tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post7776468039323302144..comments2024-03-29T09:02:27.112+00:00Comments on SCOT goes POP!: Don't you at least have to know what someone is saying before you call them a bigot?James Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-89062715993475213472014-05-26T22:04:35.292+01:002014-05-26T22:04:35.292+01:00Hi Justin, I do appreciate the good intentions beh...Hi Justin, I do appreciate the good intentions behind your advice, and you're not the first person to say something similar (David Officer and Craig Gallagher have both taken me to task in the past). However, I do feel it's important to be myself - this blog is a reflection of my personality, and I don't want to turn into a machine, weighing up every dot and comma according to the test of whether it will win or lose votes. I do tend to write about this sort of thing when it crops up, and it would feel very odd not to. But if it's any consolation, if this had happened last year I would probably have written fifteen paragraphs about it - I was sufficiently preoccupied with the European elections today to restrict myself to three!James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-10192843372559200142014-05-26T21:49:09.391+01:002014-05-26T21:49:09.391+01:00I find your analysis very useful, and thanks for a...I find your analysis very useful, and thanks for all your work. I would, however, caution against getting into spats with people on the same side as you however crazy they may (or may seem to) be being. <br /><br />There is a much bigger prize at stake than any single personality. If we go down the route of castigating (however accurately or not) those pushing for the same outcome on Sept 18th then there is no way we'll win. <br /><br />Please keep your excellent eye on the ball and don't be diverted from it. You made a clear call on Thursday that James' analysis was wrong. That kind of intervention is helpful - it gives people a greater ability to make up their own minds. They can read you, read him, and decide. <br /><br />I realise it must be a pain if someone is laying into you. Best way of getting your own back is to just ignore it and get on with doing the job. <br /><br />Ok that's the personality bit, but as for the voting bit . . . I am a Green and I think the crucial thing is to NOT be tactical. I think being principled is exactly what this Independence process is about - not settling for less, insisting we can be all we can be, and not entering into the 'lesser of 2 evils' way of thinking that means you end up with evil either way.<br /><br />I think the Scottish Government is doing an extraordinarily good job and am behind its tireless work on bread and butter as well as on the bigger constitutional issue. But I don't agree with its business as usual approach to business, there are far more creative and fairer ways of meeting our needs, organising production, and ensuring we don't head over the ecological precipice. <br /><br />The Jimmy Reid foundation and the Greens have real solutions on these fundamental questions - but without independence there is no chance of realising them. So I have been voting SNP in the constituency vote, and voting Green on the list; and hoping we can continue to work well together. <br /><br />We need to work together, and leave turning on each other for the No campaign. I know that's not what you're doing here, and James doesn't represent the Greens any more than you represent the SNP . . . but I often find a word of caution from someone who means me well can be worth a hundred people agreeing with me!<br />Justin Kenricknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-711306830750942702014-05-26T19:57:28.191+01:002014-05-26T19:57:28.191+01:00David Leas of the Herald once called James MacKenz...David Leas of the Herald once called James MacKenzie "The Erich Von Daniken of taking offence"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-91102209172060689922014-05-26T18:48:14.435+01:002014-05-26T18:48:14.435+01:00Some of the Greens are clearly as censorious and i...Some of the Greens are clearly as censorious and intolerant of other viewpoints as Cleg's ostrich faction are.<br /><br />This Green media spinner is self-evidently a liability to his own party and he needs to look at his own pathetic behaviour before he attempts to castigate anyone else.<br /><br />Let's face it though James, it's not as if we didn't already know that the most cowardly and obnoxious people on the web are those who try to ban and censor any opinion that contradicts and challenges theirs. PoliticalBetting has operated like that for years and the spineless herd are only too happy to go along with it. <br /><br /><br />Speaking of those trapped in the Westminster bubble, there was a remarkably biased piece by the BBC's political editor (and former National Chairman of the Young Conservatives) Nick Robinson on R4 not long ago. It was pure unadulterated BritNat spin, trying to completely gloss over the fact that the kippers only got 10% in scotland compared to their 29% in England and Wales, while totally ignoring that the kippers they came <b>fourth</b> while the SNP <b>won</b> in scotland. He also seemed to have his head stuck up Cameron's arse as he tried to spin away the tories coming third as nothing of consequence. Little Ed and Cammie were <i>both</i> utter crap at these elections in case he somehow missed the bleeding obvious.<br /><br />There was a far more illuminating report from outside Robinson's Westmisnter bubble when the BBC political correspondent Alan Little pointed out the facts on the ground in Edinburgh which were completely at odds with Robinson's 'better together' spin. No doubt he'll be severely reprimanded by the BBC upper echelons for competence and daring to speak the truth on a BBC News channel.Mick Porknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-21097373244118047282014-05-26T18:39:42.319+01:002014-05-26T18:39:42.319+01:00That blog hasn't been worth reading since Malc...That blog hasn't been worth reading since Malc Harvey left. A bit like Ask Jeeves or Veritas - it's one of those things I'm occasionally somewhat surprised to see still exists. An Duine Gruamachnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-34605747653983005012014-05-26T17:25:24.111+01:002014-05-26T17:25:24.111+01:00No. He wasn't referring to a full-scale YouGo...No. He wasn't referring to a full-scale YouGov poll, but to an unweighted Scottish subsample of a GB-wide poll (well, strictly speaking weightings were applied, but not ones that made the sample representative of the Scottish population). That subsample showed the Greens on 11% - far higher than the Green vote produced by any full-scale Scottish poll during the campaign.<br /><br />Basically what was so misleading about James' piece was that he pronounced that the SNP and Labour were incapable of stopping UKIP on the specific basis of the subsample's margin of error of 4.2% - ie. he was claiming that the SNP's share of the vote was guaranteed to fall between 22% and 30%. By definition, 4.2% cannot have been the margin of error, because it's impossible to calculate the margin of error for an unweighted subsample.<br /><br />I did think of leaving a comment on Better Nation to point that out, but I'm glad I didn't bother because on today's evidence James would just have deleted it instantly. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me if someone else did attempt to make the point and wasn't allowed to.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-57959401047430529752014-05-26T17:13:12.898+01:002014-05-26T17:13:12.898+01:00Is he right that his analysis of YouGov was substa...Is he right that his analysis of YouGov was substantiated?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com