Well, you could do that, but I wouldn't recommend it. If you leave 6 blank, it is possible for your vote to become an 'exhausted preference' and effectively go to no-one at all. You could do what I sometimes do and vote from both ends. I bet you could rank your 5 least preferred candidates too. Then there's one in the middle, and you're done!

Reply Part 2:

Now, I'm going to quote you, because it'll be quicker. You say:
"I'm glad Derek mentions that there have historically been good race relations in Scotland. That's great, and I hope that continues. I really do, that's why we need an open debate on the best ways to keep Islam depoliticised in Scotland, as the numbers of Muslim asylum seekers rise, and the popularity of radical ideas also rises."
I don't think that last bit follows at all. Asylum seekers are fleeing conflict. They're not doing that so as to start a new conflict in their destination country. If anybody just wants a quiet life it would be an asylum seeker. But I do agree that we need to look at how we've managed to have such good race relations by comparison with other Western countries, and I'll be discussing it at some length. I'll be looking particularly at Australia, of which I have considerable experience, and which thinks it is a more successful multicultural society than it actually is.

"Critisisim of British bombing doesn't tell us how we got here, it just describes where we are, and sets the scene for an ideological tussle with people who are determined to do something about the spread of jihadi ideology. Lets have a debate critisisingIslamic jihadism instead, and have some moderate views from Scottish Muslims."

First point, no it doesn't tell us how we got here, but it had to be addressed nonetheless, and it had to be addressed first because it's what's happening now. To be perfectly honest it was a pain in the arse that it happened when it did, because I'm not a journalist, I'm not used to filing reports on unfolding events, but needs must. I will be getting to Jihadism, and Islamism, and the important differences between the two, and don't worry, I'll be sparing no-one. David Cameron was the villain of this particular piece, but he's far from alone. I hope we do get some Scottish Muslims keen to participate in the debate, that would be in everyone's interest, but the fact is it's we of the left who have the alternative ideology which must defeat such nihilistic world views. We've all spent years now trying to make left wing ideas and perspectives an organic part of our independence struggle. With some success. I believe that's part of the reason that in 2014, when young, politicised Muslims in England and Australia and other Western countries were running off to join ISIS, in Scotland they were staying put and joining the 'Yes' campaign. We had something better to offer them. Also we weren't alienating them by telling third generation migrants with brown skin that they didn't really belong here, that they weren't 'proper' Scots. And you know, in the Pakistani-Scottish demographic we got a 64% 'Yes' vote, one of the largest of any demographic. Almost as much as the town of Clydebank (yes, I know West Dunbartonshire only got 54%, but that includes a lot more than Clydebank, and I have a good idea of the geographic breakdown and Clydebank got more like 65/66%).

As for your numbered points on how we got here, well yes, but they are only a couple of proximate causes. I'll be going much further back and far more in depth on the subject. And as for Anjem Choudry calling for Sharia law, well it's hardly about to be taken seriously, and I'm always careful about putting restrictions on freedom of speech. On the right to indoctrinate one's children in archaic religious beliefs however, I tend to come down on the side of the right of children not to be indoctrinated. I consider 'faith schools' to be an anachronism we should be phasing out as rapidly as possible. Look at the trouble such division has caused in Scotland in the past, long before we had a Muslim community. I don't support segregated education of any kind, whether it be on the basis of religion, wealth or anything else.

Success does indeed depend on winning the battle of ideas, and that, as I mentioned, is the bit I'm looking forward to getting into. A military victory is certainly achievable, and may even be necessary in this particular case (because Daesh does have some of the characteristics of a state, such as controlled territory) but as you say, that alone can never be enough. They will just pop up under a new name, and probably be even more extreme. Because you can't bomb an idea into oblivion. You need a better idea. I don't think that is beyond our wit though, and it's my intention in the rest of the series to propose some ideas, and hopefully provoke some from readers too. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Hi Collin, you've made quite a number of points there, so I'll try to address them in order, forgive me if I miss any. Firstly, I haven't missed the opportunity to address the first question in the title, I've merely been obliged to defer that until part two, because of unfolding events, which I really couldn't ignore, while I was in the process of writing it. I have to differ with the idea that my critique of UK government policy furthers Daesh propaganda. I think it's the policy itself which is doing that, and a highly effective job they're making of it.

I'd agree that Turkey's role has been ambiguous to say the least, as have those of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf states. This is not something we can safely continue to ignore, and I will be addressing it in Part 3. Now, let's talk about the tiny number of terrorists who might, and I stress MIGHT, enter Europe as refugees (because when I started writing this it was thought that two of the Paris terrorists might have done that, although this has subsequently been disproved). IF they did send people that way, why would what is clearly a well-funded terrorist group do so? Terrorists traditionally travel Business Class and wear nice suits. Plus they'd be travelling with large groups of other refugees. They'd really have to have their cover stories straight, and keep them up for weeks on end (not an easy task), to avoid getting discovered and lynched by their fellow travellers. As far as I can see the one and only reason Daesh would bother sending operatives to Europe in that way would be to make Europeans and others afraid of refugees. And hey, newsflash, whether they actually have done it or not, it's working! Hence my admonition (not insult) to 'harden the fuck up,' and I stand by that. To abandon a million desperate people because ONE of them MIGHT want to harm you is such an outrageously disproportionate reaction that anyone thinking that needs to get some perspective. Urgently.

As mentioned, I grew up in Clydebank. About 50,000 people lived there. Every time I went outdoors I remember being aware that there were plenty of people who might well want to hurt me. Didn't stop me though. When I later began to travel the world in the 80s I stepped out with confidence everywhere I went, including places such as Israel/Palestine, wartime Iran and the later to become infamous Swat Valley in Pakistan. I was never afraid, because I was Scottish. Because I'd been brought up in Clydebank. And survived. What, I thought, was the worst that could happen? If my compatriots are now going to be afraid of one person in a million, then it's not the place I grew up. You mentioned the incident at Glasgow Airport. The guy had crashed his car into the front of the terminal, and was attempting to ignite the improvised bomb in the back, setting himself alight in the process. And yet, even as he was on fire, a baggage handler on a smoke break and several members of the public had the presence of mind to kick his heid in! Now THAT'S the place I come from!

I'm going to have to split my reply here as it's too long. :-(

Hi George, Thanks for your comment. I wouldn't disagree with that at all actually. perhaps that could have done with being explained slightly better. I'll bear it in mind when I'm editing the 3 in 1 version. The terrorism is the tactic, there's always an objective, which is the political goal. I'll be talking a lot more about that in Part 3, but if we take the IRA as a case study, and it's a pretty good one because we got to look at it right up close, we would have to concede that there were genuine grievances behind it, and that addressing some of those issues was a very necessary part of the peace process. I heard recently that the first charges had been laid coming out of the Bloody Sunday enquiry. That enquiry was part of the deal.

Many people have paraphrased this, but Wikiquotes attributes it to Moshe Dayan, the Israeli General and politician (which I think you'll agree has a nice irony to it): "If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies." It's hard to argue (unless of course you actually want an Orwellian 'War Without End' which is what the 'War on Terror' sounds a hell of a lot like).

Well comrade I can tell you right away ONE of the reasons we lost the referendum, and that is by yielding ground that we didn't have to yield to the other side. It offended me as a political strategist, and I said so long and loud at the time. We cravenly accepted the 'No' side's insistence that we not discuss identity or history. And, with a few exceptions, we kept our mouths shut on those subjects.

They labelled any reference to it as 'romantic,' as (committing that most foul of linguistic crimes, unilaterally making a verb out of a noun) 'braveheartery.' But surely anybody with a rudimentary understanding of dialectics would realise that history is not romance. History is context. Without understanding it we are doomed...och, you know the quote.

And please point out where I've been patronising to poor Jeremy (apart from this sentence), as I didn't intend to be.

But the matter of identity, of what does and does not constitute a nation, is central to the independence debate. If we were one people, one nation, we simply wouldn't be having the argument. It would never have arisen.

I agree that I have more in common with a bin man in Brighton (and with the working class anywhere) than with Brian Souter. Which is why I'm an internationalist. But I have something the Brighton bin man doesn't have - a separate and distinct nation which can choose a different path. His problems don't HAVE to be our problems any more. We could stay and suffer with him, or we could get on with setting an example. I know what I'd prefer.

And how are Corbyn and his supporters going to '...be able to form a credible left alternative to SNP outwith labour?' Why do you want somebody else to do that for us anyway? The Scottish left is clearly going through a major realignment anyway, wishing for the London Labour establishment to come and rescue us from ourselves sounds uncomfortably cringe-like to me.

Aw, come on! That line is pure gold! I've been waiting 25 years for the right person to drop that one on, until Jim Murphy walked into my sights. :-D

Hi Justin, let me begin by saying that on the substantial point, you (and Steve) are correct and Stu is wrong. I prefer not to use 'Rev' because although I recognise his valuable contribution to the referendum debate, I wouldn't go so far as to say I revere him. That's a status I reserve for very few people in history and I'm afraid he doesn't make that cut. It's not meant to be disrespectful, it's just me. I won't call people 'Sir' or 'Lord' either. I consider such titles examples of 'undeserved respect' and I'm not joining in. Anyway, as I was saying, you're right. It was the media wot done it.

The idea that '...the SNP and Greens cannibalised each other' is patently absurd. They are separate parties with different policy priorities, even though they both support independence, among other things. As such, most of their support comes from 'core' voters, those who strongly support that party and would be unlikely to consider voting for anyone else. Then there is a far smaller number of people who have no 'rusted on' allegiance and might consider voting tactically.

Now, you actually made me look back at what I wrote at the time of the European election, because I'm a blogger and I have been known to write pieces giving advice to tactical voters. I did so that time. I'm not a psephologist, but I keep up with polling and read stuff by people who are, then I make a call based on the best available information. And the tactical voters I had in mind were those who had no 'rusted on' commitment and wished to know who to vote for in order to keep UKIP out. The thing is, that would not have been necessary if UKIP hadn't been in with a chance of picking up a seat. In order to be in that position you need a certain amount of support. There is no firm number for that, but for practical purposes it's probably going to be about 10%. So the question is, how did UKIP get to that level in the first place? How did they go from 0 to 10%? Who or what put them 'in play' in the first place? And the only candidate I can see for that is the media treating us to continual coverage of them, as if they were serious contenders. Prior to that, in Scotland, they simply were not.

Hi Karen, thanks for your sobering comment. I was just enjoying the insights and ideas I've come to expect from an editorial in 'The Point.' especially that fascinating suggestion at the end, and feeling quite cheerful about the political prospects. You have reminded me/us of the real human cost of having the Tories in power at Westminster. But please do not despair. I'll tell you why not.

Firstly I agree with Stevie A's comment above, I would just add that in many areas there are still active Yes Alliance organisations. They are full of good, caring people and they have excellent contacts with community organisations that may be able to help. If there is one in your area, please get in touch. One of the things the Yes campaign did which hasn't really been talked about that much is that it helped with the task of rebuilding our communities. So we will do this the old fashioned way. We will continue to build stronger communities. We will look after our own. We will come together to ensure that the sick, the disabled and the disadvantaged in our communities are not left to fend for themselves. You are not alone.

I've been very encouraged so far by the range of voices coming around to our point of view. :-) Stewart Hosie wrote this piece, out today, where I have left a link back to this article: http://lallandspeatworrier.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10...