mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
Devil’s advocate.
Suppose they get in again!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Suppose they get in again!
Magicpole
Well-Known Member
Yes, it’s called tap dancing. It’s either all true or all bullshit. Picking and choosing which pish to believe shows you the problem with it. Refusing to acknowledge what that means is what pisses me off.You do know that you can have religious beliefs and not believe every single word of what ever doctrine you follow don’t you.
Forbes for instance, does the same. She had an issue with 21st Century acceptance of gay people to get married, because her fundamentalist reading of the bible says they are doomed. If she had been advocating the killing of Sabbath day workers etc then she could hide behind religious beliefs, but she ignores the insanity also contained in the book.
The world has moved on, Scotland has moved on and her clinging to selective abhorrence is ultimately her downfall to ever be considered as a leader in any fairer society. Unless she moves to the US as they do love a conservative Evangelical Christian.
And it’s not a Protestant thing, as most Protestants have no problem with Gay people getting married. Just the fanatics and I include the conservative Catholics in that too. Both groups deluded.
Saddleworth2
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2014
- Messages
- 21,646
So it’s mainly the fanatics you have issues with. I would rather believe that they can separate their beliefs from their job and have someone semi competent running the country. Anyway it isn’t happening so it’s a moot point.Yes, it’s called tap dancing. It’s either all true or all bullshit. Picking and choosing which pish to believe shows you the problem with it. Refusing to acknowledge what that means is what pisses me off.
Forbes for instance, does the same. She had an issue with 21st Century acceptance of gay people to get married, because her fundamentalist reading of the bible says they are doomed. If she had been advocating the killing of Sabbath day workers etc then she could hide behind religious beliefs, but she ignores the insanity also contained in the book.
The world has moved on, Scotland has moved on and her clinging to selective abhorrence is ultimately her downfall to ever be considered as a leader in any fairer society. Unless she moves to the US as they do love a conservative Evangelical Christian.
And it’s not a Protestant thing, as most Protestants have no problem with Gay people getting married. Just the fanatics and I include the conservative Catholics in that too. Both groups deluded.
Magicpole
Well-Known Member
I just don’t think fanatical Christian’s are fit to run a country that has binned most of the bibles pish. According to the same book, they should all have no issue with Slavery, don’t hear them calling for it’s return. But as you say moot point as she didn’t win. I actually think she’s competent. Just that idiocy of believing nonsense like a 6,000 year old universe.So it’s mainly the fanatics you have issues with. I would rather believe that they can separate their beliefs from their job and have someone semi competent running the country. Anyway it isn’t happening so it’s a moot point.
Of course it hinges on it because it will go to another referendum mate.
I think we are some way away from that.
I did before the leader change as well btw.
Every age group apart from 65+ voted in a majority for Indy with the highest % coming from the 16-35 age group.
Everyone knows it’s about Indy and not who leads, although thst us important it’s not the issue. I was pissing myself at all the Uber Unionist/Loyalists rejoicing when Sturgeon stood down. A person they all claimed was hopeless. She wasn’t, but they have very fixed views and if it isn’t wrapped in a UJ they go mental.
Time will tell as always.
You have claimed this before, and I pointed out it is just not true. And you acknowledged it.
A common misconception, that I also believed through general observation, but the polled numbers say otherwise. Yes, the over 60s certainly had the highest number of No votes, but the other categories were not largely pro yes. If I can be arsed again, will re-post the statistics. Bottom line, older voters are more likely to vote no, it is a misconception that younger voters are pro yes, and that the only group voting no by majority is the over 65s.
Every age group apart from 65+ voted in a majority for Indy with the highest % coming from the 16-35 age group.
Everyone knows it’s about Indy and not who leads, although thst us important it’s not the issue. I was pissing myself at all the Uber Unionist/Loyalists rejoicing when Sturgeon stood down. A person they all claimed was hopeless. She wasn’t, but they have very fixed views and if it isn’t wrapped in a UJ they go mental.
Time will tell as always.
From post-referendum polls. Age and percentage voting No
16-24 : 51% no.
25-39 : 45% no
40-59 : 53% no
60+ : 56% no.
So while it is true that older voters generally voted no in larger numbers, it is categorically wrong that they were the only group to so and swing it against all other ages. In fact only one age group voted yes in greater numbers, and that was the 25-40
Last edited:
That’d be all of them.
Apart from Kate Forbes.
Magicpole
Well-Known Member
They figures I would dispute.From post-referendum polls. Age and percentage voting No
16-24 : 51% no.
25-39 : 45% no
40-59 : 53% no
60+ : 56% no.
So while it is true that older voters generally voted no in larger numbers, it is categorically wrong that they were the only group to so and swing it against all other ages. In fact only one age group voted yes in greater numbers, and that was the 25-40
Go ahead.They figures I would dispute.
I often dispute polling figures. But that's all they can base it on. Someone else posted similar above with a pretty much the same breakdown. Other polls are consistent with it too. I've not seen a single one that is even close to your claim that only the over 65s voted no more than yes.
All groups, apart from 25-39 voted more no than yes. In various percentages.
And if you think about it, it is the only realistic truth too, otherwise the result would never have been what it was, even with a largely ageing population.
Last edited: