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

9 hours ago, tartandon said:

Mr Salmond is a deeply divisive figure who vastly overestimates his popularity. Ms Sturgeon is much more popular amongst the general population than Mr Salmond ever was. The court cases and enquiries have merely strengthened this position amongst the majority of the population. Getting support from the likes of Nigel Farage is not exactly going to help Mr Salmond either.

Recent polls have shown Mr Salmond to be as unpopular as Boris Johnson, and I don't think any sane person would seriously argue that Mr Johnson would get much of a vote share in Scotland.

An SNP majority is the only serious and realistic way to force a second referendum.

There is zero chance of an existing unionist party voter switching their list vote to Alba. Therefore any votes for Alba will inevitably come from either SNP or Green voters.

The low polling for for Alba, despite a flurry of publicity, shows that a vote for them is a wasted vote. If the low polling for Alba continues, pro-independence voters would be better served using their list vote for the SNP or Greens.

I am still awaiting anyone to rubbish or disprove this remark and nobody can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And another area Alba are pissing in the wind against is that the Scottish Greens have the added lure of pledging to fight for the environment. Go back maybe ten or twenty years and beyond and those type of parties were somewhat a figure of fun. However, that is far less the case now as a heck of a lot of the youngest generation of voters are very much locked into and invested in the environment and so Scottish Greens have that element of difference from the SNP (that Alba doesn't) to attract people.

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

Mr Salmond is a deeply divisive figure who vastly overestimates his popularity. Ms Sturgeon is much more popular amongst the general population than Mr Salmond ever was. The court cases and enquiries have merely strengthened this position amongst the majority of the population. Getting support from the likes of Nigel Farage is not exactly going to help Mr Salmond either.

Recent polls have shown Mr Salmond to be as unpopular as Boris Johnson, and I don't think any sane person would seriously argue that Mr Johnson would get much of a vote share in Scotland.

An SNP majority is the only serious and realistic way to force a second referendum.

There is zero chance of an existing unionist party voter switching their list vote to Alba. Therefore any votes for Alba will inevitably come from either SNP or Green voters.

The low polling for for Alba, despite a flurry of publicity, shows that a vote for them is a wasted vote. If the low polling for Alba continues, pro-independence voters would be better served using their list vote for the SNP or Greens.

If that poll is correct and all 66 SNP MSPs were Constituency MSPs, then every single vote cast for the SNP on the Regional Vote would be a wasted vote. Not that I believe that opinion poll one little bit. Polls are designed to modify behavior not to measure it. Don't trust the opinion polls. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ParisInAKilt said:

It’s almost definitely true but doesn’t mean list votes for Alba will take seats away from the SNP. 

And so it begs the question of the point of it? If it isn't taking seats from the SNP then it will take seats from the Scottish Greens - who lest we forget are a pro-independence party.

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

And so it begs the question of the point of it? If it isn't taking seats from the SNP then it will take seats from the Scottish Greens - who lest we forget are a pro-independence party.

OK, I'm now convinced that you are at it. Nobody who has read as much about this as you have can fail to understand what the point of it is. It is obvious that a huge chunk of the population don't understand how it works but you are not one of them.

Edited by Orraloon
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

OK, I'm now convinced that you are at it. Nobody who has read as much about this as you have can fail to understand what the point of it is. It is obvious that a huge chunk of the population don't understand how it works but you are not one of them.

There seems to be an axiom in the super majority theory that folk who vote SNP if they want independence should vote ALBA or they don't truly want independence.

That's probably not going to be true in reality and is a construct of the minds of a small percentage of idealogical monomaniacal people projecting onto the electorate.

The reality will be a huge host of factors influence voting intentions and most folk are grey rather than black/white.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Orraloon said:

OK, I'm now convinced that you are at it. Nobody who has read as much about this as you have can fail to understand what the point of it is. It is obvious that a huge chunk of the population don't understand how it works but you are not one of them.

No not at it at all. Can you tell me about this 'Supamajority'? It is not a new thing. It is a coined phrase invented by Salmond. Now in recent elections there have been just as many pro-independence parties standing - some of them not standing this time due to the emergence of Alba. So the same list seats etc same consituency seats up for grabs and same voting mind sets - you will have pro-indy voters and pro-union voters. They are all going to throw their votes in the same direction ie in favour of pro-independence parties or in favour of pro-union parties. No immeasurable amount of votes will really change from pro-union to pro-indy and vice versa to make a big difference in seat counts that certainly being the case in consituencies. The list seats will see voters still voting as they did last time around with pro-indy voters giving their pro-indy vote to a pro-indy party BUT there is a massive difference now as in where they were shared between two parties they will be shared between three so Alba MUST swoop up lots of votes or else it is detrimental to independence movement. First poll suggests it will be the latter so please explain how this is going to be in anyway good for the hope of garnering more MSP's that are pro-indy?

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

No not at it at all. Can you tell me about this 'Supamajority'? It is not a new thing. It is a coined phrase invented by Salmond. Now in recent elections there have been just as many pro-independence parties standing - some of them not standing this time due to the emergence of Alba. So the same list seats etc same consituency seats up for grabs and same voting mind sets - you will have pro-indy voters and pro-union voters. They are all going to throw their votes in the same direction ie in favour of pro-independence parties or in favour of pro-union parties. No immeasurable amount of votes will really change from pro-union to pro-indy and vice versa to make a big difference in seat counts that certainly being the case in consituencies. The list seats will see voters still voting as they did last time around with pro-indy voters giving their pro-indy vote to a pro-indy party BUT there is a massive difference now as in where they were shared between two parties they will be shared between three so Alba MUST swoop up lots of votes or else it is detrimental to independence movement. First poll suggests it will be the latter so please explain how this is going to be in anyway good for the hope of garnering more MSP's that are pro-indy?

Make your mind up. Is it new or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

It’s almost definitely true but doesn’t mean list votes for Alba will take seats away from the SNP. 

Even if you put the Alba support a couple of percentage points higher, they would struggle to gain more than one seat.

Assuming the constituency polls are accurate, then you are correct - the Alba votes may not take any list seats away from the SNP. However, it may take list seats away from the pro-indepndence Greens.

If the same people voting for Alba were to vote Green, this has the potential to deliver even more Green list seats than  Alba can hope to gain. This is because the Greens already have an established base support and additional list votes have the potential to push them over the threshold to gain further list seats.

Unionist voters are very unlikely as a whole to vote for Alba, whereas the Greens are a lot more palatable prospect especially for voters who have an environmentally friendly outlook.

The pool of voters that Alba are targeting is largely existing independence supporters.

The SNP have a much wider appeal. Many members of the population think they have done a good job in government and Ms Sturgeon's perceived positive handling of the pandemic will convince many people to vote SNP.

The Greens appeal to pro-indepence voters and also have wider appeal to anybody with an environmentally friendly outlook.

You also have to consider what would happen if the pols were wrong and Alba were to gain a significant number of list seats. There is already a growing schism in the independence camp for reasons including the tactics for securing a referendum, the GRA, the Salmond trial etc.

Would a significant number of Alba representatives in parliament heal these divisions or would the rift get wider? I believe the latter is more likely and divisions in the independence movement will merely play into the hands of Westminster Tories. It gives Mr Johnson the opportunity to make cheap points about Scotland not being trusted to look after its affairs due to constant in-fighting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tartandon said:

Even if you put the Alba support a couple of percentage points higher, they would struggle to gain more than one seat.

Assuming the constituency polls are accurate, then you are correct - the Alba votes may not take any list seats away from the SNP. However, it may take list seats away from the pro-indepndence Greens.

If the same people voting for Alba were to vote Green, this has the potential to deliver even more Green list seats than  Alba can hope to gain. This is because the Greens already have an established base support and additional list votes have the potential to push them over the threshold to gain further list seats.

Unionist voters are very unlikely as a whole to vote for Alba, whereas the Greens are a lot more palatable prospect especially for voters who have an environmentally friendly outlook.

The pool of voters that Alba are targeting is largely existing independence supporters.

The SNP have a much wider appeal. Many members of the population think they have done a good job in government and Ms Sturgeon's perceived positive handling of the pandemic will convince many people to vote SNP.

The Greens appeal to pro-indepence voters and also have wider appeal to anybody with an environmentally friendly outlook.

You also have to consider what would happen if the pols were wrong and Alba were to gain a significant number of list seats. There is already a growing schism in the independence camp for reasons including the tactics for securing a referendum, the GRA, the Salmond trial etc.

Would a significant number of Alba representatives in parliament heal these divisions or would the rift get wider? I believe the latter is more likely and divisions in the independence movement will merely play into the hands of Westminster Tories. It gives Mr Johnson the opportunity to make cheap points about Scotland not being trusted to look after its affairs due to constant in-fighting.

I think we’re beyond no divisions in the independence movement but that’s healthy as long as it doesn’t stop parties working together on matters of independence. 

Mr Johnson and the unionist media will do exactly that even if the SNP had a 100% majority. 

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

OK, I'm now convinced that you are at it. Nobody who has read as much about this as you have can fail to understand what the point of it is. It is obvious that a huge chunk of the population don't understand how it works but you are not one of them.

D'ya think? :lol:

The proposal by ALBA explicitly states if the SNP voters give their regional vote to ALBA instead of wasting it voting SNP it will result in a supermajority.

(This is outing a lot of fraudsters. It is quite amusing for me.)

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

And another area Alba are pissing in the wind against is that the Scottish Greens have the added lure of pledging to fight for the environment. Go back maybe ten or twenty years and beyond and those type of parties were somewhat a figure of fun. However, that is far less the case now as a heck of a lot of the youngest generation of voters are very much locked into and invested in the environment and so Scottish Greens have that element of difference from the SNP (that Alba doesn't) to attract people.

I think a lot of Alba supporters are in a specific age demographic and they have no idea how unpopular he is with younger people. I also think his popularity is pretty higher in certain areas of the country, and within a group of like minded people, this gives a false impression. 

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

I think a lot of Alba supporters are in a specific age demographic and they have no idea how unpopular he is with younger people. I also think his popularity is pretty higher in certain areas of the country, and within a group of like minded people, this gives a false impression. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2016 a chunk of SNP voters voted for the SNP1/GREENS2 because they knew that SNP2 was a wasted vote. I think it could be somewhere in the region of 50-100 thousand SNP voters. 

So before ALBA even came into existence many of these SNP voters were already smart enough to use the regional vote to get more pro-independence MSPs by voting GREEN2.

The National even brags about it in this article and uses the specific term Supermajority.

https://archive.is/KGVIx

ALBA2 is now a much more direct and unequivocal route to achieving this supermajority result. And we don't have to adopt all their mad woke policies to get their support. All ALBA wants is independence.

So I would expect some of the GREEN2 vote to switch to ALBA2 but that would be fair as they were informally using the GREENS as a substitute for ALBA anyway (which did not exist in 2016). 

Edited by thplinth
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the difference between the SNP constituency vote and the regional vote in 2016 the SNP shed just over 100,000 voters at the regional level versus the constituency level.

Constituency vote    1,059,898
Regional vote    953,587

This is matched by the GREENS vote in 2016

Constituency vote    13,172    
Regional vote    150,426

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Scottish_Parliament_election)

Now there will be various reasons for all of this of course but it does give you a ball-park indication that up to 100,000 SNP voters may have been tactically voting GREEN2.

The GREENS constituency vote is microscopic which also supports that theory.

Whatever the number I suspect this is the initial 3% of the regional vote we saw in the first poll voting ALBA.

It is way too early for anyone else to be showing I think.

edit: But I agree polls are generally a pile of utter shite so who truly knows. 

Edited by thplinth
Link to post
Share on other sites

Going a bit off topic, sorry. Just a thought and I think Aaid will tell me I’m totally wrong, but not seen it discussed anywhere else as a possibility.

Could Alba and Eck’s leading of it have been planned as far back as 2016 or so? And the fear of that is what prompted the attacks on him? I know this requires you to believe there was a conspiracy against him in the first place. But let’s assume there was. I always found it difficult to accept Nicola would have a motive. So he was planning a return to politics with the SNP. So what? Did she really think her position would be under threat? But what if his return was to set up a new party to challenge the SNPs monopoly on the Indy vote? Could that have initiated it all?

Anyway, it would’ve been interesting to have seen the impact of Alba back then, when Salmond’s stock was still high and his personal reputation unsullied. I think a supermajority then would have been highly achievable. Now? I don’t know.

(This is not a conspiracy theory, simply speculation). 🥸

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not usually a fan of cartoons but this one does sum up the madness of the current situation.

The GREENS are far too fringe to make this Supermajority happen in any meaningful way.

ALBA can but time is very short and petty politics is getting in the way. 

img515.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the last few days it seems to me that there is greatest areas of consensus that could be found are:

1. A pro-indy majority is the priority. An SNP majority or a 'supermajority' are optional extras, which different people will support for different reasons.

2. Less clear cut, but I wonder if the most common ground would be that to 'max the yes' means voting on the list for the pro-indy party most likely to win the list seat, rather than the party you happen to 'like' best.

The second is more difficult because it depends on second guessing who wins the constituency, as well as second guessing how the pro-indy list vote will split.

An alternative would be to just vote for who you think you would prefer to pick up the seat. This has the power of simplicity and avoids too much second guessing. It also means you won't regret it so much if things all go horribly wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately duncan the stitch-up of Salmond was initiated by Sturgeon and orchestrated by the people most close to her. Quite why she did that only Nicola really knows. Making this almost tragic is that it does seem most likely to be motivated by nothing more than the strong desire to stop Salmond's return to frontline politics. He was a threat to her leadership, at least in her mind.

Whatever the reason it is also the reason the SNP is now split. 

This is what makes what Salmond is doing here so extraordinary to me. Salmond is holding the independence movement together by making ALBA a regional party (where the SNP vote is wasted) but also far more crucially by advocating to ALBA supporters that they vote SNP1.

I can assure you getting those folks to vote SNP again is nothing short of a miracle, they are seriously pissed off with Sturgeon's SNP but by this idea of a supermajority Salmond has got most of them back on board for this election at least.

This is such an important moment for the independence movement.

Edited by thplinth
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, thplinth said:

If you look at the difference between the SNP constituency vote and the regional vote in 2016 the SNP shed just over 100,000 voters at the regional level versus the constituency level.

Constituency vote    1,059,898
Regional vote    953,587

This is matched by the GREENS vote in 2016

Constituency vote    13,172    
Regional vote    150,426

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Scottish_Parliament_election)

Now there will be various reasons for all of this of course but it does give you a ball-park indication that up to 100,000 SNP voters may have been tactically voting GREEN2.

The GREENS constituency vote is microscopic which also supports that theory.

Whatever the number I suspect this is the initial 3% of the regional vote we saw in the first poll voting ALBA.

It is way too early for anyone else to be showing I think.

edit: But I agree polls are generally a pile of utter shite so who truly knows. 

I would just like to add that a part of the reason that the Green Constituency vote was miniscule will be because they fielded hardly any candidates. But a fair amount of their regional votes will have been SNP tacticals. The main message I remember from the Greens in the last two elections was basically an appeal to SNP voters to lend them their 2nd votes in order to get a few more Indy MSPs. So, basically the same as ALBA tactics. But, as you say, the Green option comes with other stuff attached to it which, so far anyway, doesn't seem to appeal to enough SNP voters. ALBA is pretty much a single issue party and there is no doubt what their objective is. We will just have to wait and see if their appeal is big enough to make a difference. 

The thing SNP folk need to realise is that this is happening whether they like it or not. They can't stop it now. If ALBA get stuck on 3-4% it could potentially reduce the number of indy seats, so why not get behind the idea and try to push the ALBA numbers up to 10-12% or maybe higher. What have they got to lose? Alba aren't getting less than 3% unless they decide to withdraw at the last minute.

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...