Ireland left 100 years ago). With all due respect to Wales (formally just a principality) and Northern Ireland (two-thirds of a province), they are just make-weight. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@John Maynard Friedman, Once again I agree that this article has gone much further down the Synth, OR and Crystal route than I planned, although I would've likely kept it in draft but was moved to mainspace by another editor anyway. I am open to major cutting to only sources relevant, re-drafting or deletion (per WP:CRYSTAL) as it has become very speculative. Few others have opposed the article, so open to deletion at this point.
While I understand your edit summary, is there a source to prove it? I reverted S2mhunter's edits purely because they're not sourced, and of the sources they did add, none state anything in relation to KoE and KoS, nor from constitutional experts, all sources I come across usually use "break-up" from a concatenation point, i.e. the break-up is a process of succession of succeeding movements rather than a singular event, and mention Scotland not because it alone will legally break-up the UK, but likely the first one to start a chain reaction causing an eventual break-up. But this lack of clarity and I guess huge assumption based on few sources that give little mention of the technicalities of a break-up may be a huge OR/CRYSTAL for the article that may seem to try to answer that question.
This source on the "breaking up of the United Kingdom" clearly also mentions Northern Ireland. This one with the clear title "the possible break-up of the United Kingdom" mentions all four. Therefore Wales and NI are relevant in some sources.
Agree the gov.uk source is not perfect, but gives some indication that there is debate over this, and I guess these two interpretations/views of a break-up can make this article inappropriate as there is no clear indication which scenario plays out, and maybe the article was trying to answer a very crystal question, which is not clear right now, and likely won't be until the time after Scotland potentially votes out.
The article seems more CRYSTAL than I thought, and is not suitable in its current state. If more sources or clarity arise in the future then a better article hopefully can be made then. I am no constitutional expert, not many here likely are, but we should not be adding unsourced assumptions from a personal understanding of the constitution, and if such, adds more OR, making the article inappropriate. And as stated before maybe it should be deleted. Thanks DankJae17:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above my opinion is just that, an editor opinion. It just strikes me as the logical analysis and all the sources are speculating too. Suppose for example IndyRef2 favours independence and the Scottish Parliament gives effect to that by repealing the Act of Union 1707, then the Union is dissolved. The UK is no more. I'm speculating again, sorry.
In all honesty, I consider this article irredeemable OR and CRYSTAL: the best solution would be to put it out of its misery. Even if you spent hours cutting back the knotweed, in six month's time it will all be back again because it is clickbait to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish nationalists and ditto unionists. wp:AFD time, I suggest. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, indeed I have learned such a scenario is much more speculative that I originally thought, so would'nt oppose deletion. I really never intended it to be published while it lay dormant for months in my user and later draftspace because of how complex the scenario was. Only made it cause it was requested at WP:Requested articles/Social sciences/Politics and government and mentioned in media, but any such article must ideally be made by a constitutional expert or when more clear sources are available rather then the current ones which use "break-up" purely to reference the various movements and merely just a hypothetical term rather than a detailed discussed scenario. DankJae17:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
