Jump to content

Performance of SNP MPs in Westminster


Recommended Posts

The only people talking about a second referendum in the short to medium term are the Unionists. In fact they are obsessed with it and talk of little else although little good that did them on the seventh of May and, unless like the SNP, they move on, it will be their undoing at the Holyrood elections as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the performance of SNP in Westminster - I've been looking forward to the inevitable feast of hypocrisy and double standards that this EU referendum will bring, and it got off to a cracking start with the SNP voting against even having a referendum.  Regardless of which way anyone is going to vote when the time comes, it is mind boggling that the the SNP, of all parties, is AGAINST the idea of even giving people the chance, once in 40 years, to have a say on whether they want their nation to have complete control over its own affairs or whether they want to continue be ruled over by a distant and foreign parliament in which we have little representation.  :blink:

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well with respect to the Independence referendum, that's 3 SNP supporters talking about it for a start!  Seriously though, the reason some of us keep talking about a 2nd referendum is that the one person in Scotland who matters most in Scotland in this regard refuses to rule it out.  Saying a 2nd referendum is not in the current SNP plans is not good enough because it could easily be in the plans tomorrow,  We really do need a clear statement that the earlier "once in a generation" sentiment will be honoured or else there is going to be ongoing uncertainty which will be bad for Scotland.

I certainly accept that if there is a continued high level of support for independence there should be another referendum at some point.  The once in a generation timescale seems appropriate to me.  The reason for this is that major constitutional change is completely different for parliamentary elections,  In parliamentary elections if you no longer like what you voted for last time, you have the opportunity to change things in another 5 years or so.  If we vote for independence in a referendum then there is no going back - we're stuck with it even if a large majority change their mind.

In our democratic history it is only in the last few years that there has been a significant support for independence.  It is too early to say whether this support will be maintained or even grow further in the next few years, or steadily dwindle like a similar level of support for the Tories in the 50s has done.  Because a vote for independence is such an irrevocable step, it really is important from a democratic perspective that we don't make that step until it is clear the people have been in favour of independence consistently for a prolonged period of time.  Support for the SNP at the moment seems to me a bit like the latest social media craze and we really don't know what people's views will be in a few years time.

If people still support independence in 20 years time then fine, have another referendum.  But in the meantime can we please have a bit of leadership from our leader so that we can get on with the business of running the country in an environment of political stability using the new powers which are being devolved (and on which,incidentally, we have not had the opportunity to vote).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the performance of SNP in Westminster - I've been looking forward to the inevitable feast of hypocrisy and double standards that this EU referendum will bring, and it got off to a cracking start with the SNP voting against even having a referendum.  Regardless of which way anyone is going to vote when the time comes, it is mind boggling that the the SNP, of all parties, is AGAINST the idea of even giving people the chance, once in 40 years, to have a say on whether they want their nation to have complete control over its own affairs or whether they want to continue be ruled over by a distant and foreign parliament in which we have little representation.  :blink:

 

​It's even worse than that.  In opposing the bill, Salmond argued that no one believed Cameron wanted to take the UK out of Europe and therefore agreeing to the referendum was simply to appease Tory back benchers.  He said that major constitutional referendums should be held on a proposition, honestly held.  What complete and utter hypocrisy!  By the same token you could argue that Cameron should never have agreed to the independence referendum because he does not want to take Scotland out of the UK. I don't recall Salmond opposing that one!

Salmond is all too keen to let the people have their say when he thinks there's a chance he might get what he wants, but not when he thinks there is a chance he might get something he doesn't want.  At least Cameron had the guts to allow the people of Scotland to have their say on Independence and has the guts to allow people to vote again on Europe after 40 years despite the fact he did not want change on either issue.  It is called democracy.  But as I have pointed out before, the SNP are not interested in democracy, they are just interested in getting their way.

Like most people in Scotland I will vote for the UK to remain in the EU and I welcome the opportunity to affirm that at the ballot box.  By trying to deny the people of Scotland the opportunity to exercise their democratic right to vote on this issue the SNP rabble at Westminster are clearly not speaking for the people of Scotland.  I have no doubt that the people of Scotland will continue to be as poorly represented by Salmond's clones as they were today.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yngwie, they didn't vote against having a referendum......they voted against that specific referendum bill as defined. 

They voted against having a referendum in which the 16-18 year olds couldn't vote, although they, being the ones who will have to live longer with the result, have more right to vote, imo, than those of us heading out of life. And they voted against a referendum in which Commonwealth citizens and the Irish citizens of the EU can vote, if they live in the UK, but no other EU citizens can, not even one of our MSPs....and they voted against a referendum in which there was no mechanism for compensating for the fact that the English voter can take us out of the EU however the other parts of the UK vote. 

I notice that some of the anti-EU Tories, like John Redwood and Bill Cash, are going to try to pre-empt the BBC's pro- Government bias, which was such a feature of the Independence referendum, and which just about every person in Westminster (and the BBC) denied was taking place. The BBC, which has impartiality written into its Charter (for all the good that has done for a number of years), could be forced by law to be impartial during the European Union referendum campaign, under changes to the broadcasting laws tabled by backbenchers, which also include requiring the appointment of an impartial adjudicator to rule quickly on cases of alleged broadcasting bias throughout the campaign, and a bid to stop civil servants issuing pro-EU documents right up to voting day in an effort to reimpose the purdah regulations removed in the bill. 

Shame that all the Unionist MPs appear to have learned from the Independence referendum is that, without (and tbh, even with) legal restrictions, they just can't trust the Government and the BBC to play fair. 

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually they did vote against a referendum.  I appreciate that they would like 16 and 17 year olds to vote as well and I agree that they should, but the Bill has a long way to go.  The vote earlier this week was simply about whether in principle there should be a referendum.  The Bill now passes to the Committee stage where there will be plenty of opportunity for our elected representatives to argue for the amendments they feel are appropriate.

Had other opposition parties and a handful of pro-European Tories voted with the SNP then the Bill would have been dead in the water and there would have been no referendum.  No doubt there is lots in the Bill as it stands that other MPs don't like, but fortunately MPs of other parties take democracy seriously and the Bill can now be refined with a final decision being taken in due course.

If the final Bill does not include all of the SNP's wish list I don't think that even the SNP will be as pathetic as to vote against it again then.  Make no mistake, their tabling of a completely unnecessary amendment  and then voting against the Bill this week was not a principled vote against about the shortcomings of the Bill as it stands, it was simply about being disruptive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually they did vote against a referendum.  I appreciate that they would like 16 and 17 year olds to vote as well and I agree that they should, but the Bill has a long way to go.  The vote earlier this week was simply about whether in principle there should be a referendum.  The Bill now passes to the Committee stage where there will be plenty of opportunity for our elected representatives to argue for the amendments they feel are appropriate.

Had other opposition parties and a handful of pro-European Tories voted with the SNP then the Bill would have been dead in the water and there would have been no referendum.  No doubt there is lots in the Bill as it stands that other MPs don't like, but fortunately MPs of other parties take democracy seriously and the Bill can now be refined with a final decision being taken in due course.

If the final Bill does not include all of the SNP's wish list I don't think that even the SNP will be as pathetic as to vote against it again then.  Make no mistake, their tabling of a completely unnecessary amendment  and then voting against the Bill this week was not a principled vote against about the shortcomings of the Bill as it stands, it was simply about being disruptive. 

​It was made very clear in the SNP manifesto that they opposed a referendum on the EU.Nicola Sturgeon and countless others reiterated that stance during the course of the election campaign.

Voting in accordance with stated principles is the very essence of democracy unlike Labour who also campaigned on the basis that they opposed the referendum but who have done a volte face purely out of cynical expediency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A cup final?

 

On which subject, it was interesting at the Northern Meeting Park yesterday to note the amount of booing and moaning about the SNP that arose when Drew Hendry was introduced to the crowd.

This was a response which was quite out of kilter with this obviously good natured occasion.

The SNP may be riding high in the polls, but this is further evidence that, although they currently have support, they are also instensely and increasingly disliked, and this hostile reaction was another instance of the SNP being hoist by their own petard.

In effect the SNP's approach to politics has been increasingly divisive since the referendum was announced. Because not only do they continue to operate their well established "ya - boo" approach to politics, this also seems to have cross contaminated many people of other persuasions and hence deepened divisions within Scotland.

Maybe the reaction to Drew Hendry just shows the number of Rangers fans turning out to support ICT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the performance of SNP in Westminster - I've been looking forward to the inevitable feast of hypocrisy and double standards that this EU referendum will bring, and it got off to a cracking start with the SNP voting against even having a referendum.  Regardless of which way anyone is going to vote when the time comes, it is mind boggling that the the SNP, of all parties, is AGAINST the idea of even giving people the chance, once in 40 years, to have a say on whether they want their nation to have complete control over its own affairs or whether they want to continue be ruled over by a distant and foreign parliament in which we have little representation.  :blink:

 

It's even worse than that.  In opposing the bill, Salmond argued that no one believed Cameron wanted to take the UK out of Europe and therefore agreeing to the referendum was simply to appease Tory back benchers.  He said that major constitutional referendums should be held on a proposition, honestly held.  What complete and utter hypocrisy!  By the same token you could argue that Cameron should never have agreed to the independence referendum because he does not want to take Scotland out of the UK. I don't recall Salmond opposing that one!

Salmond is all too keen to let the people have their say when he thinks there's a chance he might get what he wants, but not when he thinks there is a chance he might get something he doesn't want.  At least Cameron had the guts to allow the people of Scotland to have their say on Independence and has the guts to allow people to vote again on Europe after 40 years despite the fact he did not want change on either issue.  It is called democracy.  But as I have pointed out before, the SNP are not interested in democracy, they are just interested in getting their way.

Like most people in Scotland I will vote for the UK to remain in the EU and I welcome the opportunity to affirm that at the ballot box.  By trying to deny the people of Scotland the opportunity to exercise their democratic right to vote on this issue the SNP rabble at Westminster are clearly not speaking for the people of Scotland.  I have no doubt that the people of Scotland will continue to be as poorly represented by Salmond's clones as they were today.

 

The SNP are following their manifesto which clearly implies Scotland stays in Europe. They have not voted against a referendum being held. What they did vote against was the way this referendum would be conducted. They want to show the differences in attitude between the different countries that make up the UK by holding seperate referendums for each country. The arguements will continue and eventually a referendum will be held and will be supported by the SNP and all other parties. Meanwhile I, for one, expect our elected members to argue and ensure the correct way forward is acted on.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SNP are following their manifesto which clearly implies Scotland stays in Europe. They have not voted against a referendum being held. What they did vote against was the way this referendum would be conducted.

No, the SNP manifesto clearly stated that they opposed any referendum on the EU.  They just don't want people to have a vote on this important constitutional matter, in any way shape or form. That's democracy SNP style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SNP are following their manifesto which clearly implies Scotland stays in Europe. They have not voted against a referendum being held. What they did vote against was the way this referendum would be conducted.

No, the SNP manifesto clearly stated that they opposed any referendum on the EU.  They just don't want people to have a vote on this important constitutional matter, in any way shape or form. That's democracy SNP style.

Precisely the stance of both Labour and the Lib Dems prior to the election until each changed for pure political expediency.

Are you attacking the SNP for being consistent ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SNP are a strange lot when it comes to Europe (well, not just Europe!) Within Scotland they are hellbent on centralising as much power as they can on Edinburgh (whilst window dressing by making soothing noises about the Islands). Within the UK, making a fuss and throwing hissy fits about Westminster and demanding more powers devolved also to Edinburgh (whilst sometimes failing to say what they would do with them if they got them) has been a standard grievance-stirrer for years.

But at the same time they seem equally desperate, in the event of separation, to hand over massive powers to the EU which, in the event of separation, they would be under no obligation to join, irrespective of the outcome of the UK EU referendum. So do the SNP actually want decisions to be made in Scotland or do they want them to be made at EU HQ? There is an enormous paradox here.

I think the reality is that the SNP realise that a separate Scotland would, unlike the UK, be something of an economic basket case and in sore need of being joined with something bigger - only ABE (Anything But England).  And that's before you even take into account that "It's Scotland's Oil" has become "It WAS Scotland's Oil"  :amazed:. By way of a similar lack of coherence or logic, would defence policy be to kick out the nukes and then ask to join the nuclear alliance which is NATO?

Here's an interesting scenario. The UK votes to leave the EU. The Nats then kick up enough of a fuss to get another referendum and tell enough porkies to fluke the once-only, tiny majority they need to claim that this is "the settled will of the Scottish people". As a seceding part of a non-EU state, they most definitely have to apply for EU membership right from square one. And if/when they eventually get it, Scotland becomes the extreme rarity of an EU country whose single land border is with a non-EU country and all the practical and trading chaos that would create. The only small advantage might be that it wouldn't be so easy for EU migrants to come here in pursuit of the (unaffordable) benefits utopia created by the Nats as the price for all those Yes votes they gained by promising one.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are playing silly b*ggers around full fiscal autonomy as well.  Now that Cameron has said it would be a bad idea they have decided that they want it again.  Interviewed on Radio Scotland, Swinney was asked that if it was refused by the Tory Government, would this be seen as the kind of major change in circumstances which would lead to the SNP seeking a 2nd independence referendum.  He answered by saying this was all about "respect".  He said that the Government had to respect the mandate given to the SNP by 50% of the electorate for full fiscal autonomy.  Without actually answering the question, the implication was crystal clear.  But of, course, the SNP have no such mandate.  As others have said before on here, at a parliamentary election people vote for a party whose overall manifesto most appeals for whatever reason.  It is fanciful to say that all who voted SNP in the recent election are in favour of full fiscal autonomy.  In other words, a 2nd referendum is threatened on the basis of the Government refusing to give to Scotland something the majority of Scots don't want in any case!

And Swinney talks about respect!  He might also like to have some respect for the clear majority of Scots electors who voted for Scotland to remain in the Union.  And he might show some respect for the democratic process and agree that after 40 years and huge change within the EU, it is reasonable to ask the British people if they still want to stay in the EU.

Swinney has also had to reveal that the Scottish Government has underspent its budget by £200 million last year.  Whilst it is good they have not overspent, it does rather put into context their regular bleating about how the Tories' austerity agenda is starving the Scottish Government of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the SNP win an overwhelming majority of Scottish seats in UK parliament? Did SNP state in their pre-election manifesto that they were opposed to a referendum on EU membership? Did the electorate use their vote based on party manifesto? Wouldn't voting for a referendum be going against the manifesto and, therefore, the electorate who used their vote based on that manifesto?

It beggers belief the number of people who base their viewpoints on the written press of this country. A press that spouts whatever crap it believes the punter wants to read. Right now its all about oil and rubbing the SNP nose in the price fall. I've been in the industry for 37 years and have seen numerous oil price crashes in that time. This last period the price had gone way over the top before crashing but even at that it will recover. The Arabs will only sit still for so long. They will boost their own wealth and they will control and upward pricing.

That said, this country of ours has always been one of wealth. We were one of the richest countries in the world pre-1707 hence the reason the English pushed for union and the handful of very rich Scots sold us out. We are still one of the richest countries as far as market share of exports goes. Our problem is that we've been bled for the last 300 and more years and we cant seem to realise that eventually we'll be bled dry and then dropped like a hot stone to sort ourselves out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are playing silly b*ggers around full fiscal autonomy as well.  Now that Cameron has said it would be a bad idea they have decided that they want it again.  Interviewed on Radio Scotland, Swinney was asked that if it was refused by the Tory Government, would this be seen as the kind of major change in circumstances which would lead to the SNP seeking a 2nd independence referendum.  He answered by saying this was all about "respect".  He said that the Government had to respect the mandate given to the SNP by 50% of the electorate for full fiscal autonomy.  Without actually answering the question, the implication was crystal clear.  But of, course, the SNP have no such mandate.  As others have said before on here, at a parliamentary election people vote for a party whose overall manifesto most appeals for whatever reason.  It is fanciful to say that all who voted SNP in the recent election are in favour of full fiscal autonomy.  In other words, a 2nd referendum is threatened on the basis of the Government refusing to give to Scotland something the majority of Scots don't want in any case!

And Swinney talks about respect!  He might also like to have some respect for the clear majority of Scots electors who voted for Scotland to remain in the Union.  And he might show some respect for the democratic process and agree that after 40 years and huge change within the EU, it is reasonable to ask the British people if they still want to stay in the EU.

Swinney has also had to reveal that the Scottish Government has underspent its budget by £200 million last year.  Whilst it is good they have not overspent, it does rather put into context their regular bleating about how the Tories' austerity agenda is starving the Scottish Government of money.

The one thing that you miss in your statement DD is that many people voted against total independence but, had there been a third option, would have voted for FFA. I actually believe its those non SNP people who will demand a new referendum and not actually the party members.

Every statement made is based on anti SNP views and not pro electorate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It beggers belief the number of people who base their viewpoints on the written press of this country. A press that spouts whatever crap it believes the punter wants to read. Right now its all about oil and rubbing the SNP nose in the price fall. I've been in the industry for 37 years and have seen numerous oil price crashes in that time. This last period the price had gone way over the top before crashing but even at that it will recover. The Arabs will only sit still for so long. They will boost their own wealth and they will control and upward pricing.

That said, this country of ours has always been one of wealth. We were one of the richest countries in the world pre-1707 hence the reason the English pushed for union and the handful of very rich Scots sold us out. We are still one of the richest countries as far as market share of exports goes. Our problem is that we've been bled for the last 300 and more years and we cant seem to realise that eventually we'll be bled dry and then dropped like a hot stone to sort ourselves out.

Alex, the only thing you seem to have missed out here is the assertion that Monty Python's parrot is alive and well and off on holiday with Shergar and Lord Lucan!:ohmy:

Let's begin with the oil question, on which nationalists have been remarkably quiet of late. The overwhelming evidence from senior industry figures is that this is not just a periodic blip, but something sufficiently fundamental to herald major long term consequences throughout the industry. Sir Ian Woodset the ball rolling away back during the referendum and was predictably vilified by the Cybernats whose world picture this injection of reality did not fit. Since then it has become increasingly clear that the North Sea is in major decline - although I do realise that statements to that effect are, of course, nothing more than a media conspiracy to reflect what people are actually saying. There appear to be two issues in the North Sea - a price which the industry itself admits is undergoing a long term slump compounded with the fact that the area's economically exploitable reserves are fast running out. I am also interested that you admit that the price had gone "way over the top" before the current correction. It's a pity Alex Salmond didn't make the same admission when he made his famous referendum projection based on $103 a barrel!

Let's now move on to the breathtaking assertion that "we were one of the richest countries in the world pre-1707". Which planet does this come from? The Scottish economy had generally been a historical basket case since Bruce was a boy and the most optimistic statement I can find is that "economic conditions were generally favourable from 1660 - 1688" before reverting to type as the backside rapidly fell out of it again. There was a slump not unlike the recent oil crisis and even before the brilliant scheme to try to sell the late 17th century equivalent of Ratners jewellery to central American Indians, the Scottish economy was in deepening trouble. The Darien Scheme merely made a bad situation a while lot worse and at the time of the Union, England had five times Scotland's population but 36 times its wealth - in other words per capita wealth in England was more than seven times that of Scotland. So one does have to start asking who actually has been bleeding whom?  The benefits of the Union were initially slow to materialise - but before you try to jump on this one, this was because Scotland was TOO POOR to be able to profit immediately from the improved market facilities.

Now I do realise that these stark realities don't quite articulate with the SNP Handbooks of Neverland Economics and Historical Grievance and are nothing more than the products of a universal media conspiracy. But, to return to the original Westminster theme of this thread, it might be better if the SNP presence there started explaining the party's anomalous and shambolic position over Europe (that's if SNP Central actually allows them to say anything at all on their own initiative.)

Edited by Charles Bannerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Ian Wood set out nothing Charles other than funds for his favourite Conservative politicians. Most of the time Wood, like you, talks through his erse. As for the Darien scheme, another of those subjects you deny from time to time, had it been allowed to work and not been kiaboshed by the greed and jealousy of other countries then who knows how it would all have turned out. Aye Charles, like the journalist you are, you omit to point out that the biggest destroyer of the Darien scheme, and as a result the economy of Scotland, was the Spanish navy and its blockades. Oh and the fact the English were not at war with Spain at this time so chose not to help their neighbours.

Lets also look at the continually quoted £7 billion black hole in Scotlands budget and look at it alongside our 9% share of the £100 billion Trident. Oh look we've now got a £2 billion surplus. As for oil, the thing thats never publicised is the fact that taxation from crude comes from oil company profits and not from the price. The other part of the taxation, and the one thats adjusted from time to time to boost exploration, is actually corporation tax.

But Charles you just continue to spout your unionist drivel and I'll continue to convince the masses of the merits of being free from oppression and who knows, perhaps in our lifetime we'll debate whether or not to provide foriegn aid from an independent Scotland to our poor southern neighbours.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling and that's all it is, that there is a divide between the leaders of the SNP and the rank and file.

I think the referendum campaign was an eye opener for the top people in the SNP , things like currency, banking , imports, etc., Had not been properly researched. The rank and file of the SNP supporters, would not have to implement Independence, but the leaders would have too.

If there is to be another campaign, I believe it will be far more professional than last time.

Having said all that, the SNP must be delighted with the back door status they have achieved post referendum, and  the considerable new powers that will come their way.

The problem with votes of this sort that they are very divisive and not really good for the country either at home or abroad, The bonds between England and Scotland that were cast iron, are very much weakened now.

Jokes on the Radio about Scotland take place on a irregular basis now, where before nobody I knew in England was much bothered about activities in the north.

The SNP will have a night to remember in the Scottish parliament elections, it could be they have a massive landslide, As other political bodies have found in the past with very large  majorities comes a lot of problems, when there is no notable opponent factions , develop and internal infighting takes over.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling and that's all it is, that there is a divide between the leaders of the SNP and the rank and file.

I think the referendum campaign was an eye opener for the top people in the SNP , things like currency, banking , imports, etc., Had not been properly researched. The rank and file of the SNP supporters, would not have to implement Independence, but the leaders would have too.

If there is to be another campaign, I believe it will be far more professional than last time.

Having said all that, the SNP must be delighted with the back door status they have achieved post referendum, and  the considerable new powers that will come their way.

The problem with votes of this sort that they are very divisive and not really good for the country either at home or abroad, The bonds between England and Scotland that were cast iron, are very much weakened now.

Jokes on the Radio about Scotland take place on a irregular basis now, where before nobody I knew in England was much bothered about activities in the north.

The SNP will have a night to remember in the Scottish parliament elections, it could be they have a massive landslide, As other political bodies have found in the past with very large  majorities comes a lot of problems, when there is no notable opponent factions , develop and internal infighting takes over.

 

 

The leader of SNP at time of referendum holds an honours degree in economics as well as HNC in business studies. He worked as an economist in former Scotland Office and then with RBS so I'm quite sure he would have done a lot of research into the eye opener you suggest Laurence. What yourself and many others fail to grasp is that the YES campaign was not led by SNP, although they had a lot of input, so the rank and file SNP supporters have no reason to be divided from the leadership. Indeed I believe the referendum and whats happened since has done nothing but good for the party and its members.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Alex

Many thanks for your reply I always find your comments to be more interesting  than those who shall remain nameless

I did Pre - empt  my comments as a feeling you know. nothing more nothing less

By the way my wife as 3 degrees and cant sing a note lol

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our problem is that we've been bled for the last 300 and more years and we cant seem to realise that eventually we'll be bled dry and then dropped like a hot stone to sort ourselves out.

Interesting mixture of metaphors. So it IS possible to get blood from a stone. :smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Alex

Many thanks for your reply I always find your comments to be more interesting  than those who shall remain nameless

I did Pre - empt  my comments as a feeling you know. nothing more nothing less

By the way my wife as 3 degrees and cant sing a note lol

I think the word you were looking for is preface

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy