Monday, June 29, 2015

Deafening cheers as Westminster celebrates using English votes to block Scottish Home Rule

Something extraordinary happened a few minutes ago in the House of Commons chamber.  It wasn't the fact that MPs voted against the addition of a new clause to the Scotland Bill that would have paved the way for Full Fiscal Autonomy.  It wasn't even the fact that they did so by 504 votes to 58 - that was expected, because we knew that Labour and the Tories would both vote against.  No, it was the fact that the result was greeted by deafening cheers - which, by definition, came almost exclusively from non-Scottish MPs.

We don't yet know the exact breakdown of the figures, but it's near-enough certain that the result among elected Scottish MPs was well over 50 in favour of Full Fiscal Autonomy, and only 3 against.  Among non-Scottish MPs, there must have been almost 500 votes against Full Fiscal Automony, and probably less than 10 in favour (the only likely possibilities are the 3 Plaid Cymru MPs and Caroline Lucas, and maybe the odd Tory like Edward Leigh).  In a nutshell, then, this was a straightforward battle between Scotland and the rest of the UK - and Scotland lost.  We lost simply because there are far more of 'them' than there are of 'us'.  The fact that this happened on an exclusively Scottish piece of legislation, at a time when we're constantly told that Scotland has no business having any influence at all on English laws, is nothing short of breathtaking.

What the hell did English Tory and Labour MPs think they were cheering about?  Did they persuade the Scottish electorate of the case against Full Fiscal Autonomy?  No.  Did they persuade Scotland's elected representatives?  No.  Scotland said Yes, but the London parties said No, and they presume to decide on our behalf.  If I'd been in their shoes, I wouldn't have been whooping in those circumstances, I'd have been sheepishly looking at the floor and hoping that someone would change the subject as a matter of some urgency.  By logical deduction, it can only be that they were consciously cheering the fact that they'd just overruled a democratic election result and got away with it.

Or rather, they think they've got away with it.  Over the last few weeks, they've been demonstrating the case for independence more eloquently and effectively than the SNP ever could, but they don't even seem to have noticed.  Hell mend them.

175 comments:

  1. Scotland is being treated as a colony. We must re-assert our nationhood.

    The referendum was fixed, Westminster intends to keep plundering us.

    We are a sovereign people, not feudal slaves.

    It is time to declare Independence, not go cap in hand asking for permission to hold another referendum (to be fixed a gain).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you mean "fixed" as in we had the full weight of the British state, its various institutions, corporations, the EU, and certain billionaire celebrities against us; or do you mean "fixed" as in vote-rigging, swapped ballot boxes, dodgy postal votes, or whatever the current conspiracy theory is?

      Delete
    2. Both, surely? We may never be sure of the facts, but the referendum HAD to be a 'No' vote for myriad reasons (Trident, oil, the destruction of the UK). Measures would have been in place especially after the soft soap campaign and the sneak tactics seemed to be increasing the 'Yes' vote. So rigging certainly took place, to some extent.

      Delete
    3. when have "facts" ever got in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

      Delete
    4. Re: Doug Daniel, rigging is no conspiracy, a woman from East Lothian will be on trial shortly in an Edinburgh Court shortly for handing in a whole stack of "dodgy" ballot papers "given" to her by an anonymous Edinburgh Civil servant, she was charged with theft after not being able to give the anonymous woman's identification !! Have you seen ANY newspaper publishing details of this alleged crime or have you heard any attempts at explaining the emergence of these papers ? What do you think the outcome of this court case will be ? Given that the hundreds of ballot papers will need to be produced in court for all to see ?? This case will be abandoned and the papers retained by the "Crown" and then destroyed. Not all conspiracies are lies my friend, and not all can be debunked by blase statements of "tin foil conspiracy theorists" Watch this space ;)

      Delete
    5. Both, surely? We may never be sure of the facts, but the referendum HAD to be a 'No' vote for myriad reasons (Trident, oil, the destruction of the UK). Measures would have been in place especially after the soft soap campaign and the sneak tactics seemed to be increasing the 'Yes' vote. So rigging certainly took place, to some extent.

      The fact that the state wanted a No result isn't evidence that it was rigged.

      Other anon: what's the name of the person who's been charged? Where'd you get the info?

      Delete
    6. https://www.facebook.com/ScottishUDI

      Delete
    7. The General Election polls were fixed to produce a No vote in the Scottish Referendum.

      Delete
    8. At Keaton, I am not about to give the name of the person who was charged, I know the person personally, but I will keep you posted on the outcome, it is 100% genuine and she was ask to present herself at the the police station a few days after handing them in , to be charged with theft. My friend was innocently handed the papers at a rally outside Holyrood (of which she was an organiser) shortly after the referendum by someone who wouldn't give their name, the police are more interested in finding out who the "leak" is. my friend was offered a £200 fine by the Procurator Fiscal, but has quite rightly refused it even though friends would have stumped up the cash. This case won't make it to trial in my opinion as the ballot papers would have to be produced as "evidence" but they are evidence of the wrong kind !! You see this is a catch 22, the papers are very real and very damning, had they been fake then no crime has been committed, so the papers are authentic and are proof of wrong doing.

      Delete
    9. Still waiting for the outcome of the police enquiry into how the leader of the Scottish Conservatives knew the outcome of the indyref postal ballot BEFORE the count had even started and how she was permitted to say so on live tv on the night.

      Delete
  2. Probably would have been better for Labour to abstain on this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The authors of the infamous VOW cheering alongside the tories voting down more powers for scotland?

      Nah, Don't see how that could ever come back to haunt them next year.

      #MorePandasThanLabourMPs

      :-)

      Delete
    2. we do not need England England needs us, think about it its time England stopped poncing off of Scotland, England export nothing because they make nothing

      Delete
  3. I watched proceedings this evening and like other debates on the Scotland Bill there were hardly any tories or labour members present during the actual debate yet they turned out in their droves for the actual votes from wherever they had been all evening. This is not democracy.

    Ian Murray proposed some completely ridiculous amendments to the bill to put in place an OBR for Scotland, presumably as we are the too stupid part of Swinneys famous quote. His speeches are getting more and more sneering with the usual mixture of SNP bad and talking Scotland down.

    I wonder how many Scots tuned in to watch this. I worry with the lack of balanced and fair coverage from press, TV and radio, some of the electorate will start to question what exactly the 56 are doing down there.

    If you watch the debates and follow their twitter feeds then you will be aware that they are active and trying to keep us informed by that medium but what about the average voter who only catches the odd half hour of TV news here and there or (god knows why) reads the odd Daily Record.

    The SNP are going to have to seriously address how to keep the Scottish people informed about what is going on in that place if they want to progress. Social Media has reached saturation point and is preaching to the choir and the unconvertible. Its the 20 to 30 per cent who catch occasional TV, radio and printed press that need to be presented with real news now and not the unionist agenda from the BBC, Record etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MPs can send regular newsletters to their constituents, can't they? That's at least 95% of Scotland covered.

      Delete
    2. yea i watched that they all turned up to vote i bet most of them didnt know what they were voting for just that it had to be against scotland

      Delete
    3. An idea HAS popped up recently to address this.Take a look at http://counterpropforum.com and see if you would like to help or at least spread the word. It is not only an SNP but 'all of us' group. (tried four times to use WP ID but failed)

      Delete
    4. MichaelC : I totally agree. This has been bothering me for a while now. Obviously we have a responsibility to keep ourselves informed, but equally the party we voted for - the SNP - has a responsibility to communicate with the eloctorate clearly and regularly. I have emailed my new SNP MP several times, without reply and have assumed he is still busy settling in, getting staff, somewhere to stay etc. But that's nearly 2 months now.

      Delete
    5. I too watched this farce last night, if it is a debate surely only those who attended and listened to points raised should be allowed to vote not the 500 plus who appeared from nowhere.

      Delete
    6. Been watching Westminster every day, and the 56 SNP MPs have been there too.
      Brilliant speeches, interventions, and points made by 'unknowns' - and our media is determined that they stay unknown.

      It's deliberate - but as we can already see - if they take part in debates until 11pm (as happened last night) - they're condemned for not answering emails !
      Our MP's are still finding staff for London and their constituency (they have to advertise, remember). They're still looking for premises for constituency offices .... they're basically starting a small non-profit business from scratch, while trying not to miss things like the leak saying there will be a vote on Thursday to change Parliamentary Rules and prevent our MP's from voting on certain matters !

      BBC Scotland ? 70% of it's politics coverage is about 'Scottish' Labour, with Holyrood a poor second (check the BBC - S web pages for confirmation)

      And '95%' ? In 2013/14 it was Scottish charities like CPAG (Scot), CAB and others that discovered 1.4 million Scottish voters have 'no easy access' to a computer, and FB/Twitter use is less than a third.

      I'm watching a rerun of this afternoon's debates. 30+ SNP, 14 Labour, and 7 Tories are debating Smith and what it said about devolved Welfare. If things run to form, the Tories will vote against the SNP/Labour amendments - amendments that are simply asking for Smith to be implemented - as promised pre-GE15.
      We now know that even Smith won't happen.

      THe technical term for what's happening to Scotland, thanks to the Tories - is 'being shafted' !!

      Delete
    7. I watched it too,it was almost empty,so where did they all suddenly appear from when the the yes/no vote was happening,

      Delete
    8. from the 8 bars they have in the house of commons. they don't care about anyone, Scottish, English, Welsh or Irish. they only care about lining their own pockets with the money they are taking from the sick, elderly, kids and hard working people whilst giving themselves a 10% pay rise and David Cameron still trying to claim "we're all in this together". these 'elected representatives' are what's wrong with Britain.

      Delete
  4. James, do you know when the next Scottish independence opinion poll will be collected/published? I'd be interested to know if there's been any shift in the polls since the general election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Juteman mentioned that he'd taken a Panelbase poll today, but I'm not sure whether the independence question was asked. There has been an independence poll since the election, though (in the Sunday Post), and it was an unchanged position.

      Delete
    2. Yes, it was, unless there were two Panelbase polls, which seems unlikely. GE (past and future), Holyrood, EU referendum, independence, plus a few other things I now forget (UK Labour leader, but not SLab, I think).

      Delete
    3. Yes, indy question asked.

      Delete
  5. So that's EVEL knackered, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The tories have said they can introduce EVEL through standing orders in the house. Speaker has accepted this so if/when they choose to implement it, that's what they'll do. Fait accompli

      Delete
    2. They may try to introduce EVEL via standing orders but can they stop an entire party or 56 MPs from voting on any issue whither 'English' or not? Don't think so'

      Delete
    3. Thursday Michael ! Torygraph apparently announced it today, and AS asked the Speaker about it.
      The exchange showed that the Tories have been discussing the Rules with the Speakers Office, and what should have been debated at length could now be passed with a single vote in a couple of days time.
      As I've said here and elsewhere, Scotland is being punished for daring to vote SNP, and although I'm usually a cautious type, the only way that's going to stop is by walking away.
      But with the media refusing to broadcast/publish what's actually going on, that'll be even more difficult than it was last year !

      'The Establishment' (Westminster/Whitehall/the media/the City/RW-unionist politicians) wins again.

      Delete
  6. Scottish labour are going to need a new strapline. The "party of home rule" seems like some kind of sick joke. "Ripping your knitting since 2007" seems more apt.

    Seriously though. I always felt that if we lost in 2014 - Independence would follow as the cost of Keeping us in was the collapse our reputation in the UK. Arguing for dependency culture as a boon of union was always going to blow up in their faces. There simply was no way Scotland could ever feel welcome in the UK ever again. Hell there is no way we could ever vote labour and not be seen as desperate little subsidy junkies. When Miliband let Cameron away with making a Scottish vote illegitimate a line was crossed. Today's squalid little display has taken whats left of British politics in Scotland and put it on a shoogly peg.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well to be fair it's not as if Cameron Major and those gullible tory MPs who believed the fop's posturing on treaty change are going to have a hell of a lot to cheer about from now on.

    The split in the tory party between the tory leadership's pro-Europe stance and the rest is starting to widen to the inevitable chasm everyone but the fop and his witless cheerleaders knew it would. Boris is already frantically trying to distance himself from the pro-Europe Cameroons as yet another EU crisis stokes the rampant Euroscepticism in the tory grass-roots and MPs. The bizarre head in the sand behaviour of Cameron Major and his idiot spinners, in thinking the tory party would somehow just leave him to it and not join in the referendum campaign, looks precisely like the same kind of dimwitted stupidity that destroyed Clegg and his ostrich faction.

    Labour on the other hand are in no position to take advantage as they display yet another team of yawn inducing second raters in their amusing leadership contests. (both of them) The pitiful and counterproductive attempts to triangulate on the tories that sank little Ed look set to be repeated by Burnham and the rest. They just never learn. As this vote proves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apropos the Scottish "Leadership" contest. Has anyone listened to Derek Bateman's interview of Ken MacIntosh? It starts off OK but once he starts SNP-bashing he just can't stop. So much for a whole new dialogue with other parties and the electorate,

      Delete
  8. Please someone get the video of the cheers and circulate it widely...only when Scots see how they behaved and how they didn't turn up to debate the bill will they finally realise how little respect Scotland and Scots have from Westminster (and short of massive complaints from voters in England, we have to assume little respect from their voters too).

    As far as democracy goes, it is an abhorrence. If this is what a family of nations looks like, perhaps it's time to dissolve the family by other means. What else can we do? England seems to enjoy the union the way an abusive spouse enjoys a marriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would argue that "they" were supporting and respecting the majority of Scots who voted no in the referendum, um, who were actually the majority! As for democracy, the same majority of Scots voted no (remember that?), yet the SNP are trying to trample on that democratically constituted result.

      Delete
    2. "I would argue that "they" were supporting and respecting the majority of Scots who voted no in the referendum, um, who were actually the majority!"

      People did not vote No to Full Fiscal Autonomy in September - they only voted (narrowly) against full sovereign independence. In any case, what about the majority of Scots who clearly DID vote for Full Fiscal Autonomy less than two months ago? Are you not interesting in respecting them?

      Dear oh dear, "respect" is such a conditional thing these days.

      Delete
    3. https://www.facebook.com/ScottishUDI

      Delete
    4. here's the family of nations in actionh ttps://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2015/06/15/this-dysfunctional-uk-family-of-nations/

      Delete
    5. 23.7% more people voted no than yes in the referendum (approx.
      2m against 1.6m), not a narrow majority. The principle reason these people voted no was the justifiable fear of full fiscal autonomy. The fact is that no matter which party ruled in Scotland, given that it could only be SNP or Labour they would spend, spend, spend until we were in as big a hole as Greece.

      Delete
    6. You're saying these people voted No because they didn't trust themselves to vote for someone other than Labour or the SNP?

      Delete
    7. It was 45% yes and 55% no in the referendum.. Last time I checked the difference between The votes was just under 6% I mean I'm no maths buff but it certainly doesn't add up to your 23.7% figure....just saying!

      Delete
  9. I know you don't often, but please update this with a video of the cheering. Great message from our imperial matters.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Like many of the previous commentators I was struck by the difference in the number of MPs attending the debate and those who turned up to vote on the various clauses, etc.of the Scotland Bill.

    It seems to show little respect for democratic decision making and minority opinion (within the UK) that so many MPs vote on matters they care little about and also know little about. It is in effect little more than bullying: It doesn't matter what you want. Do as we say. Suck it up.

    There is clearly only one remedy to such behaviour and I trust Independence is achieved before Scotland is bled dry of resources, the young and able, and those with the expertise to develop the necessary institutions for managing an independent Scotland.

    I note that the Durham MP (?) made the point in the debate following commentary from Alex Salmond that around 90% of the UK expenditure on infrastructure is to be spent in London and the South East i.e. subsidised by other English regions, Scotland and Wales. It is therefore little wonder the Government wishes to limit the amount of influence the Scottish Government has over the allocation of resources.

    However I doubt that a large number of people watched the debate on the Parliament channel nor that it will be adequately reported in the MSM. I wonder therefore if it would be worth setting up large screen TVs in the centre of Scottish cities. Combined with some pithy commentary and (free?) entertainment it could bring these issues to a wider range of Scots citizens and show how their interests are treated in a very disparaging manner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The '90%' relates to transport capital spending in England.

      I think it was 2013 that Osborne announced his £30 billion spend that would be 'spread evenly across the English regions'.

      IPPR North looked at the detail and published the truth in it's 'On the Wrong Track' report.
      I posted it's findings on the Guardian's CiF pages and it caused quite a stir - so much so that AS's office picked it up and he used it in his Carlisle speech before the Referendum vote.

      Basically the capital spend for London - per capita - was around (can't remember the exact numbers but I'll have them somewhere) £2,750, NWEngland was getting £250, and those in the NE were getting ... a fiver.

      The report was updated a year later which is where the '£26' comes in.

      That's just transport. The Treasury's own PESA and other releases show London (again per capita) gets 'the lions share' (the term used by Oxford Economics) of UK capital spending.
      The same tables show Londoners get between £200 and £1300 more for public services than the other 8 English regions - a fact that the London media avoids like the plague.

      A few months ago (March) all MPs received a Treasury briefing note showing this in detail, but even those in the North and Midlands of England kept quiet, preferring to point accusing fingers at the Scottish 'subsidy-junkies'.

      Delete
    2. You are forgetting other "National" projects such as the London Sewerage system.

      Then of course the fact that the Crown Estate portfolio is 50% invested in London. Why? Crown Estate is supposed to be nation wide.

      Yet another London Subsidy.

      Delete
  11. May I suggest that everyone adopts the term "Colonial power" to describe the government. And the Secretary of state be referred to as the "Colonial secretary". It would not take long with a bit of effort for the terms to be common currency.

    The Colonial authorities would be an accurate description of those people, and it should be possible to link in many people's minds with the struggles in so many other former colonies for their absolute right to self determination.

    Saor Alba

    ReplyDelete
  12. we're gaun'ae dae it anyway James. https://www.facebook.com/events/921928267846219/

    ReplyDelete
  13. It was rather dismaying to watch each amendment get voted down that would have supported at least one facet of "The Vow" and then for Mundell to stand up and say "I won't accept any amendments" (first person singular) and that the bill would go though unchallenged. Tory MPs fell out of the parliamentary bar to vote in maximum capacity, and in the majority of cases, followed by Labour MPs from up and down the country.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Short video of the cheering as the results of this vote are announced: http://goo.gl/O53Nyt

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The author of this blog should be ashamed to call this deafening cheering. It was barely a murmur.

      Delete
    2. So let me get this straight : your defence of English Labour and Tory MPs is "Yes, they did cheer themselves for showing such utter contempt for the democratic will of the Scottish people, but they didn't do quite as loudly as has been suggested"?

      Hmmm. That line may need a little work, Anon.

      Delete
  15. Quite simply I am raging. The same morons who think the lead the world in human rights,democracy and fairness are treating Scots and Scotland in the most appalling way. UDI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. https://www.facebook.com/ScottishUDI

      Delete
  16. The true nature of the so called "union" brazenly exposed by England's politicians.
    We are wasting our time electing and sending representatives to England's parliament because they are just ignored when it comes to influencing Scottish affairs.
    Had we continued to elect pretendy Scottish Labour representatives to London a way would have been found to cover this up but now there is no need.
    Unfortunately,there are still a large number of Scots who prefer London Tory rule to democratic governance and until they realise the error of their ways,we are where we are.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Both FFA and independence would leave Scotland with a shortfall of tens of billions of pounds in its annual budget.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really, and where does your information come from, Westminster, and their tame poodles, if that were actually true we would have bee thrown to the wolves as per those worthless Caribbean Islands long since.

      Delete
    2. Says a right wing think tank which gets some of its funding from the UK treasury!

      Delete
    3. It comes from GERs.

      Delete
    4. Thank goodness the Tories are so charitable that they don't want to shrink the welfare state in Scotland / do want to maintain high public spending!

      Who knew they were so left wing!

      Delete
    5. It comes from the Scottish government's own figures.

      Delete
    6. If you really believe that Scotland is such a basketcase, Anon, that says rather a lot about the UK's stewardship of our economy over recent decades. And you think that's an argument AGAINST controlling our own affairs?

      Takes all sorts, I suppose.

      Delete
    7. Have you actually had a look at GERS? Very questionable methodology. Overcharged for defence, public debt and £4BN accounting readjustments. The report is not worth your time.

      In addition to that, if you truly believe it, why allow the same people (Westminster) to keep control, when they got us onto this mess?

      Delete
  18. They think they're winning, but what they're actually doing is bringing the day ever closer.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Is there any evidence that Scotland wants Full Fiscal Autonomy? The SNP MPs got the votes of 50% or so of Scots; the three main Westminster parties received slightly less, but over 45%. Thus, it is a little more nuanced than James suggests. The SNP does not speak for Scotland in Westminster. It speaks for half of Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >51.3% voted for parties which advocate independence / FFA.

      That is a clear majority.

      Delete
    2. As David outlines below, about 60% of Scots polled by YouGov in April said they would like Full Fiscal Autonomy. Of course I would like to see more polling done on the question, but when even Scottish Labour's Kezia Dugdale admits the anti-FFA campaign "didn’t work on the doorstep" and that "the electorate don't believe us" over the issue, that would signal a significant majority of Scots do want extensive powers.

      Delete
    3. It is a majority. But clearly the SNP does not speak for the whole of Scotland. It speaks for the people that voted for it: around 50% of those who voted. The three other Scottish MPs represent just over 45% of the Scottish electorate.

      Delete
    4. Those that didn't vote clearly are happy enough with the SNP representing them. After all, we were told from October that the SNP were looking at a landslide, possibly taking all seats. So, if you didn't vote, it means you were happy enough with that outcome.

      Delete
    5. @FitzyFan: Sure, but extensive powers are not the same as FFA. Maybe we need polling specifically on whether to end Barnett.

      Delete
    6. Oh aye? How many votes did the Tory and Labour MPs get of Brits? 36.1 and 29% respectively. In Scotland alone, it's 14.8 and 24.3, compared with the SNP's 50. So I'll ask how does Labour and the Tories have a mandate to overrule what Scotland DID vote for?

      If your objection is that the Westminister system is unfair in how it allocates seats, what would you suggest be done about it?

      Delete
    7. The mandate came when Scotland voted to remain part of the UK last September. Nothing that happened last night should be a surprise to anyone who cast a vote back then. The SNP are clearly by far the nost popular Scottish party. My objection was to the idea that it represents Scotland as a whole. It represents half of Scotland, which is a lot of people; but so is 45% of Scotland. As I said, it's a lot more nuanced than James suggests in his article.

      Delete
    8. "The three other Scottish MPs represent just over 45% of the Scottish electorate. "

      Actually, no they don't. They represent Orkney, Shetland, Edinburgh South, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale.

      The rest of Scotland is represented by SNP MPs. You may not like it, but that's how the system works.

      Delete
    9. Of course. That the Westminster voting system delivers results that do not coincide with what voters have voted for is clearly the case. Surely we would all like to see the views of Scottish voters (and those elsewhere in the UK) properly represented in the British Parliament.

      Delete
    10. The voters voted on a broad manifesto, of which FFA was simply one policy. Ever voted for a party because you liked one policy or some policies but weren't so keen on others?

      FFA is a huge step - the end of the sharing of resources across the United Kingdom. If the Scottish public are going to take that upon themselves, let them do so in a referendum, where the choice is clear and concise and the issue has been aired and debated in full.

      Delete
    11. "Surely we would all like to see the views of Scottish voters (and those elsewhere in the UK) properly represented in the British Parliament."

      The simplest and best solution to that is not to be a part of it, by the expedient of bcoming independent. Some of us are working on that.

      "FFA is a huge step - the end of the sharing of resources across the United Kingdom. If the Scottish public are going to take that upon themselves, let them do so in a referendum, where the choice is clear and concise and the issue has been aired and debated in full."

      Well, something akin to that was the desired multi-option question from the SNP when the independence referendum was first proposed, but David Cameron put a stop to it. I'm not entirely sure he thought through the consequences thoroughly.

      Delete
    12. when MPs talk about the 7.5bn or 10bn "deficit",part of that value must be misappropriation of tax receipts to the wrong country pot, spending on non-Scottish projects and debt interest shared by Westminster for debt originating outside of Scotland.

      The IFS etc have no political reason to correct the treasury's accounting strategy.

      FFA would not allow further contribution to the large London based investment projects and the interest on the debt for past projects would be properly allocated to the area that bore that debt.

      Delete
    13. "@FitzyFan: Sure, but extensive powers are not the same as FFA. Maybe we need polling specifically on whether to end Barnett."

      You're just not listening, Anon. There is specific and extensive polling evidence that the overwhelming majority of the Scottish people want ALL POWERS OTHER THAN FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE devolved. Self-evidently, that includes the end of Barnett.

      Sorry, but you're flogging a dead horse. Try something else.

      Delete
    14. I do not agree. Asking someone whether they would like lots of new powers is not the same as saying to them, do you want lots of new powers but less money to spend than you had previously.

      Delete
    15. Well, if you ask a stupid, pejorative and inaccurate question, who knows what the result might be. Why not ask people whether they want Scotland to control its own natural resources?

      Delete
    16. Sounds just like another out of touch westminster bubble twit a wee bit too 'dollydimple' to understand what happened with DevoMax and the unionist parties.

      Delete
    17. So when over 50% off the voting population vote to stay in the uk then that is sacrosanct but if over 50% off the voting population vote for anti austerity measures it is to be sidelined? I think your reasoning is flawed

      Delete
  20. Well, to extrapolate your point - no-one, in that case, speaks for England either, with all Parties down their taking 36% or less of the popular vote.

    Using your analogy, no Party speaks for either country in Westminster - but the SNP certainly comes closest to that goal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is a very important point and worth bearing in mind when people talk about the big differences there are between England and Scotland. The Tories are clearly not the voice of England.

      Delete
    2. The Tories received 41% of the vote share in England
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/england

      Delete
    3. So nowhere near 50%. It's fair to say that the Tories are far less popular in England than the SNP is in Scotland.

      Delete
  21. By the way, the last YouGov poll on what new powers Scots wanted under devolution, was in April this year and I think showed 61% wished ALL powers, except on defence and foreign affairs, given to Holyrood.

    This would, self-evidently, include FFA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not really. Did it ask about no longer having Barnett? That would be a direct result of FFA. It's why right wing Tories are so keen on it.

      Delete
    2. I'd assume the removal of Barnett was a given to anyone who responded to the question.

      Delete
    3. Might be best not to assume that, given what it would mean for Scotland in the short to medium term.

      Delete
    4. Well I would counter that by arguing that every single mention of FFA from the popular media comes with two variables attached, the removal of the Barnett Formula, and a £6-8 billion deficit. I've yet to find a single commentary on FFA that doesn't mention this, and in particular regards to the latter point, I very seriously doubt anybody in Scotland asked about the policy is not aware of the deficit situation if FFA was implemented (or "black hole" as some pundits cheerfully titled it), but I think a majority of Scots seem to still want it implemented regardless.

      Delete
    5. My guess is that most folk are not paying as much attention as you think they are. But maybe I am wrong. That's why further polling is needed and perhaps more of a conversation about the full implications of what FFA would entail. I am naturally suspicious of anything that right wing Tories are very keen on.

      Delete
    6. I think most Scots can see past the completely partial and loaded scare stories around projected black holes - particularly when the latest assessment of the UK's own black hole is given at £8.6 Trillion as opposed to the usual number of "only"£1.5 Trillion (Annual UK black hole £75 Billion).

      Always amazed me that gigantic factual and existing fiscal problems for the Westminster Govt, are routinely called mundane terms like Debt and Defecit, whilst the purely projected problems for Scotland are automatically given the epithet of "Black Holes", by Unionist politicians, MSM and tv broadcasters.

      Delete
    7. It's a hole because it is a gap between Scotland's population-based share of the UK deficit and what its own deficit would be as an independent country. And it's a black hole because no-one has yet explained how it will be dealt with. For very good reasons, Scotland spends more than it generates (see GERs). That's why we should be very careful about claiming Scots do understand the full implications of FFA. They may well do, but as it will mean the end of Barnett and lower spending it's best to be cautious about jumping to that conclusion in the absence of detailed polling.

      Delete
    8. A bit condescending, are you not?

      Scots might not understand the full implications - but you obviously do?

      As for your support of such ludicrous and mainly Unionist language on this, I think it says a lot about your overall standpoint.

      GERS, over the decades, has varied between showing Scotland being in a healthier fiscal state than the UK and the opposite.

      GERS requires to be re-engineered to become accurate and not full of guess work on VAT and Corporation Tax. Right now GERS is interesting for base level statistical comparisons, but you couldn’t use it to run a country or calculate the impact of FFA.

      Delete
    9. In the absence of independence, many Scots just want to tick the "more powers" box, thinking it contains harmless goodies for Scotland that will protect and insulate us from the austerity being endured in the rest of the UK. They don't realise there are steps short of full independence that are also inadvisable. Imagine Scotland having to endure cuts on its education, NHS, police etc where the funding would previously have come from south of the border, with no cuts required? Imagine a hard pressed family having to pay yet more in taxation? These things have the power to devastate lives - and all because of what? An imaginary border and things that happened 300+ years ago?

      Delete
    10. You really should look at what you post.

      Just how the hell do you know what "most Scots want"?

      The only guide we have are opinion polls - and I quoted the results of the last one.

      You may not like those results, but they are a darned site more believable, than what you "think".

      If you want to swallow that one-sided bilge about FFA - go ahead.

      The majority of rational Scots don't.

      FFA is all about a shift in where real power lies, in these islands - and that is why Unionist Parties oppose it.

      Delete
    11. Oh dear, I find the comments from Anonymous so tiresome. Surprised anyone can be bothered replying to them.

      Delete
    12. "Might be best not to assume that, given what it would mean for Scotland in the short to medium term."

      I'm afraid we've got no option but to assume that, given that words have meanings. Opinion polls show conclusively that Scots want all powers other than foreign affairs and defence devolved. Unless you think the people responding to those polls are idiots who can't understand the question they're being asked, the issue is beyond dispute. The public want FFA. They voted for it. They've been denied it. Why don't you try justifying Westminster's contempt for democracy, rather than tying yourself up in knots trying to ludicrously claim that people don't really want what they think they want?

      Delete
    13. "I am naturally suspicious of anything that right wing Tories are very keen on."

      Then why the hell are you so keen on Westminster rule? I can assure you that right-wing Tories bloody LOVE that. Mrs Thatcher was not, as I recall, an ardent devolutionist.

      Delete
    14. I am keen on maintaining the United Kingdom and the current system which sees wealth distributed from richer to poorer. That said, I would be very partial to ending Westminster rule as it is currently constructed. In my view, independence would deliver a lot more austerity than we have now and, as a result, many vulnerable people would suffer even more than they are now. For me, that is not a price worth paying. It is nothing to do with Scotland unable to govern itself, but about how a Scottish government would have to act - especially under a fiscal union, which would leave control over monetary policy in the hands of Westminster.

      Delete
    15. "I am keen on maintaining the United Kingdom and the current system which sees wealth distributed from richer to poorer."

      WHAT?! Have we swapped David Cameron with Clement Attlee while I was sleeping?

      If you're going to try to defend the indefensible, at least do so in a way that doesn't make people burst into hysterical laughter.

      Delete
    16. For very good reasons - demographics, geography, etc - Scotland spends more than it contributes to the UK exchequer. Unemployment is also now rising, thanks largely to the slowdown in the oil industry. Because of Barnett, Scotland is shielded from the full implications of this. With either FFA or independence it would not be. And in both cases, under the Sterling union favoured by the SNP, fiscal policy would still be dictated by Westminster.

      Delete
    17. "For very good reasons - demographics, geography, etc"

      The usual waffle. Basically what you're saying is that Scotland is more sparsely populated than the rest of the UK - which is doubtless also why our natural resources are much more plentiful per head of population.

      Delete
    18. I am saying the Scottish population is older and more dispersed, while unemployment is now rising. With all our natural resources we do not generate the taxable income to maintain current levels of expenditure without transfers from wealthier parts of the UK. Losing Barnett as a result of FFA or independence, while Westminster retains control of monetary policy, does not look very sensible to me; but then neither does developing our own currency given where we would be starting from.

      Delete
    19. Oh dear. Back to the 'too poor, too wee and too stupid' shite. The usual low IQ tory tabloid 'thinking' that out of touch westminster bubble twits fall back on when trying to ignore how comically unpopular they are in scotland.

      Fuck all to do with the real world of course, but hey, the Britnat twits didn't get annihilated last month by having the first clue about scotland, did they? :-D

      Enough of the Scottish subsidy myth - Scotland pays its way in the Union

      http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public

      Delete
    20. The "too poor, too wee, too small" shtick failed last September and will fail again. And that's because in the real world Scotland does spend more than it generates. As anyone with half a brain realises, that is not saying that Scotland could not be an independent country, just that if it were it would have to rein in current levels of expenditure - especially as under SNP plans Westminster would dictate the Scottish government's fiscal policy. I can understand why nationalists may not like it, but until you develop a credible explanation for where the money is going to come from you are not going to persuade a majority of Scots to vote for separation.

      Delete
    21. "failed last September and will fail again"

      Like Devolution would kill the SNP stone dead or Devolution would fail after the first Devolution referendum loss? :-) Nope. Try again twit.

      Save your hilariously witless bullshit for the nasty party bigots and racists on Stormfront Lite/PB as they are clearly dumb enough to believe the tory tabloid subsidy myth along with yourself.

      Delete
    22. Throwing insults around is not really debating. I suspect you resort to it because you have no real arguments. You just feel and believe independence would be better. That's fair enough. But don't be surprised if others are less sanguine about living in a country in which there is less money than there is now and no fiscal control. The result would be even more austerity and even harsher living conditions for the vulnerable. At some stage you and other nationalists are going to have to face up to that.

      Delete
    23. How much is Scotland made to spend by Westminster? Conversely how much does Scotland contribute to items such as defence etc where the respend in Scotland is grossly out of balance or even zero in some cases. Scotland has been paying it's way since records began and is more than in credit with the UK. The regurgitated nonsense that we are subsidised by the rUK when in fact we are in debt due to their negligence and malfeasance is beyond belief.

      Delete
    24. "The "too poor, too wee, too small" shtick failed last September and will fail again. And that's because in the real world Scotland does spend more than it generates."

      So, just like nearly every other country in the world?

      Delete
  22. Last night Westminster once again showed its arrogance and ignorance towards Scotland. Many No-voters in Scotland will love Westminster for doing just that; many, I hope, will feel shame.

    ReplyDelete
  23. While unionists trumpet about the famous "black hole" they omit to make two points ,the great British union caused this black hole not the SNP.
    As to black holes the UK has one of £98 BILLION that apparently is ok, it is only when it is Scotland it is bad.
    The events of yesterday in the abomination that is WM have done as much to hasten Scottish independence than anything the SNP have achieved in decades.
    The most educated electorate in the world are watching every move and the clock is ticking.
    Till now i believed the SNP should wait till 2020 Holyrood election before bringing forth a new Referendum.
    Now I am 100% sure they should include a Referendum in next years manifesto.
    There is absolutely no point in our continuing in the present set up.
    One only has to watch and listen to all the "debates" in WM to see and hear the contempt and derision meted out to each and every comment made by our legally elected SNP MPs
    The contempt shown to them is contempt to all of the Scottish Electorate.
    This was London's last chance to show they were listening to the Scottish people .
    They have shown they only listen to themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regardless of who or what caused it, the black hole exists. So, under FFA or, worse, independence, the Scottish government would have to deal with it either through tax increases or spending cuts. You could borrow more but this wouldn't be a solution for long - we'd be facing higher interest rates on our sovereign debt than we do at the moment. Our tax base would shrink as business leaves and the inevitable brain drain kicks in - making the situation even worse. How do you deal with that?

      Another referendum wont happen until A) the Scottish economy is doing a lot better, and B) Yes has a consistent and sizeable lead in the polls. I don't expect to see either anytime soon.

      Delete
    2. You might as well just say "too wee, too poor, too stupid" and save yourself a whole lot of keystrokes.

      Delete
    3. Support for independence in polls reached its last peak at the time of the devolution referendum. Strong majority for indy and 74% for devo. Yes to indy would likely have matched the 64% for 'max devo on offer', i.e. devoref Q2 result.

      Now, if I remember correctly, Scotland, economically, was on its knees at that point. The equivalent of the entire population of Dundee had recently emigrated seeking a better life. Unemployment had recently been over 10% and the oil price had also collapsed by 50%.

      If the Tories managed to give Scotland's economy a real boom, that could stave off indy. If things get worse with more cuts, it will likely end the union because at some point people say to themselves 'indy couldn't be worse than this'.

      But then the Tories don't want Scotland to do well as they're stupid enough to think that might encourage indy, rather than the opposite.

      Delete
    4. "If the Tories managed to give Scotland's economy a real boom, that could stave off indy. If things get worse with more cuts, it will likely end the union because at some point people say to themselves 'indy couldn't be worse than this'."

      Interesting prospect. Alternatively, the Tories could try to focus on wooing and economically strengthening (At the expense of the poorer) those demographics who were the bedrock of the No vote, while ignoring the poorer sections of society who were more likely to vote Yes anyway. Not that I would ever wish to see such a thing happen, but if I were to think like a Tory...

      Delete
    5. I didn't say "too wee, too poor, too stupid" (John Swinney's words, I believe), nor did I say Scotland was a "basket case", as someone else suggested I had done. I simply pointed out that sacrifices would have to be made in an independent / FFA Scotland. Services reduced and / or taxes increased. So which is it to be? The SNP wont say, nor did the Yes movement last year. Much has been made of getting the "tools" to grow the economy. That's interesting. What might those be? And how will they be used to achieve growth at a higher rate than that of the United Kingdom? (the only way that any benefit can actually be obtained).

      The SNP are big on rhetoric and good at playing little games. But they are thin on the detail and that's what we need - detail - a deep analysis and workable plan as to how Scotland can be made to tick over on its own, minus the United Kingdom or with support from the United Kingdom greatly reduced. We can then look at the sacrifices that would have to be made and decide whether or not it is worth it.

      Delete
  24. Anon: "I am naturally suspicious of anything that right wing Tories are very keen on."

    How many voted for the SNP's FFA amendment to demonstrate this enthusiasm? I assume UKIP voted along with them; UKIP after all are the most extreme right-wing Tories.

    Personally, I don't find extreme right wing Tories to have any common sense at all. They'd vote for the ruination of the UK if they e.g. thought it would mean less Johnny Foreigners living next door to them.

    So, I'll go with the common or garden Tory Golden Rule on this one; i.e. if the bulk of the Tories oppose FFA for Scotland, it must be a good thing for Scotland. I've found this handy rule of thumb very accurate on a whole host of issues. It even works for the Labour party nowadays.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UKIP does indeed support FFA for Scotland and an end to Barnett.

      Delete
    2. You are not seriously suggesting people make decisions based on what UKIP thinks? This is the party that e.g. thinks every law in the UK is made in Brussels. They also think they are paying for Scotland's largesse through English taxes because England is like the greatest country on earth and its taxes are even paying for people in India etc. David Cameron of course knows Scotland subsidises the rUK because he at least has half a brain.

      Anyway, Devo Max / FFA was not in the UKIP 2015 manifesto. Removing Barnett was very clear, then there's a mumbled vow about some more powers in time...

      Did Carswell vote for the SNP FFA amendment out of interest?

      Delete
    3. No, I am merely suggesting that like right wing Tories and the SNP UKIP supports an end to Barnett and FFA.

      Delete
    4. So they support ending Barnett and introducing FFA, yet they *voted against it* en masse along with just about everyone that's not the SNP or SDLP. Righto.

      Delete
  25. No Union if the English MPs can vote on the Scotland Bill very very Undemocratic typical of the Westminster Sheriffs Back to Robin Hood times the Sheriff at that time was a robbing Bastard

    ReplyDelete
  26. James will be amused to hear that the low IQ right-wingers on Stormfront Lite (who assured everyone that Murphy would have the SNP trembling in our boots) are back to witless shrieking about oil prices and not knowing what a forecast is.

    Granted - it is led by the same revolting right-winger TSE who lied about his own child dying to try and welch on a bet - but you would think all the screeching at the top of their lungs about oil prices in the run up to last months vote might have taught even them just how 'effective' their lunatic scaremongering is for voters in scotland.



    #More Pandas than tory MPs
    #More Pandas than Labour MPs
    #More pandas than lib dem MPs

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More Pandas than influential MPs.

      Delete
    2. So when is Cameron Major repealing the human rights act you Pouter fuckwit?
      What's that? Turns out he didn't have the votes for it? Oh dear. Such a shame. :-)

      Ah well, at least the coward Cameron can't run away from treaty change after promising it to all those gullible tories, can he??? :-D

      Delete
    3. So, only influential when they have the entire opposition and a good number of tories agreeing with them? That's useful...

      You seem quite hostile? What's wrong? Are you still angry about the referendum?

      Did one of the skinheads steal your wee yes flag in George Square? :0)

      Delete
    4. Well how adult of you to resort to name calling and below the belt comments....my children have more decorum than this!

      Delete
  27. Osborne's own FY2015 forecast is that the balance of payments current account will remain NEGATIVE all the way past 2019.

    And he says Britain will borrow another £75 billion for FY 2015-2016.

    British productivity remains 30% LOWER than France & Germany & a staggering 40% lower than the USA.

    And exports will continue to remain NEGATIVE for another 4 years. But hey, ho. It's been negative almost every month since 1998, usually with Germany, Holland & China.

    But according to London, since house prices in Belgravia have sky rocketed, & wages have only just recovered to what they were 8 years ago, Britons everywhere are benefitting from a booming recovery.

    Ho, ho, ho.

    ReplyDelete
  28. May I suggest that the reaction in the chamber wasn't one of racist anti-Scottish colonialism (who actually believes that??), but one of delight at seeing a bully on the receiving end for once. The SNP have dominated Scotland for four years, riding roughshod over anyone who disagrees with them. They can't do this in the HoC, where they will be outvoted by a ratio of ten to one unless proposing something that is genuinely sensible and in everyone's interest (something they rarely, if ever, do).

    They MIGHT have attracted more sympathy if they hadn't launched a hate campaign against labour in Scotland and repeatedly used the word "tory" to mean 'everything that is evil and / or bad or wrong in this world'. I mean, it's hardly a way to make friends, is it?

    No wonder the HoC has took on a football match mentality when dealing with the SNP. It is not anti-Scottish. It is simply anti-SNP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The SNP have dominated Scotland for four years, riding roughshod over anyone who disagrees with them.


      Hahahahahahahahaha!!!

      Doesn't have a clue about 2007 just like he doesn't have a clue about scottish politics in general.

      Sounds exactly like the same out of touch Pouter fuckwit who actually believed 75,000 "trots and anarchists" had joined the SNP and didn't seem to have the slightest idea that Sheridan isn't the leader of the SSP any more.


      "They MIGHT have attracted more sympathy if they hadn't launched a hate campaign against labour in Scotland and repeatedly used the word "tory" to mean 'everything that is evil and / or bad or wrong in this world'"

      You mean we MIGHT have won 56 out of 59 MPs you utterly oblivious far-right fool. Oh that's right, we DID.

      LOL

      So why are all those tory voters back to being too ashamed to admit to pollsters they would vote for the nasty party? You still don't get it, do you?

      Go back to Stormfront Lite you amusingly out of touch twit. You are self-evidently way out of your depth on anything bar the low IQ tory tabloid pish, bigotry and racism they thrive on.

      Delete
    2. Mick Pork, you are a lunatic LOL.

      Delete
    3. I'm not the one who was caught ranting about putting Nicola in jail, hangings, 75,000 trots and anarchists and various other barking mad far-right lunacy suitable only for Pouter fuckwits laughably out of touch with scottish politics and the real world. You were.

      Doesn't matter if you try to post anonymously or not chum. You sound just as dumb and out of touch as ever with the same old tabloid Pouter pish we were all laughing at before.

      Delete
    4. I have no idea what you are talking about. This is the first time I have posted on this forum, after viewing it occasionally these last few months. It seems all the stuff about 'cybernats' is spot on, going by this experience.

      Delete
    5. Still looking for those 75,000 "trots and anarchists" you claimed joined the SNP you hilariously dumb Pouter fuckwit? :o)

      What was it about that post that upset you so much?

      Surely it wasn't the truth about Stormfront Lite/PB resident westminster bubble tory twit and anti-scottish bigot TSE?

      "it is led by the same revolting right-winger TSE who lied about his own child dying to try and welch on a bet"

      I mean, we already know you are one of the low IQ PB tories because you gave that one away the last time you got angry. So it's hardly a surprise the truth about TSE makes you want to stamp your widdle feet in anger again.

      Because it most certainly IS the truth and now that I know how upset it makes you I'll just keep posting it when you spam James site.

      http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/political-betting-moderator-screaming.html

      And finally to the information about TSE I've helped to suppress for a very long time. Before he was inexplicably appointed as a moderator (although perhaps it's not so inexplicable, given that sycophancy is the only qualification for the job), he left Smithson in the lurch by offering to host a PB get-together in the north of England, and then going AWOL at a very late stage. At roughly the same time, he failed to settle bets with the site's aforementioned leading left-wing poster for over six months, using a series of increasingly bizarre excuses to buy himself time. This is a serious matter in PB-world, because welching on a recorded bet is considered a banning offence (it's almost as heinous a crime as...er, whatever it was that was the excuse for my own lifetime banning). The saga culminated in TSE fabricating two terrible and contradictory stories about his family to excuse what had happened - firstly that his wife had lost a baby (one of twins), and secondly that he'd been forced to consent to the termination of a pregnancy to save her life, and that she hadn't forgiven him. The deceit went so far that "PB Queen" Plato actually collected condolence messages. When the truth came out, TSE's Tory friends briefly turned against him - but he somehow turned the situation to his advantage by hinting that he'd been maliciously lied about by the left-wing poster, and that he had never in fact used the stories about his family as a delaying tactic. Unfortunately, I've seen the full set of emails that prove beyond a shadow of doubt that he did. This is the most damning one -

      TSE (in response to the question 'Family OK?') : Not really.

      My wife collapsed last weekend, and I had to give the Doctors permission to terminate the pregnancy to save my wife's life.

      A decision my wife hasn't forgiven me for.

      As someone privately pointed out at the time, the story was never remotely credible because no husband would be asked to give consent in those circumstances.

      And this is the man who 'prominent pollsters' are happy to have as a chuckle chum? You're welcome to him, guys.


      Happy now? LOL :o)

      Delete
    6. "May I suggest that the reaction in the chamber wasn't one of racist anti-Scottish colonialism (who actually believes that??), but one of delight at seeing a bully on the receiving end for once."

      In what sense were the SNP "on the receiving end"?

      Did they lose the argument on Full Fiscal Autonomy at the general election? No, they won the argument. Did they lose the election? No, they won the election.

      It was your side that was on the receiving end. You lost the argument, and you were hammered at the election. If your response to that is "never mind, we'll just ignore the election result", then that is, I'm afraid, a form of colonialism.

      You guys are really going to have to come up with a more promising line of argument than you've managed so far, because I have to say you're drowning at the moment.

      Delete
    7. They are on the receiving end because they got outvoted ten to one - something they are not particularly used to.

      Now, you can say "that's unfair" - but we voted nine months ago to remain a part of this arrangement. Therefore, it is fair.

      The argument on FFA was never had. Vague terms like "devo max" were chucked around as well as promises to 'hold feet to the fire' and provide a 'stronger voice for Scotland'. At no point was FFA debated extensively by the public. As previously stated, I would like a referendum on the issue but the SNP aren't intending to provide one. As FFA is basically independence-lite, then the people should have to expressly authorise it in a referendum. All huge constitutional changes should require a referendum. General elections, being multi party and multi issue, cannot be taken in and of themselves as authorisation for major constitutional change. That's just my opinion - but many share it.

      Delete
    8. "They are on the receiving end because they got outvoted ten to one - something they are not particularly used to."

      That's like saying the Americans should have felt chastened when the USSR Supreme Soviet unanimously passed a motion saying "capitalism is bad". Do grow up, there's a good chap. This is about Scotland - if you lose the argument in Scotland, you've lost the argument. Full stop.

      "but we voted nine months ago to remain a part of this arrangement"

      Rubbish. No voters were explicitly told they were voting for "Devo Super Max" and "near-federalism".

      Delete
    9. The question was 'should Scotland be an independent country?' We voted no to that, therefore implicitly accepting that England, Wales and NI will, collectively, continue to have a lot of political influence over our country. The Smith Commission proposals are being implemented but these things take a while. What do you suggest we do in the meantime - deny the authority of the UK government that we voted to keep?

      Steve

      Delete
    10. " The Smith Commission proposals are being implemented"

      No, they aren't.

      http://wingsoverscotland.com/one-question-answered/

      Perhaps the most reasonable explanation for your continual low IQ tory tabloid spamming is that you really don't have the slightest fucking idea what you are talking about when it comes to scottish politics.

      :-)

      Delete
    11. The Scottish Law Society disagrees.

      By the way, continually calling someone stupid isn't a substitute for sound and reasoned argument. This is the sort of thing that, in part, lost you the referendum - and will lose you the next one too, if things ever get that far (if they do, it will be a long time from now).

      Perhaps while you are still a citizen of the United Kingdom and seeking others to help you alter that status, you should at least try to exhibit some class, no?

      What am I saying - it's like asking a dog not to bark....

      Delete
  29. "Too wee, too poor, too stupid"?

    Going by some of the comments on this forum, certainly the latter!

    What the nationalists realise - but wont admit - is that we saved their bacon as well as our own. Can you imagine being 9 months away from independence with all of the stuff that's happening now with the oil value and the deficit? How would the negotiations be going, I wonder?

    Cameron: Okay, we'll give you a per capita share of the military hardware and we'll continue to fund x for the next five years while you get your tax regime in place. But we'll need something in return.

    Salmond: How about a share of the oil revenues?

    Cameron: Tell you what, I'll just have that pen instead, we'll get more for it.....

    This is the real world guys. We saved you from it - we saved you from yourselves! And what thanks did we get? A "burn the witch" mentality that looks set to turn all of Scotland's political institutions into an SNP echo chamber. Ah well, at least we did the right thing for Scotland and stand ready to do so again, if required.

    Should the SNP ever win, they'll be the ones getting hounded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You Pouter fuckwits were shrieking yourself senseless about oil prices in the run up to last month's election. How did that turn out for you? LOL

      "This is the real world guys"

      Well in the real world any out of touch tory twat who seriously believed that 75,000 "trots and anarchists" joined the SNP is self-evidently a foaming at the mouth Pouter lunatic who has clearly overdosed on tory tabloid stupidity.

      Delete
    2. What on earth are you on about?

      Delete
    3. We won 56 out of 59 MPs you Pouter dumbass.

      Why, what the fuck are you on about anon#2 or is it anon#3 now? :o)

      Delete
    4. Okay, you won 56 out of 59 MPs. How is that relevant to anything I have said?

      Delete
  30. It isn't here to debate, but too troll. No point showing this person the error of their ways. It's laughing at you.
    Failing James banning it, your only recourse is to ignore it's posts. Please do so.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Please don't tar the English voters with the same brush as the tory scum that foils democracy across the UK. I live down here for work and yes the general public do not appreciate the slap in the face to democracy we currently enjoy, rather than blaming them, as most want the same, less power for the London thieves.
    Basically you have 400 years of nursery rhymes again & not looking at the bigger picture that a united nation can work, just not with London! We, as in England Wales Scotland, need to rethink how we allow media and money to control democracy. Maybe flog some of the elites too while we're at it...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Mick, you appear quite literally sick with hatred my friend and obsessed with the contributions of a previous poster, whom you have wrongly accused me of being. My advice would be to ease up on the abuse - otherwise how can you realistically hope to convert the 55% to your cause?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " sick with hatred"

      Look, you've already proved you aren't very bright and are a wee bit 'dollydimple' or you wouldn't keep spamming away with low IQ tory tabloid pish when it's obvious everyone else is laughing at you and your complete ignorance of the real world and scottish politics.

      But if you want to try and pretend you are someone else then don't use the precise same phrases you did the last time you ran away crying from James site. Also, change up the fucking emoticons dumbass because :o) is quite obviously you too.

      Delete
    2. Anon : My advice to you would be to stop posting anonymously, if you want to claim that you're the victim of misidentification.

      Delete
    3. Okay, I'll set something up. But it surely isn't right that people just assume you're a particular individual and give you dog's abuse for it.

      Until I set up an account, I shall sign off my posts as 'Steve'.

      Steve.

      Delete
    4. "But it surely isn't right that people just assume you're a particular individual and give you dog's abuse for it."

      If you post anonymously, what have we got to go on but your writing style? You could post 100 times on the same thread, and innocently claim to be 100 different people agreeing with each other. You don't need to set up an account - just select the 'Name/URL' option, and leave the URL section blank.

      Delete
  33. Mick, I have no idea what or of whom you are going on about. You come across as a bit mad. You assume I'm this guy because I use old style emoticons and use phrases that are common to unionism? Deary me. It wouldn't exactly stand up in court, would it?

    My name is Steve. I have no idea who you're going on about but it would seem they made a lasting impression on you.

    Steve

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mick, you're a real tinfoil hat merchant.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "but it would seem they made a lasting impression on you."

    LOL

    Still far too fucking dumb not to know when to leave it well alone. You could have just rejected he barking mad stupidity of claiming 75,000 SNP members were trots and anarchists, but all too tellingly, you didn't. Too late now.

    As for a tinfoil hat, I have to presume that's what you are wearing right now since you are still persisting with the low IQ tory tabloid myth about scotland being subsidised. It's bullshit chum and always was. Nobody will ever believe you here whether you wear your tinfoil hat or not.

    Also, if you really weren't the same dumb as fuck PB tory Pouter using the precise same phrases and tabloid 'reasoning' then putting this on every thread you spam wouldn't bother you at all, would it? :-)

    http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/political-betting-moderator-screaming.html

    For everyone else, that link is a perfect example of what we are dealing here with these out of touch nasty party Britnat twits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You clearly have some issues. I never made that statement. I would say however that the SNP is too left wing and that its new members probably wont help with that. Your ex leader Gordon Wilson says you need to reach out to centrists and economic conservatives. What chance do you have of that now, realistically? Please try to reply without venting your spleen.

      Delete
    2. I have some issues do I, "Jeff"?

      You've only just been caught spamming the next thread with the same low IQ tabloid tory pish under the name "Jeff", and you think you're going to convince anyone you're not a lying twat?

      *tears of laughter etc*

      "I never made that statement."

      Spoken like a true weasel. I didn't USE the actual quote/statement chum.

      So instead of just admitting that '75,000 hard left trots and anarchists joined the SNP' is self-evidently the lunatic ravings of a barking mad tory weasel, you basicallly agree with it. Not very convincing, to say the least.

      Not to mention you somehow don't seem to know that the tory party in scotland had their worst share of the vote in HISTORY last month. How does that square with your hilariously out of touch far-right shrieking about needing to be more like the tories? Hmmmm? :-)

      So well done Rupert! (because at this point who gives a fuck what you call yourself from post to post) Jolly good show. That certainly proved beyond all doubt you aren't spamming different IDs in a futile attempt to disguise you are a nasty party fuckwit wildly out of touch with scottish politics and reality.

      Oh BTW, this isn't your website chum so don't make whiny petulant demands just because we will never fall for the brainless tabloid shit you and your pals spout over on Stormfront Lite.

      MMMmmkay? ;-)

      Delete
  36. Virtually all the polling evidence since the Referendum has a swing of around 4% to the pro-independence side and continuing.

    Unionist Parties in Scotland are being almost completely sidelined now and look set to suffer further humiliation next year in Holyrood.

    Most Scots wish another Referendum within the next 10 years - and I would suggest that those wishing this are almost exclusively likely to vote Yes.
    Why would a No voter want another?

    Purely anecdotally, the only people I have met who wished they had voted differently were last minute Undecideds who voted No for more, substantive powers and now feel cheated.

    The overall direction of travel up here, is away from Unionism and I do not think that will change.

    No wonder Unionists are getting their knickers in a twist every time another Referendum is mentioned.

    Most Scots now accept that the Union is finished as a long-term entity and it is purely a matter of when and not if, it expires.

    Great to see that every demographic apart from the elderly, are pro-Independence.

    As the song goes - "Time is on our side".

    ReplyDelete
  37. Every action as a reaction if London mps keep lying to Scotland surely Scotland will react. In the meantime stop whinging and get ready for the next 5 years of Tory rule

    ReplyDelete
  38. I say they make Scotland independent - then if you want to live in the free Scotland you stay where you are and if you want British rule then move down south! So many us are paying the price for unionist votes, dirty underhanded tricks and plain flat out vote rigging.

    Give the people who want independence just that we can even split Scotland in two and make a new Scotland a better Scotland for 1 and all.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The bastards will pay for their contempt

    ReplyDelete
  40. It's time Nicola Sturgeon started listening to the Scottish people. Her words it's not what I want it's what's best for Scotland , well Nicola here is a reality check for you its best for Scotland if you state UDI for the people of Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hello all my viewers My name is
    pedro quazada from USA! I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery 3038millions on mega lottery jackpot.I am a man who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email Dr clement. and tell him I need the lottery numbers.I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win.But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell, . so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers.But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 3038million Dollars.Dr.clement truly you are the best,with these great Dr you can win millions of money through lottery.I am so very happy to meet these great man now, I will be forever be grateful to you dr.Email him for your own winning lottery numbers drakugbespellhome@gmail.com or you can call him for your own help to win big money today via +254704881207.post by pedro quazada (USA)thanks for reading.

    ReplyDelete

  42. Hello all my viewers My name is Samantha from USA! I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot.I am a man who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email Dr clement.and tell him I need the lottery numbers.I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell,so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners.I win 30,000 million Dollar. Dr. clement truly you are the best,with these great Dr you can win millions of money through lottery.I am so very happy to meet these great man now,I will be forever be grateful to you dr. Email him for your own winning lottery numbers drakugbespellhome1@gmail.com or you can call him for your own help to win big money today via +254704881207.from Samantha post (USA)thanks for reading.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hello all my viewers My name is Roseanna from USA!I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best opportunity that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot.I am a woman who believe that one day I will win the lottery.finally my dreams came through when I email Dr clement and tell him I need the lottery numbers.I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win.But I never know that winning of the lotto was not easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great lottery spell caster,so I decide to give it a try.I contacted him and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers.But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners.I win 1 000,000 thousand usd dollar with the power of dr clement truly you are the best,with the great Dr you can win of money through lottery I am so very happy to meet the great dr clement,I will be forever be grateful to you dr clement in case you need your own winning lottery numbers you can contact him drakugbespellhome1@gmail.com or call him for your own help to win your own via +254704881207.post by Roseanna From Scotland city (USA)thanks for your reading.


    ReplyDelete