Talk:Scotland/Archive 32

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The literature cited, the

There is also mention in this edit summary of "alarm bells". What is the nature of this "alarm"?. Without further context it sounds like a dislike of what mainstream scholarship says about the topic.Cambial — foliar❧ 01:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

'Undermine' is a loaded word as it implies underhandedness on the part of the UK Government; it's better to use more neutral terms, such as 'significantly constrained'. We could also quote the word directly, as the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 does. A.D.Hope (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not loaded. It does indicate plainly that the actions of the UK government were, as you say "underhanded" (or, as Collins has it "often by indirect methods". That is why the six experts who authored the latter publication used the word, because as they and other scholars describe in detail, the method of of constraint is indirect (and as also pointed out in the literature it was effected by disingenuously claiming in the blurb of the white paper and in parliamentary debate the opposite to reality). It's appropriate to reflect what scholarship says. Whether some believe that puts the UK government in a negative light is irrelevant. It's neutral reflection of the sources. It's not avoid anything which might imply "underhandedness" or indeed any quality that is readily described in the literature. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It is loaded. If you really want to use the word then just directly quote one of the sources which uses it. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Despite its cheek, or lack of awareness to the irony of the edit comment,* I was content to leave this series of changes in place without reponse, the article wording having become satisfactory and the subsequent edit having addressed the ludicrous

WP:CITEOVERKILL

.

These edits today slow-warringly restore the red flag of the excess of sources and loaded wording. The Scottish government contend that the act undermines devolution, the UK government deny this. If we baldly state one of these views in the body of the article, we appear to be taking sides, undermining the credibility of the article. Assuming it is the case and that the sources are representative, simply adding the qualification that (along the lines of) “the weight of expert opinion on the matter indicates that the effect of the act (is to)....” gives authority that that section of the article isn’t just a hacked-in opinion piece, without the requirement on the reader to plough through all the sources and make a judgement thereof.

Please restore the status quo ante, before today's edit, while this discussion is ongoing.

*“BRD is an optional essay. If you think it can be improved, the appropriate action is to edit, not to revert": “option” BRD may be but it is one that fosters co-operation and consensus and I only had to take it having already “act(ed) to... edit, not revert”, to a straight rebuff

Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The Scottish government contend that the act undermines devolution, the UK government deny this. This is not relevant.

Wikipedia seeks to be detached from such arguments, and represents the contents of mainstream scholarship. The wide variety of mainstream scholarship cited supports the function of the legislation described presently. If you are aware of peer-reviewed literature or other high-quality academic works that state differently, please bring it to everyone's attention. I'm reasonably familiar with the literature and I've not seen a shred of evidence that this is in competition with alternative theories nor controversial within the field. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the excessive references (three is fine) and rephrased the sentence to quote "undermines", as I originally suggested. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, those changes now make the wording "detached from such arguments, and represents the contents of mainstream scholarship". Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I should say that I've just given the whole section a bit of a rejig with the aim of improving its structure, but it doesn't massively affect the content in question except that I've condensed it a little. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

We don't falsely suggest that the contents of constitutional law textbooks are only "academic opinion". The evident desire to avoid representing the relevant literature appropriately looks increasingly like special pleading. You state above that the wording used across much of the literature "implies underhandedness on the part of the UK Government". I'm not sure that's true, but assuming it is true hypothetically, the proper response here is - so what? There is no reason to avoid description of the facts surrounding legislative mechanics simply because it indicates something about the government. Together with the unexplained deletion of relevant content in the citations (in the highest quality sources, yet also those not readily available to the general reader), this has the air of special pleading for censorship. The indirect or "underhand" method used to achieve constitutional reform is not only described in numerous sources, but even makes its way into the title of a journal article "Constitutional Reform by Legal Transplantation". I'll start an rfc to gather wider input on whether we can use the verb "undermine", as is used multiple times over in eleven or so academic sources, in wikivoice. Cambial — foliar❧ 01:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The edit summary you've linked to explains exactly why the content was deleted – you used ten sources to back up a single point when two or three do the job. Their quality was not the issue, only the number. The word "undermine" is currently quoted in the passage, so I'm not sure an RfC is needed. A.D.Hope (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I referred not to the removal of sources but to the deletion of sentences in the quotes in the textbook and journal citations; coincidentally the same sentences in the textbook that state as fact the exact material you have sought to reframe as "academic opinion". You've offered your view that the verb "undermine" cannot be used in wikivoice because it might imply something negative about a government. There's no policy basis for this, but it's nevertheless worthwhile to gather wider community input. Cambial — foliar❧ 02:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean; the relevant sentence is currenty supported by four sources, all with accompanying quotations which specifically use the word 'undermine'. The removal of the other six sources naturally meant deleting their accompanying quotes, that hardly means I'm trying to suppress anything.

The sources you've inserted do contain academic opinion, unless journals aren't academic publications? A.D.Hope (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

your edit. ES: Reducing number of references for Internal Market Act point from ten to two. You thus removed eight citations. In the two which you did not remove, you deleted sentences from the quotation parameter. These are coincidentally the same sentences in the textbook that state as fact the material you have sought to reframe as "academic opinion".

The sources state the facts about the effects of legislation. I don't follow your logic in your last question; journals are academic publications, how do you jump from there to it being "opinion"? Cambial — foliar❧ 02:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No, even the abbreviated quotations had substantially the same meaning as their longer originals. The original quotations are also the ones currently in the article, so I'm not sure what your complaint is.

You could frame the passage as academic opinion, academic consensus, or any other term which makes it clear to the reader that the content is to be understood as a summary of the academic position on the Act. A.D.Hope (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The sentence you removed from the textbook quote is "UK Internal Market Act 2020 imposed new restrictions on the ability of the devolved institutions to enact measures" The authors do not then repeat themselves. Content drawn from the more highly-regarded journals,and particularly that from textbooks, can be stated in wikivoice. We can therefore simply state this directly without a framing to suggest it ought to be understood in a certain way. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion the following passage does substantially repeat the information I cut, but it's not that important. I'm not trying to hide the fact that new restrictions were imposed; we don't disagree on the facts.

I do disagree that academic content can always be stated in unqualified wikivoice. Particularly for relatively recent events and where emotive language has crept into the sources (e.g. 'sweeping powers' in Keating), giving context is beneficial.

One way I do think we could be more direct is by reframing the passage. Posibly something like:

The powers of the Scottish Parliament have changed since 1998. The Scotland Acts 2012 and 2016 gave the legislature further powers to legislate on taxation and social security; the 2016 Act also gave the Scottish Government powers to manage the affairs of the Crown Estate in Scotland. Conversely, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 curtailed the parliament's powers by reducing its ability to regulate goods and services.

This isn't the main page for Scottish devolution, so we can be succinct. The important thing is to show that devolution has both expanded and contracted since it was introduced – the details are for the main article. A.D.Hope (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I've not suggested that academic content can always be stated in unqualified wikivoice. In instances where analysis differs amongst the literature, we must take care in presenting the material. This is reflected in the community consensus at

source types

, that where scholarship is in competition with alternative theories [or] controversial within the relevant field, we are to try to cite current scholarly consensus.

We need not concern ourselves with this here. There is not a shred of evidence that it's in competition with alternative theories nor controversial within the relevant field. The eight citations supporting the undermining of legislative autonomy, all to peer-reviewed literature or academic titles, all use the word undermine in referring to the legislation's effect on DA legislative autonomy and/or devolution itself. Furthermore, the indirect, instead of direct, approach to the consitutional reform is explicated at some length in several of the articles cited: this is the basis on which the scholarship uses the word "undermine". To counter that analysis, we have – nothing.

Where information is stated in multiple university-level textbooks, as in the case of the information about the act's restriction or removal of powers of the devolved institutions,^[4][5] it can and should be stated as fact in unqualified wikivoice.

My concern here is to fill what was previously an obvious lacuna in the brief summary of post-1997 devolutionary changes, bringing it up-to-date. The initial contribution was a single sentence, mirroring the single sentence about the 2012 Scotland Act. It's based on a wide variety of cited academic literature (at least 15 academic works; others are available). None of the available literature contradicts the facts as presented. Eight of the sources support the specific words used. I'm not seeing an objection here that is grounded in the community consensus policies that guide how we treat

scholarship on this website. Cambial — foliar❧

17:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

If I can sidestep some of the issues above, if a single sentence is satisfactory from your perspective then I'd suggest using the wording in my previous comment. The sentence does not need to be supported by ten sources (see

WP:OVERCITE), only enough to back up the point being made; in this case I'd suggest three is fine. A.D.Hope (talk

) 18:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The wording in your previous comment does not represent the sources. You've indicated that you would prefer not to represent the sources because you believe "'Undermine' is a loaded word as it implies underhandedness on the part of the UK Government. That is

not a reason

to fail to represent the sources on Wikipedia. The nature of this undermining is explained at length in the sources, and it's entirely proper to state it directly.

I suggest using the sentence as originally proposed, amended to frame the verb "undermine" as the academic view, something like: The Scottish Parliament's powers in economic matters are significantly constrained by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and the academic view is that the act undermines devolved autonomy. The first clause can be cited to the CUP textbook and the LQW article, the latter to Guderjan, the Journal of European Public Policy and Modern Law Review articles, and the Aberdeen/Edinburgh University report. As we have the refn template available four is a perfectly reasonable number of citations to indicate the sources of this widespread view.

In the longer term we can gather wider community input as to whether the word undermine, used by eight academic works and the seventeen-plus subject-matter experts who authored and reviewed them, ought to be stated in wikivoice. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

My current point is that we can be concise as the passage we're discussing is not part of the main article (Scottish devolution). The Internal Market Act is relevant because it's an example of the limits of devolution, but don't really need to explain it further. It should be presented as a contrast to the 2012 and 2016 Acts, which expanded devolution, as in my suggested wording. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Failing to closely reflect the sources isn't how we ought to proceed here. In your previous comment you say you wish to sidestep some of the issues. Is it fair to infer you have no response to them? We can present this as a contrast to the 2012/2016 acts by placing the sentence in my previous comment subsequent to the sentence starting "Two more pieces of legislation, the Scotland Acts of 2012 and 2016..." that appears in the current version. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

We're not failing to closely reflect the sources; the issue with the IMA, as explained in the sources, is that it restricts the ability of the devolved governments to regulate goods and services in practical terms.

Your assumption is unfair. I'm just trying to focus on the issue as I see it, which is less about the use of 'undermines' and more about how to incorporate the IMA into the section we're discussing. We don't significantly disagree about the interpretation of the sources, so far as I can tell. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

OK good; in which case I don't understand your objection to "The parliament's powers in economic matters are significantly constrained by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and the academic view is that the act "undermines" devolved autonomy. This briefly summarises the sources and covers the main points in the literature. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first clause. It's clear that the IMA has an economic effect, but I'm not sure whether the sources support the phrase 'significantly constrains' — regulation of goods and services is only one part of the parliament's economic powers, after all. My preference would be to state plainly what the act does and leave readers to draw their own conclusions about exactly how severe the restriction is. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

One of the two textbooks to which I refer above puts it more directly:

[the act] removed powers from the devolved institutions."^[5]

The phrase 'significantly constrain' is directly supported by several other sources cited:

provisions which, if enacted, would significantly constrain, both legally and as a matter of practicality, the exercise by the devolved legislatures of their legislative competence; provisions that would be significantly more restrictive of the powers of the Scottish Parliament than either EU law or Articles 4 and 6 of the Acts of the Union...The UK Parliament passed the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and the Internal Market Act 2020 notwithstanding that, in each case, all three of the devolved legislatures had withheld consent.^[6]

That Act’s modifications to the UK’s material constitution have significant implications for the exercise of their respective competences...their prospective application under the UKIMA imposes significant practical limits on their political autonomy in areas of devolved competence—limits that the dominance of the far larger English market further reinforce.^[7]

The effect of the market access principles would therefore significantly undermine the purpose of devolution, which was to enable the devolved nations and regions to legislate according to their own local needs and political preferences.^[3]

mutual recognition will place significant limits on the ability of any legislative or governing body to set and enforce its own distinctive policy choices^[8]

the UKIM Act 2020 allows extraterritorial application of rules that reflect different preferences or even undermines local preferences through regulatory competition, its effects are not insignificant for devolved legislatures.^[9]

I am not particularly tied to the words "economic matters"; it may be better to be more specific eg. The parliament's powers to regulate economic activity are significantly constrained by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and the academic view is that the act undermines devolved autonomy. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any dispute with your first quote, the act did remove powers from the devolved administrations in practical terms. Nevertheless, when the following quotes speak of 'significant practical limits' and the like they're referring specifically to the effects of the act rather than the powers the administrations have over their economies in general. I'd therefore go further than you do in your final paragraph and phrase the sentence something like:

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 was considered to "undermine" devolution as it effectively removed the Scottish Parliament's ability to regulate goods and services from other parts of the UK.

Just a note – I use 'effectively' because I believe the devolved governments can still technically regulate goods and services, but that the power has been rendered useless in practical terms. Is that right? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear. We seem to be going in circles: you're back to the framing "was considered". We don't do this for content taken from textbooks on the subject, regarded as they are as the

most reliable

type of source available. There is no reason to do this where multiple peer-reviewed sources agree with none saying otherwise.

You say you don't have any dispute with [the] first quote. This suggests you may have a "dispute" with the other five sources above. If so, what are the scholarly sources on which you base your disagreement with those sources?

The qualifier "goods and services from other parts of the UK" is misleading: the sources state it restricts their ability to regulate goods and services from their own region, because the only effect of doing so would be to put them at a disadvantage (and ultimately put firms out of business). Perhaps we can combine your active voice phrasing with the summary I give above:

The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 significantly constrains the parliament's powers to regulate economic activity, and scholarship indicates that it effectively undermines devolved autonomy. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

What about:

Two more pieces of legislation, the Scotland Acts of 2012 and 2016, extended devolution by enabling the Scottish Parliament to further legislate on taxation and social security. The 2016 Act also gave the Scottish Government powers to manage the affairs of the Crown Estate in Scotland. Conversely, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 weakened devolution by constraining the Scottish Parliament's legislative autonomy over goods and services; in passing the act without the consent of the devolved governments the UK Government also ignored the Sewel Convention.

I honestly don't think the paragraph needs more detail than that – it shows the ebbs and flows of devolution, which is what it should do, whithout getting into detail the main article can cover. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I've only just caught up with the posts of the last few days but I'll just note that I'm encouraged by the progress regarding the wording. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a lot to go through, sorry! Catch up and participate as you can, no rush or obligation. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

My main concern here is content about the UKIMA. The sentences about the Scotland Acts look fine: we might briefly mention the

follow them closely. I also think "regulate economic activity" better follows the sources and keeps a more encyclopaedic tone. The word "legislative" after the word "parliament" seems like pleonasm. Thus: The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 significantly constrains the parliament's autonomy to regulate economic activity, and scholarship indicates that it undermines devolution. Cambial — foliar❧

17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

'Weaken' and 'undermine' are close synonyms, but the latter has pejorative connotations while the former does not; if we're expressing the effects of the act on devolution in wikivoice rather than as a quote then 'weakens' is the neutral option. I strongly disagree that 'regulate economic activity' is a better summary of the sources, it's simply too vague. I don't think 'legislative autonomy' is a pleonasm, but I'm not particularly fussed about the wording there. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: & @A.D.Hope:, how about this wording I found, this is direct from a source but could be adapted if you want to avoid a direct copy paste.

Direct Quote

“The UKIMA has important implications for devolution. In particular, it disrupts the basic approach to managing the co-existence of different sites of legislative power within the UK.”

My adapted version

The UK Internal Market Act has important implications for devolution as it affects the core approach used to manage legislative competence within the different constituent countries of the UK.

Citation

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/reshaping-devolution-the-united-kingdom-internal-market-act-2020/ ChefBear01 (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's correct to use words which may have pejorative connotations where they are used by numerous authors in the academic literature. This especially where we are indicating that this is what scholarship says. We're simply closely reflecting what they say about the topic and being neutral to the sources. I'm not aware of any consensus in the policies and guidelines about avoiding words which some editors view as having pejorative connotations - unless I am missing something? Cambial — foliar❧ 18:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@

WP:NPOVChefBear01 (talk

) 18:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn't my opinion that 'undermines' has a pejorative connotation, it's a fact; check the OED. The sentence is no longer directly summarising the scholarship, so it's inappropriate to use a word which is not neutral. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:SNPOV

says:

“areas that are frequently subjects of intense debate both in the real world and among editors of the encyclopedia. A proper understanding and application of NPOV is sought in all areas of Wikipedia, but it is often needed most in these” ChefBear01 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for these contributions, ChefBear01. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, that part of the sentence summarises a wide range of scholarship.^{[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][9]} The neutrality on Wikipedia is about neutrally representing the sources; it's not about seeking inherently "neutral" words. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any particular problem with quoting 'undermined', as that preserves the direct link to the sources:

Conversely, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 "undermined" devolution by constraining the Scottish Parliament's legislative autonomy over goods and services.

It's using the word in wikivoice without making it clear that we're quoting that I'm not keen on. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Understood. My view is that, firstly, we cannot only put a quoted statement: we must also say what the act does in wikivoice, and ought not to conflate the two. Secondly, if putting a statement in quotation marks we ought to give some indication of what group we are quoting. Until we're able to gather a wider view, I'm ok with putting the word undermine in quotation marks, but neglecting to indicate that it's a quote in-text gives it the appearance of

scare quotes. Thus: Conversely, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 constrains the Scottish Parliament's legislative autonomy to regulate goods and services, and the academic view is this "undermines" devolution. Cambial — foliar❧

14:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You're not wrong about the above, and I certainly share your concern about giving the impression of scare quotes. Your alternative wording fixes those issues, so I'd be happy to use it in the article. Hopefully this settles the matter, but if anyone else has suggestions we can always revisit it. Thank you for working through this so patiently, I do appreciate it (and I suspect you'll also be glad that we've reached a conclusion between ourselves!) A.D.Hope (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I also support the wording. Good work all. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing I just went to add 'that' to the sentence, which in my view is a grammatical rather than a semantic change. While there I had a play around and I don't think that removing the quotes alters the meaning, what do you think:

Conversely, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 constrains the Scottish Parliament's autonomy to regulate goods and services, and the academic view is that this undermines devolution

The quotation marks make it obvious that the word is quoted, but even without it's clear enough that the word is a summary of the academic position. Also, I do think we could add that the passage of the Act was an example of the Sewel convention being ignored. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I support your change to the current sentence. Numerous sources highlight the failure to observe the Sewel convention; I have no objection. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Also happy. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)