Holyrood Elections 2021 - Page 69 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Holyrood Elections 2021


Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

 

Also didn’t another reporter name one of the women in a tweet and he was only banned from the rest of the trial? 

I think a BBC reporter inadvertently identified one of the women on Twitter.  I don't think it was banned from the trial though, but he quickly deleted his Tweet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, scotlad said:

 

I was a bit surprised by that.  I thought he might have got a suspended sentence or something, plus a big fine (which would require a crowd funder to pay - naturally) but that's a similar sentence to the one given to the guy who literally did name one of the complainers.

TBH, I thought it might be a bit longer.   The guy from Rosyth who got six months outright named some of the complainers but then he pled guilty.   Murray while his offence related to jigsaw ID pled not guilty, he has/had a wider reach than some random on twitter, he'd been warned about his behaviour but ignored that warning and he also didn't take down any of the articles that were in question - some of which I see have been copied verbatim on here, so those responsible might want to think about that - until after he was found to be in contempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, scotlad said:

I think a BBC reporter inadvertently identified one of the women on Twitter.  I don't think it was banned from the trial though, but he quickly deleted his Tweet.

I think that's the key thing, it was obviously a mistake and was quickly corrected.   If it was Philip Sim who was reporting from the trial, I saw a comment from him around the time Murray was in court to the effect that his notifications were full of examples of contempt of court, ie. people were responding to his tweets and openly naming the complainers.

On Dani Garavelli and Paul Hutcheon, I strongly suspect that first of all you are talking about two experienced professional journalists who know their way around things like court reporting and contempt and libel and also that their pieces would have been extensively "Lawyered" before publication to ensure that they did not fall foul.

Murray admitted in his trial that he was trying to expose the complainers in a way that *he* thought stayed within the line and which he clearly got wrong.

It's worth reading the judgement to get an idea of why he was found to be in contempt.

Sentencing statement here - https://www.judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/sentences-and-opinions/2021/05/11/craig-murray-petition-and-complaint

Edited by aaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, aaid said:

I think that's the key thing, it was obviously a mistake and was quickly corrected.   If it was Philip Sim who was reporting from the trial, I saw a comment from him around the time Murray was in court to the effect that his notifications were full of examples of contempt of court, ie. people were responding to his tweets and openly naming the complainers.

On Dani Garavelli and Paul Hutcheon, I strongly suspect that first of all you are talking about two experienced professional journalists who know their way around things like court reporting and contempt and libel and also that their pieces would have been extensively "Lawyered" before publication to ensure that they did not fall foul.

Murray admitted in his trial that he was trying to expose the complainers in a way that *he* thought stayed within the line and which he clearly got wrong.

It's worth reading the judgement to get an idea of why he was found to be in contempt.

Sentencing statement here - https://www.judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/sentences-and-opinions/2021/05/11/craig-murray-petition-and-complaint

You can say that again - if a dozy c**t like me could work out their identities from his article then anyone has a chance.  :lol:

In a way he made it easy for the prosecution, and by leaving the article that has landed him in so much trouble visible he's done himself no favours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, scotlad said:

You can say that again - if a dozy c**t like me could work out their identities from his article then anyone has a chance.  :lol:

In a way he made it easy for the prosecution, and by leaving the article that has landed him in so much trouble visible he's done himself no favours.

If you look at the sentence statement then you will also see that by publishing the petition, i.e. the detail of the charges against him - which also identified complainers - he didn't do himself any favours whatsoever.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

I am more depressed at the complete unfairness that Westminster alone decides on the fate of Scotland's place in the union even above Scotland itself.

This is where the crux of the matter lies. The one chance of Scotland getting its say is on the matter of whether the Union is voluntary or not, where Scotland has one chance of a voice due to being signatory to the Union. In all other areas, Scotland is swamped a dozen to one by rUK votes, rUK propaganda and rUK money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2021 at 10:43 PM, AlfieMoon said:

This numbers nonsense narrative shouldn’t be given airtime.

‘Bums on seats’ in the parliament and the ability to pass a Bill is what reflects the will of the electorate. 

Having seen what the 'numbers nonsense narrative' has become, I agree that it's right to be wary of it and not give it the oxygen of publicity. In effect what was of 'mathematical interest' on Saturday night, has since become a major propaganda narrative, with the Unionists in effect moving the goalposts, or even worse, actually changing the game. 

(Like the equivalent of saying it doesn't matter who wins matches, it's goals difference over the whole season that defines the champions.)

In effect they seem to be not accepting who won/lost, but implying the result was a 'score draw'. The 3 main unionist parties seem to be not accept they were individually well beaten, but upbeat about how they 'stopped the SNP'. The fact the media has lapped this up means there is a lingering air of stalemate hanging over the election result, when it should be as resounding a victory as, say, the triumph of Labour winning the first Parliament (albeit in coalition).

This could be a concerning new development, that the unionists are no longer accepting parliamentary democracy as we've known it, no longer pretending that they are ready to accept any pro-indy victory, but will prefer to use the weight of the Brit media inside and outside Scotland to shape the perception of what is or isn't a mandate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, exile said:

This is where the crux of the matter lies. The one chance of Scotland getting its say is on the matter of whether the Union is voluntary or not, where Scotland has one chance of a voice due to being signatory to the Union. In all other areas, Scotland is swamped a dozen to one by rUK votes, rUK propaganda and rUK money. 

Of course and serious questions should be asked of the validity of it. Questions asked on was it impartial and unbiased? Certainly not. If we look into it I'd bet everyone who worded that act/bill and agreed to it and signed it were of a strong pro-union persuasion. Where is the fairness in that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exile said:

Having seen what the 'numbers nonsense narrative' has become, I agree that it's right to be wary of it and not give it the oxygen of publicity. In effect what was of 'mathematical interest' on Saturday night, has since become a major propaganda narrative, with the Unionists in effect moving the goalposts, or even worse, actually changing the game. 

(Like the equivalent of saying it doesn't matter who wins matches, it's goals difference over the whole season that defines the champions.)

In effect they seem to be not accepting who won/lost, but implying the result was a 'score draw'. The 3 main unionist parties seem to be not accept they were individually well beaten, but upbeat about how they 'stopped the SNP'. The fact the media has lapped this up means there is a lingering air of stalemate hanging over the election result, when it should be as resounding a victory as, say, the triumph of Labour winning the first Parliament (albeit in coalition).

This could be a concerning new development, that the unionists are no longer accepting parliamentary democracy as we've known it, no longer pretending that they are ready to accept any pro-indy victory, but will prefer to use the weight of the Brit media inside and outside Scotland to shape the perception of what is or isn't a mandate. 

Yep, that’s what I was anticipating and getting at. 

The moment you try and counter their point by debating back with a different set of numbers just legitimises their argument because you’ve engaged. It’s a zero some game and not something to be drawn into as it ends up in the score draw / stalemate that you describe. 
 

Re: your point about the media. I actually think they’ve been really fair since the results and overwhelmingly reported as a clear SNP victory and challenged the pro-union voices who have attempted to provide counter arguments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, aaid said:

If you look at the sentence statement then you will also see that by publishing the petition, i.e. the detail of the charges against him - which also identified complainers - he didn't do himself any favours whatsoever.

 

For an intelligent man that was a really silly thing to do.  🤦‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlfieMoon said:

Yep, that’s what I was anticipating and getting at. 

The moment you try and counter their point by debating back with a different set of numbers just legitimises their argument because you’ve engaged. It’s a zero some game and not something to be drawn into as it ends up in the score draw / stalemate that you describe. 
 

Re: your point about the media. I actually think they’ve been really fair since the results and overwhelmingly reported as a clear SNP victory and challenged the pro-union voices who have attempted to provide counter arguments. 

Its the old twisting figures any which they can too. Hearing unionist MPs clutching at straws saying not all SNP voters support independence but in denial that no Tory, Labour and LibDem voters support independence even though in the space of 24 hours the BBC themselves unearthed three people who voted Labour but who support independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not adding too much to what's already been covered over the past few days. 

An emphatic win for the SNP, there's no spinning or denying that any Unionist can do. The SNP were a baw hair from a majority and with a different voting system, they might well have got one. This along with a record number of 8 Green MSPs means there's a huge majority of 72 in the parliament for an independence referendum. 

I was a bit nervous about some of the small majorities in the 'old' SNP heartlands and we seen a fair few of them come crumbling down in 2017 ; but thankfully the SNP got their vote out and in some places like Angus South ; Perth South etc the SNP actually increased their majorities and vote share. 

Shetland voted for the SNP as the biggest party on the list, and the excellent candidate there, Tom Wills who's been fighting a few by-elections was only a few hundred odd votes from toppling the Lib Dem. I think encouraging disadvantaged people to stand for parliament is a great idea, but the SNP's voting system for the list is bollocks, TBH, and Wills should have been number 1 on the Highlands and Islands list! 

Absolutely delighted my 'gamble' of voting Green on the list in the NE (between them and Alba) paid off, and relegated the Lib Dems to irrelevance. Going from 5 to 4 means no committees, no control over the business or agenda at Holyrood and no official question to the FM at FMQs - quite simply, couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch. Hugely disappointing though that Lib Dems held Edinburgh Western and that awful Alex Cole-Hamilton is back in Holyrood. 

As for Alba, I'm surprised at how poorly they did across the whole of Scotland. I know they had a very short campaign with next to no media appearances, but I thought Salmond might have polled higher in the NE areas. Some of the smugness from certain SNP types is not a great look and I would find it very hard to vote for Stewart McDonald if I lived in his constituency. They need to reign it in. Time will tell if Alba will continue or win seats in next year's cooncil election. It was an election too early, I said to an Alba supporting pal of mine, the time for Alba was in 5 years and if the SNP have sat on their erse regarding this referendum. 

Tories vote held up! Although WTF are Labour on, thinking they had a good result. Another lose of the vote share , less MSPs and whilst in some central belt areas their vote possibly went up a little or had a swing from the SNP to Labour it was on average about 2-3% The SNP missed a trick in trying to unseat Baillie - who seems to be a fairly popular local constituency MP. 

At the end of it all, there has to be a referendum! That doesn't mean independence, but Scotland did vote to have a referendum. 

One thing I found surprising is a lot of Tories were saying and continuing to say over the weekend that Scotland is ''split down the middle,'' this is certainly a new admission. Previously, they had always said Scotland doesn't want independence etc. This new mantra their trying to spin now seems to be them hoping they'll be seen as the good guys e.g "Yes, Scotland is split, but we need to work together team UK SNP/Tory together against Covid,'' 

I'm liking the cut of the SNP's jib though fresh out of this. Sturgeon saying not if but when for a referendum. If the SNP pussy foot around this again, and we've seen how the Tories can and probably will just ignore the next referendum bill passed in Holyrood. 

An interesting few years. If the SNP are timid on challenging the UK on a referendum, I don't know if I will back them in the next election. Not saying we need to organise mobs or anything, but a bit of fight and grit is required.

Of the new MPs - Jim Fairlie came across brilliant, what an asset he looks to be. Happy to see Mairi McAllan in Holyrood too as she's fought a few by-elections and done a lot of hard work in the south region. 

Another good result for the SNP is a fair few constituencies whilst held by the SNP had new candidates and for all of them to win the seat was fairly impressive. 

Overall, a tremendous result and roll on the next few years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post weekevie04. 👍

A balance is needed here though with regards to IndyRef2. We've been done up like kippers by unionists and their Westminster rules all policy bills and acts created around the time of devolution. I am still so mad that we are in a seemingly legal and agreed to bill in 1998 that puts us in a straightjacket sealed by padlocks. Westminster has final say on Scotland's right to a referendum.

Now Salmond's approach he said would have been to force for talks on IndyRef2 the day after results were announced. Sorry but that is just daft and we'd be where we are now still and alienated ourselves from a large wad of don't knowers and given Westminster more of a reason to say no. That will not take us to victory in IndyRef2.

I am happy sitting tight until after COVID subsides which it is beginning to now anyway. It also gives the SG time to sort out a solid and watertight case for independence and allow polls to hopefully move more into Yes's favour. However, like I said in my pre-election post, this is a crossroads time for the SNP. If they get soft soaped by Westminster and the IndyRef2 matter is rejected and not at least taken to court then many SNP voters will rethink their place in backing the party. Alba are in waiting and you could quite conceivably see them scoop up disenchanted SNP members fed up of inactivity. Therefore Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP need to deliver on IndyRef2 and I'd like to see big steps towards us setting up a national bank and other signs that planning is truly in place for independence.

Edited by Caledonian Craig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was definitely a pattern of tactical voting in the election by unionist voters and that offers a clue to areas that are strong in unionists. If you look at voting patterns in seats you get the idea. In constituencies held by unionist parties we saw Labour voters moving over to vote Tory in a bid to keep SNP out - big clue that they are pro-union. In other constituencies such as East Lothian which the SNP gained it rode through the middle of a split Labour and Tory vote to win. That tells me those Labour voters in big enough numbers refused to vote Tory even to maintain the union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Good post weekevie04. 👍

A balance is needed here though with regards to IndyRef2. We've been done up like kippers by unionists and their Westminster rules all policy bills and acts created around the time of devolution. I am still so mad that we are in a seemingly legal and agreed to bill in 1998 that puts us in a straightjacket sealed by padlocks. Westminster has final say on Scotland's right to a referendum.

Now Salmond's approach he said would have been to force for talks on IndyRef2 the day after results were announced. Sorry but that is just daft and we'd be where we are now still and alienated ourselves from a large wad of don't knowers and given Westminster more of a reason to say no. That will not take us to victory in IndyRef2.

I am happy sitting tight until after COVID subsides which it is beginning to now anyway. It also gives the SG time to sort out a solid and watertight case for independence and allow polls to hopefully move more into Yes's favour. However, like I said in my pre-election post, this is a crossroads time for the SNP. If they get soft soaped by Westminster and the IndyRef2 matter is rejected and not at least taken to court then many SNP voters will rethink their place in backing the party. Alba are in waiting and you could quite conceivably see them scoop up disenchanted SNP members fed up of inactivity. Therefore Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP need to deliver on IndyRef2 and I'd like to see big steps towards us setting up a national bank and other signs that planning is truly in place for independence.

Good Post but we have already set up a national bank. A lot of work still needed on it though. Alba were an election too soon. As you say, their time will come if the SG don't get a referendum in the next parliament. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dipped flake said:

Good Post but we have already set up a national bank. A lot of work still needed on it though. Alba were an election too soon. As you say, their time will come if the SG don't get a referendum in the next parliament. 

Yes I'd heard talk of setting up a national bank but perhaps an update would be good by the SG and perhaps other bits of info on the forward planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

It would seem this is the national bank. Good to see that the website was updated the other day:-

https://www.reservebank.scot/#gsc.tab=0

That's just a campaign site for those pushing for a Scottish currency.

"Please note, the Scottish Reserve Bank is not legally a bank"

A National Investment bank has been set up which is designed to invest in the economy, that's entirely a different matter from a Central bank which would be required to operate your own currency.   I'm not sure its legally or practically possible to set one up unless you are an independent state.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

On the subject of elections, here's a petition to stop this blatant attempt at disenfranchising the electorate...

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/576024

I'm opposed to this however it is worth pointing out that this is already the case in Northern Ireland and has been for about 20 years.  They did though - and possibly still do - have a big problem there with voter fraud for pretty obvious reasons.

It's interesting though as that means that different rules around the actual process of voting - although not the system or franchise - are in place across the UK for elections to Westminster.  In Northern Ireland, you have to show ID to vote, in England, Scotland and Wales you don't.

The devil is obviously in the detail and the various devolution settlements are all different, however I wonder whether or not, given that lots of things about elections are devolved already, whether this would be something that would not apply in Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, aaid said:

That's just a campaign site for those pushing for a Scottish currency.

"Please note, the Scottish Reserve Bank is not legally a bank"

A National Investment bank has been set up which is designed to invest in the economy, that's entirely a different matter from a Central bank which would be required to operate your own currency.   I'm not sure its legally or practically possible to set one up unless you are an independent state.
 

 

Right....yes I remember the legality being mentioned now you say it. 

Now that, again, is where unionists have a vast and unfair advantage at the debating stage when it comes to any IndyRef2. We all know the uber unionists will be foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog claiming Scotland hasn't even got a bank or currency in place and the gullible will believe this. Even though it is illegal for Scotland (now) to start up a central bank the unionists will paint this as lack of planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, weekevie04 said:

Probably not adding too much to what's already been covered over the past few days. 

An emphatic win for the SNP, there's no spinning or denying that any Unionist can do. The SNP were a baw hair from a majority and with a different voting system, they might well have got one. This along with a record number of 8 Green MSPs means there's a huge majority of 72 in the parliament for an independence referendum. 

I was a bit nervous about some of the small majorities in the 'old' SNP heartlands and we seen a fair few of them come crumbling down in 2017 ; but thankfully the SNP got their vote out and in some places like Angus South ; Perth South etc the SNP actually increased their majorities and vote share. 

Shetland voted for the SNP as the biggest party on the list, and the excellent candidate there, Tom Wills who's been fighting a few by-elections was only a few hundred odd votes from toppling the Lib Dem. I think encouraging disadvantaged people to stand for parliament is a great idea, but the SNP's voting system for the list is bollocks, TBH, and Wills should have been number 1 on the Highlands and Islands list! 

Absolutely delighted my 'gamble' of voting Green on the list in the NE (between them and Alba) paid off, and relegated the Lib Dems to irrelevance. Going from 5 to 4 means no committees, no control over the business or agenda at Holyrood and no official question to the FM at FMQs - quite simply, couldn't have happened to a nicer bunch. Hugely disappointing though that Lib Dems held Edinburgh Western and that awful Alex Cole-Hamilton is back in Holyrood. 

As for Alba, I'm surprised at how poorly they did across the whole of Scotland. I know they had a very short campaign with next to no media appearances, but I thought Salmond might have polled higher in the NE areas. Some of the smugness from certain SNP types is not a great look and I would find it very hard to vote for Stewart McDonald if I lived in his constituency. They need to reign it in. Time will tell if Alba will continue or win seats in next year's cooncil election. It was an election too early, I said to an Alba supporting pal of mine, the time for Alba was in 5 years and if the SNP have sat on their erse regarding this referendum. 

Tories vote held up! Although WTF are Labour on, thinking they had a good result. Another lose of the vote share , less MSPs and whilst in some central belt areas their vote possibly went up a little or had a swing from the SNP to Labour it was on average about 2-3% The SNP missed a trick in trying to unseat Baillie - who seems to be a fairly popular local constituency MP. 

At the end of it all, there has to be a referendum! That doesn't mean independence, but Scotland did vote to have a referendum. 

One thing I found surprising is a lot of Tories were saying and continuing to say over the weekend that Scotland is ''split down the middle,'' this is certainly a new admission. Previously, they had always said Scotland doesn't want independence etc. This new mantra their trying to spin now seems to be them hoping they'll be seen as the good guys e.g "Yes, Scotland is split, but we need to work together team UK SNP/Tory together against Covid,'' 

I'm liking the cut of the SNP's jib though fresh out of this. Sturgeon saying not if but when for a referendum. If the SNP pussy foot around this again, and we've seen how the Tories can and probably will just ignore the next referendum bill passed in Holyrood. 

An interesting few years. If the SNP are timid on challenging the UK on a referendum, I don't know if I will back them in the next election. Not saying we need to organise mobs or anything, but a bit of fight and grit is required.

Of the new MPs - Jim Fairlie came across brilliant, what an asset he looks to be. Happy to see Mairi McAllan in Holyrood too as she's fought a few by-elections and done a lot of hard work in the south region. 

Another good result for the SNP is a fair few constituencies whilst held by the SNP had new candidates and for all of them to win the seat was fairly impressive. 

Overall, a tremendous result and roll on the next few years. 

Good post 👍👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a referendum will happen this Parliament, it has too,,i am however extremely nervous about it,, the unionists will be loading up just now and if there is any dirt to dig up, they will find it and there will have no qualms in using it,,, everything needs to be in order before it comes around 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it all a bit much that pundits and interviewers were trying to get Nicola Sturgeon to set a date for IndyRef2 so they could pounce on her saying COVID is not over. Yet today there is BoJo announcing a COVID Enquiry for spring 2022 stating it was 'when the crisis was over'. No criticism or no hauling him over the coals about it. I'd bet a far different reaction if, now, NS sets spring next year as the date for IndyRef2. Double standards again.

Edited by Caledonian Craig
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...