The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Running the numbers

Posted on August 10, 2019 by

So, there’s been quite a response to our interview in today’s Times.

The interview was an interesting one in itself that we might talk more about later this weekend, but let’s leave that aside for now and talk about the headline take, because as usual the Scottish media is presenting it in a remarkably dishonest manner.

Absolutely nobody is planning to “take on the SNP” or “split the independence vote”. The idea – and it’s only a half-formed thought at the moment, we’re not “in talks” with anyone – would be for a party that would contest the regional list only.

In 2016 the SNP got 954,000 list votes – the highest total ever recorded on the list by a mile, and almost exactly the same as the combined Labour and Tory tally of 960,000. But those votes got Nicola Sturgeon’s party just 4 list seats, while the same number secured a massive 45 list MSPs for Ruth Davidson and (at the time) Kezia Dugdale.

So the SNP’s list vote is almost completely wasted, and if those votes went to another pro-independence party they could deliver a much better return in terms of securing a Yes majority at Holyrood. So far nothing we didn’t already know.

The problem with that theory – as this site itself has detailed at length in the past – is that SNP voters largely don’t want to vote for extreme radical fringe parties like RISE or the Greens, if they’ve heard of them at all, which they probably haven’t. They don’t want to go to jail if they take more than one air flight a year, or fill women’s changing rooms and toilets with male rapists.

But what if there was an indy party with a widely-recognised “brand”, with moderate and sensible policies that didn’t terrify normal people? What then?

Two-thirds of Yes voters have heard of Wings Over Scotland, only 4% of them have a negative opinion of it, and 21% have an actively positive view, so let’s imagine for a moment, for the sake of argument, that these Wings-positive voters would at least be willing to consider voting for a Wings list party.

21% of Yes voters is roughly 320,000 people, or 40,000 for each of Scotland’s electoral regions. A list party securing 40,000 votes in a region would be more or less guaranteed two seats and quite possibly three. (The last seat in a region is typically won with 14-15,000 votes.)

That comes to 20+ seats, almost all of which would in this hypothetical scenario be taken from Unionist parties. (Remember, at present the SNP only has four list seats in total to lose.) The current Yes majority in Holyrood would increase from a fragile Greens-dependent five to a very comfortable buffer.

(The SNP would also no longer be vulnerable to things like the Greens teaming up with the Unionist parties to repealing the hugely popular Offensive Behaviour (Football) Act, and wouldn’t be able to be held hostage over the budget and forced into more policies that the electorate hates like the workplace parking levy, no matter how badly that policy has been misrepresented in the press.)

Of course, none of that is for sure. Liking a website doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll vote for it to be in Parliament. Or the SNP’s current poll lead – which guarantees it lots of constituency seats and almost no list ones – might fall, meaning SNP voters had more to risk by giving their list vote to someone else.

(In deciding whether or not to stand candidates, the primary consideration at all times would be if there was a risk of reducing pro-indy seats, in which case we wouldn’t.)

Almost anything could happen in the next 18 months. But in theory, if things stay broadly the same as they are now, a Wings party could succeed in maximising the independence vote and securing a Yes majority in a way that none of the previous attempts have had any chance of doing.

As we’ve said, it’s only a half-formed thought at the moment. We’ve sounded out a few people for opinions and feelings, and in some cases asked them if they might in principle consider running for it, but that’s as far as it’s gone.

Still, the early responses to the idea are encouraging:

(The SNP’s official line was a slightly bewildering one, because if they’ve delivered a second indyref by 2021 then this whole concept is obviously moot.)

Don’t suddenly start believing what it says in the Scottish press now, folks.

Print Friendly

    3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. 10 08 19 14:56

      Running the numbers | speymouth

    2. 12 08 19 11:28

      On Tape – politics-99.com

    3. 14 08 19 14:26

      Beware Brits bringing gifts - Sceptical Scot

    449 to “Running the numbers”

    1. Airchie says:

      Sounds like a plan to me and I’d be happy to stand in the Aberdeenshire area. ?

    2. Irma says:

      I would vote SNP as usual, but given the chance to also vote for a Wings party I’d jump at the chance. Go for it!

    3. Ian Foulds says:

      Irma,

      I second that.

      Ian

    4. Alison Brown says:

      Love it! I’ve been advocating something like this for quite some time. I had thought that Alec Salmond could have lead a new Scottish Indepence Party (SIP). For list votes but obviously not possible now as things have turned out. WOSFI would get our families list vote for sure!

    5. ScottieDog says:

      Been saying for last couple of years we certainly need pro-yes candidates on list albeit ‘independent’ ones. Certainly a yes brand party would be welcome

    6. ahundredthidiot says:

      Yes first vote (SNP), yes second vote (willing to trade SNP for something, but not for any enviro or socialist nutjobs)

    7. Gizzit says:

      It’s a staggeringly brilliant idea in theory. Practically though, anybody who stands would be subjected to all sorts of nasty tricks from the press, media and the Unionist troops.

      Candidates would need to be resilient, confident and have no qualms about being subjected to malignant smears.

      But, with the right people, it’s a sound concept.

    8. Alice Timmons says:

      OK. I need to go away and think about this, and listen to others thoughts, but there’s an underlying note of sense here and a small, seductive frisson of excitement….

    9. starlaw says:

      Would be great to have somewhere sensible and safe to park my list vote. If the Conservatives describe this as despicable then its on the same level as the conservatives

    10. KathyT says:

      I would be very happy to vote Wings on the list.

    11. geeo says:

      In a Pre indyref election, a lot here would surely depend on SNP Endorsement at some level.

      SNP/SNP voters may not lend their vote without some form of endorsement the SNP/Wings party could work together cooperatively.

      If post indy, why not, Scotland will need new political parties.

    12. Doug says:

      “…a [wings] party that would contest the regional list only.”

      Interesting idea. No hurry at the moment but… Next year definitely the most important one for Scotland, SNP and independence.

    13. John Moss says:

      Oh, threatening to steal the list votes? What a wonderful idea.

      It is despicable, wicked and deliciously mischievous and a practical approach to boosting the independence vote.

      You are not going to be loved in some quarters for taking away a free pass to a seat in our parliament.

      I look forward to developments.

    14. MajorBloodnok says:

      SNP for for the constituency vote and Wings for the regional vote? That could work, particularly if it keeps out those pathetic seat-warming Tories and other British Nationalist parties that only get in on the list.

    15. Liz says:

      I think it’s a great idea. There is no real opposition to Nicola. She’s surrounded herself with nice wee middle class lassies and yes men.

      We need anther indy viewpoint and that’s not the Greens.

    16. Bill Hume says:

      I like the idea of ‘gaming’ a system that was designed to ensure the SNP never achieved a majority in the Scottish parliament.

    17. Arbroath1320 says:

      Having read the Times article I assume we all must start calling you Mr. Campbell from now on.

      I’m gonna stick my head above the parapet here and admit to being an SNP member but I would, as others clearly have already intimated, consider voting WoS party in the list section of the next Holyrood election should there be a WoS party standing which if indy has been won in a referendum then you can forget everything I’ve just said cause as Mr. Campbell says the idea of a WoS party in that scenario would indeed be a moot one.

    18. Wilma Watts says:

      I’d vote for it.

    19. shiregirl says:

      For me this is what I have been waiting for.

      I am an SNP voter but like many, have been turned off them off late due to their wishy-washy stance on many issues. I just think presently they aren’t listening to their voters about really important issues, mainly independence and when to call the vote and self ID.

      Many colleagues and friends feel the same and would welcome an alternative that speaks for those who want independence and to call a stop to the self ID nonsense. The more I read, the more I honestly think that a Wings party would appeal to many within the SNP presently. I sadly don’t recognise the SNP anymore and want an alternative that speaks for me, my want for women and for Scotlands future.

    20. sassenach says:

      Thanks for the explanation, Rev, if it can take more list seats then I’m in.

    21. maureen says:

      What’s not to like, I would vote Wings on the list to strengthen the numbers in Holyrood. Tired of listening to the constant negative rhetoric from the pro unionist parties.
      We need people in our parliament willing to work together for the betterment of the Scotland, not Westminster.

    22. kininvie says:

      Brand it as ‘Yes Movement’, not as ‘Wings’ And don’t try to run it yourself.

    23. Normski says:

      LOL. Pint of milk with a straw.

      Would sir prefer vellocet, synthemesc or drencrom?

    24. clem fandango says:

      Stu, This is genius and I for one would do everything to promote. I’ll give cash, as much as I possibly can. Can we please make this happen.

    25. fillofficer says:

      bejeezuz
      cat pigeons spanner works
      bloody brilliant
      yooniverse in meltdown
      but, but, my precious precious sinecure
      aaaaahaaaaahaaaaaahaaaaaa

    26. All Of Us First says:

      I said that someone should do this a couple of weeks ago & Yes Wings! You are the ONE.
      Let’s do this!

    27. Pogmothon says:

      Have you already checked to see if Paul Kavanagh would stand somewhere?
      Also I think The Wee Ginger Dug would be an ideal candidate for a seat in the south of Edinburgh, or an Aberdeen area, or a Dumfries Area.
      Good grief I never thought about it before, there are so many places where the dug would be a shoe in. Ah! but is he naturalised or could he be a victim of the hostile environment dirty tricks brigade.

    28. Fireproofjim says:

      As a slavishly loyal follower, I must say Massa has a good idea here.
      Competing only in the list seats can only do good for the Yes cause.
      It needs to be carefully explained to voters before any election. SNP must always come first as it is the only route to independence, but a dozen or so WOS seats from the list could make all the difference.

    29. Linda McFarlane says:

      You got my vote. I can’t vote for a party that tries to convince me that sex is a spectrum.

      I think you would be a breathe of fresh air with oodles of commonsense, (and sweeties).

    30. Proud Cybernat says:

      Yupffurritt?

      Oh aye!

      ‘magine Wings, by some fluke, wins most seats. Rev Stu as FM.

      LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

    31. Tartanpigsy says:

      Hope this isn’t necessary but if it is it will meed a great amount of coordination In the meantime I’m trying to raise funds to supply merchandise to the wider network of Yes groups for any upcoming campaign.
      Time is of essence as Brexit will cause serious disruption to imports.
      Please give what you can, share and support.
      Thanks https://www.gofundme.com/the-return-of-10000-f7lags-for-yes

    32. ahundredthidiot says:

      Already a plus Stu, with all this WoS PR from loonyuni papers.

    33. Fireproofjim says:

      Kininvie
      I agree. Brand it as “Yes Movement” or similar.

    34. clem fandango says:

      Has to be branded as ‘ wings over Scotland ‘ surely ?

    35. Dugald says:

      I would encourage this. Toppling out some of the Murdos and Annie’s would be a great help. I would stand for election.

    36. Steambam says:

      Interesting idea, Stu.
      Pesonally, I find it deeply galling to see minor parties flaunt the size of their vote at Holyrood when their representation is almost wholly comprised of second-rate list MSPs who couldn’t win a real election in a million years.
      Any option which gives us more bang for our independence vote buck is worth a shot. And the thought that an SNP-light party would weed out some of the Yoon deadwood at the same time is just a pleasant bonus.
      I take it that reversion from d’Hondt to first-post-the-post has been considered and rejected?

    37. twathater says:

      OMG just think we could have intelligent , honest people with integrity representing Scottish voters instead of kelly, turdo, annie where’s ma brain ,tRuthless , and all the other voting fodder , what’s not to like , and as others have said it will help keep others feet to the fire

      Go for it Stuart rattle the yoonisphere and send a panic in their breastie

    38. Ross says:

      This is a pretty bloody brilliant idea.

    39. cirsium says:

      The quote from the SNP spokesperson that another vote on independence will have been held before 2021 was very encouraging.

    40. David Llewellyn says:

      Until recently I believed that the Electoral Commission would stamp down on this kind of thing but they have allowed it in the recent bye election in Wales and there is not doubt that such a move on the list if the SNP agreed to stand only on constitueency that it would take about 23- 26 seats from the unionists on the lists. I have had hypothetical discussions with two SNP parliamentarians and neither were averse to the idea. One even said Like SNP2 to which I replied I didnt think the electoral commission would allow that close a tie up

    41. Proud Cybernat says:

      Want Independence?

      Vote YIP (YES Independence Party)

    42. Breeks says:

      I can’t lie Rev Stu, I am divided by your proposal.

      I agree 110% with what you say about a second Pro Indy party, but you and Wings are most valuable to the cause doing what you’re already doing, and that void in Scottish politics, that lack of ambition, in my opinion is really an opening that’s been waiting patiently for the YES movement to evolve into a focused and determined political party.

      A YES Party with a colourful spectrum of candidates like Peter Bell, Craig Murray, maybe even a certain Mr Salmond, a Wee Ginger Dug perhaps, maybe a Professor Robertson, Ms Riddoch, Mr Bateman,… already ticks the same boxes for recognisable corporate identity as Wings. Of course, there is the obvious problem that YES has had 5 years to evolve into a political party but hasn’t done so… but just because it hasn’t, doesn’t mean it won’t.

      But shooting from the hip, I fear politicising Wings into a Party feels like putting a very valuable square peg into a round hole, while we already have a redoubtable round peg in waiting with YES on it, which just needs to get it’s act together.

      For what it’s worth, that’s my initial gut feeling. Please don’t give up the day job, … but we should definitely get the YES band back together,… and get them winning seats from Unionists and focussing the minds of the SNP.

      It does however feel a moot argument to be having now. It feels out of its time. For me, October will be the making or breaking of Scotland and it’s SNP Government. We will be established as sovereign over our own destiny, or we’ll be living with the consequences of another gutless capitulation.

    43. Proud Cybernat says:

      The natural counter-move, of course, is the creation of the ‘British Unionist Party’.

    44. Richardinho says:

      Whenever a Tory calls you ‘despicable’, just remind them of the comments that Boris Johnson has made or published about Scotland.

    45. Daisy Walker says:

      I’ll support this. Much much harder for the SNP to be ‘gamed’ by the British Establishment if all our eggs aren’t in the one basket.

      I expect this is going to upset the SNP establishment big time if you go for it. Which will be rather telling given the way the numbers stack up. Expect lots of criticism about ‘splitting’ the vote when in actual fact your talking about maximising the YES vote.

      Take care.

    46. Richardinho says:

      I like this as an idea and is worth pursuing. As such, it’s only fair to bring up various problems I foresee with it.

      1. People don’t understand the list system and so we end up splitting the pro-indy vote in bad ways.

      2. Media focus on what a horrible person Stu is. Not a problem as such, but the current SNP likely to be pressured into issuing denouncements rather than gettaefucks, thus looking weak.

    47. findlay farquaharson says:

      i would like to in advance to apply for the minister of weed legislation position?

    48. Martin says:

      A very simple idea, but one approaching genius.

      Definitely up for that – go for it!

    49. Thepnr says:

      I support this idea, I also agree with kininvie though about the branding. You’d want as broad an appeal to all the voters of Scotland as possible and Wings tbh is not everyone’s cup of tea.

    50. Hairy Jack says:

      I was actually saying to my partner the other day how we need a new indy party in Scotland. One that will actually prioritise getting us our independence (and so to that end not tread on the SNP’s toes where vote splitting would hurt the cause) rather than the current American-pushed woke nonsense and ‘Now is not the time’ craven House Jocking current SNP senior management seem happy with.

      Your idea is genius, I love it! Could be exactly the right idea at exactly the right time – I think it would definitely catch on with the wider Yes movement if it would demonstrably help indy. The SNP have gone all New Labour and would be toast by now if it wasn’t for them dangling the indy carrot in front of the Yes movement. A second credible party might mean they’d up their game and start listening to the electorate too.

    51. Ghillie says:

      Rev Stu, you danced with the devil.

      And you knew that wee sh.. head would spin it in some ridiculous fashion.

      So. Where do you want to take it from here?

      A full and frank discussion of your ideas with the SNP would, I think, be wise. Dare say you have been there and done that.

      It is worth getting this right. Or I, personally, will walk 500 miles (or so) and kick your ass to kingdom come 🙂

      Am sure it won’t come to that. I do trust you. And Bath is a really long way away, with bears where you least expect them =)

    52. Thepnr says:

      @Proud Cybernat

      The natural counter-move, of course, is the creation of the ‘British Unionist Party’.

      Doesn’t work, they can only win list seats from those Tories/Lab/Lib that are already in them. A British Ubionist party would make zero gains for the prop British Nationalists. Might even help them lose seats 🙂

    53. Vestas says:

      I’d vote for Satan if he got rid of Murdo Fraser.

    54. Richardinho says:

      I’m guessing Stu wouldn’t stand as a candidate?

    55. Onwards says:

      >”Brand it as ‘Yes Movement’, not as ‘Wings’ And don’t try to run it yourself.”

      Needs the word ‘Independence’ in the name to be completely clear.

      Nice idea but hopefully unneeded – unless an early Holyrood election is called in a no-deal brexit scenario and continued s30 refusal

    56. Liz g says:

      This is a perfect idea..But hopefully not just if we don’t have the referendum before 2021!
      I must confess that I’ve been worried about “life after Yes” since you proclaimed this year’s fund raised as ” The Last Call”
      I wondered how we could keep them ( the Politicians and so called Civic Scotland ) honest
      Please think about “doing it anyway” we need representatives in Holyrood for more than the getting of Independence.
      We need them for the framing of it too!

    57. Richardinho says:

      Another problem: Running an election campaign is ludicrously expensive.

    58. John Higgins says:

      Murdo won’t be happy.

    59. Alex Birnie says:

      I’m a devotee of James Kelly and I unreservedly support his views on “gaming” the D’Hondt system of counting votes. That’s why I jump all over the RISE and Solidarity supporters who pose as yes voters, when in fact they are first and foremost RISE or Solidarity supporters and yes voters second. I deeply mistrust their motives and advise everyone I can to take their “common sense approach” with a huge pinch of salt.

      However, we are now entering a different phase of the independence campaign, and have to look forward to soliciting international support for any Declaration of Independence, and representation in Holyrood could be critical. There is now a definite swing towards independence in Scotland, and perhaps now is the time to lay aside our “insurance” attitude towards the regional vote. I’ve always looked at my regional vote as being “insurance” against failure in the constituency election. Yes, my vote will be “wasted” if (as happened before) the SNP “sweep the board” in the NE region constituencies, but I’d rather that, than take the chance of voting for another Indy party, only to see the SNP lose a constituency seat AND the “D’Hondt compensatory” regional seat.

      I am now reasonably confident that (certainly in the NE region), the SNP will again ” sweep the board” and win all ten NE constituency seats. The idea that we could use our second vote to elect a couple (at least) of “Wings” seats is very attractive, particularly since we can rely on Stu not to “mealymouth” about the reasons for standing candidates. I’m sure he would be blatant about why he was doing it. I think I’m just about convinced that Stu’s reasoning and arithmetical calculations are about right. (We’ll have to think of a name, other than just Wings …. perhaps “Grand Ideas Regarding Unionism’s Yuckiness” (GIRUY) Party? ?

      If this was an attempt to set up a party for the Westminster elections, I’d fight against it, but if it were to be deployed in a Holyrood election, I think I’m in……

    60. Petra says:

      @ Gizzit says at 2:57 pm … ”It’s a staggeringly brilliant idea in theory. Practically though, anybody who stands would be subjected to all sorts of nasty tricks from the press, media and the Unionist troops.”..

      And well they wouldn’t have far to go to dig up all sorts on Stu, in line with what Farquarson points out in the article …”why does he think it is acceptable to use a phrase like “die, you c***” about someone he disagrees with, or to say to someone: “I hope you die in a chemical fire.” The MSM would have a field day with this resulting in many Scots having second thoughts about Independence altogether, imo.

      And when we get right down to the nitty-gritty how would the potential Wings candidates that Stu has ”sounded out’, like Craig Murray no doubt, actually campaign? By running the SNP candidates down to the ground just as Stu has been doing recently? If so, how will that help the cause?

      Stu should stick to what he does best of all, imo, and that is outing journalists and pro-UK politicians .. even that has been put on the back burner more recently… and focusing in getting the WBB out.

    61. taigh buidhe says:

      long lurk, first time post, for its a great idea.

      have long felt scooping the second votes would be significantly more productive than voting twice for the party.

      oh, and the thought of your style of questioning in parliament fair tickles the imagination.

      got both our votes and feet on the ground in the hebrides.

    62. Gordon Bain says:

      It sounds like a grand plan to me. Can I be the MSP for Provence please?

    63. Petra says:

      @ Richardinho says at 4:08 pm … ”Another problem: Running an election campaign is ludicrously expensive.”

      That shouldn’t be a problem Richardinho with Farquarson pointing out in the article that, ”Stu claims to have raised £900,000 in crowdfunding for Wings Over Scotland over the past seven years.” Add to that regular donations.

    64. Peter Campbell says:

      Yes I’d vote for a Wings party on the list. I’ve always voted a different Indy supporting party for my second vote and your articles on the website leave nobody in any doubt as to where you stand on issues.

    65. Frank anderson says:

      Surely, the answer is to ‘copy’ the Brexit party. Form a YES party, no policies other than Independence and only stand as a list candidate. Pledge to support the SNP get the Referendum and Independence.
      It could be a winner and thwart the Unionist parties from getting seats. It might even help towards making Holyrood a ‘Tory Free Zone’.

    66. Golfnut says:

      It’s a great idea whether we have held the referendum or not. I can’t think of a better way of removing the Britnat dross that pollute our Parliament, other than throwing them in prison. As an Independent State we can’t risk having a shower of potential 5th columnists sitting in our Parliament trying to undermine the transition process on behalf of a foreign power( Westminster).

    67. Proud Cybernat says:

      @Thepnr

      Get what you’re saying but they can see the size of the SNP’s list vote just like the rest of us can. They’ll be crunching the numbers and seeing the number of seats they (i.e. the BritNat parties) will potentially lose. So, faced with the prospect of losing about 20+ list seats with the formation of Y.I.P., the BritNat parties could decide to form a counter B.U. Party as a tactical move to prevent losing 20+ list seats.

    68. Just spent £2 good scottish quid on the Times,

      actually feel sick reading some of the journalism,it`s the same crap written from the same hacks for the last 10 to 15 years,

      an insulated bubble of pretentious, priveleged little englanders and their Scottish lapdogs,

      and the interview with Stu could have been written by a monkey or a Herald hack,

      who teaches these hacks ,surely there must be some story telling ability or skill to make it as a journalist,

      always new Kenny F was a paid for unionist but didn`t realise what an incompetent journalist he is.

    69. John Wood says:

      Well, I have been a strong supporter of independence for many years, but I am also a Green. That is where my list vote goes. Very sad to see all the anti-Green nonsense on here.
      That really is divisive.

    70. Portjim says:

      An interesting idea and I think I like it. I agree with Onwards re the name etc.

      I am not convinced that the idea loses its value in the event of an earlier “yes” vote.
      We won’t be out instantly, and I think there is considerable value in minimising the number of die-hard unionists in the Scottish Parliament trying to queer the pitch during negotiations with the colonial power.

    71. Richardinho says:

      @petra
      I don’t believe this or any of the other problems I listed are necessarily insurmountable. I think they do have to be considered though.

    72. mogabee says:

      If needed I’ll vote for your party!

      The fact it’ll piss off sooo many is deliciously brilliant…

      Oh and evil of course. Goes without saying. 😀 😀 😀

    73. Proud Cybernat says:

      @Thepnr

      Thinking this through – I suppose if Y.I.P. and any BritNat equivalent Party received 50% each of the List Vote (as presently indicated in the polls), then that would pretty much split the list seats more or less 50-50 in which case the Indy side would have many, many more seats.

      Yeah – liking this idea more and more cause there’s no’ much the BritNats can do about it (other than their usual smear &c, &c…)

    74. Mark Russell says:

      Good idea. Hope you intend standing as a candidate. 😉

    75. Robert Peffers says:

      Am I missing something here?

      Does not the list vote require a registered political party to nominate candidates for a constituency before getting the chance of one from their own party’s list?

      I cannot say I ever remember any party stipulating candidates only for their list without also standing candidates for seats in the election.

      Yes they do have candidates on the list who have not also stood for a seat but that is not quite the same as drawing up only a list of candidates. I’d have to look up the rules and I cannot be bothered just now as it takes me all my time to be able to read the computer screen and I have to quit when I begin to get eyestrain headaches.

      I’m almost certain the rules mean you only get the chance of gaining a list seat in a constituency if you have a candidate standing for election first but I don’t know if that applies to standing in individual constituencies or to constituencies in general.

    76. Edward Andrews says:

      As a loyal member of the SNP all I can say is tut tut. (As a supporter if Independence I always wondered why someone didn’t do that before. Then beauty is that Stuart is not the SNP in any form, so there could be no Unionists attempts to get it challenged by the electoral commission) Of course if we ran as candidates we would be booted out of the SNP, but that might be a small price to shafting the distorted electoral system thought up by the Unionists for Holyrood which was meant to enshrine About/Lid Dem hegemony for ever.

    77. Iain Lennox says:

      I have been suggesting that idea for a long time.
      There is absolutely no point in voting “SNP twice” since if the SNP win the vast majority of FPTP seats, it becomes almost impossible for additional SNP seats to be gained via the “List” vote. (Despite what some reality-denying mathematically-challenged patriots may think !)

      Problem is you can’t be a member of the SNP and any other party at the same time. (Against SNP constitution)
      So setting up another Party for patriots to vote for purely in the “List” vote makes sense.

      Count me in.

    78. frogesque says:

      Would have to see who, what, where and when at the time.

      Reserving judgement.

    79. Neil Mackenzie says:

      I remember you pondering such a prospect with a hypothetical Alex Salmond led party after he took his name off the SNP membership list.

      The SNP spokesman comment alludes to a point which has been winding me up quite a bit for quite a while, though. All of this concedes to the notion that there’s no prospect of the current mandate for an independence referendum being properly processed by the established protocol with a Section 30 Order forthcoming. That is premature but, tragically, understandable. I’ve lost count of the number of newspaper articles I’ve seen which have rambled on at length having unquestioningly and summarily embraced various and several unionist’s promises to “refuse permission” for indyref2 as absolutely valid and legitimate intentions that they would have a perfectly accepted right to carry out – but it’s not true. You, Rev, of all people, should know that.

      No one has a right to “refuse permission” or REJECT the request for the Section 30 Order. It’s been said that they do over and over in the press (probably on TV, too. I don’t watch so can’t be sure) and almost everyone believes it but it’s a HUGE LIE. It’s a classic example of “If you’re going to tell a lie, make it so big no one can see past it”. It’s been so successful, it has created a misperception of the reality so pervasive that reality is in serious danger of being irretrievably supplanted by the lie. It may, in fact, be too late, already. I hope not.

      In truth, the UK government, it’s offices and officers are required to follow UK constitutional protocol established in 2012 and issuing our Section 30 Order is part of that. There’s been a delay but the requirement remains.

    80. Unionist Media BDSM Club says:

      The word ‘Yes’ is one of our best weapons, so I’d agree with those suggesting that for the party name. Would also mean publicity material for the party could easily be used for the referendum itself, if it takes places later than 2021.

      The idea itself is rock solid, obviously.

    81. Proud Cybernat says:

      Nicola: “Treeza – I want a Section 30 to hold a 2nd Referendum.”

      Treeza: “Nicola. Now is not the time.”

      Nicola: “Well when?”

      Treeza: “When I’m booted out of office and Johnson takes the reins. Indy will be a shoe-in for you then.”

      Nicola. “Oh – good plan, Treeza. I’ll hold off till then. Ta.”

    82. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      I have suggested for some time that an “independence coalition” should contest the list seats,not the SNP. Had we done this at the last election (instead of having SNP, Greens,SSP and Solidarity spliting an independence vote and giving us Annie Wells)we would haver got around 95 seats or more. I would of course require the progressive parties to get together and form a formal alliance but would allow some great candidates to be elected.

    83. Robert Peffers says:

      With reference to my previous post.

      I don’t know what I was thinking about. Of course a party cannot only stand on the list because seats on the list are totally dependent upon the proportion of votes the party gets for candidates for seats. It is the proportion of total votes for constituencies that governs the number of list seats the party gets. If they do not get votes on the constituencies they get no proportion for votes on the list.

      The whole idea is a non-runner.

    84. Terry callachan says:

      Great idea
      It would require experts to plan and organise
      Bad press would be certain , so what, we get that no matter what

      Perhaps organising in advance who exactly ie which voters in which seats would vote for these List MP,s that are put forward for election could be done so that the general population were not confused by the arrangement
      Would that be possible ?

    85. WOS fan says:

      I would vote for it. I would also go out and canvass for Wings candidates (please keep nutters to a minimum)?
      I don’t mind resigning from SNP and giving the £ to the Wings campaign. I am hanging on by a thread due to their lack of urgency about Indy, feeble rebuttals of media lies and ridiculous anti-woman trans-virtue-signalling.
      Why don’t you test the water and get everyone to subscribe £1 to a future Wings list campaign? If we get Indy before that the cash can go to good causes (not food banks because we won’t need them after Indy, maybe an educational prize for student journalists from poor background ?).
      I am excited… this could work!

    86. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      Hi Stuart,

      I just got a telephone call from one of the group who run a website called Calum’s List.

      One of their team was in tears at your Times newspaper interview: in a good way.

      She asked me to express her thanks and the heartfelt appreciation of Calum’s List that you were thoughtful enough to acknowledge the billionaire Tory Westminster austerity slaughter of thousands of those sick, ill and disabled people who have died at the altar of welfare reform. That interview was a fascinating piece. More power to your elbow.

      Stuart Campbell, you are a good and decent human being.

      Best wishes,

      Al.

      http://www.calumslist.org

    87. All Of Us First says:

      Seems there are a few on here who are not fully understanding this move…. there are some who appear to think that it’s a choice between SNP or Wings, or using it to say that it might damage the SNP vote.
      It’s simple
      We get two votes in the Scottish election.
      One vote for the Constituency MSP
      and
      One vote for the Regional(List) MSP
      You give the first vote to SNP
      You give the second vote to WOS
      Simple.

    88. Bob Costello says:

      A good and solid plan but I somehow do not think there will be much cooperation from the SNP. Good luck Stewart

    89. ScottieDog says:

      @Dave McEwan Hill 

      There is no better reason to stand yes coalition slots than annie wells.

    90. SilverDarling says:

      From Wikipedia in 2016:

      Contesting regional ballot only:

      Clydesdale and South Scotland Independent – contesting South Scotland
      Communist Party – contesting North East Scotland
      National Front – contesting North East Scotland only
      RISE – Respect, Independence, Socialism and Environmentalism –
      contesting all regions
      Scottish Christian Party “Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship” – contesting
      Highlands and Islands and North East
      Solidarity – Scotland’s Socialist Movement – contesting all regions
      UK Independence Party – contesting all regions
      Women’s Equality Party – contesting Lothian and Glasgow

      So WoS could certainly contest just the regional list.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Scottish_Parliament_election#Contesting_regional_ballot_only

    91. Des says:

      Sounds good, would be torn though because have a decent Green list MP in the Highlands. If this gets traction though I’m in.

    92. Petra says:

      @ Richardinho says at 4:40 pm – ”petra – ”I don’t believe this or any of the other problems I listed are necessarily insurmountable. I think they do have to be considered though.

      I’m hoping that they won’t be considered at all, Richardinho. That it won’t happen. We’re getting there without forming a new party. And how Stu Campbell thinks that his idea is going to help the SNP, help us to get our Independence is beyond me, when he’s constantly attacking Nicola Sturgeon / the SNP.

      He says, ”don’t suddenly start believing what it says in the Scottish press now, folks.” Well we’ll believe it when they inform us that the owner of the Wings site, the so-called pro-Independence site, doesn’t have a half decent word to say about the SNP. We’ll believe it for over and above the many articles on here now relating to himself, the others on here, and on his twitter account, are drip, drip, drip SNP Baad.

    93. Papko says:

      Is the point of the voting system not to represent the % of first votes in a proportional type way.
      I.e you get 50% of the list vote then you get roughly that amount of MSP’S.
      That pretty much happens already and has done for last 20 years.

    94. Famous15 says:

      No! Nae! Nyet!Non!Chan eil
      ,

      Let us get Independence and then have a sensible voting system!

    95. Petra says:

      @ Robert Peffers says at 5:19 pm ….. ”With reference to my previous post. I don’t know what I was thinking about. Of course a party cannot only stand on the list because seats on the list are totally dependent upon the proportion of votes the party gets for candidates for seats. It is the proportion of total votes for constituencies that governs the number of list seats the party gets. If they do not get votes on the constituencies they get no proportion for votes on the list. The whole idea is a non-runner.”

      Thanks for that Robert. Just makes me wonder what’s actually going on here?

    96. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      If a WoS/ListVote/2021 works well and is technically possible, resulting an absolute Indy majority, does that also give us a chance to finally SACK MURDO FRASER?

    97. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Robert Peffers
      What? Utter nonsense. The Greens stood no candiadtes excepot on the lists.

    98. Robert Peffers says:

      @Bob Costello says:10 August, 2019 at 5:37 pm:

      ” … A good and solid plan but I somehow do not think there will be much cooperation from the SNP. Good luck Stewart.”

      I’m going to hazard a guess that Stu is pulling legs both of the MSM and now Wingers. Stu is as sharp as the proverbial tack and I just do not believe he hasn’t long ago worked out that his, “Master Plan”, is and was always a non-starter. Mind you I have to admit I did not jump immediately to the conclusion and I’m not usually that slow but unless I’m very much mistaken this idea is a non-starter.

      To get seats on the list is dependent upon the proportion of votes a party gets from constituency seats it stands in. This is the basis of the convoluted calculation necessary to work out how the list seats are allocated.

      So if you do not stand candidates in the constituencies your proportion of votes from the constituencies will be zero and thus it doesn’t matter who you put as first on your list they get no chance of getting a seat in Holyrood.

      I believe Stu is having the MSM on and they fell for it and, so it seems, have Wingers. So, Wingers, it is time to get to the MSM numpties in their comments columns and point out they were fools – but what’s new about that?

    99. MaggieC says:

      Stuart ,
      I see that your interview has made it onto bbc Scotlandshire website 20 minutes ago and they say it’s it to take on the snp and split the Indy vote . Also their quoting again that you lost your case against Keiza . ??

      Link to bbc –

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49304055

    100. Truth says:

      Gets my vote.

    101. Doug says:

      There are massive problems in creating a list of prospective parliamentary candidates.

      Keeping the wife beaters, sex abusers, fraudsters, thieves tax cheats and closet racists off it to cite the most obvious.

      Then there is keeping on the right side electoral commission.

      Are you REALLY sure you up to this?

    102. Chris Kilby says:

      Sounds like the Tories (blue) are shitting themselves already. I’d certainly consider voting for a Wings candidate on the regional list. Go for it.

    103. velofello says:

      i’m all ears for a strategy that disables the D’Hondt voting system, and so rids Scotland of the Regional List Unionist dross who defile the Scottish Parliament.

      A hands-off fund raiser by Wings, to create a single issue Yes party, for independence, appeals. I’m sympathetic to the Green party’s policies but doubt that a cluster of List Greens would move independence forward. Committed Indy list MSPs certainly would.

      Tell me more.

    104. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Isn’t it just surprising.
      Just as, in the face of continuous massive anti Independence propaganda across all our media, independence takes the lead in polls, the SNP goes further ahead in all polls and a significant majority of people in Scotland now believe that Scotland is moving to independence lots of pretendy supporters pop up attacking the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon
      Or not surprising at all………

    105. Hamish100 says:

      ………as the prospective West of Scotland candidate Jamie Green is a fud.

      Vote for Independence, vote Hamish

      This is easier than I thought!

    106. Capella says:

      @ D M H – the Greens did stand a few candidates in Constituencies. If you remember there was a lot of criticism of them splitting the vote in Edinburgh Central thus letting Ruth Davidson in with a constituency seat. Also someone in the Borders did the same. The Greens typically got 800 votes in the constituencies which was roughly the margin by which the SNP candidate lost to a unionist.

    107. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      Petra,

      Please open your eyes and also close your paranoia that anyone not slavishly SNP is automatically SNP-BAAAAD.

      A huge number of SNP members came from people being abandoned by Labour. I am one of those. I am NOT wedded to the SNP. I am critical when it is called for.

      Too many SNP folk here and elsewhere jump all over ANY poor soul who dares to offer up positive criticism of the SNP.

      Stuart Campbell is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to call out the SNP high command when it gets things wrong.

      Otherwise you end up in George Orwell’s 1984 or some similar dystopian situation. The SNP need to be resilient enough to understand when it gets things wrong and remedy that matter.

      I still vote SNP but am by no means wedded to the party as the SNP let a charity we run down in an underhand and disgusting manner. Fiona Hyslop and her wee group cost many SNP votes because of that, but I digress.

      Petra, if I may go ON TOPIC and answer your knee-jerk allergy to what Stuart Campbell is proposing by quoting the wise Dave McEwan Hill, as he says it best…..

      QUOTE:

      Dave McEwan Hill says: 10 August, 2019 at 5:19 pm


      I have suggested for some time that an “independence coalition” should contest the list seats, not the SNP. Had we done this at the last election (instead of having SNP, Greens,SSP and Solidarity spliting an independence vote and giving us Annie Wells) we would have got around 95 seats or more. It would of course require the progressive parties to get together and form a formal alliance but would allow some great candidates to be elected.

      END QUOTE

    108. Legerwood says:

      Dave McEwan Hill says:
      10 August, 2019 at 6:03 pm
      Robert Peffers
      What? Utter nonsense. The Greens stood no candiadtes excepot on the lists.””
      ………

      I thought the Greens stood candidates in at least 3 constituencies in the 2016 Holyrood elections. Edinburgh Central was one of them was it not? Ruth Davidson won the seat that had previously been held by the SNP.

    109. george wood says:

      @Robert Peffers

      You are wrong on this.

      The divisor used to calculate d’hondt is based on the constituency seats won and the regional seats won after the d’Hondt calculation.

      The Wings party will start with a divisor of one (zero constituency seats plus one) like any other party or individual that has not won a constituency seat. The regional vote is divided by the divisor and the winner is the party or individual with the biggest vote divided by the divisor.

      If Wings wins a seat then the divisor goes up by one and the calculation is redone. This coninues until all seats are won.

    110. Calum McKay says:

      This is all fantasy, someone’s ego has got the better of them!

      People come here to see like minded views and the dishonesty of the uk and Scottish press plus bbc exposed.

      People will desert in droves instantly if this ego is not placed back in its box!

      If anyone was to know how this would be spun by the opponents of independence it’s the person that gave the interview.

      Nuff said, I hope this nonsense os put to bed quickly!

    111. Petra says:

      @ Dave McEwan Hill says at 6:14 pm …. ”Isn’t it just surprising. Just as, in the face of continuous massive anti Independence propaganda across all our media, independence takes the lead in polls, the SNP goes further ahead in all polls and a significant majority of people in Scotland now believe that Scotland is moving to independence lots of pretendy supporters pop up attacking the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon. Or not surprising at all………”

      Yeah the ”pretendy supporters” are fairly crawling out of the woodwork now.

      ……………………

      And here we go. That’s it started.

      ”He (Stuart Campbell) told The Times: “I think the SNP is a shambles at the moment. It doesn’t know what it’s doing.”

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49304055

    112. Richardinho says:

      A plus point for this idea is that it will remind the SNP that they don’t own the independence movement and they wont be allowed to get away with stalling.

    113. James says:

      1000% behind that idea…..I know I’d vote for a wings party

    114. Keith fae Leith says:

      Robert Peffers at various points.

      What you are saying is categorically untrue, as others have pointed out.

      The 1st vote is for who you wish to represent your constituency.

      The 2nd vote is for which party you wish to make up government.

      The 2 votes are not connected in any way, shape or form. There is no obligation to vote for the same party on both lists.

      The point where D’Hondt kicks in to make it proportional, is the number of Seats not votes .

      The number of votes on the 2nd ballot are divided by the number of seats that a party has won in the 1st ballot. The highest number of weighted votes then gets the 1st Region seat and so on.

      For a politically aware group of readers it’s quite staggering that some people still don’t understand a voting system that’s been in place for 20 years and has had many articles written on it.

    115. Golfnut says:

      @ Robert Peffers.

      Aye Robert, he may well be flying a kite, just for the hell of it or as prelude to something else. So my minds open,because we need a plan. Whether Indy’s been run and won or still pending matters not. The Holyrood elections in 2021 would appear to be a milestone for Westminster and their ragtag of followers in Scotland. So thinking hats need to be on.
      I’ve already suggested petitions as a way of expressing the will of the sovereign people of Scotland, petitions that challenge Westminster and catch the imagination of people across the globe.
      I trust Nicola to deliver a referendum, which I believe we will win, but 2021 needs to be thought about.

    116. Robert Peffers says:

      @george wood says: 10 August, 2019 at 6:21 pm:

      … You are wrong on this.

      Am I?

      Well here is what it says on the Holyrood Parliament website. If I’m wrong then so is the Holyrood parliament. This is a cut & paste:-

      “At a Scottish Parliament election each voter has two votes.
      With one vote, voters choose between candidates standing in their constituency to elect a constituency MSP. The candidate who receives the largest number of votes in the constituency wins the seat. This voting system is called first-past-the-post. There are 73 constituencies for Scottish Parliament elections.

      The other vote is for a political party, or for a candidate standing as an individual, within a larger electoral area known as a region. (A region is formed by the grouping together of between eight and ten constituencies.) There are eight Scottish Parliament regions and each region has seven additional seats in the Parliament. The MSPs chosen to fill these 56 additional seats are known as regional MSPs. Regional MSPs are allocated seats using a formula which takes into account the number of constituency seats that an individual or party has already won in that region, as well as the number of regional votes they received.

    117. Bert says:

      Sadly this will just play into the unionists hands. At a time where they are imploding left, right and centre along comes this story which will be gleefully seized upon to remove the unionist dysfunction from the nations media. And lo, it came to pass. You’ve made headline news across Scotland removing the rolling trainwreck that is unionist political parties from the papers and TV.

      Don’t expect the majority of the country to understand or even try to understand the nuance of what your intentions are because they will be ‘informed’ in the manner they’ve always been informed, by the unionist media.

      I find the timing of this to be a little unfortunate coming as it does a few short days after a poll gives independence a 52% – 48% lead for the first time since the referendum 5 years ago.

      I don’t know for sure but it’s a fair assumption that part of the reason for that boost in polling is the rumbling trainwreck of unionist parties being plastered all over the SMSM If that is replaced by some made up garbage about you taking on the SNP and splitting their vote, ‘cybernats’ etc, I just don’t think it’s going to help given the majority of the No voters don’t get their news via the internet. They get it via the usual channels.

      Your good intentions will just get played by the media and it’ll give them the opportunity to take the tory, labour and lib dems off the front page.

      There’s an old saying, don’t interupt your enemy while he’s making a mistake.
      The unionist parties are making wall to wall mistakes like we’ve never seen before. Let them.

    118. SilverDarling says:

      I’ll repeat the link for those who skimmed past:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Scottish_Parliament_election#Contesting_regional_ballot_only

      Some parties stood in both ballots, some in the regional ballot only and some in constituencies only.

      There is no rule saying you must stand in the constituency.

    119. John Robertson says:

      I’d be prepared to stand in SW Scotland if needed. Prof John Robertson

    120. Colin Alexander says:

      Most of the SNP’s List MSP’s are in the Border area, where Tories currently rule the roost.

      The Central Belt produces none (?) So, I would concentrate on the Central Belt of Scotland. The SNP could put their List candidates for the Borders and Highlands.

      I expect if the indy movement found a way to make the D’Hondt System work in their favour for a change, instead benefitting career politicians, most ( but not all of of them) Unionist, Holyrood wil be quickly “reformed” by Westminster.

    121. Ian McCubbin says:

      I totally agree a d would put my list vote this way.
      However I think we will be independent before the next Holyrood elections.
      If a referendum is hd off till after that the momentum and rise for the cause will at best have levelled out at worst dropped off.

      On a propoganda note have plenty of copies of my Wings over Scotland painting, with 2 Typhoon aircraft rebranded Scottish Air Force, with Wings insignia on the tail. £30 to me and £5 to Wings here to anyone who buys one.
      Support the Wings cause.

    122. Hamish100 says:

      Due to an imminent damming report on Good Morning Scotchland Hamish has decided to stand down as candidate for personal reasons says his agent and He did not have sex with that lioness.

      Life is cruel.

    123. Neil Mackenzie says:

      @Proud Cybernat says:
      10 August, 2019 at 5:13 pm

      I realise that playlet was meant to be a satire but it’s not a million miles off.

      “Treeza” did not come up with “Now is not the time” on her own. That phrase or something very like it was in the formal request letter from Nicola and the date for the 2nd referendum was always planned to be much later precisely to allow for the political landscape to become established and for proper campaigns to be developed. The chaos that followed could not have been foreseen.

    124. Big Jock says:

      So SNP are now stating there will be a ref before 2021. I wish they would tell us how!

    125. Capella says:

      @ Robert Peffers – in some cases, the number of seats won in the Constituencies is zero. I don’t see any technical reason why this proposal couldn’t work. And hey – wave to Prof John Robertson who is willing to stand in the South West. That’ fantastic news.

      RE the fact that there will be a referendum before the next Holyrood election – allegedly. I don’t see why that should stop a genuine independence coalition from standing for parliament to ensure that the necessary legislation is passed quickly.

    126. manandboy says:

      As long as the electorate understand that the New Independence Party is primarily a List party, there won’t be a problem.

    127. Cubby says:

      BBC online Quoting Stu Campbell as saying the SNP are a shambles.

      I didn’t remember Mr Campbell saying the SNP is a shambles in the above Times article so I had another quick/skim read again. No didn’t see it.

      So are the BBC making up quotes now – it would appear so. If I am wrong please let me know – I promise I won’t bite.

    128. Tom says:

      On the face if it, an interesting idea.

      But Wings candidates will be standing for the Scottish parliament and will be expected to have polices on issues beyond the single issue of indy. So will those candidates have to toe the Wings line on, for example, Gender Recognition, or parking levies? Or, beyond the single issue of indy, will they be free to have their own views on anything?

      Either way, they’ll have to perform well on hustings, on radio and tv, and in newspaper interviews, or risk great damage to the wider cause, including the SNP. And it’s simply delusional for any regular commentator on this blog to believe their regular contribution here qualifies them as a potential MSP.

      But, still, an interesting idea. Let’s see how it develops.

    129. Capella says:

      Posted this on the previous thread before I reaised this threa was up. Reostng because if you want to sign up, you have to do it before Monday:

      Free online course from Glasgow University – Discover the Clans – you have until Monday to register. From the National:

      Designed and delivered by the College of Arts, the course draws on the expertise of academics from across a number of Arts and Humanities research disciplines including Archaeology, Celtic & Gaelic, History and Literature, to bring the story of Scotland’s iconic clans to life.
      Professor Roibeard Ó Maolalaigh, Vice Principal and Head of the College of Arts, said: “This exciting new course exemplifies the breadth of knowledge and world-class research being undertaken in the Arts and Humanities at the University of Glasgow in the broad area of Scottish history and culture.
      “We drew on this vast expertise for the course’s creation to give the best and most up to date picture of Scotland’s iconic clan system.

      http://archive.fo/HHmVD

    130. Robert Louis says:

      I like Stuart Campbell because..

      1. he has shown up the lazy, lazy, lazy, so-called ‘journalists’ of the so-called ‘scottish’ media, for what they are.

      2. He writes with skill, crafting excellent analyses of the politics of Scotland.

      3. He is surgically accurate in his demolition of the utterly absurd British nationalist/unionitst arguments against independence.

      4. He winds up unionists to the nth degree.

      5. He references every single fact source in every single article he writes – something NO other journalist I have read does. And doing such a thing is hard work.

      6. He writes things like, “If my readers really were “slavish” and “highly suggestible” there’d be a lot more pineapple eaten on pizzas.” on twitter.

      7. he seemingly (see 6) likes pineapple on pizza.

      8. He has the balls to stand up for what he believes in (SNP, take note), takes no sh*t from anybody, and does not suffer fools gladly.

      9. He pulls apart the utter nonsense spouted by politicians of all parties.

      10. He uses FACTS to demonstrate the clarity and validity of his views.

      As regards a ‘list’ pro indy party, I think it is a very, very good idea. And just think, the unionists can’t retaliate using the same tactic, since a new unionist ‘list’ party would lead to most Labour and Tory MSPs (who are mainly list) losing their seats. AND, importantly, it will make sure the SNP stop dithering – effectively holdling ‘their feet to the fire, too’.

      Got my support.

    131. Legerwood says:

      Petra @ 6.22 PM

      Totally agree and with your earlier posts.

      This is ‘defeat from the jaws of victory’ stuff. It is aself-indulgent distraction at a time when the stars are aligning in our favour.

    132. Aitken Scott says:

      Excellent plan. I’d vote for it for sure and so would all my friends and family.
      Squeaky clean candidates required (bad Onion Press and all that)

    133. Capella says:

      Oops – posted too soon – Petra added the link to the free registration for the history of the clans course:

      This is the link for joining for free.

      https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/the-highland-clans

    134. G says:

      Come the time of a Holyrood election where Independence is up for grabs then a pact between the SNP and greens for the purpose of achieving the goal of Independence can be made. No need to split the list vote at all.

      Oh and I can trust the parliament to vote against any law that would give ‘male rapists access to female toilets’ although I look forward to the new wings party candidates explaining that on tv to the punters as the major difference between them and the Greens come the election campaign.

    135. Shug says:

      You could call it labour for indy if youcould hold your nose

    136. Republicofscotland says:

      Its certainly an interesting concept, even just proposing it might light a flame under the SNP to be more active in obtaining independence before you finally decide what to do.

    137. ahundredthidiot says:

      OT

      Prince Andrew sighs with relief

    138. frogesque says:

      Facebook page, ‘SNP Hell no’ fairly salivating thinking it will split the Indy vote.

      They really,really do not know how the voting system at Holyrood works.

    139. Cubby says:

      This is not a new idea. It has been raised before. I am not against the idea in theory if it can be made to work. I am not an SNP member.

      However, I do think the timing of raising this matter in the Britnat press is all wrong. The Britnat press with the usual lies of their propaganda journalists are spinning it as another Yes movement civil war. We do not need this at this point in time. Just let the Britnats keep kicking lumps out of each other and making a dogs dinner of Brexit.

      The Holyrood election is not till 2001. Why why why take the focus away from the Britnat chaos?

    140. BobW says:

      @Robert Peffers
      Robert, as the proposed party would win no constituency seats, their regional vote would initially be divided by 0+1. If that value is higher than the constituency vote of those parties who have won seats divide by (I think) 1+n ( where n is the number of con. seats won), they then gain a seat, their vote would be divide once more, but this time by 1+1. If that reduced value is still greater than the other parties initial list vote, divided using the same formula, they gain another seat, if not it goes to the party with the next highest vote divided by 0+1 or 1+n, whichever applies.In your scenario, how could any individual be able to be elected on the list?

    141. RM says:

      Not everybody who votes for Independence is an SNP supporter, but it seems the only way to achieve it, another attacking point get the unionists in a crossfire great idea.

    142. BobW says:

      Add, after list on the last line of my post ‘as an independent MSP’.

    143. James_McIntyre says:

      As a long-time member of the SSP, I think the idea of a new party to hold the SNP feet the fire on independence is a won’t work. You won’t come close to getting a seat. I am not even sure you will split the indy vote in any meaningful way. Followers on twitter won’t translate into seats. Maybe it would be possible to combine your resources with groups that actually have some kind of outreach, but I am not sure who that would be since your enemies among the “Wokenats” are the most obvious allies in any alt-indy movement (unless you opt for going to the right of the SNP).

      You would be far better off supporting candidates in the wing in the SNP that supports a hard-line on independence, or with a pro-indy anti-EU party, which may get some traction.

    144. starlaw says:

      Tom 6;55pm
      Wings candidates would need no policies, just sit like sheep and vote with the SNP . . As it is Lib Dems, Labour, and the Tories collectively vote against the SNP without rhyme or reason.

    145. BobW says:

      @ Robert Louis

      Totally agree with your post.

    146. Doug says:

      The SNP says it will use the mandates for indyref2 in 2020. We will be independent, once again, before the need for a wings party.

    147. Wynn Thorne says:

      Hello Stuart,
      This is a bad idea at this time. You will be introducing a new variable into the independence mix without any idea of how it will affect the result. You might ‘recon’ it will work but you have no concrete idea of the outcome. Please wait and see if the SNP make a mess of it – I do not think they will – but if they do so, then for sure go for it. If you want to affect the list just now then save some money and effort and throw your weight behind the greens – they are already there. Another party is not a good idea. As Labour disintegrate you are in danger of disintegrating the independence movement at the key moment. I have supported you through all of the crap the system has thrown at you but on this one I have to say that your judgement has to be questioned. I still cannot understand the decision of the court with regard to the Kezia case but it shows that your judgement and our expectations (my expectations) cannot take account of things beyond our control. Think how you will feel if you are the one who masterminds the undoing of out independence. Leave it alone please. Certainly for now. Lets see how this situation plays out. So far the SNP’s ‘plan’ is moving in our direction. Yes, I have had my doubts as to the tactics but you have to admit that so far the winds of Yes are blowing our ship towards independence – lets see what happens. Think Gorbachev not Yeltsin.

    148. Hugh Wallace says:

      I’m in.

    149. Head above says:

      @Robert Peffers. That is not correct. If it was then Margo would not have been elected as an Independent. Others have used the same route to getting elected. The divisor, as others have said is how many seats you have won +1. So if Wings/YES Party do not win any Constituency seats then their divisor is 1. I include the Wikipedia link to bring you up to speed with it all.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method

    150. Chris Downie says:

      I lent my second vote to the Scottish Libertarian Party in 2016 and, despite their opposing the OBFA, they have much in common with Wings’ more moderate, centrist worldview. Why not engage with them and see if common ground is possible?

      My concern at this stage however, is whether the SNP are indeed intent on letting the mandate expire.

    151. Thepnr says:

      Whether this happens or not it will have wound up and worried quite a few of the Unionist list incumbents who do have cause to worry. Might even be worrying Patrick Harvie and give him cause for thought next time he supports the Unionists and their ridiculous scrapping of the OBFA.

      Nice to see prof John Robertson recognising the potential of this, that is key to the whole proposal. The quality of candidates must be along the same lines as the good Prof. I can think of a few ex TV and radio personalities, a good number of Indy bloggers and others that will be trusted by the Yes movement.

    152. george wood says:

      This will scare the life out of Unionists.

      They get their seats from the list, so this has the potential to hit them hard.

      An SNP constituency vote of 45%+ and a Wings party of say 20% on the List would spell disaster for the Unionists and chuck the Greens out of power as a Brucie Bonus.

    153. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Legerwood at 6.19
      Yes .You are correct. Sorry. But they have stood in very few and there is no requirement for any party to stand FPTP if it wants to stand on the list.

    154. Heaver says:

      SNP
      Wings
      Greens

    155. Shug says:

      Since there is no such thing what about the scottish labour party and take keir hardie’s first policiesa

    156. Confused says:

      I posted in one of my late-night-canny-sleep comments about dhondt some months ago

      – you really need to play with it yourself to see how bad it is

      the only rational thing to do would be to give the SNP second votes to another indy supporting party

      at the time, this meant – the GREENS, something which triggers my gag reflex

      a YES-WING list party would suit the bill

      seeing Labour and Tories lose their undeserved seats would be delicious

      you can, if you do it right, end up with an incredible 80-90 MSPs at holyrood for indy supporting parties

      I think 2021 seems distant and some decisive move has to be made before then, but – time moves fast, at least have it ready in the mind

    157. george wood says:

      @Chris Downie, 7.45pm

      The Scottish Libertarians are a bunch of fruitcakes.

      This is what they have to say about the SNP leadership:

      “The leadership of the SNP are a greater threat to my liberties and more diabolical ("Tractor" - Ed)s to their people and country than those who signed the act of Union in 1707”

      All because the SNP quite sensibly want to be in the EU.

    158. Hamish100 says:

      ……………just a unionist diversionary tactic ably assisted by WOS.

      I take it the Rev isn’t following up on the Dugdale debacle? So money is no object?

      No more crowdfunding thanks.

      Now I am doing the diversionary tactic. It’s dead easy.

      Now what about independence v Brexit?

    159. Thepnr says:

      No policies other than positive support for Independence necessary.

      That’s all the Brexit party had and it won them the EU elections and put a spanner in the works of both Labour and Tory parties.

    160. David says:

      George and others wont scare the pants of the unionists its the SNP who will hit back and hit back hard .Its already started .
      And Kenny MacAskill saying Nicola despite her rhetoric is not prepared and has no plan for an Indy campaign will get it as well .

    161. Iain 2 says:

      Can see only one problem, the yoons might not like it

    162. Sarah says:

      @ Legerwood: “self-indulgent” by the Rev? Perhaps you don’t know that the Rev has suffered a great deal in the cause of regaining Scotland’s freedom?

      He was under scrutiny of the Met Police for months as they held all his computers. He was defamed by Kezia Dugdale in a national paper and in Holyrood. He is slagged off continually by every MSM commenter.

      I couldn’t bear for one minute what the Rev has to, let alone produce the work he does to expose the truth amongst the political and media lies.

      So, no, I don’t agree that the Rev is being self-indulgent. I think he is looking for a much-needed way of strengthening the visible measure of support in the Scottish Parliament. Arithmetically his plan makes sense. It would make it easier to counter the lies about “no support for Scotland to be a normal country”.

      Against that is the field day that the MSM will have talking about a “Yes split”. But that could be dealt with by a “Better Together”-type alliance, of course.

    163. msean says:

      Would be my 2nd prefence on list vote.No other polcy needed. The feet to the fire party. 🙂

    164. msean says:

      *policy

    165. faolie says:

      Yep, I’d vote for it. But, jeez, let’s not be in a position where we’re having to vote in another devolved parliament into Holyrood.

    166. Graf Midgehunter says:

      If Wings does stand a “Wings Scotland list for Independence” – WSLI, would the name “WSLI” only be printed on the List section and NOT on the Constit. vote part of the ballot paper.

      That way no one can waste a vote by mistakenly placing their X in the wrong section.

      Otherwise I’m all for giving it a go.

      I’ve never voted in a Holyrood election so don’t know how the ballot paper make-up is like.

    167. Phil says:

      Excellent use of brainpower Mr Campbell. Only thing is we have some really, really good SNP List MSPs right now where a sitting non-SNP FPTP MSP has a sure-fire personal grip of the constituency. YesIndependenceParty managers must protect these sitting SNP List MSPs.

    168. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Perhaps some reading here should do a spot of revision?

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/ams-for-lazy-people/

      There is NO requirement for any party to put up candidates for the constituency vote.

      A party (or individual) can put up candidates for ONLY the regional vote, where you are voting for a party, not individuals on that party’s regional list.

      Please stop referring to “list”, “first vote”, “second vote” and so on.

      One vote is to elect a constituency MSP by ‘first past the post’; the other vote is to elect regional MSPs, by voting for a party, using the method explained in the above link.

    169. Ian Kemp says:

      Brilliant. The branding and and naming is crucial however, any proposed party should not be hung up on personalities or a single political view point. If it were a cross representative Independence party think of the possibilities. If enough convicted Independence supporters could be persuaded to put their names forward for list votes the options are endless. Standing as candidates you should be able to have any flavour of political viewpoints. I am a previous labour supporter from the time when Labour had some socialist credentials. I am now an SNP member but I’m not entirely happy with their seeming slide into a comfortable establishment position so I don’t see them as being the ruling party forever post-independence. Other Labour, LibDem or even some Tory leaning folks who are not happy with the way the UK is running Scotland at the moment could be persuaded to go for this as long as the perceived purpose in supporting this party is primarily Independence from the failed Westminster state. I have always wanted Independence to be the first objective and once that was achieved for the majority to decide on their future with a fully accountable government whether it be in or out of the EU or whatever flavour of social society is democratically agreed.

    170. manandboy says:

      It’s late in the day, but I think Stu’s idea is an inspiration which will galvanise and energise the Independence movement. And motivate the SNP leadership to up their game. No bad thing, after so long in unopposed power.

    171. dakk says:

      Do it!

      Do it now! as Arnie said in Predator.

      Well maybe not now.

      But when maximum damage to the cancer that are the british political parties in Scotland can be wrought.

    172. Alabaman says:

      I recon that Stewart and Alex Salmond cooked this up in a pre or post discussion before-or-after their T.V. T all Show,
      But what we don’t know, is the reasoning behind it, bearing in mind that they are two sharp cookies.

    173. Terry callachan says:

      Iain 2, I agree

      The only problem with the idea is the yoons won’t like it

    174. Petra says:

      @ Legerwood says at 6:57 pm … ”Petra – ”This is ‘defeat from the jaws of victory’ stuff. It is a self-indulgent distraction at a time when the stars are aligning in our favour.”

      Exactly Legerwood, another case of the Scots shooting themselves in the foot. I also can’t understand why this has been announced right now.

      As Bert says (6:38 pm) .. ”Sadly this will just play into the unionists hands. At a time where they are imploding left, right and centre along comes this story which will be gleefully seized upon to remove the unionist dysfunction from the nations media. And lo, it came to pass. You’ve made headline news across Scotland removing the rolling trainwreck that is unionist political parties from the papers and TV….

      ”I find the timing of this to be a little unfortunate coming as it does a few short days after a poll gives independence a 52% – 48% lead for the first time since the referendum 5 years ago.”..

    175. Terry callachan says:

      To Brian doonthetoon your post of 8.57

      Agreed

      The most important part of this two votes arrangement though is how they calculate the votes cast for the regional MSP , it’s done in such a weird way that it is quite undemocratic and that is why we have so many MSP,s in Holyrood that people have never heard of and to think that these so called List MP,s are elected not by the people of Scotland but by the leader of their political party is evidence that democracy is not applied.

    176. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Cubby @ 19:13,

      I tend to agree, a cute idea though it is. Now is not the time (to coin a phrase), since our old friends in the media are already spinning it as an anti-SNP “indy split” as an opportune distraction from the BritNat confusion and disunity. That was the takeaway of my missus until I explained the background. She got the strategy right away but faithful viewers of BBC North Britain won’t get told, you can be sure of it.

      I’m still counting on something more effective happening a sight more quickly. But behind the scenes it must have the BritNats worried, if they have any time from squabbling to notice.

      Might also help focus the minds of the SNP a little more on the task at hand and less on unhelpful displacement activity.

      The next election coming along though, and likely very soon now, is olde-worlde FPTP “winner takes all” for WM, and that needs maximum effort for the SNP. First things first.

    177. Petra says:

      @ Alabaman says at 9:00 pm … ”I recon that Stewart and Alex Salmond cooked this up,”

      Eh, get a grip.

    178. Maria F says:

      I have only one concern.

      At the moment thanks to those lists votes the English establishment is keeping the illusion that labour, tories and libdems are somewhat still relevant in Scotland and keeping Holyrood “in check”.

      The Rev’s party will quite possible destroy that illusion and kick quite a few of the current parasitic unionists that have been relying on the lists seats for several rounds now. Proof of this is the desperate, hysterical comment of that tory when he found out about the possibility.

      In other words, pro Independence parties may have found the way to beat a system designed to perpetuate representation for the unionist parties in Holyrood and that will not doubt send a few shivers down more than one spine and at both sides of the border.

      So, what are the odds that the English establishment will attempt to close Holyrood or totally neuter it when it realises it has lost all control over it?

    179. Wobbly says:

      You have my list vote. I wouldn’t vote for the Green Party again after they voted to repeal the Offensive Behaviour (Football) Act.

    180. Fergus Green says:

      John Robertson indicated above that he would be wiling to stand. Paul Kavanagh, Lesley Riddoch and Gordon Ross would be excellent additions.

      Any more suggestions?

      I’ll happily vote SNP/YIP.

    181. Heart of Galloway says:

      Bert@6.38.

      Fine post. In more normal times, when the stakes were a fraction of what they are now, I recall the 2003 Holyrood intake was descibed as the rainbow parliament.

      It included SSP and Green MSPs alomg with a smattering of independents, which led to a general consensus that such a diverse make up was a good thing.

      But these are not normal times. There is us, the yes movement, and our imperial masters. And that’s it.

      The SNP-Green alliance has delivered the crucial popular and parliamentary mandate which will deliver IndyRef2. Those parties combined won a majority of the popular vote and seats in 2016.

      It will also deliver a fast-tracked Referendum Bill within weeks after parliament reconvenes on September 1.

      So I have no idea why this idea is being raised now. I suspect it is not unconnected to Kenny McAskill’s anti-Nicola Sturgeon doom-mongering in that indy-friendly organ The “Scotsman” on Thursday.

      Whatever. But it has had the entirely predictable effect already of being seized on by a rabid UKOK meeja, driven to utter distraction so far by the resolute unity of the yes side.

      And having been thrown a morsel to feast on, they will be hammering away at their keyboards to transform it into a three course banquet by tomorrow.

      Crude slogans have been deployed throughout history by unscrupulous, evil people. “Ein volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer”, “long live death!” (look that one up), “take back control”, “now is not the time”.

      All were grotesque propaganda of those who would subvert democracy for their own ends – and all were effective to a greater or lesser degree.

      No matter how well-intentioned – and I believe Stu’s primary motive is to hold the SNP to its mandate for IndyRef2 – another slogan featuring the words “split” and/or “Yes”/”SNP” will do the rounds for a day or two.

      But without oxygen it will die. The moral? Do not give our enemies succour.

    182. Rick H Johnston says:

      The late great Margo Mcdonald won on the list – more than once actually.
      Also Denis Canavan who is still highly regarded in YES.
      WOS is not as well known as many think.
      A small number of well known folk could stand under Yes/independence, but it would need to be thought through by the broader YES movement. Let’s ca canny on this.

    183. cirsium says:

      I view this as a diversion for downtime. The crisis is going to hit long before the next Holyrood elections. To win our freedom , we need “SOLIDARITY, FOCUS, DISCIPLINE”. See Peter Bell’s post https://peterabell.blog/2019/08/10/the-formula/

      Given that the UK PM’s staff are not on vacation and there is a talk of a GE right after Brexit, it looks as if the GE is going to come before an Indyref. The SNP need to stand on an Independence ticket at that GE.

      The only thing which is certain is that we are going to need a huge print run of the WBB 2.0. Are you ready Rev?

    184. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Maria F @ 21:13,

      I don’t want to be complacent, but I get a sense from this-and-that happening that the English Establishment is beginning to give up on us as a lost cause. Either through sympathy from the Remainers or through indifference and “sour grapes” from the Leavers.

      As has famously been observed, there’s no electoral strategy that can beat 50%+ support. Leastways on a binary referendum vote. If this level of support is sustained, the writing is well-and-truly on the wall.

      Both for London and for us.

    185. potter says:

      Aye, be wary of those trying to split the Indy vote.

    186. carjamtic says:

      All Hail the Chief

      The ‘All Being’ (master of time/space dimension) and his ‘loyal’ followers.

      #ThisIsNotAVictimlessCrime

    187. Josef Ó Luain says:

      I’ve always liked this idea – it’s time is nigh!

    188. mark whittet says:

      IF only there already was a ‘second’ list-only pro-independence political party in Scotland…

      … such as Scotland’s Independence Referendum Party

      I think it might be useful to have a chat about mutual interests.

      Regards,

      Mark R Whittet (LLB, BA)
      Leader
      Scotland’s Independence Referendum Party

      Mark [at] SIRP [dot] Scot
      @ScotsIndyRef3
      Tel 0774 252 9564
      http://www.scotlandsindependencereferendumparty.scot/

      http://www.scotlandsindependencereferendumparty.scot/about

    189. Golfnut says:

      I like this, I’m hoping when some of you have a good think about what’s just happened, you might just see the potential of this particular idea surfacing now rather than later. The Britnats are already frothing about this, they are also as usual completely misrepresenting what was actually said, and that is good, not bad.

    190. Petra says:

      Another pack of liars.

      Professor John Robertson:- ‘Never mind the quality feel the money’ says trade union for doctors then lies about performance.’

      https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2019/08/09/never-mind-the-quality-feel-the-money-says-trade-union-for-doctors-then-lies-about-performance/

      ……………………………

      ‘180% increase in warehouse demand suggest underlying strength in Scottish economy.’

      https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com/2019/08/09/180-increase-in-warehouse-demand-suggest-underlying-strength-in-scottish-economy/

    191. Golfnut says:

      @ Rick H Johnston.

      I think advertising campaign just started, for free.

    192. Thepnr says:

      SNP 953,587 list votes winning them 4 MSP’s.

      Tories 524,222 list votes winning them 24 MSP’s

      Labour 435,919 list votes winning them 21 MSP’s

      Those figures speak for themselves and show the potential for a pro Independence party standing solely for Regional votes to do a lot of damage to the Britnat parties.

    193. CameronB Brodie says:

      A good idea by the sound of it, but it would need to be carefully managed, in terms of PR. The yoons will almost certainly spin it in the manner they already have, i.e. an attack on the SNP, and paint the WOS party as representing despicable nationalism. They will then tie the despicable nature of the WOS party to the SNP and the indy cause. You should all understand yoons by now, they are as rational as a field full of cattle that have been grazing on magic mushrooms.

      What I want to know is, is despicable nationalism anything like contemporary English/British nationalism, i.e. authoritarian and xenophobic?

    194. potter says:

      So its gonna be Wings, SNP, Green for list vote? That wiil work.

    195. Tony Hay says:

      I’m up for this project….where do I sign up.

    196. Ken500 says:

      Just change to FPTP.

      It might produce mavericks. Unless they support the SNP manifesto.

      A lot of the Independents are not helpful.

      It would be good if Alex Salmond was involved, Ideal solution,

      The D’hond’t Is rubbish. The 3rd rate losers win.

    197. Muscleguy says:

      I’m a habitual SNP in the constituency and Greens on the List voter for at least the last 3 Holyrood elections and possibly 4. That the Greens are Yes sweetens the choice but my main reason has always been that as a scientist I am, of course, utterly convinced of the reality of AGW and the ecological holocaust and the Greens are the only party absolutely committed to addressing those. The SNP would still I suspect be subject to favouring business over the environment at times.

      Last Holyrood election I tried hard to persuade everyone including on ScotGoesPop* that voting Green on the List was entirely sensible for the reasons you put out Rev. It worked well enough that the Greens got enough extra seats to ensure a Yes majority.

      I for one would not change my vote for a Wings party on that basis, I can already vote Green and do not consider them to be a fringe party. Oh yeah, they’re VERY anti nukes and I’m a Scottish CND member.

      *James Kelly outed himself as such an SNP FanBoi that he was prepared to deny mathematical reality in the service of it. This severely dented my faith in him as a psephologist. If he was prepared to do that, what else is he prepared to massage? I therefore no longer hang out there.

    198. Sinky says:

      Omg Gordon Brown dug up BBC from his corpse to yet again save the Union according to Sunday Press

    199. brewsed says:

      I see there has been an intervenshion; the clanking chains and swivelling jaw has spake, without excessive use of punctuation marks or, seemingly, any self awareness. The SNP is, we are told, ‘peddling what it claims is a progressive, pro-European Scottish nationalism that must break free from Johnson’s reactionary, anti-European and anti-Scottish English nationalism’, which sounds about right to me. Then the browntosaurus tell us, evidence free, that ‘ separatism ignores the hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk of going too.’ Hmm, and the risk of not becoming a normal independent country has been taken into account? Probably not. Meanwhile, the party of fellow prehistoric beasts is trying to return to its natural habitat of the primordial alluvial deposits.

    200. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Fergus Green at 9.25
      This is the sort of idea I was punting about a year ago to general disinterst and even ridicule. It is a step towards thinking seriously of how we deal with the peculiarities and drawbacks of the list system.

    201. Clootie says:

      Hoe do we vet and select candidates. We need to avoid the “extreme” and “wild card” nutters or we will look like the Unionist Parties..

    202. CameronB Brodie says:

      Muscleguy
      This isn’t meant as a personal attack, but it looks like you’re fall into the trap of rationalising the SNP primarily as a party of good governance. I know which side you are on, but it is easty to forget the SNP has one purpose, to deliver independence. What happens after that will need to be determined through democracy, hopefully from within Scotland, and for Scotland and the wider world’s benefit.

      P.S. I’m not a member so a member may wish to correct me.

    203. Doug says:

      Wings list.

      Non independce policy suggestions?

      Trans rights. Transitioning, recognise new gender. If you’ve had your knob chopped off, and want to be called female, go for it, no one sane really cares. Not transitioning, call yourself whatever you want, but you are still whatever you were legally, other than that no one really cares.

      90 minute bigots – punish the clubs and their governing body. They’ll take it seriously from the first old firm game where spectators and TV cameras/radio commentary not allowed. I mean ffs, have they never heard of individual tickets with names printed on them, ID and CCTV?!?!?!?

      Land reform – whatever the Green party say, just do it ffs.

      Sex work – decriminalize if independent. The world has moved on and internet advertizing and airbnb mean its no one’s business but the participants.

      Orange Walks – as long as its on a disused industrial estate and no alchohol or under 18s attend, no one cares. Go hate all you want but the rest of us are praying for heavy rain.

      Voter registration – legal duty for councils, schools/colleges and NHS to do an electoral register check on every contact (or annually) and offer a VOLUNTARY electoral registration form and assistance with completing it if needed. Declaration of sole residence required and for those with more than one, proof of habitual residence and tax registration at one of them. Postal/proxy votes require cause e.g. medical certificate, form completed by employer (taxed in Scotland) etc.

      Thats six to get going.

    204. Jock Tamson says:

      Id be up for this. Im an SNP memberof 20 yrs but old labour traditional working class . A bit socialy conservative and more focused on economic growth than transgender rights and see our wee princesse as maybe a bit too pre occupied on reaching the front page of the Guardian and her MPS on BBC Question Time . She’s a bit naive on the seductive power of the UK state. Some ( not all) MPS enjoying the life in Westminster and fantasising of being the esteemed and right hounarable Lord of Brigadoon Speaker of the House of Commons.

    205. John Kirkwood says:

      Not a chance. Don’t do it. You will be destroyed. You are just about tolerated currently as a “useful advocate”.
      Go after their positions, jobs, and finances at your peril.
      The (S)o-called (N)ationalist (P)arty is now just a machine.
      Be careful

    206. Thepnr says:

      @John Kirkwood

      It’s the National party not the Nationalist party. You’re sounding awfie like a Britnat.

    207. Dickie says:

      Conceptually a second real pro Indy party is a fantastic idea but not under the Wings brand. The MSM would have a field day.

      Leave it to the Yes Movement to get their act together but make sure that they avoid having those that create division to further their own egos standing. We all know who they are.

    208. I was in my local boozer today,
      shaven,wearing a light blue Fred Perry and a pair of adidas samba,
      when the barmaid said,
      “if you put your name down on the regional/list vote in the next Holyrood election ,maybe under the Wings party,i would definitely vote for you ,
      i did vote for the Lib Dems before but they seem to be all deranged lunatics”,

      true story.

    209. John Thomson says:

      Stu I’m with you on this cant see it failing and as for those who say it will split the vote simply cant see how if you’re party is standing on list only also same goes for candidates running down SNP candidates, just don’t see that happening but if SNP were to run down wings then yes gloves would come off and hell mend them. Scotland has been trying for 300 years bring it on.

    210. John Thomson says:

      Stu I’m with you on this, don’t see it failing and as for those who say it will split the vote not if you’re party is standing on list only also same goes for candidates running down SNP candidates, but if SNP were to run down wings then yes gloves would come off and hell mend them. Scotland has been trying for 300 years bring it on.

    211. dakk says:

      ‘shaven,wearing a light blue Fred Perry and a pair of adidas samba,’

      She must’ve been impressed. What was it you shaved?

    212. John Kirkwood says:

      @Thepnr says:
      It’s the National party not the Nationalist party. You’re sounding awfie like a Britnat.
      Nope. I am a Nationalist noting our supposedly Nationalist party is now a political machine freakshow. P.S. Over 30 years ago I was with – among others – Gordon Wilson and Robbie the Pict on TV arguing our case.

    213. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Had a wee swatch at the WOS archives there, and it goes all the way back to 2010. For this month, nine years ago, there was one post by Stu. That one post received one comment.

      Check for yourself:

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/2010/08/

      Can’t even remember when I first posted comments but it would’ve been late 2012 and even then there were times when lengthy posts by Stu received very few comments.

      And here we are now, having a serious discussion about whether or not WOS should field candidates for possible election to the Scottish Parliament.

      Aw youse naysayers, nit-pickers and doom-merchants can just get tae.

      I’m in.

      😉

    214. Lenny Hartley says:

      Hopefully not required but if SNP aint won us a referendum by then it has to be done, whilst it would be nice for somebody to organise under a Yes banner cannot see that happening, so only one man who I believe has the organisational skills , the backup and contacts to do it is you Stu so go for it, but I really do hope it will not be necessary.

    215. CameronB Brodie says:

      ‘mon the self-improves, ‘there’s nothing quite like a shorn scrotum. It’s breathtaking, really. I suggest you try it yourself’.

      I hope I’ve not upset anyone with the dastardliness of that suggestion. 😉

    216. Geoff Huijer says:

      Please do it.

    217. Melvin penman says:

      This is a great move , I am with the idea that it’s a yes movement ,including the dug etc.
      Only focused on list candidates. I expect that there may be some changes made to the Scotland act to resolve this anomaly and prevent this from happening. The British Govt under the Brexit crew will definitely try. I can see a future where everything Is on the table from Boris and his ilk.

      Scotland may have to declare UDI, SNP keep rejecting it, but it may be the only choice left in an Brexit Britain.

    218. CameronB Brodie says:

      John Kirkwood
      Ironically, Nationalist are the wrong sort of nationalists, from every sort of perspective.

    219. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      The idea of maximising a return from this bonkers 2-vote electoral guddle is very attractive, I don’t deny it. If even the anoraks enthusiasts on here don’t properly understand how it operates, what hope for ordinary folk? The AMS list system clearly benefits a pluralist BritNat opposition, since (with all due respect) the Greens just don’t have the necessary traction (yet, anyway).

      But why are we obsessing about 2021 right now, when there are other more pressing challenges looming? I don’t want to be madly over-optimistic, but I get a sense from this-and-that happening of late that the English Establishment is actually begining to give up on us as a lost cause. Either through sympathy from the Remainers or through indifference and “sour grapes” from the Leavers. An opportunity just waiting to be taken.

      As Curtice has famously said, there’s no possible electoral strategy that can beat 50%+ support. Not in a UKGE, and leastways of all in a binary referendum vote. If this level of support for indy is sustained, the writing is well-and-truly on the wall, and it’s for a lot sooner tham 2021.

      For the BritNat circus and for us.

    220. Meindevon says:

      Oh lord the BBC are going to have to interview you on a regular basis.

      They must be spinning like tops.

      The press are going to have to talk about you. Ok so it will all be bad but that figure of two thirds of Yes voters having heard of Wings is going to go up to one hundred percent.

      Throw in another wee blue book and how can a normal self governing Scotland not become a reality.

    221. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      The idea of maximising a return from this bonkers 2-vote electoral guddle is very attractive, I don’t deny it. If even the anoraks enthusiasts on here don’t properly understand how it operates, what hope for ordinary folk? The AMS list system clearly benefits a pluralist BritNat opposition, since (with all due respect) the Greens just don’t have the necessary traction (yet, anyway).

      But why are we obsessing about 2021 right now, when there are other more pressing challenges looming? I don’t want to be madly over-optimistic, but I get a sense from this-and-that happening of late that the English Establishment is actually begining to give up on us as a lost cause. Either through sympathy from the Remainers or through indifference and “sour g.r.a.p.e.s” from the Leavers. An opportunity just ready for the taking.

      As Curtice has famously said, there’s no possible electoral strategy that can beat 50%+ support. Not in a UKGE, and leastways of all in a binary referendum vote. If this level of support for indy is sustained, the writing is well-and-truly on the wall, and it’s for a lot sooner than 2021.

      For the BritNat circus and for us.

    222. Calum McKay says:

      So people are willing to throw Scotland’s chances for freedom away for the sake of pandering to someone’s ego?

      You are gambling on someone who took a completely unnecessary gamble to make a point against a labour airhead who in the view of the law won. And it was people’s money to fund this site who will pay Ms D’s costs! Good money after bad!

      Up to now the site has provided many like me enhanced insight into the bias and misinformation of the bbc, press and unionist parties, for that it has my significant and heart felt gratitude!

      So sad it has come to this, I’ve been posting here for six years, but setting up a party to fight against the SNP is complete nonsense, and anyone who buys into it, is deluded!

      At this point in time for this to happen is utter stupidity and only an idiot would buy in to it!

      Unionists must be rubbing their hands it’s the only rest-bite they have had in months for the chaos they are putting Scotland’s way, then they have an ego that diverts attention and undermines the issue they most dislike, it makes you wonder?????

    223. fifer/oddball says:

      I can’t see the problem with this strategy. The Yoon Media will smear anyone associated with this project. As they do with anyone they perceive as important to independence. It’s nothing new.

      As long as there’s a way to achieve this – and avoid stepping on SNP/Green list candidates, this will, I think, not only get rid of a lot of the dead wood in Holyrood, but replace it with something pro-indy.

      The big buzz this week is about the SNP needing some sort of super-majority. If the SNP are backed in Holyrood by MSPs as focused on independence as The Brexit Company are on economic self-immolation, it’ll be harder to spin that as a minority for independence.

      And mibby it’ll be easier to demonstrate that it’s not just That Nicola Sturgeon who wants independence – it’s all sorts of others who clearly aren’t the SNP.

    224. Meindevon says:

      Just a thought but you might need to stop advertising your bear hunt walks now Stu. Stay safe. ‘They’ cannot allow the break up of the U.K. to happen.

      Either that or they’ll change the electoral rules so you can’t do it.

    225. John Kirkwood says:

      CameronB Brodie says:
      John Kirkwood
      Ironically, Nationalist are the wrong sort of nationalists, from every sort of perspective
      I didn’t think we were commenting here to attack each other but OK, here goes..
      Do you know what irony is? Do you know English? Your comment makes no reasonable point and even less sense. Are you a ‘bot?

    226. Ahundredthidiot says:

      Calum MacKay

      six years you say……then youve no been paying attention.

      this is for the second (largely wasted under PR) list vote, only.

      sober up man and think!

    227. K1 says:

      I’d vote for you Prof…even if ye stood in a puddle 🙂

    228. CameronB Brodie says:

      Calum McKay
      Of course you are entitled to your opinion, which I can appreciate to an extent, though I’m not prepared to make a judgement call on the motives of “Your Majesty”. I’m not convinced yet, but I think it better to try and fail, rather than not try at all. Of course, the rational position is to explore all options. Also, there are other opinions, though they tend to be less rational.

    229. CameronB Brodie says:

      John Kirkwood
      What’s your level of schooling, if that’s not a personal question?

    230. Cubby says:

      Kenny Farquharson – what a diddy. Care to print that in the Times. Yours Sincerely from a non slavish Wings Follower.

    231. Dan says:

      The idea has long had potential. Whether it’s implemented or not, even just floating the concept puts the pressure on various factions which should keep them on their toes.
      Plus the wider ensuing discussions might help further enlighten more of the electorate to the flawed democratic processes we currently use to form our governments that ultimately shape our society and lives.

      In my view a voting system is not fit for purpose if by design it effectively protects and allows individual politicians to remain in office election after election without giving the electorate the opportunity to remove them should they wish.

      Scottish politics is effectively frozen until the constitutional issue is resolved. The unionist parties have fought every election since 2014 with the same anti-Indy mantra. UK GEs, Scottish Parliament, Council, and EU elections, it doesn’t make any difference, they are consistent in utlising that message.
      You can see they tactically vote, or don’t properly contest particular seats to optimise results that suit the union. They use Vote Till You Boak from their perspective in STV Council Elections.
      It’s well past time Indy minded folk wised up to this basic fact, put aside their differences, and unified to achieve our common objective.
      We’ll only get the opportunity to have a properly functioning intelligent, progressive and consensual Scottish Parliament that we directly elect to govern us after we shake free from the current dullard ridden, regressive and adversarial UK setup.

    232. Wull says:

      Even the simple possibility of this prospect arising in 2021 might help to ensure that the SNP do indeed, as promised, use their mandate to hold Indyref2 within the lifetime of the present Holyrood parliament.

      I don’t know if such a ‘threat’ is necessary: hopefully, it is not. But just in case it is, this will keep them on their toes, providing encouragement for them to get on with it.

      Those SNP MSP’s who are there through the list, and others who see the list as their safety net in case they lose their FPTP seats, will be taking note. They might calculate that their only way to avoid a viable pro-Indy alternative cutting short their parliamentary careers in 2021 will be through holding Indyref2 before then, and winning independence.

      Any temptations they may have been having to prevaricate, postponing Indyref2 till after the 2021 Holyrood elections (the outcome of which is not predictable), will thus be overcome.

      So, even if Stuart Campbell’s idea is still only half thought out, and even if it eventually comes to nothing, the fact that is there is already a gain. Just the very threat of such a prospect might help to concentrate some minds.

      I am not saying that there are SNP people in high places who think they can ignore the wider Yes movement. There my or may not be. But if there are, the idea that has been mooted here might well force them to ‘think again’.

      I am sure most people in the SNP are fully aware that the SNP cannot gain independence alone, without the wider Yes movement, or without having to take that wider movement seriously. If there are any SNP people who ignore this, they certainly do so at their peril.

      I suppose the new grouping or Party which Stuart is proposing could call itself ‘Wings for Yes’. Although it might not be an acceptable name, some might even like to think of it as ‘the Margo MacDonald Party’ ….

    233. Wull says:

      Dan at 12.13, I did not see your comment before posting mine 4 minutes later. We seem to have been thinking some similar or related thoughts … If I had seen yours, I wouldn’t have bothered posting mine – yours is wider, and says it better. If a list system makes the result more accurate, so that few votes are spoiled, that is good. But there should be a strict limit on the number of times anyone can sit as a List MP; it should not provide jobs for life for Party-hack morons. Thanks.

    234. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Robert J Sutherland –

      ‘I get a sense from this-and-that happening of late that the English Establishment is actually begining to give up on us as a lost cause.’

      Hear hear.

      And we know, from history, how they will behave – they’ll accept the inevitable loss of yet another colony and try to spin it as an act of benevolence, or they’ll instigate civil unrest by deploying provocateurs and backing up false-flag operations with military occupation/intimidation as they did in Ireland.

      I don’t know how many contributors there have been to this place since it started, and none of us can possibly have read each and every comment submitted let alone published. But there’s no way there could be a Scottish equivalent of the IRA without its existence being blared from rooftops by every MSM outlet. Does anyone ever remember hotheads claiming to be getting tooled-up for some kind of uprising? If they wanted to air such threats they would have done it right here. Rev may know of some, perhaps blocked them, but the idea that none of us would ever even have heard of such characters is just risible.

      So far as we know, there isn’t any such organisation, but a sage WOS contributor (who must remain nameless) once told me to keep an eye on certain groups, one of which is the so-called Red Front Republic. Shady, dodgy bunch (all male) who have made ‘selfies’ at major indy marches but never seem to be available for scrutiny at the rallies. There’s no doubt it exists (I won’t post link to their website – it can be found easily enough by anyone interested) but I’ve never met anyone in the broader indy movement who has even heard of them. My best guess is that they’re a physical manifestation of Brigade 77.

    235. DerekM says:

      Jings Rev you fair stirred up a hornets nest.

      I am in though i do have one question are you serious or are you just trolling the crap out the yoons and the wokenats at the same time or both?

      I know you are too clever to have handed them this nugget without knowing what they would do with it.

      Either way top notch trolling lmao

    236. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Ian Brotherhood @ 00:32,

      Maybe I’m being foolishly sanguine, but I have the feeling that they don’t have the stomach these days for another Ireland. All that potential for next-door-neighbour blowback, for one thing. Too many serious alternative distractions for another. (Sinking pound, anyone?) Ultimately they don’t give two buttons for their proxies in Scotland, as we are beginning to see revealed, to the very evident discomfiture of the sockpuppets.

      So I think your former scenario is the more likely. Hope to gain some advantage by being nice but still try to squeeze a hard bargain while we are unprotected by the EU.

    237. Dan says:

      @Wull at 12:28 am

      Nae bother whatsoever. Our posts certainly had similarities but they also differ enough in content to warrant posting.
      It’s always good to read and absorb information and consider the perspective of different people.

      I was going to add in my post that as far as I am aware non of the political parties currently elected to the Scottish Parliament had seen fit to add to their manifestos the need to alter the voting system.
      Maybe a new Indy party contesting Regional List seats could have a manifesto commitment to limiting the number of times an individual could be elected from the Regional List.
      It would be a very honest and principled stance to take that having used that particular system to be elected, should they fail to properly represent those that elected them, they can at least be gotten rid of.
      Even though such a party solely elected through the Regional List system would only gain a minority of seats, it wouldn’t be a good look or very democratic for other parties to stand against such an amendment.

    238. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Robert J Sutherland –

      I hear ye man, I hear ye.

      They’ll be wasting their time trying to squeeze any kind of bargain.

      Forget the oil and gas (which is, as we all know, almost finished) and their obscene attitude to our land (shootin’ fishin’ brigade) – the one word which will bring them to heel is ‘water’.

      😉

    239. X_Sticks says:

      I’m in.

    240. yesindyref2 says:

      The Rev is a serious Dick and universally recognised as such, and for that reason …

      … I’m in.

    241. Petra says:

      Great how these Unionist supporting newspapers manage to dupe people by using their wee propaganda tactics. In this instance by dragging Alex Salmond into the fray. The last thing I’d reckon that Alex Salmond needs right now.

      http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wings-over-scotland-independence-blogger-stuart-campbell-plans-to-take-on-snp-fxg7z3t30

    242. mr thms says:

      In a BBC article full of assumptions about Fergusons these two stand out –

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-49301440

      “Now it’s merely my hunch, but might the sales force see more of a career future with international business investor Jim McColl than with economy minister Derek Mackay?”

      and

      “It’s also questionable whether a state-owned yard can assume that government contracts will inevitably fall to it. In or out of the European Union, some state aid rules are surely likely to apply.”

      This Guardian article is a year old –

      https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/30/experts-reject-labour-leavers-argument-brussels-nationalisation

      “French president Emmanuel Macron recently nationalised a shipyard jointly owned with an Italian rival to prevent the domestic firm losing control. He was able to press ahead with his protectionist measure under Maastricht and Lisbon Treaty rules that leave room for policy objectives for which state aid can be considered compatible.”

      If its good for Macron, its good for Mackay!

    243. schrodingers cat says:

      WHAT A GREAT IDEA…..WISH I’D THOUGHT OF IT >:)<
      —————-

      Muscleguy says:

      *James Kelly outed himself as such an SNP FanBoi that he was prepared to deny mathematical reality in the service of it. This severely dented my faith in him as a psephologist. If he was prepared to do that, what else is he prepared to massage? I therefore no longer hang out there.

      ————

      correct, opposition to such a tactical vote by kelly on the grounds of nonsensical arithmetic was a major reason why it failed in 2016. the guy is a dick.

      as for the greens, without indy, there wont be an ecological revolution in exactly the same way that without indy there wont be a republic. you need to fight the battle that is in front of you, not the one you want to fight.

      but as far as i understand the electoral system, it shouldnt be a problem if you vote green on the list. the point being made is to convince those who vote snp on the list to yote for a YESWOS party.

      btw, i agree with stu about the greens, their antics in the past few years have ensured they will follow rise/solidarity and the ssp into oblivion at the next holyrood election.

      this is why a new YESWOS party on the list at the next holyrood election is imperative, even if we run and win indyref2 before then, to stop a unionist coalition reversing/stalling/cancelling independence

    244. McBoxheid says:

      I think that by putting the idea out there, you may just motivate the Yesindy hubs to start gelling and working in a way to support 4 regional political groups, one for each regional list. (Although they would be, in effect, regional parties only standing for regional seats to support the greater indy movement as a whole, they would the polar opposite of better together.)

      Yes indy is a course a grassroots movement and accepts all and none political groups to its cause.
      If they put known indy activists, as suggested further up the thread (WGD et al) to stand in only one region’s list as a separate regional identity, they would have a greater chance of success of winning seats in each region. They would be people’s regional representatives that only represent their region as an indy candidate by whatever name is decided upon.

      There is no direct link to to the SNP.
      They would be candidates selected by the hubs in and from the region they represent.
      They would be seen as representing the independence grassroots movement in each region at the regional level.
      They would not be a threat, perceived or actual to the SNP’s direct candidates.
      They would counter the Scottish branch office candidates.
      They would need to be available and organised in time for a snap election if it happened soon.

    245. McBoxheid says:

      Sorry I forgot to add:
      That would leave Stuart to continue doing what he does best.

    246. gus1940 says:

      With Andrew and Fergie in residence at Balmoral I wonder what they will be chatting about round the breakfast table this morning.

    247. Jimbo says:

      Great idea, Stu.
      I’d be up for that.

    248. doug_bryce says:

      Interesting idea…

      My own thoughts

      1) Only if its a generic “YES” party.
      Like it or not the WoS brand is to controversial for floating voters (this site is effective but basically a church for the converted).

      2) Only if it is a 2021 referendum where we need to win majority of MSP for IndyRef2.0

      3) Only if the electoral rules permit MSP to stand as list only.

      4) Splitting the GREEN vote could back fire.

      5) Wings Over Scotland is at its most effective because it is political independent of any party. Which makes me think someone is trolling 😉 Trying to see what ever crap he can get media to write.

      FWIW : you might not like Greens or SSP. However they are pro-indy. Independence isn’t about a specific political view, rather it is about self determination.

    249. JLT says:

      The newspaper headlines, once again, have grabbed the wrong end of the stick. The only thing is though that their presentation of it to the wider YES movement will be greeted with derision. Instead of trying to win us over, they’ve just confirmed, also once again, that the media cannot be trusted.

      However, it’s a good theory, Stuart. Certainly well worth thinking about.

    250. robbo says:

      It should be called SIP(Scottish/Scotland’s Independence Party).Simple and straight to the point!

      I did suggest SIP months ago lol.

    251. manandboy says:

      manandboy says:
      11 August, 2019 at 4:33 am
      GORDON BROWN MAKES THE GUARDIAN HEADLINES

      I wonder why? Let me guess…

      https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/10/gordon-brown-says-no-deal-brexit-would-be-calamit

      Take 2, GORDON AGAIN, with new layout and new pics:

      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/10/very-idea-of-a-united-kingdom-being-torn-apart-by-toxic-nationalism

      The Guardian & Gordon – defenders of the preciousss Union.

    252. doug_bryce says:

      RE : SIP.

      I quite like Scottish INTER-national Party.

      Such name change would really troll the brexiters who accuse SNP of being nationalist.

    253. carjamtic says:

      For the avoidance of any doubt and as there is a intellectual/political vacuum at the moment (caused partially by the Unionist parties ganging up and targeting certain high quality Indy folk at the last election).

      There are a number of good people (of all parties/persuasions) sitting on the sidelines (wasted resources) and to have somebody who knows actually what their doing in charge of coordinating is very appealing.

      I’m in.

    254. manandboy says:

      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/10/very-idea-of-a-united-kingdom-being-torn-apart-by-toxic-nationalism

      GORDON BROWN SPEAKING AS IF HE HAS MANAGED TO VOMIT INTO HIS OWN BRAIN. Toxic, lying, Brown, with hypocrisy dribbling continuously from his mouth as he speaks. He’s afraid a Scotland divorce from England will mean for him a lengthy stay in a prison cell.

      “As the Second World War ended, George Orwell made a distinction between patriots who instinctively love their country and the opposite, a political nationalism that he defined as “power hunger tempered by self-deception”. He noted its defining features: unreality about the country’s prospects; introversion bordering on the xenophobic; and hate-filled obsessiveness that treats people solely in terms of their loyalty and utility. Orwell argued passionately that the descent into a narrow, chauvinistic nationalism could be halted only by what he called “moral effort”.

      In our times, this means we must rediscover the age-old virtues of empathy, solidarity across borders, reciprocity between nations and co-operation rather than conflict. These precious ideals – and a tolerant, inclusive and outward-looking Britishness – could not survive the divisiveness and chaos of a no-deal Brexit. To prevent the rise of dysfunctional nationalism, the first step is to stop no deal in its tracks.”

    255. john king says:

      Yea but no but
      serious question, would he existence of another independence supporting party possibly give the SNP more list seats with less voters?

    256. Fergus Green says:

      Dave McEwan Hill says:
      10 August, 2019 at 10:41 pm
      Fergus Green at 9.25
      This is the sort of idea I was punting about a year ago to general disinterst and even ridicule.

      Dave, I am not such a prolific poster as your good self, but I have also floated this idea a few times in the past. Also I think Schrodingers Cat and others have commented enthusiastically, but the response has been lukewarm at best.

      It’s interesting to see the idea gaining a bit of traction at last, possibly because it is being ‘endorsed’ by Stuart.

      If you look back at the last Scottish and WM elections, the SNP lost seats because the unionists organised electoral pacts and they were very effective. The Indy parties have to wise up here and play the same kind of game.

      Remember, it was not the SNP or the YES movement that drew up the d’Hondt PR system, but them’s the rules and we have to play by them. A YES party made up of non-SNP members can fill that gap, as long as they select ‘safe’ candidates.

    257. Breeks says:

      Nicola speaking on Twitter, taken from Stirling I believe.

      https://mobile.twitter.com/RobDunsmore/status/1159920092798472192

      Clear, explicit, unequivocal and definitive; Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty is NOT steering SNP strategy.

      The refusal of a Section 30 Agreement is solely a dispute of democratic principle. There is no mention of it being unconstitutional, a subjugation of sovereignty, and silencing the voice of a legitimately and lawfully sovereign people.

      Brexit is an issue to be addressed by democracy alone. The colonial subjugation of one nation’s will by it’s neighbour, does not constitute material grounds to halt Scotland’s Brexit in its tracks, or even contest the dubious legitimacy of the UK’s faux Constitutional legitimacy. The injustice and injury suffered upon Scotland can only be countered “democratically”… (and it would appear, after the event too, on current trajectory).

      Third, Scotland’s Democratic path to Independence will adhere to International “Gold Standard” protocols, except there are no such things, unless you’re referring to actual gold bullion. A gold standard democracy is just a metaphor for best practice. So enlighten me, what “best practice” Gold Standard democracy refuses to acknowledge the sovereign constitution of its electorate?

      Nicola Sturgeon is a devout believer in Democracy. Fine, good for her, but it is a devout belief which blinds her to the potent legitimacy of Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty. When you walk soft, you must carry a big stick.

      Assert Constitutional Sovereignty and the very principle of Brexit is instantly defeated.
      Assert Constitutional Sovereignty and a Section 30 Agreement is spurious nonsense.
      Assert Constitutional Sovereignty and Westminster has no authority to remove Scotland from Europe. It has no authority at all, other than resolve by common consensus.
      Assert Constitutional Sovereignty and the Treaty of Union is untenable, rendered defunct and breached by England’s reckless and arbitrary determination.

      Democracy? Sure, by all means. If you don’t like our resolve, vote for a different government next Election. Referendum? Sure! Why not? We’ll hold a lavish ratification plebiscite in 202?. Seems like there is lots of room and opportunity to impress the world with our “gold standard” democracy. We just have an existential Constitutional crisis to deal with first…

      If you’re serious about starting a new force in Scottish politics Rev Stu, please let it be a party which bangs hard on the big bass Constitutional Drum and is staunchly resolute in defence of Scotland’s perpetually sovereign birthright, which is reborn with the first drawn breath of every new generation of Scot’s.

      Scotland’s Sovereignty is a far, far more precious gem than anything made from standard gold.

    258. robin key says:

      I suspect Stu is just making perfect logical sense for the anoraks knowing it might help crystalise a few minds in the SNP, though I think SNP timing is going fine as it happens, and Stu does love being contentious.
      I have just read Gordon Browns article; that poor wee man is absolutely terrified.
      He knows that independence is coming soon with a no deal Brexit and he knows in his heart that Scotland in Europe is better than alone with England drifting in the atlantic…I almost feel for the poor fellow..almost

    259. manandboy says:

      FWIW I’m with ‘The Independence Party’. Clear, unambiguous and distinct from The Scottish National Party.

      I’m definitely in. I feel uplifted and newly energised already. SIP will definitely take seats from the tri-partite Unionist Alliance. A step closer to a Scottish Parliament with NO UNIONIST Parties in it at all, as it will be after Scotland is Independent again.

    260. S. Perspective says:

      In all due respect, I see the logic of what you might want to do with a new party, but believe me, you will lose your influence and your voice. Blogging and holding the press and political parties to account is what you do best. If you are at the helm of a political party, you will lose the prophetic power you have in Scottish politics and become just another politician.

    261. Sinky says:

      Radio Five replacing Radio Scotland since 8 am and no one has noticed

    262. Bobp says:

      I’m agreeing with Bert’s post at 6.38pm.Says it all for me.

    263. Willie says:

      The D’Honte voting system for list members to top up FPTP members was introduced to ensure that it was difficult for any party to gain and absolute majority.

      The opposite of Westminster which through electoral numbers effectively until now guaranteed Unionist governance of Tory or Labour plus Libdems.

      Good idea therefore for Wings Party for the list. The electorate and SNP members and supporters are sophisticated enough to understand and vote accordingly.

      And it would be good for the SNP too to by freein them from reliance on the Greens.

      Would also reinvigorate those
      who have maybe become concerned at those in the SNP who have become jaded and comfortable.

      Go for it. The time is right. It’s independence we want. Next step – get the alternative party registered with an appropriate name.

    264. Capella says:

      @ sinky – my husband has noticed. It’s Sunday morning, people are tuning in late.

    265. Juteman says:

      SNP both votes.
      Anything else risks splitting the indy vote.
      If you want the SNP to do something different, join the party and change it from within.
      I’m not a member btw.

    266. Newburghgowfer says:

      I totally agree and have said this also on social media the last few years. Can you imagine the furore of the Unionist List Msps knowing that their days are numbered. This has to be a definite plan and not something to think about. Only way to beat them at their own game

    267. starlaw says:

      Having slept on this I have reached the conclusion that if this in any way can cause confusion. Then drop it like a hot brick.

    268. PacMan says:

      Just read the article and some of the nonsense in it

      Sharpens the divisions, deepens the divide, damage the social fabric of Scotland, social ruptures in families, friendships, workplaces and neighbourhoods

      Living in an ordinary part of Scotland, I look out my window, I don’t see bombs going off, Soldiers patrolling the street, one side living in one area and the other and in another part etc

      I can’t help but feel this is as much about class than nationhood. The middle classes don’t like the lower orders getting above them and dare I say, think for themselves.

      Don’t get me wrong, I’m not into this socialist nonsense but every time I read these sort of articles, it does reek of middle class exceptionalism. We’ve had socialism in the past and look what it has given us, 70 years of useless Labour politicians feeding on the trough and the lives of ordinary folk not improving one bit.

      The solution is simple. We have the internet. It gives us a wealth of information and the ability to communicate with people from different spheres in our society and in other countries that allows us to share ideas. This will give us the ability to shape Scottish solutions to Scottish solutions.

      It may sound simplistic and idealistic but it is a start and better than what these journalistic suggest in knowing our place.

    269. manandboy says:

      http://scotlandowntwofeet.blogspot.com/

      Can an Independent Scotland stand on its own two feet?

      Scotland is being robbed blind by England every day of the week. The refusal of a Section 30 Order, is to help make sure the robbing blind continues.

    270. Fergus Green says:

      Not too sure about this being called the ‘Wings’ Party or similar. Too easy for the MSM to demonise because their manufactured hatred of all things Stuart Campbell.

      Tacit support from Wings would be welcome though and the site can offer the usual forum for discussion.

      Better to spread this to other indy blog sites and use wider social media, so that the concept of a non-aligned Indy party can be recognised as a grass roots movement, rather than the brainchild of and individual who can be smeared at will.

    271. Fergus Green says:

      typo alert – should read ‘brainchild of an individual’

    272. David says:

      YES I would love to stand in Motherwell or somewhere close by

      It is WAY PAST TIME we USED the system to get rid of never been voted for permanent List tories like Mad Murdo ETC.

    273. Abulhaq says:

      BritNat in chief on sleepwalking into calamity.
      https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/10/gordon-brown-says-no-deal-brexit-would-be-calamity-for-united-kingdom
      Shhhhh, dont wake them up!
      However, someone, something needs to put the fizz and pazzazz back into the damp SNP.

    274. Robert Louis says:

      Bert at 638pm,

      n.b this comment is not all directed to your earlier comment, just the first part.

      You make a valid point, and in part, you may be right. It does take the loony unionists off the front page, to an extent. However, the party has not been launched, and I’m guessing, but do not expect any activity on that front, until and when, it looks likely the SNP do not stick to their mandate for indyref2, prior to the 2021 scot parly elections. Therefore, for a few days, it is a story, and that is all. I fully expect the SNP to get the headlines, when they call indyref2 – which is going to happen soon, isn’t it?

      Later in your comment, you cite a phrase that many other have done regarding making mistakes etc…

      “There’s an old saying, don’t interupt your enemy while he’s making a mistake.
      The unionist parties are making wall to wall mistakes like we’ve never seen before. Let them.”

      Many people cite that, and so this is not a criticism directed directly at you, rather a general comment on people who use the phrase.

      I agree with the sentiment, of never interrupting your enemy when they are making mistakes. Absolutely. BUT, it does not mean that in the meantime we sit back and do nothing to advance our cause (independence), yet I think many high up in the SNP do think that is what it means.

      All that phrase means, is if your opponent is making a clear tactical error, then you should let them, do not warn them. It does not also mean that you sit back and do nothing and simply let events unfold.

      The Scotgov should already be primed and ready, like a coiled viper, ready to hit the indyref button at a moment’s notice. This is an absolute all-out full blown crisis, it is not a situation for sitting back and pondering events, rather it is a time for clear direct leadership. ‘Here is where we are going, follow me’.

      Brexit, in whatever guise, is an absolute disaster for the entire UK, and especially Scotland. It is wholly unwanted, and wholly undemocratic. It WILL make all of us very, very poor, almost overnight. Holidays and flights abroad will become something only for the very rich, and the rpice of petrol, will hit the roof.

      My honest opinion is the Scotgov, has a clear mandate to keep Scotland in the EU, by whatever means. Critics of that might say, yes, but that wasn’t specifically in the manifesto, or well, that might need decided by the next SNP conference and so on. And I have a real problem with that. Whilst those are very admirable democratic sentiments, and should be the norm, just imagine we were already independent, run from Holyrood. Say some major crisis unfolds, requiring definitive and swift action by the Scottish government, would we seriously be happy, if they turned around and said, oh, we can’t do anything until we have a vote ate conference, or ‘oh we can’t act on this issue, since it wasn’t in our manifesto.

      This is the problem I have with the current scotgov. They seek to be the government of an independent Scotland, yet their current behaviour smacks to a degree of student politics. ‘we cannot act, untill conference meets next year’. That is NOT how governments operate. To my mind, they are stuck in the devolved mindset.

      They need to grasp the issue and act in the best interests of Scotland and its people, by whatever means necessary. Sitting back and letting brexit happen, is in my honest opinion, a clear deriliction of duty. They need to make the transition within their minds and actions, from being a devolved government, to being THE government, and fast.

    275. Iain Gray says:

      Great idea. I’d vote for it.

    276. Muscleguy says:

      @CameronB

      I don’t get your point. People come to vote for people and parties for a host of different reasons. As a party member you should realise that and not criticise people for what you think are their reasons for voting.

      I vote SNP both because they are Yes and because they are very good at governance for the majority. Though we shall see over Gender self declaration. I stand by my Green vote for the reasons mentioned. And as for Yesness, Patrick Harvie is on record as being more gung ho for Yes than Sturgeon is. So your implication that I am betraying Independence by voting Green is disingenuous.

      BTW I should ammend my voting record, last Holyrood election I did not vote SNP in the constituency. I’m in Dundee East and Shona Robison was one of those who killed Margo’s Assisted Dying bill instead of sending it back for more consideration. So in all good conscience I could not vote for her. I was faced with spoiling my ballot paper since neither the Greens nor Rise stood. I ended up voting TUSC as they are supportive of a second IndyRef.

      So you SNP types need to beware. I consider myself a floating voter and if you annoy me enough and give me enough reason to not voting for you I shall not.

      When we first moved up here (back up in my case) in 1999 I voted SNP as I’ve always been in favour of Independence. But you may recall people were rooting up trial GM crops and the SNP supported them. I engaged in an email discussion with someone in head office over the matter and their attitude made me stop voting SNP.

      IF my scientific standards conflict with policy that is bad for policy. I’m with Greta Thunberg 100% for eg. I noted how the policy recommendations on Land Reform got watered down after some hospitality was accepted and enjoyed by the SNP minister. That was disappointing.

      If Andy Wightman had been the minister that would not have happened. I was also disappointed that Sturgeon’s pique last election was such that she didn’t even phone Patrcik Harvie and explore some sort of deal.

      I grew up in New Zealand and there Centre Left governments have many times been supported by Greens with confidence and supply deals. British politics needs to look around the world at how everyone else does normal coalition government.

    277. manandboy says:

      FWIW There is absolutely nothing which the Independence movement could, should or might do, that the Unionist media will not attack with lies and smears, to discredit it. To then say, ‘there’s nothing we can do, so why even bother’. That my friends is the path to colonial slavery, which Scotland has trodden for 300 years. Well its time to shed our fear of what the Unionists will think and say. If someone told you just to give away your newly won 10 million pound lottery win, you’d tell them in two short words what to do.

      The Unionists want us afraid, timorous, docile, meek and compliant. That way, it’s easy for them to rob Scotland blind behind our backs.

      So for those who don’t want to upset our Colonial Masters and their lickspittle media, just pull the duvet over your head and go back to sleep. For everyone else, there’s work to be done, and Stu’s idea is well worth doing. So let’s get on with getting our Independence.

    278. Abulhaq says:

      Scottish nationalism should embrace democratic republicanism instead of pussy footing around it.
      Why not a clean break with the old order? Out with the old.
      Scots Republic….coool!

    279. Golfnut says:

      @ Manandboy.

      Well said. Just spent the last half hour on face book Yes sites pointing people in the direction of wings or explaining the real purpose behind this. If anybody here is on Facebook, do the same.

    280. Hamish100 says:

      PAC man.

      The problem with labour and many of the MP’s ( in Scotland) they were never socialists.

    281. Yerkitbreeks says:

      Had some reservations about your change of direction for a little time.

      After six years, bye bye.

    282. Famous15 says:

      People like Abulcac are so obvious. kISS Keep it simple Stupid.

      The honest people on here simply wish for,long for independence.

      Any desire for republicanism,nihilism,marxism,flat earthiest if it is popular,tehee,can wait.

      Those who muddy the waters do not drink clean water. Old proverb.

    283. ahundredthidiot says:

      Good PR for Wings.

      Refocuses minds in the SNP.

      Back up Plan in place for 2021.

      Loony Unionists in blind panic, almost rabid.

      Sane Unionists moving to acceptance and face saving strategy.

      What’s not to like?

    284. Jimmock says:

      I have had this thought since the las holyrood vote. Scottish independence now party only standing on the list if that is legal. If not, put up candidates in three seats.

    285. call me dave says:

      Radio 5 and no shortbread this morning is odd but has happened before, technical issues?

      Anyhoo! When it did come on there was a lively discussion on about independence, the demise of labour and the impending doom of the UK.

      Wings mentioned fleetingly and again later in the paper review…(nothing good).

      Scotland in pact with labour, referendum to happen, trident out ( big bargaining chip)..Jings! I thought there had been a couple in the night or was still dreaming.

      🙂

    286. call me dave says:

      Coup. FGS….tablet called HAL

    287. Eppy says:

      re Slinky @ 8.14,

      I rarely listen to Radio Scotland these days but tuned in just before 8 am and the pre-recorded filler program for radio Scotland switch, after a long pause to Radio 5 live for the news. It wasn’t until 8.30 that the program resumed, with a quick mumble about technical difficulties.

      The political discussion after the news had all three panelists basically concurring that Scottish Labour had been thrown under a bus and that the Union was now stuffed. Worth a listen if someone can do a link.

    288. Ottomanboi says:

      @Muscleguy
      I do not support same sex marriage or the socalled ‘right to choose’ or genderist politics etc which the SNP has endorsed. Nevertheless to vote against the party that historically has stood for Scottish independence and vote for a ‘British party’ would be unthinkable.
      The SNP is flagging. It is not the dynamic socio-cultural national force it ought to be. Its drivers appear to be entirely economic and more recently Brexit.
      It needs a refresh. It definitely needs new intellectual blood and a broader, more cosmopolitan vision. Its Scottish version of national exceptionalism ie legalism can be a real pain. Scotland like many countries before it will have to struggle for its freedom. The latter ought to all we are concerned with. All the rest is peripheral noise.

    289. CapnAndy says:

      Sounds like a good idea to me, that’ll work. You’ve got my (List) vote.

    290. Clydebuilt says:

      Radio Scotland’s paper review

      Shona Craven off the National . . . ( And increasingly the BBC) spouted the Unionist view on “The Wings Party” ie. it will split the Independence vote.

      Are we supposed to believe she didn’t read the above short article.

      As soon as she started working for the National she bacame the go to pro Indy Journalist for the BBC and STV.

    291. Capella says:

      These intermittent R Scotland “technical problems” are newsworthy in themselves. Usually it happens on the rare occasions when they interview an SNP politician from the radio car or other remote location.
      But no explanation was forthcoming this morning. Just “technical problems”. Shouldn’t we have a reliable broadcasting service for our £320 million a year?

    292. stuart mctavish says:

      If the intent is not to panic delicate flowers concerned for their political capital in the long term, rather than a durable and sensible name, how about calling it the GIRFUY party..

      Breeks @ 8.09 The straw man appears to be prevarication over the answer to the question “what will we do if they block a referendum” rather than “what will we do if, for whatever reason, the FM cannot call one”

      IMHO creating a new party seems as good an answer as any.

    293. Question,

      if Wings just runs for the regional/list vote what type of numbers would be needed to turn votes into seats.

    294. call me dave says:

      Oh! Before I forget Radio 4 ? Last night Queen’s alleged remarks after the referendum and Cameron’s early morning statement about EVEL.

      “Why can’t we have politicians who can run the county anymore”

      I was half listening in the early hours! 🙁

    295. K1 says:

      Just a wee acknowledgement to Schrod’s cat…aye…you have been on this for the last year or so…rubbished/debated by many btl, credit were it’s due 😉

    296. Abulhaq says:

      @Famous15.
      So the the ancient and classical concept of republicanism is the equivalent of flatearthism? Your notion of independence is plainly rather different from mine, so no further comment needed on that.
      New Scot I may be but I have a great deal of insight to offer, ‘outsiders’ often see things more clearly, less baggage, fewer preconceptions.

    297. Juteman says:

      I think/hope that Stu is just poking the SNP with a sharp stick.

    298. call me dave says:

      @Welsh Sion

      Thanks for that link. Quite a read. 🙂

    299. Legerwood says:

      This ‘plan’ seems to be based on a very shaky assumption namely that the SNP vote, and hence its number of seats, will hold up in the constituency side. If it does not, which is entirely possible, then it could end up in the position where it does not form the Government. What then?

      If the SNP’s constituency vote falls then it would stand to gain more list seats but this new party has just split the list vote. Now what?

      Will Mr Campbell be moving to Scotland to lead the new party?

      Then there is the oft repeated mantra by many on here ‘the SNP/SG are not doing anything’. Aye right!

      How do you get to 52% for independence within 5 years of the last referendum if they are not doing anything?

    300. Cubby says:

      Clydebuilt@10.06am

      It would be a pity if she follows the same well trodden path as Captain Haggerty.

    301. Abulhaq says:

      @Welsh Sion
      I learned very early in my life that nothing is inevitable until it actually happens. Promises, promises…
      Many a slip twixt cup and lip as they say in England.
      We MidEast origin folk are rather fatalistic, with good cause.

    302. Cubby says:

      The National/Sunday National

      Once again went to my local co op to get a Sunday National this morning at 9am. None left I am told by the assistant. Once again I asked how many do you order? I was pretty sure of the answer.
      2 copies. Yep same as last time. Once I again I asked the assistant to ask the manager to order some more. Will this happen I very much doubt it.

      2 copies for goodness sake.

      I’ve seen a pattern in some shops. Just don’t order many – people can’t get a copy and then don’t come back. Then say no demand.

      Once again if I want a National I will have to go to a supermarket that stocks them eg Asda or Sainsbury’s.

    303. Hamish100 says:

      Surprisingly, Not. an ex Prime Minister Gordon Brown will speak on “The Union” on BBC Parliament.

      You almost could believe alll the news was constructed and contrived by the BBC and the state!

      Mind you if this was a one off programme the BBC wouldn’t show it!!! A bit like polls.

    304. Hamish100 says:

      Sorry this morning BBC Parliament G Brown ex- esquire

    305. DerekM says:

      I see some suggestion that the yes movement should do this that they should be involved hmmm.

      Well i have a question for the yes movement why is it only now that you are figuring this out?

      I am sorry guys but we have been waiting on you getting your act together since 2014 do we wingers have to hold your hand for ever?,and besides i also see certain elements of the yes movement talking trash about us AGAIN divisive,a liability etc.

      Don`t you dare call us a liability as we kept the indy fire burning after 2014 when you all crawled back in your box and left us standing alone against the smug unionists.

      Oh and we kicked their backsides all over Scotland,we got the yes movement back together and we took the fight to westminster.

      And if your dislike of the Rev means you will not vote to strengthen the indy majority in our parliament and remove the gaming of our parliament by serial carpetbagger unionist list MSP`s then i have to question your desire for independence for Scotland.

    306. Cubby says:

      The most “toxic” nationalism in the UK is British nationalism.

    307. Capella says:

      @ Scot Finlayson – see this thread from WoS twitter where Stu explains that 40,000 votes would secure two seats, possibly three.

      https://twitter.com/WingsScotland/status/1160165537017749505

    308. Clydebuilt says:

      Capella @10.14 am

      Do you really believe they were technical problems.

      Probably not allowed to go on air untill a coherent Unionist line was worked out to .

      Not an easy thing to do.

    309. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      Stu.,

      There seems to be an existential split on this topic.

      I understand your proposal to sweep up the list sets off of MURDO Fraser and Ruth Davidson.

      But your argument was/is quite forensic. The Winger who put a straw poll about this on his Facebook page got a majority of SNP people who either hate the idea or are too lazy to read how it works to get the number of Indy MSPs passed the dodgyness of D’Hondt and into a MAJORITY of MSPs at Holyrood who support Independence.

      Sadly for Labour, Jeremy Corbyn has the same problem on Brexit. A great many newspapers twisted what was actually a principled Labour position. It was far too complex for the average Labour dinosaur and the media had a feast killing it and damaging Labour. I am not a Corbyn supporter so when his Brexit confusion policy was rewarded with a big electoral P45 at the European elections it was simply schadenfreude time.

      The comments above, by genuine SNP folk on this thread and elsewhere against Stuart Campbell’s WoS idea for a WoS-Rid-The-Tories-From-Holyrood-List party has been sad to see.

      IMHO, if you start using a phrase that makes your intention clearer to the unenlightened then perhaps this road bump might be easier to get over. In essence…

      If you call your new political party after what’s it does on the box, then the stupid, the lazy, the disengaged, the ignorant, and even the Scottish Media will understand your purpose in this much more clearly. My suggestion to achieve this might be one of the following…

      WoS-Rid-The-Tories-From-Holyrood-List Party

      The-ScotParl-Majority-Indy-List Party

      Help-TheSNP-Get-Fairness-On-TheList-ForIndy Party

      The-Only-Way-To-Sack-Murdo-Fraser Party.

      You get the point?

      Wings Over Scotland has a brilliant article and series of explanations on how and why a new party would get us well over a majority of Indy MSPs in 2021. The problem: TLDR (Too Long Didn’t Read).

      But if large tranches of the SNP are against this, then that requires to be addressed.

      As I write this, a dedicated team are working on ensuring a MINORITY of Indy MSPs are returned in 2021 because a MAJORITY of Indy MSPs represents an existential threat to the Union.

      A WoS List Hoover political party may be the only way we guarantee an INDYREF2.

      Stuart Campbell gets the importance of that. How can some SNP folk not understand this vital boost to guaranteeing a second Scottish Independence Referendum.

      Or should we go hire Dominic Cummings to help get the message across!

    310. Doug says:

      For those of you who skimmed the Guardian/Observer article today “Is Scotland finally set to bid farewell to the Union?” the full poem quoted from Boris Johnson’s version of the Spectator:

      The Scotch – what a verminous race!
      Canny, pushy, chippy, they’re all over the place,
      Battening off us with false bonhomie,
      Polluting our stock, undermining our economy.
      Down with sandy hair and knobbly knees!
      Suppress the tartan dwarves and the Wee Frees!
      Ban the kilt, the skean-dhu and the sporran
      As provocatively, offensively foreign!
      It’s time Hadrian’s Wall was refortified
      To pen them in a ghetto on the other side.
      I would go further. The nation
      Deserves not merely isolation
      But comprehensive extermination.
      We must not flinch from a solution.
      (I await legal prosecution.)

      it has since been deleted from the Spectator’s website.

    311. aulbea1 says:

      Count me & my family members in. SNP 1 – Wings Party 2 ( whatever name). This will be good.

    312. Clapper57 says:

      o/t

      I’m just wondering….how long it will take for those ‘liberal’ minded anti Brexit pundits to realise that using ‘will destroy the Union’ is, for many in England and indeed Scotland, NOT a winning argument against Brexit ?

    313. Cubby says:

      The Scottish parliament voting system (D’Hondt)

      In my experience people do not have a clue how this works.

      In my experience some people ( a very small number) think they know how it works but they don’t.

      In my experience it is near nigh impossible to explain to people how it works. It might help if you are a maths teacher but I doubt it.

      In my experience people understand FPTP and therefore grasp how the first vote works but cannot get to grips with the interaction between the number of seats gained via the first vote affecting the number of seats gained in the second vote. Fundamentally, it seems counter intuitive to them and unfair so they find it hard to understand it.

      In my experience people ask why do we need different voting systems.

    314. Suzanne says:

      This is a great idea. Trust the MSM and others to get the wrong end of the stick, though.

      This makes perfect sense and helps us the the D’Hondt method of seat allocation to our advantage. If voting SNP twice doesn’t automatically mean that we get a higher seat allocation for votes 1 and 2 and that we lose our second votes to unionist parties, then yes, let’s have a second Indy party that will win those second votes.

      If anyone has a good reason why this isn’t a good idea, please do say, because I can’t see any drawbacks.

    315. Jimmock says:

      Lots of people commenting do not seem to understand how the holyrood voting system works. If a party contests no seats in a region they would probably win a list seat with as little as 10% of the list vote. I have been advocating the idea of a list only Independence Party ever since the last holyrood election and since the repeal of the OBAF act I have given up on the Green Party. There is no need to have any accommodation with other parties to make this work. Online and leaflet information combined with word of mouth would reach enough voters to guarantee at least one list seat in each region. These seats would be won at the expense of the unionists and at very little financial output. The parliament would then have a genuine pro independence majority that would demonstrate the determination of the people of Scotland to run our own affairs.

    316. Tony O"neill says:

      I think Stu, you might need to do an idiot guide piece on how holyrood voting works and the the list vote. Just for the hard of thinking in the snp and the yes movement.

    317. Gullaneno4 says:

      The unionists are not playing fair with the Scottish Governments voting system so I cannot see how they can object to a second vote independence party.
      You have to work with what you have.
      There is nothing ‘improper’ about a second party, voters know what they are voting for.
      The unionist parties use of the voting system is IMO unethical as voters do not know what they are voting for.

    318. Reluctant Nationalist says:

      All hail Abulhaq from crapistan. He brings us nebulous armchair-general incitement, effetely.

      No, don’t swoon madam!

    319. Hamish100 says:

      DerekM
      Wingers “waiting on you getting your act together since 2014 do we wingers have to hold your hand for ever?
      I think you are mixing it “agent provocateur”.

    320. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “You would be far better off supporting candidates in the wing in the SNP that supports a hard-line on independence, or with a pro-indy anti-EU party, which may get some traction.”

      You don’t support candidates in the regional list. The SNP chooses them.

      “Maybe it would be possible to combine your resources with groups that actually have some kind of outreach”

      Who has more reach than us?

      “I am not even sure you will split the indy vote in any meaningful way.”

      No harm done, then.

    321. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Come the time of a Holyrood election where Independence is up for grabs then a pact between the SNP and greens for the purpose of achieving the goal of Independence can be made.”

      No it can’t. Not only is it not going to happen politically, it would be expressly against electoral law regarding Holyrood elections.

    322. Jack Murphy says:

      Re the name of any new Yes party it MUST include the word ‘LIST in it’s name to avoid CONFUSION for those in Scotland who do not fully understand our PR system for the Scottish Parliament.

      NO ifs or buts,the word ‘LIST’ MUST appear on the Ballot Paper.——whichever word precedes or follows List is up for debate.

      eg: List Yes
      OR List Independence
      OR Independence List
      OR Yes List

      Just four random examples.

    323. Hamish100 says:

      Re the d’hondt methodology surely the Electoral Commission or other group can provide info on the rules governing a party or individual on the list.

    324. Jimmock says:

      People just don’t get it. If the SNP gets 40% of the list vote and wins 6 out of 8 constituency seats it wins 0 list seats. If the SNP gets 40% of the list vote but only wins 5 out of 8 constituency seats it still win 0 list seats. Tories win 1 constituency seat and get 25% of list vote = 2/3 list seats. Labour win one constituency seat and get 20% of list vote = 2/3 list seats. Lib Dem’s win 0 constituency seats and get 8% of list vote = 1 list seat. Brexit party and Greens fight it out for 1 seat if still available.

    325. Jockanese Wind Talker says:

      In North East Scotland Region we got:

      Conservative: Alex Johnstone; Ross Thomson; Peter Chapman and Liam Kerr for 85,848 list votes

      Labour: Jenny Marra and Lewis MacDonald for 38,791 list votes

      Liberal Democrats: Mike Rumbles for 18,444 list votes

      That’s a whole lot of shite British Nationalist MSPs for only 143,083 Regional List Votes.

      The SNP got ZERO List MSPs despite getting 137,086 votes (just 5,997 less than the combined BritNat total)!

    326. mr thms says:

      #Muscleguy @ 9:11 am

      You said

      “When we first moved up here (back up in my case) in 1999 I voted SNP as I’ve always been in favour of Independence. But you may recall people were rooting up trial GM crops and the SNP supported them. I engaged in an email discussion with someone in head office over the matter and their attitude made me stop voting SNP.”

      I don’t recall SNP support for GM crops?

      From 2015

      https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/farmers-alarmed-at-snp-pledge-to-ban-gm-crops-1-3853361

      “Farmers alarmed at SNP pledge to ban GM crops”

      On the other hand..

      https://www.farming.co.uk/news/boris-johnsons-call-for-uk-gmo-crops-draws-support-from-farm-union

      “Boris Johnson’s Call for U.K. GMO Crops Draws Support From Farm Union”

      I checked the SNP website –

      https://www.snp.org/policies/pb-why-have-the-scottish-government-banned-gm-crops/

      “Why have the Scottish Government banned GM crops?

      The SNP Scottish Government took the decision to opt out of the use of GM crops to protect Scotland’s environment and support Scottish agriculture. Scotland is world renowned for its natural, high quality food and drink, and this is greatly promoted both at home and abroad by our reputation for being clean and green. This is a key strength of Scottish agriculture and it is important that we take steps to protect this. The use of GM crops could threaten the integrity of this brand, and therefore banning their cultivation is central to its protection and promotion.

      As there is no clear evidence of a demand for GM products in Scotland – indeed, consumers remain sceptical of GM produce – there is no sense in going down this potentially damaging route. We will protect the sector’s international reputation by continuing our opt-out of the cultivation of genetically modified crops for the lifetime of this Scottish Parliament.

      Scotland’s Rural Secretary Fergus Ewing has also written to the UK government to seek assurances that it will not impose cultivation of GM crops against Scotland’s will as a result of their Brexit plans.”

    327. Marie Clark says:

      Clydebuilt @ 10.06 Shona Craven may work for the National, but she
      was quite proud to tell us that she voted No in the indyref when she started writing there. So no surprise that she’s a BBC go to.

      I find it very difficult at times to read her column.

    328. I think that a Wings party as described would be good. But for obvious reasons I hope it is not needed.

      However if it is, selecting candidates would be important, as there is/are sleeper unionist/77 brigade people on here, I am sure. Must be careful also that genuine yessers may get carried away with ego, wanting to be candidates. Care to be taken as we certainly want to avoid division.

      The principle is sound and also (on second thoughts) it could be used even if we have had indyref2 and we are independent, because with our voting system after independence (at least for the next 2 or 3 elections) we want to make sure we have a competent government.

      Last thing we need is unionist, labour tory or Lib Dem party being anywhere near power for awhile after independence.

    329. DerekM says:

      Hamish100

      Tell me what part of that was not true?

      agent provocateur your damn right i am,except i work for the Scottish peoples freedom and if i have to ruffle a few feathers to do it then so be it.

      But then i guess you have not spent the last 5 years infiltrating the unionist organisations or influencing the brexit and remain groups in England.

      So come on Mr ruffled feathers tell me what you have done?

    330. Colin Alexander says:

      If the SNP don’t use the 4x mandate they already have for indyref they will be toast.

      For, if the SNP did not act on a 4x mandate for an independence referendum etc, what would be the point of voting for them again?

      The SNP would be as guilty as the UK Govt, Labour etc of ignoring the democratic will of the people for indyref.

      They weren’t elected to be administrators of Union devolution or to save the Union from Brexit.

    331. HandandShrimp says:

      No surprise that the media would portray a hypothetical discussion on how to raid the disproportionate number of list seats going to unionist parties as “taking on the SNP”. It isn’t as if we haven’t seen such blatant misrepresentation from them before. However, it is a little disheartening to see independence supporters going off half cock on the basis of headlines in media sources they would not normally trust. That said some of the criticism I have seen may be crocodile tears from concern trolls more concerned with “woke politics” (whatever that might be) than securing a cast iron Indy majority in Holyrood.

      It is an interesting idea which if executed successfully would no doubt have the unionist parties demanding rule changes to the voting system. Hopefully though we will have an Indy vote before 2021 so it may remain an academic exercise.

    332. Ken500 says:

      D’hond’t should be a load of toast. The voters do no understand it. No one does. The third rate losers win. If should be changed back to FPTP. The most popular for good reason. No one can out vote the most unpopular candidates on the list. Just a joke. They reappear time and time again with hardly any votes. First preference votes go in the bin. To let third rate losers in. People think they have to chose a different 2nd Party preference candidate.

    333. mr thms says:

      Power over elections was devolved in the Scotland Act 2016.

      I doubt the list system will be the same in 2021.

    334. Robert Peffers says:

      O/T:

      Interesting subject on, “The Full Scottish today:-

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TfUvmkD-GY

      It is running live but you can watch on YouTube from the start.

      Anyway it just highlights how the Westminster propaganda is unconsciously used by Scottish indy supporters. They speak of the SNP as, “The Nationalist Party”, just as Westminster has primed them to do. However the “N”, in SNP is not for, ” Nationalist”, it stands for, “National. i.e. the party of the nation of Scotland and as the party of the nation it includes those who are not Scots born or those who support the Union.

      Yet we have a constant whine going on here on Wings against the SNP urging them NOT to support the whole nation but only those who are part of the nation that the whiners think the SNP should not support.

      Which makes those whiners no better than the British Nationalists who are against all Johnny Foreigners Nicola is correct in supporting everyone in Scotland and not just those who vote the Scottish National Party. I may be wrong but I think the rise in support for independence by, “English Scots for independence”, and from many other non-Scots born people plays a significant part in the rise of support for both the SNP and for independence.

    335. schrodingers cat says:

      K1 says:
      Just a wee acknowledgement to Schrod’s cat…aye…you have been on this for the last year or so…rubbished/debated by many btl, credit were it’s due ?
      ———-
      TX K1

    336. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      I typed this last night:
      “Brian Doonthetoon says:
      10 August, 2019 at 8:57 pm

      Perhaps some reading here should do a spot of revision?

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/ams-for-lazy-people/

      There is NO requirement for any party to put up candidates for the constituency vote.

      A party (or individual) can put up candidates for ONLY the regional vote, where you are voting for a party, not individuals on that party’s regional list.

      Please stop referring to “list”, “first vote”, “second vote” and so on.

      One vote is to elect a constituency MSP by ‘first past the post’; the other vote is to elect regional MSPs, by voting for a party, using the method explained in the above link.”

      As a wee exercise, I looked at the published opinion poll for Holyrood, featured here on March 07, 2019:-

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/back-down-the-slide/

      Here are the two sets of figures:

      Holyrood voting intentions (constituency):

      SNP 41% (nc)
      Con 27% (+2)
      Lab 19% (-4)
      LD 8% (+2)
      Grn 3% (nc)
      UKIP 2% (+1)

      Holyrood voting intentions (region):

      SNP 36% (-2)
      Con 26% (nc)
      Lab 19% (-3)
      LD 9% (+2)
      Grn 6% (nc)
      UKIP 3% (+2)

      I entered these figures into the Holyrood predictor at:-

      http://www.scotlandvotes.com/holyrood

      For the constituency vote, the results were:
      SNP – 57 seats
      Green – 4 seats
      Con – 35
      Lab – 23
      Lib-Dem – 10

      As you can see, the two pro-indy parties have a total of 61 seats.
      The three anti-indy parties have a total of 68 seats.
      No chance of another referendum then.

      However, if there was a pro-indy party standing only for the regional vote (therefore with no constituency seats) and it could get even half of the SNP regional vote to switch, what would happen?
      I’ll use the Greens as an example here, because the WOS party doesn’t exist yet.
      Holyrood voting intentions (region) would then be:
      SNP 18%
      Con 26%
      Lab 19%
      LD 9%
      Grn 24%
      UKIP 3%

      The Holyrood predictor then shows,

      SNP – 53 seats (losing the 4 regional seats it has now)
      Green – 24 seats
      Con – 27
      Lab – 19
      Lib-Dem – 6.

      So the pro-indy parties have 77 seats; the anti-indy parties have 52 seats.

      Which scenario is preferable if we go into the election in 2021, not yet independent?

    337. Unionist Media BDSM Club says:

      Jack Murphy says:
      11 August, 2019 at 11:59 am
      Re the name of any new Yes party it MUST include the word ‘LIST in it’s name to avoid CONFUSION for those in Scotland who do not fully understand our PR system for the Scottish Parliament…

      eg: List Yes
      OR List Independence
      OR Independence List
      OR Yes List

      ———————

      Best proposal so far.

      Maybe something like ‘Yes – Regional List Only’ for absolute clarity. As you say, anything less than total clarity here could be worse than useless.

    338. schrodingers cat says:

      Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
      11 August, 2019 at 11:55 am
      “Come the time of a Holyrood election where Independence is up for grabs then a pact between the SNP and greens for the purpose of achieving the goal of Independence can be made.”
      ————–

      No it can’t. Not only is it not going to happen politically, it would be expressly against electoral law regarding Holyrood elections.
      —————

      This is correct and very important, the snp could have nothing to do with a list indy party or any other party, no agreements or endorsements, otherwise, as stu says, they would fall foul of the electoral commission.

      this shouldnt be a problem, the unionist voters are clever enough to vote tactically, so why cant we?

      the best the snp could do is to drop the “ken500 vote snp 1 and 2” slogan

      with hindsight, kezia and rennie both sailed very close to the edge promoting tactical voting in the 2017 ge and 2016 he. they got away with it. we wont.

      the point about an indy party not being required if we hold indyref2 before the next holyrood election is NOT moot, we will need to do this regardless to ensure an indy majority in holyrood after a yes vote, if not, a unionist grand coalition, a very real prospect at the moment, would seek to reverse a yes vote.

    339. Iain Lennox says:

      I really don’t think calling the proposed party “Wings” or anything else involving the name of Stu’s blog is a good idea.
      It would be preferable (in my opinion) to start afresh.

      How about “Advance”
      As in Advance To Independence.
      As in “Advance Party”

      And no – Robert Peffers – one doesn’t have to stand candidates in FPTP seats in order to put fwd a list for the Regional List.
      You’ve been over-selective in reading the Parliament’s explanation of how the D’Hondt system works.

    340. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      I detest the use of the word “LIST”!

      It’s a regional vote for a PARTY.

      “YES Independence Party” works for me…

    341. schrodingers cat says:

      one thing stu, in the south of scotland region, the snp do pick up list msp seats, due the the small number of constituency msps elected in that region. it might be wise to consider leaving that particular region alone, allowing the snp a free run.

      the stats for the other 7 regions are much more compelling,

      in 7 of the 8 regions, 850,000 snp votes elected 1 snp list msp, marie todd (we owe her no favours)

      in fife and mid scot, 6 unionist and 1 green list msps were elected. had everyone in this region who voted green on the list voted snp instead, the unionists would have won all 7 list msps.
      FACT.

      stus project isnt an attack on the green party, people can still vote green on the list if they want, it is to get those who vote snp on the list to vote tactically for another indy party. Sure, the greens would want the snp voters to back them on the list, but the fact is, the yes voters dont trust the greens enough to do this. the result in 2016 proved this and the green party antics since then have done nothing to reverse this simple reality. Indeed, i expect the greens will crash and burn at the next he regardless of this project

    342. schrodingers cat says:

      having read the holyrood election rules, one thing i’m uncertain off is how much it costs to stand candidates? ie, its £500 per consstituency candidate but how much is it for list candidates? eg 3 candidates in 7 regions is 21, x 500 is £10,500

      i can find no confirmation about this

      ps, a good name for this new indy party? SNP2

      it would save us a fortune in advertising and leaflets etc 🙂

    343. Mark says:

      This sounds promising – count me in.

    344. rod mackenzie says:

      This would have to be thought about very carefully – advise should be sought from all sides and we would have to think about the possible moves against us from the unionists – candidates could be a problem and would have to be totally clean with very tough skin etc.
      However, it does sound an interesting idea that should be considered. As a long-term SNP member I would go for this if it was proven to not damage the SNP vote in any way or reduce or split the overall yes movement.

    345. Golfnut says:

      @ James Caithness.

      Absolutely agree that a second independence party ( list only ) should be in place for the 2021 Holyrood elections. If the Britnat party’s managed ( assisted) to gain a majority, we would be back to square one. Clearing the dross out of Holyrood, or at least reducing it to irrelevance is essential for our country to move forward.

    346. Hamish100 says:

      DerekM says:
      11 August, 2019 at 12:31 pm
      Hamish100

      Tell me what part of that was not true?

      agent provocateur your damn right i am,except i work for the Scottish peoples freedom and if i have to ruffle a few feathers to do it then so be it.

      But then i guess you have not spent the last 5 years infiltrating the unionist organisations or influencing the brexit and remain groups in England.

      So come on Mr ruffled feathers tell me what you have done.

      Eh thanks for admitting you are an agent provocateur!! Such honesty.

      For you it appears Independence started around 2014. For many of us it started as members in the 1970’s being spat upon as we tried to deliver leaflets around our towns and cities. Held office in snp branches across various locations and on occasion could only sigh as 3 folk turned up to a branch meeting and 1 of them mistook an AA night. Most activists I know get on with the job in the snp without fear or favour. They fight for the truism that the best people to Govern Scotland are the people. The SNP have led that fight and continues to do so with the added complication of being in government. Nae harm to you but WOS is not always looked on with the Rosie specs you have. In fact for some sitting on the Independence fence it puts folk off. The debacle of Dugdale pushed the movement back. It tainted rightly or wrongly the whole independence movement all because of thoughtless personal comments. This is my view. Others will disagree. We don’t need to convince WOS supporters we need to convince the doubters and the naysayers. I think the infiltration of unionist organisations by yourself is an interesting concept. Are you in the BB? For me in my younger days we used to have the Scottish Socialist Republican Party visiting running the snp down as tartan Tories. SSRP probably had as many supporters as Clyde on a bad day. Keep up the good work although your clandestine work has been exposed!! For me I will continue delivering the leaflets, attending meetings persuading family and work colleagues. After nearly 50 years I am pretty adept at it and the yes the desire for Independence has never wained.

    347. haudonthenoo says:

      Alliance for YES = AYES.

      Simple eh ?

    348. Bob Mack says:

      I’m still laughing at the reaction to your proposed setting up of a political party. Everybody and their aunt is coming out from behind the woodwork to state what a bad thing it would be. Even independence supporters (who feel you may steal their thunder), are up in arms.

      Please please please do it Rev. You may be rough and abrasive on twitter, and very amusing too, but you never lie or deceive intentionally. You always call it as it is.

      That alone is somewhat of a novelty these days.

      I hope the angst amongst Unionists and so called indy supporters continues for weeks. Can’t buy such amusement.

    349. Jack Murphy says:

      call me dave said at 10:24 am:

      ” Oh! Before I forget Radio 4 ? Last night Queen’s alleged remarks after the referendum and Cameron’s early morning statement about EVEL…….”

      PM Tory Cameron following the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum results.

      September 2014. Channel 4 News:
      ” David Cameron is overheard telling former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg that the Queen “PURRED DOWN THE LINE” when he gave the result of the Scottish referendum. ”

      It’s on YouTube with Subtitles:

      https://tinyurl.com/y28ng66s

    350. defo says:

      Catchy, clever,apt. What’s not to like haudonthenoo.

    351. Confused says:

      brian doon the toon at 12.59 – this is what I spent almost an entire evening playing with – it is jaw dropping when you start plugging numbers in

      – when you play with the dhondt model you find there is a massive DEADZONE where additional list votes add no more seats for the SNP – it is HUGE – about 20 ro 45%, you only get 4 or 5 list seats, then it goes up again

      – then you realise, this is not an accident – the system is deliberately rigged from the outset to produce minorty govts, which end up governing via backroom deals, which tend to support the status quo

      holyrood is designed to – NOT BE ABLE TO DO VERY MUCH AT ALL

      when the other guys have rigged it, theres no shame in rigging it back

      you might not get “it” done as quickly as you would like – the UK is not going to hand over the keys, it can dig its heels, get up to all kinds

      if you get a unionist majority in 2021, then we are stuffed
      if you had
      50 SNP MPs
      80-90 pro indy MDPs
      – its much better

    352. cynicalHighlander says:

      Brian Doonthetoon says:
      11 August, 2019 at 1:11 pm
      I detest the use of the word “LIST”!

      It’s a regional vote for a PARTY.

      “YES Independence Party” works for me…

      “YES Independence LIST Party “

    353. Colin Alexander says:

      Can anyone explain to me why any indy supporter would still be voting SNP in 2021 if the SNP don’t use their 4x mandate for indyref2?

      Please avoid the pejorative answers such as ” cos they are mugs”, as it’s a serious question, not an invitation to slag SNP supporters.

    354. Effijy says:

      SNP in reverse PNS.

      Party for New Scotland!

      Wings has been a revelation for me and the solitary
      Source of balanced factual journalism headed up
      By a man who isn’t in it for his own pockets and Betty Tokens.

      I do think the corrupt UK media reports on Wings has tainted
      Our reputation with many of our seniors and a party name such
      As Wings would be confusing to them.

      I’d say we were a Party if Truth, Anti-Westminster corruption, of
      Scotland for the people by the people.

      Watched a TV show about Westminster Tories fighting to stop Welsh Miners
      and common workers from having a vote.
      They had a Key Welshman doing England’s dirty work for them.
      The Welsh has their own name for them in their own language.

      Over to Welsh Sion for that one.

    355. Effijy says:

      Colin,

      I’d say we would lose Indy ref 2 as our current lead in the polls
      Would be subjected to record breaking levels of propaganda across
      The UK media. The Queen will be brought back in, Gordon Klunker
      Brown will have a nightly TV show, the latest Cambridge Analytics groups
      Will be hired to high Jack the internet and 10’s £Millions in dark money
      Will be laundered from unknown international accounts through the DUP,
      Civil Servants will again illegally be bribed and used.

      We need the horrors of a No deal Brexit to be confirmed before we have
      Any chance of regaining our Freedom.

    356. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Suzanne @ 11:34,

      The idea has merit for the reasons given, because the list seats are allocated by taking account of the constituency seats already won yet in overall proportion to the list votes alone. Complicated by the fact that too many people still think that the list vote is for some other preference than their first.

      The potential snag isn’t a trivial one, though, and we are reminded of it by (our) James Kelly. It only works for a party that is assured of commanding the vast majority of constituency seats. (As always presumed and intended for the Labour Party, of course, but look what has since happened to them.) The SNP used to get the vast majority of its MSPs via the list, though people seem to have forgotten that. JK’s point is that there are still a fair number of constituencies where the win could swing either way on a small shift in voter sentiment. So there’s a potential risk in depriving the SNP of backup wins via the list.

      The strategy thus has the potential to backfire massively. The obvious BritNat countermeasure would be to stand only one Unionist party in each constituency, as Plaid and the Greens did in the recent by-election, or have the fig-leaf of competition by standing a no-hoper with no publicity and a tacit nod at a “rival”, as was actually done with some success by them in 2017. (So we had the unseemly spectacle of the Tories winning in Gordon, a constituency once the stronghold of their one-time bitter NE rivals the LibDems, before AS entered the scene.)

    357. Effijy says:

      Colin,

      Again I give this to you.

      The First Minister asked for just 300,000 signatures on her
      Independence Petition below.

      The numbers are still increasing slowly but after decals weeks
      We are only now approaching 90% of the confidence confirming
      Target that she set us?

      Still hope to reach that number but will need all of us to pull out all the stops
      And plead with all our contacts to get us there.

    358. Effijy says:

      First Ministers Independence Petition

      https://www.yes.scot/

    359. Col.Blimp IV says:

      “Militaristic Logo”?

      Is there a corresponding belligerent ditty?

      How about adapting the old football song.

      …I’d fly over, Westminster tomorrow
      and shite on the bastards below… .

    360. Clapper57 says:

      O/T

      A gripe…generated via viewing too many panel shows with alternate comedians , non Scottish, as guests…free for all on Scot bashing cheap laughs…petty , I know, but perhaps more relevant than we think….especially now in English BrexitLand.

      You know I remember a time when panel show guests used to make jokes about Scots and Scotland…when it was decried by Scots…we were told to …get a sense of humour…it’s only banter….stop taking it all so serious Jocks.

      NOW…we ‘Jocks’ can laugh at the new Joke on the block…the English Brexiteers…except that too is not funny…oh and now we Scots can have a sense of ironic humour , indulge in the irony filled banter and ironically take it as serious as those panel show guests now do……

      That’s the problem with consistently having a joke at the expense of the dour Scots….you forget about your own home grown idiots and fail to see that your fellow countrymen, while you are distracted slating the Jocks with ‘banter’, have the capability of being actually….

      A much bigger source of ridicule inducing ‘banter’, unabashed self destructive BritNat Union Jack waving fanatics, endless ‘taught’ slogan bearers and beyond embarrassment that I would say far surpasses anything you once ridiculed the Scots of being guilty of through your ‘banter’………pity they, the panel show guests, saw fit to consistently target the Scots character as an easy source for their ‘humour’ badly disguised as ‘banter’…those badly disguised jokes that were clearly meant to be yet another exercise in Scot bashing…assumed acceptable as via comedians…of sort ….I guess what comes around goes around.

      What’s that joke again….about certain UKOK nationalities in a bar….which nationality was it that always came out as the idiot or the mean one and which one always came out on top ? ….not now I think ..guess some jokes need new punchlines….as do some panel show guests…Lol

    361. PictAtRandom says:


      James_McIntyre says:
      10 August, 2019 at 7:24 pm

      Maybe it would be possible to combine your resources with groups that actually have some kind of outreach, but I am not sure who that would be since your enemies among the “Wokenats” are the most obvious allies in any alt-indy movement (unless you opt for going to the right of the SNP).

      You would be far better off supporting candidates in the wing in the SNP that supports a hard-line on independence, or with a pro-indy anti-EU party, which may get some traction.

      There’s some sense in this. I think it would be grotesque for there to be three EUroRegionalist parties — SNP, Wings and Green — and no way in which the more conservative orthodox nationalists could be represented. Of course, it would send a message that certain people’s votes weren’t wanted and could trigger the formation of a real nationalist alliance.

      One thing about a new party is that its supporters could not be bound by the Salmondite – Sturgeonite “once in a generation” stuff.

    362. defo says:

      Humans like being on, or associated with the winning team.
      (See Rangers pre/post Souness , and a million other examples.)
      With Ashcrofts uncannily well timed poll, I see it as thePNR :-), Yes is the only direction of travel for switherers and ditherers.

      I’ve long seen our dear leader as a potentially first rate politician, frustrated by deep self awareness.
      This seems like a logically sound idea, but a career in politics?
      Would the’AYES’party melt away post indy?
      A taste of power is usually enough to trigger a hunger for it.

      Slogan of the week
      Your Union may be Precious, but our Independence is Priceless !

    363. Tony O"neill says:

      Hi stu, I think the wings party is a great idea and should be pursued. Also how about doing some pieces on here how indy could create thousands of new jobs here.

    364. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Clapper57

      I noticed a big upsurge in that sort of thing, but aimed more specifically at Separatists, as Indref approached, shows like Have I got News for You and Mock the Week were full of it, even Q.I. got in on the act.

      Irish and Colonial comedians were very much to the fore … scum of the Universe, selling out their birthright to please their new paymasters.

    365. Sinky says:

      To succeed the SNP will have to agree to not standing any candidates in Regional seats. Otherwise a very interesting idea.

    366. Col.Blimp IV says:

      I of course did not mean All Irish and Colonial comedians.

      but it was more than just Dara O’Brien and Katherine Ryan.

    367. Stoker says:

      Brian Doonthetoon wrote on 11 August, 2019 at 1:11 pm

      “I detest the use of the word “LIST”! It’s a regional vote for a PARTY.“YES Independence Party” works for me…”

      YIP! Works for me! If this whole idea started germinating & putting down roots you can count me in but….

      Stuart, you should stay well clear & remain focused on what you do best – exposing the BritNats & their ways etc.

      @Schrodingers Cat, If there’s one person i pay attention to on this subject it’s you but your ‘SNP2’ suggestion for a name? You been sniffing the funny stuff?

      Folks, take note of the usual suspects trying to derail what was a good thread & saturate it with direct links to BUM rags & take the discussion off topic. BUM rags that are responsible for helping to create the shameful position Scotland finds itself in.

      These so-called indy supporters are helping those rags to maintain a readership base. And they’re helping the BUM to rake in important finances via advertising revenues & gaining new readers etc etc.

      BTW, the article at the top of this WOS piece attempts to reinforce the “referendum created division” scare tactic which Stuart answered admirably but notice once again how there’s absolutely no reference to the centuries of religious division the BritNat Unionists have created, fuelled & encouraged via the Orange Order & other hate-filled organisations?

      Have a great Sunday, folks, or what remains of it.

    368. Welsh Sion says:

      Effijy @ 2.18pm

      You’re right of course.

      I’m actually a North Westerner so more familiar with the below than I am with the coal miners. Not least as my ancestors were also small holders who also worked in the slate quarries. Some of my relatives died there. Others perished in the coal mines.

      Penrhyn was the longest strike in ‘UK’ history.

      https://tuc150.tuc.org.uk/stories/the-great-penrhyn-quarry-strike/

    369. Clachangowk says:

      Where is guarantee that SNP will win all constituency seats?
      Both votes for SNP absolute must

    370. Petra says:

      Oh well I’ve been reading through the comments on here and it looks as though the vast majority of posters, including the obvious pretendy wee supporters (food for thought), reckon that this is a great idea. However putting the actual idea to one side for a moment and getting right down to the basics, does anyone really think that Stuart Campbell is going to generate support from ordinary Scottish voters (including the ”stupid, the lazy, the disengaged, the ignorant”), when the MSM dredge up every vulgar and nasty comment that he has ever made on Twitter over the years? Dozens of them. He won’t just bring the ”new party” into disrepute, imo, but the whole Independence movement, in particular as he tries to win votes for Independence? on the back of castigating Nicola Sturgeon / the SNP at every turn.

      Al-Stuart (11:26) has stated, ”IMHO, if you start using a phrase that makes your intention clearer to the unenlightened then perhaps this road bump might be easier to get over. In essence…

      If you call your new political party after what’s it does on the box, then the stupid, the lazy, the disengaged, the ignorant, and even the Scottish Media will understand your purpose in this much more clearly. My suggestion to achieve this might be one of the following…

      WoS-Rid-The-Tories-From-Holyrood-List Party

      The-ScotParl-Majority-Indy-List Party

      Help-TheSNP-Get-Fairness-On-TheList-ForIndy Party

      The-Only-Way-To-Sack-Murdo-Fraser Party.

      You get the point?”

      Well I reckon that most of the people that we need to convert don’t spend a lot of time on the Internet and are more likely to watch the BBC / read newspapers, so we can forget about any of the positive messages that you’ve listed, Al, reaching them at all. Do you really think that the MSM, even the Times that Stu ran to to give an interview to, FGS, will help the Scots to understand what the concept is all about? … ”If you call your new political party after what’s it does on the box (the Scots) will understand your purpose in this much more clearly.” Well I don’t. As I’ve said already the message that they’ll convey is that Stu is an extremely, nasty, wee man, over and over and over again, (and will have loads of evidence to support their view / will exaggerate) and of course will publicise, make a meal of, every negative comment that he has to say about Nicola Sturgeon / the SNP.

      Even his most benign of comments as to why he doesn’t want to live in Scotland, but accepts hundreds of thousands of pounds in crowdfunding money from the Scots, will get up the nose of many .. ”At the moment my position is I don’t want to live in the most gutless country in the world. I would cringe every day stepping out my front door and looking around thinking: ‘God, you people won’t even run your own affairs.’

      All I see happening now is the Unionists latching on to the ”list vote” idea and forming their own ”United” party of Tories, Labourites and Libdems and maybe even SNP supporters, like Sillars, who want Brexit (depending on the contents of their party manifesto), which would probably negate what Stu plans to do. More so, just create one horrendous mess. A better plan in fact couldn’t have been conjured up by the Unionists themselves.

      If this venture was really thought through and ultimately deemed to be a constructive way forward, the best thing that Stu could do, in the interests of Scotland, is to stand down as the front man and let someone else take over the reins, such as Professor John Robertson who has intimated his interest in the scheme.

    371. annie says:

      I think this is an excellent idea, I’d be more than happy to give my second vote to a pro indy party.

    372. Clapper57 says:

      @ Col.Blimp IV @ 3.06PM

      Yep, you’re right Col.Blimp IV…was even on ‘The Last Leg’ show in their last episode..host Adam Hills even said something to the effect of “please Scottish people don’t start contacting us and complaining …it’s just fun etc etc”….re Irish etc…remember Terry Wogan..wow…he knew what side his Brittania bread was buttered on…though he was no comedian…light entertainer..emphasis on LIGHT..Lol

      So when does a long running joke stop being funny ?

      I always thought if you are constantly the butt of a ‘joke’ that eventually it becomes less of a joke and more of a case of bullying…plus it kinda gives out the message that you, the person who delivers the joke, see yourself as superior to the target of your joke…and the subliminal message is indeed that.

      So many battles to be won on so many fronts…when are they just going to realise we really really are most emphatically NOT better together but potentially….we could be so much better apart….well in the current climate …Scotland could be ….boom boom as they say.

      Speaking of Boom Boom…I believe Basil Brush…yes I am talking about THE Basil Brush…has a show in Edinburgh Fringe where even that wee faux fox has crap jokes targeting the Scots…the bottom of the barrel has now been scraped…see Brexit and Unionism has reduced me to slating Basil piggin Brush dissing us……but I had to go there cause that’s the level they have descended to….now that is NO joke…Lol

    373. Dr Jim says:

      The motives of politicians or would be politicians are always suspect as to what they say as opposed to what they do if or when elected, it’s bad enough having to tolerate the Greens Patrick Harvie for examples of that, the thought of introducing a whole load of others who could if they wanted turn out to be as bad as them is a worrying prospect

      Once you put a *person* politician in Holyrood they can do or say what they want, and they can get away with doing it for a full term for lovely free money

      Holyrood is already full of untrustworthy and or thick people how does anybody trust any new party would be any different, just because you might have heard of someone doesn’t mean you know them or should trust them

      You could end up with a whole load of Annie Wells or Patrick Harvies and we’ve had more than enough of them already

    374. Petra says:

      @ Effijy says at 2:41 pm … Colin, again I give this to you. The First Minister asked for just 300,000 signatures on her Independence Petition below. The numbers are still increasing slowly but after decals weeks we are only now approaching 90% of the confidence confirming Target that she set us? Still hope to reach that number but will need all of us to pull out all the stops And plead with all our contacts to get us there.”

      https://www.yes.scot/

      Well done to you for keeping this going Effijy. What about Stewart Campbell getting it onto Twitter? That would help, help the Independence cause immensely, no doubt.

    375. Ghillie says:

      McBoxheid @ 6.27 am and @ 6.28 am You are talking a lot of good sense there =)

      I will be voting SNP SNP 🙂

    376. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Petra @ 15:21,

      The BritNat parties would never formally combine (only sneakily collaborate) because they would then be restricted in expenses to one party’s worth, and likewise one share of TV time. And how they would hate to lose their usual built-in 3-on-1 advantage. OTOH a “YIP” (that was an inspired name choice,Stoker!), would have by law to get media exposure, and put their case to the otherwise-ignorant public. People might soon enough latch on.

      No, the real risk is to the SNP constituency vote, even though YIP wouldn’t be contesting it. (See my posting upthread @ 14:33.) You have to be very confident of the SNP holding all those first.

      And then again, there are other votes first. For which all of this may be quite interesting but is also unnecessarily diversionary.

    377. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Confused

      What you are saying about the D’Hondt method is correct.

      but why bother playing that system when UK general Elections are fought FPTP.

      If the SNP were amenable to standing on an Independence Nothing Less basis…

      The Unionists would have little option but to admit defeat before a shot was fired or contest as a single entity.

      A game of electoral British Bulldog that they would almost certainly loose.

      Much better to chose to fight, when your opponents are busy fighting each other somewhere else, than when they can concentrate all their efforts solely on you.

    378. Ghillie says:

      Thank you Effijy @ 2.41 pm and Petra @ 3.32 pm

      I’ve signed the Independence Petition =)

      Come on folks put your name where your mouth is 🙂

    379. Mac says:

      Repeatedly pre-moderated, blocked and then barred on the Guardian after I posted

      “How now Brown Vow?”

      I was just asking Gordon Brown where the Vow went 🙂

    380. Clapper57 says:

      @ Col.Blimp IV

      Hi Col.Blimp IV re my above response to you at 3.29pm…please note …I did NOT type ‘your comment is awaiting moderation’before my response to you…that was for my comment from this site…..me bad….just in case you thought I was being sarcastic or ‘funny’…was not.

      Cheers

    381. Legerwood says:

      Petra at 3:32 PM

      Effijy is doing a great job of keeping this front and centre and suggestion of a helping hand by mentioning it on WOS Twitter is a good one. I wonder if it will be taken up?

      The petition site also has provision for people to make a donation. I hope people do so. No matter how modest it all helps.

    382. Frank Gillougley says:

      Notwithstanding whether Mr. Peffers is correct, having read all the contributions and understood the gist of the arguments (as I ain’t no expert), obviously this as a proposal by Mr. Campbell as an idea has pros and cons.
      Pros –
      1. gives a boot up the arse to the incumbent and complacent organisational ethos of the SNP and tells them to get a move on.
      2. A Scottish parliament without all that dead list wood would be so much better and productive a place with the likes of time-served contibutors and intelligent advocates of Scottish Independence such like John Robertson, Lesley Riddoch, Paul Kavanagh et al
      3. The proposal subverts a voting system wilfully designed to maintain the devolved unionist status quo.
      Cons –
      1.I doubt if the ‘party’ so formed would wish to stop or forever limit itself to the ‘list vote’ – however I recognise that nothing is ever static. And if not, so what?
      2. Insufficient numbers of voters will understand what is being proposed here due to misleading unionist interference through the MSM. Wings is still a ‘bubble’ compared to the genereal population.
      3. The kind of representational ‘celebrity’ democracy that this would produce is maybe questionable.

      BUT, all in all, on balance, given the strange days we are in, I’d be in FAVOUR. As long as Scotland would lose the likes of Tomkins, Wells, Fraser et al.

    383. Mac says:

      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/10/very-idea-of-a-united-kingdom-being-torn-apart-by-toxic-nationalism

      They wouldn’t let me post this either.

      “The first step to solving a problem is to see it clearly.”

      Gordon Brown should take his own advice. He is so steeped in his own ideologies he finds it impossible to even consider alternative positions. And so, we get his intermittent diatribes against the SNP dressed up as intelligent analysis and insight.

      Shi(f)t happens Gordon. The terms of reference, language and political framework of your ‘era’ no longer apply.

      You rail against Johnson’s political tactics, yet you and your party have been complicit in the direction, state and perversion of politics on these islands for decades.

      We are where we are, due to the Labour Party, every bit as much as the Tory and Unionist Party. And don’t forget the number of times that these parties have been in cahoots in the broader Westminster game of keeping the establishment in power.

      You use the distasteful definition of Nationalism as a broad truncheon to beat everything outside of the Labour Party, without examining and admitting some obvious truths.

      The drive for Scottish Independence is far more inclusive, intelligent, researched and logical than you will ever admit.

      My family are all English. I am Scottish and resident in Scotland. I strongly support and advocate Scottish Independence for economic and self-determination reasons. And you would label people like me as Nationalist, just to ‘hold back the tide’.

      The thing is Gordon, you are deliberately ignoring the truth about what is going on in Scotland. You lied about the Vow, Federalization and Frigate orders… and most importantly about our membership of the EU. Now there is a backlash, a feeling in Scotland that we trusted Labour and Westminster once too often. And remaining in the EU is a very attractive option.

      I’d have had more respect for your article if you’d come out and told the truth. Perhaps your headline could have been:

      ‘Right Wing Tory Nationalism drives Scotland to look towards a better future.’ Now wouldn’t that be an attention grabber?

      I can only imagine that your regular pop-up appearances, to disagree with the current zeitgeist, are down to three things:

      1. You are so conditioned by decades in Westminster, you cannot think differently.

      2. You are paid handsomely for these newspaper rants and you like the money

      3. You know that if you continue to ‘fight for the establishment’ that you will eventually be rewarded with an ermine collar.

      So please, give us all a break in Scotland. We don’t want to hear your establishment sycophancy, your twisted, self-centred spin, or your faux advice.

      And please stop with your own versions of Project Fear.

      “But if the UK pound, the UK customs union and the UK single market all go, this desire for hard – not soft – separatism ignores the hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk of going too.”

      Every article you write, tells Scotland that they are too poor, too wee and too stupid. Give it a break.

      And you criticize McDonnell for stating the truth and supporting democracy.

      “Labour’s role should be to stand up for Britain’s true economic interests but a few days ago its shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, also fell straight into the nationalist trap, suggesting a Scottish parliament should not be frustrated by what he called the “English parliament””

      Yet you know that Scotland are democratically entitled to a referendum if they so wish. And you know that the SNP already have a clear mandate. You are also aware that Scotland and Ireland voted Remain. Why do you hide or ignore these obvious truths?

      Because you are simply intent in proving your own political position. We are all British, Nationalism is bad, and everyone should be Labour and working for the ‘socialist cause’ under Westminster control.

      Well you are wrong. Your analysis is false. Westminster is not good for Scotland. It never was, and it’s getting worse with the Blue Tories, aided and abetted by the Red Tories.

      Sadly, you quote Orwell, but you don’t apply the definition correctly or fairly to Scotland. And at the end of your article you have no solution… and the last paragraph is just a ‘fade out’ of your precious, precious Union.

      Goodbye Gordon.

    384. John McCall says:

      Not what I thought I was donating to, but that’s an aside.

      I think there’s a fundamental problem in the “let’s just scoof up pro-indy list votes”. There are no policies attached (other than supporting indy obiously). Why would the Wings party be any less likely than the Greens to chum up with other parties if it wanted some particular policy on a pet topic?

      Your article says Wings party would be middle of the road, but you need a list of credible candidates and a set of policies, perhaps even some principles before that can be evaluated.

      I see little reason to depart from SNP 1 & 2 even if there was a Wings party.

      Post indy, why not?

    385. BobW says:

      @Petra

      All I see happening now is the Unionists latching on to the ”list vote” idea and forming their own ”United” party of Tories, Labourites and Libdems

      That would require them to agree joint lists and not present party lists, then persuade all their supporters to vote the combined list. If they didn’t collude in that way the ‘new’ unionist coalition would only succeed in diluting/ stealing votes from themselves. Sweet irony. It might also fall foul of electoral law.

    386. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Does not the list vote require a registered political party to nominate candidates for a constituency before getting the chance of one from their own party’s list?”

      No. Amazingly enough I check this stuff.

      Also, at this point I’ve had quite enough of Petra.

    387. Clapper57 says:

      @ Mac @ 3.50pm

      Lol good one…Mac…the Guardian likes to think we, in Scotland, are friends in a family of nations…but without the …benefits.

      One withdrawn benefit being… taking away the right to say something funny but true….in their comments section….

    388. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Not what I thought I was donating to”

      You weren’t. Any money required for this will be raised separately.

      “Post indy, why not?”

      Because the last thing I want to be is a fucking MSP. If we get indy by 2021, job done, no need for the party to exist. If not, then of course it’ll have a bloody list of candidates and policies. Sheesh.

    389. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Clapper57 says:

      LoL I’ll look out for it escaping from the “sin bin” … If comments ever do manage to get out of there.

    390. Alan says:

      My worry isn’t about the “vote-splitting” – by 2021, there could be more than enough of the electorate to go around. I don’t like the idea of gaming the Holyrood system – if we have true majority popular support, there shouldn’t be a need to do anything like that.

      The main problem I have with this idea is, I don’t see how one person can become a full-time MSP and maintain the work WoS has been doing the past few years holding a spotlight on elected politicians’ failings.

      TBH, I’d rather see you take over BBC Scotland or STV or something like that.

    391. BobW says:

      @Rev. Stu.

      Also, at this point I’ve had quite enough of Petra.

      I’ve come to the conclusion that she is totally opposed to your proposal;-)

    392. CameronB Brodie says:

      Muscleguy
      So you are admitting that you are rationalising what you think the SNP should do to secure Scotland’s future, in terms if their approach towards good governance in the present. So not a respect of the principle of universal human rights and the rule-of-law then?

      As you appear not to have understood my comment I’ll try again. I’m not a member of the SNP.

      Do you ever allow what I write to penetration your consciousness?

    393. Juteman says:

      @Effigy.
      I’ve tried to vote many times but nothing happens when I click on the vote button.

    394. Robert says:

      Here’s an opinion worth a look: http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/

    395. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Mac @3:53

      I hope somebody re-hashes that into a eulogy and recites it at his funeral.

    396. Clapper57 says:

      Col.Blimp IV says:
      11 August, 2019 at 4:06 pm
      Clapper57 says:

      “LoL I’ll look out for it escaping from the “sin bin” … If comments ever do manage to get out of there”.

      Hi Col Blimp IV….my response to you is actually shown, at 3.29pm, but is preceded by moderation comment…me bad…always Lol

    397. defo says:

      I’ll happily take one for the team.
      Nothing to do with a meagre £63k + exes/annum

      (we can discuss your ‘drink’ in private Stu)

      🙂

    398. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Clapper57

      This is what my screen looks like in that time period … Strange? but true!

      annie says:
      11 August, 2019 at 3:22 pm
      I think this is an excellent idea, I’d be more than happy to give my second vote to a pro indy party.

      Dr Jim says:
      11 August, 2019 at 3:30 pm
      The motives of politicians or would be politicians are always suspect as to what they say as opposed to what they do if or when elected, it’s bad enough having to tolerate the Greens Patrick Harvie for examples of that, the thought of introducing a whole load of others who could if they wanted turn out to be as bad as them is a worrying prospect

      Once you put a *person* politician in Holyrood they can do or say what they want, and they can get away with doing it for a full term for lovely free money

      Holyrood is already full of untrustworthy and or thick people how does anybody trust any new party would be any different, just because you might have heard of someone doesn’t mean you know them or should trust them

      You could end up with a whole load of Annie Wells or Patrick Harvies and we’ve had more than enough of them already

    399. Clapper57 says:

      Col.Blimp IV says:
      11 August, 2019 at 4:29 pm
      Clapper57

      “This is what my screen looks like in that time period … Strange? but true!”

      Well Col Blimp IV, in true Taggart tradition….”there’s been a…moderation”…you know I always see myself as invisible in life..how fitting my comments should now mirror that fact Lol.

      Who we gonna call…….moderation busters….so basically I see, in real time, what you could not see , in real time,but now you can see what at the time, in real time, you could not see before, in real time…or words to that effect….Lol

      All’s well that ends ( with my comments now showing) well.

      Have a good evening

    400. CameronB Brodie says:

      Has anyone really stopped to think about the character of SNP policy? Have they remembered to remember that policy focus and options are directed and constrained by British nationalism? Policy options will be significantly more abundant and relevant to Scottish needs, in an independent Scotland.

    401. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Possibly the nicest thing about this idea is that it sends a warning shot over the bows of the BritNat parties. They may be hanging on by their fingernails to the hope of levering away enough voter support in 2021 to prevent any chance of IR2 after the elections then. Having a “Plan B” to thwart them in that hope hits them right now.

      If the BritNat plan is to stall IR2 until 2021, as Mundell seemed to be hinting recently, then they may be forced to think again. Maybe even they will conclude it’s better to take their chances now rather than await a bigger backlash in a couple of years’ time.

    402. CameronB Brodie says:

      Mac
      Bourgeoisie ‘liberal’ nationalism appears to have lost its sense of humour. In the make-believe world of Brexitania anyway. 🙂

    403. David says:

      Its only an idea I think to promote the site its not the others you should be wary of but the SNP Green parties .If we get to the next Holyrood election we are out of the EU Boris still PM .No sign of Indy being asked for never mind planned for .And the mandate to hold a ref on the line.
      And Wings enters the political fray .They will attack its already started with sources briefing against sites like this .
      So no more crowd funding .And now you have said you are even thinking of this .You will be accused of using other Blogs you do for your own political purposes .And you have just lost credibility I for one wont hesitate to ask ok what would you do.If in parliament

    404. JMD says:

      Defo 2.52

      “Your Union may be Precious, but our Independence is Priceless!”

      Excellent.

    405. Effijy says:

      Juteman

      You may have voted weeks ago as you cannot vote twice
      Use another’s address from work or wherever if you feel you
      Haven’t voted previously

    406. Dan says:

      For those already firmly against the concept of standing candidates in a new Pro-Indy Party on the Regional Lists.

      With just the current Parties involved, what are your reasonable and considered expectations for the results and makeup of a new Scottish Government after a future Scottish Parliament Election, either in 2021 (or sooner if machinations precipitate such an event)?

      Maybe we should consider why, what with all the important stuff that is going on, such as losing our EU citizenship and the semblance of protections that offers against an unfettered Westminster Government made up of a despicable intrusion of radges, polling figures haven’t dramatically increased in support for SNP.
      There could be many reasons for this. EG. The perceived (by some) lack of urgency or focus on Indy, the Self ID maelstrom, etc.

      Once any campaign begins and the full force of established unionist power and influence rolls onto the field it could be presumptuous to assume the SNP will hoover up virtually all the constituency seats, and that it is actually a prescient move to put in place a plan to mitigate any potential SNP constituency losses and ensure an Indy-minded majority retains power in our parliament through Pro-Indy Party gained Regional list seats.

    407. Robert Louis says:

      Colin Alexander at 213pm,

      Quote “Can anyone explain to me why any indy supporter would still be voting SNP in 2021 if the SNP don’t use their 4x mandate for indyref2?”.

      Exactly. They can either use the mandate they have repeatedly asked for AND GOT, or kiss their collective rather well-paid careers goodbye.

      I mean seriously what would their message be? Vote for us, to get an indy referendum – and this time we really, really mean it’?

    408. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Robert Louis

      I recall being at school at the time of the second 1974 election, the Modern Studies teacher encouraged us to read the election pamphlets that were being put through our doors.

      I got one from the sitting (with a slim majority) Labour Candidate, it was a load of bollox, concluding with the slogan “Vote Harry Ewing – Keep a Good MP.”

      If I had a vote … It would not have gone to him.

    409. Colin Alexander says:

      @ Stu Campbell

      That you are discussing a situation where indyref2 is not held before 2021, can we infer you believe there is a real likelihood that the SNP will betray the people of Scotland’s sovereign and democratic Claim of Right to decide their constitutional future, e.g. dissolution of the Union of the UK?

    410. Maria F says:

      @Petra

      “All I see happening now is the Unionists latching on to the ”list vote” idea and forming their own ”United” party of Tories, Labourites and Libdems”

      They act as if they are already united, Petra. They appear to have been working as a block in Scotland for quite some time. I am sure they put each other for the lists votes.

      The tories of course are ahead of everybody else with 3 possible choices: tories, UKIP and Brexit party.

    411. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      The use of “LIST”…

      Here are two links; one MSM and one pro-indy. You’ll see that both carry (theoretical) graphics of the voting papers for the 2016 Holyrood election.

      One of the ballot papers is to vote for an INDIVIDUAL in the Constituency election. The other paper is to vote for a PARTY in the regional election.

      Nowhere on the regional paper is the term “LIST” used.

      I believe that the use of the term “LIST” was introduced at the very start of Holyrood elections to sow the seeds of confusion, along with the terms first vote, first preference, second vote, second preference, list vote and so on.

      I admit that it’s only in the past ten years or so that I have understood that I wasn’t voting for any “LIST” when I placed my regional vote.

      The only “LIST” involved is created by the PARTIES standing in the regional election – and we have absolutely no say or influence regarding its content of “list candidates”. They are chosen by the PARTY. We can see who’s on the list but we have no control on moving candidates up or down the list; their position in the pecking order on the list is decided by the party.

      I don’t believe the use of “LIST” in any projected party name will bring clarity. To non-political peeps, faced with either “YES Independence Party” or “YES Independence List Party” on the regional ballot paper, I’d suggest the former is clear; the second just sows confusion. “What list?”, I hear them ask.

      https://thecommongreen.scot/2016/05/04/how-to-vote-in-sp16-a-quick-guide/

      https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/archives/news/156871/a-dummys-guide-to-voting-the-answers-to-all-the-questions-you-were-too-afraid-to-ask/
      (Won’t archive.)

    412. schrodingers cat says:

      Stoker says:
      @Schrodingers Cat, If there’s one person i pay attention to on this subject it’s you but your ‘SNP2’ suggestion for a name? You been sniffing the funny stuff?

      ———–

      the snp2 name was a kind of a joke stoker 🙂

      ————-
      Petra
      you say you doubt that wings hasthe power to influence voters? i disagree, james kelly and stu campbells opposition to such tactical voting in 2016 was, i believe, a large part as to why it didnt work. look at the posters on this thread, all now very keen to support such tactical voting

      to be fair on stu, his opposition was mainly due to the lack of trust in the other indy parties, to which i might add, he was probably right.

      as for the name, meh, it isnt that important, perhaps the name WOS might put some folk off or they might not recognise it, but a combination of YES INDY etc, everyone will know what the party

      as for the “All I see happening now is the Unionists latching on to the ”list vote” idea and forming their own ”United” party of Tories, Labourites and Libdems”

      good. the snp with 850k votes in 7 of the 8 regions got 1 snp list msp elected the greens got 4. the unionists took 37. thats the entire point of stus project. who would this new united unionist party take seats from? answer, other unionist parties

    413. Colin Alexander says:

      SNP manifesto 2016: “the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum”.

      SNP manifesto 2017: ” but a vote for the SNP will reinforce the right of the Scottish Parliament to decide when a referendum should happen. It will make sure that Scotland’s future is always in Scotland’s hands”.

      Note, it says: Scottish Parliament, not FM, not SNP.

      “At the end of the Brexit process, when the final terms of the deal are known, it is right that Scotland should have a choice about our future”.

      Just for interest: In the SNP 2017 manifesto: Brexit is mentioned 43 times. Independence referendum is mentioned six times. Sovereignty is not mentioned at all.

    414. Col.Blimp IV says:

      Brian Doonthetoon says:
      11 August, 2019 at 7:33 pm
      The use of “LIST”…

      “– and we have absolutely no say or influence regarding its content of “list candidates”. They are chosen by the PARTY. We can see who’s on the list but we have no control on moving candidates up or down the list; their position in the pecking order on the list is decided by the party.”

      I was at an SNP meeting that was discussing this [then] new fangled system, where I opined that it gave an advantage to those who could best play the system or who had friends in high places and might make constituencies and candidates who new, that barring electoral wipe out, they would get in by the back door, free wheel the campaign.

      And proposed that It would be better that the “top up list” was automatically generated on a closest looser or greatest number/percentage of votes basis, which would also be a tad more democratic.

      The HQ appointed/employed chair ruled that: the electoral rules required the Parties to produce a list of names in order of preference.

      I never did check to see if she was telling the truth…No Electoral Commission Website back in them days.

    415. twathater says:

      @
      Brian Doonthetoon says:
      11 August, 2019 at 12:59 pm

      I typed this last night:
      “Brian Doonthetoon says:
      10 August, 2019 at 8:57 pm

      Perhaps some reading here should do a spot of revision?

      https://wingsoverscotland.com/ams-for-lazy-people/

      There is NO requirement for any party to put up candidates for the constituency vote.

      A party (or individual) can put up candidates for ONLY the regional vote, where you are voting for a party, not individuals on that party’s regional list.

      Please stop referring to “list”, “first vote”, “second vote” and so on.

      One vote is to elect a constituency MSP by ‘first past the post’; the other vote is to elect regional MSPs, by voting for a party, using the method explained in the above link.”

      As a wee exercise, I looked at the published opinion poll for Holyrood, featured here on March 07, 2019:-
      ———————————————
      Thanks BDTT
      If these figures are anywhere correct how can anyone object to Stu’s proposal , but as many have pointed out if this is explained properly to indy voters it could give the independence movement a massive boost
      As I have previously stated upthread the added benefit of blocking dumb unionist brit nat politicos like turdo from ruining our parliament and democracy

    416. Hamish100 says:

      And………..so what?

      This is 2019- brexiit hasn’t happened yet. Wait and observe than act.

    417. Lochside says:

      Breeks @8.09…watched that clip and summed up for me the total consternation I feel about Sturgeon’s logic..’gold standard’ in 2014?…really?..S30 as anything other than a pathetic prostration by Scotland’s triple locked government for rhetorical ‘now is not the time’ rebuff.

      Then what?…round and round in circles waiting for the ‘world’ to admire our ‘democratic principles’?

      By accepting Westminster’s bogus democratic legitimacy, the SNP are de fact and de jure accepting its democratic dictatorship over us. Hence the 2014 REf result can be used by the Britstate as evidential demonstration of the Claim of Right i.e. Scotland voted to be a region. This is why they insist on it as ‘generational’ i.e. never again.

      Fighting for our freedom within the constraints of a ‘unwritten and asymmetrical constitution controlled by gangsters is a cretinous and cowardly strategy.

      Only by asserting Sovereignty via the breaches of the Act and Treaty of Union in a supra national court ( not the joke UK Supreme Court) such as the European Court of Justice would we have any ‘gold standard of real democracy’ to demonstrate to the world. Unfortunately, it is almost certainly too late to implement this as we will be out of Europe within weeks and our regional status will be confirmed by the soon to be written British Constitution, which will make Scottish self Determination impossible.

      As for Stu’s plan…not keen on it. Despite it all, I’sd rather he stick to what he is best at…running this site and hope against hope that NS has some ‘cunning plan’…but what?

    418. george wood says:

      I don’t know why the vocal SNP fans on here are against this. It makes Independence more likely to happen. I’ve voted for the SNP in every election since 1978 and I would vote for this because it makes mathematical sense.

      I didn’t do this in the last election because the Greens etc were unelectable and the performance of the Greens so far has borne that out.

      This will only happen if there is no Indyref2 before the Holyrood elections and if there is no likelyhood of a pro Indy majority in 2021.

      What is the alternative from SNP fans if it looks like there will be no majority in 2021?

      The voting system was arranged to prevent the SNP from getting a majority, but they didn’t consider this scenario (two parties, one big on the Constituencies and a different party on the Regions) so we have to take advantage of it.

    419. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Lochside @ 20:33,

      It’s not what you, Breeks or I consider that matters, though, it’s the public-at-large, and the problem has been that far too many of them have been indifferent at best to independence and antagonistic (out of fear and ignorance) at worst.

      I have also been somewhat underwhelmed at times by all the “petitioning” of the SNP (which rather ironically Angus Robertson was calling out the opposition for in yesterday’s National), but we have to recognise in turn that you have to first establish a sound reputation and get people onside before you can lead them “over the top”. You would look like an abject fool if you set off at the enemy and only a raggle-taggle handful were to follow.

      Yes, I am fully aware of the chicken-and-egg conundrum, and I also wish the SNP had been more proactive in taking the initiative. (The MPs actually seemed surprised at the wholehearted public support they received by their HoC walkout, for example.) But Brexit has provided revelations of BritNat disarray in spades, and it was wise to let them get on with demonstrating just how divided and useless they all are, and in the full glare of their own partisan media to boot.

      So for me, like you it seems, the touchstone remains this coming autumn, and not a year down the road. Probably a UKGE to get through first whether we would like it or not. However I’m fully confident that this time, unlike 2017, the SNP will come out “full gas” for independence, and will do rather better, thereby visibly confuting the last vestiges of Ruthie’s (and her mee-too little helpers’) tattered assertions.

      So all to play for yet. This is a tricky game of chess we’re in.

    420. Wullie B says:

      Sounds like a plan Stu, happy to stand for Highland and even shadow fisheries minister 😀

    421. Sean Swan says:

      Hi my name is Sean Swan and I’m Irish. I hold a doctorate in politics from the University of Ulster and currently live in the US. I teach or have taught British Politics at both Gonzaga University and Whitworth University. I mention the fact that I’m a professor of politics only to indicate that I might just know how the AMS electoral system works.

      AMS elections have two parts. First the constituency vote is counted and seats allocated, then the regional (aka ‘list’ or ‘second’) votes are counted. A party’s EFFECTIVE (as in what counts) vote in the regional vote is the number of votes it received divided by the number of seats it won plus one (usually expressed as Votes/Seats+1). If a party won no constituency seats and got 100,000 regional votes, its effective vote is 100,000 divided by the number of seats it already has (zero) plus one = 100,000. If a party won 9 constituency seats and got a regional vote of 100,000, its effective vote is 100,000 divided by the number of seats it won (nine) plus one = 10,000, So success at the constituency level is a handicap at regional level.

      Take an example from the Glasgow region:
      In the 2016 election in the Glasgow region, the SNP took all nine constituency seats. The results for the regional vote were:

      SNP 111,101 – effective vote (111,101/10) = 11,110
      Lab 59,151 – effective vote (59,151/1) = 59,151
      Con 29,533 – effective vote (29,533/1) = 29,533
      Green 23, 398 – effective vote (23,398/1) = 23, 398

      Labour, with the largest effective vote, took the first seat, reducing its effective vote to 59, 151 divided by two = 29, 575. Labour still has the highest effective vote and takes the second seat, reducing its effective vote to 59,151 divided by three = 19,717. This leaves the Conservatives with the largest effective vote at this stage and they take the third seat, reducing their effective vote to 29, 553 divided by two = 14, 766. Labour now has the highest effective vote and takes the fourth seat, reducing their effective vote to 59, 151 divided by four = 14, 788. The Greens now have the highest effective vote and take the fifth seat, reducing their effective vote to 23,398 divided by two = 11,699. The sixth seat goes to Labour, reducing their effective vote to 59,151 divided by five = 11, 830. The final seat goes to the Conservatives on an effective vote of 14, 766.

      Thus the final tally was SNP 0, Labour 4, Conservatives 2 and Greens 1. Despite the SNP having gained 44.8% of the vote, they end up with no seats, while the Greens, on 9,4% of the vote receive 1 seat. The 44.8% of the regional vote that went to the SNP at the regional level in Glasgow did not elect a single MSP because the SNP had won so many Constituency seats. It was, in effect, a wasted vote. Had the 44.8% gone instead to a party that had no constituency seats, call it the Indy List, it would have won 4 regional seats, labour would have won only 2 seats and the Tories only 1.

      A credible ‘list only’ pro-indy party could do very well – especially if, as I half suspect might happen, a heavy weight like Salmond joined.

      A Party does NOT need to stand any candidates at constituency level to take part in the regional election. The idea that a party must compete at both constituency and regional level is a total fallacy.

      The AMS system can be hard for the ordinary voter to understand – so they need to take it on faith from people who DO understand it that giving the ‘second’ (regional) vote to a pro-indy party besides the SNP is likely to lead to more pro-indy MSPs getting elected.

      I see some people have been moaning about the AMS system, but the reality is that, like it or lump it, it is the system you have to work with.

      Sorry for jumping into this debate, but there were a lot of people commenting on here who just don’t understand how the AMS system works. Stuart Campbell’s idea is totally practical.

    422. Breeks says:


      Robert J. Sutherland says:
      11 August, 2019 at 10:59 pm

      ……but we have to recognise in turn that you have to first establish a sound reputation and get people onside before you can lead them “over the top”. You would look like an abject fool if you set off at the enemy and only a raggle-taggle handful were to follow.

      I fundamentally disagree. Sovereignty is an absolute binary condition. It is defined by explicit laws, irrespective of whether there is a majority which recognises it. A democratic mandate is ephemeral, and a majority which seeks to codify sovereignty as a democratic prize embraces the concept that the very same sovereignty might be forfeited by a similarly ephemeral democratic resolve too.

      Democracy is not an unsound principle, but it is absolutely INFERIOR to a Nation’s constitutional sovereignty. We are sovereign Scots by constitional birthright, NOT choice.

      We are in the dead end Union by our sovereign choice not to leave it. Our sovereign integrity remains precisely because it is unalterable by ephemeral democratic mood swings.

    423. Breeks says:

      In fact, when I think about it, it only when sovereignty is perceived as inferior that any constitutional crisis occurs. If the sovereign position is held by the majority, then all is well in the realm.

      But if the Sovereign position is only held by the minority, it is STILL sovereign because it is a definitive, existential legal status that is constitutionally unalterable by democratic mandate exercising a sovereign choice.

      Democracy is the User interface of a Nation. It is a mechanism for expedient convenience and easy interaction. Sovereignty is the Super-User code which creates the user-friendly interface for the User to use, the normal User cannot alter or get access to the Super-User protocols, no matter how many Users there are trying.

      The UK Union has hacked Scotland’s Super-User “sovereign” protocol, but even though the hack can be ignored or undetected for a long time, a hacked entry is NEVER a legitimate entry.

    424. Lochside says:

      Robert J. Sutherland says:
      11 August, 2019 at 10:59 pm

      Unfortunately, I agree with you Robert that:

      ‘it’s the public-at-large, and the problem has been that far too many of them have been indifferent at best to independence and antagonistic (out of fear and ignorance) at worst.’

      However, I do blame the SNP for not using the last five years since the REF foe not enlightening said public. The raising of political consciousness is part and parcel of revolutionary thought and practice. Was it beyond the wit of the SNP strategists to have a twin track approach i.e. good managerial government and education of our Sovereign status being historically traduced?

      I argued this at branch level and was met with some indifference. The 2017 pre-election meeting with our local MP was a turning point for me. When I challenged him on party policy of fighting for ‘managerial’ track record instead of Independence and our Sovereign rights based on the party’s founding principles, I was told to ‘ignore it’. I did not canvass as a result. The party lost 1/2 a million votes and he held on by the seat of his pants to the constituency, a big yes area.

      I believe that this was , as you agree, a major strategic error. And I do not feel it has been recognised or even accepted as such by the party hierarchy.

      If a confidence and supply deal is being considered with Corbyn, I feel we are back to playing potentially treacherous games with the Westminster establishment and if it fails, we are back where we started: locked into the UK democratic dictatorship of English government supremacy.

    425. Jack Murphy says:

      Brian Doonthetoon began his post at 7:33 pm last night:

      ” The use of “LIST”……….”

      Thanks for the clarification——I think it was me who introduced use of ‘LIST’ in a new party’s title much further up the thread in strong terms.

      Having read Brian Doonthetoon’s 7:33pm post with GREAT CARE everything is much clearer.

      I withdraw unreservedly my suggestion of using LIST as part of the new party’s title. ‘LIST’ simply would not work.

      Suggestion to all—–read Brian Doonthetoon’s 7:33pm clarification—–it’s good, and clears up many points of confusion.
      Recommended. [smile emoji]

    426. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      8=)

    427. Mike W says:

      Sounds like a plan, where can we enrol?:)

    428. Al-Stuart says:

      .
      Petra,

      I can’t quite figure out your problem?

      Stuart Campbell has come up with quite a sophisticated way to virtually GUARANTEE the majority of pro-Indy MSPs at Holyrood and similarly GUARANTEE IndyRef2.

      Have you so little confidence in the Rev’s ability to navigate through the hostile media? For Heaven’s sake he got through pretty impressively with a grilling from that last bastion of the BRITISH BULLDOG in the form of THE THUNDERER, a.k.a., THE TIMES.

      Petra, you throw my quote back at me when I refer to those who fail to read past the BBC Scotland lies as: ”the stupid, the lazy, the disengaged and the ignorant”. Yet that is one of THE problems.

      Once the stupid are educated; the lazy are given facts instead of having to work to find them; the disengaged are engaged because they just lost their job through ignorance and the ignorant? Well ditto with losing their jobs, then the plan Stuart Campbell has inspirationally put together will likely win the list seats from the feckless Unionists at Holyrood. We will get our IndyRef2.

      Or maybe you swallowed the BBC Unionist line that a WoSParty is designed to split the Indy vote. That is bat cr@p and you know it.

      I am sure Stuart Campbell will have this majorly figured out, or be well on the way to assembling a plan of action.

      Petra, I must ask this: why is a small core of the SNP so against this proposal?

    429. David says:

      As I said it would said the attack in the press is coming from
      SNP or influential Indy supporters Jim Sillars Herald on Sunday We have one instrument the SNP and the fact of the matter is that that is the instrument we need to get independence .Repeated in Mondays National .Stuart is quoted as having said the problem for voters was that if they wanted to vote for anyone other than the SNP on the list then they were left with what he described as extreme radical fringe parties like RISE or the Greens .George Kerevan thinks the idea extreme Folly.
      I don’t think you have any intention of doing it .
      Its just an idea but I think its to promote the site .
      If you do set this up are you prepared to live in Scotland

    430. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Bob Costello raised a pertinent point on Facebook today.

      If the SNP do not use their mandate for indyref2 BEFORE the 2021 Holyrood election, what will happen to their vote in that election?

      Will we have a more drastic repeat of 2017, where many SNP (YES) voters in 2015 sat on their bahookies and didn’t vote?

      Mmmmmm…

    431. CameronB Brodie says:

      British nationalism treats non-English residents of Britain, as second-class subjects of Westminster. Subsequently, non-English residents of Britain are unable to make claims to legal rights. The proposed changes to the GRA would make biological women second-class residents in Scotland, made invisible by law and stripped of their sex-based human rights. It’s as simple as that.

      In order to believe trans-women are literally women, one first has to believe DNA is socially constructed. Though genes are plastic and can be altered in character by environmental factors, to consider DNA as socially constructed, stretches the plausibility of “radical constructavism” beyond breaking-point.

      An Analysis of the Moral Content of the Principles
      of Equity

      https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1963&context=hastings_law_journal

    432. ian stewart says:

      DO NOT DO THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    433. Chick McGregor says:

      I admit to being somewhat perplexed that now it is a good idea to persuade SNP voters to vote for another indy party on the regional ballot when that tactic was roundly ridiculed here and on Scot goes Pop before the last Holyrood election. Mr Kelly did publish an article after the election admitting that not doing so then was probably a mistake.

      However, it remains the statistically sensible thing to do.

      I have been pointing out since the inception of the Scottish Parliament that the SNP plus ‘indy list party X’ could win a majority of seats in Holyrood with SNP support as low as the mid thirties.

      Back in those days, the main ‘indy list party X’ candidate was the SSP, but Uncle Rupert soon put paid to that potential avenue.

      At the last election it was the Greens.

      Of course, the reverse is true, an electoral alliance by the three main unionist parties could prevent a non cooperating SNP/Greens majority, even if that were the truer majority scenario.

      We have already witnessed unionist electoral pacts to some extent with ‘Constituency Wheels’ with Kezia Dugdale virtually instructing Labour voters in certain constituencies to vote Tory. We have also seen a recent example in the LibDem/Greens in the By in N Wales. It is currently rumoured that the Tories and the Brexit party are seeking an electoral pact as we speak all without UK Electoral Commission comment because such electoral alliances are common, even encouraged in Europe. However, none of that means that the BritNat Electoral Commission would not immediately challenge any such move between pro-indy parties which threatens diminution of Greater England.

      I suspect any such arrangement here would require to be bottom up ‘tactical voting’ rather than a top down directive.

      It is an essential way forward for the indy movement that there must remain a majority pro indy presence in Holyrood in order to enact indyref2, section 30 supported or otherwise.

      So that is a priority, however it is delivered.

      But, we must not lose sight of the ultimate goal, which is, of course, to get a majority Yes vote for independence in that referendum.

      Over the years, when I have advocated an electoral alliance, whether top down driven or bottom up, there was always more than just the statistical gaming to get a majority involved.

      If you shift focus to the ultimate goal of an indyref2 you need to also consider what would be most likely to persuade the middle ground soft Nos and soft Yesses to vote Yes.

      If they are presented with two legitimate parties with different domestic manifestos which both support Yes then that is very reassuring for them.

      Not only does it stop the MSM accusations of one party Nazi state in their tracks, but it reassures them that post indy, there will be a normal domestic political spectrum to choose from, they will not be saddled with a one ideology state ad infinitum.

      However, to be an alternative which provides that latter reassurance the senodary pro-indy party would require to have a distinctive domestic manifesto.

      I worry that the absence of that in a single issue (pro indy) party would not have that reassurance.

      I’m less concerned that the intermediate goal of retaining a pro indy majority in Holyrood would be enhanced by a Wings lead list indy party (despite all the shit the MSM would throw at it) but I do have doubts whether it would be adventageous in the ensuing undyref2.

      Wings bid advantage is the reach it has to ‘bottom up’ convince a lot of SNP support to vote for the pro-indy list party but against that, is the influence on the middle vote, the vote we need to win over in indyref2 may be less than that of a fully manifestoed conventional part, even one as agendised as the Greens.

    434. Capella says:

      @ Sean Swan – thx for the explanation of ams, with example.
      Scotland has three different electoral systems and people do get confused. For a UK general election we use First Past the Post. There is zero chance of Westminster using proportional representation. That doesn’t stop them from criticising the SNP lack of outright majority in Holyrood. They rely on most people not knowing the difference in voting systems.

      For Holyrood we have the d’Hondt ams system. I have read that it is different in Scotland to the system used widely in Europe. I think because the proportion of Regional seats is greater. Since this was set up by Westminster before the Scottish Parliament was set up I assume, like most on here, that it was designed to prevent an outright SNP majority. Failed in 2011.

      A good explainer spelling out the pros and cons of each system, in plain language, would be useful!

      Finally, in Local Government elections we use the STV system. I have no idea who decided to use STV.

    435. Ian B says:

      I think some on here should have a look at the comments by James Kelly on Scot Goes Pop before they go falling for the guff that Stuart is spouting. The suggestion that a new WoS party will hoover up pro-Independence list votes is just laughable. Whilst the website has a phenomenal amount of readers Stuart would do well to remember that only around 3000 visitors contribute to his crowd funding.

    436. Sean Swan says:

      @Capella, yes, the Scottish system is a lot like the German system, except the German system really is fully proportionate. It has an equal number of constituency and regional seats (unlike Scotland) and also has ‘overhang’ and ‘balancing’ seats (if you think the Scottish system is complicated, look at the German one).
      Yes, STV in the local elections – Ireland, north and south, uses STV for the Dail and for the NI Assembly. It was the first part of these islands to use STV and has been using it since about 1921.
      STV is fairly proportionate – depending on how many seats are returned from each constituency. In the south some constituencies are 3 seats, some 4 and some 5. In the north they are all 5 seaters – used to be all 6 seaters until they cut the size of the Assembly down from 108 to 90 recently.
      AMS is fairly good for being proportionate but has the problem of List MSP who are not really closely related to any given are and are chosen by the party as much as by the electors (because the list used is ‘closed’, not ‘open’).
      STV is the best system if you want MSPs/MPs/TDs elected that have a close geographic link and is still proportionate.
      First Past the Post (FPTP)doesn’t even pretend to be proportionate – you can get results like the Tories winning a majority on 37% of the vote in 2015. Or the even more outrageous example of the SNP winning 56 of 59 seats on 50% in the same year (but I don’t suppose you’d see that as as big an issue as the Tory result).
      Big parties like FPTP because it favours them; small parties like some form of PR cos that favours them…
      It’s a matter of choice really… what do you want the electoral system to DO

    437. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      I like STV – but it doesn’t have to return more than one member per constituency.

      I think the mistake that was made with the Scottish roll-out was creating bigger, multi member wards. STV could have been used in the existing one councillor wards to return a result that was more in tune with the wishes of the electorate.

      I was a member of a CB club in Dundee in the late 70s (into the 80s) and I managed to persuade them to use STV to elect individual office-bearers. It worked. We didn’t need 2 presidents, 2 or 3 secretaries, and so on.

      One “winner” was enough to do the job.

      So it should have been when STV was introduced for the Scottish council elections.

    438. Sean Swan says:

      @Brian, not to be pedantic about it (though being pedantic is my day job) ‘STV’ to fill one vacancy isn’t STV, it’s ‘Instant Runoff’. It’s how, for example, the president of Ireland is elected. And it isn’t proportionate. The more vacancies/seats there are to be filled, the more proportionate STV is. Instant Runoff usually leads to the most middle of the road candidate being elected.

    439. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Sean.

      Is that no’ “OK” then?

      I am here to be edumacated…

    440. Sean Swan says:

      @Brian
      It’s ‘OK’ if you want banal ‘moderate politics. Say you have 4 candidates – SNP, Lab, Tory and Lib Dem the turnout is 100,000, the quota is votes over seats plus one – plus one = 50,001.

      The SNP get 40,000 first preferences
      Labour get 35,000
      Lib Dems get 15,000
      Tories get 10,000

      Nobody has reached the quota, so the candidate with the lowest vote gets eliminated (the Tory). Then his second preferences get redistributed. Lets say he has 8,000. Where are they going to go? Probably 6,000 lib dem, 1,500 Labour and 500 SNP.

      Now the vote is:
      SNP 40,500
      Labour 36,500
      Lib Dem 23,000

      Still nobody has reached the quota. So the candidate with the lowest vote gets eliminated (this time it’s the Lib Dem) and their vote gets redistributed (some of it can’t be redistributed cos it would have been for the Tory who is already gone) Let’s say they have 10,000 votes to redistribute – 7,500 goes to Labour, 2,500 to the SNP.

      Now Labour has 44,000 and the SNP has 43,000. Still nobody has reached the 50,001 quota, but now there’s only 2 candidates left and Labour has the biggest vote, so the seat goes to Labour. See what I mean?

      Like I say, if the question is which electoral system is BEST, the answer depends on what you want it to achieve…it all depends.

    441. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Sean.
      OK, I see that.
      But…
      What would be the fairest system, that reflects the sentiments of the electorate?

    442. Sean Swan says:

      Hi Brian – “What would be the fairest system, that reflects the sentiments of the electorate?”
      Well, if you want a proportionate system – that is, one where if a party gets about 25% of the vote it gets about 25% of the seats AND you want a fairly close connection between politicians and a local area, the best bet would be STV with largish constituencies – say 6 seaters

    443. Brian Doonthetoon says:

      Hi Sean.

      Would you suggest a totally proportional stv system for Scotland, based on the regions, rather than having a FPTP element?

      Or could you suggest voting areas smaller than the current regions?

      Remembering that, as it stands, 129 MSPs have to be elected.

    444. Sean Swan says:

      @Brian

      If it was going to be STV, then there would be no need for regions. The regions are a requirement of AMS. STV would mean something like 21 6 seat constituencies (with a bit of a jiggle to get to 129 – maybe by making Shetland or
      Orkney or the Western Isles 3, or 5 seaters – would need to study it)

    445. orri says:

      Actually you could merge the two by having the regions on FPTP then go on to STV. In some systems you get to pick who on the list should represent your party.

      Not a fan of the idea of a single national list as that makes, unless postal voting really takes off, the system vulnerable over representation from areas where it’s easier to get to the poling station. A bout of really bad weather in the northern isles and they’d get even less representation than now.



    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top