Independence Day 2: Resturgeonce

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Independence Day 2: Resturgeonce

Which Thread Title shall we name this new thread? This poll is closed.
Independence Day 2: Resturgeonce	44	21.36%
ScotPol - Unclustering this gently caress	19	9.22%
Trainspotting 2: Independence is my heroin	9	4.37%
Indyref II: Boris hosed a Dead Country	14	6.80%
ScotPol: Wings over Bullshit	8	3.88%
Independence 2: Cameron Lied, UK Died	24	11.65%
Scotpol IV: I Vow To Flee My Country	14	6.80%
ScotPol - A twice in a generation thread	17	8.25%
ScotPol - Where Everything's hosed Up and the Referendums Don't Matter	15	7.28%
ScotPol Thread: Dependence Referendum Incoming	2	0.97%
Indyref II: The Scottish Insturgeoncy	10	4.85%
ScotPol Thread: Act of European Union	5	2.43%
ScotPol - Like Game of Thrones only we wish we would all die	25	12.14%
Total:	206 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

Do any Scots Language experts know what the Scots for 'then there is a mandatory agreement' is?

# ? Nov 2, 2016 22:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 01:21

Extreme0: Feb 28, 2013; I dance to the sweet tune of your failure so I'm never gonna stop fucking with you.

Continue to get confused and frustrated with me as I dance to your anger.

As I expect nothing more from ya you stupid runt!

Pissflaps posted:

Do any Scots Language experts know what the Scots for 'then there is a mandatory agreement' is?

It means stop reading the national you idiot.

# ? Nov 2, 2016 22:17

Extreme0: Feb 28, 2013; I dance to the sweet tune of your failure so I'm never gonna stop fucking with you.

Continue to get confused and frustrated with me as I dance to your anger.

As I expect nothing more from ya you stupid runt!

Government defeated in Offensive Behaviour at Football Act Vote

Dugdale must of taken the express elevator to get to the Scottish Parliament after coming back from the USA to get the additional vote needed.

# ? Nov 2, 2016 23:11

EmptyVessel: Oct 30, 2012

Pissflaps posted:

Do any Scots Language experts know what the Scots for 'then there is a mandatory agreement' is?

No true Scots word would have Tory as part of it.

# ? Nov 2, 2016 23:25

mehall: Aug 27, 2010

EmptyVessel posted:

No true Scots word would have Tory as part of it.

Don't be ridiculous. If we can't call someone a Tory, it's harder to follow up by calling them a oval office.

# ? Nov 3, 2016 08:29

Coohoolin: Aug 5, 2012; Oor Coohoolie.

Extreme0 posted:

Government defeated in Offensive Behaviour at Football Act Vote

Dugdale must of taken the express elevator to get to the Scottish Parliament after coming back from the USA to get the additional vote needed.

Unfortunately this won't do anything about the Act, since you don't repeal an act in Holyrood by voting against it in a motion, you need to pass a new act that supersedes the old one.

# ? Nov 3, 2016 09:24

EmptyVessel: Oct 30, 2012

mehall posted:

Don't be ridiculous. If we can't call someone a Tory, it's harder to follow up by calling them a oval office.

You're confusing parts with (w)holes.

# ? Nov 3, 2016 14:15

Alertrelic: Apr 18, 2008

Coohoolin posted:

Unfortunately this won't do anything about the Act, since you don't repeal an act in Holyrood by voting against it in a motion, you need to pass a new act that supersedes the old one.

Worth noting that this has been in the works for a while. Recent vote demonstrates that repeal has a parliamentary majority. SNP will need to compromise at some stage.

http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/99956.aspx

# ? Nov 3, 2016 15:49

Niric: Jul 23, 2008

Alertrelic posted:

Worth noting that this has been in the works for a while. Recent vote demonstrates that repeal has a parliamentary majority. SNP will need to compromise at some stage.

http://www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/99956.aspx

The peat worrier legal blog has an excellent and digestible piece on the problems with the Act and simple measures which can be done to improve it. As I understand it, these amendments wouldn't require a repeal or superseding act.

quote:

Longstanding readers of this blog know what I think about the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act, and the events which led to its introduction. Alex Salmond seized on an Old Firm fracas in 2011, arguing that this so-called "shame game" required special legal measures.

Elected with a majority in the Holyrood election of that year, there was no restraining the former First Minister. He tapped unlucky Roseanna Cunningham to be the ministerial face and voice for a policy which was justified by sweeping populist rhetoric, but which was fundamentally reckless and un-thought-through.

A succession of embarrassing ministerial performances followed, in the chamber, and in the media. Kenny MacAskill sputtered "matters" relentlessly on Newsnicht. Roseanna suggested, depending on the context, that genuflecting or singing the national anthem might get you a jail term under the new rules. Unlucky civil servants were drafted in to give legislative shape to ministers' vague aspiration to use the criminal law still further to intervene in the regulation of fan behaviour in and around football matches.

Folk in parliament rhubarbed. Folk outside parliament rhubarbed. Folk inside the SNP rhubarbed, including elected members, who nevertheless, cast their votes for the measure under the stern gaze of party whips. I remember taking to the airwaves against - now - Green MSP John Finnie. In those days, he was a Nationalist politician, and vociferously defended the legislation, accompanied by retired coppers and politically-helpful prosecutors from the Crown Office. None of this eliminated the fundamental problem with the law.

To borrow a phrase from one of Scotland's judges, it was "mince." Certainly, the Act "sent a message" to hooligan elements who hover around football clubs and matches. But that message was as muddled and confused as the legislative provisions themselves. Polling evidence showed - and has shown since - that the Act is supported by a majority of the public. But popularity doesn't transform a bad, paradoxical law into a good law. Being a lawyer, these problems perhaps excessively preoccupy me. But even if you are broadly supportive of the idea of prohibiting threatening and hateful speech in football grounds and outside them -- you still can't escape the conclusion that in 2011, Scottish ministers had no idea what they were doing, or why they were doing it, or why they were doing so on an "emergency" timetable. It was a picture of recklessness.

The Act they left behind them is an appropriate testament to their cack-handedness. Getting your head around what the legislation does and does not criminalise can be tricky. That's one of the failings of the law. But it outline: it creates two new criminal offences: (1) offensive behaviour at football, and (2) threatening communications. The first offence applies in a range of locations. If you are in and around the ground of football matches, or on a journey to and from the grounds, it applies to you.

It also applies to you if you are in a public space, with a regulated match playing in the background. If you begin shouting and bawling at folk on their way to matches, the Act catches you too. There are some paradoxes about this. The law treats you as "on a journey" to a match, whether you attend, or even intend to attend a match. This even includes overnight breaks. Philosophically, we are all, potentially, on our way to a regulated football match. At least according to parliament.

But the new crime focuses on offensive behaviour. The law recognises different kinds of bad behaviour. It criminalises "expressing hatred" against groups or individuals, on the basis of their perceived religious affiliations, or on the grounds of sexuality, disability, nationality or race. This might be singing "the Famine Song," or saying "I hate the Orange Order", as you prop up a bar in which the Greenock Morton v Partick Thistle match is playing in the background.

But the law also extends to "threatening" behaviour, and -- most controversially -- "behaviour the reasonable person would find offensive." The old common law offence of breach of the peace only criminalised behaviour which could "alarm the ordinary person" and "threaten serious disturbance in the community." The OFBA goes far further. The old offence of breach of the peace was certainly vague. Making "offence" the criterion for a criminal offence is even more problematic.

Recognising this, SNP ministers introduced what they characterised as a "safeguard." It wasn't enough for behaviour to be hateful, threatening, or offensive. In order to be punished under the new Act, it had to be "likely to incite public disorder." This sounds like a high hurdle for prosecutors to overcome. The SNP's justice team represented it as such to the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee. But the detail of the law blew the lid from this "safeguard."

Why? Because in the absence of any actual members of the public to be scandalised into violent disturbances by offensive behaviour, the Act instructs sheriffs to invent turbulent soccer fans or supporters who might have been provoked into violence by the offensive singing, or banners, or behaviour. The Act provides that courts should discount the fact that "persons likely to be incited to public disorder are not present or are not present in sufficient numbers." Defenders of the OBFA often claim that they are objecting about sectarian singing "in context." But the Act specifically requires prosecutors, police and courts to ignore the real context where songs are being sung, or behaviour is taking place.

Singing the Sash in die-hard loyalist pub, for example, is unlikely to generate any mischief. But ministers were determined that this kind of - unattractive - behaviour should be prohibited by the legislation. In so doing, they made a mockery of the idea that the "public order" test was any meaningful limitation to the broad new offences created by the Act.

So what's to be done? Repealing the Act simpliciter? As defenders of the legislation point out, what kind of message would that send to the diehard bigots, mischief-makers and trolls? And for that matter, what alternative is the opposition in the Scottish Parliament proposing? It is all very well to carp from the sidelines, but what constructive solution are James Kelly and his allies offering? Those are the Scottish Government's lines in today's spinwar. But there are a few obvious, practical solutions which the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Michael Matheson, ought to be considering.

In passing the Act in 2012, Holyrood gave ministers considerable power to amend the most controversial parts of the legislation. We don't need new legislation to strip out the "behaviour the reasonable person considers offensive" provision of the Act. Section 5 of the OFBA gives Michael Matheson the power to strike that provision from the statute book tomorrow. You'd be left, criminalising "expressions of hatred", and "threatening" behaviour.

It would be an altogether tougher spot, for Mr Kelly to defend abolishing those offences. Unless, that is, you approve of threatening behaviour in sports grounds. But the Act goes further. It also empowers ministers to draw a line through the daft provision, which instructs judges to invent potential incitees to public disorder. Again, this wouldn't require new legislation. Michael Matheson need only lay the order before Holyrood, and MSPs need only vote for it.

If the Scottish Government took both of these steps, the law would be considerably tightened. Procurators fiscal would have to establish (a) hateful or (b) threatening behaviour, and beyond that, they'd also have to establish that behaviour was "likely to incite public disorder" in the real context in which it takes place. That is a far higher test for prosecutors to satisfy, and doesn't transport our sheriffs to a fantasy land of invisible, touchy Queen of the South fans, or furious Dons, tired of unsubstantiated allegations of sheep-shagging.

If these reforms were introduced, in a trice, the Scottish Government would have eliminated the Act's most controversial (and badly thought-through) sections. The temperature would be turned up considerable on the opposition -- some of which is principled, but a good part of which is calculating, shallow and partisan.

There is no shame in admitting you got things wrong. It was a bad Bill, introduced after a bad process, badly defended and badly enforced. To a significant extent, the outgoing FM must bear the burden of having foisted this inconvenient controversy on his successor. But there are obvious opportunities here for Nicola Sturgeon's government to revisit its errors, to make the law better, and to turn up the heat on their opponents.

As things stand -- the Scottish Government seems confident it can win the PR battles against James Kelly and his allies. It seems to have given scanty thought to reform, and to seizing the initiative from the serried ranks of their opponents. They seem primed to stare defeat in the face, but well-prepared to grouse about it. But for this critic of the legislation, they can do much, much better than that. They said they believed in this measure. Let them fix it. If they don't take these opportunities, they have only themselves to blame.

# ? Nov 3, 2016 18:07

Alertrelic: Apr 18, 2008

Looks like Andy Wightman's amendment on local taxation just passed, another justified defeat for the Scottish Government.

Niric posted:

The peat worrier legal blog has an excellent and digestible piece on the problems with the Act and simple measures which can be done to improve it. As I understand it, these amendments wouldn't require a repeal or superseding act.

Good piece. I doubt James Kelly's repeal act will actually pass, but something like that can exist as an ultimate threat to force the Government into action. The amount of power given over to ministerial discretion and SSIs is also another topic that has been concerning various Holyrood committees for a while.

# ? Nov 3, 2016 18:38

Niric: Jul 23, 2008

Alertrelic posted:

Looks like Andy Wightman's amendment on local taxation just passed, another justified defeat for the Scottish Government.

Andy Wightman is cool and good so I'm inclined to think his amendment is a great idea, but I'm struggling to see the point of it:

quote:

Green member Andy Wightman put forward an amendment accepting the changes, but noting that parliament "regrets" that the plans "undermine the principle of local accountability and autonomy and fail to address a number of issues".

This was accepted by MSPs, with all opposition members supporting it and SNP members opposed. This meant government MSPs had to vote in favour of a motion critical of their approach in order to get the order passed.

I mean, sure, it makes the SNP look a bit silly for a length of time equivalent to a short paragraph in articles about minor and rather unexciting tweaks to taxation ona chilly Thursday evening, and then be forgotten, but besides that? It's been a long day, so I'm hopeful I've overlooked something

# ? Nov 3, 2016 20:26

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

hit reply in the wrong tab

# ? Nov 3, 2016 21:37

chuggo is BACK: Jul 1, 2008; "Chuggo"

PWM POTM December 2014

make me

# ? Nov 3, 2016 21:40

Alertrelic: Apr 18, 2008

Niric posted:

I mean, sure, it makes the SNP look a bit silly for a length of time equivalent to a short paragraph in articles about minor and rather unexciting tweaks to taxation ona chilly Thursday evening, and then be forgotten, but besides that? It's been a long day, so I'm hopeful I've overlooked something

It's not a huge deal and the amendment was deliberately vague to attract support from the Conservatives, but any Government defeat is unusual.

That passage leaves out what was probably the most significant section, calling for for "further discussions by all parties to seek to establish an enduring system of local government finance." This was included (though even more vaguely) in Derek Mackay's amendment (to the Green amendment) but that wouldn't have existed without the Greens making the first move. They are available to read here.

# ? Nov 4, 2016 12:24

Niric: Jul 23, 2008

Alertrelic posted:

That passage leaves out what was probably the most significant section, calling for for "further discussions by all parties to seek to establish an enduring system of local government finance." This was included (though even more vaguely) in Derek Mackay's amendment (to the Green amendment) but that wouldn't have existed without the Greens making the first move. They are available to read here.

That's good to know, cheers!

# ? Nov 4, 2016 14:36

Extreme0: Feb 28, 2013; I dance to the sweet tune of your failure so I'm never gonna stop fucking with you.

Continue to get confused and frustrated with me as I dance to your anger.

As I expect nothing more from ya you stupid runt!

Aberdeenshire have voted for the tories in the council by-elections

Banff (Turnout 28.3%):
Candidate (Party) Vote (%) (+/-)

Iain Taylor (Con) 1,170 (44.0%) (+20.9)
Glen David Reynolds (SNP) 962 (36.2%) (-19.2)
Alistair Mason (Lib) 526 (19.8%) (+8.7)

Inverurie (turnout 30.4%):
Candidate (Party) Vote (%) (+/-)

Colin Clark (Con) 1,302 (38.8%) (+21.4)
Neil Baillie (SNP) 1,164 (34.6%) (-2.5)
Alison Auld (Lib) 755 (22.5%) (+5.1)
Sarah Falvell (Lab) 139 (4.1%) (-9.1)

SNP have taken a big hit in Banff, not so much in Inverurie as labour has.

Former Scottish government minister oval office Alex Neil voted for Brexit

Gordon Brown still think it's 2014

MSPs vote to raise top four council tax bands

Our group of lolcows have finally been finished off.

Kezia no doubt looking behind her back for knives

The Ultimate Fracking Ban. Wait till we get to Infinity!

Police caught no one using drones to smuggle stuff in prisons...almost like they used drones for that reason.

Horse problems

?? :iiam:

# ? Nov 4, 2016 18:04

Leggsy: Apr 30, 2008; We'll take our chances...

Interesting that in both cases the Lib-Dem voters were the kingmakers and in both cases opted for the Tories.

Time is a cycle.

# ? Nov 4, 2016 18:40

Jedit: Dec 10, 2011; Proudly supporting vanilla legends 1994-2014

Extreme0 posted:

Inverurie (turnout 30.4%):
Candidate (Party) Vote (%) (+/-)

Colin Clark (Con) 1,302 (38.8%) (+21.4)
Neil Baillie (SNP) 1,164 (34.6%) (-2.5)
Alison Auld (Lib) 755 (22.5%) (+5.1)
Sarah Falvell (Lab) 139 (4.1%) (-9.1)

SNP have taken a big hit in Banff, not so much in Inverurie as labour has.

That's not really a hit for the SNP at all. The Inverurie by-election was triggered by the resignation of arch-oval office Martin Kitts-Hayes over the scandal where he expected to get luxury accommodation on business trips while overseeing Aberdeenshire Council's austerity cuts. The SNP's vote share dropped because full council elections are done by STV so each party has multiple candidates, whereas elections to a single seat are done head to head.

Kitts-Hayes is the guy who stabbed the Lib Dems in the back to hand over control of the Council to the SNP and was rewarded with the deputy leadership, so it's also a Tory gain from Independent, not Lib Dem.

# ? Nov 4, 2016 18:57

forkboy84: Jun 13, 2012; Corgis love bread. And Puro

https://twitter.com/JohnMasonMSP/status/794680109504622593

John Mason thinks that there was no legislation dealing with sectarian behaviour at the football.

That man is spectacularly thick.

# ? Nov 5, 2016 12:14

HJB: Feb 16, 2011; I can't get enough of are Dan

Big Indy boost: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/37882467

# ? Nov 5, 2016 15:54

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

After Brexit and Trump Scotland's decision to say no to independence seems like the anomaly in rejecting the anti-establishment position.

Was it the SNP's fault for trying to hold on to too much ie Sterling and insisting on EU membership? Did Scotland want more change than was on offer and - if there's a next time - will the SNP go all in?

# ? Nov 9, 2016 09:58

Angepain: Jul 13, 2012; what keeps happening to my clothes

The SNP made a big misjudgement in trying to appeal to people who weren't total racists. Didn't work. Sad! Next time insult some Muslims.

# ? Nov 9, 2016 10:14

TomViolence: Feb 19, 2013; PLEASE ASK ABOUT MY 80,000 WORD WALLACE AND GROMIT SLASH FICTION. PLEASE.

Are we a golf course yet?

# ? Nov 9, 2016 10:15

baronvonsabre: Aug 1, 2013

In non Trump-related news: Sturgeon announces �250,000 fund to help trade unions (emphasis theirs)

quote:

Nicola Sturgeon has announced a �250,000 fund aimed at helping trade unions mitigate the impact of new UK legislation.

The Scottish Government said the money will help unions modernise and respond to reforms brought in by the nationwide Trade Union Act.

The legislation, which came into force in May, introduced a threshold for workers voting in strike ballots for action to be legal.

Speaking at the Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) ministerial bilateral meeting, the First Minister said: "The Scottish Government believes the Trade Union Act, passed by the UK Government, is unnecessary legislation that threatens the capacity of trades unions to deliver the constructive employment relations that underpin a fairer, more inclusive and more successful economy.

"There is clear evidence that unionised workplaces have more engaged staff, have a higher level of staff training and a progressive approach to staff well-being.

"That is why we are committed to supporting strong trade unions in Scotland."

She added: "Our distinct approach, unlike that of the UK Government, is based on partnership working as demonstrated through the establishment of the Fair Work convention and our endorsement of their Fair Work Framework.

"The fund will ensure that the time of union reps is not needlessly diverted to legislation compliance administration but can remain committed to supporting their members and innovation in the workplace through the Fair Work Framework."

STUC general secretary Grahame Smith said: "By assisting in mitigating the impacts of the Trade Union Act and encouraging the best use of reps' time to positively promote fair work and workplace innovation, the Scottish Government has again demonstrated its commitment to positive industrial relations through workplace democracy."

# ? Nov 9, 2016 16:12

Jedit: Dec 10, 2011; Proudly supporting vanilla legends 1994-2014

How is this going to help unions? Giving them �250k isn't going to help them reach the strike threshold, and it's not going to stop the reps having to jump through the hoops - unless they use it to hire a temp, I guess.

# ? Nov 9, 2016 18:29

Extreme0: Feb 28, 2013; I dance to the sweet tune of your failure so I'm never gonna stop fucking with you.

Continue to get confused and frustrated with me as I dance to your anger.

As I expect nothing more from ya you stupid runt!

Jedit posted:

How is this going to help unions? Giving them �250k isn't going to help them reach the strike threshold, and it's not going to stop the reps having to jump through the hoops - unless they use it to hire a temp, I guess.

What was the strike threshold anyways?

TomViolence posted:

Are we a golf course yet?

The whole world is a golf course.

Extreme0 fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Nov 9, 2016

# ? Nov 9, 2016 20:30

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Jedit posted:

How is this going to help unions? Giving them �250k isn't going to help them reach the strike threshold, and it's not going to stop the reps having to jump through the hoops - unless they use it to hire a temp, I guess.

Set up new processes and change existing ones to seal with the new laws. A big issue of meeting the threshold will be having up to date membership lists at every branch, when previously it didn't matter if you took a couple of weeks to process changes, leavers, new enrolments. A one off data cleansing exercise now wouldn't go amiss either.

# ? Nov 9, 2016 22:30

Cerv: Sep 14, 2004; This is a silly post with little news value.

Angepain posted:

The SNP made a big misjudgement in trying to appeal to people who weren't total racists. Didn't work. Sad! Next time insult some Muslims.

Interesting. Most of the thread regulars would say Scotland is less racist but you're saying it's just as racist but the SNP failed to appeal to them.

# ? Nov 9, 2016 22:37

HJB: Feb 16, 2011; I can't get enough of are Dan

Extreme0 posted:

The whole world is a golf course.

You'll be thankful for the bunkers.

# ? Nov 9, 2016 22:46

Angepain: Jul 13, 2012; what keeps happening to my clothes

Cerv posted:

Interesting. Most of the thread regulars would say Scotland is less racist but you're saying it's just as racist but the SNP failed to appeal to them.

I don't actually think insulting some Muslims is a good strategy for independence

# ? Nov 9, 2016 23:05

Extreme0: Feb 28, 2013; I dance to the sweet tune of your failure so I'm never gonna stop fucking with you.

Continue to get confused and frustrated with me as I dance to your anger.

As I expect nothing more from ya you stupid runt!

Cerv posted:

Interesting. Most of the thread regulars would say Scotland is less racist but you're saying it's just as racist but the SNP failed to appeal to them.

He was joking you feckless fucktard.

EDIT: Patrick Harvie pretty much telling the Scottish Government to tell Trump he's not welcome regardless if he's president or not

Patrick Harvie isn't afraid to say what needs to be said. I respect the man even more.

Extreme0 fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Nov 10, 2016

# ? Nov 10, 2016 01:10

Jedit: Dec 10, 2011; Proudly supporting vanilla legends 1994-2014

Angepain posted:

I don't actually think insulting some Muslims is a good strategy for independence

Yeah, if you're going to insult a group you should insult all of them. It's a matter of image. If I were an Iranian I'd feel like a bloody idiot if I was marching down the street shouting "Death to some infidels!"

# ? Nov 10, 2016 14:06

Extreme0: Feb 28, 2013; I dance to the sweet tune of your failure so I'm never gonna stop fucking with you.

Continue to get confused and frustrated with me as I dance to your anger.

As I expect nothing more from ya you stupid runt!

I'm going to label certain news as Good news, normal news and the gently caress news. Starting with the normal news.

Scottish Lib Dems to consider 'pro-independence' motion

quote:

At the party's autumn conference in Dunfermline at the weekend, members will vote on a motion which says Scotland may have to choose its links to Europe "at the expense of" links to the UK.

quote:

It is understood the motion will have a slim chance of passing and will not be backed by the party's five MSPs.

It would be funny if the members actually voted for it but the MSPs refused to back it. it would create another issue like the superdelegates did with Bernie. Of course that's only because I want liberals to fall apart.

Home Office being dicks

SNP oval office reaps what he sow

Forget that China Deal. There will be another one. And it will be better then the last one!

Nicola accuses Ruth of double standards

Ireland rejects Stugeron for direct talks over Brexit

Who knew that letting a oval office company given access by a oval office home office handling refugees would actually be a bad thing?

Not so above it all

Good News

Activists organise day of working class solidarity in Castlemilk

Edinburgh tenants celebrate victory against sell-offs and evictions

The gently caress

Fitball

https://twitter.com/wefail/status/797128929006022658?lang=en-gb

Fitball

# ? Nov 11, 2016 19:31

Extreme0: Feb 28, 2013; I dance to the sweet tune of your failure so I'm never gonna stop fucking with you.

Continue to get confused and frustrated with me as I dance to your anger.

As I expect nothing more from ya you stupid runt!

Update on the Scot Lib Dem motion.

The motion was amended to rule out supporting a second independence referendum. There was fierce debates and there were strong feelings both ways.

Not really a surprise. I imagine if the younger supporters didn't leave the lib dems the motion would of changed.

# ? Nov 13, 2016 04:45

Extreme0: Feb 28, 2013; I dance to the sweet tune of your failure so I'm never gonna stop fucking with you.

Continue to get confused and frustrated with me as I dance to your anger.

As I expect nothing more from ya you stupid runt!

The knives are out for Kezia Dugdale

Remember when Ruth and the Scottish Tories posed in front of that wall in an illegal Israeli settlement? Well looks like it's come back to bite them.

Amaturish mistake there

Lib Dems change their mind about Fracking but not without some criticism

Key Yes supporter and SNP split over council policies

# ? Nov 13, 2016 22:48

Extreme0: Feb 28, 2013; I dance to the sweet tune of your failure so I'm never gonna stop fucking with you.

Continue to get confused and frustrated with me as I dance to your anger.

As I expect nothing more from ya you stupid runt!

Scottish Parliament backs protecting single market membership...well only two parties did

quote:

Scottish Conservative and Liberal Democrat MSPs voted against the proposal while Scottish Labour MSPs abstained from voting on it.

But ya know maybe they have an amendment that's possibly better. Something that maybe is worth see-

https://twitter.com/GrayInGlasgow/status/798572454029332480

:laffo:

What's even better is that not even their own two MSPs are sure about it.

Scotland could seek Norway Model on EU - Comments are on so expect insecure brexiters

Holyrood officials are currently studying a plan drawn up by academics to maintain free movement between Scotland and the EU

# ? Nov 16, 2016 01:05

ContinuityNewTimes: Dec 30, 2010; Can't post for 20 hours!

Scotland could attempt...

# ? Nov 16, 2016 01:15

Jedit: Dec 10, 2011; Proudly supporting vanilla legends 1994-2014

It's all been much of the same, hasn't it? Earthquake in New Zealand, headlines come out. Sun: IMMIGRANTS CAUSE EARTHQUAKE IN NEW ZEALAND. Scottish Daily Mail: STUDY SHOWS EARTHQUAKES CAUSE CANCER. Press and Journal: NORTH EAST MEN INJURED IN NEW ZEALAND QUAKE. The National: NEW ZEALAND EARTHQUAKE: WHY SCOTLAND NEEDS A SECOND INDYREF.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 01:52

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

All these fanciful and unworkable ideas for giving Scotland a unique status in the EU compared to the rest of the UK are set up to fail from the start - they're purely to give the SNP an indyref casus belli when everyone tells them to GTF.

# ? Nov 16, 2016 11:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 01:21

Collateral: Feb 17, 2010

So if the EU says that Scotland can join up independent or whatever. What do they say to Basque, Catalonia and Northern Italy?

# ? Nov 16, 2016 16:11

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Independence Day 2: Resturgeonce

«‹›104 »