Scottish independence and devolution superthread

January 19

Just now, il Duce McTarkin said:

Cognitive dissonance, Dawn'. It's a growth industry.

It seems to be endemic of separatists of a persuasion Guv, sadly, it makes sensible debate nigh on impossible.

January 19

2 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

The water argument has always been dead to all but the most rabid Indie supporter to be fair.

Well thanks to your contribution /knowledge it certainly is .

January 19

4 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

It seems to be endemic of separatists of a persuasion Guv, sadly, it makes sensible debate nigh on impossible.

Sensible debate like "Sounds like the brexiteers and that worked out well"?

There's been quite a good conversation in the last 24 hours too 🤷‍♂️

January 19

1 minute ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

🤣 "But there's no reason to assume the worst, I'm sure everyone wants an amicable agreement" doesn't sound at all like a brexiteer

It sound EXACTLY like a brexiteer because that was a huge part if their argument, it was touted about at just about every opperchancity by Rees Mog, Boris Johnson, Marc Francois, Peter Bone and thier ilk, all you’ve done is used their argument for your cause and then deny it!!! Come Smithee, you're better than that.

January 19

1 minute ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

Sensible debate like "Sounds like the brexiteers and that worked out well"?

There's been quite a good conversation in the last 24 hours too 🤷‍♂️

Pointing out the hypocrisy in arguments is part of sensible debate Smithee.

January 19

1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said:

It sound EXACTLY like a brexiteer because that was a huge part if their argument, it was touted about at just about every opperchancity by Rees Mog, Boris Johnson, Marc Francois, Peter Bone and thier ilk, all you’ve done is used their argument for your cause and then deny it!!! Come Smithee, you're better than that.

Yep the Uk assumed the EU would buckle and want any sort of agreement . They didn’t . The parallels with Indy are obvious

January 19

3 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

It sound EXACTLY like a brexiteer because that was a huge part if their argument, it was touted about at just about every opperchancity by Rees Mog, Boris Johnson, Marc Francois, Peter Bone and thier ilk, all you’ve done is used their argument for your cause and then deny it!!! Come Smithee, you're better than that.

🤣 Aye that's exactly what they sounded like

January 19

17 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

🤣 Aye that's exactly what they sounded like

Yep👍

January 19

12 hours ago, Ulysses said:

In fairness, not addressing points raised by others is what people do in this debate.

I've already set out and explained my view that "the rUK" - or more specifically England - would have significantly greater leverage than Scotland in any negotiations on a post-independence settlement, especially negotiations on a trade agreement. No-one refuted it. I doubt anyone will.

The idea that Scotland has some particularly helpful negotiating leverage over England because of some view of England's need for Scottish "resources" is economically unsound, and taking that view into trade negotiations would be strategically unwise.

Im going to address it, just to not be hypocritical and fail to do so while expecting people to address my points.

The trade argument that Scotland is in a weaker position comes from Scotlands main trading partner being the UK. But that isnt the whole story.

Englands trading with Scotland is enough that its virtually mutually assured destruction if common sense doesnt prevail. Englands balance of trade is worse, way way worse than Scotlands.Scotland had a balance of trade surplus pre pandemic, though its in deficit now.

What it means for England is they are heavily reliant on imports. Now they could get them from easy to reach Scotland or cut their noses off and try to import everything from outside Scotland and the EU, which will increase costs of living massively for Jill and Johnny England.

Scotland leaving makes the balance of trade figures worse by quite a way proportionally (as Scotland has the least worst balance of trade in the UK) and what that means is the pound will drop if Scotland are kicked out of it (or choose to leave it) in a hurry. This is why the rhetoric on keeping the pound was ridiculous in the referendum. Its in everyones interest that any move away takes time and keeping the pound is stability for new Scotland while it sets up its own currency and or decides on longer term plan.

Resources also do come into this. Scotland holds more than its population share of a large number of natural resources. Resources England needs (water is arguable - gas, electric are not) - it will be cheaper for England to get Scottish Gas than Dutch for example. If the UK was still in the EU and could pivot to new suppliers tomorrow, then this might be a different conversation. But England would need to source its replacements from Africa? US? Australia? Or be pragmatic and deal with Scotland.

Lets alos not forget the UKs standing in Nato and the G7 etc would be challenged if 10% of its landmass and GDP walked out the door. Scotland can use cooperation at that level and maintaining a join approach as a way of negotiating. England thinks of itself as a world power too much to do anything else.

A CTA as with Ireland is what will happen border wise, with Goods going to England only having their own agreement. Goods with an end point in England can get a waiver from Tariffs and vice versa the other way.

My personal view, is regardless of who on paper is stronger or weaker, both need to be pragmatic, so would be.

January 19

Humza inviting Erdoğan is new low as he's still bombing Kurds in Turkey and Syria , also meddled in Armenia/Azerbaijan issues .

Erdogen thinks he's the new Ataturk .. Humza needs to separate his family connections from Scotlands.

We talk about the lack of standards at Westminster but up here is no better ..disgusting !

January 19

12 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Yep👍

"touted about at just about every opperchancity by Rees Mog, Boris Johnson, Marc Francois, Peter Bone"

Absolute bollocks, they were full of sabre rattling bluster, you ask people in the street what brexiteets sounded like and there's no one saying what I said.

But hey ho, what a waste of energy this one is

January 19

And yes, I said brexiteets

January 19

Just now, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

"touted about at just about every opperchancity by Rees Mog, Boris Johnson, Marc Francois, Peter Bone"

Absolute bollocks, they were full of sabre rattling bluster, you ask people in the street what brexiteets sounded like and there's no one saying what I said.

But hey ho, what a waste of energy this one is

It's there for you to read, you've made the argument they did.

January 19

Just now, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

And yes, I said brexiteets

More of your sensible debate?!

January 19

3 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

More of your sensible debate?!

Making light of a spelling mistake 😉

January 19

5 hours ago, Section Q said:

I'm not too sure that England's negotiators would be in a stronger position at all, if it ever got to that stage. Constitutional barristers would be central to talks, and international negotiators, as opposed to just coming from Scotland, would surely be consulted.

Constitutional lawyers aren't much use in a trade negotiation - a bit like bringing an expert surgeon in to represent you in a contract lawsuit.

Despite popular misconceptions, the outcomes of negotiations aren't really decided by the personal skill and genius of negotiators. A poor negotiating team will miss opportunities, while a good team will make the most of them, so you want a good team negotiating for you. But the overall outcome of any negotiation, and the general shape and form of any deal, is decided by leverage, by the relative amounts of clout and power that the negotiating parties have.

And if Scotland were to become independent things would, to use your words, "get to that stage". There would have to be discussions, and one way or the other there'd have to be an outcome.

January 19

5 hours ago, John Findlay said:

How do you think you would be doing if you hadn't joined the then EEC?

How do you think we'd be doing if we'd never left the UK?

January 19

2 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

Just pointing out that was often said by Brexiteers.

What was?

January 19

16 minutes ago, Jeffros Furios said:

Humza inviting Erdoğan is new low as he's still bombing Kurds in Turkey and Syria , also meddled in Armenia/Azerbaijan issues .

Erdogen thinks he's the new Ataturk .. Humza needs to separate his family connections from Scotlands.

We talk about the lack of standards at Westminster but up here is no better ..disgusting !

Hes a twatt but he’s right here

January 19

54 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Come Smithee, you're better than that.

Is he ****. :rofl:

January 19

29 minutes ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

Making light of a spelling mistake 😉

It's the rest of your argument you should be making light off😆👍

January 19

26 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

What was?

That the EU would want an amicable divorce.

January 19

13 hours ago, Ulysses said:

They'll just move the weapons. They'd probably use their significantly greater trading leverage over Scotland to extract a cheap price to continue operating there for a transition period while relocating to the south-west of England. The loss of jobs and economic activity from the project alone would probably be enough to send the Scottish negotiators into a tizzy.

The negotiating imbalance between Scotland and the rest of the UK is significantly greater than the imbalance between the UK and the EU, and anyone who thinks that Faslane/Coulport, or Johnnie Walker, or 0.1% of world oil reserves, or clear crystal spring water, or windy mountains will alter that imbalance in any strategically significant way is kidding themselves.

They can't readily resite the nukes + submarines. UK Parliament estimates were at least 20 years: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmscotaf/676/67607.htm

With clownshoes government in charge, you can double that. I'm not really sure why you are downplaying Scotland's theoretical negotiating status.

0.1% of oil OR rather 90% of UK energy reserves. There are clear strategic objectives that the rUK would need to harness good relations with Scotland to realise.

If you are hinting at the fact that the UK government did not negotiate in good faith with the EU, then yeah that is - with this junta, very likely.

It's all theory anyway, we will never leave - and the "talent" left in the SNP is unlikely to ever force a referendum.

Where does that leave Scotland? Hoping Labour can secure more than one term to start mitigating the cluster**** of a mess the tories have made, I guess.

January 19

On 17/01/2024 at 16:19, JudyJudyJudy said:

Brexit which nearly a million Scot’s voted for ? Post office was a British scandal . I’m happy with the status quo. . It’s for you to convince people like me to change my mind . I’m not convinced

You'd only change it back again after 10 minutes...

:lol:

January 19

10 minutes ago, Konrad von Carstein said:

You'd only change it back again after 10 minutes...

Now , now let’s keep the debate civil , likes it’s been the last few days . No need for sarcasm .

January 19

2 hours ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

There's no They need us more than we need them, there's no We'll sink their fishing vessels.

"But there's no reason to assume the worst, I'm sure everyone wants an amicable agreement" is about as far away from sounding like a brexiteer as you can get.

Guy Verhofstadt made some interesting comments on The Rest is Politics Leading podcast about how the Brits had arrogantly assumed they would continue to get a good deal and hadn't properly priced in/understood the EU's position. Worth bearing mind it's not necessarily a 'velvet divorce' in that only one of the parties wants away, you may want to think about it a bit from the other side of the border.

January 19

46 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

Guy Verhofstadt made some interesting comments on The Rest is Politics Leading podcast about how the Brits had arrogantly assumed they would continue to get a good deal and hadn't properly priced in/understood the EU's position. Worth bearing mind it's not necessarily a 'velvet divorce' in that only one of the parties wants away, you may want to think about it a bit from the other side of the border.

Lets balance that out with the break up of other european states including Czech Rep and Slovakia which was solved amicably.

If I was England, Id hear two opinions.

1 is "lets have a party to celebrate the sponging jocks getting off Englands payroll" - from the Sun and Mail readers

the other would be "***k, there goes the cash cow" from the ruling classes who realise the milking has ended.

The first one will be loud and public. The second one will be behind closed doors.

January 19

48 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

Guy Verhofstadt made some interesting comments on The Rest is Politics Leading podcast about how the Brits had arrogantly assumed they would continue to get a good deal and hadn't properly priced in/understood the EU's position. Worth bearing mind it's not necessarily a 'velvet divorce' in that only one of the parties wants away, you may want to think about it a bit from the other side of the border.

All parties would surely prefer an amicable agreement, what that entails is another matter.

January 19

Just now, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

All parties would surely prefer an amicable agreement, what that entails is another matter.

Yup, but prefer and achieve are not the same (as I think you are rightly alluding too?). If Scotland were to suggest, for example, that it didn't want to pay it's share of the national debt (a position I know you hold dear 🙂) for how long do you suppose it'd remain amicable?

January 19

6 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

Lets balance that out with the break up of other european states including Czech Rep and Slovakia which was solved amicably.

If I was England, Id hear two opinions.

1 is "lets have a party to celebrate the sponging jocks getting off Englands payroll" - from the Sun and Mail readers

the other would be "***k, there goes the cash cow" from the ruling classes who realise the milking has ended.

The first one will be loud and public. The second one will be behind closed doors.

Just two opinions? Reckon on 62 million more like and very, very few ,if any will be as simplistic as your offering above.

January 19

1 hour ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Now , now let’s keep the debate civil , likes it’s been the last few days . No need for sarcasm .

:untitled:

January 19

2 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

Yep👍

Tell you what you're not wrong.

Scotland could never hope to hold any kind of good faith negotiations with the Westminster governments, regardless of colour.

January 19

5 minutes ago, Japan Jambo said:

Yup, but prefer and achieve are not the same (as I think you are rightly alluding too?). If Scotland were to suggest, for example, that it didn't want to pay it's share of the national debt (a position I know you hold dear 🙂) for how long do you suppose it'd remain amicable?

Objection, supposition!

I don't know, but to clarify, my preference that Scotland start unburdened and my statement that everyone would prefer an amicable agreement aren't mutually exclusive. There's no way Scotland would get everything we want, so there would have to be compromise.

January 19

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

How do you think we'd be doing if we'd never left the UK?

That's a good question.

Difficult to say to be honest as you would have been in the then EEC from the 1st of Jan 1973, until the UK left four years ago now.

I forget the exact leaving date. If truth be told from my personal prospective, I haven't noticed any difference.

January 19

1 hour ago, ǝǝɥʇᴉɯS said:

All parties would surely prefer an amicable agreement, what that entails is another matter.

I really can't see it being an issue for us. If Scotland ever does enter independence negotiations I'm pretty sure we will all be long dead and gone.

January 19

2 hours ago, Dawnrazor said:

That the EU would want an amicable divorce.

Ireland decided it wanted out of the UK, at more or less any price. There was no discussion by the people or the political system about the economy. The only objective was to leave. In the strictest sense of the words, the project couldn't fail because it only had one target.

Now if you were to say that was more or less the same objective as the Brexiteers, I'd partly agree with you. The people promoting Brexit wanted out of the EU at any price. But when it comes to the question of an amicable settlement, the messages were very different. Brexiteers said the EU would cut a deal favourable to the UK, and a majority of people believed them. The Irish leaders in 1921 assumed that the British would act out of self-interest, and a majority of people believed them. They were two quite different messages. Of course, they were also two quite different times, and the way in which news and opinion travelled 100 years ago was very different to today.

January 19

5 hours ago, BlueRiver said:

I don't mind you but this type of post annoys me. Over multiple threads I've pointed out similar to what Uly has yet one side is just throwing shite whilst the other talks of Rangers positions and unionists being a bunch of "I'm all right jack" sorts without comment?

The arguments have been done to death, is there any wonder folk can't be bothered engaging with more "well look at Norway" and "we have natural resources" discussions.

It was probably too much of a generalisation and i think ive engaged and acknowledged some decent points from you in the past. I do think though that the more prevalent view tends to be 'why should I set out my case? And by the way here is some snide innuendo or a gif about the FM, only workshy junkies want independence etc

I know there are arseholes on both sides but it could be a good debate and it's useful reading stuff from folk with different perspectives. I'd like to hear more from the unionist side about that.

January 19

9 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

Ireland decided it wanted out of the UK, at more or less any price. There was no discussion by the people or the political system about the economy. The only objective was to leave. In the strictest sense of the words, the project couldn't fail because it only had one target.

Now if you were to say that was more or less the same objective as the Brexiteers, I'd partly agree with you. The people promoting Brexit wanted out of the EU at any price. But when it comes to the question of an amicable settlement, the messages were very different. Brexiteers said the EU would cut a deal favourable to the UK, and a majority of people believed them. The Irish leaders in 1921 assumed that the British would act out of self-interest, and a majority of people believed them. They were two quite different messages. Of course, they were also two quite different times, and the way in which news and opinion travelled 100 years ago was very different to today.

That's the point I made, Brexiteers said what Smithee did, that the EU would be amicable and that everyone wanted a good outcome, Smithee put it in the context of Scotland leaving the UK.

January 19

3 hours ago, Gizmo said:

They can't readily resite the nukes + submarines. UK Parliament estimates were at least 20 years: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmscotaf/676/67607.htm

With clownshoes government in charge, you can double that. I'm not really sure why you are downplaying Scotland's theoretical negotiating status.

0.1% of oil OR rather 90% of UK energy reserves. There are clear strategic objectives that the rUK would need to harness good relations with Scotland to realise.

If you are hinting at the fact that the UK government did not negotiate in good faith with the EU, then yeah that is - with this junta, very likely.

It's all theory anyway, we will never leave - and the "talent" left in the SNP is unlikely to ever force a referendum.

Where does that leave Scotland? Hoping Labour can secure more than one term to start mitigating the cluster**** of a mess the tories have made, I guess.

I'm not downplaying Scotland's negotiating status. I'm pointing out that others are overstating it.

I take it an independent Scotland wouldn't join NATO. Is that correct?

0.1% of world oil reserves is far more significant. If Scotland doesn't sell to England, it will instead sell to the rest of the world. England will buy from the rest of the world. All of this will happen at the prices determined by international markets, just as it does today. By the way, can you remind me if Scotland has direct gas interconnectors with the Continent? IIRC, England has at least two.

The UK did not negotiate sensibly with the EU because it overestimated its importance and its leverage. I'd like to think that a Scottish leadership would be more sensible in their capacity self-assessment - and more realistic than a lot of what I've read on this thread.

January 19

1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

That's a good question.

Difficult to say to be honest as you would have been in the then EEC from the 1st of Jan 1973, until the UK left four years ago now.

I forget the exact leaving date. If truth be told from my personal prospective, I haven't noticed any difference.

More significantly, the point is that we did leave the UK and we did join the EU, and while alternative histories make for amusing diversions, they don't pay the bills. Ireland spent 50 years or so independent in a world where protectionism was a big thing and trade blocs weren't. All that 50 years allowed us to do was stabilise ourselves and muddle along. The next 50 were very different, as Ireland capitalised on a unique combination of circumstances to drag itself into modernity. But there's no way the people who set off on the independence journey back in 1921 could have predicted any of this.

The circumstances facing an independent Scotland in the 2020s would be a lot more favourable than Ireland faced in the 1920s, and that is unquestionably a positive for independence. But there's no point in predicting the future too far ahead - unless it's to quote whichever economist said that in the long run we're all dead. :laugh:

January 19

2 hours ago, Japan Jambo said:

Just two opinions? Reckon on 62 million more like and very, very few ,if any will be as simplistic as your offering above.

The most common view I've heard is neither. It's along the lines of "that'd be a pity, but if they want to go then off they can go".

January 19

20 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

The circumstances facing an independent Scotland in the 2020s would be a lot more favourable than Ireland faced in the 1920s, and that is unquestionably a positive for independence. But there's no point in predicting the future too far ahead - unless it's to quote whichever economist said that in the long run we're all dead.

I agree with you that in technological circumstances then things are far more favourable for Scotland post independence.

However, I am not sure they would be economical and social wise.

There is absolutely no guarantee that Scotland as an independent country would be allowed to join the current EU.

Could an independent Scotland afford a NHS as it is now. In that there is no charge at point of entry?

I personally believe the divorce from rUK will be far from amicable, if the people's of Scotland voted for independence.

The economist was very correct in saying that in the long run we are all dead.

Just that the long run lasts longer for some than others😄

Edited January 19 by John Findlay

January 19

7 hours ago, TallPaul said:

I would imagine the purpose is to retract attention from the dereliction of his own responsibilities under his devolved administration. Whilst making him feel all important and president like.

Lord Cameron is our Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is a waste of resource to have a light weight like Humza running around in his shadow.

I'm not particularly interested whether the Turkish leader comes here or not. Our Turkish community might be though and unless there is something in the devolution settlement that precludes us from talking to foreign politicians then I'm all for it. The Irish do alright trading on their links with countries all over the world. Why is it a bad thing for us?

January 19

1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

I agree with you that in technological circumstances then things are far more favourable for Scotland post independence.

However, I am not sure they would be economical and social wise.

There is absolutely no guarantee that Scotland as an independent country would be allowed to join the current EU.

Could an independent Scotland afford a NHS as it is now. In that there is no charge at point of entry?

I personally believe the divorce from rUK will be far from amicable, if the people's of Scotland voted for independence.

The economist was very correct in saying that in the long run we are all dead.

Just that the long run lasts longer for some than others😄

It would because with the renewable energy capcity and strategic positioning of Scotland and its geographical area by sea, its very much in their interests that it is admitted.

Second, Scotland within the UK complied with EU laws for 40 years and so have been de facto EU citizens up until Brexit, meaning its not the same thing as a genuine third country applying. The process will be the same but I would expect the time it takes to be much quicker.

Third, Scotland, its people and representatives have been good europeans with a european outlook all that time it was a constituent member.

The SG retains offices in Germany and France and Im sure behind the scenes its been discussed.

Now the UK is out and the EU owes RUK nothing, its a much easier ask to admit Scotland.

Scotland can join the EEA (same thing as EU but without the representation) immediately and align with EU policy and laws.

I think Scotland would join the Nordic council as well.

As for the NHS. We pay for the NHS now with a proportion of our budget, there is no reason that couldnt continue. I favor a german model having seen its better quality and it having saved my life when I had a brain tumour in 2007. Health options are policy decisons and Im certain we would keep it more or less as is.

January 19

5 hours ago, Gizmo said:

They can't readily resite the nukes + submarines. UK Parliament estimates were at least 20 years: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmscotaf/676/67607.htm

With clownshoes government in charge, you can double that. I'm not really sure why you are downplaying Scotland's theoretical negotiating status.

0.1% of oil OR rather 90% of UK energy reserves. There are clear strategic objectives that the rUK would need to harness good relations with Scotland to realise.

If you are hinting at the fact that the UK government did not negotiate in good faith with the EU, then yeah that is - with this junta, very likely.

It's all theory anyway, we will never leave - and the "talent" left in the SNP is unlikely to ever force a referendum.

Where does that leave Scotland? Hoping Labour can secure more than one term to start mitigating the cluster**** of a mess the tories have made, I guess.

A bit behind the curve but I agree with all of this.

January 19

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

I'm not downplaying Scotland's negotiating status. I'm pointing out that others are overstating it.

I take it an independent Scotland wouldn't join NATO. Is that correct?

0.1% of world oil reserves is far more significant. If Scotland doesn't sell to England, it will instead sell to the rest of the world. England will buy from the rest of the world. All of this will happen at the prices determined by international markets, just as it does today. By the way, can you remind me if Scotland has direct gas interconnectors with the Continent? IIRC, England has at least two.

The UK did not negotiate sensibly with the EU because it overestimated its importance and its leverage. I'd like to think that a Scottish leadership would be more sensible in their capacity self-assessment - and more realistic than a lot of what I've read on this thread.

Under the SNP an independent Scotland would maintain NATO membership and commitments.

Gas interconnector - not to Europe, just between EIRE & Scotland, N Ireland and Scotland. 3 in total.

January 19

9 minutes ago, That thing you do said:

It would because with the renewable energy capcity and strategic positioning of Scotland and its geographical area by sea, its very much in their interests that it is admitted.

Second, Scotland within the UK complied with EU laws for 40 years and so have been de facto EU citizens up until Brexit, meaning its not the same thing as a genuine third country applying. The process will be the same but I would expect the time it takes to be much quicker.

Third, Scotland, its people and representatives have been good europeans with a european outlook all that time it was a constituent member.

The SG retains offices in Germany and France and Im sure behind the scenes its been discussed.

Now the UK is out and the EU owes RUK nothing, its a much easier ask to admit Scotland.

Scotland can join the EEA (same thing as EU but without the representation) immediately and align with EU policy and laws.

I think Scotland would join the Nordic council as well.

As for the NHS. We pay for the NHS now with a proportion of our budget, there is no reason that couldnt continue. I favor a german model having seen its better quality and it having saved my life when I had a brain tumour in 2007. Health options are policy decisons and Im certain we would keep it more or less as is.

I can't understand any argument that says Scotland can't afford the NHS in it's current form. Health is already devolved and as far as I know we ring fence amd protect health and education budgets from the types of cuts we recently saw I'm housing. Sure the model could and should change but I'm sure it would remain a priority for any government of any colour.

January 19

All Sturgeon's WhatsApp messages during Covid have been deleted.

January 19

aye but what aboot clown shoes from the junta likesy

January 19

12 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

All Sturgeon's WhatsApp messages during Covid have been deleted.

Corrupt

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68032233

Scottish independence and devolution superthread

Recommended Posts

Dawnrazor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Pans Jambo

Posted Images

JudyJudyJudy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Unknown user

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dawnrazor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dawnrazor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JudyJudyJudy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Unknown user

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dawnrazor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

That thing you do

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Jeffros Furios

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Unknown user

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Unknown user

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dawnrazor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dawnrazor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Unknown user

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ulysses

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ulysses

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ulysses

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JudyJudyJudy

Link to comment

Share on other sites

il Duce McTarkin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dawnrazor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dawnrazor

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gizmo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Konrad von Carstein

Link to comment