Have we seen peak SNP? – politicalbetting.com

System

Have we seen peak SNP? – politicalbetting.com

EXC: SNP is running out of cash following an exodus of members and the legal costs linked to the police investigation into the party’s fundingNEC was told party is “having difficulty in balancing the books due to the reduction in membership and donors”https://t.co/tlelEw2BiZ

Read the full story here

MarqueeMark

"unexpected legal costs"* - you really didn't need a crystal ball to make provision for these, when your own oversight committee resigned because they weren't allowed to see the books.

Two years ago.

Or your auditors resigned and weren't replaced for six months, leaving you in deep shit with the Electoral Commission.

The SNP were never straight with the voters of Scotland about the risks associated with independence. Why should we be surprised if they are institutionally corrupt? Questions weren't answered. They were drowned out with vituperation. This was standard operating procedure from both the party itself and its Freedom warriors.

If it is the end of the SNP as a political force, they will no doubt reform under some rock somewhere - but hopefully spending most of their timed locked in frenzied recriminations about who killed independence for decades. (Spoiler, guys: it wasn't MI5's camper van...)

Scotland undoubtedly dodged a bullet in 2014. Imagine the grift if the SNP had the full national budget to treat as its own plaything...


(*Question though: Is the SNP meeting Murrell's legal costs? If so - why?)

ydoethur

Recent events in Scotland really have been suboptimal for the SNP

Do I detect a hint of irony there, Mr Eagles?

kle4

MarqueeMark said:

"unexpected legal costs"* - you really didn't need a crystal ball to make provision for these, when your own oversight committee resigned because they weren't allowed to see the books.

Two years ago.

Or your auditors resigned and weren't replaced for six months, leaving you in deep shit with the Electoral Commission.

The SNP were never straight with the voters of Scotland about the risks associated with independence. Why should we be surprised if they are institutionally corrupt? Questions weren't answered. They were drowned out with vituperation. This was standard operating procedure from both the party itself and its Freedom warriors.

If it is the end of the SNP as a political force, they will no doubt reform under some rock somewhere - but hopefully spending most of their timed locked in frenzied recriminations about who killed independence for decades. (Spoiler, guys: it wasn't MI5's camper van...)

Scotland undoubtedly dodged a bullet in 2014. Imagine the grift if the SNP had the full national budget to treat as its own plaything...


(*Question though: Is the SNP meeting Murrell's legal costs? If so - why?)

The Herald reports the party are not meeting his legal costs.

Which makes sense - Even though the party has not always been truthful (as shown by his resignation for approving lies for a start) it can probably be accepted as true given he had to loan the party 100k from his own pocket. He's obviously in a better financial state than the party.

kle4

Nice reminder that Salmond was more unpopular than Boris. Remarkable.

Not nice reminder indy support is mostly steady.

I still feel like if the party were about to collapse financially theyd get a sudden influx of cash though surely? Even backers mad at them probably dont want them to go through that, or some millionaire supporter like Cox could dip into their pockets as a one off.

squareroot2

My schadenfreude levels are static. I need some more bad SNP news . A poll showing Labour well in the lead would be just what the doctor ordered.😀

Heathener

Thanks TSE. Have there been any recent polls from Scotland?

There has been a paucity of polls this month, not helped by the Easter break. Holidays and bank holidays are never a good time for polling accuracy so I understand why there haven't been many.

From next week onwards we need some more nationwide and Scottish polling!

ydoethur

kle4 said:

Nice reminder that Salmond was more unpopular than Boris. Remarkable.

Not nice reminder indy support is mostly steady.

I still feel like if the party were about to collapse financially theyd get a sudden influx of cash though surely? Even backers mad at them probably dont want them to go through that, or some millionaire supporter like Cox could dip into their pockets as a one off.

The current message, rightly or wrongly, is, 'give money to the SNP and it will vanish into the back pockets of senior staff.'

I can't see that message being totally attractive to donors, to be honest. That's one reason why they're in such an awful lot of trouble.

LostPassword

kle4 said:

Nice reminder that Salmond was more unpopular than Boris. Remarkable.

Not nice reminder indy support is mostly steady.

I still feel like if the party were about to collapse financially theyd get a sudden influx of cash though surely? Even backers mad at them probably dont want them to go through that, or some millionaire supporter like Cox could dip into their pockets as a one off.

Any potential donor would need to trust that, (a) their donation wouldn't be diverted into some individual's pocket, and, (b) that there is a plan to put the SNP finances on an even keel, so that their donation doesn't simply disappear into a black hole which only delays the bankruptcy of the party for a few months.

If that trust is absent then only starting again with a fresh organisation is viable,

LostPassword

Heathener said:

Thanks TSE. Have there been any recent polls from Scotland?

There has been a paucity of polls this month, not helped by the Easter break. Holidays and bank holidays are never a good time for polling accuracy so I understand why there haven't been many.

From next week onwards we need some more nationwide and Scottish polling!

Extra bank holiday in May, so there's only a small window in June before the summer silly season starts.

ydoethur

LostPassword said:

kle4 said:

Nice reminder that Salmond was more unpopular than Boris. Remarkable.

Not nice reminder indy support is mostly steady.

I still feel like if the party were about to collapse financially theyd get a sudden influx of cash though surely? Even backers mad at them probably dont want them to go through that, or some millionaire supporter like Cox could dip into their pockets as a one off.

Any potential donor would need to trust that, (a) their donation wouldn't be diverted into some individual's pocket, and, (b) that there is a plan to put the SNP finances on an even keel, so that their donation doesn't simply disappear into a black hole which only delays the bankruptcy of the party for a few months.

If that trust is absent then only starting again with a fresh organisation is viable,

Also, if that does happen, any donor will look like an idiot.

I've never known of a big donor who liked the thought of looking a fool.

Big_G_NorthWales

LostPassword said:

Heathener said:

Thanks TSE. Have there been any recent polls from Scotland?

There has been a paucity of polls this month, not helped by the Easter break. Holidays and bank holidays are never a good time for polling accuracy so I understand why there haven't been many.

From next week onwards we need some more nationwide and Scottish polling!

Extra bank holiday in May, so there's only a small window in June before the summer silly season starts.

Good morning

There are three bank holidays in May - 1st, 8th and 29th

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Recent events in Scotland really have been suboptimal for the SNP

Do I detect a hint of irony there, Mr Eagles?

Matters have developed, not necessarily to their advantage.

Nigelb

There goes the Oxford comma, then.

A Tennessee bill that allows students to report professors who teach "divisive concepts" passes House and Senate

The list of "divisive concepts" bars discussions on biases, white privilege and racism's role in slavery
https://mobile.twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1647349439265140741

Sean_F

It could not have happened to a nicer bunch.

ydoethur

Nigelb said:

There goes the Oxford comma, then.

A Tennessee bill that allows students to report professors who teach "divisive concepts" passes House and Senate

The list of "divisive concepts" bars discussions on biases, white privilege and racism's role in slavery
https://mobile.twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1647349439265140741

So no more teaching about pizza in cookery lessons? That's a bit sad.

ydoethur

Big_G_NorthWales said:

LostPassword said:

Heathener said:

Thanks TSE. Have there been any recent polls from Scotland?

There has been a paucity of polls this month, not helped by the Easter break. Holidays and bank holidays are never a good time for polling accuracy so I understand why there haven't been many.

From next week onwards we need some more nationwide and Scottish polling!

Extra bank holiday in May, so there's only a small window in June before the summer silly season starts.

Good morning

There are three bank holidays in May - 1st, 8th and 29th

Also a teachers' strike on the 2nd May which I imagine will close the majority of schools.

(Also one on the 27th April. I wonder how many children will not be in on the 28th as well?)

kle4

ydoethur said:

LostPassword said:

kle4 said:

Nice reminder that Salmond was more unpopular than Boris. Remarkable.

Not nice reminder indy support is mostly steady.

I still feel like if the party were about to collapse financially theyd get a sudden influx of cash though surely? Even backers mad at them probably dont want them to go through that, or some millionaire supporter like Cox could dip into their pockets as a one off.

Any potential donor would need to trust that, (a) their donation wouldn't be diverted into some individual's pocket, and, (b) that there is a plan to put the SNP finances on an even keel, so that their donation doesn't simply disappear into a black hole which only delays the bankruptcy of the party for a few months.

If that trust is absent then only starting again with a fresh organisation is viable,

Also, if that does happen, any donor will look like an idiot.

I've never known of a big donor who liked the thought of looking a fool.

Find someone who invested big in crypto or some other obvious money pit.

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

There goes the Oxford comma, then.

A Tennessee bill that allows students to report professors who teach "divisive concepts" passes House and Senate

The list of "divisive concepts" bars discussions on biases, white privilege and racism's role in slavery
https://mobile.twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1647349439265140741

So no more teaching about pizza in cookery lessons? That's a bit sad.

Or the appropriate classification of venison.

History without divisive concepts would be an interesting challenge.

ydoethur

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

LostPassword said:

kle4 said:

Nice reminder that Salmond was more unpopular than Boris. Remarkable.

Not nice reminder indy support is mostly steady.

I still feel like if the party were about to collapse financially theyd get a sudden influx of cash though surely? Even backers mad at them probably dont want them to go through that, or some millionaire supporter like Cox could dip into their pockets as a one off.

Any potential donor would need to trust that, (a) their donation wouldn't be diverted into some individual's pocket, and, (b) that there is a plan to put the SNP finances on an even keel, so that their donation doesn't simply disappear into a black hole which only delays the bankruptcy of the party for a few months.

If that trust is absent then only starting again with a fresh organisation is viable,

Also, if that does happen, any donor will look like an idiot.

I've never known of a big donor who liked the thought of looking a fool.

Find someone who invested big in crypto or some other obvious money pit.

Donald Trump's Scottish, isn't he? 🤔

Nigelb

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

LostPassword said:

kle4 said:

Nice reminder that Salmond was more unpopular than Boris. Remarkable.

Not nice reminder indy support is mostly steady.

I still feel like if the party were about to collapse financially theyd get a sudden influx of cash though surely? Even backers mad at them probably dont want them to go through that, or some millionaire supporter like Cox could dip into their pockets as a one off.

Any potential donor would need to trust that, (a) their donation wouldn't be diverted into some individual's pocket, and, (b) that there is a plan to put the SNP finances on an even keel, so that their donation doesn't simply disappear into a black hole which only delays the bankruptcy of the party for a few months.

If that trust is absent then only starting again with a fresh organisation is viable,

Also, if that does happen, any donor will look like an idiot.

I've never known of a big donor who liked the thought of looking a fool.

Find someone who invested big in crypto or some other obvious money pit.

Probably not very useful as a major donor, if so.

kle4

Nigelb said:

There goes the Oxford comma, then.

A Tennessee bill that allows students to report professors who teach "divisive concepts" passes House and Senate

The list of "divisive concepts" bars discussions on biases, white privilege and racism's role in slavery
https://mobile.twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1647349439265140741

How does one discuss slavery in the USA without bringing up racism? I think talk on implicit biases and white privilege can all too easily verge into absurdity, but these Tennessee reps really need to dial down their snowflakiness several notches.

Jonathan

Let’s face it, the Tories do this sort of thing so much better than anyone else. They make it look effortless.

Nigelb

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

There goes the Oxford comma, then.

A Tennessee bill that allows students to report professors who teach "divisive concepts" passes House and Senate

The list of "divisive concepts" bars discussions on biases, white privilege and racism's role in slavery
https://mobile.twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1647349439265140741

How does one discuss slavery in the USA without bringing up racism? ...

That is the idea.

As for outlawing absurdity...

Nigelb

Although there does appear to be one way to temper Republican ideological madness.

NRCC Quietly Backs Off Attacking Bud Light—Its Own Major Donor
https://mobile.twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1647354133303754758
The National Republican Congressional Committee quietly deleted a fundraising page Saturday that took aim at one of their largest donors, the parent company of Bud Light, Anheuser-Busch.

The NRCC’s backpedalling follows conservatives calling for a boycott of the beer company after they partnered with transgender TikTok personality Dylan Mulvaney...

kle4

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

Nice reminder that Salmond was more unpopular than Boris. Remarkable.

Not nice reminder indy support is mostly steady.

I still feel like if the party were about to collapse financially theyd get a sudden influx of cash though surely? Even backers mad at them probably dont want them to go through that, or some millionaire supporter like Cox could dip into their pockets as a one off.

The current message, rightly or wrongly, is, 'give money to the SNP and it will vanish into the back pockets of senior staff.'

I can't see that message being totally attractive to donors, to be honest. That's one reason why they're in such an awful lot of trouble.

Yes, it's a bit like when someone on trial admits to an earlier lie on one thing, whilst trying to persuade the jury they were truthful on the other things.

"We need you to give us money because we've done a poor job managing our money" is not an easy sell, but to avoid theindependence party from going under? There has to be someone in Scotland with so much money it doesn't matter to them.

They could try JK.

Sean_F

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

There goes the Oxford comma, then.

A Tennessee bill that allows students to report professors who teach "divisive concepts" passes House and Senate

The list of "divisive concepts" bars discussions on biases, white privilege and racism's role in slavery
https://mobile.twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1647349439265140741

How does one discuss slavery in the USA without bringing up racism? I think talk on implicit biases and white privilege can all too easily verge into absurdity, but these Tennessee reps really need to dial down their snowflakiness several notches.

You redesignate the slaves as “immigrants”, who were well-treated, and slavery as a kind of finishing school. You claim that black soldiers fought for the Confederacy and that the Confederate leaders favoured gradual emancipation. You claim the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, but was rather, a dispute about tariffs. You state that the South’s problems were caused by Reconstruction, which poisoned previously harmonious relationships between blacks and whites.

I have actually read such arguments.

Big_G_NorthWales

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

LostPassword said:

Heathener said:

Thanks TSE. Have there been any recent polls from Scotland?

There has been a paucity of polls this month, not helped by the Easter break. Holidays and bank holidays are never a good time for polling accuracy so I understand why there haven't been many.

From next week onwards we need some more nationwide and Scottish polling!

Extra bank holiday in May, so there's only a small window in June before the summer silly season starts.

Good morning

There are three bank holidays in May - 1st, 8th and 29th

Also a teachers' strike on the 2nd May which I imagine will close the majority of schools.

(Also one on the 27th April. I wonder how many children will not be in on the 28th as well?)

The 28th is a Sunday - not sure many children go to school on Sundays ??

kle4

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

LostPassword said:

kle4 said:

Nice reminder that Salmond was more unpopular than Boris. Remarkable.

Not nice reminder indy support is mostly steady.

I still feel like if the party were about to collapse financially theyd get a sudden influx of cash though surely? Even backers mad at them probably dont want them to go through that, or some millionaire supporter like Cox could dip into their pockets as a one off.

Any potential donor would need to trust that, (a) their donation wouldn't be diverted into some individual's pocket, and, (b) that there is a plan to put the SNP finances on an even keel, so that their donation doesn't simply disappear into a black hole which only delays the bankruptcy of the party for a few months.

If that trust is absent then only starting again with a fresh organisation is viable,

Also, if that does happen, any donor will look like an idiot.

I've never known of a big donor who liked the thought of looking a fool.

Find someone who invested big in crypto or some other obvious money pit.

Probably not very useful as a major donor, if so.

Well they find the funds to invest to lose somehow!

ydoethur

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

Nice reminder that Salmond was more unpopular than Boris. Remarkable.

Not nice reminder indy support is mostly steady.

I still feel like if the party were about to collapse financially theyd get a sudden influx of cash though surely? Even backers mad at them probably dont want them to go through that, or some millionaire supporter like Cox could dip into their pockets as a one off.

The current message, rightly or wrongly, is, 'give money to the SNP and it will vanish into the back pockets of senior staff.'

I can't see that message being totally attractive to donors, to be honest. That's one reason why they're in such an awful lot of trouble.

Yes, it's a bit like when someone on trial admits to an earlier lie on one thing, whilst trying to persuade the jury they were truthful on the other things.

"We need you to give us money because we've done a poor job managing our money" is not an easy sell, but to avoid theindependence party from going under? There has to be someone in Scotland with so much money it doesn't matter to them.

They could try JK.

I think they've predetermined the verdict that she's guilty of being serially unreceptive to giving in to Twitter trolls...oh, not 'try' in that sense?

kle4

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

LostPassword said:

Heathener said:

Thanks TSE. Have there been any recent polls from Scotland?

There has been a paucity of polls this month, not helped by the Easter break. Holidays and bank holidays are never a good time for polling accuracy so I understand why there haven't been many.

From next week onwards we need some more nationwide and Scottish polling!

Extra bank holiday in May, so there's only a small window in June before the summer silly season starts.

Good morning

There are three bank holidays in May - 1st, 8th and 29th

Also a teachers' strike on the 2nd May which I imagine will close the majority of schools.

(Also one on the 27th April. I wonder how many children will not be in on the 28th as well?)

So economic figures for May will be a bust then.

ydoethur

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

LostPassword said:

Heathener said:

Thanks TSE. Have there been any recent polls from Scotland?

There has been a paucity of polls this month, not helped by the Easter break. Holidays and bank holidays are never a good time for polling accuracy so I understand why there haven't been many.

From next week onwards we need some more nationwide and Scottish polling!

Extra bank holiday in May, so there's only a small window in June before the summer silly season starts.

Good morning

There are three bank holidays in May - 1st, 8th and 29th

Also a teachers' strike on the 2nd May which I imagine will close the majority of schools.

(Also one on the 27th April. I wonder how many children will not be in on the 28th as well?)

The 28th is a Sunday - not sure many children go to school on Sundays ??

Not it isn't. The 27th April is a Thursday. 28th is a Friday. I think you may be looking at May's calendar.

Stuartinromford

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

LostPassword said:

Heathener said:

Thanks TSE. Have there been any recent polls from Scotland?

There has been a paucity of polls this month, not helped by the Easter break. Holidays and bank holidays are never a good time for polling accuracy so I understand why there haven't been many.

From next week onwards we need some more nationwide and Scottish polling!

Extra bank holiday in May, so there's only a small window in June before the summer silly season starts.

Good morning

There are three bank holidays in May - 1st, 8th and 29th

Also a teachers' strike on the 2nd May which I imagine will close the majority of schools.

(Also one on the 27th April. I wonder how many children will not be in on the 28th as well?)

The 28th is a Sunday - not sure many children go to school on Sundays ??

Don't think it is- today's Sunday 16th, so the next Sundays are 23 and 30.

The joys of living in a clergy household - you just know when The Sundays are. (Sadly not in the charts, going back to last night's pop chat.)

bondegezou

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

LostPassword said:

Heathener said:

Thanks TSE. Have there been any recent polls from Scotland?

There has been a paucity of polls this month, not helped by the Easter break. Holidays and bank holidays are never a good time for polling accuracy so I understand why there haven't been many.

From next week onwards we need some more nationwide and Scottish polling!

Extra bank holiday in May, so there's only a small window in June before the summer silly season starts.

Good morning

There are three bank holidays in May - 1st, 8th and 29th

Also a teachers' strike on the 2nd May which I imagine will close the majority of schools.

(Also one on the 27th April. I wonder how many children will not be in on the 28th as well?)

The 28th is a Sunday - not sure many children go to school on Sundays ??

It could hit Sunday school…

Sandpit

On topic, let’s hope so.

Nigelb

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

LostPassword said:

Heathener said:

Thanks TSE. Have there been any recent polls from Scotland?

There has been a paucity of polls this month, not helped by the Easter break. Holidays and bank holidays are never a good time for polling accuracy so I understand why there haven't been many.

From next week onwards we need some more nationwide and Scottish polling!

Extra bank holiday in May, so there's only a small window in June before the summer silly season starts.

Good morning

There are three bank holidays in May - 1st, 8th and 29th

Also a teachers' strike on the 2nd May which I imagine will close the majority of schools.

(Also one on the 27th April. I wonder how many children will not be in on the 28th as well?)

The 28th is a Sunday - not sure many children go to school on Sundays ??

Not it isn't. The 27th April is a Thursday. 28th is a Friday. I think you may be looking at May's calendar.

Or 2019's.

... Or Big_G is a time traveller and was talking about next year.
If so, can he give us some betting tips ?

Nigelb

Texas Republican Rep. Bryan Slaton—aged 45, married, and a former youth minister—invited a Capitol intern under 21 years old to his apartment to drink and have sex.

Slaton has led the “anti-groomer” crusade for Texas Republicans.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1647331088849592323

Sandpit

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

LostPassword said:

Heathener said:

Thanks TSE. Have there been any recent polls from Scotland?

There has been a paucity of polls this month, not helped by the Easter break. Holidays and bank holidays are never a good time for polling accuracy so I understand why there haven't been many.

From next week onwards we need some more nationwide and Scottish polling!

Extra bank holiday in May, so there's only a small window in June before the summer silly season starts.

Good morning

There are three bank holidays in May - 1st, 8th and 29th

Also a teachers' strike on the 2nd May which I imagine will close the majority of schools.

(Also one on the 27th April. I wonder how many children will not be in on the 28th as well?)

The 28th is a Sunday - not sure many children go to school on Sundays ??

Don't think it is- today's Sunday 16th, so the next Sundays are 23 and 30.

The joys of living in a clergy household - you just know when The Sundays are. (Sadly not in the charts, going back to last night's pop chat.)

Are they after The Saturdays?

Morris_Dancer

FPT:

Good morning, everyone.

Football: Napoli only drew at home versus Verona. Would've got nice odds on that but the idea of backing it was never something I considered.

Netflix: I see they've decided to create a documentary about Cleopatra. And think that she was black.

Right... I mean, she was Macedonian (ultra-Macedonian thanks to the Ptolemy love of incest). But there we are.

Edited extra bit: the kicker is that even if she were Egyptian ethnically, that still isn't being black.

Nigelb

To clear up any confusion.

Today is sextidi 26 Germinal in the year of the Republic CCXXXI, celebrating lilac.
https://mobile.twitter.com/sansculotides/status/1647389606348984326

pigeon

LostPassword said:

pigeon said:

LostPassword said:

pigeon said:

LostPassword said:

pigeon said:

LostPassword said:

MarqueeMark said:

If you are in the shit with the Electoral Commission, for example for not having auditors, does there come a point at which you can't stand candidates?

The Electoral Commission doesn't seem to be the fastest-moving organisation, so I'd guess the SNP would have enough time to sort things out, or set up a successor organisation, before that became an issue.

If things turn out to be as bad as they look then successor organisation it is. Of course, that brings its own problems. Name recognition is very powerful and voters are frequently inattentive, extremely thick, or both. I distinctly recall a story from many years back - I think it was a European Parliament election in Cornwall - where a bloke stood as a "Literal Democrat" and managed to win over 10,000 votes, mostly from complete imbeciles who thought they were voting Lib Dem. Should the SNP become defunct, is there anything from stopping a mischief maker with reasonably deep pockets from setting up the Scottish Nationalist Party or the Scotland National Party, and running a slate of candidates to split the vote?

Yeah, that's potentially an issue that will make a difference at the margins for the next election, if it comes to it. But if it gets that bad, and Sturgeon is dragged into it too, then it's the actual loss of support that will be more significant than any Electoral Commission related issues.

Well, we shall see. Is the pro-independence vote going to troop back to Labour en masse just because the SNP have been exposed as a total shambles? They've not exactly been covering themselves in glory for most of the past sixteen years, and yet they keep winning every election they fight.

It's more likely to split between three or four pro-independence parties - Alba, Greens, post-SNP (pro-Sturgeon faction), post-SNP (anti-Sturgeon faction) - than to return to Labour en masse, but that would still give Labour lots of Scottish seats at Westminster, and in the FPTP section of the Holyrood elections.

After that, it depends on what Labour do with those extra MPs and MSPs.

It will be interesting to see whether there's a slice of the pro-indy/SNP vote that's been on the basis that the SNP government in Scotland has looked more sane and competent than Westminster, and if that is eroded. I don't think that current levels of support for Independence or the Union are as set in stone as sometimes supposed.

Is there any real likelihood of a significant chunk of the 45% of the Scottish electorate that voted to be rid of the rest of us not very long ago changing their minds, and deciding that this Britain thing might be a good idea after all? Colour me sceptical.

It was a binary vote and people not particularly sure one way or another had to make a choice. There will definitely be those among the 45% who are more open to changing their minds than others, just as there is the potential for some of the 55% to be persuaded to give Independence a go.

Why do you expect support to stay fixed at its current level?

As much as I believe that opinion polls are an unreliable indicator, all those Yes/No questions have indicated a reasonably close contest for most of the period between 2014 and now. The reason? A massive chunk of the Scottish population are sovereigntists. They don't care that the Scottish Government's prospectus for separation is paper thin - no answers about trade, the border, the transfer payments, the currency - and they've clearly not been put off by everything that has gone wrong with Brexit, either. They just want to go.

The remarkable thing isn't that the 45% hasn't started to slide, it's that the blocking majority still exists.

Scottish electoral politics is stuck. For as long as the Union exists the SNP will win every single election - unless the SNP ceases to exist, in which case whatever clone is created to replace it will probably win every single election. Scotland ain't Quebec - just look at the proportion of the Scottish population that answered the national identity question in the 2011 census as "Scottish only," and then ask yourself how much further that value will have increased if the authorities ever get round to publishing the 2022 data. This isn't going away.

ydoethur

pigeon said:

LostPassword said:

pigeon said:

LostPassword said:

pigeon said:

LostPassword said:

pigeon said:

LostPassword said:

MarqueeMark said:

If you are in the shit with the Electoral Commission, for example for not having auditors, does there come a point at which you can't stand candidates?

The Electoral Commission doesn't seem to be the fastest-moving organisation, so I'd guess the SNP would have enough time to sort things out, or set up a successor organisation, before that became an issue.

If things turn out to be as bad as they look then successor organisation it is. Of course, that brings its own problems. Name recognition is very powerful and voters are frequently inattentive, extremely thick, or both. I distinctly recall a story from many years back - I think it was a European Parliament election in Cornwall - where a bloke stood as a "Literal Democrat" and managed to win over 10,000 votes, mostly from complete imbeciles who thought they were voting Lib Dem. Should the SNP become defunct, is there anything from stopping a mischief maker with reasonably deep pockets from setting up the Scottish Nationalist Party or the Scotland National Party, and running a slate of candidates to split the vote?

Yeah, that's potentially an issue that will make a difference at the margins for the next election, if it comes to it. But if it gets that bad, and Sturgeon is dragged into it too, then it's the actual loss of support that will be more significant than any Electoral Commission related issues.

Well, we shall see. Is the pro-independence vote going to troop back to Labour en masse just because the SNP have been exposed as a total shambles? They've not exactly been covering themselves in glory for most of the past sixteen years, and yet they keep winning every election they fight.

It's more likely to split between three or four pro-independence parties - Alba, Greens, post-SNP (pro-Sturgeon faction), post-SNP (anti-Sturgeon faction) - than to return to Labour en masse, but that would still give Labour lots of Scottish seats at Westminster, and in the FPTP section of the Holyrood elections.

After that, it depends on what Labour do with those extra MPs and MSPs.

It will be interesting to see whether there's a slice of the pro-indy/SNP vote that's been on the basis that the SNP government in Scotland has looked more sane and competent than Westminster, and if that is eroded. I don't think that current levels of support for Independence or the Union are as set in stone as sometimes supposed.

Is there any real likelihood of a significant chunk of the 45% of the Scottish electorate that voted to be rid of the rest of us not very long ago changing their minds, and deciding that this Britain thing might be a good idea after all? Colour me sceptical.

It was a binary vote and people not particularly sure one way or another had to make a choice. There will definitely be those among the 45% who are more open to changing their minds than others, just as there is the potential for some of the 55% to be persuaded to give Independence a go.

Why do you expect support to stay fixed at its current level?

As much as I believe that opinion polls are an unreliable indicator, all those Yes/No questions have indicated a reasonably close contest for most of the period between 2014 and now. The reason? A massive chunk of the Scottish population are sovereigntists. They don't care that the Scottish Government's prospectus for separation is paper thin - no answers about trade, the border, the transfer payments, the currency - and they've clearly not been put off by everything that has gone wrong with Brexit, either. They just want to go.

The remarkable thing isn't that the 45% hasn't started to slide, it's that the blocking majority still exists.

Scottish electoral politics is stuck. For as long as the Union exists the SNP will win every single election - unless the SNP ceases to exist, in which case whatever clone is created to replace it will probably win every single election. Scotland ain't Quebec - just look at the proportion of the Scottish population that answered the national identity question in the 2011 census as "Scottish only," and then ask yourself how much further that value will have increased if the authorities ever get round to publishing the 2022 data. This isn't going away.

Did they ever get round to completing the census in Scotland to a vaguely acceptable standard?

pigeon

ydoethur said:

pigeon said:

LostPassword said:

pigeon said:

LostPassword said:

pigeon said:

LostPassword said:

pigeon said:

LostPassword said:

MarqueeMark said:

If you are in the shit with the Electoral Commission, for example for not having auditors, does there come a point at which you can't stand candidates?

The Electoral Commission doesn't seem to be the fastest-moving organisation, so I'd guess the SNP would have enough time to sort things out, or set up a successor organisation, before that became an issue.

If things turn out to be as bad as they look then successor organisation it is. Of course, that brings its own problems. Name recognition is very powerful and voters are frequently inattentive, extremely thick, or both. I distinctly recall a story from many years back - I think it was a European Parliament election in Cornwall - where a bloke stood as a "Literal Democrat" and managed to win over 10,000 votes, mostly from complete imbeciles who thought they were voting Lib Dem. Should the SNP become defunct, is there anything from stopping a mischief maker with reasonably deep pockets from setting up the Scottish Nationalist Party or the Scotland National Party, and running a slate of candidates to split the vote?

Yeah, that's potentially an issue that will make a difference at the margins for the next election, if it comes to it. But if it gets that bad, and Sturgeon is dragged into it too, then it's the actual loss of support that will be more significant than any Electoral Commission related issues.

Well, we shall see. Is the pro-independence vote going to troop back to Labour en masse just because the SNP have been exposed as a total shambles? They've not exactly been covering themselves in glory for most of the past sixteen years, and yet they keep winning every election they fight.

It's more likely to split between three or four pro-independence parties - Alba, Greens, post-SNP (pro-Sturgeon faction), post-SNP (anti-Sturgeon faction) - than to return to Labour en masse, but that would still give Labour lots of Scottish seats at Westminster, and in the FPTP section of the Holyrood elections.

After that, it depends on what Labour do with those extra MPs and MSPs.

It will be interesting to see whether there's a slice of the pro-indy/SNP vote that's been on the basis that the SNP government in Scotland has looked more sane and competent than Westminster, and if that is eroded. I don't think that current levels of support for Independence or the Union are as set in stone as sometimes supposed.

Is there any real likelihood of a significant chunk of the 45% of the Scottish electorate that voted to be rid of the rest of us not very long ago changing their minds, and deciding that this Britain thing might be a good idea after all? Colour me sceptical.

It was a binary vote and people not particularly sure one way or another had to make a choice. There will definitely be those among the 45% who are more open to changing their minds than others, just as there is the potential for some of the 55% to be persuaded to give Independence a go.

Why do you expect support to stay fixed at its current level?

As much as I believe that opinion polls are an unreliable indicator, all those Yes/No questions have indicated a reasonably close contest for most of the period between 2014 and now. The reason? A massive chunk of the Scottish population are sovereigntists. They don't care that the Scottish Government's prospectus for separation is paper thin - no answers about trade, the border, the transfer payments, the currency - and they've clearly not been put off by everything that has gone wrong with Brexit, either. They just want to go.

The remarkable thing isn't that the 45% hasn't started to slide, it's that the blocking majority still exists.

Scottish electoral politics is stuck. For as long as the Union exists the SNP will win every single election - unless the SNP ceases to exist, in which case whatever clone is created to replace it will probably win every single election. Scotland ain't Quebec - just look at the proportion of the Scottish population that answered the national identity question in the 2011 census as "Scottish only," and then ask yourself how much further that value will have increased if the authorities ever get round to publishing the 2022 data. This isn't going away.

Did they ever get round to completing the census in Scotland to a vaguely acceptable standard?

Suggestion on relevant website is of a 90% return rate, but no sign yet of any numbers actually being revealed.

kle4

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT:

Good morning, everyone.

Football: Napoli only drew at home versus Verona. Would've got nice odds on that but the idea of backing it was never something I considered.

Netflix: I see they've decided to create a documentary about Cleopatra. And think that she was black.

Right... I mean, she was Macedonian (ultra-Macedonian thanks to the Ptolemy love of incest). But there we are.

Edited extra bit: the kicker is that even if she were Egyptian ethnically, that still isn't being black.

It's a strange one, as its one of those situations where a previous attempted fuss over alleged whitewashing in films seemed to peter out when people moaned about Gal Gadot being cast as Cleopatra.

www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55409187.amp

It was just a weird pick to get worked up about accurate representation when even in the piece itself the best the moaners could do was "we dont know who her mum was so she might have been mixed race" and "reconstructions based on artefacts" might make her look mixed race.

The complaint was even more stupid as not only was it a moan that she 'might' not have been white, rather than that she definitely was not, but it said critics said an Arab or African should be cast. (I assume they meant arab or black, otherwise why specify the latter when there are arab Africans). How could they be mad about inaccurate representation when they couldn't state which would be accurate in the first place?

RochdalePioneers

Dodgy books. Jewellery. Luxury Motorhome. Villa.

Must be a yacht stashed away somewhere too.

Mexicanpete

Nigelb said:

Texas Republican Rep. Bryan Slaton—aged 45, married, and a former youth minister—invited a Capitol intern under 21 years old to his apartment to drink and have sex.

Slaton has led the “anti-groomer” crusade for Texas Republicans.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1647331088849592323

An advocate of the death penalty for abortion. I love the comment which starts "I'd bet money..."

malcolmg

MarqueeMark said:

"unexpected legal costs"* - you really didn't need a crystal ball to make provision for these, when your own oversight committee resigned because they weren't allowed to see the books.

Two years ago.

Or your auditors resigned and weren't replaced for six months, leaving you in deep shit with the Electoral Commission.

The SNP were never straight with the voters of Scotland about the risks associated with independence. Why should we be surprised if they are institutionally corrupt? Questions weren't answered. They were drowned out with vituperation. This was standard operating procedure from both the party itself and its Freedom warriors.

If it is the end of the SNP as a political force, they will no doubt reform under some rock somewhere - but hopefully spending most of their timed locked in frenzied recriminations about who killed independence for decades. (Spoiler, guys: it wasn't MI5's camper van...)

Scotland undoubtedly dodged a bullet in 2014. Imagine the grift if the SNP had the full national budget to treat as its own plaything...


(*Question though: Is the SNP meeting Murrell's legal costs? If so - why?)

We all know who killed it so need to spend any time on it.

moonshine

Wrt to claims that Ukraine are losing 7 soldiers per Russian and are “losing the war”… it’s curious that Tucker Carlson and co are choosing to so vividly promote this view when we might be only weeks away from the facts on the ground showing it was rubbish. I suppose he’ll just pretend that he never said it if we see a hot knife cutting through butter.

What future for these characters when Putin is not around to shill for I wonder.

malcolmg

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

"unexpected legal costs"* - you really didn't need a crystal ball to make provision for these, when your own oversight committee resigned because they weren't allowed to see the books.

Two years ago.

Or your auditors resigned and weren't replaced for six months, leaving you in deep shit with the Electoral Commission.

The SNP were never straight with the voters of Scotland about the risks associated with independence. Why should we be surprised if they are institutionally corrupt? Questions weren't answered. They were drowned out with vituperation. This was standard operating procedure from both the party itself and its Freedom warriors.

If it is the end of the SNP as a political force, they will no doubt reform under some rock somewhere - but hopefully spending most of their timed locked in frenzied recriminations about who killed independence for decades. (Spoiler, guys: it wasn't MI5's camper van...)

Scotland undoubtedly dodged a bullet in 2014. Imagine the grift if the SNP had the full national budget to treat as its own plaything...


(*Question though: Is the SNP meeting Murrell's legal costs? If so - why?)

The Herald reports the party are not meeting his legal costs.

Which makes sense - Even though the party has not always been truthful (as shown by his resignation for approving lies for a start) it can probably be accepted as true given he had to loan the party 100k from his own pocket. He's obviously in a better financial state than the party.

25 years milking the SNP, you can bet he has plenty and a fat pension to boot. He also has plenty of houses he can sell.

Nigelb

Fortunately the virus does not (yet) appear to be particularly infectious.

Equatorial Guinea: The case count is up to 38 confirmed & probable #Marburg cases; at least 89% are dead. Authorities don't know the identify/whereabouts/disease outcome of 1 case. (shudder)
The most recent case tested positive on April 7. Not yet clear how s/he got infected...
https://mobile.twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/1647319552575848448

Foxy

RochdalePioneers said:

Dodgy books. Jewellery. Luxury Motorhome. Villa.

Must be a yacht stashed away somewhere too.

The striking thing is the rather banal level of ambition.

Sure, looting opportunities are limited by opportunity, so nothing like the Tory Party PPE scam festival, or £10 000 per day lobbying, but even so. Is there nothing worth nicking in Holyrood?

malcolmg

kle4 said:

Nice reminder that Salmond was more unpopular than Boris. Remarkable.

Not nice reminder indy support is mostly steady.

I still feel like if the party were about to collapse financially theyd get a sudden influx of cash though surely? Even backers mad at them probably dont want them to go through that, or some millionaire supporter like Cox could dip into their pockets as a one off.

They will get hee haw , even the mugs are raging now.

pigeon

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT:

Good morning, everyone.

Football: Napoli only drew at home versus Verona. Would've got nice odds on that but the idea of backing it was never something I considered.

Netflix: I see they've decided to create a documentary about Cleopatra. And think that she was black.

Right... I mean, she was Macedonian (ultra-Macedonian thanks to the Ptolemy love of incest). But there we are.

Edited extra bit: the kicker is that even if she were Egyptian ethnically, that still isn't being black.

It's a strange one, as its one of those situations where a previous attempted fuss over alleged whitewashing in films seemed to peter out when people moaned about Gal Gadot being cast as Cleopatra.

www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55409187.amp

It was just a weird pick to get worked up about accurate representation when even in the piece itself the best the moaners could do was "we dont know who her mum was so she might have been mixed race" and "reconstructions based on artefacts" might make her look mixed race.

The complaint was even more stupid as not only was it a moan that she 'might' not have been white, rather than that she definitely was not, but it said critics said an Arab or African should be cast. (I assume they meant arab or black, otherwise why specify the latter when there are arab Africans). How could they be mad about inaccurate representation when they couldn't state which would be accurate in the first place?

Because the people doing the complaining just want something to complain about (and, having found discrimination in some places, begin to see it everywhere.)

Besides, if they were really that bothered about diversity rather than offence taking, why wouldn't they try to popularise other historical figures who have fascinating stories, and where we can be pretty confident that they were actually black - like the Nubian pharoahs of Egypt, or Queen Candace?

JosiasJessop

Nigelb said:

To clear up any confusion.

Today is sextidi 26 Germinal in the year of the Republic CCXXXI, celebrating lilac.
https://mobile.twitter.com/sansculotides/status/1647389606348984326

Bollox to that. Today is 2460050 in the only dating system people should be using. And I am 18,286 days old.

Who needs these namby-pamby year units anyway?

malcolmg

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

Nice reminder that Salmond was more unpopular than Boris. Remarkable.

Not nice reminder indy support is mostly steady.

I still feel like if the party were about to collapse financially theyd get a sudden influx of cash though surely? Even backers mad at them probably dont want them to go through that, or some millionaire supporter like Cox could dip into their pockets as a one off.

The current message, rightly or wrongly, is, 'give money to the SNP and it will vanish into the back pockets of senior staff.'

I can't see that message being totally attractive to donors, to be honest. That's one reason why they're in such an awful lot of trouble.

That is why they have not had big donors for years, had only the mugs left to get small regular amounts from.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. kle4, the fun thing about the Ptolemies was that their twin passions were murder and incest. The latter makes it especially unlikely Cleopatra was anything but Greek (possibly with some ancestry from Iran due to an alliance in the more distant past, but Iranians are also famous for not being black Africans).

noneoftheabove

Nigelb said:

Fortunately the virus does not (yet) appear to be particularly infectious.

Equatorial Guinea: The case count is up to 38 confirmed & probable #Marburg cases; at least 89% are dead. Authorities don't know the identify/whereabouts/disease outcome of 1 case. (shudder)
The most recent case tested positive on April 7. Not yet clear how s/he got infected...
https://mobile.twitter.com/HelenBranswell/status/1647319552575848448

Probably caught it from a policeman as some of the big pharmas have been doing trials recently with guinea pigs.

Sandpit

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

To clear up any confusion.

Today is sextidi 26 Germinal in the year of the Republic CCXXXI, celebrating lilac.
https://mobile.twitter.com/sansculotides/status/1647389606348984326

Bollox to that. Today is 2460050 in the only dating system people should be using. And I am 18,286 days old.

Who needs these namby-pamby year units anyway?

My wife - today’s our wedding anniversary.

ydoethur

pigeon said:

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT:

Good morning, everyone.

Football: Napoli only drew at home versus Verona. Would've got nice odds on that but the idea of backing it was never something I considered.

Netflix: I see they've decided to create a documentary about Cleopatra. And think that she was black.

Right... I mean, she was Macedonian (ultra-Macedonian thanks to the Ptolemy love of incest). But there we are.

Edited extra bit: the kicker is that even if she were Egyptian ethnically, that still isn't being black.

It's a strange one, as its one of those situations where a previous attempted fuss over alleged whitewashing in films seemed to peter out when people moaned about Gal Gadot being cast as Cleopatra.

www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55409187.amp

It was just a weird pick to get worked up about accurate representation when even in the piece itself the best the moaners could do was "we dont know who her mum was so she might have been mixed race" and "reconstructions based on artefacts" might make her look mixed race.

The complaint was even more stupid as not only was it a moan that she 'might' not have been white, rather than that she definitely was not, but it said critics said an Arab or African should be cast. (I assume they meant arab or black, otherwise why specify the latter when there are arab Africans). How could they be mad about inaccurate representation when they couldn't state which would be accurate in the first place?

Because the people doing the complaining just want something to complain about (and, having found discrimination in some places, begin to see it everywhere.)

Besides, if they were really that bothered about diversity rather than offence taking, why wouldn't they try to popularise other historical figures who have fascinating stories, and where we can be pretty confident that they were actually black - like the Nubian pharoahs of Egypt, or Queen Candace?

It would be great to have a drama series about Akhenaton. Or from the other end of Africa, Cetshwayo.

RochdalePioneers

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Dodgy books. Jewellery. Luxury Motorhome. Villa.

Must be a yacht stashed away somewhere too.

The striking thing is the rather banal level of ambition.

Sure, looting opportunities are limited by opportunity, so nothing like the Tory Party PPE scam festival, or £10 000 per day lobbying, but even so. Is there nothing worth nicking in Holyrood?

The comparison with the Tories would be if the Calmac procurement disaster was because the Scottish Government awarded the contract without tender to someone who founded Nationalist Shipbuilding Ltd the day before, had never even been on a ferry never mind built one, and pocketed the cash no questions asked despite not delivering.

malcolmg

squareroot2 said:

My schadenfreude levels are static. I need some more bad SNP news . A poll showing Labour well in the lead would be just what the doctor ordered.😀

People are not that stupid , they will not flock to London Labour. So best get some cascara and get rid of that shit.

kle4

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Dodgy books. Jewellery. Luxury Motorhome. Villa.

Must be a yacht stashed away somewhere too.

The striking thing is the rather banal level of ambition.

Sure, looting opportunities are limited by opportunity, so nothing like the Tory Party PPE scam festival, or £10 000 per day lobbying, but even so. Is there nothing worth nicking in Holyrood?

Could be nothing of course. Could be the banal level is why it was felt able to get away with, or be careless about.

Bit like of all the things Trump has likely done the simplest potential conviction might be over his bizarre insistence of holding onto official records like a toddler who doesn't want his toys taken away, and may have committed crimes to prevent that.

Mexicanpete

RochdalePioneers said:

Dodgy books. Jewellery. Luxury Motorhome. Villa.

Must be a yacht stashed away somewhere too.

Talking of yachts.

...and yet it all seems like innocent come-day, go-day intra -organisational fraud when compared to a Foreign Secretary who slipped his minders to attend a party on the yacht of a former senior KGB operative with connections to Putin and the Kremlin.

TheValiant

Question for those better informed.

Given Alba are still around, why haven't we seen a shift to their support (or have we)?

Foxy

ydoethur said:

pigeon said:

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT:

Good morning, everyone.

Football: Napoli only drew at home versus Verona. Would've got nice odds on that but the idea of backing it was never something I considered.

Netflix: I see they've decided to create a documentary about Cleopatra. And think that she was black.

Right... I mean, she was Macedonian (ultra-Macedonian thanks to the Ptolemy love of incest). But there we are.

Edited extra bit: the kicker is that even if she were Egyptian ethnically, that still isn't being black.

It's a strange one, as its one of those situations where a previous attempted fuss over alleged whitewashing in films seemed to peter out when people moaned about Gal Gadot being cast as Cleopatra.

www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55409187.amp

It was just a weird pick to get worked up about accurate representation when even in the piece itself the best the moaners could do was "we dont know who her mum was so she might have been mixed race" and "reconstructions based on artefacts" might make her look mixed race.

The complaint was even more stupid as not only was it a moan that she 'might' not have been white, rather than that she definitely was not, but it said critics said an Arab or African should be cast. (I assume they meant arab or black, otherwise why specify the latter when there are arab Africans). How could they be mad about inaccurate representation when they couldn't state which would be accurate in the first place?

Because the people doing the complaining just want something to complain about (and, having found discrimination in some places, begin to see it everywhere.)

Besides, if they were really that bothered about diversity rather than offence taking, why wouldn't they try to popularise other historical figures who have fascinating stories, and where we can be pretty confident that they were actually black - like the Nubian pharoahs of Egypt, or Queen Candace?

It would be great to have a drama series about Akhenaton. Or from the other end of Africa, Cetshwayo.

Or historic Mali, Dahomey or Benin.

OldKingCole

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

To clear up any confusion.

Today is sextidi 26 Germinal in the year of the Republic CCXXXI, celebrating lilac.
https://mobile.twitter.com/sansculotides/status/1647389606348984326

Bollox to that. Today is 2460050 in the only dating system people should be using. And I am 18,286 days old.

Who needs these namby-pamby year units anyway?

My wife - today’s our wedding anniversary.

Congratulations. How many years. Are you doing anything special?

Stocky

TheValiant said:

Question for those better informed.

Given Alba are still around, why haven't we seen a shift to their support (or have we)?

Yes, I asked that a couple of weeks ago. Are Alba pretty vocal as I would expect them to be in Scotland at the moment?

OldKingCole

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kle4, the fun thing about the Ptolemies was that their twin passions were murder and incest. The latter makes it especially unlikely Cleopatra was anything but Greek (possibly with some ancestry from Iran due to an alliance in the more distant past, but Iranians are also famous for not being black Africans).

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. kle4, the fun thing about the Ptolemies was that their twin passions were murder and incest. The latter makes it especially unlikely Cleopatra was anything but Greek (possibly with some ancestry from Iran due to an alliance in the more distant past, but Iranians are also famous for not being black Africans).

And definitely not Arabs!

malcolmg

pigeon said:

LostPassword said:

pigeon said:

LostPassword said:

pigeon said:

LostPassword said:

pigeon said:

LostPassword said:

MarqueeMark said:

If you are in the shit with the Electoral Commission, for example for not having auditors, does there come a point at which you can't stand candidates?

The Electoral Commission doesn't seem to be the fastest-moving organisation, so I'd guess the SNP would have enough time to sort things out, or set up a successor organisation, before that became an issue.

If things turn out to be as bad as they look then successor organisation it is. Of course, that brings its own problems. Name recognition is very powerful and voters are frequently inattentive, extremely thick, or both. I distinctly recall a story from many years back - I think it was a European Parliament election in Cornwall - where a bloke stood as a "Literal Democrat" and managed to win over 10,000 votes, mostly from complete imbeciles who thought they were voting Lib Dem. Should the SNP become defunct, is there anything from stopping a mischief maker with reasonably deep pockets from setting up the Scottish Nationalist Party or the Scotland National Party, and running a slate of candidates to split the vote?

Yeah, that's potentially an issue that will make a difference at the margins for the next election, if it comes to it. But if it gets that bad, and Sturgeon is dragged into it too, then it's the actual loss of support that will be more significant than any Electoral Commission related issues.

Well, we shall see. Is the pro-independence vote going to troop back to Labour en masse just because the SNP have been exposed as a total shambles? They've not exactly been covering themselves in glory for most of the past sixteen years, and yet they keep winning every election they fight.

It's more likely to split between three or four pro-independence parties - Alba, Greens, post-SNP (pro-Sturgeon faction), post-SNP (anti-Sturgeon faction) - than to return to Labour en masse, but that would still give Labour lots of Scottish seats at Westminster, and in the FPTP section of the Holyrood elections.

After that, it depends on what Labour do with those extra MPs and MSPs.

It will be interesting to see whether there's a slice of the pro-indy/SNP vote that's been on the basis that the SNP government in Scotland has looked more sane and competent than Westminster, and if that is eroded. I don't think that current levels of support for Independence or the Union are as set in stone as sometimes supposed.

Is there any real likelihood of a significant chunk of the 45% of the Scottish electorate that voted to be rid of the rest of us not very long ago changing their minds, and deciding that this Britain thing might be a good idea after all? Colour me sceptical.

It was a binary vote and people not particularly sure one way or another had to make a choice. There will definitely be those among the 45% who are more open to changing their minds than others, just as there is the potential for some of the 55% to be persuaded to give Independence a go.

Why do you expect support to stay fixed at its current level?

As much as I believe that opinion polls are an unreliable indicator, all those Yes/No questions have indicated a reasonably close contest for most of the period between 2014 and now. The reason? A massive chunk of the Scottish population are sovereigntists. They don't care that the Scottish Government's prospectus for separation is paper thin - no answers about trade, the border, the transfer payments, the currency - and they've clearly not been put off by everything that has gone wrong with Brexit, either. They just want to go.

The remarkable thing isn't that the 45% hasn't started to slide, it's that the blocking majority still exists.

Scottish electoral politics is stuck. For as long as the Union exists the SNP will win every single election - unless the SNP ceases to exist, in which case whatever clone is created to replace it will probably win every single election. Scotland ain't Quebec - just look at the proportion of the Scottish population that answered the national identity question in the 2011 census as "Scottish only," and then ask yourself how much further that value will have increased if the authorities ever get round to publishing the 2022 data. This isn't going away.

Someone with sense on here, this will only increase independence support and it will be taken out of the control of the shysters.

Nigelb

.

kle4 said:

Foxy said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Dodgy books. Jewellery. Luxury Motorhome. Villa.

Must be a yacht stashed away somewhere too.

The striking thing is the rather banal level of ambition.

Sure, looting opportunities are limited by opportunity, so nothing like the Tory Party PPE scam festival, or £10 000 per day lobbying, but even so. Is there nothing worth nicking in Holyrood?

Could be nothing of course. Could be the banal level is why it was felt able to get away with, or be careless about.

Bit like of all the things Trump has likely done the simplest potential conviction might be over his bizarre insistence of holding onto official records like a toddler who doesn't want his toys taken away, and may have committed crimes to prevent that.

Talking of which,
A big development with significant implications—Top Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran has recused himself from the Mar-a-Lago documents case
https://mobile.twitter.com/JesseRodriguez/status/1647267276687826944
you cannot be both lawyer and witness in a case.

malcolmg

Stocky said:

TheValiant said:

Question for those better informed.

Given Alba are still around, why haven't we seen a shift to their support (or have we)?

Yes, I asked that a couple of weeks ago. Are Alba pretty vocal as I would expect them to be in Scotland at the moment?

Not seen numbers but supposedly a lot of new members, whatever a lot is.

LostPassword

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

To clear up any confusion.

Today is sextidi 26 Germinal in the year of the Republic CCXXXI, celebrating lilac.
https://mobile.twitter.com/sansculotides/status/1647389606348984326

Bollox to that. Today is 2460050 in the only dating system people should be using. And I am 18,286 days old.

Who needs these namby-pamby year units anyway?

Year units are useful for those people interested in the seasonal cycle.

CD13

As someone who's never gone to a horse race course before, I was curious about the tactics. Not only the races, but they tried to stop the traffic on the M57. That's a sure fire way to gain supporters.

Jemima and colleagues taking notes from Extinction Rebellion? A little like a poitical canvasser going to a house and while they're there, breaking a window next door to get noticed. Even the SNP would think twice.

Tres

Stocky said:

TheValiant said:

Question for those better informed.

Given Alba are still around, why haven't we seen a shift to their support (or have we)?

Yes, I asked that a couple of weeks ago. Are Alba pretty vocal as I would expect them to be in Scotland at the moment?

The scottish public have decided that Salmond is a sleaze ball Putin apologist.

Sandpit

OldKingCole said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

To clear up any confusion.

Today is sextidi 26 Germinal in the year of the Republic CCXXXI, celebrating lilac.
https://mobile.twitter.com/sansculotides/status/1647389606348984326

Bollox to that. Today is 2460050 in the only dating system people should be using. And I am 18,286 days old.

Who needs these namby-pamby year units anyway?

My wife - today’s our wedding anniversary.

Congratulations. How many years. Are you doing anything special?

Thanks! Only eight years, and we’re going to a nice hotel tonight, eating lots and drinking lots!

ydoethur

malcolmg said:

Stocky said:

TheValiant said:

Question for those better informed.

Given Alba are still around, why haven't we seen a shift to their support (or have we)?

Yes, I asked that a couple of weeks ago. Are Alba pretty vocal as I would expect them to be in Scotland at the moment?

Not seen numbers but supposedly a lot of new members, whatever a lot is.

If they've tripled their membership would that get it to double figures?

Morris_Dancer

Hope you have a splendid evening. Mr. Sandpit.

OldKingCole

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

pigeon said:

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT:

Good morning, everyone.

Football: Napoli only drew at home versus Verona. Would've got nice odds on that but the idea of backing it was never something I considered.

Netflix: I see they've decided to create a documentary about Cleopatra. And think that she was black.

Right... I mean, she was Macedonian (ultra-Macedonian thanks to the Ptolemy love of incest). But there we are.

Edited extra bit: the kicker is that even if she were Egyptian ethnically, that still isn't being black.

It's a strange one, as its one of those situations where a previous attempted fuss over alleged whitewashing in films seemed to peter out when people moaned about Gal Gadot being cast as Cleopatra.

www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55409187.amp

It was just a weird pick to get worked up about accurate representation when even in the piece itself the best the moaners could do was "we dont know who her mum was so she might have been mixed race" and "reconstructions based on artefacts" might make her look mixed race.

The complaint was even more stupid as not only was it a moan that she 'might' not have been white, rather than that she definitely was not, but it said critics said an Arab or African should be cast. (I assume they meant arab or black, otherwise why specify the latter when there are arab Africans). How could they be mad about inaccurate representation when they couldn't state which would be accurate in the first place?

Because the people doing the complaining just want something to complain about (and, having found discrimination in some places, begin to see it everywhere.)

Besides, if they were really that bothered about diversity rather than offence taking, why wouldn't they try to popularise other historical figures who have fascinating stories, and where we can be pretty confident that they were actually black - like the Nubian pharoahs of Egypt, or Queen Candace?

It would be great to have a drama series about Akhenaton. Or from the other end of Africa, Cetshwayo.

Or historic Mali, Dahomey or Benin.

During lockdown, I went on a WEA Zoom course on African history. Sadly it was very disappointing; one lecture was entirely devoted to racism. Two of the others were devoted to the slave trade, particularly on the East coast.
The lecturers couldn’t handle PowerPoint AND zoom, either.

I’d been hoping to learn a lot more about the west African civilisations. Ancient Zimbabwe too!

boulay

ydoethur said:

pigeon said:

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT:

Good morning, everyone.

Football: Napoli only drew at home versus Verona. Would've got nice odds on that but the idea of backing it was never something I considered.

Netflix: I see they've decided to create a documentary about Cleopatra. And think that she was black.

Right... I mean, she was Macedonian (ultra-Macedonian thanks to the Ptolemy love of incest). But there we are.

Edited extra bit: the kicker is that even if she were Egyptian ethnically, that still isn't being black.

It's a strange one, as its one of those situations where a previous attempted fuss over alleged whitewashing in films seemed to peter out when people moaned about Gal Gadot being cast as Cleopatra.

www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55409187.amp

It was just a weird pick to get worked up about accurate representation when even in the piece itself the best the moaners could do was "we dont know who her mum was so she might have been mixed race" and "reconstructions based on artefacts" might make her look mixed race.

The complaint was even more stupid as not only was it a moan that she 'might' not have been white, rather than that she definitely was not, but it said critics said an Arab or African should be cast. (I assume they meant arab or black, otherwise why specify the latter when there are arab Africans). How could they be mad about inaccurate representation when they couldn't state which would be accurate in the first place?

Because the people doing the complaining just want something to complain about (and, having found discrimination in some places, begin to see it everywhere.)

Besides, if they were really that bothered about diversity rather than offence taking, why wouldn't they try to popularise other historical figures who have fascinating stories, and where we can be pretty confident that they were actually black - like the Nubian pharoahs of Egypt, or Queen Candace?

It would be great to have a drama series about Akhenaton. Or from the other end of Africa, Cetshwayo.

There is the epic drama Shaka Zulu which covers his life from exiled youngster to top boy. It looks a bit dated now but well worth several hours watching.

DavidL

Nicola as recently as 2021 insisting that the SNP finances have never been stronger: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/leaked-video-footage-shows-nicola-29721481

Absolutely no way video like this would have been leaked even a few months ago. Internal discipline has fallen apart. Yousless is utterly incapable of restoring it. Nicola's team, which kept this under wraps for so long, has left the building just as the roof starts to join the floor.

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Hope you have a splendid evening. Mr. Sandpit.

Why thank you, kind Sir.

Nigelb

Well it certainly did so for me.

Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

Foxy

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

pigeon said:

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT:

Good morning, everyone.

Football: Napoli only drew at home versus Verona. Would've got nice odds on that but the idea of backing it was never something I considered.

Netflix: I see they've decided to create a documentary about Cleopatra. And think that she was black.

Right... I mean, she was Macedonian (ultra-Macedonian thanks to the Ptolemy love of incest). But there we are.

Edited extra bit: the kicker is that even if she were Egyptian ethnically, that still isn't being black.

It's a strange one, as its one of those situations where a previous attempted fuss over alleged whitewashing in films seemed to peter out when people moaned about Gal Gadot being cast as Cleopatra.

www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55409187.amp

It was just a weird pick to get worked up about accurate representation when even in the piece itself the best the moaners could do was "we dont know who her mum was so she might have been mixed race" and "reconstructions based on artefacts" might make her look mixed race.

The complaint was even more stupid as not only was it a moan that she 'might' not have been white, rather than that she definitely was not, but it said critics said an Arab or African should be cast. (I assume they meant arab or black, otherwise why specify the latter when there are arab Africans). How could they be mad about inaccurate representation when they couldn't state which would be accurate in the first place?

Because the people doing the complaining just want something to complain about (and, having found discrimination in some places, begin to see it everywhere.)

Besides, if they were really that bothered about diversity rather than offence taking, why wouldn't they try to popularise other historical figures who have fascinating stories, and where we can be pretty confident that they were actually black - like the Nubian pharoahs of Egypt, or Queen Candace?

It would be great to have a drama series about Akhenaton. Or from the other end of Africa, Cetshwayo.

Or historic Mali, Dahomey or Benin.

During lockdown, I went on a WEA Zoom course on African history. Sadly it was very disappointing; one lecture was entirely devoted to racism. Two of the others were devoted to the slave trade, particularly on the East coast.
The lecturers couldn’t handle PowerPoint AND zoom, either.

I’d been hoping to learn a lot more about the west African civilisations. Ancient Zimbabwe too!

While they were civilisations as interesting and complex as their European or Middle Eastern equivalents, the difficulty does come from the paucity of written records, at least in any accessible form.

We still study African history very much from a European perspective of "discovery", even when discussing the dark side such as the trans-Atlantic slave trade or the Congo Free State.

Sandpit

Nigelb said:

Well it certainly did so for me.

Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

They were very weird ads. There is plenty of material with which to attack the government, but that wasn’t it. The personalisation of it, towards Sunak, didn’t really make sense either, and the format drew itself to parody which the Internet quickly provided.

malcolmg

Tres said:

Stocky said:

TheValiant said:

Question for those better informed.

Given Alba are still around, why haven't we seen a shift to their support (or have we)?

Yes, I asked that a couple of weeks ago. Are Alba pretty vocal as I would expect them to be in Scotland at the moment?

The scottish public have decided that Salmond is a sleaze ball Putin apologist.

bollocks, you obviously have no clue

noneoftheabove

Nigelb said:

Well it certainly did so for me.

Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

If attack ads captured an "essential truth" they would be statements of the bleeding obvious and unnecessary. The truth is this version of the Tories are ineffective on crime and have no idea how to change that.

I would expect the aim of the campaign is to get swing voters thinking along the lines of "they are all as bad as each other" on crime rather than the traditional Tories better than Labour (at fighting it, not commiting it...although could be either).

Labour strategists won't care whether people think they are nice or not, it is about making people who normally vote Tory but have had enough feel comfortable in voting in Labour.

OldKingCole

Foxy said:

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

pigeon said:

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT:

Good morning, everyone.

Football: Napoli only drew at home versus Verona. Would've got nice odds on that but the idea of backing it was never something I considered.

Netflix: I see they've decided to create a documentary about Cleopatra. And think that she was black.

Right... I mean, she was Macedonian (ultra-Macedonian thanks to the Ptolemy love of incest). But there we are.

Edited extra bit: the kicker is that even if she were Egyptian ethnically, that still isn't being black.

It's a strange one, as its one of those situations where a previous attempted fuss over alleged whitewashing in films seemed to peter out when people moaned about Gal Gadot being cast as Cleopatra.

www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55409187.amp

It was just a weird pick to get worked up about accurate representation when even in the piece itself the best the moaners could do was "we dont know who her mum was so she might have been mixed race" and "reconstructions based on artefacts" might make her look mixed race.

The complaint was even more stupid as not only was it a moan that she 'might' not have been white, rather than that she definitely was not, but it said critics said an Arab or African should be cast. (I assume they meant arab or black, otherwise why specify the latter when there are arab Africans). How could they be mad about inaccurate representation when they couldn't state which would be accurate in the first place?

Because the people doing the complaining just want something to complain about (and, having found discrimination in some places, begin to see it everywhere.)

Besides, if they were really that bothered about diversity rather than offence taking, why wouldn't they try to popularise other historical figures who have fascinating stories, and where we can be pretty confident that they were actually black - like the Nubian pharoahs of Egypt, or Queen Candace?

It would be great to have a drama series about Akhenaton. Or from the other end of Africa, Cetshwayo.

Or historic Mali, Dahomey or Benin.

During lockdown, I went on a WEA Zoom course on African history. Sadly it was very disappointing; one lecture was entirely devoted to racism. Two of the others were devoted to the slave trade, particularly on the East coast.
The lecturers couldn’t handle PowerPoint AND zoom, either.

I’d been hoping to learn a lot more about the west African civilisations. Ancient Zimbabwe too!

While they were civilisations as interesting and complex as their European or Middle Eastern equivalents, the difficulty does come from the paucity of written records, at least in any accessible form.

We still study African history very much from a European perspective of "discovery", even when discussing the dark side such as the trans-Atlantic slave trade or the Congo Free State.

Indeed; that’s why I was hoping for something different. Particularly as the lecturers seemed, from their names, to be African.

malcolmg

DavidL said:

Nicola as recently as 2021 insisting that the SNP finances have never been stronger: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/leaked-video-footage-shows-nicola-29721481

Absolutely no way video like this would have been leaked even a few months ago. Internal discipline has fallen apart. Yousless is utterly incapable of restoring it. Nicola's team, which kept this under wraps for so long, has left the building just as the roof starts to join the floor.

There will be lots of ratting going on as they try to save their own skins. If only we had a decent police force , 2 years to get to this stage is shocking, though more likely to have been the crown that slowed it up the most given the previous occupants. Was always certain that when the clique moved on that it would all start to spill out.
Be nice to get the Alphabettis up on perjury charges.

malcolmg

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

Stocky said:

TheValiant said:

Question for those better informed.

Given Alba are still around, why haven't we seen a shift to their support (or have we)?

Yes, I asked that a couple of weeks ago. Are Alba pretty vocal as I would expect them to be in Scotland at the moment?

Not seen numbers but supposedly a lot of new members, whatever a lot is.

If they've tripled their membership would that get it to double figures?

2nd largest party members in Scotland and rising unlike the London sockpuppets

CarlottaVance

Nigelb said:

Well it certainly did so for me.

Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

Going after Sunak on the economy (and not the fatuous mortgage line either) is both more accurate and a more important issue. So why did they do it? Presumably to try to diminish the effectiveness of any attacks on Starmer and Laura Norder they no doubt correctly expect.

RochdalePioneers

malcolmg said:

Tres said:

Stocky said:

TheValiant said:

Question for those better informed.

Given Alba are still around, why haven't we seen a shift to their support (or have we)?

Yes, I asked that a couple of weeks ago. Are Alba pretty vocal as I would expect them to be in Scotland at the moment?

The scottish public have decided that Salmond is a sleaze ball Putin apologist.

bollocks, you obviously have no clue

Regardless of whether you are pro or anti independence, he IS a sleazeball Putin apologist. I also enjoyed my brief conversation with him where he (incorrectly) asserted the law didn't apply to him with regards to parking your liveried campaign car 3 feet from the entrance to the polling station.

Salmond is the past, and like so many fallen politicians (cough Blair) has soiled himself badly after leaving office. Surely there has to be someone else the movement can get behind?

Because if the choice is sleaze or corruption, there is no choice. People will only excuse crap government and failing services for so long no matter how they feel about independence. Especially when its vividly clear that independence is a long way off.

Foxy

malcolmg said:

Tres said:

Stocky said:

TheValiant said:

Question for those better informed.

Given Alba are still around, why haven't we seen a shift to their support (or have we)?

Yes, I asked that a couple of weeks ago. Are Alba pretty vocal as I would expect them to be in Scotland at the moment?

The scottish public have decided that Salmond is a sleaze ball Putin apologist.

bollocks, you obviously have no clue

One striking thing about Scottish politics is how former leaders disappear so totally. Salmond and now Sturgeon have names like mud, as do former leaders of the Unionist parties.

I suppose it does allow new names to come forward, but the total destruction of reputations is quite a phenomenon.

ydoethur

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

Stocky said:

TheValiant said:

Question for those better informed.

Given Alba are still around, why haven't we seen a shift to their support (or have we)?

Yes, I asked that a couple of weeks ago. Are Alba pretty vocal as I would expect them to be in Scotland at the moment?

Not seen numbers but supposedly a lot of new members, whatever a lot is.

If they've tripled their membership would that get it to double figures?

2nd largest party members in Scotland and rising unlike the London sockpuppets

But you keep telling us Malcolm there are no Scottish parties except Alba, the SNP and the Greens...

DavidL

I do think that the £1m of short money is being somewhat overstated. My expectation at the worst it would be paused until the audit was complete and then very probably backdated providing the audit is satisfactory.

What is bizarre about the SNP finances is that they were being spent so recklessly. Why buy a £110k motorhome/battlebus when you can lease it? Given it cost nearly half the cash they had available it is pretty inexplicable unless there were other motives and, indeed, other funds.

ydoethur

DavidL said:

I do think that the £1m of short money is being somewhat overstated. My expectation at the worst it would be paused until the audit was complete and then very probably backdated providing the audit is satisfactory.

What is bizarre about the SNP finances is that they were being spent so recklessly. Why buy a £110k motorhome/battlebus when you can lease it? Given it cost nearly half the cash they had available it is pretty inexplicable unless there were other motives and, indeed, other funds.

Given it never seems to have been used I think it's pretty inexplicable whatever their motives.

Mexicanpete

Nigelb said:

Well it certainly did so for me.

Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

We expect it from the Conservatives and their shills at the Daily Mail and Guido, and we love them all the more for it. It's a bit of fun. I do not expect parties who are not the Conservatives to enter the gutter with them. What's the point of voting for another lowest common denominator party when we already have the Conservatives?

Nigelb

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Well it certainly did so for me.

Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

If attack ads captured an "essential truth" they would be statements of the bleeding obvious and unnecessary. The truth is this version of the Tories are ineffective on crime and have no idea how to change that.

I would expect the aim of the campaign is to get swing voters thinking along the lines of "they are all as bad as each other" on crime rather than the traditional Tories better than Labour (at fighting it, not commiting it...although could be either).

Labour strategists won't care whether people think they are nice or not, it is about making people who normally vote Tory but have had enough feel comfortable in voting in Labour.

And these failed in their intended purpose.

...attack ads captured an "essential truth" they would be statements of the bleeding obvious ..
No, truth can be relevatory. Or make explicit something which is in the back if everyone's minds anyway.

The classic example is the "Labour isn't working" poster from decades ago.

A good attack ad is one which even its target has grudgingly to acknowledge.

kle4

DavidL said:

Nicola as recently as 2021 insisting that the SNP finances have never been stronger: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/leaked-video-footage-shows-nicola-29721481

Absolutely no way video like this would have been leaked even a few months ago. Internal discipline has fallen apart. Yousless is utterly incapable of restoring it. Nicola's team, which kept this under wraps for so long, has left the building just as the roof starts to join the floor.

I’m not going to get into the details...but, you know, just be very careful about suggestions that there are problems with the party’s finances, because we depend on donors to donate.

So..."Don't say anything bad about the finances because otherwise donors won't donate and we'll be financially screwed"?

Foxy said:

OldKingCole said:

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

pigeon said:

kle4 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

FPT:

Good morning, everyone.

Football: Napoli only drew at home versus Verona. Would've got nice odds on that but the idea of backing it was never something I considered.

Netflix: I see they've decided to create a documentary about Cleopatra. And think that she was black.

Right... I mean, she was Macedonian (ultra-Macedonian thanks to the Ptolemy love of incest). But there we are.

Edited extra bit: the kicker is that even if she were Egyptian ethnically, that still isn't being black.

It's a strange one, as its one of those situations where a previous attempted fuss over alleged whitewashing in films seemed to peter out when people moaned about Gal Gadot being cast as Cleopatra.

www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-55409187.amp

It was just a weird pick to get worked up about accurate representation when even in the piece itself the best the moaners could do was "we dont know who her mum was so she might have been mixed race" and "reconstructions based on artefacts" might make her look mixed race.

The complaint was even more stupid as not only was it a moan that she 'might' not have been white, rather than that she definitely was not, but it said critics said an Arab or African should be cast. (I assume they meant arab or black, otherwise why specify the latter when there are arab Africans). How could they be mad about inaccurate representation when they couldn't state which would be accurate in the first place?

Because the people doing the complaining just want something to complain about (and, having found discrimination in some places, begin to see it everywhere.)

Besides, if they were really that bothered about diversity rather than offence taking, why wouldn't they try to popularise other historical figures who have fascinating stories, and where we can be pretty confident that they were actually black - like the Nubian pharoahs of Egypt, or Queen Candace?

It would be great to have a drama series about Akhenaton. Or from the other end of Africa, Cetshwayo.

Or historic Mali, Dahomey or Benin.

During lockdown, I went on a WEA Zoom course on African history. Sadly it was very disappointing; one lecture was entirely devoted to racism. Two of the others were devoted to the slave trade, particularly on the East coast.
The lecturers couldn’t handle PowerPoint AND zoom, either.

I’d been hoping to learn a lot more about the west African civilisations. Ancient Zimbabwe too!

While they were civilisations as interesting and complex as their European or Middle Eastern equivalents, the difficulty does come from the paucity of written records, at least in any accessible form.

We still study African history very much from a European perspective of "discovery", even when discussing the dark side such as the trans-Atlantic slave trade or the Congo Free State.

Yes, but but what is the alternative? Don't discuss it at all, or discuss mostly oral traditions and archaeology? We could surely do more of the latter, but it's not like focusing on the European perspective to some degree is unreasonable, given what can actually be looked at.

And when it comes to movies or even documentaries, a paucity of written records can be helpful for a producer - they can take more liberties for sake of a narrative, or in the case of documentaries be more speculative. So regardless of difficulty of study it should be easy to create good stories from the continent, and never a better time to pitch that to Hollywood.

Let's get some big budget Ibn Battuta movies or something, there's detailed accounts there!

kle4

Nigelb said:

Well it certainly did so for me.

Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

If it gets people thinking about the essential truth of Tory record on crime then that particular ad might have made people think more negatively of Keir whilst still helping Labour's chances later.

CarlottaVance

Sturgeon vetoed the hiring of a Fund Raising Manager - and asked that her veto be kept quiet:

noneoftheabove

Nigelb said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Well it certainly did so for me.

Poll reveals Sunak attack ad damaged Labour’s image among voters
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/16/labour-rishi-sunak-attack-ad
Labour’s controversial “attack ad” accusing Rishi Sunak of failing to put paedophiles in prison has caused more voters to think negatively of Keir Starmer’s party than a Conservative poster that accused the Labour leader of being soft on crime, according to an Opinium poll for the Observer...

I'm not against attack ads per se, but they need to capture an essential truth (or something recognised as such), rather than just smear.

If attack ads captured an "essential truth" they would be statements of the bleeding obvious and unnecessary. The truth is this version of the Tories are ineffective on crime and have no idea how to change that.

I would expect the aim of the campaign is to get swing voters thinking along the lines of "they are all as bad as each other" on crime rather than the traditional Tories better than Labour (at fighting it, not commiting it...although could be either).

Labour strategists won't care whether people think they are nice or not, it is about making people who normally vote Tory but have had enough feel comfortable in voting in Labour.

And these failed in their intended purpose.

...attack ads captured an "essential truth" they would be statements of the bleeding obvious ..
No, truth can be relevatory. Or make explicit something which is in the back if everyone's minds anyway.

The classic example is the "Labour isn't working" poster from decades ago.

A good attack ad is one which even its target has grudgingly to acknowledge.

Is it the best attack ad since 1978? No
Is it in bad taste? Yes
Is its impact more or less likely to see Starmer become PM? More likely