Discussion:
IF the vote for independence
(too old to reply)
The Other Guy
2015-05-08 02:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Were to be today, I'd expect a DIFFERENT outcome..

SNP has taken 26 seats from Labor so far, and it's beginning
to look like a clean sweep across Scotland.





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
The Other Guy
2015-05-08 02:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Guy
Were to be today, I'd expect a DIFFERENT outcome..
SNP has taken 26 seats from Labor so far, and it's beginning
to look like a clean sweep across Scotland.
Opps, up to 28 now, with 33 total seats.






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
soupdragon
2015-05-09 09:03:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Guy
Post by The Other Guy
Were to be today, I'd expect a DIFFERENT outcome..
SNP has taken 26 seats from Labor so far, and it's beginning
to look like a clean sweep across Scotland.
Opps, up to 28 now, with 33 total seats.
All but 3 seats fell to SNP. Tories, LibDem and Labour got one each, Greens
failed to get any and UKIP had a dismal result. The turnout was 76% of
the electorate, with some constituences recording over 80%. The SNP got
51% of the vote. It's a warning vote to Westminster - deliver the Smith
Commission and then some , or else. Cameron is already scrambling around
with suggestions of full fiscal autonomy being on the table (further
than the Smith recommendations).
The Other Guy
2015-05-09 09:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soupdragon
All but 3 seats fell to SNP. Tories, LibDem and Labour got one each, Greens
failed to get any and UKIP had a dismal result.
Yep, gained 50 seats, and totally destroyed predictions.

I was a bit surprised that UKIP didn't do a little better.
Post by soupdragon
The turnout was 76% of the electorate, with some constituences
recording over 80%. The SNP got 51% of the vote.
Total turnout in most areas of the US is lucky to hit 50%,
but our elections are quite a bit different.

There is FAR more choice in the UK, even if some of the choices
are comical rather than serious (Monster Raving Loony Party).
Post by soupdragon
It's a warning vote to Westminster - deliver the Smith
Commission and then some , or else. Cameron is already scrambling around
with suggestions of full fiscal autonomy being on the table (further
than the Smith recommendations).
Have you seen Russell Brand's take on the election?
Humourous, but realistic at well.







---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
Charles Ellson
2015-05-09 23:22:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 09 May 2015 02:32:12 -0700, The Other Guy
Post by The Other Guy
Post by soupdragon
All but 3 seats fell to SNP. Tories, LibDem and Labour got one each, Greens
failed to get any and UKIP had a dismal result.
Yep, gained 50 seats, and totally destroyed predictions.
I was a bit surprised that UKIP didn't do a little better.
They won't get many votes from people they demonise.
Post by The Other Guy
Post by soupdragon
The turnout was 76% of the electorate, with some constituences
recording over 80%. The SNP got 51% of the vote.
Total turnout in most areas of the US is lucky to hit 50%,
but our elections are quite a bit different.
There is FAR more choice in the UK, even if some of the choices
are comical rather than serious (Monster Raving Loony Party).
Post by soupdragon
It's a warning vote to Westminster - deliver the Smith
Commission and then some , or else. Cameron is already scrambling around
with suggestions of full fiscal autonomy being on the table (further
than the Smith recommendations).
Have you seen Russell Brand's take on the election?
Humourous, but realistic at well.
http://youtu.be/rRUQ6aPvs58
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
soupdragon
2015-05-10 08:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Guy
Post by soupdragon
All but 3 seats fell to SNP. Tories, LibDem and Labour got one each,
Greens failed to get any and UKIP had a dismal result.
Yep, gained 50 seats, and totally destroyed predictions.
I was a bit surprised that UKIP didn't do a little better.
Why?
Post by The Other Guy
Post by soupdragon
The turnout was 76% of the electorate, with some constituences
recording over 80%. The SNP got 51% of the vote.
Total turnout in most areas of the US is lucky to hit 50%,
but our elections are quite a bit different.
There is FAR more choice in the UK, even if some of the choices
are comical rather than serious (Monster Raving Loony Party).
Post by soupdragon
It's a warning vote to Westminster - deliver the Smith
Commission and then some , or else. Cameron is already scrambling
around with suggestions of full fiscal autonomy being on the table
(further than the Smith recommendations).
Have you seen Russell Brand's take on the election?
Humourous, but realistic at well.
http://youtu.be/rRUQ6aPvs58
Brand is a self regarding twit who tries to sell himself as some
sort of saviour of the poor. His credibility was seriously damaged
when he entered the debate on affordable housing in London and off
shore investment companies. He's been branded a 'champagne socialist'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2857221/Millionaire-comic-
Russell-Brand-loses-temper-march-Downing-Street-asked-London-home-
worth.html
The Other Guy
2015-05-10 16:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soupdragon
Post by The Other Guy
I was a bit surprised that UKIP didn't do a little better.
Why?
Just seemed like something that would attract a certain segment
of the population.
Post by soupdragon
Brand is a self regarding twit
But he CAN still be funny, and was on this.
Funny AND right.





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
soupdragon
2015-05-10 17:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Guy
Post by soupdragon
Post by The Other Guy
I was a bit surprised that UKIP didn't do a little better.
Why?
Just seemed like something that would attract a certain segment
of the population.
So, what part of the population of Scotland do you think would be
attracted to what, in essence, is the English National Party?
Post by The Other Guy
Post by soupdragon
Brand is a self regarding twit
But he CAN still be funny, and was on this.
Funny AND right.
Right about what? All he's doing is stating the obvious.
The Other Guy
2015-05-10 19:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soupdragon
Post by The Other Guy
Just seemed like something that would attract a certain segment
of the population.
So, what part of the population of Scotland do you think would be
attracted to what, in essence, is the English National Party?
NOT Scotland, England..




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
soupdragon
2015-05-12 10:46:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Guy
Post by soupdragon
Post by The Other Guy
Post by The Other Guy
Post by soupdragon
All but 3 seats fell to SNP. Tories, LibDem and Labour got one each,
Greens failed to get any and UKIP had a dismal result.
Yep, gained 50 seats, and totally destroyed predictions.
I was a bit surprised that UKIP didn't do a little better.
Why?
Just seemed like something that would attract a certain segment
of the population.
So, what part of the population of Scotland do you think would be
attracted to what, in essence, is the English National Party?
NOT Scotland, England..
Err, no. We were discussing UKIP in Scotland and specifically who voted
for them in Scotland.
S Viemeister
2015-05-09 09:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soupdragon
All but 3 seats fell to SNP. Tories, LibDem and Labour got one each, Greens
failed to get any and UKIP had a dismal result. The turnout was 76% of
the electorate, with some constituences recording over 80%. The SNP got
51% of the vote. It's a warning vote to Westminster - deliver the Smith
Commission and then some , or else. Cameron is already scrambling around
with suggestions of full fiscal autonomy being on the table (further
than the Smith recommendations).
Do you have a link for the turnout numbers? I'm curious as to the
results in my area.
Charles Ellson
2015-05-09 23:25:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 09 May 2015 10:34:19 +0100, S Viemeister
Post by S Viemeister
Post by soupdragon
All but 3 seats fell to SNP. Tories, LibDem and Labour got one each, Greens
failed to get any and UKIP had a dismal result. The turnout was 76% of
the electorate, with some constituences recording over 80%. The SNP got
51% of the vote. It's a warning vote to Westminster - deliver the Smith
Commission and then some , or else. Cameron is already scrambling around
with suggestions of full fiscal autonomy being on the table (further
than the Smith recommendations).
Do you have a link for the turnout numbers? I'm curious as to the
results in my area.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Pick constituencies by postcode or the A-Z list links on the RHS.
Turnouts are shown by country and on each constituency.
S Viemeister
2015-05-10 06:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by S Viemeister
Do you have a link for the turnout numbers? I'm curious as to the
results in my area.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
Pick constituencies by postcode or the A-Z list links on the RHS.
Turnouts are shown by country and on each constituency.
Thank you. I wonder who the 981 UKIP voters were - incomers, perhaps?
(Caithness, Sutherland, Easter Ross)
soupdragon
2015-05-10 18:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by S Viemeister
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by S Viemeister
Do you have a link for the turnout numbers? I'm curious as to the
results in my area.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
Pick constituencies by postcode or the A-Z list links on the RHS.
Turnouts are shown by country and on each constituency.
Thank you. I wonder who the 981 UKIP voters were - incomers, perhaps?
(Caithness, Sutherland, Easter Ross)
Well, that's not possible! According to the troll we have a 3-party system
in Scotland: SNP, Labour (or Labor), LibDem and 'a guy from
Dumfries' - which I make 4. Oh well. Maybe the teach numeracy different
in the US.

They are probably disaffected Tory voters knowing they had no chance and
decided to make a statement. I saw Coburn on TV bragging that they'd take
one seat in Scotland. That went well.
Charles Ellson
2015-05-10 21:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soupdragon
Post by S Viemeister
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by S Viemeister
Do you have a link for the turnout numbers? I'm curious as to the
results in my area.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
Pick constituencies by postcode or the A-Z list links on the RHS.
Turnouts are shown by country and on each constituency.
Thank you. I wonder who the 981 UKIP voters were - incomers, perhaps?
(Caithness, Sutherland, Easter Ross)
Unfortunately there are natives as demonstrated in the Highlands :-
http://www.ukiphighland.org/about-us/the-candidates/
although I suspect if they made incognito visits to their southern
brethren they would find that they are regarded just as much as
porage-wogs (http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Porridge_Wog [The British
Military Open Encyclopedia] which is fully balanced by also having the
entry http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/FEB) as the rest of us.
Post by soupdragon
Well, that's not possible! According to the troll we have a 3-party system
in Scotland: SNP, Labour (or Labor), LibDem and 'a guy from
Dumfries' - which I make 4. Oh well. Maybe the teach numeracy different
in the US.
They are probably disaffected Tory voters knowing they had no chance and
decided to make a statement. I saw Coburn on TV bragging that they'd take
one seat in Scotland. That went well.
Says a lot that he manages to miss the different electoral systems
used for electing MPs (first past the post) v MEPs (proportional) of
which they have one of the latter.
soupdragon
2015-05-10 08:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by S Viemeister
Post by soupdragon
All but 3 seats fell to SNP. Tories, LibDem and Labour got one each,
Greens failed to get any and UKIP had a dismal result. The turnout
was 76% of the electorate, with some constituences recording over
80%. The SNP got 51% of the vote. It's a warning vote to Westminster
- deliver the Smith Commission and then some , or else. Cameron is
already scrambling around with suggestions of full fiscal autonomy
being on the table (further than the Smith recommendations).
Do you have a link for the turnout numbers? I'm curious as to the
results in my area.
Charles beat me to it :-)
Nicholas Benjamin
2015-05-08 03:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Guy
Were to be today, I'd expect a DIFFERENT outcome..
SNP has taken 26 seats from Labor so far, and it's beginning
to look like a clean sweep across Scotland.
Doubt it.

For one thing, it's a three-party system in Scotland. If the SNP is getting 45% (like it has in the past few elections), but the LibDems and Labor are splitting the remainder then the SNP dominates. The Exit Polls I've seen thus far don't show the percentages, so there's no way to know whether the SNP is at it's recent average of 45% or has gone past 50%.

Moreover, secessionist movements frequently have soft supporters who don't actually want to leave the country, but do want the central government to make concessions.

Nick
The Doctor
2015-05-08 15:44:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by The Other Guy
Were to be today, I'd expect a DIFFERENT outcome..
=20
SNP has taken 26 seats from Labor so far, and it's beginning=20
to look like a clean sweep across Scotland.
Doubt it.
For one thing, it's a three-party system in Scotland. If the SNP is getting=
45% (like it has in the past few elections), but the LibDems and Labor are=
splitting the remainder then the SNP dominates. The Exit Polls I've seen t=
hus far don't show the percentages, so there's no way to know whether the S=
NP is at it's recent average of 45% or has gone past 50%.
Moreover, secessionist movements frequently have soft supporters who don't =
actually want to leave the country, but do want the central government to m=
ake concessions.
Nick
SNP sweeps Sctoland with the others getting 1 seat each.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
UK! Vote LDem on 7 May 2015!!
The Other Guy
2015-05-08 18:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
SNP sweeps Sctoland with the others getting 1 seat each.
As I predicted early on.





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
soupdragon
2015-05-10 08:43:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Doctor
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by The Other Guy
Were to be today, I'd expect a DIFFERENT outcome..
=20
SNP has taken 26 seats from Labor so far, and it's beginning=20
to look like a clean sweep across Scotland.
Doubt it.
For one thing, it's a three-party system in Scotland. If the SNP is getting=
45% (like it has in the past few elections), but the LibDems and
Labor are= splitting the remainder then the SNP dominates. The Exit
Polls I've seen t=
hus far don't show the percentages, so there's no way to know whether
the S= NP is at it's recent average of 45% or has gone past 50%.
Moreover, secessionist movements frequently have soft supporters who
don't = actually want to leave the country, but do want the central
government to m= ake concessions.
Nick
SNP sweeps Sctoland with the others getting 1 seat each.
And, just to clarify. The Scottish parliament has 5 parties, not 3. It
did have 6 until Sheriden's SSP went into melt down. UKIP have made no
headway in Scotland and have no representatives, so they don't count

Additionally, the previous poster seems to be using the American
experience of seccession, rather than the European one to make a
sweeping generalisation about their make up.

In the referendum, 45% voted for independance. In the election, 50%
voted for SNP. If the previous assertion is true then effect, 90% want
to leave and the 'soft support' is minimal.

Sturgeon is using her block vote to extract more power from Westminster
beyond the Smith Commission, but that's just another step towards her
goal of full independance and, if she gets full fiscal autonomy, gives
her an opportunity to test the strength of the Scottish economy in
preparation for another indyref.
Nicholas Benjamin
2015-05-10 16:19:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soupdragon
Post by The Doctor
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by The Other Guy
Were to be today, I'd expect a DIFFERENT outcome..
=20
SNP has taken 26 seats from Labor so far, and it's beginning=20
to look like a clean sweep across Scotland.
Doubt it.
For one thing, it's a three-party system in Scotland. If the SNP is getting=
45% (like it has in the past few elections), but the LibDems and
Labor are= splitting the remainder then the SNP dominates. The Exit
Polls I've seen t=
hus far don't show the percentages, so there's no way to know whether
the S= NP is at it's recent average of 45% or has gone past 50%.
Moreover, secessionist movements frequently have soft supporters who
don't = actually want to leave the country, but do want the central
government to m= ake concessions.
Nick
SNP sweeps Sctoland with the others getting 1 seat each.
And, just to clarify. The Scottish parliament has 5 parties, not 3. It
did have 6 until Sheriden's SSP went into melt down. UKIP have made no
headway in Scotland and have no representatives, so they don't count
So we're talking about an election to the UK Parliament, which is first-past-the-post; and you're using numbers from the elections to the MMP Scots Parliament? My friend, you have truly mastered the art of fuzzy logic.

In the UK Parliamentary election, which is the one we are actually talking about, there are three parties and a guy from Dumfries. The three parties are Labour,. the LibDems, and the SNP. Thaty is a three-party system.

If you want to talk about the Scots Parliament's party-system you'll have to stop crowing about wiping everyone else out and almost getting a majority of the popular vote; because you only got 44-45% of that vote and a bare majority.
Post by soupdragon
Additionally, the previous poster seems to be using the American
experience of seccession, rather than the European one to make a
sweeping generalisation about their make up.
Which American experience re: secession are you talking about? There has never been an independence referendum of any sort in any US State ever. The Confederates had a completely separate legal procedure involving specially elected conventions. If they'd tried a referendum they would have lost because they were seceding to protect slavery from evil Abe Lincoln, and roughly 40% of their populations were slaves. There are plenty of referendums, but nobody has ever done one on breaking up the country.

That's part of what I'm using, because there's so much more data from the USA. But the exact same thing has happened with the Australian Republic referendums (which are currently on hold until the Queen dies), Quebec's sovereignty/independence referendums, etc.

You just don't get to have a nasty, divisive referendum debate you tell everyone is incredibly important because it's the future of the country; and then turn around seven months later and have a new one because you did well in an unrelated election. You piss off the people who voted against you (and I'd remind you: that 55%), as well as some fraction of your people for tricking them by claiming their September vote was the most important one ever, and then turning around and having a new one in August.

It's suicidal politics, which is probably the reason none of the actual politicians think it's a particularly good idea.
Post by soupdragon
In the referendum, 45% voted for independance. In the election, 50%
voted for SNP. If the previous assertion is true then effect, 90% want
to leave and the 'soft support' is minimal.
When you're at 49.973%, and the rule is you lose unless you get to 50%+1, then 5% being soft is kinda a big deal.
Post by soupdragon
Sturgeon is using her block vote to extract more power from Westminster
beyond the Smith Commission, but that's just another step towards her
goal of full independance and, if she gets full fiscal autonomy, gives
her an opportunity to test the strength of the Scottish economy in
preparation for another indyref.
That could work.

But only if she doesn't go on TV and say "we're getting more autonomy from the Tories because we think you idiots were wrong to vote 'No' and we're pretty sure even you dummies will figure it out if we have more powers."

You're not helping her avoi8d saying that.

Nick
Alan Smaill
2015-05-10 17:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by soupdragon
Post by The Doctor
SNP sweeps Sctoland with the others getting 1 seat each.
And, just to clarify. The Scottish parliament has 5 parties, not 3. It
did have 6 until Sheriden's SSP went into melt down. UKIP have made no
headway in Scotland and have no representatives, so they don't count
So we're talking about an election to the UK Parliament, which is
first-past-the-post; and you're using numbers from the elections to
the MMP Scots Parliament?
My friend, you have truly mastered the art
of fuzzy logic.
In the UK Parliamentary election, which is the one we are actually
talking about, there are three parties and a guy from Dumfries. The
three parties are Labour,. the LibDems, and the SNP. Thaty is a
three-party system.
Let's see Conservatives, LibDems, Labour, SNP --
that makes 4. (the Conservatives got more votes in Scotland
than the LibDems; Con, LibDem and Labour have 1 seat each.)
Not to mention that the UK parliament has Green and UKIP MPs (and NI
parties).
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Nick
--
Alan Smaill
soupdragon
2015-05-10 18:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Smaill
...
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by soupdragon
Post by The Doctor
SNP sweeps Sctoland with the others getting 1 seat each.
And, just to clarify. The Scottish parliament has 5 parties, not 3. It
did have 6 until Sheriden's SSP went into melt down. UKIP have made no
headway in Scotland and have no representatives, so they don't count
So we're talking about an election to the UK Parliament, which is
first-past-the-post; and you're using numbers from the elections to
the MMP Scots Parliament?
My friend, you have truly mastered the art
of fuzzy logic.
In the UK Parliamentary election, which is the one we are actually
talking about, there are three parties and a guy from Dumfries. The
three parties are Labour,. the LibDems, and the SNP. Thaty is a
three-party system.
Let's see Conservatives, LibDems, Labour, SNP --
that makes 4. (the Conservatives got more votes in Scotland
than the LibDems; Con, LibDem and Labour have 1 seat each.)
Not to mention that the UK parliament has Green and UKIP MPs (and NI
parties).
Please don't confuse the troll with facts, Alan.
Nicholas Benjamin
2015-05-10 21:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Smaill
...
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by soupdragon
Post by The Doctor
SNP sweeps Sctoland with the others getting 1 seat each.
And, just to clarify. The Scottish parliament has 5 parties, not 3. It
did have 6 until Sheriden's SSP went into melt down. UKIP have made no
headway in Scotland and have no representatives, so they don't count
So we're talking about an election to the UK Parliament, which is
first-past-the-post; and you're using numbers from the elections to
the MMP Scots Parliament?
My friend, you have truly mastered the art
of fuzzy logic.
In the UK Parliamentary election, which is the one we are actually
talking about, there are three parties and a guy from Dumfries. The
three parties are Labour,. the LibDems, and the SNP. Thaty is a
three-party system.
Let's see Conservatives, LibDems, Labour, SNP --
that makes 4. (the Conservatives got more votes in Scotland
than the LibDems; Con, LibDem and Labour have 1 seat each.)
Not to mention that the UK parliament has Green and UKIP MPs (and NI
parties).
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Nick
--
Alan Smaill
Question:
Why do you think of of that affects the number of parties in the party system?

The US has many many more then two parties. Most of them are elected at one level or another. It gets even more complicated when you get deep into the details (New York State pols, for example, are generally nominated by at least two separate parties; the Dem side alone has technically elected Senators under at least four different party labels in the past decade, etc.). It's still a two-party system because the WFP is not gonna get an official job anytime soon.

Nick
Alan Smaill
2015-05-10 22:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Alan Smaill
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
In the UK Parliamentary election, which is the one we are actually
talking about, there are three parties and a guy from Dumfries. The
three parties are Labour,. the LibDems, and the SNP. Thaty is a
three-party system.
Let's see Conservatives, LibDems, Labour, SNP --
that makes 4. (the Conservatives got more votes in Scotland
than the LibDems; Con, LibDem and Labour have 1 seat each.)
Not to mention that the UK parliament has Green and UKIP MPs (and NI
parties).
...
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Why do you think of of that affects the number of parties in the party system?
I have no idea what that means.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
The US has many many more then two parties. Most of them are elected
at one level or another. It gets even more complicated when you get
deep into the details (New York State pols, for example, are generally
nominated by at least two separate parties; the Dem side alone has
technically elected Senators under at least four different party
labels in the past decade, etc.). It's still a two-party system
because the WFP is not gonna get an official job anytime soon.
Of the parties currently represented from Scotland at Westminster, all
4 have or have had recently roles in government at UK or Scottish
level.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Nick
--
Alan Smaill
Nicholas Benjamin
2015-05-10 22:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alan Smaill
...
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Alan Smaill
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
In the UK Parliamentary election, which is the one we are actually
talking about, there are three parties and a guy from Dumfries. The
three parties are Labour,. the LibDems, and the SNP. Thaty is a
three-party system.
Let's see Conservatives, LibDems, Labour, SNP --
that makes 4. (the Conservatives got more votes in Scotland
than the LibDems; Con, LibDem and Labour have 1 seat each.)
Not to mention that the UK parliament has Green and UKIP MPs (and NI
parties).
...
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Why do you think of of that affects the number of parties in the party system?
I have no idea what that means.
This particular kurfufle was caused when I said Scotland had a three-party-system. Soupdragon immediately responded by naming all Parties in the current Scots Parliament.

But that's not how one defines the Party system. If it was Kirsten Gillibrand in the US Senate would be a three-party system all by herself because her name appeared on the tickets of the Dems, Independence Party, and the Working Families Party.
Post by Alan Smaill
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
The US has many many more then two parties. Most of them are elected
at one level or another. It gets even more complicated when you get
deep into the details (New York State pols, for example, are generally
nominated by at least two separate parties; the Dem side alone has
technically elected Senators under at least four different party
labels in the past decade, etc.). It's still a two-party system
because the WFP is not gonna get an official job anytime soon.
Of the parties currently represented from Scotland at Westminster, all
4 have or have had recently roles in government at UK or Scottish
level.
But only three could ever have a role in a Scottish government, and the statement I am defending is "it's a three-party system in Scotland," not "it's a three party-system in the UK." Scotland has much different politics then the rest of the country.

If my argument was about the UK as a whole it would be somewhat more complex because the SNP could conceivably end up with a role in Westminster beyond Question Time, but that would take a very interesting confluence of circumstances (albeit one that polling prior to this last election implied could come to pass). The LibDem wipeout could also affect the number, but I suspect they too will rise again from the flames as Labour needs to move back towards it's working class base, which will leave the UK equivalent of the Limousine Liberal without a party.

Nick
Post by Alan Smaill
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Nick
--
Alan Smaill
The Other Guy
2015-05-10 23:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 10 May 2015 14:57:03 -0700 (PDT), Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
The US has many many more then two parties.
The US has 2 primary parties that most voters identify with.

Few times has a 3rd party candidate been seriously involved
in a national election for President, and only 1 (John Anderson)
since 1970 has gotten the necessary votes to receive Federal
'matching' funds for their campaign.

There are probably a dozen other parties that can't elect a
dogcatcher, let alone a real politician.







---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
S Viemeister
2015-05-10 18:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Which American experience re: secession are you talking about?
There has never been an independence referendum of any sort in any US State
ever. The Confederates had a completely separate legal procedure
involving
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
specially elected conventions. If they'd tried a referendum they would have
lost because they were seceding to protect slavery from evil Abe Lincoln,
and roughly 40% of their populations were slaves.
???
I don't get your point. The slaves couldn't vote. (Neither did white
women.) Slaves didn't even count as full people for census purposes.
Nicholas Benjamin
2015-05-10 22:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Which American experience re: secession are you talking about?
There has never been an independence referendum of any sort in any US State
ever. The Confederates had a completely separate legal procedure
involving
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
specially elected conventions. If they'd tried a referendum they would have
lost because they were seceding to protect slavery from evil Abe Lincoln,
and roughly 40% of their populations were slaves.
???
I don't get your point. The slaves couldn't vote. (Neither did white
women.) Slaves didn't even count as full people for census purposes.
I'm confused too. Soupdragon seemed to be claiming there's some sort of historic experience in the US with having referendums for breaking up the country. The last time anybody got quite that far preceded the invention of the referendum by a good 50 years; and it was a really eventful 50 years that included things like the first banning of race-based voting, and the abolition of slavery. Which means if you are actually implying the South seceded via a referendum, then you are by definition arguing that South Carolina let slaves vote in 1861. Which makes no sense whatsoever, which is why I brought up the discrepancy.

I suspect he has no idea about any of the facts he's claiming to present, and he's just throwing language at the wall to see what sticks.

Nick
The Other Guy
2015-05-10 23:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 10 May 2015 15:07:30 -0700 (PDT), Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
I'm confused too. Soupdragon seemed to be claiming there's some sort
of historic experience in the US with having referendums for breaking
up the country.
There HAVEN'T BEEN, of course.

But a few States have had their legislatures vote for secession,
which ISN'T the same as a referendum, but does seem to placate
the stupidest of the voters and keep them voting for local
dumbassed politicians would have no more understanding of the
US Constitution and law than they do of nuclear physics.






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
Fred J. McCall
2015-05-11 03:02:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Guy
On Sun, 10 May 2015 15:07:30 -0700 (PDT), Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
I'm confused too. Soupdragon seemed to be claiming there's some sort
of historic experience in the US with having referendums for breaking
up the country.
There HAVEN'T BEEN, of course.
Except there have been.
Post by The Other Guy
But a few States have had their legislatures vote for secession,
which ISN'T the same as a referendum, but does seem to placate
the stupidest of the voters and keep them voting for local
dumbassed politicians would have no more understanding of the
US Constitution and law than they do of nuclear physics.
Wow, but you're an ignorant twat.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Fred J. McCall
2015-05-11 02:58:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
I'm confused too. Soupdragon seemed to be claiming there's some sort of historic experience in the US with having referendums for breaking up the country. The last time anybody got quite that far preceded the invention of the referendum by a good 50 years; and it was a really eventful 50 years that included things like the first banning of race-based voting, and the abolition of slavery. Which means if you are actually implying the South seceded via a referendum, then you are by definition arguing that South Carolina let slaves vote in 1861. Which makes no sense whatsoever, which is why I brought up the discrepancy.
So you don't know what 'referendum' means. Let me help:

ref·er·en·dum
?ref?'rend?m/Submit
noun
a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that
has been referred to them for a direct decision.

Note that "electorate" word in there? What that means is that if you
couldn't normally vote you don't get to vote in a referendum. So
there is nothing that says that in a referendum over secessesion that
slaves would have suddenly been allowed to vote. It's listed in
dictionaries in 1847, which predates the US Civil War and explodes
your rather silly remark that it hadn't been 'invented' yet.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
I suspect he has no idea about any of the facts he's claiming to present, and he's just throwing language at the wall to see what sticks.
I suspect you're not bright enough for your suspicions to matter.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Fred J. McCall
2015-05-10 21:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Nicholas Benjamin <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Jesus, how can someone be so wrong about so many things in a single
paragraph?
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Which American experience re: secession are you talking about? There has never been an independence referendum of any sort in any US State ever.
Wrong. Texas, Virginia, and Tennessee all held referendums on
secession.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
The Confederates had a completely separate legal procedure involving specially elected conventions. If they'd tried a referendum they would have lost because they were seceding to protect slavery from evil Abe Lincoln,
Wrong. While legal slavery was one issue, the different economic
interests of the North and the South were at the root of everything.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
and roughly 40% of their populations were slaves.
Irrelevant, since slaves and other livestock weren't allowed to vote.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
There are plenty of referendums, but nobody has ever done one on breaking up the country.
See above.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Charles Ellson
2015-05-10 22:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 10 May 2015 09:19:30 -0700 (PDT), Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by soupdragon
Post by The Doctor
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by The Other Guy
Were to be today, I'd expect a DIFFERENT outcome..
=20
SNP has taken 26 seats from Labor so far, and it's beginning=20
to look like a clean sweep across Scotland.
Doubt it.
For one thing, it's a three-party system in Scotland. If the SNP is getting=
45% (like it has in the past few elections), but the LibDems and
Labor are= splitting the remainder then the SNP dominates. The Exit
Polls I've seen t=
hus far don't show the percentages, so there's no way to know whether
the S= NP is at it's recent average of 45% or has gone past 50%.
Moreover, secessionist movements frequently have soft supporters who
don't = actually want to leave the country, but do want the central
government to m= ake concessions.
Nick
SNP sweeps Sctoland with the others getting 1 seat each.
And, just to clarify. The Scottish parliament has 5 parties, not 3. It
did have 6 until Sheriden's SSP went into melt down. UKIP have made no
headway in Scotland and have no representatives, so they don't count
So we're talking about an election to the UK Parliament, which is
first-past-the-post; and you're using numbers from the elections to
the MMP Scots Parliament? My friend, you have truly mastered the art
of fuzzy logic.
In the UK Parliamentary election, which is the one we are actually talking
about, there are three parties and a guy from Dumfries. The three parties are
Labour,. the LibDems, and the SNP. Thaty is a three-party system.
In the _UK_ system there is also
DUP
Sinn Fein (who don't actually turn up to vote but presumably reserve
the right to do so should it be daft not to do so on some occasion)
Plaid Cymru
SDLP
UUP
UKIP
Green

Had the Tories been less successful then these parties along with the
SNP would have had effective control for matters where the traditional
CON-LAB coalition has a policy of voting in opposition to each other.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
If you want to talk about the Scots Parliament's party-system you'll have to stop
crowing about wiping everyone else out and almost getting a majority
of the popular vote; because you only got 44-45% of that vote and a
bare majority.
50% actually :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by soupdragon
Additionally, the previous poster seems to be using the American
experience of seccession, rather than the European one to make a
sweeping generalisation about their make up.
Which American experience re: secession are you talking about?
Perhaps a reference to a little local difficulty in 1776 ?
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
There has never
been an independence referendum of any sort in any US State ever. The
Confederates had a completely separate legal procedure involving
specially elected conventions. If they'd tried a referendum they
would have lost because they were seceding to protect slavery from
evil Abe Lincoln,
There was a bit more to it than that.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
and roughly 40% of their populations were slaves. There are
plenty of referendums, but nobody has ever done one on breaking up the country.
That's part of what I'm using, because there's so much more data from the USA.
But the exact same thing has happened with the Australian Republic
referendums (which are currently on hold until the Queen dies),
Quebec's sovereignty/independence referendums, etc.
You just don't get to have a nasty, divisive referendum debate
But we didn't. The "nasty, divisive" bit was and still is just
Unionist propaganda; the vast majority of the population went back to
work/play/live with each other as normal the day after.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
you tell everyone
is incredibly important because it's the future of the country; and
then turn around seven months later and have a new one because you
did well in an unrelated election. You piss off the people who voted
against you (and I'd remind you: that 55%),
That was 55% 8 months ago but 100% were lied to by the combined
Unionist parties' (t/a "No Thanks") campaign with a false promise of a
new Scotland Bill "ready to be voted on by the UK Parliament [on] 25th
February". Many of that 55% can reasonably be expected to have joined
the 45% as a result.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
as well as some fraction
of your people for tricking them by claiming their September vote was
the most important one ever, and then turning around and having a new
one in August.
It's suicidal politics, which is probably the reason none of the actual
politicians think it's a particularly good idea.
Post by soupdragon
In the referendum, 45% voted for independance. In the election, 50%
voted for SNP. If the previous assertion is true then effect, 90% want
to leave and the 'soft support' is minimal.
When you're at 49.973%, and the rule is you lose unless you get to 50%+1,
then 5% being soft is kinda a big deal.
Post by soupdragon
Sturgeon is using her block vote to extract more power from Westminster
beyond the Smith Commission, but that's just another step towards her
goal of full independance and, if she gets full fiscal autonomy, gives
her an opportunity to test the strength of the Scottish economy in
preparation for another indyref.
That could work.
But only if she doesn't go on TV and say "we're getting more autonomy from the
Tories because we think you idiots were wrong to vote 'No' and we're pretty sure
even you dummies will figure it out if we have more powers."
You're not helping her avoi8d saying that.
Nick
Nicholas Benjamin
2015-05-10 23:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Ellson
On Sun, 10 May 2015 09:19:30 -0700 (PDT), Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by soupdragon
Post by The Doctor
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by The Other Guy
Were to be today, I'd expect a DIFFERENT outcome..
=20
SNP has taken 26 seats from Labor so far, and it's beginning=20
to look like a clean sweep across Scotland.
Doubt it.
For one thing, it's a three-party system in Scotland. If the SNP is getting=
45% (like it has in the past few elections), but the LibDems and
Labor are= splitting the remainder then the SNP dominates. The Exit
Polls I've seen t=
hus far don't show the percentages, so there's no way to know whether
the S= NP is at it's recent average of 45% or has gone past 50%.
Moreover, secessionist movements frequently have soft supporters who
don't = actually want to leave the country, but do want the central
government to m= ake concessions.
Nick
SNP sweeps Sctoland with the others getting 1 seat each.
And, just to clarify. The Scottish parliament has 5 parties, not 3. It
did have 6 until Sheriden's SSP went into melt down. UKIP have made no
headway in Scotland and have no representatives, so they don't count
So we're talking about an election to the UK Parliament, which is
first-past-the-post; and you're using numbers from the elections to
the MMP Scots Parliament? My friend, you have truly mastered the art
of fuzzy logic.
In the UK Parliamentary election, which is the one we are actually talking
about, there are three parties and a guy from Dumfries. The three parties are
Labour,. the LibDems, and the SNP. Thaty is a three-party system.
In the _UK_ system there is also
DUP
Sinn Fein (who don't actually turn up to vote but presumably reserve
the right to do so should it be daft not to do so on some occasion)
Plaid Cymru
SDLP
UUP
UKIP
Green
Had the Tories been less successful then these parties along with the
SNP would have had effective control for matters where the traditional
CON-LAB coalition has a policy of voting in opposition to each other.
Dude,

I made a very simple statement about the party system of SCOTLAND in an election for the LONDON PARLIAMENT.

You can type all you want about Wales, the EU elections, etc. you still haven't actually made an argument that contradicts the point I made about the election this thread is about.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
If you want to talk about the Scots Parliament's party-system you'll have to stop
crowing about wiping everyone else out and almost getting a majority
of the popular vote; because you only got 44-45% of that vote and a
bare majority.
50% actually :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland
If you're talking about a referendum 50.0% is the worst number to use. It's clearly been rounded, and if rounded up the Yes side loses. If rounded down Yes wins. This number is rounded up. It started at 49.9726% IIRC.

Which means yes loses.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by soupdragon
Additionally, the previous poster seems to be using the American
experience of seccession, rather than the European one to make a
sweeping generalisation about their make up.
Which American experience re: secession are you talking about?
Perhaps a reference to a little local difficulty in 1776 ?
No referendums in 1776 either. 1904 is the first referendum in US History I've ever heard of.

They didn't have the communications technology to have a sophisticated central body decide on the precise wording of a referendum, custom-print ballots, distribute them statewide (40 US states are physically bigger then Scotland, altho 7 of the original 13 are in that bottom 10), etc. So they used an indirect system, usually via one of the Houses of the State Legislature. The famous Lincoln-Stevens, Senate race, for example, was not decided by a popular vote but in the Illinois State Senate.

We still use the indirect system for Presidential elections, which is why Dubya was able to take office over Gore despite losing by a half-million or so.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
There has never
been an independence referendum of any sort in any US State ever. The
Confederates had a completely separate legal procedure involving
specially elected conventions. If they'd tried a referendum they
would have lost because they were seceding to protect slavery from
evil Abe Lincoln,
There was a bit more to it than that.
They say that now, but if you read their various declarations of independence (or as they called them "Declarations of Causes") they tend to switch very quickly between abstract immeasurable things and complaints that the rest of the country was interfering with their slaves. This comes from South Carolina's (note: all were adopted by state conventions not referendums):
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
"But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."

Later declarations of causes tend to include language about defending South Carolina's right to defend slavery by seceding, but they're still mostly about slavery. Georgia's starts out saying they're seceding, then says "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery," Mississippi's is similarly structured, with this as the second thing they say "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." Texas took awhile to get to the point, but "She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?" Virginia insisted on writing in italics that they had to leave because the Feds were acting "not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States."

During the actual war they made it illegal for blacks (free or slave) to fight, refused to send captured Northern Black troops back in exchange for Southern white prisoners (which led the North to refuse to exchange prisoners at all, so there were horrible conditions at camps on both sides, but particularly Andersonville in Georgia), whenever they invaded the North they'd seize free blacks to be sold in southern slave markets, etc.

But they had really good PR, and by 1866 even they realized that the "War to defend slavery" was not morally acceptable, so many (especially their descendants) continue to insist that the whole dispute was about high Yankee taxes making it hard for southerners to export their cotton.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
and roughly 40% of their populations were slaves. There are
plenty of referendums, but nobody has ever done one on breaking up the country.
That's part of what I'm using, because there's so much more data from the USA.
But the exact same thing has happened with the Australian Republic
referendums (which are currently on hold until the Queen dies),
Quebec's sovereignty/independence referendums, etc.
You just don't get to have a nasty, divisive referendum debate
But we didn't. The "nasty, divisive" bit was and still is just
Unionist propaganda; the vast majority of the population went back to
work/play/live with each other as normal the day after.
That happens in all referendums. Everybody always says something that turns out to be untrue.

That does not imply that 8 months later everyone wants to listen to the local High Schoolers talk about Scotland's glorious past while Grandma frets about Scotland's ability to pay her pension again.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
you tell everyone
is incredibly important because it's the future of the country; and
then turn around seven months later and have a new one because you
did well in an unrelated election. You piss off the people who voted
against you (and I'd remind you: that 55%),
That was 55% 8 months ago but 100% were lied to by the combined
Unionist parties' (t/a "No Thanks") campaign with a false promise of a
new Scotland Bill "ready to be voted on by the UK Parliament [on] 25th
February". Many of that 55% can reasonably be expected to have joined
the 45% as a result.
In a few years that argument will work fine. But now that 55% have a PM in London who swore to get to this months ago, 56 of 59 Scots MPs insisting the DevoMax should happen now, etc.

If he drags his feet for six months, it'll have some legs, and the SNP will likely dominate the 2016 election to Holyrood.

Nick
Charles Ellson
2015-05-11 01:36:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 10 May 2015 16:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Charles Ellson
On Sun, 10 May 2015 09:19:30 -0700 (PDT), Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by soupdragon
Post by The Doctor
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by The Other Guy
Were to be today, I'd expect a DIFFERENT outcome..
=20
SNP has taken 26 seats from Labor so far, and it's beginning=20
to look like a clean sweep across Scotland.
Doubt it.
For one thing, it's a three-party system in Scotland. If the SNP is getting=
45% (like it has in the past few elections), but the LibDems and
Labor are= splitting the remainder then the SNP dominates. The Exit
Polls I've seen t=
hus far don't show the percentages, so there's no way to know whether
the S= NP is at it's recent average of 45% or has gone past 50%.
Moreover, secessionist movements frequently have soft supporters who
don't = actually want to leave the country, but do want the central
government to m= ake concessions.
Nick
SNP sweeps Sctoland with the others getting 1 seat each.
And, just to clarify. The Scottish parliament has 5 parties, not 3. It
did have 6 until Sheriden's SSP went into melt down. UKIP have made no
headway in Scotland and have no representatives, so they don't count
So we're talking about an election to the UK Parliament, which is
first-past-the-post; and you're using numbers from the elections to
the MMP Scots Parliament? My friend, you have truly mastered the art
of fuzzy logic.
In the UK Parliamentary election, which is the one we are actually talking
about, there are three parties and a guy from Dumfries. The three parties are
Labour,. the LibDems, and the SNP. Thaty is a three-party system.
In the _UK_ system there is also
DUP
Sinn Fein (who don't actually turn up to vote but presumably reserve
the right to do so should it be daft not to do so on some occasion)
Plaid Cymru
SDLP
UUP
UKIP
Green
Had the Tories been less successful then these parties along with the
SNP would have had effective control for matters where the traditional
CON-LAB coalition has a policy of voting in opposition to each other.
Dude,
I made a very simple statement about the party system of SCOTLAND in an election for the LONDON PARLIAMENT.
It is the United Kingdom Parliament although in some respects you
might be unwittingly closer to the truth.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
You can type all you want about Wales, the EU elections, etc. you still haven't actually made an argument that contradicts the point I made about the election this thread is about.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
If you want to talk about the Scots Parliament's party-system you'll have to stop
crowing about wiping everyone else out and almost getting a majority
of the popular vote; because you only got 44-45% of that vote and a
bare majority.
50% actually :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland
If you're talking about a referendum
Perhaps you need to be clearer about what you are writing about ?
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
50.0% is the worst number to use. It's clearly
been rounded, and if rounded up the Yes side loses. If rounded down
Yes wins. This number is rounded up. It started at 49.9726% IIRC.
Still a bit different from "44-45%".
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Which means yes loses.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by soupdragon
Additionally, the previous poster seems to be using the American
experience of seccession, rather than the European one to make a
sweeping generalisation about their make up.
Which American experience re: secession are you talking about?
Perhaps a reference to a little local difficulty in 1776 ?
No referendums in 1776 either. 1904 is the first referendum in US History I've ever heard of.
They didn't have the communications technology to have a sophisticated
central body decide on the precise wording of a referendum,
custom-print ballots, distribute them statewide (40 US states are physically bigger then Scotland, altho 7 of the original 13 are in that bottom 10), etc. >So they used an indirect system, usually via one
of the Houses of the State Legislature. The famous Lincoln-Stevens,
Senate race, for example, was not decided by a popular vote but in
the Illinois State Senate.
We still use the indirect system for Presidential elections, which is why Dubya was able to take office over Gore despite losing by a half-million or so.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
There has never
been an independence referendum of any sort in any US State ever. The
Confederates had a completely separate legal procedure involving
specially elected conventions. If they'd tried a referendum they
would have lost because they were seceding to protect slavery from
evil Abe Lincoln,
There was a bit more to it than that.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
"But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."
Later declarations of causes tend to include language about defending South Carolina's right to defend slavery by seceding, but they're still mostly about slavery. Georgia's starts out saying they're seceding, then says "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery," Mississippi's is similarly structured, with this as the second thing they say "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." Texas took awhile to get to the point, but "She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and
geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?" Virginia insisted on writing in italics that they had to leave because the Feds were acting "not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States."
During the actual war they made it illegal for blacks (free or slave) to fight, refused to send captured Northern Black troops back in exchange for Southern white prisoners (which led the North to refuse to exchange prisoners at all, so there were horrible conditions at camps on both sides, but particularly Andersonville in Georgia), whenever they invaded the North they'd seize free blacks to be sold in southern slave markets, etc.
But they had really good PR, and by 1866 even they realized that the "War to defend slavery" was not morally acceptable, so many (especially their descendants) continue to insist that the whole dispute was about high Yankee taxes making it hard for southerners to export their cotton.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
and roughly 40% of their populations were slaves. There are
plenty of referendums, but nobody has ever done one on breaking up the country.
That's part of what I'm using, because there's so much more data from the USA.
But the exact same thing has happened with the Australian Republic
referendums (which are currently on hold until the Queen dies),
Quebec's sovereignty/independence referendums, etc.
You just don't get to have a nasty, divisive referendum debate
But we didn't. The "nasty, divisive" bit was and still is just
Unionist propaganda; the vast majority of the population went back to
work/play/live with each other as normal the day after.
That happens in all referendums. Everybody always says something that turns out to be untrue.
That does not imply that 8 months later everyone wants to listen to the local High Schoolers talk about Scotland's glorious past while Grandma frets about Scotland's ability to pay her pension again.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
you tell everyone
is incredibly important because it's the future of the country; and
then turn around seven months later and have a new one because you
did well in an unrelated election. You piss off the people who voted
against you (and I'd remind you: that 55%),
That was 55% 8 months ago but 100% were lied to by the combined
Unionist parties' (t/a "No Thanks") campaign with a false promise of a
new Scotland Bill "ready to be voted on by the UK Parliament [on] 25th
February". Many of that 55% can reasonably be expected to have joined
the 45% as a result.
In a few years that argument will work fine. But now that 55% have a PM in London
He's elected by his party MPs not by voters.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
who swore to get to this months ago, 56 of 59 Scots MPs insisting the DevoMax should happen now, etc.
If he drags his feet for six months, it'll have some legs, and the SNP will likely dominate the 2016 election to Holyrood.
Nick
Nicholas Benjamin
2015-05-11 03:02:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Ellson
On Sun, 10 May 2015 16:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Charles Ellson
On Sun, 10 May 2015 09:19:30 -0700 (PDT), Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by soupdragon
Post by The Doctor
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by The Other Guy
Were to be today, I'd expect a DIFFERENT outcome..
=20
SNP has taken 26 seats from Labor so far, and it's beginning=20
to look like a clean sweep across Scotland.
Doubt it.
For one thing, it's a three-party system in Scotland. If the SNP is
getting=
45% (like it has in the past few elections), but the LibDems and
Labor are= splitting the remainder then the SNP dominates. The Exit
Polls I've seen t=
hus far don't show the percentages, so there's no way to know whether
the S= NP is at it's recent average of 45% or has gone past 50%.
Moreover, secessionist movements frequently have soft supporters who
don't = actually want to leave the country, but do want the central
government to m= ake concessions.
Nick
SNP sweeps Sctoland with the others getting 1 seat each.
And, just to clarify. The Scottish parliament has 5 parties, not 3. It
did have 6 until Sheriden's SSP went into melt down. UKIP have made no
headway in Scotland and have no representatives, so they don't count
So we're talking about an election to the UK Parliament, which is
first-past-the-post; and you're using numbers from the elections to
the MMP Scots Parliament? My friend, you have truly mastered the art
of fuzzy logic.
In the UK Parliamentary election, which is the one we are actually talking
about, there are three parties and a guy from Dumfries. The three parties are
Labour,. the LibDems, and the SNP. Thaty is a three-party system.
In the _UK_ system there is also
DUP
Sinn Fein (who don't actually turn up to vote but presumably reserve
the right to do so should it be daft not to do so on some occasion)
Plaid Cymru
SDLP
UUP
UKIP
Green
Had the Tories been less successful then these parties along with the
SNP would have had effective control for matters where the traditional
CON-LAB coalition has a policy of voting in opposition to each other.
Dude,
I made a very simple statement about the party system of SCOTLAND in an election for the LONDON PARLIAMENT.
It is the United Kingdom Parliament although in some respects you
might be unwittingly closer to the truth.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
You can type all you want about Wales, the EU elections, etc. you still haven't actually made an argument that contradicts the point I made about the election this thread is about.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
If you want to talk about the Scots Parliament's party-system you'll have to stop
crowing about wiping everyone else out and almost getting a majority
of the popular vote; because you only got 44-45% of that vote and a
bare majority.
50% actually :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland
If you're talking about a referendum
Perhaps you need to be clearer about what you are writing about ?
What's going on is somebody makes a point using a number from a recent election, generally claiming that number indicates that support for independence is now above 50%, and I respond to that argument using that number.

Which means you will have to read the entire post, particularly the quotes, if you want to have any clue what's going on. In this post I started talking about the SNP's pre-yesterday numbers because they're more applicable to the question of how people would vote i na new referendum, and he changed the subject to yesterday's number because it sounds better for his side.

Which should be fairly easy for you in this case, because I responded to your post.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
50.0% is the worst number to use. It's clearly
been rounded, and if rounded up the Yes side loses. If rounded down
Yes wins. This number is rounded up. It started at 49.9726% IIRC.
Still a bit different from "44-45%".
If you're talking almost 50.0% then he's talking about the London MPs race that we just had yesterday. Rounded up to 50.0%, so even using the most pro-independence numbers Yes still loses.

If you talk about Holyrood elections, or the referendum from September, it's the 44-45% range. There are actually three numbers to choose from in those races (44.7% for yes in September; and the SNP got 45.4% of constituency votes and 44% of list votes in the last Holyrood election), but they're all quite close.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Which means yes loses.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by soupdragon
Additionally, the previous poster seems to be using the American
experience of seccession, rather than the European one to make a
sweeping generalisation about their make up.
Which American experience re: secession are you talking about?
Perhaps a reference to a little local difficulty in 1776 ?
No referendums in 1776 either. 1904 is the first referendum in US History I've ever heard of.
They didn't have the communications technology to have a sophisticated
central body decide on the precise wording of a referendum,
custom-print ballots, distribute them statewide (40 US states are physically bigger then Scotland, altho 7 of the original 13 are in that bottom 10), etc. >So they used an indirect system, usually via one
of the Houses of the State Legislature. The famous Lincoln-Stevens,
Senate race, for example, was not decided by a popular vote but in
the Illinois State Senate.
We still use the indirect system for Presidential elections, which is why Dubya was able to take office over Gore despite losing by a half-million or so.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
There has never
been an independence referendum of any sort in any US State ever. The
Confederates had a completely separate legal procedure involving
specially elected conventions. If they'd tried a referendum they
would have lost because they were seceding to protect slavery from
evil Abe Lincoln,
There was a bit more to it than that.
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
"But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution."
Later declarations of causes tend to include language about defending South Carolina's right to defend slavery by seceding, but they're still mostly about slavery. Georgia's starts out saying they're seceding, then says "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery," Mississippi's is similarly structured, with this as the second thing they say "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world." Texas took awhile to get to the point, but "She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and
geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?" Virginia insisted on writing in italics that they had to leave because the Feds were acting "not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States."
During the actual war they made it illegal for blacks (free or slave) to fight, refused to send captured Northern Black troops back in exchange for Southern white prisoners (which led the North to refuse to exchange prisoners at all, so there were horrible conditions at camps on both sides, but particularly Andersonville in Georgia), whenever they invaded the North they'd seize free blacks to be sold in southern slave markets, etc.
But they had really good PR, and by 1866 even they realized that the "War to defend slavery" was not morally acceptable, so many (especially their descendants) continue to insist that the whole dispute was about high Yankee taxes making it hard for southerners to export their cotton.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
and roughly 40% of their populations were slaves. There are
plenty of referendums, but nobody has ever done one on breaking up the country.
That's part of what I'm using, because there's so much more data from the USA.
But the exact same thing has happened with the Australian Republic
referendums (which are currently on hold until the Queen dies),
Quebec's sovereignty/independence referendums, etc.
You just don't get to have a nasty, divisive referendum debate
But we didn't. The "nasty, divisive" bit was and still is just
Unionist propaganda; the vast majority of the population went back to
work/play/live with each other as normal the day after.
That happens in all referendums. Everybody always says something that turns out to be untrue.
That does not imply that 8 months later everyone wants to listen to the local High Schoolers talk about Scotland's glorious past while Grandma frets about Scotland's ability to pay her pension again.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
you tell everyone
is incredibly important because it's the future of the country; and
then turn around seven months later and have a new one because you
did well in an unrelated election. You piss off the people who voted
against you (and I'd remind you: that 55%),
That was 55% 8 months ago but 100% were lied to by the combined
Unionist parties' (t/a "No Thanks") campaign with a false promise of a
new Scotland Bill "ready to be voted on by the UK Parliament [on] 25th
February". Many of that 55% can reasonably be expected to have joined
the 45% as a result.
In a few years that argument will work fine. But now that 55% have a PM in London
He's elected by his party MPs not by voters.
He's David fucking Cameron. He's got his job without anybody who could vote on Scottish independence either way, so the distinction between which Englishman votes for him is irrelevant to a discussion of a potential Scottish Independence referendum.

You were arguing that the 45% who voted for independence had been joined by a bunch of people from the No side because Cameron screwed them over in February. So I pointed out that as long as Cameron does something this Parliamentary term they won't care. They'll have gotten what they wanted, and they won't vote Yes in your second referendum.

Nick
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
who swore to get to this months ago, 56 of 59 Scots MPs insisting the DevoMax should happen now, etc.
If he drags his feet for six months, it'll have some legs, and the SNP will likely dominate the 2016 election to Holyrood.
Nick
soupdragon
2015-05-12 07:36:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
You can type all you want about Wales, the EU elections, etc. you
still
haven't actually made an argument that contradicts the point I made
about the election this thread is about.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
If you want to talk about the Scots Parliament's party-system
you'll
have to stop
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
crowing about wiping everyone else out and almost getting a
majority of the popular vote; because you only got 44-45% of that
vote and a bare majority.
50% actually :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland
If you're talking about a referendum
Perhaps you need to be clearer about what you are writing about ?
What's going on is somebody makes a point using a number from a recent
election, generally claiming that number indicates that support for
independence is now above 50%,
The link he gave you refers to the popular vote and rebutts your claim
that "you only got 44-45% of that vote" pointing out it was almost 51%.
But you knew that and tried to muddy the waters by introducing figures
from the referendum, which wasn't under discussion. Very poor.

So, you got the number of parties in Scotland wrong, you got the popular
vote wrong, you got referenda in your own country wrong (as Fred McCall
succincly pointed out) and you got the name of the UK parliament wrong.
Must do better.
The Other Guy
2015-05-12 08:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soupdragon
The link he gave you refers to the popular vote and rebutts your claim
that "you only got 44-45% of that vote" pointing out it was almost 51%.
The SNP currently holds 64 of 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament.

In the latest election for the Scottish Parliament,
the SNP got just over 45% of the vote.
Labour got just short of 32%,
Conservatives got a tad less than 14%,
Liberal Democrats got less than 8%.

No one else came close to breaking 1%.

The next election will be in a year.

Want to bet on THAT one's results??






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
soupdragon
2015-05-12 09:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Guy
Post by soupdragon
The link he gave you refers to the popular vote and rebutts your claim
that "you only got 44-45% of that vote" pointing out it was almost 51%.
The SNP currently holds 64 of 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament.
He's not talking about seats in Holyrood, his claim was about
popular vote in the general election for Westminster, last week.
Post by The Other Guy
In the latest election for the Scottish Parliament,
BZZT Wrong parliament.
Post by The Other Guy
the SNP got just over 45% of the vote.
Labour got just short of 32%,
Conservatives got a tad less than 14%,
Liberal Democrats got less than 8%.
No one else came close to breaking 1%.
Apart from Greens, Scottish Senior Citizens, Socilaist Labour,
Independant, even UKIP. Greens got 4% and got one seat.
Post by The Other Guy
Want to bet on THAT one's results??
SNP will repeat their success. Not that any of this has anything to do
with the Westminster election and the laughable claim there's only a 3-
party system and ' a guy in Dumfries' to choose from.
Nicholas Benjamin
2015-05-14 03:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Guy
Post by soupdragon
The link he gave you refers to the popular vote and rebutts your claim
that "you only got 44-45% of that vote" pointing out it was almost 51%.
The SNP currently holds 64 of 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament.
In the latest election for the Scottish Parliament,
the SNP got just over 45% of the vote.
Labour got just short of 32%,
Conservatives got a tad less than 14%,
Liberal Democrats got less than 8%.
No one else came close to breaking 1%.
The next election will be in a year.
Want to bet on THAT one's results??
I never bet money on anything.

With this quite a bit will depend on what precisely the Tory devolution proposals look like, how the other parties react, etc.

My best guess is the majority of Scots want Devomax rather then independence, because most of them just voted against independence. If true the current vote fort the SNP is a few points higher then it will be if the Tories do the Devomax Scotland's majority actually wants. Which would knock the SNP base vote down to 40-45ish, and at that point the actual results would depend largely on how the other parties do. For example if the LibDem collapse continues and the Tories only make a weak play for Scotland Labor could maneuver itself into that 40-45% range and we'd have a very close election.

It'll be much clearer in six months when when know more about a) the Tory proposals, b) whether Cameron is likely able to force them through or some die-hard Unionists in his caucus will kamikazee it out of misguided principle, and/or c) whether it's enough for most Scots. Then we'll still have to wait a few months to see how the non-SNP vote is likely to break. If Labour and the LibDems end up splitting it the SNP could lose a lot of votes from the 45ish it got last time and still have a majority, if somebody collapses then the SNP could be a minority government even maintaining that 45ish percent.

Incidentally, do you have any fucking clue why Soupdragon is arguing with you?

Nick
The Other Guy
2015-05-14 03:49:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 13 May 2015 20:38:33 -0700 (PDT), Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
With this quite a bit will depend on what precisely the Tory devolution proposals look like,
how the other parties react, etc.
I HOPE that not proposals, but ACTIONS will be the driving force in that
election.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Incidentally, do you have any fucking clue why Soupdragon is arguing with you?
Because he has nothing better to do??

I really DON'T care, and won't see anything further from him.





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
soupdragon
2015-05-14 15:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Guy
On Wed, 13 May 2015 20:38:33 -0700 (PDT), Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
With this quite a bit will depend on what precisely the Tory
devolution proposals look like, how the other parties react, etc.
I HOPE that not proposals, but ACTIONS will be the driving force in
that election.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Incidentally, do you have any fucking clue why Soupdragon is arguing with you?
Mr Dumb.. meet Mr Clueless..
Post by The Other Guy
Because he has nothing better to do??
I really DON'T care, and won't see anything further from him.
Bailing already? Tsk tsk..
Nicholas Benjamin
2015-05-14 23:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Guy
On Wed, 13 May 2015 20:38:33 -0700 (PDT), Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
With this quite a bit will depend on what precisely the Tory devolution proposals look like,
how the other parties react, etc.
I HOPE that not proposals, but ACTIONS will be the driving force in that
election.
The thing about a majority government is there doesn't tend to be a whole hell of a lot of difference between proposals and actions if the government is actually serious about the proposal. In this particular case the math is even more favorable because he'll likely pick up a lot of opposition support (particularly the 58 Scots MPs who are in Opposition) if his devolution proposal is extreme enough that his caucus considers voting no.
Post by The Other Guy
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Incidentally, do you have any fucking clue why Soupdragon is arguing with you?
Because he has nothing better to do??
I really DON'T care, and won't see anything further from him.
It's very rare for me to be the second most dickish-person on a thread, but in this one I struggle to make third.

Congratulations Mr. McCall and Soupdragon.

Nick
Nicholas Benjamin
2015-05-14 03:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soupdragon
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
You can type all you want about Wales, the EU elections, etc. you
still
haven't actually made an argument that contradicts the point I made
about the election this thread is about.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
If you want to talk about the Scots Parliament's party-system
you'll
have to stop
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
crowing about wiping everyone else out and almost getting a
majority of the popular vote; because you only got 44-45% of that
vote and a bare majority.
50% actually :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland
If you're talking about a referendum
Perhaps you need to be clearer about what you are writing about ?
What's going on is somebody makes a point using a number from a recent
election, generally claiming that number indicates that support for
independence is now above 50%,
The link he gave you refers to the popular vote and rebutts your claim
that "you only got 44-45% of that vote" pointing out it was almost 51%.
But you knew that and tried to muddy the waters by introducing figures
from the referendum, which wasn't under discussion. Very poor.
So you're talking about a new referendum, but you lost the last one so anyone who brings up those numbers is an Evil Troll.

BTW, you're delusional if you think you can calculate the pre-rounding numbers from the BBC website. It doesn't have a vote total so there's no denominator. The wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015_(Scotland)
Has the vote total at 2,910,465. 50% of that would be 1,455,232.5. The SNP only got 1,454,436.
Post by soupdragon
So, you got the number of parties in Scotland wrong, you got the popular
vote wrong, you got referenda in your own country wrong (as Fred McCall
succincly pointed out) and you got the name of the UK parliament wrong.
Must do better.
So the guy who didn't do any math to figure out the popular vote total is claiming the guy who did got the numbers wrong.

Fred McCall is delusional. He also used the memorable phrase "slaves and other livestock weren't allowed to vote." Are you really going to go on record as saying that a guy who presents no evidence, and claims that all non-whites are sub-huiman livestock, is a more reliable source then the guy who actually linked to the legal documents showing that he was wrong?

All this and you've started a pointless flame-war about which Parliament we're talking about with the guy who is agreeing with you. Seriously he's trying to start a debate about who will win in 2016, and he's presuming it will be the SNP because their 45ish% last time was enough to get an overall majority and the 50ish% they got this time should be even better. And you're arguing with him for reasons no sane person will ever comprehend..

I'd admire your balls, but at this point the only logical conclusion is that you're a Tory Agent Provocateur.

Nick
soupdragon
2015-05-14 15:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by soupdragon
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
You can type all you want about Wales, the EU elections, etc. you
still
haven't actually made an argument that contradicts the point I made
about the election this thread is about.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
If you want to talk about the Scots Parliament's party-system
you'll
have to stop
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
crowing about wiping everyone else out and almost getting a
majority of the popular vote; because you only got 44-45% of
that vote and a bare majority.
50% actually :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland
If you're talking about a referendum
Perhaps you need to be clearer about what you are writing about ?
What's going on is somebody makes a point using a number from a
recent election, generally claiming that number indicates that
support for independence is now above 50%,
The link he gave you refers to the popular vote and rebutts your claim
that "you only got 44-45% of that vote" pointing out it was almost 51%.
But you knew that and tried to muddy the waters by introducing
figures from the referendum, which wasn't under discussion. Very
poor.
So you're talking about a new referendum, but you lost the last one so
anyone who brings up those numbers is an Evil Troll.
Wriggle, wriggle..
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
BTW, you're delusional if you think you can calculate the pre-rounding
numbers from the BBC website. It doesn't have a vote total so there's
no denominator.
Except there is, if you bother to look a bit more clearly.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015_
(Sco
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
tland)
Ah, Wiki.. the website where anyone can write anything. What a source.
Thanks, but I'll stick with the Beeb.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Has the vote total at 2,910,465. 50% of that would be
1,455,232.5. The SNP only got 1,454,436.
..and you claim that's "44-45%" of the total. My goodness..
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by soupdragon
So, you got the number of parties in Scotland wrong, you got the popular
vote wrong, you got referenda in your own country wrong (as Fred McCall
succincly pointed out) and you got the name of the UK parliament wrong.
Must do better.
So the guy who didn't do any math to figure out the popular vote total
is claiming the guy who did got the numbers wrong.
We would be fascinated to see how you got 44-45% from the figures you
quote above. Your numeracy does not seem to be adequate.
,
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Fred McCall is delusional. He also used the memorable phrase "slaves
and other livestock weren't allowed to vote." Are you really going to
go on record as saying that a guy who presents no evidence, and claims
that all non-whites are sub-huiman livestock, is a more reliable
source then the guy who actually linked to the legal documents showing
that he was wrong?
Fred McCall has a track record of being correct. You don't. What little
you have contributed has been consistently wrong. We note you duck his
correction of your claims regarding referenda in the US.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
All this and you've started a pointless flame-war about which
Parliament we're talking about with the guy who is agreeing with you.
Seriously he's trying to start a debate about who will win in 2016,
and he's presuming it will be the SNP because their 45ish% last time
was enough to get an overall majority and the 50ish% they got this
time should be even better.
Oh so now you agree with Charles' correction that it was 50% and not 44-
45% as you claimed? And now the goalposts are being dragged from the
Westminster election, to the referendum and now your trying to sneak it
to the Scottish Parliament - a place you said you weren't discussing.
You must be quite exhausted by now.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
And you're arguing with him for reasons no
sane person will ever comprehend..
You're new here, aren't you? The fact that you don't understand it
is irrelevant.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
I'd admire your balls, but at this point the only logical conclusion
is that you're a Tory Agent Provocateur.
The only logical conclusion is that you are troll, desperately googling
to fill in your ignorance. I doubt you know what a Tory is but, don't
worry, google is your friend, or there's always wiki. I suggest the
Clan Akins page on wiki as an excellent example.

Bye troll.
Nicholas Benjamin
2015-05-15 00:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soupdragon
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by soupdragon
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
You can type all you want about Wales, the EU elections, etc. you
still
haven't actually made an argument that contradicts the point I made
about the election this thread is about.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
If you want to talk about the Scots Parliament's party-system
you'll
have to stop
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
crowing about wiping everyone else out and almost getting a
majority of the popular vote; because you only got 44-45% of
that vote and a bare majority.
50% actually :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/scotland
If you're talking about a referendum
Perhaps you need to be clearer about what you are writing about ?
What's going on is somebody makes a point using a number from a
recent election, generally claiming that number indicates that
support for independence is now above 50%,
The link he gave you refers to the popular vote and rebutts your claim
that "you only got 44-45% of that vote" pointing out it was almost 51%.
But you knew that and tried to muddy the waters by introducing
figures from the referendum, which wasn't under discussion. Very
poor.
So you're talking about a new referendum, but you lost the last one so
anyone who brings up those numbers is an Evil Troll.
Wriggle, wriggle..
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
BTW, you're delusional if you think you can calculate the pre-rounding
numbers from the BBC website. It doesn't have a vote total so there's
no denominator.
Except there is, if you bother to look a bit more clearly.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015_
(Sco
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
tland)
Ah, Wiki.. the website where anyone can write anything. What a source.
Thanks, but I'll stick with the Beeb.
The interesting bit is you;re not sticking with the beeb.

Wiki's numbers come from the BBC. The only difference is they actually went to the trouble of adding them up. The added up numbers put the SNP below 50%.
Post by soupdragon
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Has the vote total at 2,910,465. 50% of that would be
1,455,232.5. The SNP only got 1,454,436.
..and you claim that's "44-45%" of the total. My goodness..
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by soupdragon
So, you got the number of parties in Scotland wrong, you got the popular
vote wrong, you got referenda in your own country wrong (as Fred McCall
succincly pointed out) and you got the name of the UK parliament wrong.
Must do better.
So the guy who didn't do any math to figure out the popular vote total
is claiming the guy who did got the numbers wrong.
We would be fascinated to see how you got 44-45% from the figures you
quote above. Your numeracy does not seem to be adequate.
I know it's very hard for you to understand that we're talking about multiple different sets of vote totals at once, but we are.

If you're trying to predict future SNP and/or independence totals you kinda have to because one election don't mean shit.
Post by soupdragon
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Fred McCall is delusional. He also used the memorable phrase "slaves
and other livestock weren't allowed to vote." Are you really going to
go on record as saying that a guy who presents no evidence, and claims
that all non-whites are sub-huiman livestock, is a more reliable
source then the guy who actually linked to the legal documents showing
that he was wrong?
Fred McCall has a track record of being correct. You don't. What little
you have contributed has been consistently wrong. We note you duck his
correction of your claims regarding referenda in the US.
No he doesn't. I have linked to the sources that prove him wrong more then once. What he has is a track records of agreeing with you.

And he's got a track record of explicit racism ("slaves and other livestock").

You're not a Tory Agent Provocateur, you're a UKIP agent provocateur.
Post by soupdragon
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
All this and you've started a pointless flame-war about which
Parliament we're talking about with the guy who is agreeing with you.
Seriously he's trying to start a debate about who will win in 2016,
and he's presuming it will be the SNP because their 45ish% last time
was enough to get an overall majority and the 50ish% they got this
time should be even better.
Oh so now you agree with Charles' correction that it was 50% and not 44-
45% as you claimed? And now the goalposts are being dragged from the
Westminster election, to the referendum and now your trying to sneak it
to the Scottish Parliament - a place you said you weren't discussing.
You must be quite exhausted by now.
I didn't bring this up.

He thought it would be an interesting topic for discussion.

It's not his fault you don't have the creativity to discuss two things at once.
Post by soupdragon
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
And you're arguing with him for reasons no
sane person will ever comprehend..
You're new here, aren't you? The fact that you don't understand it
is irrelevant.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
I'd admire your balls, but at this point the only logical conclusion
is that you're a Tory Agent Provocateur.
The only logical conclusion is that you are troll, desperately googling
to fill in your ignorance. I doubt you know what a Tory is but, don't
worry, google is your friend, or there's always wiki. I suggest the
Clan Akins page on wiki as an excellent example.
Bye troll.
I'm pretty sure I know the history of the Tory party better then you. I've actually done enough research about UK politics to understand when you should talk about vote totals from multiple elections, and you apparently haven't gotten that far. So landowners dominating the Lords, oppressing their tenants by Clearances, etc., is old hat to me. I sincerely doubt you can fill in a single year of the gap between the Clearances and Churchill. Given that you're clearly English UKIP, I'm almost positive you'll have to look up the clearances on wikipedia personally.

I'm beginning to see why everyone else fled this group for Facebook. You're using ad hominem and you're not even good at it. You know the words "google" and "troll," and you've managed to string them together into a sentence. But it's a such a wimpy little insult.

Thuis is the fucking internet man, not a drunken pub debate. You've got the entire world to work with. Throw some creativity in there, you coked-out, mongoose-headed son of a stupid whore.* May a crow look at you quizzically before eating your eyeballs for inferior trolling you wannabe dickwad.

OTOH, as a UKIP-type-motherfucker you;re clearly doing well just to be vaguely coherent on a computer-system that requires a Mouse,k so I'll have to give your pathetic attempt at trolling a 1.5 starts out of Five due to Affirmative Action for old-ass motherfuckers.

*She still tries to cash my checks. They've been bouncing since 9 months before you were born and she just doesn't figure it out.
soupdragon
2015-05-12 07:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Charles Ellson
On Sun, 10 May 2015 16:19:48 -0700 (PDT), Nicholas Benjamin
.
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Nicholas Benjamin
Post by soupdragon
And, just to clarify. The Scottish parliament has 5 parties, not
3. It did have 6 until Sheriden's SSP went into melt down. UKIP
have made no headway in Scotland and have no representatives, so
they don't count
So we're talking about an election to the UK Parliament, which is
first-past-the-post; and you're using numbers from the elections to
the MMP Scots Parliament? My friend, you have truly mastered the
art of fuzzy logic.
In the UK Parliamentary election, which is the one we are actually
talking about, there are three parties and a guy from Dumfries. The
three parties are Labour,. the LibDems, and the SNP. Thaty is a
three-party system.
In the _UK_ system there is also
DUP
Sinn Fein (who don't actually turn up to vote but presumably reserve
the right to do so should it be daft not to do so on some occasion)
Plaid Cymru
SDLP
UUP
UKIP
Green
Had the Tories been less successful then these parties along with
the SNP would have had effective control for matters where the
traditional CON-LAB coalition has a policy of voting in opposition
to each other.
Dude,
I made a very simple statement about the party system of SCOTLAND in
an election for the LONDON PARLIAMENT.
It is the United Kingdom Parliament although in some respects you
might be unwittingly closer to the truth.
..and, of course, the number of parties available to voters in Scotland
to elect someone to the UK parliament remained considerably more than 3.
Ironic that 'a guy from Dumfries' is now Scottish Secretary of State and
it's his party that's now in government.
The Other Guy
2015-05-12 08:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by soupdragon
..and, of course, the number of parties available to voters in Scotland
to elect someone to the UK parliament remained considerably more than 3.
How many parties actually HAVE elected at least one person recently.






---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
soupdragon
2015-05-12 09:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Other Guy
Post by soupdragon
..and, of course, the number of parties available to voters in Scotland
to elect someone to the UK parliament remained considerably more than 3.
How many parties actually HAVE elected at least one person recently.
What's that got to do with anything? However you try to cherry pick, it's
still more than 3.
Loading...