Salt n Vinegar

But theres no money in the purse to negotiate with public sector workers though? How can this be? Because her need is greater, obvs, now off you may f.

Just remembered... Maybe that's what the Secretary in a State for Scotland meant.... "THE Scottish Secretary has told SNP MP Deidre Brock to “suck it up and go with the programme” as she expressed concerns over Westminster bypassing the devolution settlement."

Just listening to James O'Brien at the moment. Well done Private Eye who ran the story.

Fekkin ell. You think you know someone, then.... A close relative has just confessed that she voted "no" in the Indyref, contrary to what she said before. (Family court set for Saturday ) She said it was because of the doubts over continued EU membership. She has come to her senses now and assures me that she's now a nailed on Yes voter. Small steps.

(old joke #73) Aye but they abhor the notion of sex while standing up in case it leads to dancing.

Aye, he'll be disciplined for that. The Tories can't allow folk to tell the truth and get away with it.

Meanwhile, in Edinburgh, and giving a stunning indication of Labour's determination to oppose the Tories having any role in Scottish public life, 2 Edinburgh Labour Councillors have been suspended for opposing the deal to give Labour power. They opposed the deal because, well, erm... it handed Tories paid positions of authority in the new Council. BTW, so desperate were the voters in Edinburgh to have the Tories in positions of authority in their City that they reduced the number of Tory Councillors from 18 to 9 at the recent election. That's the point of Labour... keeping Tories in power.

Its actually worse than that. What we have here are unionist politicians in Westminster saying that they know better about what the Scottish electorate want than the majority of MSPs elected to the Scottish Parliament and/or the overwhelming majority of Scottish constituency MPs in the Commons. Utterly bizarre thinking.

I appreciate that, but the overall point stands. For those of us who support independence the path might exist in theory, but if you can't use it when you want to because someone opposed to you using it is in total control of it, it might as well not be there. It's a position that many unionists seem to think is entirely reasonable, which is why I find their stance offensive to any notion of democracy.

In the Deputy PMQs, Liz Saville Roberts asked if the Tories would include in their Bill or Rights the right of self determination. His answer won't exactly be a "hold the front page moment". Here's the exchange, from the BBC website - " Plaid Cymru's Liz Saville-Roberts accused the government of contempt for the rule of law and devolution in equal measure. She took aim at Dominic Raab's draft Bill of Rights, as he is also justice secretary as well as standing in for the PM. "They are scrapping Welsh law against our will; denying Scotland the right to choose their own future," says Saville-Roberts. "Will he prove me wrong by enshrining self-determination in his Bill of Rights?" she asks the deputy prime minister - who announced the bill last week. Raab replies that he believes the Bill of Rights will "strengthen our tradition of freedom" and curb abuses, as well as "injecting a bit more common sense into the system". " So, that's a "no" then. They had a chance presented to them on a plate to demonstrate once and for all that the Union is a group of willing partners. Would they grab it with both hands? As I've said before, this is no cozy club of the willing. Anyone who pretends that it is such a club hasn't been paying attention. They aren't fooling anyone.

Interesting example, that. The trouble with it is, the path is guarded by a vile troll ten times your size who says "you can't use it".

As far as I know, the only gap between referenda that the Government has ever legislated for is 7 years. If anyone except the voters in the area MUST be given a say on the time interval, wouldn’t it be reasonable to match that? I'm not agreeing the notion of others apart from the Scottish electorate deciding when the time is "right", but if I did, I couldn't accept a longer period than was felt appropriate in NI. The key point I'd keep in mind is that it shouldn't be up to anyone but voters in Scotland to determine their political future, at any time of their choice. BTW, it's already 7 years, 9 months and 11 days since the previous indyref. Too soon? Must be another case of "except for viewers in Norther Ireland".

Who gets to "agree" the time interval?

That's the kind of thing that I find odd. If the next UK general produces a clear parliamentary majority in favour of a referendum about rejoining the EU, by your standard, it shouldn't be allowed. Too soon. The idea that an electorate in 2030 shouldn't be allowed to express a view on a decision taken today or tomorrow is most odd. I confess to some surprise at the notion being put forward by some unionists, and rarely if ever directly challenged by the media, that the best people to say what the voters in Scotland think or want are not the MSPs or MPs repeatedly elected by those voters, but are actually the high heid yins in a party that has not won any election in Scotland since the 1950s. To put it another way, someone born on the day that the Conservatives last won a majority of Scottish seats (Unionists plus National Liberal and Conservatives produced a huge majority of 1) has now passed their state retirement age. Enough of this notion that the blessed Union is a voluntary partnership. It is more akin to an abusive marriage with the dominant partner occasionally smiling sweetly and buying his partner a necklace. But 'What? You want to leave me? Never. You are pathetic... Look at you. You can't even talk about some things unless I allow it. You're nothing without me and you are mine, remember that!' No. Enough.

The twisting of "opinion" has started already of course. Some correspondent on the telly earlier mentioned that part of the decision would focus on the record of the SNP in Government. Fair enough as far as it went, but it seemed to ignore the herd of elephants in the room - the record and attitudes of the Westminster Government. If I had one wish, it would be repeated contributions to the "debate" by utter balloons like Patel, Rees-Mogg, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and in the final days, a visit by Boris, the "Minister for the Union". Trouble is, the No campaign knows that these spokespeople for the Union would be utter liabilities for their cause, blissfully ignoring the very fact that we are stuck with them and their ilk whether we like it or not and that the system that allows them any role in the government of Scotland is the very thing the SNP and Greens want to ditch.

Please remember that some of us can separate politics from what is, after all, only a game. The lickspittle, nauseating, forelock tugging, monarchy-idolising wankerocity that support the same football team as me don't speak for me any more than I'll speak for them. I quite liked the post from someone about singing "you're not British any more!"... Hell, I might even join in.

In the finest traditions of "SNP bad", the Tories will probably oppose it, arguing instead for 149m or 151.

If that was just a little shorter, it would make a grand pro-Indy t-shirt slogan .

Tell you what, if they count overnight and announce the result the next day, there could be a Hell of a party on the last night of the National Mod in Paisley.

"Bbbbbbuut... The Queen! She'll no be happy, but! " The consequences will be dire for some though. Just think, no more tartan unionists on the Queen's Birthday Horrors List.

We hide ours in the hold of our Boeing 747, in the underground hanger next to our starship. Isn't that what everyone does?

Just as well that London doesn't have one. The place would be a tourism and economic desert. Oh, no, wait....

The good thing about the ignore function is that you can avoid the fucking morons. Just because there's an eejit on the opposite side of the street shouting at lampposts doesn't mean that sane folk have to engage with them.

That'll be a problem for the Royal Highland Show. The only reason I go (and I usually get in free) is for the free food and bevvy tastings at the various stalls. Some nice stuff there. If promotions and advertising are banned....

Careful. The American Supreme Court might see that and get ideas.