Talk:Scottish independence

The McCrone report, discussion requires

While it’s often said the McCrone report was hidden, according to Gavin McCrone himself, it wasn’t hidden. Newmate12 (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Scotland independence as decolonisation

Where does the recent 2024-25 attempt to activate the UN decolonisation process by Liberation.Scot fit in this article? CitoyenU (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

"Nationality and Citizenship" needs citation

"However, the majority of Scots feel closer affinity to a Scottish, rather than a British national identity" is considered debatable to some.

This point should be supported with with a statistic (%?) that shows what the "majority" here actually is. Because of the sensitivity of the topic, both parties (scottish identifying and british identifying) should be represented to maintain neutrality on the topic. Loomingpine (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the stats but I imagine this is based on the census (either 2011 or 2022). With the appropriate citation, a more appropriate phrasing would probably be 'identify as' rather than 'feel a closer affinity to'. The census did not ask which you feel a close affinity to. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm wrong - it really was worded like that apparently:

https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/census-results/at-a-glance/national-identity/

Seems an odd phrasing to me. 'I feel a strong affiliation with a penguin' and 'I identify as a penguin' have two very different meanings. But I'm sure they know what they're doing. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah but that's from 2011. The 2022 census only talks about identity:

https://www.scotlandscensus.gov.uk/2022-reports/scotland-s-census-2022-ethnic-group-national-identity-language-and-religion/

So the statement is still correct but should probably now state 'identify as'. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Foreign interference in the independence debate section

I have reverted blanking of this section by @~2026-34734-94. This is an important aspect of the article topic and such interference operations are similarly discussed on the Brexit article as well as in the article on Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum. Regardless of how successful the campaigns were/are, which is far from easy if possible to verify, that they were attempted and reported in WP:RS means that they should be included per WP:NPOV.

I did not add the information on Iran's role in such operations to that section - this was added by a temporary user (@~2026-26363-78) - what I wrote when adding the section was a sentence on Russian interference backed up by three sources including the Russia report itself, and part of 78's contribution was to expand the section on Russia largely as I intended to. I completely understand the concerns expressed by 94 about the length of the section and I do think it is excessively detailed to the point of constituting WP:UNDUE weight towards Iran's role in manipulating the debate on this issue, though it easily has enough WP:RS coverage to warrant a relatively brief description in the article, including in the The Daily Telegraph, The Herald, The Daily Record and The Times.

UltrasonicMadness (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, it is amply sourced. Dgp4004 (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Having gone over the section and added some sources, there doesn't seem to be much to remove. I took out some debatable repetition of information and added other aliases used in the operation. Searching on Google News for "Iran Scottish Independence" gives a lot of results. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)