British nationalism’s dirty little secret

meaningful sense

If the losers of a Holyrood election can appeal to a PM that Scotland didn’t vote for to ensure that they can still get their way even though they put their proposition to the voters of Scotland in an election only for it to be rejected by the electorate, then Scotland is not a democracy in any meaningful sense. It is not democracy when the losers of an election still get to impose their will and overrule the parties who won. Everyone in Scotland knows that the issue of a second independence referendum was by far and away the dominant and defining issue in last year’s Holyrood election. The pro-independence parties were standing on a platform of asking the voters for a Holyrood mandate to hold another independence referendum, for their part the anti-independence parties were asking the voters for a Holyrood mandate to prevent a second independence referendum. The voters listened to the arguments, Anas Sarwar and Douglas Ross told us at great length why they were opposed to another referendum, equally Nicola Sturgeon and the leaders of the pro-independence parties explained why they believed that there needed to be one.

The voters listened, they weighed up the arguments and decided to elect a Scottish Parliament with its largest ever pro-independence majority. By the rules of the election, rules which had been devised and implemented by the anti-independence Labour and Lib Dem parties, the pro-independence parties not only won an election in which they had clearly and unequivocally asked for a mandate for another independence referendum within the five year term of the newly elected Parliament, they won that election handsomely.

Yet here we are over a year on from that election and Ross and Sarwar are still trotting out the same slogans and arguments from that election campaign last year which they lost. It’s as though the election never happened. It is perfectly legitimate for them to continue to oppose Scottish independence, but it is not legitimate for them to appeal to extra-parliamentary authorities in order to ensure that they still get to implement the propositions which they put to the people of Scotland in an election which they lost. Disagreement is at the heart of democracy, but what is also at the heart of democracy is accepting the outcome of a democratic vote. The British nationalists are refusing to do so.

Of course the immediate retort of the apologists for British nationalism is that those of us who seek another independence referendum are not respecting the result of the first one. This is a spurious argument for two reasons, firstly what the British nationalists are trying to do now is to over rule the outcome of a Scottish election whose results were not to their pleasing by appealing to an external authority which has no democratic mandate in Scotland. Supporters of independence are demanding that the people of Scotland be allowed to revisit the question of independence after the people of Scotland themselves explicitly voted for a Scottish Parliament which offers them that choice. It’s not Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP which is demanding another referendum, it’s the people of Scotland.

Secondly it is spurious because what the British nationalist parties are doing is appealing to that external authority in order to ensure that they cannot be held to account for the promises and commitments that they made during the 2014 campaign in order to secure that No vote which they so desperately craved. Meanwhile they are insisting that the side which lost that campaign be held to what was not even a promise, but was rather campaign rhetoric aimed at boosting voter turn out and participation. If the Yes side must be held to account for the “once in a generation” line, what mechanism does Scotland possess for ensuring that the Better Together parties are held to account for their litany of broken promises?

The short answer is that the British nationalist parties are determined to ensure that Scotland has no such mechanism. The dirty little secret of Anglo-British nationalism in Scotland is that Westminster was only ever prepared to concede that the United Kingdom is a voluntary union founded upon the consent of its constituent nations as long as the Westminster parties believed that there was no realistic prospect of Scotland putting that to the test and opting for independence.

Even now British nationalist politicians are still claiming that this is a voluntary union founded upon consent but whether Labour or Conservative, they all refuse to set out the democratic steps through which Scotland can exercise this right. When pressed on this question they all refuse to answer, some going so far as to smugly assert that it’s not for them to come up with the answer, it’s for those who seek another referendum. But when those of us who want that referendum point to the mandate for another referendum that the people of Scotland gave to Holyrood in 2021, and say that this is the only possible democratic means through which the people of Scotland can express their desire to revisit the question of independence those same British nationalist politicians triumphantly proclaim, “No, that’s not it. Try again.”

We all know what’s really going on here, even though it is the very last thing that Labour or the Conservatives would admit to. The two big Westminster parties will never agree to facilitate another independence referendum as long as they fear that there is a chance that Scotland would go for it.

The question of whether a democratic route to another referendum really exists if no one knows what it is and the parties responsible for blocking the referendum refuse to explain it sounds like some sort of Kafkaesque nightmare, but that is the current reality of the state of democracy in Scotland.

The reality is that Scotland is going to have to take its destiny into its own hands and either see the UK Supreme Court rule that Holyrood can go ahead with the referendum without that infamous Section 30 order that the British nationalists are wielding as the key to the prison cell door, or we turn the next UK General Election into a de facto referendum in which Labour and the Conservatives will both stand exposed as democracy denying liars and the true undemocratic nature of the UK can no longer be hidden.

albarevisedMy Gaelic maps of Scotland are still available, a perfect gift for any Gaelic learner or just for anyone who likes maps. The maps cost £15 each plus £7 P&P within the UK. You can order by sending a PayPal payment of £22 to weegingerbook@yahoo.com (Please remember to include the postal address where you want the map sent to).

I am now writing the daily newsletter for The National, published every day from Monday to Friday in the late afternoon.  So if you’d like a daily dose of dug you can subscribe to The National, Scotland’s only pro-independence newspaper, here: Subscriptions from The National

This is your reminder that the purpose of this blog is to promote Scottish independence. If the comment you want to make will not assist with that goal then don’t post it. If you want to mouth off about how much you dislike the SNP leadership there are other forums where you can do that. You’re not welcome to do it here.

You can help to support this blog with a PayPal donation. Please log into Paypal.com and send a payment to the email address weegingerbook@yahoo.com. Or alternatively click the donate button below. If you don’t have a PayPal account, just select “donate with card” after clicking the button.

Donate Button

38 comments on “British nationalism’s dirty little secret

  1. Hamish100 says:

    The essence of the red and blue Brit nats.

    How dare we not vote for them. They are entitled to our vote. Their attitude is summed up with the one finger from the new Tory to the public.

    So Tory/labour/Lib dem- how can I exercise my Democratic right?

    If I cannot this is not a democracy.

  2. Golfnut says:

    There is a democratic route and we are on it, short of violence or cancelling UK or Scottish General elections they are not going to prevent a vote.
    Can I suggest they ‘ suck it up ‘.

    • Yup, as I’ve said a goof few times, the only way to stop Scots voting for independence is to stop them voting completely. The Spanish right sent the heavies into Catalonia because they had no choice but to disrupt / stop the referendum then shut down the Catalan parliament (temporarily). Didn’t matter that the Spanish supreme could had declared the referendum illegal; they could not just stand back and watch, as if the people voted Yes on a decent turnout, that would be their democratic will.

  3. grizebard says:

    You either have democracy or you do not. There is not such thing as a “fair weather democrat”, which is the dead end where the Tories, Labour and LibDems in Scotland have shunted themselves under the pressure of a slow but irrepressible movement of the people of Scotland towards independence. Because only by being able to exercise our own choices for our own benefit can we guarantee prosperity for all.

    • Pogmothon says:

      Correct, go to the top of the class,,,
      “You either have democracy or you do not”.
      It’s like “being a little bit pregnant”, or “a bity deed” or like the Sloan Rangers a “semi-virgin”.
      You are or are not there is no half way house, democracy does not have a parole system.
      It either exists within our land or it DOES NOT.

  4. jfngw says:

    If the Westminster created supreme court rule against a referendum they are in effect over-ruling a democratic political decision of the people of Scotland. There should be no legal involvement in a democratic vote beyond the fact the poll was held in a legal manner. Scotland’s future should not be at the whims, by the tweeting of many QC’s they seem to be grounded in unionism, of judges, This is a decision for the people of Scotland.

    Does any of us really believe Brexit would have been put to bed if the Remain side won. They would be campaigning now for another vote.

    The Labour politicians are actually worse than Tories, as they wander around the world celebrating other countries independence they stamp their boots in the faces of the Scottish electorate. The Tories and LibDem’s (Tories with even less principles) are doing what we expect.

    • grizebard says:

      Oddly enough, the Supreme Court itself has traditionally been very wary of intruding into the political sphere, instead urging political solutions to political questions, so it would be quite a departure for them to do otherwise here. True constitutionalists or merely another cog in the Establishment apparatus? We shall soon see.

      As for Labour, you would think by now that their cognitive dissonance was so stark that the disconnect would have registered with at least some of their more thoughtful adherents. But they seem to be besotted by their toxic self-entitlement and thwarted tribalism. Unless they collectively wake up soon, their own reactionary posture will prove to be their Nemesis in Scotland, I reckon.

      • jfngw says:

        I think Labour believe if they frustrate independence supporters for long enough we will surrender and return to voting Labour, they still haven’t accepted they are a lost cause in Scotland. They believe Scots are English (the say British but they mean English cultural values) in the same way Putin thinks Ukrainians are Russian, I personally can’t really see any difference in Starmer’s and Putin’s stance on this.

        In reality if they go down this refusal route they are more than likely have people turn to more radical parties, I will never return to Labour in the UK (in my lifetime anyway, which isn’t likely to be that long in reality).

      • Golfnut says:

        True constitutionalists or merely another cog in the Establishment apparatus? We shall soon see.
        We shall indeed, meantime the establishments political and media arms are going hell for leather pandering to the English/British nationalist superiority notion by denying the people of Scotland the basic right to determine their own future and even if we do vote to bin the union, they’ll just ignore it.
        When Cameron commissioned the legal opinion from Crawford and Boyle that Scotland had been extinquished, an opinion that has more holes in it than an EU fishing net, we need to establish whether consent from the Queen was and given to consign her most senior and ancient crown to the historical dustbin. That question needs asked, because it’s the legal opinion the government are clinging to for fear life. The Queen via her biographer has made it known she will accept a Yes vote, so crown and government at odds, apparently.

  5. davetewart says:

    Late news

    It’s all over, Coonsillor T Kerr of Shettleston back a Ms P Mordaunt as PM.
    She has huge experience as the Defence Minister of the uk, a whole 85 days. Says the Tory leader in Shettleston.
    No referendum and that Scottish Nationalist nazi party has to go.

    His background tells me his parents were both drug addicts, you would have thought he would be more in tune with the requirements to help people in that position.

    Is the cringe so deep rooted?

  6. Legerwood says:

    The 2021 Holyrood election has not been the only election in which the Unionist parties sand from the ‘No to a 2nd indyref’.

    In every election since the 2017 GE for Westminster the clarion call from the Unionists esp the Tories, has been ‘No to a 2nd indyref’. Ruth Davidson’s big idea. Her only one.

    In EVERY election since 2017 – local, GE Westminster, and GE Holyrood – that position/appeal has been REJECTED by the electorate in Scotland. EVERY election since 2017.

    If that is not definitive proof of the wishes/demand of People of Scotland for a 2nd Indyref then I don’t know what is.

    There is an unarguable mandate for a 2nd indyref. No amount of sophistry or specious arguments by the Unionists can change that or wish it away.

    They campaigned repeatedly on a platform of ‘no to a 2nd indyref’ and LOST repeatedly. Remember that and remind them of that at every opportunity.

    • Alba Laddie says:

      EVERY election both to Holyrood ad Westminster since 2014 has been a “de facto” referendum, of basically Scotland v the Tories with Labour obediently wagging their tail and parroting the same rhetoric.

      Jackson Coleslaw (remember him) even said that “the union is on the ballot paper” before he also got his arse handed to him on a plate and was sacked by the Tories so he could spend more time with his paintings.

      • grizebard says:

        Yes, every time they lose, they magically “forget” why they lost. Cultivated amnesia. Yet oddly enough, they forget not a jot of what was said in favour of independence, and even extrapolate that wildly into the realm of fantasy.

        They keep on playing this faux-stupid game in the hope that eventually they’ll win. Instead they are just revealing themselves to more and more people for the anti-democratic con-artists they truly are.

  7. Dr Jim says:

    The British English Nationalists would love nothing more than to see Scot against Scot or Scot against anyone who’s not a Scot in some sort of quasi 1970s Northern Ireland scenario then they’d get what they want, proof positive that Nicola Sturgeon and her SNP troops were indeed all along terrorists, I can happily assure those British Nationalists not to hold out too much hope on that front because no matter how much Scotland is provoked and politically attacked there’ll be none of what they long for coming from the Independence side, in fact the only people on past performance who have demonstrated their love for beating up old folk and kids in wheelchairs are the supporters of the fascist regime that they are in charge of in England

    We all remember in the run up and aftermath of 2014 the gangs of rampaging union flag waving tough guy football shirt wearing British Nationalists venting their spleens upon innocent folk walking around George Square commiserating one another following the losing vote, squads of riot police on horseback driving them backwards as they lobbed flares into the police horses faces, pictures and video don’t lie and we have them, perhaps it’s time we started posting them on the internet again so the world can once again see the extent to which British Nationalism will go to retain their dictatorship of Scotland

    If the British Nationalists want a war they can have one, it just won’t be the kind of war they’re hoping for and trying to provoke, violence is always an answer short term for the fascist, but truth and words carry history forever and we have all of that in abundance

  8. davetewart says:

    The 1922 committee changes the rules on the fake election.

    They can change their rules and their ‘Minds’, not you lot.

  9. yesindyref2 says:

    This is pretty well written, so claiming “fair use”:

    The rule of law is the political philosophy that all citizens and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers and leaders. The rule of law is defined in the Encyclopedia Britannica as “the mechanism, process, institution, practice, or norm that supports the equality of all citizens before the law, secures a nonarbitrary form of government, and more generally prevents the arbitrary use of power.” The term rule of law is closely related to constitutionalism as well as Rechtsstaat and refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule.

    Use of the phrase can be traced to 16th-century Britain. In the following century, the Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford employed it in arguing against the divine right of kings. John Locke wrote that freedom in society means being subject only to laws made by a legislature that apply to everyone, with a person being otherwise free from both governmental and private restrictions upon liberty. “The rule of law” was further popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. However, the principle, if not the phrase itself, was recognized by ancient thinkers. Aristotle wrote: “It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens.”

    The rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law, including persons who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials and judges.[9] In this sense, it stands in contrast to tyranny or oligarchy, where the rulers are held above the law.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

    The UKSC – the Supreme Court of the UK – is going to have to decide whether the Scotland Act is above the “Rule of Law” which they profess to serve, or whether the Rule of Law takes precedence over the Scotland Act, if and where the two disagree.

    The term rule of law … and refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule.

    Will the UKSC cast off the old but new Victorian England views of Dicey in favour of a more modern while at the same time, more ancient view of “The Rule of Law”?

  10. Rob says:

    I think it’s more fundamental. In their eyes our votes are worthless, because, in their eyes, we are worthless. British nationalism is one ugly beast.

  11. jfngw says:

    Listened to one of the Tory candidates on the news, don’t know which one as it’s irrelevant as they all seem bonkers. He declared his tax cuts would give, on average, a £900 reduction in tax. I suspect if you break it down it will result in me getting a £1 cut and him and his fellows millionaires a massive cut in tax. They do like to dress up something which will benefit the small group of privileged rich people as something to vote for, what’s even worse is people will fall for this con.

    I remember in one of the Godfather films the mafia’s route to increasing their income was to get into government, currently I find it hard to distinguish between the current Westminster corrupted government and the mafia plan, some of them just seem like outright criminals to me.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      The Mafia had an honour code, the Westminster government not so much – only for themselves.

    • grizebard says:

      …don’t know which one as it’s irrelevant as they all seem bonkers

      Same reaction here. All happening in some far-off To(r)yland that is totally alien and irrelevant to me. A thought that is probably shared by virtually everyone in Scotland, actually. It’s hard to keep in focus that these tossers still have the ability to run our affairs, both directly and indirectly.

      As to the “tax cuts bonanza”, your expectation is likely not far off. This offer is political crack cocaine for that miniscule residual fraction of people in England who are paid-up members of the Tory party. The rest of us, we the lumpen unprivileged, are simply expected to endure all the inane wall-to-wall media promotion of the competing pushers and of course “suck up” the predictably woeful eventual consequences. Which will happen irrespective of whomever is eventually chosen.

  12. Alba Laddie says:

    What’s even more galling is to have to ask the pretendy wee “Supreme” Court set up by Blair and his toadies in 1999, when we have our own Supreme Court in Scotland, the Court of Session, set up in 1532, pre-dating the precious Union by some 170-odd years.

    I would have thought our esteemed legal profession in Scotland would have had something to say on that matter, but having dealt with prissy Edinburgh lawyers most of my adult life, both on a personal and professional basis, I think we’ll wait a long time on them putting their head above the parapet.

    • grizebard says:

      Oh, they’ll find their cojones quickly enough, but only after independence is a done deal. Then they’ll cash in.

      We in Scotland do seem to have a notable dearth of historical self-awareness and principle among the well-educated segment of society that almost anywhere else in the world would be at the forefront of defending ancient civic rights. Instead we have the constitutionally anaethesitised.

    • Legerwood says:

      There is and always has been since the Treaty of Union a difference in the treatment of Scots Criminal law and Scots Civil law. The Article(s) in the Treaty of Union dealing with Scots Criminal law were quite specific. Criminal cases would be tried in Scottish Courts and appealed in Scottish Courts. On Civil Law, however, the Treaty was ‘silent’ and as the 18thC progressed appeals in civil cases that had exhausted the process in Scotland were taken for final review/appeal to the Law Lords in the HoL.

      By the end of the 18thC, start of the 19th C the volume of Civil cases from Scotland being appealed to the HoL was substantial. This indicated to the Scottish legal fraternity that the process of Scots Civil Law need an overhaul which was duly undertaken to the betterment of the exercise of Scos Civil Law.

      When the UKSupreme Court was proposed by Tony Blair’s Gov the Scottish Legal fraternity did make a strong representation in favour of retaining the status quo. I think I have a copy of that somewhere.

      In the meantime educate/enlighten yourself reading this excellent article
      https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20150219192756/http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2010/01/19154813/5

      • Alba Laddie says:

        Thanks, I will do. To

      • yesindyref2 says:

        Interesting document, particularly “The Immediate Context”, after the Remit bit.

        I must admit there are times when I wonder if I have a single solitary clue what’s going on, and to be fair, that pleases me.

  13. JP58 says:

    What we have seen from Tory contenders, Starmer & Sarwar this week shows they are now frightened Scotland will vote for independence.
    This will probably increase support for independence which will further entrench their refusal.
    The demographics of independence would indicate that this argument is only going one way and their only chance of stalling the process is a referendum asap where No would have a reasonable chance of winning. This would setback independence case at least I’m short term.
    Not only are they undemocratic they are plain stupid as well.

  14. Ken says:

    Johnston is now gone. Any politician who does not support Independence for Scotland does not last very long.

    The Tories will be voted out. So will any politician who does not respect democracy and people’s rights. International Law supports people’s rights to self governance and self determination if the electorate votes for it.

    The UN principles and charter support the right to self governance and self determination when people vote for it.

    The UN members can be sanctioned if they do not uphold International Law. A judgement can be honoured on appeal.

    Scotland can appeal to the UN and the International Courts of Human rights. UN members have to honour it. Or break International Law and be sanctioned through the Courts.

    Devolution is embedded with the EU/UN principles and human rights Charter. The Westminster Gov have to honour it. Or break International Law again.

    It does not matter who is leader of the Tories. They will be voted out. People have had enough of them. Sick to death of them. They make people sick.

    Scotland to hold the balance of power. If the IndyRef is not honoured. Something will be done about it, through the Courts and the Ballot Box. No one can deny Democracy especially those try to destroy it.

    Tax evaders setting tax rates for other people. That is not democracy, A total farce and illegal. The criminal Westminster Gov. More of them should be in jail or fined under Treasury tax Laws. Not evading tax but having to pay for it. Liars always get found out.

  15. Ken says:

    Under the terms of illegal settlement agreement 1707. Scotland had a right to separate legal system forever. A shared Protestant monarchy.

    A separate Church. The Church of Scotland (Official Church). Led on to a separate education system. More people taught to read, write and communicate. The Enlightenment.

    Eventually led on to tele communication and the internet. Views and information can be shared. In the interest of democracy and people can protest about it. Let their views be heard. Or fall on deaf ears. Politicians not listening to the people. Politicians will lose support and any representation advantage. They will get voted out. To relieve the farce.

    Church education to public education system. Originally supported by the Church. A tithe to the Church. A 10% tax for those who could afford it. Church provided welfare and education. Local community councils administering aid and justice. Local justice system.

    Scotland had the first tertiary education system in the world. Until age 14 originally. Now extended further. The best education system in the world. It could be improved and extended further, without Westminster colossal interference.

    Scottish Democratic ethos created the modern world. The Declaration at Arbroath. One person one vote. Took a while until 1928.

    Scotland was supposed to be treated equally under the terms of the illegal settlement. It was not. Cheated and lied to by Westminster, The Jacobite rebellion brutally put down. The Clearances. The migration. Unemployment higher. No one voted for it. It was illegally imposed by Westminster. Scotland outvoted 10/1. Universal Suffrage 1928.

  16. Bob Lamont says:

    It is indeed a ‘Kafkaesque nightmare’, all 3 principal UK parties reading from the same script as if speaking in unison somehow drowns out what the Scottish electorate have demanded.

    I note this morning in the National an article on PM hopeful “Penny Mordaunt rules out indyref2: ‘It’s the last thing Scotland needs’, which opens to her headline ‘I won’t play Nicola Sturgeon’s games’.
    Her latter statement is at least part true in that she’s playing Westminster’s games – Attempting to portray the referendum as a lone woman’s crusade rather than a democratic demand from Scots, seems doomed to failure when at least half of England support Scots having one irrespective of political affiliation..

    I doubt that these Tory and Labour antics in Scotland will be well received let alone among their own supporters, Sarwar in particular risks alienating half his party and a new party forming.

  17. Ken says:

    Thatcher secretly and illegally took Scottish resources. Kept it secret under the Official Secrets Act. Politicians were swore to secretly. Thatcher illegally gave the British Press over to the right wing. Non Dom tax evading owners.

    Westminster is supposed to guarantee a free and fair Press. Under Gov charter. It does not. Without a free and fair Press there is no democracy. MSM in the UK is right wing biased. Illegally supporting the right wing government.

    Murdoch is a arch criminal. Breaking International Law. He should be in jail. Along with the rest of the non Dom tax evaders. Thatcher gave the British Press over to him by illegally interfering. Then denying it. Trying to keep it secret.

    Politicians in the pocket of the Press. The Press in the pockets of politicians. Illegal non Dom not paying tax. Then setting tax rates for other people. A travesty of democracy and justice. The height of corruption. People will not vote for it. The undiluted criminal acts that cannot be trusted,

    Iraq, Dunblane and Lockerbie kept secret for 100 years. There is no justice.

    Thatcher died a lonely millionaire. The effort was not worth it. You cannot take it with you. In the Ritz courtesy, of the non Dom Barclay brothers. One dead. The other one charged with contempt of court and threatened with jail. The epitaph of a bunch of murdering criminals support illegal wars and killing innocent people.

    The Royals at the head of an illegal masonic organisation. Head of the Church. Christians are supposed to love one another. Not to kill and be greedy. The masonic racist, misogynistic, bigoted secret organisation. Unequal, unjust and unfair. Illegal under the Law. They blackball people.

    The illegal Westminster wars. The Royals support and get involved in killing innocent people. Recognised as head of good causes. The hypocrisy is sickening. Unbelievable. Killing other mothers.

    The establishment killing other people for personal gain. Typical unionist philosophy of irrationality. The nonsensical logic. A travesty. A waste of £Trillions. Other people are paying and dying for it. An absolute scandal.

  18. Bob Lamont says:

    By way of a diversion…

  19. Golfnut says:

    I doubt Penny Mordaunt hits very high on the international who’s who list of famous or highly regarded female politicians or even famous highly regarded anything. Mentioning Nicola might get her a hit on google for all the wrong reasons, joined by her fellow political democracy deniers in the the race to replace Johnson as PM of what is rapidly beginning to look like a failed state.
    I think it’s good for Scotland that so many of them are willing to expose their fascist credentials for the world to see and ultimately judge.

  20. yesindyref2 says:

    People have different opinions as to why Cameron folded over the Section 30 and the Edinburgh Agreement. Some say it’s because of the political fallout if he refused, others that it was so Westminster could keep control. Another view is that with the alternative of Salmond going for Indy Ref anyway, a “homegrown” ref would increase the YES vote.

    But perhaps the alternative would have been actually catastrophic for him and the Union, and it’s worth remembering there was far more ability in his government thatn in May’s, and particularly in the present shower of people who wouldn’t get a job as delivery drivers as they’d end up driving off the white cliffs of Dover – without their van. Never in the history of Torykind has so little competence been shown by so many in Government. Screaming Lord Sutch could have made a better job. Or Guy Fawkes.

    Anyways, a way for the future leader of the Tories to differentiate him or her self from BoJo the Clown, would be to sensibly open negotiations on the S30 and the new Edinburgh Agreement. And perhaps save the UK / rUK from a bigger catastrophe constitutionally – and legally. Timing’s good – with the UKSC not sitting over summer, the new leader in September could head it off. There’s a few utterly devastating shocks in store for them if they keep going.

    • Bob Lamont says:

      I’m convinced the case for an S30 being required was a bluff to set a precedent, but we should find out soon enough when the SC rules on it.

      I doubt any of the PM candidates will be any more obliging irrespective of how the SC rules, the financial adjustments required by losing control of Scotland would be colossal.

    • Golfnut says:

      That sounds like an infinitely sensible proposal but I’m struggling with picking out an individual displaying that particular trait.

  21. Dr Jim says:

    Isn’t it hilarious that all the Tory and Labour leader hopefuls ambitions are to *beat* Nicola Sturgeon

    There are a mountain of issues they could be talking about in regards to Scotland but only one thing is on their collective wee minds *beat Nicola Sturgeon* and what makes it even funnier Nicola Sturgeon isn’t standing for the Westminster parliament in any capacity shape or form, she only goes to England for discussions or meetings that concern Scotland, she lives in a different country from all of these people yet still they must *beat Nicola Sturgeon* the most powerful woman in Britain who doesn’t want any part of the job they’re all trying so hard to get, but first have to prove they can
    *beat Nicola Sturgeon*

    By Jove Scotland must be far more important than even we think it is

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s