Talk:1979 Scottish devolution referendum

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Scotland Said Yes"

This section needs better citing and consistency - it seems to simultaneously argue that devolution both was and wasn't an issue in the Thatcher years, and that the Conservative decline in Scotland during this time (which was actually less than the decline in the Heath years) was due to Labour's failure to deliver devolution and a minimum support threshold, rather than problems on the Thatcher government's watch (e.g. the rates revaluation then the poll tax) and the vicious circle of Scotland regularly electing a clear majority of non-Conservative MPs but being governed by Conservatives elected UK wide. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to the 'decline in the Heath years', while nominally accurate, is misleading because that decline was caused directly by the rapid surge in support for the SNP, which by October 74 was hurting Labour as much as the Tories. The Tory decline in the 1980s was much more deep-seated. My issue with this article is that it implies that the rules of the referendum stated that if 40% of the registered electorate did not vote Yes, devolution would not be enacted. As I understand it, all that had to happen if the 40% rule was not met was for an order of repeal to be laid before parliament. It would have been perfectly possible for parliament to then deem that there had been a sufficient majority in the referendum, and to vote the repeal order down. That is precisely what the SNP wanted Callaghan to do, and it was his refusal that essentially led to the SNP helping to vote down the government in the no-confidence vote.Sofia9 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems little interest in this, but I will persist! This concerns not only the governance of Scotland, but also the collapse of the Callaghan administration. Read my amendments to the main article - sorry, no sources quoted, no time to do so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAMDENJOHN (talk • contribs) 16:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth better highlighting is that a major part of the 40% rule controversy was that it was 40% of the registered electorate (including those not *able* to vote as well as those choosing not to). Some allowance was made for this ^[1], but it is argued that that flies in the face of normal democratic protocol - those not voting are not counted as voting one way or another and are deemed to be accepting of the result of those who *do* vote. Martinb9999 (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.scottishpoliticalarchive.org.uk/wb/pages/referendum/1979/40-rule/electoral-roll.php

Result by Region Map Colour Key

Map is in 2 shades of turquoise; colour key is red/blue. Needs aligning. Martinb9999 (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas-Home

Closing discussion started by a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Conservative Party made clear well before the referendum that Douglas-Home - who was no longer an MP - had no authority to give any assurance to the people of Scotland about what a future Conservative government would do. (XavierKnightley (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

You have provided no WP:Reliable sources to support your position. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a spokesman for the Conservative Party immediately denied Lord Home's statement on the BBC news that night. It is misleading to pretend that Home had any authority to give an auurance about what a future government would do, as he was not an MP or an advisor to the Shadow Cabinet. (XavierKnightley (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Your memory is not one of our WP:Reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Conservative Party continued to oppose devolution even after the referendums in the late 1990s. Nobody in 1979 seriously believed Home's claim that a Conservative government would introduce a separate parliament for Scotland. (XavierKnightley (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I see you have no reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date of repeal of the Act

The Results section says, "The Scotland Act 1978 was repealed in March 1979 by a vote of 301-206 in the UK House of Commons", while the "40%" rule section says, "The vote to repeal the Act did not happen until 20 June 1979". One of these must be wrong. Can somebody with the requisite knowledge fix it, please? 86.44.202.231 (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tabulated results misleading

The tabulated results - both for the whole country (51.62% Yes, 48.38% No) and the region by region results - are misleading. The article correctly states that 40% of the electorate and a majority 50% + 1 had to be satisfied before devolution would be granted. However, the 51.62/48.38 split at national level gives a clear suggestion that the criteria were met when they were not. Please add a table to show the results in the context of the electorate - i.e. 32.9% voted Yes, 30.8% voted No and 36.2% didn't vote or spoiled their papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.33.111 (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added, as per the House of Commons library paper. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters and opponents of the Assembly

Would it be worth eventually adding a section to show details of those who campaigned for and against the Assembly? For the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, there is an article Endorsements in the 2016 United Kingdom European Union membership referendum. I am not suggesting a full article is needed here, but a section might be helpful given that there were serious splits within both the Conservative and Labour Parties on the issue. For instance Alick Buchanan-Smith and other Conservatives campaigned for the Assembly despite the official opposition of their party and senior Labour figures like Tam Dalyell and Robin Cook opposed the Assembly. Dunarc (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.scottishpoliticalarchive.org.uk/wb/pages/referendum/1979/40-rule/electoral-roll.php

[1]