- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
-
Andrewjmoran (
talk)
18:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- 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)
reply
- @
Andrewjmoran Could you please substantiate your claims with a credible citation? Regards
MSincccc (
talk)
17:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- which, may i add, does no longer exist
Clydiee (
talk)
18:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- i oppose this for the reasons stated by the others
Clydiee (
talk)
18:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- Your basis for disagreement is a false headline. But you still won't give on it.
Andrewjmoran (
talk)
19:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- No it isn't.
Tim O'Doherty (
talk)
20:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- Well in that case, I regard can regard your objections as an admitted waste of time.
Andrewjmoran (
talk)
01:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- @
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)
reply
- 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)
reply
- 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)
reply
|