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

elantan

Ha ha ha ha ... some people online are attempting to blame the SNP for the amount of labour and tory councillors that are orange order members, ex BNP members and a couple of kippers ... hilarious

elantan

Take a look at @PeterMurrell's Tweet: https://twitter.com/PeterMurrell/status/861282321617604608?s=09


Aye right enough the desire for indy is dead ... dead as a door nail

Shaka_Zulu

elantan wrote: »

Take a look at @PeterMurrell's Tweet: https://twitter.com/PeterMurrell/status/861282321617604608?s=09


Aye right enough the desire for indy is dead ... dead as a door nail

Well, we will just have to wait for the percentages of the 1st preference votes to tell the story.

Shakethedisease

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The precedent of 2014 requires Holyrood to use a section 30 to request the power to hold a referendum.

Yes and Westminster granted a Section 30. Therefore acknowledging legally the right of the Scots electorate to vote on their own constitutional future via a referendum instigated at Holyrood's request.

The onus will be on Westminster to to prove what has changed legally since 2014 which would be absolute legal grounds for blocking another section 30 or referendum from happening. Nothing has changed apart from the politics. Which are not legal grounds in any courtroom.

Westminster can deny that request. Especially if there are grounds to do so such a Brexit negotiations or a clear indication from the Scottish electorate that the majority do not want one.

<---- Tricky this is politics, not legalities. Please learn the difference.

Shakethedisease

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

Being disingenuous again.

Let me pick one ward as an example (you can look at others yourself)

Ward 17: Springburn/Robroyston (1st preference)

Labour Martin McElroy 31.64%
SNP Graham Campbell 20.13%

But the SNP stood 2 or 3 candidates in each ward. Not one like the Tories or Labour in many cases. So the vote was split between 2 or 3 candidates from the same party ( SNP ). Am afraid it's yourself that's being disingenuous. Add the 2/3 candidates together in any ward and you then have the total SNP vote share. Springburn/Royston elected 2 SNP councillors if you look at the figures above ( and 2 Labour ).

The Tory percentage in Glasgow was truly dire looking at it.

cogito

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes and Westminster granted a Section 30. Therefore acknowledging legally the right of the Scots electorate to vote on their own constitutional future via a referendum instigated at Holyrood's request.

The onus will be on Westminster to to prove what has changed legally since 2014 which would be absolute legal grounds for blocking another section 30 or referendum from happening. Nothing has changed apart from the politics. Which are not legal grounds in any courtroom.

<---- Tricky this is politics, not legalities. Please learn the difference.

Don't be ridiculous. Westminster doesn't have to prove anything. It has an absolute right to deny anything it wants under reserved powers without even having to give a reason. You really do delude yourself at times.

kelpie35

The only way we can stop another referendum is by not voting the SNP back in.

I do hope and pray that Ruth can pull this off and show the rest of the country the we scots are very clever people.

Come on Ruth you can do this.

TrickyTree83

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes and Westminster granted a Section 30. Therefore acknowledging legally the right of the Scots electorate to vote on their own constitutional future via a referendum instigated at Holyrood's request.

The onus will be on Westminster to to prove what has changed legally since 2014 which would be absolute legal grounds for blocking another section 30 or referendum from happening. Nothing has changed apart from the politics. Which are not legal grounds in any courtroom.

<---- Tricky this is politics, not legalities. Please learn the difference.

Oh no no. Now you're just making stuff up.

When you request annual leave from someone who can approve it at work you don't then inherit the right to take leave whenever you ask for it regardless.

Westminster can say no.

kabayiri

elantan wrote: »

Take a look at @PeterMurrell's Tweet: https://twitter.com/PeterMurrell/status/861282321617604608?s=09


Aye right enough the desire for indy is dead ... dead as a door nail

There was an interesting point on the Andrew Marr show yesterday.

A guest mentioned how the political parties love Twitter, and think it's a good way of determining the mood music.

However, it was mentioned that Facebook is actually much more influential for providing the news feed for the young of today.

If it's true, just how useful are all these tweets?

.string.

kabayiri wrote: »

There was an interesting point on the Andrew Marr show yesterday.

A guest mentioned how the political parties love Twitter, and think it's a good way of determining the mood music.

However, it was mentioned that Facebook is actually much more influential for providing the news feed for the young of today.
Between the and gate news isBorderlineThe
If it's true, just how useful are all these tweets?

Useful or damaging depending on viewpoint I think. It's a good point. Also on BBC this morning was a short piece about Fake News and how it should be combatted.

It's an important issue, and the recent posts about referendum legitimacy illustrate it. Even that SNP line triggered time and time again can be swallowed by the gullible if repeated often enough although in that case it is more of a credibility hole that the SNP seem intent of climbing into!

It's a feature of all political parties that they exaggerate their claims and the borderline between true and false (or fair) news is often broached; a sliding scale encompassing all the way from enthusiasm to downright lying. I've been heartened in this by the emergence of web sites called something like "Fact Check", but what do we do about false fact check sites?

However that said, in my view the sooner the public are protected from dishonest claims the better.