Let's All Laugh at the Royalist Nats and Greens

[sophia]

5 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

note to self:

13 sentences are too many for Albus's limited attention span. Try to keep replies shorter.

"F*ck off troll" might work in future

They are on record as posting in bad faith, what do you expect?

[lichtgilphead]

3 minutes ago, sophia said:

They are on record as posting in bad faith, what do you expect?

Surely not! Just because both accounts registered at the same time on the same day, you cannot just assume that there is any link between them!

[Albus Bulbasaur]

23 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

note to self:

13 sentences are too many for Albus's limited attention span. Try to keep replies shorter.

"F*ck off troll" might work in future

I've told you before Tigger I'm just not "that interested" in your silly drunken rambles. 

11 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said:

Surely not! Just because both accounts registered at the same time on the same day, you cannot just assume that there is any link between them!

I mean the state of this... Imagine being this consumed by a football forum and expecting to be taken seriously. You really think that a centrist in his twenties is pretending to be an older Christian bloke that supports the SFP? That's actually so hilarious to me. 

Also hilarious how all the pedantic semantic warriors want to argue with people that cba with that sort of debate then the second someone like @Ad Libcomes through they resort to throwing the toys out the pram and scrambling for relevance.

Tick tock indeed. 

 

 

 

[Zern]

7 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

Wow, this is full of non-sequiturs and falsehoods.

(1) The Scottish Parliament is not a government. The Scottish Government is a government. The Scottish Parliament is a legislature of limited competence which owes its existence to and depends upon a statute for its powers.

(2) That the Scottish Parliament is "European-style" whatever that means is constitutionally irrelevant.

(3) The Prime Minister cannot dismiss the First Minister because of section 45 of the Scotland Act 1998, which the UK Parliament passed, provides all of the rules for the appointment and dismissal of First Ministers. The only person who can dismiss a First Minister is the Queen, as the First Minister holds office at "Her Majesty's pleasure".

In any case, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if the Prime Minister could sack the First Minister.

The fact that the First Minister is outwith the control of Westminster shows that aspects of Holyrood are independent of Westminster and rather demonstrates that this elective legislative body in indeed constitutionally relevant in it own right.

Quote

The only thing that matters, as a matter of constitutional law, is that the Scottish Parliament cannot do anything beyond its legislative competence and that the Scottish Government cannot exercise functions that do not belong to it.

That is untrue. The Scottish government does have that ability to go beyond is bounds and claim independence. The UDI route. It chooses to pursue a co-operational agreement but retains the ability to go outside if necessary.

Quote

Again with a load of salad and nonsense. It's not relevant to international law whether Westminster is being "obstructionist". International law allows sovereign states to be obstructionist towards internal secession movements. You and I agree there is a lack of wisdom in such an approach, but it's allowed, and nothing in international law is going to change that.

You do good line in condescension and dismissal, but if you take nothing else away from this conversation it should be this; i do not point to international law as obligating Westminster in this matter, in any way.

International law is instead a possible route for the Scottish Government. Because not all forms of secession are granted, or negotiated; some are seized.

Quote

I am passing absolutely no judgment on anyone who has protested anything. I'm simply saying that their protest is irrelevant to the role of international law in secession disputes.

There was a political movement in Poland called Solidarity, it began as civil resistance to the communist authority, grew and initiated elections and a transition away from the Warsaw Pact. That is an example of the role protest can play in constitutional change. It is not irrelevant at all. You appear to have very very narrow view of how these changes may be brought about. History is your friend here.

Quote

 

It's just as well no one is saying that "Westminster" lacks the ability to do anything, then, isn't it?

What matters is what it decides it wants to do.

And right now, it wants to deny the Scottish Government a second referendum on Scottish independence.

 

That would suggest that all legal routes are barred.

Quote

At the Scottish Parliamentary Elections in 2021, at which there was 63% turnout, the combined constituency vote of the three largest pro-Union anti-referendum parties was 50.42% or 1,364,734. I readily accept that on the regional list, the picture was the reverse (the three largest pro-referendum parties polled 50.12% or 1,359,611.

Share of elected representatives: Green - 8 SNP - 64 Other - 57

Quote

At the last UK Parliamentary Elections in 2019, at which there was a 68% turnout, the three largest Unionist parties polled 53.2% of the popular vote or 1,468,194.

Share of elected representatives: SNP - 35 Other - 24 

Quote

Whether you like it or not, this suggests that there is not clear majority support for a second independence referendum.

There appears to be a clear majority of both MPs and MSPs returned from these elections.

May i ask why you are combing three separate political parties that campaigned in competition with each other as if it where one unified voting block when it was nothing of the sort? There was no coalition. What you actually have are three distinct parties that were only able to garner a small proportion of electoral representation each. It not valid to smash those three together and claim them as one, and even less valid to portray that as being representative of votes for/against a referendum.

Why would you ignore the amount elected representatives each party gained and ignore that the anti-referendum parties are in fact the minority?

 

Quote

 

We could also look to recent opinion polling, such as the YouGov poll from a month ago which suggested that just 36% of people in Scotland want an independence referendum in 2023 (40% if you strip out don't knows).

Or the five ComRes polls carried out between September 2021 and March 2022 in which, after stripping out don't knows, there has been a consistent preference against the holding of a second independence referendum at all, let alone with a given timescale.

 

Pollsters are at great pains to point out that their polls are indicative, come with caveats, margins for error along with a straight up admission that these polls a not be considered authoritative. i really can not repeat that enough. Votes matter, polls do not.

Quote

 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, and Holyrood is entirely within its rights to seek a section 30 Order, it has no right to be granted it and it does not have clear majority support of the Scottish people behind it. Now there are plenty of things that Governments can and should be able to do without clear majority support behind it (whether at Bute House or Downing Street) because we live in a representative democracy without absolute proportional representation.

But the fundamental reason why another referendum isn't progressing is because there isn't clear majority support for it. In those circumstances, UK Governments feel able to reject it (whether or not that is a wise thing to do).

 

I think i can at least agree with you that it would be unwise for any parent nation to ignore or dismiss independence movements without due consideration.

Can't agree with you on the majority thing though. You definition of what makes for an electoral majority appears to be quite novel.

[lichtgilphead]

2 minutes ago, Albus Bulbasaur said:

I've told you before Tigger I'm just not "that interested" in your silly drunken rambles. 

I mean the state of this... Imagine being this consumed by a football forum and expecting to be taken seriously. You really think that a centrist in his twenties is pretending to be an older Christian bloke that supports the SFP? That's actually so hilarious to me. 

Also hilarious how all the pedantic semantic warriors want to argue with people that cba with that sort of debate then the second someone like @Ad Libcomes through they resort to throwing the toys out the pram and scrambling for relevance.

Tick tock indeed. 

 

 

 

Wow!

Apparently, I'm drunk, Christian & support the SFP.

At most that's 1 out of 3, if you consider me drunk after sharing a bottle of wine with dinner on a Bank Holiday

Whilst I have differed with Ad Lib in the past, I respect his views. 

Your postings however, consist of nothing but soundbites & abuse. I'll continue to call you out as a Yoon troll.

So,:

F*ck off troll

[Duries Air Freshener]

Morning all,

Just for the record, I'm not the same person as Albus.  Don't really care if people think we are though.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually support the SFP either, although I am absolutely on the same page as them with regards to social issues.  If I really had to declare support for a party, then it would be the Tories.

[Antlion]

8 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

 

Your postings however, consist of nothing but soundbites & abuse. I'll continue to call you out as a Yoon troll.

So,:

F*ck off troll

It does look like Durries Dinosaur occasionally forgets which accounts it’s logged into and uses the “just reasonable discussion m9” one to fire out insults.

Still, as long as strangers are talking to him or about him, he’s probably happy. Why that should be the case, I’ve no idea. The only thing I want to know is what he does between bans - seethe? Convince himself he’s scored a win by getting banned? Frustratedly count down the clock until it’s time make fresh aliases and “have a life” again?

[Duries Air Freshener]

19 minutes ago, Antlion said:

It does look like Durries Dinosaur occasionally forgets which accounts it’s logged into and uses the “just reasonable discussion m9” one to fire out insults.

Still, as long as strangers are talking to him or about him, he’s probably happy. Why that should be the case, I’ve no idea. The only thing I want to know is what he does between bans - seethe? Convince himself he’s scored a win by getting banned? Frustratedly count down the clock until it’s time make fresh aliases and “have a life” again?

I don’t throw insults, Antlion.

If you think I have then please point out the posts in question.

[Ad Lib]

8 hours ago, Zern said:

The fact that the First Minister is outwith the control of Westminster shows that aspects of Holyrood are independent of Westminster and rather demonstrates that this elective legislative body in indeed constitutionally relevant in it own right.

But it’s only true within matters of devolved competence and:

(a) a referendum (almost certainly) isn’t within devolved competence and

(b) Westminster has the legal power unilaterally to change that competence (see the UK Internal Market Act re-reserving state aid).

8 hours ago, Zern said:

That is untrue. The Scottish government does have that ability to go beyond is bounds and claim independence. The UDI route. It chooses to pursue a co-operational agreement but retains the ability to go outside if necessary.

UDI is a complete non-starter and would not be recognised by vast swathes of the international community. It would violate domestic constitutional law, would frustrate the operation of several key international treaties, and would make unviable functioning international relations with either the rump UK or the European Union. It is not a sensible proposition and Sturgeon is absolutely right to reject it out of hand.

8 hours ago, Zern said:

You do good line in condescension and dismissal

Thank you.

8 hours ago, Zern said:

but if you take nothing else away from this conversation it should be this; i do not point to international law as obligating Westminster in this matter, in any way.

Good, because only a moron would do that.

8 hours ago, Zern said:

International law is instead a possible route for the Scottish Government. Because not all forms of secession are granted, or negotiated; some are seized.

Okay but you’re a moron then. Any international law that provides a “route” for the Scottish Government by definition must “bind” the UK Government to respect that route. They are two sides of the same coin.

8 hours ago, Zern said:

There was a political movement in Poland called Solidarity, it began as civil resistance to the communist authority, grew and initiated elections and a transition away from the Warsaw Pact. That is an example of the role protest can play in constitutional change. It is not irrelevant at all. You appear to have very very narrow view of how these changes may be brought about. History is your friend here.

The UK is not an oppressive totalitarian regime, mate. It is a liberal democracy. The two situations are completely non-comparable.

8 hours ago, Zern said:

That would suggest that all legal routes are barred.

They are. And that is a legitimate (if foolish) constitutional policy choice in a liberal democracy.

8 hours ago, Zern said:

Share of elected representatives: Green - 8 SNP - 64 Other - 57

Share of elected representatives: SNP - 35 Other - 24 

There appears to be a clear majority of both MPs and MSPs returned from these elections.

Which is absolutely fine if Holyrood already has the constitutional authority. Because then the political question is simply “should Holyrood legislate”. As I’ve said  before there’s a perfectly respectable argument that those representing a minority of voters should be able to legislate with the majority of legislators (it happens all the time in the UK Parliament).

But that’s not the relevant question here. The relevant question is: should the UK Parliament, which represents UK-wide interests, change the law to allow a referendum given the Scottish Parliamentary elections results.

My answer is yes, but “no” is also a legitimate answer to that question.

8 hours ago, Zern said:

May i ask why you are combing three separate political parties that campaigned in competition with each other as if it where one unified voting block when it was nothing of the sort? There was no coalition. What you actually have are three distinct parties that were only able to garner a small proportion of electoral representation each. It not valid to smash those three together and claim them as one, and even less valid to portray that as being representative of votes for/against a referendum.

Because all three parties ran on an explicit platform to oppose a second referendum in any circumstances, they organised an explicit tactical voting campaign to prevent the SNP winning a single party overall majority, and voters cannot have been ignorant of those stances when they cast their ballots.

8 hours ago, Zern said:

Why would you ignore the amount elected representatives each party gained and ignore that the anti-referendum parties are in fact the minority?

Because the popular vote is a better proxy for whether “the people” want a second referendum than the returned representatives under the additional members system. This isn’t complicated.

8 hours ago, Zern said:

Pollsters are at great pains to point out that their polls are indicative, come with caveats, margins for error along with a straight up admission that these polls a not be considered authoritative. i really can not repeat that enough. Votes matter, polls do not.

They tell us trends and broader moods though, and inform what kinds of questions need asking.

I agree with you that actual votes matter more. But the actual votes in 2021 and 2019 do not provide robust evidence that majority opinion in Scotland favours a second referendum in the near term. At best it is split right down the middle, even six years on from the Brexit vote.

8 hours ago, Zern said:

I think i can at least agree with you that it would be unwise for any parent nation to ignore or dismiss independence movements without due consideration.

Can't agree with you on the majority thing though. You definition of what makes for an electoral majority appears to be quite novel.

I don’t define an electoral majority differently from you. I question the relevance of a Scottish Parliamentary election result (in terms of members returned, as opposed to raw popular vote) to the question of whether there is a majority sentiment among the general public for another referendum.

The solution here is actually very simple: go and convince (say) another 40,000 or so non-voting Scots to vote SNP or Green on the constituency ballot or get about 20,000 Unionists to flip their vote.

Instead of whinging to no avail, go change minds. You’ll find it helps you as and when a second referendum comes around.

[williemillersmoustache]

Clinging to the constituency popular vote in a multiparty election is just desperate. Particularly when the proportional vote gave the opposite result. Which is just so inconvenient for this above whinge. 

[Albus Bulbasaur]

9 hours ago, lichtgilphead said:

Wow!

Apparently, I'm drunk, Christian & support the SFP.

At most that's 1 out of 3, if you consider me drunk after sharing a bottle of wine with dinner on a Bank Holiday

Whilst I have differed with Ad Lib in the past, I respect his views. 

Your postings however, consist of nothing but soundbites & abuse. I'll continue to call you out as a Yoon troll.

So,:

F*ck off troll

Clearly you were so intoxicated you failed to follow the conversation. I was clearly responding to your idiotic claim that me and Duries are the same guy. 

Well the second parts good to know. It would've been nice if you could offer others the same courtesy rather than being a vile abusive troll from my first interaction with you. Telling people to f**k off online at your big age is kinda sad man. 

Your posts consists of nothing but waffle, word salad and barely coherent pseudo intellectual ramblings, oh aye and paranoid attacks on my character. 

1 hour ago, Antlion said:

It does look like Durries Dinosaur occasionally forgets which accounts it’s logged into and uses the “just reasonable discussion m9” one to fire out insults.

What made you this crazy? Do you have previous traumatic experience with a catfish or something? I've asked you  this directly multiple times but you seem incapable of responding. 

Anyone who's brain hasn't been melted by their insecure identity issues can tell we're blatantly separate people. 

Some of you guys create this big scary Yoon troll stereotype where you're being oppressed and held back by these evil Rangers fan Unionists that infect the country yet you also get your knickers in a twist when 2 post at the same time. As Ad Lib has patiently explained, your political tribe is the minority one, you shouldn't be so surprised. 

Also if you could please sign into your "reasonable discussion" account rather than whatever the hell this one is meant to be that would probably be best for everyone. 

[Zern]

1 hour ago, williemillersmoustache said:

Clinging to the constituency popular vote in a multiparty election is just desperate. Particularly when the proportional vote gave the opposite result. Which is just so inconvenient for this above whinge. 

Reading his posts you would come away with the mistaken impression that the unionist parties won the majority in Holyrood and were not outnumbered by SNP members on their own, and overwhelmingly outnumbered in coalition.

But no... i should not count elected representatives as being in any representative of the electorate apparently.

Instead pick out select percentages of the vote combine in a way that's invalid and then declare a majority off of that. lol

Fucking bizarre way to count support.

 

[strichener]

8 minutes ago, Zern said:

Reading his posts you would come away with the mistaken impression that the unionist parties won the majority in Holyrood and were not outnumbered by SNP members on their own, and overwhelmingly outnumbered in coalition.

But no... i should not count elected representatives as being in any representative of the electorate apparently.

Instead pick out select percentages of the vote combine in a way that's invalid and then declare a majority off of that. lol

Fucking bizarre way to count support.

 

I think the point was that if you were inclined to use the election results to backup your position that there is not a majority in favour of Indy, this is how to do it.  You can be damned sure it is exactly what Ross, Bojo and crew will be doing.

[Ad Lib]

4 minutes ago, strichener said:

I think the point was that if you were inclined to use the election results to backup your position that there is not a majority in favour of Indy, this is how to do it.  You can be damned sure it is exactly what Ross, Bojo and crew will be doing.

Precisely this.

As I've said several times now, a respectable argument can be made, and someone like me would make it, that the most virtuous constitutional arrangement would be one whereby a UK Government accepted a Holyrood Parliamentary majority was sufficient to justify the holding of a referendum on this reserved matter.

It does not rely on you demonstrating that "the majority of Scots" want a referendum or indeed independence.

Instead of trying to claim the split ballot of 2021 as proof that "the majority of Scots" want a referendum (it isn't) the pro-referendum side should focus on:

• ensuring there is no split ballot and that majority support for an independence referendum is unambiguous
• ensuring that support for independence is at a high enough level that, if and when a second referendum happens, they've actually got a good shot at winning it.

Trying to tell Unionists that you already have majority support, when the evidence suggests that you don't (or at least that it isn't clear that you do) is a futile and self-discrediting strategy and won't be taken seriously by the people you need to be taken seriously by.

[Zern]

4 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

But it’s only true within matters of devolved competence and:

(a) a referendum (almost certainly) isn’t within devolved competence and

(b) Westminster has the legal power unilaterally to change that competence (see the UK Internal Market Act re-reserving state aid).

No. You are wrong. The powers that secessionist government can lay claim to are far greater than you appear to recognise. They can, and have included powers outside their competence. It is one of the more defining features of how states secede.

Quote

UDI is a complete non-starter and would not be recognised by vast swathes of the international community. It would violate domestic constitutional law, would frustrate the operation of several key international treaties, and would make unviable functioning international relations with either the rump UK or the European Union. It is not a sensible proposition and Sturgeon is absolutely right to reject it out of hand.

You personal dislike of the idea does not make that idea invalid. UDI is an option. That is a power not devolved but seized. That is valid when it comes to secessionary states. Real world examples demonstrate this. That was the point made that you appear determined to miss.

Quote

 

Good, because only a moron would do that.

Okay but you’re a moron then. Any international law that provides a “route” for the Scottish Government by definition must “bind” the UK Government to respect that route. They are two sides of the same coin.

 

Sorry, you are going to have to explain to me your line of reasoning here. I've affirmed that Westminster is not bound by Holyrood. You've agreed. Now you have done a volte face and declared that Westminster would be bound by Holyrood. Which is it? My position is that no matter what route to independence was taken that Westminster would affirm its superiority and not find itself bound, or obligated by anything.

Quote

The UK is not an oppressive totalitarian regime, mate. It is a liberal democracy. The two situations are completely non-comparable.

I wasn't comparing them, i providing you with a refutation of your bald-assed assertion that civil disobedience plays no role in constitutional change.

In that respect your issue not with me but with reality. I can provide you with more, real world examples until either acknowledge your are wrong or you disappear up your own backside.

Quote

They are. And that is a legitimate (if foolish) constitutional policy choice in a liberal democracy.

To paraphrase; "those who make legal revolution impossible, make illegal revolution inevitable."

Quote

Which is absolutely fine if Holyrood already has the constitutional authority. Because then the political question is simply “should Holyrood legislate”. As I’ve said  before there’s a perfectly respectable argument that those representing a minority of voters should be able to legislate with the majority of legislators (it happens all the time in the UK Parliament).

They have a clear majority in favour and the constitutional authority to press for their political aims.

Quote

But that’s not the relevant question here. The relevant question is: should the UK Parliament, which represents UK-wide interests, change the law to allow a referendum given the Scottish Parliamentary elections results.

My answer is yes, but “no” is also a legitimate answer to that question.

 

I agree that this is legitimate, but that doesn't change the availability of other options in the face of obstruction.

Quote

Because all three parties ran on an explicit platform to oppose a second referendum in any circumstances, they organised an explicit tactical voting campaign to prevent the SNP winning a single party overall majority, and voters cannot have been ignorant of those stances when they cast their ballots.

This is ridiculous. The elections and vote share you are using delivered a clear majority and a plurality of parties in favour a referendum. You are ignoring the results and abusing the data in favour of some personal metric. That is not valid.

Quote

Because the popular vote is a better proxy for whether “the people” want a second referendum than the returned representatives under the additional members system. This isn’t complicated.

You are not using data from a popular vote on single issue here. You are using data from party votes in a general election. If you want such data, you need to hold a referendum on that single issue. That would be valid.

This becomes especially silly when you realise that the ACTUAL results derived from the voting data leads to a 55% majority in parliament of parties in favour of holding a referendum. A clear majority.

Quote

 

I agree with you that actual votes matter more. But the actual votes in 2021 and 2019 do not provide robust evidence that majority opinion in Scotland favours a second referendum in the near term. At best it is split right down the middle, even six years on from the Brexit vote

I don’t define an electoral majority differently from you. I question the relevance of a Scottish Parliamentary election result (in terms of members returned, as opposed to raw popular vote) to the question of whether there is a majority sentiment among the general public for another referendum.

 

You are not phrasing this as question or querying the results though you are cherrypicking data and using it to reach an invalid conclusion.

Quote

 

The solution here is actually very simple: go and convince (say) another 40,000 or so non-voting Scots to vote SNP or Green on the constituency ballot or get about 20,000 Unionists to flip their vote.

Instead of whinging to no avail, go change minds. You’ll find it helps you as and when a second referendum comes around.

 

I would hesitate to take you advice, mostly because it does not appear to have helped your own political party.

Accept the results and stop trying to twist them into being something they are not. By any reasonable measure there is the political will in Scotland to push for a referendum and more. That is because they are able to secure enough of the vote to for a government. It is both democratic and representative of Scottish attitudes.

You appear to be taking polls as representative rather than indicative and using the representative results as indicative. That is plain weird to me

[Benjamin_Nevis]

What made you this crazy? Do you have previous traumatic experience with a catfish or something? I've asked you  this directly multiple times but you seem incapable of responding. 
Anyone who's brain hasn't been melted by their insecure identity issues can tell we're blatantly separate people. 
Some of you guys create this big scary Yoon troll stereotype where you're being oppressed and held back by these evil Rangers fan Unionists that infect the country yet you also get your knickers in a twist when 2 post at the same time. As Ad Lib has patiently explained, your political tribe is the minority one, you shouldn't be so surprised. 
Also if you could please sign into your "reasonable discussion" account rather than whatever the hell this one is meant to be that would probably be best for everyone. 

"My character" [emoji23]

You're a self-confessed multi-banned troll. Any attacks on your character are fully merited.

[Albus Bulbasaur]

16 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

"My character"

You're a self-confessed multi-banned troll. Any attacks on your character are fully merited.

I've seen you and others accuse every single Unionist of the same thing no matter how different there positions are. It's utterly hilariously weird to me. We get that some of you are very sensitive when it comes to differing opinions but please stop being so cringe and paranoid about it.  

Edited May 3, 2022 by Albus Bulbasaur

[Albus Bulbasaur]

Civil disobedience posts are the best types. Please can people do more. 

"Civil disobedience is an option"

Edited May 3, 2022 by Albus Bulbasaur

[Zern]

2 hours ago, strichener said:

I think the point was that if you were inclined to use the election results to backup your position that there is not a majority in favour of Indy, this is how to do it.  You can be damned sure it is exactly what Ross, Bojo and crew will be doing.

I think i object to its dishonesty. The way it was presented you would no clue as the how the results played out and could come away with the impression that the unionist trio had in fact won. Rather than the absolute hiding they got. To the extent that they are

 

2 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

Precisely this.

As I've said several times now, a respectable argument can be made, and someone like me would make it, that the most virtuous constitutional arrangement would be one whereby a UK Government accepted a Holyrood Parliamentary majority was sufficient to justify the holding of a referendum on this reserved matter.

It does not rely on you demonstrating that "the majority of Scots" want a referendum or indeed independence.

Instead of trying to claim the split ballot of 2021 as proof that "the majority of Scots" want a referendum (it isn't) the pro-referendum side should focus on:

• ensuring there is no split ballot and that majority support for an independence referendum is unambiguous
• ensuring that support for independence is at a high enough level that, if and when a second referendum happens, they've actually got a good shot at winning it.

Trying to tell Unionists that you already have majority support, when the evidence suggests that you don't (or at least that it isn't clear that you do) is a futile and self-discrediting strategy and won't be taken seriously by the people you need to be taken seriously by.

More hoops.

We have majority support of our elected representatives in both Westminster and Holyrood,

How is this not a clear majority?

In the absence of a referendum vote there are only local and national elections available to gauge support.

Under this electoral framework the SNP/Greens have secured all the majorities required to pursue their political aims.

So when i say they have majority support i am pointing to those majorities.

When you say there isn't, you're referring to what exactly?

[Antlion]

37 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

"My character"

You're a self-confessed multi-banned troll. Any attacks on your character are fully merited.

The “my character” stuff and “contrary to popular opinion” stuff this troll comes out with - in both aliases - is what’s weird to me. It’s like he’s a P&B celebrity in his own head, when the reality is he’s just someone who has some kind of weird addiction to posting here, to the extent that whenever he’s banned when he pushes his abusiveness too far, he literally cannot help coming back and resuming the same tedious shit. It’s a bizarre phenomenon but there it is - an addiction and a bizarre delusion of self-importance.

Edited May 3, 2022 by Antlion