Talk:Scottish National Party

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alalch E. (talk | contribs) at 16:02, 13 March 2023 (→Ideology section: typo own). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:02, 13 March 2023 by Alalch E. (talk | contribs) (→Ideology section: typo own)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Scotland High‑importance

	Scotland portal This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics of the United Kingdom Top‑importance

	This 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: Political parties High‑importance

	Politics portal This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Socialism Low‑importance

	Socialism portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

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)

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. , . 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 . Stephan Matthiesen (talk) 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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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"?

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_European_Parliament-2019-07-26T11:20:00.000Z">

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)_European_Parliament"> _European_Parliament">

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)

“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 Misplaced Pages 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)

References

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 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:

John Swinney.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 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:

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'

Compromise reached on wording; erroneous source replaced — Czello 14:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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:

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:

Please let me know views on this! 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)

Categories: