AlfieMoon

It is an Act of the UK Parliament - not the Scottish. They (WM) held the cards before devolution and they didn’t hand them over as part of the establishment of the Scotland Act 1998. Hence why s30 refers to the defined reserved matters of Schedule 5. You might not like it, you might not agree with the principles - but that’s the facts. Ponsonby was providing information which was interesting and educational. I had not read the specifics of Act and relevant sections on specifics or their formation. I now have since yesterday. None of that means that Salmond or ANY pro-independence MP/MSP made a mistake or agreed to something that put us further from independence. The creation of the Scottish Parliament clearly moved Scotland towards that goal rather than further away. I’ll not keep going because I get you’re wanting to express your frustration at the situation which is not what I’m arguing. As I said, Ponsonby wasn’t pointing the finger at Salmond - he was providing interesting context. It’s not about a blame game. links if anyone else is interested in reading; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_Act_1998 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/contents

Starmer has had Gordon Brown and Harriet Harman into Downing Street. Appointed to special roles to try and shore things up.

Salmond didn’t sign anything. The Act was introduced and voted through the Westminster parliament. A Labour majority government. Salmond was only an MP - he didn’t have any position to sign anything. They could either vote for it or not.

I think you’re reading a bit too much into a minor point they were making for context. It was merely referred to as a reference point for the mechanism to obtain a s30. It wasn’t any sort of mistake from Salmond or signing our futures away. If it hadn’t formed part of the Scotland Act it doesn’t mean that the Scottish Parliament wouldn’t have still been subordinate to the UK Government as it were pre-devolution.

Starting to talk about by-elections already. I’d expect SNP to keep Gethins seat in Dundee but Flynn’s old seat in Aberdeen is bound to be a bloody nose for the SNP given how close the vote was today.

Highlands region going to be very interesting. Reform might just be strong enough to equal Labour in joint 2nd I reckon, might even edge ahead into 2nd outright.

Polls in the lead up can’t be taken for granted imo. They’re hugely variable and that’s before you even get to the variables of the vote day and turnout, etc. You mentioned Glasgow region but we were told for ages that the SNP were going to sweep the board in Glasgow (and nearly all of Scotland). They lost Southside and could have easily dropped Kelvin as well to the Greens. Rutherglen and Cambuslang was a risky one against Labour. I just think the list vote is far too complex for Indy supporters to think they can game the system. Trying to do that on a variable region-by-region basis is just never going to be successful in folk buying into and strictly adhering to a strategy that is highly dubious. The only thing that would come close imo is a ‘Yes’ list party, and SNP and Greens don’t enter. To what value that would be and what it would mean for credibility of SNP & Greens on constituency would be big questions. edit: I’m getting confused about Cambuslang which wasn’t close.

This is what I’ve been saying - it’s because they’ve lost so many SNP2 votes when people have bought into the line that it’s a wasted vote and lets unionists in. It results in this outcome where there’s such a drop off in SNP list vote that it drops to a level it becomes insufficient to gain list seats where they need it.

They lost the highland seat to Libs.

Of course. It should only ever be a ‘Both votes SNP’ from now those who support SNP, for the reasons you mention. Even more so in regions where you can reasonably expect them to drop multiple seats. The majority of 2011 was comprised of only 53 constituency seats. The chances of winning 65 constituency seats is near impossible. The fact that it’s been close has allowed folk to introduce this dubiety about what to do with the list vote. The reality is that to get a majority again the SNP need another freak combo which is probably constituency seats in the 50’s again and a super high list vote. Unfortunately there’s been so much distraction away from the importance of that list vote to the SNP that it is resulting in them dropping seats. Talk of 1million wasted votes, and folk pushing Alba, Greens, Liberate, and talk of meaningless ‘SuperMajority’ has broken the prospect of SNP reaching the precedent of 2011 again. It’s not fully broken yet, but when the time comes that the SNP really get a hard time in constituency voting, everyone is going to get a BIG shock that it’s compounded by not having sufficient list votes to back it up.

He’s missing the point that if he’s blaming the Westminster effect for his positive change message not getting across to us voters (who are obviously too stupid to weigh up various issues in his opinion) - then maybe that signifies a flawed constitutional situation. Previously we were told for 15 years that we needed Labour in Westminster and Holyrood to fix the world and deliver all our dreams.

SNP should have been in a strong position to pick up list seats in Highlands, Lothian and South Scotland to balance out lost seats. Let’s see whether that pans out, or whether those advocating against SNP1&2 will have scuppered that possibility. Suggestion earlier on BBC was 1 in 3 snp constituency voters were giving list vote to greens. That could well come back to bite.

I’ve also criticised the mere mention of the SNP wanting a majority in the context of Indy mandate but I don’t think Swinney made that big a deal about it as being a must. Geissler suggested earlier that he had made it that clear, but he was corrected by Glen Campbell who said Swinney hadn’t made it black and white to that extent. SNP obviously felt the play of mentioning it was necessary to shore up the vote. Who knows whether that was right or wrong.

Jo Cherry is a heidcase. Mad that she’s getting a platform as if she’s SNP.

It’s a bad day when Glen Campbell is having to correct Geissler and Ponsonby.