Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Come on, Ruth, make our day

Elections for the Scottish Parliament's nominee as First Minister are rarely the most riveting of affairs - they generally just rubber-stamp a decision that has already been predetermined by how the electorate voted, and/or by coalition negotiations.  (A rare exception was the 2007 contest between Alex Salmond and Jack McConnell, when the arithmetic was so tight that there were genuine concerns that McConnell might somehow get elected by accident.)  But they do tend to receive coverage from the TV networks, if only for form's sake, so I think it would be rather helpful if Ruth Davidson makes a vanity bid for the top job - just as she did eighteen months ago.  If she does stand, she'll be very visibly and heavily defeated by Nicola Sturgeon by 63 votes to 31, and that might finally hammer home the message that the actual result of last week's election didn't bear much resemblance to the media narrative - there was a very clear winner, even if the cameras were pointing elsewhere.

It would also helpfully demonstrate that we haven't ended up with a single-party SNP government "in spite" of the election result.  In parliamentary systems, the voters elect the parliament and the parliament chooses the government, and so you simply can't have an SNP government without the SNP winning an election.  In the Holyrood system, even individual ministers need to have their appointments ratified by the elected parliament, so the SNP's mandate to govern alone is going to be absolutely impeccable.  Just as the bluster about "no mandate to hold a referendum" has no basis in law or in constitutional convention, there is also no legal or constitutional distinction whatever between a single-party majority government and a single-party minority government, except perhaps in the fevered imaginings of Jeremy Purvis.  Both have been given a mandate to govern by the elected parliament.  Indeed, past precedents at Westminster demonstrate that strong minority governments sometimes find it easier to get their business through than weak majority governments with a rebel wing.  John Major's greatest problems came between 1992 and 1994 when he still had a majority - by the time he'd lost it in 1996-97, he was winning almost all votes with a bit to spare thanks to an informal understanding with David Trimble, who was elected Ulster Unionist leader in 1995.

Let's just make a direct comparison between Nicola Sturgeon's and David Cameron's respective mandates...

Popular vote :

UK Conservative government : 36.9%

Scottish SNP government : 46.5% (constituency ballot), 41.7% (list ballot)

Was the government elected?

UK Conservative government : NO - Prime Minister appointed by Queen, all other ministers appointed by Prime Minister without parliamentary ratification.

Scottish SNP government : YES - First Minister directly elected by parliament, all other ministerial appointments subject to parliamentary ratification.

From any logical point of view, therefore, it ought to be impossible for the Tories to challenge the Scottish Government's mandate to do anything - including to hold a second independence referendum - without everyone bursting out laughing.  If Nicola Sturgeon doesn't have a mandate to act, then David Cameron most certainly doesn't.  A couple of MPs were pointing out on Twitter last night that the SNP actually have a stronger mandate than any other lead party in government in the whole of western Europe, including the Tories and Angela Merkel's CDU.  I haven't trawled through the ocean of figures to double-check that claim, but it sounds eminently plausible, because it's very rare for a single party to get 46.5% of the vote in a proportional system (in fact it's pretty rare in a majoritarian system as well).

These points are so unanswerable that you can begin to understand why there's been such a determined effort from the unionist media to establish the narrative that the SNP somehow didn't 'really' win the election.  They're hoping that people will just accept that as a fact and view anything that happens from this point on (for example any attempt by Westminster to block an independence referendum) through that ludicrously distorted lens.  It's up to us to get the real facts out there, because no-one is going to do it for us.

83 comments:

  1. A little bit disingenous to say the Queen appoints the PM. Technically true, but she only offers the job to whoever commands the most votes in the House of Commons. In spirit, pretty much the same as Holyrood, as once either a Prime or First Minister cannot gain a plurality in a vote of confidence, they are gone.

    It undermines the excellent point that UK ministers are appointed by fiat, without having to gain parliamentary confidence. Examples of this working out poorly include Hunt in Health, Gove in Education and IDS in DWP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "A little bit disingenous to say the Queen appoints the PM."

      It's not disingenuous at all - with the passing of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, it's the monarch's one remaining genuine power. In most cases the decision makes itself, but in cases of a genuine dispute the choice of Prime Minister is ultimately at the Queen's discretion. In 1963 she went ahead and appointed Alec Douglas-Home, even though she'd been advised by Macmillan to wait for further soundings.

      Delete
    2. It's called separation of powers James - and its a wonderful thing! In an indy Scotland every decision would be made by Kim Jong Sturgeon.

      Delete
    3. Yes, we must ensure at all costs that these decisions aren't made by someone who has actually been (gasp) elected.

      Delete
    4. Election is overrated. What matters is stability, separation of power, and a system that takes account of peoples' views whilst not pandering to them.

      Delete
    5. "Election is overrated."

      And with that post, you have just destroyed your credibility on everything else.

      Delete
    6. But it IS overrated, James. Can't you see that? Terrible regimes have been elected over the years ranging from incompetent to pure evil. We need powers separated. We need experts in charge of things that are important. We need someone cultured and educated representing our country. Democracy alone doesn't give you these things. The British system operates a mix of elected, appointed and hereditary officials. I like it. It's balanced. Even Rabbie Burns praised it.

      Delete
    7. "educated" lol.

      Delete
    8. She is educated - she knows which fork goes where and all that stuff. Very important at state dinners!

      In all seriousness, I don't imagine any Prime Minister - much less any First Minister - could have done a better job than Her Majesty. She is a wise, humble and virtuous woman. 14 countries retain her as head of state - they're not doing it for no reason.

      Delete
    9. I hate to break it to you James but the First Minister is appointed by the Queen in exactly the same way that the UK Prime Minister is:

      The First Minister is nominated by the Scottish Parliament from among its members at the beginning of each term, by means of an exhaustive ballot. He or she is then formally appointed by the monarch

      The main difference is that there is a formal process of election beforehand because Holyrood was never expect to have a one-Party majority and so it was felt better to get some sort of decision before appointment as the candidate for FM might not be obvious and the Crown did not wish to be seen to be 'picking a winner'.

      As you say the UK now has a more formalised system of no confidence if the government no longer has the backing of the parliament (most of which system was copied from Scotland). So it would be unlikely for a monarch to appoint someone who would immediately lose a vote. But they still have the power of appointment to both FM and PM and it's possible to see where it could be used in an emergency on a pro-tem basis.

      Delete
    10. I'm just going to stick my oar in on both sides of this debate...

      Hitler was elected, and democratically handed all the power he wielded.

      Everything he did was legal under the law of the land at the time. (The fact that he could rewrite the law of the land before he did anything may have helped with this)

      He also provided stability and jobs for the masses. And "a system that takes account of peoples' views whilst not pandering to them". Hitler's Germany may have been better for the poor than modern Britain, especially after he pissed off the banks by issuing his own currency.

      I'm pretty sure Ceaser was handed his power through the normal means of the time as well. Most people branded "dictators" seem to be, for that matter. Probably because it's a lot easier than an armed coup.

      Not making any judgments here, just pointing out some history.

      ---

      Also, Aldo, I take it you've ceded the argument about the "named person" law?

      Delete
    11. The idea that the UK PM somehow has less legitimacy to govern than the First Minister in Scotland simply because the Queen formally makes the appointment is pretty absurd.

      Even in the case of the Monarch overseeing a dispute over the next Prime Minister, power still derives from Parliament - it's impossible to govern without Parliament's consent and any PM relies absolutely on parliamentary arithmetic to get anything done in office.

      Delete
    12. Just because it's a fact does not mean it's true.

      Delete
    13. Aye some folk like facts to be what they dream!

      Delete
  2. In related news, there's a tie in the Welsh Assembly for First Minister: Jones 29 (28 Lab; 1 Lib); Wood 29 (11 PC; 11 Con; 7 UKIP).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Big mistake by Welsh Tories and UKIP. I advise them to look at Scotland if they think unlocking the box labelled 'nationalism' is a good idea.

      Delete
    2. Then again, seemingly, you don't think democracy is a good idea.

      Delete
    3. I've never said any such thing. I just don't worship democracy like some kind of God. It's fallible and we need other checks and balances to ensure a good, stable system. Mob rule would be intolerable.

      Delete
    4. Then again, seemingly, you don't think democracy is a good idea.

      Sometimes it's not.
      Democracy is almost always the fairest way to appoint someone, but not always the best.

      Would you elect a General? A footballer? A Surgeon?
      Democracy means giving power to the popular, which means appealing to the masses. Look at the Republican Primary process right now. You cannot get through that without pandering to a rabid, extreme base.

      Look at the UK parliament. Nobody cares about anything past the next election, because you can't make unpopular, long term decisions without getting hammered.

      I don't know what you do for a living, but imagine if every once in a while, a bunch of people who know absolutely nothing about your actual job came in, took a look at your work, criticised what you do and then decided to kick you out in favour of someone else who they liked a bit better. No appeal. No reason required. You're out.

      How would you feel about that?

      Appreciating the benefits of fair elected democracy does not require you to be blind to the weaknesses it brings and it's vulnerability to being exploited by the Farages, Trumps and Boris(es) of this world.

      Delete
    5. Would you rather a dictatorship? Democracy or people power, is the best option we have, it's not perfect, but then nothing is.

      Delete
    6. The Chinese system of partial democracy seems to get results - huge economic growth, new cities built every year. We have spent the last several years arguing about a possible 3rd Heathrow runway - in that time, China has built hundreds of airports. Their human rights record is even improving - the last of the labour camps shut a couple of years ago.

      There is definitely such a thing as 'too much democracy'.

      Aldo

      Delete
  3. Spot on. As for getting the message across, there is a brilliant podium graphic on Munguin's site.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I made this point about the respective popular votes and Cameron's mandate the other day on here. His "mandate" is based on the absurd FPTP system, where millions of votes really are wasted.

    However, what is somewhat worrying is the low level of turnout.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Easy - Cameron's mandate to refuse a referendum comes from the previous NO vote. Over 2 million people - far more than voted YES or voted SNP, in any election, ever.

    Sturgeon's position is weakened further by her signature on the Edinburgh Agreement, statements made in the SNP's White Paper about a result that would stand for "a generation", and her own wishy washy manifesto of the 2016 campaign.

    I would say Cameron has very little to worry him. Sturgeon, on the other hand, has to run a minority government. Best get to work then and quit daydreaming about independence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Cameron's mandate to refuse a referendum comes from the previous NO vote."

      I'm sorry to have to point out the bleedin' obvious to you yet again, Aldo, but the question asked in that referendum was not "Should there be another referendum?"

      Delete
    2. No, the question was "should Scotland be independent?". We answered the question, loud and clear - so why should it be asked again in the near future? It is Cameron's duty as the Prime Minister to ensure democracy is upheld. That means honouring the result. The same would apply to any PM of any political stripe or level of popularity.

      Delete
    3. Aldo: "No, the question was "should Scotland be independent?". We answered the question, loud and clear - so why should it be asked again in the near future?"

      The people decided that. They voted in a pro-indy parliament by 69 seats to 60, and the party of government the people chose (the SNP) has an absolute majority over all pro-union parties combined by 63 seats to 60.

      You know Aldo, your zen-like capacity to disregard the material world of fact is quite remarkable. It is indubitably the sound of one neuron clapping.

      Delete
    4. A) Those parties did not run on the promise of holding a referendum - no mandate.

      B) Their combined vote total is about 1.1 million. The Yes vote reached 1.6 million. So there is no material change here - just a pissed off fraction of the losers demanding a rerun.

      C) A referendum isn't just for Christmas. If a parliament is locked in for 5 years - if a COUNCIL is locked in for the same time - then how long do we lock in the result of a constitutional referendum? The precedents don't look promising for you. EU membership - 41 years. Scottish devolution - 18 years. Or how about elsewhere in the world? The situation in Quebec was uncannily similar to Scotland just now - 15 years from one referendum to the next.

      Good word by the way - neuron. Gold star for you.

      Delete
    5. It was a consultative referendum, which means that it's not binding on anyone or anything. All referendum in the UK are consultative.

      Which means that the government can hold a referendum, then ignore the result if they don't like it, and it's all completely within the law.

      If they wanted to, they could hold a referendum on "do you think we should hand everyone £20,000 a year?" They'd not have to actually do anything about it. at's what the "consultative" bit means: not binding in any way.

      You might think that they'd set it up that way so that they don't actually have to pay attention to what the people think about things, wouldn't you?

      Delete
    6. Aldo: "A) Those parties did not run on the promise of holding a referendum - no mandate. "

      No mandate is required to seek a mandate (in this case for independence). The Scottish Government is at all times free to enter into dialog with the electorate on any subject they choose and to seek the electorate's opinion on any issue.

      "B) Their combined vote total is about 1.1 million. The Yes vote reached 1.6 million. So there is no material change here - just a pissed off fraction of the losers demanding a rerun. "

      A non sequitur and that's being charitable. The new parliament comprises a majority of members who favour independence. The electorate were well aware of this when they voted for the SNP or Greens. They returned a pro-indy parliamentary majority. They voted for a government, giving it an absolute parliamentary majority over all Unionist parties combined. No amount of obfuscation on your part will change those facts.

      "C) If a parliament is locked in for 5 years ... how long do we lock in the result of a constitutional referendum? The precedents don't look promising for you. EU membership - 41 years. Scottish devolution - 18 years. Or how about elsewhere in the world? The situation in Quebec was uncannily similar to Scotland just now - 15 years from one referendum to the next."

      It is immaterial what the rest of the world do, only the opinion of the people of Scotland matters - they are sovereign. The last time the electorate made a choice, they did so on the back of promises from the Unionist government and Unionist opposition that were never fulfilled. The Unionists did not honour their side of the bargain. That is why the great majority of voters in opinion polls when asked if there should be another referendum, say YES.

      Your opinion and my opinion have equal weight when cast as votes in a democratic election or plebiscite. Now the people of Scotland have spoken. They have returned a parliament and a government that has an avowed aim of ensuring Scots become masters in their own house.

      That aim is written into the manifestos of both the SNP and the Greens. No one voting was in any doubt about that intent.

      If there is a second referendum on independence, you like everyone else, will have your say at the ballot box and the majority's decision will prevail.

      You want to revoke the People's right to express their will because you fear their verdict. You want your view to prevail by denying others the right to express theirs.

      In short, you want to dictate Scotland's future. Your view is exclusionary and totalitarian but you don't care about that, do you, Aldo (a rhetorical question)?

      Delete
    7. "You want to revoke the People's right to express their will because you fear their verdict. You want your view to prevail by denying others the right to express theirs."

      Leaving the kind of self-righteous mewing that always seems to accompany this debate to one side, there's an obvious practical issue with holding multiple referendums indefinitely until the desired result is achieved. There clearly has to be a limit to that principle - I personally don't think that limit should be one referendum, but there is a limit of some kind. We can't very well hold a referendum every week for the next decade until the electorate happens to vote for independence.

      There's also the issue of what happens after we become independent - could the other side just keep holding referendums to take us back into the UK? Where does this end?

      So this isn't some grand debate between those who favour democracy and those intent on denying people their right to a say, it's a practical question of where you draw the line. There isn't an easy answer to that issue - the one that Sturgeon has put forward (in essence we'll hold a referendum if people want one) suffers from the problem of how you know the people want a referendum in the first place. It also suffers from the fact that the electorate would no doubt support having referendums on countless other issues and yet nobody is proposing to hold referendums on these subjects.

      In short, it's a complicated subject and I don't think grandstanding about it really solves anything.

      Delete
    8. "There clearly has to be a limit to that principle - I personally don't think that limit should be one referendum, but there is a limit of some kind".

      It is defined by Act of the UK parliament. Forms part of our constitution. And is crystal clear. Seven years must pass between polls.

      Shagpile.

      Delete
    9. Interestingly enough, the unionists won a majority of the constituency ballots and a plurality of the list ballots. This did not translate into a parliamentary majority because of our electoral system however I think it is reasonable for the unionists to claim a 'moral mandate'. We won the referendum, we won the popular vote in the election - and we did so by standing against a second referendum. It is now for the British government to ensure that the will of the people of Scotland is not subverted.

      Aldo

      Delete
    10. Shagpile, any proof for your 7 year rule? I can't seem to find it mentioned anywhere.

      Delete
  6. OH dear - Aldo why don't you take a long look at our neighbours and their surrogates in Scotland and how they behaved pre and post referendum and then tell me why anyone should take any moralizing from a unionist!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Bill - you're speaking English but it's not arranged in such a way as to make any sense.

      Delete
    2. Then let me spell it out for you:

      Glasgow, 19th Sep, 2014.

      Do you think the people waving Union Jacks were making a good impression on anyone?

      No?

      You agree that they were a danger to everyone around them?

      Good.

      *They* are the face of the union.

      Delete
    3. So the vast bulk of 65 million people are represented by a small group of numpty Rangers fans?

      You do realise that the seps are the only side in this debate to count an actual terror group among their supporters? The Scottish National Liberation Army. There's only about 20 people in it mind you but going by your logic they must represent the entire independence movement.

      Aldo

      Delete
    4. The difference is th no-ones heard of those guys, whereas everyone's heard of the Glasgow rioters, UKIP, Orange Order, etc...

      Who the face of the union is is all about public perception. And the Union numpties get far more air-time than the pro-indy numpties.

      You can blame the BBC for that.

      Delete
    5. Your bitterness is quite something to behold Illy. I am not represented by any of those things (not quite sure what is wrong with UKIP although I realise they are not everyone's cup of tea). And as far as Rangers and Orangemen go, they wouldn't like me too much - a Catholic Celtic supporter! Unionism is a broad Church.

      If I had to choose a persona to embody 'the union' however, it would probably be a smartly dressed, hard working professional - quiet, well mannered and highly educated. An Alistair Darling type figure, I suppose - not a screaming sectarian numpty.

      Aldo

      Delete
    6. Newsflash: You don't get to pick who you want to represent the union. That's why it's called "public perception".

      The union's perception atm is either the screaming xenophobic numpties, or the victorian era wannabes of Cameron and IDS.

      Independence's public perception seems to be a bunch of tree-hugging hippies.

      I'm not bitter about either of these things, btw, just stating observations. Maybe you're projecting?

      Delete
  7. Very entertaining Aldo. Also very mature and of course dodging the issue is a well known tactic of unionists who can make no coherent or sensible case for their behaviour -except of course their cringe and abasement of themselves before a higher authority! Amazing that you heard me "speaking" and yet could criticize your perception of my misuse of English! Ha!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. English is used to communicate a point. So far, you have failed.

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working Class 2May 11, 2016 at 8:10 PM

      A comparison in Nat si and Blue Tory policies. 1. Do not tax the rich. 2. Freeze council tax. 3.Do not re- nationalise the public sevices that Thatcher privatised.
      4. Fuck the poor and extend food banks. 5. Blue and Yellow Nat si Tories share the same chanty poe.

      Delete
    3. Our SNP/Green government has now been in power for 5 days. Foodbanks are still a problem. What's the betting it will be any different by 600 days in? 1000 days?

      After another 5 years, people will want to see a difference. If there is no difference, the SNP will be punished for coasting and the Greens punished also for not being radical enough.

      Delete
    4. Removing the need for Foodbanks is a reserved power.

      Delete
    5. Nonsense. The SNP can top up benefits, create new ones - as long as the money is raised from Scottish taxation (which they also now have sweeping powers over).

      Aldo

      Delete
    6. Look up the difference between "mitigating symptoms" and "cure".

      Cure is a reserved power, mitigating symptoms comes out of the block grant. (which raising taxes would reduce, btw, the "powers" we've got over taxes aren't generally referred to as a trap for no reason)

      Also, "sweeping powers" is a compete misrepresentation. they have a tiny amount of influence over one of the smallest taxes, which happens to be the on that's most obvious to people when it gets raised.

      Hence, trap.

      Delete
    7. Surely the cure is to increase welfare to the point where people no longer have to attend foodbanks? The SNP government can do that - it could do it the minute after the new parliament and FM are confirmed. But it wont and you have correctly diagnosed the problem - the SNP government is afraid of rocking the boat. They don't mind large and obvious tax increases post independence (there would have to be to balance the books), but heaven forbid they make a modest increase now lest they lose some votes.

      Aldo

      Delete
    8. No, increasing social security payments isn't the cure, it's treating the symptoms.

      The cure would involve raising the minimum wage, attracting more employers to the country so that there is enough work for all, and other things that get people off the poverty line.

      Handing them cash is just a temporary stalling mechanism.

      Delete
    9. Bravo brave Aldo - no response just a juvenile jibe!

      Delete
  8. See? You encourage one of the village idiots, because he sounds as though he's taken his meds today and is semi-coherent, but now you've wakened up the other one. We'll get no more debate today.......Don't feed the trolls!
    Alex Birnie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2May 11, 2016 at 8:35 PM

      Waffen SS chanty rastler.

      Delete
    2. A debate requires differing opinions. A nationalistic self congratulatory circle jerk is not 'debate'.

      Delete
    3. You wouldn't know a debate if it took your UVF posters and rammed them up your hole.

      Delete
    4. Glasgow Working Class 2May 11, 2016 at 8:59 PM

      A 50,000 year old axe has been found in Australia and you Nat si Bhoy numptie probably still believe in the baby jesus.

      Delete
    5. Don't drag that nonsense on here. It plays into the hands of the commentariat and their desire for "Ulsterisation".

      Delete
    6. Glasgow Working Class 2May 11, 2016 at 9:30 PM

      I doubt a 50,000 year axe is going to cause ulsterisation.

      Delete
    7. Not addressed to you, fool.

      Delete
  9. On the EUref....

    One of the biggest reasons I've seen yet to vote 'Remain'. Far more compelling in terms of swaying votes than the movie itself I imagine.

    I see GWC didn't get an invite.

    Live twitter feed of 'Brexit the Movie'.

    https://twitter.com/Hannah_McGrath

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I see GWC didn't get an invite."

      you sure?

      https://twitter.com/Hannah_McGrath/status/730466726740148225

      Delete
  10. Glasgow Working Class 2May 11, 2016 at 9:06 PM

    Anon, If Britain had not broken off the Continental Shelf after the Ice Age where would you be emptying yer chanty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you skip your nap again, 24?

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working Class 2May 11, 2016 at 9:15 PM

      Naw fell asleep oan ma chanty. Why were you in George Square 20 September 2014 causin trouble?

      Delete
    3. Was I, 24? News to me...

      Delete
  11. See Mcgibbon's still chanty-wrastling--I'm off.

    ReplyDelete
  12. See Mcgibbon's still chanty-wrastling--I'm off.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Latest on the Tory 'careful management of the economy' story.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36266178

    UK industry in recession for third time in eight years

    UK industry fell back into recession as it shrank for the second quarter in a row, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

    It is the third time UK industry has been in recession in eight years...

    ...

    The biggest fall in output came from the basic iron and steel sector which saw production drop in March by 37.3% percent compared with a year earlier.

    However, the oil and gas industries saw sharp gains, increasing production 17% in February, and 10.9% in March from the same months a year earlier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2May 11, 2016 at 11:10 PM

      That is what happens in a Capitalist world. Perhaps you want to get rid of Capitalism? Russia and China have embraced Capitalism even old Cuba is getting on board. Any idea of an alternative is up the lum now. The Nat sis are fully on board the Capitalist bandwagon.

      Delete
    2. Under Labour, we had the biggest bust since 1929.

      Under the Labour government before that, we had stagflation, mass strikes and had to be bailed out by the IMF.

      On both occasions, the Conservatives took an ailing economy and nursed it back to health. Our position now relative to 2010 is not comparable.

      Aldo

      Delete
    3. Don't think you'll find many Labour voters on here Aldo.

      Delete
    4. SNP and Labour - different parties, same politics.

      Aldo

      Delete
    5. Labour say the SNP are Tories, the Tories say the SNP are Labour. No wonder the SNP keep winning with the opposition divided like this. (Though they do at least agree that the SNP are Nazis.)

      Delete
    6. I always think of it like this:

      SNP policies are Labour's policies from 30 years ago.

      Which are the Lib-Dems policies from 50 years ago.

      And people wonder why the SNP is sweeping Labour's traditional heartlands...

      Delete
  14. I notice that Patrick HArvie didn't turn up for the Kirking last night and didn't turn up to meet Prince Charles. He said that the reason he didn't turn up for the Kirking is that he "isn't religious".

    Will that mean that Patrick won't set foot in any of the places of worship, of whatever religion, in his constituency, the City of Glasgow ?

    As for not meeting the Prince, can we assume it was on some adolescent basis of so-called principle?

    What would be principled would be standing openly on a policy of republicanism, winning an election( that would be interesting, wouldn't it) , and then providing us with a coherent alternative republican constitution that we can all vote on and endorse, or not. Until that day comes, please, Patrick, do not insult the people who eventually elected you by indulging in your own intellectual posturing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can guarantee you that about 90% of the people in attendance aren't religious either. Who is these days when you've got science and reason governing your life?

      But it's a wee bit of pomp and ceremony - a wee bit of theatre, to try and lend the place a bit of gravitas. As a serving member of that parliament, he should have been there.

      Aldo

      Delete
    2. This is an outrage. I demand the rescinding of my Green vote.

      Delete
  15. https://twitter.com/Hayley_Barlow/status/730703876622520320

    Breaking: Electoral Commission taking Conservative Party to court for failure to disclose documents and information. #electionexpenses

    Aldo?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Glasgow Working Class 2May 12, 2016 at 9:25 PM

    Aldo, people do like to indulge in religious fantasy and always will. As long as it is peaceful then no harm done. Probably at least half of MSPS hate the Monarchy but put on a pleasant face.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Aldo: Insufferably infantile in a teenage, pluke-covered, teacher's pet kind of way at a third rate grammar school apropos his or her argumentation.

    GWC2: A pre-homo sapiens species pales beyond our evolutionary ancestors to the point of his or her fellow Unionist trolls's toes curling in the face of his or her fixed thumb rants.

    More gubbings ahead, troops, in the incoming Holyrood administration by the SNP ScotGov.

    Enjoy the fruits of your vacuity unprincipled and squirm in the nether world of your BritNat phantasies whilst the citizens of Scotland yawn at you, and ignore your idle ramblings.

    Better still, pack up your bags and migrate to other more appropriate blogspots and sites UKIPer or full-on neo-Nazi AngloBritNat there to air your underwear.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2May 13, 2016 at 11:34 PM

      Auld Yin, your Nat si project will ultimately fail. Good people will emerge as history has shewen. Glad the weather is getting better so turn yer heatin doon.

      Delete