Spot the difference
What Ian Davidson MP, chair of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee assessing the independence referendum, thinks about people with financial vested interests being consulted on political matters if one of those people is Prince Charles:
“This is a scandal and an anachronism. The idea that the Prince has a right to be consulted on legislation which might impact on his interests belongs to a bygone era.” (Daily Mail, March 2012)
What Ian Davidson MP, chair of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee assessing the independence referendum, thinks about people with financial vested interests being consulted on political matters if one of those people is Ian Davidson MP:
Something’s not quite the same, but we can’t put our finger on it. Can anyone help?
Parcel of Rogues, Mark II?
You’re right. After “Vested Interests”, simmet’s up.
Historically, the laws of Scotland are based on the precept that “The King (or Sovereign) is answerable to the law, the people and to God”.
Historically, European Law is based on the precept that “What Pleases the Prince Pleases the People”. The prince being supreme ruler.
So, if one was a prince, hypocrite or Ian Davidson one would chose whichever line best suited ones vanity at any given time
His comment ” but we choose not too” speaks volumes
AngusBMacNeilMPVerified?@AngusMacNeilMP3h
@theSNP This is the sort of report title that Davidson & Comm Cronies produce. The non political Commons staff laugh:-) pic.twitter.com/iXvZ2JDm
You have to laugh at the stupidity of this man He obviously doesn’t appear to realise that he is a buffoon first class
His comment ” but we choose not too” speaks volumes
One sentence that sums up the whole persona of Davidson and the PLP view of Scotland and Holyrood.
From this:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/alex-salmond-told-to-listen-to-the-people-1088167
To this:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/davidson-row-with-bbc-over-snp-bias-escalates.18423451
I won’t be buying The Herald again anytime soon.
Nice find. By employing Gardham as political editor, the Herald does rather seem to have nailed its colours to the mast of the Dark Side. Oh well.
Sorry folks but I’ve just found this over on NNS.
http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/5570-bbc-bias-row-escalates-as-labour-mp-makes-new-conspiracy-allegation
I haven’t read the full article yet, I’m still recovering from the FIRST sentence:
“A Scottish Labour MP at the centre of a row over claims of BBC bias, has today made fresh allegations that he may have been the victim of a conspiracy.”
Was this Muppet checked out BEFORE going on air to ensure he was neither drunk or high on drugs?
If not why not?
http://tarffadvertiser.blogspot.co.uk/
have a peekaboo
Yes, he is now demanding an apology from them!!! The sheer gall of the man is beyond belief.
Can he really be that potty and stupid? Surely…surely it has to be an act, some sort of play for something or a media distraction? Something. Anything.
OT – But I think you will like this one Stu.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-827222
Here’s another interesting “spot the difference”. Labour, along with other unionist parties, insist on a one-question in-or-out referendum for Scotland, but in 2008 Ian Davidson MP wrote a letter to Nick Clegg MP about a LibDem proposal for a single question in-or-out referendum on the EU. In his letter Mr. Davidson states that it is unfair to force voters to choose between in or out and that a second question should be added on the Lisbon Treaty. The second question allowed for continuing membership of the EU, but with a different constitutional relationship.
This letter can be found on, of all places, the Conservative Home website!
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2008/02/could-we-get-a.html
“Here’s another interesting “spot the difference”.”
Brilliant.
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/ian-davidson-calls-for-second-question/