The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

I see that Sturgeon has found a solution to Scotland's high public spending.

Sack Scottish people, and import immigrants to do the same work at half the price - while illegally abusing the immigration system rules to get these immigrants into the country to steal those jobs.

Go Nicola!

Isn't it great to have a honest politician who says what she thinks and does what she says?

I read this story in the Express yesterday. That fact that none of the Scottish press has picked it up suggests there is nothing in it. The Scotsman & the Record in particular are no friends of the Snp. If there was any substance to this, it would be front page news for them.

[eFestivals]

I read this story in the Express yesterday. That fact that none of the Scottish press has picked it up suggests there is nothing in it. The Scotsman & the Record in particular are no friends of the Snp. If there was any substance to this, it would be front page news for them.

And yet the police has said they're investigating, and if there was nothing at all to it they'd haver said their investigation was done and dusted (cos it would be dead easy to see if the claimed facts had any basis, the visas, etc).

It's a free pass for the SNP by LJS yet again - because it's certain that if this story was about hated-Labour they'd be no end of condemnation (you know, like how there's been of GCC and its many zero-hour contracts).

What a surprise.

[eFestivals]

PS - no condemnation of Sturgeon's "tough on immigration" stance, as their has been of others?

Why's that then?

[LJS]

And yet the police has said they're investigating, and if there was nothing at all to it they'd haver said their investigation was done and dusted (cos it would be dead easy to see if the claimed facts had any basis, the visas, etc).

It's a free pass for the SNP by LJS yet again - because it's certain that if this story was about hated-Labour they'd be no end of condemnation (you know, like how there's been of GCC and its many zero-hour contracts).

What a surprise.

Or, alternatively, Neil clutching at straws trying desperately to find anything to smear his hated snippers.

What a shock!

[eFestivals]

Or, alternatively, Neil clutching at straws trying desperately to find anything to smear his hated snippers.

What a shock!

PMSL - that's the Cybernat Challenge you've just given the rules too.

I've merely stated the allegation which the police are investigating. If it's about the SNP it's indisputably a "smear" but any allegation about Labour is 100% true and we don't need to know the details

For example, while GCC has zero-hour contracts the SNHS has many many thousands more - but Nicola's pet is only good when she does the same as the bad hated-Labour. Nothing of the reasons for any of those cointracts counts for anything when it's Labour, but the reasons are perfectly sound when it's Sturgeon.

If you can't see what a biased moron you're being there's no hope for you.

Edited April 28, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

PS - no condemnation of Sturgeon's "tough on immigration" stance, as their has been of others?

Why's that then?

Cos she didn't put it on a mug.

[eFestivals]

PS ... still no request by Sturgeon for an investigation for why the Scottish office are writing down lies about her in a memo.

Why is that? Might it be because they're not lies after all?

She's only denied a set of explicit words, she's never denied implying what the memo documented her as implying.

And her outrage was reserved for only the fact of it leaking, not for how it got written down in the first place.

Are 'subtlety' and 'nuance' new words to Scotland? It seems so.

Edited April 28, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Cos she didn't put it on a mug.

She did, about 2M of them

[russycarps]

She did, about 2M of them

ooof!

even LJS will have to to admit that was a good one....

[LJS]

PS ... still no request by Sturgeon for an investigation for why the Scottish office are writing down lies about her in a memo.

Why is that? Might it be because they're not lies after all?

She's only denied a set of explicit words, she's never denied implying what the memo documented her as implying.

And her outrage was reserved for only the fact of it leaking, not for how it got written down in the first place.

Are 'subtlety' and 'nuance' new words to Scotland? It seems so.

You're desperate.

[LJS]

ooof!

even LJS will have to to admit that was a good one....

[eFestivals]

You're desperate.

Nope, I'm pointing out what Sturgeon has done and not done, and am asking your brain to discern something from it.

I do know I';m wasting my time tho.

You do, after all, constantly show you've got no ability to discern anything, only the ability to swallow stuff whole.

--------

C'mon, you can do it .... why is Sturgeon offended by the leak, but not offended by the content of the leak?

And do bear in mind that just about everything she does expresses her hatred of what 'Westminster' does, but she found nothing at all offensive in hated Westminster writing down what she claims is false - but something 'false', a lie, that she doesn't want investigated. How very strange.

If i'm being 'desperate' you'll have an sound explanation for why Sturgeon is so highly offended by one part of what went on that she demands an investigation, but doesn't want the central part of it all investigated.

Edited April 28, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Nope, I'm pointing out what Sturgeon has done and not done, and am asking your brain to discern something from it.

I do know I';m wasting my time tho.

You do, after all, constantly show you've got no ability to discern anything, only the ability to swallow stuff whole.

--------

C'mon, you can do it .... why is Sturgeon offended by the leak, but not offended by the content of the leak?

And do bear in mind that just about everything she does expresses her hatred of what 'Westminster' does, but she found nothing at all offensive in hated Westminster writing down what she claims is false - but something 'false', a lie, that she doesn't want investigated. How very strange.

If i'm being 'desperate' you'll have an sound explanation for why Sturgeon is so highly offended by one part of what went on that she demands an investigation, but doesn't want the central part of it all investigated.

It's yesterday's news, Neil. She complained about the bit that was headline news & gleefully shared by all your Labour chums.

[eFestivals]

It's yesterday's news, Neil. She complained about the bit that was headline news & gleefully shared by all your Labour chums.

It's yesterday's news if it's the SNP, but the Labour Party are held responsible for everything they've done forever.

I actually feel sorry for Jim Murphy. He may or may not be a c**t (and I don't care either way), but he had no chance of being listened to by snippers when snippers don't even hear the SNP.

But anyway, what the memo said was an indisputable fact. Sturgeon has accepted that fact was correctly recorded.

It's not glee, it's horror at the two-faced-ness of Sturgeon and the blindness of her faithful.

[LJS]

It's yesterday's news if it's the SNP, but the Labour Party are held responsible for everything they've done forever.

I actually feel sorry for Jim Murphy. He may or may not be a c**t (and I don't care either way), but he had no chance of being listened to by snippers when snippers don't even hear the SNP.

But anyway, what the memo said was an indisputable fact. Sturgeon has accepted that fact was correctly recorded.

It's not glee, it's horror at the two-faced-ness of Sturgeon and the blindness of her faithful.

I dispute your indisputable fact.

The fact that I have just disputed your indisputable fact proves that, far from being indisputable, it is in fact disputable. Probably because it's not a fact.

[eFestivals]

I dispute your indisputable fact.

The fact that I have just disputed your indisputable fact proves that, far from being indisputable, it is in fact disputable. Probably because it's not a fact.

The memo didn't say anything about Sturgeon wanting a tory govt?

Of course it did.

The words within the memo are a fact, a fact that Sturgeon accepts, and a fact she's complained about leaking - while not complaining about the fact at all, only disputing some of the words recorded within that fact..

No one is disputing that the Scottish Office correctly wrote down what it was told by the French.

Now ask yourself: why did the French believe Sturgeon wants a Tory govt after having a meeting with her where the election was discussed?

[LJS]

The memo didn't say anything about Sturgeon wanting a tory govt?

Of course it did.

The words within the memo are a fact, a fact that Sturgeon accepts, and a fact she's complained about leaking - while not complaining about the fact at all, only disputing some of the words recorded within that fact..

No one is disputing that the Scottish Office correctly wrote down what it was told by the French.

Now ask yourself: why did the French believe Sturgeon wants a Tory govt after having a meeting with her where the election was discussed?

Nicola & the 2 other people actually at the meeting categorically denied she said any such thing.

[Stash]

Nicola & the 2 other people actually at the meeting categorically denied she said any such thing.

The question is, are Sturgeon, the Ambassador and the Consul General disputing the entire version of the conversation reported in the FCO memo, or just the line about the First Minister’s supposed preference for David Cameron as PM. From what has been reported in the press and by her press office, they only complained that the memo was leaked and that no preference for leader was made.

Did she say, for example, that “she wouldn’t want a formal coalition with Labour”; that “the SNP would almost certainly have a large number of seats”; that “she had no idea ‘what kind of mischief’ Alex Salmond would get up to”; and that she “didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material”. If those four points are accurate, then it makes it all the more remarkable that the fifth point (about the preference for Cameron) was not, and at that point you have to wonder why she is only disputing the preference for Cameron point.

[eFestivals]

Nicola & the 2 other people actually at the meeting categorically denied she said any such thing.

Not quite. They denied the words attributed to Sturgeon in the Scottish Office memo.

One of the guys at that meeting went on to give a report of it to his French colleague, who then relayed what he was told to the Scottish Office, which ended up in that memo.

As the memo says of the report that it got, the person in the SO doubted that Sturgeon had been that explicit.

i repeat: Sturgeon has no issue with what was recorded in that memo and how it came to be recorded in that memo. She only has a problem with it leaking.

She's the first to criticise Westminster on any opportunity, and yet she's let them off (ahem) Scot-free over the recording of the memo. How odd.

And she's not calling either Frenchman a liar, or even suggesting it.

[LJS]

The question is, are Sturgeon, the Ambassador and the Consul General disputing the entire version of the conversation reported in the FCO memo, or just the line about the First Ministers supposed preference for David Cameron as PM. From what has been reported in the press and by her press office, they only complained that the memo was leaked and that no preference for leader was made.

Did she say, for example, that she wouldnt want a formal coalition with Labour; that the SNP would almost certainly have a large number of seats; that she had no idea what kind of mischief Alex Salmond would get up to; and that she didnt see Ed Miliband as PM material. If those four points are accurate, then it makes it all the more remarkable that the fifth point (about the preference for Cameron) was not, and at that point you have to wonder why she is only disputing the preference for Cameron point.

I think you'll find there were more general denials, however, as I say, it's old news & I am not interested enough to go & check quotes. So let's just assume she only denied the one part. There would be 2 pretty straightforward reasons for that. Firstly, it was the main "story" run by the press & spread gleefully by the Labour Party. Secondly, it is the only statement that is potentially really damaging to the Snp. The rest are really no big deal.

[eFestivals]

The question is, are Sturgeon, the Ambassador and the Consul General disputing the entire version of the conversation reported in the FCO memo, or just the line about the First Minister’s supposed preference for David Cameron as PM. From what has been reported in the press and by her press office, they only complained that the memo was leaked and that no preference for leader was made.

Did she say, for example, that “she wouldn’t want a formal coalition with Labour”; that “the SNP would almost certainly have a large number of seats”; that “she had no idea ‘what kind of mischief’ Alex Salmond would get up to”; and that she “didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material”. If those four points are accurate, then it makes it all the more remarkable that the fifth point (about the preference for Cameron) was not, and at that point you have to wonder why she is only disputing the preference for Cameron point.

Spot on!

One Frenchman reported his version of that meeting to another Frenchman who then told it to the Scottish Office.

In that short version summary of the meeting, what was inferred became explicit.

Sturgeon knows that's the case, and it's why she has no issue with how the memo came to be recorded in that way.

[LJS]

Not quite. They denied the words attributed to Sturgeon in the Scottish Office memo.

One of the guys at that meeting went on to give a report of it to his French colleague, who then relayed what he was told to the Scottish Office, which ended up in that memo.

As the memo says of the report that it got, the person in the SO doubted that Sturgeon had been that explicit.

i repeat: Sturgeon has no issue with what was recorded in that memo and how it came to be recorded in that memo. She only has a problem with it leaking.

She's the first to criticise Westminster on any opportunity, and yet she's let them off (ahem) Scot-free over the recording of the memo. How odd.

And she's not calling either Frenchman a liar, or even suggesting it.

She has denied that she said these things. I don't really understand what you don't get about that.

You don't believe her but you detest her so that's no surprise.

[eFestivals]

I think you'll find there were more general denials, however, as I say, it's old news & I am not interested enough to go & check quotes. So let's just assume she only denied the one part. There would be 2 pretty straightforward reasons for that. Firstly, it was the main "story" run by the press & spread gleefully by the Labour Party. Secondly, it is the only statement that is potentially really damaging to the Snp. The rest are really no big deal.

Yep, it's no big deal to the SNP and the snippers that they all secretly want the tories.

Quite a few are starting to say it out loud!

[eFestivals]

She has denied that she said these things. I don't really understand what you don't get about that.

You don't believe her but you detest her so that's no surprise.

She'd denied it was said explicitly. She's not denied that she inferred it.

I don't 'detest' her. .... as far as it goes, i'd perhaps vote for her - if she wasn't a splitter.:

I'm simply pointing out the stuff you won't face up to, that's not something to brush off in the way you do.

Edited April 28, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Yep, it's no big deal to the SNP and the snippers that they all secretly want the tories.

Quite a few are starting to say it out loud!

Fuck's sake, have you now lost the ability to read?