Monday, February 12, 2018

James Today, Jam Tomorrow?

The dilemma thrown up by this year's SNP depute leadership contest is the same one we faced in 2014 - do we simply vote for the candidate with the strongest personal qualities, or do we base our vote on the candidates' views on the constitution and strategy, even though such matters are ultimately for the leader and not the depute leader to decide upon?  I suppose the logic for doing the latter is that the leader may regard this contest as a de facto consultation exercise, and will perhaps factor the outcome into her thinking.

I must say I've found the clarity of James Dornan's comments quite refreshing - ie. an independence referendum before the next Scottish election, possibly as early as next year, and a flat dismissal of the notion that the SNP's comfortable election win last June was somehow a rejection of a referendum.  That's bang in line with my own thoughts, and I'd find it very hard to vote against such a prospectus. 

By contrast, Pete Wishart's pitch is centred on the need to do something radical to court the minority of pro-indy and indy-curious voters who want to leave the European Union.  Specifically that means an independent Scotland would not seek full EU membership straight away.  I wouldn't dismiss that idea out of hand, because the problem of Leave voters jumping ship from Yes is a genuine one (if perhaps a little overstated).  But I do worry about the danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Independence as a life-raft to save our place in Europe is an incredibly powerful argument, and my gut feeling is that we undermine it at our peril.

So in the trivial battle for my own vote, I think it's fair to say it's currently Dornan 1, Wishart 0.  But I'm going to keep my mind firmly open as more ideas and candidates emerge.

85 comments:

  1. Curiously enough I also support James Dornan for the very same reason!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a choice between a guy who can't string enough words together to make a sentence without stuttering and a useless bald fat bastard, best to leave that one to Hobson. What we need is deputy Duggee fresh from the jungle and turning more jocksist by the day. Our dug as deputy would make sure all the members come together.

      Delete
    2. State of this.

      Delete
  2. No question about it, I'm in favour of Dornan for precisely the reasons that you outlined. We need to underscore that the membership is champin' at the bit for a new referendum.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Me too. I think Pete Wishart has taken up a position which, if it is adopted, will please the UK government by kicking the issue down the road. If it is not time now it will not be for a very long time.
    I think some of the SNP hierarchy fear another loss, and destruction of their Scottish Government position. My feeling is that if we don't go for it now the UK state will destroy Holyrood and enforce UK rule through the Scottish Office.
    They might do that anyway, but we should give them a fight, and should be started now.
    I don't think any other option has a chance in my lifetime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.facebook.com/indycargordonross/videos/1976585069037476/

      Delete
  4. East Neuker sums it up for me. The Union is engaged in undermining the effectiveness of an already hobbled Holyrood. Our MPs in Westminster make eloquent speeches and are totally ignored. Let's get out while we still can.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am a member of the SNP for one reason: it is our best, indeed our only, tool to lever the nation to self-government. Quite frankly, I don’t give a flying f if the SNP clings on to power at the sweetie-shop parliament. If the party is not going to actively fight for independence then we may as well pack it in and form a party that will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ditto.

      Not that there is any viable alternative to the SNP so we all need to get behind the SNP to secure our independence then have a proper parliament of our own. But if the party fails to deliver a referendum before Brexit it will be losing this member and I, like many generations of Scots before me (my own ancestors included) will emigrate to a country that has some hope. Scotland in the UK post-Brexit has little hope and that situation will last my lifetime.

      Delete
  6. How about a candidate who is in favour of full fiscal autonomy within the UK, In order to win over the middle ground?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no middle ground. There is independence or there is helotism. Folk must choose. Craig Murray has a very good piece on this theme: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/02/scared-of-my-own-thoughts/

      Delete
    2. If there’s no middle ground then what’s the point of any devolution, let alone FFA?

      Delete
    3. You're suggesting that a candidate for the SNP depute leadership should emerge who opposes independence. That's ludicrous. Try again.

      Delete
    4. In the context of the devided UK, people are trying to unite the 52:48 by advocating a ‘soft’ Brexit, so what’s wrong with trying to unite the devided 55:45 Scotland by advocating FFA as a policy? That’s a nationalist move.

      Just a thought, obviously not a great one here but it might attract a lot of Scots.

      Delete
    5. I could equally ask you why the Scottish Labour Party don't unite the divided Scotland by electing a leader who supports a 'soft' form of sovereign independence. Would be tremendously popular and heal our wounds! How's about it, Union 2.0? Surely you don't oppose healing and compromise? Soft independence now!

      Delete
    6. Yes I would support a referendum on FFA as the country’s not convinced with independence or the status quo, but something just short of full political independence (shared defence, foreign relations & currency).

      There’s a huge market for that I reckon. For example, if a party like the Lib Dems (historically a ‘home rule’ party) or the Greens put a FFA referendum on the table then I bet they’d see their vote share rise significantly.

      I reckon that’s where Scottish politics needs to venture next - would you be in favour?

      Delete
    7. Please tell me how a Scottish party can deliver FFA.

      Independence is ours for the taking but any type of UK constitutional reform requires the full cooperation of Westminster, and it would be fully under Westminster's control. Do you honestly think that will ever happen?

      Delete
    8. Not so. If a majority os Scots voters vote for independence it'll happen - Scotland's fate in Scotland's hands. Any UK refrom can only happen if there is majority UK support - Scotland's fate in England's hands. An independence vote is self determination, a reform vote is having our situation determined by others.

      I'll vote for anything which will improve Scotland's governanace, but your pipe dream will never be put to the vote because it requires the agreement of a UK majority, as you have admitted in your answer above.

      Delete
    9. Fair enough but even with a pro Indy vote of a simple majority might be rejected by the UK govt too (like with Catalonia), especially in an unofficial referendum.

      The direction of travel is more devolution (as with the Scotland Act) so that’s good enough for me. At least that way you can still be loosely British too.

      Delete
    10. Union 2.0 : Why did you ignore my question? Would you be in favour of unionist parties abandoning the hardline position of staying part of the United Kingdom, and instead helping to heal our divisions by adopting a soft form of sovereign independence? That would be a unionist move, and there would be a huge market for it. It's where Scottish politics needs to venture next - do you support it? Or do you support continued division?

      Delete
    11. Sorry for the non-reply earlier.

      I would be in favour of that. I’d vote for a ‘soft’ unionist party that offered FFA.

      I don’t want Scotland completely severed from the UK and I still want some loose form of British identity, shared defence and a UK passport.

      But yes I’d be in favour of a FFA referendum organised in Scotland and see if the people want ‘soft independence’ or ‘Indy-lite’ - that could definitely unite yeses and nos.

      I just don’t ever want an international border on our shared island.

      Delete
    12. No no no no, soft independence would involve a Scottish passport. It's sovereignty, but with softness. Let's get behind it and heal our divisions as a country. It's a unionist move, it's where Scottish politics needs to venture next, and there's a huge market for it. Are you in favour?

      Delete
    13. Im sorry I really do respect your view, your intelligence, your passion and this excellent website but as much as I love more self-governance I can’t turn my back on the on the rest of the UK to that extent.

      I’m prepared & happy to go as far as FFA but with a British passport. That’s just me. But if I’m forced into yes/no, I’d have to answer no.

      Sorry to let you down.

      Delete
    14. So you want continued division. No healing - just an extreme choice between the United Kingdom and hard independence. Just so you can have a blue passport. I find that incomprehensible. You're turning your back on moderate Scots who are crying out for the compromise of soft independence. I hope in time you'll reflect, and realise that blue passports really aren't so important.

      Delete
    15. Absolutely not! Maybe I wasn’t clear - No more devision - a new Scottish settlement - a new act of union that unites yes & no.

      An FFA referendum is the way I believe- something that might get 2-1 support.

      I like to consider myself a moderate -
      what is hard & soft independence?

      Delete
    16. If you want to unite Yes and No, how can you do it by zealously insisting on the extremist position of London rule at all costs? Embrace compromise, Union 2.0. Heal our wounds. Let's transcend the extremist positions of remaining in the UK on one hand, and hard independence on the other. Let's hold a referendum on soft independence, let's get that inevitable 80% Yes vote, let's get out of the UK with softness, and let's unite as a country. The absence of blue passports is a small price to pay for national unity, SURELY?

      Delete
    17. What is soft & hard Independence?

      Delete
    18. Jeez, REALLY? Soft independence is no border guards, a shared head of state, continuing access to Doctor Who, an enshrined right to Morris Dance even in Auchtermuchty....what's not to love? Get on the train, Union 2.0.

      Delete
    19. Shared pension? Shared olympics & sports teams? Shared army? Shared currency? Shared diplomacy? Shared island with nobody from the rest of the UK hurt because we left them?

      Give me those things and I’ll stand with you. Obviously the last point is hard to guarantee but it’s still important to me.

      Delete
    20. You want to abolish the Scotland football and rugby teams, and you call that moderation? You call that "uniting Yes and No"? Yes, the real agenda is coming out now.

      Oh, and I think we can take a "shared island" as a given, unless you've invented a giant chainsaw.

      Delete
    21. Haha no chainsaw thankfully. I meant Olympic and Tennis teams, for example! Do you feel British in any way?

      Delete
    22. Not in the slightest. I used to, but the unforgivable No campaign in 2014 destroyed all vestiges of Britishness left within me. I know that's true of many other people as well. Do you feel Scottish? If so, why on earth don't you want there to be a Scottish team at the Olympics?

      Delete
    23. Interesting. That no campaign was disgraceful and I’m sorry it had that effect on you (and many others I’m sure). The thing is I still feel British too (as a second identity) and I don’t want to lose that.

      I like it when the 4 nations come together for certain events. Just as I’d favour a confederate UK where we come together where it matters (defence, currency, diplomacy etc).

      It’s been excellent talking with you and it’s great to discuss what’s best for our country. Looking forward to reading more of your articles in future.

      Delete
    24. But your Britishness isn't a 'second' identity, is it? Otherwise you'd want your primary identity to be represented at the most important sporting event in the world, namely the Olympics.

      Delete
  7. I still hope Joanna Cherry puts her hat in the ring

    ReplyDelete
  8. The case for Indy2 in the foreseeable future entirely by the notion of Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its will. I.e. Unionism was sold as the safe route to stay in the EU plus the Scottish electorate voting for continued EU membership in 2016. So to argue for Indy2 while saying that we'll sit on the fence about EU membership risks undermining the legitimacy of the entire exercise.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "If there’s no middle ground then what’s the point of any devolution, let alone FFA?"

    There was a point at the time. Craig Murray's point is that that time has passed and will not return. It's now or possibly never, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Scotland was taken into the EEC by the UK then the UK voted to remain and then voted to leave the EU. It is called democracy something you nat si English haters need to grasp.
    The EU would shaft you like they did with the Greeks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Britnatsis like GWC2,cant see their hypocrisy they seem to have lost a thought process.This shafting talking has a bit of a Freudian slip,perhaps its sexual frustration perhaps needing shafted him/herself still I suppose the comic effect does entertain us who do have a working thought process.

      Delete
    2. Banging your own drum then O'Brien. Get yourself a large hat.

      Delete
    3. State of this.

      Delete
  11. The Wishart prospectus for me, because it recognises the reality that we are out of the EU on Independence Day, irrespective of Brexit. Accept that and EFTA EEA is the only realistic way back into the single market in a realistic timescale, and which doesn't require magical exceptionalism. Which doesn't of course preclude a future vote on rejoining the EU.

    There's zero possibility of a vote, never mind Independence, before Brexit in 13 months and 3 weeks time. So Jimmy Dornan lost me on that point

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aye, that is something we need to acknowledge and explain to the electorate.

      Delete
    2. We don't need to acknowledge something that self-evidently isn't true. There's no "magical exceptionalism" about this - Scotland will become an EU member more easily than any other country in history for the simple reason that we have been part of the EU (and its predecessor) since 1973, and therefore already meet all of the membership criteria.

      And I've no idea why you think there can't be an indyref by March 2019. Independence itself can't happen before then, but a referendum early next year is perfectly doable if the will is there.

      Delete
    3. Yes, of course Scotland is already compliant with the Acquis, albeit not a member due to not being a state at present. That doesn't make any different to the EU accession process, which has never been done in under 3 years. That is fast track. See Kirsty Hughes and Tobias Locke in European Futures for a discussion of the process. It's too slow.

      Magical thinking is that the EU, a hugely rule-driven organisation, would tear up it's procedures just for Scotland because we are very special and exceptional. And then would immediately remove that exception so that Catalonia, Corsica, Venice and half a dozen other independence movements couldn't use the same route. That is not going to happen, because it depends on a form of British Exceptionalism in a kilt. The reality is that we'd be free to join, by the normal process.

      To get the actual benefits of Europe a state must be in the EEA - the single market. The only way to be in the EEA is to first be either a member of the EU, or of EFTA (EEA Agreement Article 128).

      The EFTA route is potentially faster, a lot faster, because there are fewer parties to agree with, and fewer rules for accession. See EFTA Convention Article 56.

      The elephant in the room, which Pete Wishart is correctly hinting at - is that there isn't a majority for both Independence and EU membership. EU support is well over 62%. Support for independence is about 46%. If the public doesn't support the offer, don't blame the public - change the offer to something a majority can support.

      If the decision to press the button is made this October and the Referendum Bill is introduced, when will it be law? Last time, with a majority and an unqualified mandate for a referendum, it took 10 Months. The Bill still has to go through the Parliamentary stages, surely? That takes us to August 2019. Then the campaign period. 2020 is more likely for a referendum, if the decision is made to go for one.

      Delete
    4. The real elephant in the room, actually, is that there is no prospect whatsoever of a majority for an independent Scotland outside of the EU. The idea of the SNP becoming the third party of Brexit in a country that voted Remain by a 62% to 38% margin...well, that way madness lies.

      The last referendum is not a guide to how long a referendum would take to organise, because last time the SNP were deliberately playing the long game.

      Delete
    5. We are already outside the EU, effectively. Which was the case in 2014 also. I am slightly ashamed that at that time I just shared the Yes line that we'd just 'stay in'. Despite successive Presidents and the Commission repeatedly saying that was not possible. EU citizens who voted No in 2014 because we'd be out of the EU were right to do so, on the information available. We can't repeat that mistake.

      The question is how do we get back in the single market asap once independent. That's where the benefits are, and that's where a Yes vote is to be found

      Delete
    6. "We are already outside the EU, effectively."

      That's simply not true.

      Delete
    7. OK. Please explain how, if a Referendum Bill is introduced to the Scottish Parliament after the final Brexit deal is agreed, likely in October 2018, that Bill will become an Act, and we have a referendum, and go through the preparatory stage from a Yes vote, to Independence Day, that can be done in the 13 months and 2 weeks we have left before Brexit?

      Last time the Bill took 10 months, with a majority. Last time the campaign period was 10 months (December 2013 to September 2014)
      Last time the White Paper stated that the period from a Yes vote to Independence day would be 18 months.
      Please explain how it is possible to fit a 28 month process into a 13 month timescale? I'm all ears.

      Second, please explain how Scotland, which is not a state, and hence not an EU member, can keep a status we don't have in the first place? Please explain why Presidents Barosso and Juncker, and the Commission, repeatedly, are wrong, and you are right?
      All have said we'd be welcome to join, but would have to join. Are they wrong? If so, how?


      Delete
    8. What?! What?! Your question is an absolute nonsense. Have you even been reading my replies? This is the bit that you somehow managed to miss -

      "Independence itself can't happen before then, but a referendum early next year is perfectly doable if the will is there."

      And you'll have to explain your second question, because I can't make head nor tail of it.

      Delete
    9. I don't think a referendum early 2019 is doable, because of the time a referendum Bill will take to go through the Scottish Parliament, if introduced in late 2018. Last time it took 10 months NB after a S30 was agreed, with a majority. The Bill still has to go through the normal Committee stages. Last time there was a year from the Bill becoming an Act, to the referendum itself. I don't understand why you think the Scottish Parliament can just be railroaded into passing a Bill outwith the normal procedures?

      The second question relates to the point I keep seeing folk make (e.g. the question in the recent Wings poll) that Scotland can just 'remain' in the EU. We can't, as repeatedly stated by the Commission and successive EU presidents (e.g. Barosso's letter to Lord Tugenhat). Therefore we are out and definitely have to rejoin.

      Delete
    10. You keep effectively saying "this is what happened last time, so of course it has to be exactly the same this time". You did notice the SNP were deliberately in no hurry last time, yeah?

      And if that's what you meant by your second question, I can only repeat: you don't seem to be reading my responses. You're asking me to defend a point I never made, ie. that Scotland can just 'remain' in the EU. This is what I actually said -

      "Scotland will become an EU member more easily than any other country in history for the simple reason that we have been part of the EU (and its predecessor) since 1973, and therefore already meet all of the membership criteria."

      Delete
  12. I like James Dornan a lot, but I prefer the other option for now - "we simply vote for the candidate with the strongest personal qualities" - so wait to see who else puts their hand up.

    And don't forget Angus Robertson's electioneering role needs someone of high calibre (don't tell me GE17 was his fault).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I take a different view. If the candidates were pitching themselves primarily on their own campaigning qualities, what you're saying would be fair enough. But if this contest is going to be about ideas and strategy, I'm not going to risk endorsing ideas and strategies that I think would take us in the wrong direction.

      Delete
  13. What I miss is any indication from those advocating IScotland outside the EU is how they see Scotland going forward. In the Single market and/or Customs Union. Or outside both and work with Liam Fox on great trade deals around the world because even though I believe in Scotland I can't see that we have the strength as a small country and the personnel to do these great deals on our own.

    I could see us ending up like the Tories squabbling about what sort of deal we should have with the EU.

    For me it's independence and full membership of the EU. We shall have our own voice there instead of relying on Westminster who have proven they have no interest in Scotland's interest.

    I'll support the candidate who best advocates Scotland in Europe. I'll have no time for arguments about what sort of deal we should make outside Europe -this is a guarantee of missing out on Independence happening at all

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the Single Market, because that's where all the actual benefits of Europe, the Four Freedoms, actually are. The EU or not is irrelevant, with the qualification that going into a referendum on an immediate return to the EU will probably guarantee we lose, and hence won't even be in the Single Market.

      I voted Remain, but that ship has sailed, principally due to the process issues as per my reply to James above. But also due to fact public opinion simply hasn't shifted. We have to WIN!

      Customs Union membership depends where rUK ends up. If they are out entirely, then logically we'd be better out of the CU too, to make the Scotland/England border an easier sell in a referendum. From memory the UK is Norway's biggest, or second biggest export market, and Iceland's second biggest. Scotland in EFTA EEA gives additional impetus for an EFTA rUK FTA?

      Delete
    2. "We have to WIN!"

      Well, quite. How the hell do we make winning more likely by embracing Brexit, which two-thirds of the population of this country rejected? This is nuts.

      Delete
    3. And now we see from the comments above where the problem is going to be. Some of us want IScotland to be/remain in the EU; others want some not yet agreed association with the EU. Our Indy opponents will latch onto this disagreement with a vengeance confusing the voters.

      The SNP's desire has always been to be a member of the EU either as an independent nation or other wise.
      The SNP have got us where we are. Our best chance of Indy is full support for the SNP Indy campaign. They bring the finance, the experience, the wherewithal to win.
      The sniping from the sidelines by Indy supporters on how the SNP got it wrong and don't have the right ideas is completely unproductive even if it brings personal satisfaction.

      Arguments can be raised after Indy achieved. Until then we MUST be fighting with one voice

      Delete
    4. It's not 'nuts' to try to look honestly and accurately at where we are at, and how we go forward.

      The key fact here is that we are already effectively out of the EU.

      Hence we would have to rejoin
      And that will take the time it takes
      And that time is too long to be out of the single market.

      And the Single Market is where the actual benefits of the EU are. This SNP member does not care if Alyn Smith gets to go to Strasbourg to grandstand, but cares deeply that me and mine do not lose the Four Freedoms,and that Scotland becomes independent.

      If the EU focus had resulted in support for Independence soaring, you'd have a point. It hasn't, and the Remain vote has not translated into support for Independence. Nor will it.

      Find a position that both the 12% who have moved from No to Yes, because of Brexit AND the 12% who have moved from Yes to No because they want Independence but not EU membership. Find that position and we will start a campaign on 58%

      Delete
    5. It was not a Scotland vote young James it was a UK wide vote and as you indicate a third of the Jocks voted leave. That is a third of Jocks who are not crawlers to the corrupt EU beaurocracy that cannot produce an audit. Perhaps you nat sis are turned on to McMafia and criminality.

      Delete
    6. Unlike the London lackeys like yourself GWC......who will swallow anything as long as its Red,white and Blue flavoured.

      Delete
    7. "Find a position that both the 12% who have moved from No to Yes, because of Brexit AND the 12% who have moved from Yes to No because they want Independence but not EU membership. Find that position and we will start a campaign on 58%."

      Find a pixie at the bottom of your garden and you'll have proved the existence of magic. Get back to me when you do.

      Delete
  14. I can go along with this,I would like to see another ,fresh,new,controlled by Holyrood,proper independence referendum coated with truth and integrity,and not the BBC propaganda and lies.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hi James,

    I've followed your excellent blog for a few years now, but I've never got round to commenting before.

    Sticking to the Deputy Leadership contest itself, I don't think that I'll be voting for either James Dornan or Pete Wishart.

    There was a recent article in The National suggesting that the new deputy will concentrate on IndyRef 2 , setting out the strategy and how we relate to the wider Yes movement and persuade No voters to move to Yes. They also had comment from George Kerevan who made three points:

    1) If the new deputy is a Westminster MP, he/she should make it a priority for our Westminster MPs to spend less time in Westminster and more time campaigning in Scotland

    2) The new deputy needs to build bridges to the party in the country, and, following on from this,

    3) The perceived disconnection between SNP headquarters and the branches was the basis for Tommy Sheppard's candidacy last time round, particularly the lack of full-time, dedicated officials at a local or regional level to structure campaigning.

    If the National and Kerevan are right, then that would have a big impact on who I would vote for. For example, Joanna Cherry is razor sharp and unflappable but I just don't see her as an inspirational figure to lead us into Indyref 2.

    I'd be keener on someone like Tommy Sheppard because he's already thought a lot about this. His 2016 Deputy Leader pitch focussed on revamping internal policy making and making this more open to the party membership, and he spoke on behalf of the Regional Organiser motion at the last Conference. However, he was characterised in 2016 as the Left Wing challenger and he's probably a bit of an outsider in Party terms. Also, I'm not sure that he's what we need to recapture the vote in the North East and Borders.

    However, I do think that, for balance and to appeal to rural areas, we need someone from a non central belt constituency and that it makes sense to have someone from Westminster who can influence the action of the Westminster MPs. Which would exlude James Dornan, regardless of his qualities.

    No idea who would fit though - - -

    ReplyDelete
  16. Scotland without her trade with RuK would be bankrupted. The EU would demand that a Scotland in the EU would not trade with the RuK if a deal is not struck with the UK.
    A hard brexit from the corrupt EU is preferable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. and England would be without power and many foodstuffs.... so its quite unlikely

      Delete
  17. First we have to win our independence.
    Only then will we be in a position to decide our relations with the EU or any other bloc.
    65% of Scots want us in the EU.
    The Yes Leavers will be back on board the Yes side when the choices are made plain by 2019.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 65% want to remain in the EU because they think it is a free meal ticket. The EU does not operate in this fashion. The Germans and their French buddies run the EU and the rest comply , just ask the Greeks.



      Delete
    2. They also keep Greece afloat, you twat.

      Delete
    3. Ach sooo it is all about being kept afloat by someone else. No point in so called
      independence then when the bulk of our trade is with England. You thoughtless
      twat.


      Delete
    4. State of this.

      Delete
  18. Scotland has 35% land area and 60% of UK maritime area. 95% Oil&Gas is in the Scottish sector.
    We'll have no shortage of friends when we achieve statehood.
    Holyrood has just20% powers with devolution.
    In the UK England has an inbuilt veto.
    With 85% population we'll always be outvoted. That would seem to suit some people.
    Not a genuine Scot though surely?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeh your so called friends will bleed whats left of the energy until there is none.
      Twat. Your next door neighbour is your friend. And England does not have a veto.
      That silly rascist comment proves the nat si hstred if England.

      Delete
    2. State of this.

      Delete
    3. Aye some state fash bhoy.

      Delete
    4. State of this.

      Delete
  19. Noted your tweet James about the Irish language. The Unionists in NI want equal recognition so there will be no agreement until the Sinn Fein IRA fascists accept that not all of thè NI population are Catholic and the weekly burning/vandalism of various Protestant establishments. But it just goes to show what the Scottish Unionists will face from you Nat sis if you get the edge!

    ReplyDelete
  20. New SNP depute leader will need to play catch up.
    New Yes groups are being set up every week and need to know Indyref2 is coming by 2019 or 2020.
    England/UK is a busted flush.
    They played most of their best cards in 2014. Project fear won't work twice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where are the new yes groups hiding! Maybe pissin it up in the Yes Bar.
      We Unionists are ready for your lies and English hatred. So go for it Jocko supremacists.

      Delete
    2. State of this.

      Delete
  21. Only a very hard Brexit wull dae.

    ReplyDelete