|
I wonder if anyone in Labour realises that anything that terrifies the Tories and Tory press is likely to be a good thing that should be pursued. They must know by now that they're rubbish at coming up with their own ideas so just look what the right wing REALLY doesn't want to see happen and make it happen. I'm going QQ if Labour gets scared off from what could be a politically hilarious alliance with the bad boys of respectable politics: The SNP.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Who in Scotland says rubbish bins anyway? Headline should have been Big Bucket 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:It's quite a nice design really. For a place that didn't have rain every 2nd bloody day. It's not that bad. Inverness feels like it's got quite cosmopolitan in the last 15 years. You can still walk along the river and that's really nice. Are there not still benches up towards Eden Court? The boarded up shops seem pretty much everywhere alas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:
smdh if you don't live in a flat with a communal bin area.. ooh can't be bothered to sort your spent truffles from your bad fabergé eggs, bourgeoisie pricks
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
 This is just getting creepy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
What a brilliant newspaper. All that time Salmond spent getting disgustingly cosy with Murdoch , he can't be happy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:
  Seriously though, the Tories and the English press are having a proper melting down at the thought of a Labour SNP government. also forkboy84 posted:What a brilliant newspaper. All that time Salmond spent getting disgustingly cosy with Murdoch , he can't be happy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:What a brilliant newspaper. All that time Salmond spent getting disgustingly cosy with Murdoch , he can't be happy. Murdoch only had time for Salmond when he thought independence might be in the offing and Salmond would be running the country. If Salmond doesn't know that, you should think twice before describing him as "politically savvy" again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:
Is that Tasmina Sheikh? It doesn't look like her at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:Salmond looks like a loving boss in that Tory poster, and Glasgow needs a tram system or expanded underground network, the council can get to gently caress. The rail network in Glasgow is dense and frequent enough you could brand much of it as a metro if the stations were all built today rather than in the 19th century. I think they're opposed to doing that now because it would mess up Scotrail's 'Scotland's Railway' image. I think they were going to do this with the Cathcart Circle at one point but it got scrapped. It's a shame, I've always thought they should try and integrate what they have in terms of rail/bus/subway together a bit better. Aromatic Stretch fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:What a brilliant newspaper. All that time Salmond spent getting disgustingly cosy with Murdoch , he can't be happy. Why? It won't be in the Scottish Sun, so it won't reach anyone who might vote SNP. The only people the piece can damage is Labour.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:
what is in the boxes 1 to 6 describing how the SNP will ruin Britain?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
return0 posted:what is in the boxes 1 to 6 describing how the SNP will ruin Britain?  Here's a massive version. Apparently, the picture they used for Tasmina Sheikh is actually Naz Shah, the Labour candidate for bradford west.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
haha it literally says they want to stop austerity, are pro-immigration, want to stop cutting benefits, want increased devolution... who would read that and think "hmm well I disagree with this"
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Silly Hyena posted:
4 Reason to be fearful. #4 bloke from runrig thought the gb olympic football team was stupid and put the sfa & wfa at risk. Yep that's terrifying all right . return0 posted:haha it literally says they want to stop austerity, are pro-immigration, want to stop cutting benefits, want increased devolution... who would read that and think "hmm well I disagree with this" Nigel Farage ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
return0 posted:haha it literally says they want to stop austerity, are pro-immigration, want to stop cutting benefits, want increased devolution... who would read that and think "hmm well I disagree with this" In the case of immigration, better than 70% of Scots if that survey is to be believed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Seems to me that either that study had flawed methodology, or the results weren't really meaningful enough to draw that conclusion. Anti-immigration rhetoric and groups do get proportionally less positive response than in England (UKIP, the BNP etc), and I don't think a measure of how a population responds to immigration is meaningful unless it can explain that phenomena. Maybe it's correct and it's simply a lesser issue compared to, for example, nuclear disarmament - but that doesn't explain why this effect doesn't take place in every country with nuclear weapons, and so on. You can't really ignore the end effects of a belief, because often-times they're different to the belief itself; like for example if you prove that most people look forward to genetically engineering wings for humans you can't say that this proves that they want to be as similar as possible to birds because that kind of person is demonstrably in the minority. You could look at how the two factors interact, but that'd be in an entirely different study because not something that fell under the scope of the first. So in short, I don't credit the study much. It's like half a study, or one with nothing worthwhile to say so kneejerking on it would be a mistake. There's a reason why American studies on racism tend to go by crime statistics rather than self-report forms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Silly Hyena posted:Seems to me that either that study had flawed methodology, or the results weren't really meaningful enough to draw that conclusion. Anti-immigration rhetoric and groups do get proportionally less positive response than in England (UKIP, the BNP etc), and I don't think a measure of how a population responds to immigration is meaningful unless it can explain that phenomena. Maybe it's correct and it's simply a lesser issue compared to, for example, nuclear disarmament - but that doesn't explain why this effect doesn't take place in every country with nuclear weapons, and so on. You can't really ignore the end effects of a belief, because often-times they're different to the belief itself; like for example if you prove that most people look forward to genetically engineering wings for humans you can't say that this proves that they want to be as similar as possible to birds because that kind of person is demonstrably in the minority. You could look at how the two factors interact, but that'd be in an entirely different study because not something that fell under the scope of the first. What
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
return0 posted:haha it literally says they want to stop austerity, are pro-immigration, want to stop cutting benefits, want increased devolution... who would read that and think "hmm well I disagree with this" Sun readers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
Silly Hyena posted:Seems to me that either that study had flawed methodology, or the results weren't really meaningful enough to draw that conclusion. Anti-immigration rhetoric and groups do get proportionally less positive response than in England (UKIP, the BNP etc), and I don't think a measure of how a population responds to immigration is meaningful unless it can explain that phenomena. Maybe it's correct and it's simply a lesser issue compared to, for example, nuclear disarmament - but that doesn't explain why this effect doesn't take place in every country with nuclear weapons, and so on. You can't really ignore the end effects of a belief, because often-times they're different to the belief itself; like for example if you prove that most people look forward to genetically engineering wings for humans you can't say that this proves that they want to be as similar as possible to birds because that kind of person is demonstrably in the minority. You could look at how the two factors interact, but that'd be in an entirely different study because not something that fell under the scope of the first. "This survey says something I don't like, so it doesn't mean anything! It must have been done wrong!  "
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
The BBC survey found that 64% of Scots want immigration reduced and 5% want it increased. The 2014 Scottish Social Attitudes survey, which is probably the most rigorous survey of public opinion conducted in the country, found that 62% of Scots want immigration reduced and 9% want it increased. It's a conspiracy, I tell you!
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
Of the things that are true in boxes 1 to 6, most of them are what your average voter would actually want, and are probably in line with overall public opinion. Trident is a sticking point, but all those soldiers being sacked isn't helping its cause. The candidates down the bottom all seem pretty normal. The doctor has someone with a differing opinion to her, Tasmina has moved parties (UKIP defectors anyone?) and Pete Wishart was in a band. Mhairi might be a bit sweary but at least she's not a tax-evading, peadophile-protecting expenses thief. It's got to the point where all they can throw in the face of the SNP is that they have socially democratic policies and massive popular support in Scotland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The BBC survey found that 64% of Scots want immigration reduced and 5% want it increased. Yet the SNP are still polling well, which implies that people just don't rank immigration that highly. That is what is suggested in the report on that survey here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-26020982 Surely the SNP's pro-immigration stance is a good thing? Would be very strange for internationalist, outward looking unionists to raise this as an issue and attempt to use it to drive a wedge between the SNP and their newfound support.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
I think it's a natural response to nationalists using supposed differences between Scottish attitudes and the rest of the UK to drive a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the country. It's also interesting, if unsurprising, that Trident doesn't appear here at all 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The BBC survey found that 64% of Scots want immigration reduced and 5% want it increased. Yeah but it says something that I don't like. So its wrong. Because reasons. Pissflaps posted:I think it's a natural response to nationalists using supposed differences between Scottish attitudes and the rest of the UK to drive a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the country. They dont show much difference between each country in the union do they?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
Wonder how much of that Scottish independence bar is "SAOR ALBA" and how much is "are we still talking about this? gently caress sake"
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
dadrips posted:Wonder how much of that Scottish independence bar is "SAOR ALBA" and how much is "are we still talking about this? gently caress sake" I would imagine its a 43%-57% split.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
dadrips posted:Wonder how much of that Scottish independence bar is "SAOR ALBA" and how much is "are we still talking about this? gently caress sake"
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:The graph is from February 2014. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 10:45
|
|
|
The latest GERS figures paint a grim picture for separatists. Had the referendum returned a Yes vote they'd have been dynamite - and these figures are from before the collapse in the oil price.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 11:23
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The latest GERS figures paint a grim picture for separatists. Had the referendum returned a Yes vote they'd have been dynamite - and these figures are from before the collapse in the oil price. I mean, the Gers' performance is piss poor this year, but I think I could bear living in an independent Scotland, even if they don't make it out of the Championship this year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 14:54
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:I mean, the Gers' performance is piss poor this year, but I think I could bear living in an independent Scotland, even if they don't make it out of the Championship this year. And, like the 'gers, you'd be in administration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
Jedit posted:"This survey says something I don't like, so it doesn't mean anything! It must have been done wrong! No, my point was that the results of the survey weren't reflected in the real world. Pro immigration groups are proportionally more more popular in Scotland, and anti-immigration groups less so. You have the results of the survey, and now what? How do you interpret them in a way that doesn't contradict what actually happens? Because you can't draw the conclusion that England and Scotland treat immigration in the same way, because it's demonstrably false. and no, drawing the conclusion that I'm being rigorous about this because "I don't like the results" isn't proper science either
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Silly Hyena posted:No, my point was that the results of the survey weren't reflected in the real world. Surveys reflect the real world. They gauge public opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Surveys reflect the real world. They gauge public opinion. And in this case, what does that mean? What interpretations are you drawing from the way the survey gauges public opinion?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Silly Hyena posted:And in this case, what does that mean? What interpretations are you drawing from the way the survey gauges public opinion? That people in Scotland have broadly similar views to people in the rest of the UK.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:That people in Scotland have broadly similar views to people in the rest of the UK. Then how do you take into account that they act differently?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Silly Hyena posted:Then how do you take into account that they act differently? Do you have evidence that they do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Do you have evidence that they do? Yes, the success of pro-immigration groups like the SNP and the relative failure of anti-immigration groups like the BNP and UKIP who have seen some success in England but none here. The point isn't that the study's wrong, it's just incomplete. You can't draw a meaningful conclusion from the survey because it just doesn't have a meaningful level of data. And that's assuming there's no flaws in methodology in the first place, which self-report forms are notorious for having.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Are the SNP successful entirely because they are pro immigration? Is that their only campaigning point? Do people vote for them just because they are pro immigration? If they answer is no to any of the above, you can see why your stance is flawed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 16:25
|
|