Tuesday, June 30, 2015

The "United" Kingdom, in numbers : how MPs from Scotland and the rest of the UK voted last night on Full Fiscal Autonomy

I did the SDLP a severe disservice last night, but I was also far too kind to the Green Party of England and Wales.  I had assumed that, as a sister party to the Labour party, the SDLP might have voted against Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland, but they most certainly didn't - both Mark Durkan and Margaret Ritchie were in the 'Aye' lobby alongside the SNP.  They were the only non-Scottish MPs to vote in favour of Home Rule, because two of the three Plaid Cymru MPs acted as tellers to allow a full showing for the SNP (I presume the other one wasn't able to attend), and remarkably, the sole Green MP voted against.  That means not even a single MP representing an English constituency - not Caroline Lucas, not Dennis Skinner, not Edward Leigh, not Jeremy Corbyn, nobody - voted to respect the result of the general election in Scotland, and the overwhelming mandate given by voters to Full Fiscal Autonomy.

Here are the full, and rather stark figures...

Vote on a new clause to deliver Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland

Scottish MPs :

Yes 56
No 3
Abstentions 0

Non-Scottish MPs :

Yes 2
No 501
Abstentions 80

(The numbers add up to 642 rather than 650, because the Speaker, Deputy Speakers and tellers are unable to vote.)

Still, we're a "glorious United Kingdom", aren't we?  Oodles of mutual respect and all that.  English Labour and Tory MPs would never, ever dream of exploiting Scotland's smaller representation in parliament by voting down our democratically-expressed will, and then loudly cheering what they had just done.  Would they?

131 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So, Labour still in bed with the Tories eh? Unionist to their rotten core, it seems. And the LibDems (what's left of them)? Party of Home Rule? Aye right! Despicable. I am utterly disgusted with the red and yellow tories' behaviour today. At least expectations for the blue tories are far lower - you get what it says on the tin. But those other tories are a bunch of deceiving, self-serving numpties that fully deserve the hiding they got in May, and the hiding they are going to get in 2016.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is, indeed, shocking that a party which stood on a platform of opposing FFA and maintaining Barnett voted against FFA and in favour of maintaining Barnett. What a betrayal.

      Delete
    2. How was that platform consistent with the No campaign's promises of "Devo Super Max" and "near-federalism"? If you break your promises then, yes, that's a betrayal. But the wider point is that, if democracy has any meaning, the people of Scotland should decide their own form of government. The fact that the Tory manifesto won a plurality of English voters is not terribly relevant in respect of Full Fiscal Autonomy.

      Delete
    3. Shocking that parties who have FFA as a manifesto commitment for over 100 years voted against. Federalism and Home Rule are both FFA/Devo-Max.
      And I seem to remember labour stating that they were in favour of replacing the Barnett formula.

      Of course you can't trust anything a unionist quisling from a dingbat party says. Don't you agree Mr Labour spammer?

      Delete
    4. My point is that Labour voted in the way that it said it would during the election. That is not a betrayal. The Scottish people did decide the form of government they wanted last September.

      Delete
    5. "The Scottish people did decide the form of government they wanted last September."

      Absolutely - and they wanted the "near-federalism" and "Devo Super Max" promised by the No campaign. When can we look forward to that happening?

      Delete
    6. The SNP does not get to define what "near federalism" or "Devo Super Max" mean. Those who promised them get to do that. As far as I can tell, FFA is not mentioned anywhere in the Vow. Instead of screaming betrayal, explain why they are not good enough and show that Scotland would be better off with FFA or independence.

      Delete
    7. "The SNP does not get to define what "near federalism" or "Devo Super Max" mean. Those who promised them get to do that."

      So let me get this straight - it's OK to get people to vote for Devo Super Max, and then tell them after the vote that the word 'Super' was intended to imply something much LESS than Devo Max?

      Aye, whatever.

      Delete
    8. The referendum was not about Devo Super Max or independence. It was about whether Scotland should be an independent country. And the SNP does not get to decide what other parties may or may not have promised.

      Delete
    9. "And the SNP does not get to decide what other parties may or may not have promised."

      No, they decided that for themselves. No-one forced them to promise Devo Super Max - but they did. Now it's time to deliver.

      Delete
    10. This Anon is on the wind up. How much is Mcdougall paying you?

      Delete
    11. And they are delivering. If the SNP does not think it is enough, they should explain why FFA and getting rid of Barnett makes more sense, instead of just crying betrayal.

      Delete
    12. Scottish Labour as always justifying their "unionism" by denying that Scotland is a country.
      When Westminster agreed to be bound by the outcome of the Scottish referendum,they were explicitly acknowledging that Scotland is a country and as such has the right to determine it's own future governance.
      Of course,this was a Tory government and presumably from the rhetoric of British Labour would never have been agreed by them.
      Their desperation to maintain the unity of the British state is one of the main reasons for their demise in Scotland.


      Delete
    13. and what about those violet and pink and polkadot tories eh???? Fcuking shocking!!!!

      Delete
    14. "And they are delivering."

      Sigh. No, they are not. Either we get Full Fiscal Autonomy, or the Better Together promise of "Devo Super Max" has been cynically broken (as, of course, was always the intention).

      Delete
  3. What a smack in the face. Even Caroline, ferchrissakes. At least we know now that Jeremy won't support us in anything. I'd asked him recently if he'd be willing to work with the SNP in Westminster and never got a reply.

    Sick to my heart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Labour will always put Westminster's wants above Scotland's needs. Even Jeremy.

      Delete
    2. I thought there might be a very small handful of Labour MPs who would vote with us. Not even that.

      I suppose it's the usual thing going on at Westminster: trying to wear us down and break our spirit. What it actually does is harden our hearts and make us even more determined to throw this weight off our backs.

      Delete
  4. Put another way, 58 MPs voted for the imposition of huge additional cuts in Scotland; the others didn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or put another way, Pouter fuckwit doesn't understand scottish politics or that the nasty party and their red tory chums were annihilated only last month.

      Delete
    2. Concerning FFA: Hundreds of unionists ignore the wishes of most people in Scotland. The so-called "united" kingdom is safe in unionist' hands. Ha ha ha.

      Delete
    3. "Put another way, 58 MPs voted for the imposition of huge additional cuts in Scotland; the others didn't."

      Yes, by all means put it in a wildly inaccurate way if it makes you feel any happier. What a lark.

      Delete
    4. You have still not explained where the revenue that Scotland will generate to maintain its current levels of expenditure will come from should Barnett go, FFA come in and Westminster retain control of fiscal policy.

      Delete
    5. Evening, Simon. You should have told us it was you.

      Delete
    6. Anon; where does the UK get its £ 96 billion it's due to borrow this year?

      Delete
    7. Mainly from UK-based lenders, but also from the international markets. The UK controls its own currency. Scotland under FFA, or the sterling zone the SNP advocates in the case of independence, would not. In both cases Westminster would.

      Delete
    8. "Mainly from UK-based lenders, but also from the international markets."

      Sounds a bit vague, Simon. You'll have to do better than that if you're going to satisfy the people of Scotland.

      Delete
    9. So why would Scotland under FFA be banned from borrowing when other devolved parliaments are able to? In reference to the Stirling zone; how many countries use the dollar but also borrow on the international markets?

      Delete
    10. It would not be banned, but it would so under rules set by Westminster and with safeguards put in place by Westminster; the main one being that Scotland would always be able to pay back what it borrowed - and that would mean very tight fiscal controls. There is no formal dollar zone encompassing any group of independent countries.

      Delete
    11. "It would not be banned"

      Cheers, Simon.

      Delete
    12. You have kind of undone your arguement here Jeff. At the moment we pay a population share for all UK borrowing, a lot of that funds projects like HS1 and HS2, which does not benefit us.

      I'll need to check the info on formal dollar zone agreements, as there is certainly trade agreements between dollar using countries. However, the point still stands that they can borrow. The Ruk politicians were arguing there wouldn't be an agreement....therefore by your arguement we would find it easier to borrow!

      Delete
    13. The likelihood is that there would not be an agreement because Scotland would never agree to the controls that Westminster would insist on. Using sterling anyway would make the cost of borrowing prohibitive and would also be predicated on lenders believing they would get their money back. That would entail eye-watering austerity as it would mean Scotland would have to run a surplus. The currency remains a real weak point in the case for independence. And it is a major issue with FFA too; with that Scotland loses Barnett but Westminster retains control over all monetary issues.

      Delete
    14. Eh? Jeff you are doing yourself a disservice here. If Scotland had a surplus we wouldn't need to borrow....

      If there wasn't an agreement what is the point in the union?

      Using Sterling wouldn't make the cost of borrowing prohibitive, that is actually linked to credit ratings and ability to pay back etc etc.

      The currency issue is not a weak case, it is very sensible to use the £ in the immediate time after independence. This was almost always likely to be a transition plan. However, who knows what George Osbourne would say if we actually had voted Yes.....I think most people expect he would have ate his words. Tories after all, say one thing and do another.

      Delete
    15. "The likelihood is..."

      Oh well, say no more. By all means let's make all our decisions based on what you think is "likely".

      Delete
    16. Jeff - I don't know where this idea of UK "control" of Sterling comes from. It's a simple fact that the day after Scotland became independent it would be able to offer and sell government bonds on the international markets. In fact these bonds could be in Sterling, being a tradable currency, and there would be no way rUK or Bank of England could stop it. These bonds would be sought and bought by the Sovereign Banks of many countries, including almost certainly the part of Bank of England not taken by Scotland. The only issue, and it's a big one, would be price.

      Alan Forrest

      Delete
  5. Not sure who Simon is, but it's not me. I'm Jeff. Now, how is Scotland going to maintain current levels of expenditure in the absence of Barnett and Westminster control of fiscal policy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I refer you to the seventeen billion answers to that question that we gave you the last time you asked, Simon. (Sorry, "Jeff".)

      Delete
    2. Fuck sake. He was calling himself Steve two minutes ago.

      ROFL

      Delete
    3. Yes, I noticed that! He gives a surname below as well, which I'm (ahem) quite sure is genuine.

      Delete
    4. Not sure that folk who do not understand that more than person can post anonymously are going to be that clued up on FFA, Barnett and currency issues. Best stick to ox-carts :-D

      Delete
    5. I'm glad you brought that subject up, Simon - can we finally expect an answer this evening on how you're going to dispose of your ox-carts in an environmentally-friendly manner?

      Delete
    6. It will happen because I say and believe it will happen. Any evidence to the contrary has been fabricated by the pony and trap elite, and their lickspittles in the mainstream media. You can find the truth in the Wee Book of Ox-Carts.

      Delete
    7. The people of Scotland are looking for a grown-up debate, Simon. You might get away with showing that sort of contempt for legitimate questions here, but sooner or later you'll have to produce a credible answer. The future of the Union - which you claim to care about - depends on it.

      Delete
    8. I thought we were talking about ox-carts.

      Delete
    9. Dear me. This is the kind of economic illiteracy we've come to expect from your side of the argument, Simon. Do you seriously not understand the damage that will be done to the UK economy if the environment is ravaged as a result of unsafe ox-cart disposal? How do you plan to keep Scotland inside the Union then?

      "I thought we were talking about ox-carts", he says. The mind boggles.

      Delete
  6. As I am not Simon, I have not seen them. I guess what you are saying is that you do not have any answers. You just *feel* that it would all be OK. Sadly, in the real world that is not going to be enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I guess what you are saying is that you do not have any answers."

      And my own guess is that if I'd wanted to say I didn't have any answers, I probably would have said that, rather than saying "I refer you to the seventeen billion answers to that question that we gave you the last time you asked, Simon."

      Incidentally, "Jeff", are you Jeff Harding, by any chance? You know, the legend who played Orrin Hudson in Howards' Way, and Ed Winchester in The Fast Show?

      Delete
  7. No, I am Jeff Whittle, once of Selkirk now of London, and a Labour party member.

    Now, where is the money coming form to maintain current levels of expenditure when Barnett goes, FFA comes in and Westminster controls fiscal policy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "No, I am Jeff Whittle"

      Are you related to Bill Whittle, by any chance?

      http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/we-live-in-free-world-i-whittle-down.html

      Delete
    2. Jeff; where is the UK going to get the £96 Billion due to borrowed this year? There's a clue in the sentence.......

      Delete
    3. I do have an uncle Billy, but not sure it's the same person :-). You really don't want to answer do you? Never mind. It does not matter on here. But you'll need to come up with something credible if you want to change people's minds out in the real world.

      Delete
    4. Look, "Jeff", I'll answer your question YET AGAIN, just as soon as you tell me how you're going to dispose of all those ox-carts in an environmentally-friendly manner.

      ANSWER!

      ANSWER!

      You can't, can you? Still, it doesn't matter on here, but you're going to have to come up with an answer sooner or later if you're NOT GOING TO DESTROY THE PLANET.

      Delete
    5. OK - I get it. You don't have an answer. We'll just go round and round now. But at some stage out there in the real world, you'll need to get a lot more convincing on currency, spending and related issues. Luckily for my side, ox-carts aren't going to be a big part of the debate.

      Delete
    6. I must say this is quite amusing. Months and months of asking, and you still don't have an answer on the ox-carts. This is the easy part, Simon! What credibility do you think you're going to have with the people of Scotland if you can't even answer something as basic as this?

      We've got all evening. We're patient people. It's a very simple question - let's have an answer. How are you going to dispose of your ox-carts in an environmentally-friendly manner?

      Delete
    7. I do get the picture James. I am sorry that you are not interested in a serious exchange. I'll go away and think about the ox-carts. You have a think about why it's a good idea for Scotland to give up Barnett and spend less than it does at the moment while giving Westminster control over fiscal policy.

      Delete
    8. We get it, Simon. We really do get it. You don't have an answer on the ox-carts. You never have done, and you probably never will do. Wouldn't it be better to be HONEST with the people of Scotland about that?

      I'm sorry, but I don't think there's a single person here who believes you when you say that you'll "go away and think about it". How many more months do you need? Can we have a date and time at which we can expect an answer on how you propose to dispose of your ox-carts in an environmentally-friendly manner?

      Delete
    9. The ox-carts will be disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner because they just will be. I know it to be true. It is inevitable. It says so in the Wee Book of Ox-Carts. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar and part of a conspiracy to betray ox-cart owners and the people who depend on ox-carts. There will be a bonanza of environmentally friendly ox-cart disposal and it will all be a bonus. That's just the way it is.

      Delete
    10. It's really disappointing that you're not interested in a serious debate, Simon. I think the people of Scotland are going to be disappointed as well.

      Delete
    11. And you're going to have to buck up your ideas if you want to play Santa Claus this year, Simon.

      Delete
    12. They're all paranoid Jeff. They seem to think all the unionist type folk are one poster using several identities.

      From the land of secret oil fields, James Bonds hiding in ballot boxes in Dundee etc etc - it comes as no surprise.

      Delete
    13. I'm sorry, Simon, but I'm not going to allow you to have three names. If you really must be "Jeff" or "Steve", that's fine, but for pity's sake choose one or the other.

      Delete
    14. OK, you win. I'll stick to Jeff from now on. By the way, you were right - my surname isn't really Whittle. It's Keith.

      Delete
  8. Westminster borrowing good. Holyrood borrowing bad. That's the sum of unionist intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Post independence, we'd be paying a higher rate of interest than the UK.

      Post FFA, we'd be in a Greek type situation - Scotland free to borrow at the same rate of interest but with no (or limited) political oversight. Greece is about to go over a cliff in about 3 hours. Yes, let's be more like them, shall we?

      Delete
    2. "we'd be in a Greek type situation"

      Highly amusing how the dumbest of the tory twits regurgitate the idiotic spin of the right-wing tabloids.

      http://wingsoverscotland.com/greece-isnt-the-word/

      Delete
  9. Well, if you wondered if Scotland was really just a colony of England you had it confirmed today.

    Must admit I smiled and laughed each time an SNP amendment was defeated. I imagine the SNP were doing similar but hiding it fairly well.

    To have Westminster to demonstrate it considered Scotland a colony in such spectacular fashion was a wonderful gift. They might has well have got out trumpets and full regalia to announce it.

    Thanks to the BBC for reporting each time Scotland was voted down by England on BBC live.

    Roll on indy. Tories - the gift that keeps on giving.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Och, poor wee Scotland, so oppressed by the English with our independence referendums and our government. What victims we are; what beasts they are.

      Delete
    2. So what you appear to be saying, "Jeff", is that the events of last night were a figment of our imagination? Full Fiscal Autonomy was not voted down?

      Delete
    3. Seems I touched a nerve.

      Delete
    4. The FFA that was never promised and that would have made Scotland much poorer was indeed voted down. Party representatives voted in the way that they said they would during the election campaign that took place just a few months after Scotland decided not to become an independent country, so accepting the continued primacy of the Westminster Parliament.

      Delete
    5. "The FFA that was never promised"

      Sorry, this is utter nonsense. "Devo Super Max" was explicitly promised by one of the official Better Together representatives at the TV debate at the Hydro. How can you possibly have "Devo Super Max" without FFA?

      Delete
    6. Devolution of power is not the same as full fiscal autonomy, whether you put super max in front of it or not. FFA was never mentioned in the Vow and it was never promised by any of those who signed the Vow. Neither was getting rid of Barnett. The Scotland Act will deliver a level of devolution that Scotland has never known before and that is hardly known anywhere else in the world. That looks like "super max" to me.

      Delete
    7. Referendum was ages ago; nearly a year now. A week is a long time in politics!

      Result is meaningless now. It was a measure of peoples opinion on that day, way back in September 2014.

      The GE has superseded that result with a majority request for devo max / FFA. That has been turned down, so indy is back on the table.

      No FFA following >51.4% of votes going to parties which support that is sufficient 'material change' to hold a new iref if a mandate is gained in next years Holyrood election.

      Thank you Tories. From the heart.

      Delete
    8. Oh yes I remember well - way back in '14.... Now THOSE were the days!!

      LOL - it's a foetal gestation period, not a political epoch.

      The GE was about a 'stronger voice for Scotland' (whatever on earth that means), not about a specific issue.

      But hey if you want to rerun the indyref, the polls are showing a five point lead for no. Given that undecideds nearly always vote to retain the status quo, do you fancy your chances much?

      I bet Sturgeon doesn't.

      Delete
    9. Colony of England my hairy erse. No more than Texas is a colony of the US or Bavaria is a colony of Germany or Sicily is a colony of Italy - and we share the same bloody land mass as well (an island as well).

      Your political representatives from across the UK and from across several parties voted against a measure that would impoverish Scotland. Aren't you grateful?

      Delete
    10. Btw, there are two issues gripping the headlines just now - the Tunisian massacre (which should serve to bind us together as one people with more in common than what separates us), and the Greek default and potential euro exit (which should remind us of what happens when left wing parties borrow too much in currency unions with no political oversight). Both of these issues trump, in the minds of the voting public, the feeble 56 getting humiliated. No one notices. No one cares.

      Delete
    11. Your problem Jeffrey old bean is that while Nicola was making a heartfelt statement of sympathy to the survivors and relatives of the Tunisian atrocity scottish Labour's most ignorant Britnats released it's Dodgy Dossier.

      You're also on very shaky ground with the EU crisis because while out of touch tory twits are making jokes about the Greeks real people's lives are being affected. Children will go hungry and further hardship being piled onto an already suffering populace. But at least the tory party will rally round to Cameron Major's pro-Europe stance on his referendum after this. Or not, as is FAR more likely.

      And how exactly does your clueless out of touch support of unionists voting to deny more powers to scotland square with Brown's calamitous VOW and the subsequent absolute hammering and complete and utter humiliation the BritNat parties received in scotland a month ago?

      Delete
    12. "Given that undecideds nearly always vote to retain the status quo, do you fancy your chances much?

      I bet Sturgeon doesn't."


      Of course you're laughably misinformed with the old chestnut about undecideds "nearly always" breaking for the status quo. If that was really true, the Yes vote would have been nowhere near 45% last September.

      And you'll forgive us if we seek more promising sources of insight into what goes on in Nicola Sturgeon's head.

      Delete
    13. "Both of these issues trump, in the minds of the voting public, the feeble 56 getting humiliated. No one notices. No one cares."

      It's ironic that you should say that, because the previous post went viral on Facebook, leading to this blog receiving twice as many unique visitors today (over 12,000 with 45 minutes still to go) than it has done on any other individual day in its seven year history. So, at the very least, it looks like a good few thousand people do care about what happened last night.

      But of course what you really mean is "I don't care, and anyone feels differently doesn't really count, because I'm normal and they're not".

      Delete
    14. with all due respect, 12000 people is a drop in the ocean as compared to the entire population. 0.2%.

      Delete
    15. With all due respect. I think you're spectacularly (and almost certainly willfully) missing the point. The fact that this blog has just had by far its most successful day ever is a demonstration of the level of interest and concern over what happened last night. 12,000 - which is an utterly enormous number for a blog of this sort - is merely the tip of the iceberg.

      But hey, those people don't really count, do they? Even if there's four million of them, they're all a bit weird, so we can safely ignore them.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not an option at the moment if ever.

      Delete
    2. UDI?

      Hahahahaha!!!!!

      Delete
    3. cynicalHighlander

      Saying something "isn't an option" isn't an argument.

      Delete
    4. udi? like Rhodesia? Oh my goodness. now I have heard it all.

      udi can't be applied in a 1st world democratic society. if you want to really damage Scotland then that is the way to go.

      a negotiation needs to take place to make sure Scotland gets what it needs. if you walk away from the table you get nothing.

      Delete
  11. "Seems I touched a nerve"

    Yes, you did. The whole "poor, wee and oppressed" line is one that I find a little grating. I think cots are a lot better than that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Erm. I don't want FFA. I want independence. If you support independence, today was a good day. I'm not complaining about England voting down Scotland, I'm well pleased. I thought that was obvious.

      Delete
    2. Independence died the day that Scotland's oil industry became as profitable as one of Del Boy's scams.

      Delete
    3. LOL

      Devolve that worthless black stuff to Holyrood forthwith!

      Pity the Tories are too charitable and want to maintain high public spending in Scotland / avoid any cuts to the welfare state. ;-)

      Delete
  12. The Westminster parliament is the UK parliament and we are part of the UK (by virtue of a referendum mandate less than a year old). The SNP represent less than half of Scots (49.97% to be exact) and FFA would be bad for Scotland - leaving it billions short of what it needs for welfare and public services including health and education. This vote was not a vote to give Scotland two fingers (seriously, who actually thinks that in melting pot multicultural Britain the seat of power has it in for Scotland?), it was to protect Scotland from the folly of its main party. Indeed, had FFA actually had a chance of passing, the SNP would probably have voted against or hid in the toilet. Deep down, they know its bad for Scotland too but just want to stir up grudge and grievance among their less discerning supporters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it was to protect Scotland from the folly of its main party

      LOL. Quality. Aye, poor wee stupid Scots; need protecting from themselves. In comes the English knight in shining armour to collect all their taxes and save the day.

      Man I can't stop laughing. This should go in Tory, Lab and Lib election material for Holyrood May 2015. 'We did it to protect you from your own lack of intelligence'. That's just brilliant.

      SNP+Green+SSP got 51.4%. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's a majority backing for FFA.

      Today was truly a great day for indy supporters. Unionist MPs just jumped off a cliff then cheered as they fell. Numpties.

      Delete
    2. This whole thing will be decided by economics and what is provable as being best for Scotland, financially. If it were just tories opposing something on a whim then you may be onto something. But there is cross party opposition to this, based on independent financial analysis. I don't want to take ill and be told I can't be given the treatment I need or get mugged or assaulted due to lack of policing or send my kids to a substandard school just because funds have dried up due to a bigoted SNP political crusade.

      I would be all for FFA if the no voters could be exempted from its effects.

      Delete
    3. bigoted SNP political crusade

      You just called me a bigot simply due to my nationality / support for a political party. No actual evidence of bigotry is provided.

      That makes you a bigot based on actual, available, written evidence.

      This could lead to me backing independence for non-economic reasons.

      ---

      Check this out for example. Similar thing:

      Andy Murray targeted by anti-Scots Twitter trolls who want him out of Wimbledon: http://sunpl.us/6016BB4oy

      Delete
    4. @Steve

      There is no 'Independent financial analysis' anywhere in the whole wide world as it all boils down to how those in power exercise those powers using the available resources. All the the mainstream ones are based on a right wing neo-liberal agenda courtesy of the Chicago Boys mantra private good public bad.

      Delete
    5. Cynical Highlander, the Scottish government's own figures reveal we are reliant on the UK for permanent financial assistance, without which we would need to impose austerity. Swinney's own leaked memos confirm this - and that's from the horse's mouth!

      Scottish Skier, I did not call you a bigot. I said this policy is bigoted. Cutting off the transfer of public funds across an island because of some imagined difference in ethnicity / culture? That seems like bigotry to me. What this comes down to is will people get their benefits / hospital treatment / a decent education / adequate protection from the police and courts? These are real bead and butter issues that affect peoples' lives and the SNP are toying with them for political gain. It is utterly shameful.

      Delete
    6. "I said this policy is bigoted."

      Here's an idea JEFF. Do fuck off back to Stormfront Lite where you can spread your smearing bigoted lies among all your other racist chums you ignorant far-right tory twat.

      Delete
    7. The UK has a 90 billion black hole grow bigger by the day Scotland's 7-8 billion is no worse except in the MSMs eyes which you seem to be buying hook line and sinker. It's all about choices we pay about 3.5 to 4 billion towards UK defence Scotland could save c2 billion on that alone.

      Leaked memos? You mean contingency plans for worse case scenarios dubbed Top Secret by the Labour party and their friends in the MSM.

      Delete
    8. "The SNP represent less than half of Scots (49.97% to be exact)"

      As opposed to the Conservative government, which holds absolute power in Scotland on barely one-seventh of the vote - 14.9% to be exact?

      (Love the fact that you had to round to TWO DECIMAL PLACES to get the SNP below 50%! That 0.03% makes all the difference!)

      Delete
    9. If we voted to be a part of the united kingdom (which we did) then that means uk govts have legitimacy here.

      this simple point has been made loads. who so hard to grasp?

      Delete
  13. G'nite folks! Don't have too many nightmares about the feeble 56 hiding in toilets and getting tanned 500-50 (ooft!)

    It's like a f*cking cricket score! :0)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fuckity bye Jeff you clueless tory wanker! :o)

      Delete
  14. If Scot Goes Pop were a German U-Boat, James would be the Captain and Mick here would be the ideological political officer, lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you still have your head stuck up TSE's arse over on Stormfront Lite Jeffrey?

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

      Delete
  15. I'm not Jeff, by the way. Seriously!

    You lot are a hoot. I think Britain is safe if all it has to worry about are folks like yourselves. You completely lack class and courtesy and maul (or try to) anyone with an alternative viewpoint.

    With all the furore about cybernats, be careful who's watching!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You completely lack class and courtesy

      A sad wee bigot like yourself disny get to whine about courtesy Jeffrey old bean.

      "be careful who's watching! "

      I've already told you, you aren't on PB/Stormfront Lite so stop expecting cowardly tory moderators to delete or ban anyone calling you out for being a clueless out of touch tory twat.

      Delete
  16. Steve,

    You are losing the arguments with Scots themselves.

    How does it feel to consistently be on the losing side now?

    Unionism is clearly on the way out up here and most Scots have accepted that Independence will come within the next decade or so.

    The Union is already dead on its wee feet.

    Your wee rants on here are about as successful as those of the Unionist Parties in the GE.

    Fewer and fewer people are either listening to you, or believe what you say, any more.

    You are rapidly becoming yesterday's problem, pal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But you lost the ref about 5 mins ago it looks like you prob would still even if repeated. steve overdoes it a wee bit but to say pro UK are losing seems a wee bit wishful thinking.

      Delete
    2. Are you pretending to be Jeffrey or Steve here?

      ROFL

      Delete
    3. And what has happened to Unionist support since?

      What is very likely to happen to Unionist support in next year's Scottish Election?

      Have you stopped your clock last September?

      The majority of Scots have patently not.

      Delete
    4. "But you lost the ref about 5 mins ago it looks like you prob would still even if repeated. "

      Sorry, in what sense does it "look" like that? There have been several independence polls since the referendum - some have put Yes slightly ahead, some have put No slightly ahead. None of us can possibly say what the outcome of a second referendum would be, other than that it might be very, very close indeed.

      Delete
    5. the post referendum polling would suggest a repeat of last September 18. 'no' are usually around 47-49%, they need very few converts from the undecided category to put them above 50% (as steve pointed out, most of the people who claim they are undecided vote for no in the end).

      Delete
  17. Last thought for this evening.

    If tories are such 'clueless wankers' (Mick's words, not mine - I know, he was dragged up - shocking!), then how come they beat you in the referendum and won the general election outright?

    I think we all know which party is the clueless one - the one that tried to cut our funding by 10 billion yesterday - Scottish National Poverty.

    Righto, bed this time. The productive must continue to produce - unlike the SNP core vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With a total of one MP each in Scotland, it is pretty obvious who are the clueless Parties up here.

      I am perfectly happy that the next IndyRef - and there WILL be one - will have a different outcome.

      The only ones frightened by the prospect of this, seem to be Unionists.

      Maybe they are not as dumb as they sometimes sound.

      Shooting fish in a barrel is much more fun than arguing with Unionists who are going backwards at a fair rate of knots in Scotland.

      Too easy, really.


      Nite nite.

      Delete
    2. With a total of one MP each in Scotland, it is pretty obvious who are the clueless Parties up here.

      I am perfectly happy that the next IndyRef - and there WILL be one - will have a different outcome.

      The only ones frightened by the prospect of this, seem to be Unionists.

      Maybe they are not as dumb as they sometimes sound.

      Shooting fish in a barrel is much more fun than arguing with Unionists who are going backwards at a fair rate of knots in Scotland.

      Too easy, really.


      Nite nite.

      Delete
    3. you seem to have a crystal ball. lucky you!

      future indyrefs would only be called if conditions were right. being honest, no one knows when or if that will ever happen. the economics need to be right. the polling has to favour snp/yes.

      if they lose a second time, could be curtains!

      Delete
  18. If the tory party are full of such 'clueless wankers' like Jeffrey, then why did so many of their voters return to the days of John Major and become too ashamed to admit to the pollsters they were voting tory?

    Pretty fucking self-evident isn't it Jeffrey old fruit. You are back to your nasty party worst.

    How David Cameron has betrayed people with disabilities
    Rebecca Atkinson

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/15/david-cameron-betrayed-disabled-coalition-retrogression

    213% Rise In Disability Hate Crime ‘Fuelled’ By Benefits Propaganda, Say Campaigners

    http://www.welfareweekly.com/disability-hate-crime-fuelled-by-propaganda/


    So let's see just how upset you and the rest of the out of touch twits get when Cameron Major has to SUPPORT EU immigration and immigrants come his EU referendum. Instead of endlessly attacking and villifying them and muslims and the poor and the vulnerable anyone else weak enough to be considered a 'target' by the cowardly nasty party.

    What's that, the third or fourth "last thing" you've tried to post before having another little hissy fit?

    *chortle*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i've been reading some of your posts mick and you tend to be fairly insulting instead of answering points made. you talk about cons not wanting to be open about voting intentions. maybe faced with attitudes like yours they kept quiet? or maybe the polls just were not picking them up because of errors? either way, this is democracy, and people can vote for whoever they want.

      Delete
    2. Maybe people are afraid to admit they are voting for racist parties like labour. Just as in the past they wouldn't admit voting for the other BNP.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I'm the reason the nasty party has made their voters ashamed of them Jeffwey. *rolleyes*

      Not the whole toxic bunch of bigots ranting and foaming at the mouth about foreigners, muslims, immigrants, the poor, gay people, anyone wanting human rights, the disabled, you know, everyone apart from westminster bubble tory twits.

      LOL

      Delete
  19. Daily Mail. Tories.
    Daily Mail. Tories.
    Tories! Daily Mail!!!
    Tories!
    Tory twats reading the Daily Mail!
    Racists!! Stormfront! PB!!! Daily Mail horrible twats VOTING TORY and NOT TELLING ANYONE ABOUT IT!!!

    ...oh why couldn't we just WIN the referendum?? I want my freedumb!!!!

    We wont stand for this! We will fight the tories and the Daily Mailers until the dumb are freed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mean you could always fuck right off you far-right shit-for-brains bigot.


      Or you could have yet another hissy fit and scweam and SCWEAM AND SCWEAM!!!

      LOL

      Okay Jeffwey? ;-D


      Delete
    2. Did you 'scweam and scweam' on 19th September Mick?

      Delete
    3. No Jeffwey, I did what I could along with thousands more like me and helped build the largest party in scotland and the third largest in the UK with over 115,000 members. We then used those members and our extremely popular leader to annihilate and humiliate the BritNat parties and far-right bigots like yourself in May winning 56 out of 59 MPs.

      Now we do it again for Holyrood. :-).

      Delete
  20. Hi James,

    I think you will have to ban some of the Unionist trolls. They, and some of the people who rant back at them, are jointly ruining the otherwise excellent comments section.

    ReplyDelete