FAO Scottish Members

[Max B Gold]

"Neale Hanvey follows the East Lothian MP, Kenny MacAskill, in joining the newly formed party, having previously been suspended by the SNP for using antisemitic language on social media. He apologised for any offence caused in the days following his suspension."

Oh oh!

[Stowaway]

I hate the SNP less than I hate the Tories so will vote SNP again as part of an ongoing campaign to be rid of the Tories for good. Once that is done I'll be in touch with you, Max, to discuss the best way forward for creating a proper democratic socialist state that even Spike will like .

I look forward to it.

I sense the conversation may take place on a train on the way back from an O's game in a Northern English city/town where we are leathered after starting drinking Sloe Gin at 10.30am. It should be a sensible discourse.

Was quality sloe gin mind.

And no one hates the snp as much as I do. This new development will be interesting, I shall try to gauge the feeling among my more rabid Nat pals.

Why the hate for the SNP, Spike?

Our comrade T McT is a furious Snipper and much as I like him I can’t bring myself to discuss the subject with him because I know it won’t end well. I’ve always found that they’re a loose collective of left and right who just want independence at any cost, and frankly I wouldn’t be able to sit alongside some of the rabid nationalists that make up at least a decent percentage of the SNP. Or am I reading that wrong?

[StillSpike]

I look forward to it.

I sense the conversation may take place on a train on the way back from an O's game in a Northern English city/town where we are leathered after starting drinking Sloe Gin at 10.30am. It should be a sensible discourse.

Was quality sloe gin mind.

And no one hates the snp as much as I do. This new development will be interesting, I shall try to gauge the feeling among my more rabid Nat pals.

Why the hate for the SNP, Spike?

Our comrade T McT is a furious Snipper and much as I like him I can’t bring myself to discuss the subject with him because I know it won’t end well. I’ve always found that they’re a loose collective of left and right who just want independence at any cost, and frankly I wouldn’t be able to sit alongside some of the rabid nationalists that make up at least a decent percentage of the SNP. Or am I reading that wrong?

Your second para pretty much sums it up. The SNP are just opportunists who know that you don't have to worry about policy other than "Freedommmmmmm". For a big percentage of their target audience, the only story they have to sell is "Anyone but England" - and as an Englishman living here, that can't help but feel a little targetting. My more rabid mates are decent folk - if, perhaps, a little simple in outlook. We know when to stop the discussion before it gets too heated.

All Nationalists say "ah, but we're different from all those other, horrid, Nationalists throughout history. We're much better and nicer than them" - but they're all the same - they all appeal to hatred and resentment of "others" - they all pin their country's problems on "others" - and when you're talking to the dinlows, that's an easy sell. It's far easier for your average stupid to be able to believe that the reason they're not entirely happy is because of forrins - or the English in the case of the SNP - rather than actually looking at more complex matters like wealth distribution, for example.

Alex and Nicola are no better than Farage and all the other tin pot flag shaggers.

[EH16]

Was quality sloe gin mind.

And no one hates the snp as much as I do. This new development will be interesting, I shall try to gauge the feeling among my more rabid Nat pals.

Why the hate for the SNP, Spike?

Our comrade T McT is a furious Snipper and much as I like him I can’t bring myself to discuss the subject with him because I know it won’t end well. I’ve always found that they’re a loose collective of left and right who just want independence at any cost, and frankly I wouldn’t be able to sit alongside some of the rabid nationalists that make up at least a decent percentage of the SNP. Or am I reading that wrong?

Your second para pretty much sums it up. The SNP are just opportunists who know that you don't have to worry about policy other than "Freedommmmmmm". For a big percentage of their target audience, the only story they have to sell is "Anyone but England" - and as an Englishman living here, that can't help but feel a little targetting. My more rabid mates are decent folk - if, perhaps, a little simple in outlook. We know when to stop the discussion before it gets too heated.

All Nationalists say "ah, but we're different from all those other, horrid, Nationalists throughout history. We're much better and nicer than them" - but they're all the same - they all appeal to hatred and resentment of "others" - they all pin their country's problems on "others" - and when you're talking to the dinlows, that's an easy sell. It's far easier for your average stupid to be able to believe that the reason they're not entirely happy is because of forrins - or the English in the case of the SNP - rather than actually looking at more complex matters like wealth distribution, for example.

Alex and Nicola are no better than Farage and all the other tin pot flag shaggers.

Don't think that's entirely fair considering the use successive Tory governments have made of anti immigrant rhetoric. And there are plenty people like me who are very well aware of the problems of overt nationalism but cling to the hope (naively probably) that independence for Scotland doesn't have to be the end in itself but COULD be a stepping stone to a fairer, more tolerant, diverse society.

[Max B Gold]

Why the hate for the SNP, Spike?

Our comrade T McT is a furious Snipper and much as I like him I can’t bring myself to discuss the subject with him because I know it won’t end well. I’ve always found that they’re a loose collective of left and right who just want independence at any cost, and frankly I wouldn’t be able to sit alongside some of the rabid nationalists that make up at least a decent percentage of the SNP. Or am I reading that wrong?

Your second para pretty much sums it up. The SNP are just opportunists who know that you don't have to worry about policy other than "Freedommmmmmm". For a big percentage of their target audience, the only story they have to sell is "Anyone but England" - and as an Englishman living here, that can't help but feel a little targetting. My more rabid mates are decent folk - if, perhaps, a little simple in outlook. We know when to stop the discussion before it gets too heated.

All Nationalists say "ah, but we're different from all those other, horrid, Nationalists throughout history. We're much better and nicer than them" - but they're all the same - they all appeal to hatred and resentment of "others" - they all pin their country's problems on "others" - and when you're talking to the dinlows, that's an easy sell. It's far easier for your average stupid to be able to believe that the reason they're not entirely happy is because of forrins - or the English in the case of the SNP - rather than actually looking at more complex matters like wealth distribution, for example.

Alex and Nicola are no better than Farage and all the other tin pot flag shaggers.

Don't think that's entirely fair considering the use successive Tory governments have made of anti immigrant rhetoric. And there are plenty people like me who are very well aware of the problems of overt nationalism but cling to the hope (naively probably) that independence for Scotland doesn't have to be the end in itself but COULD be a stepping stone to a fairer, more tolerant, diverse society.

The SNP have made a point of not targeting forrins and their official policy is to recognise that an independent Scotland will need migrant labour because of an ageing population.

There is a certain amount of anti English feeling amongst their party but for many it is actually a dislike of Westminster and their colonial attitudes and not a form of racism. It is just badly expressed, they are kicking against Tory policies.

It's true to say that the SNP don't adequately address complex issues like income distribution. They can't because they are a mild social democratic party firmly entrenched in the capitalist tradition of tinkering around the margins but never addressing power or wealth.

They can't tackle issue like power and wealth because their independence project is a ragbag alliance of left, right and centre and would be blown apart if they were more radical.

Many SNP supporters (my daughter being one with her posh English accent and English partner) recognise that after independence the SNP will have served it's purpose and normal class based politics will resume as issues of wealth and power are confronted. It promises to be quite a struggle.

[EH16]

Your second para pretty much sums it up. The SNP are just opportunists who know that you don't have to worry about policy other than "Freedommmmmmm". For a big percentage of their target audience, the only story they have to sell is "Anyone but England" - and as an Englishman living here, that can't help but feel a little targetting. My more rabid mates are decent folk - if, perhaps, a little simple in outlook. We know when to stop the discussion before it gets too heated.

All Nationalists say "ah, but we're different from all those other, horrid, Nationalists throughout history. We're much better and nicer than them" - but they're all the same - they all appeal to hatred and resentment of "others" - they all pin their country's problems on "others" - and when you're talking to the dinlows, that's an easy sell. It's far easier for your average stupid to be able to believe that the reason they're not entirely happy is because of forrins - or the English in the case of the SNP - rather than actually looking at more complex matters like wealth distribution, for example.

Alex and Nicola are no better than Farage and all the other tin pot flag shaggers.

Don't think that's entirely fair considering the use successive Tory governments have made of anti immigrant rhetoric. And there are plenty people like me who are very well aware of the problems of overt nationalism but cling to the hope (naively probably) that independence for Scotland doesn't have to be the end in itself but COULD be a stepping stone to a fairer, more tolerant, diverse society.

The SNP have made a point of not targeting forrins and their official policy is to recognise that an independent Scotland will need migrant labour because of an ageing population.

There is a certain amount of anti English feeling amongst their party but for many it is actually a dislike of Westminster and their colonial attitudes and not a form of racism. It is just badly expressed, they are kicking against Tory policies.

It's true to say that the SNP don't adequately address complex issues like income distribution. They can't because they are a mild social democratic party firmly entrenched in the capitalist tradition of tinkering around the margins but never addressing power or wealth.

They can't tackle issue like power and wealth because their independence project is a ragbag alliance of left, right and centre and would be blown apart if they were more radical.

Many SNP supporters (my daughter being one with her posh English accent and English partner) recognise that after independence the SNP will have served it's purpose and normal class based politics will resume as issues of wealth and power are confronted. It promises to be quite a struggle.

As ever you've expressed some of what I was trying to say but much more eloquently than I did.

[StillSpike]

Your second para pretty much sums it up. The SNP are just opportunists who know that you don't have to worry about policy other than "Freedommmmmmm". For a big percentage of their target audience, the only story they have to sell is "Anyone but England" - and as an Englishman living here, that can't help but feel a little targetting. My more rabid mates are decent folk - if, perhaps, a little simple in outlook. We know when to stop the discussion before it gets too heated.

All Nationalists say "ah, but we're different from all those other, horrid, Nationalists throughout history. We're much better and nicer than them" - but they're all the same - they all appeal to hatred and resentment of "others" - they all pin their country's problems on "others" - and when you're talking to the dinlows, that's an easy sell. It's far easier for your average stupid to be able to believe that the reason they're not entirely happy is because of forrins - or the English in the case of the SNP - rather than actually looking at more complex matters like wealth distribution, for example.

Alex and Nicola are no better than Farage and all the other tin pot flag shaggers.

Don't think that's entirely fair considering the use successive Tory governments have made of anti immigrant rhetoric. And there are plenty people like me who are very well aware of the problems of overt nationalism but cling to the hope (naively probably) that independence for Scotland doesn't have to be the end in itself but COULD be a stepping stone to a fairer, more tolerant, diverse society.

The SNP have made a point of not targeting forrins and their official policy is to recognise that an independent Scotland will need migrant labour because of an ageing population.

There is a certain amount of anti English feeling amongst their party but for many it is actually a dislike of Westminster and their colonial attitudes and not a form of racism. It is just badly expressed, they are kicking against Tory policies.

It's true to say that the SNP don't adequately address complex issues like income distribution. They can't because they are a mild social democratic party firmly entrenched in the capitalist tradition of tinkering around the margins but never addressing power or wealth.

They can't tackle issue like power and wealth because their independence project is a ragbag alliance of left, right and centre and would be blown apart if they were more radical.

Many SNP supporters (my daughter being one with her posh English accent and English partner) recognise that after independence the SNP will have served it's purpose and normal class based politics will resume as issues of wealth and power are confronted. It promises to be quite a struggle.

It's certainly possible that - as East""yyyy said - an Independent Scotland could be a stepping stone to a fairer, more tolerant and diverse society - and pretty much with every day and with every new policy that the current shitshow in Westminster conjures up, I'm more inclined to agree with the sentiment. As England inches towards being an authoritarian one-party state the vision of living in a fairer society becomes ever more attractive - I might even vote for it. I think it's almost inevitable that Scotland will become independent - sadly - and it'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

My issue is with narrow Nationalism - and the opportunists in the SNP who exploit it - it does appeal to the lowest emotions among some in society (and every society has that target market).


It's worth saying again:
Alex and Nicola are no better than Farage and all the other tin pot flag shaggers.

[Max B Gold]

There is a narrow nationalism in the SNP, let's not forget it's flirtation with fascism in the 1930s. I share your concern about it as nationalism is a dangerous politics.

It's a bit of a sweeping statement to put The Octopus and Wee Jimmy in the same bin as Farage.

Farage is a proto fascist and former member of the National Front. The same can't be said about the gruesome twosome.

[Flying Hippo]

Imagine a chronicle of the multitude of conversations, discussions, disagreements, arguments, flounces and rebounds on here: It could serve usefully as a befitting record of just how utterly depressing, tawdry, insipid and terminally dysfunctional everything has become. Everything in the remarkably historic, dirty, tiny portion of a gigantic city (not much more now than an over-populated human midden), where some of you live and which others have managed to escape (but can't quite entirely renounce). Everything in London. Everything in Britain. Everything in the United Kingdom. Everything in the European Union (especially now it has been revealed, even to those who were most blind to see, that it has become nothing more than a failing, lumbering pastiche of the joke it has always been). Everything in the English speaking world. Almost everywhere on the planet except the Unitary Marxist-Leninist one party socialist People's Republic of China.

In its own way, the exchange above is one of the saddest there has been here. The main three protagonists, who live in Scotland, have stated their positions and that's that really. They've summed it all up.

If you don't live in Scotland, or have a familial or professional connection with it, do you feel that this is largely a private affair into which you should, or dare not, intrude?

If so, that is part of the problem. Read up and get stuck in. On either side. While you still have the chance.

As has become the norm, what is missing is an argument for the Union. Where is it? Is it exclusively down to Gorgeous George and Rictus Gordon (the oddest of couples) to argue for the preservation of the most successful and longest lasting political and social union in the history of the world? Since James VI became James I and the subsequent Acts of Union, the two kingdoms accommodated each other's peculiar religious, legal and social prerequisites in a masterpiece of practical politics which brought unprecedented peace and prosperity to our island, and our islands, for centuries.

But the experience of Brexit must surely prove that when such a large proportion of any society require such a radical organisational, political, cultural and social change, then the least that they deserve is to vote on it. It is nobody's fault other than the war-criminal, Bliar and his gang (including Rictus), that we are where we are, notwithstanding a conclusive "once in a lifetime" vote for the Union in the referendum of 2014, just over six years ago. If there is a demand - demonstrably at the ballot box in the forthcoming elections - then it would be morally wrong to deny another referendum. Particularly if one believes that "freedom" and self-determination should be the greatest gift for a citizen living in any part of the anglosphere.

It is easy to see how the political administration of Scotland can be criticised as a one trick pony. But it isn't. It's a two trick pony. The blasphemy law is repugnant and clearly heavily influenced by Islamism. If that law applied in Battley in Yorkshire then the teacher would not require the police protection he is currently enjoying, instead he would have been nicked.

And the other increasingly obvious, and worrying, influence on the SNP is fenianism. Scottish association with Irish republicanism's crassly sentimental cult of violence, murder, intimidation, child-abuse, moral cowardice and bigotry is shameful, unbecoming and very dangerous.

What the SNP demand is not independence, it is secession from the Union. A vote for independence and therefore to leave the United Kingdom would be followed immediately with an application to join (and become little more than a satrapy of) the failing, blundering abomination, the European Union. That's not "independence" it's just suckling at a Teutonic teat instead. That's just pathetic and should be exposed as such.

And what else does this urge to supplicate themselves in front of the EU reveal about the SNP? It's that its whole origins (like the IRA, the SNP supported the nazis in WW2 based on the canard "an enemy's enemy"), purpose and driving force are nothing more than being atavistically anti-English.

The English can be boorish about Scotland. And ignorant. But the English are usually fundamentally "alright". Since the SNP have held power in Scotland, the bile which has emanated from Edinburgh toward Westminster, England, and the Union has been horrifying. And what has been worse has been the weak, feeble disingenuity with which a succession of British governments have responded to it. And worst of all, the English have actually noticed just how spitefully, dishonestly and (hinting at the psychological genesis of the issue, regrettably) ungratefully the Scottish people's elected representatives feel about England and the Union. The response of many English is to say, "Well, they can foxtrot right oscar then." That is what has changed. It's a disaster and plays into the Nats' hands. Scottish animosity toward England and the English has always been there, to some degree. Remember when the English couldn't really care less about Scottish anti-Englishness when it most obviously manifested itself through football (of all things. You know, when a Scot cheered on England's opponents it used to be funny, especially when most English blithely cheered for Scotland and Scottish teams (even the Irish Republican Scottish teams with impending child abuse court cases hanging over them)). Now that's not the case.

The easiest mistake to make when encountering and confronting deranged, hypocritical Scots Nats is to take their argument personally. They won't like it, but as it stands, Scotland's your country too (for now) and you are allowed to have an opinion. Although it seems paradoxical, it's really not about you, it's about them. It's not personal. If you're English it really isn't about whether they like you as a person or not. And that's what the Europeans got wrong during Brexit, and many remoaners too.

Above all, a majority of Scots do not want independence. That's worth remembering. If you encounter a Scots Unionist, please support them. Even Galloway and Brown. Northern British cultural mores and its superb legacy to the world has been under sustained attack for decades. But part of that legacy has been to promulgate and respect democracy. If the people of Scotland have an insatiable urge to build only the second ever longstanding, self-sustaining socialist society in history (alongside China! (sic)) then if they vote for it, then they should get an attempt to achieve that. How that would function within, or indeed outwith, the EU is one of a myriad of issues to be tackled during the disentanglement of the Union. And one hopes that if that occurs then the people of Scotland will be spared the ridiculous ruses used to protract that process during Brexit.

In the meantime, it is time to expose the hypocrisy and sheer nastiness of the Nats. And they've been doing a good job of illuminating that themselves. Ultimately the spectre of paramilitarism may well also loom. One firm condition for the inevitable next referendum will be that this is the last one for 50 years. Winner takes all. No country, either a Scottish state within the Union, or the UK itself, can continue like this.

[Dunners]

I've sport of scanned through this^ and it does bring up an issue which I have yet to hear a clear answer to.

Assuming that Scotland was to leave the UK, what then? Is their plan just to join an even bigger union (the EU)? And, if so, how do they propose that is going to happen with the likes of Spain making it clear that such a request would be vetoed? Or is it that nobody is thinking that far ahead?

[Admin]

I've sport of scanned through this^ and it does bring up an issue which I have yet to hear a clear answer to.

Assuming that Scotland was to leave the UK, what then? Is their plan just to join an even bigger union (the EU)? And, if so, how do they propose that is going to happen with the likes of Spain making it clear that such a request would be vetoed? Or is it that nobody is thinking that far ahead?

Obviously no one is thinking that far ahead.

Keep waving this and it'll all be fine.

[Max B Gold]

I've sport of scanned through this^ and it does bring up an issue which I have yet to hear a clear answer to.

Assuming that Scotland was to leave the UK, what then? Is their plan just to join an even bigger union (the EU)? And, if so, how do they propose that is going to happen with the likes of Spain making it clear that such a request would be vetoed? Or is it that nobody is thinking that far ahead?

A referendum will decide it. Not sure what the grounds for vetoing an application from a nation state would be. There is no comparison to the Basque, Catalonian, Galician and Andalusian issues Spain has.

I scanned Hippos post too and must violently disagree,in a fenian way, that China is a Marxist-Leninist state.

[Dunners]

A referendum will decide it. Not sure what the grounds for vetoing an application from a nation state would be. There is no comparison to the Basque, Catalonian, Galician and Andalusian issues Spain has.

So the SNP would include future options within the referendum questions?

My understanding is that Spain doesn't need grounds. It just can. And its motivation for doing so would be to squash any notions the Catalans may have about being able to join the EU in future should they obtain independence.

[PutneyO]

First MP (East Lothian) defects to Alba

He MUST resign and call a by-election

Im sure he'll listen to you, drop him a line

[Sid Bishop]

I've sport of scanned through this^ and it does bring up an issue which I have yet to hear a clear answer to.

Assuming that Scotland was to leave the UK, what then? Is their plan just to join an even bigger union (the EU)? And, if so, how do they propose that is going to happen with the likes of Spain making it clear that such a request would be vetoed? Or is it that nobody is thinking that far ahead?

The Eu wont let them join, Spain for just one Country would veto them from joining and even if they did eventually join, then a trading border ( as in now in place with Europe ) will then exist and perhaps border controls, passports needed to cross to and fro from Scotland to England and vise versa. Plus no more cash subsidies to be received by Scotland from the UK. Other factors. Scotland needs a plan for a new currency if it wants independence
Barry EichengreenThis article is more than 5 months old.There must be a blueprint for what follows sterling and a transition to the euro.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... rling-euro

Which currency would an independent Scotland use?
The Scots could instead apply to join the euro. An immediate problem with this would be the rule in the Stability and Growth pact that countries in the Eurozone should keep their budget deficits below three per cent of GDP. The UK spends only 1.1 per cent of GDP more than it raises in taxes. Ironically, this would make us a shoo-in for euro membership, if Britain as a whole wanted to join. In contrast, the latest figures produced for Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland show the nation running a public sector deficit of seven per cent of GDP. This is obviously much higher than would be allowed in terms of membership of the euro. It is, in fact, the highest in the whole of Europe, the next highest being Cyprus at 4.8 per cent.
So to join the euro, the Scots would have to make large cuts in public spending. If instead they decided to set up their own currency, the markets would almost certainly force similar reductions on them. Small countries running large public deficits tend not to be viewed kindly.

[Max B Gold]

A referendum will decide it. Not sure what the grounds for vetoing an application from a nation state would be. There is no comparison to the Basque, Catalonian, Galician and Andalusian issues Spain has.

So the SNP would include future options within the referendum questions?

My understanding is that Spain doesn't need grounds. It just can. And its motivation for doing so would be to squash any notions the Catalans may have about being able to join the EU in future should they obtain independence.

Don't see the need to complicate the independence vote with EU membership. But don't forget 62% of voters in Alba voted to remain.

For me the independence vote can only proceed when it looks like at least 60% support it. Any less and we are going to get severe grief from Hippos paramilitary cousins.

Scotland would be an independent state applying for EU membership not a region of a fractured undemocratic state still coming to terms with the end of a dictatorship. Most of the Republicans/Liberals/Democrats/Socialists etc in Spain would see that difference. They didn't veto the Czech republic.

[Max B Gold]

I've sport of scanned through this^ and it does bring up an issue which I have yet to hear a clear answer to.

Assuming that Scotland was to leave the UK, what then? Is their plan just to join an even bigger union (the EU)? And, if so, how do they propose that is going to happen with the likes of Spain making it clear that such a request would be vetoed? Or is it that nobody is thinking that far ahead?

The Eu wont let them join, Spain for just one Country would veto them from joining and even if they did eventually join, then a trading border ( as in now in place with Europe ) will then exist and perhaps border controls, passports needed to cross to and fro from Scotland to England and vise versa. Plus no more cash subsidies to be received by Scotland from the UK. Other factors. Scotland needs a plan for a new currency if it wants independence
Barry EichengreenThis article is more than 5 months old.There must be a blueprint for what follows sterling and a transition to the euro.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... rling-euro

Which currency would an independent Scotland use?
The Scots could instead apply to join the euro. An immediate problem with this would be the rule in the Stability and Growth pact that countries in the Eurozone should keep their budget deficits below three per cent of GDP. The UK spends only 1.1 per cent of GDP more than it raises in taxes. Ironically, this would make us a shoo-in for euro membership, if Britain as a whole wanted to join. In contrast, the latest figures produced for Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland show the nation running a public sector deficit of seven per cent of GDP. This is obviously much higher than would be allowed in terms of membership of the euro. It is, in fact, the highest in the whole of Europe, the next highest being Cyprus at 4.8 per cent.
So to join the euro, the Scots would have to make large cuts in public spending. If instead they decided to set up their own currency, the markets would almost certainly force similar reductions on them. Small countries running large public deficits tend not to be viewed kindly.

It is a myth and a lie that Scotland receives cash subsidies. Scotland pays more in tax to the UK Exchequer than it receives.

[Stowaway]

Imagine a chronicle of the multitude of conversations, discussions, disagreements, arguments, flounces and rebounds on here: It could serve usefully as a befitting record of just how utterly depressing, tawdry, insipid and terminally dysfunctional everything has become. Everything in the remarkably historic, dirty, tiny portion of a gigantic city (not much more now than an over-populated human midden), where some of you live and which others have managed to escape (but can't quite entirely renounce). Everything in London. Everything in Britain. Everything in the United Kingdom. Everything in the European Union (especially now it has been revealed, even to those who were most blind to see, that it has become nothing more than a failing, lumbering pastiche of the joke it has always been). Everything in the English speaking world. Almost everywhere on the planet except the Unitary Marxist-Leninist one party socialist People's Republic of China.

In its own way, the exchange above is one of the saddest there has been here. The main three protagonists, who live in Scotland, have stated their positions and that's that really. They've summed it all up.

If you don't live in Scotland, or have a familial or professional connection with it, do you feel that this is largely a private affair into which you should, or dare not, intrude?

If so, that is part of the problem. Read up and get stuck in. On either side. While you still have the chance.

As has become the norm, what is missing is an argument for the Union. Where is it? Is it exclusively down to Gorgeous George and Rictus Gordon (the oddest of couples) to argue for the preservation of the most successful and longest lasting political and social union in the history of the world? Since James VI became James I and the subsequent Acts of Union, the two kingdoms accommodated each other's peculiar religious, legal and social prerequisites in a masterpiece of practical politics which brought unprecedented peace and prosperity to our island, and our islands, for centuries.

But the experience of Brexit must surely prove that when such a large proportion of any society require such a radical organisational, political, cultural and social change, then the least that they deserve is to vote on it. It is nobody's fault other than the war-criminal, Bliar and his gang (including Rictus), that we are where we are, notwithstanding a conclusive "once in a lifetime" vote for the Union in the referendum of 2014, just over six years ago. If there is a demand - demonstrably at the ballot box in the forthcoming elections - then it would be morally wrong to deny another referendum. Particularly if one believes that "freedom" and self-determination should be the greatest gift for a citizen living in any part of the anglosphere.

It is easy to see how the political administration of Scotland can be criticised as a one trick pony. But it isn't. It's a two trick pony. The blasphemy law is repugnant and clearly heavily influenced by Islamism. If that law applied in Battley in Yorkshire then the teacher would not require the police protection he is currently enjoying, instead he would have been nicked.

And the other increasingly obvious, and worrying, influence on the SNP is fenianism. Scottish association with Irish republicanism's crassly sentimental cult of violence, murder, intimidation, child-abuse, moral cowardice and bigotry is shameful, unbecoming and very dangerous.

What the SNP demand is not independence, it is secession from the Union. A vote for independence and therefore to leave the United Kingdom would be followed immediately with an application to join (and become little more than a satrapy of) the failing, blundering abomination, the European Union. That's not "independence" it's just suckling at a Teutonic teat instead. That's just pathetic and should be exposed as such.

And what else does this urge to supplicate themselves in front of the EU reveal about the SNP? It's that its whole origins (like the IRA, the SNP supported the nazis in WW2 based on the canard "an enemy's enemy"), purpose and driving force are nothing more than being atavistically anti-English.

The English can be boorish about Scotland. And ignorant. But the English are usually fundamentally "alright". Since the SNP have held power in Scotland, the bile which has emanated from Edinburgh toward Westminster, England, and the Union has been horrifying. And what has been worse has been the weak, feeble disingenuity with which a succession of British governments have responded to it. And worst of all, the English have actually noticed just how spitefully, dishonestly and (hinting at the psychological genesis of the issue, regrettably) ungratefully the Scottish people's elected representatives feel about England and the Union. The response of many English is to say, "Well, they can foxtrot right oscar then." That is what has changed. It's a disaster and plays into the Nats' hands. Scottish animosity toward England and the English has always been there, to some degree. Remember when the English couldn't really care less about Scottish anti-Englishness when it most obviously manifested itself through football (of all things. You know, when a Scot cheered on England's opponents it used to be funny, especially when most English blithely cheered for Scotland and Scottish teams (even the Irish Republican Scottish teams with impending child abuse court cases hanging over them)). Now that's not the case.

The easiest mistake to make when encountering and confronting deranged, hypocritical Scots Nats is to take their argument personally. They won't like it, but as it stands, Scotland's your country too (for now) and you are allowed to have an opinion. Although it seems paradoxical, it's really not about you, it's about them. It's not personal. If you're English it really isn't about whether they like you as a person or not. And that's what the Europeans got wrong during Brexit, and many remoaners too.

Above all, a majority of Scots do not want independence. That's worth remembering. If you encounter a Scots Unionist, please support them. Even Galloway and Brown. Northern British cultural mores and its superb legacy to the world has been under sustained attack for decades. But part of that legacy has been to promulgate and respect democracy. If the people of Scotland have an insatiable urge to build only the second ever longstanding, self-sustaining socialist society in history (alongside China! (sic)) then if they vote for it, then they should get an attempt to achieve that. How that would function within, or indeed outwith, the EU is one of a myriad of issues to be tackled during the disentanglement of the Union. And one hopes that if that occurs then the people of Scotland will be spared the ridiculous ruses used to protract that process during Brexit.

In the meantime, it is time to expose the hypocrisy and sheer nastiness of the Nats. And they've been doing a good job of illuminating that themselves. Ultimately the spectre of paramilitarism may well also loom. One firm condition for the inevitable next referendum will be that this is the last one for 50 years. Winner takes all. No country, either a Scottish state within the Union, or the UK itself, can continue like this.

Remarkable amounts of wrong in that post.

[Stowaway]

Was quality sloe gin mind.

And no one hates the snp as much as I do. This new development will be interesting, I shall try to gauge the feeling among my more rabid Nat pals.

Why the hate for the SNP, Spike?

Our comrade T McT is a furious Snipper and much as I like him I can’t bring myself to discuss the subject with him because I know it won’t end well. I’ve always found that they’re a loose collective of left and right who just want independence at any cost, and frankly I wouldn’t be able to sit alongside some of the rabid nationalists that make up at least a decent percentage of the SNP. Or am I reading that wrong?

Your second para pretty much sums it up. The SNP are just opportunists who know that you don't have to worry about policy other than "Freedommmmmmm". For a big percentage of their target audience, the only story they have to sell is "Anyone but England" - and as an Englishman living here, that can't help but feel a little targetting. My more rabid mates are decent folk - if, perhaps, a little simple in outlook. We know when to stop the discussion before it gets too heated.

All Nationalists say "ah, but we're different from all those other, horrid, Nationalists throughout history. We're much better and nicer than them" - but they're all the same - they all appeal to hatred and resentment of "others" - they all pin their country's problems on "others" - and when you're talking to the dinlows, that's an easy sell. It's far easier for your average stupid to be able to believe that the reason they're not entirely happy is because of forrins - or the English in the case of the SNP - rather than actually looking at more complex matters like wealth distribution, for example.

Alex and Nicola are no better than Farage and all the other tin pot flag shaggers.

Cheers Spike, I suspected as much. Interesting times ahead.

[StillSpike]

I've sport of scanned through this^ and it does bring up an issue which I have yet to hear a clear answer to.

Assuming that Scotland was to leave the UK, what then? Is their plan just to join an even bigger union (the EU)? And, if so, how do they propose that is going to happen with the likes of Spain making it clear that such a request would be vetoed? Or is it that nobody is thinking that far ahead?

None of those questions matter.

The side batting for a change in the status quo do not need to show their workings - they don't need to have done a deal with any future partners (such a deal wouldn't be possible to even start, let alone complete, before the change has happened) - so they'd just need to say something like "they will really want to deal with us" or "it'll be the easiest deal in human history" and enough of the electorate will believe that. If in doubt, just keep shouting "it'll be fine".

The side hoping to maintain the status quo won't really have much of a "pro-status-quo" argument to make - the status quo is rarely sexy or exciting or new (by definition) - and they can hardly point at the current situation and say "it'll be more of that" - because many people are not happy with their lot, and the side batting for the change have already planted the seed that the reason for this unhappiness IS the status quo (even though it's probably not the reason) Most of the status quo's workings are really dull and just carry on in the background. It's only when those workings are no longer there that we might miss them, but by then the change has already happened and it's a one-way street (at least in all practical terms). Anyone attempting to point out just how much we might miss those workings (especially the boring day to day ones) can simply be dismissed as "project fear". If they do so after the event - when we're actually missing them - they can be dismissed as sore losers.

Any of this sound familiar?

[Max B Gold]

I've sport of scanned through this^ and it does bring up an issue which I have yet to hear a clear answer to.

Assuming that Scotland was to leave the UK, what then? Is their plan just to join an even bigger union (the EU)? And, if so, how do they propose that is going to happen with the likes of Spain making it clear that such a request would be vetoed? Or is it that nobody is thinking that far ahead?

None of those questions matter.

The side batting for a change in the status quo do not need to show their workings - they don't need to have done a deal with any future partners (such a deal wouldn't be possible to even start, let alone complete, before the change has happened) - so they'd just need to say something like "they will really want to deal with us" or "it'll be the easiest deal in human history" and enough of the electorate will believe that. If in doubt, just keep shouting "it'll be fine".

The side hoping to maintain the status quo won't really have much of a "pro-status-quo" argument to make - the status quo is rarely sexy or exciting or new (by definition) - and they can hardly point at the current situation and say "it'll be more of that" - because many people are not happy with their lot, and the side batting for the change have already planted the seed that the reason for this unhappiness IS the status quo (even though it's probably not the reason) Most of the status quo's workings are really dull and just carry on in the background. It's only when those workings are no longer there that we might miss them, but by then the change has already happened and it's a one-way street (at least in all practical terms). Anyone attempting to point out just how much we might miss those workings (especially the boring day to day ones) can simply be dismissed as "project fear". If they do so after the event - when we're actually missing them - they can be dismissed as sore losers.

Any of this sound familiar?

Yeah but we should just do it anyway.

[StillSpike]

You see !??????

[Sid Bishop]

I've sport of scanned through this^ and it does bring up an issue which I have yet to hear a clear answer to.

Assuming that Scotland was to leave the UK, what then? Is their plan just to join an even bigger union (the EU)? And, if so, how do they propose that is going to happen with the likes of Spain making it clear that such a request would be vetoed? Or is it that nobody is thinking that far ahead?

The Eu wont let them join, Spain for just one Country would veto them from joining and even if they did eventually join, then a trading border ( as in now in place with Europe ) will then exist and perhaps border controls, passports needed to cross to and fro from Scotland to England and vise versa. Plus no more cash subsidies to be received by Scotland from the UK. Other factors. Scotland needs a plan for a new currency if it wants independence
Barry EichengreenThis article is more than 5 months old.There must be a blueprint for what follows sterling and a transition to the euro.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... rling-euro

Which currency would an independent Scotland use?
The Scots could instead apply to join the euro. An immediate problem with this would be the rule in the Stability and Growth pact that countries in the Eurozone should keep their budget deficits below three per cent of GDP. The UK spends only 1.1 per cent of GDP more than it raises in taxes. Ironically, this would make us a shoo-in for euro membership, if Britain as a whole wanted to join. In contrast, the latest figures produced for Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland show the nation running a public sector deficit of seven per cent of GDP. This is obviously much higher than would be allowed in terms of membership of the euro. It is, in fact, the highest in the whole of Europe, the next highest being Cyprus at 4.8 per cent.
So to join the euro, the Scots would have to make large cuts in public spending. If instead they decided to set up their own currency, the markets would almost certainly force similar reductions on them. Small countries running large public deficits tend not to be viewed kindly.

It is a myth and a lie that Scotland receives cash subsidies. Scotland pays more in tax to the UK Exchequer than it receives.

Ok so what currency will Scotchland use if they become independent, perhaps a new one called the ''Rabbie Burns'' ?

How is public spending and revenue distributed to Scotland?
Tax revenue generated in Scotland amounts to about £66 billion, including North Sea oil revenue, but it benefits from about £81 billion in public spending. That means Scotland benefits from an additional £15 billion public spending than it puts in.
This is possible because the UK pools and shares resources across the entire country. This system of sharing resources means Scotland is well-placed to tackle the problems of the future, such as an ageing society, but also gives the Scottish Parliament the freedom to make many financial decisions for itself. https://www.deliveringforscotland.gov.u ... -spending/

[tuffers#1]

Imagine a chronicle of the multitude of conversations, discussions, disagreements, arguments, flounces and rebounds on here: It could serve usefully as a befitting record of just how utterly depressing, tawdry, insipid and terminally dysfunctional everything has become. Everything in the remarkably historic, dirty, tiny portion of a gigantic city (not much more now than an over-populated human midden), where some of you live and which others have managed to escape (but can't quite entirely renounce). Everything in London. Everything in Britain. Everything in the United Kingdom. Everything in the European Union (especially now it has been revealed, even to those who were most blind to see, that it has become nothing more than a failing, lumbering pastiche of the joke it has always been). Everything in the English speaking world. Almost everywhere on the planet except the Unitary Marxist-Leninist one party socialist People's Republic of China.

In its own way, the exchange above is one of the saddest there has been here. The main three protagonists, who live in Scotland, have stated their positions and that's that really. They've summed it all up.

If you don't live in Scotland, or have a familial or professional connection with it, do you feel that this is largely a private affair into which you should, or dare not, intrude?

If so, that is part of the problem. Read up and get stuck in. On either side. While you still have the chance.

As has become the norm, what is missing is an argument for the Union. Where is it? Is it exclusively down to Gorgeous George and Rictus Gordon (the oddest of couples) to argue for the preservation of the most successful and longest lasting political and social union in the history of the world? Since James VI became James I and the subsequent Acts of Union, the two kingdoms accommodated each other's peculiar religious, legal and social prerequisites in a masterpiece of practical politics which brought unprecedented peace and prosperity to our island, and our islands, for centuries.

But the experience of Brexit must surely prove that when such a large proportion of any society require such a radical organisational, political, cultural and social change, then the least that they deserve is to vote on it. It is nobody's fault other than the war-criminal, Bliar and his gang (including Rictus), that we are where we are, notwithstanding a conclusive "once in a lifetime" vote for the Union in the referendum of 2014, just over six years ago. If there is a demand - demonstrably at the ballot box in the forthcoming elections - then it would be morally wrong to deny another referendum. Particularly if one believes that "freedom" and self-determination should be the greatest gift for a citizen living in any part of the anglosphere.

It is easy to see how the political administration of Scotland can be criticised as a one trick pony. But it isn't. It's a two trick pony. The blasphemy law is repugnant and clearly heavily influenced by Islamism. If that law applied in Battley in Yorkshire then the teacher would not require the police protection he is currently enjoying, instead he would have been nicked.

And the other increasingly obvious, and worrying, influence on the SNP is fenianism. Scottish association with Irish republicanism's crassly sentimental cult of violence, murder, intimidation, child-abuse, moral cowardice and bigotry is shameful, unbecoming and very dangerous.

What the SNP demand is not independence, it is secession from the Union. A vote for independence and therefore to leave the United Kingdom would be followed immediately with an application to join (and become little more than a satrapy of) the failing, blundering abomination, the European Union. That's not "independence" it's just suckling at a Teutonic teat instead. That's just pathetic and should be exposed as such.

And what else does this urge to supplicate themselves in front of the EU reveal about the SNP? It's that its whole origins (like the IRA, the SNP supported the nazis in WW2 based on the canard "an enemy's enemy"), purpose and driving force are nothing more than being atavistically anti-English.

The English can be boorish about Scotland. And ignorant. But the English are usually fundamentally "alright". Since the SNP have held power in Scotland, the bile which has emanated from Edinburgh toward Westminster, England, and the Union has been horrifying. And what has been worse has been the weak, feeble disingenuity with which a succession of British governments have responded to it. And worst of all, the English have actually noticed just how spitefully, dishonestly and (hinting at the psychological genesis of the issue, regrettably) ungratefully the Scottish people's elected representatives feel about England and the Union. The response of many English is to say, "Well, they can foxtrot right oscar then." That is what has changed. It's a disaster and plays into the Nats' hands. Scottish animosity toward England and the English has always been there, to some degree. Remember when the English couldn't really care less about Scottish anti-Englishness when it most obviously manifested itself through football (of all things. You know, when a Scot cheered on England's opponents it used to be funny, especially when most English blithely cheered for Scotland and Scottish teams (even the Irish Republican Scottish teams with impending child abuse court cases hanging over them)). Now that's not the case.

The easiest mistake to make when encountering and confronting deranged, hypocritical Scots Nats is to take their argument personally. They won't like it, but as it stands, Scotland's your country too (for now) and you are allowed to have an opinion. Although it seems paradoxical, it's really not about you, it's about them. It's not personal. If you're English it really isn't about whether they like you as a person or not. And that's what the Europeans got wrong during Brexit, and many remoaners too.

Above all, a majority of Scots do not want independence. That's worth remembering. If you encounter a Scots Unionist, please support them. Even Galloway and Brown. Northern British cultural mores and its superb legacy to the world has been under sustained attack for decades. But part of that legacy has been to promulgate and respect democracy. If the people of Scotland have an insatiable urge to build only the second ever longstanding, self-sustaining socialist society in history (alongside China! (sic)) then if they vote for it, then they should get an attempt to achieve that. How that would function within, or indeed outwith, the EU is one of a myriad of issues to be tackled during the disentanglement of the Union. And one hopes that if that occurs then the people of Scotland will be spared the ridiculous ruses used to protract that process during Brexit.

In the meantime, it is time to expose the hypocrisy and sheer nastiness of the Nats. And they've been doing a good job of illuminating that themselves. Ultimately the spectre of paramilitarism may well also loom. One firm condition for the inevitable next referendum will be that this is the last one for 50 years. Winner takes all. No country, either a Scottish state within the Union, or the UK itself, can continue like this.

What a Load of Utter W*nk !

[Sid Bishop]

Imagine a chronicle of the multitude of conversations, discussions, disagreements, arguments, flounces and rebounds on here: It could serve usefully as a befitting record of just how utterly depressing, tawdry, insipid and terminally dysfunctional everything has become. Everything in the remarkably historic, dirty, tiny portion of a gigantic city (not much more now than an over-populated human midden), where some of you live and which others have managed to escape (but can't quite entirely renounce). Everything in London. Everything in Britain. Everything in the United Kingdom. Everything in the European Union (especially now it has been revealed, even to those who were most blind to see, that it has become nothing more than a failing, lumbering pastiche of the joke it has always been). Everything in the English speaking world. Almost everywhere on the planet except the Unitary Marxist-Leninist one party socialist People's Republic of China.

In its own way, the exchange above is one of the saddest there has been here. The main three protagonists, who live in Scotland, have stated their positions and that's that really. They've summed it all up.

If you don't live in Scotland, or have a familial or professional connection with it, do you feel that this is largely a private affair into which you should, or dare not, intrude?

If so, that is part of the problem. Read up and get stuck in. On either side. While you still have the chance.

As has become the norm, what is missing is an argument for the Union. Where is it? Is it exclusively down to Gorgeous George and Rictus Gordon (the oddest of couples) to argue for the preservation of the most successful and longest lasting political and social union in the history of the world? Since James VI became James I and the subsequent Acts of Union, the two kingdoms accommodated each other's peculiar religious, legal and social prerequisites in a masterpiece of practical politics which brought unprecedented peace and prosperity to our island, and our islands, for centuries.

But the experience of Brexit must surely prove that when such a large proportion of any society require such a radical organisational, political, cultural and social change, then the least that they deserve is to vote on it. It is nobody's fault other than the war-criminal, Bliar and his gang (including Rictus), that we are where we are, notwithstanding a conclusive "once in a lifetime" vote for the Union in the referendum of 2014, just over six years ago. If there is a demand - demonstrably at the ballot box in the forthcoming elections - then it would be morally wrong to deny another referendum. Particularly if one believes that "freedom" and self-determination should be the greatest gift for a citizen living in any part of the anglosphere.

It is easy to see how the political administration of Scotland can be criticised as a one trick pony. But it isn't. It's a two trick pony. The blasphemy law is repugnant and clearly heavily influenced by Islamism. If that law applied in Battley in Yorkshire then the teacher would not require the police protection he is currently enjoying, instead he would have been nicked.

And the other increasingly obvious, and worrying, influence on the SNP is fenianism. Scottish association with Irish republicanism's crassly sentimental cult of violence, murder, intimidation, child-abuse, moral cowardice and bigotry is shameful, unbecoming and very dangerous.

What the SNP demand is not independence, it is secession from the Union. A vote for independence and therefore to leave the United Kingdom would be followed immediately with an application to join (and become little more than a satrapy of) the failing, blundering abomination, the European Union. That's not "independence" it's just suckling at a Teutonic teat instead. That's just pathetic and should be exposed as such.

And what else does this urge to supplicate themselves in front of the EU reveal about the SNP? It's that its whole origins (like the IRA, the SNP supported the nazis in WW2 based on the canard "an enemy's enemy"), purpose and driving force are nothing more than being atavistically anti-English.

The English can be boorish about Scotland. And ignorant. But the English are usually fundamentally "alright". Since the SNP have held power in Scotland, the bile which has emanated from Edinburgh toward Westminster, England, and the Union has been horrifying. And what has been worse has been the weak, feeble disingenuity with which a succession of British governments have responded to it. And worst of all, the English have actually noticed just how spitefully, dishonestly and (hinting at the psychological genesis of the issue, regrettably) ungratefully the Scottish people's elected representatives feel about England and the Union. The response of many English is to say, "Well, they can foxtrot right oscar then." That is what has changed. It's a disaster and plays into the Nats' hands. Scottish animosity toward England and the English has always been there, to some degree. Remember when the English couldn't really care less about Scottish anti-Englishness when it most obviously manifested itself through football (of all things. You know, when a Scot cheered on England's opponents it used to be funny, especially when most English blithely cheered for Scotland and Scottish teams (even the Irish Republican Scottish teams with impending child abuse court cases hanging over them)). Now that's not the case.

The easiest mistake to make when encountering and confronting deranged, hypocritical Scots Nats is to take their argument personally. They won't like it, but as it stands, Scotland's your country too (for now) and you are allowed to have an opinion. Although it seems paradoxical, it's really not about you, it's about them. It's not personal. If you're English it really isn't about whether they like you as a person or not. And that's what the Europeans got wrong during Brexit, and many remoaners too.

Above all, a majority of Scots do not want independence. That's worth remembering. If you encounter a Scots Unionist, please support them. Even Galloway and Brown. Northern British cultural mores and its superb legacy to the world has been under sustained attack for decades. But part of that legacy has been to promulgate and respect democracy. If the people of Scotland have an insatiable urge to build only the second ever longstanding, self-sustaining socialist society in history (alongside China! (sic)) then if they vote for it, then they should get an attempt to achieve that. How that would function within, or indeed outwith, the EU is one of a myriad of issues to be tackled during the disentanglement of the Union. And one hopes that if that occurs then the people of Scotland will be spared the ridiculous ruses used to protract that process during Brexit.

In the meantime, it is time to expose the hypocrisy and sheer nastiness of the Nats. And they've been doing a good job of illuminating that themselves. Ultimately the spectre of paramilitarism may well also loom. One firm condition for the inevitable next referendum will be that this is the last one for 50 years. Winner takes all. No country, either a Scottish state within the Union, or the UK itself, can continue like this.

What a Load of Utter W*nk !

''Language Timothy'' !