Jump to content

The Politics Thread


shull
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

I hope you’re right Oaky but I have serious doubts. 
whilst I would hope that any serious independence supporters could see past the machinations of a few rogue politicians, if this turn out to be true I fear oor Nic could’ve kicked the independent movement squarely in the bollocks. 
And IF it turns out to be true, I will be genuinely disappointed as I was daft enough to think that Nicola Sturgeon was a rare breed of politician who played with a straight bat. 

OK so you edited your post while I was responding. :D

I would be very annoyed if Salmond was to upend Sturgeon over this issue - especially given the allegations which caused it. Almost any other issue would be different but not on this issue. And certainly not by this man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

I've voted SNP at every election for many years but I'm a bit split on whether I want them to win a clear majority at this election. There's nobody else that I would remotely consider voting for at the moment but I'm not sure I want my politicians to have carte-blanche to do what they want - even the party I vote for. I also want independence put on the back burner for the next 5-10 years for reasons I explained elsewhere.

So for me, maybe a slight swing away from the SNP would be a good thing.

In fact, in the process of typing this post, I might have made my mind up on that.

Fair play, we all have our own view on priorities. I put self determination front and centre. If I had a vote I’d continue to back the best vehicle for achieving that. Once it is achieved, then it’s back to a personal opinion on who you want to run the country. I’m far less wed to SNP than I am to independence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Fair play, we all have our own view on priorities. I put self determination front and centre. If I had a vote I’d continue to back the best vehicle for achieving that. Once it is achieved, then it’s back to a personal opinion on who you want to run the country. I’m far less wed to SNP than I am to independence. 

Oh I am a firm believer in self determination as well but for me a democratically won referendum trumps that in the medium term. There's no issue for me in continuing to build the case for independence but I believe we should respect the 2014 result for a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise how could we complain if after independence, the losing No side started demanding a 3rd referendum within a couple of years? The risk of continued back and forth for decades is why I want to see a definitive result of 60% for one side whenever the next vote takes place so we can move onto other things.

Personally, the likelihood is that if Indyref2 takes place before we've shown a respectful gap from 2014, I would not take part in it. That's how I feel at the moment but maybe in the excitement of a pending crushing Yes win I would rush to the voting booth like everyone else. 

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Oh I am a firm believer in self determination as well but for me a democratically won referendum trumps that in the medium term. There's no issue for me in continuing to build the case for independence but I believe we should respect the 2014 result for a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise how could we complain if after independence, the losing No side started demanding a 3rd referendum within a couple of years?

Ordinarily I’d hear you loud and clear Oaky and I’d go as far as saying I’d begrudgingly agree with you. However, I struggle to get past the fact that the 2014 No vote was founded on at worst barefaced lies or at best false promises. Not just wee white lies either. Big whopping game changers. How can that vote be held up to scrutiny when so many (particularly swithering voters who need guidance) were so shamelessly misled. 
Realistically, even if one was called tomorrow it would be unlikely to be anytime soon. Let’s call it 2024. 10 years seems like a nice round number to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Ordinarily I’d hear you loud and clear Oaky and I’d go as far as saying I’d begrudgingly agree with you. However, I struggle to get past the fact that the 2014 No vote was founded on at worst barefaced lies or at best false promises. Not just wee white lies either. Big whopping game changers. How can that vote be held up to scrutiny when so many (particularly swithering voters who need guidance) were so shamelessly misled. 
Realistically, even if one was called tomorrow it would be unlikely to be anytime soon. Let’s call it 2024. 10 years seems like a nice round number to me. 

Would I be right in saying that one of the sweeteners was the naval ship building moved from devonport to scotland by government? Not sure if it was but can remember my dad rambling on about justice served after moving car assembly plant at linwood to ryton. Nothing like a good bit of burning bitterness🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Otherwise how could we complain if after independence, the losing No side started demanding a 3rd referendum within a couple of years?


All they would need to do was elect a party into power on the back of that commitment. A bit like the upcoming election in May, in fact, just the other way round.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Ordinarily I’d hear you loud and clear Oaky and I’d go as far as saying I’d begrudgingly agree with you. However, I struggle to get past the fact that the 2014 No vote was founded on at worst barefaced lies or at best false promises. Not just wee white lies either. Big whopping game changers. How can that vote be held up to scrutiny when so many (particularly swithering voters who need guidance) were so shamelessly misled. 
Realistically, even if one was called tomorrow it would be unlikely to be anytime soon. Let’s call it 2024. 10 years seems like a nice round number to me. 

ALL referenda are crass means by which to govern - for mostly the same reasons.  Lies from all sides are allowed to proliferate.  Empty promises are politicians stock in trade and punters are too easily seduced by pie in the sky.

 

Brexit, for example, was not legally binding but AFTER the event, duplicitous politicians "Listened to the country" and decided to make it into law.

8 hours ago, Cumbriansaint72 said:

Would I be right in saying that one of the sweeteners was the naval ship building moved from devonport to scotland by government? Not sure if it was but can remember my dad rambling on about justice served after moving car assembly plant at linwood to ryton. Nothing like a good bit of burning bitterness🙄

As a beneficiary of a wee slice of the car industry being moved to Linwood by a Labour Government in the 1960s, I have to point out that it's swings and roundabouts and the relocation of employment centres are normally powered by an enlightened government shovelling money towards capitalists to persuade them to disperse from centres of society.

Paisley's traditional industry was being exported and they HAD to keep an eye on Paisley.

34 minutes ago, salmonbuddie said:


All they would need to do was elect a party into power on the back of that commitment. A bit like the upcoming election in May, in fact, just the other way round.

 

But we all know that it would only be solo-subject crazies who'd show interest in such a party.  It wouldn't happen.  Much as the anti-Brexit party hasn't manifest itself, so far.

 

also...
I vaguely recall Henry McLeish resigning when he was leader = for some reason.  So such a tragedy wouldn't be unusual in Scottish politics.  Genuine question - had his 'crimes' been as heinous as Sturgeon's are being portrayed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, antrin said:

ALL referenda are crass means by which to govern - for mostly the same reasons.  Lies from all sides are allowed to proliferate.  Empty promises are politicians stock in trade and punters are too easily seduced by pie in the sky.

 

Referenda may be blunt tools but without them we typically had either subjectification or war.

How would you suggest a majority support achieve independence? Go down and ask the nice Tories in Westminster if we can have our country back?

I suspect you probably think Scotland should just shut up and do what it’s told like most others down your way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Referenda may be blunt tools but without them we typically had either subjectification or war.

How would you suggest a majority support achieve independence? Go down and ask the nice Tories in Westminster if we can have our country back?

I suspect you probably think Scotland should just shut up and do what it’s told like most others down your way. 

You are further down than my way, does that miraculously make your opinion more worthy of expression? 

I believe in people working together to overcome problems and help each other.   I  know of no nationalist movement that believes in people working together - divide and rule is always their bag - vilify the other!

More specifically I don't see how a smaller "independent" country can more easily fight the ravages of capitalism.  

When Scotland was asked Aye or Naw, it simply spurned the offer.  Media polls are no way to gauge what a majority might support when it comes to issues of heart v wallet.  What polls are good for is stirring up shite, generating column inches and keeping the media employed.   

We've been in (and profited from) this Union for a couple of hundred years - we are all in this same lifeboat/island, after all: splitting from that would be as stupidly traumatic as self-inflicted brexit.  It has to be made workable.  

As someone who has seldom had a meaningful vote exercised in this bi-party 'democracy", I'd be in favour of  more relevant voting system and can also understand why federalism might serve a useful purpose.

Your final sentence there is simply comical.  Quality!  :lol:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, antrin said:

You are further down than my way, does that miraculously make your opinion more worthy of expression? 

I believe in people working together to overcome problems and help each other.   I  know of no nationalist movement that believes in people working together - divide and rule is always their bag - vilify the other!

More specifically I don't see how a smaller "independent" country can more easily fight the ravages of capitalism.  

When Scotland was asked Aye or Naw, it simply spurned the offer.  Media polls are no way to gauge what a majority might support when it comes to issues of heart v wallet.  What polls are good for is stirring up shite, generating column inches and keeping the media employed.   

We've been in (and profited from) this Union for a couple of hundred years - we are all in this same lifeboat/island, after all: splitting from that would be as stupidly traumatic as self-inflicted brexit.  It has to be made workable.  

As someone who has seldom had a meaningful vote exercised in this bi-party 'democracy", I'd be in favour of  more relevant voting system and can also understand why federalism might serve a useful purpose.

Your final sentence there is simply comical.  Quality!  :lol:

 

 

For clarity (perhaps the use of emojis would have helped) my final comment was tongue in cheek and not intended to be taken seriously.

However, let me tell you what I think is simply comical.  Your outdated, quaint, left wing notion of people working together for the common good.  The ravages of capitalism indeed. That’s a cracker. You might as well say the ravages of human nature. When during the last couple of hundred years that you mention have you seen rUK (and in particular Westminster) working for the common good of Scotland. You to suggest that Scotland has “benefitted” from the union. I believe the opposite it true. I believe the union has benefitted from Scotland. Just another thing we disagree on that neither of us would be able to prove either way. 
Independence by definition is a leap of faith. In 2014 insufficient people were prepared to take that leap of faith for varying reasons. That I cannot dispute. But things change. Some bloody big things change. 
Federalism? Nah not for me. Simply an (albeit relatively significant) extension of the devolved or local governments we already have. We’d still be run by one central government and let’s face it, that would still be Westminster. 
 

Finally, why do you continue to suggest that my disagreeing with your viewpoint means that I think my opinion is “more worthy of expression” than yours? Surely I could just level that criticism at you too. Can’t we simply disagree on things. I think we both know that we are coming from fairly entrenched positions and debate it probably futile. But just to be absolutely clear, I DO respect your opinion. I just don’t agree with it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

For clarity (perhaps the use of emojis would have helped) my final comment was tongue in cheek and not intended to be taken seriously.

Finally, why do you continue to suggest that my disagreeing with your viewpoint means that I think my opinion is “more worthy of expression” than yours? Surely I could just level that criticism at you too. Can’t we simply disagree on things. I think we both know that we are coming from fairly entrenched positions and debate it probably futile. But just to be absolutely clear, I DO respect your opinion. I just don’t agree with it. 

 

OK.

I'll try to answer the last bit first.

Your tongue in cheek 'final comment' explains why I reacted as I did.  Just because I'm a Londoner (where, during this pandemic, more people have had to claim Universal Credit proportionately than in any other part of the Uk).  Londoners are as badly dealt by central government as has any person in Scotland.

 

ETA

My reaction was to this - of yours:

"I suspect you probably think Scotland should just shut up and do what it’s told like most others down your way. "

Edited by antrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

However, let me tell you what I think is simply comical.  Your outdated, quaint, left wing notion of people working together for the common good.  The ravages of capitalism indeed. That’s a cracker. You might as well say the ravages of human nature. When during the last couple of hundred years that you mention have you seen rUK (and in particular Westminster) working for the common good of Scotland. You to suggest that Scotland has “benefitted” from the union. I believe the opposite it true. I believe the union has benefitted from Scotland. Just another thing we disagree on that neither of us would be able to prove either way. 

Independence by definition is a leap of faith. In 2014 insufficient people were prepared to take that leap of faith for varying reasons. That I cannot dispute. But things change. Some bloody big things change. 
Federalism? Nah not for me. Simply an (albeit relatively significant) extension of the devolved or local governments we already have. We’d still be run by one central government and let’s face it, that would still be Westminster. 
 

My "left wing notion" is comical, quaint and outdated?!    :lol:

Nationalism is no fresh-faced new kid on the block.  Nationalism was deployed to drive Capitalism and the growth of the British Empire.

Immediately before that, Scotland was bankrupt after its failed Imperial attempts to construct and maintain a base for its American Empire on the mosquito-ridden sands Darien.  The Union rescued Scotland, like it or not.   It offered jobs and futures to starving millions of Scots.

My "left wing notion" is as outdated as the teachings of Christ and other philsosophers down the ages.  And I can't recall any of those suggesting that we demarcate against each other on the basis of nationality.  That has always been a construct designed to divide and rule.

My leap of faith in socialism is no less valid than your weird leap of faith in Nationalism, which, let's face it, has a worse track record than socialism,  which is a fight against Capitalism... as opposed to Nationalism, one of its more venal products.. 

Why do you so strongly suggest that socialism won't work, when you come out with lines like, "But things change. Some bloody big things change."

You may now see my problem in trying to debate with you?  You always shut down my suggestions with very similar claims making it absolutely fine for you.

Edited by antrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites



And I can't recall any of those suggesting that we demarcate against each other on the basis of nationality.  That has always been a construct designed to divide and rule.


But the independence movement in Scotland doesn't demarcate against nationality, if you're registered to vote in Scotland you will have a vote in Indyref2 regardless of your nationality. And it's also why you don't get a vote in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, antrin said:

My "left wing notion" is comical, quaint and outdated?!    :lol:

Nationalism is no fresh-faced new kid on the block.  Nationalism was deployed to drive Capitalism and the growth of the British Empire.

Immediately before that, Scotland was bankrupt after its failed Imperial attempts to construct and maintain a base for its American Empire on the mosquito-ridden sands Darien.  The Union rescued Scotland, like it or not.   It offered jobs and futures to starving millions of Scots.

My "left wing notion" is as outdated as the teachings of Christ and other philsosophers down the ages.  And I can't recall any of those suggesting that we demarcate against each other on the basis of nationality.  That has always been a construct designed to divide and rule.

My leap of faith in socialism is no less valid than your weird leap of faith in Nationalism, which, let's face it, has a worse track record than socialism,  which is a fight against Capitalism... as opposed to Nationalism, one of its more venal products.. 

Why do you so strongly suggest that socialism won't work, when you come out with lines like, "But things change. Some bloody big things change."

You may now see my problem in trying to debate with you?  You always shut down my suggestions with very similar claims making it absolutely fine for you.

Apologies if this is messy (don't know how to "sub quote" individually posts on here), but attempting to answer your points in order.

Scotland may well have been bailed out by the construct of the union, but forgive me for basing my view on things that have happened since the birth of my great granny's great granny. Are you seriously holding up the events of some 300 years ago, as justification for how Scotland has benefitted from the union? Is that the best you've got?

I don't know whether you follow a communist philosophy or a socialist one. Communism has been proven time after time to be a failed ideal (albeit a naively well meaning one in concept). As for socialism, I am certainly a socialist in the sense I believe firmly in social justice. Furthermore I believe Scotland to be a socialist country at heart and I strongly believe that in an independent Scotland, the government of choice would more often than not be a socialist one.

I pay zero heed to the teachings of Christ (I am not religious in the slightest) nor the teachings of pontificating scholars AKA "philosophers". I make my own mind up about things. I listen to the "teachings" of everyday people. Even you Antrin!

How on earth can the desire for Scotland to determine it's own future, be skewed to mean we are demarcating against the nationality of others? On the contrary, I want a Scotland that I have zero doubt would be considerably more open to other nationalities, races and creed's that rUK would appear to be.

Also loving your use of the word "Nationalist". I have no doubt you are using it in the same tired and familiar way we have become used to from Unionists i.e. in a thinly veiled inference to right wing politics or fascism. What a load of nonsense. I am not even close to being a Nationalist in that sense and I would never refer to myself as a Nationalist. I am a supporter of self determination/independence. Not even close to the thing your are referring to. And trust me, rUK (and in particular England) is far, far closer to the right wing/fascist state you imply. That's what we're trying to get away from!

Finally, as I have indicated above, as far as I'm aware I have never said categorically that "socialism can't work", but it does depend on the brand of socialism. I do believe that the pre 1980s, Citizen Smith/Comrade this, Sister that nonsense has died a death, but I do believe left of centre politics with a social conscience is the way forward and I believe that is how an independent Scotland would forever be run.

It may surprise you to know that at the age of 15 I joined the Young Socialist Party and at the age of 18 joined the Communist Party (Govan branch). I then moved to Jersey and (in my opinion) grew up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The initiation of the Union and it bailing Scotland out of bankruptcy was in answer to your earlier statement...

"You to suggest that Scotland has “benefitted” from the union. I believe the opposite it true. I believe the union has benefitted from Scotland. Just another thing we disagree on that neither of us would be able to prove either way. "

I was simply proving (in only one of the ways) that it could be proved that Scotland HAS indeed benefited.  It wasn't the best I've got, since you asked - just the initial and most salient fact.

All unions flourish from the mere fact of combining resources and talents.  Undeniably, England ( along with the other 3 countries) has also benefited.

 

"I pay zero heed to the teachings of Christ (I am not religious in the slightest) nor the teachings of pontificating scholars AKA "philosophers". I make my own mind up about things. I listen to the "teachings" of everyday people. Even you Antrin!"

ALL of our ideas and philosophies are erected on the ashes of those who thought before us.  It doesn't matter if you think you pay zero heed or not - subconsciously you ARE drawing on the knowledge of those you're dismissing.  Even your Nationalist ideas were espoused by pontificating scholars. (Though I personally believe those scholars to have been universally arsewipes.)

Also...   a bit dismissive that last wee throwaway slag... surely?  :)

"... everyday people.  Even you antrin!"

Moi?  "everyday"?  surely, surely not!

 

And, finally...

"How on earth can the desire for Scotland to determine it's own future, be skewed to mean we are demarcating against the nationality of others? "

Obviously countless thousands of people Scots, English, Welsh and Ulsterfolk are very proud and  happy to  declare themselves as British.  Nationalists wish to deny them of that ongoing pride, pleasure and sense of something they believe can be and is a force for good.  (despite current Tory misrule)  Scottish Nationalists are determined to wipe and deny British nationality, that  round which many Scots (and others) have built their self-identity.  It's a big ask - small wonder that there is resentment from people with little else in their lives about which to feel happy and content.

I'm a Scots Londoner so that "British feeling" is secondary/insignificant for me.  There is nowhere in the "Uk more open to other nationalities, races and creed's ".  

'That London' should be the model on which would-be separatists should base their ideas, instead of knocking it.  It is multicultural, diverse and gloriously unremarkable  and unremarking on that incredible matter of fact of our London lives.

Carping on about "people down there" - in London and in the south/south east is missing your target.  It's Capitalists, the Tory Party and brexiteers - who were mainly disenchanted poor people from the provinces, easily conned by glib promises.

It's may be a shite state of affairs but we should deal with it rationally and not running away from the problems.  They won't vanish.  There's no easy fix and blaming others seldom works well - and never works in the long term..

 

I seriously hope this clarifies my thinking a bit.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

It may surprise you to know that at the age of 15 I joined the Young Socialist Party and at the age of 18 joined the Communist Party (Govan branch). I then moved to Jersey and (in my opinion) grew up.

Naw.  Disnae surprise me.

@Desperately Seeking Susans was chair of Paisley YS for years (till he grew too auld, I guess... :unsure: )

Tragically he nowadays flirts with scottish nationalism. 

In his case, I suspect dementia...   :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, antrin said:

The initiation of the Union and it bailing Scotland out of bankruptcy was in answer to your earlier statement...

"You to suggest that Scotland has “benefitted” from the union. I believe the opposite it true. I believe the union has benefitted from Scotland. Just another thing we disagree on that neither of us would be able to prove either way. "

I was simply proving (in only one of the ways) that it could be proved that Scotland HAS indeed benefited.  It wasn't the best I've got, since you asked - just the initial and most salient fact.

All unions flourish from the mere fact of combining resources and talents.  Undeniably, England ( along with the other 3 countries) has also benefited.

 

"I pay zero heed to the teachings of Christ (I am not religious in the slightest) nor the teachings of pontificating scholars AKA "philosophers". I make my own mind up about things. I listen to the "teachings" of everyday people. Even you Antrin!"

ALL of our ideas and philosophies are erected on the ashes of those who thought before us.  It doesn't matter if you think you pay zero heed or not - subconsciously you ARE drawing on the knowledge of those you're dismissing.  Even your Nationalist ideas were espoused by pontificating scholars. (Though I personally believe those scholars to have been universally arsewipes.)

Also...   a bit dismissive that last wee throwaway slag... surely?  :)

"... everyday people.  Even you antrin!"

Moi?  "everyday"?  surely, surely not!

 

And, finally...

"How on earth can the desire for Scotland to determine it's own future, be skewed to mean we are demarcating against the nationality of others? "

Obviously countless thousands of people Scots, English, Welsh and Ulsterfolk are very proud and  happy to  declare themselves as British.  Nationalists wish to deny them of that ongoing pride, pleasure and sense of something they believe can be and is a force for good.  (despite current Tory misrule)  Scottish Nationalists are determined to wipe and deny British nationality, that  round which many Scots (and others) have built their self-identity.  It's a big ask - small wonder that there is resentment from people with little else in their lives about which to feel happy and content.

I'm a Scots Londoner so that "British feeling" is secondary/insignificant for me.  There is nowhere in the "Uk more open to other nationalities, races and creed's ".  

'That London' should be the model on which would-be separatists should base their ideas, instead of knocking it.  It is multicultural, diverse and gloriously unremarkable  and unremarking on that incredible matter of fact of our London lives.

Carping on about "people down there" - in London and in the south/south east is missing your target.  It's Capitalists, the Tory Party and brexiteers - who were mainly disenchanted poor people from the provinces, easily conned by glib promises.

It's may be a shite state of affairs but we should deal with it rationally and not running away from the problems.  They won't vanish.  There's no easy fix and blaming others seldom works well - and never works in the long term..

 

I seriously hope this clarifies my thinking a bit.  :)

I tell you what it clarifies, that you’re as good at using the sub quote tool as me. 🤣.

As for your response, I was reading it intently until you used the word separatists. I stopped reading then and heaved a very heavy sigh. 
 

Edited only to add. Being British and the United Kingdom are not the same thing. People in an independent Scotland would still be British if they do chose to be. Great Britain is not a Sovereign nation. The United Kingdom is. 

Edited by TPAFKA Jersey 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, TPAFKA Jersey 2 said:

Ordinarily I’d hear you loud and clear Oaky and I’d go as far as saying I’d begrudgingly agree with you. However, I struggle to get past the fact that the 2014 No vote was founded on at worst barefaced lies or at best false promises. Not just wee white lies either. Big whopping game changers. How can that vote be held up to scrutiny when so many (particularly swithering voters who need guidance) were so shamelessly misled. 
Realistically, even if one was called tomorrow it would be unlikely to be anytime soon. Let’s call it 2024. 10 years seems like a nice round number to me. 

2024 is on the low end of what I think we should be looking at but that might actually be something I could support personally.

Apart from anything else it gives the Brexit and covid situations a chance to settle down. I think we could all do with a break from major upheaval for a couple of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furlough scheme extended till September, jeezo, what a cost.

I hope when it’s time for us all to contribute to paying it back, people’s accept this is an acceptable necessity.

Covid-19 isn’t free, it comes with huge personal cost to families & loved ones and of course sadly all that have died linked to Covid-19.

I will have no complaint when we are presented with our share of the bill.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scott-Leeds said:


I hope when it’s time for us all to contribute to paying it back, people’s accept this is an acceptable necessity.

Covid-19 isn’t free, it comes with huge personal cost to families & loved ones and of course sadly all that have died linked to Covid-19.

I will have no complaint when we are presented with our share of the bill.

Most sensible people will be the same, however I could name a few on here who will slip straight into the blame game and name calling. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, will Scotlands first minister be keeping her job ?

I’ve genuinely not followed this story.

So just wondering is her job at risk of this enquiry ?
If it was a boxing match the ref would have warned Fraser and Baillie.... for not landing a punch. At the end the Chairperson had to stop her deputy from embarrassing herself any further.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

If it was a boxing match the ref would have warned Fraser and Baillie.... for not landing a punch. At the end the Chairperson had to stop her deputy from embarrassing herself any further. emoji1787.png

Not quite the whole story.

Wee Nicky had plenty of uncomfortable moments, looked very uneasy at times when pressed. 

Saying that, as I've said, 8 hours, not entirely fair IMO, to put one person under scrutiny for that period of time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...