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?
Glenn Campbell on ABC reports incomprehensible fluff on this issue. No mention of commons vote on chicken and hormones etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLiked by 2 people
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)”
LikeLike
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
LikeLiked by 1 person
WEE GAZA IS A BAR ROOM PAL OF ROSS
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Want to know Hansard or voting records, dial a farmer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Will the Tories make Hansard records a state secret?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/ready-to-move-on-or-still-divided-where-voters-stand-now-on-brexit/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ready-to-move-on-or-still-divided-where-voters-stand-now-on-brexit
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Here is Severin Carrell putting out a story a day after he failed to report it in his previous article.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/31/scottish-tory-leader-accused-of-misquoting-farmers-union-on-food-standards
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Trouble is, there is nothing wrong with weasels.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike