Scotland ¦ Independance

[milton]

Originally Posted by gothicform

the SNP has made gains into a few swing labour areas (that were usually traditionally tory) but has failed to breach labour strongholds at all..

Govan was traditionally Tory? Are you even attempting not to make up shit?

Originally Posted by WatcherZero

SNP are just the Scottish Tory party, they fulfill the function of a right of centre party without unionist baggage. Whereas in the Highlands and to a lesser extent the Islands they prefer independent conservatives and leftists to SNP or Labour.

Really? So the fact that they're policies are largely to the left of where Labour sits doesn't matter? Do you know anything about Scottish politics at all?

[odlum833]

Originally Posted by Gareth

And it could be said that the SNP are an insular Britosceptic party. Please don't present your own idiological bias (i.e. nationalism good, UK bad) as undisputable fact.

I have no ideological bias. I am simply pointed out based on our experience that nationalism does not have to be insular. This country is governed by republicans (naturally) - it's hardly an insular country is it? Complete cop-out to automatically label parties or individuals as insular and (the unionist favourite) "anti-Brit". Just because your country no longer wants to be part of the UK does not mean that country will be "anti-Brit". Daft thing to say. The SNP, IMO, are an open pragmatic party. What evidence do you have to suggest they are not? I know that might not suit your narrative but hey.

You want to see insular - try the English Defence League or the little Englanders in UKIP then come back to me about the SNP or PC in Wales.

[gothicform]

Originally Posted by milton

Govan was traditionally Tory? Are you even attempting not to make up shit?



Really? So the fact that they're policies are largely to the left of where Labour sits doesn't matter? Do you know anything about Scottish politics at all?

it isn't traditional labour either like some places, hence the huge votes scottish socialists got there, and back in the 70s communist candidates. it's a five party seat there, not four. the SNP has picked up that anti labour vote almost vote for vote as there weren't any socialists running in the last election. that's part of the sectarianism i've been going on about in glasgow.

that in turn brings us back to the SNP support of news international. remind me again which political party did news international attack resulting in the wrongful jailing of its leader?

or are you referring to jim sillars freak victory in 1988? that'll be the same jim sillars who later walked out of the SNP in disgust and now likes to attack them for having supported devolution. i like the way he goes on about them being "parochial conservatives".

[Squirrelking]

I'm not sure what Newscorp recently supporting SNP has to do with SSP, for one thing the trial was a few years ago and for another SSP are in no way a threat to SNP.

SSP are a party whos core membership is composed of self loathing middle class students who think they can change the world one protest at a time and wee bams (young SSP) who think graffiti all over the place will endear people to the cause.

SNP on the other hand are a mish-mash of all parties so have a broader appeal, there is absolutely no comparison either in policy or popularity. Hell, I wasn't even sure SSP were even still going after Sheridan got the boot.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by odlum833

I have no ideological bias. I am simply pointed out based on our experience that nationalism does not have to be insular. This country is governed by republicans (naturally) - it's hardly an insular country is it? Complete cop-out to automatically label parties or individuals as insular and (the unionist favourite) "anti-Brit". Just because your country no longer wants to be part of the UK does not mean that country will be "anti-Brit". Daft thing to say. The SNP, IMO, are an open pragmatic party. What evidence do you have to suggest they are not? I know that might not suit your narrative but hey.

You want to see insular - try the English Defence League or the little Englanders in UKIP then come back to me about the SNP or PC in Wales.

You have no ideological bias and then proceed to go on about a load of highly subjective and ideologically biased ranting about 'unionists', some crap about someone (me? all unionists? all English people?) hating Ireland because it's a republic and then randomly metion the English Defence League? Do you genuinely not know that you do that? Equating UKIP to the English Defence League is retarded, but then so is your idea that there are good nationalists (Irish, Scottish, Welsh) and bad nationalists (English, British). This is purely because of your indoctrinated anti-British (British == English in this context) point of view that you obviously had drilled into you from an early age. But hey, if you want to tell me what's so wholesome about the SNP & Plaid Cymru which doesn't apply to UKIP and what is so cretinous about UKIP that doesn't apply to the SNP & Plaid Cymru, I'm all ears.

[milton]

Originally Posted by Gareth

You have no ideological bias and then proceed to go on about a load of highly subjective and ideologically biased ranting about 'unionists', some crap about someone (me? all unionists? all English people?) hating Ireland because it's a republic and then randomly metion the English Defence League? Do you genuinely not know that you do that? Equating UKIP to the English Defence League is retarded, but then so is your idea that there are good nationalists (Irish, Scottish, Welsh) and bad nationalists (English, British). This is purely because of your indoctrinated anti-British (British == English in this context) point of view that you obviously had drilled into you from an early age. But hey, if you want to tell me what's so wholesome about the SNP & Plaid Cymru which doesn't apply to UKIP and what is so cretinous about UKIP that doesn't apply to the SNP & Plaid Cymru, I'm all ears.

Well for one thing the SNP's nationalism is based on citizenship, and indeed one of their policies is to try to increase the numbers of Scottish citizens by increasing immigration. Therefore your earlier contention that they are insular was clearly wrong and as ideologically biased as that you claim to dislike.

[DeFiBkIlLeR]

Leaked internal BBC debates about Scottish Independence...

Edited Version:


Full Presentation:

[odlum833]

Originally Posted by Gareth

You have no ideological bias and then proceed to go on about a load of highly subjective and ideologically biased ranting about 'unionists', some crap about someone (me? all unionists? all English people?) hating Ireland because it's a republic and then randomly metion the English Defence League?

What? I never said anything like that. Try reading what I said. It was you that said I had some bias. It is you that is trying to paint me as anti Brit. This is what Unionists in the north of this country do. You come across no different.

Equating UKIP to the English Defence League is retarded, but then so is your idea that there are good nationalists (Irish, Scottish, Welsh) and bad nationalists (English, British).

No, all I am saying is the SNP don't represent from what I can see the insular ideals of less savoury forms of nationalism. There is no English nationalist party that I know of that comes across as remotely sane never mind credible. Maybe there are tiny parties I don't know.

This is purely because of your indoctrinated anti-British (British == English in this context) point of view that you obviously had drilled into you from an early age.

Bullshit. Really.

But hey, if you want to tell me what's so wholesome about the SNP & Plaid Cymru which doesn't apply to UKIP and what is so cretinous about UKIP that doesn't apply to the SNP & Plaid Cymru, I'm all ears.

The SNP, maybe not so much PC, have a detailed middle of the road manifesto that is not extreme or in the realms of economic lunacy. UKIP for example wants Britain to leave the EU. They want all countries to leave the EU. They don't want an EU. We can all go back to living peacefully like in 1935. The SNP want full part of European integration. They are pro scottish independence and pro EU. This is entirely a reasonable position as against that of UKIP. But that's just my opinion on the likes of UKIP. You might support them I don't know.

[mexico86]

I suggest we give Odlum the benefit of the doubt, mostly because Ireland was mistreated when it was part of the UK, and nationalism is largely a response to those historical wrongs.

[alonzo-ny]

The Irish (including the north) are different from the British in a way that Scotland, England and Wales just aren't from each other.

[gothicform]

Originally Posted by mexico86

I suggest we give Odlum the benefit of the doubt, mostly because Ireland was mistreated when it was part of the UK, and nationalism is largely a response to those historical wrongs.

agreed entirely. ultimately ireland is an independent country because the british were so fucking stupid in not having the same reforms there as they did in england and scotland (in particular). it's a tragedy our islands are not one country, but at least we are still friends.

[milton]

Originally Posted by gothicform

eh? the SNP vote went up by 5% and labour by 7%. the SNP lost a council to labour. labour lost nothing to the SNP. the SNP gained from falling votes from the lib dems and tories. right now winning seats from the lib dems is like taking candy from a child. if labour were second in those areas they'd have done it but you know what, they weren't because those areas were TRADITIONAL TORY AREAS.

and yes, perhaps you'd like to look at SNP areas today and compare them to tory areas in 1979. they almost completely match up. why are you even arguing about this? all but one SNP parliamentary constituency was held by the tories in 1979. the SNP held the equivalent of that in 1979.

stirling is NOT a labour area. simple as that. it is a traditional tory area. how old are you? are you able to remember what scottish politics used to be like before the tory vote collapsed in scotland? that blairite labour temporary took control means shit, they also won watford but no one would say that was a traditional labour area because it is not.

is it really so bad as to actually admit the SNP do best in traditional tory areas and the partisan divide between their voters and labour voters stops them doing so well in labour areas? if that divide doesn't exist why can the likes of brian souter talk about "the beer-drinking, chip-eating, council house-dwelling, old Labour-voting masses."

Originally Posted by gothicform

it isn't traditional labour either like some places, hence the huge votes scottish socialists got there, and back in the 70s communist candidates. it's a five party seat there, not four. the SNP has picked up that anti labour vote almost vote for vote as there weren't any socialists running in the last election. that's part of the sectarianism i've been going on about in glasgow.

that in turn brings us back to the SNP support of news international. remind me again which political party did news international attack resulting in the wrongful jailing of its leader?

or are you referring to jim sillars freak victory in 1988? that'll be the same jim sillars who later walked out of the SNP in disgust and now likes to attack them for having supported devolution. i like the way he goes on about them being "parochial conservatives".

Why would you think I was on about Jim Sillars?

Oh, that's right, you didn't think I meant anything about him; it was a crude shoe-horning in of a strawman.

Anyway, good to know that it's usually Tories that vote SNP, um except for communists and socialists. Um, and the people that previously voted Labour in places like East Kilbride, but let's not talk about them.
All of which entertaining diversions happily cover up the fact that your earlier contention about Stirling remains plainly wrong.

Originally Posted by gothicform

vote on vote labour are gaining MORE than the SNP. you can do maths right? if one party goes up by 7% and the other by 5% then the first party increases its lead over the second party by 2%. more to the point the party that went up 7% took votes from the party that went up 5%.

I can do maths. Seems the BBC can't though.

Questions over BBC Scotland’s election figure claims
SUNDAY, 06 MAY 2012

By Martin Kelly

The BBC is today facing questions over their reporting of Scotland’s local authority election results after figures reported by the broadcaster gave the impression that Labour had outgunned the SNP in terms of councillors gained.

According to BBC Scotland, Labour gained an extra 58 councillors to the SNP’s 57 after Friday’s count. However it has emerged that the more accurate figures indicate the SNP gained 61 councillors to Labour’s 48.

The anomaly is thought to be down to BBC Scotland ignoring the widely accepted method of comparing election results with those of the previous election when calculating gains. The broadcaster has instead chosen to calculate changes based on council standings the day before last Thursday’s election.

The method adopted by BBC Scotland means that a party who won a ward in 2007 would be shown as having gained the ward in 2012 if the 2007 councillor subsequently left the party and the voters opted for the same party again.

In Glasgow for example, where several Labour councillors resigned from the party weeks before the local elections, these have been designated Labour gains if voters from the ward again opted for Labour – which is exactly what happened.

Evidence of just how bizarre BBC Scotland’s calculations are, can be seen in the result for Glasgow where a new party, set up by disaffected former Labour councillors, won their first ever seat. Glasgow First, despite never having stood in any elections prior to Thursday’s vote, are reported by BBC Scotland to have lost seats!


Others who disagree with BBC Scotland’s figures include Scottish Television who accurately reported a 61 seat gain for the SNP against a 48 seat gain for Labour.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php...-figure-claims

Final analysis confirms SNP election triumph as more doubts cast on BBC figures

The final breakdown of results from Scotland’s local authority elections has confirmed the SNP as the most popular party nationwide.

Detailed analysis published by the SNP confirms that, for the first time in its history in a local government election, the party outpolled all others in terms of first preference votes.

Last Thursday’s showing was an improvement from 2007, where despite winning more seats than Labour, the SNP were behind in the vote count.

In Thursday’s election however the SNP overtook Labour in gains and number of councillors and crucially increased its vote share to 32.32%, with Labour behind on 31.39%.

This represents a 4.46% increase on the SNP’s 2007 performance, against a Labour vote rise of 3.24%. The figures also show the Tory vote fell by 2.26% and the Lib Dem vote was down by 6.10%.

In addition, the SNP was the party with the most first preference votes in 16 councils, compared to 14 for Labour. The increase in vote share was accompanied by a doubling of the SNP’s lead in seats over Labour, from 15 in 2007 to 30 this year.

The analysis also revealed that the number of SNP council seats increased by 62, and not 61 as previously thought. The SNP won 424 seats – an increase of 17%. Labour increased their number of councillors by 46 to 394 – a 13% increase.

However it has also emerged that the system adopted by the BBC to calculate party gains in Scotland may have broken the broadcaster's own election guidelines.

SNP Campaign Director Derek Mackay said:

“This was a triple success for the SNP – more votes, more councillors, and more gains than any other party, which means that with over half-a-million votes we are in an even stronger position to represent and deliver for local people.

“There can be no doubt about who the winner was in this election - the SNP have now won four out of the last five national elections in Scotland – and we also beat Labour in terms of the increase in votes and increase in number of councillors.

“For a party to achieve this five years into government is truly remarkable, and stands in stark contrast to the hammering that the coalition parties suffered north and south of the Border - only two years into their administration.

“The Lib Dems performed disastrously – but so too did the Tories, whose vote fell back in Scotland even from their low water mark of 2007.

“Labour may have gained 13% more seats in Scotland – compared to the SNP’s 17% increase – but their performance north of the Border was nothing like that in England, where they increased their number of seats by 82%. It’s not just a tale of two governments – it’s also a tale of two oppositions as well.

“SNP Council groups all over Scotland will now work with others and with the Scottish Government to deliver the progressive policies that we all want to see.”

The confirmation of a 62 seat gain is not accepted by the BBC in Scotland who continue to insist that the SNP gained only 57 seats, one less than Labour who the broadcaster claims won an extra 58.

However the methodology used by the broadcaster, where it ignored the 2007 election results, has been challenged by many observers.

It has also emerged that the system employed by the BBC is at odds with the broadcaster’s own guidelines published in April of this year.

According to the BBC online guideline called for ‘A glossary of election terms for Vote 2012’, a gain is defined as: "If a party wins a seat that it did not win at the last general[sic] election this is described as a ‘gain’".

Many of the gains attributed to the Labour party were in fact seats they won at the previous election in 2007 and, according to the guidelines, should not have been counted as gains but as holds.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php...on-bbc-figures

Oh dear.

[Octoman]

I wonder if salmond is watching how the Russians go about crushing legitimate demonstrations today? Salmond is again trying to pass of the results as mighty victory and votes for the snp as votes for independence. These sort of ropey claims make putins disputed victory look like a model of democracy!

I really wish Westminster would force the issue and get the referendum brought forward to next year so he can finally understand what people think of him and be consigned to history.

[mexico86]

Originally Posted by Octoman

I wonder if salmond is watching how the Russians go about crushing legitimate demonstrations today? Salmond is again trying to pass of the results as mighty victory and votes for the snp as votes for independence. These sort of ropey claims make putins disputed victory look like a model of democracy!

I really wish Westminster would force the issue and get the referendum brought forward to next year so he can finally understand what people think of him and be consigned to history.

Salmond's a bloody menace, perhaps the greatest threat to peace and stability of Great Britain since ww2.

[Crash_N]

Putin at least has charisma and has saved Russia from the depths of the economic abyss

[milton]

Originally Posted by Octoman

I wonder if salmond is watching how the Russians go about crushing legitimate demonstrations today? Salmond is again trying to pass of the results as mighty victory and votes for the snp as votes for independence. These sort of ropey claims make putins disputed victory look like a model of democracy!

I really wish Westminster would force the issue and get the referendum brought forward to next year so he can finally understand what people think of him and be consigned to history.

Originally Posted by mexico86

Salmond's a bloody menace, perhaps the greatest threat to peace and stability of Great Britain since ww2.

Originally Posted by Crash_N

Putin at least has charisma and has saved Russia from the depths of the economic abyss

Yawn. Progressively less ambitious and more repetitive trolling from the children in this thread. You only make yourselves look like dicks you know.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by milton

Well for one thing the SNP's nationalism is based on citizenship, and indeed one of their policies is to try to increase the numbers of Scottish citizens by increasing immigration. Therefore your earlier contention that they are insular was clearly wrong and as ideologically biased as that you claim to dislike.

Okay, the question wasn't really for you but whatever, I'll answer you. UKIP's nationalism is also based on citizenship, the only difference being that it's a citizenship that actually exists as opposed to a proposed one. So that's something UKIP and the SNP have in common straight away. If UKIP are insular, the SNP are too then (and it was Odlum who started the 'insular' thing, not me, I didn't originally contend anything particularly about the SNP). What I did contend was this idea that there is good nationalism and bad nationalism, as if they're totally different concepts and all the types of nationalism clearly fall into one category or another was codswallop and that what Odlum considered good and bad types of nationalism were down to his own personal prejudices and not and objective.

[milton]

Originally Posted by Gareth

Okay, the question wasn't really for you but whatever, I'll answer you. UKIP's nationalism is also based on citizenship, the only difference being that it's a citizenship that actually exists as opposed to a proposed one. So that's something UKIP and the SNP have in common straight away. If UKIP are insular, the SNP are too then (and it was Odlum who started the 'insular' thing, not me, I didn't originally contend anything particularly about the SNP). What I did contend was this idea that there is good nationalism and bad nationalism, as if they're totally different concepts and all the types of nationalism clearly fall into one category or another was codswallop and that what Odlum considered good and bad types of nationalism were down to his own personal prejudices and not and objective.

I agree that there isn't "good nationalism" and "bad nationalism", and that all the types of nationalism clearly fall into one category or another. There are many different ways in which the term is used and misused and a million shades of grey. However, our understanding and appreciation of them all will always be based on value judgements and personal bias so I understand why people make these calls even when I don't agree myself.

All that said, I disagree with the first part of your post. When you say "UKIP's nationalism is also based on citizenship, the only difference being that it's a citizenship that actually exists as opposed to a proposed one. So that's something UKIP and the SNP have in common straight away"... I would argue that the "only difference" you mention is big enough that it means they don't have this in common at all.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by odlum833

What? I never said anything like that. Try reading what I said. It was you that said I had some bias. It is you that is trying to paint me as anti Brit. This is what Unionists in the north of this country do. You come across no different.

You do have bias. We all do. Are you going to say you don't? If so, that's the exact problem you have. You see subjective things as undisputable fact and that anyone deviating from your point of view is taking the piss. Hence, your politically-loaded 'Unionists in the north of this country' statment, which I take you to mean Northern Ireland - does it matter that a good deal of them disagree with you? Do you not think your territorial claim totally disrespects their right to self-determination? You're basically saying "Fuck you, what you think counts for shit, even though you live there". I'm sure you'd be the first to cry foul if anyone from the UK insisted the Republic of Ireland was south west UK and that whether you agreed with that or not meant sweet F.A. Maybe if you had just a little more grace about you when encountering unionists in Northern Ireland, you'd get along better with them.

And this is the difference between me and you. Your Irish nationalism is fundamentalist in nature. Me, I don't think breaking up the country I currently live in as progressive, nor, as a direct result, Scottish nationalism. I don't think it's a good idea. That said, I'm a democrat and a believer in self-determination, thus, if the majority of Scots did want to secede, whilst not what I'd want to see happen, I'd accept it and not carp on years later about it being 'in the north of this country'. Same with Northern Ireland. At the moment, it is not part of your country no matter what you tell yourself. If the majority there ever decide that they want what you insist is already fact, then fine, but until that day, you're making a colonial claim against a people who don't want to be part of it - kinda like the way Argentina insist that the Falkland Islands are a aprt of Argentina no matter what the local population, or anyone else, thinks.

Originally Posted by odlum833

No, all I am saying is the SNP don't represent from what I can see the insular ideals of less savoury forms of nationalism. There is no English nationalist party that I know of that comes across as remotely sane never mind credible. Maybe there are tiny parties I don't know.

Okay, name an English nationalist party (and not even sure I can name one, but there you go). Then tell me what's insular and less savoury about them that doesn't apply to the SNP.

Originally Posted by odlum833

The SNP, maybe not so much PC, have a detailed middle of the road manifesto that is not extreme or in the realms of economic lunacy. UKIP for example wants Britain to leave the EU. They want all countries to leave the EU. They don't want an EU. We can all go back to living peacefully like in 1935. The SNP want full part of European integration. They are pro scottish independence and pro EU. This is entirely a reasonable position as against that of UKIP. But that's just my opinion on the likes of UKIP. You might support them I don't know.

Lol, you want the UK to break up, then go on about European integration like it actually means something to you. For a start, why is leaving the EU extreme or economic lunancy? Greenland did it, so I suppose they're insular/racist/extreme/economically backwards too then. Same with the likes of Iceland, Norway & Switzerland who persistently refuse to join. What's stopping anyone turning your argument on its head and replacing 'UKIP' with 'SNP' and 'EU' with 'UK'? "Oh, how insular and economically backward the SNP are for wanting there to be no UK. At least UKIP are fully supportive of British integration. This is entirely a reasonable position against that of the SNP".

Oh and your fawning of the EU (and Plaid's & the SNP's) is going to end in tears when the integrationalists finally put federation on the table as the finally EU reform. I really can't see you of all people being happy about that.

[gothicform]

Anyway, good to know that it's usually Tories that vote SNP, um except for communists and socialists. Um, and the people that previously voted Labour in places like East Kilbride, but let's not talk about them.
All of which entertaining diversions happily cover up the fact that your earlier contention about Stirling remains plainly wrong.

look at a historical fucking electoral map STIRLING IS NOT A LABOUR AREA. simply holding an area does not make it a homeland for that party

i can't believe you have such a simplistic view of scottish politics. i really can't. it was held almost constantly for the past 100 years until labour gained the seat in 1997. labour also gained the seat of wimbledon in south west london. holding a seat does not make it a labour area. that the SNP took the council and that it had a tory MP almost constantly for 100 years does rather show this. just because they took it during what is a historical freak event means nothing. no political watcher would ever call stirling a traditional labour area. maybe you would... in which case i'd urge you to pick up a dictionary. i wonder why SNP supporters find it so hard to admit literally half their support comes from the tory vote that transferred over the 80s and 90s?

http://www.betternation.org/2012/04/...-going-tartan/

just to make the point google has 2.6 million results on the SNP being right wing and 480,000 on it being left wing. political paper after political paper points out how the SNP heartland is right wing and wealthy north east scotland, the SNP benefited largely from having huge transfers of votes from the conservative party and that beyond that it picks up anti labour tactical voting.

have you ever wondered why SSP members would never vote labour but would vote SNP but would never ever vote labour? the SSP support scottish independence you know? they have also long engaged in incredibly divisive politics with labour. they'd rather vote gary glitter than labour. if there was no SSP candidate then of course they'd vote SNP. why would they vote for the party they utterly hate? the SNP benefited the same in 1974 in govan when the resident far left party didn't stand and they took the seat as a result temporarily.

jim sillar is not a straw man. former deputy leader of the SNP, he took glasgow govan in 1988 in a by election. *you* brought up glasgow govan without specifying any details. sillar has disowned the SNP and one reason he attacks the SNP is because he sees them as tartan tories who are interested in marginalising scotland. this is the former deputy leader. i'd say he's an authoritative voice, not a straw man. i imagine sillar would be revolted with salmond these days and his cosying up to murdoch and souter because sillar actually had some principles.

in the words of the spectator -

they are only the recepticle of last resort for the small town / small minded, Golf club members, sensible shoes wearing, non Donkey jacket loving gentle folk who have nowhere else to go.

When the dust settles their progress was just a hoovering up the Tartan Tory vote and the non dog boiling section of the Lib Dems but little else.