Well knock me down with a feather - the SNP wants the Tories to win; whoever would have thought it? Anyone would think they thought a Tory win would make it easier to get a second Indy referendum or something.
That isn't the story - the story is that Nicola Sturgeon appears to have been stupid enough to admit it.
Dan H has this right - this is a bombshell.
I very much doubt it. At least not in Scotland. The SNP is currently untouchable.
Agreed. Can't see a possible French note affecting things. Think this is Ireland circa 1880's: an historic shift. Miliband I think will scrape into No 10 but as the weakest PM since 1923 and as the Labour leader that lost the Scottish heartland. It will be mighty uncomfortable for him.
@Markfergusonuk: I’m no fan of the Telegraph. But to believe their front page is false, you have to believe a paper fabricated a government document
Many would be perfectly willing to believe that, but mentally most people don't need to make that leap. All they'll hear is there is this accusation, and the SNP will deny it. Which side do people like more, which side is pushing the story, and they'll dismiss as appropriate. It's hard to see a Telegraph story being seized upon by Labour as counting for much.
That said, I don't think this is going to do the SNP much harm.
If you want independence, you'd want Sturgeon to do/want things that maximises the chance of independence, and a David Cameron led government offering an in/out EU referendum is the best way.
That is one way to look at it, but in scotland there is a stigma with anything Tory.
Labour were hurt because the SNP accused them of going to bed with the Tories during the Referendum, so I do expect the same to happen to the SNP now that they are in bed with the Tories.
I have been posting for weeks and months that the SNP will get the best deal for Scotland from David Cameron and that there is more than an even chance that this is negotiable between both parties from 8th May. The telegraph story only re-affirms my view
Mr Cameron wants EVEL - to neuter Labour over 90% of the UK - that is worth quite a lot.
'Ms Sturgeon has confessed to the French ambassador that she would prefer that David Cameron “remains” Prime Minister – and that she thinks Ed Miliband is too incompetent.'
Poor old Ed's even regarded as a joke by Sturgeon.
The more you think about this the less there is to it. Sturgeon is just telling it the way it is, like Cameron saying he didn't want a third term. Ask yourself: had David Miliband been Lab leader, do you think this conversation would have taken place?
If the story was just her saying Ed is not PM material, you're right, it wouldn't be a story.
The story is her saying she "prefers" Cameron to be PM, which can be spun by SLAB (however disingenuously) as her secretly planning to prop up the tories, therefore destroying one of the main pillars of the Lab->SNP switchers.
Yes, I can see how it could be spun that way. The answer is that prefers just means prefers, not will support. I could be wrong but I don't see a rush back to SLAB on the back of this. I'd expect its main effects to be internal to the SNP and the Stur-Sal balance of power.
But Ms Sturgeon tweeted that the story was "categorically, 100% untrue".
Well lets hope that is true and Telegraph don't have any more evidence. I think I might have tried to come up with something a bit more "flexible" as my defence, you know just in case.
I very much doubt it. At least not in Scotland. The SNP is currently untouchable.
That is about to change.
Bad news for the cons then ;-)
It doesn't much affect the Conservatives.
It could be disastrous for the Conservatives.
If it swings 15 to 20 seats back from SNP to Lab then that could easily make the difference between Ed becoming PM or not.
Whether it will do that though - I haven't a clue.
But I would expect betting markets to move to reflect this. I regard it as by far the worst thing that has happened so far for the Conservatives in the campaign.
I have been posting for weeks and months that the SNP will get the best deal for Scotland from David Cameron and that there is more than an even chance that this is negotiable between both parties from 8th May. The telegraph story only re-affirms my view
Mr Cameron wants EVEL - to neuter Labour over 90% of the UK - that is worth quite a lot.
It is so obvious - labour neutralised in Scotland and split in England on austerity = conservatives in government for years
Given that a large proportion of SNP/YES voters believe all sorts of stories to do with secret oil fields and MI5 interference in the referendum, I think they will mostly find plenty of ways to rationalise away a he-said/she-said story.
But Ms Sturgeon tweeted that the story was "categorically, 100% untrue".
Well lets hope that is true and Telegraph don't have any more evidence. I think I might have tried to come up with something a bit more "flexible" as my defence, you know just in case.
If I understand it correctly, the Telegraph have a leaked document. The existence or contents of that document are probably not in dispute
The spin from the SNP now seems to be that the memo is not an accurate reflection of the content of the meeting.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges 1m1 minute ago I think it's fair to say the SNP are now off the grid...
What does that mean?
I think the grid is a plan for the week that some of the parties produce; it shows what is happening when: events and announcements. Being 'off the grid' means that the careful plan has been upset by events.
It looks like a spectacular misreading of Sturgeon story on here. The SNP will deny it happened, their supporters will believe them. It's not normal politics in Scotland currently. The SNP is a movement, not a political party.
This will be framed as the Westminster elite and the English press telling more lies to scare Scottish voters. And that will be good enough for SNP voters, especially as SLab is utterly toxic in and will be for some time yet.
But Ms Sturgeon tweeted that the story was "categorically, 100% untrue".
Well lets hope that is true and Telegraph don't have any more evidence. I think I might have tried to come up with something a bit more "flexible" as my defence, you know just in case.
If I understand it correctly, the Telegraph have a leaked document. The existence or contents of that document are probably not in dispute
The spin from the SNP now seems to be that the memo is not an accurate reflection of the content of the meeting.
Calling the French liars basically it seems
Well the other person in the room when she said it will be able to tell us :-)
It looks like a spectacular misreading of Sturgeon story on here. The SNP will deny it happened, their supporters will believe them. It's not normal politics in Scotland currently. The SNP is a movement, not a political party.
This will be framed as the Westminster elite and the English press telling more lies to scare Scottish voters. And that will be good enough for SNP voters, especially as SLab is utterly toxic in and will be for some time yet.
It looks like a spectacular misreading of Sturgeon story on here. The SNP will deny it happened, their supporters will believe them. It's not normal politics in Scotland currently. The SNP is a movement, not a political party.
This will be framed as the Westminster elite and the English press telling more lies to scare Scottish voters. And that will be good enough for SNP voters, especially as SLab is utterly toxic in and will be for some time yet.
Agreed, this is all a bit like when Tim told us Dave would have to resign over riding a horse.
It looks like a spectacular misreading of Sturgeon story on here. The SNP will deny it happened, their supporters will believe them. It's not normal politics in Scotland currently. The SNP is a movement, not a political party.
This will be framed as the Westminster elite and the English press telling more lies to scare Scottish voters. And that will be good enough for SNP voters, especially as SLab is utterly toxic in and will be for some time yet.
Correct, some usually reliable posters getting their undies in a bunch over this.
It looks like a spectacular misreading of Sturgeon story on here. The SNP will deny it happened, their supporters will believe them. It's not normal politics in Scotland currently. The SNP is a movement, not a political party.
This will be framed as the Westminster elite and the English press telling more lies to scare Scottish voters. And that will be good enough for SNP voters, especially as SLab is utterly toxic in and will be for some time yet.
Sure, the SNP groupies will think it's all lies and a Westminster plot. That's not the point. This is about the traditional loyal Labour supporters whom SLAB desperately need to frighten into voting Labour rather than SNP. SLAB were struggling with that message, but now they've been given a massive great help with it. Since the gradient of seats vs swing is quite steep on current polling, that matters.
A lot of media stories which do not appear to have been taken down, a large number of tweets and a lot of posters on here are now in the position of having libelled Ms Sturgeon.
Only relevance isin context of English seats; what matters for Conservatives is to have nore seats than Labour + SNP + PC- if not then most likely outcome is EICIPM which is good value at 6/4.
I very much doubt it. At least not in Scotland. The SNP is currently untouchable.
That is about to change.
Bad news for the cons then ;-)
It doesn't much affect the Conservatives.
It could be disastrous for the Conservatives.
If it swings 15 to 20 seats back from SNP to Lab then that could easily make the difference between Ed becoming PM or not.
Whether it will do that though - I haven't a clue.
But I would expect betting markets to move to reflect this. I regard it as by far the worst thing that has happened so far for the Conservatives in the campaign.
The Telegraph is hardly a big seller in Scotland. I doubt this makes much of a difference to the SNP steamroller that is about to hit the many Labour seats in the central belt of Scotland. I guess that we will only know if it has made any impact in a weeks time once several polls are done after the Easter break but the debate success will be a much bigger factor I think. I would still predict that the SNP are going to be closer to 50 seats than 40 and even 55 is not out of the question unfortunately.
It looks like a spectacular misreading of Sturgeon story on here. The SNP will deny it happened, their supporters will believe them. It's not normal politics in Scotland currently. The SNP is a movement, not a political party.
This will be framed as the Westminster elite and the English press telling more lies to scare Scottish voters. And that will be good enough for SNP voters, especially as SLab is utterly toxic in and will be for some time yet.
Correct, some usually reliable posters getting their undies in a bunch over this.
Hope will do that sometimes. Desperate, desperate hope.
A lot of media stories which do not appear to have been taken down, a large number of tweets and a lot of posters on here are now in the position of having libelled Ms Sturgeon.
It is not libellous to say of someone that she believes that ed is crap.
There are now three possibilities as to how this has happened.
1. The Telegraph made the whole thing up and fabricated a government document. 2. A political party made the whole thing up, fabricated a government document and leaked it to the Telegraph. 3. A Civil Servant created a false official document and leaked it to the Telegraph.
But Ms Sturgeon tweeted that the story was "categorically, 100% untrue".
Well lets hope that is true and Telegraph don't have any more evidence. I think I might have tried to come up with something a bit more "flexible" as my defence, you know just in case.
Never believe anything until its been officially denied - first rule of yes minister
The Lab 4% lead, the 37% Tory poll, the debate, the non-debate, Sturgeon, Paxman, Hobbits and the 100. Each seen as some epoch making event. Front pages of Newspapers claiming crisis, scandal and triumph on a daily basis.*
It's nuts. Totally nuts. And we still have more than a month to go.
* Meanwhile in the real world nothing at all has changed, as an unexcited electorate maybe starts to ponder an uninspiring choice.
It looks like a spectacular misreading of Sturgeon story on here. The SNP will deny it happened, their supporters will believe them. It's not normal politics in Scotland currently. The SNP is a movement, not a political party.
This will be framed as the Westminster elite and the English press telling more lies to scare Scottish voters. And that will be good enough for SNP voters, especially as SLab is utterly toxic in and will be for some time yet.
Totally agree with this. Labour and the Libdems are almost as toxic as the Tories to many SNP supporters just now.
There are now three possibilities as to how this has happened.
1. The Telegraph made the whole thing up and fabricated a government document. 2. A political party made the whole thing up, fabricated a government document and leaked it to the Telegraph. 3. A Civil Servant created a false official document and leaked it to the Telegraph.
There are now three possibilities as to how this has happened.
1. The Telegraph made the whole thing up and fabricated a government document. 2. A political party made the whole thing up, fabricated a government document and leaked it to the Telegraph. 3. A Civil Servant created a false official document and leaked it to the Telegraph.
Whichever it is, someone's in a lot of trouble.
I generally try to stick to the principle of never assuming malice where stupidity will do - so perhaps the document is real, someone who did not write it leaked it in excitement, but the person who wrote it was just an idiot who got the details wrong.
Only relevance isin context of English seats; what matters for Conservatives is to have nore seats than Labour + SNP + PC- if not then most likely outcome is EICIPM which is good value at 6/4.
No, because LD will prefer to go with Con alone rather than Lab + SNP.
LD order of pref:
1) Lab + LD 2) Con + LD 3) Lab + LD requiring SNP support
Assuming LD get 30, threshold for 1) or 2) is Lab 285 or Con 285. If either big party gets 285 that's it (DUP will go with winner to make 323).
It looks like a spectacular misreading of Sturgeon story on here. The SNP will deny it happened, their supporters will believe them. It's not normal politics in Scotland currently. The SNP is a movement, not a political party.
This will be framed as the Westminster elite and the English press telling more lies to scare Scottish voters. And that will be good enough for SNP voters, especially as SLab is utterly toxic in and will be for some time yet.
Correct, some usually reliable posters getting their undies in a bunch over this.
Hope will do that sometimes. Desperate, desperate hope.
There are now three possibilities as to how this has happened.
1. The Telegraph made the whole thing up and fabricated a government document. 2. A political party made the whole thing up, fabricated a government document and leaked it to the Telegraph. 3. A Civil Servant created a false official document and leaked it to the Telegraph.
Whichever it is, someone's in a lot of trouble.
I generally try to stick to the principle of never assuming malice where stupidity will do - so perhaps the document is real, someone who did not write it leaked it in excitement, but the person who wrote it was just an idiot who got the details wrong.
Bloody foreigners...coming over here, not being able to speak the language :-)
Ha, ha - now we're probably looking at an increase in the SNP vote. The Torygraph has been sold a pup and the SNP have been handed a golden opportunity to lambast the English press for spreading fear and lies. And SLab bought it too, which will increase their toxicity. There is, it seems, literally nothing that does not fall in the SNP's favour currently. Even losing the referendum was a god send.
There are now three possibilities as to how this has happened.
1. The Telegraph made the whole thing up and fabricated a government document. 2. A political party made the whole thing up, fabricated a government document and leaked it to the Telegraph. 3. A Civil Servant created a false official document and leaked it to the Telegraph.
Whichever it is, someone's in a lot of trouble.
I generally try to stick to the principle of never assuming malice where stupidity will do - so perhaps the document is real, someone who did not write it leaked it in excitement, but the person who wrote it was just an idiot who got the details wrong.
THere's a problem with that.
The minutes were taken by a Scottish Government civil servant and were then sent to London (as is protocol). The Scottish Government have a copy of the minutes and have already said the minutes do not make any mention of the claim.
So it can only have been changed after being sent by the Scottish Government to London.
The minutes were taken by a Scottish Government civil servant and were then sent to London (as is protocol). The Scottish Government have a copy of the minutes and have already said the minutes do not make any mention of the claim.
So it can only have been changed after being sent by the Scottish Government to London.
Clearly you haven't read the article. The minutes which (it is claimed) have been leaked were not the ones written by the Scottish civil servant.
There are now three possibilities as to how this has happened.
1. The Telegraph made the whole thing up and fabricated a government document. 2. A political party made the whole thing up, fabricated a government document and leaked it to the Telegraph. 3. A Civil Servant created a false official document and leaked it to the Telegraph.
Whichever it is, someone's in a lot of trouble.
I generally try to stick to the principle of never assuming malice where stupidity will do - so perhaps the document is real, someone who did not write it leaked it in excitement, but the person who wrote it was just an idiot who got the details wrong.
THere's a problem with that.
The minutes were taken by a Scottish Government civil servant and were then sent to London (as is protocol). The Scottish Government have a copy of the minutes and have already said the minutes do not make any mention of the claim.
So it can only have been changed after being sent by the Scottish Government to London.
Do calm down, the report is based on what the ambassador reported to the consul-general and the C-G then relayed to London.
Look at the report:
Included in a civil servant's summary was the line that "she'd rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn't see Ed Miliband as PM material)", according to the paper.
Now look at the denial: "absolutely no preference was expressed"
A complete denial would read: "absolutely no preference was expressed and absolutely no opinion on Ed Miliband was expressed"
Spokesman for the French ambassador tells me @NicolaSturgeon did not express a preference for next British prime minister or government. 67 retweets 16 favorites
A straw poll. What do people think is the cost of a year's supply on antiretriviral drugs to treat HIV?
Depends which antiretrivirals....Are some of them coming off patent soon and about to potentially become very cheap?
That is what I seemed to remember was mentioned when they were talking about the programme they ran for high risk gay men, who were given antiretrivirals upfront to stop the spread of AIDS. The particular one they were given was quite costly, but about to come off patent protection.
The minutes were taken by a Scottish Government civil servant and were then sent to London (as is protocol). The Scottish Government have a copy of the minutes and have already said the minutes do not make any mention of the claim.
So it can only have been changed after being sent by the Scottish Government to London.
Clearly you haven't read the article. The minutes which (it is claimed) have been leaked were not the ones written by the Scottish civil servant.
That's what the article says.
But it's not what happens. When the FM has a discussion with a Consul and minutes are taken, they are taken by a Scottish civil servant. It was the first clue the article was bullshit. The Scottish Government then send a copy of the minutes to London.
So either only these minutes exist or for some reason the Westminster civil service sent someone up to Edinburgh to record an additional set of minutes at this meeting, even though they would be sent a copy anyway.
The Telegraph didn't fact check the story. Nothing in it is reliable. It's been debunked in less than an hour.
What was that again about removing the letters MP from twitter accounts?
You don't have to remove the letters "MP" as long as you have a disclaimer in the blurb that you are not an MP but a parliamentary candidate.
Disclaimer or not, Ed Miliband omitted MP, so why can't Ed Balls, Kerry McCartney, Tristam Hunt do it as well?
Because the Commons authorities have made it clear that you don't have to as long as you make the declaration. Maybe Ed Balls thinks not many people will bother to follow him if he sets up a new account.
The minutes were taken by a Scottish Government civil servant and were then sent to London (as is protocol). The Scottish Government have a copy of the minutes and have already said the minutes do not make any mention of the claim.
So it can only have been changed after being sent by the Scottish Government to London.
Clearly you haven't read the article. The minutes which (it is claimed) have been leaked were not the ones written by the Scottish civil servant.
That's what the article says.
But it's not what happens. When the FM has a discussion with a Consul and minutes are taken, they are taken by a Scottish civil servant. It was the first clue the article was bullshit. The Scottish Government then send a copy of the minutes to London.
So either only these minutes exist or for some reason the Westminster civil service sent someone up to Edinburgh to record an additional set of minutes at this meeting, even though they would be sent a copy anyway.
The Telegraph didn't fact check the story. Nothing in it is reliable. It's been debunked in less than an hour.
No, mate, you didn't read the Telegraph story. The claim is (i don't know whether it is true or not) that it is the minutes taken BY THE FRENCH we are talking about.
A straw poll. What do people think is the cost of a year's supply on antiretriviral drugs to treat HIV?
Depends which antiretrivirals....Are some of them coming off patent soon and about to potentially become very cheap?
That is what I seemed to remember was mentioned when they were talking about the programme they ran for high risk gay men, who were given antiretrivirals upfront to stop the spread of AIDS. The particular one they were given was quite costly, but about to come off patent protection.
The commonest ones prescribed in this country, i.e. Apripla or Truvada +darunavir/ritonavir?
Just when I thought it was safe to come out after " soaps debate" .....
It's no secret that the French government would prefer Ed.
In saying that it's a very very high risk stakes game to perhaps be playing to shall we say influence the election by the inadvertent release of a document the day after the SNP do well. I never believe in coincidence though especially when events occur so close together. Just too convenient. It would have been better and more believable next week.
In saying that I still think it will not resonate that much In Scotland as they are a canny and even stubborn lot up there. In England though not sure.
What was that again about removing the letters MP from twitter accounts?
You don't have to remove the letters "MP" as long as you have a disclaimer in the blurb that you are not an MP but a parliamentary candidate.
Disclaimer or not, Ed Miliband omitted MP, so why can't Ed Balls, Kerry McCartney, Tristam Hunt do it as well?
The get out for some MPs, is that some spoof twitter accounts have taken over the logical twitter address for them whilst they aren't MPs so they have to stick with the original handle.
What was that again about removing the letters MP from twitter accounts?
You don't have to remove the letters "MP" as long as you have a disclaimer in the blurb that you are not an MP but a parliamentary candidate.
Disclaimer or not, Ed Miliband omitted MP, so why can't Ed Balls, Kerry McCartney, Tristam Hunt do it as well?
Because the Commons authorities have made it clear that you don't have to as long as you make the declaration. Maybe Ed Balls thinks not many people will bother to follow him if he sets up a new account.
Seems a sensible decision to me. Imagine if tomorrow you had to stop using your primary email for the next 6 weeks, it would be quite an upheaval, lots of missed messages, etc.
It continues: "The Ambassador....had a truncated meeting with the FM [Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister] (FM running late after a busy Thursday…). Discussion appears to have focused mainly on the political situation, with the FM stating that she wouldn’t want a formal coalition with Labour; that the SNP would almost certainly have a large number of seats... that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material)."
I suppose Sturgeon might have just said that Ed wasn't PM material, and her supposedly wanting Dave to stay PM was just the conjecture of the civil-servant writing the minutes?
The minutes were taken by a Scottish Government civil servant and were then sent to London (as is protocol). The Scottish Government have a copy of the minutes and have already said the minutes do not make any mention of the claim.
So it can only have been changed after being sent by the Scottish Government to London.
Clearly you haven't read the article. The minutes which (it is claimed) have been leaked were not the ones written by the Scottish civil servant.
That's what the article says.
But it's not what happens. When the FM has a discussion with a Consul and minutes are taken, they are taken by a Scottish civil servant. It was the first clue the article was bullshit. The Scottish Government then send a copy of the minutes to London.
So either only these minutes exist or for some reason the Westminster civil service sent someone up to Edinburgh to record an additional set of minutes at this meeting, even though they would be sent a copy anyway.
The Telegraph didn't fact check the story. Nothing in it is reliable. It's been debunked in less than an hour.
You still haven't read the article. Let me help you:
Just had a telephone conversation with Pierre-Alain Coffinier, the French CG [consul-general]. He was keen to fill me in on some of the conversations his Ambassador had during her visit to Scotland last week.
Can't you tell the difference between the official minutes of a meeting in Scotland, and the minutes of a telephone conversation between different people some days later?
Well the Telegraph is quite reliable but that story a few years old. A tad high as most Trusts will obtain them under contract and also supply them via a homecare company to make use of the VAT fiddle. Which just goes to show that Farage is a liar who talks complete bollocks.
Southam you are as wrong as this as when you said Ed wouldn't make it to the general.
Or that Scotland would go independent.
Fair enough. What do you think will now happen in Scotland?
It seems to me the SNP is in a position to issue a denial of this story that will completely satisfy its 45% voter base, much of which is just as anti-Labour now as it is anti-Tory.
What was that again about removing the letters MP from twitter accounts?
You don't have to remove the letters "MP" as long as you have a disclaimer in the blurb that you are not an MP but a parliamentary candidate.
Disclaimer or not, Ed Miliband omitted MP, so why can't Ed Balls, Kerry McCartney, Tristam Hunt do it as well?
Because the Commons authorities have made it clear that you don't have to as long as you make the declaration. Maybe Ed Balls thinks not many people will bother to follow him if he sets up a new account.
But why did Ed Miliband take the trouble drop the MP from his name?
I understand what you are saying, it still doesn't seem quite above board to keep it until the user is re-elected.
The minutes were taken by a Scottish Government civil servant and were then sent to London (as is protocol). The Scottish Government have a copy of the minutes and have already said the minutes do not make any mention of the claim.
So it can only have been changed after being sent by the Scottish Government to London.
Clearly you haven't read the article. The minutes which (it is claimed) have been leaked were not the ones written by the Scottish civil servant.
That's what the article says.
But it's not what happens. When the FM has a discussion with a Consul and minutes are taken, they are taken by a Scottish civil servant. It was the first clue the article was bullshit. The Scottish Government then send a copy of the minutes to London.
So either only these minutes exist or for some reason the Westminster civil service sent someone up to Edinburgh to record an additional set of minutes at this meeting, even though they would be sent a copy anyway.
The Telegraph didn't fact check the story. Nothing in it is reliable. It's been debunked in less than an hour.
No, mate, you didn't read the Telegraph story. The claim is (i don't know whether it is true or not) that it is the minutes taken BY THE FRENCH we are talking about.
Comments
Labour were hurt because the SNP accused them of going to bed with the Tories during the Referendum, so I do expect the same to happen to the SNP now that they are in bed with the Tories.
What that the new media darling thinks Ed is crap ? Win win.
Well lets hope that is true and Telegraph don't have any more evidence. I think I might have tried to come up with something a bit more "flexible" as my defence, you know just in case.
(is it now officially EIM?)
If it swings 15 to 20 seats back from SNP to Lab then that could easily make the difference between Ed becoming PM or not.
Whether it will do that though - I haven't a clue.
But I would expect betting markets to move to reflect this. I regard it as by far the worst thing that has happened so far for the Conservatives in the campaign.
I think it's fair to say the SNP are now off the grid...
What does that mean?
The spin from the SNP now seems to be that the memo is not an accurate reflection of the content of the meeting.
Calling the French liars basically it seems
I think.
This will be framed as the Westminster elite and the English press telling more lies to scare Scottish voters. And that will be good enough for SNP voters, especially as SLab is utterly toxic in and will be for some time yet.
https://twitter.com/PeterMannionMP/status/584106828910436353/photo/1
Goodnight.
Nicola hidden, Eck wheeled out.
SNP surge over.
Who wants a SNP Lab pact now ?
Yeah awful for Cameron
Won't shift a single vote.
EEMEPM (de Grand Bretagne)
Simple as that. Goodnight....
Who wrote the memo then?
SNP landslide back on, then.
Gives Sturgeon the opportunity to rubbish the story and thus retain support.
And the best bit is, all that survives of the story is the rather strong suggestion that ed is crap.
DH wrong as usual. As i said NON STORY
A lot of media stories which do not appear to have been taken down, a large number of tweets and a lot of posters on here are now in the position of having libelled Ms Sturgeon.
Goodnight.
Tory Unionists are getting greedy, they want Miliband and the SNP to be stuffed.
I would still predict that the SNP are going to be closer to 50 seats than 40 and even 55 is not out of the question unfortunately.
1. The Telegraph made the whole thing up and fabricated a government document.
2. A political party made the whole thing up, fabricated a government document and leaked it to the Telegraph.
3. A Civil Servant created a false official document and leaked it to the Telegraph.
Whichever it is, someone's in a lot of trouble.
The Lab 4% lead, the 37% Tory poll, the debate, the non-debate, Sturgeon, Paxman, Hobbits and the 100. Each seen as some epoch making event. Front pages of Newspapers claiming crisis, scandal and triumph on a daily basis.*
It's nuts. Totally nuts. And we still have more than a month to go.
* Meanwhile in the real world nothing at all has changed, as an unexcited electorate maybe starts to ponder an uninspiring choice.
4. She said it .
Is this the 'war of Nicola's 'earsay'?
You heard it first here'
eye thenkyow
et bon soir
careless whisper
LD order of pref:
1) Lab + LD
2) Con + LD
3) Lab + LD requiring SNP support
Assuming LD get 30, threshold for 1) or 2) is Lab 285 or Con 285. If either big party gets 285 that's it (DUP will go with winner to make 323).
Surely the debunk is in time where they can't legally send them for sale without being liable for a huge damages claim.
The minutes were taken by a Scottish Government civil servant and were then sent to London (as is protocol). The Scottish Government have a copy of the minutes and have already said the minutes do not make any mention of the claim.
So it can only have been changed after being sent by the Scottish Government to London.
Or that Scotland would go independent.
Look at the report:
Included in a civil servant's summary was the line that "she'd rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn't see Ed Miliband as PM material)", according to the paper.
Now look at the denial: "absolutely no preference was expressed"
A complete denial would read: "absolutely no preference was expressed and absolutely no opinion on Ed Miliband was expressed"
I wonder why it doesn't say that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9109658/Foreigners-to-be-offered-free-treatment-for-HIV-on-the-NHS.html
Entirely consistent with not stating a 'preference'
I don't care who wins - but Ed sure is crap.
Spokesman for the French ambassador tells me @NicolaSturgeon did not express a preference for next British prime minister or government.
67 retweets 16 favorites
That is what I seemed to remember was mentioned when they were talking about the programme they ran for high risk gay men, who were given antiretrivirals upfront to stop the spread of AIDS. The particular one they were given was quite costly, but about to come off patent protection.
But it's not what happens. When the FM has a discussion with a Consul and minutes are taken, they are taken by a Scottish civil servant. It was the first clue the article was bullshit. The Scottish Government then send a copy of the minutes to London.
So either only these minutes exist or for some reason the Westminster civil service sent someone up to Edinburgh to record an additional set of minutes at this meeting, even though they would be sent a copy anyway.
The Telegraph didn't fact check the story. Nothing in it is reliable. It's been debunked in less than an hour.
Tonights Survation
It's no secret that the French government would prefer Ed.
In saying that it's a very very high risk stakes game to perhaps be playing to shall we say influence the election by the inadvertent release of a document the day after the SNP do well. I never believe in coincidence though especially when events occur so close together. Just too convenient. It would have been better and more believable next week.
In saying that I still think it will not resonate that much In Scotland as they are a canny and even stubborn lot up there. In England though not sure.
Just had a telephone conversation with Pierre-Alain Coffinier, the French CG [consul-general]. He was keen to fill me in on some of the conversations his Ambassador had during her visit to Scotland last week.
Can't you tell the difference between the official minutes of a meeting in Scotland, and the minutes of a telephone conversation between different people some days later?
It seems to me the SNP is in a position to issue a denial of this story that will completely satisfy its 45% voter base, much of which is just as anti-Labour now as it is anti-Tory.
I understand what you are saying, it still doesn't seem quite above board to keep it until the user is re-elected.
Where are we now. It's the French minutes but they are denying it? Most odd.