exile

I heard they had tried to redact it as if to pretend it hadn't been said. Shows how messed up and/or cowardly they are. they don't even have the balls to admit they are calling half of Scotland extremists. Perhaps afraid of the oxygen of publicity... too late for that.

Gary Linekar's take

The Gaza situation seems to deserve a thread of its own. Terrified families flee Rafah as Israel set to open all-out assault - Observer Israeli forces ‘carpet bombing’ Jabalia - Al Jazeera (feed) People in Rafah essentially moving into rubble [UN official] BBC (feed, 11:10) UK ban on selling arms to Israel would strengthen Hamas, says Cameron - BBC

2 points?

who keeps bringing it up?

For example if I'm, say a LibDem voter in, say central Scotland (not a LibDem target seat), I would not feel the Union was under threat from SNP in a general election as we seem to be heading for. So I'd probably vote LibDem, even at the risk of SNP fighting off Labour or Tories to win the seat. But if there was any momentum behind the idea the GE was to be a de facto referendum and fought as a constitutional decider on those lines, I think people would be more likely to vote on constitutional lines - and to vote at all - with unionists more motivated to stop the SNP sweep the board in seats like in 2015 (even if result would in principle be based on each vote counts). But maybe that's just my view. The same logic could also possibly work in the opposite direction. Independence supporters might be more likely to vote SNP (and to vote at all) in a de facto referendum. I imagine people would rather win indy on back of majority of both votes and seats, than rely on just votes.

I think I covered it in my following post.

For a normal GE, a unionist voter currently knows that the most damage the SNP could do is be a large but frustrated opposition bloc in Westminster. It would not threaten the Union. A Labour (led) government is most likely outcome, whatever I vote in Scotland. So, free to vote for party of my normal choice. But if a de facto referendum and any chance the nasty nats could sneak a 51% vote share, I'd be more roused to vote on constitutional lines and vote tactically against the SNP. At least that's how I see it.

Because a unionist would still be inclined to use it as a normal election to get the SNP out, and they could still refuse to recognise the de facto referendum part especially if only proposed by one side, or even one party of one side

Thanks, that was timely. Interesting they would ask all pro indy parties' votes to count, but would the Brit government agree those terms? Especially if the SNP didn't have de facto referendum on their own manifesto It could help get the pro indy vote out, right enough. But if taken seriously, it could also spur tactical voting against SNP among unionist voters, whereas Alba have nothing to lose on this front. So I could see why Alba would propose this but not SNP

Can someone remind us what is the plan for independence of the Alba party or the Green party? Apart for voting for them, then what?

I was wondering how come those headlines came to opposite conclusions. My only thought was that the media are divided as to whether it's more damaging to show the SNP as weak and succumbing to the British state or more damaging to show them as continuing to pursue a policy that will generate criticism from all sides including pro indy voices. The Telegraph chose one, the BBC the other. My guess is the BBC closer to the ground in Scotland and knows what it's doing.