Holyrood Elections 2021 - Page 67 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Holyrood Elections 2021


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

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 

Well explain what you meant then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, thplinth said:

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.

So nothing tangible then.

Let’s say everyone that voted SNP on the list voted for Alba, yes we would have another xx of MSPs, so a bigger majority. What would it actually change? Nothing IMO.

If using your simple number of voters maths from earlier, it would still be the same. I’m sure that the UK Government would be quick to point that out, and say we were undemocratic. 

Limping across the line with the Greens is still getting there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lamia said:

Well explain what you meant then?

i stated " the lunutic will be gone soon(weeded out alba) peety the snp wouldnt do the same"

Lamia"who would be left"

HL "half the snp mps would be gone"

 

it was something like that, i cant be assed scrolling back through the pages.. so please tell me where i have indicated that snp msps were going to defect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see above a few examples of the casual racism, sexism and ageism that now imbues the thinking of the Sturgeon SNP support.

ALBA is for old, white, men apparently. ‘Ethnic nationalists’ we are told meaning ‘racists’ in their coded dialogue. Remember when you just had blood and soil nationalists, well now the SNP calls them ethnic nationalists (and of course they are always old, white men in their book).

So given the complete lack of objections  above to this line of chat I think it fair to turn the tables and have a little look at the SNP leadership using the same lens.

Here we have a cabal of nearly all fiftysomething, white, women who conspired to stitch-up a man in order to protect their careers and positions. (That in itself should see them doing jail time.) 

If it was a cabal of white, old, men blatantly fucking over a woman in this (utterly outrageous it has to be said) manner you would be screaming sexism from the rooftops. But in this instance it was a cabal of old, white women conspiring to pervert the course of justice for their own selfish goals. So it was crickets from the hypocrites.

What was the common theme running through these women. It was the same poisonous ideology that runs through the SNP leadership circles like an open sewer, misandry dressed up as radical feminism. 

You have a party dominated by a group of female chauvinist sows.  You only get a job near Nicola if you are a female chauvinist sow. She surrounded herself with these man haters and then set them lose to destroy her enemy. Put a cheap suit on them and a fake tache and they could all have walked out of the 1970’s.

They are all white, old, bitter, milk-curdling, gammonettes with an obvious hatred of all things male. 

All female shortlists was kind of a giveaway. That is blatant prejudice based on sex but it got a free pass because of the double standard that runs through every aspect of their thinking. We see the same ‘reverse prejudice’ everywhere in the Sturgeon SNP. In truth there is no reverse prejudice, it is just prejudice.

So yeah if I was a bloke I’d get my arse over to ALBA where you at least at not hated for your skin colour, sex or age. :headbang:

Edited by thplinth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So another news report on breakfast time from Ayr and it brought opinions from various people and we got a third person admitting they voted Labour but would support independence. Further evidence that the pro-indy support do not always vote SNP. Unionists are quick to insist not all SNP voters back independence but never seem to want to accept that the same is in reverse. In the last few days on the BBC website and on TV though I have seen three people say they voted Labour but would support independence but no such view from SNP voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, thplinth said:

So ALBA were bang on the money folks.

They said that the 1.100,000 SNP regional votes would be effectively wasted and would only result in 1-2 additional SNP MSPs. That is exactly what has happened. Almost perfectly.

So what they also said was true.

Had just 50% of those 1.100.000 SNP regional votes voted ALBA it would have netted 20-25 additional Pro-independence ALBA MSPs. On top of the 62 constituency SNP MSPs. (Plus the Greens as well if you want to include them.) This would have been a supermajority of pro-independence MSPs.

Instead you don't have even an outright majority of pro-independence MSPs, and even with the Greens it is razor thin, which when you factor in turnout wont amount to fuck all when it comes to pushing Boris for independence.

You are facing five years of fuck all, that is your victory here. There is not even any point in arguing about it anymore, it is done now.

SNP limp over the line supported by the greens is bad?? SNP getting even less seats and being propped up by the least popular politician in Scotland is good?? You have totally lost it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

So another news report on breakfast time from Ayr and it brought opinions from various people and we got a third person admitting they voted Labour but would support independence. Further evidence that the pro-indy support do not always vote SNP. Unionists are quick to insist not all SNP voters back independence but never seem to want to accept that the same is in reverse. In the last few days on the BBC website and on TV though I have seen three people say they voted Labour but would support independence but no such view from SNP voters.

if you look back at the indy 2014 result there was a small % if snp members who voted no and on the other hand tory members voted yes,, crazy but true haha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

if you look back at the indy 2014 result there was a small % if snp members who voted no and on the other hand tory members voted yes,, crazy but true haha

I don't doubt there are some but nowhere near as many who voted for unionist parties but support independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kumnio said:

So nothing tangible then.

Let’s say everyone that voted SNP on the list voted for Alba, yes we would have another xx of MSPs, so a bigger majority. What would it actually change? Nothing IMO.

If using your simple number of voters maths from earlier, it would still be the same. I’m sure that the UK Government would be quick to point that out, and say we were undemocratic. 

Limping across the line with the Greens is still getting there. 

Apologies in advance if this is another long and condescending post but its not something which can be explained in a singles sentence.

Alba never spoke in details about how many seats a super majority was or what they would do if they achieved that.  I think there's good reason because at this point I suspect that would scare a lot of voters off.

The super majority was introduced as part of the Smith Commission recommendations and means that certain legislation must have at least 2/3rds of the parliament backing it.  That's 86 seats, that's the number you need to get to for it to be a super majority with any legislative significance.

How do you get to that on the current numbers - Alba would say its with a massive transfer of SNP votes to them on the list.    The SNP have 62 constituencies, that's your starting point as they would lose the two list seats.   Although you'd expect the Green vote to hold up, they will almost certainly lose seats due to d'Hondt.   Back of a fag packet but that looks like 4 or 5, lets say 4.  So that gives 64.   That means Alba would need to get 22 seats, which translates to 3 seats in 6 regions and 2 in another.  What share of the vote would they have to get to achieve that?

Lets look at the Unionist side of the equation.

Between them they won 13 constituency seats and also got roughly 50% of the list vote.  To stop a super-majority, they need to get to 44 seats, so they need to pick up 31 list seats.

SNP list vote - which is where these Alba votes come from - was 40%, if you add in the votes Alba got that takes it to 42%.  You don't need to be a genius to work out that in order to get those 22 seats pretty much the entire SNP list vote is going to have to transfer.  Even putting to one side all the problems with Alba as a party, people can make their own minds up about how likely that would be to happen and that's something that those people accusing SNP list voters of being traitors or Tartan Tories should consider.

So that's the why they - Alba - were careful not to put a number on the super majority or explain exactly how you get there.   What difference would it make, well they were very very quiet on this officially but reading between the lines, this is what I think they were trying to do.

The legislation that requires a supermajority is anything that relates to the make up of the Scottish Parliament itself.  

That covers stuff like how many MSPs there are, what the constituency boundaries are, the voting system, the franchise - the legislation to give the votes to 16/17 year olds in 2016 and to all people over 16 regardless of nationality last year all passed by super majority (I think they were unanimous).   That's actually a good thing as regardless of what party you support, if you are interested in democracy then you don't want a government to be able to rig the electoral system in their favour by a simple majority.

While its not specifically mentioned in the legislation, I suspect that what the proponents of the supermajority were looking to do was to use that to dissolve the parliament early - the next election won't be until 2026, another change by super majority was to change the parliamentary term to 5 years.

They would then seek to hold another election as a plebiscite on Independence, essentially a proxy for a referendum followed by UDI if the Indy side won.

Now it may well have to come to that - I personally don't think it will - but it seems to me that that could only be used as a last resort after every other possible avenue had been blocked.   To become independent you need to take both the electorate with you but also the wider international community to recognise that.   It really is the nuclear option and if you rush to that - which I fear those promoting this in Alba are doing - then I think its a route to failure.

72-57 is a big enough pro-Indy majority - it's the same as 2011 - to provide a mandate for anything to do with Indy and was done without gaming the system, at least not beyond what has happened more or less since the parliament was reconvened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The depressing and wholly frightening thing is listening to various news outlets with legal experts, MP's, ex-MP's and pundits on the matter of the union now even after a pro-indy majority has been returned. The vast amount of opinion comes across as downright nauseous as they seem to have no qualms about the union being totally undemocratic about this.

To his credit it was only Andrew Marr yesterday who repeatedly asked Gove how Scotland could leave the union if not through a referendum etc.

These arseholes needs to take a step back (and a lot of them are non-Scots) on offering opinions on what Scotland can and can't do.

If anyone is, right now, in the 50-50 camp on independence I urge them to think about this union you contemplate remaining in. We are tied ands padlocked into this union by the 1997 Scotland Bill which, without a doubt, was penned by unionist legal teams and MP's  to give all final say on Scotland's future to Westminster. That, in itself, is wholly undemocratic when you think about it.

We've voted in a legal election to vote for parties who ran on a manifesto for an independence referendum. The country has spoken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kumnio said:

So nothing tangible then.

Let’s say everyone that voted SNP on the list voted for Alba, yes we would have another xx of MSPs, so a bigger majority. What would it actually change? Nothing IMO.

If using your simple number of voters maths from earlier, it would still be the same. I’m sure that the UK Government would be quick to point that out, and say we were undemocratic. 

Limping across the line with the Greens is still getting there. 

If you cant understand this I don't think can explain it any better.

It is like saying a referendum supporting YES with 70% support is no better than one with 50.01%. I suppose technically you are right for what that is worth here, i.e. nothing.)

Of course it is better, it far more authoritative. That is precisely why you are required to achieve a supermajority for important constitutional changes (let alone something as big as calling for independence from a Union of 300+ years).

You think you will just waltz out of that |Union with only 49.5% of the popular vote, and no majority of SNP MSPs, and only the wet arse greens making up your 'mandate'? 

Good luck with that. You will be needing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thplinth said:

If you cant understand this I don't think can explain it any better.

It is like saying a referendum supporting YES with 70% support is no better than one with 50.01%. I suppose technically you are right for what that is worth here, i.e. nothing.)

Of course it is better, it far more authoritative. That is precisely why you are required to achieve a supermajority for important constitutional changes (let alone something as big as calling for independence from a Union of 300+ years).

You think you will just waltz out of that |Union with only 49.5% of the popular vote, and no majority of SNP MSPs, and only the wet arse greens making up your 'mandate'? 

Good luck with that. You will be needing it.

So going by your warped logic, if all the snp voters had switched to Alba, how much of the popular vote would independence parties have??? A wee clue for the brain dead, the answer is 49.5%. You lost, your hero lost and the voters who care about independence rather than personalities won

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

i stated " the lunutic will be gone soon(weeded out alba) peety the snp wouldnt do the same"

Lamia"who would be left"

HL "half the snp mps would be gone"

 

it was something like that, i cant be assed scrolling back through the pages.. so please tell me where i have indicated that snp msps were going to defect?

Oh so you answered a question you wanted to not the one I asked. Thanks for the clarification 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, kumnio said:

So nothing tangible then.

Let’s say everyone that voted SNP on the list voted for Alba, yes we would have another xx of MSPs, so a bigger majority. What would it actually change? Nothing IMO.

If using your simple number of voters maths from earlier, it would still be the same. I’m sure that the UK Government would be quick to point that out, and say we were undemocratic. 

Limping across the line with the Greens is still getting there. 

First time I’d really heard of it too but seems a fairly common and accepted political mechanism (think the opposition attempted it in WM when all that filibuster jiggery pokery was on the go too) :

 

Supermajority - Wikipedia

 

Democrats had one in mid-60’s and used it to pass a raft of things including wide reforms on education funding.  This was particularly far reaching as there were still States dragging their heels on segregation issues which were meant to end a decade before and without the 60% supermajority in both houses wouldn’t have happened or at least would have been watered down.  Obama had a super majority on and off for a brief period too which allowed him to get Medi-Care moving. 

 

Sinn Fien had a super majority in 1918 too which was the catalyst for their own parliament (interesting that Irish Labour decided not to stand in that election as the constitutional question needed sorting first):   

 

1918 Irish general election - Wikipedia

 

The British administration and unionists refused to recognise the Dáil. At its first meeting attended by 27 deputies (other were still imprisoned or impaired) on 21 January 1919 the Dáil issued a Declaration of Independence and proclaimed itself the parliament of a new state, the Irish Republic.

On the same day, in unconnected circumstances, two members of the Royal Irish Constabulary guarding gelignite were killed in the Soloheadbeg Ambush by members of the Irish Volunteers. Although it had not ordered this incident, the course of events soon drove the Dáil to recognise the Volunteers as the army of the Irish Republic and the ambush as an act of war against Great Britain. The Volunteers therefore changed their name, in August, to the Irish Republican Army. In this way the 1918 elections led to the outbreak of the Anglo-Irish War, giving the impression that the election sanctioned the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ParisInAKilt said:

 

This is a bit cheeky 

Looking at it a slightly different way why are folk questioning 2k going to a crank party rather than the strategy endorsing 133k going to the SNP for 0 return?  From that it would look like the last list seat was won by the Tories on about 18,500 (37k/2) so SNP would have needed another 50k+ to score.  Even as an insurance policy it isn’t very good 133k/7= 19k. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thplinth said:

If you cant understand this I don't think can explain it any better.

It is like saying a referendum supporting YES with 70% support is no better than one with 50.01%. I suppose technically you are right for what that is worth here, i.e. nothing.)

Of course it is better, it far more authoritative. That is precisely why you are required to achieve a supermajority for important constitutional changes (let alone something as big as calling for independence from a Union of 300+ years).

You think you will just waltz out of that |Union with only 49.5% of the popular vote, and no majority of SNP MSPs, and only the wet arse greens making up your 'mandate'? 

Good luck with that. You will be needing it.

All that would change would be the size of the majority, nothing else. 

The popular vote would have been the same. I believe that we have more chance in a referendum with Greens onside than the toxic Alba lot, and I say that as someone who likes Salmond immensely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The results are what they are now, apart from that bit of potential chicanery by the independent green voice.

Sturgeon et al say referendum will be coming after Covid is cleared, so hopefully next year.

Then we get to decide again.

It'll be too fast for some and too slow for others wherever the timescale is.

anything else is bloviating in essence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

Looking at it a slightly different way why are folk questioning 2k going to a crank party rather than the strategy endorsing 133k going to the SNP for 0 return?  From that it would look like the last list seat was won by the Tories on about 18,500 (37k/2) so SNP would have needed another 50k+ to score.  Even as an insurance policy it isn’t very good 133k/7= 19k. 

Point is the crank party got the 2k votes because they’ve green in their name oops so maybe the actual greens might have won the seat? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

Looking at it a slightly different way why are folk questioning 2k going to a crank party rather than the strategy endorsing 133k going to the SNP for 0 return?  From that it would look like the last list seat was won by the Tories on about 18,500 (37k/2) so SNP would have needed another 50k+ to score.  Even as an insurance policy it isn’t very good 133k/7= 19k. 

Cause in one issue folk voted for who they wanted to (regardless of subjective views about the sanity of that)

The other folk might not have voted for who they wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

What you on about, you insinuated that i said that snp msps would defect,, that was a lie

Well what do you expect when you answer a different question to the one asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...