Talk:2024 Scottish government crisis

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Worth watching

this. Maybe just another piece of media speculation, but could also prove prophetic this time tomorrow. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

What is the subject of this article?

It certainly doesn't seem to be about any "2024 Scottish government crisis", or if it is, why is there no mention of that in the article? As far as I can see it is about the confidence in Yousaf's leadership. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

One government has collapsed, with, according to BBC reports, another to go today. That constitutes "government crisis" in my head. Not exactly strong and stable. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yet it is not being described that way in the media or this article. All the coverage concentrates on Yousaf's future and not the plight of the 'government'. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The article is mainly dedicated to the termination of the Bute House agreement and the dissolution of Yousaf I. The rest is based on the two confidence votes, the second of which is in the government as a whole, rather than the first minister personally. We're now hearing that his resignation is imminent: not to fall victim to press reports, speculation and CRYSTALBALL, but it does seem likely that in the coming weeks more will be added on the dissolution of Yousaf II. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

We'll save the move request until we know what the subject of the article is going to be then? That confirms my view though, that this article was created prematurely. Wiki should be following the news and not trying to create it. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The crisis has been going on for several days and was well underway by the time of the article's creation. Events do not need to have concluded for articles to be created: both 2022 UK government crisis articles were created before their respective main character resigned. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

None of the story was characterised in the media as a government crisis though, just as a problem for Yousaf. I think we've come around full circle on this now though, so will leave it there. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not a "crisis" of Government. The use of the word here is incredibly subjective, lacking in political neutrality and therefore describing it as such is spurious and not what wiki is about.

I am therefore changing the title. Andrewjmoran (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

You can request a move. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

IMHO this should all be summarised and merged into either Bute House Agreement or 2024 Scottish National Party leadership election. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

If that removes this current title, I am for it. Andrewjmoran (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Title

Can an admin please move this back to where it was (2024 Scottish government crisis)? It's been moved unilaterally without any attempt at an RM (first in broken English: "Events Leading to Humza Yousaf Resignation" isn't a proper title). Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

i second this, i dont understand how the old title is politically charged at all? it happened in 2024, in Scotland, and was a crisis of government (the collapse of the first Yousaf government). the whole situtation does not only relate to Humza, as shown by Labour proposing a non-confidence in the Scottish Government as a whole even after the Tories did the same for Yousaf as an individual Clydiee (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I have requested the move at TR. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course it is politically charged. Describing this as a crisis of the Scottish Government is "The Sun" headline writing and a woeful misuse of the word "crisis". The Humza Yousaf government HAS NOT COLLAPSED, that is an absurd statement. This was not a crisis of government but a series of events that led to the First Minister resigning and should be titled as such. The government was not in crisis and indeed the resignation headed off any possibility of the matter actually escalating into what then might be described as a crisis. There were also some factual errors relating to the Scottish Greens and who did what that have been corrected. As someone who follows Scottish politics, and seeks neutrality here, this title fails in that regard and needs to be changed. And if you don't change it, I will change it again of my own volition. As for snooty comments about "broken English", titles are not always in perfect English, but had you merely rephrased it instead of replacing it, I would have been fine. But this current title goes. Andrewjmoran (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The "Humza Yousaf government" has collapsed: it's actually collapsed twice in the last few days. I read The Times (one of our newspapers of record) and they've used the word "crisis" in their headline today. If you think The Times is anything like The Sun then that is your problem. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The Times is a right-wing newspaper with a clear and obvious bias for the Conservative government and against the Scottish Parliament, and even its very existence. If you are using this as your reference, it speaks volumes about your utter lack of neutrality. Andrewjmoran (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The fact that other parties were involved is irrelevant to the point. if you do not understand that describing the Scottish Government as being in "crisis" does not have political bias attached, because of how it relates to the relationship between an SNP led Scottish Government and a Conservative led UK Government, you shouldn't be commenting. Andrewjmoran (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Andrewjmoran: Just so we're clear, do not move this page again without a move discussion. Your moves are not uncontroversial and should be preceded by a discussion, per WP:PCM. I mention this because I can see you've moved the page 3 times already, once to draft space and twice to different names. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

They shouldn't be uncontroversial; they should all be less controversial than leaving it as is. Every second that you leave that title in place is an affront to the concept that wikipedia is a neutral platform, which is why I am far from interested in a debate and more interested in taking action.

Do you understand the concept that for a black person, it is hard to get white people to see bias or discrimination, and that perhaps the majority should relent when the minority speaks up? Now exchange Scottish people for black people and English/non Scots for white people, and you start to understand how this feels.

I'm not interested in pedantry over the exactitude of Wiki policies, nor the uncritical thinking going behind using the wording that The Times has apparently used, or of comparisons to a different government in a different place - because NONE of that addresses the fundamental problem with this title, which is a bias against the Scottish Parliament as an institution and also those currently in power there, by describing this as a "crisis" of the Scottish Government, or that it has fallen. If it has fallen, how could it have just defeated a no confidence vote today? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/may/01/snp-defeats-labours-motion-of-no-confidence-in-holyrood-humza-yousaf. This matter is over. The truth is, it was over when the First Minister resigned. This result today was completely expected.

Would you create an article about cows on the moon if The Times said they were there? Because that is the level of debate here. The Times says so, therefore it must be so.

This matter has proven to be about the outgoing First Minister and the Bute House Agreement ending, rather than what the title says it is. Having made a few factual corrections to the text, I'm not bothered about the text under the title, but the title itself.

This is very much a case of the lie going around the world before the truth catches up. And you're all too slow to respond. Andrewjmoran (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to make a point more clearly (as I briefly touched on it in the 'merge' section), I think these sort of articles should be called Resignation of <name> as <role>, as I don't believe 'crisis' is a neutral expressional under the MOS:WTW guideline and the WP:NPOVTITLE policy. So this article would become Resignation of Humza Yousaf as First Minister of Scotland or simply Resignation of Humza Yousaf, if the role is overkill. I think the recent British Government equivalents should be renamed accordingly too, although that's not a discussion to have here. We actually need to discuss this before any decision is made though (WP:CON policy). Clyde1998 (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Is the infobox useful?

According to WP:INFOBOX, the purpose of an infobox is to summarise the key facts about the page's subject.

Looking at this article's infobox we would surmise that, the "2024 Scottish government crisis" took place between 25 and 29 April 2024: was caused by the termination of the Bute House Agreement and the dissolution of the first Yousaf government; involved Conservative, Labour, Green, Liberal Democrat and Alba MSPs; the reason for it was to declare no confidence in Humza Yousaf; and it resulted in the resignation of Humza Yousaf and the 2024 Scottish National Party leadership election.

However, as the article has a lead for summarising the key facts, and as all the infobox does, apart from displaying another large photo of Yousaf, is summarise (and misrepresent?) very few of the key facts about the subject (it does not tell us what the nature of the crisis actually was (was there a disagreement, confusion, suffering, or what?), or what tactics were used to pursue the objective, or why the outcome didn't match the objective, it seems of little/no value to me. In fact it looks like a total waste of space.

Hence, per WP:DISINFOBOX, I propose removing it. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a scratched record, we have the same type in the July and October 2022 government crisis articles. I'm not strongly pulled towards either side of the argument, but either keep them all or remove them all. I'm leaning towards the status quo: I can see it being a useful at-a-glance outline for unfamiliar readers—the very people Wikipedia is for. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

There can be a different consensus for different articles of similar topics. The determination should be whether the infobox adds information to this article specifically, not whether other similar articles have one. If all the information in the infobox can be summarised easily in the article's lead, it shouldn't be necessary to have one. Clyde1998 (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Merge into Bute House Agreement

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No merge. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 06:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

---

As per a comment by Barnards.tar.gz above I'm proposing merging this article into the Bute House Agreement article, specifically the Termination section. This would be under the WP:UNDUE policy and WP:REDUNDANTFORK guideline. Around half of the article is talking about the Bute House Agreement and would only add a few paragraphs to that article. I don't believe a separate article is required for this. Clyde1998 (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This should also be an opportunity to lift it up a level of summarisation. The current material is approaching WP:PROSELINE and the day-by-day details of who said what are ultimately not that significant. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. We have the two UK government crisis articles (Boris Johnson and Liz Truss): both led to the end of their premierships, which is the same case here. If Yousaf hadn't resigned I could see a case for merging, but he has. We also have articles for the end of other Scottish first ministers' tenures: see Officegate and (whilst not leading to Dewar going) SQA examinations controversy (see also: Resignation of Jacinda Ardern). Both of these events are probably less notable than this one: not not notable, but less so than the one here. There's plenty to write about, given that maximum political chaos has occurred in Scotland with two governments collapsing in five days (how often does that happen to a country that's not just had a coup?). This topic is distinct from the BHA article so shouldn't be lumped together with it. Just wait for the dust to settle and I can see a very fine article coming out of it. Cheers—Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, the resignation has averted a crisis in Government. This is not a crisis, pure and simple. The use of the word in this context is both wrong AND politically charged AND NOT neutral. What has happened is a series of events that are best described as folly that has led to the resignation of the First Minister. The article has clearly been written by people who DO NOT follow Scottish politics closely or understand the nuances. This is why comparing "Crisis" headlines in other articles about Westminster politics does not work here, because this is Scottish politics, and describing what has happened as a "crisis" does have political overtones. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be writing about it.

And I repeat, unless this matter is resolved, I will take unilateral action and change that title, because the longer it is there, the more that Wikipedia looks politically biased. Andrewjmoran (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You can WP:SHOUT all you like. The title is not "politically charged". Several HQRS have described it as a crisis. It is not up to you to overrule them. WP:NEGOTIATE. You're on a talk page. Do as the Romans do. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Claims that this is not politically charged either make you politically biased or ignorant, and I suspect the former because of your clear desire to leave it in place, based on comparing it to political matters at Westminster, which are a fail for a start. Describing these as events leading to the resignation of the First Minister as precisely that; events leading to his resignation, is neither inaccurate nor partial. Describing these events as a "crisis" of the Scottish Government is BOTH. Andrewjmoran (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Describing this as a crisis is a nonsense. 1. The Government is still in place. 2 The Scottish Parliament is designed to make it very difficult for any party to achieve a majority, so the ending of the BHA actually makes things more of a 'situation normal'. 3. Crisis absolutely, positively is an emotive and biased wording in political circles. By this definition, the Scottish Government will ALWAYS be in crisis, which political opponents to its very existence want. Therefore it has clear and obvious political connotations, and its use here makes you either naive or guilty of such. You cannot possibly have any objection to a title what describes it as it is: A series of events that led to the resignation of Humza Yousaf as First Minister. Andrewjmoran (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

1. A government will always be in place. Governments can be in crisis sometimes. 2. Yes. The SNP have not had a majority since before the 2016 election. The 2021 BHA, which allowed them to govern with the help of the Greens, is now no longer. That was the catalyst. 3. [citation needed]. 4. We use reliable sources here. We don't declare them invalid, however much we might disagree with their analysis. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

If a Government is always in place, how can it fall? Your argument about when a Government stands or falls is utterly hypocritical and made to suit.

If your sources are telling you that the Scottish Government fell, I challenge you to turn up at Holyrood and see if that's true, instead of relying on a right-wing newspaper that says it has. Your source is not reliable, at least not in this instance. And seeing as it is challenged, why don't you check, instead of taking its word for it? And whilst you do so, why don't you check and see if there is an imminent Scottish election occurring, because of the supposed fall of the Scottish Government? You wonder why I call you biased? It's because you support a stance based on falsehood, and keep on doing so.

Sources are part of the problem with your point of view, such as it is, but that takes us away from the heart of the problem, which is the wording of the title. Again, if you do not understand Scottish politics, you should stand back and accept that this title is politically charged in Scotland at least, if not elsewhere, as well.

Why won't you accept this in its place: "Events leading to the resignation of Humza Yousaf as First Minister"? it's accurate and does not have political bias. If it doesn't meet your personal standards of English Language (Grade A myself), suggest a rewording. Andrewjmoran (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. This article was made just a few days ago. I say the article should at least be given some more time before we discuss a merger. Otherwise, I oppose the merger since I think these events are significant enough to warrant their own article. Yousaf was facing two confidence motions, one in himself and one in the SNP government, before his resignation, and we've just seen the fall of two governments (the SNP–Green coalition under Yousaf and the Yousaf minority government, albeit pending Yousaf's official resignation after the just announced SNP leadership election).

I also think the Bute House Agreement article should largely cover the agreement itself, with separate articles for how it came to be agreed and terminated. The 2010 United Kingdom government formation article for example is separate from the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition agreement article, just as this article is separate from the Bute House Agreement article and covers the termination of the agreement in more depth. The government crisis also goes beyond the agreement due to the confidence votes mentioned above which afaik are still going on, including one on the SNP government. Should the confidence motion in the government go through, it's very possible that this could lead to an early Scottish Parliament election or potentially the formation of a coalition/minority government with a first minister from another party. Let's wait for a little longer at least before discussing a full blown merger with the Bute House Agreement. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Going around in circles

That title needs to be changed immediately. I charge those advocating for its remaining as being either politically biased or utterly lacking in the understanding of the nuances of Scottish politics. Whether you merge it or change it, referring to this matter as a "crisis" of the Scottish Government is completely unacceptable and politically biased. The resignation may have actually averted a crisis. Andrewjmoran (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Cut down on the attacks and accusations. It's not doing your argument any favours. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC) I absolutely will NOT, because you are either naive or guilty. This use of the word crisis IS politically charged in this context of Scottish politics. Other uses of the word elsewhere should be regarded as irrelevant and not sufficient reason to keeping it in place. Andrewjmoran (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Why did you not merely reword the title I gave it, if you regarded it as broken English? Your actions reveal your bias. You want this situation described as a crisis because it suits your politics. Andrewjmoran (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Stop talking rubbish. You have provided no sources and no real, coherent reason or explanation for why you think what you do. You'll never bring change about at this rate. I suggest you start bringing some sources into play, or stop discussing this at all. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Sources that deny something that never happened? You're being wilfully absurdist. Check your own source. it's false. This did not happen. There is no fall of Government. The SNP are still governing. There is no Scottish election to replace the Government occurring. Use your common sense. Andrewjmoran (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC) I am not denying any of this. Maybe you should read my replies to you. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC) If you do not deny that the Scottish Government did not fall, then why don't you accept that the Times' description of events, that you are quoting to justify your stance that this is a "crisis", is false, and that this word does have political bias attached to it? Why won't you accept a reworded title that removes political bias? Why won't you come up with an alternative? Why are you so adamant about retaining that one word and unwilling to remove it, or suggest your own title that I might accept? I can only conclude by your actions that your stance is politically motivated. Andrewjmoran (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Conclude whatever nonsense you want. You care about the title: "2024 Scottish government crisis". Did it happen in 2024? Yes. Involves the Scottish government? Yes. Is a crisis? Multiple HQRS call it one. That is it. Nothing else to pick apart. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Andrewjmoran (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This is from you: "One government has collapsed, with, according to BBC reports, another to go today. That constitutes "government crisis" in my head." This is a nonsense. The Government has not collapsed. Andrewjmoran (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC) @Andrewjmoran Could you please substantiate your claims with a credible citation? Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC) This is a nonsense request. The Government is plainly still there. if you get your news from The Times, you really don't know what is actually going in in Scotland. Had it collapsed there would have been a Scottish election called to replace it. The absence of said election means that it never collapsed in the first place. This description is a wilful falsehood by a right-wing newspaper. Why would there be any citation about a government still in place, that never collapsed? It didn't happen in the first place. Andrewjmoran (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC) do you know what a government collapse is? the "government" doesn't refer to the SNP's rule over Scotland, it refers to the first Yousaf government, the informal coalition government (between the SNP and the Greens) created by the Bute House Agreement. Clydiee (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC) which, may i add, does no longer exist Clydiee (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC) That is a laughable and wilfully false definition of "Government collapse". Where is the resulting election? There isn't one because it didn't happen. The Government has NOT collapsed. If it had, there would be a Scottish election called. Yousaf has resigned and the BHA has gone. The Scottish Government however remains in place. The First Minister resigning does not constitute a "collapse", nor a "fall". If you want to write a wiki page about the "First (whoever) Scottish Government" of the successor, I won't object, silly though I think it is. None of this justifies the use of the word "crisis" in the title. Andrewjmoran (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC) even if you really don't think it should be described as a "collapse" of government (that could be in argument in of itself) that is not alone what qualifies a political situation to be a crisis Clydiee (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Crisis is the problem word, because of the specific context of the Scottish Government & Parliament, which frankly most observers, especially outside of Scotland, do not appreciate. It has political bias attached. When I read the title, I immediately read the article for bias, because the title screams "biased" to me. I corrected some errors that were a bit basic and suggested a lack of knowledge and some assumptions of the author (which their own cited source in one instance showed as incorrect), but the overall article is actually fair. The remaining issue is the title, which is problematic, just as a newspaper headline can be misleading, whilst the article itself is fair. Furthermore, advocates of not changing it have not and will not propose any compromise, so why should I? It smacks of political bias, whether that is the actual reason or not. The appearance of any such should be regarded as problematic, which is why I view any uncompromising defence of the status quo as suspicious and most likely guilty of bias. I remain open to a compromise on my suggested wording, but this existing wording is totally unacceptable, and should be to anyone if you appreciate the nuances of Scottish politics. Andrewjmoran (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC) i oppose this for the reasons stated by the others Clydiee (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Well seeing as I have debunked the source as being wilful nonsense, you're going to have to do better than that. There has been no fall of Government, if there had been a Scottish election would have been called (it hasn't), the use of the word "crisis" is politically motivated (hence use of it by the right-wing press to describe something that didn't happen), so why are you so adamant on using this title which has clear and obvious political motivations behind it (if you don't see that, you're naive). Why not play safe over political bias and accept a title that describes the events for what they are: The events leading to the resignation of Humza Yousaf as First Minister? Or are you just biased and you want it described as a crisis of the Scottish Government to suit your politics? Andrewjmoran (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Please stop bludgeoning this discussion. People disagree with you. You don't have to reply to each view with a long rambling screed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Your basis for disagreement is a false headline. But you still won't give on it. Andrewjmoran (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC) No it isn't. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC) For the umpteenth time, there hasn't been a collapse of Government. You have quoted a headline about something that hasn't happened, and expect citations of things in response about something that didn't happen. The Times saying so, doesn't mean it is. Your wilful refusal to apply common sense speaks volumes. You also ignore any alternative that I offer. You are guilty of wilful political bias and I am done trying to reason with you. Andrewjmoran (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Nice. I'll spend my time on something more important and interesting, like counting the ants in my garden or colouring in my ceiling with crayon. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Well in that case, I regard can regard your objections as an admitted waste of time. Andrewjmoran (talk) 01:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC) There's no need for this deliberate antagonism. This is not a right-wing press issue, otherwise traditionally pro-SNP and ideologically centre-left newspapers like The National or The Guardian would not realistically be describing it as a crisis. Regardless of political affiliation, this is still clearly a government crisis as stated in multiple reliable sources and in line with the definition of the term. A government has collapsed, the Yousaf SNP-Green coalition agreed under the Bute House Agreeement, and so is another, the Yousaf SNP minority government. In a month's time, we will have a new government with a new first minister. That's simply a fact. The crisis is arguably still underway, as like I said earlier there is still a confidence motion in the SNP as the governing party which could trigger an early election or lead to the appoitnment of another first minister from a different party under Scottish Parliament procedure. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC) You: "a government crisis as stated in multiple reliable sources and in line with the definition of the term." - No, not in a Scottish context. This has additional political bias attached that does not apply the same way as it does in England or at Westminster. Quoting occasions of its use outwith Scotland does not account for the Scottish-specific bias that describing these events as a crisis has on the Scottish electorate. I challenge you to provide a quote from The National that describes the Scottish Government as being in crisis. Aside from its own pro-independence bias making it a lousy source for such, it simply hasn't done so. Which also speaks to the general concept that is being used here, by saying that 'newspapers are saying it's a crisis, therefore I am justified in doing so'. No. Newspapers are about sales and their headlines should be tempered with common sense and neutrality. You might be able to argue that there would be a genuine crisis if the confidence motion passed - but it won't, because it won't have the numbers. Not for the first time. I again object to the title and use of the word crisis as politically biased. Change it to a factual, unbiased title that says what it is, "The events leading to the resignation of Humza Yousaf as First Minister", and we are done. Why would you object to replacing the title to something that no one can object to? Andrewjmoran (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC) We cannot disregard newspaper sources as Wikipedia has to follow them, not the other way around: we write for the sources we have, not the ones we want. We have to follow WP:AT, so it is not a title "no one can object to": A, because we have to follow policy, and B because there is clearly objection here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC) But your basis for objection is a headline that is plainly false. Where does Wiki policy state that you quote sources that are false? For the umpteenth time, the absence of a Scottish election demonstrates that there was no fall of the Scottish Government. The Times saying there is a crisis does not make it true. You apply common sense to such headlines, which you are not. Whether that is down to bias or some other issue you have, that's on you. My solution is not biased to any political side therefore you should not find it objectionable. Your obstinacy is certainly not based on reason nor lack of bias. I knew in the first place it was a waste of time talking to you. Andrewjmoran (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC) The most productive next step here would be to cite sources that demonstrate that a particular title is used to refer to the subject of this article. I’m not sure what Times headline you are referring to but we typically do not put much stock in headlines, per WP:HEADLINE. Also, sources should help determine whether there should be a page at all, i.e. is there actually an independent standalone notable subject here, as opposed to being the final chapter of Bute House Agreement, or the first chapter of something else, like Second Yousaf government. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC) how is calling it a crisis poltiically biased? i'm a dedicated SNP supporter and i don't think it's incorrect to say this has been a crisis for the government Clydiee (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC) also, i wasn't trying to make a case in my reply, i was just making it clear that not just those two agreed to oppose the change. i didn't have to "do better than that" because they already did it so why should i just repeat their points Clydiee (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Their points are based on the false description in a Times article (according to them, it's not my cited source) which both describes this as a crisis and says the Government has fallen. The text is clearly a wilful exaggeration and misrepresentation of the actuality and should be disregarded as a source to use. But they have. And here we are. Andrewjmoran (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC) I'm not a "dedicated SNP supporter" - or for Green Party for that matter, yet I see bias here, But it is also to do with the Scottish Government as an institution, and in part to do with the parties in Government, in Scotland and at Westminster. As one observer stated, no one will remember this next year because the Government hasn't really changed even if the top names are changing. The formal arrangement has gone but the resignation of the FM has actually averted what I would then agree would be a crisis if the Labour Party motion to bring the Government down was likely to succeed and then did. It isn't and won't, because the Scot Greens won't support it. The numbers are not there for it to succeed. If anything, the Scottish Parliament will be returning to more of a 'situation normal' where because (as the article under this title itself states), the Scottish Parliament's makeup is designed to make it extremely difficult for one party to have a majority. For the majority of the Parliament's existence, this has been the case. To argue that this matter is a crisis for the Scottish Government is to effectively say it is always in crisis and almost any circumstance could be described as a crisis. This plays into the political desires of primarily right wing Conservatives, who will play up any remotely difficult situation for the sitting government, if it is politically anything other than Conservative. This is why I object to the title. Whether you see it or not, I certainly do see bias, and I have suggested an acceptable alternative which removes that concern, as apolitical whilst accurate. The main advocate for the status quo is clearly very pedantic and their original objection was purely to do with the "broken English" as they perceived it, of the title. Funny how they found all sorts of other justifications afterwards and have steadfastly refused to consider any alternative. That in itself reeks of political bias as the real reason behind their stance and of this wording. Andrewjmoran (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC) @Andrewjmoran people will remember this, just like how they remember officegate and the finance scandal with Nicola, and id say this is much bigger than either of those scotland has definitely been shook by this and scottish politics and the scottish government will feel the effects of it, its just as much of a crisis as the one that caused Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak's leadership, unless you would argue that stint wasn't a crisis either Clydiee (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC) I frankly doubt that you are what you claim to be, for starters, as your stance has always been antagonistic, and if you were truly SNP, you would know the issue I raise because their supporters tend to be the first to point such out. It is a nonsense to claim that this situation will be remembered that greatly, and certainly not as a crisis, but more for the changes in Government. This issue has had no bearing on the 'man on the street', so until such time as it does, calling it a crisis is at best, overkill. The idea that this is bigger than the Nicola Sturgeon/Peter Murrell scandal is absurd. This thing is already over. The FM has resigned, The Labour party motion will fall and matters will move on and the Government has not fallen and will not fall because of it, as some claim. It is also laughable to compare this as a crisis compared to the UKGov, which is the sovereign Parliament. And again, yet again, it possesses political connotations that are not present elsewhere but are particular to the Scottish Government and Parliament. I do not object to the existence of the text in itself, but its heading. The heading needs to go. And I certainly see the view expressed by others that this article is hardly standalone, and indeed the purpose of it is more to do with creating an excuse to have a "crisis" header, than it is with recording the events. This is absolutely politically motivated and those claiming it is not are either naïve or complicit. 51.198.29.236 (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Apologies, wasn't logged in for that comment. Unintentional. Again, I stand by my comments that this heading is the reason for this article, rather than the article itself. It is politically motivated, has particular connotations to Scotland (which render comparisons to elsewhere meaningless) and you are either naïve or complicit if you think otherwise. Just because you claim to fail to see the political bias in it doesn't mean it isn't there. And why then will you not compromise on moving the text to either the BHA or having a more neutral title? Andrewjmoran (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Support the proposal per WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:UNDUE as the recent developments do not stand alone, and all belong to that other topic and would be at home there as the final section of that topic.

This article has always seemed WP:UNDUE to me, especially with the use of the word "crisis" in its title and the implication that it was a government issue rather than an SNP one or a Yousaf one. I firstly removed the two uses of that word in the article text (and they were never restored). I then tagged the article as lacking notability - and that was quickly reverted. I also moved the article to attempt to, at least, have a title that matched the content - that too was quickly reverted. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. This is what we are dealing with. There are people who want to describe this as a crisis and overstate what has happened for political ends. It is the title more so than the text itself which is objectionable, so removing it and giving it a suitable sub-heading under the BHA would be acceptable to me, so long as the sub heading does not repeat the issue. Andrewjmoran (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, it clearly fits the definition of a government crisis and has been described as a crisis in several sources. Sahaib (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You are talking about sources whose job it is to sell and sensationalise and are well known for political bias. This view lacks critical thinking and common sense. If you followed headlines of supposedly reputable British newspapers, you would for example believe there is no oil in the North Sea and lots of it concurrently. Blindly taking newspaper wording and utilising it in what is supposed to be a neutral environment is the action of the naive or the complicit. Andrewjmoran (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose then, for the reasons stated above. Shouldn't be lumped in with the BHA article because the two topics are separate: the two votes of no confidence, the resignation of Yousaf and the leadership race are all out of scope. Would turn BHA into a coatrack: this topic has its own notability separate from the agreement itself. It'd be a bit like merging the July 2022 UK govt crisis article into Second Johnson ministry. Both are notable, but each have their own story that shouldn't be forced into one article just because the two are related. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, those are two distinct and individually notable topics. The content of this article is part of the BHA topic and the title of this article isn't supported by its content. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  This event and the BHA are also two distinct and individually notable topics. No, the contents of this article is not "part" of the BHA topic (it's not even about the BHA itself), as I've spelled out in my comment. It is only related; it's not the same thing. Understanding the BHA is needed to provide context to this event: it isn't the event itself. As I've said, merging these two very different articles together is nonsensical and would turn the BHA article into a coatrack. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm really unclear on why this is a topic that has independent notability. When I look at the latest BBC coverage, it's still talking about this in the context of the BHA: Humza Yousaf tells the BBC's Scotland Editor James Cook: "In my mind, whether it was a matter of days or weeks, the Bute House agreement was coming to an end.

  What are the sources that demonstrate independent notability? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thought you had better things to do and to watch paint dry? Why are you still here arguing then? Your bias is palpable. You won't accept any kind of variation of the title nor tolerate anything that removes "crisis" from the title, despite its political overtones. Your point of view here should be entirely disregarded by all as clearly biased. Why won't you accept a politically neutral title, or attempt to come up with your own, that would give us all a consensus? Again, it is not so much the article text I am concerned with, but the heading. So why don't you prove your neutrality by coming up with your own revision? Andrewjmoran (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  The constant assumptions of bad faith are getting boring now. Jog on. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Come up with a solution acceptable to all sides or take your own advice. Andrewjmoran (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  I will also note that our other two government crisis articles were nominated to be merged at some point as well: Johnson's into Chris Pincher scandal and Truss's into Premiership of Liz Truss. Both were unsuccessful. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know why you keep mentioning them as if they were somehow similar to the BHA situation. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  They are the closest articles we have. Much closer than the BHA article that we're supposed to think is a great candidate for a merger. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Irrelevant here then. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. This again fails to account for the particulars of Scottish politics and the relationship with the UK Parliament. it is pedantry to the point of ignoring the problem and refusing to acknowledge that there is one, and that is of bias with the wording of the title. It has particular meaning with regard to the Scottish Parliament, which references to other articles and other Parliaments cannot be taken as like-for-like. To do so is folly, as it is here. Andrewjmoran (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  You speak about Scottish politics like it's an extremely nuanced, intellectual, highbrow Thing that the Little People don't/can't/won't understand. Given that the Scottish Parliament is essentially a big, blubbery council, can you explain what makes it so special and complicated that nothing can ever be written on it, ever? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for confirming your political bias on the matter and justifying my stance. Andrewjmoran (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Even you're not justifying your stance. My question still isn't answered, although I won't hold my breath. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's because it's obviously a false premise, Tim. Which part of 'I object just to the title' do you not understand? I called you right and your bias is now there for all to see. You tactics of pedantry, diversion and false premises stand revealed as covering up your personal bias. You are a bad faith actor and IMO should be removed. Andrewjmoran (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. At the very least, it is too soon. Leave it as it is for a while – to gain enough calm perspective to judge how this should be handled — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  If it is too soon, then the article should be removed as premature. The point of the article header is to stir political bias, and its existence is problematic for that very reason, so I do not concur with any "wait and see" unless the article is removed first. Andrewjmoran (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  The point of the article header is to stir political bias... – Citation needed. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• (Personal attack removed)

  Please do not reply to other editors with a purpose to try to attack another. Suggesting that Tim O’Doherty is biased against the Scottish government either for a political or social view can be considered a personal attack against him. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 18:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: I believe merge discussions should last at least a week as a minimum, as advised under WP:MERGECLOSE, so I wouldn't support closing this discussion until this has been open for a full week (at the very least). Clyde1998 (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. These are two different, albeit related, subjects. It's also a bit too soon to decide. We haven't had the result of the vote of no confidence yet. This is Paul (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  We have now; as predicted the Government stands. It never fell. This was not and never was a crisis of the Scottish Government in itself, it was about the BHA and the First Minister. I again repeat that this title is biased and has proven to be premature. Andrewjmoran (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  The vote of confidence in itself makes this article notable since I believe it is probably the first such vote concerning a Scottish Government (do correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps what we should do is rename this 2024 vote of confidence in the Yousaf ministry since we have similar articles on UK Parliament votes of confidence. This is Paul (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think you are (I can't think of another in the entire government—there was one to go ahead for Henry McLeish but he announced his resignation just before). I'd say 2024 vote of confidence in the Yousaf ministry is a bit narrow: the more notable one is probably in Yousaf himself, and the main thing here is the BHA's collapse. Good to have a bit more cordiality here, though. Cheers - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose merge, this debate hardly needs more voices but hey ho. To me, 'crisis' seems a bit overly dramatic as a title, but having seen that the resignation of Johnson and that of Truss were titled as that, it seems logical that this would have a similar title, regardless of possible perceptions of bias / scandal-making due to the habits of the media in these situations (surely we are all familiar with those tactics by now and disregard them, no?). In my opinion the main event is the Resignation of Humza Yousaf as First Minister of Scotland which is unequivocally what has happened, but that doesn't fit with the equivalents for the UK PMs above. I would support the view that the BHA article should stand on its own as its ending was the main cause of the events which followed, they are not so binded together that they should be in the same article. Crowsus (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think the Johnson and Truss situations were different than this one, largely down to there being multiple causes and loss of support of their own MPs for the recent UK government situations. Johnson had just under half the members in government resign amid multiple, separate scandals; Truss had the 'mini-budget' and the fracking motion as the reason for her resignation. The resignation of Yousaf was purely down to his withdrawal from the Bute House Agreement, and maintained the support of his own MSPs, which is why it would fail the criteria to have a separate article set out in the WP:CFORK guideline (under my interpretation of the guideline). Clyde1998 (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, but the SNP and the Conservative Party are different kettles of fish and SNP governments will go down in different ways than Conservative ones. Yousaf, Johnson and Truss all (unofficially) lost the confidence of Parliament, whether their party M(S)Ps were on their side or not. The three situations are, in that respect, the same. Re your note: different, I think. We have, for example, Resignation of Jacinda Ardern which was not prompted by a similar massive drop in confidence: all three articles are more about the events leading up to the resignation and the context around it rather than the resignation itself and its aftermath. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: This discussion would've been up for a full week in less than 24 hours. If there's still no consensus under the WP:CON policy at this point, I'll leave the discussion going. If we still don't have a consensus after a further week, I'd be inclined to send a request to WP:DRN (if that's the most appropriate place) to find a resolution under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
  
  To recap: the arguments I've seen mentioned in this discussion have come under the WP:UNDUE policy and the WP:N and WP:REDUNDANTFORK guidelines.
  
  @Barnards.tar.gz, Crowsus, DeFacto, GhostInTheMachine, Hey man im josh, Sahaib, ThatRandomGuy1, This is Paul, and Tim O'Doherty: I'll bring you all back in to see if there's any additional points or changes in opinion to what you've previously said, especially from those who said we needed to let the dust settle before a determination could be made (That should be an alphabetical list of everyone who's engaged in this discussion so far). Clyde1998 (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think there is a consensus for no merge, at least numerically. If you want a closing statement from me it would be that this article is a separate, independently notable topic from the BHA, taking place three years after the election happened, and it doesn't make sense to artificially cram the two together. The agreement created the context for what happened next, but it's not the same topic. It's like merging this with this or that with that. Related yes, but not the same. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Comment: Just purely on the numerical point, see the WP:DEMOCRACY policy and the WP:POLL explanatory essay regarding consensus building. Clyde1998 (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I know that. I think that there is also consensus for no merge when weighing up arguments for keep and Wikipedia guidelines mentioned, eg GNG. The WP:COATRACK essay also fits here, in my opinion. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I still support a merge into one or more other articles because I haven't seen any source evidence cited that demonstrates independent notability of this subject. There is not a lot of content here (once we strip out the material duplicated from Bute House Agreement and, frankly, trivia about who said what on each day in late April). Humza_Yousaf#Resignation seems like a place for it. First_Yousaf_government#2024 or Second Yousaf government are other options that overlap with the scope of this one. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's been a month now. Any progress? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Gonna close it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  I notice this still hasn't been closed. Any updates? ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Pinging @Cowboygilbert. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Notes

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocked user - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2024 What is going on with this page? People are rewriting changes to the obvious bias that it has in places, with unnecessary references to Peter Murrell, who has nothing to do with any of this, the title which is daft and does not reflect what the events actually were, and when no cited source calls it a "crisis", which it wasn't for the Scottish Government because the resignation itself averted that. The motion to get the Government to fall failed, And there's all this padding about the Bute House Agreement at length when there is a separate article. It's a mess, it's not about what the title says it is about and looks like an opportunistic and biased attempt to misrepresent events to be more than they were. This wasn't a government in crisis. This may have been a First Minister in crisis and he quickly resigned. That would be more accurate and appropriate a title. Where's the Government crisis? These events depicted happened over what, two-three days, with the motion happening a few days after that and failing. Has Wikipedia gone gutter press with BS headlines? If there's some sort of Wikipedia oversight committee, they need to look at the authors of this one. James1893 (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC) @James1893: The page is protected to stop users, such as yourself, from edit warring over changes. You're welcome to propose changes on the talk page, as you should if your edits are disputed. Marking as  Not done, based it being unclear what changes are being requested. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Edit warring? Who's warring with me? I just got here! I'm new at editing, so sorry if I screwed up. I mean I've used Wikipedia for years but just not edited before. I thought this place was generally neutral but someone I know asked me to look at this page and it reeks of bias. They didn't like the title, and I agree, because it bears no relation to the content, but I think it's worse than that. It's overblown. It linked Murrell in with the events when he has nothing to do with them. The Bute House stuff was padding. You could link to the main article and briefly summarise that , but this was overblown to give the article gravitas it doesn't deserve. The first no confidence vote didn't happen because Humza resigned and the second one was always going to fail. The Parly has gone back to how it usually works with a minority gov needing cross party support. That's situation normal in Scotland, mate, not a bloody crisis! As I said to the other guy who contacted me, I kinda get why you might want an article on this, but whoever's done it has used it as an excuse to have a go at the Scot Parly. I don't want to get into any silly wars, so I hope you're cleaning this thing up of all the biased crap that's in it. From what I was told, they were trying to change the title cause they thought that would do, but they couldn't get the change to stick as people kept undoing it. I couldn't even see how to change it and was trying to figure that out when the access got restricted. Honestly mate, if you have some pull here, someone needs to do something about this article, because it sucks, big time. It ain't neutral. No way. James1893 (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC) In order to change the name of the title, you need to get a community consensus to be able to get the name changed as most people oppose the move. You and another editor think that it needs to be changed but the rest of the editors on the article do not. The page was protected because of your persistent WP:Section blanking and WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Instead of completely rewriting the paragraphs in a form of a forum post, you can ask here for the changes. If you are new, I recommend you read, WP:WELCOME as this will help you in your new adventure into editing! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 13:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)