This website was closed on September 19, 2014 to new contributions.
Its pages, unamended since then, remain open for perusal
Topics on this web site:
Borders - Immigration - Schengen
Culture & Identity - BBC - Capability - The Arts - Values
Currency Union - Dollarisation - Euro - Sterlingisation - Scottish Currency
Defence - NATO - Trident
Devolved Matters - Agriculture - Education - Health - Higher Education - Justice - Tourism - Transport
Economy - Business - Cost of living - Government debt - Productivity
Energy - Oil and Gas - Renewables
EU and World - Continuing state - EU Negotiations - Representation in the EU - NATO - United Nations
Financial Services - Banking - Financial Institutions - Pensions
Miscellaneous - Research - Start-up costs
Tax and Benefits - Corporation Tax - Income tax - Welfare
The Campaigns - Financial backers - Media coverage
After a No Vote - Conservatives - Labour - Liberal Democrats - Party consensus on further devolution
- 1 Welcome to wikireferendum.com!
- 2 Guidelines for contributors
- 3 The administrative team
- 4 Are you an expert?
Welcome to wikireferendum.com!
This website aims to sum up systematically the reasons for voting YES and NO to the question
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"
which will be put to the people of Scotland on September 18, 2014. You are invited to join in editing the content, particularly by adding information.
Constructive criticisms and suggestions (Contact us) will be appreciated and carefully considered.
Guidelines for contributors
The cases for and against Independence side-by-side
The site departs from the usual Wikipedia format in that each topic is given a page on which the two sides of the case are shown side-by-side:
- Blue for the reasons for seeking independence
- Purple (changing from red) for the case for the Union.
The colour which comes first has been chosen fairly randomly.
Opposing facts or opinions need not be included in the one column. If the intention is to quote conflicting authorities, such as two academic sources with opposite conclusions, one statement may be made in the blue column and the other in the purple/red column. There is no obligation on any editor to give both sides of the argument.
Facts such as official statistics, survey results etc are preferred to opinions, though opinions from authoritative sources (see below) can be included.
Advocacy is in order if it is backed by appropriate authority. Present each matter accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". Keep your own views to yourself. Your personal experiences, interpretations, preferences or opinions do not belong here.
Opinions by authoritative sources are welcome, but must be distinguished from the facts by words such as “It is claimed by XY that” or “In the opinion of XY” or else backed by appropriate authority in the footnotes.
The source of facts must be disclosed (cited) by way of the editing tools such as a link to another site or a reference to a publication.
Opinions must be attributed to an appropriate person of standing, such as an academic specialising in the subject concerned, a politician with appropriate experience or authority, a business person (if the matter affects business), or an institution such as a think tank or research body. Opinions from politicians should not be reported without independent authority to back their view, unless they themselves have the authority to give the opinion. (The exception is the section "The Campaign" where reported claims need not be verified).
Statements of fact that are alleged, opinions or claims without a cited reliable and authoritative source are not welcome. In such cases the administrative team will mark the passage "citation required - d.p." (deletion pending). If no suitable source is cited within 48 hours, the content may be removed or revised.
The credibility or impartiality of a source may be challenged, but such a challenge is subject to the above requirements. Thus bias by a source may be highlighted by a quotation indicative of bias, e.g.
"XY has previously suggested that...".
An authoritative claim of bias is also possible, such as
"A survey by ABC College has categorised news items by this newspaper/website as being 90% favourable to the XXX Campaign."
An unverified statement such as that "XY is widely known for his extremist views" is not acceptable.
No pejorative words or phrases
There is no scope in this web site for phrases such as "bandwagon wheels coming off", body /crippling / double / hammer/ fatal / blows, bombshells, bad / disastrous / weeks, "spiralling black holes", "deepening crises", double / triple whammies etc. No name-calling. No accusations of arrogance, bluffing, bluster, bullying, dictatorship, windbags - or similar terms.
Information about living persons
The arguments should be about the issues, so personalities should not be criticised. No user of this web site may make defamatory statements. Blame can be apportioned, but you must cite a reliable source. References to living persons who have been involved in any issue shall not be entered unless the name and context are already in the public domain.
If you find unsourced or poorly-sourced negative material about a living person — whether in an article or on a talk page — remove it immediately! Do not leave it in the article and ask for a source. Do not move it to the talk page. Do not wait for another editor to request a source.
You can also contact us to ask for its removal, as changes to content are not systematically monitored.
This is not an advertising platform or a vanity press.
"Too long, didn't read". While all essential facts have to be stated, please be succinct, as otherwise some readers will move on to another topic.
This website contains free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute. All editors and contributors freely license their work to the public, no one owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly revised and reconstructed. Respect copyright laws, and never plagiarise. Borrowing from non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, provided there is an attribution, but strive to find free alternatives first.
Revision of these guidelines
The right is reserved to adapt the foregoing Guidelines in the light of experience.
The administrative team
Help with this site is required. If you would like to volunteer to join the team responsible for monitoring content and summarising the issues, please e-mail us with information about yourself and why you think you would qualify for this rôle.
Are you an expert?
If you are joining the site, whether under a pseudonym or not, and making edits, you will command extra respect from the monitoring team if you have identified yourself to us as an expert. So if you are an academic in a relevant field, a member of a respected think tank or research institution, a politician with appropriate experience, a business person (if the matter affects business), or a trusted commentator, please, in confidence, let us know.