Saturday, May 7, 2016

A crucial point about the new parliamentary arithmetic : the SNP outnumber all of the unionist parties combined, even without Green help

Since it became clear yesterday morning that the pro-independence majority in the new Scottish Parliament would be dependent on two parties and not just the SNP alone, a debate has raged over whether this has significantly reduced the chances of a second referendum during the next five years if one of the fabled 'material changes in circumstances' occurs (the most likely of which is Brexit).  My own view is that it hasn't, for the reasons set out in my IBTimes piece.  However, I do accept that my assessment can only be a provisional one at this early stage, not least because I'm not an expert on the internal politics of the Green party, upon which so much now depends.  I certainly think that a little heat should be put on those Green members and sympathisers who effectively authored this suboptimal election result by duping people into thinking that SNP list votes would be "wasted", and definitely wouldn't be needed for an overall majority, etc, etc.  The least they should be doing now is setting some minds at rest about the Greens' stance on a second referendum.

However, there's one very simple way of looking at this problem that doesn't actually require a nuanced understanding of Green attitudes.  Let's take a close look at the composition of the new parliament...

SNP 63
Conservatives 31
Labour 24
Greens 6
Liberal Democrats 5

(As an aside, it really should be noted what a truly dreadful outcome that is for the Liberal Democrats, who suffered an exact repeat of their catastrophic result from 2011 in spite of having been relieved of their toxic ties to the Tories.  Why Tim Farron and Willie Rennie were hugging each other and cracking open the champagne is anyone's guess.)

Now, just for a moment, let's remove the Greens from the equation altogether, and see what's left...

SNP 63
Unionist Parties 60

As you can see, the SNP in their own right clearly outnumber all of the unionist MSPs.  But why does this matter, given that the Greens obviously do exist and do have six votes that could theoretically swing the balance in either direction?  Well, because in any parliamentary vote, there are three options open to any MSP - they can vote in favour, vote against, or abstain.  (The latter option is colloquially known as "doing a Labour".)  So if, for the sake of argument, the UK voted to leave the EU next month, and the SNP responded by tabling some sort of proposal for a second independence referendum, the only way it could be voted down would be if the Greens actively voted against it.  If they merely abstained, the referendum proposal would be passed by 63 votes to 60 (or in practice by either 62 to 60, or 63 to 59, depending on whether the new Presiding Officer is a government or opposition MSP).

Therefore, if you really think that the chances of a second indyref have been substantially diminished, it follows that you must also believe that Patrick Harvie and his troops would actively vote it down on the floor of the Scottish Parliament.  Is that a remotely credible belief?  Apart from anything else, it would be electoral suicide for them, as so much of their new support was directly won as a result of their pro-independence stance.  Even if they had severe misgivings about the specifics of what the SNP were doing, they would surely be more likely to abstain and allow the proposal to pass without taking direct responsibility for it.

Now, of course I can't be 100% sure of that.  I was astonished last summer when Caroline Lucas actively voted against Full Fiscal Autonomy in the Commons, and said afterwards that she only did so in deference to her Scottish colleagues' express wishes.  That incident didn't lead to any great internal dissent within the Scottish Greens, or not that I noticed anyway.  But I really think that actively voting down an independence referendum would be in a different category entirely - they would lose a huge chunk of their membership and support, and I simply don't believe they would do it.

So in my view, the parliamentary numbers are there for a second referendum if the SNP decide to pull the trigger.  That's only half the battle, of course.  If they were aiming to bypass the Westminster veto altogether by holding a consultative referendum, they would need the Presiding Officer to certify the legislation as being within the parliament's powers.  That gives the SNP a big dilemma right now over who to install as the new Presiding Officer.  For obvious reasons, they don't want it to be someone like Adam "IT'S THE LAW!!!!" Tomkins, but neither will they be very keen on giving up one of their own MSPs when the arithmetic is so tight.  Ideally, what they could do with would be the equivalent of a John Bercow, who was nominally a Tory but very friendly towards Labour.  I'm not really sure whether such a person exists, though, so they may have to decide upon the lesser of two evils.

If, on the other hand, the SNP seek a repeat of the Edinburgh Agreement, they would need the Westminster government to respect the mandate for a second referendum.  Some would argue that the result on Thursday makes that less likely.  But here's the thing - a "mandate for a referendum" is not a concept with any legal or constitutional standing whatsoever.  The London establishment are literally making up the rules on this as they go on, and if they had been facing an SNP majority government, they would simply have reverted to the alternative excuse that the wording of the manifesto wasn't clear enough.  So yes, they might now say "you don't have a mandate for a referendum because the SNP didn't win an absolute majority", but that's nothing more than a debating point, and the SNP have the obvious replies of "the pro-independence parties do have an absolute majority" and "we won a vote to do this in the democratically-elected Scottish Parliament".  The outcome of any dispute along those lines would probably depend to a large extent on the public mood at the time.  If it was clear that Westminster resistance to a referendum was creating a backlash against London rule, Cameron or his successor might be forced to the negotiating table.

144 comments:

  1. Something that the SNP could do, which I think would be quite sneaky of them, is to stick "whatsisname who left the SNP over anti-nuclear issues about staying in NATO after independence" (I honestly can't remember his name) in as presiding officer.

    It's a sop to the "Green surge" crowd, but he's known to be a solidly pro-indy guy, so it would get a safely pro-indy presiding officer, without diluting the SNP numbers.

    And I'm not sure the Greens would want to miss the chance to get the crowing rights of having the presiding officer being one of theirs. It would make it even harder to justify them not getting the screen time compared to the libdems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you thinking of John Finnie?

      Delete
    2. That's the one, but I'd be surprised if the Greens want to give up one of their few MSPs to the Presiding Officer job - limits the number of committees they can get involved in. Supposed to be done on a turn and turn-about basis, so I'd expect the next PO to be from the Labour party. It's usually an 'elder statesperson' - wonder what odds I'd get on Johann Lamont?

      Delete
    3. Five More YearsMay 7, 2016 at 9:20 PM

      The Greens have more MSPs than the lib dems and are now officially the 4th party of scottish politics. If we had a fair and responsible media that would automatically guarantee them more air-time than the lib dems. But that's blatantly obviously not what we have so the Greens will be lucky to get any increase in coverage at all. This while wee Wullie Rennie rings up his pals in the media desperate for the same laughably out of proportion coverage he got even before he caused his party to fall to 5th place.

      James is lowballing it when he describes Rennie's lib dem performance as truly dreadful.

      For the scottish public to give them the same taxi full of MSPs and complete lack of trust that the lib dems got while being cheek to jowl with the tories is jawdropping enough - but Rennie's personal crusade to keep his own job safe at all costs has resulted in the lib dems losing 47!! Deposits.

      Something which guarantees they will be going absolutely nowhere and be a total irrelevance in massive swathes of scotland for a long, long, long time to come.

      Needless to say the precise same fools who constantly claimed Clegg was turning things around are already shouting about a "lib dem resurgance". LOL :D

      It is, of course, the same utterly delusionial fantasyland school of politics which exemplified Clegg's ostrich faction. It, just like Clegg, has quite clearly not gone away.

      Delete
    4. True, I don't think they'd want to give up one of their MSPs, but I'm not sure they could turn it down if it was offered either.

      Having one of theirs in "the big seat" might be enough to push the party into the metrocentric media's field of vision.

      Delete
    5. Five More YearsMay 7, 2016 at 9:31 PM

      Also, do not underestimate the stature that the PO has or the instant legacy it would create for Harvie.

      Having a Green PO is something concrete and very tangible that will be visible every single session of Holyrood. It not only confers a historic place for them within Holyrood but continually reminds their supporters that Harvie has done something far more than any mere number (or indeed committee placement) ever could.

      Does that mean a Green is a sure thing? Not unless they do have someone skilled enough to carry the job off and it is no easy job.

      Delete
    6. What about that obnoxious shit, Ross Greer? I've only seen him on TV once, and I detest the odious worm already, but he'd certainly liven the place up with that ego of his......

      Delete
    7. Five More YearsMay 8, 2016 at 1:52 PM

      As an addendum to Rennie's stunningly bad results and his reponse to them...

      Just think about those places up and down scotland where 47 lib dem deposits were lost. Those lib dem activists after receiving that devastating hammerblow then look up through their tears to see Rennie and Farron arsing about with bottles of Champagne!!

      Now, don't get me wrong, keeping Rennie where he is is precisely what we want on a purely electoral calculation since he has quite clearly failed to do any better than when the lib dems were cheek to jowl with the tories. Thus rendering them pointless and irrelevant for yet another term while ensuring that they are actually going backwards when it comes to growing their party outside Rennie's own personal fiefdoms.

      But on an activist/presentation level... who on earth thought Rennie and Farron celebrating like they'd won the entire election was a good idea while it was blatantly obvious so many other results required a bit more common sense and tact as they were playing out?!?!

      Amateur hour at scottish lib dem HQ yet again.

      Delete
  2. James, even after all those SNP list votes gained 1 MSP you still insist that those votes weren't wasted? I voted SNP twice, but wish more had voted Green now ... rather than a sizeable chunk of Tories, allowing the media to drive the narrative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the long run, it will prove better to have a true unionist opposition in Holyrood. The choice will become more clear to the average voter.

      Delete
    2. Oh, for heaven's sake! I cannot believe people are still flogging this dead horse. The reason "SNP list votes were wasted" in some regions is extremely simple - it's because THERE WEREN'T ENOUGH OF THEM. And why weren't there enough of them? That's right - it's because of the vote-splitting propaganda campaign that assured people that SNP list votes wouldn't be needed for a majority, and would be "wasted" anyway. It's hard to think of a better example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      Delete
    3. Not sure how many consciously voted tactically but from my own contacts, many natural Greens voted SNP/Green, which they are perfectly entitled to do. Everyone I know that was strongly SNP voted SNP/SNP. IMO, the main reason SNP didn't get enough seats was too many soft SNP supporters didn't think their vote was needed and stayed at home. Getting the pro-indy vote off their arses and into the ballot box has to be priority next time! Not having a majority and having to see Ruthie in the MSM crowing about a Tory resurgence might just be the kick up the whatsit they need.

      Delete
    4. I don't think that theory really works, because the SNP lost about a tenth of their constituency support on the list ballot. In 2011, it was much less than that. If 47% of the constituency vote had translated into 47% of the list vote, there wouldn't have been any problem.

      Delete
    5. Hate to have to say it, but if those SNP/Green voters are Green voters voting tactically in the constituency vote (which is the place to vote tactically - especially if the party you really want isn't standing in the constituency) then that's perfectly valid voting strategy.

      10% of the SNP constituency vote is what, 5% of the national vote? Which seems about right with my gut feeling on Green support.

      Delete
    6. Hate to have to say it, but there is still a very telling lack of evidence of Greens being encouraged by their own leader/party/bloggers to vote 'tactically' on the constituency vote while there is an abundance of evidence of them encouraging SNP voters to vote 'tactically' on the list.

      Indeed, so extreme were some of the small party cheereleaders that they were actively encouraging people to spoil the constituency vote as some kind of anti-SNP protest!

      Delete
    7. Don't know if anyone has noticed, but in the South of Scotland region, if 2020 SNP voters had voted Green, the Tories would have lost one of their list seats to the Greens. However, if 2672 SNP voters had voted Green, the SNP would have lost one of their seats to the Greens and the Tories would have retained theirs. This is a perfect example of the impossibility of gaming the D'Hondt system with any degree of certainty!
      Alex Birnie

      Delete
    8. I never said they were encouraged to.

      I said that if you're a (rational) pro-indy Green, who else are you going to vote for in the constituency other than the SNP? There isn't a Green candidate.

      It's like the situation with the SNP in westminster. It looks like everyone was *wanting* to vote SNP for westminster, but were voting labour tactically, because they didn't think the SNP had a chance. Soon as they changed their mind on that, look what happened. That's not the mainstream narrative, but it fits the evidence perfectly in my view.

      Delete
    9. those Green members and sympathisers who effectively authored this suboptimal election result by duping people.....

      yer an erse kelly, it was the bile and dissention on your blog which has damaged the yes campaign and allowed all of these labour creeps in.

      Delete
    10. Bile? Dissention?

      How you get that from articles about maths, probabilities and error margins I have no idea.

      Care to provide some references for that statement?

      Delete
  3. Countries that have actually become independent have never asked permission of the 'imperial' power.
    Fuck the 'legal' system. If we want it enough, we shall have it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I remember a few years back, a bunch of lawyers (from both sides of the pond) got together and fought out the legality of the American declaration of independence. Apparently for a bit of fun.

      They all ended up agreeing that it was completely illegal by the laws of the day.

      Delete
    2. There is just a teensy weensy snag with this idea. Who are "we"? Are "we" the 45% who lost the referendum and who, according to the polls have been hovering around the 48-50% mark since then? What about the "we" who constituted the 55% who won the referendum, and have lost ground since then (according to the polls) but are still around 50-50%? Do those "we's" get a say in this? The problem with people who propose "taking" independence, as described above, is the shocking degree of arrogance displayed and their disregard for democracy. I'm also of the belief that these "computer warriors" would be among the first ones to make a beeline for their bunkers, when the first casualties occur......
      Alex Birnie

      Delete
    3. Should read 50-52%......
      Alex Birnie

      Delete
    4. Should read the first casualties occur in my deranged imagination.....
      Alex 'Jock McHootsname' Birnie

      Delete
    5. I was being charitable, and assuming that the "If we want it enough" bit was about getting enough popular support.

      Though I do think that Holyrood should ignore westminster's inevitable attempts to call a referendum "illegal without our permission" and hold one anyway, when they decide to. Because, lets face it, westminster aren't going to be as nice as last time, with granting permission and signing something to say they'll stand by the result, if they think they're going to lose.

      The Tories aren't stupid. They can see Scotland's desire is not to emulate the USA in our campaign for independence, but India. They're not going to push us enough that we get violent, because they *know* that if they have to respond to us getting violent, then they've lost us.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 1:27. "Deranged imagination"? Really? You think that UDI will occur without any violence from the unionists? You didn't watch their violent reaction on the 19th September 2014? - After they WON? If you think that unionists will go quietly into the night if "their" union is taken away from them by anything other than democratic means, then I would suggest that derangement is a lot closer to your imagination, my friend! We'll be lucky if there is a minimum of violence after a yes vote in a referendum, never mind "stealing" the constitutional issue by means of UDI. Now grow up, and leave the serious stuff to the adults, OK?
      Alex Birnie

      Delete
    7. The majority of people in Ireland were against independence in 1916. Apparently some adults went ahead with an attempt to overthrow British rule and install an independent government of Ireland. These adults were prepared to sacrifice themselves if necessary through violence. I believe they were quite serious adults.

      Delete
    8. Are you SERIOUSLY advocating an Irish-style rebellion? I'd really be interested in the polls which suggested that "the majority of people in Ireland were against independence in 1916" Was it a MORI poll? No? What kind of poll was it? Making statements like that without the faintest hope of having them validated is useless. But leaving fictitious "polls" aside, you are suggesting that we run the risk of a civil war in Scotland, because "we know we have right on our side"? You ARE aware that it wasn't just a case of a "few shots fired in the air" and independence was settled - right? You DO know that a bloody civil war ensued, the echoes of which can still be heard today in Irish conversation? I am deeply suspicious of folk who casually mention stuff like this as though it is of no consequence. We live in a democracy - just! There are countless examples throughout quite recent history where the "wrong" people thought they were the "right" people and knew better than the ACTUAL people, and the ACTUAL people paid the price for their folly. You "sacrifice" away sir, but stay well clear of my neighbourhood!
      Alex Birnie

      Delete
    9. So you're saying James Connolly et al weren't serious adults?

      Delete

    10. "The debate about Scottish independence does prompt the thought: how would the Irish people have voted, in a full plebiscite, including women and including young people from the age of 16?

      I think undoubtedly, the majority would have voted for Home Rule (which is broadly what the ‘Yes’ side in Scotland will get if they win).

      If offered a referendum two years later, in 1916, on whether the Irish people wanted a completely independent republic, as declared outside of the GPO, how would our grandparents and great-grandparents have voted?

      A fiery minority would probably have voted in favour, but the more prudent majority would probably have voted against. We know that the Catholic Church as a body would have been against the 1916 option, although some younger nationalist priests would have favoured it.

      I wouldn’t describe myself as a strong nationalist and yet, the debate on the Scottish referendum has prompted some mixed reflections. Most Scots of my acquaintance are voting “No”, and support the “Better Together” campaign to keep the Union, but then most Scots that I know are not living in Scotland.

      And the tenor of the pre-referendum debate has elicited in me a certain retrospective fondness for the spirit of Irish nationalism, which was romantic, high-flown, mystical and self-sacrificing. By contrast, the Scots seem so depressingly practical and utilitarian! It’s all about money, the economy, the health service, the pound and oil revenues. Where is the vision thing, Jock?

      Yet if Ireland had gained independence by referendum, I feel sure that the basis of the debate would also have been much focused on practicalities, too. After all, many an Irish person, in 1914-16, thought the two greatest political achievements that had occurred were the Wyndham Land Acts of 1898, which allowed the tenant farmer to acquire his own property, and Lloyd George’s allocation of the pension in 1909, which gave all old people in Ireland, for the first time, a guaranteed income.

      We weren’t as romantic as we thought we were, as perhaps recent economic developments concerning banks and property, have shown.

      But still, I do remember, as an adolescent, how inspiring Irish nationalism was as transmitted by poetry (Yeats, Emily Lawless, Clarence Mangan), ballad and song (The Bould Robert Emmet, the Darlin’ of Ireland). And also, how willing our elders were to make sacrifices “for the country”.

      Different stories, different paths – and different times. I predict the Scots will vote No to independence, because economic considerations are now sovereign. In other words, they’re too fond of the bawbees!"

      Mary Kelly

      Delete
    11. James Connolly was a very serious adult - that's why the British shot him. As you say, different times. Democracy is different today - the ruling class have to be a tad more careful than they were in 1916. I'm not trying to minimise the ferocity of the ruling classes today, because the vicious streak is still there if they are threatened. In Scotland, here and now, the story is also different. Because we live in different times, and because our story is different, I hope that the path we take to independence is different. Unlike you, I believe that, given the right leadership,(and the almost unbelievable crassness of the Tories in Westminster), the people of Scotland who voted no will change their minds and vote yes at the next referendum. After that, independence is certain. Lack of patience, and foolhardiness are our only obstacles now. Why on earth would we choose a path that could lead to disaster for us all? We have a clear road in front of us - 56 out of 59 MP's in Westminster, ferociously defending Scotland, a nationalist government in Holyrood, with a pro-independence majority. It is highly likely that the SNP will repeat the last two electoral victories in the local elections next year, and then all tiers of government affecting Scotland will be dominated by the SNP. Once people realise that the sky hasn't fallen in as the MSM have been predicting for the last 9 years, we will call a referendum, achieve a yes majority and then either negotiate a separation settlement with Westminster, or declare UDI if they are intransigent. All this without a shot being fired, without a bairn being killed. Keep your romance - we'll do it the peaceful, democratic way!
      Alex Birnie

      Delete
  4. One other outcome - how keen would the EU be to keep us. Strategically it makes a lot of sense for them to support us - it imposes a high price for leaving the EU.
    So they could either insist that Scotland stays in the EU (and the UK a la Greenland/Denmark) or they could insist on a referendum on Indy. Their leverage would be the trade deal for access to the single market and perhaps some draft financial market rules.

    The day after a brexit vote, Sturgeon should be in Brussels talking to junkers or even better, he should be in Edinburgh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spain won't want to lose it's fishing grounds.

      Not sure how much Germany or France would care.

      Anyone have any ideas how much they have relying on Scotland being in the EU?

      Delete
    2. I don't think that we should think that we're that important but losing Scotland would make rUK much less. The loss of oil would also reduce rUK.
      From the point of view of the EU, a weaker rUK means that they dictate terms and other countries thinking of leaving will know that they might not leave in one piece.

      As for Spain, they'll go along with France and Germany. Pealing Scotland of the UK is fairly easy and low cost for the EU plus it's democratically the right thing to do. EU citizens shouldn't lose their citizenship against their will.

      Delete
  5. James, should the new Presiding Officer not be from the Greens or Labour?
    I know our parliament is rather too young to have 'conventions' but fair play would dictate this. We've had George Reid (SNP), David Steele (Libs), Alex Fergusson (RDP) and the Patrica Marwick (SNP).
    So, really, it is overdue for one of Kezia's mob to take the chair - and what a choice we have... (I can't decide between Anas or Jackie.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Assuming the SNP decide to sit this one out, I expect it'll be Elaine Smith.

      Delete
    2. Labour may have been due a turn, but the Tories are in a better position to claim that it's theirs now.

      I like the idea of that ex-SNP Green MSP doing the job - it doesn't significantly alter the dynamics of the parliament(governing party remains two seats short of a majority and three ahead of the combined unionists, pro-indy parties retain a majority and the office). It does, however, effectively reduce the Greens to a tie with the Lib Dems.

      Labour doesn't want to lose another vote so soon. The Tories are the only party with an expendable number of seats. It's just a question of them figuring out which of their MSPs is the least unpalatable choice to the SNP.

      Delete
    3. Is there a mechanism to remove a clear biased Presiding officer? Just in case it had to be done. Bad enough that the role in case of tie break is to vote for the status quo but I've little stomach for an echo of what happened to Berckow at the end of the last Westminster session. Hopefully it won't need to be done.

      Delete
  6. Intersecting piece.

    As for "it follows that you must also believe that Patrick Harvie and his troops would actively vote it down on the floor of the Scottish Parliament. Is that a remotely credible belief?"

    No - as you point out - it isn't. For the specific reasons you give and also because the dividing line in Scottish politics is between the Indy supporting progressives and the Uniob supporting conservatives. A natural split of about 70 / 30 or (if your pessimistic) 60 / 40. My prediction for IndyReff2.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where do those numbers come from, given the combined vote share for green+SNP was 48.3% (48.4% in 2011)? They seem somewhat optimistic, unless you're putting Labour in the pro indy column...

      Delete
    2. I did the arithmetic a few hours ago, and I think I got up to 49.6% once Solidarity and RISE were added in? I can't find any Scottish constitutional policies on the Women's Equality Party website, so as far as I can see the clearly identifiable unionist parties were also below 50% on the list.

      Delete
    3. Hi commentor,

      My figures weren't related to who votes Yes or No under the SNP vs ScotLab scenario (maybe 47/53 at present),

      but related to how it might play out after several years of SNP vs Tory when people may well see the choice as being less about Indy as such and more about voting for a progressive or regressive vision (maybe 60/40 - with a good chunk of current Lab and LibDem voters choosing the former over the latter)

      Have a look at this interesting post by the ex-Lab Chris Creegan:
      http://www.chriscreegan.com/blog/item/49-is-there-still-room-for-scottish-labour

      Delete
  7. I certainly think that a little heat should be put on those Green members and sympathisers who effectively authored this suboptimal election result by duping people into thinking that SNP list votes would be "wasted", and definitely wouldn't be needed for an overall majority, etc, etc.

    It's fair enough that anyone who said an SNP majority was guaranteed should be called on it now.

    But I have to say, I haven't encountered anyone who feels duped. The SNP-Green voters I know were hoping for a multi-party pro-independence majority. But that's anecdotal, of course. If anyone has evidence that significant numbers voted Green with an SNP majority as their preferred result, let's hear it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you saying that anecdotal evidence is good enough for to support your own contention, but anyone taking the opposite view would have to provide something more concrete? By all means let's commission some research, if you have a few thousand pounds to spare.

      Delete
    2. No, but I haven't even heard any anecdotal evidence for the opposite case. Everyone complaining about voters being tricked seems to have voted SNP-SNP.

      Delete
    3. How big is your anecdotal sample size? People do tend to hear from like-minded individuals.

      Delete
    4. Well, I'm willing to broaden my perspective. If you can point me to Green voters who feel cheated, please do.

      Delete
    5. I'm sure you avoided my question inadvertantly. How big is your anecdotal sample size?

      Delete
    6. Around a dozen, which is why I haven't made any wider claims based on it. How big is the sample upon which you based your assertion that people were duped in sufficient numbers to affect the result?

      Delete
    7. My flatmate who is a Green activist, never tires of saying that he likes to irritate both sides of the indy/unionist debate by saying it really doesn't matter very much, won't lead to either the positive change claimed by the yes side or the disaster promoted by 'project fear' and there are more important things for us to be worrying about than what state Scotland is a part of...

      Put simply, independence is really not as big an issue for the Greens as it is for the SNP and they are far more interested in maximising the Green vote than the pro-indy vote...

      Delete
    8. Give me a chance, Keaton, I'd have to recontact all the people who left comments on Bella Caledonia saying they'd been won over by the latest thrilling press release about tactical voting. But unless those people changed their minds before election day, there's your answer.

      Delete
    9. Sunshine on CrieffMay 7, 2016 at 9:50 PM

      There seemed to be an awful lot of Green/RISE/Solidarity supporters promoting the idea that the SNP were guaranteed a majority on constituency votes alone. Meaning, of course, splitting the vote was risk-free.

      Very few mentioned the prospect of having to rely on a multi-party, pro-independence majority.

      Delete
    10. Going back to the post made above by Anonymous (independence does not matter much for Greens) - I would like to see much more emphasis in the SNP on the argument that an independent Scotland would create a context for much more radical green policies and initiatives to be enacted. Surely it is clear that neither the Tory or Labour groups in Westminster take sustainability issues seriously.

      Delete
    11. Most I spoke to tele canvassing, on the strreet, in central Edinburgh, were saying their list vote would be for greens as the 'SNP were guarenteed to win'.
      I hear that when they announced Ruthie Mcthatcher had won Edin central, a green voter, said, b****r, my MSP is a tory!' There you go.

      Delete
  8. Constitutional issues are devolved - the UK Gov would be well within its right to say that on the issue of succession - being such an extraordinary scenario with vast implications for both Scotland and rUK - it is something that cannot be raised by the NATS on a whim - and that such a vote is indeed 'once in a generation/lifetime'.

    The idea that the UK gov vetoing any semi-illegal independence (or at least illegitimate) ref legislation (without any clear manifesto commitment) is going to lead to a backlash is quite optimistic. More likely that the majority of Scotland will be breathing a sigh of relief.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm. Mysterious, then, that the polls have shown such a clear majority desire for a second referendum at some point.

      Delete
    2. More of a concern is that, even if there were a backlash, there would be no way for that to be expressed. We know from Catalonia that states can pretty much do what they want internally. Appeals to some kind of international community will be ignored because everyone's a member of the same club.

      Delete
    3. Personally, I think the dam will burst in Catalonia sooner or later, and it would burst here if the same thing happened. That kind of intransigence can delay the process, but governance without consent isn't really sustainable in the long term in a liberal democracy.

      Delete
    4. So ScotBrit2014, let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly...

      You are saying that England owns Scotland? We are like a English empire colony or something?

      Huge if true.

      Delete
    5. Sunshine on CrieffMay 7, 2016 at 9:54 PM

      Constitutional issues are not devolved.

      Delete
    6. I think ScotBrit2014 meant "reserved". We were kind enough not to point out his mistake.

      Delete
    7. All that a given issue being reserved means is that Holyrood can't unilaterally change it. It certainly doesn't mean it can't be discussed or the powers to hold a referendum used.

      If there was a referendum then Holyrood could pass a law withdrawing the sovereignty invested in our Westminster MPs and calling them home. According to the law of Scotland the sovereign will of the people is paramount and the constitution of the UK would no longer matter other than as a contender for territory legally belonging to Scotland.

      Unlike the nascent USA Scotland has an independent legal system and Holyrood is in control of most of it. Westminster only has authority via the elected MPs from Scotland. If a sufficiently large number of those absent themselves it loses any claim to that.

      Delete
  9. Polls...I think we need to stop giving these panels of uber-politicos such weight. I did not say the question should never be asked again - but the nature of the referendum is to acquire the people's judgment on a single issue and to decide that issue for a substantial period of time. To ask the question again and again until you get the result you want is fundamentally anti-democratic and devalues the referendum as a tool of popular consent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, you've got a good point. We have far too many elections in this country - Nicola Sturgeon was elected on Thursday, so let's allow her to get on with the job for a generation, and perhaps for a lifetime.

      Move on, guys. Move on.

      Delete
    2. I agree - get on with the job of governing Scotland, not breaking Britain.

      A lifetime in power? How very SNP.

      Delete
    3. To ask the question again and again until you get the result you want is fundamentally anti-democratic and devalues the referendum as a tool of popular consent.

      It's only anti-democratic if, once you get the answer you want, you put some kind of bar on the question being asked again. In an independent Scotland, there would be nothing to stop a political party seeking a mandate to rejoin the Union.

      There may be other arguments against holding frequent referendums, but democratic reasons aren't among them.

      Delete
    4. There is a point to this argument but britnats have to justify the delay being any greater than 7 years as they've conceded this in another part of the UK. So is 2021 good for you guys?

      Delete
    5. Glasgow Working Class 2May 7, 2016 at 8:05 PM

      James, a lifetime! Emelda Marcos and her shag me shoes, are you kiddin?

      Delete
    6. Not really - a party has to have a straight commitment to a yes or no ref, win an election with 50%+1 of the vote and then proceed on the basis of the previous section 30 mechanism. I would doubt WM would stand in the way in this scenario, and if they did - it would only be to nationalist advantage.

      You would then have to win against the united unionist/anti-independence vote in addition to battling the entire media and business establishment....again. All the while doing so in the knowledge that a second defeat on this question is nothing short of a disaster.

      Tough break.

      Delete
    7. Who'll be running #StillBetterthegither in the next iref now that the Tories have destroyed Labour in Scotland?

      Ruth 'Never Again / No Surrender' Davidson and Murdo 'We are the people' Fraser?

      Good luck with that.

      Delete
    8. Glasgow Working Class 2May 7, 2016 at 8:38 PM

      Skier, the silent majority of Unionists will turn up at the polls and screw you Nat sis again. You Nat sis remind me of the old Carilmelo cartoon character. The black chicken with the large egg shell over the head that kept saying eets an injustice eet eez. If you keep moaning with yer hard done tae stories the English may just say fuck aff and put up border controls. I would if I were English. So geeze a break and stop moanin.

      Delete
    9. How'd that Labour x2 thing go GWC2?

      Yer #BetterTogether Tory mates shafted Labour and nicked their loyalist voters from the lodge.

      Cracking result for UKIP too. #Breakthrough

      Delete
    10. Skier, please don't feed the omnishambles.

      Delete
    11. Glasgow Working Class 2May 7, 2016 at 10:10 PM

      Hey Skier you are decending into the same pitt as Anon the Bigot who hates his fellow Scots who have an opinion and tradition contrary to his. Real scumbag that Anon.

      Delete
    12. Don't feed the troll, folks.

      Delete
  10. ScotBrit2014, Irony not a long suit I see. ;D

    ReplyDelete
  11. I saw this post on a site called OSNews

    "OS News features a specially-written thumbs-up/thumbs-down voting mechanism that allows users to vote down posts that are then hidden from the default view. Individuals can set their comment threshold to suit their own preferences. The voting mechanism allows users to specify why they voted against a post (Inaccurate, Troll, or Off-topic). This enables the collective wisdom of OS News readers to reduce trolling."

    As I said before. I'm up for contributing. Please investigate it.

    This site now seems to have up to 4. That's disproportionately high compared to other sites I visit. I have to wonder why they are all effectively doing a kind on DNS on this site in particular.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Glasgow Working Class 2May 7, 2016 at 8:01 PM

    Have the Nat sis implemented any progressive policies since gaining power that would make a Unionist consider changing position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't feed the troll, folks.

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working Class 2May 7, 2016 at 10:04 PM

      Answer the question Nat si bigot. What have you Nat sis ever done for the working class! Besides the wine and roads!

      Delete
    3. James - seriously! How much money would you need to be pledged and donated for an upgrade to a platform that allows you to stop this nonsense? As soon as the village idiot appears, folk get turned off and leave the blog. As was said in a previous blog, I'm sure many people would be happy to support you financially in such a move!
      Alex Birnie

      Delete
    4. Don't feed the troll, folks.

      Delete
  13. Anonymus at 7.53: Agreed about the trolling. In this case it would be enough to ban anyone using the term Nat sis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2May 7, 2016 at 9:08 PM

      Are you Nat sis trying to do a Nazi/Stalinist act and silence people that do not support Nat si ism? Glad I am not called Cohen.

      Delete
    2. Don't feed the troll, folks.

      Delete
    3. Glasgow Working Class 2May 7, 2016 at 9:45 PM

      Eat yer sporran Nat si bhoy. You could raise the black flag in the Croy post office and declare the Republic! Bigot.

      Delete
    4. Don't feed the troll, folks.

      Delete
  14. James it seems to me that a more likely and numerous source of lost SNP votes was the people who voted in the referendum but could not be bothered to vote on Thursday.

    Us splitters in the People's Green Front of Judea voted for the parties we wanted, SNP and Green. I'm not persuaded that a majority SNP is good for the SNP, the independence movement or Scotland, and the SNP were not robbed of it by the Greens.

    More to the point, the soft No voters who hold the keys to independence would in my opinion like to think an independent Scotland would be a multi party democracy. Since the parties usually on offer in the UK have set their faces against independence it appears to the ordinary voter that an independent Scotland would be run by a large SNP, a small Green party and Sheridanesque left wing shards.

    Of course once independence was a done deal, Labour LibDems and the Tories would reinvent themselves as Scottish parties, but they will never admit that now.

    So IMHO it is no bad thing for there to be more than one independence party. The SNP made a good job of minority government last time with fewer seats and the Tories are a dream opposition so it's a good deal all round.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spamming the same excuses won't make them any more believable.

      The same people who told the lies about an SNP majority being 'guaranteed' or a 'certainty' can't either suddeny pretend they didn't say that or somehow fail to understand that the SNP INCREASED their vote and that the constituency vote was a record high while the list was well behind how it did previously.

      Nor is it remotely credible to pretend that prominent greens didn't constantly try to tell SNP supporters not to "waste" their list vote on the SNP while somehow neglecting to tell their own supporters of this sudden imaginary support and drive for tactical SNP voting on the constituency vote.

      Delete
  15. I should have also said that the unionist vote seems to have coalesced tactically around the Tories in a much more convincing way than they managed in GE2015, so the battle lines have hardened.

    And at the count in Dingwall I took great joy in seeing the reptiles in UKIP gubbed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seriously think the tories being the face of the Yoons is remotely convincing or hardens anything other than a few orange lodgers?


      I'd look away from scottish politics for the next five years as you're in for a wee shock when it comes to the tories being the 'acceptable' face of the Yoons.

      Delete
    2. Anopnymous you misunderstand me. The Tories will never manage "acceptable" in Scotland while they have to defend austerity, tax cuts for the rich, Trident and so on. They will make a big target to hit.

      But it's fairly obvious that they are carrying the flag for unionism and got tactical LibDem and Labour votes.

      Delete
  16. Now that the Tories are the official opposition are they going to continue with the time honoured "SNP Bad" type of policy or come clean and tell Scottish voters what they really have on offer?
    They are going to have to hide most of the stuff being promoted by head office in london because if they don't,they will be a one term opposition party.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This has been an excellent result for unionism and for consensus government and democracy. Don't get me wrong, I wish the unionist parties had achieved just 5 more but - considering some of the worst polls put us on about one third of MSPs - I think almost half is a stunning achievement (btw, will there now be an investigation into the polling that got the result so so wrong yet again?)

    As for the new political situation, it's not quite the case that "SNP + Green beats everyone else, so there!". The SNP are a mainstream party of government and as such they have to be moderate and pragmatic - so their natural bedfellows when it comes to the day to day running of the country are lib/lab/con, not Greens (a fringe movement of dreamers). Lib/lab/con can exact a price for this cooperation e.g. no more indy votes, for the time being.

    We'll have to see how it plays out. But I'm with "The Rev" on this - indy is off the cards for five years, at least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sunshine on CrieffMay 7, 2016 at 10:07 PM

      Aldo - Greens may be fringe but the government can still use the threat of them. "Co-operate, or the landowner class gets it!"

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working Class 2May 7, 2016 at 10:39 PM

      The land owners and landlords have nothing to fear from the Tartan Tory Nat sis. Business as usual for them.

      Delete
    3. "This has been an excellent result for unionism"

      If Labour and the Tories' positions were reversed then I might agree with you. With the Tories clearly in the driving seat for the unionist side the rump of Labour MSPs, members and voters will be forced to consciously and very visibly make the decision if they stand with the Tories against the SNP or with the SNP against the Tories.
      Whichever choice they make will cost their party and the union dearly.

      Delete
    4. You are like Jackson Carlaw. One minute you make a sensible-ish post then follow it up with utter nonsense.

      A good night for unionism? No doubt the Tories have found their niche - a form of Ulster-lite unionism similar to the DUP.

      There never was going to be an independence referendum even with an SNP majority. And if for example Brexit occurs with Scotland voting to remain, the Greens will not block a referendum on independence.

      If anything this has been a very good result. As an SNP member I was thinking long about the potential results after 10pm on Thursday, and came to the conclusion that an SNP just short majority may well be the best result it means ;

      SNP will have to govern well, and work with other parties to get budgets and bills through. They also do not fall in to the danger of complacency much like Labour did when they romped Scotland.

      The parts of the manifesto where I have been slightly disappointed with the SNP e.g land reform, tax. Especially land reform with Wightman now in the parli, we should go for a deeper more radical version of it, and it'll pass thanks to Green friends.

      The Tories will now face scrunity. The official opposition in Scotland, a potential civil war during/after Brexit and their cuts still to come.

      Delete
    5. Yeah, it's hard to see Labour winning back any of its traditional support when they are seen as backing up the Tories.

      In the long game, this may actually suit the SNP. Time to get the deficit down and harder for the media to play the silly 'one party state' card.

      Delete
  18. "a "mandate for a referendum" is not a concept with any legal or constitutional standing whatsoever. The London establishment are literally making up the rules on this as they go on"

    I thought that was the point of the British constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The result was a fucking disaster for the pro-uk cause. There's really not much else to say.

    If you want indy tomorrow and it must be the morn, then you are probably a little frustrated. However, if you are patient, then the nails went into the coffin on Thursday. It's only the Tories who are that too stupid to realise that.

    I mean even Eric Joyce gets it. In a away.

    If the Tories are the last union man standing, then we've entered the final stages.

    Fascinating to watch, and in retrospect, playing out in kinda the way you'd think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2May 7, 2016 at 11:26 PM

      Skier you Nat sis are losing the plot. The Unionist cause was won 19 September 2014. You are the lost cause not us. That Anon is a real knob, you must agree!

      Delete
    2. You're a BNP supporting racist twat who has been humiliating yourself for months by pretending (hilariously badly) to be scottish and Labour when you are quite obviously neither.

      Piss off back to your racist EDL blogs petal.

      The phrase "lost the plot" was tailor made for a senile racist dickhead like yourself who has about as much in common with actual Glasgow Working Class people as David Cameron has.

      Delete
    3. Skier, this is what's happened and happening in Catalunya, the centre can not hold against the extremes, and in this case the extreme of the unionists is pretty unpleasant to look at. They deny that the Catalan nation even exists and I suppose in the pockets of their support, it doesn't. How much of that will apply in Scotland I don't know as even the middle class Brits have also thought of themselves as Scots but I suppose that it's pretty similar.

      As for Labour going full on devomax, I don't think that will save them unless they can get power at Westminster and actually do it. PSC (traditional Catalan socialists) have been pro federalism for a while and have completely tanked as did union and their third way. They were mocked as their desires were obviously unachievable. That's what will begin to happen in Scotland - the devomaxers will have to accept the reality of staying in the UK or choose independence.

      Delete
  20. Yep SS. Labour are irrelevant. It's a straight SNP Tory fight now. We are 63 they are 31. We are in government, they are protesting on the sidelines. Nearly 80% of people didn't vote Tory. They are detested in Wm by most of Scotland. Ruth is going to find out soon enough what majority means.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Glasgow Working Class 2May 8, 2016 at 12:48 AM

    Sturgeon should stand down and let her fellow Tory big Ruth take command. Either way the poor will get fucked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you read about the poor on your EDL blogs ya racist auld twat.

      Delete
    2. Don't feed the troll, folks.

      Delete
  22. When I came on here about a day before the vote, there was a thread about how the SNP majority was "under threat", along with much fear and dread - same with WoS. Now that it HAS been lost, it's a case of "no big deal - everything is fine" - like a moody teenager putting on a brave face over breaking up with his girlfriend, all the while crying himself to sleep every night.

    Trust me - this matters! If it didn't, the normally mild mannered Scottish Skier wouldn't be effing and jeffing, lol!

    You rely on the goodwill of others to get your legislation passed. Your closest ally is a bunch of clowns who would have us eating quorn and taxed at 60%. You have a problem!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Honest Dave's Bullshit EmporiumMay 8, 2016 at 1:11 AM

      Trust me - I've been very open about my tax affairs and the tory party will not split shambolically over the EU.

      Delete
    2. For the one and only time I agree with Aldo to a certain extent. That creeping tosser Ross Greer would throw a spanner in the works just to get one over on the SNP. As for Harvey, I wouldn't trust him an inch.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous and definitely not 'Aldo' agreeing with himself.May 8, 2016 at 1:20 AM

      Yes indeed, what he just said.

      Delete
    4. Aldo, your wind-up routine is getting tedious in the extreme. Of course I wanted an outright SNP majority and of course I feared not getting it, because it introduced precisely the element of uncertainty that I've been trying to work through in my head in this blogpost and others. As you can see, the conclusions I've reached have reassured me to some extent (although that wouldn't have been the case if the SNP had lost three or four more seats). It seems, according to you, a moody teenager is someone who doesn't despair unnecessarily. Doubtless that paradox makes sense inside your own head, but don't bother trying to explain it to us.

      On your latter point - rubbish. It makes no difference if the SNP and Greens find common ground on only 20% of legislation (and it'll be more than that) - there'll always be options for getting the SNP's business through, because there are very few issues on which all four opposition parties are agreed. If there was some kind of supermajority required to get legislation passed, your point might make sense, but there isn't, so it doesn't. That's not how our system works.

      In any case, the blogpost is about the issue of independence only, which is distinct from most others.

      Delete
    5. Yes. If the SNP had come up a bit shorter so that it actively required Green votes to get legislation through, it would have been pretty terrifying. But it didn't. All that's needed is that the Greens don't jump right into bed with all three unionist parties at once, which even they aren't crazy enough to do. Not happy Patrick? Abstain all you like.

      Nicola can more or less do what she likes within a pretty wide definition of reason, on the present arithmetic. And maybe some people will stop this ridiculous whine of "one party state" for a bit.

      Delete
    6. teeth in the glassMay 8, 2016 at 9:59 AM

      The mention of "one party state" takes me to one take on the vote may be that we are seeing the beginnings of a change in Scottish politics to one Unionist party, two broadly Independent parties some protest groups like Solidarity, Rise,UKIP and Labour.Oh, and some token Liberals.

      Delete
    7. It seems to me it's fairly easy for the unionists to scupper the government - they could vote with the Greens on issues where SNP / Greens aren't in agreement - or they could force a wedge between Greens and SNP by supporting the SNP on issues like fracking.

      James says the issue of independence is separate from the day to day business of parliament. It doesn't need to be, however - the unionists can link the two: Cooperate with us on the constitution or we'll take a wrecking ball to your government.

      Delete
    8. I'd really love to see the tories trying to "scupper" the government. Independence assured! Ruth Davidson as James Connolly? Bliss.

      Delete
    9. What I'm really looking forward to is the SNP linking arm in arm with the tories to approve fracking. The Greens will be so apoplectic with rage they will tell you to shove your independence :0)

      Delete
    10. Oh no! You mean the tories won't be scuppering the government?!

      Delete
    11. They will if the SNP join forces with them to implement fracking.

      Aldo

      Delete
  23. Glasgow Working Class 2May 8, 2016 at 1:39 AM

    Poor Nat sis just grasping at empty pint tumblers and greetin their eyes oot. Dreamin up whit tae moan aboot next. The Soviets never moaned sae much as you lot of Nat sis do and they freed Stalingrad.
    You Nat sis could nae free Aiberdeen. Bunch of useless knobs. Yer hauns must fall asleep with boredon when fonding yer willies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Racist Tory Class 2May 8, 2016 at 1:46 AM

      You could at least have launched into a verse of Donald where's yer troosers.

      PMSL

      Keep reading those EDL blogs as they sure are helping you disguise the fact that you're about as scottish and working class as David Cameron.

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working Class 2May 8, 2016 at 2:18 AM

      I do not read those articles you suggest but clearly you do Nat si Joke of the North.

      Delete
    3. Don't feed the troll, folks.

      Delete
  24. Effectively 1 vote short of a majority, taking out the presiding officer! Aldo thinks this is a disaster? We were 18 short in 2007! We managed to get 80% of our manifesto through.

    Oh and remind me the bits we were overuled on. The Trams! The Council Tax! That was a great wheeze by the unionists that cost us dearly.

    Not every Msp on the opposition bothers turning up on votes, some abstain and some go with bills. 1 vote that's all we need to get anything through. Unionists are totally delusional.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The presiding officer can vote.

      2007-11 was a different set of circumstances. You had C&S from the tories. That wont happen this time. Tory and Labour despise you and the Greens will drag you to the left. That just leaves the LibDems - and their leader has already ruled out cooperating unless indyref 2 is ruled out.

      Delete
  25. Glasgow Working Class 2May 8, 2016 at 10:50 AM

    I see wee knickerkess and her enterauage were oot at the Kelpies doing a Yank style publicity stunt. Expence forms filled in later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tory Racist Class 2May 8, 2016 at 10:56 AM

      I see you still haven't taken the hint to piss off back to your BNP and EDL forums you racist shit for brains twat.

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working Class 2May 8, 2016 at 11:03 AM

      Is this your latest disguise Anon! Have you thought about a hunger strike? Join all the other Nat si idiots in paradise!

      Delete
    3. Tory Racist Class 2May 8, 2016 at 12:00 PM

      A BNP supporting racist like you who has been trying - and failing to hilariously - to disguise themselves as scottish and Labour from months might want to think about just how badly you want to keep humiliating yourself.

      You forgot to put on your amusingly fake scottish accent in that last post incidently. Something you do every five minutes as well as forgetting you are supposed to be pretending to be someone in labour.

      Delete
    4. Glasgow Working Class 2May 8, 2016 at 12:17 PM

      You Nat sis are the nearest thing tae the BNP. Just post as normal Anon. Your hatred of your fellow Scots who do not comply is apparent.

      Delete
    5. Don't feed the troll, folks.

      Delete
    6. Tory Racist Class 2May 8, 2016 at 12:38 PM

      Now why would it be that a supposed (LOL) Labour supporter is getting so upset at the tories being called Racists? (Which, lest we forget, even some tories are doing after their calamitous and racist London Mayoral campaign)

      You really are shit at this son.

      You've also been caught on here time and time again calling scottish people "jocks", so it's not as if your hilarious attempts at an accent were the only thing giving you away as a BNP and EDL supporting racist.

      But by all means keep humiliating yourself as it never stops being funny. :D

      Delete
    7. TRC2, please don't feed the troll.

      Delete
    8. Tory Racist Class 2May 8, 2016 at 2:04 PM

      Anon at 1:41, please remember this is an open forum and all your efforts have failed. I'll do things my way thanks all the same.

      Delete
    9. Fair enough, can only ask.

      Delete
  26. Let us not forget that both Kezia and I believe Willie Rennie said before the election it was now ok for Labour and LibDems to support Independence. If you factor in say a modest 15% for them that would give us another 4/5. The more you think of it the better it gets and this will not be lost on Nicola.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It's lovly and you don't even need the calculator to do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The indyRef2 campaigning starts today. The tories will be the ones keeping the constitutional issue to the fore. "We won't allow another referendum, blah blah blah!" It's all they have. And it can only help the independence movement in Scotland.

      Delete
  28. A Unionist is a troll and the only way to deal with a troll IGNORE IT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. With all the infighting going on in the nationalist side, I think the unitrolls can probably take a wee holiday.

      Delete
    2. That would be nice but I don't think the troll sleeps, let alone takes holidays.

      Delete
  29. The real opposition is still the britnat bbc.

    ReplyDelete