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

TrickyTree83

Tromking wrote: »

Nice bit of Leftist virtue signalling.
Good one.

They live in a world of fantasy.

Sadly for them, borders do exist. Nations do exist. Tensions do exist. The cultural melting pot doesn't work like they think it does, they ought to ask the Christians in Darfur, or Lebanon how that's going, or ask !!!!!exuals in Russia.

ruggedtoast

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

They live in a world of fantasy.

Sadly for them, borders do exist. Nations do exist. Tensions do exist. The cultural melting pot doesn't work like they think it does, they ought to ask the Christians in Darfur, or Lebanon how that's going, or ask !!!!!exuals in Russia.

And ultra nationalist skin heads in Russia, beating up black people and terrorising gay people is helping !!!!!exuals precisely how?

Some people like to think of themselves as a sheep in a vast herd of sheep, I suppose.

TrickyTree83

ruggedtoast wrote: »

And ultra nationalist skin heads in Russia, beating up black people and terrorising gay people is helping !!!!!exuals precisely how?

Some people like to think of themselves as a sheep in a vast herd of sheep, I suppose.

My point is you don't live in the real world if you think Russia will become tolerant, or if you think different religions can live side by side in peace and harmony around the world, a world without nations and without borders. It's a noble goal, but not one that can be achieved without getting rid of inventions such as money and religion.

elantan

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

A 6% swing in opinion is required. Based on an eligible vote of 4m people that'd be ~240,000 people to switch.

In the last 3 votes in Scotland the SNP have failed to make that materialise in every vote. Their share has remained the same but their voice increases with a lower turnout. Turnout in the indy ref was 84%. If the pattern repeats their core support and voice will be drowned out and they will absolutely need to overturn that 6% in order to win. That might be helped by the EU ref result but ultimately the argument for independence remains largly the same, except now the argument to use oil to supplement the Scottish treasury has disintegrated. If anything the independence position has grown worse since 2014.

You really don't get it do you ....not every single person that votes SNP wants independence ... not every single person that doesn't vote SNP doesn't want independence. .. I know MANY non SNP voters that want indy ...

Independence is not just the SNP ... try yer best to get that through yer heid and maybe you might start to understand things ... sheesh

But by the way incidentally ... the SNP got over 1million first votes last election ... the highest ever by any party in Scotland ... just to confuse you even more

TrickyTree83

elantan wrote: »

You really don't get it do you ....not every single person that votes SNP wants independence ... not every single person that doesn't vote SNP doesn't want independence. .. I know MANY non SNP voters that want indy ...

Independence is not just the SNP ... try yer best to get that through yer heid and maybe you might start to understand things ... sheesh

But by the way incidentally ... the SNP got over 1million first votes last election ... the highest ever by any party in Scotland ... just to confuse you even more

Oh yes, anecdotal evidence trumps numbers every time, how silly of me.

I fully accept that not all SNP voters want independence and that not all non-SNP voters want the Union, that goes without saying. But you're suggesting that the numbers involved are large enough to swing it. I'm saying I don't believe that because the numbers tell a different story.

So get off your high horse and actually look at what's happened in order to predict rather than using your gut feel and some anecdotal evidence based on conversations probably had down a pub.

elantan

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yfWMkzMNGz0

I really think it's sad for poor Vince to be used like this... poor lad ... but on some of the debate forums today some people from England are saying they know others that believe Scotland is part of England ... I don't know if that is true or not ... would be awfy sad if it was

ruggedtoast

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

My point is you don't live in the real world if you think Russia will become tolerant, or if you think different religions can live side by side in peace and harmony around the world, a world without nations and without borders. It's a noble goal, but not one that can be achieved without getting rid of inventions such as money and religion.

Human beings are tribal, we are primates essentially. If we aren't part of a unit then we die. But the modern world is making the nation state irrelevant.

I don't have to be obsequious to Mrs Miggins down the road lest she stops selling me bread from her bakery, and I don't have to cobble together some group identity with her because we have the same colour passport.

I have far more in common with French lorry drivers and American office workers than I have, or will ever have, with David Cameron, the civil service staff deep state, and the rest of the British elites.

When Michael Gove, or whichever right wing corporate stooge will be the next Prime Minister, stands in front of a camera and lectures people on whats best for "our country", what they actually mean is what is best for super wealthy people like them.

And ironically these people's lives actually are borderless. How much thought did Tony Blair put into moving to New York? Not a lot, because whichever country he goes to everyone he rubs shoulders with will be just like him, and they will arrange the world for people just like them.

Yet a UKIP voting pensioner who can barely get to the next town, sits at home with the royal family staring at her from a variety of Daily Mails, tea towels, and commemorative biscuit tins and blames foreigners for mucking up "our" country. A country run by people who couldn't care less if she dies in her arm chair and is eaten by cats before they manage to get her into an old people's home staffed by Eastern Europeans because no one else wants the job of wiping her bum.

We are all connected on this planet.

Syrian refugees have breathed the air you are breathing.

Vladimir Putin has taken a dump in the water that has made your coffee.

elantan

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Oh yes, anecdotal evidence trumps numbers every time, how silly of me.

I fully accept that not all SNP voters want independence and that not all non-SNP voters want the Union, that goes without saying. But you're suggesting that the numbers involved are large enough to swing it. I'm saying I don't believe that because the numbers tell a different story.

So get off your high horse and actually look at what's happened in order to predict rather than using your gut feel and some anecdotal evidence based on conversations probably had down a pub.

No actually I am not saying the numbers are large enough to change things ... no one really knows the answer to that one so don't put words in my mouth

What I am saying is no one knows ... there are so many people that don't vote the way you seem to have divided them SNP =Yes ...non SNP =No.. it goes deeper than that ... so stop trying to make it look otherwise

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I have far more in common with French lorry drivers and American office workers than I have, or will ever have, with David Cameron, the civil service staff deep state, and the rest of the British elites.

.

indeed probably true
the French lorry driver probably supports Le Pen and wants out of the EU

TrickyTree83

elantan wrote: »

No actually I am not saying the numbers are large enough to change things ... no one really knows the answer to that one so don't put words in my mouth

What I am saying is no one knows ... there are so many people that don't vote the way you seem to have divided them SNP =Yes ...non SNP =No.. it goes deeper than that ... so stop trying to make it look otherwise

You're right, no one really knows else they'd be down the bookies straight away.

However if you look at the number of votes for a particular idea that the SNP push forward, then look at the number of votes for the SNP in direct elections you can draw correlations between turnouts, vote numbers and come out with a prediction based loosely on fact rather than the word of mouth.

In the Scottish indy ref there was a turnout of 84% of the eligible vote. That total eligible vote stands somewhere between 4m and 4.5m as I understand. In the Scottish Parliament elections the turnout was 55% of the eligible vote. And in the EU referendum the turnout was 67% of the eligible vote.

2014 - In the indy ref the vote was split 45/55, turnout 84%, with Yes = 45% = 1,617,989 voters.

2016 - In the Scottish parliament elections turnout was 55% and the SNP had 46% of that = 1,059,897 voters.

2016 - In the EU ref the vote was split 62/38, with Remain = 62% = 1,661,191 voters.

Now I accept what you say, in that not all people who vote for X believe in Y, and vice-versa. But the only thing we have to go on at the moment to indicate a result is the past.

That Yes vote in the first indy ref is remarkably close to the Remain vote in another high-ish turnout vote. Adding in that the SNP were elected on a manifesto of - if we vote remain and "England" pulls us out of the EU we'll call another indy ref (in the interest of SNP supporters - on the whole) that would suggest to me that there was a bias to vote Remain if you wanted the possibility of another chance to become independent, and that this position would resonate with SNP supporters. Looking at the numbers it's then pretty reasonable to conclude there is a correlation between indy Yes voters and EU ref Remain voters in general (of course there will be exceptions on both sides, so I would argue they would balance out to an extent). What the SNP would need to do is achieve a swing of 6% in the wake of the EU ref which equates to roughly 240,000 votes.