Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 16k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Thplinth's typical reaction whenever he's respectfully challenged by other posters about his (borderline spam posting) increasingly paranoid, conspiracy supporting, right wing views ..... T

You think you're becoming more pragmatic, can see both sides, with age and then an individual turns your country into a colony.  And I use that word advisedly. Don't even need to defend their pos

You might think Denise and the #iamthestorm crowd are exaggerating, but just look at the evidence. Over here in Ireland we've had gender recognition certificates for years now. As a result, Irela

Posted Images

27 minutes ago, Archiesdad said:

The lassie from the greens is excellent..

They only thing she did was stand up for discussing independence during COVID something Sturgeon totally failed to during endless attacks.

Other than she was a gibbering woke mess.

I watched this to get up to speed with the various faces and anyone who thinks the GREENS would be better than having Alex Salmond and ALBA in there backing up the independence arguments is tripping out their mind. 

What a state Scottish Politics is in.

At a push Sarwar will probably be the net winner of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I genuinely think that is their plan.

But all we can do is hope for as strong mandate as possible and shame them into a corner.  There are decent English citizens (obviously) that will question refusal.

1.  No majority of seats, no majority of votes 

2.  Majority of seats, minority of votes 

3. Majority of seats, majority of votes 

4. Supermajority of seats, majority of votes.

3 and 4 have to be the target.

Why the feck are folk falling for this trap of setting an ever increasing high bar for what is required? It’s total bollocks.  

The mechanism at Scottish Parliament level is simply having enough votes to pass a Bill. 
 

Everything else is just politics and pressure between Holyrood and Westminster. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AlfieMoon said:

Why the feck are folk falling for this trap of setting an ever increasing high bar for what is required? It’s total bollocks. 

Probably the same reason they painted themselves into a corner asking Boris Johnson for permission to move forward on indy. Basically handing him an effective veto. No tory prime minister will ever repeat the mistake of David Cameron. Never ever going to happen in a million years. 

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

I genuinely think that is their plan.

But all we can do is hope for as strong mandate as possible and shame them into a corner.  There are decent English citizens (obviously) that will question refusal.

1.  No majority of seats, no majority of votes 

2.  Majority of seats, minority of votes 

3. Majority of seats, majority of votes 

4. Supermajority of seats, majority of votes.

3 and 4 have to be the target.

I think we’ll get a strong mandate and hopefully have a plan in place incase the Tories say no. 

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

Why the feck are folk falling for this trap of setting an ever increasing high bar for what is required? It’s total bollocks.  

The mechanism at Scottish Parliament level is simply having enough votes to pass a Bill. 
 

Everything else is just politics and pressure between Holyrood and Westminster. 

I'd settle for any kind of bar to be honest.  I actually think if the UK govt said the bar was a majority of votes for this type of change, it would be fair enough.

 

I'd prefer if it was agreed a majority vote at parliament was all that was needed but I don't see that cutting the mustard.  They already have their script for that.

 

Edited by PapofGlencoe
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I think you've misread my note.  I'm talking about a majority of votes and a majority of seats.  

A simple majority of seats and 48% won't cut it this time.  The unionists will point to the minority. I don't think the independence parties had a majority of votes in 2011. 

It's a tall order but a majority of votes and a supermajority of seats would be difficult to argue against.

 

Obviously a super-majority better than a majority, and a majority of votes better than not a majority.

But the real issue at stake is whether a super-majority off the back of fewer votes is stronger than a simple majority but with higher vote share. That's what is debatable, as in worth debating. Some seem to think a supermajority is sufficient or desirable of itself, or assume it's better than any majority. I agree with you that vote share is crucial. Some don't seem to think so.

Edit: just saw your other post. Yes 4 > 3, but supermaj with minority of votes is what I'm getting at.

Edited by exile
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Sarwar comes across well for a unionist.

He seems to be trying not to come across as a unionist! But it could lose him the staunch Brit voters to Ross?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always used to laugh when Alex Salmond would skewer some BBC hack trying make out that the fluctuations in the price of oil meant anything to the independence question. He would typically reply that Scotland must be the only country in the world where having oil was a bad thing.

Now it seems we are the only country in the world where having a super majority would be a bad thing for independence. A supermajority in May would clearly be another massive layer of pressure to add to break the deadlock and only a lemon sooking Strurgeon head can't see that by now.

Boris is never going to agree, nor is Gove (especially Gove), nor is (insert name here). Ever. The only time they would is if they knew we would lose.

This is and always has been OUR decision and not theirs.

SNP1 / ALBA2

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

 

Obviously a super-majority better than a majority, and a majority of votes better than not a majority.

But the real issue at stake is whether a super-majority off the back of fewer votes is stronger than a simple majority but with higher vote share. That's what is debatable, as in worth debating. Some seem to think a supermajority is sufficient or desirable of itself, or assume it's better than any majority. I agree with you that vote share is crucial. Some don't seem to think so.

 

Surely the vote share (>50%) is important in the indyref rather than in an election.  

You can’t conflate the 2 things as there are completely differing variables in the mix.  

Going down this path of Indy supporters arguing about just how high a standard we need to meet, while the Tories at Westminster don’t even say anything, is a distraction and loss of focus. Why are we even talking about a supermajority? We don’t even know what that means. It’s nonsense!! 
 

In the 70’s devo ref it took the unionist parties to stitch up Scotland. This time with all the talk from Indy supporters of needing 50%+ vote share and a majority (in a parliament system that’s designed to prevent it) or a ‘supermajority’ is just playing into unionist hands. They’re sitting in background while people keep saying - ‘if we can just get to that next level that’ll do it’. Then the next time there’s suddenly another level to achieve. 
 

I get that folk are impatient but we really shouldn’t be falling for the trap of being asked to deliver anything more than passing a Bill in parliament. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if Salmond had been in the debate, with the same set of questions, he would have let the Tory government have it with both barrels. He and Sturgoen could be a good double act, one appealing to soft Nos, and attempting to talk to the whole nation (including the reluctant half), while Salmond would be more free to ridicule and pulverise the opposition.

The only problem would be the BBC would not allow that set of questions. They'd set a different set of questions, that would be set up to pitch them against each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AlfieMoon said:

Surely the vote share (>50%) is important in the indyref rather than in an election.  

You can’t conflate the 2 things as there are completely differing variables in the mix.  

Going down this path of Indy supporters arguing about just how high a standard we need to meet, while the Tories at Westminster don’t even say anything, is a distraction and loss of focus. Why are we even talking about a supermajority? We don’t even know what that means. It’s nonsense!! 
 

In the 70’s devo ref it took the unionist parties to stitch up Scotland. This time with all the talk from Indy supporters of needing 50%+ vote share and a majority (in a parliament system that’s designed to prevent it) or a ‘supermajority’ is just playing into unionist hands. They’re sitting in background while people keep saying - ‘if we can just get to that next level that’ll do it’. Then the next time there’s suddenly another level to achieve. 
 

I get that folk are impatient but we really shouldn’t be falling for the trap of being asked to deliver anything more than passing a Bill in parliament. 

 

We're talking about a supermajority because Alex Salmond had the word in big letters behind him as he launched his party!

To put it briefly I am not setting any bar. I'm pointing out the importance of vote share as a better indicator of the likelihood of winning an indyref, than achieving a supermajoirty, as long as a majority (passing a Bill, as you say) is reached.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AlfieMoon said:

Surely the vote share (>50%) is important in the indyref rather than in an election.  

You can’t conflate the 2 things as there are completely differing variables in the mix.  

Going down this path of Indy supporters arguing about just how high a standard we need to meet, while the Tories at Westminster don’t even say anything, is a distraction and loss of focus. Why are we even talking about a supermajority? We don’t even know what that means. It’s nonsense!! 
 

In the 70’s devo ref it took the unionist parties to stitch up Scotland. This time with all the talk from Indy supporters of needing 50%+ vote share and a majority (in a parliament system that’s designed to prevent it) or a ‘supermajority’ is just playing into unionist hands. They’re sitting in background while people keep saying - ‘if we can just get to that next level that’ll do it’. Then the next time there’s suddenly another level to achieve. 
 

I get that folk are impatient but we really shouldn’t be falling for the trap of being asked to deliver anything more than passing a Bill in parliament. 

 

I do hear you but the next debate is going to be about convincing our own people ploughing ahead is legitimate.

It's as much about that as shaming London.

Both sides are wary of what is seen as legitimate by the Scottish people.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, thplinth said:

I always used to laugh when Alex Salmond would skewer some BBC hack trying make out that the fluctuations in the price of oil meant anything to the independence question. He would typically reply that Scotland must be the only country in the world where having oil was a bad thing.

Now it seems we are the only country in the world where having a super majority would be a bad thing for independence. A supermajority in May would clearly be another massive layer of pressure to add to break the deadlock and only a lemon sooking Strurgeon head can't see that by now.

Boris is never going to agree, nor is Gove (especially Gove), nor is (insert name here). Ever. The only time they would is if they knew we would lose.

This is and always has been OUR decision and not theirs.

SNP1 / ALBA2

To be honest you are a classic example of what is wrong with Alba and it’s backers. 
Most seem intent on doing everything they can to lose the party support. 
 

Quite a baffling tactic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

to me if we vote 50% of constituency votes a referendum cant be denied, that would be the strongest mandate we could get from these election, then a snp seat majority followed by indy party majority

 

folk need to be clever with their vote, ths snp 1/2 should be used in the borders, however the whole snp 1/2 doesn't add up everywhere,, i think closer to the time the snp will loosen up on the vote 1/2,, probably until after the candidates are announced for each region so no chance of say the Tories pulling their candidates... i always talk of 4D politics, is this what we are seeing?

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

It's remarkable how this thread and indy political twitter etc. has become all about SNP v Alba. Almost no one is spending any time or energy attacking the Unionists. On twitter especially people are knocking lumps out of each other, - one lot accused of being a bunch of arrogant dictators and the other lot a disreputable rabble - using arguments the Unionists must love are being made without having to lift a finger. It's pretty sad in a way. It didn't need to be this way.

This is exactly why the Unionists keep saying No to a referendum.

Their tactic is to delay as long as possible, bringing up every possible excuse they can, so that we start fighting amongst ourselves.

The Salmond fiasco has been a gift to them. They just need to sit back and watch both factions fight each other.

It would have been much simpler if Mr Salmond had just faded into the background and let the SNP take forward the fight for independence.

I completely understand the argument that there is a need for an alternative approach to ensure the SNP keep independence front and centre. But I fear that the SNP v Alba situation is going to see a schism in the independence movement which will see us lose out on a second referendum just when independence was within our grasp.

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

Comment from Craig Murray on Wings' site.

Craig Murray says:

Let me make this simple.

There are no conceivable circumstances in which it is morally acceptable to vote for Angus Robertson.

Craig Murray is about to get a jail term for contempt of court. 

If he wants to be a real martyr he could directly state why he thinks MR Robertson is immoral. But he know fine well that could end up with him facing a second conviction

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PapofGlencoe said:

I'd settle for any kind of bar to be honest.  I actually think if the UK govt said the bar was a majority of votes for this type of change, it would be fair enough.

So independence has to win 2 elections? The first one just so the Eton boys will allow us to decide our own future? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The mantra pf the Tory government has changed though in the last few months. The tried and trusted 'once in a generation' line has definitely been shelved in favour of a new tact. Now it is 'now is not the time' citing the pandemic as a reason not to have an IndyRef2. Make of that what you will. To me that tells me they realise how they cannot deny one on democratic grounds so will grant it if the Scottish Election results are strong enough (over 50% seat and vote share for SNP). Their new stance is one that they can then use if they have to grant one saying stuff like how terrible it is having a referendum when the country is getting over a pandemic hoping that will buy some No votes.

Edited by Caledonian Craig
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, exile said:

He seems to be trying not to come across as a unionist! But it could lose him the staunch Brit voters to Ross?

I didnt see last nights debate but he must have changed tact since the Labour leader contest debate as he was very pro union and pretty poor on it tbh.

It is possible he worked on pro union stance to secure that position but perhaps Labour are now seeing a chance to snatch back some SNP votes and are adopting a less aggressive approach . 

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

I didnt see last nights debate but he must have changed tact since the Labour leader contest debate as he was very pro union and pretty poor on it tbh.

It is possible he worked on pro union stance to secure that position but perhaps Labour are now seeing a chance to snatch back some SNP votes and are adopting a less aggressive approach . 

I think that some of the 'red tory' jibes have finally resonated with SLab as well. Re his performance last night, I think we are all so used to seeing Labour leaders ill prepared and incompetent he caught us all a bit off guard. He had a good night for sure. 

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

I didnt see last nights debate but he must have changed tact since the Labour leader contest debate as he was very pro union and pretty poor on it tbh.

It is possible he worked on pro union stance to secure that position but perhaps Labour are now seeing a chance to snatch back some SNP votes and are adopting a less aggressive approach . 

Oh don't get me wrong he was constantly saying he was against a second indy ref but that aside he was not just attacking others for the sake of it a la Douglas Ross. He stated he could work with the SNP on matters which Sturgeon has said had happened and I think that sent Ross over the edge. He scored a massive own goal or three last night that did not go down well with the other leaders and those on webcam asking questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was clear to me watching that, actually, it was the unionist parties going at each others throats despite the 'poisonous stuff' between Sturgeon and Salmond that Ross often brought up. I'd say the atmosphere between Ross and Sarwar was far more toxic and you could see both realised that second place is what they are after. Ross took the stance of attack the SNP on everything to appeal to the uber-unionists whilst Sarwar took a far more liberal approach and had a few digs at the Tories in a bid to show they were the ones to provide opposition to the SNP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, slasher said:

I think that some of the 'red tory' jibes have finally resonated with SLab as well. Re his performance last night, I think we are all so used to seeing Labour leaders ill prepared and incompetent he caught us all a bit off guard. He had a good night for sure. 

 

18 minutes ago, Caledonian Craig said:

Oh don't get me wrong he was constantly saying he was against a second indy ref but that aside he was not just attacking others for the sake of it a la Douglas Ross. He stated he could work with the SNP on matters which Sturgeon has said had happened and I think that sent Ross over the edge. He scored a massive own goal or three last night that did not go down well with the other leaders and those on webcam asking questions.

I think Labour could be a small threat to the SNP this time , nothing much to back up my feeling just a hunch, which throws another spanner into the works on how to vote. 

I would never consider giving my vote to Labour , first and foremost due to their stance on independence, they can get their federalism to fook, but they may appeal to soft yes voters .
If they take any constituency seats from SNP , how does voting SNP 1 Alba 2 get affected by that? 

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

 

I think Labour could be a small threat to the SNP this time , nothing much to back up my feeling just a hunch, which throws another spanner into the works on how to vote. 

I would never consider giving my vote to Labour , first and foremost due to their stance on independence, they can get their federalism to fook, but they may appeal to soft yes voters .
If they take any constituency seats from SNP , how does voting SNP 1 Alba 2 get affected by that? 

No I think they realise whose voters they are after - fellow unionist voters who currently vote Tory. After last night and how badly Ross came across I could quite easily see Labour win more seats than the Tories but cannot see it impacting too much on the SNP. I know that in my constituency (Edinburgh Central) held by Tories recent polls predicted Tories holding with a wafer thin majority. Last night may have changed that.

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...