Eh Stew, tu?

I said yesterday that it looked like all we were going to get by way of a response from the controversial "Stew" blogger on the issue of tactical voting on the list was his half-hearted "oh you just didn't understand the complexity and subtlety of my insights, never mind, let's get back to my 24/7 commentary about Sandie Peggie and NHS Fife".  But thrillingly, he did respond further yesterday, albeit just to have another generic whinge because I ignored his attempted framing of the issue as being all about "falsehoods" and "miserable lies".

Well, as my post yesterday was in response to a tweet from Stew that literally didn't say anything at all, there wasn't really much I could do except rapidly move on to a different subject, and Palestine seemed as good a choice as any.  "How can you waste time talking about the most horrific genocide of the 21st century when there's SANDIE PEGGIE and NHS FIFE going on?"  Yes, I know, Stew, I know...but hang on, what's this?  Didn't you spontaneously raise the issue of Palestine yourself yesterday?  OK, it was only to complain that the Palestinian people's attempts to survive the genocide are just as tiresome  and tedious as Israel's perpetration of the genocide, and that "both sides" (yes, the BOTH SIDES KLAXON has sounded) should be annihilated with nuclear weapons so that they stop annoying you with distractions from the all-consuming NHS Fife issue.  But even so.  

Specifically, Stew was furious with the attempts of Palestinian children slaughtered by Israel to "emotionally manipulate" him from beyond the grave, because Hind Rajab has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.  Although just as a thought-experiment, would it be OK for NHS Fife changing-room martyrs to emotionally manipulate us with their own Nobel nominations?  I suspect it would.

OK, Stew, here's the deal.  You don't have any sort of monopoly on "issuing challenges", so if I humour you and provide a point-by-point rebuttal of the supposed "ten falsehoods", will you take a moment to explain how your claims to think tactical voting on the list is "almost impossible" are reconcilable with your demands that people should vote tactically against the SNP on the list, and your claims that they are "idiots" if they don't?  

Sound fair?  Great stuff.  Thanks in advance.

OK, let's get into it, as the least trendy YouTubers always say...

"FALSEHOOD #1":  Stew is saying I lied by claiming that he issued advice to his readers about tactical voting on the list.  But as noted above, he has repeatedly issued such advice and told his readers they'd be "idiots" not to take it.  So no falsehood there.  Next!

"FALSEHOOD #2":  Stew is saying I lied by claiming he had talked up Fergus Ewing's chances of defeating the SNP in Inverness & Nairn.  As evidence, he points out that before Mr Ewing had announced his independent candidacy, a post on Wings had said that Emma Roddick was likely to hold the seat for the SNP.  But I wasn't referring to anything that Stew said before Mr Ewing announced his candidacy.  I was instead talking about the multiple tweets Stew posted after the candidacy was announced, in which he did indeed talk up Mr Ewing's chances.  So no falsehood there.  Next!

"FALSEHOOD #3": Stew is saying I lied by claiming he had stated that the SNP would definitely win no list seats at all next year.  But he in fact made that statement numerous times, most notably in his blogpost "The blindness of hatred".  So no falsehood there.  Next!

"FALSEHOOD #4":  Stew is saying I lied by claiming that he has changed his position over the last ten years from opposing tactical voting on the list to supporting it.  He insists that in fact his opposition to tactical voting on the list has remained resolute and unchanged, and it's just that the physical possibilities of the universe have expanded to allow him to support tactical voting while opposing it.  I've already dealt with this mind-bending gibberish at considerable length, and pointed out that it's an insult to the intelligence of every single one of his readers.  There's no falsehood here.  Next!  

"FALSEHOOD #5":  Stew is saying I lied by claiming he had stated that the SNP were guaranteed to win at least 65 constituency seats - meaning they would win a single-party majority in the Scottish Parliament without requiring even a single list seat.  Stew did indeed make that statement in his blogpost "The blindness of hatred".  He even helpfully supplied maps showing precisely which 65 seats the SNP were guaranteed to take, embarrassingly including both East Lothian and Hamilton.  So no falsehood there.  Next!

"FALSEHOOD #6":  Bizarrely, this seems to be an exact repetition of number 5, which I've already dealt with and wasn't a falsehood.  Next!

"FALSEHOOD #7":  I'm not sure even Stew himself knows what the falsehood is supposed to be here - he just seems to object to me speculating about how his sales pitch on tactical voting will evolve in the less conducive post-Hamilton context.  Speculation about the future self-evidently can't be a falsehood, so...next!

"FALSEHOOD #8":  Stew is saying I lied by claiming he had gone in the blink of an eye from stating that all SNP list votes in the Highlands would definitely be wasted to stating that people could vote for Fergus Ewing safely because the SNP would get a compensatory list seat in the Highlands.  He did indeed say in his blogpost "The blindness of hatred" that all SNP list votes in the Highlands would definitely be wasted, and he did indeed say in a tweet after Fergus Ewing announced his candidacy that voters could back Mr Ewing safe in the knowledge that the SNP would be compensated with a list seat.  So no falsehood there.  Next!

"FALSEHOOD #9": Stew is saying I lied by implying that his tweet about the compensatory list seat in the Highlands constituted tactical voting advice.  This is more mind-bending gibberish along the lines of "Stew only advocates tactical voting to oppose it", and I've already dealt with that.  There's no falsehood here.  Next!

"FALSEHOOD #10": Again, I haven't a scooby what the falsehood is supposed to be in this case, because all Stew actually says about it is "Hoo boy".  Answers on a postcard, folks.  Next!

Oh, there isn't a next.  I've dealt with all ten, and not a single one was a falsehood.  I should have started this little exercise with the great man's "This won't take long" catchphrase, because it really didn't take long.