Finally, and seventh, it looks as if Scotland might elect a strongly pro-Independence parliament, again. For how long this can be ignored by Westminster is now a very real question, and in the event that Reform did form a government in Westminster, the conflict between that government and the government in Scotland might become so severe that the move towards independence might be reinforced, albeit in ways that are unpredictable.
Who doesn’t want the Scots to fuck off after all?
The ‘conflict’ between the parish council in Scotland and Westminster is severe whoever is in charge – the porridge wogs need to hate on Westminster to define themselves as champions of Freedom for Scotland.
Ritchie thinks it’ll be worse for Reform cos it’s the done thing to demonise Nige.
Ritchie is a bellend.
Lol
Reform will probably rig a referendum so that the Indies win, just to be shot of them.
Sensible!!
It would be delicious to see Kevin The Teenager finally having to support itself.
Funny how the whinging poms
lack the self awareness to notice they always end up justifying giving the minority of Scots who vote for seperatism their way, yet completely fail to notice said separatists have not won a majority vote on the issue for 50 years.
Said whinging poms were also noticeable for their complete silence on fiscal transfers whilst revenue was firehosing out of the N Sea, yet now when it is the prosperous SE subsidising the other 80% of the UK not just Scotland all of a sudden they’ve acquired fiscal probity.
Also at a time when the rational are apparently concerned about trade deficits & paying our way in the world they want the UK to divest itself of the bit that’s a net food and hydrocarbon exporter ( and once the non scottish Fabian Milibacon and cult are gone could well see a massive increase in hydrocarbon production & revenue)
Its a puzzle.
There’s not only that. There’s also the question of what is included in, and omitted from, such calculations. Years ago I read an article by a senior chap in an accounting firm – a London firm and an unScottish chap – who said that the figures normally reported were heavily based in favour of London. (Note: not specifically against Scotland but against everywhere non-London.)
And he was just an accountant. Presumably an economist could find lots of extra bias, if only because so much of London’s income is presumably made from government and its hangers-on.
In much of the 19th century, when Scotland was more heavily industrialised than England, the net subsidy must presumably been Scotland -> England, though of course the numbers would be much smaller since Government was much smaller.
Er, *Glasgow* was more heavily industrialised than *the south of* England – hence Glasgow Celtic for the Irish immigrants having more fans than “London Irish” – although that was partly due to soccer being more popular than rugger – but there was more industry in the North of England than in Scotland. Outside Glasgow major industries included marmalade …
More importantly: in the 19th century most taxation was on consumption rather than production so transfers from high income areas to low income areas were insignificant.
You miss the point. As a proportion Scotland was more heavily industrialised than England.
I should like to check the definition of “industrialised” and the numbers but – even if you are correct – that does not mean that Scotland was subsidising England.
Good comment. Problem is we’re sick of their whining. The whining works.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. The Scots will be plotting with the French (EU) against us before the ink is dry, as they always did. Thing is, we will never be free of the Scots and they will never be free of us; we are joined at the hip. We might as well make the best of the union with the Union.
Good point. Also, unpicking a union of more than 300 years could make the Brexit negotiations look like a picnic – though traitors in Westminster would probably surrender rUK’s interests and give the nationalists everything they ask for.
Scotland is our Crimea, we are never pulling out and it’s foolish of anyone who reads history to think otherwise.
Mmm, wonder who’d have the biggest fit of the vapours if Drumpf were to state that Scotland would become a dominion prepatory to statehood if England voted to dissolve the Act of Union.
It’s prime real estate that anchors the strategic GIUK gap, has oil, and fantastic golf courses. Maybe the best golf courses in history, many people say so!
This post is bizarre – the paragraph after the one you quote really does reflect his complete break with reality:
As a note in this morning’s video, Scotland and Wales are the only parts of the UK where there is some sign of new political hope at present, and in each country, those with vision are providing that hope, as Sinn Féin might be in Northern Ireland. It is independence from Westminster that might, from May 2026 onwards, dominate the agendas in three of the four countries of the UK. For how long is the pretence that we are a United Kingdom viable in that case?
To describe the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Ye Gods, Sinn Fein as ‘having vision’ exposes the bankruptcy of his ideology. All are died in the wool socialists who offer nothing but high spending and zero service to boot, funded on the never never. Do Plaid have a presence in the Lords?
I say, I say, I say, what do you call nationalists who are also socialists? Quite.
There is zero chance of Welsh independence. The south and east are like an extended part of England now and that’s where most of the population is. It’s easier to get from Cardiff to Bristol than Cardiff to Lllllllanwhatever in Gwynedd.
My problem with Reform is the NAZI – far right connectio s.
Some people have alleged Nigel Farage picked on Jewish kids over the Holocaust genocidet.
If that is true, he should never be anywhere near the office of Prime Minister. We are talking about running a country, that is a red flag.
Enf if story.
AND. Another academic has suggested Paul Nuttall the Reform Deputy Chairman faces questions over allegations he said offensive arguments about the Holocaust.
According to the Guardian,newspaper Paul Nuttall ‘handed in an essay in which he suggested there was an argument to be made that Jewish people had brought it upon themselves.’
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/25/paul-nuttalls-troubled-relationship-with-the-truth-finally-catches-up-with-him
Well, Henry Kissinger, a Jew himself, wondered publicly whether it was their own fault.
I think my ancestry is partly Jewish, so I can say what I like on the matter.
Go back 100 years. Eastern Germany, mostly agricultural, which leads to tribalism. And you get 100,000 Jews coming into that area from Eastern Europe.
What happens when they get larger than the existing farmers? Can they duff them up and take the rest of the land?
Put yourself in the shoes of a German in Saxony. You might want the government to kick out the Jews.
The only other two explanations are nazi propaganda or a predilection for violence amongst Germans. The first is nonsense. There was plenty of anti-Semitism in the rest of Eastern Europe. And clearly, they aren’t beating up Jews now. Oh, or that utter bollocks about Hitler hypnotising then.
Most people can’t think like the past.
I’d agree there’s little doubt the history of Europe has rewritten after 1945 to favour a particular conclusion. But I don’t see how you could regard Saxon agriculturalists as tribal. Europe hasn’t worked that way for centuries. No population is ever homogeneous. National boundaries never provide a clean divide between one & another. They shade into each other. You’re always going to feel more affinity with the people next door than you do with your own national government hundreds of miles away, even if they’re across a frontier.
The Jews however are tribal because the racial/religious frontier is difficult/impossible to cross in either direction. Which is why anti-Semitism was virtually pan-European. The intensity depending on how many Jews they had to deal with. Even the UK didn’t escape it. Hasn’t.
I use the word “tribe” in a broad sense. “People” if you like. Not exactly “country”. And I agree. The tribe is not a fixed thing, it also blurs and has various versions of it.
Tribes are linked with religions, or variations of religions. No-one minds a few non-tribe types, as they aren’t a threat. Mussolini didn’t care a toss about the Jews, until he allied with Hitler. There just weren’t many Jews in Italy.
And people became more tolerant as we became more industrialised. If you make money by skill, you think less about land.
There’s lots of shit history about WW2 because politics pushed it that way. In the post-WW2 era, no-one wanted to prosecute millions of German people for their crimes. So they cooked up this thinking that Hitler was mad, and hypnotised people into going along with it to absolve them of responsibility. They pretended that it was only the SS that carried out war crimes and not the Wehrmacht. And that no-one at all knew about the camps, even though about 1% of the population worked for the SS. The Nuremberg trials happened, the bad men were strung up and it was job done.
It masks the truth that the Germans were supportive of it, and that there were incentives around it. Kill or deport the Slavs and get some nice farm land.
Oh & incidentally…Our thanks to “Barry Bailey”for driving Reform’s poll standings even higher.
Barry, you are about to be bummed by facts and logic.
According to Renton, to justify this argument, the student cited the notorious Holocaust denier David Irving.
What people said about the “notorious holocaust denier” David Irving after he published Hitler’s War:
”No praise can be too high for [Mr. Irving’s] indefatigable scholarly industry. He has sought and found scores of new sources, including many private diaries. He has also tested hitherto accepted documents and discarded many of them as forgeries. His portrait of Hitler is thus, he claims, firmly based on solid primary evidence…An exact and scrupulous historian.”— Hugh Trevor-Roper (Lord Dacre), Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford.
“The reader is gripped at once, because the writer is so obviously in his element; he is there…For he is presenting the events of 1939-45 ‘as far as possible through Hitler’s eyes, from behind his desk.’ In this it seems to me he is brilliantly successful—I have read nothing except the Table Talk which gives so immediate a feeling of Hitler’s thinking”—The Times of London.
“Two books in English stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War. Chester Wilmot’s The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving’s Hitler’s War,which appeared three years ago…They do so because, from exactly opposing angles of vision, each tackles the strategy of the whole war and makes impressive if doctrinaire sense of it…The second book has not yet worked its way into our general understanding of the conflict, though it undoubtedly will do so when controversy over its sensationalist elements is exhausted.”—Sir John Keegan, Defence Editor of The Daily Telegraph in The Times Literary Supplement.
“The best study we have of the German side of the Second World War”—Prof. Gordon Craig, Stanford University.
I’ve read Hitler’s War and there’s not a single word of antisemitism in it either. It’s not a history of the holocaust, it’s a history of A. Hitler as illuminated by the diaries of his physician. But to listen to people who have been egregiously bummed, such as yourself, you would think David Irving had just copypastated Mein Kampf or something.
I read Irvings book as a student and thought it excellent. Very good scholarship. Alan Clarke’s Stalingrad is also very good, but both have been overtaken by more recent evidence ( thanks largely to the freeing of archives in DDR and USSR ).
Being a good historian doesn’t stop one from being a twat or being trapped inside ones own ideology. Look at Hobsbawn.
I used to wind up my missus . Whenever we passed the Landesgericht in Vienna, – where he was kept – on the tram, I would say to her “Wave to David Irving !”
He has a very readable style and that’s appreciated when reading about WW2.
I was vaguely aware, in the 90’s, that he had fallen afoul of The Jews (Communist activists like Gerry Gable burgled his flat and tormented him for years) but that surprised me because there’s nothing objectionable about his WW2 books.
My spidey sense tells me Irving is probably a twat, but I wonder if his supposed antisemitism increased or decreased after Jews slandered him and won an unfair court decision against him from a woke judge who was clearly never going to find in favour of the plaintiff. Not saying Jews caused the Holocaust because that’s mental, but they probably did cause David Irving to not like em, because people generally don’t like being monstered and cancelled.
His reverance of the Master Race was a feature long before that journalist woman took him to court. During the eighties it emerged. I think I was aware of it when I read H’s War and was surprised b it even handedness.
David Irving sued her and her publisher for libel, he wasn’t the one taken to court but the defence and media did successfully make it so that David Irving’s views and character appeared to be on trial.
The reason for the lawsuit is that she wrote a book calling him a Holocaust denier and a falsifier of history. And Irving took that personally.
The trial was remarkable for a number of reasons, what should have been a boring libel case was turned into a media spectacle and the media wasn’t even pretending to conceal its hatred of the man. The defence was unusually aggressive and media savvy, well funded by Hollywood money and revealing early on that it didn’t intend to merely rebut the claim of libel, but to in effect destroy Mr Irving’s reputation and livelihood in court:
Evans and his two assistants spent more than two years examining Irving’s work. This research found that Irving had misrepresented historical evidence to support his prejudices. In his report and testimony, Evans suggested that in his view, Irving had knowingly used forged documents as sources, and that for this reason, Irving could not be regarded as a historian. His conclusions were that
Not one of [Irving’s] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. … if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian.[33]
Ouch.
He’s saying Hugh Trevor-Roper, John Keegan, Stanford University boffins etc. were all conned by a cunning Nazi fraud, or something? And that’s why Irving’s books should be collected and burned, maybe? This seems unusually vicious a defence strategy against an eccentric English WW2 historian (or “historian”) who said he didn’t deny the Holocaust, if you ask me. Irving, of course, foolishly represented his idiot self and helped turn his own legal case into a circus/debate about the intricacies of bloody Holocaust, so YMMV on sympathy for the fool. But it struck me at the time, and still does, as one of the first public Cancellations of the new Blair era.
(BTW, if you dig into the “falsification of history” allegations – serious business the court agreed with – it reads a lot to my non-lawyer eye like “conflicting opinions about history which Irving foolishly allowed himself to be railroaded into litigating, like a total idiot.” There’s no smoking gun imo, it’s all a load of academic cockwaffle over whether the Nazis killed 6 million Jews or “merely” 5 million or how many died in desperate, cruelly inhuman circumstances of typhoid and starvation instead of poison gas or whatever. All important questions for historians but none of these are subjects that should ever be debated in court, unless we’re literally trying Nazis, imo. Courtrooms are not the right venues to establish historical truths beyond the immediate confines of a narrow case involving first hand evidence, and judges aren’t any fitter than the average man or Cnute to make a final ruling on history.)
Eric Hobsbawm was a literal commie, as Otto says, doesn’t mean he wasn’t a historian. But Irving had to be cancelled, which people think of as a “woke” tactic, because it is. But is actually an updated ancient tactic for social control based on two Greek concepts: the ostrakon, and hunting the Helots. Begin with an Irving, end up cancelling a Scruton. Make people on the Right afraid to look over their shoulders or say anything more spicy than Norman Lamont’s boxer briefs, whilst signalling to the normies that woke is the boss ideology, the prestige way of thinking. The Left was never good at improving people’s living conditions, but like mean teenage girls they are geniuses at weaponising social power.
Anyway. At least we still have trusted historians, such as David Olusoga, innit.
“There’s no smoking gun imo, it’s all a load of academic cockwaffle over whether the Nazis killed 6 million Jews or “merely” 5 million or how many died in desperate, cruelly inhuman circumstances of typhoid and starvation instead of poison gas or whatever. All important questions for historians but none of these are subjects that should ever be debated in court, unless we’re literally trying Nazis, imo. Courtrooms are not the right venues to establish historical truths beyond the immediate confines of a narrow case involving first hand evidence, and judges aren’t any fitter than the average man or Cnute to make a final ruling on history.)”
100% agree.
History is a funny subject because it generally doesn’t have that much impact on the immediate consumer of it. Someone doesn’t cook your mussels right, you end up in hospital with food poisoning. You care about the quality of who cooks for you. Someone tells you some bollocks about the Vikings, doesn’t really matter.
It also then leads to it being very easy for governments to influence history. Because no-one cares that much, no-one wants to spend much money on it, so government can fund people who produce the history they want.
But non-immediately history matters because it can shape your perspectives on things. The lessons you take from prior events may be wrong, and lead to bad decisions in future. Like I believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were influenced by the narrative of Star Wars (throw Palpatine over the side and everyone sings YubNub) which was itself influenced by a narrative people believed about post-war Nazi Germany (that defeating Hitler led to democratic Germany). The truth is, Germany got split into 2 countries and most of the agricultural, pro-Nazi areas went into East Germany. Only Bavaria remained in West Germany. So the FDR was a different mix.
I meet people who say things like “the Nazis just boiled the frog” and it’s bollocks. The point of the Nuremberg laws was to get Jews to leave Germany. And it was quite successful as around half of them did. And the holocaust was mostly driven by a lack of food. A couple of years of bad harvests, the problems of wartime. There wasn’t enough to go around. So, a way to solve that problem was killing the Jews. But even then, they didn’t kill the Jews that were productive. They killed the elderly, the sick, infants. I’m not saying it’s right, but it was also not psychophatic.
You also just can’t put yourself where people were. You don’t understand their lives, how they saw things. In the late 19th century the people of Bristol erected a statue to 18th century Edward Colston and named a concert hall and a road after him. The guy traded slaves. But he was also a philanthropist. And the people of Bristol at the time probably thought a lot more about the schools, hospitals etc that he had helped to start than what he had done in the Caribbean, which would have been like another planet to them.
The truth is, Germany got split into 2 countries and most of the agricultural, pro-Nazi areas went into East Germany. Only Bavaria remained in West Germany. So the FDR was a different mix.
But that’s not really the full truth tho. In the 1933 election, the Nazis did only slightly worse in most of Western Germany than they did in the East and North. But even in their worst performing regions, they were the most popular choice by strong margins. Possibly because of that catchy jingle, “Don’t be stupid, be a smartie”.
There’s a cruel but largely true joke about why Ukraine has had no Nobel prize winners.
Because they did a better job of exterminating the Jews than everyone else.
What did *you* say to other kids as a shitty teenager? Can you even *remember* what you said to other kids as a shitty teenager? I certainly can’t.
You’re aware that the article you are quoting is from 2017 you moronic halfwit.
As I have said, I have hard evidence you colluded with Hamas in the murder of hundreds of Israelis on October 7th, and that 83 years ago you were on the ramp at Auschwitz when the transports were coming in. If that is the case (and I can recall it very clearly through the sands of Jose 8 decades) then a period of silence from your Nazi gobhole would be welcome and long overdue.
Another concern trolling bot.
Sorry Barry, you have called people Nazi who clearly were not Nazis, for years now, that no one takes you seriously when you call someone Nazi today.
You burned it out mate.
On the subject of Scottish independence, if there is another referendum for independence, I ask only one thing. Can the whole of the UK vote this time?
No. It ks a Scottish issue only. Should the French vote who should be the UK PM?
Fatuous analogy. If the questions is “do you want to be part of this union?” (and it is) the both (or all) sides should have a say.
No one else gets to decide if the Scotts should be locked out?
The porridge wogs are a bloc which is part of a club and are demanding the right to decide whether they stay part of the club or relinquish their membership. Why do the other members of the club not get a choice on whether they want that bloc in their club at all?
A minority of Scots are grifters and vote for free money blaming everything they dont like on an external force ( sorta like Spud)
Said seperatist bloc of grifters have been outvoted by the unionist bloc in every election for the past 70 years.
Why stick to the Natzis & Pedos definition of areas allowed to rrmain / secede?
Why not do it by parish council?
Will remnant UK be happy if Orkney & Shetland vote to be part of Norway( shooting the Natzis pony in the process?)
“Who doesn’t …?” – well me, for one. There are a lot of good people in Scotland (disproportionatelly in the Highlands, but not just there) and if you want to complain about subsidies look at Wales and any other Labour-supporting local authority. Even the Sturgeon regime was better than Tower Hamlets.
Scotland has oil wealth and produces via whisky a quarter of UK food and drink exports in value just via Scotch.
Scotland benefits the UK.
Scotland is a beautiful country.
It is a lie that Scotland is subsidised. But i still support Scotland staying in the UK.
So the Barnett Formula and its consequences don’t exist, then?
Public spending per head is currently around £2,400–£2,500 higher in Scotland than in England, which is roughly 18–19% more per person.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/f4a58ba8-ce87-47dd-b164-1bee8f3f56e1
You really are a wilfully silly cunt.
“Public spending per head” Does that figure include all the salaries paid to government employees and hangers-on in London and the Home Counties?
Yes and all payments from the Exchequer (taxpayers pockets) to Quangos
The word currently is doing a lot of work there.
Whats the average over a century or 300 years?
Possibly the areas of the UK doing the subsidising have moves about a bit over time, sort of like poulations have too.
As stated previously, dont understand why whinging poms want to instantly give in to minority socialist seperatists in their campaign to wreck the most successful union and country the planet has seen.
You only ever have two arguments – oil and whisky.
No one really GAF about whisky. If it’s a major component of their exports then they’re exporting jack shit overall.
Note the graph Professor Waffle is basing this on. From a standing start, and despite Clever People insisting the Scots hate Nigel Farage, Reform is on course to be the second biggest party in Scotland, sweeping the Tories, Labour, Liberals and PedoGreens into also ran positions.
This is what the Quantum of Bullshit is calling a “strongly pro-independence” parliament – one where the voting system returns no party in overall control, but disproportionately rewards the SNP and PedoGreens so they could form a pantomime horse “government”.
Neither the SNP or the PedoGreens even want “independence”, they just want access to vulnerable Scottish children for LGBTQ and grooming gang noncing purposes. These parties are completely captured by bad actors such as transgender activists and recent immigrants from our ancient friends, the religion of peace. So no, they won’t have a mandate on a collective minority of votes, they won’t have the people behind them, they won’t be popular.
Reform polling above 20% in Scottish parliament elections is the real story here, that’s astonishing. Alex Salmond’s startup party Alba never looked like breaking into the mainstream in Scotland, Reform are doing it without even trying. What this tells us is Reform has no ceiling, they are capable of winning everywhere.
I do not understand why, when the Scotts have a vote on independence, there is not simultaneously also a vote in Eng/Wales/Ire on whether to kick them out.
Like, how hard would they shit themselves if they voted 51-49 to stay in but the rest voted 51-49 *to leave them!*
And stick them with the crown and debt;)
An independent Scotland would suddenly discover that oilfields are a very good thing.
Yes, but you’d think independent Britain would have learned the same lesson by now. We’re still governed by people who made it illegal to exploit the natural gas riches under our own feet and mandatory to subsidise wind turbines made in China instead.
The noble Labor party in Oz are staunch supporters of seizing the natural gas exported by Queensland and giving it at a lower price to NSW and Victoria, who have of course banned drilling for the evil stuff.
Hang them all!!!!
PS. In case you haven’t guessed, I’m a Queenslander.
There are questions over who is connected to Nigel Farage, and Reform.
https://hopenothate.org.uk/2025/04/02/posh-george-cottrell/