Tuesday, November 26, 2019

My namesake's attempt to rig the next independence referendum by giving the No side a "sabotage-by-boycott" option

When I saw that James Kelly MSP was trying to add a 50% requirement to the Referendums Bill, I assumed he had jumped the shark completely and was saying that 50% of the total registered electorate would have to vote in favour of independence to make the result valid.  To put in perspective just how ridiculous that would be, if there was a 75% turnout, and if the result was 66% Yes, 34% No, the electorate would be deemed to have voted No.  And it's not at all fanciful that unionists would seek to load the dice in such an extreme way - only a couple of months ago, an anti-independence group in the north-east (with which Professor Hugh Pennington is involved) openly called for a two-thirds majority requirement.

But it turns out that Mr Kelly is playing a slightly subtler game.  His amendment would simply require that half of the registered electorate takes part in the referendum, irrespective of whether they vote Yes or No.  If they didn't, any Yes victory would be voided.  Superficially, that doesn't sound quite so unreasonable, because of course the turnout in the 2014 referendum was 85% - so surely there'd be no danger of a referendum of any real importance falling below the 50% threshold?

Well, here's the thing.  In 2014, in spite of that record-breaking turnout, and in spite of the fact that No won by a "decisive" margin (it must be true, because the BBC used that word about 70,000 times the following day), less than 47% of the registered electorate actually voted No.  If there had been a 50% turnout requirement for a No vote to be considered valid, pro-independence groups could have sabotaged the result by urging their supporters to abstain rather than vote Yes.

But of course Mr Kelly's intention is that only a Yes majority would be voided by his 50% rule.  A No majority on less than a 50% turnout would effectively be respected.  So if a future campaign was going against them, the No side would have the "sabotage-by-boycott" option open to them, but the Yes side wouldn't.

As the chap in the Question Time audience said the other night, the UK has become like Hotel California - we can check out any time we like, but we can never leave.

*  *  *

I have two more constituency previews in today's edition of The National - this time it's Stirling and Glenrothes.  (And these are honestly written by me, and not by the Labour list MSP for Glasgow.  We all have a cross to bear, and mine is my name...)

*  *  *

If you know of any independence and/or SNP supporters who might not have registered to vote yet, make sure they know that TONIGHT is the deadline.  They can register HERE.

73 comments:

  1. My deceased father was counted as having voted NO to devolution
    I remember this Unionist slimy trick from last time

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And wouldn't it be a bit of a lark to require half of all registered voters to vote Unite in the next Irish border poll? I'm sure that if the actual votes cast went, say, 56% for that option then we could all ignore the result and carry on regardless.

      Delete
    2. As reported in another place by HWMNBN. If the 40% rule had been in place in 2014 then No would have won without a single negative vote being cast. The Labour part and democracy have only a passing resemblance.

      Delete
  2. Since returning to Scotland seven years ago I have followed James Kelly MSP's antics with occasional interest. He appears to depend on blending his limited intelligence with an absence of ethical standards.The result is a stream of bitter, thin drivel. Brush him aside and move on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Johnson being openly racist again, like the 42% of English who openly admitted to deep racial hatred in the latest ICM poll.

    He says if the Tories win the election, he's going to block a section 30, which will stop blacks, jews and muslims voting.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50561993

    Boris Johnson has "guaranteed" blacks, Jews and Muslims will be prevented from voting if the Conservatives win the forthcoming general election.

    The prime minister claimed that the country had been "paralysed" by them over the past decade.

    And he pledged that any request by these groups to be able to vote would be rejected with "no negotiation".

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can sympathise with you having a charlatan using your name. I always claim the former Tory Whip and now Secretary of State for NI was named after me and not the other way round, because it says so on his birth certificate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Scottish Skier - have just read the link you posted re BBC and Johnson "guaranteed" blacks, Jews and Muslims" etc and can't find those quotes". Unless you are extrapolating from his comments re Scotland and no Indy2 vote. Please elucidate!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So one side needs exact quotes while the other side just lies. Then people say the listing dude has " more enthusiasm" and us " more likeable". Sorry it's a campaign sauce for goose is sauce for gander! Boris Johnson is going to persecute both Jews and Muslims.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I merely replaced Scots with these other groups, although British unionist parties are racist against jews and muslims too; turn on the news and see. Scots suffer the greatest degree of racism however, as plans to remove the vote only apply to them so far. The deep English hatred for Scots is particulary evident in that racism against Jews and Muslims at least gets some press attacks. Plan to remove the vote from Scots however is not considered an issue at all.

      Delete
    3. A wee bit of persecution against the majority leave vote seems alright in the eyes of the EU remainers.

      Delete
    4. Not sure the analogy really works. He's not stating that he's going to "remove the vote" from Scots. We'll still be able to vote just as much as anyone else can.

      Delete
    5. People in Iran have full voting rights as well, but their choices are circumscribed. That's the way we're heading. We can only vote for the options our London masters have graciously pre-approved.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous David Cameron already decided we Scots are not equal in the Palace of Westminster, as the English MP,s can vote on all SCottish laws in Parliament but we Scots are banned from voting on English laws means a Scot can no longer be PM and perhaps have any senior post in government. Its OK I know it says strictly English laws that have no effect on Scottish laws as most of them will and do its a moot law I just thought amazing how Cameron conned them.

      Delete
  6. BillfromBoston - don't know if you are addressing me but if you are you can be assured that although I never post on here I am 100% committed to Scotland's cause and it's rightful independence! If Boris Johnson made these remarks then it is right that they are aired to expose Johnson for what we all know he is. If, however these remarks can not be stood up the post by Skier is dangerous and leaves us open to all sorts of accusations, which if you lived here, you would know is commonplace even if untrue. There is one rule for unionists and constant persecution of independence supporters. Hope I may have misunderstood your post!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have thought the use of the words 'Section 30' and the very obvious related changes made would have given the game away.

      However, the threats of no Section 30 / Scottish referendum are pure and simple racist hatred, which I was illustrating simply by changing the name of the minority group suffering from that.

      Delete
    2. That could be an oxymoron.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, Skier, misunderstood/misread your post earlier. Been under lots of pressure today and rarely post but was worried about what i mistakenly perceived as giving the unionists a big stick with which to beat us ..... again!!!

      Delete
    4. Just making a point! Or not making by being to snarky! All good!

      Delete
  7. 42 to 30 lead for the SNP over the Tories with today's YouGov. Their seat model is out tomorrow evening I think so it should give us an idea of tactical voting for or against the SNP in individual seats.

    Tories getting close to or exceeding 2017 could see tactical losses from the SNP to them, so that's one to watch at this stage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From memory, the previous subsample had the Tories on the low-ish side at 25%, so 30% may be on the high-ish side, and the true position may be close to Panelbase's figure of 28%. I'm not sure it's going to be that easy for the Tories to make gains purely on tactical voting - they're nowhere near as "transfer-friendly" as the Lib Dems

      Delete
    2. Sad young James that tactical voting is now the norm. As usual I will vote Labour. We still have a few socialists left in the Party.

      Delete
    3. Your vote for second brexit referendum is duly noted GWC.

      It's your right, and nothing wrong with that.

      Delete
    4. I will be voting in a British General Election.

      Delete
    5. If you are in NI, it is looking like your last one.

      Delete
  8. Earlier today Bojo 'guaranteed' there would not be an Indy Ref2. I wish someone had asked him what he would do to prevent one should it proceed anyway without a Section 30 order.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would not allow unlawful polling stations. The Nat sis know a bit about disregarding election results.

      Delete
    2. Says someone voting for a second brexit referendum.

      Delete
    3. You said you were voting for Labour who have a clear manifesto commitment to second referendum.

      If that comes to pass, it will be because you and others voted for it.

      Delete
    4. I would not refrain from voting Labour because of one item I disagree with. It is highly unlikely Labour will form a national government if the polls are anything to go by. Do remember you Nat sis voted to retain the monarchy and remain in NATO although the majority were against.

      Delete
    5. Ok, but you are still voting for brexit ref 2.

      Delete
    6. Here you go.

      https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/the-final-say-on-brexit/

      Labour will give the people the final say on Brexit. Within three months of coming to power, a Labour government will secure a sensible deal. And within six months, we will put that deal to a public vote alongside the option to remain. A Labour government will implement whatever the people decide.

      Delete
    7. Disgraceful to see GWC pathetically licking the boots of his fash EU masters. Should we just keep voting until we give the result they want, GWC?

      Delete
  9. Could the so-called Scottish LibDems not find a Scottish farmer for their TV broadcast tonight?
    Swinson in a sweat, taking the SNP to court over a leaflet.
    Disaster for LibDems to lose their leader when she was a shoo-in for PM eh!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi scobladi is the YouGov poll a subsample or full Scottish one? Aslo is this SNP slipping back too?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a subsample, and 42% is well within the SNP's normal range. The Tories have gained at the expense of the Brexit Party.

      Delete
  11. Skier, Jewish woman Corbyn supporter on Chanel 4 News has just said 139000 people had died due to austerity. When asked where she got the figures from, she replied, the Papers. Could she have read the National!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you fancy coming to the pictures with me to see Downtown Abbey?

      Delete
  12. Brexit party votes going to Tories. SNP will probably gain a few seats off Labour. Shame because many of those voting Tory only doing so to get Brexit done.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I see that the SNP think its ok to lie about and political opponents in official campaign material; luckily the Scottish Courts are there to stop them lying to the voters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure this will change everything. For years to come, people will look back at today as the moment swinson's campaign turned around and unionism was resurgent.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50565209

      "Roddy Dunlop QC told the court earlier that a director of Warwick Energy, a...company which holds licences for fracking, had made the £14,000 donation in a personal capacity to Ms Swinson's constituency office."

      Sounds like a fracking company to me, but the law can be picky.

      Delete
    2. How much has the former Tory supporting busman given to the Scottish Nat sis.

      Delete
    3. Seeing as she more than likely going to win her seat her local campaign (which this case revolves around) seems to be doing ok so does not need turning around.

      Anyhow aside from that, my main point that the SNP thinks its ok to lie to the electorate is factually correct.

      Delete
    4. The Nat sis are not caring about the loss at court it is the mud flying and sticking that is more important. They are just as nasty as the rest.

      Delete
    5. Can you point out the line in the ruling where it says the SNP were lying? I can't see anything.

      Lying requires intent / conspiracy to deceive. To conclude this, there would need to be evidence that the SNP team producing the leaflet knew the statements to be false and the intent was to mislead. I can't see anything to this effect presented.

      As far as I can seen, the judge just ruled some parts factually incorrect and therefore potentially defamatory, even if these were honestly stated.

      I hope you are not lying here.

      I await the appropriate lines from the judgement.

      Delete
    6. But Lord Pentland said a statement on the leaflet was false in substance

      A synonym of false is lie, therefore it is correct for me to say that the SNP were lying.

      But if we want to stick to the exact word used 'false'
      False = not true, but made to seem true in order to deceive people.

      I'm more than happy to say that the SNP think its ok to deceive the electorate if you think that sounds better. Of course this means that it was a deliberate action:
      deceive: deliberately cause (someone) to believe something that is not true.

      Of course deliberate = carefully weighed or considered; studied; intentional:

      So showing that there was intent involved. You agree that lying requires intent, so i'm assuming that you have no issues with the word lying being used.

      Delete
    7. No, you appear to be lying here. Or maybe you are being honest, but just giving information that is false in substance unknowingly.

      A false statement does not mean it was a lie. A statement can be false but made honestly in the belief that it was true. This happens all the time. Good, honest people give out information they think is the truth, yet it turns out to be wrong simply by accident or misunderstanding. They are not liars.

      You have presented no evidence there was deliberate attempt to deceive by the SNP, and the court evidence does not show that either. Quite the opposite.

      The court only concluded that some of the information was not factually correct (e.g. the 10k from the fracking company was to 'her office', not to her personally), therefore should not be printed.

      There was no conclusion that the SNP were lying, which is why you can't provide the appropri

      ate quotes.

      The judge has not ruled the SNP were lying. Your statement was false. Potentially a lie.

      Delete
    8. Jo Swindon's lawyers wanted to stop the leaflet going out. For that, all the court had to do was decide whether the information was actually 100% accurate or not. And that's what it did. The conclusion was no. The donation was to her office, not her personally, and legally that's key. Morals are not for the court to decide.

      The court did not conclude on whether the SNP were intentionally misleading (lying), nor if defamation had occurred. Instead, the court clearly stated that concluding as such would require a defamation case, which Jo Swindon could pursue based on the fact the leaflet was a false statement.

      This is what I am honestly reading.

      Delete
    9. Seeing as she more than likely going to win her seat her local campaign (which this case revolves around) seems to be doing ok so does not need turning around.

      She was always and remains likely to win her seat, but it's fair to say the chances of an upset have increased a bit over the last few weeks, no?

      Delete
    10. I'll take your point on lying so will go on the ruling:
      But Lord Pentland said a statement on the leaflet was false in substance
      as i said above
      False = not true, but made to seem true in order to deceive people
      deceive: deliberately cause (someone) to believe something that is not true

      So a factual and fair statement is that the SNP deliberately set out to deceive the electorate with a statement on the leaflet.

      Think that accurately sums up the situation.

      Delete
    11. Please provide a link to where the ruling states the SNP set out intentionally to deceive. I cannot find this. Google searching the words Swindon and 'false in substance' and I get hits. 'Deceive' yields no results.

      This was not defamation case. It looks like you are either wrong or lying.

      False = not true.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_statement

      A false statement is a statement that is not true. Although the word fallacy is sometimes used as a synonym for false statement, that is not how the word is used in philosophy, mathematics, logic and most formal contexts.

      A false statement need not be a lie. A lie is a statement that is known to be untrue and is used to mislead. A false statement is a statement that is untrue but not necessarily told to mislead, as a statement given by someone who does not know it is untrue.


      Anyway, I think we are done. The SNP have not been found to be lying/defaming Jo from Swindon. However, you seem to be a liar from the evidence in hand.

      What people do know is that Swindon is happy to commit the genocide of millions of innocent people without hesitation. That and her office welcomes large donations from companies in the fracking industry.

      Delete
    12. I think the judge was correct in his findings - the SNP constituency office should have told it like it is rather than 'sexing it up'. However, I think the coverage in the media -including the BBC - of the link with fracking will reach more people than the dustbin bound leaflet anyway.

      Delete
    13. Why are using Wikipedia to get find out a meaning of word, you use a dictionary for that, even my 5 year old understands that:
      False: not true, but made to seem true in order to deceive people
      https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/false

      So the Scottish courts have found the SNP guilty of trying to deceive the electorate.

      Delete
    14. The court did not rule the SNP are 'lying'. The court ruled a single sentence in the leaflet was of 'false substance', i.e. not correct. No ruling was made on intent to deceive, and no reference was made to the definition you link to, which is one of many. My wikipedia link doesn't need to be in the ruling as it simply stands as self evident. The judge made no call on intent to deceive as this would be defamatory itself without evidence.

      That's it. You are just a liar it would appear, and it is lying that will cost unionists another election according to polls.

      Why not just speak the truth for once and accept a sentence in the SNP leaflet was not factually correct and that's all that's been decided?

      Here is the real vote swinging stuff.

      https://twitter.com/VictoriaLIVE/status/1144186897943519233

      After watching this, Scots will conclude that the SNP were right, and legal semantics won. Which is what happened it would appear.

      Delete
    15. But Lord Pentland said a statement on the leaflet was false in substance

      Again False: not true, but made to seem true in order to deceive people

      So the SNP published a leaflet that set out to deceive the public. Doesn't matter if it was once sentence or 100. This is correct based on what the judge said and the definition of the word 'False'.

      Delete
    16. Here's the definition false:

      false
      /fɔːls,fɒls/
      Learn to pronounce
      adjective
      1.
      not according with truth or fact; incorrect.

      The ruling doesn't including the words 'liars' or 'lying', as per your original post. Sorry.

      Delete
    17. I'm going to end this by saying it's really incredible how hard it is for some unionists to just be honest.

      The SNP loses a court case clearly. They had a sentence which, while true in a broad, moral sense (the fracking company director donations to Swindon's office are all over the news), was not legally correct. So they lost the case and the leaflet is withdrawn. A clear victory for Swindon.

      So why the need to lie when you've won? Why the need to put words into the mouths ('lying') of the judge? I really don't get this inability to just be honest, even in the fact of victory.

      Lying has done so much damage to unionism that Yes is now ~50%, yet they persist.

      Och well, carry on I suppose!

      Delete
    18. You seem to of ignored the fact that I took your point about the word 'lying' and my last to posts have how the Judge stated in his ruling that the SNP had decived people, this is a fact based on the defination of the word 'False'
      False: not true, but made to seem true in order to deceive people

      On a side note can you explain why you think I am unionist; I cant remember ever mentioning that?

      Delete
  14. Swinson is to the right of many of the Conservatives, I'd argue she is comfortably to the right of Ruth Davidson.

    She supports fracking- (she doesn't even live in Scotland), and it would appear she is happy to accept donations from people from the fracking industry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now be careful here, her constituency office greatly welcomes donations from companies which hold fracking licenses.

      That, however, is not the same as her as an MP personally taking donations from fracking companies!

      Best not sully that good name!

      Delete
    2. If Swindles constituency office is in receipt of stolen goods or money gained from illegal sources then the person who benefits from such largess can only be swindle herself, not her staff. Yet again the legal establishment in Scotland fails to uphold the law in their support of Yoons.

      Delete
    3. It is because of Nat si pricks like you that the yoons vote the way they do. Do try something original like Yoon blood profile tests to see if they are true celts. We Unionists have the same concerns as British Jews have with Labour.

      Delete
    4. I have a merchant banker's licence.

      Delete
    5. We've started fracking under yer hoose. We've sampled your muck.

      Complain and you will feel the full force of the law - you... dirty... old... man.

      Delete
    6. KNOB @11:21am. You do not need a license to be a wanker.

      Delete
    7. Rupprecht von HentzauNovember 27, 2019 at 1:58 PM

      Exactly. GWC doesn't need one and he's an expert at it.

      Delete
  15. GWC..

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.wikihow.com/Get-a-Life%3famp=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adam James McPhersonNovember 27, 2019 at 7:40 PM

      When my Uncle Tommy was going to the toilet he always said I'm off to the plop shop. Lena always said Don't buy anything. We always laughed. Priceless.

      Delete
  16. Best for Britain new MRP data;
    Seat data:

    gallery.mailchimp.com/a706d4e03dc82629db3f7acf9/files/ae6c2fb1-48aa-4c6f-8a3d-b5f8fd958956/Best_for_Britain_Recommendation_Seats.pdf

    Scotland only seems to have Tory 2017 seats and some marginals shown. SNP gain Ochil (Stirling not polled) only. SNP and Green vote bigger than LD's in Edinburgh W and Duns E. And Labour holding Edinburgh S and surprisingly Glasgow N E.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Here I go again, moan again,the bloggs date is Tuesday 26th, today's date Thursday 28th why am I always at the "coo's tail ?"

    ReplyDelete