Talk:Scottish Socialist Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Scottish Socialist Party is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Scotland To-do: edit  Template:Scotland opentask

Contents 1 Various SSP's 2 "Left wing" vs. "far left" 3 Criticisms 4 Republicanism in Scotland 5 Platform (Scottish politics)

[edit] Various SSP's

Saulisagenius's edit has made this page look daft. Although he has put the various SSP's into chronilogical order, surely the current SSP deserve to be the main body of the article? After all, that is most likely the SSP people will be looking for, and it is what the articles that link here refer to. Unless people object strongly (and I shall probably disagree with them if they do), I am gonna change things back.

Big Jim Fae Scotland 26 March, 2004, 00.57

I agree that the curent SSP should be "main body of the article" and it still was even after my last edit. If someone reads my version [1] then they can see imediately that there have been three parties of the same name over the years, but with the current edit they would have to read the whole article before knew that. So for the majority of people looking for the current SSP it doesn't really matter either way but for the minority looking for the previous two it does matter alot. Saul Taylor 02:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Saul. If they are looking for the other parties then surely they will that there have been othere SSPs already? I still feel justified in my edit, although apologies for saying your edit was daft (it was v late when I wrote that, and was tired). Didn't mean to cause offence in any way, and I can see your logic in trying a chronological order, but I still think this is superceded by my argument above. Any one else care to comment? Big Jim Fae Scotland 15:47, 26 Mar 2004

Actually I don't think chronological order is an important issue. How do you feel about this proposal Talk:Scottish Socialist Party/Proposal?. It would require moving the details of the first SSP to a new stub article. Saul Taylor 23:42, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Saul, good idea mate. Only change I would make in the note at the top is the current party were formed in '98, NOT '88. Big Jim Fae Scotland 09:39, 27 Mar 2004

Thanks for catching my mistake. Since no one object I have now implemented my proposal, I think the article looks a lot better now than either of the other previous versions. Saul Taylor 14:26, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why is the ideology said to be democratic socialism rather than Trotskyism or Marxism? I thought that Militant, SWP, CWI etc were all Trotskyist groups? 217.44.206.197 19:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Because democratic socialism is their stated aim. Most members of the group are independents who are not members of any of these Trotskyist groups and presumably are not all Marxists, let alone Trotskyists. Besides, the main platform is probably best described as ex-Trotskyist. Warofdreams 11:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Left wing" vs. "far left"

There seems to be a developing edit war over whether the SSP is best described as a "left-wing" party or a "far-left" party. I believe left-wing is more appropriate, for two main reasons. First, it seems more accurate, as the Wikipedia far left article characterizes the far left as less willing to work within the current institutional framework, giving as examples anarchists, Maoists and Trotskyists. The SSP, by contrast, has a democratic socialist ideology and several MSPs. Additionally, the article notes that "far left" is often used pejoratively within the English-speaking world, raising concerns about WP:NPOV. I'll standardize the article to "left-wing" (it currently uses both terms) and will revert any further warring unless these comments are discussed. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Contrib 06:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you. —Nightstallion (?) 21:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

It is very important that criticisms are sourced. For organisations still in existance, the situation is similar to that described at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence in biographies of living persons. Besides, while it is of course true that many groups have criticisms of the SSP, those listed are the criticisms made by the SWP in particular. Warofdreams talk 13:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the "Groups such as" opening makes it clear that criticism of the SSP is not restricted to the SWP, even though their statement is what's being discussed in the paragraph. I like Warofdreams's version. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 14:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is that I am not a member of the SWP and I hold this view, as do many of the Left that I talk to who are not members of the SWP as do many who split with the SSP lots of whom are not members of the SWP. So the statement is currently not currect and needs to be amended so that it acknowledges this. I am happy to experiment with different forms of wording until we reach agreement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fashion1 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how this assertion in any way contradicts the current wording. Could you explain? Warofdreams talk 00:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't, now, because I have reworded it so it is factually correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fashion1 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republicanism in Scotland

Would any of the editors of this article be interested in starting up the Republicanism in Scotland article? For examples of the layout and scope of articles of this type, please see Category:Republicanism. --Mais oui! 12:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Platform (Scottish politics)

Since the distinctive Scottish use of this term left me puzzled, I've cobbled together this article. Please help me make it better. --Orange Mike 01:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (in Milwaukee, home of America's only successful social democrats)

It's not specific to Scottish politics. The LCR, for example, is also home to several platforms. Warofdreams talk 03:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Which LCR? ("TLAs are NFG!") And do they call them "platforms" rather than tendencies, caucuses or groups?--Orange Mike 04:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that'd be the Revolutionary Communist League (France). To be honest, I don't know what they call them, but I've only ever seen the term translated as "Platform". They currently have Platforms numbered 1 to 4. Warofdreams talk 04:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, translation can be treacherous, as you know. I know that at one time there was the famous Groupe Bolchevik-Leniniste (GBL) within the Section française de l'Internationale ouvrière. Is the term in French "groupe" with your translator using the familiar "platform" to translate? If this "platform" is truly a European usage, then so be it, we'll rename the article and take out the WikiProjectScotland tag; but if it's a Scots peculiarity, so be it.--Orange Mike 04:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not "group". A search shows that it is "plateforme", which I should have guessed, really. Warofdreams talk 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Got you! Moved it to Platform (European politics) for now. You are invited to improve it, as I'm from a non-Trotskyist background (I get the feeling this is mostly Trotskyist in origin?) and may get the nuances wrong. --Orange Mike 04:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Tbh I'm not sure this really needs a seperate article,does the political factions entry not cover this - perhaps a better solution would be to start a section in there on terminology. Ms medusa 22:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)