DoofersDad

The Holyrood Election thread

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Try this definition which originates from the bigger world, furth of the unfortunately parochial constraints of Scotland

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=the+great+unwashed

Winding up Oddquine? Of course! And great sport it was too while it lasted. I wonder how things are going outside Holyrood? Never mind, in Alex we seem to have the new Oddquine :cheer01:who, give or take occupying the odd Post Office and shooting a few British soldiers, was at least pretty civil.

Apology???? Of course it wasn't!:lol:

Little bit stupid and assumptious Charles. The name is MacLeod. The origin Scalpay Harris

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nationalists have a real obsession with Ireland at the moment.  Irish politics should have no place here Alex, and do you really think there was anything anti Catholic / Irish in Charles' post?!  The world is not against you, so please remove that massive chip from your shoulder.

 

Regards, 

 

55% of Scotland.

  • Disagree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Alex MacLeod said:

I did always take on board many of your views DD but when that idiot refers to me as one of the great unwashed then I take offence. Now I see you defend him. CB, in his last post has totally lost the plot. His is not a view of the political health of the modern country that is Scotland but an unhealthy hatred for one party. Much akin to the religious hatreds that have jeopardised our country for too long. 

Alex, I am only defending Charles in as much that his posts have contained several legitimate points that go unanswered.  I think he would be more effective in making those points if he didn't communicate his dislike for the SNP in such a disparaging way.

I used to have respect for the SNP when it's political leaders were principled and made their case honestly.  Unfortunately things have changed.  A whiff of power and the leadership has become intoxicated.  They now see the goal of independence almost in their grasp and will do whatever it takes to reach that goal.  Part of that is persuading the people that the actions of the Westminster establishment are creating disadvantage to the people of Scotland and that this can only be rectified by independence.  Given that we have a Conservative UK Government but only 1 Conservative MP in Scotland, the SNP claim we are disenfranchised and single out the Tories as the object of blame, grievance and, sadly, hate.  It all fuels the fan.  It is completely understandable that many who understand the tactics and hypocrisy of the current SNP leadership have complete contempt for them and it is deeply frustrating that so many people continue to be duped by their dishonesty. I'm angry about it, but personally, I prefer to patiently persuade people by making arguments based on the facts.  I tend to find that people are more receptive to the arguments if you don't refer to them first as "the great unwashed".

But it is interesting that you say "His is not a view of the political health of the modern country that is Scotland but an unhealthy hatred for one party."  It is interesting because generating a hatred for one party is exactly what the SNP are doing!   The SNP are not concerned with the political health of Scotland. They are simply concerned with attaining independence. Part of their strategy is to get a large proportion of the population to hate the Tories and I am confident that they will be "found out" before they do much more damage to Scotland.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respond to this only on the grounds that there were quite astonished reactions to the content of this thread on twitter and I thought I’d have a look. I wish I hadn't. Apart from the polarised political viewpoints (to which everyone is entitled and can voice as they wish within the constraints of the Law) there is a quite dreadful quality to some of the arguments being propounded which call the right of some of the points being made into question. Before looking at this, it would really help if posts were numbered so that they could be referred to easily throughout the thread.

Charles Bannerman, in his post Thursday 9:36 pm, makes several erroneous points in support of his arguments that seem to point to similarities between the SNP and the National Socialist (Nazi) party. In sequence:The Nazis came to power in Germany on the back of an idea of Prussian based military thinking that they had not been defeated in WWI, an idea that they had been “stabbed in the back” by Versailles and a territorial inheritance from the old Holy Roman Empire that divided people along lines of language based cultural identity. Those without a territorial base (Jews, roma etc.) were historically marginalised and anti-Semitism had been a recurrent theme of German life for centuries . It became lethal only when several truly ridiculous and odious ideas about race and genetics were injected into the mix. They had originated in Vienna in the late 19th Century and with the assimilation of German speaking peoples into the “Reich” became political dogma. There is no parallel whatever with the present  political landscape in Scotland.

The “Sturm Macteilung” reference is odious and in its self  worthy of censure. The "Sturm Abteilung" were the original Nazi brown shirts that Ernst Rohm led in a campaign of torture and murder in the 30's.  Likewise, I have seen no Kristallnacht of book burning in Scotland – 3 SNP Councillors burned a copy of the Smith report and were suspended for their actions.

Ed’s post of Friday at 7:08 shows a comic in Wehrmacht uniform to reinforce the post above. Wrong uniform, wrong inference.

Doofers Dad’s post of Saturday 11:35 is the most rationally intact one on the thread, but there are a couple of points. The Conservative party have not been set up here, they have simply not attracted enough votes to get their political message across enough to be voted in. That they have done that in England emphasises their comparative weakness here. Nothing more. The austerity argument is muddled, especially from the NHS point of view. What “significant” parts of the NHS have been contracted to the private sector? If you are referring to purchasing services or bed capacity, that’s a national policy and a conservative one at that. I do, however have a degree of empathy about the Council Tax argument. The most important point is that this is a post we could (should) debate.

By Sunday, Charles Bannerman is posting something that appears to be nothing more than a goad to provoke reply to his arguments. I note Alex MacLeod’s response but this is that direct response.

On Monday at 2:32 Charles Bannerman posts the out of context picture referred to above with a direct comparator of an SNP politician. Are you really suggesting Charles, that Fergus Ewing is a Nazi or has Nazi sympathies?

Westhill 1 (a new signing with Ed) states that the “one party state” in Scotland  should implode within 5 years. It may or may not, but Scotland is no more a one party state than Britain was during the Thatcher era. The opposition simply weren’t effective enough and that is what is happening now. If you want change, argue and persuade others that you are right. There is no dictatorship in this country.

Charles Bannerman (Monday 11:58) reinforces this. I note that Alex takes exception to the “great unwashed”  or the “proletariat” but I find them referred to as “ballot box fodder” more disgusting. Everyone’s vote is equal in weight, Charles. That’s what universal  suffrage is about. Your vote is no more significant or valid than anyone else’s despite your frankly appalling debating strategy.

Doofers Dad again contributes with a defence of Charles Bannerman making “reasoned and evidenced” argument in this thread. His arguments are neither. There was no real need to refer to Alex’s input as “your indignant little claim.” It demeans your point.

Charles Bannerman then replies in post of what is now “12 hours ago”. It is this post that I find the most disturbing and disingenuous of all of them. No amount of wishful thinking can alter history Charles but your scenario would have resulted in a set of quite unquantifiable events. That’s revisionist particularism for you. More importantly and as you know Charles, you are not entitled under Law to be offensive to others on the basis that you have chosen (nationalism) with impunity. You are not being anti-Scottish, simply reactionary and muddled in your thinking and your arguments show several serious lapses of judgement. I have seen no “nastiness and arrogance” here from people who have disagreed with you, merely a sneering, dismissive and at times braying dismissal of them. Physician heal thyself. The "PC serially offended" may well not like your explicit parallels with the Nazis and the SNP, but it comes perilously close – and in some cases probably oversteps – the legal definition of hate speech in the various statutes it is defined in.  You have  demonstrably chosen to align the SNP with a national group (Scots) and project arguments designed to align your political opponents (aforesaid SNP) with perhaps the most odious political regime in history, one responsible for the deaths of millions. It is utterly and disgracefully wrong. I inferred above that your “rant” – for it is little better than that – showed a serious lapse of judgement and that is illustrated by the above to a degree that is unarguable.  What I object to is that you have a vehicle to express your opinions as a representative of the Highland News and of the BBC. You have obligations and you are wilfully ignoring them ( by your repeated arguments above in a public forum using your own name) and I would have serious questions about your fitness for these roles. Not because of your politics, your personality, your nationality or your religion but simply because of your persistent, disgusting, divisive and wholly inflammatory arguments. You need to examine what you are doing here.

  • Agree 7
  • Disagree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's yer dinner.

These threads are pointless and I would urge all right thinking people to not contribute to them, as they have become the vehicle for one poster to carry out an absurd campaign of complete nonsense and to get some kind of perverse thrill from it.

For his good, more than anyone else's, these threads should be closed, and the forum should no longer be used as a platform to spread the most banal, puerile nonsense imaginable.

  • Agree 2
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, davie said:

Charles Bannerman then replies in post of what is now “12 hours ago”. It is this post that I find the most disturbing and disingenuous of all of them. No amount of wishful thinking can alter history Charles but your scenario would have resulted in a set of quite unquantifiable events. That’s revisionist particularism for you. More importantly and as you know Charles, you are not entitled under Law to be offensive to others on the basis that you have chosen (nationalism) with impunity. You are not being anti-Scottish, simply reactionary and muddled in your thinking and your arguments show several serious lapses of judgement. I have seen no “nastiness and arrogance” here from people who have disagreed with you, merely a sneering, dismissive and at times braying dismissal of them. Physician heal thyself. The "PC serially offended" may well not like your explicit parallels with the Nazis and the SNP, but it comes perilously close – and in some cases probably oversteps – the legal definition of hate speech in the various statutes it is defined in.  You have  demonstrably chosen to align the SNP with a national group (Scots) and project arguments designed to align your political opponents (aforesaid SNP) with perhaps the most odious political regime in history, one responsible for the deaths of millions. It is utterly and disgracefully wrong. I inferred above that your “rant” – for it is little better than that – showed a serious lapse of judgement and that is illustrated by the above to a degree that is unarguable.  What I object to is that you have a vehicle to express your opinions as a representative of the Highland News and of the BBC. You have obligations and you are wilfully ignoring them ( by your repeated arguments above in a public forum using your own name) and I would have serious questions about your fitness for these roles. Not because of your politics, your personality, your nationality or your religion but simply because of your persistent, disgusting, divisive and wholly inflammatory arguments. You need to examine what you are doing here.

 

What an interesting illustration of that well established nationalist proverb "if you don't like what they are saying, try to stop them from saying it"! Indeed Nick Robinson wasn't even saying anything at referendum time, he was merely asking hard questions which the nats didn't like, and they took the place down about that and invaded Pacific Quay. Which brings me to my role as a part time freelance journalist. I think we knocked that nonsense firmly on the head during the referendum when a number of contributors highlighted the complete absurdity of linking part time freelance sports journalism with the expression of political views. At this point I would refer back to my opening sentence whilst noting unease at the suggestion that journalists should be prevented from expressing public views, even in areas unrelated to what they report on.... unless of course they are Iain MacWhirter or anyone who works for The National. (So I don't suppose this would be a good time to suggest a Team GB for the World Cup?:redcard:)

There's also a bit of bizarre thinking with respect to it being apparently unacceptable to draw parallels with Germany in the 1920s and 30s. This creates a situation where people can behave completely outrageously and never be held to account for it because censure of what they are doing has been stifled by a bunch of politically correct hand wringers. It's just as well Churchill didn't have to contend with people like that.

I also note that this thread has apparently been attracting the attention of the 140 character philosophers of Twitter - presumably including a large clan gathering of Cybernats. :ohmy:All this does is to pose the dilemma of which quote to mobilise in response? Dennis Healy's that being criticised by Geoffrey Howe was like being savaged by a dead sheep..... or Stalin's question when he learned that he had incurred the displeasure of the Vatican - "And how many divisions does the Pope have?"

 

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dougiedanger said:

There's yer dinner.

These threads are pointless and I would urge all right thinking people to not contribute to them, as they have become the vehicle for one poster to carry out an absurd campaign of complete nonsense and to get some kind of perverse thrill from it.

For his good, more than anyone else's, these threads should be closed, and the forum should no longer be used as a platform to spread the most banal, puerile nonsense imaginable.

On the other hand "You started it you...." OOPS!! "I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it!":crazy:

What I mean is that if you go back through this forum archive you will see that a significant majority of threads on this separation/SNP type stuff have been started by supporters of separation/SNP. In fact I can count around seven and you were very happy indeed to say plenty, for instance when your bubble was expanding during the summer of 2014. The problem is that, having "started it", you chaps' arguments were never particularly robust at the best of times. Indeed now, like your precious oil revenues, they have dried up completely and - in the face of opposition, which is something nats conspicuously don't like - you now appear to be trying to call "foul".

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The message that comes over loud and clear from Davie's post is "let's discuss these important issues in a civilised manner".  That means ignoring posts like Dougiedanger's.  One of the problems we face is that SNP supporters constantly want to stifle debate.  What I would say to Dougiedanger is that if he doesn't like the thread he doesn't have to read it.  But what on earth gives him the right to say that others shouldn't be able to voice their views? 

But coming back to Davie's comments on one of my earlier posts, there are two issues to respond to.  Firstly, it is not as simple as the Tories not attracting enough votes.  The issue is that they have been demonised by the SNP and people believe the SNP when the facts paint a different picture.  A number of examples have been given in previous posts but nobody who supports the SNP has been able to challenge any of those criticisms.

As an example, I'll respond to Davie's post when he says " The austerity argument is muddled, especially from the NHS point of view. What “significant” parts of the NHS have been contracted to the private sector?"  If you have a sight test on the NHS or if you get dental treatment on the NHS, it is probable that you will be seen by a private optician or a private dentist.  The vast majority of GPs and all community pharmacists are private contractors.  Just a tiny percentage of Opticians, Dentists and GPs are employed by the NHS.  Health Boards regularly contract with private hospitals to reduce waiting lists for operations and there are contracts with private companies for the provision of some aspects of Home care for illness such as MS, Inflammatory Bowel Disease and some cancers etc.  This involves things such as specialist nurses coming in to give injections, provide ostomy care etc.  These examples certainly represent a "significant" amount of NHS activity but yet the SNP have told the people that they want to stop the Tories involving the private sector in the provision of direct patient care in the NHS!  

Linked to that is today's news about the multimillion pound deficit NHS Highland Health Board faces next year.  Budgets are tight, but whose fault is that Tory Austerity?  Well, to a point.  Had the Tories taxed the better of more in the last few years there would have been more money available for public services.  They can be reasonably criticised for that.  And what about the SNP?  Regardless of what the Tories have done, the SNP chose to freeze council tax and then compensate the councils for loss of revenue.  By doing that, there was, of course, less money available for other services such as the NHS.  That was SNP austerity. And now this year, the SNP could be raising taxes but has decided not to.  As a result, there will be less money for the NHS.  Again, SNP austerity and nothing to do with the Tories.

So, I don't think my austerity argument is muddled with respect to the NHS.  The SNP know that the public take great pride in the NHS and have sold the idea that the NHS is under-funded and under threat from "privatisation" with the Tories.  The truth is that the SNP are just as accountable (if not more so) for under-funding, and that the SNP itself relies heavily on the private sector and has absolutely no plans to get rid of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charles, thanks for the reply but you appear to have missed the point. I defend your absolute right to say whatever you want to whether or not I agree with it, I’ve made that clear. You were not “asking hard questions” you were being inflammatory and wrong-headed  in respect of what you were arguing. You are no Nick Robinson.  As for your role as a journalist Charles, I would expect you to adhere to The NUJ code of Conduct. The BBC have a very clear policy on off-air activities which includes that on “personal use of social networking and other third party websites including blogs, microblogs and personal web space” You may want to have a look at both. There is quite a bit of your post activity in this thread that might be called into at least some degree of question. Part time freelancers can freely express political views but not offensively or inaccurately.

I also have no problem with your postulating parallels with Germany in the 20’s and 30’s except that’s not what you did. You are directly comparing and inferring a similarity between the SNP and the Nazi party. It is a different matter entirely. By your use of unrelated photographs of German WW2  soldiers and Fergus Ewing you simply compound it. To be honest it appears to be verging on the libellous. Your use of hacked about Nazi nomenclature is similarly dishonest.  Far from creating “a situation where people can behave completely outrageously and never be held account for it” that is precisely what I’m doing. Now. Your comparison is fallacious. Will you please address that issue directly?  I’m glad that Doofers Dad got the point – about informed debate as part of a “serious topics” forum. That is what this should be but I fear you have devalued that not in the least by quoting Stalin. It comes across as a challenge of sneering dismissal which might not be your best course of action here. It’s the same as your “great unwashed” tactic.  You might find that those who want, embrace and enjoy open debate have a multitude of “divisions” who will challenge your bilious and disingenuous froth and I hope that they do it fairly and without recourse to the many dreadful characteristics you ascribe them.

All this 696 years to the day since the signing of The Declaration of Arbroath. Would you credit it.

Edited by davie
  • Agree 4
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, davie said:

 You are directly comparing and inferring a similarity between the SNP and the Nazi party. It is a different matter entirely. By your use of unrelated photographs of German WW2  soldiers and Fergus Ewing you simply compound it.

I can only assume that you didn't realise that the "WW2 soldier" was actually a bumbling and weak character from 'Allo'Allo.....

20141105224019989.jpg

  • Agree 2
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

I can only assume that you didn't realise that the "WW2 soldier" was actually a bumbling and weak character from 'Allo'Allo.....

20141105224019989.jpg

aye I noticed! Called him a comic in my first post but failed to remember what show he was in. Get my drift though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ed said:

The Nationalists have a real obsession with Ireland at the moment.  Irish politics should have no place here Alex, and do you really think there was anything anti Catholic / Irish in Charles' post?!  The world is not against you, so please remove that massive chip from your shoulder.

 

Regards, 

 

55% of Scotland.

I have no view one way or the other on Irish politics and did not bring that into this conversation. And as someone who was indoctrinated into the faith of the 'Wee Free' but who, for many years, has been anti religion I'm hardly going to have a chip on my shoulder about anti Catholic / Irishness

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2016 at 0:08 AM, Alex MacLeod said:

 'the great unwashed' is the orange term for the Irish catholics and thats where I feel offended.

Alex MacLeod bringing Irish politics into the debate on the 5th April and claiming a grievance.

 

Alex MacLeod claiming he did not bring Irish politics into the debate on the 7th April and was not offended.

 

45 minutes ago, Alex MacLeod said:

I have no view one way or the other on Irish politics and did not bring that into this conversation. And as someone who was indoctrinated into the faith of the 'Wee Free' but who, for many years, has been anti religion I'm hardly going to have a chip on my shoulder about anti Catholic / Irishness

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding some of the posts from Nationalists saying that Charles' should not be allowed to air his views...

 

For example  " these threads should be closed, and the forum should no longer be used as a platform to spread the most banal, puerile nonsense imaginable."

 

We live in a free country where free speech should be a right, not a privilege.  If you don't personally agree with somebodies political opinion then TOUGH.  I may not agree with your Nationalist opinions but I don't say you should be silenced for it.  On the contrary.  As a non-Nationalist, I believe people can and should have what ever political opinion they like.  They are also free to speak their views.  BUT, it is also my right to critique these views and voice my opposition.  Opposition is healthy and the Nationalist Scottish Executive should be held to account.  It's called democracy.  This is my country - my free country.  Opposition should never be silenced.  

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ed said:

Regarding some of the posts from Nationalists saying that Charles' should not be allowed to air his views...

For example  " these threads should be closed, and the forum should no longer be used as a platform to spread the most banal, puerile nonsense imaginable."

We live in a free country where free speech should be a right, not a privilege.  If you don't personally agree with somebodies political opinion then TOUGH.  I may not agree with your Nationalist opinions but I don't say you should be silenced for it.  On the contrary.  As a non-Nationalist, I believe people can and should have what ever political opinion they like.  They are also free to speak their views.  BUT, it is also my right to critique these views and voice my opposition.  Opposition is healthy and the Nationalist Scottish Executive should be held to account.  It's called democracy.  This is my country - my free country.  Opposition should never be silenced.  

^^^^ This !!!

There is a report button for those who feel personally offended by any comments that they feel cross the line of our rules ... and moderators can and will discuss any reports we get and make a decision based on that. To be honest we don't get a lot of complaints this way, maybe only one or two per month at most. Other than that, posters should be free to express their opinions unless they fall under one of the many socially and morally unacceptable "-ism's" that are not allowed. To date neither Nationalism or Unionism have been added to that list !!! Keep it clean, leave the personal out of it, and if you have no interest in the topic, move along ......... plenty other topics worth reading ! 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scotty said:

^^^^ This !!!

There is a report button for those who feel personally offended by any comments that they feel cross the line of our rules ... and moderators can and will discuss any reports we get and make a decision based on that. To be honest we don't get a lot of complaints this way, maybe only one or two per month at most. Other than that, posters should be free to express their opinions unless they fall under one of the many socially and morally unacceptable "-ism's" that are not allowed. To date neither Nationalism or Unionism have been added to that list !!! Keep it clean, leave the personal out of it, and if you have no interest in the topic, move along ......... plenty other topics worth reading ! 

 

 

A wise and telling observation! In situations like this I sometimes wonder what the perceived "victims" of alleged "attacks" would say if they were asked whether they actually wanted their self appointed knights in shining armour to become Serially Offended on their behalf?

Edited by Charles Bannerman
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ed said:

Alex MacLeod bringing Irish politics into the debate on the 5th April and claiming a grievance.

 

Alex MacLeod claiming he did not bring Irish politics into the debate on the 7th April and was not offended.

 

 

 

Clever spin on words ed. I said I felt offended by a phrase that was used by . That is far from bringing Irish politics into the debate. Suggesting that one group of people refer to another group of people, both groups of whom I have no desire to be associated with, has nothing to do with politics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lampposts are getting well covered now for the election with the majority for SNP throughout the Inverness area with Labour and Lib-dems a bit behind and a token gesture from the other candidates/parties.  Yesterday I travelled from Inverness to Onich and in Fort William again the majority for SNP with Labour well covered, very few Lib-dems in what was once a stronghold for them and not a Tory poster in sight from the party hoping to come second in the election! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, IBM said:

The lampposts are getting well covered now for the election with the majority for SNP throughout the Inverness area with Labour and Lib-dems a bit behind and a token gesture from the other candidates/parties.  Yesterday I travelled from Inverness to Onich and in Fort William again the majority for SNP with Labour well covered, very few Lib-dems in what was once a stronghold for them and not a Tory poster in sight from the party hoping to come second in the election! 

IBM - even since their deposit-losing days, the SNP have made plastering the environment with black and yellow hangman's noose placards into a way of life, so this really isn't anything new. Putting these things up in huge numbers always seems to have had some strange adolescent fascination for nats. It was the same with the yes campaign where some poor, sad souls still have these on their house windows and cars. There is one particular roaster in Old Edinburgh Road who still has them and has recently replaced the saltire flag in his front garden with an EU one!

Post-referendum, it was quite good crack giving a toot to disconsolate yessers removing this plethora of blue and white signage from lamp posts!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there is any evidence that this legalised defacing of our environment actually makes any difference.  For all the time and effort it takes to do, I also wonder why the parties don't direct their energies into actually arguing their case.  Perhaps this task is given to those who support the party but can't explain why to anyone.  That would explain why there are so many more posters from one particular party.  

Incidentally, somebody has been out and about at night in Culbokie and taken down all the posters regardless of Party.  The police are keen to apprehend him - not to prosecute him, but to ask if he could do his stuff after the elections when the so called "activists" who were so keen to put this litter up are somewhat less active in taking it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎07‎/‎04‎/‎2016 at 2:57 PM, ed said:

Regarding some of the posts from Nationalists saying that Charles' should not be allowed to air his views...

 

For example  " these threads should be closed, and the forum should no longer be used as a platform to spread the most banal, puerile nonsense imaginable."

 

We live in a free country where free speech should be a right, not a privilege.  If you don't personally agree with somebodies political opinion then TOUGH.  I may not agree with your Nationalist opinions but I don't say you should be silenced for it.  On the contrary.  As a non-Nationalist, I believe people can and should have what ever political opinion they like.  They are also free to speak their views.  BUT, it is also my right to critique these views and voice my opposition.  Opposition is healthy and the Nationalist Scottish Executive should be held to account.  It's called democracy.  This is my country - my free country.  Opposition should never be silenced.  

Of course Charles ought to be allowed to air his views it's just that some of us wish he would do just that rather than simply recycling the same tired hackneyed and thoroughly outrageous invective time after time. Thus far he makes the case for Unionism about as coherently and logically as the late Willie Bell did for the other side although WB did at least have the merit of being occasionally amusing and invariably more interestingly dressed if perhaps less of an authority on supermarket cafes and slow moving vehicles on the A9  the last of which these evil brain washing separatists will soon render a none issue.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The election is getting ever closer so perhaps we can get back to the real issues.  

It is a very lack lustre debate which is a worry for a number of reasons.  There seems to be an assumption that the SNP will win, but whilst I would be very surprised if they did not, the other parties really should be taking the SNP to task rather more and aiming to at least stop the SNP having an overall majority.  After all the election is fought on PR lines and it wouldn't actually take too much of a swing to stop the SNP forming another majority Government.  

One of the issues of concern is the delay in getting manifestos out.  Polling day is less than 3 weeks to go and yet the party of Government has still not got its manifesto out.  How on earth is one supposed to have a debate when you don't know what is in their manifesto?  To be fair, the Labour party are even worse in that respect.  The SNP's will finally be released this week but we will have to wait until just a few days before the election before Labour launch theirs.  If there is a recognised day for the start of the campaign, then surely there should be a requirement that all manifestos are published within a week.  

It is also disappointing how inept the broadcast media have become in their reporting.  There is really no meaningful analysis by the BBC who seem scared to broadcast anything that the SNP might interpret as bias.  Take this week's reporting of the left leaning Institute for Public Policy Research Scotland's report of the impact of the Parties' tax proposal as an example.  

In March the IPPR published a report identifying that the next Government would have to face an annual spending gap of £2bn by 2020.  The question posed therefore is what are the parties proposing to bridge this gap.  The latest report identifies that the SNP income tax proposals will raise £300m compared with if they had just followed the UK Government plans.  But as the UK Government is cutting taxes, the SNP proposals are actually not going to raise a penny more!

When asked to comment on the the report, Swinney said  "This report shows that it is only the SNP that are putting forward balanced, reasonable and fair tax proposals that will support public services like our NHS whilst protecting households budgets."  Er, no John.  It shows nothing of the sort.  What it shows is that the SNP is refusing to use the recently devolved powers they have been bleating on about for so long, to raise the necessary revenue to protect essential services.  But the BBC just reports the bland facts and Swinney's comments without in any way making any analysis how untrue his comments actually are.

The SNP's strategy is clear.  They  know that tax rises, (however necessary) are unpopular and they hope that by not putting taxes up they will maximise their vote.  This will allow them to claim a mandate for a further referendum within their term of office.  And they know it has to be soon or never because their level of popularity will not last beyond this next term.  In the meantime they will not be particularly bothered if public services suffer because in the short term at least, they will probably still get away with blaming their underfunding of public services on the Tories.  

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

One of the issues of concern is the delay in getting manifestos out.  Polling day is less than 3 weeks to go and yet the party of Government has still not got its manifesto out. 

I was thinking the same thing, wondering if I had somehow missed it.  Postal votes are already being cast!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yngwie said:

I was thinking the same thing, wondering if I had somehow missed it.  Postal votes are already being cast!

Do they need a manifesto? After all, they only have one policy which everybody knows about already.

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.