UK minister surprised by Scottish independence referendum move

[RuamRudy]

12 minutes ago, transam said:

So you won't comment on the vid....That's OK, I thought you wouldn't....???? 

So you are unable to speak for yourself? That's OK, I knew you couldn't... 

[RayC]

15 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

No, it's off topic because independence is not based upon a personality but a belief that being in this English led union has done incalculable damage to our country, and although 300 years too late, it is better to sever the cord now than never. 

What is this 'incalculable damage'? Can you give some examples?

 

You also made the statement below. What does this new model look like in your opinion?

 

"The important thing for the country is, however, that the structure of our government be radically different from that of the UK; it makes no sense to leave the UK merely to replicate the same failed model and be hamstrung by the same narrow band of self interested, non delivering professional parliamentarians"

[transam]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

So you are unable to speak for yourself? That's OK, I knew you couldn't... 

So you never watched the vid to even make an attempt to disagree with it.....

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

What is this 'incalculable damage'? Can you give some examples?

 

Sure I can.

 

It all started 300 years ago when a small number of rich men, faced with the prospect of losing their fortunes, were coerced into signing a deal which formed the United Kingdom. So unpopular was the move that, as was recorded by Daniel Defoe, there was rioting on the streets of Edinburgh at the fact. Burns wrote of being 'bought and sold for English gold' in his poem, Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation.

 

It was not long after that the attempts to eradicate the Scottish cultural way of life and language commenced. This persecution of highland culture continues to this very day. When was it ever illegal for an Englishman to speak English in his own country?

 

The benefactors were those considered supportive of the English court and were thus granted huge swathes of land as reward for their backing of a foreign government. This led to the clearances where entire villages were evicted and government troops burnt crofters out of their homes to make way for sheep. Even today, there are official attempts to whitewash this shameful period, with Neil Oliver on the BBC talking of emigrants heading for new lives in the colonies, as if their incentive was adventure and opportunity in the new world. 

 

Then we have a couple of hundred years of exploitation and capital transfer south (not to mention the desecration of thousands and thousand of acres of Scottish countryside to create a playground for the privileged few to shoot wild animals), then the boon of North Sea Oil - so while Norway, a country roughly comparable with Scotland in terms of population and oil provision, has built up a massive sovereign wealth fund (almost $1 trillion at the moment) to support its country; the vast majority of Scottish North Sea oil revenue was spent keeping Tory boroughs in England sweet, or giving tax cuts to the friends and donors of the Nasty Party. As recently as 2000, council properties in Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe, still had outdoor toilets as all that money flowed south, bypassing the people who could have benefited from it were it not for the corrupt government in the country next door. 

 

And so it goes on. It is clear that Brexit will damage every area of the UK, but projections show that, economically, Scotland will be damaged most of all. A nasty, xenophobic fools' errand which Scotland firmly rejected - but we will suffer worst of all. 

 

1 hour ago, RayC said:

You also made the statement below. What does this new model look like in your opinion?

 

I am no expert in constitutional reform, but I would suggest that any government which can acquire an 80 seat majority with 43% of the votes has no moral legitimacy and does not reflect modern democratic thinking in terms of its provenance. 

 

[RayC]

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Sure I can.

 

It all started 300 years ago when a small number of rich men, faced with the prospect of losing their fortunes, were coerced into signing a deal which formed the United Kingdom. So unpopular was the move that, as was recorded by Daniel Defoe, there was rioting on the streets of Edinburgh at the fact. Burns wrote of being 'bought and sold for English gold' in his poem, Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation.

Certainly a comprehensive reply.

 

"Coerced"? Wasn't it an act of necessity? At the time, Scotland was the poorest country in Europe as a result of the Darien misadventure.

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

It was not long after that the attempts to eradicate the Scottish cultural way of life and language commenced. This persecution of highland culture continues to this very day. When was it ever illegal for an Englishman to speak English in his own country?

You will know much more about Scottish history than me, but I believe that Gallic was outlawed in the 17th century, so the persecution of Highland culture commenced before the Act of Union? 

 

How does this persecution manifest itself today?

 

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

The benefactors were those considered supportive of the English court and were thus granted huge swathes of land as reward for their backing of a foreign government. This led to the clearances where entire villages were evicted and government troops burnt crofters out of their homes to make way for sheep. Even today, there are official attempts to whitewash this shameful period, with Neil Oliver on the BBC talking of emigrants heading for new lives in the colonies, as if their incentive was adventure and opportunity in the new world. 

As you say, shameful.

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Then we have a couple of hundred years of exploitation and capital transfer south

I have no wish to be portrayed as an apologist for imperialism or unfettered capitalism, but Scottish industry benefited greatly from Empire: The rise in Glasgow is a case in point; it rose from being a small, insignificant town to one of the most important cities in the world in the late 18th to early 20th centuries. Would that have happened without union with England?

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

(not to mention the desecration of thousands and thousand of acres of Scottish countryside to create a playground for the privileged few to shoot wild animals),

Imo unforgivable. But a consequence of Union with England?

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

then the boon of North Sea Oil - so while Norway, a country roughly comparable with Scotland in terms of population and oil provision, has built up a massive sovereign wealth fund (almost $1 trillion at the moment) to support its country;

Were mistakes made in managing the UK economy from the 1970s onwards (start of the North Sea Oil boom)? Undoubtedly. Should a sovereign wealth fund have been set up? Probably. Would an independent Scotland have been more successful in managing the economy? Who knows?

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

the vast majority of Scottish North Sea oil revenue was spent keeping Tory boroughs in England sweet, or giving tax cuts to the friends and donors of the Nasty Party.

Was Scotland subsidising the rest of the UK? There is very little data but highly debatable https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-has-scotland-subsidised-the-rest-of-the-uk

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

As recently as 2000, council properties in Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe, still had outdoor toilets as all that money flowed south, bypassing the people who could have benefited from it were it not for the corrupt government in the country next door. 

See my previous comment re income. It was a shameful situation but surely the fault lies with the local council, rather than Westminster or Holyrood?

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

And so it goes on. It is clear that Brexit will damage every area of the UK, but projections show that, economically, Scotland will be damaged most of all. A nasty, xenophobic fools' errand which Scotland firmly rejected - but we will suffer worst of all. 

No argument from me about the negative effects of Brexit.

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I am no expert in constitutional reform, but I would suggest that any government which can acquire an 80 seat majority with 43% of the votes has no moral legitimacy and does not reflect modern democratic thinking in terms of its provenance. 

 

I don't wish to offend, but it's easy to criticize without having a viable alternative. 

 

The current Scottish government gained 46.5% of the vote, but has an overall majority. Presumably, it has no moral legitimacy either?

[transam]

17 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Sure I can.

 

It all started 300 years ago when a small number of rich men, faced with the prospect of losing their fortunes, were coerced into signing a deal which formed the United Kingdom. So unpopular was the move that, as was recorded by Daniel Defoe, there was rioting on the streets of Edinburgh at the fact. Burns wrote of being 'bought and sold for English gold' in his poem, Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation.

 

It was not long after that the attempts to eradicate the Scottish cultural way of life and language commenced. This persecution of highland culture continues to this very day. When was it ever illegal for an Englishman to speak English in his own country?

 

The benefactors were those considered supportive of the English court and were thus granted huge swathes of land as reward for their backing of a foreign government. This led to the clearances where entire villages were evicted and government troops burnt crofters out of their homes to make way for sheep. Even today, there are official attempts to whitewash this shameful period, with Neil Oliver on the BBC talking of emigrants heading for new lives in the colonies, as if their incentive was adventure and opportunity in the new world. 

 

Then we have a couple of hundred years of exploitation and capital transfer south (not to mention the desecration of thousands and thousand of acres of Scottish countryside to create a playground for the privileged few to shoot wild animals), then the boon of North Sea Oil - so while Norway, a country roughly comparable with Scotland in terms of population and oil provision, has built up a massive sovereign wealth fund (almost $1 trillion at the moment) to support its country; the vast majority of Scottish North Sea oil revenue was spent keeping Tory boroughs in England sweet, or giving tax cuts to the friends and donors of the Nasty Party. As recently as 2000, council properties in Aberdeen, the oil capital of Europe, still had outdoor toilets as all that money flowed south, bypassing the people who could have benefited from it were it not for the corrupt government in the country next door. 

 

And so it goes on. It is clear that Brexit will damage every area of the UK, but projections show that, economically, Scotland will be damaged most of all. A nasty, xenophobic fools' errand which Scotland firmly rejected - but we will suffer worst of all. 

 

I am no expert in constitutional reform, but I would suggest that any government which can acquire an 80 seat majority with 43% of the votes has no moral legitimacy and does not reflect modern democratic thinking in terms of its provenance. 

 

Were you there....?   ????

[Rookiescot]

22 hours ago, sanuk711 said:

So your analysis of this situation, is that you can not mention the leader of your independence movement, or I take it anyone else in it, but only the movement its self?  

Convenient really, as the disposing of her mentor and maybe biggest rival for leadership, by being complicit in him being accused of a heinous crime, is beginning to unravel. Her husband texting people to put pressure on the police for a prosecution that would ruin him. both politically and personally. Her loss of memory-on dates, Her starting a "Go Fund" page to get money for the 5 women who's evidence was completely rejected by by the jury.  

I don't think she needs to worry about Alex--Men never seem come from those sex accusations , even after the courts reject them.

 

**Quote-it's off topic because independence is not based upon a personality but a belief

So if we have a quick peruse of your post we would see that you never mention Farage --just his Brexit moment,  and of course when mentioning any past independence uprising in Scotland YOU only mention the movement not any person........... ?????

 

Yer........

I think you & your Rookie friend would do better if you do not ask the Mods to censor posts that you don't like.

 

I am all for Scotland braking away RuamRudy, .. but as I mention to you before, your best chance of this to happen is to let the English working man in on the vote.  It would be a landslid.

 

Happier times--before Nicola decided it wasn't  so much about unity , as being Number 1

 

Where have I asked for the mods to remove or censor anything? 

Oh yeah that's right I haven't. 

[Rookiescot]

34 minutes ago, transam said:

Were you there....?   ????

Are you over the age of 75?

If you are not then using your logic, I dont see why you should be posting anything about WW2 but you still do it.

 

[RuamRudy]

12 hours ago, RayC said:

"Coerced"? Wasn't it an act of necessity? At the time, Scotland was the poorest country in Europe as a result of the Darien misadventure.

This is a common misconception. There is no doubt that it was a necessity for the private individuals involved, as the Darien scheme was a private endeavour, not an attempt at Scottish imperialism. Don't forget that there was no Scottish central bank at this time; Scotland had no debts because it was not a borrowing nation and it therefore was not teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. However the foolhardy individuals who were on the brink had the power and authority to decide the fate of the country, and so sold out their country to save themselves. 

 

12 hours ago, RayC said:

You will know much more about Scottish history than me, but I believe that Gallic was outlawed in the 17th century, so the persecution of Highland culture commenced before the Act of Union? 

 

How does this persecution manifest itself today?

I probably don't know much more than you. In school Scottish history was not taught to any great extent. I learned about the Battle of Hastings and the War of the Roses, both events before the union, but not so much about my own country's history.

 

But I was referring to the Act of Proscription of 1746: " It was part of a series of efforts to assimilate the Scottish Highlands, ending their ability to revolt, and the first of the 'King's laws' which sought to crush the Clan system in the aftermath of the Jacobite rising of 1745. These laws were finally repealed on 1 July 1782"

 

Today we see a less violent attack on our culture, but still as pernicious. Tory MSPs egg on their social media supporters to attack the dual languaging of road signs, council properties etc. The gaelic language is traduced by unionists who openly question the value of government spending on keeping our culture alive (not only gaelic but Doric, Scots and the other languages of Scotland that are still clinging on despite the onslaught of those who seek complete assimilation and homogeneity across the British Isles). 

 

12 hours ago, RayC said:

I have no wish to be portrayed as an apologist for imperialism or unfettered capitalism, but Scottish industry benefited greatly from Empire: The rise in Glasgow is a case in point; it rose from being a small, insignificant town to one of the most important cities in the world in the late 18th to early 20th centuries. Would that have happened without union with England?

There is no doubt that Scotland played an active role in the union, but it is fanciful to suggest that it was the union that elevated it from some forgotten backwater. At the time of the Act of Union in 1707, Scotland already had 5 universities whereas there were only 2 in the whole of England. The Scottish reformation had already enabled the growth of parish schools and paved the way for the Enlightenment - it was the reformation which was the critical precursor to Scotland's intellectual, cultural and engineering renaissance, not the union. 

 

12 hours ago, RayC said:

I have no wish to be portrayed as an apologist for imperialism or unfettered capitalism, but Scottish industry benefited greatly from Empire: The rise in Glasgow is a case in point; it rose from being a small, insignificant town to one of the most important cities in the world in the late 18th to early 20th centuries. Would that have happened without union with England?

Don't get me wrong - I don't think that the working class of England were living in clover while the working class in Scotland were being repressed; the British government saw the poor as being dispensable commodities no matter where they lived, but the gifting of these vast estates to their favoured supplicants, and the continued patronage of them as playgrounds of the rich is what did it, all the way through to Thatcher's tax breaks for the wealthy landowners. Even today, accurate details of who owns our country are hard to come by because of how the government has allowed it to be bought and sold by secretive Cayman Islands holding companies. 

 

13 hours ago, RayC said:

Was Scotland subsidising the rest of the UK? There is very little data but highly debatable https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-has-scotland-subsidised-the-rest-of-the-uk

No doubt there would be ebb and flow, but in the absence of hard data, it is hard to say one way or another. But the point is more about making our own choices rather than being forced to toe a foreign line. 

 

13 hours ago, RayC said:

See my previous comment re income. It was a shameful situation but surely the fault lies with the local council, rather than Westminster or Holyrood?

This is obviously a very specific example, intended to highlight the failure of North Sea Oil to benefit the people of the NE of Scotland, but if we really want to look at it - could we also look at Thatcher's imposition of spending limits on councils?

 

13 hours ago, RayC said:

I don't wish to offend, but it's easy to criticize without having a viable alternative. 

 

The current Scottish government gained 46.5% of the vote, but has an overall majority. Presumably, it has no moral legitimacy either?

No offence taken - but the patient doesn't need to be an expert in open heart surgery to accept that he needs a heart transplant. 

 

The SNP actively campaigned for PR during the 2011 (?) referendum that was opposed (and won) by the parties which benefited most by FPTP. 

[transam]

54 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Are you over the age of 75?

If you are not then using your logic, I dont see why you should be posting anything about WW2 but you still do it.

 

For the simple reason that during and after WW2 there is 100% evidence in film and from folk who were actually there, my dad and mum come to mind....

Now you quote about folk from 300 years back.....Were you there....????

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

For the simple reason that during and after WW2 there is 100% evidence in film and from folk who were actually there, my dad and mum come to mind....

Now you quote about folk from 300 years back.....Were you there....????

So was the act of union even signed? Are we arguing over something that doesn't exist? I wasn't there - were you? OK, if the video of its actual signing is not on Youtube then let's scrap it now - clearly there is doubt about its veracity.

[transam]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

So was the act of union even signed? Are we arguing over something that doesn't exist? I wasn't there - were you? OK, if the video of its actual signing is not on Youtube then let's scrap it now - clearly there is doubt about its veracity.

Have a read, you can't dodge facts....????

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707

 

[RuamRudy]

15 minutes ago, transam said:

Have a read, you can't dodge facts....????

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707

 

But were your mum and dad there? That seems to be your threshold for acceptance of history, does it not?

[transam]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

But were your mum and dad there? That seems to be your threshold for acceptance of history, does it not?

I would suggest the link I provided answered your questions, the effort in putting the link together far out ways the tosh you "think' happened.......????

 

Do you think your previous SNP leader Alex Salmond was a splendid fellow.....?

 

[RuamRudy]

28 minutes ago, transam said:

I would suggest the link I provided answered your questions, the effort in putting the link together far out ways the tosh you "think' happened.......????

 

Do you think your previous SNP leader Alex Salmond was a splendid fellow.....?

 

Without resorting to obvious deflection, tell me what of my post was 'tosh'. 

[transam]

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Without resorting to obvious deflection, tell me what of my post was 'tosh'. 

Obvious deflection............????

PS. Alex Salmond, your ex leader....... Your thoughts....????

[RuamRudy]

42 minutes ago, transam said:

Obvious deflection............????

PS. Alex Salmond, your ex leader....... Your thoughts....????

You stated that my post was 'tosh' and now you are refusing to explain why you came to that conclusion? Is it because you based your earlier assessment on ... nothing?

 

Salmond my leader? I have not been a member of the SNP since the mid 90s. He has never been my leader.

[transam]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

You stated that my post was 'tosh' and now you are refusing to explain why you came to that conclusion? Is it because you based your earlier assessment on ... nothing?

 

Salmond my leader? I have not been a member of the SNP since the mid 90s. He has never been my leader.

Absolutely correct, I did.....

 

So the SNP has nothing to do with your aspirations...?  ????

[RuamRudy]

38 minutes ago, transam said:

Absolutely correct, I did.....

 

So the SNP has nothing to do with your aspirations...?  ????

Of course they have but that, in no way, makes your point anything other than nonsense. 

[RayC]

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

This is a common misconception. There is no doubt that it was a necessity for the private individuals involved, as the Darien scheme was a private endeavour, not an attempt at Scottish imperialism. Don't forget that there was no Scottish central bank at this time; Scotland had no debts because it was not a borrowing nation and it therefore was not teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. However the foolhardy individuals who were on the brink had the power and authority to decide the fate of the country, and so sold out their country to save themselves. 

But doesn't your explanation suggest that signing the Act was a necessity? Economic power in Scotland rested in the hands of a few wealthy individuals. The lack of fiscal and monetary infrastructure in Scotland at the time meant, as you point out, that these few foolhardy individuals controlled the fate of Scotland. If they failed, Scotland failed (economically).

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

I probably don't know much more than you. In school Scottish history was not taught to any great extent. I learned about the Battle of Hastings and the War of the Roses, both events before the union, but not so much about my own country's history.

 

But I was referring to the Act of Proscription of 1746: " It was part of a series of efforts to assimilate the Scottish Highlands, ending their ability to revolt, and the first of the 'King's laws' which sought to crush the Clan system in the aftermath of the Jacobite rising of 1745. These laws were finally repealed on 1 July 1782"

Fair enough and, there can be little doubt that England sought to bring Scotland under its control, but I was merely pointing out that the persecution of Highland culture was not a function of the Act of Union; it had commenced earlier.

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Today we see a less violent attack on our culture, but still as pernicious. Tory MSPs egg on their social media supporters to attack the dual languaging of road signs, council properties etc.

Clearly wrong. Surely this is illegal? Don't they leave themselves open to civil disorder/ incitement charges?

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

The gaelic language is traduced by unionists who openly question the value of government spending on keeping our culture alive (not only gaelic but Doric, Scots and the other languages of Scotland that are still clinging on despite the onslaught of those who seek complete assimilation and homogeneity across the British Isles). 

This seems wrong but I guess that it comes down to opportunity cost (however that is measured).

 

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

There is no doubt that Scotland played an active role in the union, but it is fanciful to suggest that it was the union that elevated it from some forgotten backwater. At the time of the Act of Union in 1707, Scotland already had 5 universities whereas there were only 2 in the whole of England. The Scottish reformation had already enabled the growth of parish schools and paved the way for the Enlightenment - it was the reformation which was the critical precursor to Scotland's intellectual, cultural and engineering renaissance, not the union. 

The catalyst for the Enlightenment may have been the Reformation, but would the Enlightenment have been possible - or, at least, as far-reaching and influencial - without the Act of Union? As mentioned, Scotland was in dire financial straits in 1707. It experienced an almost immediate upturn in economic growth as a result of its closer ties with England, thus enabling it to finance and expand its (already impressive) educational system and wider cultural activities. Could that taken place in a country which was effectively bankrupt?

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Don't get me wrong - I don't think that the working class of England were living in clover while the working class in Scotland were being repressed; the British government saw the poor as being dispensable commodities no matter where they lived, but the gifting of these vast estates to their favoured supplicants, and the continued patronage of them as playgrounds of the rich is what did it, all the way through to Thatcher's tax breaks for the wealthy landowners. Even today, accurate details of who owns our country are hard to come by because of how the government has allowed it to be bought and sold by secretive Cayman Islands holding companies. 

It's a logical argument against capitalism.

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

But the point is more about making our own choices rather than being forced to toe a foreign line. 

I guess how one feels about that is the crux of the matter. 

 

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The SNP actively campaigned for PR during the 2011 (?) referendum that was opposed (and won) by the parties which benefited most by FPTP. 

I don't get your point. However, having accused you of not providing a solution, I am guilty of the same charge. Imo FPTP is an extremely flawed system;  however, the alternatives aren't that great. PV has its own, often greater problems. For example, and I'm pretty sure that this is correct, Belgium has spent more time trying to form governments this decade than actually with a government in situ. A system that allows that to happen is clearly not fit for purpose either.

 

I went off on a tangent there. The main reason for commenting on your original post was that you inferred that the Act of Union has been an unmitigated disaster for Scotland. I disagree. Is the Union in Scotland's (and England's) best interests in the 21st century? You have stronger views on that than me; I genuinely don't know. Cheers.

[RuamRudy]

It seems that every other week, a new poll is released which shows support for independence just growing and growing. This from today's Sunday Herald:

 

Scottish independence: New poll shows record levels would vote for independence

 

 

"Almost one-third of Scots who voted against independence in 2014 have changed their mind and are either unsure or would vote Yes, according to a new poll.

"Record levels also believe that a majority of Scots would vote for independence if a referendum were held today."

 

[phetchy]

Someone please knock this diatribe on the head.  

[Rookiescot]

10 hours ago, phetchy said:

Someone please knock this diatribe on the head.  

Forced to read it were you?

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Forced to read it were you?

Well at least you are not arguing as to what it is. The problem for others is that they have to read it before they can make considered comment. 

[phetchy]

3 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Forced to read it were you?

No, but it's a free country (just).

[RuamRudy]

1 minute ago, phetchy said:

No, but it's a free country (just).

Of course it is, but your post was a bit of an odd one to come out with. You are not obligated to read the thread and, to the best of my knowledge, the thread is not forced upon you in any way. If it is of not interest to you, why not just skip it and read something that you feel is more rewarding rather than appeal to someone to suppress it (which, of course, would be at odds with your free country statement)?

[RuamRudy]

5 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The problem for others is that they have to read it before they can make considered comment. 

That is a step many on TVF feel is unnecessary... 

[transam]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

That is a step many on TVF feel is unnecessary... 

Has your SNP Corvid lady, you know, the MP that wants Scotland to go it alone but risks SNP followers and others well being, done the right thing yet ?..

Last I read was she dug her heels in to retain her wages.

Don't you think it's a poor show that sends the wrong message to folk you are trying to convince to leave the Union..? 

[RuamRudy]

8 minutes ago, transam said:

Has your SNP Corvid lady, you know, the MP that wants Scotland to go it alone but risks SNP followers and others well being, done the right thing yet ?..

Last I read was she dug her heels in to retain her wages.

Don't you think it's a poor show that sends the wrong message to folk you are trying to convince to leave the Union..? 

Sadly, she has not.

 

I think she sets a poor example to everyone regardless of their feelings towards the union and no doubt she knows that herself. I guess she sees the guaranteed salary until she is kicked out by her constituents as being worth the public loss of face.

 

In the grand scheme of things, I suspect she will be a blip on the public's radar though. They seem to be able to differentiate between background noise and the core message. Even as we wade through the fetid mire that is the Salmond debacle, the union continues to hemorrhage support. Most people are intelligent enough not to allow short term political shenanigans to distract them from long term political aspirations. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by RuamRudy

[nauseus]

19 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Of course it is, but your post was a bit of an odd one to come out with. You are not obligated to read the thread and, to the best of my knowledge, the thread is not forced upon you in any way. If it is of not interest to you, why not just skip it and read something that you feel is more rewarding rather than appeal to someone to suppress it (which, of course, would be at odds with your free country statement)?

A pompous post, if I ever saw one. The thread may be of interest but some of the the content of it often causes loss of that interest.