tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post6202514842118224469..comments2024-03-28T19:57:56.154+00:00Comments on SCOT goes POP!: A heartfelt plea to the imaginary Scotsmen in Dan Hodges' head - please stop doing beastly things to Dan HodgesJames Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-46553960341927968572014-12-19T17:52:41.901+00:002014-12-19T17:52:41.901+00:00In Scotland, reading it in a newspaper increases t...In Scotland, reading it in a newspaper increases the odds of it not being true. If it is in the Scotsman or the Record or the Mail, those odds approach certainty. If read on the BBC, absolute certainty.Brian Nicholsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-49984026551554234752014-12-19T08:08:08.528+00:002014-12-19T08:08:08.528+00:00Such hints (SNP might form a proper coalition with...Such hints (SNP might form a proper coalition with Labour) must be very, very worrying for McMurphy. I mean if you can vote SNP knowing that would deliver a Labour UK government...<br /><br />Explain's Cameron's 'Vote SNP - Get Labour' stuff anyway. <br /><br />Of course once the result is in, so long as hints were just that in the papers, it renders them meaningless. Job done.Scottish_Skiernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-32521130288347136062014-12-19T01:30:08.616+00:002014-12-19T01:30:08.616+00:00"In the spirit of Christmas, I'll give yo...<i>"In the spirit of Christmas, I'll give you an early head's up. The Independent is running a story tomorrow about Salmond hinting that the SNP would be prepared to vote on matters affecting only the English in support of a Labour minority administration. I am sure you will find a way to support what would be an astonishing volte face."</i><br /><br />I can only speak for myself, but I welcome it wholeheartedly - it's exactly what I called for a couple of weeks ago. You also haven't been paying attention, old chap (again), because it's not the first time Salmond has dropped that hint.James Kellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-55891707069943266922014-12-19T01:03:46.609+00:002014-12-19T01:03:46.609+00:00"By all means show me evidence that a majorit...<i>"By all means show me evidence that a majority of Scots are as paranoid as you"</i><br /><br />If you mean show you evidence that the public do not think the Vow has been delivered, I have already given you it. I can take a horse to water but I cannot make you drink. You are so far adrift from reality now that it's genuinely difficult to know what to say to you.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I'll try. My strong advice to you is to stop banging your head against a brick wall. You did your level best in the early days after the referendum to weave a narrative of "it's over, it was fair, time to move on". At that stage it even looked possible that narrative might have taken root. But it did not. It failed. People are not ready to move on, and they won't be until the promised Home Rule is delivered. It's not even particularly your fault (or the fault of others like you) that the narrative failed - it turns out that it was always doomed to fail, because people actually heard what Gordon Brown said, took it seriously and remembered it. It has held fast in their memory, and I'm afraid there is no going back. The only remaining question is whether this process has Devo Max or independence as its final destination, and no, there won't be any convenient pause of a few decades along the way while people "move on" without the goods in their hands, as you'd like them to.<br /><br />It was a decent enough effort, Flockers, but I don't really feel any sympathy because it deserved to fail. You're on the wrong side of history.James Kellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-91593373278717453482014-12-19T00:49:49.621+00:002014-12-19T00:49:49.621+00:00Your comical bluster is as free of any proof as al...Your comical bluster is as free of any proof as always Flockers old bean so I'll let that inform readers of James blog as to who it is who is being dishonest.<br /><br /><i>"At the time Salmond dismissed the vow as a "last minute offer of nothing". Now he believes that devolution of all tax and spend powers was offered. Some "nothing"."</i><br /><br />You are clearly descending ever further into some of the most comically banal and oversimplistic misinterpretations of politics I have ever seen. Even for Stormfront Lite /PB this would be idiotic and trite. Again, you have to have everything spelled out to you like a child. <br /><br />We in the Yes campaign always thought THE VOW was last minute panic bullshit from desperate unionists. So how stupid do you have to be not to understand that what we think about the vow is NOT THE SAME as the massive claims the UNIONIST PARTIES AND OVERWHELMINGLY UNIONIST MEDIA made about the vow. Of course they are bloody different you bumptious twit. Why on earth wouldn't we hold up the vow to what the unionists were claiming it was since we think it's bullshit and nowhere near enough for scots who want more meaningful powers.<br /><br />Jesus christ Flockers, seriously, how thick are you? This is getting painful to watch with you scrabbling about desperately huffing and puffing cluelessly.<br /><br />The point you hilariously keep wanting to dodge is that it will be the scottish public who eventually decides who was lying and who was correct in their view of the VOW. Not me, not Salmond and certainly not the incompetent fop Cameron or the AWOL Brown who has very tellingly scurried off. The VOW has not been delivered and just how substantial it is if it ever does get delivered and whether it is anywhere near enough will be entirely up to the scottish public. It's certainly not looking good so far for the DevoULTRA and "near federalists". Hence the amusing despair from unionists who belatedly realise it will be round their neck from now on just as much as the "Better Together" slogan.<br /><br />I'll give you an even earlier heads up Flockers old fruit. A long, <i>long</i> time ago before something called the McKay commission even reported I flagged it up as an obvious flashpoint and the best chance the fop and Clegg had to deliver their manifesto commitments for tackling the WLQ. Guess what? They ducked it. So all the amusing panic and bluster from tories now over EV4EL (primarily because the fop Cameron is terrified of his own backbenchers and the kippers, as usual) is worth absolutely nothing. The tories had the chance to set out a clear path and set of principles for the WLQ, in the event of the first independence referendum not being won, but you blew it. So I'm afraid the 'outraged' shrieking of tories now will be hilariously ironic <i>if</i> (and it's a big IF as the Independent has form on running mere speculation as fact) the SNP do as the other westminster parties do on those kind of votes. You don't like it then legislate against it chum because you've had an entire parliament to do something about it and done sweet FA.<br /><br />In what universe do you imagine that petulant squealing from tory MPs and their idiot cheerleaders will have the slightest bearing on SNP policy if it is to the benefit of scotland and the scottish public? Yeah, we're REALLY scared of upsetting a bunch of out of touch westminster tory twits. <br /><br /><b>ROFL</b>Mick Porknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-28469423284824891122014-12-19T00:19:52.312+00:002014-12-19T00:19:52.312+00:00Just because it is in a newspaper does not make it...Just because it is in a newspaper does not make it true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-59745593340764432332014-12-18T23:44:12.684+00:002014-12-18T23:44:12.684+00:00Not much point engaging with your bizarre combinat...Not much point engaging with your bizarre combination of evasions, irrelevancies and outright falsehoods in those last three posts, so I will confine myself to noting that at least, as ever, your views are consistent with Alex Salmond's. He too has had cause to reconsider the vow in hindsight.<br /><br />At the time Salmond dismissed the vow as a "last minute offer of nothing". Now he believes that devolution of all tax and spend powers was offered. Some "nothing".<br /><br />In the spirit of Christmas, I'll give you an early head's up. The Independent is running a story tomorrow about Salmond hinting that the SNP would be prepared to vote on matters affecting only the English in support of a Labour minority administration. I am sure you will find a way to support what would be an astonishing volte face.Flockersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-37117133557646106052014-12-18T22:32:50.401+00:002014-12-18T22:32:50.401+00:00(although I similarly think it is nonsense to pret...(although I similarly think it is nonsense to pretend that Scots thought they were being offered everything bar defence and foreign policy).<br /><br />There were those however on the unionist side who clearly thought they were offering it. It is funny that the writer should speak (jokingly no doubt in intention) of Michael Forsyth being seen as a separatist, since Forsyth was on the BBC referendum results programme and when asked what should happen next after the result was announced replied that nothing less than full "devo-max" would fulfil the promises made. When asked if that meant he was in favour of a full federal arrangement for Scotland within the UK he said he was. A bit of a turnaround for Lord Forsyth given his previous opposition even to devolution.<br /><br />It is easy now to revisit the events n the light of the result and say the unionists didn't mean to offer devo-max, and many on the pro-independence side were warning this was not what was being offered at the time and trying to counter the perception that it was, even as the media were reporting that devo-max and devo supermax were on the table and the no side were happily allowing that perception to take hold. The fact of it is that, at the time, if that had been what it took to get the no vote they would have done it.Natalie Grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15581893888518541743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-68120911187340130472014-12-18T22:18:25.514+00:002014-12-18T22:18:25.514+00:00"Comical inconsistency. FWIW I believe the vo...<i>"Comical inconsistency. FWIW I believe the vow did have an impact, but we'll never know how much."</i><br /><br />Completely oblivious which just makes the irony all the more hilarious.<br /><br /><br /><i>"the Westminster parties had to deliver it. They are and I am pleased about that."</i><br /><br />I hate to break it to you old chap but absolutely nothing has changed. They may or may not get their act together and cobble something that will pass cowardly Cameron's irate backbenchers and the Lords. For right now it's still business as usual and THE VOW is just another huge promise and pledge from westminster political leaders to deliver when they get elected. Something their hilariously low popularity figures prove might not be too wise an idea.<br /><br /><i>"trying to justify the vow (despite, er, repeatedly saying it was a massive error)."</i><br /><br />Every time you post on James blog you trot out the usual thin and intellectually bankrupt series of excuses for THE VOW. So instead of whining about how we all have it wrong, perhaps you should, er, just admit that the reason it was a massive error is because of the biased unionist media collusion and the way the westminster bubble twits used it and presented it. You know, like we always do. :-)<br /><br />By all means Flockers old fruit, make another twat of yourself like the last time you scurried off looking for quotes and came back looking desperate and dishonest. <br /><br />If you think you are advancing anything other than the stereotype of the comically out of touch tory twit on here I fear you will end up as disappointed as ever. Mick Porknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-31896035938567504732014-12-18T22:17:25.629+00:002014-12-18T22:17:25.629+00:00"Quite why you think I believe Blair will be ...<i>"Quite why you think I believe Blair will be vindicated by history over Iraq, when I hold a diametrically opposite view, I cannot fathom."</i><br /><br />I'm now entirely prepared to believe that you simply aren't bright enough to understand basic political points. So I'll try to help you yet again.<br /><br /><i>"I expect will be seen as very perceptive when Clegg is reappraised in the fullness of time."</i><br /><br /><i>THE</i> most famous modern example of an unpopular politician using the <i>"reappraised in the fullness of time"</i> excuse for a massively unpopular course of action is Blair and Iraq. Is that too complicated for you to grasp or would you like a link to explain Iraq and Blair's many, <i>many</i> statements to that effect on it? *chortle*<br /><br />I admit I was wrong to expect you to have the intelligence to understand that was the reason why I used that as shorthand to explain Hodges trite contrarian lunacy about Clegg, but it get's very tiring having to explain everything to someone who doesn't seem to have a clue about politics and needs to be treated like a child. Speaking of which..<br /><br /><i>"Clegg's dismal ratings makes you think he will forever be viewed as a calamity "</i><br /><br />Wrong again chum. Long before Clegg hit his hilarious lows I knew he was courting certain disaster and the most amusing thing is that at least one of the most prominent lib dems knew it too. That would be Kennedy who won more seats than Clegg did and warned him point blank what cosying up to the tories would mean. So it has proved and only a complete fool doesn't realise lib dems are in the trouble they are precisely because of that and Clegg's complete lack of principles. Of course tory twits want to pretend that Clegg is hard done by because he's kept them in power (since, as we all know, the incompetent fop coudn't win a majority) but the truth is the tory/lid dem love in has been pure electoral poison for them and Clegg was warned it would be because it was hardly rocket science to see that it was.<br /><br /><i>"The excitement in the yes campaign offices made you think yes would win"</i><br /><br />Bullshit. I was rarely in those offices for very long as the campaign was on the ground and it was there where I formed my opinion of how things were proceeding which was that it was far closer than the westminster bubble twits like Hodges ever thought it would be. So it proved.<br /><br /><i>"Finally, you end with one of your trademark rants about the biased media"</i><br /><br />Only an out of touch tory twit could dismiss the facts as a 'rant'. Fact is all the newspapers bar the Sunday Herald were pro-unionist. That's <b>37</b> national or daily newspapers. Fact is even BBC insiders like former Newsnight correspondent Paul Mason called it correctly.<br /><br /><b>"Not since Iraq have I seen BBC News working at propaganda strength like this."</b><br /><br />Not to mention the academic study which proved that bias across the broadcasters news output.<br /><br />http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/06/30/i-was-bullied-bbc-over-academic-report-indyref-bias-scottish-media-blackout-must<br /><br />The public does hold the media in contempt and trusts them less and less. Just like they hold the out of touch westminster parties in contempt. Doesn't mean absolutely nobody will vote for them though any more than it means that the blanket media bias didn't have have an effect on voters. Though I admit that is yet another obvious fact that seems far too complex for your overly simplistic and trite 'analysis'.Mick Porknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-12128037831333059682014-12-18T22:14:43.859+00:002014-12-18T22:14:43.859+00:00Not as much as I love the comedy gold you obliviou...Not as much as I love the comedy gold you obliviously churn out, Flockers old bean.<br /><br /><i>"Despite the fact Hodges called the election early, decisively and correctly,"</i><br /><br />How desperate do you have to be to continually deliberately misconstrue what I said? I made certain I was crystal clear, though I must admit I didn't actually think you were SO pathetic that you would try to pretend the point wasn't about what Hodges actually said and not the 50/50 yes no result. I'll repost it since it appears you might actually be too dim to understand what Hodges was getting at. (which is quite an accomplishment) <br /><br /> <i><b>"it’s fairly obvious</b> to anyone not emotionally invested in that campaign that the Scottish people are going to reject independence in precisely three months' time" - "Fact of the matter is it was very far from obvious and the staggering panic that set in as the first Indyref got down to the wire proves that point irrefutably"</i><br /><br />Has it finally sunk in yet old chap? I expect not, but keep trying. Your inept fumbling and excuses are as delightful as always. ;-)<br /><br /><i>"Hodges was one of the first Labour voices to declare Ed to be a dud, by advancing evidence that Hodges was indeed one of the first Labour voices to declare Ed a dud."</i><br /><br />Again, a trite and vapid complete misrepresentation of what I said. Your usual efforts in other words.<br /><br />I told you precisely who the first voices against little Ed were and it was the Blairite MPs in his own party led by brother David. That Hodges did as he was told and briefed against little Ed <i>FOR THEM</i> does not make that any less true or in any way disprove the central point that Hodges is just a right-wing mouthpiece for the Blairites and always was. Your complete avoidance of the central theme of Hodges rants against little Ed speaks volumes as it is undeniable that Hodges attacks little Ed from the right when the public simply do not view him as the 'Red menace' the Blairites, Hodges and dimwitted tories do.<br /><br /><br /><i>"no big ideas, no conviction, no clue", a line that could almost have come from Hodges' pen."</i><br /><br />That was never Hodges central critique because it was never the Blairites or the tories critique. He main beef with little Ed has always been that he wasn't brother David and that he wasn't far enough to the right and thus wasn't sufficiently 'respectful' of the ultra-Blairites who wanted to mirror then outdo the tories on almost every single policy area. From cuts to privatisation to immigration and welfare Hodges has always been just another right-wing voice shouting for more and more. Hodges jumped on the bandwagon when it became blatantly obvious that the electorate certainly didn't think little Ed was some Stalinist bogeyman but a convictionless lightweight but the fact of the matter is Hodges always, <i>but always</i>, attacked little Ed from the Blairite and tory right-wing. (which is why so many tories love his inane dribbling) I note with vast amusement that's twice now that you've tried to wriggle out of the central point by retreating into pitiful semantic gymnastics as it is the usual response from you.Mick Porknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-77512603213724982522014-12-18T20:44:55.167+00:002014-12-18T20:44:55.167+00:00Oh Mick, I do love you.
Despite the fact Hodges c...Oh Mick, I do love you.<br /><br />Despite the fact Hodges called the election early, decisively and correctly, and you were wrong, with your usual chutzpah you declare him to be the dolt.<br /><br />Then you deny that Hodges was one of the first Labour voices to declare Ed to be a dud, by advancing evidence that Hodges was indeed one of the first Labour voices to declare Ed a dud.<br /><br />And then you top that, apropos of nothing, by going on an extended rant about Ed's deficiencies that includes the line "no big ideas, no conviction, no clue", a line that could almost have come from Hodges' pen. <br /><br />Your second post then descends into the downright bizarre. Quite why you think I believe Blair will be vindicated by history over Iraq, when I hold a diametrically opposite view, I cannot fathom. Quite what the relevance of Blair's legacy is to whether Nick Clegg's performance will be reappraised is beyond everyone, I suspect. All you've done is demonstrated the limitations of your intellect. You cannot see beyond the immediate. The excitement in the yes campaign offices made you think yes would win; Clegg's dismal ratings makes you think he will forever be viewed as a calamity and will be denied the historical reappraisal that is afforded to every leading politician (some to their benefit, some to their detriment, some to no real effect).<br /><br />Finally, you end with one of your trademark rants about the biased media, completely forgetting that you reassured us (by which I mean you screamed that we were idiots for not understanding) that the media were held in contempt by the Scots and noone trusted them and the referendum was all about trust (repeat ad nauseum until referendum defeat). Comical inconsistency. FWIW I believe the vow did have an impact, but we'll never know how much. I've never thought that particularly matters, because I have always believed - and said on here -whether the vow swung the election or effected no votes at all, the Westminster parties had to deliver it. They are and I am pleased about that. Meanwhile, perhaps you could clarify your position. During the last week of the election you seemed pretty clear that the vow had no impact, the yes campaign was smashing the no campaign on the ground, gaining converts every day and the vow was the subject of mockery and contempt, believed by no-one. Has your view changed? If so, perhaps it might call into question the quality of your original analysis.<br /><br />Of course, I'm just living in the Westminster bubble and apparently trying to justify the vow (despite, er, repeatedly saying it was a massive error).<br />Flockersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-45281898104477449312014-12-18T20:10:05.901+00:002014-12-18T20:10:05.901+00:00" I expect will be seen as very perceptive wh...<i>" I expect will be seen as very perceptive when Clegg is reappraised in the fullness of time. "</i><br /><br /><b>Comedy Gold!</b> :-D <br /><br />Like history would prove Blair right about Iraq? Yeah, not looking too clever is it? It is however the usual idiot clickbait from Hodges though. Trite contrarianism for the sake of pageviews. <br /><br /><br />What is irrefutable is that Clegg is utterly toxic and has been for years. Those who called that very early on are the ones who were right and they did so on the basis of the MANY huge strategic errors and frankly jawdroppingly stupid things Clegg has done and made his party do as he scrabbled desperately to stay in power while keeping Cameron and the tories happy. <br /><br />Only a fool like Hodges (and his imbecile fanboys) doesn't understand that the fib dems are thought of by most voters as unprincipled yellow tories because of Clegg's actions. The "new world" Hodges witters on about is one where the westmisnter parties have never been held in more contempt and calamity Clegg is one of the big reasons why.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>"Even Mick Pork observed at the time that it was nothing like Devo Max (as he understood it)."</i><br /><br />I understand it far more acutely than comically out of touch tory twits ever will, Flockers old bean. The basic point you don't have brainpower to grasp is that I am not the media, the TV networks or almost every single newspaper in the land who were overwhelmingly biased for the unionists and blasting THE VOW propaganda 24/7 and wall to wall. Pretending that didn't have an effect and that it was not laughably skewed towards giving the vague promises of more powers far more substance and than they contained is admittedly amusing. However, it is also clearly the westminster bubble view of someone who wasn't anywhere near the actual campaign and is still looking to justify that stupendously desperate panic move which is going to have BIG repercussions for years and years to come.Mick Porknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-61017084567480495912014-12-18T19:52:27.331+00:002014-12-18T19:52:27.331+00:00It's vastly amusing that Flockers obliviously ...It's vastly amusing that Flockers obliviously proves my point 100% about Hodges but sadly doesn't have the requisite intelligence to realise it. <i>"it’s fairly obvious to anyone not emotionally invested in that campaign that the Scottish people are going to reject independence in precisely three months' time"</i> - is quite clearly not only wrong but the kind of tedious clickbait that out of touch and not very bright tories love from Hodges. Fact of the matter is it was very far from obvious and the staggering panic that set in as the first Indyref got down to the wire proves that point irrefutably. The utterly desperate wheeling out of Brown and THE VOW with the wall to wall unionist media propaganda blasted 24/7 to accompany it comprehensively debunks Hodges inane wittering.<br /><br />You prove it again (thanks!) by this - <i>"and he was one of the first voices from Labour to acknowledge that Ed Miliband is a dud "</i> No, he wasn't. That was always the line from the Blairites supporting brother David going into the leadership election. Hodges did what he was told (they used him to brief against little Ed then and indeed now) then went above and beyond it with his calling of the result for brother David before it was announced. That's the most pertinent fact about Hodges and little Ed. His criticisms of little Ed and Labour are all based on him getting that call so publicly wrong, nothing more to it than that. His actual critique is simply whatever the nearest Blairite says to him in a phone call which is why it's such lightweight drivel. Everyone knows (well everyone but idiot PB Tories and Hodges) that little Ed isn't a pitiful figure of fun because he's far too left-wing. As if!! All that foaming at the mouth about "Red Ed" was Blairite and tory drivel which absolutely missed the point. Little Ed has thoroughly pissed off the Labour base because it's so bloody obvious he has no strong left of centre beliefs and is just another lighweight Blair wannabee with no conviction. (Just like Cameron and just like Clegg admittedly). Little Ed is particularly bad at it since the whole Blair act was 99% Public Relations and soundbites which little Ed is hilariously terrible at. Again, so are the incompetent fop and calamity Clegg but <i>"wethpect"</i> shows you how little Ed always takes it to another level when he listens to his idiot advisers and tries to do the whole 'acting natural' comedy turn.<br /><br />The truth is little Ed is doing so badly because he always was and always will be a small political figure of little consequence. No big iideas, no convictions, no clue. There just isn't very much to him <i>at all</i>. Hence "little" Ed. He flips and flops from triangulating desperately on the tories to suddenly realising his own supporters are so desperate many of them will vote for a bunch of poundshop racists in the kippers. This is the idiot who took A YEAR to finally decide the bedroom tax might not actually be a great idea. <br /><br /><b>LOL</b> <br /><br />That says it all. As does the adoration of Hodges by the most amusingly out touch tories and westminster bubble twits..Mick Porknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-33602975097814233752014-12-18T19:17:07.216+00:002014-12-18T19:17:07.216+00:00The Saudis want to wipe out the fracking companies...The Saudis want to wipe out the fracking companies.Brian Powellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-57012375488509153762014-12-18T19:02:33.769+00:002014-12-18T19:02:33.769+00:00You really are a very stupid man! You need to stop...You really are a very stupid man! You need to stop posting such idiotic vapid tosh or else you will give yourself another brainfart!<br /><br />How dumb do you have to be to prove my point for a second time and instead shriek about RBS? Everyone else has spotted your desperate idiocy since the difference between a note and the actual <b>regulation</b> of the banks and the handing to Goodwin of a Knighthood by Darling and chums is so blatant and stark? Is that seriously the best you've got? LOL <br /><br />Why would I be angry when the oblivious comedy is this good from fuckwit unionist trolls? :-)<br /><br />You still cheering on the carnage in Iraq like a good little mindless poodle? Mick Porknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-22690077248927093242014-12-18T18:31:00.777+00:002014-12-18T18:31:00.777+00:00Ah yes, the famous Yougov poll which asked people ...Ah yes, the famous Yougov poll which asked people whether the referendum was unfair....(or not)<br /><br />Given that 45% of Scots voted for independence, its no surprise that a majority would like more powers than are offered by the Smith Commission process. That doesn't say anything about the fairness of the process or whether people think they have been cheated. By all means show me evidence that a majority of Scots are as paranoid as you, or that any international organisation has declared the referendum unfair.<br /><br /><br />Flockersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-69458364305895851682014-12-18T18:25:19.115+00:002014-12-18T18:25:19.115+00:00http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/i...http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/iain-macwhirter-plummeting-oil-price-stirs-troubled-waters.114828069Calumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18298701198248993553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-61594286746316877522014-12-18T18:17:45.403+00:002014-12-18T18:17:45.403+00:00"Ask yourself, who really believes your nonse...<i>"Ask yourself, who really believes your nonsense about the Scottish people being cheated, either in the referendum or by the Smith Commission process"</i><br /><br />Oh dear - you really are out of touch, aren't you? Answer : more than 50% of the adult population of Scotland. Check last week's full-scale YouGov opinion poll.<br /><br /><i>"The yes campaign celebrated it right up until the last moment."</i><br /><br />Do you mean the official Yes Scotland campaign? I'm presuming you don't mean the hundreds of Yes campaigners who protested about bias outside the BBC headquarters in Glasgow?<br /><br /><i>"One of the interesting themes of our conversations is that you seem to hold a somewhat lower opinion of the Scottish people than I do."</i><br /><br />Quite the opposite. Your definition of maturity is "acceptance of the cynicism of the Westminster game". I despise that worldview, and I'm thrilled that opinion poll after opinion poll confirms that the people of Scotland are treating it with the contempt it deserves.<br /><br />We'll have those promises delivered IN FULL, please.James Kellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-51370808781651354822014-12-18T18:14:26.671+00:002014-12-18T18:14:26.671+00:00It appears Murphy is having an impact on Scottish ...It appears Murphy is having an impact on Scottish voting intentions.<br /><br />https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3495/Vote-shares-for-main-parties-unchanged-but-Green-vote-hits-record-high.aspx<br /><br />Ipsos Mori for Dec 13-15th..Scottish subsample. Labour at low teens, Libs and Tories even lower... SNP at 50% area... projecting wipeout of Labour seats in Scotland<br /><br />This is another point that Dan Hodges will have trouble understanding.Brian Nicholsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-51205958511539330222014-12-18T18:05:25.975+00:002014-12-18T18:05:25.975+00:00One of the interesting themes of our conversations...One of the interesting themes of our conversations is that you seem to hold a somewhat lower opinion of the Scottish people than I do. In your worldview, they are a cowed and naive bunch, terrified by political arguments, gulled by George Galloway, prone to leap to assumptions without any substantive basis, tricked by the Queen into *shock* thinking carefully about their decision, unable to discern fact from opinion in media reporting and maddened by the failure to deliver extensive powers of a process that the SNP itself has supported and agreed to.<br /><br />Ask yourself, who really believes your nonsense about the Scottish people being cheated, either in the referendum or by the Smith Commission process. Sure, your acolytes on here will buy it, and like you draw more fuel for their anger. But who else? You don't hear Sturgeon or Salmond coming out with this nonsense. The Scottish people haven't taken to the streets. Some SNP councillors burned the Smith Commission report, were widely mocked and then suspended from their party. No international body has criticised the referendum. The yes campaign celebrated it right up until the last moment.<br /><br />Fortunately for all of us the Scottish people are altogether more mature, measured and sensible than you credit them. You do them a disservice by trying to incite a deep sense of grievance, particularly when others, including your own party leadership, are more focussed on being constructive.<br />Flockersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-11703743688167747602014-12-18T17:22:07.530+00:002014-12-18T17:22:07.530+00:00You're dreaming, Flockers. If you want people...You're dreaming, Flockers. If you want people to "move on", the promises will have to be delivered. In full. It's a great pity (for your side of the argument, I mean) that the Scottish electorate aren't as "worldly" as you - they didn't get the memo explaining that only certain promises made during the campaign were meaningful, and that others were just "loose statements" that shouldn't be taken remotely seriously. As it is, I'm afraid people are expecting to get the whole lot. Annoying for you, but there it is.<br /><br /><i>"you yourself have contradicted yourself on here in your own interpretation of devomax, often claiming it means everything bar defence and foreign policy and then occasionally accepting that some currency-related matters would also be excluded"</i><br /><br />Oh, come off it. I'm happy to confirm that I have never, ever, at any point, thought that Devo Max would involve the use of a different currency. <br /><br /><i>"As for Hodges' ability to correctly call the coin-toss - I can think of a fair few on here who proved unable to do that and quite hysterically mocked the supposed ignorance of those who took a different view."</i><br /><br />Hmmm. I don't think you're quite getting this coin toss analogy, are you? I'll have a think and see if I can explain the concept of pot luck to you even more simply.<br /><br /><i>"the petulant nonsense about the Scottish people having been cheated by an unfair referendum"</i><br /><br />You should take up a job as the head of Vladimir Putin's Election Fairness PR Department. You're tailor-made for it. To hell with rebutting the overwhelming proof of unfairness - just stating over and over again that "it was fair!", "it was a great election!", "anyone who says otherwise is a petulant child!" will suffice. James Kellynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-86533779445737892562014-12-18T16:58:02.647+00:002014-12-18T16:58:02.647+00:00There's little point in us having the same deb...There's little point in us having the same debate again, but you know that the "vow" was a promise of extensive new powers. That is what the leaders of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour signed up to on the front page of the Record. The Smith Commission report, which the SNP has agreed to, states that "the recommendations set out in the agreement will result in the biggest transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament since its establishment...the [Scottish] Parliament will also assume a range of new, important, individual powers in policy areas such as taxation, welfare, employability, transport, energy efficiency, fuel poverty and onshore oil and gas extraction. All these powers have been agreed between all the political parties". The promise of delivering extensive new powers is in the process of being delivered.<br /><br />A few loose statements using terms of uncertain meaning (you yourself have contradicted yourself on here in your own interpretation of devomax, often claiming it means everything bar defence and foreign policy and then occasionally accepting that some currency-related matters would also be excluded) to explain the concept don't change the fact that what the leaders offered was extensive new powers, and that's what is being granted. As you will recall, Salmond and Sturgeon were dismissive of the vow at the time, saying that it went nowhere near far enough. Even Mick Pork observed at the time that it was nothing like Devo Max (as he understood it).<br /><br />I have said before, and will say again, that the vagueness of the vow was an epic mistake and that the lack of detail and thought about the broader implications will haunt the main UK political parties. Similarly failing to mention the need to address the West Lothian question, though it should have been obvious, was a bad mistake. So the UK parties should expect some stick.<br /><br />But when these powers are delivered I hope - and believe - that the majority of people will move on. That is not to say there will not be further debates about what other powers could be devolved over time. The British constitution is seldom static. But that those debates will be marked by a more constuctive tone than you show on here, with less of the petulant nonsense about the Scottish people having been cheated by an unfair referendum and deceived by a promise of powers that have not been delivered. On each question the opposite is the case.<br /><br />As for Hodges' ability to correctly call the coin-toss - I can think of a fair few on here who proved unable to do that and quite hysterically mocked the supposed ignorance of those who took a different view.Flockersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-35863544594605912782014-12-18T16:52:01.171+00:002014-12-18T16:52:01.171+00:00I think major oil-producing countries are delibera...I think major oil-producing countries are deliberately keeping oil prices down in order to punish Putin. A country like Norway, which had the foresight to put away oil revenues to cover a rainy day such as this, is in an enviable position. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-2814052270530994602014-12-18T16:37:30.674+00:002014-12-18T16:37:30.674+00:00Might have been a once in a [insert timespan here]...Might have been a once in a [insert timespan here] if it was conducted fairly.<br /><br />But we're not allowed to say that lest we seem chippy.<br /><br />pa_broon74https://www.blogger.com/profile/01915208411019621104noreply@blogger.com