Next permanent Scotland manager

[BFTD]

6 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Whatever happened to Dawson Park Boy? 

Dunno, but I'm sure I remember reading that he liked to threaten legal action against the site's owner if he was ever punted, so it must have been pretty undeniably appalling for that not to have happened. Just, the kind of thing that would leave a man embarrassed about being associated with their old account after inevitably crawling back for that dopamine hit of negative attention.

Good to see that nobody's gone down the route of wild speculation.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

 

1 hour ago, Trogdor said:

I think that's a very naive interpretation.

You'll probably find that there are several reasons why people wanted them published - in the case of The Heil I think @welshbairn's reason is probably closer to the truth for that rag. 

The ironic thing is that membership declined way before the arguments over GRR.  There will have been some haemorrhaging of members because of Alba, because of disagreements over Covid and a myriad of other issues.

Others like Forbes almost certainly wanted the figures because they just didn't trust Murrell.

I personally can't blame them.

That being said - running to The Heil as Regan did is just fucking idiotic.

[Trogdor]

20 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

You'll probably find that there are several reasons why people wanted them published - in the case of The Heil I think @welshbairn's reason is probably closer to the truth for that rag. 

The ironic thing is that membership declined way before the arguments over GRR.  There will have been some haemorrhaging of members because of Alba, because of disagreements over Covid and a myriad of other issues.

Others like Forbes almost certainly wanted the figures because they just didn't trust Murrell.

I personally can't blame them.

That being said - running to The Heil as Regan did is just fucking idiotic.

My point was specifically around Murrell releasing the figures. I do agree that there are many reasons membership reduced and not just GRR (although it was a factor).

There is documentary evidence that SNP HQ was still saying membership was around 100k a month ago. See below email from Chirs Musson from the Sun. The 'it wasn't due to the GRR', is just deflection. Murrell flat out lied and had to go.

Apparently NS was on Loose Women today parroting the line that that it was misunderstanding and they were referring to those who left because of GRR.

The below email makes no reference to GRR and is in the public domain. Why they are still lying about it beggars belief.

[Leith Green]

Ash Regan thinks members should be able to "edit" their votes..................

She really is fucking deranged

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65013144

[Goomba]

2 hours ago, Jeff Venom said:

That certainly answers the second part of my post. Perhaps I should've asked why should/does anyone care? 

Because a party lying about it's membership figures is more than a bit dodgy.

[Goomba]

4 hours ago, Benjamin_Nevis said:

When we want the joke opinions of a sock puppet account, we'll be sure to ask. Run along now. 

Play nice Benjamin.

[renton]

3 hours ago, AyrExile said:

A large swing in members either way would surely have a bearing in choosing a continuity candidate or a fresh face. I've yet to meet many people that rate Humza and he's now looking at a rebuild than carrying on a successful model

Liz Lloyd leaving abruptly would suggest there is truth in the story. Point 4 i will agree on though the innocent until proven guilty rule should switch here due to lack of transparency

 

 

Well, no. Why would it? I was happy with Humza when we had 4 times as many members as the next biggest party but now its only 3 times I'm switching to that moonhowler in the shite jacket? 

I dont think the number of members overall makes a difference. That was the number going into this, and presumably is how many ballots were sent out, regardless of whatever shite SNP HQ were saying.

[itzdrk]

4 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

Add “overt racist” to that as well.

 

I'm really angry that I found all 3 of his candidate videos funny.  Forbes mostly 

[Dunning1874]

4 hours ago, AyrExile said:

A large swing in members either way would surely have a bearing in choosing a continuity candidate or a fresh face. I've yet to meet many people that rate Humza and he's now looking at a rebuild than carrying on a successful model

Liz Lloyd leaving abruptly would suggest there is truth in the story. Point 4 i will agree on though the innocent until proven guilty rule should switch here due to lack of transparency

 

 

The only reason to call a halt to an election and restart it from scratch is some kind of procedural failing relating to casting votes which calls the legitimacy of whole process into question. No such issue exists, which is why the only candidate calling for this is the one who'll do well to get 10% of the vote and is only standing as a wrecker in the first place.

[Blue Brazil Forever]

Nicola says the party is not a mess - that's him telt !!

 

[Cheese]

There's a slight case for restarting the election but it's probably a terrible idea. Get someone in place and try to draw a line under the mess. Dragging it out for another month will only make it worse.

[welshbairn]

57 minutes ago, Marlo Stanfield said:

There's a slight case for restarting the election but it's probably a terrible idea. Get someone in place and try to draw a line under the mess. Dragging it out for another month will only make it worse.

Holding a new ballot wouldn't mean starting the campaign again, it could probably be done by Monday as planned. A lot easier than allowing people to edit their votes anyway, I would have thought, and as Regan wants. 

Edited March 20, 2023 by welshbairn

[Boo Khaki]

"Cunning plan by Sturgeonistas to keep FM in situ as election campaign restarted"

[Trogdor]

I guess the issue is how many people ineligible to vote have actually voted?

Anecdotally, the membership list they are using is clearly shambolic. With a number of lengthy lapsed members being able to vote in the contest. They really ought to weed those votes out.

If they could do that and ensure only those eligible to vote actually voted then I see no reason to re-ballot.

[itzdrk]

7 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

I guess the issue is how many people ineligible to vote have actually voted?

Anecdotally, the membership list they are using is clearly shambolic. With a number of lengthy lapsed members being able to vote in the contest. They really ought to weed those votes out.

If they could do that and ensure only those eligible to vote actually voted then I see no reason to re-ballot.

I'm part of the 30000 number and haven't received anything.  

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

Watched the LBC debate.

Anyone still voting Humza Yousaf after that needs their head looked.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

It would be genuinely funny if the contest was re-run with Yousaf winning by more and that lunatic Regan getting an Alba-esque 1.66% tbf. 

[Eddie Hitler]

10 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

The only reason to call a halt to an election and restart it from scratch is some kind of procedural failing relating to casting votes which calls the legitimacy of whole process into question. No such issue exists, which is why the only candidate calling for this is the one who'll do well to get 10% of the vote and is only standing as a wrecker in the first place.

Yeah, I think this is nonsense.

There's at least one major failing with the voting process, in that seemingly thousands of people who are no longer members have been given a vote they are not entitled to.

The SNP now "admit" to 72.1k members and also previously said they'd sent out 78k ballots.

You posted in another message that "that's the correct number whatever nonsense SNP HQ were putting out", or words to similar effect.

Let's be clear: SNP HQ is the entity which has admitted to 72.1k now.

SNP HQ is also the entity which sent 78k names to Mi-Voice, who turned round and reported that this was the size of the electorate they had been given.

As SNP HQ was the source of each number, you cannot seriously now expect everyone to take one number as authoritative and the other, also issued by them, as "nonsense".

But if 78,000 ballots have indeed been sent out for 71.2k members then near enough 8% of the entire selectorate had no right to a vote.

So, yeah, there is at least one problem with the voting process and it should be fixed if the whole thing isn't to look like a sham.

If you're going to make rules, they need to be enforced properly and not on the basis that Dunning1874 thinks it's ok so long as the coalition with the Greens isn't endangered.

[Dunning1874]

11 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

The SNP now "admit" to 72.1k members and also previously said they'd sent out 78k ballots.

You posted in another message that "that's the correct number whatever nonsense SNP HQ were putting out", or words to similar effect.

Let's be clear: SNP HQ is the entity which has admitted to 72.1k now.

SNP HQ is also the entity which sent 78k names to Mi-Voice, who turned round and reported that this was the size of the electorate they had been given.

As SNP HQ was the source of each number, you cannot seriously now expect everyone to take one number as authoritative and the other, also issued by them, as "nonsense".

But if 78,000 ballots have indeed been sent out for 71.2k members then near enough 8% of the entire selectorate had no right to a vote.

I've clearly missed this: where did Mi-Voice or the SNP confirm there were 78,000 ballots?

If that's the case then yes, the process should absolutely be restarted with all ineligible voters removed and those responsible for providing the incorrect figure removed from their positions.

[welshbairn]

I doubt if they have a definitive number for members, people who've been issued a new debit card and haven't updated, or moved or changed emails won't be kicked out of the party straight away. Some of the email ballots sent out by Mi-Voice will come back as undeliverable.