By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Some people seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is a direct comparison with the storming of the Capitol Building. It’s not.
What happened on January 6th wasn’t the beginning. It was a culmination of years of Trump stirring up division and portraying himself and his movement as the victims.
It was the endless “they are stealing democracy from us” rhetoric. The attack sin the press as being biased. The using Washington as the bogeyman.
Hmm, but under the Title "Trump-esque" you posted a link to a tweet about a "March on" a symbolic building with a photo of national flags. The parallel you were drawing was pretty clear. Unless you are maybe referencing another "March on" a place by a crowd of Trump supporters which was significantly less threatening than the "March on" the Capitol. If so, please provide a link!
I'm English and living in Scotland. I probably am at more risk than most on here if the Independence movement goes toxic. But that toxicity can be generated by both sides, including huge over-reactions to things that are said by individual politicians.
Sturgeon isn't a demagogue like Trump, and you know it. She also isn't a disorganised mess like Johnson. She is a capable and broadly competent politician. You disagree with her end goals profoundly, as is your right, but attacks like this damage the credibility of the whole democratic process.
Which is a classic Tory tactic: "They are all as bad as each other". Nope. Not true.
If the UK pulled out of the deal then that would water down the response somewhat dontcha think though?
Then you're also relying on others to speak up/act on your behalf.
Fact is, Putin has got away with making direct nuclear threats to the West and we've cowered in response. What would someone like him be like if we had no response equal to his? It's quite possible it's only the deterrent that has stopped him going to the point of no return and even then we've felt uncertain.
Naturally the world would be better off if none of them existed but that's not gonna happen any time soon and the capability to rebuild will always be there.
Indeed, and if someone like Trump comes along and disbands NATO (like he threatend to), we are right up the creek.
"Blueas is a great guy, one of the best." - Donald Trump
Personally, my opinion softened over Scottish independence - if you guys can prove a consistent majority supporting it, I'm sure you'll get another shot at it. Whether you'd be better off or not depends on the time-scale and the quality of future Scottish governance I spose. Pretty sure it would be a tough start to independent life though, so it would be best of the SNP were honest about that (or just be considered as more shoddy politicos)
I am against Scottish independence because I think it would be damaging to the UK as a whole; similar to my opposition to Brexit which has damaged the UK far more than it has damaged the EU.
However, I am all for freedom of speech and the right of the people of Scotland to make their choice. I don't agree with the core principle of the SNP but I have found Sturgeon and Mhairi Black to make some very pertinent points to Government.
The idea that a protest against media bias from SNP supporters is Trump-esque and damaging to the party's reputation is quite some over-reach - even GB has reined back on it rather rapidly.
The following, hot off the [Guardian] press, indicates why those who support the SNP have a right to feel disgruntled. It appears to be a clear case of Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems and the DUP "ganging up" on a "quasi-whistleblower", to use the words in the Guardian report. Clearly the anti-independence campaign is getting into gear.
"SNP MP faces conduct inquiry for exposing how Nadine Dorries was avoiding punishment for misleading Commons committee
MPs have voted by a huge majority for a privileges committee investigation into the SNP MP John Nicolson. It started with what seemed to be a minor and technical breach of parliamentary etiquette, but it escalated into quite a row, and one which illustrates faultlines running through the chamber.
It all started when Nicolson wrote to Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, asking if he would allow a debate on a motion about Nadine Dorries telling the Commons culture committee that Channel 4 faked a reality TV programme when there is no evidence that was true. Nicolson asked Hoyle to allow a debate on a motion saying the privileges committee should investigate her for misleading parliament. But Hoyle said no.
Nicolson then posed this on Twitter, making the whole exchange public.
On Wednesday last week Hoyle lashed out at Nicolson in a statement to MPs. He said that MPs’ correspondence with the Speaker was private, that Nicolson had given “a partial and biased account” of his letter on Twitter and that Nicolson had not apologised.
In response, Nicolson said the culture committee had published a unanimous report criticising Dorries for her remarks and that people wanted to know what happened to an MP who misled a committee.
Nicolson did not apologise in the chamber last week, and the Tory MP David Davis tabled a motion saying that he should be referred to the privileges committee for an investigation. MPs debated it this afternoon and it passed by 371 votes to 16.
Davis said that MPs should respect the rule that correspondence with the Speaker should be private. He also accused Nicolson of questioning the integrity and impartiality of the Speaker, whom MPs should respect, he said.
Nicolson spoke in his own defence. He said that he did not know he was not allowed to reveal the contents of Hoyle’s letter, and that he was not criticising the Speaker. He also said that Dorries was not being punished for misleading a committee, while he was being punished for revealing this — although as soon as he accused Dorries of “misleading” MPs, he was asked to withdraw the comment.
The SNP MP Pete Wishart said he did not know about the rule saying correspondence with the Speaker was confidential despite having been an MP for more than 20 years. He said what was happening to Nicolson seemed like “institutional bullying”.
Some MPs seemed particularly aggrieved that Nicolson had not apologised last week, although he did in his speech today.
Just 16 SNP MPs voted against Davis’s motion. Among those voting in favour were 248 Tories, 100 Labour MP, 10 Liberal Democrats and seven DUP MPs.
Nicolson lost the vote this afternoon. But the spectacle of parliament voting to investigate an MP acting as a quasi-whistleblower while absolving a former cabinet minister who told falsehoods to a committee is probably a good result for the SNP, in that it does support their claims about the Commons being institutionally flawed.
It is possible that if a Tory or Labour MP had acted as Nicolson did, the Commons would have responded in the same way, but, listening to the debate, it did feel as if in part this involved the political parties that revere parliament ganging up on an MP from a party that doesn’t.
And many people will conclude there is an element of double standards involved. The culture committee said in its report that, in making a false statement about the broadcaster, “Dorries appears to have taken an opportunity, under the protection of privilege, to traduce the reputation of Channel 4”. It said that it would have demanded a privileges committee inquiry if she was still culture secretary, but that it was not pushing for one because she was no longer in charge of Channel 4.
That sounded like a compromise position intended to persuade Tories on the committee to back the conclusion. Misleading a select committee is a contempt of parliament regardless of whether the person doing the misleading is in cabinet or not."
The following, hot off the [Guardian] press, indicates why those who support the SNP have a right to feel disgruntled. It appears to be a clear case of Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems and the DUP "ganging up" on a "quasi-whistleblower", to use the words in the Guardian report. Clearly the anti-independence campaign is getting into gear.
"SNP MP faces conduct inquiry for exposing how Nadine Dorries was avoiding punishment for misleading Commons committee
MPs have voted by a huge majority for a privileges committee investigation into the SNP MP John Nicolson. It started with what seemed to be a minor and technical breach of parliamentary etiquette, but it escalated into quite a row, and one which illustrates faultlines running through the chamber.
It all started when Nicolson wrote to Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, asking if he would allow a debate on a motion about Nadine Dorries telling the Commons culture committee that Channel 4 faked a reality TV programme when there is no evidence that was true. Nicolson asked Hoyle to allow a debate on a motion saying the privileges committee should investigate her for misleading parliament. But Hoyle said no.
Nicolson then posed this on Twitter, making the whole exchange public.
On Wednesday last week Hoyle lashed out at Nicolson in a statement to MPs. He said that MPs’ correspondence with the Speaker was private, that Nicolson had given “a partial and biased account” of his letter on Twitter and that Nicolson had not apologised.
In response, Nicolson said the culture committee had published a unanimous report criticising Dorries for her remarks and that people wanted to know what happened to an MP who misled a committee.
Nicolson did not apologise in the chamber last week, and the Tory MP David Davis tabled a motion saying that he should be referred to the privileges committee for an investigation. MPs debated it this afternoon and it passed by 371 votes to 16.
Davis said that MPs should respect the rule that correspondence with the Speaker should be private. He also accused Nicolson of questioning the integrity and impartiality of the Speaker, whom MPs should respect, he said.
Nicolson spoke in his own defence. He said that he did not know he was not allowed to reveal the contents of Hoyle’s letter, and that he was not criticising the Speaker. He also said that Dorries was not being punished for misleading a committee, while he was being punished for revealing this — although as soon as he accused Dorries of “misleading” MPs, he was asked to withdraw the comment.
The SNP MP Pete Wishart said he did not know about the rule saying correspondence with the Speaker was confidential despite having been an MP for more than 20 years. He said what was happening to Nicolson seemed like “institutional bullying”.
Some MPs seemed particularly aggrieved that Nicolson had not apologised last week, although he did in his speech today.
Just 16 SNP MPs voted against Davis’s motion. Among those voting in favour were 248 Tories, 100 Labour MP, 10 Liberal Democrats and seven DUP MPs.
Nicolson lost the vote this afternoon. But the spectacle of parliament voting to investigate an MP acting as a quasi-whistleblower while absolving a former cabinet minister who told falsehoods to a committee is probably a good result for the SNP, in that it does support their claims about the Commons being institutionally flawed.
It is possible that if a Tory or Labour MP had acted as Nicolson did, the Commons would have responded in the same way, but, listening to the debate, it did feel as if in part this involved the political parties that revere parliament ganging up on an MP from a party that doesn’t.
And many people will conclude there is an element of double standards involved. The culture committee said in its report that, in making a false statement about the broadcaster, “Dorries appears to have taken an opportunity, under the protection of privilege, to traduce the reputation of Channel 4”. It said that it would have demanded a privileges committee inquiry if she was still culture secretary, but that it was not pushing for one because she was no longer in charge of Channel 4.
That sounded like a compromise position intended to persuade Tories on the committee to back the conclusion. Misleading a select committee is a contempt of parliament regardless of whether the person doing the misleading is in cabinet or not."
[Post edited 29 Nov 2022 16:04]
Years back pretty sure John Nicolson gave me the eye on the Circle line. def info, I think.
Anyway, carry on.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
Do you really think it keeps us safe? We rely overwhelmingly on US conventional and nuclear weapons for our defence. In my view, the nuclear deterrent is one further thing which gives us ideas above our station.
EDIT: if you believe Johnson and Sunak, Ukraine would have fallen by now but for UK assistance.
FURTHER EDIT: what is it with the UK and its obsession with the military? I think it must have its origins in the public school system where the KIng, "my country, right or wrong" and the cadet system, fuels it all. This in turn feeds through to the top universities, and thus influences people who have not gone through the public school system. And sadly, the cannon fodder and those lower down the system lap it all up too, influenced in no small part by the media.
[Post edited 28 Nov 2022 17:35]
Or maybe we have sense of pride in our armed forces with them having fought off the nazis in WW2?
What's really sad is that many good men gave their lives for disrespectful oiks like you.
"Blueas is a great guy, one of the best." - Donald Trump
Or maybe we have sense of pride in our armed forces with them having fought off the nazis in WW2?
What's really sad is that many good men gave their lives for disrespectful oiks like you.
You know nothing about me, so I don't appreciate your abuse.
As it turns out, I have a grandfather who served in the Marines in WW1, and another one who trained as a pilot in WW1, and who received an honorary sub-lieutenantship after the war because his training ceased with the end of the war. He never talked about this award, and I only found out recently.
I also have an uncle who was involved in the Normandy landings and received the Military Cross and Bar (two Military Crosses) (one of only 482 people in the whole of WW2 to receive this honour), another who was involved in the invasion of Italy, and one who served in Burma.
The fact is, however, they never really spoke about their exploits because they were modest men.
EDIT: The local British Legion where I live is Tory to a man, except a former Labour councillor I know. The interesting thing is that many only did National Service but, according to him, to hear them speak you would think they had fought Hitler single-handedly.
FURTHER EDIT: As it is, I buy a poppy every year, and have visited numerous Commonwealth War Graves in France and Belgium, which I find very moving. My concern is that the military, like the monarchy, is used to keep the masses in line. And in recent years, particularly, has been used by the right-wing press to boost the Tory vote.
FURTHER EDIT: Interesting to note from the following article that those from the war-time generation were as likely as milennials to vote Remain (as did my mum), in stark contrast to later older generations who could talk a good war.
I'm just shocked that having gone to the trouble of including all those, he went with:
"Gain independence and it will be sunshine all the way."
Rather than:
"Gain independence and it will be Sunshine on Leith."
As well as being a great song, it has a particular connection for me, with both my father's parents being born in Leith, and a mother who went to the same school in Fife as Craig and Charlie Reid.
You know nothing about me, so I don't appreciate your abuse.
As it turns out, I have a grandfather who served in the Marines in WW1, and another one who trained as a pilot in WW1, and who received an honorary sub-lieutenantship after the war because his training ceased with the end of the war. He never talked about this award, and I only found out recently.
I also have an uncle who was involved in the Normandy landings and received the Military Cross and Bar (two Military Crosses) (one of only 482 people in the whole of WW2 to receive this honour), another who was involved in the invasion of Italy, and one who served in Burma.
The fact is, however, they never really spoke about their exploits because they were modest men.
EDIT: The local British Legion where I live is Tory to a man, except a former Labour councillor I know. The interesting thing is that many only did National Service but, according to him, to hear them speak you would think they had fought Hitler single-handedly.
FURTHER EDIT: As it is, I buy a poppy every year, and have visited numerous Commonwealth War Graves in France and Belgium, which I find very moving. My concern is that the military, like the monarchy, is used to keep the masses in line. And in recent years, particularly, has been used by the right-wing press to boost the Tory vote.
FURTHER EDIT: Interesting to note from the following article that those from the war-time generation were as likely as milennials to vote Remain (as did my mum), in stark contrast to later older generations who could talk a good war.
As well as being a great song, it has a particular connection for me, with both my father's parents being born in Leith, and a mother who went to the same school in Fife as Craig and Charlie Reid.
And I never tire of this fantastic rendition.
Yes, I love that. Played it often during lockdown one. We were driving up to Edinburgh to move in as the first lockdown was announced. Sunshine on Leith became an anthem of hope in those days.
I love Leith itself, although the tram works have severely disrupted trade for so many businesses that are trying to recover from Covid. Long term benefits, I guess, but, boy is it taking a long time!
The Hibs fan version you linked is just superb. Ipswich need an equivalent: wistful, longing, hope undimmed and geographically located.
Yes, I love that. Played it often during lockdown one. We were driving up to Edinburgh to move in as the first lockdown was announced. Sunshine on Leith became an anthem of hope in those days.
I love Leith itself, although the tram works have severely disrupted trade for so many businesses that are trying to recover from Covid. Long term benefits, I guess, but, boy is it taking a long time!
The Hibs fan version you linked is just superb. Ipswich need an equivalent: wistful, longing, hope undimmed and geographically located.
I suppose Castle on the Hill, with its Suffolk focus, is the nearest equivalent. As an exile I find it moving because it is about someone returning to Suffolk, but it's not really a singable anthem.
Or maybe we have sense of pride in our armed forces with them having fought off the nazis in WW2?
What's really sad is that many good men gave their lives for disrespectful oiks like you.
Their sacrifice also included:
Gifting you the ability to post inappropriate pictures of women on here while laughing it up with your fellow middle-aged smooth brains about their refugee status;
Presenting you with the opportunity to provide us all some classic bantz by saying you'd 'do' various women, women who no doubt wouldn't touch your limp old boy with a bargepole.
I could go on. Which is to say, I'm glad to see you using your own freedom in such a respectable manner.
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
