Wednesday, 29 May 2013


Alistair Darling, who is the leader of the Tory-Liberal anti independence movement, has been left facing accusations of hypocrisy after he attacked George Osborne over the state of the UK economy.

In the Daily Record  Darling attacked the chancellor because of stalled growth, the economy bumping along the bottom and the number out of work growing.

Kenneth Gibson MSP, said this was hypocritical of Darling who is trying to convince the people of Scotland they are ‘better together’ with a Tory finance minister like George Osborne than making decisions in their own parliament in Edinburgh.

Gibson said that one minute Alistair Darling was telling us that Scotland is better with Westminster making the decisions, the next he was attacking the damage being done by that self same Westminster.

He went on: “He can't have it both ways - but it is not surprising as we know this hypocrisy sums up the No campaign’s arguments.

“Anti-independence politicians are happy to attack the record of Westminster - but are still perpetuating the myth that Scotland is better with a Tory Westminster government that we didn't vote for.

“Scotland’s finances are consistently stronger than the UK's, over half of the North Sea tax revenues are still to come, and our oil and gas assets are worth £1.5 trillion or even more.

"With our abundant resources, only a Yes vote next September gives Scotland the powers to create the fairer and wealthier society we all want to live in.”

Not for the first time does Alistair get a bit muddled in his thinking...
Gibson has a point. If Westminster is all that Better Together (or apart or whatever they are these days) cracks it up to be, why on earth is the leader of Better Together so critical of Westminster?

It doesn't add up, but then our experience of Alistair Darling is that nothing he does, from being Finance Minister to filling in his expenses, actually does add up!


  1. I'm guessing all those beatings he was given from a certain Mr Brown when he, Gordon Brown was Prime Minister, might have something to do with his confusion about which way is the right way to go. :-)

    1. You mean all the Nokias smacking him in the coupon have deranged him?

    2. yeah I think it was the Nokia effect that has done him in. :-)

  2. the No campaign is inconsistent (and incoherent) on just about everything though.

    Even the most low info voter is going to start seeing through this, which is why the Yes share is going up. Still a way to go but that's why NO wanted a snap referendum, less time to keep track of their internally inconsistent rabblings.

    1. as you say Panda the NO camp is inconsistent AND incoherent on almost everything. I'm just wondering how they will respond to the latest defence news.

      I'm guessing they will adopt the Lamont approach to giving an answer......maybe's AYE......maybe's NAW!

    2. yes, I agree that it wanted a snap referendum before the holes in the arguments could be shown to be so open.

      The truth of the matter is the mess that we are in, where everything is being cut and run down, is better together.

      This is it. I've not heard one single person promise us anything better.

      So, better together means living in a run down 3rd rate state that cares only for running wars; having nuclear weapons; sitting at top tables, hobnobbing with people like American and Chinese presidents and kings from the middle east and courting the leadership of countries like Russia, India and Brazil; farming out virtually everything to the private sector, making vast amounts of money for one's friends who will then give one a job; making the house of lords even larger than the Chinese assembly and pretending that we are America's bestest friend, while our utility bills go through the roof and a million or so of our population go to soup kitchens and food banks.

      Better together indeed!

      Even the dumbest should be able to see through that.

      But if that is your best argument...and it is their best argument, then you are obliged to make up tales of woe about the alternative. People who can break away and get themselves a life like other northern countries taking with them so much that is viable, must be stopped at any cost.

      None of their crap is working. Wait for the REALLY dirty tricks to come as they get more and more desperate.

  3. Replies
    1. I don't think you could have found a more apt video there CH. lol:-)

    2. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

  4. Tris

    Darling is in a difficult position as each argument is torn apart. However, he does have the majority of the media on his side so far and that is still a biggy for a large share of the vote. I was looking at some high school polls done in Edinburgh in March asking the actual question and the results were not good so still a ways to go yet.

    I am however in a better mood about it. Labour moving away from BT certainly piles the pressure on AD and I would not be surprised to see him pulling back more and more without actually leaving the BT camp altogether for fear of the media backlash.

    On Newsnight the little bit at the end called Scotland last night the BT business man really struggled while the YES business woman came across really well although the presenter was looking for the pro union slant at every op but it is still good to see well thought out arguments put across in a matter of fact way that BT just can't respond to.

    It's all falling down around them.


    1. Really Bruce the deal is that even if they had convincing people to put it across their arguments don't hold up.

      But as you say, the media, owned almost exclusively in England, is against us and can make their arguments look better and ours less good, by manipulation of facts and figures.

      The only credible people in the BT campaign were Annabel and Charlie, but they have taken a back seat.

      Alistair Darling is a failed chancellor who cheated on his expenses; Gordon Brown was a disaster of a pm and chancellor who oversaw the end to boom and let the whole economy collapse. Why anyone would believe anything they say is beyond belief?

      I wonder about 16 year olds. I can't imagine that they would think that anything could be much worse that what we have at the moment. Maybe they think it's more important to be able to kill millions of people in another country than it is to feed your own people... oh well.

      Whatever they think, it is right that people who can work, marry and have children have a vote.

  5. On 16 and 17yo's.

    Its been my experience, that if you explain the situation they fall down on the Yes side. The default is No, I assume because they don't know the facts and its the norm for them.

    However, when it comes to the debate, I've found them to be either incredulous at the temerity of Westminster or quite matter of fact about Yes being the obvious choice. Of course, there are those who are already indoctrinated into Better Together think but for the most part - that age group just seem to not know the facts.

    I now have young folk telling me they're voting no to annoy me. I mean, I don't bang on about it, I know they're joking...

    Or at least they'd better be, or the joke will most assuredly be on them; its their future.

    1. Yes that probably true.I've come across some incredible "ignorance" and I mean that in its real sense, of facts.

      One teen (I think 19) said that he liked the SNP, but cutting people's benefits because they were sick was despicable and it had put him off them!

      Had he heard of the Conservatives, I asked. No, he replied.

      A 16 year old I was talking to was really interested in what was happening but was strangely ill-informed. Fortunately he was keen to learn, but when I talked to him later he said he'd discussed it with some of his classmates and they thought that we wouldn't be able to manage on our own.


      The trouble is at 16 (as at 18, 20 even 25) you don't think it's really that interesting, or that it makes that much difference. There are so many more interesting things to do.

      LOL I'm sure your lads know how the land lies Pa!!!

  6. This one won't make anyone in Scotland laugh. except the red Tory shown above and his better together chums (posh for pals).


    1. So why would anyone stay.

      Better together to be poorer than anywhere else, while contributing more than anyone else to the pot.


  7. tris

    IDS what a wank'r

    For over the years, the farm business operating off the country estate part-owned by Duncan Smith's son – with the minister's wife as a trustee – has received well over a million pounds in taxpayer subsidies. Swanbourne Home Farms, run in partnership between the minister's in-laws, Baron and Baroness Cottesloe, brother-in-law Thomas, and cousin Richard Brooks, has been given €1,517,535 over a 10-year period in funding from the EU. It has also been the recipient of grants understood to be worth tens of thousands of pounds from Natural England. Described by the EU as "income support" for farmers, these common agricultural policy payments were established by the 1957 treaty of Rome to ensure "fair standard of living for the agricultural community". None of it goes to the Duncan Smiths. "Neither Iain Duncan Smith or his wife receive any income whatsoever from the Swanbourne Estate," his spokesman says. And few would quibble with the payments themselves. Still, it shows that the best of us need a hand from time to time.

    1. Oooops Sorry, Niko.

      I forgot to look back at this post :) :) :)