Peppino Impastato Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) Actually having reread it I misunderstood I take it back. Though obviously the vow was a basic breach of purdah anyway as it made a new offer to the electorate when it was a breach of purdah to do so. One which had been ruled out by bt as part of the Edinburgh agreement negotiations actually. Edited March 28, 2016 by Peppino Impastato 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 It wasn't a Minister of the Crown (who is a legal person forming part of the government and legally accountable as such) that made the promises of further powers. It was the leaders of the respective parties, two of whom co-incidentally and in other capacities happened also to be Ministers of the Crown. Are you suggesting that this nit-picking technical distinction was uppermost in the mind of every "No" voter when they cast their vote? If not, why bring it up? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Are you suggesting that this nit-picking technical distinction was uppermost in the mind of every "No" voter when they cast their vote? If not, why bring it up? this is what he's like. Also they got Gordon Brown to announce it as he wasn'tprivy to purdah but it as approved by them all and made a material offer which wasn't aloud. Fibbers describes it as a commission on more powers which is disingenuous, a commission could be held and provide no powerst all Iin theory. This was a concrete offer of powers, the commission was simply to iron out the details. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Actually having reread it I misunderstood I take it back. Though obviously the vow was a basic breach of purdah anyway as it made a new offer to the electorate when it was a breach of purdah to do so. One which had been ruled out by bt as part of the Edinburgh agreement negotiations actually. No part of the Edinburgh Agreement undertook that political parties could not make promises about further powers during the purdah period of the referendum. Are you suggesting that this nit-picking technical distinction was uppermost in the mind of every "No" voter when they cast their vote? If not, why bring it up? I didn't bring it up. Fuzzy Affro did. I was pointing out that purdah was not breached as he had claimed was the case. Not a single voter has to "actually" make the distinction between David Cameron speaking as a Minister of the Crown versus speaking as Leader of the Conservative Party for the distinction to be constitutionally, legally or even materially, relevant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 (edited) Purdah is the pre-election period in the United Kingdom, specifically the time between an announced election and the final election results.[1] The time period prevents central and local government from making announcements about any new or controversial government initiatives (such as modernisation initiatives or administrative and legislative changes) which could be seen to be advantageous to any candidates or parties in the forthcoming election. This is what fibbers is arguing against here. Ignoring the manchild for a moment all sane people reading this ask yourself do you think the vow was in breach of This? And his is what fibbers is arguing against. That's incredible dishonesty. Edited March 28, 2016 by Peppino Impastato 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Purdah is the pre-election period in the United Kingdom, specifically the time between an announced election and the final election results.[1] The time period prevents central and local government from making announcements about any new or controversial government initiatives (such as modernisation initiatives or administrative and legislative changes) which could be seen to be advantageous to any candidates or parties in the forthcoming election. This is what fibbers is arguing against here. Ignoring the manchild for a moment all sane people reading this ask yourself do you think the vow was in breach of This? And his is what fibbers is arguing against. That's incredible dishonesty. But this is precisely the point. It's not central or local government "announcing any new or controversial government initiatives". It is party leaders, through non-state channels including a tabloid newspaper, announcing a political commitment to introduce and support legislation to expand the powers of the Scottish Parliament after a Commission to reach a cross-party agreement on specifics. It wasn't a "government initiative". No civil servant was involved. No government department was instructed to say or do anything in connection with the Vow. It was Gordon Brown having a chat with the Daily Record then frenetic phone calls to the party leaders saying "will you agree to endorse this?" It's worth pointing out that you referred to Better Together earlier. They are definitionally a campaigning body. Political campaigns make promises during purdah all the time. They're kind of meant to. That's what an election or a referendum campaign is! Better Together is a separate entity from the UK Government in the same way as Yes Scotland was not the same as the Scottish Government. The point of purdah is about government influencing the result. The government isn't a political party or a political action group/registered referendum participant or a politician. The point is that governments are using state resources: civil servants and public money. Political parties, party leaders, and campaign groups are not doing this during purdah. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 But this is precisely the point. It's not central or local government "announcing any new or controversial government initiatives". It is party leaders, through non-state channels including a tabloid newspaper, announcing a political commitment to introduce and support legislation to expand the powers of the Scottish Parliament after a Commission to reach a cross-party agreement on specifics. It wasn't a "government initiative". No civil servant was involved. No government department was instructed to say or do anything in connection with the Vow. It was Gordon Brown having a chat with the Daily Record then frenetic phone calls to the party leaders saying "will you agree to endorse this?" It's worth pointing out that you referred to Better Together earlier. They are definitionally a campaigning body. Political campaigns make promises during purdah all the time. They're kind of meant to. That's what an election or a referendum campaign is! Better Together is a separate entity from the UK Government in the same way as Yes Scotland was not the same as the Scottish Government. The point of purdah is about government influencing the result. The government isn't a political party or a political action group/registered referendum participant or a politician. The point is that governments are using state resources: civil servants and public money. Political parties, party leaders, and campaign groups are not doing this during purdah. tldr -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 tldr Most sensible post from you on here yet! Btw, are you Fuzzy Afro under a new name? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted March 28, 2016 Share Posted March 28, 2016 Most sensible post from you on here yet! Btw, are you Fuzzy Afro under a new name? apparently either that or Paolo Sergio 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Solidarity in sexual harassment turmoil http://www.thenational.scot/news/solidarity-in-turmoil-tommy-sheridan-accused-of-ignoring-sexual-harassment-of-female-party-members.15773?utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_term=Autofeed#link_time=1459404197 Anyone going to The Declaration of Glasgow? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 Tommy Sheridan failing to stand up for women's rights? How fucking shocking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 How are you all so blind to obvious counter revolutionary agitators attempting to bring the party down from the inside? A good purging needed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broomhill Ultra Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 How are you all so blind to obvious counter revolutionary agitators attempting to bring the party down from the inside? A good purging needed. A gender obsessed Cabal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 How are you all so blind to obvious counter revolutionary agitators attempting to bring the party down from the inside? A good purging needed. Syrup of figs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 How are you all so blind to obvious counter revolutionary agitators attempting to bring the party down from the inside? A good purging needed. I think the far left are laughable politically, but even they don't deserve clowns like Sheridan. It's like Derek Hatton all over again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Solidarity in sexual harassment turmoil http://www.thenational.scot/news/solidarity-in-turmoil-tommy-sheridan-accused-of-ignoring-sexual-harassment-of-female-party-members.15773?utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_term=Autofeed#link_time=1459404197 Ever since the days of Gerry Healy and the Workers Revolutionary Party, it's almost been a Trotskyite tradition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 1, 2016 Author Share Posted April 1, 2016 Ever since the days of Gerry Healy and the Workers Revolutionary Party, it's a Trotskyite tradition. FTFY 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Apparently Rise are campaigning by taking an amp and mic into a McDonalds and, er, shouting at the people eating there. Solid, solid campaigning comrades. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Apparently Rise are campaigning by taking an amp and mic into a McDonalds and, er, shouting at the people eating there. Solid, solid campaigning comrades. FFS, that's student campus type politicking, not for "grown ups". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenconner Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Ever since the days of Gerry Healy and the Workers Revolutionary Party, it's almost been a Trotskyite tradition. Wonder if any of them went to Gaddafi's funeral. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.