pablo Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 It's like my work. Each department get's it's budget. The fund stuff throughout the year at at the year end a massive splurge so money remains the same the next year. Councils do it every year too, so it's not unique to this SNP government. The other side is all the money gets spent quickly, then the clouds gather comes and there are no funds for that rainy day. That said, and I would say this for my work, councils etc, there should be be better financial management throughout the year to make sure funds are spent in plenty of time to be most effective. I'm well aware of how budget allocation and management works. The fact remains, the surplus was a record high for Scottish government, the consequence is that public services don't receive all available funds and the biggest underspend was in Education. Which as we all know is failing. Why not just say, that's not good enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I can understand why you would want to call it that. But public services could have been better funded by the best part of half a billion pounds. Yes? The largest understand I believe came in Education. We're underperforming here and doing our children a disservice. Are you people incapable of ever admitting the SNP get anything even slightly wrong? You people?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaymarketJambo Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I can understand why you would want to call it that. But public services could have been better funded by the best part of half a billion pounds. Yes? The largest understand I believe came in Education. We're underperforming here and doing our children a disservice. Are you people incapable of ever admitting the SNP get anything even slightly wrong? I admit it when the SNP get it wrong, but I still thing they are doing better than the rest that might get into power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I'm well aware of how budget allocation and management works. The fact remains, the surplus was a record high for Scottish government, the consequence is that public services don't receive all available funds and the biggest underspend was in Education. Which as we all know is failing. Why not just say, that's not good enough? Of course it's not good enough! As I said, the financial management should be better. Perhaps the civil service, for I assume they actually spend it, should be asked to answer as well as the relevant ministers responsible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I'm well aware of how budget allocation and management works. The fact remains, the surplus was a record high for Scottish government, the consequence is that public services don't receive all available funds and the biggest underspend was in Education. Which as we all know is failing. Why not just say, that's not good enough? Which part of the education budget was underspent, out of interest? Would love Unis to get a windfall! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Of course it's not good enough! As I said, the financial management should be better. Perhaps the civil service, for I assume they actually spend it, should be asked to answer as well as the relevant ministers responsible? That's actually a good point. I don't know enough about how the process works, but I can't believe that the budget holder isn't aware of how spend is tracking against budget, against the delivery of projects covered by said budget. Unless, there's something more sinister behind the SNP not not utilising the full budget allocated from big bad Westminster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Which part of the education budget was underspent, out of interest? Would love Unis to get a windfall! Unis were in the papers today complaining that the new legislation introduced by the SNP could see them in a funding shortfall in the hundreds of millions as well as having (quite rightly) concerns that the government could now attempt to appoint people to the university courts and boards. http://www.express.co.uk/scotland/600482/Scottish-universities-financial-black-hole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Which part of the education budget was underspent, out of interest? Would love Unis to get a windfall! Dunno, and to be honest it was only ?165 million from a ?3bn budget in total. To be honest I'm not that bothered about details like that. I know, I know. More the hypocrisy of going on about the cuts in Westminster funding, then not even managing it properly. Also, it sometimes feels like this Government is above criticism. If it was up to me I'd give it the Uni's too Boris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 That's actually a good point. I don't know enough about how the process works, but I can't believe that the budget holder isn't aware of how spend is tracking against budget, against the delivery of projects covered by said budget. Unless, there's something more sinister behind the SNP not not utilising the full budget allocated from big bad Westminster? Dunno, and to be honest it was only ?165 million from a ?3bn budget in total. To be honest I'm not that bothered about details like that. I know, I know. More the hypocrisy of going on about the cuts in Westminster funding, then not even managing it properly. Also, it sometimes feels like this Government is above criticism. If it was up to me I'd give it the Uni's too Boris It was ?444m the year before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I've heard SNP supporters on this thread admit when they get things wrong, on multiple occasions. The police force for example, I recall someone talking of disappointment at mirroring Labour's manifesto and not everyone supports the named individual legislation. What is more pertinent, is has a unionist here ever admitted getting something wrong? You seem determined to make it Nationalist v Unionist. Deliberately mistaking what non SNP party people support to imply that there's no difference. Bet you're spewing that nobody ever bites. It's that attitude that makes us non believers wary. FWIW I would say that I held fundamentally Liberal values, and hope one day they are relevant in UK politics again. they're certainly the Party I've voted for most throughout my life. Now let me think if there's anything that the Libdems could be criticised for in the 5 years hmmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallfaces Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 "The SNP are only interested in Independence and their supporters lap it up". Of course we do, as that is what the SNP are here for, what else would they stand for? Yet you claim that we are the fools. Well you're not going to achieve independence if the main independence party aren't even going to have it in their manifesto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Unis were in the papers today complaining that the new legislation introduced by the SNP could see them in a funding shortfall in the hundreds of millions as well as having (quite rightly) concerns that the government could now attempt to appoint people to the university courts and boards. http://www.express.co.uk/scotland/600482/Scottish-universities-financial-black-hole Yes, I saw this and am appalled. Given the govt don't fully fund universities, they should butt out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 That's actually a good point. I don't know enough about how the process works, but I can't believe that the budget holder isn't aware of how spend is tracking against budget, against the delivery of projects covered by said budget. Unless, there's something more sinister behind the SNP not not utilising the full budget allocated from big bad Westminster? I would hope that there isn't anything more sinister. Shameful and shocking if there were! I guess the things with budgets are that if each one is underspent then the total looks, and is, massive. But there probably isn't a system in place to switch the money about. Why not, I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) Dunno, and to be honest it was only ?165 million from a ?3bn budget in total. To be honest I'm not that bothered about details like that. I know, I know. More the hypocrisy of going on about the cuts in Westminster funding, then not even managing it properly. Also, it sometimes feels like this Government is above criticism. If it was up to me I'd give it the Uni's too BorisI can see your point - waste by govt of whichever hue is terrible. Given the cuts from Westminster it does seem remarkable that the Govt are not using their entire budget responsibly. And they should be criticised. Unfortunately, regardless of the actual result, politics still seem to be constructed around the referendum. From both sides and, as I mentioned earlier (perhaps on another thread) to view things in this way does nothing to produce anything constructive. If we take it that another referendum would still return a no result, the SNPs standing in the polls, at Holyrood, at Westminster, is bizarre. But it must show a degree of trust from the electorate, or, a lack of trust in the opposition parties, most obviously Labour. Edited August 25, 2015 by Boris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallfaces Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 If we take it that another referendum would still return a no result, the SNPs standing in the polls, at Holyrood, at Westminster, is bizarre. But it must show a degree of trust from the electorate, or, a lack of trust in the opposition parties, most obviously Labour. A very evident distrust of the existing political machine, especially of the Westminster variety. Somehow, despite much very much from the same cloth, the SNP have managed to portray themselves as being distant from that. Positioning themselves as the alternative without there being any great distinction has been an achievement though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallfaces Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 If we take it that another referendum would still return a no result, the SNPs standing in the polls, at Holyrood, at Westminster, is bizarre. But it must show a degree of trust from the electorate, or, a lack of trust in the opposition parties, most obviously Labour. A very evident distrust of the existing political machine, especially of the Westminster variety. Somehow, despite much very much from the same cloth, the SNP have managed to portray themselves as being distant from that. Positioning themselves as the alternative without there being any great distinction has been an achievement though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 If he is elected as leader, and then subsequently removed, then that's Labour finished, IMO. Define removed. If he takes on the leadership and compromises his strident views on certain issues the wider party is unhappy with (inc those backing him) then he'll last. If he's not going to rig the selection process to come. He will last. If he takes over, the polls are still as poor as they are now two years from the election then I'd say he should walk or be pushed. I supported Brown, and he was very close in that 2010 election, but Miliband (who I backed too) should've went in favour of Alan Johnson (if he'd wanted the job) or for a.n.other to offer a better chance of victory than he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 So, if the SNP are Labour in all but name, why would 1000's flock to their party. People are energised because they are different from the rest of the parties. You know what C/L/LD will offer, their policies are all similar whereas SNP offer a fresh outlook. This includes the other parties that were pro-independence too. The SNP are excellent at big rhetoric and centrist policies. They've won 3 elections on it (well 2 and won the majority of Scottish seats to be a pedant). 1,000s have flocked because the campaign last year did invigorate the SNP. They had the positive message to sell. The job of a No campaign is to rebut assertions. The No camp failed, as Brown and other said after, to offer a very positive vision. Had say Brown and Charles Kennedy led No then they'd have offered a more positive and open campaign than the accountants exercise of Darling. What is this fresh outlook? You can be positive in talking about inequality but still fail to offer the policies to meet it head on. The SNP have adopted a Blairite position, as have the Tories. Talk big, do big talk policies which actually achieve little. For example, the expansion of the EMA of late. Great idea. But what does it do to improve attainment? Defend child tax credits, but do little to improve the affordability and availability of child care for all which would be good for everyone but especially the worst off. I know the SNP are very popular. I know they talk "positively" but they are achieving little in their goals of creating a wealthier, fairer and greener Scotland. Any other party would be being dragged over hot coals. A big part of their success is an extremely slick and well oiled media machine which is doing very well at maintaining a good spin on it. If you can explain fresh outlook with solid examples please do. I personally see little difference. They're trying tried and tested solutions to old problems, not assessing how the state itself is largely at fault for why we have low social mobility, why we have poor health nationally and why we have high social deprivation. Nothing radical is being considered here and preventative spending is not favoured. To offer proof that there is little between the parties, have you witness how they have voting of late? The L/D are a fractured force so have been unable to offer opposition but Labour have went against their original mantra of social justice and supported the Tories with some of the most brutal policies in recent years. To offer it for the SNP and the rest compare the manifesto of the SNP to the Labour Party and LibDems. The Greens were more dynamic, leftist and reforming on all fronts than the SNP. Labour have opposed many of the worst welfare cuts. In Scotland the SNP were dragged by Labour to spend money to cancel the bedroom tax in Scotland. The SNP have done little to offer a fresh alternative to many of the problems we face. Their default is we wouldn't do that... But the SNP don't offer a fresh alternative. If you want to be honest, they're defending Blair's consensus. Labour is actually looking at going beyond it and reshaping the state to be proactive, which means lower welfare but services to cover welfare payments. Ie less child tax credit more free child care. What Harman done was stupid and wrongheaded and split the party. That won't happen again because of the damage it done. It's also why Kendall won't be a leader ever or Ummuna. Harman took their advice and suffered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Define removed. If he takes on the leadership and compromises his strident views on certain issues the wider party is unhappy with (inc those backing him) then he'll last. If he's not going to rig the selection process to come. He will last. If he takes over, the polls are still as poor as they are now two years from the election then I'd say he should walk or be pushed. I supported Brown, and he was very close in that 2010 election, but Miliband (who I backed too) should've went in favour of Alan Johnson (if he'd wanted the job) or for a.n.other to offer a better chance of victory than he did. Toppled by the PLP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Toppled by the PLP. And if they do it to remove an electoral liability? Labour can do little to benefit the people they want to help in opposition. I get confused about this. The PLP won't topple him unless they feel they have no choice. In fact, name me a leader the PLP has toppled? I can't think of any. The Tories, Liberals and SNP have all dumped leaders for fear of them being bad ones - IDS, Kennedy and Swinney to name a few were toppled from within. The Labour Party is invariably loyal to its leader, it dislikes division and doing the Tory thing of publically tearing itself apart. I think Corbyn will get time. If he's a liability though, and he could be, then he should fall on his sword. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Morning, I know the unionists like a good link. Can u do me a favour and put the front page of the unions favourite paper, Please. And a wee link to the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sraman Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Maybe the reason for an SNP underspend is that they didn't have their family members or mates starting up shoddy businesses in order to get contracts from them? Give them time and they may well get as corrupt as previous Labour administrations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 I'm well aware of how budget allocation and management works. okay then. That's actually a good point. I don't know enough about how the process works, uh huh? Dunno, and to be honest it was only ?165 million from a ?3bn budget in total. To be honest I'm not that bothered about details like that. ?165m of ?3bn is approximately 5.5% which i'd imagine is probably not a huge amount outside budget tolerances on public finance. can 'you people' not look at the information first before jumping in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 It was ?444m the year before which would then go back into the budgetary pot and be re-allocated. Just like Westminster. Just like the EU. It's how budgets work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstruck Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 which would then go back into the budgetary pot and be re-allocated. Just like Westminster. Just like the EU. It's how budgets work. Revenue budgets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 Revenue budgets? the majority of governmental revenue budgets run at a deficit (including UK) so if there's nowt to be reallocated then it won't be reallocated. Unless of course you're roping me in for a smart answer so fire away! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstruck Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 the majority of governmental revenue budgets run at a deficit (including UK) so if there's nowt to be reallocated then it won't be reallocated. Unless of course you're roping me in for a smart answer so fire away! I would need to check but I am sure that public sector revenue budgets have no scope for carry forward. Funds can flow in an out of very limited reserves but that is very tightly controlled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaymarketJambo Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 The SNP are excellent at big rhetoric and centrist policies. They've won 3 elections on it (well 2 and won the majority of Scottish seats to be a pedant). 1,000s have flocked because the campaign last year did invigorate the SNP. They had the positive message to sell. The job of a No campaign is to rebut assertions. The No camp failed, as Brown and other said after, to offer a very positive vision. Had say Brown and Charles Kennedy led No then they'd have offered a more positive and open campaign than the accountants exercise of Darling. What is this fresh outlook? You can be positive in talking about inequality but still fail to offer the policies to meet it head on. The SNP have adopted a Blairite position, as have the Tories. Talk big, do big talk policies which actually achieve little. For example, the expansion of the EMA of late. Great idea. But what does it do to improve attainment? Defend child tax credits, but do little to improve the affordability and availability of child care for all which would be good for everyone but especially the worst off. I know the SNP are very popular. I know they talk "positively" but they are achieving little in their goals of creating a wealthier, fairer and greener Scotland. Any other party would be being dragged over hot coals. A big part of their success is an extremely slick and well oiled media machine which is doing very well at maintaining a good spin on it. If you can explain fresh outlook with solid examples please do. I personally see little difference. They're trying tried and tested solutions to old problems, not assessing how the state itself is largely at fault for why we have low social mobility, why we have poor health nationally and why we have high social deprivation. Nothing radical is being considered here and preventative spending is not favoured. To offer it for the SNP and the rest compare the manifesto of the SNP to the Labour Party and LibDems. The Greens were more dynamic, leftist and reforming on all fronts than the SNP. Labour have opposed many of the worst welfare cuts. In Scotland the SNP were dragged by Labour to spend money to cancel the bedroom tax in Scotland. The SNP have done little to offer a fresh alternative to many of the problems we face. Their default is we wouldn't do that... But the SNP don't offer a fresh alternative. If you want to be honest, they're defending Blair's consensus. Labour is actually looking at going beyond it and reshaping the state to be proactive, which means lower welfare but services to cover welfare payments. Ie less child tax credit more free child care. What Harman done was stupid and wrongheaded and split the party. That won't happen again because of the damage it done. It's also why Kendall won't be a leader ever or Ummuna. Harman took their advice and suffered. A really good post, as you can imagine I disagree with some it, but still a good post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAYEL Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) I like this guy https://twitter.com/Jefforbited He gets it How come I got to join the SNP when my daughter is a Labour MSP. Possibly calls for Judicial review. I didn't even keep it secret. Edited August 26, 2015 by JAYEL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaymarketJambo Posted August 26, 2015 Share Posted August 26, 2015 I like this guy https://twitter.com/Jefforbited He gets it How come I got to join the SNP when my daughter is a Labour MSP. Possibly calls for Judicial review. I didn't even keep it secret. He does get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAYEL Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 BBC ?bias? against independence was essential?, http://wingsoverscotland.com/war-is-declared-and-battle-come-down/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 BBC ?bias? against independence was essential?, http://wingsoverscotland.com/war-is-declared-and-battle-come-down/ "@NicolaSturgeon says it was 'absolutely correct' for 'change' proposition to have been more scrutinised than No during #indyref #EdTVFest" So Sturgeon accepts it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAYEL Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 "@NicolaSturgeon says it was 'absolutely correct' for 'change' proposition to have been more scrutinised than No during #indyref #EdTVFest" So Sturgeon accepts it. So everybody agrees the BBC were biased Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 So everybody agrees the BBC were biased I don't I wasn't watching it though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Trapper John Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 So everybody agrees the BBC were biased Only if you are utterly deluded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted August 27, 2015 Share Posted August 27, 2015 I'm totally up for a dedicated Scottish channel ran by the BBC. After all we have alba dedicated to a few folk in Scotland. Why not one for us all??!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 I'm totally up for a dedicated Scottish channel ran by the BBC. After all we have alba dedicated to a few folk in Scotland. Why not one for us all??!?Itll be cronic, thats how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 So everybody agrees the BBC were biased All Scots do.If you dont, your biased. FACT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 (edited) I don't I wasn't watching it though! Seriously GK, it was negative reporting everday, nothing on the positive side. See the patter we had and still have, about Rangers not being in the Top League.xgoogle Everyday. Oh, and its still going on. Edited August 28, 2015 by aussieh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Itll be cronic, thats how. Says Mr Scotland? I reckon it would be an idea to have a BBC Scotland/Wales/NI channel and a regionalised output in England. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Seriously GK, it was negative reporting everday, nothing on the positive side. See the patter we had and still have, about Rangers not being in the Top League.xgoogle Everyday. Oh, and its still going on. Is this not what everyone says about their media coverage? Thatcher did, Blair did, Brown did, Salmond and Sturgeon are about the BBC. They all can't be right surely. What was your view of STVs coverage? Sky News or C4? Any different view there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboX2 Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 All Scots do. If you dont, your biased. FACT. Surely that's your bias? Not a fact but a subjective view on the media coverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Is this not what everyone says about their media coverage? Thatcher did, Blair did, Brown did, Salmond and Sturgeon are about the BBC. They all can't be right surely. What was your view of STVs coverage? Sky News or C4? Any different view there? Theyre not fully funded government entities.They can chase their own agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Surely that's your bias? Not a fact but a subjective view on the media coverage.Im not biased, I hate everybody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Says Mr Scotland.A couple of years time.Still mass building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 BBC ?bias? against independence was essential?, http://wingsoverscotland.com/war-is-declared-and-battle-come-down/ "@NicolaSturgeon says it was 'absolutely correct' for 'change' proposition to have been more scrutinised than No during #indyref #EdTVFest" So Sturgeon accepts it. A central part of Massie's article and he nails it with his closing line "In other words, the press was right to be "biased" against the SNP and Yes Scotland. That's its job." But the BBC isn't the press. The BBC is public broadcasting and by its nature, neutral. I'm not sure Massie's argument fits with the BBC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 A central part of Massie's article and he nails it with his closing line "In other words, the press was right to be "biased" against the SNP and Yes Scotland. That's its job." But the BBC isn't the press. The BBC is public broadcasting and by its nature, neutral. I'm not sure Massie's argument fits with the BBC. That can't be right. The BBC performs a public service and part of that service is scrutiny of politicians.Sturgeon accepts the side proposing change should be scrutinised more. Here we are though - a year on and the Yes camp are still looking for people to blame (grievance, grudge) rather than looking at themselves and the shoddy campaign they ran. It was the Yes camp wot lost it. Nobody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 That can't be right. The BBC performs a public service and part of that service is scrutiny of politicians. Sturgeon accepts the side proposing change should be scrutinised more. Here we are though - a year on and the Yes camp are still looking for people to blame (grievance, grudge) rather than looking at themselves and the shoddy campaign they ran. It was the Yes camp wot lost it. Nobody else. Not denying that YES shot itself in the foot and not denying that it needed scrutiny. But an impartial broadcaster has a duty to ask rigorous questions of both sides. BBC seemed, imo, to be less even handed in its reporting (or lack of!) during the campaign. That's not why YES lost, and I've never made that point at all. If anything I have been rather forward in blaming the SNP's dominance of the YES campaign as the major factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Only if you are utterly deluded. https://archive.is/L9F7TEven Goagsy thinks they are. Bit more colourful language than Salmond too. But that's ok isn't it. It's just fun when it's labour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMaganator Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 "Ian Dunn: Imagine there was no Alex Salmond - how would indyref have turned out?" https://www.commonspace.scot/articles/2272/ian-dunn-imagine-there-was-no-alex-salmond-how-would-indyref-have-turned-out They'd probably have won it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.