Monday, 26 August 2013



  1. I think anyone who believes that we only had 18 years of Tory rule under Thatcher before returning to "normality" really needs to watch this video.

    The reality of politics in Britain today is that we have had 33 years of uninterrupted Tory policy being imposed upon the people of Britain. THIS is what Better Together want us to continue living under, Tory governmental rule immaterial of the colour of the TORY party!

    1. yes. More or less. I can't see the difference. Tory Blur.

  2. Replies
    1. I think we all know who the REAL Labour spokespeople are these days CH, and it certainly is NOT Lamont and her bunch of crooked cronies!

    2. Hilarious. Our Dunc never ceases to amaze me. Labour values my arse.

  3. Replies
    1. Great sound that....

      And yeah, he can sense the world's eyes on him... the time to be Churchillian...Wallpolian... Pittian...

      Send a gunboat...

  4. One word tells us what has went wrong:


    Blair-Thatcher consensus.

    It has destroyed my country, my political party and has left the separatists pushing at an open door.

    The SNPs best electoral helper has been both of those PMs...

    1. That's good. Never thought of that...

      But it's not just the SNP remember. There are other people who want independence. Scottish Socialists; Greens; and some Labour, Liberal and even a few Tories.

  5. I agree Kabuki.

    Silver lining and all that...

    1. Alex Salmond always said that.

      It stands to reason if you govern for the south of England you will alienate the people elsewhere.

      Scots have the ability to do something about it.

  6. It's just a blank square on an ipad anyone provide a link?



      There you go Boorach... :)

  7. I don't belive I got something published.... that's a first for many, many months


    1. How come Boorach.

      Oh wait... If you are posting as Anon, sometimes they will be rejected. Can you get a Nick?

  8. I can't press the play button. I just can't.

    1. Go on... you know you want to.

  9. Dear revisionist Nat liars

    Alex Salmond said

    "One of the reasons Scotland didn't take to Lady Thatcher was because of that. We didn't mind the economic side so much. But we didn't like the social side at all."

    We didn't mind the economic side so much.

    shove that up yer kilts

    As Alex said to Maggie, Blair and Cameron in no 10 when discussing

    ' There are only murderers in this room '

    1. Not sure you can actually have one without the other.

      Trying to pay down debt wasn't a bad thing... but doing it by putting people out of work was.

      I think Salmond believes in society. In it being responsible for the less fortunate and the weak...the sick, young, old, unemployed...

      Dunno about monetarism. But it's not the policy he has pursued in Scotland, so I'm not sure you can take what he said quite so seriously. You'd need to see exactly the context.

    2. Revisionist NAT liars.

      I can see Niko is all charm and guile

    3. I'm sure he went to the Rank Charm School with Diana Dors....

      He just gets a wee bit carried away sometimes.

      When he gets too bad we just have to tell John Brownlie and he sorts him out.

      The rest of the time we just give him a virtual hug and a pat on his bonse.

  10. Sorry for going O/T Tris but dear oh dear oh dear, it looks like we are on the verge of attacking Syria. Now let me see who could possibly be the culprits this time round?

    1 Obama!

    2 Cameron

    I suppose it makes a change from the involvement of the old warmonger himself, Tony Blair. Oh wait a minute.....

    What is they say, you can't keep a good man down, or in this case you can't keep a good old warmonger down!

    1. I wonder just what we intend to achieve... Arbroath

      Our involvement in Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of people, including children, ruined the country, people's lives, their businesses, reduced women's rights, increased terrorism from virtually nil to hundreds of attacks a week, was illegal, and in fact probably was the last knell for the UNSC, membership of which seems to mean so much to Britain. By ignoring its ruling, USA and UK gave carte blanche to Russia, China (and France, if they feel so inclined) to do the same.

      Our involvement in Afghanistan appears to have made some changes to the country, but they are changes which will be reversed when we leave. And unless the government wants to go on paying this operation indefinitely, we will have to leave soon. Of course the truth is that we shall leave when Mr Obama tells us to leave. Next Year. Of course we have built stuff, but that is not unreasonable considering the number of things we blew up, hundreds of thousands have been killed and the guy we went looking for wasn't there. As if he ever would have been!

      So we got involved in Libya, which was a bit crap of us, considering that Blair and Brown promised that, if terrorists like Gaddafi, came in from the cold and saw the error of their ways, mr Blair would hug and kiss them ...literally and bring them back into the world family.

      What they didn't say was that shortly after Brits would take part in a military operation which would see them and their families cut down in the street and murdered.

      Not that you'll find me of an evening weeping tears over Gaddafi and his odious brood (friends of His Royal Highness the Earl of Inverness incidentally), but it does show what a British promise is worth. Today Libya, stable under Gaddafi, is a hotbed of Al Qa'ida which has already caused problems for Algeria and Mali and of course for France (and it serves them right because Sarkozy was merely an Obama puppet too).

      Finally, Mr Cameron wanted to be the first to congratulate Egypt on their overthrow of the equally repugnant, but relatively reliable Mubarak. And that went very well, didn't it, for days and days. It's not now too often we hear him brag about being the first out there, while Merkel and Sarkozy, Obama and Hu, leaders with just a modicum of brain and experience, stayed at home.

      Now Syria. What can we hope to achieve? We can't afford, even with UN backing (which we will NEVER get since we emasculated the UNSC) to go to war, so what are we going to do?

      Open it up for Al Qa'ida? We don't know enough about it. Who would we be fighting with, against what?

      And, these days, you can't go around the world putting a bit of British stick about, safe in the knowledge that the only Brits that will suffer are the colonial administrators out there (nearly always social outcasts at home sent by their parents to save the family from shame, and as such dispensible).

      Nope, not any more. If you mess these people about in their own countries, they have the means to come and pay you back... not in the same terms of course. They don't bomb your cities and kill and maim thousands of British children... they just blow up one little thing at a time, a bus, a train... Wrong though it is, taken in context with what Britain has done to them, it could be said to be understandable.

      Of course, once again it is unlikely to be the well guarded Downing Street or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, so that's alright then. No one who counts.

      But goodness, it will be a chance to wave the butcher's' apron all over the place, and don't they love that, as it distracts from the evictions of the disabled and sick, and the shutting down of another NHS facility.

      "People WANT to pay for their eye tests" Mrs Thatcher.

      Nah, you daft cow, they didn't.

  11. I have to admit that I'm totally confused. Cameron and his LabLibCon cabal keep telling anyone daft enough to listen that it is very important for Scotland to remain better together with rUK because they have a seat at the UN's top table, the United Nations Security Council.

    Hmm is that right Mr Cameron, the UNSC, the place where there never appears to be total agreement about anything. Boy I'm glad we're in that talking shop. The UNSC, the place where Britain sides with America and Russia sides with China AGAINST America which results in NOTHING being agreed other than to continue disagreeing! Let's face it the UNSC has certainly worked out well for Syria hasn't it. Oops I forgot it hasn't!

    Now we have America and Britain threatening to start bombing Syria. This is in itself extremely bad but I fully suspect that they will start this latest war without waiting for any ruling from Cameron's "must be a member of" UNSC! As you can see, this situation tends to confuse me more than just a bit.

    Why is Cameron and his cabal constantly telling Scotland, that having a seat at the "top table" is a must yet we are currently witnessing Cameron and his best buddy Obama doing everything they can to avoid waiting for any ruling from the UNSC. Obama and Cameron appear to be behaving like a pair of school ground bullies. I've got to admit that Cameron and Obama's latest bullying tactics are certainly a great advert for having a seat on the UNSC!

    1. The UN Security Council was effectively rendered obsolete as a functioning entity (not that tit had ever been THAT good) when Bush ignored what it had ordered, and his arse licker Blair followed suit.

      This was doubtless a calculated move by Blair on the basis that he would get a Congressional mMdal, and there would be a lot of money to be made in agreeing with Bush, and absolutely nothing to be gained (for himself) by falling out with Bush, as Jacques Chirac did.

      The membership of this useless and neutered organisation is, a little like the £100 billion and rising cost of trident, a case of Fur Coats, while Brits queue up for Asda green label barely edible handouts from food banks.

      A pox on all of them and their houses.

      They must remember that in helping the rebels they may be helping Al Qa'eda... nothing new to them, of course as they virtually set up and funded the organisation in the 70s.

      Bloody fools. There's nothing quite as stupid as Stupid White Men.