Sunday, January 10, 2016

The SNP manifesto shouldn't just "not rule out" a referendum - it should make a conditional commitment

You may have seen earlier this evening that within two minutes of the Sunday Herald tweeting that they had a story about the SNP manifesto omitting a commitment to a second independence referendum, Nicola Sturgeon had replied with the following denial : "News to me!  Manifesto not finalised yet."  Predictably, Kenny "Devo or Death" Farquharson went straight into all-out Brit Nat Troll Mode, describing Sturgeon's tweet as a "non-denial denial", and implying that the plan is to never hold a second referendum.  In truth, though, it's the Sunday Herald report that is a non-story story.  It simply states that SNP sources have indicated that there will not be a "firm pledge" for a referendum.  I suspect there are more people who think Saddam Hussein is alive and well and ready to attack Britain within 45 minutes than who think the SNP are about to make an unconditional pledge for a referendum.  The question at hand is whether the option of holding a vote before May 2021 will be left open, and if so, how strong the language is and what the potential triggers will be.

The Sunday Herald report doesn't have a concrete answer to that, although it hints that a significant shift in public opinion could be taken into account.  It also suggests that Brexit could be a trigger.  That's what we thought anyway, so Farquharson seems to be getting himself worked up over very little.  (Incidentally, the article characterises the chances of a new referendum as "remote" in the absence of a "dramatic event" such as Brexit.  In a two-horse race like the EU referendum, would it really be so dramatic if the side leading by 43% to 36% in the most recent poll were to win?)

Jim Sillars is quoted as saying he would prefer a "floating mandate", ie. a promise that a referendum would definitely be held if certain circumstances come about.  That would be my own strong preference as well.  It's not a million miles away from what is being hinted at anyway, because it would always be open to the SNP to decide for themselves whether the conditions had arisen.  But it's not ideal if SNP sources are allowing themselves to be interpreted as saying that the wording being planned wouldn't constitute a clear mandate to hold a referendum, if that proved necessary.  Hopefully, the effect of the reaction to this story may be to make the SNP leadership realise that they would be far better to upgrade the manifesto wording from "we don't rule out a referendum" to "we will only hold a referendum if X, Y or Z happens".

The danger of SNP supporters being seduced into "tactical voting" for smaller pro-independence parties may be rapidly receding, but there's still a chance that some of them might make a more principled switch if Nicola Sturgeon gives the impression (however misleading) that she is cooling on independence.  I gather that RISE, for example, are making an unambiguous promise of a second referendum within the next five years, which is clearly a potentially attractive pledge for many Yes voters.  There's a happy medium here that can easily keep the pro-SNP coalition united in May, and I would suggest the leadership ought to seize it with both hands.

99 comments:

  1. You hear people saying what's the point of Labour these days.

    Well, what's the point of the SNP without a commitment to an independence referendum.

    I'm sure I can't be the only one who is only voting SNP for independence, if they get wishy washy about a referendum they risk losing their appeal and losing that support.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eh! the idea of the SNP is independence its why we exist,do we need to keep telling folk? or like my children they use to listen after being told once LOL.

      Delete
  2. I am sure the wording can be found to ensure a clear mandate while allowing the option of a referendum at a time of the SNPs choosing.
    I think Nicola has to be trusted at this time.
    No-one expects indyref2 to be called if it isn't winnable, yet handicapping the party forever with unrealistic poll targets wouldn't be a good idea either.

    Everyone knows the main reason the SNP exists is for independence, and it makes no sense to go soft on the constitution when the unionist parties will split the vote between them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I am sure the wording can be found to ensure a clear mandate while allowing the option of a referendum at a time of the SNPs choosing."

      I hope you're right, but I would be troubled if the wording was along the lines of "we don't absolutely rule out a referendum". I think it needs to be a bit stronger than that.

      Delete
    2. Indeed.

      We need a clear mandate to have the moral authority and political clout necessary to leverage an indyref2.

      And the notion that we can safely kick the issue into the long grass to post 2021 is as asinine as assertions that independence is inevitable.

      What is the likelihood that the SNP could pull off a 3rd consecutive overall majority in 2021, after 14 years of incumbency? And if they do not, how would an indyref2 be actioned in a Holyrood with a Unionist majority (even if there were to be an SNP minority government and a majority of the electorate in favor of indy)?

      These are not rhetorical questions. To go into this election without a clear commitment to an indyref2 if the People will it, will make the SNP effectively a declared party of Union for at least the next five years.

      Delete
  3. Nicola will be guided by her legal team and come up with the most suitable wording.When there is a head of steam for independence we will hold another referendum.Who is going to stop us? I'll keep working away to build that head of steam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Establishing a mandate isn't really to do with law, though. A manifesto commitment isn't going to be tested in the courts. The important thing is to be able to put pressure on Cameron or his successor by plausibly saying "look, this is what people voted for". That won't be possible if the wording is too cautious.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely. This is a matter of realpolitik not law. The CLEAR MANDATE, the will of the People, for indyref2 is the only effective leverage.

      Delete
  4. If the manifesto wording isn't firm enough, then apparently this will allow Westminster to veto any proposed referendum.
    But this is surely dependent on the "sovereignty" of the Westminster Parliament in regards to Scotland? While we wouldn't want to get tied up in the Supreme Court( itself a constitutional anomaly, given the Treaty of Union), it is important for us to insist Scotland has constitutional rights, different from those in England.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure what that means in concrete terms. There's a view (expressed by Professor Robert Black, for example) that the Scotland Act 1998 as amended does not preclude the Scottish Parliament from holding a consultative referendum on independence. But we'd be relying on that view proving correct if the manifesto wording doesn't establish a clear mandate.

      Delete
  5. The Herald pointed that without a mandate, Cameron will not agree to a 2nd indyref. He would not agree to one in any event so whether their is a 'commitment' or not it is still up to the people to tell the government (given that SNP win the election of course) that 'the time is right' however that will be determined. On the other hand, if the UK vote to leave the EU then that should prompt the FM to demand a new referendum and probasbly do it anyway. Let's hope so!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but it would be a hell of a lot easier to make that demand if the manifesto clearly states "we will hold a referendum if the UK leaves the EU", thus establishing a clear mandate.

      Delete
    2. The Herald is wrong, and uncritically accepting the false narrative that Scottish independence, or the holding of a referendum, is in the gift of Westminster. I just isn't. There is no constitutional/legal consensus that the Edinburgh Agreement was actually required; the britnats blinked in granting it, but now that the precedent has been set, it would be folly for them to try and row back from that and insist they will try to veto a future referendum which had a mandate from the majority of Scots voters. That way lies UDI.

      The only mandate the SNP needs is to say that they regard an absolute majority at Holyrood as mandate enough to call indyref2 at any point they chose in the next session. Simple really.

      Delete
    3. But will they say that? That's the million dollar question.

      Delete
    4. Many of us will be watching closely; I think many "new" post indy SNP members like me see membership as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Failure to ensure a pretty clear statement of intent about the availability of the option to call indyref2 AT ANY TIME post 2016 HR victory may be a deal breaker for me. Time for the SNP leadership to put up, or shut up!

      Delete
  6. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 10, 2016 at 12:27 PM

    The Irish seemed to hold referendums until they got the answer they wanted to hear.
    It is clear the Nats are right wing and are looking after the rich and middle classes by refusing to tax them. The poor would be worse off in an independent Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unlike the plan from Labour to hand free money to middle class couples to buy houses? On that subject, where is that policy to be funded from? Is it the non-existent monies from cutting APD?

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 10, 2016 at 5:06 PM

      Did not know it is only middle and upper cryst that buy houses. Wonder how I managed fo buy a house.
      And today the Nat si council tax freeze it has been revealed is affecting working class woman and children due to service cuts. Tartan Tories are shameless.

      Delete
    3. You can't and don't know that the poor will be worse off post indy. It's certainly possible, but then it's just as possible they will be considerably worse of if we retain the union. Your right-on socialist posturing is neither here nor there. We had enough of the daft line that socialist internationalism was more important than nasty nationalism/tartan Toryism from boomers like Hothersall and Galloway. Anyone who can look at the Scottish and British political environment and assert that the chances of a progressive outcome are enhanced by staying in the union, rather than by opting for independence and full control of our own government and future, is clearly so delusional as to be dismissed out of hand.

      Delete
    4. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 10, 2016 at 7:44 PM

      One thing about the Tories is they are up front loadsamoney scum but the SNP Tartan Tories are real shysters.

      Delete
    5. Oh do bore off you Peoples Front of Judea zoomer! you and your ilk have set the cause of indy back decades falling for the leadership of the NuLab Red Tories, or fighting your other far left enemies like ferrets in a sack far harder than you ever fought Tories. You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

      Delete
    6. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 10, 2016 at 8:13 PM

      Nane of yer insults, it is the Popular Front for Judea.

      Delete
  7. not having a commitment to hold another referendum is as dangerous as having a commitment. I agree that a strong commitment is important but conditional none the less. It keeps Nicolas options open. Even if we did have a commitment to hold a ref, Cameron will refuse, he will not agree, especially if he thinks he will lose, and will instruct the yoons not to participate. we cant force them to vote. (see catalunia) In all cases, we need 2.25 million yes votes, 62% of a 84% turnout, ie, 50% of the total electorate. sorry folks, the unionists get to count dead people and non voters as no's....again. (see 1979)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No we do not. And they don't get to count the dead. We all ready have a limiting value for the Unionist vote. Playing to their rules (though why we would want to I don't know), at most we need a YES that comprises exactly one vote more than the maxed-out NO vote of 2014 - i.e. just over two million. That is to say, in the event of a Unionist boycott, if a YES vote in an indyref2 exceeded the NO vote of indyref1, the result would be unassailable.

      Delete
    2. You would need the Greens to make a commitment alongside RISE. I think RISE are unambiguously pro-indy but whether they get seats is another matter. The Greens have a strange position now that I cannot understand. The Greens need to come up with something good in terms of the constitution (I think proposing Scotland is given 'protectorate' status if federalism is not going to happen).

      The risk would be any referendum would be painted as an 'SNP referendum'. With a bit of plurality, it could be argued that there is a broad spectrum of support. The issue could destroy the Labour Party in Scotland entirely though since you had Shadow cabinet ministers claim 'Scotland could leave the UK' while Gordon Brown has said that Scotland would not be entitled to a referendum.

      I think the UK will vote to stay in any event, but if it doesn't the major impact it will have is on Scottish and UK elections. I think the political map would change radically.

      Delete
    3. Christian
      the result would be unassailable.

      I hope you are right, but if we both play by our own rules, I believe this will be the tactics Westminster deploy. and it will be supported by unionists in Scotland. the only thing which will avoid a face off is an over all majority, without which, this face off cannot be avoided. what then?

      Delete
    4. I think we need expect and plan for a face off, regardless. It will in all likelihood get ugly. If they will not gift Scotland another referendum on independence (and they almost certainly won't), what then?

      There will be a dialogue between the people of Scotland and their democratically elected government, culminating in a consultative plebiscite on the issue of the dissolution of the Union with England and the restoration of the independence of both nations as successor states.

      After such agreement, the Scottish Parliament, mindful of the express sovereign will of its people, will grant the Scottish Government the authority to enter into timely negotiation with the Parliament in London for an ordered dissolution their union. If, despite every possible effort to do so, Westminster remains obdurate, as a last resort, in accordance with international law and the UN Charter, the Scottish Parliament will act unilaterally by passing enabling legislation rendering the Treaty and Articles of Union null and void. At that instant the United Kingdom will cease to be and full sovereignty will be restored to its original signatories.

      I spelt this out in detail, here some while ago: http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/02/25/the-fiction-of-the-continuing-state/

      The United Kingdom of Great Britain is a legal and political entity formed by the Union of two and only two countries – the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England (incorporating Wales). It was created by a bilateral internationally recognised treaty.

      It is the case that upon dissolution of the Treaty of Union, its associated enabling acts of parliaments, and any subsequent contingent intra-state treaties and agreements derived therefrom, the United Kingdom of Great Britain will cease to be.

      [Those wiki adherents who assert that the UK of Great Britain did not come into existence until the 1800 union with Ireland, should inspect the Articles of Union of January 16 1707, articles I thru XXIV, where they will find twenty five (25) specific reference to the “United Kingdom of Great Britain”. IIRC it is also specifically stated in the enabling act of the Scottish parliament in that year, to the effect: “There shall be created the United Kingdom of Great Britain”. ]

      Delete
    5. Great Britain was named back in AD43 by the Romans, which then was called Britannia. Great Britain is the land mass which covers England, Wales and Scotland ONLY. United Kingdom was formed in 1707 which coverd all of Great Britain and Ireland. This is why it says on your passports "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" So if Scotland ever became independent it would still be part of Great Britain but not part of the United Kingdom.

      Delete
    6. Anon: "United Kingdom was formed in 1707 which coverd all of Great Britain and Ireland. This is why it says on your passports "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland""

      The United Kingdom of Great Britain came into being in 1707, and was the result of the Union of two and only two nation states - the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England (incorporating Wales). The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (a derivative construct) came to be in 1800/1801. The current "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Norther Ireland" is a direct descendant or residual, of THAT derivative construct.

      Scotland would indeed remain part of the geographical entity, Great Britain, in the same way Canada is part of North America, or an independent Catalonia would still be part of the Iberian Peninsula.

      Delete
    7. Cristian Wright "The United Kingdom of Great Britain came into being in 1707, and was the result of the Union of two and only two nation states - the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England (incorporating Wales). The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (a derivative construct) came to be in 1800/1801."

      That is correct, I missed that important point out, thank you.

      Delete
  8. Kite-flying from the Herald. Unionists are desperate to once more roll out their "but Sturgeon/Salmond said once in a life-time" crap. I doubt the manifesto will say there will definitely be a referendum in the next five years. Rather something along the lines of "if circumstances change dramatically [EU ref. etc] then Holyrood holds the right to call a referendum whenever it wants".

    ReplyDelete
  9. We need to get out of the mindset that it matters what Cameron or the britnats generally say, or whether they will "allow" another referendum. Only the scots people are qualified to make the decision; we will have referendums as often and when we see fit. As long as we have 50% + 1 of the electorate voting Yes, it's a done deal.

    The SNP would be most unwise not to ensure at least a conditional commitment to indyref2 in their manifesto. Little could be more inclined to piss off many of their more recent members (myself included!). The Scottish people, acting through the majority party either in Holyrood or Westminster with a clear mandate in favour of a referendum, will hold one whether Cameron and the goons like it or not. That's just not negotiable as far as many of us are concerned. The Edinburgh Agreement was a sign of unionist weakness, not strength; this isn't Spain, and we're not about to accept any unionist veto over any future referendum with a clear mandate.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I don't see why an OPTION to hold a referendum wouldn't be seen as a mandate. Especially if there is also a declaration that the SNP believes in independence.

    eg.
    "The SNP believes that independence is the best option for the future of Scotland. The party may decide to call for a referendum on independence or further devolved powers, whenever there is evidence of sufficient demand, or if major changes occur within the current union to Scotland's disadvantage."

    I can understand that some in the leadership believe they could pick up more No voters, by dropping a direct commitment. But that's a risky strategy that could lead to discouraged YES voters actually switching to RISE in large numbers, to send the SNP a message.

    Plus everyone knows that the SNP won't call a second referendum unless it is winnable, and of course people still have the option to vote no.

    As mentioned above, the option needs to be there for a possible referendum towards the end of the parliament term when circumstances could be more favourable. A lot can change in a few years.

    If a referendum was refused, then a consultative referendum could then be held at the same time as the 2020 Holyrood election to avoid possible boycotts. That could become an independence referendum by default.

    Right now, keeping independence as an option consolidates the core support. It's interesting that Labour and the Tories want us all to 'move on' from the constitution for the Holyrood elections. Of course they do - That's the area they are weakest on. Then it simply turns into a contest of who can offer the biggest bribes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Next Hollyrood elections after 2016 are in 2021 to avoid clash with Westminster election are they not?

      Delete
    2. 2021, yes you're right. Same point applies though. 2021 might be more favourable if we see yet another Tory government Scotland didn't vote for.

      Delete
    3. It is doubtful the SNP will win a fourth general election with a third successive overall majority. By that point they will have been in power for 14 years and looking to extend it to 19 years. It's not going to happen. The unionist parties will win a majority. Then, I suppose it's up to them what they do with - keep the SNP in check with indyref blocked or form a grand coalition and enter government.

      Aldo

      Delete
  11. In terms of mandate, the SNP have one for devomax but where is it? They need to keep the heat on and promise a devomax referendum with a time limit for implementation and agreement. That is, that a conditional UDI might happen if devomax is denied. By conditional I mean that an independence referendum is required but only to ratify the decision.
    The same should hold in the case of the EU. A vote to stay in is to stay in regardless of the ruk. Independence negotiations to be ratified by referendum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Devon whatever is dead; it's yesterdays answer to the day before yesterday's question and has no further relevance. Only independence can give us what we want. Only independence will do. Anything short of that is a distraction. I would actively oppose devolution now; I don't want half measures; yoons can't and won't ever deliver.

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 10, 2016 at 8:27 PM

      I guess what you want is the inevitable trade war with your neighbour which you will lose. The over 300 year arrangement has worked but you Nat si fanatics hate the English so much you are prepared to impoverish Scotland. The dinasaur was wiped out because of climate you lot are on self destruct.

      Delete
    3. Glasgow Working Class shows why devo is dead. No-one on the unionist side has any real vision for a Britain of the future. Its a busted flush. Labour or the Lib Dems could be romping it now if anyone was left in the parties that could see an offer of a confederation or federal state would be a vote winner across the UK. As it stands, there is just this myopic conservatism.

      Even the few 'socialists' like Neil Findlay stand up one week opposing the Trade Union laws in Scotland, when every single socialist in Scotland told his party to devolve those powers. They didn't.

      This 'Union at all costs' mentality of the likes of Glasgow Working Class has mileage in newspaper offices and Orange Lodges. No-one else gives a hoot. Glasgow Working Class is a pretty good example of the Unionist mob now. A strange eclectic mix of fanatics and weirdos. People you'd stay away from. Let's face it, if we found out Glasgow Working Class was actually Stephen Daisley, would anyone be surprised?

      The Labour Party may make a comeback some day, but it will be based on apathy when no-one gives a shit any more.

      Delete
    4. You are right that devomax is dead but unfortunately about 20% of the population haven't yet come to terms with that. That is, two thirds are for devomax/independence but only 45% voted for independence. I think there is a 60%+ for independence waiting to be won but to get that we need to exhaust the other options and prove to the doubters what most of us have already realised- the UK can not reform.

      Delete
    5. @GWC

      "you Nat si fanatics hate the English so much". Complete and utter hogwash, and you know it.

      Delete
  12. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 10, 2016 at 9:02 PM

    Anonymous, you should remind the Christian bloke that uz Naws won and accept democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Glasgow Working Pish

    You Naws won the end of your fucked up union.

    Amen

    ReplyDelete
  14. Glasgow Working Pish

    You Naws won the end of your fucked up union.

    Amen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 10, 2016 at 10:13 PM

      Terrible language you clearly do not love Jesus. Fookin bad loser hope ye cried yer eyes oot like wee Eck. Freephone the Samaritans.

      Delete
    2. Phone the samaritans? Who's the one posting bizarre Nazi/Tunnock rants at ungodly hours? Feeling lonely?

      Delete
    3. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 10, 2016 at 10:50 PM

      You sulky seem tae be up at ra same time do you need a fishermans friend!

      Delete
    4. I'd bet twenty quid this is Stephen Daisley or some other journo. James, you could ask blogspot to trace his IP. He has been spending how long talking about Nazis like a demented loon?

      Delete
    5. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 10, 2016 at 11:14 PM

      Sulky you are a loser keep yer twenty quid or donate tae a food bank.

      Delete
  15. Nicola said there would be a referendum if it was the will of the Scottish People. Simple we've already voted in 59 MPs, in May this year vote SNP x 2 to increase the number of SNP MEPs. In 2017 vote in SNP councillors through out Scotland. When this is achieved, The Scottish People will demand their right to Independence, roll on 2018!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 10, 2016 at 10:57 PM

      Indeed we could have a referendum to see if we want a referendum and waste public funds that could be better spent then another referendum to see if we want another referendum. Keeps James going with his polls innat.

      Delete
    2. No use in referendums if the losing side can just ignore them. We may as well revert to absolute monarchy. One cultured and highly educated individual making all the decisions? It's got to be better than the great unwashed. I listen to phone in radio....

      Aldo

      Delete
    3. I know, I've always thought it was very undemocratic that we became independent despite voting No. ScotGov should take a leaf out of UKGov's book and honour the results of referendums, like how we got devolution in 1979 after voting for it.

      Delete
    4. ELizabeth Windsor is 'highly educated'??? Good joke.

      Delete
  16. They wont want to make such a commitment - they will say something along the lines of "we MAY seek to hold another referendum if x, y or z takes place". In other words, they reserve the right not to have one - whatever happens.

    It's all academic. With the NO vote in the bag, the tories in power and oil at $35 a barrel, Scotland is going nowhere.

    Aldo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How does the Tories being in power make independence less likely? The consensus appears to be that the opposite is true. I thought that was the whole basis of the Frenchgate affair, in fact.

      Delete
  17. "...Scotland is going nowhere." Another union dividend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep - we're going to stay in this lovely union where our tax base gets subsidised hugely and where people have access to true wealth and power and influence. We get to play for Man City, rather than East Stirling.

      Aldo

      Delete
    2. Based on recent political and economic events, yes we are.

      I'll begin to worry when a legally binding indyref 2 is called. I think I'm more likely to see Amy Winehouse and Freddie Mercury perform a duet.

      Aldo

      Delete
    3. With respect, Aldo..... your judgement on these things is about as valuable as that of that other well-known Pie.

      Delete
    4. You have Brexit and that's all. The latest odds show a 69% chance of Britain remaining in the EU. If that happens, you have nothing to exploit to try and force a re-vote.

      I'm confident of unionism prevailing - even if the SNP have to be the conduit for it. You cannot logically say the same with regard to Scottish separatism.

      Aldo

      Delete
    5. Unionism is dying up here.

      And rightly so.

      Only the most deluded wee Unionists cannot see that.

      It is hanging-on by an extremely slender thread, at the moment, and that thread will not endure much longer.

      The fact that you cannot accept what most Scots now do accept - that Scotland will be an Independent Country in the space of, at most, the next decade or two, is just further evidence of your minority view.

      You are perfectly entitled to that minority view, of course.

      Delete
    6. That view was put to the test in a mass participation referendum just over a year ago in which a clear majority voted in favour of my view - over 2 million people, with a majority of close on 400,000. You lost the vote and you have lost the argument - with oil tanking at $35 dollars a barrel and costing the state money rather than pulling in tax revenue. It's over. You can produce polls saying this and that - it doesn't change the underlying reality of the situation. The SNP will not give you your second referendum in the next parliament and is set to become a de-facto party of union.

      We don't need labour or the tories or the lib dems or UKIP or some new 'unionist' party. A neutered SNP will do just nicely.

      Unionism is the state of being in union with the rest of the UK. As long as we are in the UK, unionism is very much alive and kicking.

      Aldo

      Delete
    7. Wrong on every single count.

      The world did not stop in September 2014 and, if you really cannot see how Scotland has changed since then - and is still changing - you are not only in a minority, but a blind minority.

      Independence was, is and never will be, about oil.

      Only the thickest of Unionists ever thought that it was and only the thickest of Unionists still think it is now.

      Unionist Parties will continue to be well and truly neutered up here, in May - and wee Ruthie's sad bunch will remain in third place yet again, despite SLAB's problems.

      There will, yet again, be NO Tory "revival".

      There will, almost certainly, be a Pro-Independence Holyrood majority - as a little icing on the cake.

      Most recent polls show a slim UK majority to leave the EU and a substantial Scottish vote to Remain.

      Entirely possible that Scotland might be the determinant vote, forcing England and the rest, to stay.

      Debatable if the sad, decrepit, old Union Nag could take that outcome - I very much doubt it.

      On the other hand, if rUK votes to leave and we vote to stay, I believe that the majority of Scots would not accept being dragged out against their will.

      Either way, almost certain that the Union would be finished.

      There is really not much for Unionists to be optimistic about.

      No wonder so many are now reduced to simply harking back to 16 months ago.

      They have absolutely nothing else left.

      What a sorry, cringing, wee bunch they have now become.

      Delete
    8. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 11, 2016 at 4:30 PM

      Scotland is changing it is going farther to the right than since the Tories run Scotland during the fifties. We can tax the rich and alleviate welfare cuts and eliminate food banks but do not. These Tartan Tory shysters have pulled the biggest con trick in Scottish history.

      Delete
    9. Mention Cringers.....and McGibbon appears, in full Cringe-Mode.

      Delete
    10. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 11, 2016 at 6:56 PM

      You old Nat si muppet class traitor. No strawberries and cream for you. According to the Nat sis is wis oor ile.

      Delete
    11. David, when the EU referendum returns a "remain" vote (and it will), you will find yourself even further on the wrong side of history than you are at present. Britain will have re-affirmed its own unity and its union with the rest of Europe. That's quite a profound thing. If the wee nats continue to shout "we want out! we want out!" and whinge and moan and try to fabricate problems and division, it will just look rather sad and pathetic. Best thing they can do is accept the union and work within it to achieve positive outcomes on bread and butter issues for Scottish people. At the end of the day, that's what really matters.

      Aldo

      Delete
    12. Typical, bitter wee Unionist perspective.

      Everything seen through the subservient prism of continuing London control.

      I repeat, the only moaning and whinging being done now, is by the same Unionists who are witnessing an erosion in their support in Scotland which is totally unprecedented.

      No wonder the poor, wee things are pissing themselves.

      Happy Days.

      Delete
    13. Oil matters as long as it constitutes such a large part of our tax base. Even with oil booming, we overspent by a huge amount. Now that oil is no longer returning tax revenues, that deficit is set to get even wider. By my calculation, within the next couple of years 1 pound in every 4 spent in Scotland by the government will come from the rest of the United Kingdom. So, the notional indy Scotland can either raise taxes by one third or slash spending by one quarter.

      So now you see why independence wont happen. We'd put ourselves into penury. The idea of the UK parliament, the Holyrood parliament and the people of Scotland all sanctioning such a thing is not realistic. You need all three in agreement - and at least one will say "no" (probably your own party).

      Aldo

      Delete
    14. Happy days? Well, if you are happy with losing and being shown up as a fraud then I suppose it is happy days!

      The SNP have been handed the consolation prize of 56 useless MPs and control of a parliament that can't deliver indy. The glittering first prize resides in the unionist trophy cabinet. It's pretty bare, I'll grant you - but, as long as we have that particular prize, we need no other ;0)

      Aldo

      Delete
    15. Living in the past, yet again.

      The present and the future, really terrify Unionists now.

      Even the dumbest of them - and that really takes some doing - can see that the Union is finished and it is merely a matter of when, not if, it is well and truly buried.

      There is absolutely nothing, even remotely, that Unionists can now look forward to, in Scotland.

      They really are a bunch of backward-looking Luddites who have reached their sell-by date.

      As I said previously, Happy Days for Scotland's proud, Independent future and good riddance to an unfit, unequal, unfair and decrepit political union.

      Delete
    16. You sound like you are trying to convince yourself, rather than me David :0)

      I can tell you that I am not particularly terrified. I'm hungry is what I am - I'm looking forward to my bacon and chicken baguette! But terrified? Nah! Pain and illness, bereavement and death terrify me - not the theoretical possibility of you lot somehow getting your way. In the exceedingly unlikely event that it actually happens, I have legs - and a car.

      Aldo

      Delete
  18. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 11, 2016 at 1:18 PM

    David Bowie don't leave us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. R.I.P. David Bowie. A very talented man.

      Aldo

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 11, 2016 at 5:36 PM

      Sad Nat si impersonator. And you wonder why you lost.

      Delete
    3. Grubby little troll.

      Delete
  19. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 11, 2016 at 8:01 PM

    David Frances Old Fellow. What you Nat sis never answer is why you want to be subservient to the EU and have them set the rules for their Jock Obedient Servants.
    We would have to accept the euro and let Frankfurt set monetary policy. There would be no need for a Scottish Parliament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Try and at least spell my name right, McGibbon.

      Why you continually spout the same guff, time and again, is a mystery to most on here.

      Told you before - Aldo and yourself should just record your own Blackstar album and fade away gracefully.

      When Bowie passed, there was a massive outpouring of love, respect and admiration for a truly gifted human being.

      When the Union passes, there will be Dancing in the Streets and an outpouring of relief for getting rid of a truly crap political arrangement.

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 11, 2016 at 8:53 PM

      Sorry Frank I was thinking of an old bit of stuff. Mick Jagger did a duo with Bowie in Dancing in the Streets. One thing about Bowie he knew we were better together. And how do you know it is a mystery to most! You will be pushing up the daisies and the greatest Union ever in history will be intact. Merkel will never be First Minister you old saddo.

      Delete
  20. Every time you post one of your wee diatribes, it merely re-emphasises the fact that Unionists are now just completely insecure wee fearties.

    If you were confident about your position, there would be absolutely no need to consistently be a Tube, on here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 11, 2016 at 9:48 PM

      Tell ye whit Frank if ye get independence in oor lifetime and we are still kosher then I will take ye oot fur chips and lannie.

      Delete
  21. Why are you talking like a second-rate plank?

    You are English - speak your own lingo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 11, 2016 at 10:23 PM

      Time fur yer bed auld yin keep the heatin oan. Gordon Broon gave ye the allowance, buy a carpet fur yer planks.

      Delete
  22. Another panelbase poll is in the field. Westminster vote, indyref2, Holyrood, the EU ref, then some interesting questions on timing of referendums, and a bunch of stuff of party leaders - with a lot of attention on UK Labour.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no indyref 2.

      Aldo

      Delete
    2. So who's wrong then, troll - you or Viceroy Junior? http://wingsoverscotland.com/snp-commit-to-second-indyref/

      Delete
    3. Aldo, Scottish citizens have been fighting to retain or repatriate our sovereignty for over 1000 years, we're not stopping now.

      Delete
    4. We were free and completely sovereign from 1314 to 1603.

      But, you know, things change! The people of an island decided it would be a good idea to just be one country and cooperate with one another and share resources. It's called 'human progress'.

      Aldo

      Delete
  23. Replies
    1. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 13, 2016 at 8:49 PM

      So how do you think Scotland would do in competing with England for jobs and inward investment. How would we replace the jobs lost in defense and the shipyards etc? The nat sis want to reduce corporation tax to compete so England would do the same thus driving down wages and the bosses making a fortune!

      Delete
    2. We already compete with England for jobs and inward investment, you ignorant fuckwit. Just because you have faith that David Cameron and the Tories won't fuck us over doesn't make that any less true

      As for jobs 'lost' in defence. We currently spend billions funding the UK defence industry and still have to take all the risks of having the only nuclear base in the middle of the most densely populated area in Scotland.

      Delete
    3. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 13, 2016 at 10:24 PM

      Actually we do not compete as there is a sharing concensus in the UK. And Faslane is the best location and that is why it was chosen and we have the jobs. I suppose a fuckwitt like you would prefer redundant Scots and the English gaining. Maybe you would have pleasure in handing the redundancy notice to your fellow Scots you excuse for a knobend.

      Delete
  24. "Actually we do not compete as there is a sharing concensus in the UK." I'll have to remember that in my next job interview.

    " I suppose a fuckwitt like you would prefer redundant Scots and the English gaining." Prefer what to what exactly? You're the one that keeps taking great pleasure in proclaiming how shite Scotland's economy is. So, your supposition is, at the very least, hypocritical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working ClassJanuary 14, 2016 at 6:59 PM

      Actually Scotland gets ite fair share of investment and subsidy. Wee Kim Jung Eck does not want Trumps money so Scotland must be doing well in the Union.

      Delete