WHERE to start in response to Stuart Allen? (SNP 1&2 was always a better bet than voting for ALBA, May 19).
In my recent long letter I was at pains to point out that the analysis of voting numbers was highly entertaining but entirely worthless if commentators are only going to attach political spin with inventive interpretations. It seems my "arrogant belief" meant that those "commanded" to vote SNP were unpersuaded by the large amounts of SNP literature advocating Both Votes SNP.
Having not actually said any of that, I just point out the inventive spin.
The 200,000 "lost" votes from SNP1 apparently failing to follow into SNP2 would have resulted in precisely zero additional MSPs, rather than the seven quoted. Had the 200,000 been attached to even a single region, let’s say Glasgow, one single additional MSP would have been the result. I just point out the spin.
READ MORE: SNP 1&2 was always a better bet than voting for Alba
"Considering much of Alba’s support and hierarchy has spent the last year or more describing the SNP as corrupt" is actually quite a stretch when you consider Alba only came into being in March, or registered with the Electoral Commission on the Feb 8 2021, if you want to be pedantic. Hardly the "last year"” of inferred criticism as claimed. I’ll merely point out the spin. Again.
Now, as to referring to 200,000 SNP1 supporters as "vote-splitters"; that’s a highly unfortunate term, and not one of solidarity or camaraderie when placed alongside the 50,000 or so Alba supporters whose only call was to vote for independence by the strategy of SNP1, Alba2. Stuart Allen refers to Alba supporters "calling for Sturgeon’s resignation and telling people not to vote for them." Hmm! Did I miss the subliminal message of Alba leaflets stating "SNP1, Alba2"? I fear that yet again I have point out the inventive spin.
Added to the inflammatory comments describing fellow travellers as "a hastily assembled mish-mash of the discontent", "arrogant, entitled and delusional", it is not a welcoming or embracing face to present, I proffer.
The election figures are what they are. To interpretively spin them for your own ends is pointless. Instead of invigorating the independence case it merely dilutes the argument to all of our costs.
Be honest. That’s all I ask.
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