Will Scotland Leave the UK?

Didn't see that coming

With any luck, the People's Front of Judea will nick a few votes off the Judean People's Front, and dent Sturgeon's chances of retaining control next year.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Chris

Didn't see that coming

With any luck, the People's Front of Judea will nick a few votes off the Judean People's Front, and dent Sturgeon's chances of retaining control next year.

Heh . Not if the SXP get their way (the SXP is my new 'sexy' Scottish Party).

[Osem]

Has anyone asked the SNP's about what the state of their economy would be now with Brent Crude trading at $45 a barrel? I dare say it's questions like that which they and their supporters don't want asked.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Osem

Has anyone asked the SNP's about what the state of their economy would be now with Brent Crude trading at $45 a barrel? I dare say it's questions like that which they and their supporters don't want asked.

When you say 'supporters' do you mean the majority of the Scottish electorate? It's just that anyone wishing to preserve the Union might consider it unwise to belittle their choice of representation for the sake of a question best left (known but) unsaid.

Originally Posted by Kursk

When you say 'supporters' do you mean the majority of the Scottish electorate? It's just that anyone wishing to preserve the Union might consider it unwise to belittle their choice of representation for the sake of a question best left (known but) unsaid.

When he says supporters, I suspect he means (at most), the exactly half of those who voted in the 2015 general election, that being the most recent electoral test they have faced.

Note the difference between those who vote, and the electorate as a whole. 35.5% of the electorate supported the SNP at the general election - that's 50% of voters on a 71% turnout.

And, by the way, we had all those dire threats last year, about how unionists had better shut up, or else every time they open their mouth the Yes vote will get bigger.

How did that work out, does anyone remember?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Chris

When he says supporters, I suspect he means (at most), the exactly half of those who voted in the 2015 general election, that being the most recent electoral test they have faced.

Note the difference between those who vote, and the electorate as a whole. 35.5% of the electorate supported the SNP at the general election - that's 50% of voters on a 71% turnout.

And, by the way, we had all those dire threats last year, about how unionists had better shut up, or else every time they open their mouth the Yes vote will get bigger.

How did that work out, does anyone remember?

Yes I did mean those who voted for Salmond's nonsense.

Maybe those who naively voted SNP (whatever proportion that was) believing their Greek style economic projections have had time to consider their very good fortune that the referendum went the 'wrong' way. Had it not done so they'd be well and truly up a certain creek without a paddle. As for leaving such questions unsaid, why? Those fine proud Scots ought to be man enough to admit their good fortune or do the other thing and carry on regardless. They're great at dishing out the 'auld enemy' guff when things are going pear shaped so maybe a taste of reality on their own would have been good for them. I think the SNP's leadership needs to be shown up for what it is and if that makes more Scots vote for them so be it. Let them have their way or shut up.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Chris

Note the difference between those who vote, and the electorate as a whole.

In any election only those that bother to vote matter so supporters are the active electorate.

Originally Posted by Osem

Let them have their way or shut up.

Or, let them eat cake. It seems that pomposity remains a virtue.

Originally Posted by Kursk

In any election only those that bother to vote matter so supporters are the active electorate.



Or, let them eat cake. It seems that pomposity remains a virtue.

Stop squirming. There is an electorate and there is a turnout. Simple as. Inventing phrases like "active electorate" after the fact is pretty poor as a fig leaf for not understanding the difference between winning an election, and the general level of support within the electorate for one particular policy.

The SNP has, at best, the support of around one-third of adults in Scotland. Not that it's relevant to the point Osem was making. You don't get to dish out threats about what might happen if unionists speak out of turn. That's the rather ugly face of nationalism in Scotland - the same face that mounted regular, intimidatory demonstrations outside BBC Scotland throughout the summer of 2014 while claiming it was just some sort of great big democratic jamboree.

To make the point for the nth time: separatism picked a fight and lost. Everyone, beyond the slightly unhinged hardcore of the nationalism movement, knows this. Even wee nippy Sturgeon knows this. There isn't going to be another referendum any time soon. It's over. Finito. And that being the case, the SNP is now simply a left of centre alternative to the Labour party, which is currently in such a bad state it can't even win elections in Scotland.

The SNP may well take every constituency in Holyrood next year, but it doesn't mean we've suddenly all gone Braveheart.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Chris

Stop squirming. There is an electorate and there is a turnout. Simple as. Inventing phrases like "active electorate" after the fact is pretty poor as a fig leaf for not understanding the difference between winning an election, and the general level of support within the electorate for one particular policy.

The SNP has, at best, the support of around one-third of adults in Scotland. Not that it's relevant to the point Osem was making. You don't get to dish out threats about what might happen if unionists speak out of turn. That's the rather ugly face of nationalism in Scotland - the same face that mounted regular, intimidatory demonstrations outside BBC Scotland throughout the summer of 2014 while claiming it was just some sort of great big democratic jamboree.

To make the point for the nth time: separatism picked a fight and lost. Everyone, beyond the slightly unhinged hardcore of the nationalism movement, knows this. Even wee nippy Sturgeon knows this. There isn't going to be another referendum any time soon. It's over. Finito. And that being the case, the SNP is now simply a left of centre alternative to the Labour party, which is currently in such a bad state it can't even win elections in Scotland.

The SNP may well take every constituency in Holyrood next year, but it doesn't mean we've suddenly all gone Braveheart.

A bit superfluous. My point is that there is no value in a we-told-you-we-were-right-and-you-were-wrong attitude. I'm sure the Scots are politically adept enough to come to their own conclusions.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Kursk

A bit superfluous. My point is that there is no value in a we-told-you-we-were-right-and-you-were-wrong attitude.

Not even when the "we" clearly were right and the "you" were wrong yet the "you" carry on with their fingers in their ears going "LALALALALA I can't hear you"?

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Russ

Not even when the "we" clearly were right and the "you" were wrong yet the "you" carry on with their fingers in their ears going "LALALALALA I can't hear you"?

Not my best analogy but you illustrate the problem of the wrong 'teacher'; pupils don't listen.

Originally Posted by Kursk

A bit superfluous. My point is that there is no value in a we-told-you-we-were-right-and-you-were-wrong attitude. I'm sure the Scots are politically adept enough to come to their own conclusions.

It would have been superfluous if you had actually said there was no value in a we-told-you-so attitude ... but you didn't. What you actually said was, "anyone wishing to preserve the Union might consider it unwise to belittle their choice of representation for the sake of a question best left (known but) unsaid".

There seems to me to be a very clear difference between "no value" and "unwise". Just to assuage any possible doubt, you also suggested it was "best left ... unsaid", hence my earlier post. There was far too much of this from the Yessers last year, either trying to stop no campaigners saying anything at all, or else making fanciful claims that anything said in support of "no" would inevitably increase support for "yes".

It was gash then, and it's gash now.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Chris

It would have been superfluous if you had actually said there was no value in a we-told-you-so attitude ... but you didn't. What you actually said was, "anyone wishing to preserve the Union might consider it unwise to belittle their choice of representation for the sake of a question best left (known but) unsaid".

There seems to me to be a very clear difference between "no value" and "unwise". Just to assuage any possible doubt, you also suggested it was "best left ... unsaid", hence my earlier post. There was far too much of this from the Yessers last year, either trying to stop no campaigners saying anything at all, or else making fanciful claims that anything said in support of "no" would inevitably increase support for "yes".

It was gash then, and it's gash now.

Well I think my PoV is clear in the course of the fuller exchange. I hadn't expected each word to be dissected; you flatter me.

I seem to be more diplomatic in my views as regards Scotland. Perhaps because I regard myself as British rather than Eng/Scot/Welsh/Irish.

FWIW I didn't think you were aiming to issue dire threats towards "unionists" - but I think a lot of political debate in Scotland has become infected with the assumptions and the assertions of the Yes campaign, and I believe we need to be careful, in all our discussions, of which premises we're implicitly accepting.

A lot of the Yes campaign came straight out of the hard left playbook, and sought to make the No campaign untenable by making much of its argument effectively "unsayable". As we speak, for example, there are assorted trolls and idiots all over Facebook and the comment sections of various newspapers, trying to shut down any criticism of the SNP on precisely the same (erroneous) premise you based your comments on the other day, namely that you shouldn't criticise the SNP because so many Scottish people think they're great, that criticising them is basically un-Scottish.

It's essential always to look beyond the headlines. The SNP "government" in Edinburgh and its MPs in Westminster have legitimacy as a result of the democratic system that put them there. That is not at all the same thing as saying that most Scottish adults support them, nor is it the same thing as saying that most Scottish adults now want independence.

[Kursk]

I seem to be a victim of circumstances of my own making.

My initial comment was made in passing with no intent or agenda and, if I'm honest, with very little thought. I have not discussed or read anything Facebook trolls might be saying about the Yes Campaign or the SNP (I don't use Facebook or Twitter) but I can understand how my comment might have appeared (coincidentally) associated with that line of criticism.

In truth, the issue is not one I feel any passion whatsoever about except to repeat that I prefer the Union; the intention was simply to enjoy chewing the fat with the regulars here on a subject that doesn't much motivate me, and on which I was quite happy to be shot down.

It just goes to show that without body language and face to face contact, communication is fraught with traps.