Tories in red
As we’ve mentioned before, it really has been a revelation to discover that the Daily Record’s iPad app – which gives you the entire printed paper, not just the selection of stories that reach the Record website – is free on weekdays. Today, for example, it brought us a large not-online Page 2 piece on former Tory cabinet minister Liam Fox’s idiotic hardline policy suggestions for the party, which were expertly ridiculed by Conservative commentator Alex Massie yesterday.
Thanks to Mr Massie’s splendid work, there’s no need for us to bother with Fox’s comments. What we noticed instead was the Record’s analysis of them.
“In a speech that recalled the worst of Margaret Thatcher, he demanded an end to universal benefits for pensioners, such as bus passes and winter fuel payments.” (Our emphasis)
The Record being the Record, of course, it also provided a response from Labour:
“Labour’s shadow Scottish secretary Margaret Curran rubbished the speech. She said ‘It tells you everything you need to know about the Tories that the best way to endear yourself to the party faithful is to call for more welfare cuts at a time when Scottish families are already hurting.'”
(We’ll pass over the oddness of Curran only highlighting the suffering of Scottish families when Fox’s proposals were aimed at the entire UK. Does she believe English, Welsh and Northern Irish families are doing fine under austerity?)
It’s fortunate for Scottish Labour that the Tories are the only party currently suggesting the ending of universality when it comes to services like bus passes for the elderly, isn’t it? Because otherwise, having that as your official party policy (rather than the mere ravings of a disgraced renegade backbencher) might make you look like the worst and most laughable sort of hypocrite.
Wee Maggie
Wee Maggie came charging fae oot o’ the east
A wee bauchle wha thinks she’s a big fighting beast
Wi a vice like a foghorn, and charms sadly lacking
But wee Milly must rate her, for he’s gien her his backing
Noo she’s wants a red case, aye, that’ll come in handy
Tae cairry aroon her beano and dandy
Alang wi the forms tae mak oot a’ her claims
There’s a big hoose tae be kept, and a couple o’ weans
So she canny miss oot on ocht that is gawn
For some day she micht be back at the pawn
She shadows oor Mike, an arderous task
When oot robbing, Dick Turpin, at least wore a mask
But he’d better watch oot wi oor Mags on his case
The new bools in her mooth she micht spit in his face
Wi her lips puckered up like a cairt-horses dornel
She slithers aroon like a slimey wee hornel
She showed us her best oan that memorable day
When she ran intae Subway ahent Iain Gray
I’ll stand up for Scotland, I hear her cry noo
Well there’s mare chance o’ me thinking a bull is a coo
Scots—-Dornel—–a horses anus
Hornel—–a European sand eel
I’m confused, Stu. Labour would never be hypocrites. For instance they’re totally consistent about the Bedroom Tax. Well, except when they’re not, like on the Daily Politics yesterday when Helen Goodman admitted that Labour think it should be imposed on people who have refused smaller accommodation:
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2013/mar/labours-bedroom-tax-hypocrisy-condemned
On Twitter today, Willie Bain is showing that the Bain Principle now extends towards his OWN PARTY’S policies.
Labour on the bedroom tax………
http://brightgreenscotland.org/
Link has YouTube video with Helen Goodman confirming Labours thinking/position on bedroom tax.
Unbeleivable
Vote red tory, to keep the blue tories oot!
O/T BBC Comments open on 16 & 17 yo voters.
Some horrendous commenting from the BritNats. Alex Salmond akin to Adolf gathering his Hitler youth, the fat dictator, Kim Jong Il etc etc. Shifty Salmond corrupting our precious children, skewing the vote etc etc. The dreadful cybernats will be coming to the rescue shortly etc etc.
Meanwhile UKIP are suggesting the Btriain could be the new Norway- using Scotland’s oil of course!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-21715114
O/T. Just read the comments on BBC 16/17 y.o. vote. What a lot of ill informed racist bile mostly from our lovely neighbours south of the border. Makes me wonder where they get their information. It isn’t as if they get the daily propaganda from BBC Scotland / Scottish MSM.
It’s all coming together quite nicely. Or should that be Better Together?
They’re doing it deliberately. 😀
@The Man in the Jar …
They’re not informed at all, I know I live in London! They just see it as black and white.
Progressive Scotland = bad
Archaic England = good
What we have is a glut of Tory/EDL/BNP/UKIP/DUP voters pouring hate on anything they see as a threat to the Union flag. But that also means that the constituent nations outside of England must be subservient to the Union flag. A lot of frustration being spouted by these people on comment pages comes from the racist hate they have for immigrants. They can’t spout off about that to the same aggressiveness because they’ll get done for blatant racism, so they go for the nearest threat they can get a away with their bile.
@The Man in the Jar
What you also have to remember is scale. If 0.01% of any nationality consists of racist idiots who will spout bile on an internet forum, that would be 520 Scots, but 5,300 English people.
The unacceptable aspect here is that BBC Scotland is hiding their “no comments allowed” policy behind the occasional UK-wide story.
O/T on the BBC TV news reporting of the 16/17 year old voting entitlement.. wouldn’t you know it, they couldn’t just report the story on its own merits and leave it at that. Nope, they wheeled out Prof John ‘rogue poll, all is well with Labour this fine month of May 2011’ Curtice to reinforce the message that there’s no evidence that this age group are any more likely to vote for independence than anyone else..
In a way you have to give Boothman credit, he never misses a trick..
On the topic of iPad use, is the Daily Record unique in free weekday access? I wouldn’t mind shoving some newspaper apps onto my iPad but I just know of the ones which cost, either immediately or after a trial period. Anybody know of any others?
@Tamson & The Man in the Jar …
At the 2010 UK General Election almost 1.7million people voted either BNP/UKIP/DUP/NF that can be considered anti-Scottish independence, that represents three per cent of the UK population. So, even if 10 per cent of that figure are actually racist it still leaves around 170,000 potential bile mongerers against Scottish Independence that comment on BBC/Daily Mail/Daily Express/Telegraph web pages. Still quite a large number and probably actually bigger than my conservative (no pun intended) effort.
Nope, they wheeled out Prof John ‘rogue poll, all is well with Labour this fine month of May 2011? Curtice to reinforce the message that there’s no evidence that this age group are any more likely to vote for independence than anyone else..
What’s the problem with this? It certainly forestalls the Unionist complaints that the SNP are gerrymandering.
I know I’m stating the obvious but the BBC are stifling the debate in Scotland. By closing comments on it’s Scottish articles no one can question their editiorial.
Another worry is that there are approx 118,600 homes in Glasgow with no internet access and barely able to afford a newspaper. Their only reliable access to the debate is via TV and the BBC are failing these people with their biased representation of the facts. If there were on average 3 people in each household then there’s roughly half a million voters who are being lied to.
Make no mistake people. The state is pulling rank and engineering a no vote. Better Together need do nothing more than mouth off now and again safe in the knowledge that the state will ensure a no vote is returned.
The no vote is currently founded on lies and these people need to be reached and given the truth.
This can be beaten but it will take a monumental effort from everyone who believes in a Yes vote. Again I ask anyone who supports independence who hasn’t volunteered to spread the word to please do so now.
The state cannot beat people power!
“On the topic of iPad use, is the Daily Record unique in free weekday access? I wouldn’t mind shoving some newspaper apps onto my iPad but I just know of the ones which cost, either immediately or after a trial period. Anybody know of any others?”
As you might expect, the Mirror has the same “free on weekdays” routine as the Record. I also seem to be getting the Scotsman for free at the moment even though I previously used up a free trial – maybe because it’s on a different device, though it’s the same iTunes account. Otherwise there’s not much – the Metro used to give you the print edition, but now it’s a hideous “designed for tablets” mess.
PressReader looks like a good deal – it seems to let you buy individual issues of lots of papers rather than being forced to subscribe, and it has a wide selection including quite a few Scottish regional papers (eg not just the Dundee edition of the Courier but also the Perth, Fife and Angus versions), but since I’m still on my seven free downloads with it I haven’t actually got to the pay bit yet.
It’s absolutely insane that most papers don’t let you buy a single edition, and even more insane that many don’t offer you a simple “onscreen version of the print paper” at all. The Herald’s “app”, for example, doesn’t sit in Newsstand and is basically just a front end imposed on the website – and doesn’t even give you a one-day trial, which may be the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever heard.
Training Day
To be fair to Prof John, he did say that 16-17 year olds taken on their own would not swing the result….unless it was on a knife edge….(obviously then the votes of all ages would be crucial).
Though he did say in the Hootsmon last week, that he now believed that it was now mathematically impossible for the YES vote to win anyway…..so no doubt which side he’s on.
Come Winter 2014, I think (with a few honourable exceptions) the Scottish Media will have to admit the Referendum Campaign was not their finest hour.
There seems to be little appreciation in the Media and Better Together that’s what being said now will be read, listened to and watched centuries from now by Scots….and history will judge them far more harshly than the original ‘Parcel o Rogues’
You’d have thought they would have learned from the Rangers Tax Case last summer…..alas no L
O/T Just heard historian Lord Hennessey parroting the ‘14000 treaties would need to be re-negotiated’ rubbish to Jo Cockburn on the Daily Politics. Also why did he think it necessary to tell us his his grandmother was Scottish as if somehow that gives more weight to his opinion???
Also why did he think it necessary to tell us his his grandmother was Scottish
It’s the equivalent of “some of my best friends are black/gay/women/whatever”.
O/T wanted to find out what sort of right wingers are dispensing the bile and hatred at Alex Salmond on the BBC Comments page regarding the teen vote. My comment is: “I was 17 and couldn’t vote in the 1987 general election which left me angry and frustrated as I would have loved to have had the chance to vote against Margaret Thatcher and her government.” I was voted down pretty quickly after that. So there you have it. Thatcher loving right-wingers hitting out against the Scottish Government on BBC comments. So, how many of those comments come from South of the Border? Probably 95 per cent!
Dcanmore – what worries me about the BBC website is that it’s moderated. I joined the family history board last year, but it took about 2 days for comments to be passed for publication, so I gave up!
Ray – I cleared out all the cookies on my laptop, and accidentally got back onto the Herald website, which has the 10 articles and you’re out policy. (Don’t know if that helps you.)
Thanks for the info Rev/AnneDon. Will have a more detailed look later on and see what I can find.
Someone linked to a Firefox app which simply cleans out cookies for one particular site. I was told the other day I’d had my five articles, so I right-clicked on the page, clicked on “remove cookies for site”, clicked on refresh, and I was in. Took seconds, and didn’t mess with cookies on any other site.
@Jiggsbro
“What’s the problem with this? It certainly forestalls the Unionist complaints that the SNP are gerrymandering.”
The problem is that Curtice’s view on whether 16/17 year olds will affect the vote (either way) is irrelevant to the bald reporting of the fact that they are to be enfranchised (which was the ostensible subject of the BBC report, that and nothing more). Reporting of a fact – enfranchisement of 16/17 year olds – was subsequently coloured by the view of Curtice that this group are not ‘any more likely to vote for independence’.
@The GreatBaldo
If Curtice thinks it is mathematically impossible for us to win a Yes vote that is great news. Simply observe his track record in the run up to the 2011 election when, if you were the proverbial observer from Mars and listened only to him, you would have thought Labour were a shoo-in at Holyrood.
Speaking of Prof Curtice……This is from the BBC website:
Polling expert Prof John Curtice will be in the hot seat to answer your questions on Scottish independence.The psephologist, from Strathclyde University, is taking part in the latest in the series of BBC webcasts on the issue.If you have something to ask Prof Curtice, email newsonlinescotland@bbc.co.uk
@Training Day
“If Curtice thinks it is mathematically impossible for us to win a Yes vote that is great news…”
Is that Prof Curtice trying to plant seeds into the Scottish electorate? Why vote for YES when they’re not going to win? Also Prof Curtice probably thought it was mathematically impossible for the SNP to get a majority at the last Scottish Election!
Ye Gods! – The inestimable ‘Prof’ Curtis thinks it mathematically impossible for a Yes vote does he?
And he has the evidence and source data to back this up, one wonders?
Any anti-post reckoning would be looking at the bare 30%-40%-30% picture, with the 40% certainly not going for NO, or they would already be lining up in that camp’s ‘no change’. There realistically also must be a share of that 40% who will yet be convinced of the YES argument, the size of which, I would not speculate on, unlike ‘Prof’ Curtis apparently is bent on doing.
‘Prof’ Curtis is heading towards ‘Mad Prof’ and ever lower towards ‘prat’ status, a la Dickie Baker and co, if he pushes wishful thinking as empirical evidence.
Good old rotten to the core BBC!
There is a simple message, worth repeating for that current 40% undecided, particularly those that favoured devomax: VOTE NO, GET NOTHING.
Ask Professor John Curtice questions? Why did he dismiss SNP comments on the rise of UKIP in England as “rubbish” a few weeks ago? Also, why does he say that a Yes vote is impossible, given that there is a still a year and a half to go, and the last poll showed neither side had a majority?
How can it be impossible when nobody has voted yet? :/ “Professor”, ha!
@Ray
As well as being on every TV channel, he’s going to be standing outside every polling station, saying “everybody’s voted NO so far, so you’re wasting your time”.
The problem is that Curtice’s view on whether 16/17 year olds will affect the vote (either way) is irrelevant to the bald reporting of the fact that they are to be enfranchised (which was the ostensible subject of the BBC report, that and nothing more).
I’m afraid that if you’re expecting bald reporting of plain facts from the news, you’re several decades too late. Analysis, interpretation, opinion and speculation are part and parcel of news. In any event, Curtice wasn’t giving his view, he was adding extra facts: polling has shown that 16-17 year olds are no more likely to vote ‘Yes’.
Jigg,,,,, who needs enemies with friends like you, the guy Curtis is as pro independence as that clown Campbell on the bbc,, and we also need that 16/17year old age group on board because the are experts at getting a message out through cyber space media Outlets. Twitter etc…….
Prof Curtice doesn’t know his arse from his elbo. Either that, or he’s deliberately talking mince and therefore, really stupid.
In 1979, 31.9% (of the electorate) +1 was sufficient for majority based on turnout
In 1997, 30.2% +1 was sufficient for majority based on turnout
UKGE 2003 29.1%+1 = 50%+
2007 30.4%+1 = 50%+
2010 31.9%+1 = 50%+
You have to go back to 1997 before you get even slightly higher at 35.7%+1
Considerably less for Scottish elections…
So, if not a single ‘don’t know’ could be persuaded to vote Y and the ‘minority’ but consistent/will always vote Y ~33% of the electorate who’ve waited all their lives for the chance went and voted ‘Aye’ on a turnout equal to both past referendums or at levels equal to general elections of the past decade+ , what would happen?
Can someone do the math? Maybe Prof Curtice? In fact no John, just keep telling all those ‘would probably vote No but I’ve never got off my arse and voted before’ people that Scottish independence is just not gonnae happen…
Fine by me! Worked in 1979, 1997, 2007 and 2011. No need to change tactics!
In the meantime, Yes folks get working on the DK’s and most importantly, make sure you/they go and vote. But then that latter issue is not really a problem for Yes. Would lose sleep over it if I was on better together though.
the guy Curtis is as pro independence as that clown Campbell on the bbc,
He may well be, but that doesn’t really have any bearing whether he was reporting facts or not. It doesn’t make his facts incorrect, nor does it make the BBC biased for reporting them. Broadcasting those facts doesn’t affect the effort to get 16/17 year olds on board. Pointing out that it’s a fact doesn’t deny the need for, or affect the process of, getting all sorts of voters on board.
Knee-jerk condemnation of anything said by a perceived ‘enemy’, or broadcast by a perceived ‘enemy’, helps the debate about as much as the nonsense coming out of BT. And dividing everyone up into ‘friends’ and ‘enemies’, when a plurality of voters identify as neither, is extremely unhelpful.
I’ll be voting ‘Yes’. I’ll be trying to persuade others to vote ‘Yes’. If that’s not enough to be considered a friend – if I’m an enemy for not agreeing with every paranoid control-freak who identifies themselves as friendly – then the vote is as good as lost, because the mass of voters are not interested in that vision of a Stalinist Scotland, where any deviation from the party line makes you an enemy and the media are denied the right to interpret and comment on the the news.
If there are any ‘enemies’, it’s those who frighten voters away from independence. The No campaign has a great many, but the Yes campaign also has its share.
I’ve not seen the interview but ‘mathematically impossible
sounds as big a belter as Foulkes’ ‘they are doing it deliberately’. Off to watch iplayer for confirmation 🙂
@Jiggsbro
So the BBC has shown no sign of bias, John Curtis is giving neutral and fact based comments/opinion, and if we criticise we’re showing that we’re capable of turning Scotland into a Stalinist regime.
Is Mr. Curtis the only one they can ask, (on practically daily basis)?
Surely there are several, if not more, others we can hear from. Just because the BBC gets exactly what it wants doesn’t mean we have to accept it.
As has been seen over the years Mr Curtis’s interpretation of the ‘facts’ have not assisted him in his reading of political trends nor his predictions on results/outcomes.
As a licence payer I want/expect, and if I wish, demand fair and balanced opinion from numerous ‘experts’ so all can make their decision come 2014.
Cronyism is never a good thing.
‘Stalinist Scotland’ !!! (Gee yer heid a shak min)
@Jiggsbro
“I’m afraid that if you’re expecting bald reporting of plain facts from the news, you’re several decades too late. Analysis, interpretation, opinion and speculation are part and parcel of news”.
I have no problem with the above from the likes of Fox news. You can choose to subscribe to Fox or not. I do, however, have a problem with an organisation which levies a tax, makes great play of its ‘objectivity’ in the UK and around the world, but proceeds anyway to deliver an overwhelmingly jaundiced view of Scottish independence…which we are forced to pay to have delivered. Do you suppose that if ‘polls’ had shown that 16/17 year olds were more likely to vote for independence that an item with Curtice pointing that out would have appeared in the manner the opposite was stated yesterday? Of course not.
As for your attempt to equate fellow supporters of Scottish independence with ‘Stalinism’…the least said the better.
I suppose, theoretically, it the vote were incredibly borderline, it’s possible for a couple of sixteen-year-olds’ votes to swing it. But considering that 16 and 17 year olds are a small proportion of the voting population, and unlikely to be voting hugely differently from anyone else, it’s really a non-story.
The real story is the attempt to return at least for the voting franchise to the actual legal age of majority in Scotland, which is and always has been sixteen. (I have a cousin who is the father of a 16-year-old daughter who fervently wishes it wasn’t, but there ain’t nothing he can do about it.)
Lots or 16/17 yr olds will be chuffed to get the vote. Even more will be ‘meh?’ and won’t vote. Despite some of the MSM saying the SNP is “grooming” youngsters. (As if Labour wasn’t, even as we speak. All those community clubs etc.)
According to a recent poll, young people are overwhelmingly pro-independence.
However, 16/17 yr olds only constitute 1 or 2 percent of the electorate, and considering the fact that few youngsters will actually vote, this Labour manufactured “fight” is a bit of a non-thing. A stupid, tired old fight because they (Labour) think they could hit the SNP with this.
Give the vote to 16/17 yr olds, most of them won’t be bothered. Young Labour or Tory or SNP party broilers, some genuine young people who’ve thought about it, but most youngsters won’t give a shit. Most of them will vote yes, no, whatever. It’ll be important to reach students and make them understand about tuition fees. Almost certain under UK, no tuition fees in an independent Scotland. (The students could, of course be selfish. As long as I’ve got the free tuition, I don’t care… Après nous, le déluge. Marie Antoinette, let them eat cake, that type of thing.)
Many voting age Scots won’t vote. They’ve never registered to vote, they’ve relied on their neighbours or friends to vote. Safely labour. Only, now, they’re beginning to see that Labour isn’t all it was ckrancked up to be. Some of them voted SNP in 2011. The tide is turning.
16/17 yr olds constitute 1 or 2 percent of the electorate, likely max a third will vote, so the teenager vote will not decide the referendum. It’ll be decided by middle-aged, middle-income people. Like any election.