* * *
UPDATE: As I predicted yesterday (it's uncanny!), Stuart Campbell has published a breathless and wildly misleading commentary based on the results of an "Archie Stirling"-type poll question. As it happens, I entirely agree with Stuart that a new party led by Alex Salmond would have an extremely good chance of winning seats, but this particular type of poll is simply incapable of producing a reliable estimate of the likely percentage support for a party. You can read a fuller explanation HERE.
Of course, a week is a long time in politics. Enquiry into the (alleged) Salmond conspiracy and Sturgeon's part in it has to play out. I do not think that will much modulate support for independence but a fair bet it will impact SNP prospects at the polls next May depending on the dirt dredged up.
ReplyDeleteMore to the point - your sartorial statement! Haute couture evident in tastefully matching (colour & fabric) patriotic St. Andrew's Blue beanie, sweater, and t-shirt, collectively affecting that devil-may-care rugged post-COVID look! Who knew you were such a fashion plate.
Can anyone offer any corroboration on the Sunday Times hints that SNP leadership intends to go with an indy vote within one year of achieving a majority in 2021? About time and crucial if true. Also a clear answer to the list party issue !
ReplyDeleteSurely it is not going to be once again give us a mandate for a referendum. Just how many mandates do they need. Trying to set a world record for mandates not used.
DeletePut a mandate for independence in the manifesto for 2021 Scot parliament election not just more promises of jam tomorrow.
Margin or error stuff suggests it could be 57% or 51% - still Yes.
ReplyDeleteGood to see Australia putting lives before politics unlike the pathetically insecure brits.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-53303317
Coronavirus: Australia to close Victoria-New South Wales border
There you have what Stuart Campbell does and is in complete subversive trouble making mode for the hard of thinking
ReplyDeleteAny chance of that in English?
DeleteI could shout but you're a deaf Yoon as well as illiterate
DeleteSlight change of subject. I've just read the twaddle that Stu Campbell has posted on Wings, and since I'm banned from commenting there.....
ReplyDeleteHe HAS to know that he is lying, right? He HAS TO know full well that he's trying to pull the wool, right?
I thought that his last foray into the "poll to boost Wings" was asking leading questions, but he's getting worse!
He absolutely does! Asking questions for most dramatic effect.
DeleteEspecially in the non-standard set of options the question gave. All drafted to ensure he can twist it to his own narrative later.
See here: http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-pros-and-cons-of-alex-salmond.html
DeleteAnd here: https://wingsoverscotland.com/ams-for-lazy-people/
There's no money to be had in achieving independence. The Rev has a cushy deal right now, paid tens, if not hundreds, of thousands a year by his readers to crank out an article or two every week.
DeleteWhy on earth would he want independence to come along and put at end to all that?
All he has to do is keep his core cult convinced that the only way to achieve independence, is to burn the party of independence to the ground.
No wonder he claims to love 1984. It's brazen Orwellian nonsense.
There you go again posting 3 different messages one after the other hoping nobody notices. We'll, I notice a f you're not pulling the wool over my eyes.
DeleteWings polling question should have read:
ReplyDelete'We'd like to imagine a new pro-independence party was formed for the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, contesting ONLY on the regional list vote, and that party was led by Alex Salmond. In that scenario who would you cast your regional list vote for:
[] SNP
[] Tories
[] Labour
[] Lib Dem
[] Green
[] Hypothetical new pro-independence party led by Salmond
[] Other
[] Don't know'
This could have been slotted in alongside the other voting intention question so it could be weighted on likeliness to vote.
But no, they are trying to have their cake and eat it by asking pointless hypotheticals.
Yes, this is the only way to try to gauge support for such a party.
DeleteIt would be a good question for James to ask in his next poll maybe.
Even that seems a bit dodgy, since you're highlighting the new party in a way which wouldn't happen in the actual election. Not that I have a better suggestion.
DeleteYou could change it to Lib...Green...ISP after having made clear that was the hypothetical name.
DeleteBuy yes, even then it wouldn't be very reliable as a measure of what will happen, just a better measure of what might, maybe. It couldn't be considered a normal poll measure of support because the ISP is getting a special focus.
For current support we can only look at 'other', which we can assume current ISP voters have been saying to pollsters. That's at 2% in James's most recent poll, which is the max current level of support for ISP.
Campbell's just a bitter wee man who's self importance is only important to him, and that makes him a sad wee miserable lonely angry wee man
ReplyDeleteImportant enough for you to post about him though, evidently
DeleteAnonymous - that description sounds like it would fit you as well if you were wee but I certainly know you have a small mind.
DeleteSc is not my cup of tea.but he is only bringing to light voting possibilitys.is some of it far fetched possibly. But we all know if alex salmond did in fact return for next years election.im more inclined to think he will.if he was to front a list party you can bet your bottom dollar he will start off at 20% of the list votes.i wont put a top % as it could be anywhere.the snp will get 90-95% of the fptp seats.that may give them there majority at hollyrood so really there list seats potential is 1 or 2 at most.the good thing is all this hoo ha brings the list seat scenarios to the fore.and as is happening now a lot of snp 1&2 voters are now thinking if that is a good idea.once the yes groups and auob meetings start and we get into election mode my guess is the unionist partys will be well and truly screwed.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware of him admitting acting indecently. If he'd been doing that, the jury would have found him guilty of indecency, which is illegal. He was found completely innocent.
DeleteHe admitted to having some private consensual adult relations with at least one of the complainants (I recall). Other than perverts, the only person I'd expect to be thinking about that is Mrs Salmond. She turned up at court to support him, which suggests she also consented to these relations, at least in retrospect. If she'd found them wholly unacceptable, you'd expect them to be divorcing.
A wee bit of advice... If the idea of people you know having adult sexual relations makes you sick, you should maybe stop thinking about people you know having sexual relations. It's not something most of us do.
Anonymous - 2.25 pm - kindly stop posting untruths. He never admitted to acting indecently around women. Britnat propaganda - which normally are lies is what you post.
DeleteOne thing that certainly did make me sick during the trial were the unionists hoping some women had actually been subject to sexual assault / attempted rape. What kind of twisted mind is keen for women to have been assaulted like this?
DeleteWhile I did't pre-judge the outcome, I did hope that no such events had taken place. This of course was the conclusion of the jury in the end thankfully.
Jury's have been known to get it wrong on many occasions. Being a Unionist I find it strange that Nat sis may have ganged up on their own former hero.
DeleteThe Salmond trials (persecution) were a stitch up by Britnats. Some openly Britnats - others phoney independence supporters. Many witnesses proved the complainers were lying and perjuring themselves but no perjury action has to date been taken against any of them.
DeleteSkier - "What kind of twisted mind is keen for women to have been assaulted like this" - answer the mind of a Britnat. The same kind of Britnat twisted mind that raises false sexual assault accusations against a political opponent and then uses the Britnat media to smear both before and after the trial.
To be honest, I'm not sure which I've enjoyed more; the Salmond trial outcome or two 54% Yes polls from the most No friendly pollster in a row.
DeleteThe look on unionist faces in both cases has been a picture.
Skier - it has got to be the two 54% polls. Only silly Britnats can now claim that there is no evidence that Scotland wants independence.
DeleteWith regards to the Salmond criminal trial - the first trial - the judicial review delivering a verdict of an unlawful, unfair process tainted by bias should have flagged up to most sensible people that it was a political stitch up. If the complainers were genuine then why proceed in such a manner that they had to throw in the towel in the case and have a judge deliver such a damning verdict on the people involved i.e. Evans/McKinnon. It was a two year poltical persecution of Salmond. Shameful.
Business as usual next door:
ReplyDelete"Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
6 July, 2020 at 1:31 pm
“Pps; Legal action may follow because of libellous comments in Wings article (above)”
Bring it on, mate. In the meantime, fuck off out of my website."
Can people stop being abusive on here in comments, please! Hiding behind anon, pathetic.
ReplyDeleteJames has a great blog but the anon thing is annoying and I am fed up having to log into a google account I can never remember the password for, signing in to comment would be much easier via email.
James can you do a hypothetical scenario thing should a new party gain significant seats on the list? Remind me again why we have this system at all? Do other countries have this system? It seems to allow those who lose, to win seats and a cosy job at the parliament, is that democratic? Just a few questions.
Thanks for the work you do James on here, just wish the verbal abusers and nasty commenters would either stop posting or change their ideas of what debate and discussion actually should be! That's my miserable monday rant!
Hetty.
Ps mostly men comment here as well, maybe it's the abuse some post...it's too bloody depressing. Oh and signing in with googgle is a pain I have to say...putting passwword in every time, why not just email sign in...
As far as I know it's near-identical to the German system....Not bad overall in my view but I'd prefer it to be more precisely proportional.... Dunno if that's possible....
DeleteA National proportional representation voting system does what you want.
DeleteJames, is there any chance you can correct The National's falsification of that WOS poll question? The question clearly asks
ReplyDelete"Do you think you MIGHT vote for the new party with your list vote?", not "would you vote". That's a completely massive difference.
Fair comment, though both fail to meet James' principal "Archie Stirling" objection, which the suggestion by anon @ 11:31 upthread solves.
DeleteI find it hard to believe that Stu Campbell doesn't understand this issue by now. If his major "selling point" has always been a rigorous pursuit of truth, he is demeaning his own reputation far more than the likes of Kez by trying to skew the situation like this.
(PS: I used to use "anon" because I thought the other categories weren't applicable to me, but posters should know that you don't have to have a blog/website to use the "name/URL" option. Just leave the URL field blank and you'll be fine.)
Took a gander over to WoS just now (Oh, what a misery of grumblers BTL it has become) and Stu does address the issue raised by anon @ 11:31, but dodges it by a technicality ("a combined poll") and some ridiculous flim-flam over the long-winded name used and its (necessarily) hypothetical nature.
DeleteWhat a sad and sorry degredation all round. And all because of (at best) some wounded pride.
Lots of grumblers on this site too.
DeleteYes I checked, and he's misinterpreting his own poll. I can't post there as this ID is blocked for asking to be woken up when the blog got back to supporting Independence. Another older ID later got blocked for pointing out an interpretation error in a previous post about a poll, where there was no ability to reply "don't know", or "refuse". It did me a fvaour.
DeleteFor this one I'd consider such a party on the regional vote, but the chances of me voting for it next May would be very small. So if I had been asked and replied that I might vote for it, as is true, my reply would have falsely been taken as a "would".
And who'd ever vote for a party that falsifies itself. Very disappointing.
The thing that is being missed in all of this, and is crucial, is that an "alt-indy" list party can only succeed if it commands the tacit support of the SNP (as the Unionist parties did for each other back in 2017, eg. to oust Alex Salmond from his constituency) plus the active support of a significant number of dedicated SNP voters. But if, by word and deed, the list party manages to alienate both, it kills its chances dead at the get-go. And arguably this is exactly what Stu Campbell has succeeded in doing, whether on his own behalf or of any others.
DeleteWhich could of course be a nifty way of ensuring that such a strategy can't be deployed. Odd that.
Judging by recent polls though, it's redundant anyway. We only need another way of persuading the SNP leadership that our patience remains, but isn't infinite.
Yesindyref2 - grumble grumble.
DeleteGrizebard - grumble grumble.
Considering his history, I still and always did keep it in mind that he might be "running interference" as the Yanks might say, creating a distraction and confusion to the enemy!
DeleteI'd say he's succeeding, even if he doesn't mean to.
edit: these captcha pictures are seriously bad quality, it took me 8 attempts.
ScottytheScotinScotland
DeleteI think most people on this site know what you are, kind of like a dogbiscuit or a crappy canine. A serious case of an overinbred pedigree.
Yesindyref2 - grumble grumble.
DeleteScottytheFruitcakeinNowhere - rumble rumble, empty barrel, nothin' to contribute, just another troll
Deletei get the impression stu's been got at or the strain of running the blog etc has got to him
DeleteGrizebard the grumbling troll who trolls Campbell calls me a troll. A distinct lack of self awareness by Grizebard.
DeleteThe brass neck of the Britnat journalists at the Coronavirus daily briefing is just astonishing. The Daily Telegraph journalist says that the FM should take responsibility for the actions of the people at the border waving some flags. The FM quite rightly says NO.
ReplyDeleteDoes the Telegraph take responsibility for the disgraceful hateful comments that its customers post about Scottish people nearly every day?
Name one hateful customer. Time and Date.
DeleteDaily Telegraph Editor (ha ha)
DeleteThe BTL comments from your customers constantly post hateful bile about Scots that if it was Jews, Muslims or blacks they were referring to the Daily Telegraph would be shut down and prosecuted. You do not delete this stuff because it would be all your BTL customers comments you would have to delete.
Name a hateful customer or apologise.
DeleteDaily Telegraph Editor (ha ha )
DeleteDavid Starkey.
In England - a Scot being told to fuck off back to your own country Jock is just playful banter say the Britnats.
DeleteIn Scotland - a Scot being concerned about people coming from England (with higher levels of coronavirus infection) is anti English racism/hatred according to the Britnats.
I wandered by the WoS site yesterday, what a load of unremitting negativity. I pity anyone who reads it and takes his ranting on board. It's so bitter and comes across as there being nothing he'd like more than to take down the SNP any way he can.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a huge shame as in the past he might have been snarky but the site was a real help to the movement. The Wee Blue Book was a great asset.
In fairness, they're a bit more cheerful at the moment. Many of them are fantasising about starting a party literally called "The Salmond Party".
DeleteWings over insults where everybody gets Campbells foul mouthed abuse unless they agree with what he says, that's why it's the same 14 people arguing with each other, I dare anybody to just ask a question that differs from the screwball cult, watch what happens
ReplyDeleteive been doing that for a few days now. my days are numbered
DeleteFor accuracy!
DeleteThe Wings articles are often very good and well researched.
His Twitter account (when open) is a very different issue.
The clique (same 14 people) are nothing to do with the Rev and are just as offensive as the Unionist bloggers.
It is correct to say that any divergence from the "14 protectors of Wings" leads to abuse but again that has nothing to do with the Rev. It is like blaming James for the views of the idiot GWC.
I still read the Wings articles but the posts are now very poor quality reading. More down to the SNP haters who offer no solutions only "don't vote SNP".
Throwing rocks gets us nowhere. For me this site, Wings, Weegingerdug, Craig Murray have ALL added to the Independence cause.
All Unionst trolls are not as obvious as GWC. Some wear our clothes and speak our language. They whisper poison in our ear.
Julia Gibb - how about BarrheadBoy, Grousebeater and Random Public Journal.
DeleteAnd I should make clear that there is a further weighty omission from the list.
DeleteWings are Splitters.
ReplyDeleteBoring boring - Campbell is this - Campbell is that - insert your choice of derogatory comment.
ReplyDeletePeople who got kicked off Campbell's site really need to get over it. It's pathetic and boring going on and on about him and how awful he is and how awful his site is. Get over it.
It's mainly just unionist concern trolls. I mean no normal person spends their time ranting about a blog author in such a way.
DeleteNormal folk just stop reading the blog if it ceases to interest them. Like me.
We can rant about the latest Tory policy as that's forced on us, but if you don't like Campbell, he can vanish from your life immediately. It's not like he's someone of importance / power.
I used to be regular enough wings visitor, but lost interest when it became anti-GRA domestic legislation rant site, even if I agreed with some of the logic he was putting forward.
I'm interested in indy.
There are no Tory policies forced on Scotland.
DeleteAll of them are after the Section 30 was refused.
DeleteYou would have a referendum every week until you won. You have no respect for the ballot box and moreso since you have become Irish.
DeleteThat makes no sense. Only voters can deliver a Yes, and they can only ever respect the ballot box through the action of voting.
DeleteIt makes sense to us Scots who did vote and respect the result.
DeleteOnly you can 'not respect' your 2014 vote. We've been over this before.
DeleteYes voters can only 'disrespect' the 2014 outcome by voting No; the opposite of what they did last time. Obviously.
If I vote Yes again, I am respecting 2014. I am being true to the outcome.
So if it's a Yes next time, it's the unionists you want a word with. It will be them that didn't respect 2014.
You are on the wrong forum. It's why Yes is now 54%.
If you'd spent time persuading unionists to respect the result rather than us nats, it might still be 45% Yes.
You've been a bit of a dumb ass to be honest.
When I said Scots who voted I meant all Scots who voted. People who vote should respect the outcome. It is not dumb to respect the outcome of a ballot. Perhaps you are the dumb ass as I have never told anyone who or what to vote for. And to say I am on the wrong forum is rather dumb. A forum is as it suggests just a forum.
DeleteThe outcome was 45% Yes. I need to keep supporting yes and vote yes again to respect that outcome. The same applies to all Scots.
DeleteSo, the 54% in the above poll is due to some unionists 'not respecting' how they voted in 2014, like I said. Most yes voters are still yes, respecting the 2014 45% yes.
How can you not understand such simple maths?
It's you not respecting the 45% Yes result by coming onto a Yes blog and berating the 45% who are just respecting the result by being true to the 2014 vote.
DeleteI voted Yes in 2014, stop demanding I disrespect what I told the UK government when asked on the matter of independence. Respect democracy and the 2014 outcome!
If we disproportionately eject unionists from Holyrood - a parliament they've never been that keen on anyway - it gives unionists (in London) an increased incentive to shut it down.
DeleteBetter to focus on disproportionately ejecting unionists from the parliament they most like - Westminster - while fighting for a Holyrood result / parliament that democratically reflects how Scots voted.
Ok Skier - we get 59 out of 59 SNP MPs in Westminster as distinct from the 56 out of 59 MPs in 2015 how does this make any difference to Scotland becoming its normal state of independence again?
DeleteHow does getting a crap-load of pro-indy MSPs in Holyrood achieve that unless these actually represent the Scottish population democratically?
DeleteIf we got 75% pro-indy MPs on 49% Yes support / support for Yes parties, how is the cause furthered? All we do is give credence to the 'one party state' propaganda and scare voters about what an indy Scotland will look like and lose the referendum by 1%. Then the unionists, having given up on Holyrood as we've kicked them out, can try to repeal the Scotland act, shutting it down.
Also, if you want current unionist voters to vote for indy, they'll need to know the party they support will have its fair number of seats in our parliament. You can't tell them 'Vote for a government that really does represent Scots!' whilst trying to get a hugely disproportionate number of MSPs compared to votes, ensuring this doesn't happen at all.
For independence, we need Scots to want independence. Do that, and there's no need to 'cheat'; the process becomes unstoppable.
It looks like we may have finally reached that point.
By all means advocate a new party, but do so on the merits of it's policies. I will consider it along with other manifestos.
Skier - you answered questions I did not ask but not the one I did ask.
DeleteI'll try again - the process becomes unstoppable. What exactly is this unstoppable process?
62% of Scots voted to remain in the EU. But 54% is unstoppable.
EU saying they will ALLOW the UK to leave the EU fishing policy.
ReplyDeleteBritnat journalists at the daily cironavirus briefing make a big deal of the Scotgov not having checked any of the airport arrivals who should be in quarantine for 14 days. You would actual think the journalists cared about the health of the population of Scotland (if you are extremely naive ). The Scotgov couldn't get the data from the UK gov to do the checks that's why.
ReplyDeleteContrast this with the thought of people arriving by road at the English border with Scotland who may have the virus having to accept a 14 day quarantine. It's anti English racism/hatred the Britnats say. Baloney it's just Britnats trying to raise false grievances.
Everyone knows Johnson has made an absolute bollocks of every aspect of the virus and now the Britnats need to deliver a perception that Sturgeon is just as bad. It won't work.
Did this poll include 16/17 year olds and EU citizens? Thanks in advance.
ReplyDeleteEU citizens are not Scottish and we have left the EU. All UK citizens should get the vote on Scottish Independence as we have all benefitted from the Union.
DeleteWhat benefits?
DeleteBeing cannon fodder?
Having our weath sent South for "the maintenance of the Empire"
Being allocated interest on money borrowed for projects in England?
For introducing the Cost/Benefit ideology that ensured money went to English cities.
Perhaps it was our experiment role on issues like poll tax or Universal Credit.
Huh? I'm am Scottish and an EU citizen you dumb fuck. Got the passport to prove it too.
DeleteFarage is an EU citizen I understand. His kids certainly are.
DeleteJohnson's dad too I believe.
Loads of brexiters have applied to become EU citizens post brexit.
We EU citizens, brexiters included, will be sure to wave at you mugs as we pass you queuing at immigration.
DeleteI see Brexit Bozo is blaming selfless key workers and carers for care home deaths.
ReplyDeleteTalking about passing the buck. Sickening stuff. How much lower can he stoop?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53315178
That's the thing about Tories. It's always someone else's fault.
Smell your glove Skier. It is always the fault of England!
DeleteQuit it with your anti-English racist hatred.
DeleteIt's funny - not humourous funny - that those who insist on respecting the result in '14 don't seem to be anything like so keen to respect any of the promises made to us back then. Instead we have the latest cunning plan from slimeball Gove to make every majority vote in Holyrood subject to a veto from an unelected puppet committee of his very own choosing. This isn't democracy, except maybe as it's known in China.
ReplyDeleteThese same advocates of the decision on '14 are also so confident of their position that they're doing their damnable best to avoid us being able to reconsider everything in the light of events since.
"Bought a dud motor from us whose steering is wonky and whose engine has fallen out?: too bad, just shut up and keep payin' the instalments."
As I explained to GWC, 2014 was 45% Yes. To respect that result, the 45% Yes must be respected as much as the 55% No.
DeleteWhen a unionist tells a Yes voter to stop supporting indy, they are disrespecting the 2014 result.
GWC etc seem to think it was 100% No.
While the 55% No meant we remained in the union until further notice, it wasn't 100% No!
You Nat zis have never respected Scottish Unionists nor the 2014 result. Explanations from Nat zis are lost on me. Start respecting people who differ in political opinion from you.
DeleteThis is a pro-indy blog and you are a unionist on here not respecting the 2014 result by abusing the 45% Yes and telling them they should undo the outcome by changing what they voted.
DeleteStop disrespecting the 2014 result.
As I said before, it's (2014) unionists 'not respecting the result' (changing their minds) that has caused support to rise from 45% to 54% Yes.
DeleteThis has happened because idiot unionists have wasted their time disrespecting the result by abusing the 45% Yes rather than persuading their own 2014 voters to stick with them.
If you want to save the union, you need to engage with unionists on e.g. unionist forums. They're the ones leaving your camp and crossing to ours while you are busy on here talking shite.
In fact no. Don't go on unionist forums. Stay on here.
Stop talking piss.
DeleteWhat's incorrect about what I said?
DeleteThe 54% Yes is not from me. I'm part of the 45%. I've not undone or 'not respected' anything. I hold exactly the same view and would vote in the same way, 'respecting' how I voted last time.
It's folk from your side in 2014 that have crossed over to the Yes camp and you've been too busy to notice because you are in here.
Get down to the King Billy's Arms and start trying to persuade folks to stay with the union before you lose any more.
You are a liar and a dud.
DeleteTHIS IS A DAMNED DISGRACE. You should all be writing in Scots. Shame on you.
ReplyDeleteaye, you furst ma freen
DeleteYou should be writing in British.
DeleteExcept you can't, can you. Disnae exist.
You're not sounding like yourself, Stu.
DeleteThose are three languages of Britain / geographically British peoples. French isn't the 'European' language.
DeleteThere is no 'British' like there is Cornish, Irish, Breton, Scots, Scots Gaelic, English, Welsh, French, German, Portuguese...
I'm half reluctant to say this because it'll probably attract sniping from all sides, but...
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to a new party, with all the structure and bureaucracy that it entails, as well as the difficulty in getting recognition and trust from the general public... why not try something that's worked before?
A 'Margo' for every region. A well known independence supporting figure, suited to that regions voters, and standing as an independent.
Could also bring some fine voices to our Parliament and show that it's not the business as usual party politics you get at Westminster.
Now that is an interesting suggestion that I haven't seen before. Worth pondering...
DeleteI used to used vote 1. Margo and 2. SNP when I lived in the Lothian region.
DeleteI do understand that part of the motivation of those who are champions of a new party is the belief they can gather dozens of seats... but I'm on the cautious side that it's in no way guaranteed... especially the recognition/trust part of the public.
DeleteSkier, where have you not lived! I hear the Pope is giving you sainthood because you have been seen in various places at the same time and with your sweet smell of breath.
DeleteLed a sheltered life have you GWC?
DeleteStarting with a Glesga tenement. You left a personal trail Skier.
DeleteGWC's gonna gimme a gummy.
DeleteThere are a couple of potential problems with the 'Margo in every region' idea. Firstly, I doubt if there are enough people with a high enough profile, and if you choose lesser-known people they'll fall below the threshold required to take a seat and those votes will be wasted, potentially helping unionist parties. Secondly, on the other extreme, if they're extremely well-known they could take enough votes to be elected twice over, thus leading to wasted 'surplus' votes.
DeleteAlex Salmond will not return to front line politics, he'd be insane to do it and he would damage the cause of Independence because the media would make it all about him and the invented fight with Nicola Sturgeon, what she knew, what he knew, who knew what, who's going to win, who hates who and so on and so on and Independence would suffer from it
ReplyDeleteEven if there isn't a row the media will make sure everybody believes there was or is and they'll create the space for people doubting voting for Independence at all because TRUST
Don't allow yourselves to be conned Independence is coming but not with Alex Salmond, you might see him after it but not before
How can independence come when you Nat Zis want to sell Scotland to the German French led EU.
DeleteXenophobic comments from the racist as normal.
DeleteIt's us Irish that lead the EU. It's how we got N. Ireland to stay via the backstop lol.
DeleteSo you are Irish today. Yes the Irish did lead on child abuse and were bailed out by the BOE.
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/25/police-and-politicians-turned-blind-eye-to-westminster-child-abuse-claims-report
DeletePolice and politicians ‘turned blind eye’ to Westminster child abuse
Oh Gratuitous Whining Clod, all these infantile responses. Take a good long look in the mirror. Your wonderful Britannica inspires you to nothing more than puerile negativity, a series of random irrelevant scoffs at everything and anything. Your cupboard really is starkly bare, and more and more people are seeing it.
DeleteI truly pity you as someone who clearly has run out of road, and has nothing worthwhile to offer, just filth. A miniscule Lord of the Flies.
If one wants to accept that the results of the poll are stunning, you'd be a cuif if you didn't accept that it can only show so much.
ReplyDeleteThe poll of only one question that was completely hypothetical. Would you vote for a party led by X gets one answer, but that's only one part of it.
To be devil's advocate, what if the hypothetical party was led by X and was proposing a flat tax of 40% on all income, that's going to get a different answer.
Obviously no-one is going to propose such a draconian tax idea, but as a party makes choices on dozens of policy positions, its going to create situations that people won't want to vote for.
This is true of all parties, and when it comes to voting you weigh up the different aspects and cast your vote accordingly.
That's the reason there's doubters that one poll question automatically leads to success.
It's the candidates stupid, as the saying goes.
ReplyDeleteSalmond is seen as a plus in this scenario.
By 2021 he may be a bit of a marmite choice, and in any case he personally can only stand in one region on the list.
My own view is that much will change in the months ahead. Crossing bridges before you get to them etc.
My preference would be having the choice of voting for a Margo or a Denis Canavan standing as an independent without party baggage.
Also the 48 SNP MP's have a vital role in subverting the England as the UK narrative that even a blind man can see coming with Brexit.
Ramstan - my preference would be voting for independence. A choice that is long overdue. 62% to remain in the EU.
DeleteHow has this come about?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53336489
...it was estimated that for every 100,000 people in Scotland, 28 currently have coronavirus. She said this compared to 128 across the UK as a whole...
How is the infection rate in England nearly 5 times higher?
And in that answer she mis-spoke, having previously compared the figure for England at 180, more than six times the Scottish level, whilst Spain was 330.
DeleteWhy "misspoke"? The situation is constantly changing, so welcome to the latest update.
DeleteOr do you read the time from a piece of paper you keep in your pocket?
Stop being anti-English unknown.
DeleteThe infection rate is falling there too.
Past 2 weeks. Deaths per day average (daily figures):
ReplyDeleteUK = 103
Scotland = 0.7
Per capita, the UK death rate is 12 times that of Scotland.
What is happening in England? Hundreds are dying per day of covid.
" What is happening in England?" You certainly pose easier questions than the questions I put to you but unlike you I will address it.
DeleteWhat is happening in England is that they have a bunch of Brexiteer Bampots running the show who are lacking in the skills and empathy to deal with the crisis. They are in their positions for no other reason than being Brexiteer bampots who will add a no deal Brexit on top of the covid economic Armageddon and blame everybody else but themselves.
You are like those US generals during the Vietnam War. Always going on about the body count.
DeleteEvery day the majority of the Britnat journalists make a complete arse of themselves at the Virus daily Briefing. It is clear they are in the job because they are willing to write what they are told to write rather than their intellect.
ReplyDeleteYes Daily Telegraph Editor (ha ha) that includes your journalist.
Too many people on here hiding behind silly names.
ReplyDelete