Talk:Scottish National Party
|While the Biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scottish National Party article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Election box metadata
- 2 scotland no pope
- 3 Electoral performance
- 4 SNP
- 5 Why are Billy Connolly's viewed as relevant? he has no discernable expertise or relevance to an SNP article
- 6 Is the SNP REALLY a "a centre-left nationalist political party committed to Scottish Independence"?
- 7 "English" SNP MSP's in "Accusations of Anglophobia"
- 8 Recent edits by Penny
- 9 Introduction
- 10 ANI
- 11 Centre-left?
- 12 Number of MSPs listed in infobox as 68
- 13 "Landslide victory"
- 14 7nd October edit
- 15 Flawed article
- 16 More Is Required
- 17 Majority not intended to be impossible
- 18 the right of scots living outside of scotland to vote.
- 19 Depute or Deputy
- 20 Membership numbers
- 21 The civic nationalism debate
- 22 The General Election
Election box metadata
This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.
These links provide easy access to this meta data:
scotland no pope
the billy connelly part seems to me to be the only part of this article that realy reflects what I here from western scottish people (the veiw on the ground as it were) I here alot of "snp stood for scotland no pope in the 70s" and things like that now the billy connely statment is not like that but it reflects the veiw I get from working class people more than any other part of the article and I was wondering if anyone has more information on how this party was realy seen back in the day infact it feels like this article is pretty lame considering this is the party currently in powere in scotland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 25 September 2009
Ill look up the reference next time Im in James Thins but I was reading recently how in the 18th century, Catholics in Aberdeenshire were amongst the most andi unionist elements in Scotand. Unionists such as Donald Findlay have been accused of sectarian bigotry and the Protestants that march in Northern Ireland annually from the West Coast of Scotland are presumably 100% anti independance for Scotland. Seamusalba (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- What exactly does "snp stood for scotland no pope in the 70s" mean? I was a working man in the 70's and have no idea what you mean. Jack forbes (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think the alleged phrase was actually "Soon No Pope" although from what I understand (and a quick Google supports) it was a term mainly used by Labour. I forget where I read it but there's some stuff out there about how the SNP used to poll significantly better in Protestant districts than in Catholic districts in areas where religion was still a factor in voting behaviour (one of the factors in recent years has been the party's improved performance amongst Catholic voters). However this phenomenon in Scottish voting long predates the SNP as a major force in Scottish politics and it may just be that Labour held onto the Catholic vote rather better than the Conservatives held onto the Protestant vote, thus giving the SNP more scope for advancement in the latter. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
My grandfather went to SNP meetings in the 1980's but stopped going after one time in which they were distributing pens that said 'No pope in this town'. That may be what you are referring to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhite148 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Bold text''Italic text
The numbers for recent general elections appear to be nonsense, e.g. 17% in 2005, and do not match the numbers on the pages for the elections. Or am I misunderstanding something? KarlFrei (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- That figure is sadly accurate for the votes when only taking into account Scotland. Heres a good source for it BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why sadly? Jack forbes (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is 17.7% more than they should have got! ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, but it's far less than they have now. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is 17.7% more than they should have got! ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Why sadly? Jack forbes (talk) 15:12, 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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- No the SNP are civic nationalists whereas the BNP are ethnic nationalist--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- They are separatists but not right wing extremists like the BNP. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Unionism is no more or less a form of nationalism than Scottish nationalism, as it argues for an idea of nationhood based on a post 1707 interpretation of Britishness. The only difference is that it is the current orthodoxy. The SNP steers clear of ethnic arguments for separation just as the mainstream unionist parties steer clear of ethnic notions of britishness (otherwise theyd have to promote the use of Welsh in britain as the ethnic language seeing as thats where the ethnic idea was borrowd from : D) Seamusalba (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
User 22.214.171.124 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)
- Ok where to being, sectarianism and racism are two seperate things one is based is a religious conflict the other on race neither apply to the SNP who appeal to many faiths and ethnic backrounds.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Re: "The SNP's nationalism is left-wing nationalism, not right wing, a trait which it shares with other Celtic Nationalist parties such as Plaid Cymru and Sinn Féin", I'm not sure why the SNP is compared with Sinn Féin and not the SDLP. In fact the SNP resembles the SDLP quite a lot, and SF very little.Crc (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
They are not like the BNP: NO
Why are Billy Connolly's viewed as relevant? he has no discernable expertise or relevance to an SNP article
Should Billy Connolly be cited as a source of criticism over UK policy in Iraq or transport policy decisions in the West Midlands ie in what possible way is his opinion any more relevant than that of any critic of the SNP who also lacks expertise on the subject? His quote should be removed as irrelevant (otherwise any blogg online should be given equal weight as a serious analysis of the SNP and their attitudes to English people). Seamusalba (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think he's being cited as a source; rather, his criticism is being related in a source because he is notable. But I share your suspicions about the inclusion of this material. I don't care for "Criticism" sections is encyclopedia articles in general, but I can tolerate them in certain contexts. For instance, in this example, if an academic report came out showing that, say, the SNP's campaigns increased anglophobia, and this was widely publicised in mainstream media, yes, it's tolerably valid to put in an article. But I can't see a place for cheap partisan attacks by a known opponent of the movement, where it is impossible to verify the basis of the attacks on any good evidence. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Thats my main point. just because Billy Connoly is famous and Scottish, doesnt make him an expert, and he has his own prejudices about the SNP from reading the BBC News article cited. (he seems to see Scottish government as inherently leading to a loss of interest in internationalism and oppenness) But even if there could be shown to be a rise in anti English sentiment under the present SNP minority government, how is it possible to demonstrate whether its down to having an SNP government, or by say, frustration at the reaction to it from the other parties? its a matter of interpretation unless concrete examples of anti English speeches or sentiment can be cited from the party. Otherwise Sean Connery could be quoted as a criticism of Connoly's criticism (if i can find a twitter by him about Billy Connoly and the Parliament!). Seamusalba (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the SNP REALLY a "a centre-left nationalist political party committed to Scottish Independence"?
Alex Salmond, the elected leader of the SNP and Queen Elizabeth's First Minister of her Scottish government, on 25th February 2010, presented a document, which is available on-line linked to here - Scotland’s Future: Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation and which included this quote.
1.19. Her Majesty The Queen would remain as Head of State. The current parliamentary and political Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would become a monarchical and social Union – united kingdoms rather than a United Kingdom – maintaining a relationship forged in 1603 by the Union of the Crowns.
It seems to me this leadership of Mr Salmond raises a question and discussion point about the appropriate description of the "Scottish National Party" - and that "a centre-left nationalist political party committed to Scottish Independence" is, shall we say, generous.
The thing is monarchy is a right-wing idea. So a party with a pro-monarchist policy platform, it seems to me, needs to have its self-descriptions, where it describes itself as something other than a right-wing monarchist party taken with a pinch of salt, or something.
It seems to me there are two approaches to analysing this question.
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.
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.
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)
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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps Scottish officials should have double-checked to see if Abdelbaset al-Megrahi actually did have terminal cancer, since he's still alive (and seemingly well) now. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
So he outlived a prediction, huzzah. That doesn't change the fact that it has nothing to do with Fascism. The whole point is, and look through the talk page, Penny's arguments in particular just consist of "The SNP are racist" - yet provide no actual proof to back the argument up - only oppinion. And obviously biased at that.
"English" SNP MSP's in "Accusations of Anglophobia"
With exception of Ian McKee, there is no support for the fact that any of the other MSPs mentioned consider themselves as "English". EU states including the UK, base their nationality laws on the principle of Jus Sanguinis (by right of blood), e.g. nationality is only automatic, if one of your parents has that nationality - in the UK that is the British Nationality Act 1981, where citizenship is issued if either parent is a British Citizen, or if the child is born on UK territory and one of the parents is entitled to become a UK citizen. The same should be applied to the constituent nations of the UK. Lest it would be possible to cite persons as being "Scottish" BUT NOT "British". Considering the lack of any legal possibility of this, this is a major mistake in the article.
The correct term (as someone who was born in England, lives in Scotland, and has a Scottish father, English mother and is a member of the Scottish National Party) is 'Anglo-Scottish' at a push.
Based on this assumption of 'birth as a ground for nationality' by the author, Scottish sportsmen, including historical figures such as the runner Eric Liddell, and more modern ones such as John Barclay and Graeme Morrisson (Scotland national rugby team players) would be Chinese. This is incorrect.
Article has been amended accordingly.
Recent edits by Penny
The additions by User:Pennypennypennypenny are not worthy of inclusion in the article they are nothing more than the sandard labour soundbites that you get every day in the Daily Records and no not conform to WP:NPOV--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
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. 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." 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)
- Penny, you should really read up on what you are posting. The "Lockerbie Bomber"'s representatives approached the Scottish government with a view to appeal for early release on compassionate grounds as there was apparently evidence to support the possibility of him dying within three months. As such, Kenny McAskill HAD to consider this, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE presented. The CORRECT decision was made on the basis of this. BTW, FYI, I personally think he should have been left to rot in Greenock Prison, BUT unfortunately, I also agree that the correct decision was made based on the evidence presented. If the request had been denied, based on evidence presented, it is possible that the Scottish government may have actually left themselves open to legal action. The fact that he is still alive after three months in neither here nor there, as precise predictions of longevity given some cancers are still difficult, even for the experts. An ex of mine, who, years ago was treated for Hodgkin's Lymphoma decided to discontinue treatment against medical advice, and was booked in for a checkup after a few months, although was told that she was not expected to be able to attend. (Being dead and all). This was over twenty years ago...184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell
Scots is a language recognised by the Scottish Government, UK government and the EU (see ECRML). Although I disagree with the spelling, "Scottis Naitional Pairtie" is the name that the party uses when writing in Scots and so if we have the Gaelic name we should have the Scots name. Scroggie (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's no such thing as a Scottish government, and the U.K. 'Government' 'recognise' anything that's daft and harms society. The E.U. is irrelevant to the legitimacy of anything - especially in relation to the U.K. Putting this stuff in the 'Scots dialect' is just embarrassing for an encyclopedia. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks like there might be bias in this: "At the 2009 European Parliament election the party topped the poll for the first time in a European Parliament election since 1979, with almost 100,000 more votes than the Scottish Labour Party." - Topped what poll? European Parliament elections are held in the whole country - they're not local elections. The racist segregation of the SNP and Scottish Labour party don't come into it on this occaision.
And in this: "The party holds 2 of 6 Scottish seats in the European Parliament, narrowly failing to win a Third seat by less than 1%." The U.K. is in the E.U., Scotland has no membership of the E.U. That's one of the things Salmond is crazily campaigning for. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is no requirement for Scotland to be independent to talk about Scottish Seats, if you check the BBC and other agencies you will see its common. The accusation of racism that you make has no support that I know of in any third party reference, its your own unsupported polemic.--Snowded TALK 22:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Talking about Scottish seats is not anymore racist than talking about French seats. Race is not an issue with regards to the SNP (unless you can find WP:IRS source that says otherwise). There is the Young Asian Scots for Independence which is associated with the SNP. There is certainly a Scottish Government in the same way that your council is refered to as Local Government (See wikt:Government for more info). If the Scottish National Party has an official name in the Scots language then it should be listed, or all non-English names should be removed from all articles. Mutual-intellegability should not be a factor (else we should remove Parlement français). It is not Wikipedia's place to decide which officially (whether you approve of the "Governments" or not) recognised languages we should use. Scroggie (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
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? (220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC))
- It would be helpful if you named the businessmenn and press establishments you are referring to. JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 01:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have a source to link the SNP to the Sun? JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 13:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
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. (18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC))
- I think you'll find none of the main newspapers backed Salmond until the end of the election -ask any Scot which papers supported him during the four-year term. The papers kept printing flaky polls based on 1000 sample sizes and only when the final polls backed the SNP did they grudgingly come round and "admit" they backed him, stsrting with the Sun. You'd have to look for online news sites like Newsnet Scotland to find any news items supporting him before that. Zagubov (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- With that source, you could definitely go ahead and say that the Sun supported Alex Salmond. I wouldn't say that's enough evidence to support saying they're not a centre-left party. If you wish to add in that he had the Sun's backing (albeit after a while of watching the polls), then that's fine. JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 12:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
What certainly needs to be mentioned in the article is the fact that many people have publicly questioned whether the SNP are really a left-wing party any more. This is bound to increase massively now they have a majority. (22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC))
Number of MSPs listed in infobox as 68
In the infobox the number of members in the Scottish parliament has been changed from 69 to 68. Now as far as I'm aware and on this BBC page the number of members is 69. I'm pretty sure the election of one of these MSPs as presiding officer does not stop them from being an MSP... just wondering before I edit. JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 23:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, I've changed it to 69. According to the BBC website the breakdown is as follows for the schootish parliament: SNP 69, Labour 37, Conservative 15, Lib Dem 5, Green 2, Other 1. If anyone has a source for otherwise please let us know, but as far as I can tell it's 69 MSPs. JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 13:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I'm now starting to backtrack myself, as while a presiding officer doesn't renounce being an MSP they do renounce their party. Whoops, sorry guys! JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 13:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph describes the 2011 election as a "landslide victory". However the SNP got 45% of the constituency votes, 44% of the list votes and 53% of the seats.The term "landslide" seems to be going a bit far. Would "outright victory" be better ? Idealfarmer (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, landslide is not appropriate here, since that word is defined as "An overwhelming majority of votes for one party in an election". I wouldn't say this constitutes a "landslide". But it is significant and I think outright victory would be appropriate. JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 12:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Tony Blair's 1997 victory is commonly described as a "landslide". Remind me, what % of the vote did his party get that year? Same with Thatcher's "landslides" - none of which had majority support from the electorate.
- We rely on reliable ext refs, per official Wikipedia policy. The term "landslide" was commonly applied to the SNP victory in such ext refs. --Mais oui! (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The Thatcher / Blair victories were described as landslides because, in terms of seats, they delivered significant three figure majorities in the Commons. The SNP majority at Holyrood is three ( or is it four?). There may be quotes to back up the use of the term, but I just think it gives the wrong impression in an introduction, and is ever so slightly pro SNP propaganda. Idealfarmer (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- "SNP propaganda"?!? Puhrleeese. The Unionist newspapers describing it as an SNP "landslide" are not in the habit of publishing SNP propaganda. Quite the opposite in fact.
- And as for Westminster majorities, that is under a first past the post voting system. Such a system would have produced an immense parliamentary majority on that share of the vote for the SNP too. --Mais oui! (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not in any way suggesting that commentators in the press were spreading SNP propaganda by using the term on May 6th - they were probably just in shock and writing in haste. However the term is clealy "value laden" and its use in Wikipedia, months later, with time for sober reflection, looks like party propaganda. I am in no way denying the significance of getting any majority under the top up voting system but do you really regard a 45% share of the vote on a 70-something % turnout and a four seat majority in the 129 member chamber as a "landslide"? Under the voting system, 45% of the vote could have delivered 64 seats and no overall majority - would that still have been a landslide ? Is a one seat majority a landslide ? If not, why is four ?Idealfarmer (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- The term "landslide" isn't used sufficiently consistently to provide a full definition but List of landslide victories uses "by an overwhelming margin". The term is most commonly used when it coincides with a change of government and a large turnover of seats but after that it's not unusual to use it for when a government goes in with a restricted position in parliament and comes out with a significantly stronger unrestricted one - Labour's re-election in the UK 1966 election often has "landslide" used in descriptions. Turnout is utterly irrelevant to all of this and whatever the voting system the aim is get as many seats as possible and a party which achieves this spectacularly gets a landslide. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I am still not convinced. Other people are equating "landslide" with words like "overwhelming", "immense" and "spectacularly". I just don't see 45% of the vote on a 50% turnout and a four seat majority as overwhelming, immense or spectacular. The result itself may have been a shock or historic but that has more to do with things like the campaign starting with Labour well ahead in the opinion polls, or - arguably - the whole devolution set up being a Labour plot to keep the SNP permanently out of power. I have made very few actual edits to Wikipedia so I am going to Be Bold, and change Landslide victory to outright victory. Idealfarmer (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
7nd October edit
Tell me why was a portion of detailed , sourced information removed?
It has also been confirmed that supporters of the SNP/Scottish supremacists have been physically violent towards English tourists and chanting Anglophobic insults   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. ]
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. 
While the former part may be a bit iffy , the latter paragraph should be put on the page; It even says on the SNP's website about the whole braveheart affair. User:Goldblooded [[User_talk:Goldblooded|(Return Fire)] 21:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- None of the sources state any SNP involvement or even approval - it needs more than innuendo to establish relevance. There simply isn't anything in the sources strong enough to back up the claims in the deleted text. If there is. please show us what it is.Zagubov (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed - you are leaping to the conclusion that anti-English sentiment is equivalent to SNP support. That is a serious claim and requires credible references. To provide an example of an issue where the absurdity might be more obvious to you, there are those that equate support of the Conservative party with being anti-Scottish, but any such leaps of faith/prejudices would require similarly robust sources to back them up. Ben MacDui 08:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Well accusing me of something i support or havent done could be classed as a personal attack, but as always, im going to assume faith and assume you didnt mean it that way. The SNP have been reknown for being anglophobic; just look at some of their comments on the website and the facebook page , along with many other news articles which back up my evidence. Not just the ones ive shown. Besides you probably support them, hence your bias- so insulting me and saying i support the torys is ridiculous. User:Goldblooded (Return Fire) 14:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't want to accuse you of anything and wasn't aware I had. The claim that this party, with prominent English members, condones anti-English sentiment is a dramatic claim requring dramatic evidence. that needs to be more substantial than someone anonymous posting something on a website or facebook page. I've no axe to grind here, I neither support the SNP nor vote for them.Zagubov (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
More Is Required
Daniel Pickford-Gordon here. Use encyclopedias etcetera. It has a number of MPs, and demands more devolution type things, so it needs to be discussed. More on the rate of increase in popularity, and whether popularity has decreased lately. How influential is Alex Salmond himself? How popular would it be if he wasn't in it? I have an amount of information, on the Topix United Kingdom Forum, i've made a number of posts: List Of Posts http://www.topix.net/forum/world/united-kingdom/T367RKHF7P0991G1C 126.96.36.199 (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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Majority not intended to be impossible
Though some (George Robertson perhaps) may have believed that the aim of the d'Hondt system was to prevent the SNP gain an overall majority, that has not actually worked, nor can it possibly do so without having the same restraint on every other party including Labour.
Donald Dewar's plan was essentially complete by about 1956 when he presented it to the Glasgow Academy Literary and Debating Society. At that time SNP had very little councilor representation, probably less than SGP today. DD was far sighted, I'd admit, but not THAT far. In fact he wanted more small parties represented.
The d'Hondt aim is that the majority of MSPs (however formed) who vote legislation into law had been supported by a majority of electors. I don't know if it has ever been calculated in practice.
the right of scots living outside of scotland to vote.
I overheard a conversation the other day which regarded the fact that Scots living in America are eligible to vote but Scots living in England are not !
If so, why ?
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Depute or Deputy
Should there be concensus on the title of the number two in the SNP hierarchy? Nicola Sturgeon is variously referred to as depute leader and deputy leader; previous post holders are listed as deputy leaders. Keomike (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
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.
- Sigh. Here we go again. Huffington Post published the erroneous number in an article at the weekend, so now someone is using that to justify claiming 100,000 once again on this page. It's still wrong. HP just picked up on the wrong number being tweeted, and didn't check. Morag Kerr (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The civic nationalism debate
The SNP are referred to here as a "civic nationalist" party. I fully understand why this term is used and it can be linked to academic works who also label the SNP as a civic nationalist party, but the term is also quite controversial in other academic literature - most notably in the critique by Brubaker. The basic criticism people raise is that rather than being a form of categorisation, it's a term that is almost always used by parties to describe themselves in a positive light in comparison to other nationalist parties. In Brubaker's view it's not a descriptive term at all, it's a political term used by parties for self-legitimation purposes.
Take, for instance, the Wikipedia definition of civic nationalism. The definition in that article is: "Civic nationalism is a kind of nationalism identified by political philosophers who believe in a non-xenophobic form of nationalism compatible with values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights." However you'll be hard pushed to find a nationalist party anywhere who would read that definition and openly claim to be a xenophobic party, which is incompatible with the values of freedom, tolerance, equality and individual rights. Put simply, the term only has any meaning if it's used to mean one party is *better* than another - unlike terms such as "centre-left" where the opposite isn't any *worse* it's simply different (parties openly describe themselves as "centre-right").
In many ways it's a bit like calling a party's ideology "pro-fairness" or "pro-freedom" - it's a completely loaded term that simply draws a positive distinction between one party and another (because no party openly claims to be anti-fairness or anti-freedom). So there is a case in my view for not using the term "civic nationalism" here. It's not a neutral term, it's a term adopted by the SNP for political purposes in an effort to make a distinction between themselves and other nationalist parties. They may well be different to these parties, but that doesn't justify the uncontested use of the term in a neutral article on Wikipedia. Brubaker and other academics dispute it and that should at least be mentioned somewhere. Lewdswap (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)