Talk:Scottish National Party/Archive 1

Archive 1

1979 general election

From the article:

Many figures lay the blame for there being a general election at all in 1979 on the SNP

I do not know how many figures, and who they are, but since the Callaghan government would have passed the five year mark since the October 1974 election that year, I think they may be fans of Anthony Wells' entertaining fantasy What if Gordon Banks had Played for England :-) -- Alan Peakall 18:23, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Whilst I do not disagree with you Alan, many Labour Party activists in Scotland quite often state this as their belief (whether they actually believe it or use it as a campaign tool against the SNP is another matter). -- Big Jim Fae Scotland 12.29pm, 23 Feb 2004

An example of how even people who lived through an event can suffer from "false memory syndrome".

Callaghan's defeat in '79 has been blamed on

- Callaghan's decision not to go to the polls in '78 - the winter of discontent - public spending cuts alienating core Labour supporters - the SNP voting against the Govt

Which option one chooses depends on one's politics rather than the facts - which suggest all these factors and others contributed to the result, but none is a full explanation IN ITSELF.

A similar bit of historical revisionism is being applied by anti-Blairites claiming that Blair cannot claim any credit for the election victories of 1997 and 2001. I'm afraid we can't travel in a time machine and find out whether Labour would have won in '97 if Smith had survived (how?????) or if Prescott had been leader (Prescott, of course, being one of the shining beacons of success in the Labour Government's record - irony mode off). Evidence does suggest that Blair was a decisive factor in the large pro-Labour swing amongst the middle class and "C1C2"s. But in reality, who knows?

Whether or not the SNP led to the downfall of the Callaghan government and led to 12 years of crushing Thatcherism upon this country is irrelevant. The Scottish National Party is againt the Tories stabbing Scotland in the back, much as it is against Labour stabbing Scotland in the back. Whoever it is makes NO difference. Although, the fact that it was a Labour party stabbing the people who voted for it in the back makes it a little worse. The Tories never claimed to stand for Scotland, much as they will try to tell you. Labour did. My family (extended, bar very few exceptions) voted Labour from 79-97. They (Labour, not my family), again, true to form, stabbed this country in the back. I use this metaphor again, as it's true. We brought down the Callaghan government, because it stabbed Scotland in the back. We will bring down ANY British government if it is stabbing Scotland in the back. It is because we want independence...and every British government stabs Scotland in the back, And that's not because I have a chip on my shoulder, thats not because I'm anti-English, that is another story. So before every bleeding heart New-Labourite blames us for Thatcher -

blame yourself.

Second in polls

Is the SNP still second in the polls? This link reports this quote from Alex Salmond: "In addition, this morning's poll shows the SNP already leading the race for the Scottish Parliament in 2007, which is an extremely encouraging sign indeed for the party at this stage." Is the article intro still appropriate? --Liberlogos 04:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC) (a Quebecois interested in the Scots)

There have been very few polls that suggest the SNP has ever been in a better position than Labour and as such they can usually be attributed to the inherent margin of error in these matters.

Scotland is effectively a one party state. It has been for a long time. --Breadandcheese 06:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

But - whose fault is that? The Conservatives were in a very strong position in Scotland from the 1920s to the 1950s - what happened to them? They had picked up a large %age of the votes from the demise of the Liberals after WW1 but only seemed to retain them for one generation. It's not Labour's fault that they continue to be the largest party in election after election

Exile 19:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Scottish National Party (SNP) politicians

I have just created this category: Category:Scottish National Party (SNP) politicians

I have addded a lot of SNP MSPs/MPs/other politicians to it, but if there's any I've missed please feel free to add them. It includes current and former members of the SNP, so far 51 articles are in this category. Vclaw 19:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Minor Points

- The address given as Edinburgh [Postcode] Scotland seems a tad POVish. If Scotland is to be included in the address (it is obvious, I don't believe it is necessary) it should be before the Postcode. If you were going to put in United Kingdom that may be another matter.

- Pantone 300 is not the official colour of the Saltire. There is no official colour beyond Blue/Azure.

No, but the Scots Parliament did strongly suggest Pantone 300 to be used for the Saltire in recent years. Canaen 07:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Party colours?

It is my understanding that the SNP commonly uses 3 colours in their publicity material: the main one being yellow; but also "heather" (which I assume that most people would call either a light purple or a dark lilac?) and also a Pantone-300-ish blue (ie. the colour of the Saltire). An IP address just removed the link to blue, so I wondered if maybe the SNP have stopped using blue in their publications? Does anybody know?

I do not think that it is sensible to put "black" as one of the party's colours: every political party in the world commonly uses black, white and grey in their publications: these are tones, nor colours. --Mais oui! 10:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'heather' was really a 2003 colour. It fell a bit out of use in 2005 and in 2007 really wasn't to be seen. I'd argue that it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandlerova (talk • contribs) 01:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits 5th May [1]

The intro was changed to give precedence to historical data over current information, this is out of keeping with other UK political parties, the Labour_Party_(UK) doesnt mention the fact that it has historically been the 2nd party,but recent form has put it on top in the UK parliament. Should this discontinuity remain? 86.12.249.63 15:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

To what are we comparing the SNP?

While of course Guest9999's edits, as to the SNP's strength in various parliamentary bodies, are accurate, I nonetheless think that they obscure the more important facts. After all, the SNP only competes for constituencies in Scotland. The previous version was more indicative of their overall success in the pursuit of such seats. Thus my non-vehement revert. Unschool 03:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

SNP-related category has been nominated for deletion

The related Category:Current Scottish National Party (SNP) MPs has been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

One of its parent categories, Category:Current members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies, has also been proposed for deletion.

Please visit the relevant CFD entry and contribute to the discussion.

Please note that although the CFD terminology is "merge", de facto this means deletion. Lovely euphemism... --Mais oui! 02:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated attempts to delete photo of Alex Salmond

Two photos of Salmond have already been deleted.

Please contribute to discussion at:

• Image talk:Alex Salmond.jpg

Ta. --Mais oui! 18:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of SNP leaders

Please review the following:

Peter Murrell <peter.murrell@snp.org> to me

show details 5:46 am (15 hours ago) You may use the images at:

http://www.snp.org/media/2007-03-15-alex-and-nicola-photos/SNP%207-3-07-3.jpg/view

---

Original Message-----

From: snphq@snp.org [2] Sent: 24 July 2007 16:04 To: peter.murrell@snp.org Subject: [Fwd: Wikipedia and the SNP]

---

Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Wikipedia and the SNP From: "Canaen" Date: Sat, July 14, 2007 7:45 am To: snp.hq@snp.org

---

Hi there,

My name's Canaen, I'm an editor at Wikipedia, the free, online Encyclopedia that anyone can edit. One of the things about running a free encyclopedia, is that all of our images must be free to be used for any purpose.

We endeavor to have a portrait picture of all prominent people who we've articles about, and Alex Salmond is one such person (his article can be found at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Alex_Salmond). For some reason or other, it's been terribly difficult for us to find any image of Alex which is free to use for any purpose, and thus his article is not illustrated. If anyone at the SNP would be able to supply us with an image of Alex, either in the Public domain or licensed under a free license, we could add it to the article, and it would help immensely on the road to his article becoming a Featured Article, possibly featured on Wikipedia's front page.

As well, we've found it difficult to obtain free images for most of the other SNP politicians, and any other images would be helpful to us.

Slainte,

Canaen

File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 04:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Electoral performance

There are some asterisked entries in the Electoral performance section, but no explanation of the footnote. (At least, I couldn't find one.) /blahedo (t) 22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Lacking any further explanation, I'm removing the asterisks. If someone wants to put them back, please say what they're supposed to mean! /blahedo (t) 05:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the SNP symbol/logo?

Can anyone shed any light on its origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.2.198 (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

People say it is the saltire, a thistle or a drop of oil depending. Nothing definitive, I am afraid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.178.115 (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a stylised thistle which has undergone at least five makeovers during the past 30 years. 80.41.206.57 (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. However, I remember that in the 1960s/1970s the symbol was also meant to represent the X that people make when voting, i.e. it was a combination of a vote and a thistle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmacd (talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

30th Sep Edits - Controversy section

On the 30th September, user 'Francis Tyers' removed the bulk of the existing controversy section. The section was renamed 'Criticisms' and then the sections about the Brian Souter donation removed on the grounds that they are "not really a criticism" (they are, of course, controversial - hence the original section title).

I believe that the Souter story is a valid addition to this article, as it was certainly widely covered in the press at the time, so I have created a new 'Controversy' section. Personally I believe 'Criticisms' and 'Controversy' should be merged, but I will leave them as they are just now.

Templetongore 09:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The paragraphs on the Brian Souter donation keep getting removed. This is not useful editing. By all means add balance to a section, but don't simply delete (verified) information that you do not like.

For what it is worth, I am glad the SNP beat Labour this year - I am not trying to dirty their name, I only want to broaden the article to include all angles. I respect alot of the SNP policies, but I believe - as many do - that accepting the Souter donation was wrong. This information should be part of this article.

Templetongore 14:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone help me out here? The Souter stuff taken down again, by someone using an anon IP address (can't guess who). I am losing faith in Wikipedia.

Templetongore 08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Templeton, if you look at the other party pages for Scotland, you will note that donations, even controversial ones, widely reported are not covered, for example the pornographer Richard Desmonds high profile donations to the Labour party, or Bernie Ecclestones large donations and ensuing controversy. Without these corresponding entries in the article on the Labour party, it is not reasonable to include controversial donations here. And personally I agree with you that accepting the donation was wrong. But that is a matter for our opinions, not this article. What might be considered is a section entitled "Donations" and then a breakdown of large donations and where they came from. I believe this information is publically available. - Francis Tyers · 10:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented a compromise, adding "High profile donators to the party include founder of Stagecoach Brian Souter." to the Party organisation section. We can add other high-profile donators if you can find some. The rest of the content is already covered on the Brian Souter page, which people may navigate to by means of a link. - Francis Tyers · 10:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Francis, While I agree that there should be some level of consistancy between pages covering the major parties, I think that, instead of removing the donation info from the SNP page, we should instead be adding similar content to other party pages. I also agree that our opinions are not relevant, but this was a big story in Scotland (where I live) and similar items can be found on other pages. For example, the Bank of Scotland's financial dealings with Pat Robertson are listed on their Wikipedia page. Any chunk of information can belong to one or many categories - I happen to think that the Souter story belongs to both a 'Donations' section but also a 'Controversy' section. Otherwise, presumably, the SNP could take money from anyone and have it hidden from Wikipedia users. What if they accepted money from outspoken racists, arms dealers etc, should that not be mentioned? Political parties exist partly to promote a set of ethics - we are expected to vote based on them - and so I feel it is important for people to know that they practice what they preach.

I would very much like the Labour donations to be listed on their page - a party far more corrupt than the SNP I am sure.

In the meantime, I will not put back the Controversy section until others come forward with an opinion.

Templetongore 11:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Should it be noted that the SNP is the only major party without the backing of a national or city newspaper? I believe a year or two ago they published their own newspaper with no success.--Sandbagger 23:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I think it should be noted. Anything, good or bad, that is newsworthy should be in the article, which is why the Souter stuff should be in there too. Templetongore 08:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sbowers3 14:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So a widely reported news item about a U-turn on one of the SNP's major policies is not relevant? The fact that the U-turn came just after a donation from someone who would benefit from that U-turn? I guess only the positive stuff is relevant. The fact that they were willing to take money from an openly bigoted man is a reflection of the moral standard of the party, and this should not be hidden from readers. Are you going to exclude everything that makes the party look bad? Templetongore 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

New compromise

Hello, I came here from WP:EAR. As discussed there, I looked at a section of a UK party article and saw that the section describes a controversial donation scandal. Although I agree there isn't a huge scandal here, I suggest at least trying to fairly represent the nature of the Souter donations. Can we possibly change "High profile donators to the party include founder of Stagecoach Brian Souter." to "A high profile and controversial donor to the party includes founder of Stagecoach Group Brian Souter." Thank you for hearing me out. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the editors of this page do not want anything negative showing up, so I doubt you will ever get them to agree to this. Only positive spin allowed here. Personally I think taking money from an outspoken homophobic business man and going back on a promise to re-regulate the buses is a disgrace. And both events could well be connected. Shameful. Templetongore 09:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand you believe this to be "disgraceful" and "shameful". I'm glad you agree with me, however, your opinions on the SNP are irrelevant. If nobody finds a problem with my "new compromise" I'm going to add it to the article tomorrow. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For the controversial, we can put a reference to the BBC news article that supports that? - Francis Tyers · 07:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So the bus re-regulation U-turn goes unmentioned? On the Labour page, the cash for honours scandal is covered. I know the SNP equivalent wasn't so widely reported, but it was reported. Templetongore 09:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism"

"The SNP also got Scotland's first Asian MSP, Karachi-born Bashir Ahmad elected."

I'd like someone to tell me how exactly that ties into accusations of Anglophobia. Until someone does, I'll remove it. Jamieli (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Position in political spectrum

It states in the intro. that the SNP is "left of centre". Prior to May 2007, such an assertion was somewhat hard either to prove or disprove. However, having seen what has happened since then, it is now apparent that any claim by the SNP to be in any measure on the "left" of the political spectrum is somewhat laughable. In Scotland, the two largest parties at present are Labour and Nationalist. The same is true in Wales. In Wales, however, the two parties agreed to co-operate (Labour and Plaid Cymru). In Scotland, whenever I have mentioned such a possibility to members of either party it has been met with derision. This would tend to indicate that there is a substantial gulf between the left-of-ventre Labour Party and the SNP. Also, it would appear that policies such as making local councils cut social spending in order to enable tax breaks that benefit the more well-heeled in our society are not exactly thought of as in any way "left wing". So, at the minimum, I would request that the description of the SNP as being "left of centre" be removed from Wikipedia.Aneirin Gododdin (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just because two parties disagree does not mean that one is left and one is right. After the 2007 election the SNP stated they where open to coalition talks with parties across the spectrum. However, as the resulting swing clearly shows people no longer wanted the Labour party in government, the prospect of a SNP-Labour coalition forming never really existed. Though Labour had a bad result in Wales, it was nothing compared to the defeat in Scotland. I therefore disagree with you that the SNP are not a left of center party, in fact I would argue if anything that Labour are rather lacking in their left-credentials these days. --Delta-NC (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The interesting thing about the SNP is that it can accommodate a wider range of ideas than a traditional party. This gives it the advantage that in rural areas where it traditionally has garned support, it can have poicies which suit. It doesn't need to stick to specific dogma, although must accept some policies which could be regarded as left or right in order to have its own unique identity. Interestingly if Scotland did become independent, would the party dissolve as it had achieved its main aim? Could this gives rise to the paradox that if you want rid of the SNP, vote for them? {colinmack} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.68.229 (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

scotland no pope

the billy connelly part seems to me to be the only part of this article that realy reflects what I here from western scottish people (the veiw on the ground as it were) I here alot of "snp stood for scotland no pope in the 70s" and things like that now the billy connely statment is not like that but it reflects the veiw I get from working class people more than any other part of the article and I was wondering if anyone has more information on how this party was realy seen back in the day infact it feels like this article is pretty lame considering this is the party currently in powere in scotland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.226.0 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 25 September 2009

Ill look up the reference next time Im in James Thins but I was reading recently how in the 18th century, Catholics in Aberdeenshire were amongst the most andi unionist elements in Scotand. Unionists such as Donald Findlay have been accused of sectarian bigotry and the Protestants that march in Northern Ireland annually from the West Coast of Scotland are presumably 100% anti independance for Scotland. Seamusalba (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does "snp stood for scotland no pope in the 70s" mean? I was a working man in the 70's and have no idea what you mean. Jack forbes (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

lol his post sounds like complete nonsnse. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank God. For a moment there I thought it was just me! Jack forbes (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the alleged phrase was actually "Soon No Pope" although from what I understand (and a quick Google supports) it was a term mainly used by Labour. I forget where I read it but there's some stuff out there about how the SNP used to poll significantly better in Protestant districts than in Catholic districts in areas where religion was still a factor in voting behaviour (one of the factors in recent years has been the party's improved performance amongst Catholic voters). However this phenomenon in Scottish voting long predates the SNP as a major force in Scottish politics and it may just be that Labour held onto the Catholic vote rather better than the Conservatives held onto the Protestant vote, thus giving the SNP more scope for advancement in the latter. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My grandfather went to SNP meetings in the 1980's but stopped going after one time in which they were distributing pens that said 'No pope in this town'. That may be what you are referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhite148 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bold text''Italic text

Electoral performance

The numbers for recent general elections appear to be nonsense, e.g. 17% in 2005, and do not match the numbers on the pages for the elections. Or am I misunderstanding something? KarlFrei (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That figure is sadly accurate for the votes when only taking into account Scotland. Heres a good source for it [3]BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Why sadly? Jack forbes (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is 17.7% more than they should have got! ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but it's far less than they have now. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The BBC says the SNP have 2 councils. So they're not the biggest group in Scottish local government, as claimed by the SNP supporters who control the page. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17920848 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.249.5 (talk)

SNP

are they like the BNP or Neo Nazis? I always though when someone said "national party" it usually related to those "movements". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.184.5 (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No the SNP are civic nationalists whereas the BNP are ethnic nationalist--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

They are separatists but not right wing extremists like the BNP. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unionism is no more or less a form of nationalism than Scottish nationalism, as it argues for an idea of nationhood based on a post 1707 interpretation of Britishness. The only difference is that it is the current orthodoxy. The SNP steers clear of ethnic arguments for separation just as the mainstream unionist parties steer clear of ethnic notions of britishness (otherwise theyd have to promote the use of Welsh in britain as the ethnic language seeing as thats where the ethnic idea was borrowd from : D) Seamusalba (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

User 97.91.184.5 is correct. The SNP most notably Alex Salmond constantly make racist anti-English remarks. Their (the SNP) whole pitch is sectarian based, they admit that, and it obviously couldn't be other than that. They want to separate from their fellow countrymen based only on a percieved ethnic basis. Barryob is completely wrong, the SNP are more racist than the BNP and I don't recognise this term 'civic nationalist'. BritishWatcher is also wrong. I see no reason for saying they can't be called right wing extremists. Seamusalba is also wrong. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is wrong but you, ok...--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be grateful if people would note that this smacks of personal abuse. Let barrybob respond to my points not just try to treat me like a 'second class citizen' here. If other people can post a view on the wikipedia let him explain why he says *I* can't post a view.Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok where to being, sectarianism and racism are two seperate things one is based is a religious conflict the other on race neither apply to the SNP who appeal to many faiths and ethnic backrounds.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The SNP's nationalism is left-wing nationalism, not right wing, a trait which it shares with other Celtic Nationalist parties such as Plaid Cymru and Sinn Féin", I'm not sure why the SNP is compared with Sinn Féin and not the SDLP. In fact the SNP resembles the SDLP quite a lot, and SF very little.Crc (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

They are not like the BNP: NO

Why are Billy Connolly's viewed as relevant? he has no discernable expertise or relevance to an SNP article

Should Billy Connolly be cited as a source of criticism over UK policy in Iraq or transport policy decisions in the West Midlands ie in what possible way is his opinion any more relevant than that of any critic of the SNP who also lacks expertise on the subject? His quote should be removed as irrelevant (otherwise any blogg online should be given equal weight as a serious analysis of the SNP and their attitudes to English people). Seamusalba (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he's being cited as a source; rather, his criticism is being related in a source because he is notable. But I share your suspicions about the inclusion of this material. I don't care for "Criticism" sections is encyclopedia articles in general, but I can tolerate them in certain contexts. For instance, in this example, if an academic report came out showing that, say, the SNP's campaigns increased anglophobia, and this was widely publicised in mainstream media, yes, it's tolerably valid to put in an article. But I can't see a place for cheap partisan attacks by a known opponent of the movement, where it is impossible to verify the basis of the attacks on any good evidence. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats my main point. just because Billy Connoly is famous and Scottish, doesnt make him an expert, and he has his own prejudices about the SNP from reading the BBC News article cited. (he seems to see Scottish government as inherently leading to a loss of interest in internationalism and oppenness) But even if there could be shown to be a rise in anti English sentiment under the present SNP minority government, how is it possible to demonstrate whether its down to having an SNP government, or by say, frustration at the reaction to it from the other parties? its a matter of interpretation unless concrete examples of anti English speeches or sentiment can be cited from the party. Otherwise Sean Connery could be quoted as a criticism of Connoly's criticism (if i can find a twitter by him about Billy Connoly and the Parliament!). Seamusalba (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the SNP REALLY a "a centre-left nationalist political party committed to Scottish Independence"?

Alex Salmond, the elected leader of the SNP and Queen Elizabeth's First Minister of her Scottish government, on 25th February 2010, presented a document, which is available on-line linked to here - Scotland’s Future: Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation and which included this quote.

1.19. Her Majesty The Queen would remain as Head of State. The current parliamentary and political Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would become a monarchical and social Union – united kingdoms rather than a United Kingdom – maintaining a relationship forged in 1603 by the Union of the Crowns.

It seems to me this leadership of Mr Salmond raises a question and discussion point about the appropriate description of the "Scottish National Party" - and that "a centre-left nationalist political party committed to Scottish Independence" is, shall we say, generous.

The thing is monarchy is a right-wing idea. So a party with a pro-monarchist policy platform, it seems to me, needs to have its self-descriptions, where it describes itself as something other than a right-wing monarchist party taken with a pinch of salt, or something.

It seems to me there are two approaches to analysing this question.

Approach 1.

Assume that the self-description of the party, what the party says about itself in its party name, in its party constitution

- in the case of the SNP, (a) that the party is a Scottish Nationalist party (b) that it is left of centre, left-leaning and so on,

- in the case of the British Labour Party (a) that the party represents the interest of Labour, trade unions and the workers (b) it is a democratic socialist party

are fair; assume that those self-descriptions are true and correct.

In which case when the party leaders or documents lead in a pro-monarchist direction absolutely contradicting the core true values of the party, as they do, then those leaders do not speak for their parties, their leadership is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ILLEGITIMATE as far as the party is concerned.

Approach 2.

Assume that when the party leaders and documents lead in a pro-monarchist direction that this direction is the true core value of the party. The party is in fact whatever the leader says it is.

In which case the party name, the party constitution and so on are meaningless. The SNP or Labour stand for whatever the leaders SAYS it stands for - and if the leader supports the right-wing idea of monarchy then the party is a right-wing monarchist party.

However mostly I don't think people DO analyse such contradictions in party leaders and party declared "principles". They just watch the story on TV then they watch the next story on TV. It all kind of washes over people.

Not only is monarchy right-wing it is also against national independence - since an independent nation elects its own head of state and is not TOLD who its head of state is.

Also in opposing the true independence of the Scottish nation, by going along with the subjugation and enslavement of the Scots to the imposed head of state, Queen Elizabeth, and that being very much against the interests of the nation, the SNP royalist leaders certainly and possibly also the party (depending on which of the two above analysis approaches one takes) ARE NOT THEREFORE "NATIONALISTS" BUT TRAITORS AGAINST THE NATION!

So what is the appropriate approach for Wikipedia I wonder? I just can't help getting the strong feeling that merely parroting the SNP's self-description is inadequate for wikipedia.

Peter Dow (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I was immediately concerned when I read this stuff about the SNP being "Centre-Left". Who decided this? What kind of left? The old one like Bevan or the modern one like Blair? The SNP is clearly authoritarian, and anti-democratic - look at the releasing of the Lockerbie bomber for example.

I was also concerned about the list on the right of the article page: "Ideology - Scottish independence, Scottish nationalism, Civic nationalism, Social democracy"

Why are they listed as both "Scottish nationalist" and "Civic nationalist". What is this special term granted to them but not to oter racist organisations? And who says they're "social democrats"? I certainly don't. They are obviously fascist and against democracy - see the carve-up of 'vote allocation' they support for example. Taking people's votes and deciding who will get them. Totally undemocratic. Also foreigners living in Scotland could vote on Scotland's future in the various votes that have been held but the English people could not. No democracy there. Instead of "Political position Centre-Left" I would put "political position: extremist racist and authoritarian undemocratic". Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

They are facist for letting a man dying of cancer out of jail major LOL --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Again I would like to draw people's attention to the way barrybob appears to have selected me for personal abuse. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You're claiming the SNP are fascist because of Megrahi's release? Yes, because releasing a man with terminal cancer is just laced with Fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.104.204 (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Scottish officials should have double-checked to see if Abdelbaset al-Megrahi actually did have terminal cancer, since he's still alive (and seemingly well) now. 98.209.116.7 (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

So he outlived a prediction, huzzah. That doesn't change the fact that it has nothing to do with Fascism. The whole point is, and look through the talk page, Penny's arguments in particular just consist of "The SNP are racist" - yet provide no actual proof to back the argument up - only oppinion. And obviously biased at that.

"English" SNP MSP's in "Accusations of Anglophobia"

With exception of Ian McKee, there is no support for the fact that any of the other MSPs mentioned consider themselves as "English". EU states including the UK, base their nationality laws on the principle of Jus Sanguinis (by right of blood), e.g. nationality is only automatic, if one of your parents has that nationality - in the UK that is the British Nationality Act 1981, where citizenship is issued if either parent is a British Citizen, or if the child is born on UK territory and one of the parents is entitled to become a UK citizen. The same should be applied to the constituent nations of the UK. Lest it would be possible to cite persons as being "Scottish" BUT NOT "British". Considering the lack of any legal possibility of this, this is a major mistake in the article.

The correct term (as someone who was born in England, lives in Scotland, and has a Scottish father, English mother and is a member of the Scottish National Party) is 'Anglo-Scottish' at a push.

Based on this assumption of 'birth as a ground for nationality' by the author, Scottish sportsmen, including historical figures such as the runner Eric Liddell, and more modern ones such as John Barclay and Graeme Morrisson (Scotland national rugby team players) would be Chinese. This is incorrect.

Article has been amended accordingly.

Recent edits by Penny

The additions by User:Pennypennypennypenny are not worthy of inclusion in the article they are nothing more than the sandard labour soundbites that you get every day in the Daily Records and no not conform to WP:NPOV--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Its normal inter party banter, I've reverted it --Snowded ^TALK 18:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This: "The party has been criticised over a £500,000 donation from the transport businessman Brian Souter. One month later, in April 2007, the SNP's commitment (made at the party's 2006 conference) to re-regulate the bus network was not included in their 2007 manifesto, although the SNP denies any direct link.[18] Opposition politicians suggested that the donation and policy shift were linked and that it was a case of "cash for policies", although no official accusations have been made.[19]" will have to be removed from "Accusations of 'cash for policies'" as the links show the accusations are not allowed by the wikipedia authorities above. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Re my post above: As I say, the stuff refrred to above links only to Labour etc. M.P.'s accusations and complaints - will an admin please either remove the thing above I point out in the article - or re-instate my own contributions to the article. There cannot be one rule for one user and another for snowded and his friend. Thanks. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

This: "Scots: Scottis Naitional Pairtie)" should surely be removed. It's just an attempt at a Scottish accent not a language. Also "is a social democratic" concerns me. Who says so? - that they're socialists and democratic? I don't think they are. Suppporting the Lockerbie bombing against the people is not socialist for one thing. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Penny, you should really read up on what you are posting. The "Lockerbie Bomber"'s representatives approached the Scottish government with a view to appeal for early release on compassionate grounds as there was apparently evidence to support the possibility of him dying within three months. As such, Kenny McAskill HAD to consider this, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE presented. The CORRECT decision was made on the basis of this. BTW, FYI, I personally think he should have been left to rot in Greenock Prison, BUT unfortunately, I also agree that the correct decision was made based on the evidence presented. If the request had been denied, based on evidence presented, it is possible that the Scottish government may have actually left themselves open to legal action. The fact that he is still alive after three months in neither here nor there, as precise predictions of longevity given some cancers are still difficult, even for the experts. An ex of mine, who, years ago was treated for Hodgkin's Lymphoma decided to discontinue treatment against medical advice, and was booked in for a checkup after a few months, although was told that she was not expected to be able to attend. (Being dead and all). This was over twenty years ago...82.6.1.85 (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Scots is a language recognised by the Scottish Government, UK government and the EU (see ECRML). Although I disagree with the spelling, "Scottis Naitional Pairtie" is the name that the party uses when writing in Scots and so if we have the Gaelic name we should have the Scots name. Scroggie (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a Scottish government, and the U.K. 'Government' 'recognise' anything that's daft and harms society. The E.U. is irrelevant to the legitimacy of anything - especially in relation to the U.K. Putting this stuff in the 'Scots dialect' is just embarrassing for an encyclopedia. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there might be bias in this: "At the 2009 European Parliament election the party topped the poll for the first time in a European Parliament election since 1979, with almost 100,000 more votes than the Scottish Labour Party." - Topped what poll? European Parliament elections are held in the whole country - they're not local elections. The racist segregation of the SNP and Scottish Labour party don't come into it on this occaision.

And in this: "The party holds 2 of 6 Scottish seats in the European Parliament, narrowly failing to win a Third seat by less than 1%." The U.K. is in the E.U., Scotland has no membership of the E.U. That's one of the things Salmond is crazily campaigning for. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement for Scotland to be independent to talk about Scottish Seats, if you check the BBC and other agencies you will see its common. The accusation of racism that you make has no support that I know of in any third party reference, its your own unsupported polemic.--Snowded ^TALK 22:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Talking about Scottish seats is not anymore racist than talking about French seats. Race is not an issue with regards to the SNP (unless you can find WP:IRS source that says otherwise). There is the Young Asian Scots for Independence which is associated with the SNP. There is certainly a Scottish Government in the same way that your council is refered to as Local Government (See wikt:Government for more info). If the Scottish National Party has an official name in the Scots language then it should be listed, or all non-English names should be removed from all articles. Mutual-intellegability should not be a factor (else we should remove Parlement français). It is not Wikipedia's place to decide which officially (whether you approve of the "Governments" or not) recognised languages we should use. Scroggie (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI

This article has been mentioned at AN/I. Editors of this page may wish to comment. Daicaregos (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I can't find it on the page you link to. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Centre-left?

Actually in my opinion i would call them socialist :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.109.154 (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it really correct to call the SNP a "centre-left" party, considering they are supported by right-wing multi-millionaire businessmen and by the right-wing press? (92.7.15.233 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

It would be helpful if you named the businessmenn and press establishments you are referring to. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 01:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There's the Scottish Sun for a start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.22.133 (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source to link the SNP to the Sun? JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 13:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure.

http://politics.caledonianmercury.com/2011/04/19/big-boost-to-snp-as-the-sun-backs-salmond-as-first-minister/

Salmond had the support of all the right-wing newspapers in Scotland. There is no way the SNP can be accurately described as a "centre-left" party in 2011. (92.7.20.48 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC))

I think you'll find none of the main newspapers backed Salmond until the end of the election -ask any Scot which papers supported him during the four-year term. The papers kept printing flaky polls based on 1000 sample sizes and only when the final polls backed the SNP did they grudgingly come round and "admit" they backed him, stsrting with the Sun. You'd have to look for online news sites like Newsnet Scotland to find any news items supporting him before that. Zagubov (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

With that source, you could definitely go ahead and say that the Sun supported Alex Salmond. I wouldn't say that's enough evidence to support saying they're not a centre-left party. If you wish to add in that he had the Sun's backing (albeit after a while of watching the polls), then that's fine. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 12:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What certainly needs to be mentioned in the article is the fact that many people have publicly questioned whether the SNP are really a left-wing party any more. This is bound to increase massively now they have a majority. (92.7.29.234 (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC))

The right-wing businessman supporting the SNP is Sir Brian Souter. (92.10.141.189 (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC))

Most editors commenting on this refer to supporters of the SNP including right wing voters. That may be so, it is also irrelevant. The question is what is the political alignment of the SNP. That clearly is well to the left of the Labour Party. The Labour Party's left is essentially Marxist - the right is liberal and centrist. So that makes the SNP very much a left wing party. Do not forget that the immediate past leader, Alex Salmond, is described in Wikipedia as a committed socialist republican. That doesn't sound like centre-left to me.101.98.161.149 (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocking the Conservatives' policy of uncapping tuition rates for universities is left-wing. Opposing austerity policies is left-wing. Supporting union-rights for homosexuals and opposing the continued housing of nuclear weapons in Scotland are largely independent of the left-right continuum, but would likely fall on the left if they were charted probabilistically. Members of the SNP may display anti-English sentiments, but such sentiments are not the policy of the party. The SNP is a leftist party. 71.161.206.161 (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It should be called center-left to left-wing. The fact that right-wing newspapers support the SNP doesn't have to do always with the identity and the ideology of the party. Many left-wing parties in the south of Europe are supported by right-wing conservatives. This means very little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.19.218 (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Number of MSPs listed in infobox as 68

In the infobox the number of members in the Scottish parliament has been changed from 69 to 68. Now as far as I'm aware and on this BBC page the number of members is 69. I'm pretty sure the election of one of these MSPs as presiding officer does not stop them from being an MSP... just wondering before I edit. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 23:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, I've changed it to 69. According to the BBC website the breakdown is as follows for the schootish parliament: SNP 69, Labour 37, Conservative 15, Lib Dem 5, Green 2, Other 1. If anyone has a source for otherwise please let us know, but as far as I can tell it's 69 MSPs. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 13:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm now starting to backtrack myself, as while a presiding officer doesn't renounce being an MSP they do renounce their party. Whoops, sorry guys! JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 13:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Landslide victory"

The first paragraph describes the 2011 election as a "landslide victory". However the SNP got 45% of the constituency votes, 44% of the list votes and 53% of the seats.The term "landslide" seems to be going a bit far. Would "outright victory" be better ? Idealfarmer (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, landslide is not appropriate here, since that word is defined as "An overwhelming majority of votes for one party in an election". I wouldn't say this constitutes a "landslide". But it is significant and I think outright victory would be appropriate. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 12:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony Blair's 1997 victory is commonly described as a "landslide". Remind me, what % of the vote did his party get that year? Same with Thatcher's "landslides" - none of which had majority support from the electorate.

We rely on reliable ext refs, per official Wikipedia policy. The term "landslide" was commonly applied to the SNP victory in such ext refs. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Thatcher / Blair victories were described as landslides because, in terms of seats, they delivered significant three figure majorities in the Commons. The SNP majority at Holyrood is three ( or is it four?). There may be quotes to back up the use of the term, but I just think it gives the wrong impression in an introduction, and is ever so slightly pro SNP propaganda. Idealfarmer (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"SNP propaganda"?!? Puhrleeese. The Unionist newspapers describing it as an SNP "landslide" are not in the habit of publishing SNP propaganda. Quite the opposite in fact.

And as for Westminster majorities, that is under a first past the post voting system. Such a system would have produced an immense parliamentary majority on that share of the vote for the SNP too. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not in any way suggesting that commentators in the press were spreading SNP propaganda by using the term on May 6th - they were probably just in shock and writing in haste. However the term is clealy "value laden" and its use in Wikipedia, months later, with time for sober reflection, looks like party propaganda. I am in no way denying the significance of getting any majority under the top up voting system but do you really regard a 45% share of the vote on a 70-something % turnout and a four seat majority in the 129 member chamber as a "landslide"? Under the voting system, 45% of the vote could have delivered 64 seats and no overall majority - would that still have been a landslide ? Is a one seat majority a landslide ? If not, why is four ?Idealfarmer (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Just been and looked it up - turnout was 50 % ! Which means just over one person in five actually voted SNP. Idealfarmer (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The term "landslide" isn't used sufficiently consistently to provide a full definition but List of landslide victories uses "by an overwhelming margin". The term is most commonly used when it coincides with a change of government and a large turnover of seats but after that it's not unusual to use it for when a government goes in with a restricted position in parliament and comes out with a significantly stronger unrestricted one - Labour's re-election in the UK 1966 election often has "landslide" used in descriptions. Turnout is utterly irrelevant to all of this and whatever the voting system the aim is get as many seats as possible and a party which achieves this spectacularly gets a landslide. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I am still not convinced. Other people are equating "landslide" with words like "overwhelming", "immense" and "spectacularly". I just don't see 45% of the vote on a 50% turnout and a four seat majority as overwhelming, immense or spectacular. The result itself may have been a shock or historic but that has more to do with things like the campaign starting with Labour well ahead in the opinion polls, or - arguably - the whole devolution set up being a Labour plot to keep the SNP permanently out of power. I have made very few actual edits to Wikipedia so I am going to Be Bold, and change Landslide victory to outright victory. Idealfarmer (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

7nd October edit

Tell me why was a portion of detailed , sourced information removed?

It has also been confirmed that supporters of the SNP/Scottish supremacists have been physically violent towards English tourists and chanting Anglophobic insults [4] [5] and in 2011 , shortly before the SNP's rise to office in Scotland; an English woman was forced by yobs to leave her dream retirement home, vandalising the house and shouting Anglophobic abuse at her. [6]]

Another controversial move by the SNP is that with the release of the film Braveheart in 1997 and the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, it has brought a wave of Scottish nationalism and extremism; it has been reported that members of the Scottish National Party have been seen promoting their party outside where it was originally shown/filmed. They have even been confirmed reports of Scottish extremists burning the union flag in reaction to the film.[7] [8]

While the former part may be a bit iffy , the latter paragraph should be put on the page; It even says on the SNP's website about the whole braveheart affair. User:Goldblooded ^{[[User_talk:Goldblooded|(Return Fire)]} 21:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

None of the sources state any SNP involvement or even approval - it needs more than innuendo to establish relevance. There simply isn't anything in the sources strong enough to back up the claims in the deleted text. If there is. please show us what it is.Zagubov (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - you are leaping to the conclusion that anti-English sentiment is equivalent to SNP support. That is a serious claim and requires credible references. To provide an example of an issue where the absurdity might be more obvious to you, there are those that equate support of the Conservative party with being anti-Scottish, but any such leaps of faith/prejudices would require similarly robust sources to back them up. Ben MacDui 08:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well accusing me of something i support or havent done could be classed as a personal attack, but as always, im going to assume faith and assume you didnt mean it that way. The SNP have been reknown for being anglophobic; just look at some of their comments on the website and the facebook page , along with many other news articles which back up my evidence. Not just the ones ive shown. Besides you probably support them, hence your bias- so insulting me and saying i support the torys is ridiculous. User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 14:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to accuse you of anything and wasn't aware I had. The claim that this party, with prominent English members, condones anti-English sentiment is a dramatic claim requring dramatic evidence. that needs to be more substantial than someone anonymous posting something on a website or facebook page. I've no axe to grind here, I neither support the SNP nor vote for them.Zagubov (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Flawed article

This article should state clearly some of the SNP's positions on social issues, such as the party's views on LGBT issues, immigration and so on LothianLiz (talk) 09:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

More Is Required

Daniel Pickford-Gordon here. Use encyclopedias etcetera. It has a number of MPs, and demands more devolution type things, so it needs to be discussed. More on the rate of increase in popularity, and whether popularity has decreased lately. How influential is Alex Salmond himself? How popular would it be if he wasn't in it? I have an amount of information, on the Topix United Kingdom Forum, i've made a number of posts: List Of Posts http://www.topix.net/forum/world/united-kingdom/T367RKHF7P0991G1C 62.249.253.7 (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon

A number of individuals in the relevant part of the United Kingdom find this group very popular, which is an issue etcetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.253.137 (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Majority not intended to be impossible

Though some (George Robertson perhaps) may have believed that the aim of the d'Hondt system was to prevent the SNP gain an overall majority, that has not actually worked, nor can it possibly do so without having the same restraint on every other party including Labour.

Donald Dewar's plan was essentially complete by about 1956 when he presented it to the Glasgow Academy Literary and Debating Society. At that time SNP had very little councilor representation, probably less than SGP today. DD was far sighted, I'd admit, but not THAT far. In fact he wanted more small parties represented.

The d'Hondt aim is that the majority of MSPs (however formed) who vote legislation into law had been supported by a majority of electors. I don't know if it has ever been calculated in practice.

John B Dick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.108.142 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The General Election

Scottish voters, please don't forget The Wallace and please don't forget The Bruce. 02 April 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.119.102 (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html 19 April 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.113.206 (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note to Editors re Depute/Deputy

"Depute" is not a spelling error (see, e.g., here on the party's official website). I appreciate that the word isn't in common use outside Scotland and if one is not familiar with it one's instinct may be to assume it is a mis-spelling of "deputy", but this is not the case. Thanks. GideonF (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Question re phrase in the lead

Does anyone know what "115,000 members, 56 MPs, 64in total 2% of the Scottish gross population" is supposed to say? Britmax (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Official colour change

The SNP appear to be using the colour #fef48b, a lighter shade of yellow, as their official colour, as shown on their website and in other places. Should we change the template colour to show this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackWilfred (talk • contribs) 00:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverting high-speed rail policy

I added a paragraph on the SNP's high-speed rail policy but it was reverted by Jmorrison230582 with the reasoning that it was given undue weight. Could you explain why you think this? There seems to be a distinct lack of SNP policy in this article so I was trying to add to it. There is currently not even enough content for a separate "Policies of the SNP" section. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edit was giving undue weight to one aspect of transport policy, using a less than reliable source (the tabloid Daily Record newspaper). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, I will reduce the size of the paragraph and use a BBC source instead. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think you understand. The problem is that it is an excessive amount of detail about one transport issue for a section that is discussing the party's ideological history and current position. If you look at the articles about other political parties (e.g. UK Labour) there isn't a similar level of detail about specific transport proposals. This information belongs in an article about high speed rail (i.e. High Speed 2). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Depute or Deputy

Should there be concensus on the title of the number two in the SNP hierarchy? Nicola Sturgeon is variously referred to as depute leader and deputy leader; previous post holders are listed as deputy leaders. Keomike (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

In Scotland, it's spelled Depute Leader, not Deputy Leader as in England, and this is also the spelling that ther SNP itself uses, see e.g. [9], [10]. As it's an office in their party, their official spelling should be used here. On the other hand, in the Westminster group of the SNP, the office is spelled "Deputy Leader" as it's in England, see [11]. Stephan Matthiesen (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Should we make the number of seats in the House of Commons 0?

Shouldn't the number of seats in the House of Commons be 0 because Parliament is currently dissolved for an election?Ezhao02 (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Gordon Wilson vs. Socialist republican and Gaelic nationalist wings

I am surprised that it is not mentioned in the article in the summary of the history section, that during Gordon Wilson (Scottish politician)'s leadership two of the most significant groups were purged from the SNP; the purging of the socialist republican-wing (79 Group) and the demonisation/ghettoisation of the Gaelic nationalist-wing (Siol nan Gaidheal/1320 Club). What was Wilson's agenda in moving against these groups which are less boring the rest of the SNP's platform? This needs to be explored here. Wilson also played a role in the ascent of Margaret Thatcher to power in 1979, which probably should be mentioned too. Claíomh Solais (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

House of Lords representation

The SNP do not put forward candidates for seats in the Hol, it is therefore redundant to include it in the infobox, it makes as much sense to list their representation in the Welsh or NI Assemblies. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 15:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that their position should be indicated here as is is a deliberate policy and not as a result of them simply not being entitled to representation. In this case nil is a position. Britmax (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The SNP has held a longstanding opposition to the House of Lords as an unelected chamber. I have updated the description in the lead. As the sources indicate, it does not take up any seats in the House of Lords on principle. I agree with Barryob that there are difficulties with putting an empty box in the Infobox, because it doesn't adequately reflect this. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The box is not empty. Nil is a position, so the box does not now indicate the true situation. Britmax (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The SNP also have nil representation in the Northern Ireland Assembly but we don’t place that in the infobox as the SNP do not put forward candidates for it, it’s the exact same situation with the lords, plus this is now clearly explained in the article Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is similar to Sinn Féin and NI's seats in the Commons; it is in protest that they will not put forward candidates to a body the SNP opposes. It should stay as it is important to their political agenda. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Ministers and spokespeople > European Parliament

I have removed this section as I can't find evidence of the current SNP MEPs having formally defined portfolios. In any case the section was out of date. Liam McM 11:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

The SNP is not a centrist party

It is a firmly centre-left party. Just because some opinion-based articles state they believe the SNP's record in government to be more centrist in practice does not mean that as a whole the party should be labelled as such. I've seen articles label the Conservatives as "far-right", in reputable sources such as The Guardian. Does this mean we should change the political position on the Conservative article to far-right? Of course not. It's hyperbole or opinion. Ecpiandy (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The Financial Times article is not an opinion piece. As for The Times article it is not clear. The party is clearly big tent, so to say that a large faction (large enough to which the party is labelled this way) is centrist is not unreasonable. I would like to hear others views on The Times piece. Its heading is not in italics and the author it not mentioned directly after the title, nor is there anything saying it is an opinion or comment piece. However, if it is an opinion piece I agree it should be removed. I can see your view on the other article that perhaps it too is not suitable due to possible violation of WP:SYNTH. However, if the sources are not suitable to be referenced then I say we remove the centrism tag entirely. A source not meeting SYNTH guidelines does not qualify it to be used as a statement of a centrist faction within the party either. I can see your points so I will remove them and place the citations here for others to view and comment on. Here they are:

1. Massie, Alex (25 June 2017). "So what, exactly, is the point of the SNP?". The Times. Retrieved 14 August 2019.

2. McDermott, John (1 May 2015). "The SNP's record in power: less radical than you might think". Financial Times. Retrieved 27 August 2019.

Helper201 (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I'm open to discussion on this. I was attempting to emphasize a point but was unsure if my choice of words would be clear so I'm happy that it is of understanding. As for the Financial Times article, you may well be right. My point was that it may be opinion-based at least slightly to an extent in the same way that other parties such as the Conservatives could be labeled as 'far-right', in that many articles offer different labels and that the general label (ideology) is the one that should be used. I need to brush up on my Wikipedia guides as it's been a while since I've looked into them properly, but your mentioning of WP:SYNTH is probably the area I was looking for in terms of describing my point. Thanks. Ecpiandy (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for coming here to discuss this and not lamenting me for reverting you. I was just trying to do what seems best for the page. I think we both could have benefited by taking this to the talk page earlier, so thank you for initiating it. I think you are likely right that The Times article being an opinion piece because after looking through their site standard articles seem to be set out like this - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/boris-johnson-in-retreat-over-delay-to-brexit-h8xbc5cf2 whereas the article in question has the author top and centre. It would be useful if they made it clearer what is and is not an opinion piece. I agree that the Conservative Party being labelled as far-right is ridiculous. However, where this is said on sites like The Guardian it is virtually always, if not always, an opinion article or not directly stated that the party is far-right but that its "like" the far-right, or mimicking it, or is far-right like in a policy area, sort of skirting around directly calling the party itself something so extreme, as very few people would agree with this regardless of how much they may dislike the party.

As for the Financial Times piece, we can't subject it to opinion criteria if it is not an opinion article and I see nothing to indicate it is one. The author of course has a view but if it is not an opinion piece this should assumably be eliminated as far as reasonably possible by guidelines set out by the publisher. However, the way it words itself by saying more centrist than radical is slightly ambiguous as to whether it is directly stating the party is centrist (or maybe I've over analyzed it and it actually is clear). But if the whole paragraph is read it is talking about the party as a whole being 'more centrist than radical' based off of the SNP's time in government from 2007–2011, not just that they ran the Scottish government in a centrist manner. I'd like to hear other editors views on the articles and any other views you have or other articles you think may be relevant. Helper201 (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

“Big tent”

I feel that describing the SNP as “centre-left to big tent” is inaccurate. The SNP are a firmly centre-left wing party and you’d be hard pressed to find any right-wingers in it. Ciar08 (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I would say the party is predominantly centre-left, but overall it is big tent. Currently the way this is displayed in the infobox isn't very clear. I have heard the party does field some more ideologically centrist and conservative candidates in some areas in order to win seats, although I cannot currently find a source that verifies this. The SNP MP Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh is a former member of the Conservative Party. The SNP is based around the united goal of Scottish independence, the party will accept people from many different ideological views that wish to work towards that aim. The main point is that the big tent claim is cited with a reliable source, so is perfectly legitimate to include it in the infobox unless it can be proven that is not longer accurate. I would advocate that we add 'Majority:' above centre-left for clarity and have 'Overall:' above Big tent. However, this does not follow standard Wikipedia formatting and I think something similar may have been tried before. Helper201 (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is another source that supports that the party is big tent - "But then the SNP is not actually a radical party, being instead a defiantly centrist party of managerialism. It is a big tent party, too, with room for almost all shades of opinion, provided you sign up to the idea of independence". I have also added a source from the BBC to the infobox that also claims the party is big tent. Helper201 (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I would disagree with the initial comment and pass it off as a personal belief of the one individual. There is a large majority of Scottish Soldiers including police officers who self classify as centre-right wing due to there Nationalist and patriotic views. I myself a life long serviceman and SNP supporter has witnessed many centre-right wing voters within the SNP, at gatherings and at YES meetings, let's remember the SNP was created partially from a centre-right/ right-wing party. The SNP is a party for both centre-left and centre-right wing Scots, but the party also contains left-wing and right-wing voters, the party is very much a big-tent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:1F17:9600:D0D0:BAB0:1D8C:5D6E (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

How many seats?

Does the SNP have 48 or 47 seats in the British House of Commons. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Independence - Member state of the European Union

Within the SNP and media, there has been great confusion on what Independence or Autonomy means or stands for.

The Scottish National Party seeks Independence, yet wishes to join the EU as a member state. Legally, the SNP would only control Scotland's internal affairs within Scotland's society and with limits such as how Scotland progresses within Europe as the EU controls all external affairs.

The first minister of Scotland stated: Scotland is an outward thinking nation that wants to join the world.

As a member of the EU, Scotland would be inward thinking (EU ONLY) and not free to face the world.

In 2003, Jean-Claude Juncker stated all EU members abide to EU law under the direction of the EU. Autonomous Nations are free states.

The fact is that no Nation can be, or is an Independent nation whilst in the EU, or any political union where the Nation is limited in action.

This page should include a (see also) to direct interested parties towards the definitions and meanings of Independence or Autonomous states.

Independent or Autonomous States are free to make laws, change laws, do what they want and are in full control of the Nations borders (migration) and the Nations finances.

Scotland in the United Kingdom or European Union is not, and would not be an Independent Nation, semi-independent or dependent territory only.

The accepted definition:

semi-autonomous Pronunciation /sɛmɪɔːˈtɒnəməs/ ADJECTIVE

1 (of a country, state, or community) having a degree of, but not complete, self-government. 2 Acting independently to some degree. 3 Partially self-governing, esp. with reference to internal affairs. Example: Catalan nationalists run the semi-autonomous government.

Could a section be added for dependent territory?

See also: dependent territory. vassal state .

2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:14A7:F25C:EEC0:DB63 (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)DD

References

Leader of the parliamentary party, House of Commons - pre 1974

Donald Stewart is listed here as becoming leader of the SNP group at Westminster in 1974. I assume this is because the 1974 general election was the first general election to produce multiple SNP MPs and therefore create an SNP group. However from the 1973 Glasgow Govan by-election the SNP had two MPs, so was there no formal leader for that short period? Dunarc (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article doesn't always seem the most neutral. "The party has championed progressive taxation..." Dylan109 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

There is a specific type of taxation called progressive tax. However, I'm unsure if this is what is being referred to in this sentence or if it is a vague claim of the way they tax somehow being progressive as it is not cited. This needs clarification and specific citing, or it should probably be removed. Helper201 (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to get rid of the editorialising and other POV wording that have pushed it away from neutral. As "progressive" wasn't in the source and could be (probably would be) read in it's less technical sense, I replaced it. EddieHugh (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Aileen campbell 2018.jpg (discussion)
• Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs, Fiona Hyslop.png (discussion)
• Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Michael Matheson.png (discussion)
• Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, Keith Brown.png (discussion)
• Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna Cunningham.png (discussion)
• Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity, Fergus Ewing.png (discussion)
• FM meets with Juncker.jpg (discussion)
• Humza Yousaf 2018.jpg (discussion)
• Jeane Freeman 2018.jpg (discussion)
• John Swinney, Cabinet Secretary for Sustainable Growth (1).jpg (discussion)
• John Swinney, Deputy First Minister.png (discussion)
• Michael Russell, Cabinet Secretary for Education & Lifelong Learning (2).jpg (discussion)
• Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science, Shirley Anne Sommerville.png (discussion)
• Nicola Sturgeon addresses journalists over Brexit.jpg (discussion)
• Nicola Sturgeon election infobox 3.jpg (discussion)
• Scottish Cabinet around the Cabinet Table, June 2007.jpg (discussion)
• Scottish Cabinet, 2018.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Fundamentalists and gradualists

This topic of fundamentalists and gradualists would fit nicely into the Party ideology section and doesn't - in my opinion - deserve its own article. Thoughts? Liam McM 16:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support according to the short length and subject overlap of fundamentalists and gradualists. Ralbegen (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
• Finally made this change. As the worthwhile content from the source article has already made its way to this one, all that was needed was making it redirect to the relevant section. Liam McM 16:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• John Swinney.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have requested semi-protection of this article due to recent persistent vandalism. Tiny beets 18:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I have opened a SPI about the two similarly named accounts that were editing last night. I suspect the current account may be related. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I have also noticed vandalism, the SNP has always been a Scottish Nationalist party dating back to its creation of the x2 former parties, yet socialist keyboard warriors keep deleting any reference towards Scottish Nationalism. The current edit changed the SNP to solely a left wing socialist party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.104.231.204 (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Does it’s history with being ‘Scottish Nationalist’ really warrant edits changing its name to the Scottish Nationalist Party? There has been a deliberate attempt to misquote the party’s name to associate it somehow with ideals other than it currently holds. Personal views aside, a party’s name is a party’s name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.90.134 (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the section labelled National Executive Committee really warranted?

Is there really a need for this section? Listing every member of a party's national executive, to the best of my knowledge, is not commonplace in any other European political party articles. The section is also completely uncited, most of the members of the executive don't have their own articles so you can't further look into them (meaning it's not very pratical), and the section is extremely long, increasing a good bit the length of the article. Surely this is a piece of fat that be cut off to trim down the rest of the article? CeltBrowne (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The long list of mostly obscure members is unnecessary in my view. A paragraph discussing how the NEC is elected, its composition and functions would be sufficient. PelicanPrize (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dr Robert McIntyre.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Nationalist?

As far as I'm aware the SNP doesn't consider itself a "nationalist" party, as they favour EU membership. They regard the UK as a nationalist state, and for that very reason they want to secede.

However I accept that this is an appropriate description if this is how they're described in WP:RS.Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

'Proto-Fascism'

The following discussion 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.

---

I have been randomly was drawn to correct an error in this page regarding 'proto-fascism'. It is has/is being used to describe Siol nan Gaidheal, founded about half a century too late to pre-date fascism. I'm afraid the editor or his/her source simply misunderstands the word or understands the word but is using it in a creative way, but either way it not ideal for a general encyclopedia audience. I'm afraid correcting this error has been made into a bit of an ordeal by Czello (talk · contribs), who is ignoring my edit summaries, blindly reverting and leaving aggressive messages on my talk that do nothing but advertise his ignorance of the guidelines he's posting about. He is maintaining his support for the 'proto'-usage because he believes it is supported by a citation to a book of Tom Devine, but I have checked this and Tom Devine does not describe Siol nan Gaidheal that way. He says they are 'traditionalist', and he says that members of the '79 Group and their allies regarded Siol's antics as tantamount to fascism', so the reference here does not as Czello believes support this inaccurate usage of the word. I have no bone to pick in this dispute & I don't really know anything about Siol nan Gaidheal, if Czello is so keen on calling them fascist I have no gripe, but they can't be proto-fascist (or indeed proto-communist). 88.104.60.179 (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for (finally) discussing this on the talk page. I haven't ignored your edit summaries -- the majority of your edit summaries came down to your own interpretation of the word and a personal belief it was inaccurate: that's WP:OR. However, as you've now brought up the source -- given that your edit war extended to Siol nan Gaidheal, did you investigate the other source that was linked there that supported proto-fascist? — Czello 21:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not really about my personal belief, it's that the usage is wrong, all you need to do is visit the piped article to discover it yourself if you care to. The reference use in this page does not support it, as I have said. Please read WP:BRD, you are going about this the wrong way, you are posting aggressively for no reason, you should be trying to think of a way of working with me & trying to improve the article not trying to bully me just because I am 'an annoying anon' or seeking to put the article of any daft or out of context citation just because it's there. I've already discovered the citation is misleading, the article is benefitting despite me being an annoying anon. Anyway, the way you are discussing this, I have personal belief and you are objective, OK let's go with that, if that is the case why not use your great objectivity to find a different word that doesn't have the problems that idiots like me might wrongly see, like proto-fascism being earlier than fascism by definition and thus much earlier than SnG? 88.104.60.179 (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD explicitly states that when you're reverted, you should discuss on the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war (Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting.) -- it was only after you were slapped with two warnings that you chose to do so, so I think it's you who needs to read WP:BRD again. And I never called you "an annoying anon", I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Ultimately I can see two citations that have the "proto fascist" label; if you want to move the Devine one to just be fascist, I don't mind that (thought that's not what you tried to do -- you attempted to remove it entirely). However there's still the matter of the second. — Czello 22:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't be 'warning' people you're engaged with editorially firstly. Secondly, you've not said why you want the term to stay, you've only suggested what you might say in its defence if you had some other reason to keep it, what's the reason for keeping it when its wrong, irrespective of whether it happens to be in a citation? Editors of Wikipedia don't have to be at the mercy of poorly phrased passages in books unless we want to be! 88.104.60.179 (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually yes, it is completely appropriate to warn someone when they’re edit warring and refusing to discuss on the talk page. I’m not sure where you got the idea that’s wrong from. Secondly I have said why it should stay — you might not agree with the citation’s interpretation, but Wikipedia is built on reliable sources. Did you investigate the second source? As I said, if that turned out not to use this phrasing either I would be fine with it just changing to “fascist”. — Czello 22:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

'it is completely appropriate to warn someone when they’re edit warring'

YOU were edit-warring, do you not get that? WP:Edit warring is not there to allow you to blind revert anyone you like & force them to pay court to you on talk page, it is not there as a substitute for constructive WP:BRD. I am allowed to operate under the assumption that I can edit freely and can use edit summaries to negotiate agreed versions without becoming a victim of aggression. You are trying to engage with me simultaneously as some policy enforcer but also as an editor committing the same alleged transgressions. I've been editing Wikipedia for nearly two decades, that's a characteristic of an immature newbie or a bully. Anyone can spam warnings on anyone's page, you should be trying to cooperatively communicate.

refusing to discuss on the talk page

No-one 'refused' to discuss on the talk page. I had a few goes trying to fix the article directly, tried a couple of times because when you edit as an anon you often get blindly reverted for no reason and sometimes it takes a second or third attempt to do the edit for it to stick. I had aggressive messages on my talk from you before I actually knew you were interested in substantially disputing the edit I was making. It was *I* who brought the matter to talk page, and I only did so because *you* refused to constructively engage otherwise. As far as I can see, the only reason this 'dispute' needs to be on a talk page at all is because of your revert warring.

Did you investigate the second source? As I said, if that turned out not to use this phrasing either I would be fine with it just changing to “fascist”

What second source? Why have I to investigate anything else now, YOU are the one trying to maintain this word, proto-fascist. So far we've established that the word is semantically inappropriate (you haven't disputed this) and that it is not used by the reference, and thus that the referencing on the point is unreliable. What is you basis for wanting to retain 'proto-fascist'.

I have said why it should stay

What have you said? You have no idea if the references are reliable, if that's why...

you might not agree with the citation’s interpretation, but Wikipedia is built on reliable sources.

You are not using the WP:RS in a judicious or appropriate way. The page is very careful to say 'Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process.' It feels like you are just doing it for the sake or arguing or something, I don't know, but I suggest you think about the issue more carefully and actually try to read the page you cited. Your references to policies and guidelines so far are all very weak and tendentious, why not start go back to WP:AGF. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@88.104.60.179: When there is a content dispute, as per WP:QUO, we revert to the status quo. So no, it was you who were edit warring as you did precisely what WP:BRD says not to do: keep restoring your preferred version rather than engage on the talk page. force them to pay court to you on talk page, it is not there as a substitute for constructive WP:BRD. -- This makes no sense. Discussing things on the talk page is a vital part of BRD. Edit summaries don't cut it when there's a clear content dispute; please read WP:BRD one more time. an anon you often get blindly reverted for no reason and sometimes it takes a second or third attempt to do the edit for it to stick. This, right here, is the issue with your editing style. Trying to continually restore your version without going to a talk page is clearly just not going to work, and borders on the disruptive. Why didn't you just go to the talk page the first time, if it wasn't sticking? It was *I* who brought the matter to talk page Yes, because you had to get two warnings for edit warring first. Again, why didn't you just come here first? That's what we do in a content dispute (an editor "for nearly two decades" should know this). Now, with that out of the way, can we get on with actually discussing the content dispute itself? I'm not going to keep repeating how WP:BRD works to you -- you should have come here after the first revision.

All of your further comments I'm going to answer at once here: in regards to the two sources, your dispute with the label was spread across two articles, both here and Siol nan Gaidheal, the latter of which had 3 sources attached to it. I'm fine with your points in relation to the first source, my question is about the second. I haven't been able to verify whether the 2nd source labels the group as proto-fascist, which is why I'm asking if you have. The 3rd directly calls them proto-fascist, but it's a descriptor from the SNP (which might not work as a hard description in this article, but it means you shouldn't have removed the has been variously described by commentators line -- you seem to be ignoring several citations in your edits). However, I think in the spirit of both compromise and preventing this from going on much further, can we agree to land on Solipsism 101's label of ultranationalist? This is also sourced, seems accurate, doesn't significantly change the meaning, and appears to be a middleground. — Czello 07:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussing things on the talk page is a vital part of BRD. Edit summaries don't cut it when there's a clear content dispute;

We're multiple posts in on the talk page, what in goodness' name are you on about.

you had to get two warnings for edit warring first.

I didn't get any warnings. You posted edit-warring templates on my talk page as you were blind reverting multiple different attempts by myself to offer an acceptable edit. You are not an uninvolved admin, you are not even an admin, you are an edit warrior that fights dirty & sees Wikipedia policies and guidelines only as personal tools of aggression.

I think in the spirit of both compromise

Thank you for finally getting the point, though I fear the only reason you're saying that now after wasting all that time is users you can't bully so easily have gotten involved. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

We're multiple posts in on the talk page, what in goodness' name are you on about. Only after you had to be slapped with two warnings for edit warring. That's my point -- why didn't you come here first, as BRD says? I didn't get any warnings. You posted edit-warring templates on my talk page That's what a warning is, dude. It shouldn't have gotten that far. You are not an uninvolved admin, you are not even an admin I never claimed to be an admin -- I'm not sure where you got that from. I fear the only reason you're saying that now after wasting all that time is users you can't bully so easily have gotten involved. This isn't bullying, stop victimising yourself. All I asked for was for you to talk things through on the this talk page; we've now discussed the sources and settled on more nuanced wording. You can be grumpy about the fact that you had to come here, but this is how Wikipedia works. Now relax yourself and carry on with your life. — Czello 13:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, gaslighting, didn't see that coming, totally out of character for you! I reiterate what I said on your talk page, think about confining yourself to vandal swatting. Editing an encyclopedia is an intellectual skill that requires editorial judgment as well as a co-operative spirit, if you keep involving yourself in stuff beyond your level you are going to keep wasting the time and effort of valuable people with those attributes, making the pedia worse for it. I give the advice honestly and hope you heed it, but I am realistic. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Question - What page in The Scottish Nation verifies the proto-fascist label? I wanted to see if I could verify it myself but I can't seem to find it in the book itself (which is not to say it's not there). - Aoidh (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• I went ahead and bought an epub version of the book, and the phrase "proto-fascist" or "proto fascist" does not appear at any point in the book. From what I can tell also, the only usage of fascist in the book appears when discussing the Italian fascio within the UK. The only mention of the Siol Nan Gaidheal occurs on page 1,233 and says only (regarding fascism) "...the ’79 Group and their allies regarded Siol’s antics as tantamount to fascism." It does not say that the group was either fascist or proto-fascist nor that it was considered such by anyone. - Aoidh (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the IP above wasn't able to find it either -- I'm fine with that. My question was about the second source on Siol nan Gaidheal (this edit war has gone across two pages). However Solipsism 101 has now added "ultranationalist", which is sourced by the BBC and seems like a reasonable compromise to end this discussion from going further than it needs to. — Czello 07:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't have had to buy that book--sorry about that. One of my edits I actually inserted the correct page reference, p. 600 (into p. 601) in the physical book, adjusting the text to match what Devine actually did say, but Czello blind reverted it, actually removing the inclusion of a page number in the process so little was his interest in any improvement! Thanks for the involvement of Solipsism and Aoidh, you seem to have solved the problem. 88.104.60.179 (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gordon Wilson (Scottish politician).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Scottish National Party

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Scottish National Party's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bbc.com":

• From 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom: "Ministers set for further Brexit talks". BBC News. 8 April 2019.
• From Nicola Sturgeon: "Scottish transgender reforms put on hold". 20 June 2019. Archived from the original on 5 February 2021. Retrieved 25 April 2021 – via www.bbc.com.
• From Reform UK: "Farage: May deceiving public over deal". BBC News. 12 May 2019.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• King Charles III in 2022.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

the right of scots living outside of scotland to vote.

I overheard a conversation the other day which regarded the fact that Scots living in America are eligible to vote but Scots living in England are not !

If so, why ?

Will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.6.192 (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's because those living in England have probably registered to vote there, and don't get a vote in Scotland (otherwise they could vote twice). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.196.233 (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not that someone living in England can't vote in Scotland yet someone living in the US can. It is that if you live in England you already have a vote in the UK. This Government page explains who can and can't vote: https://www.gov.uk/voting-when-abroad I hope this clarifies this point. HuttonIT (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Centre-left?

Can the SNP be accurately described as a 'centre-left' party given the more right-leaning social and economic views of leadership hopeful Kate Forbes?

The Independent have reported that according to one Humza Yousaf-backing MP, most of Kate Forbes' supporters are right-wingers and Tartan Tories.

Given the level of support for Kate Forbes and Ash Regan within the party, would it not be more accurate to define the party as centre ground? AlloDoon (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

This would constitute WP:OR - instead we have to use the labels that reliable sources use. — Czello 13:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the infobox using two reliable sources. AlloDoon (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

That was still WP:OR. Neither source calls them centrist. — Czello 13:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Ideology section

Hello all,

I believe the ideology section of the infobox should be trimmed down in line with other major UK party articles such as Conservative Party (UK), Labour Party (UK) and Liberal Democrats (UK) and WP:Concise policy.

The current ideology section lists:

• Scottish nationalism
• Scottish independence
• Social democracy
• Civic nationalism
• Regionalism
• Pro-Europeanism
• Big tent

I would suggest removing civic nationalism and regionalism from this list as these ideologies are both covered by Scottish nationalism and Social democracy. The sources for regionalism more relate to Scottish regionalism within a UK context rather than regionalism within Scotland.

I also believe Scottish nationalism should be removed from the ideology section as this is a pre-requisite for Scottish independence, that is the independence of Scotland as its own nation.

This would leave the infobox ideology section as:

• Scottish independence
• Social democracy
• Pro-Europeanism
• Big tent

Please let me know views on this! [[User:AlloDoon|AlloDoon] (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Great to hear from you on the talk page. The crucial difference is the removal of the term nationalism. This is impossible to do. When I say impossible, I mean it's technically possible as you have tried, but it will not be supported by other editors, as long as the article prose describes the subject as a Scottish nationalist party, which it does – in a way that appears to backed by appropriate references. The infobox is not independent from the article prose. It does not supplant it, nor can it be an individual's editorialization of "key takeaways". If you want this to be changed in the infobox you will have to do considerable "heavy lifting" to make it so that the prose of this encyclopedic article does not have prominent mentions of Scottish nationalism and civic nationalism. I think you should give up, as this will probably be a waste of time for you. Sincerely —Alalch E. 16:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Membership numbers

The current and most up to date source for this figure is the Twitter account of Peter Murrell, the party's Chief Executive. At 8.36 am on 2 October 2014 he tweeted that progress was being made with the processing of the huge influx of applications, and only 26,946 remained to be processed. At 5.00 pm the same day he tweeted that total membership was 75,759. This total clearly included the 26,946 mentioned that morning as awaiting processing - the paperwork wasn't dealt with, but they were counted. However some twitter users added 26,946 to the 75,759 figure and spent quite some time during the day on 3 October creating and tweeting lurid graphics claiming that membership was now over 100,000.

At 9.58 pm on 3rd October Peter Murrell tweeted "Lights out time at HQ, about done processing applications. Next up, we prepare membership packs. Total @theSNP members now a whopping 76,688." This should have settled the matter, obviously. I came to this page about half and hour later and edited in the new number, with a link to the new tweet. However it seems that one or more anonymous users are intent on defending their mistaken claim of 100,000 by changing the number on this page to 100,000. The link however goes to the correct source which reads 76,688.

I have no idea how to prevent this false claim being edited in again and again, but it's wrong. Morag Kerr (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Here we go again. Huffington Post published the erroneous number in an article at the weekend, so now someone is using that to justify claiming 100,000 once again on this page. It's still wrong. HP just picked up on the wrong number being tweeted, and didn't check. Morag Kerr (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

RE the intro. You know, some political parties these days are big on their voters also being members (like the Greens and the nationlist parties - both of which are selling specific agendas) while others simply don't get the numbers they used to once get almost routinely. Labour and Conservatives in particular have seen a steady overall decline over many years. I think it is WP:OR just to assume this is simply down to party popularity. Yes it probably is to some degree, but there is known to be much less interest in general in being a tradional party member today too. People seem to like to keep their votes open these days perhaps -but for whatever reasons, membership-decline in the trad non-agenda parties a recognised modern phenomenon. The intro doesn't make this distinction (it suggests parity in fact), so as it currently stands it could easily look 'biased' towards the subject to some people as a result - as intro's often do when they over-develop this kind of data to be frank..

Actually looking at it again, it develops a cute factoid on a slightly crooked premise - having more members than all the others "combined" says something about the SNP, but to some degree less then a lot of people might assume. I found that it currently reads, perhaps consequently, a bit like a brochure too. The intro that is, I'm not planning to read any more of it. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I can find no source for the figure of 85,000, often touted as belonging to December 2022. This cannot have come from the SNP because membership figures are in the party's annual review, which comes after the accounts are finalised. The accounts covering December 2022 don't end until May 2023, yet this number is being circulated in March 2023. The only reference to 85,000 I can find is a tweet boasting this level of membership by Peter Murrell in November 2014. --Herneshound (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The arrest of Peter Murrell

Added a section about the arrest of Peter Murrell former CEO of the SNP, this is a very important part of the SNP's history. --Devokewater 13:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

CEO

I noticed that another user has updated the Peter Murrell article so that his tenure as CEO starts 2001.

Ref: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12143178.swinney-shuns-spin-in-party-posts/

It appears that the position was vacant for years from 1999 following Mike Russell's election as an MSP.

I'll update this page to match. Watty62 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

HI Watty62 (talk). This article goes into so much detail. Regards. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23703844.investigation-inside-snp-money-machine/ Devokewater 20:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

= Recent edits, baby +

I appreciate the instinct that leads some editors to default to rejecting edits from those of us who work anonymously, but we should seek to apply our site's standards to this page.

The section on the party's foundation has issues around undue weight and unreliable sourcing. The second sentence on Douglas Young and his opposition to conscription needs to be sourced, but sources can be brought in from his wikipedia biography. The third sentence uses wiki voice to declare that members of the SNP were pro-nazi. There is no citation for this and it frames a discussion on Scottish poet and communist Hugh MacDiarmid and Arthur Donaldson. For MacDiarmid there are three sources. First, there is an opinion piece by former Labour MP Brian Wilson. As set out in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, opinion pieces "are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." It does not belong here. Like the second source, it quotes MacDiarmid as describing the axis powers as "violently evil". Like the other two sources, it does not describe MacDiarmid as pro-nazi, and it is curious that an editor would use wiki voice to pretend it does to make that judgment. Of Arthur Donaldson, wiki voice is used to declare that "he believed a Nazi invasion would benefit Scotland" and a quote is provided. The citation used makes clear that neither the opinion nor the quote are sourced from Arthur Donaldson, his speeches, writings, or correspondence, but from the report of an MI5 agent whose claims were given no credence by wartime authorities.

As an exercise in citation, this section's treatment of the ideas it seeks to advance is inadequate. This section's discussion falls foul of our standards on due weight: • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

I therefore reinstated a previous version of that section.

Further down in the history section, there is a discussion of the party's recent leadership election: "Yousaf's views align with the party establishment and he is expected to continue Sturgeon's policies. The other two candidates, Forbes and Regan, were seen to be part of a new generational shift in the party.[82][83]"

The first sentence is unsupported by citation. The second sentence's description of Forbes and Regan as part of 'generational shift in the party' is not substantiated by a Guardian article that uses those words to describe, not Forbes and Yousaf, but John Swinney stepping down with Sturgeon. Neither unattributed opinion belongs on these pages in wiki voice.

Next to this, we have a lengthy and convoluted treatment of Operation Branchform's activities and issues around the SNP's accounts in April. This section suffers from being written as each sentence's piece of news breaks. I have restructured it for clarity, concision and the spirit set out in 'Wikipedia is not a newspaper'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.251.177.87 (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I have been watching this edit war with interest, usually I would be very cautious about anonymous changes but think your edits have greatly improved this article. Dont think I have seen one of your edits that has not been clearer and more concise than what was there before and better sourced and evidenced

Thank You Soosider3 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I am very cautious too. regarding anonymous changes like this, 99+% of the IP edits which I revert are pure vandalism, prima facie the edits by this IP editor appeared to be deleting content from political parties that was negative (this happens all the time regarding politicians etc). This IP editor has also had their edits reverted by experienced editors on other Wiki pages, see Alba Party again their edits looked very suspicious to me. Did not want to get into an edit war, so on my second revert I mentioned going to talk, which the IP Editor did (normally they don’t) and argued their case, their edits were bona fide and agreed upon by other editors, see Soosider3 (talk) above. Regards Devokewater 12:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Although I like to have my edits scrutinised, I should probably create an account so that they aren't seen as part of the wash of attempted vandalism (acute on political pages) and it'd bring together the edits I make at home, work and when bored on the train. Here and on the Alba page (which, I regret to say, I'm going to return to with an expansion on my edits), I was quite genuinely frustrated at how sources were handled and wikivoice used. I hope I haven't been too grumpy! 90.251.177.87 (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)