Jump to content
Stuart Lyon

Even More SNP Nonsense

Recommended Posts

coconut doug
12 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

Firstly, the BARNETT formula delivers over 10 % per head more in Scotland than it should based on a per head split. to suggest otherwise is a lie.

 

If your figures on please numbers are correct a depleted police force down south is helping keeping drug deaths down to a third of Scottish levels.

 

I think extra money from Westminster could obviously be used to help fight the war on drugs through increased community pleasing for instance.Is that not self evident?

 

Don't you want the money Westminster will hand over?

 

The Barnett formula was devised so as not to have public expenditure apportioned on a per capita basis. To suggest otherwise is to deny reality.

 

Drug death information is collected on a different basis in England and Wales compared to Scotland meaning that as all deaths linked in any way to drugs are classed as drug related in Scotland. This is not the case in E+W.. There is also a historical element to the current increase in drug deaths i.e. older drug users being more proportionately affected. Drug taking habits appear to have changed and are different in Scotland compared to E+W. I'm not clear how increasing the number of police officers would improve these reasons for Scotland's high drug death rates.

 

 If you look at the breakdown of drug related crime in Scotland you will see that overall drug crime has dropped but that there has been a substantial increase in convictions for the importation of drugs. Maybe it's the money in drug dealing that keeps the business so bouyant. Perhaps if they decriminalised large parts of it resources could be focused on areas where it would be most effective.

 

Clearly police numbers are not self evidently useful to help the war on drugs. Scotland has higher rates of policing than E+W and yet they have lower drug deaths. It seems there is an inverse relationship. Many Police chiefs in Scotland and all over the world claim that the war on drugs has been lost. Perhaps you are suggesting that our police are particularly inept and encouraged to be so by the SNP or maybe you are in favour of an approach similar to that carried out in the Phillipines. 

 

Of course people would want the money why would you suggest otherwise? The problem is though how would the money be spent and if it is to be spent on reducing drug death rates perhaps it would be best spent on health and education related issues rather than the police.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambos are go!
29 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

You honestly think that being given some of our own money instead of all it through a stupid formula serves our country best? Seriously? 

Could you put some bones on that arguement. Facts and figures that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambos are go!
23 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

The Barnett formula was devised so as not to have public expenditure apportioned on a per capita basis. To suggest otherwise is to deny reality.

 

Drug death information is collected on a different basis in England and Wales compared to Scotland meaning that as all deaths linked in any way to drugs are classed as drug related in Scotland. This is not the case in E+W.. There is also a historical element to the current increase in drug deaths i.e. older drug users being more proportionately affected. Drug taking habits appear to have changed and are different in Scotland compared to E+W. I'm not clear how increasing the number of police officers would improve these reasons for Scotland's high drug death rates.

 

 If you look at the breakdown of drug related crime in Scotland you will see that overall drug crime has dropped but that there has been a substantial increase in convictions for the importation of drugs. Maybe it's the money in drug dealing that keeps the business so bouyant. Perhaps if they decriminalised large parts of it resources could be focused on areas where it would be most effective.

 

Clearly police numbers are not self evidently useful to help the war on drugs. Scotland has higher rates of policing than E+W and yet they have lower drug deaths. It seems there is an inverse relationship. Many Police chiefs in Scotland and all over the world claim that the war on drugs has been lost. Perhaps you are suggesting that our police are particularly inept and encouraged to be so by the SNP or maybe you are in favour of an approach similar to that carried out in the Phillipines. 

 

Of course people would want the money why would you suggest otherwise? The problem is though how would the money be spent and if it is to be spent on reducing drug death rates perhaps it would be best spent on health and education related issues rather than the police.

 

So you think the difference in drug deaths is down to the way the stats are compiled.Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roxy Hearts
6 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

Could you put some bones on that arguement. Facts and figures that is.

What facts and figures? The Westminster government won't let us know what Scotland provides in total monies. Giving a country a sum of its money instead of all of it tells its own story. A chappie on Sky recently stated Scotland produces 200billion but don't think he meant to let the secret out! Can't substantiate it but he did say it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
48 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

So you think the difference in drug deaths is down to the way the stats are compiled.Really?

There is a small effect but i listed 2 others which you chose to ignore.

 

You are telling us that the number of drug related deaths is related to police numbers. The statistics show no link.

 

You are claiming our very high rates are due to the SNP's incompetence but are unable to explain why so far because your police numbers rhetoric is not substantiated by the evidence. 

 

 Don't you think that if the answers were as simple as you seem to think they are the govt would have responded accordingly? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambos are go!
1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

There is a small effect but i listed 2 others which you chose to ignore.

 

You are telling us that the number of drug related deaths is related to police numbers. The statistics show no link.

 

You are claiming our very high rates are due to the SNP's incompetence but are unable to explain why so far because your police numbers rhetoric is not substantiated by the evidence. 

 

 Don't you think that if the answers were as simple as you seem to think they are the govt would have responded accordingly? 

 

 

No. I am staying that the decision to increase police numbers south of the border will deliver a financial boost to Holyrood.

 

virtually every thing you say has not been said by me on this thread or debate. It's just you putting things together to suit your prejudices and preconceptions. Nonsense on stilts as they say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
1 hour ago, jambos are go! said:

No. I am staying that the decision to increase police numbers south of the border will deliver a financial boost to Holyrood.

 

virtually every thing you say has not been said by me on this thread or debate. It's just you putting things together to suit your prejudices and preconceptions. Nonsense on stilts as they say. 

You did state that the SNP were neglecting the drugs issue. You words below.

 

" this should provide  enough funding to recruit  more that 2000 extra police officers in Scotland to tackle the Drugs crisis so neglected by the SNP.  And the SNP played no part in getting that funding. Better together indeed."

 

In the same quote you quite clearly claim that 2,000 extra police officers are going to tackle the drugs crisis and in so doing you assume a link between police numbers and the drugs crisis when the evidence suggests no such link exists.

 

You also claim in the same quote that the SNP played no part in getting the funding. I didn't point out the silliness of that comment because others had done so but if you understood the nature of the Barnett Formula you would know that no Scottish government could play a part, as a proportion of what is spent, necessarily comes to Scotland so there is no need for any Scottish government to play a part. What is more salient than your Better Together slogan is the notion that had we been an independent country we could have diverted resource and legislation more appropriately than waiting for a Barnett knockdown from Westminster.

 Your notion that the Barnett formula and the money given in consequentials give us  "more than our fair share" is at best a matter of opinion and one which i doubt you can adequately support. Even if you are correct in this assumption many people in Scotland do not want to be treated in this way.

 

If you do not understand your own posts that's not very good but just to summarise

 

 1 You have no evidence to show that the SNP have neglected the drugs crisis.

 

2 The money given to the Scottish government is given under Barnett and does not represent an act of altruism from this government, it is nothing but a knee jerk response to bad publicity and rising knife crime in England.

 

3 There is no link between the number of police officers and the scale of the drugs problem.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pans Jambo

Weve had almost 11 years of Tory imposed austerity so any”additional” funding is really what we are owed anyway. Its our money!

 

Scotlands oil has been propping up the UK economy & Sterling for decades.

 

Time we got paid back!

 

Are folk seriously suggesting the SNP are to blame for the so called “drugs epidemic”?

 

If you take a drug and get knocked down, fall out the window or drown its classed as a “drugs death” in Scotland (even though it wasnt the actual drugs that killed you) It would not be counted that way in rUK but hey, any chance to piss on Scotland by the tory supporting MSM eh!

 

Are folk seriously suggesting Boris and his extreme right wing cabinet will be a good thing for Scotland???

 

Jeezo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Weve had almost 11 years of Tory imposed austerity so any”additional” funding is really what we are owed anyway. Its our money!

 

Scotlands oil has been propping up the UK economy & Sterling for decades.

 

Time we got paid back!

 

Are folk seriously suggesting the SNP are to blame for the so called “drugs epidemic”?

 

If you take a drug and get knocked down, fall out the window or drown its classed as a “drugs death” in Scotland (even though it wasnt the actual drugs that killed you) It would not be counted that way in rUK but hey, any chance to piss on Scotland by the tory supporting MSM eh!

 

Are folk seriously suggesting Boris and his extreme right wing cabinet will be a good thing for Scotland???

 

Jeezo!

It's just loyalists trying to distract people.  It's gonnae be fun watching their tears and snorters, come day of the Scots.

Edited by ri Alban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XB52
16 hours ago, jambos are go! said:

Dear oh dear. I would have a more informed debate with a Haggis.

You have been shown up talking rubbish about police numbers so revert to anti-Scottish garbage as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XB52
9 hours ago, coconut doug said:

You did state that the SNP were neglecting the drugs issue. You words below.

 

" this should provide  enough funding to recruit  more that 2000 extra police officers in Scotland to tackle the Drugs crisis so neglected by the SNP.  And the SNP played no part in getting that funding. Better together indeed."

 

In the same quote you quite clearly claim that 2,000 extra police officers are going to tackle the drugs crisis and in so doing you assume a link between police numbers and the drugs crisis when the evidence suggests no such link exists.

 

You also claim in the same quote that the SNP played no part in getting the funding. I didn't point out the silliness of that comment because others had done so but if you understood the nature of the Barnett Formula you would know that no Scottish government could play a part, as a proportion of what is spent, necessarily comes to Scotland so there is no need for any Scottish government to play a part. What is more salient than your Better Together slogan is the notion that had we been an independent country we could have diverted resource and legislation more appropriately than waiting for a Barnett knockdown from Westminster.

 Your notion that the Barnett formula and the money given in consequentials give us  "more than our fair share" is at best a matter of opinion and one which i doubt you can adequately support. Even if you are correct in this assumption many people in Scotland do not want to be treated in this way.

 

If you do not understand your own posts that's not very good but just to summarise

 

 1 You have no evidence to show that the SNP have neglected the drugs crisis.

 

2 The money given to the Scottish government is given under Barnett and does not represent an act of altruism from this government, it is nothing but a knee jerk response to bad publicity and rising knife crime in England.

 

3 There is no link between the number of police officers and the scale of the drugs problem.

 

 

Great post but you will never get a coherent reply

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambos are go!
10 hours ago, coconut doug said:

You did state that the SNP were neglecting the drugs issue. You words below.

 

" this should provide  enough funding to recruit  more that 2000 extra police officers in Scotland to tackle the Drugs crisis so neglected by the SNP.  And the SNP played no part in getting that funding. Better together indeed."

 

In the same quote you quite clearly claim that 2,000 extra police officers are going to tackle the drugs crisis and in so doing you assume a link between police numbers and the drugs crisis when the evidence suggests no such link exists.

 

You also claim in the same quote that the SNP played no part in getting the funding. I didn't point out the silliness of that comment because others had done so but if you understood the nature of the Barnett Formula you would know that no Scottish government could play a part, as a proportion of what is spent, necessarily comes to Scotland so there is no need for any Scottish government to play a part. What is more salient than your Better Together slogan is the notion that had we been an independent country we could have diverted resource and legislation more appropriately than waiting for a Barnett knockdown from Westminster.

 Your notion that the Barnett formula and the money given in consequentials give us  "more than our fair share" is at best a matter of opinion and one which i doubt you can adequately support. Even if you are correct in this assumption many people in Scotland do not want to be treated in this way.

 

If you do not understand your own posts that's not very good but just to summarise

 

 1 You have no evidence to show that the SNP have neglected the drugs crisis.

 

2 The money given to the Scottish government is given under Barnett and does not represent an act of altruism from this government, it is nothing but a knee jerk response to bad publicity and rising knife crime in England.

 

3 There is no link between the number of police officers and the scale of the drugs problem.

 

 

The increasing drug emergency is not evidence that Holyrood is not doing enough. REALLY?

 

So extra money is irrelevant but 10 years of austerity was.  REALLY.

 

You think that increasing police resources is no way to tackle the drugs emergency,  REALLY.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pans Jambo
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, jambos are go! said:

The increasing drug emergency is not evidence that Holyrood is not doing enough. REALLY?

 

So extra money is irrelevant but 10 years of austerity was.  REALLY.

 

You think that increasing police resources is no way to tackle the drugs emergency,  REALLY.

 

 

Was it increased police number that stopped Glasgow being the "Murder capital of Europe" way back when?

 

Or was it a joined up approach using several agencies and a complete change in direction?

 

Police, courts and prison is not the answer, it never was.

Edited by Pans Jambo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Dunphy

Has anyone managed to blame Westminster for the taxpayer paying Salmonds legal bills yet?

 

Asking for a friend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke
Posted (edited)
On 29/07/2019 at 10:08, jambos are go! said:

The increasing drug emergency is not evidence that Holyrood is not doing enough. REALLY?

 

So extra money is irrelevant but 10 years of austerity was.  REALLY.

 

You think that increasing police resources is no way to tackle the drugs emergency,  REALLY.

 

 

I’d you think throwing more police at the drug problem fixes your thinking is about as old as the drug laws themselves. 

Read a book called chasing the scream. 

Edited by jack D and coke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cygnet
25 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

Has anyone managed to blame Westminster for the taxpayer paying Salmonds legal bills yet?

 

Asking for a friend. 

 

What’s that got to do with the SNP? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cade
26 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

Has anyone managed to blame Westminster for the taxpayer paying Salmonds legal bills yet?

 

Asking for a friend. 

Nope, any nobody could.

 

Scared of "SNP acting slow on beast Salmond" headlines, the party moved far too fast to eject him, breaching all kinds of rules in the process.

It was a ludicrous knee-jerk response to something that should have been handled correctly within the internal investigation rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Dunphy
1 hour ago, Cygnet said:

 

What’s that got to do with the SNP? 


A former SNP leader and First Minister having his legal bills paid by the taxpayer because of a botched investigation?

 

Aye, probably nothing. 
 

🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN
1 hour ago, Cade said:

Nope, any nobody could.

 

Scared of "SNP acting slow on beast Salmond" headlines, the party moved far too fast to eject him, breaching all kinds of rules in the process.

It was a ludicrous knee-jerk response to something that should have been handled correctly within the internal investigation rules.

Possibly, although it could have been because they knew he was guilty, they knew he would turn it into a circus because he was always bigger than the cause, because they didn't want Nicola named the sex offenders apprentice, or, they're just a bunch of incompetent half wits. More likely a combination of all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cygnet
1 hour ago, Phil Dunphy said:


A former SNP leader and First Minister having his legal bills paid by the taxpayer because of a botched investigation?

 

Aye, probably nothing. 
 

🙄

 

The investigation was absolutely nothing to do with the SNP bud. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
50 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

Possibly, although it could have been because they knew he was guilty, they knew he would turn it into a circus because he was always bigger than the cause, because they didn't want Nicola named the sex offenders apprentice, or, they're just a bunch of incompetent half wits. More likely a combination of all this.

Right, he's guilty. Ok everyone, Millwall says he guilty, nevermind the trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
1 hour ago, Cygnet said:

 

The investigation was absolutely nothing to do with the SNP bud. 

 

I was under the impression the investigation was handled by the civil service. Which reports to Westminster. Is that not correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SE16 3LN
3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Right, he's guilty. Ok everyone, Millwall says he guilty, nevermind the trial.

once again, you just made that up. Boring mate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin Z
On 14/08/2019 at 13:40, Justin Z said:

 

I was under the impression the investigation was handled by the civil service. Which reports to Westminster. Is that not correct?

 

Does anybody have info on this? I'm still sitting here wondering. @Phil Dunphy, you brought it up--how were the Scottish Government and the SNP involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pans Jambo
Posted (edited)

Anything in the main TV news today about drug deaths rising significantly (record numbers) in England & Wales? Naw? Funny that eh!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49357077

Edited by Pans Jambo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
2 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Anything in the main TV news today about drug deaths rising significantly (record numbers) in England & Wales? Naw? Funny that eh!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49357077

So poor people dying, is open season for you to make political gain. 

Not a second thought on show, just Scottish independence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
5 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

So poor people dying, is open season for you to make political gain. 

Not a second thought on show, just Scottish independence. 

He has point, tho. Does he not?  British knife crime rises, was the headlines, when in fact, knife crime in Scotland was dropping fast. Then came the Scottish drug hysteria on the news. So, who exactly is making political gain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pans Jambo
7 hours ago, Zlatanable said:

So poor people dying, is open season for you to make political gain. 

Not a second thought on show, just Scottish independence. 

My point is not about “poor people dying”. 

My point is that the union supporting MSM had the SNP Baaaad story regarding this same topic promoted front & centre, then it was discussed on BBC radio phone in shows and TV political shows etc. whereas the England & Wales version gets buried. Its there but you need to dig for it. 

Hypocrites. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jack D and coke
44 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

My point is not about “poor people dying”. 

My point is that the union supporting MSM had the SNP Baaaad story regarding this same topic promoted front & centre, then it was discussed on BBC radio phone in shows and TV political shows etc. whereas the England & Wales version gets buried. Its there but you need to dig for it. 

Hypocrites. 

It’s very deliberate. 

I had retards/rangers/mini Huns posting on my social media about it wanting the SNP hung for it and would you believe it it’s a U.K. national issue. 

Whodda thunk it🤷🏽‍♂️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pans Jambo
20 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

It’s very deliberate. 

I had retards/rangers/mini Huns posting on my social media about it wanting the SNP hung for it and would you believe it it’s a U.K. national issue. 

Whodda thunk it🤷🏽‍♂️

Shhhhh. Lift that rug whilst it gets a sweep....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambos are go!
Posted (edited)

The increase in E&W was 16% compared to 27% for Scotland . So the disparity is getting worse and the SNPs shame likewise. Not fit for Office IMO.

Edited by jambos are go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pans Jambo
34 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

The increase in E&W was 16% compared to 27% for Scotland . So the disparity is getting worse and the SNPs shame likewise. Not fit for Office IMO.

Apples for Apples mate.

 

Those figures are not.

 

Scotland counts ANY death as a drugs death if the deceased shows any signs of having illegal drugs in their system. So if you take a spliff & get run down crossing the road its a drugs death in Scotland.

 

But please, dont let that spoil your bashing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambos are go!
32 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Apples for Apples mate.

 

Those figures are not.

 

Scotland counts ANY death as a drugs death if the deceased shows any signs of having illegal drugs in their system. So if you take a spliff & get run down crossing the road its a drugs death in Scotland.

 

But please, dont let that spoil your bashing!

Regardless of the method used the percentage increases are still valid for compar ing  how effectively the issue is being tackled surely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ri Alban
6 minutes ago, jambos are go! said:

Regardless of the method used the percentage increases are still valid for compar ing  how effectively the issue is being tackled surely.

Righto!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
felix
20 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

Does anybody have info on this? I'm still sitting here wondering. @Phil Dunphy, you brought it up--how were the Scottish Government and the SNP involved?

Just reading the last few pages of this thread..and waiting for Phil's reply , but yes - I think you're correct.

The botched investigation costing taxpayers millions, is a result of civil service bungling, not the Scottish Government.

Others may know different. 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coconut doug
42 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

The hard yard: Brian Wilson says ministers must answer for Ferguson's ferries fiasco… https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/the-hard-yard-brian-wilson-says-ministers-must-answer-for-fergusons-ferries-fiasco/?utm_source=twitter via @Sunday_Post

 

Good read. 

 

Brian Wilson and the Sunday post what a combination for a "Good read" The figures are wrong and his interpretation of events considerably suspect. He says the Sick Kids has been overspent by at least £150million but i doubt he really believes that. Labour party people are not that stupid, are they? It's just a hate piece for the Sunday Post demographic. Makes the point about Salmond's legal costs and the £0.5million paid out to him for his "doomed defence" and blames those at St Andrews house. Wasn't the payment made for his defence costs because those in charge of investigating his behaviour didn't follow their own procedures and wasn't it the UK civil service and their appointees who were responsible for it?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
1 hour ago, Zlatanable said:

The hard yard: Brian Wilson says ministers must answer for Ferguson's ferries fiasco… https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/the-hard-yard-brian-wilson-says-ministers-must-answer-for-fergusons-ferries-fiasco/?utm_source=twitter via @Sunday_Post

 

Good read. 

 

38 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Brian Wilson and the Sunday post what a combination for a "Good read" The figures are wrong and his interpretation of events considerably suspect. He says the Sick Kids has been overspent by at least £150million but i doubt he really believes that. Labour party people are not that stupid, are they? It's just a hate piece for the Sunday Post demographic. Makes the point about Salmond's legal costs and the £0.5million paid out to him for his "doomed defence" and blames those at St Andrews house. Wasn't the payment made for his defence costs because those in charge of investigating his behaviour didn't follow their own procedures and wasn't it the UK civil service and their appointees who were responsible for it?

 

 

cheers pal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh
On 16/08/2019 at 15:43, Pans Jambo said:

Apples for Apples mate.

 

Those figures are not.

 

Scotland counts ANY death as a drugs death if the deceased shows any signs of having illegal drugs in their system. So if you take a spliff & get run down crossing the road its a drugs death in Scotland.

 

But please, dont let that spoil your bashing!

 

Please point us in the direction of something official that will confirm this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pans Jambo
8 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Please point us in the direction of something official that will confirm this. 

Try Google. 

How are drug deaths counted in Scotland. 

Takes you to an NHS page that has links to many meaty documents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seymour M Hersh
11 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Try Google. 

How are drug deaths counted in Scotland. 

Takes you to an NHS page that has links to many meaty documents. 

 

In other words you can't supply proof. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pans Jambo
41 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

In other words you can't supply proof. 

You cant use Google even when you are told what to type & where to look???

 

OK then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable

On Twitter, Scottish Nationalists seem more than usual, stroppy tonight. 

I am guessing there is bad news in the pipeline. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dobmisterdobster
2 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

On Twitter, Scottish Nationalists seem more than usual, stroppy tonight. 

I am guessing there is bad news in the pipeline. 

 

Twitter is an appaling website. Especially for politics. The place is full of fruitcakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
4 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

Twitter is an appaling website. Especially for politics. The place is full of fruitcakes.

Yes, its often terrible. 

But Scottish Nationalists are well grumpy tonight. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dobmisterdobster
10 minutes ago, Zlatanable said:

Yes, its often terrible. 

But Scottish Nationalists are well grumpy tonight. 

 

They're always grumpy about something. Wonder what it is this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zlatanable
1 minute ago, dobmisterdobster said:

They're always grumpy about something. Wonder what it is this time.

maybe the crime statistics? maybe not getting yes/no but leave/remain in #indyref2, 

but they seem well grumpy

who knows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boris
3 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

They're always grumpy about something. Wonder what it is this time.

Electoral commission wanting input over second ref question thus delaying vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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




×
×
  • Create New...