Jump to content

Talk:2011 Scottish Parliament election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accuracy

[edit]

The basic figures on the page need checking against original source and sanity checking. I have just corrected Greens' seats position to no change, which seems to have been corrected earlier in the revision history, implying that someone re-introduced an error, in turn implying that at least two contributions have been slack to say the least in fact/stats recording. As it stands April 5 2014, the figures in the additions/reductions column do not add up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.240.163 (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More info

[edit]

As a discussion, would it be possible to add further information to this article. I was thinking along the lines of adding the current state of the parties, who is in charge and what each party hopes to achieve - something akin to the wiki article concerning the Next UK General election.

Ideas / thoughts anyone?

Stephennarmstrong (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that that is an excellent suggestion. I have long been contemplating adding a table of opinion polls, such as the one we had at the 2007 election (and other election articles), eg the MRUK poll at the weekend. There is at good ext source/archive of these at UK Polling Report. Just as long as we strictly observe WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:VERIFY etc. --Mais oui! (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody keeps editing the opinion polls to feature one published in the Daily Record on the weekend (24 April). The issue with this however is that the organisation Progressive Scottish Opinion had recorded, and freely admit, that the data was collected three or more weeks ago. It therefore shows a considerably different pattern to polls with current data. I don't think it is correct to display the data as the situation has changed dramatically in that time. --Lexxxicide (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two points - the AMS system was introdued to give a 'degree of proportionality', not a proportional result. Also - according to Jack McConnell inn answer to a question from the BBC's politcal correspondent Brian taylor, it was introdused specifically to prevent the SNP from winning, not to prevent a single party gaining a majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.98.202 (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not think the that AMS as such prevents any one party from winning an absolute majority of seats, evidently not. So the quote and references is somewhat confusing. -- Surabayjim (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Date

[edit]

Quoth the article:

No extraordinary general elections have been held to date. Any extraordinary general elections would be in addition to ordinary general elections, unless held less than six months before the due date of an ordinary general election, in which case they supplant it. The subsequent ordinary general election reverts to the first Thursday in May, a multiple of four years after 1999 (i.e., 5 May 2011, 7 May 2015, etc).

So, wait, if there's a vote of no confidence tomorrow and a new election in, say, late 2009, there will still be an election in May 2011? --Jfruh (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constituencies, Regions ect

[edit]

I have started updating the Maps for the new constituencies and regions, I should hopefull have this finished in the next few weeks but info regarding council area and georaphy needs updating on all of them, I know User:Doktorbuk had put a great deal of effort into updating them but much more work still needs to be done.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible New Articles

[edit]

This has not been done before, but after seeing it done with the Canadian Federal Election, I think it would be a good idea to create the following articles:

I would appreciate thoughts on this. MWhite 15:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of notional seat numbers for last election

[edit]

Why are the seat numbers from the previous election the notional results rather than the real results? That's very confusing and I don't know of any precedent, or any good reason, for doing it.Nwe (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is more complicated to understand, but it gives a more accurate impression of changes to a party's electoral fortunes. I would, however, support changing it to the real results, since that it a more useful piece of information in my view in judging how the balance of power has been altered. — VikingViolinist | Talk 00:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally both, no? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glasgow in particular looks very strange. The Conservatives and the Greens both win no constituency seats, both get 5-7% of the vote, both had one list MSP in 2007 and again in 2011 ... yet the Green one is listed as a gain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.211.94.137 (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notionally its a gain for the Greens in Glasgow. Based on boundry changes, Nicola Sturgeon would have lost Glasgow Southside, this would have meant the SNP would be entitled to an extra seat on the regional list, meaning the SNP would have won 5 seats instead of 4 and won the last seat instead of the Greens. Look at seats in UK General elections that underwent Boundry changes (such as Brent Central in 2010 or Dumfries and Galloway in 2005, a notional hold despite the fact the Conservatives held the nearest seat in 2001-2005). MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move

[edit]

It has come to my attention that there is not a standardised way of naming articles about the elections to the Scottish Parliament. A debate on this has been set up at Talk:Scottish Parliament general election, 2003#Standardisation of elections to the Scottish Parliament naming convention and the conclusion drawn from this will therefore be applied to all articles about these elections (including this article) anyone whishing to contribute to this discussion should do so on the 2003 talk page as a means of having only one debate taking place at the same time, any discussion on this talk page will not be taken into account in the debate. Shatter Resistance (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map needs clear Color Coded Key

[edit]
The map needs clear Color Coded Key. Not everyone that reads this page is from UK, and it is not obvious to many from outside UK, which color means which party. A clear color coded key to the map should be made.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 22:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

[edit]

I am not an experienced editor but it appears that the edit made by an unregistered user on 23 April 2016 which changed the status of the election to "ongoing" has messed up the seat changes in the box on the right. Can someone more knowledgeable check this please? Neil W (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scottish Parliament election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page title

[edit]

We should change the title of this article to 2011 Scottish Parliament general election as the Scotland Act 1998 refers to elections to this body as that. See: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/part/I/crossheading/general-elections Ciaran.london (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Scottish_Parliament_election&oldid=1213064368"