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

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

No, I didn't liken it to employment law, just a specific scenario where one person has the power to grant what the other requests. The person with the power can choose to say yes or no. Same with the section 30.

Hence it was a poor analogy as it was not the same at all, especially as the discussion was in context of legality as well

.string.

A question - this practice of having more than one SNP candidate, does it have the effect of artificially increasing the apparent SNP popular vote?

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Hence it was a poor analogy as it was not the same at all, especially as the discussion was in context of legality as well

It was a specific scenario, nothing to do with employment law or with law in general, just what happens when someone is in control of something, if you cannot grasp that what hope is there for you to understand much of what's said here?

Either that, or you're trolling and you know full well the analogy was fine.

You don't get to inherit the right to have as many referenda as you please, whenever you please because you asked for a section 30 before and it was granted.

Just please... get on this planet for once. I'm getting really tired of the trolling/blatant stupidity.

IveSeenTheLight

Shaka_Zulu wrote: »

I hipe the official result will be out soon .............

I wonder what that tells us about the chance of indyref2 even taking place?

I can see Nicola standing up to announce "now is not the time"

Some highlights for you

1. The SNP's share of the vote was unchanged from 2012
2. Overall turnout was 46.9% - higher than the 39.6% recorded in 2012.
3. The SNP secured 610,454 first preference votes in last Thursday's election - an increase from the 503,233 it won in 2012.
4. The SNP also won 431 seats, finishing as the biggest party in 16 of the 32 council areas and joint largest in a further three

Also very interesting

Analysis by Professor John Curtice, Strathclyde University
At first glance the SNP scored another remarkable success in last week's local elections. The party won 431 seats, 155 more than their nearest rivals, the Conservatives.

IveSeenTheLight

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

It was a specific scenario, nothing to do with employment law or with law in general, just what happens when someone is in control of something, if you cannot grasp that what hope is there for you to understand much of what's said here?

Just accept it was a !!!!!! analogy and choose something better to suit your point

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Either that, or you're trolling and you know full well the analogy was fine.

No, it clearly was not fine, you just can't acknowledge when your wrong.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You don't get to inherit the right to have as many referenda as you please, whenever you please because you asked for a section 30 before and it was granted.

I can accept that, however the Scottish Government voted for it, hence it becomes a democratic will of the Scottish Parliament.

Had they voted against it, we would not e discussing it and you wouldn't be wetting your pants

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Just please... get on this planet for once. I'm getting really tired of the trolling/blatant stupidity.

I am not trolling, just point out blatant errors (in my opinion e.g. your analogy) and having a debate

If your not open to debating on a debate forum, feel free to ignore opposition views

IveSeenTheLight

.string. wrote: »

A question - this practice of having more than one SNP candidate, does it have the effect of artificially increasing the apparent SNP popular vote?

No it dilutes the vote across the additional candidates and places them at risk of losing.

I'd actually question the STV system as it ensures that councils essentially ensure a no overall control, or not likely to achieve a majority in the local elections

TrickyTree83

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Just accept it was a !!!!!! analogy and choose something better to suit your point



No, it clearly was not fine, you just can't acknowledge when your wrong.



I can accept that, however the Scottish Government voted for it, hence it becomes a democratic will of the Scottish Parliament.

Had they voted against it, we would not e discussing it and you wouldn't be wetting your pants



I am not trolling, just point out blatant errors (in my opinion e.g. your analogy) and having a debate

If your not open to debating on a debate forum, feel free to ignore opposition views

The analogy was fine to demonstrate the point that people in charge, with power, make certain decisions. Just because they grant you the request one time does not automatically mean you get it whenever you make the same request again.

You assumed it was somehow about employment law.

No one else did.

You assumed it was somehow about legality.

No one else did.

You have misunderstood.

No one else has.

Stop wasting forum space and posts on this irrelevant crap. The point is legitimate, the analogy is fine and the underlying point still stands. If you want to debate why don't you debate the issues instead of trying (and failing) to pick holes in an analogy?

#bringbackshakey

Shaka_Zulu

Here is the best bit



Meanwhile, the Scottish Conservatives won 276 seats - 22.5% of the total - after receiving 478,073 first preference votes.

In 2012 the Tories won just 115 seats and received 206,599 votes - a 13.3% share.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39846268

.string.

Noting that Independents got 10% of the popular vote, what's this all about

[URL=http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14327374.Scots_millionaire_s___6_5m_fund_for_independent_candidates__will_target_Holyrood_/
]Scots millionaire's £6.5m fund for independent candidates 'will target Holyrood'[/URL]

mollycat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The analogy was fine to demonstrate the point that people in charge, with power, make certain decisions. Just because they grant you the request one time does not automatically mean you get it whenever you make the same request again.

You assumed it was somehow about employment law.

No one else did.

You assumed it was somehow about legality.

No one else did.

You have misunderstood.

No one else has.

Stop wasting forum space and posts on this irrelevant crap. The point is legitimate, the analogy is fine and the underlying point still stands. If you want to debate why don't you debate the issues instead of trying (and failing) to pick holes in an analogy?

#bringbackshakey

To be fair I think he/she was trolling you Tricky.