Believe it or not, I'm still receiving a steady stream of messages and comments from people who are convinced they are world-leading experts on the Holyrood voting system, and who want to "explain" to me some mistakes I've supposedly made in my recent posts. The super-confident cluelessness of some of these people is quite entertaining in a way, but I'm becoming concerned that casual readers of the comments section may be misled by that confidence, so I'm going to set a few of the dafter misconceptions straight.
"Christ on a bicycle, what are you saying here? How can you dispute that a party with 3% of the list vote would take 4 seats? AMS is a proportional voting system and 4 seats is 3% of 129. Stop being an idiot, James."
I can dispute it very easily, because under the Holyrood system seats are not distributed proportionally on a national basis. Scotland is split into eight regions, each with between fifteen and seventeen seats. That means, unless something weird happens, that it's very unlikely a party would take a seat in any region with less than 5% of the list vote. Conceivably a party with 3% of the national vote might nick a seat or two if they do better in certain regions than in others - but the most likely outcome is that they would take zero seats.
"Christ on a bicycle, what are you saying here? How can you produce a hypothetical example of a Holyrood result where the list vote of the parties only adds up to 96%? All list votes count under AMS. Stop being an idiot, James."
I can do that because I'm taking into account the obvious fact that there will be a number of minor parties and independents on the list ballot, which in combination will take a non-trivial share of the vote. Indeed, any hypothetical example that doesn't take account of that point is flawed, although exactly what share of the vote minor parties will take can only be speculative. Incidentally, it's doubtful whether it can truly be said that "all list votes count under AMS" - to all intents and purposes votes for very small parties don't really count towards the seat allocation, and that means larger parties can sometimes win slightly more seats than they otherwise would on any given share of the vote.
"Christ on a bicycle, what are you saying here? How can you claim that the SNP can win significantly more seats than their share of the list ballot? AMS is a proportional system. Stop being an idiot, James."
I can say that because of a little something called constituency seats. If the largest party takes all or nearly all of the constituency seats in a region, there won't be enough list seats to fully compensate the other parties and make the overall result proportional. There are multiple examples of that scenario occurring in past Holyrood elections.
"Christ on a bicycle, what are you saying here? How can you produce a hypothetical example where the SNP take an average of 6.5 seats per region on 29% of the list vote? That list vote only entitles the SNP to two seats per region, which requires there to be 4.5 SNP constituency seats per region, and if they win that many they'd be over their 'quota' and wouldn't take any list seats anyway. Stop being an idiot, James."
A lot of that one is utter gibberish, but instead of trying to disentangle it, I'll just make this really simple. There is no 'cap' of 4.5 constituency seats per region - that would be an arithmetically impossible cap to enforce anyway. A party can win as many as 73 constituency seats nationwide, regardless of how high or low their share of the list vote is - and that's an average of 9.1 seats per region, not 6.5.
Wings has done some excellent work in highlighting contradictions and lies in the Unionist press. His Wee Blue Book was also a great contribution.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, he appears to have elevated himself to having expertise in politics, when he doesn't understand some of the basics.
As another 'Old Nat' I agree: he has done some excellent work, but the nature of some of his criticism of the SNP is extremely disappointing.
DeleteThose of us who have been canvassing and leafleting, attending meetings, coping with the highs and the despairing lows and occasional doubts about this or that aspect of strategy, have always kept driving the cause forward, and known that the SNP is the practical means of achieving it.
Ever since he decided he might set up a Wings Party, his political instincts have gone off the rails.
DeleteWhen he isn't busy disaster-mongering about the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon, he's busy complaining that the SNP won't do a deal with the Tories to get Brexit through, in return for a Section 30 order. Because of course, nothing would ingratiate voters towards the idea of independence more than the SNP facilitating the Tories, or even the merest perception that they're doing so. In 1979, the faulty perception of facilitating Tories was enough to wipe out the SNP for a generation. Helping the Tories out with Brexit would be seen as 1979 on steroids. Does he honestly think doing a deal with them now - assuming you can even trust them not to try and double-cross you somehow - wouldn't bring about the same result? How does he think that would help the independence vote? You'd get the referendum, only to haemorrhage support for the way you achieved it. Aye, good one.
This is why he should keep out of party politics. He can't be expected to look at the political landscape objectively if he's no longer "soaring above" it, as his website claims. And if he can't offer objective, clear-headed analysis without party-political considerations, then he'll totally undermine the strength and appeal of his work.
I just wasted ten minutes looking up " Christ on a bicycle"... Thanks! No article on Boris Johnson comment on h
ReplyDeleteJoe Cox??
Its not a Father Brown reference?
Delete:)
Try "Oh no Christ on a bike" spell any way you like.
DeleteWings is behaving in exactly the same way as Farage's populism rantings by blaming the SNP for things they have no control over, the very things he himself used to point out, now he's playing on the hope that most folk don't understand the nuances of politics claiming the SNP can just dae sumthin when it's perfectly clear if the other parties won't compromise with them there are only 35 SNP MPs against Labour Tory and Lib Dem, and Wings knows it
ReplyDeleteHe's campaigning for his Wings party that doesn't and likely will never exist because who in their right mind would want to associate themselves as a candidate with an internet foul mouthed populist
Or after Independence his website is over and done with so he reckons he'll need a source of income and the cult following (not all) on Wings will give him the money, they'll see him for what he is soon enough
I find people's obsession with Stuart Campbell notably more disturbing than the latter using occasional swear words my 12 year old & friends probably use more frequently when I'm not in earshot, and I use when they're not in earshot.
DeleteFolk need to get over Stuart Campbell. Jeezo.
0.3-0.5% of words folk in the UK use on a daily basis are swear words. That's as common as 'we' or 'our'.
http://www.mcla.edu/Assets/uploads/MCLA/import/www.mcla.edu/Undergraduate/uploads/textWidget/1457.00018/documents/Jay_Taboo.pdf
Unless you are chasing the prudish church on Sunday vote (many of whom will use all sorts of profanities in private), complain of a 'foul mouth', just makes you sound silly, particularly as, statistically, he swears at a rate much lower than the average.
If you've ever had a real job working alongside the 'working classes' you'd know this.
I just got coffee from a Real Barista.
DeleteIsn't "barista" the name for someone with a beard who presses a button on a coffee machine?
DeleteSkier - I agree with you up to a point, but the problem is the Rev types swearwords. It takes more effort to do that. people swear as it gives time for them to choose the next word and to emphasise. Spoken it is natural, typed it is synthetic. And in that synthesis lies the problem.
DeleteThe Rev can be a Real Barista.
DeleteHey, Scottish Skier. Seem to remember plenty folk having an obsession about your good self when you prophesied far and wide we would win in 2014. Post after post about how Yes winning was a no brainer. BTW we lost.Your ego has clearly affected your memory. In relation to your hypocritical criticism of Campbell; maybe just pipe down a bit.
DeleteMost of us have certainly got over you.
It seems the modern trend of politics is that a group of people all get very upset over something a blogger or podcast or tv talk show host says. We see this from the Trumper Thumpers in the States, the Death-to-all-Traitors Brexiteers, and now apparently in Scottish politics. All groups take something someone says as a given, never doubting that it might be true, then proceed to explode on anyone who dares to disagree with the Gospel According to Fill-In-the-Blank. It turns all political discussion into unicorn parade judging contests. Which of course is to the benefit of somebody.
ReplyDeleteThat's true. I've seen it myself stateside. I'm sad it's happening here in Britain but I guess that's what happens when there is no central mechanism. I've been saying this for years and - thank Heaven - people are listening. We need to get rid of the trash people so we don't have to listen to the. I suggest cutting off their access to electricity and the internet. They'll behave right when their starving.
DeleteNo platform for Bathism on Calculus Campus.
DeleteThis survation is some serious bad news for the union:
ReplyDeletehttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFV12qGXYAEnJ72.jpg
England wants brexit / wants it done. By huge margins.
It's going to happen and as a result, the UK will break up. This will form the final chapter of the future school history book 'The Rise and Fall of the British Empire, 1707-2021'.
Boris also remains the most popular option for PM too by a country mile. Which shows you how ripe England is for dictatorship. A very good reason for jumping ship.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1176981450559774720
Preference for Prime Minister:
B. Johnson: 41%
J. Swinson: 21%
J. Corbyn: 18%
via @Survation, 25 Sep
Of course the same poll has a pro remain collation easily getting a majority and therefore a second EU ref which would result in the UK staying in - with all 4 nations voting remain.
DeleteBoris really needs to do something quick, his dreams of Brexit are fading fast...
Scottish Skier. You seem to have read a different poll from the one you have linked to. I'd like to read your one. Thanks.
DeleteLabour are a remain party? Have you a link to this firm official stance?
DeleteAnyway, if the UK stayed in the EU, it will still break up. The reason brexit didn't create a sudden majority for indy is that indy support is no really driven by brexit.
DeleteInstead, as predicted, in a large part due to simple demographic changes, indy support has just kept on creeping up.
Brexit is a symptom of the break-up of the UK as much as it is a cause.
People dreaming of the UK going 'back to the good old days when indy support was tiny and SNP voting a minority support' are no different from brexiters fantasising about re-living the glory days of the empire.
DeleteBoth groups are living in the past.
Preference for Spear Of The Nation:
DeleteSir James Kelly 37%
Joanna Cherry 33%
N. Sturgeon (for it was she) 22.5%
Rev Stu Campbell 3.75%
Mikey Small 3.74%
Peter A. Bell - disqualified for -25 approval rating
Yea my apologies, should be pro second ref and/or revoke article 50.
DeleteClearly no signs of the heading towards 40% that was forecast by some
Another poll putting leave ahead with England voting to remain:
DeleteMatthew Goodwin
@GoodwinMJ
·
3h
2nd referendum scenarios
REMAIN v LEAVE NO DEAL
Remain 55%
Leave 45%
REMAIN V LEAVE W/MAY DEAL BUT NO BACKDROP
Remain 55%
Leave 45%
All this would be blown apart if Wings rebranded itself itself as The New Party. It would be supported by the Collarless Shirts and deracinated ferry-lowpers like GWC could be silenced forever.
ReplyDeleteGood point. Or should I say "points"? It's raining heavily outside (thankfully not inside) and a train had trundled past with no-one in it. This all has to do with global warming and we should all be concerned about it. I know I am and it won't be enough to live in Kansas because it's flat and will be flooded. I would drown. Wake up, everyone. It's happening.
DeleteIn times like this with Wings going off page instead of sticking to blogging which it does very well we have Unionist trolls hiding as Indy supporters are telling wings what a great idea this is and Wings are taking it in like soup,The fact is the voting system for Holyrood is a fix in favour of the Unionist parties and splitting the Indy vote is utter madness and gifting seats to the Tory unionist parties.
ReplyDeleteThere's been a fair turnover in the names posting just lately. Some of the old backslappers are still there but...
DeleteWingsy claimed that the site traffic multiplied when he launched the idea of the new party. What's the best way of verifying if this is continuing?
From a link about "The 77th" just posted on Wings --
Delete" JTRIG also boasted an arsenal of 200 info-weapons, ranging from in-development to fully operational. A tool dubbed “Badger” allowed the mass delivery of email. Another, called “Burlesque”, spoofed SMS messages. “Clean Sweep” would impersonate Facebook wall posts for individuals or entire countries. “Gateway” gave the ability to “artificially increase traffic to a website”. "
Well, well.
It's not just the constituency seats that mean parties that get seats can get more than their proportion of the vote would indicate. Even if it was pure D'Hondt it would still be the case due to the fact that it's unlikely that more than one party will have exactly the number of votes needed for the seats they get. All others will have more. A first guess would be on average half the votes needed. So 3 or more seats worth of votes. In a 17 seat region then that'd mean there'd be 20 seats worth of votes including "wasted" votes. So 5% per seat. You could get 9 seats on 45% of the vote.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting observation, Iain, but as far as I remember (it's a long time ago now - I've been dead since 1901) my method doesn't really divide the votes arithmetically. The problems it solves are (1) you can't allocate fractions of a seat, and (2) you must allocate exactly the right number of seats, so some disproportionality is inevitable. If you were allocating all 56 lists seats in one run then the inexactness wouldn't be too much, but if - as in Scotland - you allocate region by region, then the inexactitude is magnified, and can become serious.
DeleteBut it still wouldn't reach the proportions of giving 40% of the seats to a 29% share of the vote. You can test this out at https://icon.cat/util/elections. If you get the result you're looking for, drop me a line (Cemetery, Ghent, Oost Vlaanderen) and I'll drink your health in nectar.
I didn't say it did. What it is is a method to find a number such that for every whole batch of them you get a seat.
DeleteThere's a range of numbers that will do that for a given voting pattern and seats.
Think of it like treating votes as currency and seats as indivisible. So if the cost is 10 and you have 25 then you get 2 seats with 5 left.
D'Hondt is a recursive method of doing that. It works by a series of what if questions that ask "If a party were to get the next seat how many votes per seat would that be?" And allocates it to the party with the highest. Repeat until done. Lots are drawn if two or more tie without enough seats left to give one each.
Also you can start with seats already allocated.
Most probable seats in 29% of vote is 5. So at most 33% of a 15 seat region.
"But it still wouldn't reach the proportions of giving 40% of the seats to a 29% share of the vote."
DeleteBefore someone called "Derek" misconstrues the point that Mr D'Hondt is making, he is of course talking solely about his own formula, and not about AMS, which is a hybrid system and which can very easily produce 40% of seats on 29% of the list ballot.
I am becoming unclear about what precisely is being said here. Mr McCord says he is speaking about the "pure D'Hondt" method (was I pure? If so, I don't remember it), but then introduces kiesdistrict seats ("constituency", I think you name them) by saying "you can start with seats already allocated". On the other hand, when he says "at most 33%", I think he speaks about list seats only, and means that 40% is improbable, so he and I are unanimous on that.
DeleteAMS is a hybrid system, as Mr Kelly says, because it utilises my allocation procedure. If it did not utilise my allocation procedure, but could per impossible deliver fractions of a seat, then would it not be perfectly proportional? That is to say, my allocation procedure is the only disproportionate part of the system. Am I a good scientist in thinking that, or a meringue?
Derek Rogers: Please stop misleading people about how AMS works. You're welcome to comment on the subject again once you've educated yourself. For pity's sake, it's not that complicated, you could have read up about it properly in the time it's taken you to write some of these comments.
ReplyDeleteSeems Remain has lost some ground since May.
ReplyDeletehttp://britainelects.com/polling/europe/
Was up to ~55%, but now has fallen to just over 52%.
So really a statistical tie, and unless the public demand EUref2 via a clear election mandate, leave will most likely win again in any referendum 'forced' on the people.
Wingsy seems to have talked himself into hating Nicola Sturgeon as much as he seems to hate most female politicians, the guy never stops
ReplyDeleteI say it more simple (just like me) if you vote for the SNP candidate and the SNP is your party then vote SNP on the list as well, otherwise you are voting against your own party.
ReplyDeleteAnd gain independence first, then vote for whoever you wish.
DeleteYou should say "Brothers and sisters..."
ReplyDeleteNow Winsgy is indulging himself in the mocking of death threats against female MPs by calling them iccle wikkle delicate flowers and claiming women threaten to kill men
ReplyDeleteWell so they do, but they don't do it or my mother would've killed me almost every day I was growing up
The guys turned into a complete nitwit with this hating women stuff
To be honest, your obsession with Wings is really weird. Are you sure you don't need some help? It seems to be taking over your life.
DeleteThe way you focus on women is creepy too.
Maybe it's because I'm a woman did you not think of that duh
DeleteHe's now on Twitter complaining that the SNP and other opposition parties blocked a recess for the Tory Party Conference. It's sometimes hard to tell whether he's Nat-bashing for the sake of it these days or whether he has a point. But from what I gather, he seems to be under the impression this is some sort of gift-wrapped blunder from the opposition to the Tories, and could damage the SNP's chances in an election campaign.
DeleteMaybe it's true that the voters of Bath will be drawn in by a grievance narrative from Boris. The voters of Bathgate, on the other hand, couldn't give a damn whether the Tories get to quaff champagne and chunter unchallenged on the airwaves for three days. What's true of the English reaction is not necessarily true of the Scottish reaction, and he used to be keenly aware of that.
But it seems like that awareness has dulled, like he's properly losing his touch. Remember a few weeks ago when he put out that faintly hysterical article trying to insist the Supreme Court case spelled doom for Yes, because a handful of judges ruling on an inordinately lengthy prorogation apparently overrode the myriad other iniquities of the Union and exposed Scotland as an equal partner with equal influence.
Even his own acolytes pushed back hard on that one. Hopefully they continue to push back on his nuttier suppositions or he'll keep circling closer to the drain.
Women can have weird, creepy obsessions too.
DeleteThe fact you are reading his twitter and then ranting about it shows you have a very unhealthy obsession with him.
Normal, sane people don't do this. If they don't like what someone on the internet writes, they simply don't read it. They certainly don't follow it, then go to other blogs and rant about what's said.
Honestly, just don't read his blog/tweets. After a few days, you will feel a lot better in your head.
The Wings cult really doesn't have any room to talk about other people being obsessed. However, I agree that the best choice is not to read his blog. It used to be useful politically to read in spite of my deep disagreements with him. Now he is interested in nothing but his new party and attacking women and trans folks so it is no longer worth a look. So I don't.
DeleteI neither like nor dislike Stuart Campbell. I follow his twitter for links to articles etc. I've met him briefly in passing one many years ago, but on the offensive dickhead scale, he's way down the bottom. If folk want to direct anger at real dickheads, there are far, far better targets than a blog writer of limited repute.
DeleteI haven't noticed him mention the Wings party idea for a while now. It's mentioned on here much more.
I also haven't noticed him having any particular sex or gender preference for where his 'attacks' are directed. He seems quite an equal opportunities 'attacker' to me.
What I do see is some people really dislike him (I imagine due to his modest success) and they let that get to them.
It's a huge waste of time and energy disliking people, and it just ruins your days etc. Best just get on with other stuff than spend time doing that.
"I haven't noticed him mention the Wings party idea for a while now."
DeleteHe ran Gavin Barrie's article pretty recently - he presumably wouldn't have done that if he was backing off. Also the subtext of a lot of the SNP bashing is pretty obvious - "what are we going to do about this problem, readers?"
I simply meant I've noticed discussion of the wings party in comments here recently much more than in Wings tweets.
DeleteSkier - I have a creepy obsession. With you. I'm in bed now. Thinking about you. I think about you a lot.
DeleteSS - recently Wingsy has kept himself busy with the enormously transparent agenda of turning SNP supporters against the party and Sturgeon, in the obvious hope he can harvest their votes for himself.
DeleteThese days, he whines about Nicky and those awful Essenpee at a rate that almost eclipses GWC and the Unionist press. It's strange, because his central criticism that they're trying to save England from Brexit at the expense of saving Scotland from the Union is one that's potent enough and could probably gain traction. Yet he's drowning that out with a daily deluge of logic-contorting, over-egged naysaying and doom-mongering.
As James says, it's obvious what his "SNP Bad" barrage is intended to foment. I suppose he simply lacks the subtlety and guile to keep his agenda opaque.
I don't follow his tweets because I blocked him years ago because of misogynistic tweets and his attacks on trans rights. Having a length article on his blog less than a week ago about the wonders of his party is pretty recent as far as I am concerned and much more significant than whether or not he has done a tweet. So is his constant SNP bashing. He has come to the point he is quite actively damaging the Yes cause.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat's fair enough. He absolutely isn't everyone's cup of tea. But then there is no such thing as a person that universally is.
DeleteMay I ask what trans rights he's attacked though?
People keep saying he does this (and attacking women for the same), but don't ever provide examples of which rights it is he actually wants to deny trans people.
Also, out of curiosity, do you think pre-op pre-teen and teen transboys should use the male showers/changing rooms/toilet facilities etc? I keep asking this question when the topic comes up and nobody wants to answer.
Personally, I think this is a really bad idea, but the trans lobby are demanding it. I can see why many are worried about the idea, including women.
Sorry lost me can you show a link to these demands you are claiming?
DeleteIf you are talking to me, I mean the demands by trans activists that society accepts the statement 'Transboys are boys', ergo they should be using the male facilities as I noted.
DeleteYou must have seen the 'transboys are boys' meme (and similar) going around.
I don't disagree with them. Transboys are boys in my opinion. They are female boys. Just as transwomen are women; male women ('ladyboys' is the term in the far east). Biological sex differs from gender identity / societal gender role.
If we segregate based on 'gender', then transwomen use the ladies and transboys use the gents etc, just as many trans-activists demand.
If we are to segregate based on biological sex, then transwomen use the gents and transboys use the ladies. At least if they have not had a sex change (or are well into this process).
So I do agree with the the whole 'transboys are boys' concept, I more have concerns with gender being confused with sex and the implications of that for segregation, sports, female (bio) rights etc.
Obviously if someone thinks a pre-op young teenage transboy should use the ladies showers (rather than the gents) they clearly believe that a transboy is in fact a girl (a female boy).
DeleteSome would call them transphobes for that belief. I wouldn't obviously.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI happen to BE a woman, so don't give me the 'he is defending women' BS. He misgenders transwomen such as Chelsea Manning and goes so far as to claim that being transgender does not even exist. He repeats ad nauseum that it will lead to rapes, etc. which is simply a lie.
DeleteThere is NO 'trans lobby'. There IS an LGBT lobby. As a lesbian I have been part of it for decades and I fight for the rights and for respect for my trans brothers and sisters just as much as do my own as a lesbian.
And it should be up to transboys what showers they use. Some might fear abuse in a male shower but I know transgirls who fear abuse (and have RECEIVED abuse) in female showers. I know a lesbian who was abused in a female loo for not appearing 'feminine' enough thanks to this kind of hate propaganda which started in anti-LGBT organisations in the US>
DeleteI do notice, Scottish Skier, that you prefer to ignore his constant attacks on the SNP while saying (incorrectly) that he no longer is pushing this Wings party idea. Day after day, he is damaging the Yes cause. Associating it with anti-trans bigotry does it no favour but neither does attacking the only party that has any chance in delivering independence.
DeleteA couple of points.
DeleteThe point of contention is currently around the GRA. The fact that it is the GENDER reform act should stop any discussion about if it relates to a persons gender or biological sex, it clearly relates to a persons gender.
That act is very clear, if a person changes there gender via a Gender recognition certificate then they are thereafter legally the gender that they have transitioned to and have the same legal rights as a person who still has the same gender since birth. THis law has been around for 15 years and the above aspect of it is not going to change. Gender recognition certificates can only be granted to persons over the age of 18 so clearly the GRA has nothing to do with teen/pre teen trans(they do not exist legally)
Whilst you are not allowed to discriminate against people based on their gender, the Equality act allows some limited discrimination on the base of a persons biological sex, namely that there can be 'safe spaces' for people of the female gender. A trans woman could be bared from a rape shelter, for example, as they can say it is only for biological females.
This also applies for sport. A sports team could say that it is only for biological females, as long as it is on the basis of trying to reduce the risk of injury and or make competition fair.
In summary if people have an issue with there not being enough 'safe spaces' for biological females or biological females being hurt by trans women in sports, then people need to be campaigning for reform to the Equalities Act as this is the act that provides the protection for biological females, not the GRA.
Touching on what Tomlin has said above any person who misgenders a trans person but does not do the same to non trans people is showing prejudice and is showing prejudice against trans people and is by the dictionary definition transphobic.
I think that Mr or Mrs anonymous made a mistake there but he or she's not wrong in principle
ReplyDeleteI wish all these non de plume persons would use there REAL NAMES.
ReplyDeleteJames' chosen platform doesn't make that easy to do.
DeleteIt's very easy - just select "Name/URL" and type in your name (or pseudonym).
DeleteJames, you have my undying sympathy and respect... How you manage to stay sane & reasonable in the face of all this sh1t is quite beyond me...!
ReplyDeleteCan I ask for the name of your prescribed medication purleese..? Ifeel I'd like to stock upon some (for you) in case of any Brexit-induced shortage...
You just go out with the boys and have a bevvy if you feel out of sorts. Guinness, Vodka, wine or whisky does the trick or throw the leg over the wife or burd.
DeleteThat's a vulgar way for a lady to speak. Shame on you, madam.
DeleteDoes anyone think that Wingsy would look more like Lenin if we crowdfunded a peaked cap? And would Virgin West Coast run a special train from Bath to Livingston South?
DeleteBritain Elects
ReplyDelete@britainelects
43m43 minutes ago
More
"Should Boris Johnson apologise to the Queen?"
Yes: 62%
No: 27%
via @Survation
LOL
Britain Elects
ReplyDelete@britainelects
49m49 minutes ago
More
"If Boris Johnson fails to get a Brexit deal with the EU by October 31st should he should..."
Request an extension of the UK’s membership of the EU: 43%
Leave the EU without a deal: 49%
via @Survation, 25 Sep
The UK is so utterly fucked.
Good result. The anti democracy fascists are losing. Right up their kilts. The 43% are remainers and do not want any deal.
DeleteFor supporters of English independence (brexit) and Scottish independence, yes, a positive result.
DeleteAn interesting article on commonspace:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.commonspace.scot/articles/14756/analysis-boris-johnson-s-trumpian-outrage-politics-trap
Does anyone know if Jo Swinson lives in Scotland or England ?
ReplyDeleteJo Swinson lives in Chippenham with her husband former Lib Dem adviser and children she does make trips to East Dunbartonshire for party political broadcasts and videos and has an office staffed by a person who sends all requests or complaints via email to her c/o The HOC
DeleteActually speaking to her personally has not been possible for around five years becuae well she has expenses to claim for spoons for her kitchen and teeth to floss in England
Jo Swinson's expenses are the highest of any *Scottish* politician
Jo Swinson's last school report said she was an inveterate liar, well what they actually said was she tended to tell lies to get herself out of trouble, and hey she's still doing it, only bigger
Jo Swindon lives not far from there.
DeleteWings Over Scotland
ReplyDeleteVerified account @WingsScotland
UNPOPULAR TRUTH CORNER: sometimes people you don't like and/or normally disagree with can be right about something.
8:26 am - 27 Sep 2019
Goodness me you Nat si fascists will be compiling lists of where Unionists live. Looking out for the Jocko trucks to take us to the holiday camps.
ReplyDeleteGWC is a fanatical brexiteer and hates remainers.
Delete