Alex Salmond accused (and then cleared) of sexual misconduct.

[danny la rouge]

This term “supermajority” has very quickly become part of the political language. It doesn’t actually mean anything. It’s just rhetorical hyperbole. If the SNP has a majority of seats (something that shouldn’t happen, but did in 2011 and might just happen in 2021), then it forms the government. With or without the Greens it can pass a bill to seek another referendum.

Nothing magical happens if there are superfluous votes. There is no legal distinction between a bill passed by a majority and a bill passed by shitloads of MSPs.

Indeed, the term is already coming back to haunt the independence movement, with Unionists holding it up as a measure. Well, they’ll say, where’s the promised supermajority? One former Labour MP has even resurrected the spectre of the Cunningham Amendment by asking for a supermajority of votes cast for independence in a referendum.

From somewhere the figures of 60% or even two thirds have started appearing, because that’s what happens when you introduce a term. People start defining it, and you don’t always get to choose a beneficial meaning.

But this is the point. Salmond’s play is all puff and no actual substance. Yes, can talk rings round interviewers on a good day. But he can do that without any actual meaning behind his showmanship. Just as Stuart Campbell can write a blog which convinces his followers there are facts when there are none. These are not good things to base a party on.

I doubt whether any Alba MSPs will actually be elected. They are running too low in the polls. If there’s regional variation, in the North East say, then maybe. Maybe. But either way this election is now about this new word with no meaning. Supermajority. Don’t be surprised if the meaning it takes on in the hands of the Unionist ramparts of civil society is disadvantageous to the independence movement.

 

[hitmouse]

TBF, they're both (Sheridan and Salmond) cunts.

Something amazing about them both ending up in the same party, though. Is there an official betting pool on how long it'll take for them to split, and who'll do it first?

 

[danny la rouge]

Something amazing about them both ending up in the same party, though. Is there an official betting pool on how long it'll take for them to split, and who'll do it first?

Oh, Sheridan will be first. He puts on and casts off parties like underwear at a swingers’ club.

 

[andysays]

Something amazing about them both ending up in the same party, though. Is there an official betting pool on how long it'll take for them to split, and who'll do it first?

It's clearly a marriage of convenience, to be cast aside, probably acrimoniously, when one or the other decides it's no longer convenient.

Which is kind of appropriate when you think about it.

 

[andysays]

Oh, Sheridan will be first. He puts on and casts off parties like underwear at a swingers’ club.

That's a delightful image for a Friday morning

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh, Sheridan will be first. He puts on and casts off parties like underwear at a swingers’ club.

i suspect that at swingers' clubs underwear once off is off.

 

[killer b]

Something amazing about them both ending up in the same party, though. Is there an official betting pool on how long it'll take for them to split, and who'll do it first?

I'm wondering what gymnastics will need to be performed for Galloway to, inevitably, also end up joining.

 

[Pickman's model]

TBF, they're both (Sheridan and Salmond) cunts.

surprised no one's reprised the SAS tag accorded to strikers shearer and sutton in the 1990s

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm wondering what gymnastics will need to be performed for Galloway to, inevitably, also end up joining.

will they be known as sags or gass?

 

[Pickman's model]

And how will electing one Alba MSP, at best, in the NE list, help with these long term political goals? In what sense will one easily ignored crank backbencher "put pressure on Nicola"?

How will it help when it's very likely the only MSP with a glimmer of a chance of being elected has spent the last eighteen months feeding attack lines to the Tories in Holyrood and leaking material to right wing Tory David Davis to "reveal" under parliamentary privelige? How does that square with the aspiration of "putting Boris' bastards on the back foot"? He's been working hand in glove with them throughout the inquiry into his failed sexual misconduct trial. He was prepared to burn the prospects of independence to the ground so he could have his day beaming smugly over Sturgeon's political demise in the Scottish media.

Your argument can't sustain itself even on its own very, very narrow terms.

A supermajority can be achieved by an SNP in constituency and Green on the list. This supermajority does not rest on a completely policy-free party whose ranks are chock full of internet psychos, weirdos, transphobes and homophobes, led by a man who has shown no inclination whatever to apologise for past inappropriate behaviour, and who was quite ready to dissolve 30-40 years of political work in a beaker of egotistical bile.

you see they said 'supermajority' when in fact they meant 'superminority'

 

[danny la rouge]

who was quite ready to dissolve 30-40 years of political work in a beaker of egotistical bile.

This thread has produced some great lines.

If you were to tell me that one was from Howl, I'd believe you.

 

[steeplejack]

Thank you very much danny. quite a compliment.

 

[steeplejack]

what's happened is that the old scriptwriters for crossroads have been asked to take over scottish politics. top tip - there'll be a great accident at holyrood later in the year (after the elections) which will clear out some of the less entertaining scottish politicians and allow for new characters to be inserted into the drama

Benny will get back in on the list, though...

 

[redcogs]

This term “supermajority” has very quickly become part of the political language. It doesn’t actually mean anything. It’s just rhetorical hyperbole. If the SNP has a majority of seats (something that shouldn’t happen, but did in 2011 and might just happen in 2021), then it forms the government. With or without the Greens it can pass a bill to seek another referendum.

Nothing magical happens if there are superfluous votes. There is no legal distinction between a bill passed by a majority and a bill passed by shitloads of MSPs.

Indeed, the term is already coming back to haunt the independence movement, with Unionists holding it up as a measure. Well, they’ll say, where’s the promised supermajority? One former Labour MP has even resurrected the spectre of the Cunningham Amendment by asking for a supermajority of votes cast for independence in a referendum.

From somewhere the figures of 60% or even two thirds have started appearing, because that’s what happens when you introduce a term. People start defining it, and you don’t always get to choose a beneficial meaning.

But this is the point. Salmond’s play is all puff and no actual substance. Yes, can talk rings round interviewers on a good day. But he can do that without any actual meaning behind his showmanship. Just as Stuart Campbell can write a blog which convinces his followers there are facts when there are none. These are not good things to base a party on.

I doubt whether any Alba MSPs will actually be elected. They are running too low in the polls. If there’s regional variation, in the North East say, then maybe. Maybe. But either way this election is now about this new word with no meaning. Supermajority. Don’t be surprised if the meaning it takes on in the hands of the Unionist ramparts of civil society is disadvantageous to the independence movement.

This discussion about ‘supermajority’ and the forthcoming election is a welcome step away from much of the threads previous hypocritical rubbish, which amounts to nothing more than crude finger pointing personality politics - ‘don’t vote for them because they contain highly dubious characters’ is a very unpersuasive position in an election that has many competing Parties, which ALL contain numbers of unsavoury people.

But your critique of the concept of ‘supermajority’ also fails danny. You say ‘supermajority’ is a poor basis for a political party, without really explaining why? To say that others could seek to subvert the term ‘supermajority’ for their own purposes may well come to pass, but who knows? None of us do. Its all in the realms of the ‘art of the possible’ impressionism. Competing political organisations develop slogans and create ideas all the time which they hope will capture the imagination of the electorate to their particular benefit.

Actually, from my (equally impressionistic) perspective, the possibility of attaining a ‘supermajority’ for Independence in Holyrood is quite attractive, especially given the context of Nicola’s perceived failure to crank up the pressure upon Westminster. We’ll see what happens. At the moment we are reliant upon the plethora of silly opinion polls and hearsay and instinct to help us make a judgement about the election outcome. In fact, I share your view that Alba is unlikely to do as brilliantly as Salmond and Sheridan would like. But i’m not prepared to ignore the potential that the idea of a ‘supermajority’ for Independence holds.

 

[danny la rouge]

This discussion about ‘supermajority’ and the forthcoming election is a welcome step away from much of the threads previous hypocritical rubbish, which amounts to nothing more than crude finger pointing personality politics - ‘don’t vote for them because they contain highly dubious characters’ is a very unpersuasive position in an election that has many competing Parties, which ALL contain numbers of unsavoury people.

That’s to miss the point. My criticism of the SNP, for example, is that they aren’t the radical party of the centre left they paint themselves. They’re a party of pragmatic managerialism, who want to keep the neoliberal project happy in order to get to “Independence”. How independent that’ll be if they don’t want a Scottish currency or a Scottish central bank is open to question. What they actually want independence for is also anyone’s guess.

They contain people whose behaviour is deplorable. But they do have a policy raft and a record in government to look at and disagree with.

Alba by contrast were born because Alex Salmond found himself in a pickle. Had there been no scandal he’d have stayed an SNP member and continued to fade into obscurity. Alba was borne out of his need to deflect from his sudden notoriety.

The Alba Party we have before us is a party of amorphous populism. It is whatever it’s adherents want to say it is. And last weekend we discovered that a lot of them are very happy to make it a party of spreading homophobic disinformation. That isn’t just a matter we can dismiss by saying “other parties have tossers too”. It’s something concrete we can actually

But your critique of the concept of ‘supermajority’ also fails danny. You say ‘supermajority’ is a poor basis for a political party, without really explaining why?

No, I didn’t. I said it’s a vacuous sound bite that Salmond coined and that unionists are already attaching a meaning to it because it didn’t have one.

Actually, from my (equally impressionistic) perspective, the possibility of attaining a ‘supermajority’ for Independence in Holyrood is quite attractive, especially given the context of Nicola’s perceived failure to crank up the pressure upon Westminster. We’ll see what happens. At the moment we are reliant upon the plethora of silly opinion polls and hearsay and instinct to help us make a judgement about the election outcome. In fact, I share your view that Alba is unlikely to do as brilliantly as Salmond and Sheridan would like. But i’m not prepared to ignore the potential that the idea of a ‘supermajority’ for Independence holds.

Here “supermajority” just means majority. If the SNP have a majority on their own or with the Greens, Alba won’t be kingmakers with the balance of power. They’ll be at best a tiny fringe party.

 

[redcogs]

Here “supermajority” just means majority. If the SNP have a majority on their own or with the Greens, Alba won’t be kingmakers with the balance of power. They’ll be at best a tiny fringe party.

Much energy being expended in explaining why not to cast for a Party with a potentially effective idea, the 'supermajority'. It sounds as though you are advocating a vote for the SNP with my list preference to the Greens danny?

 

[danny la rouge]

Much energy being expended in explaining why not to cast for a Party with a potentially effective idea, the 'supermajority'. It sounds as though you are advocating a vote for the SNP with my list preference to the Greens danny?

You seem to be so indoctrinated by democratic centralism that you have forgotten is possible for people to have opinions without them expecting any action from you.

No, I’m not advocating anything.

 

[redcogs]

You seem to be so indoctrinated by democratic centralism that you have forgotten is possible for people to have opinions without them expecting any action from you.

This is irony no? Dozens of pages above, mainly concerned to dissuade votes for Alba? dear oh dear.

 

[danny la rouge]

This is irony no? Dozens of pages above, mainly concerned to dissuade votes for Alba? dear oh dear.

I’m giving my opinion on Alba. Which is a thumbs down. You have a different opinion.

 

[redcogs]

Fair enough, we disagree. Interestingly, in relation to democratic centralism, this week's online Socialist Worker contains copy that strongly aligns with the many opinions expressed above (i wont add a link unless pushed). It appears that the indoctrination was incomplete! i am the one marching out of step - not yourselves. Life can be rich

 

[danny la rouge]

the many opinions expressed above

Many? My opinion is that Alba are wrong'uns. That's only one opinion.

 

[redcogs]

was i loose with my words danny? Perhaps i will never get the hang of this. "the many opinions" refers to your views, and those of others sharing a similar opinion.

 

[danny la rouge]

was i loose with my words danny? Perhaps i will never get the hang of this. "the many opinions" refers to your views, and those of others sharing a similar opinion.

Just checking your meaning. I’m sure I’m not alone in sometimes picking people up wrong.

 

[redcogs]

not a problem.

 

[Wilf]

There is no reason to believe that political parties other than Alba do not contain some very dodgy indeed characters. Its the principle that is important, people vote for the party badge, not to endorse every Party member or all or any of their previous activities.

This is pure sophistry. If your position is that you don't care about Salmond's behaviour towards women - you clearly don't - it would be better if you just said that.

 

[redcogs]

my criticisms of Salmond's behaviour are available throughout the thread. Pretty pointless repeating them.

 

[Wilf]

This discussion about ‘supermajority’ and the forthcoming election is a welcome step away from much of the threads previous hypocritical rubbish, which amounts to nothing more than crude finger pointing personality politics - ‘don’t vote for them because they contain highly dubious characters’ is a very unpersuasive position in an election that has many competing Parties, which ALL contain numbers of unsavoury people.

You've used the words 'dubious characters' several times now. Would you also accept that term 'sex pest', when it comes to the person at the heart of Alba? Rather than beginning sentences with words about other parties, would you yourself directly admit that Salmond is a sex pest?

 

[redcogs]

You've used the words 'dubious characters' several times now. Would you also accept that term 'sex pest', when it comes to the person at the heart of Alba? Rather than beginning sentences with words about other parties, would you yourself directly admit that Salmond is a sex pest?

Wrote this earlier in the thread. it reflects my current attitude:

"Just re-read the thread and it appears quite well balanced, with only Sas' reacting in disbelief that Salmond might be an harasser. my concern related to a sense of disappointment because a noted voice of dissent has maybe sullied every dissenting voice. i felt the same over the Sheridan situation, although of course that was far more serious in terms of proportion and damage to the left.

It seems that there are still an abundance of blokes who need to get it into their heads that their dicks cannot be an appropriate guide for behaviour towards women. Full stop."

 

[hitmouse]

This discussion about ‘supermajority’ and the forthcoming election is a welcome step away from much of the threads previous hypocritical rubbish, which amounts to nothing more than crude finger pointing personality politics - ‘don’t vote for them because they contain highly dubious characters’ is a very unpersuasive position in an election that has many competing Parties, which ALL contain numbers of unsavoury people.

Thing is, I don't think this comparison holds up. Like, to compare with Labour, the party I know most about, I don't support Labour or advocate that anyone else should, but I can understand why someone would hate Keir Starmer and still support them, because the party is more than Starmer, it's also the party that most British trade unions are affiliated to, the party that for better or for worse is in power across a lot of the country, and so on. Similarly with the SNP, I can imagine that someone might hate Sturgeon or whoever and still support the SNP, because if you subtracted Sturgeon from the SNP there'd still be a lot of stuff left. With Alba, if you removed Salmond from Alba what would you have left? Tommy Sheridan and some homophobic conspiracy theories? Like, I don't see where the "pros" are to balance out the massive, massive "cons" on the Alba balance sheet.

Anyway, I thought this was kind of entertaining in a bleak kind of way: ALBA draws a line

Among tweets that have been reported to the police include:

• From a Mr Connor Beaton, after calling ALBA “a fascist organisation in the making” proposing a workshop next weekend “where we’ll single out the most anti-LGBT candidates in this election and work out how we can make their lives misery”
• From an SNP candidate describing the ALBA women as “Extremists masked as Indy supporters reveal their truly homophobic transphobic politics”. It is simply not appropriate to label women candidates and speakers including Muslim women as “extremist” based on second-hand reports from a single tweet.

For one thing, it's obviously a massive, massive stretch to claim that describing Alba as "extremists" is somehow criminal behaviour that should be reported to the police, but I was mostly tickled by the way that they claim a workshop "where we’ll single out the most anti-LGBT candidates in this election" must be a targeted threat directed at them. It sort of seems like... I believe "telling on yourself" is the currently popular phrase?

 

[Wilf]

Thing is, I don't think this comparison holds up. Like, to compare with Labour, the party I know most about, I don't support Labour or advocate that anyone else should, but I can understand why someone would hate Keir Starmer and still support them, because the party is more than Starmer, it's also the party that most British trade unions are affiliated to, the party that for better or for worse is in power across a lot of the country, and so on. Similarly with the SNP, I can imagine that someone might hate Sturgeon or whoever and still support the SNP, because if you subtracted Sturgeon from the SNP there'd still be a lot of stuff left. With Alba, if you removed Salmond from Alba what would you have left? Tommy Sheridan and some homophobic conspiracy theories? Like, I don't see where the "pros" are to balance out the massive, massive "cons" on the Alba balance sheet.

This.