Arbroath smokies and mirrors
It’s always a matter of concern when supposedly impartial newspapers put out stories which appear more openly partisan than a party press release, and doubly so when the author is a staff news reporter rather than an opinion columnist. (As the latter are under no obligation to exercise impartiality, or indeed even to feign it.)
So it’s actually rather rare to see a smear piece as blatant as the one penned by David Maddox for the Scotsman today. Advertised on Twitter with the words “Does the Declaration of Arbroath have any significance beyond Scotland for the SNP? The evidence suggests not”, there are so many odd things about the story we’re going to have to make a list.
1. Why WOULD the Declaration of Arbroath have any significance beyond Scotland? It was a document solely concerned with Scottish affairs, and doesn’t mention any other country other than England.
2. The piece is a report on (alleged) events at the annual dinner of the Catalan Delegation in London last month. We can’t find an actual date for the event, but as we write it’s the 19th of February. Why has it suddenly become news (at least) three weeks later?
3. Maddox reports that “many of the Catalan guests were privately seething over Alex Salmond’s comments made just before, publicly distancing the SNP, himself and Scotland from the Catalan push for independence”. But the article doesn’t contain a single quote to that effect, even from an unnamed source.
4. The supposed comments by Alex Salmond are also unquoted, leaving the reader with only Maddox’s spin on them to judge by.
5. The only quotes come in the form of three words, bereft of context, in the line “The word ‘treachery’ was used about Mr Salmond, and it was rather indignantly noted that maybe Catalonia is, after all, different – with a ‘stronger case’.” Clearly, this tells the reader nothing at all about what was actually said – the first could have been a joke – but creates a highly unfavourable impression.
6. The next paragraph states “It was suspected that Catalonia had been abandoned by the SNP because of Spain’s threats to delay EU membership for Scotland, fearing agreeing membership might encourage other independence movements”. This is a particularly sneaky journalistic trick – the sentence ostensibly seeks to establish WHY Catalonia has been “abandoned by the SNP”, a charge which has not actually been proven.
7. The next paragraph is even more extraordinary. It reads, in full:
“But the ‘treachery’ to Catalonia is just one example of a surprisingly long list of small and emerging nations snubbed by Mr Salmond and the SNP. While they are desperate to promote Scotland’s right to nationhood and independence the SNP, more often than not internationally, side with the larger nation suppressing a smaller one’s push for autonomy.”
Once again, this presents an unsupported allegation as an established fact. When has the SNP in fact “snubbed” other nations? No evidence is provided, merely Maddox’s assertion, citing supposed “snubs” to Quebec (which is not and never has been a “nation”) and Tibet, presumably in reference to a visit to Scotland by the Dalai Lama last year in which the Tibetan leader was explicitly NOT acting as head of state, but in a personal pastoral capacity.
8. Perhaps aware that two nations – one of which isn’t a nation and one which wasn’t a nation in the context of the alleged “snub” – doesn’t constitute a “surprisingly long list”, Maddox then clutches at a straw with his next paragraph:
“Even in the UK there seems to be a certain dismissiveness of others’ nationhood. The SNP have a Westminster election pact with Plaid Cymru and yet, in a recent Twitter exchange with this writer, Mr Salmond’s aide, the SNP MSP Joan McAlpine, appeared to suggest that unlike Scotland, Wales is just a part of England. Legally there are arguments for that, at least pre-devolution, but culturally there are not.”
Firstly, there are not “arguments for” Wales being legally a part of England. It simply is, and has been for almost 500 years – the UK Government’s own paper earlier this month explicitly stated that Wales was “incorporated” into England in 1536, while also noting that Scotland’s case was different. And secondly, “seems to be” and “appeared to suggest” are of course weasel words, decribing Maddox’s interpretation of Ms McAlpine’s comments rather than her actually saying what he claims.
9. The last paragraph of the article finally remembers to mention the 1320 Declaration which is its supposed subject:
“The SNP put great store in the international significance in the Declaration of Arbroath of 1320 in laying out the principles for the freedom of a nation, yet their ‘foreign policy’ suggests it only applies to Scotland.”
This baseless statement might be at home in a deliberately provocative Tom Harris blog, but as a story in a notionally-impartial newspaper it almost defies belief. None of the events cited by Maddox in the preceding text – including unattributed, unquoted comments supposedly made at and before a dinner and a spin on a Twitter conversation – can conceivably be said to amount to manifestations of “foreign policy”.
The Declaration Of Arbroath also does not in any event “lay out the principles for the freedom of a nation” in any context applicable to any country other than Scotland. It’s an extremely specific document concerning the relationship between Scotland, England, some Scottish nobles and the Catholic church.
Maddox’s article is located in the “News” section of the Scotsman’s website, not the “Opinion” one. It is, to all visible intents, a piece of current-affairs reporting, yet there is not a single empirical fact contained within it.
It speaks in nebulous terms of senses, feelings, and suspicions. Its 500 words comprise literally nothing but smear, insinuation, interpretation and innuendo – along with some statements which are flatly untrue – concerning an event weeks in the past, which was itself so low-key Google doesn’t know it even happened. Its assertions aren’t even subtle.
We had a deeply dispiriting day yesterday. Today, David Maddox and the Scotsman reminded us of why we started Wings Over Scotland in the first place and why its work is vital, and in doing so renewed our vigour and sense of purpose. For that, if not for his services to professional and ethical journalism, we thank him.
———————————————————————————————–
To be honest I make it a point never to buy the Scotsman nor look at its website.I just hope both will fold in the very near future due to lack of readership and advertizing revenue.
For what it’s worth I “advertize” Wings Over Scotland as much as I can.
As my norwegian partner noted recently “the Scottish papers are so biased”.
As noted in past comments, state propaganda always reaches it’s peak in terms of intensity and outlandishness just before the regime producing it finally collapses. In fact the intensity of propaganda is a very good barometer with respect to the stage things are at in such circumstances. We’ve past the point of no return now; it’s going to get even more ridiculous – comically so as we move through 2013 into 2014. Will remind you of ‘Radio Gaddafi’ soon.
Rev: Was ihn nicht umbringt, macht ihn stärker (what does not kill him, makes me stronger) to quote Nietsche.
He also said: “There are no facts, only interpretations” which sums up David Maddox neatly.
Maddox’s name has been synonymous with rank-rotten journalism for years now. Just another Scotsman political hack who has about as much insight and understanding of Scotland and Scottish politics as the average family pet.
And lo – the prophets of Bullshit Mountain did come amongst the people to spread confusion and fear. By asserting and Hinting, and nudging and winking, by pointing and nodding knowningly. And lo the people were confused for they had no idea what the prophets were actually trying to say.
Where did we get this idea that newspapers are ‘supposedly impartial’? I wasn’t aware that journalists on newspapers (as opposed to broadcast news) were under any obligation to even feign impartiality. Most newspapers are nakedly partisan, which is why I get my news from online sources (who are at least nakedly partisan in my direction).
“..Maddox’s article is located in the “News” section of the Scotsman’s website, not the “Opinion” one.”
Err, no it’s not.
It’s located within the ‘Persepective’ section of The Scotsman – the place for comment and opinion.
Have you actually got a copy of today’s Scotsman?
@ Rev Stu:If your deeply dispiriting day yesterday was several of the responses to Cath’s article I’m with you there. I deleted what i had typed and decided just to thank Cath for the article.
A new day and I’ll just restrict myself to comment on her article heading – “We are the 51%”.
Therefore 51% of the intellectual and cultural treasures of our nation and so must be encouraged, supported and protected.
We do not, of course, expect impartiality from David Maddox. But if we may not feel entitled to hope that his analysis might at least be rational then surely his employers have a right to expect that much. They must be feeling rather cheated today.
The leaders of the various independence movements referred to in the article are not the petulant children that Maddox evidently takes them for. They are, for the most part, hard-headed political operators well aware of the realities of the world in which they move. Not being intellectually crippled by British nationalist fervour, they will readily recognise the reasons for Salmond’s caution.
Not being blinded by the rosy mist of a pseudo-religious faith in British exceptionalism, they will clearly see the danger in allowing their opponents the resort of facile comparisons between different independence movements. Comparisons in which the strengths of one case will inevitably be portrayed as the weakness of another, and the susceptibilities of any argument be represented as a common defect.
There is strength in unity. But the price may be vulnerability. It is important that diverse independence movements, in Europe and beyond, be as one in upholding the fundamental principle of self-determination. Beyond that, each must be mindful of its own circumstances and develop arguments appropriate to its history, its present condition and current constitutional status.
While all these independence movements are heading for the same destination, they are not all starting from the same place. Each will have to travel its own path. Alex Salmond certainly recognises this. I see no reason to suppose that Xavier Solano i Bello, Pauline Marois and others are not similarly aware.
Which leaves David Maddox.
But perhaps I’m being overly charitable in assuming that the observational and analytical deficiencies of this article are explained by the benign if, from an employer’s perspective, inexcusable inadequacies of its author. Perhaps what we see here is an ambitious attempt by David Maddox to drive a wedge between the Scottish and the Catalan independence campaigns, as well as others. If so, we have to wonder at the monumental arrogance of some rent-a-hack on a newspaper in a state of terminal decline imagining that his puny, puerile scribblings might affect the course of international affairs in any way at all.
@Grahamski
Having just looked at the article, the page it is on clearly says ‘You are here News‘.
I’ve re-done the original article with a new headline to make it easier to get through, hopefully.
I wrote something about a thing I wasn’t at ages ago, and the SNP are evil
Hello. I am a reporter for The Scotsman. Here is my latest story today. And it is a story. It may look like unsubstantiated opinion, but it’s not. Because I’m a reporter for The Scotsman.
There was a dinner about a month ago. It wasn’t in Scotland. There were people there from all places. People from Britain, and foreigners. We had lots of wine and other drinks and talked lots. There were some people there talking on a stage. Folk were well irked at the Scottish National Party. Seething. Only privately, mind. And nobody actually mentioned the SNP. So I shan’t quote anyone. I suspect the SNP were being racist.
That is the news today. Please buy my paper.
——-
Looking back, you could probably replace most stories with the above and it’ll get their message across.
It’s the Mail situation. They realise that they can’t help the no campaign when all they produce for biased papers is scaremongering.
The Scotsman is either unaware or as I suspect in desperate freefall where panic reigns over pragmatic decisions.
“Err, no it’s not. It’s located within the ‘Persepective’ section of The Scotsman – the place for comment and opinion.”
Um:
link to wingsland.podgamer.com
“If your deeply dispiriting day yesterday was several of the responses to Cath’s article I’m with you there.”
Partly some of the responses it got, and partly some of the responses it didn’t get. It was a brilliant, insightful, real-world analysis, and as such didn’t fit into fundamentalist feminist orthodoxy (“Quotas for everything now!”) and accordingly got completely ignored by pretty much every prominent Scottish female political Twitterer, except Women For Independence. The most dispiriting thing was that I was disappointed but not surprised.
Please everyone, just ignore Maddox – and the last thing we should be doing is visiting the hootsman website and increasing their online viewer numbers.
This type of journalism is designed to do just that, get people angry enough to visit the site, sign up to it and then post a comment – which then allows the rag to increase their advertising revenue. Remember, their online revenue went up by 11% last year – we’ve got to nip that in the bud.
The fact that it is virtually impossible to recognise when the Scotsman is publishing news and when it is publishing opinion is itself clear evidence of how far it has drifted from the accurate reporting of news.
@Grahamski
I’ll point this out to you … Rev Stu said: “Maddox’s article is located in the “News” section of the Scotsman’s website, not the “Opinion” one…”
The article IS in the “news” section of the Scotsman website. The link provided takes me there if you care to do the same.
Utter fantasist drivel from this increasingly amateur comic pretending to be a newspaper. The rapidly dwindling circulation (now under 30,000) should be a hint to the editorial staff and owners.
Grahamski says
19 February, 2013 at 11:47 am
“..Maddox’s article is located in the “News” section OF THE SCOTSMAN’S WEBSITE, not the “Opinion” one.”
Err, no it’s not.
It’s located within the ‘Persepective’ section of The Scotsman – the place for comment and opinion.
Have you actually got a copy of today’s Scotsman?
You’re welcome.
The article would be crap wherever it was printed.
On points 7-8, a pedant writes —
Quebec was recognised as a ‘nation within Canada’ in 2006:
link to cbc.ca
I don’t really understand the machinations at work, but there you go.
On The Scotsman website the article is located in the Opinion section.
Like many Opinion pieces it is also located in news on the website.
On the print edition it appears within the Perspective section.
The question for Mr Campbell is: can you really call yourself a monitor for Scottish media without access to it?
“The question for Mr Campbell is: can you really call yourself a monitor for Scottish media without access to it?”
I’m going to go with “Yes”. In so many ways.
@ Grahamski
It is on the website.
@Grahamski
What’s your opinion on the actual article (procedural and locational distractions aside)?
Nicely summed up Rev! I was reading it and getting angry but not quite able to put my finger on why exactly.
“The question for Mr Campbell is: can you really call yourself a monitor for Scottish media without access to it?”
Think you’ll find most folk get their news online these days. Scant few buy paper copies of anything other than tabloids. The Scotsman sells, what, about 30,000? Compared to readers of the BBC online, all “trad” news media online, blogs etc.
If we were in 1972, I’d say “no”. In 2013…
I appreciate this does pose a challenge for papers, in that it takes away their paper layouts, which can give opposing perspectives. And perhaps that is a loss. But it’s one news media need to work with. And this is listed online as news.
“Think you’ll find most folk get their news online these days. Scant few buy paper copies of anything other than tabloids. The Scotsman sells, what, about 30,000?”
Mm. Their online readership is vastly higher than newsstand sales, so it seems entirely legitimate to detail what happens on the website, especially when explicitly stating it as website coverage.
Of course, according to Indiegogo’s records “Grahamski” has donated enough to take out an iPad subscription to the actual paper too, so maybe I should do that. Although I’m not sure contributors would be keen on their money going to Johnston Press.
@Matt
Have you actually got a copy of today’s Scotsman?
Don’t you mean ‘Are you able to use a computer or other internet-enabled device to search the internet?’ 🙂 And the answer would be ‘no’ apparently.
People should not worry about the papers; people know they are biased towards certain parties/the union; it’s obvious even to the most casual of observers. Slowly some are turning anyway. If they don’t they’ll die as catastrophic collapses in circulation/sales are testament too. There’s no other explanation as to why sales in Scotland have been declining at twice the rate of that seen in the rest of the UK for the past decade (and even faster since May 2011).
And everyone knows the Scotsman is a Tory paper – just the name alone tells you that (‘Scotsman’ how much more scottishcringeworthy can you get / can you imagine a paper called ‘The Englishman’?) – and that’s why it’s one of the deepest in the shit right now. I suspect it’ll keep saying ‘keep calm and carry on north britishers’ right up to the point the administrators turn up at the front door. Sort of like Hitler and friends in Downfall; delusional at the end, talking of great victories when the Ruskies were just down the road (no Nazi comparison intended; just ‘death throes of a regime’ example).
Fascinating to watch. We’ve seen so many regimes fall elsewhere across the globe on TV (everyone knows what propaganda sounds like); now we’re right in the middle of one ourselves and whatdayaknow? All the same things are happening in exactly the same order they normally do.
Cath,
I recall, a couple of years ago, reading Scotsman articles like this and, like you, feeling angry and frustrated. The articles didn’t chime with how I felt the SNP as the Scottish Government were running my country – I was pleased with their work and proud of their professionalism. We hadn’t experienced that until they arrived on the scene.
One day I noticed a link to NNS and tentatively dipped into another world. The rest, as they say, is history. The realisation that I was not alone in my thoughts was amazing.
I don’t go near the Herald or Scotsmans now unless I see that Peter Bell has linked to them. If he doesn’t criticise the article I will read it – otherwise I leave his summary to fill me in on the details.
However, those brave enough to read and comment on the articles should be commended. They do provide a lot of information to people who know that something isn’t right, but can’t quite figure it out. They also provide links to here and to enlightenment!
@Grahamski
The question for you is, why does a grown man spend his time trolling on the internet?
Your ya-boo-sucks, nah-nah-nah approach contributes little to the debate other than to make you appear to have a somewhat infantile obsession with regards to the SNP and, by association, the wider independence movement; in fact, your online presence seems to be predicated on trying to discredit them rather than to promote your own beliefs. Like so many in the No campaign you seem to be negative by nature.
I’m not a member of any political party so I won’t pretend to understand why your loyalty to the Labour Party leadership overrides any concerns that you might have about whoring for the Tories in Better Together; however, that is your decision. I just find it odd that you take their money yet don’t have the integrity to shout their praises as they bend you over.
Maybe you are just unprincipled and incapable. I’d rather hope otherwise, but there is nothing you’ve said on the internet which encourages me to believe that you have expressed an honest opinion born of your soul. Your political views are reactionary and seem to be wholly based on a hatred for the SNP and, therefore, the idea of independence.
If you think that you are capable, why not construct arguments for the Union? Why not start by explaining:
– why the UK Government’s attack on the poor and vulnerable is good for Scotland.
– why you are proud of the UK being the most unequal country in terms of wealth distribution, and the part that Labour played in that.
– what Labour’s policy on the Bedroom tax is – will they repeal it?
– why you believe Scotland is such a terrible place that only bad things will happen if we vote yes.
I’m sure that if you tried awfully hard you could even do it without the tired old bombast that you think passes for character.
I’m guessing that your father taught you the importance of expressing your opinion clearly, and to mind your manners while doing so; so, hopefully, you have a basis for leaving your trolling ways behind and rising to the level of debate. I apologise in advance if you had no father/
Andrew Neil stopped me buying the Scotsman.
Maddox stopped me clicking on their website.
Isn’t the news section and opinion section in The Scotsman the same thing as far as Independence is concerned?
The fact is, location and classification of the piece on the website or in the paper notwithstanding, it is completely worthless pish.
scottish_skier says:
19 February, 2013 at 11:36 am
As noted in past comments, state propaganda always reaches it’s peak in terms of intensity and outlandishness just before the regime producing it finally collapses. In fact the intensity of propaganda is a very good barometer with respect to the stage things are at in such circumstances. We’ve past the point of no return now; it’s going to get even more ridiculous – comically so as we move through 2013 into 2014. Will remind you of ‘Radio Gaddafi’ soon.
Hope you dont mind me re posting your comment ss but it really is worth repeating until the penny finally drops to as many of us as possible.
I would only add that i remember watching live tv as the Egyptian people defied the propagandists amongst them by remaining out in Tahir Square and beyond and calling on Mubarak and his corrupt regime to go. Despite this Mubarak addressed the people with more jam tomorrows and con tricks still trying to stitch the people up at the eleventh hour. The people saw through it, didnt succumb and stood firm. Then he knew his number was up. Scotland take note as i fear it will go the same way for us. The problem for the Unionists though is that when we get to the day of the referendum, they will realise that we havent walked all this way for nothing.
Maddox is pissing against the wind. His credibility shot to pieces all by himself.
I see we are already at the shit-stirring phase of the war against independence. Trying to seed discontent where is none.
A well-written, eye-opening piece, which I’m glad I came across.
Actually, I have been becoming a little concerned myself about what seems to me to be negative bias, over the Independence issue, in some of the reporting in ‘Scotland on Sunday’ – the same group of course as ‘The Scotsman’. I usually enjoy, and get value from, some of the centre pages’ writers; but, on political matters, I’m less than comfortable, and may change my Sunday paper soon if it goes on. To what I’ll change, I’m not sure!
Dear Rev,
‘We had a deeply dispiriting day yesterday.’
I have already apologised for my tardy posts without para breaks and I promise it won’t happen again so can we please just draw a line under it and move on. (smilleywinky)
Rev, l don’t think your subscription fee to a company, (Johnson Press), with a debt of over £350 million to the banks. (They are paying 10% interest, because the banks know they will not get their money back).
But then again why bother, they are that desperate for readers you can get on-line for free.
Mr Cuphook
Go and read your post again.
Ironic, eh?
The British establishment have a long track record of planting disinformation via their proxies whenever there are “enemies of the state” threatening their cosy status quo and the piece in the Scotsman is a very good example of that – no more and no less.
Keep plugging away Stu, and please, more from Cath, any time.
As for Grahamski; he’ll just get the same treatment as those wonderful newspapers of ours – ignored.
Did you contribute to the site Grahamski?
I am a fellow Falkirk Bairn and i hope you are considering coming over to our side.
Made an erse of my last blog!!!
Baheid says:
<a href="#comment-293281" rel="nofollow
Rev, l don’t think your subscription fee to a company, (Johnson Press), with a debt of over £350 million to the banks will make any impact on their slow, (maybe not so slow), death. (They are paying 10% interest, because the banks know they will not get their money back).
But then again why bother, they are that desperate for readers you can get on-line for free.
That’s what it should of read:)
@Grahamsk
You cleary have no idea what irony is.
How about answering the questions?
ABC figures are due out soon. Be interesting to see if they’re hitting double figures in terms of readership percentage lost. I think I’ve only been on the hoots site once or twice in the last year and gave up purchasing the rag when Andra was in charge. As for Mr Maddox’s piece…………… who knew? 😉
M4rkyboy
I’d consider supporting separation if there was a reasonable argument for it not predicated on assertion, vague promises and insincere flattery.
I’m pretty sure the sovereignist movement in Quebec would dispute your dismissal of their nationhood. If anything, national identity and self-definition has far more of a role to play in their debate than ours.
Mr Cuphook
You didn’t ask questions you made a series of statements ranging from misrepresentation to downright deceit.
“You didn’t ask questions you made a series of statements ranging from misrepresentation to downright deceit.”
Er, these definitely sound like straightforward questions to me:
“- why you are proud of the UK being the most unequal country in terms of wealth distribution, and the part that Labour played in that.
– what Labour’s policy on the Bedroom tax is – will they repeal it?”
Unless, of course, you’re ASHAMED of the gap between rich and poor growing under 13 years of Labour (an empirical fact), in which case you’ll find plenty of sympathy here.
With regards to Quebec, why any self-respecting nationalist movement would want to be recognized as a nation by the parliament of the state they’re trying to leave is beyond me. If anything, such an act suggests there was some doubt in the matter in the first place – not the best position to start from.
Besides, the Quebecois notion of a linguistic nation is quite different from the Scots one of a community of shared interests – its quite reasonable to support one concept and not the other.
@Grahamski
I thought he did ask some questions, maybe the questioning was a bit harsh, so here are some for you.
Do you believe that Scotland was extinguished as a nation in 1707 while England remained?
If Scotland was absorbed into England, why was it necessary to implement the 1801 act of Union? Furthermore if it was absorbed why would the 1846 Great disruption lead to a claim of right by the church of Scotland that would be later enshrined by an act of parliament.
Why is that Scots cannot accept rule from westminster from a party they did not vote for?
What is Labours stance on the bedroom tax – given that a labour MPs statement suggested a good plan to beat it was to build “smaller houses”
Why would a labour MP suggest that “food banks are here to stay”
Why does Scottish labour believe that if Scotland were independent it would fail in the world of business but magically transform into a powerhouse of trade if it remains “british”
Why are labour trying to triangulate the tory vote in Scotland?
What does Scottish labour intend to do with the money it saves taking bus passes of pensioners?
Where does Scottish labour stand on the importance of shelf stacking a life skill
Does Scottish labour agree that workfare actually takes vacancies out of the job market thereby failing all who are compelled to attend it.
Does Labour regret giving ATOS a contract to manage sickness benefits?
Does labour regret abolishing the 10p rate in tax?
Does labour regret shutting remploy centres before the 2010 GE?
How does anas sarwar square his attacks on universalism being unaffordable when there is an annual underspend of around 20 – 30% of the total welfare budget?
Lastly if Scotland is so feeble a place it could not survive on its own & relies on handouts from England. What do the English get out of it?
If I get so much as a quip, pithy comment, sarky put down or glib ignorance from you other than answers to the above. (I’ll even let you away with saying – don’t know, thats how fair I am) The I am afraid you will be labelled a troll and from then on, when I do deign to answer you, you will be referred to as such.
The hired help just a few weeks ago expressed the extreme view that Scotland was extinguished and incorporated into a greater England (aka annexation) but they also pointed out the existence of an opposing interpretation that it was a voluntary Union of supposed equals and that cessation of it would therefore be a dissolution rather than a secession. And they had to do that to preserve any professional credibility, because it is the view of many that upon any independent international scrutiny it is the latter interpretation which would prevail, especially set against such a stark lebensraumesque alternative.
The ‘voluntary Union of equals’ has always been the only lyric on the song-sheet of historians, politicians and judges up till now.
This is very important, not so much morally, if there had been an open and honest annexation then the moral case or independence would, if anything, be greater. But legally, especially in regard to international scrutiny. Scotland by dint of that contractual understanding has a much stronger claim to self determination in international law than the great majority of those aspiring towards self-government.
It therefore becomes a duty and obligation of all those who desire normal levels of self-government for their country to point this out loudly and often. Nothing more nothing less.
Those of us with reasonable extrapolative abilities have had many arguments in the past with those who advocate association with other self-governing seeking groups around the world even up to the point of identification with them. It has proven impossible to get some of them to understand that the best way Scotland can assist those other groups in their aim is for Scotland to gain independence. It has to be said that, for whatever reason, it is mainly a contingent of the far left, or at least their leaders and string-pullers, who fail to understand this.
Whether this is for ‘solidarity’/’collective’ ideological reasons or whether it is simply that some like the idea of occasional jaunts abroad with a little bit of local celebrity and adulation thrown in as ego salve – who cares?
The end result has been the same, dilution by association of Scotland’s case and a potential diminution (should Scotland fail because of it) of their own aims succeeding.
OK Scotland is somewhat of a special case but that does not mean that Scottish independence would then fail to assist those other movements in their aims. It would as consequence of that real politik.
A classic example of this is the change in attitude of Spain where just after the SNP victory and inevitable referendum they were non-plussed on the matter, even pointing out that Scotland was a different case to the situation now, albeit articulated mainly by a neighbouring ally. The mutual feedback between the hard-of-understanding in Catalunya and Scotland has no doubt played its part.
Of course we have also heard of ‘clandestine’ meetings between the Tories and the Spanish right and we are not privy to what was discussed. Cynicism born of past learning curves would say that those were probably no more than a smokescreen for genuinely clandestine communication at a higher level. But you would have to be pretty naive not to believe that changing Spanish perception from Scotland being a ‘special case’ to ‘no, its just straight secession’ would be the top priority.
The only difference in effect between left and right actions being unwitting v deliberate diminution of Scotland’s case by reducing the perceived distinction between Catalan and Scotland’s claims.
Mr Morton
Do you believe that Scotland was extinguished as a nation in 1707 while England remained? Quite frankly don’t care.If Scotland was absorbed into England, why was it necessary to implement the 1801 act of Union? Furthermore if it was absorbed why would the 1846 Great disruption lead to a claim of right by the church of Scotland that would be later enshrined by an act of parliament. No idea, I don’t particularly care about the 1801 Act of Union.Why is that Scots cannot accept rule from westminster from a party they did not vote for? Huh?What is Labours stance on the bedroom tax – given that a labour MPs statement suggested a good plan to beat it was to build “smaller houses” Labour are against the bedroom tax.Why would a labour MP suggest that “food banks are here to stay” No ideaWhy does Scottish labour believe that if Scotland were independent it would fail in the world of business but magically transform into a powerhouse of trade if it remains “british” It doesn’t.Why are labour trying to triangulate the tory vote in Scotland? They are not, that has been successfully by the SNP in large tracts of Fife and the NE.What does Scottish labour intend to do with the money it saves taking bus passes of pensioners? No plans to take bus passes off pensioners – you really shouldn’t believe every SNP scaremongering smear you read. Where does Scottish labour stand on the importance of shelf stacking a life skill Huh?Does Scottish labour agree that workfare actually takes vacancies out of the job market thereby failing all who are compelled to attend it. No ideaDoes Labour regret giving ATOS a contract to manage sickness benefits? If they don’t they should. Hopefully the SNP regret their involvement with this company too.Does labour regret abolishing the 10p rate in tax? They should – terrible politics.Does labour regret shutting remploy centres before the 2010 GE? No ideaHow does anas sarwar square his attacks on universalism being unaffordable when there is an annual underspend of around 20 – 30% of the total welfare budget? You misrepresent Mr Sarwar.Lastly if Scotland is so feeble a place it could not survive on its own & relies on handouts from England. What do the English get out of it? I don’t believe Scotland is feeble. I’ll leave that to those who suggest we are too feeble to stand up for ourselves within the UK.
Never mind the declaration ….Catalonia has an Embassy!!
link to telegraph.co.uk
This from Last month but you can see why Grahamski’s Labour buddies are keen on Tory policy.
link to labourlist.org
Aye, Ed’s only gives a shit about 106 out of 650 seats for 2015. Only 5 of Scotland’s 59 seats are remotely of interest (most likely because he reckons they’ll be gone anyway); the rest are in England and 4/5 are Tory held.
To take the Tory held seats Ed needs Tory policies, hence the new One (British/English) Nation(alist) Tory agenda and adoption of the Union jack as background of choice. This move further to the right-authoritarian shifts Labour to a firm cross between the Conservatives/UKIP and the BNP socio-economically. They must be bumping into the bigot DUP now what with their policy of a crackdown on foreigner types taking jobs from the British.
link to politicalcompass.org
link to independent.co.uk
Check out the dark suit against the union jack background. I recall another Ed from way back who favoured that combo. Wasn’t a nice chap.
“What does Scottish labour intend to do with the money it saves taking bus passes of pensioners?
No plans to take bus passes off pensioners – you really shouldn’t believe every SNP scaremongering smear you read.”
I didn’t get that part from the SNP, I got that bit from Johann Lamont:
link to independent.co.uk
@Grahamski
Do you accept that the Labour Party are an economically right-wing, socially authoritarian (dictatorial) party?
Note that this is well established and not in any dispute; I’m just wondering if you personally have come to accept this. If so, are you comfortable with that?
Mr Ray
And nowhere in the link you provide does it say the Labour Party intend to take bus passes off pensioners.
If British Labour in Scotland does not intend taking bus passes from pensioners then who do they intend taking them from? And if they don’t intend taking them from anybody, why bring the matter up at all?
Mr Skier
“..the Labour Party are an economically right-wing..”
And that’s why the SNP supported Labour spending plans throughout their administration 1997-2010?
@Grahamski
You didn’t answer my question.
Do you accept that Labour are a right-wing authoritarian party?
FYI the SNP are a centrist to left leaning party (as shown in the link I provided) and socially centrist too. Thus you would expect to see them adopt policies from all sides of the spectrum. +1 -1 = 0 = centrist. This is why they sometimes have the support of the Greens (left Liberal) sometimes the Tories (right authoritarian), Labour (right-authoritarian), likewise why they might support some policies proposed by these and other parties too. Sorry, but I imagined you would understand these concepts; politically active as you appear to be.
Why don’t you take the political compass test yourself. It’s fun and quite interesting. I’m 0, -3 when being pragmatic. After a few beers I have my arm around Gandhi.
Troll baiting – fun and educational.
“Mr Ray
And nowhere in the link you provide does it say the Labour Party intend to take bus passes off pensioners.”
No it doesn’t, you’re right. But I suspect that is the case. If suspicion is good enough for David Maddox it’s good enough for me.
@MajorBloodnok
There goes more coffee and biccies across the old keyboard. 😀
My Czech friends laugh when I hand out bits form Scottish press and BBC.”So that is where all those Communist hacks fucked off to…Skotsko.?
“Aye!”
In our local last month we had Dhiomhair showing It was well recieved and of well, It doesnae matter they have now found out from Czech press I have been english since 1707.Completely ruined ma chances in my kilt in bar,wine shop and opera. I am workin on my superiority complex.I think I must be a half breed,I canne quite get it.That’s me english for 12 days and I am no likin it
I friend has told me the German word DC was looking for was “Anschluss”Was that no in 1937 no 1707 or was it just mair lebensraum for the tories
“And nowhere in the link you provide does it say the Labour Party intend to take bus passes off pensioners.”
Perhaps we should look at other articles then…
[Ahem… Cough]
The Telegraph: Liam Byrne – Labour will consider scrapping universal benefits like free bus passes
[Cough]
<rant mode>
I’ll have to get out of the habit of editing after posting an initial draft. Sorry about the unhoned nature of my last post. I edited to my satisfaction well within the 10 min limit but then found the tidied up version could not be posted because someone else had posted already. I know, I should do long posts in notepad and then cut’n paste, I was doing that but the other day I cut ‘n pasted into the comment box by mistake instead of the contact box. Why can’t all forums have the same editing procedures?
</rant mode>
Semus says:
My Czech friends laugh when I hand out bits form Scottish press and BBC.”So that is where all those Communist hacks fucked off to…Skotsko.?
No, no, their not here, this totally & utterly home grown fascism.
Communism according to Marx & Engel had/has a social conscious.
Right – some answers for a change lets go through some of them
“Do you believe that Scotland was extinguished as a nation in 1707 while England remained? You answered Quite frankly don’t care.If Scotland was absorbed into England, why was it necessary to implement the 1801 act of Union? Furthermore if it was absorbed why would the 1846 Great disruption lead to a claim of right by the church of Scotland that would be later enshrined by an act of parliament. You answered No idea.”
Interesting – The treaty of Union, 1801 act of Union are key framing documents that underpin the current Union between Scotland and England. These were recently undermined by a set of papers setting out why Scotland could not be a inheritor nation will the UK would be. You clearly don’t think it important, although it is actually what you are defending. On to the Next one!
Why is that Scots cannot accept rule from westminster from a party they did not vote for? You answered Huh?
The answer here is “Democratic Deficit” People in Scotland no longer felt that Westminster could govern fairly in Scotland. One of the key claims by labour is that it dealt with this by introducing a devolved parliament. One of the ironies of devolution is it has made that feeling of disconnect from westminster more acute, hence the west lothian question is one that no Unionist party is keen to address.
What is Labours stance on the bedroom tax – given that a labour MPs statement suggested a good plan to beat it was to build “smaller houses” You anwsered Labour are against the bedroom tax
Yes labour are against it, but they have not claimed that would repeal it either, but they have said a way to beat is to build small houses. So the jury is still out on that one.
What does Scottish labour intend to do with the money it saves taking bus passes of pensioners? You answered No plans to take bus passes off pensioners – you really shouldn’t believe every SNP scaremongering smear you read.
I read it in an article written by Sarwar in the Daily Record on Saturday, were he stated that it was unfair that pensioners should benefit while some people died before reaching penion age. Also it was mentioned in Lamonts speech on the something for nothing culture as something that could not be afforded. So if it has no plans to do anything despite instituting a cuts commision to look at cuts, then why bring it up. Was sarwar suggesting that the money could be better spent? if so why not outline this in the article – again the jury is out on that one.
Where does Scottish labour stand on the importance of shelf stacking a life skill you answered Huh?
The correct answer to this was of course Labour is appalled by IDS suggesting that young people trying to make a better life for themselves are being snobs by not working for nothing in tesco. But then we are yet to hear what Labour have to say about this programme.
Does Scottish labour agree that workfare actually takes vacancies out of the job market thereby failing all who are compelled to attend it. you answered No idea
Well really this is a no brainer. This was tried with YOP, YTS, Community Works Programme, Employment Training, New Deal etc etc. If these schemes could have worked, they would have worked. They didn’t work because they don’t work. The difference with this one, is it now handled by private firms like A4E without proper regulation or scrutiny. This should be a concern.
Does Labour regret giving ATOS a contract to manage sickness benefits?you answered If they don’t they should.
Correct.
Does labour regret abolishing the 10p rate in tax? you answered They should – terrible politics
Correct.
Does labour regret shutting remploy centres before the 2010 GE? you answered No idea
The correct answer should have been a combination of your answers to the last two.
How does anas sarwar square his attacks on universalism being unaffordable when there is an annual underspend of around 20 – 30% of the total welfare budget? you answered You misrepresent Mr Sarwar.
Did I really? If a politician claims we cannot afford certain benefits and we live in a something for nothing society, and someone points out a considerable underspend in the area being attacked, how is it misrepresentation to point this out and ask why?
Lastly if Scotland is so feeble a place it could not survive on its own & relies on handouts from England. What do the English get out of it? you answered I don’t believe Scotland is feeble. I’ll leave that to those who suggest we are too feeble to stand up for ourselves within the UK.
Good answer, we here at wings over scotland are also waiting for Alistair Darling, Anas Sarwar, Ruth Davidson and William Rennie of Bettertogether to explain this too.
Well Mr Grahamski You got three correct, you got 3 wrong and passed on the rest. Thank you for playing.
@grahamski
“And nowhere in the link you provide does it say the Labour Party intend to take bus passes off pensioners.”
Really? it doesn´t?
The Scottish Labour leader declared: “I believe our resources must go to those in greatest need. Alex Salmond’s most cynical trick was to make people believe that more was free, when the poorest are paying for the tax breaks for the rich.” And she added: “Scotland cannot be the only something-for-nothing country in the world.”
Or you need everything said literally for you to understand it?
If it wasn’t for the point that they are on the side of evil, you might feel sorry for Grahamski and the similar blind trolls.
We’re the good guys. We have a route to enable us to make Scotland a fair place where we can help those who need a hand, whether old, ill, or otherwise have had a disadvantage, whether that aid is temporary or more long term.
All Grahamski is bile, and victimisation, where Labour folk like Freud, Byrne, Field, Purnell and Milliband parrot the same divisive crap as the Tories, hoping to pick up the votes of those who hate.
But he does work for evil, so I do not pity him
Just a reminder to Grahamski and everyone.
link to tinyurl.com
The [neo]liberal regime is based on the notion of market dominance and private provision; ideally, the state only interferes to ameliorate poverty and provide for basic needs, largely on a means-tested basis. Hence, the decommodification potential of state benefits is assumed to be low and social stratification high (Ferragina and Seeleib-Kaiser 2011)
Means testing is a right-wing/neoliberal approach to welfare, as advocated by the Labour Party in addition to the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. This is well established – no ifs no buts -it’s the simple truth of the matter.
Universal benefits are of course the core of social democratic/democratic socialist welfare, such as advocated by centre to left socially liberal parties such as the SNP, Greens, SSP, Margo M etc.
Mr Morton
Internal Treaties from the 18th and 19th centuries are irrelevant to international organisations and in international law.
The EU recognises the UK as a single state – the internal arrangements of that state is up to the state.
Imagining treaties from the early 18th century will force organisations like the EU and NATO to treat a separate Scotland and the rest of the UK as two successor states is optimistic to the point of delusional.
The simple fact of the matter is that it will suit the folk who decide such things far more to treat a separate Scotland as a new state. That’s the harsh reality of international real politik.
The terrible mistake the YESnp campaign has made is they have made a series of assertions which they cannot possibly prove before the referendum. If they had just said that they didn’t know they wouldn’t be in this pickle…
Mr Skier
“Means testing is a right-wing/neoliberal approach to welfare”
You’re against the means testing of every benefit?
Opposition to means testing is a default socialist position. Being a cheer-leader for British Labour in Scotland, there is no reason you should know that.
I’m dying for Scotland to be a new state.
Imagine being completely debt free from day one. What an incredible fresh start! The slate wiped clean.
Sod the EU, hell sod the UN; don’t care if it took years to re-join. Jeez why even bother joining! Debt free! Woohooo!
And it would be for Scotland has never issued bonds, gilts etc. Nope they’re all in the name of the ‘successor state’ of the UKoGB (stop giggling at the back – we’re trying to pretend nothing happened to save face).
Pity its probably not to be.
You’re against the means testing of every benefit?
Of course, I’m a social democrat, not a neoliberal. I pay quite a large amount of income tax; I’m one of those people that keeps the pot topped up by taking out far less than I put in. Are you saying that you’d like me to get nothing from that pot in return for everything I’ve put in? That’s very nasty and Tory-like. Seems you want me to be angry about putting cash into the pot and so start voting Tory.
I’m happy to pay for young Scots to go to uni. In around 13 years time, when I’ve paid for many of them to do that, it would be nice if the favour was returned for my daughter. Call it a ‘social contract’.
@Grahamski
You seem to be in a question answering mood so lets see if you can answer mine. Why not try this one first:
Why do you, and the Labour leadership, use Tory money to tell us that we’re Better Together when the poor are being victimised by Tory policies? Why is this good for Scotland?
@scottish_kier
Ooooooo the ‘clean slate’ principle. Aaaaand the chances of Westminster allowing that to happen are exactly zero. Still we can dream. 🙂
They said no negotiations to take place before the referendum……………. 😀
Where there are services you count as part of your civilised society, means testing is a terrible idea.
1) It costs to implement, often costing more than is saved.
2) Those you wish to help often do not claim, wishing to avoid the stigma of activally claiming a benefit.
3) If a benefit is universal, not only do you make it more likely those you wish to help will get it, but those who do not need it and who might not get it even if they are entitled (e.g. if you have a car, you may be entitled to a bus pass, but you will not use it as much as someone without a car) are more supportive of those who do need it. We have seen the hate in the press and the reported incidents against the disabled because of demonisation. This has been fueled by the likes of Miliband, Freud and Byrne of the Labour Party.
There is an old view from those who wish to use the disaffection of the poor as a power base, such as the Labour Party. They would rather keep them miserable and feed off that wellspring of despair, than help them and find the,selves have to deal with a healthy, educated constituency
Grahamski seems to support that view of the cynicism of the Labour Party
I honestly do not know why folk bother responding to graham the skier, I suppose it must be a Scottish thing, irritating midge etc.
Mr skier
Hmmm…you imagine a separate Scotland will have no debt?
Erchie
You do know that there are lots of means tested benefits just now?
Are you saying we should scrap all existing means tested benefits and give everybody every benefit regardless of income?
You have this strange compulsion to constantly re-affirm your idiocy. I’m sure it would make an interesting clinical study.
Grahamski
If it is not a successor state, then it would have no carried over debt. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
UK sovereign debt exists in the form of gilts, bonds etc. These are in the name of the UKoGB, not the ‘new state’ of Scotland. Unless Scotland agrees to take on a debt to the UKoGB to cover its share of these, then it would be debt free. Someone in Japan holding UK bonds can’t just have these shifted to Scotland without their permisson; it is the UKoGB who has guaranteed them!
If it was not offered an equal share of assets, with equality in terms of treaties etc, then Scotland would not be obliged to take on any of the Uk’s debt.
You know this fine well. No country has ever left the British Empire, taken on and paid of part of it’s debt. But then they were all colonies….
If the rUK wants to be the sole successor state, take on the UN seat, keep all the embassies etc, there’s a price to pay for that.
Personally, I don’t see it working out that way. Rather it will be all divided up in a gentlemanly fashion, with treaties sorted out amicably. Best for all concerned.
Mr cuphook
Why do you, and the Labour leadership, use Tory money to tell us that we’re Better Together Why do you use Tory money to tell us to separate? when the poor are being victimised by Tory policies? Why were the SNP desperate for a Tory win in 2010? Why is this good for Scotland? It’s not which brings me back to:Why were the SNP desperate for a Tory win in 2010?
“Why were the SNP desperate for a Tory win in 2010?”
You can, of course, provide us with a source for that assertion?
As an SNP member I can tell you I was not “desperate for a Tory win in 2010”. What you are having difficulty coping with is the fact that, like many others in Scotland, I recognised that a British Labour win was not going to be any better for Scotland.
Do you have a link which shows Yes Scotland receiving money from the Tory party? I would have thought such a scenario would have been in the media by now.
And, again, your fixation with the SNP. As I have said, I am not a member, but I’d be happy to read any article that you link to where the SNP claim to be desperate for a Tory win.
So, we agree that the Tory victimisation of the poor and vulnerable is not good for Scotland; but it still doesn’t answer my question. Why are you happy to use Tory money to tell us that we’re Better Together when the Tories, as you agree, are bad for Scotland?
Curiously enough I *am* aware of means-tested benefits, as well as the race to the bottom to remove these benefits totally once the benefit becomes excluded. We’ve seen that before, we’ll see if with child benefit now, and others.
Why do I not mind child benefit or free tuition being paid even though I have no kids, because one day a child that benefited from that may save my life, may patrol my streets keeping me safe, may enrich the community through artistic endeavour, may employ others through opportunities lost in the grey misery that Grahamski would condemn them to.
This thread is an example of the ‘thinking’ and thought processes of a certain kind of Scottish Labour activist. Like Duncan Hothersall, Grahamski will never admit that Scottish Labour have now gone so right-wing as to be almost indefensible. They continue to chant the current party line and mantra like lemmings, and without hesitation, while their obsession with the SNP only grows stronger and more bitter. This hatred of the SNP means that they are politically blinded, and are unable to foresee the consequences of Scottish Labour’s lurch to political oblivion. This refusal to see what is occurring in Scottish Politics allowed Grahamski to predict, right up to the announcement of the election results in 2011, that Ian Gray was going to be FM. Their denial of the growing British Nationalism of the Scottish Labour Party is also noteworthy.
@muttley79
I just find it infuriating when you ask a party political type a simple question and they prevaricate, deflect, suggest mutual culpability and then just disappear. Last week Grahamski had to go to bed just as the alternative was to answer the very simple question I’d been asking him for hours. Hopefully he will answer today’s simple question.
“Hopefully he will answer today’s simple question.”
Don’t hold your breath.
I say it over and over, folks – the purpose of trolls like Grahamski is purely and solely to waste our time and stop us achieving anything more productive while we’re rolling around in the mud with them.
I’ve just visited Scottish Labour’s website, read Sarwar’s speech, checked the ‘Campaigns’ page, and I can’t find any mention of the Bedroom Tax anywhere. If Labour are, as Grahamski claims, against it, they’re not exactly screaming about it from the rooftops.
“I’ve just visited Scottish Labour’s website, read Sarwar’s speech, checked the ‘Campaigns’ page, and I can’t find any mention of the Bedroom Tax anywhere. If Labour are, as Grahamski claims, against it, they’re not exactly screaming about it from the rooftops.”
Remember, being “against” something doesn’t necessarily mean DOING anything about it. See today’s brave, heroic abstention on the tuition-fees motion for an example. (Similarly, I’m sure everyone in Labour would say they were “against war”, but it didn’t keep them out of Iraq.)
It is surely necessary to remind everyone that British Labour is nominally opposed to nuclear weapons. But their policy is to do nothing about them.
@Grahamski
‘I’d consider supporting separation if there was a reasonable argument for it not predicated on assertion, vague promises and insincere flattery.’
I will take you up on that challenge sir and open with-
I am a democrat.This is why i am wanting independence.Currently we send 59 MPs to a house of 650-we might as well not vote at all considering how much we can influence the commons.An unelected,unaccountable house of 775 Lords and to top it all an unelected, hereditary head of state.We may be able to vote but in not one instance other than Holyrood do i see the opportunity for the will of the Scottish people to be expressed.
Erchie
Any idea how much it will cost to give everybody free dental care?
How about supplying free spectacles for everybody?
Nothing is free, fool. The grown-ups are talking about social funding. Only the silly political kiddies are talking about free stuff.
Now now Mr Campbell no reason to get sore just because I pointed out your error earlier.
“Now now Mr Campbell no reason to get sore just because I pointed out your error earlier.”
What error was that?
@Rev
I know; but for the purpose of informing any readers unfamiliar with Unionist trolls it does pay to ask a few simple questions. At least we now know that Grahamski believes that the Tories are bad for Scotland. If he ever does manage to explain why he’s happy to use their money to tell us the opposite I, for one, would be mightily interested.
@Grahamski
How about providing the links I asked for – and answering that simple question?
I think Rev Stu is right. It is time to ignore Grahamski. The guy is a fanatic and he will keep on trying to get attention and a reaction. Best to ignore.
M4rkyboy
I’m glad to hear you’re a democrat.
When we vote in the Westminster elections we’re voting for a representative in the UK Parliament.
When I vote for my MP I’m not voting as part of a Scotland block but as a UK citizen.
I totally agree with you on peers and monarchy.
It is telling that you answer Cuphook’s questions with questions of your own; it seems not even you can defend the indefensible.
As far as your assertions go, you are going to have to substantiate them if you expect a serious response.
But your voice is impossible to be heard Graham.59 cannot outvote 591.Is this not a Democratic deficit?Scotland is voiceless on the big issues.
Grahamski cares nothing for Scotland or democracy. He considers the requirements of democracy satisfied if a sufficient number of British Labour politicians have a voice. The people are irrelevant.
Mr Bell
If you were not hoping for a Tory win you were in a minority in the SNP.
Indeed SNP lame-brain MP Pete Wishart described the prospect of a Tory win as ‘perfect’ for the SNP and their plans for separation.
I note that, like the obedient lackey you are, you abide by the prohibition on using the word “independent” insisted upon by your Tory paymasters.
And, of course, you totally miss the point. (Was there ever a point that didn’t go way over your head?) The important thing is that increasing numbers of people in Scotland are realising that voting for British Labour is no more effective than voting for the Tories when it comes to realising their social democratic aspirations.
You can whine and bleat about the SNP until you grow a spine, but this distrust of British Labour in Scotland is something that has been fostered, not by the SNP, but by cretins like yourself.
The Labour movement in Scotland will recover after independence. But only after it has dumped you and your treacherous ilk.
@Grahamski
Am I to understand that you can’t provide any links to your assertion that the Tories are funding yes Scotland?
Can I also take it that you are incapable of answering the question: Why are you happy to use Tory money to tell us that we’re Better Together when the Tories, as you agree, are bad for Scotland?
M4rkyboy
I am voting for only one MP to represent me in the UK Parliament. It’s just one voice in 650 or so. Is that democratic? I think so..
Mr cuphook
YESnp are funded only by money which comes from progressive people?
Are yuo sure?
@Grahamski
It’s obvious that you’re trying to avoid answering, but I’ll persist.
Provide proof of your assertion that the Tories are funding Yes Scotland. I provided proof that you’re working for Tory money.
And just answer the question, it’s not difficult. Why are you happy to use Tory money to tell us that we’re Better Together when the Tories, as you agree, are bad for Scotland?
Mr Bell
Infantile jibes?
Really?
cath said at 12:23 pm
“Think you’ll find most folk get their news online these days.”
I don’t believe that. We recently had two Yes street stalls and I asked several people of different age groups where they get their news from. None of them cited online sources, even when asked explicitly about online sources. One of the people I asked was under 30.
Mr Cuphhok
Michael Fry hasn’t given the YESnp camapign a coin?
No tory business people support it?
Really?
@Grahamski
You’re really scraping the barrel. Provide a link to back up your assertion that the Tories are funding Yes Scotland.
And answer the question: Why are you happy to use Tory money to tell us that we’re Better Together when the Tories, as you agree, are bad for Scotland?
It’s not democratic if you are a distinct nation of 5.5 million whose voice is drowned out.
How many Scottish MPs voted for the bedroom Tax?
I personally see absolutely no problem with Tories living in Scotland supporting independence and donating to Yes Scotland. I’d actually be quite concerned if Scotland didn’t have a right to balance the left just as much as the other way around (the problem with Britain, i.e. no left).
I am however very uncomfortable with the Idea of Tories who don’t live in Scotland contributing money to the pro-union campaign which is what I understand Cuphook is referring too. Certainly that was what the link to the herald article posted earlier was discussing if I recall correctly. I’m astonished that the Labour party in Scotland would accept money from English Tories to do their bidding.
Actually, sadly, no, I’m not. More’s the pity. Let’s hope Labour for independence can become Scotland’s proper left-liberal labour party in the future.
The best help that the Torys are giving isn’t pound coins, it’s things like the White papers that they release every month. Puts Labour in a sticky position too.
@Peter A Bell –
‘Nothing is free, fool.’
Classic! Get Mr T in, let’s make it a billboard.
I made Xavier Solano aware of Maddox’s article earlier today, and received the following reply:
‘I’ve sent a letter for publication. I really believe that these are unfounded comments. The relations between the two countries and their people and political parties are excellent. I believe I speak on behalf of all Catalans when I say that we wish Scotland and its people very well and we are extremely glad to see that Scotland’s future is in the best possible hands!’
Please will someone notify me when the letter appears?
Ignore Grahamski – it’s clear from his logic and rhetoric that he’s mad not bad! He has spoiled so many threads in so many publications it’s a wonder anyone responds to him. He is comfortable wrapping himself in the “Butcher’s Apron” – for God’s sake leave him to it and let’s get on with exposing the Unionists especially the foul Labour party in Scotland!
M4rkyboy
I’m sorry but I don’t share a distinct voice with an Edinburgh lawyer or a Perthshire farmer or an Aberdeen fisherman.
I do share a distinct voice with a Newcastle car mechanic, a Belfast clerical worker or a London teacher.
“I’m sorry but I don’t share a distinct voice with an Edinburgh lawyer or a Perthshire farmer or an Aberdeen fisherman.
I do share a distinct voice with a Newcastle car mechanic, a Belfast clerical worker or a London teacher.”
I really am going to need that one explained. Why is an Aberdeen fisherman not worthy of your socialist empathy while a Newcastle car mechanic is?
Of all the specious, spurious, meretricious arguments parroted by British Labour’s pseudo-socialist lackeys this is almost certainly the most cringe-worthy. It comes in a number of forms, of which this self-servingly selective “solidarity” is but one.
As well as the contention that they cannot stand shoulder-to-shoulder with people in Scotland because they have an obligation to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with people in England we also have the claim that they cannot address issues of poverty and deprivation in Scotland because it would be “selfish” to do so while poverty and deprivation exist elsewhere.
Then there’s the classic plea that, unless we can eliminate WMD entirely, it is wrong to seek to have them removed from Scotland.
Basically, it is an argument that says, “If we can’t do everything, we should do nothing!”. It allows empty-headed clowns like Grahamski to make superficially sincere-sounding noises about nuclear disarmament, poverty etc. while pandering to the British establishment by supporting the status quo.
It is a form of dishonesty that the electorate is increasingly seeing through. But, being terminally dumb, Grahamski and his sorry ilk continue to think it the cleverest deceit they’ve ever devised.
I’m surprised nobody has reminded Grahamski that it was Labour who decided to cede the 2010 election to the Tories rather than come to any arrangement with the SNP to secure a working majority.
I remember it quite distinctly. I was doubtful whether the arithmetic of the grand anti-Tory coalition would work, and of course the LibDems were also allowing themselves to be courted by the Tories. However, the reason given for not pursuing the grand coalition wasn’t that the arithmetic was impractical or that the LibDems wouldn’t play ball, but because there was no way Labour would ever work with the SNP, and the 6 SNP MPs were essential to the proposal.
Yes, that’s right. The SNP were ready and willing to join Labour and the LibDems in a coalition to keep Cameron out of No. 10. Labour preferred to give Cameron the keys, rather than be on the same side as the SNP.
Grahamski re-writes history then believes his own propaganda I think.
SS,
I am starting to think that the only good Scottish Labour (or Labour in Scotland, or whatever future desperate rebrand they give themselves) will do for a future independent Scotland is to completely sicken a majority of it’s population of Party politics. After The Tories demise, then the Liberal parties collapse, Labour seem intent on completely devaluing the Party political system we now suffer under to the very last of it’s true believers. Change in 2014 may bring real change in the way this country sees and does it’s politics. Vote YES!
Do they all agree with you on the monarchy and the Lords?
So Grahamski doesn’t share a voice with Alistair Darling (Edinburgh Lawyer) but does share one with the United & Cecil Club (Tory dining club based in Sussex). A man of the people, indeed.
Grahamski
Typical of so many Labour fanatics – they would deny their country to further their political ideology.
@Grahamski.
I have a good friend who’s a mechanic in Le Havre. Do you share a voice with him or do you share Alastair Darling’s opinion that non-British (foreign) = bad.
He made my wife (French) and EU colleagues/friends very uncomfortable with his recent xenophobic stuff, e.g.
link to thetimes.co.uk
Makes my skin crawl. Euughh.
@Grahamski
Answer the question: Why are you happy to use Tory money to tell us that we’re Better Together when the Tories, as you agree, are bad for Scotland?
I might be different from you Graham in the respect that i share a kinship with all Scots regardless of the job they hold.i would never let anything overshadow the Scottish family.
Morag
The reason a coalition was impossible is down to one thing: By May 10th the LibDems had decided to do a deal with the Tories. The idea that the SNP were in any way important is the puffed up self-important delusion of an irrelevant (to Westminster) fringe party.
You make the case for independence. If an entire Westminster parliamentary group representing the votes of thousands of people can be dismissed as irrelevant then not even a dullard like you can be surprised if those voters decide they want something better.
Mr Cuphook
Anybody who thinks it is in Scotland’s best interests can contribute to whatever camapaign they want. If that means Tories support Scotland’s place in the UK then I’m fine with that.
Constitutional matters are more important then petty party politics.
Grahamski and people of his ilk will always prefer a right wing English Tory Government wrecking havoc in the country than a left of centre independent Scotland.
Anas Sawar, George Osbourne, Ian Davidson, David Cameron, Margaret Curran, etc, etc, must be very proud of him.
At the end of the day he doesn’t see Scotland as a separate country, rather, he sees it as an extension of England.
He’s got more in common with David Mundell than he thinks.
Mr Grahamski: “The idea that the SNP were in any way important is the puffed up self-important delusion of an irrelevant (to Westminster) fringe party“.
Ah, you mean the Labour party.
Constitutional matters are more important then petty party politics.
Then why did Labour abstain on tuition fees?
M4rkyboy
I feel more of a kinship with a Labour voter in Birmingham than a Tory voter in Perth when it comes to voting in a UK election.
When it comes to a Scotland v England rugby game I’ll quite happily stand shoulder top shoulder with the Perth Tory.
The best of both worlds…
Would you sacrifice Scotland to preserve Westminster Grahamski?
Mr Rock
I see Scotland as part of the UK.
I think the Labour party have some relevance in Wales.
M4rkyboy
What do you mean, ‘sacrifice’?
Subsume it completely into England
M4rkyboy
Okay, you’ve lost me now.
I was unaware Scotland was in danger of being subsumed.
Ach, well…
I’m going for a pint.
Enjoy the rest of your evening, nice to talk
Cheers
@Grahamski
Wow! Answering wasn’t so difficult, was it?
So let’s get this straight.
You agreed that Tory attacks on the poor were bad for Scotland.
Now you’re saying that you’re fine working for Tory money to keep Scotland in the Union because that is in ‘Scotland’s best interests’.
Can you explain why it’s in Scotland’s best interests to suffer under Tory rule?
M4rkyboy
Of course he would. Johann Lamont has already started the ball rolling with her cuts commission to get Ed Miliband elected in England.
But let’s not forget that Johann Lamont vehemently campaigned against devolution just like Alistair Darling did so they all have past form.
If Westminster decided that to secure the union Scotland had to be brought into line with England by removing Scots law,Holyrood etc would you be ok with this?
I am wondering if there is any ‘Nationalism’ in you or does the union outweigh all other loyalties?
I was meaning to comment on this thread earlier in the day but was too busy at work. Now, my original aim for commenting seems irrelevant (something about believing the press) but was glad to see the point raised about our solidarity with people in other parts of the UK. I’ve heard this a few times from a mate of mine – along the lines of ‘don’t you have more in common with a worker in Liverpool or Newcastle than someone who lives in Shetland where you’ve never been?’ But the argument’s logic, or implied logic, seems to collapse when you say that there should, then, be no borders (international socialism anyone?). Or maybe the logic is still fine, but my friend is pro Britain or anti Scottish independence, so is he not following his own logic, or am I just confused?
Related point; several people here, myself included, seem to have non-Scottish partners. Relevant?
@Rev
That explanation confused me. As I’ve said, he doesn’t share a distinct voice with Alastair Darling but does with Sussex Tories.
It’s also a rather odd approach to life: judging people by their occupations.
He’s a Labour party Apparatchik isn’t he?
I also loved how he called Yes Scotland YeSNP and then went on to say ‘Constitutional matters are more important then petty party politics’.
Och, that`s typical, Mr Grahamski; to walk into a room, wiggle your hips, act the dizzy blonde for attention, and then piss off down the pub with the nearest car mechanic from Newcastle.
“I’m sorry but I don’t share a distinct voice with an Edinburgh lawyer or a Perthshire farmer or an Aberdeen fisherman.
Ian S Smart may not be an edinburgh lawyer, but he must have some clients from the area. I don’t see the difference myself.
Perthshire farmer – whether the boss or a farmhand, you would still be a farmer by profession. Whether growing potatoes or barley Perthshire farmers make products for us to eat and drink.
Aberdeen fisherman – known to be a dangerous job, again a profession which contributes not only to the tables across Europe and beyond but also provides a food source rich in nutrients for a balanced diet.
I do share a distinct voice with a Newcastle car mechanic, a Belfast clerical worker or a London teacher.”
Falkirk to Newcastle is a long way to travel to get an oil change on a car – can’t you find anyone closer willing to do the job?
Belfast Clerical worker – odd this one as Labour have no representation in Belfast that I am aware of (Orange order thing? Got to ask as there is no other sense in this statement that I can see)
London Teacher – is this in some way related to Labour MSP’s abstention to tuition fees? What with Scottish teachers being left out of the loop by Labour this afternoon?
I’m sorry but I don’t share a distinct voice with an Edinburgh lawyer or a Perthshire farmer or an Aberdeen fisherman.
I do share a distinct voice with a Newcastle car mechanic, a Belfast clerical worker or a London teacher.
This is just typical of British Nationalists. They try to make it appear as if it is to do with socialism. However, if you were a socialist you would think you shared a distinct voice with French mechanics, Russian mechanics, Australian mechanics, and all the other mechanics in all of the nations of the world! Instead British Nationalists, such as Grahamski, mention only working class people in England. It is one of the most cringe-worthy excuses against Scottish independence, certainly up there with the ‘too much paperwork’ excuse. Also, the assumption that farmers and fishermen are rich, or at least well off, is sickening.
I would have liked an answer to my last question.I suspect that Grahamski is a Trotskyist internationalist and that all countries are a barrier to the fulfillment of his ideological goals.You cant have a debate framed around national interest with him.
Grahamski cannot have a debate that is framed around anything other than the narrow interests of the British Labour Party and his own little clique of cronies. In that sense, at least, he typifies British Labour in Scotland.
That’s just the point. To a true internationalist, it shouldn’t matter at all whether or not someone was a national of a different country, he would feel solidarity with them regardless.
I go to international conferences. I meet colleagues from all over the world. We exchange discoveries and ideas. We learn from each other. None of that is going to change in the slightest after independence. It just isn’t an issue. It’s irrelevant.
Why would Grahamski feel any less solidarity with these people he mentions, after independence? There’s no reason. I think this demonstrates that he clings to the concept of the British state in the hope of being able to influence these people’s condition by his politics and his vote. In other words, he hopes Scottish Labour votes might be enough to save these people from the votes of their own countrymen, or even from their own voting patterns.
As it is, the arithmetic makes it futile. Scotland doesn’t have enough votes to make a significant difference, as Tony Blair demonstrates. What actually happens is that Scotland’s mechanics and teachers and clerks are disadvantaged by being saddled with the party England votes for. But that’s OK with Grahamski, because the struggle must always go on!
The idea of a small minority of the population trying to gerrymander the major part into a government it doesn’t want to vote for is risible. But it’s also arrogant and pointless. It’s not for Scotland to save England’s teachers or mechanics from themselves. That’s for them to do.
Grahamski’s perverted version of internationalism and solidarity applies, for petty purpose, only to British workers. A bit too ‘Gordon Brown’ and London Labour for my liking.
I take it that the wanton slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians, and displacement of millions more was just a demonstration of fraternal, tough love?
What’s that tune your plugging?
The people’s flag is deepest red,
It shrouded oft our martyred dead,
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold,
Their hearts’ blood dyed its ev’ry fold.
Is that your new anthem for Iraq and Afghanistan?
Must be gey lonely being a ‘socialist’ in the Labour Party!
Grahamski’s ‘internationalism’ is the same as Terry Kelly’s, ‘Braveheart”s (poster on LPW), Gordon Brown’s etc. That is to say he is not an internationalist. He is a fervent, fanatical British Nationalist, who consequently wants to maintain the British state at all costs, including at the cost of the working class in Scotland. If he was the internationalist he claims to be he would welcome the chance to say goodbye to nuclear weapons in Scotland. If Grahamski supported independence he would be on the same side as Dennis Cannavan, John McAllion, Colin Fox, and Tommy Brennan from the left in Scotland. Instead, like the good British Nationalist he is, he will continue to bitterly hate the SNP, and continue his unquestioning, and unconditional support of the Scottish Labour leadership, as they lose all trace of social democracy (never mind of his professed socialism).
Can we not ship him to a Gulag?
He’s already in Falkirk.
Peter A Bell
Basically, it is an argument that says, “If we can’t do everything, we should do nothing!”. It allows empty-headed clowns like Grahamski to make superficially sincere-sounding noises about nuclear disarmament, poverty etc. while pandering to the British establishment by supporting the status quo.
In a nutshell (particularly the saying highlighted!).
Drumroll…. :D:
It is amusing and disingenuous for Grahamski to state categorically that he doesnt know or doesnt care about the framework of the Union when asked by James-Morton about some key constitutional events that shaped the UK .
Then later states in total contradiction “Constitutional matters are more important then petty party politics.” Oh dear…Trolling tactics 101 – be consistent 🙂
I did however enjoy the post by Chic McGregor. People should not forget that the paper released by the UK Gov did mention the 2 views, with the UK siding with what the international view may be. However any time this has been tested within the UK and Scotland (McCormick) it has found that both Kingdoms felt they joined a treaty of Union, literally. The EU have formally stated they treat constitutional matters of a State as an internal matter. This is key because it is really for Politicians and law makers within the UK to thrash out their positions, only then will international organisations really react to this.
The UK would love to but cannot afford Scotland to leave as a purely new State as suggested in the UK document. That is easy ‘No embassy share, no debt share’. Therefore negotiation and a division of Assets and liabilities is the only likely result with the ending of the treaty of Union and formation of new treaties with rUK in its place. Either we get a pro-rata share of everything +/- fixed assets otherwise UK can argues for bigger share of assets for practical reasons, meaning we get a lower share of UK debt. If it unlikely went to an international dispute, then we take position of a totally New State and neither UK debts nor UK assets.
IMO rUK will logically be seen as a rather diminished continuation of the former UK and will require rUK to adjust many international relations (though keeps its seat on security council etc as US puppet). Regardless Scotland will appear to emerge as a new state internationally and can only then negotiate on our own behalf with our own reps.
So in Summary it is a bit of a red herring to state Scotland is a new state as seen internationally because all the key factors will be decided internally 1st and Scotland will for sure have to negotiate with rUK as a new entity, and world wide as a new member of the global community. You could argue the UK would no longer really exist, but if thats what the even more anglocentric rUK want to be called anyway – who cares?
I think that was my Scottish nationalism informing my interpretation Mutley.England is international to me.
Don’t feed the Troll but don’t ignore what he spews forth as there’s a lot of it about and it’s orchestrated.
Don’t feed the trolls, people! They’re just here to disrupt arguments with their whatabootery! We already know Labour would rather have a Tory government at Westminster than an independent Scotland.
To get back to the ridiculous Maddox article – the Spanish have fallen over themselves to say that the cases of Scotland and Catalonia are different, and they have no problem with an independent Scotland.
And a passing thought:
For years, speakers who were Catalans, Kurds etc, would be welcome to Trades Council meetings, Trade Union events, etc. Don’t remember them being called ‘separatists’ then! I wonder what would happen now?
Cannae believe you guys are entertaining @Grahamski he’s clearly a NOron.
I wasn’t entertaining him; I was learning. I want to know the motivation of people like Grahamski, who they are etc. It’s amazing what you can discover online.
Are we absolutely sure that grahamski isn’t one of us taking the P.
Or allowing us to brush up our rebuttals.
The again so inane were his sallies I used to think the same about Duncan Hothersall and he turned out to be real.
Rev Stu.
Re the important post from my friend Green Bean above, which seems to have gone unnoticed. When Green Bean read the article on Wings, she contacted Xavier Solano direct and made him aware of Maddox’s Scotsman piec
Here’s the gist of Xavier Solano’s reply to her
‘I’ve sent a letter for publication. I really believe that these are unfounded comments. The relations between the two countries and their people and political parties are excellent. I believe I speak on behalf of all Catalans when I say that we wish Scotland and its people very well and we are extremely glad to see that Scotland’s future is in the best possible hands!’
We need to make sure that Solano’s letter is actually published. If anyone spots it please let us know through this site.
“Re the important post from my friend Green Bean above, which seems to have gone unnoticed.”
I noticed it, but as I hadn’t the faintest idea who Xavier Solano was I didn’t know what to do with that information.
@Cuphook
We discovered that Labour in Scotland have decided that Yes Scotland donations from businessmen equates to ‘Tory contributions’ – I assume they have their irony gene removed at Keir Hardie House these days – but it lets us know what daft wee stories they’re telling each other.
@Green Bean
Yeah. Good move. I did mean to comment earlier but I wasn’t allowing myself any distractions and then forgot.
@AnneDon
I did find his embarrassment at working for the Tories funny. He thought he could redefine what a Tory is. He did say it was fine by him where the campaigns got their donations from, though; so I’m sure he won’t be making any comments with regards to that in the future.
Seriously I have not read any posts on this thread but merely scrolled down the page and one name seems to appear in every other post.
Don’t get my wrong, I have no problem with everyone being entitled to a say, but when one person comes to dominate a thread then they have already won.
The answer is very simple, don’t bite.
@Indy_Scot
Read the posts. You can learn a lot by trolling a troll.
Will be sorry in some ways when the Scotsman goes not for this rubbish but for Joyce Macmillan, Duncan Macmillan.. some of the music writing etc.
I noticed it, but as I hadn’t the faintest idea who Xavier Solano was
From the name, sounds like some kinda Catalan ‘Mask of Zorro’ fella. 🙂
A long time ago before I had any political opinions I used to read Alf Young’s articles in the Herald. They were always difficult reading and never made much sense to me. Years later I found out that he was a member of the labour establishment. That explained the lack of clear sense in his articles. he was trying to make readers swallow lies.
This Maddox bilge is just the same. How dumb or niave would anyone have to be to read this piece and think gee that guy’s got a point. How many people that dumb or niave read the Scotsman.
Guessing this chap
Xavier Solano i Bello
Adviser to Angus MacNeil MP at the UK Parliament and to the Ambassador of Slovenia in London
Past:
Head of the Catalan Government Delegation to the UK / Delegat del Govern de Catalunya al Regne Unit
Political Adviser at the Scottish Parliament
Author of book: “El mirall escocès” (The Scottish mirror) 2007.
Internship – Political Researcher at the Scottish Parliament
Political Researcher at Institut DEP Consultoria Estratègica in Barcelona
Erchie, re Xavier Solano – well done, yes, exactly the chap. RevStu and others, sorry if I mystified you. He was mentioned by name in Maddox’s article, so I foolishly imagined I didn’t need to explain who he was. He tends to drop the ‘i Bello’ part of his name in everyday use.
3rd paragraph of DM’s article:
‘Until that interview there had been a genuine feeling of fraternity. Indeed Xavier Solano i Bello, the former head of the Delegation now does some work for the SNP in Westminster, having previously worked in Holyrood for Nicola Sturgeon.’
I’ll now buzz off and see if his letter has been published by the Scotsman yet.
Man, I really was having a bad day yesterday. I’m putting it down to being up at 5am.
I am not a member of any political party,however I am an ardent “Nationalist” the main reasons being I am not exactly “political” when it comes to saying what I think and believe.
This type of treason by Maddox fills me with rage.
Everytime another lying unionist spews their bile against my beloved Scotland I feel the anger and disgust welling inside of me.
I am one of those who believes the day after Independence the busiest offices in Scotland should be The Procurator Fiscals and the Police Stations.
Warrants should be issued for all the Quislings that have done ,and allowed so much harm to be done to our nation.
They should be treated like the French collaborators were in 1944,after the liberation of France.
These ("Tractor" - Ed)s should be named and shamed and forever more every Scottish schoolchild showed be made aware of these disgusting people.
My Polish partner commenting on the “Scottish media” said that even in Soviet dominated Poland the press were not as biased or corrupt.
Mr Grahamski: “The idea that the SNP were in any way important is the puffed up self-important delusion of an irrelevant (to Westminster) fringe party“.
That’s interesting. If the elected Scottish government are nothing more than an irrelevant fringe party in Westminster’s eyes, then what chance have the rest of us up here got?
Scotland is never going to get a fair shake from any Westminster government if this is the attitude they take to our elected representatives. Very illuminating.
It’s a pretty good argument for full political independence. Cheers Grahamski!
I have just noticed Rod Mac’s post at 8.32 am, above.
I don’t know anything about his posting history, so I apologise if either of the conclusions I’m jumping to is mistaken, but I do not believe that a post of that nature should stand uncriticised.
Words like “treason”, “("Quizmaster" - Ed)s” and “collaborators” are not the stuff of reasoned or civilised debate. Nor is any suggestion that after independence people who supported the continuation of the union should be rounded up and put on trial. This post evokes the spectre of an independent Scotland becoming a police state, an outcome which would be profoundly horrifying.
Rod Mac is either a hot-headed, immature person who needs to give a lot more thought to what he types before pressing the submit button, or he is an infiltrator from the unionist camp, here to post exactly the sort of comment that can be picked up by our opponents. And not just those who want to fulminate about “cybernats”. He gives aid and succour to those who spread the lies that an independent Scotland will be a one-party state and a dictatorship.
That’s the downside of having unmoderated comments. Those with an agenda to serve, those who want to be able to misrepresent the nature and tone of the debate, have a free rein to post highly inflammatory diatribes, which their own friends can then come back to and say, look what fascists these nationalists are. However, one thing we can do is to criticise these posts, and say, not in my name, not in my country.
I realise Rod Mac has made two posts in rather similar vein today, and I’m not aware of him having made any temperate or measured posts to counterbalance these. So, we wonders. Yesssss, we wondersssssss.
Morag writes:
“So, we wonders.”
Aye, we does, Morag. A Rod to beat us with?
This is another article written by David Maddox for the Scotsman the day before.
link to scotsman.com
Interesting that no one on here is critiscising this one. Perhaps becuase it’s critical of English bias rather than the SNP?
“Interesting that no one on here is critiscising this one. Perhaps becuase it’s critical of English bias rather than the SNP?”
…or, because it’s a piece of proper reporting with facts and attributed quotes and stuff, and therefore doesn’t merit criticism of the sort the Catalonia piece is getting.
O/T
I have just watched an STV news travesty, We had Michael Moore and Alan Reid (who he?) standing by an about to be opened A83 diversion at £3.7 million from the Scottish Government via the Scvottish transport minister. Neither of them have anything to do with this construction or funding. Transport Minister Keith Brown was their yesterday to no STV report. I have complained to STV.
Dave
Alan Reid–who he indeed! Not the Libdem MP for Argyll&Bute next time round I hope!!!! Amazing how close to the credits he manages to get. Must be a Libdem trait…