Indeed... only just back in June May/the Tories were crowing about giving the NHS more money as part of the Brexit Dividend!Quote:
Originally Posted by Colr
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-44495598
:confused:
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Indeed... only just back in June May/the Tories were crowing about giving the NHS more money as part of the Brexit Dividend!Quote:
Originally Posted by Colr
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-44495598
:confused:
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Tories plan return to the empire
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...mpression=true
"Gavin Williamson*said he was looking into new opportunities for the*armed forces".Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Wtf does that actually mean?
He said that while “the rest of the world saw Britain standing 10 feet tall – when actually we stood six feet tall – Britons saw us standing five feet tall, not the six, and certainly not the 10.”Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Clearly it's about making us taller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
So it's my army's taller than yours mentality. Figures.
Country will be poorer, less well fed, less healthy etc etc etc after Brexit but at the least the government will be able to say we're taller. That'll make it all worthwhile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
The guy is in cloud cuckoo land.
If they can throw in younger and more handsome, then I'm soldQuote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Who doesn't like a trier?
https://twitter.com/RossThomson_MP/s...333049344?s=19
It's like a party political broadcast for the SNP
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...ment-1-4860755
If this isn't enough to push Scotland over the edge, then absolutely nothing ever will.
It's like they don't want Scotland to have any responsibilities within the UK, its almost like they think the "equal partners" stuff really is just a bluff we'd not notice and that they actually do believe their "we're too wee, too poor" stuff they spouted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Seems incredible doesn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
What's even more incredible is that they're right. Most people still aren't noticing it.
The Scots Tories would scrap Holyrood in a second if they thought they could get away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
I think you're wrong mate, given what's been going on with politics in Scotland in the last 5 or 6 years the Scottish public are very much aware. Much more than ever before due to social media etc. It's coming, be patient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Not so sure about that. No voters are like con victims. People who know they've been conned by an artist, but down right refuse to admit it to themselves or those around them out of sheer embarrassment. So they cling on blindly to the one conning them in the continued delusion that they were always right to trust them and should always trust them no matter what.Quote:
Originally Posted by stoneyburn hibs
It wouldn't surprise me if unionism hardened even further in Scotland to the point where the "silent majority" want to see the Scottish Parliament torched down to the ground under orders from London.
It's getting deeply depressing now.
Well without the EU, then now can get away with it. They're just waiting for the opportune moment to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
People get all hot under the collar about the use of the word quislings, but it's the only adequate word for describing Ruth's staunch loyal.
What? And give up their nice jobs in the Parliament?Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I think not.
They're not even trying to hide itQuote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/o...-edinburgh-hub
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Are we really surprised these days? :rolleyes:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/17...wQYJhc6cgyGagc
Not really surprised that Hugh Gaffney and Alistair Carmichael were present as well. :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Gathering their foot soldiers, for the battle ahead. I remember the links which were uncovered after indyref1, and we were told, we were trying to link the unionist parties with the orange order, and it wasn't really true.
Labour council in falkirk, giving the OO, funds from the roads budget, and now funds given in Motherwell.
It stinks to high heaven. I'm not surprised at all that wee Hugh is involved.
I've been saying it for years. But they're all masons. Whether in the OO or not. They're all connected. "Better Together" indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Embarrassing stuff. A vessel for religious intolerance and our elected politicians feel the need to meet with them!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Only last week one of their members (i.e. - morons) was convicted for spitting on a catholic priest.
A truly despicable organisation.
Isn't Gaffney still a councillor in North Lanarkshire. A Labour/Tory coalition where, whilst cuts to libraries etc are being made, they passed a motion to spend 20 odd grand on a new flagpole for a union flag and gave a cash donation to the orange lodge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Tory Mp Christopher Chope strikes again.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8770026.html
Horrible ****.
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Grieves
He claims he is upholding parliamentary principle but doesn’t object in similar circumstances when it is one of his crowd putting something forward.
Horrible but also hypocritical.
Are the 13 tory MP's, representing Scottish seats getting an easy ride at the moment?
I struggle to believe there are Tories getting any kind of a ride, to be honest. I think if they did, they'd be less likely to be Tories.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Unless there are pigs in the room.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
They definitely have a lot of elephants in the roomQuote:
Originally Posted by jonty
Scottish Young Conservatives:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5pBUB2XsAAWuxe.jpg
Average age about 50 :faf:
Full size here - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D5pBUB2XsAAWuxe.jpg
Theresa May heckled at Welsh Tory conference:
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsPolitics/...78893102473216
What she needs is a totally supine gathering that will nod along with any old pish the UK leadership tells them to and to **** with local concerns - so next stop Scottish Tory conference it is then! :rolleyes:
Not only that, but they put out 72 seats, in a hall that could seat maybe 500 and still couldn't fill them all.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
You're being a bit mean!.... are you deliberately trying to make it appear worse?! :grr:Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
It's ACTUALLY 76, if you included the speakers desk it's 79 ...... see much, much better! :devil:
Average age 50, and that's more than are there, including the cameraman, and the 25 strong press gang. :devil:Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
Boris Johnson supposedly tweeted earlier that he'd voted already despite him living in London where no election was taking place. He removed the tweet but not fast enough.
Ruth is back! And reckons she's going to be the next First Minister apparently.
So quick look at how that's going via last week's yougov poll:
Holyrood VI constituency:
SNP 46
Con 22
Lab 16
Lib 7
Brexit 4
Greens 3
Change 1
Holyrood VI regional:
SNP 37
Con 20
Lab 15
Green 10
Lib 7
Brexit 5
Change 2
Suspending my disbelief for a second ... let's say she has the faintest chance of turning these numbers round to a point where she's largest party by 2021 (that's 2 years against a backdrop of Brexit!)
Who the hell does she think is going to vote along with her to get anything through parliament? :crazy:
Jesus. That's ridiculous
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ory-councillor
They're doing a cracking job of bringing the average age down.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Will be a brilliant post meeting party. I can see at least another 4 people under 50 from all over Scotland turning up.
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
some tory dude using the scouts to deliver leaflets lol
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/n...uDFkGuKTyqRaWk
A bitter row has broken out after Scouts were used to deliver election leaflets for Conservative candidates.
In return it is claimed they were promised money to rent space in an allotment to grow vegetables for a soup kitchen.
Michael Gove (possible future PM) wants to withhold money from the Scottish Parliament for agriculture and education and have it spent directly by the UK Government, as to control the initiatives that the money is spent on.
Expect a lot of textbooks with union jacks plastered over them in our schools in the coming years. :rolleyes:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politi...iJZ0b***531jEs
Are you for real?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
I'm definitely not a Tory, I wouldn't want to guess what you are, but your post doesn't stand up to a second of scrutiny!
The Scotsman isn't the most reliable source to begin with, but the text makes clear he is talking about additional money outwith the agreed settlement.
Can you substantiate your point that he is wanting to withhold money from Ag and Fish and from Education? (Clue here - he might not legally have those powers :wink:)
'Textbooks with Union Jacks' - really? Is that the level of debate or argument on here?
Could have fooled me..... and everybody else on here. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
The UK government is already illegally withholding cash from the Scottish Government regarding farmer subsidies. Little things like the law have never stood in their way. They have previous for changing laws when taken to court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Are you suggesting that Gove is talking about additional spending over and above what the Scottish Parliament already recieves. So there would be absolutely no cuts to the Scottish budget in order to facilitate this little UK Government spending spree?
I apologize for the standard of debate not being up to the high standards that you grace us with on here. :not worthQuote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Where to start!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Let's take one point at a time.
I'm not 'suggesting' Gove is talking about additional spending, he says it in the article you quoted. And then you then went on to say he was withholding money.
So, which is it?
We can do each one of your points at a time, keep it nice and easy, and have a proper debate?
Then we can get back to you suggesting I'm a Tory because I would love to get into that, because hey, it would be fun and you never know, you might be right. Or I might be a Nationalist provocateur, constantly challenging Nat posters to keep them sharp.
Or maybe I'm just calling it as I see it and I don't expect my opinion to carry any more weight than yours or anyone else but I will call it out if it smells like bull**** :dunno:
So you're not suggesting that the Scottish Parliament won't lose funding, but you're not suggesting that money will be withheld either? Which one is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
It’s an odd statement from Gove. The Scotsman’s headline makes the claim that he is going to hold back funding but thats not what he actually says. He seems to want to spend extra money to stop the Scottish Government taking credit for doing the things they are responsible for doing. Either he does not understand how devolution works or doesn’t like that it does. I’d dismiss him as an oddball but there is a real danger he could become our next PM. That is a scarey thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Give for PM is the strongest case for Independence in these many pages of debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
J
This is a strange one in that, based on what I've read, I don't think the Tory councillors did anything wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
For me it's more the scouts that are wrong to a degree, I've always understood them to be non political.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
It may be they've done similar for other parties previously/elsewhere, and if that's the case then there's no issue at all, the other parties missed a trick as there would have been nothing stopping them doing the same thing.
Mind you, if the above hasn't been the case and the Scout leader is a Tory then the whole argument opens up again.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
A wee look at the the final percentages
https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/s...864056320?s=19
That’s the best two sentences I’ve ever read in my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
You offer me two options of things you say I’m not doing and then ask me to say which one I don’t want to do? :greengrin
Not really looked closely at the results since staying up half the night for the coverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Salient points for me are:
Bad for the Tories but always going to happen, as they were defending the most seats and they are in such a bad place. The damage was severe but probably within their expectations.
Bad for Labour because they are caught between a rock and a hard place - they aren’t appeasing the Brexit element and they certainly aren’t appeasing the Remain majority of their support. That was made clear.
Good for Lib Dems who might just be shrugging off the taint of the Coalition years. There is a real opportunity for them when Cable steps down to reinvent themselves with a new leader. But they traditionally do well at locals and need to translate that into something more powerful.
Good for the Greens, a lot more people elected, but they need to harness that into not just being a protest vote. There is potential to rope in the Extinction sentiment that people are buying into, if they are canny, and use that to become a more significant political player.
UKIP - they weren’t contesting as many seats as before, I think, so I’m not reading too much into vote share. They have effectively splintered though. Farage creating the Brexit Party means that the remainder UKIP will increasingly become a haven for the far-right.
Independents - massive spike. In some parts of the country there is a natural desire and need for Inds but the volume this time feels like many are a protest vote. Maybe that means that party politics is doomed but I suspect there are rich pickings for the main parties if they can get their message right.
Brexit Party and Change UK - good election for them as the results indicate that they would have enjoyed success had they stood. I guess we will see.
Overall, I think the results point to an irrevocable tear in the electorate. I’m a Remainer for idealistic reasons but also pragmatic ones. I always figured the pragmatic reasons would win over the Brexiteers when it came to the crunch but I think we are sadly beyond that now and we are looking at ever deeper entrenchment.
I can't remember who said it but a tory suggests that we are seeing a tsunami with the local elections being the tory tide going out and in 3 weeks all the tory vote will come flooding back.
Cannae see it masel.
I refer you to the thread titleQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
:greengrin
With the Scottish Conservative Party conference now over. I wish them all a safe trip back home. :agree:
https://i.ibb.co/Jqvkzfx/lol.jpg
Ah yes, murdo ****ing fraser. The msp who has managed to bring Scotland into line with England by having an appeal system for private parking charge notices and will try to introduce keeper liability to bring us into line with England. Best thing I can say about him is that he has a face you couldn't tire of slapping 😉Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
https://twitter.com/RCunninghamSNP/s...50473611509760
Mundell lying here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
i do agree, they were getting something back i just thought it was quite cheeky getting wee laddies to do their job for them, it won't be long before political parties start paying the post office to do all their leafleting :greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Age concern, aye RIGHT, they ****s are gonna batter pensioners pockets in the near future, they've been desperate to get shot of the pensioners triple lock for a while now, and nearly 70% of scottish pensioners voted No in 2014, that's going to come back and bite them on their er*es, i wonder how many of them actually now know they are paid one of the lowest pensions in Europe, tories and 'age concern' my e*se. :bitchy:
You've got it all wrong. They're not concerned about pensioners. They're concerned that they are pensioners. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
Trump has given liars everywhere proof that they can say wtf they like with little consequenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr Grieves
It sounded like a good deal for all parties but you're right the Scouts are non-political, which is why the leader and his assistants has quit. I think that outcome is a real shame though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
Not seen that, and yes it is a real shame... these folks have given up their time to help kids after all. What would have been better would be to have offered to do the same for the other parties in the upcoming EU elections (if they happen) then to draw a line under it as a charitable money making exercise that backfired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
Yep, need to teach those kids early that it's all about money over principle. Let's teach them rules, then break those rules whenever money is involved. What better way to set them up in life?
You've lost me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
The rules clearly state that they're "non political". They shouldn't be involved with any political parties full stop. They should draw the line under it right now, rather than trying to even things up by now doing it for all of the other parties. Even if they do lose out on charitable donations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
I'm not holding my breath, but my fingers will be crossed that at the very least, political lying will get wider exposure than it currently getsQuote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...nson-1-6034496
At least Boris, unlike Nige, takes his job super-seriously. Only person out of 9 million Londoners who made the effort to turn up and cast a vote in local elections last week. What a guy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
Yep and also the only person out of 1 who managed to turn up and cast his vote without even turning up to do so. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
The story was that the Scout leader had agreed to have Scouts deliver elections leaflets in return for a one-year lease on an allotment. The allotment was to be used by the Scout group to learn about growing their own produce which was, in turn, to be used in the running of a community soup kitchen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
I'm staggered that anyone would characterise that as teaching kids "that it's all about money over principle". I strongly suspect that, had it been representatives of your own preferred party involved in this story, you would have a much more sympathetic view. It's also worth noting that the Tories involved in this story have not broken any rules for their part.
Then your suspicion would be wrong. Scouts should not be ordered to deliver election leaflets for ANY party as i've already stated. They are a non-political organization. What a party offers them in return is completely irrelevant. Of course the irony of helping out this particular party is that their ideology contributes greatly to the increased use of community soup kitchens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
I don't think what is on offer in return is irrelevant in circumstances where you've stated the kids were being taught money is more important than principles, which is the sort of sensationalist hyperbole which will either spread "fake news", or reduce the likelihood of people trusting any statements you make in other posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
How is it "fake news" to say that a non-political organization involving children should not hand out leaflets for a political party on principle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
Your argument seems to be that it's ok, as long as they're getting something back in return. I disagree with that.
Here's a thought, the local tory party could donate the money to the scouts, and expect nothing in return, that would be a first.
Or the party could put an end to their ideological austeity policies, then the scouts wouldn't need to worry about helping out as many charities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
You described a story about a Scout troop delivering election leaflets in exchange for an allotment, which was to be used for educating those Scouts and running a community soup kitchen, as teaching kids "that it's all about money over principle". You've put a spin on the story which is unsupported by the facts, hence "fake news".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
A community soup kitchen that may not have needed to exist without the austerity policies of the party that they are delivering leaflets for. It's easy to call anything you don't like out as "fake news". Doesn't make it so though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
Something I haven't heard asked in connection with this scout thingy is... 'Where was this allotment coming from, as the majority of allotment land is owned by local authorities?'
https://www.allotment-garden.org/all...tment-history/
The average yearly rent btw is between £20-40... so, nice bit of cheap labour then eh :wink:
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if what they'd have got was a bit of a tip, which would take a year to get suitable for use.
No flies on a tory
I'm not disagreeing with your first sentence. What I'm saying, again, is that you stated the actions of those involved in the relevant story was teaching kids "that it's all about money over principle"; that is quite simply untrue and your posting it on a public forum makes it fake news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
That I suspect you know this basic point is untrue, yet are attempting to obfuscate your actions by refocusing on other aspects of what you posted, seems cowardly to me, but that's another matter to the main point.
It may not be intentional. But that is ultimately the lesson they would learn from this situation. Children don't learn from what is said, they learn from action and those actions put money before principle. It's not even disputable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
I accept it's subjective, to an extent, what "lesson" would be learned, but what is not subjective is that there was no "money" involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
If you think I'm wrong, please tell me where the "money" is in this scenario?
Are you suggesting that money wouldn't have been involved here? A political party offers a one-year lease. A lease that would presumably have cost money?Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
It was a bribe. It doesn't matter how it gets dressed up. They were offering to spend money on a "non political" organization in order to get them to participate in something political.
Regardless of how much money was involved, there are waiting lists for allotments pretty much everywhere. Someone on the waiting list would have been bumped to provide one for the scoutsQuote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
I would have thought it was obvious that what I was suggesting, given that I explicitly stated that in my last post, but you've lost me again with your 2+2 = 5 approach to the news...do you know more about this story than has been reported?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
In any event, you've now escalated to "bribe"...given that all of this was reportable to the Electoral Commission, in what way was it dishonest? I am no fan of the Tories but, in this instance, they were up-front with the Scouts about what the deal was and did not attempt to hide it from anybody.
I'm calling it a bribe. Where did I say they were being "dishonest"? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
An honest bribe is still a bribe. The fact the scout leaders knew what this was and still went through with it makes it even worse, which is why many have now resigned their positions.
"An honest bribe"? You're either trolling, or you don't know the definition of the word "bribe".Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48288433
The most inept Government Minister ever??
I'm not opening the link, but Im putting my money on, failing Grayling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiber-nation
Give the boy a coconut :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Are you suggesting that all bribes are based on lies? Perhaps it's you that needs to check up on the definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
It is quite incredible just how many total **** ups he has overseen and yet survived. The perfect minister for the Theresa May era.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiber-nation
https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/201...on-with-the-ma
Hold the bus, I've found an honest Tory
https://twitter.com/SurreyAmps/statu...33642043596800 :not worth
Privileged powerful and entitled white man in business suit puts a female worker firmly in her place. Winds of change never stop blowing.
I can't recall anyone mentioning "lies"; you don't have to tell lies in order to be dishonest, however, offering a bribe (or accepting one for that matter) is dishonest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
If you genuinely believe I don't know the definition of "bribe", perhaps you could provide one which doesn't involve dishonesty.
Now you're saying dishonesty and lying are not the same thing? :faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
I give up. You win. Well played. :aok:
Here's an interesting bit of early Michael Gove, notable for 2 things:
- he used to have a bit of a Scots accent (who knew?)
- presumably we're meant to think it's satire but he looks like he believes every word!
https://twitter.com/chrismorrisbits/...18660593537029
They clearly are not the same thing; whilst lying is dishonest, dishonesty does not require a person to lie. For example, stealing is dishonest, but you are not require to lie in order to steal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
I'm all for opinions, but this isn't the only occasion on this board you've stated something which can be shown to be untrue based on the available evidence. You're either intentionally misleading people or you're just reckless. Either way, it's behaviour that needs called out.