You know the National has lost its perspective and its marbles when it gleefully quotes two of the most unionist sources you can get in its desperate attempt to do down Sarwar.
"Paul Sinclair, who was a senior adviser to Alistair Darling and Better Together, shared his verdict on Scotland Tonight after Sarwar called for Keir Starmer's resignation out of the blue on Monday afternoon."
"Douglas Alexander on Anas Sarwar's future as Scottish leader"
Give me strength. It'll be the News of the World they'll be quoting next ...
One cannot participate in the system that oppresses and subjugates the Scottish people. Participation is collusion with the coloniser and it validates their claim on Scotland. What are any of the SNP MPs doing anywhere near Westminster? Stand for election, sure, but don’t take your seat or swear allegiance to a foreign king.
"What today tells us is that Anas Sarwar is an opportunist, and that he’s prepared to use every opportunity for his own self-preservation."
What that comment tells us John boy is that you are an unthinking knee-jerk moron.
If Scottish Labour could genuinely become Scottish Labour it's good for Scotland, it's good for Independence, and considering Reform UK, Your Party and even Greens, it's even good for the stupid knee-jerk SNP in this election coming. How to fuck it up, -3 out of 10, way to go John boy.
Meanwhile the underlying support for Independence is probably around 75%, if Scottish Labour decided to go for the plunge and increase their vote share to upwards of 35% or even 40% in May.
"If Scottish Labour could genuinely become Scottish Labour . . ."
But they can't. 'Scottish Labour' is owned by British Labour and therefore CANNOT 'become' the ' Scottish Labour' of your fantasies. The 'Scottish Labour' you fantasise about would have to be an entirely separate and entirely new party. And it couldn't be called 'Scottish Labour'.
"Starmer is now too weak to force Sarwar out, so from Sarwar’s perspective he has made the right move, not that it is likely to help him very much. The reality is for both Labour and the Tories in Scotland is that they need to form parties independent of their U.K. masters, albeit they may be affiliated. That would really put the heat on English nationalist Reform, where Offord may also be tempted to break free of the Trumpian Farage, while the Lib-Dems seek to be all things to everybody."
Apologies that this will not be a constructive comment.
I did have 5 points that I thought that should be made refuting things Pete Wishart said in that article. ( that is after the fair points that Stephen Duncan made, which I thus subsequently don't/won't have to )
But after wading through all, currently 62, comments in The National, I am thoroughly disheartened. Disillusioned. Scunnered.
We seem to be perpetually trapped in the most juvenile non-discourse and state of infantile non-understanding.
What the hell is wrong with everybody?
Why don't people understand THE DIVISOR.
It is not complicated.
When the SNP win 8 constituencies in a region their List vote is divided by 9
If you live in a REGION where you expect the SNP to win 8 constituencies then you know that the procedure for apportioning the List seats among the Party List candidates will start with dividing the SNP actual list vote count by NINE.
All of the other parties will then be apportioned seat 'wins' in turn until all of the List seats are used up.
The SNP are not going to get a Party List candidate awarded in that region.
Simple.
Under those conditions why would you give your one list vote, or advocate that others should give their list vote to a Party List that will not 'win' anything?
When, even the subscribers of the only Nationalist representing newspaper seem widely ignorant, we have all failed in our communication.
Here we see one of the logic crashes that are so typical of the fringe nominally pro-independence parties. Let's use Alba Party as an example. Alba Party's position is that list votes for any and all (nominally) pro-independence parties should count as a vote for negotiations about independence. The SNP is just as much a nominally pro-independence party as Alba Party is. But Alba Party's supporters say you mustn't give your list vote to the SNP because it would be wasted. But how could it be wasted AND count towards the vote for negotiations?
Alba Party devotees are forever getting themselves tangled up in these logical knots. For example, they bang on about a 'supermajority' and all the things it could do. (Actually, it could do nothing that could just as well be done with a simple majority.)
At the same time, we have Alba Party devotees insisting that the SNP is no longer an independence party and that it will NEVER change. (Entirely missing the point that the SNP must have changed in order to stop being an independence party.)
But there is no way that there could be any kind of pro-independence majority without the SNP. So, both SNP and Alba Party devotees are saying that the SNP is not part of any pro-independence collective while still claiming that a 'supermajority' is possible.
Whilst I admire your tenacity at reading through 'comments' by posters in The National what I find most feeds my despair and stirs my despondency is that none of the tribalists seems to have any awareness, 12 years on from the Independence referendum campaign, of how to
a) increase popular support for Scottish nation-state status and b) return Scotland to full self-government.
For the most part contributions btl on the newspaper's articles seem to be restricted to sniping, snide and snark.
"When the SNP win 8 constituencies in a region their List vote is divided by 9"
The problem with all this "what if" is this - if the SNP won 8 constituencies in ALL regions they'd have 64 seats already and would only need one single solitary seat in all of Scotland to get the overall majority they want and need.
Any attempt to "game" the AMS system is daft. There are too many "what ifs", none of which is predictable at all. And I have a regional spreadsheet to prove it!
Sometimes I wonder _why_ you deliberately miss the point, that is when it is not one of the times when you have simply missed the point.
There ARE circumstance in which we can predict what is overwhelmingly likely to happen.
Deny that and you are a fool.
"ANY attempt to "game" the AMS system is daft."
You are wrong.
Perhaps you should think about that, and rather than coming back on all of the times when it is may be very uncertain to try to predict the Party List system,
why don't you consider what was actually written.
When can you accurately predict what is NOT going to happen.
I don't expect an apology.
If you have a logical repudiation of the logical point that I was making then do please make it.
Agreed.No argument with anything you say. However from my viewpoint they are ALL in the scam...from the top down.And that appears to be one of the problems Scotland suffers from..no-one seems to be bothered enough to oppose our dead end policies or 'secret plans' to bring back Scotland as a nation again. Too concerned with holding onto their sinecures and making sure they get their payrise on time...than fighting tooth and nail for our freedom from another foreign nation.
Meantime the cesspit is tearing itself apart..the perfect opportunity for Scotland to say ..'Now is the time Cato!' ( ref : The Pink Panther)But no...they fight amang themselves..
What causes this inertia..lethargy...?Is it.....
1. The Scots are a lost cause..300 years has taken its toll.
2. Too many foreign english embedded in our country ...Jo Farrell (foreign english sh*te ). head of Police Scotland.
3. Too many immigrants dumped in our country ( by the afore mention foreign english...) who huvnae a scooby aboot independence..
4. And finally ..DEVOLUTION..the biggest scam of all. Scotland 's hands are not on the levers of power..'it's none of your business who we the english decide to allow to use your land to attack others ..and we don't have to tell you'..(you stupid little colony)
I always advocate violence..the people rise up and frighten the sh*t out of those who would stand in the way of Scotlands freedom...unfortunately too many Scots are busy eating and drinking crap while watching Netflix..whatever that is...
We are long past chatting and discussing in a friendly jocular way with the sh*te south of our border....many of them now in our country..(270,000 slithered in last year... ref Believe in Scotland)
Might be too late.
For OUR Scotland and her colonised weans....except me and hopefully YOU. Hope springs eternal..
Though it pains me to say it, Pete Wishart makes some fair points:
With respect to advocates for the micro ‘pro-Independence’ parties who are campaigning for a ‘super-majority’ he says
“Parties which, until an election appears on the horizon, have shown nothing but hostility and contempt towards the SNP suddenly plead with our voters to back them.”
Wishart is correct, as it is inarguable that the advocates for Alba Party and the Liberate Scotland grouping have spent the last 5 years slagging off the SNP whilst simultaneously begging them to encourage their voters to vote for them on the regional list ballot. That is a self-defeating exercise if ever there was one.
Regarding differential voting across ballots because we ‘know’ that the SNP will win the constituency seat Wishart says that
“The idea that you can predict or determine an election result before a single vote is cast is strictly for the birds. Absolutely no-one knows what the outcome will be, and political predictions have a habit of blowing up in your face.”
Again, this is correct. At the very least you would need to have very good local knowledge before you could be sure that split voting is risk free and that you don’t end up with both votes achieving neither desired outcome on the constituency and regional ballots.
Wishart demonstrates a conceptual understanding of the Additional Member System of voting used in Scottish Parliamentary elections when he says
“Attempting to deny Unionist parties representation by gaming the proportional element of the system risks denying the Scottish people their legitimate democratic choice.”
That is surely correct, as this undermines the system’s goal of (approximate) proportionality and, in effect, is an attempt to convert the AMS into something more like a first past the post contest.
Finally Wishart says that
“Even if most of the 29% who currently intend to vote SNP on the list were to switch to another party, it would not create another single additional independence supporter”.
This recognises the need to gain majority popular Independence support in the country at large rather than in parliamentary representation in the Holyrood debating chamber.
Of course, Pete Wishart being Pete Wishart he goes on to ruin the foregoing by spinning the SNP line that
“The better course is to stick to the plan. We have a very real chance of securing the 65 SNP MSPs that would mean a majority, and replicate the conditions which triggered the last independence referendum.
That remains our best opportunity to secure another referendum and to move our journey to independence forward.”
With SNP voting intention according to polling stuck at 35% on the constituency and under 30% on the list the “very real chance” of a majority is about as likely as successfully building a snowman in hell. And his suggestion that this is the “best opportunity to secure another referendum” is risible given that the British have already given a pre-emptive knock back to something that wouldn’t restore Scottish statehood in any event.
So, to misquote Muhammad Ali in respect of Pete Wishart, he’s not as dumb as he sometimes sounds.
I agree with you except I do agree with "slippers":
"We have a very real chance of securing the 65 SNP MSPs that would mean a majority, and replicate the conditions which triggered the last independence referendum."
Yes, they do. 3 months to go yet, and the previously Independence supporting National can't decide whether to support the Greens or Your Party.
You know the National has lost its perspective and its marbles when it gleefully quotes two of the most unionist sources you can get in its desperate attempt to do down Sarwar.
"Paul Sinclair, who was a senior adviser to Alistair Darling and Better Together, shared his verdict on Scotland Tonight after Sarwar called for Keir Starmer's resignation out of the blue on Monday afternoon."
"Douglas Alexander on Anas Sarwar's future as Scottish leader"
Give me strength. It'll be the News of the World they'll be quoting next ...
One cannot participate in the system that oppresses and subjugates the Scottish people. Participation is collusion with the coloniser and it validates their claim on Scotland. What are any of the SNP MPs doing anywhere near Westminster? Stand for election, sure, but don’t take your seat or swear allegiance to a foreign king.
Meanwhile in interesting news:
"Anas Sarwar faces intense backlash after calling for Keir Starmer to quit"
https://archive.is/P94Rp
To mix it up:
"For a’ that, an’ a’ that,
It’s comin yet for a’ that"
The man o’ independent mind,
He looks an’ laughs at a’ that."
Well, maybe Scottish Labour can become Scottish Labour at last ...
But this from Swinney shows the knee-jerk pathological hatred some SNP have for Labour:
https://archive.is/qVgaF
"What today tells us is that Anas Sarwar is an opportunist, and that he’s prepared to use every opportunity for his own self-preservation."
What that comment tells us John boy is that you are an unthinking knee-jerk moron.
If Scottish Labour could genuinely become Scottish Labour it's good for Scotland, it's good for Independence, and considering Reform UK, Your Party and even Greens, it's even good for the stupid knee-jerk SNP in this election coming. How to fuck it up, -3 out of 10, way to go John boy.
Meanwhile the underlying support for Independence is probably around 75%, if Scottish Labour decided to go for the plunge and increase their vote share to upwards of 35% or even 40% in May.
"If Scottish Labour could genuinely become Scottish Labour . . ."
But they can't. 'Scottish Labour' is owned by British Labour and therefore CANNOT 'become' the ' Scottish Labour' of your fantasies. The 'Scottish Labour' you fantasise about would have to be an entirely separate and entirely new party. And it couldn't be called 'Scottish Labour'.
As always you look at things through your tribal 50 years SNP member blinkers.
Think Northern Ireland for example, though Scotland would be different of course.
From comment on the Curtice rticle:
"Starmer is now too weak to force Sarwar out, so from Sarwar’s perspective he has made the right move, not that it is likely to help him very much. The reality is for both Labour and the Tories in Scotland is that they need to form parties independent of their U.K. masters, albeit they may be affiliated. That would really put the heat on English nationalist Reform, where Offord may also be tempted to break free of the Trumpian Farage, while the Lib-Dems seek to be all things to everybody."
Apologies that this will not be a constructive comment.
I did have 5 points that I thought that should be made refuting things Pete Wishart said in that article. ( that is after the fair points that Stephen Duncan made, which I thus subsequently don't/won't have to )
But after wading through all, currently 62, comments in The National, I am thoroughly disheartened. Disillusioned. Scunnered.
We seem to be perpetually trapped in the most juvenile non-discourse and state of infantile non-understanding.
What the hell is wrong with everybody?
Why don't people understand THE DIVISOR.
It is not complicated.
When the SNP win 8 constituencies in a region their List vote is divided by 9
If you live in a REGION where you expect the SNP to win 8 constituencies then you know that the procedure for apportioning the List seats among the Party List candidates will start with dividing the SNP actual list vote count by NINE.
All of the other parties will then be apportioned seat 'wins' in turn until all of the List seats are used up.
The SNP are not going to get a Party List candidate awarded in that region.
Simple.
Under those conditions why would you give your one list vote, or advocate that others should give their list vote to a Party List that will not 'win' anything?
When, even the subscribers of the only Nationalist representing newspaper seem widely ignorant, we have all failed in our communication.
:-(
Here we see one of the logic crashes that are so typical of the fringe nominally pro-independence parties. Let's use Alba Party as an example. Alba Party's position is that list votes for any and all (nominally) pro-independence parties should count as a vote for negotiations about independence. The SNP is just as much a nominally pro-independence party as Alba Party is. But Alba Party's supporters say you mustn't give your list vote to the SNP because it would be wasted. But how could it be wasted AND count towards the vote for negotiations?
Alba Party devotees are forever getting themselves tangled up in these logical knots. For example, they bang on about a 'supermajority' and all the things it could do. (Actually, it could do nothing that could just as well be done with a simple majority.)
At the same time, we have Alba Party devotees insisting that the SNP is no longer an independence party and that it will NEVER change. (Entirely missing the point that the SNP must have changed in order to stop being an independence party.)
But there is no way that there could be any kind of pro-independence majority without the SNP. So, both SNP and Alba Party devotees are saying that the SNP is not part of any pro-independence collective while still claiming that a 'supermajority' is possible.
Whilst I admire your tenacity at reading through 'comments' by posters in The National what I find most feeds my despair and stirs my despondency is that none of the tribalists seems to have any awareness, 12 years on from the Independence referendum campaign, of how to
a) increase popular support for Scottish nation-state status and b) return Scotland to full self-government.
For the most part contributions btl on the newspaper's articles seem to be restricted to sniping, snide and snark.
"When the SNP win 8 constituencies in a region their List vote is divided by 9"
The problem with all this "what if" is this - if the SNP won 8 constituencies in ALL regions they'd have 64 seats already and would only need one single solitary seat in all of Scotland to get the overall majority they want and need.
Any attempt to "game" the AMS system is daft. There are too many "what ifs", none of which is predictable at all. And I have a regional spreadsheet to prove it!
Sigh.
Sometimes I wonder _why_ you deliberately miss the point, that is when it is not one of the times when you have simply missed the point.
There ARE circumstance in which we can predict what is overwhelmingly likely to happen.
Deny that and you are a fool.
"ANY attempt to "game" the AMS system is daft."
You are wrong.
Perhaps you should think about that, and rather than coming back on all of the times when it is may be very uncertain to try to predict the Party List system,
why don't you consider what was actually written.
When can you accurately predict what is NOT going to happen.
I don't expect an apology.
If you have a logical repudiation of the logical point that I was making then do please make it.
Straw men will be kicked to death. ;-(
Stet.
"There ARE circumstance in which we can predict what is overwhelmingly likely to happen."
No. Nobody can know, and anyone who claims they do - is indeed a fool or a knave.
If it were not possible to predict outcomes with varying degrees of confidence, there would be no bookmakers.
If the bookie is running at 130% they make a profit no matter which political horse come in first. They really are the definition of apolitical.
It's not of course a 30% profit as some think, it's less than 23.1%.
It would have been better if you had thought longer rather than typing quickly.
You have not addressed the points that were made.
The points are frozen, the beast is dead.
Agreed.No argument with anything you say. However from my viewpoint they are ALL in the scam...from the top down.And that appears to be one of the problems Scotland suffers from..no-one seems to be bothered enough to oppose our dead end policies or 'secret plans' to bring back Scotland as a nation again. Too concerned with holding onto their sinecures and making sure they get their payrise on time...than fighting tooth and nail for our freedom from another foreign nation.
Meantime the cesspit is tearing itself apart..the perfect opportunity for Scotland to say ..'Now is the time Cato!' ( ref : The Pink Panther)But no...they fight amang themselves..
What causes this inertia..lethargy...?Is it.....
1. The Scots are a lost cause..300 years has taken its toll.
2. Too many foreign english embedded in our country ...Jo Farrell (foreign english sh*te ). head of Police Scotland.
3. Too many immigrants dumped in our country ( by the afore mention foreign english...) who huvnae a scooby aboot independence..
4. And finally ..DEVOLUTION..the biggest scam of all. Scotland 's hands are not on the levers of power..'it's none of your business who we the english decide to allow to use your land to attack others ..and we don't have to tell you'..(you stupid little colony)
I always advocate violence..the people rise up and frighten the sh*t out of those who would stand in the way of Scotlands freedom...unfortunately too many Scots are busy eating and drinking crap while watching Netflix..whatever that is...
We are long past chatting and discussing in a friendly jocular way with the sh*te south of our border....many of them now in our country..(270,000 slithered in last year... ref Believe in Scotland)
Might be too late.
For OUR Scotland and her colonised weans....except me and hopefully YOU. Hope springs eternal..
Though it pains me to say it, Pete Wishart makes some fair points:
With respect to advocates for the micro ‘pro-Independence’ parties who are campaigning for a ‘super-majority’ he says
“Parties which, until an election appears on the horizon, have shown nothing but hostility and contempt towards the SNP suddenly plead with our voters to back them.”
Wishart is correct, as it is inarguable that the advocates for Alba Party and the Liberate Scotland grouping have spent the last 5 years slagging off the SNP whilst simultaneously begging them to encourage their voters to vote for them on the regional list ballot. That is a self-defeating exercise if ever there was one.
Regarding differential voting across ballots because we ‘know’ that the SNP will win the constituency seat Wishart says that
“The idea that you can predict or determine an election result before a single vote is cast is strictly for the birds. Absolutely no-one knows what the outcome will be, and political predictions have a habit of blowing up in your face.”
Again, this is correct. At the very least you would need to have very good local knowledge before you could be sure that split voting is risk free and that you don’t end up with both votes achieving neither desired outcome on the constituency and regional ballots.
Wishart demonstrates a conceptual understanding of the Additional Member System of voting used in Scottish Parliamentary elections when he says
“Attempting to deny Unionist parties representation by gaming the proportional element of the system risks denying the Scottish people their legitimate democratic choice.”
That is surely correct, as this undermines the system’s goal of (approximate) proportionality and, in effect, is an attempt to convert the AMS into something more like a first past the post contest.
Finally Wishart says that
“Even if most of the 29% who currently intend to vote SNP on the list were to switch to another party, it would not create another single additional independence supporter”.
This recognises the need to gain majority popular Independence support in the country at large rather than in parliamentary representation in the Holyrood debating chamber.
Of course, Pete Wishart being Pete Wishart he goes on to ruin the foregoing by spinning the SNP line that
“The better course is to stick to the plan. We have a very real chance of securing the 65 SNP MSPs that would mean a majority, and replicate the conditions which triggered the last independence referendum.
That remains our best opportunity to secure another referendum and to move our journey to independence forward.”
With SNP voting intention according to polling stuck at 35% on the constituency and under 30% on the list the “very real chance” of a majority is about as likely as successfully building a snowman in hell. And his suggestion that this is the “best opportunity to secure another referendum” is risible given that the British have already given a pre-emptive knock back to something that wouldn’t restore Scottish statehood in any event.
So, to misquote Muhammad Ali in respect of Pete Wishart, he’s not as dumb as he sometimes sounds.
A clown? No.
A chancer? Definitely!
I agree with you except I do agree with "slippers":
"We have a very real chance of securing the 65 SNP MSPs that would mean a majority, and replicate the conditions which triggered the last independence referendum."
Yes, they do. 3 months to go yet, and the previously Independence supporting National can't decide whether to support the Greens or Your Party.