Monday, May 9, 2016

The Meow of Middle Scotland

As we've discussed a number of times now, the main reason the SNP fell just short of a second overall majority is that their vote went up on the constituency ballot, but down on the list ballot - and ultimately it's the list that decides the overall composition of parliament.  But the SNP weren't the only party to suffer disproportionately on the list .  It shouldn't be forgotten that Labour actually narrowly defeated the Tories in the popular vote on the constituency ballot, before taking a big hit on the list.

Constituency ballot :

Labour 22.6%
Conservatives 22.0%

Regional list ballot :

Labour 19.1%
Conservatives 22.9%

In past elections, we might have assumed that Labour's 3.5% drop from one ballot to the other could be explained by voters drifting off to other left-of-centre parties on the list.  But that doesn't fully make sense in this case, because support for the two radical socialist parties was negligible, and the Green vote was only up by 2.2% - much of which can presumably already be accounted for by the drop in the SNP's list support.

On the face of it, the most logical alternative explanation is that a significant number of Labour constituency voters switched to the Tories on the list.  That would certainly help to explain why the Tories' list support was 1% higher on the list than on the constituency ballot - a counterintuitive outcome when you consider that they must have lost some votes on the list to UKIP, and other assorted fringe right-wing nutjob outfits.  This doesn't necessarily mean that Labour constituency voters misunderstood the system and gave their more important vote to their second preference party - it could be that these were people who preferred the Tories anyway, but were giving a tactical constituency vote to Labour in the vast swathes of Scotland where the Tories and Lib Dems are also-rans.

The huge Labour-to-Tory swings in many SNP/Labour battleground seats may superficially appear to disprove that theory, but that's not really the case - some of the tactical voting for Labour may have been going on under the radar, meaning that the swing would have been even bigger without it.

Incidentally, we've heard quite a bit in recent days about "the roar of Middle Scotland".  Assuming that the representatives of "Middle Scotland" are the Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, it should be noted that those three parties in combination won 60 seats - which is just three more than the 57 they won five years ago.  Nobody would deny that represents a modest recovery from an all-time low, but a "roar"?  Hmmm.  Maybe more of a meow.

82 comments:

  1. I watched some roudtable of foreign reporters on BBC and they were all talking about the Tory big win and all. If the BBC says it, it must be true. They will spend years saying it's true. There will be more Scots Tories on BBC than white men hosting news and nightime talk shows in the USA. Maybe we should start a betting pool?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ahh, but you're looking at it the wrong way ;)

    They went from being 8 seats short of a majority to only being 5 seats short, that's more than a 50% increase ;)

    Off topic, but does anyone else think that income tax should be (0.85-£74,962/P)%, where P is your yearly income? (With the amount in pounds obviously tied to true inflation)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So anyone earning under £88190 would have their wages topped up by the state?

      Delete
    2. Considering that the folks who should know best about these things consider £74,962 to be a reasonable yearly salary for sitting on a bench and occasionally making farmyard noises, yes, that seems like a good idea.

      Delete
    3. Also, how would you describe working tax credits, unemployment payments, jobseekers payments, disability allowance, etc... in a way that *isn't* people having their wages topped up by the state?

      Delete
  3. If a "meow" can remove the mighty SNP's majority, just think what a roar can do?

    I see the Greens have backed the SNP's intrusive state guardian scheme. It's all going to plan - you'll get the roar next time!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If a "meow" can remove the mighty SNP's majority"

      Sorry to burst your bubble, Aldo (again), but it didn't. It was independence supporters voting Green on the list that did that.

      Delete
    2. Glasgow Working Class 2May 9, 2016 at 7:54 PM

      A disgraceful piece of legislation Aldo the government interferring in family life.

      Delete
    3. What's all going to plan Aldo? Five years of Ruthie shouting "No Referendum " at FMQs ? Some plan.

      Delete
    4. And tactical pro union voting removing constituency seats from the SNP (or preventing them from winning them).

      Delete
    5. She is from the same party as the UK Premier so when she says "no referendum", there's probably something in it, lol.

      Davidson has many other lines of attack - as demonstrated by the SNP/Green bloc's drift toward Orwellian statism. What surprises me is that it only took 4 days.

      Tick tock.

      Delete
    6. I agree GWC, liberty is an alien concept to them. But hey, it's all to the good. Let the public anger build up and up and up. Ultimately, we benefit from it.

      Delete
    7. So you're saying that changing from "you can contact someone who may or may not actually have time to think about you, and may not even notice you tried to contact them" to "you can contact Sarah at 0800-xxx-xxxx, and she *will* respond to you" in the situation when a child needs to talk to someone outside of their family and friends about something, is an "intrusive state guardian scheme"?

      You're weird.

      Delete
    8. And you're also assuming that Westminster can *stop* Holyrood from holding a referendum when they want to.

      That's not a settled issue by any means.

      Remember that "a referendum" only means "hold a public consultation in a way that's designed to make it easy to get *everyone's* opinion". I don't see any reason why Holyrood can't do that on any issue they feel like.

      Delete
    9. What's 'weird' is assuming that every parent is abusive / neglectful / perverted. Children already have people they can talk to - their teachers at school. That has always been the case. You don't need state guardians for every child with the power to overrule parents based on their own belief systems - and who stay with the children until 2 years beyond the age of majority. THAT is what is weird - and creepy!

      Delete
    10. Holyrood can hold a referendum - but not a legally binding one. That requires the authorisation of the UK Parliament. Learn the difference between 'devolved' and 'reserved' matters.

      Delete
    11. Considering that they're already there without the new bits, and have been for quite a while, why are you making a big deal out of switching from "there's a state department who will probably keep that child talking to only one person, so that they aren't constantly changing contacts" to "there's one person tagged to that child, who will handle anything that comes up, so the child won't have to deal with having a different person working with them each time they need to talk"?

      Seriously, the only change the SNP are making is giving the children who *do* need to work with the system a fixed contact, rather than getting whoever's in the office that day.

      Why you're making a big deal out of something that's a minor improvement to the system fro the child's point of view (they can build some trust with their "caseworker") and makes no difference to what the "caseworker" can do, is beyond me.

      Delete
    12. "She is from the same party as the UK Premier so when she says "no referendum", there's probably something in it, lol."

      Ultimately it's the people that will decide this, Aldo, so no, I'm not sure the leader of a party with 22-23% support is the ultimate authority on when a referendum is going to happen.

      Glad you accept there is no London veto on a consultative referendum, though.

      Delete
    13. Newsflash: Westminster can't hold a legally binding referendum either. There's no such thing in the UK.

      *All* referendums in the UK are consultative. That means that the government can ignore them if it wants to.

      That's one of the reasons I'm just laughing at all the hulabaloo over the EU referendum. It's entirely possible that it's an "out" vote, and then the government goes "ok, thanks for telling us that, we're just going to ignore you now"

      Delete
    14. As we are a part of the UK - and chose to remain part of that country recently in a mass participation referendum - the UK government will ultimately decide whether or not to hold a secession referendum with an actual real world outcome. Holyrood can hold its own meaningless referendum - and the unionists will boycott it en masse.

      Ily, why do young people need to continue to have state guardians two years beyond the voting age?

      Delete
    15. Meh, why does it matter? They've had them that long for ages. Nothing new about that.

      Maybe it's because suddenly not having them might be a large shocking change of circumstances, so they're officially still there in case they're needed, but they're expected to slowly back off and allow the person to take stepping away from them gradually, rather than instantly?

      Or maybe it's a holdover from when the age of majority was higher?

      I'm going to assume from your focusing of your complaint that you're accepting defeat on the rest.

      Abstention from any government referendum is simply saying "I don't care." If the unionists decide to boycott indyref2, then that's their choice, and as it would mean an overwhelming victory for independence, I don't have any problem with them doing that.

      Abstention is not a statement, abstention is the absence of a statement.

      I also don't think the Tories are dumb enough to try to block a second referendum on independence when public opinion is calling for one. It would cement a lot of the soft no's against them.

      The point was made moot last time, because Westminster sensibly cleared up any possible legal issues by signing a piece of paper saying "if it isn't within Holyrood's powers to hold a referendum on independence for Scotland, then we're granting them the power to hold one, if it was anyway, then we didn't need to, we are anyway just to make everything clean. We also promise to not fight against Scottish independence if a majority of voters vote for it, because we don't want to push this to an armed, violent civil war."

      Of course they didn't word it like that, but that's what it meant.

      Delete
    16. Glasgow Working Class 2May 9, 2016 at 10:01 PM

      An attempt to hold an illegal referendum when the people have already spoken can lead to other illegal actions. Better everything is legal and above board.

      Delete
    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    18. Nope, the authority to hold consultative referenda. With the information that a majority of those who voted are for withdrawing sovereignty from Westminster Holyrood would simply declare the constitution of the UK would no longer have any legal authority within Scotland. Obviously it'd be up to Westminster to amend the rUK constitution to reflect it no longer included Scotland.

      Delete
    19. Aldo: "Holyrood can hold a referendum - but not a legally binding one. That requires the authorisation of the UK Parliament. Learn the difference between 'devolved' and 'reserved' matters."

      Yes, spare us the condescension and take time away from your keyboard to learn the difference between political theory and realpolitik.

      Delete
    20. UDI then. Not going to happen, ever. Dream on - if you have enough cognitive capacity to support dreams, that is.

      The rUK is 90%+ of the UK. It will also be the continuing state - with veto power over lots of stuff an independent Scotland would require. The UK government will give permission for secession or it wont happen at all. That is the reality of the situation and, seeing as you just lost such a plebiscite, the moral high ground lies with the unionists - as well as the realpolitik favouring us.

      Delete
    21. Aldo: "The rUK is 90%+ of the UK. It will also be the continuing state - with veto power over lots of stuff an independent Scotland would require."

      Do try to put aside the preening self-regard and consider the reality, old thing.

      There can be no such thing as rUK. The United Kingdom of Great Britain is a legal and political entity formed by the Union of two and only two countries – the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England (incorporating Wales). It was created by a bilateral internationally recognised treaty.

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

      As you might expect, two and only two successor states will emerge from its discarded husk – the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England. There can be no continuing state of an extinguished voluntary union of two nations. It is on its face a daft proposition.

      Consider the tautology: When the Union is dissolved, the Union ceases to be.

      Now I have neither time nor inclination to educate you here, but I have prepared a remedial tutorial for those unfortunates like your good self who are ignorant of the facts. See link below

      No, don't thank me, your edification will be reward enough.

      http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/02/25/the-fiction-of-the-continuing-state/

      Delete
    22. The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (as it is likely to be titled) would be the continuing state, with the vast majority of the landmass, population and resources held within it. The most notable precedent in modern times is USSR / Russian Federation. So we split amicably or we are screwed royally. That is the reality. Spare me your links to separatist propaganda.

      Goodnight.

      Aldo

      Delete
    23. Pendant's Corner reminds Aldo that Wales is described as a principality and Northern Ireland as a province. Neither is a kingdom.

      Delete
  4. The Scottish corporate media, particularly BBC Scotland and the Daily Record now have a difficult choice to make: Do they attack the conservatives in order to help Labour, or do they support the conservatives in order to defend the union. So what's it going to be chaps? Labour or the Union. can't have both.:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm rather hopeful they'll take the right-wing rule Britannia 'no surrender / we are the people' Tory loyalist route, giving rent a gob Ruthie prime time. Looking promising so far.

      Delete
    2. Or they can argue the socialist case for the union - something Labour should have been doing. You still don't have an answer to the 15 billion pound deficit and the austerity it would create.

      And if you don't mind me saying so Skier, you come across as a bit cocky for someone who just had their wings seriously clipped by a supposedly vanquished enemy. Perhaps thou protest too much ;0)

      Delete
    3. Erm, I'm very pleased by the result Aldo. I LOL'd at the irony when the Tories took out the one party that historically held the union together in recent decades and celebrated that. The party they've always used as the go-between, for good reason, stabbed in the back by its erstwhile allies.

      Scottish National Party head on with the British [sic English] Tories is the final chapter, and one that makes by far the most sense when you give it some thought.

      #The22%

      Delete
    4. "Austerity" is a con job. It's all about funneling wealth to Cameron's mates from school.

      And what are you doing about the deficit that the UK's currently got?

      Delete
    5. You are pleased with losing your majority and being forced to depend on either A) Unionist parties, or B) A far left party?

      You are easily pleased!

      As for the tories, what if this is the start of a conservative revival in Scotland? You see things from a narrow and hopeful left wing viewpoint. But Scotland voted majority Conservative well within living memory. Who's to say it wont rise to become a major player once again? Conservative-type parties exist all over the world as serious competitors for governmental power. Scotland has been the exception to that for a long time but may now be ready to rejoin the mainstream. The 1980s was a long time ago - longer than I care to think - and perhaps the rise of nationalism has created the political circumstances for conservatism to make a comeback.

      Time will tell!

      Delete
    6. Scotland has never voted for the English Tories (Conservative Party) in majority; it did vote for a small c conservative Scottish one nation modest right party back in the 50's in majority once if I recall correctly. Scottish Unionists 1955...

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland

      I'm a centrist social democrat BTW. Way to the left of the 'British centre' for sure, which is right-wing. On the global scale though, just a tad left of centre and pretty liberal socially.

      Certainly could never vote for a loyalist authoritarian 'we are the people' nationalist party like the Tories.

      Delete
    7. You are an economic libertarian though Skier - you support butchering Scottish public spending by 15 billion a year. I'm Che Guevera compared to you.

      Delete
    8. Ruth We Arra Peepul Davidson's BuffaloMay 10, 2016 at 8:34 PM

      Aldo, what you signally fail to realise is that the £15bn deficit has been run up while under the fiscal control of Westminster, and much of it comes from such "national" infrastructure projects as HS2, Crossrail, the London "supersewer" etc etc ad nauseum.

      Take them out of the equation & the sums aren't even half as bad :)

      Delete
  5. Who is sovereign - the people or Ms Davidson? Is she a democrat or a dictator? If the people demand a second referendum are they to be denied because Ruthie says "No"? Is that the kind of democracy the Tories support?

    Cameron dictates having gathered around 35% of the UK vote, (and he calls that a "mandate") she managed around 22% last week. That's an also-ran by any calculation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2May 9, 2016 at 9:00 PM

      The Scottish people are sovereign and they proved this on 19 September 2014. Have a bit if respect for the people and democratic majority.

      Delete
    2. We will if you will, 24.

      Delete
    3. The people are mostly thick, uneducated, pig ignorant fools driven by emotion and bigotry, Geejay. That's not me being nasty - just a fact. If "ra peepul!" decided everything, you'd be strung up by your ballsack for shoplifting a mars bar! They are idiots. To avoid tyranny, they need to have a say - but rule by the mob is a far greater tyranny than anything Stalin or Saddam Hussein could ever cobble together.

      Delete
    4. Unionist, Tory voting, 'sash my father wore', 'We ra people' rangers fans like Murdo Fraser are hardly representative of the population as a whole.

      http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/top-tory-faces-backlash-over-7777780

      Delete
    5. I'm a Catholic Celtic supporter and I voted Conservative, Skier. You are falling into the trap of believing your own bs.

      Delete
    6. I'm not a supporter of any league team and a protolic / cathestant if that's the theme tonight.

      No need to be so touchy; Murdo et al. were successful it seems in grabbing the George Square riot vote. It was a clever strategy to get seats, but very limited and the ceiling was likely hit.

      Tories are on their own now. What remains of Labour can't be used as a go between any more. Ruth and Dave saw to that.

      #22%

      Delete
    7. Campbell Ogilvie's EBTMay 10, 2016 at 8:41 PM

      Aldo stop telling porkies you're a dyed-in-the-wool Rangers (RIP) we arra peepul No Surrender Loyalist, as your oft-hysterical posts on the Random Thoughts... blog proved beyond doubt.

      Delete
  6. Glasgow Working Class 2May 9, 2016 at 8:49 PM

    We could have a referendum every year until the Nat sis win and then another when they screw up the economy and go beggin tae the EU (Germans). Then followed by Greek style austerity and the workers totally fucked. Better in the Union we know where we are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that incoherent rant, 24.

      Delete
    2. I'm with Rev Stu on this (you don't hear that often!). Indyref 2 is off the table for this parliament. In the next parliament we'll have a Unionist majority - almost certainly. So assuming an SNP government gets elected in 2026 and goes for another ref the following year, that means 2027 is the earliest possible year - 11 years away. And what if the SNP don't get a majority? We now know that a party has to be in a sweet spot to win a majority. Not popular enough - you fall short. Too popular and you get punished on the list. The SNP have to again be in that goldilocks zone in 2026 or they fall short, again.

      It's looking fairly bleak for them.

      Delete
  7. Word is starting to go around that Lamont is indeed in the frame for the P.O. job. Could well be the case. No other names as yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do know who Lamont is, right? "Scottish Labour is treated like the branch office of London." That Lamont.

      It actually makes a lot of sense since almost all of the Labour MSPs who are left either share that view or have belatedly come to that conclusion after the election.

      She would put the job first which is crucial and being a previous party leader makes her a strong candidate. We'll see. Still early days.

      Delete
    2. If the SNP support a particular candidate from Labour as presiding officer, it will not be without good reason.

      Delete
    3. Glasgow Working Class 2May 9, 2016 at 10:42 PM

      There has never been a branch office. Just Nat si Go Balls propoganda. Good letter from a female Scot in the Metro today. About the turning of Knickerless into some goddess symbol. Kind of like Mary so called Queen of Scots who got her heid chopped aff. And if wee knickerless does not deliver a referendum her heid will be on a plate.

      Delete
    4. Glasgow Working Class 2May 9, 2016 at 11:08 PM

      She is gettin oan a bit doubt she could hack it delivering mail.

      Delete
    5. On that subject, 24, don't you have leaflets to deliver for your new masters?

      Delete
  8. Only a nawbag would say Meow. Fellas say Woof!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Generally still cracking myself up that the latest phase in developments is 'Tory roar* will save the union'.

    Genuinely can't stop pishing myself laughing at the absurdity of this.

    ---

    *=#22%

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Tories are, as yet, the only party to receive an outright majority of the popular vote in a national election in Scotland.

      And what happens when 22% becomes 25%, 30%? The original Scottish devolved government was led by Labour, on 33% of the vote.

      I put it to you, Scottish Skier, that you are pishing yourself - with fear!!!

      Delete
    2. No, they haven't.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Scotland#1955

      English Conservative Party taking over the Scottish Unionists was the worse mistake ever made.

      Hence #22%

      This was why they used to do quite well:

      "I believe every Scotsman should be a Scottish nationalist."

      While the Scottish party may have been linked on a Parliamentary level with the Conservative and Unionist Party in England and Wales, it was conscious that it had to appeal to the liberal tradition in Scotland and studiously avoided using the term "Conservative".

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionist_Party_(Scotland)

      And why they lost when they became an English party.

      Delete
    3. Your blood and soil nationalism is coming through Skier - the loss of the majority must really hurt.

      The Conservative Party is British, not English, and now holds more MSPs than your SNP did in 2003.

      Aldo

      Delete
  10. I'm not sure Alex Massie quite gets this.

    Ruth Davidson is less popular than, erm, Thatcher.

    One is dead and buried, the other in charge of union saving.

    Unless the idea is to raise Thatcher from the dead and let her unite the UK?

    She might have a slightly better chance based on the stats.

    https://twitter.com/alexmassie/status/729758083874967553

    #22%

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not really 22% though is it? More like 52% (there are 3 parties of unionism). The majority is gone (boohoohoo!) and pretty soon the sep majority will be gone - because 3 unionist parties straddling left right and centre will inevitably take votes from an ancient and discredited nationalist government. It doesn't really matter who does best out of the 3 - as long as the unionists collectively can rise to 65 seats plus. This is absolutely attainable - probable, I would say.

      Goodnight. Sleep tight. Try not to have nightmares about tories. No cheese before bed - and especially not blue cheese.

      Aldo

      Delete
    2. Buffalo Broadcasting CorporationMay 9, 2016 at 11:59 PM

      The idea that the scottish media would even consider attempting to make a tory leader the acceptable face of unionism in scotland is something that obviously deserves a high degree of incredulity.

      However, in essence, the scottish media suffers from the same bubble thinking and heavy over-reliance on a small group of likeminded elites that wesminster does. That's when they aren't being ordered and directed from London to begin with.

      It simply means that they will, without question, believe their own propaganda and feed off the precise same viewpoint echoed and rebroadcast by their own narrow circle of aquaintances.

      They seriously believe Davidson can be promoted as a product shorn of all political affiliation. A modern leader with a gloss of light socially progressive paint. They've already been doing it for a time. They love Davidson's photo-ops and cant wait to put her in more.

      The reasons why such an aproach is doomed to failure are many.

      It's not just that scotland is more openly political than it's been in decades.

      Nor is it merely that the country has a very long memory and very limited patience when it comes to tories.

      It's also the fact that this kind of Public Relations First approach was tried in a very similar way for one Nick Clegg to try and rehabilitate him.

      He had all the photo-ops he could dream of. He was given airtime and props and the best suits and modern spin money could buy. The media was full of the exciting new modern coalition so Clegg was never short of a newspaper to land a quote or interview in or a TV studio in which to ruminate.

      All the way though his entire time as leader that media gloss never went away. But it changed nothing.

      Even at the very end you could find bewildered London media folk scratching their heads in genuine bafflement wondering how on earth Clegg could possibly be so toxic. They believed their own hype and some even still do to this very day.

      So it will be for Davidson. The scottish media will convince themselves that they are making a difference and that any and all polling to the contrary is merely a delayed reaction waiting to seep through to the public consciousness.

      Scots will just need a bit more time to get used to the idea of a tory opposition leader/standard bearer for the union. A few months more just to find their comfort zone with Davidson. That kind of thing.

      When will the penny drop? It may never drop. Some of the media in Westminster still think Clegg wasn't actually that bad and wave away all the polling and results as if they are a minor detail.

      Know who else the Westminster bubble media still can't quite believe is so unpopular? Blair.

      The bubble can hide the truth from those trapped inside it for decades.
      Not just for the five years Davison has in the firing line.

      Delete




    3. could they no just hide Ruthie from the scottish public?




      don't see how that's possible myself right enough.

      Delete
    4. Glasgow Working Class 2May 10, 2016 at 12:33 AM

      Tony Blair presided over immense prosperity in Britain. That is why the Jock Nat sis are right wing and refuse to tax the rich. Tony Blair shaped the Nat sis who were once a pretend left party. But the Nat sis are now open about fucking what is left of the poor. Big Ruth will have to really raise her game to be more right wing than the Nat sis.

      Delete

    5. prosperity for some toryboy.no for most folk.


      inequality grew under blair.it's just a fact son.


      we don't expect you tories to understand or get it.it's no just the media who live in a bubble.




      Delete
    6. Glasgow Working Class 2May 10, 2016 at 1:36 AM

      Pure pish, why are the Nat sis not raising tax fae the better aff tae help the poor. Scots are minted and have never had it so good since Blair. A statue should be erected to his memory at Holyrood. The truth is Jock Nat sis have coined it in big style from mugs like you.

      Delete



    7. are ye on the piss wee man?




      Cause ye talk an awful lot a pure shite for a daft wee tory who has his heid stuck right up his own arse.whit part of glasgow are you fae?kingston upon thames?





      nah son.take yer pish tae some daft bugger that disny huv a clue aboot scotland.cause they're aboot the only wans that would believe a word ye say.


      yer a cheeky wee liar for a that.glasgow working class,aye right ye are,
      mebbe in yer dreams wee man,mebbe in yer dreams.




      Delete
    8. Glasgow Working Class 2May 10, 2016 at 2:27 AM

      Awa an peel yer sweetie wrapper in yer pocket Jock. Ye get merr subsidies than the Scousers and yeez still moan and moan. You will get independence by moanin. The English will beg ye tae fuck aff. Pay yer tax and help the poor ya hypocrites.

      Delete
    9. Did you stay up late with your Scots dictionary to cobble this gibberish together, 24?

      Delete
  11. Glasgow Working Class 2May 9, 2016 at 11:59 PM

    James, I thought you may have considered getting into the Brexit campaign discussion more so if we leave the Nat sis will have lost a future meal ticket and be stuck with the Brit subsidy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You adjust quickly, 24. Still smarting from one political leathering, you want to move on to the next. You have fun being Boris, Nigel and Galloway's bag carrier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glasgow Working Class 2May 10, 2016 at 11:03 AM

      You Nat sis have not actually explained why you want to hand over Scotland politically to Bruxelles and Berlin. A bit of clarity more than was given during the Joke referendum would be helpful.....And if Engerland leaves and Scotland maybe eventually joins the EU how will you transport our exports!

      Delete
    2. Thanks for that incoherent rant, 24. Comedy gold.

      Delete
    3. Glasgow Working Class 2May 11, 2016 at 12:10 AM

      Vell vanker just explain a bit more where I am wrong. You can do it Nat si Bhoy do try!

      Delete
    4. Calling me a wanker and a Nazi - and I'm not letting you off the hook on the semantics of spelling - tells me you're not interested in debate, 24. Whistle for it.

      Delete
  13. Scots who feel at ease in the union,are holding their nose,and willing to vote for any unionist.

    Scotland no longer divided left/right but National/Union

    If Scotland was Independent now,it be anything but a socialist nation



    ReplyDelete