Thursday, November 28, 2019

Options for pro-independence voters in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath

I almost banged my head against the wall in frustration when I discovered that the SNP are not even going to be campaigning in a key target seat.  There are a very limited number of constituencies that the SNP have a high probability of gaining, most of them Labour-held, and I don't think they can afford to be giving Labour a bye in even one of them.  Candidates should be vetted properly before the deadline for nominations, and after that point they should be able to expect that the party will stand by them, unless they turn out to be serial killers or something.  I've been told that the SNP don't have the manpower to check every single social media post going back years, but if we're talking about something so obscure and old that it wasn't found during vetting, that might be a pretty good sign that "political death by ancient social media history" wasn't actually appropriate in this case.

The problem goes deeper than the fact that Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath is in all likelihood going to be needlessly held by Labour.  There are only 59 constituencies in Scotland, which means that each one (apart from the two smallest ones) have just under 2% of the national population.  This is going to negatively affect both the SNP's national vote share and the overall national vote share for pro-independence parties.  Before today, I would have criticised the Greens' foolishness for standing in a very tight Labour-SNP marginal like this, but it's just as well they've done so, because at least it gives independence supporters in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath an additional option if they feel they can't back Neale Hanvey.  In all honesty, if I was in that constituency, I'd still vote for Hanvey, because it'll count towards the overall SNP vote tally, and he's probably not going to win anyway.

*  *  *

UPDATE: I've slightly altered the wording of this blogpost, because I noticed there was quite a bit of confusion in the comments section about what has happened and what the implications are.  To be clear: although the SNP have withdrawn support from Neale Hanvey, he remains on the ballot paper as the SNP candidate, and any votes cast for him will be fully counted by the media as SNP votes.  Therefore, if you want to maximise the SNP's national vote share, the best option is to vote for him.  Additionally, it's almost certain that he'll receive more votes in the constituency than the Green candidate (simply because he'll have "SNP" by his name), so if you want to vote tactically for the pro-independence candidate most likely to win, Hanvey is the correct choice.  Defeating Labour is probably a long shot now, but he's the only person who can conceivably do it.  Interestingly, on the betting markets, Labour are only marginal favourites to win the seat at the moment, so who knows.

In the event that Hanvey is elected, he would in the first instance become a pro-indy independent MP, because he would automatically be deprived of the SNP whip.  However, it's theoretically possible that he could become an official SNP MP after a few weeks or months if his suspension is eventually lifted.

*  *  *

I have two more constituency profiles in The National - this time it's Angus and Inverclyde.

116 comments:

  1. I would do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  2. James, I think you're missing the point that if the SNP had tried to stand by Hanvey, the media would (justifiably) have hounded them for the next two weeks about it. That would potentially have cost them a lot more than one seat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to say I think you're wrong. In the long run this just stores up greater problems, because it's effectively saying that any party can be taken out of the game in any constituency if their candidate is found not to have a spotless social media history over their entire lifespan. (With the definition of what constitutes 'spotless' becoming ever more extreme.) Opponents will just store up offending posts from 2006 or whenever and then pounce after nominations close. Clearly they have the manpower to do really thorough checks.

      Delete
    2. Not really, judging by the number of Labour and Tory candidates who have been disowned in the last week or so.

      Delete
    3. But were any of those in winnable seats?

      Delete
    4. No. Hopefully the media give the SNP a little credit for making a real sacrifice in this case. I know that's a bit naive / much to hope for, but the alternative strategy (standing by Hanvey) would have overshadowed the rest of the campaign. Particularly as Sturgeon made comments yesterday criticising Corbyn for his handling of anti-semitism.

      Delete
    5. I can honestly say that even before today I thought it was a mistake for the SNP to follow the right-wing media down that road. I don't think Corbyn is anti-Semitic, but I do think it suits people to conflate his support for Palestinian rights with anti-Semitism.

      Delete
    6. There's a great deal of Witch Huntery going on and plenty of willing volunteers scanning any candidates history for any sign of anything they can concoct into a complaint against an enemy party and the media love it because they can lay the blame on the party and make a big story of it but you notice the candidate who is or was the offender is forgotten about quicker than where you disposed of yesterdays chip paper

      We've stuck ourselves with the modern day *I'm faux offended* brigade and can't get rid of them now

      Delete
    7. So if I share a cartoon of V Putin as an international puppet master then that's fine and dandy. But it he converts to judaism then I'm now an anti-semite for having shared said previously fine cartoon?

      Soros is an international Billionaire who uses his ill gotten gains to interfere the affairs of other countries. Why should he be protected because he's a jew? Epstein was a jew. Weinstein is a jew. R Maxwell, a jew.

      If you have a class of criminals who can never be exposed then you don't live in any kind of democracy.

      Delete
    8. Its interesting to see who gets witchhunted and who doea't. Who gets ignotred plus people who get to step aside then re-enter

      Delete
    9. So if I share a cartoon of V Putin as an international puppet master then that's fine and dandy. But it he converts to judaism then I'm now an anti-semite for having shared said previously fine cartoon?

      The "trope" is more about the race than the religion. AFAIK Soros isn't practicing.

      Delete
  3. Irrespective of the chances of winning it was the correct decision to with draw support given what has been alleged. Conservatives and Labour have acted similarly in other seats. The fact that these candidates had little chance of winning does not detract from the commendable actions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Irrespective of the chances of winning it was the correct decision to with draw support given what has been alleged."

      Unless we're talking about a kangaroo court, wrongdoing needs to be more than "alleged" before we can conclude that it was the correct decision.

      Delete
    2. N Hanvey spoke up against the TWAW fascist twins sturgeon and somerville. Now his career is in ruins. If you think this has anything to do with protecting jew bigots who overthrow democracies for fun then I have a giant bagel made of bacon for you.

      Delete
    3. Hello, Cordelia. Drinking again, I see.

      Delete
  4. After the Labour candidate speech in Renfrewshire East, the constituency with the largest Jewish population in Scotland, I believe, Kirsten Oswald's decision (as SNP business manager)to suspend Hanvey might attract Labour votes to her there that might otherwise have gone to the Tories. Might there be a slight silver lining in increasing our chances of a gain from the Tories even at the expense of giving up a Labour seat? And shouldn't we now be wholeheartedly be asking SNP voters in Kirkcaldy to back the Green candidate?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the Green candidate would get more that a few extra per cent if we did. I would just leave things upto the voters. The core SNP vote will vote SNP.

      Delete
    2. But there will be no SNP candidate to vote for, surely?

      Delete
    3. As explained below, technically there will be. The fact that Neale Hanvey will be on the ballot paper, and will be listed as the SNP candidate, is already set in stone and cannot be changed. Any votes he receives will be fully counted by the media as SNP votes.

      Delete
  5. "It is alleged Hanvey, a former SNP group leader on Fife council, circulated an article from the Kremlin-backed news agency Sputnik in August 2016 about the Hungarian financier George Soros, illustrated with an image showing him holding puppets of world leaders".

    Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to exactly why this is anti-semitic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a common anti-semitic trope that Jews control governments via big business and finance, and Soros is Jewish.

      Delete
    2. Sad you Nat sis cannot just vote on policy. The candidates are there to represent all constituents not just the narrow backs that support them. I agree about the anti-semetic stuff it is getting out of hand.

      Delete
    3. If this is true, could we quickly investigate and come to a conclusion so, if appropriate, he could be exonerated in a few days, going on to hopefully win the seat?

      Delete
    4. No, because that is indefensible. It's clearly anti-semitic.

      Delete
    5. Rich people control governments via big business and finance. The fact that Soros is Jewish might have nothing to do with it. Hence I think some context is needed. And if this was the only thing he's been suspended for, it's quite frankly, pathetic.

      Delete
    6. The Scottish Sun supported the Scottish Nat sis and the English Sun supported the Tories. Clearly the owner thought both were reliable Capitalist parties that would look after the rich.

      Delete
    7. NH himself seems pretty contrite. Does that count for nothing among people who are getting outraged on his behalf?

      Soros is an obsession of alt-right types because they see him as a benefactor of "socialist" causes worldwide. My eyes roll when I see left-wing folk sharing such crap.

      Delete
    8. Hanvey's statement is very well-judged and possibly the best I've ever seen in a situation of this sort, but I suspect he's been advised that he had to say something like that if he was to have any chance at all of a future within the SNP. If you look at his subsequent tweets and retweets, you'll get a truer sense of his feelings.

      Delete
  6. There should be the same standards for all parties (and really for public life and society as a whole). If we'd expect someone from Labour and Tory to go down for this, then the same had to apply to any other party.

    I understood that the SNP had checked with Jewish advisors about the matter and concluded it was anti-Semitic and it would be seem wrong, as well as bad politics, to stand by the candidate.

    It is of course very inconvenient timing that this came to light just a day after after Sturgeon being specifically probed on her view on this issue (well there is no convenient time, yesterday would hardly be good either).

    NS had to walk a fine line between on the one hand saying anti-Semitism was unacceptable, while on the other hand justifying why she could justifiable prop up a Corbyn government accused of anti-Semitism. So as I saw it, she focused on Corbyn's poor leadership on the issue, (ie implying she didn't think he was personally anti-Semitic so it was OK to deal with him). So the press managed to extract that good leadership was essential on this point. So the very next day, she could hardly wobble but the only course politically was to come down strictly on the matter.

    Of course the wider issue is the problem of anti-semitism in the first place, irrespective of party affiliation and sometimes you have to look above the party political struggle and see the bigger picture.

    I thought the guy would be standing as an independent candidate though, (don't we vote for candidates not parties?) meaning, the vote would not count as SNP votes. Maybe that could be confirmed?

    I'd have thought the map turning Green - if it was possible - would be a greater visible endorsement of independence than it remaining red. And even if it's unlikely the Greens would win, lending the Greens some votes to tuck in their pocket could be a sort of payback for them not standing in seats where they could have easily cost SNP actual seats.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I understood that the SNP had checked with Jewish advisors about the matter and concluded it was anti-Semitic"

      The thing is that a disciplinary procedure has to be fair to both the complainant(s) and the person under investigation. We're getting very close to the point where both verdict and punishment is being contracted out. By all means the SNP should listen to Jewish leaders on a matter like this and take their views extremely seriously, but that should be an input into the final adjudication, rather than becoming the adjudication itself. If Mr Hanvey had an alternative explanation for the posts, that should have been considered as well. (And hopefully it was, although the explanation of the process didn't give that impression.)

      Delete
    2. "meaning, the vote would not count as SNP votes"

      He'll have SNP by his name on the ballot paper and I can promise you the media will count any votes for him as SNP votes. He'd only become an independent if he's actually elected.

      There's no point in a concerted campaign to get the Green elected, because as Marcia pointed out, it would be doomed to failure. However, I'm glad there's a Green candidate, because at least it means independence supporters won't be forced to abstain or vote Labour if they can't bring themselves to vote for Hanvey.

      Delete
  7. I think this decision to suspend the candiadte is another knee jerk reaction that comes across as "being seen to be doing the right thing".

    There is a danger here that is obvious, in that if all it takes for someone to be suspended from a political party is to make an accusation against then, then you have handed your political opponenents a weapon they can and will use against you.

    Why hasn't Jeremy Corbyn been suspended yet from the Labour party considering the number of accusations made against him?

    What if the next accusation of is against Nicola Sturgeon or any other senior SNP politician, should they be suspended immediately?

    An accusation of anti any religeon or one of racism surely needs more than a single example of a retweet or sharing of an article from sometime in the distant past. That certainly wouldn't be enough to get you found guilty in a court, there would need to be numerous examples over a period of time before you could accuse anyone of such things?

    Obviously there are those that see things completely differently than I do, I still believe in innocent until proven guilty. I know this would take time but I'd hope that an initial investigation could be heard in such circumstances over a maximum of a day or two. If it's found that the evidence known so far warrants futher investigation then by all means suspend the accused, else the matter should be deferred as the evidence provided at this stage is too flimsy.

    That goes for all parties, though other parties seem to brush off more blatant examples of inappropriate behaviour and their party brushes them off. Maybe some guidelines that all parties should follow are required over this, otherwise it's a crapshoot as to the punishement dealt on the accused and depends on which party you are a member of as to how it will be handled.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has issued a statement that you can read on twitter which I thought was gracious enough. Actually it might give him publicity and a sympathy vote.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for that Marcia, clearly no anti-Semitism was meant as he really didn't know his religion when he posted.

      Like me, I remember George Soros as the billionaire financier who forced the UK out or the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992 and made another billion in the process.

      So he did manage to pull the strings of the UK government at least. Anyway, I always thought he was Greek simply because of his name and never knew he was Jewish.

      Why would I, since it's not something I consider necessary to know before forming an opinion on the actions people take? I think the majority of people will be much the same as me too when it comes to that, you don't judge anyone by their religion but simply by their actions.

      Same goes for politicians and governments who are all due criticism when their actions merit it.

      Delete
    3. I can't really see what the antisemitism was from what the BBC is reporting. Looks like the usual 'Don't criticize anyone Jewish or Isreal as that makes you an anti-Semite' stuff.

      Tories are openly racist to us Scots all the time and that's all fine. Hell, they are talking about taking the vote of Scottish people. It's a manifesto pledge!

      Jews are not facing that. In fact the Chief Rabbi apparently backs taking the vote away from Scots as he's called for folks to vote Tory. I think he needs to explain how that's not extremely racist.

      I'm sure I'll get called transphobic for this post.

      Delete
    4. I don't understand the point about taking away Scots' votes in a racist manner.

      Stepping aside from party politics and procedures, it seems reasonable to take Jewish advice on anti-Semitism (which is not to say there is only one view)

      Delete
    5. Taking advice is one thing. Effectively contracting out the verdict on a disciplinary matter, therefore meaning that the person being investigated has not been treated fairly, is another thing entirely.

      Delete
    6. You should see the 'working definition of antisemitism':

      https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism

      "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination"

      The Tories are denying the Scottish people the right to self determination. Or at least saying they will. The chief rabbi - who was attacking Labour for racism - is cheering on the Tories. Oh the irony!

      I think accusations of racism should be judged impartially by a neutral party. This called 'being given a fair trail'.

      As the charge is racism, we have all Jewish people on one side vs our accused on the other. Ergo, jews are not neutral, so cannot be consulted with as such. The definition of racism cannot be made by them, but must be defined by a neutral party.

      Delete
    7. Isn't that something?

      "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination"

      Surely then by the same definition Johnson and Corbyn are anti-Scots and that then should be defined as a hate crime as they are denying a people the right to choose self determination?

      Delete
    8. That line of course continues as follows:

      Contemporary examples of anti-Scottish racism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to...

      ...Denying the Scottish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Scotland is a racist [e.g. anti-English] endeavor


      Which is a particular one we are all used to.

      Delete
    9. I'll also add to my earlier comment..

      If the actions concerned were not antisemitism, then why are Jewish people being consulted at all? It has absolutely nothing to do with the Jewish community. It's only if the comments were antisemitic, do Jews become involved as victims. But even then, there is no need to involve the Jewish community as antisemitism has already been concluded, and a neutral party should alone decide what action should be taken.

      We cannot allow groups or individuals to personally decide what is a hate crime against them. That's utterly mad. A hate crime could then be defined as anything the person wants it to be. Like e.g. quoting the dictionary definition of woman or transwoman....

      Delete
  8. If the SNP were going to win here, they probably still will. I have a feeling this incident while unfortunate isn't going to move the needle as much as you might think

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you'll be surprised. My view is that the SNP would need to be in 2015-style blowout territory before Hanvey would have a chance of being elected now, and even then the odds would be against it. It's not totally impossible, I'll grant you that.

      Delete
    2. Neil Hay was crucified in 2015GE - and his family hounded by journos - for a no more than slightly bad taste tweet from 2014. Even the 2015 blowout didn't get him across the line, and if anything the full-on Labour/media attack on him laid the foundation for securing Murrays seat since then.

      Delete
  9. Looks like Johnson's too chickenshit to go on the Andrew Neil show.

    How can England/Britain possibly hope survive independence if they are that cowardly?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought you Nat sis hated Andrew Neil. In any case why is Neil held in such regard that politicians must attend his show. The man is an old Tory.

      Delete
  10. His comments were at worst crass and insensitive. The humility in his subsequent statement speaks volumes - give the guy a chance, let the electorate be judge and jury.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Things are very hazy with this anti-semitic issue. Where is the hard evidence? Is mere criticism of the state of Isreal or of zionism considered to be anti-semitic> We need to know. we really do. Perhaps the only way to settle this is through the courts. Hopefully someone will be brave enough to challenge these claims. I for one jus cannot see evidence of real anti-semitism. Crticism of Isreal and zionism yes, but anti-semitism?t remain to be convinced.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Luigi stick to making ica De crema and worshipping El Duchi.
      The problem with Labour is they have forgotten that they are supposed to represent the British working classes but are more interested in foreign issues.

      Delete
    2. Drinking again, Cordelia? It isn't even lunchtime.

      Delete
  12. Is this for fuckin real? It is clearly a party infiltrated by the agents of the Brit State if this is for real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure if it's true, but I've seen one or two people say that Hanvey was reported by someone within the SNP. Given that he's clearly identified with the Joan McAlpine side of the trans debate, you do have to wonder if the intention was to get him out of the way because of that. If so, some people have completely lost the plot. If there's one time when all shades of opinion within the SNP should be pulling together, it's right now.

      Delete
    2. The Nat sis have infiltrated themselves without the help of the British State. You have Nat sis supporting all sorts of dictatorial regimes like China and Russia. RTA is probably the most supportive TV chanel for Jocko independence because they want to weaken the UK.

      Delete
  13. Anyone know what he was guilty of?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently there were a few posts, but what I find most worrying is that one of them was apparently him simply sharing an article from the Sputnik news agency that contained an image that could be construed as anti-Semitic. If people can have their political careers ended for posting a link they haven't checked carefully enough...well, that's getting into McCarthyite territory in my opinion.

      Delete
    2. Not believing in God will soon be deemed anti British like the loonys in America
      When people faux outrage themselves to promote causes whether genuine or not they're digging a future hole for themselves as they'll be the next victims of their own ridiculous behaviour

      Delete
    3. Booby looby loonys

      Delete
  14. Apparently if you support a Palestinian state, you are considered to be anti-semitic. No kiddng. Little wonder that many lefties in the Labor party are getting into trouble over this. That's how ridiculous things have become. Strike "ridiculous" and replace with "sinister".

    ReplyDelete
  15. Big finance capitalists undoubtedly use their money power to manipulate democratic outcomes - that, on its own, makes them enemies of political progressives. Ethnicity is no defense in this like it is no defense for the conduct of the Israeli state against Palestinians.

    Anti Semitism is vile and anti human as is all racism. That truth is dishonestly used by some as a smokescreen to cover the political manipulations mentioned.

    The situation has been made worse by the witch hunting atmosphere that social media and 'reality' media encourage to create sensation and attract attention. While people feed these monsters by turning a blind eye to what they enable it will continue, grow and damage any chances of human progress.

    A wee example lies in the moronic, caricature racism and political name calling (e.g. "Nat sis") that are tolerated from a couple nitwits on this site. Repetition eventually achieves acceptability.

    We're in a major mess with this stuff. Those who have the buttons enabling them to nibble at its edges should do so. The right to free speech doesn't entitle people to drip feed us with venom !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With all the conflicts that continually go on in the world it does not go unnoticed that certain groups tend to dwell on Israel thus the anti semetic claim.

      Delete
    2. People can focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as much as they like. That is not how racism is defined. Many academics have studied this their entire careers.

      According to the Holocaust Remembrance working definition of antisemitism, to accuse people of racism without foundation is inherently racist.

      It is also, I quote:

      "Denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination...is a racist endeavor."

      Delete
  16. How many postal votes are already in? Perhaps NH should proceed as an independent and carry on campaigning. His apology was fulsome enough. The alternative is to go Green. Both are options but if loads of SNP votes are already in changing horses mid stream will fail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ask Colonel Windbag. She and her team of activists in Chipping Pishbury are filling them in and counting them as we speak.

      Delete
  17. Another poll hinting at Labour closing the gap on the Tories UK-wide.

    Britain Elects


    @britainelects
    9m9 minutes ago
    More
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 42% (-)
    LAB: 34% (+2)
    LDEM: 13% (-1)
    BREX: 4% (+1)
    GRN: 3% (+1)

    via @PanelbaseMD, 27 - 28 Nov
    Chgs. w/ 22 Nov

    If English remain voters do largely what they did last time, they can deny Johnson is majority and delay brexit once again.

    They just need to vote tactically for the Lib Dems or Labour depending on where they are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting snippet from the poll is that NS has a net favourable rating UK wide from Labour and Lib Dem voters. Tories are most agin.

      Delete
  18. I don't think I would vote for Neale Hanvey, regardless of whether he's in with a chance of winning. Most folk would reflexively recognise portraying George Soros as a puppet-master as genuinely anti-Semitic. It's in a different league from someone discussing Palestine, getting wound up about an emotive topic, and accidentally causing offence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's just not true though. Most people don't know who Soros even is, never mind that he's Jewish.

      I do know who he his, but didn't genuinely know, nor care, that he's Jewish apparently. But then I'm not racist, so to not know, nor care, is natural for me, and is the case for most people. If you are not racist, the religion of other people is irrelevant to you. It just doesn't figure in your thinking or what you say.

      If in contrast someone is very knowledgeable on the religions of other people, it's pretty disturbing to be honest. Why exactly is this of importance to them?

      Thinking about this, is Sturgeon religious? I don't honestly know nor care, and I've been voting SNP for 25 years. Maybe I found this out in the past by accident and have just forgotten; possibly the same for Soros. Because I'm not a bigot/racist, so the information is not carefully stored in my brain.

      Delete
    2. In fact non-racists are much more likely to get caught in incidents like the case in hand precisely because they are not racist. For them, an image of Soros has absolutely no link to religion. It is in the mind of the racist where his face immediately conjures up the word 'jew'.

      Delete
    3. He is still on the ballot and if I was in that seat I would still vote for him. I would expect a lot of local members or those disagreeing with the suspension will still be campaigning. Greens have no chance and will be lucky to save their deposit.

      Delete
    4. "If in contrast someone is very knowledgeable on the religions of other people, it's pretty disturbing to be honest. Why exactly is this of importance to them?"

      If someone holds a sincere religious belief, it is very likely to have a profound effect on their view of the world and how it works. That's relevant in a number of areas, like politics. I would want to know e.g. if a candidate for office believes that an omnipotent entity will punish legislators who vote a certain way.

      Delete
    5. "If someone holds a sincere religious belief, it is very likely to have a profound effect on their view of the world and how it works."

      For sure, but you vote for them based on the second bit, not the first bit. Basing your vote for someone on their religion is racist, basing it on the policies they advocate, even if these derive from religious belief, is not.

      Ergo, to me their religion is irrelevant. Only the policies they support. I will not make assumptions here either based on their religion, as that is the very definition of racism. I will base decisions based on what I actually know they support, assuming it's important to me.

      Delete
    6. "I will not make assumptions here either based on their religion, as that is the very definition of racism."

      Well, no. Making assumptions based on someone's race is the very definition of racism. Making assumptions based on their belief system and (in politics) perceived conflict of interests is totally reasonable.

      You say that the only factor in a voting decision should be a candidate's stated policy position. So if a candidate promised to vote against fracking, but was known to be on the board of a fracking company, that piece of information would have no bearing whatsoever on your voting decision? You would take them completely at their word?

      Delete
    7. The definition of race extends to religion, nationality or any other clear social / cultural grouping. It is not confined to biological characteristics.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

      No, making assumptions is not reasonable at all. You would be judging people without knowing what they actually believe based on your stereotyping assumptions about an entire group. It is pure racism / bigotry.

      Some Christians would vote against gay marriage, others would abstain, some would support it. It would be racist/bigoted for me to assume a christian politician would vote a particular way solely based on the person being 'one of them (a christian)'. Better to base my decision solely on what I do know they support. Also how much I think I trust them. I don't care what their religion is.

      Delete
    8. "No, making assumptions is not reasonable at all. You would be judging people without knowing what they actually believe based on your stereotyping assumptions about an entire group. It is pure racism / bigotry.

      "Some Christians would vote against gay marriage, others would abstain, some would support it."

      Christianity is ambiguous on gay marriage, so knowing that someone is broad-strokes "Christian" indeed doesn't give you enough information to know their stance on the matter. But knowing that they hold a specific religious *belief* - such as, gay sex is a sin - produces a clear conflict with any promised intention to support gay marriage in their political life. If I, as someone for whom this is an important issue, were to factor this candidate's religious belief into my decision as to whether to vote for them, you would consider that bigoted?

      Delete
    9. If you take into account their known, established beliefs, then no, of course that's not bigoted, whether said beliefs are religion driven or not.

      If you decide you are not sure you know their position well enough or even trust what they are saying on an issue, then that's not bigoted either.

      If you make assumptions about them based on nothing more than what you think you know about the religion / version of the religion they personally practice, then yes, that is bigoted. You are putting beliefs in their mouths here.

      Most religions are ambiguous all sorts of issues. I know muslims that think gay marriage is fine; just not for them, and they would abstain in a clear vote on it. There are gay muslims too who'd vote for it. The ones I know vote SNP, which means they have, in effect, voted for gay marriage. Ergo, the assumption that 'muslims are against gay marriage' is just wrong. Mainstream islam may state that, but we cannot assume the individual is identical to the whole group. That's bigoted.

      There is just no official guide to religions, hence sects are always falling out with each other over different points. So it would be racist just to assume someone's stance based on nothing more than some sweeping generalization of their religion.

      Never assume you know someone because often, you are completely wrong. Base your thoughts on what you actually know about them only. And never, ever judge them based on some bigoted stereotype of a group.

      Delete
    10. Aye Skier, very true. It used to irritate me when working in London that it was stated as common knowledge that `all Scots are mean`.
      Stereotyping denies the right to be considered as an individual.
      Racism has its roots in the empires of European countries, where assumptions are made about white superiority.
      The errors of Empire should be taught in schools.

      Delete
  19. Here's the thing. As someone who is wary of the alt-right and their tactics I know the Soros 'meme'; it's a well known anti-semetic dog whistle. Spitnik News is also Putin agitprop. I do think it's a red flag that an SNP candidate found himself in that rabbithole, which is remember something you have to find and lower yourself in.

    The party did absolutely the right thing in suspending him. And he did absolutely the right thing by not talking around the issue or blaming anyone else and accepting the consequences of it. Which is more than can be said for the actions of other parties and candidates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sharing a link isn't really much of a rabbit hole. I've been interviewed on Radio Sputnik at least half a dozen times - that doesn't make me pro-Putin any more than appearing on Sky News would make Jeremy Corbyn pro-Murdoch. It's an absurd criticism. People are entitled to be judged by what they actually say.

      Delete
    2. So G Soros COULD be a friend of Epstein and attend parties where children were raped and murdered and nobody could share a cartoon attacking him over this just because some people you don't like also share it?

      That is your case for exterminating all opposition to N sturgeon and her campaign against reality.

      Delete
    3. Just because you attend a party doesn't mean you are responsible for what the host or a guest does , particularly if we have no way of knowing. Lots of people, including me, have to go to social events as part of job. If I attend, socialize, drink a wine on the veranda and leave, I have no way of knowing if the owner has a freezer full of cocaine or body parts or fur costs in his basement freezer.

      Delete
  20. The majority of my Jewish family and friends do not support the slow genocide in Gaza. The 'Chief Rabbi' does not talk for us, I would think. However,to openly state this is to get called a self-loathing Jew. The SNP was wrong to let a supporter of terrorism effectively be judge and jury in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I don't call himself antizionist because anti-zionism means something different then the mere and legit critic of Israeli government policies, I just would like a Palestinian State other than Israel exactly like many Israelis. The point is overeactions from pro Israel right wing group is making a paradox in which if you critizies Israel you are an antisemite but if you have swastikas tatooed in your chest and you appears to racist rallies vut you carefully avoid to speak bad against Israel .. well, they are just kids ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *I don't call myself

      Delete
    2. Neither do I. It's pointless and expensive unless your on one of those deals that give you so many minutes per month. Usually I don't call myself but just chat away to myself. I enjoy doing it in buses. I sit next to someone even if there's lots of empty seats and chat away like there's no tomorrow. My favourite episode was when I was an outraged mum talking to a well known footballer who was having intimate relations with her sister in law.

      Delete
  22. I remember some years back, a certain parliamentarian and Government minister was caught pro-actively using her office and position in order to influence the judiciary on behalf of a constituent.

    I don't think anyone would argue that unthinkingly sharing some posts on social media comes anywhere close to how big that misjudgment was.

    Wouldn't it be nice if the same generosity of spirit and sense of forgiveness that allowed that parliamentarian to continue her career and become First Minister was reciprocated.

    We are all hypocrites - including the First Minister.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous Hypocrites are the worst though.

      Delete
    2. I agree. They make me want to puke my guts up.

      Delete
  23. Now there's a retweet on Wings suggesting that the chief reason for dropping Mr Hanvey was his stance and statements on the trans / womanzone issue.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The religion of peace at it again on London Bridge. The Union needs to stay intact to fight the nutters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so far as i can tell, there has been no official comment regarding the motives for the attack nor the identity of the attacker (or his religion). Maybe we should not speculate on things until the full facts are known.

      Delete
    2. You really are swinging behind Remain GWC. Good stuff!

      Delete
    3. Indeed I am and always will be for the Scots leading the UK.

      Delete
    4. What flag is that fluttering over London Bridge? Is it a false one? No time for Andrew Neill now.

      Delete
    5. "The Union needs to stay intact to fight the nutters."

      An open border at Gretna which anyone can just walk across is hardly helpful. Controls there could have prevented the Glasgow airport bombing.

      Delete
  25. Labour are clearly the favourites now, although Hanvey may still have a chance at being elected. I remmeber Hay in 2015 actually got the same % of the vote in Edinburgh South as the yes vote, but Murray held the seat though successfully getting Conservative and Lib Dem votes to fall behind him. The Greens also did particulary well, maybe because of the scandal surrounding the SNP candidate. Whether the same would happen in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath due to the different demographics of the seat I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Net emigration of EU workers is underway again.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/ukandnonukpeopleinthelabourmarket/november2019

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. About time. Now we can look after us Britishers. Take your garlic with you Adolf.

      Delete
    2. But no new jobs have been made available. Unemployment isn't falling and, if anything, on average, it's risen slightly.

      Wage growth started to fall too as soon as the net emigration began. Which would of course make sense for a net loss of skilled workers; productivity will fall.

      Delete
  27. Nicola dominated that debate tonight absolutely stole the show .Wound Richard Tice up so much I thought he was going to assault her .
    Said the day of the George Sq rally she was well up for this campaign .Thought she looked tired and lacked focus in 2017.
    Our big danger on Dec 12th is turnout .We are going to have to work our butts off on polling day .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Knickerless and the Labour Tart lied about the NHS being sold. They are desperate now. The Tories know they would be obliterated if they attempted it now or in the future. The Tories since Attlee have funded the NHS on an enormous scale along with Labour.

      Delete
    2. And now het tart is selling off her nickers on eBay.

      Delete
    3. NHS England is already up to 7% private.
      Shareholders are already creaming off profits.
      The NHS is paid for by public taxation. Every penny should be spent for the public good.
      The Tories fought a battle against the founding of the NHS.
      Ditto the Scottish Parliament.
      Trust the tories on the NHS?
      Aye right!

      Delete
  28. Interestingly, George Soros seems quite the 'anti-Semite' himself.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros#Views_on_antisemitism_and_Israel

    Can you be anti-Semitic against an anti-Semite?

    "Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a "clarification", denouncing Soros, stating that he "continuously undermines Israel's democratically elected governments by funding organizations that defame the Jewish state and seek to deny it the right to defend itself".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Soros is a filthy rich man and like all rich men has clout and can command the media with his agenda. The plebs like you and me just get to go to the ballot box.

      Delete
  29. A part of the shift from being a minor party to a major party that rules a nation is that you learn lessons like having to vet candidates well in advance of election day. Sadly, the way most human organizations learn is by getting burned. If they do learn (and its not guaranteed with humans), in the future you'd see a party with a core group that is pestering everyone else well before a possible election about getting all the candidates lined up.

    Its funny, but all the major parties have been acting like they were surprised by an election that had been obviously coming for at least a year. The whole time that May was looking shaky, everyone knew that an election would likely follow the fall of her government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You sound like a buttercup. Ooh Mummy, may I press those flower's between the pages of my Recipes for Fairies' book?

      Delete
  30. Labour closing the gap on the Tories in England officially now.

    https://britainelects.newstatesman.com/who-leads-in-our-poll-tracker/

    Sure it's a small initial uptick, bit the average is a running one, and they lag badly when sharp changes occur. Look at the points themselves; for a week now the very bottom of the Labour range has been about 30%, with the upper 34, which suggests they are comfortably into the 30's now. 35% doable in days, if they are not touching that already. 40% on polling day readily achievable still with a last minute swing comparable to last time.

    An almost perfect replica of 2017 would make perfect sense, just with UKIP replaced by Brexit. It's not as if any party has changed position or anything has substantially changed re the deal. L/R polls are still firmly stuck at ~50/50, i.e. stalemate. So another Westminster stalemate would simply reflect the electorate.

    Of course in Scotland, unlike English L/R polls, Y/N polls show clear movement to Yes. That would favour SNP gains of around the same magnitude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In 2017, Labour started getting 34%s in the same timeframe (20-24 May), then broke that with 35,36,38's only by the 25th may, 14 days before the election.

      So an almost perfect match, albeit things they are running a few days at most behind.

      If in the next week we start seeing polls with lab in the upper 30's, Johnson is in he shit.

      Delete
    2. Labour were on about 34% average at this point last time, so only 3 points behind now. That's MoE and/or might just be lag.

      Delete
    3. Nicola Sturgeon is playing a blinder. The Tories in Scotland will lose seats to the SNP.
      If Labour in England can get their act together, Johnson (I'm too feart tae debate wi Nicola)
      will be denied a majority.
      The LibDems meanwhile are tanking - they always do, but Corbyn looks like a man expecting defeat.
      So it's all down to Scotland.
      We have a plan! Vote SNP.
      HAPPY SAINT ANDREW'S DAY ALL.

      Delete
  31. Poles bravely defending the UK again, even though England is threatening them with mass deportation.

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/london-bridge-hero-narwhal-tusk-20994944

    London Bridge hero with narwhal tusk is Polish chef who was stabbed by terrorist

    The chef, named only as Lukasz, was stabbed in the hand but that didn't stop him from giving terrorist Usman Khan "a beating" with a narwhal tusk that he grabbed off a wall at Fishmongers' Hall, say friends

    ReplyDelete
  32. The healthiest outcome of this election for all the people of the UK would be the failure of the Tories to get a majority for brexit UK wide, succeeding only in England.

    They then need to accept that they must choose between the UK and brexit. It's not possible to have both, not without the consent of the other nations.

    Brexit cannot be a success if it isn't wanted in all 4 home nations. It is too profound a constitutional change. The power grab we have seen in earnest must happen to allow trade negotiations to apply UK-wide. It's that or all devolved nations have a veto.

    The 1975 entry referendum saw Yes votes in all home nations, and hence membership proceeded with the UK intact.

    While a big Tory English majority overruling all the other home nations and refusing to let them hold irefs is just a recipe for the UK breaking up in a catastrophic manner, possibly with huge protests, civil disobedience and even violence (in response to English jackboots being sent in).

    Nobody should hope for such an outcome.

    The brexiters in England have to accept they have utterly failed to convince half of the UK nations to join them, and work out a solution that makes everyone happy.

    ReplyDelete
  33. And another gap closer. 7 point drop in the Tory lead.

    Looks like a 2017-esque Lib-Lab tactical shift picking up speed.

    Westminster voting intention:
    CON: 39% (-2)
    LAB: 33% (+5)
    LDEM: 13% (-5)
    GRN: 5% (-)
    BREX: 4% (+1)

    via @BMGResearch, 27 - 29 Nov
    Chgs. w/ 21 Nov

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That could be bad news for the SNP a Labour surge .Too many SNP seats are SNP/Lab marginals

      Delete
    2. The Scottish Labour surge began 2 months before the 2017 election.

      No a peep sae far.

      Delete