Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 7
Discussion
OpulentBob said:
Edinburger said:
Who's Jill Stephenson? Not the disgraced academic who suggested it was only people of lower intelligence who were in favour of independence?
So then, she was plainly correct.Obviously a lot of people of lower intelligence were in favour given the numbers of people, but you can't generalise like that. It was not a decision related to intellect.
Einion Yrth said:
Edinburger said:
It was not a decision related to intellect.
Probably should have been, as what else is there? Blind emotion? Scarcely sufficient for a decision of that magnitude.Can't beat progress, eh?
Edinburger said:
Einion Yrth said:
Edinburger said:
It was not a decision related to intellect.
Probably should have been, as what else is there? Blind emotion? Scarcely sufficient for a decision of that magnitude.Can't beat progress, eh?
Einion Yrth said:
Edinburger said:
Einion Yrth said:
Edinburger said:
It was not a decision related to intellect.
Probably should have been, as what else is there? Blind emotion? Scarcely sufficient for a decision of that magnitude.Can't beat progress, eh?
Something like:
Current age
+ no. of years working
- (2 x years sponging benefits)
+ IQ.
If the answer is over 100 then you're allowed to vote.
So, 40 years old, worked for 10 years, claimed for 15, with an IQ of 70 (your typical Yes voting fodder) = NO VOTE.
Winner.
OpulentBob said:
Einion Yrth said:
Edinburger said:
Einion Yrth said:
Edinburger said:
It was not a decision related to intellect.
Probably should have been, as what else is there? Blind emotion? Scarcely sufficient for a decision of that magnitude.Can't beat progress, eh?
Something like:
Current age
+ no. of years working
- (2 x years sponging benefits)
+ IQ.
If the answer is over 100 then you're allowed to vote.
So, 40 years old, worked for 10 years, claimed for 15, with an IQ of 70 (your typical Yes voting fodder) = NO VOTE.
Winner.
NoNeed said:
OpulentBob said:
Einion Yrth said:
Edinburger said:
Einion Yrth said:
Edinburger said:
It was not a decision related to intellect.
Probably should have been, as what else is there? Blind emotion? Scarcely sufficient for a decision of that magnitude.Can't beat progress, eh?
Something like:
Current age
+ no. of years working
- (2 x years sponging benefits)
+ IQ.
If the answer is over 100 then you're allowed to vote.
So, 40 years old, worked for 10 years, claimed for 15, with an IQ of 70 (your typical Yes voting fodder) = NO VOTE.
Winner.
Edinburger said:
To some it may be an unpalatable observation, but it was absolutely a wrong one - just look at all the business leaders and academics who were in favour of independence.
Please tell me you're not talking about Business for Scotland.Edited by AstonZagato on Tuesday 29th September 09:31
Edinburger said:
NoNeed said:
OpulentBob said:
Einion Yrth said:
Edinburger said:
Einion Yrth said:
Edinburger said:
It was not a decision related to intellect.
Probably should have been, as what else is there? Blind emotion? Scarcely sufficient for a decision of that magnitude.Can't beat progress, eh?
Something like:
Current age
+ no. of years working
- (2 x years sponging benefits)
+ IQ.
If the answer is over 100 then you're allowed to vote.
So, 40 years old, worked for 10 years, claimed for 15, with an IQ of 70 (your typical Yes voting fodder) = NO VOTE.
Winner.
What's up Ed, do you fail?
The problem that many have with Nats (including you Edinburger) is just how slippery and dishonest it all is. Getting straight answers is like nailing jelly to the wall. The levels of obfuscation and deflection on display whenever anyone even gets close to a factual answer would stand SNP members in great stead should those activities ever become Olympic sports!
So some examples:
When questioned how Scotland would fund it's social largesse - 'Oil will never be below 100dollars per barrel".. But what if the price falls? (said the No camp) This was greeted by "Only the No camp could describe a major asset like North Sea Oil as a problem!" (despite that never having been the No camps position) - Do you see where the disconnect is there Burger? And now that it's 40 odd dollars the SNP answer morphs to "we were never reliant on oil anyway" (when plainly Scotland would be to a considerable degree) The obfuscation came with SNP members alluding to Westminster efforts to "cover up the existence of a secret giant oil field off the coast of Scotland" when in fact it had already been publicised!
How about Navy ship building? The Royal Navy, apart from in world war 2) has never ever built its main capital ships in foreign shipyards. The SNP response? "Oh yes they will, cos we say so. The Clyde is safe" No explanation as to why centuries of practice would be abandoned in favour of keeping Scotlands industry busy. No thought that perhaps yards in the rUK might lobby VERY strongly to get that work, and in doing so would certainly be pushing against an open door. Even when the rUK Government says no, the SNP just blindly asserted that RN building would continue. The predictable obfuscation came when the SNP pointed to the RFA oilers being built in Korea, completely ignoring the fact that these are not capital ships!
How about the currency? Surely you know by now that rUK is NOT going to, was never going to, will never agree to a currency Union? Yet the SNP blind assertion was that there would be a union. The obfuscation came with SNP claiming that the pound was theirs anyway, and that nobody could stop them using it. True enough on the last part, but it hardly dealt with the serious issue that underpinned the currency question - ability to borrow, lender of last resort etc.
How about the EU membership? Now, even you have to accept that Mr Salmond lied through his teeth when he claimed to have legal advice showing that Scotland would remain in the EU? The EU said no, those lawyers brave enough to speak said no, and the SNP still claimed yes. The obfuscation came when the SNP started making noises about it not being possible to strip Scottish people of their citizenship, and that the EU would not want to miss out on "oil rich, renewables rich, fish rich, whisky rich Scotland". This of course completely ignored the actual legal position but at least it played well with those people silly enough to believe it.
How about the banks moving the HQs? The No camp was proved right about this, but still the SNP obfuscated by first denying it and then claiming that moving the HQ was only a token thing and meant nothing. And now the obfuscation effort is in overdrive with Salmod releasing his infamous conspiracy video just recently! Has the man no shame?
How about that anti English violence thing? Evidence of bullying go English kids is dismissed as "just kids". Man gets stabbed outside a Scottish pub just for being English is dismissed as "an attack not related to him being English" despot his attackers making it VERY clear that it was precisely his nationality that motivated the attack. Cyber violence and bullying was also rife. Of course the obfuscation came from Mr Salmonds infamous squawking to the Police when a No campaigner shouted at him
How about the anti no levels of vitiol? Remember the disgraceful scenes when Jim Murphy tried to speak in public? The attack on Nigel Farage? The bullying and intimidation of Charles Kennedy? How about JK Rowling and any other public figure who dared to express a No view? How is that defensible? And how is it that those carrying out these attacks and this bullying have almost to a man and woman NOT been expelled from the SNP? I mean it's all very well muttering platitudes, but the SNP has simply not acted against these people committing these crimes? Why is that Burger?
Shall we talk about the Vow? You know, the one that has been delivered in full but which the SNP claimed was not, even before it had started its way through Parliament?
Even in your recent posts you refer to "all those business leaders and academics who supported independence". I bet you wrote that without even a trace of irony too. Academics I care not one jot for (they are the easiest people to buy off with the offer of a research grant) but your claim to "business leaders" made me laugh out loud. Are you referring to business for Scotland perchance? Or is there a secret squad of major business leaders waiting to espouse their support for Indy? I know from first hand experience that a number of high profile business leaders chose not to express an opinion during the referendum, but that was because they were no supporters, and they were told in no uncertain terms by SNP reps what would happen to their businesses post independence if they dared to express their opinion in the run up to the vote.
So please do list "all those business leaders" - I am fascinated to see who's on your list!
How about the "once in a lifetime pledge"? that has now turned into a Neverendum...
I could go on, and on, and on. There is simply not enough internet available to list all the examples of hypocrisy and double standards from the SNP and its odious supporters. And yet you still find ways to obfuscate, hide behind minor details, make ludicrous claims about NDAs when it all gets a bit close to you finally being nailed.
And all the while Scotland is being damaged. By people like you.
So some examples:
When questioned how Scotland would fund it's social largesse - 'Oil will never be below 100dollars per barrel".. But what if the price falls? (said the No camp) This was greeted by "Only the No camp could describe a major asset like North Sea Oil as a problem!" (despite that never having been the No camps position) - Do you see where the disconnect is there Burger? And now that it's 40 odd dollars the SNP answer morphs to "we were never reliant on oil anyway" (when plainly Scotland would be to a considerable degree) The obfuscation came with SNP members alluding to Westminster efforts to "cover up the existence of a secret giant oil field off the coast of Scotland" when in fact it had already been publicised!
How about Navy ship building? The Royal Navy, apart from in world war 2) has never ever built its main capital ships in foreign shipyards. The SNP response? "Oh yes they will, cos we say so. The Clyde is safe" No explanation as to why centuries of practice would be abandoned in favour of keeping Scotlands industry busy. No thought that perhaps yards in the rUK might lobby VERY strongly to get that work, and in doing so would certainly be pushing against an open door. Even when the rUK Government says no, the SNP just blindly asserted that RN building would continue. The predictable obfuscation came when the SNP pointed to the RFA oilers being built in Korea, completely ignoring the fact that these are not capital ships!
How about the currency? Surely you know by now that rUK is NOT going to, was never going to, will never agree to a currency Union? Yet the SNP blind assertion was that there would be a union. The obfuscation came with SNP claiming that the pound was theirs anyway, and that nobody could stop them using it. True enough on the last part, but it hardly dealt with the serious issue that underpinned the currency question - ability to borrow, lender of last resort etc.
How about the EU membership? Now, even you have to accept that Mr Salmond lied through his teeth when he claimed to have legal advice showing that Scotland would remain in the EU? The EU said no, those lawyers brave enough to speak said no, and the SNP still claimed yes. The obfuscation came when the SNP started making noises about it not being possible to strip Scottish people of their citizenship, and that the EU would not want to miss out on "oil rich, renewables rich, fish rich, whisky rich Scotland". This of course completely ignored the actual legal position but at least it played well with those people silly enough to believe it.
How about the banks moving the HQs? The No camp was proved right about this, but still the SNP obfuscated by first denying it and then claiming that moving the HQ was only a token thing and meant nothing. And now the obfuscation effort is in overdrive with Salmod releasing his infamous conspiracy video just recently! Has the man no shame?
How about that anti English violence thing? Evidence of bullying go English kids is dismissed as "just kids". Man gets stabbed outside a Scottish pub just for being English is dismissed as "an attack not related to him being English" despot his attackers making it VERY clear that it was precisely his nationality that motivated the attack. Cyber violence and bullying was also rife. Of course the obfuscation came from Mr Salmonds infamous squawking to the Police when a No campaigner shouted at him
How about the anti no levels of vitiol? Remember the disgraceful scenes when Jim Murphy tried to speak in public? The attack on Nigel Farage? The bullying and intimidation of Charles Kennedy? How about JK Rowling and any other public figure who dared to express a No view? How is that defensible? And how is it that those carrying out these attacks and this bullying have almost to a man and woman NOT been expelled from the SNP? I mean it's all very well muttering platitudes, but the SNP has simply not acted against these people committing these crimes? Why is that Burger?
Shall we talk about the Vow? You know, the one that has been delivered in full but which the SNP claimed was not, even before it had started its way through Parliament?
Even in your recent posts you refer to "all those business leaders and academics who supported independence". I bet you wrote that without even a trace of irony too. Academics I care not one jot for (they are the easiest people to buy off with the offer of a research grant) but your claim to "business leaders" made me laugh out loud. Are you referring to business for Scotland perchance? Or is there a secret squad of major business leaders waiting to espouse their support for Indy? I know from first hand experience that a number of high profile business leaders chose not to express an opinion during the referendum, but that was because they were no supporters, and they were told in no uncertain terms by SNP reps what would happen to their businesses post independence if they dared to express their opinion in the run up to the vote.
So please do list "all those business leaders" - I am fascinated to see who's on your list!
How about the "once in a lifetime pledge"? that has now turned into a Neverendum...
I could go on, and on, and on. There is simply not enough internet available to list all the examples of hypocrisy and double standards from the SNP and its odious supporters. And yet you still find ways to obfuscate, hide behind minor details, make ludicrous claims about NDAs when it all gets a bit close to you finally being nailed.
And all the while Scotland is being damaged. By people like you.
Edinburger said:
Why do you selectively quote? And then edit your own posts to add other selections?
Because unlike you I am capable of replying to several points made in multiple posts in one concise but comprehensive response, and I am also capable of reviewing that response in a relevant way when you have delivered six more posts on the trot in short shrift.Edinburger said:
Meant to say, why is my defence of the SNP "getting more ridiculous with each day that passes"?
OK, so there are countless examples of SNP duplicity that can be cited, but let's just take one topic - the issue of unconventional oil and gas extraction and the SNP's attempts to block the release of minutes of a meeting with the INEOS CEO at the same time the SNP were announcing a moratorium on fracking.I would like you to cite an example of a more blatant attempt by any other political party to deceive the electorate over a major policy issue in the run-up to the General Election. This was the SNP seeking to retain the votes of Green campaigners who supported independence in the referendum to then abandon the policy once they had won the seats.
A bunch of SNP supporters are getting their knickers in a twist over one Liberal Democrat winning his seat under what they claim was false pretences. Ask yourself how many of the '56' would not have won their seats if it wasn't for the 'green' vote going their way?
Even the Greens have recognised the SNP's duplicity and a splinter group has formed within the independence alliance over the issue.
No deflection tactics please 'burger, just give us one example of the same tactics being used by another party and in doing so justify your statement that the SNP are 'no worse' than the rest.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 29th September 10:12
andymadmak said:
The problem that many have with Nats (including you Edinburger) is just how slippery and dishonest it all is. Getting straight answers is like nailing jelly to the wall. The levels of obfuscation and deflection on display whenever anyone even gets close to a factual answer would stand SNP members in great stead should those activities ever become Olympic sports!
So some examples:
When questioned how Scotland would fund it's social largesse - 'Oil will never be below 100dollars per barrel".. But what if the price falls? (said the No camp) This was greeted by "Only the No camp could describe a major asset like North Sea Oil as a problem!" (despite that never having been the No camps position) - Do you see where the disconnect is there Burger? And now that it's 40 odd dollars the SNP answer morphs to "we were never reliant on oil anyway" (when plainly Scotland would be to a considerable degree) The obfuscation came with SNP members alluding to Westminster efforts to "cover up the existence of a secret giant oil field off the coast of Scotland" when in fact it had already been publicised!
How about Navy ship building? The Royal Navy, apart from in world war 2) has never ever built its main capital ships in foreign shipyards. The SNP response? "Oh yes they will, cos we say so. The Clyde is safe" No explanation as to why centuries of practice would be abandoned in favour of keeping Scotlands industry busy. No thought that perhaps yards in the rUK might lobby VERY strongly to get that work, and in doing so would certainly be pushing against an open door. Even when the rUK Government says no, the SNP just blindly asserted that RN building would continue. The predictable obfuscation came when the SNP pointed to the RFA oilers being built in Korea, completely ignoring the fact that these are not capital ships!
How about the currency? Surely you know by now that rUK is NOT going to, was never going to, will never agree to a currency Union? Yet the SNP blind assertion was that there would be a union. The obfuscation came with SNP claiming that the pound was theirs anyway, and that nobody could stop them using it. True enough on the last part, but it hardly dealt with the serious issue that underpinned the currency question - ability to borrow, lender of last resort etc.
How about the EU membership? Now, even you have to accept that Mr Salmond lied through his teeth when he claimed to have legal advice showing that Scotland would remain in the EU? The EU said no, those lawyers brave enough to speak said no, and the SNP still claimed yes. The obfuscation came when the SNP started making noises about it not being possible to strip Scottish people of their citizenship, and that the EU would not want to miss out on "oil rich, renewables rich, fish rich, whisky rich Scotland". This of course completely ignored the actual legal position but at least it played well with those people silly enough to believe it.
How about the banks moving the HQs? The No camp was proved right about this, but still the SNP obfuscated by first denying it and then claiming that moving the HQ was only a token thing and meant nothing. And now the obfuscation effort is in overdrive with Salmod releasing his infamous conspiracy video just recently! Has the man no shame?
How about that anti English violence thing? Evidence of bullying go English kids is dismissed as "just kids". Man gets stabbed outside a Scottish pub just for being English is dismissed as "an attack not related to him being English" despot his attackers making it VERY clear that it was precisely his nationality that motivated the attack. Cyber violence and bullying was also rife. Of course the obfuscation came from Mr Salmonds infamous squawking to the Police when a No campaigner shouted at him
How about the anti no levels of vitiol? Remember the disgraceful scenes when Jim Murphy tried to speak in public? The attack on Nigel Farage? The bullying and intimidation of Charles Kennedy? How about JK Rowling and any other public figure who dared to express a No view? How is that defensible? And how is it that those carrying out these attacks and this bullying have almost to a man and woman NOT been expelled from the SNP? I mean it's all very well muttering platitudes, but the SNP has simply not acted against these people committing these crimes? Why is that Burger?
Shall we talk about the Vow? You know, the one that has been delivered in full but which the SNP claimed was not, even before it had started its way through Parliament?
Even in your recent posts you refer to "all those business leaders and academics who supported independence". I bet you wrote that without even a trace of irony too. Academics I care not one jot for (they are the easiest people to buy off with the offer of a research grant) but your claim to "business leaders" made me laugh out loud. Are you referring to business for Scotland perchance? Or is there a secret squad of major business leaders waiting to espouse their support for Indy? I know from first hand experience that a number of high profile business leaders chose not to express an opinion during the referendum, but that was because they were no supporters, and they were told in no uncertain terms by SNP reps what would happen to their businesses post independence if they dared to express their opinion in the run up to the vote.
So please do list "all those business leaders" - I am fascinated to see who's on your list!
How about the "once in a lifetime pledge"? that has now turned into a Neverendum...
I could go on, and on, and on. There is simply not enough internet available to list all the examples of hypocrisy and double standards from the SNP and its odious supporters. And yet you still find ways to obfuscate, hide behind minor details, make ludicrous claims about NDAs when it all gets a bit close to you finally being nailed.
And all the while Scotland is being damaged. By people like you.
Superb post. Extremely well articulated.So some examples:
When questioned how Scotland would fund it's social largesse - 'Oil will never be below 100dollars per barrel".. But what if the price falls? (said the No camp) This was greeted by "Only the No camp could describe a major asset like North Sea Oil as a problem!" (despite that never having been the No camps position) - Do you see where the disconnect is there Burger? And now that it's 40 odd dollars the SNP answer morphs to "we were never reliant on oil anyway" (when plainly Scotland would be to a considerable degree) The obfuscation came with SNP members alluding to Westminster efforts to "cover up the existence of a secret giant oil field off the coast of Scotland" when in fact it had already been publicised!
How about Navy ship building? The Royal Navy, apart from in world war 2) has never ever built its main capital ships in foreign shipyards. The SNP response? "Oh yes they will, cos we say so. The Clyde is safe" No explanation as to why centuries of practice would be abandoned in favour of keeping Scotlands industry busy. No thought that perhaps yards in the rUK might lobby VERY strongly to get that work, and in doing so would certainly be pushing against an open door. Even when the rUK Government says no, the SNP just blindly asserted that RN building would continue. The predictable obfuscation came when the SNP pointed to the RFA oilers being built in Korea, completely ignoring the fact that these are not capital ships!
How about the currency? Surely you know by now that rUK is NOT going to, was never going to, will never agree to a currency Union? Yet the SNP blind assertion was that there would be a union. The obfuscation came with SNP claiming that the pound was theirs anyway, and that nobody could stop them using it. True enough on the last part, but it hardly dealt with the serious issue that underpinned the currency question - ability to borrow, lender of last resort etc.
How about the EU membership? Now, even you have to accept that Mr Salmond lied through his teeth when he claimed to have legal advice showing that Scotland would remain in the EU? The EU said no, those lawyers brave enough to speak said no, and the SNP still claimed yes. The obfuscation came when the SNP started making noises about it not being possible to strip Scottish people of their citizenship, and that the EU would not want to miss out on "oil rich, renewables rich, fish rich, whisky rich Scotland". This of course completely ignored the actual legal position but at least it played well with those people silly enough to believe it.
How about the banks moving the HQs? The No camp was proved right about this, but still the SNP obfuscated by first denying it and then claiming that moving the HQ was only a token thing and meant nothing. And now the obfuscation effort is in overdrive with Salmod releasing his infamous conspiracy video just recently! Has the man no shame?
How about that anti English violence thing? Evidence of bullying go English kids is dismissed as "just kids". Man gets stabbed outside a Scottish pub just for being English is dismissed as "an attack not related to him being English" despot his attackers making it VERY clear that it was precisely his nationality that motivated the attack. Cyber violence and bullying was also rife. Of course the obfuscation came from Mr Salmonds infamous squawking to the Police when a No campaigner shouted at him
How about the anti no levels of vitiol? Remember the disgraceful scenes when Jim Murphy tried to speak in public? The attack on Nigel Farage? The bullying and intimidation of Charles Kennedy? How about JK Rowling and any other public figure who dared to express a No view? How is that defensible? And how is it that those carrying out these attacks and this bullying have almost to a man and woman NOT been expelled from the SNP? I mean it's all very well muttering platitudes, but the SNP has simply not acted against these people committing these crimes? Why is that Burger?
Shall we talk about the Vow? You know, the one that has been delivered in full but which the SNP claimed was not, even before it had started its way through Parliament?
Even in your recent posts you refer to "all those business leaders and academics who supported independence". I bet you wrote that without even a trace of irony too. Academics I care not one jot for (they are the easiest people to buy off with the offer of a research grant) but your claim to "business leaders" made me laugh out loud. Are you referring to business for Scotland perchance? Or is there a secret squad of major business leaders waiting to espouse their support for Indy? I know from first hand experience that a number of high profile business leaders chose not to express an opinion during the referendum, but that was because they were no supporters, and they were told in no uncertain terms by SNP reps what would happen to their businesses post independence if they dared to express their opinion in the run up to the vote.
So please do list "all those business leaders" - I am fascinated to see who's on your list!
How about the "once in a lifetime pledge"? that has now turned into a Neverendum...
I could go on, and on, and on. There is simply not enough internet available to list all the examples of hypocrisy and double standards from the SNP and its odious supporters. And yet you still find ways to obfuscate, hide behind minor details, make ludicrous claims about NDAs when it all gets a bit close to you finally being nailed.
And all the while Scotland is being damaged. By people like you.
Edinburger said:
Now, there's a journalist who was hoping for some sort of story and having watched some SNP MPs the best he can say is i) some SNP MPs have drunk alcohol, ii) Mhairi Black has danced in a club, iii) they're staying in Pimlico (so in W like all MPs), and iv) they're adapting to live in London as MPs. Oh dear.
I read it the other day and without rereading it the point was the SNP group are turning into the very people they railed against pre election. Well paid, westminster bubble, expensive restaurants, out of touch etc etc.Salmond hates Tories (except when it suits them in the SP of course), he was quite disparaging to London in that it was drawing talent from Scotland, they despise elitism and here we have a SNP group now earning significantly more than most people in Scotland, doing things and going to 'toff' places most of their constituents couldn't afford even if they could gain entry and doing so in a boorish and divisive manner (no surprise there).
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Enjoy it while it lasts. But don't try to kid us they're any different to the rest. They're worse because of what they stood for.
AC43 said:
Superb post. Extremely well articulated.
Yep.
This has been all over my FB the last few days.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34372548
Regional elections. Check.
Pro-Indy parties win most seats but not a majority of votes. Check.
Claim mandate to form new state, UDI style. Check.
"We have a clear, absolute majority in the Catalan parliament to go ahead," Mr Mas said [in relation to a question unasked]. Salmond's Catalan cousin?
Sounds depressingly familiar.
Edited by technodup on Tuesday 29th September 11:26
roadtripboy said:
How about a simple intelligence test to decide who gets to vote.
"A country holds an election or referendum. You, and a number of other people, vote for Option A. However, more people vote for Option B. Which side wins?"
Option A, obviously. It's not about who gets the most votes. Option A voters are on the side of civic nationalism and cannot be wrong. Anyways, those that voted B only did so because they were too stupid to understand the opportunity/ had been conned by the B side/ were afraid of the future/ were bizarrely unable to see that A was the correct answer/ accidentally put their X in the wrong box/ naively believed that "B winning the vote" would be an end of the matter/ were not true Scots. "A country holds an election or referendum. You, and a number of other people, vote for Option A. However, more people vote for Option B. Which side wins?"
S'obvious innit! A wins.
roadtripboy said:
"A country holds an election or referendum. You, and a number of other people, vote for Option A. However, more people vote for Option B. Which side wins?"
Why would you think than an organisation that is prepared to repeatedly and demonstrably lie to the electorate to influence voting would respect the outcome of a democratic vote?The fracking issue is an absolute belter and puts Nick Clegg's U-turn on tuition fees into perspective as he never expected to be in the position to have to go back on a pledge.
The SNP on the other hand were privately setting the timetable for going back on a pledge at the very same time they were making that pledge to the public.
Edited by r11co on Tuesday 29th September 13:42
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff