Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election in Scotland

London Meetup/Editathon 7th/8th May

The all night editathon has been confirmed. Please go here for more details and sign up.

For those Wikimedians outside London, which kind of covers Scoitland, who would like to link up with the ediathon please show your interest here. Fabian Tompsett (WMUK) (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New info Box

Adding new info box in line with main UK Page (46.65.97.8 (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree about the use of this box on this page. The reason its being used for the UK main page is because there were to many winners, unlike in scotland were at best we will have four. The new box also FAILS to have deatils about the share of the vote etc.

IF the new box could contain details about change of the share of the vote then maybe I might reconsider. --Crazyseiko (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Will revert. Cryptographic.2014 (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The new info box is much simpler to read out to leave makes the page is much simpler to understand yes there is less information and I know we are using first past the post in this country but I do actually believe it's a very simple way of showing the result. (46.65.97.8 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

is there any way of added the Change in the share of the vote? --Crazyseiko (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't simpler to read, looks worse and put of line with other FPTP election pages. Cryptographic.2014 (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy or Miliband in infobox

I think Jim Murphy, as leader of the Scottish Labour Party should be in the infobox in place of Ed Miliband. Sources make it clear Murphy was Scottish Labour leader, and candidates stood under the banner 'Scottish Labour Party' AusLondonder (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Labour Party#Organisation goes into great detail; it is not a separate party organisationally or legally. NebY (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that information confirms Murphy should indeed be in the infobox? He is leader of Scottish part of party. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was not the party leader. Ed Miliband was. NebY (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information you cite says that Murphy is the 'Leader of the Labour Party in Scotland' AusLondonder (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Miliband was the overall party leader, just as David Cameron is of the Conservative Party. Your selective quote above comes from a paragraph which begins "The Scottish Labour Party is registered as an Accounting Unit (AU) of the Labour Party with the Electoral Commission and is therefore not a separately registered political party under the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. As such Scottish Labour does not have a "party leader", although Jim Murphy leads the Scottish division of the UK party, having been elected by members in 2014." It's surprising that you would claim it "says that Murphy is the 'Leader of the Labour Party in Scotland'" when it actually says "At party conferences he appears under the title "Leader of the Labour Party in Scotland"." The Scottish Labour Party is not a separate political party; it is part of the party whose leader was Ed Miliband. NebY (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this, I think we should have Jim Murphy to the infobox. Murphy’s the leader in Scotland - this article is about the election in Scotland, he participated in TV debates and was a high profile part of Scottish Labour the campaign. We should have him in. Ciaran.london (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem sentence in second paragraph

In the middle of the second paragraph, someone appears to have inserted this sentence: "This means 64.5% of eligible voting Scots did not vote for independence." It seems to intrude into the logical link between the previous and following sentences. Anyone who has followed Scottish politics since the Referendum campaign knows what the writer is getting at - the oft-repeated but unprovable assumption that all those who did not vote must have been "No" supporters. It's an attempt to make support for independence seem as low as possible. The sentence is badly constructed, biased, and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.8.135.201 (talk) 06:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standardised significant figures

Why is the SNP vote share to four significant figures when the rest are to three? This should always be standardised: the number of significant figures should be the same so either they should all be four or all be three. Thoughts? · | (talk - contributions) 10:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Photos

The Scots electorate do not vote for the same political parties, and hence leaders, as England in UK GEs. The Scottish Tories are stated in Wikipedia to be an autonomous party, thus able to represent Scotland at WM, although I accept that they have no Whip. However, I contest the photos, as these were not the leaders that the Scots electorate voted for on their ballot papers, as none of them campaigned. As stated later in the article, the photos should show the leaders from each of the main Scottish parties, who are:

Scottish Labour – Jim Murphy Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party – Ruth Davidson Scottish Liberal Democrats – Willie Rennie Scottish National Party – Nicola Sturgeon

S2mhunter (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]