Holyrood Elections 2021

[Orraloon]

11 minutes ago, aaid said:

33 out of the 64 SNP MSPs are women - that'll piss off a few people.
 

Might need to go for all male shortlists soon. 

[Freeedom]

1 hour ago, TDYER63 said:

Its not even tax money its debt that has been created to be funded by future taxes . Any country with borrowing powers could do that and will take decades of tax money to pay it back. Borrowing powers  of course that Scotland does not have as part of this union. And wait till we have the tsunami default on bounce bank loans and business continuity loans .

There is no denying the furlough scheme has been much needed but surely to god no one can be naive enough  to think Boris Johnson woke up one morning having been visited by the 3 ghosts of Christmas . The furlough scheme was created simply because the best chance of an economic recovery is to keep as many companies afloat as possible and to keep money coming into households.  

 

Yeah, you're right I know, but the general point is that there is still the perception in this country that we are subsidised by the rest of the UK. Whether it is true or not we need to have a strong economic argument in place that will give general voters the confidence that Scotland is going to do well on it's own.

There are probably a solid 30% of voters in the country who can be swayed towards independence if we can make the case and give them the confidence to vote yes. The SNP cannot just say to people that we will automatically rejoin the EU and the single market without that being confirmed by the EU, they cant guarantee that we wont have to join the Euro either. What they can and should say is that Scotland can immediately regain access to the single market through EFTA and rejoin the EU if the people choose to do so. They can also make the argument about having borrowing powers by establishing our own currency with a central bank. We are also going to have to be able to address the question about the rUK being our biggest market and how trading relations could work as an independent country. If we can answer the big economic questions coherently then we should sail to independence.

[aaid]

No comment required.
 

 

[thplinth]

6 hours ago, Grim Jim said:

I'm positive you know how to post a link.   I stopped visiting that site over a year ago.   I suppose you are helping reduce his clicks though.

Hmmm that rings a bell Jim. I think I read something about posting links in the tamb instruction manual.

It was immediately after the section on 'How To Scroll' if I recall. 

Anyway I needed that preamble from wings to properly laugh at 550,000 votes being used to elect Emma Roddick and perhaps less funny 1.1 million SNP regional votes being wasted to elect just two additional MSPs. Which is pretty much what ALBA said would happen but anyway...

And then I was like 550,000... why is that ringing a bell.

And then I realized that is the number of pounds missing from the SNP's 'ring-fenced' indyref2 fund.

Huh what a co-incidence eh. 

[hampden_loon2878]

57 minutes ago, Lamia said:

By this?

I really need to know how you have came to the conclusion i have said snp msps would deflect to alba,, its completely false and will accept your apology 

[thplinth]

I was looking at the wikipage for the election and I see it is a not a gain of 2 seats. It says the SNP actually had 63 seats after the last election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Scottish_Parliament_election

So it is a 1 additional seat gain versus 2016.

So can one of you SNP strategic geniuses explain how that is suddenly a mandate for anything that it wasn't already a mandate for?

One extra seat... but now suddenly indyref2 is ON! That one extra seat was all we needed! 

Do people really believe this shite... 

[kumnio]

7 minutes ago, thplinth said:

I was looking at the wikipage for the election and I see it is a not a gain of 2 seats. It says the SNP actually had 63 seats after the last election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Scottish_Parliament_election

So it is a 1 additional seat gain versus 2016.

So can one of you SNP strategic geniuses explain how that is suddenly a mandate for anything that it wasn't already a mandate for?

One extra seat... but now suddenly indyref2 is ON! That one extra seat was all we needed! 

Do people really believe this shite... 

The SNP won the 2016 election less than two years after the Independence Referendum, and before the Brexit Referendum took place. 

You can’t campaign for Indy2 straight away, hence why they didn’t. Then Brexit happened, so it was back as an issue. 

Do the SNP need to state at every election that they want Scotland to be independent? Should that not be taken as a given. 

[thplinth]

In the last five years a hugely unpopular BREXIT was forced on Scotland when we did not vote for it accompanied by years of horrendous tory rule when we did not vote for it...

Nicola Sturgeon was dealt the cards of a political lifetime to secure indyref2 and independence itself and blew it.

All you have to show for it in 2021 versus 2016 is one poxy extra seat after 5 years of all of that. 

Now support for YES is fading as the BREXIT effect fades.

The SNP have not campaigned for independence at all since 2014. They relied on bad news driving support to YES. But now that BREXIT effect is fading and with it so are all the protest votes masquerading as YES votes . BREXIT was a window of opportunity and that window is now closing. They missed it.

Instead of exploiting BREXIT Team Nicola dedicated all their energy to trying to stitch-up Alex Salmond. They were both happening at exactly the same time. That is what the SNP  chose to do instead of capitalize on the golden chances they were gifted.

And now you are celebrating a second indy party not getting a supermajority with the SNP... strange times.

Edited May 9, 2021 by thplinth

[Diamond Scot]

42 minutes ago, thplinth said:

I was looking at the wikipage for the election and I see it is a not a gain of 2 seats. It says the SNP actually had 63 seats after the last election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Scottish_Parliament_election

So it is a 1 additional seat gain versus 2016.

So can one of you SNP strategic geniuses explain how that is suddenly a mandate for anything that it wasn't already a mandate for?

One extra seat... but now suddenly indyref2 is ON! That one extra seat was all we needed! 

Do people really believe this shite... 

3 parties campained on a referendum pledge. 

2 of these parties make up a majority of elected seats.

Hence a mandate for a referendum.

[thplinth]

The NO parties got the majority of the popular vote. Approximately 50.5%. The YES parties got approximately 49.5%.

So translated to a referendum you have no mandate.

And even if take your 49.5% (which is in case you have not noticed less than a majority)... 49.5% on 63% turnout is 32.2% (and I rounded that up). It is not a mandate for anything thing never mind a mandate for a constitutional change of the magnitude of leaving the Union.

On top of that the SNP never made it a plebiscite election and barely mentioned independence in their manifesto and campaign literature. So again, no mandate for anything.

The Greens are against independence when polled internally and are only going along with the SNP to extort all the things they want out of them. Again they amount to a mandate for nothing.

Nicola has already painted herself into a corner by giving Boris an effective veto. He will simply say No as he has done every time. Duuuh.

[kumnio]

6 minutes ago, thplinth said:

The NO parties got the majority of the popular vote. Approximately 50.5%. The YES parties got approximately 49.5%.

So translated to a referendum you have no mandate.

And even if take your 49.5% (which is in case you have not noticed less than a majority)... 49.5% on 63% turnout is 32.2% (and I rounded that up). It is not a mandate for anything thing never mind a mandate for a constitutional change of the magnitude of leaving the Union.

On top of that the SNP never made it a plebiscite election and barely mentioned independence in their manifesto and campaign literature. So again, no mandate for anything.

The Greens are against independence when polled internally and are only going along with the SNP to extort all the things they want out of them. Again they amount to a mandate for nothing.

Nicola has already painted herself into a corner by giving Boris an effective veto. He will simply say No as he has done every time. Duuuh.

So everyone who voted Labour is a unionist? You’re twisting things to suit your argument beyond belief. 

Ive previously asked this, but will ask again. What actual powers would having 10 Alba MSPs as opposed to 10 Unionists give us?

What use is a supermajority, that wasn’t even a thing until Salmond spoke about it?

[biffer]

thplinth and his self obsessed rambling are reminding me why I spend far less time on here nowadays. Tedious arrogant self satisfied nonsense from him.

I’ll maybe see you all again in a few months.

[kumnio]

Why is SNP & Greens bad, but SNP & Alba good? Is it just woke pish?

[thplinth]

2 minutes ago, kumnio said:

So everyone who voted Labour is a unionist? You’re twisting things to suit your argument beyond belief. 

Ive previously asked this, but will ask again. What actual powers would having 10 Alba MSPs as opposed to 10 Unionists give us?

What use is a supermajority, that wasn’t even a thing until Salmond spoke about it?

Is it also then "twisting it beyond belief" to assume everyone who votes SNP supports independence. Maybe you should have pointed that out to some of the people above.

So you are asking me what difference it would have made having 20-30 ALBA MSPs in Holyrood instead of say the additional 20 Tories and 10 Labour MSPs we will have instead for the next five long years...

Well Kev we will never know will we.  

I do find it funny though how having a supermajority is viewed as a bad thing. Yeah we are so much better off with a shitty-non-existent one. That'll work, not these gauche showoff supermajorities, only teeny weeny ones which are not actually majorities, that is what we need in Scotland.

[tartandon]

3 hours ago, Orraloon said:

I think you underestimate the ignorance of the general public. And, I don't mean ignorance in a bad way. It's just that so many ordinary folk just don't have enough interest in these things to make themselves fully aware of what is going on.

This ignorance is why the SNP need to be very clear on a range of policies as the referendum campaign gets underway. These include:

• currency
• EU membership
• borders
• share of national debt

The unionists will tell a bunch of outright lies in the campaign. They will use lies to scare people into voting against independence. These lies will be parroted by the media and taken as gospel by the vast majority of the public who are not engaged with politics and public policy. 

The Tories and the Brexit crew have seen that lying is a vote winner. They will use the same tactics to pull the wool over the eyes of 'ignorant' Scots.

[exile]

Seems to me now is a good time to put anger, division & disappointment behind us. Court cases and inquiries are behind us. Verdicts have been reached. The election has happened. Propositions have been made. The people have spoken. People have been elected and others haven't. Now it's over to the politicians who won to get on with it. And the rest of us can relax a bit? A new phase begins...

Edited May 9, 2021 by exile

[phart]

If the popular vote is fixed at 50.5% to 49.5% then if everyone switched votes from SNP to say ALBA/Green that doesn't change the popular vote totals just the seat configuration so what's the point in the first place campaigning for that switch?  If the popular vote is suddenly the metric for a mandate.

It's just incoherent.

 

 

 

[aaid]

1 minute ago, phart said:

If the popular vote is fixed at 50.5% to 49.5% then if everyone switched votes from SNP to say ALBA/Green that doesn't change the popular vote totals just the seat configuration so what's the point in the first place campaigning for that switch?  If the popular vote is suddenly the metric for a mandate.

It's just incoherent.

 

 

 

Incoherent indeed.

I see that the majority of the media* aren't buying this line so I expect it will quietly get dropped.

*that's a majority of the media that covers politics, not including those that cover TV, Sport, Royalty, Celebrities and reality TV so not a real majority so it doesn't count according to Unionist maths.

[tartandon]

7 minutes ago, phart said:

If the popular vote is fixed at 50.5% to 49.5% then if everyone switched votes from SNP to say ALBA/Green that doesn't change the popular vote totals just the seat configuration so what's the point in the first place campaigning for that switch?  If the popular vote is suddenly the metric for a mandate.

It's just incoherent.

 

 

 

aye, and nobody asked the dugs, cats or hamsters. We all know they are unionists. So it's really a super-majority for the union. God save the queen as she grieves for her poor departed husband. 🙄

[thplinth]

I think it is fair to say that if you could not vote for ALBA as you found voting for a party led by Alex Salmond morally and ethically objectionable then you have to equally accept that is fair for others to say they will not vote for the SNP because it is led by Nicola Sturgeon who they find morally and ethically objectionable. It all does not just cut one way. No way I could vote for the SNP, even if Alex Salmond phoned me up personally to persuade me, fuck that. 

Edited May 9, 2021 by thplinth

[kumnio]

18 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Is it also then "twisting it beyond belief" to assume everyone who votes SNP supports independence. Maybe you should have pointed that out to some of the people above.

So you are asking me what difference it would have made having 20-30 ALBA MSPs in Holyrood instead of say the additional 20 Tories and 10 Labour MSPs we will have instead for the next five long years...

Well Kev we will never know will we.  

I do find it funny though how having a supermajority is viewed as a bad thing. Yeah we are so much better off with a shitty-non-existent one. That'll work, not these gauche showoff supermajorities, only teeny weeny ones which are not actually majorities, that is what we need in Scotland.

I genuinely thought that I wouldn’t need to list every party in that situation. I knew you’d be able to deduce that yourself. 

Can anyone actually give an answer to what the supermajority would achieve?

[hampden_loon2878]

39 minutes ago, exile said:

Seems to me now is a good time to put anger, division & disappointment behind us. Court cases and inquiries are behind us. Verdicts have been reached. The election has happened. Propositions have been made. The people have spoken. People have been elected and others haven't. Now it's over to the politicians who won to get on with it. And the rest of us can relax a bit? A new phase begins...

Agreed however you need to tell stewart macdonald and co to get a grip,, really has been disgusting 

[thplinth]

Well you just have to duckduckgo it to find numerous explanations and examples.

"The concept of supermajority or qualified majority can be found in the practice of numerous
parliaments. Constitutional amendments, legislative acts in some areas of law specified in
constitutions, e.g. organic laws in France and Spain, and even the election of certain
government officials, leaders of independent state organs or judges often require the support
of higher proportion of MPs than ordinary decisions in parliaments. It is common in these
decisions that they are related to issues which have high importance – both from the
constitutional and political point of view"

A supermajority carries more weight, more authority. So it is reserved for matters of higher importance. Amazing, who would have thought it.

But also if you were in a deadlock with the UK parliament and you wanted to pass some potentially contentious domestic legislation to break that deadlock you would want the authoritative weight of a huge majority of MPs behind it, a 'supermajority' let's call it..

Or in the SNP case... not. In fact you want to be one short of a majority and then limp across the line propped up by the Greens. Hmm that is convincing when going to war with Westminster.

[Toepoke]

58 minutes ago, biffer said:

thplinth and his self obsessed rambling are reminding me why I spend far less time on here nowadays. Tedious arrogant self satisfied nonsense from him.

I’ll maybe see you all again in a few months.

Don't go biffer! Scotty's just started his space is fake nonsense again.

 

[iainmac1]

23 hours ago, aaid said:

Because on the list there's three things that feed into how many seats you get.

How many seats you pick up in the constituencies.
How many votes you get.
How the rest of the votes are distributed across the other parties - including those parties which don't get seats.

If you compare 2011 to 2016 then the constituencies were unchanged - 6 for the SNP and 2 for the Lib Dems. 

In 2011, the SNP got 47.5% and three seats, Labour were on 14.5% and got 2 seats, the Lib Dems got 12.1% but didn't get any list seats because they'd won the other two and the Tories were 4th with 11.6 which was enough to pick up two seats.

You'll notice that doesn't add up to 100%, it adds up to 85.7% which means that there are 14.3% of the vote unaccounted for, which should equate to 2 seats.

That was spread around a number of smaller parties who on their own did not have enough votes to gain a seat.  The largest were the Greens with 5.1% - who must have just missed out, but also 2.0 for Scottish Christian, 1.9% for UKIP, 1.5% for the Pensioners - it all adds up.   So while the SNP had 47.5% of the overall list vote, they actually had 55.4% of the votes that went towards how the seats were allocated, which is why they picked up three list seats, and as I said they must've been pretty close to the Greens for the last one.

Fast forward to 2016.

The SNP vote drops to 39.7%, the Greens goes up to 7.8%, so they get a seat - John Finnie who had won one of the SNP ones in 2007.   The Tories vote goes up to 21.8% so they pick up an additional seat.  Labour drops by a 3% but they still just get enough to get 2.  The big difference though is that with the Greens picking up as seat and with there being much fewer of the smaller parties, the amount of votes which are involved in the allocation of seats goes up to 93.2%.

So while on the surface the SNP's share of the list has dropped from 47.5% to 39.7%, their share of the "list votes that count" drops from 55.4% to 42.6%, hence they drop two seats.   

 

Thanks, that makes sense. I was thinking they must have just been a couple percent away from that 2nd seat but not even close it seems.