Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 6
Discussion
Sway said:
The whole conversation was around representation. Whether Scotland had appropriate levels and such.
Then you came in with your statement about population and land mass.
Seeing as funding wasn't a part of the conversation at that point, why would you feel adding in statements about funding was useful?
It does smack of another squirrel moment...
Come on, get real.Then you came in with your statement about population and land mass.
Seeing as funding wasn't a part of the conversation at that point, why would you feel adding in statements about funding was useful?
It does smack of another squirrel moment...
If I said "Today I bought a new suit and later this evening I'm going to go swimming" then does that mean:
a) I bought a new suit today and later I'm going to the swimming pool
b) I bought a new suit today and I'll be wearing it when I go go swimming later
Come on, let's hear it...
Edinburger said:
Aah, I see...
So you thought that:
"Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass and less than 10% of the UK's population"
actually meant
"Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass and just 10% of the UK's population which is outrageous because we're surely entitled to 1/3 of the electoral representation"?
Nope, it didn't. That would just be stupid.
Are you familiar with the argument with nationalists?So you thought that:
"Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass and less than 10% of the UK's population"
actually meant
"Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass and just 10% of the UK's population which is outrageous because we're surely entitled to 1/3 of the electoral representation"?
Nope, it didn't. That would just be stupid.
Some believe we should have the same amount of MPs as England
Stupid tends to be their defining feature
McWigglebum4th said:
Edinburger said:
Aah, I see...
So you thought that:
"Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass and less than 10% of the UK's population"
actually meant
"Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass and just 10% of the UK's population which is outrageous because we're surely entitled to 1/3 of the electoral representation"?
Nope, it didn't. That would just be stupid.
Are you familiar with the argument with nationalists?So you thought that:
"Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass and less than 10% of the UK's population"
actually meant
"Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass and just 10% of the UK's population which is outrageous because we're surely entitled to 1/3 of the electoral representation"?
Nope, it didn't. That would just be stupid.
Some believe we should have the same amount of MPs as England
Stupid tends to be their defining feature
If that's true, where have you heard that?
Easily one of the most stipid things I've ever read on this thread and there are plenty contenders for that title.
Edinburger said:
AstonZagato said:
Edinburger said:
perhaps that's how you interpreted it, but where did I suggest that land area correlates to electoral representation?
Well you started with this:Edinburger said:
Troubleatmill said:
Scotland is a region of the United Kingdom.
It has exactly the same representative rights and ratios to every other region.
There 650 seats divvied up per 90,000 or so people of the United Kingdom.
How do you make it more fair and equal than that?
There have also been a lot of very prominent Scots in the top jobs over the years too.
You need to explain why you don't the this as fair and equal.
Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass[b] and [b]less than 10% of the UK's population. It has exactly the same representative rights and ratios to every other region.
There 650 seats divvied up per 90,000 or so people of the United Kingdom.
How do you make it more fair and equal than that?
There have also been a lot of very prominent Scots in the top jobs over the years too.
You need to explain why you don't the this as fair and equal.
That's relevant.
You then were asked why land mass was relevant to representation. You answered with a funding argument but the question to you was clearly one of representation:
Troubleatmill said:
Edinburger said:
Troubleatmill said:
As I said - it is a small point - but an important one ( I'm not looking to score points on it )
But - it would be interesting to understand [b]why you think land mass is important here.
The EU Parliament does not have land mass as a metric for representation[/b].
Neither does the UK Parliament.
Nor any other country that I am aware of.
However - from your statement - there is clearly a point you wish to make on it.
Could you elaborate further.
It costs money to manage land, provide services to those who live there, integrate dwellings and communities, etc. But - it would be interesting to understand [b]why you think land mass is important here.
The EU Parliament does not have land mass as a metric for representation[/b].
Neither does the UK Parliament.
Nor any other country that I am aware of.
However - from your statement - there is clearly a point you wish to make on it.
Could you elaborate further.
For instance, look at a town like Fort William and consider the cost of roads to/from there compared to say Cheltenham.
One of the reasons for the extra funding which Scotland receives is in recognition of those enhanced costs.
I can elaborate some other time as I'm heading out just now.
It costs more to empty bins etc etc.
The system works!!!
But when it comes to representation.
Why does land area correlate to electoral representation?
So you thought that:
"Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass and less than 10% of the UK's population"
actually meant
"Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass and just 10% of the UK's population which is outrageous because we're surely entitled to 1/3 of the electoral representation"?
Nope, it didn't. That would just be stupid.
The whole gist of the conversation at that point was Strocky asking who controlled Scotland. The responses were all along the lines of 'Holyrood for some things, a UK wide representative democracy for the rest'. He harped on about how this didn't fit with a 'union of equals', hence the discussion of relative proportions/mp numbers etc.
Then you came in with your comments about population and land mass, and how both were relevant...
Can you not see that everyone apart from you read the thread through, saw your post and thought 'hold on, why is he talking about land mass, we've all said Scot has 10% of the population and 10% of the MPs'. Yet you're saying we're the ones with comprehension failures?
I've never been pissed off by your contributions to the thread, as whilst I would personally say some were diversionary from the point, they were never too bad.
In this instance though, it seems like you're causing confusion and distraction purposefully. Try reading the last few pages objectively and see how they read...
Then you came in with your comments about population and land mass, and how both were relevant...
Can you not see that everyone apart from you read the thread through, saw your post and thought 'hold on, why is he talking about land mass, we've all said Scot has 10% of the population and 10% of the MPs'. Yet you're saying we're the ones with comprehension failures?
I've never been pissed off by your contributions to the thread, as whilst I would personally say some were diversionary from the point, they were never too bad.
In this instance though, it seems like you're causing confusion and distraction purposefully. Try reading the last few pages objectively and see how they read...
Edinburger said:
Come on, get real.
If I said "Today I bought a new suit and later this evening I'm going to go swimming" then does that mean:
a) I bought a new suit today and later I'm going to the swimming pool
b) I bought a new suit today and I'll be wearing it when I go go swimming later
Come on, let's hear it...
It doesn't have to mean a or b, though they are both possibilities. you didn't say what type of suit: it could be a swim suit. You didn't say where you were going swimming, there are plenty of places other than a pool, you might go to one of them.If I said "Today I bought a new suit and later this evening I'm going to go swimming" then does that mean:
a) I bought a new suit today and later I'm going to the swimming pool
b) I bought a new suit today and I'll be wearing it when I go go swimming later
Come on, let's hear it...
You are leaving the two statements together and people will naturally assume they are connected (and yes assumptions make asses of you and me). this applies to your swimming pool, and your land area/population statements.
Edinburger said:
Come on, get real.
If I said "Today I bought a new suit and later this evening I'm going to go swimming" then does that mean:
a) I bought a new suit today and later I'm going to the swimming pool
b) I bought a new suit today and I'll be wearing it when I go go swimming later
Come on, let's hear it...
But you are not close to representing the conversation accurately. To take your analogy, in the middle of a conversation on the right type of swimming trunks, you came in and said something along the lines of "In swimming, attire is important. I am going to buy a 3 piece suit from Charles Tyrwhitt and going to the pool. That is relevant." Then you are surprised that people are questioning why you think a 3 piece suit is relevant to swimming attire.If I said "Today I bought a new suit and later this evening I'm going to go swimming" then does that mean:
a) I bought a new suit today and later I'm going to the swimming pool
b) I bought a new suit today and I'll be wearing it when I go go swimming later
Come on, let's hear it...
Relevant is the new irrelevant.
Arp said '..... wanting fair and equal representation'
I said 'It is fair. Every 90,000 of us have 1 MP to represent us'
Edinburger said 'Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass and less than 10% of the UK's population. That's relevant.'
But it isn't relevant at all.
You might have well said "Scotland is a country of the UK producing 33% of the UK's circus clowns - and less than 10% of the UK's population. That's relevant.'
Arp said '..... wanting fair and equal representation'
I said 'It is fair. Every 90,000 of us have 1 MP to represent us'
Edinburger said 'Scotland is a country of the UK representing 1/3 of the UK's land mass and less than 10% of the UK's population. That's relevant.'
But it isn't relevant at all.
You might have well said "Scotland is a country of the UK producing 33% of the UK's circus clowns - and less than 10% of the UK's population. That's relevant.'
Strocky said:
Democracy and coalitions only apply when the uppity Jocks aren't involved
Look I know it is hard to understand
WE DON'T GIVE A s
t WHAT RACE THE SNP AREJust because you have a hang up about being ruled by the english us english
s like me(born in scotland) don't give a st the SNP are scottishWe care as they have no concept of money and wish to indulge in class war and hurting the UK as much as possible
arp1 said:
The uk government wanted scotland to stay but now they are worried that scotland will affect their decision making powers in their cosy old boys club in westminister... Can't have it both ways I'm afraid.
There we goIt never is about doing the best for anyone
It is f
k those rich english tory sYou are a pathetic little class warrior
and why do you hate the upper classes?
As you know you will NEVER have the brains or drive to compete with them
McWigglebum4th said:
arp1 said:
The uk government wanted scotland to stay but now they are worried that scotland will affect their decision making powers in their cosy old boys club in westminister... Can't have it both ways I'm afraid.
There we goIt never is about doing the best for anyone
It is f
k those rich english tory sYou are a pathetic little class warrior
and why do you hate the upper classes?
As you know you will NEVER have the brains or drive to compete with them
arp1 said:
The uk government wanted scotland to stay but now they are worried that scotland will affect their decision making powers in their cosy old boys club in westminister... Can't have it both ways I'm afraid.
But, but, but you Nationalists say that Scottish votes don't count and you can't influence Westminster (despite Scottish MPs having a glorious tradition of doing just that - bringing in Thatcher - LOL - voting through tuition fees, etc.)You can't have it both ways, I' afraid.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff