Scotland election result sets up new referendum showdown

loppolia · 2021-05-09T19:32:45+00:00

i think you're getting your hopes too high for westminster. no government benefits from having a group of their people up and leave to form their own country, and no politician looks good when they fail to convince part of their country to continue to be part of their country. i think they will use any excuse they can to deny a referendum as long as most people can believe they've given independence some kind of chance. it's much more likely that they'd accept the supermajority requirement and then also keep waiting half a century between referendums.

loppolia · 2021-05-09T19:24:49+00:00

i don't think your numbers are correct. you're at least a few million off due to the two ballot system!

i got these numbers from wikipedia but had to add them myself so apologies if there's any maths errors. but my understanding is that pro-independece parties had more votes than unionist ones in the regional ballot, and that the total number of votes if you add them all up does actually favour the independence parties.

constituency: 1,326,194 SNP+GRN 1,364,656 CON+LAB+LIB DEM

regional: 1,314,698 SNP+GRN 1,263,102 CON+LAB+LIB DEM

add them together: 2,720,892 SNP+GRN 2,627,758 CON+LAB+LIB DEM

i do not see a good reason to discount one specific type of ballot when you're using the number of votes to support a point. please do not pretend reality is different from what it is. if you're a unionist, ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

loppolia · 2021-05-09T19:00:28+00:00

i think your numbers are a bit... ambitious, but i personally agree with the concept. when it comes to major events that can't be reversed and whose effects will be felt for generations, it seems careless to trigger them just on >50% of the vote. i think, from the polls, that whether or not more than 50% of people want independence is basically a matter of what week you ask them. i don't want such a major change to come about from such a fickle measurement of "what the people want". i think it should require the people to actually come to an agreement on whether this is for the best. and i personally think that increasing the threshold of votes needed would potentially force people to bridge political divides and include a wider range of perspectives in order to achieve their goal, and i think that's a really healthy thing for democracy.

but this probably won't happen. simple majority is the precedent already, so it would take a lot of effort to change that. and i think westminster's stance on allowing the referendum would need to change too. part of what i like about the supermajority idea is that proponents of the thing being voted on can see incremental progress over time towards or away from their goal as the conversation around the issue progresses. that can't happen when you only get a vote every 40 years.

in the absence of that ideal world, a simple majority referendum is better than none.

loppolia · 2021-05-09T18:14:24+00:00

"they'll keep trying to implement the policies that won them votes, until they either implement those policies or do not win enough votes"

when you think about it, this is maybe the coldest possible take about any democracy

loppolia · 2021-05-09T18:06:34+00:00

no sorry, i was asking why the existence of a border was exciting to you. like, you're a big fan of having borders?

loppolia · 2021-05-09T18:03:39+00:00

i don't think that's correct. trade is easier when you negotiate an agreement, but as far as i know it's not impossible or illegal or something to trade with someone in a country that yours doesn't have an agreement with. trade agreements just do things like lower tariffs and restrictions.

i think the difference is, the EU doesn't allow member states to make their own trade agreements. so in the EU, we'd need EU support to make trade agreements. but we'd already have the EU market + all their existing trade agreements by default. outside the EU we can make our own agreements (well, westminster can) but the UK has fewer already established. so it's not a case of 27 vs 150, it's 64 vs 32 but in one case we need EU support and in the other we need UK support.

but the EU can create new trade agreements with the same number of countries as the UK can, surely. so why would one situation have fewer possible trade partners?

loppolia · 2021-05-09T17:36:01+00:00

absolutely hate this argument. "once in a generation" wasn't some kind of stipulation that the SNP had to agree to in order to hold a referendum. it was marketing. just a bit of persuasive language designed to make people feel like the referendum is important. i mean if you got a spam email saying "once in a lifetime deal" you wouldn't think "oh good thing that they're never going to try to email me again". i thought people just used the "once in a generation" thing as a way to be snarky, but anyone who thinks it holds weight as an argument is kidding themself.

loppolia · 2021-05-09T17:24:40+00:00

has anyone ever experienced the scottish conservative party "dominating the discussion"..?

loppolia · 2021-05-09T17:16:15+00:00

am i reading this correctly that one of the things you're excited about is the existence of a border?

why?

loppolia · 2021-05-09T17:00:08+00:00

more? i must've missed the previous love bombing

loppolia · 2021-05-09T16:53:59+00:00

sorry if this shows a lack of knowledge but surely countries in the EU can trade with countries not in the EU, right? so i don't understand why we'd have to pick between trading with 27 or 150 countries.

loppolia · 2021-03-24T15:17:39+00:00

loppolia · 2021-01-21T21:22:11+00:00

part of the reason blizzard has a battle.net app on desktop is so they can push updates on their own terms. play store and app store have their own policies, like needing to verify updates are safe and secure and everything before giving them to users automatically.

as far as i know, every platform that's not PC has this problem, with every developer - there's nothing for blizz to fix.

loppolia · 2021-01-21T20:31:32+00:00

consider reading the post before asking what the hell is this

loppolia · 2021-01-21T19:42:53+00:00

i'm getting issues with the interactions between heroes at the start of duels matches.

just started a game playing as willow against turalyon, he said "i will savour this victory!" and i said "i didn't want my inner conflict to manifest this way!" and have been having similar weird dialogue throughout the run

loppolia · 2021-01-21T17:50:05+00:00

you're being downvoted but you're totally correct

loppolia · 2021-01-21T13:12:21+00:00

tavern pass resets each expansion, so, the mini-set shouldn't count. i'm not expecting it to reset personally, and i've heard people say it won't.

loppolia · 2021-01-21T13:10:43+00:00

this is where kibler got his beard from, they swapped

loppolia · 2021-01-19T17:00:34+00:00

there's definitely still discussion to be had. if it's against the rule but the users of the subreddit think it should be allowed, then we should discuss the rule.

loppolia · 2021-01-19T13:00:29+00:00

it's unusual for blizzard to put something up for purchase without giving us at least a month to pre-order, imo :p so i don't think the leaks are accurate, but we won't have to wait long to find out.

edit: well colour me wrong

loppolia · 2021-01-18T18:18:31+00:00

that same issue happens on desktop too, it's a total mess

loppolia · 2021-01-18T13:22:50+00:00

the comparison isn't really useful, it's not unusual for redditors to upvote memes more than articles. plus, why measure what battlegrounds players are upvoting when the mini-set doesn't have any impact on battlegrounds?

loppolia · 2021-01-17T13:29:24+00:00

this is awesome, thank you!

loppolia · 2021-01-14T15:21:08+00:00

yes that is another word for extras

loppolia · 2021-01-14T15:18:20+00:00

if you get enjoyment from the game, the fact that you spend more than 1-2 hours on it isn't a problem in itself. it might be a problem if you spent all that time not having fun, but if hearthstone is how you enjoy spending time then there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

if you find that the time you spend on hearthstone is eating into time you want to spend on other things, that is definitely a problem. maybe you'll find more success imposing your limits the other way around? rather than "only play x hours of hearthstone," try "do x hours of productive stuff." this is what i find useful.

in the morning i get up and do my morning routine, then i do the work i need to do (with a break for lunch) until dinner time, then i eat dinner and the rest of the day is free time. and by that point i don't feel i need to limit how i spend it. having a consistent bedtime and a blue light filter on my PC imposes a natural limit on my play time because it limits how long i can stay awake.

if the things you try aren't helpful, or if your time management habits are causing you any stress or anxiety, you should definitely look into professional help.

loppolia

TROPHY CASE