Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · 40m PM's list of sanctions against Moscow doesn’t go nearly far enough. When I asked him for a proper investigation into Kremlin meddling in our own politics, he said he’s not aware of any
Presumably that's because he hasn't bothered to look. Has he even read the Russia Report?
You just don't want to see it because you've convinced yourself the Greens are synonymous with Corbynites. But they aren't.
People like Putin hate the Greens. They can't stand the idea of people weaning themselves off the fossil fuel addiction that keeps them dependent on big oil and gas exporters like Russia.
Yes, the Greens are aggressively anti-Putin too, even more so in Germany where they outdo both the SPD and the CDU on the subject. He ticks all their boxes for hate figures - authoritarian, pro-oil/gas, militarist, and a Big State type. It's a category error to think "some lefties are reflexively pro-Russian" (something that's become less true with time), and "Greens are lefties" (generally true in the UK, less so in Germany) therefore "Greens are pro-Russian" (nonsense).
Good observation.
Paul Mason has been distinguishing (roughly) between the "neo-Stalinist" left and the "global left". I'm not commenting on how right I think he is.
Worth a note that PM himself has Lithuanian background in his family.
The general gist of the UKs approach (and others) is to try to punish the narrow strata that consist of Putin's friends. I think Boris said the other day that it was important that the Russian people didn't think that we thought of them as our enemy. This is surely a mistaken plan. I think we should start viewing all Russian citizens as responsible for Putin.
Most Russian people have no power to influence Putin or to remove him. We know that democracy is a pure sham in Russia.
I'd definitely be broadening the net of Russians targeted by sanctions, though, to all who enable, facilitate and support Putin within the Russian economy, military, security and intelligence apparatus, and foreign policy.
If the Russians can't remove him who can?
I think they need to start taking responsibility.
One of the thing in modern, targeted sanctions, is that they are not just targeted at *entire* elites. The idea is to create factions in the elites - people who you sanction vs those you don't. Those who aren't sanctioned will be suspected by Putin. In turn that makes them afraid and rally together for protection. Others will be reticent to take action for fear of being sanctioned (or sanctioned more).
Seeds of discord etc...
It's not a spy game though. The Russian government is acting irresponsibly, and in a way that risks all of our futures (I don't think the west is blameless). There are 140million Russians. I don't believe it's the case that they can't guide one man into somewhat less belligerant channels?
The Russian state isn't controlled by the people. It's controlled by a few hundred people at the top. Get them to fight each other and you are off to the races.
Screw up the Corn Dole for the Head Count - the Oligarchy will just spin that as a reason to fight the West harder.
The general gist of the UKs approach (and others) is to try to punish the narrow strata that consist of Putin's friends. I think Boris said the other day that it was important that the Russian people didn't think that we thought of them as our enemy. This is surely a mistaken plan. I think we should start viewing all Russian citizens as responsible for Putin.
Most Russian people have no power to influence Putin or to remove him. We know that democracy is a pure sham in Russia.
I'd definitely be broadening the net of Russians targeted by sanctions, though, to all who enable, facilitate and support Putin within the Russian economy, military, security and intelligence apparatus, and foreign policy.
If the Russians can't remove him who can?
I think they need to start taking responsibility.
One of the thing in modern, targeted sanctions, is that they are not just targeted at *entire* elites. The idea is to create factions in the elites - people who you sanction vs those you don't. Those who aren't sanctioned will be suspected by Putin. In turn that makes them afraid and rally together for protection. Others will be reticent to take action for fear of being sanctioned (or sanctioned more).
Seeds of discord etc...
It's too clever by half and based on a patronising view that everyone can be manipulated by purely financial incentives. It's like applying Gordon Brown's view of welfare to foreign policy.
The general gist of the UKs approach (and others) is to try to punish the narrow strata that consist of Putin's friends. I think Boris said the other day that it was important that the Russian people didn't think that we thought of them as our enemy. This is surely a mistaken plan. I think we should start viewing all Russian citizens as responsible for Putin.
Most Russian people have no power to influence Putin or to remove him. We know that democracy is a pure sham in Russia.
I'd definitely be broadening the net of Russians targeted by sanctions, though, to all who enable, facilitate and support Putin within the Russian economy, military, security and intelligence apparatus, and foreign policy.
If the Russians can't remove him who can?
I think they need to start taking responsibility.
One of the thing in modern, targeted sanctions, is that they are not just targeted at *entire* elites. The idea is to create factions in the elites - people who you sanction vs those you don't. Those who aren't sanctioned will be suspected by Putin. In turn that makes them afraid and rally together for protection. Others will be reticent to take action for fear of being sanctioned (or sanctioned more).
Seeds of discord etc...
It's not a spy game though. The Russian government is acting irresponsibly, and in a way that risks all of our futures (I don't think the west is blameless). There are 140million Russians. I don't believe it's the case that they can't guide one man into somewhat less belligerant channels?
The Russian state isn't controlled by the people. It's controlled by a few hundred people at the top. Get them to fight each other and you are off to the races.
Screw up the Corn Dole for the Head Count - the Oligarchy will just spin that as a reason to fight the West harder.
The Russian state like all others is at the behest of the people.
The Russian rich get to play overseas, no questions asked. I think it's time we asked questions of all Russians - like 'what on earth are you doing?'.
The general gist of the UKs approach (and others) is to try to punish the narrow strata that consist of Putin's friends. I think Boris said the other day that it was important that the Russian people didn't think that we thought of them as our enemy. This is surely a mistaken plan. I think we should start viewing all Russian citizens as responsible for Putin.
Most Russian people have no power to influence Putin or to remove him. We know that democracy is a pure sham in Russia.
I'd definitely be broadening the net of Russians targeted by sanctions, though, to all who enable, facilitate and support Putin within the Russian economy, military, security and intelligence apparatus, and foreign policy.
If the Russians can't remove him who can?
I think they need to start taking responsibility.
One of the thing in modern, targeted sanctions, is that they are not just targeted at *entire* elites. The idea is to create factions in the elites - people who you sanction vs those you don't. Those who aren't sanctioned will be suspected by Putin. In turn that makes them afraid and rally together for protection. Others will be reticent to take action for fear of being sanctioned (or sanctioned more).
Seeds of discord etc...
It's too clever by half and based on a patronising view that everyone can be manipulated by purely financial incentives. It's like applying Gordon Brown's view of welfare to foreign policy.
It has worked in various other conflicts - for example in Serbia, targeting Milošević's crew persuaded others to move against him, in the end.
I do think tough sanctions and asset seizure is required. But if Putin goes no further (and I don't call this an invasion) I think we should stop right there. A lot of noise and then we hope that three, six, months from now the separatists states have been another casualty of oligarchy but war in Europe has been avoided.
I recognise however that we're dealing with a madman.
Putin apologist.
Russian troops are literally in Ukraine right now. How is that "not an invasion".
You are a disgrace.
If you're charging into the cannon's mouth yourself, I think you can justify calling someone else a disgrace. If you're playing armchair generals, not so much. It is a valid view that British blood and treasure should be kept to defend Britain and her vital interests.
I'm surprised you don't remember, but Russia has launched chemical and nuclear attacks against Britain in the last couple of decades. Perhaps acting with others to restrain a Russia willing to perform such acts *is* a vital interest for us?
Then again, you always seem to pick the Russian side on things. Remember MH17?
I am not delighted with the position in which Britain now finds herself, with a depleted army, and with what seem to be more than a few holes in our actual defence of the UK, and a nuclear deterrent that is dependent upon a foreign power. I would like us to have the world's best Navy, field a highly dangerous and adaptable airforce, and for when we said we were going to stop someone using the sea, for it to mean something. However, we are where we are, and it looks utterly stupid to make empty threats, or worse, to throw our limited resources at gaining some Ukrainian mud.
Like Mark said, building tidal capacity and no longer needing to import Russian gas (or have China build our nuclear), does a lot more for us in relation to Russia than riding around in a tank or barking at them from under a fur hat.
That does not address my point.
It explains my original position, which you attacked.
To address your point further, yes, I do take the Russian side far more often than is usual here. I put that down to my starting point being that Russia and the USA are both foreign powers. Many, if not most here, are attached to 'The West' as a concept, with NATO as its military wing, but I question deeply whether 'The West' exists to support all its constituent parts or merely to cement American dominance. I do not see that dominance as necessarily a good thing, and back in the day, America didn't see British power as a good thing - they had a plan to invade the British Empire as late as the 30's.
Traditionally, the guiding aim of British foreign policy has always been the 'balance of powers', so I'm not afraid of a powerful Russia. However, I am strongly opposed to Russia invading its near neighbours, whilst being realistic about what we can achieve to stop them.
Jessop keeps attacking people for their views on Russia but never states what actions he/she wants the West to take to stop them. Weak sanction announcement aside I think the West has taken as strong a line as it can on Ukraine.
I have stated my view on what should be done on a couple of occasions.
Russia's aggressive foreign actions need stopping. Preferably before they gobble up Ukraine; certainly before they threaten other neighbouring states.
Seems to me that Putin's main calculation is that the West is all talk and no action, and he may be right.
I do think tough sanctions and asset seizure is required. But if Putin goes no further (and I don't call this an invasion) I think we should stop right there. A lot of noise and then we hope that three, six, months from now the separatists states have been another casualty of oligarchy but war in Europe has been avoided.
I recognise however that we're dealing with a madman.
Putin apologist.
Russian troops are literally in Ukraine right now. How is that "not an invasion".
You are a disgrace.
If you're charging into the cannon's mouth yourself, I think you can justify calling someone else a disgrace. If you're playing armchair generals, not so much. It is a valid view that British blood and treasure should be kept to defend Britain and her vital interests.
I'm surprised you don't remember, but Russia has launched chemical and nuclear attacks against Britain in the last couple of decades. Perhaps acting with others to restrain a Russia willing to perform such acts *is* a vital interest for us?
Then again, you always seem to pick the Russian side on things. Remember MH17?
I am not delighted with the position in which Britain now finds herself, with a depleted army, and with what seem to be more than a few holes in our actual defence of the UK, and a nuclear deterrent that is dependent upon a foreign power. I would like us to have the world's best Navy, field a highly dangerous and adaptable airforce, and for when we said we were going to stop someone using the sea, for it to mean something. However, we are where we are, and it looks utterly stupid to make empty threats, or worse, to throw our limited resources at gaining some Ukrainian mud.
Like Mark said, building tidal capacity and no longer needing to import Russian gas (or have China build our nuclear), does a lot more for us in relation to Russia than riding around in a tank or barking at them from under a fur hat.
That does not address my point.
It explains my original position, which you attacked.
To address your point further, yes, I do take the Russian side far more often than is usual here. I put that down to my starting point being that Russia and the USA are both foreign powers. Many, if not most here, are attached to 'The West' as a concept, with NATO as its military wing, but I question deeply whether 'The West' exists to support all its constituent parts or merely to cement American dominance. I do not see that dominance as necessarily a good thing, and back in the day, America didn't see British power as a good thing - they had a plan to invade the British Empire as late as the 30's.
Traditionally, the guiding aim of British foreign policy has always been the 'balance of powers', so I'm not afraid of a powerful Russia. However, I am strongly opposed to Russia invading its near neighbours, whilst being realistic about what we can achieve to stop them.
Jessop keeps attacking people for their views on Russia but never states what actions he/she wants the West to take to stop them. Weak sanction announcement aside I think the West has taken as strong a line as it can on Ukraine.
Jessop has made a career of signalling his virtue long before 'Virtue Signalling' ever became a thing.
Nauseating to some but it's all part of the whacky world of PB.
How much cash has Germany given to Putin as a result of the decision to abandon nuclear power and did the Greens support that policy?
Lots, and yes, but you don't need to spend more than 5 minutes looking at Green views on the issue to know that they aren't anti-nuclear in order to please Putin. That's just silly. And I say that as someone who thinks they're wrong about nuclear.
Weird flex that the country (capital) peaked a thousand years ago, but OK.
It's a response to Putin's questionable historical claims.
A dangerous one though: Kyiv (as I must get used to calling it) was basically the capital of Russia. Which in those days was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, in the Scandinavian tradition. To the extent that when the Mongols came knocking everyone left it to everyone else to defend the country and the cities got picked off one at a time. I'm not sure pointing this out actually helps the west's cause.
Except it wasn't Russia back then. What we now call Russia is something very different indeed.
Well yes. It was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, for example. And most countries are pretty different to their counterparts from 1000 years ago. The name has sort of endured. And the language, sort of. And the religion. Which is as much as you can say about many countries. I certainly don't want to be going down the Ukraine-is-part-of-Russia route. Historical ownership of land means very little. Ukraine is no more Russian than it is Lithuanian. My point is that the USA pointing to the dazzling splendour of 10th century Kyiv is a dangerous road to go down and doesn't necessarily serve their argument well. Which is daft, as Putin's rhetorical positions are so easy to take apart.
When I was looking up the protagonists in The Great, this is eighteenth century, and I was surprised by how German they were. I think the borders then were Germany, Prussia and then Russia, no Ukraine? Was Nationalism the same thing in those days?
In the play I was in Kyiv changes hands very quickly. First there is Hetmen. Are the Hetmen the old German influence from that old age where in The Great `Germany provides Russia with its Royal family? And then Ukraine Nationalists held Kyiv. And then the reds. And there were other players in this 1918 to 21 war as well. An army of black people from Africa trying to control Kyiv.
You have missed out Austria-Hungary. What is now Ukraine was largely part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which was then partitioned between Prussia, Russia and Austria. The Ukrainians ended up split between Russia and Austria. After WW1 some ended up back in Poland.
A Hetman, while derived from Germanic, is the word for the leader of a Cossack host, or the commander of the Polish-Lithuanian army.
Lviv has been Lwow (Poland), Lvov (Soviet Union), Lemberg (Austria-Hungary). And, at one point it was called Leopolis.
Weird flex that the country (capital) peaked a thousand years ago, but OK.
It's a response to Putin's questionable historical claims.
A dangerous one though: Kyiv (as I must get used to calling it) was basically the capital of Russia. Which in those days was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, in the Scandinavian tradition. To the extent that when the Mongols came knocking everyone left it to everyone else to defend the country and the cities got picked off one at a time. I'm not sure pointing this out actually helps the west's cause.
Except it wasn't Russia back then. What we now call Russia is something very different indeed.
Well yes. It was one of the freer and more liberal countries of the world, for example. And most countries are pretty different to their counterparts from 1000 years ago. The name has sort of endured. And the language, sort of. And the religion. Which is as much as you can say about many countries. I certainly don't want to be going down the Ukraine-is-part-of-Russia route. Historical ownership of land means very little. Ukraine is no more Russian than it is Lithuanian. My point is that the USA pointing to the dazzling splendour of 10th century Kyiv is a dangerous road to go down and doesn't necessarily serve their argument well. Which is daft, as Putin's rhetorical positions are so easy to take apart.
When I was looking up the protagonists in The Great, this is eighteenth century, and I was surprised by how German they were. I think the borders then were Germany, Prussia and then Russia, no Ukraine? Was Nationalism the same thing in those days?
In the play I was in Kyiv changes hands very quickly. First there is Hetmen. Are the Hetmen the old German influence from that old age where in The Great `Germany provides Russia with its Royal family? And then Ukraine Nationalists held Kyiv. And then the reds. And there were other players in this 1918 to 21 war as well. An army of black people from Africa trying to control Kyiv.
You have missed out Austria-Hungary. What is now Ukraine was largely part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which was then partitioned between Prussia, Russia and Austria. The Ukrainians ended up split between Russia and Austria. After WW1 some ended up back in Poland.
A Hetman, while derived from Germanic, is the word for the leader of a Cossack host, or the commander of the Polish-Lithuanian army.
Lviv has been Lwow (Poland), Lvov (Soviet Union), Lemberg (Austria-Hungary). And, at one point it was called Leopolis.
So now that Russia are the official baddies can we now have publication of the report into their meddling in our affairs? Surely we can all then collectively boo Putin and put right the damage he has done...
No, that is the limited ISC one that urged Downing Street to order a full enquiry and implement a framework to protect us from future attacks. Big Dog refused. We need the proper report that the ISC says we need to investigate Russian meddling in elections and referendums which Downing Street refuses to look at.
Why is Big Dog afraid of investigating Russia? Aren't they now the big bad who need to be Stopped? How can we stop them if he won't even look at it? Especially when the limited report showed meddling in the Scottish Independence vote - its totally logical to assume further meddling in the Brexit vote and both of the rerun elections of 2017 and 2019.
Here is the reality. The Tories take a lot of money from Russians. The Tories benefited from Russian state meddling in our democratic processes. The Tories say Russia is bad but are happy to take their money and their assistance because the Tories are brazenly corrupt.
So take everything the Big Dog says about Russia with a pinch of salt. They are his mates.
Do the Tories take Russian money though? I keep hearing this trotted out - is there any evidence of it? I'm tempted to treat this with a pinch of salt, like the Russia-interfered-in-the-2016-US-election meme. It seems on the face if it unlikely. And if so, money from which Russians? Money from the Russian state, or from their fugitives? I concede that it also seemed unlikely that Barry Gardiner was taking money from China, or that apparently everyone is taking money from Qatar.
That's one report. There are others. Temerko himself came to a hustings in Stockton South in 2015 to see what his money was being spent on.
If the government are serious about going after Russian money and influence to deter Putin, it would be a good start to stop taking Russian money and influence themselves.
Temerko is a British citizen.
Yes, and? Abramovich manages to be Israeli, Portuguese and Russian. Does each new nationality wipe a little more of his background away?
Your argument is truly in bad faith.
Yes, yes it does. That's the whole point of allowing people to acquire nationality.
Unless you're a blood and soil racist.
You're an absurdity on this front. Nationality does not supersede intent nor does it wash away uncomfortable backgrounds.
'Blood and soil racist' come on Phil. Some of us wonder where Russian energy moguls acquired their wealth.
As we have a right to when they are donating millions to the Conservative party.
Don't you see what has happened to the Russian state over the decades? Would you like aspects of it to appear here?
Sorry but this is nasty racism and xenophobia.
Do you accept that people who emigrate here and take citizenship here are real British citizens?
Or are they second class people with aspersions to be cast upon based upon where they were born?
Either you accept immigrants who've taken up a life and citizenship here or you don't. If Temerko is Russian to you, you're no better than the National Front.
I am asking:
Where did his wealth come from and why is he giving such a lot of it to the Conservative Party?
That he is a citizen has no bearing on these questions. And does not excuse anyone of actions under another passport.
(Can you argue more than one angle? Because you seem to have prepared heuristics that you beat the conversation down to. Not a man of nuances Mr Roberts)
He's the director of a British company and has been holding high positions in businesses for decades now.
What evidence do you have of dodgy money other than racism? Is it news to you that directors of successful businesses might be wealthy?
An entirely valid point to raise, actually. Anybody who's had a dalliance with RT in recent years is foolish. Smarter politicians have steered well clear.
Bollox, he sells programmes to a TV station licenced in the UK. Why have the BBC got offices in Russia and Russians working for them you halfwit.
It’s really not clear why you continue to defend someone known as a sex pest and russian stooge. Even your fellow scots won’t have a bar of him anymore.
Well he was aquitted of the sex pest crap, selling programmes to a UK registered and licenced TV station is hardly a stooge. Have you seen any Russian propaganda or input in any of his independent programmes. Also plenty of SCots still like and support him especially as he was stitched up by a dodgy set of government , police and legal system. As rotten at the core as the Tory government and possibly worse. @Gardenwalker
So now that Russia are the official baddies can we now have publication of the report into their meddling in our affairs? Surely we can all then collectively boo Putin and put right the damage he has done...
No, that is the limited ISC one that urged Downing Street to order a full enquiry and implement a framework to protect us from future attacks. Big Dog refused. We need the proper report that the ISC says we need to investigate Russian meddling in elections and referendums which Downing Street refuses to look at.
Why is Big Dog afraid of investigating Russia? Aren't they now the big bad who need to be Stopped? How can we stop them if he won't even look at it? Especially when the limited report showed meddling in the Scottish Independence vote - its totally logical to assume further meddling in the Brexit vote and both of the rerun elections of 2017 and 2019.
Here is the reality. The Tories take a lot of money from Russians. The Tories benefited from Russian state meddling in our democratic processes. The Tories say Russia is bad but are happy to take their money and their assistance because the Tories are brazenly corrupt.
So take everything the Big Dog says about Russia with a pinch of salt. They are his mates.
Do the Tories take Russian money though? I keep hearing this trotted out - is there any evidence of it? I'm tempted to treat this with a pinch of salt, like the Russia-interfered-in-the-2016-US-election meme. It seems on the face if it unlikely. And if so, money from which Russians? Money from the Russian state, or from their fugitives? I concede that it also seemed unlikely that Barry Gardiner was taking money from China, or that apparently everyone is taking money from Qatar.
That's one report. There are others. Temerko himself came to a hustings in Stockton South in 2015 to see what his money was being spent on.
If the government are serious about going after Russian money and influence to deter Putin, it would be a good start to stop taking Russian money and influence themselves.
Temerko is a British citizen.
Yes, and? Abramovich manages to be Israeli, Portuguese and Russian. Does each new nationality wipe a little more of his background away?
Your argument is truly in bad faith.
Yes, yes it does. That's the whole point of allowing people to acquire nationality.
Unless you're a blood and soil racist.
You're an absurdity on this front. Nationality does not supersede intent nor does it wash away uncomfortable backgrounds.
'Blood and soil racist' come on Phil. Some of us wonder where Russian energy moguls acquired their wealth.
As we have a right to when they are donating millions to the Conservative party.
Don't you see what has happened to the Russian state over the decades? Would you like aspects of it to appear here?
Sorry but this is nasty racism and xenophobia.
Do you accept that people who emigrate here and take citizenship here are real British citizens?
Or are they second class people with aspersions to be cast upon based upon where they were born?
Either you accept immigrants who've taken up a life and citizenship here or you don't. If Temerko is Russian to you, you're no better than the National Front.
I am asking:
Where did his wealth come from and why is he giving such a lot of it to the Conservative Party?
That he is a citizen has no bearing on these questions. And does not excuse anyone of actions under another passport.
(Can you argue more than one angle? Because you seem to have prepared heuristics that you beat the conversation down to. Not a man of nuances Mr Roberts)
He's the director of a British company and has been holding high positions in businesses for decades now.
What evidence do you have of dodgy money other than racism? Is it news to you that directors of successful businesses might be wealthy?
An entirely valid point to raise, actually. Anybody who's had a dalliance with RT in recent years is foolish. Smarter politicians have steered well clear.
Bollox, he sells programmes to a TV station licenced in the UK. Why have the BBC got offices in Russia and Russians working for them you halfwit.
It’s really not clear why you continue to defend someone known as a sex pest and russian stooge. Even your fellow scots won’t have a bar of him anymore.
Well he was aquitted of the sex pest crap, selling programmes to a UK registered and licenced TV station is hardly a stooge. Have you seen any Russian propaganda or input in any of his independent programmes. Also plenty of SCots still like and support him especially as he was stitched up by a dodgy set of government , police and legal system. As rotten at the core as the Tory government and possibly worse. @Gardenwalker
Thanks for the response. From memory, his approval ratings - in Scotland! - are at Boris Johnson levels, and even his own lawyer had to concede he was a bit dodgy (I forget the exact quote).
When I look at other RT “hosts” like Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn I do think Mr Salmond is badly advised to continue doing that show.
I accept though that something smells at the heart of the SNP administration, although nobody seems to have quite put their finger on it yet.
Regarding Mr Salmond, I would only concede that he would be good to go for a drink with, which I would not say about Boris or Nicola.
Comments
Paul Mason has been distinguishing (roughly) between the "neo-Stalinist" left and the "global left". I'm not commenting on how right I think he is.
Worth a note that PM himself has Lithuanian background in his family.
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1496061614092656641
Screw up the Corn Dole for the Head Count - the Oligarchy will just spin that as a reason to fight the West harder.
The Russian rich get to play overseas, no questions asked. I think it's time we asked questions of all Russians - like 'what on earth are you doing?'.
Justin Trudeau’s crackdown on protests could make things worse
By seeking to curb free speech, he will aggravate Canada’s divisions" (£)
https://www.economist.com/leaders/justin-trudeaus-crackdown-on-protests-could-make-things-worse/21807707
Nauseating to some but it's all part of the whacky world of PB.
Apart from the last one
From memory, his approval ratings - in Scotland! - are at Boris Johnson levels, and even his own lawyer had to concede he was a bit dodgy (I forget the exact quote).
When I look at other RT “hosts” like Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn I do think Mr Salmond is badly advised to continue doing that show.
I accept though that something smells at the heart of the SNP administration, although nobody seems to have quite put their finger on it yet.
Regarding Mr Salmond, I would only concede that he would be good to go for a drink with, which I would not say about Boris or Nicola.