The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland

A statute of limitations

Posted on December 12, 2013 by

The wording of that headline isn’t strictly accurate, because the Claim Of Right For Scotland – signed in 1989 by over 80% of Scottish MPs, and many other politicians and representatives of “civic Scotland” – isn’t a law, and has no binding force.


Nevertheless, it’s a document that carries a certain amount of political weight, as an open acknowledgement by Labour and the Liberal Democrats that the people of Scotland (not Parliament and the monarch, as is the case in England) are sovereign and are entitled to determine the form of government they want.

Up to a point, anyway.

The text of the Claim seems clear enough:

“We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.”

The SNP weren’t signatories, despite being in full agreement with the principle, because the document was produced by the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which the party had boycotted due to its refusal to consider independence as an option. But the Claim itself makes no such exclusion. It doesn’t say “the form of Government best suited to their needs (except independence)”.

So it was interesting to read today an interview with Lord Wallace Of Tankerness, one of the Lib Dem signatories to the Claim, in which (during some standard-issue Project Fear-mongering about Scottish membership of the EU) he made explicit something that we all knew already, but which is rarely spoken openly.

“Lord Wallace, who served as the MP for Orkney and Shetland from 1983 until 2001 before his career moved to Holyrood, was deeply involved in the creation of the Scottish Parliament in the 1990s.

And he admitted the architects of devolution did not think their plans would lead to an independence referendum as it was not thought possible for the Scottish nationalists to win an overall majority in Holyrood.

‘I don’t think any of ever foresaw an SNP majority government,’ he said. ‘I think we foresaw a coalition government or one in which the SNP might be a part – over the whole span of decades.

I think most of us who were involved in drawing up the blueprint, which the Labour government faithfully implemented, including the voting system, thought it couldn’t produce a majority government.'”

Alert readers will note the wording there. It doesn’t say “the architects of devolution didn’t think their plans would lead to independence”. It says that they designed the electoral system of the Scottish Parliament such as to prevent even a referendum on the subject from being called.

It’s quite hard to square that with “the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs”. It seems, rather, to be a candid statement that the Claim is a deception, and that its authors were determined to ensure that one particular option was forever off the menu for the “sovereign” Scottish people.

It probably goes without saying that it didn’t even cross Lord Wallace’s mind that any other party might ever permit Scots a vote on an unrestricted choice of futures. So long as an SNP majority could be prevented – and the Parliament’s structure was meant to guarantee that – there would never be a referendum, let alone independence.

When nationalists refer to the broken promises of Alec Douglas-Home in 1979, who promised Scots a better form of devolution so long as they rejected the Scottish Assembly on offer in that year’s plebiscite, it’s often pointed out – quite reasonably – that the vast majority of people nowadays don’t have the faintest idea who Alec Douglas-Home was or what he said 34 years ago.

But Jim Wallace sits in the Houses Of Parliament to this day, one of hundreds of unelected peers still making laws that affect people’s daily lives. So it seems both timely and relevant to remind people that his word, and that of all those who promise Scotland something better in the aftermath of a No vote, can’t be trusted so far as that grand building could be thrown.

Print Friendly

    130 to “A statute of limitations”

    1. The Rough Bounds says:

      I remember a nationalist in the ’60’s saying that she had never met a Liberal she could trust.
      You can trust the Tories to be crooks. You can trust Labour to be hypocrits.
      But the Liberals can’t be trusted with anything.

    2. Tattie-bogle says:

      liberals loiter without any intent

    3. Andrew Morton says:

      I do remember Alec Douglas Home and the thing which made his betrayal of the Scottish people so great was the fact that he was viewed, particularly by the older generation, as incorruptible and an old fashioned gentleman whose word could be relied upon.
      The fact that a man such as he voluntarily made his name a byword for betrayal (and I don’t say that lightly) shows how seriously the Conservative Party viewed the fight for Scottish self determination and how absolutely determined they were to stop it at all costs.
      Surprising that they wanted to hang on to such a bunch of subsidy junkies!

    4. Juteman says:

      Sometimes I simply feel sick. Scotland has been used and abused by so many rogues over the years.
      When will my fellow country men and women wake up, and say ENOUGH OF THESE BASTARDS!

    5. gordoz says:

      Lord James Wallace of Tankerness Liberal Democrat Peer is was and always will be  a mischievous, Unionist puppet Charlatan prone to lies and exaggeration to the detriment of the Scottish people. A Proud Scot of the very worst kind.

      Absolutely no morals where his political career is concerned.

    6. beachthistle says:

      Well spotted and dot-joined Stuart (again!). Just read the whole interview though – most of me wish I hadn’t!
      It is grandees like him, who have already made enough from the system, and yet can be so openly negative, spiteful and willing to sell out future generations of Scots for just another few years of troughing, who bring home the self-serving shallowness and nastiness of the No campaign.
      I think the megaphoned easy ride and  that journos are giving No grandees and politicos is going to blow up in their faces during the late summer next year though. The small part of me which is glad I read the full interview reckons that quotes from articles like these will be useful powerful political hand grenades for Yes when we get into the final stretches of the campaign…

    7. msean says:

      I’d forgotten who he was.So,even though the maggie era was in full flow and support in Scotland was at it’s highest ever for opposition parties(mainly labour),they were conspiring against future Scots voters.Between them and  ‘taking stock’ major we had less choice looking back than we thought.Let us take stock then,and make the right choice in spite of them by voting yes.

    8. Helena Brown says:

      I am old enough to remember the betrayal of the Scottish People by quite a few people, none of them I would give the time of day to or piss on them if they were on fire. “Lord” Wallace really should consider a name change he is a disgrace to the one he is currently using. A suggestion, one which must be closer to his heart given his Viking nature, is Quisling.

    9. Jingly Jangly says:

      I met him (Sort off)  once on the Arran Ferry when the Lab-Lib Executive as it was then were coming over to do a council of the Isles meeting.

      Donald Dewar sat in the cafeteria on his own, chatting away to anybody that would talk to him , but Wallace and his Liberal cronies were in the “private” room for most of the journey, they came down to the Bar and despite my sister advising them that my seat was taken, took it anyway. I came back to the Bar and asked finding out what they had done, demanded it back (There were plenty of empty seats about, they were too lazy to walk five yards) I  made a comment to the effect  that as  Liberal meetings were mostly held in Phone Boxes, I understood it was difficult for them to understand manners.

      Wallace did not once look up  and he just ignored everybody who tried to engage him in conversation for what little remained of the  journey. My impression of Wallace was a jumped up arrogant arsehole, whilst Donald Dewar went massively up in my esteem.

    10. tony o'neill says:

      The people should reminded regularly till referendum day of mr wallace and his unionist partners treachory on this matter.

    11. JPJ2 says:

      Even many supporters of independence think I am being too harsh when I endorse the view of Sir Alec Douglas-Home’s career which says that he began his career by betraying one nation (Czechoslavakia-he was with Chamberlain at Munich) and ended it by betraying another, his own.

      I say that it is sad but true.

    12. Juteman says:

      He never betrayed his country. He is British.

    13. Nick Heller says:

      I doubt anyone else will try so I allow me to attempt a partial defence of Jim (now Lord) Wallace in respect of the Claim of Right and the Constitutional Convention. 

      I don’t believe that Jim Wallace or the Scottish Liberals at that time “designed” the Parliament to prevent an SNP majority or an independence referendum in future. I believe that they just believed that the SNP would never be able to carry majority support  in a PR system to gain power alone. In that they have been proved wrong and I’m certain that it sticks in the craw quite painfully.

      I do believe that Labour with the implict support of the Liberals set out to make it impossible for the SNP to join the Constitutional Convention by ruling out consideration of independence as an option. They were attempting to de-legitimise independence as a constitutional option and their typically short term stupidity predictably failed.

      Heaven knows Jim Wallace has taken the ample opportunities his position of patronage has afforded to make a fool of himself in the indyref debate so far. His blockheaded attempts to paddle with the scaremongering tide of the No campaign have been as embarrassing as they have been ineffectual. However I don’t think it is right to paint him as quite such  black-hearted unionist plotter in the Convention as this piece would have us believe.

      Their are many Liberal/Lib-Dem voters and ex-voters out there who don’t share the pathological hatered of their leadership for the SNP or for independence. For all our sakes I hope that they will consider the countless progressive arguments for voting Yes next year and reject the knee-jerk oppositionalism of Willie Rennie, Tavish Scott, Jim Wallace and others.  The Yes campaign needs support from across the political spectrum to succeed and needs those who have until now supported devo, devo-max, pipe dream federalism and all the other points on the self determination compass to climb aboard ad bring their friends with them.

    14. Thepnr says:

      I’m wide awake, ENOUGH OF THESE BASTARDS!

    15. Ian Brotherhood says:

      What’s Wallace doing in that picture? Is he standing on a hot air grille like Marilyn Monroe? If so, in the name of all that’s decent, spare us the full shot.

    16. Archie [not Erchie] says:

      Article read plus blue links which of course lead on to other links with more information and intrigue.
      I do not know if there are any Orcadians or Shetlanders that subscribe to or read this website but it would be good to hear from them and their viewpoints. Is there anyone out there? It would be fair to us all to have your views so that we can debate, not berate. Read, and with humour, enjoy your participation and advice.

    17. Juteman says:

      You would think a Lord could afford better dental work. The two front teeth he has replaced must have come from a rabbit. I wonder if he was drinking taxpayers money when he fell over and smashed them?

    18. Justin Kenrick says:

      @Nick Heller
      Hard though it may be, I think you are right that – while pointing out the wall to wall negativity of the No campaign – we need to be careful not to tarnish people who have voted for a range of parties with the same brush as their leaders. We need to open the door wide to them so that they can see that the logic of their earlier actions and wishes means their choice should be Yes not No.
      Voted LibDem to keep the Tories out? Good try, now try a better way
      Votes Labour for social justice? Good try, now try . . . 

    19. kininvie says:

      The problem with the LibDems is that they don’t know what they actually want. Have a wee look at my article on their ‘home rule’ contortions as an example:
      They are in a horrible place, to be frank. They make all this noise about the sovereignty of the Scottish people, and yet fudge it by saying that it’s only OK if it is within the United Kingdom. A less principled party it would be hard to find (and that’s including Sco Lab). I wish some LibDem believer would come on here and defend their case, because, honestly, I just don’t understand it.

    20. Harry Shanks says:

      Jim Wallace’s title would be far more apposite if the “T” in Tankerness was replaced by another letter.

    21. Papadocx says:

      Democracy, what part of the House of Lords is democratic? The unelected can inflict laws and policy on Scotland at will. How democratic is that? If they require it they have the privy council mostly unelected who can advise (demand)  HMQ (head of state) to implement any policy they come up with for any reason. F*** parliament!
      This free and DEMOCRATIC country ain’t so free and most definitely NOT democratic. As I say don’t believe a word that unionist politicians tell you. If you want to know if a unionist politician is lying just look at his mouth, if his lips are moving he’s telling lies.

    22. Les Wilson says:

      I was going to say a lot about this guy, but decided he is not worth the bother.
      He is simply another vested interest ” Proud Scot “, who we can never be proud of! End.

    23. Douglas Guy says:

      I’ve been a liberal / alliance / libdem voter all of my life.  Till now.  The final straw for me wasn’t the Westminster coalition. *shrug* That’s just politics.  The ballots were cast, the people spoke, the results were in.  You hold your nose and work with it to push as many of your policies as you can.
      The final straw for me was a soundbite seen on the TV of Malcolm Bruce months before the Edinburgh Agreement.
      I had been confused for months, not understanding why we weren’t using our position of strength in Westminster to jump onto the nationalists bandwagon and steal the reins.  This was a once in a lifetime opportunity to deliver an overwhelming majority for home rule, thus crushing the nationalists indy light and labour/unionist centralising status quo for the greater glory of Scotland and Liberalism.  And I replayed the clip.  A third option winning an overall majority so intuitively obvious to the most casual observer of Scottish Politics.  What is he doing?  And then I could see it.  He hated the SNP so much he was prepared to discard Home Rule for yet another generation just because they had opened the door for it.  
      Damascene moments aren’t just a fictional tropes.  They really happen.  And you’ll know one when it hits you.  That was mine.  
      Salmond, ye have my vote.  

    24. Linda's Back says:

      When campaigning in an all party grouping to support a YES YES vote in 1999 it was the Lib Dem representatives who harboured fears that the devolution settlement could lead to independence.
      Despite being in favour of federalism for the UK or even confederalism in Europe those Lib Dems supporters  left are more unionist than the majority of ordinary Labour voters.

    25. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Ah, the roar of the greasepaint, the smell of the crowd…

    26. BeamMeUpScotty says:

      If Wallace wants to pontificate north of the border again,we have a couple of scary women lined up for him (like last time).

    27. Thepnr says:

      @Douglas Guy
      Your not the only one “betrayed” by your party. Happy that like me you have decided to vote Yes. Out with the old guard in the parties that betrayed us and in with the new. I won’t see another opportunity in my lifetime so I’m grabbing it now.
      At last a chance for when your vote really can “make a difference”.

    28. Brian Powell says:

      I see from the Huff Post article he is staking out his right to keep his snout in the trough, reminding everybody he as a Lord would still be a Member of HofL.
      While nobody said the EU would ‘roll over’ his use of language is interesting. This is the language of someone on the other side. He does not recognise the rights and aspirations of 40% of the voting population of Scotland. They are inconvenient to his cosy system of entitlement.
      It is extraordinary to hear someone identify himself as a Scot, as did Lamont, and yet be so desperate to accept the word of the Spanish Prime Minster. The tone of his comment could have made it, “we will not roll over”.
      They make a mockery and a pretense of democracy.

    29. Thepnr says:

      @Ian Brotherhood
      Good link, he Sounds just like Salmond now! Hypocrite.

    30. Thomas William Dunlop says:

      My uncle, no left winger, always had a whole string of fruity words to described the liberals and untrustworthy was about the only mentionable one in polite society. After the events of the last few years and the words of Lord JIm above., I can only whole heartily agree win him. No time for thesse wash out anymore. Anyway the labour party has been busily transforming itself into a Liberal party, whats the use of two?

    31. Dan Huil says:

      Slightly OT: Spanish PM,Rajoy,”vows to block Catalan independence poll”.Sky news.

    32. Paul Wilson says:

      O/T You gov doing a poll do you think Scotland should be an independent country No on 53% yes 25 hope it changes. 

    33. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      YouGov are always very wrong. Pay no attention. They have a pathetic record in Scottish polls. What exactly was the question they asked?

    34. Dougthedug says:

      I know why Jimbo wants to keep the Union.
      Last year’s salary for him as the Advocate General for Scotland and an unelected member of the Government and member of the House of Lords was a salary of £91,755 and £36,366 of House of Lords Office Holder’s Allowance.
      Total £128,121
      On page 38 of:
      Good work if you can get the ermine collar.

    35. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      I talked to a LibDem activist when the LibDems held my seat in the Scottish Parliament. He confided in me that as far as he knew they had 18 paid up members inthe constituency but they didn’t need lots of members. We still have a LibDem MP He went in basically because he was that point the likeliest to beat the Tory though a lot of votes went to Labour (many of them usually SNP voters)on the same “beat the Tory” crusade. Significant members of the LibDem group in this constiuency are now in theYES organisation

    36. Brian Powell says:

      Dan Huil
      The Catalans will go for it anyway.
      It is amazing to watch their confidence and general personal belief and the support of their own newspapers in Catalonia.

    37. kininvie says:

      @ Douglas Guy,
      Thanks for that. I just don’t understand why the LibDems don’t see this as their biggest opportunity ever to get what they have always muttered about – ie some form of federalism/confederalism. You put it down to hatred of the SNP. Are they really that stupid – letting the heart rule the head?  Must be. A pity. More than a pity, actually, since I can’t see how they can pull themselves back to be a force in Scotland. I don’t see lots of SNP voters switching to LibDem if we vote No. But maybe I’m wrong?

    38. lumilumi says:

      The point is, of course, that when Lord Tankerd or whatever he’s called now, signed the claim of rights, it was a good political tool for them. Showing voters in Scotland that they’re on Scotland’s side, no need to go over to the nasty nats, who didn’t even come (better) together for the claim of rights.
      All a political show. Meaningless words about the sovereignty of the Scots people (unachievable in the UK context because the UK Parliament is sovereign, not UK people.) Yet the SNP still get beaten about not attending this travesty.
      Well, the tables have turned now, the Scots have voted for two SNP governments. Suddenly Scottish independence is a realistic alternative. Cue Brit establishment meltdown and much gnashing of teeth and howls and a desperate and outrageous fight for their privileges.
      The BBC and the mainstream print media are part of the establishment. They’re the NO campaign’s best asset. The NO campaign have a free ride, flood all media outlets bar online resistance here and on other pro-indy sites. And still NO is going down and YES gaining in the polls.
      The UK government won’t ask OSCE media observes to come in to ensure balanced media coverage before the referendum. In effect, to ensure democracy. Why should they? They don’t want democracy, they want continued Brit establishment hegemony.
      I have journalist friends here in Finland and I’ve been trying to raise this issue. My sister-in-law now mostly covers human interest, family, equality stuff, my friends at YLE (our national broadcaster) are quite interested but they’re so low down the food chain that they doubt their story would run. Especially because YLE and BBC are fellow members of EBU and that means that YLE can get BBC content at discount prices.
      Still, I hope… My friend who does the morning telly mentioned the SG White Paper and the referendum in quite positive terms before going on to the more burning Finnish politics topics. Half of his family is actually English, the other half Swedish-speaking Finns, but he’s completely fluent in Finnish (we usually speak Finnish together). He’s well liked by the viewers (especially the older women;-) ) for his boyish charm – the guy is nearly 50 now! 😀 But he’s kept his boyish looks and his boyish humour and wonderment and stupid questions he asks (on behalf of the ordinary Finns) of the politicians and experts on the morning show. He’d be a definite YES for Scottish independence, but as a YLE worker, he can’t actually slate the BBC.
      The point is that journalists in other countries are becoming aware of the dismal state of Scottish MSM “journalism”, and BBC’s credibility is being eroded. Is that what the BBC want, the price worth paying to keep Scotland? To what end? To be patronisingly patted on the head by a “benevolent” Brit establishment? And to lose international respect?

    39. EphemeralDeception says:

      I agree with Helena: Lord Wallace, Curran and several other leading Unionists are by definition Quislings, but not ("Tractor" - Ed)s as such.  Part of the definition is “politicians who appear to favour the interests of other nations or cultures over their own.”
      They do not work alone but are part of an organised hegemony that are essentially paid to keep Scotland as a vassal, and rewarded for such services to the UK.
      This is self evident with many Brit-Scot Politicians.
      Juteman is correct re: “He never betrayed his country. He is British.” However they never state they are British not Scottish!
      These hypocrits constantly say they are Proud to be Scottish and British whereas by their actions and statements they clearly are not proud of Scotland as a Nation and culture.  They are only proud that Scotland should remain and be governed as a region.  They are never challenged why they only consider Scotland as a Region of the UK while pretending they are really proud Scots, protecting us from ourselves.
      They never ever put the interests of Scotland higher than the UK interest but insist they act for their constituents in Scotland or for what is best for Scotland.
      They work and conspire to thwart, distort or belittle anything fully Scottish in nature, whether culture, history, identity, our nations size, our economy…. Except and ONLY except when it is part of UK endeavours: World Wars, UK achievements, UK influence etc.
      These false Scots are demersal bottom-fed rogues, they have no courage of their convictions, and are holding Scotland back. 

    40. jdman says:

      Ian Brotherhood says
      “What’s Wallace doing in that picture? Is he standing on a hot air grille like Marilyn Monroe? If so, in the name of all that’s decent, spare us the full shot.”
      What do you expect to see his grannies knee length bloomers?
      oh I see what you mean,spare us for pity’s sake.

    41. Embradon says:

      The Constitutional Convention, like its spawn Calman specifically excluded consideration of the independence option.
      Much like asking a consultant surgeon to come up with ways to improve the quality of life of conjoined twins – without separating them of course.

    42. Brian Powell says:

      Also on ” Spanish PM,Rajoy,”vows to block Catalan independence poll”. If Independence hadn’t been on the cards in Scotland, I wonder what ‘democrats’ like Wallace would have been saying about Rajoy.?
      When not challenged by reality our Libs and Labour are busting a gut to be seen as democrats. I did think the sleaze of the expenses scandal was as low as they could sink, but a lot has happened since then!

    43. proudscot says:

      Ah the Scottish Liberals, both MPs and MSPs, self-proclaimed proud Scots all, Danny Alexander, Alistair Carmichael, Ming Campbell, Michael Moore, James Wallace, Charles Kennedy, Willie Rennie, Tavish Scott, etc., … ("Quizmaster" - Ed)s all … the Ragman’s Roll of Dishonour goes on and on. Shakespeare’s Marc Anthony put it so well, in his final comment in his eulogy on the murdered Caesar, when he said scathingly of the conspirators, “But they are ALL Honourable Men!!!” (Substitute, “Proud Scots!!!”)

    44. There is only one legal statute which is in force to this day which is the ‘Claim of Right’ of 1689. It is the statute by which Elizabeth is Queen of Scots and on which she swore an oath the night before the Westminster English Crowning in front of representatives of the Thrie Estaites (Lord Lyon, Moderator of the Kirk and the Secretary of State for Scotland).

      It is this lawful statute which explains in detail why James the Seventh was removed from the throne by the considered will of the people of Scotland in their sovereign Parliament. It makes clear to any future monarch of Scotland they will also get their marching orders if they mess us about as James the Seventh did.

      Under the terms of the Treaty of Union this statute establishes and maintains the realm of Scotland as separate from England’s crown holdings and emphasises the Treaty of Union refers to the Union of Parliaments only, not sovereignty nor crowns nor law nor constitutional practice nor the Royal Realms of England and Scotland – they all remain separate under the Treaty of Union of 1706.

      For a more expansive explanation of the constitutional crock of sh!t we have been sold for 300 years plus, have a read of The Scottish Break Away on my own blog.

    45. Iain says:

      Whether with their previous label of Liberals or their present one of Liberal Democrats, it’s a peculiar characteristic of these people that, no matter their education or qualifications, they always appear to be inconsequential twats. They and their thinking seem shallow and superficial. They appear willing to adopt any idea which will attract attention, just because it is different. That’s because they have no coherent, consistent political philosophy: their aim is just to get elected with whatever policy might appeal to the voters. The only evidence of some sharpness of mind is in their conduct during elections, when vulpine unscrupulousness often belies their ‘nice’ reputation. 

    46. Airtteth says:

      the architects of devolution did not think their plans would lead to an independence referendum as it was not thought possible for the Scottish nationalists to win an overall majority in Holyrood.
      Does anyone else think one of the first things Westminster will do if there is a ‘No’ vote will be to tweek the voting system to correct their mistake and ensure it can never happen again.  

    47. orkers says:
      Catalans have named their Referendum date.
      Dunno if it’s news?

    48. Ian Brotherhood says:

      @Airtteth –
      ‘…correct their mistake and ensure it can never happen again.’
      Well, it’s a bit late for that now, eh? Given that this was never meant to happen, BT’s staggering ineptitude becomes understandable – no-one ever made contingencies for this, and Cameron threw away his only decent card when he ruled out devo-max.
      To answer your question with another question – can anyone imagine the Scottish Parliament ever again being fronted by characters like McLeish or Wallace?

    49. Chris says:

      Proud Scot is as proud Scot does

    50. gillie says:

      So if Scots vote YES Lord Wallace will leave Scotland.
      That is reason enough for anyone to vote YES.

    51. BuckieBraes says:

      I think that depends on how close the result would be. If there’s a decisive victory – 60% plus – for No (which I can’t see happening), then Westminster might consider the danger to have passed and, in McCrone’s words, put the files on Scotland away without implementing any other measures.
      The real danger would lie in a narrow victory for No, whereafter we might be distracted by the illusion of additional devolved powers while they slip in adjustments to ensure there can never be another independence referendum.

    52. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      I don’t believe the LibDems actually exist as a viable political party in Scotland. I believe their membership is somewhere around 2,500 and falling which means that they have half the membership of the Greens in Scotland and many fewer than the Labour For Indy faction. The radical imperative that used to drive the Liberals in Scotand (and still appeared to drive them in England until recently) has been usurped by the SNP.
      For years now they have been elected in parts of Scotland for no other reason than that they are neither the Tory nor the  Labour Party. They have no continuous or reliable policy position on most things and say different things to different people all the time. 
      They fill an important void on election day by allowing those who feel they have civic duty to vote but are confused about for whom to vote secure in the knowledge that their vote will cause absolutely no change to anything.
      Lord Wallace is a Tory (like Tavish Scott and Ming Campbell) who effected election under false pretences. Some of their vote seems to be slipping back towards the Tories who are at least reliably wrong all the time.

    53. James Westland says:

      I love the concept of “Proud Scottery” In fact, I think there is another “internet law” relating to it:
      “The expression “I am a Proud Scot (TM)” is invariably and inevitably followed by the word “but” and then a torrent of fawning apologia for the Britnat Entity”
      There. I reckon that is up there with Godwin and Poe,

    54. Brian Powell says:

      “Today is a day of hope, 9 November will be a statement of victory for us.  We are about to become a normal country.”
      One Catalan commentator, on the announcement of the date of the Catalan Referendum.

    55. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      I should have meNtioned that I agree with Iain at 8.33. I have never met less scrupulous political opponents. I suppose if there is actually very little you beleive in it is very easy to be duplicitous and unpleasant 

    56. BuckieBraes says:

      Was the term ‘Proud Scottery’ first coined on this site? If we keep it up, it could find its way into the dictionary.

    57. Elizabeth Sutherland says:

      @ Mad Jock McMad
      Read your blog The Scottish Break Away. My!! but it has opened my eyes to what should have been for all of those 300 + years. I know how hard it is to research things from the past, (being myself a Family Researcher) so well done on what you have come up with so far. The people must vote Yes next year or we will all pay the most dire consequences. As to Lord Tankerd he might decide it’s not quite warm enough to stay in mainland Scotland.

    58. Andy-B says:

      So many Toom Tabards of Scottish descent, sitting in the House of Lords.
      Just about every Secretary of State for Scotland could be branded a John Balliol.

    59. call me dave says:

      Ian Brotherhood 
      Hi Ian I dread the thought of a return to a labour SG in Holyrood. But it might be acceptable if the independence referendum was won first and labour had some decent policies tailored to Scotland’s needs..
      But the Herald reports a poll tonight saying labour moving ahead for Holyrood.
      mind you it’s YouGov.

    60. gillie says:

      I like the term “Proud Scottery” to describe the behaviour of BritNats like Lord Wallace.

    61. gillie says:

      So how many unionist politicians will skip over the border if Scots vote YES?

    62. I would rather have “Proud Scotbutt”!  

    63. Arbroath 1320 says:

      Sorry for going O/T and if this has already been mentioned but folks might like to know that 2014 is going to be a very VERY interesting year. First we will win OUR referendum on 18th September 2014 then two months later Catalonia will undoubtedly win THEIR referendum. Catalonia has just announced the date for their two question referendum which is to be held on 9th November 2014! :P:
      I wonder how the Better Together crowd are feeling now, now that Catalonia has joined Scotland in demanding Independence from their respective overlords. I doubt there will be too much singing and dancing in BTHQ tonight! 😆

    64. X_Sticks says:

      “So how many unionist politicians will skip over the border if Scots vote YES?”
      Hopefully all of them.

    65. James Westland says:

      Yes, i think the expression “Proud Scottery” first appeared here. Or else on weegingerdug’s blog:
      Certainly fairly recent.
      Needs to become a meme. And go viral. Needs a Chris cartoon as well.

    66. November13 says:

      Liberals always remind me of the yes men you meet at work.They have opinions and even beliefs. But they never have the gumptian to state them.So they keep quiet in the hope of a sniff of power.Someone once said a liberal sees Scotland as a place to collect butterflies.Sounds about right.Never trust anyone without opinions as its an unatural state for a human to have no strong beliefs.How can you argue with a plank of wood.

    67. Ian Brotherhood says:

      How can you argue with a plank of wood?
      Tie him in knots? But don’t take him on if he’s a branch secretary or you’ll be out on a limb.
      I’ll ‘leave’ now…

    68. Ian Brotherhood says:

      ps I forgot to take a bough…

    69. Seanair says:

      The position of Scottish peers after we vote for independence is unclear to me. Would they still be allowed to attend the House of Lords and have a say in purely English matters? Surely not since they will be “foreigners” in England, unless they take up resdence and nationality there.
      There is nowhere in an independent Scotland for them to assemble and pontificate on matters affecting Scotland, so I imagine they will disappear from sight and eventually die-off. They will not be missed.

    70. X_Sticks says:

      @Ian Brotherhood
      Just twigged what you were up to…
      I’ll git ma jaiket..

    71. Thepnr says:

      Why the YouGov polls are worthless:
      “Labour edges past SNP in voting intentions”

    72. Rod Mac says:

      O/T did anyone watch the Lucan TV drama yesterday?
      It showed in all its glory the landed Gentry of Engerlund in their true light of entitlelemnt.
      Cameron & Co are the next generation from those loins, makes perfect sense now to see them in action every day in the absolute belief in their right to rule and us to obey

    73. gillie says:

      Hasn’t Ian Davidson indicated he would leave Scotland if Scots vote YES.

    74. Ananurhing says:

      So Wallace claims he’ll be hanging on to his HoL pew by his fingernails after indy. What delusional nonsense.
      I wonder why he’s never mentioned this before. Could it be he knows that independence now looks ” not just possible, but probable”, and is pre negotiating his position?
      I think we’ll see more of this to come from the Libdems. I believe Jo Swinson has already been promised a safe English seat in 2015, if such a thing exists for Libdems anymore.
      I genuinely used to think that if indy was a given, I would probably be a Libdem voter. They’ll be deemed as toxic as Tories in Scotland for a long time to come.  

    75. Arbroath 1320 says:

      I don’t know if any one has seen this yet but Chris Huhne, him of the “it wisnae me driving occifer” state :p:, has written a piece for the Guardian. I don’t think it is too bad a piece but then again I’m Arbroath 1320 the nutter of Wings over Scotland. 😆

    76. Bunter says:

      excellent battle on FB on the only way is Coatbridge site. Yes and NOs going toe to toe and some good points. YES fairing very well I have to say!!

    77. gillie says:

      So how many Scottish peers are they, and should we poll them to find out if they will leave Scotland if Scots vote Yes? They are all contactable by email.

    78. The Rough Bounds says:

      @tree of liberty. 9.28.
      ”I’m a proud Scot but…”
      Proud Scotbutt.
      Good one!

    79. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Is there a group photo of all the Scottish peers? Does such a thing exist?

    80. The Rough Bounds says:

      Those awful people that say they will leave if Scotland votes Yes.
      In essence they have already left; they won’t be missed.

    81. Bertie K says:

      For a that vivid image of Meester Tankerness as Marylin Monroe try

      Homage ala Catalonia!

    82. Bertie K says:

      P,S, If Willaim Wallace were to see that a***h*** besmirching the Wallace plaid I do believe he would be “just a head” richt enough.

    83. I guess Tankeredout is probably right as he is a ‘Life Peer’, apparently even if you go to jail you still remain a ‘Life Peer’ and it is a political, supra-national appointment by your political party and not because he is a Scot. The SNP have never taken up their ‘allocation’ of Lards, just like they have nothing to do with Scotland’s Queen’s gongs and baubles selection.

      Wait for the English back lash when they discover they are funding Tankeredout’s life style ….. Foulkes, Watson, Reid, Steele and the rest for life .. retrospective legislation? 

      Well they did it to prevent having to pay out £30 million of benefit with holdings at the DWP which Duncan-Smith got wrong. Big plus for the Tories is they would get rid of Forsyth once and for all.

    84. Ian Brotherhood says:

      Can’t find a group photie of the Scottish peers, but I suppose wee Jim Wallace, Foulkes and all the rest of them must be in here somewhere:
      It’s startling, looking at that image, when you try to see it with fresh eyes – what on earth do people around the planet think when they see this nonsense? The Mother of all Parliaments? Oh, gie’s a break FFS.

    85. Thepnr says:

      Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp has his YES badge on Newsnight Scotland. I’m getting some NOW.

    86. Andrew Morton says:

      I certainly used the term in my report on the Better Together meeting which took place on 30 October,
      “There was a lot of proud-Scottery going on and this filtered through to the audience who when it came to questions and answers decided that they too were proud Scots, although perhaps not that proud.”

    87. msean says:

      Very calmly defused that scarebomb,even got a laugh lol.

    88. Wayne says:

      LOL, I hope everyone was paying attention to Newnight Scotland.  The business twit that Better Together put up for TV, just made a fantastic argument for retaining a shared currency without realising it.  I doubt BT will be happy when they get a hold of him.  He was whining about how he wouldn’t want to have to pay extra transaction costs….well we doubt English businesses would be very keen on this either.  Which is precisely why YES have been so adamant keeping the pound is in everyone’s interests.  So there you have it, someone from BT as good as admitting that a shared currency is the only option.  Funny how when you pressure people into considering actual business scenarios and balance sheets that common sense takes over!

    89. Papadocx says:

      Newsnight scotland  anybody know this tube Daniel Johnston? Don’t think he should be out on his own very immature and shallow. Numpty 
      Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp (Business for Scotland): knowledgable, confident, knows his stuff good hand, very impressed.
      Gordon Brewer: Crawler, sycophant. Could go far in BBC type unionist environment. 

    90. Jiggsbro says:

      It says that they designed the electoral system of the Scottish Parliament such as to prevent even a referendum on the subject from being called.
      No it doesn’t. It says they thought the system they designed would never see a majority SNP government and therefore wouldn’t lead to a referendum. It doesn’t say they designed it for that purpose. You and I may believe that, but it’s a long way short of an admission.

    91. Thepnr says:

      I didn’t miss the comment but I did miss your point. Of course if there will be charges in Scotland for doing business with a seperate currency in the rUK the same will apply to them. Wish GMK had grabbed a hold of that one.

    92. velofello says:

      The House of Lords is surely the most ludicrous, undemocratic concept that could be devised by caring humanity, Undemocratic power-retaining lizards however may view matters differently.

    93. Albert Herring says:

      @Ian Brotherhood
      Oakay, his bark’s worse…..
      Ah’ll get ma trunks.

    94. ronnie anderson says:

      Papadocx, thats abut the 2nd time D Johnstones been on NN Scot I think he was on some time in Oct

    95. Wayne says:

      The House of Lords is an anachronism repugnant to the notion of democracy.  The whole English political system is positively medieval, their court structure kinda works despite the fact that it is wholly illogical and could be easily streamlined.  The supposed mother of democracy has been in a deep sleep, and when she wakes up for rUK, she will doubtless wonder why so little has changed.  All the biggest changes to the Westminster model since the Glorious Revolution (the Glorious Dutch Invasion as I usually call it as this is more accurate) have come about through external pressures, dominion breakaways, Ireland, the EU and so on.
      The House of Lords sort of reminds me of the House of Commons before the 1832 reform act, crying out for reform.  Except rather than take 100 or so years and numerous piecemeal reforms, it would be much better to abolish it altogether.
      Fortunately with devolution and then with independence we will prove that a unicameral parliament can work perfectly well.  The House of Lords is everything that is wrong, dysfunctional and elitist with British politics.

    96. Mary Bruce says:

      @ Mad Jock McMad
      I read your blog. Wow. Please read it everyone, if you haven’t already.
      I knew very little about this and not sure I fully understand it yet. Especially intriguing is your appendix. Could this ever be challenged? What would the implications of Westminster withdrawing from the Human Rights Act? Would Scotland be able to challenge this too?

    97. Andrew Morton says:

      Very interesting article on the Claim of Right. I agree that all of Scotland should know about this, not just Wings readers. How to get it out there though? I’d be interested in getting Lallands Peat Worrier’s opinion on ths.

    98. Edward says:

      Who on earth was that Daniel Johnston character that was on Newsnight Scotland? The guff that guy came out with, was pathetic . He tried to make out he was some big shot owner of a large business and was very condescending towards Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp , who I found talked more sense. As for Brewer, he was up to his usual substandard self

    99. Thepnr says:

      O/T Daily Record losing the plot LOL.
      Misdirecting you to different pages now when looking for information on Independence. Check the web page address then the comments from Martin James.

    100. Wayne says:

      I had a quick read through some of Mad Jock McMad’s stuff and to be honest it is historically pretty shaky to put it mildly, but his heart is in the right place so I find it hard to be too critical, especially when some of his misunderstandings are pretty common actually.

    101. A2 says:

      Not as much fun as the real Daniel Johnstone!

    102. A2 says:

      “Hasn’t Ian Davidson indicated he would leave Scotland if Scots vote YES.”
      Has he? when was that? 

    103. lumilumi says:

      Ah, liberals… They can be anything they want to be, just as long as they get their grubby little hands on power. If they get power, they’ll even change the meaning of the word “liberal”.
      Look at Australia!
      The two biggest parties in Oz are Labour and Liberal, but the Oz kind of Lib are more Tory than the original whingeing pom Tories.
      Years ago I lived in Australia for a couple of years, and it was an interesting time. Paul Keating (Lab) was PM and said we’re in the arse-end of the world [from the European perspective], we’ve got to do something about it.
      The Keating administration were very keen to promote new links with Pacific Rim and Asian countries. He caused a minor diplomatic incident – and thousands of Aussies reaching for their dictionaries – when he said some Asian countries were “recalcitrant”.
      The Keating era was a time of openess and liberal attitudes, hope of something new. Even republicanism gained ground. I was at Darling Harbour when Prince Charles got shot – not really shot, just some nutter fired a starting gun near his royal person. Most of my Australian friends were chuffed and pleased. “Yay, he showed him!”
      By a quirk of fate I ended up working for the Australian government when I was back in Finland (I never told my boss I’d lived and worked in Oz illegally and he politely never asked). It started all right but got worse, a lot worse, after the Libs won the next election. Fairly soon I was out of a job, then even my boss. Australia cocooned, turned inwards on itself, closed up, got nasty and misogynistic and xenophobic.
      The Australia I loved, the Australia of the mid-1990s, the laid-back, open, relaxed, forward-looking, fun country doesn’t exist anymore. I’m sad, I grieve for the country. So much potential wasted in a mire of bigotry and hatered.
      Led by “Liberals” now, BTW.

    104. lumilumi says:

      Weathering the storm. Lights flickering, gusts of 30 m/s (that’d be 68 mph). Tens of thousands of homes without leccy by now.
      Maybe Finland doesn’t get as big and violent storms as Scotland but fallen trees cause just as much or more problems, probably because we have more trees.

    105. Xander says:

      From the archive, 13 September 1997 (courtesy of the Guardian)
      Jimmy-on-the-spot with a rebuttal.

    106. Wee Jonny says:

      O/T David Buick market strategist Panmore Gordon on BBC’s newspaper review. On Catalonias independence “There’s a correlation here with Scotland only here I believe they’ll vote to stay in the U.K. but what they really want is for  Westminster to pay for their problems”. None of the two hosts said a thing. Look forward to this time next year David. 

    107. deewal says:

      The Liberals have always and still are a gang of Mercenary career politicos who are for sale to the highest bidders. They pretend to be in the middle hoping to split the vote in General erections with the eye on getting a few into Parliament but really hoping for a hung one so they can all get the snouts in the trough.
      Before Nick Clegg used the word Pledge instead of Promise all MP’s now use Pledge because it now means nothing but a lie. This is the only achievment of a Lib-Dem i can think of.
      The first time i even heard of the Liberals in the modern age was when i saw a slogan on the London Underground in the early seventies that read….  Vote Liberal or we’ll shoot your dog.  

    108. Training Day says:

      While they have the advantage of a media that is not uniform in its agenda (unlike us), there’s a real possibility that Catalans are going to put us to shame next year.

      I’m getting more concerned by the day at how disengaged/hostile professional, supposedly intelligent people are regarding the referendum. At best, there’s a fear of articulating a view. More often, there’s a snorting contempt which allows them to feel superior as part of the ‘majority’.

      None of us should underestimate for a second how conditioned people in Scotland are.

    109. caz-m says:

      @Training Day

      You’ve been reading that Daily Mail again, haven’t you.

      You are the one who should be feeling “superior”.

      Because the YES vote and the Don’t Knows are the ones who are in the majority.

      The NO vote is on the slide. “No” will keep losing votes when more people become engaged in the independence debate.

    110. Training Day says:


      I’ve managed thus far with moderate success to maintain the distinction between what appears in the Daily Mail and what constitutes a semblance of reality. It’s a goodly number of my fellow Scots I’m worried about.

      So let’s leave complacent assumptions about ‘majorities’ to the portals of Dacre’s rag, shall we? We have loads of work to do to win this.

    111. Linda's Back says:

      Call Kaye on about MPs salaries. Worth reminding her of the £40 millions we will save after a YES vote when we won’t have to pay our share of Westminster / House of Lords annual cost of £480 million.

      Excellent Irish economist Mark Coleman on GMS at 7.45 on Irish solution to their Banking crisis and how they are still better off than most of Scotland. Also mentioned that Jim Murphy failed to take up his challenge to a debate on the subject.

      Of course pro independence contributions are relegated to radio and never enunciated on TV “in the interests of balance.”

    112. Caroline says:

      @Training Day – yes, there’s a fair bit of bluster coming from the ‘comfortable’ among us, but it’s just a phase they’re going through.
      It must be tough when you haven’t taken a peek betond the tip of your own nose ever since your own life became pleasant (well, perhaps far enough to read a newspaper headline in passing), to be asked to engage in this debate.
      It IS tough to come out as a Yes when you’ve never engaged in anything remotely resembling politics before (speaking personally).
      There are many people out there who say No but are really undecided, and the louder they say it…..

    113. Craig P says:

      Ian Brotherhood: Can’t find a group photie of the Scottish peers, but I suppose wee Jim Wallace, Foulkes and all the rest of them must be in here somewhere:
      So that’s where Santa recruits his helpers!

    114. Elliot Bulmer says:

      I slightly disagree with this analysis. It’s not fair to say that the Claim of Right was a ‘deception’. Kenyon Wright, Convenor of the Constitutional Convention, was well aware of the radical (and open-ended) implications of the Claim of Right.

      Its core assertion is that of popular, not parliamentary, sovereignty; this was rooted in a somewhat mythological (but nevertheless morally and rhetorically powerful) reading of the Declaration of Arbroath, filtered through Reformed constitutional theology and good old-fashioned Scottish Radicalism.

      Also, the Claim of Right is not merely a historical document sitting in the archives gathering dust. It was recently reaffirmed by the Scottish Parliament – by an overwhelming cross-party majority – and I’d argue that it now forms that basis for an emerging doctrine of Scottish popular constitutionalism.

    115. john king says:

      Mad Jock McMad says
      “the constitutional crock of sh!t we have been sold for 300 years ”

      I responded on your blog on the Tarff Advertiser

      “Peter, this is a great post and one I would strongly urge you to send to a certain Mr Thomas Rymer (no really) of the OSCE,
      I emailed him in April with a plea for the ODIHR’s oversight of the media in Scotland (I think we all know why) and the response was only a sovereign government can ask for their involvement this post shows that there is enough ambiguity (at least from their standpoint) to allow their oversight at the request of the Scottish government,

      Thomas RymerSpokespersonOSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)Tel: +48 22 520 0640Mobile: +48 609 522 266
      And for any other wordsmiths here please do what so many of you do best and email or phone Mr Rymer he is a very nice man.

    116. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Also, the Claim of Right is not merely a historical document sitting in the archives gathering dust. It was recently reaffirmed by the Scottish Parliament – by an overwhelming cross-party majority – and I’d argue that it now forms that basis for an emerging doctrine of Scottish popular constitutionalism.”

      In fairness, I do note that in the opening few paragraphs. I’m just pointing out that it wasn’t the intention of the political parties involved. They wanted to create an impression of patriotism, but in such a way that would ensure independence couldn’t be achieved. After all, if not, why exclude independence from the Convention in the first place?

    117. Kendomacaroonbar says:

      Daniel Johnstone is a member of the Fabian society. 

    118. Grendel says:

      Labour told us that things can only get better.
      The bombs went BOOM and the banks went BUST.
      The Tories promised austerity would make it better, but better for who?
      And the Lib Dems? They stuck to the teachings of Marx:
      “Those are my principles.
      If you don’t like them, I have others.”
      (Groucho Marx that is…)

    119. chalks says:

      Where will this ‘convention’ be when they are taking powers away from us?
      Oh wait, they just have.
      It’s nonsense.  Scotland has no sovereign right to govern itself.

      Unless there is a Yes vote.
      It’s implied through us getting a vote as a member of the UK.  We govern ourself through the UK…..except as has been proven on this site time and again, we don’t and dare I say, never will have a government that acts solely in our interests.

    120. chalks says:

      Without a Yes vote…

    121. TheGreatBaldo says:

      It’s been a while but the ‘Calman controversy’ has been brought up AGAIN in the Guardian…..
      Had to chuckle at this line….
      “The BBC has a commitment to remaining unbiased”
      Who say’s there is no satire !!!

    122. CameronB says:

      OT but constitutional (EU).
      ‘War game’ highlights risks of Britain’s EU exit
      Who’d have thunk the French could be so pragmatic?

      France sheds no tears over Brexit in wargame play

    123. Colin Dunn says:

      @Nick Heller says:
      “I don’t believe that Jim Wallace or the Scottish Liberals at that time “designed” the Parliament to prevent an SNP majority or an independence referendum in future.”
      You sure? Brian Wilson believed that was what the system was set up to do . .
      “The masterplan was for there to be permanent Labour-LibDem coalition at Holyrood. This cosy strategy reflected the warm personal relationships between Labour and LibDem grandees of the time – Donald Dewar and Gordon Brown, Jim Wallace and Menzies Campbell. A Byzantine electoral system was created which would ensure that the Nationalists would remain in the minority.”

    124. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “From the archive, 13 September 1997 (courtesy of the Guardian)
      Jimmy-on-the-spot with a rebuttal.”

      Superb. I’m having that one 😀

    125. Molly says:

      Training day , from talking to people, I understand when you say ‘snorting contempt from the majority but does that attitude not mask an underlying issue? 

      Until,( in some cases ) the Referendum became reality, an awful lot of people (myself included )were quite passive in what was counted as governance. You watched the news to be told this was what policy was going to be implemented by  Lib/Labour.My view(despite voting, but not for them) was heard in my living room but I never dreamt of going out and actually speaking to people about politics. Not because I wasn’t interested or comfortably off or even in agreement with a particular policy- but no one asked me.

      Honestly in this area, until 2007, it didn’t matter what I thought , Labour got in. It was the accepted way.

      Also,I’m in  my 40s , when I was at school girls taking Modern Studies (at my school) were the exception . There was less emphasis on (as a female) you are sitting these exams for you . These exams will give you an option in life. Now I’d love to say that attitude has changed but 5 years ago I had a discussion with a deputy headmaster. When I questioned the schools attitude to the mass of disenfranchised pupils,he was quite indignant that the year before he had started a course in hairdressing. Now don’t get me wrong , we need good hairdressers but really,  all the females? I appreciate not every female is interested in what we call politics but at age 13 or 14 if you are set on a certain path , you don’t even have the option of learning how you are governed so you can see why for some women the disconnect between what they are talking about ( prices, the cost of living , jobs in other words-politics) and what is called politics . Now all of a sudden everybody wants their opinion.

      The Referendum vote is asking people to think through or question how we wish to be governed when lets be honest for the majority , as I said myself included, we let the TV for so long tell us what we thought we wanted-so yes we are conditioned but maybe, theres  an unintended consequence of the Referendum,even the so called ‘majority’ (especially if they don’t want change) still have to take the Referendum in to consideration because they’ll have to go out there and physically vote no and by next September they will surely have realised (whatever the outcome ) that there is a sizeable group of people who have found their voice and they are not going to go away, they are now engaged and we’re setting the bar at doable rather than Ah but. 

    126. caz-m says:


      Excellent Molly, that is what I was saying earlier on, most people have not engaged yet. When they finally get round to reading the WP then I am positive they will come to the logical conclusion and vote YES.

    127. NGH1875 says:

      @Colin Dunn
      “You sure? Brian Wilson believed that was what the system was set up …”

       I’m not yet at the stage where I am going to start taking Brian Wilson’s word for anything. That said it is certainly true that there was a closeness between Dewar/Campbell/Smith etc which undoubtedly had an impact on negotiations.  But the Liberals would have preferred STV for the electoral system which might have made an SNP majority even more unlikely. I think I still go for unhealthy  conviviality ahead of anti-democratic collusion.

    128. Frazer Allan Whyte says:

      to gordoz, James Westland and friends – this “Proud Scots” business is getting a bit tired and is rather painful in any case – can we replace it by calling these obnoxious chancers and self-loathers by an anagram of the term… say “crudpoots” shortened to “crudpots” for convenience?

    129. Midgehunter says:

      @ Iain Brotherhood
      Let’s get back to the roots, turn over a new leaf and …….   😉

    130. gordoz says:

      @Frazer Allan Whyte says
      How about ("Tractor" - Ed)ous bastards ?

    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.

    ↑ Top