Are YOU Voting for the Alba Party?

[Dunning1874]

2 hours ago, ayrmad said:

I agree about appearance over substance for this election but there's no reason why 2 parties couldn't build towards a place of substance, it certainly can't be achieved by SNP alone. 

We already have two pro-independence parties in parliament who could build towards a place of substance.

VT's point about moving to a position where you have a main opposition who also support independence changing the nature of the debate is a good one, but the idea that Alba are going to be the party to provide a platform for that constructive evolution is fanciful.

Yes, every party has to start somewhere and the SNP were fringe cranks once as well, but considering that the main thrust of people talking up a vote for Alba is that the SNP aren't doing enough to get independence and they should be declaring UDI based on every council by-election they win, these aren't people with an interest in playing the long game and waiting for Alba to become a credible party. These are voters who want independence yesterday, and the internecine warfare in the independence movement which would be unleashed by Alba getting into parliament would put independence further away, not closer; you don't want to wait the years it would take for them to turn into a credible party and stop turning undecided voters towards the union via Salmond's unpopularity.

If you're viewing a list vote for the SNP as a waste and want to maximise the number of pro-independence MSPs, you've got a choice between:

1. A pro-independence party which already has parliamentary representation and a small but established voter base which isn't disappearing, have a full set of policies on various issues, a track record of extracting concessions from the SNP and long established support for independence

2. A pro-independence party who were set up five minutes ago, have no representation or established voter base, no policies beyond 'we want independence faster' but no plan for how they achieve that, a leader whose name is irrevocably associated with sleaze (to put it mildly) and is widely despised across several demographics in every part of the country, whose presence in parliament will turn undecided voters against independence. A common factor among the candidates they've assembled is hatred of Nicola Sturgeon and a desire to remove her as First Minister - you could argue that this is a bigger priority than independence for some of them - and there is absolutely zero chance of this party working constructively alongside the SNP towards independence in the lifetime of this parliament.

If people have reasons they don't want to go for Option 1 due to disagreements with the Greens over non-independence related policies or other issues with them then fine, but anyone telling themselves Option 2 is a better route to independence is absolutely kidding themselves. It is not going to bring independence closer and every single one of you know this.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Dunning1874

[Baxter Parp]

3 hours ago, Stinky Bone said:

Still waiting for an answer to whether I am wrong in believing that a super majority of 86 MSPs can call a Scottish General election at any time.  You don't have to answer because it is unlikely to happen anyway.

That's not a question you asked but I believe that is right and also that you're right that it would never happen.  Are you saying that Alba's plan is something that you think would be unlikely to happen? How is that something that you would vote for?

[Baxter Parp]

3 hours ago, ayrmad said:

They shouldn't have harped on endlessly about what they were going to do if Brexit happened then do an Alan Partridge when the Tories hunted them, anyone that thinks the status quo is bringing about a referendum is an imbecile. 

No, what should they have done? You keep banging on about what they shouldn't have done without proposing an alternative.  Why is that?

Edited April 10, 2021 by Baxter Parp

[invergowrie arab]

Would agree with VTs point that a plurality of Indy parties makes Indy more likely.

Credible Indy Socialist, Indy Centrist, Indy Tory and and Indy Green parties shift the conversation from whether or not Indy should happen to what it would like.

I don't believe Alba have anything to offer in this space though. At this stage that's a hunch because I haven't seen their policies.

Their candidates are universally fucking dreadful too. 

Re: 5 years to get it done 

We didn't see sustained leads for Yes in the polls until 2020.

In the meantime preparatory work has been happening in Holyrood to prepare the groundwork. Legislation passed that asserts the right of Holyrood to decide on the franchise and therefore ensuring EU nationals have a vote for one and Independence Bill. Legislation that gives Holyrood the right to choose the question and date of any referendum. This was so passed in Jan 2020.

I know that's a bit more boring than just getting Brexit, sorry Indyref, done but making sure it's done on our terms I'm a time when we can win is more important to me than just having one. 

There won't be an Indyref 3 

I love the idea  that Sturgeon is comfortable in power as if the leader that wins our independence will be signing on on the Monday after independence

Edited April 10, 2021 by invergowrie arab

[BucksburnDandy]

Won’t be voting for Alba this election as like many I’m concerned it’s more about AS’s ego than anything else and they’ve recruited quite a few Zoomers. However like others I’m not convinced the SNP are doing enough to try and push for independence (although I believe they want higher numbers in the polls before they’ll consider something more radical as we’re only just above 50% rather than “the SNP don’t want independence” which is laughable).

The one major change I’d like to see to ensure pro independence majority is get away from this SNP 1 and 2 in every area as it’s wasted votes. Do a deal with the Greens or even Alba, ditch the SNP 1 and 2 in areas where it’s a wasted vote and urge supporters to vote for Green/Alba on the list. Yes we’ve got an Indy Majority but the less Unionists MSPs the louder the message to London and the outside world. Also the more pro independence MSPs who aren’t SNP the harder it is for MSM / Westminster to paint the Yes movement as the SNP ONLY.

We tell everyone the Yes movement isn’t one party, it’s a movement for everyone Left, Right or Centre, let’s prove it and show anti SNP voters that an independent Scotland won’t be some SNP dictatorship that many of them seem to fear it will be.

This is similar to where I am. The SNP need a boot up the arse, not just on independence but on land reform, education and utilising powers more effectively. The last 5 years of government has been pretty myopic, with little big policy achievements.

Alba at the moment just seems a vehicle for Alex Salmond and the lack of policy ideas at present is an issue for them with postal votes starting to come through to people.

Ultimately, the Greens offer the best list alternative for me at the moment, and have an opportunity to put pressure on the SNP on the constitution. They have already wrung concessions out the SNP during the last parliament.

This parliament, section 30 needs to be requested and when rejected fought tooth and nail through the courts. When that inevitably fails, it needs to be used to start seeing popular pressure from people in the form of peaceful demonstrations on the streets.

If the SNP leadership lead people up the hill again only to not fight for an indyref, people like me will switch off to voting for the SNP, and that is not what is needed for the party.

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, renton said:

 

I get VT's point about multiple indy parties changing the nature of the conversation, but it won't be in this election. Hard to make a case for multiple indy parties in opposition to each other when both parties are drawing their support from the same cohort of voters. The reason multi indy parties has traditionally been the clincher is surely because that is the end result of a population so massively pro Indy that multiple parties could be supported by it. As it is, Yes has maybe a 1 or 2 point lead. It's still a fairly even split between Indy and Unionist parties. A large Alba or Green contingent might give it the appearance but not the substance of a population that has made its peace with Indy.

It doesn't matter if it's the same cohort of voters, when literally hundreds of thousands of their list votes are proven to be utterly useless time and time again by a bankrupt hoarding strategy of the SNP. Punt the Yoons into minor player mode by fixing this and the narrative is shifted, whether that's based on the vagaries of the electoral system or not. 

The reasons why this is unlikely to happen in this election have got nothing to do with Alba's crap plan not stacking up to the SNP's great strategy for how to deliver indyref2, because no such strategy exists.  It's all personality politics. 

Edited April 10, 2021 by vikingTON

[ayrmad]

40 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

We already have two pro-independence parties in parliament who could build towards a place of substance.

VT's point about moving to a position where you have a main opposition who also support independence changing the nature of the debate is a good one, but the idea that Alba are going to be the party to provide a platform for that constructive evolution is fanciful.

Yes, every party has to start somewhere and the SNP were fringe cranks once as well, but considering that the main thrust of people talking up a vote for Alba is that the SNP aren't doing enough to get independence and they should be declaring UDI based on every council by-election they win, these aren't people with an interest in playing the long game and waiting for Alba to become a credible party. These are voters who want independence yesterday, and the internecine warfare in the independence movement which would be unleashed by Alba getting into parliament would put independence further away, not closer; you don't want to wait the years it would take for them to turn into a credible party and stop turning undecided voters towards the union via Salmond's unpopularity.

If you're viewing a list vote for the SNP as a waste and want to maximise the number of pro-independence MSPs, you've got a choice between:

1. A pro-independence party which already has parliamentary representation and a small but established voter base which isn't disappearing, have a full set of policies on various issues, a track record of extracting concessions from the SNP and long established support for independence

2. A pro-independence party who were set up five minutes ago, have no representation or established voter base, no policies beyond 'we want independence faster' but no plan for how they achieve that, a leader whose name is irrevocably associated with sleaze (to put it mildly) and is widely despised across several demographics in every part of the country, whose presence in parliament will turn undecided voters against independence. A common factor among the candidates they've assembled is hatred of Nicola Sturgeon and a desire to remove her as First Minister - you could argue that this is a bigger priority than independence for some of them - and there is absolutely zero chance of this party working constructively alongside the SNP towards independence in the lifetime of this parliament.

If people have reasons they don't want to go for Option 1 due to disagreements with the Greens over non-independence related policies or other issues with them then fine, but anyone telling themselves Option 2 is a better route to independence is absolutely kidding themselves. It is not going to bring independence closer and every single one of you know this.

Who knows what Alba will become, a few weeks ago these supposed crackpot were in the SNP, not convinced it was those people that everyone thought were the crackpots within the SNP. 

Greens ain't for me at this point I'm afraid. 

[ayrmad]

39 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

No, what should they have done? You keep banging on about what they shouldn't have done without proposing an alternative.  Why is that?

The 'what they shouldn't have done' is a biggee, if that's all you've got do nothing instead of making yourself look like a tube, the SNP totally misread the room, they expected uproar from the masses and got nowt aoart from 'why the f**k is she asking at this juncture'. 

[vikingTON]

9 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

Re: 5 years to get it done 

We didn't see sustained leads for Yes in the polls until 2020.

In the meantime preparatory work has been happening in Holyrood to prepare the groundwork. Legislation passed that asserts the right of Holyrood to decide on the franchise and therefore ensuring EU nationals have a vote for one and Independence Bill. Legislation that gives Holyrood the right to choose the question and date of any referendum. This was so passed in Jan 2020.

There weren't any leads at all for Yes in 2011, yet a independence referendum was held and Yes came from miles behind to fundamentally shift the dynamic not Scottish politics in its favour. What's the backup plan if the sustained polling lead drops away or never gets to the level (reportedly 55-60%) that Sturgeon wants before calling one? This so-called leadership strategy of just following the public goes against the entire premise of the previous Yes campaign, which did not give a toss about comfortable opinion and punditry about its prospects. It got out there and changed people's minds for itself. 

That's not to say that a rerun should be held without doing any groundwork. The currency question in particular needs a better solution and clear examples prepared to show the public that the desired option is both attainable and would work at least in the short/medium term. That's a much more important task than Holyrood passing legislation which will likely be ignored and dragged through the courts. 

[Baxter Parp]

7 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

The 'what they shouldn't have done' is a biggee, if that's all you've got do nothing instead of making yourself look like a tube, the SNP totally misread the room, they expected uproar from the masses and got nowt aoart from 'why the f**k is she asking at this juncture'. 

What. Should. They. Have. Done?

[Baxter Parp]

4 minutes ago, virginton said:

There weren't any leads at all for Yes in 2011, yet a independence referendum was held

In 2014 surely? And it was held with the co-operation of the UK government.  The UK government has not co-operated since, so what's your point?

[vikingTON]

7 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

In 2014 surely? And it was held with the co-operation of the UK government.  The UK government has not co-operated since, so what's your point?

The SNP won its majority in 2011 on a platform of holding a referendum and the subsequent SG began negotiations to set the date,  question and other conventions shortly afterwards.

They didn't huddle in a darkened room until John Curtice told them that they had 60% 'sustained' support because they weren't utter shitebags. 

[J_Stewart]

There weren't any leads at all for Yes in 2011, yet a independence referendum was held and Yes came from miles behind to fundamentally shift the dynamic not Scottish politics in its favour. What's the backup plan if the sustained polling lead drops away or never gets to the level (reportedly 55-60%) that Sturgeon wants before calling one? This so-called leadership strategy of just following the public goes against the entire premise of the previous Yes campaign, which did not give a toss about comfortable opinion and punditry about its prospects. It got out there and changed people's minds for itself. 
That's not to say that a rerun should be held without doing any groundwork. The currency question in particular needs a better solution and clear examples prepared to show the public that the desired option is both attainable and would work at least in the short/medium term. That's a much more important task than Holyrood passing legislation which will likely be ignored and dragged through the courts. 

The surge between 2011 and 2014 came as a consequence of people engaging with a topic that hadn’t been a mainstream consideration until that point. The context is completely different now, there’s not a huge number of undecided or unaware voters in the Scottish electorate now, the ‘battle lines’ have almost certainly been drawn one way or the other for 70-80% of the electorate and that just isn’t changing. “Getting out there and changing minds” isn’t an option this go round. Therefore a consistent 55% ish polling support is going to be imperative to push it through.

Completely agree on the currency point, it’ll be the fundamental discussion piece during any campaign.

[ayrmad]

17 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

What. Should. They. Have. Done?

Nothing until the time was right, they're either incompetent or they don't want independence. 

That little episode has made the march to independence so much harder, VT's suggestion is one of the better ones now and that will take a long while to bear fruit unless Brexit really hammers us even more than we expected. 

[Baxter Parp]

8 minutes ago, virginton said:

The SNP won its majority in 2011

The SNP lost its majority in 2016.  Is this news to you?

[vikingTON]

16 minutes ago, J_Stewart said:

 

The surge between 2011 and 2014 came as a consequence of people engaging with a topic that hadn’t been a mainstream consideration until that point. The context is completely different now, there’s not a huge number of undecided or unaware voters in the Scottish electorate now, the ‘battle lines’ have almost certainly been drawn one way or the other for 70-80% of the electorate and that just isn’t changing. “Getting out there and changing minds” isn’t an option this go round. Therefore a consistent 55% ish polling support is going to be imperative to push it through.
 

 

How did support increase from 45% to 50% or higher today, if it's just not possible to change people's minds anymore? 

What is the backup plan if polls sit stubbornly around 50-50 instead of the fait accompli that Sturgeon wants before actually pulling the trigger? No political leader worth their salt would have any issues about launching a referendum campaign from a 45-55 starting point.

If Sturgeon and the current SNP leadership don't want to take that gamble though, then they shouldn't be talking about a second referendum and hanging on every poll. Instead, they should be fighting a 'more powers to Holyrood' election that can be rinsed and repeated time and time again until all the SG has to do is change the letterhead and send a polite note to London telling them that it's done. That's the sure-fire route to success that they're looking for. 

The current strategy presents a significant risk of driving Scottish independence into a dismal cul-de-sac, held up indefinitely by the falling popularity of an SNP government and then a decade in opposition. 

Edited April 10, 2021 by vikingTON

[Baxter Parp]

5 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

Nothing until the time was right

When was the time right?

6 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

they're either incompetent or they don't want independence. 

Wat? You just said they should do nothing until the time was right.

[vikingTON]

1 minute ago, Baxter Parp said:

The SNP lost its majority in 2016.  Is this news to you?

The policy of Scottish independence retained majority support at Holyrood in 2016. It's remarkable how the SNP got anything done at all in government without its precious one-party majority, yet when it came to a second referendum this was suddenly impossible because Not Enough Support. 

[Baxter Parp]

Just now, virginton said:

 yet when it came to a second referendum this was suddenly impossible because Not Enough Support. 

Can you provide a link showing that this was a recent and prevailing opinion in the SNP?

[ayrmad]

2 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

When was the time right?

Wat? You just said they should do nothing until the time was right.

We've not reached that point yet IMO, no pain no gain.