Lamont sums up what Scottish Labour thinks of the Scots

[Casual Bystander]

It's quite clear why Labour wants to retain the Union and that is purely down to the seats that Scotland seems to provide them at Westminster out of what seems like habit (or a desire simply not to vote Conservative). We all know that of all the elections this and last century, there are only 3 of them that would make a difference to the power at Westminster if the Scottish seats were removed, and one of them was the coalition government of 1974 that lasted a matter of months. Scotland's seats provide just under 10% of the seats at Westminster and only one of them Conservative so you can see the benefit that Scotland brings to Labour.

Lamont does care about you, Darling doesn't care about you, Hood doesn't care about you. NONE of them actually care about their constituents they only care that they have those seats in at Westminster.

Let's just remind us that Scottish Labour leader, Lamont, said about the Scots' ability to deal with the "complex issues of independence".

"Genetically Programmed" is akin to a phrase plantation owners would use to describe their slaves. And let us not forget that she described having full control over our taxes, defence, foreign policy and all the other things that would come with independence were "wee things". Could she possibly be more insulting to the electorate? Did she apologise for those comments? No. Of course not.

Jim Hood's comments can be found in my signature, click the spoiler for view the YouTube video.

The bottom line is that Labour has played the Scottish electorate for fools, blindly assuming that they will vote for them out of habit. They are claiming they will offer up new devolved powers in the case of a No vote, but where are those new powers defined? Nowhere, that's where. And when Lamont was under immense pressure to provide some sort of reply to the SNP's white paper her plans were vetoed by Ed Balls the Shadow Chancellor.

Scottish Labour are liars and don't represent the Scottish people.

[harry94]

"Genetically Programmed" is akin to a phrase plantation owners would use to describe their slaves.

I can't believe this has been brought up again. Her point was that public opinion evolves and isn't locked to a select few political views we share today.

[Casual Bystander]

I can't believe this has been brought up again. Her point was that public opinion evolves and isn't locked to a select few political views we share today.

Could you link to the definition and/or apology for Lamont's comments? All I can find is a tranche of Labour spin merchants claiming she "misspoke".

Whether you like it or not, those were her words, and they were pretty implicit. If she misspoke or somehow everyone listening to her misinterpreted her comments (well everyone apart from you who has sage like skills as deciphering political commentary) then surely the onus is upon her to quell the electorate's concerns.

Anyone who thinks that Scottish Labour cares about Scotland and it's electorate then they are either an apologist or just plain deluded.

Edit: Any comment about the #weethings? After all, one misspeak is an unfortunate accident, two would seem like a pattern. What about Jim Hood's claim that even if it were to benefit the very people who voted him into office he would be against it purely in spite, are you wishing to debate that away more sage like deciphering?

[harry94]

Could you link to the definition and/or apology for Lamont's comments? All I can find is a tranche of Labour spin merchants claiming she "misspoke".

Whether you like it or not, those were her words, and they were pretty implicit. If she misspoke or somehow everyone listening to her misinterpreted her comments (well everyone apart from you who has sage like skills as deciphering political commentary) then surely the onus is upon her to quell the electorate's concerns.

Anyone who thinks that Scottish Labour cares about Scotland and it's electorate then they are either an apologist or just plain deluded.

Edit: Any comment about the #weethings? After all, one misspeak is an unfortunate accident, two would seem like a pattern. What about Jim Hood's claim that even if it were to benefit the very people who voted him into office he would be against it purely in spite, are you wishing to debate that away more sage like deciphering?

No apology is required. She maybe could have briefly repeated her quote in the full context but that's about it.

"It could be introduced anywhere if people believed it was a good idea. We're not genetically programmed in Scotland to make political decisions."

It's pretty obvious what she meant with the sentence before it.

The 'wee things' was a stupid clumsy comment but even then it's clearly not intended to be malicious or insulting in any way. She's been told to focus on the big economic uncertainties and in an effort to do so has lost delicacy.

Just to be clear I'm not a labour supporter and I don't think I can ever vote for them. I just think Johann gets some pretty extreme hatred for what is just incompetence.

[Casual Bystander]

No apology is required. She maybe could have briefly repeated her quote in the full context but that's about it.

"It could be introduced anywhere if people believed it was a good idea. We're not genetically programmed in Scotland to make political decisions."

I am sorry but I find that comment insulting, and I find Lamont arrogance that somehow I am incapable of making political decisions highly defamatory and it belittles every Scot with a political bent. There is absolutely and utterly a requirement for an apology. And she has delivered none.

It's pretty obvious what she meant with the sentence before it.

She was talking about the bedroom tax, and it's quite clear she was belittling the electorate, whether intentionally or not (and you would have to hope it's not, just for the sake of the nerve of someone doing so intentionally). You seem to have rose tinted glasses regarding her comments. You are right, it is obvious what she meant.

The 'wee things' was a stupid clumsy comment but even then it's clearly not intended to be malicious or insulting in any way. She's been told to focus on the big economic uncertainties and in an effort to do so has lost delicacy.

I am beginning to think you have a wee stauner for the woman. Fair enough, but politicians who continually make mistakes and those mistakes are always insulting the electorate and their aspirations then it doesn't say much for her.

I just think Johann gets some pretty extreme hatred for what is just incompetence.

She is a small minded malicious and extremely poor politician. Which suits Labour as they know they don't need a big hitter North of the border and in turn they need someone who can be whipped to follow the Westminster line above what is best for Scots in general.

[Dunning1874]

I can't believe this has been brought up again. Her point was that public opinion evolves and isn't locked to a select few political views we share today.

Aye, Lamont's a cretin but it was obvious what she meant there, for all that her wording was clumsy.

Her 'wee things' comment however was utter stupidity and it's right that people don't let her live that one down.

[Casual Bystander]

Aye, Lamont's a cretin but it was obvious what she meant there, for all that her wording was clumsy.

For the benefit of others, could you clarify (or perhaps Harry could) on what she "meant" to say? This is her quote verbatim (in the context of the bedroom tax).

Yes of course, but it could be introduced anywhere if people believed it was a good idea. We're not genetically programmed in Scotland to make political decisions, we choose the world we want to live in. And we have to win the political argument.

I fail to see how she was doing anything other than insulting the electorate.

[harry94]

I am sorry but I find that comment insulting, and I find Lamont arrogance that somehow I am incapable of making political decisions highly defamatory and it belittles every Scot with a political bent. There is absolutely and utterly a requirement for an apology. And she has delivered none.

Again, that's not what she said. Her point was clearly that political views change and there is no guarantee that the Scottish people would feel he same way about one issue in the future as they do now.

She is a small minded malicious and extremely poor politician. Which suits Labour as they know they don't need a big hitter North of the border and in turn they need someone who can be whipped to follow the Westminster line above what is best for Scots in general.

Well maybe a poor politician but how do I know she is malicious? I've never met her and apart from being shite at her job she's not actually done anything that has come across in that way. She's completely out of her depth and is trapped under the control of her superiors. How do we know she isn't doing what she genuinely believes is best? She might go around beating up kids and tripping up old people but before I have evidence of that I'll refrain from the insults.

The reason I felt the need to reply to your post is that it reminds me of the sort of crazy delusional anti-Salmond posts that I stumble across online and continuing that sort of rhetoric doesn't really add anything to the debate. If anything it makes it a lot angrier and more divisive.

[ayrmad]

For the benefit of others, could you clarify (or perhaps Harry could) on what she "meant" to say? This is her quote verbatim (in the context of the bedroom tax).

I fail to see how she was doing anything other than insulting the electorate.

Like you I don't believe she deserves the benefit of the doubt, she is a halfwit who will do or say anything to get a NO vote, that's why London Labour put her there.

Her wee things jibe was a jaw-dropper when I heard her say it live, that one moment entitles me to question why anyone in Scotland would vote for a party with her at the top, must be eejits,braindeads or sheep.

Thankfully my house is NuLabour free now.

[Casual Bystander]

Again, that's not what she said. Her point was clearly that political views change and there is no guarantee that the Scottish people would feel he same way about one issue in the future as they do now.

That is quite some spin on the actual quote. How you derive her meaning from what she said and what you think she meant to say is some leap.

Well maybe a poor politician but how do I know she is malicious?

Politically, not personally, I don't know her personally despite actually being my MSP. I have yet to see her in her constituency but then that could be just my bad (good?) luck.

How do we know she isn't doing what she genuinely believes is best?

That's not really a suitable excuse for insulting the electorate, unless of course what she believes is best is insulting the electorate. In which case well done Johann.

The reason I felt the need to reply to your post is that it reminds me of the sort of crazy delusional anti-Salmond posts that I stumble across online and continuing that sort of rhetoric doesn't really add anything to the debate. If anything it makes it a lot angrier and more divisive.

I think you are being completely unfair, I have backed up my comments with direct verbatim quotes, quotes which when you try to gloss over as not being so bad (and fair enough perhaps you are just being Devil's Advocate) this is not a one man hatchet job using hearsay and conjecture. If she didn't say the things she did, she wouldn't have to defend them - not that she does, her silence on the matter is all the more galling.

[sparky88]

Yep, the people leading the No campaign are absolute dicks.

Doesn't matter a f**k though, still voting no.

[harry94]

I think you are being completely unfair, I have backed up my comments with direct verbatim quotes, quotes which when you try to gloss over as not being so bad (and fair enough perhaps you are just being Devil's Advocate) this is not a one man hatchet job using hearsay and conjecture. If she didn't say the things she did, she wouldn't have to defend them - not that she does, her silence on the matter is all the more galling.

Fair enough, I've been pretty harsh on you now that I reflect on it. I just disagree with how her statement was intended and perhaps jumped on it quite quickly thinking you had a nasty predisposition towards her but if we put that one issue to the side then we agree with each other on almost everything.