Scottish independence, plus jokes.

Wings Over Scotland


Lying liars tell more lies

Posted on September 17, 2013 by

Yesterday we pointed out a pretty disgraceful misrepresentation by Labour of the findings of an impartial, non-political research study which found that an independent Scotland would be far better placed to reduce inequality. But it wasn’t the only one.

warmp

Here’s the party’s deputy leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, speaking at yesterday’s interesting two-hour BBC Radio 5 Live debate (for some reason that link only shows the last 50 minutes, although the earlier part had been televised too) at the Fruitmarket in Glasgow on the subject of child poverty.

We say “speaking”. We mean “lying”. In Sarwar’s case the words are interchangeable.

“Victoria [Derbyshire, debate host], important point about child poverty? An important point about child poverty is, look, don’t take, don’t take my word for it, don’t take the SNP’s word for it, don’t take any politician’s word for it. Why don’t we look at the independent, non-political Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which has already said that all the powers to actually address child poverty already exist in the Scottish Parliament…

[gasps from audience and Yes advocates, including SNP MSP Fiona Hyslop]

…and around housing, around education, around health; read the report, Fiona, I’m happy to send you it; the Joseph Rowntree say – but sadly they say, and this is crucial – that we have a Scottish Government that’s obsessed with the referendum and not actually changing Scotland.”

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is a serious and very highly-respected campaigning anti-poverty organisation, and it would be a heavy criticism indeed of the Scottish Government if it had said those things. But did it?

Devolve welfare powers to Scotland, charity suggests

Powers over welfare should be devolved to the Scottish Government, an influential social justice charity has suggested.

Dr James McCormick, Scotland Adviser to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said the welfare reforms currently being undertaken by the Westminster Government might be better delivered by Holyrood. This would allow Scotland to implement welfare to work policies that are based on its own distinctive needs and make for a more joined-up approach with related devolved policies like childcare, he told Holyrood.

“If welfare reform powers were devolved to Scotland as they are, for example, in Canada, I think we’d be making quite different choices on welfare to work than is being made by the coalition government.'”

Dr McCormick didn’t say that independence was necessarily required – he noted that merely devolving welfare, a move backed by 60% of Scots, would make a significant difference. But he made absolutely, unequivocally clear that the Scottish Government does NOT currently have those powers.

That is, quite plainly, the exact opposite of how Anas Sarwar represented the Foundation’s position. Sarwar asserted that the JRF said Holyrood already had the powers but was too obsessed with independence to use them.

We’ve scoured the Foundation’s website for more recent reports (the one above is from 2010) which might make such a claim, but have drawn a blank. The JRF’s most recent commentary on the subject of poverty in Scotland which mentions the independence debate appears to be one from the 21st of January this year.

It correctly notes that the Scottish Parliament has control over SOME aspects of policy which relate to poverty (including health and education, areas in which the Scottish Government is already acting by protecting free healthcare and tuition), but categorically does NOT state that it has, in Sarwar’s words, all the powers”.

It makes absolutely NO suggestion, explicit or implicit, that the Scottish Government is “obsessed with the referendum and not actually changing Scotland”.

And interestingly, it also says this:

“Cuts to benefits are on the horizon and we should be under no illusion the outlook is ominous. We report estimates that some 20,000 people will lose their disability living allowance, and 65,000 people claiming employment support allowance will move off benefits altogether. The effects of these cuts will make some already poor people even poorer, while plunging others into poverty and hardship.

But there are opportunities to make life better for people. The political discourse is understandably dominated by next year’s referendum on independence, but there is a lot to be said for using this political landscape to improve matters. A discussion on poverty and how to reduce it must be central to independence: the referendum is, after all, about the kind of country Scotland wants to be.

(Our emphasis.) The Foundation’s opinion appears to be that rather than a dangerous distraction from tackling poverty, the prospect of independence is a welcome opportunity to force the subject of poverty to the forefront of political debate.

We invite Anas Sarwar to send us the report he offered to send Fiona Hyslop allegedly backing up his claims. Otherwise we invite him to apologise publicly for what appears to be a flat-out and despicable lie. But either way we won’t be waiting by our inbox with bated breath.

EDIT 4.25pm: the Foundation responds.jrf

Seems pretty clear to us – Sarwar’s assertion that “all the powers to actually address child poverty already exist in the Scottish Parliament” is a lie. We don’t expect the JRF to word it any more strongly than that, because frankly people like us would use it for political ends. But we’ll be watching Anas Sarwar’s Twitter feed closely for the clarification and apology that must surely be imminent. Yeah, right.

Print Friendly

137 to “Lying liars tell more lies”

  1. Robert Louis says:

    Should Fiona Hyslop have known this?  Or is that an unrealistic expectation?  Are senior SNP people getting just a touch complacent in their preparations for such debates??
     
    It isn’t just the media who are letting Sarwar away with this kind of behaviour with impunity.

  2. Doug Daniel says:

    What’s the betting the “report” Anas claims to be in possession of has “TOP SECRET” stamped across it?

  3. westie7 says:

    What effect did that have if any for the rest of the debate.
     
    Couldnt possibly watch… blood pressure and all that :)

  4. Marcia says:

    I think that we will have year of ‘misspeak’ from the No side. It is a pity lying politicians cannot be prosecuted. If they could then we would have total silence from many.

  5. Robert Louis says:

    Doug,
     
    As it is “top secret”, it will be shown to nobody but Brian Taylor.  Probably.

  6. david says:

    he even looks like a liar, i would accuse him of being a lying rat but i have respect for rats

  7. Richard Lucas says:

    Poor  old Anas, the Charles Windsor of Scottish politics, brought up in his world of wealth and privilege surrounded by flunkeys and sycophants, probably never has had the chance to learn that what he thinks and reality are two different things.

  8. Philip says:

    Hi,
    Do you know if there is anywhere online where this debate can be heard by those of us who are currently abroad?
    Sounds like it was interesting to say the least.
    Phil

  9. Doug Daniel says:

    Robert Louis – it must be said, Fiona Hyslop was not brilliant. Solid enough, but she missed some real open goals. It was just as well Elaine C. Smith was there as well. For instance, the point about Scotland being £7 billion in deficit should be met with the twin points that 1) that deficit has been incurred under the union’s rule, 2) Norway is the only country in Europe without a deficit, and 3) it’s still a smaller debt-to-GDP ratio than the UK as a whole.
     
    It was left to Brian Taylor of all people to point this out, with someone from the audience really hitting the point home. All Fiona did was fudge the question, and come out with a line which has seemingly given BetterTogether an easy cheap shot.

  10. Richard Lucas says:

    Undecided voters should vote ‘Yes’ if for no other reason than to see the look of shocked disbelief on Anas’s coupon when the result is announced.

  11. david says:

    this man literally does talk out his anas. im sure people  see him for what he is 

  12. Macart says:

    I know you don’t like people to deliberately mangle Mr Sarwar’s name in print Rev, it can be childish and unhelpful. However right about now I’m feeling particularly childish toward this lying wee nyaff.
     
    We can think it whilst typing can’t we?

  13. benarmine says:

    The guy’s not very bright. He shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near an adult debate after his displays over the last week or so. And a functioning media would follow this up. Where do we look to for honest media after next September when we know so many cannot be trusted?

  14. They should stop inviting him to debates. The way he conducted himself in the STV debate with Nicola Sturgeon was completely unprofessional.

    Not answering questions, not allowing his opponent to speak and pulling out worthless pieces of paper claiming them to be something they weren’t… and that’s before you get to the fact that he just lies through his teeth when he does say anything.

    If the BBC, STV or anyone else want to conduct a serious and credible debate then they should not invite him to take part.

  15. Geoff Huijer says:

    It would seem that we live in a society where politicians and the media can just flat out lie and get away with it.
     
    This is a disgraceful example to be setting to our children and a disgusting way to treat our citizens in general.
     
    If Anas Sarwar told me it was Tuesday today I would seek a second opinion. It seems all he has are lies; and they can’t all be ignorance of facts or mistakes all the time!

  16. Sneddon says:

    RL  when someone drop s a massive and huge lie on you I’d expect Fiona’s reaction to mirror anyone else’s.  Jaw drop, ‘WTF’ expression.  Anas is a talentless second son of another liar whose claim to fame is that he’d rather be a politican in Pakistan than Glasgow.  May his number two son join him soon.

  17. Taranaich says:

    See, this is why I couldn’t watch the debate despite all the good things I’ve heard about it: I don’t want to give myself another aneurysm from hearing outright, categorical lies.

  18. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    We can think it whilst typing can’t we?”

    That’s fine. We all do that :D

  19. Macart says:

    @benarmine
     
    The public can clean house, simple as that. There will be huge scope for new media news outlets, broadcasting opportunities and even old dead tree. Where there’s a market, there’s a way. Those with an eye for opportunity, the talent and the backing will take note and act accordingly. People will make their views known with their wallets and their time. The established media are on notice. 

  20. Macart says:

    @Rev
     
    Cool. :D

  21. Richard Lucas says:

    It’s not as if Anas is even any good at lies.  He’s like a 10 yr old from a petless home claiming that the dog ate his homework.

  22. Angus says:

    The dreadful Anas Sarwar from Labour can shout any old shite until held to account properly and directly where the headlights will home in on him very easily………anyone remember the annoying labour MSP Richard Baker (who was always well reported shouting away but held back a bit now) and his claims on knife crime in the 2011 elections?
    Labour would like to forget, because this is what happens when just one programme questions a load of bollocks……watch and laugh, totally caught out, completely worth the ten minutes to watch:
     

  23. David Milligan - a very Sovereign Scot says:

    I heard many good arguments from the yes side yesterday, but the constant drone of Anas Sarwar created an annoying backdrop that sought to shut down any positive messages.
    He failed and any remaining kudos that e had was thrown out the window and can now be regarded as an annoying politician who needs to occupy the centre stage everywhere he goes as he attempts to drone out the opposition by constantly making noises.  He will say anything to protect his MP’s salary and his lifestyle.  Labour to the core, eh?
    Kindest regards,
    David Milligan Lvss

  24. Morag says:

    Anas can’t be that stupid, if he came out of Glasgow Uni with a BDS.  Insulated from reality is maybe more like it.
     
    Also, the ability to lie is in my view related to upbringing.  Children brought up by parents who do not themselves tell lies and who indoctrinate the child with the ingrained notion that lying is very very bad, tend not to do it.  Or not very often.
     
    Look who brought Anas up.

  25. balgayboy says:

    Robert Louis- I agree with your statement regarding Fiona Hyslop not attacking or at least strenuously responding to the charlatan’s B.S. The SNP politicians in these televised debates need to start being more proactive and assertive with their opposition. No use resting on the laurels of the FMQ’s where the First Minister administers the weekly boot up the ass to the opposition.

  26. alexicon says:

    Look! Sarwar is not interested in the truth-he is only interested in getting a sound-bite out.
    His defence is to lie and have an answer for any criticism thrown at him or the Labour party.
    He is spreading confusion amongst the masses, that’s what he designed to do and if anyone on here suggest he should have morals or he should at least tell the truth, then forget it-he won’t.
    We all know this, but to the man or woman on the street they won’t be too certain.
    It is time that the YES campaign got street-wise to this tactic from the no campaigners and started putting up candidates for these programmes, people who will tell it as it is-he or she lying.
     
    @Philip-try iplayer.
     
    @RL- Good to see you’re still about. Alx1 from NNS.

  27. gordoz says:

    Simple Question :
    Are there no respecatable faces in authority of the No Campain ??
    Wheres the positive female case ?  Wheres the female agenda of No !
    Yes side had 3 
    Is the No campaign only Sarwar ??

  28. annie says:

    David –  I think Anas Sarwar’s brief is to shut down the positive message from the Yes side and it doesn’t matter how he does it he will not be held to account by anyone from the MSM.

  29. Soda says:

    Is it SLABs policy to come across as ignorant and as stupid as they believe the electorate to be? Is it their way of connecting to the common man as they believe the common man to be? How do we educate our population to see these people for what they really are. I still hear workmates and friends say things like “I just dont trust that Salmond”. How, after you have led the equine to aqua do you get the buggers to imbibe?

  30. Albalha says:

    @sideshowmanyy
    Sadly the media organisations will be told who’re they’re getting and they’d rather have someone in the debate from BT than no one. Evidently at the moment BT are putting forward A Sarwar when asked for a spokesperson.

  31. PRJ says:

    Sarwar is either a scapegoat lienced by the Labour party to spread Fear Uncertainty and Doubt and then to be fired when he is of no use. Or he is totally ignorant and hasn’t a clue. Either way he hasn’t a future in the Labour party esspecially when his usefulness is of no further benefit.

  32. Eddie says:

    After listening to the 5 Live debate I have one very important question – does Anus Sarwar ever shut up?  No matter what the question he drones on and on trying to talk over whoever is asking the question.  Is it a matter of him thinking that if he says it often enough, people will believe him?

  33. david says:

    he will have been promised ermine should scotland say no…one better than pater 

  34. Murray McCallum says:

    Quite simply, I think the Scottish public will see Anas Sarwar as a true reflection of what New Labour have come to represent.
     
    Looking at the origins JRF and the businesses of the Rowntree brothers, I wonder if people believe Rowntree Mackintosh became a member of Nestle in 1988? Is that how unionists view the World?

  35. Albert Herring says:

    I’m sure I heard Brian Taylor pronounce Sarwar’s name as “An ass”. Deliberate?

  36. Macart says:

    You wonder if the short, sharp, shock would work on the boy. Y’know basically someone on live telly, telling him to sit down and shut up, whilst not being directly addressed. Problem being there isn’t an arbiter on telly with the cojones to do the job right. Ponsonby and possibly Eddie Mair may have the steel to ignore the system and conduct a proper live debate. Ideally though the public need someone of their choice who owes no one any favours to slap down the ridiculous and pounce on the liars and the rude.
     
    Is there actually such an arbiter out there?

  37. CameronB says:

    Did someone mention Anas?
     

  38. Training Day says:

    Sarwar’s tactic has been modifed recently but is explicit, for he articulated it in public only last week.  He begins by rejecting any notion that what he is about to say is ‘scaremongering’, before proceeding to ask what he calls ‘legitimate questions’.  He neither provides any answers nor offers any constructive vision for Scotland post a No vote – that is not his job.  His job is only to bog the debate down with ‘legitimate questions’.
     
    The change in tack, incidentally, shows that the ‘Project Fear’ perception is hitting home at BT.

  39. balgayboy says:

    I reckon it could be easy during these debates or discussions to call the liar out while being televised in front of the watching audience in the studio and elsewhere. Put them on the spot and challenge the liars to commit their dubious evidence to open scrutiny. To do that the opposing debaters need to be on top of their game. 

  40. Eddie says:

    It should be very easy to call him out over the ‘bedroom tax’ lie and if I had been at that debate I would have done so.  Curse you work, for getting in the way.

  41. pa_broon74 says:

    I see he’s deployed the ‘Sarwar Finger technique’ again.
     
    Presumably because it worked so well during the STV debate?
     
    Ummm…

  42. Angus says:

    A part of the article demonstrates the frustration over a proper debate where statements are scrutinised and held to proper account as either vlid or not.

    Eventually people who are talking garbage (as Sarwar is) with little or no proper scrutiny become totally whitless arsecakes when they eventually have to back up their rhetoric with reasonable questions that demand properly thought out answers, you expect a labour MP to appear at least to have more idea of the subject matter than, say, a pot noodle:

  43. david says:

    i wonder what seat in scotland he will demand when he needs to leave westminister and join slab ?

  44. Morag says:

    How, after you have led the equine to aqua do you get the buggers to imbibe?
     
    Haha!  My speciality.  My one original contribution to science, to figure out why the buggers don’t drink.  It’s because they only drink once all the work has been done and they’re home free.  They don’t drink if they think it’s only a pause before continuing.
     
    Not sure if that helps, mind.

  45. david says:

    they dont drink coz they are not thirsty ?

  46. Doug Daniel says:

    The thing with Sarwar is he’s allowed to get away with it, so he keeps doing it. Victoria Derbyshire had the right attitude, quickly realising that every time he opens up his gob, a load of rubbish spills out, and made her annoyance at his long, meandering nonsense clear. If Scottish journos would start doing that, perhaps he’d get the message?
     
    (I know fine he wouldn’t, by the way.)

  47. Jaki McCarthy says:

    The problem we have with politicians like Sarwar is that he like many others actually believe their own lies. The Scottish people aren’t stupid. Far from it. 

  48. ronald alexander mcdonald says:

    He may have the IQ of a genius (very much doubt it) but a liar is a liar. He obviously thinks he can tell blatant lies and get away with it. He is delusional. People aren’t that stupid.

    The problem the Labour party have is that the creation of The Scottish Parliament has exposed them. Their exposure has been further accentuated with the referendum. To misquote Lincoln. Better to remain silent and be thought of  as a gorilla with a red rosette than speak up and remove all doubt.  

  49. balgayboy says:

    From the little I saw of the whole debate I think Tony Kenny’s input had more impact on the show and hopefully the public via youtube than anyone else. Down to earth and from the heart.

  50. Philip says:

    Thanks sideshowmanny!
     
    IPlayer doesn’t work for us abroad :( It can be hard to keep up!
     
    Phil

  51. CameronB says:

    I forgot to say, quack, quack.
     
    P.S. We were never at war with Eastasia.

  52. Gillie says:

    Sarwar is a habitual liar.  That is probably the reason why he took up dentistry and joined the Labour party. 

  53. MajorBloodnok says:

    @Susan
     
    Just reading the words in the link made me want to go and wash my hands.

  54. handclapping says:

    @Gillie
    Not true, he took up dentistry as it gave him the chance to talk without being answered back :)

  55. Albalha says:

    @Philip
    This is a good clip just posted on Bella Caledonia.
     
    http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2013/09/17/saffron-for-yes/

  56. Tony Little says:

    For those of us outwith the UK, Peter Curran (TAofMoridura) has the debate on line now.  Worth a punt.
     
    http://www.youtube.com/user/TAofMoridura

  57. balgayboy says:

    Hold no illusions, if Scotland vote YES next year, Anas and his ilk will be candidates at the following  Scottish election. Remember them now.

  58. Iain says:

    Sarwar is not stupid, but he is not sufficiently quick witted, informed or articulate to be able to debate. But he is effective in reducing debate to a barney, which will at least obscure the Yes campaign’s arguments. He has picked up the Labour tactic of using up time and thereby denying it to opponents. He has realised that you can make things up: this diverts opponents into refutation, then he repeats, and so on, with time passing – and the hardcore Labour support will assume his lies are true (Hitler’s observation of the big lie being believeable, because who would tell a big lie in public?), so they think he’s doing well. Maybe TV interviewers and chairpersons will start to hold him in check – I believe Victoria Derbyshire did, but John MacKay on STV appeared out of his depth.

  59. Albalha, God, that wee lassie wis good. 

  60. Seasick Dave says:

    Albalha
     
    That was enjoyable while it lasted!
     
    Scotland needs to be talked up not down.

  61. Tony Little says:

    Hmm, link not working?
     
    http://www.youtube.com/user/TAofMoridura

  62. Gillie says:

    Saffron for Yes!, ““We don’t want supremacy, we want equality! We won’t be silenced by your ideology!”
     
    Brilliant.
     
    There is hope.

  63. Tony Little says:

    Sorry all – seems Moridura is audio only, no pics :(

  64. balgayboy says:

     
    The Tree of Liberty says: @12.20
    Yup, the wee lassie did well, what we need now is the big lassie, mother and the auld wummin onboard as well to get over the line.

  65. Albert Herring says:

    he is not sufficiently quick witted
     
    More like quack witted.

  66. Macart says:

    Saffron for independence
     
    That young lady deserves loads of big smiley things.
     
    Well done and very well said.

  67. Edulis says:

    I am non-plussed as to whether I want Anas to be on the panel tomorrow night in the BBC’s Referendum Big Debate in Inverness. I’ve got a ticket so Stuart’s analysis provides good ammunition, but if anybody would like to give me some killer questions, I am all ears.

    I agree that Fiona Hyslop needs to up her game. The Labour for Indy guy showed us the passion that is needed. It is the combination of passion and incisive analysis that will win us this.

    Personally, I want to see Mike Russell on the panel.

  68. benarmine says:

    balgayboy, absolutely. If I’m not mistaken he actually said yesterday he’d work for Scotland if the vote went that way, if I managed to decipher some of his gibberish. I’m afraid our ordeal of having to stomach these clowns will continue afterwards but at least we’ll know who had the last laugh.

  69. Boorach says:

    Young Saffron was absolutely wonderful!
     
    Her exuberance should be an example to us all.
     
    Coincidentally, Bateman has used just that joyfullness as his topic this AM…. enjoy!

  70. Desimond says:

    War MP…judging by reports in Private Eye about trips for Arms deal chats along with his pal Jim Murphy, sounds an ideal title above

  71. Training Day says:

    “If I’m not mistaken he actually said yesterday he’d work for Scotland if the vote went that way”
     
    Doubtless he will attempt to, but he lacks the wit to see that he is being set up as the patsy for a Yes vote by more ruthless forces within his own party.  Murphy and Alexander are conspicuous by their absence from the debate, and that is because they will blow with the Yes wind.  Sarwar’s arrogance and volubility may not allow him to do that.

  72. turnip_ghost says:

    Let him keep spouting this rubbish….People aren’t stupid…ALL it takes is ONE paper…ONE journalist to wake up to the potential for politician bashing (and they all love that!) if they can get him alone…And they’d have a field day with them all…

    Switch sides after the turn of the year…I can think of a couple that will!

  73. Jimmy says:

    For those outside the UK, you can use Expat Shield to see iplayer. Free program. Just make sure you have add-block on :-)

  74. uilleam_beag says:

    Empire Biscuit Girl was fantastic – it’s amazing to see someone so young talking so passionately and eloquently about politics. We need more like her.

  75. James Morton says:

    what we are seeing here is a bizarre mutation of something called Putts Law, the peter principle or the Dilbert Effect. All essentially state that incompetence is flushed out at the lower levels of a hierarchical organisation, while those least competent are promoted into areas of management were they can do little harm. These people at the top are essentially managed from below.

    But in Labour, particularly in Scottish labour we are seeing a situation occur were all the competent people are flushed out at every level. Those taking over are the very sort of people who should only ever be in charge of ordering lunch or taking minutes.

    From Lamont, Gray & Sarwar on down we have this line up of utterly useless, incompetents, who have no sense whatsoever. From Gray’s shameful assertion that while he was hiding in a subway, Salmond was hiding in tesco, we see this complete mental breakdown in the party and a complete and utter breakdown in integrity and honesty. From Davidsons lies about voting against the bedroom tax, Duncan Hothersall saying labour’s mass abstention on workfare would allow a debate which is “better”, From 1970’s ladders, squirrels, 2nd hand pies and the endless pedantry…we now have this series of quite ridiculous smear attempts that can easily be done away with.
     
    They claim the Union is worth fighting for: But they choose to do so by making it and Scotland a laughing stock. When it gets right down to the wire and the serious campaigning starts in earnest against a backdrop of more don-dem insanity. The better together crowd had better have something better than brainfarts stinking out the room.
     

  76. Jeannie says:

    It’s because of people like young Saffron that I’m voting Yes.  It wasn’t her generation that turned the UK into the basket case it is now – it was ours.  And it’s not fair that her generation should be left to pick up the tab for our political generation.  Why should Saffron have to work well into her old age before she’ll get a pension when people of our generation have had early retirement opportunities.  Like others, I won’t get my state pension when I expected it and that’s bad enough – but it’s nowhere near as bad as what will happen to Saffron and her friends if we stay in the Union.
     
    Let’s not leave Saffron with all that debt to pay off.  It’s our responsibility – not hers.  I can think of nothing worse than leaving these young people to shoulder all OUR debt without making sure we leave them the means of paying it – we need to give them the oil, the gas, the renewables, the taxes, etc., in short, the means to grow the economy and make sensible decisions that will ensure they and their children will have a decent future.  You wouldn’t run up huge debts, sell all your assets and give the money away to somebody else, and then still leave your kids to pay off your debts for you, having given away their only means of doing so, because this would mean your kids would need to work themselves to death in order to pay the bills you ran up.  Why would anybody do that to their kids?  Yet, that is exactly what the Unionists are doing.  That is what a No vote means.  Thank God the Unionists aren’t my parents.

  77. scotbud says:

    He did say he wants to come back and work with the Scottish Government if it is a yes vote. This is the man who stood up in Westminster and declared that the SG was undemocratic, hypocrite and liar.

  78. alexicon says:

    Sort of O/T:
    Looks like the BBC has may have been rumbled rigging things again?
    One of the undecided voters who moved over to the no side on BBC5 debate, doesn’t even stay in Scotland and actually does some work for the BBC, allegedly :-)
    https://twitter.com/GrhmLttl/status/379644931637129218/photo/1
     
    Sorry if I spoiled your next thread Rev.
    Good work all round for those who caught this.
     

  79. Fairliered says:

    Given Anas Sarwar’s debating skills and methods – is he an OBE?

  80. Murray McCallum says:

    I think Saffron and Anas are at opposite ends of the honesty_sincerity spectrum. I think the entire population of Scotland would see that.

  81. Seasick Dave says:

    Alexicon
     
    Try wearing a See you Jimmy wig next time, Phil.

  82. john king says:

    “Not true, he took up dentistry as it gave him the chance to talk without being answered back”

      ha ha  brilliant handclapping

  83. Gillie says:

    Talking of young people the BBC have just launched GENERATION 2014.
     
    The story of 50 young people who will be 16 or 17 on 18 September 2014 and eligible to vote in Scotland’s Independence Referendum. They come from all over Scotland, from the Borders up to the tip of Shetland, from points east to the Western Isles.
     
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01gf7rb
     
    But it truly representative?
     
    You can understand for geographical reasons why BBC Scotland wanted to include youngsters from Orkney, Shetlands and the Herbrides, 4 in total; but and this is BIG BUT for the entire population of Angus, Perthshire, Dundee, Fife, Clackmannanshire, Stirling, Falkirk, Edinburgh,  West and East Lothian, namely 40% of Scotland total population, 2 million folk, there are only 4 youngsters representing that entire Central East area of Scotland.
     
    In comparison there are 4 youngsters from Motherwell alone. 
     
    This is not getting at these young folk, far from it, they should be involved; but GENERATION 2014 is not truly representative of young Scots. 
     
    It looks like BBC Scotland have balls’d up what was originally a good idea.

  84. James D says:

    A list of all his interview appearances and the specific lies that he has told on each occasion should be made and read out to him in response to anything he says.

    “You lied about X, Y and Z in the debate with Nicola Sturgeon, You lied about X, Y and Z in the Radio 5 debate, – Why should we assume that anything you say is not just another lie? You are clearly and demonstrably a compulsive liar!”

  85. Bonnie Lassie says:

    Sarwar is awful.  Just awful.  I’m ashamed he’s part of Scottish politics.  Is there no way to challenge his lies?  Why do the interviewers not challenge him?  His fake Scotland Bill papers with Nicola and now lying about Rowntree.  What are people supposed to think…do they believe the lies?  How can they be made to realise he lies?  I know they will get increasingly dirty but lies and fear can work.  How to combat this nincompoop?  He’s clearly terrified of losing his seat come independence. He’ll have to lie and scrap with the likes of Margaret Curran for a seat in the SP.  No wonder he’s lying.  He’s desperate and he’ll do anything to keep his macho London job.

  86. Albalha says:

    @jeannie
    Wow, very powerful post that’s the message that will win this, here’s the clip of the guy from the East End of Glasgow, if you haven’t seen it. A lot of folk in the debate talked about their children and their futures.

    As I keep saying it will take a wide range of YES voters to get us over the line, though I think we all share common goal, Scotland can be a much better place etc. The politics of that will come later, stage one first.

    http://nationalcollective.com/2013/09/16/undecided-voter-is-convinced-to-vote-yes-on-radio-5-live/

  87. alexicon says:

    Seasick Dave says:
    17 September, 2013 at 1:22 pm

    Alexicon
     
    Try wearing a See you Jimmy wig next time, Phil.
     
    Sorry, lost on me.

  88. Seasick Dave says:

    Alexicon
     
    The guy, Phil Parry, should have worn a disguise.

  89. balgayboy says:

    Got to now, wish I was with you all on Saturday. Together we will get there.

  90. Chic McGregor says:

    Moria 10:37am
    “I think that we will have year of ‘misspeak’ from the No side. It is a pity lying politicians cannot be prosecuted. If they could then we would have total silence from many.”

     
    One of the improvements to governance which should be enshrined in a Scottish Constitution is the extension of perjury law to pronouncements made by elected politicians on any public forum.  
     
    If they lie ie knowingly tell an untruth, they should be liable to arrest by the police and trial by jury.
     
    The philosophical justifications for this, are:
     
    That the political process in a democracy is essentially the same as a jury trial, only on a much larger scale.  Instead of a few weeks or months, the ‘trial’ lasts 4 or 5 years.
     
    The speakers for the defence (opposition) and prosecution (government) are trying to persuade the jury (electorate) of their case.  They represent a client (constituency).
     
    They would have taken an oath to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, part of a daily oath which they should make at the start of each days’s proceedings (another constitutional suggestion).
     
    At the end of the process the ‘jury’ votes having been informed throughout by the witnesses and observable evidence.
     
    Both the judicial system and the electoral process primarily serve justice, the latter, since they create statutory law which has supremacy over judicial rulings, even more so.
     
    Since lying by ‘witnesses’ in both cases can pervert the course of justice, it is right that punitive measure for those doing so should exist and they should apply equally in both theatres.
     
    Now, although the analogue above is a justification, I am not at all hung up on the word ‘perjury’.  If they want to call it something else – fine. But if that were part of a constitution then it would go some way to correcting a lot of the more extreme lying which goes on between elections and for referenda. It would, I think, be welcomed by the electorate and  make the outcome far mare likely to be just, since the ‘jury’ could have more confidence in the spoken evidence they have been subjected to.
     
    There are, of course, a couple of main issues with this.
     
    First, is the difficulty encountered in assembling sufficient evidence to establish in a court of law that the perpotrator was lying, rather than ‘mistaken’. It is not always easy for the police to get enough evidence to prove they knew that what they were saying was a lie.   However, in this modern age, with emails, texts, twitters, recordings from tape, crt or cell phones, it is a lot easier to prove that the accused did pronounce the the lie publicly and that they were aware that it was a lie.
    However, since, as someone said something like, ‘no-one has a good enough memory to maintain a lie indefinitely’, even the most arrogant politician, given the increased ways the police now have finding him/her out, would hesitate to do so if such a law existed.
     
    Second. The ability of elected representatives to make allegations in the debating chamber even if they are unsure of them, must be preserved and therefore a place of exemption for such a law, although there should, of course, be an internal process of censure and punitive measures which can be invoked in the case of otherwise pejorative or  defamatory claims are made or where distortion of readily available factual information occurs. 

    The reason for this, is that even if the accusation is only rumour based or speculative, it can be in the interests of democratic governance, especially when time is of the essence, that the accused be examined in the chamber where he/she can confirm/deny or present evidence to the contrary.
     
    Of course, the above idea is never going to be popular with most politicians so is unlikely, as it stands, to see the light of day.
     
    However, the way things are going, I can see the formation of a new party, let’s call it ‘The Truth and Tranparency’ party where something like the above, along with other measures I won’t go into right now, are the central planks of their manifesto and I would not be surprised to see it become very popular with  the electorate indeed.

  91. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “One of the undecided voters who moved over to the no side on BBC5 debate, doesn’t even stay in Scotland”

    The presenter said right at the start that there were people from the rest of the UK in the audience. The stuff about people allegedly being coached is more worrying, though.

  92. HandandShrimp says:

    The sad fact is that Rennie, Sarwar, Baillie and Lamont have nothing to say so all they can do is lie and misrepresent the words of others hoping that some of the nonsense they say will stick before it is meekly and all too often quietly corrected by the BBC and the press (if they even bother).
     
    It has reached the stage that when any of these people talk I expect lies.

  93. Edward says:

    Any ideas as to the two gentlemen are behind Sarwar?
    Noticed them suddenly get talking behind Sarwar as soon as Sarwar started to talk lie. Are they his  minders?

  94. Marker Post says:

    Can hardly blame Fiona Hyslop for not being prepared, ’cause you can never be sure what rubbish Sarwar will spout next. He’s quite likely to say something like, “Alex Salmond admitted on Twitter that he hates kittens”, and it’s impossible to rebuff that argument in the heat of the moment just in case Eck really did say that.
     

  95. Is Anas a pathological liar? Or is this just him doing his job? He is a pro politician who will do an about turn should the referendum deliver a yes vote. It’s like those tories who opposed devolution, but are queuing up for a list seat. You will never beat them at this game. No principals, no honour, shame on them.

  96. Eddie says:

    The guy who swayed the girl to the Yes side is not far wrong about the poverty in Glasgow’s East End. 
     
    I used to work for Social Work in Easterhouse, Ruchazie and Garthamlock and incidently I grew up in Possilpark. While working for the Fire Service in Springburn, I covered Springburn, Robroyston, Milton and Provanmill so I feel quite educated on the depth of poverty that is prevalent in these areas. 
     
    Hang your head in shame Labour.

  97. Albalha says:

    @Edward
    Re the guys behind Sarwar one has a visible name tag, maybe some clever person could enhance the image, or use a magnifying glass perhaps……

  98. Jeannie says:

    @albalha
     
    Yes – it’s a great clip, isn’t it.  Spoken straight from the heart.  Also, looking at the Saffron clip and comparing her with the other young lassie who was voting No, those two young women are the very personification of the phrase  – “the triumph of hope over fear”.  Saffron gives me hope for the future, but the other lassie just depresses me

  99. HandandShrimp says:

    The only thing we can do is round up his lies and make sure that we rebutt them everywhere. Leave people in no doubt as to why and where he is wrong. Come the final few weeks a few Yes referendum broadcasts and newspaper spreads could do a “the lies they tell” reminding people of not only of the neagativity of the No campaign but all the falsehood used to generate that negativity.  The simple fact is that he can’t refute the charge he was lying, waving false documents (even the pen was suspect) and misquoting people…because he was.
     
    I see Rennie is pulling the same stunt on economic data. If there was anyone who would struggle to understand economic data it is Willie Rennie.

  100. Edward says:

    There were some completely disgraceful comments and statements from the bussed in people
    such as the Welsh woman who thought it was disgraceful that Scot’s should only be concerned about their own poverty . This is the type of attitude that Scots have had to deal with over the decades. The ‘don’t think about your own, think about others’ guilt trip. Which has meant that over the years Scot’s have been expected to happily forgo things such as a decent transport infrastructure, or anything for the betterment of Scottish society in order to help ‘our brothers and sisters’ in England and wales.

    The syndrome actually extends out to the ‘Telethon’ guilt trip, where the UK as a whole is at the forefront of giving. except its probably the only country that does. Only when criticised did ‘children in Need’ became inclusive of giving to those that needed within the UK as well as overseas. Don’t get me wrong, we should help others. But what sticks in my throat is someone being bussed in from outside Scotland coming out with guff as if we should feel guilty about not considering those in England and Wales
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJSpgMjuUPQ&fb_source=message
    check at 03:28 mins into the clip

  101. HandandShrimp says:

    The two guys could be Labour Party minders there not to protect Anas but cosh him if he starts promising to scrap the bedroom tax again.

  102. gordoz says:

    Angus says:

    I love a good Labour balloon story !
     
    Your top from a choice of 3 ‘Liars for Labour ‘ ??
     
    A. Sarwar
    B. Baker
    C  Baillie

  103. Scottish_Snowboarder_;) says:

    balgayboy says:
    I reckon it could be easy during these debates or discussions to call the liar out while being televised in front of the watching audience in the studio and elsewhere.”

    This is a hugely difficult task of course as you aren’t going to know in advance which reports are going to be totally misrepresented. Easier to prepare if they were to chose documents that DID have some direct criticisms that might need to be addressed. How do you refute (live) a claim that’s been made up if you haven’t read the report? You might well have had someone read it and say “well there’s nothing to worry about there so you don’t need briefed on it” only to find it’s used anyway.

    What that requires is a superhuman memory for the detailed contents of a vast number of documents that aren’t relevant in the first place.

    So anyone watching this performance may well take Anas’ claims at face value and isn’t certain to see any subsiquent debunking which by it’s very nature has to come later on.

    It’s quite a clever tactic actually and the only way to combat it is to challenge the claims specificity at a later date. “on such and such a date you made this claim, we have now looked at the document and found that what it actually says is…” unfortunately there’s no-one going to do that on the telly.

  104. blunttrauma says:

    Anas is Anas is Anas.

  105. G H Graham says:

    Liars can only be tackled head on by demanding the evidence they claim to have.

  106. Albalha says:

    @Edward
    The oddest one for me was the English Parliament guy who spouted economic nonsense, pretty much unchallenged, said he wanted the English to have a voice and yet didn’t agree with a YES vote in Scotland.

  107. Brian Powell says:

    I would wonder why someone from the Rowntree Foundation wasn’t straight on to the BBC demanding that the lie be corrected.

    When Radio Four Today is covering an item, people from organisations who are quoted phone in during the programme to correct information.

  108. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “I love a good Labour balloon story !”

    I swear to God, gordoz, you’re TRYING to give me a brain haemorrhage before next year.

    Please. Please. Please. Stop. Triggering. [CITE] tags. By. Including. Namestamps. And. Timestamps. When. You. Quote. People.

  109. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Noticed them suddenly get talking behind Sarwar as soon as Sarwar started to talk lie. Are they his minders?”

    If you watch the clip, it’s more like they’re trying to hide their faces so they don’t get associated with his pish on telly :D

  110. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “I would wonder why someone from the Rowntree Foundation wasn’t straight on to the BBC demanding that the lie be corrected.”

    They’ve tweeted that they’re looking into the matter.

  111. gordoz says:

    Rev: Will do, did not realise I was still doing it.
    BBC 5 Live – did it really achieve anything inviting in people to the debate who cannot vote ? England, Wales & Northern Ireland dwellers – who cares ? Why not have a seperate show. They didn’t make sense half the time cause they don’t know the issues.

  112. Morag says:

    You know, it’s way too easy to mock Anas’s name by converting it to an anatomical term.  The fact that Anas is the biological taxonomic term for a duck, is funny enough.  But when you then factor in that the French for “duck” is “canard”, and that in English a “canard” is a word for an oft-repeated lie, it’s freaking hilarious.

  113. gordoz says:

    Sarwar is not even a good liar he is just loud, and using schoolboy taunt debating tatics which should be refereed better, to get to the answers from within the debate.
    The woman on 5 live yesterday was way better than Mackay on STV (he was useless)

  114. Albalha says:

    @BrianPowell
    Organisations, groups, politicians etc listen to Today as it’s expected but doubt they’re all glued to a Five Live Debate.

  115. HandandShrimp says:

    I suppose on the plus side, there is nothing more likely to make a Scot do something than somebody telling them they can’t.  :)

  116. Andy-B says:

    Mr Sarwar, and his clumsy fabrications are beginning to make my blood boil.
    No doubt some of the audience will believe this punchinello.
    If a no vote is returned next year, then we will REALLY see child poverty rise but unlike, many poor families on the edge just now, Mr Sarwar wont feel the pain.
     
     

  117. HandandShrimp says:

    We could just refer to him as the The Canard then – works for me. I tend to shy away from bum humour.  As an amateur astronomer I cringe every time I see Uranus. 

  118. Morag says:

    I have to admit, I already think of him as the Canard. It sort of seems to fit. In so many ways!

  119. Andy-B says:

    @Angus.
     
    Margaret Currans voice, sounds like someone poking the eye out of a cat with a wooden spoon, more oral garbage from the woman who’d never heard of Dennis Healy.

  120. alexicon says:

    Seasick Dave says:
    17 September, 2013 at 1:41 pm

    Alexicon
     
    “The guy, Phil Parry, should have worn a disguise”.
     
    Now I get it. Yes he should have put on a ‘hey jimmy’ hat and spoke like RabC if he wanted to be taken serious.
     
    Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
    17 September, 2013 at 1:53 pm

    “The presenter said right at the start that there were people from the rest of the UK in the audience. The stuff about people allegedly being coached is more worrying, though.”
     
    Coached meaning that they sit in the undecided section even though the bbc, maybe even the presenter, knew he had no vote in Scotland?
    Or coached in the sense that people, pro unionists’, were told what to ask?
    I think my first point could be classed a deception and outright manipulation of the facts. Whereas coaching on what questions are asked is a sure sign that the bbc is trying to stifle free speech in Scotland’s debate. No change there then.
    No wonder I don’t pay my licence.

     
     

  121. Taranaich says:

    “We don’t want supremacy, we want equality! We won’t be silenced by your ideology!”
     
    That is so beautifully succinct. I would say Saffron would have an incredible career as a politician, but why would you waste such clear intellect and sincerity on politics?
     
    Then I remembered: an independent Scotland’s politics don’t have to be the miasma of self-serving, petty, Byzantine cronyism as bitingly depicted on Yes, Minister and House of Cards. The Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem parties are because that’s how Westminster is: the SNP, SSP and others aren’t nearly as full of numpties and clegs. Obviously no party is perfect and there are unpleasant elements in all of them (as in all walks of life), but it’s a pretty clear division.
     
    Despite the old joke about “honest politician” being an oxymoron, there is no reason that, with time, that can’t be changed. Society changes, people change, governments change. The office of politician is held in the same level of contempt as bankers and tax collectors: why not try to change that?

  122. Albert Herring says:

    @Handandshrimp
    You’d cringe even more if you got a keek at Mars.

  123. Jeannie says:

    @Desimond
     
    That IS funny :-)

  124. kendomacaroonbar says:

    Anas Sarwar does come out with regular Kamikaze comments because he can get away with it. From now on I shall refer to him as  ‘the discredited Anas Sarwar’  feel free to do the same, I guess he’s earned it.
     

  125. kendomacaroonbar says:

    O/T
     
    Stu,  I know you are a very busy hombre an’all, but would you give consideration to fellow Wingslanders crowd funding a 2013 Award along the lines of ‘Rear of the year’…freudian slip, was thinking of the discredited Anas Sarwar…but you get the jist…  5 or 6 award categories and a nice little WOS statue to the winners ?
    Who would win the Pants on Fire award for 2013 eh ?

  126. Edward says:

    @Albalha, I noticed that to about the English Parliament guy . To be honest the whole programme was peppered with ill informed comment or down right lies from those on the No campaign side as well as supposed don’t know’s . Its a case of where to start!
    We had the Slovakian girl, who had been in Scotland a year and formed the opinion that Scotland should stay part of the UK (yeah just like Slovakia then, keeping Czechoslovakia!). Next to her was someone called Mark from Ireland, who accused the YES campaigners of being anti English as well as spurious rubbish. He, I think was also the one that spouted that Scotland’s tourism industry would be harmed due to ‘VAT’ as tourists would have to pay more ‘VAT’ – yes I had a lot of problems stopping my jaw hit the floor with that one. Basically from Better Together it was your totally ignorant advise that Scotland will not manager alone, will have border controls etc. I was have expecting your plague of frogs and locusts and fire to rain down if Scotland had the cheek to vote yes

  127. Juteman says:

    Folk don’t need to know the questiions beforehand if debating with The Duck.
    Whatever he says, just call him a liar. If he disputes it, just say you were referring to his previous proven lies, and you’ll look into the truth of what he has just said, later.

  128. Helpmaboab says:

    The more I see of Anas Sarwar, the more I develop a deep and genuine dislike of him.

    He is dishonest, arrogant, rude and no-very-bright. He seems to have only a passing knowledge of and involvement in Scottish society. Given that he has no visible political skills I must assume that he owes his position to nepotism and the generous political donations of his father and the family business.

    Viz, he is the best personification of the Scottish Labour party active just now. Does the unionist camp really think he is an asset to their cause?

  129. Brian Powell says:

    I’ve just read an article on National Collective, ‘Letter from Catalonia; 3′. The writer was at the Catalonia’s National Day, taking part in the 400km human chain, the Catalan Way
    Three things struck me:
    -The Catalonian press had announced it a success even before it started.
    -When the writer spoke to people there he talked to them about their and the Scottish Independence campaign. He asked if there was the Cringe. They said why would you have that.
    -There was a video of the Catalans singing their national anthem in a packed stadium, with Freedom Catalonia in huge letters in the stands.
    All this, without a legal framework to support them.
    I think if we have No, they will look at at us in amazement, puzzlement and maybe some sorry and despair. But only for a little while, then they will get on with building a free-er Catalonia.

  130. CameronB says:

    Re. R.E.S.P.E.C.T;
     
    Surely Manu Tuilagi tops Ek at Wimbledon? The thing is, our FM was celebrating a Scottish victory, where as Tuilagi was demonstrating that the PM engenders no respect.
     
    Perhaps the Beeb has started on the ‘calm pills’, since the peasants started revolting off-script and in public?

  131. Chic McGregor says:

    Morag and HandandShrimp
     
    SuBo, JaBa and RuDa,, give or take a letter or two, have differing degrees of appropriateness phonetically or in meaning in regard to the person concerned.  
     
    But applying the same nickname transformation rule to Anas Sarwar simply doesn’t work since that is the last thing he would produce.

  132. faolie says:

    Rev, brilliant stuff.
     
    In response, I wrote to the editor of the Herald asking him to expose Sarwar’s faleshood. Pointless and useless I know, but…

  133. Chic McGregor says:

    If it looks like the BBC, talks like the BBC and lies like the BBC it’s a duck
     
    http://www.bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk/index.php/city-news/531-bird-watchers-let-down-in-glasgow.html



Comment - new users please read this page first for commenting rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use the live preview box.

Current ye@r *




↑ Top