The Dirty Independence Question

[zahidf]

so will the snp welcome facist donald trump to scotland and let him build his golf courses there? whilst massively sucking up to him.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

so will the snp welcome facist donald trump to scotland and let him build his golf courses there? whilst massively sucking up to him.

no, they'll say they never sucked up to him (liars!) and instead say it was all the fault of those nasty horrible people from the 'branch office' of Labour.

I see you're just starting out at this.

 

[LJS]

9 hours ago, eFestivals said:

no, they'll say they never sucked up to him (liars!) and instead say it was all the fault of those nasty horrible people from the 'branch office' of Labour.

I see you're just starting out at this.

 

It's ok. Muslims don't play golf.

[LJS]

Giant Alex Salmond portrait to be welded onto Forth Road Bridge

PEOPLE in Scotland were this week surprised by the announcement that a giant portrait of Alex Salmond will be welded onto one side of the Forth Road Bridge.

The bridge has been closed to cars and pedestrians temporarily to allow the work to go ahead.

Residents of Fife are up in arms at the decision, with some threatening to glue portraits of David Cameron onto the other side of the bridge in protest.

Unconfirmed reports suggest that the portrait will be fitted with a motion sensor that will trigger a recording of Mel Gibson’s Braveheart speech to play over a sound system as boats pass underneath.

SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon commented: "The portrait will be an excellent addition to one of the country’s greatest pieces of infrastructure. Salmond’s face is sure to boost the numbers of visitors to Scotland."

Salmond, who is rumoured to be in talks over plans to carve his face onto the side of Mount Rushmore, was unavailable to comment.

[eFestivals]

I see the bid to oust Carmichael has failed, with the court accepting he had every reason to believe the contents of the memo.

 

[LJS]

2 hours ago, eFestivals said:

I see the bid to oust Carmichael has failed, with the court accepting he had every reason to believe the contents of the memo.

 

did they really?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35050691

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-35050429"

Quote

A legal challenge over the election of Liberal Democrat Alistair Carmichael as Orkney and Shetland MP has been refused by judges. They said the petitioners had "not proved beyond reasonable doubt" that Mr Carmichael had committed an "illegal practice".

In fact the case was not about him leaking the memo, it was about him lying by saying he hadn't leaked it.

 

Quote

 

Judges Lady Paton and Lord Matthews refused the petition and ruled that Mr Carmichael's election as an MP should stand.

They said Mr Carmichael told a "blatant lie" in a Channel 4 interview on Sunday 5 April when he claimed that he had only become aware of the memo when contacted by a journalist.

However, they said there was "reasonable doubt" about whether the lie could properly be characterised as a "false statement of fact in relation to his personal character or conduct", as required by the Act.

"It is of the essence of section 106 that it does not apply to lies in general: it applies only to lies in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate made before or during an election for the purpose of affecting that candidate's return," Lady Paton said.

The judges explained that if a candidate said something like he regarded the practice of leaking confidential information as dishonest and morally reprehensible, and he would not stoop to such tactics, they would be likely to conclude this was a false statement "'in relation to [his] personal character or conduct".

This is because he would be falsely holding himself out as being of such a standard of honesty, honour, trustworthiness and integrity that he would never be involved in such a leaking exercise.

Even though their judgement on this matter was enough to resolve the case, the judges also ruled on other matters.

They said they were satisfied it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the MP made the false statement of fact "for the purpose of affecting (positively) his own return at the election".

Lady Paton said Mr Carmichael wanted public attention to remain focused on the political message that voters should have anxieties about Scottish independence and the SNP rather than his leaking of the memo.

She said: "The inescapable inference, in our opinion, is that if the SNP became a less attractive prospect, Mr Carmichael's chances of a comfortable majority in what had become a 'two-horse race' in Orkney and Shetland would be enhanced."

The judges also considered that Mr Carmichael's lie in the Channel 4 interview was driven by "self-protection".

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

On 11/11/2015 at 9:24 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

 

More recently ( yesterday ) we had the 1 Scottish Lib MP admitting that he`s had a " difficult few months " and that his misleading of a cabinet office investigation was " calculated and intended to mislead ".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-34777085.-

 

 

Mr Carmichael had lost a fair whack of his majority before this carry on. " Calculated and intended to mislead " as we discussed on here in November. Neil doing a nice spin on the story today 

Orkney and Shetland MP Alistair Carmichael has admitted that he tried to mislead a Cabinet Office investigation into a leaked memo.

Giving evidence for a second day at a special election court, the Lib Dem MP was told that his response to the investigation was "calculated and intended to mislead".

He replied: "Yes, truthfully I would have to say that."

[LJS]

On 08/12/2015 at 1:04 PM, zahidf said:

so will the snp welcome facist donald trump to scotland and let him build his golf courses there? whilst massively sucking up to him.

 

On 08/12/2015 at 1:07 PM, eFestivals said:

no, they'll say they never sucked up to him (liars!) and instead say it was all the fault of those nasty horrible people from the 'branch office' of Labour.

I see you're just starting out at this.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nicola-sturgeon-strips-donald-trump-of-scottish-ambassador-role-a6766786.html

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, LJS said:

In fact the case was not about him leaking the memo, it was about him lying by saying he hadn't leaked it.

Nope, in law (rather than what the petitioners wanted it to be about) it was about whether the content of the leak was a lie and he knew it was a lie, and that he knowing used the lie in order to win votes.

If the content of the leak was a lie and he knew it, Carmichael had won his seat dishonestly. The leak wasn't a lie, and so he hadn't won his seat dishonestly.

As the BBC report you've linked to says...

Quote

The crucial thing in the case hasn't been whether or not Mr Carmichael lied

...and ...

Quote

There was no complaint over the leak itself - it was the denial,

 

As I've pointed out on many occasions - and Sturgeon has never disputed nor asked it to be looked into further (I wonder why not? :P) - the memo has been ruled as being an accurately recorded version of the convo between a UK civil servant and a geezer in the French consulate.

(which is a different thing to the claims by the French geezer's boss and Sturgeon that his convo with Sturgeon didn't happen in the way it ended up recorded on that memo).
 

 

Edited December 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

12 hours ago, comfortablynumb1910 said:

Mr Carmichael had lost a fair whack of his majority before this carry on. " Calculated and intended to mislead " as we discussed on here in November. Neil doing a nice spin on the story today 

Orkney and Shetland MP Alistair Carmichael has admitted that he tried to mislead a Cabinet Office investigation into a leaked memo.

Giving evidence for a second day at a special election court, the Lib Dem MP was told that his response to the investigation was "calculated and intended to mislead".

He replied: "Yes, truthfully I would have to say that."

 

As you point out, Carmichael isn't denying the facts of what happened. The court case was about the 'why' it happened....

It centred around this: Did he he make make the leak to smear Sturgeon with what he knew to be false information, or was he revealing what he believed to be truth?

The cabinet inquiry said he didn't know it was false info (if it was false info) and the court has now also accepted that he didn't know it was false info (if it was false info).

And that's because *everyone* (Sturgeon included) is not disputing that the UK civil servant accurately recorded the contents of the phone call he received from the French. How that French geezer came to give the version he did to that UK civil servant is something else entirely.

 

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nicola-sturgeon-strips-donald-trump-of-scottish-ambassador-role-a6766786.html

that's what the SNP did yesterday, after they realised they couldn't suck Donald's dick any longer.

Have the SNP been sucking Donald's dick? Yes they have.

[LJS]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that's what the SNP did yesterday, after they realised they couldn't suck Donald's dick any longer.

Have the SNP been sucking Donald's dick? Yes they have.

You're funny

[LJS]

26 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Nope, in law (rather than what the petitioners wanted it to be about) it was about whether the content of the leak was a lie and he knew it was a lie, and that he knowing used the lie in order to win votes.

If the content of the leak was a lie and he knew it, Carmichael had won his seat dishonestly. The leak wasn't a lie, and so he hadn't won his seat dishonestly.

 

...
 

 

You are completely wrong. Please read the report again & come back & apologise.

 

 

As I've pointed out on many occasions - and Sturgeon has never disputed nor asked it to be looked into further (I wonder why not? :P) - the memo has been ruled as being an accurately recorded version of the convo between a UK civil servant and a geezer in the French consulate.

(which is a different thing to the claims by the French geezer's boss and Sturgeon that his convo with Sturgeon didn't happen in the way it ended up recorded on that memo).
 

 

Every single person with any connection to this, including Alistair Carmichael has acknowledged the memo is incorrect 

 

The Press watchdog upheld Nic's complaint against the Telegraph saying 

Quote

the article was "significantly misleading".

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13415901.Sturgeon_wins_press_complaint_over_leaked_Frenchgate_memo_and_hails/

She made it clear at the time that it was bollocks. We don't need an enquiry to establish what everyone apart from you accepts.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

You are completely wrong. Please read the report again & come back & apologise.

It centred around the 'why' he lied and what that meant towards his character.

Otherwise his admission that he did lie would have been enough to have him thrown out of office.

 

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

Every single person with any connection to this, including Alistair Carmichael has acknowledged the memo is incorrect 

Nope. He's said he accepted that the memo is not an accurate recording of the convo between Mr 'you're really spoiling us' and Sturgeon.

Which is a different thing to whether the memo is an accurate recording of the phone call between French Consulate staff and the UK civil servant - which has been deemed as accurate.

If anyone wants to get to the bottom of how those differences occurred, they'd need to ask the French - and Sturgeon certainly hasn't asked the French to explain how it happened (at least not publicly) and nor has anyone else.

 

11 minutes ago, LJS said:

The Press watchdog upheld Nic's complaint against the Telegraph saying 

She made it clear at the time that it was bollocks. We don't need an enquiry to establish what everyone apart from you accepts.

No one has said the memo is not an accurate recording of the phone call.

Stop pretending the relevant facts are only the ones you say count.

No one - not even Sturgeon - has disputed that the memo was accurately recorded.

 

[LJS]

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It centred around the 'why' he lied and what that meant towards his character.

Otherwise his admission that he did lie would have been enough to have him thrown out of office.

 

 

 

Good, thanks for acknowledging that you were wrong when you said " Nope, in law (rather than what the petitioners wanted it to be about) it was about whether the content of the leak was a lie and he knew it was a lie, and that he knowing used the lie in order to win votes. "

 

The lie that was considered in court was the lie when he denied any knowledge of the leak.

 

 

Nope. He's said he accepted that the memo is not an accurate recording of the convo between Mr 'you're really spoiling us' and Sturgeon.

Which is a different thing to whether the memo is an accurate recording of the phone call between French Consulate staff and the UK civil servant - which has been deemed as accurate.

If anyone wants to get to the bottom of how those differences occurred, they'd need to ask the French - and Sturgeon certainly hasn't asked the French to explain how it happened (at least not publicly) and nor has anyone else.

 

No one gives a shit about the contents of the phone call - what caused the storm was the allegation that Sturgeon wanted a Cameron win.

 

 

No one has said the memo is not an accurate recording of the phone call.

Stop pretending the relevant facts are only the ones you say count.

No one - not even Sturgeon - has disputed that the memo was accurately recorded.

 

NO one has said the memo is not an accurate recording of the phone call? 

Wrong again Neil

No one except  French Consul General Pierre-Alain Coffinier who was the French side of the phone call who said...

Quote

 

Coffinier, who is based in Edinburgh, said: “As is usual we discussed the political

situation, which is normal. But at no stage did anyone make any comment on their preference for the United Kingdom election.”

He also denied he had told a civil servant that Sturgeon would rather see Cameron in Downing Street than Miliband.

 

 

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, LJS said:

Good, thanks for acknowledging that you were wrong when you said " Nope, in law (rather than what the petitioners wanted it to be about) it was about whether the content of the leak was a lie and he knew it was a lie, and that he knowing used the lie in order to win votes. "

I'm not acknowledging that. That's what the case centred around.
 

Quote

The lie that was considered in court was the lie when he denied any knowledge of the leak.

Yep, but it was about what the lie meant about Carmichael.

Which pushed it back to whether he knowingly knew the memo was a smear when he leaked it (which it's accepted he didn't, because it's accepted the memo was accurately recorded).

 

Quote

No one gives a shit about the contents of the phone call - what caused the storm was the allegation that Sturgeon wanted a Cameron win.

There's a story in there somewhere about how the memo came to be recorded as it did.

If the convo really didn't happen in the way it was recorded in the memo, then the only other sensible conclusion is that the French wanted to smear Sturgeon.

So yes, those of us who prefer to get to the truth rather than mindlessly follow the leader do give a shit about truth.

 

Quote

NO one has said the memo is not an accurate recording of the phone call? 

Wrong again Neil

No one except  French Consul General Pierre-Alain Coffinier who was the French side of the phone call who said...

 

OK, fair enough ... but that still doesn't prove who the liar is, him, or the UK civil servant who had nothing to gain.

Given the caveat the civil servant put on the note, it points to the Frenchman as the one telling porkies. Why would anyone write a lying memo and then undermine his own lie with that caveat?

The UK govt accepts the memo was accurately recorded. The French are not pursuing them being lied about, and Sturgeon has shown zero interest in finding out why civil servants might be writing lying memos about her (and it's clear she'd prefer the whole thing to be forgotten, I wonder why?). How odd.

Edited December 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

My final word on this, because it's not something that really interests me.

 

Neil is desperate to perpetuate the myth that Nic is hot for Dave.

 

there is nothing to support this myth other than one leaked memo which Neil is now desperately trying to give credence to by claiming that " The UK govt accepts the memo was accurately recorded" 

 

Well, firstly, its a memo written by a UK Government employee so that's not exactly a shock, is it?

I presume his endorsement of the accuracy of the memo is based on Sir Jeremy Heywood's enquiry into the leak. So did Sir J say "he memo was accurately recorded?"

 

He said this ...

Quote

 : "Senior officials who have worked with him say that he is reliable and has no history of inaccurate reporting, impropriety or security lapses.

"The Cabinet Secretary has concluded that there is no reason to doubt that he recorded accurately what he thought he had heard. There is no evidence of any political motivation or 'dirty tricks'."

 

 

So there was no evidence that he was talking rubbish. 

 

Equally there was no evidence he wasn't. Which falls a wee bit short of saying it was "accurately recorded"

 

But it shows the SNP in a bad light so it's too good to let go of.

 

Incidentally, I think the court case was a waste of time. We know politicians leak (but it's not illegal) 

 

We know they lie ... & indeed it would kind of defeat the purpose of leaking if they immediately admitted to it. (that's not illegal either)

 

Alistair Carmichael's conduct was clearly unacceptable but the simple fact is that had his spad gone & bought a £10 payg phone to phone the Telegraph instead of using his work mobile, we would probably be none the wiser. 

 

Carmichael was my MP for a while & he even knocked on my door to ask for my vote.. He always seemed to me to be a decent enough guy , although perhaps a tad on the dull side. Apparently he never read the memo before approving its leak. I'd like to think if he had, he'd have said ..."don't be daft, that's not worth leaking."

 

 

 

 

 

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, LJS said:

So there was no evidence that he was talking rubbish. 

 

Equally there was no evidence he wasn't.

Exactly.

And yet you've 100% decided he was talking rubbish on the basis of only your prejudices, while I remain with an open mind because it's never been proven either way.

Oh dear.

There's only one person rejecting the facts here, and it's not me.

Meanwhile, it's rather telling that Sturgeon has no interest in how she came to be 'smeared', just in claiming that she was 'smeared'.

And yet those words about what she supposedly said appeared on that bit of paper somehow.

Putting the denials aside for the moment, was the reported convo something that might have happened? Yep.
If it had happened would Sturgeon deny it? Yep.
If it had happened would the French deny it? Yep.

In the world of 'diplomacy', people do sometimes talk candidly, but it's considered bad form for such candid words to be known about.

All possibilities remain open, yet despite it being the best thing ever for the SNP for the tories to have won the election, it's impossible for Sturgeon to want what's best for the party she leads. Riiiight. 

Edited December 11, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

On 12/11/2015 at 7:51 AM, eFestivals said:

Exactly.

And yet you've 100% decided he was talking rubbish on the basis of only your prejudices, while I remain with an open mind 

Now that is funny!

[LJS]

Meanwhile, some good news about the Scottish NHS that the SNP have apparently been running into the ground...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35053845

[eFestivals]

15 hours ago, LJS said:

Meanwhile, some good news about the Scottish NHS that the SNP have apparently been running into the ground...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35053845

Every NHS has had more money, any NHS that isn't going upwards is in big trouble. The better performance in Scotland is really about the falling performance in England, rather than about any brilliance in Scotland.

But if you want to give the SNP the credit for the recent improvement, you'll also be having to accept that they caused it to go crap in the first place, which you used to refute. Cos after 8 years in power - most of which had infallible Saint Nicola running the SNHS - the SNHS a year ago was more shit than England's is now as that graph makes clear.

Anyway ... if you'd have got your indy dream, you'd have none of that. You'd have absolutely massive cuts to the SHNS instead.... tho let's just forget about the the disaster for all of Scotland that the SNP wanted and praise them about the SNHS instead. It's not like you're trying to hide behind something, oh no.

Meanwhile I see that Snow White Salmond - the man who thinks that Scotland could and should self-fund - has been moaning that Scotland might have to live with an amount of his laughable claims. How very odd.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Comfy recently said he wouldn't live in a cave to have an indy Scotland, so I asked him what would be too-much of a price to pay for that independence.

He didn't answer when I asked that question last time, so I thought I'd ask again. I'm genuinely interested to hear what he thinks are the limits he'd accept of losses for Scotland from indy.

Any chance of an answer, comfy? How much of a hit to yours and everyone else's lifestyle is too-high a price to pay?

[LJS]

10 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Comfy recently said he wouldn't live in a cave to have an indy Scotland, so I asked him what would be too-much of a price to pay for that independence.

He didn't answer when I asked that question last time, so I thought I'd ask again. I'm genuinely interested to hear what he thinks are the limits he'd accept of losses for Scotland from indy.

Any chance of an answer, comfy? How much of a hit to yours and everyone else's lifestyle is too-high a price to pay?

What a ridiculous question!

 

Or, as it is more commonly known, a loaded question.

It's a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

 

How much poorer would you like to be?

 

Both Comfy & I will be happy to discuss the economic prospects for an Independent Scotland WHEN we have a prospect of Indyref2 (I have taken the liberty of speaking on you behalf Comfy, I hope that is OK)  Until then feel free to bang on relentlessly about your completely meaningless & irrelevant £8bn, £10bn or £15bn or whatever today's number is.

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, LJS said:

What a ridiculous question!

 

Or, as it is more commonly known, a loaded question.

It's a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

 

How much poorer would you like to be?

 

Both Comfy & I will be happy to discuss the economic prospects for an Independent Scotland WHEN we have a prospect of Indyref2 (I have taken the liberty of speaking on you behalf Comfy, I hope that is OK)  Until then feel free to bang on relentlessly about your completely meaningless & irrelevant £8bn, £10bn or £15bn or whatever today's number is.

 

 

Spot on as usual mate 

The finances of an indy Scotland in , say, 15 years can be nothing more than guess work. It`s an ever changing world etc.

I think there are opportunities as well as dangers but I think our weans can reach their potential better under a Labour or SNP Government with us taking decisions for ourselves rather than follow the Tory policies made in London like we are and will be for the foreseeable .

It`s never been about being anti-english or thinking we are in some way superior and it`s defo never been about greed. I accept that not everyone will accept or even understand that but I know that you do. 

I don`t even blame the Tories for not having Scottish votes as a priority. They gave that up a long long time ago. They like keeping the " Kingdom " in place for sure and Dave likes nothing better than posturing on the world stage. Rule brittania better together etc. 

We know we could manage fine as an Independent Country.

[Comfy Bean]

12 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Comfy recently said he wouldn't live in a cave to have an indy Scotland, so I asked him what would be too-much of a price to pay for that independence.

He didn't answer when I asked that question last time, so I thought I'd ask again. I'm genuinely interested to hear what he thinks are the limits he'd accept of losses for Scotland from indy.

Any chance of an answer, comfy? How much of a hit to yours and everyone else's lifestyle is too-high a price to pay?

 

On 11/24/2015 at 8:02 AM, eFestivals said:

In all seriousness, what is your answer to the 'cave' thing?

Would you still support indy if it meant all of Scotland had to live in caves, and that no circumstances would diminish your support for indy?

Or do you have a reasoned view, where indy has to have a pay-off of some kind to make it worth your support?

It's an easy question for you. Dogma or reason?

 

On 11/24/2015 at 9:25 PM, comfortablynumb1910 said:

In a word NO. If I thought voting in a certain way would result in the good folks of Scotland living in caves then I would not vote for it. I`m brushing over your use of the word serious anywhere near this latest cave business of yours.

Meanwhile back in the real world, some of my countrymen live on the street with no money, home or cave. They are not better together - clearly.

I honestly can`t believe you are bringing up the possibility of people in an Indy Scotland being forced to return to living in caves. 

I may be wrong here ( please correct me if I am ) but do you have an underlying point ?

Are we back in Edwina Currie territory here ? Are you dying to say that we could not survive without England`s generosity or as Edwina puts it ....are you fed up funding our extravagant lifestyle 

Is your next card the subsidy junkies one