Teaching sleeping dogs dirty tricks
Labour MP John Mann has now given his account of yesterday’s goings-on around a misattributed quote in the Sunday Times and Herald. You can read it on his website, or look at this conveniently-located screenshot (click to supersize) instead:
Speaking as writers we’re especially impressed by the fifth paragraph’s use of no fewer than SIX exclamation marks after a single word. But it’s the next bit, and in particular the section we’ve highlighted in the image above, that’s rather more concerning.
Mr Mann asserts explicitly that the offending press release was issued not by some SNP press officer or web editor, but by Angus Robertson personally. This would be a remarkable thing if true, since Angus Robertson would of course know perfectly well that he, not John Mann, had given the quote in question.
It would elevate the issue from a simple error made by the Sunday Times and Herald and subsequently picked up unwittingly by the SNP press office into a deliberate and knowing lie by Angus Robertson – one which, moreover, was certain to be discovered. It would therefore be quite unimaginably stupid.
Mr Mann’s account alleges, therefore, not only that Angus Robertson is a malicious liar, but a malicious liar of such incredible dim-wittedness that he ought to be in receipt of round-the-clock care. It is – and trust us on this one, we’ve been doing the reading – absolutely clearly defamatory. Anyone taking it at face value would be left with the impression that Angus Robertson was a spectacular moron as well as dishonest.
(And the use of the phrase “orchestrated and calculated” would appear to suggest that the Sunday Times and Herald are in on this conspiracy too, which would be novel.)
Of course, that may be true. At this point Wings Over Scotland doesn’t actually know for sure that Robertson didn’t put out the press release himself, though frankly it seems an astronomically distant possibility. (We’ve asked.) But it’s certainly an interesting way to accuse someone ELSE of “dirty tricks”.
.
EDIT 2.10pm: Mr Mann tweeted the following a short while ago:
This is the actual SNP “apology”, as quoted by Mr Mann on his own website:
“Abject” would seem to be pushing it a little.
The unionists really are a nasty, bitter lot, aren’t they? Still, all will be made clear to the electorate when the BBC report this, just like they have with Donorgate 😉
link to rationalwiki.org Is this one in play then?
If five is “A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head” then six may also see the trousers worn there too.
I read somewhere that Mann was “one of the good guys” in Labour at Westminster. Good at Orwellian doublespeak presumably.
I love the way he seemingly refers to himself in the third-person – like football managers do. I wonder if he does it in real-life? “John Mann’s away for pish”, “John Mann’s away to abstain”, etc
No… whats more interesting is that he has just slandered the SNP, Herald and Sunday Times in one go by accusing them of collaborating in “orchestrated and calculated dirty tricks”.
Orchestrated = colluded
Calculated = deliberate
So according to Mr Mann the Sunday Times, Herald and SNP colluded to wrongly attribute a quote to him in order to damage the donation from Vitol CEO Ian Taylor…
Batshit crazy doesnt come close enough to describing that allegation!
‘John Mann A different kind of MP’
If only.
Perhaps Angus Robertson is the only SNP member that he knows, so he assumes everything the SNP does is done by Angus Robertson himself?
Desperation from Labour over this I think. Perhaps it would have been better for Mr Mann NOT to have raised this issue in the first place. Everything that is now coming out points to a human error in one paper and then magnified by being reported in other papers and SNP press release. Perhaps Mr Mann should have investigated the source of the “allegation” first. Even a deaf dumb and blind man could see that this is solely down to human error and NOTHING to do with Angus Robertson trying to make political gains. The result of this whole ridiculous affair is, in my view, that Mr Mani is now being seen as a false front for Better Together in a pathetic attempt to distract people away from “moneygate.” Unfortunately this ridiculous flailing by Better Together is bound to do nothing more than end up as yet another failure!
Where do the Unionists go from the sewer. They’ve just confirmed that this ‘donorgate’ scandal should not go away and we should make an example of them on our way to exposing the truth. Democracy matters too much.
Mann ought to be ashamed.
What he is erroneously quoted as saying is what he SHOULD have been saying to maintain a shred of consistency and decency.
He should be explaining to us why he didn’t 🙂
Mann has come out with a clunky, hard to follow, utter dogs breakfast of an a-posteriori explantaion of what transpired – an explanation that is easily refuted by the facts.
I’m grateful for it though, as I can imagine that Lamont’s speech-writer will believe this gives her something to work with at FMQ’s this week. Or rather, “like a chimp flinging shit at herself” if I can rehash your phrase from last week !
Robertson may not have put out the press release himself, but he does have extensive connections to it. 😉
LOL. If Mann had actually just said that Robertson was “linked to” the press release he’d have been fine 😀
The sad thing is, as others have commented, the unprofessionalism of sub editors at both the Times and Herald compounded by that of the SNP press office has given the media in general a golden opportunity to now pass this whole episode off as a storm in a tea cup. “Oh, they’re all as bad as each other, it’s all just a big squabble about who said what to whom, handbags at dawn …” etc etc.
Dishonest and itself unprofessional – but we all know that is what they will do. Moan about the unionist media as much as we like but frankly you may as well moan about the Scottish weather. It is what it is.
And the SNP/Yes campaign needs to stop behaving as if it were otherwise. Nothing less than total professionalism and watertight discipline is going to steer the message through this crap. They need to up their game – and fast.
In fairness, I think that applies to the ST and Herald, but not (on this occasion at least) to the SNP press office. As I noted last night, it’s pretty reasonable to think that something that’s cleared not one two different grown-up newspapers is probably bona fide, especially when it tallies with what John Mann is known to have previously said. Otherwise everyone would spend so much time cross-checking every last word they didn’t hear with their own ears that papers would be two pages long.
So clearly then Mr Mann shall be putting us all right on his views on the Vitol CEO donation then?
“Vitol was accused of “immoral” trade and “backing corrupt regimes” by John Mann MP, a Labour member of the Treasury Select Committee, who demanded that the Tory party hand back the “dirty money” it had received from Mr Taylor.” – THE TELEGRAPH
link to telegraph.co.uk
For him to denounce the Vitol CEO’s money on the 26th September 2012 in such strong terms and demand its return only to turn round a mere 7 months later and back the very same person providing funding to the ‘Better Together’ campaign is highly questionable.
Has anyone asked John Mann whether he thinks Mr Taylor’s donation to Alistair Darling is “dirty money” or is it just when Ian Taylor donates to the Tories?
Having had a small amount of experience with organisations, I’d say the idea that someone like Angus Robertson would even know where to find the SNP press office part of the hard drive and dig up the right headed notepaper for it, far less compose and type it, then send it out quite laughable.
A real man with integrity, would have said “I did not say those words, but I have since looked into the donor issue regarding Better Together and I WILL say them now” or is it clean money now Mr Mann, is it?
@Rev – The formatting box on posts seems to be missing for me today. Is there an issue or just a glitch?
Lets hope Angus sends him a lawyers letter Oh the irony
In what sense is he using ‘paginates’ there? I’ve never seen it used in that context.
sneekyboy: No idea. Fine for me.
One day Labour are going to have their ‘I’m the bad guy? How did that happen’ epiphany. I’m not counting on it soon, but man – they really have become[1] unpleasantly hysterical and shrill.
link to youtube.com
[1] Become? Or just ‘become more obvious about being’?
“In what sense is he using ‘paginates’ there?”
I wondered that too. I think just “the wrong sense”.
““In what sense is he using ‘paginates’ there?”
I wondered that too. I think just “the wrong sense”.”
Particularly as he’s referring explicitly to the online edition, not the print one.
it looks like Mr Mann is cobtinuing this on Twitter. Not principle then, just him indulhing in the ususl tribal crap.
i still hate your crsp comment box thst fucks up mobile browsers
“i still hate your crsp comment box thst fucks up mobile browsers”
I don’t know what to say. I used it on my iPad this morning with no problems.
“Has anyone asked John Mann whether he thinks Mr Taylor’s donation to Alistair Darling is “dirty money” or is it just when Ian Taylor donates to the Tories?”
I asked Mr Mann that very question on twitter and am eagerly awaiting his response.
So, do we know what Labour MP John Mann actually DOES think of Ian Taylor/Vitoil’s donation to the Tories and to the Better Together campaign? Seems to me he’s just provided us all with an opportune moment to ask him.
Ooops, Mr Mann. link to charnwood-libdems.org.uk
As for the meaning of ‘paginate’, I just checked the CED, and it only contains one meaning: “to number the pages of (a book, manuscript, etc) in sequence”.
Just how low is all this stuff getting?
@Les Wilson
Oh I think most politicians could safely limbo dance under a snake’s ass in a wagon rut with inches to spare. 🙂
See Dennis Canavan has made a speech to the STUC conference today and there are various other independence related speeches and events going on there. Are they perhaps coming close to declaring support for indy? Really, if they’re honest about what they say they want, independence is the only way to get it in Scotland. And an independent Scotland is probably the best, if not only, hope of pushing England the other direction too. It also might explain Labour beginning to act like dying wasps in late autumn.
Refer him to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.
link to nasw.org
It’s hardly a surprise that someone like John Mann uses the word ‘paginates’ inappropriately. His inappropriate use of the word ‘paginates’ suggests someone who is trying to inflate his credentials, someone hunting for overblown sentiments to conceal his limited vocabulary.
As for his attempt to be serious and to be taken seriously on this issue, I think Laurence Sterne captured Mann’s gormless disposition well, in his novel Tristram Shandy, when he wrote:
‘Gravity, a mysterious carriage of the body to conceal the defects of the mind’.
@Cath
I can’t see the STUC formally supporting the Yes campaign. I don’t think they will support either campaign. There will almost certainly be supporters of independence within the STUC, as some others will no doubt vote No. The economy still looks in serious trouble, so I can’t imagine there would be many supporters of BT within the STUC, but who knows?
“I can’t see the STUC formally supporting the Yes campaign. I don’t think they will support either campaign.”
That’s certainly been their position so far, and I’d guess their strong links with Labour would make supporting the Yes campaign difficult, unless Labour also did a dramatic about-turn on it. Though that said, if the STUC did turn, they might bring Labour with them.
Right now though, Better Together – which is the only alternative to Yes – can’t be an easy sell among a lot of normal, non-political types within the movement. I know I specifically haven’t joined the trade union I could, and probably would, have joined this past year (Unison) due to their close links with Labour and fears over them being on the BT side of the campaign. It would be interesting if they took a vote. I suspect you’re right though and they won’t officially campaign for either side.
How do people like this get into positions
of ‘power’ and influence?
Peter Lilley, on BBC News, 3.00, just after Thatcher was delivered to the HoC, asked for his memories of her:
‘I was just thinking of the last time she spoke from the front bench here, which was a terribly moving occasion, she’d just been ousted from the leadership…suddenly she said ‘I’m enjoying this’ when it took off and she was able to enter into a ding-dong debate…’
Oh dear.
Talk about dropping a clanger?
@ian brotherhood
suddenly she said ‘I’m enjoying this’ when it took off and she was able to enter into a ding-dong debate…’
Classic 🙂
Union officialdom is often a stepping stone to greater things so I imagine some will be sticking to the London Labour line.As for Mann,I think he is completely off his trolly.
Mann’s comments just prove, if any more proof were needed, that Labour are more willing to ‘have a go’ at the SNP than to have the courage to stand up for their convictions. I’m guessing that he seen ‘paginate’ used by someone commenting on someone else’s commentary in a newspaper article of another newspaper’s copy. Maybe.
On STUC support, I don’t expect anything this Conference, but next years…
John Hamill
Did Private Eye hear from Arkell again ?
@Geoff Huijer,
His biography on his home page gives a few clues. He was a chair of Labour Students, an ex-businessman and, most telling of all, he worked for a trade union just before entering parliament in 2001. Labour. Snouts. Troughs.
Rev Stu, O / T but have you seen this
link to blogs.aljazeera.com
I would dearly love to see the STUC come out for Independence. It would lift the profile of Unions as they would clearly be seen to “stand” for something. At the moment they have effectively emasculated themselves by clinging to the British Labour coat tails, a position that will bring absolutely nothing. I’m not hopeful of a positive movement from the STUC, however, as I suspect that there are to many aspiring Westminster careerists in the STUC. There is also a lack of visionaries within their ranks. Where are the Jimmy Reids and, indeed, the Canavans?
I’m with @freddiet on this.
Given the nature of this debate already I would expect the SNP press office to at least check a single source. I doubt they saw the online version of the ST, and it wasn’t in the hard copy, so were working from the Herald alone, lazy at best, sheer incompetence at worst.
Before Angus R gave his reaction quote was he read the words attributed to Mann I wonder?
Not for the first time I am moved to comment on the perplexing willingness of some politicians – particularly the British Labour breed – to make complete fools of themselves in their desperate eagerness to attack the SNP.
Even before we get to the subject matter, this “article” is an embarrassing mess. The language is clumsy, in places barely qualifying as English. The name of one of the main protagonists is misspelled. The word “paginate” is used in painfully evident ignorance of its meaning. And six exclamation marks at the end of a sentence is the stuff of kids text messages and not serious political communication.
It gets worse.
John Mann, had he but the wits of your average mollusc, would have let this issue die overnight after it became clear that the fault lay with the newspapers involved and that the SNP was guilty of nothing more than an understandable error through being misled by those newspapers. Instead, he chooses to keep the pot boiling in a way that reflects far more badly on himself and his party that it does on those he seeks to attack.
Despite his unseemly railing against Angus Robertson on Twitter last night, Mann could have retained some measure of dignity by simply accepting the apology offered and moving on. Instead, in blinkered and stubborn denial of the known and uncontested facts, he continues to promulgate outrageous and highly defamatory allegations of “orchestrated and calculated dirty tricks”.
Once again it is shown that when a British Labour politician thinks they’ve found a stick with which to beat the hated usurpers of their Scottish hegemony, that is the point at which thinking stops. If John Mann truly does aspire to be a “different kind of MP” – or even if he just wants to appear a decent, rational person – he would do well to try and break out of the stereotype instead of playing down to it.
The funny thing is, when the Herald attributed the comments to John Mann MO, we thought he was a man of principle, keeping true to his opinion.
now we kniw nothing could be further from the truth
@cath
Re STUC. I heard their GS Grahame Smith on the radio this morning, he said by the conference next April they would expect to have a position. Listening to him I’d say it’s too close to call.
I’ll make a generalised comment if I may, not specific to this particular case. It really does strike me that, in the case of the ‘Scottish Debate’ – a matter of near life-or-death importance as I see it (not just to Scotland but the broader UK also), whichever side of the fence one happens to sit – the standard of this debate on *all* sides spends far too much time in the domain of tittle-tattle, misinformation and frankly petty battles of ego and ‘dirty tricks’? I can imagine many in the Scots’ electorate simply switching off in horror, or at least boredom?
I do wish this whole bullshit Phoney War would end soon and the true, substantive merits of the case for and against independence could be put out there by both sides in clear, honest, earnest and unambiguous terms.
So this guys an MP who is asking another MP to resign because he is falsely accusing him of doing exactly what he is doing now. Lying. Its just so depressing.
“The funny thing is, when the Herald attributed the comments to John Mann MO, we thought he was a man of principle, keeping true to his opinion.”
Exactly. He’s basically blustered in to say “How dare you accuse me of being principled or maintaining a consistent and coherent position in any way. I am a Labour MP! This is a smear that could harm my career. I demand you take it all back!”
I should add, of course, that I’m not attributing any blame to Wings here for this. It’s the so-called ‘Big [political] Beasts’ who are setting the tone, content and agenda of the debate.
” the standard of this debate on *all* sides spends far too much time in the domain of tittle-tattle,”
Like this?
link to bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk
“There was outrage last night as a Labour MP tweeted something an SNP tweeter said a Labour MP said about something an SNP tweeter said he’d tweeted…”
@captaincaveman
I see your point, pretty much what the STUC man said this morning too. A big part of the problem, imo, is the MSM reporting and built in bias. I reckon this leads to the sort of rushed, inaccurate Press Release from the SNP as per this story, a sort of unhealthy desire to get out any ‘bad news’ involving the side the media favours.
Yeah, exactly that Cath. I’m no tactician and as a debater of sorts I’ve the finesse of a flying anvil – I’m sure that those clever, media-savvy people who are setting the debate timetable etc. feel there’s a long way to go until the vote, and they’ve got to keep their powder dry for fear of comprehensive, substantive rebuttal or whatever?
There does surely come a time, though, whereby people on both sides have got to think ‘what if the electorate are *so* pissed off with these shenanigans’, (or worse, like the spectre of real community divisions being created or exacerbated by what is undeniably becoming a highly polarised, divisive and extreme narrative).
@Cath
Oh, that’s brilliant – Go BBC Scotlandshire!
@Albalha
I totally agree with you; as a staunch Unionist I nevertheless concede totally that there is *massive* anti-indy sentiment and bias within the mainstream media, which is totally undesirable. I’m a democrat first and foremost; I believe in fair play, freedom of speech and, as much as can be achieved, informing all sides of the electorate of the pros and cons of BOTH sides of the argument.
Bottom line is that this referendum must be fair and decisive either way, for both sides of the argument to feel democracy has been duly served and all can buy into the final result, work together, and move on.
@Captain Caveman
I and many others here will agree with you regarding a clear, honest, earnest and unambiguous debate. However when the MSM and BBC are willing to publicise any old rubbish spouted by any of the unionist parties and at the same time at best ignore the “Yes” argument and at worse distort it. Then it is no wonder that we seize the opportunity to fight back whenever and however we can.
I think that until we get some sort of balance from the media in Scotland this situation will continue. It is very far from ideal. I am sure that all Yes supporters would love the type of attention that the MSM & BBC currently give to Better Together. All we want is to be able to put our side of the debate to the general public. Sadly I think that until then it will be “Same shit, different day!”
“There does surely come a time, though, whereby people on both sides have got to think ‘what if the electorate are *so* pissed off with these shenanigans’, (or worse, like the spectre of real community divisions being created or exacerbated by what is undeniably becoming a highly polarised, divisive and extreme narrative).”
I agree. But, at the risk of adding to it by going “that side’s worse” I do think this is a deliberate ploy on the unionist side. They are the ones who seem to want to bring the debate down to gutter level and have been trying to stifle debate since the beginning. From attempts to put people off joining in with terms like “cybernat” to smears that are designed to bring the Scottish government down to the same level of distrust as Westminster, to this kind of thing.
That said, the Yes side (and SNP in particular, as the political wing) has to be careful not to rise to it, and so do pro-indy blogs and those of us on the Yes side. Rising to it and becoming just as bad is precisely what those seeking to destroy the debate want. And I also agree that, at the moment, there is far too much rising to it. A biased media and NO side are setting the agenda, but the other side is playing up to it too much right now, especially by allowing largely irrelevant media like Twitter and its many trolls to play a large part.
@captaincaveman
Of course if it continues in this vein the post vote aftermath may well be unpleasant in a way we should be trying to avoid.
I wonder how many others, who share your commitment to the Union, have even considered the nature of the coverage. On the other hand I believe some of the MSM criticism is hysterical, not a popular view.
Like you I sincerely hope we can get the debate onto a, let’s say. mature level.
@Captain Caveman …
I believe on several occasions Blair Jenkins has called a public debate with Alistair Darling which has been been met with silence; also Alex Salmond recently asked David Cameron for a head to head debate but no reply either. They can’t do much until the MSM (including BBC) starts to put pressure on Better Together, I’m not holding my breath for that to happen.
Labour for Independence have announced they are now a membership organisation with a defined constitution.
link to facebook.com
Has John Mann explained why a donation from Ian Taylor to the Tory Party is “dirty money” but one to the Better Together is perfectly acceptable.
Maybe the Rt Honourable John Mann actually meant Plaginet what with all this quasi Royal funeral stuff going on.
She said/I said/she denied/he said/he said stuff seldom resolves anything.
Follow the Money!The trail always leads to something.
What was that wee note left by Labour to the incoming Tory/LibDem gang? No money left.
Looks like Flipper Darling’s wee response here is won’t repay, can’t repay.
Seanair says:
16 April, 2013 at 3:37 pm
John Hamill
Did Private Eye hear from Arkell again ?
Only via Master McGrath
annie says:
16 April, 2013 at 5:25 pm
Has John Mann explained why a donation from Ian Taylor to the Tory Party is “dirty money” but one to the Better Together is perfectly acceptable.
The only possible excuse I can think of is that Ian Taylor’s donation was not made to a political party. Still pretty weak and does nothing to cover the stench of corruption. Why has the Electoral Commission had nothing to say on the matter, or have I missed something?
Vote Yes in 2014.
Is the title intended to imply that sleeping dogs already know how to lie?
Cath says:
16 April, 2013 at 4:43 pm
Like this?
link to bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk
“There was outrage last night as a Labour MP tweeted something an SNP tweeter said a Labour MP said about something an SNP tweeter said he’d tweeted…”
Like it? I LOVE IT! Cath
BBC Scotlandshire latest LOL!
SNP accused of ‘Digging for Victory’
link to bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk
Perhaps everybody is waiting until reporting has to be fair and unbiased before laying out substantive information about pros and cons of independence? If, as is evident now, the mainstream media is not unbiased, it is hardly worth doing since the information will be subjected to spin and ‘editing’. Until such time as what is said can be guaranteed to be reported accurately, we will continue to have this sniping. I’m looking forward to the time of the big guns, is it the last 16 weeks?
What does John Mann know or care of Scotland? He’s just coming out with one for the team, that’s all. Would like to know if his previous opinion of Taylor donations still stands though…
ipsos mori just called, unfortunately I was not in their target range (18-34). My daughter is talking to them now. I’ll keep you posted!
OT, but Bella just got legible! Whatever next?
I think it was being conducted on behalf of Scottish Labour. Asking if she thought JL was a good leader. Asked if she showed good judgement. Asked if she was happy with AS.
Finally should Scotland be an independent country – Hell Yes!
”…paginates a quote from…”
I was pretty sure what paginate meant but just to be sure I checked it up on my old Collins dictionary. And sure enough:
Paginate. vt. to number the pages of.
Pagination. n. paging.
Anyone feel like donating a dictionary to the Labour Party?
@CarolineCorfield
Yes formal campaign 16 weeks, so May next year.
@themadmurph
It’s a bit early for their (IPSOS MORI) regular Scottish public opinion monitor, so could well be a privately commissioned poll.
As I’ve said on here before, there are lots of polls we don’t get to see. If it is just a normal POM we should have things appear in the next couple of weeks.
@scottish_skier
first time we’ve ever had a call. Mind you if it as automated system I generally hang up! We’ll see if the results are out in the next couple of weeks!
Swello says:
16 April, 2013 at 1:39 pm
“I love the way he seemingly refers to himself in the third-person – like football managers do. I wonder if he does it in real-life? “John Mann’s away for pish”, “John Mann’s away to abstain”, etc”
John Manns just shat himself!!!!!!
thought I smelled shite
In my experience government press officers are a law unto themselves.
I think this incident has come at a good time. It was beginning to feel like the Better Together team were making some howlers and the YES campaign could do no wrong then this debacle with he said, they said, she said nonsense. The resulting debate does nothing to move the case for our future forward one way or the other.
However, in the middle of this thread some really strong cries for the level of debate to improve and why it’s so frustrating trying to achieve this gets me thinking. If the people in positions of influence are not prepared to engage in proper grown up debate to benefit the people then maybe it’s time the people did it for themselves.
Perhaps we should try and engage with our peers on the BT side and try to create mature well informed debate on the the big issues on forums like WOS. No-one on either side should fear the sharing of information to shed light on the things that matter. Don’t ask me how we start such a process but the people of Scotland could lead by example and show our political and media providers that we won’t tolerate this determination to close down debate.
Discuss!
John Mann, oh he loves those Vitol pennies, he does, he loves those Vitol pennies….now…apparently.
Integrity…thy name is not politician.
Supporters of the union are being badly let down, They need a real grassroots campaign organisation. Better Together isn’t it.
All the better for us though. 🙂
“Perhaps we should try and engage with our peers on the BT side and try to create mature well informed debate on the the big issues on forums like WOS.”
I’m sure we could do this in real life too. I have a couple of good friends who are unionists. I’m sure an informal debate over coffee and cake, or a few beers and glasses of wine with them and some undecidedes would be infinitely better than what the media is offering, for all of us.
“Perhaps we should try and engage with our peers on the BT side and try to create mature well informed debate on the the big issues on forums like WOS.”
Tried to do exactly that with The Straight Debates, but didn’t get many takers. Suggestions always welcome.
Just popped a mail to Mr. Mann. Late as usual. Copy below.
“Pathetic!!!!! and disgraceful. Just copying your overuse of exclamation marks for fun. Your so called ‘account’ of a misattributed quote in the Sunday Times and Herald link to johnmannmp.com To note that your ‘Twittter’ comments are entirely inappropriate (I quote, ‘don’t like it up em’) for a supposed ‘Honourable’ MP. I I cc this to your Party Leader and seek his opinion on your sickening language. Shame.
Perhaps you might wish to explain on your website as to why contributions to the Tory Party from the donor in question represent ‘ dirty money’ but contributions to ‘Better Together’ are OK. If anyone is desperate it is the Labour Party in Scotland – note not the Scottish Labour Party. I think I can safely say that you are not a ‘different kind of MP.’ Sad git.
Feel free to reply. I imagine you are too cowardly to do so.”
The right dishonourable John Mann MP has now take a leaf out of George “trougher” Foulkes playbook on Twitter. He’s now casting around accusations of sexism, racism and perverted behaviour (eh?) from SNP tweeters and he is now retweething them.
I’ve looked down his timeline (even searched for mentions of him) and see no examples of ANY of the behaviour he describes.
Is this kind of fantasism taught in Labour Party bootcamp or something?
Hmmmm, seems to me that the opposition are taking a negative and turning it into a positive.
They are using the Taylor stushie to bait independence supporters into online rammies. McDougall’s blatant lies and misrepresentation were intended to incite anger and outrage as are Mr Mann’s comments.
We could just point out we know what they’re up to and walk away. You know, leave the issue to campaign leaders and let their ground troops twist in the wind whilst they play their baiting games? Remember these creatures would like nothing better than to drag this into a dog fight.
“..Wings Over Scotland doesn’t actually know for sure that Robertson didn’t put out the press release himself..”
Quite.
But we do know for sure Angus Robertson saw the quote and either failed to recognise his own words ( which makes him dim-witted) or did recognise his own words and used them knowingly (which makes him a liar).
Dim-witted or a liar?
I’ll go for both after his floundering performance on the telly the other day…
“But we do know for sure Angus Robertson saw the quote and either failed to recognise his own words ( which makes him dim-witted) or did recognise his own words and used them knowingly (which makes him a liar).”
Actually we don’t know that. All we can legally say we know is that someone told him John Mann had given the Herald a quote on the subject. We don’t know that he saw or heard the exact words.
The Taylor money still smells. Badly.
@ Brahamski “but we know for sure that Angus Robertson saw the quote”
You have evidence to confirm that Angus saw the quote BEFORE it was used in the SNP press release ?
Reference please, or please stop lying.
Going to keep smelling unless it’s given back.
Even if it is given back, it has been held on to so long the unpleasant aroma will continue to linger.
@skier
Yep, stanks all the way to BT’s coffers and no amount of scrubbing will wash the stank out. Dirty money for a dirty campaign.
Mr Campbell claims: “If Mann had actually just said that Robertson was “linked to” the press release he’d have been fine..”
Mr Robertson is ‘linked’ to the press release?
Linked in the sense that over half of it is actually a statement from Angus Robertson?
Unless of course you are suggesting that the SNP press office made up the quote from Angus Robertson?
And SNP press officer used a quote in good faith having two supposedly reliable sources. It is highly unlikely that Angus Robertson was even aware of the press release. There is no reason why he should have been. As it transpired, both newspapers had it wrong. When this was discovered, the SNP immediately withdrew the press release and issued am apology.
That is all there was to it. Unfortunate? Certainly. But the infantile fuss and ludicrous claims being made by John Mann and nonentities such as yourself means that the whole affair has ended up being far more damaging to British Labour than the SNP.
We would not expect a mindless British nationalist fanatic like yourself to behave sensibly in such a situation. You just can’t help yourself, poor soul. But John Mann had the opportunity to come away from this with dignity intact and integrity affirmed. He eschewed that option in favour of disporting himself in a manner that has led some to express concern for his mental and emotional well-being.
It was always too late for you. But John Mann could have shown himself to be the “different kind of MP” that he claims to be. All that people will remember of this is a British Labour MP making a bloody fool of himself in his desperate eagerness to lash out at the SNP. And, not incidentally, try to cover his own embarrassment at the exposure of his hypocrisy and duplicity in the matter of “dirty money” donations to the Tories and their British Labour allies.
“Mr Campbell claims: “If Mann had actually just said that Robertson was “linked to” the press release he’d have been fine..”
Mr Robertson is ‘linked’ to the press release?
Linked in the sense that over half of it is actually a statement from Angus Robertson?
Unless of course you are suggesting that the SNP press office made up the quote from Angus Robertson?”
You noticed that that line was a joke referring to Ian Taylor’s legal threat, signified by the “LOL” at the start and the big laughing face at the end, right?
That’s what it all boils down to Skier.
Dirty money being ignored by the Brit media, imagine if it was the other way round and the SNP took it.
Mr Roden
The press release is actually Angus Robertson’s response to the misquote from John Mann.
Are you suggesting that when Angus Robertson saw his own quote he didn’t recognise it?
Har, it couldn’t be exactly what it appears to be could it? One newspaper making a mistake used by another’s editorial staff and compounded by the SNP press office. In order for smears to work there has to be an implied conspiracy. Except in this case the so called conspirators are the Times, the Herald and the SNP? I know some people blindly believe and follow every single thing a party mouthpiece spouts, but seriously?
And there really is a double decker bus on the moon. 😀
Like many others, has Grahamski not resigned from Falkirk Labour Party due to
(a) Misconduct of Major Joyce
(b) Labour council coalition with the Tories
and
(c) Attempts to parachute a Union candidate with dubious track record as candidate.
Labour meltdown in Falkirk
link to heraldscotland.com
@Macart
The damage is being done as we speak. Better Together know it – they can see the stats too.
Mr Macart
What ‘mistake’ did the SNP press office make?
Shouldn’t they have quoted Angus Robertson claiming that his own words were spoken by John Mann?
Mr Dividend
Look! There’s a squirrel…
It does look like he is purposely trying to goad Independence supporters down to his level.
This type of behaviour only goes to show what a pathetic individual this man is.
He certainly is a different kind of politician, a dirty tricks low life politician, and not something he should be proud of.
He is beneath contempt.
@skier
They are getting a tad desperate in their attempts to start that dog fight. 😀
@Macart
The pro-union side have asked for the words ‘Taylor’ and ‘dirty money’ to be included in every debate henceforth – right up to referendum day. Nobody to blame but themselves.
whatever happened, the person responsible in the SNP press office should have been a little more careful and double checked the release before sending it out. I’m a little astounded that they relied on the mainstream press as the sole source of their information.
” It is highly unlikely that Angus Robertson was even aware of the press release.”
Strange as over half of it consists of a quote from Mr Robertson .
You really don’t have a clue, do you. You’re like some brain-dead religious fanatic. Facts are as nothing against the mindlessness of your blind faith. What a sad waste of human intellect.
Lest we forget…. The National Collective website is still closed.,,,
Does Grahamski think Mr Taylor’s donation acceptable to Alistair Darling but not for David Cameron to accept?
As Grahamski has not answered my point on Falkirk, I will expand on the background of their possible candidate
Unite, a union that is backing left-winger Karie Murphy to stand for the vacancy, is paying for the survey.
Murphy, the office manager of high-profile Labour MP Tom Watson, stands to benefit from a female-only panel of candidates.
A one-time official in the Unison trade union, Murphy was named in a 2010 watchdog report that found as a Unison official she had wrongly incurred expenditure on Labour party political related activities.
link to election.theherald.co.uk
and topically
link to election.theherald.co.uk
@skier
After the official launch of welfare reforms and the public cash spent on Maggie’s funeral, it’ll be interesting to see what effect that’ll have on the next set of polling figures.
It is becoming pretty obvious that there are many here who are unaware of the contents of the SNP press release.
“It is becoming pretty obvious that there are many here who are unaware of the contents of the SNP press release.”
Pretty unlikely, as I included it in full in my original piece. Troll better, dear.
O/T Nice piece by Andy Wightman, co starring the Revs favourite Lawyers.
Collyer-Bristow
link to andywightman.com
Aha I see the good Rev is moonlighting mini busses outside ST Pauls with Wings name on side
“Aha I see the good Rev is moonlighting mini busses outside ST Pauls with Wings name on side”
I’ve got a huge silver stake and a giant mallet. WE HAVE TO BE SURE.
Aye tattie, good piece that.
On a similar vein, here’s the National Collective’s lawyer, Aamer Anwar and his recollections of what Maggie did for us. (an edited version appeared in The Sun) this is the ‘full fat’, no-holds barred epic.
Today of all day’s is a good time to remind ourselves of this vile family.
link to glasgow-lawyer.co.uk
Mr Bell
“It is highly unlikely that Angus Robertson was even aware of the press release. There is no reason why he should have been.”
Other than the press release is Mr Robertson’s reaction the The Herald’s mistake?
That reaction wasn’t, ‘Yikes, looks like the paper has made a blunder here, those are my words’.
It should have been.
I see we’ve reached the point where you descend into gibberish. Time to go back to ignoring your inane ranting.
“Other than the press release is Mr Robertson’s reaction the The Herald’s mistake?”
Except it wasn’t. It was just a quote he’d given. Press releases do that – they pull together quotes. The person writing the press release wouldn’t have phoned Angus Robertson, quoted the Mann quote and asked for a reaction for their press release. If they had done that, he’d probably have spotted it was his quote. But if they did that with every press release, they’d never be off the phone to MPs getting their reaction. Press offices don’t work like that.
Jeezo Rev, you forgot the GARLIC !
“It is becoming pretty obvious that there are many here who are unaware of the contents of the SNP press release.”
I doubt it: http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/snpjohnmann.htm
A straightforward quote from a newspaper not known for its support of the SNP. In surprise and delight at this unprecedented example of a Labour MP behaving with consistency and integrity, the SNP rushes out a press release.
Clearly they should have known better.
Well done to the Scottish Gov with the jobless total down for the fifth month in a row, outperforming the rUK again. This is despite the London Tory cuts and a reduced year on year handout.
We are really lucky to have a competent Scottish Government in these difficult times, and how much more could we do with the full resources and powers of a normal nation.
“In surprise and delight at this unprecedented example of a Labour MP behaving with consistency and integrity, the SNP rushes out a press release.”
Aye, they’ll know better next time. A labour MP behaving in what appears to be an honourable, principled way? Triple check that and phone all parties to make sure – sounds highly unlikely.
This might have been an issue if the press releases weren’t immediately corrected and were still circulating and being issued to the general public weeks later. You know, like, maybe a leaflet stating “an independent Scotland would lose its AAA credit rating”.
It still does not however answer whether Mann’s opinion has changed, how the money was generated, whether the payment come from a UK bank account, if UK tax been paid, does the donation meets BT’s stated policy, will the money be handed back….
Fab.
So in Natworld Angus Robertson either didn’t know he was making comments about a quote which he didn’t see or did know he was making comments but didn’t know what he was commenting about.
Almost as bizarre as claiming that ‘We did, yes’ means ‘we didn’t, no’.
grahamski says:
17 April, 2013 at 10:40 am
Fab.
So in Natworld Angus Robertson either didn’t know he was making comments about a quote which he didn’t see or did know he was making comments but didn’t know what he was commenting about.
Almost as bizarre as claiming that ‘We did, yes’ means ‘we didn’t, no’.
As a non political member of the public with no membership to either Labour or SNP and with no plans to be so in the future can I just say………………….
Change the record, we don’t give a shit!
Mr Rabb
“we don’t give a ****”
You speak for non political members of the public?
For what its worth, I don’t give a shit either.
(From a moderately apolitical member of the public.)
Seems John Mann Mp has form. – link to bit.ly
Cochers adds his thoughts. link to telegraph.co.uk
Presumably he has thought about it.
grahamski says:
17 April, 2013 at 10:59 am
Mr Rabb
“we don’t give a ****”
You speak for non political members of the public?
Some things in life are a given Grahamski. Like the sun rises and falls each day, the coming and going of the seasons, the christmas socks from my mum every year etc etc.
You need to understand that us non politicos have other things to deal with in day to day life such as finding ways of supporting family members who will be impacted by the bedroom tax and other such trifling matters.
So forgive me for reiterating………..We don’t give a shit!
In a comment on an earlier thread, I suggested that perhaps there could be something to be said for having a resident unionist troll on WoS to act as a kind of devil’s advocate, and to stimulate debate.
I would like state that I did not have grahamski in mind, as he is clearly not competent as a troll, but merely repetitive and irritating.
Grahamski
I am sure we could argue all day about who said what to whom and when, where and why, but the bottom line is that the squirrel on show is John Mann’s faux indignation. He genuinely considered Taylor’s donation to the Tories and the involvement of Vitol in various parts of the world as questionable at best. A fair shout by the looks of things (though clearly you don’t agree or seem to be interested). A similar donation to another political cause in the UK heavily backed by the Tories and Tory supporter Taylor cannot, by any use of the word “logic” (however loose), be suddenly OK in John Mann’s eyes.
A cynic would say John has been asked to bite on his integrity as it grimly “takes one” for the team. If he is happy to do that then that is his affair. He just shouldn’t expect to be thought of as a different sort of MP…he isn’t, he is exactly the same sort of MP we have come to expect and not love. The Tories are undoubtedly laughing up their collective sleeve at him. It will be hard for Labour to question any future support for the Tories from this source after this.
However, who really cares about that sort of thing when there are “he said, she said” squirrels to look at? Well me for one. One of the joys of not being affiliated to any party is that I can ignore the squirrels and look at the integrity. Unfortunately there are a lot more squirrels.
By the way Robin McAlpine has a very measured article on the approach that Better Together is adopting on the Ian Taylor scandal (and it is a scandal) and the clear impression that is it is giving.
link to reidfoundation.org
John Mann’s track record of “dirty tricks” does him no favours with this latest attempt.
Mr Shrimp
Angus Robertson used a mistake in the papers to wrongly accuse an opponent.
He should apologise directly to Mr Mann for the error.
He hasn’t.
That’s integrity for you…
“Angus Robertson used a mistake in the papers to wrongly accuse an opponent.
He should apologise directly to Mr Mann for the error.
He hasn’t.”
Why should HE apologise for an error made by the Sunday Times, repeated by the Herald, and reported in good faith?
(Also, make your minds up – according to Mr Mann and dear old Alan Cochrane, the SNP has issued “abject” and “grovelling” apologies.)
“In a comment on an earlier thread, I suggested that perhaps there could be something to be said for having a resident unionist troll on WoS to act as a kind of devil’s advocate, and to stimulate debate.”
Being a unionist and/or dissident does not necessarily mean you’re a troll! A ‘troll’ is someone who is not even interested in having a debate or discussion, but is just trying to get a rise out of people and/or deliberately piss them off for the sake of it. Whilst having someone who, in all honesty and good faith passionately disagrees with you and is prepared to argue their point of view might well piss others off, this is merely an unfortunate but sometimes unavoidable byproduct – not an intended outcome.
Mr Campbell
“Why should HE apologise for an error made by the Sunday Times, repeated by the Herald, and reported in good faith?”
The error was made by him.
“The error was made by him.”
Um, no it wasn’t. The Sunday Times misattributed a quote. That’s the error. You have no evidence that Robertson made any error at all.
Grahamski
No it is a squirrel
You avoid the integity part of the issue completely. Speak up! Vitol donation to the Tories Good or Bad? Not a hard question.
@ Grahamski,
The Sunday Times reports something incorrectly, this is picked up by the Herald and not corrected. Then a press release issued by the SNP states Manns words.
Did Mann say the money was CLEAN as I thought it was DIRTY?
Yes/No?
Dirty money for the Tories, but clean money for BT -Yes?
Can I just chip my tuppence in before I completely lose all interest in life?
I’m a neutral “Joe Mug” who has no allegiance to either of these political parties and only joined the debate because I support Scottish Independence.
This is my simple synopis.
1. Papers make an arse of an article.
2. SNP use article and subsequently find out papers made an arse of it.
4. SNP issue an apology.
Now get a f***ing grip and lets get on with the independence debate please because we don’t care about John Mann MP!
Everyone, please ignore this feeble attempt at derailing the process of getting the facts out to the people.
Mr Robertson claimed that John Mann had said something which in fact he himself had said.
Whoever else made the mistake is irrelevant.
Mr Robertson is responsible for what he says and whining about how it was somebody elese’s mistake diminishes him .
Qui s’excuse s’accuse, as Robert De Bruce would no doubt have said…
“Mr Robertson claimed that John Mann had said something which in fact he himself had said.”
He cited something in good faith with no reason to disbelieve it, it having been reported in two respectable newspapers and squaring wholly with Mr Mann’s known previous views. He did not QUOTE Mr Mann, but merely responded to the gist of his comments as they’d been reported.
Now, we’ve indulged and answered your points all morning – do you think the Taylor donation is ethically acceptable, and do you think it hypocritical of Mr Mann to condemn Mr Taylor giving money to the Tories, but not when he gives it to “Better Together”?
You know the quid-pro-quo Troll Rules by now.
Taylor’s dirty money donation to Better Together still smells.
Will smell tomorrow. And the next day, and next week, and next year…
Mr Grahamski
Like it or not, you appear to be making a suggestion which is lacking any basis in evidence. It is a point of view (and technically possible), but it lacks ANY proof. Equally, there is no obvious motivation for Mr Robertson to deliberately make up such a foolish and easily detected lie. It seems perfectly reasonable to surmise that it is far more likely this was, after all, an innocent error.
You are not changing any minds repeating yourself ad nauseaum and you are presenting nothing that could change people’s minds. If you have proof (possibly a video Mr R dictating/typing the report, audio of him ‘lying’ to a Sunday Times reporter etc) then produce it. Otherwise, admit you could be wrong (heck, nobody’s perfect).
Your deflections (for that is what they appear to be) and refusal to answer the question (what has changed about Ian Taylor/John Mann to change the perceived dirtiness of the money?) does lead us to wonder if, perhaps, your line of reasoning isn’t designed so much to illuminate as to obfuscate. Correct me if I’m wrong (preferably with a reasoned argument rather than reiteration of your previous point)
Sincerely
Dr Doug
Reason is futile in persuading a person from a position that they did not arrive at by reason.
Grahamski makes up wee scenarios in his head informed by a pitiful grasp of the facts and a skip-load of blind prejudice. Those imagined scenarios then take on the status of absolute knowledge in his sadly defective mind.
All of which is very sad for him. And extremely tedious for all those who don’t suffer from the same condition.
“He cited something in good faith with no reason to disbelieve it”
No reason? Other than they were his words you mean?
Grahamski
As an avowed socialist, you’ll no doubt be enamoured with this fine Soviet entertainer. Bit of light relief?
Dr Doug
Innocent error?
Like the ‘honest’ mistake of forging a letter and trying to pass it off as the work of an academic?
The SNP are very easy on themselves.
Doug
lol thanks for that!
I’m reading Agent 6 by Tom Rob Smith just now. You’ve supplied the backing music…
Grahamski
I have no idea (and do not care particularly) what you are referring to! I shall engage with you no further.
Cheerio!
P.S. Child 44 was excellent.
That would be another of those “Grahamski scenarios” to which I referred earlier. It has nothing whatever to do with reality.
This comment facility isn’t right. Comments aren’t threaded. There is no reply option on posts. And the reply by email method, which used to work, now doesn’t.
Grahamski,
Please answer one question. A Yes/No answer will be great.
Do you believe Ian Taylor’s donation of £500,000 to the Better Together campaign is acceptable?
You’ve been on here all day so please don’t insult me by ignoring the question. No excuses!
Rabb
Better Together will refuse nothing but blows as long as the dosh is legal.
Better Together will refuse nothing but blows as long as the dosh is legal.
I suppose desperate circumstances call for desperate measures.
“I suppose desperate circumstances call for desperate measures.”
Absolutely.
Do I care that rancid Tories back Better Together?
About as much as you care that rancid crypto-fascists (according to Gordon Wilson) and barking trots support the YESnp campaign…
Just hold your nose then as that Talyor money smells bad.
As I imagine you know (I recall you have been campaigning for BT?), it is already causing friction internally at Better Together and cropping up as an issue for ordinary voters on the streets (including unionists). You can understand why I imagine.
Mr Skier
I haven’t done any work for the better campaign this week.
I’d be surprised if anybody raised this.
@Grahamski-
On a day when many people are mourning the loss of common decency in this country, wondering what could have been achieved in the past three decades if devil-take-the-hindmost hadn’t been foisted on us as the sole reason for existence, and watching the State broadcaster’s fawning coverage of international war criminals packing themselves into a supposed ‘holy place’ to send-off one of their own, your ‘comments’ are of no importance or interest whatsoever.
Please, just fuck off.
Grahamski
So which of the Yes campaign donors are crypto fascists and which are the raving Trots?
The No camp have taken the money because without it they would struggle. If they had a choice I’m sure they would have thought twice. They made a decision (probably with a bit of discussion because they aren’t stupid) and decided the benefit outweighed any potential negatives. They are now concerned the negatives are worse than anticipated and are letting the squirrels run loose. The squirrels are not interesting enough to deflect attention. MPs having a “he said” spat on twitter do not chime with the popular zeitgeist as much as allegations relating to big business, Conservatives and deals with disreputable foreign Governments.
Siol nan gaedhl or whatever their offshoot is now were described as crypto-fascist by Gordon Wilson.
Sheridan’s mob and the SSP are our very own People’s Front of Judea barking mad trots.
Obessesive anoraks care about this stuff, real folk don’t.
Sad but true.
Anyhoo, going out for a very real pint.
Enjoy the rest of your day…
For some reason I keep thinking about The Medusa Touch. Youtube doesn’t have an available snip of the cathedral collapse, but this Burton speech is always worth a view.
(Can’t help wondering what the character would say if the speech was updated…)
Grahamski
Both sides have their fruit loops. The Mason Boyne Unionists of the Orange Lodge are equally….different.
However, I am not aware of Siol, the SSP or the OL heavily involved in funding their respective sides. Personally I find Gordon Wilson’s rather muscular Christianity quite challenging but that is just me and I have no idea what Ian Taylor’s views are on touchstone social issues.
We are not going to get model supporters for every party, every issue or even every football club. The wing nuts (and there are plenty) have to align albeit on the fringes with something. Nevertheless, how closely the extremes are welcomed into the bosom of an organisation is an indication of the nature of that organisation as a whole. I don’t think the acceptance of Taylor’s money necessarily indicates that Darling and McDougall share his politics but it does suggest they were a bit skint.
“It thus appears as a moralistic accusation of duplicity and bad faith, or (in the case of the movement’s followers) of naivety and stupidity. Thus the political struggle is reduced to a series of personal affairs between on the one hand those with the genie in the lamp who know everything and on the other those who are fooled by their own leaders but are so incurably thick that they refuse to believe it.” Antonio Gramsci.
grahamski says:
17 April, 2013 at 3:09 pm
Rabb
Better Together will refuse nothing but blows as long as the dosh is legal.
I’m not interested in the legality of the cash and you didn’t answer the question so I’ll ask again.
Yes or No, do you believe Ian Taylor’s donation of £500,000 to the Better Together campaign is acceptable?
@Grahamski
If you get around to reading this may I comment on your contribution to today’s discussion.
Your comments are but a fly on the arse of a very large elephant in the room. That pachyderm is the £5000,000 utterly toxic donation to Bitter Together. Which I and I am positive many others will not miss one single opportunity to work right up Bitter Togethers arse every day from now till the referendum.
@Grahamski,
I asked you for a link that proves that Angus Robertson knew about the gaff, BEFORE it was released.
If you fail to provide this then you are lying.
It has been established that the SNP made a mistake by atributing the quote to Mr Mann, because the SNP press office had saw the quote atributed to him in two national newspapers.
As soon as SNP media found out that the quote was wrong they immediately withrdrew it and appologised.
Now, Jackie Ballie made made a worse gaff when she wrongly claimed that the Scottish NHS had the highest levels of bacterial infections in Europe, it later transpired that the stats that she used was from a time when the Labour party was in power and that in fact since the SNP had been running the Scottish gov, these infection rates had saw a dramatic reduction.
Unlike the SNP in this case, JB had not once appologised for this ‘mistake’ or shud that be ‘piss-take’ and has never withdrawn the claims she made.
Will you now take this opportunity to condem Jackie Ballie or are you exposed as a troll who has no intention of genuine debate about issues that effect Scotland and are only on here to cause distraction.?
Over to you Grahamski.
I’ll just repeat myself here so it’s not missed:
“Now, we’ve indulged and answered your points all morning – do you think the Taylor donation is ethically acceptable, and do you think it hypocritical of Mr Mann to condemn Mr Taylor giving money to the Tories, but not when he gives it to “Better Together”?
You know the quid-pro-quo Troll Rules by now.”
Shall we say answers by 9am tomorrow or the obvious consequences?
@Grahamski-
‘Sheridan’s mob and the SSP are our very own People’s Front of Judea barking mad trots.’
Oh G, with this blistering wit you are really spoiling us…
When you get back from the pub I hope you’ll take the time to respond to the various questions raised here.
SSP will be out again tomorrow doing street stalls. The Yes campaign have just e-mailed a list of events happening all over the country during the next week:
http://www.yesscotland.net/join_an_event?utm_source=yesscotland&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=10day15to24apr&recruiter_id=65380
And what are you people doing? Furiously trying to muddy the waters to cover-up your sordid funding arrangements.
Sad.
Might I please ask my fellow YES campaigners to go easy on the one who calls themselves Grahamski, I surely cannot be the only one who remembers his comments on the Herald site, where true to form no questions were ever answered but he did harp on about the great canvassing results that were being obtained at that time by him and his fellow labourites, this was just before the last Holyrood elections and we all know what happened next, so please, such acumen is not to be discouraged We should try and keep him, if only for the laughs!
Jim, I have to say that this is what is foremost in my mind every time I skim over Grahamski’s posts – or perhaps I think more of the Glasgow East by-election, because I interacted with him more closely on that occasion. He was absolutely confident of victory, and constantly boasted about the warm reception he was receiving on the doorsteps and how much voters disliked John Mason. We know what happened. It was close, but Mason went to Westminster.
I did read the hubristic piss he was wittering in 2011, too, though, and I haven’t forgotten. It’s a standard practice of his, to boast nonsensical lies about how well Labour or the No Scotland campaign are doing. He seems to think that saying it makes it so.
You’d think he’d have learned by now. Credibility completely shot.
Oops! Typo in my comment at 5:03pm.
That should be £500,000 not £5000,000 My bad.
Apologies.
Mr Campbell
There is nothing unethical about a man donating money which he has earned quite legally to a campaign in which he believes.
“There is nothing unethical about a man donating money which he has earned quite legally to a campaign in which he believes.”
Righto. And Mr Mann?
Morag
The Glasgow East byelection was a terrible result for us in Labour.
In the following general election Alex Salmond bragged of tripling the number of SNP MPs.
How did that work out for ya?
To Quote Grahamski “Mr Campbell
There is nothing unethical about a man donating money which he has earned quite legally to a campaign in which he believes”
No one would disagree with this Grahamski, but that wasn’t what you were asked.
So, is it hypocrytical for Mr Mann to describe a donation to the Conservative Party by Ian Taylor as ‘Dirty Money’ but then not complain about the same Ian Taylor giving the same ammount to Better Together ?
Mr Taylor had given money to the Conservatives because he believes in them, and according to you he earned his money legaly, so will you:
Condemn Mr Mann for smearing Mr Ian Taylor.
Condemn Mr Mann for his hypocracy in calling Mr Taylors gift to the Tories as dirty money, but not seeming to have concern that he is giving similar ammounts to the Scottish Referendum.
Or are you just another labour party troll, who only wishes to infest bloggs and on line comment pages, with the negetive, dishonest and increasingly bizare points of view?
Oh and can you please answer my question about Jackie ballie and her ‘Scottish NHS infection rates gaffe’ I would love to know how a good socialist like you, who cares about Scotland, can get to the point when he has been shown the incompetence of his own side (highest infection rate in Europe under the Labour administration) and then has seen before his very eyes how the SNP has transformed these infection rates with less of a budget, yet this true socialist continues to defend the failed Labour party ?
tell me how this workes Grahamski…but only after you have answered both questions above please.
Can anyone tell me why an oil trader would hire Arkan to negotiate on their companies behalf, in a deal in which ot looks like the other side is about to pull out?
What was Arkans area of oil trading expertise and how would this expertise help Arkan to bring the other side back to the negotiating table ?
If Arkan does not have oil trading expertise, what other area of expertise did he have, that would cause a deal that had went sour, to be resurected?
I’m not sure if anyone in the Better Together camp has answered these questions yet, but if I could kindly ask Grahamski to find out for me, I think he may just provide genuine clarity in this ‘Donation Scandal’
Mr Campbell
There is nothing unethical about a man donating money which he has earned quite legally to a campaign in which he believes
Grahamski
Stored away for future use and will be used without mercy (‘cos I’m sweet like that)
Can you tell Mr Mann this too because he certainly had serious issues over Mr Taylor….or has the Party machine already told him that was all a figment of his imagination.
Mr Roden
It is hypocritical of The SNP to complain about Mr Taylor’s money going to the better campaign but not about it going to Harris Tweed.
I didn’t hear their sanctimonious outrage when ‘dirty money’ tarnished an iconic Scottish brand like Harris Tweed.
Mr Campbell.
Mr Mann was smeared by Agnes Robertson.
You can hardly blame Mr Mann for that any more you can blame The Scotsman for being attacked by swivel-eyed loons with spray paint..
Grahamski,
Judging by your evasive responses (or lack off) I have come to the following conclusion.
Grahamski believes that the £500,000 donated to Better Together by Tory supporter Ian Taylor who may I add to the best of my knowledge is not resident here and does not have a vote in the referendum was acceptable.
However, his beloved New Labour party believe his donation of the same amount to the Conservative party was not.
Grahamski until you give a straight answer to my question, you sir are a bloody hypocrit!
That’s right everyone. A hypocrit!
See? He’s trying to drag Agnes into it – distraction!
Grahamski said:
The Glasgow East byelection was a terrible result for us in Labour.
In the following general election Alex Salmond bragged of tripling the number of SNP MPs.
How did that work out for ya?
Do I look bovvered? Maybe when you can point to evidence of me coming on blogs and comments pages in the run-up to the 2010 election and bragging confidently about how we were on course to triple our Westminster representation, you might have a point.
Hint. You can’t, Because it didn’t happen.
I’ll trade the 2010 result for the 2011 one any day of the week. How did that work out for you?
“I’ll trade the 2010 result for the 2011 one any day of the week.”
Really?
You’d rather the SNP won an election that half the folk in Scotland didn’t think important enough to vote in rather than a UK general election with a far higher turn out?
Rabb
The law considers the donation acceptable.
I think he’s a rancid tory but I’ll take his money if he’s daft enough to give it.
“Mr Mann was smeared by Agnes Robertson.”
Clearly he wasn’t. He was praised by mistake. But that wasn’t the question, and my patience is wearing thin.
You’d rather the SNP won an election that half the folk in Scotland didn’t think important enough to vote in rather than a UK general election with a far higher turn out?
I love the smell of unionist desperation in the morning….
“I love the smell of unionist desperation in the morning….”
Tricky call, isn’t it?
More MPs but no power in Westminster and no power in Holyrood, or fewer MPs and no power in Westminster and a Holyrood majority enabling the holding of an independence referendum? Yeah, give me a while to think about that.
Mr Campbell
What an upside down world you inhabit.
That’s a real shame. I thought we might be on the verge of something approaching an adult debate. Last chance.
“Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
18 April, 2013 at 9:58 am
“I love the smell of unionist desperation in the morning….”
Tricky call, isn’t it?
More MPs but no power in Westminster and no power in Holyrood, or fewer MPs and no power in Westminster and a Holyrood majority enabling the holding of an independence referendum? Yeah, give me a while to think about that.
grahamski says:
18 April, 2013 at 10:00 am
Mr Campbell
What an upside down world you inhabit. ”
Baroomp-ching. “Thank you, I’ll be here all week” What, you were being serious?
That’s a real shame. I thought we might be on the verge of something approaching an adult debate. Last chance.
Never mind. Captain Caveman has been showing all the signs of adult debate. Big turnup for the books, but very refreshing.
News just in:
Just clicked on the National Collective website link. It now has a twitter page up ‘donorgate’ – and they say they are having a press conference at 10.30 this morning.
@Rev Stu
I’d say the SNP won the election which mattered, the one which could bring about the most change. Sending SNP MPs to Westminster amounts to protest, mainly because Westminster ain’t for changing if anything it tends to change the representatives our electorate sends there. Packing out Holyrood however with an SNP government amounted to a louder, more effective political voice. Sovereignty established and the power for change being given over to the Scottish electorate also protection from the worst excesses of Westminster elitism and cronyism.
I’d say the electorate nailed their priorities pretty good.
Surely if someone continually repeats allegations that are not true and they know are not true, is that not deemed as trolling.
I sometimes wonder about the thought processes of posters like Grahamski. Pwneed again and again on a regular basis, still they frantically dredge for some sort of riposte, no matter how contrived and how ludicrous.
What a sad waste of an intellect.
Mr Campbell
The chance of grown up debate is long past.
You imagine that anybody reading your defence of Angus Robertson pretending that John Mann said something he had said himself as ‘praising by mistake’ is reading the words of a grown up is wildly optimistic.
Morag
You imagine your arguments prevail?
And wow, just one minute later, we have the perfect example….
The journalist praised Mr. Mann by mistake when she wrongly believed him to have made a statement which was in line with his previously-expressed principles. It all went a bit crazy after that.
And another one, even while I was typing that.
I don’t know if this is delusional, or whether it’s just desperate debating tactics.
I’ll settle for prevailing in September 2014, on the whole.
“You imagine that anybody reading your defence of Angus Robertson pretending that John Mann said something he had said himself as ‘praising by mistake’ is reading the words of a grown up is wildly optimistic.”
I read that sentence eight times before making some sort of sense of it. If Angus Robertson was indeed referring to something he knew he’d said himself, he’d hardly be likely to “smear” it, would he? He’d be “smearing” himself.
You still have a chance. A simple, straightforward answer to the perfectly fair question I asked you about John Mann. Otherwise, I’m afraid 12.00 will be high noon for you on this site.
Mr Campbell
What an upside down world you inhabit.
It only looks that way because you are pinned to a view of Westminster good Holyrood bad. From that cross all the world seems upside down.
Recently a Labour MP was elected in Manchester on an 18% turn out. Are you horrified every time that individual casts a vote in Westminster?
Morag
The journalist praised Mr Mann?
Link please.
Mr Campbell resorts to bully boy tactics.
Again, words fail him…
“Mr Campbell resorts to bully boy tactics.
Again, words fail him…”
Asking you to answer a question is “bullying” now?
Here’s how it works, dear. Civilised people have conversations in which they answer each other’s questions. Trolls demand THEIR questions get answered, but duck those asked of them in return, moving onto their next demand instead. If you’re the former, you’re more than welcome here. Trolls are not. Your call entirely. 40 minutes to go.
Mr Shrimp
In a word: yes.
National Collective back online – detailing the collective work of Better Together bosses/ Collyer Bristow legal firm and Vitol/Ian Taylor. Simply damning.
link to nationalcollective.com
Looking forward to your comments on this attempt to stop freedom of speech, grahamski.
Mr Campbell
“Trolls demand THEIR questions get answered”
Since I have never demanded any of my questions be answered I’ll take that as your acceptance that I’m not a troll.
You, on the other hand…
@tartanfever
Powerful stuff from NC.
Good link.
“Since I have never demanded any of my questions be answered I’ll take that as your acceptance that I’m not a troll.”
Asking a question is implicitly and inherently a demand for it to be answered. Not sure what’s so difficult. Is Mr Taylor’s money dirty when given to the Tories but clean when given to “Better Together”, and if so isn’t Mr Mann being rather hypocritical? 20 minutes.
So anybody who asks a question is inherently(?) demanding an answer?
So everybody is a troll?
Including yourself…
Obviously I’m not because all my questions are rhetorical…
“So anybody who asks a question is inherently(?) demanding an answer?”
Yes.
“So everybody is a troll?”
No. It’s only trolling if you’re not prepared to uphold the courtesy of participating in two-way debate rather than inquisition. And since it seems you’re not, having been given numerous chances, I can only conclude that you WANT to be banned, and hereby grant your wish. Given your known track-record, you’ve been indulged here beyond all conceivable reasonable limits of tolerance. Enough.
Anyhoo, it’s been a blast.
I suppose it’s too much to expect the YESnp campaign and its fellow-travellers to tolerate anything that doesn’t pander to its orthodoxy.
Huzzah for heretics and free-thinkers everywhere!
Adieu, mon brave…
“… do you think it hypocritical of Mr Mann to condemn Mr Taylor giving money to the Tories, but not when he gives it to “Better Together”?…”
If true, then yes, very much so. Self evidently.
Grahamski, why don’t you just answer? The question’s surely rhetorical anyway, since all of us already know what the answer to it is, so what harm can it do? This willful obfuscation is pointless – and futile.
“If true, then yes, very much so. Self evidently.”
It’s certainly true:
link to telegraph.co.uk
“Vitol was accused of ‘immoral’ trade and ‘backing corrupt regimes’ by John Mann MP, a Labour member of the Treasury Select Committee, who demanded that the Tory party hand back the ‘dirty money’ it had received from Mr Taylor.”
Grahamski isn’t a troll – he is a Labour Party activist
OK a fine line I know 🙂 but there is a human being at the other end with a (internally) consistent point of view.
I don’t agree with much of anything he says but I wouldn’t ban him. There are trolls that do operate on the independence discussions, the chap that only posts statistics and is obsessed with airport tax being one that springs to mind, but a fair number are just committed Unionists. I think Grahamski trying to justify why Taylor donating to the Tories is wrong but to BT is OK does nothing but highlight how tenuous the BT position is on this. Perhaps in a way more tellingly than we have.
Someone who spams or who posts deliberately contentious messages seeking to get a rise out of people are trolls (done well it can sometimes also be very funny). A known Labour supporter trying to argue black is white is not trolling, it is just misplaced loyalty imho.
The Unionist sites boot us quite quickly, I suggest we show a better way.
Grahamski,
There is a bit of a diffirence between investing money into Harris Tweed and investing money into a political movement.
You should note that it has been suggested that Alistiar darlings claims that Ian Taylor saved the Harris Tweed business is grossly exagerated, (will you condem Alistair if this proves to be the case?) and that it was other business interests (sep Chinese) who put most money in.
Also you should understand that very few people had ever heard of Ian Taylor (I certainly hadn’t) so could not make any judgement about his money.
Now that he has donated to Better Together, questions have been naturaly asked about him, simply because he is the biggest contributor to the BT campaign funds.
He then tried to close down and threatened to bring legal actions against NC, NNS, The Herald and Wings, because they began to find information that may or may not have been true about him, but needed to be at least investigated (or do you think politicians should just take money ‘no quuestions asked?)
Now the story has went viral and even more questions are being asked, including the ones I asked you about Arkan.
Can you find the answers for me please Grahamski.
OOPs didn’t read your post at 12.04 Rev, so Grahamski will not have the opportunity to answer my questions.
It’s such a pity, as I’m sure he was keen to do so !!!!!!!
(I have been realiably informed that six exclamation marks give any piece of writing far more credibilty)