Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

And this is where the local party got into a mess, i talked with mr cox prior the council elections in 2017. He had been vocal with his pro brexit feelings however when it came to being selected the party had two assessors from the central belt for the assessment just so he could stand again as a snp councillor, they insisted that he agree that if he was not selected he would not stand independently, that is when he told them to ram it,, ended up he got the largest share of any councillor standing. This was a man that AS wanted to run for council leader 

One man's "person who speak's their mind" is another one's loose cannon I guess.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, aaid said:

I suppose that the AS connections could be a case of putting the 2 and 2 together and getting 5.  It probably stems from the fact that he - AS - went to Bath to interview wings for his RT show. 

If I was to hazard a guess I would say that it's probably got more to do with the GRA "debate" than anything else.  If you follow Wings on Twitter it's hard not to notice that most of his tweets, retweets or replies are related to GRA, rather than Indy or any of other aspect of politics.  That's not the same on the website, but he himself always describes the website as the day job and Twitter as something more personal, so that might give you an idea of where his head is.

He's against it, fair enough,. He thinks it's a hugely unpopular policy that will cost the SNP votes.  I'm not sure about that personally, I think it's a bit of a fringe issue - hugely important to those on either side of the argument but not very high on the majority of people's agendas.  

Personally, for reasons I've outlined in detail, I don't think the strategy for a new party will have anything like the impact in terms of getting seats that he is suggesting.  I also really don't see how this is going make one more No voter switch to Yes.

I don't think the GRA policy will be a huge vote loser either, and I also agree Wings will not move firm No voters to Yes. However , whether or not he does wins seats, I do think he could invigorate the soft No’s and those who don't normally vote , if his profile is raised and he plays to his strengths. He has a bit of a personality that is sadly lacking in most current politicians.   ‘Loose cannon’ is admittedly a risk right enough . 

FWIW I do not think the SNP are governing badly, I just feel that like others have said they have become a bit complacent and out of ideas on how to capitalise on the current political mayhem. 

Just seen that the SG are paying over £500k for AS legal bills. That will go down well 🙄 

Edited by TDYER63
Legal fees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

I don't think the GRA policy will be a huge vote loser either, and I also agree Wings will not move firm No voters to Yes. However , whether or not he does wins seats, I do think he could invigorate the soft No’s and those who don't normally vote , if his profile is raised and he plays to his strengths. He has a bit of a personality that is sadly lacking in most current politicians.   ‘Loose cannon’ is admittedly a risk right enough . 

FWIW I do not think the SNP are governing badly, I just feel that like others have said they have become a bit complacent and out of ideas on how to capitalise on the current political mayhem. 

Just seen that the SG are paying over £500k for AS legal bills. That will go down well 🙄 

On Wings, I really don't think he's the guy to sway soft-nos.. I think the *work* he does in debunking pro-Union arguments and in particular providing others with the arguments and evidence is a huge boon to the movement.  As an individual though, I'm a lot less convinced.  He"s a very abrasive and aggressive character, at least online and in public and although those who know him say he's not like that in person, that's the impression he presents to the world.  

He appeals to a section of the Yes movement who like the fact he'll call Ruth Davidson a moron.  Personally I don't have any problem with that but if you're someone who maybe thinks Ruth Davidson talks sense on some things but is unsure about independence, I don't think that's going to go down too well.   He might shake up the committed base but I don't think they need any more motivation, it's direction they need.

This AS thing has a long way to run.  After the court case - regardless of the result - there's an inquiry into why the judicial review showed the internal process was flawed - as shown by the judicial review, which is what today's costs are all about.  Then there's another inquiry into how much the FM knew and when and what involvement she had if any. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Just seen that the SG are paying over £500k for AS legal bills. That will go down well 🙄 

It's certainly given the extreme elements of "Better Together" something new to vent about today

Managed to block about 30 who replied to Davie Clegg's tweet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are we back to the straw men (he is not aiming at soft No voters and has made this abundantly clear by now) and ad hominen arguments (playing the man again and not the argument).

If you want to get into personalities - if you had to pick just one, who would you want on your side going into the next indyref - aaid or wings? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll make it less personal... which political camp has more to offer independence at this point, the aaid camp (i.e. the mainstream status quo SNP we have seen for the last 5 drab years) or the wings camp?

Who is going to bring the most value to the independence party?

It is a clever strategy to increase the number of seats. It is a clever strategy to stimulate and reinvigorate the independence movement. It will allow a whole bunch of new ideas to be considered. Wings is not some rude kid. He is very creative and driven as this idea demonstrates.

The only possible perceived threat is to the collective ego of the SNP.

aaid represents the lets just keep things as they are argument.

wings represents the naw lets start doing things a bit differently argument.

All change comes with risk. But so does doing nothing. Doing nothing seems like certain failure versus this small risk IMHO. Five bogging years after 2014 I know which argument and I know which camp I prefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aaid said:

On Wings, I really don't think he's the guy to sway soft-nos.. I think the *work* he does in debunking pro-Union arguments and in particular providing others with the arguments and evidence is a huge boon to the movement.  As an individual though, I'm a lot less convinced.  He"s a very abrasive and aggressive character, at least online and in public and although those who know him say he's not like that in person, that's the impression he presents to the world.  

He appeals to a section of the Yes movement who like the fact he'll call Ruth Davidson a moron.  Personally I don't have any problem with that but if you're someone who maybe thinks Ruth Davidson talks sense on some things but is unsure about independence, I don't think that's going to go down too well.   He might shake up the committed base but I don't think they need any more motivation, it's direction they need. 

Had a look at the Wings site and comments.  It seems a lot angrier and more factional than it used to be. Many of the comments seem to be slagging off the SNP, Greens, 'wokes', Bella Caledonia, James Kelly, "Anyone against this idea is Yoon". etc etc.  I guess I just find it hard to imagine this impression of 'Wings' appealing to a broader electorate.

Still, we live in unusual times. In other countries, comedians and TV personalities have become politicians and presidents...

While I realise the intention is not to split the SNP vote, people are openly offering to leave the SNP and signing up offering themselves as candidates. It's hard not to think it is helping wedge open and magnify splits in the pro indy electorate.   

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a different tack, here is some food for thought.

UKGE2017_3000px_TurnoutChange.png

Three most striking things seem to be:

1. Scotland is politically different from the rest of the UK. What is the difference?...

2. Huge decline in vote share in Scotland. Who are those people? The electorate that were not motivated to vote in 2017. So it looks as if there are a lot of people to be positively won over.

3. How small Scotland (Wales and N Ireland) compared to England. There is a view that Scotland is a proud equal partner in the Union, a view held by many nationalists and unionists alike. However it's easy to see (in the second and third maps) the electoral imbalance in voting power, and which country's voice counts most.  

The difference in voting patterns between Scotland and England, and the relative lack of weight of Scotland's electorate, seem inescapable facts that unionists, in particular, seem in denial of.    

Edited by exile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, exile said:

Had a look at the Wings site and comments.  It seems a lot angrier and more factional than it used to be. Many of the comments seem to be slagging off the SNP, Greens, 'wokes', Bella Caledonia, James Kelly, "Anyone against this idea is Yoon". etc etc.  I guess I just find it hard to imagine this impression of 'Wings' appealing to a broader electorate.

Still, we live in unusual times. In other countries, comedians and TV personalities have become politicians and presidents...

While I realise the intention is not to split the SNP vote, people are openly offering to leave the SNP and signing up offering themselves as candidates. It's hard not to think it is helping wedge open and magnify splits in the pro indy electorate.   

 

Can you show me where you have seen that bit, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

Can you show me where you have seen that bit, please?

"James Kelly" (referring to the Scot Goes Pop guy) is separate from the "Anyone..." comment (not sure why both came out in red).

I didn't mean to get into a "he said she said" spat (that is partly what I am complaining about) but it's on the current article's thread of comments about an hour and a half ago (I can be more specific if necessary). It is not the first time; the other day I saw a similar comment.To be fair I have seen comments in both directions, accusing the other side (pro v anti list party) of "whose side are you on" insinuations. 

Edited by exile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, exile said:

"James Kelly" (referring to the Scot Goes Pop guy) is separate from the "Anyone..." comment (not sure why both came out in red).

I didn't mean to get into a "he said she said" spat (that is partly what I am complaining about) but it's on the current article's thread of comments about an hour and a half ago (I can be more specific if necessary). It is not the first time; the other day I saw a similar comment.To be fair I have seen comments in both directions, accusing the other side (pro v anti list party) of "whose side are you on" insinuations. 

OK I misunderstood what you said. I thought you meant that SC had been slagging off James Kelly. I now see that's not what you said.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

OK I misunderstood what you said. I thought you meant that SC had been slagging off James Kelly. I now see that's not what you said.

 

Ok, glad that is cleared up. It is Wings commenters who have been slagging JK. 

Having said that I see JK and SC have been having a direct dialogue on Scot Goes Pop comments. And all sorts of unrest on Bella Caledonia (comments on editorial attacking SC),   Some actual rational debate too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, exile said:

 

2. Huge decline in vote share in Scotland. Who are those people? The electorate that were not motivated to vote in 2017. So it looks as if there are a lot of people to be positively won over.

 

In 2017 there was a pretty hefty chunk of the SNP vote that just didn't turnout.  The Pro-Union vote was up a bit but by nowhere near enough to equate to the drop in SNP support and so suggest there widespread switching from SNP.

AFAIK, it's never been properly explained, hopefully the party understands why and know what to do to correct it.

i suspect it's probably a combination of things, over confidence, Leave voting SNP supporters nit being able to bring themselves to vote for the SNP but also not wanting to vote for a pro-Union party either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, exile said:

Ok, glad that is cleared up. It is Wings commenters who have been slagging JK. 

Having said that I see JK and SC have been having a direct dialogue on Scot Goes Pop comments. And all sorts of unrest on Bella Caledonia (comments on editorial attacking SC),   Some actual rational debate too

No love lost between Bella and Wings at all.  A lot of fragile egos at play all over the place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, exile said:

On a different tack, here is some food for thought.

UKGE2017_3000px_TurnoutChange.png

Three most striking things seem to be:

1. Scotland is politically different from the rest of the UK. What is the difference?...

2. Huge decline in vote share in Scotland. Who are those people? The electorate that were not motivated to vote in 2017. So it looks as if there are a lot of people to be positively won over.

3. How small Scotland (Wales and N Ireland) compared to England. There is a view that Scotland is a proud equal partner in the Union, a view held by many nationalists and unionists alike. However it's easy to see (in the second and third maps) the electoral imbalance in voting power, and which country's voice counts most.  

The difference in voting patterns between Scotland and England, and the relative lack of weight of Scotland's electorate, seem inescapable facts that unionists, in particular, seem in denial of.    

if you squint at that last graphic its quite likely you'll see nicola s inspecting a cabbage whilst smoking a pipe wearing a green ball gown after a heavy night on the lash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, aaid said:

In 2017 there was a pretty hefty chunk of the SNP vote that just didn't turnout.  The Pro-Union vote was up a bit but by nowhere near enough to equate to the drop in SNP support and so suggest there widespread switching from SNP.

AFAIK, it's never been properly explained, hopefully the party understands why and know what to do to correct it.

i suspect it's probably a combination of things, over confidence, Leave voting SNP supporters nit being able to bring themselves to vote for the SNP but also not wanting to vote for a pro-Union party either. 

The unionist parties did a rallying call. They called on unionist voters to vote to keep the SNP out and defeat the chance of a second referendum. This rallying call was heeded a great deal. The SNP were vaught between a rock and a hard place canvassing-wise. pre-canvassing we heard unionist parties saying that all the SNP cared about was another indy ref instead of running the country. The SNP ran anbelection campaogn that largely left indy talk out of it to avoid giving more ammo to the unionist parties and so I wouldvsuggest this was not what many SNP voters wanted so did not vote.

Im short at the last general election the surprising resukts were down to more organised and tactical voting by the unionist party voters coupled woth SNP voter apathy. Nothing to do with any drop in support for independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, aaid said:

No love lost between Bella and Wings at all.  A lot of fragile egos at play all over the place. 

I had to come off of bella a good while back, some absolute roasters on there, i question a post basically saying anyone who votes tory are scum and recieved pelters for it, to me it was very “mob mentality” could be different now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

I had to come off of bella a good while back, some absolute roasters on there, i question a post basically saying anyone who votes tory are scum and recieved pelters for it, to me it was very “mob mentality” could be different now

I doubt it. Going by Bella's tweets it's becoming an increasingly sanctimonious outlet, which is a shame, because I had some time for it once.

There's also an ongoing feud between its editor and Stu Campbell, possibly due to the latter's site being significantly more popular than his!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Bella had gone defunct. A few years back I was looking at their site and all the articles seemed to be all out of date. Just checked again just now and their top 3 articles under "Scotland" "politics" are "No second jobs for MSPs", "Labour for Indy" and  something about Tories being nasty to poor folk. I mean WTF?????? Looks like their most recent article is from January. Nothing at all about a potential new Wings Party.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

I thought Bella had gone defunct. A few years back I was looking at their site and all the articles seemed to be all out of date. Just checked again just now and their top 3 articles under "Scotland" "politics" are "No second jobs for MSPs", "Labour for Indy" and  something about Tories being nasty to poor folk. I mean WTF?????? Looks like their most recent article is from January. Nothing at all about a potential new Wings Party.

 

https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/08/12/you-cant-elect-a-blocklist/

Edit - first comment is a cracker.

 

Quote
david

I think we already knew you didn’t like him, Mike.

 

Edited by aaid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Orraloon said:

Cheers, I'll have a look at that. 

You would have thought there would have been a link to that under "Scotland politics" though. No wonder they don't get as much traffic as Wings.

It was on the front page 😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, aaid said:

It was on the front page 😕

Aye, it was on the front page of the link that you posted. But when I googled "Bella Caledonia" all I got was the ancient shit I mentioned previously.   Maybe I'm just being thick, but I'm sure there are folk less thick than me who would give up before they found that article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why folk are giving so much weight talking about scottish elections, it's independence we want not governance of Scotland on Westminster terms.

Plus any tactics we devise will be used against us as once it happens becomes permissible. Do we really want to be using "exploits" anyway, opening pandoras box. Winning the Scottish Parliament means little in the real battle, which is trying to get above 55% voting for independence.

In the context of self-governance it's the participation trophy.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, phart said:

I don't know why folk are giving so much weight talking about scottish elections, it's independence we want not governance of Scotland on Westminster terms.

Plus any tactics we devise will be used against us as once it happens becomes permissible. Do we really want to be using "exploits" anyway, opening pandoras box. Winning the Scottish Parliament means little in the real battle, which is trying to get above 55% voting for independence.

In the context of self-governance it's the participation trophy.

 

 

 

I’m pretty much the same to be honest especially when the BBC take such an interest but if SNP stick to timescales the Holyrood election it should hopefully be moot anyway. 

 

However, if it does go down this route my concern is that the Wings party cause a similar reaction the Conservative Party had to the Brexit party as it would likely attract the more ardent independence supporters.  The dichotomy would then be do the SNP allow them to get a foothold or do they move back toward trying to appease their core vote?  If it is the later this would then have the potential to lose soft no’s who have turned. 

There is also a doubt that keeps nipping away in that is Wings trying to diversify given his income will tail-off if/when vote ‘yes’?   

Share this post


Link to post
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...