Wednesday, 23 April 2014

WE DIDN'T START THE UNION

35 comments:

  1. Brilliant! :-)

    Now remind me again, what is the POSITIVE case for the union again? LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not so sure about that Tris. I mean with all the travelling that Broon the Loon does he's never in the country long enough for his "clunking fist" to have any authoritative force on the *ahem* clout that we may have so I reckon our *ahem* clout aint as big as certain individuals think it is! LOL

      Delete
  2. Please vote YES all of you tiresome, whinging, self centred malcontents, and take all your Labour MPs and toxic banks with you !

    ReplyDelete
  3. Somwone posted this link on the Guardian. I thought it would be a good one for your next pictures post. Jockholm syndrome

    https://twitter.com/Alinglasgow/status/440494346836525056/photo/1

    ReplyDelete
  4. I see Ed Ball's wife is coming to Inverness Yvette Cooper is shadow Hoe Secretary, she will frighten Oops! sorry speak to women in Inverness, and tell them Scotland will be flooded with immigrants if we vote yes, Mrs Cooper or Balls, will throw her tuppence in to the pensions debate.

    Not content with Mrs Cooper, Balls scaring Oops! I means talking to Scots, tomorrow Ed Miliband is bring his cabinet up to Scotland, (Talk about Tory tourism Labour win hands down) Ed who's lifetime hero was Maggie Thatcher,(there's no accounting for taste) will preach the benefits of the union, though I've yet to think of one Hmm!.

    I wonder if Ed's cabinet,is Georgian or possibly Victorian, maybe it even Elizabethan, one thing is for sure it/ they will be wooden topped.

    Still can't think of a benefit of being in the union, still their 5 months to go,maybe one will be found, Hmm! then again I think the meaning of life will be explained before we find a benefit of the union.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another pile of English public school and Oxbridge toffs with more money than god coming to tell us poor people we couldn't manage without them. In a positive way of course, not that they have worked out you have to tell us how crap we are positively.

      The reasons we are better together are clout, pouncing above our weight and ruling the world and of course the fact that we is a pile of whinging jocks what could not manage a booze up in a brewery without London Ed, Dave, Boris and Nigel to take care of the complicated bits that mere Scots wouldn't understand... all very positively of course.

      Delete
  5. May I say that was most entertaining, also Jockholm syndrome.

    ReplyDelete
  6. On a different topic... I was just wondering what you denizens of Munguins republic think of the McAskil climb down on corroboration abolition?

    I have to say Lamont is right, this is a total embarrassment for the SNP surely?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to admit I don't know that much about it, but from the little I did read, I don't think it was a good idea.

      A climb down is always embarrassing. I could hardly say anything else as I pilloried Cameron for his dozens of U-turns.

      Mind, Cameron's answer was that it showed the government was listening...

      I think that's a fair comment when there is an occasional climb down; not when everything is turend on its head.

      The alternative is to press on with something that is plain wrong and a potential disaster... like mrs Thatcher used to do, because she simply couldn't conceive that she might be wrong....ever.

      So unless there is something I'm missing, I don;t think it's an embarrassment... but as far as i could see it was not a good plan in the first place.

      Rather like the SNP council in Dundee's plans to change the bin collections to fortnightly and add in more multi coloured bins for everything.

      They said there was to be a consultation, but they simply voted it through.

      On this occasion (and I never thought I'd live to say this) I agree with Cllr Keenan.


      Delete
  7. It's bizarre to describe the abolition of the requirement for corroboration as "plain wrong".

    Scotland is the ONLY country in the world which has a criminal justice system that requires the corroboration of every essential element of a crime in order for there to be a legal sufficiency.

    I support an independent Scotland. However, to describe the move to abolish corroboration as "plain wrong" is to suggest that no other criminal justice system, in the world, is fair.

    That's the type of nonsense I would expect a staunch imperialist bitter together supporter to spout.

    Let's have the good grace to know when to wind our necks in.

    If you know anything about the criminal justice system in Scotland then you'll be fully aware that the technical requirement for corroboration has been recognised as unfit for purpose since the decision in the case of Moorov (Samuel) v HM Advocate (1930 J.C. 68, 1930 S.L.T. 596.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I said at the beginning I knew little about the subject Dean asked about

      I was talking about U turns in general when I said : "The alternative is to press on with something that is plain wrong and a potential disaster... like mrs Thatcher used to do, because she simply couldn't conceive that she might be wrong....ever."

      Perhaps I failed to make myself clear. In which case I apologise to you.

      I'll wind my neck in when I feel inclined to do so...

      Delete
    2. I'm not totally up to speed with the whole corroboration thing, never had the need for it myself. Surely all that is needed is a tweak to the rules for corroboration that make it clear that corroboration was preferred option in all criminal cases but not necessarily essential to a case going to court.

      What concerns me, and I'd guess one of the reasons for the changes to corroboration being proposed, is the idea that under corroboration any rape or sexual assault case requires corroboration. This is clearly insane. Most if not all rape/sexual assaults take place one on one where on earth is the second witness going to come from?

      Delete
    3. Yes, I see that.

      Even if there is a second witness, they are likely to be on one side or the other. I guess it is truly rare for there to be a totally objective and impartial witness.

      Really I was saying that I didn't know enough about it to comment, but that in general terms I don't think that taking the views of opposition, or the public, or whoever, into consideration, and then reversing policy, is necessarily a total embarrassment.

      Maybe it's a small embarrassment that you got it wrong in the first place.

      What is embarrassing is if everything you do has to be reversed... or if, regardless of how wrong you are you refuse to U-turn.

      I assume that the whole thing is to be looked at again?

      Delete
    4. I agree with you Tris, like you I'm not totally up on legal matters and in particular the legal nicities of corroboration. To be honest I think that having listened to all the views from all sides of the argument I think it is right that Mr Macaskill does what he has done and postpone the introduction of the no corroboration bill until after the review has taken place. This is clearly a sensible move in my view and something only a responsible government would even contemplate.

      I'm not sure if I would call it an embarrassment Tris. He has tried to pass a bill that was intended to assist the victims of crime as I understand it. Perhaps after the review his bill will continue or he and the relevant committee will make some changes to the bill either way I am still convinced that at the end of the day he will produce a bill that will do what it says on the tin...assist the victims of crime get legal satisfaction.

      Delete
  8. Ach no bother and apologies if you took the wind the neck comment to be a personal dig. It wasn't meant that way and I've clearly got the wrong end of the stick and didn't realise you were commenting more specifically on u-turns.

    Just trying to make the point that the requirement for corroboration, as defined in Scots law, was so perverse that, until the decision in Moorov, you could commit vile and repeated sexual offences against people and get away with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough Anon.

      It was intended as a general comment on policy U-turns., which I've tried to explain in my comments to Arbroath (above).

      Delete
  9. I'm with anonymous on this. Corroboration requires getting rid of. There is no justice in it's application. Put the evidence to a jury and let them decide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, David. As I said, I know next to nothing about it. My comment was really about the second part of dean's question... ie, was it a massive embarrassment to the government.

      Before I make any more comments on it, I need to get some information in how far it was going to go and the effects of it.

      From what the rest of you have been saying it seems like it is more sensible than I had thought.

      Delete
  10. I hope all of those who commented above will be involved in debating in the Scottish Government or other arenas after the YES vote.

    We need so many like you to set an example as to how debate/discussion and exchanges can be carried out in a polite, considered and mature and respectful manner,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks... it's that kinda place

      Delete
  11. The CBI have now tried to have their Electoral Commision registration annulled, on the grounds that "It wisnae me, mister....a big boy did it an' ran away....."
    Oh the joy....the sweet smell of BS dug over!

    Eck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A comment on twitter has suggested that the EC nullify the 1707 Treaty of Union under the same argument.

      Delete
    2. Ha ha ha ha ha ... Can't afford to keep losing members...

      What a shame.

      Can they do this, Eck? Or once you've registered, is that the deal done?

      Delete
    3. A big boy done the treaty of Union?

      It was a pile of money grubbing nobles... Plus ca change!

      Delete
    4. They said they had canvassed members pre first decision and am now wondering if they did another for this reversal or are they just continuing to lie.

      Delete
    5. I'd go for lying... It the default

      Delete
    6. They're Unionists...of course they're lying!

      Eck

      Delete