Stop voting for fucking Tories

[SaintK]

Maybe you should join the picket lines and show this support.

Anyhow, what's happened is Starmer tried to appear tough and took a "Prime Ministerial" stance. Got called out and swiftly retreated. I didn't realise when Starmer said he was Prime Ministerial what he meant was following on from Johnson's take one position one week and the opposite opinion the next.

How did he retreat? How has his position changed?

Because shadow ministers are on picket lines and he's allowing it. Last week he was not and made statements to that effect.

Interesting take on it
How many other than Nandy who was in her constituency and had a 5 minute chat.
The twat on the picket line last last week was sacked for making up policy on the hoof and giving unagreed news interviews. He's facing possible deselection in Ilford so needed to raise his "lefty" profile so he getss the constituency party on side

[JM2K6]

Maybe you should join the picket lines and show this support.

Anyhow, what's happened is Starmer tried to appear tough and took a "Prime Ministerial" stance. Got called out and swiftly retreated. I didn't realise when Starmer said he was Prime Ministerial what he meant was following on from Johnson's take one position one week and the opposite opinion the next.

How did he retreat? How has his position changed?

Because shadow ministers are on picket lines and he's allowing it. Last week he was not and made statements to that effect.

Did Lisa Nandy join the picket line?

[I like neeps]

How did he retreat? How has his position changed?

Because shadow ministers are on picket lines and he's allowing it. Last week he was not and made statements to that effect.

Interesting take on it
How many other than Nandy who was in her constituency and had a 5 minute chat.
The twat on the picket line last last week was sacked for making up policy on the hoof and giving unagreed news interviews. He's facing possible deselection in Ilford so needed to raise his "lefty" profile so he getss the constituency party on side

Their shadow chief whip for one:


We can dress up why Tarry got fired anyway we all want to. Starmer said last week and quotes have been provided that no shadow ministers were NOT to be on picket lines. And clearly they are now allowed to.

And if making up policy on the hoof is a sackable offence then Reeves really ought to be gone for totally reversing Starmer's position on nationalisation. Unless, he was lying again.

There's really no point in everyone getting wound up on Tory hypocrisy, lying and flip flopping and defending Starmer every time he does it. Politics isn't my guy good, other guy bad for the same behaviour.

[Lobby]

I see you follow Keir Starmers definition of truth:

The day before, Starmer said: “The Labour Party in opposition needs to be the Labour party in power and a government doesn’t go on picket lines.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... d8d84156b1

I guess Starmer has realised he's not PM material and given up on this one. Or just lied again. Who is to say.

I think Labour do have to be reasonably pragmatic about strikes though. Unions only represent a minority of workers (and the working class) and even when people are generally supportive of strike action they are less sympathetic when it affects the services that they receive. The median voter will think unions are important and think workers should have more rights but either not think that strikes are effective or just not like the inconvenience.

I think two points - yes unions represent a tiny minority but they're also 55% of labours funding. The membership under Starmer and therefore membership fees have been declining. And he courted big business but they won't ever fund labour to the extent the Tories get funding from them. So it's a huge problem if he pisses them off.

And secondly, I think the median voter appreciates every service offering is getting worse and more expensive but nobody is getting a payrise for the wage spiral. So will be more forgiving. It's notable the press have tried to whip up anti union hysteria the last few weeks. But pretty much completely failed.

So you're happy for political parties to do the bidding of the people and organisations that fund them, rather than working in the national interest or standing by their principles?

[JM2K6]

Because shadow ministers are on picket lines and he's allowing it. Last week he was not and made statements to that effect.

Interesting take on it
How many other than Nandy who was in her constituency and had a 5 minute chat.
The twat on the picket line last last week was sacked for making up policy on the hoof and giving unagreed news interviews. He's facing possible deselection in Ilford so needed to raise his "lefty" profile so he getss the constituency party on side

Their shadow chief whip for one:


We can dress up why Tarry got fired anyway we all want to. Starmer said last week and quotes have been provided that no shadow ministers were NOT to be on picket lines. And clearly they are now allowed to.

And if making up policy on the hoof is a sackable offence then Reeves really ought to be gone for totally reversing Starmer's position on nationalisation. Unless, he was lying again.

There's really no point in everyone getting wound up on Tory hypocrisy, lying and flip flopping and defending Starmer every time he does it. Politics isn't my guy good, other guy bad for the same behaviour.

Yep, fair enough. He's said they shouldn't be on picket lines, and in this case there's no wiggle room. It's not entirely fair to handwave away the reasons for the sacking of Tarry as "dressing up", though, and unless I'm mistaken (again ) Reeves made a statement that Starmer agreed with and wasn't making up policy on the spot or pretending to be something she wasn't.

So yeah, if you think Tarry got fired because he was on the picket line, then this also needs to be followed with a sacking. If not, then it's just evidence of MPs disobeying what is presumably a pretty firm order.

[I like neeps]

Interesting take on it
How many other than Nandy who was in her constituency and had a 5 minute chat.
The twat on the picket line last last week was sacked for making up policy on the hoof and giving unagreed news interviews. He's facing possible deselection in Ilford so needed to raise his "lefty" profile so he getss the constituency party on side

Their shadow chief whip for one:


We can dress up why Tarry got fired anyway we all want to. Starmer said last week and quotes have been provided that no shadow ministers were NOT to be on picket lines. And clearly they are now allowed to.

And if making up policy on the hoof is a sackable offence then Reeves really ought to be gone for totally reversing Starmer's position on nationalisation. Unless, he was lying again.

There's really no point in everyone getting wound up on Tory hypocrisy, lying and flip flopping and defending Starmer every time he does it. Politics isn't my guy good, other guy bad for the same behaviour.

Yep, fair enough. He's said they shouldn't be on picket lines, and in this case there's no wiggle room. It's not entirely fair to handwave away the reasons for the sacking of Tarry as "dressing up", though, and unless I'm mistaken (again ) Reeves made a statement that Starmer agreed with and wasn't making up policy on the spot or pretending to be something she wasn't.

So yeah, if you think Tarry got fired because he was on the picket line, then this also needs to be followed with a sacking. If not, then it's just evidence of MPs disobeying what is presumably a pretty firm order.

Yes, Reeves was making a statement Starmer agreed with. He just hadn't told us yet he agreed with it because until then his position had been bring back public ownership.

[I like neeps]

I think Labour do have to be reasonably pragmatic about strikes though. Unions only represent a minority of workers (and the working class) and even when people are generally supportive of strike action they are less sympathetic when it affects the services that they receive. The median voter will think unions are important and think workers should have more rights but either not think that strikes are effective or just not like the inconvenience.

I think two points - yes unions represent a tiny minority but they're also 55% of labours funding. The membership under Starmer and therefore membership fees have been declining. And he courted big business but they won't ever fund labour to the extent the Tories get funding from them. So it's a huge problem if he pisses them off.

And secondly, I think the median voter appreciates every service offering is getting worse and more expensive but nobody is getting a payrise for the wage spiral. So will be more forgiving. It's notable the press have tried to whip up anti union hysteria the last few weeks. But pretty much completely failed.

So you're happy for political parties to do the bidding of the people and organisations that fund them, rather than working in the national interest or standing by their principles?

Welcome to British democracy. Do you want to be governed by the party run by real estate developers, private equity big wigs and Russian billionaires or do you want to be run by the party run 55/45 unions and ordinary people?

[JM2K6]

Their shadow chief whip for one:


We can dress up why Tarry got fired anyway we all want to. Starmer said last week and quotes have been provided that no shadow ministers were NOT to be on picket lines. And clearly they are now allowed to.

And if making up policy on the hoof is a sackable offence then Reeves really ought to be gone for totally reversing Starmer's position on nationalisation. Unless, he was lying again.

There's really no point in everyone getting wound up on Tory hypocrisy, lying and flip flopping and defending Starmer every time he does it. Politics isn't my guy good, other guy bad for the same behaviour.

Yep, fair enough. He's said they shouldn't be on picket lines, and in this case there's no wiggle room. It's not entirely fair to handwave away the reasons for the sacking of Tarry as "dressing up", though, and unless I'm mistaken (again ) Reeves made a statement that Starmer agreed with and wasn't making up policy on the spot or pretending to be something she wasn't.

So yeah, if you think Tarry got fired because he was on the picket line, then this also needs to be followed with a sacking. If not, then it's just evidence of MPs disobeying what is presumably a pretty firm order.

Yes, Reeves was making a statement Starmer agreed with. He just hadn't told us yet he agreed with it because until then his position had been bring back public ownership.

Right, but when had he last stated that position? Opposition parties are allowed to change their positions, and having the correct minister announce that makes sense, no? As far as I can tell, what Reeves said was that it was unrealistic to expect there to be the money to nationalise everything, so going into the election promising to do so was unlikely to happen. Thing have changed economically since the leadership election so is that just a random u-turn or an honest appraisal of the situation? Starmer and Reeves claim Labour are being pragmatic here.

[I like neeps]

They could claim that, but unfortunately rowing back on pretty much every pledge isn't a good look. One of the many problem with Starmer is he doesn't present any vision, nobody knows what he stands for. And this is another example. Said he stands for nationalisation - he doesn't. He says he stands for unions - he doesn't. Boris Johnson without the parties. Really has no vision at all. No wonder he's on his 80th slogan in three years.

Anyhow, a detailed read on how Nandy going to picket and not being fired is a real problem for Labour:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... dApp_Other . Looks like another flip flop from Starmer. What a mess.

[Slick]

Deary me

[I like neeps]

Deary me

That's the SNPs campaign materials sorted.

Genuinely can't believe people see anything but a complete airhead when they see her. I can see how you'd talk yourself into Johnson but don't get Truss at all.

[JM2K6]

They could claim that, but unfortunately rowing back on pretty much every pledge isn't a good look. One of the many problem with Starmer is he doesn't present any vision, nobody knows what he stands for. And this is another example. Said he stands for nationalisation - he doesn't. He says he stands for unions - he doesn't. Boris Johnson without the parties. Really has no vision at all. No wonder he's on his 80th slogan in three years.

Anyhow, a detailed read on how Nandy going to picket and not being fired is a real problem for Labour:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... dApp_Other . Looks like another flip flop from Starmer. What a mess.

Hang on, we've already established that the "rowing back every pledge" claim is just bonkers Skwakbox stuff. It's a fair question: should claims made pre Covid regarding what Labour would do in power be stuck to for a future election campaign regardless of any change in financial reality?

Agree that there's a breakdown in discipline, that much is clear. And of course (Tarry aside, because he's a hopeless twat who is damaging to the party) I'm on the side of the MPs who think that actually having a public stance that is pro workers is a good idea rather than relentless fence sitting.

Mind you, I have no problem with MPs talking to people on picket lines in their constituencies. Joining the picket lines and waving flags alongside them (like Tarry) is dumb shit for an MP though.

[Biffer]

Days since the SNP last won an election in Scotland - 88

Days since the Conservatives won an election in Scotland - 24588

[Tichtheid]

Mind you, I have no problem with MPs talking to people on picket lines in their constituencies. Joining the picket lines and waving flags alongside them (like Tarry) is dumb shit for an MP though.

My MP is Caroline Lucas, I get the impression that one of the reasons she is popular with her constituents is because she openly supports demonstration and protest. I realise that she, and this constituency, are special cases, though.


I think there is a false equivalence being drawn between a handful of opposition MPs joining a picket line and the gross demeaning of office that has happened under the Tories.

[Tichtheid]

Days since the SNP last won an election in Scotland - 88

Days since the Conservatives won an election in Scotland - 24588

Get back in your box, Sweaty, and mind your bloody manners!

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Boris Johnson without the parties.

The Tories should really hope no narrative forms around that, a lot of votes would go from them to Labour if people thought along such lines

[robmatic]

Deary me

That's the SNPs campaign materials sorted.

Genuinely can't believe people see anything but a complete airhead when they see her. I can see how you'd talk yourself into Johnson but don't get Truss at all.

Looks like we will get government by really dumb soundbite. She came out with that guff about cutting civil service salaries as well, which was basically fantasy numbers and a problematic idea if you think about it for more than 10 seconds.

[Tichtheid]

Looks like we will get government by really dumb soundbite. She came out with that guff about cutting civil service salaries as well, which was basically fantasy numbers and a problematic idea if you think about it for more than 10 seconds.

There are some innovative schemes for quality staff retention happening at the moment, but cutting salaries isn't one of them.

[tabascoboy]

Deary me

That's the SNPs campaign materials sorted.

Genuinely can't believe people see anything but a complete airhead when they see her. I can see how you'd talk yourself into Johnson but don't get Truss at all.

[Biffer]

Deary me

That's the SNPs campaign materials sorted.

Genuinely can't believe people see anything but a complete airhead when they see her. I can see how you'd talk yourself into Johnson but don't get Truss at all.

Looks like we will get government by really dumb soundbite. She came out with that guff about cutting civil service salaries as well, which was basically fantasy numbers and a problematic idea if you think about it for more than 10 seconds.

I'm in the civil service, science research. All my colleagues are underpaid, they could all get more, often significantly more, in private industry. They stay because they want to do the particular job / research that they are currently doing. Private Industry can't and won't do the work we do.

[GogLais]

Deary me

That's the SNPs campaign materials sorted.

Genuinely can't believe people see anything but a complete airhead when they see her. I can see how you'd talk yourself into Johnson but don't get Truss at all.

The lack of self-awareness is stunning.

[tc27]

Truss is just dumb and it doesn't take much awareness to realise how badly her choice of words will go down (but I also find the SNP/Sturgeon=All Scots paradigm disingenuous).

There's a kernel of truth in that the constitutional shenanigans should really be ignored as the pantomime run for the benefit on her own supports it is - but clearly the PM and the heads of devolved admins need to communicate.

[Tichtheid]

Truss is just dumb and it doesn't take much awareness to realise how badly her choice of words will go down (but I also find the SNP/Sturgeon=All Scots paradigm disingenuous).

There's a kernel of truth in that the constitutional shenanigans should really be ignored as the pantomime run for the benefit on her own supports it is - but clearly the PM and the heads of devolved admins need to communicate.

Her words are dripping with arrogance, as are yours.

[dpedin]

Truss is just dumb and it doesn't take much awareness to realise how badly her choice of words will go down (but I also find the SNP/Sturgeon=All Scots paradigm disingenuous).

There's a kernel of truth in that the constitutional shenanigans should really be ignored as the pantomime run for the benefit on her own supports it is - but clearly the PM and the heads of devolved admins need to communicate.

Her words are dripping with arrogance, as are yours.

Tichtheid sums it up!

[SaintK]

I'm in the civil service, science research. All my colleagues are underpaid, they could all get more, often significantly more, in private industry. They stay because they want to do the particular job / research that they are currently doing. Private Industry can't and won't do the work we do.

Obviously didn't think this one through as a whole raft of regional Tory MP's has come out against Truss on this.
Team TRuss furiously rowing back on "the wilful representation"

Over the last few hours there has been a wilful misrepresentation of our campaign.
Current levels of public sector pay will absolutely be maintained.
Anything to suggest otherwise is simply wrong.

[tabascoboy]

And we're back onto the "bonfire of regulations", 2 400 is the number being touted, this time to "unleash British farming". The same British farming that is being undermined by unfavourable FTA's with Aus & NZ for example...and thus making it difficult to export to the EU since our regs will no doubt be far less stringent than theirs

Reports over the weekend that Conservative leadership hopeful Liz Truss would scrap all remaining EU regulations by the end of 2023 has raised alarm bells – particularly around protections for women’s and workers’ rights.

Truss has said that all remaining EU law and regulation would be “evaluated on the basis of whether it supports UK growth or boosts investment”. Those that failed the test would be replaced. This, Truss claims, would “unleash the full potential of Britain post-Brexit, and accelerate plans to get EU law off our statute books so we can boost growth and make the most of our newfound freedoms outside the EU”.

She has said the Equality Act would be protected.

The focus on growth reflects the ambitions of arch-Brexiteers and Truss’ fellow Britannia Unchained authors – the book that laid out an alternative economic strategy for Britain and which famously included a quote from Dominic Raab that British workers were among the “worst idlers in the world”. Now, the quasi-manifesto that has long provoked unease among workers’ rights activists could be realised by a Truss bonfire of EU laws.

Leading Brexiteers, including Truss’s co-author Dominic Raab, have previously spoken about their desires to use exiting the EU as a means to cut workers’ rights. In 2011, Raab advocated excluding some businesses from the minimum wage, as well as abolishing the Agency Workers Regulations and the Working Time Regulations. With women more likely to be in low-paid, insecure work (80% of workers in the UK’s lowest paid sector—social care—are women) any such cuts will hurt women hardest.

Meanwhile, Raab’s former colleague Martin Callanan criticised the pregnant workers directive as a “barrier to employment” which could be “scrapped.”

The focus on growth and investment over rights, by a Government that sees workers protections as a block on growth, raises concerns about who the economy is for. “In terms of how we think about our economy, our focus should be on environmental sustainability, human wellbeing, and equality,” explains Mary-Ann Stephenson, Director of the Women’s Budget Group. Polling by the organisation on the release of its Gender Equal Economy report found that “these are the things people value in the economy,” she says.

Stephenson raises how it’s not just workers’ protections under threat by Truss’ planned bonfire but standards too. Any change to product standards will disproportionately affect women, as will rollbacks on part-time workers’ rights, agency workers’ rights, and of course maternity leave.

“Women tend to be the main people who are responsible for domestic consumption so any changes to food standards will be felt by them,” Stephenson told Byline Times. “But scrapping of EU food standards will also have an impact on our economy because it will have an impact on our exports”.

https://bylinetimes.com/2022/07/27/trus ... -security/

[I like neeps]

Changing farming regulations would also create a very hard border in the Irish sea. Most of Truss' policies will never happen as they're totally straight bananas.

[Hal Jordan]

Most of her pronouncements are just to stiffen the long flaccid members and moisten the Death Valley dry gussets of the Tory Party members who will vote for the next leader, but at the heart of it there is the shitheads behind it all, the usual suspects who used Johnson until his bunga bunga and lying became too much to ignore, and they will push all sorts of shit whilst Truss stands out front talking shite to distract.

The Galactic President theory of politics.

[tc27]

Truss is just dumb and it doesn't take much awareness to realise how badly her choice of words will go down (but I also find the SNP/Sturgeon=All Scots paradigm disingenuous).

There's a kernel of truth in that the constitutional shenanigans should really be ignored as the pantomime run for the benefit on her own supports it is - but clearly the PM and the heads of devolved admins need to communicate.

Her words are dripping with arrogance, as are yours.

Sorry did I speak ill of the dear leader? Get over yourself.

[C T]

Just trying to imagine myself going for my very first job interview, part time in a call centre for an outsourcer.

I'm asked, "So C T, what would you do in this challenging situation?".

My answer, "I'd ignore it."

Pretty sure I wouldn't have got the job.

In the hunt for our next prime minister however, greeted with cheers and applause. Ridiculous.

[Tichtheid]

Truss is just dumb and it doesn't take much awareness to realise how badly her choice of words will go down (but I also find the SNP/Sturgeon=All Scots paradigm disingenuous).

There's a kernel of truth in that the constitutional shenanigans should really be ignored as the pantomime run for the benefit on her own supports it is - but clearly the PM and the heads of devolved admins need to communicate.

Her words are dripping with arrogance, as are yours.

Sorry did I speak ill of the dear leader? Get over yourself.

Ok, here is what Truss could have said;

"There is strong support for the SNP in Scotland as has been seen by recent election results, however not all of that support directly translates as a vote for independence.
As Prime Minister of the UK I will engage fully with the First Minister and endeavour to persuade the electorate of Scotland that remaining part of the UK is in everyone's best interest.
I believe that holding a referendum on independence would be the wrong course of action, especially at this time as we seek to recover from the pandemic. "
etc, like a mature, serious politician would do.

But no, the First Minister should be ignored, her actions dismissed as a mere pantomime, it's the high-handed dismissal of the holder of the office, not the officer, that shows the arrogance.

[tabascoboy]

Her words are dripping with arrogance, as are yours.

Sorry did I speak ill of the dear leader? Get over yourself.

Ok, here is what Truss could have said;

"There is strong support for the SNP in Scotland as has been seen by recent election results, however not all of that support directly translates as a vote for independence.
As Prime Minister of the UK I will engage fully with the First Minister and endeavour to persuade the electorate of Scotland that remaining part of the UK is in everyone's best interest.
I believe that holding a referendum on independence would be the wrong course of action, especially at this time as we seek to recover from the pandemic. "
etc, like a mature, serious politician would do.

But no, the First Minister should be ignored, her actions dismissed as a mere pantomime, it's the high-handed dismissal of the holder of the office, not the officer, that shows the arrogance.

Playing to the Gallery with added not-so-hidden xenophobia is entrenched in the Tory scripts now, sadly we can't expect any different for any national leader other than the US ( and Ukraine while it is still expedient )
Let's not forget the "Teasock" incident either

[dpedin]

Her words are dripping with arrogance, as are yours.

Sorry did I speak ill of the dear leader? Get over yourself.

Ok, here is what Truss could have said;

"There is strong support for the SNP in Scotland as has been seen by recent election results, however not all of that support directly translates as a vote for independence.
As Prime Minister of the UK I will engage fully with the First Minister and endeavour to persuade the electorate of Scotland that remaining part of the UK is in everyone's best interest.
I believe that holding a referendum on independence would be the wrong course of action, especially at this time as we seek to recover from the pandemic. "
etc, like a mature, serious politician would do.

But no, the First Minister should be ignored, her actions dismissed as a mere pantomime, it's the high-handed dismissal of the holder of the office, not the officer, that shows the arrogance.

Nails it again - 30 - love to Tichtheid!

[I like neeps]

Truss is just dumb and it doesn't take much awareness to realise how badly her choice of words will go down (but I also find the SNP/Sturgeon=All Scots paradigm disingenuous).

There's a kernel of truth in that the constitutional shenanigans should really be ignored as the pantomime run for the benefit on her own supports it is - but clearly the PM and the heads of devolved admins need to communicate.

Her words are dripping with arrogance, as are yours.

Sorry did I speak ill of the dear leader? Get over yourself.

It's bad politics from Truss.

Even if there is a kernel of truth in constitutional shenanigans why on earth would you provide the SNP with every single piece of campaign materials you'd ever need? You'd say - Scotland and the SNP are failing in many areas and Sturgeon should focus on that rather than constitutional shenanigans.

It shows she isn't a serious politician, unfortunately.

[Biffer]

Her words are dripping with arrogance, as are yours.

Sorry did I speak ill of the dear leader? Get over yourself.

It's bad politics from Truss.

Even if there is a kernel of truth in constitutional shenanigans why on earth would you provide the SNP with every single piece of campaign materials you'd ever need? You'd say - Scotland and the SNP are failing in many areas and Sturgeon should focus on that rather than constitutional shenanigans.

It shows she isn't a serious politician, unfortunately.

The Tories are quite clearly now an English Nationalist party. Anyone who votes for them in Scotland needs their head examined, or is a craven idiot.

[Biffer]

Her words are dripping with arrogance, as are yours.

Sorry did I speak ill of the dear leader? Get over yourself.

It's bad politics from Truss.

Even if there is a kernel of truth in constitutional shenanigans why on earth would you provide the SNP with every single piece of campaign materials you'd ever need? You'd say - Scotland and the SNP are failing in many areas and Sturgeon should focus on that rather than constitutional shenanigans.

It shows she isn't a serious politician, unfortunately.

You would do it because you know it has no negative affect on you. You can still win a majority, you can get your supporters riled up and you have the final say on whether or not they can do what they want.

Scots will rapidly become the new Europe in Brexit Britain, the enemy within.

[tc27]

Her words are dripping with arrogance, as are yours.

Sorry did I speak ill of the dear leader? Get over yourself.

It's bad politics from Truss.

Even if there is a kernel of truth in constitutional shenanigans why on earth would you provide the SNP with every single piece of campaign materials you'd ever need? You'd say - Scotland and the SNP are failing in many areas and Sturgeon should focus on that rather than constitutional shenanigans.

It shows she isn't a serious politician, unfortunately.

Agree with this. Truss is a idiot . Saying your going to ignore someone who runs an important part of the UKS governance because it plays well to your party electorate is beyond stupid and and in line with the Tories pouring fuel on the constitutional issue in Scotland out of ignorance or recklessness

That said Sturgeon isn't a head of state or the Scottish people manifest in human form - I mean a majority of Scots voted for someone else to be FM last year. I think Biffer is attempting to conflate a single politician with a whole nation and its simply dishonest.

[Deveron Boy]

Sorry did I speak ill of the dear leader? Get over yourself.

It's bad politics from Truss.

Even if there is a kernel of truth in constitutional shenanigans why on earth would you provide the SNP with every single piece of campaign materials you'd ever need? You'd say - Scotland and the SNP are failing in many areas and Sturgeon should focus on that rather than constitutional shenanigans.

It shows she isn't a serious politician, unfortunately.

Agree with this. Truss is a idiot . Saying your going to ignore someone who runs an important part of the UKS governance because it plays well to your party electorate is beyond stupid and and in line with the Tories pouring fuel on the constitutional issue in Scotland out of ignorance or recklessness

That said Sturgeon isn't a head of state or the Scottish people manifest in human form - I mean a majority of Scots voted for someone else to be FM last year. I think Biffer is attempting to conflate a single politician with a whole nation and its simply dishonest.

i'm a Scot who has lived in England for last 30 years, no vote in any future referendum and would vote to remain in UK if I did and her comment totally triggered me.

It is the English National Party 'these jocks should know their place' arrogance (clapping and cheering from the floor in Exeter) that shines through in every interaction as emphasised by the human skelton on breakfast tv this am. Sturgeon will actually be delighted by these comments, losing Johnson was a blow to independence campaign but if Truss is going to continue with same approach mana for the independence campaign.

[I like neeps]

Sorry did I speak ill of the dear leader? Get over yourself.

It's bad politics from Truss.

Even if there is a kernel of truth in constitutional shenanigans why on earth would you provide the SNP with every single piece of campaign materials you'd ever need? You'd say - Scotland and the SNP are failing in many areas and Sturgeon should focus on that rather than constitutional shenanigans.

It shows she isn't a serious politician, unfortunately.

Agree with this. Truss is a idiot . Saying your going to ignore someone who runs an important part of the UKS governance because it plays well to your party electorate is beyond stupid and and in line with the Tories pouring fuel on the constitutional issue in Scotland out of ignorance or recklessness

That said Sturgeon isn't a head of state or the Scottish people manifest in human form - I mean a majority of Scots voted for someone else to be FM last year. I think Biffer is attempting to conflate a single politician with a whole nation and its simply dishonest.

Have to agree with Deveron Boy, she isn't head of state of Scotland or the manifest of Scottish people but she is our highest ranked elected representative. Imagine the EU commission said they were going to ignore another attention seeking blowhard Prime Minister Liz Truss. She wouldn't be head of state or the manifest of British people. But, it would go very badly...

[Biffer]

Sorry did I speak ill of the dear leader? Get over yourself.

It's bad politics from Truss.

Even if there is a kernel of truth in constitutional shenanigans why on earth would you provide the SNP with every single piece of campaign materials you'd ever need? You'd say - Scotland and the SNP are failing in many areas and Sturgeon should focus on that rather than constitutional shenanigans.

It shows she isn't a serious politician, unfortunately.

Agree with this. Truss is a idiot . Saying your going to ignore someone who runs an important part of the UKS governance because it plays well to your party electorate is beyond stupid and and in line with the Tories pouring fuel on the constitutional issue in Scotland out of ignorance or recklessness

That said Sturgeon isn't a head of state or the Scottish people manifest in human form - I mean a majority of Scots voted for someone else to be FM last year. I think Biffer is attempting to conflate a single politician with a whole nation and its simply dishonest.

Where have I said that? I've only criticised what the Tories stand for, the status of Scotland within the UK and the craven nature of Scots who now vote for Conservatives.