The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

I see that Sturgeon has welcomed Murdoch's support.

If she was a principled left-ist she would have said "they can do what they like, but we don't welcome support from Murdoch".

But that would be a bit awkward for Nicola, cos she has to be nice to her Boss.

The SNP - in favour of Murdoch retaining power.

When Murdoch's on your side, you're on the wrong side.

PS: I guess the myth factory is still trying to work it's magic on this one, because there's no snipper's response which stands up against the fact of Salmond proven as being in Murdoch's pocket, and the absence from their manifesto of having Leveson implemented.

I haven't responded because you have said nothing new. I can think off 3 possible reasons for the Scottish Sun to back the Snp. I'm sure you're smart enough to work them out. Only one involves the SNP being in Murdoch's pocket. You may believe that if you wish. I see no evidence of it.

The Snp welcomed levison.

For the record, my heart did not leap with joy when I saw the sun was lending it's support to the SNP.

[eFestivals]

I haven't responded because you have said nothing new. I can think off 3 possible reasons for the Scottish Sun to back the Snp. I'm sure you're smart enough to work them out. Only one involves the SNP being in Murdoch's pocket. You may believe that if you wish. I see no evidence of it.

The Snp welcomed levison.

For the record, my heart did not leap with joy when I saw the sun was lending it's support to the SNP.

There's all sorts of reasons being said for why the Sun is supporting the tories/SNP..

The SNP being in Murdoch's pocket is a courtroom-documented fact..

The two things are of course not related.

When Murdoch's on your side, you're on the wrong side.

Edited April 30, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

The Snp welcomed levison.

yeah, they absolutely loved it, they did. Especially the bits about how their own leader was for sale.

When Murdoch's on your side, you're on the wrong side.

[Comfy Bean]

I`ve dealt with the Murdoch stuff on the GE thread but I like the irony of Neils excitement on this the Indy thread. Such short memories

Who was on what side in September last year and who will be on who`s side next time the wind changes. Hopefully punters are not influenced down South by Murdoch as I know all newspaper sales are down the stank and won`t give him the oxygen that Neil has given him on here today. It will make no difference in Scotland but it`s all to play for in England. I`ve posted the front page of todays Sun ( bigger selling english edition ) in the GE thread but won`t darken this fine thread by puting it in here. He says something quite different on the front page of that rag.

Edited April 30, 2015 by comfortablynumb1910

[eFestivals]

I`ve dealt with the Murdoch stuff on the GE thread but I like the irony of Neils excitement on this the Indy thread. Such short memories

Who was on what side in September last year and who will be on who`s side next time the wind changes. Hopefully punters are not influenced down South by Murdoch as I know all newspaper sales are down the stank and won`t give him the oxygen that Neil has given him on here today. It will make no difference in Scotland but it`s all to play for in England. I`ve posted the front page of todays Sun ( bigger selling english edition ) in the GE thread but won`t darken this fine thread by puting it in here. He says something quite different on the front page of that rag.

except of course Murdoch was on neither side for the indie ref, but just ignore that bit, yeah?

And that was because although he's bought Salmond, he knew Salmond was going to fail to deliver.

[Comfy Bean]

The Sun did not come out for YES as you predicted many times. As I said, we have done this. We had the picture of Ed holding the Sun and you dismissed it as you did with the Blair links to Murdoch and his kids. Fair enough. I`m not posting the Sun front pages again and will leave you to gleefully act as cheerleader for whatever influence you think Murdoch still has. I was merely pointing out that it is an irrelevance up here coming out the day after a poll showing all seats going to the SNP. If he had taken up with the SNP ( which he didn`t ) at any point during the indy ref which at one point looked pretty close as you know then perhaps he " could " have had some influenece although I would hope not. As I said in the GE thread, we should be more worried about how his support down your way might matter ( or otherwise ). He likes to be seen to be on the winning side which in the Indy ref was your side so I was just pointing out the irony

However, Mr Murdoch’s statements on Twitter yesterday made for uneasy reading inside the Yes camp. One read: “Have to worry about some of Salmond’s allies. Far-left socialists and extreme greenies. Must change course to prosper if he wins.”

He added later: “SNP not talking about independence, but more welfarism, expensive greenery, etc and passing sovereignty to Brussels.”

[eFestivals]

The last 12 hours have been comedy gold, the nats are all in a tither.

I've seen SNP supporters argue for the union.

I've seen SNP supporters claim that the party they detest and have betrayed has "betrayed" them.

I've even seen SNP supporters argue that the UK should be governed by English Nationalist parties, exactly as a London party without a 'branch office' would inevitably be.

They claim to be the democrats, they claim to be the ones with principle, but the one thing they can't actually face doing is voting in Westminster for policies they support. Instead, they demand that Labour *HAS TO* vote in Westminster how the SNP have dictated.

Comedy gold.

[Comfy Bean]

I`ll leave this here. The map of the seats in the poll the day BEFORE the Sun decided who it was supporting ( this time ). SNP in yellow.

[LJS]

The last 12 hours have been comedy gold, the nats are all in a tither.

I've seen SNP supporters argue for the union.

I've seen SNP supporters claim that the party they detest and have betrayed has "betrayed" them.

I've even seen SNP supporters argue that the UK should be governed by English Nationalist parties, exactly as a London party without a 'branch office' would inevitably be.

They claim to be the democrats, they claim to be the ones with principle, but the one thing they can't actually face doing is voting in Westminster for policies they support. Instead, they demand that Labour *HAS TO* vote in Westminster how the SNP have dictated.

Comedy gold.

You had a look at the chat amongst Labour supporters , Neil?

Apparently, they are not all delighted at their leader's apparent willingness to let the Tories rule. And, if you find that sort of stuff funny, there is much to sniggering at amongst them.

Anyway. As usual, you have been dredging the bowels of the internet. Astonishingly, you found some crazies there. Well knock me down with haggis! Who'd have thunk it?

[eFestivals]

The Sun did not come out for YES as you predicted many times. As I said, we have done this. We had the picture of Ed holding the Sun and you dismissed it as you did with the Blair links to Murdoch and his kids. Fair enough. I`m not posting the Sun front pages again and will leave you to gleefully act as cheerleader for whatever influence you think Murdoch still has. I was merely pointing out that it is an irrelevance up here coming out the day after a poll showing all seats going to the SNP. If he had taken up with the SNP ( which he didn`t ) at any point during the indy ref which at one point looked pretty close as you know then perhaps he " could " have had some influenece although I would hope not. As I said in the GE thread, we should be more worried about how his support down your way might matter ( or otherwise ). He likes to be seen to be on the winning side which in the Indy ref was your side so I was just pointing out the irony

However, Mr Murdoch’s statements on Twitter yesterday made for uneasy reading inside the Yes camp. One read: “Have to worry about some of Salmond’s allies. Far-left socialists and extreme greenies. Must change course to prosper if he wins.”

He added later: “SNP not talking about independence, but more welfarism, expensive greenery, etc and passing sovereignty to Brussels.”

And what about it having been proven in court that Salmond sold himself to Murdoch?

It's only the SNP who have been proven as corrupted by Murdoch in a court.

When Murdoch is on your side you're on the wrong side.

[eFestivals]

You had a look at the chat amongst Labour supporters , Neil?

Apparently, they are not all delighted at their leader's apparent willingness to let the Tories rule. And, if you find that sort of stuff funny, there is much to sniggering at amongst them.

Anyway. As usual, you have been dredging the bowels of the internet. Astonishingly, you found some crazies there. Well knock me down with haggis! Who'd have thunk it?

You've claimed Miliband would win if he went left. Show me the voters to the left who would win it for him, bearing in mind they'd lose more than they'd gain. If there's Labour party members who are daft as you, they're Labour's cybernat equivalents.

Miliband has not ruled out the SNP voting in support of good policies.

Will the SNP vote for good policies or will they vote for the tories?

Real democracy in action, and not an SNP stitch-up that's not acceptable to the majority right across the UK.

It'll be terrible to have real democracy if Ed wins, eh?

Edited May 1, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I`ll leave this here. The map of the seats in the poll the day BEFORE the Sun decided who it was supporting ( this time ). SNP in yellow.

what were the votes like at the time that Salmond sold the SNP to Murdoch?

Oh look, they were just the same.

So what you're saying is that Salmond sold Scotland to Murdoch when Salmond didn't have to.

Either Salmond is outstandingly stupid, or your take on things is more than a bit wrong. Take your pick.

Edited May 1, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

And what about it having been proven in court that Salmond sold himself to Murdoch?

It's only the SNP who have been proven as corrupted by Murdoch in a court.

When Murdoch is on your side you're on the wrong side.

Salmond was criticised in the report of the Leveson enquiry. If you think that is the same as "proved in court" then you believe that.

Again, this, as so often with yourself, is very old news. I have given my view umpteen times. I have no interest in discussing it further.

If you can come up with anything linking the current SNP leadership with Murdoch, I'll be happy to comment.

If Miliband is not tainted by Blair's relationship with Murdoch, then Sturgeon is not tainted by Salmond's.

[LJS]

what were the votes like at the time that Salmond sold the SNP to Murdoch?

Oh look, they were just the same.

So what you're saying is that Salmond sold Scotland to Murdoch when Salmond didn't have to.

Either Salmond is outstandingly stupid, or your take on things is more than a bit wrong. Take your pick.

Except that wasn't what Comfy was saying. As usual, it was Neil making up what Comfy was saying.

No. 63 in Neil's top debating tips for teenagers.

[eFestivals]

Salmond was criticised in the report of the Leveson enquiry. If you think that is the same as "proved in court" then you believe that.

It had the standing of a court of law.

There was the documentary proof of Salmond having been corrupted by Murdoch, of agreeing a deal with him.

That deal had Salmond agreeing to break the ministerial code to lobby on Murdoch's behalf - like the good tories did, Jeremy Hunt, etc.

Even the LibDems were against Murdoch. Salmond was Murdoch's paid advoctate.

It might be old news, but it's relevant news. The SNP are in Murdoch's pocket. It's proven by the facts.

Edited May 1, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Except that wasn't what Comfy was saying. As usual, it was Neil making up what Comfy was saying.

No. 63 in Neil's top debating tips for teenagers.

PMSL.

Scotland has been that yellow since 2011 - the year that Salmond sold the SNP to Murdoch.

Murdoch only backs winners, true. But he also only backs winners who are in his pocket.

Murdoch coming out for the SNP has fuck all to do with that latest poll. That latest poll says nothing different to every poll for the last 4 years.

[eFestivals]

So anyway guys, what's wrong with the SNP voting in support of policies they support?

What about it do you hate so much that you also hate Miliband saying that's what they should do?

Edited May 1, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

So anyway guys, what's wrong with the SNP voting in support of policies they support?

What about it do you hate so much that you also hate Miliband saying that's what they should do?

Absolutely nothing, and I don't hate Miliband saying it.

I think he's foolish to say it. Because although the Snp may support much of Labour's policies, it won't support them all. So by taking his stance he risks not getting more of his programme through.

Alternatively, he could talk to the Snp & try to get some sort of deal for key parts of legislation. The Snp would want something in return. Of course they would. If ed feels they are asking too much, he walks away & he is in no worse position than if he hadn't talked to them. Remember, there can be other benefits for Labour. Any deal might, for example, include ruling out a referendum in the lifetime of the parliament.

[LJS]

It had the standing of a court of law.

There was the documentary proof of Salmond having been corrupted by Murdoch, of agreeing a deal with him.

That deal had Salmond agreeing to break the ministerial code to lobby on Murdoch's behalf - like the good tories did, Jeremy Hunt, etc.

Even the LibDems were against Murdoch. Salmond was Murdoch's paid advoctate.

It might be old news, but it's relevant news. The SNP are in Murdoch's pocket. It's proven by the facts.

I love it when you only quote the first part of what I say cos the second part already addresses the point you're making.

No. 62 in Neil's debating tips for teenagers

[eFestivals]

Because although the Snp may support much of Labour's policies, it won't support them all.

and that changes if they do a deal how exactly?

So by taking his stance he risks not getting more of his programme through.

Only if the SNP vote down good policies.

Alternatively, he could talk to the Snp & try to get some sort of deal for key parts of legislation. The Snp would want something in return. Of course they would. If ed feels they are asking too much, he walks away & he is in no worse position than if he hadn't talked to them. Remember, there can be other benefits for Labour. Any deal might, for example, include ruling out a referendum in the lifetime of the parliament.

Sturgeon has already said it's impossible for her to rule out a referendum.

In fact, you were arguing only a week or two ago that she doesn't have the authority to rule it out. Only people like you have the right to rule it out.

So perhaps stop it with the double-speak? Because it's not possible to do a working deal with the duplicitous. It's the SNP's duplicitousness that stops all chances of a deal.

What do the SNP have to offer Labour if they're a party who won't support what's right? Nothing at all.

And if they won't support what's right, they're not a suitable partner to do deals with.

Can the SNP do what's right? We'll get to find out, I hope.

[eFestivals]

I love it when you only quote the first part of what I say cos the second part already addresses the point you're making.

No. 62 in Neil's debating tips for teenagers

I said "proven in court".

Leveson was a court of law in all legal senses.

It was proven in that court - with full documentary evidence - that Salmond had cut a deal with Murdoch where Salmond had betrayed his oath of office.

What part are you having such difficulties with?

[LJS]

and that changes if they do a deal how exactly?

Only if the SNP vote down good policies.

Sturgeon has already said it's impossible for her to rule out a referendum.

In fact, you were arguing only a week or two ago that she doesn't have the authority to rule it out. Only people like you have the right to rule it out.

So perhaps stop it with the double-speak? Because it's not possible to do a working deal with the duplicitous. It's the SNP's duplicitousness that stops all chances of a deal.

What do the SNP have to offer Labour if they're a party who won't support what's right? Nothing at all.

And if they won't support what's right, they're not a suitable partner to do deals with.

Can the SNP do what's right? We'll get to find out, I hope.

Sturgeon said she couldn't rule out a referendum for a lifetime or a generation. She has already ruled trying to use the result of this election as a mandate for a referendum. She has said she hasn't decided to put in her manifesto for Holyrood 2016. She can clearly decide to leave it out.

[eFestivals]

Sturgeon said she couldn't rule out a referendum for a lifetime or a generation.

.... because only the Scottish people had the right to do that.

Why only half of what she said LJS? Is that because you need to manipulate the truth?

You've backed her saying that.

And now you say that what the Scottish people think means fuck all and that she should rule out what you say is not her right to rule out.

Are you a bit confused?

She has said she hasn't decided to put in her manifesto for Holyrood 2016. She can clearly decide to leave it out.

PMSL.

She's stated the exact opposite - that the result of this election can create the mandate for another ref.

But don't let that stop you making it up.

She has said she hasn't decided to put in her manifesto for Holyrood 2016. She can clearly decide to leave it out.

If she's honest about no further referendum, she can rule it out now.

As you've just said: "She can clearly decide to leave it out."

So why hasn't she?

Get her to rule out what you say she should rule out and maybe Ed will talk to her. It certainly removes or lessens one of the bigger issues between them if Sturgeon were to do that.

So why hasn't she?

Edited May 1, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

.... because only the Scottish people had the right to do that.

Why only half of what she said LJS? Is that because you need to manipulate the truth?

You've backed her saying that.

And now you say that what the Scottish people think means fuck all and that she should rule out what you say is not her right to rule out.

Are you a bit confused?

PMSL.

She's stated the exact opposite - that the result of this election can create the mandate for another ref.

But don't let that stop you making it up.

If she's honest about no further referendum, she can rule it out now.

As you've just said: "She can clearly decide to leave it out."

So why hasn't she?

Get her to rule out what you say she should rule out and maybe Ed will talk to her. It certainly removes or lessens one of the bigger issues between them if Sturgeon were to do that.

So why hasn't she?

why would she?

[LJS]

I said "proven in court".

Leveson was a court of law in all legal senses.

It was proven in that court - with full documentary evidence - that Salmond had cut a deal with Murdoch where Salmond had betrayed his oath of office.

What part are you having such difficulties with?

If you can come up with anything linking the current SNP leadership with Murdoch, I'll be happy to comment.

If Miliband is not tainted by Blair's relationship with Murdoch, then Sturgeon is not tainted by Salmond's.