AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

The number of Coronavirus cases has risen from 28,353 to 31,477 overnight. Deaths 638, with the number of recovered still stubbornly low at 1,588.

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

Tracking against this tweet from last month, it seems the infection rate is well ahead of this gloomy projection:

https://twitter.com/solankesanjay/status/1221807294926614528?s=21

The mortality rate seems lower than projected then though.

CarlottaVance said:

#NippyKnew

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/06/derek-mackays-resignation-may-derail-snps-policy-agenda?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

malcolmg said:

This says it all
https://twitter.com/Grouse_Beater/status/1225488565917884417/photo/1

$45 trillion?

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.

viewcode said:

isam said:

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.

malcolmg said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

malcolmg said:

This says it all
https://twitter.com/Grouse_Beater/status/1225488565917884417/photo/1

$45 trillion?

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.

malcolmg said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

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.

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

malcolmg said:

This says it all
https://twitter.com/Grouse_Beater/status/1225488565917884417/photo/1

$45 trillion?

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?

TGOHF666 said:

https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/1225660461691146240?s=21

kamski said:

malcolmg said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

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

malcolmg said:

MarqueeMark said:

This won't play well - McKay gets £12,000 golden goodbye:

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5256261/derek-mackay-golden-goodbye-resettlement-money/

Unlike all the troughers and ne'er do wells at Westminster, unionists and double standards you have to laugh.

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

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.

malcolmg said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

malcolmg said:

This says it all
https://twitter.com/Grouse_Beater/status/1225488565917884417/photo/1

$45 trillion?

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.

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

#NippyKnew

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/06/derek-mackays-resignation-may-derail-snps-policy-agenda?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

you really are desperate

Should Derek MacKay remain an MSP?

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.

malcolmg said:

kamski said:

malcolmg said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

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.

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

#NippyKnew

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/06/derek-mackays-resignation-may-derail-snps-policy-agenda?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

you really are desperate

Should Derek MacKay remain an MSP?

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.

Casino_Royale said:

malcolmg said:

Casino_Royale said:

rcs1000 said:

Benpointer said:

rcs1000 said:

malcolmg said:

This says it all
https://twitter.com/Grouse_Beater/status/1225488565917884417/photo/1

$45 trillion?

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.

TheGreenMachine said:

CarlottaVance said:

#NippyKnew

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/06/derek-mackays-resignation-may-derail-snps-policy-agenda?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

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 ).

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

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.

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

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.

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1225685617356365825?s=20

CarlottaVance said:

https://twitter.com/BrianSpanner1/status/1225566173460385793?s=20

Casino_Royale said:

malcolmg said:

Casino_Royale said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

malcolmg said:

CarlottaVance said:

#NippyKnew





https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/06/derek-mackays-resignation-may-derail-snps-policy-agenda?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

you really are desperate

Should Derek MacKay remain an MSP?

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.

Casino_Royale said:

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.

Casino_Royale said:

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.

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

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..

CarlottaVance said:

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

ydoethur said:

malcolmg said:

viewcode said:

isam said:

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:

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5254052/full-transcript-snp-derek-mackay-messages-schoolboy/

Pulpstar said:

Looks like A was bemused by Mackay's attention and humouring him

Casino_Royale said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Casino_Royale said:

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.

AlastairMeeks said:

Pulpstar said:

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.

CarlottaVance said:

MarqueeMark said:

malcolmg said:

MarqueeMark said:

This won't play well - McKay gets £12,000 golden goodbye:

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5256261/derek-mackay-golden-goodbye-resettlement-money/

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....

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

The number of Coronavirus cases has risen from 28,353 to 31,477 overnight. Deaths 638, with the number of recovered still stubbornly low at 1,588.

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

Tracking against this tweet from last month, it seems the infection rate is well ahead of this gloomy projection:

https://twitter.com/solankesanjay/status/1221807294926614528?s=21

The mortality rate seems lower than projected then though.

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

The number of Coronavirus cases has risen from 28,353 to 31,477 overnight. Deaths 638, with the number of recovered still stubbornly low at 1,588.

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

Tracking against this tweet from last month, it seems the infection rate is well ahead of this gloomy projection:

https://twitter.com/solankesanjay/status/1221807294926614528?s=21

The mortality rate seems lower than projected then though.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mark, that's a bizarre state of law.

Casino_Royale said:

I don’t know about coronoavirus but the majority of people on my train (and at work) all seem to have a cold.

Philip_Thompson said:

AlastairMeeks said:

MarqueeMark said:

The number of Coronavirus cases has risen from 28,353 to 31,477 overnight. Deaths 638, with the number of recovered still stubbornly low at 1,588.

https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

Tracking against this tweet from last month, it seems the infection rate is well ahead of this gloomy projection:

https://twitter.com/solankesanjay/status/1221807294926614528?s=21

The mortality rate seems lower than projected then though.

7.7 billion people infected seems a tad unlikely. When has an infection ever infected everybody on the planet?

SouthamObserver said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

NickPalmer said:

TGOHF666 said:

What will momentum do when RLB doesn’t win ?

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/28/angela-rayner-shadow-education-secretary-interview

"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.

CarlottaVance said:

Interesting thread on some of the unreported consequences of the MacKay affair:

https://twitter.com/TwisterFilm/status/1225471996701609984?s=20

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mark, that's a bizarre state of law.

Few about MD , you can get married but not smoke , die for your country but not buy a drink, etc

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

I don’t know about coronoavirus but the majority of people on my train (and at work) all seem to have a cold.

Its February. If it wasn't for the news would you even notice that in February?

Probably, because dawn is now starting to break when I stand on my train platform in the morning.

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Casino_Royale said:

I don’t know about coronoavirus but the majority of people on my train (and at work) all seem to have a cold.

Its February. If it wasn't for the news would you even notice that in February?

Probably, because dawn is now starting to break when I stand on my train platform in the morning.

It starts to get lighter before it starts to get warmer. Its still winter.

Dura_Ace said:

malcolmg said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Mark, that's a bizarre state of law.

Few about MD , you can get married but not smoke , die for your country but not buy a drink, etc

You can't die for your country as service personnel under 18 don't go on ops.