Talk:Scottish National Party

Pro-Europeanism

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

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

CEO

I noticed that another user has updated the Peter Murrell article so that his tenure as CEO starts 2001.

Ref: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12143178.swinney-shuns-spin-in-party-posts/

It appears that the position was vacant for years from 1999 following Mike Russell's election as an MSP.

I'll update this page to match. Watty62 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

HI Watty62 (talk). This article goes into so much detail. Regards. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/23703844.investigation-inside-snp-money-machine/ Devokewater 20:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

= Recent edits, baby +

I appreciate the instinct that leads some editors to default to rejecting edits from those of us who work anonymously, but we should seek to apply our site's standards to this page.

The section on the party's foundation has issues around undue weight and unreliable sourcing. The second sentence on Douglas Young and his opposition to conscription needs to be sourced, but sources can be brought in from his wikipedia biography. The third sentence uses wiki voice to declare that members of the SNP were pro-nazi. There is no citation for this and it frames a discussion on Scottish poet and communist Hugh MacDiarmid and Arthur Donaldson. For MacDiarmid there are three sources. First, there is an opinion piece by former Labour MP Brian Wilson. As set out in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, opinion pieces "are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." It does not belong here. Like the second source, it quotes MacDiarmid as describing the axis powers as "violently evil". Like the other two sources, it does not describe MacDiarmid as pro-nazi, and it is curious that an editor would use wiki voice to pretend it does to make that judgment. Of Arthur Donaldson, wiki voice is used to declare that "he believed a Nazi invasion would benefit Scotland" and a quote is provided. The citation used makes clear that neither the opinion nor the quote are sourced from Arthur Donaldson, his speeches, writings, or correspondence, but from the report of an MI5 agent whose claims were given no credence by wartime authorities.

As an exercise in citation, this section's treatment of the ideas it seeks to advance is inadequate. This section's discussion falls foul of our standards on due weight: • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

I therefore reinstated a previous version of that section.

Further down in the history section, there is a discussion of the party's recent leadership election: "Yousaf's views align with the party establishment and he is expected to continue Sturgeon's policies. The other two candidates, Forbes and Regan, were seen to be part of a new generational shift in the party.[82][83]"

The first sentence is unsupported by citation. The second sentence's description of Forbes and Regan as part of 'generational shift in the party' is not substantiated by a Guardian article that uses those words to describe, not Forbes and Yousaf, but John Swinney stepping down with Sturgeon. Neither unattributed opinion belongs on these pages in wiki voice.

Next to this, we have a lengthy and convoluted treatment of Operation Branchform's activities and issues around the SNP's accounts in April. This section suffers from being written as each sentence's piece of news breaks. I have restructured it for clarity, concision and the spirit set out in 'Wikipedia is not a newspaper'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.251.177.87 (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I have been watching this edit war with interest, usually I would be very cautious about anonymous changes but think your edits have greatly improved this article. Dont think I have seen one of your edits that has not been clearer and more concise than what was there before and better sourced and evidenced

Thank You Soosider3 (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I am very cautious too. regarding anonymous changes like this, 99+% of the IP edits which I revert are pure vandalism, prima facie the edits by this IP editor appeared to be deleting content from political parties that was negative (this happens all the time regarding politicians etc). This IP editor has also had their edits reverted by experienced editors on other Wiki pages, see Alba Party again their edits looked very suspicious to me. Did not want to get into an edit war, so on my second revert I mentioned going to talk, which the IP Editor did (normally they don’t) and argued their case, their edits were bona fide and agreed upon by other editors, see Soosider3 (talk) above. Regards Devokewater 12:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Although I like to have my edits scrutinised, I should probably create an account so that they aren't seen as part of the wash of attempted vandalism (acute on political pages) and it'd bring together the edits I make at home, work and when bored on the train. Here and on the Alba page (which, I regret to say, I'm going to return to with an expansion on my edits), I was quite genuinely frustrated at how sources were handled and wikivoice used. I hope I haven't been too grumpy! 90.251.177.87 (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Political Ideology

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

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

I strongly support Scottish independence and Scottish nationalism remaining in the infobox. The rest in my view are subject to debate around moving into the main body. I think "big tent" could possibly be a good one to keep in the infobox, since the party has often generally been portrayed as a broad group united around the themes of Scottish nationalism and Scottish independence. In regards to social democracy stated above, the most recent source we have for this is coming up on 8-years-old in June, with the other sources for this claim years older than that, so it’s debatable whether that means it merits such a place of prominence as the infobox or its prominence in the opening of the article. Helper201 (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

This still holds true. I replaced a primary source with sources that call SNP social-democratic, from 2023 and 2021 respectively. Brat Forelli🦊 17:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, good work!— Autospark (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Cheers. Helper201 (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, isn’t “Scottish independence” a policy goal, not a distinct political ideology? Even if one considers it an ideology, it’s a component of Scottish nationalism. As for “big tent”, it’s still a predominantly centre-left party, and hasn’t altered its ideological stance in the last decade. One could just as equally state the Tory or Labour or LibDem parties are equally as much “big tents” as the SNP.— Autospark (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue Scottish independence is distinct from Scottish nationalism. The Scottish Greens for instance are pro-independence but make a distinction by explicitly not referring to what they represent as nationalism. I think it’s fair to say the SNP are generally centre-left, however, I think the breadth of opinion (i.e. elected SNP representatives with socially conservative views and the contrasting social views of the leadership candidates in the 2023 leadership election) in the SNP is greater than that which would be seen in other major parties like the Lib Dems. You'd be unlikely to find many socially conservative or socialist Liberal Democrats for instance. Yet my understanding is there are elected SNP representatives that span a range of political ideologs and positions, including socialist to conservative. This is in part demonstrated by the fact we have multiple sources referring to the party's big tent nature. Helper201 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Literally the same could be said about Labour (and Plaid and the NI parties, etc), predominantly centre-left parties with groups and members with views to the right the general party position (which in the SNP’s case is to the left of Labour, if that matters). As for the Scottish Greens, this really isn’t the place for that discussion, but they might avoid the n-word for understandable reasons, but they’re still espousing Scottish nationalism.— Autospark (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Basically what I am trying to say, parties often have broad ranges of views, particularly parties of government. However, one would still refer to the Conservative party as centre-right, Labour as centre-left, etc, despite being “big tents” in themselves. With the SNP, I can’t agree with “big tent” alone as its political position, as that implies being a catch-all party spanning both left and right in equal measures, when it’s pretty much a typical European socdem party in many ways. The party hasn’t changed ideology in the last 8 or so years, and hasn’t significantly since the influence of the 79 Group.— Autospark (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I think there may have been a misunderstanding here. I'm not saying that "big tent" should be its political position in the infobox. I agree with maintaining centre-left in that respect. I'm just saying "big tent" should probably be retained where it currently exists in the ideologies section of the infobox (with the retention of centre-left for the political position section). Though I'm more steadfast in the retention of Scottish nationalism and Scottish independence in the ideology section. Helper201 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we have sources for "big tent", though? — Czello ^(music) 07:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I would have just Scottish nationalism and social democracy—and nothing else. I am especially opposed to Scottish independence (not an ideology, but a political goal or policy), civic nationalism (meaning really little), left-wing populism (redundant and partially inaccurate), pro-Europeanism (again, not an ideology, but a political goal or policy) and big tent (not an ideology, not even a position). --Checco (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I support only "centre-left" as political position—and "big tent" is not a political position. --Checco (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Well that seems to have generated some discussion, broadly (if I have followed the discussion correctly) there is broad agreement that Ideology in Infobox requires trimming, 2 or 3 entries seem to be floated as preferred.

We perhaps should also be looking at the number and quality of the references, many appear to have little if any relationship to the heading they are linked.

My tuppence worth

Almost all the reference should be removed, they add little (if anything) to the already existing internal Wikipedia popup, and in fact most are to Amazon pages where you can buy the book supposedly referenced - hardly supporting particular position.

RETAIN Civic Nationalism _ maintain this and remove references

REMOVE Scottish Independence - Policy aim not an ideology

RETAIN Social democracy - remove unhelpful references

REMOVE Scottish nationalism - already covered by Civic Nationalism

REMOVE Left-wing populism - not an ideology

REMOVE Regionalism - not an ideology

REMOVE Pro-Europeanism - Policy not Ideology

REMOVE Big tent - not an ideology Soosider3 (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Czello, there's three sources for "big tent" in the infobox. Helper201 (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I actually want to challenge the notion that these three sources really prove what they're supposed to prove. Namely that SNP is a "big tent" party in a way that other parties in the UK are not.

Let's start with the second source - The Scottish National Party Is Espousing A Multicultural Brand Of Nationalism by Joanna Kakissis on npr.org. What does it say? That "Unlike the anti-immigration, isolationist nationalist parties splintering the European Union, the Scottish National Party promotes a a "big tent" brand of nationalism." By this Kakissis means that SNP's nationalism positions itself "against England rather than against Europe, whereas English nationalism is defined against Europe." So the party promotes "big tent nationalism", but the party itself is not described as big tent.

Third source - Mr Scotland, chauvinism and the SNP’s big-tent nationalism by Jason Cowley, newstatesman.com. The reveal is in the title - "Mr Scotland, chauvinism and the SNP’s big-tent nationalism". Well, what is "big-tent nationalism"? One thing is certain - it is a radically different statement from "SNP is a big-tent party".

The first source - A Nation Changed? The SNP and Scotland Ten Years On by Gerry Hassan and Simon Barrow took some time to actually reach, since it's a book. But it does THE SAME THING - that rather than calling SNP "big-tent", it merely says that it has "big tent nationalism", by which it means that the nationalism of the party appeals to "every region, area and social group in Scotland". (p. 18). It also calls SNP social-democratic, stating that "the SNP has also achieved some success in defining its social democracy as more authentic than Labour’s under Blair and Brown." (p. 435).

As such, I want to say that this is WP:OR and does not actually prove what it is supposed to prove. Brat Forelli🦊 16:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

We seem to be starting to distil the issues here,

1 What is the InfoBox for? IMHO it is meant to provide quick headline information and really is not suitable for references that maybe more appropriate in the text about ideology.

2 What is Ideology - we seem to have broad agreement about what it is not, its not Policy. Its things like Civic Nationism and Social Democracy

It is good to see such a healthy discussion carried out in a reasoned, sensible and courteous manner (hope I haven't jinxed it) Soosider3 (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

All positive contributions in good faith, so no problems there.— Autospark (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

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

What is Scottish nationalism in pursuit of? Nationhood, i.e. independence.— Autospark (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Nationalism isn't inherently like that, nor is nationalism always defined as the pursuit of a nation. It can simply be the promotion of the interests of a certain people or nation, not necessarily a pursuit of independence for said nation. This includes Scottish nationalism. Helper201 (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Surely, Scottish nationalism is the party's main ideology. I would have also social democracy, though, and nothing else. --Checco (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There in is one of the concern I have about the use of language, "Nationalist" has many negative connotations more usually being used to describe "blood & soil" type movements, what ever you may think of the SNP is it most certainly not that. It is in part why I think Civil Nationalist is a more accurate description.

Think we may be moving to some broad agreement and believe we should seriously prune many of the entries under Ideology, 2 maybe 3 to me seem to sum up the salient points.

Social Democratic

Civic Nationalism

I could be persuaded re Independence, yes it is a policy but in this case it is also the prime reason for the party existing. Soosider3 (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"Civic" or "civil nationalism" means little, while "Scottish nationalism" is precisely what the SNP stands for. --Checco (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This. Social democracy and Scottish nationalism are the main ideologies of the party, and I can find more sources for both if needed.

I have no idea why we would do "civic nationalism", not to mention that I have a feeling it will be hard to find sources that explicitly call SNP that, meaning that we would use a rather obscure/rare descriptor of the SNP's ideology. And why? To me not only does this appear to be a vague term, but also an euphemism of sorts, amongst political circles where "nationalism" is a dirty word.

But the thing is, SNP is a Scottish nationalist party. It is not pejorative, nor is it positive. It is neutral, and simply a matter of fact. Brat Forelli🦊 18:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"SNP is a Scottish nationalist party" you make my case for me by naming a non existing party, SNP is the Scottish National Party. See how easy that can happen, the correct ideology is Civic Nationalism Soosider3 (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I was not naming a party. I was describing its ideology. This is the talk page of the Scottish National Party. Have you seen the opening sentence of the article?

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

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

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

I have to admit, I see this as lack of reading comprehension. If I wanted to state the name of the party, I would say: "SNP is the Scottish National Party". I would capitalize all parts of the party name, and I would use "the" instead of "a". I am sure you know this.

I do not think your case for "civic nationalism" is clear. How many sources can you find that explicitly call SNP a civic nationalist party? Remember that we cannot do WP:OR. I do not see the case for this being the defining ideology of the SNP - that would be Scottish nationalism and social democracy instead.

References

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