Jump to content
Gorgiewave

Scottish Election 2016 Megathread

Recommended Posts

deesidejambo

That much of a lead weight, they begged, lied and pleaded for Scotland to remain in union.

Just as the Yes campaign did for Scotland to leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hunky Dory

Just as the Yes campaign did for Scotland to leave.

I think it's clear who ran the more inclusive, positive campaign during the referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deesidejambo

I think it's clear who ran the more inclusive, positive campaign during the referendum.

You mean the "we hate Tory Toffs" side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hasselhoff

I think it's clear who ran the more inclusive, positive campaign during the referendum.

Having "yes" to campaign for helped and wouldn't happen again in a future referendum. Hard to sound positive when campaigning for a "no"

 

Intimidation of people against independence isn't what I would call inclusive or positive. The silent majority stayed quiet until the moment that counted to avoid it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hunky Dory

What intimidation? An egg being thrown? The only prosecutions made during and after the campaign were against unionists.

 

If you need proof who ran the more inclusive and positive campaign, ask yourselves which side increased their support by 15% in the lead up to the referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hunky Dory

And if you believe that the triviality of a simple word determines public opinion, the current EU Referendum completely counters your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doogz

And if you believe that the triviality of a simple word determines public opinion, the current EU Referendum completely counters your point.

 

In any argument that can be simply stated as an option between change or no change - I think it is always easier for the pro-change side to be seen as more positive as they are obviously going to state what they perceive as the positives of the change. The anti-change side is naturally then drawn into argue what they perceive as the negatives of the change. The very fact I?ve inadvertently called the sides ?pro-change? & ?anti-change? shows in a small way how much easier it is to label pro as positive / anti as negative.

In terms of the independence campaign both sides made mistakes ? the ?Yes? campaign didn?t provide enough detail in their arguments to back up their positive position and therefore couldn?t persuade enough of the electorate to back them. The ?No? campaign should have spent more time focussing on the benefits of staying rather than the negatives of leaving. Sadly we're seeing the same issues around the EU debate which I think just reflects on the general poor quality of politicians / state of politics in the country at this time.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deesidejambo

In any argument that can be simply stated as an option between change or no change - I think it is always easier for the pro-change side to be seen as more positive as they are obviously going to state what they perceive as the positives of the change. The anti-change side is naturally then drawn into argue what they perceive as the negatives of the change. The very fact I?ve inadvertently called the sides ?pro-change? & ?anti-change? shows in a small way how much easier it is to label pro as positive / anti as negative.

In terms of the independence campaign both sides made mistakes ? the ?Yes? campaign didn?t provide enough detail in their arguments to back up their positive position and therefore couldn?t persuade enough of the electorate to back them. The ?No? campaign should have spent more time focussing on the benefits of staying rather than the negatives of leaving. Sadly we're seeing the same issues around the EU debate which I think just reflects on the general poor quality of politicians / state of politics in the country at this time.

 

 

+1

 

In any change process there are opportunities and risks.  It is legitimate for the Pro side to concentrate on the opportunities and ignore the risks, as it is for the con side to do the reverse.   Just to blindly ignore the risks and brand them as "negative" is brainless and the sign of someone who is not able to balance the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thunderstruck

Do you really think that the Scottish government did nothing to secure jobs in the seven years you talk of? You are of course wrong. All local authorities will support employment where they can and Inverclyde is no different. This report shows what they are doing and what they are planning to do. http://riversideinverclyde.com/2016-19%20SOP%20approved%20by%20ri%20Board.pdf

?

Here's what's happened to unemployment at the time you are complaining about the Scottish government's inaction. http://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/news/14015107.Unemployment_falls_by_four_per_cent_in_Inverclyde/

Amazingly it fell by 4%.

 

The sale of the Ferguson company was handled by the administatore KPMG. Are you suggesting there was something underhand about the purchase by Clyde Blowers Capital? It seems you are but i suspect it's just more innuendo and that, as usual, you will have no evidence.

 

Perhaps it was fortuitous that McColl was a prominent "Yes" supporter otherwise Ferguson could have gone the way of every other commercial shipbuilder in Scotland, all of whom ceased to exist before the SNP came to power.

 

We have the SNP to thank for todays announcement that the Dalzell steelworks is recruiting. Without them the Scottish steel industry would have disappeared completely, making the survival of Fergusons almost impossible. Salmond's personal intervention played a significant part in saving the Grangemouth plant as did the Scottish government bringing the plant back from the dead when it's closure had already been announced. http://stv.tv/news/stirling-central/245291-grangemouth-ineos-reverse-decision-to-close-petrochemical-plant/

 

I.m struggling to think of comparable interventions by previous Scottish governmnets.This is why people vote for the SNP, because they save their jobs and protect the economy and do it more effectively than others. That's what i mean when i say standing up for Scotland and the interests of it's people. These and many others are irrefutable facts

 

You are also wrong about the SNP government and the Loch Seaforth. This ship does not belong to Calmac or any other government agency, it belongs to The Lloyd's Banking Group. http://crsc.org.uk/archive/articles/shiptalk2/ They lease it to Calmac.

 

Previous governments did build ships in Poland, but not Germany. Three were built in the time of the Labour government and one during the time of the SNP minority government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_MacBrayne_fleet. The ship commisioned in 2007 by the SNP govt was built abroad because the only Scottish shipyard capable of building it did not tender for it as they were already busy and did not have the capability to build it. All current orders for ships have been placed in this country.

 

I don't know what you are talking about when you accuse the SNP, or is it me, of "stoking greed and grievance" Are you saying that getting the best possible deal for Scotland is being greedy? Are you saying that pointing out unfairness is stoking grievance or are you able to actually demonstrate where this has happened. Is this what you mean, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scotlands-budget-to-be-protected-for-first-six-years-after-devolution-of-new-tax-and-welfare-powers-a6891841.html if so most people would see that as another excellent example of the SNP standing up for Scottish interests. It would be another reason to vote SNP.

 

Attacks on this government seem ever more ludicrous. It's as if the government's critics want the country to fail. Surely you must know that without the SNP Scotland would have no steel industry, no commercial shipbuilding and a massively reduced chemical industry as well as having around ?7billion cut from our grant. Surely you must know that promises to maintain civil service jobs have been broken and that fewer warships will now be built on the clyde and yet some of you want to blame the current rise in unemployment on the SNP.

 

I don't know why you cant find legitimate areas where the SNP can be criticised. It's leaving the country in danger of becoming a one party state. The pathetic state of opposition is perfectly illustrated by the long standing Labour Education spokesman at FM questions.

 

You too, seem to have a problem with facts. You are not allowed to just make things up. You have to be able to justify what you say. It's not a fact just because you believe it.

 

You are right about one thing though. Flensburg is in Germany.

 

Other good news shows record employment within NHS Scotland and progress on Named Person legislation.

I hope you didn't waste a lot of your time putting that together purely to underline the extent of your brainwashing.

 

An ability to find and post links is not the same as understanding the content and context.

 

Nothing more need be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug

I hope you didn't waste a lot of your time putting that together purely to underline the extent of your brainwashing.

 

An ability to find and post links is not the same as understanding the content and context.

 

Nothing more need be said.

I took the time to put this together to demonstrate once again that the allegations you make cannot be supported by facts and events.

 

The links are there to provide evidence and corroboration for the things I say. In this case a lot of recorded and checkable facts. Evidence with corroboration and facts is not brainwashing. I have explained each point and I have made my comments in my own words, as I always do and not as you suggest merely posted links without context and relevant content. I try not to insult people and try to make my points in a direct and reasoned way, as my views are sincerely held but I am always looking for opportunities to refine my views base on the contributions of other posters. Insults and hate filled statements don't really work though.

 

 I presume you have been unable to debunk the facts in my response to your post,  hence your statement "Nothing more need be said." Under the circumstances, I accept your surrender.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thunderstruck

<p>

 

I took the time to put this together to demonstrate once again that the allegations you make cannot be supported by facts and events.

 

The links are there to provide evidence and corroboration for the things I say. In this case a lot of recorded and checkable facts. Evidence with corroboration and facts is not brainwashing. I have explained each point and I have made my comments in my own words, as I always do and not as you suggest merely posted links without context and relevant content. I try not to insult people and try to make my points in a direct and reasoned way, as my views are sincerely held but I am always looking for opportunities to refine my views base on the contributions of other posters. Insults and hate filled statements don't really work though.

 

I presume you have been unable to debunk the facts in my response to your post, hence your statement "Nothing more need be said." Under the circumstances, I accept your surrender.

 

There is a world of a difference between pasting things found on Google and understanding and contextualising the "facts".

 

Not only that, you constantly deluge us with such "an overwhelming tsunami of false, misleading or nonsensical claims in a short space of time that we can?t possibly debunk it all". (I'm sure you will know who said that).

 

Example: you cite a newspaper's quote of a politician's claim on employment levels and, even if that claim was true, you don't bother to enquire what might have caused the change. (Migration, change in demographics, or more jobs).

 

You don't explain what jobs and what kind of jobs have replaced the lost engineering and other skilled jobs in the Yards, at IBM, at other "High Tech" plants, at textile and clothing factories and in office jobs relocated to other parts of the country. Maybe it was Zero Hours contracts at Amazon. Maybe it was Inverclyde Council surviving 20% cuts to its budget to magic up some jobs.

 

So, there you have it; taking the nonsense spouted by your favourite brand of politician at face value and not even carrying out a cursory examination of the background. That's what I would call brainwashed.

 

The rest of your post was a more of the same but you did at least confirm the SNP's continued enthusiasm for "Son of PFI" and it's adding DEBT (by proxy) to its DEFICIT. At least, this time, it wasn't an offshore bank.

 

I trust that satisfies your demand for answers. Now, go away and bother/stalk someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug

There is a world of a difference between pasting things found on Google and understanding and contextualising the "facts".

 

Not only that, you constantly deluge us with such "an overwhelming tsunami of false, misleading or nonsensical claims in a short space of time that we can?t possibly debunk it all". (I'm sure you will know who said that).

 

Example: you cite a newspaper's quote of a politician's claim on employment levels and, even if that claim was true, you don't bother to enquire what might have caused the change. (Migration, change in demographics, or more jobs).

 

You don't explain what jobs and what kind of jobs have replaced the lost engineering and other skilled jobs in the Yards, at IBM, at other "High Tech" plants, at textile and clothing factories and in office jobs relocated to other parts of the country. Maybe it was Zero Hours contracts at Amazon. Maybe it was Inverclyde Council surviving 20% cuts to its budget to magic up some jobs.

 

So, there you have it; taking the nonsense spouted by your favourite brand of politician at face value and not even carrying out a cursory examination of the background. That's what I would call brainwashed.

 

The rest of your post was a more of the same but you did at least confirm the SNP's continued enthusiasm for "Son of PFI" and it's adding DEBT (by proxy) to its DEFICIT. At least, this time, it wasn't an offshore bank.

 

I trust that satisfies your demand for answers. Now, go away and bother/stalk someone else.

You flatter yourself. I'm not stalking you merely challenging the unsubstantiated allegations you make.

 

On the point you raise regarding high unemployment and the SNP doing nothing about it. I demonstrated to you that the SNP were doing something about it and that the unemployment rate had fallen. There may be all sorts of reasons but they were not the issue. The issue is that your statements were false whatever the context and I demonstrated them to be so. I understand that you don't like that challenge. It seems you want a platform to spout untruths and as long as you do so I will feel duty bound to challenge them. 

 

 

You claim I am deluging you with "an overwhelming tsunami of false, misleading or nonsensical claims" yet you cant tell me what they are.

 

 I don't think it is your right to make me go away but if you feel that bothered about it you might consider checking your facts before you post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thunderstruck

On the point you raise regarding high unemployment and the SNP doing nothing about it. I demonstrated to you that the SNP were doing something about it and that the unemployment rate had fallen. There may be all sorts of reasons but they were not the issue. The issue is that your statements were false whatever the context and I demonstrated them to be so. I understand that you don't like that challenge. It seems you want a platform to spout untruths and as long as you do so I will feel duty bound to challenge them.

 

 

A sound bite from Stuart McMillan based on a "survey". Surely that is not your demonstrable fact showing that the SNP did something about unemployment.

 

Risible nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawnrazor

I'm on the outside looking in on this, is the there a feeling that the SNP have lost some of thier gloss? Are they being found out regards implementing policies? None of my mate that I speak too vote SNP so getting a balanced opinion is difficult for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord BJ

I'm on the outside looking in on this, is the there a feeling that the SNP have lost some of thier gloss? Are they being found out regards implementing policies? None of my mate that I speak too vote SNP so getting a balanced opinion is difficult for me.

No idea but give you my tuppence

 

Politics is still very yes/no in Scotland. A large portion of the country want independence and I suspect would vote/support snp irrespective of how they do running the country.

 

I don't think the gloss is coming off as such. In many ways they benefit from labour being in a state of flux and the Torres being pretty much unelectable in Scotland. I guess many see them as the best of a bad bunch.

 

I do think there are more people beginning to question there effectiveness in power. Thoigh I think that in relative terms that's pretty small for a variety of reasons.

 

The snp have been very effective in keeping independence at the forefront of people mind and therefore can continue to be everything to everyman. The snp are still a single issue party and this has been their strength keeping focused behind this goal whilst most of other parties been consumed with infighting of varying degrees.

 

I guess long term being in power doesn't make you popular. It will undoubtably become an issue, particularly if politics move on from yes/no in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawnrazor

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lancashire_Lou

It'll be interested to see how I feel politically once I've moved up. Currently it is Corbyn's Labour who most represent me & my views (out of my current voting options in England) but I know Scottish Labour isn't really a thing and nationalism doesn't do it for me.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawnrazor

It'll be interested to see how I feel politically once I've moved up. Currently it is Corbyn's Labour who most represent me & my views (out of my current voting options in England) but I know Scottish Labour isn't really a thing and nationalism doesn't do it for me.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty much leaves you with a protest vote I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboX2

Former first ministers call for 'radical' change at Holyrood - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38639859

 

Interesting proposals made to the Parliament Reform Committee.

 

Think there are some key points raised by them in terms of empowering back benchers and looking into either replacing or reforming how the List seat system works.

 

Thought I'd try keep it off the Brexit/Indy debates by returning to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

Lord McConnell arguing against jobs for life :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboX2

Lord McConnell arguing against jobs for life :lol:

Totally agree! The substance of the point is fair. Personally, I think the list is a good system but it doesn't seem to allow for poor MSPs to stay in Holyrood. David Stewart for example.

 

I'd like to see STV brought in myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

Totally agree! The substance of the point is fair. Personally, I think the list is a good system but it doesn't seem to allow for poor MSPs to stay in Holyrood. David Stewart for example.

I'd like to see STV brought in myself.

Isn't it funny how the BBC refer to him as a Mr though throughout that article? Hmmmmmmmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JamboX2

Isn't it funny how the BBC refer to him as a Mr though throughout that article? Hmmmmmmmm...

McConnell asks not to be referred to by his title apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

McConnell asks not to be referred to by his title apparently.

The half way house ruling elite Labour stooge, how quaint. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...