CARRYING out analysis of the regional ballot is an interesting but entirely worthless exercise if all you are going to do is apply the usual “this view/that view” to the findings (Majority of Scots regions back indy in list vote, May 16).
“Backing for pro-independence parties and candidates reached over 50% in six out of eight areas of Scotland.” Yes it did/No it didn’t.
“Research shows votes for those supporting Yes was the highest in Glasgow, at 58%.”
Yes it did. Pro-indy seats actually returned in Glasgow totalled one. And it was an ambivalent Green at that! And why was that?
READ MORE: Conclusive proof Scots DID vote for indyref2 at Holyrood election
“Across the country, around 51% of votes were for independence-supporting parties and candidates across Scotland, compared to around 48% for “indy-negative”.”
Across the country, around 18% of seats (10) were for independence-supporting parties and candidates across Scotland, compared to around 82% (46) for “indy-negative”.
Are you seeing the subjective Yes it did/No it didn’t application yet? It’s utterly pointless.
Returning to the Glasgow regional result: with a single pro-indy seat (Harvie) against a six-seat “indy-negative” majority, it gets increasingly difficult to portray this as a “landslide victory” as some are intent on doing. And why was that?
SNP’s Trump-like gaslighting is stupid, hypocritical, and basically self-defeating.
READ MORE: Andrew Tickell: How this week reminded us that not all nationalisms are equal
Michael Gove said: “If we look at the votes cast in constituencies in Scotland, more people voted for parties that were opposed to an independence referendum than those that might entertain that prospect.” Was he right?
Mathew Nicolson, deputy editor of Europe Elects, said that mandates were normally viewed in terms of the number of seats rather than vote share. So why the pussy-footing around with voting percentages, fascinating as they undoubtedly are, but of absolutely no relevance to the argument of democratic representation?
The SNP won 64 seats, missing out on an overall majority by one seat. And why was that?
Polling expert Mark Diffley said the SNP were “clear winners” of the election. “You judge these things by representation in parliament and there is a majority in parliament for another referendum.”
Let’s leave it at that. Spinning regional percentage numbers and backing/opposition for another referendum is tedium ad nauseum. “There is a majority in parliament for another referendum.” Let’s get on with it.
Depressingly however, Diffley continued with: “Probably the next couple of years being a kind of ‘cold war’ of rhetoric and very little else.”
SNP’s Depute Leader Keith Brown said: “These figures are absolute proof.” No they’re not. And why not? Here’s why not. The SNP engaged in a highly damaging, anti-independence strategy of both votes SNP. That strategy, despite it being pointed out by all and sundry – the polls, commentators, bloggers, ALBA, and some SNP party members – was pushed, promoted, aggrandised as the only option acceptable to the party.
The result? In excess of 1,094,000 “lost” independence votes. THAT’s why the figures aren’t “absolute proof” as they so obviously could have been. It was the SNP’s fault and theirs alone. Own it.
Keith Brown said: “The sovereign people of Scotland elected a rock-solid and undeniable pro-indy majority to the Scottish Parliament.” He continued: “The SNP achieved a record number of votes, a record number of constituency seats and – along with the Greens – there is an unprecedented 15-seat cross-party pro-indy majority at Holyrood.”
Get on with it then.
Brian W McCabe
via email
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel