Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
October1974
|
Lord Foulkes personal vendetta?It seems the noble Lord's personal vendetta against Alex Salmond continues...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8148683.stm
How much do all his complaints in Holyrood and elsewhere cost the taxpayer? I have always wondered.
|
calum
|
Funny you should say that.
Face of the lord found in a dram...
http://tocasaid.blogspot.com/2009/07/face-of-lord-found-in-dram.html
|
alfred
|
Re: Lord Foulkes personal vendetta?
Away with you. How about Salmond's complaints about Blair, etc?
We know it cost the taxpayer 14 grand for legal advice for a stunt.
Anyway, it's politics. Of course it's personal.
|
mairead
|
We also know that Lord F is a fool.
|
alfred
|
| mairead wrote: | | We also know that Lord F is a fool. |
No argument there. But the premise of this thread remains ridiculous.
Foulkes IS a fool. An arse of a man. But to suggest that he is waging a "personal vendetta" is nuts. That's the sort of thing that gets "cybernats" a reputation as paranoid nutjobs.
|
calum
|
A vendetta? Maybe not, but he has got his thong in a twist over the SNP, to a ridiculous level. He's the new - and poor man's - Brian Wilson. He's also the SNP's Iain Paisley - let him be and he'll win you votes.
Praise the Lord!
|
alfred
|
| calum wrote: | A vendetta? Maybe not, but he has got his thong in a twist over the SNP, to a ridiculous level. He's the new - and poor man's - Brian Wilson. He's also the SNP's Iain Paisley - let him be and he'll win you votes.
Praise the Lord! |
I fear you may be right.
Compare and contrast Lord F and the impressive Annabel Goldie on the subject of the Saltire on trains.
Foulkes claims a brainwashing plot while Annabel calmly points out that, er, it's the Scottish flag and why shouldn't it be there.
Still, for every Foulkes, there's a Bill Wilson.
|
chicmac
|
Lord Foulkes demonstrably shows that he has taken on the mantle of SNP-basher-in-chief. Whether this is self-appointed or on instruction, it is very clear that he is mainly concerned with attacking the SNP at every possibility and by poor judgement, even some non-possibilities.
In this, those in favour of normal levels of self-government for Scotland should be thankful for small mercies and stay shtum.
But there is no reason to assume there is anything personal in his attacks on Alex Salmond
After all Alex Salmond is way and by far Scotland's most accomplished politician, charismatic, astute and successful. What could George Foulkes possibly resent about that? Like looking in a mirror - right?,... well perhaps not.
Of course he did accuse Alex Salmond of making things better in Scotland 'deliberately'. Now, most of us assume that he was inferring that Alex was doing so 'deliberately' to promote the cause of independence but since the noble Lord did not actually specify this I guess it is possble he considered Alex Salmond was doing it to 'deliberately' spite him personally.
Anyway, whatever his motivations, his actions are enormously beneficial to independence. So, more power to your elbow George!
|
alfred
|
| chicmac wrote: | Lord Foulkes demonstrably shows that he has taken on the mantle of SNP-basher-in-chief. Whether this is self-appointed or on instruction, it is very clear that he is mainly concerned with attacking the SNP at every possibility and by poor judgement, even some non-possibilities.
|
I think it's safe to assume that Foulkes is not following instructions.
Look at Jim Murphy for the smart way to tackle Alex Salmond. Murphy's conciliatory tone can wrongfoot Salmond who is at his best when under attack from opponents. Salmond really does have a big clunking fist, and he likes nothing better than fighting back.
Foulkes is just an erse, I'd say. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
chicmac
|
| alfred wrote: | | chicmac wrote: | Lord Foulkes demonstrably shows that he has taken on the mantle of SNP-basher-in-chief. Whether this is self-appointed or on instruction, it is very clear that he is mainly concerned with attacking the SNP at every possibility and by poor judgement, even some non-possibilities.
|
I think it's safe to assume that Foulkes is not following instructions.
Look at Jim Murphy for the smart way to tackle Alex Salmond. Murphy's conciliatory tone can wrongfoot Salmond who is at his best when under attack from opponents. Salmond really does have a big clunking fist, and he likes nothing better than fighting back.
Foulkes is just an erse, I'd say. Nothing more, nothing less. |
Nurphy. My prediction is he will win more votes for independence than even wee Geordie. 
|
alfred
|
| chicmac wrote: | | alfred wrote: | | chicmac wrote: | Lord Foulkes demonstrably shows that he has taken on the mantle of SNP-basher-in-chief. Whether this is self-appointed or on instruction, it is very clear that he is mainly concerned with attacking the SNP at every possibility and by poor judgement, even some non-possibilities.
|
I think it's safe to assume that Foulkes is not following instructions.
Look at Jim Murphy for the smart way to tackle Alex Salmond. Murphy's conciliatory tone can wrongfoot Salmond who is at his best when under attack from opponents. Salmond really does have a big clunking fist, and he likes nothing better than fighting back.
Foulkes is just an erse, I'd say. Nothing more, nothing less. |
Nurphy. My prediction is he will win more votes for independence than even wee Geordie. |
I'm not so sure. I think he's shown some leadership. The reason Alex Salmond's taunt to Iain Gray that Jim Murphy was the leader of Scottish Labour was so effective was because it had a real ring of truth about it.
I think Murphy's a decent communicator and has made something of the Secretary of State job.
Even the most ardent nationalist - looking at this dispassionately, as someone who follows the narrative of politics - would have to agree with that, surely?
|
Holebender
|
Completely disagree. Murphy is just the latest in a string of Secretaries of State who see their remit as Whitehall's voice in Scotland... the exact opposite of their supposed job.
|
alfred
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Completely disagree. Murphy is just the latest in a string of Secretaries of State who see their remit as Whitehall's voice in Scotland... the exact opposite of their supposed job. |
Other than his opposition to independence, could you back up that claim?
|
Holebender
|
Yes.
|
alfred
|
How funny. But it's hardly a grown up answer, is it.
Play fair. I have tried to give some reasons for my views. Surely you could do the same.
|
babykitten
|
I'm not so sure it's a personal vendetta against Salmond but he certainly takes every opportunity to bash the SNP, often making a spectacular fool of himself in the process by jumping in without thinking it through.
It's no surprise that Salmond may be the target, or appear to be the target, of these attacks given that he's the leader.
As for Murphy being Whitehall's voice in Scotland, I agree that this is the case. It always was the case, especially during the Tory years with limited Tory presence in Scotland. Since devolution, the London government probably sees it even more in this way because, after all, we've got our parliament and first minister to speak up for Scotland.
I think it's safe to say that Murphy sees himself as London's voice in Scotland, when he should be Scotland's voice in London, for reserved matters.
|
alfred
|
| babykitten wrote: |
I think it's safe to say that Murphy sees himself as London's voice in Scotland, when he should be Scotland's voice in London, for reserved matters. |
I doesn't help your argument to say you know how someone sees himself. What I'm looking for is some support for these statements.
Alf
|
Rinty
|
Murphy employs the very tactics that he accuses the SNP of, intervening to cause friction deliberately.
Foulkes is just the nasty mouthpiece employed to say what other people who care more about their public image wont say.
I know George and have never known him to have any cocept of 'shame' whatsoever.
|
alfred
|
| Rinty wrote: | Murphy employs the very tactics that he accuses the SNP of, intervening to cause friction deliberately.
Foulkes is just the nasty mouthpiece employed to say what other people who care more about their public image wont say.
I know George and have never known him to have any cocept of 'shame' whatsoever. |
I remember he was described as looking like Zebedee on Acid after that Whisky night of shame.
|
chicmac
|
| alfred wrote: | | chicmac wrote: | | alfred wrote: | | chicmac wrote: | Lord Foulkes demonstrably shows that he has taken on the mantle of SNP-basher-in-chief. Whether this is self-appointed or on instruction, it is very clear that he is mainly concerned with attacking the SNP at every possibility and by poor judgement, even some non-possibilities.
|
I think it's safe to assume that Foulkes is not following instructions.
Look at Jim Murphy for the smart way to tackle Alex Salmond. Murphy's conciliatory tone can wrongfoot Salmond who is at his best when under attack from opponents. Salmond really does have a big clunking fist, and he likes nothing better than fighting back.
Foulkes is just an erse, I'd say. Nothing more, nothing less. |
Nurphy. My prediction is he will win more votes for independence than even wee Geordie. |
I'm not so sure. I think he's shown some leadership. The reason Alex Salmond's taunt to Iain Gray that Jim Murphy was the leader of Scottish Labour was so effective was because it had a real ring of truth about it.
I think Murphy's a decent communicator and has made something of the Secretary of State job.
Even the most ardent nationalist - looking at this dispassionately, as someone who follows the narrative of politics - would have to agree with that, surely? |
Impression I get is he has been caught too many times being economic with the truth, his cred has taken a hit and he has basically gone to ground.
Luckily for him his career as SOS for Scotland will not last much longer and if he avoids any more cred sapping anti SNP rants before his exit he may yet have a career to resurrect if Labour ever get back in before Scotland is independent.
Meanwhile he will sink with the rest of Brown's melange of mediocrity after the next GE.
Iain Gray does not lose Labour as many votes IMO.
|
chicmac
|
| alfred wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | Completely disagree. Murphy is just the latest in a string of Secretaries of State who see their remit as Whitehall's voice in Scotland... the exact opposite of their supposed job. |
Other than his opposition to independence, could you back up that claim? |
I saw his performance in the HoL committee looking into Barnett.
When it came to the section on how, in the status quo, the Treasury decides internally whether a capital project qualifies as a UK infra structure project or an English project he seemed to agree that this was OK. The other SsoS for Wales and N.I. were clear that the situation was unacceptable and that the decision should be rquired to involve them.
As you may know, if a project is designated English, then under Barnett a pro-rata amount of funding must be made available for similar projects in Wales, N.I. and Scotland, however if it is deemed a 'UK infra structure project' then no such fund allocation is made.
Even when the specific example of the cross-London rail link came up, which was originally designated a UK infra structure project and then changed under pressure from the SsOS so that funds became available for transport projects in W., N.I. and S. He still said current arrangements were adequate.
All three SsOS were sat together in front of the committee so the difference in opinion was stark.
Indeed it was the questions from a former SOS for Scotland Lord Forsyth (shock horror) which teased the situation out into the open and demonstrated the ridiculousness of Murphy's position by pointing out if it took a concerted supplication by the three SsOS to get the Treasury to obtain a redesignation of what was clearly an English (London) transport issue then how many other projects never produce commensurate funding for W., N.I. and S. because of 'internal' whims of the Treasury.
He clearly did not stand up for Scotland on that enquiry.
|
alfred
|
| chicmac wrote: | | alfred wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | Completely disagree. Murphy is just the latest in a string of Secretaries of State who see their remit as Whitehall's voice in Scotland... the exact opposite of their supposed job. |
Other than his opposition to independence, could you back up that claim? |
I saw his performance in the HoL committee looking into Barnett.
When it came to the section on how, in the status quo, the Treasury decides internally whether a capital project qualifies as a UK infra structure project or an English project he seemed to agree that this was OK. The other SsoS for Wales and N.I. were clear that the situation was unacceptable and that the decision should be rquired to involve them.
As you may know, if a project is designated English, then under Barnett a pro-rata amount of funding must be made available for similar projects in Wales, N.I. and Scotland, however if it is deemed a 'UK infra structure project' then no such fund allocation is made.
Even when the specific example of the cross-London rail link came up, which was originally designated a UK infra structure project and then changed under pressure from the SsOS so that funds became available for transport projects in W., N.I. and S. He still said current arrangements were adequate.
All three SsOS were sat together in front of the committee so the difference in opinion was stark.
Indeed it was the questions from a former SOS for Scotland Lord Forsyth (shock horror) which teased the situation out into the open and demonstrated the ridiculousness of Murphy's position by pointing out if it took a concerted supplication by the three SsOS to get the Treasury to obtain a redesignation of what was clearly an English (London) transport issue then how many other projects never produce commensurate funding for W., N.I. and S. because of 'internal' whims of the Treasury.
He clearly did not stand up for Scotland on that enquiry. |
You'll probably want to make that punchier before stickin g it on a leaflet.
I'm on the opinion that the cross London rail link should have been designated a UK infrastructure project.
London is our largest business centre, after all.
|
chicmac
|
| alfred wrote: | | chicmac wrote: | | alfred wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | Completely disagree. Murphy is just the latest in a string of Secretaries of State who see their remit as Whitehall's voice in Scotland... the exact opposite of their supposed job. |
Other than his opposition to independence, could you back up that claim? |
I saw his performance in the HoL committee looking into Barnett.
When it came to the section on how, in the status quo, the Treasury decides internally whether a capital project qualifies as a UK infra structure project or an English project he seemed to agree that this was OK. The other SsoS for Wales and N.I. were clear that the situation was unacceptable and that the decision should be rquired to involve them.
As you may know, if a project is designated English, then under Barnett a pro-rata amount of funding must be made available for similar projects in Wales, N.I. and Scotland, however if it is deemed a 'UK infra structure project' then no such fund allocation is made.
Even when the specific example of the cross-London rail link came up, which was originally designated a UK infra structure project and then changed under pressure from the SsOS so that funds became available for transport projects in W., N.I. and S. He still said current arrangements were adequate.
All three SsOS were sat together in front of the committee so the difference in opinion was stark.
Indeed it was the questions from a former SOS for Scotland Lord Forsyth (shock horror) which teased the situation out into the open and demonstrated the ridiculousness of Murphy's position by pointing out if it took a concerted supplication by the three SsOS to get the Treasury to obtain a redesignation of what was clearly an English (London) transport issue then how many other projects never produce commensurate funding for W., N.I. and S. because of 'internal' whims of the Treasury.
He clearly did not stand up for Scotland on that enquiry. |
You'll probably want to make that punchier before stickin g it on a leaflet.
I'm on the opinion that the cross London rail link should have been designated a UK infrastructure project.
London is our largest business centre, after all. |
Make your mind up whether you want detail or succinctness.
|
Dave Coull
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Murphy is just the latest in a string of Secretaries of State who see their remit as Whitehall's voice in Scotland... the exact opposite of their supposed job. |
| alfred wrote: | | Other than his opposition to independence, could you back up that claim? |
It was Chicmac who went on to provide evidence to back up the claim. Both the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales (representing the interests of the province and the principality) wanted the cross London rail link designated a "London" project, rather than a "UK" one. In this, they had the support of a former Secretary of State for Scotland, that Thatcherite *%^&$"! Lord Forsyth. But not of Jim Murphy, the only one of the three secretaries of state to put the interests of central government first.
|
chicmac
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | Murphy is just the latest in a string of Secretaries of State who see their remit as Whitehall's voice in Scotland... the exact opposite of their supposed job. |
| alfred wrote: | | Other than his opposition to independence, could you back up that claim? |
It was Chicmac who went on to provide evidence to back up the claim. Both the Northern Ireland Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales (representing the interests of the province and the principality) wanted the cross London rail link designated a "London" project, rather than a "UK" one. In this, they had the support of a former Secretary of State for Scotland, that Thatcherite *%^&$"! Lord Forsyth. But not of Jim Murphy, the only one of the three secretaries of state to put the interests of central government first. |
Not quite right Dave, Murphy too called for the redesignation (which would free funds for the 3rd Forth crossing), but he declared happiness with the current system, i.e. where it was up to the Treasury alone to decide, whereas the others did not agree with that.
|
Dave Coull
|
| alfred wrote: | | London is our largest business centre |
Historically speaking, Glasgow had a reason for existence which was a lot to do with ships and shipbuilding. Sheffield had a historical reason for existence which was a lot to do with producing fine quality steel tools. Bradford had a historical reason for existence in the textile industry. Birmingham had a historical reason for existence in the manfacture of bicycles etc. But what's London's excuse? The only thing that London produces is BUREAUCRACY. Before the formation of the United Kingdom, England was already the most highly centralised state in all of Europe. London had been the capital since before William the Conqueror. Because the king was there, all the hangers-on were there, and the folk who provided services for the king and all the hangers-on. With the Union of the Crowns in 1603 James the Sixth moved to London and the area dominated by the city became even bigger, then the Union of the Parliaments in 1707 made London bigger still, then the growth of the British Empire turned London into a world capital. Although the Empire is now gone, as a legacy of Empire, London remains a capital of world Capital. But it was and remains the most useless city in the British Isles, and probably the most useless city on the entire planet. People go there from all over the world because that is where the jobs are, that is where the money is, that is where the power is. I'm not blaming them for doing this, after all I did exactly the same thing, and in the twelve years that I lived and worked in London I was one of the MAJORITY of Londoners, the ones who didn't come from London. I worked as a bricklayer in London for 12 years. But what was I building? Offices for bureaucrats; or offices for folk who service the bureaucrats; or shops for the bureaucrats and the folk who service the bureaucrats; or houses for the bureaucrats and the folk who service the bureaucrats. Hardly anybody in London actually produces anything useful at all. I'm glad I got out after twelve years, but of course many people stay on year after year, telling themselves that they will go "home" one of these days (wherever in the world home happens to be), and their kids grow up there, and finally they realise they are never going to leave. Scotland acquiring its own parliament has made a wee bit of a dent in the massive dominance of London, but not really an awful lot of difference, after all there is the sheer inertia of many centuries of London-centralism. London is an unnaturally bloated city, it is an extremely corrupt city (after all, the only reason lots of businesses have their headquarters in London is so that they can get favours from government). Yes, Scottish independence will reduce the London bloat a bit, after all the city will no longer be the capital of quite such a big territory. Despite the fact that we here in Scotland are going to be subsidizing the London Olympics to the tune of many millions of pounds, at present many English people mistakenly believe that _they_ subsidize _us_. But when the truth of the matter finally sinks in, Londoners will come to realise the city will lose a little bit of its dominance with Scottish independence. Some of them will not like this, but maybe some will come to realise that the London bloat is environmentally unsustainable. (Oh, by the way, this really ought to be obvious, but I'll say it anyway - while Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland, that is no reason why absolutely everything should be centralised there. The Northern Isles should have a considerable degree of autonomy. Some functions of government could and should be devolved to Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen, or Inverness.)
As for Jim Murphy, that contemptible toady of London centralism even compares badly with the secretaries of state for Wales and Northern Ireland.
|
Dave Coull
|
| chicmac wrote: | | Not quite right Dave, Murphy too called for the redesignation (which would free funds for the 3rd Forth crossing), but he declared happiness with the current system, i.e. where it was up to the Treasury alone to decide, whereas the others did not agree with that. |
Okay, got it, understood. But he's still a contemptible toady of London centralism.
|
alfred
|
| chicmac wrote: |
Make your mind up whether you want detail or succinctness. |
I'd like a bit of both, please. Thanks.
|
Dave Coull
|
| alfred wrote: | | You're not very welcoming |
To which I responded by pointing out there is no particular reason for me to be "welcoming", as I'm not one of the folk who run the Our Scotland forum | alfred wrote: | | how can we really trust anyone on the internet? |
To which I replied, through experience. For instance, I know from experience that, while we certainly don't always agree, both Holebender and Chicmac are genuine. | Holebender wrote: | | Murphy is just the latest in a string of Secretaries of State who see their remit as Whitehall's voice in Scotland... the exact opposite of their supposed job. |
| alfred wrote: | | could you back up that claim? |
Holebender presumably being rather busy drilling for oil, it was Chicmac who provided evidence backing that claim. Having no counter-argument to Chicmac's evidence, Alfred then resorted to complaining about the length of what Chicmac wrote. | Chicmac wrote: | | Make your mind up whether you want detail or succinctness. |
Alfred now says | Quote: | | I'd like a bit of both |
Tough........ If you stick around, you'll probably get over your illusion that anybody is here for your benefit. However, that's not important. What is significant for everybody to note about this exchange is that in answer to the question | Quote: | | could you back up that claim? |
Chicmac did just exactly that.
|
alfred
|
Hi Dave,
I'm not really interested in your opinion. You seem like a really unpleasant, weird man. I've read your posts here and I would be happy if we didn't engage.
Other people can answer for themselves, without your help.
Of course, you're free to comment on anything I post, but I'd prefer it if you didn't try to engage me in debate.
Frankly, life is too short to deal with such an aching b***sack of a human being as you.
Alf
|
Dave Coull
|
| alfred wrote: | | I'm not really interested in your opinion. |
Whether you're "interested" or not isn't important. What's important is that (within certain limits) I have freedom of expression here on the Our Scotland forum. | alfred wrote: | | I would be happy if we didn't engage. |
If by "engage" is meant, you would rather I didn't comment on things said here on the Our Scotland forum, well, as pointed out, within certain limits we have freedom of expression here.
However, that is really beside the main point of this exchange. What is significant to note about this exchange is that in answer to the question | Quote: | | could you back up that claim? |
Chicmac did just exactly that, and Alfred, unable to provide any counter-argument, criticised the WAY the evidence was given.
|
alfred
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | alfred wrote: | | I'm not really interested in your opinion. |
Whether you're "interested" or not isn't important. What's important is that (within certain limits) I have freedom of expression here on the Our Scotland forum. | alfred wrote: | | I would be happy if we didn't engage. |
If by "engage" is meant, you would rather I didn't comment on things said here on the Our Scotland forum, well, as pointed out, within certain limits we have freedom of expression here.
However, that is really beside the main point of this exchange. What is significant to note about this exchange is that in answer to the question | Quote: | | could you back up that claim? |
Chicmac did just exactly that, and Alfred, unable to provide any counter-argument, criticised the WAY the evidence was given. |
Like I said, an aching b***sack of a human being.
|
Dave Coull
|
| alfred wrote: | | Like I said, an aching b***sack of a human being. |
Like I said, what is significant to note about this exchange is that in answer to the question | Quote: | | could you back up that claim? |
Chicmac did just exactly that, and Alfred, unable to provide any counter-argument, criticised the WAY the evidence was given.
|
alfred
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | alfred wrote: | | Like I said, an aching b***sack of a human being. |
Like I said, what is significant to note about this exchange is that in answer to the question | Quote: | | could you back up that claim? |
Chicmac did just exactly that, and Alfred, unable to provide any counter-argument, criticised the WAY the evidence was given. |
What an absolute aching b***sack of a human being.
|
chicmac
|
| alfred wrote: | | chicmac wrote: |
Make your mind up whether you want detail or succinctness. |
I'd like a bit of both, please. Thanks. |
Apparently not.
|
alfred
|
| chicmac wrote: | | alfred wrote: | | chicmac wrote: |
Make your mind up whether you want detail or succinctness. |
I'd like a bit of both, please. Thanks. |
Apparently not. |
I genuinely have no idea what you mean. Could you explain, please?
By that way, that clown Coull keeps lying that I simply attacked the way you answered. In fact, I pointed out that I agreed with the designation of the cross-rail project as UK infrastructure.
|
chicmac
|
| alfred wrote: | Hi Dave,
I'm not really interested in your opinion. You seem like a really unpleasant, weird man. I've read your posts here and I would be happy if we didn't engage.
Other people can answer for themselves, without your help.
Of course, you're free to comment on anything I post, but I'd prefer it if you didn't try to engage me in debate.
Frankly, life is too short to deal with such an aching b***sack of a human being as you.
Alf |
Excuse me but this is the internet not the gutter press, there are some standards of decorum. The above is an ad hominem attack and normally considered admission of a lost argument.
|
alfred
|
| chicmac wrote: | | Murphy too called for the redesignation (which would free funds for the 3rd Forth crossing), but he declared happiness with the current system, i.e. where it was up to the Treasury alone to decide, whereas the others did not agree with that. |
And there - above - is an example of complete intellectual dishonesty. The squirming of someone desperate to twist the reality of the situation to support his point.
If Murphy was simply happy with the current system - which would give nobody but the treasury a say - why was he having a say?
Murphy actually argued for redesignation, yet you still see his actions as Anti-Scottish.
You know, as a unionist, I can still see the value of certain actions by the likes of salmond, sturgeon, and swinney. Why do bitter cybergnats see nothing but underhand anti-scottish behaviour from unionist politicians?
|
Dave Coull
|
| alfred wrote: | | What an absolute aching b***sack of a human being |
What is significant to note about this exchange is that Alfred, from his own words, is a fan of Jim Murphy, and didn't take kindly to that career politician being criticised. | Holebender wrote: | | Murphy is just the latest in a string of Secretaries of State who see their remit as Whitehall's voice in Scotland... the exact opposite of their supposed job. |
| alfred wrote: | | could you back up that claim? |
Holebender presumably being rather busy drilling for oil, it was Chicmac who backed up the claim. Alfred, completely unable to provide any counter-argument to the proof provided by Chicmac, criticised the way the evidence was given. When I pointed out that this was what had just happened, Alfred became abusive about me personally. But he still has no answer to the point about his hero Murphy.
|
alfred
|
| chicmac wrote: |
Excuse me but this is the internet not the gutter press, there are some standards of decorum. |
Lest you accuse me of an Ad Hominem attack, let me be claer that it is the statement I am criticising. That is one of the most comically stupid, pompous statements I have read for a long time.
You do know there are all sorts of strange things on the internet?
|
alfred
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | Alfred became abusive about me personally. But he still has no answer to the point about his hero Murphy. |
I'd be astonished if I was the first person to become abusive about your personally, and I've only been in your (virtual) company for a few hours.
Listen, you stupid wee man. I did not say Jim Murphy was "my hero". I spoke about his political strategy. I thought this was a place to debate ideas. You're just Angry Rain Man, making stupid, irritating statements.
A***holes like you are the reason the nationalist cause has such an appalling reputation for online lunacy.
|
chicmac
|
| alfred wrote: | | chicmac wrote: | | alfred wrote: | | chicmac wrote: |
Make your mind up whether you want detail or succinctness. |
I'd like a bit of both, please. Thanks. |
Apparently not. |
I genuinely have no idea what you mean. Could you explain, please?
By that way, that clown Coull keeps lying that I simply attacked the way you answered. In fact, I pointed out that I agreed with the designation of the cross-rail project as UK infrastructure. |
Well of course I disagree with your opinion on that particular designation but I do not want the argument to be sidetracked ( ) by a specific. The relevant point is that Murphy is in favour of the current position, where the Treasury themselves decide internally in whichever way they choose to.
I'd like to see him asked about that at Scottish Questions.
|
Dave Coull
|
| alfred wrote: | | that clown Coull keeps lying |
To lie is to tell a deliberate untruth. If somebody says "the Earth is flat", and they genuinely believe this, they are mistaken, but they are not lying. If somebody says "the Earth is flat" when they know perfectly well it isn't, THEN they are lying. Regardless of whether somebody considers me a "clown" or not, regardless of whether they consider me mistaken or not, I tell the truth as I see it.
What is significant to note about this exchange is that Alfred, from his own words, is a fan of Jim Murphy, and didn't take kindly to that career politician being criticised. | Holebender wrote: | | Murphy is just the latest in a string of Secretaries of State who see their remit as Whitehall's voice in Scotland... the exact opposite of their supposed job. |
| alfred wrote: | | could you back up that claim? |
Holebender presumably being rather busy drilling for oil, it was Chicmac who backed up the claim. Alfred, unable to provide any counter-argument to the proof provided by Chicmac, criticised the way the evidence was given. When I pointed out that this was what had just happened, Alfred became abusive about me personally. As Chicmac says, that is generally considered a sign of having lost the argument.
|
Holebender
|
Rubbish! In what way does calling another poster "an absolute aching b***sack of a human being" constitute criticising a statement of his?
You have proven yourself to be a troll "alfred" and will get no more responses from me. Goodbye amber.
|
alfred
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | alfred wrote: | | that clown Coull keeps lying |
To lie is to tell a deliberate untruth. If somebody says "the Earth is flat", and they genuinely believe this, they are mistaken, but they are not lying. If somebody says "the Earth is flat" when they know perfectly well it isn't, THEN they are lying. Regardless of whether somebody considers me a "clown" or not, regardless of whether they consider me mistaken or not, I tell the truth as I see it.
What is significant to note about this exchange is that Alfred, from his own words, is a fan of Jim Murphy, and didn't take kindly to that career politician being criticised. | Holebender wrote: | | Murphy is just the latest in a string of Secretaries of State who see their remit as Whitehall's voice in Scotland... the exact opposite of their supposed job. |
| alfred wrote: | | could you back up that claim? |
Holebender presumably being rather busy drilling for oil, it was Chicmac who backed up the claim. Alfred, unable to provide any counter-argument to the proof provided by Chicmac, criticised the way the evidence was given. When I pointed out that this was what had just happened, Alfred became abusive about me personally. As Chicmac says, that is generally considered a sign of having lost the argument. |
What an aching b***sack of a human being.
|
chicmac
|
| alfred wrote: | | chicmac wrote: |
Excuse me but this is the internet not the gutter press, there are some standards of decorum. |
Lest you accuse me of an Ad Hominem attack, let me be claer that it is the statement I am criticising. That is one of the most comically stupid, pompous statements I have read for a long time.
You do know there are all sorts of strange things on the internet?
|
"What an absolute aching b***sack of a human being." is an ad hominem attack and on most internet forums would result in a warning or suspension by the moderator. However, I am sure that your 'newness', at least to this forum, is being taken into account.
Of course there are both truths and untruths in internet forums but IMO the balance is favourable to that in the gutter press, especially the cringe-ridden Scottish press where as one retired political editor has stated any Scottish journalist going off-message and treating the idea of independence fairly will find his life becomes "unusually complicated".
|
Dave Coull
|
| alfred wrote: | | you stupid wee man |
"Stupid" is just abuse. As for "wee".............the size-ist prejudice against small people is both irrational and an assumption without evidence. | alfred wrote: | | A***holes like you |
More proof that Alfred is unable to conduct a rational discussion without resorting to abuse. | alfred wrote: | | are the reason the nationalist cause has such an appalling reputation |
Alfred appears to believe I'm a nationalist. Another mistaken assumption. Chicmac is a nationalist. Holebender is a nationalist. I'm not. I don't support any political party, or any politician, and I'm not seeking to get anybody elected, or to help anybody retain public office.
What is significant to note about this exchange is that Alfred didn't take kindly to a politician he favours being criticised. | Holebender wrote: | | Murphy is just the latest in a string of Secretaries of State who see their remit as Whitehall's voice in Scotland... the exact opposite of their supposed job. |
| alfred wrote: | | could you back up that claim? |
Holebender presumably being rather busy drilling for oil, it was Chicmac who backed up the claim. Alfred, unable to provide a counter-argument to the proof provided by Chicmac, criticised the way the evidence was given. When I pointed out that this was what had just happened, Alfred became abusive about me personally. But he has no answer to the justified criticism of that career politician.
|
alfred
|
| Dave Coull wrote: | | alfred wrote: | | you stupid wee man |
"Stupid" is just abuse. As for "wee".............the size-ist prejudice against small people is both irrational and an assumption without evidence. | alfred wrote: | | A***holes like you |
More proof that Alfred is unable to conduct a rational discussion without resorting to abuse. | alfred wrote: | | are the reason the nationalist cause has such an appalling reputation |
Alfred appears to believe I'm a nationalist. Another mistaken assumption. Chicmac is a nationalist. Holebender is a nationalist. I'm not. I don't support any political party, or any politician, and I'm not seeking to get anybody elected, or to help anybody retain public office.
What is significant to note about this exchange is that Alfred didn't take kindly to a politician he favours being criticised. | Holebender wrote: | | Murphy is just the latest in a string of Secretaries of State who see their remit as Whitehall's voice in Scotland... the exact opposite of their supposed job. |
| alfred wrote: | | could you back up that claim? |
Holebender presumably being rather busy drilling for oil, it was Chicmac who backed up the claim. Alfred, unable to provide a counter-argument to the proof provided by Chicmac, criticised the way the evidence was given. When I pointed out that this was what had just happened, Alfred became abusive about me personally. But he has no answer to the justified criticism of that career politician. |
If there's anyone other than this aching b***sack Coull who wants to debate ideas, that would be great.
|
chicmac
|
| alfred wrote: | | chicmac wrote: | | Murphy too called for the redesignation (which would free funds for the 3rd Forth crossing), but he declared happiness with the current system, i.e. where it was up to the Treasury alone to decide, whereas the others did not agree with that. |
And there - above - is an example of complete intellectual dishonesty. The squirming of someone desperate to twist the reality of the situation to support his point.
If Murphy was simply happy with the current system - which would give nobody but the treasury a say - why was he having a say?
Murphy actually argued for redesignation, yet you still see his actions as Anti-Scottish.
You know, as a unionist, I can still see the value of certain actions by the likes of salmond, sturgeon, and swinney. Why do bitter cybergnats see nothing but underhand anti-scottish behaviour from unionist politicians? |
While I am fairly sure that the concept of dishonesty is not new to you your accusation is ridiculous.
That particular redesignation was precisely the classic case in point. The real issue, as Forsyth and others pointed out, is all the other projects which do not result in commensurate funding in the other constituent countries.
All of the above is descernible from my first post on this and there is no dishonesty on my part. (Although I would advise anyone interested to try to find the Hansard of the HOL Barnett Committee proceedings for themselves).
Clearly such project designations should be in accord with strict boundary conditions agreed by all the parties concerned and with complete transparency. With as little wiggle room as possible, so that politically agendised party apparachiks in the Treasury cannot manipulate the outcome. There should also be a formal intimation and consultation procedure which includes Secretaries of State and the finance ministers involved.
|
Dave Coull
|
| alfred wrote: | | you stupid wee man |
"Stupid" is just abuse. As for "wee".............the size-ist prejudice against small men and women and children is both irrational and an assumption without evidence. | alfred wrote: | | A***holes like you |
More proof that Alfred is unable to conduct a rational discussion without resorting to abuse. | alfred wrote: | | are the reason the nationalist cause has such an appalling reputation |
In response to my perfectly reasonable point that I'm not a nationalist, not a member of any political party, never even been a member of any political party, don't support any political party, or any politician, and am not seeking to get anybody elected, or to help anybody retain office, the only reply from "alfred" is | Quote: | | this aching b***sack Coull |
Ignoring the pointless personal abuse, what is significant to note about this exchange is that Alfred didn't take kindly to criticism of a politician he favours. | Holebender wrote: | | Murphy is just the latest in a string of Secretaries of State who see their remit as Whitehall's voice in Scotland... the exact opposite of their supposed job. |
| alfred wrote: | | could you back up that claim? |
Holebender presumably being rather busy drilling for oil, it was Chicmac who backed up the claim. Alfred, unable to provide a counter-argument to the proof provided by Chicmac, criticised the way the evidence was given. When I pointed out that this was what had just happened, Alfred became abusive about me personally. But he has no answer to the justified criticism of that career politician.
|
calum
|
Obh, obh... handbags.
|
calum
|
Co-dhiù... Foulkes is a tool. Murphy is more clever. He may be a London messenger boy with little or nowt to do but he's more clued up and not as ratty as Foulkes. The Lord aye hungover which is why he's so crabbit.
|
azzuri
|
| alfred wrote: | | Dave Coull wrote: | | alfred wrote: | | that clown Coull keeps lying |
To lie is to tell a deliberate untruth. If somebody says "the Earth is flat", and they genuinely believe this, they are mistaken, but they are not lying. If somebody says "the Earth is flat" when they know perfectly well it isn't, THEN they are lying. Regardless of whether somebody considers me a "clown" or not, regardless of whether they consider me mistaken or not, I tell the truth as I see it.
What is significant to note about this exchange is that Alfred, from his own words, is a fan of Jim Murphy, and didn't take kindly to that career politician being criticised. | Holebender wrote: | | Murphy is just the latest in a string of Secretaries of State who see their remit as Whitehall's voice in Scotland... the exact opposite of their supposed job. |
| alfred wrote: | | could you back up that claim? |
Holebender presumably being rather busy drilling for oil, it was Chicmac who backed up the claim. Alfred, unable to provide any counter-argument to the proof provided by Chicmac, criticised the way the evidence was given. When I pointed out that this was what had just happened, Alfred became abusive about me personally. As Chicmac says, that is generally considered a sign of having lost the argument. |
What an aching b***sack of a human being. |
Troll alert!
|
October1974
|
I see my tongue in cheek post has been taken seriously by a few.
I look forward to the noble Lord reporting all the others who took legal advice ............but I cannot see it happening. 
|
Stevie
|
Alfred Troll,
you can disagree, you can be disgusted, you can be what you like,
BUT cut the personal attacks on David Coull or I'll be forced to report you to the moderators.
It's not cricket laddie. I would have the same attitude towards someone being as uncivil to you.
You owe Dave C an apology and your personal agenda is numbingly obvious to all here.
You can disagee without being disagreeable.
Hoping you are an adult...
|
mairead
|
Y'know. If there is one thing that brasses me off, it's hearing the likes of Foulkes being referred to as the NOBLE Lord. There is just nothing NOBLE about any of todays peers.
|
Stevie
|
Lord this and Lady that belong in the wastebin of infantile history, as do King this and Queen that... viva la republicà!
|
calum
|
A noble lord or just a nob?
|
Red Justice
|
| Bravehand wrote: | | Lord this and Lady that belong in the wastebin of infantile history, as do King this and Queen that... viva la republicà! |
I agree lets stop the titles and the gravy train and have a free Scottish Republic.
|
magister ludi
|
| Red Justice wrote: |
I agree lets stop the titles and the gravy train and have a free Scottish Republic. |
couldn't we all be ennobled and titled in a free scotland......if for no other reason than it would be so less dreary than being referred to as comrade?
|
Cruachan
|
| magister ludi wrote: | | Red Justice wrote: |
I agree lets stop the titles and the gravy train and have a free Scottish Republic. |
couldn't we all be ennobled and titled in a free scotland......if for no other reason than it would be so less dreary than being referred to as comrade? |
Lord Ludi has a certain ring to it!
|
|
|
|