Pete Buttigieg is longer to win the Iowa caucus with 100% declared than he was when 85% were declared. Betfair have an interesting question when they’re going to declare a winner on their market, given the continuing queries about the detail of the count.
What's also slightly absurd is that - if they reran the caucus - then Buttigieg would win at a canter, because he'd get more Klobuchar and Biden votes, than Sanders would get Warren ones.
I’d have thought that being the apparent victim of a swindle suits Bernie Sanders very well. Why would he want to disturb the result?
But as shock about Mackay’s conduct reverberated around Holyrood, questions also emerged about the timing of Sturgeon’s actions. Today it emerged that the Scottish Sun first told Sturgeon’s office about its plans to publish Mackay’s messages at about 5.30pm on Wednesday, putting in train an urgent series of conversations between Sturgeon, Mackay and SNP lawyers.
Sturgeon’s official spokesman confirmed on Thursday afternoon that Alan Muir, the Scottish Sun’s editor, had telephoned him before 6pm to lay out the substance of the Sun story. Later that evening – her spokesman refused to say when – Mackay agreed to resign.
It was not until 8am on Thursday, 14 hours after she was told of the allegations and nine hours after the Sun’s stories went online, that Sturgeon announced Mackay’s resignation in a short statement. The spokesman said they wanted to give Mackay time to tell his family about the Sun’s revelations. Yet, despite their acknowledged seriousness, it was not until noon on Thursday that Sturgeon said in an emergency statement that he had also been suspended from the SNP.
With all due respect, that's a completely made up number given that Indian GDP in 1947 was just 93.7bn Rupees. Using INR 5 : $1, we come up with a 1947 GDP of approximately $20bn (or maybe a little less).
If we assume that Indian GDP did not grow during the preceding 150 years, then the total economic output of India was around $3trillion over the period.
Now, the British (and the Scots, who led the British Empire in much of the world) were a rapacious bunch. But I think they'd have struggled to steal more than thirteen times the cumulative economic output of India for 150 odd years.
Yebbut: £20bn in 1947 = c.$10 trillion in today's money
$20bn in 1947 != $10trillion in today's money.
So, $20bn in 1947 is worth $120bn in 2020. Let's assume no economic growth for 150 years (which is unbelievably generous to the man making the assumption), and you still only get cumulative economic output over 150 years of $18 trillion.
In other words, even if every cent of every Indian's economic output was stolen by the British (which it wasn't), it would still only come to a total $18 trillion.
It also fails to take into account any investment the other way, such as in agricultural improvements, canals, railways, roads, telegraphy, ports, courts and civic buildings, education infrastructure and the costs of defence.
It's also unfortunate for that argument that land taxation decreased during the colonial period from what the Mughals used to charge - from about 15% of income down to about 1% - and we don't hear very much about them.
The real issue was that the Indian population grew at the same rate as the economy over the period, meaning per capita incomes didn't change very much.
Typical unionist numbers, one two remove a few and stick it in your pocket. They are still at it with their last colony, they put on false numbers on Scotland ad nauseum and pocket the rest.
But as shock about Mackay’s conduct reverberated around Holyrood, questions also emerged about the timing of Sturgeon’s actions. Today it emerged that the Scottish Sun first told Sturgeon’s office about its plans to publish Mackay’s messages at about 5.30pm on Wednesday, putting in train an urgent series of conversations between Sturgeon, Mackay and SNP lawyers.
Sturgeon’s official spokesman confirmed on Thursday afternoon that Alan Muir, the Scottish Sun’s editor, had telephoned him before 6pm to lay out the substance of the Sun story. Later that evening – her spokesman refused to say when – Mackay agreed to resign.
It was not until 8am on Thursday, 14 hours after she was told of the allegations and nine hours after the Sun’s stories went online, that Sturgeon announced Mackay’s resignation in a short statement. The spokesman said they wanted to give Mackay time to tell his family about the Sun’s revelations. Yet, despite their acknowledged seriousness, it was not until noon on Thursday that Sturgeon said in an emergency statement that he had also been suspended from the SNP.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
The usual answer in such circumstances is that they were scared of what would happen and didn’t know who to trust or who could help them.
With all due respect, that's a completely made up number given that Indian GDP in 1947 was just 93.7bn Rupees. Using INR 5 : $1, we come up with a 1947 GDP of approximately $20bn (or maybe a little less).
If we assume that Indian GDP did not grow during the preceding 150 years, then the total economic output of India was around $3trillion over the period.
Now, the British (and the Scots, who led the British Empire in much of the world) were a rapacious bunch. But I think they'd have struggled to steal more than thirteen times the cumulative economic output of India for 150 odd years.
Yebbut: £20bn in 1947 = c.$10 trillion in today's money
$20bn in 1947 != $10trillion in today's money.
So, $20bn in 1947 is worth $120bn in 2020. Let's assume no economic growth for 150 years (which is unbelievably generous to the man making the assumption), and you still only get cumulative economic output over 150 years of $18 trillion.
In other words, even if every cent of every Indian's economic output was stolen by the British (which it wasn't), it would still only come to a total $18 trillion.
It also fails to take into account any investment the other way, such as in agricultural improvements, canals, railways, roads, telegraphy, ports, courts and civic buildings, education infrastructure and the costs of defence.
It's also unfortunate for that argument that land taxation decreased during the colonial period from what the Mughals used to charge - from about 15% of income down to about 1% - and we don't hear very much about them.
The real issue was that the Indian population grew at the same rate as the economy over the period, meaning per capita incomes didn't change very much.
Typical unionist numbers, one two remove a few and stick it in your pocket. They are still at it with their last colony, they put on false numbers on Scotland ad nauseum and pocket the rest.
Bermuda puts false numbers on Scotland and pockets the rest?
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
I don't know the details of this case, but if you are assuming that the 16-year-olds you are harassing are "interested" because they don't tell anyone then you seriously need to have a word with yourself
With all due respect, that's a completely made up number given that Indian GDP in 1947 was just 93.7bn Rupees. Using INR 5 : $1, we come up with a 1947 GDP of approximately $20bn (or maybe a little less).
If we assume that Indian GDP did not grow during the preceding 150 years, then the total economic output of India was around $3trillion over the period.
Now, the British (and the Scots, who led the British Empire in much of the world) were a rapacious bunch. But I think they'd have struggled to steal more than thirteen times the cumulative economic output of India for 150 odd years.
Yebbut: £20bn in 1947 = c.$10 trillion in today's money
$20bn in 1947 != $10trillion in today's money.
So, $20bn in 1947 is worth $120bn in 2020. Let's assume no economic growth for 150 years (which is unbelievably generous to the man making the assumption), and you still only get cumulative economic output over 150 years of $18 trillion.
In other words, even if every cent of every Indian's economic output was stolen by the British (which it wasn't), it would still only come to a total $18 trillion.
It also fails to take into account any investment the other way, such as in agricultural improvements, canals, railways, roads, telegraphy, ports, courts and civic buildings, education infrastructure and the costs of defence.
It's also unfortunate for that argument that land taxation decreased during the colonial period from what the Mughals used to charge - from about 15% of income down to about 1% - and we don't hear very much about them.
The real issue was that the Indian population grew at the same rate as the economy over the period, meaning per capita incomes didn't change very much.
Typical unionist numbers, one two remove a few and stick it in your pocket. They are still at it with their last colony, they put on false numbers on Scotland ad nauseum and pocket the rest.
Bermuda puts false numbers on Scotland and pockets the rest?
And the Scottish Government connives in it....(and indeed, used to be fans....)
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
I don't know the details of this case, but if you are assuming that the 16-year-olds you are harassing are "interested" because they don't tell anyone then you seriously need to have a word with yourself
You thick arsehole, I posed question as to why he had not thought to report to someone over a six month period. Sounds to me as if you know a bit too much about it.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
The usual answer in such circumstances is that they were scared of what would happen and didn’t know who to trust or who could help them.
Could be but you would have hoped he could trust his parents.
Unlike all the troughers and ne'er do wells at Westminster, unionists and double standards you have to laugh.
Ah, the "Westminster is worse" defence. Wondered how long before that one would come into play.
Look at that Herald headline. No, not about McKay. "A third more Scots now paying tax at higher rates". If you can't see the toxic link between higher tax being paid by Scots and those taxpayers funding a golden goodbye for a guy trawling for dick pics off 16 year old lads.....
Unlike all the troughers and ne'er do wells at Westminster, unionists and double standards you have to laugh.
Ah, the "Westminster is worse" defence. Wondered how long before that one would come into play.
Look at that Herald headline. No, not about McKay. "A third more Scots now paying tax at higher rates". If you can't see the toxic link between higher tax being paid by Scots and those taxpayers funding a golden goodbye for a guy trawling for dick pics off 16 year old lads.....
In fairness I think he was trawling for dick pics off a 21 year old....
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
The usual answer in such circumstances is that they were scared of what would happen and didn’t know who to trust or who could help them.
Could be but you would have hoped he could trust his parents.
It is very common for teenagers not to trust their parents over such things, unfortunately.
But as shock about Mackay’s conduct reverberated around Holyrood, questions also emerged about the timing of Sturgeon’s actions. Today it emerged that the Scottish Sun first told Sturgeon’s office about its plans to publish Mackay’s messages at about 5.30pm on Wednesday, putting in train an urgent series of conversations between Sturgeon, Mackay and SNP lawyers.
Sturgeon’s official spokesman confirmed on Thursday afternoon that Alan Muir, the Scottish Sun’s editor, had telephoned him before 6pm to lay out the substance of the Sun story. Later that evening – her spokesman refused to say when – Mackay agreed to resign.
It was not until 8am on Thursday, 14 hours after she was told of the allegations and nine hours after the Sun’s stories went online, that Sturgeon announced Mackay’s resignation in a short statement. The spokesman said they wanted to give Mackay time to tell his family about the Sun’s revelations. Yet, despite their acknowledged seriousness, it was not until noon on Thursday that Sturgeon said in an emergency statement that he had also been suspended from the SNP.
That is his personal choice given the system , a la Westminster. He is elected by the voters not unionist kangaroo courts. Personally I would say NO but my opinion is of no consequence, but is much more valid than a foreigner like yourself who should be more interested in the events/politics in the country you emigrated to rather than endlessly trying to denigrate Scotland which you left.
With all due respect, that's a completely made up number given that Indian GDP in 1947 was just 93.7bn Rupees. Using INR 5 : $1, we come up with a 1947 GDP of approximately $20bn (or maybe a little less).
If we assume that Indian GDP did not grow during the preceding 150 years, then the total economic output of India was around $3trillion over the period.
Now, the British (and the Scots, who led the British Empire in much of the world) were a rapacious bunch. But I think they'd have struggled to steal more than thirteen times the cumulative economic output of India for 150 odd years.
Yebbut: £20bn in 1947 = c.$10 trillion in today's money
$20bn in 1947 != $10trillion in today's money.
So, $20bn in 1947 is worth $120bn in 2020. Let's assume no economic growth for 150 years (which is unbelievably generous to the man making the assumption), and you still only get cumulative economic output over 150 years of $18 trillion.
In other words, even if every cent of every Indian's economic output was stolen by the British (which it wasn't), it would still only come to a total $18 trillion.
It also fails to take into account any investment the other way, such as in agricultural improvements, canals, railways, roads, telegraphy, ports, courts and civic buildings, education infrastructure and the costs of defence.
It's also unfortunate for that argument that land taxation decreased during the colonial period from what the Mughals used to charge - from about 15% of income down to about 1% - and we don't hear very much about them.
The real issue was that the Indian population grew at the same rate as the economy over the period, meaning per capita incomes didn't change very much.
Typical unionist numbers, one two remove a few and stick it in your pocket. They are still at it with their last colony, they put on false numbers on Scotland ad nauseum and pocket the rest.
What do you think the UK is “pocketing” from Scotland?
Of course, the truth is the reverse but the UK would still be blamed (probably for all time) if Scotland did become independent and this deficit was fully exposed.
Desperation at being scooped and late to the party with useless tat
Should Derek MacKay remain an MSP?
AS you are desperately posting it multiple times I will answer yet again
That is his personal choice given the system , a la Westminster. He is elected by the voters not unionist kangaroo courts. Personally I would say NO but my opinion is of no consequence, but is much more valid than a foreigner like yourself who should be more interested in the events/politics in the country you emigrated to rather than endlessly trying to denigrate Scotland which you left.
But as shock about Mackay’s conduct reverberated around Holyrood, questions also emerged about the timing of Sturgeon’s actions. Today it emerged that the Scottish Sun first told Sturgeon’s office about its plans to publish Mackay’s messages at about 5.30pm on Wednesday, putting in train an urgent series of conversations between Sturgeon, Mackay and SNP lawyers.
Sturgeon’s official spokesman confirmed on Thursday afternoon that Alan Muir, the Scottish Sun’s editor, had telephoned him before 6pm to lay out the substance of the Sun story. Later that evening – her spokesman refused to say when – Mackay agreed to resign.
It was not until 8am on Thursday, 14 hours after she was told of the allegations and nine hours after the Sun’s stories went online, that Sturgeon announced Mackay’s resignation in a short statement. The spokesman said they wanted to give Mackay time to tell his family about the Sun’s revelations. Yet, despite their acknowledged seriousness, it was not until noon on Thursday that Sturgeon said in an emergency statement that he had also been suspended from the SNP.
That is his personal choice given the system , a la Westminster. He is elected by the voters not unionist kangaroo courts. Personally I would say NO but my opinion is of no consequence, but is much more valid than a foreigner like yourself who should be more interested in the events/politics in the country you emigrated to rather than endlessly trying to denigrate Scotland which you left.
NO TRUE SCOT That didn't take long......
And once again you conflate the SNP with Scotland.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
I don't know the details of this case, but if you are assuming that the 16-year-olds you are harassing are "interested" because they don't tell anyone then you seriously need to have a word with yourself
You thick arsehole, I posed question as to why he had not thought to report to someone over a six month period. Sounds to me as if you know a bit too much about it.
i was sexually assaulted as a 19 year old. I didn't tell anyone about it. Plenty of people can easily understand this.
You seem to think that not reporting something is evidence that a person was "interested", "thick arsehole" indeed.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
I don't know the details of this case, but if you are assuming that the 16-year-olds you are harassing are "interested" because they don't tell anyone then you seriously need to have a word with yourself
You thick arsehole, I posed question as to why he had not thought to report to someone over a six month period. Sounds to me as if you know a bit too much about it.
must be getting to you Malcy given your language.. imperfection in the SNP tut tut
Unlike all the troughers and ne'er do wells at Westminster, unionists and double standards you have to laugh.
Ah, the "Westminster is worse" defence. Wondered how long before that one would come into play.
Look at that Herald headline. No, not about McKay. "A third more Scots now paying tax at higher rates". If you can't see the toxic link between higher tax being paid by Scots and those taxpayers funding a golden goodbye for a guy trawling for dick pics off 16 year old lads.....
Did you see the two thirds of Scots paying less tax bit or did you have your unionist blue specs on. Pretty sick trying to conflate tax policies with an idiots personal life.
But as shock about Mackay’s conduct reverberated around Holyrood, questions also emerged about the timing of Sturgeon’s actions. Today it emerged that the Scottish Sun first told Sturgeon’s office about its plans to publish Mackay’s messages at about 5.30pm on Wednesday, putting in train an urgent series of conversations between Sturgeon, Mackay and SNP lawyers.
Sturgeon’s official spokesman confirmed on Thursday afternoon that Alan Muir, the Scottish Sun’s editor, had telephoned him before 6pm to lay out the substance of the Sun story. Later that evening – her spokesman refused to say when – Mackay agreed to resign.
It was not until 8am on Thursday, 14 hours after she was told of the allegations and nine hours after the Sun’s stories went online, that Sturgeon announced Mackay’s resignation in a short statement. The spokesman said they wanted to give Mackay time to tell his family about the Sun’s revelations. Yet, despite their acknowledged seriousness, it was not until noon on Thursday that Sturgeon said in an emergency statement that he had also been suspended from the SNP.
That is his personal choice given the system , a la Westminster. He is elected by the voters not unionist kangaroo courts. Personally I would say NO but my opinion is of no consequence, but is much more valid than a foreigner like yourself who should be more interested in the events/politics in the country you emigrated to rather than endlessly trying to denigrate Scotland which you left.
NO TRUE SCOT That didn't take long......
And once again you conflate the SNP with Scotland.
Criticism of the SNP ≠ Criticism of Scotland.
Once again why is an emigrant so fixated with denigrating Scotland and SNP in particular. You would almost think you were a paid up Tory worker. Take an interest in the country you live in, it is not healthy to obsess 100% on Scotland, in fact it is weird.
With all due respect, that's a completely made up number given that Indian GDP in 1947 was just 93.7bn Rupees. Using INR 5 : $1, we come up with a 1947 GDP of approximately $20bn (or maybe a little less).
If we assume that Indian GDP did not grow during the preceding 150 years, then the total economic output of India was around $3trillion over the period.
Now, the British (and the Scots, who led the British Empire in much of the world) were a rapacious bunch. But I think they'd have struggled to steal more than thirteen times the cumulative economic output of India for 150 odd years.
Yebbut: £20bn in 1947 = c.$10 trillion in today's money
$20bn in 1947 != $10trillion in today's money.
So, $20bn in 1947 is worth $120bn in 2020. Let's assume no economic growth for 150 years (which is unbelievably generous to the man making the assumption), and you still only get cumulative economic output over 150 years of $18 trillion.
In other words, even if every cent of every Indian's economic output was stolen by the British (which it wasn't), it would still only come to a total $18 trillion.
It also fails to take into account any investment the other way, such as in agricultural improvements, canals, railways, roads, telegraphy, ports, courts and civic buildings, education infrastructure and the costs of defence.
It's also unfortunate for that argument that land taxation decreased during the colonial period from what the Mughals used to charge - from about 15% of income down to about 1% - and we don't hear very much about them.
The real issue was that the Indian population grew at the same rate as the economy over the period, meaning per capita incomes didn't change very much.
Typical unionist numbers, one two remove a few and stick it in your pocket. They are still at it with their last colony, they put on false numbers on Scotland ad nauseum and pocket the rest.
What do you think the UK is “pocketing” from Scotland?
Of course, the truth is the reverse but the UK would still be blamed (probably for all time) if Scotland did become independent and this deficit was fully exposed.
MONEY. The deficit is all Westminster given Scotland balances its budget , them borrowing money and then saying it was Scotland wot done it is a joke, but not for us as they charge us interest on their debt.
But as shock about Mackay’s conduct reverberated around Holyrood, questions also emerged about the timing of Sturgeon’s actions. Today it emerged that the Scottish Sun first told Sturgeon’s office about its plans to publish Mackay’s messages at about 5.30pm on Wednesday, putting in train an urgent series of conversations between Sturgeon, Mackay and SNP lawyers.
Sturgeon’s official spokesman confirmed on Thursday afternoon that Alan Muir, the Scottish Sun’s editor, had telephoned him before 6pm to lay out the substance of the Sun story. Later that evening – her spokesman refused to say when – Mackay agreed to resign.
It was not until 8am on Thursday, 14 hours after she was told of the allegations and nine hours after the Sun’s stories went online, that Sturgeon announced Mackay’s resignation in a short statement. The spokesman said they wanted to give Mackay time to tell his family about the Sun’s revelations. Yet, despite their acknowledged seriousness, it was not until noon on Thursday that Sturgeon said in an emergency statement that he had also been suspended from the SNP.
That is his personal choice given the system , a la Westminster. He is elected by the voters not unionist kangaroo courts. Personally I would say NO but my opinion is of no consequence, but is much more valid than a foreigner like yourself who should be more interested in the events/politics in the country you emigrated to rather than endlessly trying to denigrate Scotland which you left.
NO TRUE SCOT That didn't take long......
And once again you conflate the SNP with Scotland.
Criticism of the SNP ≠ Criticism of Scotland.
Once again why is an emigrant so fixated with denigrating Scotland and SNP in particular. You would almost think you were a paid up Tory worker. Take an interest in the country you live in, it is not healthy to obsess 100% on Scotland, in fact it is weird.
Malc, you seem to really have the wind up your sporran this morning.
Did you not have enough neeps with your haggis at your Burn’s night supper the other week, or something?
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
The usual answer in such circumstances is that they were scared of what would happen and didn’t know who to trust or who could help them.
Could be but you would have hoped he could trust his parents.
It is very common for teenagers not to trust their parents over such things, unfortunately.
I am crap on technology but surely he could have blocked him or just told him to F Off at least, just dumped the messages. I cannot see my 16 year old self keeping 270+ messages from a creep on my phone or suffering it for 6 months ( even if they had not been invented then ).
But as shock about Mackay’s conduct reverberated around Holyrood, questions also emerged about the timing of Sturgeon’s actions. Today it emerged that the Scottish Sun first told Sturgeon’s office about its plans to publish Mackay’s messages at about 5.30pm on Wednesday, putting in train an urgent series of conversations between Sturgeon, Mackay and SNP lawyers.
Sturgeon’s official spokesman confirmed on Thursday afternoon that Alan Muir, the Scottish Sun’s editor, had telephoned him before 6pm to lay out the substance of the Sun story. Later that evening – her spokesman refused to say when – Mackay agreed to resign.
It was not until 8am on Thursday, 14 hours after she was told of the allegations and nine hours after the Sun’s stories went online, that Sturgeon announced Mackay’s resignation in a short statement. The spokesman said they wanted to give Mackay time to tell his family about the Sun’s revelations. Yet, despite their acknowledged seriousness, it was not until noon on Thursday that Sturgeon said in an emergency statement that he had also been suspended from the SNP.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
The usual answer in such circumstances is that they were scared of what would happen and didn’t know who to trust or who could help them.
Could be but you would have hoped he could trust his parents.
It is very common for teenagers not to trust their parents over such things, unfortunately.
Rarely took my girl-friends home to meet my parents; my father was pretty well always unpleasant to them. It was such an unusual event that when, at 22 or so I got engage and rang home (I was a student at the time) to tell them they were not very enthusiastic, complaining that 'they'd never really met her'. My sister's experience was similar.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
The usual answer in such circumstances is that they were scared of what would happen and didn’t know who to trust or who could help them.
Could be but you would have hoped he could trust his parents.
It is very common for teenagers not to trust their parents over such things, unfortunately.
I am crap on technology but surely he could have blocked him or just told him to F Off at least, just dumped the messages. I cannot see my 16 year old self keeping 270+ messages from a creep on my phone or suffering it for 6 months ( even if they had not been invented then ).
Again, how would a teenager feel about telling someone who has such power and is so persistent to F off? Scared. Unhappy. Confused. I don’t think you understand teenagers very well, as one other poster has made rather more graphically clear.
Speaking for myself, I’m also really alarmed at 270 messages in 6 months. That’s pushing two a day.
But as shock about Mackay’s conduct reverberated around Holyrood, questions also emerged about the timing of Sturgeon’s actions. Today it emerged that the Scottish Sun first told Sturgeon’s office about its plans to publish Mackay’s messages at about 5.30pm on Wednesday, putting in train an urgent series of conversations between Sturgeon, Mackay and SNP lawyers.
Sturgeon’s official spokesman confirmed on Thursday afternoon that Alan Muir, the Scottish Sun’s editor, had telephoned him before 6pm to lay out the substance of the Sun story. Later that evening – her spokesman refused to say when – Mackay agreed to resign.
That is his personal choice given the system , a la Westminster. He is elected by the voters not unionist kangaroo courts. Personally I would say NO but my opinion is of no consequence, but is much more valid than a foreigner like yourself who should be more interested in the events/politics in the country you emigrated to rather than endlessly trying to denigrate Scotland which you left.
NO TRUE SCOT That didn't take long......
And once again you conflate the SNP with Scotland.
Criticism of the SNP ≠ Criticism of Scotland.
Once again why is an emigrant so fixated with denigrating Scotland and SNP in particular. You would almost think you were a paid up Tory worker. Take an interest in the country you live in, it is not healthy to obsess 100% on Scotland, in fact it is weird.
Malc, you seem to really have the wind up your sporran this morning.
Did you not have enough neeps with your haggis at your Burn’s night supper the other week, or something?
I am on form Casino, when I see what some of the septic fools on here post it gets on my goat. Not your goodself though. I am OK with sensible opinions and people defending their point of view but the petty nastiness of some of the unionists on here is pretty pathetic. Nothing relevant to topic , just SNPBAD, Scotland poor. Take the pathetic NIPPYKNEW that Carlotta adds to several posts, how childish and pathetic is that for a grown woman.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
The usual answer in such circumstances is that they were scared of what would happen and didn’t know who to trust or who could help them.
Could be but you would have hoped he could trust his parents.
It is very common for teenagers not to trust their parents over such things, unfortunately.
I am crap on technology but surely he could have blocked him or just told him to F Off at least, just dumped the messages. I cannot see my 16 year old self keeping 270+ messages from a creep on my phone or suffering it for 6 months ( even if they had not been invented then ).
Again, how would a teenager feel about telling someone who has such power and is so persistent to F off? Scared. Unhappy. Confused. I don’t think you understand teenagers very well, as one other poster has made rather more graphically clear.
Speaking for myself, I’m also really alarmed at 270 messages in 6 months. That’s pushing two a day.
Which is easy to believe if they’re the, “hi, how are you today?”, “Sleep well x”, and “I can’t stop thinking about you” type.
Of course, it’s relentless and creepy but that’s a given.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
The usual answer in such circumstances is that they were scared of what would happen and didn’t know who to trust or who could help them.
Could be but you would have hoped he could trust his parents.
It is very common for teenagers not to trust their parents over such things, unfortunately.
Rarely took my girl-friends home to meet my parents; my father was pretty well always unpleasant to them. It was such an unusual event that when, at 22 or so I got engage and rang home (I was a student at the time) to tell them they were not very enthusiastic, complaining that 'they'd never really met her'. My sister's experience was similar.
Behind every successful man there stands an astonished mother in law.
I’ve never understood why it’s so easy to block people on Facebook or Twitter but hard to do on mobile phones.
For example, I’d quite like to block Dominos from spamming me each week with pizza offers in text messages but - despite responding with a ‘stop’, it continues - I have no idea how to do it.
But as shock about Mackay’s conduct reverberated around Holyrood, questions also emerged about the timing of Sturgeon’s actions. Today it emerged that the Scottish Sun first told Sturgeon’s office about its plans to publish Mackay’s messages at about 5.30pm on Wednesday, putting in train an urgent series of conversations between Sturgeon, Mackay and SNP lawyers.
Sturgeon’s official spokesman confirmed on Thursday afternoon that Alan Muir, the Scottish Sun’s editor, had telephoned him before 6pm to lay out the substance of the Sun story. Later that evening – her spokesman refused to say when – Mackay agreed to resign.
It was not until 8am on Thursday, 14 hours after she was told of the allegations and nine hours after the Sun’s stories went online, that Sturgeon announced Mackay’s resignation in a short statement. The spokesman said they wanted to give Mackay time to tell his family about the Sun’s revelations. Yet, despite their acknowledged seriousness, it was not until noon on Thursday that Sturgeon said in an emergency statement that he had also been suspended from the SNP.
I’m not a fan of Sturgeon’s but that timeline seems entirely reasonable.
Told at 6pm. Sacked the next morning (or probably the night before but not announced until the morning).
Takes a few hours to realise it won’t blow over so suspends him
Also they need to get the lawyers opinions on it given if they get it wrong they are in deep trouble, I doubt many people look at SUN headlines and think it is the gospel truth. I would want indepth investigation before I sacked someone on the opinion of a SUN headline.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
The usual answer in such circumstances is that they were scared of what would happen and didn’t know who to trust or who could help them.
Could be but you would have hoped he could trust his parents.
It is very common for teenagers not to trust their parents over such things, unfortunately.
I am crap on technology but surely he could have blocked him or just told him to F Off at least, just dumped the messages. I cannot see my 16 year old self keeping 270+ messages from a creep on my phone or suffering it for 6 months ( even if they had not been invented then ).
Again, how would a teenager feel about telling someone who has such power and is so persistent to F off? Scared. Unhappy. Confused. I don’t think you understand teenagers very well, as one other poster has made rather more graphically clear.
Speaking for myself, I’m also really alarmed at 270 messages in 6 months. That’s pushing two a day.
The full transcript is worse than the edited highlights:
Sturgeon’s official spokesman confirmed on Thursday afternoon that Alan Muir, the Scottish Sun’s editor, had telephoned him before 6pm to lay out the substance of the Sun story. Later that evening – her spokesman refused to say when – Mackay agreed to resign.
That is his personal choice given the system , a la Westminster. He is elected by the voters not unionist kangaroo courts. Personally I would say NO but my opinion is of no consequence, but is much more valid than a foreigner like yourself who should be more interested in the events/politics in the country you emigrated to rather than endlessly trying to denigrate Scotland which you left.
NO TRUE SCOT That didn't take long......
And once again you conflate the SNP with Scotland.
Criticism of the SNP ≠ Criticism of Scotland.
Once again why is an emigrant so fixated with denigrating Scotland and SNP in particular. You would almost think you were a paid up Tory worker. Take an interest in the country you live in, it is not healthy to obsess 100% on Scotland, in fact it is weird.
Malc, you seem to really have the wind up your sporran this morning.
Did you not have enough neeps with your haggis at your Burn’s night supper the other week, or something?
I am on form Casino, when I see what some of the septic fools on here post it gets on my goat. Not your goodself though. I am OK with sensible opinions and people defending their point of view but the petty nastiness of some of the unionists on here is pretty pathetic. Nothing relevant to topic , just SNPBAD, Scotland poor. Take the pathetic NIPPYKNEW that Carlotta adds to several posts, how childish and pathetic is that for a grown woman.
Mate, the SNP had a bad day yesterday. It happens to all major political parties sooner or later - some sort of scandal affecting them tarnishes the front pages of all the papers and people take the piss.
I wouldn’t worry though. It will have precisely zero impact on the polling and success of the SNP - because identity - so it’s just a bit embarrassing.
With all due respect, that's a completely made up number given that Indian GDP in 1947 was just 93.7bn Rupees. Using INR 5 : $1, we come up with a 1947 GDP of approximately $20bn (or maybe a little less).
If we assume that Indian GDP did not grow during the preceding 150 years, then the total economic output of India was around $3trillion over the period.
Now, the British (and the Scots, who led the British Empire in much of the world) were a rapacious bunch. But I think they'd have struggled to steal more than thirteen times the cumulative economic output of India for 150 odd years.
Yebbut: £20bn in 1947 = c.$10 trillion in today's money
$20bn in 1947 != $10trillion in today's money.
So, $20bn in 1947 is worth $120bn in 2020. Let's assume no economic growth for 150 years (which is unbelievably generous to the man making the assumption), and you still only get cumulative economic output over 150 years of $18 trillion.
In other words, even if every cent of every Indian's economic output was stolen by the British (which it wasn't), it would still only come to a total $18 trillion.
It also fails to take into account any investment the other way, such as in agricultural improvements, canals, railways, roads, telegraphy, ports, courts and civic buildings, education infrastructure and the costs of defence.
It's also unfortunate for that argument that land taxation decreased during the colonial period from what the Mughals used to charge - from about 15% of income down to about 1% - and we don't hear very much about them.
The real issue was that the Indian population grew at the same rate as the economy over the period, meaning per capita incomes didn't change very much.
Typical unionist numbers, one two remove a few and stick it in your pocket. They are still at it with their last colony, they put on false numbers on Scotland ad nauseum and pocket the rest.
What do you think the UK is “pocketing” from Scotland?
Of course, the truth is the reverse but the UK would still be blamed (probably for all time) if Scotland did become independent and this deficit was fully exposed.
But as shock about Mackay’s conduct reverberated around Holyrood, questions also emerged about the timing of Sturgeon’s actions. Today it emerged that the Scottish Sun first told Sturgeon’s office about its plans to publish Mackay’s messages at about 5.30pm on Wednesday, putting in train an urgent series of conversations between Sturgeon, Mackay and SNP lawyers.
Sturgeon’s official spokesman confirmed on Thursday afternoon that Alan Muir, the Scottish Sun’s editor, had telephoned him before 6pm to lay out the substance of the Sun story. Later that evening – her spokesman refused to say when – Mackay agreed to resign.
It was not until 8am on Thursday, 14 hours after she was told of the allegations and nine hours after the Sun’s stories went online, that Sturgeon announced Mackay’s resignation in a short statement. The spokesman said they wanted to give Mackay time to tell his family about the Sun’s revelations. Yet, despite their acknowledged seriousness, it was not until noon on Thursday that Sturgeon said in an emergency statement that he had also been suspended from the SNP.
That is his personal choice given the system , a la Westminster. He is elected by the voters not unionist kangaroo courts. Personally I would say NO but my opinion is of no consequence, but is much more valid than a foreigner like yourself who should be more interested in the events/politics in the country you emigrated to rather than endlessly trying to denigrate Scotland which you left.
NO TRUE SCOT That didn't take long......
And once again you conflate the SNP with Scotland.
Criticism of the SNP ≠ Criticism of Scotland.
Once again why is an emigrant so fixated with denigrating Scotland and SNP in particular. You would almost think you were a paid up Tory worker. Take an interest in the country you live in, it is not healthy to obsess 100% on Scotland, in fact it is weird.
Am surprised malc you are standing by the current SNP leadership as the best hope for independence.
Seems to be the equivalent of supporting May and Hammond in the hope that Brexit would happen.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
The usual answer in such circumstances is that they were scared of what would happen and didn’t know who to trust or who could help them.
Could be but you would have hoped he could trust his parents.
It is very common for teenagers not to trust their parents over such things, unfortunately.
I am crap on technology but surely he could have blocked him or just told him to F Off at least, just dumped the messages. I cannot see my 16 year old self keeping 270+ messages from a creep on my phone or suffering it for 6 months ( even if they had not been invented then ).
Again, how would a teenager feel about telling someone who has such power and is so persistent to F off? Scared. Unhappy. Confused. I don’t think you understand teenagers very well, as one other poster has made rather more graphically clear.
Speaking for myself, I’m also really alarmed at 270 messages in 6 months. That’s pushing two a day.
Certainly not an expert on teenagers, but if scared then surely there are anonymous helplines etc. Personally mother going straight to SUN rings alarm bells, not exactly the first thing that would have come to my mind either and certainly not what my mother would have done. She would have paid him a visit and read him his horoscope.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
The usual answer in such circumstances is that they were scared of what would happen and didn’t know who to trust or who could help them.
Could be but you would have hoped he could trust his parents.
It is very common for teenagers not to trust their parents over such things, unfortunately.
I am crap on technology but surely he could have blocked him or just told him to F Off at least, just dumped the messages. I cannot see my 16 year old self keeping 270+ messages from a creep on my phone or suffering it for 6 months ( even if they had not been invented then ).
Again, how would a teenager feel about telling someone who has such power and is so persistent to F off? Scared. Unhappy. Confused. I don’t think you understand teenagers very well, as one other poster has made rather more graphically clear.
Speaking for myself, I’m also really alarmed at 270 messages in 6 months. That’s pushing two a day.
Certainly not an expert on teenagers, but if scared then surely there are anonymous helplines etc. Personally mother going straight to SUN rings alarm bells, not exactly the first thing that would have come to my mind either and certainly not what my mother would have done. She would have paid him a visit and read him his horoscope.
It certainly doesn’t say much for her level of trust in Police Scotland. But we can hardly blame her for that.
That is his personal choice given the system , a la Westminster. He is elected by the voters not unionist kangaroo courts. Personally I would say NO but my opinion is of no consequence, but is much more valid than a foreigner like yourself who should be more interested in the events/politics in the country you emigrated to rather than endlessly trying to denigrate Scotland which you left.
NO TRUE SCOT That didn't take long......
And once again you conflate the SNP with Scotland.
Criticism of the SNP ≠ Criticism of Scotland.
Once again why is an emigrant so fixated with denigrating Scotland and SNP in particular. You would almost think you were a paid up Tory worker. Take an interest in the country you live in, it is not healthy to obsess 100% on Scotland, in fact it is weird.
Malc, you seem to really have the wind up your sporran this morning.
Did you not have enough neeps with your haggis at your Burn’s night supper the other week, or something?
I am on form Casino, when I see what some of the septic fools on here post it gets on my goat. Not your goodself though. I am OK with sensible opinions and people defending their point of view but the petty nastiness of some of the unionists on here is pretty pathetic. Nothing relevant to topic , just SNPBAD, Scotland poor. Take the pathetic NIPPYKNEW that Carlotta adds to several posts, how childish and pathetic is that for a grown woman.
Mate, the SNP had a bad day yesterday. It happens to all major political parties sooner or later - some sort of scandal affecting them tarnishes the front pages of all the papers and people take the piss.
I wouldn’t worry though. It will have precisely zero impact on the polling and success of the SNP - because identity - so it’s just a bit embarrassing.
No surprise , they have a clique at top that needs sorting out from political viewpoint. I am no fan of a lot of their choices and do not rate Sturgeon very highly given many are her choice. Clear out of many advisors etc needed.
I’ve never understood why it’s so easy to block people on Facebook or Twitter but hard to do on mobile phones.
For example, I’d quite like to block Dominos from spamming me each week with pizza offers in text messages but - despite responding with a ‘stop’, it continues - I have no idea how to do it.
Try sending STOP to Dominos. In general it is easy to block text messages from particular numbers but the details vary slightly depending what you use.
But as shock about Mackay’s conduct reverberated around Holyrood, questions also emerged about the timing of Sturgeon’s actions. Today it emerged that the Scottish Sun first told Sturgeon’s office about its plans to publish Mackay’s messages at about 5.30pm on Wednesday, putting in train an urgent series of conversations between Sturgeon, Mackay and SNP lawyers.
That is his personal choice given the system , a la Westminster. He is elected by the voters not unionist kangaroo courts. Personally I would say NO but my opinion is of no consequence, but is much more valid than a foreigner like yourself who should be more interested in the events/politics in the country you emigrated to rather than endlessly trying to denigrate Scotland which you left.
NO TRUE SCOT That didn't take long......
And once again you conflate the SNP with Scotland.
Criticism of the SNP ≠ Criticism of Scotland.
Once again why is an emigrant so fixated with denigrating Scotland and SNP in particular. You would almost think you were a paid up Tory worker. Take an interest in the country you live in, it is not healthy to obsess 100% on Scotland, in fact it is weird.
Am surprised malc you are standing by the current SNP leadership as the best hope for independence.
Seems to be the equivalent of supporting May and Hammond in the hope that Brexit would happen.
Not sure how you work that out Harry, I am no fan of Sturgeon or many of the dodgy people she has appointed, quite the opposite. Not confident she will manage it for sure but way things are going I do not see her being around a long time.
Mate, the SNP had a bad day yesterday. It happens to all major political parties sooner or later - some sort of scandal affecting them tarnishes the front pages of all the papers and people take the piss.
I wouldn’t worry though. It will have precisely zero impact on the polling and success of the SNP - because identity - so it’s just a bit embarrassing.
Because the opposition is crap is at least as powerful a foundation stone of the SNP's continuing success.
An indication of that is that the SCons have been having a leadership election for several weeks and I don't think I've seen one post by Tories, Unionists, BJ fans etc on here about it, as opposed to hundreds of posts on the SNP. I get that a field that only has Carlaw and Ballantyne in it is embarrassing, but still..
Mate, the SNP had a bad day yesterday. It happens to all major political parties sooner or later - some sort of scandal affecting them tarnishes the front pages of all the papers and people take the piss.
I wouldn’t worry though. It will have precisely zero impact on the polling and success of the SNP - because identity - so it’s just a bit embarrassing.
Because the opposition is crap is at least as powerful a foundation stone of the SNP's continuing success.
An indication of that is that the SCons have been having a leadership election for several weeks and I don't think I've seen one post by Tories, Unionists, BJ fans etc on here about it, as opposed to hundreds of posts on the SNP. I get that a field that only has Carlaw and Ballantyne in it is embarrassing, but still..
I don’t know anything about it.
Personally, I think Ruth Davidson is still the best candidate but I gather she has her own reasons for not wanting it anymore.
I’ve never understood why it’s so easy to block people on Facebook or Twitter but hard to do on mobile phones.
For example, I’d quite like to block Dominos from spamming me each week with pizza offers in text messages but - despite responding with a ‘stop’, it continues - I have no idea how to do it.
Try sending STOP to Dominos. In general it is easy to block text messages from particular numbers but the details vary slightly depending what you use.
Yeah, already tried that.
I don’t know how to block. I could phone O2 customer helpdesk I suppose.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
The usual answer in such circumstances is that they were scared of what would happen and didn’t know who to trust or who could help them.
Could be but you would have hoped he could trust his parents.
It is very common for teenagers not to trust their parents over such things, unfortunately.
I am crap on technology but surely he could have blocked him or just told him to F Off at least, just dumped the messages. I cannot see my 16 year old self keeping 270+ messages from a creep on my phone or suffering it for 6 months ( even if they had not been invented then ).
Again, how would a teenager feel about telling someone who has such power and is so persistent to F off? Scared. Unhappy. Confused. I don’t think you understand teenagers very well, as one other poster has made rather more graphically clear.
Speaking for myself, I’m also really alarmed at 270 messages in 6 months. That’s pushing two a day.
The full transcript is worse than the edited highlights:
Pete Buttigieg is longer to win the Iowa caucus with 100% declared than he was when 85% were declared. Betfair have an interesting question when they’re going to declare a winner on their market, given the continuing queries about the detail of the count.
What's also slightly absurd is that - if they reran the caucus - then Buttigieg would win at a canter, because he'd get more Klobuchar and Biden votes, than Sanders would get Warren ones.
BF hasn`t settled the market yet.
Has anyone who backed Sanders (on final alignment votes) with other bookies been paid out yet? I`m guessing not.
The BF`s Iowa market is still live. They are, I assume, waiting for confirmation that there will be no recount of any sort before they settle the market. If there are no recounts they will pay out on Buttgieg as he is the winner under their rules.
Mate, the SNP had a bad day yesterday. It happens to all major political parties sooner or later - some sort of scandal affecting them tarnishes the front pages of all the papers and people take the piss.
I wouldn’t worry though. It will have precisely zero impact on the polling and success of the SNP - because identity - so it’s just a bit embarrassing.
Because the opposition is crap is at least as powerful a foundation stone of the SNP's continuing success.
An indication of that is that the SCons have been having a leadership election for several weeks and I don't think I've seen one post by Tories, Unionists, BJ fans etc on here about it, as opposed to hundreds of posts on the SNP. I get that a field that only has Carlaw and Ballantyne in it is embarrassing, but still..
I don’t know anything about it.
Personally, I think Ruth Davidson is still the best candidate but I gather she has her own reasons for not wanting it anymore.
She wants to be Governor of Scotland using back door as she knows she will never win an election in Scotland. Her only hope is Boris putting her in the Lords and making her the Rajah of Scotland
Mate, the SNP had a bad day yesterday. It happens to all major political parties sooner or later - some sort of scandal affecting them tarnishes the front pages of all the papers and people take the piss.
I wouldn’t worry though. It will have precisely zero impact on the polling and success of the SNP - because identity - so it’s just a bit embarrassing.
Because the opposition is crap is at least as powerful a foundation stone of the SNP's continuing success.
An indication of that is that the SCons have been having a leadership election for several weeks and I don't think I've seen one post by Tories, Unionists, BJ fans etc on here about it, as opposed to hundreds of posts on the SNP. I get that a field that only has Carlaw and Ballantyne in it is embarrassing, but still..
I don’t know anything about it.
Personally, I think Ruth Davidson is still the best candidate but I gather she has her own reasons for not wanting it anymore.
Once Ruth joins the HoL she can then slide into the SoS for Scotland role. I'd imagine that's BJ's cunning plan for Scotland, though how that helps the SCons become a viable, effective opposition I don't know, rather the reverse I'd say.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
The usual answer in such circumstances is that they were scared of what would happen and didn’t know who to trust or who could help them.
Could be but you would have hoped he could trust his parents.
It is very common for teenagers not to trust their parents over such things, unfortunately.
I am crap on technology but surely he could have blocked him or just told him to F Off at least, just dumped the messages. I cannot see my 16 year old self keeping 270+ messages from a creep on my phone or suffering it for 6 months ( even if they had not been invented then ).
Again, how would a teenager feel about telling someone who has such power and is so persistent to F off? Scared. Unhappy. Confused. I don’t think you understand teenagers very well, as one other poster has made rather more graphically clear.
Speaking for myself, I’m also really alarmed at 270 messages in 6 months. That’s pushing two a day.
Certainly not an expert on teenagers, but if scared then surely there are anonymous helplines etc. Personally mother going straight to SUN rings alarm bells, not exactly the first thing that would have come to my mind either and certainly not what my mother would have done. She would have paid him a visit and read him his horoscope.
It certainly doesn’t say much for her level of trust in Police Scotland. But we can hardly blame her for that.
Maybe the pound signs were too enticing, certainly looks like it.
Looks like A was bemused by Mackay's attention and humouring him
The lad seems to have handled an awkward situation well.
Mr Mackay seems confident and practised.
I disagree, one F Off and a warning that you would contact police if he pestered you again would have been handling it well, not replying to him for 6 months.
Unlike all the troughers and ne'er do wells at Westminster, unionists and double standards you have to laugh.
Ah, the "Westminster is worse" defence. Wondered how long before that one would come into play.
Look at that Herald headline. No, not about McKay. "A third more Scots now paying tax at higher rates". If you can't see the toxic link between higher tax being paid by Scots and those taxpayers funding a golden goodbye for a guy trawling for dick pics off 16 year old lads.....
In fairness I think he was trawling for dick pics off a 21 year old....
He was asking for "naughty pictures" off a person who is now 16, and may have been 15 for part of the time?
Regardless, if he had received any, then he'd be in a mountain of trouble under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 section 52A - which makes it an offence to have in your possession any indecent image of a child under 18.
Which, er, exposes an interesting conflict between laws when they can have sex at 16 but can't send "naughty pictures" until they are 18.
The mortality rate seems lower than projected then though.
That simplistic model will break down at some point, but not much sign of it yet. The key is the number of transmissions per infected case. That needs to drop.
618/638 reported fatalities have been in Hubei so far, so the rather extreme quarantine measures seem to be having some effect. I don't think any other country could have enforced them.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
The usual answer in such circumstances is that they were scared of what would happen and didn’t know who to trust or who could help them.
Could be but you would have hoped he could trust his parents.
It is very common for teenagers not to trust their parents over such things, unfortunately.
I am crap on technology but surely he could have blocked him or just told him to F Off at least, just dumped the messages. I cannot see my 16 year old self keeping 270+ messages from a creep on my phone or suffering it for 6 months ( even if they had not been invented then ).
Again, how would a teenager feel about telling someone who has such power and is so persistent to F off? Scared. Unhappy. Confused. I don’t think you understand teenagers very well, as one other poster has made rather more graphically clear.
Speaking for myself, I’m also really alarmed at 270 messages in 6 months. That’s pushing two a day.
Certainly not an expert on teenagers, but if scared then surely there are anonymous helplines etc. Personally mother going straight to SUN rings alarm bells, not exactly the first thing that would have come to my mind either and certainly not what my mother would have done. She would have paid him a visit and read him his horoscope.
It certainly doesn’t say much for her level of trust in Police Scotland. But we can hardly blame her for that.
Maybe the pound signs were too enticing, certainly looks like it.
Always looking for the best in your fellow Scots....
Unlike all the troughers and ne'er do wells at Westminster, unionists and double standards you have to laugh.
Ah, the "Westminster is worse" defence. Wondered how long before that one would come into play.
Look at that Herald headline. No, not about McKay. "A third more Scots now paying tax at higher rates". If you can't see the toxic link between higher tax being paid by Scots and those taxpayers funding a golden goodbye for a guy trawling for dick pics off 16 year old lads.....
In fairness I think he was trawling for dick pics off a 21 year old....
He was asking for "naughty pictures" off a person who is now 16, and may have been 15 for part of the time?
Regardless, if he had received any, then he'd be in a mountain of trouble under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 section 52A - which makes it an offence to have in your possession any indecent image of a child under 18.
Which, er, exposes an interesting conflict between laws when they can have sex at 16 but can't send "naughty pictures" until they are 18.
Naughty pictures are arguably worse than consensual sex since once online they can be online forever.
Mate, the SNP had a bad day yesterday. It happens to all major political parties sooner or later - some sort of scandal affecting them tarnishes the front pages of all the papers and people take the piss.
I wouldn’t worry though. It will have precisely zero impact on the polling and success of the SNP - because identity - so it’s just a bit embarrassing.
Because the opposition is crap is at least as powerful a foundation stone of the SNP's continuing success.
An indication of that is that the SCons have been having a leadership election for several weeks and I don't think I've seen one post by Tories, Unionists, BJ fans etc on here about it, as opposed to hundreds of posts on the SNP. I get that a field that only has Carlaw and Ballantyne in it is embarrassing, but still..
I don’t know anything about it.
Personally, I think Ruth Davidson is still the best candidate but I gather she has her own reasons for not wanting it anymore.
Once Ruth joins the HoL she can then slide into the SoS for Scotland role. I'd imagine that's BJ's cunning plan for Scotland, though how that helps the SCons become a viable, effective opposition I don't know, rather the reverse I'd say.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
The usual answer in such circumstances is that they were scared of what would happen and didn’t know who to trust or who could help them.
Could be but you would have hoped he could trust his parents.
It is very common for teenagers not to trust their parents over such things, unfortunately.
I am crap on technology but surely he could have blocked him or just told him to F Off at least, just dumped the messages. I cannot see my 16 year old self keeping 270+ messages from a creep on my phone or suffering it for 6 months ( even if they had not been invented then ).
Again, how would a teenager feel about telling someone who has such power and is so persistent to F off? Scared. Unhappy. Confused. I don’t think you understand teenagers very well, as one other poster has made rather more graphically clear.
Speaking for myself, I’m also really alarmed at 270 messages in 6 months. That’s pushing two a day.
Certainly not an expert on teenagers, but if scared then surely there are anonymous helplines etc. Personally mother going straight to SUN rings alarm bells, not exactly the first thing that would have come to my mind either and certainly not what my mother would have done. She would have paid him a visit and read him his horoscope.
It certainly doesn’t say much for her level of trust in Police Scotland. But we can hardly blame her for that.
Maybe the pound signs were too enticing, certainly looks like it.
Always looking for the best in your fellow Scots....
If it was your son , would your first action have been to call the SUN then.
Celebrate Rayner getting deputy, I expect. There seems very little appetite for intra-party feuding at the moment.
I'll be voting for her and celebrating. I think Starmer and Rayner between them could reunite the party. And unlike Long-Bailey, she's certainly not going to be in Momentum's pocket, so I don't think that Momentum will be celebrating. I suspect that in general she'll vote with Starmer on key votes on the NEC.
"Rayner has been loyal to Corbyn, but she does not define herself as a Corbynista and backed Andy Burnham in the 2015 leadership election: “I’m Labour through and through, and I wouldn’t define myself by a particular leader.” She is a socialist, but less ideological one than some of her colleagues. “Ideology never put food on my table,” she says. She has successfully scuppered Theresa May’s flagship policy to build a new generation of grammar schools, but doesn’t propose abolishing existing ones because that would mean destroying good schools. She makes an economic case for better education, health and social care, arguing that early intervention and proper support will save money in the long run. She even praises Blair for winning three elections. “I’ve been considered rightwing, moderate, hard left,” she says. “I see myself as soft left. I’m very pragmatic. I’m interested in how we can change lives for the better; how we can we put socialism into practice. Every time we expend energy on fighting each other, we’re letting down the people that need us the most.”"
The hard left seem to be in disarray. My guess is they’ll split into lots of pieces quite soon. Burgon seems to be positioning himself to lead one of the factions. Long-Bailey will have to decide whether she joins the mainstream or remains a Tribunite first and foremost. I think she has a future if she decides to breakaway.
RLB is a careerist, who hitched her herself to UNITE to get herself selected as an MP, then to the Corbyn bandwagon get herself prominence in the party. If she deems getting behind the Starmer project will keep herself relevant, she'll do that.
Pete Buttigieg is longer to win the Iowa caucus with 100% declared than he was when 85% were declared. Betfair have an interesting question when they’re going to declare a winner on their market, given the continuing queries about the detail of the count.
Associate Press have said that they will not be declaring a winner.
Errors spotted during tabulation are still in the 'final' count.
Was just wondering why, if the SNP consider 16 year olds adults, they think McKay has done anything wrong
It's a valid question. If the criticism was about inappropriate behavior or harrassment, then there would be a point as McKay's behavior was creepy and the 16yr old was not interested. But lots of the comments have referred to him as a child and/or McKay's behavior as grooming, which raises the question: if a 16yr old is a child, then why is 16 the age of consent? Conversely, if 16 is the age of consent, then why is he referred to as a child? People seem to be holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously.
One question is why if not interested did he wait six months and 270 messages without telling anyone and then it only comes out due to his mum looking at his phone.
God, you’re an unpleasant apologist for grooming. Think about how you would react if it had been your children/grandchildren.
Comments
Thread: https://twitter.com/N_Waters89/status/1225484003999920128?s=20
Conclusion: https://twitter.com/N_Waters89/status/1225508447501914112?s=20
https://twitter.com/AlexSalmond/status/443699927537831936?s=20
Sounds to me as if you know a bit too much about it.
Look at that Herald headline. No, not about McKay. "A third more Scots now paying tax at higher rates". If you can't see the toxic link between higher tax being paid by Scots and those taxpayers funding a golden goodbye for a guy trawling for dick pics off 16 year old lads.....
Personally I would say NO but my opinion is of no consequence, but is much more valid than a foreigner like yourself who should be more interested in the events/politics in the country you emigrated to rather than endlessly trying to denigrate Scotland which you left.
Of course, the truth is the reverse but the UK would still be blamed (probably for all time) if Scotland did become independent and this deficit was fully exposed.
That is his personal choice given the system , a la Westminster. He is elected by the voters not unionist kangaroo courts.
Personally I would say NO but my opinion is of no consequence, but is much more valid than a foreigner like yourself who should be more interested in the events/politics in the country you emigrated to rather than endlessly trying to denigrate Scotland which you left.
That didn't take long......
And once again you conflate the SNP with Scotland.
Criticism of the SNP ≠ Criticism of Scotland.
You seem to think that not reporting something is evidence that a person was "interested", "thick arsehole" indeed.
Pretty sick trying to conflate tax policies with an idiots personal life.
Take an interest in the country you live in, it is not healthy to obsess 100% on Scotland, in fact it is weird.
Last night, I managed to locate my stars 50p. No idea where the hands one is, though.
Huzzah!
Did you not have enough neeps with your haggis at your Burn’s night supper the other week, or something?
Told at 6pm. Sacked the next morning (or probably the night before but not announced until the morning).
Takes a few hours to realise it won’t blow over so suspends him
My sister's experience was similar.
Speaking for myself, I’m also really alarmed at 270 messages in 6 months. That’s pushing two a day.
Take the pathetic NIPPYKNEW that Carlotta adds to several posts, how childish and pathetic is that for a grown woman.
Of course, it’s relentless and creepy but that’s a given.
For example, I’d quite like to block Dominos from spamming me each week with pizza offers in text messages but - despite responding with a ‘stop’, it continues - I have no idea how to do it.
I would want indepth investigation before I sacked someone on the opinion of a SUN headline.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5254052/full-transcript-snp-derek-mackay-messages-schoolboy/
I wouldn’t worry though. It will have precisely zero impact on the polling and success of the SNP - because identity - so it’s just a bit embarrassing.
Seems to be the equivalent of supporting May and Hammond in the hope that Brexit would happen.
That’s really not the question here.
Personally mother going straight to SUN rings alarm bells, not exactly the first thing that would have come to my mind either and certainly not what my mother would have done. She would have paid him a visit and read him his horoscope.
Mr Mackay seems confident and practised.
Clear out of many advisors etc needed.
Not confident she will manage it for sure but way things are going I do not see her being around a long time.
An indication of that is that the SCons have been having a leadership election for several weeks and I don't think I've seen one post by Tories, Unionists, BJ fans etc on here about it, as opposed to hundreds of posts on the SNP. I get that a field that only has Carlaw and Ballantyne in it is embarrassing, but still..
Personally, I think Ruth Davidson is still the best candidate but I gather she has her own reasons for not wanting it anymore.
I don’t know how to block. I could phone O2 customer helpdesk I suppose.
Has anyone who backed Sanders (on final alignment votes) with other bookies been paid out yet? I`m guessing not.
The BF`s Iowa market is still live. They are, I assume, waiting for confirmation that there will be no recount of any sort before they settle the market. If there are no recounts they will pay out on Buttgieg as he is the winner under their rules.
The tories can't get too prurient over it given Johnson is a creampie-and-goodbye merchant from way back.
Regardless, if he had received any, then he'd be in a mountain of trouble under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 section 52A - which makes it an offence to have in your possession any indecent image of a child under 18.
Which, er, exposes an interesting conflict between laws when they can have sex at 16 but can't send "naughty pictures" until they are 18.
618/638 reported fatalities have been in Hubei so far, so the rather extreme quarantine measures seem to be having some effect. I don't think any other country could have enforced them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFOoRAp5QtM
Imagine taking a story about grooming and twisting it to their obsession about trans people.
This is beyond fucked up.
Errors spotted during tabulation are still in the 'final' count.
Not that the mass of plants bursting into life seem to know that.
NEW THREAD