Jump to content

Talk:Alex Salmond/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Alex Salmond

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:34, 26 April 2015 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Talk:Alex Salmond) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1

Article Bias and Expenses Claims

Article has elements which are written in POV and unrelated to the biography of the individual whilst expenses claims which have been reported on in the press are removed. It is legitimate criticism and noteworthy. Johnson1945 (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

2000 Resignation

We could do with some explanation of why he resigned the SNP leadership in 2000.86.153.187.1 11:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

He had suffered with ill health, a back problem if I recall correctly, and resigned as he considered it best for himself and the party. I'll look into this and see about adding more information to the article Delta-NC (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

FM

I removed the comment "He is expected to become the next First Minister of Scotland." This is obviously a contentious statement, and unless a reliable source can be cited to support this it should not be restored. In fact, since this will be decided within 28 days of the election anyway i suggest in the interest of neutral POV (which is expected in an encyclopaedia) this should be avoided altogether.

  • We should know in the next few days- BBC report says SNP are speaking to Lib Dems and Greens- but it is not clear what will happen yet. It may be possible to refernece to coalition discussions at this stage only. Thunderwing 15:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Westminster seat

Anyone know if he is planning to stay in Westminster till the next election, and who is the new Parliamentary leader in Westminster? Thunderwing 21:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

— The expectation is that he won't. Angus Robertson is expected to be the new Westminster group leader. Jmorrison230582 22:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not first minister

Salmond has been elected as the parliaments nominee for first minister. See the presiding officer's speech for evidence. But he is not actually in office until appointed by the Queen. See the Scotland Act for further evidence.--Docg 12:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I quote from the Scottish Parliament's official website: [1] "Alex Salmond MSP was today selected as the Parliament’s nominee as First Minister for recommendation to Her Majesty The Queen."--Docg 13:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

    • No idea - you'd have to read the Act. But I'd suspect in theory she could. She certainly could refuse to appoint him - although she'd only do that on the advice of UK ministers.--Docg 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Looking at the Act it says "The First Minister shall be appointed by Her Majesty from among the members of the Parliament and shall hold office at Her Majesty's pleasure"- which suggests she can pick who she likes in the same way as the UK. Thunderwing 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't think the Queen votes Labour.
He is basically First Minister-elect there is much chance of lizzie not appointing him as there is her not signing a bill into law there is very little hope for Joke. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 20:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
            • This seems so odd—isn't this the opposite of what happens in Parliament? Doesn't the Queen nominate [not that she has any choice in the matter these days] and then Parliament votes their approval of the Government? Unschool 20:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No - technically the Queen appoints whomever she will. Parliament has no say. It is just that conventionally she always appoints the leader of the largest party in Westminster. We'd be a republic in 10 min if she did anything else.--Docg 21:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well lets hope Charlie tries that one when he gets in :p 81.77.188.120 10:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is now inaccurate (wrong)!!!!!

Salmond is the first first minister elect until he is appointed by the Queen. See the official page of the parliament for confirmation [2]. He has been nominated by parliament - and will be appointed in the next day or two. I fixed the article - left a note on the talk page - left a hidden note on the article. However I keep being reverted by know-it-all anons. I'm not going to keep reverting as some clown will hit me with a 3RR. But can someone please correct the article and perhaps get it protected. Yes, it is a technicality - but Wikipedia should be right.--Docg 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

He has now been sworn in at the Court of Session. As far as I can see he never met the Queen though- and just received the Royal Warrant confirming his appointment. The article states he is now "Rt Hon"- but I havn't seen anything to suggest he has been appointed to the Privy Council? Thunderwing 10:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

MP

Shouldn't the infobox at the side have "Alex Salmond MP MSP", instead of just "MSP"? Marks87 02:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Bizarr 'Monarch' entry

What is the rather bizarr 'Monarch' entry doing there, especially with 'Liz the twa' as its contents? --Jomellon (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It does seem totally unnecessary. --Zanadu27 (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Rt Hon?

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6753561.stm

I notice that The Equaliser has just given Salmond some pre nominals: Rt Hon. AFAIAA it is only members of the Privy Council that have these. While it seems likely that Salmond will be so appointed (or at least offered - he may well refuse), AFAIAA no such appointment has been made. Or am I missing something? --Mais oui! 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Until we can verify it, it should stay off. I can't find any source to support it. But, as you say, it is a plausible move at some point.--Docg 15:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, he has been nominated today, but hasn't been sworn in yet so lets leave the Rt. Hon off until he is 80.195.216.245 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He does not get sworn in the Queen on the advice of the PM has asked him to join the Privy Council and he has accepted[3] --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 18:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


According to Whos Who, he is indeed the Right Honourable A. Salmond. Full academic citation if someone wants to add it in: ‘SALMOND, Rt Hon. Alexander Elliot Anderson’, Who's Who 2009, A & C Black, 2008; online edn, Oxford University Press, Dec 2008 accessed 24 Jan 2009 81.157.116.217 (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Article

PMK - the page on Gordon Brown is protected from being changed, why isn't this one on Salmond? I mean at least Salmond was elected, Gordon Brown has never been voted for by anyone outside of Fife - yet his page is protected and the elected First Minister's is not?! Seems very strange.


I guess it's because the Gordon Brown article suffers from sustained vandalism. Kanaye 18:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PMK - the Gordon Brown article does not suffer vandalism any more as it is protected and there is absolutely no criticism of GB allowed anywhere near the actual article - even Tony Blair and David Cameron do not enjoy such priveledges on wiki!

GB must have some very good contacts! I suppose perhaps his people merely care more about this sort of stuff than the others? A dividend of political paranoia?

"Gordon Brown has never been voted for by anyone outside of Fife" - and Tony Blair has never been voted for by anyone outside of Sedgefield, the Labour party and the Trade Unions. So to use that as an argument against protecting his page is somewhat flawed...although quite why you bring up potential reasons for his page being protected on Alex Salmond's page, I don't know... Marks87 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How

How did he become First minister if the Lib Lab Coalition together have more seats?

Because Labour and the Liberal Democrats are not in coalition any more. There wasn't any point in them forming a coalition as that would not have formed an overall majority. 82.41.202.199 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And It would not have allowed them to select the first minister?

Well, they could have, but the Lib Dems said they thought it was undemocratic to side with the smaller party (ie, Labour). Plus there was a lot of tension within the coalition.--Breadandcheese 06:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
As well as this, Labour where deeply unpopular had just suffered and electoral arse-kicking. The Lib-Dems had already stated that they where unlikely to enter another coalition even if Labour had just held on to being the largest party. Delta-NC (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Name

Could we foreigners have an idea of how he pronounces his name? Sammun? Sammund? Salmund? Salmon? Cholomondeley-Colquhoun-Buccleuch-Smyth? (anything is possible with British names.) Intelligent Mr Toad 11:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added (pronounced: "Samond"). Will that do?! Marks87 00:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Intelligent Mr Toad 06:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, someone has removed it again. It seems somewhat bizarre that a binary approach to pronunciations is taken - either its IPA or not. Surely giving the pronunciation by some method is better than not having it at all, hence creating the potential for confusion? Marks87 00:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I've often thought that myself, but in absence of any form, you get people writing all sorts of rubbish. Plus it strikes me that Salmond isn't exactly an uncommon name... Anyway, unrelated point: it's rather shocking that there's no photograph for this page. --Breadandcheese 11:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi

what happened? he was called 'Alec' for years? lol did I miss a meeting? oh well lol (I know, I know, Alex is more international) Dava4444 (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Alex 'Three Salaries' Salmond Shocker!!! We need a controversy paragraph

Hi, I wonder if it is possible to mention that Alex Salmond is currently enjoying three salaries at the expense of the British taxpayers. The three salaries are

  • Member of the British House of Commons (£60,675)
  • Member of the Scottish Parliament (£53,091)(?)
  • First Minister of the Scottish Parliament (£129,998)

With a grand total of £243,764...Though I guess he may not receive his Member of the Scottish Parliament of £53,091...This still means he is earning £190,673, which for any English, Scottish, Irish or Welshman is obscene. I found this link http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1071862007

Further Controversy is that he hasn't turned up to the British House of Commons for over three months despite collecting his wages. I wish I could not turn up for work and still get paid for it!! The link is http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1071862007

Though admit The Scotsman could be accused of being pro-union, but these figures are shocking and disgusting. --Madkaffir 12:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is nonsense - the First Minister's salary is not paid *in addition* to the MSP's salary. It's paid instead of it. Likewise Gordon Brown gets the Prime Minister's salary, not a backbench MP's salary. The only contrversy, which the Scotsman article addresses, is about Salmond being an MP and an MSP at the same time and therefore being paid two salaries. Not three. Read the article - it refers to the difference between the MSP's pay and the FM's pay; the writer above has in effect counted the MSP's £53K salary twice. I won't assume bad faith because this is Wikipedia...86.153.187.1 11:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I think if he is drawing two salaries from the tax payer then this is one too many. I think this should be added to the article. Templetongore 09:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This would be controversial if it was true. In actual fact he gets only gets paid 1/3rd of his MSP & MP salary under the Scotland Act. Boatcolour 12:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is the best 'dirt' you can find on Alex Salmond you obviously aren't very good at pushing the obviously political agenda you have. -CM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.17.34 (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well thats not exactly great dirt, but points for trying! He's doing a fantastic job and considering the insipid Scottish Labor party he is an obvious choice for first minister.

Oh, there's planty of dirt, for example helping Donald Trump build a golf course for the uber-rich over an environmentally sensitive area of Scotland. Not exactly "centre-left" politics. Templetongore (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if all that where true (you need to do a little more research) the man is worth every penny! Great to have a leader for once and not a puppet. Delta-NC (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


There should be more condemnation of Salmond in the article - if it's correct for the Mary Whitehouse article (which is virtually ALL condemnation) then it must be correct for him. there should be at least one section headed "opposition/condemnation" or something like that. See the M. Whitehouse article for guidence on the wikipedia requirements. Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRIT would be a better place to look for guidance. Criticism sections are a bad idea as they attract POV caterwauling and don't generally lead to an improvement in article quality. --Zanadu27 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

People need to look at the article I said to (M. Whitehouse) because that's the way it's done on the wikipedia, and no deviation from that is allowed. "Criticism sections are a bad idea". Have you taken that up with the powers that be re the Mary Whitehouse article and the general standard bias of wikipedia? Salmond is a widely criticised person. His actions and stance have opposers and there's no mention of this in the article. It gives a false impression of him and therefore isn't encyclopedic... i.e. it's a wikipedia article, not an encyclopedia article or entry.

It has loads of irrelevant detail: "He watches Star Trek", "For Children in Need in 2008, Salmond performed an impersonation of the Rikki Fulton character, the Reverend I M Jolly.", "He lives in Strichen in Aberdeenshire." etc., but there's no mention of the important controversy related stuff about him. The article is a pangyric of him to an embarrassing degree. And reading it one would think he's a respectable politician instead of the leader of a racist party. Older British people know this of course but foreigners and youngsters trying to find out about politics may not. We need an unbiased article.

This bit is also not acceptable: "2010 TV election debate... In December 2009, Alex Salmond said it would be "unacceptable"... ..."given their inescapable duty to ensure fairness and impartiality" ... "A January 2010 poll has shown that a majority of Scots want the SNP to be included in the leaders' election debates on TV." This poll was presumably just taken in Scotland and so is not a "poll of Scots". Pennypennypennypenny (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Poll of Scots"? <panto>Oh yes it is!</panto> But the link rot there means that someone should be looking for a new linky to that story. Always assuming it really is important enough to be included at all. As for the rest: {{sofixit}}. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of SNP leaders

Please see Talk:Scottish National Party#Pictures of SNP leaders, and this SNP page. We have pictures for Alex, at least. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 04:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not good enough. Saying we can use this picture on Wikipedia is not the same as it being freely-licenced. Lurker (said · done) 13:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

nationality

Why is his objective nationality being deleted?name: England's Rose 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the consensus here is to call a scot a scot, and a borderline single purpose account isn't going to change that. Please do not edit war. Lurker (said · done) 12:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That is not consensus at all. In fact, consensus is that it should be left to individual editors to determine in individual circumstances. While British is more objective as an indentifier, I think we can pretty safely identify Salmond as Scottish is almost every circumstance. --Breadandcheese 13:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This argument is present on a lot of discussion boards, so I will place the standard next point. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, nationalities should represent internationality recognised nations (ie passports or UN representation), his passport says ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’ like everyone else’s in the UK. Its not oppressive to state this fact, because it is a fact. This isn’t Football where Scotland has separate recognition or Northern Ireland where people get a choice of passports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.36.94 (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you (I'm a nationalist but I belive the passport should have the say just to technically accurate), in fact I found a while back an user who's entire contribution to Wikipedia had been to go to every article he could find and change "British" to "English". I changed a few back believing that the passport should have the final say, but looking around the famous Brits on Wikipedia these days they almost always say "English", "Scottish" or "Welsh" so I think the argument on this one is well and truley lost. I think you'd need to get a policy change accross the whole of Wikipedia rather than try to argue it here 06:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.0.166 (talk)

He would obviously identify himself as Scottish, so that is what it should state. As an aside, there is no nationality stated for any of Salmond's predecessors as First Minister of Scotland. Given that he is obviously a politician in the United Kingdom and that he leads the SNP, is it necessary to state nationality? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumably "Nationality" in this sidebar actually means to citizenship (i.e. in the legal sense). Therefore Salmond's nationality should be given as British (until such time as he succeeds in achieving Scottish independence). Mooretwin (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:UKNATIONALS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It appears to deal with the opening paragraph, not the sidebar. Mooretwin (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The sidebar and introduction should be consistent. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Alex Salmond holds a British passport, therefore I have edited the info box to read British Nationality.

Thanks, Andy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.207.191 (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What do passports have to do with anything? That line of thought makes Tibetans Chinese. We know that Eck self-identifies as Scots, and that's what matters. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't just choose to be some imaginary nationality. Alex Salmand is a British citizen - a subject of her majesty. He is British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.207.191 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As are Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness! Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
By that logic Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders must also be British, as the Queen is also their head of state? I may have a British passport but as a Brit or a Scot I am no subject of anyone. As to the actual debate, Scottish, English, Welsh and N'Irish are used all over Wikipedia in place of British, unless you plan to update every single one then please leave it be. --Delta-NC (talk) 00:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, there is no such thing as a Scoottish nationality. Salmond might be fighting for it, be he has not yet (nor will he) win it. Salmond is British, it's as simple as that. A Scottish nationality might've existed 300 years ago, but not today. He is a British national.

Andy—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.207.191 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's all very interesting, but it is entirely your point of view. It is objective fact that Alex Salmond considers himself to be Scottish, which is what matters in this context. Please amend articles constructively before you are barred for edit warring. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
On what basis do you say that Salmond's considerations "matter in this context" more than the legal fact of his UK citizenship? (This is a genuine question.) The term "nationality" is often (usually) used as a synonym for citizenship: do we know what the word actually means in the sidebar? Mooretwin (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Sinn Fein examples are redundant, while they are British citizens on a technicality they are most assuredly Irish citizens as well. Nationality is a legal concept, one can not be of a Scottish, Welsh, English, etc nationality. Salmond may think of himself as being Scottish and not British, that cannot change the legal facts. And I doubt if he were asked about the subject he'd deny that he is a British national, although he'd certainly make a point of saying he wants to change that. That said, it's best to leave it at Scottish. This will just escalate into the same Nationalist/Unionist edit war that permiates in Scotland related articles these days. To be honest, I'll be scared to see what this page will look like in 2010 if independence fails. -MichiganCharms (talk) 06:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you are confusing nationality with citizenship. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
But "nationality" is often used to mean citizenship. What is its meaning in the Wikipedia sidebar under discussion? Mooretwin (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
JMorrision, perhaps you should read the Nationality article. --MichiganCharms (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Nationality can also mean membership in a cultural/historical group related to political or national identity, even if it currently lacks a formal state. This meaning is said by some authorities to cover many groups, including Assyrians, Kurds, Basques, Catalans, English, Welsh, Scots, Venetians, Palestinians, Tamils, Quebecers and many others. (my emphasis) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, of course it can mean that. We know that. The question is what does it mean in this context, i.e. in the sidebar. Does it mean "membership of a cultural/historical group related to political or national identity", or does it mean citizenship? I suspect the latter. Mooretwin (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
As said previously, there is a well set precedent that Scottish, English, Welsh, as well as British may be used in sidebars. Update every article or leave it be. --Delta-NC (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
It has been discussed at length. My own feeling is that it could generally be omitted as, if it really is important, the article should make that clear anyway. But I don't much like infoboxes, apparently the minority view. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Photograph

IMHO it is simply laughable that this article still lacks a photograph. Can somebody please go and take a flippin snap of the man and publish it with the appropriate free usage template. I refuse to believe that Mr Salmond is such a recluse that it is impossible for a member of the public to catch a fleeting glimpse of him ;) Mais oui! 08:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is ridiculous. While not actually in a position to go Salmond-hunting myself, there are three at least possible photos that are appropriately licensed on Flickr here, here and here - both are far from perfect for various reasons, but they may well be an improvement on the article until such times as a permanent solution can be found. --Breadandcheese 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Noncommercial and noderivs Creative Commons licenses are not considered suitable for wikimedia projects. Lurker (said · done) 18:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I overlooked the derivs matter on a CC commercial use search. --Breadandcheese 16:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There are images made avaliable on scotland.gov website, however they are all crown copyright and not free use as such. Thunderwing 08:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And there's still no photograph!! Short of camping outside Bute House, it will be difficult to catch a glimpse and take a photograph - the most obvious time would be in the Scottish Parliament, but photography there is forbidden when Parliament is in session. Does anyone have any other ideas? Globaltraveller 13:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It really surprises me that there are no SNP members watching this article. Surely all they would have to do is go along to a meeting attended by Mr Salmond (eg. the recent conference would have been ideal) and take a few simple snaps of the man, publish, and then relinquish the copyright on them.
Alternatively (and probably a better option) is to have a look and see if there are any photos of Mr Salmond on any official US Govt websites, following his recent US trip. These are eligible for Wikipedia use. Indeed the Gordon Brown and Tony Blair images are (or used to be) actually from US Govt sources. --Mais oui! 15:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I sent an email request to the SNP 4 months ago which was ignored :( Borisblue 07:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has put in a Fair Use photograph of the First Minister. Anyone want to take bets as to how long it will last before it is deleted? Globaltraveller (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

This section seems likely a thinly veiled attempt to use wikipedia as a platform to attack Alex Salmond politically. Am I alone in having the impression? I'm not sure it should be in the article, certainly not under that title at least. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that this section is a veiled attack. I added most of it myself and I can assure you that was not my intention. Any article about a person must contain biographical information, but in order to be balanced it needs to include information that reflects both positively and the negatively. I felt that this article was unbalanced in that it was all positive in tone. I have nothing against the guy, but nobody is perfect, and the news items listed here were featured in major UK newspapers and therefore I believe they are valid additions. Also, I think the point of the talk page is to discuss a potential edit before actually making that edit. If you are going to go ahead and remove a section why bother 'talking' about it first? It seems your mind is made up. If you don't like there being acontroversy section, maybe one compromise would be to take this info and embed it elsewhere in the article. Templetongore 09:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It's better now, but still looks dodgy per Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. I'm very unsure if this material needs to remain. Why mention opposition accusations against him, only to relate he was cleared of any wrong doing? Definitely uncomfortable about this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Should this article be semi-protected from editing?

Should we have this article restricted to only allow edits from registered users? It seems someone takes a pot shot at it every other day. Gordon Brown is semi-protected, I think similar steps should be taken here. The history page is becoming a mess. --Delta-NC (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


Looking at the history, I don't see any need for semi-protection at present. Only yesterday an anonymous editor contributed constructively to the article. If you feel that this article, or any other Scotland-related one, needs more eyeballs on it, you can add to the list here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Nationality and place of birth

This seems to have been the subject of several edit disputes. I reverted the edit by 79.72.159.150 outright because of his uncivil edit summary and refusal to take the issue here. But the issue needs to be settled. On the subject of nationality, it is a paradox that Scotland is referred to as a nation, yet Scottish nationality has no legal status. Still, Salmond is a British citizen, whether or not he thinks or we think he ought to be. He even occupies a seat in the UK parliament. On the subject of place of birth, I see no need to add UK, Scotland is sufficient. See the place of birth fields at Barack Obama and George W. Bush; "USA" appears in neither case. Viewfinder (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I reverted for the same reason. On the subject of policy, my understanding is that nationality is by self-definition - so if Alex Salmond identifies as Scottish (and its verifiable) the article should describe him as Scottish. The relevant essay is Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom, and in particular the sections on Present-day UK nationality (examples of use), Guide to finding UK nationality and Changing an existing UK nationality. An interesting example in the essay is that of Sean Connery ("e.g.: Sean Connery is widely referred to as a Scottish actor").
Note that the above describes an essay (i.e. not a policy), and other considerations include - as you state - that Salmond is a MP in the British parliament (mitigated by his also being an MSP, and leading a non-unionist party).
So... I'd prefer "Scottish" for Salmond and other non-unionist MSPs and MPs (and "British" for unionist politicians) but I'm open to debate ;-)
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a difficult issue to handle, i agree with the point that just putting Scotland is ok for the location as the examples for some Americans only show the state and each of the UK countries make clear they are part of the United Kingdom now.
However, Alex Salmond is a British citizen and his info box should make that very clear but i can see why its a problem in the case of those who are clearly known as Scottish like Sean Connery that reject British identity. I have several problems with the current setup and its one of those wiki policies that i really do hate.
"Scottish" is a nationality and i have no problem at all with it being in the infobox, but we really do also need to include the fact they are British nationals. Now i dont know how best that can be done, either by putting British and Scottish next to each other in the nationality section or if possible a new field for citizenship or something along those lines where it can say they are a British citizen but its wrong to not include that information. Someone can not opt out of their legal citizenship unless they adopt a new one, right now Alex Salmond is a British citizen, with a British passport and is the responsibility of the British government.
The other problem with the current setup is for a case like Gordon Brown, we call him British because he clearly identifies as British and is the British Prime Minister but he is also Scottish and its really misleading as it looks like Salmond is more Scottish than Brown, which is inaccurate as both are proud of their Scottish identity.Either Scottish and British should be added to nationality or a new line needs to be added somehow, but messing around with templates is complicated.
Also it doesnt help that the current article on Scottish people doesnt even mention them also being British or most becoming British citizens etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out WP:UKNATIONALS, which I was not aware of. I note in particular "do not enforce conformity". I have no problem with "AS is a Scottish politician"; infact I see the "UK" that appears between "Scottish" and "actor" at Sean Connery as unnecessary and untidy, and may contest it. But the infobox field does need a more rigid policy, and imo should conform to the nationality that has legal status. I do not think that "Nationality: Scottish" will ever stabilise, and "Scottish (British)" will look untidy and confusing. A possible altermnative may be to leave the field blank. Viewfinder (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Comment for full disclosure: I've invited Zsstevens to comment here (I mention that in case anyone think I'm canvassing). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 09:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

(transfreed from old thread)

There is considerable difficulty if we over-ride the preferences of the subject in matters of nationality. Scotland is a legal entity with a legal system based different principles from England & Wales. And this is but one characteristic of the country. The UK is a multi-country state and being Scottish is of a range of nationalities which people can use to describe themselves. It is not necessary to chose a single one although it would be unusual for one not to be pre-eminent. The argument about passports is spurious because that is about citizenship not nationality. So let's get real and allow Scots, who have expressed a preference, to be descibed as Scottish. User:Zstevens 10:47 07 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsstevens (talk • contribs)

Thanks for coming here. I am sorry, I did not see this contribution when I reverted you because you placed it at the top of an old thread. Although Scotland is a legal entity, Scottish nationality has no legal status. Ergo Salmond is legally a British national, not a Scottish national. If the UK had not abolished national service, he would have been required to serve the UK. US states have their own legal systems, yet the nationality fields at Barack Obama and George W. Bush states "American". I have no objection to Salmond being described as Scottish (I make that claim for myself), but I think that the nationality field should show his legal national status. But if we still cannot agree about this, perhaps the field should be removed. Viewfinder (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, the pages User Talk:Zsstevens and User Talk:Delta-NC seem to be remarkably similar. Is that coincidental? Or were they created by the same user? Or is one a meatpuppet of the other? Please could they tell us. Thanks. Viewfinder (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the field being solely related to citizenship (nor do I see the relevance of national service). I believe there is a difference between citizenship and nationality: the UK issues passports to UK citizens, but those citizens are nationals of several constituent countries. Ultimately I believe it should come down to how an individual identifies themselves. This is, I believe, consistent with broad current consensus (per the essay I listed above).
BW makes a good point above, re: different politicians in the same parliament being more (or less) Scottish (or British) than others; it may be helpful to create (or locate) an article that describes UK citizenship and nationality and link to that (possibly British nationality law), or to add a footnote clarifying that although the article's subject self-identifies as being of Scottish nationality is also a UK citizen. I'd prefer to avoid footnotes, for simplicity's sake, but it might be a useful short-term solution until a more viable long-term solution can be found.
Off-topic, but WP:SPI is thataway ;-)
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I have checked the infoboxes of several other leading SNP politicians. Most of them have a blank nationality field, but an unregistered editor (who also contributed this edit) added "Scottish" to some of them. Therefore I will not reinstate "British" but I am still concerned about "Scottish". I will ask some other editors who have shown an interest in political biographies. Viewfinder (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. What about posting on the Scottish wikiproject? That would probably get the maximum number of eyes for the least amount of typing ;-) Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not just leave the nationality field blank? --Philip Stevens (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, as a compromise it works for me though I'd prefer to have something there - and I suspect numerous uninvolved editors will fill it in if left blank (there appears to be something incredibly appealing about blank fields in infoboxes, that invite completion even if entirely irrelevant... so I suspect a field that is moderately relevant won't remain blank for long). Can I ask why you suggest leaving it blank? Is it as a compromise, or an attempt to avoid future edit-warring (I see the logic in both approaches, I'm just curious). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Besides being a compromise, a quick check through the history of Salmond's deputy Nicola Sturgeon suggests that the blank nationality field there has been stable. But I am open to better suggestions. I cannot find any mention of Scotland of any consequence at British nationality law, which seems to me to reinforce the point that, whether or not we think it ought to, Scottish nationality holds no legal status and is therefore not appropriate for the nationality field. Incidentally, thanks for the WT:SCO suggestion, which I have taken up. Viewfinder (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Understood. I remain unconvinced by the legal argument, but that's moot since I'm otherwise happy with blanking the field. I'm surprised Nicola Sturgeon's nationality field hasn't been filled in - I thought I reverted something there recently but it could have been this article ;-) Wikipedia, eh? - here I am worrying about SNP politicians far more that I ever would in real life! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it was the birth place field that you reverted, but we seems to be agreed about that issue. Viewfinder (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I really do agree that the legal nationality of the person should be included in the info box somehow and thats British, its rather important information on their passport and this should not be about allowing people to pick and choose what they are unless they apply for citizenship in another country. Some American doesnt stop being an American if they seek independence for Texas. Leaving it blank like at the moment probably reduces the dispute, but it doesnt solve the main problem. Im very disappointed the way the current policy of not having a policy was formed on wikipedia. This is one of those issues which really does damage wikipedia reliability because of political correctness and divided points of view.
The best thing is to show both some how, wikipedia is meant to inform people at the moment they dont get the full story by failing to mention he is a British citizen and we just hope people understand, despite the fact the article on Scottish people accidently forgets to mention anything about British citizenship or identity. Leave the infobox field blank for now but the problem needs resolving sometime. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I hate adding fields to infoboxes, and in this case it would be UK-specific, which is even worse, but we could possibly have two fields: "citizenship" (e.g. "British") and "nationality" (e.g. "Scottish"). Alternatively, we need articles about Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish nationality that explain that a Scottish person is usually UK citizen (it gets complicated when you consider "New Scots", non-UK citizens who reside in Scotland, but that's probably a minority case - and one invented by our friend Alex, if I remember correctly!) I think you and I have had this discussion over at Scotland in the past, haven't we?! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, i tried to see if it was possible to edit the template to add citizenship but it was too complicated, especially as wed have to edit several different templates as theres ones for MPs / First Ministers etc. Just not including the nationality field at the moment does seem like a good idea though. The British nationality law article really should explain about English, Scottish and Welsh nationality, it wouldnt need to go into huge detail just a paragraph in the introduction really and a single sentence on each of the English, Welsh and Scottish people articles that talks about British nationality law. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This discussion appears to have petered out inconclusively, and I haven't been to the Salmond page, but my point would be this. I do not know why this discussion has proceeded on the understanding that nationality is the same thing as citizenship. I would suggest that a person's nationality reflects the nation of which they believe they are part, at least provided that is consistent with basic known facts. I think the etymology here should also count for something: one's nationality surely can be expected to be largely a product of one's home nation. And Scotland is a nation. Since there is, as I understand it, no such thing as Scottish citizenship, I would not have thought there would be great confusion here. If we want to include the legal citizenship status of article subjects, then we should use that word. Otherwise, i suggest we run with nationality, and if people say "Scottish", so be it. BTW I noticed some references to "passports" etc - as a dual citizen and sometime dual passport-holder myself, I am not sure that linking discussion to that kind of evidence of nationality / citizenship will help. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on folks! If anyone on wikipedia should have Scottish as his nationality it's this man. Everyone should know by now that we determine the nationality of a person here by his/her self identification, whether that's British, Scottish, English or Welsh. Salmond self identifies as Scottish, so Scottish it should be. It did once say Scottish and would like to see where the consensus is to remove it. I don't see it above. Jack 1314 (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations

It is not acceptable to devote most of the space of Salmond's period in office as First Minister to a relatively minor controversy , just because it produced critical quotes from spokesmen of the RSPB and the Ramblers Association. Because that is essentially the only information in this article about his quite active and historically significant period in office, which itself could have an article, I smell Wikipedia:Coatrack on this one. Anyone who wishes to readd this should read Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise and WP:NPOV. Yes, the piece had been dressed up to look "neutral", but its very presence and its size overwhelm the article giving it and its negative implications UNDUE WEIGHT. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the issue was given undue weight. The problem may have been persistent adding of the material by campaigners. Most of the material belongs on pages directly related to the specific issue. I will watch the article more closely. Viewfinder (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Biased and poorly sourced article

This article claimed "A January 2010 poll has shown thttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alex_Salmond&action=edit&section=22hat a majority of Scots want the SNP to be included in the leaders' election debates on TV" but neglected to mention that these polls were conducted by the SNP themselves in order to convince the Scottish Parliament. The article also uses The Daily Record as a major source, despite being a particularly "gossipy" tabloid and incredibly baised... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.148.36 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia where (almost) anyone can edit (most of the articles). I don't think your complaints are terribly significant, so I've removed the tag. Cynics might say that quoting the SNP on the poll and the Record on other things evens things out, one lot of bias counteracting the other. If you think anything needs fixing, give it a go. Not that I want to push you in a particular direction, perish the thought, but sometimes things are best fixed by removing them until somebody can find proper sources to quote. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

How come there is no criticism section? (92.14.250.86 (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

The links given above in Talk:Alex Salmond#BLP violations outline this. matt (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Salmond is a highly controversial politician, there has to be some mention of all the criticism he has received. (92.3.255.203 (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

So long as it is sourced and so on, there's no reason why criticism of Salmond shouldn't be included. Surely some academic, somewhere, has criticised Salmond in print? But who? Then again, undue weight might be relevant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

He has been heavily criticised many times by the Scottish Labour Party. (92.12.20.228 (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC))

Indeed, but Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources tells us that one of the signs of a questionable source, which is not generally to be relied upon, a fortiori in articles about living people, is that "[s]uch sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged ... promotional in nature ...". That covers anything that Labour say about the SNP, or vice versa. I still think the Sage of Bradford would be a better bet. He's funnier too, albeit it's probably unintentional. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


Alex Salmonds admission

I was wondering if people here thought there was justification to include in the article somewhere a sentence or two about Alex Salmonds admission this week on the issue of independence not being the central issue / centre of gravity in Scottish politics. It has got quite a bit of media attention and it goes to the core of what he and the SNP stands for.

A few sources on the topic..

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gy87fC4gds46zRgxDwpd5RpNYdEg

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/independence-is-not-key-aim-1.1037365?localLinksEnabled=false

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Without-a-centre-of-gravity.6385442.jp

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1800487?UserKey=

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/183247/Salmond-denies-ditching-dream-of-independence/

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/War-of-independence-erupts-within.6385585.jp

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/2010/06/25/alex-salmond-independence-not-centre-of-gravity-in-debate-over-future-of-scotland-86908-22359566/

And there was this from a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7779076/Alex-Salmond-drops-independence-for-the-time-being.html

It seems like a big issue to me which is currently completely overlooked in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Alex Salmond making one statement which is immediately jumped on by the opposition does not make a change of policy. If he were to say that he was no longer going to draft a referendum paper on independence, then sure, that should be included. Not here though, but at the Scottish National Party article. Jack forbes (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
But he is the leader of the SNP and First minister of Scotland. Destroying the United Kingdom has been his life long ambition and he has basically accepted it is not possible at present and wants to focus on securing more financial powers for the Scottish parliament. You seem to think this is just the opposition causing trouble, it seems a pretty big bombshell to me and its not like its just 1 or 2 newspapers covering the thing.
Perhaps it should go on the SNP article, a section there for post 2010 election where it could sum up Salmonds attitude and mention his weakening on the independence issue. I still think there could be a mention of it on this article, it should have a section on the election and outcome rather than just the moaning about him not being allowed on a Prime Ministerial TV debate when he was not running for PM or even MP. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
BW, your statements above have more than a hint of a party political broadcast against Alex Salmond. If you feel the information should be included, then you should suggest it at the Scottish National Party talk page. Jack forbes (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I am simply pointing out what seems like a significant media story (and i chose to ask for other peoples views here rather than just add it to the article), i may mention it over on the SNP article later. I think that page is missing certain things that need to be addressed too BritishWatcher (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Salmond wants to destroy the UK. He wants to make the UK geographically smaller. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Separatists may not like the term, but he certainly does want the destruction of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There can be no Great Britain without Scotland in it. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This talk page is for improving the article, folks. Not for airing political views. Jack forbes (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed and Alex Salmonds whole political career has been focused on destroying the United Kingdom, the media these past few days has focused on the fact that he has now accepted independence is not the central issue in Scottish politics.. Theres plenty of reliable sources on the matter, it seems to be a big issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
If you keep on using pejorative sentences like "....Alex Salmonds whole political career has been focused on destroying the United Kingdom" people may not take you as seriously as you might want. As I said before, you should take it up at the SNP talk page. Jack forbes (talk) 11:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I have strong views on this man, his party and his political intentions to destroy my country, never once on wikipedia have i attempted to hide my political views, they are open for all to see. But this is not about me, it is about the fact many reliable media sources have covered this confession and it goes to the heart of his political career and in the section on his first time as SNP leader it mentions about Independence / devolution balance and how it bothered some hardcore nationalists, so perhaps it should be mentioned this time too? I agree it should be taken up at the SNP page too, but it is more about his own comments and leadership of the party.
Of course there is also a wider issue about the article as a whole, It is clearly biased with absolutely nothing about his time in office as first minister, which has been full of controversy. After reading through the whole article it contains just 2 things potentially critical of alex salmond. The independence / devolution policy change where hard core nats were critical of him and his opposition to NATOs actions in ending a genocide. That is it. Im going to have to compare this with articles on other political leaders, i bet those articles have a bit more balance. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Your political views do not belong on this talk page, so please keep them to yourself. Jack forbes (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Most of my comment was about the problem with this article being clearly biased and relating to my suggestion of adding something about the recent incident that has been covered a lot in the media. Sadly you questioned the fact i might not be taken seriously because some of the totally acceptable terms i used when describing this man and his political ambitions. You made it about me, but ill happily focus on the issue at hand.
This article contains no mention of his period as First minister (its been 3 years already), yet all the section says he has done is cut the cabinet from 9 to 6, a remarkable accomplishment in that period of time but still lacks some balance. I can list some incidents from the past 3 years which got media attention, why are none of the scandals listed? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm no responses. I will over the next few days, trawl through the news coverage and list some of the items that we could include in the First Minister section. At present it clearly is unacceptable with nothing really stated but the fact he cut the cabinet size. Whilst this is important, sadly i can not make this my priority at the moment. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nationality revisited

Much as I hate to revisit a topic you're all probably sick and tired of discussing, an editor has replaced "Scottish" with "British" - and I've not reverted it.

Now... my thinking on this tends to be (without prejudice to consensus at individual articles) that politicians of a more unionist view (Conservative, Labour, Lib Dem, etc) should be described as "British", and that politicians of a more nationalist view (SNP, SSP, Green, etc) should be described as "Scottish", unless the politician describes themselves as one or the other.

In this case, however, Salmond is now described as "a British politician". Which actually seems fairly accurate: he's served as a Westminster MP, for example. So... is it time to revisit the nationality debate, or do we feel that "Scottish" is still more appropriate? TFOWR 08:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see that the undiscussed edit has been reverted. If anyone should be described on wikipedia as Scottish it's Alex Salmond. Leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland who believes that Scotland should be an independent nation. If that's not being Scottish then nothing is. Jack 1314 (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It was more the "...politician" part that got me thinking. I'd agree he's "Scottish", more than "British", but it doesn't seem that unreasonable to describe his as "a British politician" - he's got a substantial history in Westminster. That said, it's probably moot now - the IP was reverted, as you note. TFOWR 15:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
He sat in Westminster because it was the only way he could represent his party and his Scottish constituents in a UK context. He's the leader of a pro-independence party that doesn't contest any seats outside of Scotland. TFOWR, if that's not being Scottish then maybe I'm a Dutchman. Jack 1314 (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I am ok with the stable version. Keep it saying Scottish politician in the first sentence, but leave the infobox blank when it comes to nationality/citizenship to avoid a dispute as i think was agreed last time. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
...and Jack pointed out (sorry, I buggered off to Jack's when it was all quiet here...) Salmond is no longer a Westminster MP. Apologies for the noise! TFOWR 17:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
If BW and I agree one more time I'm leaving! ;) Jack 1314 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I am tempted to agree with that! lol BritishWatcher (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Taylor book

An editor has just removed "Salmond; a biography" by Alan Taylor, ISBN-13: 978-0862419219 claiming it does not exist - and that this has been confirmed by the publishers, Canongate, in a telephone call. However, it appears on Amazon.co.uk. I don't know how Amazon could be persuaded to stock and advertise a non-existent book. Perhaps someone more knowledgable could look into this. There are several bookselling sites which have it though many have no copies available which seems odd. For example. However, this lot and this lot claim to have copies. Fainites barleyscribs 13:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted Canongate, the publishers, and am awaiting a reply. Fainites barleyscribs 13:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Well Canongate say they have no record and it may have been an isbn for a book that was never published. Interesting as I didn't know this could happen. Anyway - I have accepted the edit. Fainites barleyscribs 14:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Weight Issue / Health Issue

Possibly contentious I know, but I feel that given his public profile i.e. head of government this should be mentioned

Experts round on Salmond’s “weight problem” ahead of obesity war

Salmond goes on diet ahead of polls

Someone who should be setting an example to the population, has been criticised by health fitness campaigners, over the fact that he has an expanding waistline. Given Scotland's appalling health record this should be noted

If you contrast him BBC News 1998 with now (see above) you'll see what I mean.

--Abz zeus (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Needs a criticism section

This article could do with a section that looks directly at criticism of Salmond's politics. LothianLiz (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

LGBT views

Salmond's outspoken support for LGBT rights in Scotland needs addressing. LothianLiz (talk) 09:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Lockerbie bit

This section sits rather oddly in the article:

Following the decision of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to refer the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi back for a second appeal against conviction, Dr Hans Köchler, UN-appointed observer at the Lockerbie trial, wrote on July 4, 2007 to First Minister, Alex Salmond, reiterating his call for a full and independent public inquiry of the Lockerbie case.[9]

Köchler addressed his letter also to Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and to the Minister for Africa, Asia and the UN, Mark Malloch Brown.[10]

Somebody once wrote Mr Salmond a letter? Errr.... I am sure thousands of people, a lot of them with high profiles, have written to the man.

I do not doubt that a brief mention of Lockerbie is appropriate, but this ain't it. --Mais oui! 08:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This article was not the correct place to have the Lockerbie section so I have removed it. I note that it appears to be a consensus here that it is out of place. the letter to the First Minister has nothing to do with Alex Salmond as an individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.203.238 (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It WAS sent to him - this Wiki entry is being edited by someone biased from the SNP.79.70.235.207 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.235.207 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to get some reliable sources and add something back about this. There have been recent comments elsewhere on wiki about strongly SNP people on wiki removing unfavourable information.RafikiSykes (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Faith?

I'm curious; does anybody know Salmond's relgious allegiances? --Jza84 |  Talk  21:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC) I thought it was Bank of Scotland? Capital Gains Tax avoidance is a religion to some79.77.25.106 (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)DrLofthouse79.77.25.106 (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Good question, I can't recall it ever being mentioned. I had a wee search and the only things I could find were derogatory op-ed pieces by Alan Cochrane in the Torygraph. I would guess from his background (school and team that he supports) that he is CoS, but I wouldn't put anything like that in the article without a source. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I did a Google search but I couldn't find anything from a cursory glance. I'm really surprised that WP hasn't got this down yet! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
When you say religous allegiances, do you mean practicing or just in family background terms? Because he could well be an atheist. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Either really. It's just something I'm sure our readers would be interested to know, hell I am! :) --Jza84 |  Talk  23:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Whatever turns you on! Cordless Larry (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
My secret's out! --Jza84 |  Talk  21:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe he is nominally CoS and attends occasional services, but other then that is non-practising. I've certainly seen it mentioned on the news and so on before, although I can't give you any solid citations. Maybe someone should ask him next time he's on Question Time ;) 81.157.116.217 (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure his father was elder in the Kirk, but for Alex Salmond himself I'm not sure. He did an interview in Life and Work (the Church of Scotland's magazine) a year or so back, and thay may have something in it. I don't have it now, but maybe someone can check. - TG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.254.234 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

He converted to Catholicism like Tony Blair, and is in favour of restoring a Catholic monarch, which is why the Queen has recently been dragged into an argument over recent years that established that a Catholic can both be a monarch and marry one. I thought this was more widely known - what other reason could there be? The Queen and the heirs are not catholics nor married to one.79.70.235.207 (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.235.207 (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Release of Lockerbie bomber

Should this article discuss Salmond's role in the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi? 98.209.116.7 (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree - it keeps getting cut out by the SNP editorial team - what democrats they are!79.70.235.207 (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.235.207 (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This article seemed very biased

I'm somewhat curious as to the content of this biography. Their is not a single piece of criticism or controversy throughout the entire article whereas three years ago their was a section for those aspects of his life. This now reads like it has been edited by members of his own party as I can see no dialogue explaining why the controversy section has been removed, why their isn't any mention of his expense claims which are prominent within many other politicians articles. I would seriously suggest to the editors to ask themselves what kind of society would they want to live within? One which all criticisms of their leader is removed, is not allowed to be expressed and citizens not informed? Or a society in which people have a right to learn about the politicians who seek to represent them? Their is something seriously wrong with this article if it seems like it belongs on the SNP Party website.Bobert90210 (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of those concerns would be likely due to BLP and NPOV concerns. If you can incorporate those materials without it seeming like an anti-devolution hit piece, do try! LothianLiz (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2011

(UTC)

I don't understand, what has reporting criticism of a single politician have to do with devolution? Bobert90210 (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Something is going on with this article. Their isn't even a single mention of Al-Megrahi. No mention of the knighthood of Brian Souter. No mention of the fights with the Supreme Court. This really has been edited by SNP members. Bobert90210 (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Nothing on Alex Salmond being sued by Professor Tony Kell. Nothing on the cash for lunches that he was forced to drop. Nothing on Donald Trump Golf Course. Some people really do need to recuse themselves from his talk page because the absence of criticism is not a neutral point of view.Bobert90210 (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
please feel free to jump in rather than merely ranting! LothianLiz (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Decidedly non-ranting points have been consistently removed from these pages over the past 2 years or so - can you post an archive of all the edits so page visitors are able to assess how 'impartial ' your editing is. Thank you. 79.70.235.207 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.235.207 (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC) I agree. Use of the term 'windbag' (to choose just one example) is not ipso facto ranting. 86.165.98.71 (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)'

Wording - "First time" to "First Term"

Section 4 of this article is entitled "First time as SNP leader". While this is obviously not incorrect it seems to be a rather crude word chice. I think "First Term as SNP leader" would be a more fluent method of expression in this case. I would have changed it myself but after a quick look at the criteria of a semi-protected article I dont think I have the power to do so. EarlBelhaven (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


... nothing on the rumours that he is growing a small moustache and has asked Mel Gibson to be his ethnic minorities adviser ...81.135.113.240 (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Tone Of The Article

I just read the whole article, and while I cannot quite put my finger on specifics, I came away suspicious that it seems to be overtly positive. I suspect this article is being edited by a talented spinmeister. I realise vague assertions like this don't prove anything one way or the other, but I do wonder if I am not the only one to notice this, and whether my comment here might provoke more critical thinking by others better skilled than I am to tackle this ( if it , indeed, needs tackling at all ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.91.231 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Lord Bannside

There is a photograph in the First Minister section of Alex Salmond, Martin McGuiness and some guy called Lord Bannside sitting around a table. On closer inspection I find that Lord Bannside is in fact Ian Paisley. As we have a wikipedia article on him and that article calls him Ian Paisley shouldn't we call him Ian Paisley here? Clay More47 (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Alex Salmond

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Alex Salmond's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "timeline":

  • From Facebook: "Company Timeline" (Press release). Facebook. January 1, 2007. Retrieved March 5, 2008.
  • From NASCAR: "History of NASCAR". Famento, Inc. February 20, 2009. Retrieved April 18, 2009.
  • From Formula One: Briggs, Gemma (19 June 2009). "How the formula one crisis evolved". The Guardian. UK. Retrieved 23 June 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2012

As Scotland has officially separated from the United Kingdom I feel it is appropriate for Alex Salmond to be titled "Prime Minister of Scotland 142.134.147.208 (talk) 01:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: They have not become independent yet. RudolfRed (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Salmond the first minister of/for Scotland?

Isn't that The Prime Minister? Salmond is only the first minister of the Scottish parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.235.99 (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism

While copy-editing a section of the article[4] I found that some text had been copied from the SNP website[5] with minimal changes. I attempted to rewrite this, but it would be good if someone could have a look and see if there's still any material that shouldn't be there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Specificially, from the SNP website:

He attended Linlithgow Academy before studying at St Andrew's University, where he graduated with a joint honours MA in Economics and History.
In 1978 he joined the Government Economic Service as an Assistant Economist in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. In 1980 he joined the Royal Bank of Scotland where he worked for seven years: first as an Assistant Economist before being appointed Oil Economist in 1982, and from 1984 combining that role with duties as a bank economist. He has also been a visiting professor of economics at Strathclyde University.

From Wikipedia:

Salmond attended the local Linlithgow Academy before studying at the University of St Andrews, where he lived in St Salvator's Hall and graduated with a Joint Honours MA in Economics and History.
In 1978 he entered the Government Economic Service as an Assistant Economist in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, part of the now defunct Scottish Office. Two years later he joined the Royal Bank of Scotland where he worked for seven years: first as an Assistant Economist before being appointed Oil Economist in 1982, and from 1984 combining that role with duties as a bank economist.[1]

--Colapeninsula (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that it needs to be rewritten to avoid it being just a copy-paste copyvio with a few small "tweaks" to try and disguise the fact. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Potential for GA

Just wondering if anyone else is up for a GA drive, and how realistic that might be. I know this article has had its issues, but with it on permanent semi-protection, I feel GA is achievable. Also I'm currently taking Johann Lamont through the process so this bio should be on an equal footing. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Second term - 2011 Scottish election

This section needs sorting out. Events before the 2011 election are described after it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.145.184 (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


Political Bias

As Salmond's birthplace is given as "Linlithgow, Scotland" rather than as 'Linlithgow, United Kingdom', can someone correct this please - in line with the rest of Wikipedia? For example see David Cameron's entry or George W. Bush's entry. This is not a site for political campaigning for Scottish independence.

  • "This is not a site for political campaigning for Scottish independence." It's also not a site for political campaigning against Scottish independence. Wikipedia has a Neutral Point of View, see WP:NEUTRAL. It is not as if Scotland isn't a country. In fact, Scotland is a country, as is England, Wales and Northern Ireland, see Countries of the United Kingdom. This is routinely acknowledged by both pro- and anti-independence campaigners. I see no political bias here. - AJF (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I've said this elsewhere, but how the subject of the article identifies themselves is the important thing here, as it determines what country we use (i.e., Scotland or United Kingdom). As Salmond identifies as Scottish, Scotland is the default. Cameron would identify as British, making United Kingdom the default. Hope this helps. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, Scotland is not an independent country. It is nonsensical to describe Alex Salmond as just 'Scottish'. For the present, he is a citizen of tthe United Kingdom, and should be described as 'British', albeit also 'Scottish'. To describe him as otherwise is to show bias towards his political agenda, which I am sure we don't want in Wikipedia as we are surely neutral. Varnebank (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It is in no way nonsensical to describe people as Scottish.GideonF (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, I apologise for saying your edits were politicised and POV. That was a failure on my part to assume good faith. It may be that you're not very familiar with the UK and its multinational nature.GideonF (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Alex Salmond is indeed Scottish, but he is also British. So I agree 'nonsensical' isn't the right word, but the current political context in the UK means that by describing him as simply Scottish this Wikipedia page is sending a non-neutral message. The only neutral and non POV way to proceed is to describe him as British (as well as Scottish), otherwise the entry could be interpreted as non-neutral. By extension, he was born in Scotland, in the United Kingdom, not simply 'Scotland'. If Scotland becomes independent post September 2014, it can certainly be changed to 'Scottish' and 'Scotland' only without any risk of being misread. OK, so I'd be interested in a discussion on this here. Varnebank (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Look at the articles for other Scottish people on Wikipedia: Ewan MacGregor, Andy Murray, James Clerk Maxwell, Alexander Fleming, James Watt, Robert Burns, Ruth Davidon, Johann Lamont, Willie Rennie (I could go on, but I think I've made my point). Virtually all are described at Scottish . It is the normal, uncontroversial way to refer to Scottish people. If you want Wikipedia to adopt a site-wide policy of referring to Scottish people as British, I don't think this page is the place to argue for it. Perhaps you should start a discussion at Wikiproject Scotland and see if you can gain support for it, because if you believe the current practice is POV then it affects many more articles than this one.GideonF (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
But we are not discussing just any random Scottish person here. This is a politically-sensitive issue and Alex Salmond is a politician. Describing Alex Salmond as Scottish only is non-neutral. As someone says above, this is not a page for arguing in favour of Scottish independence, but nor is it for arguing against. At the moment the page is too is non-neutral and could be interpreted as pro-independence because it fails to fully describe Alex Salmond correctly. Adding in the missing facts, ie British and UK makes it neutral. Varnebank (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. If it's POV to describe anyone as Scottish it's POV to describe everyone as Scottish. Making Alex Salmond the only party leader in Scotland described as British not Scottish, that would be POV.GideonF (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
So it would be better then to describe all the party leaders of parties in Scotland in the way I am proposing, to level the playing field. These are special cases, because of the current political situation. This page remains non-neutral; something needs to change here. Varnebank (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
And if you want to argue for a wholesale change in the way Scottish people or Scottish politicians are referred to on Wikipedia on the basis that established practice has become POV due to the forthcoming referendum, there are venues where you can do that, but it would be a big change affecting a lot of articles and it would require consensus.GideonF (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I seem to have edited into the middle of an ongoing argument here. When I came across the parts of this page stating that Scotland was the country in various cases, I just thought 'well, whoever put that obviously knew these places were in Scotland but didn't realise that isn't the sovereign state (and perhaps doesn't know it's actually part of the UK) so I'll just edit that'. That's the reason I put it as a minor edit - it seemed obvious to me. I was actually talking to someone recently, in the context of the independence debate, about how Scots are apparently taught that the UK is four countries in union, while the rest of the UK is taught that we're one country with four constituent nations. This is presumably where some of the friction comes from on this issue. I feel the reason I gave for my edit still stands: this is an international encyclopaedia, not a British one, so the article should say what the country is in an international context, not a British one. Scotland could (and should) certainly be noted in places as the part of the UK and the nation in which these places are located but that shouldn't be the primary focus; I agree that this would otherwise be a political use of a term and one that would in this case be misleading.
While I can see, from your point of view, that reverting Linlithgow and Strichen back to being in Scotland and not the UK would be right, I'm not sure why you felt the need to revert Bute House back from Edinburgh to Scotland, Edinburgh seeming a far more sensible choice to me or why you reverted the website back from Alex Salmond's personal page on the SNP website to the SNP home page (which is clearly inappropriate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdfbrown (talk • contribs)
The reason I undid all your changes, some of which there was nothing wrong with, is that you bundled them all into a single edit and flagged it as minor. I have no objection to restoring Bute House, Edinburgh or the link to his page on the SNP site rather than to the homepage. Regarding the way we refer to places in Scotland, I refer you to the articles on the places themselves, for example: Linlithgow ("Linlithgow [...] is a Royal Burgh in West Lothian, Scotland"); Strichen ("Strichen is a village in Aberdeenshire, Scotland"); Ayr ("Ayr [...] is a former Royal Burgh in Ayrshire, Scotland."); Dundee [...], officially the City of Dundee, is the fourth-largest city in Scotland."); Ecclefechan ("Ecclefechan [...] is a small village in the south of Scotland in Dumfries and Galloway."). It is standard practice. This doesn't seem to me to be dependent on Scotland's status as a country, incidentally. Austin, Texas is referred to as Austin, Texas; not as Austin, USA. Readers can be assumed to know that Texas is in the USA and that Scotland is in the UK. Any who do not can follow the links to Texas and Scotland and they will immediately be informed of this information.GideonF (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's not the case for Atlanta, or for Boise, where the Wikipedia entry informs us that they are in the 'US State of Georgia' and the 'US State of Idaho' respectively. I think you are being presumptive, as are whoever edits the Texas entry. I see no reason at all why it should not be 'Scotland, UK'. As I said, this page remains non-neutral. IMNSVHO. Varnebank (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
GideonF, the Strichen article is a very small article about a small village and does indeed only mention Scotland, though it doesn't have the information box on the right that larger articles do. All the other Scottish articles you referenced do have an info. box and in there they all state the Country as Scotland and the Sovereign state as United Kingdom. Likewise Austin, Texas lists the Country as United States and the State as Texas. This is established practice. That's slightly off topic however, as we're not talking about a place article, we're talking about a person article and stating their correct country of birth and residence etc - and as they say on Pointless, 'by 'country', we mean a sovereign state that's a member of the UN in its own right.' --Cdfbrown (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Like I said to Varnebank: if you want to argue for a site-wide change in the way Scottish people are referred to, perhaps citing Pointless as a reliable source in support of your position, there are venues where you can do that. Choosing this page to push for a change while all the other pages remain as they always have makes no sense.GideonF (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 13:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Residence in St Andrews while at University

While at the University of St Andrews Salmond stayed at St Salvators hall, as stated, but it doesn't mention that that his first year was actually spent at Andrew Melville Hall (Source, speech in May 2009 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Speeches/Speeches/First-Minister/genassembly09) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrumley1 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia biased in favour of left, as usual

No wonder Wikipedia is not allowed to be used as a reference by schools and colleges all over the world, when it can't even get the name of a country right. "Personal details Born Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond (1954-12-31) 31 December 1954 (age 59) Linlithgow, West Lothian, Scotland"

in the article needs to be changed to: Personal details Born Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond (1954-12-31) 31 December 1954 (age 59) Linlithgow, West Lothian, U.K."

To be in line with the rest of the Wikipedia and with reality. Remember, the RULES are: 

"Article policies:

No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability" Those are the rules of the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.249.5 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This conversation has been had before, and the conclusion was that it shouldn't be changed. It is perfectly reasonable to give Scotland as his country of birth and nationality as Scotland is a country, albeit a constituent country of the UK. But if you're unhappy with that, here isn't the place to complain. You need to raise the issue at somewhere like WP:SCOTLAND or WP:UK. This is Paul (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It is a fact though that Scotland is part of the UK. Do we describe Stalin as 'Georgian'? I think not. The correct adjective for Salmond, at least for now, is 'British!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varnebank (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Then you'd better get busy changing the thousands of other Scottish biography articles. Better still, raise this issue at the appropriate forum. This is Paul (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2014

All edits made by 'Outwith4walls' on June 7th to be reversed. These are all defamatory and should never have been allowed to have been made. See the list of changes: [[6]] KirkJTorrance (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Thank you very much for pointing that out! The edits have been reversed. Mz7 (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

'Not to be confused with Alex Salmon'.

I was wondering why the link to an unsigned football player appears at the start of the article. It's an entirely different name. And who is going to confuse 59 year old politician Alex Salmond with 20 year old football played Alex Salmon? Can it be omitted or changed? Seems out of place for First Minister of Scotland's article to begin with this, but if a message has to be there due to the close nature of the names, why not simply reworded to: '"Alex Salmon" redirects here. For the football player, see Alex Salmon.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.21.148 (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate information relying on out of date sources

KirkJTorrance (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The entry under: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Salmond#First_term states: "In the same year, he was required to repay more than £700 that he had received in moving expenses when he left a London flat in 2007.[37]” This references a BBC article dated October 13th, 2009 [7] and initially comes from assumptions made by a newspaper who broke the MP expenses scandal.

Subsequently, an independent review carried out by Sir Thomas Legg concluded that Mr Salmond had "no issues" with his Additional Costs Allowances as noted by STV on February 4th, 2010 (three months after the BBC report). Reference: http://news.stv.tv/politics/155373-alex-salmond-mps-expenses-verdict-from-sir-thomas-legg/

An additional reference is Sir Thomas' report itself: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmmemest/348/348.pdf (page 124)

Would it be possible to replace the inaccurate sentence with the recommended one below:

"In the same year, the independent review of Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) claims by Sir Thomas Legg concluded that Mr Salmond had “no issues” with his ACA claims, making him the only party leader at Westminster not required to repay expenses.[57]"

Many thanks, KirkJTorrance (talk) 10:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it, having checked various sources and found a more narrative account. The BBC source also has a video in which Salmond himself says "Thomas Legg has asked me to pay 710 pounds and that's exactly what I'll do", so I've left that reference in – perhaps it illustrates the spirit of the times. EddieHugh (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

5.68.132.62 (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC) Thanks... There is an error on the alteration you made - citation 38 goes to the wrong reference. It should go to: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmmemest/348/348.pdf (page 124) or http://news.stv.tv/politics/155373-alex-salmond-mps-expenses-verdict-from-sir-thomas-legg/

It's in the penultimate para of source 38. In general, secondary sources are preferred here to primary ones; the given one provides more background, too. EddieHugh (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Controversies

We don't generally do controversies sections, especially on BLPs. Is there a reason we need one here? --John (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Politicians often have such a sub-section, although they come in various names: see David Cameron, Tony Blair, Menzies Campbell, etc. for British/Scottish examples. EddieHugh (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Mmm. I am not talking about other articles though but about this one. See WP:CSECTION for details. You could remove this section yourself, or someone else could. Which would you prefer? --John (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
As the objection appears to be to the existence of a separate section and the lack of balance that implies, I've removed the heading and absorbed the contents into the largely chronological Second term section. (Making it only chronological would destroy the flow of the first two paras.) This is the 'most desirable' approach according to WP:CSECTION. EddieHugh (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Salmond's s picture is inaccurate

He doesn't look as slim as that pic in real life. It looks like it's been Photoshopped. Fletcherbrian (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean File:Alex Salmond, First Minister of Scotland.jpg? It looks ok to me. Do you have a better free image you can contribute? --John (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


He looks better than OK. That's just what I mean. Cheers.Fletcherbrian (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

End of term date

Given that his end of term date is known, it should be included in the infobox. I will not re-add it as it would violate 3RR but I strongly suggest others do.

Aside from that, please stop re-inserting that he "resigned" as SNP leader. He has indicated that he will not seek re-election. And stop removing the Scotsman link. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

To not re-nominate one's self as leader amounts to a resignation, there's no doubt about that whatsoever, but I'm happy to have your wording left in. Even though we "know" he will step down in November, technically anything could happen between now and then that could lead to him leaving earlier or perhaps later, we simply don't know. Because of this, the infobox must record that he remains First Minister and SNP Leader until such a time as he actually ceases to be. Waddell10 (talk), 15:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

£260 on a pair of trews (How shocking!)

The section about a pair of trews reminds me of the defamation campaign of the German tabloid Bild to oust a politician it didn't like anymore (Causa Wulff)

In December 2011, Salmond spent £260 on a pair of trews that he wore to a ball in China.[39] He refunded the taxpayer more than a year later, only after a newspaper had submitted a freedom of information request.[39] The sequence in which these events occurred was acknowledged by the Scottish Government after 7 months, during which they initially maintained that they had no record of when Salmond had repaid the money.[39]

--FSept (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It can't be said to be defamation if it's true. I'm not aware of anyone disputing the basic details. How shocking not repaying the taxpayer for a personal expense until a newspaper revealed it, and the government claiming for months that they'd lost records of when the payment had been made, is a personal matter. It was widely reported and commented on, so there it is in the article. EddieHugh (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes it is better for a politician not to (actively) dispute the allegations, especially if they contain even the slightest grain of truth. (Mr. Wulff tried to defend himself and lost his office in disgrace. He was acquitted in court of criminal wrongdoings but that alone can't restore his reputation.) Without further knowledge of the case I dare to say: If that pair-of-trews-for-a-ball incident would be the epitome of Mr. Salmond's wrongdoings then I think he's at least as righteous as the vast majority of politicians (and as righteous as the majority of the ordinary people would be in this situation). Is the buying of a pair of trews for the sole purpose of attending "a ball in China" as a representative of his region really personal enrichment?

The press is righteously protected against charges of exaggeration and often big affairs start small. But it is not the job of an encyclopedia - and Wikipedia wants to be one - to ennoble Swiftboating. --FSept (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but, again, the article describes the facts as reported and doesn't offer interpretation ("personal enrichment" or anything else). If your idea is to remove such things from all political pages (bear in mind that the 2009 expenses scandal in the UK is still relevant – see this summary/update), then a very strong argument will be needed. EddieHugh (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect information about being a Visiting Professor

In reference to the last paragraph on personal life: “He has also been a Visiting Professor of Economics at Strathclyde University.”

This is incorrect. Alex Salmond remains a Visiting Professor of Economics at Strathclyde University[2]...

Suggestion: "Salmond has been a Visiting Professor of Economics at Strathclyde University since 2003"

KirkJTorrance (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

University halls of residence incorrect

In relation to: "During his time at St Andrews, Salmond lived in St Salvator's Hall." — Preceding unsigned comment added by KirkJTorrance (talk • contribs) 12:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Alex Salmond never stayed in St Salvator's Hall. This was a tory dominated hall of residence and it is likely that someone has included this as a political "in joke".

If it is of particular interest, he stayed in both Andrew Melville and David Russell Halls of residence whilst attending St Andrews University.

KirkJTorrance (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Source? EddieHugh (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Degree incorrect

In relation to: "Salmond graduated with a 2:2 Joint Honours MA in Economics and Medieval History in May 1978"

This is an error that appeared in David Torrance's first edition Salmond biography, "Salmond, Against the Odds"[3]. Incidentally, it was amended in the paperback version of the same book[4].

It is also useful to note that St Andrews did not divide their Honours MA degrees... The correct formulation is: "Salmond graduated with Joint Honours Master of Arts in Economics and Mediaeval History"

KirkJTorrance (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the source (page numbers) for that? EddieHugh (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions for corrections of bias across several sections

Section: Second Term

Much of the information here relies on material taken from The Daily Telegraph, which makes it by definition dubious and biased.

A bad start to any argument. This is just your opinion. EddieHugh (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's address each in turn...

1) In relation to: "In December 2011, Salmond spent £260 on a pair of trews that he wore to a ball in China.[40] He refunded the taxpayer more than a year later, after a newspaper had submitted a freedom of information request.[40] The sequence in which these events occurred was acknowledged by the Scottish Government after 7 months, during which they initially maintained that they had no record of when Salmond had repaid the money.[40]"

This is clearly biased in the way it has been written.

Considerations: If it must be included then it would be reasonable to point out that the trews were worn at a Tartan Ball as part of an official engagement. They were in fact the only garment bought for Salmond in his entire term of office (which incidentally, was the nature of the Telegraph's original FOI request). It is important to note that the trews were finally auctioned off for a local charity, raising £500.

2) RE: "In September 2012 he stayed with his wife at a five-star hotel in Chicago while attending a golf tournament; the £3,000 for four nights was paid for by the taxpayer and supported a VisitScotland delegation[57] that spent £468,580.[58] Salmond refused for six months to respond to a freedom of information request for information on his spending, and referred to it as "ridiculous frippery".[57]"

This is also highly inaccurate and biased. Information on the spending was released immediately and proactively. What was not released was the name of the hotel until Salmond was successful on arguing the policy on non-disclosure (on security grounds) was dropped. In addition, Salmond was not attending a "golf tournament" but was on an official trade and cultural visit to Chicago. The "golf tournament" was actually the Medina Ryder Cup where Team Scotland were attending as the next tournaments hosts.

Suggestion for balance: "Salmond was attacked in some sections of the press for making an official visit to Chicago with his wife in September 2012, which preceded the Medina Ryder Cup. Salmond's expenditure for four nights in the Peninsula Hotel was £3,000. The whole of the Visit Scotland delegation spending was £468,580.

"In response to political attacks, Salmond pointed to the many trade and job announcements made in Chicago and that Scotland's official role as the next hosts in Gleneagles was worth an estimated £100 Million to the Scottish economy. He described the line of attack in the Scottish Parliament as, "ridiculous frippery"."

3) RE: "In 2012, Salmond indicated in a television interview that he had sought the advice of his law officers on whether an independent Scotland would be part of the European Union.[40][60] The following year, it was revealed that the Scottish Government had spent almost £20,000 to prevent the disclosure of the content of the alleged legal advice, even though no such advice existed.[60]"

This section ignores the fact that Salmond was cleared by an independent investigation by former UK Government Permanent Secretary who pointed out that key Government documents - including the European ones - were indeed Legalled by the Law Officers.

Suggestion for balance: "In 2012, Salmond indicated in a television interview that he had sought the advice of his law officers on whether an independent Scotland would be part of the European Union.[40][60] The following year, it was revealed that the Scottish Government had spent almost £20,000 to prevent the disclosure of the content of the alleged legal advice, even though no such advice existed.[60] However Salmond was cleared of misleading behaviour by Sir David Bell who pointed out that the European documents had indeed been legalled by the Law Officers. The Scottish Government then asked for and received permission from the Law Officers to reveal that they had asked for specific legal advice and a document informed by that advice was published in November 2013."

4) Regarding Section, "UK general election debates": "There were Scottish debates dealing with specifically devolved issues which Salmond had accepted the invitation to attend along the other parties within the Scottish Parliament on Sky TV. Salmond declined to attend those held on the BBC and ITV, and Angus Robertson agreed to take his place in these debates.[46]"

Amendment needed: Alex Salmond DID attend the BBC debate... [5]

5) Regarding Section, "Renewable energy": "Although energy is mostly a matter reserved to Westminster, administrative devolution of Sections 36 & 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 coupled with fully devolved planning powers enabled the Scottish Government to establish Scotland as a leader in renewable energy developments."

Suggested addition to the end of this section: "In his time in office, the percentage of gross Scottish demand for electricity generated from renewable resources has increased from 20% to almost 50% - one of the highest in the world.

6) Regarding Section: "Resignation": "On 19 September 2014, following the results of the independence referendum which confirmed a majority of the Scottish people had voted against independence, Salmond announced that he would be resigning as First Minister in November 2014.[4] On 15 October, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was the only candidate to stand for the leadership, and formally succeeded Salmond as SNP leader following the party's national conference in Perth on 14 November.[64][65] Salmond submitted his resignation as First Minister to the Scottish Parliament and to the Queen on 18 November, and the formal selection of Sturgeon as his successor by the Scottish Parliament took place the following day.[66][6]"

Suggested addition at the end of this paragraph: "The last survey on Salmond's popularity showed a positive rating of plus 35 (satisfied 65%, dissatisfied 30%) making him one of the few political leaders to maintain popularity throughout his term of office [68][6]"

KirkJTorrance (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestions include a lot of editorializing and are not substantiated by the sources you give (in many instances, no source is given, rendering the suggestions of no value). EddieHugh (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Eddie. The point about the Telegraph is largely redundant as well because most of the issues being cited here appeared in other legitimate sources (and the Telegraph itself is deemed a legitimate source, whatever anyone thinks of it). Lewdswap (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference snpbiography was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ http://www.strath.ac.uk/economics/staff/salmondalexmr/
  3. ^ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Salmond-Against-Odds-David-Torrance/dp/1841589144
  4. ^ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Salmond-Against-Odds-David-Torrance/dp/1780272979/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=
  5. ^ http://caledonianmercury.com/2010/04/25/salmond-wins-scottish-leaders-debate-as-murphy-pushed-into-corner-2/001019
  6. ^ https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3470/UK-Party-leaders-suffer-ratings-blow.aspx
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alex_Salmond/Archive_1&oldid=659247678"