The NHS is just a political point scoring punch bag and all party's are to blame.

Rue that :yep:

I see the pressure on the Speaker of the House has been stepped up to get rid of him. We shall see if they succeed.

I doubt the PM wants to be seen as being that sycophantic that the Speaker gets binned because he said something nasty about Trump. This will probably attract a couple of Tories but I imagine (and hope) that it'll just die a death.

Now, if the Lords vote down the Brexit bill, then things will get interesting. Again though, I'd be surprised if they did, even if there are a lot of Europhiles up there.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38856992


Here is my take..:03:

Labour frontbenchers who defied Jeremy Corbyn in this week's Commons Brexit vote will be sent a formal written warning but will not be sacked due to the fact old Jeremy is running out of Back Bencher's to replace them. Angus Robertson leader of the SNP in the commons joked I got lots of Back Bencher's but none of them want to defect to a party ruled by a old stuck in the mud so and so.

Should the Lords exercise their 'death wish' then that would probably be the beginning of the end for them....the British public are fast tiring of them in my opinion.

The problem of abolishing the Lords is the question of what you replace it with. If it's another fully elected chamber with another set of politicians how's that going to go down with Joe public?:hmmm:

Anyway, I found this on Reddit:

The best answer is THIS. The two most salient points are these two:

and

Any comments? Hopefully it should go a long way to explaining what's best described as Scottish Exceptionalism!

Mike.

Edit: Wall-o-text quote removed, direct link to post added!

I have always wondered why the scottish kept so relatively calm
What does "conservative" mean, in Scotland? Trying to get along without England and keeping the "Imperial Union"? So the nationalists are not the unionists? But the unionists are the conservatives? Or were?

Just trying to understand :)

Conservatives=Unionists.

One and the same, but not the same type of Conservative as in England, the difference being religious affiliation.

Conservativism in England = Anglican, tied in to the Church of England.

Conservativism in Scotland = Presbyterian, tied in to the Church of Scotland (The Kirk).

Both white and Protestant, but doctrinally distinct. When the Unionists were a distinctively Scottish entity, looking out for Scotland's interests within the UK and Empire, they did well. After the Suez debacle, one of the core pillers of their identity crumbled. During the sixties there was a decline in the influence of The Kirk as secularisation took place, piller number two goes. That left piller number three, the Union itself. Then in 1965 they formally merged with the English Conservatives and stopped being a Scottish party and became a branch office of a British one.

The irony is that in many respects the Unionists were the SNP of their day except they were pro-Union.

I've heard it more than once up here that if Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Tories split from the UK party and became once again a purely Scottish, Centre-Right Party not beholden to anyone but the people of Scotland, they would do much, much better than they do at the moment. The taint of the English Tories is still too much for many.

Mike.

Thank you, Mike :)

What do you mean with the Suez debacle, i mean what was Scotland unionist's pillar, regarding that?

Another question, i read about English-Scottish troubles so to speak, when almost all Scotland was de-forested, and british sheep grassing on disowned land – some Scots became very poor, while others tried to adapt and went into tea-trading. Is that even true, or is it anti-english propaganda of the time?

No problem, I try to help where I can!:salute:

In answer to your first question, the Unionists built their appeal on three pillers: Empire, Church and Union. The Reddit post I linked to explains the reasons why better than I can:

The Suez Crisis sounded the death knell for the UK as an Imperial power which in turn affected the Scottish Unionists as it removed the "Imperial Unity" piller of their platform. There wasn't an Empire to be united with and the captive export markets that had kept Scottish (and UK) industry occupied began to disappear.

As for your second point... ugh.

I hate to bang on about the clearances in the Highlands and elsewhere, but, they did happen. There are many reasons for the 18th and 19th century migrations from Scotland but the majority of it came down to economics. The big land owners could make more money from their estates if they got rid of the tenant farmers and replaced them with something more profitable. This led to very poor relations between the lower classes and those at the top, a tendency that seems to have continued in the big cities during industrialisation and is something which still resonates today. That's not to say that something similar didn't happen in England, it did, but there does appear to be an extra level of venom to class relations in Scotland that seems to be generally absent in England.

Mike.

http://news.sky.com/story/renewed-pr...erges-10767113

Smart money is on he will remain.

Those bleeding conniving Tories are after John Bercow's head once again, they failed before to oust him and they should fail again, hopefully.

They're after putting one of their own in the speakers chair so they can make the speaker dance to any tune that they want to play, what a set of treasonable bastards they are, he should be given the power to have the ringleaders taken outside and bleeding shot. :yep:

^^^ thanks Mike, again :)

Just read about Suez, i only had a muddled picture or knowledge of those times. So this was the beginning of the Empire breakup, so to speak.
First found it hard to believe that just of all scottish conservatives or national-thinking people would promote a union with England, but that way it makes sense.

So regarding the de-forestation scottish land owners did it themselves, for economic reasons (or greed). This was described different in the book i read, so it was obviously wrong.
Again thanks for your explanations :salute:

If the snarling dogs aren't reigned in within a week or two I think his position will become untenable.