The Scottish Nasty Party's intimidation and intolerance reeks of fascism

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,459
1,668
113
The SNP and their foul-mouthed , thuggish supporters took part in a sinister campaign of abuse and intimidation in the run up to last September's Scottish independence referendum, both online and on the streets, but still failed to...... persuade...... the Scottish people to vote for independence.

Now, in a UK General Election which could see Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon's SNP form part of, or prop up, a UK government despite the fact that only 9% or so of the UK's 46 million-strong electorate can vote for them, the SNP are up to their old tricks of sinister intimidation, abuse and general fascism once more....

DOMINIC LAWSON: The Scottish Nasty Party and how its growing intimidation and intolerance of dissent reeks of fascism


By Dominic Lawson for the Daily Mail
20 April 2015
Daily Mail



The windows of the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party offices in Aberdeen have been spray-painted with the word 'scum' and the unmistakable sign of the swastika.

The front door has been similarly defaced with a giant letter Q, for Quisling: that is, traitor. Labour Party offices half a mile away were also daubed with similar abuse.

A local Conservative councillor, Ross Thomson, described this as 'the ugly face of nationalism'. This showed restraint on his part.

In his place, I might have pointed out that the political party that actually used the swastika as its emblem was the Nazi party: short for National Socialist.


Attack: The windows of the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party offices in Aberdeen have been spray-painted with the word 'scum', a swastika and giant letter Q, for Quisling


Down south, we have not seen Alex Salmond much lately on our TV screens. But he is at least standing for Parliament in this General Election. Not so his successor as First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon (pictured together on Saturday)



Bad behaviour: Yes campaigners clash with police after the referendum result came in last year


And I would have added that supporters of the Scottish National Party — which claims to be to the left of Labour and which is undeniably Nationalist — is increasingly engaged in the kind of street-by-street intimidation of opponents that we would more normally associate with fascists.

I gained some impression of this phenomenon when I spent time in Glasgow during the referendum campaign: but it has got much worse.

SNP activists openly describe how they have been 'hunting' Labour's shadow Scottish secretary, Margaret Curran, by stalking her and then yelling abuse as she tries to talk to electors on the doorstep.

When this was put to the rival SNP candidate in the constituency, Natalie McGarry, she claimed Mrs Curran was a 'fair target for community justice'.

This sinister phrase is nothing less than a defence of the mob.

Vicious

The BBC in Scotland is wearily familiar with similar intimidation — co-ordinated action by so-called cybernats has made the job of its journalists increasingly unenviable.

Its correspondent James Cook complained of the 'vicious abuse' he received, merely for reporting the civil service leak of a memo which had suggested that SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon would prefer David Cameron to Ed Miliband as prime minister.

And many other BBC reporters have been targeted, but not complained.

The head of the BBC in Scotland, Donalda MacKinnon, described the cybernat campaign of abuse as 'completely unacceptable'.

'Our journalists are entitled to carry on their work without the threat of unwarranted personal attacks online. The safety of our staff is of paramount concern to us and we are doing everything in our power to ensure they can carry out their work helping to inform our audiences without intimidation and abuse.'


It is almost incredible how much broadcast airtime Ms Sturgeon is receiving - given she is not even standing in the General Election



The political control of broadcasters is one of the hallmarks of a dictatorship, whether fascist or communist


The SNP is not a normal political party. It is more like a cult - and intolerance is one of the chief characteristics of all cults

Yet if the SNP had its way, there would be no political independence for the BBC — or any other broadcaster north of what it wants to make a real border.

During the referendum campaign, the then SNP leader Alex Salmond declared: 'I don't think the broadcasting issue in terms of how it treats Scotland will be properly resolved till we have broadcasting under the democratic parliament of Scotland.'

The political control of broadcasters is one of the hallmarks of a dictatorship, whether fascist or communist. Salmond is neither of those: just a consummate opportunist — the hallmark of ultra-nationalist politicians throughout the past century.

Down south, we have not seen Mr Salmond much lately on our TV screens. But he is at least standing for Parliament in the General Election. Not so his successor as First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon.

It is almost incredible how much broadcast airtime she is receiving — there can be no complaint by cybernats about the BBC on that score — given that she is not even standing in the election.

No one can vote for her on May 7 and yet she has been the dominant figure, by some accounts, in the various television leaders' debates in the past fortnight.

That, at least, was the praise accorded her performance by Conservative spin doctors and ministers, after her debating encounters with Ed Miliband.


The real victims are the majority of Scots who don't agree with them, but are increasingly intimidated into silence by the Scottish Nasty Party

I can see why Conservatives should want to describe Ms Sturgeon as the tail wagging the Labour Party dog — it fits in with their posters showing a large Ms Sturgeon dangling wires controlling the movements of a tiny Mr Miliband.

But the Tories are playing with fire — indeed, playing games with the Union itself — by making a giant out of someone who, even on the present opinion polls, speaks for barely 4 per cent of the total British electorate.

They could, instead, point out the many ways in which public services — such as education and health — under devolved SNP control in the Scottish parliament have been less successful than under the Conservative-led Government in Westminster.

But Cameron refused to make any such criticism in his one multi-party debating encounter with Ms Sturgeon, because he really wants as many SNP MPs as possible to replace Labour ones in Scotland.

What sort of MPs would they be?

On the current polls, which indicate an almost clean sweep by the SNP, the Labour election campaign co-ordinator and shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander will lose his Renfrewshire seat to a 20-year-old SNP candidate, Mhairi Black.

Ms Black seems an appropriate representative for the cybernats, at least. Among recent tweets she revealed how she fantasised about 'putting the nut' on Labour councillors and posted how she 'woke up beside half a can of Tennent's and a full pizza and more money than I came out with. I call that a success!'

Draconian

Perhaps with such candidates it is not so surprising that the SNP last month passed what has been described as a 'Stalinist' amendment to the party's standing orders.

It states: 'No Member shall, within or without Parliament, publicly criticise a Group decision, policy, or another member of the Group.'

Can you imagine what would be said if the Conservative or Labour Party imposed such a draconian code on its parliamentary candidates?

They would rightly be accused of the most outrageous constraints on the individual conscience of Members of Parliament and an assault on what it means to be a politician in a democracy.

Yet the SNP is not a normal political party. It is more like a cult — and intolerance is one of the chief characteristics of all cults.

Naturally, it is as entitled as any other party to be respected for its support among the population: and it clearly has the backing of about 45 per cent of all voting Scots — mirroring the scale of the separatist vote in the referendum campaign.

The people I feel sympathy for are not the English, who might resent the influence of a triumphalist SNP contingent at Westminster.

No, the real victims are the majority of Scots who don't agree with them, but are increasingly intimidated into silence by the Scottish Nasty Party.


The Scottish Nasty Party and how its growing intimidation and intolerance of dissent reeks of fascism | Daily Mail Online
 
Last edited:

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Scotland for Scotland I say dump the rest and go their own way
Thuggish and fascist and what ever names you put on them or
distort their position it does not take from the fact there is a
sizable group of Scots who want to leave the confederation of
nations so be it Generating hype is what the agenda is about
in politics and she is therefore doing a good job
 

gore0bsessed

Time Out
Oct 23, 2011
2,414
0
36
Labour should form coalition with SNP. The cameron cancer needs a hasty removal.

Miliband is a goof so it won't happen.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,459
1,668
113
Labour should form coalition with SNP. The cameron cancer needs a hasty removal.

Miliband is a goof so it won't happen.


No. Britain needs a progressive Tory/Ukip/DUP coalition. A Labour/SNP coalition of ban-the-bomb, tax-and-spend dinosaurs, reminiscent of the socialism which wrecked Britain in the 1970s causing the great Mrs Thatcher to come along and rescue us, will be the ruin of Britain and her now-booming economy. Millipede and Wee Jimmy Krankie are dangers to the greatest nation in the world and they need to be stopped in their tracks.

Britain needs a progressive alliance of three austerity-laden, anti-EU parties - Tory/Ukip/DUP. We have to work hard to make sure that we get a BluKip (as the Liberal Democrats disparingly call it) government next month.

Mr Farage wants to be Europe Minister. Hopefully he'll be given that job.




By the way, why hasn't this election advert featuring former England footballer Sol Campbell whiting up, which is trying to persuade "minorities" to register to vote on May 7th, not been derided as being racist, which, surely, it is?

Just imagine the uproar from the Twitterati and the usual suspects on here had it been the other way around, with white people blacking up?

 
Last edited:

gore0bsessed

Time Out
Oct 23, 2011
2,414
0
36
What are you trolling? Margaret Thatcher. demonizer of the poor, giver of wealth to the already wealthy, protector of pedophiles ?

 

The Old Medic

Council Member
May 16, 2010
1,330
2
38
The World
The Scots people fought for centuries to maintain their freedom from English domination.

It was only after the "Nobles" stacked the Scot's Parliament, that the vote to approve Union with England was able to pass. Those "Nobles" had English titles, and English estates, and their loyalty lay with the English monarchs that bought them off.

Now, in modern day Scotland, there are more people of ENGLISH ancestry living in the country, than there are of people of primarily Scots ancestry. The English, through their bought off Scots Peers, drove the Scots off of the land, and out of the country. Millions of Scots were forced to emigrate to Canada, the United States and to Australia.

I happen to descend from one of those families. My family lived in Blair Athol Parish in Perthshire for centuries. They were tenant farmers, and in the late 18th Century they were driven off the land by the ENGLISH Lord that owned and controlled their land. They had fought for the Stewart Kings, the rightful Monarchs of Scotland, and they were punished for their loyalty. Believe me, our family kept the story of how they were driven out very much alive in their descendants.

I say, let those that can show at least 4 generations of ancestry that was actually born in Scotland to vote on this issue. That only takes it back to the 19th century or early 20th century. People like J.K. Rowling, who campaigned AGAINST freedom, should NOT be allowed to vote on this issue.

Ironically, my family emigrated to Wallace, Cumberland County, Nova Scotia (New Scotland), a town that was named for the Scot's national hero.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,459
1,668
113
What are you trolling? Margaret Thatcher. demonizer of the poor, giver of wealth to the already wealthy, protector of pedophiles ?



Margaret Thatcher was the greatest peacetime Prime Minister this country has ever had. She saved this country from the economic ruin of the 1970s which was caused by the same type of socialism that the likes of Millipede and Wee Jimmy Krankie now envision for the country. The fact that Ed Balls could be running the economy from next month just fills me with gloom, dread and foreboding.

The Scots people fought for centuries to maintain their freedom from English domination.


And they they went and voted against independence last year.

It was only after the "Nobles" stacked the Scot's Parliament, that the vote to approve Union with England was able to pass. Those "Nobles" had English titles, and English estates, and their loyalty lay with the English monarchs that bought them off.
The Jocks were desperate to unify with England after their attempts to found a Scottish Empire on the Gulf of Darién failed miserably. They therefore wanted to unify with England to get access to, and help run, the nascent English Empire, which then became the British Empire.

Now, in modern day Scotland, there are more people of ENGLISH ancestry living in the country, than there are of people of primarily Scots ancestry.
Can you prove that?

The English, through their bought off Scots Peers, drove the Scots off of the land, and out of the country.
No, they didn't. It was Scottish aristocrats who were responsible for the Highland Clearances, not the English.

The Scots were responsible, however, for settling, in vast numbers, in the north of Ireland. Thousands of Protestant Scots settled there with the blessing of their king, James VI, and it was their ancestors - known today as the Ulster Scots - which later helped cause the partitioning of Ireland into what are now Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and the Troubles.

I happen to descend from one of those families. My family lived in Blair Athol Parish in Perthshire for centuries. They were tenant farmers, and in the late 18th Century they were driven off the land by the ENGLISH Lord that owned and controlled their land.
No, they weren't. They were driven off their land by Scottish landowners and nobles. Nothing to do with the English. The small tenantry of the Highlands were evicted by the landowners seeking 'improvement' and enhanced rents, and these were more likely to be Scots than English.

They had fought for the Stewart Kings, the rightful Monarchs of Scotland, and they were punished for their loyalty. Believe me, our family kept the story of how they were driven out very much alive in their descendants.
How were the Stuarts the "rightful" kings of Scotland after the last Stuart monarch, Queen Anne, died in 1714?

The Stuarts were originally the monarchs of Scotland, but they then also took over the rule of England when Elizabeth I died in 1603 and James VI of Scotland became James I of England. It was the Scots taking over England, not vice versa. James I's son, James II, was rightfully kicked off the Throne during the Glorious Revolution of 1688 because of his Catholicism and because of his arrogant belief in the Divine Rights of Kings, that he could rule as he liked without consulting parliament (unlike other European countries at the time, English monarchs had to rule with, and consult, their parliament when running the country since the time of Magna Carta). But after James II the Stuarts continued to rule until 1714, when the last Stuart monarch, Anne, died. George I, from Hanover, which was in a sort of informal union with Britain at the time, then became the new monarch as he was the next Protestant in line to the Throne (the Act of Succession saw to it that all the Catholics were taken out of the succession). So that was the start of the Hanoverian reign. By law, the Hanoverians, not the unpopular Catholic Stuarts who thought they had a Divine Right by God to rule.

I say, let those that can show at least 4 generations of ancestry that was actually born in Scotland to vote on this issue. That only takes it back to the 19th century or early 20th century.
The independence referendum last year was, quite rightly, only open to those who live in Scotland, whether they are Scottish born or not. Why should people who live thousands of miles away in another country get to vote on the issue just because their great-great-grandfather was Scottish?

People like J.K. Rowling, who campaigned AGAINST freedom, should NOT be allowed to vote on this issue.
So you want to prevent anyone who may vote against Scottish independence from voting in any future Scottish independence referendum that may take place at some point in the future? That's democracy for you....

Ironically, my family emigrated to Wallace, Cumberland County, Nova Scotia (New Scotland), a town that was named for the Scot's national hero.
William Wallace was nothing but a murderous terrorist who deserved to be butchered at Smithfield and have his head impaled on a spike on London Bridge.

**********************************


Why a minority Labour Government led by a Marxist and propped up by the Far-Left SNP will be the ruin of Britain.....

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Left-wing cabal that would ruin Britain

By Daily Mail Comment
22 April 2015
Daily Mail


Red Ed and Wee Nippy will ruin Britain


In recent days, attention has focused on the alarming prospect of a minority Labour government being held to ransom by an SNP demanding more spending, more welfare and more debt.

Today, an analysis by the Mail serves as a timely reminder that it wouldn’t only be Nicola Sturgeon making ruinous demands of Ed Miliband, however.

Since Red Ed became leader in 2010, the equally Left-wing trade unions have donated £40.4million to Labour – with £14.3million given by Len McCluskey’s hardline Unite alone.


Unite has ties to half of the candidates in Labour’s key target seats – potentially giving it a vice-like grip on a Miliband administration. It is a reminder that Nicola Sturgeon wouldn't be the only one making demands


And, in return, their placemen have landed plum seats. Of candidates who will stand for the first time on May 7, six out of ten are union-linked.

Most significantly, Unite has ties to half of the candidates in Labour’s key target seats – potentially giving it a vice-like grip on a Miliband administration.

Little wonder that – from the economically-illiterate ban on zero-hours contracts, to the imposition of rent controls – last week’s Labour manifesto read like a trade union wish list.

It had been paid for and dictated by Mr McCluskey and his antediluvian cronies.

Yesterday, the investment bank Goldman Sachs warned that, if the country is steered sharply to the Left by Labour, the cost of borrowing will rise and the pound will slump in value.


Since Red Ed became leader, the equally Left-wing trade unions have donated £40.4million to Labour – with £14.3million given by Len McCluskey’s (pictured) Unite. In return, their placemen have landed plum seats


The Tories have only a fortnight to save Britain from a recovery-wrecking alliance of Red Ed (who was only able to stab his brother in the back in the Labour leadership contest with union support), Red Len and Ms Sturgeon.

Selected internet memes:

















 
Last edited:

gore0bsessed

Time Out
Oct 23, 2011
2,414
0
36



Margaret Thatcher was the greatest peacetime Prime Minister this country has ever had. She saved this country from the economic ruin of the 1970s which was caused by the same type of socialism that the likes of Millipede and Wee Jimmy Krankie now envision for the country. The fact that Ed Balls could be running the economy from next month just fills me with gloom, dread and foreboding.
no wrong as usual, not sure if outright lying or just delusional. she only was a champion for the rich and made sure corporations could be immoral and as profitable as possible. her policies never benefited regular brits only the rich. she also purchased nukes and triggered the falklands war.

Canada is really dumbing down, it seems.
yea right if this hole was an accurate representation of canada we'd be living in some retarded libertarian hellhole oligarchy where homeless were slaughtered for footware. not the brightest of canada here to put it a little milder.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,459
1,668
113
she only was a champion for the rich and made sure corporations could be immoral and as profitable as possible.

She transformed Britain 's economy from one which was impoverished through Harold Wilson's socialism in the early 1970s (the socialism which Miliband and Sturgeon inexplicably want us to go back to), which Left the country so impoverished it went to the IMF with begging bowl in hand in 1976, to a wealthy, booming confident nation which saw annual economic growth of around 5% in the late Eighties, growth which most Western economies today would die for.

her policies never benefited regular brits only the rich.
Her policies benefited millions of regular Britons. Indeed, the great woman was so popular that she won three General Elections in a row (1979, 1983, 1987). Her victory in 1983 was by a massive landslide, the most decisive election victory since that of Labour in 1945. Her win in 1987 saw her become the first British Prime Minister since Robert Jenkinson in 1820 to lead a party into three successive election victories.


she also purchased nukes
No, she didn't. Britain manufactures her own nuclear warheads.

and triggered the falklands war.
It was the Argies who triggered the Falklands War by invading British territory in 1982.
 

gore0bsessed

Time Out
Oct 23, 2011
2,414
0
36
She transformed Britain 's economy from one which was impoverished through Harold Wilson's socialism in the early 1970s (the socialism which Miliband and Sturgeon inexplicably want us to go back to), which Left the country so impoverished it went to the IMF with begging bowl in hand in 1976, to a wealthy, booming confident nation which saw annual economic growth of around 5% in the late Eighties, growth which most Western economies today would die for.
your understanding of socialism is lacking. nationalisation of few sectors hardly qualifies as socialism , they were still implementing Keynes economics. also the conservative party during the 40s and 50s supported nationalization as well. absolutely disingenious to blame economic woes on Harold Wilson's policies because Brtain under the conservative party leader Harold McMillian that preceded the Labour party suffered from the same economic issues.
Her policies benefited millions of regular Britons. Indeed, the great woman was so popular that she won three General Elections in a row (1979, 1983, 1987). Her victory in 1983 was by a massive landslide, the most decisive election victory since that of Labour in 1945. Her win in 1987 saw her become the first British Prime Minister since Robert Jenkinson in 1820 to lead a party into three successive election victories.
Clearly her policies didn't benefit the average brit. her policies resulted in soaring unemployment rates. under her premiership the number of unemployed brits reached over 3 million, highest since the 30s. over 2 million manufacturing jobs were lost. the abject poverty of miners leding to strikes, suppression of unions, refusal to impose economic sanctions on apartheid south africa because of foreign investment, all proof she was not an ally of the average brit. only an economic boom unrelated to thatcherism saved her from being removed earlier.

No, she didn't. Britain manufactures her own nuclear warheads.
yes, the trident program began under thatcher.
Thatcher went behind cabinet's back with Trident purchase | UK news | The Guardian
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,459
1,668
113
your understanding of socialism is lacking. nationalisation of few sectors hardly qualifies as socialism ,

Harold Wilson, who was Prime Minister twice in the 1960s and 1970s, was a socialist. It was his socialist policies which wrecked the economy and led to Britain begging off the IMF in 1976. The Left are economically illiterate. He compared himself to a Bolshevik revolutionary presiding over a Tsarist cabinet.

also the conservative party during the 40s and 50s supported nationalization as well.

They didn't support nationalisation at that time. They just grudgingly accepted Labour's nationalisation programme.

absolutely disingenious to blame economic woes on Harold Wilson's policies because Brtain under the conservative party leader Harold McMillian that preceded the Labour party suffered from the same economic issues.

Harold Macmillan, Prime Minister from 1957 to 1963, was a good Prime Minister. "Supermac's" tenureship saw living standards rise. He presided over an age of affluence, marked by low unemployment and high growth. In 1957, he famously told the nation in a speech in Bedford that "they had never had it so good."

Clearly her policies didn't benefit the average brit.

Yes, they did.

her policies resulted in soaring unemployment rates. under her premiership the number of unemployed brits reached over 3 million, highest since the 30s. over 2 million manufacturing jobs were lost.

Bollocks. Unemployment had been increasing before she came to power and was as a result of all those miners and other industrial workers who lost their jobs because their industries had been torn apart by industrial strife, debilitated by decades of stop-go demand management and wracked by inflation. Industries like coal mining just had no future in modern Britain and had to go.

Thatcher had to clean up the economic mess left by her Labour predecessors in the 1970s: Wilson and Callaghan. And she did a good job, too. The Tories always have to clean up the economic mess left by Labour. Cameron has had to do the same.

the abject poverty of miners leding to strikes, suppression of unions,

Most miners opposed strikes. The strikes occurred as a result of the militant and undemocratic trades unions, who ordered their workers to strike whether they wanted to or not. That's why Thatcher took on the trades unions and brought in laws which say that trades unions must hold ballots before any strike action takes place. The Left say that she "destroyed" the unions. But she didn't. She just made them more democratic and stopped them being run by union dictators like Scargill.

refusal to impose economic sanctions on apartheid south africa because of foreign investment,

Mrs Thatcher was against apartheid and secretly campaigned to end it. In fact, she did more to secure the release of that terrorist Mandela than any other world leader.

A myth has arisen that Mrs Thatcher was a friend of apartheid. How did this happen? Sanctions may be part of the answer. She was opposed to comprehensive sanctions against South Africa (although Britain did, in fact, impose arms and oil embargoes, as well as sports sanctions). The fact that she was against the complete isolation of the regime may have exposed her to criticism, but it also made her someone with the ear of South Africa’s leaders. As a result, in de Klerk’s words, Thatcher “exerted more influence on what happened in South Africa than any other political leader”.

And her feelings were clear . At the Lord Mayor’s banquet in 1985, she said: “I couldn’t stand being excluded or discriminated against because of the colour of my own skin. And if you can’t stand a colour bar against yourself, you can’t stand it against anyone else.” Asked by the leading Afrikaans newspaper Beeld, what was the difference between the ANC and the IRA, Thatcher’s answer was: “The IRA have the vote, the ANC do not.”


Even behind bars, Mandela knew about the efforts Thatcher was making to help secure his release.



Margaret Thatcher's secret campaign to end apartheid - Telegraph


all proof she was not an ally of the average brit.

Mrs Thatcher won three general elections in a row, becoming the first British Prime Minister to do that since Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool, in 1820, picking up 40,471,174 votes in the process. She must have done something right.

only an economic boom unrelated to thatcherism saved her from being removed earlier.

But since 1980 GDP per capita has increased more in Britain than in the US, Germany or France


yes, the trident program began under thatcher.
Thatcher went behind cabinet's back with Trident purchase | UK news | The Guardian[/QUOTE]

You make that sound as though it's a BAD thing.

Also, British Prime Ministers don't buy nuclear weapons. Britain manufactures her own nuclear warheads at Aldermaston.
 

gore0bsessed

Time Out
Oct 23, 2011
2,414
0
36
Harold Wilson, who was Prime Minister twice in the 1960s and 1970s, was a socialist. It was his socialist policies which wrecked the economy and led to Britain begging off the IMF in 1976. The Left are economically illiterate. He compared himself to a Bolshevik revolutionary presiding over a Tsarist cabinet.

No this is wrong as I already pointed out the conservative government that preceded Wilson's premiership suffered from the same economic issues. Wilson was also not a socialist his base was keynesian economics.

They didn't support nationalisation at that time. They just grudgingly accepted Labour's nationalisation programme.

No they fully supported nationalization as did most people after the war.
Harold Macmillan, Prime Minister from 1957 to 1963, was a good Prime Minister. "Supermac's" tenureship saw living standards rise. He presided over an age of affluence, marked by low unemployment and high growth. In 1957, he famously told the nation in a speech in Bedford that "they had never had it so good."
If you're just going to make up nonsense what's the point? Harold's quote of course was a lie. The economic growth rate at the time was half of Germany and France.
Bollocks. Unemployment had been increasing before she came to power and was as a result of all those miners and other industrial workers who lost their jobs because their industries had been torn apart by industrial strife, debilitated by decades of stop-go demand management and wracked by inflation. Industries like coal mining just had no future in modern Britain and had to go.
True, it had no place in modern capitalism, why are they using labour at home when they exploit cheaper third world labour.

Thatcher had to clean up the economic mess left by her Labour predecessors in the 1970s: Wilson and Callaghan. And she did a good job, too. The Tories always have to clean up the economic mess left by Labour. Cameron has had to do the same.
she actually did a poor job, as evidence by skyrocketing unemployment rates not seen since the depression.


Most miners opposed strikes. The strikes occurred as a result of the militant and undemocratic trades unions, who ordered their workers to strike whether they wanted to or not. That's why Thatcher took on the trades unions and brought in laws which say that trades unions must hold ballots before any strike action takes place. The Left say that she "destroyed" the unions. But she didn't. She just made them more democratic and stopped them being run by union dictators like Scargill.

where do you get that most miners opposed the strikes? that they were forced to strike? the closure of 20 coal plants would unsurprisingly upset all miners, they didn't need to be forced to strike. less rhetoric please.

Mrs Thatcher was against apartheid and secretly campaigned to end it. In fact, she did more to secure the release of that terrorist Mandela than any other world leader.

now why would she secretly be against apartheid? perhaps she held more importance to foreign investment from south africa than her own morality? it's also disgusting you would compare her influence to mandela as equal or even better on ending apartheid. a man who did a long prison sentence, a man who literally gave away a huge part of his life for the cause.

A myth has arisen that Mrs Thatcher was a friend of apartheid. How did this happen? Sanctions may be part of the answer. She was opposed to comprehensive sanctions against South Africa (although Britain did, in fact, impose arms and oil embargoes, as well as sports sanctions). The fact that she was against the complete isolation of the regime may have exposed her to criticism, but it also made her someone with the ear of South Africa’s leaders. As a result, in de Klerk’s words, Thatcher “exerted more influence on what happened in South Africa than any other political leader”.

And her feelings were clear . At the Lord Mayor’s banquet in 1985, she said: “I couldn’t stand being excluded or discriminated against because of the colour of my own skin. And if you can’t stand a colour bar against yourself, you can’t stand it against anyone else.” Asked by the leading Afrikaans newspaper Beeld, what was the difference between the ANC and the IRA, Thatcher’s answer was: “The IRA have the vote, the ANC do not.”


Even behind bars, Mandela knew about the efforts Thatcher was making to help secure his release.



Margaret Thatcher's secret campaign to end apartheid - Telegraph
More garbage from the conservative mouthpiece of the teletrash. Thatcher considered ANC "a typical terrrorist organization" and loved doing business with the apartheid regime.

Mrs Thatcher won three general elections in a row, becoming the first British Prime Minister to do that since Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool, in 1820, picking up 40,471,174 votes in the process. She must have done something right.

no, useless leaders stay in office far too long all the time.


You make that sound as though it's a BAD thing.

well i don't consider producing, purchasing and seliing weapons of mass destruction a good thing.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,459
1,668
113
No this is wrong as I already pointed out the conservative government that preceded Wilson's premiership suffered from the same economic issues.

Which premiership? Wilson was Prime Minister twice. The Prime Minister before harold Wilson first came to office was Harold Macmillan and he presided over a booming Britain which led him to even boast that "Britain has never had it do good."

Wilson was also not a socialist his base was keynesian economics.
No. Wilson was a socialist. This is a well-known fact. Wilson joked about leading a Cabinet that was made up mostly of social democrats, comparing himself to a Bolshevik revolutionary presiding over a Tsarist cabinet.


No they fully supported nationalization as did most people after the war.
No, they didn't. Labour supported nationalisation whereas the Tories just accepted it despite not agreeing with it.

If you're just going to make up nonsense what's the point? Harold's quote of course was a lie.
BULL****!

Britain under Harold Macmillan, from 1957 to 1963, was a booming economy. Living standards rose rapidly. Increased production in major industries such as steel, coal and cars had led to a rise in wages, export earnings and investment. British unemployment between 1950 and 1969 stood at an average of just 1.6%, compared to an average of 13.4% between 1921 and 1938 and 6.7% between 1970 and 1993. As a result, this led to Macmillan easily winning the 1959 General Election. For the 4th time in a row the Conservatives increased their number of seats at a general election.


The economic growth rate at the time was half of Germany and France.
The economies of France and Germany and Italy and Japan - the four economies which grew the fastest in the 1950s and 1960s - were rebounding back from the devastation they had sustained in WWII. It was the 1950s which saw the GDPs of Germany, France, Japan and Italy overtake Britain (Germany's GDP overtook Britain's in size in 1959).

But the era of France and Germany and Italy having larger economies than Britain was a mere blip. We've re-overtaken Italy a while ago. We re-overtook France last year and we'll soon re-overtake Germany.

True, it had no place in modern capitalism, why are they using labour at home when they exploit cheaper third world labour.
Industries like coalmining were seen by many as old-fashioned and had had their day. It might have been devastating for the miners and their families but the industry just had to go.

By the way, Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson shut more coal mines than Thatcher did.

In 1983 Britain had 174 working mines. By 2009, this number had decreased to six.

she actually did a poor job, as evidence by skyrocketing unemployment rates not seen since the depression.
The rising unemployment rate of the 1980s was as a result of the necessary closing down of the dirty, old-fashioned industries such as coalmining which just had to go.

The trades unions were also responsible. Don't blame Mrs T.

where do you get that most miners opposed the strikes? that they were forced to strike? the closure of 20 coal plants would unsurprisingly upset all miners, they didn't need to be forced to strike. less rhetoric please.
Most coal miners opposed strike action, but were usually forced against their will to strike by the likes of Arthur Scargill, the president of the National Union of Miners (NUM). Most miners opposed the Miners' Strike of 1984/85 but were often threatened with being called "scabs" if they didn't attend pickets.

And it wasn't just the miners. Throughout the dark, socialist 1970s, the unions representing all sorts of industries frequently brought the country to its knees. Union leaders with government grievances ordered their workers to down tools and strike and take part in pickets and marches whether they wanted to or down. The Winter of Discontent in 1978/79 saw strikes by all sorts of trade unions demanding larger pay rises by the Callaghan government. All sorts of workers went on strike, including even bin men and undertakers. This led to piles of stinking rubbish left piled in the streets and even bodies going unburied.

As a result of all this, Thatcher took on the unions and brought in laws that said that strike action can only take place only by most members of a union voting in favour of it in a ballot. Thatcher transformed the trade unions from undemocratic bodies which forced their workers to strike whether those workers wanted it or not - bringing the country to its knees - to democratic organisations in which strike action can only take place if it voted on in a ballot.


now why would she secretly be against apartheid? perhaps she held more importance to foreign investment from south africa than her own morality?
Margaret Thatcher did not oppose apartheid. This is a myth peddled by anti-Thatcher ignoramuses like yourself.

Thatcher did more to secure the release of the terrorist Mandela than any other world leader. The two were even photographed standing together outside No10 in 1990.

When it came to South Africa, she supported the arms and oil embargoes, but opposed further isolating the country. She reacted with genuine indignation to any imputation of racism. She regarded apartheid as an alien doctrine contrary to basic laws of justice and incompatible with her meritocratic vision of society, irrespective of race or creed.

She did, however, sympathise with the white population of South Africa, whom she credited for the country’s economic development. She was unimpressed by what she regarded as the half-baked socialist policies being pursued by many African governments. She also feared that they did not grasp that it was in their own interest to limit their power, preferring to try to suppress the opposition and control the press and judiciary. In Commonwealth meetings, she regarded those who accused her of preferring British jobs to black lives as hypocrites, given their own records on human rights and dependence on trade with South Africa.

With President P.W. Botha, Mrs Thatcher made little progress, despite fierce exchanges. But she was determined to encourage more reform-minded members of the South African government, in particular Botha’s successor, FW de Klerk. At the 1989 Commonwealth meeting in Kuala Lumpur, she opposed the wish of all the others to impose sanctions against South Africa, and backed de Klerk’s reforms, which was felt to be an appalling breach of etiquette.

However, she had made clear to de Klerk, with her customary lack of ambiguity, the need to revoke the ban on the ANC and release Nelson Mandela. At midnight on the eve of the opening of the South African parliament, de Klerk telephoned me to say that my prime minister would not be disappointed. Mandela, meanwhile, had heard about the help we were giving to 300 projects in the South African townships (a programme in which John Sawers, now head of MI6, was heavily involved). From prison, Mandela sent me a message thanking us for this and saying that he would have liked to discuss the question of sanctions with the prime minister directly; meanwhile, would I give her his best wishes. I replied that Mrs Thatcher was intensifying her efforts to help get him released.


Margaret Thatcher’s vital role in ending apartheid - Telegraph




it's also disgusting you would compare her influence to mandela as equal or even better on ending apartheid. a man who did a long prison sentence, a man who literally gave away a huge part of his life for the cause.
Mandela was a terrorist. He signed off the deaths of innocent people.

Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandela’s MK terrorists. Here are some highlights

-Church Street West, Pretoria, on the 20 May 1983
-Amanzimtoti Shopping complex KZN, 23 December 1985
-Krugersdorp Magistrate’s Court, 17 March 1988
-Durban Pick ‘n Pay shopping complex, 1 September 1986
-Pretoria Sterland movie complex 16 April 1988 – limpet mine killed ANC terrorist M O Maponya instead
-Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court, 20 May 1987
-Roodepoort Standard Bank 3 June, 1988

Tellingly, not only did Mandela refuse to renounce violence, Amnesty refused to take his case stating “[the] movement recorded that it could not give the name of ‘Prisoner of Conscience’ to anyone associated with violence, even though as in ‘conventional warfare’ a degree of restraint may be exercised.”


The Backbencher – 3 Things You Didn’t (Want To) Know About Nelson Mandela


More garbage from the conservative mouthpiece of the teletrash. Thatcher considered ANC "a typical terrrorist organization" and loved doing business with the apartheid regime.
The ANC WERE terrorists. Thatcher was RIGHT.


no, useless leaders stay in office far too long all the time.
Thatcher was the greatest peacetime British peacetime Prime Minister of the 20th century, if not ever.


well i don't consider producing, purchasing and seliing weapons of mass destruction a good thing.
What you think and what is reality are two different things. Britain's nuclear deterrent is a good thing and must - and will - be kept. Like the Scottish Nasty Party, you'd leave Britain armed with nothing but a peashooter if you had your way.
 
Last edited:

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,459
1,668
113
Having the Scottish National Party, whom 91% of UK voters and nobody outside of Scotland can even vote for, in a terrifying Left-and-further-Left alliance after the election on May 7th would be one of the greatest outrages to British democracy in history....

A Labour-SNP pact would be an outrage to democracy


We face the terrifying proposition of a Left-and-further-Left alliance governing without any political legitimacy


Nicola Sturgeon and Ed Miliband: we face the terrifying prospect of them running the country after May 7



By Janet Daley
25 Apr 2015
The Telegraph
2026 Comments

To say, as some Scots do, that their country has had to live for years with governments that they did not like and had not voted for, is to miss the point. Scottish voters were always free to vote Labour or Conservative: if your chosen side loses the national argument that is tough luck but it is the price of a democratic contest. What would be imposed on the British electorate this time would be the will of a party for whom the majority - around 91% - could never have voted.

Successful election campaigns can revolve around big ideas, or they can be about the everyday anecdotal experience of people’s lives. The best ones are a combination of the two. Until now, the Tories’ campaign has been neither. But by the end of last week, a truly gigantic idea had fallen into the Conservatives’ laps which could offer the kind of weather-changing theme that they need.

From the moment that Nicola Sturgeon reiterated her vow to “lock David Cameron out of Downing Street” – and begged Ed Miliband on live television to join her in a pact which would enable her to do so – the political future became almost unrecognisable. This was not to be a general election in which the majority of people in the country would decide who governed them. By the time Ms Sturgeon elaborated on her original threat by telling Newsnight that she was determined to put Mr Miliband in power even if the Conservatives won as many as 40 seats more than Labour, we were in a different electoral universe from anything in living memory.

Does anybody really appreciate the enormity of what is being suggested here? So far, the Tories, although they have talked up the danger of a Labour-SNP alliance with great enthusiasm, seem rather depressingly to have missed its greatest significance. As we have come to expect, they have presented this spectre almost entirely in economic terms – and certainly there is plenty of mileage in that argument. For the most Left-wing Labour leadership in a generation to be joined in a marriage of convenience with a party so much further to the Left that its ideas are outside the realm of mainstream political discourse, certainly does present a terrifying proposition.

But when Cameron and Osborne talk like this, the folks at home just think they are hearing another version of the same old song: don’t put the recovery at risk, competence-versus-chaos, blah-blah. All of which is perfectly sound, as the Prime Minister eloquently sets out, but scarcely inspiring. So no, it’s not (just) the economy, stupid: the real political bombshell here is not the damage that a Left-and-further-Left alliance would do to the nation’s finances. It is the outrage that would be committed against the most fundamental principle of modern democracy: that the legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the people.

To say, as some Scots do, that their country has had to live for years with governments that they did not like and had not voted for, is to miss the point. Scottish voters were always free to vote Labour or Conservative: if your chosen side loses the national argument that is tough luck but it is the price of a democratic contest. What would be imposed on the British electorate this time would be the will of a party for whom the majority - around 91% - could never have voted.

The SNP, having achieved its democratic mandate from the population of Scotland (roughly 5.3 million), could dictate terms to a Labour prime minister who had LOST the election in England, and so determine policy for the entire UK population (roughly 64.3 million). The SNP being a purely Scottish electoral choice means that the English (and the Welsh, for that matter) would have no redress: its MPs in Westminster would have no accountability to the country as a whole. They could represent a purely sectarian, regional interest whose own electoral purposes might be served by, for example, milking the taxpayers of England for the benefit of their own supporters in Scotland – which indeed is precisely what they promise to do when they are talking on their own turf.

When they address a wider UK audience, they insist that they would fight for “progressive” (by which they mean high-tax, high-spend) policies for the whole country – presumably whether it wants them or not. What the Conservatives have now done in an attempt to give this democratic deficit its due, is commit themselves to fulfilling the spur-of-the-moment promise to introduce “English votes for English laws”. The West Lothian question is to be confronted at last, even if the mechanics seem unclear and the constitutional consequences confused.

Mr Cameron is clear enough about the manifest unfairness of Scottish MPs being able to vote on matters that affect only England, but the game has moved on since this problem was originally mooted: Labour was the dominant party in Scotland once upon a time and voters in England could take that into account when they elected a national government. Now the SNP – over whom English voters have no influence whatever – are the holders of this one-sided prerogative. At this point, their power over English law becomes more than “unfair”: it would be grotesquely undemocratic.

Effectively, a party which is mandated to by the citizens of one country gets the right to influence the laws of another, much more populous country. It is pretty rich for the SNP – who have incited the most febrile nationalism seen in British politics for generations – to claim that the Conservatives are stoking a dangerous “English nationalism”. It is perfectly reasonable, apparently, for them to want legislative and fiscal independence from us, but hysterical and fear-mongering for us to want to carry that to its obvious conclusion and establish legislative and fiscal independence from them.

Although the Tory leadership may not have expressed all this in quite such stark terms, there is at least one section of the electorate that seems to have got the message. In private research, the Conservatives have found that there is now high, unprompted awareness among Ukip supporters of the dangers of a Labour-SNP alliance. Most of them are aware that Mr Miliband’s only hope of gaining power lies with the support of the Scottish nationalists. A significant proportion of them are inclined to reconsider their intention to vote for Ukip as a consequence. Recent YouGov polling showed that 81 per cent of Ukip voters believed that the idea of a minority Labour government relying on SNP support was a bad thing.

This compared with 63 per cent for the population as a whole who disliked the idea – still not a trivial figure. But Ukip supporters would be likely to feel particularly strongly about this: to object as much to being governed by Edinburgh as they do to being governed by Brussels. This could be a hugely significant factor for Tory election prospects since bringing the Ukip vote home would push their support into majority territory. And in the Ukip arena, the argument on democratic accountability counts for at least as much as the economic one.

Much of the outcome of this bizarrely unbalanced situation will rest on personalities. The rise of Nicola Sturgeon is a lesson in the magical effectiveness of impassioned belief. Ms Sturgeon offers a combination of economically unjustified claptrap and CND rhetoric, but she does it with a degree of emotive conviction that excites people who don’t have a clue what she is talking about. By comparison, that Cameron-Osborne tone of calm, sensible, let-us-finish-the-job competence has been a serious letdown.

But there is another SNP face which has loomed into view again. Alex Salmond has returned with a vengeance. There is an unforgettable video clip in which he claimed that he knew that Jim Murphy, the Scottish Labour leader, wasn’t writing the Labour Budget because he (Salmond) was. That was a joke, he says. Of course it was – but what kind of joke? If he had said, “To hear Cameron tell it, I’m writing the Labour Budget”, that would have been a jibe at the absurdity of the Tory attack. Instead, he made a swaggering, cock-of-the-walk, bullying sort of joke: like the upstart in the office who brags to the juniors that he is in control of their prospects – and then claims that “it was only a joke” when he causes offence. Maybe this is the moment when the country decides that the clowning has gone on long enough.


A Labour-SNP pact would be an outrage to democracy - Telegraph
 
Last edited: