The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


What you wish for

Posted on April 14, 2019 by

The Conservatives’ disastrous handling of, and failure to deliver, Brexit seems to have finally begun to hurt them in the polls, with a clutch of recent stats showing Labour with a significant lead for the first time in many months.

Most seat projections on the numbers show Labour failing to reach a majority either on their own or with the Lib Dems, but being able to get Jeremy Corbyn in to Downing Street with the assistance of an increased number of SNP MPs.

But then what?

Because it’s assumed by many independence supporters that the SNP would demand Holyrood be given the power to hold a second indyref as the price of making Corbyn PM. Indeed, given the Scottish Government’s lack of action on establishing any other legal route to doing so, it appears to be the SNP’s only actual strategy.

But reading the papers this morning a rather alarming thought occurred to us: what if Corbyn faced them down?

Imagine that Labour were to offer the SNP a second EU referendum in return for their support, but no second indyref. Having so vigorously committed themselves to a “People’s Vote”, the SNP would risk getting the blame for Brexit if they turned the offer down, something which could hurt them badly in Scotland.

(The extent of that damage shouldn’t be overstated – it might win back a chunk of the 500,000 voters who deserted them in 2017, roughly the same proportion of SNP supporters who voted Leave – but it would almost certainly be enough to scupper any chance of a pro-indy Holyrood majority.)

An indecisive election which led to yet more political chaos would enrage voters both in Scotland and the UK, and it’d be the Nats who copped most of the flak, both from Remainers and left-wing voters who want independence but would still prefer a Corbyn UK government to a Tory one in the meantime.

We wrote earlier this week that we thought the SNP’s unambiguous backing for a PV on Brexit (rather than its previous agnostic position) was a mistake both strategically and literally – ie that it came about by accident. That’s an opinion. But what surely can’t be disputed is that throwing their lot in completely with the PVers makes it very hard for them to refuse any deal that offered one.

Of course, there are a lot of ifs in the above. We still don’t think there’s actually going to be a general election, because on those numbers it would be suicide for the Tories. But we said that the last time (and we were right), but it happened anyway.

Even if there IS an election, it’s very far from certain that Labour would campaign on a manifesto for a second EU vote. If they did and the election came out in line with the current projections, it’s certainly also arguable whether they’d risk losing the chance of power just to stop Scotland having another indyref, which ultimately costs Labour very little whatever the outcome.

But the mere thought of the scenario made us uncomfortable, so now we’re making you uncomfortable with it too, because sometimes life’s just rotten that way.

Print Friendly

    547 to “What you wish for”

    1. Breeks says:


      gus1940 says:
      16 April, 2019 at 10:23 am

      While the Notre Dame fire is undoubtedly a tragedy I don’t think we should be too downhearted re the resurrection of the building…

      It’s a good point Gus. Early reports suggest the stone superstructure is pretty intact. A fine testimony to the 13th Century stonemasons which modern stonemasons would struggle to emulate. That said, with their Compagnion de Devoirs method of apprenticeship, maybe the French masons could.

      20 years from now, the French will probably boast the finest team of cathedral restorers in the world.

      But when you see images of flames escaping through the great rose windows which were full of medieval stained glass, you cannot escape the heart breaking conclusion that a masterpiece amongst masterpiece’s has been destroyed.

      When you see the exquisite craftsmanship of the 13th Century and the act of collective creativity which built these magnificent structures with technologies we would call primitive, you can only marvel at what they achieved. Any alien from another planet would look at us and think we were a society in reverse. We can see what human endeavour is capable of, yet we make do with such banal modern crap.

      Maybe Scotland, upon its escape from the Union should consider doing a “Barcelona” and build it’s own Cathedral to inspire and rehabilitate all our trades and craftsmen to true excellence, and to inspire our people with a modern masterpiece of our own. Maybe not a church aspiring to be closer to God, but maybe a great civic theatre for sport internationals, concerts, and communal recreation. A great building of the people for the people. Maybe a Scottish Expo to kick off independence with a fanfare.

    2. cassandra says:

      @ Cubby

      Fine. Go pick a fight elsewhere, as is your forte. I am no match for your forensic skills.

      @Petra

      I agree the SNP are the best and only option to get us to Independence but they are not above criticism and as I am not a member, I reserve the right to criticise. I accept I have been perhaps overly critical recently to make a point to counter the jingoism and false assertions.

      If the the constant mantra is repeated that the SNP are responsible for mitigating every Tory policy, people rightly get angry. However if as here, some posters assert that the SNP can just dissolve the Union and that they have the Law on their side to do so, that sets up an expectation that cannot be met. if that assertion is repeated in campaigning it should be rightly considered as ridiculous as Brexit slogans on a bus and the SNP will be punished for it. They need to clarify their position.

      I am not a constitutional Lawyer but those I have spoken to say that until something is tested in Court it cannot be taken as unquestionable. I think we should be allowed to question in an atmosphere that is not overtly hostile.

    3. Cactus says:

      Look what aye found lunchtime wishers, tis excellent on the ears

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K58iuxowDvc

      Uncomfortably Numb 🙂

    4. geeo says:

      You know the unionists are desperate when coco make an apearance, despite claiming he had better things to do than post on here (comedy gold).

      Then there is ‘cassandra’ who exhibits the exact same characteristics of a previously banned poster.

      Came on ranting at people, then went mute when challenged about the rubbish it posted.

      Now it is doing the old ‘everyone is bad’routine to hide a complete lack of argument.

      Come on cassandra, what are YOUR views on how to progress indy ?

      Do you have anything other than “SNP BAD” and “Wings is Shite btl” ?

      People want to know.

    5. Effijy says:

      Speaking at the London School of Economics on Monday, Ms Pelosi insisted that a US-UK trade agreement would be a “non-starter” if the Belfast Agreement were undermined. Ms Pelosi has become the most senior American politician to warn against a trade deal between the two countries as Brexit negotiations continue. The House of Representatives Speaker claimed that there would be “no chance whatsoever” of a US-UK trade deal between the two allies if the Irish peace process is harmed in her bold statement.

    6. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Iain mhor @ 11:17,

      Thanks, it is an interesting piece that gave at least some consideration of the possibility of a SG-initiated consultative referendum, failing an S.30. What struck me very forcibly, though, was the good prof’s very protective attitude to the Supreme Court. The Americans, who have an SC worthy of the name, would laugh, and not sympathetically either.

      The whole point of such a body is embedded in its title, the operative word being “supreme”. Its only function is to assert the supremacy of the law, and specifically to tell would-be errant politicians where to get off when necessary. Not to worry about whether the Daily Heil might get in a strop about it or not.

      Here we have the very reverse. From the get-go, the prof concedes the position of the SC in the Miller case, in which it manifestly dodged its duty to represent whatever tatters of a constitution we may have, and lamely batted the problem back to the politicians. The very people who are the source of the problem in the first place.

      We have had centuries of deferring lamely to the English way of doing things for the sake of a quiet life, and where has it got us?

      Lamely expecting the politicians to behave responsibly is all fine and well, but what happens if they do not, as they might very well do over a new S.30, with so much at stake. Just look what has happened – and is still happening – over Brexit. Or more exactly, what has not happened. Total stalemate.

      I appreciate the points that the prof is making, but the topsy-turvy nature of his take on the constitution is part of the problem.

    7. cassandra says:

      @geeo

      You are exactly why I stopped posting long ago. I have never been banned. If you want me banned go ahead. I have made my points.

    8. geeo says:

      @cassandra

      You are trying to shut down conversation about the possible routes to independence, by pretending to have spoken to constitutional lawyers (comedy gold) about routes to dissolving the Treaty of Union.

      Perhaps you could post the names and business addresses of these constitutional lawyers, as i for one would be very interested in asking them what legal statutes surrounding the Treaty of Union/Scots Law, that they quoted you.

      Unless of course, you are bullshitting ?

      (Awaits reasons for not giving names)

    9. Iain mhor says:

      @cassandra 11:07am

      Ta, I don’t think it should deter from engaging. I contemplated jacking it in there for a while, but I have to hang about in trains and airports a bit and well, you know, I end up checking in again from boredom and try and connect where I can, swerving the toxic bits.
      The points about constitutional issues are contentious but extremely interesting and I’d disagree that the particular example you give is dangerous thinking.
      If anyone with reasoning believes so, then they need to explain why.

      We haven’t delved into it here but there are some simple principles have been covered here regarding elections and mandates. A universal principle us ‘pick a voting system and the winner wins’ So it’s not an outre position to suggest Independence could be achieved by majorities under WM FPTP (in fact the rules dictate it)
      On shakier ground is a majority at Holyrood’s ability to dissolve the Union. There are well worn and quite logical arguments as to why that may or may not be legitimate, but I wouldn’t dismiss any out of hand.

      Again, that something could be achieved, is not reasoning behind why an option should be achieved, or why it may be inadvisable; that is more often than not obfuscated behind the logic supporting the possibility.
      Recourse to the logic of law is entertaining, because until the waveform is collapsed, most probabilities have equal weight. What is seldom discussed at length, is the political ramifications. These constitutional matters are generally recognised as a political problem in need of a political resolution. Taking a look round the world, we are in no shortage of examples of perpetual bickering, if not civil and international warfare, related to just such issues.

      The clamour for Independence is being tempered by politicians more eager for the defence of legitimacy than victory for it’s own sake. This is a noble and farsighted view – the protection of Scotland from possibly relentless internicine strife and destabilisation. Not only to herself but the tinderboxes around her.
      Across scones and a Darjeeling such things may be discussed, however it is excusable to find at the bleeding edge of independence movements, that arguments for swift victory have greater weight than protracted diplomacy. This is just as legitimate a viewpoint – yes extreme, but there are many Independent countries not vexing themselves about their turbulent past, but forging ahead to the future at peace.

      So dangerous thinking on the edges? Yes, but on the edges is where it’s interesting – keeps everyone on their toes, banishes complacency, forges ideas from art to industry and politics. Not a place for the faint of heart or the slipper shod.
      The piece I linked a couple of times already, explains the “safer” thinking we hear from politicians and probably your erstwhile colleagues – on here we might read ‘dangerous thinking’ – neither position is ‘unarguably’ or ‘incontestably’ right or wrong. In fact Prof. Tierney explicitly states that it is preferable to not let a constitutional process any where near the judiciary and explains why.

      Anyway, this is getting a tad long and I’ve got to split, cheers.

    10. Ahundredthidiot says:

      Hilarious, MSM falling over itslef to tell us the leading cause of all fires, arson, has been ruled out, before the embers are cool enough to provide a safe environment for fire investigation.

      nothing to see here folks, move along, just follow the ‘there is no such thing as a conspiracy’ gang……straight over the edge please, keep going now….

    11. Lenny Hartley says:

      Gus1940 re restoration of buildings, your correct off course but… you are never going to “restore” the patina of upto 900 years of smoking oil lamps and candles. i have been to Dresden and what they have done there is incredible. I restore Classic Motorbikes, a newly restored bike is not worth anything like a good original with patina. How are they going to restore those Rose windows, they aint, they will make a replica which is just that a copy. Not the same.
      The only town in Germany which was not flattened in the 2nd World War is Celle, this was due to Betty Battenburgs cousin having a holiday home there. There are streets full of Medieval buildings, its a beautiful town , and you cannot buy the patina.

    12. yesindyref2 says:

      @Iain mhor
      Here’s a silly scenario.

      I’m in the supermarket, go up to the shelf and take a packet of latte and walk straight out the door. Am I a shoplifter?

      Answer – no – last time I was in I picked up the skinny latte by mistake, came back in to the supervisor, gave her the wrong packet and she said to go up and take the right one.

      An advocate for one side only would have me convicted, my advocate would get footage of the CCTV, and the supervisor and I’d be clear. Hopefully! Wouldn’t get that far anyway, but keep it simple.

      That’s an actual event that would really happen, as well as being a “verifiable” event, though it would in that scenario be evidence, Law in an abstract sense is way more difficult.

    13. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Ahundredthidiot @ 13:17,

      Have any facts to share? Didn’t think so.

      Go away, self-described idiot rabble-rouser. Parasite somewhere else.

    14. yesindyref2 says:

      @RJS
      Miller decided on the basis of UK Law, which didn’t therefore need to use any Scots Constitutional Law to form the judgement, and that part, the main part, specifically involved the UK Government versus UK Parliament.

      Sewell is also UK not Scots, so references were made to the Scotland Act, hence the debate about the word “normally”. That too didn’t need a decision based on Scots Law.

      Wolffed introduced quite a few things including the Claim of Right 1689, but in his submission said he wasn’t going to pursue Sewell, basically. But the UKSC didn’t need to use them to make its final ruling(s).

      The speeding bullet was dodged, and I think Wolffe deliberately allowed them to dodge it. What he did do, I think, was introduce material and lay some groundwork that could be referred to.

      @cassandra
      On the other hand, If Holyrood dissolved the Treaty of Union, or more likely, the Act of Union with England, it would presumably end up in court! But as far as I can see, there’s nothing to stop them actually doing that – hence the EU Continuity Bill and its UKSC judgement as being mostly legal at the time of passing.

      What isn’t specifically reserved is dissolved. And there is nearly always debate where things are written such as:

      1The following aspects of the constitution are reserved matters, that is—
      (a)the Crown, including succession to the Crown and a regency,
      (b)the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England,

      https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5

      Seems an open and shut case – the Treaty and Acts of Union are reserved by the Scotland Act 1998 and as amended.

      Ah, but, is hat part of the Scotland Act itself legal in terms of the Act of Union 1707, which wasn’t for obvious reasons, repealed, nor the Treaty dissolved?

      Let’s go to Court and discuss this …

    15. yesindyref2 says:

      @cassandra
      Basically what I’m saying is that the opinion of the GLSS is just that – an opinion. The legal advice (GLSS??) to the PO Ken McIntosh about the EU Continuity Bill was that it was outside the competence of Holyrood and the Scottish Government, it was basically ultra vires.

      The recent judgement of the UKSC was that that was wrong, it WAS within their competence all bar one bit which gave the Scottish Minsters some competences denied in the Scotland Act.

    16. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      schrodingers cat @ 14:01,

      Scrolling down the page of your directly linked (tsk!) article, there’s Leask resurrecting the “Spanish veto” myth yet again. It’s been hoisted out of its grave so often it’s disintegrating.

      What a despicable apology of a rag The Herald has become.

    17. yesindyref2 says:

      The key thing is that the PO can make his judgement on a forthcoming Bill “This is not within the competence of Holyrood”, and the Scottish Government can continue regardless. Its Bill would need to be struck down in court.

    18. Dr Jim says:

      It’s Leask again

    19. yesindyref2 says:

      Ignore previous, not good enough.

      The key thing is that the PO can make his judgement on a forthcoming Bill “This is not within the competence of Holyrood”, and the Scottish Government can continue regardless and Holyrood give it a majority and pass it. It then goes for Royal Assent. Any person or such as the UK Gov then have just 30 days to challenge it, and then its Bill would need to be struck down in court.

      If it wasn’t challenged, in 30 days, it goes for Royal Assent. The Queen could of course refuse to sign, but that hasn’t happened for a lot of years. One (to do with power of estates) was effectively refused in 1703 when a Bill of the Scottish Parliament wasn’t given Royal Assent – which in terms of 1689 (I think) would mean she could have been deposed as Queen of Scots, and another monarch chosen.

      Abd of couse Sturgeon is the keeper of the Great Seal of Scotland.

    20. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      yesindyref2 @ 14:05, 14:19,

      I somehow think that despite Iain Mhor’s evident reservations, this indy business is going to (have to) go to court, one way or another. Not least if UK politicians try to stall.

      And ideally, just like with the Art.50 revocation, all the way to the ECJ via the Court of Session. The jurists there do seem to have the balls for taking decisions.

    21. Cubby says:

      Cassandra@12.25pm

      “I think we should be allowed to question in an atmosphere that is not overtly hostile.”

      I agree.

      “Fine. Go and pick a fight elsewhere, as is your forte. I am no match for your forensic skills.”

      It seems to me that you are the one who is trying to pick a fight with me. It seems to me that you are being overtly hostile. You referred to me initially in a strange post that also referenced a fictitious post that I had not made. Why do this?

    22. yesindyref2 says:

      @Dr Jim
      I read the article, and it is a new outburst from a senior PP person, it’s information for us too. As Leask pointed out “They also follow assurances from Spanish politicians, including PP when in office, that they would not veto an independent Scotland joining the EU provided sovereignty had been re-established by constitutional means”.

      PP not wanting a veto was major news to us when it came out, a dissenting PP senior politician is information for us to be aware of, otherwise the unionists would catch us unawares. PP are part of the EPP at the EP, with 216 MEPs – the biggest block of MEPs (above S&D with 189 MEPs).

      Nothing wrong with Leask’s whole article. It’s news and information.

    23. CameronB Brodie says:

      geeo
      Please stop trying to exclude cassandra, as that is clearly what you are doing by misrepresenting what she has written.

    24. yesindyref2 says:

      Sorry, I meant EPP has 216 MEPs, that contains 16 MEPs from the PP, down from 24 back last EU elections in 2014. Less influential, but still important.

    25. yesindyref2 says:

      Basically speaking the Pons utterances are the PP trying to shore up its falling vote in Spain for the Spanish GE later this month, effectively as Leask said:

      The PP is the biggest party in the current parliament but has lost power to the socialists. It is on track to lose seats but could return to power with the backing of ultra-unionist Ciudadanos and the newly popular far-right Vox, both of which share the PP’s hostility to Catalan independence.

      Leask ain’t the enemy, just an arse at times 🙂

    26. yesindyref2 says:

      Yeah, I’m making it a bit confusing too.

      Scotland’s hassle-free entry / re-entry into the EU depends on the vote in both the European Council, which could comprise the PP and others for Spain’s “accept / veto”, and part of the EPP, as the EP also has to approve Scotland. From that point of view, the potential European Council veto is more important, from all the readings but not jumping to conclusions, the EP is already there with a majority for Scotland.

      Of course, the European Council decision could be a QMV depending on the route and perhaps a decision of the European Council. It could be for instance they decide on a QMV to make it easier for a member State not to support Scotland’s membership, without actually blocking it. All things are possible, dependeing on Good Will.

      Taht’s it, I’ve rabbited on enough.

    27. Gary says:

      If Labour campaigned on a second vote they would fail to get even those seats projected. It would be suicide for them in their English heartlands.

      Labour would rather come to power with Brexit already a done deal and without having to have had anything to do with it (which looks impossible now)

      Corbyn and his close team would have no objection to doing a deal with SNP but he would be advised against it. Remember how that prospect was used as an anti-Labour campaign? Showing Alex Salmond with Milliband in his pocket? Remember The Daily Mail reprinting a version of The Rivers of Blood speech with Scotland as the villain? Association with SNP would KILL Labour’s prospects (if this was used in the campign by the Tories I mean) It DOES show how Scots are perceived by voters in England though, which is EXTREMELY disturbing…

      Coalitions, I believe, are dead. Confidence and supply is one way round it but SLAB would be DEAD against it. As much as they love power they hate the SNP more.

    28. Jack Murphy says:

      ‘manandboy’ concluded his piece at 10:44am today,but on the previous page. Don’t really want it sitting there unread:

      “…… I am no longer proud to have worked at the BBC – I am ashamed to be associated in any way with an organisation that facilitates fascism and transmits its propaganda uncritically and without challenge.”

      https://www.thecanary.co/uk/news/2019/04/15/yesterday-was-the-final-straw-a-veteran-bbc-journalist-is-now-ashamed-of-his-25-years-of-service/

    29. Ahundredthidiot says:

      RJS

      you should be more worried about your reaction.

      borderline rabid you mate, think on that.

    30. CameronB Brodie says:

      re. the philosophical underpinnings of British nationalism. They are geared towards organic government and incremental, rational, change. As such, British nationalists should be repelled by Brexit, which is inorganic and extremist in nature. And that should give you an indication of the power the media has in shaping political opinion (see Brexit). Time for some Radical Philosophy?

      Political theory and the multicultural society

      Political theory and the multicultural society

      Bhikhu parekh

      Cultural diversity in modern societies takes many forms, of which three are most common. First, although members of society share a broadly common culture, they also entertain different beliefs and practices concerning certain signi?cant areas of human life. This is the case with gays and lesbians, youth culture, those following unconventional lifestyles or family structures, and so on. The individuals and groups involved share and are happy with the wider culture, and are only concerned to open up appropriate spaces within it to express and live by their choices in the relevant areas of life. We shall call this subcultural diversity.

      Second, some members of society are highly critical of the central principles and values of the dominant culture and seek to reconstitute it along appropriate lines. Feminists attack its deeply ingrained patriarchal bias, the religious its secular orientation, the environmentalists its anthropocentric and technocratic bias, and the blacks and others its racism. These and other groups represent neither subcultures – for they challenge the very basis of the existing culture – nor distinct cultural communities living by their values and views of the world, but distinct perspectives on how the shared culture should be reconstituted. We shall call this perspectival diversity.

      Third, most modern societies also include several self-conscious and more or less well-organized communities entertaining and living by different systems of beliefs and practices. They include the newly arrived immigrants, such long-established communities as the Jews, the Amish and the Gypsies, various religious communities, and such territorially concentrated cultural groups as indigenous peoples, the Basques and the Québecois. We shall call this communal diversity.

      The term ?multicultural society? is generally used in three corresponding senses, to refer to a society that exhibits all three and other kinds of diversity, one that displays the last two kinds of diversity, and one characterized by only the third kind of diversity.

      Although all three usages have their advantages and disadvantages, the third has on balance most to be said in favour of it. The term ?multicultural? emerged in the 1960s to refer to this kind of society, and the usage thus has a historical basis. Most contemporary societies are culturally diverse, but only some of them are multicultural or culturally plural….

      https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/political-theory-and-the-multicultural-society

    31. Ahundredthidiot says:

      Notre Dame

      Fact 1 – arson is the number one cause of fires

      2 – colour of smoke can dictate the fuel which is burning, heavy in carbon the darker the smoke for example, chemicals and metals give off different heat light and smoke, vt can help. good arson stems from good accelarants
      3 – all fires are a scene of crime and subject to investigation, including any ‘clearing out’ beforehand would be considered circumstantial evidence
      4 – there was no airborne vt (that i could see)
      5 – the MSM have declared this an ‘accident’ (whatever that is)

      I am amazed at how programmed some people are, why is the possibility of thisbeing arson so utterly impossible?? to the point where any suggestion is treated with derision……mental..

    32. geeo says:

      CameronB Brodie says:

      16 April, 2019 at 2:41 pm

      geeo
      Please stop trying to exclude cassandra, as that is clearly what you are doing by misrepresenting what she has written.
      ……….

      Oh away and quote some pseudo-babble..

      ……..

      Anyhoo, here is me, apparently shutting down your new buddy Cassandra…using QUESTIONS and requests for INFORMATION.

      Me: “Perhaps you could post the names and business addresses of these constitutional lawyers, as i for one would be very interested in asking them what legal statutes surrounding the Treaty of Union/Scots Law, that they quoted you”?

      Me: “Come on cassandra, what are YOUR views on how to progress indy ?

      Do you have anything other than “SNP BAD” and “Wings is Shite btl” ?

      People want to know”.
      …………

      You keep to your wee pseudo fantasy world of theorists and propagandists, and i will stick to the ACTUAL REAL WORLD.

      Ps…Cassandra has dodged all questions and requests, she has shut herself down by not having a coherent response.

    33. CameronB Brodie says:

      “As such, British nationalists should be repelled by Brexit, which is inorganic and extremist in nature.”

      OK, it’s more complex than that, the hijacking of the constitution was achieved through inorganic means, but the social polorisation the New Right exploited is the product of an organic crises in the British state. A crises that is largely the fault of neoliberal practice in government e.g. austerity. Social polarisation is a recognised indicator of a state’s vulnerability to collapse.

    34. CameronB Brodie says:

      geeo
      You’ve assumed a position re. cassandra that is based on insufficient evidence. That is not the actions of a rational liberal.

    35. geeo says:

      Yesindyref2.

      Did you ever work for the Herald or have pals work there ?

      I notice you have put up a bit of a defence of Leask earlier, and a while back you defended ‘uncle’ Tom Gordon.

      Not having a go at you, but those 2 are scummy anti-indy propagandists.

      Indefensible in my book.

    36. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      Ahundredthidiot @ 15:14,

      Now what’s “rabid” about wanting FACTS and not arrant invented fantasy?

      You evidently don’t have a clue about the ethos of this site. Or even worse, you don’t give a damn and are just cynically exploiting it as a vector for your own insidious fake newsery.

      If you must speculate wildly without any basis in reality, there are plenty of places elsewhere on the internet which will entertain that kind of idiocy. And there you won’t be the hundredth of your kind either.

    37. CameronB Brodie says:

      Robert J. Sutherland
      As I’ve defended you in the past, might I be bold in offering some constructive input. Writing emotive rhetoric needs emotional control if it is not to stray in to realm of exclusionary polemic.

      I’m not pointing a finger at anyone, simply trying to deepen the btl community’s understanding.

    38. cassandra says:

      @geeo

      You have illustrated every point I have made by your increasingly unhinged behaviour on this thread. I don’t answer because I have other things to do and this is an occasional diversion for me not my life.

      I am certainly not going to give you Lawyers addresses and names. Ask any constitutional lawyer or any lawyer at all, they will all say the same.

      I have reflected back at you the behaviour you constantly display on this site. The idea of you sitting waiting in cyberspace for me to answer every ludicrous paranoid point you make is actually quite funny.

      I might come back, I might not.

    39. geeo says:

      More Comedy Gold from cassandra the liar and fraud.

      I want to ask YOUR supposed constitutional lawyer sources which legal statutes they quoted you.

      Why ?

      Because they are talking utter mince, or you are lying your arse off.

      Thats you all along though, talk crap, get called on it, no coherent back up to your verbal skitters.

      Why would you not give out these supposed legal sources to prove what you say?

      They certainly would not object, after all, they will be free to charge me for their learned time,and i am happy to pay.

      So, how about those names and business addresses ?

      Client waiting !

    40. Robert J. Sutherland says:

      CameronB Brodie @ 17:45,

      I’m not sure what you’re inferring here, but there’s meaningful discussion from different points of view, and there’s the deliberate sowing of conspiracy theory and outright fake news for malign purposes. The former is always welcome, the latter is an egregious offence to the clear ethos of this site. I can be as tolerant of the former as anyone, but I have zero tolerance for the latter, which is an unmitigated curse. The curse of the present internet age, even.

      It’s possible to attack this site in many subtle ways, and one of them is to convince the casual visitor that it is only populated by flakes.

    41. ahundredthidiot says:

      you know RJS…..I have been reading and posting on Wings for about 6 years, not that its a competition of course.

      Here’s the difference between me and you (I bet – just a guess) when someone cuts me up on the road (badly, dangerously even) I couldn’t care less, I just get on with my day and imagine the poor sod is having a terrible time about something or other.

      You, I think, most likely fall into a rage, shouting and bawling at the inside of your own windscreen.

      A bit like life that, when you think about it.

      Rage about people like me all you like…..but I will love you simply because you support Scotlands Independence – outside of that, we don’t need to agree on anything.

      oh, and don’t be setting your alarm clock tonight so that you can wake up at whatever o’clock in the morning……that would be a conspiracy!!

    42. ahundredthidiot says:

      oh, forgot to add RJS

      did you read, or skip, my post at 3:38? – those are the FACTS you demanded, which I gave after my ‘rabid’ comment

      That would be a tell, but keep that one to yourself mate.

    43. yesindyref2 says:

      @geeo
      Yesindyref2.

      Did you ever work for the Herald or have pals work there ?

      I notice you have put up a bit of a defence of Leask earlier, and a while back you defended ‘uncle’ Tom Gordon.

      Not having a go at you, but those 2 are scummy anti-indy propagandists.

      Indefensible in my book.

      Why is it when anyone voices an opinion you disagree with, you have to accuse them of some ulterior motive?

      Don’t you have the strength of conviction of your own opinions to be able to debate them in a sensible normal fashion, respecting the very plain fact that in a nation of 5.4 million, in a political construct of 66 million, currrently in a loose union of 512 million, on a planet of 7 billion, in a galaxy of who knows how many in a multiverse of even more who knows how many, in a multi-dimension of multiple parallel multi-dimensions of multiverses of etc. etc. etc. …

      … there might actually be somewhat more than one opinion than yours on anything at all, basically?

    44. yesindyref2 says:

      The short answer is – no. Here’s a question right back at you:

      Did you used to work in the Spanish Inquisition?

      Because nobody expects, or should expect, the …

    45. geeo says:

      Jeezo, just asking why you feel the need to defend 2 rabid, anti indy propagandists !!

      Seems a reasonable thing to ask, you do the same to others on here who talk pish and promote media lies.

      That is the purpose of this very blog ffs !!

      If you dont want to answer, then dont ffs.

      Who are you to say i cannot ask?

    46. yesindyref2 says:

      I answered your question “Did you ever work for the Herald or have pals work there ?” with a no.

      But you didn’t answer my question which to put it in full is:

      “Did you ever work for the Spanish Inquisition or have pals work there ?”

      That is the purpose of this very blog ffs !!
      If you dont want to answer, then dont ffs.
      Who are you to say i cannot ask?

      Failing an answer, I presume your answer is “yes”, and everyone can draw their own conclusions.

      Here’s another question:

      Do you know the meaning of the word “innuendo”?

      Well?



    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. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top