This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2004–2013. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
From the article:
I do not know how many figures, and who they are, but since the Callaghan government would have passed the five year mark since the October 1974 election that year, I think they may be fans of Anthony Wells' entertaining fantasy What if Gordon Banks had Played for England :-) -- Alan Peakall 18:23, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Whilst I do not disagree with you Alan, many Labour Party activists in Scotland quite often state this as their belief (whether they actually believe it or use it as a campaign tool against the SNP is another matter). -- Big Jim Fae Scotland 12.29pm, 23 Feb 2004
An example of how even people who lived through an event can suffer from "false memory syndrome".
Callaghan's defeat in '79 has been blamed on
- Callaghan's decision not to go to the polls in '78 - the winter of discontent - public spending cuts alienating core Labour supporters - the SNP voting against the Govt
Which option one chooses depends on one's politics rather than the facts - which suggest all these factors and others contributed to the result, but none is a full explanation IN ITSELF.
A similar bit of historical revisionism is being applied by anti-Blairites claiming that Blair cannot claim any credit for the election victories of 1997 and 2001. I'm afraid we can't travel in a time machine and find out whether Labour would have won in '97 if Smith had survived (how?????) or if Prescott had been leader (Prescott, of course, being one of the shining beacons of success in the Labour Government's record - irony mode off). Evidence does suggest that Blair was a decisive factor in the large pro-Labour swing amongst the middle class and "C1C2"s. But in reality, who knows?
Whether or not the SNP led to the downfall of the Callaghan government and led to 12 years of crushing Thatcherism upon this country is irrelevant. The Scottish National Party is againt the Tories stabbing Scotland in the back, much as it is against Labour stabbing Scotland in the back. Whoever it is makes NO difference. Although, the fact that it was a Labour party stabbing the people who voted for it in the back makes it a little worse. The Tories never claimed to stand for Scotland, much as they will try to tell you. Labour did. My family (extended, bar very few exceptions) voted Labour from 79-97. They (Labour, not my family), again, true to form, stabbed this country in the back. I use this metaphor again, as it's true. We brought down the Callaghan government, because it stabbed Scotland in the back. We will bring down ANY British government if it is stabbing Scotland in the back. It is because we want independence...and every British government stabs Scotland in the back, And that's not because I have a chip on my shoulder, thats not because I'm anti-English, that is another story. So before every bleeding heart New-Labourite blames us for Thatcher -
blame yourself.
Is the SNP still second in the polls? This link reports this quote from Alex Salmond: "In addition, this morning's poll shows the SNP already leading the race for the Scottish Parliament in 2007, which is an extremely encouraging sign indeed for the party at this stage." Is the article intro still appropriate? -- Liberlogos 04:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC) (a Quebecois interested in the Scots)
There have been very few polls that suggest the SNP has ever been in a better position than Labour and as such they can usually be attributed to the inherent margin of error in these matters.
Scotland is effectively a one party state. It has been for a long time. -- Breadandcheese 06:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
But - whose fault is that? The Conservatives were in a very strong position in Scotland from the 1920s to the 1950s - what happened to them? They had picked up a large %age of the votes from the demise of the Liberals after WW1 but only seemed to retain them for one generation. It's not Labour's fault that they continue to be the largest party in election after election
Exile 19:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I have just created this category: Category:Scottish National Party (SNP) politicians
I have addded a lot of SNP MSPs/MPs/other politicians to it, but if there's any I've missed please feel free to add them. It includes current and former members of the SNP, so far 51 articles are in this category. Vclaw 19:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- The address given as Edinburgh [Postcode] Scotland seems a tad POVish. If Scotland is to be included in the address (it is obvious, I don't believe it is necessary) it should be before the Postcode. If you were going to put in United Kingdom that may be another matter.
- Pantone 300 is not the official colour of the Saltire. There is no official colour beyond Blue/Azure.
It is my understanding that the SNP commonly uses 3 colours in their publicity material: the main one being yellow; but also "heather" (which I assume that most people would call either a light purple or a dark lilac?) and also a Pantone-300-ish blue (ie. the colour of the Saltire). An IP address just removed the link to blue, so I wondered if maybe the SNP have stopped using blue in their publications? Does anybody know?
I do not think that it is sensible to put "black" as one of the party's colours: every political party in the world commonly uses black, white and grey in their publications: these are tones, nor colours. -- Mais oui! 10:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The 'heather' was really a 2003 colour. It fell a bit out of use in 2005 and in 2007 really wasn't to be seen. I'd argue that it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandlerova ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The intro was changed to give precedence to historical data over current information, this is out of keeping with other UK political parties, the Labour_Party_(UK) doesnt mention the fact that it has historically been the 2nd party,but recent form has put it on top in the UK parliament. Should this discontinuity remain? 86.12.249.63 15:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
While of course Guest9999's edits, as to the SNP's strength in various parliamentary bodies, are accurate, I nonetheless think that they obscure the more important facts. After all, the SNP only competes for constituencies in Scotland. The previous version was more indicative of their overall success in the pursuit of such seats. Thus my non-vehement revert. Unschool 03:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
One of its parent categories, Category:Current members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies, has also been proposed for deletion.
Please visit the relevant CFD entry and contribute to the discussion.
Please note that although the CFD terminology is "merge", de facto this means deletion. Lovely euphemism... -- Mais oui! 02:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Two photos of Salmond have already been deleted.
Please contribute to discussion at:
Ta. -- Mais oui! 18:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Please review the following:
Peter Murrell <peter.murrell@snp.org> to me
show details 5:46 am (15 hours ago) You may use the images at:
http://www.snp.org/media/2007-03-15-alex-and-nicola-photos/SNP%207-3-07-3.jpg/view
Original Message-----
From: snphq@snp.org [2] Sent: 24 July 2007 16:04 To: peter.murrell@snp.org Subject: [Fwd: Wikipedia and the SNP]
Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Wikipedia and the SNP From: "Canaen" Date: Sat, July 14, 2007 7:45 am To: snp.hq@snp.org
Hi there,
My name's Canaen, I'm an editor at Wikipedia, the free, online Encyclopedia that anyone can edit. One of the things about running a free encyclopedia, is that all of our images must be free to be used for any purpose.
We endeavor to have a portrait picture of all prominent people who we've articles about, and Alex Salmond is one such person (his article can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Salmond). For some reason or other, it's been terribly difficult for us to find any image of Alex which is free to use for any purpose, and thus his article is not illustrated. If anyone at the SNP would be able to supply us with an image of Alex, either in the Public domain or licensed under a free license, we could add it to the article, and it would help immensely on the road to his article becoming a Featured Article, possibly featured on Wikipedia's front page.
As well, we've found it difficult to obtain free images for most of the other SNP politicians, and any other images would be helpful to us.
Slainte,
Canaen
File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 04:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
There are some asterisked entries in the Electoral performance section, but no explanation of the footnote. (At least, I couldn't find one.) / blahedo ( t) 22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone shed any light on its origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.2.198 ( talk) 01:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
People say it is the saltire, a thistle or a drop of oil depending. Nothing definitive, I am afraid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.178.115 ( talk) 12:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above. However, I remember that in the 1960s/1970s the symbol was also meant to represent the X that people make when voting, i.e. it was a combination of a vote and a thistle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmacd ( talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
On the 30th September, user 'Francis Tyers' removed the bulk of the existing controversy section. The section was renamed 'Criticisms' and then the sections about the Brian Souter donation removed on the grounds that they are "not really a criticism" (they are, of course, controversial - hence the original section title).
I believe that the Souter story is a valid addition to this article, as it was certainly widely covered in the press at the time, so I have created a new 'Controversy' section. Personally I believe 'Criticisms' and 'Controversy' should be merged, but I will leave them as they are just now.
Templetongore 09:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The paragraphs on the Brian Souter donation keep getting removed. This is not useful editing. By all means add balance to a section, but don't simply delete (verified) information that you do not like.
For what it is worth, I am glad the SNP beat Labour this year - I am not trying to dirty their name, I only want to broaden the article to include all angles. I respect alot of the SNP policies, but I believe - as many do - that accepting the Souter donation was wrong. This information should be part of this article.
Templetongore 14:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Can someone help me out here? The Souter stuff taken down again, by someone using an anon IP address (can't guess who). I am losing faith in Wikipedia.
Templetongore 08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Francis, While I agree that there should be some level of consistancy between pages covering the major parties, I think that, instead of removing the donation info from the SNP page, we should instead be adding similar content to other party pages. I also agree that our opinions are not relevant, but this was a big story in Scotland (where I live) and similar items can be found on other pages. For example, the Bank of Scotland's financial dealings with Pat Robertson are listed on their Wikipedia page. Any chunk of information can belong to one or many categories - I happen to think that the Souter story belongs to both a 'Donations' section but also a 'Controversy' section. Otherwise, presumably, the SNP could take money from anyone and have it hidden from Wikipedia users. What if they accepted money from outspoken racists, arms dealers etc, should that not be mentioned? Political parties exist partly to promote a set of ethics - we are expected to vote based on them - and so I feel it is important for people to know that they practice what they preach.
I would very much like the Labour donations to be listed on their page - a party far more corrupt than the SNP I am sure.
In the meantime, I will not put back the Controversy section until others come forward with an opinion.
Templetongore 11:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Should it be noted that the SNP is the only major party without the backing of a national or city newspaper? I believe a year or two ago they published their own newspaper with no success.--
Sandbagger
23:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - I think it should be noted. Anything, good or bad, that is newsworthy should be in the article, which is why the Souter stuff should be in there too. Templetongore 08:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
So a widely reported news item about a U-turn on one of the SNP's major policies is not relevant? The fact that the U-turn came just after a donation from someone who would benefit from that U-turn? I guess only the positive stuff is relevant. The fact that they were willing to take money from an openly bigoted man is a reflection of the moral standard of the party, and this should not be hidden from readers. Are you going to exclude everything that makes the party look bad? Templetongore 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I came here from WP:EAR. As discussed there, I looked at a section of a UK party article and saw that the section describes a controversial donation scandal. Although I agree there isn't a huge scandal here, I suggest at least trying to fairly represent the nature of the Souter donations. Can we possibly change "High profile donators to the party include founder of Stagecoach Brian Souter." to "A high profile and controversial donor to the party includes founder of Stagecoach Group Brian Souter." Thank you for hearing me out. ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the editors of this page do not want anything negative showing up, so I doubt you will ever get them to agree to this. Only positive spin allowed here. Personally I think taking money from an outspoken homophobic business man and going back on a promise to re-regulate the buses is a disgrace. And both events could well be connected. Shameful. Templetongore 09:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
"The SNP also got Scotland's first Asian MSP, Karachi-born Bashir Ahmad elected."
I'd like someone to tell me how exactly that ties into accusations of Anglophobia. Until someone does, I'll remove it. Jamieli ( talk) 14:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It states in the intro. that the SNP is "left of centre". Prior to May 2007, such an assertion was somewhat hard either to prove or disprove. However, having seen what has happened since then, it is now apparent that any claim by the SNP to be in any measure on the "left" of the political spectrum is somewhat laughable. In Scotland, the two largest parties at present are Labour and Nationalist. The same is true in Wales. In Wales, however, the two parties agreed to co-operate (Labour and Plaid Cymru). In Scotland, whenever I have mentioned such a possibility to members of either party it has been met with derision. This would tend to indicate that there is a substantial gulf between the left-of-ventre Labour Party and the SNP. Also, it would appear that policies such as making local councils cut social spending in order to enable tax breaks that benefit the more well-heeled in our society are not exactly thought of as in any way "left wing". So, at the minimum, I would request that the description of the SNP as being "left of centre" be removed from Wikipedia. Aneirin Gododdin ( talk) 10:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The interesting thing about the SNP is that it can accommodate a wider range of ideas than a traditional party. This gives it the advantage that in rural areas where it traditionally has garned support, it can have poicies which suit. It doesn't need to stick to specific dogma, although must accept some policies which could be regarded as left or right in order to have its own unique identity. Interestingly if Scotland did become independent, would the party dissolve as it had achieved its main aim? Could this gives rise to the paradox that if you want rid of the SNP, vote for them? {colinmack} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.68.229 ( talk) 22:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
the billy connelly part seems to me to be the only part of this article that realy reflects what I here from western scottish people (the veiw on the ground as it were) I here alot of "snp stood for scotland no pope in the 70s" and things like that now the billy connely statment is not like that but it reflects the veiw I get from working class people more than any other part of the article and I was wondering if anyone has more information on how this party was realy seen back in the day infact it feels like this article is pretty lame considering this is the party currently in powere in scotland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.226.0 ( talk • contribs) 01:03, 25 September 2009
Ill look up the reference next time Im in James Thins but I was reading recently how in the 18th century, Catholics in Aberdeenshire were amongst the most andi unionist elements in Scotand. Unionists such as Donald Findlay have been accused of sectarian bigotry and the Protestants that march in Northern Ireland annually from the West Coast of Scotland are presumably 100% anti independance for Scotland. Seamusalba ( talk) 15:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
My grandfather went to SNP meetings in the 1980's but stopped going after one time in which they were distributing pens that said 'No pope in this town'. That may be what you are referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhite148 ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Bold text'' Italic text
The numbers for recent general elections appear to be nonsense, e.g. 17% in 2005, and do not match the numbers on the pages for the elections. Or am I misunderstanding something? KarlFrei ( talk) 12:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
are they like the BNP or Neo Nazis? I always though when someone said "national party" it usually related to those "movements". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.184.5 ( talk) 18:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Unionism is no more or less a form of nationalism than Scottish nationalism, as it argues for an idea of nationhood based on a post 1707 interpretation of Britishness. The only difference is that it is the current orthodoxy. The SNP steers clear of ethnic arguments for separation just as the mainstream unionist parties steer clear of ethnic notions of britishness (otherwise theyd have to promote the use of Welsh in britain as the ethnic language seeing as thats where the ethnic idea was borrowd from : D)
Seamusalba (
talk)
15:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
User 97.91.184.5 is correct. The SNP most notably Alex Salmond constantly make racist anti-English remarks. Their (the SNP) whole pitch is sectarian based, they admit that, and it obviously couldn't be other than that. They want to separate from their fellow countrymen based only on a percieved ethnic basis.
Barryob is completely wrong, the SNP are more racist than the BNP and I don't recognise this term 'civic nationalist'. BritishWatcher is also wrong. I see no reason for saying they can't be called right wing extremists. Seamusalba is also wrong.
Pennypennypennypenny (
talk)
16:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I would be grateful if people would note that this smacks of personal abuse. Let barrybob respond to my points not just try to treat me like a 'second class citizen' here. If other people can post a view on the wikipedia let him explain why he says *I* can't post a view.
Pennypennypennypenny (
talk)
17:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Re: "The SNP's nationalism is left-wing nationalism, not right wing, a trait which it shares with other Celtic Nationalist parties such as Plaid Cymru and Sinn Féin", I'm not sure why the SNP is compared with Sinn Féin and not the SDLP. In fact the SNP resembles the SDLP quite a lot, and SF very little. Crc ( talk) 11:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
They are not like the BNP: NO
Should Billy Connolly be cited as a source of criticism over UK policy in Iraq or transport policy decisions in the West Midlands ie in what possible way is his opinion any more relevant than that of any critic of the SNP who also lacks expertise on the subject? His quote should be removed as irrelevant (otherwise any blogg online should be given equal weight as a serious analysis of the SNP and their attitudes to English people). Seamusalba ( talk) 17:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thats my main point. just because Billy Connoly is famous and Scottish, doesnt make him an expert, and he has his own prejudices about the SNP from reading the BBC News article cited. (he seems to see Scottish government as inherently leading to a loss of interest in internationalism and oppenness) But even if there could be shown to be a rise in anti English sentiment under the present SNP minority government, how is it possible to demonstrate whether its down to having an SNP government, or by say, frustration at the reaction to it from the other parties? its a matter of interpretation unless concrete examples of anti English speeches or sentiment can be cited from the party. Otherwise Sean Connery could be quoted as a criticism of Connoly's criticism (if i can find a twitter by him about Billy Connoly and the Parliament!). Seamusalba ( talk) 20:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Alex Salmond, the elected leader of the SNP and Queen Elizabeth's First Minister of her Scottish government, on 25th February 2010, presented a document, which is available on-line linked to here - Scotland’s Future: Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation and which included this quote.
1.19. Her Majesty The Queen would remain as Head of State. The current parliamentary and political Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would become a monarchical and social Union – united kingdoms rather than a United Kingdom – maintaining a relationship forged in 1603 by the Union of the Crowns.
It seems to me this leadership of Mr Salmond raises a question and discussion point about the appropriate description of the "Scottish National Party" - and that "a centre-left nationalist political party committed to Scottish Independence" is, shall we say, generous.
The thing is monarchy is a right-wing idea. So a party with a pro-monarchist policy platform, it seems to me, needs to have its self-descriptions, where it describes itself as something other than a right-wing monarchist party taken with a pinch of salt, or something.
It seems to me there are two approaches to analysing this question.
Approach 1.
Assume that the self-description of the party, what the party says about itself in its party name, in its party constitution
- in the case of the SNP, (a) that the party is a Scottish Nationalist party (b) that it is left of centre, left-leaning and so on,
- in the case of the British Labour Party (a) that the party represents the interest of Labour, trade unions and the workers (b) it is a democratic socialist party
are fair; assume that those self-descriptions are true and correct.
In which case when the party leaders or documents lead in a pro-monarchist direction absolutely contradicting the core true values of the party, as they do, then those leaders do not speak for their parties, their leadership is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ILLEGITIMATE as far as the party is concerned.
Approach 2.
Assume that when the party leaders and documents lead in a pro-monarchist direction that this direction is the true core value of the party. The party is in fact whatever the leader says it is.
In which case the party name, the party constitution and so on are meaningless. The SNP or Labour stand for whatever the leaders SAYS it stands for - and if the leader supports the right-wing idea of monarchy then the party is a right-wing monarchist party.
However mostly I don't think people DO analyse such contradictions in party leaders and party declared "principles". They just watch the story on TV then they watch the next story on TV. It all kind of washes over people.
Not only is monarchy right-wing it is also against national independence - since an independent nation elects its own head of state and is not TOLD who its head of state is.
Also in opposing the true independence of the Scottish nation, by going along with the subjugation and enslavement of the Scots to the imposed head of state, Queen Elizabeth, and that being very much against the interests of the nation, the SNP royalist leaders certainly and possibly also the party (depending on which of the two above analysis approaches one takes) ARE NOT THEREFORE "NATIONALISTS" BUT TRAITORS AGAINST THE NATION!
So what is the appropriate approach for Wikipedia I wonder? I just can't help getting the strong feeling that merely parroting the SNP's self-description is inadequate for wikipedia.
Peter Dow ( talk) 02:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I was immediately concerned when I read this stuff about the SNP being "Centre-Left". Who decided this? What kind of left? The old one like Bevan or the modern one like Blair? The SNP is clearly authoritarian, and anti-democratic - look at the releasing of the Lockerbie bomber for example.
I was also concerned about the list on the right of the article page: "Ideology - Scottish independence, Scottish nationalism, Civic nationalism, Social democracy"
Why are they listed as both "Scottish nationalist" and "Civic nationalist". What is this special term granted to them but not to oter racist organisations? And who says they're "social democrats"? I certainly don't. They are obviously fascist and against democracy - see the carve-up of 'vote allocation' they support for example. Taking people's votes and deciding who will get them. Totally undemocratic. Also foreigners living in Scotland could vote on Scotland's future in the various votes that have been held but the English people could not. No democracy there. Instead of "Political position Centre-Left" I would put "political position: extremist racist and authoritarian undemocratic". Pennypennypennypenny ( talk) 16:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Again I would like to draw people's attention to the way barrybob appears to have selected me for personal abuse. Pennypennypennypenny ( talk) 16:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. You're claiming the SNP are fascist because of Megrahi's release? Yes, because releasing a man with terminal cancer is just laced with Fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.104.204 ( talk) 11:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
So he outlived a prediction, huzzah. That doesn't change the fact that it has nothing to do with Fascism. The whole point is, and look through the talk page, Penny's arguments in particular just consist of "The SNP are racist" - yet provide no actual proof to back the argument up - only oppinion. And obviously biased at that.
With exception of Ian McKee, there is no support for the fact that any of the other MSPs mentioned consider themselves as "English". EU states including the UK, base their nationality laws on the principle of Jus Sanguinis (by right of blood), e.g. nationality is only automatic, if one of your parents has that nationality - in the UK that is the British Nationality Act 1981, where citizenship is issued if either parent is a British Citizen, or if the child is born on UK territory and one of the parents is entitled to become a UK citizen. The same should be applied to the constituent nations of the UK. Lest it would be possible to cite persons as being "Scottish" BUT NOT "British". Considering the lack of any legal possibility of this, this is a major mistake in the article.
The correct term (as someone who was born in England, lives in Scotland, and has a Scottish father, English mother and is a member of the Scottish National Party) is 'Anglo-Scottish' at a push.
Based on this assumption of 'birth as a ground for nationality' by the author, Scottish sportsmen, including historical figures such as the runner Eric Liddell, and more modern ones such as John Barclay and Graeme Morrisson (Scotland national rugby team players) would be Chinese. This is incorrect.
Article has been amended accordingly.
The additions by User:Pennypennypennypenny are not worthy of inclusion in the article they are nothing more than the sandard labour soundbites that you get every day in the Daily Records and no not conform to WP:NPOV-- Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This: "The party has been criticised over a £500,000 donation from the transport businessman Brian Souter. One month later, in April 2007, the SNP's commitment (made at the party's 2006 conference) to re-regulate the bus network was not included in their 2007 manifesto, although the SNP denies any direct link.[18] Opposition politicians suggested that the donation and policy shift were linked and that it was a case of "cash for policies", although no official accusations have been made.[19]" will have to be removed from "Accusations of 'cash for policies'" as the links show the accusations are not allowed by the wikipedia authorities above. Pennypennypennypenny ( talk) 12:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Re my post above: As I say, the stuff refrred to above links only to Labour etc. M.P.'s accusations and complaints - will an admin please either remove the thing above I point out in the article - or re-instate my own contributions to the article. There cannot be one rule for one user and another for snowded and his friend. Thanks. Pennypennypennypenny ( talk) 18:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This: "Scots: Scottis Naitional Pairtie)" should surely be removed. It's just an attempt at a Scottish accent not a language. Also "is a social democratic" concerns me. Who says so? - that they're socialists and democratic? I don't think they are. Suppporting the Lockerbie bombing against the people is not socialist for one thing. Pennypennypennypenny ( talk) 12:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Scots is a language recognised by the Scottish Government, UK government and the EU (see ECRML). Although I disagree with the spelling, "Scottis Naitional Pairtie" is the name that the party uses when writing in Scots and so if we have the Gaelic name we should have the Scots name. Scroggie ( talk) 13:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks like there might be bias in this: "At the 2009 European Parliament election the party topped the poll for the first time in a European Parliament election since 1979, with almost 100,000 more votes than the Scottish Labour Party." - Topped what poll? European Parliament elections are held in the whole country - they're not local elections. The racist segregation of the SNP and Scottish Labour party don't come into it on this occaision.
And in this: "The party holds 2 of 6 Scottish seats in the European Parliament, narrowly failing to win a Third seat by less than 1%." The U.K. is in the E.U., Scotland has no membership of the E.U. That's one of the things Salmond is crazily campaigning for. Pennypennypennypenny ( talk) 18:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Talking about Scottish seats is not anymore racist than talking about French seats. Race is not an issue with regards to the SNP (unless you can find WP:IRS source that says otherwise). There is the Young Asian Scots for Independence which is associated with the SNP. There is certainly a Scottish Government in the same way that your council is refered to as Local Government (See wikt:Government for more info). If the Scottish National Party has an official name in the Scots language then it should be listed, or all non-English names should be removed from all articles. Mutual-intellegability should not be a factor (else we should remove Parlement français). It is not Wikipedia's place to decide which officially (whether you approve of the "Governments" or not) recognised languages we should use. Scroggie ( talk) 23:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This article has been mentioned at AN/I. Editors of this page may wish to comment. Daicaregos ( talk) 14:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually in my opinion i would call them socialist :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.109.154 ( talk) 19:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it really correct to call the SNP a "centre-left" party, considering they are supported by right-wing multi-millionaire businessmen and by the right-wing press? ( 92.7.15.233 ( talk) 16:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC))
There's the Scottish Sun for a start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.22.133 ( talk) 10:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure.
Salmond had the support of all the right-wing newspapers in Scotland. There is no way the SNP can be accurately described as a "centre-left" party in 2011. ( 92.7.20.48 ( talk) 17:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC))
What certainly needs to be mentioned in the article is the fact that many people have publicly questioned whether the SNP are really a left-wing party any more. This is bound to increase massively now they have a majority. ( 92.7.29.234 ( talk) 11:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC))
The right-wing businessman supporting the SNP is Sir Brian Souter. ( 92.10.141.189 ( talk) 16:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC))
It should be called center-left to left-wing. The fact that right-wing newspapers support the SNP doesn't have to do always with the identity and the ideology of the party. Many left-wing parties in the south of Europe are supported by right-wing conservatives. This means very little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.19.218 ( talk) 22:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
In the infobox the number of members in the Scottish parliament has been changed from 69 to 68. Now as far as I'm aware and on this BBC page the number of members is 69. I'm pretty sure the election of one of these MSPs as presiding officer does not stop them from being an MSP... just wondering before I edit. JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 23:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, I've changed it to 69. According to the BBC website the breakdown is as follows for the schootish parliament: SNP 69, Labour 37, Conservative 15, Lib Dem 5, Green 2, Other 1. If anyone has a source for otherwise please let us know, but as far as I can tell it's 69 MSPs.
JoshuaJohnLee
talk softly, please
13:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph describes the 2011 election as a "landslide victory". However the SNP got 45% of the constituency votes, 44% of the list votes and 53% of the seats.The term "landslide" seems to be going a bit far. Would "outright victory" be better ? Idealfarmer ( talk) 08:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The Thatcher / Blair victories were described as landslides because, in terms of seats, they delivered significant three figure majorities in the Commons. The SNP majority at Holyrood is three ( or is it four?). There may be quotes to back up the use of the term, but I just think it gives the wrong impression in an introduction, and is ever so slightly pro SNP propaganda. Idealfarmer ( talk) 17:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not in any way suggesting that commentators in the press were spreading SNP propaganda by using the term on May 6th - they were probably just in shock and writing in haste. However the term is clealy "value laden" and its use in Wikipedia, months later, with time for sober reflection, looks like party propaganda. I am in no way denying the significance of getting any majority under the top up voting system but do you really regard a 45% share of the vote on a 70-something % turnout and a four seat majority in the 129 member chamber as a "landslide"? Under the voting system, 45% of the vote could have delivered 64 seats and no overall majority - would that still have been a landslide ? Is a one seat majority a landslide ? If not, why is four ? Idealfarmer ( talk) 18:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Just been and looked it up - turnout was 50 % ! Which means just over one person in five actually voted SNP. Idealfarmer ( talk) 19:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I am still not convinced. Other people are equating "landslide" with words like "overwhelming", "immense" and "spectacularly". I just don't see 45% of the vote on a 50% turnout and a four seat majority as overwhelming, immense or spectacular. The result itself may have been a shock or historic but that has more to do with things like the campaign starting with Labour well ahead in the opinion polls, or - arguably - the whole devolution set up being a Labour plot to keep the SNP permanently out of power. I have made very few actual edits to Wikipedia so I am going to Be Bold, and change Landslide victory to outright victory. Idealfarmer ( talk) 20:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Tell me why was a portion of detailed , sourced information removed?
It has also been confirmed that supporters of the SNP/Scottish supremacists have been physically violent towards English tourists and chanting Anglophobic insults [4] [5] and in 2011 , shortly before the SNP's rise to office in Scotland; an English woman was forced by yobs to leave her dream retirement home, vandalising the house and shouting Anglophobic abuse at her. [6]]
Another controversial move by the SNP is that with the release of the film Braveheart in 1997 and the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, it has brought a wave of Scottish nationalism and extremism; it has been reported that members of the Scottish National Party have been seen promoting their party outside where it was originally shown/filmed. They have even been confirmed reports of Scottish extremists burning the union flag in reaction to the film. [7] [8]
While the former part may be a bit iffy , the latter paragraph should be put on the page; It even says on the SNP's website about the whole braveheart affair. User:Goldblooded [[User_talk:Goldblooded|(Return Fire)] 21:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Well accusing me of something i support or havent done could be classed as a personal attack, but as always, im going to assume faith and assume you didnt mean it that way. The SNP have been reknown for being anglophobic; just look at some of their comments on the website and the facebook page , along with many other news articles which back up my evidence. Not just the ones ive shown. Besides you probably support them, hence your bias- so insulting me and saying i support the torys is ridiculous. User:Goldblooded (Return Fire) 14:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This article should state clearly some of the SNP's positions on social issues, such as the party's views on LGBT issues, immigration and so on LothianLiz ( talk) 09:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Daniel Pickford-Gordon here. Use encyclopedias etcetera. It has a number of MPs, and demands more devolution type things, so it needs to be discussed. More on the rate of increase in popularity, and whether popularity has decreased lately. How influential is Alex Salmond himself? How popular would it be if he wasn't in it? I have an amount of information, on the Topix United Kingdom Forum, i've made a number of posts: List Of Posts http://www.topix.net/forum/world/united-kingdom/T367RKHF7P0991G1C 62.249.253.7 ( talk) 15:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon
A number of individuals in the relevant part of the United Kingdom find this group very popular, which is an issue etcetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.253.137 ( talk) 09:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Though some (George Robertson perhaps) may have believed that the aim of the d'Hondt system was to prevent the SNP gain an overall majority, that has not actually worked, nor can it possibly do so without having the same restraint on every other party including Labour.
Donald Dewar's plan was essentially complete by about 1956 when he presented it to the Glasgow Academy Literary and Debating Society. At that time SNP had very little councilor representation, probably less than SGP today. DD was far sighted, I'd admit, but not THAT far. In fact he wanted more small parties represented.
The d'Hondt aim is that the majority of MSPs (however formed) who vote legislation into law had been supported by a majority of electors. I don't know if it has ever been calculated in practice.
John B Dick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.108.142 ( talk) 20:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Does the SNP have 48 or 47 seats in the British House of Commons. GoodDay ( talk) 14:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
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 [2].
Could a section be added for dependent territory?
See also: dependent territory [3]. vassal state [4].
2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:14A7:F25C:EEC0:DB63 ( talk) 19:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)DD
References
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)
This article doesn't always seem the most neutral. "The party has championed progressive taxation..." Dylan109 ( talk) 21:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I have requested semi-protection of this article due to recent persistent vandalism. Tiny beets 18:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I have also noticed vandalism, the SNP has always been a Scottish Nationalist party dating back to its creation of the x2 former parties, yet socialist keyboard warriors keep deleting any reference towards Scottish Nationalism. The current edit changed the SNP to solely a left wing socialist party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.104.231.204 ( talk) 08:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Does it’s history with being ‘Scottish Nationalist’ really warrant edits changing its name to the Scottish Nationalist Party? There has been a deliberate attempt to misquote the party’s name to associate it somehow with ideals other than it currently holds. Personal views aside, a party’s name is a party’s name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.90.134 ( talk) 08:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Is 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 following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
'it is completely appropriate to warn someone when they’re edit warring'
refusing to discuss on the talk page
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”
I have said why it should stay
you might not agree with the citation’s interpretation, but Wikipedia is built on reliable sources.
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 pageYes, 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.
has been variously described by commentatorsline -- 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)
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 pageThat's what a warning is, dude. It shouldn't have gotten that far.
You are not an uninvolved admin, you are not even an adminI never claimed to be an admin -- I'm not sure where you got that from.
I fear the only reason you're saying that now after wasting all that time is users you can't bully so easily have gotten involved.This isn't bullying, stop victimising yourself. All I asked for was for you to talk things through on the this talk page; we've now discussed the sources and settled on more nuanced wording. You can be grumpy about the fact that you had to come here, but this is how Wikipedia works. Now relax yourself and carry on with your life. — Czello 13:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
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":
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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! [[User:AlloDoon|AlloDoon] ( talk) 13:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
I can find no source for the figure of 85,000, often touted as belonging to December 2022. This cannot have come from the SNP because membership figures are in the party's annual review, which comes after the accounts are finalised. The accounts covering December 2022 don't end until May 2023, yet this number is being circulated in March 2023. The only reference to 85,000 I can find is a tweet boasting this level of membership by Peter Murrell in November 2014. -- Herneshound ( talk) 09:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Added a section about the arrest of Peter Murrell former CEO of the SNP, this is a very important part of the SNP's history. -- Devoke water 13:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions for the period 2004–2013. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
From the article:
I do not know how many figures, and who they are, but since the Callaghan government would have passed the five year mark since the October 1974 election that year, I think they may be fans of Anthony Wells' entertaining fantasy What if Gordon Banks had Played for England :-) -- Alan Peakall 18:23, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Whilst I do not disagree with you Alan, many Labour Party activists in Scotland quite often state this as their belief (whether they actually believe it or use it as a campaign tool against the SNP is another matter). -- Big Jim Fae Scotland 12.29pm, 23 Feb 2004
An example of how even people who lived through an event can suffer from "false memory syndrome".
Callaghan's defeat in '79 has been blamed on
- Callaghan's decision not to go to the polls in '78 - the winter of discontent - public spending cuts alienating core Labour supporters - the SNP voting against the Govt
Which option one chooses depends on one's politics rather than the facts - which suggest all these factors and others contributed to the result, but none is a full explanation IN ITSELF.
A similar bit of historical revisionism is being applied by anti-Blairites claiming that Blair cannot claim any credit for the election victories of 1997 and 2001. I'm afraid we can't travel in a time machine and find out whether Labour would have won in '97 if Smith had survived (how?????) or if Prescott had been leader (Prescott, of course, being one of the shining beacons of success in the Labour Government's record - irony mode off). Evidence does suggest that Blair was a decisive factor in the large pro-Labour swing amongst the middle class and "C1C2"s. But in reality, who knows?
Whether or not the SNP led to the downfall of the Callaghan government and led to 12 years of crushing Thatcherism upon this country is irrelevant. The Scottish National Party is againt the Tories stabbing Scotland in the back, much as it is against Labour stabbing Scotland in the back. Whoever it is makes NO difference. Although, the fact that it was a Labour party stabbing the people who voted for it in the back makes it a little worse. The Tories never claimed to stand for Scotland, much as they will try to tell you. Labour did. My family (extended, bar very few exceptions) voted Labour from 79-97. They (Labour, not my family), again, true to form, stabbed this country in the back. I use this metaphor again, as it's true. We brought down the Callaghan government, because it stabbed Scotland in the back. We will bring down ANY British government if it is stabbing Scotland in the back. It is because we want independence...and every British government stabs Scotland in the back, And that's not because I have a chip on my shoulder, thats not because I'm anti-English, that is another story. So before every bleeding heart New-Labourite blames us for Thatcher -
blame yourself.
Is the SNP still second in the polls? This link reports this quote from Alex Salmond: "In addition, this morning's poll shows the SNP already leading the race for the Scottish Parliament in 2007, which is an extremely encouraging sign indeed for the party at this stage." Is the article intro still appropriate? -- Liberlogos 04:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC) (a Quebecois interested in the Scots)
There have been very few polls that suggest the SNP has ever been in a better position than Labour and as such they can usually be attributed to the inherent margin of error in these matters.
Scotland is effectively a one party state. It has been for a long time. -- Breadandcheese 06:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
But - whose fault is that? The Conservatives were in a very strong position in Scotland from the 1920s to the 1950s - what happened to them? They had picked up a large %age of the votes from the demise of the Liberals after WW1 but only seemed to retain them for one generation. It's not Labour's fault that they continue to be the largest party in election after election
Exile 19:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I have just created this category: Category:Scottish National Party (SNP) politicians
I have addded a lot of SNP MSPs/MPs/other politicians to it, but if there's any I've missed please feel free to add them. It includes current and former members of the SNP, so far 51 articles are in this category. Vclaw 19:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- The address given as Edinburgh [Postcode] Scotland seems a tad POVish. If Scotland is to be included in the address (it is obvious, I don't believe it is necessary) it should be before the Postcode. If you were going to put in United Kingdom that may be another matter.
- Pantone 300 is not the official colour of the Saltire. There is no official colour beyond Blue/Azure.
It is my understanding that the SNP commonly uses 3 colours in their publicity material: the main one being yellow; but also "heather" (which I assume that most people would call either a light purple or a dark lilac?) and also a Pantone-300-ish blue (ie. the colour of the Saltire). An IP address just removed the link to blue, so I wondered if maybe the SNP have stopped using blue in their publications? Does anybody know?
I do not think that it is sensible to put "black" as one of the party's colours: every political party in the world commonly uses black, white and grey in their publications: these are tones, nor colours. -- Mais oui! 10:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The 'heather' was really a 2003 colour. It fell a bit out of use in 2005 and in 2007 really wasn't to be seen. I'd argue that it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandlerova ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The intro was changed to give precedence to historical data over current information, this is out of keeping with other UK political parties, the Labour_Party_(UK) doesnt mention the fact that it has historically been the 2nd party,but recent form has put it on top in the UK parliament. Should this discontinuity remain? 86.12.249.63 15:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
While of course Guest9999's edits, as to the SNP's strength in various parliamentary bodies, are accurate, I nonetheless think that they obscure the more important facts. After all, the SNP only competes for constituencies in Scotland. The previous version was more indicative of their overall success in the pursuit of such seats. Thus my non-vehement revert. Unschool 03:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
One of its parent categories, Category:Current members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies, has also been proposed for deletion.
Please visit the relevant CFD entry and contribute to the discussion.
Please note that although the CFD terminology is "merge", de facto this means deletion. Lovely euphemism... -- Mais oui! 02:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Two photos of Salmond have already been deleted.
Please contribute to discussion at:
Ta. -- Mais oui! 18:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Please review the following:
Peter Murrell <peter.murrell@snp.org> to me
show details 5:46 am (15 hours ago) You may use the images at:
http://www.snp.org/media/2007-03-15-alex-and-nicola-photos/SNP%207-3-07-3.jpg/view
Original Message-----
From: snphq@snp.org [2] Sent: 24 July 2007 16:04 To: peter.murrell@snp.org Subject: [Fwd: Wikipedia and the SNP]
Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Wikipedia and the SNP From: "Canaen" Date: Sat, July 14, 2007 7:45 am To: snp.hq@snp.org
Hi there,
My name's Canaen, I'm an editor at Wikipedia, the free, online Encyclopedia that anyone can edit. One of the things about running a free encyclopedia, is that all of our images must be free to be used for any purpose.
We endeavor to have a portrait picture of all prominent people who we've articles about, and Alex Salmond is one such person (his article can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Salmond). For some reason or other, it's been terribly difficult for us to find any image of Alex which is free to use for any purpose, and thus his article is not illustrated. If anyone at the SNP would be able to supply us with an image of Alex, either in the Public domain or licensed under a free license, we could add it to the article, and it would help immensely on the road to his article becoming a Featured Article, possibly featured on Wikipedia's front page.
As well, we've found it difficult to obtain free images for most of the other SNP politicians, and any other images would be helpful to us.
Slainte,
Canaen
File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 04:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
There are some asterisked entries in the Electoral performance section, but no explanation of the footnote. (At least, I couldn't find one.) / blahedo ( t) 22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone shed any light on its origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.2.198 ( talk) 01:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
People say it is the saltire, a thistle or a drop of oil depending. Nothing definitive, I am afraid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.178.115 ( talk) 12:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above. However, I remember that in the 1960s/1970s the symbol was also meant to represent the X that people make when voting, i.e. it was a combination of a vote and a thistle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmacd ( talk • contribs) 10:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
On the 30th September, user 'Francis Tyers' removed the bulk of the existing controversy section. The section was renamed 'Criticisms' and then the sections about the Brian Souter donation removed on the grounds that they are "not really a criticism" (they are, of course, controversial - hence the original section title).
I believe that the Souter story is a valid addition to this article, as it was certainly widely covered in the press at the time, so I have created a new 'Controversy' section. Personally I believe 'Criticisms' and 'Controversy' should be merged, but I will leave them as they are just now.
Templetongore 09:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The paragraphs on the Brian Souter donation keep getting removed. This is not useful editing. By all means add balance to a section, but don't simply delete (verified) information that you do not like.
For what it is worth, I am glad the SNP beat Labour this year - I am not trying to dirty their name, I only want to broaden the article to include all angles. I respect alot of the SNP policies, but I believe - as many do - that accepting the Souter donation was wrong. This information should be part of this article.
Templetongore 14:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Can someone help me out here? The Souter stuff taken down again, by someone using an anon IP address (can't guess who). I am losing faith in Wikipedia.
Templetongore 08:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Francis, While I agree that there should be some level of consistancy between pages covering the major parties, I think that, instead of removing the donation info from the SNP page, we should instead be adding similar content to other party pages. I also agree that our opinions are not relevant, but this was a big story in Scotland (where I live) and similar items can be found on other pages. For example, the Bank of Scotland's financial dealings with Pat Robertson are listed on their Wikipedia page. Any chunk of information can belong to one or many categories - I happen to think that the Souter story belongs to both a 'Donations' section but also a 'Controversy' section. Otherwise, presumably, the SNP could take money from anyone and have it hidden from Wikipedia users. What if they accepted money from outspoken racists, arms dealers etc, should that not be mentioned? Political parties exist partly to promote a set of ethics - we are expected to vote based on them - and so I feel it is important for people to know that they practice what they preach.
I would very much like the Labour donations to be listed on their page - a party far more corrupt than the SNP I am sure.
In the meantime, I will not put back the Controversy section until others come forward with an opinion.
Templetongore 11:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Should it be noted that the SNP is the only major party without the backing of a national or city newspaper? I believe a year or two ago they published their own newspaper with no success.--
Sandbagger
23:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - I think it should be noted. Anything, good or bad, that is newsworthy should be in the article, which is why the Souter stuff should be in there too. Templetongore 08:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
So a widely reported news item about a U-turn on one of the SNP's major policies is not relevant? The fact that the U-turn came just after a donation from someone who would benefit from that U-turn? I guess only the positive stuff is relevant. The fact that they were willing to take money from an openly bigoted man is a reflection of the moral standard of the party, and this should not be hidden from readers. Are you going to exclude everything that makes the party look bad? Templetongore 14:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I came here from WP:EAR. As discussed there, I looked at a section of a UK party article and saw that the section describes a controversial donation scandal. Although I agree there isn't a huge scandal here, I suggest at least trying to fairly represent the nature of the Souter donations. Can we possibly change "High profile donators to the party include founder of Stagecoach Brian Souter." to "A high profile and controversial donor to the party includes founder of Stagecoach Group Brian Souter." Thank you for hearing me out. ~a ( user • talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the editors of this page do not want anything negative showing up, so I doubt you will ever get them to agree to this. Only positive spin allowed here. Personally I think taking money from an outspoken homophobic business man and going back on a promise to re-regulate the buses is a disgrace. And both events could well be connected. Shameful. Templetongore 09:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
"The SNP also got Scotland's first Asian MSP, Karachi-born Bashir Ahmad elected."
I'd like someone to tell me how exactly that ties into accusations of Anglophobia. Until someone does, I'll remove it. Jamieli ( talk) 14:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It states in the intro. that the SNP is "left of centre". Prior to May 2007, such an assertion was somewhat hard either to prove or disprove. However, having seen what has happened since then, it is now apparent that any claim by the SNP to be in any measure on the "left" of the political spectrum is somewhat laughable. In Scotland, the two largest parties at present are Labour and Nationalist. The same is true in Wales. In Wales, however, the two parties agreed to co-operate (Labour and Plaid Cymru). In Scotland, whenever I have mentioned such a possibility to members of either party it has been met with derision. This would tend to indicate that there is a substantial gulf between the left-of-ventre Labour Party and the SNP. Also, it would appear that policies such as making local councils cut social spending in order to enable tax breaks that benefit the more well-heeled in our society are not exactly thought of as in any way "left wing". So, at the minimum, I would request that the description of the SNP as being "left of centre" be removed from Wikipedia. Aneirin Gododdin ( talk) 10:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The interesting thing about the SNP is that it can accommodate a wider range of ideas than a traditional party. This gives it the advantage that in rural areas where it traditionally has garned support, it can have poicies which suit. It doesn't need to stick to specific dogma, although must accept some policies which could be regarded as left or right in order to have its own unique identity. Interestingly if Scotland did become independent, would the party dissolve as it had achieved its main aim? Could this gives rise to the paradox that if you want rid of the SNP, vote for them? {colinmack} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.68.229 ( talk) 22:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
the billy connelly part seems to me to be the only part of this article that realy reflects what I here from western scottish people (the veiw on the ground as it were) I here alot of "snp stood for scotland no pope in the 70s" and things like that now the billy connely statment is not like that but it reflects the veiw I get from working class people more than any other part of the article and I was wondering if anyone has more information on how this party was realy seen back in the day infact it feels like this article is pretty lame considering this is the party currently in powere in scotland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.226.0 ( talk • contribs) 01:03, 25 September 2009
Ill look up the reference next time Im in James Thins but I was reading recently how in the 18th century, Catholics in Aberdeenshire were amongst the most andi unionist elements in Scotand. Unionists such as Donald Findlay have been accused of sectarian bigotry and the Protestants that march in Northern Ireland annually from the West Coast of Scotland are presumably 100% anti independance for Scotland. Seamusalba ( talk) 15:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
My grandfather went to SNP meetings in the 1980's but stopped going after one time in which they were distributing pens that said 'No pope in this town'. That may be what you are referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhite148 ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Bold text'' Italic text
The numbers for recent general elections appear to be nonsense, e.g. 17% in 2005, and do not match the numbers on the pages for the elections. Or am I misunderstanding something? KarlFrei ( talk) 12:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
are they like the BNP or Neo Nazis? I always though when someone said "national party" it usually related to those "movements". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.184.5 ( talk) 18:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Unionism is no more or less a form of nationalism than Scottish nationalism, as it argues for an idea of nationhood based on a post 1707 interpretation of Britishness. The only difference is that it is the current orthodoxy. The SNP steers clear of ethnic arguments for separation just as the mainstream unionist parties steer clear of ethnic notions of britishness (otherwise theyd have to promote the use of Welsh in britain as the ethnic language seeing as thats where the ethnic idea was borrowd from : D)
Seamusalba (
talk)
15:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
User 97.91.184.5 is correct. The SNP most notably Alex Salmond constantly make racist anti-English remarks. Their (the SNP) whole pitch is sectarian based, they admit that, and it obviously couldn't be other than that. They want to separate from their fellow countrymen based only on a percieved ethnic basis.
Barryob is completely wrong, the SNP are more racist than the BNP and I don't recognise this term 'civic nationalist'. BritishWatcher is also wrong. I see no reason for saying they can't be called right wing extremists. Seamusalba is also wrong.
Pennypennypennypenny (
talk)
16:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I would be grateful if people would note that this smacks of personal abuse. Let barrybob respond to my points not just try to treat me like a 'second class citizen' here. If other people can post a view on the wikipedia let him explain why he says *I* can't post a view.
Pennypennypennypenny (
talk)
17:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Re: "The SNP's nationalism is left-wing nationalism, not right wing, a trait which it shares with other Celtic Nationalist parties such as Plaid Cymru and Sinn Féin", I'm not sure why the SNP is compared with Sinn Féin and not the SDLP. In fact the SNP resembles the SDLP quite a lot, and SF very little. Crc ( talk) 11:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
They are not like the BNP: NO
Should Billy Connolly be cited as a source of criticism over UK policy in Iraq or transport policy decisions in the West Midlands ie in what possible way is his opinion any more relevant than that of any critic of the SNP who also lacks expertise on the subject? His quote should be removed as irrelevant (otherwise any blogg online should be given equal weight as a serious analysis of the SNP and their attitudes to English people). Seamusalba ( talk) 17:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thats my main point. just because Billy Connoly is famous and Scottish, doesnt make him an expert, and he has his own prejudices about the SNP from reading the BBC News article cited. (he seems to see Scottish government as inherently leading to a loss of interest in internationalism and oppenness) But even if there could be shown to be a rise in anti English sentiment under the present SNP minority government, how is it possible to demonstrate whether its down to having an SNP government, or by say, frustration at the reaction to it from the other parties? its a matter of interpretation unless concrete examples of anti English speeches or sentiment can be cited from the party. Otherwise Sean Connery could be quoted as a criticism of Connoly's criticism (if i can find a twitter by him about Billy Connoly and the Parliament!). Seamusalba ( talk) 20:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Alex Salmond, the elected leader of the SNP and Queen Elizabeth's First Minister of her Scottish government, on 25th February 2010, presented a document, which is available on-line linked to here - Scotland’s Future: Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation and which included this quote.
1.19. Her Majesty The Queen would remain as Head of State. The current parliamentary and political Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would become a monarchical and social Union – united kingdoms rather than a United Kingdom – maintaining a relationship forged in 1603 by the Union of the Crowns.
It seems to me this leadership of Mr Salmond raises a question and discussion point about the appropriate description of the "Scottish National Party" - and that "a centre-left nationalist political party committed to Scottish Independence" is, shall we say, generous.
The thing is monarchy is a right-wing idea. So a party with a pro-monarchist policy platform, it seems to me, needs to have its self-descriptions, where it describes itself as something other than a right-wing monarchist party taken with a pinch of salt, or something.
It seems to me there are two approaches to analysing this question.
Approach 1.
Assume that the self-description of the party, what the party says about itself in its party name, in its party constitution
- in the case of the SNP, (a) that the party is a Scottish Nationalist party (b) that it is left of centre, left-leaning and so on,
- in the case of the British Labour Party (a) that the party represents the interest of Labour, trade unions and the workers (b) it is a democratic socialist party
are fair; assume that those self-descriptions are true and correct.
In which case when the party leaders or documents lead in a pro-monarchist direction absolutely contradicting the core true values of the party, as they do, then those leaders do not speak for their parties, their leadership is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ILLEGITIMATE as far as the party is concerned.
Approach 2.
Assume that when the party leaders and documents lead in a pro-monarchist direction that this direction is the true core value of the party. The party is in fact whatever the leader says it is.
In which case the party name, the party constitution and so on are meaningless. The SNP or Labour stand for whatever the leaders SAYS it stands for - and if the leader supports the right-wing idea of monarchy then the party is a right-wing monarchist party.
However mostly I don't think people DO analyse such contradictions in party leaders and party declared "principles". They just watch the story on TV then they watch the next story on TV. It all kind of washes over people.
Not only is monarchy right-wing it is also against national independence - since an independent nation elects its own head of state and is not TOLD who its head of state is.
Also in opposing the true independence of the Scottish nation, by going along with the subjugation and enslavement of the Scots to the imposed head of state, Queen Elizabeth, and that being very much against the interests of the nation, the SNP royalist leaders certainly and possibly also the party (depending on which of the two above analysis approaches one takes) ARE NOT THEREFORE "NATIONALISTS" BUT TRAITORS AGAINST THE NATION!
So what is the appropriate approach for Wikipedia I wonder? I just can't help getting the strong feeling that merely parroting the SNP's self-description is inadequate for wikipedia.
Peter Dow ( talk) 02:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I was immediately concerned when I read this stuff about the SNP being "Centre-Left". Who decided this? What kind of left? The old one like Bevan or the modern one like Blair? The SNP is clearly authoritarian, and anti-democratic - look at the releasing of the Lockerbie bomber for example.
I was also concerned about the list on the right of the article page: "Ideology - Scottish independence, Scottish nationalism, Civic nationalism, Social democracy"
Why are they listed as both "Scottish nationalist" and "Civic nationalist". What is this special term granted to them but not to oter racist organisations? And who says they're "social democrats"? I certainly don't. They are obviously fascist and against democracy - see the carve-up of 'vote allocation' they support for example. Taking people's votes and deciding who will get them. Totally undemocratic. Also foreigners living in Scotland could vote on Scotland's future in the various votes that have been held but the English people could not. No democracy there. Instead of "Political position Centre-Left" I would put "political position: extremist racist and authoritarian undemocratic". Pennypennypennypenny ( talk) 16:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Again I would like to draw people's attention to the way barrybob appears to have selected me for personal abuse. Pennypennypennypenny ( talk) 16:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. You're claiming the SNP are fascist because of Megrahi's release? Yes, because releasing a man with terminal cancer is just laced with Fascism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.104.204 ( talk) 11:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
So he outlived a prediction, huzzah. That doesn't change the fact that it has nothing to do with Fascism. The whole point is, and look through the talk page, Penny's arguments in particular just consist of "The SNP are racist" - yet provide no actual proof to back the argument up - only oppinion. And obviously biased at that.
With exception of Ian McKee, there is no support for the fact that any of the other MSPs mentioned consider themselves as "English". EU states including the UK, base their nationality laws on the principle of Jus Sanguinis (by right of blood), e.g. nationality is only automatic, if one of your parents has that nationality - in the UK that is the British Nationality Act 1981, where citizenship is issued if either parent is a British Citizen, or if the child is born on UK territory and one of the parents is entitled to become a UK citizen. The same should be applied to the constituent nations of the UK. Lest it would be possible to cite persons as being "Scottish" BUT NOT "British". Considering the lack of any legal possibility of this, this is a major mistake in the article.
The correct term (as someone who was born in England, lives in Scotland, and has a Scottish father, English mother and is a member of the Scottish National Party) is 'Anglo-Scottish' at a push.
Based on this assumption of 'birth as a ground for nationality' by the author, Scottish sportsmen, including historical figures such as the runner Eric Liddell, and more modern ones such as John Barclay and Graeme Morrisson (Scotland national rugby team players) would be Chinese. This is incorrect.
Article has been amended accordingly.
The additions by User:Pennypennypennypenny are not worthy of inclusion in the article they are nothing more than the sandard labour soundbites that you get every day in the Daily Records and no not conform to WP:NPOV-- Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
This: "The party has been criticised over a £500,000 donation from the transport businessman Brian Souter. One month later, in April 2007, the SNP's commitment (made at the party's 2006 conference) to re-regulate the bus network was not included in their 2007 manifesto, although the SNP denies any direct link.[18] Opposition politicians suggested that the donation and policy shift were linked and that it was a case of "cash for policies", although no official accusations have been made.[19]" will have to be removed from "Accusations of 'cash for policies'" as the links show the accusations are not allowed by the wikipedia authorities above. Pennypennypennypenny ( talk) 12:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Re my post above: As I say, the stuff refrred to above links only to Labour etc. M.P.'s accusations and complaints - will an admin please either remove the thing above I point out in the article - or re-instate my own contributions to the article. There cannot be one rule for one user and another for snowded and his friend. Thanks. Pennypennypennypenny ( talk) 18:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This: "Scots: Scottis Naitional Pairtie)" should surely be removed. It's just an attempt at a Scottish accent not a language. Also "is a social democratic" concerns me. Who says so? - that they're socialists and democratic? I don't think they are. Suppporting the Lockerbie bombing against the people is not socialist for one thing. Pennypennypennypenny ( talk) 12:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Scots is a language recognised by the Scottish Government, UK government and the EU (see ECRML). Although I disagree with the spelling, "Scottis Naitional Pairtie" is the name that the party uses when writing in Scots and so if we have the Gaelic name we should have the Scots name. Scroggie ( talk) 13:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks like there might be bias in this: "At the 2009 European Parliament election the party topped the poll for the first time in a European Parliament election since 1979, with almost 100,000 more votes than the Scottish Labour Party." - Topped what poll? European Parliament elections are held in the whole country - they're not local elections. The racist segregation of the SNP and Scottish Labour party don't come into it on this occaision.
And in this: "The party holds 2 of 6 Scottish seats in the European Parliament, narrowly failing to win a Third seat by less than 1%." The U.K. is in the E.U., Scotland has no membership of the E.U. That's one of the things Salmond is crazily campaigning for. Pennypennypennypenny ( talk) 18:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Talking about Scottish seats is not anymore racist than talking about French seats. Race is not an issue with regards to the SNP (unless you can find WP:IRS source that says otherwise). There is the Young Asian Scots for Independence which is associated with the SNP. There is certainly a Scottish Government in the same way that your council is refered to as Local Government (See wikt:Government for more info). If the Scottish National Party has an official name in the Scots language then it should be listed, or all non-English names should be removed from all articles. Mutual-intellegability should not be a factor (else we should remove Parlement français). It is not Wikipedia's place to decide which officially (whether you approve of the "Governments" or not) recognised languages we should use. Scroggie ( talk) 23:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
This article has been mentioned at AN/I. Editors of this page may wish to comment. Daicaregos ( talk) 14:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually in my opinion i would call them socialist :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.109.154 ( talk) 19:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it really correct to call the SNP a "centre-left" party, considering they are supported by right-wing multi-millionaire businessmen and by the right-wing press? ( 92.7.15.233 ( talk) 16:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC))
There's the Scottish Sun for a start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.22.133 ( talk) 10:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure.
Salmond had the support of all the right-wing newspapers in Scotland. There is no way the SNP can be accurately described as a "centre-left" party in 2011. ( 92.7.20.48 ( talk) 17:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC))
What certainly needs to be mentioned in the article is the fact that many people have publicly questioned whether the SNP are really a left-wing party any more. This is bound to increase massively now they have a majority. ( 92.7.29.234 ( talk) 11:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC))
The right-wing businessman supporting the SNP is Sir Brian Souter. ( 92.10.141.189 ( talk) 16:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC))
It should be called center-left to left-wing. The fact that right-wing newspapers support the SNP doesn't have to do always with the identity and the ideology of the party. Many left-wing parties in the south of Europe are supported by right-wing conservatives. This means very little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.19.218 ( talk) 22:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
In the infobox the number of members in the Scottish parliament has been changed from 69 to 68. Now as far as I'm aware and on this BBC page the number of members is 69. I'm pretty sure the election of one of these MSPs as presiding officer does not stop them from being an MSP... just wondering before I edit. JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 23:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, I've changed it to 69. According to the BBC website the breakdown is as follows for the schootish parliament: SNP 69, Labour 37, Conservative 15, Lib Dem 5, Green 2, Other 1. If anyone has a source for otherwise please let us know, but as far as I can tell it's 69 MSPs.
JoshuaJohnLee
talk softly, please
13:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph describes the 2011 election as a "landslide victory". However the SNP got 45% of the constituency votes, 44% of the list votes and 53% of the seats.The term "landslide" seems to be going a bit far. Would "outright victory" be better ? Idealfarmer ( talk) 08:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The Thatcher / Blair victories were described as landslides because, in terms of seats, they delivered significant three figure majorities in the Commons. The SNP majority at Holyrood is three ( or is it four?). There may be quotes to back up the use of the term, but I just think it gives the wrong impression in an introduction, and is ever so slightly pro SNP propaganda. Idealfarmer ( talk) 17:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not in any way suggesting that commentators in the press were spreading SNP propaganda by using the term on May 6th - they were probably just in shock and writing in haste. However the term is clealy "value laden" and its use in Wikipedia, months later, with time for sober reflection, looks like party propaganda. I am in no way denying the significance of getting any majority under the top up voting system but do you really regard a 45% share of the vote on a 70-something % turnout and a four seat majority in the 129 member chamber as a "landslide"? Under the voting system, 45% of the vote could have delivered 64 seats and no overall majority - would that still have been a landslide ? Is a one seat majority a landslide ? If not, why is four ? Idealfarmer ( talk) 18:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Just been and looked it up - turnout was 50 % ! Which means just over one person in five actually voted SNP. Idealfarmer ( talk) 19:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I am still not convinced. Other people are equating "landslide" with words like "overwhelming", "immense" and "spectacularly". I just don't see 45% of the vote on a 50% turnout and a four seat majority as overwhelming, immense or spectacular. The result itself may have been a shock or historic but that has more to do with things like the campaign starting with Labour well ahead in the opinion polls, or - arguably - the whole devolution set up being a Labour plot to keep the SNP permanently out of power. I have made very few actual edits to Wikipedia so I am going to Be Bold, and change Landslide victory to outright victory. Idealfarmer ( talk) 20:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Tell me why was a portion of detailed , sourced information removed?
It has also been confirmed that supporters of the SNP/Scottish supremacists have been physically violent towards English tourists and chanting Anglophobic insults [4] [5] and in 2011 , shortly before the SNP's rise to office in Scotland; an English woman was forced by yobs to leave her dream retirement home, vandalising the house and shouting Anglophobic abuse at her. [6]]
Another controversial move by the SNP is that with the release of the film Braveheart in 1997 and the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, it has brought a wave of Scottish nationalism and extremism; it has been reported that members of the Scottish National Party have been seen promoting their party outside where it was originally shown/filmed. They have even been confirmed reports of Scottish extremists burning the union flag in reaction to the film. [7] [8]
While the former part may be a bit iffy , the latter paragraph should be put on the page; It even says on the SNP's website about the whole braveheart affair. User:Goldblooded [[User_talk:Goldblooded|(Return Fire)] 21:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Well accusing me of something i support or havent done could be classed as a personal attack, but as always, im going to assume faith and assume you didnt mean it that way. The SNP have been reknown for being anglophobic; just look at some of their comments on the website and the facebook page , along with many other news articles which back up my evidence. Not just the ones ive shown. Besides you probably support them, hence your bias- so insulting me and saying i support the torys is ridiculous. User:Goldblooded (Return Fire) 14:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
This article should state clearly some of the SNP's positions on social issues, such as the party's views on LGBT issues, immigration and so on LothianLiz ( talk) 09:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Daniel Pickford-Gordon here. Use encyclopedias etcetera. It has a number of MPs, and demands more devolution type things, so it needs to be discussed. More on the rate of increase in popularity, and whether popularity has decreased lately. How influential is Alex Salmond himself? How popular would it be if he wasn't in it? I have an amount of information, on the Topix United Kingdom Forum, i've made a number of posts: List Of Posts http://www.topix.net/forum/world/united-kingdom/T367RKHF7P0991G1C 62.249.253.7 ( talk) 15:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon
A number of individuals in the relevant part of the United Kingdom find this group very popular, which is an issue etcetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.253.137 ( talk) 09:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Though some (George Robertson perhaps) may have believed that the aim of the d'Hondt system was to prevent the SNP gain an overall majority, that has not actually worked, nor can it possibly do so without having the same restraint on every other party including Labour.
Donald Dewar's plan was essentially complete by about 1956 when he presented it to the Glasgow Academy Literary and Debating Society. At that time SNP had very little councilor representation, probably less than SGP today. DD was far sighted, I'd admit, but not THAT far. In fact he wanted more small parties represented.
The d'Hondt aim is that the majority of MSPs (however formed) who vote legislation into law had been supported by a majority of electors. I don't know if it has ever been calculated in practice.
John B Dick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.108.142 ( talk) 20:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
Does the SNP have 48 or 47 seats in the British House of Commons. GoodDay ( talk) 14:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
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 [2].
Could a section be added for dependent territory?
See also: dependent territory [3]. vassal state [4].
2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:14A7:F25C:EEC0:DB63 ( talk) 19:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)DD
References
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)
This article doesn't always seem the most neutral. "The party has championed progressive taxation..." Dylan109 ( talk) 21:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 10:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I have requested semi-protection of this article due to recent persistent vandalism. Tiny beets 18:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I have also noticed vandalism, the SNP has always been a Scottish Nationalist party dating back to its creation of the x2 former parties, yet socialist keyboard warriors keep deleting any reference towards Scottish Nationalism. The current edit changed the SNP to solely a left wing socialist party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.104.231.204 ( talk) 08:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Does it’s history with being ‘Scottish Nationalist’ really warrant edits changing its name to the Scottish Nationalist Party? There has been a deliberate attempt to misquote the party’s name to associate it somehow with ideals other than it currently holds. Personal views aside, a party’s name is a party’s name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.90.134 ( talk) 08:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Is 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 following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
'it is completely appropriate to warn someone when they’re edit warring'
refusing to discuss on the talk page
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”
I have said why it should stay
you might not agree with the citation’s interpretation, but Wikipedia is built on reliable sources.
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 pageYes, 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.
has been variously described by commentatorsline -- 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)
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 pageThat's what a warning is, dude. It shouldn't have gotten that far.
You are not an uninvolved admin, you are not even an adminI never claimed to be an admin -- I'm not sure where you got that from.
I fear the only reason you're saying that now after wasting all that time is users you can't bully so easily have gotten involved.This isn't bullying, stop victimising yourself. All I asked for was for you to talk things through on the this talk page; we've now discussed the sources and settled on more nuanced wording. You can be grumpy about the fact that you had to come here, but this is how Wikipedia works. Now relax yourself and carry on with your life. — Czello 13:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
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":
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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! [[User:AlloDoon|AlloDoon] ( talk) 13:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
I can find no source for the figure of 85,000, often touted as belonging to December 2022. This cannot have come from the SNP because membership figures are in the party's annual review, which comes after the accounts are finalised. The accounts covering December 2022 don't end until May 2023, yet this number is being circulated in March 2023. The only reference to 85,000 I can find is a tweet boasting this level of membership by Peter Murrell in November 2014. -- Herneshound ( talk) 09:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Added a section about the arrest of Peter Murrell former CEO of the SNP, this is a very important part of the SNP's history. -- Devoke water 13:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)