Talk:Scottish National Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Scotland
 Scottish National 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.
Scotland Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-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:
Politics Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of politics and government within the United Kingdom. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Origin of the SNP symbol/logo?

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)

It is a stylised thistle which has undergone at least five makeovers during the past 30 years. 80.41.206.57 (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1979 general election

From the article:

Many figures lay the blame for there being a general election at all in 1979 on the SNP

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.


[edit] 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:


[edit] Second in polls

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)

[edit] Category:Scottish National Party (SNP) politicians

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)

[edit] Minor Points

- 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.

No, but the Scots Parliament did strongly suggest Pantone 300 to be used for the Saltire in recent years. Canaen 07:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Party colours?

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)

[edit] Edits 5th May [1]

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)

[edit] To what are we comparing the SNP?

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)

[edit] SNP-related category has been nominated for deletion

The related Category:Current Scottish National Party (SNP) MPs has been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

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)

[edit] Repeated attempts to delete photo of Alex Salmond

Two photos of Salmond have already been deleted.

Please contribute to discussion at:

  • Image talk:Alex Salmond.jpg

Ta. --Mais oui! 18:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures of SNP leaders

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

Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 04:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral performance

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)

Lacking any further explanation, I'm removing the asterisks. If someone wants to put them back, please say what they're supposed to mean! /blahedo (t) 05:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 30th Sep Edits - Controversy section

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 Templeton, if you look at the other party pages for Scotland, you will note that donations, even controversial ones, widely reported are not covered, for example the pornographer Richard Desmonds high profile donations to the Labour party, or Bernie Ecclestones large donations and ensuing controversy. Without these corresponding entries in the article on the Labour party, it is not reasonable to include controversial donations here. And personally I agree with you that accepting the donation was wrong. But that is a matter for our opinions, not this article. What might be considered is a section entitled "Donations" and then a breakdown of large donations and where they came from. I believe this information is publically available. - Francis Tyers · 10:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I've implemented a compromise, adding "High profile donators to the party include founder of Stagecoach Brian Souter." to the Party organisation section. We can add other high-profile donators if you can find some. The rest of the content is already covered on the Brian Souter page, which people may navigate to by means of a link. - Francis Tyers · 10:32, 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)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sbowers3 14:18, 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)

[edit] New compromise

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)

I understand you believe this to be "disgraceful" and "shameful". I'm glad you agree with me, however, your opinions on the SNP are irrelevant. If nobody finds a problem with my "new compromise" I'm going to add it to the article tomorrow. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
For the controversial, we can put a reference to the BBC news article that supports that? - Francis Tyers · 07:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
So the bus re-regulation U-turn goes unmentioned? On the Labour page, the cash for honours scandal is covered. I know the SNP equivalent wasn't so widely reported, but it was reported. Templetongore 09:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)