• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About aaid

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Royal Berkshire

Previous Fields

  • TA Club
    Loony Alba

Recent Profile Visitors

6,692 profile views
  1. I don't think they all get told all the secret stuff but you have to be on it to get told all the secret stuff. A bit like the House of Lords in that it's a job for life Thinking back, when May became PM, she appointed Buffalo Bill to her "political" cabinet and presumably that's part of it. There was quite a bit of fuss when the SNP became the third party at Westminster, leader of the third party at Westminster - as is Leader of the opposition - is one of the "automatic" positions. Can't remember the details but it was something defence-related, Angus Robertson was made a member of the Privy Council which meant he could be briefed. Lots of outrage from the usual suspects about these separatists being given access to state secrets.
  2. I wasn't aware she had been. That's very odd, usually only given to certain government ministers and key opposition leaders, so that they can be briefed on important but sensitive matters of state in confidence. To my knowledge the leader of the opposition in Scotland - a post that doesn't formally exist anyway - has never been made a member before.
  3. You're definitely punching above your weight. 😄
  4. They - the BBC - are saying that the budget is broadly similar to BBC4. Personally, I think BBC4 is excellent but a great deal of its output is either repeats, either from the archives or stuff that's recently been shown on BBC1 or 2.
  5. As ever, the devil is in the detail. On the surface this looks like a positive development but the budget is a real concern. If the new channel is underfunded, the the quality will not be up to scratch and people will not watch it and it will give the BBC the excuse to shut it down saying that people aren't interested in Scottish content. A cynic might say that is the long term end game. It also remains to be seen how much new content there will be and how much of the current Scottish content on BBC1 and BBC2 just gets shifted over.
  6. For something to be a lie, it has to be both empirically untrue and you also have to know that it's untrue at the time. On that basis I wouldn't describe the comments about "the only way to retain EU membership is to vote No" as lies but as broken promises or commitments. However, Ruth Davidson deserves to be called out on this at every opportunity for a few reasons. The caveat that is only now being added is that "ok we said that in 2014 but everyone knew there would be an EU referendum in the next parliament". That's patently untrue, in 2014, the Tories were in a coalition government, the junior party of which would never agree to an EU referendum. It was Tory policy but at that point no-one expected a majority Tory government being elected in 2015. In fact, when pressed on this in one of the debates, Davidson herself said "well that will only happen if there is a Tory majority and that doesn't look very likely right now" and she was widely considered to have "taken one for the team". Again, it only serves to demonstrate the democratic deficit, that no matter what Scotland votes for, due to the UK constitutional makeup, if England takes a different view, she will be overruled. Finally, you can see that personified in Ruth Davidson's continually changing stance before, immediately after and now on Europe. During the Referendum campaign, she was a strong campaigner for Remain, no one can dispute that. In the immediate aftermath, she was full square committed to retaining Single Market membership, not access or best ever deal, membership. For all those thing she deserves to be called out, but I would call her a liar for that. Big burly men and her comments on the night of the referendum re. Postal votes are another matter though.
  7. Well absolutely everyone, and I mean everyone, got the oil projections wrong. The Scottish Government's projections weren't the worst.
  8. Sacked, resigned, mutual consent... all pretty much the same.
  9. Governor-General would be much more appropriate.
  10. I suspect that you're in the minority here. It got a commensurate level of coverage IMHO. The Better Together references are important to the story, which is about his tragically young death and the work he did to raise money and awareness for MND research and that he reached across the "political divide". if you want to be cynical about it, the reason it got on the BBC National News was most likely because it was over a weekend when news tends to be slow.
  11. So the converse of that is "the guy's a scumbag and should be in The Hague but he's said something that I believe to be true, so I need to disavow what I believe" Its a completely bogus argument. What you can legitimately argue is whether he's the right person to deliver that message.
  12. Vice President in the US is a pretty strange position. In some administrations, the VP will be a fundamental part of the administration, involved directly in decisions and policy. For others it's a constitutional nicety that needs to be observed - often a ticket was put together to win the election - and the VP is as out of the loop as is possible. That was certainly the case with JFK and LBJ. I think it's what Blair tried to do with Prescott, create the role of deputy Prime Minisiter and put Prescott in it to get the left wing onside but that's an aside. In most organisations, if you were the number two, and you were being lied to by people below you and the person at the top was complicit in that, then your position would be untenable and the only thing to would be to walk. Even if you tried to tough it out on the basis that the guy at the top would get found out eventually, if that happened then you wouldn't get the job as you've no credibility However, for Pence, it's a bit different because if it all does turn to shit and Trump is impeached then being a patsy works to his advantage as it means he isn't implicated and will get the big job because that's the law. Who knows where this will end up and if there's any serious shit that can be proved. It may all prove to be nothing more than incompetence. Remember Watergate started with a burglary that started to unravel and uncovered loads of real shit. In that case there were only a handful of reporters covering Watergate and it took them a long time to get it "inside" the White House. This time, Trump has pretty much the whole US media on his case and there's probably dozens if Deep Throats given that he's managed to alienate both the press and the security services.
  13. He hasn't been charged - unless that's changed overnight - and reports are that he's unlikely to be charged. Potentail prosecution witness for a much larger, but with smaller hands, target?