Alex Salmond.

[Trogdor]

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Parties don't tend to advocate voting for another party on the list - not unless your Kezia Dugdale.

This is a break from that but it's the smaller party advocating voting for the larger party in the constituency.

In a way the Greens have done the same by not standing in constituencies.

Totally agree.

Although SNP have tacitly accepted (not endorsed) SNP 1 Green 2 from a section of their voters for a couple of elections now. The Greens are a useful safety net as they can be brought on side.

It will be interesting to see if the SNP opt to attack Alba in the campaign or ignore them.  I suspect the latter makes more sense but personalities often override sense in politics.

[SandyCromarty]

1 hour ago, Ralstonite said:

Being a 'sex pest' might mean he propositions female aids in the back of black cabs, etc. It doesn't make him a rapist.

I'm not defending him, btw. All I care about is independence, and if Salmond can help achieve that, then I don't see how him being a bit of a lech really matters that much. 

I agree with you but the problem in any society is that mud sticks, possible women voters will have their minds made up due to fact that his defence lawyer in his summation said that at times 'Salmond acted inappropriately', that is what women will take to the voting booth.

Edited March 27, 2021 by SandyCromarty

[invergowrie arab]

15 minutes ago, virginton said:

The only way that (self-styled) moderates and soft Yes 'disappear' is if Sturgeon fails to distinguish her party as well as the cause of independence from what is now an entirely separate political party. The onus is on her and other SNP leaders to continue making their own case, not for everyone else to stand in line until they say that the time is right.

100 pro-independence MSPs would shift the dynamic of public debate on the issue in Scotland and in the rest of the UK, in a way that the SNP getting either side of 65 seats and hauners from the Greens would not. The issue is not with the strategy but rather the political vehicle, but your analysis is a particularly bankrupt version of 'both votes SNP!!!!' dogma.

Actually using the phrase 'too stupid' like the BitterTogether trope FFS. 

Does Alex Salmond being in parliament and subsequently platformed in a future referendum help or hinder independence?

Of course it's NS job to outline her vision for government and independence. That job has just got harder.

For those two reasons above I'm not jumping with joy about the prospects of a "super majority".

As for my language, I apologise, I know you are someone who values temperate respectful debate 

[Saltire]

What some posters may be missing is that, for SNP voters, the list vote is also an insurance policy in the event that fewer constituency seats are won. We could get carried away about super majorities here. First and foremost, as an SNP voter, I want a majority SNP government and I'll be using my second vote in South of Scotland to help maximise the number of SNP MSPs.

Do I think the SP would be more or less likely to deliver independence with Salmond there with all his baggage? Without doubt, I believe it woluld be less likely. To win a referendum, we need to demostrate a collaborative, cohesive Yes movement and Salmond with his ego, which was once a strength for our cause, is now a liability. 

If we don't win independence in the next five years, I will never forgive the man I once saw as a hero.

[vikingTON]

18 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

Does Alex Salmond being in parliament and subsequently platformed in a future referendum help or hinder independence?

Ah right, so it has nothing to do with the number of MSPs as you claimed, but rather the identity of particular MSPs who you don't like anymore.

FWIW, a platform in which Nicola Sturgeon, Alex Salmond and Patrick Harvie were all batting for independence v three assorted Yoon clowns would be a hell of a lot easier to overcome than the Alex Salmond v an entire panel of Yoons was in 2014. The SNP being detached from the entire independence cause in voters' minds can be a positive step - if its leaders have the political ability to capitalise on that opportunity. 

Quote

That job has just got harder.

I don't see how it has, now that the Salmond scandal train and at least some of the Trans rights circular firing squad debate is now located somewhere else. Nicola Sturgeon is currently much, much more popular than Salmond or any other Scottish politician. If she can't share a platform and set out her own case for independence then the game's a bogey. That's her day job as a politician and I'm not sure why you've suddenly lost faith in her to do so. It's an intellectually bankrupt, 'spoiler' argument. 

Quote

As for my language, I apologise, I know you are someone who values temperate respectful debate 

You don't have to apologise, but if the tone of the both votes SNP party line is going to centre on 'you're just too thick to see Nicola's grand strategy, sit down and eat your cereal', just before a million second votes yield a handful of MSPs at most in May, then yeah, that's not going to work out well in the long run. 

Edited March 27, 2021 by vikingTON

[pandarilla]

Salmond having a bigger presence could forces Westminster's hand - and i don't think it'll affect the soft yes voters that stuegeon attracts.

It's a bit like Tommy sheridan campaigning for yes in 2014. I think it solidifies a certain type of voter but hopefully doesn't affect other groups that would be turned off.

Yes needs to be much bigger than the snp. It needs to be a broad church movement, and the idea that we all need to get in line with the snp mantra doesn't sit well with me.

[monthefife]

Just throwing my two pennies here....

I reckon the launch of this (mostly narcissistic and ego-driven) Alba party, may have just forced the SNP to potentially rethink their strategy going in to the election.
Do the SNP persist with the "BothVotes" strategy in the hope that they marginally cut across the majority line, or do they accept that an SNP 1 Green 2 vote would be a better course of action to eliminate as many of those "gifted" pro-union seats as possible? It's a tricky one because the former is certainly a big gamble for the SNP, but the latter is probably the more sensible option but could end up looking a bit daft. 

As much as I think Salmond is a yesterday's man and should disappear altogether, I won't underestimate the number of votes the Alba Party could achieve. What concerns me is I'm not convinced a large number of the Alba Party voters will even follow their new party's strategy in voting SNP 1 Alba 2. 

[Granny Danger]

5 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Salmond having a bigger presence could forces Westminster's hand - and i don't think it'll affect the soft yes voters that stuegeon attracts.

It's a bit like Tommy sheridan campaigning for yes in 2014. I think it solidifies a certain type of voter but hopefully doesn't affect other groups that would be turned off.

Yes needs to be much bigger than the snp. It needs to be a broad church movement, and the idea that we all need to get in line with the snp mantra doesn't sit well with me.

Would that be the type that has no problem voting for a creepy old man?

[vikingTON]

16 minutes ago, Saltire said:

What some posters may be missing is that, for SNP voters, the list vote is also an insurance policy in the event that fewer constituency seats are won. We could get carried away about super majorities here. First and foremost, as an SNP voter, I want a majority SNP government and I'll be using my second vote in South of Scotland to help maximise the number of SNP MSPs.

That logic works in the South of Scotland region, where SNP second votes have genuine value and will make a difference. It doesn't work in the West of Scotland region, where the SNP will hoover most if not all constituencies in a SNP v Labour fight and so the second vote has no value as insurance.

The irony being of course that the electorate of the West of Scotland will not be fully served by any of the three Yes parties currently vying for the second vote. It's a region where a reconstructed and credible SSP/left independence option focused on socioeconomic issues would actually have traction; instead of middle-class, eco-warrior bully victims like Greer who slide in by default. 

Edited March 27, 2021 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

3 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Would that be the type that has no problem voting for a creepy old man?

Last time I checked you voted for a party on the list vote and not a 'creepy old man'. Hardly surprising though that the geriatric chump who voted for Brexit is once again spraying fail all over the forum. 

[ayrmad]

10 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Salmond having a bigger presence could forces Westminster's hand - and i don't think it'll affect the soft yes voters that stuegeon attracts.

It's a bit like Tommy sheridan campaigning for yes in 2014. I think it solidifies a certain type of voter but hopefully doesn't affect other groups that would be turned off.

Yes needs to be much bigger than the snp. It needs to be a broad church movement, and the idea that we all need to get in line with the snp mantra doesn't sit well with me.

I like many others won't be giving them any votes If they aren't shouting about independence during this campaign, that's the only reason a fair chunk are giving them votes, they really aren't all that, they're just fortunate that the opposition are a pathetic bunch of losers. 

[Trogdor]

8 minutes ago, Saltire said:

What some posters may be missing is that, for SNP voters, the list vote is also an insurance policy in the event that fewer constituency seats are won. We could get carried away about super majorities here. First and foremost, as an SNP voter, I want a majority SNP government and I'll be using my second vote in South of Scotland to help maximise the number of SNP MSPs.

There is sense in this.

However, the SNP list vote is so big, as insurance policies go - the SNP could lose something like 70% (this an educated guess) of constituencies and recoup those seats through the list. The present reality is that such a doomsday scenario is pretty unlikely in the constituency ballots. If the SNP lost 20% of their list votes the effect is to actually depose some Unionists who get a free pass on the list. That doesn't impair your insurance policy (unless the SNP had a disaster on the constituency ballot) and removes the opposition.

It's just arithmetic at the end of the day. If the constituencies in a region are genuine toss ups then SNP on both ballots makes some sense. If the constituencies in a region are heavily favoured to SNP then independence voters should move their 2nd votes.

Its just tactical voting, its essentially the opposite of what gorgeous George has been attempting on the Unionist side.

[Granny Danger]

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

Last time I checked you voted for a party on the list vote and not a 'creepy old man'. Hardly surprising though that the geriatric chump who voted for Brexit is once again spraying fail all over the forum. 

Your involvement in this thread with a pretend  “edgy” position does not surprise me in the slightest.  You have no political convictions and only ever express a contrary view in an attempt at self promotion.

Maybe you should head back to the Covid thread where you have a small following of rabbit hole dwellers who bizarrely think their opinions are of relevance outwith their own small circle.  You’ll probably feel more comfortable their.

 

[Saltire]

6 minutes ago, virginton said:

That logic works in the South of Scotland region, where SNP second votes have genuine value and will make a difference. It doesn't work in the West of Scotland region, where the SNP will hoover most if not all constituencies in a SNP v Labour fight and so the second vote has no value as insurance.

The irony being of course that the electorate of the West of Scotland will not be fully served by any of the three Yes parties currently vying for the second vote. It's a region where a reconstructed and credible SSP/left independence option focused on socioeconomic issues would actually have traction; instead of middle-class, eco-warrior bully victims like Greer who slide in by default. 

Sorry VT, I've shown the calculation on the Polling: 2017 General Election, Council Elections and Independence thread that demonstrates how West of Scotland is one of regions where an additional MSP would have been elected in 2016 if all SNP constituency votes had been transferred to the second vote.

 

 

[Blue Brazil Forever]

14 hours ago, paolo2143 said:

The Tory party is always the answer when it comes to "the most perverts"

You didn't answer the question - just like Nicola who deflects all awkward questions. For any illiterates - a growing number in the last fifteen years -  which of two parties, SNP or Alba has the most perverts?

[vikingTON]

6 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Your involvement in this thread with a pretend  “edgy” position does not surprise me in the slightest.  You have no political convictions and only ever express a contrary view in an attempt at self promotion.

Maybe you should head back to the Covid thread where you have a small following of rabbit hole dwellers who bizarrely think their opinions are of relevance outwith their own small circle.  You’ll probably feel more comfortable their.

 

^^^ verge of tears

[vikingTON]

13 minutes ago, Saltire said:

Sorry VT, I've shown the calculation on the Polling: 2017 General Election, Council Elections and Independence thread that demonstrates how West of Scotland is one of regions where an additional MSP would have been elected in 2016 if all SNP constituency votes had been transferred to the second vote.

You said that a second vote would be an 'insurance policy' in the event of fewer constituency seats though. The SNP sweeped all but one of the West seats last time IIRC and came within a few hundred votes of that one as well. 

That strikes me as a more than satisfactory outcome in its own right, and the idea that hundreds of thousands of second votes need to be shovelled at the SNP to get a replacement if Jabba the Hut Baillie hangs on is not a good one. The reality is that most of those votes simply transferred to the Greens and so delivered a non-Unionist list MSP anyway, albeit a ginger, speccy, annoying one. The ceiling of the both votes SNP mantra is therefore exactly the same for the Yes cause either way and there is no compelling argument to give the SNP a second vote for tactical reasons. There ought to be a credible alternative. 

Edited March 27, 2021 by vikingTON

[Trogdor]

12 minutes ago, Saltire said:

Sorry VT, I've shown the calculation on the Polling: 2017 General Election, Council Elections and Independence thread that demonstrates how West of Scotland is one of regions where an additional MSP would have been elected in 2016 if all SNP constituency votes had been transferred to the second vote.

Incidentally, did your analysis have the Greens losing their 1 WoS list seat in 2016 to the SNP? Who did the seat come from?

I know, I know... I should go and look for it myself but I'm lazy.

[Gordon EF]

12 minutes ago, Blue Brazil Forever said:

You didn't answer the question - just like Nicola who deflects all awkward questions. For any illiterates - a growing number in the last fifteen years -  which of two parties, SNP or Alba has the most perverts?

Can someone come and collect their da'? He's blootered.

[Trogdor]

I'm actually getting slightly concerned that I'm agreeing with VT too much here! I'm off back to the football forums.