Thursday, January 2, 2020

Do the Corbynites have a Plan B?

YouGov have conducted the first poll of the Labour leadership contest, and given the good track record of similar polls in the past, it now looks pretty likely that the Corbyn project is about to come to an abrupt end unless something dramatic changes.

First preferences:

Sir Keir Starmer 31%
Rebecca Long-Bailey 20%
Jess Phillips 11%
Clive Lewis 7%
Yvette Cooper 7%
Emily Thornberry 6%
Lisa Nandy 5%

Final round:

Sir Keir Starmer 61%
Rebecca Long-Bailey 39%

If the Corbynites were being rational, they'd thank their lucky stars that they've been given advance warning of Long-Bailey's impending defeat while there's still time to find a different champion.  But I'm not sure they're nimble enough for that.  They'll probably convince themselves that the poll is wrong or that they can somehow overcome the odds by signing up enough Corbynite registered supporters.  If so, they're in denial - Long-Bailey isn't going to inspire people, and certainly not after she came out in favour of the potential use of nuclear weapons.

Why was she the chosen one in the first place?  It may simply be that John McDonnell and those around him calculated that the Labour selectorate would be looking for a woman as their next leader, and that the best-placed female candidate would therefore stand an excellent chance.  But I don't think it really works like that.  Even in a progressive party, members vote on the basis of the candidates in front of them.  They don't vote for a gender.  In spite of the catastrophic mistake Lib Dem members made in electing Jo Swinson, I don't believe they chose her because she would be the party's first female leader - I think they (wrongly) reckoned that she had something.

What would a credible Plan B for the Corbynites look like?  I can only think of a couple of options -

1) John McDonnell replaces Long-Bailey as the standard bearer.  And they would have to be ruthless and make it a straight replacement, because the nominations system ensures there will be a maximum of one Corbynite candidate on the ballot paper.  It would be the equivalent of Alex Salmond jumping into the SNP leadership race at the last minute in 2004, after it became clear that his protégé Nicola Sturgeon was unlikely to defeat Roseanna Cunningham.  Although McDonnell has two obvious disadvantages (his age and his role in the 2019 defeat), he's very well known and has a big personality, and it's certainly possible to imagine him beating Starmer in a run-off.

2) The Corbynites swing behind Clive Lewis.  That may be an odd thing to suggest given that Lewis is well below Long-Bailey in the poll, but I would guess that's because the true believers are currently going with Long-Bailey as the leadership's favoured choice.  If Lewis became the leading left-wing candidate, he's charismatic enough to have a chance against Starmer.

But the likelihood is that the Corbynites will stubbornly stick with Long-Bailey, and will consequently go down to a needless defeat.

229 comments:

  1. Looks like Boris and his burd will be resident in 10 Downing Street for a decade at least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what you're saying is that Nicola Sturgeon shouldn't wait in the futile hope of a Labour government in 2024, and should call an indyref in 2020 with or without a Section 30. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

      Delete
    2. Knickerless should accept the results of the 2014 and 2016 referendums. The EU is just another convenient excuse to leave the UK Union. If Labour elect any of that bunch above as leader then they can only hope Boris has a heart attack on the job.

      Delete
    3. Maybe try changing the record, or perhaps it's time to call it a day.

      Delete
  2. I understand that the Referendum Bill (Scotland) passed its third reading on Dec 19, and is sent for royal assent. Should that take long - a few weeks? I expect the next independence referendum will be called for the Fall in a few weeks under this bill if Johnson doesn't agree to a sect 30. When Scotland wins the referendum what will Westminster do - they can't ignore it unless they are truly stupid. If they are, the next step would be the international courts. Seems straight forward enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The international courts have no jurisdiction over the legally elected and laws made in the UK Parliament. If the Nat sis had found a loophole I am sure their advisors would have found it long ago.

      Delete
    2. If Westminster could refuse a referendum and successfully defend that in court, there would not have been one in 2014. Jeez, Scots had just elected a Labour landslide in 2010; their mandate was notably weaker.

      If you wanted to say Scots were not sovereign, then the 2014 iref was the stupidest thing you could have ever done. The UK told the UK courts, and the entire world, that Scots were soverign and a Section 30 required no permission, just a holyrood vote, and it would be automatically granted. No. of SNP members at Westminster was completely irrelevant too.

      The courts work by precedent where the law might not be completely clear. As the Scotland act does not say independence referendums are reserved (only joint matters of union governance), then the precedent is 2014. If the SNP had lost every election for years, then you could argue there was no justification for a Section 30. However, if you have never, ever won an election in Scotland - as is the case for the Tories - then it's going to be tough convincing the Scots courts it's you with the mandate. After all, you will be arguing that English people have the right to take the vote off Scots people, judges included. The judges will be mostly remainers too.

      I'd really not want to go to the Court of Session with this one if I was Johnson.

      Delete
    3. If a Section 30 is not granted, then England is now an enemy state and all that entails.

      Nobody should wish that; to turn a friend into an enemy.

      History shows that if you overrule elections, taking away the vote from people, they will rise up and take it back, violently if they need to. Never in human history has freedom/democracy been suppressed peacefully.

      This is exactly what happened in many former colonies when England refused a Section 30, my own Ireland included. All is does is insure independence, but make the whole thing a lot more messy.

      Best not go down that route, ok.

      Delete
    4. The level of violence in NI was very low because people could ultimately vote to end the partitioning. That made it quite hard to justify violence in pursuit of that goal, even with the hated partitioning.

      Yes, I meant it when I said 'low' levels of violence.

      If the vote had been taken away from NI Irish people by the English through the refusal of a section 30, even if SF/SDLP had won election after election...well then you'd see what trouble really looked like.

      Best let people vote on stuff.

      It's shit scary people are even proposing the refusal of a Section 30. That is proposing violence. There's no question about it. Taking the vote off people will ultimately lead there unless you back down and return it to them.

      Delete
  3. This is a reply to James Kelly above. I'm not forgetting this is a post about the labour party leader vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Penny,

      The Referendum Bill once it receives Royal Consent sets out the framework for referendums on devolved issues in Scotland. If you think that the subject of Independence is a devolved issue then a section 30 would not be needed the bill would be sufficient. If you think that the subject of independence is reserved then a section 30 order would be required so a indy ref falls under the remit of the referendum bill.

      Delete
  4. I am sceptical about the whole idea that there is a Corbynist project that can be carried on by someone else after Corbyn. Why do some leaders (Thatcher, Blair, Corbyn) get isms named after them while others (Wilson, Major, Brown, Cameron) don’t? No doubt it’s partly a matter of personality but there is something else as well: Thatcher, Blair and Corbyn were not leaders with clearly thought out, philosophically coherent programmes. Thatcher and Blair, when in office, were basically pragmatists who swung with the wind. (Thatcher became a dogmatist after she had been ‘betrayed’ and forced from office, but that’s another story.)

    Corbyn comes across as a rather dim individual who picked up a mixed bag of prejudices in his youth which he has defended ever since with pig-headed obstinacy. Some of his prejudices are sensible enough, though maybe in need of updating, like rail nationalisation, progressive taxation and a decent welfare state. Others are dated ultra-left shibboleths. Labour does not need a new leader who reproduces all of Corbyn’s prejudices: it needs someone capable of coherent thought, not least on the question of the union.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed Miliband set in motion the £3 fee to join Labour. From then on Labour was doomed. The hard lefties and anti semites is wot dun it as well as the Corbyn association with onerous groups.

      Delete
    2. Yes, we can't have socialists in the Labour Party.

      Delete
    3. The Labour Party isn't noted as a haven for socialists. I'm thinking of Alistair Darling, Tony Blair, Brian Wilson, Kate Hoey, Gordon Brown, Helen Lidl, John Reid, Baron Foulkes, Baron McConnell, Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill, Gisela Stuart, the Low Flying Jimmies, Pamela Nash, Aberdeen City Council Labour Group, North Lanarkshire Council Labour Group, et cetera and nauseam.

      Delete
  5. Labour could come up with the newest best most charismatic leader they've ever had and they'll still lose because England has changed utterly just as Scotland has
    England have now fully embraced the xenophbic racist culture of Trumpism and that's what they're convinced they want now, and they believe the new shiny Tory regime will deliver them a new order free from the interference of civilised countries

    This time England gets to be the Nazis, although they'll call it something else

    In Scotland the SNP will try to counter everything the Tories do but I still have this creeping feeling we might have to put tape on our windows as an approaching Kristallnacht by the glorious new order Tories is extended to the entirety of Scotland as punishment for our non compliance

    They don't have to be nice to win over Scotland, why would they, they know eventually they'll lose so they'll get their retribution in first

    ReplyDelete
  6. Will someone flush that Britnat turd GWC back to the sewer it crawled out of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fear there's no chance of that, as James loves GWC.

      Delete
  7. Struggling to care who Labour members choose as leader. Whichever side picks up the baton the other will carp.

    Not sure much will change. Corbyn may not have won in 17 and 19 but his numbers were not as bad as some previous Labour leaders. So changing leader may not give much of a boost.

    In 5 years time of course Johnson may be so unpopular a dead squirrel could beat him. Hopefully we will not have to worry about who the rUK chooses as PM :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like you, Hand and Shrimp, I'm struggling to care about the shenanigans down at Westminster. As we have no say in what happens at Westminster - and now with EVEL and a Tory regime with the biggest Tory majority since Margaret Thatcher's in 1987, the same only more so - the only thing we need to think about it is how it will affect us. We independentistas know that the only way to take back control (where have I heard that before?) is for us to regain our independence.

      The sooner the better, please.

      Delete
  8. Most Nat sis are happy with a Tory government as they have brought great prosperity to Scotland. The Nat sis are just a Tory shadow party who pretend they hate the Tories. Most Scots will be happy with brexit when the economy booms and Trump brings jobs to Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yea....Scotland is rolling in money right now thanks to the Tories. Explain how the mythical Brexit boom will come about. Oh, and Trump bringing jobs to Scotland....outline that as well. If you actually believe the shyte you write you're as thick as your heroes.

      Delete
    2. It is just a political projection and if I am right you Nat sis will be in the dustbin for a while. Remember us thick blokes won the referendums you failed so do reconsider who is the thicko.

      Delete
    3. You got your ass kicked 62% Remain.

      And that's all the matters. What England voted matters jack shit when it comes to Scotland's own future.

      Delete
    4. There was a third referendum! Must have passed me bye Skier, when was it?

      Delete
    5. OK we've heard it all before Baron Foulkes.

      Delete
    6. Right in the dustbin with 47 out of 59 seats. You're must be right, everyone in Scotland hates the SNP and the idea of independence or it would have been 59 out of 59. SNP support up 8.1% and Tory support down 3.5%. There sure is a lot of positives in the Unionists future. GWC, the personification of a deluded muppet....

      Delete
    7. "GWC the personification of a deluded muppet" naw just a Britnat turd who has managed to crawl out of a sewer. GWC stinks this site out.

      Delete
    8. Bitter Bitter Irish Republican scum. Not a Scotsman amongst ye. Followers of the Hitler project, jew hating and child molesters.

      Delete
    9. Jeez GWC, ah hud tae wipe the spittle aff ma face there.

      Cheer up, you erm 'won' the EU referendum in Scotland with only just over 1/3 of the vote!

      Delete
    10. What has Irish Republicanism got to do with the democratic quest for self determination?

      The only people openly supporting it are the leader of the opposition and the shadow chancellor. Who you voted for, if I recall correctly.

      Delete
  9. Whoever is leader, Labour face the problem of straddling left-right, leave-remain and indy-union. It seems hard for anyone to resolve those. That said, Johnson united his party - albeit by a combination of bullying and deception.

    Having someone 'normal' and not an ideologue would seem to be their best bet.

    It seems least difficult to imagine someone like Starmer appealing to centrist including Tory Remainers, and in next election presumably the Brexit protest vote will have been spent. Lewis could also work. I think McDonnell's time has come and gone.

    For Scotland, if I were Labour I'd seek a pragmatist, open to a progressive alliance in Scotland, and not either a Murray or a Corbyn continuity candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Perigrine I notice those Scottish types have abandoned their Saltire for the EU symbol. There must be money in it for them. At least they will not have their hands in our English pockets anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perigrine TroosersJanuary 3, 2020 at 1:00 AM

      Ah GWC those Scottish types are a sensible lot who know their tattie scones.

      Delete
    2. I don't want Scotland to go independent. I want easy access to junior tartan tottie.

      Delete
    3. Hey dead Jimmy your Catholic Church was there before you.

      Delete
  11. The clever plan to simply deny Catalans the right to freely vote has worked a treat in Spain. Tories kicked out of power, massive political instability, the pro-indy parties making records gains, huge street protests + strikes.... and now the catalan pro indy + basque parties etc hold the balance of power in the Spanish federal parliament after the former made record gains.

    Much as it might seem tempting to budding dictators to simply stop people voting, it just doesn't work. The only way you can maybe hold power for a while this way is to go full swastika armband and jackboots; something even Spain has chickened out of.

    If you want to predict the future of a Section 30 refusal, it will not look like a brexiter fantasy of the nats destroyed and Britannia ruling the waves, but like Spain. Endless division, social and economic strife, with massive constitutional instability. The SNP etc will gain ever more votes, everything will get worse for unionists / indy more inevitable.

    Only someone thick as pigshit could, having had the very briefest glance at global history books, conclude otherwise.

    If you want peace, stability and prosperity, let people freely vote.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-politics-catalonia/catalan-separatists-to-break-spains-political-deadlock-idUSKBN1Z11CC

    Catalan separatists to break Spain's political deadlock

    MADRID (Reuters) - A Catalan separatist party said on Thursday it would abstain during the Spanish parliament’s upcoming vote to confirm Socialist leader Pedro Sanchez as prime minister, potentially ending the prolonged national political deadlock...

    ...The ERC said it would refrain from voting after the Socialists committed to an open dialogue on secessionists’ wishes for Catalonia, which would then be submitted to a citizens’ vote in the wealthy northern region...

    ...Spain’s constitution prohibits regions from breaking away and the Catalan independence drive in recent years, which included a banned referendum in 2017, has caused the country’s worst political furore in decades.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.france24.com/en/20200102-belgium-suspends-extradition-case-for-catalan-meps

      Belgium suspends extradition case for Catalan MEPs

      A Belgian judge on Thursday suspended consideration of a Spanish warrant seeking the return of two Catalan separatist leaders to face trial, their lawyer said.

      Exiled former Catalan regional president Carles Puigdemont and his health minister Toni Comin were elected members of the European Parliament in May last year.

      The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled last month that they enjoy immunity from prosecution unless Spain requests this be removed and their fellow MEPs agree.

      Delete
    2. Goodness me paddy Skier you are now interfering in Spain now. Giving us Scots a break!

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

      Delete
    4. I'm thoroughly enjoying being a national of a county with the baws to stand on its own two feet, and which sent the chickenshit Brits running away with their tails between their legs.

      Oh and your English, erm 'friends', just signed NI over to us. Cowards betrayed you unionists as soon as we said 'no deal' for England. Their back pocket means far more to them than you ever will. Unrequited love I'm afraid. The border in the Irish sea is being drawn on the map as we speak.

      Delete
    5. Fine with me so keep out of our Scottish business or there will be a drone strike. It would not be hard to miss considering your ego.

      Delete
    6. Sorry, but as long as the English keep up their unwanted interference in the business of Scots, Scotland's friends will come to her aid as requested.

      Delete
    7. We Scots do not need your help. Stick to your Bobby Sands Al Fuds suicide martyrs brigade.

      Delete
    8. You've (unionists) have lost what 9 elections in a row now, so are not in the position to either ask for such help or decline it.

      Delete
    9. 56% of Scots did not vote for the Nat sis.

      Delete
    10. And? The SNP won a massive landslide and the right to 'speak for Scotland' under British rules reserved to Westminster.

      Delete
    11. @GWC And many more Scots did not vote for your Tory.

      Delete
  12. Lol. the English are totally sticking the knife into the NI unionists now. Threatening them with a new stormont election if they don't just shut up about the backstop / reunification in earnest. Such an election would be expected to see the unionists take even bigger hits, losing more seats to SF/SDLP and Alliance.

    What's the point of unionism if the English don't want you? Unionism is screwed now in NI. It will not be leaving the EU at all. The GFA can only work if it stays in; something the EU and USA will ensure. Hillary is even over in Belfast getting a gong at the moment. Watch and see. NI will remain fully in the single market and free movement zone.

    Look over yer shoulder GWC, your betrayal is coming next. Your enemy is not here. We are your fellow Scots. Listen to the NI unionists; your enemy is behind you in England. They don't have your back. Instead, they'll stab you in it to benefit themselves financially (in trade negotiations).

    https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/simon-coveney-urges-new-beginning-as-stormont-talks-set-to-resume-38827500.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hard to think of a worse candidate than O'Donnell.
    If Starmer doesn't win, Labour really are doomed.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It's all falling apart.

    Don't forget that the English nationalists have ousted the British unionists in English Labour too, causing this developing split.

    The English nationalists are a massive wrecking ball for UK unionism where the Scot nats were a wee conker.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50982723

    Monica Lennon says Scottish Labour must split from UK party

    Ms Lennon, who is Labour's health spokeswoman in the Scottish Parliament, said: "Scottish Labour needs to stand or fall by its own decisions. We either continue at the mercy of the UK party's distant structures or we become a party in our own right...

    ...Ms Lennon is among the senior figures within Scottish Labour who have called for the party to rethink its opposition to indyref2 in the wake of the SNP winning 48 of the 59 seats in Scotland in the election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Credit where credit is due. I have never voted Labour. They are an appalling party and I don't know much about Monica Lennon, but if she is sincere and not just trying to buy time, good for her for bringing this out into the open.

      Delete
    2. The rank and file are not appalling. Generations fought within the trade unions to improve the conditions for working class people. The Scottish Nat si party have no association with working class people but have falsely laid claim to it. Tartan Tories indeed.

      Delete
    3. The Labour party are liars and have always been the party of obedience to the Tories, their job was to placate Scotland and keep it in the Union
      I'm 71 years of age and found that out around 15 years of age and Labour have never changed since then
      I remember when a hospital refurbishment was to send in the painters then pay them with a brown envelope because the contract was somebody's cousin or pal then the party went off to exotic places on *fact finding missions* where they could always get a good tan with the cash that should've been spent on renewing properties

      The first First Minister of Scotland Donald Dewar sold 6.000 square miles of Scottish ocean containing oil to Tony Blair
      for his wee dirty deal with that Tory Labourite
      Check the map, Scotland's maritime border isn't Berwick on Tweed anymore it's Arbroath (McCrone report) all so England could lay sole claim to oil in it's own name not *British extra regia territory oil* y'know the supposed shared oil in the North sea that's been subsidising the entire UK for 50 years, y'know the same stuff Norway has made 1 trillion dollars in the bank from

      The Labour party and trade Unions never fought for better conditions for the workers, they did it for themselves and their own careers and most people my age know it, because if they had why did they take their own Glasgow women to court to attempt not to pay them equal pay

      The SNP paid those women, the SNP raised the pay of all public service workers in Scotland to above the rate in England, per head of the population the SNP has ensured more Doctors, nurses, care workers, nursery care, firefighters than anywhere else in the UK, where Labour are in charge in Wales their record is the worst in these Islands, even worse than Northern Ireland who don't even have their assembly working because the DUP are as bad as the Labour party in their dealings with public cash

      Any Labour voters who refuse to avail themselves of that information are indeed appalling for having the cheek to go out and vote at all for such people which means they are also downright stupid and vote Labour out of the blind belief that once long ago they were the party of the working class, well I'm from long ago and they weren't

      The next big move from Labour in Scotland will be to separate themselves from London to become a Scottish registered party but if they refuse to support Scotland's right to choose it's own future then they die completely, because how can you demand freedom of choice for yourself but deny that same freedom to the country you want to represent

      So will Labour in Scotland change their name now to the *Dead parrot party* and save us all the BBC and STV retrospectives of when they once weren't great honest or will they do the democratic right thing and support Scotland's rights, that way they might, just might save something or will they they spend the next twenty years thinking about where they went wrong as what's left of them fall to last place in Holyrood behind the Tory Liberal Democrats

      Delete
    4. Scotland gets a larger share of the pot than the English. This is because Scotland is a special case and cannot stand on its own.

      Delete
    5. No, that's you. Those of us who voted yes are not the scroungers; we stand on our own two feet.

      Delete
    6. I doubt the EU will give the Scots as much as the English do. Maybe some frozen butter from the mountain.

      Delete
    7. Scotland is a net contributor to the EU purse; you've said this yourself often enough.

      Delete
    8. Anyway, as I said, if there is an English subsidy to folk in Scotland, it must be to the unionists like yersel who seem to know all about it. I'm not getting any cheque and I voted Yes. If there are scroungers, they must be No voters.

      Delete
    9. Skier go on the Bobby Sands diet an dae yer self a favour. You will be a martyr who will not be remembered.

      Delete
    10. GWC is a special case. A Britnat turd that crawled out of a sewer and won't flush away. A special stink all over this site.

      Delete
    11. Muslim Fuzzy Wuzzy stabs man to death in Paris who was protecting his wife. Doubt Skier would do that. Knickerless attempted to get thousands of the nutters into Scotland.

      Delete
    12. GWC ticked the 'Naw, ah dinnae want tae stoan oan ma ain twa feet; gie us a handoot' box on the 2014 referendum ballot paper.

      Away and git a joab ya scrounger living aff the backs ae the English.

      Delete
    13. Here's an perfect example of 'scroungers' making others pay for their lavish lifestyles.

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-50894383

      The 'intolerable' cost of Scotland staging the G8 summit

      Tensions over the £72m cost of policing the 2005 G8 summit at Gleneagles have been revealed in newly released government papers.

      They show the then Scottish Executive wanted the UK government to cover the full amount.

      But resistance from the UK Treasury saw it only contribute £20m.

      National Records of Scotland files show former first minister Jack McConnell warned his administration was being placed in an "intolerable position".

      Delete
  15. 2018-19 oil receipts and revenue show the UK Treasury received £31 billion not counting the revenue from the stolen 6.000 square mile Eastern oil wells because those are counted as English owned deposits and GDP so we have no knowledge of that figure
    Scotland received £1.1 billion

    Scottish oil it's not and certainly never has been and there is no subsidy from England whatsoever, but there is an accumulation of debt and deficit added to Scotland as a result of exchequer borrowing in England even though Scotland has zero borrowing powers

    Every country or state that is part of the NATO alliance is required to contribute 2% of it's GDP for defence, Scotland contributes without consultation over 3% yet the UK declares 2% so in real cash terms Scotland subsidises the UK and contributes more than Israel spends on its defence and Israel's modern defence systems and weaponry is massive

    There is a lack of patrol boats to protect fisheries and oil installations in the North sea surrounding Scotland, the military spend is a reserved to Westminster issue

    When the figures are released for renewable energy the UK government always includes the figures for Scotland as part of the whole to make themselves look better but when taken individually Scotland is powered by renewable sources 75% over 52 weeks England is powered by renewable sources 42%

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only criminals cook the books like Westminster. That's what they are - crooks on a national scale.

      Delete
    2. Your just making stuff up now, 2018/2019 total oil revenue was £1.2 billion
      https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/818297/Table_11.11__July_2019_.pdf

      https://www.statista.com/statistics/350890/united-kingdom-uk-north-sea-revenue/

      Not sure were you got £31 billion from, did you pull it out of thin air?

      Delete
    3. I understand the overall figures are approximately thus:

      Scottish tax revenue income = £63 billion

      Scottish government spends in Scotland = £31 billion

      UK government spends UK-wide = £32 billion

      Delete
    4. That's total tax revenue from all sources, excluding any borrowing.

      Delete
    5. Of course these figures are irrelevant to independence anyway as they are for the union where Westminster controls the bulk of revenues in terms of both tax levels and spending priorities (e.g. trident, HS2, tax cuts for the wealthy etc). It also controls economic policy, including trade deals such as brexit.

      It's like having your neighbour collect the bulk of your income and choose how to spend most of it, rather than carefully managing this yourself based on your own priorities. In fact it's not 'like' that, but exactly how it is.

      If we go independent, only then will we have appropriate figures for what an indy Scotland's budget looks like.

      Delete
    6. Here you can see an example of how productive UK areas are (gross value added to the economy, oil excluded):

      href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/resource?uri=/economy/grossvalueaddedgva/bulletins/regionalgrossvalueaddedincomeapproach/2014-12-10/7e030bad.png

      vs how UK government spending priorities results in the redistribution of the wealth this generates:

      https://www.ons.gov.uk/resource?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/compendium/wealthingreatbritainwave4/2012to2014/chapter2totalwealthwealthingreatbritain2012to2014/21891d9d.png

      Which is why people in the north of England and Scotland are rather unhappy with Westminster at present.

      Delete
    7. You think you read something that declared profits to the UK of £1.2 billion, that's the Scotland figure as part of the UK *block grant* from the exchequer, the UK refuse to subsidise a bedroom why would they then invest in an industry that only returned that amount as a total profit

      The UK prints numbers and you actually believe it, check the oil industry fugures not a UK government declaration, even the oil and gas industry under report their own figures but those are the figures they produced
      You don't think perhaps that quoting figures that are less than the fishing industry which the UK government stated was expendable to the UK is rather naive given that Norway's figures for similar installations is only slightly more than UK oil and gas figures, because if it were the case that Norway only made roughly the same profit from its oil how did Norway manage to accumulate a $1 trillion dollar oil fund over the same length of time since oil was first drilled

      Check the source of the producers not the UK government then examine figures from comparable industries elsewhere in the world and you'll notice immediately the UK government are just blatant liars
      Jim Rodgers billionaire Bloombergs world renowned economist has pointed out UK figures discrepancies over this for years stating that post Scottish Independence Scotland would be one of the most attractive places in the world to invest because from day one of Independence not only would Scotland be solvent but in fact in surplus and also England would have nothing to sell because the financial services they are so proud of in London can go anywhere, oil and gas doesn't move but Scotlands borders would return to their original geographical position as per international law
      Otherwise why did the Tories not bat an eylid after the EU told them to release Northern Ireland or there was no deal, Northern Ireland makes the UK government no money but oil in Scotland is a commodity the UK can't afford to live without

      Even Michael Gove admitted to the fact that the UK would never let Scotland go until the 2050s when the estimated oil reserves for the North sea become too expensive to profit from, then he said Scotland can have its Independence

      Scottish government figures show Scotland recieved a notional £1.1 billion as its per head of population share so how is it you believe the rest of the UK with 11x times the population recieved less when the oil and gas industry is regulated and controlled by the UK government

      This is a government who conceals the revenues from the East coast installations as far back as Sec of State Ian Langs letters to Margaret Thatcher on the subject of the value of oil never to be disclosed to Scotland as it would cause Scotland to resent England profiteering from oil and the Nationalists would use that to inflame the desire for Scottish Independence over this new found wealth, hence the 50 year fabrications of poor quality oil, the wrong density of oil, the oil could run out anytime soon meaning every time the figures become public they must be denied and rebuffed by Westminster

      Delete
    8. No your just making up figures.

      Expenditure

      £75.3 billion (https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-gers/pages/5/ table 3.1)

      The only line in that table that could be considered 'UK Wide' is defense. Could probably shave a couple of billion off that.

      As you say Revenue inc north sea oil:

      £62.7 billion
      https://www.gov.scot/publications/government-expenditure-revenue-scotland-gers/pages/3/ (table 1.1)

      Delete
    9. THe Scottish Government produces the oil revenue figures. Are you telling me that they are so incompetent that they would publish a figure that is almost 30 times lower than the actual figure (based on your £31 billion figure). Shocking if true.

      But maybe you can put that made up figure on the side of a bus or something - nationalists have a habit of doing that.

      Delete
    10. No, you are just making up figures anon.

      UK government spending is not Scottish spending, it is UK spending. Some may end up being spent here, but the GERS figures you give are just inaccurate approximations made largely on population share as there are no actual figures for this. When e.g. 10% of people here are English immigrants, even this value is meaningless (e.g. for pensions, welfare).

      UK government spending is not Scottish, it is British. It is reserved, not devolved. It is union jack UK-wide rule Britannia British spending. Scots did not spend a penny of it. If I take your money and spend it, it is me spending it not you.

      Anyone who says UK government spending is Scottish spending is a liar. They can only say UK government spending, some of which may be spent in Scotland.

      It does not even remotely represent indy; you need to look at e.g. Norway or Denmark to see what that could look like.

      You can't have your cake and eat it. It's British spending not Scottish until we are independent.

      https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/08/22/gers-really-is-crap/

      GERS really is CRAP

      Delete
    11. Not sure why you mention pensions are that not in the figures, not sure what English immigrants have to do with anything.

      Anyhow the figures match the Scottish budget (for developed areas) for the same time so seem reasonably accurate.

      Still waiting for evidence of the £31 billion in oil money?

      Delete
    12. You obviously don't know your finances and struggle with reading too. I quote your earlier link:

      The largest spending element [in GERS] within social protection is expenditure on the state pension...

      'Social protection' covers UK government spending on e.g. pensions for English immigrant pensioners living in Scotland in the same way money is spent on these in Spain. This is 10%+ of pensions in Scotland, yet in no way can be it be considered 'Scottish' spending any more than it can be considered Spanish spending for ex-pats in Spain.

      It is however allocated in GERS as UK government spending in Scotland to make up the total you quoted. This is one of the examples of why GERS is just largely meaningless CRAP. It's like saying 'Look at how much Spain needs to spend on British pensions!' when the UK government is funding these.

      I never said you mentioned oil money. I merely said you quoted UK government spending and implied this was Scottish spending. That's misleading.

      By contrast, I quoted what was raised in Scotland and what was spent by respective governments in Scotland and UK-wide.

      Delete
    13. I see what you mean. Yea that comes from the UK Gov and then is allocated; of course its not for English Immigrants don't know where you got that from, its for all the people who live in Scotland. Your child's child benefit comes out of that figure for example.

      But it is still money spent on people who live in Scotland so it is 'Scottish spend', who actually administers the funds is not really relevant.

      Delete
    14. The UK state pension is paid to all British citizens regardless of where they are living in the UK and beyond. It isn't 'Scottish spending' in any way shape or form. If an Englishman moves to Scotland, his pension still is paid by London to his bank account in Birmingham, from where he collects it. Scotland the country / government never sees it.

      Pensions are a British spend as the pension is paid to the individual, not the country (Scotland). Unless you are now claiming that e.g. Trident is a Scottish spend simply because it's housed on the west coast? That's nonsensical.

      Sorry, but only money spent by the Scottish government is a Scottish spend. If it is spent by the UK and given directly to the individual (or they benefit indirectly like for defense) it is a UK spend.

      Of course you can make up theoretical numbers like 'Well, if the Scottish government was liable for the pensions of everyone eligible in Scotland who wanted Scottish citizenship, and we assume that all the English, Welsh and N. Irish people in Scotland have given up their right to a British pension to claim a Scottish one instead, and that the Scottish government would pay pensions at exactly the same level as the UK pays, then this is what the numbers would look like'

      Which is the values you quote. It's not a Scottish spend, but meaningless crap as the expert I quoted states.

      Delete
    15. Its money generated in Scotland spent in Scotland.

      Delete
    16. The Scottish government reproduces oil and gas revenues from the UK government figures they are provided with, UK oil and gas pay their tax to the exchequer from which all tax figures are produced in exactly the same way as GERS figures which everybody and their dog knows are valueless fraudulent guesswork to put it politely

      The Scottish government can set certain tax bands but do not collect those taxes, if you live in Scotland your tax is paid to the treasury and exchequer of the English parliament in Whitehall

      Delete
    17. Hello from Norway, where we have the world largest sovereign wealth fund over $1 trillion. Funny to hear you quibbling over tens of billions here and there.

      You had similar amounts of oil and similar population. What you could have won, if you didn't have that Union to pay for.

      Hope it was worth it.

      Delete
  16. British Labour in Scotland = the red Tories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Yellow Tory Nat sis are far more to the right of the Blue Tories. The failings of the NHS, public transport, poverty and food banks are down to the Yellow Tories who have been in power for over a decade.

      Delete
    2. Ackle, sprackle, nat si, axkle sprackle nat si.

      Delete
    3. This year I will be posting shite featuring at least one of my favourites:
      Walnuts. Wall nut sis. Nat sis. Knickerless. Jocko. Paddy. Pope. Working class. Bumbhoys. Anal sex.

      Delete
    4. Skier likes annual sex he is Irish.

      Delete
    5. Which means he gets it once more often per year than Cordelia

      Delete
  17. Unionists utterly betrayed. English shat all over them.

    First item for 2020: The new border down the Irish Sea.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-50974350

    Brexit: New year, new deal and what it means for NI

    ...To achieve this Northern Ireland will continue to follow EU rules on agricultural and manufactured goods, while the rest of the UK will not.

    Additionally, the whole of the UK will leave the EU's customs union but Northern Ireland will continue to enforce the EU's customs code at its ports.

    This will all mean some new checks and processes for goods moving between Northern Ireland and other parts of the UK...

    ...The operation of the whole withdrawal deal will be overseen by a Joint Committee of the EU and UK.

    It will be led on the EU side by a member of the European Commission and on the UK side by a government minister.


    I won't laugh. It must hurt deeply to be betrayed in such a way. However, Scots unionists take note. The English government will use you, milking your resources as long as its convenient for them. However, as soon as they can make a quick buck by selling you out for a better deal, they will.

    ReplyDelete
  18. At least the Irish will be able to get their own back and laugh at the English famine this time

    I sincerely hope the Irish do laugh and laugh loudly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no record of the English laughing although the Irish would claim they did. Just like Drogheda where the paddy priests claimed Cromwell wiped out the civilian population. The famines over Skier you can go home.

      Delete
    2. When my Irish gran went to London to sign up for the war effort, there were signs in the windows saying 'No blacks, no dogs, no Irish'. People told her to 'fuck off mick scum!'. A German lady gave her boarding until she was finally billeted.

      But you were right, it wasn't really laughter.

      Delete
    3. Unionist Media BDSM ClubJanuary 4, 2020 at 2:18 PM

      "It must hurt deeply to be betrayed in such a way."

      Yeah, but staunch Unionists *love* that hurt. They've always known the English establishment despises them, when it thinks about them at all, and the staunchies lap it up. They're gagging to be betrayed, laughed at, shat on, and then to pass their submissiveness and degradation onto their sons and daughters. There is an entire culture in Scotland that gets off on this.

      The Cringe is not just a metaphor. It's the literal posture of the staunchies towards their English Doms.

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

      Delete
    4. GERS is British Nationalist propaganda.

      Delete
  19. There are over 100.000 Irish people buried in mass graves all over Ireland that the English put there when they were in the business of stealing their food to supply the shortage in England

    British Nationalists would erase that from history if they could but every Irish family teaches their children what the Brits are from very young, as do many other countries

    The bomb the bayonet and the bullet were always the tools of choice for the Brits when they could get away with it, now they do it at the bidding of American, ironic seeing as how America were the country they couldn't conquer and who threw them out, now they look up to them because their gun's bigger than the Brits gun

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's long overdue that the truth about the British Empire was told to the English. All this crap about the Empire civilising the world and how we should be Proud that the sun never set on the Empire.

      Delusional propaganda to maintain the myth of English supremacy.

      Delete
  20. No Section 30 obviously absolves Scotland of any moral liability (there is already no legal liability) for taking on part of the UK debt.

    Scotland can only be considered at least partly responsible for the debt if it is freely in the UK and can leave at the time of its own choosing.

    A Scotland 'fighting its way out' like other colonies starts life completely debt free.

    Sounds good to be honest.

    Unionists understand this right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I should note that if the UK says no Section 30, then later caves in under pressure, be that political, legal or international, the debt obligation for Scotland is still gone as Scotland was not freely in the UK; it did have to 'fight its way out'.

      The Section 30 must be granted immediately upon request for Scotland to be morally liable for any UK debt.

      Delete
    2. Which is another reason why I think we shall have our Section 30.

      If Scots want independence, it will happen, just like it has happened to all the other colonies. To subjugate another country is an enormously expensive and dangerous business and inevitable the natives will kick you out.

      While it might seem tempting, it's just not sensible for England to say no. Even if it went all swastika armbands and jackboots as would be needed, this would come at huge cost and only be temporary.

      Unwanted occupations have a very short shelf life.

      Delete
    3. I believe from your posts that you think that the question of independence is a devolved matter? In which case no section order is necessary as the referendum act gives the Scot Gov power to hold referendums on devolved matters. Only if you think that independence is a reserved matter that a section 30 order is necessary.

      Delete
    4. Scotland, Ireland and England were Colonial partners. The English are not in denial. The other two want to eradicate their violent past.

      Delete
    5. In terms of UK debt, it does not matter whether a section 30 order is necessary or not for indy, only whether London argues one is; something it is doing (it's the same for English racist hatred to Scots being a thing).

      No immediate section 30 = anti-scottish racist hatred driven attempt at keeping Scotland prisoner = not partner freely in union = no debt.

      It's simple stuff this.

      Delete
    6. And the Section 30 order should be permanent, as is being requested by the people of Scotland through their parliament.

      That puts in law that Scotland can freely leave at any time and the rUK will not dispute it, while at the same time putting a responsibility on Scotland to assume partial debt obligations, subject to negotiation on specifics.

      The fact that it is currently unclear if Scotland can leave freely, with London saying it will refuse an Section 30 and not recognise Scottish indy, means debt obligations could already be dumped with good justification. However, given the mentally unstable state of England right now, Scotland can give it some leeway here, so long as a permanent Section 30 is granted immediately upon official request.

      Up until now, Scots thought there was no need for a permanent Section 30 as it was understood one would be granted automatically upon request. However, since England turned nasty and started making threats to block one, a permanent version clear in law is now needed.

      If 1000 chagos islanders can have the entire world behind them in the form of the UN (and rightly so), Scots can expect the same here if needed. They stand shoulder to shoulder with all the other commonwealth countries who've suffered similar or worse from Britain.

      Delete
  21. A section 30 order is an agreement to legally abide by the result not permission to have a referendum so Johnson will make some noise, threaten retribution, bluster, but in the end the UK is a signatory to the UN convention on human rights so he'll give in with his lip tremblin but he'll give in because the UKs in enough deep trouble with the UN the EU and almost every other country around the world for thei ongoing abuse of human rights in the UK and their refusal to obey the order from the UN to leave the illegally occupied Chagos Islands

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Next unionists will argue that since the chagos islanders can hold their own referendum without a section 30, they will need to pay part of the UK debt if they become independent...

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

      Delete
    3. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/05/uk-forfeit-security-council-chagos-islands-dispute

      UK could forfeit security council seat over Scotland dispute

      Defying the UN’s highest court may put Britain’s place at the international top table in jeopardy, warns former diplomat.

      The UK could lose its permanent seat on the UN security council unless it resolves the future of Scotland, the well-known commonwealth country which forms the northern 3rd of the island of Great Britain.

      The UK’s (sic England's) claim to Scotland – and its subsequent overruling of democratic elections there to allow it to retain control of a nuclear submarine base and oil reserves – is deeply contentious and has been the subject of escalating legal challenges.

      Last February the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial body of the United Nations, issued an advisory opinion that found the UK was in unlawful occupation Scotland and demanded that Scots be allowed to vote freely on independence as quickly as possible.


      This is where no permanent Section 30 leads.

      Delete
    4. "A section 30 order is an agreement to legally abide by the result not permission to have a referendum"

      Nope that is inccorect:

      "A section 30 Order is a type of subordinate or secondary legislation which is made under the Scotland Act 1998. It can be used to increase or restrict – temporarily or permanently – the Scottish Parliament’s legislative authority. It does this by altering the list of “reserved powers” set out in Schedule 5, and/or the protections against modification set out in Schedule 4 of that Act."

      https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8738




      Delete
    5. Sorry, the Scotland Act does not deal with independence referendums, only with union matters.

      Have a look, you will see there is no mention of these.

      Delete
    6. Also a Section 30 does allow for Holyrood to organise a legal indy referendum. But then this could be legally organised in all sorts of different ways. Westminster could do it, or even Brian Souter; as long as the Courts are happy. Holyrood makes the most sense though, hence the Section 30.

      Anyway, see the Chapos Islands for what happens if just 1000 kick up a fuss at 'no Section 30'. Imagine if England tries to enforce a colonial agenda in a 5m+ commonwealth country?

      Next stop is the UK getting official pariah state status, complete with sanctions, and, as per the latest news, losing its UN seat. All for the Chagos Islands. No Section 30 for Scotland would accelerate this at a rapid pace.

      Delete
    7. Independence via a pan UK-agreed Section 30 also allows for Scotland to take on a negotiated proportion of UK debt, as detailed extensively here.

      An indyref by other routes, which is resisted by England/rUK, means Scotland walks away debt free as other former colonies did.

      Scotland's either a partner with freedoms but associated responsibilities, or a colony and gets to leave 'Scot-free'.

      There's just no having your cake and eating it.

      Delete
    8. "Sorry, the Scotland Act does not deal with independence referendums, only with union matters."

      Such Orders have been used several times since 1999. The most high-profile example was the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013, which temporarily devolved authority to legislate for a Scottish independence referendum. This took place on 18 September 2014.
      https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8738
      As i say you seem to think that an indy ref is a Scotland Only matter, in which case no section 30 is needed, the referendum act gives the Scot Gov all the powers its needs to hold a referendum and if one is not forthcoming the 'blame' falls at the feet of the Scottish Government.

      Delete
    9. I don't see your point. Can't you read? Maybe you are just thick?

      The Scotland act includes no provisos for independence referendums. These are a matter for Scots alone and not Westminster. A section 30 referendum just one way of holding a legal iref; the precise choice is up to Scots. There are numerous approaches here, right down to the Brian Souter method.

      Of course if the rUK wants to be involved in the referendum, maybe have some input on it, and crucially to have an independent Scotland help repay UK debt, then a Section 30 referendum makes the most sense. If the rUK refuses a Section 30, saying it will not agree to any iref, this cancels any obligation for an indy Scotland to help pay UK debt, very obviously. In fact it cancels any obligation for Scots to pay taxes to London. If there is no 'British' democratic route to indy, then Scots are freed of all obligations here.

      But of course if there is no referendum, it is because the Scottish government simply chose not to pursue one as you say. However, I'm sure you can agree, it is very much in their interests to have people at least think that England is 'refusing permission' as this is a major vote winner. It's like every nat Christmas come early. Cameron was far to clever to fall for it, but Johnson, it seems, is thick as pigshit.

      And the SNP don't even need to lie here - which they haven't done - because England is claiming Scotland needs its permission, so doing the SNP's job for them.

      So, when England either caves in or Scotland goes ahead with a referendum anyway, England will have stoked up huge anger in Scotland towards the UK, ensuring Yes wins be a country mile.

      I thought this was all obvious.

      Delete
    10. Can you imagine what % Leave would have had if the EU had refused a Section 30, implying that brexit would be illegal without such consent from the Bloc?

      I would have voted leave without question if that had happened. It would have utterly destroyed my support for membership of the bloc. I would have felt utterly deceived by the EU and mislead on everything it stood for. My unionist beliefs would have been completely shattered overnight.

      Unionists - If you want to have any hope of saving the union, grant a permanent Section 30 immediately. Do it now. Right now. While you still have a chance.

      Delete
  22. @ anonymous 4/01/20 9.30pm

    The question of scottish independence isnt a devolved matter. For some time now , unionists have been desperately trying to couch the matter of indy as a devolved/ reserved matter.

    This isnt the case.

    As an equal member of the uk state , scotland has the inalienable right to hold an indy ref and walk away if our people so choose anytime we like.

    If indy was constrained to the mere powers of a devolved legislature , why was thatcher and major telling scotland in the 80`s and 90`s that to gain independence , all scotland had to do was elect a majority of snp mps to scottish seats at westminster.?

    We are simply back arguing the same old empty unionists arguments of 2011/2012 until cameron caved in , and saved face by signing the edinburgh agreement.

    Tell me , out of 63 countries england has lost from its empire , how many were kept in by the refusal of a section 30 order?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Section 30 could remind Souter of Section (clause) 28 and Scottish Nat si bum bhoys. However you Nat sis would suck up with anyone who has dosh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes well said WC, the Labour Party would never take money from rich people.

      Delete
  24. Hey Skier I wonder if your paddy granny who allegedly fought the Nazis knew that her Hitler loving ROI allowed Otto Scorenzy to live in Co Kildare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was he the one legally declared 'entnazifiziert' (denazified) by the British/US controlled West Germany in 1952?

      Delete
    2. I've heard of Otto Skorzeny. Not sure who Otto Scorenzy was or is WC.

      Delete
    3. I think Otto Scorenzy was the Swiss entry in the 1962 Eurovision.

      Delete
    4. Great Walloping ClownJanuary 5, 2020 at 10:16 PM

      Does anyone else remember the Otto Scorenzy Quintet's big hit of 1964, "I yodel with my Mädel"?
      I still whistle it to this day.

      Delete
  25. @GWC

    Have you no had your early morning diddy ride the day GWC?

    You seem to be dribbling at the mouth more than normal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well a diddy ride is far removed from taking it up the erse. I assume you are a pillow muncher.

      Delete
  26. Iraq parliament has just voted to expel foreign troops from Iraq after the US committed an act of war against it.

    Is England still in a special relationship with Trump?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is good the Shia and Sunni will set about each other big style and the UN will be invited in. The Yanks have already redeployed to protect the black gold.

      Delete
    2. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-50987303

      Why fewer US students want to learn about UK these days

      "Folks have become more concerned about other places and interests around the globe, which I have to say is increasingly productive for thinking about the world...

      Could not agree more.

      Ties in with the mass emigration of skilled workers that's underway certainly.

      Delete
    3. After a night out in Glesga at the weekend it is understandable why people go elsewhere. Even Syrians wanted to go home.
      Around three million Scots immigrated between 1850 and 1970.
      That would mean that most living in Scotland now are not of Scottish origin.

      Delete
    4. My goodness WC, three million came to Scotland during that time? If that isn't a strong case for the union, then I don't know what is.

      Delete
  27. If I was to say that 'I don't lament the death of Boris Johnson' following his death in a missile attack carried out by the US while on his way to Heathrow, would that be perfectly acceptable?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hardly matters if it is acceptable. The Iranian commander was a merchant of death and religious fanatic. The Yanks are likely to do a Nagasaki on Iran if Iran attacks.

      Delete
    2. Boris Johnson should be dead, he promised voters that he would be if he failed, well he failed and he still isn't dead, why don't journalists insist that he keep his word and die, after all they keep insisting that saying once in a lifetime must be adhered to when they talk to Scottish politicians, even Jeremy Corbyn used that expression when he was campaigning, does that mean the Labour party won't stand for election again for an indeterminate amount of years
      Or is it the case that a figure of speech is OK in England but the same rules don't apply to Scotland

      Delete
    3. If you murder a murderer, you are also a murderer.

      If you support murder, you are also a murderer.

      Delete
    4. No WC is correct. Much better to ally with the secular and tolerant Saudis.

      Delete
  28. Note to James Kelly is there no limit to the extreme and totally unacceptable comments that you allow that Britnat turd GWC to spout on your site.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Soleimani was a soldier and at war in various countries in the Middle East. He was killed when acting as a soldier therefore it is justified in war. I am surprised that he ordered the siege on the US Embassy. Surely a man of his intelligence should have known the Yanks have not forgotten the US Embassy Siege in Tehran which was a game changer in politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The US bombed Iraq, which is not at war with the US. The government of Iraq thought it was allied with the US, yet the US directly attacked it in an act of war.

      Delete
    2. I imagine if the US had, without permission, bombed the access road to Heathrow to murder someone they didn't like, the reaction would be different.

      But since Iraq us just full of 'Brown people / muslims', it's ok I guess?

      Delete
    3. I don't think the reaction would be that different. At least not from our government, who would still support it.

      Delete
  30. If you want to kill someone in another country there are people who all governments employ to do that, whether directly or indirectly, to bomb another country to achieve that end is a demonstration of arrogant and provocative power designed to create conflict not to forestall or end conflict

    Trump is attempting to provoke conflict because he's in political trouble in America in the same way every Prime Minister of England has done to gain political support when their numbers are dropping

    It's a common tactic and Johnson will either get on board with this one or he'll wait to invent another reason now that he has total control of the right wing to cement his place in history

    Wars have nothing to do with people or countries, they never have and they never will, politics and money

    It's why the peoples of Sweden Norway Denmark and many other countries are more prosperous that Britain because those countries value their people more they don't get involved with the play acting of the stupid countries who engage in this sort of chicanery, they don't wave flags as a reason for killing folk out of *patriotism* like they do in America and England where the people are so uninformed they believe the rest of the world is out to get them for no reason other than they don't like them

    That's why they love throwing the word *values* around as though it makes up for the programmed propaganda of stupidity piled into them to make them follow like the sheep they are

    Remember England voted for a dog as the winner of Britains got talent so how thick are those people, that's even worse than the Americans voting for Donald Trump

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope you are the Defense Minister for Scotland when the Caliphate arrives.

      Delete
  31. Why doesn't the fear your expected Caliphate translate into the question of what have they got against England and America so much that they don't seem to have against most other countries, and why do they not bother with Scotland at all

    If you keep killing people eventually they get fed up with it and come and kill you back, and why shouldn't they if you bombed them from their homes and killed their families, and like all Yoons before you criticise others maybe you might learn to spell the word defence

    I've been there kid I know what the west has done to these peoples countries for money, and if I were in their shoes I'd be killing every American and Englishman I set eyes on even though it's not ordinary peoples fault what governments do I'd still want revenge



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Iran is interfering in several countries causing high civilian deaths. Iran probably provided Assad with chemical weapons. Iran wants to wipe a country called Israel of the map. Iran good England and USA bad. Scotland good!

      Delete
    2. Your grasp of foreign affairs is as razor sharp as ever WC.

      Delete
  32. I see Ireland has GDP growth of ~5% and a budget surplus. Does Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, have that?

    If not, why not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At partition, the newly-formed NI had an economy 4 times that of the rIreland - the poor south?


      FFWD almost a century later, the republic of Ireland currently has an economy 10 times that of NI - the fading north?

      Nealy 100 years of yoon partition- how has that worked out?

      Delete
  33. Aye but sectarianism is far more important than prosperity or happiness in Scotland, it doesn't matter if Scotland could do better, British Nationalism and we arra peepel comes first, Ruth Arlene Foster Davidson's vote depended on it

    If we'd had no sectarianism in Scotland we'd be Independent by now
    If ever Wales becomes financially viable to be Independent at least they won't have too much of that that hanging round their necks they'll just have a few British Nationalist settlers voting against them, in Scotland we have more of those colonialists

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can you not have sectarianism when you have various sectarian factions moreso one which is subsidised by the taxpayer.

      Delete
    2. The Welsh used to burn down the English settlers holiday homes.
      My fear is that could happen here, or worse, if folk can't see any other way ahead. We badly need leadership now.

      Delete
  34. So, Iraq is an ally of the US. The US deliberately bombs Iraq. Iraq politely requests the US leaves. The US threatens it with sanctions.

    This is like the British / English and their treatment of the chagos islanders; hence the 'special relationship'.

    ReplyDelete
  35. If the brexited UK forms a close relationship with the US post brexit, does that mean they are allowed to bomb us?

    According to the Iraqis, that's part of deals with the US.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that a rhetorical?. Is your imagination on overdrive!

      Delete
    2. If the US is happy to bomb allies it has deals with, why would it not bomb the UK?

      Delete
    3. What if Hitler had won the war, would he have let his ROI collaborators run amock with the English and Ulster Unionists?

      Delete
    4. Hitler didn't win the war.

      The US has just bombed one of its allies, killing people there.

      That ally is now asking it to leave politely. The US is responding with threats of sanctions.

      It as also threatened to commit war crimes against a neighbouring country.

      Delete
    5. I thought they bombed an Iranian Terrorist in Iraq.

      Delete
    6. As you said, they bombed an allied country.

      I ask again - would it be ok for the US to hit Heathrow with a bomb targeting people it personally didn't like without permission from the British?

      If not, how come it's ok to do the same with Iraq? Maybe racism?

      Delete
    7. Good point WC, how can we trust the Irish Republic when they sided with Hitler, despite not actually existing until 1948. Typical foreigners.

      Delete
    8. Mere technicality. Just a name same regime.

      Delete
  36. Iraqi Parliament voted for all foreign troops to leave. The Sunni Mps did not turn up for the vote

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Abstaining means you are not in opposition to something.

      It's like if unionists abstained in iref2.

      Delete
    2. The Sunnis are scared they need protection.

      Delete
    3. Are you implying that the US now invade Iraq, it's former ally, after bombing it?

      Is that how the US treats its allies?

      Delete
  37. This is why unionists don't want to go to court.

    They would actually have to argue that the UK was formerly a democracy, but isn't now, and that Scotland is now an English colony, having formerly been on of two partners in union.

    Given at least half the judges would vote for independence tomorrow, 70% back it in principle but maybe not tomorrow (Panelbase), and the most of them will be remainers, it would be a tough sell.

    https://wingsoverscotland.com/from-the-archives-11/

    “[John] Major has made it clear that a majority of SNP MPs after an election would serve as a mandate to begin negotiations for separation. There are no plans to hold a referendum”, said former Thatcher minister and party chairman Norman Tebbit a few months before the 1997 election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The people are sovereign according to the Nat sis. They voted to remain and 56% did not vote for Nat sis at the Gen Elect.

      Delete
    2. Judges belong to the wealthy elite. It's unlikely 50% of them are independence supporters.

      Delete
    3. It's the pro-brexit Tories which say that a majority of SNP MPs in a Westminster election = mandate for independence.

      You need to dispute that with them, not the SNP.

      Delete
    4. "Judges belong to the wealthy elite. It's unlikely 50% of them are independence supporters."

      In that case they should all be very pro-Remain and utterly hate the pro-brexit English Tories. Allowing the possibility of Scottish indy would be a good way to stop brexit. In fact it's the last chance for getting England to rethink things.

      Delete
  38. Had a quick look an to be honest, it is only age that's the defining factor.

    Support for indy is broadly the same irrespective of education and income level, so half of Scottish judges should be indy supporters. Maybe slightly less than half (at worse 45%), but you'd need to have maybe 20 of them in the room for that to start showing up.

    And it's not even age that really defines it either. It's generational. you don't get more British as you age, but instead you find more 'relic' British identifying people in older age groups. After all, British identity peaked in Scotland in those born in 1945, and has been in decline since.

    Unionists didn't think about this did they. The judges would be Scottish you fools.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The judges who made the the final decision would not come from Scottish courts they would be made up of the Supreme court Judges.

      Delete
    2. Erm, why would the case be in the supreme court? This is not a British constitutional matter, but a Scottish one.

      The Court of Session would deal with the legality of any referendum. The involvement of any English judges would be in breach of UN rules on self determination.

      If the referendum affected the rUK, then it would need to go to the supreme court. This applies for all devolved matters. However, independence isn't a devolved matter as it only affects Scotland.

      Delete
    3. You saw the recent brexit court cases right? First step is court of session. However, as the matter was a union one, with the ruling applying to the whole UK, so it went to the supreme court. If the supreme court upheld the Scottish ruling, England would need to accept or leave the union.

      But a Scottish indyref does not affect the rUK. It changes nothing in rUK law. It's only about Scotland. English people don't get a say and if Scotland leaves, England is unaffected.

      Why therefore would it go the supreme court? The Scotland Act is clear than only union matters are reserved. Scottish independence is not. Have a look.

      Delete
    4. If your reason for asking Judges in the court of Session to allow an appeal to the Supreme Court is that English people control their destiny and want to take the vote off them, well, good luck!

      It's one thing asking them to vote no, but telling them you plan to take away their right to vote is quite another.

      This is what the court case would be; the right of England to take the vote away from Scottish people, including court of session judges.

      Delete
    5. At least half the judges will vote SNP.

      Some little anti-Scottish racist prick from English standing there saying they have the right to cancel the judges recent SNP vote and make Scotland a colony will go down really well I'm sure.

      And that's what the case would be, as it would only arise if a Section 30 isn't granted because England is trying to bring democracy to an end in Scotland.

      If England is democratic and a friend of Scotland, the referendum will never end up in court. If cnly ends up there if English pricks try to take the vote away from Scottish people, judges included.

      Delete
    6. If a Section 30 is granted, it becomes a British matter. The union is ended by mutual consent, with Scotland taking part of the debt etc. So then the Supreme court has jurisdiction, at least until the last day of the union. But then there's no need for the Supreme court as there's a Section 30.

      If there's no Section 30, Scotland is ending the union alone and it's not a British matter. Tough titty rUK if you don't like it; Scotland walks away debt free and the UK ends up in the international courts if it tries any funny business. It'll soon be facing sanctions over the chagos islands, including getting kicked off the security council, so best just go with the Section 30 huh?

      Delete
    7. Anyway, I suspect, since a Section 30 was not refused ahead of 2014, and May collapsed her government to bodyswerve one in 2017, and Johnson as just kept on saying he's against another referendum without actually saying no to one, then we shall have it soon enough after it's officially requested.

      To refuse a section 30 would end the union in the hearts and minds of Scots for good. It was only the fact Scots felt it was a free choice in 2014 that saved it.

      Turning England from a friend to an and aggressive colonial enemy state is not the way to keep the union 'precious' to people in these parts.

      Delete
    8. Nope Boris will just stall and delay things and what Scottish Nationalism implode; its only a couple of days into the new year and elected SNP representatives are saying that the SNP leadership is lying about having a Indy ref. This will only grow over the upcoming months. Protests outside the Scottish Parliament / on the streets likely by the summer as nationalists demand that the SNP delivers on its promise of a indy ref in 2020. THis will be accompanied by SNP MPs SNP openly criticising the SNP leadership, maybe resulting in a VoC in Sturgeon.

      Of course of SCIP/Scexit party will form, with the SNP no longer seen as the party of independence.

      As I said Sturgeon needs to have a chat with May; she can give here all the details of what happens if you fail to deliver what nationalist want.

      As for the Supreme court; its is the highest appeal court in the UK union and any non criminal decision made in the Court of Session can be appealed there; something the UK Government would do if it felt necessary.

      Delete
    9. But no, the Court of Session is Scotland's highest civil court. There is no court higher for Scottish only matters.

      The Supreme court is the UK's highest court. There is no court higher for matters affecting all of the union.

      You need to stop confusing the two.

      The Scottish government have made it crystal clear they will not hold an illegal referendum. They cannot hold a vote that affects English/Welsh and/or N Irish law, i.e. has UK-wide legal implications, such as forcing England to accept Scotland as an independent country in law.

      That needs a Section 30. They can however hold a vote that consults the Scottish electorate, legally under Scots law, on independence. That can only be challenged in the Court of Session as it would not affect rUK law.

      If the people of Scotland voted Yes, then the Scottish government would open negotiations with the rUK government on this. Of course at this point, England could send in the brownshirts and tanks, but then if they did that, Scots were clearly right to vote Yes.

      Delete
    10. This was all discussed on hardtalk in December (I think). Senior Tory was on and he said something pretty much exactly like this:

      'Johnson will agree to a new referendum because if we don't, they (the Scots) will just go ahead and hold one themselves, and if they do that, we won't be involved and so won't be able to put forward our case for the union. We will try push to only have the referendum once the brexit deal is agreed though as we think Scots should wait to see what's on offer'.

      Sounds like sense to me.

      Delete
    11. The Supreme court is the UK's highest court. There is no court higher for matters affecting all of the union.

      You need to stop confusing the two.

      No any case can be referred the Supreme Court.

      I have always agreed with you that the Scot Gov could hold a Consultative Referendum, it's the SNP that keeps refusing to do this. If I was a nationalist i would be really pissed that the Scot Gov has continually refused to do so. Up until now the SNP have got away with it because nationalists are happy to blame other countries for the failings of their Government (Scottish Nationalists blame England, English nationalists blame the EU.)

      But you have to deliver. Imagine if Cameron had turned around had not delivered the Brexit referendum despite promising to do so in the Election. The English nationalists would of ripped him to shreds.

      The SNP need to deliver on what they promised, blaming England is not going to cut it anymore. As you say the Scot Gov have the power to hold a ref, they now need to keep their promise. If not the scenario mentioned above will rapidly happen.

      Delete
  39. British astronaut says there are aliens and some are already on Earth. Seems Skier has been twigged.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once they bump into a few lowlife Britnat turds like GWC they 'll clear off pretty quickly back to their own galaxy.

      Delete
    2. They probably left when they discovered Nat si men only changed their drawers once a year. They found the klingons.

      Delete
  40. Better to grant a Section 30 than to have the embarrassment of folk like Brian Cox bringing up how the UK is a dictatorship at the Golden Globes, live to the world etc.

    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/hollywood-actor-brian-cox-calls-for-second-scottish-independence-referendum-1-5070458

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would England really want show the world that it really still is the wank stain that everyone saw in cinemas across the world in multi academy award winning Braveheart?

      Delete
    2. Most Dundonian Scot/Irish Catholics will vote Nat si since they abandoned Labour. Note Mr Cox is a CBE.

      Delete
    3. Except the world don't care, outside the UK media noone is reporting it:

      https://www.google.com/search?q=brian+cox&safe=active&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB756GB756&sxsrf=ACYBGNRMmRzvL0Ay57mV-_tGtRWQmJVk5A:1578356553665&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPztatnPDmAhWuUhUIHTDfCycQ_AUoA3oECBMQBQ&biw=1920&bih=937

      There is going to be no Global outcry for Scottish independence. People are more concerned about war in the middle east, the Global economic slowdown etc etc etc to care.

      The Scot Gov just needs to hold a referendum which it has promised to do and you agree it has the power to do. Show the world that you don't need permission and have the balls to stand on your own to feet, at the moment they just see lots of pointless hand wrangling. World leaders probably see the Scot Gov as a bit weak tbh, it has the power to hold a ref but has chosen not to take it. THey may not like/agree with Boris/Brexit, but at least when he got elected as Conservative leader he did what he promised and delivered Brexit. Sturgeon is all talk and no action

      Delete
    4. That's a bit of an old fashioned tactic endowing the First Minister with power she doesn't have then complaining about the result she didn't get

      Don't worry though Boris Johnson is set to make all businesses pay their back taxes to HMRC so another whip round for your lot again, hope you've got enough

      Delete
  41. My Labour preferred candidate was mentioned tonight on BBC and ITV.
    Dan Jarvis. If he stands I will vote for him however the looney left anti semite, Hamas, Hezbollah and IRA supporters will not give him a chance. Labour can start thinking about 2030. Labour lefties just love shouting from the pavement, power frightens them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why are you endorsing Mr Jarvis, WC? Is he the only candidate whose name you can spell?

      Delete
  42. Ah the dreams of Labour eh, they used to be a terrible political party now they're a failed terrible political party about to make the exact same mistakes they just did, still maybe the 1940s will make a comeback

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah the forties when the Nat sis were sending Jews to holiday Camps.

      Delete
    2. I always wondered what sort of people still voted Labour in Scotland. Who would want to be in the same group as someone like GWC.

      Delete
  43. One for GWC. He'll be able to get is 'lazy English taxpayer subsidised' ass (as he calls No voters) to the airport easier.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-51008481

    Glasgow Airport Metro system gets council leader approval

    Plans for a metro link for Glasgow Airport have been agreed by council leaders in Glasgow and Renfrewshire...

    ..the leader of [SNP led] Glasgow City Council, Susan Aitken, has said the metro's first phase will be between the airport and Paisley Gilmour Street train station.

    ReplyDelete
  44. There are going to be a shit load of non-consent motions in Holyrood beginning shortly as England overrules the 1997 74% yes vote and takes back control of a huge range of devolved powers so it can sell Scots out to get a better deal for England. Fisheries will be the first thing it flogs.

    Of course, as devolution is a union matter, this can be challenged in the Supreme court for Scots to watch, and we can expect this to happen, although Westminster will likely win out because the union is ultimately reserved.

    Only independence is not reserved, and not devolved either. It's in the hands of Scots alone.

    Still each time the racist wank stain English government overrule the 1997 referendum - while letting NI stay in the single market - they give unionism another body blow ahead of iref two.

    I'd not want to be a Unionist this year, especially as they are starting it leaderless without any 'decent' candidates to take the helm after the English nats took out the BBC's Darling Davidson.

    ReplyDelete
  45. 11 march budget means it would only be a matter of days for the Scottish government to produce Scotland's entire budget. This normally is done over many months with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.

    Shows you how racist and anti-Scottish England is. The English government has zero respect for Scottish unionists (and indy supporters).

    https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1214450505893720064

    Philip Sim

    Verified account

    @BBCPhilipSim
    Follow Follow @BBCPhilipSim
    More
    I believe March 11 might be the very day by which Scottish councils legally have to set local tax rates. How are they meant to do that if they don’t know how much money they’re getting from Holyrood? And how can Holyrood decide that without knowing what the block grant will be?


    Lots of fun ahead for unionists explaining why their erstwhile 'friends' in England are shitting all over them overruling 1997.

    ReplyDelete
  46. First up, Scotland to refuse consent to the EU withdrawl bill as it involves a devolved power grab by racist English politicians who hate Scots, including unionists (as evidenced by all nations getting what they want with brexit, except Scotland).

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-51007240

    Week ahead at Holyrood: Government to oppose Brexit bill

    The WAB would see Boris Johnson's deal with the EU put into UK law and is to be concluded at Westminster on a fast-track timetable by Thursday.

    But the Scottish government has said this agreement would be "damaging to Scotland's interests", with specific concerns about creating a competitive disadvantage to Northern Ireland.

    Since the Scottish Parliament remains overwhelmingly pro-EU, it is likely MSPs will vote to refuse consent to the WAB.

    ReplyDelete