I'm therefore slightly baffled by the reactions we've heard over the last few hours to the decision of three SNP councillors to burn a piece of paper bearing the words "The Smith Commission". According to Scottish Labour's former deputy leader Anas Sarwar, it was "disgusting and disrespectful behaviour", while Labour's shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander said that "this type of behaviour harms our nation" and demanded to know what Nicola Sturgeon planned to do about it. Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie branded the three councillors as "extremists", and the BBC reported that their actions had been described as "offensive".
Hmmm. We do seem to have stumbled across a particularly complex and nuanced area of unionist morality. To sum up, it appears to work like this...
Burning a giant effigy of a living person, who is depicted in a humiliating state of undress = A jolly jape! Lighten up, fella!
Burning a piece of paper = DISGUSTING. DISRESPECTFUL. EXTREMIST. OFFENSIVE.
Every day is an education in post-referendum North Britain.
* * *
Crazed unionist politicians may be well on their way to elevating Lord Smith's report to the status of a religious artefact that is worthy of more reverence than the Turin Shroud, but the man himself has continued to exude bonhomie as he sells his rather unimpressive product to the nation. He's conceded that the plan to write into UK law that the Scottish Parliament is "permanent" fails to provide any constitutional guarantee. We already knew that, but he may live to regret laying down the following challenge -
"But if you knew a way of making it permanent tell me, because that is the will of the Scottish people."
Simple answer, Lord Smith : replace the UK's unwritten constitution with a written one which restricts Westminster's sovereignty to reserved matters only.
However, assuming that isn't going to happen, I'd like to see wording in the legislation which is as close as possible to the 1980s laws which finally relinquished Westminster's right to legislate for Australia and Canada (yes, believe it or not that didn't happen until the 80s).
These, therefore, are the benchmarks we should be looking out for...
Canada Act 1982 :
"Termination of power to legislate for Canada
No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1982 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law."
Australia Act 1986 :
"Termination of power of Parliament of United Kingdom to legislate for Australia.
No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to the Commonwealth, to a State or to a Territory as part of the law of the Commonwealth, of the State or of the Territory."
Obviously in our case there would have to be conditional wording to make clear that we're not talking about reserved powers, or about instances where Westminster is legislating with Scotland's consent after a Sewel Motion. But the use of the word "termination" and a close variant of the phrase "no Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend" would be very helpful.
I raised the Australian example with Lallands Peat Worrier last year, and he pointed out that in theory, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty means that Westminster could abolish Australian independence and start legislating for Australia again at will, in spite of the above wording. But the reality is that only the UK courts would even pay lip service to the constitutionality of that action - the Australian courts would cheerfully ignore it, and regard the 1986 Act as irreversible. Having our own version of the Australia Act or the Canada Act would therefore be a very strong declaration that there is no going back.
* * *
I do worry sometimes that our unionist opponents seem to be struggling with their grip on reality. I spotted this comment on a Reddit thread yesterday, which refers to my good self -
"He's really lost it since it turned out his endless 'all the polls point to a decisive Yes victory' type posts proved to be so decisively wrong."
Can anyone recall even one occasion when I made a comment on this blog roughly approximating to "all the polls point to a decisive Yes victory", let alone an endless stream of such comments?
Nope, me neither.
* * *
Many thanks to Sandy Brownlee, who has been regularly updating a graph depicting the trend in the Scot Goes Pop Poll of Polls. I keep forgetting to post it, but at long last, here it is!
Caution needs to be exercised, though - with almost every twist and turn in that graph, I can think of a methodological factor which offers a more plausible explanation than any real change in public opinion. For example, the dramatic narrowing in the SNP's lead in early October was caused by the sample being temporarily dominated by a Panelbase poll with very dubious methodology (it was weighted by 2010 vote recall, which is known to be unreliable). Then an Ipsos-Mori poll (with no weighting by recalled vote at all) came along and swung things to the opposite extreme.
Great post as usual James. I was just wondering what your thoughts were on the YouGov poll putting SNP at 49% and Labour at 22%.
ReplyDeleteYesterday's YouGov sub-sample for Scotland was SNP 47, Lab 22 (not 49-22). It was just one day's sub-sample. Today's is at SNP 41, Lab 30. Both of those results are within the notional marginal of error of the last Scotland-only poll conducted by YouGov, which was SNP 42, Lab 26.
DeleteGiven that one dodgy poll result can have a significant effect on your Poll of Polls, I think it would be interesting to see one based on a longer time span, such as a month.
ReplyDeleteRennie and his pals have made the same mistake as the folk who made a big deal about the effigy. They should've just made fun of the zoomers, rather than pretending to be "offended" and acting like the Smith report was the Koran.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, such a stunt, however silly and meaningless to us, isn't meaningless to others.
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not, some delusional people still hold the Smith Commission in high regard, the only way to get through to these people isn't by burning it, but by showing them and explaining to them about the inadequacy of it.
We all know the media are the establishment, the establishment hate the SNP and will do anything to damage them. Which this has done.
Pretty silly and pointless stunt.
This is after Swinney and Sturgeon both gritted their teeth and got on with the task of it all, then it's pissed into the wind by these 3 idiot councillors looking for a bit of media attention as all 3 are probably looking to stand in that area for Westminster.
Spot on. It's not how it is, it's how it looks from the other side of the fence. Empathy. Not that hard if you are at all human.
DeleteI like to think I'm fairly empathetic, and I honestly can't believe a single person feels genuinely hurt by some morons burning a government commission report.
DeleteWell, there's not much danger of that happening now. Maybe it's just as well that they outed themselves as idiots before they were considered for more responsibility.
DeleteI would be sceptical though that it would have any significant impact electorally. I can't imagine many people thinking that they'll change their voting intention because of some idiot councillors behaving idiotically.
It won't get that much coverage in the media either, with Osborne's statement today dominating the agenda. Only the Record had it on the front page today from the papers I've seen. Unless the SNP make a mountain out of a molehill (like Labour did with Thornberry) it will be quickly forgotten. But that's good luck rather than any judgement on the part of these muppets.
When will folk on our side, who claim to be in the know about how the BBC and MSM will always twist ANY event to rubbish Independence, grow a pair and STOP blaming the subjects of MSM stories rubbishing Independence as the cause of MSM stories rubbishing Independence!?
DeleteOut in the (cold) real non BBC and MSM world of ridiculous Unionist spin, Scotland already understands that what the Smith Commission has excreted would not burn anyway.
braco
I see that the councillors in question have been suspended by the SNP and that Nicola Sturgeon has apologised for their behaviour. As a member of the SNP I am extremely disappointed with this surrender to the faux outrage of the Unionists. My view is that the councillors were making an entirely valid political point in a reasonable way, and have done nothing to justify any disciplinary action. If we just ask the Unionists for independence, always being ever so polite in case any of them manage to find some cause to take offence, then we might as well give up now.
DeleteI don't personally agree with what the councillors did, but suspending them (and potentially expelling them) for burning a piece of paper seems a bit silly to me, to put it mildly.
DeleteBurning a document that your own party has agreed to take part in and contribute to doesn't say much. Ignore the unionists etc, this could be viewed as them going against the party leadership.
DeleteSNP are in for a shock. Nicola thinks kissing babies and spot light waving to mass meetings is somehow going to deradicalise those 80 odd thousand newly joined members.
DeleteNews Flash! Those members mostly joined out of frustration at the apparent disbanding of the 'YES movement' by the centralist YES Scotland HQ (without even bothering to consult the grassroots movement they were supposed to represent and speak for)!
Those new members wanted to carry the fight on (even if that required getting involved in Party Politics. Something they self evidently refused to do before the referendum YES campaign and that 'NO' vote). Not too many of the type of activists that would bat an eye lid at these councillors' behaviour (I would think). Much more likely aplaude it!
You Loyal SNP folk out there, did you think the participation of your Party in the Myth Commission was heartfelt and binding, or more a petty party political manouvre to be abandoned as soon as the shit was smelt?
Well we can all smell it now, and the leadership of 'our' Independence Party has decided to 'suspend and potentially expel' elected members for saying as much. Or more likely for saying as much in an easily understandable and graphic way. Bit too 'movementish' that. Won't put folk back to sleep that kind of 'populist' behaviour. Next we will be having protests outside the BBC again. The BBC for God's sake!
Oh how the unionist media must snigger and giggle, disbelieving at their apparent power over us 'separatists'.
braco
"News Flash! Those members mostly joined out of frustration at the apparent disbanding of the 'YES movement' by the centralist YES Scotland HQ (without even bothering to consult the grassroots movement they were supposed to represent and speak for)!"
DeleteI know these new members and have attended many meetings in the branches in the west of scotland. (used to be solid Labour heartlands, not any more though! :-) ) Not one has ever told me they joined out of frustration of the disbanding of the Yes movement. They are most certainly frustrated with the westminster political class and their London branch offices and they want a better scotland for their families, friends and themselves. But anger or frustration at the Yes campaign? Nope. Some lessons to be learned and yes, some harsh words for a few of the less effective parts of the campaign, but the real anger is at the unionist parties and the unionist media. Rightly so.
The reason we have such a colossal number of members now is actually very simple. We enthused and motivated a truly massive number of voters who were disillusioned with westminster politics as usual and who wanted a better scotland. The unprecedented grass-roots campaign resulted in an astonishing turnout. So you should drop your sneering over Nicola since she was central to that campaign and spoke TO scots at packed out meetings up and down scotland for years while the Eggman was shouting as passers by with three men and a dug looking on.
"Those new members wanted to carry the fight on (even if that required getting involved in Party Politics."
Certainly that has far more truth to it than some supposed frustration at a YES movement who pretty fucking obviously had to change and readjust to the loss of the first referendum. I've a NEWSFLASH for you braco, they were DEEPLY involved in party politics during the Indyref. How could it be otherwise? Yes and No were represented by parties and the policies and different visions for scotland were self-evidently based on differing political stances. That's why all the Yes parties saw their memberships rocket and the SNP in particular. It's hardly a huge adjustment to then fight on under a party banner when it's the policies of the Yes parties that turned you on to politics in the first place. That's not to say those who don't want to join a party or support one can't be involved but they will self-evidently have almost no influence in 2015 and 2016 if they don't. Support Yes parties by all means but you still need to vote for one of them or what exactly is the point?
(cont.)
"Not too many of the type of activists that would bat an eye lid at these councillors' behaviour (I would think). Much more likely aplaude it!"
DeleteWe'll see. I'll check in with another meeting later this week. (for those who still don't fucking get it these meetings are happening all over scotland and have been since the referendum so the SNP leadership know perfectly well how the various branches feel and think with the deluge of new members) There will be some who cheer them on but I tend to think there will be more than enough who, like me, simply roll their eyes at these misguided, and to be frank, pretty clueless bunch. Precisely how much proof from the Indyref did they need that the unionist media would be all over their stunt and spin it mercilessly to smear the SNP?
If they were a touch smarter what they should have done was invite the press journos to a 'burning', show the assembled hacks the Smith Commission report, then for their stunt take a big black Pen and score out Smith and write in the word Calman. Then, should the assembled westminster bubble hacks still fail to get the point, (a racing certainty) produce the weighty Leveson report, thunk it on a table, pour some lighter fluid over it and then invite the hacks to burn it at their leisure. Even the westminster bubble idiots would begin to finally 'get it' by then. ;-)
Of course it would have been far simpler and more effective not to have a stunt at all since the only way to combat the relentless unionist media spin is with clear simple and factual information about Smith and THE VOW on the doorseps and face to face. Something that will be happening as the campaigning is going to start again in earnest in the new year for 2015.
"Next we will be having protests outside the BBC again. The BBC for God's sake!"
Protest over the manifestly unfair TV tax or protests against the BBC's involvement with Jimmy Saville and several other high profile abusers?
The BBC are on borrowed time braco because one thing I have found from almost every single new member is utter disgust at their blatantly obvious bias and arrogance. Abolishing the TV Tax is already being seriously looked at by the westminstner parties (obviously not because it would be the fair thing to do but because of the massive savings and tempting voters with a slashed price BBC subscription fee as an election 'giveaway' at some point)
There certainly won't be much giggling or sneering considering just how massive the trust gap is already from the scottish public in the unionist media with a whopping 45% of a truly gigantic turnout not falling for their lies and spin. Plummeting circulations and falling viewerships will speak far louder than a thousand small pointless stunts.
We WILL be having some very high profile campaign events soon enough and even the likes of the BBC and the westmisnter bubble press will not be able to ignore them or so easily use them to smear the SNP and the Yes parties.
Mick,
DeleteI am not an SNP member, though I have campaigned a great deal for it (especially 2007) and respect it as the current torch holder of Scottish Independence. I don't 'sneer', I only observe.
My political position is simple. I demand Scottish Independence. Not as an ideal to strive for (and then die unfulfilled, as so many have had to) but as a reality in my lifetime! To start living, with all it's imperfections and compromises.
I will no longer be patient and play the long game. We are past that point, and if you were as involved in the YES campaign as your posts suggest, you know that too. The YES movement was not 90 odd thousand activists that have since joined Party politics. It was as much the general interest in Scottish Independence that captured the public imagination and self motivated that unprecidented 85% turnout. Millions (and on both sides).
I will be judging the SNP on that 45% YES datum (of an 85% turnout) rather than whatever undoubted increase they manage to put on to their current 6 MPs. I want total Unionist wipe out (as 45% would obviously secure). When the SNP produce this, as I hope they do, I will be as joyous as the next person. What will you be if they don't Mick? Upset of course, but as loyal as ever?
There is a bigger thing on offer at the moment in Scotland than Party Politics, but unfortunately it would take the Parties, most importantly the currently highest flying parties, to allow themselves to remain authentically backstage (but obviously still instrumental). Not impossible with 25 thousand members, but how likely now with 70+ thousand new members. Am I so unreasonable to be warning of possible Party Political hubris?
After the first referendum defeat in Quebec, Parti Québécois won the greatest % of the vote ever won in any federal Canadian State election (and never matched since). What we are seeing here in Scotland at the moment is not necessarily the unheard of political phenomenon we feel it should be and being told it is.
This phenomenon did not lead to Quebec Independence in Canada and it may not lead to Scottish Independence in Scotland. http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/12/03/a-tale-of-two-referendums/
We need to add something else to the pot to be sure. To do that we need a little less absolute certain confidence (useful and entertaining during a no holds barred referendum campaign) but very restricting and dangerous to the reformation of any new successful first past the post 'national movement' built to destroy the last authoritative democratic unionist foothold now left in Scotland.
We need to pick each muscular finger off that cliff face, not revert to the previously ineffective 'one more push' Mick.
braco
"I demand Scottish Independence. Not as an ideal to strive for (and then die unfulfilled, as so many have had to) but as a reality in my lifetime!"
DeleteYou clearly can't be under the delusion that SNP members don't want independence as a reality since the only reason we had the first Indyref is that the SNP turned it from an impossiblity (so the westminster parties kept telling us) to a reality. As for in your lifetime, as Nicola made crystal clear when the voters want it they will get it. And as she also set out with zero ambiguity the SNP not only continue to believe in Independence but will do all we can to make it happen.
I will no longer be patient and play the long game. We are past that point, and if you were as involved in the YES campaign as your posts suggest, you know that too."
Best drop the if braco as my involvement in campaigning is well known on here and not up for question. Your lack of patience is, I'm afraid, of no consequence whatsoever. It would be nice if I could just snap my fingers and we were independent but it's pure fucking fantasy. I have no idea what you think you can do to hasten Independence buy I assure you that the one thing that has been settled for good is that the SNP have proved to everyone that they can deliver an independence referendum if that is what the scottish public votes for. It's not up for debate how we get independence so it's just a matter if when scots decide we have another referendum. We're barely three months out from the first one so I've some bad news for you if you think there's going to be another one next week or next month. It ain't happening. Nor is there any chance of another Indyref in 2015 or 2016.
"I will be judging the SNP on that 45% YES datum (of an 85% turnout) rather than whatever undoubted increase they manage to put on to their current 6 MPs"
Feel free to judge us how you like but we're going to be REAL busy in the meantime fighting to get as many seats as we can while overturning or slashing some truly gigantic Labour majorities. We'll judge ourselves on how succesfull we are by a combination of the work we put in and the outcomes to advance Independence and a better scotland.
"What will you be if they don't Mick? Upset of course, but as loyal as ever? "
Funny thing braco, nobody has ever raised my "loyalty" to independence after campaigning so hard for the first indyref and they would do well not to dismiss my continuing commitment to that and the party I choose as mere "loyalty" either.
(cont.)
"There is a bigger thing on offer at the moment in Scotland than Party Politics"
DeleteNo, there isn't. There won't be an indyref in 2015 or 2016 and there certainly won't be another Indyref unless the SNP and the Yes parties keep up the enthusiasm and advance policies that the scottish public like and vote for. We learned the hard way that we have to carry public opinion and to do so we have to convince as many scots as possible that we can create a better scotland for everyone and that we have the policies to do so.
"Am I so unreasonable to be warning of possible Party Political hubris? "
A few months out from the Indyref you are. You can't seriously believe the SNP or any of the other Yes parties need to be told that we have hard work ahead or think that we are overconfident because of a few polls. Every meeting I have attended it's been spelled out in blunt terms just how large the majorities in those areas we have to overturn are and just how difficult it's going to be. We weren't the ones who complacently thought that a No vote would put the SNP and the Yes parties 'back in their box' and that it would be back to business as usual for westminster. That would be the unionist parties and media who did that and are quite clearly terrified and distraught that the very opposite has happened.
"What we are seeing here in Scotland at the moment is not necessarily the unheard of political phenomenon"
It is for scotland and the UK. Lest anyone be in any doubt why the unionist parties and media are so terrified they are facing the prospect of campaigns not unlike the Indyref from now on (local,GE,EU.scottish parliament) but with approaching 100,000 SNP members and a greatly increased membership in the other Yes parties as well. That's not hubris, that's just the cold hard facts of the numbers.
"To do that we need a little less absolute certain confidence"
Again, you seem to be confusing a statement of the way things stand as either overconfidence or hubris where I have displayed neither. I'm taking nothing for granted and indeed am doing all I can when I can to keep encouraging and helping the members from either losing heart or interest as are my friends in the SNP and indeed in the other Yes parties. We are under no illusion how difficult it's going to be to keep the colossal number of members involved, engaged and active. (you'd better believe there has been some incredible work done already with the logistics just to cope with the massive influx of new members like finding venues and arranging as many meetings and events as possible while getting as much input form the new members as we can as to their hopes and needs for scotland and the party) We also know the scale of the problem in defeating as many of the unionist party MPs as possible, but there are plans being made right now to make certain we get as many members as possible active and ready to help out where they are needed in other branches too.
(cont.)
"built to destroy the last authoritative democratic unionist foothold now left in Scotland. "
DeleteFor someone talking about hubris and confidence you should perhaps remind yourself that there is going to be a core labour and tory vote regardless of the outcome of 2015 or 2016. We'll do our absolute best to shrink it as much as we can but they are hardly the lib dems yet. That hard core will be far, far harder to erode than the yellow tories were though happily little Ed and Cameron are doing their absolute best to help us out there. But even IF, for once, FPTP ends up helping rather than crippling us it won't change the fact that we still need to win a majority in the next indyref and that means winning over more and ever more scots with our policies and with our actions before then.
not revert to the previously ineffective 'one more push' Mick."
It was never just "one more push". It was pushing for decade after decade and it's going to be pushing for as long as it takes this time because for one thing it WORKED. We got our Indyref. I am however all ears if you have a better way to do it as not only did it work but as far as I can see there is no possiblity of anything else working since there is no magic short-cut to achieving independence. Yeah, pushing can be hard, tiring work, but that's what we've got to do and I for one will keep doing it for as long as I am able. I don't believe we'll have to wait for decade after decade either as westminster, the unionist parties and the unionist media still don't seem to grasp that the scottish public is going to judge them by their actions and judge them more severely than ever now.
I wonder if anyone has a recording of the BBC's Glenn Campbell moment when he tore up the 2007 SNP Holyrood Manifesto live on Reporting Scotland?
ReplyDeleteDid anyone ever employ him again? Has he been released from prison yet?
DeleteAs you note there are already precendents for Westminster renouncing soveriegnty that need a minor tweak to make the Scottish Parliament permanent while still respecting the views of the (former) 55%. And here it is 'Secure Autonomy'
ReplyDeletehttp://constitutionalcommission.org/blog/?p=358
Thing is, those burning the alex salmond 'guy' weren't democratically elected representatives of the SNP. If you can't see the difference that makes...
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that when the Salmond guy was burned and some folk complained, Unionist politicans said they should stop taking it so seriously, it was a bit of fun/banter. Now the same unionists are going mental over paper being burned. If you can't see how hypocritical that makes them...
DeleteA different anonymous who thinks neither of them should have been burned.
Sadly, in our seventeenth century unwritten constitution, the sovereignty of Parliament (at Westminster) is theoretically unbounded, save for the fact no Parliament can bind its successors, so LPW is 100% spot on (unsurprisingly, on a point of law). To paraphrase the jurist Sir Ivor Jennings, Parliament can make it illegal for a Frenchman to smoke on the streets of Paris.
ReplyDeleteThe only potential ambiguity here is the obiter dicta of Lord Cooper of Culross in MacCormick v Lord Advocate, where he said that "the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law", especially given the fact that we are clearly talking specifically about Scottish constitutional law here. The problem with this is that remarks made obiter are persuasive rather than binding and no one has done much with these remarks in the 60-odd years since they were made. It is often inferred that he was referring to the concept of the sovereignty of the people which may be present in mediaeval Scots documents such as the Declaration of Arbroath but this is difficult to pin down.
MacCormick v Lord Advocate, you may be aware, was the action to prevent the Queen from calling herself II in Scotland on the basis that 'how can you have a second Liz when the first one's never been?' and was connected to the destruction of postboxes bearing the ERII cypher.
Yes, Yes. Westminster's mythical 'unbounded' sovereignty, whither 17th or 21st century has always depended on one thing. Military boots on the ground! Without them, or the threat of them, Lallands Peat Worrier's and every other legal vs political reality 'professional' is out of business.
DeleteWe need to stop supplying all those 'boots on the ground' from our country, that while so obviously damaging to us, only encourages and reinforces the myth making and outrages of another countries elite.
I am so sick of all this crap.
braco
"To paraphrase the jurist Sir Ivor Jennings, Parliament can make it illegal for a Frenchman to smoke on the streets of Paris."
DeleteBut of course the UK would have to invade France to enforce that law - and it would also have to invade Canada to enforce any decision to reverse the Canada Act. We can be almost 100% sure that the Canadian Supreme Court would regard the Canada Act as meaning exactly what it says, ie. as being irreversible - and that's in spite of the fact that the Canadian constitution ultimately draws its legality from an act of the Westminster parliament. So there are different potential interpretations out there on this "no parliament can bind its successors" malarkey, and the level of legal entrenchment does make a difference.
rUK would have to invade Scotland to shut the Scottish Parliament.
DeleteIf Nicola just told them to fuck off that is. Which I imagine she would.
Even then that would just make independence happen really quickly, just rather messily / Eire style.
'Eire style'
DeleteIreland is not Independent even yet. You seem to take this very lightly SS. Hve you read this and importantly, it's conclusions?
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/12/03/a-tale-of-two-referendums/
braco
Alan Cochranes book out tomorrow with bits in it about how Gordon Brown has lost his mind.
ReplyDeleteLeast it's not only us that's noticed.
How come no-one seems to have picked up on the significance of Smith's statement? The "vow", states unequivocally "The Scottish Parliament is permanent" well Smith just ADMITTED this was an absolute lie, therefore in no possible was can it have been "filfilled".
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand for the very casual reader you have these headlines:
ReplyDelete"Smith Delivers - Vow honoured by Westminster"
"SNP welcome Smith report but hjkjhj asdui uioiuy kjh jhgkjhgkjhg [simulated reader interest]"
"SNP Councillors burn Smith Report".
I'd be perfectly happy to see people burn lord Smith never mind his report. Death penalty for treason, child abuse, wildlife crimes and being scum.
ReplyDeleteHow can THE VOW be delivered according to unionists when THE VOW doesn't exist according to the same unionists?
We know anything that happens YES side is magnified 100 x MSM
ReplyDeleteSNP councillors BURNING smith report is a massive own goal
connections to burning books(jews) is doing the rounds already
water,
DeleteI cooked my dinner in a Gas oven tonight. A GAS OVEN!!
Grow a pair and deal with the reality hard learnt from the YES Campaign's recent experience at the hands of Britain's 'free press and World renowned, completely unbiased BBC'.
Otherwise you are just another hindrance and not a help.
braco
not burning my bra till Home Rule
DeletePoint taken water, no matter how petty.
Deletebraco
before this referendum,i totally believed in the BBC 100%,thats what shocked,disappointed me.now im listening to radio reports,watching news,thinking,is it the TRUTH?
Deletepropaganda is a powerful tool
And our job is to open eyes to it, not pander and cower to it. That's 90% of it's power.
Deletebraco
The smith proposals; and that's all they are, proposals, are nothing more than a watery broth, made by boiling the shadow of a carrot that had been left to rot in rain. The irony is that this thin miserablist broth will be watered down to nothing in Westminster. The proposals or what left of them, will be the political equivalent of homeopathy. Just the merest hint of something that is relying on a placebo effect to carry the day.
ReplyDeleteBut when it comes this this sort of political gutter fighting. We have always been far too polite with these people and they run riot with us. Constantly trying to put us on the back foot. Like fighting pigs, they drag us down to their level and beat us with experience. We need to find a more effective way to deal with them. Less of the beatific smiles and taking it on the chin. Remember the look on labours face when the SNP announced that they wouldn't let councils hound voters for non payment of poll tax - that's how you beat these idiots. In the parliament with policies that wrong foot them.
They should have been more environmentally concious and composted it. However, it has been a bit chilly of late so I guess there's that as a mitigating factor.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, this massive scandal should result in huge poll surges for New Labour, the Tories, UKIP and the lib dems by tomorrow afternoon. On Friday Nicola will resign, the SNP will fall to a vote of no confidence and we shall see Black Friday scenes in the shops as Scots rip each other apart trying to stock up on union flags following a national outpouring of re-found Britishness.
I know the councillors personally. Nice people and fully dedicated to independence and to helping people in Renfrewshire. Only last month they helped organise a massive collection for the Paisley food bank! That's the defence part!
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, it wasn't their smartest moment! A stupid stunt for the cameras. For many of the reasons stated above.
I've not spoke to any of them yet, or anyone else involved in the SNP, but I would hope common sense prevails. The proverbial smack on the wrist would be more than enough, IMHO.