Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Scottish local government elections May 4th 2017

Fuck off danny...everyone knows the majority of (what's left of the) the labour vote has gone to the tories.View attachment 106039
Who are you arguing with? Do you read what people post? Do you read the thread?

Look: Scottish local government elections May 4th 2017

I know the Unionist vote has consolidated with the Tories. I've said it here and other threads. The Labour Unionists are fleeing to the Tories.

What I'm calling nonsense (on many levels) is your claim that "the left are largely running to the Tories".

The left are largely running to the Tories. That's your claim. It's nonsense.
 
Who are you arguing with? Do you read what people post? Do you read the thread?

Look: Scottish local government elections May 4th 2017

I know the Unionist vote has consolidated with the Tories. I've said it here and other threads. The Labour Unionists are fleeing to the Tories.

What I'm calling nonsense (on many levels) is your claim that "the left are largely running to the Tories".

The left are largely running to the Tories. That's your claim. It's nonsense.
Where did the increased vote come from? Offer a counter.
 
Who are you arguing with? Do you read what people post? Do you read the thread?

Look: Scottish local government elections May 4th 2017

I know the Unionist vote has consolidated with the Tories. I've said it here and other threads. The Labour Unionists are fleeing to the Tories.

What I'm calling nonsense (on many levels) is your claim that "the left are largely running to the Tories".

The left are largely running to the Tories. That's your claim. It's nonsense.

The concomitant of the consolidation of the Unionist vote around the Tories is, I would think, a setting in stone of support for the SNP (as if that were not already obvious, I suppose). Some seats in June might be lost on the basis of support for Brexit or Unionism, but a healthy return for the SNP in June, fought as it will be by the Unionists on "no to Indy ref 2", must be taken as a strengthening of a mandate for Indy ref 2. In demarcating the choice between Indy ref 2 or not, Unionists perhaps flush out the full extent of their support but also its limitations, and also reveal a complete paucity of actual policies.
 
The concomitant of the consolidation of the Unionist vote around the Tories is, I would think, a setting in stone of support for the SNP (as if that were not already obvious, I suppose). Some seats in June might be lost on the basis of support for Brexit or Unionism, but a healthy return for the SNP in June, fought as it will be by the Unionists on "no to Indy ref 2", must be taken as a strengthening of a mandate for Indy ref 2. In demarcating the choice between Indy ref 2 or not, Unionists perhaps flush out the full extent of their support but also its limitations, and also reveal a complete paucity of actual policies.
I think this is a good point. I also think that given that the GE will be FPTP, the Tories will most likely get, as I've said before, only 7-8 seats, rather than the febrile forecast of 22 or 23 that was doing the rounds.

The pro Indy movement needs to tie the subject to bread and butter issues, to community empowerment, and to class. It needs to get this message to working class communities, and point out that if the only way of saving your precious Union is electing Tories, then it isn't worth saving.
 
The media's take on the SNP having won a STV local election by miles and in fact increasing their vote meaning Scotland rejects a second independence referendum is baffling :confused::facepalm:

Wait for the bollocks published when the SNP lose a few seats in June.
 
Improbable proposition. Labour are about to hit rock bottom, with movement of voters from to Tories from Labour all but complete after June. Why doesn't Corbyn tell the North Britain branch office that it can support independence? Labour stand to score voters off the SNP and Corbyn can justify this by Labour being an international movement of workers with cross-border affiliations. Unionist Labour voters have probably all but deserted Labour anyway.
 
point out that if the only way of saving your precious Union is electing Tories, then it isn't worth saving.

That doesn't make logical sense. It's like telling someone that if the only way to save their marriage is to abandon their career, then the marriage isn't worth saving. Well, it depends how much they value their marriage.
 
That doesn't make logical sense. It's like telling someone that if the only way to save their marriage is to abandon their career, then the marriage isn't worth saving. Well, it depends how much they value their marriage.
I don't understand your analogy. You're saying the Tories are a career?

I was going to modify your analogy to make it better, but it was a shit analogy to start with so I'm not going to bother. Just don't vote Tory, ya pricks.
 


Nats/Tories up in Aberdeen, everyone else down


The best bit about this is Willie Young got booted, hahahahaha :D And Barney has lost his buddy :D


Angus might be interesting, there is going to have to cooperation but seeing as most of the council is tory no matter what party they claim to represent it's gonna be crap :(
 
...The pro Indy movement needs to tie the subject to bread and butter issues, to community empowerment, and to class. It needs to get this message to working class communities....
Well...we do...but we run into twats like you with your wings thread, your mcgarry thread, your allegations of racism and cultism.

Getting the message out there, eh danny.

what have the romans.jpg
 
Well...we do...but we run into twats like you with your wings thread, your mcgarry thread, your allegations of racism and cultism.
So your dismissing as a twat anyone who has a problem with the wee bigot cunt that is wings?

And anyone who dares post on a thread about an MP about whom serious allegations have been made is somehow working against 'the movement'?

And you have the cheek to complain about supposed allegations of cultism?
 
Well...we do...but we run into twats like you with your wings thread, your mcgarry thread, your allegations of racism and cultism.

Getting the message out there, eh danny.

View attachment 106092
Where have I alleged racism? And against whom?

As for McGarry: she was suspended by the SNP, and the SNP ensured she won't be standing for them in June. So is the SNP therefore a bunch of twats working against the movement? Because they have carried out pretty strenuous action against her. All I did was post a thread.
 
I wonder what's going on in the minds of life-long labour voters right now that have gone just and put a X for the Cons?

.....

I mean no harsh judgments from me , I'm young-ish, lefty, left the country, anti-Eu, sus of the SNP, desperately want Indy but scared of what it could/might end up as

The whole thing is a fucking mess...

parcel of rogues an aw that.....
 
Where have I alleged racism? And against whom?

As for McGarry: she was suspended by the SNP, and the SNP ensured she won't be standing for them in June. So is the SNP therefore a bunch of twats working against the movement? Because they have carried out pretty strenuous action against her. All I did was post a thread.
True...it was your wife that suggested racism in the indy movement...you were just good enough to post it and agree it was a 'genuine concern' for a lot of people.

You didn't actually say it...you just strongly suggested it.

Apart from you and the 'they hate the english!' brigade...I'm not aware of anyone else who brings it up.
 
No it wasn't.

Now stop being a twat. Read what people actually say. And take some responsibility for the shite you spout.
Sorry...it was your friend's wife.

Take responsibility for your own shit danny. My position is clear, I'm very pro-indy. You only want it on your terms.
 
Sorry...it was your friend's wife.

Take responsibility for your own shit danny. My position is clear, I'm very pro-indy. You only want it on your terms.
Given that you've said that being pro-independence is a right wing position, you have just said that you are very right wing. When you first came here you were a socialist. Is this what happens when the iron of nationalism enters your soul?
 
Last edited:
Sorry...it was your friend's wife.

Take responsibility for your own shit danny. My position is clear, I'm very pro-indy. You only want it on your terms.
I want independence as means to an end. I'm a socialist. I think in the past you claim to have read James Connolly. (I may have misremembered this: if so, apologies). I suggest you re-read him.

"If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain." - James Connolly.

I was brought up in a household where John MacLean and James Connolly's names were bandied about with reverence almost daily in political discourse, by my Dad and uncles in their discussions, over dinner, in after pub carry out parties, and so on. My pro independence sentiment is as old as my socialism. The two are part of my background. But not in order to serve a Scottish ruling class. Never that.

So this stuff about it "not being about left or right" and "the left are largely running to the Tories" would be a huge problem for me if it was representative of the pro Indy movement (which thankfully it is not).

You have, by the way, not evidenced your claim. You point to graphics that show that many Labour voters have switched to the Tories. (Which I've already said long ago up-thread, and in other threads). But that isn't the same thing at all.

First, you need to explain how those voters a) represent the left at all b) are the majority of the left (which is what your phrase means: look up "largely"), c) explain by what measure Scottish Labour is "the left", let alone its former voters, most of whom are not members of any party, d) explain why you, a nationalist, don't want to see this shift in terms of Unionist sentiment, but in terms of "left" when you've already said it "isn't about left or right".

You're all over the place. And that's because you have no political underpinning at all. None. Read a book. Read Connolly at least, ffs!
I can recommend an anthology.

As for my partner (we're not married), since you brought her into this (and by the way note please that you don't like your own family brought up, even when they weren't. So nice double standards), my partner is English and supports Scottish independence. She's lived here since the early 90s and says she's never encountered anti English racism in Scotland. (I have encountered it, though I believe it is a diminishing phenomenon, and forms no part of the vast majority of pro independence sentiment. Indeed, I've encountered it far more from Unionists, perhaps counter intuitively).

The person I was talking about was an old friend who is Scottish (from the North East). She says she has encountered it. On social media. Your response to that is to ignore her concerns and react as if she's the pariah. That is a very, very troubling reaction, as seems to me to be a worse problem than the one my friend brought up.

You need to win pro Indy votes from the former "55". That means you need to be welcoming. If you retreat into purist enclaves you exclude: you end up ossifying the enclaves. That way you don't get your civic pride passport, and I don't get the historic moment I think is necessary to bring about social and economic change in Scotland.
 
Anyway, back on topic, I came here to share this:

IMG_1664.jpg
Paul Sinclair was former Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont's senior advisor. Here he is celebrating the Tory share of the vote.
 
"Orange Order elected to councils as Labour and Tory members"

IMG_1666.jpg

Orange Order elected to councils as Labour and Tory members

"MEMBERS of the Orange Order have won council seats in the local elections by standing for the Labour and Tory parties, the Sunday Herald can reveal. The Orange Order has boasted that its elected councillors will work to derail a second independence referendum, the organisation’s Scottish leader said.

Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland Grand Master Jim McHarg said the organisation now wanted to stir the Unionist population against independence.

A “huge number” of Lodge supporters are Tories, McHarg said, as he praised Ruth Davidson for basing her council election campaign on opposition to a second referendum."
 
A post by Paul Kavanagh makes interesting reading (as ever). I don't always agree with him, but he is a serious voice and always deserves consideration.

He's responding to the "Ulsterisation" narrative, and while it's a tempting comparison to draw, he points out that it's not a very good parallel. A key point he makes is this:

"It’s far easier for a Scottish person who previously supported the Union to shift their opinion and support independence than it is for a person from a Northern Irish loyalist background to come out as a supporter of Irish unity. And it’s equally easy for a person in Scotland to make the opposite political journey. The truth is that the term Ulsterisation is bandied about by Scottish Unionists as a deliberate ploy to discourage the disengaged from engaging with the question of Scotland’s constitutional position in the first place."​

It has two facets, the first is that in Scotland the two groups (pro-indy and pro-Union) are porous. This is a good thing. If it becomes ossified, tribal, congenital, as in Northern Ireland, then we (the pro-indy group) are stuck with the smaller demographic, until birth rates change the picture. This is the point I was making above: we need to encourage people who were No voters last time in. And we don't do that by ignoring their concerns and treating them as unwanted. That purist tendency will lead us into the scenario Kavanagh correctly says doesn't currently exist.

The second point is vital too. The idea that debate is the same as "division", that the referendum was a bad thing that tore communities and families irreparably asunder. This is what the Tories are banking on in order to attract the Unionist vote. They a) want this narrative of division to be accepted, and b) need it to be a self-fulfilling prophecy so that the "55" does not shrink. Any purist tendency (thankfully small, but existing) within the pro-indy camp plays right into the hands of that Tory strategy.

We in the pro-Indy camp must heed these points.

Kavanagh's conclusion, though, is made more in hope than from evidence. He writes:

"But it’s Unionism which has an illness, and it’s a fatal one. The right wing nationalism of Unionism will be its end, and when it finally expires it will take the Union with it."

Unionism’s fatal illness

This reminds me of the fallacious reading of Vol 3 of Capital which leads to the belief that the collapse of capital is inevitable. There is nothing inevitable about the collapse of the right, nor of its nationalist wing. The right has to be fought and countered. It is dangerous to think otherwise.
 
I don't understand your analogy. You're saying the Tories are a career?

I was going to modify your analogy to make it better, but it was a shit analogy to start with so I'm not going to bother. Just don't vote Tory, ya pricks.
The analogy doesn't really matter. When you say it can be "pointed out" to people that if A, then B, then it sounds like it's presented as a logical conclusion.

Even if you agree with someone on the level of undesirability of voting in the tories, and and even if you agree that it's a high level of undesirability, it doesn't tell you or them anything about how or why they rate the value of preserving the union. Of course you can try and persuade them it's not worth it, but I don't think it's something you can "point out".

Having Tories in government for a few years is on a different level of permanence compared to having Independence. I don't think it would be unreasonable for people to be thinking of that when weighing up pros and cons.
 
The analogy doesn't really matter. When you say it can be "pointed out" to people that if A, then B, then it sounds like it's presented as a logical conclusion.

Even if you agree with someone on the level of undesirability of voting in the tories, and and even if you agree that it's a high level of undesirability, it doesn't tell you or them anything about how or why they rate the value of preserving the union. Of course you can try and persuade them it's not worth it, but I don't think it's something you can "point out".

Having Tories in government for a few years is on a different level of permanence compared to having Independence. I don't think it would be unreasonable for people to be thinking of that when weighing up pros and cons.
Are you advising people to vote Tory?
 
Back
Top Bottom