Gary Robertson sorts Douglas Ross out but Glen Campbell is not going there

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_scotland_fm


In an astonishing show of duplicity on Drivetime tonight, the new Scottish Conservative leader, Douglas Ross, cunningly exploited the words of a National Farmer’s Union representative to attempt to conceal the very real fact that he had voted against a parliamentary amendment designed to protect food standards in imports to the UK.

The rep was asked if any MP had ever voted to reduce food standards and of course said ‘no’, because, of course they had not voted for that but had voted not to introduce safeguards to stop that happening.

Then interrogated by Gary Robertson, Ross ignored the repeated reminders of how he had voted and repeated himself the NFU rep’s answer to the question of had he ever voted to reduce standards.

A remarkable piece of duplicity, unmatched in recent times.

Robertson and John Beattie seemed understandably shocked by it but Glen Campbell wasn’t going there, waffled around what is clearly a serious attempt to mislead the public and would not criticise Ross in any way before moving on quickly to report on the proposals Ross is making. For example the supposed need for a new three-lane motorway between Glasgow and Edinburgh was described but with no criticisms made, not even of the lack of any mention of the need to address climate change.

Footnote: Ross accused Robertson of getting his information from SNP cybernats! I posted that same information at 07:50am, late for me. Can I claim the credit or was some other SNP cybernat on before me?

15 thoughts on “Gary Robertson sorts Douglas Ross out but Glen Campbell is not going there”

  1. Clearly your cybernat credentials are well established, and I do appreciate your early morning posts. You’ll not be lying by claiming to be the earliest I’m sure but we all know how easy it is to bend the truth thinking you’ll not be challenged!

    I note that the BBC website took any mention of D Ross and his Power Up Scotland programme off the site for most of the afternoon but guess what – yes, it’s back. But… no mention of the current stushie we’re all enjoying so much. Guess Douglas must have thought he was an English Tory and fully protected from scrutiny. Feel like personally congratulating Gary Robertson but feel it might cause him to relapse

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Damn, I was 10 minutes behind you with this tweet, which few seemed to spot –

    “SNPbaaaad.
    Uncosted.
    Swedish style job centres are much better than UK style cost centres.
    No furlough scheme extension.
    SNPbaaaad.
    Don’t take your questions from cybernats Gary.
    You’ll know Gary …
    (guess who)”

    Like

  3. One of the real and sleekit purposes
    Behind all these shenanigens
    In lowering standards in food
    Production along with the terrible
    Ecomic impact of a No deal Brexit
    Which without doubt shall collaspe
    Many of the smaller agri business,s
    Which then enables the Tories & their
    Cohorts to buy up much land
    At vastly reduced prices as the
    Banks call in the loans and overdraughts
    Of those who cannot possibly
    Withstand onerous tarrif hikes by The EU
    and imports of far cheaper foreign
    Products all at greatly reduced
    Quality
    For the rich powerful elite
    All they have to do is buy at
    Vastly reduced prices
    Slowly wait and/or repurpose
    Its usage then cash
    In and vastly increased
    Prices
    Know thy Foe
    Especially when it come
    To matters of their greed and
    Personal wealth

    Liked by 1 person

  4. If the NFU in Scotland don’t rip The Dug a “new one”, then they deserve everything coming their way.

    I would guess with Brexit that most hill farms will disappear; that animal husbandry will go to the dogs; that farm land will morph into huge “gentleman farmer” country estates, owned by City slickers. Actual farmers will become as rare as coal miners, and the countryside will house the wealthiest and most destitute of people.
    That The Dug thinks he can casually lie about something so easily checked, shows Boris picked a doppelgänger.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. The Robertson/DRoss exchange was excruciating….

    The Beattie/Hall clip I finally heard here https://youtu.be/TYs-80FkCiQ
    Pete Wishart posted the transcript of the exchange on which DRoss relied here https://twitter.com/PeteWishart/status/1300494623203373062

    That the framing of the committee questions by DRoss on a “Yes/No” basis intended to deliberately distort reality was a disgrace, but to then hide behind those distortions to obscure his own role in scuppering clause 11 beggars belief.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks for that, I like to get a rounded picture of things. Not meaning to sound disrespectful though, I’m not sure what it has to do with the above. I’m pretty new to this political analysis business – it isn’t encouraged where I come from – so I may have missed something. I’d better explain myself.

      My reasons for saying this are:
      1) Whether or not the people who voted a certain way in 2016 have changed their minds doesn’t change the fact that an MP has used weasel words. (I like to stay kind where possible…)
      2) Curtice’s article doesn’t address the question “Has DR sold out the people who voted for him – and Leave – in good faith?” Or, indeed, “Did anyone sell out anyone?”
      3)The conclusion of the article, after a fair bit of factual waffle, seems to be “There’s not a lot of change either way”
      4) The content doesn’t reflect the title. Ready to accept that a deed has been done, however detrimental to yourself (we’ve left) isn’t the same as being “ready to move on”.
      5) Surely asking PREVIOUS VOTERS “would you change your vote?” in either the 2016 EU referendum – or for that matter the 2014 IndyRef – is irrelevant. This fails to take account of the fact that, in both cases, (a) many of the original voters have died and (b) the 4 and 6 years, respectively, tranche of new voters.

      Surely, the question asked should, again in both cases, be more along the lines of “If, in a presentation of straight facts without obfuscation or ‘shouting down’, it could be proven to you that you’d based your decision on a false premise, would you change your vote?”

      But, as I said, I’m new to this game.

      Like

    1. As far as Ross concerned
      Weasel words from a Weasel
      As of now i shall only refer to this
      Specimen as
      This Weasel
      None other
      The Weasel
      Call out your foes for what they
      Truly are

      Like

  6. anandprasad
    Correct the Weasel is indeed a bonnie wee animal indeed
    But when it comes to the terms and usage of language and words we all know what Weasel Words actually are and that is
    That their sole purpose us to deceive and only in order to deceive
    The Native N.American Indians used another term when the White deployed such words and they referred to it as
    Speaking with a Forked Tongue
    I.E. saying one thing whilst you were in fact acting in the real world in the complete opposite of your words

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.