Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
Rinty
|
Colin Fox to manage GretnaGretna's adminstrators have confirmed that former SSP MSP Colin Fox will take charge of the club from next season. Club spokesperson Jo King said:
"Gretna are on the way down and we need someone who can manage an ever-deteriorating situation. When Colin took over the SSP they had over 120,000 voters and he took that to just 12,000 in two years. He's just the kind of guy we need to steer our collapse to the lower leagues."
Fox was sacked by the SSP at the weekend to be replaced by joint male/female convenors, he will take over Gretna when his notice period ends in May.
|
Amber
|
Very droll. Fox will combine his management duties with the other aspects of a lifestyle enjoyed by a free man in the coming years.
|
Rinty
|
He is furious amber, but I am sure he will put on a show until May that will match the fake support he has had since the split.
But this was an april fool joke amber, no need to bring up your obsesion with all things sheridan and courts again - it's boring.
|
Amber
|
| Rinty wrote: | He is furious amber, but I am sure he will put on a show until May that will match the fake support he has had since the split.
But this was an april fool joke amber, no need to bring up your obsesion with all things sheridan and courts again - it's boring. |
You're the one who mentioned Sheridan, Rinty. I have no idea why. WHy did you?
|
Rinty
|
because you couldnt read a joke post without your obsession with tommy coming to the fore. Your comments were obviously aimed at tommy, you dont think we are stupid do you amber, what else could you have meant?
Look, he has gone and he is not coming back to your party, you will just have to try to get over him.
And please refrain from commenting on the court case in any way at all. The moderators do not want any comment that could cause trouble for the site and there is to be no more comment on court cases etc.
And all comment re sheridan or related issues are to carried out in the one existing thread. This is an april fool joke. If you want to carry on your tommy obsession do it in the correct thread.
This thread should be left clear for people who want to comment on a joke, I wouldnt want to lock it and prevent members from adding their comments.
We have a pretty sectarian free site here and you came here posting on one subject only. The atmosphere of the sectarian left blogs is not what we have here and it is not appreciated.
If you are replyng do it the the 'sheridan' thread.
|
Amber
|
I see. It is humour, Rinty. Funny guy. Funny, funny guy.
Ha ha ha ha.
Let me try:
"Last night it emerged that Rinty has been named press spokesman of the year.
"Rinty was given the accolade for his intelligence and skill."
I see how it works. Funny.
|
Anthropos
|
Well I thought it was a good April Fools, though I did cotton on to the fact by the end of the first sentence; however the other Tory one pushed the limits of credulity a bit too far, though I see not for everyone.
|
jimtrot
|
| Rinty wrote: | because you couldnt read a joke post without your obsession with tommy coming to the fore. Your comments were obviously aimed at tommy, you dont think we are stupid do you amber, what else could you have meant?
Look, he has gone and he is not coming back to your party, you will just have to try to get over him.
And please refrain from commenting on the court case in any way at all. The moderators do not want any comment that could cause trouble for the site and there is to be no more comment on court cases etc.
And all comment re sheridan or related issues are to carried out in the one existing thread. This is an april fool joke. If you want to carry on your tommy obsession do it in the correct thread.
This thread should be left clear for people who want to comment on a joke, I wouldnt want to lock it and prevent members from adding their comments.
We have a pretty sectarian free site here and you came here posting on one subject only. The atmosphere of the sectarian left blogs is not what we have here and it is not appreciated.
If you are replyng do it the the 'sheridan' thread. |
I'm loathe to raise the spectre of the Tanned One on this thread, Rinty but I must agree with Amber. It was you who mentioned him first. Are you so far gone that you are seeing his name everywhere?
|
Rinty
|
Ok jimyou win, I mentioned his "name" first.
AND, when Amber said "Fox will combine his management duties with the other aspects of a lifestyle enjoyed by a free man in the coming years.", It was nothing to do with a reference to her hope that Tommy goes to jail and was unrelated to the case altogether. She meant that Fox would be "free" from work and her reference to a "free man" was a historical reference to the abolition of slavery and NOT a reference in any way to Tommy Sheridan.
As funny as I thought my april fool was, this is funneir.
I have to ask though, now that you two have succesfuly turned an april fools joke into the usual nonsense, what will his "management duties" be? I mean he is no longer the leader of the SSP after May. And the SSP convenor doesnt have any management duties, it is a spokesperson.
Are the new convenors going to adopt some new "menagement" duties?
Now that would be news, in my opinion, as the "special conference" with its year-long review of structures, seems to have come up with nothing other than replacing Fox with joint convenors. Was there anything else?
Four years ago the McCombes cap put forward the idea of co-convenors in an attempt to stop the obvious, that Fox would win the convenor election folowing Tommy's resignation. They lost the vote then, but now when they think they can win the vote he brings it back up again.
The tranparently bogus support for Colin since the split was only a matter of timing. So unless anything else has come out of this radical, special review, the whole conference was about dumping Colin and settling old scores.
|
jimtrot
|
| Rinty wrote: | Ok jimyou win, I mentioned his "name" first.
AND, when Amber said "Fox will combine his management duties with the other aspects of a lifestyle enjoyed by a free man in the coming years.", It was nothing to do with a reference to her hope that Tommy goes to jail and was unrelated to the case altogether. She meant that Fox would be "free" from work and her reference to a "free man" was a historical reference to the abolition of slavery and NOT a reference in any way to Tommy Sheridan. |
I don't know what she meant, Rinty, but with your astounding display of telepathic ability, over such a distance into the bargain, have you never thought of a career in showbiz? You'll probably need it when Solidarity goes down the tubes.
| Quote: | As funny as I thought my april fool was, this is funneir.
I have to ask though, now that you two have succesfuly turned an april fools joke into the usual nonsense, what will his "management duties" be? I mean he is no longer the leader of the SSP after May. And the SSP convenor doesnt have any management duties, it is a spokesperson.
Are the new convenors going to adopt some new "menagement" duties?
Now that would be news, in my opinion, as the "special conference" with its year-long review of structures, seems to have come up with nothing other than replacing Fox with joint convenors. Was there anything else?
Four years ago the McCombes cap put forward the idea of co-convenors in an attempt to stop the obvious, that Fox would win the convenor election folowing Tommy's resignation. They lost the vote then, but now when they think they can win the vote he brings it back up again.
The tranparently bogus support for Colin since the split was only a matter of timing. So unless anything else has come out of this radical, special review, the whole conference was about dumping Colin and settling old scores. |
Don't know where you get that rubbish, Rinty. Obviously your extrasensory powers far outstrip you capacity for logical deduction. Please don't confuse wishful thinking with reality. Colin is still the Convenor of the Party and has had and will have the full support of the membership of the SSP as long as he remains in the post. So, don't go trying to create mini pantomimes in which you can pretend that the world is as you wish it and not how it really is.
|
Rinty
|
"I don't know what she meant, Rinty,"
Oh come on Jim, following a joke post from me about Colin Fox, she says " Fox will combine his management duties with the other aspects of a lifestyle enjoyed by a free man", and you think that I have to be telepathic to read that as a reference to Tommy Sheridans charges? You don't expect anyone to believe that do you?
"Colin is still the Convenor of the Party and has had and will have the full support of the membership of the SSP as long as he remains in the post"
He is the convenor until replaced, almost all of the people who elected him leader have left the SSP. Following Tommy's court victory the SSP were stuck with Fox and had to show fake unity for two years to leave a reasonable time before they dumped him.
Four years ago I was at the SSP meeting where this first came up. I pointed out then that it was pointless as the convenor's job has no power in the party, we already had co-chairs, and a women's spokesperson and therefore an extra spokesperson wasnt necessary. I saw it as tokenistic
Fox, however, was more vociferous in his opposition and led the "no" vote at an angry heated National Council. He saw it as an attempt to stop him becoming convenor as the opposition knew that they didnt have a candidate that could beat him. The vote was very close, from memory 42 against the idea of joint-convenors and 41 for.
The election campaign between Fox and McCombes was nasty and created divisions that never healed. I argued that we shouldnt see this as serious as we were only selecting a press spokesperson and not a leader. But the party was split into two camps, it may already have been split already and this only highlighted it. Fox won the convenor election comfortably and supporters of McCombes were actually visibly angry and discourteous in defeat, some storming out of the hall. People actually criticised Fox's supporters for cheering his victory.
Many of those who backed Fox, most of them in fact, left the SSP, some of them to join Solidarity. There has been very little supoort for Fox in the last two years, especially as he welcomed Tommy's victory in court. But they couldnt risk more turmoil and splits in the aftermath of the court defeat and so had to pretend to support Fox in the meantime.
That is how it happened and you know it. This conference amounted to nothing more than the settling of old scores.
Who are you supporting for co-convenors Jim? How about George McNeilage and Brabara 'expel gregor gall' Scott? Both of them have good media contacts especially with top selling tabloids and George is a hero in the SSP.
|
Amber
|
Rinty, still posting April Fools' gags I see.
|
Rinty
|
Still only posting on one subject?
Who are you voting for in the elections Amber? Why don't you and JimTrot team up and launch a bid?
|
Amber
|
I'll be voting SNP Rinty.
How about you? Since there wil be no Solidarity, will you be joining us?
|
Rinty
|
Thats right Amber, you are an SNP supporter, who happens to have no interest in any other subject on our-scotland apart from Tommy Sheridan, solidarity and the SSP.
I might have belived you when you only stuck to you specua;ltion re the court cases, but in this thread you jumped ona an april fool joke to defend the SSP.
Have you and Jim noticed that my other april fools re rangers and the tories were not followed bu huffs from tories and or rangers supporters?
Join us? Are you an SNP member or just a voter?
|
Amber
|
Just a voter.
|
Rinty
|
o you are askng if I will join you in something that you won't join?????
|
Amber
|
Let me clarify Rinty: Since there will be no solidarity candidates at the next election, will you join us SNP voters in voting SNP?
Is that simple enough for you?
|
Rinty
|
Ah right, well, if there wasnt any Solidarity candidates I would vote for a soialist candidate.
I would imagine that there will be candidates from solidarity. I dont think we would choose not to stand given that we took over 30,000 votes in our first election.
You may not have noticd that Solidarity only stood on the list so it is still possible to vote SNP as well.
But you might as well ask people how they would vote of the SNP didnt exist. Hypotheticals like that are a bit pointless.
It would depend very much on the other canddates, the manifesto and the individual candidate.
The next election is the euro elections and then the westmnster elections. There has been talks between greens, SSP and solidarity re the euro elections and I have been involved in similar talks between even more organisations re some seats in the UK elections. But in the next scottish elections iy would be silly for solidarity not to stand so I dont really get your point.
|
Amber
|
There have been talks between Solidarity and the SSP re the Euro elections? Now that's either big news or another April fool.
I'll be surprised if there are any Solidarity candidates in any future elections.
|
Rinty
|
It was SSP, Solidarity and the Greens Amber, still at early stages so dont know the outcome yet. There has been a few meetings and they do have plans for more.
Why would Solidarity NOT stand candidates at elections? It wouldnt make sense. The left vote collapsed to 1999 levels as did the Green vote at the last elections, but we took the majority of that and made a good start. Why would we not stand on that basis? We took more votes than the other two left parties combined, the SLP came next with about 40% of our votes and the SSP behind that. We also were by far the largest vote of the left parties at the council elections.
Now, it could be, as I said, that the parties of the left will look at how to deal with elections but that sort of discussion has always gone on and always wil so I think that it is much more likely that we will will stand on our own right, as will the others.
|
Amber
|
But at the last election, Solidarity hadn't been deserted by the SWP, Ruth Black hadn't defected. Solidarity doesn't meaningfully exist any longer. When's your conference, for example?
|
Rinty
|
I see, I get you.
No the SSP lost their Glasgow councillor at the election, Solidarity lost ours after getting enough votes to get a councillor elected.
While I would want Ruth to remain in Solidarity, she is a friend of mine and I can appreciate her reasons even if I dont agree. But the voters in Craigton voted for a solidarity councillor so why would that be a reason not to stand again?
Solidarity have not been deserted by the SWP, you shouldnt belive the SSP propaganda Amber.
Our main conference is in November, why?
I now see why you said what you said Amber as you were basing it on the wrong information. The SWP are still there, still fully involved, probably currently the most influential group in Solidarity going by our last conference and we didnt lose the voters of Craigton, just the councillor.
|
Amber
|
I stand corrected. I thought that SWP document attacking Solidarity and Tommy Sheridan indicated the SWP had left.
Anyway, it's pretty clear that Solidarity doesn't exist in any meaningful way now.
|
Rinty
|
No, the leaked internal discussion document by an SWP committee way back last year was spun as a split by the obvious people who wanted to see it like that, but six months later they still play the same role. The SWP made it clear at the time that they remained committed to Solidarity despite some on the committee having criticisms about direction.
I remember when the SSP was a place where discussion and disagreement were considered healthy, we still consider that to be the case.
The thing is, The SSP have actually lost platforms, inlcuding the SWP and it seems that you didnt consider that to be the end of them. Even since the split to solidarity the SSP have lost the support of the RMT union and the SRSM yet no-one seemed to report that as the party collapsing.
I certainly hope that the SWP stay in Solidarity for a long time and I can see no evidence that they have other plans apart from wishful thinking from SSP members and hostile journalists.
|
jimtrot
|
[quote="Rinty"]
But you might as well ask people how they would vote of the SNP didnt exist. Hypotheticals like that are a bit pointless.[quote]
but in the case of Solidarity, it is a bit more than hypothetical. eh, Rinty? 
|
Rinty
|
Not really, Jim,no more than the SSP or the rest of the left.
We havent been going long so it is always hard to judge. Any predictions on how any left party or the left in generaL will do in the next few years would be silly.
Solidarity know that we can get a council seat elected in Glasgow (we lost the councillor, not the voters), we know we have members playing key roles in every trade union and we are still building.
The SSP, on the other hand, havent just lost the ones that went to Solidarity, many more left and didnt join another party. The SSP lost their only trade union affiliation which was, in my opinion, one of the main validations of their project. Another validation was that the SSP brought together the various left groupings in one alliance, that has also gone with only one main faction remaining, to the extent that they dont need a faction. I joined the SSP because it WAS a project that united the left, but they can no longer claim that and I wonder of that wasn't their raison d'etre?
I am sure it is all smiley happy agreement in the SSP right now, but by getting rid of the opposition you have lost 75% of your active membership and 90%of your vote.
Solidarity can, I believe, carry on that project, keeping the SWP and CWI in one group is part of building that along with the majority of members who are not part of any of those groups.
It mght be Jim, that we dont manage to build on the good start we have had, but that is as much to do with political developments in a wider sense than it is to do with the ability of solidarity to grow.
Interesting times ahead I think. 
|
RedScotland
|
| Rinty wrote: | | Solidarity know that we can get a council seat elected in Glasgow (we lost the councillor, not the voters), we know we have members playing key roles in every trade union and we are still building. |
You know you can get a councillor elected? How did you work that one out? Black only just got in last time before defecting to Labour a few months later. Any small credibility Solidarity might have had last May will have been wiped out by 2011 (assuming you're still around by then) so your assertion seems fanciful to say the least.
| Rinty wrote: | | The SSP, on the other hand, havent just lost the ones that went to Solidarity, many more left and didnt join another party. The SSP lost their only trade union affiliation which was, in my opinion, one of the main validations of their project. Another validation was that the SSP brought together the various left groupings in one alliance, that has also gone with only one main faction remaining, to the extent that they dont need a faction. I joined the SSP because it WAS a project that united the left, but they can no longer claim that and I wonder of that wasn't their raison d'etre? |
We did indeed loose more than half our membership from the effects of the split but nationally we remain in a far stronger position than Solidarity which was evident from the fact that we had twice as many council candidates last year. It would therefore be madness to claim your own party was better placed than the SSP in terms of its capacity to rebuild the left in Scotland, especially when it's going to be constantly appearing in the news for all the wrong reasons over the next year or so.
In regards to losing the RMT's affiliation that was obviously regrettable but the fact remains that the decision to affiliate to us in the first place was not the result of a democratic vote by the union's membership and neither was the decision to withdraw it. The internal machinations of the trade union bureaucracy matter a lot less than the struggles or ordinary members and the extent to which we're ready to back them on the picket lines.
| Rinty wrote: | | I am sure it is all smiley happy agreement in the SSP right now, but by getting rid of the opposition you have lost 75% of your active membership and 90% of your vote. |
We got rid of no-one although perhaps we should have before they got the chance to do the damage which they did. You know very well why this 'opposition' you talk about tried to destroy the SSP but despite our showing last May I honestly can't say we're any worse off as a party. Our conference last month has shown that the SSP has been able to move on from its past troubles and is again getting down to the task of building a credible left-wing alternative and of defending Scotland's communities through our involvement in the struggles of ordinary people whether these be strikes or campaigns to stop further cut-backs to their public services.
| Rinty wrote: | | Solidarity can, I believe, carry on that project, keeping the SWP and CWI in one group is part of building that along with the majority of members who are not part of any of those groups. |
A democratic and pluralistic left unity project dominated by the SWP and CWI? Is that supposed to be a joke? The London-based Trot sects are only in Solidarity because they believe they can get something out of it, not because they're committed to building your party in any meaningful way.
|
Rinty
|
| Quote: | | You know you can get a councillor elected? How did you work that one out? |
Well, the last time there were council elections we had a councillor elected so we know it isnt impossible, does that suit you better? 
| Quote: | | We did indeed loose more than half our membership from the effects of the split but nationally we remain in a far stronger position than Solidarity which was evident from the fact that we had twice as many council candidates last year. It would therefore be madness to claim your own party was better placed than the SSP in terms of its capacity to rebuild the left in Scotland, especially when it's going to be constantly appearing in the news for all the wrong reasons over the next year or so. |
Obviously we are going to have to disagree on this one. Having more council candidates isnt, as far as I am aware, the yardstick to judge where a party is. In Solidarity, decisions on strategy for local elections is devolved to branches. We did not have a policy to stand in every seat and different areas had different strategies. In my own area we decided to concentrate on one ward only, but could easily have put up candidates for every ward, other regions, such as Glasgow, decided to stand in every seat.
It is interesting that you choose to measure it by the amount of council candidates and not the actual vote. I think you will find that Solidarity took more votes than the SSP where both stood, isnt that a more scdientific way of measuring it?
As for being better placed to rebuild the left, perhaps we differ on what that means. The left is not just the concept of getting an electoral party that can stand a chance in elections. Many parts of the 'left' are building quite well in their own ways. I see the task as uniting the left into an effective electoral force,not trying to take over the left and build it for them. To do this it will need the various factions and strands of thought to come together in one grouping. I said, that the fact that the SWP and CWI are in Solidarity is a start on that. Any left grouping that will be standing in competition to those groups will struggle. In England the two groups are in direct opposition but here in Scotland both came together in the SSP and now in Solidarity.
| Quote: | | A democratic and pluralistic left unity project dominated by the SWP and CWI? Is that supposed to be a joke? The London-based Trot sects are only in Solidarity because they believe they can get something out of it, not because they're committed to building your party in any meaningful way. |
Well, I wouldnt say dominated. the combined membership of those two groups is about a quarter of our membership. I also wouldnt say London based either but you can continue on that spin if you want. But you are correct that are in it for what they can get out of it. That is what the SSP did wrong re groups who joined, there were always portrayed as outsiders to be guarded against. Every group in a united left party will be in it for what they can get out of it. If what they can get out of it is a viable, electable left party then they work towards that. If they dont see that can be built, why should they bother?
|
Amber
|
Hi Rinty,
What is the current, paid up membership of Solidarity?
Amber
|
Rinty
|
Couldnt tell you exactly off hand Amber, I believe the membership who pay a regular monthly membership is about 600 maybe 700, it has been around that figure for about a year as far as I know. There is probably around half as many again who pay irregularly and are seen as members, if the local branches round my way are a yardstick. Then there are a hundred or so who are affiliated through Coalfields Solidarity. That's a trade union based branch who are semi-autonomous and pay a joint sum into the party rather than individual membership fees.
|
Amber
|
Can't you be specific? You are the press officer, after all.
|
Rinty
|
I am one of the press officers Amber. Is this a press request? I was asked this by a journalist about a month ago and I gave him the last figure that I had which was 634.
I think I was quite specific, nearer 600 then 700. The others that I mentioned are members to an extent but the regular paying monthly membership is over 600.
Like all parties this will fluctuate, I will try to get an exact figure on the date you requested it if you want. Obviously I cant be specific on members who are not regular payers and are less active. I can find out the Coalfields affiliated membership if you want as I am a member, but that is not a direct solidarity membership, you had asked for paid up membership, those comrades pay to their branch and donate to the party as a group so it is not registered as actual solidarity memership apart from those who choose to also pay a monthly sub to solidarity.
Hope this helps.
|
Amber
|
Thank you. It's not a press request. I'm just curious as to how the Solidarity party is coping with its current crisis and whether members are deserting.
|
Rinty
|
If, by the 'current crisis' you mean the various police actions, then this is not a new thing.
No, members are not deserting, we have lost some members but also gained some.
|
youatethebabyjesus
|
Re: Colin Fox to manage Gretna | Rinty wrote: | Gretna's adminstrators have confirmed that former SSP MSP Colin Fox will take charge of the club from next season. Club spokesperson Jo King said:
"Gretna are on the way down and we need someone who can manage an ever-deteriorating situation. When Colin took over the SSP they had over 120,000 voters and he took that to just 12,000 in two years. He's just the kind of guy we need to steer our collapse to the lower leagues."
Fox was sacked by the SSP at the weekend to be replaced by joint male/female convenors, he will take over Gretna when his notice period ends in May. |
colin fox could not manage his shoes.
|
Amber
|
I see the evil old News of the World continues its campaign against left-wingers this week.
Oh dear, Rinty.
|
|
|
|