Alex Salmond.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

From looking at things it would appear that if you are i say Lothian, West of Scotland, Glasgow & Fife the Greens are best option on List as i think SNP failed to get a  single lsit MSP in any of those areas despite polling at about 42% or more in most of those areas.
The Greens picked up 5 list MSP's in those areas averaging less than 7% of vote. That is why i always vote Green on List in my area.
I think voting SNP both votes works  really well in say North East, Highlands and South of Scotland and possibly Edinburgh.
I wouldn't mind if Alba picks up couple of MSP's in Perth or say Highlands

It does not work in NE Scotland.

[ayrmad]

SNP SNP across the board is a nonsense whilst their constituency vote % is so high, that claptrap is for the hard of thought. 

I'm only giving them my 1st vote in hope with next to no expectation attached. 

[wastecoatwilly]

Back to the days of the 79'ers

[pandarilla]

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

This post would probably have have more impact if it didn't come from a creepy old man.

No surpise there, he's always been a loose cannon and I was amazed the SNP actaully thought he was a suitable candidate. 

Whit?

If you want the snp to punt folk like Kenny macaskill then i seriously worry about your judgment.

Do you just want a bunch of 'yes' men (if you'll pardon the pun)?

Or they just don't push SNP-SNP on their campaign - focus hard on the constituencies - and leave individuals to push the second vote for other parties on Social Media.

This is what they'll do.

[yoda]

Chuckling at the thought that the presence of Alex Salmond at Holyrood is going to make Westminster suddenly cave and sign off on an independence referendum.

[Billy Jean King]

Corri Wilson (name spelled incorrectly in the Alba press release) also standing for them.
MacAskill going was as predictable as McEleny.

Hope the expenses budget is vast if Corri is jumping on board !

[Granny Danger]

5 minutes ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

MacAskill is just another has-been that the party is better off without having him stinking out the joint. He's spent long enough raging against the leadership that presumably everyone will be happier this way. The SNP lose an internal pain in the arse, MacAskill no longer has to pretend to adhere to party discipline while still picking up a handsome wage. Much like Salmond, it's rather sad to see the decline of someone I used to look up to when I first joined the party. Not tired enough of marching to prevent him marching right out the fucking door.

Probably wouldn’t have been standing next time around so he has nothing to lose.

Except his reputation.  Oh, wait...

 

[Gordon EF]

13 minutes ago, yoda said:

Chuckling at the thought that the presence of Alex Salmond at Holyrood is going to make Westminster suddenly cave and sign off on an independence referendum.

You're right in that it won't make the blindest bit of difference in that regard. It's all about public opinion though. The bigger the majority at Holyrood in favour of independence, the more outrageous it becomes to deny a referendum. The bigger the public outrage, the more options become open to the SG and the more they can use it.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Gordon EF

[ayrmad]

10 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

2 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

Corri Wilson (name spelled incorrectly in the Alba press release) also standing for them.
MacAskill going was as predictable as McEleny.

Hope the expenses budget is vast if Corri is jumping on board !

I'm hoping they don't ask her to do too much. 

[ayrmad]

11 minutes ago, Pato said:

One of the 'employs as many relatives as possible within the rules' club who was rightly binned in 2017. Good riddance.

She wasn't binned, she lost an election due to being a shite representative of her constituency. 

[pandarilla]

Chuckling at the thought that the presence of Alex Salmond at Holyrood is going to make Westminster suddenly cave and sign off on an independence referendum.

You're right in that it won't make the blindest bit of difference in that regard. It's all about public opinion though. The bigger the majority at Holyrood in favour of independence, the more outrageous it becomes to deny a referendum. The bigger the public outrage, the more options become open to the SG and the more they can use it.

That was my point (which i thought was clear).

If this party collects a decent amount of seats then it strengthens sturgeon's hand in terms of those negotiations.

[yoda]

Yes and I thought my point was pretty obvious too. The current government aren't going to care if the Scotch are outraged. They simply do not, and will not, care. 

A number of folk on here appear to be living in some weird fantasy where "international pressure" forces the UK government into conceding a referendum.  It's not at all realistic.

An independence referendum isn't going to happen during this current government's lifespan; be that until 2024 or 2029.

[Saltire]

The D'Hondt system is supposed to reflect the wishes of the electorate in the allocation of MSPs based on % of the vote. The FPTP system doesn't do that.

The strongest case for Indryef2 is a majority SNP Government and/or an overall % vote in favour of pro-indy parties in either the constituency or list votes. If the pro-indy vote  in either is at, our around, 50%, then since we know a significant proportion of Labour voters back Indy, the case for IndyRef2 can be made.

However there is a real danger that if the list votes add a vastly disporoptionate pro-Indy MSP share, the optics to outsiders will be that the sytem has been gamed and that the case isn't made to demand the referendum. These optics matter. I don't think the Alba Party will get many MSPs (time will tell).

Both votes SNP for me, to maximise the chance of an SNP majority government based on the mathematics of the D'Hondt system here. It's a democacy so we can all vote as we see fit.

Hopefully, in Independent Scotland, we will have a genuine  proportional representation system to reflect diversity of views across the population.

[sophia]

12 minutes ago, yoda said:

Yes and I thought my point was pretty obvious too. The current government aren't going to care if the Scotch are outraged. They simply do not, and will not, care. 

A number of folk on here appear to be living in some weird fantasy where "international pressure" forces the UK government into conceding a referendum.  It's not at all realistic.

An independence referendum isn't going to happen during this current government's lifespan; be that until 2024 or 2029.

Quite the statement.

 

[Billy Jean King]

She wasn't binned, she lost an election due to being a shite representative of her constituency. 

I think he might mean when she sought the candidacy after losing. She wasn't reselected.

[SANTAN]

 

2 minutes ago, sophia said:

Quite the statement.

 

Seems more realistic than the "it's inevitable" brigade that can't seem to articulate any plans or any actual time frames, they just stick to dealing with anectodes, platitudes and birthday caird pish.. oh aye and hope. 

[ayrmad]

30 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

59 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

She wasn't binned, she lost an election due to being a shite representative of her constituency. 

I think he might mean when she sought the candidacy after losing. She wasn't reselected.

You might be correct but she didn't fail to be reselected until later. 

She's one of those people in life that you'd refer to as a 'chocolate fireguard' or 'motorbike ashtray'. 

Edited March 27, 2021 by ayrmad

[pandarilla]

Yes and I thought my point was pretty obvious too. The current government aren't going to care if the Scotch are outraged. They simply do not, and will not, care. 
A number of folk on here appear to be living in some weird fantasy where "international pressure" forces the UK government into conceding a referendum.  It's not at all realistic.
An independence referendum isn't going to happen during this current government's lifespan; be that until 2024 or 2029.

[emoji1787]

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Gordon EF said:

You're right in that it won't make the blindest bit of difference in that regard. It's all about public opinion though. The bigger the majority at Holyrood in favour of independence, the more outrageous it becomes to deny a referendum. The bigger the public outrage, the more options become open to the SG and the more they can use it.

There's also the fact that in the '100 seats for Yes' scenario that was being branded as gaining nothing, it would almost certainly relegate the Tories from being the official opposition and Labour/the Lib Dems to even more irrelevant positions within the Parliament pecking order. Loss of airtime at FMQs, loss of committee posts (see the leaked mess from last week for why that privilege counts).

It's highly unlikely that'll happen of course, but the idea that the main opposition party at Holyrood being itself a pro-independence party would not push Unionism further towards the dustbin of history is nonsense. 

[Lex]

Yes and I thought my point was pretty obvious too. The current government aren't going to care if the Scotch are outraged. They simply do not, and will not, care. 
A number of folk on here appear to be living in some weird fantasy where "international pressure" forces the UK government into conceding a referendum.  It's not at all realistic.
An independence referendum isn't going to happen during this current government's lifespan; be that until 2024 or 2029.

You see many realistic posts on this sub forum, but this is one of them. Fair play.