It is impossible, literally *impossible*, to get "more SNP representation" by voting against the SNP on the list ballot.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 11, 2020
Well, you earlier agreed with a tweet stating that it would lead to "more SNP representation", so I'm glad we're now agreed that's not possible. The SNP will be standing on the list, so of course voting for another party entails voting against the SNP.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 11, 2020
I wasn't describing the Greens as a fringe party, as you know. "Tactical voting on the list" even for a larger party is a bad idea, but that's a separate discussion. "Tactical voting on the list" for a party with no hope of winning seats really is a mug's game.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 11, 2020
Of course 7% split between the ISP, Solidarity, the SSP, etc would result in precisely zero seats. If it started eating into the Green vote as well - disaster.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 11, 2020
It didn't produce zero seats in four of the last five elections. Although your own question begs another one: what was the point of 3593 people voting Solidarity on the Glasgow list ballot in 2016 when that produced zero seats?
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 11, 2020
This is silly. It really is. You're claiming that Solidarity would have won a list seat in Glasgow if a lot more people had voted for you. That's true. It's also true that the SNP would have won a list seat in Glasgow if more people had voted for them. Your point is...?
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 11, 2020
If the Greens are your first choice party, that's not tactical voting. All I've ever said is that the list vote does not lend itself to tactical voting and that people should vote for their first choice party.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 12, 2020
You're not trying to have an adult conversation. You're trying to shut down debate, and deligitimise irrefutable points that you find inconvenient.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) July 12, 2020
I'll leave you with this adult's guide to AMS (calling it "the d'Hondt system" is inaccurate) -https://t.co/qPOdV1mvLB
1) if you like the SNP and the greens you can vote green on list. Assuming the candidate is viable. You should really recruit friends to vote green also so both win. Then SNP third.
ReplyDelete2) voting Tactical is a mugs game. It's like getting a tip from a friend who sells soda at the track.
3) if RARELY RARELY it seems obvious, and All your friends are backing a powerful green etc. For list, it is okay. This is not " tactically voting green on the list". This is voting for a winner on the list. Then SNP third. This is like your sister is banging the morning training jockey and he tells her he is hurt because the two favorites collided in practice. Might be worth it. Again rare.
4) just campaign for both better to trade your vote in an area where green can win and your resources. Canvass with each other one weekend in SNP area, for green the next in area where snp is not gonna get second seat.
5) no Independence has worked with split efforts, except India and you don't have 500 million with two radically different religions.( Well, some Scot Presbyterian are/ were- don't know but saw that Watson movie where she went out to the oil rigs??). You fight, you win. Then after 5-10 years you split . Burr- Hamilton Duel is 20+ years after Independence. 20. FYI: Hamilton died because he cheated and gave Burr a tampered pistol. Burr fired to MISS. In Smithsonian Magazine but no one reads.still a great musical!!
The question is not, a generic argument for or against tactical voting on the list, but whether in the specific context of the 2021 Holyrood election, whether voting SNP or another party on the list in your region will lead to more pro indy representation in the Scottish parliament.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how specific the question, the answer is generic: you don't have a clue at the moment you cast your ballot. It might increase pro-indy representation, it might decrease it, or it might have no effect whatsoever. That being the case, there's no such thing as "tactical voting on the list", there's just gambling voting. A risky flutter.
DeleteIt is not a tactical vote or gaming but it is voting for the party on the regional list you find have acceptable policies and you think MAY improve the number of independence supporting MSPs.
DeleteJames Kelly, you are correct it is "gambling" voting to some extent but if you also feel that your vote for the SNP on the regional list will be a wasted vote then what is better - a wasted vote or a gambled vote. I " gambled " by voting Green in the past - I won't in 2021. I am looking for a new home for my regional list vote. If I cannot find an acceptable new home I will just vote SNP even though it is odds on it will be a wasted vote.
I meant to add that if the SNP put a mandate for independence in their manifesto then I would vote SNP on both the constituency and regional list to maximise the votes for independence.
DeleteSadly, I cannot not see the party of independence having the courage to actually have independence in their manifesto as they used to do.
When the SNP actually have the chance to get a mandate for independence they seem reluctant to put it in their manifesto. For decades when there was no chance of a vote for independence they put it in their manifesto. Crazy or what?
I don't see at the moment any alternative to voting SNP on both lists. Everything else seems to be too carry too much risk in the sense of splitting the indy vote.
DeleteBut you're definitely right - a big chunk of the SNP seems to be frightened of independence and have even started parroting some Tory lines as to what hurdles lie ahead. A couple of articles in the National have really left me wondering. They do seem to prefer to fight the elections with Tories around as eternal bogeyman as they know they can always win that.
But - I don't see any alternative at the moment and I'll vote for them on both lists and wait for 12 months to see what happens. If nothing happens, they won't exist for me anymore.
I just don't get how this is hard. It's not!! Do you guys play cards? Watch sports? Pay attention. You vote for who you want to win. The SNP. Like James said, it's simply gambling. Why are you gambling on freedom.the door is open, and you are all talking about how to run free!! Just do it.
DeleteBoth comments above about Independence in manifesto are fair.but it is easy to say a goal when you know it you can't really do it. I think that some caution when you actually get near is wise and I think the regular voter sees this discretion as a good thing. The SNP is a crazy beast demanding to be free. It's wisely choosing when and how. Every wise bride or groom to be takes time to reconsider the consequences. This isn't foolish. It's wise. Scotland will have it's freedom on its own terms!
DeleteMaybe we need to settle for one, very simple, criterion which gives people the best chance of making the correct decision.
ReplyDeleteFor example, is it the case that the higher SNP first preferences get in opinion polling the less likely it becomes that 'tactical' voting on the list can have a positive indy effect ?
I'm not optimistic that a simple step like this is very accurate but if the discussion remains as complicated as it gets every time the matter is opened then we have no chance of getting a co ordinated response from voters.
Genuine, if not very ingenious, question.
There are dangers of voting tactically if your aim is ONLY to increase pro-indy MSPs because of course it might not work. However if your aim is to vote for a pro indy party that protects women's rights to single sex spaces then neither the SNP not the Greens fit that bill.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to send a warning shot across the bows to the SNP that they had better not become complacent - we've seen how Labour promised home rule and abolition of the HoLs and never delivered, then voting elsewhere will do that.
Imagine this scenario:
ReplyDeleteSNP gets 52% on the constituency
SNP gets 49% on the list
Westminster: you don't have a full popular majority!
" a full popular majority" - for what?
DeleteSo say it was SNP 60% constituency and 58% on the regional list. A full popular majority for what?
It depends on what they put in their manifesto. Another bloody mandate for a referendum that they won't use because Westminster says no. WOW. What next - just one more mandate for a referendum at the next GE. Now that would really be taking the piss.
Anyone in two minds about this needs to wait till nearer the election.
ReplyDeleteIf the SNP slips back from 55% the whole thing starts to look different.
Dinnae count yer chickens etc.
Just wondering what Sheridan and Co would be offering the Scots in actual policies before they fall out with each other. The left imploded after the 2008 recession.
ReplyDeleteIn the intro to The Marr show this morning he says support for Scottish independence is rising. The poor wee Britnat could not bring himself to say IS IN THE MAJORITY.
ReplyDeleteBritnats in denial.
Marr is a Scotsman.
DeleteWe need to include Marr's taxes in GERS if he's Scottish. Same for all the other 750k 'Scots' and their businesses in England.
DeleteThe Britnat Marr after decades of quoting polls with a minority for independence he cannot bring himself to use numbers 5 and 4 - 54%. In fact Britnats, in general, are in denial and 54% for independence is something they cannot utter.
DeleteFar too many people about who claim to be independence supporters but their first priority is the Party. Too many ex British Labour in Scotland people in the SNP bringing with them their old habits of the PARTY first, second, third and last, political infighting and of course jobs for the boys. What next Wishart in the House of Lords?
ReplyDeleteThere are NO SNP members in the house of lords, in the first place they would never be asked, if they were they would refuse, period.
DeleteWilliam Purves - I am and was well aware there are no members of the SNP in the House of Lords. It was a comment on the possible direction of travel of the SNP.
DeleteThis is ridiculous - another whinger who erects a straw man: "Wishart will do this... ", "Nicola will do this.." without the slightest shred of evidence or likelihood that "this" (whatever is being punted) is ever going to happen.
DeleteIt's slandering people's integrity out of an over-active imagination. I haven't much time for Wishart's glacial approach myself, but I think this tendency by a few loose cannons to wildly extrapolate stuff out of thin air is utterly deplorable.
Stick to facts and actual evidence, please.
Grizebard - you should think of following your own advice. You posted in quotes "Wishart will do this" - I never posted that so try sticking to the truth/facts yourself.
DeleteI never said it was a fact - it is a warning - an opinion. So you are the loose canon posting inaccurate quotes. Perhaps if there were more whingers, as you call me, in the British Labour Party in Scotland in the past we would be an independent country by now. Did I upset your old Labour feelings?
Grizebard - some evidence for you re Wishart - he applied to be Speaker of the House of Commons. Some people tried to defend him saying it was a joke. Not a funny joke - not at all. The SNP are supposed to be working to leave the House of Commons not settle in. As you are big on facts care to tell me how long Wishart has been in the House of Commons? And how about what he has achieved during his time there? Facts please.
DeleteNot a SNP member, and frequently disagree on policy positions. But...
DeleteGenuinely curious to know the plausible scenario of how independence can be achieved in the immediate future without the SNP?
"Indy" (soi disant) - don't be silly, any old presumptions are not equivalent to facts. And don't try the old "I'm more holy than thou" routine with me - you have no idea whatever of my background. Just another example of how you erect straw fictions to attack someone when you lack the actual facts.
DeleteYes, Wishart did apply to be Speaker. That was a fact, and worthy of reaction. What his motivations were I have no idea, but I didn't agree with him on that anyway (and much else besides), and said so in various public forums at the time. So what?
Your unsupported projections are something else. You can be attacked or supported for uttering them, but you can't use them to attack someone else for your own invented dystopian fairy tales. It's like waking up from a dream where someone did you a wrong - that doesn't mean you can launch accusations against them for having any such intentions!
Save your off-the-wall projections, they are meaningless, and merely a vehicle to enable you to slander others who have achieved far more than you ever have. It only serves opponents of independence.
Grizebard - you attacked me - forgotten already have you - memory failing you is it.
DeleteYou didn't deny being an old British Labour in Scotland voter did you.
You posted inaccurate quotes re my posts and you have the cheek to to say I am in the wrong.
You say not to do the holier than thou then say my comments are only serving opponents of independence. Sounds like you should follow your own advice and stop with the holier than thou stuff yourself.
You say I have no idea of your background - well a true statement from Grizebard at last. Once again you cannot follow your own advice - you know nothing about me but make comments about my achievements relative to Wishart. So I'll ask you again as you seem to think Wishart has achieved so much. How long has he been in the House of Commons and what exactly has he achieved? Facts please not more of your gibberish and personal attacks.
The rest of your post is a lot gibberish.
Indy for nowt - I challenged you because you postulated a bunch of self-invented nonsense that has no basis whatever in fact, then vilely attributed it to people without any proof. Baseless smears deliberately intended to diminish people without any substance, merely vile inventions from your own fevered imagination.
DeleteThe exact same kind of cowardly behaviour as the crapoid on another blog a while ago who "suggested" without a shred of proof that Nicola was about to abandon the independence struggle and take up a post at the UN.
All mischievously-intended winks, nods and corrosive propositions drawn out of thin air without a shred of hard evidence to justify any of it. Exactly like your utterly false assertion that I'm some kind of converted Labourite. (So what even if I were? It doesn't make you any the more right, you insufferably arrogant twerp.
You are suspiciously keen to point the finger at all and sundry from up on your self-appointed high horse, and you are very eager to bandy around words like "guff", which surely must be because you're the self-evident expert at it. Well, Mr Expert Guffer, withdraw that assertion about me or be prepared to prove it.
Which you can't, you pathetic conjurer of fake facts, and the whole world will easily recognise just what kind of abject shit-stirrer you truly are.
I have no idea if you really are a true supporter of independence or just some kind of black flag operator, but the consequence is exactly the same. Vile trouble-making splitterists like you are fundamentally toxic to the independence movement.
12th of July celebrated at Bridgeton Cross today and social distancing observed. That was some waffle above by the way. You Nat zis will talk your way to losing.
DeleteGrizebard - you have totally lost the plot with that mad rant. I'll repeat it for you to help you out - Grizebard you have totally lost the plot and are now embarrassing yourself.
DeleteOnce again you are wrong - there is nowhere I have used the word " guff". I have no idea what assertion you are talking about that I should withdraw or what fake facts you seem to think I have conjured up. You seem to have an ongoing problem distinguishing facts from opinions.
In fact, starting to think you are arguing with so many people on line you are completely losing track of which forum you are on and who you are berating.
The whole world does not read this blog - that is a fact - something you clearly have a problem recognising. Similarly, you cannot distinguish between an assertion and a query or question.
" Black flag operator" - where do you get this guff from - there you are used guff to keep you happy. Was this a common term used by the British Labour Party in Scotland? To help you out Grizebard, see that question mark at the end of the sentence that means it is a question not an assertion.
Try taking a chill pill. You truly have lost the plot.
Indy for nobody - Let's take this back to the beginning, shall we, where you blithely assert that former supporters of Labour are engaged in "political infighting and of course jobs for the boys" within the SNP. (Did I get that quote right, quibbler?) Where is the justification for that opinion? Any proof? Any evidence? No - I didn't think so. Not an iota. Just your blatant prejudice showing.
DeleteThere is a considerable number of ex-Labour people who are now SNP supporters (thankfully), but you seem to believe that they are tainted somehow, and the SNP thereby contaminated - all tarred by your dirty brush. The converts are presumably mere unwashed plebs who can't be trusted, whereas the self-anointed like you supposedly can, and are thus qualified to denigrate the SNP. Just who do you think you are? What insufferable arrogance!
I also note no retraction from your entirely unsubstantiated assertion that I myself come from a Labour background - not that I would in the least be ashamed of it were it true - instead plenty of duck-and-dive, since of course you can't offer any justification for your presumption. Just asyou did with SNP support, you cast that aspersion as a deliberately indended slur - in your own warped way of thinking - rather than actually address a substantive point for which you have no answer. Just classic bait-and-switch from your kiddie online 101 manual.
You have the nerve to gaslight that you are the one basing your statements on facts, whereas there is a serious dearth of fact in your fatuous bluster. Just insinuation-dressed-as-fact, and clearly intended for the singular purpose of damaging the reputation of the SNP and a large swathe of its support forbye. What a nasty self-important little Holy Willie you are.
I honestly hope you aren't a genuine independence supporter, because we can well do without arrogant sods like you.
Grizebard - another mad rant from a person who cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. You cannot tell the difference between a question and an assertion. Your posts started with personal insults and are now filled with them - well done - like Wisharts achievements your posts are nothing but mad rants from someone who has lost the plot. You just keep posting inaccuracies that say you are just a diddy or you have nothing to say so you make up stuff like your false quotes in your first post.
Delete"......that you are the one basing your statements on facts" - never said that anywhere so Grizebard have a long hard look at yourself. Every post you have made, in amongst the personal insults, you have made up stuff. That is called lying - lying is different from having an opinion. So Grizebard you have proven yourself to be a liar.
Some supporter of independence you are - " I honestly hope you aren't a genuine independence supporter,...." You call me a Holy Willie but you are happy to chase away independence supporters that are not the right type - the right type being people you like. Grizebard you are full of it.
Away and take a chill pill, have a long hard look at yourself and stop lying. I am entitled to my opinion you are not entitled to post lies about what I said.
Tactical voting garbage talk
ReplyDeleteTo say you're going to vote for a particular political party in order that another party can win is just a lie and I do wish people would stop saying it and admit what they're doing is a disingenuous attempt to confuse others
In the final analysis after every election political parties count the amount of votes cast for any individual party to show the true level of support for that party, if you go around telling people to vote for the Blinky Blonky party and that will in turn create support for another party it's a nonsense
In the case of the SNP, voting for another party will be counted as votes against the SNP, it makes zero difference whether that party supports one thing or another, votes cast for them will be counted as opposition to the SNP giving the British Nationalist parties the opportunity to claim support for the SNP and Scottish Independence is in retreat
All people who claim this is not the case are just plain and simple lying
Voting for whoever you want is fine it's not a crime, just stop lying about the invented and convoluted reasoning for it
If the SNP fail to get more votes than Yes received in 2014 (almost a certainty), Unionist parties will say support for independence is in retreat. It's silly to worry about how your opponents will spin a result. They'll always find something.
Delete" and Scottish independence is in retreat"
ReplyDeleteIf the SNP put a mandate for independence in their manifesto that would be a correct comment. Until they do it is not. You care too much about what the Britnats have to say.
You're a very silly individual who reads very silly nonsense written by very silly people with their own agenda and you parrot it as an unchanging fact because somebody told you that politics is about one thing and one thing only and no matter the ever changing political climate of the entire world this is what should happen or they're against us so damn them
DeleteTo selectively quote one sentence from anothers posting or news article is a very Wings over his own ego tactic and easily seen through, learning politics is not easy and yer man Wingsy knows it, that why he treats you like mugs to support whatever his latest cause is, please send money to my bank account in Bath
Anonymous 11.50am - a load of nonsense - now I would say you post nonsense all the time but as there are a lot of posters who post nonsense wanting to be anonymous I won't but this most certainly is. Wings is not my man as you so stupidly put it but I think Johnson is your leader.
DeleteKeaton - you are correct - Britnats will always find a problem with any vote.
You Nat zis have a problem with votes.2014 & 2016.
DeleteWe've been over this before. It is unionists from your side who want to reverse the 2014 result. That's the only way 45% can become 54%.
DeleteThis is primary school level maths.
You could just try voting for people you think are worth voting for.
ReplyDeleteDid you miss Tommy's dodgy arithmetic James? The 7% threshold won't be achieved if 7 out of 100 indy supporters vote tactically on the list. Assuming approx 50% of voters are unionist, that would only achieve 3.5% of list votes. Ergo no seats - fail!
ReplyDeleteIt's been mentioned already both votes snp if they show some spine and really push independence either as a ref without a s30 or using the election or threat of folding government and using another election shortly after as a mandate to negotiate. Any wishy washy pish and it will be them that cost votes not us. We shall see how they play it
ReplyDeleteVoting SNP on the list is exactly the same as paying the premium on house insurance. You do it "just in case". If the worst comes to the worst and my house burns to the ground, my insurance will build me a new one. If I don't have insurance, I'm screwed.
ReplyDeleteHere's an imaginary scenario....
In 2016, in the NE region, the SNP won nine constituencies, and the tories won one. The SNP polled 137,086 on the list ballot, but their success in the first ballot meant they got zero list seats, and the final tally was SNP 9, Tory 5, Lab 2, Lib Dem 1.
Let's imagine that the number of list votes remained the same, but that the constituencies had looked like this:- SNP 2, Tory 5, Lab 2, Lib Dems 1.. in that scenario, the SNP pick up ALL SEVEN seats, and the final tally would have been SNP 9, Tory 5, Lab 2, Lib Dem 1.
As James keeps telling us over and over, and over ...... Barring a party getting a majority in the constituencies alone, the total number of seats that a party gets is dependent on the number of list votes - NOT the number of constituency votes.
Exactly. And if alt-list fanatics took some time to look at past election results they'll see that sifts in turnout are unpredictable and can create the situation you describe.
DeleteAlex, could you do the math on the following scenario,
DeleteThe SNP win 9 constituency seats in the NE, the Tories 1,
but Independence supporters, 137,086 of them vote for another Indie supporting party with their list vote?
PleaseReleaseMe:
DeleteYour post interested me and on my figures (assumes my maths is correct) the result would be:
SNP 0
ISP 4
Con 2
Lab 1
Happy for someone to check
"Let's imagine that the number of list votes remained the same, but that the constituencies had looked like this:- SNP 2, Tory 5, Lab 2, Lib Dems 1.. in that scenario, the SNP pick up ALL SEVEN seats, and the final tally would have been SNP 9, Tory 5, Lab 2, Lib Dem 1."
DeleteNope, don't agree with your calculation. If SNP only won 2 constituency seats, their List vote would still be reduced to 45695 (137086 / 3 (I.e. 2 constituency seats + 1). After the first MSP allocated, their carry forward total drops to 34271, BUT Labour have 38791 votes so would pick up the second seat). And so it goes on.
Sorry, my mistake - I didn't see your allocation of 2 seats to Labour. So basically you have created a highly unlikely scenario in order to "justify" SNP somehow winning all seven Regional seats. Well, we can all play with numbers. But the real world is closer to the polling figures than your imaginary scenario
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTony Little, thanks for your enlightening posts.
DeleteSo in the 16 election, if the SNP supporters in the NE had voted with their list vote, for another Indie supporting party, they would have halved the number of Yoon List MSPs.
If this happens next year, not only in the NE but across the country, it would be a tremendous boost for the Indie campaign.
Hoping that a new Party with no candidates and no leadership can establish within 9 months a significant credible presence is pure fantasy; and it would be difficult to take seriously any Party campaigning with no funds for leaflets etc and practically no one on the streets and to go door knocking.
ReplyDeleteIt's a pig in a poke!
Delete" Look as long as I need to be focussing on the corona virus crisis and the economic legacy of that crisis that is going to have my 100% focus. I haven't changed my view on independence." Nicola Sturgeon on the Britnat chat show called The Andrew Marr Show this morning.
ReplyDeleteNow I agree that progressing independence during a pandemic is inappropriate but the FM has now tagged on tackling the economic legacy prior to action on independence.
That is going to be a long time - not the by end of this year that the Britnat Marr posed in his question - before Nicola Sturgeon turns her attention to Scottish independence - a long time in my opinion.
My summary of that statement by the FM - she supports independence but I won't be doing anything to achieve it for a long, long time. Nicola Sturgeons very own now is not the time but the time won't be now for a very long time.
It is now more than 4 years since the EU vote which has taken us out of the EU against our will.
Note to Grizebard - the above is an accurate quote by the FM - the rest is my opinion unlike you I can quote accurately and know the difference between opinion and fact.
Not a word from Grizebard or anyone about the FM kicking independence in to the long grass. Gradualism = never. A bit like the British Labour Party being founded by the Scotsman Keir Hardie with HOME RULE being his policy well over 100 years ago but never delivered.
DeleteSilence is not golden and it certainly won't deliver any gold standard referendum.
If we do not have Home Rule then we can demolish the Holyrood toilet and save the taxpayer a fortune. The money will be required to prop up our public services when the next recession bites.
DeleteCovidia hates democracy.
DeleteI'll admit that there's zero chance of Carlaw becoming FM, when someone from the "Alliance" group admits there is zero chance of 20% of SNP voters switching....
ReplyDeleteWhile much of the discussion seems to be about somehow gaining more Indy MSPs (and I've yet to be convinced by that argument), it seems to me that more people see it as possibly their only way to convince the SNP leadership to refocus on Independence. Said leadership is definitely NOT learning from the failed Salmond débacle, and also seems dangerously complacent regarding their raison d'être. If Alex were to front a list party, I'd be tempted myself. The SNP is becoming unrecognisable as the party I joined. I can see the benefits of a "ca' canny" approach during the pandemic, but to claim that political activity needs to be suspended entirely (which is pretty much Wishart & Co.'s view) is ridiculous in the face of a Westminster that hasn't stopped politicking for a second!
ReplyDeleteIt appears that the Judean Peoples Front and the Front for the People of Judea and the Popular Front of Judea are still bannging on about the consolidating the list votes. They cannot even get their own supporters to stick with them and claim they can get the SNP vote to switch.
ReplyDeleteThe Nat si vote will not switch. Only the Unionists changing their minds is of importance. The more the Nat sis condemn Unionists with their hatred the better for the Union.
DeleteI'm glad you agree that it is unionists 'not respecting the 2014 result' that is giving us 54% Yes.
DeleteNot glad at all. Just giving you Nat zis a top tip. Spreading hate will get you know where.
DeleteOk you are not glad you agree, but at least you do agree it's unionists 'not respecting' 2014 that's led to 54% Yes. As you said, the 45% are respecting it by staying the 45%, true to how they voted back then.
DeleteOK...true post,,Much good ..
ReplyDeleteWell done Mark Warren from Glasgow winning the Australian Open.
ReplyDeleteAlso noticed that Bryson De Chambeau last week when winning a golf tournament on the USPGA tour had a sponsors badge saying SNP on his shirt. Not sure it will win many voters for independence but good overall international exposure.
Aye, Young James it is not surprising your comment about Galloway. He tore you Nat sis apart during the 2014 referendum debate. You could say he works for MI5.
ReplyDeleteBut it's 54% Yes now. Is Galloway just lazy? Why's he not out saving the union? Why are you not out saving the union? Your unionist mates are moving to Yes while you are on here talking shite to us Yes voters.
DeleteIts just a poll. None of my three mates has shifted. It is unlikely Galloway will be required as there will be no referendum.
DeleteIt's not 'a' poll. That's singular.
DeleteWill you be clappin fur Knickerless?
DeleteCan we not just move to a FPTP system and then that would solve all the issues in one grand swoop. Think of the Pro independence majority then!
ReplyDeleteIf Holyrood was FPTP only then Labour would have won an outright majority in 1999, 2003 AND 2007 (the last with 37 out of the 73 constituency seats). Hence no SNP 2007-2011 government to show that SNP were competent and unlikely that they would have been able to build the support to win 2011 so no IndyRef 1. Also note that in 2007 the SNP had more list seats (26) than FPTP constituency seats (21). The AMS has benefited the SNP much very more than it has caused them any problems. Without it, it is quite possible that there would not be anything like the present level of support for Independence.
DeleteNotice the closer it gets to an election there's always a million different reasons presented as to why you shouldn't vote for the SNP in order to gain Independence
ReplyDeleteNew list party, Nicola Sturgeon's a baddie,new list party, I can read Nicola Sturgeon's mind and she doesn't want Independence, new list party
Every election in Scotland is a referendum on Independence those who advocate anything else are just plain liars SNP X 2 is a demonstration of support for Independence
Anonymous - sorry but you are not telling the truth in saying every election in Scotland is a referendum on independence. If that was the case Scotland would have been an independent country back in 2011 or at any of the elections thereafter. No an election is only a referendum on independence when it is put in the SNP manifesto that a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence. So just why will the SNP not do this?
DeleteFake Yoon argument
DeleteAnonymous - 4.45pm - I agree your namesake at 10.30am is putting forward a fake yoon argument and is clearly a Britnat.
DeleteAnonymous - 10.30am - Hi Dr Jim. If you are going to do the anonymous thing you need to do it better.
DeleteIt's interesting to see how many ardent independence supporters are turning against Nicola Sturgeon's leadership. It's almost as if the Britnats are alarmed at the FM's, SNP's and government's high levels of popularity and are trying to spread the notion that independence supporters are actually against the SNP.
ReplyDeleteExactly correct sir
DeleteHistory has shown that the SNP has always been targeted by the British Establishment as some of the files at the National Archives will show you. Agent provocateurs have been around since the SNP was formed in 1934. Some of the files are quite funny but a lot are not.
DeleteSome Scottish Nat zis had to be watched. They supported the Nazis.
DeletePlenty Britnats supported the Nazis including members of the Royal Family - let's call them Britnat si turds. Britnat si turds go back a long way.
DeleteThey manifest in your lower intestine and mouth Nazi boy.
DeleteEngland football team, 1938.
Deletehttps://i2.wp.com/thesefootballtimes.co/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/england.jpg
Skier - respect - a picture that says it all. Was Moseley the team manager back then.
DeleteSkier conveniently forgets that the British were preparing for war. Typical Nat zi using old footage for advantage. And of course Skier conveniently forgets the real Irish fascists who supported Hitler and stayed neutral. You cannot hide behind your historical fantasy Skier. We democrats will call you out when required. I will not mention the treatment of Jews in old Oirland by the Franciscan thugs.
DeleteThat salute was nothing to with support of the Nazis but one of the final throws of the policy of appeasement.
Delete“This was not how England’s star winger Stanley Matthews remembered it. In The Way It Was (Headline, 2001), Matthews reports that, when an FA official came into the dressing room to tell the team to give the salute, ‘The dressing room erupted. All the England players were livid and totally opposed to this, myself included … Eddie Hapgood told him what he could do with the Nazi salute, which involved putting it where the sun don’t shine.’ The official, according to Matthews, went away and came back saying he had ‘a direct order from Sir Nevile Henderson … that had been endorsed by the FA Secretary Stanley Rous … the political situation between Great Britain and Germany was now so sensitive that it needed “only a spark to set Europe alight”’. Faced with this virtual ultimatum, the team agreed to give the salute.
Of course appeasement was one of the biggest mistakes of the early to mid 20th century. All it did was reinforce to Hitler and his military commanders that the UK (and France) were in no mood for a fight. That coupled with the USA’s policy on remaining neutral meant that the German commanders saw no real threat from the three major military powers.
We'll of course never know whether that's true nor how many in the team actually supported the Nazi ideology. Must have been a few. The royals were even doing Nazi salutes.
DeleteAye, Hitler did see no immediate threat from the brutal, genocidal British empire with much of the world beneath its jackboot. He admired it and felt the two could rule the world together. Britain however, saw the German Reich as a threat to the British Reich, hence appeasement then war. The end of the war did not mean freedom from brutal colonial occupation for the countries the Brits had conquered. The brits shared the spoils of war and celebrated 'victory' in Europe day rather than the end of war day. Even today the Brits celebrate the victory of their bloody empire.
For sure there would of been some from all walks of life and political leanings across the UK who supported Nazi ideology. Others, with WW1 fresh in their minds supported appeasement.
DeleteI agree the French, Belgiums, Dutch and British would all of been rather reaping the rewards from their Brutal Empires. Of course Hitlers raise to power for a large part came from resentment of the terms of surrender of WW1. World War One was triggered due to aggression and resentment of the Brutal Austro Hungarian empire. Prior to that geo polics in Europe was dramatically effected by the raise and fall of the Brutal French Empire under Napoleon.
As i have said before, European countries having Brutal Global empires is noting unique to Britain. As previously discussed Pre union Scotland even tried to start its own brutal empire.
Scotland had no brutal empire nor did it colonise any countries. It had a small trading post in central America which was on good terms with the locals.
DeleteMaybe it would have had brutal empire in a parallel universe. However, in this one, it didn't. End of. Manufacturing history is what the Nazis did.
My Scots grandparents fought the brutal Nazi empire with the gun and the brutal British empire at the ballot box.
Er no it didn't it had numerous attempts at colonisation and you will have to prove evidence that it got on well with the locals. Why do nationalists have a problem with the 'bad' bits of their countries history. I'm more than happy to admit that was a Brutal British Empire, many people in other European countries will admit that their country had the same. Its just the nationalists in each country that seem to have problems with admitting it.
DeleteAh yes, the Great Scottish Empire upon which the sun never set. As big as Imperial Ireland's dominions!
DeleteI can't find a single country that was conquered by Scotland. Just a few settlements* in the Americas. Nova Scotia being the only one of any note, and obviously it wasn't a country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme
"Local Indians brought gifts of fruit and plantains"
When are the British going to end their illegal (UN) occupation of the Chagos Islands incidentally? Still a brutal empire trashing people's lands and deporting them to build military bases.
Britain was and still is a brutal imperial power. Scotland never was in any significant sense. It might have been in a parallel universe, but it wasn't in this one.
---
*I am working on the assumption you reached a sufficient level of education in school to know the difference between a peaceful colony / trading post and imperial conquer / rule of anther country / people. There's nothing wrong with the first in most instances. In the early stages of the USA, the natives and colonists often got on really well, living in harmony. It was just when the native peoples were kicked off the land the problems began. It's forcibly taking control of other countries like the British did that I have issue with.
Nova Scotia being the only one of any note, and obviously it wasn't a country.
DeleteThe Miꞌkmaq may disagree with you - it was there country before Scott's and other Europeans came and started plundering it.
I'm assuming you have a problem with:
France
Germany
Austria
Russia
Japan
China
Russia
Portugal
The Netherlands
Italy
Belgium
To name a few. All countries that took over other countries, you have a problem with them too I assume. I do I never see you mentioning there brutal empires? Why is that? Racism or ignorance?
Oh for goodness sake the anonymous who wants us to believe that all countries have an equally dreadful past is back. The same type of stuff from people who wants us to believe that all politicians are the same.
DeleteWho is this guy Scott you refer to?
"Why is that ?" - you ask. It really is bloody obvious but I'll spell it out for you - Westminster still has its colonial grip on Scotland.
Once again no evidence is provided of the Scots taking control of someone else's country. Living alongside people in colonies does not equal ruling them as a brutal empire. In the early stages, colonies in the US just lived along side the natives, trading happily with them. The indians and colonists even fought together against the large empires who tried to take control of all the land.
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi%EA%9E%8Ckmaq#First_contacts
Over a period of seventy-five years, during six wars in Miꞌkmaꞌki (Acadia and Nova Scotia), the Miꞌkmaq and Acadians fought to keep the British from taking over the region (See the four French and Indian Wars as well as Father Rale's War and Father Le Loutre's War). France lost military control of Acadia in 1710, and political claim (apart from Cape Breton) by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht with England. But the Míꞌkmaq were not included in the treaty and never conceded any land to the British.
In 1715, the Miꞌkmaq were told that the British now claimed their ancient territory by the Treaty of Utrecht, which the Miꞌkmaq were no party to.
And the other countries you list are not trying to stop Scots from democratically choosing indy by outlawing voting, i.e. not being colonial bullies like the UK is doing here and in the illegal chagos islands occupation.
DeleteSorry can you show me were the UK Gov is outlawing voting. The actual bit of law that says that the Scot Gov cannot hold a indy ref.
DeleteSick of all these fucking anonymous tossers.
DeleteThere's a couple of other blogs with these fake Scot like type names pretending to be supporters of Scottish Independence I guess they figure on this one they can't be identified, but they can and we see them, so away and report back that you've done your wee disrupting shift and us daft Scots fell for it
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - I would like to report that you are anonymous but still a prick.
DeleteWe have all the Scottish Nazi names and addresses including their tennis partners and bum boys on the side. We know you prefer nice soft toilet paper and being tucked into bed with a nice story about Mel Gibson.
DeleteI thought GWC was the only Britnat si turd who posted on this site. Seems there are more of them about.
DeleteA wipe ma arse wae baby wipes!
ReplyDeleteWe know.
DeleteThe Scotgov focus is entirely on eliminating the virus. This is evident from the excellent covid figures in Scotland.
ReplyDeleteThe Britnat Bampot Brexiteers in Westminster are focussed on : what Tory donors want; corrupt contracts for their pals; leaving the EU with no deal and of course the priority that is reorganising the UK Civil Service in the middle of a pandemic. This is evident from the disastrous covid figures in England.
I fear that the SNP leadership isn't fully committed to delivering independence as quickly as they could. Having an alternative party committed to independence (especially one that seeks to guarantee the rights of women and is open to EFTA and Nordic council membership) would be a wonderful thing. For me, voting ISP isn't about increasing independence representation at the Scottish Parliament (although that is a bonus), it is about supporting a party that better reflects my views.
ReplyDeleteTony Blair was successful because he gained tory votes while using the labour name. He knew that those who support trade unions and the left had nowhere else to go, and thus could largely ignore them. I don't want the SNP to treat independence voters the same way. ISP will keep them focused, and, just as importantly, ensure that the rights of women are protected.
Tell that to George Galloway he'll be happy to hear his party is doing well
DeleteGood to see Johnson copying sturgeon's face masks in shops policy.
ReplyDeleteRather late for both of them. Should have happened in March. I ordered mine from Amazon during March. But she does look pretty in hers. Do we need politicians to tell us the obvious!
DeleteThe Republic of Ireland has adopted the baby box policy and is set to roll their version out across the country
DeleteNicola Sturgeon sent a Scottish one over to Finegael's Neale Richmond
Why is it that Sturgeon keeps being asked by the brits about whether Scotland will quarantine folks arriving from England, yet the same is not asked about Wales and N. Ireland?
ReplyDeleteIs this just anglocentric racism?
The people asking Sturgeon questions at the Daily Briefings are not journalists but paid propagandists - mercenaries. They probably get end of year bonuses for asking the most Britnattery question.
DeleteProbably because the leaders of Wales & NI have never given any indication that they have any plans to close their border...
DeleteAnonymous - Sturgeon has never given any indication that she has plans to close the border. A misleading post. N. Ireland would never close the border. Wales have in the recent past stopped people crossing from England in to Wales during lockdown.
DeleteThanks anon. So it was anglocentric racism, as evidenced by you not realising what i meant and thinking only about England.
DeleteWhy was Sturgeon not asked by the British if she would consider quarantine for people arriving from Wales, i.e. close the Scottish/Welsh border? Or N. Ireland? Was such a thing not 'shameful' too? Or is Britain simply England in the eyes of Brits?
The whole 'Scottish independence is anti-English' shows this same racist hatred towards the other UK nations. The Welsh and N. Irish are union members but always forgotten in favour of the English. What it it's the Cornish I can't stand and the reason I support indy? Anglocentric racism means it's always England.
The Key difference between Johnson and Sturgeon is that she has learned from early mistakes.
ReplyDeleteThere is not one aspect of the pandemic that Johnson has not continued to make a bolloks of and he will continue to do so because he is surrounded by a bunch of Britnat Brexiteers who are only in the job because they don't like immigrants and could hardly run a bath unsupervised. These Britnat idiots don't think they make mistakes so they will never learn from them. There will be carnage in England this winter and the border will be closed.
GWC used to be unique in this site. A Britnat si turd displaying all the attributes of a disgusting individual. It now seems some fellow Britnat si turds are trying to take his crown away.
ReplyDeleteBeing a Unionist and not a Brit Nat si I would fight anyone on the beaches if they try and get my title.
DeleteGWC - you are a Britnat si. A particularly disgusting Britnat si turd. You can fight your fellow Britnat si turds in the sewers where you slide out from.
DeleteHow did you survive the galvanised bucket?
DeleteStench of Covidia and its diseased ravings.
DeleteCovid deaths in the past 7 days:
ReplyDeleteUK = 577
Scotland = 1
Deaths per million per week:
UK = 8.7
Scotland = 0.2
The UK death rate is now 46 times that of Scotland.
Thank god we have the SNP in charge here and not the butcher brits.
Can you provide evidence that 577 died of Covid in the last 7 days please. For us mere mortals that data will only be available in 1-2 weeks but you obviously have special access to this data.
ReplyDeleteI'm assuming that you have enough intelligence not be be basing your assumption on the daily figures.
This is the UK government daily reported figures.
Deletehttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/900529/2020-07-14_COVID-19_UK_deaths_time_series.csv
The total in the last 7 days is 577.
The actual numbers will be a bit higher.
In Scotland, it's 1 death for the same period/figures.
Here's that post again if you want it more accurate:
DeleteCovid deaths in the past 7 days:
UK = >577
Scotland = >1
Deaths per million per week:
UK = >8.7
Scotland = >0.2
The UK death rate is now ~46 times that of Scotland.
Thank god we have the SNP in charge here and not the butcher brits.
Nope thats deaths registered in that period. That is not the same as deaths in that period. Some of those deaths will of happened much longer ago than in that 7 day period. This is basic stuff.
DeleteThe latest comparable information we have is for the 7 day period up to the 26/06. This gives (deaths per million per week)
Scotland 3.4
UK 4.6
So not a 46 times difference. You lied about that.
Of course the death rate in all parts of the UK is too high, 0 deaths is the only acceptable figure.
My figures are correct. I was talking about daily figures. I made sure that was understood when asked. The rest is just figure of speech.
DeleteThat's what the public are seeing and why support for the SNP and Yes is soaring. Your pathetic little desperate pedantry isn't going to help you win voters back.
Scottish Skier - anonymous wants you to send him the bodies. However, I don't think Amazon will deliver 577 bodies perhaps Hermes. Strange people these Britnat si turds.
ReplyDeleteJames just go away you have behaved appallingly today. You have made false statements avoided simple questions and shown yourself to be less than honest. You won't admit simple truths because your fragile ego couldn't tolerate having to do that.
ReplyDeleteScotland - there is no level of infection and death that is acceptable.
ReplyDeleteEngland - die you bastards I'm not wearing a mask.
Take your pick as to where you would prefer to live.
Polling shows that the majority of people in England support masks being mandatory, try again.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous - I refer to the respective politicians in Scotland and England. I thought that was obvious. I refer to the The Great Britnat twit Tory MP Sir Desmond Swayne in the H of Commons today. Please try and keep up. So you try again.
ReplyDeleteBritnat Tories in England cancelling their party membership and posting pics of their cut up cards after being forced to wear a mask. Correct action wrong reason.
ReplyDelete