And then there's this...



and just for comparison



More people believe a tory prime minister is doing a good job than the leader of the labout party. In Scotland! That's unheard of

Nice goalpost shift there.
The point was that pre-Corbyn Labour was utterly rejected in 2015 in Scotland. This was the politics of New Labour, actually it was worse than New Labour because the man in charge couldn't eat a bacon sandwich. Whatever the follow on is irrelevant, the fact is that Labour has failed in Scotland over a period of decades and that is F ALL to do with Jeremy Corbyn. Is the FACT.

You just see everything with the spectacles on.

Miliband won over the other one precisely because the other one was seen as more New Labour and bacon sandwich failure much less so. That is why the Unions put him in.

Also however bad it got under NL there are zero signs that Corbyn is changing Labours fortunes in Scotland. You are utterly hand waving away the disaster of the last round of MSP elections in Scotland, Corbyn was leader when the Tories over took as the opposition to SNP in Scotland, you cant just brush that under the carpet.

Your post is laughably bad. Labour failed in Scotland over a period of decades? They had the biggest share of the vote in every Westminster election from 1959 -2010. They were 2nd to the SNP in the last few Scottish parliament elections but it was in 2016 they seen a huge drop in their vote and have incredibly fallen behind the Tories. What happened was unprecedented.

Maybe because the SNP have clear objectives and get a united (fairly left) message across.
Why vote for Labour any more if you're scottish?
It'll be a labour/SNP coalition that stands the best chance of forming a government that isn't tory.
All this Corbyn bashing is tedious.

@ OAKF
I'm not but that is a different issue. The case in point is the comment from Ian Murray of which there are 2 things wrong:

Firstly, Labour in Scotland has zero credibility. The responsibility lies with New Labour's disastrous politics spanning 13 years, much longer in fact. Only the absence of a credible alternative saved them. Cue SNP clever re-branding as the party of anti-austerity, a message which Milliband's leadership utterly failed to convey; while the SNP proved to be much better liars, the contradictions within Labour were not only due to the incoherent oratory of poor Ed, rather the politics was muddled precisely because it was in fact Tory-lite, with the emphasis on lite. Yes the unions 'put him in' because David served in the Blair Government, but in essence the emperor barely changed his socks.

Secondly, Murray's comment serves only to present an image of a divided party, and people don't vote for divided parties. Which also explains an important reason why Labour continues to struggle, with Dugdale distancing herself from (and publicly attacking) the Westminster leadership. If they don't offer an alternative then people won't vote for them.

The point of Labour in Government is to make things better right? Labour failed because they didn't make things better. Now they also aren't winning elections. What is laughable is that you refuse to assign any blame to New Labour despite them losing all but one MP in 2015. That was where the electoral failure began and it will continue if people like Dugdale and Murray do their best to undermine their own party.

They very much did do so, yeah. The SNP thing is the same as the Trump thing, the Le Pen thing, the Wilders thing, the Erdogan thing -- it's just nationalism.

Corbyn and McDonnell (and their fanbois such as yourself) are not interested in parliamentary government, which they (and you) consider a bourgeois sellout. They are only interested in direct action by 'vanguard' forces on the Leninist model. As I'm sure you know.

Why vote for Labour in Scotland? Well there's two obvious reasons, one is that they oppose a 2nd independence referendum and the other is that they are offering some policies that are of the left (rather than the SNP who talk left but act right)

Now the big issue here is that Corbyn has just come in and completely contradicted the first point. So voters who oppose the SNP's neverendums are now going to have to take their votes to either the LibDems or Tories.

A Labour MSP has also just come out criticising Corbyn and added a bit more substance:

MSP Jackie Baillie, Labour’s Scottish economy spokeswoman, said: “This is a misguided and irresponsible comment . . . that is an insult to the dedicated work of Scottish Labour MSPs, councillors, and thousands of activists who have campaigned against a divisive second referendum.

“Jeremy Corbyn does not speak for me on this and it’s clear he does not speak for many of his MPs who — unlike him — took the time to come to Scotland to fight for the Union and saw first-hand how divisive the SNP’s referendum was.”

I think that Scotland should get a 2nd referendum to be honest.

The majority disagree.

Based on polls?
Because we know how well they work lately.
And didn't most of them vote not to leave the EU?
The people have spoken right?

The dynamics of brexit throw up some odd scenarios. A hard brexit with WTO tariffs would greatly increase resentment, but it would be absurd to leave the UK with a plan to join an EU that would insist on cross border rUK tariffs.

Sturgeon mumbling about a 2018 referendum might mean she wants to move before the trade position is clear and obvious impediments become apparent.

Good politicking by her.

Other than polls what else do we base our opinion on, the noisy minority? Also polls may be out but with regards to the question of should there be another referendum they are massively in favour of no.

As for the EU, something like 1/3 of Indy supporters voted leave. People don't feel all that strongly about the EU in general, it's just being stoked up as another SNP grievance. We also export more than 4 times as much to the rest of the UK than we do to the EU so it would be madness to leave our biggest market for such an insignificant one (in relative terms)

Apologies - you're by far the worst at throwing around incorrect or made-up stats that I incorrectly assumed it was you.

Please show me these polls.
The last one I could find was the Sunday Times panelbase one showing a huge 51% were against a second referendum "within a year or two".

I think there's more to it than simply nationalism.
First let's separate the SNP and to a lesser extent Trump, not sure about Erdogan, from Wilders and Le Pen who are of a fascist tradition posing as respectable moderate politicians, temporarily replacing the jackboots with the suits as it were. I suppose the similarity is the space they occupy, the decline of right and left shades of social democracy as governments struggle to keep a lid on the fallout from economic upheaval.

In the SNP's case, a party of the Scottish middle class, the tartan Tories, they cleverly constructed an anti-austerity message, exploiting the dissatisfaction with New Labour. That was the fundamental shift, historically, a decades long desertion of Labour from its base. You can't reverse this trend overnight, particularly when local leaders such as Dugdale have zero trust with their base let alone with a wider audience.

Your understanding of socialist politics is wafer thin. McDonnell and Corbyn are parliamentarians. No more, no less. They are of a Labour left tradition which has dwindled in size and influence since the 1980s. What has happened in the last 2 years is a groundswell of political engagement, a political representation of 15+ years of radicalisation around war and empire, and globalisation. Corbyn has found himself the unlikely spokesperson for the radical left, simply because he is one of the last standing, and certainly the most credible. But that doesn't change who he is. He is still a fundamental parliamentary socialist, believing that real change can come from within the system, with a little help from outside. In any case, the 'radical left' is in fact a mish mash of different ideas, Leninism is certainly a tiny, tiny fraction, the organised far left remain largely in their phone boxes, while individual activists morph into the broader networks. Of this I'm not entirely clear, being more of a former activist/current onlooker, but it's certainly closer to reality than expecting McDonnell and Corbyn to suddenly remove masks to reveal bearded Russians.

At the office just now so I'll post them when I get home.

One of those things is not like the other things.

Completely incorrect.

It is true that there are bigoted elements in the movement with respect to UKIP English and Scottish unionists with Northern Ireland connections, but the underlying independence movement is based on the longstanding political incongruity between Scotland and England.

The sooner scotland get independence the better IMO. I completely understand not wanting to be in a union where there's a disparity between your country and the people making decisions.

But if it fails this time, should be bound to shut the **** up about it for 10 years or so.

Wanting to do a referendum again because you don't like the results is kind of an EU thing to do, and the toys have only come out of the pram because they don't get to play with their EU friends, so I don't have a problem with it

Well said Husker.

Joke that Salmond, on the BBC EU referendum results show a few months ago, said "When the public give you a referendum result, you have to abide by it". Perhaps he has conveniently forgotten his "Once in a lifetime, or generation" statement about the first indy ref a mere 2.5 years ago.

Aye and the BT lot all told us to vote no to protect Scotland's place in the EU. Things have changed...