Peppino Impastato Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 There's a difference between Unionists and No voters. In fact if I called some of the No voters I know Unionists they'd tell me to gtf. They just weren't convinced, this time around. It seems pretty simple, get the currency issue set in stone, and it's guaranteed. If you voted no you're a unionist by definition. Can't have your cake and eat it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 Sounds to me like you're the one displaying naked hatred. Coming from YOU fuzzy!!? Nah 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted May 13, 2016 Share Posted May 13, 2016 If you voted no you're a unionist by definition. Can't have your cake and eat it. Yup. I agree 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirty dingus Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 Need to cool yer jets here folks, Red(hand)Rob of the house Charlie Green is on the wind up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/kevin-hague-history-thats-nicola-7966665#mVRTHwbOwX3gDJL2.97 Hmmm!? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/kevin-hague-history-thats-nicola-7966665#mVRTHwbOwX3gDJL2.97 Hmmm!? Regression to the mean. It really is as simple a that. Journalists can write lots of words and pick a particular stance but until they understand the theory it is completely meaningless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 (edited) http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/kevin-hague-history-thats-nicola-7966665#mVRTHwbOwX3gDJL2.97 Hmmm!? Written by yet another dullard who doesn't understand the Scottish electoral system. A bit like yourself really.Its almost like these people are trying to convince themselves that the SNPs support is on the slide rather than anyone else. Their absolute core support is 40% minimum, probably closer to 45%. More than enough to win Holyrood for a good while yet. Edited May 14, 2016 by AUFC90 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 (edited) Written by yet another dullard who doesn't understand the Scottish electoral system. A bit like yourself really. Its almost like these people are trying to convince themselves that the SNPs support is on the slide rather than anyone else. Their absolute core support is 40% minimum, probably closer to 45%. More than enough to win Holyrood for a good while yet. Aye that's right, don't address ANY of the points in the article just dismiss them with a condescending 'you don't understand the system'. (That's despite several positive comments on the SNP's performance included in the whole piece) Is this the same system that enabled an SNP majority in 2011, reliant on list votes but has denied them a majority in 2016 according to Herr Salmond? There were many predictions on here forecasting a comfortable 70+ seats for the SNP, perhaps they just didn't understand how the system works either? Edited May 14, 2016 by RedRob72 -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 (edited) Aye that's right, don't address ANY of the points in the article just dismiss them with a condescending 'you don't understand the system'. (That's despite several positive comments on the SNP's performance in the item) Is this the same system that enabled an SNP majority in 2011, reliant on list votes but has denied them a majority in 2016 according to Herr Salmond? There were many predictions on here forecasting a comfortable 70+ seats for the SNP, perhaps they just didn't understand how the system works either? Why "Herr" Salmond, you sad little colonialist BritNat bigot? Edited May 14, 2016 by Antlion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 Why "Herr" Salmond, you sad little colonialist BritNat bigot? Would you have preferred Monsieur Salmond given his High Rank and Station? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 Aye that's right, don't address ANY of the points in the article just dismiss them with a condescending 'you don't understand the system'. (That's despite several positive comments on the SNP's performance included in the whole piece) Is this the same system that enabled an SNP majority in 2011, reliant on list votes but has denied them a majority in 2016 according to Herr Salmond? There were many predictions on here forecasting a comfortable 70+ seats for the SNP, perhaps they just didn't understand how the system works either? The points in the article don't exist. That is the point. If there was a material change in the numbers voting for the SNP then an examination of why would be relevant. But there wasn't, so it's not. And, "Herr Salmond"? What the actual fcuk? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 The only way is down.... After they've just got more than half a million more (more than half of what the Tories got overall) votes than they did the last time... What. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 Aye that's right, don't address ANY of the points in the article just dismiss them with a condescending 'you don't understand the system'. (That's despite several positive comments on the SNP's performance included in the whole piece) Is this the same system that enabled an SNP majority in 2011, reliant on list votes but has denied them a majority in 2016 according to Herr Salmond? There were many predictions on here forecasting a comfortable 70+ seats for the SNP, perhaps they just didn't understand how the system works either? What points ? The same system prevented a majority for no other reason than the SNP did better on the constituencies. Any other diatribe about waining support etc is just uninformed shite. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 Aye that's right, don't address ANY of the points in the article just dismiss them with a condescending 'you don't understand the system'. (That's despite several positive comments on the SNP's performance included in the whole piece) Is this the same system that enabled an SNP majority in 2011, reliant on list votes but has denied them a majority in 2016 according to Herr Salmond? There were many predictions on here forecasting a comfortable 70+ seats for the SNP, perhaps they just didn't understand how the system works either? Why "Herr" Salmond, you sad little colonialist BritNat bigot? Rob that's unbecoming of you. Mr. Salmond or Big Eck, s'il vous plaît 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 Rob that's unbecoming of you. Mr. Salmond or Big Eck, s'il vous plaît Crikey, surely that wee pet name has been used on here before, I've seen it penned many times!?😧 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 Would you have preferred Monsieur Salmond given his High Rank and Station? President Salmond, preferably. The seethe from fawning, servile sycophants who believe in aristocratic vaginas breeding heads of state for us poor commoners would be delicious. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Rational Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 Herr Salmond eh? Just enough to deny the Godwin's but the insinuation is there for all to see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 Herr Salmond eh? Just enough to deny the Godwin's but the insinuation is there for all to see. And coming from a man who thinks these folk were appointed by God to reign over us: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 Crikey, surely that wee pet name has been used on here before, I've seen it penned many times!?😧 Rob even the theme tune of Dad's Army used Mr for Hitler. Surely you could dae the same for Big Eck? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted May 14, 2016 Share Posted May 14, 2016 And coming from a man who thinks these folk were appointed by God to reign over us: Godwin's law applies again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.