New Alex Salmond Party

[greencol]

View attachment 4781

I hope he has someone proof read his memoirs.

 

[hibbybilly]

I’m maybe being really ignorant here, but she’s not trans is she?

I’m not sure but I know she loves Christmas, she gets tae eat, drink and be Mary.

 

[southfieldhibby]

What the fuck.

 

[O'Driscoll]

What the fuck.

I'm sure I've heard that voice before Life In A Scotch Sittingroom #2 Episode 2

 

[1875]

I'm sure I've heard that voice before Life In A Scotch Sittingroom #2 Episode 2

Its Angus McFadyen who played the Bruce in the Movie.

 

[Smurf]

What the fuck.

How embarrassing is that.

 

[southfieldhibby]

How embarrassing is that.

About as embarrassing as anything ever.

Also see Alba candidates/Wings Over Scotland ( same thing really) claiming SNP are funding campaigns to reduce age of consent to 10. Also fairly embarrassing.

Claim SNP funding groups lobbying to lower age of consent is FFS

The Wings Over Scotland blog claimed the SNP was supporting groups who want to lower the age of consent to 10 years old. This is completely false.

theferret.scot

 

[Smurf]

About as embarrassing as anything ever.

Also see Alba candidates/Wings Over Scotland ( same thing really) claiming SNP are funding campaigns to reduce age of consent to 10. Also fairly embarrassing.

Claim SNP funding groups lobbying to lower age of consent is FFS

The Wings Over Scotland blog claimed the SNP was supporting groups who want to lower the age of consent to 10 years old. This is completely false.

theferret.scot

You'd think the pro independence movement had been infiltrated by MI5. It's unreal how they've been reduced to this....

 

[PILTONSTANY]

The tweets from Alba members now seem to go...
“Vote SNP 1
Vote Alba 2
But heres a series of Tweets and Blogs with reasons not to vote SNP before you do”

 

[Purple & Green]

What the fuck.

To be fair PPBs have all been done. Nobody decides how to vote on them?

 

[Purple & Green]

About as embarrassing as anything ever.

Also see Alba candidates/Wings Over Scotland ( same thing really) claiming SNP are funding campaigns to reduce age of consent to 10. Also fairly embarrassing.

Claim SNP funding groups lobbying to lower age of consent is FFS

The Wings Over Scotland blog claimed the SNP was supporting groups who want to lower the age of consent to 10 years old. This is completely false.

theferret.scot

There are - as far as I can see - legitimate concerns around legal capacity for under 16s being widened for sexual activity.

the rather spectacular pile on by the trans cult and their allies suggests to me that they don’t won’t to address those concerns they want to
shut the debate down.

 

[Purple & Green]

You'd think the pro independence movement had been infiltrated by MI5. It's unreal how they've been reduced to this....

I don’t really buy into conspiracy theories, I just think the independence movement has got too big for the snp.

the conflict isn’t all one way traffic in Indy land - I think it’s pointless to a large extent - but then I don’t really care for Alba or snp really, I just fundamentally care for Indy.

but if there isn’t going to be Indy, then there’s no hook for me to vote for Indy.

 

[moathibby]

Margret Lynch and her allies in Wings Over Scotland have latched on to a statement made at a woman's meeting suggesting that Stonewall and others support a lowering of the age of consent down to the age of 10.This is a downright lie. If people can't accept that other folk can be what they want to be without fear of attack and ridicule then they are no friends of mine.Alba can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Murky]

Stonewall are members of ILGA. ILGA signed up to the 'Feminist declaration' which whilst it covers a number of very valid points also contains the following:

"End the criminalization and stigmatization of adolescents’ sexuality, and ensure and promote a positive approach to young people's and adolescents’ sexuality that enables, recognizes, and respects their agency to make informed and independent decisions on matters concerning their bodily autonomy, pleasure and fundamental freedoms"

"Eliminate all laws and policies ... including laws limiting legal capacity of adolescents"

Whilst it's a quite a stretch to state that as the SNP have made payments to Stonewall and Stonewall are members of an organisation that signed up to the the above declaration therefore equals "SNP support lowering the age of consent to 10" the above paragraphs are scary as fuck.

This is probably a topic for a thread of it's own but I would be interested to know if the above paragraphs have been taken out of context what they were intended to mean.

 

[southfieldhibby]

WHO categorizes anyone between 10-19 as an adolescent. Could probably have used an age range to be specific. Age of consent varies in each country, Germany, Italy, Portugal it's 14. Fairly confident no political party in Scotland is aiming at the 10 year olds, but it's naive to think kids under 16 don't think/talk/have sex. Don't see an issue with educating them to the good and bad aspects at a younger age.

 

[Purple & Green]

This is quite good commentary I think:


If Margaret Lynch's comments about the age of consent were overblown, they were no dafter than certain aspects of the SNP's absurdly broad definition of "transphobia", which seek to pathoĺogise the expression of legitimate opinion, or than the embarrassing claims that the moderate, centre-left social democratic Alba Party is some kind of "far-right hate group".

My own view is that there's no prospect of the SNP government reducing the age of consent - although that isn't necessarily because nobody wants it to happen. Reading between the lines of some of the carefully-worded comments that have been made, it looks like there are indeed advocates of a change to the age of consent, albeit perhaps not quite as dramatic a change as Margaret Lynch is concerned about. For example, the suggestion is that sex between fourteen and fifteen year olds should be decriminalised, but that it would still be illegal for adults to have sex with them. But the reality is that the government wouldn't be able to go even that far, because they know they would pay too heavy a price with public opinion.

Some free advice for the biggest Alba supporting website

In the wake of Margaret Lynch's alleged comments at the Alba women's conference, a number of the party's most vociferous critics seemed to t...

scotgoespop.blogspot.com

 

[Purple & Green]

Margret Lynch and her allies in Wings Over Scotland have latched on to a statement made at a woman's meeting suggesting that Stonewall and others support a lowering of the age of consent down to the age of 10.This is a downright lie. If people can't accept that other folk can be what they want to be without fear of attack and ridicule then they are no friends of mine.Alba can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

I think this is good commentary on this:


These are my last tweets re the ILGA situation & how that has played out in Scotland since the weekend, I think the following is important to say.

If we lived in a country with a remotely healthy political landscape & one not steeped in misogyny, here is how things would have >
>gone after a female political candidate raised the text of a declaration as a safeguarding issue.

1) After it was raised in conference & publicised by the media that the declaration literally states that all laws preventing adolescents being able to legally consent to sex >
>should be abolished, there would have been an initial reaction across political parties & relevant orgs (not just LGBT orgs) that this is clearly not okay & must be addressed. No-one would be blamed for raising it or indeed for criticising it, even if some believed the >
>declaration had been written incorrectly - because safeguarding should be a value we can expect all groups to share.

2) Then orgs that signed the declaration would urgently be clear that they did not support any lowering of the age of consent, & would be clear that they were >

>seeking clarity on why this wording was used, from the authors, & ask for it to be redrafted. Govt funded member orgs of any signatories would do the same.

3) At which point, due to pressure, there would have been some form of clarification from the authors a the declaration >
>would then be redrafted, not least to ensure that paedophiles across the globe cannot take this section as validation of their abuse of children - many of whom deny that it is abuse at all because they believe children can consent, & the wording here only helps them validate >
>this to themselves & others like them. This is also why it's not good enough to say that it's okay because a tiny minority of people, due to their work experience, understand what the language is meant to mean.

And that would hopefully be that.

What would not have happened>
>1) Women would not have been called homophobic for highlighting that orgs funded by the Scottish Govt & which have campaigned to remove the sex based protections of women & girls in the Equality Act, are also members of a signatory to a declaration that recommends lowering the >
>age of consent.

2) Prominent men across political parties & publicly funded orgs would not make specific women raising these safeguarding concerns targets for abuse, harassment, threats & doxxing, by claiming they were driven by hate instead of genuine care for the welfare of >
>children. Men would not have ignored the patriarchal history of women's needs, concerns & motives being ignored or misrepresented, so that women can be ignored &/or dehumanised for their benefit. Men would realise they have a responsibility to undo this patriarchal conditioning>
>3) Men, including political candidates, would not be threatening women with violence, or advocating violence against a group including them, and political leaders would not ignore any calls for VAW, because they would not find VAW acceptable in our society.

4) Journos would >
>not have engaged in gaslighting re the meaning of words, including the term 'adolescent', & would also have covered any unfair or abusive treatment towards women, including misrpresenting women & threats of violence, & would also have asked the parties of any political >

>candidates doing this to women, for comment. They would also have sought comment from the authors of the declaration in a bid to clarify the content & any further action being taken.

So that is how the last few days would have gone, if we lived in a remotely healthy, feminist >
>society. And that is how they should have gone.
Women deserve so much better than this patriarchal, misogynist bullshit.

Read and Share Twitter Threads easily!

Thread Reader helps you read and share the best of Twitter Threads

threadreaderapp.com

 

[PILTONSTANY]

Looking at list results so far,It’s looking horrendous for Salmond and Alba

 

[Purple & Green]

Looking at list results so far,It’s looking horrendous for Salmond and Alba

Horrific.

I suspect 1 Million SNP list votes will elect 1 SNP MSP. There has to be a better way of doing things.

 

[Rocky]

Horrific.

I suspect 1 Million SNP list votes will elect 1 SNP MSP. There has to be a better way of doing things.

They're going to get around 50% of the seats with around 50% of the votes - what's wrong with this way of doing things?

 

[PILTONSTANY]

Horrific.

I suspect 1 Million SNP list votes will elect 1 SNP MSP. There has to be a better way of doing things.

Thing is,every single Indy voter knows what they were voting for.

Alba might be the answer going forward but suspect Salmond has to go for it to happen….

 

[1875]

They're going to get around 50% of the seats with around 50% of the votes - what's wrong with this way of doing things?

And no creepy mysoginist to boot.

 

[Purple & Green]

Thing is,every single Indy voter knows what they were voting for.

Alba might be the answer going forward but suspect Salmond has to go for it to happen….

I believe he’s going to step down.

 

[1875]

I believe he’s going to step down.

A big deep hole?

 

[Rocky]

I believe he’s going to step down.

Alex Arthur to take over and corner the Ryan69 market?

 

[Purple & Green]

Alex Arthur to take over and corner the Ryan69 market?

More likely to be one of the SNP’s least wanted

 

[Purple & Green]

They're going to get around 50% of the seats with around 50% of the votes - what's wrong with this way of doing things?

Let’s come back to this after the results; I suspect that their vote share will be nearer 40% than 50%. Neat trick to nearly win a majority in a system designed to prevent one mind.

 

[1875]

Let’s come back to this after the results; I suspect that their vote share will be nearer 40% than 50%. Neat trick to nearly win a majority in a system designed to prevent one mind.

I am delighted the biggest nationalist party will have the nessesary majority.

 

[Rocky]

Let’s come back to this after the results; I suspect that their vote share will be nearer 40% than 50%. Neat trick to nearly win a majority in a system designed to prevent one mind.

Seems unlikely when 65% of seats have declared and they're on 47.1% but we'll see.

 

[Purple & Green]

Seems unlikely when 65% of seats have declared and they're on 47.1% but we'll see.​

PARTY​	Constituency Share​	List Share​	Average Share​	Constituency Seats​	List Seats​	Total Seats​	Seats %age​
SNP​	47.7%​	40.3%​	44%​	62​	2​	64​	49.6%​
TORY​	21.9%​	23.5%​	22.7%​	5​	26​	31​	24.0%​
LAB​	21.6%​	18.0%​	19.8%​	2​	20​	22​	17.1%​
Lib Dem​	6.9%​	5.1%​	6%​	4​	0​	4​	3.1%​
Green​	1.3%​	8.1%​	4.7%​	0​	8​	8​	6.2%​

Okay the results are in, and there's the numbers.

Voting SNP list was a wasted vote, as widely predicted in all but South and Highlands and Islands.

1,094,374 voted SNP List and most would have been as well throwing their paper in the bin, it didn't count.

 

[Rocky]

PARTY​	Constituency Share​	List Share​	Average Share​	Constituency Seats​	List Seats​	Total Seats​	Seats %age​
SNP​	47.7%​	40.3%​	44%​	62​	2​	64​	49.6%​
TORY​	21.9%​	23.5%​	22.7%​	5​	26​	31​	24.0%​
LAB​	21.6%​	18.0%​	19.8%​	2​	20​	22​	17.1%​
Lib Dem​	6.9%​	5.1%​	6%​	4​	0​	4​	3.1%​
Green​	1.3%​	8.1%​	4.7%​	0​	8​	8​	6.2%​

Okay the results are in, and there's the numbers.

Voting SNP list was a wasted vote, as widely predicted in all but South and Highlands and Islands.

1,094,374 voted SNP List and most would have been as well throwing their paper in the bin, it didn't count.

Just under 50% of the seats with 47.7% of the vote seems like a pretty fair outcome compared to what happens in Westminster.

 

[Davy]

I didnt understand how the 2nd vote counted. Got more idea now

 

[PILTONSTANY]

I voted SNP 1 and Green 2
Ended up with an SNP MSP,a Green MSP and an Indy majority in parliament.

Worked out pretty well imo

 

[greencol]

I voted SNP 1 and Green 2
Ended up with an SNP MSP,a Green MSP and an Indy majority in parliament.

Worked out pretty well imo

Ditto.

 

[southfieldhibby]

PARTY​	Constituency Share​	List Share​	Average Share​	Constituency Seats​	List Seats​	Total Seats​	Seats %age​
SNP​	47.7%​	40.3%​	44%​	62​	2​	64​	49.6%​
TORY​	21.9%​	23.5%​	22.7%​	5​	26​	31​	24.0%​
LAB​	21.6%​	18.0%​	19.8%​	2​	20​	22​	17.1%​
Lib Dem​	6.9%​	5.1%​	6%​	4​	0​	4​	3.1%​
Green​	1.3%​	8.1%​	4.7%​	0​	8​	8​	6.2%​

Okay the results are in, and there's the numbers.

Voting SNP list was a wasted vote, as widely predicted in all but South and Highlands and Islands.

1,094,374 voted SNP List and most would have been as well throwing their paper in the bin, it didn't count.

I suppose there a huge number of victorious SNP votes wasted on the constituency votes with massive margins too though, that’s just the way it is. System works itself out well and every party gets the right %.
might stink but there’s loss of tories in Scotland that require representation

 

[Plasticman]

My problem with the list isnt that the party gets the representation, seems fair as Mark says, but it means we can end up with people in jobs in parliament for life that we dont want there and were never elected. To pick a random example, how do we get rid of Jackie Baillie? She is high up on the Labour list so then will always get in despite not being voted for by anyone. I get the argument that the Labour Party are more likely to know who best represents their views than the average joe, so they should choose, but it doesnt sit well with me. Im sure that there are methods out there of PR where people are actually voted for, maybe the person who didnt win in their area with the highest number of votes or something. Im sure that idea is full of holes too, but as I said how do we get rid of an unpopular politician who is popular within the higher echelons of their party?

 

[Greenmachine]

My problem with the list isnt that the party gets the representation, seems fair as Mark says, but it means we can end up with people in jobs in parliament for life that we dont want there and were never elected. To pick a random example, how do we get rid of Jackie Baillie? She is high up on the Labour list so then will always get in despite not being voted for by anyone. I get the argument that the Labour Party are more likely to know who best represents their views than the average joe, so they should choose, but it doesnt sit well with me. Im sure that there are methods out there of PR where people are actually voted for, maybe the person who didnt win in their area with the highest number of votes or something. Im sure that idea is full of holes too, but as I said how do we get rid of an unpopular politician who is popular within the higher echelons of their party?

She won her seat with an increased majority did she not ?

 

[Plasticman]

She won her seat with an increased majority did she not ?

She did - I was just picking someone I dont have a lot of time for, obviously I should have picked someone from the list! (eg Murdo Fraser, someone else I dont have time for)

 

[Purple & Green]

My problem with the list isnt that the party gets the representation, seems fair as Mark says, but it means we can end up with people in jobs in parliament for life that we dont want there and were never elected. To pick a random example, how do we get rid of Jackie Baillie? She is high up on the Labour list so then will always get in despite not being voted for by anyone. I get the argument that the Labour Party are more likely to know who best represents their views than the average joe, so they should choose, but it doesnt sit well with me. Im sure that there are methods out there of PR where people are actually voted for, maybe the person who didnt win in their area with the highest number of votes or something. Im sure that idea is full of holes too, but as I said how do we get rid of an unpopular politician who is popular within the higher echelons of their party?

Join a party. Vote on the member selection.

Then watch as your top choice loses out in some jiggery pokery to put the party choices at the top of the list.

 

[Jack]

Join a party. Vote on the member selection.

Then watch as your top choice loses out in some jiggery pokery to put the party choices at the top of the list.

Your top choices might be the wrong gender!