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

The_Rainmaker

What is interesting to me is the the SNP have enfranchised 16-17 year olds. Surely if they have the vote they are deemed adults?

You really can't have it both ways.

In my view votes for 16-17 should be withdrawn immediately, this age group are still children and a clear line should be drawn at 18.

Herzlos

mollycat wrote: »

Trying to minimise the actions of a member of the SNP who is borderline grooming a 16 year old boy right now by comparing it to something you believe may have happened in Mrs Thatcher's day is a pretty poor show.

I'm not minimizing it at all - harassment is wrong and he'll be dealt with appropriately - he's already resigned from his post and presumably the police will be involved who will hopefully charge him as appropriate. Hopefully he'll also stand down as MSP and leave the party.


What happened with Ross Thomson, MSP? He was harassing men too, though older ones and he was drunk. As I recall, the Tory party did nothing?

Herzlos

fun4everyone wrote: »

270 times this middle aged !!!!!! messaged that 16 year old boy trying to groom him.

As a point of order, can you be a !!!!!! or grooming when the recipient is of legal age?


It's harassment in any case, and pretty wrong for a 42 year old to be involved with a 16 year old. But is it pedophilia?

Labsuper

The_Rainmaker wrote: »

What is interesting to me is the the SNP have enfranchised 16-17 year olds. Surely if they have the vote they are deemed adults?

You really can't have it both ways.

In my view votes for 16-17 should be withdrawn immediately, this age group are still children and a clear line should be drawn at 18.

Nope, having the vote does not make you an adult...his name is being withheld to protect him as he is considered a child.

Labsuper

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm not minimizing it at all - harassment is wrong and he'll be dealt with appropriately - he's already resigned from his post and presumably the police will be involved who will hopefully charge him as appropriate. Hopefully he'll also stand down as MSP and leave the party.


What happened with Ross Thomson, MSP? He was harassing men too, though older ones and he was drunk. As I recall, the Tory party did nothing?

He denied the accusation and has been cleared by the Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards which dismissed the complaint. He's an MP not an MSP.

Sailtheworld

Maybe the SNP can get a two for one deal and get Derek Mackay airbrushed out of history at the same time as Alex Salmond.

Jonas_Savimbi

Labsuper said:

The_Rainmaker wrote: »

What is interesting to me is the the SNP have enfranchised 16-17 year olds. Surely if they have the vote they are deemed adults?

You really can't have it both ways.

In my view votes for 16-17 should be withdrawn immediately, this age group are still children and a clear line should be drawn at 18.

Nope, having the vote does not make you an adult...his name is being withheld to protect him as he is considered a child.

Ergo he shouldn't have the vote.

Shakethedisease

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease wrote: »

You've forgotten who puts the SNP where they are. When you say 'they' you mean the Scottish electorate, not the SNP. If the SNP disappeared tomorrow there would still be half the country wanting out of the union. Democracy will always find a way.

If there was to be some kind of time limits to the next referendum then the Scottish electorate should've been told at the time. They weren't. You're moving the goalposts for Scottish voters and confusing political parties with electorates who don't always vote for the SNP in elections yet still wish independence. ( See Scottish Labour voters ). The SNP while standing for independence aren't the problem for the union. It's the Scottish voters across all parties who want it. They've deemed the mandate, not Boris.

I'm not confusing anything, more than 50% of the electorate have voted for parties that are pro-Union. To claim "there is a mandate because people that vote for Unionist parties actually want independence" is clutching at straws at best and you have no way to prove it other than quoting polls while also claiming polls can't be trusted. You are also ignoring people that vote for SNP but do not want Indy (something even Sturgeon has acknowledged) in your perceived mandate.
Similarly, if Indy parties/electorates wanted to have an Indy vote every time the wind changes direction, then the Unionists should have been told it at the time.

They're told every time the SNP gets back into power. And again, you're confusing SNP party support and independence support. They're not the same thing ( independence support is higher ) , and neither are the franchises. Polls for independence are all we have unfortunately so that's all we have to go by. SNP support isn't a sufficent enough yardstick for the reasons I've already outlined. It's half the country who want out. Including people who also vote for other parties in elections

SNP Support doesn't = independence support. .

I'm afraid all the Derek Mackay's in the world won't change that ( I never rated him personally, glad he resigned and was suspended so swiftly ). Sad to say but I also think Nicola may also be on the way out sooner rather than later. Will that change my views on Scottish independence.... not a chance, and not for 10,000's more like me.

abz88

Shakethedisease said:

They're told every time the SNP gets back into power. And again, you're confusing SNP party support and independence support. They're not the same thing ( independence support is higher ) , and neither are the franchises. Polls for independence are all we have unfortunately so that's all we have to go by. SNP support isn't a sufficent enough yardstick for the reasons I've already outlined. It's half the country who want out. Including people who also vote for other parties in elections

SNP Support doesn't = independence support. .

I'm afraid all the Derek Mackay's in the world won't change that ( I never rated him personally, glad he resigned and was suspended so swiftly ). Sad to say but I also think Nicola may also be on the way out sooner rather than later. Will that change my views on Scottish independence.... not a chance, and not for 10,000's more like me.

Again, I'm no confusing anything, more than 50% of the electorate voted for pro-Union parties and less than 50% vote for pro-Indy parties. You keep claiming that pro-Union party voters are actually pro-Indy and that 50% of Scotland want Indy according to "polls". The last three polls appear to be Panelbase/Scot Goes Pop, YouGov and Survation/Progress Scotland all of which show Yes as between 43 and 49% with undecided at 6% to 10%. Indy parties combined don't have more than 50% of the vote, polls don't show more than 50% voting yes, so where exactly is this mandate for Indy coming from that highlights so much has changed in the way the electorate feel that we need to have another vote?

Shakethedisease

abz88 said:

Shakethedisease said:

They're told every time the SNP gets back into power. And again, you're confusing SNP party support and independence support. They're not the same thing ( independence support is higher ) , and neither are the franchises. Polls for independence are all we have unfortunately so that's all we have to go by. SNP support isn't a sufficent enough yardstick for the reasons I've already outlined. It's half the country who want out. Including people who also vote for other parties in elections

SNP Support doesn't = independence support. .

I'm afraid all the Derek Mackay's in the world won't change that ( I never rated him personally, glad he resigned and was suspended so swiftly ). Sad to say but I also think Nicola may also be on the way out sooner rather than later. Will that change my views on Scottish independence.... not a chance, and not for 10,000's more like me.

Again, I'm no confusing anything, more than 50% of the electorate voted for pro-Union parties and less than 50% vote for pro-Indy parties. You keep claiming that pro-Union party voters are actually pro-Indy and that 50% of Scotland want Indy according to "polls". The last three polls appear to be Panelbase/Scot Goes Pop, YouGov and Survation/Progress Scotland all of which show Yes as between 43 and 49% with undecided at 6% to 10%. Indy parties combined don't have more than 50% of the vote, polls don't show more than 50% voting yes, so where exactly is this mandate for Indy coming from that highlights so much has changed in the way the electorate feel that we need to have another vote?

Yes you are confusing things. Your percentages are votes for parties and you're equating it with independence support. They're not the same sorry. " It also suggests a significantly higher Yes support among Labour voters than YouGov reported – and if it’s true that more than one-third of the rump Labour vote in the 2019 election want Scotland to be an independent country, "http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2020/02/scot-goes-pop-panelbase-poll-on.html

And you're again using the Westminster GE as a mandate. The mandate is from 2016 where Sturgeon got a higher vote share than Salmond did.. yet his mandate got him a referendum with just 6 MP's at Westminster.

Polling on indepenence is all we have since the last ref was 6 years ago, and the UK was part of the EU. Scots voted to stay in both unions. They need to have a democratic choice now between them. It's quite simple. re Polling, is there a reason you're not excluding the Don't Know's ? Because equally, those figures for wishing to stay in the Union aren't much of a mandate for it either are they ? There is only one way to decide once and for all who wants what. Yet we're being denied that choice and we all know why. Boris will lose.