Jump to content

Scottish Elections


caledonia

SCOTTISH ELECTIONS  

82 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will you be voting for come the Scottish Elections in May



Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

Well, referring to them as "english" shows you up

 

In my eyes Tory, Labour and Liberal Parties are Westminster run English Parties.

They call themselves Scottish Parties to try to "fit in" to Scottish politics.

How is that going for them ?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

48 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

So it all panned out pretty much as we all expected - little change.

The Greens will be happy, but I am relieved they only got 3 new MSPs, taking them to 9 (I think 10 - 12 was mooted at one point).

Our 2 most influential politicians we have remain as:

Nicola Sturgeon.

Real world experience: 1 yr of voluntary work in a law center

Family: none

Patrick Harvie

Real world experience: answering the phone on an HIV helpline for homosexual men

Family: none

With their obvious ability to relate to ordinary people and understand life in the real world: families, employment etc, Scotland is sure to continue its soaring successes.

In particular, I am glad that they will both be able to draw on lessons learned from their "real" work experience when making policy.

 

Edit - the new SNP time wasting tactic seems to be shaping up as launching a protracted court battle which they know is unwinnable.

 

 

Sturgeon graduated in 1992 with a degree in Law

She did her legal traineeship with McLure Naismith solicitors, becoming fully qualified in 1995.

Then worked 2 years with a firm of solicitors in Stirling, and a further 2 years with Drumchapel Law Centre (not voluntary....it is a non-profit organisation, big difference. She was getting paid...)

So 7 years working in the legal profession, not 1 year voluntary

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
18 hours ago, caledonia said:

Ayr is part of south Scotland list which gave 3 Tories and 3 Labour so voting for another independent minded party would have made a difference.

maybe you need to understand the voting system better

 

Maybe you need to understand that what was on offer was unelectable.

A handsy old has been backed by some of the craziest of crazies that claim to stand up for womans rights while putting the names of Salmond's complainers out on twitter and calling one of them a drunken slag - words directly from the ALBA Campaign manager on his twitter. I'd rather have Conservatives win list seats in Aberdeen than see someone like Salmond or Bradley Booth get a seat and then represent me.  

Then there's the vaccine denying, Roma hating, boxer...

Its not independence at all costs for a lot of us especially if that cost is voting in conspiracy theorists and racists.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

So it all panned out pretty much as we all expected - little change.

The Greens will be happy, but I am relieved they only got 3 new MSPs, taking them to 9 (I think 10 - 12 was mooted at one point).

Our 2 most influential politicians we have remain as:

Nicola Sturgeon.

Real world experience: 1 yr of voluntary work in a law center

Family: none

Patrick Harvie

Real world experience: answering the phone on an HIV helpline for homosexual men

Family: none

With their obvious ability to relate to ordinary people and understand life in the real world: families, employment etc, Scotland is sure to continue its soaring successes.

In particular, I am glad that they will both be able to draw on lessons learned from their "real" work experience when making policy.

 

Edit - the new SNP time wasting tactic seems to be shaping up as launching a protracted court battle which they know is unwinnable.

 

 

 

Murray Ross

Real world experience: milked a coo for his da once

Family; he's a bastard

 

I'm just surprised we're still speaking about the SNP and independence when the calibre of opposition Westminster sends up is so high. 

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Ten Caat said:

Sturgeon graduated in 1992 with a degree in Law

She did her legal traineeship with McLure Naismith solicitors, becoming fully qualified in 1995.

Then worked 2 years with a firm of solicitors in Stirling, and a further 2 years with Drumchapel Law Centre (not voluntary....it is a non-profit organisation, big difference. She was getting paid...)

So 7 years working in the legal profession, not 1 year voluntary

Well, If that true, we could perhaps say 4 years working as a solicitor - although "not for profit" doesn't sound like real work to me.

Its still very scant and narrow experience. 

I would make a rule  that serving politicians must have worked for 20 years* prior to entering politics.

(*or some reasonable duration)

That would ensure they had adequate experience and had the right motivations for entering politics.

 

 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, shut up meg said:

I do actually admire your continual defence of your religion and politics and I'm sure we might have some shared views however I don't think there is any chance of us agreeing on the majority of things.

I am flattered.

If we all need to die on some hill, it might as well be a worthwhile one.

We would probably agree on more than you think: my views are all reason-based after all.

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Clydeside_Sheep said:

Well, If that true, we could perhaps say 4 years working as a solicitor - although "not for profit" doesn't sound like real work to me.

Its still very scant and narrow experience. 

I would make a rule  that serving politicians must have worked for 20 years* prior to entering politics.

(*or some reasonable duration)

That would ensure they had adequate experience and had the right motivations for entering politics.

 

 

So a managing director of a charity pulling in a 6 figure salary isn't deemed real work?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
44 minutes ago, Ten Caat said:

And seemingly Ross has no immediate plans to resign his Westminster seat either.

Collecting full remuneration for doing part-time jobs at both. Absolute cunt of a man

chuck in his linesman duties and he is doing 3 part time jobs badly for top dollar.

No wonder he wants the higher tax rate dropped.

Link to comment

Sick hearing of Independence already and it's only been a few days.

Call Sturgeons bluff and let her have a referendum before the end of the year.

She would shit herself .

Only 1/3rd of electors have voted for independence.

One way or another lets get it done and sorted.

Last thing I want is hearing Sturgeons whiny voice for the next 5 years.

Ps on the referendum should be a vote on Brexit as well.

  • Dildo 1
Link to comment

Don’t get the “point scoring” regarding politicians background on here. Vote for who you want but pretty much all politicians are fucking idiots and egotistical .

Well Joe Bloggs  (insert party) went to / didn’t a boarding school, did / didn’t do a charity fun run when they were 12, does /doesn’t have a degree, Uncle once had shares in a company that was pro / anti independence - totally irrelevant  to being in most cases completely incompetent.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Joe pike said:

Sick hearing of Independence already and it's only been a few days.

Call Sturgeons bluff and let her have a referendum before the end of the year.

She would shit herself .

Only 1/3rd of electors have voted for independence.

One way or another lets get it done and sorted.

Last thing I want is hearing Sturgeons whiny voice for the next 5 years.

Ps on the referendum should be a vote on Brexit as well.

Asking what?

Link to comment

51%  Unionist in Constituency votes.

49.9% Unionist in Regional votes.

Over all small majority for Unionist Parties although it's roughly 50/50 .

That's why I think Sturgeon should get her referendum but it has to go ahead before the end of the year.

Settle it once and for all,however if this happened Sturgeon would bottle it.

Say thank you to Johnsson,,he's doing her a big favour by refusing it.

 

  • Downvote 1
  • Dildo 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Joe pike said:

51%  Unionist in Constituency votes.

49.9% Unionist in Regional votes.

Over all small majority for Unionist Parties although it's roughly 50/50 .

That's why I think Sturgeon should get her referendum but it has to go ahead before the end of the year.

Settle it once and for all,however if this happened Sturgeon would bottle it.

Say thank you to Johnsson,,he's doing her a big favour by refusing it.

 

Even though I support independence (albeit as someone who loathes Sturgeon and co's politics) I think you're right. She's either a devolutionist who is bluffing about independence, or she believes in it but shytes herself at the prospect of having to go for it, lest she and her husband risk their luxurious lifestyle.

Independence is off the table as long as they remain in power.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Jocky Balboa said:

Even though I support independence (albeit as someone who loathes Sturgeon and co's politics) I think you're right. She's either a devolutionist who is bluffing about independence, or she believes in it but shytes herself at the prospect of having to go for it, lest she and her husband risk their luxurious lifestyle.

Independence is off the table as long as they remain in power.

I just think she knows it isn't the right time, but a faction within the SNP are trying to force her hand.

It's all a question of demographics. 2014, Salmond pushed for the referendum when clearly the numbers in favour in opinion polls, apart from about a 6 week period close to election day, were consistently against independence.

We now allow 16 year olds to vote and they are generally more pro independence than the 70 year olds and over who are dying off. But although Sturgeon says she will legislate to hold another referendum later on in this parliamentary term (presumably mid 2023-mid 2024) I still don't think it's at the point where a yes voting majority is guaranteed. As we saw just the other day, the numbers voting for pro-indy paries and unionist ones are pretty much 50/50. And although the turnout was strong, it was still nowhere near the 85% turnout that did so in the referendum. I've no proof of this, but my suspicion is that the increased numbers were due to the close on 10% of Scotland's population who are English born actually getting out and voting, whereas they have less interest in elections to Holyrood. Naturally, they will be vastly in favour of the status quo.

I hope that the referendum doesn't happen in this parliamentary term. To lose again would certainly mean no more referenda for a generation. But holding off until about 2030, when even more young voters will be eligible (and conversely more of the older generation will have died off) and I think it's winnable. Hopefully this is what Sturgeon( or her successor) will do

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Ten Caat said:

I just think she knows it isn't the right time, but a faction within the SNP are trying to force her hand.

It's all a question of demographics. 2014, Salmond pushed for the referendum when clearly the numbers in favour in opinion polls, apart from about a 6 week period close to election day, were consistently against independence.

We now allow 16 year olds to vote and they are generally more pro independence than the 70 year olds and over who are dying off. But although Sturgeon says she will legislate to hold another referendum later on in this parliamentary term (presumably mid 2023-mid 2024) I still don't think it's at the point where a yes voting majority is guaranteed. As we saw just the other day, the numbers voting for pro-indy paries and unionist ones are pretty much 50/50. And although the turnout was strong, it was still nowhere near the 85% turnout that did so in the referendum. I've no proof of this, but my suspicion is that the increased numbers were due to the close on 10% of Scotland's population who are English born actually getting out and voting, whereas they have less interest in elections to Holyrood. Naturally, they will be vastly in favour of the status quo.

I hope that the referendum doesn't happen in this parliamentary term. To lose again would certainly mean no more referenda for a generation. But holding off until about 2030, when even more young voters will be eligible (and conversely more of the older generation will have died off) and I think it's winnable. Hopefully this is what Sturgeon( or her successor) will do

Agree with all of this but don't think she will wait to 2030 , perhaps in 3 years or so . Whatever the timing they need to be sure they win the next one 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Ten Caat said:

I just think she knows it isn't the right time, but a faction within the SNP are trying to force her hand.

It's all a question of demographics. 2014, Salmond pushed for the referendum when clearly the numbers in favour in opinion polls, apart from about a 6 week period close to election day, were consistently against independence.

We now allow 16 year olds to vote and they are generally more pro independence than the 70 year olds and over who are dying off. But although Sturgeon says she will legislate to hold another referendum later on in this parliamentary term (presumably mid 2023-mid 2024) I still don't think it's at the point where a yes voting majority is guaranteed. As we saw just the other day, the numbers voting for pro-indy paries and unionist ones are pretty much 50/50. And although the turnout was strong, it was still nowhere near the 85% turnout that did so in the referendum. I've no proof of this, but my suspicion is that the increased numbers were due to the close on 10% of Scotland's population who are English born actually getting out and voting, whereas they have less interest in elections to Holyrood. Naturally, they will be vastly in favour of the status quo.

I hope that the referendum doesn't happen in this parliamentary term. To lose again would certainly mean no more referenda for a generation. But holding off until about 2030, when even more young voters will be eligible (and conversely more of the older generation will have died off) and I think it's winnable. Hopefully this is what Sturgeon( or her successor) will do

You continue to defend them and that is your right, but I would ask rhetorically; if the Sturgeon and Murrell regime, after over 6 years in charge, coupled with a set of circumstances never more favourable (and perhaps never will be again - surely the opposition can't get any worse?!) cannot convince a reasonable majority (let's say the Unionist 2014 yardstick of 55%) then what does it say about the SNP leadership? 

On that note, what does it say about Scotland as a region/country, that it would rather persist with the status quo than grow up and take responsibility for its own destiny? We talk a good game as a people, telling the whole world how proud we are of our identity, culture and history. We also make great currency out of blaming England/Westminster/Tories for our ills... Yet when it comes to the crunch, we shyte ourselves at the prospect of acting as all other nations do.

I ask again rhetorically; does Scotland even deserve to be independent, given the above and given its tolerance of both SNP and Unionist corruption?

Link to comment
23 hours ago, Jocky Balboa said:

You continue to defend them and that is your right, but I would ask rhetorically; if the Sturgeon and Murrell regime, after over 6 years in charge, coupled with a set of circumstances never more favourable (and perhaps never will be again - surely the opposition can't get any worse?!) cannot convince a reasonable majority (let's say the Unionist 2014 yardstick of 55%) then what does it say about the SNP leadership? 

On that note, what does it say about Scotland as a region/country, that it would rather persist with the status quo than grow up and take responsibility for its own destiny? We talk a good game as a people, telling the whole world how proud we are of our identity, culture and history. We also make great currency out of blaming England/Westminster/Tories for our ills... Yet when it comes to the crunch, we shyte ourselves at the prospect of acting as all other nations do.

I ask again rhetorically; does Scotland even deserve to be independent, given the above and given its tolerance of both SNP and Unionist corruption?

I'm a federalist -and have a backstory into the 15th century in Aberdeenshire - Scotland as a concept is currently fine as a federal idea - was a poor independent country in the 16th and 17th centuries named after an Irish tribe who squashed and obliterated indigenous culture - who here can speak Pictish? So we have all the official vehicles carrying a (dumbed down) version of Irish to show how proud we are to have been conquered by them (or how poor our historical knowledge is). We want independence but need to accept that that will bring poverty and reduced inward investment - even in the EU (that'll take a decade to happen if it ever does) - we're on the arse of Europe - do I build a car plant in Scotland or Belgium for the EU. Our biggest market will still be England. Tax rates will soar - anyone with money will leave and we will end up looking like a poor mans Greece - Shetland will likely bugger off too. As a country we should not have left the EU but in my opinion to leave the UK is folly - Nationalists of any stripe need an enemy and foster division (look at us now!) - that is the English or the Tories for the SNP who get the blame for everything - there are many other examples for other Nationalist groups - Johnson was right in the idea that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Nations don't really exist - just like god (nationhood ranks right up there with religion as causes of human grief and conflict) - you have to have faith in a country because it's an idea not a real thing - can you tell the difference between Scottish dirt and Rumanian - there are no lines or borders on the planet - it's all man made  and people whilst culturally driven are basically the same.- divisions are wasteful. We are all dependent on each other - adding additional structures to deepen division is daft.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Crossbow said:

I'm a federalist -and have a backstory into the 15th century in Aberdeenshire - Scotland as a concept is currently fine as a federal idea - was a poor independent country in the 16th and 17th centuries named after an Irish tribe who squashed and obliterated indigenous culture - who here can speak Pictish? So we have all the official vehicles carrying a (dumbed down) version of Irish to show how proud we are to have been conquered by them (or how poor our historical knowledge is). We want independence but need to accept that that will bring poverty and reduced inward investment - even in the EU (that'll take a decade to happen if it ever does) - we're on the arse of Europe - do I build a car plant in Scotland or Belgium for the EU. Our biggest market will still be England. Tax rates will soar - anyone with money will leave and we will end up looking like a poor mans Greece - Shetland will likely bugger off too. As a country we should not have left the EU but in my opinion to leave the UK is folly - Nationalists of any stripe need an enemy and foster division (look at us now!) - that is the English or the Tories for the SNP who get the blame for everything - there are many other examples for other Nationalist groups - Johnson was right in the idea that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Nations don't really exist - just like god (nationhood ranks right up there with religion as causes of human grief and conflict) - you have to have faith in a country because it's an idea not a real thing - can you tell the difference between Scottish dirt and Rumanian - there are no lines or borders on the planet - it's all man made  and people whilst culturally driven are basically the same.- divisions are wasteful. We are all dependent on each other - adding additional structures to deepen division is daft.

It was the Vikings that killed the Pict nobles and king. Its detailed in their chronicles, each one named.

It was the Christians that obliterated the culture. That can be seen by the change in the stones, incorporating the cross. While a few Irish saints claim to have converted the Celts and the Picts, Christianity was already here and being practised, brought to Scotland by the Romans with some of Southern Scotland being Christian as early as 150AD. The conversion of the rest of Scotland was coming from both the south and the west. 

We speak Pictish words every day. Aberdeen is Pictish, mouth of the dee. I'd say more Pictish was spoken in the NE of Scotland than Celtic Gaelic.

So... It was the Vikings and then the papabrigade that squashed and obliterated indigenous Pictish culture. The Celts just took advantage and took over what was left by claiming to have Pictish ancestry until it was no longer fashionable to have Pictish ancestry because it was seen as being Pagan. Kenneth MacAlpin went to great lengths to prove his Pictish roots. 

I do agree with one part of your post. Highlighted it for you. 

 

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, spamspamspam said:

It was the Vikings that killed the Pict nobles and king. Its detailed in their chronicles, each one named.

It was the Christians that obliterated the culture. That can be seen by the change in the stones, incorporating the cross. While a few Irish saints claim to have converted the Celts and the Picts, Christianity was already here and being practised, brought to Scotland by the Romans with some of Southern Scotland being Christian as early as 150AD. The conversion of the rest of Scotland was coming from both the south and the west. 

We speak Pictish words every day. Aberdeen is Pictish, mouth of the dee. I'd say more Pictish was spoken in the NE of Scotland than Celtic Gaelic.

So... It was the Vikings and then the papabrigade that squashed and obliterated indigenous Pictish culture. The Celts just took advantage and took over what was left by claiming to have Pictish ancestry until it was no longer fashionable to have Pictish ancestry because it was seen as being Pagan. Kenneth MacAlpin went to great lengths to prove his Pictish roots. 

I do agree with one part of your post. Highlighted it for you. 

 

 

Whilst I cannot disagree that the Vikings and their invasions played a significant part in the ease with which the Scots took over - the sketchy tales (winners write the history) of the killing of Pictish nobles at Scone post Kenneth MavAlpin) and the complete lack of any syntax for Pictish (Cornish is in a far better state despite the depredations of the various invaders they've had)  would suggest that the Irish Scots established their culture (and version of Christianity) in the usual way invaders do - the lack of any record to the contrary does not make this the least likely outcome because their is no Pictish language (loan words aside) nor beyond a few stones evidence of the culture of Pictland. It has been rooted out. Fortunately the British Isles are a bastard nation and it really doesn't matter today - it's just a name for a bit of ground. 

Link to comment

I cant understand Aberdeen supporters having any truck with nationalism  after the way this city has been treated by a central belt Glasgow led government.  Buying votes in Dundee and now Edinburgh money being poured into schemes while the rest of the country especially Aberdeen getting SFA. I suppose your used to this having suffered  years of injustice supporting a team carved up by the Glasgow mafia. The SNP would'nt have survived if it hadn't been for the northeast in 70s and 80s there,  seems to be a familiar theme.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...