Sturgeon : Leaked doc

[rob murray]

Re the leaked memo / Sturgeons love in with Cameron and dishing Millaband

"Nicola Sturgeon memo claiming she would prefer David Cameron in power was written in Scotland OfficeAlistair Carmichael, the Scottish Secretary, confirms controversial leaked document originated north of the border" : so its from Scotland then and not an english tory propoganda tactic !!

[rob murray]

100% denied by Sturgeon at week end, dirty tricks etc etc, BUT the memo came from Scotland and was leaked to the Telgraph oh the tories bible....I believed her....but there was no mention of where the memo came form, alluded to France / frecnhc connections / lost in translation etc...lies lies lies : tartan tory through and through

[Scout]

100% denied by Sturgeon at week end, dirty tricks etc etc, BUT the memo came from Scotland and was leaked to the Telgraph oh the tories bible....I believed her....but there was no mention of where the memo came form, alluded to France / frecnhc connections / lost in translation etc...lies lies lies : tartan tory through and through Is this from the same people who said what ever the out come yes or no that is it?

[Rheghead]

OK, I'll nibble. Alistair Carmichael confirmed that the memo originated from the Scotland Office, not north of the border as you claim. They have two offices, one in Edinburgh, the other in London.

Scotland Office: Edinburgh


1 Melville Crescent
Edinburgh
EH3 7HW


Telephone 0131 244 9010
.


Scotland Office: London


Dover House
Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AU

[golach]

OK, I'll nibble. Alistair Carmichael confirmed that the memo originated from the Scotland Office, not north of the border as you claim. They have two offices, one in Edinburgh, the other in London.

Scotland Office: Edinburgh


1 Melville Crescent
Edinburgh
EH3 7HW


Telephone 0131 244 9010
.


Scotland Office: London


Dover House
Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AU

Rheg you forgot the main Scottish Office

St. Andrew's House
Regent Road
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG

and
Victoria Quay
Edinburgh
EH6 6QQ

[Rheghead]

Rheg you forgot the main Scottish Office

St. Andrew's House
Regent Road
Edinburgh
EH1 3DG

No, golach. St Andrew's House was not involved with the memo as it is where the Scottish Government has its HQ.

[Oddquine]

No, golach. St Andrew's House was not involved with the memo as it is where the Scottish Government has its HQ.

Unionists still haven't worked out the difference between the Westminster Government in Scotland and the Scottish Government in Scotland. When it comes to official foreign matters, Westminster is in charge, and the meeting with the French ambassador was arranged through the Scottish Office, not the Scottish Government, as illustrated by the fact that she had a meeting with Carmichael on the same visit.....and the report was made to the Scottish Office, not to the Scottish Government.

Perhaps I am daft, but if there is, as there is said to be, a "memo" written by a Scottish Office civil servant as a result of a phone call by the French CG and a report writen by the French CG detailing what was discussed at the meeting, which he then transmitted to that same civil servant........wouldn't the easiest and quickest way to put this to bed be by comparing the report to the memo? Or is that too obvious and sensible?

The leak side of it is a different kettle of fish, and less important imo, bearing in mind the "sexing up" of the Iraq war dossier to accomplish the invasion of Iraq because that was top of the agenda, so I'm more interested in whether anything was said in the CG's report which could have produced a "memo" which was not simply a precis of a factual report, or, if, like the "bombs can reach UK in 45 minutes", something untrue was simply appended to meet the requirements of an agenda.

As I have said elsewhere on here, it is rather "interesting" that a memo written at the beginning of March regarding a meeting which took place in February, has suddenly become the flavour of the media a month later, within the election campaign period. Given that the SNP has never made any secret of the fact that they would not support a Tory Government in Westminster, from the time it became obvious that their membership was increasing and their poll ratings were heading upwards, it would have been just as appropriate, and possibly more useful, to have "leaked" the memo at the time it was received, if it was at that time, written in the terms used when it appeared in the Torygraph, and related accurately to the report, in an effort to bolster the Labour Party's ratings in the polls in Scotland at a time when they were haemorrhaging support and there was more chance of arresting the slide downwards.

While knowing who leaked, and their reasons for doing so, would be enlightening, a long drawn out "investigation" allows, as it is doing, the leak information to continue being promulgated as fact......and if it transpires that it is not fact (as with the bombs in 45 minutes), it is too late to stop the actions based on the untruth......which is precisely why it has appeared now, and not a month ago..because now there is no time or inclination to prove or disprove it.....so the Scottish Office dirty trick will run and run.

[rob murray]

[QUOTE=Oddquine;1115408]Unionists still haven't worked out the difference between the Westminster Government in Scotland and the Scottish Government in Scotland. When it comes to official foreign matters, Westminster is in charge, and the meeting with the French ambassador was arranged through the Scottish Office, not the Scottish Government, as illustrated by the fact that she had a meeting with Carmichael on the same visit.....and the report was made to the Scottish Office, not to the Scottish Government.

Perhaps I am daft, but if there is, as there is said to be, a "memo" written by a Scottish Office civil servant as a result of a phone call by the French CG and a report writen by the French CG detailing what was discussed at the meeting, which he then transmitted to that same civil servant........wouldn't the easiest and quickest way to put this to bed be by comparing the report to the memo? Or is that too obvious and sensible?

The leak side of it is a different kettle of fish, and less important imo, bearing in mind the "sexing up" of the Iraq war dossier to accomplish the invasion of Iraq because that was top of the agenda, so I'm more interested in whether anything was said in the CG's report which could have produced a "memo" which was not simply a precis of a factual report, or, if, like the "bombs can reach UK in 45 minutes", something untrue was simply appended to meet the requirements of an agenda.

As I have said elsewhere on here, it is rather "interesting" that a memo written at the beginning of March regarding a meeting which took place in February, has suddenly become the flavour of the media a month later, within the election campaign period. Given that the SNP has never made any secret of the fact that they would not support a Tory Government in Westminster, from the time it became obvious that their membership was increasing and their poll ratings were heading upwards, it would have been just as appropriate, and possibly more useful, to have "leaked" the memo at the time it was received, if it was at that time, written in the terms used when it appeared in the Torygraph, and related accurately to the report, in an effort to bolster the Labour Party's ratings in the polls in Scotland at a time when they were haemorrhaging support and there was more chance of arresting the slide downwards.

While knowing who leaked, and their reasons for doing so, would be enlightening, a long drawn out "investigation" allows, as it is doing, the leak information to continue being promulgated as fact......and if it transpires that it is not fact (as with the bombs in 45 minutes), it is too late to stop the actions based on the untruth......which is precisely why it has appeared now, and not a month ago..because now there is no time or inclination to prove or disprove it.....so the Scottish Office dirty trick will run and run.

My god your certainly "odd" arent you quine....well named eh ! .your a unionist.... we all are, until we are no longer part of the union whihc correct me if Im wrong and however much it sticks in your throat..is the present situation, and secondly, say what you want, believe all the guff you want, but Sturgeon / the SNP arent messiah's and are more than capable of lying duplicty she's a politican it goes with the territory. Something happened, time will out, and drop the labour conspiracy will you, they are so far behind in the polls and have been for yonks now that that nothing will move them forward.

[rob murray]

Is this from the same people who said what ever the out come yes or no that is it?

Yes....and we all know that they mean NO, they ( SNP ) dont accept the democratic wishes of the 55% who voted to stay within the UK, still covertly carping and plotting away even though they got the finances needed for an independant Scotland so totally wrong...why dont people see this absolute fact !!!!!. I hope whoever gets in in May scraps the barnet formula and forces the SNP majority to implement and manage all finances / manage taxation in Scotland pay for everything ourselves including contributions to defence and foreign policy.....every sane commentator knows that we would be staring at a big black hole right in front of us. Thats one good reason why Sturgeon will need to be pals with Cameron...stop any full devo of financial powers / retain Barnet formula and in a hung parly, the SNP will support the Tories.

[Rheghead]

Yes....and we all know that they mean NO, they ( SNP ) dont accept the democratic wishes of the 55% who voted to stay within the UK..

Here is a question for you, would Labour just pack up and go home if the tories won the next general election? The obvious answer to that is No, so that is them not accepting the democratic wishes of the country as well. In the words of Bob the Bruce, try try try again.

[rob murray]

Here is a question for you, would Labour just pack up and go home if the tories won the next general election? The obvious answer to that is No, so that is them not accepting the democratic wishes of the country as well. In the words of Bob the Bruce, try try try again.

Same equally appies to any party who face a white wash at the elections...dont get your point whats so ever ! If Labour lose a ton of scottish seats or indeed the election then they carry on same as every other party that doesnt gain power so what thats to do with not accepting democratic wishes of the country is quite beyond me : you lose thats it ! Fact 55% voted no at the referendum, SNP accepted this and changed strategy ( apperently ) to back off another referendum,in the short term anyway, latest SNP defector is in papers today saying that the SNP "secretly" want tories in, ie for their own political good, not because its best for Scotland. Duplicous liars who obviously have fooled a substantial amount of the electorate. This mess will get scary in years to come ! Ram it !

[rob murray]

More lies / propoganda : or near the mark : you choose : Sturgeon should be battered in tonights debate :

A KEY figure in the independence movement has sensationally defected to Labour – and claimed many SNP (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/all-about/scottish-national-party)activists really ARE hoping for a Tory victory.
Nicola Sturgeon’s election campaign suffered a major setback last night after Asians for Independence organiser Muhammad Shoaib resigned from her party in disgust.
Shoaib – who worked closely with SNP leaders during the referendum campaign - said he was “shocked” at the way senior SNP members in Sturgeon (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/all-about/nicola-sturgeon)’s Glasgow constituency are secretly backing another five years of David Cameron (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/true-scale-tory-welfare-cuts-5414424).
The former Pollokshields SNP branch convener shared a platform with Sturgeon and former first minister Alex Salmond during the referendum campaign as their party stepped up efforts to reach out to Asian voters.
And Sturgeon publicly praised him as an “honourable man” in an election leaflet.
But he says he will now focus on helping Labour evict the Tories from Downing Street and ensuring Ed Miliband is the UK’s next Prime Minister.
He said: “Nobody campaigned harder for a Yes vote than I did. I led Asians for Independence and badly wanted Scotland to vote Yes. But that was last year’s vote.
“In a few weeks we will have a different vote to decide the Government and it’s a clear choice between five more years of the Tories or a jobs guarantee for young people, an £8 minimum wage and a vote to protect the NHS with Labour.”
Record View (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/record-view-labours-future-hanging-5470108)
Businessman Shoaib, 62, vented his disgust at senior SNP figures who he claims hope the Tories will form the next UK Government (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/all-about/david-cameron) because they think it will improve the chances of another
independence referendum (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/all-about/independence-referendum).
He said: “I have been a senior member of Nicola Sturgeon’s constituency for years and I am deeply saddened that many of my former colleagues in the SNP secretly hope for another Tory government.
“I have become more and more shocked that many in the SNP want to put the interests of the SNP before the interests of Scotland, and their secret hopes for a Tory government betray their true motives.
“I can no longer stay silent and stand idly by.” THE REAL AGENDA SNP PUTTING POLITICS FIRST AHEAD OF PEOPLE !!!!

[BetterTogether]

Non of this really surprise me in the slightest and for the life of me I fail to see why it surprises anyone else.
It's quite obvious that if the Conservatives win the General Election it will only add fuel to the SNPs fire of grievance politics.
But they should be careful what they wish for, carrying on as they are may well inspire the MPs to vote on the issue of votes for English and block the SNP out of affecting the outcome of policies which only effect issues South of the border.

If very unlucky the SNP will face the Barnett formula being changed and have full fiscal autonomy foisted upon them, which would lead to the huge black holes in the Scottish economy becoming apparent rather quickly.

Or the SNP get their wish end up supporting Labour as the Lib Dems have done and get tarred with the same brush as things don't quite go as expected, another scenario is they disrupt politics too much and they are seen as incompetent and not fit to hold power.
Which ever way they go the pigeons are coming home to roost for them soon enough.

Eventually the politics of grievance will turn on them as the voting public realise they are either no better or possibly worse than those they are trying to replace.

Those followers of the SNP and their tribalistic cabal of proto messianic followers who will have not a bad word mentioned of their party have a shock coming to them.

[Oddquine]

My god your certainly "odd" arent you quine....well named eh ! .your a unionist.... we all are, until we are no longer part of the union whihc correct me if Im wrong and however much it sticks in your throat..is the present situation, and secondly, say what you want, believe all the guff you want, but Sturgeon / the SNP arent messiah's and are more than capable of lying duplicty she's a politican it goes with the territory. Something happened, time will out, and drop the labour conspiracy will you, they are so far behind in the polls and have been for yonks now that that nothing will move them forward.

Now, now, rob murray! You appear to have had "misinterpreted" the meaning of unionist. If you had decided to describe me as "British" I wouldn't have quibbled, as I most certainly do live on part of the island, named Britannia by the Romans, which gave rise later to that shorthand method of referring to the whole panoply of disparate nationalities of the inhabitants of the islands. Please note, though, that I do prefer to be described as Scottish as in acknowledging that I am a native of the country in which I was born and have always lived......Scotland.

From the online version of the OED, reference to which I would assume would meet your approval as to clarification of the mening of unionist, we get:

Unionist: 1. A member of a trade union
2.A person, especially a member of a Northern Ireland political party, who is in favour of the union of Northern Ireland with Great Britain.
and historically,
2a. A member of a British political party formed in 1886 which supported maintenance of the parliamentary union between Great Britain and Ireland. 2b An opponent of secession during the American Civil War of 1861-5.

I do not see where any of those definitions of unionist apply to me, can you explain why you believe they do?

In more modern times, the term unionist has become conflated with the political ideology which favours the continued existence of the Union which makes up the UK. So if this is the definition of unionist to which you refer.... I'd absolutely love to read your take on what makes me and everybody else who lives on the island of Britannia, a unionist? If I have done nothing else at any time on here, I have made it clear that my political ideology is far from unionist.....hadn't you noticed?

Now that we have that out of the way, I agree that at the present moment I am still the inhabitant of a country which is part of a union...which makes me mostly unhappy, time to time angry, but does not make me a unionist. As part of a union which claims to be such a fine example of "democracy" that it uses military might to force that same style of "democracy" on foreign countries, I did, obviously foolishly, believe that my political ideology has just as much right to have its voice heard as any political ideology current in this union.

I could see the reason for the panic-stricken "knickers in a twist" attitude of the unionist political parties if the SNP were taking part in this General Election with the stated aim of, say, declaring UDI if they get a majority of Scottish seats, but I fail to see the reason, in a democracy, why there should be such virulent objection to the elected representatives of the Scottish voter playing whatever part in Parliament the system allows them to play. It isn't even as if they are going down specifically to trash the UK economy, as revenge for the referendum threats by the unionists to trash the Scottish economy if we voted NO.....because, being grown up people and not foot-stamping toddlers, the SNP is well aware that trashing the UK economy in a union will also trash the Scottish one.

I have never, I don't think, said that Sturgeon, the French Ambassador and the French Consul General didn't lie, because they could easily have conspired together to lie in agreeing that no personal opinion as to Miliband, Labour,Cameron and/or Tories was offered, when it had been. Equally I have never said that anyone in the Scottish Office was making mischief......I simply posed a few logical questions which need to be answered..but probably won't be before 7th May.....and pretty much proposed, on the balance of probabilities, given the track record of UK Governments in my lifetime regarding probity and transparency, that there may well have been dirty tricks afoot (and with more to come).

I do rather think that all politicians can be lying barstewards if that is perceived as being necessary, they are, after all, human(mostly) , but I am not convinced that all of them are also terminally stupid, and if Sturgeon did produce a form of words which could even have been misinterpreted to produce the much published "memo" (which the FCO says it has not seen, although they got the blame for giving it to the Torygraph), then she is terminally stupid...........but I repeat, it is all very easily proven, one way or the other, by examining the CG's report alongside the memo. I wonder why that is not being considered.

I take youir point re the Labour Party having been so far behind in the polls that it would have been of little benefit to introduce the "memo" at an earlier point. but anyway, I don't think that "The Labour Party" leaked the "memo", given they are not represented in the Scottish Office, not being in government, just musing over the fact that it was a memo which was bound to boost the Labour vote/reduce the Labour defections, much on the same lines as their parroting interminably the fallacy that voting SNP will let the Tory in, when patently it would not. Maybe the leaker was a Labour Party supporter, though......but if there were government dirty tricks involved, the involvement hat would belong to either the LibDems or the Tories against the SNP, and the boost to Labour, if there is one, would just be a by-product of that.

By the way, logically, the only way to guarantee the Tories get in on the back of Scottish votes is for the Scottish voters to vote for and elect Tories in large numbers, not for Scottish voters to vote for and elect anyone but Tories..and even then, it will depend on which way England votes, as it always does.

[Oddquine]

Non of this really surprise me in the slightest and for the life of me I fail to see why it surprises anyone else.
It's quite obvious that if the Conservatives win the General Election it will only add fuel to the SNPs fire of grievance politics.
But they should be careful what they wish for, carrying on as they are may well inspire the MPs to vote on the issue of votes for English and block the SNP out of affecting the outcome of policies which only effect issues South of the border.

If very unlucky the SNP will face the Barnett formula being changed and have full fiscal autonomy foisted upon them, which would lead to the huge black holes in the Scottish economy becoming apparent rather quickly.

Or the SNP get their wish end up supporting Labour as the Lib Dems have done and get tarred with the same brush as things don't quite go as expected, another scenario is they disrupt politics too much and they are seen as incompetent and not fit to hold power.
Which ever way they go the pigeons are coming home to roost for them soon enough.

Eventually the politics of grievance will turn on them as the voting public realise they are either no better or possibly worse than those they are trying to replace.

Those followers of the SNP and their tribalistic cabal of proto messianic followers who will have not a bad word mentioned of their party have a shock coming to them.

We would welcome FFA, provided it was FFA and not just Westminster chosen bits of A .

The SNP will not be suporting Labour as the LibDems have done with the Tories.....no ministerial cars or government positions. My personal opinion is that supporting Labour on a vote by vote basis is the least bad of the options.....however, I wouldn't like them to support an abysmally stupid Labour Bill just because they won't vote with the Tories if they should put forward an amendment which would improve that abysmally stupid bill. I have never quite understood the Labour penchant for voting against even bills which pretty much agree with their own policies simply because the SNP have been involved in proposing or supporting it...the Amendment on fracking in the UK at Westminster or the school meals bill in Holyrood being cases in point.

There would be no sense of grievance if we were not so regularly handed stuff we can grieve over.....would there?

And are unionists not currently nursing a similar sense of grievance because we have not just gone away, having lost the referendum? :D

[Oddquine]

More lies / propoganda : or near the mark : you choose : Sturgeon should be battered in tonights debate :

A KEY figure in the independence movement has sensationally defected to Labour – and claimed many SNP (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/all-about/scottish-national-party)activists really ARE hoping for a Tory victory.
Nicola Sturgeon’s election campaign suffered a major setback last night after Asians for Independence organiser Muhammad Shoaib resigned from her party in disgust.
Shoaib – who worked closely with SNP leaders during the referendum campaign - said he was “shocked” at the way senior SNP members in Sturgeon (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/all-about/nicola-sturgeon)’s Glasgow constituency are secretly backing another five years of David Cameron (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/true-scale-tory-welfare-cuts-5414424).
The former Pollokshields SNP branch convener shared a platform with Sturgeon and former first minister Alex Salmond during the referendum campaign as their party stepped up efforts to reach out to Asian voters.
And Sturgeon publicly praised him as an “honourable man” in an election leaflet.
But he says he will now focus on helping Labour evict the Tories from Downing Street and ensuring Ed Miliband is the UK’s next Prime Minister.
He said: “Nobody campaigned harder for a Yes vote than I did. I led Asians for Independence and badly wanted Scotland to vote Yes. But that was last year’s vote.
“In a few weeks we will have a different vote to decide the Government and it’s a clear choice between five more years of the Tories or a jobs guarantee for young people, an £8 minimum wage and a vote to protect the NHS with Labour.”
Record View (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/record-view-labours-future-hanging-5470108)
Businessman Shoaib, 62, vented his disgust at senior SNP figures who he claims hope the Tories will form the next UK Government (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/all-about/david-cameron) because they think it will improve the chances of another
independence referendum (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/all-about/independence-referendum).
He said: “I have been a senior member of Nicola Sturgeon’s constituency for years and I am deeply saddened that many of my former colleagues in the SNP secretly hope for another Tory government.
“I have become more and more shocked that many in the SNP want to put the interests of the SNP before the interests of Scotland, and their secret hopes for a Tory government betray their true motives.
“I can no longer stay silent and stand idly by.” THE REAL AGENDA SNP PUTTING POLITICS FIRST AHEAD OF PEOPLE !!!!

Shock horror......but untrue, it appears!

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-defector-who-wasnt/

For those of you who won't read Wings on principle......

NOTE: This article was published earlier today on the CommonSpace (https://commonspace.scot/) website. Since that time, according to its webhosts, the site has come “under attack” and can no longer be accessed. We reproduce the article here at CommonSpace’s request. A Yes campaigner reported as “defecting” to the Labour party by the Daily Record in a much-hyped front page splash has said he in fact remains a member of the SNP, a supporter of independence and favourable to a Labour-SNP deal at Westminster.

Another example of "misinterpretation" I suppose.

There is a lot more to the article, but the salient facts are as shown above.

[rob murray]

[QUOTE=Oddquine;1115443]We would welcome FFA, provided it was FFA and not just Westminster chosen bits of A .

The SNP will not be suporting Labour as the LibDems have done with the Tories.....no ministerial cars or government positions. My personal opinion is that supporting Labour on a vote by vote basis is the least bad of the options.....however, I wouldn't like them to support an abysmally stupid Labour Bill just because they won't vote with the Tories if they should put forward an amendment which would improve that abysmally stupid bill. I have never quite understood the Labour penchant for voting against even bills which pretty much agree with their own policies simply because the SNP have been involved in proposing or supporting it...the Amendment on fracking in the UK at Westminster or the school meals bill in Holyrood being cases in point.

WHo are "we"...."we would welcome....." who in gods name are we ...are you one of the "we"? No, you wouldnt welcome FFA, your lying, I repeat, lying, or are you going to trot out the, we can manage the oil revenue shortfall..easily line ? I wouldnt want SNP anywhere near Labour, in any case the SNP lying cheating "grievance brigade" are tory through and through. As for fracking if oil prices dont recover in the short term you will be on yer hands and knees praying for fracking and related revenues. I could not have put it better than..."Those followers of the SNP and their tribalistic cabal of proto messianic followers who will have not a bad word mentioned of their party have a shock coming to them" You...well your last comment says it all "And are unionists not currently nursing a similar sense of grievance because we have not just gone away, having lost the referendum"....nah the no vote ( note no reference to unionists ) won, lol lol lol get on with it...oh you are...scheming lying cheating wailing and kissing the ground that Saint Nick wlaks on.

There would be no sense of grievance if we were not so regularly handed stuff we can grieve over.....would there? ....what does this mean ? I cant get my head around it

PS Im not going to bother with your unionist definition hair splitting... call me an anti seperatist, Ill call you a seperatist, I dont want seperation from the rest of the UK you do.

[rob murray]

Shock horror......but untrue, it appears!

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-defector-who-wasnt/

For those of you who won't read Wings on principle......

NOTE: This article was published earlier today on the CommonSpace (https://commonspace.scot/) website. Since that time, according to its webhosts, the site has come “under attack” and can no longer be accessed. We reproduce the article here at CommonSpace’s request. A Yes campaigner reported as “defecting” to the Labour party by the Daily Record in a much-hyped front page splash has said he in fact remains a member of the SNP, a supporter of independence and favourable to a Labour-SNP deal at Westminster.

Another example of "misinterpretation" I suppose.

There is a lot more to the article, but the salient facts are as shown above.

The stuff was copied and pasted from todays record. BBC news on line more or less goes word for word with it too. There we go again.....geezo....are you a moony ? your certainly brian washed as you show....symptoms of being a tribalistic proto messianic follower who will have not a bad word mentioned of their party ...I love that description not a truer word siad !

[Oddquine]

We would welcome FFA, provided it was FFA and not just Westminster chosen bits of A .


WHo are "we"...."we would welcome....." who in gods name are we ...are you one of the "we"? No, you wouldnt welcome FFA, your lying, I repeat, lying, or are you going to trot out the, we can manage the oil revenue shortfall..easily line ? I wouldnt want SNP anywhere near Labour, in any case the SNP lying cheating "grievance brigade" are tory through and through. As for fracking if oil prices dont recover in the short term you will be on yer hands and knees praying for fracking and related revenues. I could not have put it better than..."Those followers of the SNP and their tribalistic cabal of proto messianic followers who will have not a bad word mentioned of their party have a shock coming to them" You...well your last comment says it all "And are unionists not currently nursing a similar sense of grievance because we have not just gone away, having lost the referendum"....nah the no vote ( note no reference to unionists ) won, lol lol lol get on with it...oh you are...scheming lying cheating wailing and kissing the ground that Saint Nick wlaks on.

"We" are those of us who voted YES. After all that was pretty much what the Scottish people were promised in the VOW, if we voted NO, but we appear now to have a snowball's chance in hell of getting anywhere near. May I say, you do appear to be a very angry person.

I assume given you think that having lost the referendum we should drop our principles and slink into the night never to be seen again? I wonder if you also think that Labour, having already dropped its principles, and because of that is facing problems in Scotland, should do the same, if they are unable to get a majority of seats in order to form a stand-alone Government..........or would you prefer to see a Labour/Tory Coalition so that a million and a half of your fellow Scots have no voice in Westminster, just because that voice is called SNP? Or do you favour a Tory/UKIP coalition?



There would be no sense of grievance if we were not so regularly handed stuff we can grieve over.....would there? ....what does this mean ? I cant get my head around it

PS Im not going to bother with your unionist definition hair splitting... call me an anti seperatist, Ill call you a seperatist, I dont want seperation from the rest of the UK you do.

This means that if you don't get cause to grieve, you don't have cause to grieve........I'd have thought it a rather simple and obvious statement.

How is it hair splitting to object to being called a name with which I don't agree, giving reasons as to why I don't agree. You are free at any time to offer your own cogent reasons as to why I should accept your description of me (and all the other people in the UK). I will still call you a unionist, because you are one....and being anti-separatist is simply another way of saying pro-union..or unionist, anyway. I'm not actually a separatist...separatism can be triggered by the economic and political dominance of one group (or nation) that does not share power and privilege in an egalitarian fashion...... and it can be corrected, short of independence, by devolution and/or FFA...or Devo-Max. I'd call me a secessionist if I was going to call myself anything. :D

[rob murray]

Define what you mean by secessionist...a quick look at wikepedia and there are many therories and definitions of secessionist..to damn many I couldnt be bothered reading them all. The US Civil war was fought between unionists and secessionists......is that where "we" are heading ??

[rob murray]

May I say, you do appear to be a very angry person.

Answer, yep I am angry, and ashamed to be a Scot living in a country which has a sour underbelly and smell, Im taking time out from posting as theres no point in letting myself get wound up by tribalistic proto messianic followers of the SNP who will have not a bad word mentioned of their party, Moonies / Scientologists the lot of em. Odd people and very dangerous to !

[BetterTogether]

It is worth considering the influence upon UK politics the SNP hope to achieve when put into perspective.

The population of Scotland being somewhere over 5 million spread over a large geographic area where as London has 8.5 million in one dense area.
Much is made of the press and media in general but for the greater part it is mainly left leaning in its primary thrust.

All politicians are human and apt to make gaffs and occasionally have discussions in private that they would prefer not to be in the public domain.
Why should Nicola Sturgeon be any different to any other politician, her mettle has yet to be truly tested for years she has sat in Alex Salmonds shadow and now has the full glare of scrutiny on her, the occasional error is to be expected.

In reality she has limited experience of the real world of day to day work apart from a short stint working as a solicitor she has been immersed in politics. Not really that much different to Mr T Blair.

As you'd expect from the Party of Pink Champagne Socialists they conflate the grievances of the less well off and drive wedges in society to further their own political ends whilst quaffing happily from their champagne flutes and extending their grasping claws for ever more ludicrous sums of money from the public purse.

She may be First Minister she certainly doesn't represent value for money.

[Oddquine]

Define what you mean by secessionist...a quick look at wikepedia and there are many therories and definitions of secessionist..to damn many I couldnt be bothered reading them all. The US Civil war was fought between unionists and secessionists......is that where "we" are heading ??

I canna see a wiki definition for secessionist, though I can for secession........and just one definition at that secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, military alliance or especially a political entity..which pretty well covers it.

I can't see where you are getting many theories from given I'm not talking about the theories behind seceeding but the fact of me wanting to.

By the way......it is pretty nasty to home in on assuming secession means taking up arms to achieve that, when I was nice enough not to assume that, like the unionists in the civil war (or in Ireland), Westminster would send in the troops....or would that be your preferred option.....we vote in the majority for independence, Westminster says no, and we get civil war?

Let's put it this way, rob murray......what will happen in the UK is what Westminster , aka the union with the army, will make happen.......so you tell me if that is where we are heading!

[BetterTogether]

There is a reality to contend with oddquine, should Scotland gain independence from the UK it would be so impoverished in methods of defence that a Panda in a rowboat with an AK 47 would probably be able to take it over

[PantsMAN]

There is a reality to contend with oddquine, should Scotland gain independence from the UK it would be so impoverished in methods of defence that a Panda in a rowboat with an AK 47 would probably be able to take it over

Aye, because we've always been a pushover...

Should maybe have added a SATIRE warning with this.

[Rheghead]

Same equally appies to any party who face a white wash at the elections...dont get your point whats so ever ! If Labour lose a ton of scottish seats or indeed the election then they carry on same as every other party that doesnt gain power so what thats to do with not accepting democratic wishes of the country is quite beyond me : you lose thats it ! Fact 55% voted no at the referendum, SNP accepted this and changed strategy ( apperently ) to back off another referendum,in the short term anyway, latest SNP defector is in papers today saying that the SNP "secretly" want tories in, ie for their own political good, not because its best for Scotland. Duplicous liars who obviously have fooled a substantial amount of the electorate. This mess will get scary in years to come ! Ram it !

But you were just saying the SNP doesn't accept the result. I don't understand you?

[PantsMAN]

blah blah blah

by tribalistic proto messianic followers of the SNP

blah blah blah

Oh Robby, once someone else says something clever, you've got to latch on rather than engage in independent thought.

Take the phrase above,
first used by 'Better Together' at 1408,
by 1508 you were using it,
again at 1512,
then a wee burst of 'tribalistic at 1556 on another thread,
and then back to the above at 1647.

Wonder what tomorrow's buzz word will be eh?

Nothing too original we hope.

[BetterTogether]

Aye, because we've always been a pushover...Wee Nic Walks on water seems to think you are !

[PantsMAN]

Wee Nic Walks on water seems to think you are !

Fierce wee Scottish wummin are ayeways scary...

Best to hing in wi' them.

[BetterTogether]

Fierce wee Scottish wummin are ayeways scary...Best to hing in wi' them.Aye that much I know already but Nic reminds me of those wee plastic figurines can't mind the name of them now though or odd Job from the carry on screaming movie !

[Oddquine]

Aye, because we've always been a pushover...

To be fair, if the panda arrived in the Moray Firth, and wasn't noticed by someone with a twitter account, we may well be invaded....after all, it could so easily have happened in this very union which pays about £36 billion annually on "defence". It was only the internet that saved us from possible invasion then....(well, that and the fact that they came in peace and were on refuse disposal duty.) Wonder if the Russians, if they had been that way inclined and landed with malice aforethought, could have made it as far as Faslane before the UK military got its act together? Of course, if push had become shove, we could just have employed one of our nuclear warheads.

If the invading panda did get noticed post indy, how much you prepared to bet that its boatie wouldn't be converged on by boatloads of animal lovers bearing food and wanting to take it home and cuddle it, zoo keepers wanting to offer it bed and board, jobsworths wanting to see its passport and proof of inoculations before taking it into quarantine and armed policemen with megaphones, floating out of harms' way and shouting at it to throw its AK47 overboard and surrender?

[Kenn]

Oh la la mes amies NOT another conspiracy theory?

[Rheghead]

I can't see any scenario where an invader into Scotland comes off lightly...

[Oddquine]

I can't see any scenario where an invader into Scotland comes off lightly...

That would rather depend on how cute and fluffy the invader was, wouldn't it? Scots are famous for having left leaning bleeding hearts, which is why we are not generally overkeen on Tories and their clones. Mind you, having watched the Leaders' debate tonight, I could almost find a soft spot for Willie Rennie.......he looks as if he should still be in short trousers.

[rob murray]

Oh Robby, once someone else says something clever, you've got to latch on rather than engage in independent thought.

Take the phrase above,
first used by 'Better Together' at 1408,
by 1508 you were using it,
again at 1512,
then a wee burst of 'tribalistic at 1556 on another thread,
and then back to the above at 1647.

Wonder what tomorrow's buzz word will be eh?

Nothing too original we hope.

Well all I can say is that the qoutes I used I freely admit to lifting from posters as others put my take on issues in better words than I could, I thought others nailed in very well in a succinct manner ! Nothing wrong with that eh.

[rob murray]

I canna see a wiki definition for secessionist, though I can for secession........and just one definition at that secession (derived from the Latin term secessio) is the act of withdrawing from an organization, union, military alliance or especially a political entity..which pretty well covers it.

I can't see where you are getting many theories from given I'm not talking about the theories behind seceeding but the fact of me wanting to.

By the way......it is pretty nasty to home in on assuming secession means taking up arms to achieve that, when I was nice enough not to assume that, like the unionists in the civil war (or in Ireland), Westminster would send in the troops....or would that be your preferred option.....we vote in the majority for independence, Westminster says no, and we get civil war?

Let's put it this way, rob murray......what will happen in the UK is what Westminster , aka the union with the army, will make happen.......so you tell me if that is where we are heading!

I agree with you re westminster as thats the UK parliament and we are members of the UK and until we get more devolved power thats the situation. We had a vote ( seemingly ) it went against the yes cmpaign, yet its obvious that the situatuatin is still live even though Salmon said it would be a once in a lifetime scenario....or come on again say a decade or so..but no...as far as yes goes the fight never finished did it

[rob murray]

Oh Robby, once someone else says something clever, you've got to latch on rather than engage in independent thought.

Take the phrase above,
first used by 'Better Together' at 1408,
by 1508 you were using it,
again at 1512,
then a wee burst of 'tribalistic at 1556 on another thread,
and then back to the above at 1647.

Wonder what tomorrow's buzz word will be eh?

Nothing too original we hope.

Wonder what tomorrow's buzz word will be eh?....How about fandabaydozy, thats my limit

[BetterTogether]

Wonder what tomorrow's buzz word will be eh?....How about fandabaydozy, thats my limitWell last nights efforts where the usual perfunctory hyperbole of political minnows attempting to swim upstream with the usual weak attempts at smoke and mirrors vote buying answers.