From: nicholasiii@gmail.com   
      
   On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 4:43:38 AM UTC-4, soupdragon wrote:   
   > doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor) wrote in   
   > news:miillg$g2q$1@ns2.nl2k.ab.ca:    
   >    
   > > In article ,   
   > > Nicholas Benjamin   wrote:   
   > >>On Thursday, May 7, 2015 at 10:39:08 PM UTC-4, The Other Guy wrote:   
   > >>> Were to be today, I'd expect a DIFFERENT outcome..   
   > >>>=20   
   > >>> SNP has taken 26 seats from Labor so far, and it's beginning=20   
   > >>> to look like a clean sweep across Scotland.   
   > >>   
   > >>Doubt it.   
   > >>   
   > >>For one thing, it's a three-party system in Scotland. If the SNP is   
   > >>getting=    
   > >> 45% (like it has in the past few elections), but the LibDems and   
   > >> Labor are= splitting the remainder then the SNP dominates. The Exit   
   > >> Polls I've seen t=    
   > >>hus far don't show the percentages, so there's no way to know whether   
   > >>the S= NP is at it's recent average of 45% or has gone past 50%.   
   > >>   
   > >>Moreover, secessionist movements frequently have soft supporters who   
   > >>don't = actually want to leave the country, but do want the central   
   > >>government to m= ake concessions.   
   > >>   
   > >>Nick   
   > >    
   > > SNP sweeps Sctoland with the others getting 1 seat each.   
   >    
   > And, just to clarify. The Scottish parliament has 5 parties, not 3. It   
   > did have 6 until Sheriden's SSP went into melt down. UKIP have made no   
   > headway in Scotland and have no representatives, so they don't count   
      
   So we're talking about an election to the UK Parliament, which is   
   first-past-the-post; and you're using numbers from the elections to the MMP   
   Scots Parliament? My friend, you have truly mastered the art of fuzzy logic.   
      
   In the UK Parliamentary election, which is the one we are actually talking   
   about, there are three parties and a guy from Dumfries. The three parties are   
   Labour,. the LibDems, and the SNP. Thaty is a three-party system.   
      
   If you want to talk about the Scots Parliament's party-system you'll have to   
   stop crowing about wiping everyone else out and almost getting a majority of   
   the popular vote; because you only got 44-45% of that vote and a bare majority.   
      
   > Additionally, the previous poster seems to be using the American    
   > experience of seccession, rather than the European one to make a    
   > sweeping generalisation about their make up.    
      
   Which American experience re: secession are you talking about? There has never   
   been an independence referendum of any sort in any US State ever. The   
   Confederates had a completely separate legal procedure involving specially   
   elected conventions. If they'd    
   tried a referendum they would have lost because they were seceding to protect   
   slavery from evil Abe Lincoln, and roughly 40% of their populations were   
   slaves. There are plenty of referendums, but nobody has ever done one on   
   breaking up the country.   
      
   That's part of what I'm using, because there's so much more data from the USA.   
   But the exact same thing has happened with the Australian Republic referendums   
   (which are currently on hold until the Queen dies), Quebec's sov   
   reignty/independence    
   referendums, etc.   
      
   You just don't get to have a nasty, divisive referendum debate you tell   
   everyone is incredibly important because it's the future of the country; and   
   then turn around seven months later and have a new one because you did well in   
   an unrelated election. You    
   piss off the people who voted against you (and I'd remind you: that 55%), as   
   well as some fraction of your people for tricking them by claiming their   
   September vote was the most important one ever, and then turning around and   
   having a new one in August.   
      
   It's suicidal politics, which is probably the reason none of the actual   
   politicians think it's a particularly good idea.   
      
   > In the referendum, 45% voted for independance. In the election, 50%   
   > voted for SNP. If the previous assertion is true then effect, 90% want    
   > to leave and the 'soft support' is minimal.   
      
   When you're at 49.973%, and the rule is you lose unless you get to 50%+1, then   
   5% being soft is kinda a big deal.   
      
   > Sturgeon is using her block vote to extract more power from Westminster   
   > beyond the Smith Commission, but that's just another step towards her    
   > goal of full independance and, if she gets full fiscal autonomy, gives   
   > her an opportunity to test the strength of the Scottish economy in    
   > preparation for another indyref.   
      
   That could work.   
      
   But only if she doesn't go on TV and say "we're getting more autonomy from the   
   Tories because we think you idiots were wrong to vote 'No' and we're pretty   
   sure even you dummies will figure it out if we have more powers."   
      
   You're not helping her avoi8d saying that.   
      
   Nick   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)