Newsnet Main Articles
Thursday, 09 February 2012 07:56
172 Comments
By a Newsnet reporter 
Transport, housing, health and digital projects will receive new investment to help boost the economy, Finance Secretary John Swinney told Parliament when setting out the Scottish budget, which included additional funding for colleges and Scottish students.
Paying particular attention to education, Mr Swinney says he has listened carefully to the opposition parties in formulating his budget for 2012-13 and that the SNP had "acted decisively in the interest of our economy, our public services and the people of Scotland".
Education:
With the budget finances being planned, opposition politicians and other concerned parties had urged the Finance Secretary to find extra money for areas such as colleges and housing.
In his budget, Mr Swinney has allocated an additional £19.5 million for Scotland’s young people, through maintaining top-up funding for student support provided in 2011-12 and providing an additional £8 million next year to the Scottish Funding Council to help colleges play their part in delivering Opportunities for All commitments.
The Finance Secretary said that, combined with the £20 million of new investment already announced for colleges, showed the Government’s determined commitment to the sector.
Mr Swinney said: "That is £40 million of addition investment which should leave no one in a shadow of doubt about the strength of this administration’s commitment to our colleges and to Scotland’s students."
Housing:
Mr Swinney has also budgeted more cash for Scottish government funded housing, revealing housing would get an extra £97 million over four years.
Mr Swinney said: "Most of this will go directly into our programme for subsidising new supply, increasing the number of homes we can deliver and ensuring that we can meet needs right across the country."
Communications:
Finance Secretary John Swinney also announced there would also be more money for transport roads projects and to help provide world-class broadband services across the country through digital Infrastructure projects.
Economic growth:
Additional capital spending of £382 million for 2012 -2015, supporting around 5,000 jobs, has been allocated to support Scotland’s economic growth.
- Local Government: £94 million - including £40 million to support digital in rural areas
- Affordable housing : £45 million
- Housing loans and equity: £42 million
- NHS capital maintenance: £60 million
- Digital Infrastructure: £28.3 million
- Roads projects: £72 million
- Sustainable and active travel: £13 million
- Modernisation of the prison estate: £20 million
- Culture projects and maintenance £5 million
- Asset Management: SFT to assist with disposals: £3 million
Dim lights
Embed Embed this video on your site
Mr Swinney called it a "budget for growth that puts the interests of our economy, our public services and the people of Scotland first" and added:
"This is a Budget that boosts public sector capital investment, takes direct action to tackle unemployment, in particular youth unemployment and enhances economic security across the Scottish economy.
"Capital investment is central to our approach, with every additional 100 million pounds of capital spending supporting around 1,400 jobs in the Scottish economy. We are expanding our infrastructure programme through the 2.5 billion pound NPD pipeline, by switching resource to capital spending and through a range of innovative financial mechanisms.
"As a result, by 2014-15 our overall capital investment in Scotland’s economy will be 25 per cent higher than in this year - set against the back drop of a 32 per cent cut to the Scottish Government’s capital budget and a 9 per cent cut to our resource budget by the UK Government over four years."
Commenting on the budget, Scottish Building Federation Chief Executive Michael Levack said:
“Given the apparent limited room for manoeuvre, the construction sector will welcome Mr. Swinney’s announcement today that he will commit additional public funding in the coming financial year to support housebuilding, roads and transport, and college infrastructure.
“When times are as tough as this, it’s more crucial than ever that public investment delivers maximum added value. Just as important as today’s budget announcement is promised legislation to streamline public procurement and ensure the tendering system starts delivering for Scottish businesses of all sizes. The sooner that legislation is in place, the sooner we can ensure today’s budget becomes the budget for growth the Scottish Government wants it to be.”
Scottish Labour's finance spokesman Ken Macintosh MSP said that the budget "did not go far enough" and added:
"Despite today's last minute announcement, the SNP government is still choosing to make huge cuts to housing, our colleges and the services people depend on locally.
"It is simply not good enough to cut the budget by £40m this year rising to £74m in two years' time - then to give back £19m and expect a round of applause.
"John Swinney talks of a budget for jobs and growth but there is no sign in this budget of a government grabbing the economy by the scruff of the neck - no sign of the dynamism needed to galvanise the economy, no sign even of a government taking all possible steps to protect jobs and create employment."
Conservative MSP Mary Scanlon said: "I really wonder about John Swinney's constructive discussions with retailers that led to this levy being cut to three years. What was the economic rationale for that?
"Why is it being cut by £15m? There are obviously serious concerns there."
Comments
#
2012-02-09 08:47
Scottish Labour's finance spokesman Ken Macintosh MSP said that the budget "did not go far enough" and added:
"They should do like McConnell did and return part of the budget to Westminstermonster.
That would be going far enough, circa 500 miles"
"They should do like McConnell did and return part of the budget to West
That would be going far enough, circa 500 miles"
#
2012-02-09 11:01
Indeed it is truly astounding, that the last Scottish Labour Government actually handed back over 1 billion pounds of the Scottish budget to London.
I bet not many Labour supporters or voters are aware of that.
I bet not many Labour supporters or voters are aware of that.
#
2012-02-09 09:10
Truth is Mr. Swinney needed to make no concessions to anyone in his budget. A majority Labour administration would have sidelined the SNP make no mistake.
Despite covering his bases Swinney is still the best Bank Manager Scotland could have at this time.
Forget Scotland is running a surplus, London has a cold and we have to catch flu to help them out.
Why not we restore our funding to replect our surplus and if anything is left, we can - donate it, to London.
That's what good neighbors do is it not ?.
When he becomes Chancellor in an independent Scotland Mr. Swinney will have to learn to operate in an entirely different field.
Despite covering his bases Swinney is still the best Bank Manager Scotland could have at this time.
Forget Scotland is running a surplus, London has a cold and we have to catch flu to help them out.
Why not we restore our funding to replect our surplus and if anything is left, we can - donate it, to London.
That's what good neighbors do is it not ?.
When he becomes Chancellor in an independent Scotland Mr. Swinney will have to learn to operate in an entirely different field.
#
2012-02-09 09:13
I know the money for housing will be very welcome, we need to kick start the building trade, its really really bad out there just now in the construction sector, I'm a brickie and I know guys who havent worked for weeks and weeks and its not for the lack of trying. Well done Mr Swinney for doing a difficult job, I'd like to see you have REAL control of the countrys money though.
#
2012-02-09 09:41
I just watched John Swinney on last nights Newsnight. His FUD opponents were worse than useless trying to talk down his Scottish budget.
Cammeron and the rest of the UK would give their eye teeth, and sell their Grannies, to have him as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
John Swinney is in a class of his own running the Scottish economy, I cant wait to see him shape the Scotland everyone says they want when Scotland is Independent and he controls every penny that comes into Scotland.
Cammeron and the rest of the UK would give their eye teeth, and sell their Grannies, to have him as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
John Swinney is in a class of his own running the Scottish economy, I cant wait to see him shape the Scotland everyone says they want when Scotland is Independent and he controls every penny that comes into Scotland.
#
2012-02-09 10:59
I agree, John Swinney is a master of his craft.
It is a shame down in London they just have George Osborne, former towel folder extraordinaire, and Danny Alexander, former spokesperson for the Cairngorm National Park.
It is a shame down in London they just have George Osborne, former towel folder extraordinaire, and Danny Alexander, former spokesperson for the Cairngorm National Park.
#
2012-02-09 10:16
The competence of the SNP government highlights the poor quality of the politicians in the other parties. These were the quislings trained to doff their caps and follow the wisdom of London.
I still see the odd spark of ability from individuals within the other parties and look forward to the rise of a competent opposition in an independent Scotland.
Regarding the budget - can anyone imagine for a moment the Labour party with such a majority even consulting on the budget. It would have been passed with arrogance and put Scotland in debt for another generation. (more PFI anyone?).
As for the Tories - trust them!!!
NHS / Social reforms / etc - imagine a Scotland under that lot! (Good for the weekend shoot though)
I still see the odd spark of ability from individuals within the other parties and look forward to the rise of a competent opposition in an independent Scotland.
Regarding the budget - can anyone imagine for a moment the Labour party with such a majority even consulting on the budget. It would have been passed with arrogance and put Scotland in debt for another generation. (more PFI anyone?).
As for the Tories - trust them!!!
NHS / Social reforms / etc - imagine a Scotland under that lot! (Good for the weekend shoot though)
#
2012-02-09 10:23
One only has to see the push for pivatisation of the English NHS to know what we would endure if Ruth was let loose (that sort of rhymes). No surprise that the Tories voted against the budget. It isn't their sort of thing. Labour on the other hand.....sigh!
#
2012-02-09 10:33
He's caught between a rock and a hard place with this budget - their simply isn't enough money to go round, whichever way he turns, there's always going to be an area of expenditure that does badly.
And of course, the opposition parties will pick up on that and attack him.
So if thats the case, why do the SNP keep pandering to the other parties with this 'trying to gain the consensus' malarky ? It's just stupid - we know labour will never agree to anything, so why bother ?
It's getting to the point where it's just stupid and I think could lead to a very negative view of the SNP. It's as though they are embarrassed by their majority and somehow scared to use it, this pandering to the other parties trying to get consensus is a bit like a schoolchild handing in his homework to a strict teacher, knees knocking he quivers 'did I do alright, Miss ?'
We won the election, it's time to stand up and be counted. If we want Scotland to be independent then we have to stand ON OUR OWN TWO FEET, but this policy of pandering consensus does not reinforce this.
Put through the budget, if others don't like it, tough. It's the SNP in government, it's their vision and to hell with the rest.
And of course, the opposition parties will pick up on that and attack him.
So if thats the case, why do the SNP keep pandering to the other parties with this 'trying to gain the consensus' malarky ? It's just stupid - we know labour will never agree to anything, so why bother ?
It's getting to the point where it's just stupid and I think could lead to a very negative view of the SNP. It's as though they are embarrassed by their majority and somehow scared to use it, this pandering to the other parties trying to get consensus is a bit like a schoolchild handing in his homework to a strict teacher, knees knocking he quivers 'did I do alright, Miss ?'
We won the election, it's time to stand up and be counted. If we want Scotland to be independent then we have to stand ON OUR OWN TWO FEET, but this policy of pandering consensus does not reinforce this.
Put through the budget, if others don't like it, tough. It's the SNP in government, it's their vision and to hell with the rest.
#
2012-02-09 10:50
Yes and No. If they were acceeding to demands contrary to the manifesto they were elected on then certainly bending others when they have a majority would be unacceptable. However, by the end Labour's manifesto was virtually identical. Yet they refuse to back a budget that supports that manifesto offering only pathetic half baked excuses for their opposition. That doesn't put them in a good light. Conservative opposition given the nature of current Westminster policies is a given.
In my view the current affairs make John Sweinney look reasonable and Labour unreasonable. It is opposition purely for opposition's sake.
In my view the current affairs make John Sweinney look reasonable and Labour unreasonable. It is opposition purely for opposition's sake.
#
2012-02-09 10:59
Quoting tartanfever:
Simples!
They do so to allow the other parties to parade there dearth of ideas, decency, intelligence and competance before the electorate.
So if thats the case, why do the SNP keep pandering to the other parties with this 'trying to gain the consensus' malarky ?
Simples!
They do so to allow the other parties to parade there dearth of ideas, decency, intelligence and competance before the electorate.
#
2012-02-09 14:02
"why do the SNP keep pandering to the other parties with this 'trying to gain the consensus' malarky ? It's just stupid - we know labour will never agree to anything, so why bother ?"
Unlike the opposition parties, John Swinney and the SNP government are trying to do grown-up politics in the way that Holyrood was supposed to. Even with a majority on hand to make consensus a non-requirement in the numbers game, the S.G. are acting like adults while the Labs and Cons play like spoiled children huddling in a corner by themselves.
Unlike the opposition parties, John Swinney and the SNP government are trying to do grown-up politics in the way that Holyrood was supposed to. Even with a majority on hand to make consensus a non-requirement in the numbers game, the S.G. are acting like adults while the Labs and Cons play like spoiled children huddling in a corner by themselves.
#
2012-02-09 17:03
[quote name="tartanfever"]
["So if thats the case, why do the SNP keep pandering to the other parties with this 'trying to gain the consensus' malarky ? It's just stupid - we know labour will never agree to anything, so why bother ?
It's getting to the point where it's just stupid and I think could lead to a very negative view of the SNP. It's as though they are embarrassed by their majority and somehow scared to use it, this pandering to the other parties trying to get consensus is a bit like a schoolchild handing in his homework to a strict teacher, knees knocking he quivers 'did I do alright, Miss ?'"]
As the First Minister,quite rightly says,"By the People,for the People".
The Scottish Cabinet is being inclusive as far as is possible.
May not make political sense,but it is an honest attempt to bring people with us---unlike Westminster, where confrontation is the order of the day.
We do things differently,but the North Britain New Labour Party,and the Tories just don't get it.
["So if thats the case, why do the SNP keep pandering to the other parties with this 'trying to gain the consensus' malarky ? It's just stupid - we know labour will never agree to anything, so why bother ?
It's getting to the point where it's just stupid and I think could lead to a very negative view of the SNP. It's as though they are embarrassed by their majority and somehow scared to use it, this pandering to the other parties trying to get consensus is a bit like a schoolchild handing in his homework to a strict teacher, knees knocking he quivers 'did I do alright, Miss ?'"]
As the First Minister,quite rightly says,"By the People,for the People".
The Scottish Cabinet is being inclusive as far as is possible.
May not make political sense,but it is an honest attempt to bring people with us---unlike Westminster, where confrontation is the order of the day.
We do things differently,but the North Britain New Labour Party,and the Tories just don't get it.
#
2012-02-09 10:44
For me the biggest laugh came in the speech of Ken MacIntosh,
bbc.co.uk/.../...
after the usual accusations of the Labour, "intelligentsia", we get the classic, (at 26:00min into the video), "The SNP want to have the benefits of, "seperation", while clinging to the benefits of being in the union. "leave the UK but keep the pound", "Leave the UK but keep the Bank of England", "Leave the UK but keep the triple AAA rateing", "Keep the EU membership, keep the Queen, Keep the Army, keep the British Passport", "They want to leave the UK but keep all the UK gives us as a country".
The UK gives us nothing, these things are ours by right.
Should not some intellegent Labour Person take the poor uneducated lad aside and explain to him that There are only two official partenrs who signed the Treaty of Union and when it breaks asunder there will be only two parties to negotiate and those UK things he wrongly assumes belong to some imagined United Kingdom Government that will remain. Those two parties are Scotland & England not Scotland and the UK. The whole list of UK things Mr. MacIntosh ascribes to that UK are indeed UK things but not one of them is exclusively English. The pound is as much Scottish as it is English, how do we know? The Treaty of Union tells us so. As it does for all the other items Mr. MacIntosh so glibly gifts to England, Aye! Even The Bank of England, all are UK, not English, and as such are ours too. Oh! By the way - also tell Mr. MacIntosh that there will be a United Kingdom after we leave but it will still be a united monarchy of the Queen of Scots and the Queen of England. What cannot exist after we leave is a RUMP UK. The Queendom will remain but the but, "Her Majesty's United Kingdom Government", of that UK will end with the division of the spoils not an English adoption of them.
bbc.co.uk/.../...
after the usual accusations of the Labour, "intelligentsia", we get the classic, (at 26:00min into the video), "The SNP want to have the benefits of, "seperation", while clinging to the benefits of being in the union. "leave the UK but keep the pound", "Leave the UK but keep the Bank of England", "Leave the UK but keep the triple AAA rateing", "Keep the EU membership, keep the Queen, Keep the Army, keep the British Passport", "They want to leave the UK but keep all the UK gives us as a country".
The UK gives us nothing, these things are ours by right.
Should not some intellegent Labour Person take the poor uneducated lad aside and explain to him that There are only two official partenrs who signed the Treaty of Union and when it breaks asunder there will be only two parties to negotiate and those UK things he wrongly assumes belong to some imagined United Kingdom Government that will remain. Those two parties are Scotland & England not Scotland and the UK. The whole list of UK things Mr. MacIntosh ascribes to that UK are indeed UK things but not one of them is exclusively English. The pound is as much Scottish as it is English, how do we know? The Treaty of Union tells us so. As it does for all the other items Mr. MacIntosh so glibly gifts to England, Aye! Even The Bank of England, all are UK, not English, and as such are ours too. Oh! By the way - also tell Mr. MacIntosh that there will be a United Kingdom after we leave but it will still be a united monarchy of the Queen of Scots and the Queen of England. What cannot exist after we leave is a RUMP UK. The Queendom will remain but the but, "Her Majesty's United Kingdom Government", of that UK will end with the division of the spoils not an English adoption of them.
#
2012-02-09 10:53
o/t From Hootsman to-day but buried well down..................SECRET documents relating to the setting-up of the Scottish Parliament in the late 1990s have been blocked from publication.
Attorney General Dominic Grieve vetoed the release of Cabinet committee papers relating to devolution under the Freedom of Information Act, ruling it was not in the public interest.
A request had been made for publication of the minutes of the Cabinet ministerial committee of devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English regions, dating from 1997 and 1998.
Labour was facing internal friction over the full extent of the devolution settlement, as Donald Dewar battled colleagues such as Derry Irvine and Jack Straw. who were reportedly resistant to greater change.
Such a veto has been used only twice in the past, once relating to further devolution papers and once over a request for Cabinet minutes relating to Iraq.
Mr Grieve told MPs: “I consider the public interest falls in favour of non-disclosure and that disclosure would be damaging to the doctrine of collective responsibility and detrimental to the effective operation of Cabinet government.
“I have concluded, in light of the criteria set out in the government’s policy, this constitutes an exceptional case and the exercise of the veto is warranted.”
Justice Secretary Jack Straw exercised the veto on both previous occasions it has been used, including one on talks about devolution dating back to 1997.
Mr Grieve’s veto related to two specific requests. One asked for the “minutes of the 1997 Cabinet meeting on devolution” and a second asked for “the minutes of the Cabinet sub-committee on devolution for Scotland, Wales and the regions”.
The Information Commissioner’s Office had ruled in favour of publication.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “This is a matter for the UK government.”
SNP MP Pete Wishart said: “We understand that Cabinet minutes are not generally released, although it seems curious that decade-old talks on devolution warrant the exercise of a veto which has only previously been used to prevent the disclosure of Iraq Cabinet minutes.”
Attorney General Dominic Grieve vetoed the release of Cabinet committee papers relating to devolution under the Freedom of Information Act, ruling it was not in the public interest.
A request had been made for publication of the minutes of the Cabinet ministerial committee of devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English regions, dating from 1997 and 1998.
Labour was facing internal friction over the full extent of the devolution settlement, as Donald Dewar battled colleagues such as Derry Irvine and Jack Straw. who were reportedly resistant to greater change.
Such a veto has been used only twice in the past, once relating to further devolution papers and once over a request for Cabinet minutes relating to Iraq.
Mr Grieve told MPs: “I consider the public interest falls in favour of non-disclosure and that disclosure would be damaging to the doctrine of collective responsibility and detrimental to the effective operation of Cabinet government.
“I have concluded, in light of the criteria set out in the government’s policy, this constitutes an exceptional case and the exercise of the veto is warranted.”
Justice Secretary Jack Straw exercised the veto on both previous occasions it has been used, including one on talks about devolution dating back to 1997.
Mr Grieve’s veto related to two specific requests. One asked for the “minutes of the 1997 Cabinet meeting on devolution” and a second asked for “the minutes of the Cabinet sub-committee on devolution for Scotland, Wales and the regions”.
The Information Commissioner’s Office had ruled in favour of publication.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “This is a matter for the UK government.”
SNP MP Pete Wishart said: “We understand that Cabinet minutes are not generally released, although it seems curious that decade-old talks on devolution warrant the exercise of a veto which has only previously been used to prevent the disclosure of Iraq Cabinet minutes.”
#
2012-02-09 11:33
Quoting Ready to Start:
scotsman.com/.../...
o/t From Hootsman to-day but buried well down..................SECRET documents relating to the setting-up of the Scottish Parliament in the late 1990s have been blocked from publication.
Attorney General Dominic Grieve vetoed the release of Cabinet committee papers relating to devolution under the Freedom of Information Act, ruling it was not in the public interest.
A request had been made for publication of the minutes of the Cabinet ministerial committee of devolution to Scotland and Wales and the English regions, dating from 1997 and 1998.
Labour was facing internal friction over the full extent of the devolution settlement, as Donald Dewar battled colleagues such as Derry Irvine and Jack Straw. who were reportedly resistant to greater change.
Such a veto has been used only twice in the past, once relating to further devolution papers and once over a request for Cabinet minutes relating to Iraq.
Mr Grieve told MPs: “I consider the public interest falls in favour of non-disclosure and that disclosure would be damaging to the doctrine of collective responsibility and detrimental to the effective operation of Cabinet government.
“I have concluded, in light of the criteria set out in the government’s policy, this constitutes an exceptional case and the exercise of the veto is warranted.”
Justice Secretary Jack Straw exercised the veto on both previous occasions it has been used, including one on talks about devolution dating back to 1997.
Mr Grieve’s veto related to two specific requests. One asked for the “minutes of the 1997 Cabinet meeting on devolution” and a second asked for “the minutes of the Cabinet sub-committee on devolution for Scotland, Wales and the regions”.
The Information Commissioner’s Office had ruled in favour of publication.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “This is a matter for the UK government.”
SNP MP Pete Wishart said: “We understand that Cabinet minutes are not generally released, although it seems curious that decade-old talks on devolution warrant the exercise of a veto which has only previously been used to prevent the disclosure of Iraq Cabinet minutes.”
scotsman.com/.../...
#
2012-02-09 11:49
"Mr Grieve told MPs: “I consider the public interest falls in favour of non-disclosure and that disclosure would be damaging to the doctrine of collective responsibility and detrimental to the effective operation of Cabinet government."
Putting it another way - The Westminster Government would be toast if the papers were published.
So is that the end of the story in getting the papers released? Is there no recourse to an appeal to the courts?
It is not unknown for the courts to hold an investigation in camera to decide what factors are preventing the release of information, deciding if it fair or just a cover up and then ruling on it.
Putting it another way - The Westminster Government would be toast if the papers were published.
So is that the end of the story in getting the papers released? Is there no recourse to an appeal to the courts?
It is not unknown for the courts to hold an investigation in camera to decide what factors are preventing the release of information, deciding if it fair or just a cover up and then ruling on it.
#
2012-02-09 11:10
The day after the Scottish Government Budget and what are the BBC main Headlinrs. Capello resigns and, "Hairy Heidnip", is tipped to be England's new manager. For heaven's sake the guy has just declared, on oath, that he is both illiterate and computer illiterate. It is one thing running a team when the players report for training everyday and you just speak to them and another when they are spread throughout the World. You couldn't make it up.
#
2012-02-09 11:30
OT: Dear NNS Time to move your great site into the year 2012, Your footer on the page indicates the year is 2011.
#
2012-02-09 11:30
Could someone explain to me why it is that Labour in Scotland prefer a Tory Chancellor running Scotland's economy to a Labour Chancellor running the economy of an independent Scotland.
Obviously being a ranty, tribal cybernat who posts on what I regard as a valuable news site (and some regard as an elaborate joke) my critical faculties aren't the best but this would appear to say that their unionism trumps their socialism every time?
Obviously being a ranty, tribal cybernat who posts on what I regard as a valuable news site (and some regard as an elaborate joke) my critical faculties aren't the best but this would appear to say that their unionism trumps their socialism every time?
#
2012-02-09 16:03
Quoting GrassyKnollingt on:
Ahhh.... it's good to see you're still smarting from that soupçon of condescension dished out to us yesterday :-)) Like you GK I think it's a case of "put up or shut up" as we have a new country to win. And in a message to our condescending chums, if you think this site can be improved by adding an occasional article by your own hand and mind then I'm sure the editor will be delight to put it up. Over to you.
Obviously being a ranty, tribal cybernat who posts on what I regard as a valuable news site (and some regard as an elaborate joke)
Ahhh.... it's good to see you're still smarting from that soupçon of condescension dished out to us yesterday :-)) Like you GK I think it's a case of "put up or shut up" as we have a new country to win. And in a message to our condescending chums, if you think this site can be improved by adding an occasional article by your own hand and mind then I'm sure the editor will be delight to put it up. Over to you.
#
2012-02-09 16:27
ha ha there's a few more days mileage in it yet. Just had a look and now quite a few supportive comments about Newsnet.
One of the most perceptive ones from John who wrote,
Quote:
I always thought the cybernat idea was very much a unionist one so it's quite instructive to see independence supporters not only agreeing such a grouping exists but distancing themselves as well.
Lets see... a unionist idea, widely promulgated in Scotland by our opposition politicians and tame media and successful to such an extent that even independence supporters join in and are happy to point them out and denounce them.
Quite extraordinary.
One of the most perceptive ones from John who wrote,
Quote:
The journalists look down on the political class bloggers/commentors and the political class bloggers/commentors look down on the public bloggers/commentors
I always thought the cybernat idea was very much a unionist one so it's quite instructive to see independence supporters not only agreeing such a grouping exists but distancing themselves as well.
Lets see... a unionist idea, widely promulgated in Scotland by our opposition politicians and tame media and successful to such an extent that even independence supporters join in and are happy to point them out and denounce them.
Quite extraordinary.
#
2012-02-09 11:34
They didnt like this news over on the Daily Record or the Scotsman as when I left a comment congratulating the SNP for sustaining college funding it got deleted from the DR (along with all pro SNP comments on page 1 - It actually ended up being a page of just 2 comments so some mod spat the dummy).
As far as the Scotsman goes, they spat the dummy bigtime and the whole story dissappeared. It reappeared later with the comments attached from before, but under a new title and with new content now talking about the TESCO TAX.
scotsman.com/.../...
The first article was getting a bit too positive a response so it needed pulled and rewritten into a more negative piece it would seem.
I just noticed that you can actually see where it was pulled in the time stamps of the posters. Look at #5 and then at #6
As far as the Scotsman goes, they spat the dummy bigtime and the whole story dissappeared. It reappeared later with the comments attached from before, but under a new title and with new content now talking about the TESCO TAX.
scotsman.com/.../...
The first article was getting a bit too positive a response so it needed pulled and rewritten into a more negative piece it would seem.
I just noticed that you can actually see where it was pulled in the time stamps of the posters. Look at #5 and then at #6
#
2012-02-09 12:05
"They didnt like this news over on the Daily Record or the Scotsman..."
Yesterday's Record had a full front page and several inside pages, on the damage the SG were doing to the colleges. Now they give no credit to John Swinney's improvements to the budget.
The Record seems to be acting like a criminal who cannot stop himself from reoffending. After sayng they were going to treat the SG fairly in reporting the news, they are back to their old ways at the first opportunity.
Like criminals they should be put in the slammer, which in their case would be more loss of customers for their rag.
Again Swinney is ace at playing the opposition against itself by holding back some money to tempt them into asking for changes to the budget, which he then gives them, but they still cannot support the budget.
In the eyes of the public this makes the opposition paties look like irresponsible fools.
Yesterday's Record had a full front page and several inside pages, on the damage the SG were doing to the colleges. Now they give no credit to John Swinney's improvements to the budget.
The Record seems to be acting like a criminal who cannot stop himself from reoffending. After sayng they were going to treat the SG fairly in reporting the news, they are back to their old ways at the first opportunity.
Like criminals they should be put in the slammer, which in their case would be more loss of customers for their rag.
Again Swinney is ace at playing the opposition against itself by holding back some money to tempt them into asking for changes to the budget, which he then gives them, but they still cannot support the budget.
In the eyes of the public this makes the opposition paties look like irresponsible fools.
#
2012-02-09 11:40
In Newsnicht last night with the three opposition MPs talking about Swinney's budget, Brewer was getting agitated with the obtuse replies to his questions. Of course it could have been false indignation from Brewer.
He pressed Ken MacIntosh to say why Labour could not support the budget when they had got substantially what they wanted. His insipid reply? That there were, 'other things', they didn't agree with.
Brewer could have pointed out that they had never voted for a Scottish budget since the SNP came to power and it was opposition for opppositions sake.
The Tories again going on about selling Scottish Water to raise cash gave a reminder, if one was needed, about the devastation they would wreak if they ever get a toehold in Scotland.
Anyway the debate has turned out as predicted, that they would not vote for the budget.
He pressed Ken MacIntosh to say why Labour could not support the budget when they had got substantially what they wanted. His insipid reply? That there were, 'other things', they didn't agree with.
Brewer could have pointed out that they had never voted for a Scottish budget since the SNP came to power and it was opposition for opppositions sake.
The Tories again going on about selling Scottish Water to raise cash gave a reminder, if one was needed, about the devastation they would wreak if they ever get a toehold in Scotland.
Anyway the debate has turned out as predicted, that they would not vote for the budget.
#
2012-02-09 11:49
Ken MacIntosh was given a rough ride on BBC Radio Scotland GMS this morning. Couldn't answer a straight question on what he would have done differently, and he was asked at least twice. He made himself and Labour sound utterly ridiculous. It was almost as bad as his rambling, incoherent speech in Parliament yesterday.
#
2012-02-09 12:27
Ken did really well on Newsnight I thought, just like Andy Kerr with his 'mandatory sentencing' interview. Keep it up lads and lassies, every time you are pulled away from your memorised answers you show the Scottish public just how inept you really are.
#
2012-02-09 12:49
o/t.. just been watching David Cameron on BBC World being interviewed about his views on Fabio Capello's resignation as England's national team manager...oh dear..rules for some and rules for others it seems regarding BBC's principles! Roll on 2014.
#
2012-02-09 13:19
I complained to the BBC about political bias, what with it being so close to the council elections in May. We'll see what they have to say.
#
2012-02-09 13:34
I got a response to my complaint about the Democracy Live who's who graphic eventually -
"Thank you for contacting the BBC regarding the graphic on the Scotland page.
"We are aware of the problem you've reported and have taken the graphic down. For some reason, the graphic appears to have switched to the old version and not the updated version that was put up after the election.
We hope to have the correct graphic up as soon as possible."
You couldn't make it up.
"Thank you for contacting the BBC regarding the graphic on the Scotland page.
"We are aware of the problem you've reported and have taken the graphic down. For some reason, the graphic appears to have switched to the old version and not the updated version that was put up after the election.
We hope to have the correct graphic up as soon as possible."
You couldn't make it up.
#
2012-02-09 13:42
It's that passive voice again, the one that allows avoidance of responsibility. The graphic itself is somehow responsible for changing itself. And how the hell are they "aware of the problem you've reported"? If they were aware before you reported it why did they only take it down now?
#
2012-02-09 13:07
lol well that would be in the tradition of Labour Home and Tory Hoose.
"Vote Uniooooonnnn!" echoing down the glens as Neil's lustrous barnett blows in the wind.
"Vote Uniooooonnnn!" echoing down the glens as Neil's lustrous barnett blows in the wind.
#
2012-02-09 13:29
Yeah I heard that, but they have a stipulation that he gets his haircut. He's in a tag-team duo with other Scot's heavyweight Dr Iain Stewart - the unionists think that the combined number of broadcast hours they receive on telly, they should be able to deluge us non-stop with their message.
Neil Oliver will rattle on about how the coast will erode under independence while Dr Stewart will show how Scotland caused global warming and how under independence the ozone layer will finally evaporate.
Alternatively, I can just see it as the main bout in an evening's wrestling live from Ingliston showground. The Union vs Independence. Out of all the wonderful images I've got going through my head, the most vivid is Johan Lamont playing the part of the manager ala, Burgess Meredith in the Rocky films.
Disclaimer : Actually, I've no idea where either of these individuals stand on independence, so if I've caused any offence, sorry.
Neil Oliver will rattle on about how the coast will erode under independence while Dr Stewart will show how Scotland caused global warming and how under independence the ozone layer will finally evaporate.
Alternatively, I can just see it as the main bout in an evening's wrestling live from Ingliston showground. The Union vs Independence. Out of all the wonderful images I've got going through my head, the most vivid is Johan Lamont playing the part of the manager ala, Burgess Meredith in the Rocky films.
Disclaimer : Actually, I've no idea where either of these individuals stand on independence, so if I've caused any offence, sorry.
#
2012-02-09 13:15
Quoting mealer:
Aye, I heard that aswell.
He has a bit more respect than anything the labour party has to offer.
Off Topic,
has anyone heard rumours that Neil Oliver is to lead the NO campaign?
Aye, I heard that aswell.
He has a bit more respect than anything the labour party has to offer.
#
2012-02-09 13:26
Just saw Johann Lamont repeatedly stotting her heid off the wall at FMQs again.
She is truly awful.
As for Ruth Davidson...
She is truly awful.
As for Ruth Davidson...
#
2012-02-09 13:47
I agree, thought Johann Lamont had lost the plot completely. But as Ive said before, she just reads her script provided for her, without thinking of what she is actually stating.
Doesnt anyone in Labour proof read for her?
It was unbeleivable that she started of spouting that 'it was the most expensive contract in Scottish history' then quoted a spurious figure of something like £ 1.5 BILLION (which I think was the very original estimate before tenders were ever thought about). Then it was £ 800 million was quoted.
When pointed out that there were no steel fabrication in Scotland, she ploughed her lonley furrow and stuck to the script. Even when she was reminded a couple of times that there is no Steel fabrication in Scotland only steel plate, she stuck to her script.
Its little wonder people were laughing at her, as she came accross as a complete moron
Doesnt anyone in Labour proof read for her?
It was unbeleivable that she started of spouting that 'it was the most expensive contract in Scottish history' then quoted a spurious figure of something like £ 1.5 BILLION (which I think was the very original estimate before tenders were ever thought about). Then it was £ 800 million was quoted.
When pointed out that there were no steel fabrication in Scotland, she ploughed her lonley furrow and stuck to the script. Even when she was reminded a couple of times that there is no Steel fabrication in Scotland only steel plate, she stuck to her script.
Its little wonder people were laughing at her, as she came accross as a complete moron
#
2012-02-09 18:05
Yes but as 'The First Eck' explained the part of the contract related to steel is only a small proportion of the total spend
Apart from the issue that there are no Scottish steel manufacturers that can produce the correct type of steel for the bridge.
I think AS said the 76% of the spend would be available to Scottish Contractors.
Apart from the issue that there are no Scottish steel manufacturers that can produce the correct type of steel for the bridge.
I think AS said the 76% of the spend would be available to Scottish Contractors.
#
2012-02-09 13:48
I'm at work so not able to watch FMQ live but had a look at the live txt on the bbc website.
According to the bbc, Lamont and Davidson have upped their game and it sounded like they were scoring points against the FM......now, i know this wont be the case and will watch it on I-player to see what really happened(if it is available!).
The BBC is a total joke.
According to the bbc, Lamont and Davidson have upped their game and it sounded like they were scoring points against the FM......now, i know this wont be the case and will watch it on I-player to see what really happened(if it is available!).
The BBC is a total joke.
#
2012-02-09 13:48
Watching FMQ and although the FM did not seem to be on top form it must be difficult for anyone to raise their game against such very very poor opposition... the opposition are totally banal and valueless to the people of Scotland. Paid for nothing.
#
2012-02-13 01:13
I've come to the conclusion that the facial expression the FM makes (which is usually mistaken for a smirk) is actually him having a wee laugh to himself at the stupidity and childishness of these numpties.
#
2012-02-09 14:02
I thought Labour made a big mistake when they picked Lamont instead of McIntosh.I'm now thinking it wouldnt have made much difference.McIntosh is a wee bit more articulate,but its all pish he's trying to articulate.
#
2012-02-09 14:04
I cant find anything on the net about Neil Oliver being leader of the No campaign.Maybe he has turned it down as well ?
#
2012-02-09 14:27
Quoting mealer:
If he does front the No campaign then it shows he knows a lot about Scotland's history but nothing about its future.
I cant find anything on the net about Neil Oliver being leader of the No campaign.Maybe he has turned it down as well ?
If he does front the No campaign then it shows he knows a lot about Scotland's history but nothing about its future.
#
2012-02-09 14:40
I believe that it was actually Jamie Oliver that they had in mind.
He was going to come up here and utter a few "Luvvly jubblys" before heading back down the M6.
He was going to come up here and utter a few "Luvvly jubblys" before heading back down the M6.
#
2012-02-09 14:48
Whichever Oliver it is they'll not be allowed to appear on any BBC output that's non-political until after the referendum.
Or can we expect a major new BBC programme fronted by Oliver (on British history or the role Scotland has played in British history) to appear over the next year or so before he coincidentally announces his role as the No Man?
Or can we expect a major new BBC programme fronted by Oliver (on British history or the role Scotland has played in British history) to appear over the next year or so before he coincidentally announces his role as the No Man?
#
2012-02-09 15:05
When you hear about someone like Neil Oliver supporting the Union you have to ask what his motives are. Well, it looks to me like total self interest. His career now depends on the BBC and on his programmes being seen throughout the UK.
He should realise that he owes it to all the anti-BBC venom that has been directed at the organization for ignoring Scotland over the decades, for withholding its due proportion of the licence fees paid by Scots, the lack of programme making in scotland and the subsequent attempts by the BBC, under public pressure, to partly reverse that trend.
He therefore owes his career to the efforts of the SNP, who set up the broadcasting commission, in bringing these facts to the attention of the wider public and the resultant backlash against the BBC. So, effectively he is biting the hand that made him.
He should realise that he owes it to all the anti-BBC venom that has been directed at the organization for ignoring Scotland over the decades, for withholding its due proportion of the licence fees paid by Scots, the lack of programme making in scotland and the subsequent attempts by the BBC, under public pressure, to partly reverse that trend.
He therefore owes his career to the efforts of the SNP, who set up the broadcasting commission, in bringing these facts to the attention of the wider public and the resultant backlash against the BBC. So, effectively he is biting the hand that made him.
#
2012-02-09 14:04
Quoting Louperdowg:
Aye, I watch the FMQs on the YouTube.
Really, Ruth is attrocious and Johann is a comic act, shes good entertainment, sad that she doesnae kin what shes on about.
Yet the BBC still bums them up to be a match for the FM.
Just saw Johann Lamont repeatedly stotting her heid off the wall at FMQs again.
She is truly awful.
As for Ruth Davidson...
Aye, I watch the FMQs on the YouTube.
Really, Ruth is attrocious and Johann is a comic act, shes good entertainment, sad that she doesnae kin what shes on about.
Yet the BBC still bums them up to be a match for the FM.
#
2012-02-09 14:15
Lamont is extraordinary. I'm not sure if she's the victim of a practical joke played on her every week by whoever provides her question, or if we're the victims of a practical joke by whichever numpties elected her.
Actually, on reflection, I voted for her precisely because she was the least able candidate. It occurs to me that perhaps everyone else did the same thing, never imagining she'd actually win.
Actually, on reflection, I voted for her precisely because she was the least able candidate. It occurs to me that perhaps everyone else did the same thing, never imagining she'd actually win.
#
2012-02-09 14:22
It occurs to me that perhaps everyone else did the same thing, never imagining she'd actually win.
Like Jedward.
Like Jedward.
#
2012-02-09 14:54
Quoting Louperdowg:
She is to politics what John Sergeant is to dancing...
It occurs to me that perhaps everyone else did the same thing, never imagining she'd actually win.
Like Jedward.
She is to politics what John Sergeant is to dancing...
#
2012-02-09 14:23
John Swinney has developed into a highly respected politician. His masterly handling of the budget, especially during the period of minority government is impressive. He has a reassuring, inscrutable manner which many unswayed voters will be likely to trust. His consensus-forming proposals have wrongfooted the Unionists who are still making only negative noises about Scotland and her future. Well done, JS.
#
2012-02-09 14:35
Yes agree John Swinney has been a remarkably competent Finance Secretary and has the perfect disposition for calmly explaining what he's done.
Obviously we're biased on here and think that overall we have a far superior team but after seeing First Minister's questions today an outside observer might come to the same conclusion.
I was saying up the thread that Labour are now more about the union than anything else and it occurred to me that this is because there has been a natural filtering process taking place over the past few years.
If you feel at all nationalistic for want of a better word you chose the SNP but if you strongly identified with Britishness (also nationalistic of course but they don't accept that ) you tended towards Labour.
So we now have a situation where Labour has a real shortage of people who are not hard line unionists.
I wonder if this is why they find themselves in their current predicament? Their first loyalty is to what many of us would regard as another country but what to them is their country.
They're fighting in Scotland for Britain against a side who are fighting in Scoland for Scotland.
Obviously we're biased on here and think that overall we have a far superior team but after seeing First Minister's questions today an outside observer might come to the same conclusion.
I was saying up the thread that Labour are now more about the union than anything else and it occurred to me that this is because there has been a natural filtering process taking place over the past few years.
If you feel at all nationalistic for want of a better word you chose the SNP but if you strongly identified with Britishness (also nationalistic of course but they don't accept that ) you tended towards Labour.
So we now have a situation where Labour has a real shortage of people who are not hard line unionists.
I wonder if this is why they find themselves in their current predicament? Their first loyalty is to what many of us would regard as another country but what to them is their country.
They're fighting in Scotland for Britain against a side who are fighting in Scoland for Scotland.
#
2012-02-09 14:41
O/T
Interesting reading of the BBC's answering to the widescale complaints against them regards the snub to the First Minister
bbc.co.uk/.../...
They state that it was the First Ministers office that asked BBC Sport for teh First Minister to appear on a pre match programme.
This is interesting as there is no mention of the BBC Sport e-mail inviting the First Minister.
Secondly it then states that BBC Sport are oblidged ,under the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines to consult the Chief Political Adviser 'for advice before a decision is taken'
It then states 'On this occasion, having been approached by the First Minister’s office, BBC Sport asked for advice and with the full agreement of both the Head of TV Sport and the Director of BBC Scotland, the judgment was made that the Scotland-England match was not an appropriate setting in which to give one single political leader that level of prominence. The topicality of the current political debate over the future relationship of Scotland with the rest of the UK – and with England in particular – was one of the factors taken into account'
It also states that the other reason(apart from the referendum in 2014) was the close proximity of the local elections in Scotland 'less than two months away' Which is kind of strange as the elections are in May, which is THREE months away!
There does appear to be inconsistencies with the BBC statement
First of all Who approached Who first?
what is the timeline of communications.
Secondly, why did they actually invite the First Minister BEFORE receiving the advise from the political advisor.
Thirdly , if they think that the First Minister is going to give political advantage (ignoring the fact that the First Minister's task is to represent Scotland), then will this be applied accross the board and include banning Cameron as Prime Minister from appearing in or on any Sporting event or from speaking about any Sport or sporting event?
I think the excuse that the BBC wold come up with that is that the Prime Minister is not the same as First Minister, which they would be wrong, but they are probably thinking that
Interesting reading of the BBC's answering to the widescale complaints against them regards the snub to the First Minister
bbc.co.uk/.../...
They state that it was the First Ministers office that asked BBC Sport for teh First Minister to appear on a pre match programme.
This is interesting as there is no mention of the BBC Sport e-mail inviting the First Minister.
Secondly it then states that BBC Sport are oblidged ,under the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines to consult the Chief Political Adviser 'for advice before a decision is taken'
It then states 'On this occasion, having been approached by the First Minister’s office, BBC Sport asked for advice and with the full agreement of both the Head of TV Sport and the Director of BBC Scotland, the judgment was made that the Scotland-England match was not an appropriate setting in which to give one single political leader that level of prominence. The topicality of the current political debate over the future relationship of Scotland with the rest of the UK – and with England in particular – was one of the factors taken into account'
It also states that the other reason(apart from the referendum in 2014) was the close proximity of the local elections in Scotland 'less than two months away' Which is kind of strange as the elections are in May, which is THREE months away!
There does appear to be inconsistencies with the BBC statement
First of all Who approached Who first?
what is the timeline of communications.
Secondly, why did they actually invite the First Minister BEFORE receiving the advise from the political advisor.
Thirdly , if they think that the First Minister is going to give political advantage (ignoring the fact that the First Minister's task is to represent Scotland), then will this be applied accross the board and include banning Cameron as Prime Minister from appearing in or on any Sporting event or from speaking about any Sport or sporting event?
I think the excuse that the BBC wold come up with that is that the Prime Minister is not the same as First Minister, which they would be wrong, but they are probably thinking that
#
2012-02-09 16:22
The Sunday Herald which broke the story printed the e-mails - or at least two of them - exchanged between Mr Salmond's staff and the BBC.
From these e-mails it looks as it there had been preliminary discussions by telephone about the First Minister appearing on the programme and the e-mails were confirming details. Just who made the initial approach was not clear but I doubt the FM's staff would have approached the BBC asking them to allow the FM to appear on a programme.
The On-line Herald has an article about this incident on its front page at the moment. This article did not appear in the print edition. So if you want to add to the comments already there then here is the link:
Quote:
From these e-mails it looks as it there had been preliminary discussions by telephone about the First Minister appearing on the programme and the e-mails were confirming details. Just who made the initial approach was not clear but I doubt the FM's staff would have approached the BBC asking them to allow the FM to appear on a programme.
The On-line Herald has an article about this incident on its front page at the moment. This article did not appear in the print edition. So if you want to add to the comments already there then here is the link:
Quote:
heraldscotland.com/.../...
#
2012-02-09 16:50
From what I understand there was an initial approach from advisors to A Salmond to say he would be available to take part in programmes and that BBC Sport at a network level were keen and issued the invite as did Five Live, they were then overuled by R Bailey. And he makes clear in the BBC Media R4 programme that he consulted with the controller of BBC Scotland before taking the decision. It's not unusual for politicians to make their availablity known for these types of programmes. And in response to Tory Ruth today he din't deny that his people had made the initial approach.
#
2012-02-09 16:59
Just read the Herald piece not the best piece of journalism and she repeats the he asked 3 times to be on line which the Torygraph is running, this makes no sense. As per my post at 1550 I would imagine one general approach by his advisors was made and then the information circulated to relevant programmes in the BBC.
#
2012-02-09 17:26
Probably correct but idoes suggest that the BBC has been stung by the criticism and is indulging in damage limitation tactics.
#
2012-02-09 17:59
Absolutely it's an indefensible position regardless of who made the first approach. For me I'm not a fan of politicians on sports programmes but across all political parties the BBC indulges it but not this time! Probably a first.
#
2012-02-09 19:01
Especially so after they had David Cameron on Countryfile and, if I have remembered correctly, showed segments of the interview over two programmes.
And he definitely was not talking about the relative virtues of green manure.
And he definitely was not talking about the relative virtues of green manure.
#
2012-02-09 14:57
I agree. The whole BBC stooshie is very concerning. The State Broadcaster should be seen to be impartial and balanced in all respects. Auld Acquaintance has a must read article on the legal considerations in relation to the Council of Europe.
.../skating-on-thin-ice
There is a new article on the same blog on the McCrone Report. Slowly, the real agenda is getting itself known to the public.
.../mccrone-deja-vu
.../skating-on-thin-ice
There is a new article on the same blog on the McCrone Report. Slowly, the real agenda is getting itself known to the public.
.../mccrone-deja-vu
#
2012-02-09 15:07
Johann Krankie was woeful but isn't helped by her script writer..one Paul Sinclair who was the unemployed former political editor of the Daily Record.
#
2012-02-09 15:10
On the BBC stooshie it is noticeable that neither the Scotsman nor the Herald have printed any letters backing Alex Salmond or questioning the BBC's partiality in the "heightened tensions" of the Referendum debate.. I know for a fact that several letters were sent.
#
2012-02-09 16:28
They did print one letter but by Monday the story had changed from 'FM censored' to 'FM and Nazi slur'.
While the Sunday Herald had lead with the FM censored story the other papers when they pickled up on it lead with the gauleiter remark thus changing the focus of the story away from the BBC.
The story has now all but disappeared from the newspapers but interestingly the on-line Herald has an article today on the incident and one moreover which is not in their print edition.
You can see the story here and comment on it if you wish:
heraldscotland.com/.../...
While the Sunday Herald had lead with the FM censored story the other papers when they pickled up on it lead with the gauleiter remark thus changing the focus of the story away from the BBC.
The story has now all but disappeared from the newspapers but interestingly the on-line Herald has an article today on the incident and one moreover which is not in their print edition.
You can see the story here and comment on it if you wish:
heraldscotland.com/.../...
#
2012-02-09 15:22
All the more reason for getting behind the movement to retain Derek Bateman's Newsweek on the radio. He is more than eager to raise issues and discuss matters. There is no advantage to be gained if all we do is complain about bias and misreporting by the MSM and the BBC, when we have a radio programme which invites experts to discuss at length issues which relate directly to an Independent Scotland. If we meekly permit the axing of this programme, then we can expect even more bias, suppression of the facts and misreporting.
#
2012-02-09 15:35
Slightly O/T but pertinent to budgets. In case this hasn't been posted elsewhere.. has the meltdown in Glasgow begun?
news.stv.tv/.../...
news.stv.tv/.../...
#
2012-02-09 16:24
mmmmm it was an SNP coucillor who coined the sounbite 'meltdown in Glasgow'. Are STV pro the independence debate per chance? Just asking
#
2012-02-09 16:34
Quoting dogbite:
But another resiging Labour councillor described it as the party's "death throes" in Glasgow. Meltdown is probably being too kind. Mind you, a meltdown leaves a suspicious stain behind. Who knows what will come out after May.
mmmmm it was an SNP coucillor who coined the sounbite 'meltdown in Glasgow'. Are STV pro the independence debate per chance? Just asking
But another resiging Labour councillor described it as the party's "death throes" in Glasgow. Meltdown is probably being too kind. Mind you, a meltdown leaves a suspicious stain behind. Who knows what will come out after May.
#
2012-02-09 16:59
I think we should commission an oil painting to mark this historic occassion if or when it comes.
Peter Howson's "The Meltdown".
Peter Howson's "The Meltdown".
#
2012-02-09 17:26
Another bloody secessionist going on about Oil ! Oil this, oil that, now oil paintings.
It's the UK's Oil, not Scotland's Oil and you lot of alcoholic overweight deep fried subsidy junkies are going to have to come begging for it from Engerland when we rebuild Hadrian's Wall and Electrify it with out Nuclear Power Stations.
;)
It's the UK's Oil, not Scotland's Oil and you lot of alcoholic overweight deep fried subsidy junkies are going to have to come begging for it from Engerland when we rebuild Hadrian's Wall and Electrify it with out Nuclear Power Stations.
;)
#
2012-02-09 18:46
Quoting Training Day:
Mr Quinn doesn't seem to have a sense of irony?
The reason that labour councillors are resigning is because they were not selected to stand in May’s local council elections by their party.
They seem to be putting their own interests first before the people they represent.
Did they think they had a job for life?
Who would want a councillor like that representing them?
By John Quinn
Slightly O/T but pertinent to budgets. In case this hasn't been posted elsewhere.. has the meltdown in Glasgow begun?
news.stv.tv/.../...
Mr Quinn doesn't seem to have a sense of irony?
The reason that labour councillors are resigning is because they were not selected to stand in May’s local council elections by their party.
They seem to be putting their own interests first before the people they represent.
Did they think they had a job for life?
Who would want a councillor like that representing them?
By John Quinn
#
2012-02-09 15:48
Scottish Labour's finance spokesman Ken Macintosh MSP said;-
"John Swinney talks of a budget for jobs and growth but there is no sign in this budget of a government grabbing the economy by the scruff of the neck - no sign of the dynamism needed to galvanise the economy, no sign even of a government taking all possible steps to protect jobs and create employment."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well Mr Macintosh, you'll be supporting independence then, because the only way that you're going to get "scruff of the neck" and "dynamism" is for Scotland to control the purse strings and the only way for that to happen is Scottish independence.
I'm Scottish not British
"John Swinney talks of a budget for jobs and growth but there is no sign in this budget of a government grabbing the economy by the scruff of the neck - no sign of the dynamism needed to galvanise the economy, no sign even of a government taking all possible steps to protect jobs and create employment."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well Mr Macintosh, you'll be supporting independence then, because the only way that you're going to get "scruff of the neck" and "dynamism" is for Scotland to control the purse strings and the only way for that to happen is Scottish independence.
I'm Scottish not British
#
2012-02-09 15:52
Saltire Groppentosh
Hope you have had the time to read my post in reply to you on the article on the Demo against BBC Scotland cuts.
Saor Alba
Hope you have had the time to read my post in reply to you on the article on the Demo against BBC Scotland cuts.
Saor Alba
#
2012-02-09 16:13
Obviously, as I'm posting here, I'm not at the demo. Ach weel........... Must be getting too old for that game. Must get on with making the soup.
#
2012-02-09 16:11
With regards to Neil Oliver for the No campaign.....
"I think everyone should be absolutely aware of how big a deal it is,” the historian said. “Heaven forbid that anyone, or any part of the nation, should sleepwalk into a decision."
"It is hoped that through history – not just of Scotland, but a history of the whole of the British Isles – that people have to understand how the status quo came about in order to make a proper decision about what, if anything should happen in the future.
“You certainly would not want people making knee-jerk reactions based on something that happened last year, or five years ago, or ten years ago.
“You have to see the big picture. The story of the people of the British Isles has been unfolding for hundreds and thousands of years."
Is he trying to say, It was good for Scotland 300 years ago.... so its good for us now?
Neil, 40 years ago, the politicians of Westmidden tricked and concealed the Scottish people out of 100's of Billions of pounds... people make informed descisions on their experiences of Gov't and how they have been treated in recent history.... not what happened 300 years ago. It nice to be aware of these things so they are not repeated tho.... i presume you are in the no camp!
scotsman.com/.../...
"I think everyone should be absolutely aware of how big a deal it is,” the historian said. “Heaven forbid that anyone, or any part of the nation, should sleepwalk into a decision."
"It is hoped that through history – not just of Scotland, but a history of the whole of the British Isles – that people have to understand how the status quo came about in order to make a proper decision about what, if anything should happen in the future.
“You certainly would not want people making knee-jerk reactions based on something that happened last year, or five years ago, or ten years ago.
“You have to see the big picture. The story of the people of the British Isles has been unfolding for hundreds and thousands of years."
Is he trying to say, It was good for Scotland 300 years ago.... so its good for us now?
Neil, 40 years ago, the politicians of Westmidden tricked and concealed the Scottish people out of 100's of Billions of pounds... people make informed descisions on their experiences of Gov't and how they have been treated in recent history.... not what happened 300 years ago. It nice to be aware of these things so they are not repeated tho.... i presume you are in the no camp!
scotsman.com/.../...
#
2012-02-09 16:20
Agree fully with you re the McCrone Report. I think if the true facts were public knowledge we would be well along the road to an Independent Government in 2014. We have to keep getting the positive messags across.
Please read and pass on the excellent article in today's Auld Acquitance blog on the McCrone Report. .../mccrone-deja-vu
Please read and pass on the excellent article in today's Auld Acquitance blog on the McCrone Report. .../mccrone-deja-vu
#
2012-02-09 16:25
Firstly he isn't a historian he's an archaeologist who got a job fronting history programs. I remember the first episode of History of Scotland he began the program by banging on about the british! I noticed in recent times he has been rewarded with lucrative History of Britain shows on the BBC. It wont be in his interest for Scotland to become independent. He is another Scot who has fled south and now feels they can't survive with their masters pay. Actually for someone fronting history programs his knowledge of it has been somewhat flawed.
#
2012-02-09 16:41
Neil Oliver on twitter:-
"Have no wish to make political comments. Try to duck them at all times! Choices in polling booth are all that matters!"
I tweeted him back to ask why is making political comments in a newspaper with a clear political agenda and how this contravenes BBC impartiality again (ok the last bit is a joke anyway).
Feel free to twitter the apolitical unionist here:-
twitter.com/#!/NEIL_OLIVER_
"Have no wish to make political comments. Try to duck them at all times! Choices in polling booth are all that matters!"
I tweeted him back to ask why is making political comments in a newspaper with a clear political agenda and how this contravenes BBC impartiality again (ok the last bit is a joke anyway).
Feel free to twitter the apolitical unionist here:-
twitter.com/#!/NEIL_OLIVER_
#
2012-02-09 16:59
I don't really care what historians or archaeologists say about Scottish independence. Independence is about our future, not about our past.
#
2012-02-09 18:47
Quoting InfrequentAllel e:
If only everyone thought this way.
I don't really care what historians or archaeologists say about Scottish independence. Independence is about our future, not about our past.
If only everyone thought this way.
#
2012-02-09 16:44
Neil Oliver was once asked on the STV Show The Hour if he would getnhis hair cut for money. He answered he would do anything for money.....I would say money forms his opinions on most things.
#
2012-02-09 16:46
IT WAS hailed by BBC Scotland as one of its most ambitious projects ever. But already the ten-part series A History of Scotland has run into controversy, with a second senior Scottish historian publicly attacking the programme.
Professor Allan Macinnes told The Scotsman that he had resigned from the series' advisory board after its first meeting in November.
"I thought the whole production was dreadful," he said.
"The first provisional script I got was so Anglo-centric I couldn't believe it," Prof Macinnes said. "It was written on the basis as if Scotland was a divided country until the Union (with England] came along and civilised it. I felt it was just nonsense."
A History of Scotland's advisory board, which includes leading historians, agencies such as Historic Scotland and a history teachers' representative, meets for a second time this week.
But last week Professor Tom Devine, perhaps Scotland's best-known historian, revealed he had turned down the offer of a place on the board. While saying he "warmly welcomed" the show, he complained of an "old-fashioned" approach to Scottish history and the choice of archeologist Neil Oliver as presenter.
scotsman.com/.../...
Professor Allan Macinnes told The Scotsman that he had resigned from the series' advisory board after its first meeting in November.
"I thought the whole production was dreadful," he said.
"The first provisional script I got was so Anglo-centric I couldn't believe it," Prof Macinnes said. "It was written on the basis as if Scotland was a divided country until the Union (with England] came along and civilised it. I felt it was just nonsense."
A History of Scotland's advisory board, which includes leading historians, agencies such as Historic Scotland and a history teachers' representative, meets for a second time this week.
But last week Professor Tom Devine, perhaps Scotland's best-known historian, revealed he had turned down the offer of a place on the board. While saying he "warmly welcomed" the show, he complained of an "old-fashioned" approach to Scottish history and the choice of archeologist Neil Oliver as presenter.
scotsman.com/.../...
#
2012-02-09 17:02
"SNP propaganda is growing ever more offensive"
That is the heading from the print edition of the Scotsman written by Kerry Gill.The bile coming from this is really terrible even has a photo of AS "bad loser" congratulating the English captain it all plays to the unionist mafia.
Please don't get on to me but I read it while waiting for the wife in hospital,would never think on buying the paper.
That is the heading from the print edition of the Scotsman written by Kerry Gill.The bile coming from this is really terrible even has a photo of AS "bad loser" congratulating the English captain it all plays to the unionist mafia.
Please don't get on to me but I read it while waiting for the wife in hospital,would never think on buying the paper.
#
2012-02-09 17:07
O?T Live coverage of GCC Budget meeting resuming at 4.10pm on stv live player.
Looks like Labour are now formally a minority administration and are currently assesing alternative SNP led budget!
Looks like Labour are now formally a minority administration and are currently assesing alternative SNP led budget!
#
2012-02-09 17:14
local.stv.tv/.../...
a link if its allowed above to live coverage of the end of labour hegemony at the city chambers, glasgow, following mass resignations of the former ruling labour party.
a link if its allowed above to live coverage of the end of labour hegemony at the city chambers, glasgow, following mass resignations of the former ruling labour party.
#
2012-02-09 17:22
Thanks for that, meanwhile on BBC Scotland's Newsdrive there has been mention of GCC in the headlines but so far we've had yet another interview on suicide in Scotland and now yet more people win yet more lottery money.
#
2012-02-09 17:24
Whatever happens this budget meeting will be uncomfortable for Reporting Shortbread.
They're probably barrelling up the A9 in a fleet of vans with 400 tins of mackerel in tomato sauce to weigh Walker the polar bear again and create a nice distraction.
They're probably barrelling up the A9 in a fleet of vans with 400 tins of mackerel in tomato sauce to weigh Walker the polar bear again and create a nice distraction.
#
2012-02-09 17:41
GK - I have a feeling this will be a short story and more time will be given to Donald Trump's outburst at Alex Salmond.
#
2012-02-09 17:52
I think the Don might be losing it!
"Taxing your citizens to subsidise wind projects owned by foreign energy companies will destroy your country and its economy.
"Jobs will not be created in Scotland because these ugly monstrosities known as turbines are manufactured in other countries such as China.
"These countries are laughing at you."
He said of the future: "You will be long gone, but the people of Scotland will forever suffer.
"I have just authorised my staff to allocate a substantial sum of money to launch an international campaign to fight your plan to surround Scotland's coast with many thousands of wind turbines.
"It will be like looking through the bars of a prison and the Scottish citizens will be the prisoners.
"Luckily, tourists will not suffer because there will be none as they will be going to other countries that had the foresight to use other forms of energy."
"I am doing this to save Scotland."
"Taxing your citizens to subsidise wind projects owned by foreign energy companies will destroy your country and its economy.
"Jobs will not be created in Scotland because these ugly monstrosities known as turbines are manufactured in other countries such as China.
"These countries are laughing at you."
He said of the future: "You will be long gone, but the people of Scotland will forever suffer.
"I have just authorised my staff to allocate a substantial sum of money to launch an international campaign to fight your plan to surround Scotland's coast with many thousands of wind turbines.
"It will be like looking through the bars of a prison and the Scottish citizens will be the prisoners.
"Luckily, tourists will not suffer because there will be none as they will be going to other countries that had the foresight to use other forms of energy."
"I am doing this to save Scotland."
#
2012-02-09 17:55
Trump by name - trump by nature.
He's certainly blowing hard today, better watch the wig or whatever it is that lives on top of his head doesn't fall off.
He's certainly blowing hard today, better watch the wig or whatever it is that lives on top of his head doesn't fall off.
#
2012-02-09 17:57
You forgot the thousands of dead birds floating at the base of all these structure, I think he was really auditioning for a pantomime.
#
2012-02-09 18:03
And according to Trump they need to be replaced every five years and Scotland will lose ALL its tourists as a result. Meanwhile he was just allowed to rant on, though Scottish government are to come on to respond.
#
2012-02-09 18:36
"I have just authorised my staff to allocate a substantial sum of money to launch an international campaign to fight your plan to surround Scotland's coast with many thousands of wind turbines".
Before Donald loses his wig, here is a list of countries to attack with his International campaign.
en.wikipedia.org/.../...
Before Donald loses his wig, here is a list of countries to attack with his International campaign.
en.wikipedia.org/.../...
#
2012-02-13 01:33
I really wish the SG had stuck to Aberdeen council's veto on that bloody golf course! Now this american bawwind bag will think he can use his money to interfere with the workings of our country!
#
2012-02-13 02:02
Quoting megsmaw:
Golf course is a superb asset for the area.
What is your agenda?
I really wish the SG had stuck to Aberdeen council's veto on that bloody golf course! Now this americanbawwind bag will think he can use his money to interfere with the workings of our country!
Golf course is a superb asset for the area.
What is your agenda?
#
2012-02-13 05:07
No agenda here!
I know the golf course is great for the area, I have family up there and it's dire on the job front in some areas. I just wish it wasn't Donald Trump funding it as he might think he's allowed to have a say on stuff that doesn't concern him.
I know the golf course is great for the area, I have family up there and it's dire on the job front in some areas. I just wish it wasn't Donald Trump funding it as he might think he's allowed to have a say on stuff that doesn't concern him.
#
2012-02-09 18:06
fantastic dilemma for the unionists. Cue the volte face as they review their Donald Trump is evil / crony of Salmond narrative.
They may have to warm to him now.
They may have to warm to him now.
#
2012-02-12 20:58
Aye well the Panda falling ill when it did was most inconvenient! Or have Edinburgh Zoo decided they are no playing that game anymore?
Never mind there is an old biddy with a cat sanctuary somehwere I'm sure!
Never mind there is an old biddy with a cat sanctuary somehwere I'm sure!
#
2012-02-09 17:46
From the GCC meeting.
"gordonchree: Matheson calls Stagecoach boss Brian Souter a "homophobe" and says SNP take instructions from him #glacouncil [via Twitter]"
Sounds as though Matheson has lost the plot. He is using the Gattling gun approach to debate.
"gordonchree: Matheson calls Stagecoach boss Brian Souter a "homophobe" and says SNP take instructions from him #glacouncil [via Twitter]"
Sounds as though Matheson has lost the plot. He is using the Gattling gun approach to debate.
#
2012-02-09 17:50
Matheson: 'nats making common ground with Tories . We will remind voters of that in weeks to come'
Good luck with that. I expect we'll be reminding people that Labour stood with the Tories to oppose the Scottish budget and again to support the Westminster cuts. He does seem to be very angry at the idea that Labour might not be in control.
Good luck with that. I expect we'll be reminding people that Labour stood with the Tories to oppose the Scottish budget and again to support the Westminster cuts. He does seem to be very angry at the idea that Labour might not be in control.
#
2012-02-09 17:50
I'm following the live twitter feed on the STV website, it appears to be a pitch battle in the chambers. All the reporters keep commenting that they haven't seen anything like this and wish it was being televised.
They are just going to vote on the budget now.
They are just going to vote on the budget now.
#
2012-02-09 17:54
Apparently they're now debating which buttons to press for what, before they can actually vote!
#
2012-02-09 17:57
It's been passed by 2 votes - blimey that was close. Labour majority on the slide. Roll on May.
#
2012-02-09 17:51
The opposition parties hammered the SNP in a parlimentary debate this week about severe cuts in funding for FE cOlleges.I don't know enough about the reality of this debate,although some opposition MSP's made a convincing case for directing more funding to Further education.Whether the funding cuts imposed by Westminster will damage the SNP is a good question.I am just picking up news that a former labour councillor in Ayr has just defected to the SNP.This possibly suggests that the unionist attack may be misguided.Does anyone have a view on the SNP handling of FE College Funding?
#
2012-02-09 20:25
It was well explained by Salmond in FMQs that there is additional money going into college schemes which makes the deficit much amaller than the opposition claimed. You should listen again to the answers he gave Lamont.
The colleges cannot escape the fact that the Scottish budget is now much smaller due to cuts from Westminster. A college head who was interviewed did not seem perturbed about the budget he was given.
The colleges cannot escape the fact that the Scottish budget is now much smaller due to cuts from Westminster. A college head who was interviewed did not seem perturbed about the budget he was given.
#
2012-02-09 17:57
According to the STV 'source' along with the resignations, up to 8 other current Labour Councillors are about to vote against the Glasgow Budget as well.
Matheson and Murphy's goose would appear to be well on the way to a roasting.
Matheson and Murphy's goose would appear to be well on the way to a roasting.
#
2012-02-09 18:10
Today's FM questions confirm the Unionist strategy for the retention of the Union: personalize the issue at every turn. Pandas and AS, Chinese steel and AS, AS didnae play rugby for his Yoonie, AS at fault for the BBC stooshie. This really confirms the paucity of the pro Union argument. In fact, there is no positive case coming from that quarter.
For anyone who doesn't know the site 'Wingsoverscotla nd', here is the link. A comprehensive list of all the positive cases for the Union has been kept since 1979. So far, not one has been made. Worth a daily visit to the site: wingsland.podgamer.com/
For anyone who doesn't know the site 'Wingsoverscotla nd', here is the link. A comprehensive list of all the positive cases for the Union has been kept since 1979. So far, not one has been made. Worth a daily visit to the site: wingsland.podgamer.com/
#
2012-02-09 18:13
So far nothing more on Newsdrive re GCC other than a headline, we're back to suicide as the 5pm lead interview, now Greece .....
#
2012-02-09 18:13
Via STV:
Cllr Anne Marie Millar breaks down in tears during STV interview - claims her son's apprenticeship was threatened if she voted against Lab.
Cllr Anne Marie Millar breaks down in tears during STV interview - claims her son's apprenticeship was threatened if she voted against Lab.
#
2012-02-09 18:26
If this is true surely there must be a police inquiry into the Labour leadership in Glasgow
#
2012-02-09 18:26
Yep Louper, this just tweeted:
'Iain Pope: The accusation which rebel Labour councillor Anne Marie Millar has made in an interview with STV's Gordon Chree - that her son's apprenticeship was threatened if she voted against Labour today - is simply astonishing.'
'Iain Pope: The accusation which rebel Labour councillor Anne Marie Millar has made in an interview with STV's Gordon Chree - that her son's apprenticeship was threatened if she voted against Labour today - is simply astonishing.'
#
2012-02-09 19:55
It's a pity she didn't name who said it, but it shouldn't be too difficult to suss it out for those closer to the action as he claimed to be a board member in one of the organisations. It could have an adverse effect on his re-election in May (with a bit of luck).
#
2012-02-09 18:18
Newsdrive - I have texted that it's not offshore wind developments that are the eyesore - it's golf courses. How many of these manicured stretches of landscape do we need? Will they read that out? No way - Trump's rant is what the BBC wants us to hear.
#
2012-02-09 18:50
You know as I've said before there are editorial problems/bias at BBC Scotland but not as extreme as many on here believe imo, do not underestimate how truly incompetent some of their people are.
#
2012-02-09 19:06
Quote:
And as I have pointed out in the past as well. They just are not that good to be that devious and scheming. You just have to listen to their reporting of other stories to see how poor the quality of too many of their reporters.
...do not underestimate how truly incompetent some of their people are.
And as I have pointed out in the past as well. They just are not that good to be that devious and scheming. You just have to listen to their reporting of other stories to see how poor the quality of too many of their reporters.
#
2012-02-09 19:59
It seems that the BBC Trust are going to set out ground rules for reporting the referendum as a result of Alex Salmond's meeting with Chris Patten today.
#
2012-02-09 18:22
Had to share this tweet from The Green's Patrick Harvie particularly for anyone who saw First Minister's Questions today.
Quote:
not just Brian Taylor who appears to see a parallel version to the rest of us then.
Quote:
patrickharvie Patrick Harvie FM lost it today - @JohannLamont made him look foolish, @RuthDavidsonMS P made him look pompous, and @willie_rennie made him look wrong. #fmq
not just Brian Taylor who appears to see a parallel version to the rest of us then.
#
2012-02-09 18:25
Can only conclude by this travesty of an analysis of FMQs that Patrick is having his annual hissy fit when he doesn't get his way on the Scottish Budget.
He really is a jumped up wee pipsqueak
He really is a jumped up wee pipsqueak
#
2012-02-09 18:28
He actually tweeted "and to think budget day at Holyrood used to be this dramatic"
Obviously wistful for his former place on the main stage.
Obviously wistful for his former place on the main stage.
#
2012-02-09 18:30
I've always been in two minds about Harvie, sometimes he makes a lot of sense with his judgements, other times, (thinking of the rule about being able to 'tweet' from the chamber during session) he seems to be slightly daft.
#
2012-02-09 18:31
my sense from reading the output from their head of media James Mackenzie at Better Nation is that they dislike the SNP at least as intensely as Labour do.
#
2012-02-09 19:07
Quote:
And what did they have to say about Mr harvie I wonder?
GrassyKnollingt on 2012-02-09 17:22
Had to share this tweet from The Green's Patrick Harvie particularly for anyone who saw First Minister's Questions today.
Quote:
patrickharvie Patrick Harvie FM lost it today - @JohannLamont made him look foolish, @RuthDavidsonMS P made him look pompous, and @willie_rennie made him look wrong. #fmq
not just Brian Taylor who appears to see a parallel version to the rest of us then.
And what did they have to say about Mr harvie I wonder?
#
2012-02-09 18:34
So at 1730 Newsdrive have just given approx 2 minutes to the GCC story a two way with R Buchanan, that's it, STV have really put them to shame.
#
2012-02-09 18:51
Re-news night last night.
Swinney with pre-recorded interview followed by three unionists in the studio.I am sure it would have been possible for John to do news night before going off to Dundee,some may think this is trivial but these things matter.
Swinney with pre-recorded interview followed by three unionists in the studio.I am sure it would have been possible for John to do news night before going off to Dundee,some may think this is trivial but these things matter.
#
2012-02-09 18:55
Not at all trivial. This is the set up preferred by the BBC: JS has his say, then it's a free for all to criticize without any opportunity for JS to come back. In future, refuse to participate if it is by video link, or if participants are to be interviewed at a different time.
#
2012-02-09 20:04
Not sure why the BBC think that separation of the SNP's spokesperson from the opposition is a fair thing to do.
Having the final say is definitely a political advantage to the Unionists and is not at all an impartial way of working.
Also, three to one is definitely more like gangland tactics (four to one when you include the BBC presenter and even more when you add on the two or three pundits for the final windup discussion).
Having the final say is definitely a political advantage to the Unionists and is not at all an impartial way of working.
Also, three to one is definitely more like gangland tactics (four to one when you include the BBC presenter and even more when you add on the two or three pundits for the final windup discussion).
#
2012-02-09 20:08
Quoting J Wil:
No, 'three to one' is getting the views of all the main opposition parties. Would you prefer they discriminated against one or more of the wee parties?
Also, three to one is definitely more like gangland tactics
No, 'three to one' is getting the views of all the main opposition parties. Would you prefer they discriminated against one or more of the wee parties?
#
2012-02-09 20:17
Not if they are unanimously in favour of unionism and none of them putting a cogent argument apart from slagging of the SNP. They can also reside in the cosey situation that John Swinney was not there to contradict them, otherwise they may have looked even more ridiculous than they did.
#
2012-02-09 20:39
It doesn't matter if they're unanimously in favour of unionism if the subject is the budget rather than the referendum or independence. Each party will have different views on what the budget should have been. Asking each of them is not bias. Not asking any one of them would have been.
If none of them can put a cogent argument, then how many there are is irrelevant because they'll have no impact.
If JS wasn't there, it really doesn't matter how many different party representatives were there. He should have had a chance to discuss with everyone else, but that's a separate issue from the charge that speaking to each major opposition party is somehow 'gangland tactics'.
It doesn't help the case against bias if this sort of exaggerated claim - which essentially calls for bias against another party - is allowed into the mix. It is a common tactic, when dealing with mass complaints, to pick out the easiest ones to rubbish and then imply that they are representative of the whole, thus avoiding addressing the serious complaints. We need to try to view these things dispassionately to avoid providing ammunition to the BBC.
If none of them can put a cogent argument, then how many there are is irrelevant because they'll have no impact.
If JS wasn't there, it really doesn't matter how many different party representatives were there. He should have had a chance to discuss with everyone else, but that's a separate issue from the charge that speaking to each major opposition party is somehow 'gangland tactics'.
It doesn't help the case against bias if this sort of exaggerated claim - which essentially calls for bias against another party - is allowed into the mix. It is a common tactic, when dealing with mass complaints, to pick out the easiest ones to rubbish and then imply that they are representative of the whole, thus avoiding addressing the serious complaints. We need to try to view these things dispassionately to avoid providing ammunition to the BBC.
#
2012-02-09 21:09
The evidence suggests that they have already been blaming the cybernats for everything for some considerable time without my little moan (in fact since Foulkes discovered to his astonishment that cybernats sit up all night making comments on these blogs). It would not be any different however much the language was moderated, because that is what they do.
"We need to try to view these things dispassionately "
I have done and concluded it definitely looks like gang warfare.
"We need to try to view these things dispassionately "
I have done and concluded it definitely looks like gang warfare.
#
2012-02-09 21:18
Jiggsbro :
He [Swinney] should have had a chance to discuss with everyone else,..
But the problem is that the other three would talk over him. The representatives from the Unionist parties are incapable of discussion in a grown-up manner. This tactic means that the message the SNP spokesman, in this case Mr Swinney, wants to get over is lost.
I have seen studio discussion with the format you suggest and the SNP representative was drowned out.
The format the BBC uses on Newsnight Scotland gives Mr Swinney the chance to get over the main points of his budget. AND just as importantly underlines his position as Minister because he rates an individual one-to-one interview.
As often as not when it then comes to the interview with the others they show themselves up in a quite obvious way.
So the format works in the long run to the advantage of whichever SNP minister is being interviewed. They get little enough chance to put their points accross over in an extended interview so why ruin this opportunity by adopting a format that works against them?
He [Swinney] should have had a chance to discuss with everyone else,..
But the problem is that the other three would talk over him. The representatives from the Unionist parties are incapable of discussion in a grown-up manner. This tactic means that the message the SNP spokesman, in this case Mr Swinney, wants to get over is lost.
I have seen studio discussion with the format you suggest and the SNP representative was drowned out.
The format the BBC uses on Newsnight Scotland gives Mr Swinney the chance to get over the main points of his budget. AND just as importantly underlines his position as Minister because he rates an individual one-to-one interview.
As often as not when it then comes to the interview with the others they show themselves up in a quite obvious way.
So the format works in the long run to the advantage of whichever SNP minister is being interviewed. They get little enough chance to put their points accross over in an extended interview so why ruin this opportunity by adopting a format that works against them?
#
2012-02-09 21:33
Whether the format works against them depends on the presenter and how well they can chair the discussion. In the referendum debate, I think Nicola Sturgeon adopted the right tactics: let the opposition squabble like children, remain calm, state your case and rebut the opposition arguments when they're coherent enough to merit a response.
I can't approve of a format where debate excludes one party, even if that party has had a chance to state their case uninterrupted, because they will have no chance to respond to criticisms which may be based on misunderstandin gs (or lies). I'd have more faith in such a format if I felt the journalists chairing it were sufficiently well informed (and impartial) to challenge untruths or misrepresentati ons, but that doesn't seem to be the case with RS and BBC Scotland in general.
I can't approve of a format where debate excludes one party, even if that party has had a chance to state their case uninterrupted, because they will have no chance to respond to criticisms which may be based on misunderstandin gs (or lies). I'd have more faith in such a format if I felt the journalists chairing it were sufficiently well informed (and impartial) to challenge untruths or misrepresentati ons, but that doesn't seem to be the case with RS and BBC Scotland in general.
#
2012-02-09 22:34
Then perhaps there is a case to be made to retain the current system but to include a rep from the SNP when the discussion takes place after the one to one interview.
#
2012-02-09 18:54
Not sure if anyone else noticed this (or has commented on this), but I thought Jackie Burd's description of Scottish Budget day yesterday on Disinforming Scotland was designed to make it look as if this spending was something other than normal, as if to subtley suggest that Scotland was getting loads of new money from our benevolent masters in London.
Maybe I'm reading too much in to it, but she said something along the lines of:
"The Scottish Government is deciding on how to spend £30bn over the next year."
Someone casually hearing this might think "Hey, Scotland's just been given a whole load of money. London is great!".
I can't check the actual wording on iPlayer right now, but it seemed quite an odd way of putting it, as if deliberate efforts were made to not mention that this is the same normal yearly allocation of money and to subtley hint, in a deniable way, of course, that this was somehow new money.
Am I being paranoid? Did anyone else notice this?
Maybe I'm reading too much in to it, but she said something along the lines of:
"The Scottish Government is deciding on how to spend £30bn over the next year."
Someone casually hearing this might think "Hey, Scotland's just been given a whole load of money. London is great!".
I can't check the actual wording on iPlayer right now, but it seemed quite an odd way of putting it, as if deliberate efforts were made to not mention that this is the same normal yearly allocation of money and to subtley hint, in a deniable way, of course, that this was somehow new money.
Am I being paranoid? Did anyone else notice this?
#
2012-02-09 19:31
I really do think you're reading too much into it. One of the problems with RS (and BBC news in general) is that they've dumbed down, so everything has to be explained as though to an 8-year old. They probably just wanted to avoid the word 'budget' so as not to confuse people who don't know what a budget is and people who think a budget is what the Chancellor does.
#
2012-02-09 21:25
Quoting Jiggsbro:
The problem is far more simple than that. It is the people have no way to find out that the extra money is actuallu Barnett Consequentials. Considering a majority of MPs have utterly no idea what that is the people have little chance. If you don't understand how the system is designed to cheat the Scots you don't know they are being cheasted. Would it not have been far more simple just to have made England on a par with everyone else? Then no problems and no room to cheat and hide it.
I really do think you're reading too much into it.
The problem is far more simple than that. It is the people have no way to find out that the extra money is actuallu Barnett Consequentials. Considering a majority of MPs have utterly no idea what that is the people have little chance. If you don't understand how the system is designed to cheat the Scots you don't know they are being cheasted. Would it not have been far more simple just to have made England on a par with everyone else? Then no problems and no room to cheat and hide it.
#
2012-02-09 20:10
@Triangular Ears
"...it seemed quite an odd way of putting it...".
Even stranger than a Daily Record headline, from Jackie (this is yurr Scottish news) burd.
"...it seemed quite an odd way of putting it...".
Even stranger than a Daily Record headline, from Jackie (this is yurr Scottish news) burd.
#
2012-02-09 19:35
Posted a comment to Jim Sheridan on LabourHame last night just before 10pm - still awaiting moderation - what's happening? Anyone else posted and know what's going on?
#
2012-02-09 19:40
Likewise I posted around 7pm yesterday and still under moderation. It's not that unusual for a long delay to publishing at Labourhame.
#
2012-02-09 19:42
I replied to that article. Not accepted. Don't understand why, but it's not the first time. I posted it here on NNS, on the article about BBC Demo. Have a look.
#
2012-02-09 21:28
Quoting taimoshan:
I posted but have not been back. Had a medical appointment and busy today. I'm awa ower the noo.
Posted a comment to Jim Sheridan on LabourHame last night just before 10pm - still awaiting moderation - what's happening? Anyone else posted and know what's going on?
I posted but have not been back. Had a medical appointment and busy today. I'm awa ower the noo.
#
2012-02-09 22:21
Looks like the moderators just said "publish and be damned" as all comments have now appeared.
The delay means there's a fair amount of repetition, but really only a lone voice supporting the BBC ( or more accurately, blaming AS).
The delay means there's a fair amount of repetition, but really only a lone voice supporting the BBC ( or more accurately, blaming AS).
#
2012-02-09 19:41
There is still the process of May's local elections to be run... but Today I believe will be the day that Labour lost grip of its decades of control of Glasgow City Council.
A truely momentus and fascinating day!
A truely momentus and fascinating day!
#
2012-02-09 22:29
Sorry, haven't read all the comments. Just watched the budget debate on Democracy Live (recorded). Man, Mr Swinney was on fire during his closing speech!
The award for the most dismal contribution must go to Rhoda Grant. She's been catching my eye/ear recently, the indoctrinated Liebor drivel she spouts. Typical Glasgow Lab, I thought. Imagine my surprise when I found out that she actually represents the Highlands & Islands region! Born and bred in Stornoway!
The award for the most dismal contribution must go to Rhoda Grant. She's been catching my eye/ear recently, the indoctrinated Liebor drivel she spouts. Typical Glasgow Lab, I thought. Imagine my surprise when I found out that she actually represents the Highlands & Islands region! Born and bred in Stornoway!
#
2012-02-12 20:13
It is out today, finally the English are being told that the Scottish do not get more funding. Rather the rest of the UK do!
It will be hard for all the English to believe it though,as they have been brought up to accept without doubt that we are moaners and spongers all their lives. Today's Times has it on the front page.(12/02/2012)
Truth is, without Scotland, this little place, rUK is bust. All the deceit and lies are slowly coming out and it will sink them come Independence Day!!
It will be hard for all the English to believe it though,as they have been brought up to accept without doubt that we are moaners and spongers all their lives. Today's Times has it on the front page.(12/02/2012)
Truth is, without Scotland, this little place, rUK is bust. All the deceit and lies are slowly coming out and it will sink them come Independence Day!!
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- Scottish Independence: The Dar...
Aplinal 2012-05-17 13:17 I take your poi... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
When they act in concert and have a lead... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
This is bizarre. Loony Labour councillor... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
I never watch FMQs on telly. Far better ... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
It's interesting - but not alarming. My ... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Really? Apart from the 1945-50 governme... - The 'Great Debate' isn't just ...
Lesley says, “Deprivation for example is... - Late, Late appearance for Salm...
Thanks for these three. I viewed the Ale... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
bbc website first minister questions! bb... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
Ha ha, I know that - no worries. Just aw... - Conservatives at war over Came...
They should have gone with Murdo ! - Conservatives at war over Came...
"cannot stand the sight of each other" I... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Was just listening to that in the radio ... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
On another thread I remarked I was stopp... - Conservatives at war over Came...
Probably because they are. - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Nice to see the labour leader wearing a ... - Conservatives at war over Came...
What's this? A junior party member from ... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
exel: They lose the referendum vote? OR,... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
That wasn't meant as a a dig. I was jus... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
' What may I ask will happen if the part...