The New Fat Scotland 'Thanks for all the Fish' Thread.

IveSeenTheLight

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

The Nats are seriously shi**ing themselves.

Not so long ago it was the will of the Scottish people

Recently it has become the will of the Scottish Parliament

Now it is the will of the SNP (+ the sycophantic Greens)

After the 8th June it will be the will of God no doubt, because they will need divine intervention.

(most of the nats on here won't be able to read this because they have blocked me......lalalala fingers in ears syndrome.

I do however take my hat off to Shakey who at least stands up and fights her corner. Thank you Shakey.)

I respectfully disagree.
Do you think the SNP will not be returned as the major party in Scotland?

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

Hey, sounds a plan Shakey.

I reckon May will give it the cold shoulder treatment, and point to a big majority and increased seats in Scotland.

But...let's see

I guess she could point to it. But it's not going to make much of a difference in what happens next as far as Holyrood is concerned. Just a heads up there for you.

Shakethedisease

HornetSaver wrote: »

There was no such pledge. The manifesto was very carefully worded so as to give them the right to push for it without making an explict pledge that there would be one. As opposed to 2011 where what was on the table was explicit - if there was a nationalist majority, a referendum must be held.

The thing that most nationalists fail to realise is that if a second referendum is held and lost, or held regardless of outcome without going through due process, they're stuffed. They need to repeat the course of 2011, by making it untenable for Westminster to refuse to grant a referendum, and by ensuring that there's an explicit electoral mandate for it in the Scottish parliament, by making a pledge as explicit and unambiguous as in 2011.

The current pressure on Theresa May is part and parcel of that, as putting her in the position of granting a referendum despite the absence of an explicit pledge, or refusing one and being portrayed as denying democracy, should strengthen the nationalist cause either way.

But the one way the nationalists lose is to hold an unrecognised referendum prior to making the next Holyrood election explicitly about independence. Should nationalists win such an election and Westminster still refuse to go along with Indyref2, then clearly a unilateral referendum would be appropriate and necessary. But we're not there yet and the SNP actually seem determined to avoid going down that route.

They'll avoid that route completely. But I think the point is that the Conservatives are trying to use polls and vote shares results right now, in June 2017 in order to justify and stop a vote two years from now. Most likely because they suspect that the polls and public opinion might possibly BE at optimum for independence just after Brexit talks and reality starts dawning. What if by March 2019 polls are showing 55% support for independence and 60% want an indy ref ?

May's now is not the time is something we all agree on. But we're under no illusions that now is not the time will be translated into 'not ever' if the Scottish Govt simply sit back and allow May her way on this unopposed.

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I agree that they need to count the votes in order to ascertain the constituent winner.
Once that's finalised, the vote count is irrelevant.



Interesting.
Can you point to the legislation that defines the General Election is handled differently from the rest of the UK?

Your making things up to try and concoct a scenario that suits your needs and ignoring the wider aspects of ALL the manifesto points in which the electorate is voting on.

I'm making up nothing, and you're getting all feisty about it because you know it's true.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

What's the 2nd graph? I'm sure you can read its title.

Legislation? Why does there need to be legislation? The government just need real evidence that independence does not have the support that protagonists (you + others) claim they have in order to say either "not now, when we say" or an outright "no". Then when you complain, they'll point to the vote share for the unionist parties versus the vote share for the pro-indy parties. And you'll be in a bind because it's true, evidence based decision making.

Using the GE results in this manner only appears to me to be playing the SNP at their own game when they attempted to usurp the 2014 referendum result in a manifesto. And now you, Shakey, et al are complaining at me like billy-o. I guess it gets your goat and you know the outcome already as most on here do.

elantan

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

The Nats are seriously shi**ing themselves.

Not so long ago it was the will of the Scottish people

Recently it has become the will of the Scottish Parliament

Now it is the will of the SNP (+ the sycophantic Greens)

After the 8th June it will be the will of God no doubt, because they will need divine intervention.

(most of the nats on here won't be able to read this because they have blocked me......lalalala fingers in ears syndrome.

I do however take my hat off to Shakey who at least stands up and fights her corner. Thank you Shakey.)

Is that Sh*****g themselves while going come on then ... bring it on were ready ?

Cause that's what I hear and say

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

Hey, sounds a plan Shakey.

I reckon May will give it the cold shoulder treatment, and point to a big majority and increased seats in Scotland.

But...let's see

I assume you mean a big majority in the UK, not in Scotland.

Let's hypothetically consider that the Conservatives win 10 seats in Scotland and the SNP 49 seats (keeping it simple to a split solely between the two parties).

I don't think a cold shoulder treatment would go down well with the democratically elected majority party or its voters.

That would not be a positive position to try and unite the country.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I assume you mean a big majority in the UK, not in Scotland.

Let's hypothetically consider that the Conservatives win 10 seats in Scotland and the SNP 49 seats (keeping it simple to a split solely between the two parties).

I don't think a cold shoulder treatment would go down well with the democratically elected majority party or its voters.

That would not be a positive position to try and unite the country.

Does it not sink in?
I said before that simple arithmetic is beyond your abilities but I will try again:

Look, if the SNP get 49 seats (dream on IMHO but still ...) and yet get only 32% of the vote (as in the recent council elections) that does not equal a majority of the voting electorate.

What percentage of the voting electorate equals a majority?

kabayiri

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I guess she could point to it. But it's not going to make much of a difference in what happens next as far as Holyrood is concerned. Just a heads up there for you.

I can see what the SNP gain from such a move.

But what does May gain?

I think she called this GE to suppress opposition, and here we are suggesting that the first thing she does is give in to that very same opposition!

Her own party would slaughter her.

.string.

kabayiri wrote: »

Hey, sounds a plan Shakey.

I reckon May will give it the cold shoulder treatment, and point to a big majority and increased seats in Scotland.

But...let's see

It also sounds like a good way to bankrupt the SNP and perhaps also the Greens.

Yah_Boo_Sux

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Do you accept that there is a fundamental and significant change since 2015 when 60% was the criteria?

No.
Because those who vote don't think so according to polls.
They are the ones who decide what "fundamental and significant change" is, not you and not a political party.

Do you accept that no polls consistently show that Scots want independence?


Not intending rudeness here but do you have any life at all outside here BTW?
I mean, I pop in when I can but really?
Maybe you need to get a life outside these forums and see what's going on in the real world.
Just an idea.
You might actually become "I Have Seen The Daylight".