We agree with Anas Sarwar
Posted on
November 06, 2012 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
There was a shock admission from Anas Sarwar, “deputy” leader of Scottish Labour, when speaking about the referendum on BBC Scotland’s “The Big Debate” last night:
“This will be the biggest decision that any of you will make in your lifetime, and what we need actually is Yes.”
It’s not every day we agree with the often factually-challenged MP for Glasgow Central, but this time we think he’s hit the nail square on the head.
(Because it’s fine to just cut people’s quotes short to suit your own purposes, right?)
Sarwar is such a smug git. Even Willie Rennie does not seem so bad next to him….
He also used his time to repeat the lie regarding unemployment numbers in Scotland puffing that there were an additional 7,000 out of work.
And who selected the audience? Such a young, uninformed gang of spotty youths clapping like seals on topics of which they have no comprehension whatsoever.
The whole episode smacked of another sticth up against independence minded viewers and there was a blatant bias in the line up of panelists (again).
How do you figure? Two from No, two from Yes and Prof. Devine, who seemed fairly pro.
Thought Tom Devine was excellent. Tried to raise the debate to an intellectual level, but difficult with the usual suspects.
Bit disappointed with Angela, regarding the question on the effects of a N0 vote. I would have laid it on the line. Quoted Darling and Cameron regarding further tax powers. No chance of Devo Max or anything remotely close.
“You may say that I’m a dreamer but I’m not” – John Lennon
Sarwar also said ” We need an honest and transparent debate” He then totally refused to say if he or Labour agreed with the renewal of the £97billion Trident , nothing like a bit o transparency,
Sarwar is a first class plonker.
Ask him a question and all you get a load of anti S.N.P. bile at the end of which you are left non the wiser. As to what his answer on anything is, a prime example is, as Ian says, his NON answer to the question about his support for Trident.
I listened to Anas Sarwar once. About 2 years ago I think.
Never looked back since.
Sarwar is the liar’s liar. Rennie is a clown. Harvey’s heed has it’s own gravity. Angela seemed ‘spiked’ – And ‘Prof’ was a unionist masquerading as a neutral… BUT, who was the mind-controlled agent-host specialising in cutting of Angela?
Kind of o/t but the music is a cure for onionist bollocks. Excellent programme about Stuart Adamson and Big Country’s last album. Along with Runrig this band planted a love of my Scotland and justice back in the darkest 80’s. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01npjxh
The infamous 27 omitted words in Alex Salmond’s response to Andrew Neil’s question came to mind immediately when I heard Anas Sarwar say “….and what we need actually is YES….”. As the Rev implies, what is good for the goose…Well spotted.
Sarwar wants an honest debate: Lamont wants an honest debate: Curran keeps saying ‘lets be honest”.
Whenever someone says to me “I’ll honest with you” I’m on my guard. Why do they feel the need to say so?
Regards last night’s Big Debate, I wasn’t sitting with a clicker but my impression is that the girls in the audience were more inclined to independence?
The Big Debate – as a caller recently said to Call Kaye, “its becoming tedious”.
Rennie seems a decent enough person but my fairest assumption is that he stumbled into politics and “Hey whit can ye dae” found a good living to be had.
Sarwar seems overcoached. Following the old man I suppose, but without conviction. Politics a better option than managing a Cash and Carry?
Angela Constance was a good tactical choice by the SNP. isn’t her brief to promote youth opportunities? And she had a positive view of a future Scotland.
Patrick Harvie did well.
Prof Devine was in his comfort zone addressing a student audience, and I think he contributed well.
Ho hum until the SNP’s white paper is released and then the debate can truly begin.
Well well well. Labour up to their high standards in Westminster.
Apparently, a Labour M.P. has called for a debate in the HoC to debate the place Scotland will hold withing the E.U. It may have only been a private members bill but you’d think she would still have to turn to the debate that SHE wanted, except that she didn’t!
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/6194-labour-mp-criticised-after-failing-to-appear-for-own-debate
Now compare the NNS reporting of the NON appearance of Nash to the reporting of the BBC . Oh by the way here’s a wee clue, you’ll have to skip to the LAST two sentences. I guess the BBC don’t think an M.P. not turning up for a debate they actually called for is up to much.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20221413
Does anybody else think the debates so far have been predictable and a little boring?
@sneddon
Kind of o/t but the music is a cure for onionist bollocks.
That sounds really nasty; what happens to them, brown flaky skin on the outside?
😉
Excellent programme about Stuart Adamson and Big Country’s last album.
I heard that programme this afternoon and I thought it was excellent. Stuart Marconie seemed better informed about current cultural and political developments in Scotland than most journalists I have read recently.
The last thing Anas Sarwar and indeed Labour in general want is a debate. What they want is a street corner slanging match. We all get to use harsh language and they win because they’re more practiced. Sarwar is small fry let’s waste no more time on the man, he’s simply not worth it. Let’s look to tackling giants like Lamont, Davidson and Rennie. 😀
BBC Scotland never fails to amaze with their selective information to promote their political agenda, protecting Labour and attacking the SNP. If you actually thought about it too long your blood would boil.
I don’t expect people will enjoy hearing him repeat the same soundbites for two years.
Have a look at this (you’ll need to scroll halfway down). Quite incredible!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20221413
I’m glad Rev Stu kept the high moral ground by making it clear what he had done with Mr Sarwar’s sentence. We need to keep the high moral ground on this side of the debate because it’s clear the rules are different.
I only hope 2 years is enough time for the public to be shown what the other side are all about. I won’t be waiting about to see the consequences of a no vote. With reclaiming of our minimal powers expected I’ll be out of this union one way or another because I’m paying no tax to the UK after 2014.
It’s either Yes, or night classes in Danish, Dutch or Catalan!
There is a big story breaking on NNS tonight. The Tories have admitted that they have met with the Spanish Partido Popular the political heirs to the party of the dictator General Franco. There does not seem to be conclusive information on what the meeting discussed, however, the PP claim that another meeting is planned for December and that the Labour Party in Scotland will be in attendance. I would stress that apart from the facts that the Spanish PP are the heirs to Franco, that the Tories have met with them and the PP seek to build an alliance of European parties opposed to national self determination, the rest is speculation.
However, what can be said is that the leader of the Tory party in Scotland has admitted to meeting with Spanish neo-facists. I think that says it all!
It might have been better in Newsnet had waited after SLab met with the PP before breaking this story.
Just caught a newsflash, Obama wins.
Phew!
It never occured to me until the Catalans deicided to march for Independence from Spain that we in Scotland would to a large extent have to rely on the Spanish print media for information on topics such as the meetings between the PP and the Unionist parties of GB.
It is quite stunning & gut wrenchingly disappointing that there is not a single print edition anywhere in Scotland that is pro independence. It is then a remarkable propaganda achievement of the British Empire.
I now believe that the battle for Independence is between the well funded chorus of lies, misinformation & smears of the BBC/Unionist print media and the small, grass roots, pocket money proclaimers of freedom. Even with the power of the internet, social networking & non corporate on line news pages, I fear it will take more than two years to overcome,
Right now, the odds are not in our favour.
GH Graham- In times of deepest depression when all the world seems set against me, I take comfort in the lessons of the good book and even sometimes a bible.
Yep it is a bit David and Goliath an’ that didnae turn oot weel for the big fella. Same fer them other Philistines, imagine thone lone Victor Mature fella totally outnumbered an’ layin’ aboot himsel wi the jawbone of an arse, a physical impossibility if you ask me, unless you’re a Labour front bencher then indeed your arse and your mouth are one and the same………. aye that would be a big enough weapon right enough. Or think of Charlton Heston in the book of Exodus with the might of Egypt ranged against him………… did he hesitate against insurmountable odds?????
WELL DID HE?????
We must gird what is left of our loins, bare our arses tae the foe and howl those immortal words………….
Tongs ya @*ss!!!!!!!
Steady as she goes, now that one right wing nutter in the world has been seen off let’s concentrate on our own. 😀
Would have been a bit scary if Romney had won control of UK nukes :o)
I remember the first debate where he kept banging on that within the Union England was our number one customer, but if we were independent they magically transform into competitors. Kept trying to hammer this home during the debate and was not once challanged on it. Not sturgeons fault, she had ruth davidson constantly yelling in her ear.
I have listened to this Mr Sarwar for a while now with great interest. He is so vague in everything he says I have come to the conclusion he will make a run for Labour leadership and jump the dyke to the YES campaign. An opportunist if ever I saw one and the Teflon coating certainly helps.
The US rejects conservative Mitt Romney.
How does the Pro dependence BBC report this?
US Voters endorse the Status Quo.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/20216166
I have to agree with several commenters above, he rarely gives a straight answer. He answers every question or point with better together sound bite. Sometimes, I wonder about the people who elect MP’s, red rosette on a donkey springs to kind.
Can I just say that it doesn’t help our case when we moan about bias and stitch-ups when the BBC actually does a fair job for once in its miserable existence? I refer to two comments in particular…
G H Graham: “The whole episode smacked of another sticth up against independence minded viewers and there was a blatant bias in the line up of panelists (again).”
You must have been watching a different programme from me. I saw two unionist politicians, two pro-indy politicians, and a non-political “neutral” who did a far better job of arguing the case for independence than the SNP representative did!
alan: “Harvey’s heed has it’s own gravity. Angela seemed ‘spiked’ – And ‘Prof’ was a unionist masquerading as a neutral… BUT, who was the mind-controlled agent-host specialising in cutting of Angela? “
Again, really? A unionist masquerading as a neutral? Devine was close to being the best one on the panel. He cut through the crap Sarwar and Rennie were spouting and, while not outright endorsing independence, did a pretty good job of highlighting the fact that, when looked at in a calm and considered manner, there is only one choice in this referendum – yes!
As for Harvie, he did a far better job of arguing the case than Angela did, so I don’t find it particularly helpful to denigrate his efforts. As for cutting in while Angela was speaking, the unfortunate truth is some of her answers were just waffle. Nicola Sturgeon and Fiona Hyslop did far better jobs in the previous debates. But she’s the minister for youth unemployment, so in theory she was a good choice, if not so much in practice.
I don’t mean to pick on you two guys here – we’re all on the same side, after all. However, there’s a genuine case to be argued that the BBC is biased against independence, but it’s weakened when we complain about bias in situations where it doesn’t exist.
The one thing we’ve been complaining about is when there is unequal representation of the two sides of the argument, choosing to split it down party lines rather than by the referendum lines. There were two unionist politicians and two pro-indy politicians. It can’t get fairer than that. The non-politico that was chucked in did what he was there to do – try to move the debate beyond partisan lines. Fair enough if it had been Billy Connolly or someone else well-known for their love of the UK, but Tom Devine is not such a person.
If anything, he seemed to represent the folk who wanted devo-max on the ballot, and through looking at the options intellectually, he seemed to be doing exactly what we all suspect devo-maxers will do when it comes to the crunch – recognise that independence is the only way to get that change they seek.
Let’s pick our battles carefully – the make up of the crowd might have been rather dodgy, but the panel itself was fine.
Incidentally Stu, it’s interesting to look at who each party has put forward for these debates so far:
SNP – Sturgeon (x2), Hyslop, Constance
Greens – Harvie (x2)
Labour – Sarwar (x2), Curran, Lamont
Lib Dems – Lord Wally, Willie Rennie
Tories – Horrendous Laughing Woman, Auntie Bella
Others – Margo, Lesley Riddoch, Tom Devine
Things of note there:
– Of 17 panellists, women outnumber men 10 to 7, and the June debate even had an all-female panel (no all-male panel yet)
– Both the Tories and Lib Dems have put forward their current leader and a previous leader
– the “Others” have all been either pro-indy or indy-leaning devo-maxers
– the SNP have only put forward women
Oh, and we mustn’t forget…
– Labour have chosen to put forward Anas Sarwar more often than their supposed leader, Johann Lamont
– Labour are the only party to have put forward MPs
– In fact, Labour have only put forward an MSP ONCE
Those stats tell you a lot about a) the SNP’s confidence in their entire team (perhaps a bit too confident since Angela wasn’t that great) and b) Labour’s complete lack of confidence in not just their Scottish leader, but their Holyrood contingent as a whole.
Yet more evidence for the “Anas Sarwar is the real leader of Labour in Scotland” theory…
Obviously the LibDems are a bit short of options (not to mention principles, supporters, a future, etc.). Maybe they should give Liam McArthur or Tavish Scott a shot. On the other hand, things are bad enough for them as it is…
Doug Daniel: A much more detailed take on the Big Debate than I posted, and I agree with you analysis. I also agree with your caution on voicing an auto-response of BBC bias.
i don’t think a politician must always come across as dynamic and forceful. Angela Constance was, dare I say it, feminine and sans sound bites, whereas Sarwar was all that has been expressed by others here. He is a step ahead of Lamont however in that he has memorised his sound bites and his responses guide to points that may be raised, whereas Lamont needs her written text. Next time he is on I need to watch to see if he glances down to his shirt cuff before answering.
i did enjoy the Guardian interview with Lamont. her interests include running she divulges!