chomp my root

Its about numbers for some I'd say, otherwise why would he mention it.

Too much hair for spawn of Griffiths. Harkins however......

Good drills. She's gone way up in my estimations

I'd put it at about 90% but that's got nothing to do with which way you would choose to vote. It doesn't matter how many high moral reasons you assign yourself we all have an element of 'self' or 'ego' pushing us in whatever direction we go in life, this is no different. Colour me cynical

If it's 'also' then its not a problem if it's exclusively then that would make me a very sad panda

Judith looks the 'feisty' type, I reckon she'd like to be on top, in charge and probably wearing a strap on Probably still wid

Its a 'wid' from me

It is a bit like buying 2 lottery tickets instead of 1 because you have twice as much chance of winning though.

Isn't this the basic premise on how we'd all vote ? It just depends who you define as 'me and mine'.

Read the back end of the Jehovahs's witnesses thread, all will become clear amigo

I wonder if she's a JW ? She has the right 'qualifications'

I only know a few on that list, tragically I know who White Dee is, Mrs Root watched that benefit programme she was on. I guess they must still be making money out of the format but its never been one of 'my' programmes, its feckin awful, handpick a bunch of attention seeking fuckwits and put them in a room together, stand back and......action.

It doesn't say so it's a bit of a leap to call it both Westminster and/or the Labour Party just because they're your bugbears.

Thats not what it said. Again... The report concluded: "Such a step would require politicians in larger parties to be willing to help those in smaller ones, and perhaps that will still seem like a step too far." It doesn't mention either Westminster or the Labour Party so I accused you of being paranoid. I'm pretty sure we've covered this already. Now I'm just awaiting your but....but....but.... Give it up.

I can't make it much clearer, you were lashing out at both Westminster and Labour claiming self interest when the article you were using to support your argument clearly states it was done by Glasgow academics for the Electoral Reform Society which is made up of all political parties and those non-aligned to parties. I suggested you were paranoid, you didn't appreciate it and started prevaricating. Basically you were nabbed stinking.

A staggering edit, I'm confident you won't reply to the points in my post though because you've been shown up. If you close your eyes andstick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" loudly you can blot out pretty much most things.

You've posted a link to the UK government, last time I checked Labour weren't calling the shots and that was waaaaaaay to long to read to try and pick up what your point was. Your initial link said the Electoral Reform Society came up with this suggestion. They're a sort of cross party/no party bunch and they've got an Edinburgh office so I fail to see your Westminster or Labour connections. I'm going to stick with paranoid.

The report concluded: "Such a step would require politicians in larger parties to be willing to help those in smaller ones, and perhaps that will still seem like a step too far." You're going to have to enlighten me how this is anything to do with Westminster.

That article said Glasgow academics came up with it. You're paranoid.

Do other parties not want power then ? Are they in it just to make the numbers up ?

1 out of 2 is better than I got

I assume the SNP are exempt from this problem.

Depending on the situation I'd probably clarify it and if I'm asked I call myself Scottish. Ironically I've got a bit of an English accent

I'm not sure how Scottish guys in the forces would realistically be able to cast a vote but it is an anomaly. As for the Scottish/British thing, I call and consider myself Scottish, even though I'm a NAW.