Jump to content
Cold?
Local
Radar
Snow?

Scottish Politics 2011-2017


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Tullynessle/Inverurie
  • Weather Preferences: Cold and snowy or warm and dry
  • Location: Tullynessle/Inverurie

    Erm, we can send other non-Tory MPs nick. You know, SNP ones. It's not as if we either send Labour MPs or none at all. :)

     

    I'm not sure how that would 'help the Tories'. SNP are actually not right-wing; at least Labour are so support the Tories more.

     

    SNP are in second place in a large majority of Westminster seats, so a vote for the SNP is a vote for the SNP, i.e. no accidentally letting the Tories in by the back door due to FPTP.

     

    I suspect Scotland will vote for Scotland now, not for the UK if you catch my drift. It has been doing this at Holyrood level since 2007 for sure. If early polling indications are right, it will do this at Westminster too, i.e. votes will be based on the aim of devo max / potential future indy. 

     

    Would that be such a surprise given 74% back devo max and 45% full indy? Holyrood is being cemented as Scotland's parliament meaning old UK party loyalties are dying.

     

    I think there's a good chance Ed will need to forget Scotland as a source of MPs for good. We'll need to wait and see.

     

    The in-fighting seems to have already started with Holyrood Labour attempting to shut-out Westminster Labour in anticipation of the latter looking for new jobs next May.

     

    Well since the Tories seem to be more progressive than Labour on the whole 'more devo' question. How about a raft of newly elected SNP MPs 'helping out' a minority Tory government in Westminster in exchange for being 'nice' in any devo discussions?

     

    Now of course that could just see the SNP follow the LibDems and Labour being 'wiped out' is Scotland after partnering with the Tories. All hail the Greens, Scotland's new force!

     

    Tongue firmly in cheek with all of the above of course.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Spotted a post you think may be an issue? Please help the team by reporting it.
    • Replies 30.9k
    • Created
    • Last Reply

    Top Posters In This Topic

    • Scottish-Irish Skier

      8874

    • mountain shadow

      1528

    • skifreak

      1435

    • frogesque

      1306

    Top Posters In This Topic

    Popular Posts

    And that ignorant, offensive, rant sums up exactly why the YES campaign failed  

    Good god. What a load of boarish spiteful bile from bad losers has been posted during the night. I actually dread to think how Scotland would be run if this is representative of how the yes vote behav

    I'm disappointed in the lack of grace shown by some across the net in accepting this No vote. A complete lack of any empathy and understanding as to why fellow Scots didn't vote Yes.   I personally

    Posted Images

    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

     

     

    Now of course that could just see the SNP follow the LibDems and Labour being 'wiped out' is Scotland after partnering with the Tories. All hail the Greens, Scotland's new force!

     

     

    A formal coalition is not possible. The SNP have a policy of not forming a coalition with the Tories. It would never work as they are too different policy-wise. Electorate would not be happy either!

     

    However, the Scottish electorate is happy enough for the SNP to work with the Tories on a bill by bill basis. That's what happened in 2007-11; Labour and the Libs being so childish, leaving the SNP to work with the Greens, Margo and the Tories to get budgets through etc. 

     

    The electorate would be fine with such a situation again at Westminster level if the SNP worked in the interests of Scotland as they'd have been elected to do and stood firm on policy.

     

    Lib dems made the mistake of forming an actual coalition and dumping all their principles. Quite a difference.

     

    Oh, and the SNP would not vote on English only matters. Something to keep in mind. They are democratic unlike Scottish unionist party MPs.

    Edited by scottish skier
    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    Another 16 point lead in Yougov Westminster Scottish subset this morning.

     

    44% SNP

    28% Lab

    13% Con

    7% Lib

     

    Nice. Be lovely if that happened; would just about wipe Labour off the map, take out a crap load of libs and even maybe our one Tory at a stretch.

     

    Interestingly, this is coming from switchers from Labour, Libs and Tories 2010 in Scotland (cross tabs vote 2010 vs SNP 2015). I expect the Tories moving to SNP are the 47% which support devo max in the last poll. When half the Tory vote wants devo max you know Westminster is in serious trouble in Scotland.

     

    ----

     

    SNP and other pro-indy parties continue to climb rapidly. 1 hr ago:

     

    https://twitter.com/PeterMurrell

     

    Total @theSNP members now 73,285 plus all these paper forms in today's post!! Be part of it: https://my.snp.org/join 

     

     

    SNP soon going to be treble the size it was on referendum day. Nuts.

     

    So, in summary, seems predictions on here that SNP support would grow/solidify in the event of a no vote are panning out. This is of course the opposite of what unionists believed; i.e. that a No would destroy the SNP and Labour would return to power in Scotland, even though the 1 or so poll we had on the matter suggested otherwise.

     

     

    ----

     

    EDIT

     

    Also, some results from a Yougov poll on Miliband.

     

    Scottish sample:

     

    Thinking about Ed Miliband's time as leader of the Labour party, do you think he...
     
    Has or has not provided an effective opposition to the government
    18% Has
    75% Has not
     
    Has or has not made it clear what he stands for?
    26% Has
    65% Has not
     
    Would or would not be up to the job of Prime Minister?
    23% would
    63% Would not
     
    Do you think Ed Miliband has changed the Labour party for the better, for the worse, or do you think he has not made any real change at all?
    16% Has changed party for the better
    16% Has changed party for the worse
    61% Has not made any real change at all 
     
    Ooch. Ties in with the apparent collapse in Labour vote in Scotland.
    Edited by scottish skier
    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL

    SS, throw in the latest proposed policy announcements by the Tories to attack the poorest in our society and you can see another pre-referendum prediction coming true. Even Scottish Tories will be taken aback by these measures.

     

    Devo Max is just not going to happen. No Scottish government would ever think of introducing such draconian welfare measures and Westminster would never allow a two tier system, where the Scottish poor were being treated better than the English poor. This would simply cause civil disobedience. 

     

    Any offer on further devolution will be a watered down affair. Now, given the latest polls, another referendum might be closer than you think. A Tory/UKIP coalition in 2015 followed by a massive SNP lanslide in 2016?

     

    SS, if the SNP believes that any proposed devolution does not go far enough and based on the clear will of Scots for Devo Max, can they bring Holyrood down and force fresh elections on a Devo Max ticket?

    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL

    Dear Netweather No Voters,

     

    It seems the Tories speak for you, the silent majority. The Tories also say no Devo Max

     

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29428818

     

    I would say some No voters will be increasingly guilty at their betrayal of the Yes campaign. Any No voter, who voted No on the strength of getting Devo Max will be feeling increasingly foolish. Their only possible way out, is to join the 45 and vote SNP.

    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire (this lockdown) Freuchie, Fife (normally)
  • Weather Preferences: cold and snowy in winter, a good mix of weather the rest of the time
  • Location: Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire (this lockdown) Freuchie, Fife (normally)

     

    Labour's anti-English / anti-democratic stance already causing 'the vow' to fall apart.

     

     
    Seems devo max / home rule / sovereignty is just 'income tax' now too.
     
    We could be back voting in a new iref quite soon at this rate.
     
    ---
     
    Also, confirmation from Glasgow City Council that, as believed, every Holyrood constituency voted Yes.
     
    Rather worrying for the Labour party. City Chambers the last bastion of the union then in Glasgow, but for how long?

     

    The number of Holyrood constituencies held by Labour that voted Yes is fascinating - Dumbarton, the Glasgow ones, Paisley, Greenock and Inverclyde, Cowdenbeath (not official but from the count it did look as though it was narrowly Yes), Coatbridge and Chryston, Motherwell and Wishaw, Uddingston and Bellshill and Rutherglen. If every one of them turfed out Labour in 2016 they'd be reduced to 4 constituency MSPs in Scotland, all in the most affluent areas of Scotland with the exception of North and Leith (which could potentially have been Yes as well as there was no Holyrood breakdown for Edinburgh). 

     

    Those Westminster numbers are fascinating (James Kelly had it an average of a 10 point SNP lead from UK-wide subsamples) - given the disproportionately high number of SNP switchers in Labour's heartlands, with membership in parts of North Lanarkshire and Glasgow more than tripling, I suspect that puts almost any Labour seat at risk. 

     

    Ruthie just confirmed what we'd said all along about devo max:

    https://twitter.com/TimReidBBC/status/516920714742738944

    Why the BBC used the term 'devo max' or 'federalism' to refer to the last minute offer so often before the referendum if it was never on the table is a mystery...

     

    The latest round of tory cuts to welfare are utterly inhumane, but Labour are tied into exactly the same welfare spending proposals so in practice even a Labour win would plunge thousands more into poverty anyway. Added to that the UKIP surge, one which could credibly bring about 10+ MPs (potentially even more if a few more sitting tories defect) and the rumour that the tories' proposed EU referendum will take place in 2016, one which call me Dave says is '1000 times less important than the independence referendum', and our wonderful 'shared future' is looking ever more grim. An SNP vote is the only way to hold the unionist parties to account, both in terms of delivering more powers to the Scottish Parliament and doing whatever we can to protect the poorest in society from ideologically driven cuts to their living standards. 

    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    The SNP + Greens + Independents would be 15 seats short of passing a dissolution motion at Holyrood. If the Indy parties stand on a DevoMax ticket in the UKGE next may, then there would seem to be little point in bringing about an early dissolution at Holyrood even if enough support could be found as by the scheduled date in May 2016 we would know whether or not there was going to be any shift towards DevoMax by Westmisnter and if/when there will be an EU in/out referendum.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    What's been announced today regarding working age benefits is beyond polite description. These benefits were already set at a level that was basically deemed to be the minimum required for survival. To argue they are freezing them so benefits don't rise when wages aren't is just a sickening attempt at populist spin on an inhuman policy - if benefits are set as low as they can be today, then by definition freezing them means they will be wholly inadequate in 2 years time. Recent generosity to food banks shown at post referendum YES rallies is sadly going to need to be sustained and built on - is that what they mean't by 'better together'?

    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Calgary, Canada (1230m asl)
  • Weather Preferences: Wind driven falling snow
  • Location: Calgary, Canada (1230m asl)

    What's been announced today regarding working age benefits is beyond polite description. These benefits were already set at a level that was basically deemed to be the minimum required for survival. To argue they are freezing them so benefits don't rise when wages aren't is just a sickening attempt at populist spin on an inhuman policy - if benefits are set as low as they can be today, then by definition freezing them means they will be wholly inadequate in 2 years time. Recent generosity to food banks shown at post referendum YES rallies is sadly going to need to be sustained and built on - is that what they mean't by 'better together'?

     

    I'd agree with the above, but would add that something should be done to remove benefits from those who don't need them. For example, child benefit is paid to all families regardless of income. This means that £bns are paid out every year to families who really don't need to be receiving government help. I think child benefit should be scrapped completely. Those on the lowest income could have their child benefit replaced via tax credits. This would also save the cost of managing two lots of different benefits.

     

    I haven't studied tax credits closely for a few years but there used to be a sweet spot for those on around the 2nd to 4th lowest income deciles, so that this group actually got more in proportionate terms than those on the very lowest incomes. I'd have to look into the whole thing again to be sure of this though.

     

    There's a lot of give in the benefits system, but it doesn't have to be from those who can least afford it.

     

    Edit: I forgot about the £545 a year every family with kids gets via tax credits if their income is under £50,000....that's something else that should be chopped as it would probably save £bns again. Does a family with a household income of £45,000 really need to be on benefits?

    Edited by CatchMyDrift
    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE

    I wonder what the referendum result would have been had the Tory conference happened before the vote?

     

    I'd guess it would have been a lot closer or even a Yes win. I've already gone into a major rant on the politics thread regarding these mean spirited and vindictive policies so I won't bore this thread with any more!

    • Like 5
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    So the vow and signed pledges are worth so much that Gordon Brown is now calling on at least 100,000 Scottish voters to sign his petition calling on Westminster to honour the promises he was in no position to give. Putting up an ex-PM seemed all about making it sound credible while having the built in plausible deniability about anything genuinely being promised - but then the party leaders signed the vow!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29432379

    Apparently David Cameron said on Channel 4 news that he saved the union?! PMSL!

    Edited by skifreak
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL
  • Location: Carryduff, County Down 420ft ASL

    That's just incredible, incredible. Is this a democracy?

    I don't know who I'm more angry with, the lying politicians or the gullible No voters.

    This referendum has been fought on false pretences by Better Together.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    Three times Jackie Bird mentions Devo Max in the Question:

    JB: 'your offering the voters the chance to vote yes or for DevoMax?'

    AD: 'Yes'

    DevoMax is not some abstract undefined term, it's been around in the Scottish Constitutional debate long enough to have a clear meaning - it's maximum devolution. That is everything that can be devolved, devolved up to the point where beyond it Scotland is an independent sovereign nation state or by the alternative name of Full Fiscal Autonomy.

    [further edit]

    #indyref hashtag is just about in meltdown tonight - busiest it's been since the night of the referendum!

    Edited by skifreak
    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    I'd agree with the above, but would add that something should be done to remove benefits from those who don't need them. 

     

    Well, be careful here as you may be falling into the Tory trap.

     

    My daughter doesn't get child benefit any more; the Tories have taken that away (from her, not me incidentally).

     

    Is that fair? Well on the surface it seems so as I earn well enough so can look after Mini Miss SS. Mrs SS is just part-time so more time spent with said daughter, so overall we are reasonably comfortable.

     

    I do however pay a lot in tax, ergo pay the child benefit of many, many children. The child benefit we used to receive was a small 'thanks' for the huge contribution we make each month to help others less fortunate. Comes off my salary as tax. Lets call child benefit one of the 'little thank you gifts' for those putting the most into the communal pot. A tiny fraction of what they pay in. In return, they get the same benefits as everyone else.

     

    Now, I know why the Tories took it away. They want me to resent paying tax for 'scroungers (© BetterTogether) who are getting child benefit for their kids out of my pocket while I get nothing'. If they had the chance, I'd be e.g. paying for many teenagers to go to uni but I'd also have to pay for my own kid too.

     

    Aye, they want me to resent those less fortunate and vote low tax right-wing so that the communal pot dries up and everyone loses, the poor the most. 

     

    http://users.ox.ac.uk/~chri3110/Details/Universalism%20McKee%20Stuckler.pdf

     

     
    The assault on universalism: how to destroy the welfare state
     
    ...Such vilification of the undeserving poor is not new. What is
    changing in the United Kingdom is the progressive exclusion
    of the middle classesfrom the welfare state through incremental
    erosion of universal benefits. The logic is appealing, but highly
    divisive: Why should the state pay for those who can afford to
    pay for themselves? Why should “ordinary working peopleâ€
    pay for “middle class benefits� The economic crisis has given
    the government a once in a lifetime opportunity. As Naomi
    Klein has described in many different situations, those opposed
    to the welfare state never waste a good crisis.25 The deficit must
    be reduced, and so, one by one, benefits are removed and groups
    are pitted against each other, as the interests of the middle class
    in the welfare state wither away.
     
    The first cut was to universal child benefit. This has been paid
    to all mothers, regardless of family income. It recognised the
    importance of children to society as a whole, not just to an
    individual family. It was also cheap, simple to administer, and
    free from anomalies. The government will now restrict child
    benefits to anyone in a family where one person is a higher rate
    tax payer. The problems were apparent from the start. A family
    with four children and two wage earners, each earning just below
    the higher rate tax threshold, would earn a total of up to £84
    950 per year,supplemented by child benefit of £3146. A similar
    sized family in which only one parent worked but earned just
    over the tax threshold, at £42 475, would get nothing. If that
    parent was a widower, they would lose a further £5077 Widowed
    Parent’s Allowance, which is linked to child benefit, resulting
    in an 18% drop in income. Only a saint would avoid asking why
    they pay their taxes at all in such circumstances.
     
    Edited by scottish skier
    • Like 3
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    I wonder what the referendum result would have been had the Tory conference happened before the vote?

     

    I'd guess it would have been a lot closer or even a Yes win. I've already gone into a major rant on the politics thread regarding these mean spirited and vindictive policies so I won't bore this thread with any more!

     

    Na, yer fine.

     

    Ranting about the Tories is a national pastime up here. 

     

    At least the 45% can say 'Well I'm not to blame - you voted for it!'.

    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    RE earlier post on the demonisation of those less fortunate...

     

    Good on Middlesbrough fans that did this:

     

    Benefits-Street-football-protest.png

     

    In response to the sickening programme that is 'Benefits street' being filmed there.

    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl
  • Location: Near Lauder, SE Scotland, 175 m asl

    So the vow and signed pledges are worth so much that Gordon Brown is now calling on at least 100,000 Scottish voters to sign his petition calling on Westminster to honour the promises he was in no position to give. Putting up an ex-PM seemed all about making it sound credible while having the built in plausible deniability about anything genuinely being promised - but then the party leaders signed the vow!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29432379

    Apparently David Cameron said on Channel 4 news that he saved the union?! PMSL!

     

    Petition in response (by WoS) calling for Gordon Brown to 'go fcuk himself'.

     

    https://t.co/S9qAaLHXRI

     

    Wonder which will get the most signatures given wings has nearly reached 1 million readers on most recent post-iref stats.

     

    I'm off to sign.

    Edited by scottish skier
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Tullynessle/Inverurie
  • Weather Preferences: Cold and snowy or warm and dry
  • Location: Tullynessle/Inverurie

    Lets be honest about the pre-referendum promise of "Devo Max", no one who actually looked at what was being offered could ever have been under any illusion that it was really "Devo Max". What it really annoying though is that was exactly how it was described by the MSM in particular. Even if the BT side didn't call it that directly they certainly didn't correct any misinterpretation. If we had really been promised what is traditionally understood as Devo max we'd not be needing some poxy commission to decide what new powers we should get as it'd be quite clear.

    Oh and why do we need to sign some pointless petition started by Gordon Brown. I thought we had a "vow", and isn't 1.6 people voting Yes enough to prove we want more powers? When was the last time Westminster took any notice of a petition anyway?

    Edited by Ravelin
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    So the BBC News at 10 finishes a segment on the Tory conference with a delegate burning the EU Flag outside the venue entrance. Can you imagine if a YES Scotland person outside an official event burnt the Union Flag for the BBC cameras!

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE
  • Location: NR LOURDES SW FRANCE

    As SS has given the go ahead I'm going to rant! lol

     

    I think whats most disturbing is the fact that Tories thought it was acceptable and moral to put these policies forward and the arrogance and smugness of the vile Osborne.And the cheering of the crowd who were relishing more misery for many.

     

    Has it really come to this? I really hope Labour don't think they need to match the cruelty in an attempt to throw some meat to the mob. They should just say we will deal with the deficit in a slower way.

     

    Why all of a sudden is the deficit so important, as long as the direction in that is edging down even slowly then that should be fine.

     

    What this is about is the Tories finding an excuse to dismantle the safety net by overdoing the deficit drama, this is very much like the GOP and Tea Party in the USA.

     

    What will happen in Scotland? can the SNP increase those benefits or are they hamstrung by Westminster? and if they can where will they find the money from?

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    What will happen in Scotland? can the SNP increase those benefits or are they hamstrung by Westminster? and if they can where will they find the money from?

    This is one of the paradoxes of the indyref. The Scottish Government has done what it can to shield Scotland from the worst of the coalitions policies - but it does so from an ever diminishing financial pot. One specific example, £100m has been put into council discretionary funds as a way of alleviating the 'bedroom tax'.

    The post crash recession was shallower in Scotland and the recovery has generally led the UK as a whole in terms of unemployment and business optimism - perhaps in part because the SG continued with significant infrastructure investment and also early on came to an agreement with unions on a pay freeze for all but the lowest paid public sector staff employed by the SG in return for no compulsory redundancies, which appears to have had economic benefit by helping keep economic sentiment and confidence higher than it would otherwise have been. The SG did this on consultative basis not laid down the law from on high to take on the Unions/Public Sector in the sort of grandstanding we have seen from Westminster.

    However, welfare in almost it's entirety is a reserved matter. The SG had to get specific permission from HM Government to allocate more than £50m in extra funding to the council discretionary spending budgets. The SG's budget is being reduced year on year in real terms, there is a limit to how long the balls can all continue to be juggled, there is a limit to how much more can be wrung out of efficiency drives before front-line services start to take major hits.

    That's the bottom line, the SG can not go on mitigating Westminster policy from an ever diminishing budget.

    • Like 2
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Highland Scotland
  • Location: Highland Scotland

    While the Daily Record may only be trying to extract itself from a hole of it's own digging, it never the less underlines the point that some were making on this thread that a no vote would not make the constitutional debate go away - only intensify it.

    By0FvR3CAAAbYch.jpg

    We are waiting. We are watching. We are still here.

    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet
  • Location: Leeds/Bradford border, 185 metres above sea level, around 600 feet

    Dear Netweather No Voters,

     

    It seems the Tories speak for you, the silent majority. The Tories also say no Devo Max

     

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29428818

     

    I would say some No voters will be increasingly guilty at their betrayal of the Yes campaign. Any No voter, who voted No on the strength of getting Devo Max will be feeling increasingly foolish. Their only possible way out, is to join the 45 and vote SNP.

     

    The voters were never offered devo max, they were offered 12 new taxes.

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest
    This topic is now closed to further replies.
    • Cool Showerfest continues for the next week. Hints of a change beyond that?

      With the jet stream close to the south and low pressure nearby over the next 7 days, expect showers or longer spells of rain over many areas, staying cool too, with temperatures below average. But hints of something drier and more settled arriving next weekend. View the full blog here

      Nick F
      Nick F
      Latest weather updates from Netweather

      Michael Fish: More May showers this weekend and next week

      Michael Fish presents his latest weekly forecast, and if you're hoping for a change to more summery weather, it's not good news. Watch the video here

      Netweather forecasts
      Netweather forecasts
      Latest weather updates from Netweather

      UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

      UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2021-05-14 09:22:46 Valid: 14/05/2021 0600 - 15/05/2021 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRIDAY 14TH MAY 2021 Click here for the full forecast

      Nick F
      Nick F
      Latest weather updates from Netweather
    • Recently Browsing   0 members

      No registered users viewing this page.

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...