Mr Bairn Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Just checked the vote in North East - SNP did achieve 52% on the list vote which elected one additional member. Labour picked up 3 additional member seats. I need to check the total votes on the constituency votes. What I do know though is that in terms of constituency versus list vote the SNP only dropped 1.4% compared to a 5.4% drop by Labour - the SNP did perform relatively better on the list than Labour. That could be down to a number of factors - my gut instinct is that there are a large number of Labour voters too thick to understand that the second vote isn't a second choice. Personally I think the regional vote is the key one in terms of "party popularity" The Constituency vote, particularly with teuchters, is vulnerable to personal votes and tactical voting. Look at the only part of Scotland with no SNP MSP, Leith. Malcolm Chisholm was elected in the Constituency, but the SNP easily topped the regional poll. By the way, Chisholm is another who could be better utilised by better together. Provided he's voting no, that is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 That could be down to a number of factors - my gut instinct is that there are a large number of Labour voters too thick to understand that the second vote isn't a second choice. Well it very much is a second choice, if voters wish to do so. At least you're taking it well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sophia Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 The Constituency vote, particularly with teuchters, is vulnerable to personal votes and tactical voting. not self aware, not even in the slightest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 not self aware, not even in the slightest. ??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Well it very much is a second choice, if voters wish to do so. At least you're taking it well. What do you mean taking it well? I just think (like a lot of people here) that there are more Labour voters who are as thick as mince compared to other parties. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 It was said umpteen times in the 90s that I recall. Eh what? Before it was even proposed by the Labour government that didn't exist yet you mean? You made this point in a post about "negative polling". The Scottish Parliament referendum was a landslide. There was never any doubt at all about the result of that referendum. Just like this one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 4 more bookies making NO 4/11 since Monday, I wonder what side is going to win by a landslide, pleasing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) Eh what? Before it was even proposed by the Labour government that didn't exist yet you mean? You made this point in a post about "negative polling". The Scottish Parliament referendum was a landslide. There was never any doubt at all about the result of that referendum. Just like this one. Well, firstly it wasn't first proposed by that Labour administration. It had been discussed extensively, and the standard chat from the Unionist government of the time was that it wouldn't happen. Secondly, I didn't say anything about the polling for the devolution referendum. Do I have to put every point in separate posts to avoid the risk of someone deliberately conflating and misrepresenting them? Edited April 23, 2014 by milton75 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Do I have to put every point in separate posts to avoid the risk of someone deliberately conflating and misrepresenting them? Welcome the wonderful world of HB and his merry band of lapdogs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Welcome the wonderful world of HB and his merry band of lapdogs. As long as it's a predictable policy, I'm happy enough to expect it and dance the dance! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Well, firstly it wasn't first proposed by that Labour administration. It had been discussed extensively, and the standard chat from the Unionist government of the time was that it wouldn't happen. Riiight... so we've gone from a) So far we have variously been told that: - There will be no devolved Scottish Parliament to b) "uhh, Michael forsyth said something (that wasn't this at all ) in a behind the scenes cabinet meeting to c) "and the standard chat from the Unionist government of the time was that it wouldn't happen." So again, to support your original assertion, I ask the question :- Who exactly told us "There will be no devolved Scottish Parliament" and when? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Who exactly told us "There will be no devolved Scottish Parliament" and when? I fear you might be waiting a while for evidence, the Nationalists didn't cover themselves in glory in the ATOS debacle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 I love you HB, tb bbz x x FTFY 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 (edited) Riiight... so we've gone from a) So far we have variously been told that: - There will be no devolved Scottish Parliament to b) "uhh, Michael forsyth said something (that wasn't this at all ) in a behind the scenes cabinet meeting to c) "and the standard chat from the Unionist government of the time was that it wouldn't happen." So again, to support your original assertion, I ask the question :- Who exactly told us "There will be no devolved Scottish Parliament" and when? Sorry, but you're talking shit. I don't know your age, but if you were old enough to be engaged in politics in the 1990s, and indeed before that during Thatcher's tenure, you will remember innumerate assertions that devolution would not happen. Do you deny that this is the case? As I've already pointed out, unless, by some chance, this has been archived in newspapers or Hansard, it's not easy to link to. However, within a 2-second google, I was able to reference Forsyth discussing the fact that, in his opinion, Scots were fed up of being told "you can't have that" (given that he was Scottish Secretary, I would argue his knowledge of what the government line was might just be better than yours or mine). Now let's get to the nub of this: are you asking because you actually care, or are you asking because you don't like the fact that I've pointed out that unionist predictions have so far gone awry? The polls are only moving in one direction, and your keenness to grub around trying to pick holes in a minor point only serves to make you appear palpably worried that the argument is being lost. Edited April 24, 2014 by milton75 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Sorry, but you're talking shit. I don't know your age, but if you were old enough to be engaged in politics in the 1990s, and indeed before that during Thatcher's tenure, you will remember innumerate assertions that devolution would not happen. Yeah, you're not really getting this evidence thing are you? You have made the claim. Now justify it. You have stated that :- "a) So far we have variously been told that: - There will be no devolved Scottish Parliament" I'll ask a third time. When were "we" told this and by whom? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 The polls are only moving in one direction, and your keenness to grub around trying to pick holes in a minor point only serves to make you appear palpably worried that the argument is being lost. Yup, that's H_B all right. Have you seen the Nuclear discussion on the other thread? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Yeah, you're not really getting this evidence thing are you? You have made the claim. Now justify it. You have stated that :- "a) So far we have variously been told that: - There will be no devolved Scottish Parliament" I'll ask a third time. When were "we" told this and by whom? So you don't take Forsyth's quote as evidence? Please explain why. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 The polls are only moving in one direction, and your keenness to grub around trying to pick holes in a minor point only serves to make you appear palpably worried that the argument is being lost. And just for comic value, would you like to give a referendum prediction? Who's going to win? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 So you don't take Forsyth's quote as evidence? Please explain why. Which quote? You have said :- " "a) So far we have variously been told that: - There will be no devolved Scottish Parliament" Who told "us" that, when and what was the quote? It's really not a difficult question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milton75 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Which quote? You have said :- " "a) So far we have variously been told that: - There will be no devolved Scottish Parliament" Who told "us" that, when and what was the quote? It's really not a difficult question. I already answered it. I said that I recalled the statement from Forsyth and further I advised you that, without trawling newspapers (that would only be available on archive sites, as this was prior to them having internet editions) the exact quote would be difficult to find. Instead I quoted Forsyth making reference to what had been said. Did I or did I not say both of these things? I believe I did, so your "third time of asking/difficult question" schtick seems incongruous. Let me suggest that if you enjoy taking a supercilious stance, you reserve doing so for occasions in which it will succeed. Do you doubt the veracity of this, and do you allege that Forsyth's recollection in incorrect? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.