View Full Version : Ian Davidson Newsnight
Did anyone see Iain Davidson on Newsnight Scotland last night and NOT shake their head in disbelief?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnUuwIgqWO4
changilass
08-Aug-12, 17:41
Don't do utube, any chance giving us an explanation please squidge?
oh lol ok changilass. This is a better explanation.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/newsnight-scotland-biased-mp-says-1-2456295
If you can find a link that you can watch (not youtube) take a look. I was just astounded at his rudeness!!! Having followed htis story up today I realise that there is some evidence that he has form for behaviour like this so what on earth made them think he was their best spokesperson.
Oh deary me, the MP has upset the Nats, and they are throwing their toys out of the pram. He had every right to say what he said, and I go along with him.
changilass
08-Aug-12, 19:08
What a twonk, but if nowt else its got folks talking about it lol.
I thought he absolutley hit nail with his bias comment. Old Kirsty's false outrage made her look a complete amature.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
He was rude and inarticulate and unpleasant. He behaved like a childish oaf and I am surprised that he was given the responsibility of the appearance. It took away from what he was saying which for any of us trying to decide what we think of the points he was making in any sort of objective manner just left us shaking our heads.
Oh deary me, the MP has upset the Nats, and they are throwing their toys out of the pram. He had every right to say what he said, and I go along with him.
What exactly did he say Golach?...What was his message to the Country?
I must admit, after watching it all I saw and heard was a Man who acted like a little spoilt rude Brat!!!
I don't think he did the Labour party any good at all and I hope he is reigned in and not allowed anywhere near a camera ever again.
C3...............[disgust]
The point he was making was not for discussion. He is saying if you let the Nats go off half cocked on the referendum it will be open to and almost certainly will be challenged in court. Win or lose it will lead to unnecessary delays. Alex can pout and spit his dummy but it doesn’t change the facts.
The point he was making was not for discussion. He is saying if you let the Nats go off half cocked on the referendum it will be open to and almost certainly will be challenged in court. Win or lose it will lead to unnecessary delays. Alex can pout and spit his dummy but it doesn’t change the facts.
Thanks for that explanation Duke, I did keep hearing the word Court amongst the slaver!
Now, that tells me the Man has something to be worried about. Why would he want to waste all that taxpayers money in Court costs when the Union are convinced that Scot's won't vote for Independence?
I am even more confused now!
C3.................:eek::eek:
Thanks for that explanation Duke, I did keep hearing the word Court amongst the slaver!
Now, that tells me the Man has something to be worried about. Why would he want to waste all that taxpayers money in Court costs when the Union are convinced that Scot's won't vote for Independence?
I am even more confused now!
C3.................:eek::eek:
You wouldn't be if you paid attention. His committee has been studying it for a while. Unless the UK Gov. provides the legal legitimacy for the Ref. it aint legal. How is that hard to understand?
What he said was that the referendum in 1997 was a referendum on the Scotland act and that this gives Westminster the MANDATE to decide the legality of the 2014 referendum because that is what people voted on in the 1997 referendum. In fact, the Scotland Act he refers to wasnt even drafted until AFTER the 1997 referendum. He also says later that the 1997 referendum GAVE westminster the power to deal with the issue of a referendum on independence in the 1997 referendum. That is patently untrue - the referendum in 1997 was about giving powers to Scotland FROM Westminster not the other way around.
He then goes on to say that if you pay lawyers enough they will say what you want them to say which is fine but then doesnt that apply to lawyers that his committee pays to or is it only lawyers that offer an opposing viewpoint to Mr Davidson that can be paid to give any view you want or has the Scottish Affairs committee the monopoly on the "good" lawyers?
We then have Mr Davidson saying his "side" WANT a referendum and a speedy one. Well actually that's a surprise - none of the parties represented on the Scottish Affairs Committee have ever "wanted" a referendum before and actually opposed one in their last manifestos.
Isabel Fraser then asks why, if they want a speedy referendum couldnt they just give the section 30 permission required and have referendum. Ian Davidson replies that Westminster could just issue the order but they wont because they "choose not to do so". He also says we could hand over "our" powers which some commentators have said reflects the fact that despite Scottish Voters voting in a majority government which stood openly on a platform of holding a referendum on independence - which people KNEW about and voted for - Westminster will still give us what THEY choose and not what the Scottish People voted for.
Ian Davidson also makes some coherent mutterings about court action which are difficult to unravel but which appear to say that The Westminster government wants to agree the terms of the 2014 referendum but unless the Scottish government agree to THEIR terms they will refuse to issue the Section 30 ammendment which will mean the courts have to decide but they he says its the SNP who want to take the matter to court and spin it out. Thats despite the SNP stating clearly a date when they waznt a referendum and sticking to it.
As for the Bias suggestions he makes well - if the BBC was truly biased it would be plastered all over the BBC as a triumphant example of the incoherence of the Unionist viewpoint. There wasnt a peep. Anywhere.
I know that many of you guys think I am throwing my toys out the pram to quote Golach but its not that which annoys me. THe overwhelming sense I had the other night when watching this was despair and annoyance that some of these people - these MPs - paid a damn good wage in my opininon to make decisions and argue points do such a rubbish job. The lack of quality in debate is appalling. Watching this man and Scottish Questions in Westminster is just incredible. Who on earth thought this man was a good representative on this subject on this programme. In addition having voted labour all my life until recently, I get annoyed that people like Ian Davidson make the labour party look like amateurish numpties and so out of touch. He was rude, blustering, incoherent and beligerent and he insults the electorate by his behaviour because they want to understand the points and be able to make an informed decision and interviews like this just put people off and is it any wonder!!!!!
You wouldn't be if you paid attention. How is that hard to understand?
Now you are beginning to sound like the Man himself Duke!!
No need for the insults thank you!
And thank you Squidge for putting the record straight.
C3............:eek:
LOL, the man actually said the BBC had an SNP bias. If anything the opposite is true. Though I suspect he was poisoning the well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well) and did not actually hold that opinion. Ian Davidson has a history of dodgy actions and statements and being slapped down for them also.
Complementary fact: Ian Davidson is the chairman of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, of which there are no SNP members.
LOL, the man actually said the BBC had an SNP bias. If anything the opposite is true.
I would agree with him, at least in the case of BBC Scotland news.
Both sides always think that the BBC is biased.... I tend to think its six of one half a dozen of the other. For every time theone thinks there is SNP bias oddquine will think there is union bias. I dont think there is much mileage in arguing either point. The whole interview was just head shakingly awful and making his point with his "news nat" comments made him look like a sulky wee boy.
I would agree with him, at least in the case of BBC Scotland news.
Really? BBC Scotland have the worse anti-SNP bias I've seen of any thing media related except for certain tabloids. Their online news stories are particularly bad, trying pedantically to bring everything negative back to the SNP.
Sneaky Newsnight and even sneakier Isobel Fraser, the independent Oxford lawyer on the show, is...............
Andrew Tickell was introduced simply as an Oxford University lawyer without mention of his role as a high-profile Nationalist blogger, who writes online under the pseudonym "Lallands Peat Worrier".
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.