What’s in a name?

A guest post by Samuel Miller (Macart)

You know that veto, that’s not a veto? It seems that Mr Mundell couldn’t even wait for the new bill, debates, amendments, ratifications and/or ink to dry before exercising it. Apparently he’s no happy that after weeks of taunting the Scottish Government and electorate over the matter of fullfiscaldevoindylitemaxautonomy, those bounders representing the bulk of the Scottish electorate went and tabled an amendment openly asking for it (black hole an’ a) (*). Worse yet, it appears their idea of fullfiscalwossiname isn’t the same as HMG’s. True blue Tory central’s idea of ‘fiscal responsibility’ is entirely different and it certainly doesn’t include a Scottish government having control of all revenue streams, taxes, welfare or natural resources. Oh hell no. So after he had munched on some hastily made toast and jam, he screwed his courage up to the sticking point and with the full weight of all the big boys behind him, Mr Mundell made some statements prior to Commons debate.

“An amendment that kills off the Barnett formula and ends the sharing of resources across the UK is about as far away from sensible as one can get. It would be a full fiscal shambles that would cost every family in Scotland around £5,000.”

 To which Stewart Hosie (SNP deputy leader) had not unsurprisingly replied “The Tories must stop playing games with Scotland, and clarify whether or not David Cameron’s assurance that further changes to the Scotland Bill will be considered still stands.”

Now maybe just me, but that statement of Mr Mundell’s sounded about as far away from considered debate and negotiation as you can get really, but there’s a pertinent point which seems to have escaped Mr Mundell and his peers and we’ll come back to that later. Needless to say, it didn’t bode well for either the debate or the vote and pretty much set the tone for what was about to occur. The reality of Monday’s debate and vote confirmed everything many of us have argued on over the past several years. Westminster indeed could not be trusted to deliver on its referendum pledges. It began with Fluffy attempting to deny that home rule had ever been offered and ended with the usual suspects voting down any amendments, including FFA, which would see Scotland make its own economic decisions… Are we surprised?

What would it have cost them to honour a few pledges in good faith? What would it have cost to honour even one, the writing into the constitution of the permanence of the Scottish parliament? It would have sent a message to Scotland’s electorate, that despite our recent rocky political history, Westminster was at least attempting to look forward, win the peace or at least earn respect. It may even have extended the political union beyond their own expectations. Who knows? But no, the Westminster establishment doesn’t suffer any perceived threat to their hegemony or sovereignty.  A gesture which would have cost them nothing, eclipsed by a vote which may now in their arrogance, ignorance, greed and near as I can tell spite, will now probably cost them everything. I’d say they’ve sent a message alright and I would hope it has been received and understood loud and clear.

So let’s cut through all the bullshit that we are being fed and get back to that pertinent point Mr Mundell has conveniently overlooked. ‘Home rule’ by any other name, the ‘federal solution’, providing Scotland with a ‘powerhouse parliament’… Sound familiar? In the weeks prior to the referendum vote, airwaves and column space were devoted to a fair old mixture of the terminology above. You couldn’t turn a page or change a channel but you’d run into a couch load of experts or politicians talking about FFA, indy lite or devo max. When Brown wasn’t terrifying pensioners he was ‘guaranteeing’ delivery of home rule, near federalism, constitutional conventions and a parliament secured permanently within the UK’s constitution. It was relentlessly and remorselessly rammed down the Scottish electorate’s throats for weeks in the run up to September 18th. None of it has come to pass and I sincerely doubt that any of it will, certainly not without a great deal of kicking and screaming on the part of the Westminster establishment. (An excellent highlighting by Wings Over Scotland, on this particular piece of duplicity, to be found in the links below *).

The Scottish electorate have been promised and denied home rule off and on for decades of course. Both parties and individuals have attempted to determine or shape what home rule means in pursuit of one agenda or another over this period of time (mainly the winning of votes) and all to no resolution. ‘The Vow’ and Brown’s ‘guarantees’ being only the most recent and frankly damning incarnation of all.

In the meantime and for the removal of all doubt, this is what constitutes the most commonly held definition of Full fiscal autonomy (FFA): – also known as devolution max, (devo-max), fiscal federalism, independence lite or independence-minus, – is a particular form of far-reaching devolution proposed for Scotland. The term has come to describe a constitutional arrangement in which instead of receiving a block grant from the UK Exchequer as at present, the Scottish Parliament would receive all taxation levied in Scotland; it would be responsible for most spending in Scotland but make payments to the UK government to cover Scotland’s share of the cost of providing certain UK-wide services, including at least defence and the conduct of foreign relations. Scottish fiscal autonomy – stopping short of full political independence – is usually promoted by advocates of a federal or confederal constitution for the United Kingdom. (Source WIKI)

Now as I said earlier, a bill of goods was sold to the Scottish electorate during the referendum. BT, Westminster’s established parties and the media played fast and loose with the terms home rule and devo max without (a.) promising a damn thing (b.) clearly defining what they considered either to be or (c.) fully explaining the processes involved which would of course have outlined the near impossibility of the pledges’ delivery in the first place. This allowed the Scottish electorate to conjure their own images of what they believed those terms to mean and led them to believe that pain free delivery was possible. It’s not and never was, as we are now seeing demonstrated in editorial after editorial and debate after debate in chambers. We are now at the place where expectation meets reality and where people will be forced to consider whether that bill of goods they were sold was worth the price they paid.

So what’s in a name?

It should have meant exactly what it says on the tin, yes? ‘HOME RULE’ or ‘DEVOLUTION TO THE MAX’, except nobody bothered to represent or define the position for the referendum process, not even the party of ‘home rule’ and federalism, the Lib thingies. As for the post referendum’s Smith Commission and its staggering ability to read through, debate and deliberate on fourteen thousand submissions in thirty days… least said the better eh? Heaven forefend it could actually have been perceived to simply be a party political jockeying process for the GE.

This should have been where the civic and political worlds met to determine the nature of a thing and, upon agreement, send our representation forward with the electorate’s proposal and unabridged, unadulterated definition. The agreed proposal to be placed before Westminster’s establishment who, as in any negotiation will also have their counter proposal/fixed position. That’s the debate/negotiation bit Mr Mundell seemed so over eager to dismiss out of hand pre the actual debate. But then home rule or devo to the max was never really on offer was it? It was always intended to be a confused and confusing mess for the public. A publicity stunt, a strategy, a blind defending an entrenched position and designed to fall apart as a process at the first hurdle, the Commons chamber, and stifle Scotland’s elected representation. The subsequent amendment attempting to rectify the Smith Commission deficiencies was effectively doomed long before it ever reached the debating chamber. In any case, if neither party can come to an agreement for the sake of carrying the whole forward, (and apparently we haven’t) then effectively the game is a bogey regardless. So, as yet, no home rule, no permanent parliament under law, no agreed progress on devolution… and we should consider the independence issue settled why?

Holyrood elections are next year and very soon our representatives will be asking us what we think should happen next in the light of the events of the past year. Plenty of time to take stock, assess, be patient and have a good think.

In the meantime, despite this week’s unfolding drama, all is not lost. I believe concessions can be won by our current representation and, in my opinion, any competence that can be used to better the lot of the people in the face of this punitive system of government is one worth pursuing. Any harmful legislation that can be fought or delayed is worth the effort and any duplicity on the part of Westminster that can be uncovered and brought to our notice a job well done and a service performed. Just to be clear though, in my opinion, I seriously doubt that gifting the Scottish parliament all powers barring foreign affairs and defence has ever been or will ever be on any parliamentary to do list, it’s simply not in the nature of the beast.

Links (*):





35 comments on “What’s in a name?

  1. heisker says:

    Mmm back in ye olden times when I still had hair, folk like Russell Johnston were very explicit about what Liberals meant by Home Rule. Then, the 1970s, it was EVERYTHING EXCEPT defence and foreign affairs, for which Scotland would pay its share.

  2. Very well put, Mac. But, as I have pointed out before, the perennnial obstacle to the vast majority of people finding out about these matters are the M.S.M. While websites such as this do a great job, and I’m sure more and more are discovering them, people see the headlines in the written media, and hear, and see, the propoganda pumped out by almost all mainstream radio and t v channels.
    I don’t know how this is going to pan-out over the next few years, but as you say the 56 must keep all the pressure they can exert, because, remember, this Government has a wafer-thin majority, although it has become apparent in the last few days we cannot depend on “Her Majestys Loyal Opposition” to support any of our proposals.
    So please, and I know for many of us this is hard to take, no knee-jerk reactions, no calling for another referendum until we are absolutely certain, or as near as possible, we will win, because we cannot afford another defeat.

    • Joyce Cox says:

      Unfortunately, many FB yes voters are getting really annoyed by the lack of communication. They are not thinking things through. They are fed up and sick of the lies and think that miracles should have happened the day our 56 took up residence in the HoC. I really worry that the divide and conquer tactics might have an effect on a lot of people who are voicing their feelings of discontent on social media.

      • lochsider says:

        I worry about this too. Nothing in the TV news, nothing in the newspapers [The National excepted]. How are people going to be angry/disappointed if they hear nothing? Those like us who are actively engaged read all they can find on various websites, but the vast majority do not

        What can be done? I think the activities and publicity work which went on during the referendum period need to be got going again asap. It is a long way out from the Holyrood election but every day counts.

      • Ealasaid says:

        Such mutterings were on Wings over Scotland yesterday but moderated down to a feeling that we are being goaded into going for IndyRef2 too soon. The talk then changed to convincing more No voters by getting this information out there.

        There was talk of bill board space being bought and used, and re-instating the street stalls of the referendum to provide this information and re-argue the case for independence. There was the feeling that the 56 are doing all they can, but we must back them up.

        Excellent piece Macart.

        • Lollysmum says:

          A forum has been set up here by Scunterbunnet after the discussion yesterday


          Take a look-it’s about using other ways to get the message out to people who don’t use internet & scoial media.Crowdfunding advertising billboards etc.

          Need to put the word out to Yes Facebook groups, Twitter users etc. Time to mobilise & do it for ourselves as no one else is going to.

    • macart763 says:

      And that is the watchword Alex, ‘patience’.

    • Marconatrix says:

      Just been watching Scottish Questions at Westminster from the other day. It’s abundantly clear that however noble their intentions, and however fine a bunch they are, the SNP MPs have been cold shouldered and are completely impotent. The plan, and it was a good one, as I understand it, was for them to hold the balance of power in a hung parliament. But it wasn’t to be. Nobody’s feet are in the fire, and for all the good they can do the 56 might as well be sitting in the visitors’ gallery. And clearly that’s how the major parties see them.

      They need to stay in place just long enough for it become abundantly clear to everyone that they’re being ignored, but once that has been established beyond any reasonable doubt (if it hasn’t already!) the longer they stay there the more pathetic they’ll appear, becoming in a short time a total laughing stock. People will begin to lose faith in them, and the SNP as a whole will be in real danger of losing the trust of the wider independence movement.

      They do really need to find a way of keeping up the momentum, of continuing to force the issue. Up til now they’ve been riding on a wave of popular demand for change, but if they just sit there for weeks and months, that wave will have passed them and all of us by.

      So what now?

  3. BampotsUtd.wordpress.com says:

    Reblogged this on Bampots Utd.

  4. Aucheorn says:

    I to agree that Devo-Max, FFA etc were ever on or likely to be on the agenda.

    I think the Scots Government are in a bind, I think they expected some minor concessions to argue over,.
    Westminster is either deliberately or stupidly forcing the pace. Maybe they think a second defeat for Yes will kill Independence stone dead. They can’t pull the Vow trick again. Even some people I know who campaigned for No are sickened and have lost all faith and trust in Westminster.

    Another Referendum MUST be in the manifestos of all the Yes supporting parties.

    • macart763 says:

      They do keep prodding don’t they? Those 56 new MPs are doing a good job so far, but they need folks here to help out too. Keep our heads, be patient, keep talking to people, spread the news that the media won’t.

      So much has been achieved so far by people just communicating. Just look what you’ve done in the past four years. Its nothing short of ‘astonishing’. 🙂

      As I’ve been saying for some time, Westminster will do the heavy lifting for us and they haven’t disappointed to date. 😉

  5. Aucheorn says:

    Asking for a Referendum pledge in the manifesto of a party is like asking for an additional tool in the box. It’s handy to have.

    • Actually, that’s a fair point: we don’t have to use it. And there’s a good chance that the SNP would get re-elected next year even with the fear of another indyref… (don’t forget that at the moment, the SNP have the support of a lot of folk who don’t necessarily seek independence, but believe they do a good job in government).

      You’re making me rethink things….

  6. Excellent piece, Macart.

    I’ve been convinced, since the referendum result in September, that far from being cherished for our decision to stay, we would instead end up being severely punished for having the audacity to even contemplate leaving the UK. Nice to know I wasn’t wrong.

    I’m torn between Alex’s and Aucheron’s views. My heart screams ‘second referendum!’. Can we afford to wait for another Scottish term? The SNP are almost certainly going to retain power in 2016, but what about 2020? Will Labour have finally reinvented itself as a left-wing Scottish party by then? If so, the Nats may have a fight on their hands.

    But my head says ‘don’t rush’. Alex is right: we CAN’T risk losing a second referendum. We must be absolutely, completely sure of success. And it terrifies me to think that the only way to guarantee that success is to sit back and let the Tories in Westminster grind us down and drain the life out of us until every last man jack of us is on the point of revolution.

    Ah, if only we could have a referendum this afternoon – reckon we just might swing it at the moment!

    PS Macart, can you email me on elizabeth.angus@btinternet.com? Cheers!

    • macart763 says:

      Thanks Elizabeth.

      As I’ve just posted above, patience is the watchword. People simply need to keep their heads and allow those 56 MPs to do their job. This Westminster government is here for the duration and they are who they are.

      The most important thing the average Jock and Jeannie public can do is stay engaged, keep communicating and keep spreading the news that the media won’t. The electorate have worked wonders in the political world simply by doing this very thing so far. They’ve always had the power to change things, they’ve just never realised it till now. 🙂

  7. gavin says:

    While I wouldn’t want to put Macart before ma horse, I do agree with all of the above.
    My solution would be; to use the language and precedent set by the all the Unionist Parties in the EU referendum campaign.
    A manifesto commitment in the 2016 election to renegotiate Scotland’s position within the UK( given Westminster’s failure to keep its Home Rule promises), leading to an in/out referendum on the result of these negotiations. This may lead to a referendum quicker than wanted, but we have to go to the people on a justifiable issue.
    Since Westminster has set a precedent, they cannot complain if we follow their lead.

    • JimW says:

      It isn’t in the nature of the beast. That last sentence encapsulates the whole sorry argument for me. I never completely believed that even if there had been a resounding YES vote, that Westminster would simply have rolled over and agreed to an independent Scotland. It was more likely that it would have prompted an offer of FFA or a federal UK, or anything other than give the Scots what they clearly wanted. I have no doubt whatever that next time round those who want FFA would be best advised to vote for independence as a means of achieving the lesser ambition.

      • Gavin says:

        I have no illusions about the nature of Westminster. The Scotland Bill shows them at their devious norm.
        But we must at all times be reasonable in our demands, and let them show their true nature by refusing even the simplest of requests.
        That is why I want to use the precedents they are already using on the EU. Not because I want FFA, or federalism, but because I want independence and the way to that goal is to let Westminster refuse FFA, or federalism—–which they will.

        • benmadigan says:

          here’s a little essay that illustrates what I presume Gavin is talking about when he says he understands how the UK establishment works

          “Which exposes the Westminster British and NI Unionist establishment for what they are. Reactionary institutions which have long passed their sell-by date and which have no place in a modern democracy worthy of the name”.

          “Their real attitude to democracy is that it’s wonderful when it all goes their way, but as soon as one group of people in the great ‘Union’ decide on something that doesn’t suit the élite, they show their real selves”.

          If you substitute scottish nationalists for irish republicans/ nationalists , you’ll see what what i mean https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2015/06/14/unionist-rules/

    • fermerfaefife says:

      aye a think that will be the SNP ploy in 2016 HR election. It will contain the EU ref trigger for indyref and it will contain the construct of a federal solution for Scotland in very plain terms and the promise of indyref2 if it is not delivered by uk.
      The constitution will continue to dominate the agenda at those elections and we know that 60 odd percent support devo-max / federalism. Where do these people turn when Westminster flicks the v’s again ? combined with the prospect of 5 – 10 years of tories ?
      sounds like a feasible 60% majority for independence rather sooner than some think ppossible.

  8. Maureen says:

    Exellent Macart, also enjoyed Elizabeth,s blog. Well done to both

  9. Patience is a virtue says:

    2nd Dec 2014: Lord Smith said: “The UK law will say that this [Parliament] is permanent, that is our intention.

    “Nothing is permanent. I’m told by constitutional experts down in London that you can’t actually do it because it is binding future parliaments.

    “But we intend this to be written in such a way that a plague of boils or something will break out if anyone in the future ever decides to prorogue, or whatever you call it, this parliament.

    “So it will be said in as strong language that it is possible to be.

    He added: “But you are absolutely right, nothing is permanent because future governments, democratically elected, can change those things.”

    So patience, play the game by the rules and experience the ‘plague of boils’ intended, there is likely much, much more to come but note and collate each infraction, every broken promise and false utternace along the way and keep these as nuggets for our elected representatives to use and adore on a rainy day – and there I reckon we have the advantage.

  10. Top drawer analysis and much needed food for thought Macart

    The fact that the Establishment/MSM and all their lapdogs are on full frontal assault shows the levels of consternation and fright they were put through

    Firstly with the referendum jolt and now the GE results in Scotland-and like the spoilt brat bullies they are-they’re spittin oot the dummy now that the realisation is we’re no goin back in the bottle cos we’ve smashed the fcukin bottle!

    They want us to scream out for an immediate referendum because they know that if we take our time and wait till the right opportunity comes along it can only go one way-ours

    We’ve waited 300 years to break the chains of this cursed union and another wee while shouldn’t be too much to ask

    As you ‘ve said ,leave them to finish what they started with Project Fear-it won’t be to kill Independence stone dead-it’ll be to kill WM and the UKOK abomination stone dead

    Keep the heid

    Patience my freinds

  11. fillofficer says:

    can anyone explain why we keep talking about another referendum ? the GE proved that the majority of the population are behind the SNP & after the 2016 unanimous vote WE will have a mandate for total separation, wont we ? you don’t ASK for a divorce, do you ? they wouldn’t let us win indieref2, would they, so whats the effin point. I’m so sick of the way they have treated us since may 8th. its time to just walk away, come on, somebody, make it so :-[

    • Marconatrix says:

      Remember “power devolved is power retained”. More generally, in the very last resort, freedom can’t be granted only taken. If you allow someone to give you your freedom you’re admitting that they have the power to take it back again.

      Devolution is like being a dog on one of those extending leads, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter, and if the ‘owner’ is skilful the doggie may hardly be aware of his condition, but at any moment, at his master’s whim, he can be reeled in and brought to heel.

      If we play by their rules, sit up and beg like good doggies, then we will always lose. In case you haven’t noticed the dice are loaded and the game is fixed.

  12. xsticks says:

    Spot on Sam. Beers are on me at next meet up 🙂

    There are a lot of angry Yessers out there after this week, but we need to keep calm, have patience and keep the heid. We have to keep on paying out the rope and doing what we can within the boundaries. If we don’t we could lose the moral high ground. WM will hang itself in due course.

    Whilst there is 30% of people in Scotland that would always vote no the other 70% can all be won. Even with all the media stifling the breaking of all the promises by the unionists it will eventually get through to almost all of the 70%.

    We cannot afford to strike before we have a firm 60% at least. A quick indyref2 is likely to fail. UDI will win us no friends in the international community unless the rape of Scotland gets to a point that we get support from the international community.

    The way things are going with both the UK and Europe right now our opportunity may present itself at about the right time. That could be within 3-5 years. To many unknowns to say better than that just now.

    • macart763 says:

      Yer on fella. 🙂

      Look forward to that.

      It is enormously frustrating, but we are getting there. Look at how far we’ve come in such a short space of time. The independence movement has achieved so much in the past few years and the establishment simply doesn’t know how to handle the situation. The more they thrash in rage and intolerance, the bigger the problem they create for themselves. As I said above, its in their nature. Arrogance, ignorance and a lack of willingness on their part to compromise. We’ve seen it in all its glory only this week.

      The end product? They only expose themselves and THAT is one of the primary functions of the 56, to expose and inform, to hold to account and the ones cashing in on that account will be the Scottish electorate. 😉

  13. Luigi says:

    Excellent article, Macart.

    Ever thought of starting a new blog?

    I agree that we really have to be patient and play rope-a-dope again for a while. The more angry and dogmatic the unionist parties become, the more the YES side hardens (and grows). The unionist fear is understandable. The Red Tory army in Scotland has been wiped out, and there is now an SNP panzer division camped on the banks of the Thames, and the establishment is seriously rattled. Regarding the behaviour of Cameron, Mundell and their cronies, TBH I think there are a number of factors at play here:

    1) Order Order: A need to put the jocks in their place (obvious one). Partly from anger, yes, however it is also a perception concern. The fact that the Tories (successfully) used SNP scare stories to win back UKIP supporters before the GE. After slagging Milliband and Labour for being weak and vulnerable to SNP domination/ aggression, they can hardly now be seen to be giving any ground at all to the SNP contingent at WM, can they? It’s a macho thing, even if it damages them in the long term.

    2) A new landscape: There is a need to establish a workable arrangement (that will last at least a few years). There is still uncertainty – they have a small majority for now, and they are afraid of Robertson and Salmond (not to mention Sturgeon!). Labour they can handle but the SNP are another matter. I think that Cameron et al are still working this one out. They are still not sure how to deal with the 56, so I think the precautionary approach currently holds (don’t concede anything!). It should also be considered that this is also a new situation for the 56 – they are also working things out and will find their way. They need time to settle down and gradually ramp up the pressure (which they certainly will). With the talent available (among the veterans and the rookies), I am sure that WM has no idea. If Mundell’s hair is not grey by December, it will be because he has started colouring it.

    3) The next referendum: If the Tories have concluded that another referendum is inevitable, their may indeed be a temptation to humiliate the democratically elected SNP MPs and goad Scotland to go early, favouring another NO win. If Ref2 fails then an emboldened WM will kick the constitutional question into the long grass for another 10-20 years, and who could resist them?

    4) Asset stripping: If the Tories conclude that Scottish independence is inevitable in the long temr, they will obviously legislate against Scotland and take what they can while they can, There may be a bit of that going on.

    There may be other factors, but these are the main one IMO. I think its a combination of these, but probably point 1 dominates at the moment (but not completely).

    • macart763 says:

      Many thanks Luigi, but I’m just a ranter wi some banter. 🙂

      I’m minding the store while Paul’s off having a well earned rest.

      Pretty good assessment yourself by the by. On the asset stripping? They might have a bit of bother with that one seein’ as how they don’t have tame Scottish MPs to help implement any such legislation now. For instance another shifting of maritime borders debacle won’t be happening anytime soon. That required alteration of the Scotland act and willing Scottish MPs participation to do so. That doesn’t mean to say they wouldn’t try, just that they won’t find the implementation quite so trouble free as on previous occasions. 😉

    • Hazel says:

      Thanks Luigi, you have crystalised things flittering about in my brain. Not sure about point 4 as don’t know enough to comment but I DO underline many comments to this post to be patient and not spoil any progress towards independence. It will come. Wisdom is what is needed, not rash reflex actions in our anger against injustice/arrogance/…..fill in your own!.

  14. Paul says:

    Talking with some what I would consider “hard no voters” last year, in the run up to the GE, they were all in favour of a devo-max type agreement, independence seemed to be a bit too much for them still. “Would you have voted differently had devo-max been an option last year?” is almost always met with the response YES.
    I’m of the opinion that we ARE indeed being goaded into hasty decisions, which could ultimately put the independence option back for decades if it turns out to be another no. I’d prefer to see FFA/Devo-max/call it what you will being the main point in next year’s manifesto, stating a timeline for implementation with the added caveat of a further referendum for failure to deliver on time. A final, final written warning for them, so to speak.
    Now I’m off to pop this in the inbox of a couple of the more recent converts to the cause!

    • Marconatrix says:

      What is the point of putting FFA etc. and/or a referendum in the Holyrood manifesto? Holyrood, even were it to be made up of 110% pro-indy members, can’t deliver these things, they are outwith its powers. FFA etc. and any further referendum(s) are entirely within the gift of Westminster, and clearly WM aren’t minded to be giving away anything anytime soon.

  15. Patience is the watch word. We are guaranteed at least 5 years of Tory rule and, as Stu on Wings points out, there’s a fair chance that’ll will turn into 15 years.

    I think that the Tories will do enough damage to Scotland in the next 5 years to push support for indy well over 50%. Once that happens and is then consolidated by the re-election of the Tories in 2020 (which seems likely) that will be the time to call for IndyRef2, IMHO

Comments are closed.