Some people were very sceptical when I reminded them that Kenny "Devo or Death" Farquharson had discussed having a crush on a goat in a newspaper article back in 2011, but here's the proof -
"The deputy editor of Scotland on Sunday stunned thousands of Twitter users at the weekend by confessing that he once had a crush on a GOAT.
Revealing how his feelings for the animal had crept up on him over a period of months, Kenny Farquharson explained : "In tomorrow's paper, a thought-provoking piece from Brian Wilson about why the SNP are bad."
Admitting that he was devastated when the goat spurned his advances, Kenny added : "And there's another blow for Salmond as an exclusive SoS/ICM poll shows support for independence only increasing by 6%. #buyapaper"
After his heartbreaking experience, Kenny is now determined to tackle goat-romance prejudice in all its forms : "Also don't miss our latest stunning mockup of the saltire as a fascist symbol. All for just 75p from your local newsagents.""
If anyone can explain the difference between what I've just done and what Kenny himself did HERE, I'd be interested to hear it.
* * *
An update from Kenny -
"Last time I tried to explain something simple to you on here, James, I wasted 45 mins of my life"
Just goes to show what I've always said - Saddam Hussein can launch his WMDs quicker than Kenny Farquharson can substantiate his wilder claims about the SNP.
When I say that these people are evil it's not hyperbole. They really are.
ReplyDeleteHow can anybody just lie and lie like that to keep the country they claim to love in slavery?
When I say that was the worst post I've ever read, it's not hyperbole.
DeleteYou were illustrating a point and K Farquarson was doing a carmichael.
ReplyDeleteWell, Salmond didn't say the SNP would vote down a Tory Queen's speech if they were in a position to do so, and if that was the plan you'd think he'd mention it. So when he talks about extracting concessions from a minority government, he's doing so under the assumption that it might be a Tory one. Which could constitute "propping up", if you adopt a very liberal definition of the term.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I suspect you're right and Kenny has just conflated the reporter's inserted commentary with the direct Eck-quotes.
"Well, Salmond didn't say the SNP would vote down a Tory Queen's speech if they were in a position to do so"
DeleteThat's part of the point I was making - he didn't say anything at all about what the SNP would do on a vote of confidence in a Tory government, which is the nub of the issue. He "failed to rule out" propping up a Tory government in much the same way that Kenny Farquharson "failed to rule out" having had a crush on a goat. So by Farquharson-logic, both things must be equally true.
It seems pretty clear to me that Salmond was simply pointing out that anything short of a Tory majority would be a hung parliament, and that a hung parliament would present opportunities for the SNP. He did refer to "minority government", but he did not specify which party would be forming that government, and no, it cannot be taken as read that he must have been referring to the Tories. We only need to look at what actually went on to happen in 2010 - the Tories were 50 seats or so ahead of Labour, and just 19 seats short of an overall majority, and yet the SNP still went all out for a progressive Labour-led government.
It's hardly Salmond's fault if Alan Cochrane, Simon "Says Separation" Johnson and Kenny Farquharson put 2 and 2 together and made 22.
In other news, looking at the Sunday Herald's Twitter feed, it seems that the Greens will be targeting at least one Holyrood constituency.
ReplyDeleteKenny Farquharson should probably stay well away from goats. He sounds pretty despicable.
ReplyDeleteJames, be nice to him. It is not that often that he sees 40 of his kindred spirits bite the dust. Election night must have been a torture for him. :)
ReplyDeleteRe: Farquarson's crush on a goat,
ReplyDeleteWasn't from looking in the mirror?
K Farquarson should be reported to the RSPCA.
ReplyDeleteSSPCA.
DeleteYou're a filthy animal welfare separatist, Keaton.
DeleteJames,
ReplyDeletePatrick Harview has announced he is going to stand as a constituency MSP for Glasgow Kelvin. Any chance of some analysis of what could happen there?
I would imagine he'll be in a strong third place. Looking at the 2011 result, you'd think that a split pro-independence vote would probably cost the SNP the seat, but of course they're much, much stronger in Glasgow now than they were four years ago. It just depends on how much slippage there is over the next twelve months.
DeleteCosting it to Labour I'm guessing?
DeleteUnder normal circumstances, good luck to him. That's how a small party builds support under this system. Gets people elected on the list, they build a good profile, and they become strong enough to challenge for a constituency.
ReplyDeleteThere is of course the possibility that he might split the pro-independence vote and allow Labour to come through the middle and just pip the SNP. Under d'Hondt, working normally, that shouldn't matter too much. If the SNP lost a constituency like that, but its basic support was high enough, it would be compensated by a list seat.
BUT NOT IF SNP SUPPORTERS HAVE FALLEN FOR PATRICK HARVIE'S CON-TRICK AND DECIDED TO "GIFT" THEIR LIST VOTES TO THE GREENS.
Perfect example of why this is a stunningly bad idea.
I'm concerned this is going to get a little dirty between the Greens and the SNP.
DeleteBut I suppose we should really be looking now to beef up our green offering, to stop votes drifting off. On the whole the SNP have done pretty darn well in that area. The other thing we'll need to be focusing on is taking the rest of the Labour votes.
DeleteI think there is a degree of acrimony kicking in. Greens are begging - nay demanding - that SNP supporters donate their list votes to the Greens. Too much of that, and the SNP will have no chance of any list seats, which it may well need if it is to retain its overall majority.
DeleteWe're being told that it's only the decent thing to do, because Green voters voted SNP in 2015, and will vote SNP in the constituency ballot in 2016. Look guys, if your party has no realistic chance in a FPTP seat, then a tactical vote for your preferred party with a chance is simply common sense, and shouldn't come with strings attached.
More importantly, the "bargain" (which I'm unaware of any SNP voters being asked to agree to) seems very one-sided. First the Green party stood in David Mundell's seat and got more votes than the margin by which Mundell defeated Emma Harper, the SNP candidate. Now we hear that Harvie is going to stand in a Glasgow constituency, even though that may split the vote and let Labour retake the seat.
That's fine, of course the Greens are entitled to stand where they like. But the candidate in DC&T had no chance, and given that they stood, they have to accept that they've annoyed the hell out of a lot of their SNP (former) friends. Standing in Kelvin may make perfect sense, but to do that (possibly costing the SNP a constituency seat) while at the same time demanding that the SNP donate its list seats to your party, leaves a nasty taste.
I think everyone would respect the Green party a lot more if it would campaign honestly for votes based on the policies it's offering, rather than coming cap in hand and asking voters to subvert the d'Hondt system so as to give the party more seats than it ought to be entitled to based on its actual level of electoral support.
Anon @4,12
ReplyDeleteWho?
Anon @4,12
ReplyDeleteWho?
Anon @4,12
ReplyDeleteWho?
Anon @4,12
ReplyDeleteWho?
Alternatively, if Labour look way of the pace, many of them could adopt Patrick Harvie as the anti-SNP candidate. Although that may not be particularly likely.
ReplyDeleteIt needs to be accepted that there is a section of the population that will never vote SNP, but are not as repulsed by the Greens, or indeed were not repulsed by the SSP pre-scandal. If parties broadly in favour of independence attract more voters from the pro-unionist side, there is a strong argument for this being beneficial to persuading people of independence.
It depends on individual outlook. Is the Parti Quebecois structure more amenable to the independence cause, or is the Catalan multi-strength approach better. Personally, I think the latter would allow more platforms to convince more of the population.
That would be an excellent development. Ideally, people who currently vote or are inclined to vote for unionist parties need to be persuaded to consider voting for an independence party. The broader appeal of three independence parties should faciliatate that. That's the way the Greens and the SSP need to go. I've seen an interesting suggestion that the Greens should be going after the more LibDem and even Tory vote in the Yummy Mummy demographic.
DeleteWhat is not playing well, and is ultimately a sterile exercise, is the attempt to woo existing pro-independence voters from the SNP, particularly when it's done by proposing what amounts to a distasteful manipulation of the electoral system rather than a genuine appeal on policy. It's particularly distasteful when you look at the detail and see that first, the Green party isn't holding to its side of the bargain (in that it's standing in critical FPTP seats to split the SNP vote) and that in fact the proposal being put forward is by no means a win/win scenario but has the potential to damage the SNP quite seriously if enough voters were to go along with it.
I'd struggle terribly to be interested in this witless Farquarson creature, so don't understand your anger. Is he an old boyfriend or something?
ReplyDeleteYes, there's that as well. He used to get me to dress up as the bloody goat.
DeleteAmazing! HE says Salmond wants to prop up the Tories, The Telegraph says he'll prop up the Tories but Salmond himself is the only one not on board! Nothing he says would make anyone think he WOULD prop them up. Well, unless they're mischief-making or just too dense to read the article...
ReplyDelete