Those advantages of getting the Speaker to do their bidding have been completely blown out of the water simply because they apparently walked up to Nicholas Watt and boasted that they had threatened Hoyle and he had buckled. Watt then naturally immediately told the world what had happened. How does this make any sense? You go to extraordinary lengths to improve the optics of a difficult situation and then just voluntarily show yourselves up as thugs. Ironically, it's reminiscent of the IDF's own behaviour - although it makes no sense to be sharing footage of themselves torturing civilians or selfies of themselves riding the children's bikes they've looted, they can't seem to help themselves, because they're actually proud of how skilled they are as bullies, and want to show off that skill. It's who they are, it's what they do. Ditto for Labour.
Wednesday, February 21, 2024
What is worse: that Labour blackmailed the Commons Speaker into breaking the rules, that the Speaker proved so easily susceptible to blackmail, or that Labour then openly boasted to journalists about having successfully blackmailed him?
This is what I don't understand about the Labour Party. They apparently today successfully blackmailed the Speaker of the House of Commons into ripping up decades of precedent by selecting a Labour amendment on the SNP ceasefire motion. The success of their bully-boy tactics should have been against the odds, because most Speakers down the years would have been resistant to blackmail, but we all know exactly who and what Lindsay Hoyle is - he's a weak man who overcompensates by shouting hysterically, with small-minded preoccupations mostly concerning his own career, and with not a shred of integrity. But the whole point of Labour going to these extraordinary lengths was to save face, and to be able to turn the tables on the SNP (as the likes of Michael Shanks tried to do) by saying "ah, your reaction to the Labour amendment being selected shows that this was always about politics for you and about putting Labour in an awkward spot".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just read about this and I am so appalled by it.
ReplyDeleteWhat disgrace Hoyle is.
These issues seem arcane but the key point is that thus is not about Labour or the SNP it is about Gaza.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing arcane about blackmail - it's a concept everyone understands very easily.
DeleteWhilst the SNP today shows a level of seriousness that other political parties lack, today is not a day for making comparisons with other parties, but instead it is and should be a day for thinking about Gaza and doing what is best for the ordinary people who live there.
ReplyDeleteAgree. Is Labours amendment good enough? I would vote for any amendment which calls for a ceasefire at this point. Don't care who gets credit.
DeleteOne of my general principles with moderation is to delete comments that try to shut me down by stating or implying the blogpost should never have been written. You're skirting very close to that, so please don't go any further with it.
DeleteLabour's amendment is not good enough though. It's specifically framed to provide cover for Netanyahu to continue carrying out atrocities.
DeleteAnd to Anon at 4.57pm: no, Labour's amendment is not good enough. It ridiculously goes out of its way to state that Israel can carry on killing people in certain circumstances.
DeleteThanks James, Ive been following the debate today online and watching the speakers. I couldn't work out what the specific differences are. It sounds to me that Labour are saying SNP's motion appears a bit too one-sided as it didn't condemn Hamas'. It needed to say something about both sides keeping the peace, theyre saying.
DeleteIf we accept Hamas can't attack in an immediate ceasefire as it's about two sides, it doesn't sound totally unreasonable.
The way i'm seeing it now, I couldnt care less about the specific wording if a ceasefire message gets across as the UK's message to the world.
It does, however, sound unreasonable to go out of their way to give Netanyahu license to continue carrying out atrocities, while trying to dress it up as a call for a ceasefire.
DeleteHi if that was the case, why have none of the SNP members made this point in the chamber today? I'll need to have a look at the actual wording but really if there is a motion which can carry support which call for an immediate ceasefire, let's get it through. I struggle to believe a motion calling for a ceasefire actually says go ahead and keep fighting, Labour are my political opponents but I dont' think they are that bad.
DeleteMaybe you should read the amendment then, instead of expounding at length on what you hope it says.
DeleteAt length? Why the need to be rude? Do you read books? hope it's not too exhausting for you. I've just looked at it, and agree with it. Although I agree with Labour's mostly as well and it could have been crafted better to bring more MPs onboard.
DeleteAlso, your pathetic response doesn't actually explain why no SNP MP has made the claim you have about the thing. Surely a good point they would have made. you appear to know less about it than you think.
DeleteI very much doubt that no SNP MP has made that point.
DeleteI've been watching all day James, I haven't heard them say once Labour's amendment gives Israel a get out to keep fighting. Genuinely open to being proven wrong if i've missed it whilst making a cup of tea but I really haven't heard it.
DeleteI see I have touched a Labourite nerve. Dear me. Nice try, but you're as transparent as that 'sureness of touch' guy who pops up on Humza's behalf.
DeleteThe Labour amendment allows Israel to continue slaughtering people unless certain unachievable preconditions are met. It gives them license to continue the killings unless they can have ASSURANCES that the horrors of October 7th CANNOT happen again.
Such an assurance is quite literally impossible, and making a ceasefire *contingent* on that just provides license for Netanyahu to continue his war crimes. It's Netanyahu's "We'll stop when Hamas are entirely eradicated", dressed up in a cosy sounding word salad.
Anon at 5.47: Isn't the fact that the Labour amendment DOES say that a rather more salient point than whether you personally can remember hearing an SNP MP mention it?
DeleteDeary me, i hope weren't out of breath writing at such length.
DeleteI have been an SNP member, an Alba member and now neither. If just wanting a ceasefire through whatever makes me Labourite, so be it. Is it not maybe, maybe possible someone watching speech after speech about ending blooshed might just want a non-partisan motion put through who's main thrust is a ceasefire? You'll note my first comment was a question? I'm not sure footed on it, I don't claim to know everything. Having read both motions and amendments, I would vote for both. I do not agree with your term describing it as word salad. It mentions more than the SNPs in some ways but I really couln't care less, just get a ceasefire motion passed.
here it is:
That this House believes that an Israeli ground offensive in Rafah risks catastrophic humanitarian consequences and therefore must not take place; notes the intolerable loss of Palestinian life, the majority being women and children;
condemns the terrorism of Hamas who continue to hold hostages;
supports Australia, Canada and New Zealand’s calls for Hamas to release and return all hostages and for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, which means an immediate stop to the fighting and a ceasefire that lasts and is observed by all sides, noting that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continues with violence and that Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7th October cannot happen again;
therefore supports diplomatic mediation efforts to achieve a lasting ceasefire; demands that rapid and unimpeded humanitarian relief is provided in Gaza;
demands an end to settlement expansion and violence; urges Israel to comply with the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures;
calls for the UN Security Council to be meet urgently;
and urges all international partners to work together to establish a diplomatic process to deliver the peace of a two-state solution, with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state, including working with international partners to recognise a Palestinian state as a contribution to rather than outcome of that process, because statehood is the inalienable right of the Palestinian people and not in the gift of any neighbour.
Hi James, it probably is but I was replying to you suggesting you would be surprised if the SNP hadn't said it. My answer was in relation to your question. None of them mentioned it.
DeleteA ceasefire motion that allows Netanyahu a series of nebulous get-out-clauses is not a ceasefire motion. As I have already explained, the amendment amounts to "There should be a ceasefire if Netanyahu determines there should be one."
DeleteI do not accept that is what it says, I think it's merely trying to say it has to come from both sides as both sides have a right to defense. But okay, whatever that's not been debated at any length. The debate has been about generally (like it or not);
Delete1) lack of mentioning two sides needed for a ceasefire
2) no condemnation of Hamas 7th Oct
3) no mention of palestinian statehood
4) no mention of ICJ ruling expecting Israel to keep to ruling
The semantics are important but I really think the Parliament have to work together to get a motion through pushing a ceasefire. If it would pass, I don't think they press be talking about the so-called "get outs".
The Labour amendment, in black and white, in the actual text of the amendment, quite plainly says 'X'. And your entire argument to the contrary is that you refuse to believe it, because you'd rather it say 'Y'.
DeleteUnless you can actually substantively explain how providing unworkable preconditions as a basis for any ceasefire, ACTUALLY amounts to a call for a ceasefire, then there's no point in any further discussion.
It's about as good faith as Humza announcing that he'll begin independence negotiations with Westminster if the SNP take 70 seats at the next UK election, and then trying to sell that as a genuine, good faith proposal for independence.
No, it's you that hasn't explained substantively how this is a get out for Netanyahu. You've just said "X" isn't "Y", that is not substantive.
DeleteExplain how seeking assurances for peace is not a ceasefire. I do not see these requests as unworkable. You're seeing things that aren't there. But you've said it's black and white so that's me told.
I don't understand why this is so heated and agree with anon that both amendments do similar jobs. It's definitely not a help to Israel, that's for sure. The Parliament's opposition has shown itself incapable of making a strong rebuke which is a shame. I think the SNP have still done the right thing bringing it to the table, though.
DeleteIt literally says, in black and white above, the amendment is seeking a ceasefire on both sides. That's what a ceasefire is. Quite a reach to suggest it's giving a series of opt-outs for Netanyahu. If Hamas continue fighting then by defintion there is no ceasefire. It's quite literally definitive, it's not an opt-out.
So how do you guarantee this 'assurance' that October 7th cannot happen again?
DeleteIn practical terms, it allows Netanyahu to say "we do not have adequate assurance that October 7th cannot happen again, and therefore have justification to continue our campaign".
If that's not an opt-out, I don't know what is.
What are you on about? You can assure by saying you're not going to do it. It doesn't say Netanyahu has a veto on the assurance given. Anywhere. It's also not even put as a precondition either.
DeleteCertainly no "series" of get-outs.
If it said "Israel must receive an assurance from Hamas for a ceasefire to begin" you may have more of a point. But that's not what it says. The "and" is a conjunction, it isn't a condition like the earlier part of the sentence.
Hoyle really should be toppled if those reports are true. He's set a horrendous precedent that the Speaker's neutrality is for sale if it threatens his position.
ReplyDeleteHe's never been an impressive Speaker. But this is beyond the pale.
Terence Callachan Dundee here , come on guys , the Labour ammendment does not call for a ceasefire nor does the conservative ammendment only the SNP motion calls for an immediate ceasefire so there will not be any british message to the world other than " carry on doing what you are doing Israel "
ReplyDeleteComplete security.
ReplyDeleteThis is what is punted by a lot of people who say Israel must have complete security. Why? What other countries have complete security. Indeed is it even possible. You can argue that even the USA with its massive armed forces and weapons of mass destruction do not have complete security. No what complete security for Israel means is code for the red light to kill everybody the Israeli government wants to kill.
Yeah, there seems to be a lot of people popping up around here today who - innocently, I'm sure - seem to think that the precondition of total security inherent in the Labour amendment is not unworkable.
DeleteIt won't be long before they're talking - with equal sincerity, no doubt - about Starmer's 'sureness of touch'.
It's a wee shame isn't it that people disagree with you, they must be nefarious drones, that's the only possible explanation.
DeleteStraw man; anon? Surely you have better than that, with reason on your side? Go on: what’s your argument about what happened in Westminster?
DeleteGood day for SNP. Bad day for Labour.
ReplyDeleteTry telling that one the day after the election.
DeleteThe Speaker has looked like an utter bafoon today and not for the first time. Brought the place into disrepute. And it would appear his deputies are basically lying unless the BBC journalist has just made the whole thing up. Hmmm you wonder who is telling the truth...?
ReplyDeleteHoyle has no moral fibre. He would have been at home in Tammany Hall back in old New York. What he did today was about saving his own bacon and nothing else.
ReplyDeleteStephen Flynn's standing has definitely improved. He made a true impact today in the House.
DeleteTrying hard to make the SNP look like playing politics in some circles now. It's transparent what happened. Hoyle knows fine well what's happened.
DeleteYes, I agree. I'd like to see him be as forthright and antagonistic on matters which directly affect Scotland too. I honestly cheered out loud when he and Black were announced as Commons leader and deputy but it never really lived up to expectations.
DeleteI sometimes wonder if he thinks to much about not jeopardising his political career but when he lets himself talk freely he is a much more impressive politician.
Hoyle has lost his sureness of touch today.
ReplyDeleteI have never seen a role be less convincingly grown into.
DeleteMighty not against our will” Blackford grew on sausage rolls. Skinny Flynn just cannae cut it.
DeleteCome off it. Flynn was super today.
DeleteWalk out and STAY OUT, SNP MPs. Never disgrace Scotland again by bowing to Westminster. Come home and bring our freedom with you.
ReplyDeleteThat's what they should do but the food in Westminster is obviously too good to miss. Not to mention the money.
DeleteI would imagine that every SNP MP will vote for the Labour amendment, Stephen Flynn has stated that the speaker has done nothing wrong, and he's going to vote for the ammendment. And he's the SNP leader. Apparently the source of all the hyperbole is one Tory MP. So why the hysterical blogpost? (I can postulate the answer, but it's not pretty). The SNP motion is goodhearted, but it is undiplomatic and flawed.
ReplyDeleteStephen Flynn practically called for the Speaker to resign to his face. That seems, to put it mildly, utterly irreconcilable with your ridiculous claim that Flynn thinks the Speaker "did nothing wrong".
DeleteAll I can really do is invite you to apologise for a remarkably stupid and ill-informed comment.
Flynn obviously had a dramatic about-face after his interview on Radio Scotland at about 5pm, because that's what he said then. Check it out on the web if you didn't listen to it. You are not stupid, you just don't listen to 'Drivetime'.
DeleteApparently the SNP MPs did vote for the Labour motion after they walked out with the Tories. Whatever. Some things are obviously far more important than calling for a ceasefire (e.g. the crucifixion of Lindsay Hoyle). It's possible that petty political division was the whole point, right from the beginning, which isn't pretty.
Delete"You are not stupid, you just don't listen to 'Drivetime'."
DeleteNot being stupid and not listening to 'Drivetime' are indistinguishable concepts anyway.
Anon at 8.40: I presume you do know your first two sentences (excluding the "whatever") contradict each other hopelessly? You're some sort of Labour drone, I would guess? You might as well dispense with the cowardly cloak of anonymity now you've been busted. Tell us who you are.
DeleteThe SNP in the House of Commons has been doing a fantastic job for Scotland. They always stand up for what's best for our country, speaking up for things like better healthcare and education funding.
ReplyDeleteThey're not afraid to challenge the UK government when they think it's not doing right by Scotland. Whether it's fighting for fairer policies or pushing for Scotland to have more say in its own future, the SNP doesn't back down.
They're good at making sure the voices of everyday Scots are heard loud and clear in Parliament. Plus, they're big on making sure everyone feels included and treated fairly.
The SNP doesn't just focus on domestic issues; as we saw today they also take a strong stance on foreign policy, advocating for Scotland's values and interests on the global stage. Whether it's promoting peace, human rights, or fair trade, the SNP ensures that Scotland's voice is heard in matters that affect the world beyond our borders.
The SNP is a real force for good in making sure Scotland's interests are looked after in Westminster.
Excellent post, well said.
DeleteYet people are on here every day criticising the SNP. It’s time these people got behind the party, instead of threatening to abstain etc at the GE.
There won’t be independence without a strong SNP, that’s for sure, but a lot of people don’t seem to get it.
No quotation marks?
DeleteThe SNP is useless at getting independence because they are devolutionalists and don't want it.
DeleteIFS, nonsense.
DeleteAnon at 10.01pm - are you my regular troll or a newbie?
DeleteWe criticise them because they are cynical unionists who stuff themselves in London at Scotland's expense.
DeleteWhere's our Section 30? Where's our referendum? Where's our independence?
Oh aye, they're not "nationalists". ❤️ London Rule? 🇬🇧 Vote SNP.
The biggest mistake today was by the deputy speaker of the house, Rosie Winton, who put the matter to a vote in the middle of a chaotic moment and then interpreted all the shouting as "Aye" when in fact MPs were uncertain what was being put to them.
ReplyDeleteIf Hoyle goes he will only be replaced by another SNP/Alba hater and the whole British nationalist circus will continue as before with SNP/Alba MPs playing their part in the process.
ReplyDeleteSinn Fein MPs must be watching it all with bemusement.
After a chaotic day it is important to put Lindsay Hoyle's performance as speaker of the House of Commons into a wider perspective.
DeleteThe unfolding of Lindsay Hoyle's overall tenure as speaker has been good, earning him admiration from across the political spectrum.
With his calm demeanour, and firm approach, Hoyle has proven himself to be a person of integrity in the often tumultuous world of politics.
His approach has helped foster a more constructive and productive atmosphere within the House.
Contrary to what some people have said today, in my opinion Hoyle's impartiality and willingness to listen to all sides have earned him trust and credibility among MPs, allowing him to navigate through contentious issues and uphold the integrity of the Speaker's office.
Moreover, his efforts to modernize and reform parliamentary procedures have led to greater transparency, accountability, and accessibility.
It would not be an exaggeration to state that Lindsay Hoyle's leadership as Speaker of the House of Commons embodies the highest standards of parliamentary conduct and it is quite widely accepted in political circles that it serves as an example of dedicated public service.
I would be inclined to cut the speaker some slack. He was trying to do good. He approached things with the best of intentions and apologised for how things ended up.
DeleteSarcasm at this serious time?
DeleteFrom the writing style, this is one of our "Humza can do no wrong" regulars. As praise for Hoyle doesn't go very naturally with that, it adds to the evidence that this is a parody of some sort. No idea what the point is, though.
DeleteI believe this was the first comment I've read that doesn't find Hoyle as falling lamentably short of the standard of Bercow.
DeleteWithout wishing to appeal to popularity, the comment stinks.
They're just a wind up, settling into their sureness of (self-) touch.
DeleteInstead of having a debate about the Gaza war, there was a political bun-fight about parliamentary procedure (with the SNP joining the Tories in the general stupidity). The fact that Westminster voted for a ceasefire will presumably be a quickly forgotten aside, which is a shame. What a shower of twits.
ReplyDeleteYes, it did descend into a pointless shouting match about technicalities. I'd say it might have put the general public off seeing the SNP in positive action but I've seen little evidence that the man on the street either knows or cares much about Gaza anyway.
DeleteExcept Westminster didn't vote for a ceasefire. They voted to allow Israel to continue killing Palestinian civilians for as long as they like.
DeleteAnon@8:35 you're right. The man on the street doesn't give a toss about Gaza and couldn't point to it on a map. All this is a display of chest beating in Westminster which neither Hamas or the IDF will take a blind bit of notice of. What a farce!
DeleteA political bun fight that was instigated by Labour and expedited by the speaker.
ReplyDeleteAye, Sinn Fein have it right with their policy of abstentionism. At the moment their MPs are the only ones worth voting for.
ReplyDeleteIf Sinn Féin ran in Scotland, I'd vote for them.
DeletePrevious post should have gone under my names trying again.
ReplyDeleteAnyway the hostages aren't being released, so even the Labour motion is not enough for a ceasefire because it explicitly says that as a precondition
ReplyDeleteThe creation of the Israeli State involved a war with Britain. I doubt that Israeli's give a shit about what Westminster says, and I doubt the Israeli's are the target audience for the ceasefire vote. There is absolutely no doubt that Hamas doesn't give a shit about what Westminster says.
ReplyDeleteCorbyn says 29,000 bombs dropped on Gaza in a few months. Only 4,000 bombs dropped by the USA in 5 years in Iraq. That's what the IDF call precision attacks on Hamas.
ReplyDeleteJames, I no longer read the papers, I am not on social media and occasionally dip into the BBC webshite. Most of my information comes from the New York Times, Sydney Morning Herald and RTE (Ireland) as I learn more about my countries this way (Scotland my country and the UK the country I am burdened with). Anyway, I don't know much about what you say in your article, but if what you say is true then I am not surprised.
ReplyDeleteFirst with regard to Palestine it's a shame, this was a chance for our politicians to do something inline with what the apparent majority of the UK (note that UK) want done, but they failed, they failed all of us again. This is about Palestine and the Palestinians have been let down. Now, labour are responsible for that; fact - and they have to live with that act 'forevermore' as they say in fairy tales. Is this important? Yes. For forevermore all of us in the UK (note that again the UK) can accuse them of that act of inhumanity and politicking 'forevermore'.
With regard to Scottish independence, first and foremost is that this motion would have passed in an independent Scotland. Like Ireland the debate would be on how much guts we had to press it on the international community, instead we have ben 'UKed'. Being 'UKed' is something we have to live with unless we gain independence. Tonight the pressure in Scotland should really be on the SNP, they have not delivered to us the very thing we voted them in for - our independence and with that the right to express ourselves a s a nation and influence world opinion. In the world of basic right and wrong (if anyone remembers that sort of thinking) their job was to free us to allow us make these decisions and to show our hearts to the world.
With regard to electioneering, this is the Labour party exposed, if the SNP use this to show up the political hyppocracy of the Labour party then they might be able to reverse some of the drift of independence supporters to Labour. However, I doubt whether they can do this because I now suspect that the SNP's desire for independence does not match that of the rest of the YES movement, to them, this a political game albeit a serious one, but it is one that concerns people in Palestine, not in Rutherglen
Australian here (on a dodgy travel device hence anonymous) ... I note you read the Sydney Morning Herald, which is very good at looking for a wider perspective. You might want to look at how the SMH fits into the difficult situation of media ownership in Australia, which does affect what is printed a great deal. Crikey and The Independent Australia are small outlets that have some credible voices you might want to look at. Good job for reminding us all to seek diverse analysis.
DeleteThanks for that - I will have a look at them. Always trying to find other sources - over here there is no news. Have a look at the difference between RTE website and the BBC's it's scandalous what is not reported over here.
DeleteThe shambles in the House of Commons just provides more evidence to my previously expressed point of view that the SNP/Alba should not participate in this farce. Scotland and the SNP/Alba are treated like dirt in Westminster. Sure Flynn went all shouty - so what.
ReplyDeleteThere is no Alba, the house of commons don't even recognize them, as far as they're concerned they're just ex SNP dregs that no country voted for taking up space under false pretenses
DeleteOne area where the house agrees 100% with the SNP, then. Standing up for Scotland!
DeleteAnon at 9.49am - you say " There is no Alba" - best sit down and have a wee rest. The Commons speaker regularly recognises them by calling the Alba MPs to speak as they did yesterday. Hanvey was elected as an independent. What is the point of posting such lies anon?
DeleteHamas has already proposed a ceasefire plan that involved the return of all the Hamas hostages and the return of all the IDF prisoners(hostages). This plan would also end up with a permanent ceasefire. Israel said no, backed by the USA also saying no. The obvious conclusion is that Israel wants to continue until they have killed every member of Hamas - how they do this and how they know they have done it is not clear to me. It seems more likely to me they just want to kill as many Gazans as possible and drive the remainder in to Egypts Sinai desert. A Tory MP today actually blamed Egypt for not letting the Gazans in to Egypt. So if the Palestinian deaths are not due to Hamas they are down to other Arabs - the Egyptians - according to this Tory who thinks the Egyptians should facilitate ethnic cleansing.
ReplyDeleteAmazing - A very experienced government minister ( Mathieson) needs more than 2 weeks to reply to a report about his lies re his iPad usage. Has he got the flu or something? Is the report 10,000 pages long or something? Has his iPad battery run out out of power? Seemingly Mathieson has asked for an extension to the two weeks he has been given to respond to the report.
ReplyDeleteA wee bedtime laugh.
ReplyDeleteHere is how a WGD nicophant viewed today's' events.
Dr Jim says:- " French newspapers on today's events read " Madame Sturgeon makes her move." "
If only Nicola was coming back. How we could use her leadership.
DeleteAnonymous at 9-08, not sure I agree with your comment entirely but few would argue Sturgeon’s leadership qualities were second to none.
DeleteAnonymous nicophants. Leadership qualities - she led you mugs up and down and round and round for 8 years and then when the polis were closing in ran away to hide.
DeleteYou're a nasty wee cretin
Delete“Independence for Scotland “ I stated I didn’t agree with anon at 9-08s comment. Sturgeon of course had her faults and at the end of the day didn’t do an awful lot to further the independence cause, however she was a leader. That is a point I’m sure most would agree with, she was an excellent speaker and communicator generally, and how we could do with somebody with her leadership qualities right now.
DeleteAnon at 9.46pm - are you a new troll or a longstanding numpty? I may be in your opinion a cretin but I am factually not wee. A fact which I have posted many times on SGP. A height of 6 foot 1 inch is by definition not wee unless you are some sort of Yeti. Perhaps you are.
DeleteAnon at 10.03am - I have never disputed her communication skills. Trouble is she used them to convince numpties she would deliver Indyref2 when she never had any intention of doing so but was happy to run a scam getting money from independence supporters on the back of multiple promises to hold Indyref2. That is not a leadership quality.
Goodness me, it's not like you're a "towering figure" of enlightenment, IfS, but *every* time any one claims to refute your points, all they've got is variations of "you're not nice, so you must be wrong." What's with these folk? Too used to letting Nicola / The Party / The National be their out-sourced brain?
DeleteAnon at 10.44am - I have never claimed to be a "towering" figure of enlightenment - just a figure of enlightenment among a mass of SNP/WGD numpties and trolls. Of course I cannae tell if you are a tower of enlightenment because who knows what other anonymous posts you have made. You remain anonymous - one of the crowd. You have the luxury of seeing my posts and knowing they come from me and can decide on their merits and the value of my contribution.
DeleteI give you credit where it's due, IfS. These "you're pathetic", "you're a horrible little person", etc. etc. responses from fools make a striking pattern. If they had their own points, they should try to make them.
Delete"I see strangers!"
ReplyDeleteThat's the magic phrase any MP can use to disrupt the current proceeding under ancient Westminster rules. Is it so hard to use it EVERY TIME the Brits talk down Scotland? Let alone pass their budget cuts which hurt our people, too?
I saw that too, he's probably right, Europe still sees Sturgeon as Scotland's most important politician
ReplyDeleteIt's not like Humza's exactly punched his weight to replace her. Even on this, of all issues!
DeleteThere was a time, just after he left office, the media used to treat Obama as America's "most important politician." It didn't last. Nostalgia wears off fast. Just ask Blair and Johnson.
Anon at 9.52pm - It's just as likely they forgot she had ran away from being FM.
DeleteIt says a lot for her that she prefers to stay here and not take a EU job
ReplyDeleteShe probably will be back as something
It says a lot for Europe that they don't want her.
DeleteA jailbird or perhaps community service litter picker, depending on the judge at her trial.
ReplyDeletePosting it twice does not give it any more credibility. Care to explain how she can take an EU job never mind be offered one when we are NOT in the EU. Anyway the polis have probably told her not to leave the country. As you seem to know so much where is Murrell these days?
ReplyDeleteI take the view that the Speaker was out of order yesterday changing the rules to suit the Britnat Labour Party but hey, really, does anyone expect anything different from the English House of Commons. It's designed to keep the Scots/Welsh/Irish in their place. That place being subservient to England.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the SNP people complaining about this should consider how their own SNP NEC arbitrarily changed their own standing constitutional rules to suit Sturgeon's gang in the SNP leadership election. Same dirty trick.
Shocking.
ReplyDeleteYou wouldn't expect such behavior from a speaker whose father is a Labour peer and founder of Labour Freinds of Israel
My take on yesterday's ceasefire vote is as follows:
ReplyDelete1. All we needed was a motion saying we want an immediate ceasefire. Such a simple statement would maximise the vote for the motion. But what do the SNP do - they put in a comment about collective punishment by Israel. Now I agree it is collective punishment but it was not necessary or appropriate to put it in the SNP motion. So what was the motivation behind the SNP doing this. It looks like they were trying to make Labour bad by not voting for a ceasefire motion and split the party.
2. Labour respond by getting the speaker to change the rules so that Labour can hopefully get their motion agreed and spike the SNP plan.
3. An important ceasefire motion is then turned in to a shambles by politicians playing politics with the issue. Shame on all those politicians and the Speaker.
4. A party of independence should not attend the colonial parliament. Playing the victim will never assist independence.
Re: 4. The one thing all nations who ever won independence have in common is that they TOOK ACTION that their occupier denied they had the right to do.
DeleteThink the SNP ever will? Even running for regular re-election as a de facto referendum?
No wonder they care about their standing in Westminster. They all aim to retire down there!
" Think they ever will?" As long as Sturgeon's gang are in control - no.
DeleteWe need to be realistic and understand it’s very unlikely independence will ever be secured via a de facto referendum.
DeleteYou keep referring to "Sturgeon's gang" as though she was never voted into office by the same people that were Salmond's chosen party
ReplyDeleteSalmond hand picked her to take over because he knew she believed in independence, he only turned on her when she refused to help him clear his name from abuse charges on women, which by the way he admitted to with lawyer mitigations and pleas for leniency
Nicola Sturgeon never stuck her hand up anybody's frock for a sleepy cuddle
Anon at 11.21am and I will continue to refer to them as Sturgeon's gang. Your post is full of lies and misinformation but how exactly do you know " Nicola Sturgeon never stuck her hand up anybody's frock for a sleepy cuddle" - are you some sort of pervert/peeping tom that follows her around. Based on the rumours around Sturgeon's sexuality who knows where her hand has been. Of course maybe Murrell likes to wear a frock now and again.
Delete"Lawyer mitigations" re abuse - lie. Pleas for leniency - lie - you only plea for leniency when you are pronounced guilty and are being sentenced.
Lots of Sturgeon's gang were not hand picked by Salmond. You show your complete ignorance here.
So, in summary, you anon, are a liar and an ignorant numpty.
I see WGD has its own regular resident supporter of Palestinian genocide. Tatu3.
ReplyDelete