Hasta la vista, he wants to come back

hastalavista2The new Prime Minister is due to take over from Boris Johnson on 5 September, that however is unlikely to be the last that we hear from the serial liar and law breaker who spent years plotting and conniving to get the top job only to be wheeched out of it just halfway through a five year term despite winning the Tories their largest majority since Thatcher, after even the craven enablers in his own government started to realise that his dishonesty and entitlement posed a severe risk to their own political careers and the Conservative party’s chances of re-election. They are creatures in Johnson’s own image, concerned only for themselves.

The most likely winner according to a number of opinion polls will be the Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, a woman who has passionately held political convictions, and if those passionately held political convictions aren’t going to help her career advancement she’s got some different political convictions that she will hold just as passionately. Truss is the ultimate political chameleon.

However Truss has successfully positioned herself with the party membership who will choose the next Prime Minister as the Johnson continuity candidate. She has the support of all the prominent Johnson loyalists such as Nadhim Zahawi and Jacob Rees-Mogg as well as the Johnson fan girl Nadine Dorries whose declarations of unconditional loyalty to her spurned prince would make her come across as a deranged stalker if she was not actually a cabinet minister. There are rumours that Dorries will be elevated to the peerage in Johnson’s resignation dishonours list, this will leave a vacancy in her ultra safe Conservative constituency and some have speculated that Johnson intends to take her place rather than face the humiliation of losing his more marginal Uxbridge seat at the next election or if he is found to have mislead Parliament and has to face a recall. Dorries has described the investigation by the Commons Privileges Committee into whether Johnson misled Parliament – spoiler alert – he did, as a witch hunt and “the most egregious abuse of power witnessed in Westminster,” adding that “it will cast serious doubt not only on the reputation of individual MPs sitting on the committee, but on the processes of Parliament and democracy itself.” Would you call a senior politician of a NATO country dropping his security detail and flying over 1,000 miles to have undeclared meetings with an ex KGB agent and Kremlin associate whose son he later ennobled an ‘egregious abuse of power’ or is it just plain and simple treason? Just wondering, Nadine.

Sorry Nadine, the entire world knows that the object of your hero worship isn’t going to leave his wife for you. He will leave her, just not for you.

Truss’s political career has largely consisted of achieving nothing on her own merit but ruthlessly taking credit for the achievements of others. She gave herself the lion’s share of the credit for securing the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori from prison in Iran, which was the result of long and complex negotiations carried out by civil servants at the Foreign Office, for the most part under her predecessors.

Pauline Buchanan Black wrote about her experience of Liz Truss for The New European . At the time Truss was the Environment Secretary. Ms Buchanan Black who was the director general of a tree planting charity, wrote a damning assessment of Truss, saying : “It quickly became apparent to me that Liz Truss is someone who likes to take credit for work that is not hers, and shun those whose work it actually is. I see that as the worst quality a leader can have.”

Truss recently dismissed Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon of being an “attention seeker,” there was a heavy dose of psychological projection there. Truss is notoriously obsessed with publicity and her social media profile so much so that employees at the Department for International Trade supposedly joked that they worked at the Department for Instagramming Truss.

According to Dominic Cummings, who knows a thing or two about transactional politicians, the real reason that Johnson has told his supporters to get behind Truss is because he knows that she will be a disaster. Cummings described Truss “as close to properly crackers as anybody I have met in parliament,” and said that she was called the hand grenade because she destroyed everything she came into contact with. Cummings believes that Johnson thinks that Truss will be just as much of a hand grenade in Number 10 and will prove utterly incapable of rising to the challenges of the cost of living crisis which will bite in a serious way next year. Truss will be a prisoner of the extreme right of the Conservative party and will concentrate on policies aimed at pleasing her core support. We have already seen signs of this in just the few short weeks of the leadership contest. Truss has managed to anger swathes of Scottish and Welsh public opinion, not just independence supporters.

The rising public anger and industrial unrest which will be provoked by the cost of living crisis and the inability of Liz Truss to deal with the widespread problems that will crop up for the government next year with ever increasing frequency will lead to a catastrophic showing in the polls for the Conservatives. The reality is that this is not a cost of living crisis, it’s a cost of corporate greed crisis. Truss will do nothing to deal with that. She will reward the rich with tax cuts. Truss will attempt to crack down on protests rather than tackle the underlying issues which led to the protests in the first place. Johnson is banking on panicking Conservative MPs ditching Truss in order to save themselves just as he was ditched, and then he hopes to ride their wave of discontent back into number 10. The havoc that will be wrought on public services and ordinary working people in the meantime is of no concern to Johnson or the Conservative party.

However should by some miracle the equally insanely ambitious Rishi Sunak beat the odds and take the top job, Johnson and his supporters will devote themselves to plotting against him from the back benches. It will be a repeat of the way in which the right wing extremists of the European Research Group plotted against and undermined Theresa May. Johnson really is the English nationalist Trump. He’s not going to concede defeat even after he’s been forced out of office and a successor has been appointed. Johnson’s baleful legacy will be casting its shadow over British politics for quite some time to come. Johnson is determined to return, which is why he finished his churlish and graceless final statement to the Commons as Prime Minister with the words Hasta la vista, a Spanish phrase which means See you later or until the next time. Hasta la vista baby is most associated with the Terminator from the movies, an amoral machine for wreaking havoc and destruction, completely lacking in empathy or compassion, so very much like Johnson then.


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

98 comments on “Hasta la vista, he wants to come back

  1. A fine summation as always Paul.

    Latest UK Yougov, Scottish subsample:
    51% SNP
    22% Con
    16% Lab
    5% Lib
    4% Grn
    1% RUK

    55% pro-indy. All good.

    Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister
    22% Sunak
    16% Truss

    Brits in Scotland back British Sunak over English nationalist Truss, but of course England prefers the opposite.

    Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister?
    19% Truss
    34% Starmer

    Starmer not exactly popular, but less disliked than Truss among Brits and Scottish unionists.

  2. JP58 says:

    Johnson is now a ‘caretaker’ PM.
    Couldn’t ‘care’ less for anyone other than himself and ‘taken’ the huff because he has been sacked.
    Truss will be an ‘undertaker’ PM – Sunak will be marginally less worse.

  3. Ken says:

    An alternative to Westminster farce and bad decisions. It looks like Independence. 55%+. Johnston muck up has done Scotland a favour. The Westminster unionist chaos about to end.


    • weegingerdug says:

      Support for independence at 55% plus would be great but although encouraging, I would caution that you cannot read too much into a poll’s subsample in isolation.

  4. yesindyref2 says:

    OT. From the National:

    A spokesperson for the UK Government said: “People across Scotland want both their governments to be working together on the issues that matter to them and their families, not talking about another independence referendum.

    “We have today submitted our written case to the Supreme Court, in accordance with its timetable.

    “On the question of legislative competence, the UK Government’s clear view remains that …

    … that since we are asserting that People across Scotland want something or other, that will need to be tested in a referendum to see whether we’re right or whether we’re wrong. So we agree – there IS a need for a referendum, we withdraw our objection.

    If only the UK Government did logic. But they SHOULD be quoted in Court as above.

    • Dr Jim says:

      The UK government spokesperson in declaring that the people of Scotland want both their governments to work together has destroyed the notion that Scotland indeed has a government at all if the UK government can overrule and override the people of Scotlands decision to vote for any proposition put to them by the government that they elect

      How can the Scottish government be a government when the UK retains authority to decide when it’s not and when it is?

      This is not a government in any sense of the word, what the UK demands is a managerial system based on orders issued by the government in England in the same way as each of the British English parties at Holyrood is managed, effectively nullifying any Scottish party from ever being the actual government of Scotland

      The result of this is definite proof of colonialism, not union, because there can be no union when one country can refuse or deny democracy to the other, and England can no longer pretend otherwise, just as Vladimir Putin gave up his pretence of saving Ukraine from itself then openly waging war against it

      Are we to expect more of this dictator attitude towards Scotland? of course we are, threats will be made and hostile words used against us, all the while demonising the figurehead of the rights of democracy to Scotland and independence campaign and directing all media fire and attention towards her and only her as the Svengali who has *confused* and lied to the Scottish people First Minister and SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon

      This strategy by England will prove to be their undoing in all sorts of ways, none of them benefitting England, just as Brexit has damaged them Scottish independence delayed or denied will cripple them

      • yesindyref2 says:

        Well, I don’t think Scotland is a colony.


        But if the UKSC “strikes down”, the reference by the LA (rejects it as premature), or decides that even the simple act of holding a consultative referendum that has been mandated by the Sovereign People of Scotland in a democraticac and legal election as recently as 2021, the 6th election of a Parliament in Scotland – in favour of a UK Parliament that might be soveregin over England according to the Rees-Mogg Victorian equivalent Dicey, but is not over the People of Scotland, nor over our own democratically elected Parliament and Government, then I will be the first to sign up to a petition to the UN to recognise Scotland as a Non-Self-Governing Territiry, and add Scotland to the purview of the Decolonization Committee. With a “z”! A Committee largely administered by Latin American countries.

        Such an overruling of our own Parliament would be proof positive that whatever the origins of the Union – a so-called incorporating Union – a so-called Union of equals, the Tories would have reduced Scotland to the status of a subservient colony.

        • grizebard says:

          Yet if you believe the frequent utterances of any random English politician (eg. Rees-Mogg or Rayner), or their proxies in Scotland (eg. Sarwar or Ross), we’re already there. And though I welcome a resolution of this longstanding issue in the {ahem) “Supreme” Court – supreme over what, exactly? – it shouldn’t actually be necessary, and we shouldn’t be getting any of this gratuitous overlordship (or underdogship, in the case of Sarwar, etc.) from anyone in public life.

          In effect, we’re currently a colony by bluff.

          And the real colonisation is within our own minds. (Present company excepted, of course!)

  5. Skintybroko says:

    Boris and The Donald two divisive characters both looking to get back into the driving seat – democracy is dying and is indeed dead in the Uk enabled by an MSM that clearly don’t give a flying duck over what happens to the majority of the population. The sooner we are out of Westminsters and the USA’s clutches the better. I want my country back and my country is Scotland

    • Dr Jim says:

      We have powerful friends in the US sympathetic to Scotlands cause, just as they were and are to Ireland

  6. beth says:

    very similar to ours

  7. James Mills says:

    We are told by commentators that Boris Johnson and his Cabinet cannot take decisions to alleviate the Cost of Living Crisis as he and they will be gone by September .

    I therefore assume that they will NOT be taking their salaries as they clearly are NOT doing what they are supposedly paid for !

  8. Bob Lamont says:

    Johnson has been sponging off the public purse for so long it would not surprise me in the least if it was he who nudged the Tories into conducting this ludicrous PR exercise for next Tory leader knowing there was a reasonable chance of shaking loose the mantle of worst PM in living memory, thence continue.
    It is worth remembering ALL of Johnson’s cabinet were advanced by him, in full knowledge of their fundamental flaws, he was not looking for competence in government but what could be exploited later, enter the “Iron Lady” impersonator and the last car salesman you ever met, dear God which of the <160,000 blue rinse crusties will Surrey choose, the one ring to rule over us all ?
    Rigging the game before the first dice is thrown is a Tory habit, any who cannot see UKIP, Farage or the Brexit Party, or indeed the current NI debacle as other than Tory creations really do need their heads examined

    As an earlier comment made clear over Angela Rayner's interview by Ian Dale in Edinburgh (with it being the Fringe, farce is expected) but Angela's opinions make priceless reading – https://archive.ph/ClJNE
    IIRC, even Ashton-under-Lyme has opinions approximating to elsewhere in England, a majority in favour of the Scots having a new referendum as things have fundamentally changed, it is their democratic right.
    Angela, purporting to represent her constituents, overrules that majority opinion to present the precise opposite and call it "democracy".
    With that degree of duplicity built into UK politics is it any wonder Johnson survives ?

    • grizebard says:

      After BoJo’s replacement takes over (at least in name), I’m just wondering how long it will be before he gets a raid from one or another law enforcement agency.

      I can’t make up my mind if the “we need Scotland” stuff from Labour politicos like Rayner is deliberate mendacity or a genuine display of laziness and plumb ignorance on their part. (The political facts of the matter are easily determined.) Either way, not only is it tangible proof of completely remorseless self-entitlement – the very thing that lost Scotland for Labour in the first place – it’s also tangible proof that Scotland’s only purpose, as far as the entire English political establishment is concerned, is the total self-effacing servicing of their needs and demands at our own expense. And in this case, just to rub it in our faces, delivered right on our very own doorstep.

      At least one thing is clear (just as elsewhere), the real self-serving motivations for clinging on to us are becoming ever more obvious, and now even openly stated. Their oft-expressed “solidarity” is only one-way. As it always has been.

  9. Alec Lomax says:

    “Lock him up !”

  10. Alex Clark says:

    How many front pages of tomorrow’s papers might this make?

    • Stephen McKenzie says:

      Well I do know that James Cook from BBC Scotland will not be inclined to mention it at all.

      I saw it in an email honest..

  11. Welsh_Siôn says:



    The Telegraph

    Jeremy Corbyn: Second Scottish independence referendum ‘the right thing to do’

    Max Stephens

    Tue, 9 August 2022 at 7:30 pm

    Jeremy Corbyn has backed Nicola Sturgeon’s push for a second Scottish independence referendum, claiming a new vote is “absolutely the right thing to do”.

    Speaking at an Edinburgh Fringe event on Tuesday, the former Labour leader, now an independent MP, said it was “not right” for Westminster to tell Scotland that it “cannot have a choice”.

    Downing Street has announced that it has submitted its written case to the Supreme Court arguing that the First Minister’s call for a second referendum lies outside the power of Holyrood.

    In an interview with the Times journalist Graham Spiers at the event, called In Conversation With Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader said: “If the people of Scotland, the Scottish parliament demand a referendum, then that’s absolutely the right thing to do.

    “I don’t think it’s right for the Westminster government to say no, you cannot have a choice. You have to have a choice. You have got to do it with your eyes open.

    “What’s the economic option that’s on offer? What’s the relationship that could be and would a federal settlement work better?”



    Source: https://uk.yahoo.com/news/jeremy-corbyn-second-scottish-independence-183000269.html

  12. yesindyref2 says:


    You still see people debating how the franchise for elections in Scotland, and specifically the referendum, should be changed. But they fail to take account of 1). any timetable for changes, and 2). any party interest in doing so (e.g. SNP / Greens). So here are quotes from official sources:

    In December 2017, the Scottish Government indicated its decision to take forward reform of devolved aspects of electoral law by launching a consultation on electoral reforms for Scottish Local Government and Scottish Parliament elections.

    and note that to launch a consultation, work would have been done before that non only by politicians, but by the civil service. For the sake of argument, that takes it back to September 2017 at the latest.

    The Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Bill became an Act on 01 April 2020

    Introduced (20 June 2019)


    So it took nearly 3 years from setting up a consulation to having the assented Act.. So if suddenly now the SNP decided to change the franchise for some insane reason to stop sections of the People of Scotland who live and work here, from voting, and did that in September 2022, it wouldn’t become an Act until April 2025.

    Hello you franchise debaters, that’s 2 years after the proposed Indy Ref 2

    In addition of course, the Referendums Act 2020 would have to be changed at least to refer to the new franchise Act rather than the old one, and receive Royal Assent, and quite possibly, the actual short referendum bill with dates.

    So any debate about Franchise in connection with Indy Ref 2, is hot air.

    • grizebard says:

      Is some zealot somewhere really spelunking this ancient rabbit hole again? These monomaniacs may be few, but they just can’t seem to refrain from scratching their particular itch, whatever it is, and the facts be damned. In public, too, mind you, so the rest of us have to endure their inane diversions as well before they dissipate again.

      • yesindyref2 says:

        There’s also muppets saying that even if the UKSC finds for the LA and ScotGov before Christmas, with recesses and the weeks needed to get a Bill through Holyrood there isn’t time to get Indy Ref 2 in Ocotber 2023.

        They’re relying on ignorance, stupidity and an inability to do some very simple research.

        “Emergency Bill”


        The Coronavirus (Scotland) Bill became an Act on 06 April 2020

        In Introduced (31 March 2020)
        1 Stage 1 (1 April 2020)
        2 Stage 2 (1 April 2020)
        3 Stage 3 (1 April 2020)
        L Act

        2 days for introduction and all stages, another 5 days for Royal Assent.

        The ScotGov has already indicated the short Ref Bill which is little more than question and date, will follow an accelerated process.

        • James says:

          What ever process the use the legislation is not going to be intoduced before the start of next year as this has got to happen first :

          If the subordinate legislation is subject to the negative procedure, the Scottish Ministers
          consult the Electoral Commission on the wording of the question before making
          the subordinate legislation, and
          at the time when the instrument containing the subordinate legislation is laid
          before the Scottish Parliament, lay before the Parliament a report stating any
          views as to the intelligibility of the question which the Commission have
          expressed in response to the consultation.

          Electorial Commision have said that this will take about 12 weeks.

          But as you said even with this no reason the legislation cannot pass in time.

          • yesindyref2 says:

            The Electoral Commission testing the question doesn’t seem to have to wait till the result of the UKSC reference, in fact they were asked back in Feb 2020 to retest the Question, even though the Bill had not been introduced in Holyrood, but due to Covid decided they were unable to use focus groups, and then Sturgeon paused work because of Covid.


            Then there’s this:

            Except in certain circumstances, the question should be tested if it is to be used in the next term of the Parliament. The Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 will require the Electoral Commission to consider the wording of the referendum question and publish a statement of any views of the Commission as to the intelligibility of the question as soon as reasonably practicable after a referendum Bill is introduced.

            Click to access draft-independence-referendum-bill.pdf

            I presume the request could be resubmitted in September as it was in Jan 2020 and be finished by January 2022 – or that the EC can be asked to accelerate their process (their bill is paid by ScotGov). Or “certain circumstances” would include the S34 referral to the UKSC which pre-empts the S33 one.

            I personally think it exceedingly unlikely as Mr Kipling might say, that the ScotGov would still claim a Referendum going ahead in October 2023, and would tend to believe them rather than someone (not you) with an axe to grind against the SNP who has not even considered “Emergency Bill” in any discussion over timetables.

            Minimum campaign time recommended is 3 months I thinkj, not 6 months, but there can be a large degree of things happening in parallel.

  13. Golfnut says:

    Has anyone come across the details of the uk gov submission to the SP.

  14. Hamish100 says:

    Ot /From the bbc

    Between 2002 and 2018, Scottish Water had invested nearly 35% more per household than the average for English water companies, researchers at the University of Greenwich found.
    And the English companies had paid their shareholders dividends of £18.9bn, between 2010 and 2021 – about half the amount they invested.

    This is one example of how Scotland have managed our resources better.

    The article also jealousy points out that 90% of fresh water resources lies within Scotland.
    Wales should be warned. Westminster will turn more green valleys into English oasis’s.

  15. Dr Jim says:

    The Scottish water *story* is growing legs now, practically every programme in England talking about water shortages seems compelled to mention Scotland and how that if we have so much of the stuff it should be treated as a *UK asset* translated: *English asset* so get it pumped south down to the people *who need it*

    One minute they want to build a wall against us disobedient unruly Scots then they remember who they are and revert to character and just take whatever Scotland has

    If Scotland was part of America we’d be the white Mexican black people, but we’re *part* of the UK and they wouldn’t ever call us bad names or despise us *verminous Scots* would they

  16. Alex Clark says:

    There is a 2 page document accompanying the full written submission of the Advocate General to the Supreme Court which focuses heavily on having the Court throw out the case without hearing any argument as to the competence of the Scottish Government to hold a referendum on Independence.

    You can read it here:


    It looks to me very like an attempt to kick the can down the road but also an attempt to have the Supreme Court rule that the Lord Advocate herself does not have ‘the necessary degree
    of confidence’ to be able to advise Scottish Ministers that the Bill would be within legislative

    He then uses this to argue that:

    The consequence of that lack of confidence means that neither the basic initial stage, nor any other stage contemplated by the SA as necessary before a Bill’s competence could be referred to this Court, will occur. The Bill is not going to be introduced into the Scottish Parliament; no proceedings on the Bill are going to take place in the Parliament; no final text of the Bill will
    emerge from the Parliament to await Royal Assent; there will be no view from the Presiding
    Officer about competence (ss.31(2) and (2A) SA) etc.

    The above paragraph is probably the one that the media will jump on, he wants the case thrown out now with the assumption being that when that happens there can never be a bill passed for an Independence referendum by the Scottish Parliament but he wants that done without the Supreme Court hearing the arguments from the Scottish Government or the SNP as to why in their view such a bill would be within competence.

    That’s my take on it anyway but probably misses the point completely lol, hopefully, someone like Aileen McHarg or Andrew Tickell will give us their opinion soon.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      I think the 2 page document is from July, when the AGS wanted the court to chuck the reference out in its preliminaries as premature.

      Lord Reed decided after that to hear both that request and the case itself at the October hearing – an effective defeat for the AGS, sob, boo-hoo (well, he did disrespect our own Lord Advocate).

      • Alex Clark says:

        Cheers, I wasn’t aware of it until now so thought it also came out today.

        • yesindyref2 says:

          I think it did come out today after the court gave permission for it too, to be published. I couldn’t find it before either.

  17. James Mills says:

    UK Government’s submission to the Supreme Court on the Scottish Referendum has recently been published and is overwhelmingly concise !

    ”Gonnae no dae that ! ”

  18. Capella says:

    The National reports on the newly published arguments of the Advocate General:

    Supreme Court: UK argument to block independence referendum published in full

    THE UK Government has set out its arguments for denying indyref2 in newly published papers detailing case to the Supreme Court.

    The Advocate General for Scotland – Westminster’s top lawyer on Scottish affairs – has argued that Holyrood does not have the ability to hold a second referendum without the UK Government’s permission.

    The papers, published on Wednesday, argued that the SNP’s proposed referendum bill – which is of central importance in the Supreme Court case – related directly to reserved matters as set out in the Scotland Act, which dictates the terms of the devolution settlement.

    The Advocate General more broadly argues the Court should reject the Scottish Government’s reference to have the case heard, calling the SNP’s case “abstract and premature” because the bill has not yet been introduced to the Scottish Parliament.

    READ MORE: It’s time for Scotland to ‘sack the board’ and get independence

    Their argument also rests on Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain’s admission she is not confident the referendum bill published by the Scottish Government is within Holyrood’s powers.


  19. Capella says:

    Notes from the Festival Fringe.

    Kevin McKenna: Angela Rayner only views Scotland as a source of election fodder

    THE Festival of Politics is a relatively new – and cringeworthy – addition to the Edinburgh Fringe. It’s surely also the most contrived. This red corduroy and ponytail carnival of narcissism provides a tidy emolument for professional pamphleteers whose private incomes permit them to flit in and out of dinner parties in Kelvinside and Giffnock and Strathbungo.

    It also attracts flotillas of professional politicians eager to cut a renaissance dash, rambling on about their favourite books and films. It’s a down-at-heel version of Desert Island Discs but with none of the charm.

    Scattered throughout the Fringe are other events where politicians strive to make themselves appear normal. Sometimes you’re left to wonder if maybe you’ve wandered into the comedy festival by mistake. We were treated to one such occurrence this week.

    Angela Rayner is deputy leader of the Labour Party, shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, shadow minister for the Cabinet Office and shadow secretary of state for the future of work. She is often regarded by her admirers as the woman who keeps Sir Keir Starmer honest.

    This is a polite way of saying that it’s her job to tell her boss each day that he was actually elected leader of the Labour Party and that Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition isn’t a junior cabinet post in the Conservative government.


    • Legerwood says:

      The Festival of Politics is not a ‘relatively new addition to the Festival Fringe’ as Mr McKenna asserts.

      It is a stand alone Festival held in the Scottish Parliament. This year is its 18th session after a hiatus due to Covid. I think previous programmes are archived on the Scottish Parliament website. This year’s programme can be found here

      It usually takes place over a 3 day period in August when the Edinburgh International Festival is on, the Fringe and festivals such as the Edinburgh International Book Festival and the Edinburgh International Television Festival.

      There may well be Fringe events this year, and in previous years, involving politicians but they are not the Festival of Politics. If I remember correctly Mr Salmond had a ‘show’ at the Fringe after he stepped down as leader.

    • ArtyHetty says:

      Yep Rayner knows what game she is playing, she is nasty when it comes to Scotland, but not daft. It’s all part of the ‘the SNP let Thatcher in’ meme. Family in NE England came out with that myth having seen it shared on facebook, as gospel. A reason to hate the SNP and it is used to blame Scotland for England’s voting preferences, if they bother to vote at all that is, and blaming Scotland for their own choice of government. The divide and rule tactic is alive and well, Scotland being made scapegoat for the Eton mess of Brexit England and the terrible consequences in rUK.

      As for Johnson, shame London UK doesn’t have an equivalent to the FBI. The UKok is in the hands of Putin, and all the security services could do, was say maybe a bad idea to place Putin’s cronies in the HOL’s, while Johnson stuck his two fingers up at them and did just that. There must be so much secrecy going on behind the scenes, no wonder they need Johnson back in office, lots of shredding to do.

      Truss will be easy to manipulate and do as she is told. The fact that Scotland is still shackled to this dreadful disunited ‘kingdom’ is embarassing and becoming more terrifying as each day passes.

      Great article Paul, you have the measure of things and I like your analysis 🙂 of Dorries, she is headed for the HOL’s, and I just had a vision of her in all the garb, grinning, how dreadful.

      • Bob Lamont says:

        I wouldn’t put much credence on Putin or Johnson re who is subservient to whom, both are the faces of mafias in different countries, London’s is one of the oldest.

      • Dr Jim says:

        What an argument to make to support your politics that England voted for the English Tory party and English Labour didn’t like it because they lost and it’s all the SNP the party in Scotland that doesn’t even stand for election in England’s fault

        The English Labour party are the most pathetic bunch of wimp out 9 year olds, but to insult people’s intelligence by pretending to be serious about it is even worse

        • JP58 says:

          Labour have decided that they need to denigrate SNP to try and attract voters in rest of UK (England primarily). In doing so they are further alienating tens of thousands of former Labour voters in Scotland (including myself).
          This emphasises that politically Scotland is drifting further apart from RUK and strengthens the case for independence. How can the Labour Party I’m Scotland countenance this foolish self harm?

  20. Golfnut says:

    Don’t know if anyone has waded through the uk gov submission, I’m up to the ‘ bit ‘ that deals with the Scottisd Parliaments Competences. Up to this point the argument appears to be that the SP should bin the case.

    This is a reminder from the Attorney General of what the SP should do or should have done.

    ‘This Court has previously made clear that it retains an inherent discretion to decline to accept a reference of a devolution issue.’

    Brave man or a fool?

    Did the SP not make clear that they were accepting the Lord Advocate application without the need for further reference.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      They said they’d consider that at the same time as the case itself, as the arguments would be broadly similar.

    • Bob Lamont says:

      IIRC it is a clause in the Scotland Act to provide legal clarification to the LA which she used to make the referral – What the AG appears is attempting to do is conflate that process with case law which has precedent. It is not a case.

      It’s very clear that the LA’s referral and the timing of it caught London with it’s knickers round it’s ankles, now it’s only the trousers around the ankles, knickers repositioned, a dangling strip of toilet roll, and a very bad lingering smell…

      HMG’s desperation to stuff the 2013(?) legal uncertainty genie back into the bottle so they can continue with this absurd “illegal referendum” game is quite preposterously political.

      • grizebard says:

        Quite a mental picture you paint there! {laugh}

        The $64k question is, will the SC simply comply with the UKGov’s attempt to peremptorily re-bottle the indyref genie? Personally, I don’t believe it will. Not least because the reputational damage caused to it would be too great. (Then sucks to you, Glenn Campbell, DRoss, Rayner et al.) But also because, although the indyref question has the English Establishment in all of a tizzy (as evidenced by the increasing protestations of “no, no, nooooo”), maybe, just maybe, their legal Lordships and Ladyships might not only wish to provide a means of unblocking the current political logjam, they might even possibly relish the challenge of developing a proper constitutional basis for the various parts of the Union to replace the hoary old English presumptions of Dicey.

        Well, that’s perhaps too rose-tinted an expectation, but still, I can’t see the SC standing up for an overweening UKGov that is hell-bent on putting a lid on the political kettle until it explodes. If the jurists have any sense of the constitutional position of Scotland, they’ll give the SG a free pass. Or possibly instead try to take a “middle way”, and require the two governments to agree by mandating an S30.

        • Bob Lamont says:

          Apologies, too much Police Squad etc is my excuse for the mental picture, I like mental… Heavy mental I leave to those more conversant with the form, GB News, Adolf and Nigel spring to mind, and indeed Scotland’s unforgettable Juan Dwktn sorry (wallies in) Direction sorry Kerr…

          I agree with your synopsis, but frankly the SC should not be in this position at all – Having to rule that the AG in 2012 was talking shite probably weighs more heavily on them than the current AG’s submissions, but their duty is to Law – Despite comment to the contrary over political bias I believe they will adhere to law for both jurisdictions, and it is this which is in the frame – Scots Law. That scares the willies out of HMG.

          There is no get out clause for the Union, they made the bed before any of us were even born, they can now lie in it.

  21. yesindyref2 says:

    I’m going to read that full submission tonight, but meantime from McHarg another interesting brand new publication:

    Click to access CBP-7460.pdf

    This caught my eye (well, I looked for it):

    The Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction over “devolution issues” (that is, competence issues arising from the 1998 Scotland, Northern Ireland and Government of Wales Acts) was transferred to the Supreme Court in 2009.


    Prior to 2009, the JCPC would typically meet in the Privy Council Chamber in Downing Street. It now shares the former Middlesex Guildhall with the UK Supreme Court and pools administrative resources.

    i.e., outside Parliament, a point made, errr, somewhere before. I think it’s an effective change from when the House of Lords was the last appeal for civil matters from Scotland – terms of the Act of Union with England.

  22. Capella says:

    The Advocate General’s case, as reported by The National, looks extremely thin.

    the bill has not yet been introduced to the Scottish Parliament.

    We already know, because Andrew Tickell pointed it out, that the Scottish Government CAN seek a ruling from the Supreme Court about a bill not yet in process. FAIL

    …the Scottish Government’s own Law Officer considers to be outside competence.

    The Lord Advocate only admitted to a lack of confidence, which is not the same as considering it outside competence. FAIL

    The scope of the reservation is self-evident: it is the Union. It is not the dissolution of the Union: whether a referendum were to support or reject independence, it would equally relate to the Union. The way in which the question on the referendum is framed, neutral or otherwise, does not affect the connection to the reserved matter.

    The bill does not affect the Union. Is the Advocate General saying that the Scottish Government can’t ask the Scottish people for their opinion? Referendums are not reserved. FAIL


    • Golfnut says:

      scope of the reservation is self-evident: it is the Union. It is not the dissolution of the Union: whether a referendum were to support or reject independence, it would equally relate to the Union. The way in which the question on the referendum is framed, neutral or otherwise, does not affect the connection to the reserved matter.

      The above assertion is indeed the real issue in this action, the Scottish government know it, as does the UK gov and the SP. If the SC decides that the referendum goes ahead as planned, that judgement doesn’t in truth confirm the SG/ Parliaments authority to hold the referendum, rather that the Union Parliament doesn’t have the authority to stop it.

    • yesindyref2 says:

      Mmm, considering the incorrect reportage in the National, I’m beginning to wonder if the AG for S has managed to become a reporter there in disguise.

      • yesindyref2 says:

        The Lord Advocate has declared this school of thought complete bunk, in so many words.

        (Somebody) wept, from the context, he doesn’t even know the difference between the Lord Advocate and the Attorney General for Scotland.

        Give me strength 😦

        • grizebard says:

          Yes, one would expect that commentators would at least know the basics, and thus at least comprehend the difference between Scotland’s LA and London’s AGforS before leaping into public text. But in the context of indy until now, ignorance has never hindered any misinformed fool, and well-intelligenced malignity any dodgy influence peddler, alas, so why should things be any different now…?

        • Capella says:

          I don’t understand your point. Hamish Morrison, who wrote the article, correctly uses the term Lord Advocate to refer to the senior Scottish law officer, Dorothy Bain, and Advocate General for Scotland when referring to the Westminster senior law officer, Keith Stewart.

  23. jfngw says:

    Reading the short headlines it seems the UK Gov case is Scotland has no say in its membership of the union unless they have permission of England. They will claim it is the UK but as far as Westminster is concerned England is the UK. Looks more like an annexation than a union to me.

    • Dr Jim says:

      That’s the whole point of the case, to create the conundrum in the minds of the Supreme court over how to issue a judgment that denies Scotland is indeed a country and is the property of England to do with as it chooses

      The Supreme court are being forced into admitting what the English government refuse to admit that in their belief Scotland is property and not in any kind of union whatsoever, so how do they diplomatically do that without creating the anger that they expect might follow from such a ruling

      They’ll either kick it out as a legal decision to be made by them or come up with some very long winded wordy inventiveness to shilly shally around saying very much of anything at all

  24. I still don’t see how the independence of any UK member nation is a ‘union matter’. That’s contrary to international law in terms of self-determination.

    Devolution is a union matter, as is any UK legislation. We can’t be in the union and have devolution unless the other members agree with this. Likewise, no union member should be able to change UK law unilaterally (albeit England does this effectively all the time).

    But Scottish independence is a purely Scottish matter. Just as Brexit was up to the British parliament and not Brussels.

    Scottish independence does not change the law anywhere but Scotland. English, Welsh & N. Irish law are unchanged. All that would happen is Westminster could no longer legislate for Scotland. That it. It’s ability to legislate for the union would be unchanged. It’s just Scotland would not be a part of said union.

  25. JoMax says:

    Dr Jim @10.44 above “The Scottish water *story* is growing legs now, practically every programme in England talking about water shortages seems compelled to mention Scotland….”

    Johann Lamont alert!! The Union is all about ‘pooling and sharing’. They take our assets and in return we ‘scrounge’. In Unionist politics that would seem to work OK.

    • Dr Jim says:

      I never manage to get that phrase right, is it *Pooling and taking* *Pooling and keeping* *Fooling and stealing* or pishing down our necks and telling us it’s raining ??

      I know it’s something like that

    • Stephen McKenzie says:

      Could the poor folk down south not use the English Lake District as a supply?

      Maybe they can also divert some to Wales to atone for the Welsh Valleys that were flooded in the past to supply England?

  26. yesindyref2 says:

    Jings, a comment on the National, where do I start?:

    Surely the Advocate general for scotland should be masking the case for Scotland as her title suggests, rather than undermining it!

    1). She is a he, and is Keith Stewart

    2). HE is a UK Government man, and the UK Government sees it as its bounden duty to make the case against Scotland in every way it can, while insulting any Scottish office holder it can..

    3). The Lord ADVOCATE is a she, and has two main dutues. One is to advise and represent the Scottish Government, but the other is to represent the public interest. Her initial submission was neutral (both sides), as it was made in the public interest. But at the hearing she will be representing the Scottish Government.

  27. Alex Clark says:

    Joanna Cheery “responding for the SNP” to an article in the Herald.

  28. stewartb says:

    Thanks are due to yesindyref2 for drawing attention to the newly published briefing from the House of Commons Library written by David Torrance: ‘The Privy Council: history, functions and membership.’

    Source: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7460/CBP-7460.pdf

    This body, currently with over 700 members appointed for life, is the epitome of the anachronistic and candidly, ridiculous state of the UK constitutionally. Having said that, Torrance’s account makes for an interesting read …. if you are so inclined! With apologies for length, here are some ‘highlights’!

    Formally, the main function of the Privy Council is to ‘advise the Queen on giving formal effect to Proclamations and Orders in Council, legal instruments which are made under prerogative or statutory powers. Such instruments are formally enacted by the Queen “with the advice of Her Majesty’s Privy Council”, although IN REALITY THE CROWN ACTS ON THE ADVICE OF MINISTERS.’ (my emphasis – indicating some redundancy here perhaps?)

    Torrance explains: ‘Privy Council meetings take place, on average, once a month. Only those Privy Counsellors summonsed (usually Cabinet ministers) by the Lord President of the Council attend, THE QUORUM BEING THREE. The Queen presides, and the meeting is attended by the Clerk of the Privy Council, who authenticates the monarch’s assent to measures with their own signature and records the names of those present. All stand during the meeting. The monarch says “approved” or “referred” in response to each item of business.’

    The briefing recounts some ‘opinions’ on the institution:

    ‘The constitutional academic Paul F. Scott has characterised the Privy Council as “the centre of the British constitution”, with the consequence that any “attempt to explain its functions tends towards vacuity”.’

    We learn that new Privy Counsellors first attend a rehearsal before the formal, oath taking ceremony. Former Labour MP and minister Richard Crossman described his experience thus:

    ‘There we were, 16 grown men. For over an hour we were taught how to stand up, how to kneel on one knee on a cushion, how to raise the right hand with the bible in it, how to advance three paces towards the Queen, how to take the hand and kiss it, how to move back 10 paces without falling over the stools – which had been carefully arranged so that you did fall over them’.

    Crossman, who was Lord President of the Council between 1966 and 1968, regarded the Privy Council an “absurd waste of time” and the “best example of pure mumbo-jumbo you can find”.

    Torrance adds: ‘The former Labour MP and minister Roy Hattersley believed the Privy Council was “not just an anachronism” but an element of the UK constitution which existed “to prove that real power lies in places remote from everyday life”.

    “The privy council is PART OF THE DEFERENTIAL SOCIETY. A genuinely radical government – anxious to promote the idea either of equality or meritocracy – could politely suggest to the Queen that she confirmed her desire to modernise the monarchy by announcing that she no longer needed “privy” advisers.”

    Finally from me, Torrance provides this historical insight:

    ‘Until 1707 the Privy Council of Scotland met in what is now the West Drawing Room at the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh. In May 1708 the Scottish Council was abolished. The Union with Scotland (Amendment) Act 1707 provided that Queen Anne should have: “but one Privy Council in or for the Kingdom of Great Britain to be sworn to Her Majesty Her Heirs and Successors as Sovereigns of Great Britain and SUCH PRIVY COUNCIL SHALL HAVE THE SAME POWERS AND AUTHORITIES AS THE PRIVY COUNCIL OF ENGLAND LAWFULLY HAD USED AND EXERCISED AT THE TIME OF THE UNION.”

    ‘According to A. V. Dicey and Robert S. Rait, abolition of the (Scottish) Privy Council “caused little or no irritation in Scotland” as it had been regarded as “the means by which THE POLICY OF THE SOVEREIGN’S ENGLISH ADVISERS WAS MADE EFFECTIVE IN SCOTLAND”.’

    So NEVER a Union of equals!

    • yesindyref2 says:

      Well spotted, and of course it wasn’t debated or approved by the Scottish Parliament as that had been dissolved by proclamation by Queensberry in a hasty and unapproved move, as otherwise the Union could not have even started. Didn’t take long to break the spirit and perhaps terms of the Treaty and Act.

  29. yesindyref2 says:

    Very sad seeing some posters on another blog actually supporting the UK’s AG for Scotland’s arguments against the Lord Advocate, and our FM. There’s also an insidious increase in Blut und Boden, in spite of the actual blogger being against it.

    • Dr Jim says:

      Yes but we all know what they’re up to don’t we, Independence is not the priority for them and much of their grasp of how politics works is let’s say,, I’ll be polite, tenuous infantile bluster

  30. Welsh_Siôn says:

    Another interview at the Fringe:


    Nicola Sturgeon predicts Scotland will vote Yes to independence by comfortable margin

    10 Aug 2022 3 minute read

    Nicola Sturgeon has said she believes Scotland will vote Yes to independence by a “comfortable margin”, when asked about her plans for a second referendum.

    The First Minister also discussed post-independence energy prices and trade with the rest of the UK as she was interviewed at an Edinburgh Fringe show. The Scottish Government has referred its plans to hold a second referendum on independence to the Supreme Court, amid a dispute with the UK Government over the jurisdiction of the legislation.


    • Dr Jim says:

      If anybody can do this she can, she knows it can’t be won by foot stamping shouty rhetoric, that’s been done and is a burst balloon, we’re in the endgame now and it’s serious work for a serious politician who’s cultivated all the right allies standing beside and behind her for when the time comes, no matter what England does they’re coming out of this smelling like bad fish

  31. Interesting that the UK government have stated in their submission that while iref2 is proposed as advisory, the outcome could not be ignored and would ultimately have to be acted upon.

    Except legally it would not have to be. Politically / democratically/ human rights wise it would. But the judges are concerned with law, not politics…

    • Dr Jim says:

      Exactly right and why they’re throwing all of their dice at Scotland to head us off at the pass before we even get there
      If the English government were so confident in its own power and authority they’d just be saying there will not be a referendum no not ever under any circumstances, no matter what any judge or court says

      Every move they make is predictable and directed by Nicola Sturgeon because all they have in their locker is responding to what she does, they have no moves or plans of their own, they’re defending their goal at the moment because her team won’t let them out, and if you follow football that non strategy never ends well for the defenders

    • Bob Lamont says:

      This is indeed the same absurd argument SoSS Moore came up with pre indyref, vigorously contested by SG lawyers at the time.

  32. Statgeek says:

    Just clarifying…

    The UK Gov wants to prove in court that the Scottish people are not sovereign, when it comes to Scottish matters, but Westminster is.

    Taking back control? End of Holyrood, should the UK Gov’s case prevail? That would be their logical endgame, imho.

    • Dr Jim says:

      Of course they want to end Holyrood, but if they do they just created Northern Ireland all over again, only worse, this isn’t 1970s Belfast where England depends on a gun and propaganda filled newspapers and TV media to solve their problems for them

      Nicola Sturgeon is the democratically elected FM of an internationally recognised country whether England likes that or not, she is the most high profile politician in and from these islands and the world knows and respects her for it, she’s not only popular here but incredibly popular overseas with most European leaders and the American president

      There is no one in politics who doesn’t know who Nicola Sturgeon is, she’s made 100% sure of that, world leaders come to Bute House specifically to visit her, so for England to try their heavy handed approach on Scotland will only lead to them coming off the worse for it

  33. Alex Clark says:

    Yoons be raging LOL

  34. Not-My-Real-Name says:

    @ Dr Jim on 10 Aug @ 10.44am

    In 2019 Peter Murphy, director of consultancy firm UK Water (not to be confused with Water UK), said Scotland is the answer to England’s problems. He told iNews: “Loch Ness has more water than all of England and Wales combined. And that’s just one loch Scotland has more than 31,000 freshwater lochs, and most are unused”

    I also saw a video on Twitter where Richard Tice said on HIS programme on Talk TV joking that “since 1970’s we (England) should have got a pipe from Glasgow ( ??) to England to move water to areas here (England) suffering drought …would have solved the problem”.

    SKY paper review talking about headline on drought in South East England and Susie Boniface said “good idea for areas impacted by drought would be to move water from areas in UK which sees a lot of rainfall to areas that do not” (Hmm wonder where she means).

    However the BBC tweeted in 2021 “Warning of water scarcity in Scotland following dry weather “ and in 2022 tweeted “Why is a wet county like Scotland facing water scarcity “? ….see OUR water apparently, like Oil and wind, according to the BBC, is running out…..so that being the case surely the SAME BBC would NOT suggest pooling and sharing THAT resource with England…would they’

    Meanwhile Wales supplies ,via 133 billion litres of water per year, to Severn Trent customers in England……..of course who can forget Capel Celyn the rural community to the north west of Bala in Gwynedd, Wales, in the Afon Tryweryn valley. The village and other parts of the valley were flooded in 1965 to create a reservoir, Llyn Celyn, in order to supply Liverpool and Wirral with water for industry .A Welsh village that was controversially flooded to provide water for Liverpool almost sixty years ago and has now begun to re-appear during the current heatwave.

    Tryweryn in North Wales was forcibly abandoned and intentionally flooded to create the Llyn Celyn reservoir in the 1960s.The reservoir was designed to provide Liverpool with a water supply.

    70 residents lost their homes to make way for the lake, which officially opened on 21 October 1965, and caused wide-spread outrage across Wales. Furious villagers took to the streets of Liverpool in protest against the scheme. The destruction of a community that was entirely Welsh-speaking.

    The reservoir is contained behind a rock gravity dam and, at its upper end, it runs between Arenig Fawr and Arenig Fach, two of the mountains of south Snowdonia.

    On the 40th anniversary of the opening of the lake, Liverpool City council apologised for the “hurt” caused. ……….In a BBC Wales TV documentary Lord Elystan Morgan said “Liverpool was selling industrial water to 24 other authorities, making a lot of money – and it wanted to maximise that profit. That’s what Tryweryn was about.”…for many people, the inability of Welsh MPs to stop the plan showed how powerless Wales was in a political sense. (Nowt changed then)….

    Let’s not forget the common denominator here is politicians from England who exploit and plunder resources from other nations in THEIR UK with home grown BritNats in these countries complicit …..yet simultaneous they state that we as nations are subsidised by the UK (England) and thus as independent countries we would not survive…..if so why then does England, via it’s politicians , seek to take so much or rather NEED so much of OUR resources to survive……a conundrum that BritNats refuse to acknowledge as that would weaken their already weak argument as they ALL see England being the country that sustains all nations within THEIR UK…..yet in England there is no huge support for independence….YET being the operative word.

    Rumblings about water for now, will I am sure , morph into a more definitive quest for English politicians to plunder yet another resource from Scotland and Wales too…..and the media once again will play it’s part in promoting this ….as will the branch office politicians from ALL political parties….as that is their ONLY job in Scotland…and Wales.

    BritNats in both Scotland and Wales are not sleepwalking through this but instead they are actively encouraging and aiding England’s politicians in their plundering and exploitation of their countries while also undermining their own respective country’s wealth and available resources while denying and challenging their own respective country’s ability to survive as independent nations……..

    Water….the essence of life….and we all know whose lives are valued MORE in this UK.

  35. Hamish100 says:

    England steals from other countries- they always have.

    Agriculture, fisheries, water, oil , gas, food, water and people.

    Look at all the Scottish companies forced to close/ move due to internal reorganisation.

    As one example the revenue folk in Cumbernauld who voted No must be chastened.

    It has to stop.

    Independence 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 First and foremost is the start.

  36. Capella says:

    Lesley Riddoch reflects on Faslane and the imposition of nuclear weapons on Scotland.

    Lesley Riddoch: Social solidarity is mightier than any nuclear weapon

    IS might right?

    It’s the defining issue for Scottish independence.

    On the whole, Scots believe that authority, power, ownership and wealth do not command respect or automatic compliance.

    Instead there’s a stubborn belief in the importance of society, solidarity, all of us together (as Common Weal puts it) and mutuality – despite the thinly veiled contempt for these vital bits of democratic glue exhibited by Tory prime ministers from Margaret Thatcher onwards.

    For them, it’s a dog-eat-dog world, everyone’s out to get you, enemies only understand the threat of annihilation, so it’s best to keep defences up and retaliation in first.

    Whatever the financial cost. However much it bends democracy out of shape. However many people object and for however long.

    Co-operation and compromise are for the birds. Or Europeans.

    Might is right – and that’s been the British way for centuries.

    You see that absolute power expressed in the parliamentary sovereignty that gives Westminster complete authority to dissolve every “rival” parliament on these islands.


    • Dr Jim says:

      Those who believe the pen is mightier than the sword just don’t own a sword to order the people with the pens what to write

      Peaceful protest is only important a hundred years later so everyone can see that historically you were the nice people

      The losers have their principles, the winners have your bread

      • Capella says:

        We still have the ballot box Dr Jim. That’s what Lesley Riddoch’s article is about. IMO.

  37. Dr Jim says:

    Why should England build or invest when they can take and rebrand that taking as a UK asset

    To the right wing redneck voters of England Scots are a nuisance in their country like Mexicans in America, folk will say *yeah but not everyone is like that in England* and of course they’re not but their political system is and they vote for it over and over, so Scotland must do as the English do and have zero consideration for what happens to the people in that country who vote for their own self interest and then express deep sadness at the plight of others later after they’ve got what they wanted

    England is not interested in us as people until you stick a camera in their face after the event

    • Not-My-Real-Name says:

      Indeed Dr Jim…we get the BLAME for them having a Tory UK Government…..

      Seems there is ACTUAL reality and then THEIR VERSION of (non) reality…..the distance between both is VAST…..but also neverending….or so it seems.

  38. Capella says:

    He hasn’t gone yet – and he plans to return. Shock. 😱

    Nicola Sturgeon reveals what it was like to work with Boris Johnson

    She said: “Perhaps uncharitably I described my conversations with Theresa May when she was prime minister as soul-destroying. I look back somewhat fondly now.

    “She took the job seriously, she was always well briefed … she knew the detail of the subject she was talking about.

    “Boris Johnson always gave the impression that he thought the detail, the hard graft of the job, was beneath him, that it was for somebody else to do while he just blustered around.”

    The Scottish First Minister said Johnson had rarely bothered to take part in four-nation meetings with the other heads of devolved governments, and when he was present she would find herself having to interject “out of sheer frustration” to bring him back to the topic at hand.

    Sturgeon described the outgoing Tory leader’s time running the UK Government as “one long bluster”, adding: “The office of prime minister deserves better.”


  39. Unsurprising.

Comments are closed.