Talk:Alba Party

New stuff - on position and social conservatism

Hello!

I've decided to create this discussion as I'm the perpetrator of a large edit that changed some things. I don't usually do this, but since this effectively addresses the other discussions/conflicts there were, I decided to make it anyway. The source I've managed to access was Fragmented Powers: Confrontation and Cooperation in the English-Speaking World by Emmanuelle Avril, Laurence Cossu-Beaumont, David Fée, and Fabrice Mourlon, particularly the chapter Fragmentation in the Scottish Independence Movement by Nathalie Duclos. On its basis, I did some things:

• I changed the position to "Centre-left" from "Centre-left to centre-right". The only source for centre-right is The Guardian. This gave me a headache since there are clearly more sources for centre-left, but I did not consider it WP:UNDUE because it was, well, The Guardian. But now that the academic source joined the pile, and it places Alba on the left or centre-left of the left–right axis, I decided to make it "just" centre-left while adding a footnote for that Guardian article. Maybe the footnote itself was undue, but I suppose it was fair to reflect that unlike SNP, the Alba's centre-left position is not entirely uncontested.
• I removed "social conservatism" from the infobox. Why? It was a single source, and Duclos argues that Alba's stance stems not from a conservative stance on equality issues, which does contest that claim. So it is better to keep that off. In its place I added "social democracy", which is the party's self-identification and the party was called that by The (Scottish) National. This should also please our AI-spamming friend from other discussions.

That is it, I otherwise reorganized the ideology section by adding subsections and stuff from that source. If there are any issues then lemme know, but I doubt it's a big deal because the media attention on the party back from 2021 has evaporated by now. Brat Forelli🦊 18:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I have restored to the old version because there are problems regarding the changes you made. Firstly, the source you used for social democracy is a "Letters" article, which are essentially readers opinions that are sent in to The National, thus violating WP:RSOPINION. One of the key figures of the party, chairwoman Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh is described on her page as "being on the right-wing of the SNP, having asserted that the party's business policies were more typical of the centre-right.[29]". Placing a person which such views as the party's chair wouldn't align with a social democratic party. This also aligns with showing the party's expanse outside of the centre-left to place a person with such views in a key position within the party. Social conservatism is also a key identifier of the party. This is because one of the key reasons why the party formed in the first place was due to its conservative position on transgender people, differing from the SNP and the Scottish Greens, resulting in the creation of a new independence supporting party not confined to only being on the left. Helper201 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Here is a source by Professor Gregor Gall - https://web.archive.org/web/20250711075712/https://www.thenational.scot/news/24850245.future-alba-looks-bleak-without-alex-salmond/

And here is a centre-right pro-independence party in Wales aiming to replicate Alba - https://nation.cymru/news/centre-right-pro-independence-party-say-they-will-emulate-alex-salmonds-alba-in-senedd-election/ Helper201 (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

it was not founded as of it views on trans gender people. The reason the party exists is as of split in the center left leadership of the SNP. They do not have right wing economic policies, they do not have socially conservative views on transgender people, their views on that issue , come from a left-wing feminist position. And their views on every other social issue from immigration to abortion, to the constitution are undoubtedly left of centre. The only sources you have, are ones which are very loose, and indicator lack of knowledge about the issue. Someone saying that a party in Wales is right wing, may have some proof about it, but that is a flippant statement in regard to the Alba party, which clearly has no right wing beliefs on anything , and in terms of the transgender issue, it roughly coincides of the views of most of the Scottish population, and the current views of both John Swinney, the leader of the SnP, who says that are only two genders, Katie Forbes it's deputy, who would have voted against the gender bill, just like much of the Snp, and the Labour party leader in Scotland, sarwar, who also very much ties in with a more gender critical position. Labour and the SnP are not conservative either, and one minority very unimportant issue, does not define a party as socially conservative, when most of what it believes, is undoubtedly left wing, indeed it is the only out and out Republican party, in Scotland, that would put the issue of republicanism, above the importance of the issue of gender. If you took your view to its logical conclusion, that the only party who you would be allowed to not called socially conservative, would be the Green party, and some people call them socially conservative, is there so obsessed of this issue, farmer show than even their interest in environmental issues. ~2025-36381-39 (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

you are cherry picking unknown sources, people who nobody has heard of, in any other context , because you want to define somebody as right wing, just because they hold mainstream centre left opinions on gender critical beliefs. In reality the Alba party is clearly a party led by Kenny macaskill a famed left winger, it has no famous conservatives, and the only policy you claim it is right wing out of, is that it doesn't agree with an extreme position on transgender rights. A position which no other party currently claims to support other than the Green party. But the Green party is so extreme on this issue, that it left the coalition, it did not mind that the coalition gave up on a recycling policy, but it did mind that the coalition just agreed with the UK government on a thing the Green party knows nothing about which is puberty blockers. The problem is that transgender rights activists, are one issue fanatics, who seem to believe that that issue is dominant and sole important issue in deciding what a political party should be regarded as. When in reality it is a very unimportant issue, that does not define an entire political party, in any sense over in reality or even due to symbolism. Clearly the Alba party is led by a left winger and looks at this issue from a gender critical left wing feminist perspective, and to believe otherwise is something that would only be believed by a fanatical one issue person. ~2025-36381-39 (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a strong case for the party being on the left, as Fragmentation in the Scottish Independence Movement by Nathalie Duclos writes of the party as being "situated on the left or centre-left of the left–right axis". This is also the only academic source that deals with the party's ideological orientation. Helper201 does present a questionable objection as he did not present any new source that would dispute that by placing the party on the centre-right. The only objection he makes is that the party's chairman was described as "being on the right-wing of the SNP", yet the source for that is 10 years old (and he normally objects to using 11-year-old sources), and what I consider hypocritical is that he also believes that the position of party leaders can't be equated with the party itself. And here we're not even speaking of the party leader. Bizarre. Brat Forelli🦊 10:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

the source that you are using, is clearly a biased political source, the national is the party paper of the Scottish national party movement, so clearly it will attack rival movements. There is nothing wrong with them doing that, it is a legitimate right in a democracy, but you should not use as a source, something that is inherently going to be biased against rival political movements. You will not use the national, in any other situation. I have read times with a national claimed in tabloid fashion lots of things about opposing political parties, labeling them in ways that are good political phrasing criticisms of rival political parties. But it is not sensible or tenable, to to see them as a arbiter of what rival political movements should be called. If that were the case then the article on the Scottish Conservative party, would label them all sorts of things that no serious observer of politics would accept as a reasonable labeling of them. I mean it is okay for somebody to label the conservative as this or is that, but you have to come along with some kinds of nuance detective. If the party paper of the Snp, says that the conservative party policies would be a disaster, you do not put at the top of their Wikipedia page of the Conservative party, the claim that apparently their policies would be a disaster in an unbiased fashion. What you do is you look at that and realize that that is an SnP criticism of the conservative party. The same goes if the party paper of the SnP criticizes any other political movement. If the leader of the Alba party, said something mean about the Snp, you would not unthinkingly say oh yes well that must be the case because somebody said it is. You would look at what they said analyze it and wonder if it is a genuine point that should be accepted. ~2025-36381-39 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

You claim the our party founded because of the trans issue. That is an outright fabrication, the Alba party founded because of a personality split in the s&p leadership something that happens in Scotland every so often in the political parties. ~2025-36381-39 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean the Alba party founded, because of a personality split between Alex Salmond and Nicola sturgeon, the transgender who had not even come on the political scene at that time, and in reality salmond and sturgeon were very similar in their beliefs, yes there were a few unimportant issues like the transgender issue, but the idea that that's a decide whether a party be classed as socially conservative are not it's utterly obsessive on this issue, which is an extremely unimportant issue in the grand scheme of things. ~2025-36381-39 (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

And even then the Alba party comes at this from a position of left wing gender critical feminism. ~2025-36381-39 (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Helper201, thank you for your comment. I want to discuss this with you.

Firstly, the source you used for social democracy is a "Letters" article, which are essentially readers opinions that are sent in to The National, thus violating WP:RSOPINION.

Fair enough, we will not have it then. How about the rest of my edit? Do you have any issue with the 2025 academic source I used for centre-left and for expanding the Ideology section, for example?

One of the key figures of the party, chairwoman Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh is described on her page as "being on the right-wing of the SNP, having asserted that the party's business policies were more typical of the centre-right.[29]"

And there is one source for it, this one. There are two issues with this. This article is from 2015, long before the creation of Alba, and creates the issue of WP:AGEMATTERS. Also, you would make reverts arguing that "The citation calls the leaders centrist, not the party itself", like you did here, but now you want to contest an academic source positioning the party on the left because its chairman was described as "the right wing of SNP" 10 years ago? I think WP:SYNTHESIS guideline should apply to yourself, too. Moreover, let's read it together:

“The beauty of the Scottish National Party is that it’s a mix of people from different backgrounds,” says Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, one of the SNP’s group of 56 Westminster MPs. “Some have come from the right, some from the left but everyone has something to offer.”
A solicitor, businessperson, and former actress, Ahmed-Sheikh is now the SNP’s Trade and Investment spokesperson. She is also a former Conservative who was born in Chelsea and raised in Edinburgh. She defected to the SNP in 2000. Speaking to Prospect in May, she said that her party’s economic stance was a mix of pro-business ideas which would “traditionally be thought of as centre or centre right,” with a strong sense of social responsibility. When challenged that she was therefore a Blairite, Ahmed-Sheikh replied: “Absolutely not.” She suggested that the SNP’s landmark election victory has shifted the political landscape away from the traditional axis of left and right. “We are an inclusive party with a civic nationalism that puts nation first,” she said.

Where is she described as centre-right here?

Placing a person which such views as the party's chair wouldn't align with a social democratic party. This also aligns with showing the party's expanse outside of the centre-left to place a person with such views in a key position within the party.

Honestly, all we have is an article from 2015 where she argued that SNP's economic stances included pro-business ideas that “traditionally be thought of as centre or centre right”. The title itself The SNP has a right wing—and here she is seems vague to me if the body does not places her anywhere on the left-right. At best you have "traditionally be thought of as centre or centre right”, but I am missing the clear indication that she was talking of herself...

This delves into WP:OR territory, unfortunately. You are the person who insists on following the Wikipedia policies to the letter and you aggressively combat WP:OR and WP:UNDUE, among others, in edits you see, but you know that. I provided an academic source from 2025 which argues that Alba is on the centre-left or left of the left-right axis. You contested that on the basis of a 2015 article on a single person, which also fails to directly substantiate the claim made (that the article described her as centre-right.

Here is a source by Professor Gregor Gall - https://web.archive.org/web/20250711075712/https://www.thenational.scot/news/24850245.future-alba-looks-bleak-without-alex-salmond/

I see. What does the source show? Are you referring to this part?

Though it does not help and does ­hinder, this is much more important than the ­perception of Alba as maybe “­economically radical” and certainly “socially conservative” due to their “gender-critical” stance on transgender individuals and gender self-identification.

So the party has a perception of being "economically radical" and "socially conservative", although we can see that Gall distances itself from it by putting it in quotation marks and arguing that the political dynamics he discusses are "much more important" than this. Why attribute it to Gall if he does not call the party socially conservative, but rather speaks of such perception he distances himself from?

And here is a centre-right pro-independence party in Wales aiming to replicate Alba - https://nation.cymru/news/centre-right-pro-independence-party-say-they-will-emulate-alex-salmonds-alba-in-senedd-election/

Yes, but it does not describe Alba itself as centre-right. In fact, what it says is that this party simply wants to imitate Alba's behavior towards SNP (or in this case, Plaid Cymru):

Gwlad say they will take a cue from the Alex Salmond party’s “nation above party” approach in not challenging Plaid Cymru in seats where they are the incumbents.
‘In the same way that Alba are seeking to complement the SNP for the ultimate good of the independence cause, we are also seeking to work in parallel with Plaid in a way, in order to do exactly the same.”

This seems like a red herring that does not make a good case for the party being centre-right. Again, I made this change because I found an academic source from 2025 that places the party on the left. I feel like you are just trying to ignore that, and you give links that fail to question that directly in any way.

This is because one of the key reasons why the party formed in the first place was due to its conservative position on transgender people

The academic source from 2025 I based my edit towards directly contested the claim that this is a conservative position... This is why I wrote: Nathalie Duclos of the University of Toulouse argued that Alba's stance on gender identity "stems not from a conservative stance on equality issues but from a belief that gender self-identification threatens women’s ‘right to maintain their sex based protections’"., with the source attached.

So @Helper201, was there a reason why you reverted the entire edit? I suppose it was just lazyness, which is fine by me. The question would be though, if save for the "social democracy" part, you would be fine with restoring it. If you want to keep "social conservatism" we can also discuss that, but again, I have doubts because of that sources of mine that disputed that. I believe you did not give a valid reason for reverting and you did not address the new source that I based my edit on.

Thank you and have a great day! Brat Forelli🦊 21:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

On that 2015 source which was supposed to prove that she was centre-right (yet it does not), it also has this:

One of the SNP’s core electoral messages was its opposition to austerity—but a setback came in April when the Institute for Fiscal Studies published a report stating that there was a “considerable disconnect between [the SNP’s] rhetoric and [its] stated plans for total spending,” and suggesting that party’s policies risked prolonging austerity.
Challenged with this, Ahmed-Sheikh said many Scots are facing “life-challenging circumstances. We stood on an anti-austerity agenda. Why? Because it’s not working—26 per cent of children in my constituency live in poverty. What we proposed was a modest increase in public spending to allow investment into our economy; to allow us to create jobs, build houses and take people out of in-work poverty.”

Another source from that year also wrote of her:

Ahmed-Sheikh emphasized the SNP’s opposition to the welfare cuts planned by the Conservative, or Tory, government.
"We are the anti-austerity party,” she said. “We are disappointed that we have a Tory government. So, I believe the SNP will be the voice of opposition and the voice of change and the voice of fearless."
Ahmed-Sheikh’s constituency contains pockets of deprivation, with, according to her, one-in-four children living in poverty in Clackmannanshire borough.
"Anti-austerity is on our agenda because austerity is not working for the people of Scotland. We need to invest in our economy, boost jobs and stop the dreadful thing that people rely on food banks. These are our priorities."

Another one:

Interviewed by Prospect shortly after her election, the SNP MP Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh admitted her party’s economic stance was a mix of pro-business ideas which would “traditionally be thought of as centre or centre right”, albeit with a strong sense of social responsibility. But when challenged that she was, therefore, a Blairite, she sounded horrified, replying: “Absolutely not.” She went on to suggest that the SNP’s recent election victory had shifted politics away from the traditional axis of left and right, which was quite a claim.

It does appear that someone who added that and claimed that it describes her as centre-right distorted - or misinterpreted - what the source actually argued. Brat Forelli🦊 21:50, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi.

Fair enough, we will not have it then. How about the rest of my edit? Do you have any issue with the 2025 academic source I used for centre-left and for expanding the Ideology section, for example?

I don't have an issue with an adamic source being used for centre-left.

In regards to Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, I don't see why her views would have radically changed over the course of ten years. I'm not contesting that the party is on the left, that's why I retained centre-left in the infobox, it’s just that the party expands beyond being only centre-left, to the extent more prominent than a footnote. Apologies, I did not investigate the sources on Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh's page regarding the sources you quoted. I have no problem retaining centre-left. I agree absolutely with following WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, that's why I have used the sources I mentioned on this talk page, not as citations. We have a citation for centre-right and social conservatism already; I'm just trying to convey via general talk page conversations sources that indicate and allude to positions of the party that are already cited for added emphasis. Alba is a very small party, so finding sources on parties as small as this is typically difficult, especially to get sources that explicitly use claims like "centre-left or "centre-right". I'd be okay with moving the sourced claim for social conservatism from the infobox to the main text and placing it alongside the academic source you mentioned disputing this. Helper201 (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello there, @Helper201!

First of all, I wanted to apologize because reading back, I feel like my reply was a bit hostile. I apologize. I especially did not mean to imply any hypocrisy or anything of such. I suppose I was just a bit upset and should have taken a longer break before discussing your concerns. Oh well, let me get back to it.

I don't see why her views would have radically changed over the course of ten years.

The implication of this would be that WP:AGEMATTERS should be applied very narrowly, i.e. the age of the source itself does not matter unless newer sources contradict it. In all honesty I do like this view, although I believe you did not mean that because we had interactions before where you did throw out sources based on their age alone.

Anyway, I do see that because she joined a party that identifies as left-wing and which, according to Nathalie Duclos, is indeed centre-left to left-wing. Duclos argues that all pro-indy parties (she lists SNP, Greens, ISP and Alba) bar one (All Under One Banner) claim to be on the left and that they are indeed "situated on the left or centre-left". We have this 2015 article which vaguely suggests she was the right wing of the SNP. And the SNP was always placed on the centre-left, it is placed as such today and we also placed it there in 2015 all the same. So it is not considered to extend into the centre-right.

But, let me focus on Ahmed-Sheikh for a while. Above, I showed you articles which presented anti-austerity policies from her. There are two more articles about her that I found relevant here, this one from 2016:

She called the growing trend of right-wing politics in Europe a challenge and narrated the circumstances that led to Brexit. [...] According to her, as a result, the country now has a prime minister who is leading a party now known almost universally as “toxic Tories” pursuing a right-wing agenda”.

This would suggest that even if she were the "right wing of SNP", it would not mean that she was centre-right. I suppose you know what I mean. Bukharin being the "Right Opposition" to Stalin did not make him right-wing. Likewise we do not have any source that actually calls her centre-right.

Also, this article:

In an interview with Prospect magazine, she admitted the SNP’s “pro-business” agenda would “traditionally be thought of as centre or centre right”. [...] Her shock admission is in stark contrast to Nicola Sturgeon’s attempt to position the SNP to the left of Scottish Labour. Last night, Ahmed-Sheikh disputed the content of the interview. She said: “This article does not accurately represent my views or the interview I gave.” But the interview was seized on by Scottish Labour, who said they showed the SNP’s claim to be left-wing are fantasy.

So she also disputed that interview, for what it matters.

This is why I would question the argument that it’s just that the party expands beyond being only centre-left. We do not seem to have a strong case here, stronger than an academic source, that is.

I'm just trying to convey via general talk page conversations sources that indicate and allude to positions of the party that are already cited for added emphasis. Alba is a very small party, so finding sources on parties as small as this is typically difficult, especially to get sources that explicitly use claims like "centre-left or "centre-right"

Oh ok, you basically wanted an, excuse me, "casual" talk and I am just WP:WIKILAWYERING like crazy. My bad.

Well, just today someone told me I have no "moral right" to edit Wikipedia, but my apparently immoral ass has clear conscience on having the party presented as only centre-left. The reasons would be that academic source arguing that the party's centre-left self-identification is accurate, Ash Regan which was explicitly placed on the centre-right leaving the party, and the leader being MacAskill who is considered centre-left himself and was also described as the left wing of SNP. In regards to Ahmed-Sheikh, she does not seem a clear case of "centre-right" at all, given her statements against austerity and 'right-wing politics', that Prospect article being vague (the idea that she's the "right wing of the SNP" can only be got from the title, but nothing in the body text affirms it), and the fact she disavowed the interview. Last but not least, she never commented on the transgender issue, apart from 2016, where she made a positive comment. Of course, the transgender stuff is TAN/GAL issue that is detached from left-right, (left-conservatism is a thing), but you know what I mean.

Alba is a very small party, so finding sources on parties as small as this is typically difficult

Yes, in fact it is a bit suspiciously so. I have written articles for many minor parties, including those of even less relevance than Alba, and I always could find something. But here it is a huge struggle. And sure, Scottish population is relatively tiny, but I worked on the parties of comparable countries before, like Slovakia. Heck, also Lithuania and Moldova, which have two times less people than Scotland. Not nice.

I'd be okay with moving the sourced claim

Ok, my friend, I will do it like that - I will restore the edit, but I will exclude some things. I will not put social democracy on ze infobox. I will not put social conservatism there either but rather include the debate on this in the Ideology section (which I did). I will keep centre-right in the parameter, though I want to move it to a footnote, but I will give you time to decide if you could live with that. Have a snowy weekend! I took this great photo two days ago. Brat Forelli🦊 22:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

No worries, Brat Forelli, I appreciate the apology though.

In regards to throwing out sources for age alone, forgive me if I'm wrong but this is usually in a political party context. I think, typically, parties are more prone to having fluctuating policies as opposed to individuals changing their political views. This is due to changing leadership and other internal positions, or policy votes, if such a mechanism is done within the respective hypothetical party.

Your arguments regarding Ahmed-Sheikh seem fair. However, I think they over focused on economics. I've never objected to Alba being economically left (or a general categorisation of centre-left). I think its centre-right and conservative views are in its social (i.e. non-economic) policies. While it is true there are parties on the left with views similar to it on transgender people, these conservative views are more typical of centre-right parties. I wouldn't regard the views it has on transgender people as being "left".

Anyway, I'm not sure the productiveness of me imparting such views here, as I think we have come to an agreeable conclusion. I'm open to any thoughts on further improvement, though for time’s sake it would be good if we could leave such discussions to only short concrete proposals. Personally, I don't think going over semantics is very productive (not for me personally in terms of getting concrete stuff done here).

In terms of that editor saying you "have no "moral right" to edit Wikipedia", just ignore it. It’s plain to see you put in plenty of time and dedication to this platform, and I can guarantee people do appreciate it. I think given we as volunteers are given no pay for what we do, the hours we sink into this platform can sometimes feel a bit hollow, and therefore the personal attacks can sting a bit more. I've been personally attacked too here; it’s never nice. You might want to remind them of WP:NOPA.

I'd love to take a look at your photo, but unfortunately, I don't follow external links to sources outside of Wikipedia (I search up any sources people mention independently) for security reasons. Please do consider uploading your photos to Wikimedia Commons though! I'd love to take a look at it there and we could always do with more good quality photos. All the best and wishing you a Merry Christmas and/or happy holiday when it comes around. Helper201 (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you!

I think, typically, parties are more prone to having fluctuating policies as opposed to individuals changing their political views. This is due to changing leadership and other internal positions, or policy votes, if such a mechanism is done within the respective hypothetical party.

I see, I will keep that in mind then, and I see your point. Thanks!

However, I think they over focused on economics.

Indeed, but I also addressed the transgender concern, and as I said, nothing indicates that Ahmed-Sheikh has this conservative stance on transgender issues. And Alba did not take any other social conservative stance in any way. The two important characters in Alba that propagated this stance were Salmond and Regan. Salmond passed away, Regan is no longer in the party. Ahmed-Sheikh never commented on this apart from 2016, where she was seemingly supportive of transgender stuff.

As for focusing on economics - yes, because in political science this is what the left-right axis corresponds to, so I am following this academic approach. Left-right division regards the economics, while cultural issues are a different matter, namely the GAL/TAN division. Some examples of recent papers:

• Jakobsson, Peter; Lindell, Johan; Stiernstedt, Fredrik (2022). "Media Policy Attitudes and Political Attitudes: The Politization of Media Policy and the Support for the 'Media Welfare State'". International Journal of Cultural Policy. 29 (4): 431–48. doi:10.1080/10286632.2022.2086234. The 'materialist' or 'economic' left-right dimension has dominated political analysis for a long time and is arguably still the most important political dividing line in today's politics. However, in order to nuance contemporary political dividing lines, political scientists have added the so-called post-materialist or GAL (green, alternative, libertarian)/TAN (traditionalist, authoritarian, nationalist) dimension (Hooghe, Marks, and Wilson 2002).;
• Boräng, Frida; Naurin, Daniel; Polk, Jonathan (2023). "Making Space: Citizens, Parties and Interest Groups in Two Ideological Dimensions". Journal of European Public Policy. 31 (7): 1799–1830. doi:10.1080/13501763.2023.2182819. We make use of an original cross-national survey of interest groups in Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, Lithuania and Slovenia, which includes questions on the self-placement of groups on the Left-Right and Gal-Tan dimensions […] In the early years of Central and Eastern European countries transitions from single party communist systems, ideological leftness was strongly associated with cultural authoritarianism because of the top-down, party-led communist legacy (Marks et al., 2006).
• Persson, Mikael; Sundell, Anders (2025). "Ideological Bias in Policy Implementation: Public Opinion and Policy Outcomes in 43 Democracies". West European Politics. September: 1–15. doi:10.1080/01402382.2025.2548607. Classifying policies according to the left/right dimension as well as the GAL/TAN dimension and a pro EU integration dimension, we find that both left-leaning and TAN proposals are under-provided relative to the support for these proposals. […] Economic issues are coded as 'leftist' when they support state intervention, redistribution, and economic equality, and as 'rightist' when they favour market solutions, less redistribution, and accept more inequality. Cultural issues are coded as GAL when they support environmental protection and climate change mitigation, personal rights and freedom of expression, as well as multiculturalism and immigration. Issues are coded as TAN when they support nationalism, restricted immigration, and traditional values (Hooghe et al. 2002).a

Now, the economic axis is not the sole factor, because the left-TAN (left-wing and socially conservative) parties are either considered left-wing (Samoobrona, Smer, BSW), or have it flipped and are considered right-wing instead (Law and Justice, Danish People's Party, League of Polish Families). This is caused by factors like self-identification and political tradition, and here it is accurate - Samoobrona comes from the post-communist tradition, Smer the social-democratic one, BSW socialist, and all three identify as left-wing. The latter three self-identify as right-wing and hail from the anti-communist, right-wing populist, Endecja traditions respectively.

Of course, it can be different for every country. But in Great Britain, this rule perfectly works all the same. Labour Party, of social-democratic tradition, is centre-left despite the fact that they have adopted a conservative stance on transgender issues and immigration. The CPGB-ML, of communist tradition, famously takes an anti-transgender stance and declared that "the propagation of identity politics, including LGBT ideology, being reactionary and anti-working class and a harmful distraction and diversion from the class struggle of the proletariat for its social emancipation, is incompatible with membership of the party". Still described as far-left. We have Ross Clark describing Reform as economically left-wing, but the party's right-wing populist tradition prevents that from becoming the dominant view.

Alba self-identifies as centre-left, and descends from the centre-left nationalist tradition of the SNP. And it was Salmond that made SNP adopt the centre-left and social-democratic identity. Le Monde even described him as "very left-wing" (très à gauche).

I wouldn't regard the views it has on transgender people as being "left".

Yes, neither would I. I would regard it as irrelevant. I did already explain it above, but Labour the centre-left party and CPGB-ML the far-left party take similar stances. Assuming this is an important issue for you, then there is some nuance, namely: Salmond and Regan were the main representatives and they are no longer in the party, there is no indication Ahmed-Sheikh takes this stance (save for assuming she shares her party's views, but then again, she joined a centre-left party so we might as well assume she's centre-left by that logic), the Guardian article describing the party as centre-right comes before Salmond's passing and Regan's leave, and the 2025 academic source we discussed argues that the party's view does not come from a conservative position.

Personally, I don't think going over semantics is very productive (not for me personally in terms of getting concrete stuff done here).

Right, I am sorry. Well, either way, I searched for more sources and will add them soon, including one that does describe it as social-democratic, coming from... ALBA (the Latin-American one). Nice. Hey, well, more notable than an opinion published to the National.

Please do consider uploading your photos to Wikimedia Commons though!

My bad, should do that!

All the best and wishing you a Merry Christmas and/or happy holiday when it comes around.

Thank you so much, I really appreciate, and may God grant you great December, one with few problems and many moments of happiness! Brat Forelli🦊 20:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hold on, the author of that ALBA article is notable, Konrad Rękas. Interesting. Brat Forelli🦊 21:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the above. Sorry but I had to revert the infobox changes. There were so many WP:RSOPINION sources you added e.g. 1, 2 and 3. This was only on a brief observation. As mentioned previously "letters" are opinion pieces, The Scotsman shows near the top of the article to be under the "opinion" section, as does The National source. I appreciate you trying to help but I am alarmed at how easily you missed the fact that these are opinion pieces and hope you aren't doing this on other articles. I could see nothing indicating the reliability (WP:RSP) of the other sources you added. I only reverted the infobox and the lead to the last version in an attempt not to mass revert any other helpful changes you made, though I urge you to remove these sources if you added them to the main body. Please note I'm not trying to be "lazy" by doing this, it’s just the amount of time I can dedicate to sifting through other people's edits with a fine-tooth comb can be limited. Also "Depute" is used as it’s the Scottish spelling (or so I recall). Helper201 (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, it looks like these opinion sources for centre-left pre-dated out discussion and probably weren't added by you. However, now they are gone it means centre-right doesn't hold undue weight to where it needs to be a footnote. Helper201 (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Also GAL/TAN is only one way of reading politics. The transgender issue in terms of Alba is certainly not "irrelevant", as its one of the main reasons why the party was formed in the first place and one of the main aspects in which it differentiates itself from the other pro-independence parties in Scotland. Everything has nuance and relativity, not just on a country-to-country basis, but on a party to party one. But again, I'm not interested in making this a debate or intellectual discussion and my time can be limited. Therefore, if you could keep your responses as short and to the point as possible regarding disputes and concrete ideas regarding the article that would be appreciated. I think we settled at a good place for centre-left to centre-right before and I'm not sure what point there was to the reader in going back-and-forth over this. Honestly, I could be doing better things with my time. No disrespect intended. Helper201 (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Helper, it does seem you might have given me too much credit, but it is fine, I am glad to be in the center of attention! Thank you for the awareness, so I see you do comb through people's edits as a part of your activities. I do need to admit that I am mostly clueless to things you wrote. For one, I was not aware of the Depute/Deputy thing, it appears this was an edit that a third-party editor did in-between, now that I check. I did see it being Depute on Hanvey's main article though, so good call on restoring it to back how it was. Depute sounds cute, too. Wait, what?

As for the rest, I would have to politely disagree and even trot you because you also removed an academic source for some reason, and two Spanish sources on which nothing indicates they were opinions. Having two academic sources for centre-left plus a couple of others would trump one source for 'centre-right' to me. Also, you removed the |year paremeter from the academic source for some reason. I am confused. Actually... Well, it seems you just copied over an older version and pasted it over.

Also GAL/TAN is only one way of reading politics.

I feel inclined to insist that it is more than the only one way, since I did cite academic journals who use that method. I did also previously cite examples of how this approach works in Great Britain too, where the Labour Party, CPGB-ML and the Workers Party of Britain are considered on the left despite taking TAN stances on issues such as immigration and indeed transgender stuff, meaning that parties are evaluated on the basis of economics, political tradition plus self-identification.

The transgender issue in terms of Alba is certainly not "irrelevant", as its one of the main reasons why the party was formed

I did find a source that explicitly states that the party was created in reaction to SNP's rightwards shift on economics, but I haven't found one which would state that the transgender issue was such a catalyst. Of course, both could be true at the same time, but a book I found and cited said the former, and not the latter.

short and to the point as possible regarding disputes and concrete ideas regarding the article that would be appreciated

I'll try! I propose to have it centre-left with a footnote on centre-right, my argumentation being that there are two academic sources that place it there, along with 3 other sources. This is with the exclusion of Scotsman and the National sources. From there I am concerned that it may be WP:UNDUE to have centre-right with a single, non-academic source. Of course, I know it's no you vs. me, it's we - and I can sense that the transgender issue might be personally important to you, so I apologize for coming off as nonchalant about it. That being said, the party's position on transgender issue and 'centre-right' cannot be connected without WP:OR, as in - the single source for centre-right does not make such connection, Salmond and Regan are no longer in the party, Ahmed-Sheikh also isn't connectable here. I do not want us to be stuck on this, especially since yeah, you know we're just gonna be discussing the TAN/GAL relevance for a good next days in that case. If you wish to have it reflected on the infobox somehow, I am in - we could add mention of social conservatism through the footnote too, or maybe I could try to search for more sources that describe it as socially conservative. I would insist, however, that having it 'centre-left to centre-right' is too undue weight for us when there are two academic sources for the former (+ others) and a single, non-academic source for the latter.

Honestly, I could be doing better things with my time. No disrespect intended.

Well, full disclosure - as you can tell by now, I'm a big yapper and I can be quite petty, so unfortunately yeah, discussions with me are a timesink. But hey, I enjoy your company, and maybe you will grow to like mine too, so it might not be a waste of time in the end, you know! Brat Forelli🦊 05:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

good work, the Alba party is clearly a centre left, socially liberal gender critical party with no conservative views on anything, even it's GC views are from a normal moderate centrist, safeguarding orientated, observing biological sex exists perspective, not some anti LGBT anti gay agenda as proven by how salmond and km, it's leaders were all seen as on the center left of the centre left snp, indeed salmond was chucked out as a then leftist in the 80s. It has leading LGBT members like hanvey, and the famed socialist Tommy Sheridan supported it. The party is a centre left gender critical party. ~2025-43077-44 (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it. It certainly does appear to be a left-wing party - I've been researching what academic journals have to say on the party and I've found three such academic sources that also classify the party on the right-left spectrum, and all of them described it as on the left. But God works in mysterious ways, and one of the crosses He gives me is that I put a lot of effort into researching something only to face objections against it anyway. It is a party that Scottish Left Review speaks well of, writing that "most of the left in the SNP" had defected to it, and that it consists of "old SNP party cadres and avowed leftists." It is a party whose voters were found to be to the left of SNP, and for which support correlates with unemployment and child poverty rates, meaning that it is based on low-income/working-class votes and would fit the definition of the left by Seymour Martin Lipset too.

One source even describes it as Scotland's leftmost party along with the Greens. The current leader of the party is described as left-wing, and a social democrat, and publishes in Morning Star. We also have Gregor Gall arguing that one factor in creation of the party was neoliberal shift of the SNP:

Under First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP Scottish Government’s links with big business grew significantly. In 2016, Sturgeon appointed Andrew Wilson, a corporate lobbyist and former RBS head of group communications, to write the SNP’s economic strategy. Wilson (2018) advocated a pro-market vision for an independent Scotland. These developments opened up a split in the ranks of the SNP – especially over the proposal to keep using sterling after independence, effectively binding the Scottish economy to the interests of London finance capital. Many SNP members denounced the report as an ideological justification for pursuing neo-liberal policies. These tensions were one factor in the creation of the Alba political party, led by Alex Salmond, in 2021. Paradoxically, the SNP leadership’s rightward shift towards accommodation with neo-liberalism (or at least with globalist sections of Scottish domestic capital) occurred just as anticapitalist resistance was growing in England via the Corbyn project within Labour.

So yes, to put it into perspective, it is rather unreasonable to insist that the party is not just centre-left (or even centre-left to left-wing, to be faithful to sources), but rather "centre-left to centre-right" (or in other words, to the right of SNP, LibDems and Labour, given their own classifications) when all there is to it is a single non-academic source calling it centre-right and the party's position on the transgender issue. Even if it were a conservative stance, it does not disqualify a party from being left-wing (as I said before, Workers Party of Britain, CPGB-ML and the Labour Party all take similar stances and are positioned on the left), but we do have an academic source which argues that the party's stance on it "stems not from a conservative stance on equality issues but from a belief that gender self-identification threatens women’s ‘right to maintain their sex based protections’".

So this thread has been frustrating, because it feels like classifying it as left-wing is taken as some kind of a moral judgement and not just a neutral description. But, excuse me for the rant, I've just been working on articles of enough political parties to notice this awkward pattern of treating "left-wing" as good and "right-wing" as evil instead of understanding both neutrally, and so trying to push all parties to the right of their actual perception in sources. It certainly was not my interlocutor's intention, but oh well. Brat Forelli🦊 10:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Brat Forelli🦊 10:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)