Indyref 2 (2)

[exile]

Just a historical perspective, Margaret Ferrier won in 2019 on a seemingly much derided Stop Brexit policy. It might have been short-termism, it might have been misguided or beside the point, but it was enough to differentiate from Labour then, and won the seat.

Traditionally the SNP have struggled to be meaningful in a Westminster election, when there is nothing immediate at stake. What I wonder is, what ticket should a serious pro-indy party have been, in the present context of a by-election that can't offer a referendum or even plebiscite mandate?

[exile]

9 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

It's pretty obvious where the political zeitgeist has moved in politics over the last 5 years or so. It's been away from the SNP (i.e. to the right).

I agree completely with HL when he says the SNP should always be a centrist party, and Nicola has moved the dial away from there.

The party who won in Rutherglen are, notionally at least, a party of the centre left, and typically self-identify as being of the left or at least to the left of the SNP. They won, the Tories lost their deposit. 

It may well be that the SNP should be centrist and maybe it was a mistake to tack to the left, but surely tacking to the left was part of the 'success' of the SNP in hoovering up ex Labour voters since 2015.

Maybe that was short termism on NS's part, as with coming out so pro-EU, it served to bolster the SNP in the short term, but in that light the SNP have been artificially high in the polls for the last 8 years and arguably would not have won the seat in 2019 had they been more centrist and ambivalent on EU, in which case we would not be arguing about the demise of the SNP, (there would be no by election); we would be discussing the difficulty of any independence party competing in a Westminster seat (as per the Salmond years) when you can't offer, on 'winning' the election, to form a government, nor independence.

Hence my question, what ticket should a serious pro-indy party stand on, in a Westminster election, in today's context?

[Dave78]

12 minutes ago, exile said:

 

Traditionally the SNP have struggled to be meaningful in a Westminster election, when there is nothing immediate at stake. What I wonder is, what ticket should a serious pro-indy party have been, in the present context of a by-election that can't offer a referendum or even plebiscite mandate?

I think Nicola had the right plan*.

Make the next Westminster election a defacto referendum, in which if the Yes parties vote got over 50% would force Westminster to concede a proper legally binding indyref2.

 

*by the "right plan", i mean late stage plan. In hindsight we can all agree she made some huge tactical errors in securing indyref2. 

[brant grebner]

If you can't wipe your fat useless arse without a wad of andrex stuck on a coat hanger, Westminster's leather benches are likely to be a challenge so don't elect virtue signalling fake yes obese shitbag porker cunts like Kirsten Oswald.

Dont elect fake Yes pro NATO spy cunts like Alyn Smith with his spad that worked for GCHQ for 25 years.

Don't select dumb bimbo hoor candidates cos you fucked them up the shitter on a jolly and took a bung from their faither for a seat.

Select strong local candidates, not some porn addicted English autogynephile who wants to wank in the street when canvassing.

If someone voted No in 2014, don't put them up as a candidate.

If someone came out the John Smith centre at Glasgow Uni, then they're a fucking British Empire spy.

[exile]

1 minute ago, Dave78 said:

I think Nicola had the right plan*.

Make the next Westminster election a defacto referendum, in which if the Yes parties vote got over 50% would force Westminster to concede a proper legally binding indyref2.

 

*by the "right plan", i mean late stage plan. In hindsight we can all agree she made some huge tactical errors in securing indyref2. 

Ok, sounds like a plan. But not available in a by-election.

I see the potential benefits of a de facto referendum, but...

The Rutherglen by election actually made me think what a plebiscite GE/de facto referendum could be like: massive unionist media bias and framing; massive influx of Brits from elsewhere in UK campaigning for unionist parties; massive tactical voting in favour of whoever could defeat the SNP (and lost deposits all over the shop), but not enough indy supporters coming out to vote SNP, not least because of doubting the almighty British state could be 'forced' to accept the results as sufficient reason to "break up Britain". 

The UK will never feel obliged to do anything Scotland wants. It might occasionally have to bow to the EU, UN or US (as in Ireland). But not Scotland. 

[Dave78]

28 minutes ago, exile said:

The party who won in Rutherglen are, notionally at least, a party of the centre left, and typically self-identify as being of the left or at least to the left of the SNP. They won, the Tories lost their deposit. 

I doubt voters see a different with the SNP and Labour on the traditional political spectrum. The only difference to them is on the constitution.

With indy off the table, they are the obvious alternative.

28 minutes ago, exile said:

It may well be that the SNP should be centrist and maybe it was a mistake to tack to the left, but surely tacking to the left was part of the 'success' of the SNP in hoovering up ex Labour voters since 2015.

Well no, the success since 2015 was the aftermath of the 2014 indyref, and the 'Better Together' resentment from the 45% towards Labour.

And of course, that success was built on Salmond's d'hont-breaking popularity in 2011.

 

28 minutes ago, exile said:

Maybe that was short termism on NS's part, as with coming out so pro-EU, it served to bolster the SNP in the short term, but in that light the SNP have been artificially high in the polls for the last 8 years and arguably would not have won the seat in 2019 had they been more centrist and ambivalent on EU, in which case we would not be arguing about the demise of the SNP, (there would be no by election); we would be discussing the difficulty of any independence party competing in a Westminster seat (as per the Salmond years) when you can't offer, on 'winning' the election, to form a government, nor independence.

 

No, I'm talking about being centrist from the Scottish electorate's point of view. You seem to be conflating centrism with the UK perspective of the word.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Dave78

[Dave78]

9 minutes ago, exile said:

Ok, sounds like a plan. But not available in a by-election.

I see the potential benefits of a de facto referendum, but...

The Rutherglen by election actually made me think what a plebiscite GE/de facto referendum could be like: massive unionist media bias and framing; massive influx of Brits from elsewhere in UK campaigning for unionist parties; massive tactical voting in favour of whoever could defeat the SNP (and lost deposits all over the shop), but not enough indy supporters coming out to vote SNP, not least because of doubting the almighty British state could be 'forced' to accept the results as sufficient reason to "break up Britain". 

The UK will never feel obliged to do anything Scotland wants. It might occasionally have to bow to the EU, UN or US (as in Ireland). But not Scotland. 

I can't disagree with you really. Although i do think Sturgeon had the balls (for want of a non-gendered word, don't cancel me aaid) to pull it off.

So... the only alternative i can see, is a second wind/resurgence.

It really will be a generation before indyref2, i'm afraid.

[Dave78]

Well worth-a-watch discussion between Robin McAlpine and Alex Salmond on 'the way forward'.

Video should start at the appropriate bit.

 

 

 

[exile]

1 hour ago, Dave78 said:

I doubt voters see a different with the SNP and Labour on the traditional political spectrum. The only difference to them is on the constitution.

 

I am confused now as you brought up the right/centre distinction. Now you're saying it's not about left/right/centre? So why mention moving the dial on that spectrum?

 

1 hour ago, Dave78 said:

No, I'm talking about being centrist from the Scottish electorate's point of view. You seem to be conflating centrism with the UK perspective of the word.

A swing from Tory to  Labour is still a swing to the left not to the right?

[Ally Bongo]

1 hour ago, Dave78 said:

Well worth-a-watch discussion between Robin McAlpine and Alex Salmond on 'the way forward'.

Video should start at the appropriate bit.

 

 

 

What's more worth watching is the discussion with Douglas Chapman and Angus MacNeil - That's more like it

If the Humza brigade ignore it then the SNP really is finished

Robin McAlpine would have you taking a razor blade to your wrists at this juncture

[Ally Bongo]

35 minutes ago, exile said:

 

 

A swing from Tory to  Labour is still a swing to the left not to the right?

In 1945 yes

In 2023 No

[Dave78]

38 minutes ago, exile said:

I am confused now as you brought up the right/centre distinction. Now you're saying it's not about left/right/centre? So why mention moving the dial on that spectrum?

Ahh, good point.

I think the problem is about perception. Labour may well support the very same socially Left policies that the SNP do. But they haven't enacted them, so don't take any of the flak.

When you're in government, you have to play by different rules to the opposition.

 

[Dave78]

8 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

What's more worth watching is the discussion with Douglas Chapman and Angus MacNeil - That's more like it

If the Humza brigade ignore it then the SNP really is finished

Robin McAlpine would have you taking a razor blade to your wrists at this juncture

It's depressing in terms of independence, but what specifically would you disagree with?

[Caledonian Craig]

5 hours ago, Dave78 said:

 

 

As to why it'd make a difference, well mainly, it's easier to be in opposition than government.

The current SNP is tired and out of steam. The indy polling has stagnated and the anti-democratic Westminster won't play ball with an indyref (thanks Nicola). The only way to change the picture is with a 2nd wind/resurgence, and that isn't going to come from the current SNP.

My point was that it won't get us any closer to independence.

Labour or Tory governments screwing up the country still sees unionist Scots lovestruck with the union. The union is their all, their paradise and do not let anyone mention the British history of sick doings to expand itself over the centuries as they are in strong denial about that.

Even in the last two and a half decades we have had Blair and Brown's Labour governments misdoings such as lies to take the country to war. This was followed by several corrupt Tory governments screwing us over yet still the unionist Scots would defend this 'precious union'. They are not for shifting and never will and they make up around 35% of Scotland. It is the rest we need to have totally convinced and pushing for independence in whatever way they can and a good way to start is by refusing to vote for unionist parties at any local, general, Scottish or by-elections.

Edited October 7, 2023 by Caledonian Craig

[Hertsscot]

8 hours ago, Toepoke said:

A few of them just interviewed on the news there.

 

Saw one woman claim she voted Labour cos of the state of the NHS. Yet in Labour run Wales the NHS isn't as good as Scotland or Tory controlled England! It's difficult to know what to say except SNP need to be far better in countering a media that constantly portrays Scotland as the worst country on earth.

[ger intae them]

9 hours ago, brant grebner said:

If you can't wipe your fat useless arse without a wad of andrex stuck on a coat hanger, Westminster's leather benches are likely to be a challenge so don't elect virtue signalling fake yes obese shitbag porker cunts like Kirsten Oswald.

Dont elect fake Yes pro NATO spy cunts like Alyn Smith with his spad that worked for GCHQ for 25 years.

Don't select dumb bimbo hoor candidates cos you fucked them up the shitter on a jolly and took a bung from their faither for a seat.

Select strong local candidates, not some porn addicted English autogynephile who wants to wank in the street when canvassing.

If someone voted No in 2014, don't put them up as a candidate.

If someone came out the John Smith centre at Glasgow Uni, then they're a fucking British Empire spy.

Brant is back, albeit fleetingly. Brilliant summary……. and made me look up autogynephilia…….

[aaid]

20 minutes ago, ger intae them said:

Brant is back, albeit fleetingly. Brilliant summary……. and made me look up autogynephilia…….

Great, now you can be a bigot and use big words.  

[hampden_loon2878]

10 hours ago, Dave78 said:

I'm intrigued by that. Opposition leaders always have an easier job than actually leading a government. Why do you believe she wouldn't have the grit?

only my opinion but to be opposition leader you need to shameless, make more of failing than is actually true, be a shite steering to a certain extent. KF is to honest to dish dirt on folk and to go after people. I could be totally wrong but i dont think she would be suited to opposition 

[Hertsscot]

AUOB march in Edinburgh cancelled today due to Noahic rain conditions. 

Hopefully conditions will be better for the Chain of Freedom event next Saturday 

https://chainoffreedom.scot/

[mariokempes]

11 hours ago, brant grebner said:

If you can't wipe your fat useless arse without a wad of andrex stuck on a coat hanger, Westminster's leather benches are likely to be a challenge so don't elect virtue signalling fake yes obese shitbag porker cunts like Kirsten Oswald.

Dont elect fake Yes pro NATO spy cunts like Alyn Smith with his spad that worked for GCHQ for 25 years.

Don't select dumb bimbo hoor candidates cos you fucked them up the shitter on a jolly and took a bung from their faither for a seat.

Select strong local candidates, not some porn addicted English autogynephile who wants to wank in the street when canvassing.

If someone voted No in 2014, don't put them up as a candidate.

If someone came out the John Smith centre at Glasgow Uni, then they're a fucking British Empire spy.

100% spot on

[TDYER63]

1 hour ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

only my opinion but to be opposition leader you need to shameless, make more of failing than is actually true, be a shite steering to a certain extent. KF is to honest to dish dirt on folk and to go after people. I could be totally wrong but i dont think she would be suited to opposition 

Well, she made a decent effort on Humza at the leadership election 😆

I think people are a bit fed up with politicians just shouting and blaming each other, its been going on for a day and most folk know this. 

What is lacking in politics is any kind of perceived honesty. I think she comes over very genuine regardless of whether you agree with some of her principles.
If it was her or Anas Sarwar I know who I would believe in a debate . 

 

[TDYER63]

17 hours ago, aaid said:

TBF, to Humza he said that before the vote, you can’t accuse him of flip flopping on that one. 

I wasn’t specifically meaning that I meant in general. He seems all over the place and IMO comes over disingenuous and weak. 

[aaid]

6 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

I wasn’t specifically meaning that I meant in general. He seems all over the place and IMO comes over disingenuous and weak. 

There was a very good interview with Liz Lloyd in the New Statesman, which is well worth reading for a number of reasons.

She makes a comment about Humza - copied below - this makes me think that maybe what you’re criticising him for is not being exactly what Nicola was criticised for, keeping a very tight group of advisers and not eliciting views from a number of different sources.   One person’s strong leader is another’s dictator, one person’s collegiate style is weak and indecisive to others.

Quote

It’s now up to Yousaf to take the case for independence forward. But his early poll ratings suggest he has yet to convince voters he is up to the task. “There’s a balance that every leader has to find,” explained Lloyd. “You are the decision-maker, ultimately. I think Humza is very much listening to where everyone else wants to go, though perhaps [he] needs to be a little bit more the decider. I’ve said to him it’s all very well being collegiate, but at some point you have to decide, you have to pick a side. Over the next few months we have to watch and see what sides he picks.”

 

[StirlingEgg]

3 hours ago, Hertsscot said:

Saw one woman claim she voted Labour cos of the state of the NHS. Yet in Labour run Wales the NHS isn't as good as Scotland or Tory controlled England! It's difficult to know what to say except SNP need to be far better in countering a media that constantly portrays Scotland as the worst country on earth.

You wonder if that's based on personal experience of NHS or from what's reported. When folk are slagging off education and stating what the focus should be it's possible they haven't been near a school for 40 years. How do you respond to Unionist jibes about ferries, NHS, education with direct answers that don't just sound defensive or whataboutery? It's frustrating when you know the english NHS is worse, certainly in terms of the intention there politically to look after it (I don't mean those working for it who care). The story recently about a full enquiry into maternity services in England and that Barclay character isn't even mentioned. 

[TDYER63]

8 minutes ago, aaid said:

There was a very good interview with Liz Lloyd in the New Statesman, which is well worth reading for a number of reasons.

She makes a comment about Humza - copied below - this makes me think that maybe what you’re criticising him for is not being exactly what Nicola was criticised for, keeping a very tight group of advisers and not eliciting views from a number of different sources.   One person’s strong leader is another’s dictator, one person’s collegiate style is weak and indecisive to others.

 

That is fairly accurate. Its all very well being inclusive but you need to look strong and decisive and I just dont think he is. His delivery is poor too for someone who has been in politics a while and has held responsible positions.