Misplaced Pages

Talk:Scottish National Party: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:01, 5 April 2023 editDevokewater (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,948 edits →References: Fixing style/layout errors← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:49, 24 November 2024 edit undoJaggedHamster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,488 edits Restored revision 1256969738 by Tom.Reding (talk): Unclear what is meantTags: Twinkle Undo Mobile edit Mobile web edit 
(68 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{BLP others}} {{Talk header}}
{{talk header}} {{Scottish English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=other|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Scotland|class=b|importance=high}} {{WikiProject Scotland|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=top|class=b {{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high|political-parties=yes}}
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = yes
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=low}}
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = yes
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = yes
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = yes
| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = yes}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=b|importance=high|political-parties=yes}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=B|importance=low}}
}} }}
{{Annual readership |expanded=true|scale=log}}
{{Scottish English}}
<!-- Metadata: see ] -->
{{annual readership |expanded=true|scale=log}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}}
== the right of scots living outside of scotland to vote. ==
|maxarchivesize = 150K

|counter = 1
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 !
|minthreadsleft = 4

|algo = old(180d)
If so, why ?
|archive = Talk:Scottish National Party/Archive %(counter)d

}}
Will. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{{Annual readership}}

{{Archives}}
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). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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. ] (]) 12:39, 31 October 2022 (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. ] (]) 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. , . 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 . ] (]) 09:12, 23 May 2016 (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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 09:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

==The General Election==

Scottish voters, please don't forget The Wallace and please don't forget The Bruce. 02 April 2015 <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html 19 April 2015 <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Note to Editors re Depute/Deputy ==

"Depute" is not a spelling error (see, e.g., 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 19:35, 13 May 2015 (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 ] that were editing last night. I suspect the current account may be related. ] (]) 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 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 and in other places. Should we change the template colour to show this? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Reverting high-speed rail policy ==

I added a paragraph on the SNP's high-speed rail policy but it was reverted by ] 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. ] (]) 14:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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

::Thank you for replying, I will reduce the size of the paragraph and use a BBC source instead. ] (]) 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. ]). ] (]) 16:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


== Pro-Europeanism == == Pro-Europeanism ==
Line 99: Line 27:
Why is their no moniker in the side-column at the top clearly indicating that the SNP is "pro-EU"/"Remain party"? Why is their no moniker in the side-column at the top clearly indicating that the SNP is "pro-EU"/"Remain party"?


== Political Ideology ==
== 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?] (]) 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 ]'s leadership two of the most significant groups were purged from the SNP; the purging of the socialist republican-wing (]) and the demonisation/ghettoisation of the Gaelic nationalist-wing (]/]). 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 in the ascent of Margaret Thatcher to power in 1979, which probably should be mentioned too. ] (]) 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. ] ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
::The SNP also have nil representation in the ] 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 ] ] ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] 11:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

== Proposed merge from ] ==
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? ] 16:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
*'''Support''' according to the short length and subject overlap of ]. ] (]) 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. '']'' 16:22, 17 January 2021 (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. ] (]) 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 ] is a former member of the ]. 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 Misplaced Pages formatting and I think something similar may have been tried before. ] (]) 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"''.<ref>{{cite news |last= Massie |first= Alex |date= 25 June 2017 |title= So what, exactly, is the point of the SNP? |url= https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/so-what-exactly-is-the-point-of-the-snp-b5wxh85ll |work= The Times |access-date= 14 August 2019}}</ref> I have also added a source from the BBC to the infobox that also claims the party is big tent. ] (]) 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. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

{{reflist-talk}}

== 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. ] (]) 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 ]. 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. {{cite news |last= Massie |first= Alex |date= 25 June 2017 |title= So what, exactly, is the point of the SNP? |url= https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/so-what-exactly-is-the-point-of-the-snp-b5wxh85ll |work= The Times |access-date= 14 August 2019}}

2. {{cite news |last= McDermott |first= John |date= 1 May 2015 |title= The SNP’s record in power: less radical than you might think |url= https://www.ft.com/content/36d6aa9a-efeb-11e4-ab73-00144feab7de |work= Financial Times |access-date= 27 August 2019}}

] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages guides as it's been a while since I've looked into them properly, but your mentioning of ] is probably the area I was looking for in terms of describing my point. Thanks. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


{{reflist}}

== How many seats? ==

Does the SNP have ''48'' or ''47'' seats in the British House of Commons. ] (]) 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:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-04-27T12:25:49.537122 | Queen Elizabeth II in March 2015.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 12:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

== Neutrality ==

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

:There is a specific type of taxation called ]. 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 ] as it is not cited. This needs clarification and specific citing, or it should probably be removed. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

== Independence - Member state of the European Union ==

Within the SNP and media, there has been great confusion on what ] or ] 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, ] 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 ] 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<ref>https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/semi-autonomous#:~:text=acting%20independently%20to%20some%20degree,run%20the%20semi%2Dautonomous%20government.</ref>.

Could a section be added for dependent territory?

See also:
]<ref>https://www.lexico.com/definition/dependent_territory</ref>.
] <ref>https://www.definitions.net/definition/vassal+state</ref>.

] (]) 19:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)DD

{{reflist-talk}}

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

] is listed here as becoming leader of the SNP group at Westminster in 1974. I assume this is because the ] was the first general election to produce multiple SNP MPs and therefore create an SNP group. However from the ] the SNP had two MPs, so was there no formal leader for that short period? ] (]) 23:52, 19 November 2020 (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? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 13:08, 3 February 2021 (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:
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | Aileen campbell 2018.jpg -->
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs, Fiona Hyslop.png -->
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Michael Matheson.png -->
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, Keith Brown.png -->
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, Roseanna Cunningham.png -->
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity, Fergus Ewing.png -->
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | FM meets with Juncker.jpg -->
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | Humza Yousaf 2018.jpg -->
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | Jeane Freeman 2018.jpg -->
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | John Swinney, Cabinet Secretary for Sustainable Growth (1).jpg -->
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | John Swinney, Deputy First Minister.png -->
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | Michael Russell, Cabinet Secretary for Education & Lifelong Learning (2).jpg -->
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science, Shirley Anne Sommerville.png -->
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | Nicola Sturgeon addresses journalists over Brexit.jpg -->
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | Nicola Sturgeon election infobox 3.jpg -->
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | Scottish Cabinet around the Cabinet Table, June 2007.jpg -->
* ] (])<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2020-12-25T05:20:06.957372 | Scottish Cabinet, 2018.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —] (]) 05:20, 25 December 2020 (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:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-01-25T10:05:00.366056 | John Swinney.png -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 10:05, 25 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:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-02-12T05:55:10.610349 | Dr Robert McIntyre.jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 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 ].] (]) 18:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

== 'Proto-Fascism' ==
{{hattop|Compromise reached on wording; erroneous source replaced — ''']''' 14:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)}}
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 {{user|Czello}}, 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). ] (]) 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 ]. However, as you've now brought up the source -- given that your edit war extended to ], did you investigate the other source that was linked there that supported proto-fascist? — ''']''' 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 ], 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? ] (]) 22:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

:::] explicitly states that when you're reverted, you should discuss on the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war ({{tq|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 ] 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. — ''']''' 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 Misplaced Pages don't have to be at the mercy of poorly phrased passages in books unless we want to be! ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages is built on ]. 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”. — ''']''' 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? ] 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 ]. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is built on reliable sources.''

:You are not using the ] 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 ]. ] (]) 23:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

::{{re|88.104.60.179}} When there is a content dispute, as per ], we revert to the status quo. So no, it was you who were edit warring as you did precisely what ] says not to do: keep restoring your preferred version rather than engage on the talk page. {{tq|force them to pay court to you on talk page, it is not there as a substitute for constructive ].}} -- 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 ] one more time. {{tq| 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? {{tq|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 ] 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 ], 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 the {{tq|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. — ''']''' 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 13:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

:::{{tq|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? {{tq|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. {{tq|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. {{tq|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 Misplaced Pages works. Now relax yourself and carry on with your life. — ''']''' 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. ] (]) 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). - ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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 ] (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. — ''']''' 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. ] (]) 13:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
{{hatbottom}}

== 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:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-06-30T09:57:23.408748 | Gordon Wilson (Scottish politician).jpg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 09:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

== Orphaned references in ] ==

I check pages listed in ] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for ] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of ]'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.

<b>Reference named "bbc.com":</b><ul>
<li>From ]: {{cite news |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47859214 |title=Ministers set for further Brexit talks |date=8 April 2019 |work=]}}</li>
<li>From ]: {{Cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48702946|title=Scottish transgender reforms put on hold|date=20 June 2019|via=www.bbc.com|access-date=25 April 2021|archive-date=5 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210205230725/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48702946|url-status=live}}</li>
<li>From ]: {{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48244917|title=Farage: May deceiving public over deal|date=12 May 2019|publisher=BBC News}}</li>
</ul>

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. ]] 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:
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2022-10-15T22:53:21.503817 | King Charles III in 2022.png -->
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —] (]) 22:53, 15 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?

] have that according to one Humza Yousaf-backing MP, most of Kate Forbes' supporters are right-wingers and ].

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? ] (]) 13:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

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

:: I have updated the infobox using two reliable sources. ] (]) 13:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
:::That was still ]. Neither source calls them centrist. — ''']''' 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 ], ] and ] and ] policy.

The current ideology section lists:


There seems an extraordinary number of entries in the Info Box under Ideology, presently 8. The Infobox is for simple facts and not the place to be having this sort of almost discussion. For context check out any other major party in the UK they have 2 maybe three entries.
* ]
Whereas many of the topics raised are very interesting they belong in the ideology section in the article and not cluttering up the infobox.
* ]
I would propose to reduce these entries to 2 or 3 and the others transferred to ideology section. Tidies up infobox and allows for fuller discussion on topics of ideology for those that wish it. ] (]) 12:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


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. :IMO a workable streamlining would be to list ], ] and ], in that order, for three ideologies, and a two ideology solution would be simply Scottish nationalism and social democracy. (] is a policy goal, not an ideology, and is basically redundant with Scottish nationalism.)-- ] (]) 13:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


::I strongly support Scottish independence and Scottish nationalism remaining in the infobox. The rest in my view are subject to debate around moving into the main body. I think "big tent" could possibly be a good one to keep in the infobox, since the party has often generally been portrayed as a broad group united around the themes of Scottish nationalism and Scottish independence. In regards to social democracy stated above, the most recent source we have for this is coming up on 8-years-old in June, with the other sources for this claim years older than that, so it’s debatable whether that means it merits such a place of prominence as the infobox or its prominence in the opening of the article. ] (]) 17:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
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 still holds true. I replaced a primary source with sources that call SNP social-democratic, from 2023 and 2021 respectively. ] 17:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you, good work!— ] (]) 17:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::Cheers. ] (]) 17:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, isn’t “Scottish independence” a policy goal, not a distinct political ideology? Even if one considers it an ideology, it’s a component of Scottish nationalism. As for “big tent”, it’s still a predominantly centre-left party, and hasn’t altered its ideological stance in the last decade. One could just as equally state the Tory or Labour or LibDem parties are equally as much “big tents” as the SNP.— ] (]) 17:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::::I'd argue Scottish independence is distinct from Scottish nationalism. The Scottish Greens for instance are pro-independence but make a distinction by explicitly not referring to what they represent as nationalism. I think it’s fair to say the SNP are generally centre-left, however, I think the breadth of opinion (i.e. elected SNP representatives with socially conservative views and the contrasting social views of the leadership candidates in the 2023 leadership election) in the SNP is greater than that which would be seen in other major parties like the Lib Dems. You'd be unlikely to find many socially conservative or socialist Liberal Democrats for instance. Yet my understanding is there are elected SNP representatives that span a range of political ideologs and positions, including socialist to conservative. This is in part demonstrated by the fact we have multiple sources referring to the party's big tent nature. ] (]) 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::Literally the same could be said about Labour (and Plaid and the NI parties, etc), predominantly centre-left parties with groups and members with views to the right the general party position (which in the SNP’s case is to the left of Labour, if that matters). As for the Scottish Greens, this really isn’t the place for that discussion, but they might avoid the n-word for understandable reasons, but they’re still espousing Scottish nationalism.— ] (]) 20:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::Basically what I am trying to say, parties often have broad ranges of views, particularly parties of government. However, one would still refer to the Conservative party as centre-right, Labour as centre-left, etc, despite being “big tents” in themselves. With the SNP, I can’t agree with “big tent” alone as its political position, as that implies being a catch-all party spanning both left and right in equal measures, when it’s pretty much a typical European socdem party in many ways. The party hasn’t changed ideology in the last 8 or so years, and hasn’t significantly since the influence of the 79 Group.— ] (]) 21:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I think there may have been a misunderstanding here. I'm not saying that "big tent" should be its political position in the infobox. I agree with maintaining centre-left in that respect. I'm just saying "big tent" should probably be retained where it currently exists in the ''ideologies section'' of the infobox (with the retention of centre-left for the political position section). Though I'm more steadfast in the retention of Scottish nationalism and Scottish independence in the ideology section. ] (]) 22:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Do we have sources for "big tent", though? — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 07:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


::I would have just ] and ]—and nothing else. I am especially opposed to ] (not an ideology, but a political goal or policy), ] (meaning really little), ] (redundant and partially inaccurate), ] (again, not an ideology, but a political goal or policy) and ] (not an ideology, not even a position). --] (]) 06:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
This would leave the infobox ideology section as:
::Additionally, I support only "centre-left" as political position—and "big tent" is not a political position. --] (]) 06:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
:Well that seems to have generated some discussion, broadly (if I have followed the discussion correctly) there is broad agreement that Ideology in Infobox requires trimming, 2 or 3 entries seem to be floated as preferred.
:We perhaps should also be looking at the number and quality of the references, many appear to have little if any relationship to the heading they are linked.
:My tuppence worth
:Almost all the reference should be removed, they add little (if anything) to the already existing internal Misplaced Pages popup, and in fact most are to Amazon pages where you can buy the book supposedly referenced - hardly supporting particular position.
:RETAIN Civic Nationalism _ maintain this and remove references
:REMOVE Scottish Independence - Policy aim not an ideology
:RETAIN Social democracy - remove unhelpful references
:REMOVE Scottish nationalism - already covered by Civic Nationalism
:REMOVE Left-wing populism - not an ideology
:REMOVE Regionalism - not an ideology
:REMOVE Pro-Europeanism - Policy not Ideology
:REMOVE Big tent - not an ideology ] (]) 06:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
::{{U|Czello}}, there's three sources for "big tent" in the infobox. ] (]) 16:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
:::I actually want to challenge the notion that these three sources really prove what they're supposed to prove. Namely that SNP is a "big tent" party in a way that other parties in the UK are not.
:::Let's start with the second source - ''The Scottish National Party Is Espousing A Multicultural Brand Of Nationalism'' by Joanna Kakissis on npr.org. What does it say? That "Unlike the anti-immigration, isolationist nationalist parties splintering the European Union, the Scottish National Party promotes a a "big tent" brand of nationalism." By this Kakissis means that SNP's nationalism positions itself "against England rather than against Europe, whereas English nationalism is defined against Europe." So the party promotes "big tent nationalism", but the party itself is not described as big tent.
:::Third source - ''Mr Scotland, chauvinism and the SNP’s big-tent nationalism'' by Jason Cowley, newstatesman.com. The reveal is in the title - "Mr Scotland, chauvinism and the SNP’s big-tent nationalism". Well, what is "big-tent nationalism"? One thing is certain - it is a radically different statement from "SNP is a big-tent party".
:::The first source - ''A Nation Changed? The SNP and Scotland Ten Years On'' by Gerry Hassan and Simon Barrow took some time to actually reach, since it's a book. But it does THE SAME THING - that rather than calling SNP "big-tent", it merely says that it has "big tent nationalism", by which it means that the nationalism of the party appeals to "every region, area and social group in Scotland". (p. 18). It also calls SNP social-democratic, stating that "the SNP has also achieved some success in defining its social democracy as more authentic than Labour’s under Blair and Brown." (p. 435).
:::As such, I want to say that this is ] and does not actually prove what it is supposed to prove. ] 16:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
::::We seem to be starting to distil the issues here,
::::1 What is the InfoBox for? IMHO it is meant to provide quick headline information and really is not suitable for references that maybe more appropriate in the text about ideology.
::::2 What is Ideology - we seem to have broad agreement about what it is not, its not Policy. Its things like Civic Nationism and Social Democracy
::::It is good to see such a healthy discussion carried out in a reasoned, sensible and courteous manner (hope I haven't jinxed it) ] (]) 19:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::All positive contributions in good faith, so no problems there.— ] (]) 11:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I think it’s important to remember that it’s possible to be nationalist without supporting independence, which is one of the reasons I support the inclusion of Scottish independence in the infobox. The two are not one and the same. ] (]) 21:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


:What is Scottish nationalism in pursuit of? Nationhood, i.e. independence.— ] (]) 14:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
* ]
::Nationalism isn't inherently like that, nor is nationalism always defined as the pursuit of a nation. It can simply be the promotion of the interests of a certain people or nation, not necessarily a pursuit of independence for said nation. This includes Scottish nationalism. ] (]) 07:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
* ]
:::Surely, Scottish nationalism is the party's main ideology. I would have also social democracy, though, and nothing else. --] (]) 12:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
* ]
:There in is one of the concern I have about the use of language, "Nationalist" has many negative connotations more usually being used to describe "blood & soil" type movements, what ever you may think of the SNP is it most certainly not that. It is in part why I think Civil Nationalist is a more accurate description.
* ]
:Think we may be moving to some broad agreement and believe we should seriously prune many of the entries under Ideology, 2 maybe 3 to me seem to sum up the salient points.
:Social Democratic
:Civic Nationalism
:I could be persuaded re Independence, yes it is a policy but in this case it is also the prime reason for the party existing. ] (]) 13:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


Please let me know views on this! ] (]) 13:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC) ::"Civic" or "civil nationalism" means little, while "Scottish nationalism" is precisely what the SNP stands for. --] (]) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
:::This. Social democracy and Scottish nationalism are the main ideologies of the party, and I can find more sources for both if needed.
: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 <u>article prose describes the subject as a Scottish nationalist party</u>, 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 —] 16:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
:::I have no idea why we would do "civic nationalism", not to mention that I have a feeling it will be hard to find sources that explicitly call SNP that, meaning that we would use a rather obscure/rare descriptor of the SNP's ideology. And why? To me not only does this appear to be a vague term, but also an euphemism of sorts, amongst political circles where "nationalism" is a dirty word.
:::But the thing is, SNP is a Scottish nationalist party. It is not pejorative, nor is it positive. It is neutral, and simply a matter of fact. ] 18:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
::::"SNP is a Scottish nationalist party" you make my case for me by naming a non existing party, SNP is the Scottish '''National''' Party. See how easy that can happen, the correct ideology is Civic Nationalism ] (]) 07:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
:::::I was not naming a party. I was describing its ideology. This is the talk page of the ]. Have you seen the opening sentence of the article?
:::::{{blockquote|'''The Scottish National Party''' (SNP; Scots: Scots National Pairty, Scottish Gaelic: Pàrtaidh Nàiseanta na h-Alba ) '''is a Scottish nationalist''' and social democratic political '''party'''.}}
:::::That the main ideology of the SNP is Scottish nationalism can be easily confirmed by a plethora of sources. For the sake of simplicity, I will name one - ''The Modern SNP: From Protest to Power'' by Gerry Hassan, which states (page 5):
:::::{{blockquote|The SNP’s ‘doctrine’ is formally social democratic, while its ‘ethos’, the party’s sense of itself, is Scottish nationalist.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Modern SNP: From Protest to Power |publisher=Edinburgh University Press |year=2009 |page=5 |isbn=978-0-7486-3991-5 |first=Gerry |last=Hassan}}</ref>}}
:::::I have to admit, I see this as lack of reading comprehension. If I wanted to state the name of the party, I would say: "SNP is the Scottish National Party". I would capitalize all parts of the party name, and I would use "the" instead of "a". I am sure you know this.
:::::I do not think your case for "civic nationalism" is clear. How many sources can you find that explicitly call SNP a civic nationalist party? Remember that we cannot do ]. I do not see the case for this being the defining ideology of the SNP - that would be Scottish nationalism and social democracy instead.
:::::{{reftalk}} ] 10:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#Scottish Nose Pickers}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] ] 15:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#Scottish Nose-pickers}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] ] 15:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#Scottish Nose-pickers}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] ] 15:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:49, 24 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scottish National Party article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months 
This article is written in Scottish English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconScotland High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: Political parties High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Political parties task force.
WikiProject iconSocialism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Pro-Europeanism

Some clarity needs to be drawn here. Is this a question of "pro-Europeanism" or "pro-European Union". Political parties can be pro-European, and anti-EU. User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (GMT)

Why is their no moniker in the side-column at the top clearly indicating that the SNP is "pro-EU"/"Remain party"?

Political Ideology

There seems an extraordinary number of entries in the Info Box under Ideology, presently 8. The Infobox is for simple facts and not the place to be having this sort of almost discussion. For context check out any other major party in the UK they have 2 maybe three entries. Whereas many of the topics raised are very interesting they belong in the ideology section in the article and not cluttering up the infobox. I would propose to reduce these entries to 2 or 3 and the others transferred to ideology section. Tidies up infobox and allows for fuller discussion on topics of ideology for those that wish it. Soosider3 (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

IMO a workable streamlining would be to list Scottish nationalism, regionalism and social democracy, in that order, for three ideologies, and a two ideology solution would be simply Scottish nationalism and social democracy. (Scottish independence is a policy goal, not an ideology, and is basically redundant with Scottish nationalism.)-- Autospark (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I strongly support Scottish independence and Scottish nationalism remaining in the infobox. The rest in my view are subject to debate around moving into the main body. I think "big tent" could possibly be a good one to keep in the infobox, since the party has often generally been portrayed as a broad group united around the themes of Scottish nationalism and Scottish independence. In regards to social democracy stated above, the most recent source we have for this is coming up on 8-years-old in June, with the other sources for this claim years older than that, so it’s debatable whether that means it merits such a place of prominence as the infobox or its prominence in the opening of the article. Helper201 (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
This still holds true. I replaced a primary source with sources that call SNP social-democratic, from 2023 and 2021 respectively. Brat Forelli🦊 17:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, good work!— Autospark (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Cheers. Helper201 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, isn’t “Scottish independence” a policy goal, not a distinct political ideology? Even if one considers it an ideology, it’s a component of Scottish nationalism. As for “big tent”, it’s still a predominantly centre-left party, and hasn’t altered its ideological stance in the last decade. One could just as equally state the Tory or Labour or LibDem parties are equally as much “big tents” as the SNP.— Autospark (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I'd argue Scottish independence is distinct from Scottish nationalism. The Scottish Greens for instance are pro-independence but make a distinction by explicitly not referring to what they represent as nationalism. I think it’s fair to say the SNP are generally centre-left, however, I think the breadth of opinion (i.e. elected SNP representatives with socially conservative views and the contrasting social views of the leadership candidates in the 2023 leadership election) in the SNP is greater than that which would be seen in other major parties like the Lib Dems. You'd be unlikely to find many socially conservative or socialist Liberal Democrats for instance. Yet my understanding is there are elected SNP representatives that span a range of political ideologs and positions, including socialist to conservative. This is in part demonstrated by the fact we have multiple sources referring to the party's big tent nature. Helper201 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Literally the same could be said about Labour (and Plaid and the NI parties, etc), predominantly centre-left parties with groups and members with views to the right the general party position (which in the SNP’s case is to the left of Labour, if that matters). As for the Scottish Greens, this really isn’t the place for that discussion, but they might avoid the n-word for understandable reasons, but they’re still espousing Scottish nationalism.— Autospark (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Basically what I am trying to say, parties often have broad ranges of views, particularly parties of government. However, one would still refer to the Conservative party as centre-right, Labour as centre-left, etc, despite being “big tents” in themselves. With the SNP, I can’t agree with “big tent” alone as its political position, as that implies being a catch-all party spanning both left and right in equal measures, when it’s pretty much a typical European socdem party in many ways. The party hasn’t changed ideology in the last 8 or so years, and hasn’t significantly since the influence of the 79 Group.— Autospark (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I think there may have been a misunderstanding here. I'm not saying that "big tent" should be its political position in the infobox. I agree with maintaining centre-left in that respect. I'm just saying "big tent" should probably be retained where it currently exists in the ideologies section of the infobox (with the retention of centre-left for the political position section). Though I'm more steadfast in the retention of Scottish nationalism and Scottish independence in the ideology section. Helper201 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Do we have sources for "big tent", though? — Czello 07:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I would have just Scottish nationalism and social democracy—and nothing else. I am especially opposed to Scottish independence (not an ideology, but a political goal or policy), civic nationalism (meaning really little), left-wing populism (redundant and partially inaccurate), pro-Europeanism (again, not an ideology, but a political goal or policy) and big tent (not an ideology, not even a position). --Checco (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, I support only "centre-left" as political position—and "big tent" is not a political position. --Checco (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Well that seems to have generated some discussion, broadly (if I have followed the discussion correctly) there is broad agreement that Ideology in Infobox requires trimming, 2 or 3 entries seem to be floated as preferred.
We perhaps should also be looking at the number and quality of the references, many appear to have little if any relationship to the heading they are linked.
My tuppence worth
Almost all the reference should be removed, they add little (if anything) to the already existing internal Misplaced Pages popup, and in fact most are to Amazon pages where you can buy the book supposedly referenced - hardly supporting particular position.
RETAIN Civic Nationalism _ maintain this and remove references
REMOVE Scottish Independence - Policy aim not an ideology
RETAIN Social democracy - remove unhelpful references
REMOVE Scottish nationalism - already covered by Civic Nationalism
REMOVE Left-wing populism - not an ideology
REMOVE Regionalism - not an ideology
REMOVE Pro-Europeanism - Policy not Ideology
REMOVE Big tent - not an ideology Soosider3 (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Czello, there's three sources for "big tent" in the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I actually want to challenge the notion that these three sources really prove what they're supposed to prove. Namely that SNP is a "big tent" party in a way that other parties in the UK are not.
Let's start with the second source - The Scottish National Party Is Espousing A Multicultural Brand Of Nationalism by Joanna Kakissis on npr.org. What does it say? That "Unlike the anti-immigration, isolationist nationalist parties splintering the European Union, the Scottish National Party promotes a a "big tent" brand of nationalism." By this Kakissis means that SNP's nationalism positions itself "against England rather than against Europe, whereas English nationalism is defined against Europe." So the party promotes "big tent nationalism", but the party itself is not described as big tent.
Third source - Mr Scotland, chauvinism and the SNP’s big-tent nationalism by Jason Cowley, newstatesman.com. The reveal is in the title - "Mr Scotland, chauvinism and the SNP’s big-tent nationalism". Well, what is "big-tent nationalism"? One thing is certain - it is a radically different statement from "SNP is a big-tent party".
The first source - A Nation Changed? The SNP and Scotland Ten Years On by Gerry Hassan and Simon Barrow took some time to actually reach, since it's a book. But it does THE SAME THING - that rather than calling SNP "big-tent", it merely says that it has "big tent nationalism", by which it means that the nationalism of the party appeals to "every region, area and social group in Scotland". (p. 18). It also calls SNP social-democratic, stating that "the SNP has also achieved some success in defining its social democracy as more authentic than Labour’s under Blair and Brown." (p. 435).
As such, I want to say that this is WP:OR and does not actually prove what it is supposed to prove. Brat Forelli🦊 16:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
We seem to be starting to distil the issues here,
1 What is the InfoBox for? IMHO it is meant to provide quick headline information and really is not suitable for references that maybe more appropriate in the text about ideology.
2 What is Ideology - we seem to have broad agreement about what it is not, its not Policy. Its things like Civic Nationism and Social Democracy
It is good to see such a healthy discussion carried out in a reasoned, sensible and courteous manner (hope I haven't jinxed it) Soosider3 (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
All positive contributions in good faith, so no problems there.— Autospark (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s important to remember that it’s possible to be nationalist without supporting independence, which is one of the reasons I support the inclusion of Scottish independence in the infobox. The two are not one and the same. Helper201 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

What is Scottish nationalism in pursuit of? Nationhood, i.e. independence.— Autospark (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Nationalism isn't inherently like that, nor is nationalism always defined as the pursuit of a nation. It can simply be the promotion of the interests of a certain people or nation, not necessarily a pursuit of independence for said nation. This includes Scottish nationalism. Helper201 (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Surely, Scottish nationalism is the party's main ideology. I would have also social democracy, though, and nothing else. --Checco (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
There in is one of the concern I have about the use of language, "Nationalist" has many negative connotations more usually being used to describe "blood & soil" type movements, what ever you may think of the SNP is it most certainly not that. It is in part why I think Civil Nationalist is a more accurate description.
Think we may be moving to some broad agreement and believe we should seriously prune many of the entries under Ideology, 2 maybe 3 to me seem to sum up the salient points.
Social Democratic
Civic Nationalism
I could be persuaded re Independence, yes it is a policy but in this case it is also the prime reason for the party existing. Soosider3 (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
"Civic" or "civil nationalism" means little, while "Scottish nationalism" is precisely what the SNP stands for. --Checco (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
This. Social democracy and Scottish nationalism are the main ideologies of the party, and I can find more sources for both if needed.
I have no idea why we would do "civic nationalism", not to mention that I have a feeling it will be hard to find sources that explicitly call SNP that, meaning that we would use a rather obscure/rare descriptor of the SNP's ideology. And why? To me not only does this appear to be a vague term, but also an euphemism of sorts, amongst political circles where "nationalism" is a dirty word.
But the thing is, SNP is a Scottish nationalist party. It is not pejorative, nor is it positive. It is neutral, and simply a matter of fact. Brat Forelli🦊 18:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
"SNP is a Scottish nationalist party" you make my case for me by naming a non existing party, SNP is the Scottish National Party. See how easy that can happen, the correct ideology is Civic Nationalism Soosider3 (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I was not naming a party. I was describing its ideology. This is the talk page of the Scottish National Party. Have you seen the opening sentence of the article?

The Scottish National Party (SNP; Scots: Scots National Pairty, Scottish Gaelic: Pàrtaidh Nàiseanta na h-Alba ) is a Scottish nationalist and social democratic political party.

That the main ideology of the SNP is Scottish nationalism can be easily confirmed by a plethora of sources. For the sake of simplicity, I will name one - The Modern SNP: From Protest to Power by Gerry Hassan, which states (page 5):

The SNP’s ‘doctrine’ is formally social democratic, while its ‘ethos’, the party’s sense of itself, is Scottish nationalist.

I have to admit, I see this as lack of reading comprehension. If I wanted to state the name of the party, I would say: "SNP is the Scottish National Party". I would capitalize all parts of the party name, and I would use "the" instead of "a". I am sure you know this.
I do not think your case for "civic nationalism" is clear. How many sources can you find that explicitly call SNP a civic nationalist party? Remember that we cannot do WP:OR. I do not see the case for this being the defining ideology of the SNP - that would be Scottish nationalism and social democracy instead.

References

  1. Hassan, Gerry (2009). The Modern SNP: From Protest to Power. Edinburgh University Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-7486-3991-5.

Brat Forelli🦊 10:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"Scottish Nose Pickers" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Scottish Nose Pickers has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12 § Scottish Nose Pickers until a consensus is reached. Blethering Scot 15:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"Scottish Nose-pickers" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Scottish Nose-pickers has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12 § Scottish Nose-pickers until a consensus is reached. Blethering Scot 15:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"Scottish Nose-pickers" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Scottish Nose-pickers has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12 § Scottish Nose-pickers until a consensus is reached. Blethering Scot 15:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: