Glenconner Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Did some googling and the SUP website still appears to be active. The SUP would be the genuine Rangers/Orange Order brand of Unionism, which is why there appeared to be a mainstream media blackout about them despite occasional moderately good results in fringe party terms. This ABBUP seem to be being given access to TV studios, which suggests they may have more in common with the Scottish Voice party that failed to make any headway in the 2007 election.Btw, is that SUP the one Bill McMurdo (Agent Orange) was in mid 1980s that got upset about the Anglo Irish Agreement.Think the few mainstream Tories in it ended up going back to the Conservatives. Then there was what seemed a one man band outfit. Though it might have five, think that's the lowest number to start a lodge. Wasn't the leader some former Grand Master in Lanarkshire? They'd a thing about kafflick schools and had a bee in their bonnet about devolution. Don't remember them getting anything in the way of votes even when they stood a few candidates at council elections. Seemed to have a handful of posters to go with the handful of votes. Btw, their website seems to have stopped in 2013. The fine line in British Nationalism/Unionism is how do present yourself as sane in Scotland without sounding like a Belfast import that gets upset about flegs and anything that sounds a bit Celtic Minded. So far only Ukip has pulled it off in special circumstances in an All Scotland vote. And look what happened to SLAB with their go at Super Unionism, they managed to destroy the entire Scottish PLP. Even Jim the Tim Murphy couldn't save them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Depending on what happens with the larger parties in the constituency section, all you need is just over 5% to get into Holyrood on the regional vote under the d'Hondt system and to be taken as seriously as the Greens. The SUP managed close to that level of support in two constituencies in a Westminster general election albeit not recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airdrie_and_Shotts_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29#Elections_of_the_2000s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Springburn_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29#Elections_in_the_2000s I suspect the ABBUP have nothing to do with that particular strand of Unionism and seriously doubt they will ever get anywhere near those sort of numbers in any context, because they don't have anything like Orangeism to tap into for a core following and because they are not rejecting Holyrood outright, which is what a Unionist party needs to do to effectively differentiate themselves from the Tories and go after the core Tory vote that still rejects and resents the concept of devolution. Suspect UKIP will be able to get 2-3% based on that on the regional list and the prospect of that has already made Ruth Davidson chicken out of standing in Glasgow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I remember a chap standing as an Independent Green in Glasgow Kelvin and getting 6% of the vote. He then popped in Ukip. Chancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 The Scottish Unionist chap in Airdrie & Shotts did really well for a rightwinger. He came fifth. Socially conservative meant what 20 years ago = you'd jail gay people if you had the chance. Left of centre economically, i don't think they were in the same bracket as the PUP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I remember a chap standing as an Independent Green in Glasgow Kelvin and getting 6% of the vote. He then popped in Ukip. Chancer. You thinking of holocaust-denying, homophobic, far right British nationalist McConnachie? He invented his own "Green Voice" party in Glasgow and I believe went into UKIP, before being kicked out for being too extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 I never realised the SUP were just a jolly bunch of fun loving Rangersy folks that loved us all so much. Shows you how mistaken you can be. As i said, ah blame the schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 You thinking of holocaust-denying, homophobic, far right British nationalist McConnachie? He invented his own "Green Voice" party in Glasgow and I believe went into UKIP, before being kicked out for being too extreme. That was on one of his good days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Nearly retaining your deposit and coming very close to the Conseravtives (who you are largely competing with for votes) is a good showing for a minuscule party how ever you try to dress it. Eh, they came fifth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Eh, they came fifth. With 4.5% of the vote, which is pretty decent in the context of a general election for a fringe party that is getting zero TV coverage when an entire parliamentary constituency with over 30,000 voters is involved. As for the schools angle I don't think it's out of step with modern progressive thought to be of the opinion that faith schools are damaging to the social fabric as long as you do it from a Richard Dawkins sort of standpoint and are not droning on about the importance of keeping the Act of Settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 SUP, at best a footnote in Scottish political history. And then the circus moved on. Now the latest bunch of clowns have arrived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 With 4.5% of the vote, which is pretty decent in the context of a general election for a fringe party that is getting zero TV coverage when an entire parliamentary constituency with over 30,000 voters is involved. As for the schools angle I don't think it's out of step with modern progressive thought to be of the opinion that faith schools are damaging to the social fabric as long as you do it from a Richard Dawkins sort of standpoint and are not droning on about the importance of keeping the Act of Settlement. How about "as long as you do it from a Richard Dawkins sort of standpoint and are not as well as droning on about the importance of keeping the Act of Settlement."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Then you are saying that God disnae exist but it is vitally important that the head of state is one particular type of bible thumper. Might lead to cognitive disonance for some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Then you are saying that God disnae exist but it is vitally important that the head of state is one particular type of bible thumper. Might lead to cognitive disonance for some people. Those that favour the Richard Dawkins approach probably wouldn't vote for this party anyway, and those that would be swayed by the Act of Settlement approach will not have heard of Richard Dawkins and his views, so it probably wouldn't matter either way. Maybe just go for the "drone on" approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 Socially conservative in that they were stringent on law and order and family values. When did they even mention homosexuality? Family values would be what exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Did this bunch of unionist cranks stand in the election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broomhill Ultra Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 They were certainly on the Glasgow list. Right at the top due to their cunning use of the letter 'A'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 Did this bunch of unionist cranks stand in the election? I believe they did, with a cunning name change to the Ruth Davidson party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 I believe they did, with a cunning name change to the Ruth Davidson party. People in glass houses not throwing stones comes to mind on the question of who the cranks are in all of this. The Scottish Unionist Party ultimately decided not to contest the election, because they didn't want to fragment the pro-Union vote given the danger of Nicola Sturgeon pushing for a second referendum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted May 7, 2016 Share Posted May 7, 2016 I'm astounded how polite the unionists are on here. Wonder what they really think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted March 27, 2017 Share Posted March 27, 2017 And now they reveal themselves in the local elections. Nice one. Seems this lot was Regimental Blues all along. Well i never. Something new something blue. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.