Scottish Parliament Election: 7 May 2026

[Hertsscot]

15 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

He is getting support from the public on his stance on Iran. 69 % think the UK should be neutral or actively oppose any involvement, only 17 % say we should be involved. Part of me thinks public opinion is why Starmer is taking this stance , and not due to some backbone against Trump on his part. 

I agree that Starmer seems to be doing well keeping a distance from Trump. But how neutral are we? US bombers are taking off from RAF Fairford to strike missile bases in Iran. According to the Americans that's defensive not offensive but it's a blurry line.

[TDYER63]

3 minutes ago, Hertsscot said:

I agree that Starmer seems to be doing well keeping a distance from Trump. But how neutral are we? US bombers are taking off from RAF Fairford to strike missile bases in Iran. According to the Americans that's defensive not offensive but it's a blurry line.

It definitely is a blurry line. Starmer is hoping the public see it as defensive but he could very well end up pissing both sides off. 

[Orraloon]

39 minutes ago, Hertsscot said:

I agree that Starmer seems to be doing well keeping a distance from Trump. But how neutral are we? US bombers are taking off from RAF Fairford to strike missile bases in Iran. According to the Americans that's defensive not offensive but it's a blurry line.

It's only a "blurry line" because they have gone so far past that line that they can barely see it in their rear view mirror. How can bombing the fuck out of another country be seen as anything other than offensive?

[StirlingEgg]

37 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

It definitely is a blurry line. Starmer is hoping the public see it as defensive but he could very well end up pissing both sides off. 

 

1 minute ago, Orraloon said:

It's only a "blurry line" because they have gone so far past that line that they can barely see it in their rear view mirror. How can bombing the fuck out of another country be seen as anything other than offensive?

Funny how the Yanks are fine with any US based nutcase having a personal arsenal of weapons in their garage but when they see another country doing it, they are an imminent threat. 

[Ally Bongo]

Will the SNP take note or be like the Democrats in the USA

 

[vanderark14]

2 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

It definitely is a blurry line. Starmer is hoping the public see it as defensive but he could very well end up pissing both sides off. 

I agree with him on Iran and I think his attempts to strengthen ties with Europe is the right way forward but thats about it. He's made a dogs dinner of everything else. 

[Ally Bongo]

John Cleese all out on getting rid of Starmer and pandering to Islamism 

 

[vanderark14]

Cleese is right. No government should pander to Islam.......but he should've said they should not pander to any religion 

[scotlad]

7 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

He is getting support from the public on his stance on Iran. 69 % think the UK should be neutral or actively oppose any involvement, only 17 % say we should be involved. Part of me thinks public opinion is why Starmer is taking this stance , and not due to some backbone against Trump on his part. 

 

6 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

It definitely is a blurry line. Starmer is hoping the public see it as defensive but he could very well end up pissing both sides off. 

I think you're spot on here. Starmer fears a tanking at local elections in England (and to a lesser extent, our election and the Welsh election in May) which would provide a springboard for a potential leadership contest, which he'd likely lose. Like Hertsscot says, it isn't clear exactly how neutral the UK actually is regarding Iran, and post-May, if Starmer is still in office, I expect to see more backsliding.

I'll give Starmer some credit here though, he's managed to convince the sheeple that he's "stood up to Trump". It might just be his first ploy to date to have actually succeeded!

[scotlad]

56 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

Cleese is right. No government should pander to Islam.......but he should've said they should not pander to any religion 

Absolutely they shouldn't, but there's votes in them thar Muslims, and pockets of England are home to steadily expanding Muslim populations.

[hampden_loon2878]

8 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

He is getting support from the public on his stance on Iran. 69 % think the UK should be neutral or actively oppose any involvement, only 17 % say we should be involved. Part of me thinks public opinion is why Starmer is taking this stance , and not due to some backbone against Trump on his part. 

It’s hard to be in the wrong regarding trumps Iran bombings but I don’t see that being enough to shift any public opinion. 

[phart]

Also the guy said god willing there will be a global law stopping disrespect to their prophet. There's no talk in that clip it is in progress etc. Now it is something of a recurring theme calling for it that has been going on for a while. Google informs me it was first proposed as a UN resolution in 1999 by Pakistan. Obviously it goes back to like 700 AD as a tenet in Muslim countries. 

It absolutely shouldn't be enacted hopefully we're passed blasphemy laws as a society. They're anachronistic nonsense.

[scotlad]

6 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

It’s hard to be in the wrong regarding trumps Iran bombings but I don’t see that being enough to shift any public opinion. 

Any credit in the bank he might have gained as a result of his stance on the Iran bombings could well be drained by the latest episode of the Epstein/Madelson debacle.

Apparently Starmer was advised by civil servants during their due diligence not to appoint Mandelson ambassador to the US, as doing so would cause "general reputational damage". Starmer, though, for some reason, went ahead and appointed him anyway, despite the advice received and despite Mandelson being sacked from the government by two previous Labour PMs for dodgy dealings.

Political missteps happen but his decision making here beggars belief. There are rumours that Starmer is compromised in some way, and when you look at this nonsensical decision those rumours suddenly seem more plausible.

[exile]

Is Cleese a LibDem supporter? 

[Goozay]

3 hours ago, exile said:

Is Cleese a LibDem supporter? 

Is Cleese relevant? No idea why his Tweets are being shared and then debated on here.

[Lenbo]

11 hours ago, scotlad said:

Any credit in the bank he might have gained as a result of his stance on the Iran bombings could well be drained by the latest episode of the Epstein/Madelson debacle.

Apparently Starmer was advised by civil servants during their due diligence not to appoint Mandelson ambassador to the US, as doing so would cause "general reputational damage". Starmer, though, for some reason, went ahead and appointed him anyway, despite the advice received and despite Mandelson being sacked from the government by two previous Labour PMs for dodgy dealings.

Political missteps happen but his decision making here beggars belief. There are rumours that Starmer is compromised in some way, and when you look at this nonsensical decision those rumours suddenly seem more plausible.

Starmer appointed Mandelson as Mandelson along with Trump was big mates with a prominent sex trafficker. 

He thought this would provide a benefit. 

[scotlad]

45 minutes ago, Lenbo said:

Starmer appointed Mandelson as Mandelson along with Trump was big mates with a prominent sex trafficker. 

He thought this would provide a benefit. 

Apparently the ambassador before him was liked by the Americans, including Trump's administration, so the "he is good at getting deals done" excuse is a bit thin for me.

[StirlingEgg]

5 hours ago, exile said:

Is Cleese a LibDem supporter? 

Did he not do a video a while back on Proportional Representation with some connection to the SDP/Libs? I'm sure we watched it in Modern Studies 🙂

[Squirrelhumper]

On 3/10/2026 at 8:22 PM, hampden_loon2878 said:

I have never experienced such a concentration of contempt towards a government, even all the torie ones, Starmer seems to be the one folk hate the most 

 

I've a hell of a lot more admiration for him since the start of the Iran war than i did previously. That said, if it wasn't so obviously illegal he'd have been up their arses from the get go. 

Had it been the Tories or Reform we'd have been over to Iran like lapdogs at the drop of a hat.

He is fucking hopeless as a PM though and an open goal for the likes of Farage who is a detestable cunt but there's plenty of detestable cunts in England who will vote for him. 

His smirking during the Dunblane stuff yesterday summed that cunt up. 

Edited March 12 by Squirrelhumper

[Squirrelhumper]

On 3/10/2026 at 11:23 PM, Malcolm said:

Cant wait for the daft fuckers to knock my door and ask who im voting for

The Reform posters will be a give away. 

[Squirrelhumper]

21 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

Cleese is right. No government should pander to Islam.......but he should've said they should not pander to any religion 

Agreed. 

It's irconic that those who shout loudest about Islam are in the pockets of the Zionist State.

[Squirrelhumper]

On 3/11/2026 at 1:33 PM, vanderark14 said:

I agree with him on Iran and I think his attempts to strengthen ties with Europe is the right way forward but thats about it. He's made a dogs dinner of everything else. 

Agreed.

[Malcolm]

1 hour ago, Squirrelhumper said:

The Reform posters will be a give away. 

Thats very presumptuous of you when there are further right options such as Restore Britain.

[scotlad]

47 minutes ago, Malcolm said:

Thats very presumptuous of you when there are further right options such as Restore Britain.

🤣

[scotlad]

2 hours ago, StirlingEgg said:

Did he not do a video a while back on Proportional Representation with some connection to the SDP/Libs? I'm sure we watched it in Modern Studies 🙂

He was forever appearing in educational and training videos in the 90s 😄

I mind he featured in a video about handling difficult telephone calls we had to watch during training for a call centre job I had once.