Undefined discussion subject.

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

BBC journalist on news 24 said that it didn't really matter if the story was true or not because it was so interesting.

flabbergasted.

BBC reporting in favour of Labour? Why are you surprised. Maybe the Nats will see what those of us on the centre right have been saying for years. The BBC is the broadcast wing of the Labour party.

And, funnily enough, those on the left say the BBC favours the Tories. It was ever thus.

You keep on saying that, and it would be an easy to sort this out. The BBC say they ensure that balance is achieved throughout their programming. To say that with any accuracy, they must measure it.

They should release regular reports into impartiality that proves their claim.

But I be they don't measure it ...

Yes, they do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/breadth_opinion.html

But all sides attack the reports for being biased.

Urrrm, yes, I've seen that before.

Note it does not cover politics:

The review examined content on BBC national TV and radio, online content and looked at three subjects in particular as part of its review of breadth of opinion: content about religion and ethics, the UK's relationship to the EU and immigration.

Try again.

I am interested in the notion that the EU and immigration have nothing to do with politics.


That's pathetic. Truly pathetic. Do you really believe what you wrote there?

Of course they have something to do with politics: virtually everything has to do with politics. But what you have linked to is most certainly not a review of political impartiality.

This Sky guy James Matthews seems very happy to Editorialise during purdah. Dangerous game.

Alistair said:

So the latest totally unsourced rumour so must be completely true is that it was a Scottish office civil servant who leaked the memo. Unsurprising if true

Who runs the Scotland Office.

We have a smoking gun. Could this end up costing Alistair Carmichael his seat. The last Liberal in Scotland wiped out by his own incompetence?

"Jenny [Hjul, Cochrane's wife and fellow columnist] said I should do what Darling asks. He’s in charge after all. It’s not really good journalism but what the hell does journalism matter? This is much more important."'

Yes and this account from Cochrane's own "book" tells us all we need to know about Telegraph "journalism".

The fact that all participants at the meeting deny the story tells us all we need to know about its veracity.

The way the third hand account is written tells us all we need to know about the standards in the Foreign Office. Apart from the obvious Tory nonsense why would she talk to the French diplomat about Salmond getting up to "mischief" and or at least "not knowing" what he would be doing?

The way that James Mathews has reported an obviously planted story as if it doesn't matter that it is not true just that it is a story in the Telegraph tells us all we need to know about the standards of Sky News or at least this completely deplorable reporter..

This will play in Scotland as an obvious dirty triicks attempt by the London media to derail the Strugeon and thus it will fail.

However the real story is which civil servant/Minister leaked their concocted nonsense to the Telegraph, rather like the RBS story was leaked to the BBC by the Treasury official (the son of Alistair Darling's former special adviser) during the last days of the referendum. That is where the admirable Ms Sturgeon should take this story.

Who knows there might even be a real journalist around who will try to find out!

I wonder if the Telegraph will be publishing another story about a rival newspaper driving their employees to suicide in the near future...

TCPoliticalBetting said:

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

David Herdson thanks for an interesting article which I disagree with.
This is all about Labour trying to fight on two fronts and choosing England rather than Scotland. EdM had a choice, either tackle the SNP surge head on and save more of SLAB or go for English votes. EdM chose not to save SLAB and let Nicola have free shots at keeping the momentum up to reduce SLAB down to a minority party. There are about 250 jobs for SLAB MPs and activists funded by the HoC. Losing 80%+ of them will be a massive reduction in the resources of SLAB. A catastrophe that will last a generation. In the next debate he will have to take Nicola head on. He will also have the others after his voters.

I think SLAB was unsaveable and so Ed leaves them to their fate and concentrates what he has on getting as much as possible out of English voters.
Nice that he put Murphy in charge of the defense If Murphy holds his seat , what is the betting he will not be regional office manager come 2016, he will not go down with the ship , he will want to keep his snout in the trough.

It does look like that. By spreading the resources too thinly EdM may end up gaining circa 30 in England and losing 30 in Scotland. A position that would probably cost him his Leadership career and almost wipe out SLAB. It will not be a strong enough position to launch a UK Govt challenge from in the following GE. We will probably not get a clear picture of how much of the central LAB funds will have been spent on Scotland compared to England. I suspect it has not been enough to overcome their lak of volunteers and lack of canvassing records.

Yes they have been so overconfident that they would always run Scotland that few if any of their donkeys bothered to do anything in the constituency , preferring to fill their pockets , sup subsided fare and build up their property portfolios. Hopefully they are wiped out, along with the lying Libdems.

SouthamObserver said:

JosiasJessop said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair said:

BBC journalist on news 24 said that it didn't really matter if the story was true or not because it was so interesting.

flabbergasted.

BBC reporting in favour of Labour? Why are you surprised. Maybe the Nats will see what those of us on the centre right have been saying for years. The BBC is the broadcast wing of the Labour party.

And, funnily enough, those on the left say the BBC favours the Tories. It was ever thus.

You keep on saying that, and it would be an easy to sort this out. The BBC say they ensure that balance is achieved throughout their programming. To say that with any accuracy, they must measure it.

They should release regular reports into impartiality that proves their claim.

But I be they don't measure it ...

Yes, they do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/breadth_opinion.html

But all sides attack the reports for being biased.

What there is at the BBC is a more general bias towards upper middle class metropolitan viewpoints.

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

Fact it is a lie is a concern

CD13 said:

MrG,

'Is Ed John Inman or Mrs Slocombe?'

Obviously Ed is Mrs Slocombe's pussy.

LOL

Sandpit said:

Monksfield said:

Sandpit said:

Swap Labour and tories around in that sentence and you get a good indication of why an increasing number of people hate them both.

Sean_F said:

antifrank said:

Ishmael_X said:

antifrank said:

NickPalmer said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

I think Mr Herdson neglects the polling on the views of England on an SNP-propped up government...

What does the polling say specifically that David Herdson is missing? Is there some polling the validates some argument like, "Don't vote Labour, because they'll have to rely on the SNP if not enough people vote for them"?

Yes, David is making the point that Ashcroft found in polls - potential Labour supporters don't see that not voting Labour is going to reduce the risk, if it's a risk.

The Sturgeon story with its heated denials is going to be obscure to most people, and I doubt if it will have much effect in England, but it feeds the sense of unease that Labour in Scotland is trying to encourage about the effect of replacing lots of Labour MPs with lots of Nationalists. Sturgeon will clearly see it as unhelpful, and tactically it's a mistake for the Tory press to go big on it if their primary motive is to prevent a Labour Government.

It's not aimed at potential Labour voters. It's aimed at potential UKIP voters. And so far it's been far more effective than I expected.

Don't understand that at all, and what on earth is your metric for effectiveness on potential kippers?

There is a cohort of voters who aren't warm on the current Conservative leadership who have been thinking about voting for UKIP. This group responds particularly virulently to the idea of Scotland being given more money. The idea of a Labour/SNP alliance fills them with loathing.

Anecdotally I have had several such voters raise this spontaneously with me. And in the polls UKIP recently have been drifting down a bit while the Conservatives have been climbing a bit. Correlation does not equal causation, I accept.

You're correct. Among my friends and acquaintances are plenty who dislike Cameron, would happily vote UKIP in secondary elections, but will vote Conservative to keep out Labour/SNP.

Yep! Agree with the anecdotal data that while Cameron is maybe not brilliant, the alternative is a throwback to the 1970's and could well end up with us heading to the IMF again.

The national debt has doubled during this parliament.

malcolmg said:

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

Fact it is a lie is a concern

The memo exists. The reporting in that memo that Nicola Sturgeon preferred David Cameron as Prime Minister exists. That's a big story all by itself.

SouthamObserver said:

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

The SNP reaction shows that they are very sensitive to accusations that they want the Tories to win. What the story does do is get that narrative out there for consideration. As a naitnalist party that wants indpendence it stands to reason that the SNP wants to get to a second IndyRef as soon as possible. And that happens with a Tory government, not a Labour one. Hence Salmond's posturing last week. His job is to scare English UKIPers back to the Tories.

I think that is absolutely right.

JEO said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CD13 said:

Dair,

I feel sorry for Nicola now. Clearly someone or some party is out to get her and I'm fed up with honest comments being used as dirt. She's entitled to her opinion.

Perfidious Frogs.

I think it is les grenouilles.

I don't think they've been happy with Dave and George repeatedly pointing out that God's own county of Yorkshire has created more jobs in 2014 than the whole of France.

Plus with the 200th anniversary of Waterloo coming up they are afraid of what another Eton educated Tory Prime Minister will do to them again in Dave's renegotiation strategy. They hate a Les Rosbif Tory PM.

So a vote for Labour in the general election is a vote for France.

I really do hope that Cameron is as successful in renegotiation as you say. Thankfully the weak French economy has reduced their leverage. If Germany comes to her senses, an Anglo-German alliance could really make the European Union something that works, but it will take a tough stance by the UK. I felt Cameron came across very credible in the debate (which, incidentally, made me wonder why he was so against having them), so hopefully he can be as no-nonsense and statesmanlike in the EU negotiations.

Let me explain something about the EU:

Germany wants to be allied with Britain when its to the benefit of Germany.

France wants to be allied with Britain when its to the benefit of France.

Neither Germany nor France wants to be allied with Britain when its to the benefit of Britain.

You can go back to 1992 and find comments from excited Conservatives talking about how the reelected government was outmaneuvering France and predicting 'an Anglo-German alliance could really make the European Union something that works'.

A few weeks later the ERM crisis happened.

SouthamObserver said:

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

The SNP reaction shows that they are very sensitive to accusations that they want the Tories to win. What the story does do is get that narrative out there for consideration. As a naitnalist party that wants indpendence it stands to reason that the SNP wants to get to a second IndyRef as soon as possible. And that happens with a Tory government, not a Labour one. Hence Salmond's posturing last week. His job is to scare English UKIPers back to the Tories.

The Second Referendum does not require a Tory government at Westminster or anything else as the outcome of the 2015 ballot. It's an irrelevance as far as Independence goes.

Only one thing matters to get the Second Referendum and that's for the SNP to maintain a majority (or a majority with Green support) at Holyrood. And that's pretty much guaranteed. once they have that majority they decide when it takes place.

scotslass said:

Carnyx

And when you say that the Telegraph sought comment right down to Rennie but not from Sturgeon or the French you really do mean right down to Rennie.

Is there lower than Rennie

Anti Frank

Not sure you are correct about the reaction to the memo, which is surprising since I very often agree with your posts. My thesis for some time has been that to win big the SNP just needs to stay front and centre of the election campaign.

This is why the attack ads on Salmond misfired as did the metropolitan media assault on his London interviews. Many on this site thought they would damage the Nats. They did exactly the opposite.

Similarly, since this latest dirty tricks episode is palplaby not true then the result will be to benefit the SNP exactly because it keeps them front and centre of the election campaign.

PeterC said:

SouthamObserver said:

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

The SNP reaction shows that they are very sensitive to accusations that they want the Tories to win. What the story does do is get that narrative out there for consideration. As a naitnalist party that wants indpendence it stands to reason that the SNP wants to get to a second IndyRef as soon as possible. And that happens with a Tory government, not a Labour one. Hence Salmond's posturing last week. His job is to scare English UKIPers back to the Tories.

I think that is absolutely right.

It has been highlighted in Scotland for a very long time that it is the preferred option for SNP. It is only the idiots in the London bubble that cannot see beyond the M25 that think it is new.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Antifrank, you appear to be saying the fact there's a story is a story in itself.

That in turn points to how the SNP should be handling it. The line should be: "everyone in the room has confirmed the memo was inaccurate. It's always dangerous to take secondhand reports as gospel. We're happy to set the record straight."

Not: "BURN THE INFIDELS".

chestnut said:

Sturgeon's rebuttal is bound to be "we don't want either, we want Scotland run by Scotland".

Tories go on child protection issues today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32180744

From a government which has followed a strategy of non-action against industrial scale child rape.

Incidentally has this government taken any action against Oxfordshire county council yet or is it pretending 'lessons have been learnt'. Just like they pretended 'lessons have been learnt' in Rotherham.

Perhaps it would be politically embarrassing for Oxfordshire Conservative David Cameron if Conservative controlled Oxfordshire county council was placed into special measures.

SouthamObserver said:

Dair said:

SouthamObserver said:

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

The SNP reaction shows that they are very sensitive to accusations that they want the Tories to win. What the story does do is get that narrative out there for consideration. As a naitnalist party that wants indpendence it stands to reason that the SNP wants to get to a second IndyRef as soon as possible. And that happens with a Tory government, not a Labour one. Hence Salmond's posturing last week. His job is to scare English UKIPers back to the Tories.

The Second Referendum does not require a Tory government at Westminster or anything else as the outcome of the 2015 ballot. It's an irrelevance as far as Independence goes.

Only one thing matters to get the Second Referendum and that's for the SNP to maintain a majority (or a majority with Green support) at Holyrood. And that's pretty much guaranteed. once they have that majority they decide when it takes place.

We'll see. As we know the SNP leadership said that the last referendum was a once in a lifetime opportunity. To justify another one, they need an event. That event is an EU In/Out referendum. They get with the Tories, but not with Labour.

The problem with a Scottish vote for independence is that it would put them out of the EU in any event. To generate a crisis the UK would have to have voted 'OUT' of the EU, but with the Scottish subtotal 'IN'. Not impossible but unlikely, I would have thought.

Having seen the fallout this morning I think my panic last night was not warranted. Glad I didn't unwind any of my Scottish constituency bets and slept on the Lab Majority bet.

Not sure this is going to have any impact now that the full text has been released and it looks to have SLAB dirty tricks fingerprints all over it.

antifrank said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Antifrank, you appear to be saying the fact there's a story is a story in itself.

That in turn points to how the SNP should be handling it. The line should be: "everyone in the room has confirmed the memo was inaccurate. It's always dangerous to take secondhand reports as gospel. We're happy to set the record straight."

Not: "BURN THE INFIDELS".

Making things up is a bit silly even for you. They have very clearly stated it is a lie , asked why the patsy journalist did not bother to check his facts etc and asked them to print the truth. You take that and manage to make it into some bizarre pathetic racist " BURN THE INFIDELS" , amazing.

Indigo said:

Dair said:

SouthamObserver said:

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

The SNP reaction shows that they are very sensitive to accusations that they want the Tories to win. What the story does do is get that narrative out there for consideration. As a naitnalist party that wants indpendence it stands to reason that the SNP wants to get to a second IndyRef as soon as possible. And that happens with a Tory government, not a Labour one. Hence Salmond's posturing last week. His job is to scare English UKIPers back to the Tories.

The Second Referendum does not require a Tory government at Westminster or anything else as the outcome of the 2015 ballot. It's an irrelevance as far as Independence goes.

Only one thing matters to get the Second Referendum and that's for the SNP to maintain a majority (or a majority with Green support) at Holyrood. And that's pretty much guaranteed. once they have that majority they decide when it takes place.

The referendum can be held, but its nothing more than a big opinion poll without an Act of Parliament passed in Westminster giving it legal meaning.

Unless the right to hold a Referendum which is binding is devolved.

Such as might be achieved in return for providing votes to support a Minority Labour Government.

FalseFlag said:

anotherDave said:

Sandpit said:

Monksfield said:

Sandpit said:

Swap Labour and tories around in that sentence and you get a good indication of why an increasing number of people hate them both.

Sean_F said:

antifrank said:

Ishmael_X said:

antifrank said:

NickPalmer said:

edmundintokyo said:

CarlottaVance said:

I think Mr Herdson neglects the polling on the views of England on an SNP-propped up government...

What does the polling say specifically that David Herdson is missing? Is there some polling the validates some argument like, "Don't vote Labour, because they'll have to rely on the SNP if not enough people vote for them"?

It's not aimed at potential Labour voters. It's aimed at potential UKIP voters. And so far it's been far more effective than I expected.

Don't understand that at all, and what on earth is your metric for effectiveness on potential kippers?

There is a cohort of voters who aren't warm on the current Conservative leadership who have been thinking about voting for UKIP. This group responds particularly virulently to the idea of Scotland being given more money. The idea of a Labour/SNP alliance fills them with loathing.

Anecdotally I have had several such voters raise this spontaneously with me. And in the polls UKIP recently have been drifting down a bit while the Conservatives have been climbing a bit. Correlation does not equal causation, I accept.

You're correct. Among my friends and acquaintances are plenty who dislike Cameron, would happily vote UKIP in secondary elections, but will vote Conservative to keep out Labour/SNP.

Yep! Agree with the anecdotal data that while Cameron is maybe not brilliant, the alternative is a throwback to the 1970's and could well end up with us heading to the IMF again.

The national debt has doubled during this parliament.

Given the state of the economy and the size of the deficit in 2010 an impressive result.

Yeah but this is a government that came in on a platform of a highly stringent fiscal policy. There were plenty of people preared to tell them that was foolish but the pair of ex-Bullingdon shallow lightweights, as revealed by the former Bank of England Governor, wouldn't listen.

SouthamObserver said:

Carnyx said:

SouthamObserver said:

@Carnyx - Interesting. But does it really matter to the FCO? They can't be that bothered about Rockall. Most people overseas think the UK is England anyway.

Not in the circles the FCO mandarins moves in. A break-up of the UK would severely erode the rUK's influence and standing. As a diplomat you can't lose a great chunk of your country and hope to be taken as seriously as you were previously.

Point taken. Trident wouldn't help, either, now you mention the issue, as would the inevitable argument about whether rUK was really the same old UK or just England'n'Wales (1706 model) with what was left of Ireland, Gib, etc. - which could lose the permanent seat on the Security Council.

Spot on. Trident, the Security Council,

Like when Russia got chucked out of the Security Council with the end of the USSR?

kingbongo said:

The national debt has doubled during this parliament.


Given the state of the economy and the size of the deficit in 2010 an impressive result.

Anyone who posts about the national debt having doubled should be made to provide detail of exactly which departments they would have closed and which taxes they would have raised to eliminate the deficit in 1 year



And tell us what the National Debt would have been had Labour won in 2010..... Anyone would think the economy was fecked on the Coalition's watch to hear Labour.

Dair said:

SouthamObserver said:

@Carnyx - Interesting. But does it really matter to the FCO? They can't be that bothered about Rockall. Most people overseas think the UK is England anyway.

Not in the circles the FCO mandarins moves in. A break-up of the UK would severely erode the rUK's influence and standing. As a diplomat you can't lose a great chunk of your country and hope to be taken as seriously as you were previously.

The loss of the UN Security Council seat is by far the biggest concern for the FCO and the Americans.

And given the precedence of the USSR>Russia, the case that it would happen is tenuous at best....I can't see the French arguing that the loss of 8% of your economy is a criterion for eviction.....

MaxPB said:

If Dave really wants to help Nicola he needs to go up to Scotland and give a speech on how it was Labour that helped the Conservatives hold onto the Union and that Jim Murphy was a key part of it. Go on Dace stir it up.

That would be funny ;-)

antifrank said:

malcolmg said:

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

Fact it is a lie is a concern

The memo exists. The reporting in that memo that Nicola Sturgeon preferred David Cameron as Prime Minister exists. That's a big story all by itself.

I'm not sure that this will actually make much difference now. Last night when it broke it seemed bigger, but this morning it seems like a dud. The full quote is basically nothing and even the civil servant who took down the notes doesn't believe it and it sounds like the Scottish government mandarin misrepresented the conversation to London.

antifrank said:

malcolmg said:

antifrank said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Antifrank, you appear to be saying the fact there's a story is a story in itself.

That in turn points to how the SNP should be handling it. The line should be: "everyone in the room has confirmed the memo was inaccurate. It's always dangerous to take secondhand reports as gospel. We're happy to set the record straight."

Not: "BURN THE INFIDELS".

Making things up is a bit silly even for you. They have very clearly stated it is a lie , asked why the patsy journalist did not bother to check his facts etc and asked them to print the truth. You take that and manage to make it into some bizarre pathetic racist " BURN THE INFIDELS" , amazing.

One of your MPs has demanded the journalist's resignation for reporting this story. And the SNP is not a race.

A religion, possibly.

Surely if a Journalist of a major broadsheet newspaper does not do BASIC FACT CHECKING and runs a story where his only piece of corroboration actually states "this is probably wrong", then his ability to continue in print journalism should be questioned.

I don't think he should get the option to resign though. He should be fired.

MaxPB said:

Having seen the fallout this morning I think my panic last night was not warranted. Glad I didn't unwind any of my Scottish constituency bets and slept on the Lab Majority bet.

Not sure this is going to have any impact now that the full text has been released and it looks to have SLAB dirty tricks fingerprints all over it.

That's libellous.

What's your evidence?

malcolmg said:

DennisBets said:

malcolmg said:

PeterC said:

SouthamObserver said:

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

The SNP reaction shows that they are very sensitive to accusations that they want the Tories to win. What the story does do is get that narrative out there for consideration. As a naitnalist party that wants indpendence it stands to reason that the SNP wants to get to a second IndyRef as soon as possible. And that happens with a Tory government, not a Labour one. Hence Salmond's posturing last week. His job is to scare English UKIPers back to the Tories.

I think that is absolutely right.

It has been highlighted in Scotland for a very long time that it is the preferred option for SNP. It is only the idiots in the London bubble that cannot see beyond the M25 that think it is new.

The M25 isn't new they built it years ago. I think its great Scotland has a new party.

I do apologise , I was a bit general in my comment , I did mean the establishment , politicians , lackey journalists and all the associated parasites that suck off of Westminster teat.

Forgive my petulance, the establishment riles us all

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

Having seen the fallout this morning I think my panic last night was not warranted. Glad I didn't unwind any of my Scottish constituency bets and slept on the Lab Majority bet.

Not sure this is going to have any impact now that the full text has been released and it looks to have SLAB dirty tricks fingerprints all over it.

That's libellous.

What's your evidence?

The memoirs of a number of different Labour spin doctors go into great detail of the dirty tricks Labour has used over the years, especially in the New Labour era.

His comment only says it "looks" like it may. And as they admit to using them, there is no libel in the statement.

Dair said:

antifrank said:

malcolmg said:

antifrank said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Antifrank, you appear to be saying the fact there's a story is a story in itself.

That in turn points to how the SNP should be handling it. The line should be: "everyone in the room has confirmed the memo was inaccurate. It's always dangerous to take secondhand reports as gospel. We're happy to set the record straight."

Not: "BURN THE INFIDELS".

Making things up is a bit silly even for you. They have very clearly stated it is a lie , asked why the patsy journalist did not bother to check his facts etc and asked them to print the truth. You take that and manage to make it into some bizarre pathetic racist " BURN THE INFIDELS" , amazing.

One of your MPs has demanded the journalist's resignation for reporting this story. And the SNP is not a race.

A religion, possibly.

Surely if a Journalist of a major broadsheet newspaper does not do BASIC FACT CHECKING and runs a story where his only piece of corroboration actually states "this is probably wrong", then his ability to continue in print journalism should be questioned.

I don't think he should get the option to resign though. He should be fired.

One cannot have one's chums sacked just for blatantly lying about some Scottish peasant can one.

Indigo said:

malcolmg said:

antifrank said:

malcolmg said:

antifrank said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Antifrank, you appear to be saying the fact there's a story is a story in itself.

That in turn points to how the SNP should be handling it. The line should be: "everyone in the room has confirmed the memo was inaccurate. It's always dangerous to take secondhand reports as gospel. We're happy to set the record straight."

Not: "BURN THE INFIDELS".

Making things up is a bit silly even for you. They have very clearly stated it is a lie , asked why the patsy journalist did not bother to check his facts etc and asked them to print the truth. You take that and manage to make it into some bizarre pathetic racist " BURN THE INFIDELS" , amazing.

One of your MPs has demanded the journalist's resignation for reporting this story. And the SNP is not a race.

A religion, possibly.

Journalists should be sacked when they knowingly print blatant lies.

In the absence of any evidence they would destroy their employer in an industrial tribunal.

He printed enough evidence to sack him, what is the betting he is on holiday for a fair spell

Carnyx said:

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

antifrank said:

malcolmg said:

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

Fact it is a lie is a concern

The memo exists. The reporting in that memo that Nicola Sturgeon preferred David Cameron as Prime Minister exists. That's a big story all by itself.

antifrank said:

malcolmg said:

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

Fact it is a lie is a concern

The memo exists. The reporting in that memo that Nicola Sturgeon preferred David Cameron as Prime Minister exists. That's a big story all by itself.

Does the memo exist outside the imagination of the DT?

Have the Civil Service produced the original document? I'm slightly surprised why not - even if it was leaked in the first place.

The way it looks to me:

SLAB supporting Scottish civil servant misrepresents conversation to London. Lab supporting FCO civil servant seizes on internal memo and leaks it to unionist newspaper. Just my opinion though, obviously no evidence, but I could see it happen that way.

antifrank said:

MaxPB said:

antifrank said:

malcolmg said:

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

Fact it is a lie is a concern

The memo exists. The reporting in that memo that Nicola Sturgeon preferred David Cameron as Prime Minister exists. That's a big story all by itself.

I'm not sure that this will actually make much difference now. Last night when it broke it seemed bigger, but this morning it seems like a dud. The full quote is basically nothing and even the civil servant who took down the notes doesn't believe it and it sounds like the Scottish government mandarin misrepresented the conversation to London.

Hence my original comment. The danger for the SNP is not this memo but their own wildly OTT reaction to the story.

You mean your irrational reaction to what you make up about their reaction. Just admit you are talking merde and move on.

antifrank said:

Once again, the memo was a story all by itself. I'm sure you both realise this. If it had been a secondhand report in an official French memo that David Cameron sought Scottish independence, you wouldn't be doubting this.

The Telegraph had a perfecto good story to print, though they certainly sexed it up beyond what the memo justified.

The memo is so week in it's assertion that I don't see how it can be a story. The writer doubts the veracity of the report.

I don't see how it can be a story without confirmation from someone who was actually at the meeting.

Stereotomy said:

I wonder if any pollster will take the initiative and ask "Who does Nicola Sturgeon want to be the next PM?"

"I don't really care, I just want what's best for Scotland which is independence"

malcolmg said:

antifrank said:

MaxPB said:

antifrank said:

malcolmg said:

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

Fact it is a lie is a concern

The memo exists. The reporting in that memo that Nicola Sturgeon preferred David Cameron as Prime Minister exists. That's a big story all by itself.

I'm not sure that this will actually make much difference now. Last night when it broke it seemed bigger, but this morning it seems like a dud. The full quote is basically nothing and even the civil servant who took down the notes doesn't believe it and it sounds like the Scottish government mandarin misrepresented the conversation to London.

Hence my original comment. The danger for the SNP is not this memo but their own wildly OTT reaction to the story.

You mean your irrational reaction to what you make up about their reaction. Just admit you are talking merde and move on.

Wanting the journalist sacked is absurd.

Indigo said:

Should this memo exist, and be produced then presumably you will be retracting your ranting, since a journalist is completely entitled to take an official minute at face value, if it subsequently turns out to be inaccurate that is hardly the journalists fault. If it says what it is purported to say presumably you will beg his forgiveness for branding him a liar.

No he is NOT entitled to take it at face value.

He is required to FACT CHECK it. In this case, contact the French Consul and ask if it is true. The French Consul would then debunk the document and the story dies. That's the whole point of fact checking and why it is fundamental to journalism.

These are not "optional" parts of the process. The reliance and dedication to fact checking is the last bastion of print journalism in its attempts to stave off the less reliable (as it is not always fact checked) online and citizen journalism destroying the industry.

If the papers cannot even offer that, they cannot offer anything.

Indigo said:

Dair said:

antifrank said:

Once again, the memo was a story all by itself. I'm sure you both realise this. If it had been a secondhand report in an official French memo that David Cameron sought Scottish independence, you wouldn't be doubting this.

The Telegraph had a perfecto good story to print, though they certainly sexed it up beyond what the memo justified.

The reporter did not do BASIC fact checking. The memo is merely a piece of paper of dubious provenance till fact checked.

All he needed to do was telephone the French Consul. Clearly he is accessible to journalists as a number were able to get a quote from him quite quickly after the story broke. And he says the memo is incorrect.

This is why journalism requires fact checking. Failure to do such a fundamental part of the job would appear to me to be gross incompetence. That's grounds for dismissal.

Really ? When did you become an expert on the employment terms for journalists, you are embarrassing yourself.

In fact you don't even know if such a conversation took place, he might well have received a brush off "it is not our policy to comment on conversations between government ministers and their diplomatic guests"

Or they could simply lie.

Indigo said:

Carnyx said:

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

antifrank said:

malcolmg said:

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

Fact it is a lie is a concern

The memo exists. The reporting in that memo that Nicola Sturgeon preferred David Cameron as Prime Minister exists. That's a big story all by itself.

antifrank said:

malcolmg said:

antifrank said:

The diplomatic leak is a storm in a teacup (judging from the memo, it's probably founded in truth). But the SNP reaction to the story's publication is potentially far more damaging to their cause. Though sexed up, the memo is absolutely of public interest. Awkwardness for the SNP is not a ground to withhold publication.

Fact it is a lie is a concern

The memo exists. The reporting in that memo that Nicola Sturgeon preferred David Cameron as Prime Minister exists. That's a big story all by itself.

Does the memo exist outside the imagination of the DT?

Have the Civil Service produced the original document? I'm slightly surprised why not - even if it was leaked in the first place.

Should this memo exist, and be produced then presumably you will be retracting your ranting, since a journalist is completely entitled to take an official minute at face value, if it subsequently turns out to be inaccurate that is hardly the journalists fault. If it says what it is purported to say presumably you will beg his forgiveness for branding him a liar.

It was antifrank's statement that the memo 'exists' that had surprised me, as all I had seen was a DT-originated text. They have not, as fat as I know, published, say, a facsimile Civil Service document with a physical existence outside the DT. The former would not be a Civil Service "memo"; the latter would me.

But you are right - the wording was unfortunate and I wasn't specifically intending to suggest that the DT or any particular journalist was lying (for one thing, the document may turn ip as you say, or someone else was doing the fibbing). .

HYUFD said:

DennisBets The SNP have made clear they will vote down a Tory government

If the Tories end on ~300 and the SNP on ~50 I'm sure a deal could be done giving the Tories EV4EL and Scotland Home Rule within the same Bill. After that no one will care how it was done. The Tories get a stranglehold on England and the SNP get a stranglehold on Scotland.