Holyrood '16 polls and predictions

[John Lambies Doos]

Who gives a fuk if the sun has backed the snp. Snp just keep there mouth shut

[Fide]

Whilst she's at tea with dear Rupert

 

 

There were loads of yes posters up everywhere during the referendum campaign and they lost by 500000 votes. That's not to say the SNP won't win in Kirkcaldy (they surely will)

 

[Alan Stubbs]

The Guardian seem to be the first UK paper to notice there's an election up here and get started on the half-baked butthurt analysis of the situation.

I'm very much looking forward to the rest of the media's punditry from a week today:

- anti-English

- Sturgeon's pretty good

- (decade long) protest vote

- anti-English

- those fools think it's another Referendum

I wonder if anyone will clock that people actually like a political party and aren't just waiting for the right time to run back to their shitey branch office of choice.

[Scary Bear]

Around 380000,hopefully the figure has now been rounded to your satisfaction.

Thank you. We have to keep up the standards of pedantry that are now long established in the Politics Forum.

[Gordon EF]

Thank you. We have to keep up the standards of pedantry that are now long established in the Politics Forum.

 

If we were rounding the difference to the nearest million, it would have been a dead heat.

[sparky88]

If we were rounding the difference to the nearest million, it would have been a dead heat.

Voderman's got nothing on you.

[StreetwiseHercules]

Sturgeon's handling Sally Magnuson with such ease. The contrast with Dugdale last night is astounding.

[Gordon EF]

Voderman's got nothing on you.

 

I know.

[Reluctant Hero]

If anyone is interested, I have pulled together a spreadsheet to record the election results as they come in.

 

You can also use it beforehand to forecast the number of seats each party will get as well.

 

To use it, simply click on the link at the bottom, then download the file.  Then go into the “2016 Result†tab and enter the results or forecasts in column F, for the constituency results.  Also record the size of the electorate in the relevant white box in Column L

 

For the regional results or forecasts enter the relevant amounts in each column in the “Regional Results†tab.

 

The “Overviewâ€, “No of Seats†and “Turnout†tabs will then be automatically updated.  Column P on the far right of the Overview tab can be used to make notes about constituencies to make the evening even more exciting lol.  I have started the ball rolling with a few notes.

 

This is just for a bit of fun, so this spreadsheet is used at your own risk.  I cannot take any responsibility for any going wrong or any errors.

 

The calculations for allocating the regional results were pretty complex, but I am hopeful it all works OK.

 

Link to Spready

 

Hope someone uses it! 

 

Just in case anyone is looking for a spreadsheet to use to record the results on Thursday 

[Wee Willie]

Just in case anyone is looking for a spreadsheet to use to record the results on Thursday 

Sounds cool but how about you filling it in and then uploading it here after Thursday?

[welshbairn]

Just in case anyone is looking for a spreadsheet to use to record the results on Thursday 

 

Thanks for that, a lot of work and well put together. Wee Willie's just bitter because he's so old he can't understand spreadsheets and he's... well... wee. 

[Fotbawmad]

I know this was over a week ago, but I've decided to respond to Ad Lib on this topic. His second last paragraph proves exactly why he's an unreasonable person to debate with when it comes to this subject. I personally have little faith I'm going to get anywhere with him or his sympathizers, but I'll try regardless.

 

I'll make a disclaimer and say the issue as a whole is a massive distraction and is put out by the media and ruling classes to divide plebs like us. So it's not an issue I care about as a whole, and if I was a politician I would be use the issue as a bargaining chip to get other more important legislation I wanted past. Before you bore me by playing the homophobic card. I have a gay relative, and I'm on good terms and still in regular contact with them. If I had some kind of irrational hatred for gays. I would refuse to associate with someone like that.

 

Now to address his quote directly...

 

This isn't a trivial definition challenge. Both ScotSquid and Granny Danger specifically responded to the suggestion that these people were not homophobic bigots for opposing equal marriage and you didn't provide a single reason to support the "certainty" (your word, not mine) that they were something not as bad as a homophobe and a bigot but merely "deeply wrong" in some less disgraceful way.

The justification, insofar as you've offered one, for these people's opposition to equal marriage was founded on two things:

1. The belief that marriage is "an exclusively religious ceremony" despite the fact that these people do not seem to have opposed heterosexual civil marriage

2. They think that "redefining" marriage to include same-sex couples "somehow cheapens it"

How are either of these justifications ones which don't fall squarely under any average intelligent human being's definition of either "homophobic" or "bigoted"?

That their views about what the civic rights of gay people should be stem from ignorance and conservatism and that they are *sincere* doesn't mean they aren't homophobic bigots. This is tone trolling 101.

 

Firstly, these two common arguments are legitimate objections, and it's up to you to disprove them with superior reasoning. Labeling people who use those objections reflects badly on your character. As it shows your quick to make bold and sweeping assumptions about other people you don't agree with. Even worse, it sets up a divisive mentality of us versus them. There is two reasons why someone like you would say something like this.

 

1. You don't have legitimate counter arguments to these points, but you hate to hear them.

2. You're gratifying yourself in the moment, and have an easier time believing your line of reasoning.

 

As for the traditional religious argument of "marriage is between a man and a woman". I want to make it clear, I would never want a situation where any minister is forced to marry a gay couple because of a religiously held view. Nor would I want a situation where someone could be threatened with lawsuits for refusing to provide a service to a gay couple. Situations like that are only going to create resentment towards gays and will lead to bad things in the long run. I would be the first to defend a minister or a baker who was taken to court over their actions, and also quick to attack the people who were trying to demonize them for refusing to provide a service to the gay couple. More importantly, when it comes to the free market, the seller has a right to refuse a service to anyone for any reason. Doing so means their beliefs trump their own desire to make money. However, we shouldn't discount the concept of goodwill. Meaning the sellers business potentially getting a bad reputation for refusing to serve people, as a result of their own prejudices.

 

Now, you have to understand why there is such a thing as traditional marriage. It's not purely some kind of hocus pocus religious ceremony. It exists to keep the worst of male and female nature in check. If there was no such thing as marriage, or any laws to govern hetrosexual relationships. What do you think would happen?

 

Well, you'd have the problem relating to the 80/20 rule. Meaning the top 80% of women desiring the top 20% of men. Most men wouldn't have a chance of reproducing, because the most desirable men would be impregnating multiple women. Worst of all, the men would treat their women like crap, because they would have no incentive to treat their women well, and they also make terrible fathers, because they wouldn't care enough to raise their own children. They would be too concerned about banging the next chick. This would be a toxic environment for children to be brought in, as would likely be raised with no father around and a mother whose incapable of providing for them. 

 

Strictly enforced monogamy reigns in this behavior, by only allowing the man to mate with one woman. It also means women have to be more realistic about what kind of guy they can have. More importantly, the everyday man now has a realistic chance of having his own child. Which is important for the overall health of society. It gives them a greater sense of purpose. Something to live for, some form of buy in. He's not going to be so selfish and have the mentality that society can go f**k itself, because why should he care what happens when he's dead and gone.

 

Knowing all that, when it comes to gay marriage. What exactly are you trying to keep in check? 

 

Do I have problem with gay people being in love with one another? No

Do I object to them living to together? No

Am I against them being able to adopt a child? No

 

The reason I don't believe in gay marriage is because it's not necessary.

[Kaz]

I know this was over a week ago, but I've decided to respond to Ad Lib on this topic. His second last paragraph proves exactly why he's an unreasonable person to debate with when it comes to this subject. I personally have little faith I'm going to get anywhere with him or his sympathizers, but I'll try regardless.

I'll make a disclaimer and say the issue as a whole is a massive distraction and is put out by the media and ruling classes to divide plebs like us. So it's not an issue I care about as a whole, and if I was a politician I would be use the issue as a bargaining chip to get other more important legislation I wanted past. Before you bore me by playing the homophobic card. I have a gay relative, and I'm on good terms and still in regular contact with them. If I had some kind of irrational hatred for gays. I would refuse to associate with someone like that.

Now to address his quote directly...

Firstly, these two common arguments are legitimate objections, and it's up to you to disprove them with superior reasoning. Labeling people who use those objections reflects badly on your character. As it shows your quick to make bold and sweeping assumptions about other people you don't agree with. Even worse, it sets up a divisive mentality of us versus them. There is two reasons why someone like you would say something like this.

1. You don't have legitimate counter arguments to these points, but you hate to hear them.

2. You're gratifying yourself in the moment, and have an easier time believing your line of reasoning.

As for the traditional religious argument of "marriage is between a man and a woman". I want to make it clear, I would never want a situation where any minister is forced to marry a gay couple because of a religiously held view. Nor would I want a situation where someone could be threatened with lawsuits for refusing to provide a service to a gay couple. Situations like that are only going to create resentment towards gays and will lead to bad things in the long run. I would be the first to defend a minister or a baker who was taken to court over their actions, and also quick to attack the people who were trying to demonize them for refusing to provide a service to the gay couple. More importantly, when it comes to the free market, the seller has a right to refuse a service to anyone for any reason. Doing so means their beliefs trump their own desire to make money. However, we shouldn't discount the concept of goodwill. Meaning the sellers business potentially getting a bad reputation for refusing to serve people, as a result of their own prejudices.

Now, you have to understand why there is such a thing as traditional marriage. It's not purely some kind of hocus pocus religious ceremony. It exists to keep the worst of male and female nature in check. If there was no such thing as marriage, or any laws to govern hetrosexual relationships. What do you think would happen?

Well, you'd have the problem relating to the 80/20 rule. Meaning the top 80% of women desiring the top 20% of men. Most men wouldn't have a chance of reproducing, because the most desirable men would be impregnating multiple women. Worst of all, the men would treat their women like crap, because they would have no incentive to treat their women well, and they also make terrible fathers, because they wouldn't care enough to raise their own children. They would be too concerned about banging the next chick. This would be a toxic environment for children to be brought in, as would likely be raised with no father around and a mother whose incapable of providing for them.

Strictly enforced monogamy reigns in this behavior, by only allowing the man to mate with one woman. It also means women have to be more realistic about what kind of guy they can have. More importantly, the everyday man now has a realistic chance of having his own child. Which is important for the overall health of society. It gives them a greater sense of purpose. Something to live for, some form of buy in. He's not going to be so selfish and have the mentality that society can go f**k itself, because why should he care what happens when he's dead and gone.

Knowing all that, when it comes to gay marriage. What exactly are you trying to keep in check?

Do I have problem with gay people being in love with one another? No

Do I object to them living to together? No

Am I against them being able to adopt a child? No

The reason I don't believe in gay marriage is because it's not necessary.

😂

[Ira Gaines]

That's genuinely one of the best posts I've read on here. Mainly because it's utterly mental, but still top top stuff.

[ScotSquid]

I know this was over a week ago, but I've decided to respond to Ad Lib on this topic. His second last paragraph proves exactly why he's an unreasonable person to debate with when it comes to this subject. I personally have little faith I'm going to get anywhere with him or his sympathizers, but I'll try regardless.

I'll make a disclaimer and say the issue as a whole is a massive distraction and is put out by the media and ruling classes to divide plebs like us. So it's not an issue I care about as a whole, and if I was a politician I would be use the issue as a bargaining chip to get other more important legislation I wanted past. Before you bore me by playing the homophobic card. I have a gay relative, and I'm on good terms and still in regular contact with them. If I had some kind of irrational hatred for gays. I would refuse to associate with someone like that.

Now to address his quote directly...

Firstly, these two common arguments are legitimate objections, and it's up to you to disprove them with superior reasoning. Labeling people who use those objections reflects badly on your character. As it shows your quick to make bold and sweeping assumptions about other people you don't agree with. Even worse, it sets up a divisive mentality of us versus them. There is two reasons why someone like you would say something like this.

1. You don't have legitimate counter arguments to these points, but you hate to hear them.

2. You're gratifying yourself in the moment, and have an easier time believing your line of reasoning.

As for the traditional religious argument of "marriage is between a man and a woman". I want to make it clear, I would never want a situation where any minister is forced to marry a gay couple because of a religiously held view. Nor would I want a situation where someone could be threatened with lawsuits for refusing to provide a service to a gay couple. Situations like that are only going to create resentment towards gays and will lead to bad things in the long run. I would be the first to defend a minister or a baker who was taken to court over their actions, and also quick to attack the people who were trying to demonize them for refusing to provide a service to the gay couple. More importantly, when it comes to the free market, the seller has a right to refuse a service to anyone for any reason. Doing so means their beliefs trump their own desire to make money. However, we shouldn't discount the concept of goodwill. Meaning the sellers business potentially getting a bad reputation for refusing to serve people, as a result of their own prejudices.

Now, you have to understand why there is such a thing as traditional marriage. It's not purely some kind of hocus pocus religious ceremony. It exists to keep the worst of male and female nature in check. If there was no such thing as marriage, or any laws to govern hetrosexual relationships. What do you think would happen?

Well, you'd have the problem relating to the 80/20 rule. Meaning the top 80% of women desiring the top 20% of men. Most men wouldn't have a chance of reproducing, because the most desirable men would be impregnating multiple women. Worst of all, the men would treat their women like crap, because they would have no incentive to treat their women well, and they also make terrible fathers, because they wouldn't care enough to raise their own children. They would be too concerned about banging the next chick. This would be a toxic environment for children to be brought in, as would likely be raised with no father around and a mother whose incapable of providing for them.

Strictly enforced monogamy reigns in this behavior, by only allowing the man to mate with one woman. It also means women have to be more realistic about what kind of guy they can have. More importantly, the everyday man now has a realistic chance of having his own child. Which is important for the overall health of society. It gives them a greater sense of purpose. Something to live for, some form of buy in. He's not going to be so selfish and have the mentality that society can go f**k itself, because why should he care what happens when he's dead and gone.

Knowing all that, when it comes to gay marriage. What exactly are you trying to keep in check?

Do I have problem with gay people being in love with one another? No

Do I object to them living to together? No

Am I against them being able to adopt a child? No

The reason I don't believe in gay marriage is because it's not necessary.

Wow. Good to see Brian Souter posts here. Hi Brian.

Just to unpick one strand of this insane post, let's go back to this baker.

He says, 'sorry I don't wish to serve you because you are black', to a couple wishing to buy a cake from his emporium.

'S my deeply held religious belief ya see.

You are, I assume, going to be staunchly defending said baker's right to refuse this custom. f**k what the black customers think. They can buy cakes elsewhere. Well, probably. If not, shit happens. Tough luck?

And, raising a fuss about this is really just going to make things awkward for the uppity niggers in the long run?

There'll be resentment against them in the community. 'Bad things' will happen. Maybe involving trees.

You do know this has been tried, right?

[sparky88]

Wow. Good to see Brian Souter posts here. Hi Brian.

Just to unpick one strand of this insane post, let's go back to this baker.

He says, 'sorry I don't wish to serve you because you are black', to a couple wishing to buy a cake from his emporium.

'S my deeply held religious belief ya see.

You are, I assume, going to be staunchly defending said baker's right to refuse this custom. f**k what the black customers think. They can buy cakes elsewhere. Well, probably. If not, shit happens. Tough luck?

And, raising a fuss about this is really just going to make things awkward for the uppity niggers in the long run?

There'll be resentment against them in the community. 'Bad things' will happen. Maybe involving trees.

You do know this has been tried, right?

Shhhhhh don't mention Brian Souter on the politics board, some folk don't like it I did once, but I think I got away with it.

[Shades75]

Wow. Good to see Brian Souter posts here. Hi Brian.

Just to unpick one strand of this insane post, let's go back to this baker.

He says, 'sorry I don't wish to serve you because you are black', to a couple wishing to buy a cake from his emporium.

'S my deeply held religious belief ya see.

You are, I assume, going to be staunchly defending said baker's right to refuse this custom. f**k what the black customers think. They can buy cakes elsewhere. Well, probably. If not, shit happens. Tough luck?

And, raising a fuss about this is really just going to make things awkward for the uppity niggers in the long run?

There'll be resentment against them in the community. 'Bad things' will happen. Maybe involving trees.

You do know this has been tried, right?

I don't think that it's a useful approach to reply to an insane post with a substantially more insane post.

[Wee Willie]

Just in case anyone is looking for a spreadsheet to use to record the results on Thursday 

Sounds cool but how about you filling it in and then uploading it here after Thursday?

Thanks for that, a lot of work and well put together. Wee Willie's just bitter because he's so old he can't understand spreadsheets and he's... well... wee. 

:lol: very perspicacious of you

Truth is, I'm a lazy c**t and I'll bet if RH does upload a finished product you'll be the first (efter me) tae download it

[Antiochas III]

Shhhhhh don't mention Brian Souter on the politics board, some folk don't like it I did once, but I think I got away with it.

Really? I think most people here don't like it when idiots that think his success is due to his SNP connections. Are you one of them?

[Wee Willie]

Why do you type like you talk?

Why do you no?