Political Crossfire Forums

[Snow Patrol]

Lucky Luke wrote: cassandrabandra wrote: SPOTTEDGREENDUCK wrote: Thats only because our immigration policy sux and we are letting the wrong people in. One in three aussies still has ties to the UK, I guarentee that Australia will not be a republic within 100 years. In the last referendum, it was the vast majority against the republic and those who do support a republic cannot agree on a model.

in the referendum a lot of people didn't vote. Unlike our elections it was not compulsory. The wording of the referendum was problematic also, and this was pointed out and discussed ad infinitum. The referendum was NOT about whether we should be a republic or not, but what model of republic we should have.

we won't be tied to the british crown in 100 years - britain may well be a republic by then.

My point exactly why trying to prevent the inevitable by changing the rules to suit a status quo?
Snow Patrol wrote: Not everyone see's it as inevitable and just because i think it will happen at some point in the future means i need to agree with it. It's inevitable that we will all die, why not just die right now, what are we waiting for?

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: They were no support for devolution but for independence and yet it wasn't put out to the voters, instead they were lied to by the government in London, that you cannot deny Snow Patrol and yet you feel Scotland was not robbed?!?!?
How was there no support for devolution, yet support for independence? Keep your conspiracy theory crap to yourself, it's just a vehicle for your denial of the fact that the majority of Scottish people do not support independence.

Lucky Luke wrote: The people at the time voted democratically for an assembly, more than 50% of the voters did and yet they were denied. Again this is not BS but facts. Scotland was democratically robbed. A majority of voters is a majority of voters in any elections it is good enough but not in this one and yet you think it was ok, I don't.
So you ignore the fact that elections and referenda are different. By your reckoning if 3 people voted and 2 of them for independence then the entire country is stuck with independence based on the decisions of 2 people, an extreme example i know but it is a simple and effective way of highlighting my point.

A lasting decision of this magnitude that will effect everyone can not be made by a majority of those who bother to vote, it requires a majority of the electorate or at least a reasonable plurality. Hence the 40% margin in the 1979 referendum on devolution. Again if there had been support for it they should've got up and voted for it.

Lucky Luke wrote: Devolution and the mode of electing the MSPs has considerably weaken the two main parties, again Labour has fought back the main threat of Scotland becoming fully independent this way for obvious reasons, without Scotland Labour would struggle to keep power in London.
Labour support devolution, not independence, the majority of Scottish people consistently vote for Labour over the SNP. Their relative positions on the issue have been well known for years.

Lucky Luke wrote: There is a widespread support in Scotland and in Australia for change but the people have been denied by all kinds of ways, the crazy thing about it is that we all agree that it is inevitable that it will happen one day, what are we waiting for?
There is no widespread support for independence in Scotland, you've failed to prove it at any juncture. I've shown you that at no point in modern history has there been this widespread support for Scottish independence you consistently claim but can't prove.

Not everyone see's it as inevitable and just because i think it will happen at some point in the future means i need to agree with it. It's inevitable that we will all die, why not just die right now, what are we waiting for? :roll:

I couldn't give a s**t about Australia, that's their problem, not mine.

Now please refrain from replying with the same unsubstantiated repetitive crap over and over again. Repeating stuff you wish was true doesn't necessarily make it so. If you bring repeat the same stuff again you will be ignored.

I don't remember any political party for devolution but I know one for independence the opposition party in Scotland, the SNP.

Elections and referendums shouldn't be different, like in Australia governments decided that the status quo would be better served by changing the rules. The country was denied an assembly when the majority of people who voted wanted one, this is not democratic.

Despite the change of the rules the Labour government in London was so afraid to lose that they lied to keep people at home believing that Scotland's oil would not be enough for Scotland to prosper on its own.

Scottish people vote Labour to keep Labour in power in London not because they fear independence Snow Patrol but this will change sooner than we think and I cannot wait.

What amazed me is that you claimed that Scotland will be independent one day, I would love to know why you think so when you clearly stated that Scottish people don't want it.

BTW the reason I cannot prove that Scottish people would choose independence if they were asked is because they are not been asked yet Snow Patrol! What are you so afraid of?
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: cassandrabandra wrote: SPOTTEDGREENDUCK wrote: Thats only because our immigration policy sux and we are letting the wrong people in. One in three aussies still has ties to the UK, I guarentee that Australia will not be a republic within 100 years. In the last referendum, it was the vast majority against the republic and those who do support a republic cannot agree on a model.

in the referendum a lot of people didn't vote. Unlike our elections it was not compulsory. The wording of the referendum was problematic also, and this was pointed out and discussed ad infinitum. The referendum was NOT about whether we should be a republic or not, but what model of republic we should have.

we won't be tied to the british crown in 100 years - britain may well be a republic by then.

My point exactly why trying to prevent the inevitable by changing the rules to suit a status quo?
Snow Patrol wrote: Not everyone see's it as inevitable and just because i think it will happen at some point in the future means i need to agree with it. It's inevitable that we will all die, why not just die right now, what are we waiting for?

Yeah sure Snow Patrol voting for independence or for a Queen to rule no more is voting for death, not really mate.

:-D
:-D

[cassandrabandra]

Lucky Luke wrote: cassandrabandra wrote: SPOTTEDGREENDUCK wrote: Thats only because our immigration policy sux and we are letting the wrong people in. One in three aussies still has ties to the UK, I guarentee that Australia will not be a republic within 100 years. In the last referendum, it was the vast majority against the republic and those who do support a republic cannot agree on a model.

in the referendum a lot of people didn't vote. Unlike our elections it was not compulsory. The wording of the referendum was problematic also, and this was pointed out and discussed ad infinitum. The referendum was NOT about whether we should be a republic or not, but what model of republic we should have.

we won't be tied to the british crown in 100 years - britain may well be a republic by then.

My point exactly why trying to prevent the inevitable by changing the rules to suit a status quo?

I really believe that a more simply worded referendum in Australia would have ended the reign of the English Queen over Australia.
:-D
:-D

definitely. if it had been a simple, should australia be a republic? yes or no? rather than confusing the issue with the unwarranted detail, far more people would have supported a republic.

Duckie may not be aware (since he's only third generation and not a REAL Australian) but we were used in WWI and WWII, and the guy Duckie uses in his signature - Rommel treated Australians far more honourably than did the British. The British high command ordered the torpedoeing of the Nino Bixio, knowing the ship was filled with allied prisoners, rather than her accompanying destroyers which would have been better military targets. These were the same men who had been captured by Rommel at Ruin Ridge, so they could see the contrast.

A familiarity with this part of our history has influenced some to be quite anti the crown, if not the British.

[Snow Patrol]

Look im not debating you anymore because you have no evidence, make the same regurgitated points, have little or no grasp of facts, take wild personal speculation taken as blunt fact...

Lucky Luke wrote: I don't remember any political party for devolution but I know one for independence the opposition party in Scotland, the SNP.
Labour and Lib Dems supported it devolution as did the SNP.

Lucky Luke wrote: Elections and referendums shouldn't be different, like in Australia governments decided that the status quo would be better served by changing the rules. The country was denied an assembly when the majority of people who voted wanted one, this is not democratic.
Elections and referenda are different things. I've told you why the 1979 referendum was denied on numerous occasions and gave you an example as to why this is the right decision

Lucky Luke wrote: Despite the change of the rules the Labour government in London was so afraid to lose that they lied to keep people at home believing that Scotland's oil would not be enough for Scotland to prosper on its own.
BS. Reason tore that claim to pieces, i can't be arsed finding it, go look for it if you want.

Lucky Luke wrote: Scottish people vote Labour to keep Labour in power in London not because they fear independence Snow Patrol but this will change sooner than we think and I cannot wait.
Uhm, no. They vote Labour because they prefer Labour.

Lucky Luke wrote: What amazed me is that you claimed that Scotland will be independent one day, I would love to know why you think so when you clearly stated that Scottish people don't want it.
I said i think Scotland will become indepedent at some point in the future, and i said the Scottish people do not want it just now as i backed up with evidence, which you have so far been unable to do.

As to why people don't support indepedence, well there are a multitude of reasons: feel British, don't see any reason for change, don't think Scotland can survive on it's own, fears Scotland will just quit the UK to become part of the EU, etc.

Lucky Luke wrote: BTW the reason I cannot prove that Scottish people would choose independence if they were asked is because they are not been asked yet Snow Patrol! What are you so afraid of?
They have not been asked because they don't want it, where's the mass street protests demanding it, where's the mass independence/SNP rally's, where's the support for it in the polls? where's the demands for a referendum? why is there declining support for those parties favouring independence over devolution?

You cannot prove it because it is not there.

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: The main opposition in Scotland is the SNP, the party for independence how can you claim that there is no support for an independent Scotland Snow Patrol?
Yes, 26 seats in a 129 seat Parliament, some opposition. Down 9 seats on their previous Scottish parliamentry election showing. Pushed into second place in terms of both popular vote and number of seats in Scotland by the Lib Dems at the last general election, pushed into 3rd or even 4th place in many constituancies.

Lucky Luke wrote: Do we have to wait for Labour to decide if we are allowed a referendum on independence? They will never accept it unless they break away from the English Labour movement.
If there was a big enough desire for it there would be a referendum, there isn't so there is not. I don't see people voting for the parties that support indepedence either

Lucky Luke wrote: I very much disagree with you that only people voting for the SNP want independence, a lot of Scottish people are voting Labour but still would love the opportunity to vote for an independent Scotland in a referendum.
Would you please show me where i said only poeple who support the SNP want indepedence? The rest is the same as most of your posts on this subject wild hopeful speculation on your part.

Still the SNP is the main opposition like it or not Snow Patrol.

Here is the result for the SNP in the 2005 elections:

Quote: Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond was in bullish mood about its election performance, which saw it gain six seats at Westminster.

Speaking at a news conference in Edinburgh, he said the SNP had won seats from Labour for the first time in 31 years, with success in Dundee East and the Western Isles.

Mr Salmond said: "The central message of this campaign is that we will march on Holyrood and we will be marching to victory."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/scotland/4522199.stm

A for the MSPs the SNP has 27 not 9 and is well ahead of the Conservatives with 18 and the Lib Dems third with 17 seats only.

Your numbers are wrong my friend:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/vote2003/scottish_parliament/html/main_scoreboard.stm

I would love Kennedy and Brown to have Scottish political ambitions, that would be fun.

The popular desire for independence is here but the political will for a referendum on independence is still missing. However I'll agree with you that there isn't a passionate ambition for every Scot to see his/her country independent but I believe that there is enough desire for them to vote for it if they are not scared off by lies like in the 70's.
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote: Look im not debating you anymore because you have no evidence, make the same regurgitated points, have little or no grasp of facts, take wild personal speculation taken as blunt fact...

Lucky Luke wrote: I don't remember any political party for devolution but I know one for independence the opposition party in Scotland, the SNP.
Labour and Lib Dems supported it devolution as did the SNP.

Lucky Luke wrote: Elections and referendums shouldn't be different, like in Australia governments decided that the status quo would be better served by changing the rules. The country was denied an assembly when the majority of people who voted wanted one, this is not democratic.
Elections and referenda are different things. I've told you why the 1979 referendum was denied on numerous occasions and gave you an example as to why this is the right decision

Lucky Luke wrote: Despite the change of the rules the Labour government in London was so afraid to lose that they lied to keep people at home believing that Scotland's oil would not be enough for Scotland to prosper on its own.
BS. Reason tore that claim to pieces, i can't be arsed finding it, go look for it if you want.

Lucky Luke wrote: Scottish people vote Labour to keep Labour in power in London not because they fear independence Snow Patrol but this will change sooner than we think and I cannot wait.
Uhm, no. They vote Labour because they prefer Labour.

Lucky Luke wrote: What amazed me is that you claimed that Scotland will be independent one day, I would love to know why you think so when you clearly stated that Scottish people don't want it.
I said i think Scotland will become indepedent at some point in the future, and i said the Scottish people do not want it just now as i backed up with evidence, which you have so far been unable to do.

As to why people don't support indepedence, well there are a multitude of reasons: feel British, don't see any reason for change, don't think Scotland can survive on it's own, fears Scotland will just quit the UK to become part of the EU, etc.

Lucky Luke wrote: BTW the reason I cannot prove that Scottish people would choose independence if they were asked is because they are not been asked yet Snow Patrol! What are you so afraid of?
They have not been asked because they don't want it, where's the mass street protests demanding it, where's the mass independence/SNP rally's, where's the support for it in the polls? where's the demands for a referendum? why is there declining support for those parties favouring independence over devolution?

You cannot prove it because it is not there.

Look Snow Patrol I have already refuted your numbers of MSP's for the SNP I can easily prove every single fact that I posted, here is for the claim of lying:

Quote: Monday, 3 October 2005

Secret oil finds dossier released

A secret report written 30 years ago has been released, stating Scotland's oil revenues could have made a case for repealing the Act of Union.
The advice from economist Gavin McCrone was prepared for ministers and is now available for the public to view.

He said the significance of North Sea oil finds remained in large measure disguised from the public.

But in a covering letter he said he may be giving an SNP government the benefit of too many doubts.

The paper, which is now available for the public to view at the National Archives in Kew, London, was obtained last month by the Scottish National Party under freedom of information legislation.

In the previously confidential advice to ministers, Professor McCrone said that an independent Scotland could be transformed by oil revenues and become a leading power in Europe.

His report, The Economics of Nationalism Re-examined, said that estimates from the SNP that oil could yield £800m by 1980 were far too low.
...........
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4303750.stm

No ifs, no buts, Scotland was robbed.

:-D
:-D

[Snow Patrol]

Lucky Luke wrote: Still the SNP is the main opposition like it or not Snow Patrol.
Who cares, not in power and have never been close to gaining it.

Lucky Luke wrote: Here is the result for the SNP in the 2005 elections:

Quote: Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond was in bullish mood about its election performance, which saw it gain six seats at Westminster.

Speaking at a news conference in Edinburgh, he said the SNP had won seats from Labour for the first time in 31 years, with success in Dundee East and the Western Isles.

Mr Salmond said: "The central message of this campaign is that we will march on Holyrood and we will be marching to victory."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/scotland/4522199.stm
Snow Patrol wrote: Pushed into second place in terms of both popular vote and number of seats in Scotland by the Lib Dems at the last general election, pushed into 3rd or even 4th place in many constituancies.
Please show me what part of my statement is wrong. They picked up 2 seats because of the First Past The Post system, but still lost votes overall and were still pushed into second place by the Lib Dems at British level.

Lucky Luke wrote: A for the MSPs the SNP has 27 not 9 and is well ahead of the Conservatives with 18 and the Lib Dems third with 17 seats only.

Your numbers are wrong my friend:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/vote2003/scottish_parliament/html/main_scoreboard.stm
Snow Patrol wrote: Yes, 26 seats in a 129 seat Parliament, some opposition. Down 9 seats on their previous Scottish parliamentry election showing.
So i didn't claim they only had 9 seats, i didn't have my facts wrong, the SNP are still losing votes at both British and Scottish level.

Lucky Luke wrote: I would love Kennedy and Brown to have Scottish political ambitions, that would be fun.
Kennedy's gone and both irrelevant anyway.

Lucky Luke wrote: The popular desire for independence is here but the political will for a referendum on independence is still missing. However I'll agree with you that there isn't a passionate ambition for every Scot to see his/her country independent but I believe that there is enough desire for them to vote for it if they are not scared off by lies like in the 70's.
:-D
:-D
Unprovable semantical BS, AGAIN.

[Snow Patrol]

Lucky Luke wrote: Snow Patrol wrote: Look im not debating you anymore because you have no evidence, make the same regurgitated points, have little or no grasp of facts, take wild personal speculation taken as blunt fact...

Lucky Luke wrote: I don't remember any political party for devolution but I know one for independence the opposition party in Scotland, the SNP.
Labour and Lib Dems supported it devolution as did the SNP.

Lucky Luke wrote: Elections and referendums shouldn't be different, like in Australia governments decided that the status quo would be better served by changing the rules. The country was denied an assembly when the majority of people who voted wanted one, this is not democratic.
Elections and referenda are different things. I've told you why the 1979 referendum was denied on numerous occasions and gave you an example as to why this is the right decision

Lucky Luke wrote: Despite the change of the rules the Labour government in London was so afraid to lose that they lied to keep people at home believing that Scotland's oil would not be enough for Scotland to prosper on its own.
BS. Reason tore that claim to pieces, i can't be arsed finding it, go look for it if you want.

Lucky Luke wrote: Scottish people vote Labour to keep Labour in power in London not because they fear independence Snow Patrol but this will change sooner than we think and I cannot wait.
Uhm, no. They vote Labour because they prefer Labour.

Lucky Luke wrote: What amazed me is that you claimed that Scotland will be independent one day, I would love to know why you think so when you clearly stated that Scottish people don't want it.
I said i think Scotland will become indepedent at some point in the future, and i said the Scottish people do not want it just now as i backed up with evidence, which you have so far been unable to do.

As to why people don't support indepedence, well there are a multitude of reasons: feel British, don't see any reason for change, don't think Scotland can survive on it's own, fears Scotland will just quit the UK to become part of the EU, etc.

Lucky Luke wrote: BTW the reason I cannot prove that Scottish people would choose independence if they were asked is because they are not been asked yet Snow Patrol! What are you so afraid of?
They have not been asked because they don't want it, where's the mass street protests demanding it, where's the mass independence/SNP rally's, where's the support for it in the polls? where's the demands for a referendum? why is there declining support for those parties favouring independence over devolution?

You cannot prove it because it is not there.

Look Snow Patrol I have already refuted your numbers of MSP's for the SNP I can easily prove every single fact that I posted, here is for the claim of lying:
Um, no you haven't, you misread my post. See post above this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament

Lucky Luke wrote: Quote: Monday, 3 October 2005

Secret oil finds dossier released

A secret report written 30 years ago has been released, stating Scotland's oil revenues could have made a case for repealing the Act of Union.
The advice from economist Gavin McCrone was prepared for ministers and is now available for the public to view.

He said the significance of North Sea oil finds remained in large measure disguised from the public.

But in a covering letter he said he may be giving an SNP government the benefit of too many doubts.

The paper, which is now available for the public to view at the National Archives in Kew, London, was obtained last month by the Scottish National Party under freedom of information legislation.

In the previously confidential advice to ministers, Professor McCrone said that an independent Scotland could be transformed by oil revenues and become a leading power in Europe.

His report, The Economics of Nationalism Re-examined, said that estimates from the SNP that oil could yield £800m by 1980 were far too low.
...........
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4303750.stm

No ifs, no buts, Scotland was robbed.

:-D
:-D
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40807&highlight=scotland

Reason refuted the oil thing, just as i told you.

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote:
Um, no you haven't, you misread my post. See post above this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament

..............

From your own link:

Quote: Scottish Labour Party: 50
Scottish National Party: 26
Scottish Conservative & Unionist: 17
Scottish Liberal Democrats: 17

I understand now that you talked about the two elections in the same sentence and I apologise for my confusion however the SNP is the second party in Scotland and the main opposition, nobody can claim that it isn't.

As for the general election the SNP gained 2 seats, less that the Lib Dems but still gained 2. SNP seats in London are not the priority for the SNP or for the Scottish voters Snow Patrol, still they did well.

We could discuss what seats should the SNP target or if they should target a bigger percentage od the vote instead but I wouldn't want to bore other posters with that.
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote:
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40807&highlight=scotland

Reason refuted the oil thing, just as i told you.

I have no idea where in your link you refuted the article of the BBC Snow Patrol would you like to copy and paste the relevant part for me please?

:-D
:-D

[Snow Patrol]

Lucky Luke wrote: Snow Patrol wrote:
Um, no you haven't, you misread my post. See post above this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament

..............

From your own link:

Quote: Scottish Labour Party: 50
Scottish National Party: 26
Scottish Conservative & Unionist: 17
Scottish Liberal Democrats: 17

I understand now that you talked about the two elections in the same sentence and I apologise for my confusion however the SNP is the second party in Scotland and the main opposition, nobody can claim that it isn't.
Nobody claimed that it wasn't. However it is a very distant second, lost 9 seats at the last Scottish election and lost votes at both the last British and Scottish elections.

Lucky Luke wrote: As for the general election the SNP gained 2 seats, less that the Lib Dems but still gained 2. SNP seats in London are not the priority for the SNP or for the Scottish voters Snow Patrol, still they did well.
No they did not do well, don't you get this. THEY ONLY GAINED 2 SEATS BECAUSE OF FPTP. They lost votes, they lost their position as the second force in Scotland at British level. Dismissing their performance at British level as irrelevant just because you don't like it is highly dubious to say the least.

Lucky Luke wrote: We could discuss what seats should the SNP target or if they should target a bigger percentage od the vote instead but I wouldn't want to bore other posters with that.
They've already set grandiose targets for 2007, all of which does not matter because what they target and what actually happens are two different matters. Lost votes at the last two general elections, last Scottish election and last European election.

Lucky Luke wrote: Snow Patrol wrote:
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40807&highlight=scotland

Reason refuted the oil thing, just as i told you.

I have no idea where in your link you refuted the article of the BBC Snow Patrol would you like to copy and paste the relevant part for me please?

:-D
:-D
I said he refuted the oil claim that Scotland has lost out on it's oil, as he says the claim is exaggerated. Check it out yourself. As for the BBC article well it's one report, by one man, who self admitedely says:

Professor McCrone wrote: he may be giving an SNP government the benefit of too many doubts.
It's all a big "what if" and based on best possible outcome that is ignorant of reality.

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Snow Patrol wrote:
Um, no you haven't, you misread my post. See post above this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament

..............

From your own link:

Quote: Scottish Labour Party: 50
Scottish National Party: 26
Scottish Conservative & Unionist: 17
Scottish Liberal Democrats: 17

I understand now that you talked about the two elections in the same sentence and I apologise for my confusion however the SNP is the second party in Scotland and the main opposition, nobody can claim that it isn't.
Nobody claimed that it wasn't. However it is a very distant second, lost 9 seats at the last Scottish election and lost votes at both the last British and Scottish elections.

Lucky Luke wrote: As for the general election the SNP gained 2 seats, less that the Lib Dems but still gained 2. SNP seats in London are not the priority for the SNP or for the Scottish voters Snow Patrol, still they did well.
No they did not do well, don't you get this. THEY ONLY GAINED 2 SEATS BECAUSE OF FPTP. They lost votes, they lost their position as the second force in Scotland at British level. Dismissing their performance at British level as irrelevant just because you don't like it is highly dubious to say the least.

Lucky Luke wrote: We could discuss what seats should the SNP target or if they should target a bigger percentage od the vote instead but I wouldn't want to bore other posters with that.
They've already set grandiose targets for 2007, all of which does not matter because what they target and what actually happens are two different matters. Lost votes at the last two general elections, last Scottish election and last European election.

Lucky Luke wrote: Snow Patrol wrote:
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40807&highlight=scotland

Reason refuted the oil thing, just as i told you.

I have no idea where in your link you refuted the article of the BBC Snow Patrol would you like to copy and paste the relevant part for me please?

:-D
:-D
I said he refuted the oil claim that Scotland has lost out on it's oil, as he says the claim is exaggerated. Check it out yourself. As for the BBC article well it's one report, by one man, who self admitedely says:

Professor McCrone wrote: he may be giving an SNP government the benefit of too many doubts.
It's all a big "what if" and based on best possible outcome that is ignorant of reality.

The easily mistake you are doing Snow Patrol is to judge the desire of the Scottish people to see Scotland independent with the number of votes the SNP is getting.

First of all the SNP does struggle to cope with two different mode of elections and yes they got it wrong by targeting seats when they should have targeted a bigger share of the votes and targeted a bigger share of the votes when they should have targeted seats.

Second of all devolution did put a spanner in the work of the people who were working hard to see Scotland becoming fully independent, they decided to vote for devolution hoping that it would be a stage to full independence, I am not convinced that it was the good option.

Last Scottish people desire to see Scotland independent has never been a priority when it came to voting, kicking the Conservatives where it hurts is always what Scottish voters do best. The Labour voters fed up of Tony Bliar did not want to hurt the Scottish Labour party and opted to vote for the lovely Lib Dems instead of the SNP that had an image of Conservatives in disguise for too long.

Who said the claim is exaggerated? Sorry but you lost me there Snow Patrol, I don't see what you are on about. I read an interesting piece about the redistribution of wealth through the UK but nothing that contradicts the fact that the Labour Government lied at the time to make a claim of the SNP look grossly exaggerated when it fact it was well short from the truth that we know now and of the findings of the study at the time.

:-D
:-D

[Snow Patrol]

Now look, let's go over what we've covered.

Polls show there is no plurality, let alone the majority needed, in support
of independence:

Mori Poll in 2003 wrote: Q8 If there were a referendum, would you vote for a devolved Scotland within the United Kingdom, as at present, or for a fully independent Scotland?

Devolved Scotland (as at present) 49
Fully independent Scotland 38
Don't know 4
Would not vote 9
BBC poll in 2005 wrote: About a third - 33% - backed Scottish independence as against 63% who wanted the status quo, Scotland within the UK.
You don't know the difference between a referendum and an election and think it's perfectly valid for a referendum to be passed as the will of the people when less than 40% of them voted for it just because it was in your favour. Despite me pointing out the difference and why there are restrictions and why this is appropriate on numerous occasions.

Lucky Luke wrote: Snow Patrol wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: As for democratic elections I never heard of any where a minimum of people have to participate before a majority of voters can have their way, this is indeed very undemocratic. 63% of voters turning out is considered very good nowadays Snow Patrol and more than 50% is a majority in any polls.

We were robbed.
On elections yes, on referendums for issues of this magnitude it is not.

This is not an election, this is a referendum, there is a difference. There are restrictions on minimum turnout and winning margin placed on referendums all the time.

It's too make sure a majority of electorate actually supports it, not just a slight majority of those who voted. As i said if they people really desired it at the time they would've got their arses and voted. It doesn't matter what way you spin it, the people at the time did not want devolution let alone independence.
The people at the time voted democratically for an assembly, more than 50% of the voters did and yet they were denied. Again this is not BS but facts. Scotland was democratically robbed. A majority of voters is a majority of voters in any elections it is good enough but not in this one and yet you think it was ok, I don't.
Admit to not being able to prove there is enough support for independence because there is no referendum, then refuse to answer my point's raised that there is no referendum because there is no real significant support for it at the moment.

Snow Patrol wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: BTW the reason I cannot prove that Scottish people would choose independence if they were asked is because they are not been asked yet Snow Patrol! What are you so afraid of?
They have not been asked because they don't want it, where's the mass street protests demanding it, where's the mass independence/SNP rally's, where's the support for it in the polls? where's the demands for a referendum? why is there declining support for those parties favouring independence over devolution?

You cannot prove it because it is not there.
No grasp of logical reasoning when your own point is BS.

Lucky Luke wrote: Snow Patrol wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: My point exactly why trying to prevent the inevitable by changing the rules to suit a status quo?
Snow Patrol wrote: Not everyone see's it as inevitable and just because i think it will happen at some point in the future means i need to agree with it. It's inevitable that we will all die, why not just die right now, what are we waiting for?
Yeah sure Snow Patrol voting for independence or for a Queen to rule no more is voting for death, not really mate.

:-D
:-D
Support for the SNP dropping. In 2005 general election they only gained 2 seats because of the FPTP system that allowed Labour to keep a 66 seat majority despite only marginally more overall votes that the Conservatives. SNP no longer the 2nd force in Scottish politics at British level, surpassed by Lib Dems in both popular votes and number of seats.

With the exception of Dundee East, seats restricted to the highlands and islands, while being pushed into 3rd or even 4th place in many constituencies in the central belt. Where, let’s face it, the population, money and power of Scotland is.

At 2003 Scottish election also lost votes and 9 seats on previous election. Remain main opposition party but so far off gaining power it's not even funny, whether they will even remain the main opposition party after the next election is still to be seen.

So SNP electoral support has fallen at the last two general elections, last Scottish election and last European election. While it doesn't exactly match the support for independence, as support for this tends to remain ahead of SNP support, it doesn't reflect too well on the independence movement when the political party that stands for them is haemorrhaging support.

Your whole premise is that if the extent of the discover of oil and natural gas in the North sea had been made public at the time in the '70's is that public opinion would've shifted dramatically overnight to support independence. This despite not all the oil and gas belonging to Scotland, support for SNP never again reaching the level of support it received in 1974 which tailed off dramatically after that period, support for even devolution not even reaching majority levels till the '80's at the earliest.

Snow Patrol wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Devolution was never an option before the SNP was gaining votes on wanting Scotland to become fully independent. I am afraid that we are victims of the same people in the 70's who changed the rules and the goals on what or how we should vote.

Had devolution never been proposed and the findings of a research made in the 70's about the benefit of the oil revenue to an independent Scotland released Scotland would be independent today, no doubt.
Read what i said above, devolution was not an option before the '70s because there was no real significant demand for it. There were some home rule bills proposed in the House of Commons prior to the first world war, but they didn't receive much backing and got nowhere.

I see your point, i saw your point in the first place and as i said it's BS. You think that in the '70's, if people were given a straight vote on independence or remaining governed from Westminister they would've voted in favour of independence. This assumption is based on nothing but wild speculation on your part. SNP reached a peak of 30.4% of the vote in 1974 and the referendum on a Scottish assembly was a failure. Support for devolution in itself did not grow to majority levels until the '80's at the earliest and there is still no plurality, let alone majority support for independence to this day.

I've heard a number of SNP supporters try this line of reasoning before. That given the full disclosure of the extent of the discovery of oil and gas in the North sea, that Scotland would've desired to claim it all and public opinion would've swung dramatically in favour of independence. However this is backed up by no evidence whatsoever, it's all fanciful notion and hopeful speculation.

I'm sorry but you're whole premise is BS.
So your whole argument is based on an unproven fantastical speculation on huge swings of public opinion in a hypothetical situation, good stuff, that really is dynamite. Doesn't matter though, didn't happen, to this day there still is not enough support for independence despite your claims, which you admitted you could not prove.

Now i know i said i wouldn't debate you anymore cause you kept repeating the same unsubstantiated points over and over again, ignored vast tracts of my posts, were full of s**t and you're a f***ing pain in the arse, but you are Scottish and i do support more power for Scotland so i thought i would at least try to set you right one last time.

[Snow Patrol]

Lucky Luke wrote: The easily mistake you are doing Snow Patrol is to judge the desire of the Scottish people to see Scotland independent with the number of votes the SNP is getting.
Do you have a reading problem?

Snow Patrol wrote: While it doesn't exactly match the support for independence, as support for this tends to remain ahead of SNP support, it doesn't reflect too well on the independence movement when the political party that stands for them is haemorrhaging support.
Lucky Luke wrote: First of all the SNP does struggle to cope with two different mode of elections and yes they got it wrong by targeting seats when they should have targeted a bigger share of the votes and targeted a bigger share of the votes when they should have targeted seats.
Look no offence, but "targeting a bigger share of the votes" doesn't even mean anything, everybody aims to gain more votes. I'm sorry but you really do come across as someone talking out of their arse on occasions, case in point, not knowing the difference between an election and a referendum.

Regardless, SNP vote is down, see my previous post.

Lucky Luke wrote: Second of all devolution did put a spanner in the work of the people who were working hard to see Scotland becoming fully independent, they decided to vote for devolution hoping that it would be a stage to full independence, I am not convinced that it was the good option.
Well that's their problem.

Lucky Luke wrote: Last Scottish people desire to see Scotland independent has never been a priority when it came to voting, kicking the Conservatives where it hurts is always what Scottish voters do best. The Labour voters fed up of Tony Bliar did not want to hurt the Scottish Labour party and opted to vote for the lovely Lib Dems instead of the SNP that had an image of Conservatives in disguise for too long.
Nonsensical dismissive rubbish to disguise your lack of a point.

Lucky Luke wrote: Who said the claim is exaggerated? Sorry but you lost me there Snow Patrol, I don't see what you are on about. I read an interesting piece about the redistribution of wealth through the UK but nothing that contradicts the fact that the Labour Government lied at the time to make a claim of the SNP look grossly exaggerated when it fact it was well short from the truth that we know now and of the findings of the study at the time.
Read it, halfway down, someone brings up the oil thing. As I already commented:

Snow Patrol wrote: As for the BBC article well it's one report, by one man, who self admitedely says:

Professor McCrone wrote: he may be giving an SNP government the benefit of too many doubts.
It's all a big "what if" and based on best possible outcome that is ignorant of reality.

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote: Now look, let's go over what we've covered.

Polls show there is no plurality, let alone the majority needed, in support
of independence:

Mori Poll in 2003 wrote: Q8 If there were a referendum, would you vote for a devolved Scotland within the United Kingdom, as at present, or for a fully independent Scotland?

Devolved Scotland (as at present) 49
Fully independent Scotland 38
Don't know 4
Would not vote 9
BBC poll in 2005 wrote: About a third - 33% - backed Scottish independence as against 63% who wanted the status quo, Scotland within the UK.
You don't know the difference between a referendum and an election and think it's perfectly valid for a referendum to be passed as the will of the people when less than 40% of them voted for it just because it was in your favour. Despite me pointing out the difference and why there are restrictions and why this is appropriate on numerous occasions.

Lucky Luke wrote: Snow Patrol wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: As for democratic elections I never heard of any where a minimum of people have to participate before a majority of voters can have their way, this is indeed very undemocratic. 63% of voters turning out is considered very good nowadays Snow Patrol and more than 50% is a majority in any polls.

We were robbed.
On elections yes, on referendums for issues of this magnitude it is not.

This is not an election, this is a referendum, there is a difference. There are restrictions on minimum turnout and winning margin placed on referendums all the time.

It's too make sure a majority of electorate actually supports it, not just a slight majority of those who voted. As i said if they people really desired it at the time they would've got their arses and voted. It doesn't matter what way you spin it, the people at the time did not want devolution let alone independence.
The people at the time voted democratically for an assembly, more than 50% of the voters did and yet they were denied. Again this is not BS but facts. Scotland was democratically robbed. A majority of voters is a majority of voters in any elections it is good enough but not in this one and yet you think it was ok, I don't.
Admit to not being able to prove there is enough support for independence because there is no referendum, then refuse to answer my point's raised that there is no referendum because there is no real significant support for it at the moment.

Snow Patrol wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: BTW the reason I cannot prove that Scottish people would choose independence if they were asked is because they are not been asked yet Snow Patrol! What are you so afraid of?
They have not been asked because they don't want it, where's the mass street protests demanding it, where's the mass independence/SNP rally's, where's the support for it in the polls? where's the demands for a referendum? why is there declining support for those parties favouring independence over devolution?

You cannot prove it because it is not there.
No grasp of logical reasoning when your own point is BS.

Lucky Luke wrote: Snow Patrol wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: My point exactly why trying to prevent the inevitable by changing the rules to suit a status quo?
Snow Patrol wrote: Not everyone see's it as inevitable and just because i think it will happen at some point in the future means i need to agree with it. It's inevitable that we will all die, why not just die right now, what are we waiting for?
Yeah sure Snow Patrol voting for independence or for a Queen to rule no more is voting for death, not really mate.

:-D
:-D
Support for the SNP dropping. In 2005 general election they only gained 2 seats because of the FPTP system that allowed Labour to keep a 66 seat majority despite only marginally more overall votes that the Conservatives. SNP no longer the 2nd force in Scottish politics at British level, surpassed by Lib Dems in both popular votes and number of seats.

With the exception of Dundee East, seats restricted to the highlands and islands, while being pushed into 3rd or even 4th place in many constituencies in the central belt. Where, let’s face it, the population, money and power of Scotland is.

At 2003 Scottish election also lost votes and 9 seats on previous election. Remain main opposition party but so far off gaining power it's not even funny, whether they will even remain the main opposition party after the next election is still to be seen.

So SNP electoral support has fallen at the last two general elections, last Scottish election and last European election. While it doesn't exactly match the support for independence, as support for this tends to remain ahead of SNP support, it doesn't reflect too well on the independence movement when the political party that stands for them is haemorrhaging support.

Your whole premise is that if the extent of the discover of oil and natural gas in the North sea had been made public at the time in the '70's is that public opinion would've shifted dramatically overnight to support independence. This despite not all the oil and gas belonging to Scotland, support for SNP never again reaching the level of support it received in 1974 which tailed off dramatically after that period, support for even devolution not even reaching majority levels till the '80's at the earliest.

Snow Patrol wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Devolution was never an option before the SNP was gaining votes on wanting Scotland to become fully independent. I am afraid that we are victims of the same people in the 70's who changed the rules and the goals on what or how we should vote.

Had devolution never been proposed and the findings of a research made in the 70's about the benefit of the oil revenue to an independent Scotland released Scotland would be independent today, no doubt.
Read what i said above, devolution was not an option before the '70s because there was no real significant demand for it. There were some home rule bills proposed in the House of Commons prior to the first world war, but they didn't receive much backing and got nowhere.

I see your point, i saw your point in the first place and as i said it's BS. You think that in the '70's, if people were given a straight vote on independence or remaining governed from Westminister they would've voted in favour of independence. This assumption is based on nothing but wild speculation on your part. SNP reached a peak of 30.4% of the vote in 1974 and the referendum on a Scottish assembly was a failure. Support for devolution in itself did not grow to majority levels until the '80's at the earliest and there is still no plurality, let alone majority support for independence to this day.

I've heard a number of SNP supporters try this line of reasoning before. That given the full disclosure of the extent of the discovery of oil and gas in the North sea, that Scotland would've desired to claim it all and public opinion would've swung dramatically in favour of independence. However this is backed up by no evidence whatsoever, it's all fanciful notion and hopeful speculation.

I'm sorry but you're whole premise is BS.
So your whole argument is based on an unproven fantastical speculation on huge swings of public opinion in a hypothetical situation, good stuff, that really is dynamite. Doesn't matter though, didn't happen, to this day there still is not enough support for independence despite your claims, which you admitted you could not prove.

Now i know i said i wouldn't debate you anymore cause you kept repeating the same unsubstantiated points over and over again, ignored vast tracts of my posts, were full of s**t and you're a f***ing pain in the arse, but you are Scottish and i do support more power for Scotland so i thought i would at least try to set you right one last time.

We are repeating ourselves, this is why I thought my last post was an attempt to go forward and not to go on and on about why the SNP vote is so volatile.

Except for the oil research and the fact that I believe that Scottish people like Australian people are convinced that one day their country would not have the Queen of England as their of head of state I am quite happy to stop the drivel.

:-D
:-D

[Snow Patrol]

Lucky Luke wrote: We are repeating ourselves,
Understatement of the year. :wink:

Lucky Luke wrote: this is why I thought my last post was an attempt to go forward and not to go on and on about why the SNP vote is so volatile.
You mean the one that tries to explain voting habits and why it didn't happen for the SNP? :lol:

Lucky Luke wrote: Except for the oil research and the fact that I believe that Scottish people like Australian people are convinced that one day their country would not have the Queen of England as their of head of state I am quite happy to stop the drivel.
Yup, that about sums it up. Best of luck to you man. :-D

[SPOTTEDGREENDUCK]

cassandrabandra wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: cassandrabandra wrote: SPOTTEDGREENDUCK wrote: Thats only because our immigration policy sux and we are letting the wrong people in. One in three aussies still has ties to the UK, I guarentee that Australia will not be a republic within 100 years. In the last referendum, it was the vast majority against the republic and those who do support a republic cannot agree on a model.

in the referendum a lot of people didn't vote. Unlike our elections it was not compulsory. The wording of the referendum was problematic also, and this was pointed out and discussed ad infinitum. The referendum was NOT about whether we should be a republic or not, but what model of republic we should have.

we won't be tied to the british crown in 100 years - britain may well be a republic by then.

My point exactly why trying to prevent the inevitable by changing the rules to suit a status quo?

I really believe that a more simply worded referendum in Australia would have ended the reign of the English Queen over Australia.
:-D
:-D

definitely. if it had been a simple, should australia be a republic? yes or no? rather than confusing the issue with the unwarranted detail, far more people would have supported a republic.

Duckie may not be aware (since he's only third generation and not a REAL Australian) but we were used in WWI and WWII, and the guy Duckie uses in his signature - Rommel treated Australians far more honourably than did the British. The British high command ordered the torpedoeing of the Nino Bixio, knowing the ship was filled with allied prisoners, rather than her accompanying destroyers which would have been better military targets. These were the same men who had been captured by Rommel at Ruin Ridge, so they could see the contrast.

A familiarity with this part of our history has influenced some to be quite anti the crown, if not the British.

What do you mean I am not a "real" Australian? You should be deported for your lack of patriotism. I fought for my country and I was born here so I don't know how you figure that, I think it shows your ignorance.

[cassandrabandra]

SPOTTEDGREENDUCK wrote: cassandrabandra wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: cassandrabandra wrote: SPOTTEDGREENDUCK wrote: Thats only because our immigration policy sux and we are letting the wrong people in. One in three aussies still has ties to the UK, I guarentee that Australia will not be a republic within 100 years. In the last referendum, it was the vast majority against the republic and those who do support a republic cannot agree on a model.

in the referendum a lot of people didn't vote. Unlike our elections it was not compulsory. The wording of the referendum was problematic also, and this was pointed out and discussed ad infinitum. The referendum was NOT about whether we should be a republic or not, but what model of republic we should have.

we won't be tied to the british crown in 100 years - britain may well be a republic by then.

My point exactly why trying to prevent the inevitable by changing the rules to suit a status quo?

I really believe that a more simply worded referendum in Australia would have ended the reign of the English Queen over Australia.
:-D
:-D

definitely. if it had been a simple, should australia be a republic? yes or no? rather than confusing the issue with the unwarranted detail, far more people would have supported a republic.

Duckie may not be aware (since he's only third generation and not a REAL Australian) but we were used in WWI and WWII, and the guy Duckie uses in his signature - Rommel treated Australians far more honourably than did the British. The British high command ordered the torpedoeing of the Nino Bixio, knowing the ship was filled with allied prisoners, rather than her accompanying destroyers which would have been better military targets. These were the same men who had been captured by Rommel at Ruin Ridge, so they could see the contrast.

A familiarity with this part of our history has influenced some to be quite anti the crown, if not the British.

What do you mean I am not a "real" Australian? You should be deported for your lack of patriotism. I fought for my country and I was born here so I don't know how you figure that, I think it shows your ignorance.

You are not a real australian. your family doesn't have a long enough history. to me you are further from being australian than those lebs are relative to you.

My ancestors were pioneers here. they didn't come in the boom times of the post war period. My father and my grandfather fought for this country. I think I know a bit more about what a real australian is than you do duckie.

furthermore, I don't think people like you should be able to vote in a referendum on a republic. you still have your roots in england, matey, so as far as I'm concerned you're a bloody pom! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Lucky Luke]

Snow Patrol wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: The easily mistake you are doing Snow Patrol is to judge the desire of the Scottish people to see Scotland independent with the number of votes the SNP is getting.
Do you have a reading problem?

Snow Patrol wrote: While it doesn't exactly match the support for independence, as support for this tends to remain ahead of SNP support, it doesn't reflect too well on the independence movement when the political party that stands for them is haemorrhaging support.
Lucky Luke wrote: First of all the SNP does struggle to cope with two different mode of elections and yes they got it wrong by targeting seats when they should have targeted a bigger share of the votes and targeted a bigger share of the votes when they should have targeted seats.
Look no offence, but "targeting a bigger share of the votes" doesn't even mean anything, everybody aims to gain more votes. I'm sorry but you really do come across as someone talking out of their arse on occasions, case in point, not knowing the difference between an election and a referendum.

Regardless, SNP vote is down, see my previous post.

Lucky Luke wrote: Second of all devolution did put a spanner in the work of the people who were working hard to see Scotland becoming fully independent, they decided to vote for devolution hoping that it would be a stage to full independence, I am not convinced that it was the good option.
Well that's their problem.

Lucky Luke wrote: Last Scottish people desire to see Scotland independent has never been a priority when it came to voting, kicking the Conservatives where it hurts is always what Scottish voters do best. The Labour voters fed up of Tony Bliar did not want to hurt the Scottish Labour party and opted to vote for the lovely Lib Dems instead of the SNP that had an image of Conservatives in disguise for too long.
Nonsensical dismissive rubbish to disguise your lack of a point.

Lucky Luke wrote: Who said the claim is exaggerated? Sorry but you lost me there Snow Patrol, I don't see what you are on about. I read an interesting piece about the redistribution of wealth through the UK but nothing that contradicts the fact that the Labour Government lied at the time to make a claim of the SNP look grossly exaggerated when it fact it was well short from the truth that we know now and of the findings of the study at the time.
Read it, halfway down, someone brings up the oil thing. As I already commented:

Snow Patrol wrote: As for the BBC article well it's one report, by one man, who self admitedely says:

Professor McCrone wrote: he may be giving an SNP government the benefit of too many doubts.
It's all a big "what if" and based on best possible outcome that is ignorant of reality.

I haven't got a reading problem Snow Patrol and I do understand your anger towards the SNP, however I have tried and failed to convey to you that the will of the Scottish people to see Scotland independent does not always equates to more votes for the SNP in any election.
However the day a referendum would ask in simple terms if Scotland should be independent without any lies, doom prophecies or multiple choices to lose the Scottish voter or to make him stay home Scotland will become independent because like yourself Scottish people have the knowledge for generations that independence is inevitable.

This question is beyond political or financial reasons but purely a national historical issue that needs to be resolve just like in Australia.

PS: I'll try again to see who is talking about what in the page you gave us the link for.

:-D
:-D