Talk:Scottish National Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

the right of scots living outside of scotland to vote.[edit]

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)

Depute or Deputy[edit]

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

In Scotland, it's spelled Depute Leader, not Deputy Leader as in England, and this is also the spelling that ther SNP itself uses, see e.g. [1], [2]. As it's an office in their party, their official spelling should be used here. On the other hand, in the Westminster group of the SNP, the office is spelled "Deputy Leader" as it's in England, see [3]. Stephan Matthiesen (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Membership numbers[edit]

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

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

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

Sigh. Here we go again. Huffington Post published the erroneous number in an article at the weekend, so now someone is using that to justify claiming 100,000 once again on this page. It's still wrong. HP just picked up on the wrong number being tweeted, and didn't check. Morag Kerr (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
RE the intro. You know, some political parties these days are big on their voters also being members (like the Greens and the nationlist parties - both of which are selling specific agendas) while others simply don't get the numbers they used to once get almost routinely. Labour and Conservatives in particular have seen a steady overall decline over many years. I think it is WP:OR just to assume this is simply down to party popularity. Yes it probably is to some degree, but there is known to be much less interest in general in being a tradional party member today too. People seem to like to keep their votes open these days perhaps -but for whatever reasons, membership-decline in the trad non-agenda parties a recognised modern phenomenon. The intro doesn't make this distinction (it suggests parity in fact), so as it currently stands it could easily look 'biased' towards the subject to some people as a result - as intro's often do when they over-develop this kind of data to be frank..
Actually looking at it again, it develops a cute factoid on a slightly crooked premise - having more members than all the others "combined" says something about the SNP, but to some degree less then a lot of people might assume. I found that it currently reads, perhaps consequently, a bit like a brochure too. The intro that is, I'm not planning to read any more of it. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The civic nationalism debate[edit]

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)

The General Election[edit]

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

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

Note to Editors re Depute/Deputy[edit]

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

Question re phrase in the lead[edit]

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

Vandalism[edit]

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

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

Official colour change[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 00:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverting high-speed rail policy[edit]

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

Your edit was giving undue weight to one aspect of transport policy, using a less than reliable source (the tabloid Daily Record newspaper). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for replying, I will reduce the size of the paragraph and use a BBC source instead. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't think you understand. The problem is that it is an excessive amount of detail about one transport issue for a section that is discussing the party's ideological history and current position. If you look at the articles about other political parties (e.g. UK Labour) there isn't a similar level of detail about specific transport proposals. This information belongs in an article about high speed rail (i.e. High Speed 2). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Pro-Europeanism[edit]

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