Jump to content

Even More SNP Nonsense


Stuart Lyon

Recommended Posts

Space Mackerel

By the time of the next election, the UK will not be in the EU.

 

Flag waving does give anyone with sense the boak. But that's what the SNP have brought to Scotland in the last ten years.

 

Right now, a absolutely putrid Tory light SNP government is being given an easy ride by the electorate because everything they do is wrapped in a flag. And for that reason only.

A Tory hating Tory supposedly hating Tory policies. That's how mixed up they are folks. :lol: Edited by Space Mackerel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 12.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Space Mackerel

    2161

  • deesidejambo

    496

  • Pans Jambo

    477

  • JamboX2

    465

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Those MPs and MSPs were not elected based on a manifesto/campaign that included a second independence referendum so there is no current mandate. The election before the first referendum was a different story as it was a clear campaign policy of the SNP.

 

The Scottish National Party have a clear focus.

Independence.

They have a democratic mandate to propose any bill they wish.

If ratified by holyrood there is no way westminster would block this.

Even if it was lawful.

The snp dont because they wouldn't win the vote.

Do you honestly believe they wouldn't if they thought they could.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Trapper John McIntyre

To be honest its not at all tory.

Or indeed a market economy outlook.

Government borrowing increasing annually is not free market.

And in truth the day western governments bailed out the banks and protected the wealthy at the expense of the middle class is the day capitalism ended and fascism began.

Free market capitalism would have allowed that failure to happen.

The main players especially in the US have history.

But hey wtf do i know.

 

 

Drivel. What about the thousands of 'middle class' who lost their livelihoods when they were emptied by the finance industry after? Were they responsible? Some on pretty low pay, too.

 

 

No one was happy about that but it was either that or the ATM's running dry.

 

 

Then you would have seen chaos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

The Scottish National Party have a clear focus.

Independence.

They have a democratic mandate to propose any bill they wish.

If ratified by holyrood there is no way westminster would block this.

Even if it was lawful.

The snp dont because they wouldn't win the vote.

Do you honestly believe they wouldn't if they thought they could.

Erm, everything we do is lawful jakey?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Trapper John McIntyre

The Scottish National Party have a clear focus.

Independence.

They have a democratic mandate to propose any bill they wish.

If ratified by holyrood there is no way westminster would block this.

Even if it was lawful.

The snp dont because they wouldn't win the vote.

Do you honestly believe they wouldn't if they thought they could.

 

 

They can propose what they like as long as it is within devolved powers to enact. Anything else has to be ratified by Westminster.

 

I don't see Westminster being sympathetic to anything that bears the term 'referendum' at present.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

They can propose what they like as long as it is within devolved powers to enact. Anything else has to be ratified by Westminster.

 

I don't see Westminster being sympathetic to anything that bears the term 'referendum' at present.

As I've said, patience.

Nawbags deed then its a rout.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Drivel. What about the thousands of 'middle class' who lost their livelihoods when they were emptied by the finance industry after? Were they responsible? Some on pretty low pay, too.

 

 

No one was happy about that but it was either that or the ATM's running dry.

 

 

Then you would have seen chaos.

 

The middle class are now being squeezed.

Capitalism is now debt endemic.

Do you think the US is the most powerful nation because of their economy?

 

Of course i do not think people in the finance industry were responsible.

 

Its not just about the bail out.

What is the debt compared to gdp of any western nation?

Do you honestly believe that debt will ever be cleared ?

It will just grow?

Thousands of people have lost jobs in other industries .

This isnt about job protection.

Its about protecting the wealth and position.

You would do well to check the history of the financial institutions that benefitted most.

Anyway im sorry you think the truth is drivel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can propose what they like as long as it is within devolved powers to enact. Anything else has to be ratified by Westminster.

 

I don't see Westminster being sympathetic to anything that bears the term 'referendum' at present.

 

Sympathy doesn't come into it .

If a nationalist party has a majority in holyrood and they propose a referendum and its passed.

Then westminster would not refuse it.

I do know legally they could .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

Im talking about westminsters legal right to block a referendum.

The "Mother of all Parliaments" ???

 

Dinnae make us pish my pants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're posting not one current law to back up your last post.

Terrific contribution as ever.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5

 

See the link. The 1998 Scotland Act reserves all constitutional power to the UK Parliament. Sturgeon can hold referenda on health, trains, police, housing but not on a reserved issue like the constitutional make up of the UK.

 

As Holyrood cannot pass laws which are in breach of the Scotland Act, EU Law or the European Charter of Human Rights she cannot pass an Act on a referendum on the UK constitution which independence would affect.

 

That's the legality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5

See the link. The 1998 Scotland Act reserves all constitutional power to the UK Parliament. Sturgeon can hold referenda on health, trains, police, housing but not on a reserved issue like the constitutional make up of the UK.

As Holyrood cannot pass laws which are in breach of the Scotland Act, EU Law or the European Charter of Human Rights she cannot pass an Act on a referendum on the UK constitution which independence would affect.

That's the legality.

Will Scotland hold another referendum? Yes or No?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will Scotland hold another referendum? Yes or No?

Yes. But only when it doesn't breach it's constitutional foundation in the Scotland Act. Therefore you can only get a referendum if either Westminster passes an Act to hold one or Holyrood is provided the consent and power to legislate for one by Westminster.

 

So yes, but it is conditional on agreement between the two governments and parliaments.

 

A better question is do people want one? At present on polls, they do not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5

 

See the link. The 1998 Scotland Act reserves all constitutional power to the UK Parliament. Sturgeon can hold referenda on health, trains, police, housing but not on a reserved issue like the constitutional make up of the UK.

 

As Holyrood cannot pass laws which are in breach of the Scotland Act, EU Law or the European Charter of Human Rights she cannot pass an Act on a referendum on the UK constitution which independence would affect.

 

That's the legality.

 

Legally it can be blocked by westminster.

But international law i think supercedes this.

Id need to check.

 

Anyway the uk government would i suspect have to respect a democratically elected party with a clear majority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. But only when it doesn't breach it's constitutional foundation in the Scotland Act. Therefore you can only get a referendum if either Westminster passes an Act to hold one or Holyrood is provided the consent and power to legislate for one by Westminster.

 

So yes, but it is conditional on agreement between the two governments and parliaments.

 

A better question is do people want one? At present on polls, they do not.

 

Not only do they not one neither does the snp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Mother of all Parliaments" ???

 

Dinnae make us pish my pants.

 

Thats what its known as so away and take yer nappy of.

You really are childish and your pishy patter is as cringey as a demented orangeman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Legally it can be blocked by westminster.

But international law i think supercedes this.

Id need to check.

 

Anyway the uk government would i suspect have to respect a democratically elected party with a clear majority.

On point 2 yes. Political reality woukd take control events. But the SNP do not have a clear mandate as they did in 2011. "Change of circumstances" can be argued over.

 

Point 1. Not correct. Happy to see your point but the UK is a dualist system in international treaties. We can sign up to them but we need to pass Acts of Parliament giving direct effect to the provisions of treaties into domestic law. The UK signed the ECHR in the 1950s. We drafted it. The UK did not give direct effect to the treaty in the UK's 3 legal Jurisdictions until 1998 with the Human Rights Act (as an example).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

Thats what its known as so away and take yer nappy of.

You really are childish and your pishy patter is as cringey as a demented orangeman.

jakey? Cmon, you're better than that

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

On point 2 yes. Political reality woukd take control events. But the SNP do not have a clear mandate as they did in 2011. "Change of circumstances" can be argued over.

 

Point 1. Not correct. Happy to see your point but the UK is a dualist system in international treaties. We can sign up to them but we need to pass Acts of Parliament giving direct effect to the provisions of treaties into domestic law. The UK signed the ECHR in the 1950s. We drafted it. The UK did not give direct effect to the treaty in the UK's 3 legal Jurisdictions until 1998 with the Human Rights Act (as an example).

Easy to see why people don't pay ?100 an hour to yous lot [emoji53]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Edited by Space Mackerel
Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy to see why people don't pay ?100 an hour to yous lot [emoji53]

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

It's the fundamentals to an independent nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

It's the fundamentals to an independent nation.

How's your lettuce in London?

?6

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Link to post
Share on other sites
Arnold Rothstein

Easy to see why people don't pay ?100 an hour to yous lot [emoji53]

 

What's with the unnecessary "s"?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Link to post
Share on other sites
Trapper John McIntyre

 

SNP tried to silence me. And their freedom to bully, vilify and malign is a chilling glimpse of one-party Scotland

8gto1qb0.jpg?w=1000The rise of nationalism around the world is a shocking, disorienting experience.

Mainstream politics is under threat like at no time since the 1930s. Demagogues are coming to power, journalists face intimidation, once sturdy institutions and assumptions are collapsing like derelict tower blocks. The political character of entire countries is transforming almost overnight.

Nowhere is this more visible than in the United States. But viewers glued to Donald Trump?s presidency as if to a Netflix thriller should familiarise themselves with the original series.

The new world disorder is greeted with more equanimity in Scotland, a testing ground for the potential of identity politics in recession-hit economies. Across ten years, the SNP has concentrated power, stifled dissent, bullied opponents, and divided the country along a nasty dichotomy of nationalist vs unionist.

Much of the blame lies with Alex Salmond, Scotland?s first First Minister of any stature but also our first post-liberal leader. For all their protestations about ?civic? nationalism, the SNP under Salmond was instrumental in the cowing of non-nationalist Scotland. The change of tone hoped for when his successor took over has sadly failed to materialise.

I documented these developments as a journalist but I never expected I might be next. I was wrong and I learned the hard way that journalism and nationalism do not mix.

*****

Last month, I left STV where I was digital politics and comment editor. In my five years there I graduated from reporting to writing comment and analysis on politics. STV?s website is not regulated by Ofcom in the same way as its broadcast output and the company thought incisive commentary could set us apart from rivals.

I prided myself on being a critic of all sides, rebuking Jeremy Corbyn for associating with anti-Semites and David Cameron for pandering to anti-immigrant prejudices. I took the SNP to task for tolerating cybernat extremism but praised Nicola Sturgeon for her leadership abilities. I gave the Unionist parties credit for delivering The Vow but hauled them over the coals for stopping short of the ?modern form of home rule? they promised.

Everything I wrote was approved in advance by the head of digital and on several occasions I was told that my work had been praised in STV board meetings. But as I grew more sceptical of independence and began to question if it was just souped-up nationalism I found myself a target for the SNP?s cybernats.

Then in spring 2016, STV?s chief executive Rob Woodward held a briefing for MPs at Westminster. I wasn?t there but was told by someone present that Pete Wishart and John Nicolson had ?hijacked? the proceedings and launched an ?ugly? denunciation of me.

As double acts go Wishart and Nicolson are less Montrose and MacEwen than Abbott and Costello. Wishart, a walking snarl, is the former keyboard player in Runrig whose greatest achievement as an MP is being the former keyboard player in Runrig. A BBC broadcaster whose career stalled ? columnist Euan McColm memorably compared him to ?an Eddie Mair tribute act playing matinees at Pontins? ? Nicolson changed tack and went into politics, entering Parliament in 2015.

They are figureheads of the anti-journalism wing of the SNP, a faction which has come to define the party?s attitudes to scrutiny and accountability. Journalists are malefactors working against the SNP and ?lazy? regurgitators of untruths.

Wishart began hectoring STV about me on social media and I was immediately concerned. When a colleague found himself uninvited to press conferences at one Glasgow football club, STV stood by him ? for a day, before capitulating and sending another journalist to cover the story. I didn?t fancy my chances.

I was right. Soon Nicolson, who sits on the powerful Westminster media committee, joined in. I was summoned to a meeting with STV?s head of digital and head of news and told my role was being changed. I could edit STV?s politics page or I could write but I could no longer do both. As the head of news put it: ?We can?t afford to have a member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee complaining about us.?

I couldn?t believe this was happening. Two SNP MPs had used the bully pulpit of Twitter to lean on STV and STV had caved. And now their online politics and comment editor would no longer be allowed to edit and comment on politics online. This wasn?t Kafka, it was Lewis Carroll.

Twitter is a red herring. As Wishart told a newspaper editor, he had complained to Woodward that my journalism was ?crap?. And the very people whose job it was to resist political interference acquiesced for an easy life. The novelist JK Rowling did more to support me with her tweets than any of my editors at STV.

*****

I don?t blame Wishart and Nicolson. They are nationalists and conduct themselves accordingly; no one laments the character of a viper when it bites. The fault lies with ?Civic Scotland? and its unhealthy relationship to power. In some cases this is a function of ideology but the real problem is structural. An adversarial press, independent academy, and non-aligned third sector are key pillars of a liberal society. In Scotland ? despite and in some ways because of devolution ? the bolshie approach is reserved for the UK Government.

For many years Westminster was antagonist in the home rule morality play, the longest-running show in Edinburgh, and much of Civic Scotland has failed to move on. The Scottish Government, while still held to account by some, is viewed as somehow more benign, more palatable, more our sort of people. Scotland gives all the impressions of an advanced polity but that facade rests on hollow institutions: A parliament of biddable backbenchers and scant scrutiny; a media lacking resources and corporate gumption; a voluntary sector conscripted into politics; and an intelligentsia that has already made its mind up.

When reports emerged that I had been gagged, the Scottish branch of the National Union of Journalists rushed to dismiss them ? without speaking to me. Nationalist hacks lent their support to Wishart and Nicolson and the BBC aired a ?debate? in which neither pundit bothered to contact me or confirm any facts before broadcasting wild speculation and assertion. Best of all was the charity board member who endorsed STV?s decision on Twitter. The charity? Scottish PEN ? the campaign for writers? freedom of expression.

Orwell lamented that English intellectuals ?would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during God Save the King than of stealing from a poor box?. Scottish intellectuals would gladly tan the poor box for a selfie with Nicola Sturgeon. Far from sniggering at national institutions our intelligentsia act as a patriotism police, charging political and cultural dissidents with ?self-loathing?.

The Scottish establishment is a curious creature, a lion convinced it is a mouse. Yet however much we like to pretend otherwise, the Caledonian Elect exists and its only distinguishing characteristic is composition. The British establishment prides itself on exclusivity but its Scottish counterpart pursues converts with evangelical zeal, the lustre of democracy paying court to our national myth of egalitarianism. Many are the familiares eager to lend a hand against heretics.

*****

There is now in Scotland a Nationalist nomenklatura of true believers and latter-day converts, sincere and cynical alike. They are united in their support for independence and the 24-Hour Grievance Hotline that passes for a government at Holyrood. In return, they benefit from a revolving door between nationalist politicking and prominent positions in business, the public sector, media and NGOs. Across Civic Society those politically out-of-step are pressured, cajoled and harassed, not only by government but by its boosters in these sectors. Last month, a senior NHS bureaucrat launched an astonishing public attack on a journalist, calling him ?disgusting? and accusing him of ?trying to deflect from the NHS humanitarian disaster over the border?. His crime? He reported on the 1,700 Scots whose operations were cancelled in 2016.

Other journalists have hardly fared better. When Alex Salmond stood down as First Minister after his referendum drubbing, the Mail, Express and Telegraph were banned from his final press conference. The Guardian refused to send a correspondent after Salmond?s office insisted on choosing which one. The sensitive wee soul even admits to calling the editor of this newspaper over a reporter?s tweet, though nothing will surpass the open letter he penned denouncing his own biographer.

In the New Scotland, even journalists? union the NUJ can?t be relied on to stand up for a free press. When reporters came under attack from nationalists during the referendum, the NUJ?s Scottish organiser declared that ?serious abuse and threats to Scots journalists is mainly from small group of BT [better Together] supporters.? When Nick Robinson spoke of the intimidation he faced, the same union boss blamed the BBC broadcaster?s ?personal politics?. He even publicly sided with a Nationalist exposed for her false claims about the NHS over the reporters who exposed her.

Things aren?t much better in the academy. It?s bad enough that the Nationalists champion obscure cranks peddling conspiracy theories about the BBC. That they also busy themselves bullying dissenting voices in the professoriate is more alarming. When the principal of St Andrews University voiced fears about research funding after independence, Alex Salmond?s spin doctors drafted a retraction praising the SNP government and demanded she sign it. The then First Minister even telephoned the academic and treated her to a ?loud and heated? call. SNP minister Shona Robison complained to Dundee University when a respected history professor spoke at a Better Together event while our friend Mr Nicolson asked bosses at Birbeck College to give a psychology lecturer ?a little extra marking? after she criticised him on Twitter.

One might expect business to be more distant from all this but that?s not always the case. I saw this at STV in its courtship of the SNP, a friends-with-benefits arrangement fated for a messy breakup. There is an alarm that should go off in any organisation when it gets too close to government. At STV, that alarm always seemed to be on silent.

There are the conference suppers held exclusively for the SNP, promoted in 2016 by switching the TV screens outside the news studios to declare ?STV WELCOME SNP?. Or the decision to allow a Nationalist MP to embed himself in the newsroom for two days and participate in editorial meetings. Take the critically acclaimed Road to Referendum documentary that was presented by pro-independence commentator Iain Macwhirter and produced by an SNP activist and later MP. Not to mention the 2015 Hogmanay special, with Nationalist comedian Elaine C Smith interviewing Nicola Sturgeon, her mother, and her sister. It was like a North Korean Family Fortunes ? only one team allowed and the survey always said ?SNP?.

STV is drunk on access and stumbles over the line so many times it no longer remembers that the line exists. Given the intimidation of industry leaders during the independence referendum ? the phone calls and raised voices and thinly-veiled threats ? it?s not surprising that businesses are keen to keep ministers on side.

*****

Nationalism is an all-consuming worldview. A conservative can accept the need for change and still be a conservative, a socialist that class alone doesn?t explain all injustices and still be a socialist. A nationalist must subordinate all things to ?the restoration of Scottish sovereignty? or forfeit their place in the tribe. Under this most barren of ideologies there is only national pride and nothing else. Independence is always the answer because nationalists spend so little time thinking about any other question.

This allows for great leeway on other matters of public policy. The SNP can pose as civil libertarians at Westminster and govern as authoritarians at Holyrood. They can shift from believing in scrapping the council tax to retaining the council tax, with equal fervour and scarcely an admission that the policy has changed. It is why Nicola Sturgeon could go from casting doubt on EU nationals? right to remain in 2014 to castigating Theresa May for doing the same in 2017. You will search in vain for a Scottish nationalist of any standing who will acknowledge these contradictions, let alone criticise them.

Epistemic closure is all the rage in Scotland these days. Independence enthusiasts cling to The National, one Nicola Sturgeon sticker offer away from pure fanzine, and assail those trying to hold the Scottish Government to account. The First Minister, who ought to know better and does, lends her office to fanatical howls of ?SNP bad?, the faithful?s favoured chant when confronted by bothersome facts. One cartoonist beloved of the nationalists refuses to satirise the SNP until after independence, lest he undermine The Cause. The practice of boycotting pro-UK businesses such as Asda and Barrhead Travel is now so commonplace that MPs and MSPs admit to doing it. Even the Tunnock?s teacake, beloved staple of Scottish larders, is biscoctus non grata.

The most unnerving aspect of my experience was that I?m not an investigative journalist. I wasn?t uncovering secret reports or exposing corruption. I?m a commentator. I analyse policies and personalities and give my take on events. I wield no power save the ability, on occasion, to coax 20 minutes out of someone?s day, and even then they may disdain or dismiss what I have to say. My words, if you are so disinclined, can be waved away as the scribblings of a fool, a quisling, or whatever is the cybernat insult du jour

But this the Nationalists could not do. Having co-opted so much of the third sector, academia, and some of the best and worst of Scottish journalism, they want it all and they want it waving flags. And when you can?t do that, when you have to point out their mistakes or remind them that nationalism is not sanctified by some cant about social justice, you must be destroyed, anathematised, made an example of. 

This hostility to open inquiry has bled into public policymaking, epitomised by the decision to ban genetically modified crops without scientific advice. Reasonable people may disagree about GM but not to seek evidence in the first place is an act of intellectual cowardice. It?s little wonder the post of chief scientific adviser went unfilled for 18 months. In the nation of Fleming and Hutton, blind faith now trumps the scientific method.

*****

As the world peers from behind quivering fingers at what President Trump will do next, we would do well to reflect on the importance of institutions. America?s founding fathers designed a government of divided powers to ensure no one individual or party could become too powerful. Democrats who decry Trump?s outrageous presidential orders must now sorely regret the executive overreach they supported under Barack Obama. They forgot the first lesson of American history: Power unchecked is a charter for tyranny.

Institutions and customs matter. Whether it?s an inquisitive press or academic freedom, they are the guardrails of democratic societies. Government must be held to account, politicians must not influence the media, and ministers ought not to co-opt independent organisations ? otherwise we risk leaving ourselves open to another Trump, or worse.

If Scotland is going to make a half-decent stab at devolution, and especially if it aims to be independent in the near future, it will need real democratic infrastructure. Journalists will have to be more sceptical ? please but please can we stop referring to ?Nicola? in our newsrooms? ? and academics free to deal in constitutional realities and not just national ambitions. Third-sector organisations will have to be honest about the pressure they are sometimes put under or forgo public funding altogether.

We all want Scotland to succeed but we are not all in this together. Governments are there to make policy and journalists are there to hold them to account, no matter if they are based in Edinburgh or London and no matter how awkward it makes the boss?s next Malbec with a minister. The same goes for voluntary sector bosses, church leaders and academics. We are not friends. We are not partners. We are not stakeholders. The soppy sodality of ?Civic Scotland? was all fine and well in the birthing of devolution and saw us through the parliament?s teething problems ? but it?s time to grow up.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Trapper John McIntyre

So what?

 

Don't worry. The article is of no concern to you.

 

You stick to the Bishop of Bath.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

Don't worry. The article is of no concern to you.

 

You stick to the Bishop of Bath.

As if I ever read any of that dross you posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Daily Mail, again. :rofl:

 

An excellent article by a journalist who had first hand experience of the methods of the Scottish Nasty Party, matters not which newspaper it appeared in. The SNP could always challenge the article but I doubt they will do so openly.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Trapper John McIntyre

As if I ever read any of that dross you posted.

This'll be more your line.

 

The literary equivalent of hunting for burn ointment in a vat of boiling oil.

C31LAhiWQAEsPgC.jpg
2 replies0 retweets2 likes
Reply
 
2
 
Retweet
 
 
 
 
Like
 
2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe STV didn't want the same baying mob which the BBC had at their front door during the last indy ref.

 

Same tactics used in Germany in the 1930s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As if I ever read any of that dross you posted.

I bet you've got your fingers in your ears.

 

I assume you and the rest of the sheep will be changing your view on membership of the EU, once Nicola announces the expected change of policy?  Remember whatever Nicola says goes.  No debate in the SNP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet you've got your fingers in your ears.

 

I assume you and the rest of the sheep will be changing your view on membership of the EU, once Nicola announces the expected change of policy? Remember whatever Nicola says goes. No debate in the SNP.

Indeed it's the Scottish Nicola Party.

 

The reason for this is she is a strong politician no doubt, but the rest are lightweights and would not get voter credibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This'll be more your line.

 

The literary equivalent of hunting for burn ointment in a vat of boiling oil.

 

 

 

 

C31LAhiWQAEsPgC.jpg

2 replies0 retweets2 likes

 

 

Reply

2

 

Retweet

 

 

 

 

Like

2

Good to see Pat Kane getting a gig.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one of your former Labour darlings and also in the same profession as you giving his thoughts about jumping over to the SNP.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/columnists/15070391.I_backed_Better_Together_but_now_I_am_for_SNP_and_independence/?ref=twtrec

I'd quote his position of a few months ago:

 

"There is the rhetoric of independence and social justice, and then there is actual SNP policy in government, which is frequently reactionary, punitive, and a total stranger to social justice. Not my vision for Scotland.?

 

Mike Dailly said that.

 

I only hope he can influence them away from that reactionary line.

Edited by JamboX2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

I'd quote his position of a few months ago:

 

"There is the rhetoric of independence and social justice, and then there is actual SNP policy in government, which is frequently reactionary, punitive, and a total stranger to social justice. Not my vision for Scotland.?

 

Mike Dailly said that.

 

I only hope he can influence them away from that reactionary line.

They say a week is a long time in politics, a few months must be like few millennia?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Link to post
Share on other sites

They say a week is a long time in politics, a few months must be like few millennia?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

He said that a few days before his switch.

 

Frankly I'm not overly bothered. Quite like Dailly as he's quite true to his word in his views.

 

I just doubt the logic of his reasoning. He's joined a broad church which spans the centre-right and the left. He'll never get the commitment to his causes from such a church because others will cry foul.

 

I wish him well though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"If you spend some of your hard-earned income on one thing, there?s less cash to spend on something else. You want that new coat? Fine, but it might mean cutting back on other things.

 

And so it is with the nation?s finances. "

 

Straight from Maggie's playbook that one Tosh.

 

Equally, taking a note out of Wilson's book:

 

"those higher earners affected will contribute ?7.70 a week more - not more than they do now, but more than similar taxpayers in other parts of the UK"

 

So more... and equivalence with a prescription you may never even need is a bit dodgy too. What if you'd rather that money was spent elsewhere? Nurses?

 

"Without a Budget agreement, councils and other public bodies can?t make their own spending plans, services would be under threat and ultimately wages wouldn?t be paid.

 

Of course things would never get to that stage ? although with the behaviour of some politicians at Holyrood I sometimes wonder how far they would be prepared to take things in the name of opposition for opposition?s sake."

 

So again, opposition based on either (a) not wanting Scottish services to be cut further by raising further revenue or (B) not to force middle income tax payers to pay ?7.70 more per week than their counterparts has nothing to do with the manifestos those politicians were elected on and their duty to them nor to political principle? Nothing. Just opportunism? Aye... ok. SNPGood v OppositionBad.

 

"The divide is now between those who want to govern and achieve for Scotland ? and those who simply want to wreck things.

 

It?s a divide between those who want to deliver for our communities and an agenda intent on leaving us at the mercy of right-wing Tories at Westminster."

 

Wow... so those in the Labour or Liberal parties who sought tax rises to totally mitigate the cuts which, whilst lessened, will still hit home from the budget or those who are Tories and believe in a low tax economy are simply all tools and puppets here to degrade Scotland? Really? This stuff is so pitiful. The fawning attitude to a sell out Green Party as well screams that this budget is no longer about the services she's cutting but about the "greater" cause of independence. After all it transcends all else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the statement from link and thought it was a fake statement.

 

Now seeing jambox2 respond to make me think it might be for real.

 

It's incredibly poor and pointless imo.

I was skeptical at first but it's the official SNP site. Such a poor statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Malinga the Swinga

"If you spend some of your hard-earned income on one thing, there?s less cash to spend on something else. You want that new coat? Fine, but it might mean cutting back on other things.

And so it is with the nation?s finances. "

Straight from Maggie's playbook that one Tosh.

Equally, taking a note out of Wilson's book:

"those higher earners affected will contribute ?7.70 a week more - not more than they do now, but more than similar taxpayers in other parts of the UK"

So more... and equivalence with a prescription you may never even need is a bit dodgy too. What if you'd rather that money was spent elsewhere? Nurses?

"Without a Budget agreement, councils and other public bodies can?t make their own spending plans, services would be under threat and ultimately wages wouldn?t be paid.

Of course things would never get to that stage ? although with the behaviour of some politicians at Holyrood I sometimes wonder how far they would be prepared to take things in the name of opposition for opposition?s sake."

So again, opposition based on either (a) not wanting Scottish services to be cut further by raising further revenue or (B) not to force middle income tax payers to pay ?7.70 more per week than their counterparts has nothing to do with the manifestos those politicians were elected on and their duty to them nor to political principle? Nothing. Just opportunism? Aye... ok. SNPGood v OppositionBad.

"The divide is now between those who want to govern and achieve for Scotland ? and those who simply want to wreck things.

It?s a divide between those who want to deliver for our communities and an agenda intent on leaving us at the mercy of right-wing Tories at Westminster."

Wow... so those in the Labour or Liberal parties who sought tax rises to totally mitigate the cuts which, whilst lessened, will still hit home from the budget or those who are Tories and believe in a low tax economy are simply all tools and puppets here to degrade Scotland? Really? This stuff is so pitiful. The fawning attitude to a sell out Green Party as well screams that this budget is no longer about the services she's cutting but about the "greater" cause of independence. After all it transcends all else.

Neither Sturgeon or SNP give a monkeys for Scotland or its citizens, all they are concerned with is keeping power for the small elite clique that runs the party. If they can do this by blaming England and the English for everything and anything, then they will do so. They don't even need evidence as it supporters blindly accept every word they speak and write as if it were gospel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither Sturgeon or SNP give a monkeys for Scotland or its citizens, all they are concerned with is keeping power for the small elite clique that runs the party. If they can do this by blaming England and the English for everything and anything, then they will do so. They don't even need evidence as it supporters blindly accept every word they speak and write as if it were gospel.

isn't that true of all the mainstream political parties?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Malinga the Swinga

isn't that true of all the mainstream political parties?

it is getting there but not quite. The Republican party in US seem to be led by a man who is following through on his promises but I believe that is covered in another thread.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Mackerel

"If you spend some of your hard-earned income on one thing, there?s less cash to spend on something else. You want that new coat? Fine, but it might mean cutting back on other things.

And so it is with the nation?s finances. "

Straight from Maggie's playbook that one Tosh.

Equally, taking a note out of Wilson's book:

"those higher earners affected will contribute ?7.70 a week more - not more than they do now, but more than similar taxpayers in other parts of the UK"

So more... and equivalence with a prescription you may never even need is a bit dodgy too. What if you'd rather that money was spent elsewhere? Nurses?

"Without a Budget agreement, councils and other public bodies can?t make their own spending plans, services would be under threat and ultimately wages wouldn?t be paid.

Of course things would never get to that stage ? although with the behaviour of some politicians at Holyrood I sometimes wonder how far they would be prepared to take things in the name of opposition for opposition?s sake."

So again, opposition based on either (a) not wanting Scottish services to be cut further by raising further revenue or (B) not to force middle income tax payers to pay ?7.70 more per week than their counterparts has nothing to do with the manifestos those politicians were elected on and their duty to them nor to political principle? Nothing. Just opportunism? Aye... ok. SNPGood v OppositionBad.

"The divide is now between those who want to govern and achieve for Scotland ? and those who simply want to wreck things.

It?s a divide between those who want to deliver for our communities and an agenda intent on leaving us at the mercy of right-wing Tories at Westminster."

Wow... so those in the Labour or Liberal parties who sought tax rises to totally mitigate the cuts which, whilst lessened, will still hit home from the budget or those who are Tories and believe in a low tax economy are simply all tools and puppets here to degrade Scotland? Really? This stuff is so pitiful. The fawning attitude to a sell out Green Party as well screams that this budget is no longer about the services she's cutting but about the "greater" cause of independence. After all it transcends all else.

It'll be a wee shame when all your Labour Councillors are getting the heave ho soon, the very ones who plan the budgets and spending that are crucial to the people who need it most.

North Lanarkshire being the obvious start given recent allegations, and not for the first time if I remember correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be a wee shame when all your Labour Councillors are getting the heave ho soon, the very ones who plan the budgets and spending that are crucial to the people who need it most.

North Lanarkshire being the obvious start given recent allegations, and not for the first time if I remember correctly.

Democracy is what it is. If Labour lose councillors then that's that at the end of the day.

 

What allegations out of interest? Genuinely not heard of these.

 

That doesn't escape the fact that the article which was linked by Tosh is utter political fantasy and a series of nonsense statements. It effectively says that if you disagree with the SNP you are all for wrecking Scotland. I disagree with the cuts which are coming from Holyrood. I do not want to wreck Scotland.

 

It's not healthy for us to head down this us v them route. Especially because it is purely based on constitutional lines rather than political ones.

Edited by JamboX2
Link to post
Share on other sites

isn't that true of all the mainstream political parties?

Dunno. There seems to be quite a bit of healthy debate within the UK parties. I see Gerry Hassan reported that Brexit backing Alex Neil votes for the SNP's pro-EU membership motion at Holyrood. Bit odd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...