• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About exile

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    The South Peninsula
  1. Tories challenge Gordon Brown to say whether federal UK plans mean referendum http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/27/tories-challenge-gordon-brown-say-whether-federal-uk-plans-mean/ that's a new one - as Labour never even took their own idea seriously enough to think through what it would mean, giving the Tories a chance to claim to be the only true 'no referendum' party
  2. I personally don't understand the point of this programme as it's been set up. Either UK politics and democracy is suspended, in which case suspend the programe, or it isn't, in which case have a normal multi-party take on the events of the week.
  3. I've heard arguments for that for years. Although it sounds quite interesting I always thought it was a but overestimating how many people would want to go from Paisley to Edinburgh or Ayr to Alloa, rather than 'anywhere near Central station'.
  4. yes http://www.time-capsules.co.uk/images/pf-time-capsules/914.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2019/1945127484_caab8330ba_o.jpg
  5. OK then talking of things hidden underground, how many people are aware there used to be a railway station at Botanic Gardens - the line was underground - the line was a branch from Central low level and it went under Kelvingrove park with a station at Kelvin Bridge. You can - or used to - still see the tunnel entrances and the old platforms were on a bridge over the Kelvin.. And of course there used to be a branch from High Street to Bridgeton Cross. So you could go from Partick to Bridgeton via Queen St low level. And of course there was a branch of the Central low level line from Bridgeton to Parkhead and beyond. There could well be as much unused 'underground' railways in Glasgow as there is 'Underground'...
  6. i get the sentiment - and agree that people shouldn't be hounding individuals - do I take it that she has been exposed to a lot of personal abuse? Or have people just been spreading rumours or digging into someone's (publicly advertised) activities, which results in political points-scoring by online activists and political commentators? If it were only another story about self-harming cybernattery then maybe it would best be left behind. But if there really is a real-world (as opposed to social media) fuss about this, then people may ask themselves why there is such a fuss about a nurse asking a question, and perhaps it could provide a foothold to shifting the argument to why the questioner was apparently specifically invited back to ask a question on off-topic devolved matters? (not in itself a crime but if one of the BBC presenters misled the public about this then it could have traction?) And it would become an occasion to ask questions about why the recent BBC Question Time had [allegedly] a series of Tory councillors there, where neither they nor the BBC declared their affiliation. While not excusing 'hounding' individuals, it can explain why cybernats are so riled about this as the BBC seems to be able to do this sort of thing with impunity, and there is no comeback. They seem to be accountable to no-one. The mud never seems to stick. But one day it may do. I realise this is in danger of shifting the argument away from why the FM could not answer better the question herself? like drawing attention to why the Scottish NHS and nurses are [supposedly?] better off than that in England. But irrespective of your political persuasion, this seems to me a bigger issue: how can you have a proper democracy when the public is so ill-informed, about who and what they are voting for, with forever the suspicion that the public broadcaster is all along distorting the debate to suit the state?
  7. Maybe the 'hysteria' is just among the online activists and keyboard warriors. The integrity of the BBC maybe has more traction. While they may always be able to defend their mysterious processes of selecting audiences and selecting questions, the presenter may have some explaining to do if she said that the high number of devolved-issue questions were instigated by the audience, if in fact the BBC specifically asked the questioner on to this programme, knowing her question. I don't see a problem of councillors asking questions but they should be made to declare their allegiance. Councillors' families is another matter, of course. Probably the whole format of these programmes is in danger of becoming out-dated, as the idea of an 'ordinary member of the public' gets harder to define, when so many are publicly online campaigners of one sort or another.
  8. Glasgow has a feel of a big city with no limits. You can stand on a street corner with the grid of streets going to the horizons and great views of hills around... Edinburgh never had an 'underground' in the conventional sense but it once had an underground railway line running north from Waverley to Leith and Granton, going north under St Andrew Square, Scotland St etc. At Granton it apparently connected to a ferry that took trains on to Fife... http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/s/scotland_street_tunnel/index.shtml Maybe someday they could reopen it as a metro or tram line?
  9. I'm pretty sure I heard Kezia Dugdale on the radio this morning saying the election shouldn't be about the constitution, then in the next breath say her mission was to say no to independence. Maybe if there's a Labour surge she'll change her tune and start attacking the Tories more, as she may need to rely on the SNP to help keep a May majority down.
  10. Points taken (about representativeness) but on the last one, did you notice that in the council elections, the BBC refused to use the "what the election result was" numbers of seats (which would have shown an SNP increase in seats) but chose to invent some other measure (which showed a reduction in seats) and hence relentless propaganda about SNP on the slide. Maybe just a coincidence that it showed the SNP in a bad light, eh? It'll be interesting to see how the general election results will be reported. given the SNP's 'whipless two'. If hypothetically the SNP won 55 seats, you could frame that as a loss of one seat or a gain of one seat. What are the bets that the anti-SNP parties will compare this number with "what the election result was", and so record a loss. And what will the BBC use? My guess is that they would use words like "a notional gain" (emphasising notional, as if to say, not really) and probably also mention it could also be interpreted as a loss and then use it to re-explain the two whipless cases. And that's all true, of course, but just happens to be not the same way they interpreted the truth for the council elections....
  11. So it's because they are representatives behaving as individuals, if they dupe you, it's your problem. And yet there are all those other rules, like lying about candidates, what you can spend, and what you can call yourself as a political party (e.g. Scottish v UK labour). But moving forward, then surely the election result needs to be changed to reflect Labour gaining fewer council seats than we all thought. ('no Labour councillors in Aberdeen') Is someone going to change the wikipedia page?
  12. Isn't the point that in this election candidates stood expressly on a ticket that involved not going into coalition with the Tories, and then almost as soon as elected, went back on that pledge and formed a coalition anyway? And though they may now be 'independents', who could pretend they'd have got as many votes as they did, had they gone in as 'independents, with a quite distinct possible tendency of propping up Tories' - especially if there had also been official Labour candidates? I don't know Aberdeen politics, but I'd have thought at least some voters must feel conned by their actions, or at least, would have listed their preferences differently, had they known what they'd do?
  13. (I missed almost all the news coverage today) So are they saying: here's a nasty party policy - cut the winter fuel benefit for most people? - but here's a Scottish twist - we'll pretend to pledge to give Scotland a better deal - in 2019/20? - which means presumably next Holyrood - a pledge which would only be meaningful if the Tories win that Holyrood election? So it's an empty pledge, that a Tory victory in June won't and can't deliver. But in the meantime they'll cut the benefit anyway, for everyone, so we get 2-3 years of UK Tory chill anyway? So Ruth agrees with the nasty cut as long as it's the UK policy (though that's something her party can control), but pretends to be against it when it's a Scottish policy she'd get the credit for, but which she's not in control of delivering for the foreseeable future...
  14. Is the winter fuel payment devolved or not? If it were devolved, why would the Tories be proposing policies for it when the GE wouldn't give them control of devolved powers? if it's not devolved, why not devolve it, if you think scotland needs a different policy?