|
|
Post by happyjack on May 1, 2024 18:41:02 GMT
I cannot see what was wrong with it, could you enlighten us please? If he was to get his factsright it would help. If you thought that I had got my facts wrong then you would have come back on that- not with the zero substance playground level quip that you chose to respond with. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on May 1, 2024 18:59:30 GMT
Andrew Neil calmly outlined the absolute mess that Scotland has become under the administration of the SNP, he was accurate and put his case forward without any embellishment. Riddoch just shrilly denied the obvious and parroted the SNP line. It is now evident both the SNP and the case for independence are discredited and all you can hope for is that a competent administration can sort out your HNS, your potholes, your rat infestation and your education system. Lesley Riddoch stated the facts. Neil has previous when it comes to the SNP and Independence. He, along with many others from the foreign commentariat, got it stupendously wrong after the 2017 election: hopefully he'll be proved wrong again! As for Lesley "parroting the SNP line", I would point out that she is not a member of the SNP, she is an Independence supporter. Tell me what she got wrong! |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on May 1, 2024 19:02:16 GMT
Andrew Neil calmly outlined the absolute mess that Scotland has become under the administration of the SNP, he was accurate and put his case forward without any embellishment. Riddoch just shrilly denied the obvious and parroted the SNP line. It is now evident both the SNP and the case for independence are discredited and all you can hope for is that a competent administration can sort out your HNS, your potholes, your rat infestation and your education system. Riddoch used to be really good when she had her own programme on BBC Radio Scotland at lunchtime with searching questioning and a refusal to allow people to dodge the issues. She seems to lose all direction and reason though when it comes to Nationalism. I suppose we all have our faults. She tells it like it is. She is a very knowledgeable woman. Can you tell me any untruths she is supposed to have come out with? |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on May 1, 2024 19:07:59 GMT
Of course you thought Neil was the bees knees! He was spouting the same "absolute rubbish" you spout. Riddoch put him in his place. But, then, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even listen to her rebuttal. Neil & his ilk pronounced the imminent death of the SNP and the Independence movement after the 2017 election. Well, that turned out well for him, didn't it. Despite all the goings on, SNP support seems to have flatlined at about 34%-36%. With a new leader in place, the Party might begin a revival. Support for Independence is at approx. 50%, so there is scope for SNP backing to grow. Why shouldn't we compare? Afterall, getting back into bed with rUK is what some, wrong thinking people, believe. It is for their benefit that a fair and true comparison is made. Wearealwaystoldby the PM and hisrabid Unionists that Scotland is badly run. It is for the good of everyone to know what is actually happening in England. Lesley dealt admirably with all aspects of Neil's rant. You need to learn the difference between someone saying something well and someone saying something that you like and agree with. Whether you or I like what Andrew Neil said, he was clearly measured, concise and incisive. Whether you or I agree with what he said he unquestionably apoke well. Lesley Riddoch, on the other hand, might have said stuff that aligned with your views but she was erratic and meandering, and mildly flustered in my view. Despite what you claim, she hardly addressed anything that Andrew Neil said, the exception being that she challenged his comment about education in Scotland, which she promptly backed down on when presented with some cold facts rather than being allowed to ramble on unchallenged as she is normally allowed to do. She certainly came nowhere remotely close to doing what you credit her with doing just as Andrew Neil’s contribution was nowhere close to meeting the definition of a rant. You clearly have not yet taken time to check out the meaning of that word which you choose to use so often. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on May 1, 2024 19:22:36 GMT
Andrew Neil calmly outlined the absolute mess that Scotland has become under the administration of the SNP, he was accurate and put his case forward without any embellishment. Riddoch just shrilly denied the obvious and parroted the SNP line. It is now evident both the SNP and the case for independence are discredited and all you can hope for is that a competent administration can sort out your HNS, your potholes, your rat infestation and your education system. Lesley Riddoch stated the facts. Neil has previous when it comes to the SNP and Independence. He, along with many others from the foreign commentariat, got it stupendously wrong after the 2017 election: hopefully he'll be proved wrong again! As for Lesley "parroting the SNP line", I would point out that she is not a member of the SNP, she is an Independence supporter. Tell me what she got wrong! It is you (once again), rather than Lesley Riddoch, who got things wrong. You introduced the clip with both Mr Neil’s and Ms Riddoch’s contributions to this thread, telling us that Mr Neil had ranted (which was simply not the case) and that Ms Riddoch “went on to completely demolish the ‘rubbish’ that he [ Mr Neil] had just spouted“. Not only did Mr Neil not rant or spout rubbish but Ms Riddoch hardly addressed anything that Mr Neil had just said in her rambling response (the main exception to that being that she tried to discredit his point on Scottish education but very quickly backed down and tacitly accepted that Mr Neil was right) and she did not put even a minor dent into Mr Neil, never mind completely demolish him as you claimed. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on May 1, 2024 19:55:41 GMT
Riddoch used to be really good when she had her own programme on BBC Radio Scotland at lunchtime with searching questioning and a refusal to allow people to dodge the issues. She seems to lose all direction and reason though when it comes to Nationalism. I suppose we all have our faults. She tells it like it is. She is a very knowledgeable woman. Can you tell me any untruths she is supposed to have come out with? Well one fact she stated was that parts of Glasgow have lower life expectancy than much of Africa, she put this down to poverty. In actual fact there is much research that ties that outcome to past poverty and not on modern day poverty due to certain genes being switched on when passed to the next generation. This was due to overcrowding and the prevalence of childhood diseases in the past. Surviving those times has issues for the following generations. Addressing poverty will not correct those issues until the genes become switched off again. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on May 1, 2024 20:13:41 GMT
morayloonWho is your preference to take over now?
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on May 1, 2024 20:59:38 GMT
Alison Pearson writes her thoughts on the now unemployed Ayatollah in the DT today, as always she sums up the bleak dangerous absurdity of Scottish politics at the moment, apologies for quoting the complete article but I wonder how Morayloon squares this with his own strange version of events, dismisses it as a rant I suppose. As part of his pity pageant, Humza (you’ve only got) Yousaf (to blame) posted a photograph on Twitter of himself reading a bedtime story to his small daughter. The caption read: “Today of all days, remembering and being grateful for all the blessings I have in life.”
Nauseating. Does the departing First Minister of Scotland really think he was doing the right thing for little girls like his own by pursuing gender identity policies which, if the SNP had its warped way, would have allowed children to carry on taking puberty blockers before proceeding to mutilation? That’s the thing about the advocates of “progressive” politics like Nicola Sturgeon and Yousaf. They accuse anybody who dares to oppose them of racism, misogyny and homophobia, while being the worst, most authoritarian bigots going.
Kate Forbes, who came second to Humza in the leadership contest, is one senior SNP figure who deserves some credit for standing firm against Scotland’s appalling gender self-ID “reforms”, which would have allowed people to change their legally recognised sex faster than you can say, “Sorry, that rapist showing his willy in pink Lycra leggings really doesn’t belong in a women’s prison.”
Yet, since Yousaf stood down, it is Forbes, a member of the Free Church of Scotland, who has been under attack for being “socially conservative”. (Or reflecting the views of the majority of Scots still in possession of any moral sense, as it’s also known.)
Muslims are a minority group renowned for their social conservatism, but the SNP boys’ club had no difficulty electing a Muslim leader, even though Yousaf awkwardly skipped a key vote on gay marriage. (Anyone who thinks that was on purpose to avoid awkwardness within his gay-averse community is, of course, “white” and “racist”, which amount to the same thing in Yousaf’s chippy world view.)
You may recall that one of Yousaf’s first acts in office, after Sturgeon departed in a stinking cloud, was to organise a Muslim prayer session in Bute House. It was the opposite of inclusive. In fact, it looked very much like a defiant marking of territory by a man who gave a speech in the Scottish Parliament spitting contempt because so many senior positions in the country were held by white people. The fact that Scotland’s population is 95 per cent white need be no bar to spurious allegations of institutional racism. He loves a hate crime, does Humza.
The real prejudice here is against Forbes. She has committed the cardinal sin of being a Christian in oh-so-tolerant Scotland and is being called names so that any fresh bid she might be considering for the leadership is sabotaged. Actually, the SNP allows conscience votes, as other parties do, on matters such as abortion. And the Free Church’s stance on moral questions is nearly identical to, if not more liberal than, official Roman Catholic positions. Christianity, it seems, is the only “protected characteristic” that doesn’t count under the infamous Hate Crime Act (For the Protection of Humza Yousaf).
But who is the real danger to Scotland? To hold on to power, the SNP got into bed with the Scottish Greens, who give every appearance of being stark staring bonkers. Despite the fact that NHS England banned puberty blockers following the Cass Review, the Greens thought NHS Scotland should keep prescribing unproven drugs to vulnerable children. They also bitterly opposed the decision to suspend Scotland’s statutory 2030 goal to reduce carbon emissions by 75 per cent, even though the Climate Change Committee recently stated that the target was no longer credible.
When the SNP finally succumbed to reality and moved to suspend both puberty blockers and the 2030 emissions goal, the co-leader of the Greens, Lorna Slater, accused them of being “reactionary” because they had betrayed the marvellous, “progressive” politics that has done so much to make Scotland the basket case it is today. (On Tuesday, the broadcaster and proud Scot Andrew Neil damned the “Left-wing consensus” that has damaged his country in every department, from education to health.)
To be fair, Slater has clearly spent so much time on the moral high ground that her brain may have been deprived of oxygen. Another explanation is that the poor woman is Canadian. Her native land now being the world capital of woke woo-woo.
Astonishingly, all mainstream news bulletins on Monday night solemnly repeated an outlandishly biased version of events. The Greens, viewers were told, were upset by the “reactionary” SNP – actually the farthest Left party in the UK. Meanwhile, Forbes, she of the rather sensible economics reforms, was a dangerous conservative because she doesn’t believe you can turn boys into girls, or vice versa.
I am sick of reporters treating Left-wing ideologues and their deranged views with weird courtesy. Why are eco-crazies and trans advocates who threaten JK Rowling and MSP Joanna Cherry dignified with the term “progressives”? Why are Tories always “far-Right” but Humza Yousaf is never “far-Left” (which he is) or “the authoritarian author” of the demented Hate Crimes Act?
Such unmerited reverence and kid-glove treatment for the devolved Scottish government is what allowed Sturgeon, her now-arrested and charged husband, and their cronies to get away with so much for so long. Including a focus on identity politics and virtue signalling at the expense of the Scottish people. How’s that £110,000 SNP battle bus parked in the mother-in-law’s drive, Nicola?
As I write, it looks very much like the Scottish Greens, who commanded a mere 1.3 per cent of the popular vote, have the whip hand when it comes to choosing the country’s new leader. He – almost certainly a he – will have to sign up again to those “progressive” policies. Hard to believe that 18th-century Edinburgh, home to Boswell the biographer, Hume the philosopher and Smith the economist – giants all – is now at the mercy of a Canadian called Laura.
Worth recalling Adam Smith, I reckon, so wise on human dealings. “Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this – no dog exchanges bones with another.” The SNP is right down to the bones now.Apart from a lack of action on Independence, the other main reason I left the party was its fixation on Gender issues. So, on the matter of Gender politics I tend to side with the journalist. However she goes a wee bit off the tracks when describing Yousaf as "far left". That is a typically lazy Torygraph description of anyone to the left of the "far right" Tories. In other words, it is totally false. As for her comment on the Greens, it must be pointed out that the party only fielded three constituency candidates. They won 8 seats with an 8.1% share of the vote in the Regional list. |
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on May 1, 2024 21:01:21 GMT
I cannot see what was wrong with it, could you enlighten us please? Neither can he.That’s why he has come back with the zero substance playground level response above. That is his usual MO when he has nothing credible to counter with in response to comments that he doesn’t like but knows are fair and reasonable. A typical hallmark of a yield nothing to anyone on anything zealot. Don't kid yourself |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on May 1, 2024 21:35:22 GMT
Don’t worry, I am not doing that and I won’t do that. Admittedly, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you recognise that my comments were fair and reasonable, but I guess that you are so corrupted by your Indy obsession by now that you are incapable of viewing anything that contradicts the Indy message as being anything other than unionist drivel or such like. Sad man!
|
|
|
|
Post by morayloon on May 2, 2024 1:56:54 GMT
Of course you thought Neil was the bees knees! He was spouting the same "absolute rubbish" you spout. Riddoch put him in his place. But, then, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even listen to her rebuttal. Neil & his ilk pronounced the imminent death of the SNP and the Independence movement after the 2017 election. Well, that turned out well for him, didn't it. Despite all the goings on, SNP support seems to have flatlined at about 34%-36%. With a new leader in place, the Party might begin a revival. Support for Independence is at approx. 50%, so there is scope for SNP backing to grow. Why shouldn't we compare? Afterall, getting back into bed with rUK is what some, wrong thinking people, believe. It is for their benefit that a fair and true comparison is made. Wearealwaystoldby the PM and hisrabid Unionists that Scotland is badly run. It is for the good of everyone to know what is actually happening in England. Lesley dealt admirably with all aspects of Neil's rant. You need to learn the difference between someone saying something well and someone saying something that you like and agree with. Whether you or I like what Andrew Neil said, he was clearly measured, concise and incisive. Whether you or I agree with what he said he unquestionably apoke well. Lesley Riddoch, on the other hand, might have said stuff that aligned with your views but she was erratic and meandering, and mildly flustered in my view. Despite what you claim, she hardly addressed anything that Andrew Neil said, the exception being that she challenged his comment about education in Scotland, which she promptly backed down on when presented with some cold facts rather than being allowed to ramble on unchallenged as she is normally allowed to do. She certainly came nowhere remotely close to doing what you credit her with doing just as Andrew Neil’s contribution was nowhere close to meeting the definition of a rant. You clearly have not yet taken time to check out the meaning of that word which you choose to use so often. You need to listen again to Lesley Riddoch's reactions to Ferrari's questioning. There was nothing erratic or meandering as she pointed out the fact that the Scottish NHS is the best performing in the UK; thattherehas been no NHS strikes in Scotland; that the Scottish Government has less borrowing powers than Local Authorities. She pointed out the reality that Westminster holds the purse strings. On education, she didn't backdown. She pointed out that PISA is only one method of measuring educational attainment and there are critics of the system. www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/12/03/expert-how-pisa-created-an-illusion-education-quality-marketed-it-world/ The OECD report on education was generally positive, and the criticisms they made have been taken on board by Scot Gov www.oecd.org/education/scotland-s-curriculum-for-excellence-bf624417-en.htm www.gov.scot/news/oecd-review-backs-school-curriculum/You live in a rabidly ulta unionist dreamworld where yousee everything pro union through rose tinted spectacles. |
|
|
|
Post by happyjack on May 2, 2024 2:57:37 GMT
I repeat
1. You said that Andrew Neil ranted - he clearly did no such thing
2. You described Andrew Neil’s contribution as rubbish - it clearly was not
3. You said that Lesley Riddoch “went on to completely demolish the ‘rubbish’ that he [Mr Neil] had just spouted“ - she clearly did not. Indeed, she hardly touched on most of what Mr Neil said, doing as I described her as doing in my earlier post above instead, and when she did make an outlandish counterclaim on what Mr Neil said on Scotland’s declining education performance she quickly backtracked on that and tacitly agreed that what Mr Neil had said was correct once the show’s host pulled her up on her false claim.
.
You describe me as living in an ultra unionist dreamworld, which is pretty difficult given that I am not a unionist, although I understand that it is just about impossible for you to see anyone who challenges you or your Indy obsessed beliefs as anything other than a rabid unionist; to even contemplate that someone who cared not one bit for unionism was challenging your ‘noble’ Indy beliefs and views would be intolerable for you so you need to somehow diminish the credibility of that person which, in your case, means dismissing that person as an ultra unionist type, because nothing else computes with your twisted perceptions. As I said above, sad man!
However, this is not about unionism or nationalism, nor about staying in the UK or independence, nor about what Ms Riddoch actually said or the veracity of that. It is simply about you posting a clip on here and making claims about what is on that clip that are demonstrably not true and can be seen to be untrue by simply watching the clip and comparing what you say happened against what is actually on the clip - as is the case with each of the points above.
So, once again, you have demonstrated your limited ability to process and understand English, this time in spoken as well as written form. Not only that but your ability to objectively assess the relative quality of spoken contributions by others is obviously seriously impacted by the pro- or anti-independence sympathies of the contributor - just as it is with written contributions. Mr Neil was measured, concise and incisive compared with which Ms Riddoch, while still competent enough in her own way, was patently inferior, rambling and a bit erratic in comparison. You shouldn’t have to feel that it might somehow dent your Indy credentials to admit the glaringly obvious - but that is clearly how things are with you..
|
|
|
|
Post by om15 on May 2, 2024 12:52:34 GMT
So it appears that John Swinney will be the next First Minister after Kate Forbes decided not to apply for the job. Mr Swinney served as deputy to Nicola Sturgeon and therefore is an ideal "continuity candidate" to ensure, among other things, that certain investigations will never reach completion.
Kate Forbes came under huge fire and criticism from the Greens because she is a Christian, so in order to keep the Greens at the trough the SNP went for the easy option. So more of the same for the unfortunate people of Scotland, although my sympathy is limited as they did vote these morons into power after all.
Kate Forbes’ statement in full
“I have listened very carefully to the vision John Swinney set out this morning for Scotland. I welcomed, and embrace, his commitment to ensure internal respect for robust and divergent debate in the party, which is the lifeblood of any democratic institution like the SNP.
“I was also greatly heartened by his drive to restore a sense of courtesy and dignity to the way we conduct ourselves as a party and as a Parliament. If we want to rewin the trust of the people, tone and language matter in the way we conduct ourselves.
“I have also had the opportunity to speak directly with him to discuss the future of our party and our country. Those discussions on the future of the SNP and our vision for Scotland were both frank and constructive. What emerged was that we share a powerful common purpose for the country.
“That includes a passion to revitalise our party, reach out to those who feel disempowered and reinvigorate the independence movement.
“It also includes an understanding that economic growth and tackling poverty must again be key priorities, and that a just transition to ‘net zero’ must work with, and not against, our communities and businesses. But more than that, John is clear that he is determined to return the SNP to governing from the mainstream. Competent, candid government earning the trust of the people.
“That was the vision I offered in the last leadership contest, and is evidently demanded by the Scottish public. I have therefore weighed the decision whether or not to seek the leadership of the party with great care. Ultimately, I have concluded that the best way to deliver the urgent change Scotland needs is to join with John Swinney and advocate for that reform agenda within the Scottish Government.
“I can therefore today announce that I will not be seeking nomination as the next SNP leader. John will therefore have my support and endorsement in any campaign to follow.
“I sincerely thank every party member, and each of my parliamentary colleagues in Holyrood and Westminster, who have been in touch to urge me to stand. I recognise many people might be disappointed that I will not be contesting the position of leader at this time. To those people I say this - you can be certain that delivering on the priorities for which we have, together, advocated in recent years has been at the heart of today’s decision.
“It is now clear from this morning’s statement that in John Swinney we have someone who not only understands that need for reform, but has now committed to delivering it. I look forward to playing my role in making that happen.”
1:49PM
|
|
|
|
Post by Ripley on May 2, 2024 14:14:55 GMT
Meanwhile... Philip Rycroft, a former head of the government's Brexit Department for Leaving the EU, has admitted that leaving the EU has made the UK poorer and an independent Scotland more likely.
Why? He said the barriers that now exist between the UK and its major EU markets act as a drag anchor on the UK and reduce productivity growth. “Coming out of the EU means we will be poorer than otherwise we would have been,” said Rycroft.
|
|
|
|
Post by om15 on May 2, 2024 14:19:49 GMT
From the Gov web site
If he had done his job properly then his opinions wouldn't be the case. I think Scotland has enough problems without adding being an EU Member don't you?
|
|
