Indyref 2 (2)

[TDYER63]

2 hours ago, Hertsscot said:

Whilst not wanting to vote is often understandable, surely some parties will be less offensive to you than others?

For Malcolm they are called The Tories. His comments on the News thread make that very clear. 

[Squirrelhumper]

On 11/2/2023 at 6:12 PM, aaid said:

 

The SNP can recover the position as the Yes vote is staying pretty stable at ~ 50%, but the need to start doing that.  Alibi said they need to start attacking Labour directly and I agree with that.

I'd vote Yes in a heartbeat tomorrow. However if there was an Holyrood/Westminster election tomorrow i'd just not vote. 

Can't see me voting until SNP aren't having the Greens (who've zero interest in independence, only their own agenda) having so much say in the direction of the government policy. 

I very much doubt i am alone. 

[Caledonian Craig]

5 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

I'd vote Yes in a heartbeat tomorrow. However if there was an Holyrood/Westminster election tomorrow i'd just not vote. 

Can't see me voting until SNP aren't having the Greens (who've zero interest in independence, only their own agenda) having so much say in the direction of the government policy. 

I very much doubt i am alone. 

Not voting is guaranteed your non-vote will be painted as support of the union in the independence debate by unionist parties. Certainly seen as not backing independence.

Edited November 6, 2023 by Caledonian Craig

[hampden_loon2878]

5 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

I'd vote Yes in a heartbeat tomorrow. However if there was an Holyrood/Westminster election tomorrow i'd just not vote. 

Can't see me voting until SNP aren't having the Greens (who've zero interest in independence, only their own agenda) having so much say in the direction of the government policy. 

I very much doubt i am alone. 

thats where i am at the moment

[PapofGlencoe]

36 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Not voting is guaranteed your non-vote will be painted as support of the union in the independence debate by unionist parties. Certainly seen as not backing independence.

Of course it will be painted like that but it won't be true.  and everyone will know it.

what's the alternative, we vote SNP forever?  while they get their act together on independence?  genuine question.

Given they've cancelled a defacto vote(s), no chance of the SNP coming close to pressurising the establishment at this election and that they may take my support for government policy support; if I don't take this opportunity to NOT vote for them now, I doubt I ever will vote against them.  Is it healthy to vote for a political party come what may?

You've got MPs down south like Stewart McDonald who are cosying up to UK Defence civil servants, while being paid to write banal, chatgbt-written articles of no consequence for Unionist papers; all the while rubbishing any idea the SNP should actually stand for Independence at an election.  I don't want to support him and folk like him.  You also have Cherry's, some in Alba and others who seem more interested in fighting culture wars.

I probably will vote for them but I wouldnt be surprised if they fall into the low 30s, high 20s in terms of final vote numbers.  I can count on one hand the amount of folk I know who will vote SNP.

[scotlad]

On 11/1/2023 at 7:52 AM, Caledonian Craig said:

Precisely. As long as people carry on putting the poison in then there is an increased chance of what you say happening. Voters are influenced in many ways INCLUDING social media.

There's a lesson from recent history here too - the demise of the Scottish Socialist Party. Within five years of their formation they had six elected MSPs and two councillors (which doesn't sound much but I bet Alba, for instance, would be delighted with that return five years down the line). To date, the SSP remain the most successful genuinely left-wing political party Scotland has had. Now, they have no councillors or MSPs and in 2021 didn't even field any candidates.

Obviously the SNP have been around for a lot, lot longer, is a much bigger party and in recent decades has been a lot more electorally successful, so, logically, it'll take a lot longer to take it apart, but the method has been proven to work.

The SSP had an eloquent, charismatic leader whose career as a legitimate politician was destroyed via a seedy, unseemly scandal. I have no time for Tommy Sheridan but having read some of the details of his trials I'm no longer entirely convinced that he wasn't set up.

In any case, the SSP split; the rump of the party staying put and those loyal to Sheridan joining him in a new venture, Solidarity (which achieved very little, other than winning slightly more votes in 2016 than the ridiculous RISE project, who his former party threw their lot in with). The net result: a small party splits into two smaller parties and pro-independence socialists in Scotland were left with no viable electoral vehicle.

[hampden_loon2878]

Humza is absolutely terrible from an independence point of view, the unionists can’t believe their luck, that and the sturgeon unraveling 

[duncan II]

34 minutes ago, scotlad said:

There's a lesson from recent history here too - the demise of the Scottish Socialist Party. Within five years of their formation they had six elected MSPs and two councillors (which doesn't sound much but I bet Alba, for instance, would be delighted with that return five years down the line). To date, the SSP remain the most successful genuinely left-wing political party Scotland has had. Now, they have no councillors or MSPs and in 2021 didn't even field any candidates.

Obviously the SNP have been around for a lot, lot longer, is a much bigger party and in recent decades has been a lot more electorally successful, so, logically, it'll take a lot longer to take it apart, but the method has been proven to work.

The SSP had an eloquent, charismatic leader whose career as a legitimate politician was destroyed via a seedy, unseemly scandal. I have no time for Tommy Sheridan but having read some of the details of his trials I'm no longer entirely convinced that he wasn't set up.

In any case, the SSP split; the rump of the party staying put and those loyal to Sheridan joining him in a new venture, Solidarity (which achieved very little, other than winning slightly more votes in 2016 than the ridiculous RISE project, who his former party threw their lot in with). The net result: a small party splits into two smaller parties and pro-independence socialists in Scotland were left with no viable electoral vehicle.

This is a good post and I agree largely with it. It includes something which I often wonder about it, though. Why does every mention of Tommy Sheridan have to be qualified with "I have no time for, but..." or, "who I can't stand, but I agree with on..." I just wonder why he's so universally disliked. I think he speaks about a lot of issues with great passion and has for decades, and can't be accused of flip-flopping his beliefs.

I'm not a huge fan either (see, I've just qualified my comment too) but I don't often see a reason attached to the dislike, just a brief "he's a wank" or suchlike. I agree that he was set up (at least to sn extent) so some of the seedier reasons for the dislike are possibly without foundation. Similarly, simple dismissals of the man when Salmond's name come up are commonplace these days. If nefarious tactics were employed to ruin their respective reputations then you have to say well done to those at the heart of it.

[Squirrelhumper]

4 hours ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Not voting is guaranteed your non-vote will be painted as support of the union in the independence debate by unionist parties. Certainly seen as not backing independence.

Perhaps - voting SNP would suggest to them that they 1) are remotely doing enough to push for indy and 2) that i am  happy with their direction as a party. 

Neither are remotely true. 

I'd never vote for anyone else but SNP need to severely buck up their ideas if they want my vote any time soon again. 

[aaid]

1 hour ago, scotlad said:

There's a lesson from recent history here too - the demise of the Scottish Socialist Party. Within five years of their formation they had six elected MSPs and two councillors (which doesn't sound much but I bet Alba, for instance, would be delighted with that return five years down the line). To date, the SSP remain the most successful genuinely left-wing political party Scotland has had. Now, they have no councillors or MSPs and in 2021 didn't even field any candidates.

Obviously the SNP have been around for a lot, lot longer, is a much bigger party and in recent decades has been a lot more electorally successful, so, logically, it'll take a lot longer to take it apart, but the method has been proven to work.

The SSP had an eloquent, charismatic leader whose career as a legitimate politician was destroyed via a seedy, unseemly scandal. I have no time for Tommy Sheridan but having read some of the details of his trials I'm no longer entirely convinced that he wasn't set up.

In any case, the SSP split; the rump of the party staying put and those loyal to Sheridan joining him in a new venture, Solidarity (which achieved very little, other than winning slightly more votes in 2016 than the ridiculous RISE project, who his former party threw their lot in with). The net result: a small party splits into two smaller parties and pro-independence socialists in Scotland were left with no viable electoral vehicle.

I’ve heard some stuff about Sheridan that makes me think he *wasn’t* set up, the gist of being that the story in the NOTW was essentially true, that he had been in the swingers bar, but they’d got the dates wrong which meant he’d been able to alibi himself.  

[duncan II]

8 minutes ago, aaid said:

I’ve heard some stuff about Sheridan that makes me think he *wasn’t* set up, the gist of being that the story in the NOTW was essentially true, that he had been in the swingers bar, but they’d got the dates wrong which meant he’d been able to alibi himself.  

Yeah, and it may be true. But it may not. In which case, it's more unsubstantiated hearsay! Exactly my longwinded point.

[Ally Bongo]

 

[aaid]

16 minutes ago, duncan II said:

Yeah, and it may be true. But it may not. In which case, it's more unsubstantiated hearsay! Exactly my longwinded point.

Fair enough, but it sounded plausible and it came from a competent source.  

[Grim Jim]

1 hour ago, aaid said:

I’ve heard some stuff about Sheridan that makes me think he *wasn’t* set up, the gist of being that the story in the NOTW was essentially true, that he had been in the swingers bar, but they’d got the dates wrong which meant he’d been able to alibi himself.  

Regardless, mud stuck to the extent that he was all over the telly in the last week before the vote in 2014. Quite memorable that a ruined figure was suddenly given prominence to scare the horses.

[scotlad]

5 hours ago, duncan II said:

This is a good post and I agree largely with it. It includes something which I often wonder about it, though. Why does every mention of Tommy Sheridan have to be qualified with "I have no time for, but..." or, "who I can't stand, but I agree with on..." I just wonder why he's so universally disliked. I think he speaks about a lot of issues with great passion and has for decades, and can't be accused of flip-flopping his beliefs.

I'm not a huge fan either (see, I've just qualified my comment too) but I don't often see a reason attached to the dislike, just a brief "he's a wank" or suchlike. I agree that he was set up (at least to sn extent) so some of the seedier reasons for the dislike are possibly without foundation. Similarly, simple dismissals of the man when Salmond's name come up are commonplace these days. If nefarious tactics were employed to ruin their respective reputations then you have to say well done to those at the heart of it.

It probably just stems from grim experience of posting on message boards for all these years. Mention a controversial subject or person without qualifying it and someone will accuse you of being a fan of said controversial subject or person. Either that or you'll get a "X is a complete Y" (ignoring everything else you've typed out) or a "stopped reading when I got to..." kind of smart-arsed response.

I was never very impressed by him even before the scandal broke. I found him narcissistic; all tub-thumping, sloganeering and shouty; grievance politics. I had him filed alongside George Galloway and Derek Hatton - men drive by their vanity. That possibly wasn't fair but it was my perception of him.

I mellowed on him during the referendum campaign and even followed him on Twitter for a while (and he followed me back!) but he made a sweeping generalisation about some that annoyed me, which I challenged him on - politely, of course - only to get an arrogant response back, so I thought well fuck you pal.

I know that's petty but it was kind of the final straw. I do, however, think he might possibly have been stitched up.

4 hours ago, aaid said:

I’ve heard some stuff about Sheridan that makes me think he *wasn’t* set up, the gist of being that the story in the NOTW was essentially true, that he had been in the swingers bar, but they’d got the dates wrong which meant he’d been able to alibi himself.  

What made me suspicious was around half the people at the meeting where he apparently admitted that he had attended a swingers club claim to have no recollection of him saying so. If my boss announced during a meeting that he'd attended a swingers club it would fucking well stick in my mind! 😄 Unless, of course, they were perjuring themselves too.

[scotlad]

8 hours ago, PapofGlencoe said:

Of course it will be painted like that but it won't be true.  and everyone will know it.

what's the alternative, we vote SNP forever?  while they get their act together on independence?  genuine question.

Given they've cancelled a defacto vote(s), no chance of the SNP coming close to pressurising the establishment at this election and that they may take my support for government policy support; if I don't take this opportunity to NOT vote for them now, I doubt I ever will vote against them.  Is it healthy to vote for a political party come what may?

You've got MPs down south like Stewart McDonald who are cosying up to UK Defence civil servants, while being paid to write banal, chatgbt-written articles of no consequence for Unionist papers; all the while rubbishing any idea the SNP should actually stand for Independence at an election.  I don't want to support him and folk like him.  You also have Cherry's, some in Alba and others who seem more interested in fighting culture wars.

I probably will vote for them but I wouldnt be surprised if they fall into the low 30s, high 20s in terms of final vote numbers.  I can count on one hand the amount of folk I know who will vote SNP.

A wipe-out - or near wipe-out - of SNP MPs would be enough for "them", i.e. unionist politicians and their client journalists and commentariat, to claim that the constitutional question had finally been put to bed. I wouldn't put it past them at that point to make it legally more difficult for any future referendum to take place, or for Holyrood's remit to be cut back (especially so if a unionist government is returned in 2026). There's some evidence that that's happening already. Holyrood, don't forget, was set-up in the first place partly to stymie the SNP. Unfortunately I suspect a large swathe of the population are neither switched-on or engaged enough to understand the possible ramifications of any of that.

Stewart McDonald is a deeply dodgy guy though and I personally would have real difficulty voting for him. I'm lucky in that I have a good MP and a good MSP, and until a viable alternative pro-independence party emerges they'll have my vote (or until they're replaced by zoomers!).

5 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

Humza is absolutely terrible from an independence point of view, the unionists can’t believe their luck, that and the sturgeon unraveling 

He's hopeless. Truly hopeless.

And yet, despite the SNP losing every by-election since he took over, despite councillors, MPs and MSPs either leaving or defecting to other parties, and despite the SNP's plummeting poll ratings, he receives virtually no criticism. That, to me, speaks volumes. He and his bargain basement cabinet of non-talents are taking the party in exactly the direction its enemies want it to go.

[Malcolm]

On 11/4/2023 at 10:23 AM, Hertsscot said:

Whilst not wanting to vote is often understandable, surely some parties will be less offensive to you than others?

 

honestly at the point of not voting.  Lib Dems possibly, but I can’t stick Cole Hamilton, and not enthused by their support for GRR.

Alba maybe but they never have a candidate in my constituency and I don’t have a deep enough understanding of their policies beyond independence but I like Ash Regan and might have been persuaded to vote SNP again if she had won the leadership.

none of the parties addressing the big problem which is the economy.

[phart]

For some reason I thought Sheridan was phone hacked so they knew he had "done" something but couldn't reveal the source hence all the opaqueness around it.

[Squirrelhumper]

11 hours ago, Grim Jim said:

Regardless, mud stuck to the extent that he was all over the telly in the last week before the vote in 2014. Quite memorable that a ruined figure was suddenly given prominence to scare the horses.

He certainly wasn't a ruined figure at George Square the night before the vote. He had folk eating out the palm of his hands. Doubt many folk left that night thinking he was a ruined. 

[hampden_loon2878]

13 hours ago, aaid said:

I’ve heard some stuff about Sheridan that makes me think he *wasn’t* set up, the gist of being that the story in the NOTW was essentially true, that he had been in the swingers bar, but they’d got the dates wrong which meant he’d been able to alibi himself.  

for once i agree, spot on with that.. 

[aaid]

12 hours ago, Grim Jim said:

Regardless, mud stuck to the extent that he was all over the telly in the last week before the vote in 2014. Quite memorable that a ruined figure was suddenly given prominence to scare the horses.

Well t hats because Tommy Sheridan is another guy who needs to be at the centre of things 

[Alibi]

9 hours ago, scotlad said:

A wipe-out - or near wipe-out - of SNP MPs would be enough for "them", i.e. unionist politicians and their client journalists and commentariat, to claim that the constitutional question had finally been put to bed. I wouldn't put it past them at that point to make it legally more difficult for any future referendum to take place, or for Holyrood's remit to be cut back (especially so if a unionist government is returned in 2026). There's some evidence that that's happening already. Holyrood, don't forget, was set-up in the first place partly to stymie the SNP. Unfortunately I suspect a large swathe of the population are neither switched-on or engaged enough to understand the possible ramifications of any of that.

Stewart McDonald is a deeply dodgy guy though and I personally would have real difficulty voting for him. I'm lucky in that I have a good MP and a good MSP, and until a viable alternative pro-independence party emerges they'll have my vote (or until they're replaced by zoomers!).

He's hopeless. Truly hopeless.

And yet, despite the SNP losing every by-election since he took over, despite councillors, MPs and MSPs either leaving or defecting to other parties, and despite the SNP's plummeting poll ratings, he receives virtually no criticism. That, to me, speaks volumes. He and his bargain basement cabinet of non-talents are taking the party in exactly the direction its enemies want it to go.

That's why he gets a fairly easy ride from the unionist MSM.  He's no threat to the union just as Sturgeon was no threat to the union.  Contrast with Alex Salmond who they attached constantly, a leader who actually led and was head and shoulders above any other politician in Scotland (and beyond).  No wonder they did their best to politically assassinate him.

I think Ash Regan would have done a better job as SNP leader.  Certainly would have put indy high on the priority list rather than being scared to even mention it.  Maybe not a polished performer yet but at least she has a personality unlike Yousaf.

[TDYER63]

6 minutes ago, Alibi said:

That's why he gets a fairly easy ride from the unionist MSM.  He's no threat to the union just as Sturgeon was no threat to the union.  Contrast with Alex Salmond who they attached constantly, a leader who actually led and was head and shoulders above any other politician in Scotland (and beyond).  No wonder they did their best to politically assassinate him.

I think Ash Regan would have done a better job as SNP leader.  Certainly would have put indy high on the priority list rather than being scared to even mention it.  Maybe not a polished performer yet but at least she has a personality unlike Yousaf.

Sturgeon was attacked relentlessly with the exception of covid. Even then certain media were still attacking her. Not sure how that fits into threat/no threat logic. 

Ash Regan would have been annihilated, she is nowhere near FM material either . Kate Forbes was the only potential realistic leader from the 3 options available . 

[scotlad]

12 hours ago, phart said:

For some reason I thought Sheridan was phone hacked so they knew he had "done" something but couldn't reveal the source hence all the opaqueness around it.

Sheridan's phone number somehow found its way into the possession of Glenn Mulcaire, the dodgy PI employed by the News of the World, who eventually did time himself for phone hacking, so he possibly was.

Part of the evidence used against Sheridan was a dubious covert recording made by a "friend" of his named George McNeilage (an ex-criminal from a notorious family of thugs and criminals), which apparently showed Sheridan admitting to things he'd denied while under oath at his libel trial against the News of the World. McNeilage ended up selling the tape to the paper for £200k, which, ironically, was around the same amount they paid out to Sheridan in damages when he won his case against them.

[scotlad]

10 hours ago, Alibi said:

That's why he gets a fairly easy ride from the unionist MSM.  He's no threat to the union just as Sturgeon was no threat to the union.  

Exactly it mate. It goes back to the old quote from (I think) Napoleon: "never interrupt your enemy while he's making a mistake".

Regarding Sturgeon though, she was - and is - despised by unionists. They were delighted when she resigned. When Humza eventually leaves I'll be surprised if they're anywhere near as jubilant.

10 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

Sturgeon was attacked relentlessly with the exception of covid. Even then certain media were still attacking her. Not sure how that fits into threat/no threat logic. 

Ash Regan would have been annihilated, she is nowhere near FM material either . Kate Forbes was the only potential realistic leader from the 3 options available . 

Ash Regan would have been the SNP's Liz Truss!

Kate Forbes was the tamest of the three candidates as far as independence is concerned but I suspect her cabinet would have included some of the more capable people in the party, which might have resulted in government being run a bit better, and consequently provided a bit of assurance for soft Nos and soft Yessers.

Electing Forbes, someone seen to be an outsider in the Sturgeon years (even though she'd been Sturgeon's Finance Secretary!) would have been a clear break from a regime that had become, fairly or unfairly, tarnished. My view at the time was that Humza was the worst person at the worst time, and I've seen little since then to convince me otherwise.

Interestingly I have a friend who is what I would describe as a small 'u' unionist who is no fan at all of the SNP but was impressed by Forbes as a politician who is prepared to be honest. I doubt he'd ever vote SNP but some floating voters of a similar mindset might have been persuaded.