Even More SNP Nonsense

[jambo lodge]

2 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Aye, fair play.

 

I used to quite like the Liberals, peaking when Charlie K was in charge.  They seemed genuinely radical.  Then Clegg punctured that ideal.

I could have written that.

[Boris]

Just now, jambo lodge said:

I could have written that.

 

Hahaha.  I'm sure there are many others who could say that.

[Pans Jambo]

3 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Talking about FOI requests, transparency, honesty and government, did these Brexit Impact assessments ever get released by the Torys down South?  

Shhh you'll be upsetting someone...

[jack D and coke]

23 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

https://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/diary/nicola-sturgeon-starts-snp-conference-rare-car-crash-interview

 

Sturgeon cant remember very important numbers relating to a possible Scotland future independence cost but somehow immediately knows the rise in SNP members. It’s a good numbers day today it seems!

Where is that a car crash interview? The guy was flustering and stuttering like a daft wee laddie all the way through it and then the accusation that she drew Iceland out of a sweep was intentional because they beat England at the euros honestly what an embarrassment of an interview and not from Nicola Sturgeon. These ***** are utterly obsessed about whether we support them or not and look to create some issue out of us not wanting them to win it. 

Personally I hope they get absolutely rodgered but it’s nothing to do with hating the English, I don’t hate them at all.  But people from up here who want them to win should be shot at dawn. 

It’s akin to wanting Hibs to win the Scottish cup because we went out earlier in the competition. 

[Don Dan]

3 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Where is that a car crash interview? The guy was flustering and stuttering like a daft wee laddie all the way through it and then the accusation that she drew Iceland out of a sweep was intentional because they beat England at the euros honestly what an embarrassment of an interview and not from Nicola Sturgeon. These ***** are utterly obsessed about whether we support them or not and look to create some issue out of us not wanting them to win it. 

Personally I hope they get absolutely rodgered but it’s nothing to do with hating the English, I don’t hate them at all.  But people from up here who want them to win should be shot at dawn. 

It’s akin to wanting Hibs to win the Scottish cup because we went out earlier in the competition. 

 

I agree re England. The problem was that she didn’t know that start up figures from a flagship document and tried to avoid having to either admit, she didn’t know, forgot or was unhappy with the figures. She’s not alone in amnesia deliberate or otherwise. She’s a typical politician who avoids uncomfortable answers which does my head in.

[Doogz]

3 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Shhh you'll be upsetting someone...

 

It'll not upset me if that's what you're implying - the Tories have been shambolic over Brexit ..... I'm quite happy to admit that.

Labour have been shambolic in not holding them to account - not a problem....

 

A lot of indy supporting posters make a lot of "critical thinking" - but when a unionist politician speaks work on the assumption it's a lie and when and Indy politician speaks assume it's truth.
When I hear any politician speak I accept there is a reasonable chance they are lying or more likely only telling part of the story (i.e. lying by omission).
If they're speaking on a subject I'm interested on, then I may take the time to research the subject and decide how much of it I can actually believe.

 

If the Tories had been responsible for the same sort of 2 tier FOI process as the SNP you would have been all over it, but as it's the SNP it's not a big deal.

 

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, Doogz said:

 

It'll not upset me if that's what you're implying - the Tories have been shambolic over Brexit ..... I'm quite happy to admit that.

Labour have been shambolic in not holding them to account - not a problem....

 

A lot of indy supporting posters make a lot of "critical thinking" - but when a unionist politician speaks work on the assumption it's a lie and when and Indy politician speaks assume it's truth.
When I hear any politician speak I accept there is a reasonable chance they are lying or more likely only telling part of the story (i.e. lying by omission).
If they're speaking on a subject I'm interested on, then I may take the time to research the subject and decide how much of it I can actually believe.

 

If the Tories had been responsible for the same sort of 2 tier FOI process as the SNP you would have been all over it, but as it's the SNP it's not a big deal.

 

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, Doogz said:

 

It'll not upset me if that's what you're implying - the Tories have been shambolic over Brexit ..... I'm quite happy to admit that.

Labour have been shambolic in not holding them to account - not a problem....

 

A lot of indy supporting posters make a lot of "critical thinking" - but when a unionist politician speaks work on the assumption it's a lie and when and Indy politician speaks assume it's truth.
When I hear any politician speak I accept there is a reasonable chance they are lying or more likely only telling part of the story (i.e. lying by omission).
If they're speaking on a subject I'm interested on, then I may take the time to research the subject and decide how much of it I can actually believe.

 

If the Tories had been responsible for the same sort of 2 tier FOI process as the SNP you would have been all over it, but as it's the SNP it's not a big deal.

 

I actually agree with most of that except your last point. I was not aware and asked what the story was about and was send a host of links to 'newspaper' articles.

I read these and then decided that the folk doing the bitching about it are mainly reporters who work for union backed media outlets that publish SNPBAD stories every day to suit their masters agendas (that usually turn out to be utter pish).

Then I read that a commission has done a report on the matter and made recommendations that SCOTGOV have now adopted. Seems they now respond to 93% of FOI requests in the recommended time.

 

So from a standing start I found out that the big hooha was in fact a shite effort at yet another SNPBAD story however; IF there is a genuine SNPBAD story and they are guilty, lets hear them.

[Space Mackerel]

11 minutes ago, Doogz said:

 

It'll not upset me if that's what you're implying - the Tories have been shambolic over Brexit ..... I'm quite happy to admit that.

Labour have been shambolic in not holding them to account - not a problem....

 

A lot of indy supporting posters make a lot of "critical thinking" - but when a unionist politician speaks work on the assumption it's a lie and when and Indy politician speaks assume it's truth.
When I hear any politician speak I accept there is a reasonable chance they are lying or more likely only telling part of the story (i.e. lying by omission).
If they're speaking on a subject I'm interested on, then I may take the time to research the subject and decide how much of it I can actually believe.

 

If the Tories had been responsible for the same sort of 2 tier FOI process as the SNP you would have been all over it, but as it's the SNP it's not a big deal.

 

 

If only you could apply that logic to the media you read Doogz too. 

 

It seems we indy supporters have to do the leg work on here to expose the MSM pish that quite a lot of people on here still read. 

[Thunderstruck]

29 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Not much the SNP can do about that whilst Westminster looks after that.  Who is to say that an independent Scotland would operate it's oil fields differently and then increase revenue from it?

 

The truth we are trying to get to is that there was no such pot of gold.

 

You might have thought that Salmond, an oil economist, might have grasped that reservoir size (irrespective of volume that can be sensibly extracted) multiplied by spot price does not equal tax revenue or, indeed, operating profit. 

 

It was a claim born of desperation in the closing days of the referendum campaign. 

 

[Boris]

1 minute ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

The truth we are trying to get to is that there was no such pot of gold.

 

You might have thought that Salmond, an oil economist, might have grasped that reservoir size (irrespective of volume that can be sensibly extracted) multiplied by spot price does not equal tax revenue or, indeed, operating profit. 

 

It was a claim born of desperation in the closing days of the referendum campaign. 

 

 

Quite possibly!  Or probably, I'm sure you would say.

 

But it still begs the question, why does North Sea Oil contribute so little to the Uk economy?  And even this little would be proportionately more of a contribution to Scotland.

 

However at the endof the day it will run out at some time and there is the environmental issue to.  Scotland seems to be doing well with renewables but capacity needs to increase.

[Pans Jambo]

Quote from Derek Bateman today:

 

In the House of Commons today David Mundell said "this is the constitutional settlement Scots voted for in 2014".

 

Of Course it is.

Remember when they said they'd ignore our votes?

Strip out devolved powers?

Rip us out of the EU?

Deny our MP's a voice?

Rewrite 20 years is 15 minutes?

Spit on Donald Dewar's legacy?

 

I think I hate fluffy more than any other politician in the UK. He's a dick!

 

(that last bit was my quote BTW).

 

EDIT: the wee shitehawk also said "Scotland IS NOT A PARTNER to the UK, it is a PART OF the UK".

So he just confirmed that they lied during the referendum and also that Scotland isn't a country anymore. Merely an area of the UK. How much more contempt will this tory government dish out to Scotland?

Edited June 14, 2018 by Pans Jambo

[Space Mackerel]

6 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Quote from Derek Bateman today:

 

In the House of Commons today David Mundell said "this is the constitutional settlement Scots voted for in 2014".

 

Of Course it is.

Remember when they said they'd ignore our votes?

Strip out devolved powers?

Rip us out of the EU?

Deny our MP's a voice?

Rewrite 20 years is 15 minutes?

Spit on Donald Dewar's legacy?

 

I think I hate fluffy more than any other politician in the UK. He's a dick!

 

(that last bit was my quote BTW).

 

Guess he grew the beard in case he got peckish.

 

 

 

[Thunderstruck]

1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

Quite possibly!  Or probably, I'm sure you would say.

 

But it still begs the question, why does North Sea Oil contribute so little to the Uk economy?  And even this little would be proportionately more of a contribution to Scotland.

 

However at the endof the day it will run out at some time and there is the environmental issue to.  Scotland seems to be doing well with renewables but capacity needs to increase.

 

It is because it is marginal. The bonanza days were short and it is now only of value when the price is high enough or when there are sufficient tax breaks (for capital investment) to keep it viable. 

 

Established fields continue to produce but margins and, therefore, revenues are slight. The exploration caravan has moved on and won’t come back any time soon. 

 

The past few years have demonstrated that oil is not a reliable foundation for a Scottish economy. 

 

Renewables, like oil, depend on substantial support from Government and funded by consumers (mainly in England). 

[Space Mackerel]

3 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

It is because it is marginal. The bonanza days were short and it is now only of value when the price is high enough or when there are sufficient tax breaks (for capital investment) to keep it viable. 

 

Established fields continue to produce but margins and, therefore, revenues are slight. The exploration caravan has moved on and won’t come back any time soon. 

 

The past few years have demonstrated that oil is not a reliable foundation for a Scottish economy. 

 

Renewables, like oil, depend on substantial support from Government and funded by consumers (mainly in England). 

 

More shite oil along with shite renewables now

 

Is there anything Scotland is good at?

Edited June 14, 2018 by Space Mackerel

[flecktimus]

[Boris]

3 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

It is because it is marginal. The bonanza days were short and it is now only of value when the price is high enough or when there are sufficient tax breaks (for capital investment) to keep it viable. 

 

Established fields continue to produce but margins and, therefore, revenues are slight. The exploration caravan has moved on and won’t come back any time soon. 

 

The past few years have demonstrated that oil is not a reliable foundation for a Scottish economy. 

 

Renewables, like oil, depend on substantial support from Government and funded by consumers (mainly in England). 

 

So how do other oil producing states seem to fair better?

[Boris]

Just now, flecktimus said:

 

He really said that?

[Boris]

Crikey, he did!

[Roxy Hearts]

19 minutes ago, flecktimus said:

Can't stand that man. What did we do to deserve serfs like him? Dearie me. 

[Space Mackerel]

2 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Can't stand that man. What did we do to deserve serfs like him? Dearie me. 

 

Cant see the photo :-/

 

[Gizmo]

15 hours ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

And there we have it, the conceit that only the Nats are standing up for Scotland or that the only true Scots are Nats. “How to win friends and influence people” is clearly not on their reading list. 

 

The opposing thesis is that Unionists care too much for Scotland to let it fall into  the clutches of wreckers secessionists who only care about the act of secession and not the aftermath.

 

They have no plan for post-Indy. 

The don’t know if it will be a “hard” or “soft” Indy. 

The have no clear comprehension of a post independence Scottish economy. 

 

If this thread read has told us anything over the past few weeks, it is that even the most ardent Nats now see that the dream is in tatters - the bitterness and name-calling are as clear a set of symptoms as you can ask for. 

Absolute nonsense. They have set out their plans twice now. What do we have on Brexit, not even a sodding pamphlet. 

I haven't name-called, btw, though I see you are indulging in the usual pejorative terms when referring to independence. Nor did I state that only independence supporters are true scots, perhaps you could refrain from putting words into other posters mouths.

But the point stand, why does caring for the "union"  equate to just sitting idly by and letting Scotland be stripped of powers and nailed to a shambolic Brexit that is expected to be so brutal that markets are now short-selling? 

PS Oh and I see another 5000 people joined the SNP yesterday. The aspiration for self-determination is clearly alive and well. 

 

[Phil Dunphy]

Has Space Mackerel answered why he can't talk politics to his "real life" mates yet?

[jack D and coke]

28 minutes ago, Boris said:

Crikey, he did!

I’m actually at the stage I think Scotland should dissolve the union. We joined it voluntarily so surely we can leave it voluntarily. It’s time to say thanks but we’ve had enough of this. This is a union? Is it buggery!! 

Dissolve it and **** Westminster’s permission. 

[Dawnrazor]

7 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

Has Space Mackerel answered why he can't talk politics to his "real life" mates yet?

He never answers feck all. 

[Dawnrazor]

1 minute ago, jack D and coke said:

I’m actually at the stage I think Scotland should dissolve the union. We joined it voluntarily so surely we can leave it voluntarily. It’s time to say thanks but we’ve had enough of this. This is a union? Is it buggery!! 

Dissolve it and **** Westminster’s permission. 

Would this be possible? 

What would the consequences, if any be? 

[Phil Dunphy]

1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said:

He never answers feck all. 

 

One of the great Kickback fiction writers though

[Roxy Hearts]

Contemplating joining the SNP. 

[Irufushi]

9 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

I’m actually at the stage I think Scotland should dissolve the union. We joined it voluntarily so surely we can leave it voluntarily. It’s time to say thanks but we’ve had enough of this. This is a union? Is it buggery!! 

Dissolve it and **** Westminster’s permission. 

 

 

Calm yerself. We’ll always be part of this fine union. 

 

[Space Mackerel]

14 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Contemplating joining the SNP. 

 

£3 a month I pay, every little helps especially when you’re up against the Lord Ashcrofts etc

 

It might be not everyone’s cup of tea but you can consider giving monthly donations to iScot magazine, Phantom Power are making some top notch videos like the Faroe Island one I posted with Ms Riddoch. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Space Mackerel

[jambo lodge]

1 minute ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

£3 a month I pay, every little helps especially when you’re up against the Lord Ashcrofts etc

Is that all Spacey. No wonder tge punters are joining up in droves.

[JamboX2]

1 hour ago, jack D and coke said:

Where is that a car crash interview? The guy was flustering and stuttering like a daft wee laddie all the way through it and then the accusation that she drew Iceland out of a sweep was intentional because they beat England at the euros honestly what an embarrassment of an interview and not from Nicola Sturgeon. These ***** are utterly obsessed about whether we support them or not and look to create some issue out of us not wanting them to win it. 

Personally I hope they get absolutely rodgered but it’s nothing to do with hating the English, I don’t hate them at all.  But people from up here who want them to win should be shot at dawn. 

It’s akin to wanting Hibs to win the Scottish cup because we went out earlier in the competition. 

 

 

Really who cares? If you're that comfortable with your own nationhood you should not care.

 

As for the interview. Let's be honest Jack. The wind is in the SNP sails on this Brexit issue but the Growth Commission report is milstone round their necks. I mean £450m to set up the infrastructure for independence? Really? 

[Hasselhoff]

2 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

There’s fake accounts galore  Christ this place is and was full of them from weirdo hibs fans before we went bust. Trying to get info and cause bother. There’s even fake Hearts twitter accounts stirring up shit all the time saying they hear racist chanting and shite like that. 

Youd have to be a bit of a thicky to believe all those tweets are from real indy supporters. 

 

So why is Space posting racist stuff and saying it's a "Britnat"? All I said was that you can't judge any random Tweets as being genuine unless you know who is behind it. 

 

Nationalists have a boycott list of companies that dared to speak out against independence. Please show me the unionist boycott list of companies that are for independence

[jambo lodge]

Wow. The Speaker of the Commons has now granted the emergency debate requested by the SNP yesterday. Just as well that spontaneous walk out took place to force his hand. Wonder when the paper with instructions what to say at the debate will be issued by Central.

[Pans Jambo]

1 minute ago, jambo lodge said:

Is that all Spacey. No wonder tge punters are joining up in droves.

You can go only £2 a month if you want Lodgie...Of course you may want to save that for getting the white gloves dry cleaned. Busy month for your lot in July.

[jambo lodge]

3 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

You can go only £2 a month if you want Lodgie...Of course you may want to save that for getting the white gloves dry cleaned. Busy month for your lot in July.

£2 per month and you get fed anti English propaganda. Seems about right when the world cup is on.

[Pans Jambo]

1 minute ago, jambo lodge said:

£2 per month and you get fed anti English propaganda. Seems about right when the world cup is on.

Anti English???

nobody on here is anti English.

Anti Westminster. 

Anti Tory. 

Anti Mundell

 

And perhaps anti this:

 

 

EDIT: Actually, The English football team can just suck on it. The country & her people are just fine though 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Pans Jambo

[Thunderstruck]

25 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

So how do other oil producing states seem to fair better?

 

Many different reasons but generally the more easy the mineral is to “win” the greater the income and, thus, the greater the revenue (tax in its various guises). Of course a state can take a shareholding in the exploration and production (see Equinor) but that carries risk and potential costs like any other shareholding. 

 

The N Sea and now the W Shetland Basin are among, if not topping, the list of most extreme environments. Costs of exploration and extraction are therefore much higher, high enough that significant tax allowances for capital investment are a prerequisite for any development. Even so, margins are slight and susceptible to minor fluctuations in price. 

 

Doubtless a comparison will be drawn with Norway. The fields there are also in a hostile environment but the better fields are in more convenient locations and comparatively cheaper to exploit.

 

Norway expects tax and investment revenues of circa £18bn (including environmental taxes). About half of that income is from part ownership of oil and gas fields - income that will vary if fields are in the development phase (outgoings instead of income) and the true lifetime extent of the amount of state investment in development is not clear. 

 

If Scotland was to follow Norway’s example, it would have to acquire an interest at market rates - an investment that would have a very long pay-back period. The Russian model of expropriation of assets is not recommended - they are now struggling for investment to open new fields. 

 

Yes, the Norwegians had a better model for taking value from oil but that is now history. We are being asked to look to the future and estimate what oil might contribute to a Scottish economy. With a fair wind and a following sea, we might get enough to cover the current deficit but not even the SGC was willing to go there. 

 

 

[Space Mackerel]

4 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Many different reasons but generally the more easy the mineral is to “win” the greater the income and, thus, the greater the revenue (tax in its various guises). Of course a state can take a shareholding in the exploration and production (see Equinor) but that carries risk and potential costs like any other shareholding. 

 

The N Sea and now the W Shetland Basin are among, if not topping, the list of most extreme environments. Costs of exploration and extraction are therefore much higher, high enough that significant tax allowances for capital investment are a prerequisite for any development. Even so, margins are slight and susceptible to minor fluctuations in price. 

 

Doubtless a comparison will be drawn with Norway. The fields there are also in a hostile environment but the better fields are in more convenient locations and comparatively cheaper to exploit.

 

Norway expects tax and investment revenues of circa £18bn (including environmental taxes). About half of that income is from part ownership of oil and gas fields - income that will vary if fields are in the development phase (outgoings instead of income) and the true lifetime extent of the amount of state investment in development is not clear. 

 

If Scotland was to follow Norway’s example, it would have to acquire an interest at market rates - an investment that would have a very long pay-back period. The Russian model of expropriation of assets is not recommended - they are now struggling for investment to open new fields. 

 

Yes, the Norwegians had a better model for taking value from oil but that is now history. We are being asked to look to the future and estimate what oil might contribute to a Scottish economy. With a fair wind and a following sea, we might get enough to cover the current deficit but not even the SGC was willing to go there. 

 

 

 

 

[Thunderstruck]

6 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

 

 

More history and from a truly partial source. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Thunderstruck

[Space Mackerel]

1 minute ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

More history and from a truly partial source. 

 

You didn’t even watch it because you haven’t got an answer to any of it. 

 

Keep on kidding you’re some sort of worlds leading Walter Mitty deep sea oil extraction expert though. 

[Boris]

17 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Many different reasons but generally the more easy the mineral is to “win” the greater the income and, thus, the greater the revenue (tax in its various guises). Of course a state can take a shareholding in the exploration and production (see Equinor) but that carries risk and potential costs like any other shareholding. 

 

The N Sea and now the W Shetland Basin are among, if not topping, the list of most extreme environments. Costs of exploration and extraction are therefore much higher, high enough that significant tax allowances for capital investment are a prerequisite for any development. Even so, margins are slight and susceptible to minor fluctuations in price. 

 

Doubtless a comparison will be drawn with Norway. The fields there are also in a hostile environment but the better fields are in more convenient locations and comparatively cheaper to exploit.

 

Norway expects tax and investment revenues of circa £18bn (including environmental taxes). About half of that income is from part ownership of oil and gas fields - income that will vary if fields are in the development phase (outgoings instead of income) and the true lifetime extent of the amount of state investment in development is not clear. 

 

If Scotland was to follow Norway’s example, it would have to acquire an interest at market rates - an investment that would have a very long pay-back period. The Russian model of expropriation of assets is not recommended - they are now struggling for investment to open new fields. 

 

Yes, the Norwegians had a better model for taking value from oil but that is now history. We are being asked to look to the future and estimate what oil might contribute to a Scottish economy. With a fair wind and a following sea, we might get enough to cover the current deficit but not even the SGC was willing to go there. 

 

 

Appreciate the reply. Cheers.

[Space Mackerel]

20 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Many different reasons but generally the more easy the mineral is to “win” the greater the income and, thus, the greater the revenue (tax in its various guises). Of course a state can take a shareholding in the exploration and production (see Equinor) but that carries risk and potential costs like any other shareholding. 

 

The N Sea and now the W Shetland Basin are among, if not topping, the list of most extreme environments. Costs of exploration and extraction are therefore much higher, high enough that significant tax allowances for capital investment are a prerequisite for any development. Even so, margins are slight and susceptible to minor fluctuations in price. 

 

Doubtless a comparison will be drawn with Norway. The fields there are also in a hostile environment but the better fields are in more convenient locations and comparatively cheaper to exploit.

 

Norway expects tax and investment revenues of circa £18bn (including environmental taxes). About half of that income is from part ownership of oil and gas fields - income that will vary if fields are in the development phase (outgoings instead of income) and the true lifetime extent of the amount of state investment in development is not clear. 

 

If Scotland was to follow Norway’s example, it would have to acquire an interest at market rates - an investment that would have a very long pay-back period. The Russian model of expropriation of assets is not recommended - they are now struggling for investment to open new fields. 

 

Yes, the Norwegians had a better model for taking value from oil but that is now history. We are being asked to look to the future and estimate what oil might contribute to a Scottish economy. With a fair wind and a following sea, we might get enough to cover the current deficit but not even the SGC was willing to go there. 

 

 

 

20 billion barrels of recoverable assets. November 2017.

 

https://oilandgasuk.co.uk/oil-gas-uk-welcomes-multi-billion-pound-north-sea-deals/

 

 

[Phil Dunphy]

4 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

You didn’t even watch it because you haven’t got an answer to any of it. 

 

Keep on kidding you’re some sort of worlds leading Walter Mitty deep sea oil extraction expert though. 

 

Aye, but why do you not feel like you can talk about politics with your "real life" mates?

[Thunderstruck]

6 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Aye, but why do you not feel like you can talk about politics with your "real life" mates?

 

Because they are all in hiding in that luxury chalet in Switzerland. 

[jambo lodge]

25 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

 

I'm a believer after watching that interview with an ex civil servant. Full of proof, facts/figures to back up his case. No more GERS for me let this guy do the accounting. 

[jambo lodge]

32 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Anti English???

nobody on here is anti English.

Anti Westminster. 

Anti Tory. 

Anti Mundell

 

And perhaps anti this:

 

 

EDIT: Actually, The English football team can just suck on it. The country & her people are just fine though 

You have anti tory right, Stephen Kerr the MP for Stirling reporting that his constituency office was damaged yet again last night. 

[Thunderstruck]

21 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

You didn’t even watch it because you haven’t got an answer to any of it. 

 

Keep on kidding you’re some sort of worlds leading Walter Mitty deep sea oil extraction expert though. 

 

Seems to be a fan of “Mr A Salmond” and is likely on the eccentric end of a spectrum but I am sure he believes what he says. It’s just irrelevant as we look forward not back. 

 

Edit - almost forgot. You calling someone “Walter Mitty” - hilarious. 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Thunderstruck

[Space Mackerel]

9 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Because they are all in hiding in that luxury chalet in Switzerland. 

 

Just shows what life can get you when you don’t spend your time talking a load of nonsense on the internet. 

Lovely place it is too. Might head back next year for a weeks skiing.

[Pans Jambo]

5 minutes ago, jambo lodge said:

You have anti tory right, Stephen Kerr the MP for Stirling reporting that his constituency office was damaged yet again last night. 

Yeah. Theres Scottish tories too believe it or not. Constituancy offices of all colours get damaged regularly. Bams will be bams. 

 

Dont suppose any lodge supporters damage Tynecastle when they visit???