Jump to content

Alistair Carmichael


Jaggernaut
 Share

Recommended Posts

If anybody is as disgusted as me by this liar's despicable behaviour towards Nicola Sturgeon, French diplomats, and the electorate of Scotland in general and Orkney and Shetland in particular, I would advise you to consider making a donation to the campaign to get his election result overturned and another election run. If he believes he is still "entitled" (his word) to represent his constituents, to whom he blatantly lied, then let's give him a chance to test their confidence in him.

 

Donations can be made via indiegogo.com

 

They are more than half way towards reaching the sum required, with another 4 weeks in which to do so.

 

I've happily contributed in the knowledge that any unused funds will help support food banks.

Edited by Jaggernaut
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope they use some of the funds to petition Alex Salmond for the lies he was caught telling three times in the Scottish Parliament too.

Democracy and indignation is not the sole property of you cyber nats

 

Recommend you look at your own for a bunch of liars before you set off with your pitchforks and mob rule.

 

I for one am sick to death of this constant whingeing, STOP PLAYING POLITICAL GAMES AND GET ON WITH RUNNING THE COUNTRY

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope they use some of the funds to petition Alex Salmond for the lies he was caught telling three times in the Scottish Parliament too.

Democracy and indignation is not the sole property of you cyber nats

 

Recommend you look at your own for a bunch of liars before you set off with your pitchforks and mob rule.

 

I for one am sick to death of this constant whingeing, STOP PLAYING POLITICAL GAMES AND GET ON WITH RUNNING THE COUNTRY

 

Alex Salmond was officially cleared of any wrongdoing. So you are either misinformed, or lying.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, he was a tit for doing it but the faux disgust from the snp is even if not a shock is still hypocritical and that's the best i can say of them.

 

1) What is "faux" about the disgust over Carmichael's blatant lying?

 

2) What's the SNP got to do with this? Even many unionists realise that if Carmichael gets away with this then we will have to accept that Ministers and politicians can lie and deceive all they want, that anything goes as long as you can win your seat. Is that what you'd like?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) What is "faux" about the disgust over Carmichael's blatant lying?

 

because they do it as well?

 

2) What's the SNP got to do with this? Even many unionists realise that if Carmichael gets away with this then we will have to accept that Ministers and politicians can lie and deceive all they want, that anything goes as long as you can win your seat. Is that what you'd like?

 

because the snp have done it and will continue to do, if they are caught then fine, it is up to HIS constituents to ask, not all those who have there own agenda whilst ignoring there own parties MANY failings.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

OK, Mr bunnets, one question:

 

Do you think that Carmichael's election as an MP, given his admission to lying about not knowing the origin of the so-called memo, instigating a 1.4 million-pound "enquiry" into the affair purely as a delaying tactic until after the GE, and who falsely attributing statements to Sturgeon and a foreign diplomat despite both of them immediately rubbishing it, should be rescinded and he can be given the chance to run again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amazed at my old mate Jaggybunnet rising to the bait on this one, but he does have a point of sorts. My take on it is that politicians of many parties will do whatever it takes to put the boot into their opponents. Is the very nature of the game not one of survival? So do anything required to neutralise or even neuter your opponents. Just now Carmichael is fair game and is clearly trying to weather the storm of island mass protest (the 40 or so folk who reportedly turned up demanding his removal yesterday). I think this is what Jaggy suggests and I think he's right.

 

In terms of the SNP and their dirty-tricks past, I have no evidence other than historic e.g. voting with the Tories to bring down the Labour government of 1979. But maybe the parties change and that was then, this is now. The Salmond expenses scandal(?) seemed to die on its arse: was it £80k on tartan breeks and bevvy going to the golf in Chicago? The Daily Telegraph ran stories but, like I say, they petered out... but £80k buys a lot of food for food banks.

 

What do I think? (you'll no doubt ask), the timing of any fresh election in this constituency would no doubt see another SNP seat being added to the collection. With nothing better to do the SNP's campaign teams would probably work flat-out to do whatever was required to secure victory. As things stand in what is fast becoming a one-party State (we put them in power so no grumbles) no other political party appears capable of standing in their way. Will this be the case in 5-years time? Who knows, what can the press unearth? But the evidence suggests, and I'm using Holyrood as my example, that they're capable of running government with little or no scandal. (Democratic centralism that even Lenin might have approved of! I say this as there will be secrets hidden away in metaphorical cupboards.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amazed at my old mate Jaggybunnet rising to the bait on this one, but he does have a point of sorts. My take on it is that politicians of many parties will do whatever it takes to put the boot into their opponents. Is the very nature of the game not one of survival? So do anything required to neutralise or even neuter your opponents. Just now Carmichael is fair game and is clearly trying to weather the storm of island mass protest (the 40 or so folk who reportedly turned up demanding his removal yesterday). I think this is what Jaggy suggests and I think he's right.

 

In terms of the SNP and their dirty-tricks past, I have no evidence other than historic e.g. voting with the Tories to bring down the Labour government of 1979. But maybe the parties change and that was then, this is now. The Salmond expenses scandal(?) seemed to die on its arse: was it £80k on tartan breeks and bevvy going to the golf in Chicago? The Daily Telegraph ran stories but, like I say, they petered out... but £80k buys a lot of food for food banks.

 

What do I think? (you'll no doubt ask), the timing of any fresh election in this constituency would no doubt see another SNP seat being added to the collection. With nothing better to do the SNP's campaign teams would probably work flat-out to do whatever was required to secure victory. As things stand in what is fast becoming a one-party State (we put them in power so no grumbles) no other political party appears capable of standing in their way. Will this be the case in 5-years time? Who knows, what can the press unearth? But the evidence suggests, and I'm using Holyrood as my example, that they're capable of running government with little or no scandal. (Democratic centralism that even Lenin might have approved of! I say this as there will be secrets hidden away in metaphorical cupboards.)

 

Not much wrong with what you've written, Sid sorry, MeisterJag. There's no doubt that many politicians put the boot into their opponents, but Carmichael's conduct was way beyond that, and if he gets away with it by not even being forced to stand again in a fresh election, then we might as well give up hoping for any degree of honesty whatsoever, and that would turn even more people away from believing anything that got said or even bothering to vote.

 

As for the press, they're trying their damned best to "unearth" (for which I read fabricate) stories that are solely designed to undermine the SNP's popularity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Mr bunnets, one question: Do you think that Carmichael's election as an MP, given his admission to lying about not knowing the origin of the so-called memo, instigating a 1.4 million-pound "enquiry" into the affair purely as a delaying tactic until after the GE, and who falsely attributing statements to Sturgeon and a foreign diplomat despite both of them immediately rubbishing it, should be rescinded and he can be given the chance to run again?

 

not disbelieving you mr naut, but where did you get the £ 1.4m figure from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salmond also lied over the "guaranteed" EU membership, and about wanting full fiscal authority, as when the SNP have now been offered it, they are wanting to wait, so much for being able to go it alone from day one.

 

Here's something for you ALL politicians lie or bend the truth, it's how they stay in a job.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The Scottish Government CANNOT legally overspend (see below)

 

1. SG prudently maintain a small contingency for unforeseen events. e.g 10 weeks of snow in 2010.

 

1. Hence they aim to just underspend each year but keep that underspend minimal in relation to the ov1. The SG carry forward money between financial years. That is the 'Financial Transactions line in table 1.01 http://www.scotland..../2013/09/9971/2

 

For 2014/15 the carry forward is £189m - so the actual outturn underspend is not £444m, but £262m. Which equates to 0.9% of the total £29,089,000,000 Scottish budget in that year. Pretty damn good.

 

1. Budget decisions made by the UK Government have Consequentials the amount and timing of which are both outwith the SG's control. In the year in question these were £841m. For the SG to get under 1% away from budget projections in these circumstances is not a failure. It is a minor miracle!

 

http://www.scottish....S4/SB_11-74.pdf

"UK Government accounting rules deem that Departments and devolved administrations are not permitted to overspend in a financial year. This means that the Scottish Parliament cannot authorise expenditure in excess of the total assigned budget and other sources of income. The Treasury’s Statement of Funding Policy, lays out the arrangements for funding the devolved administrations as follows: “Breaches in DELs which materialise at the end of the year would be viewed by the United Kingdom Government as serious mismanagement on the part of the devolved administration and the presumption would be that the following year’s DEL and grant to the devolved administration would be reduced by an amount equivalent to the breach. The same rule applies to departments of the United Kingdom Government” (Treasury 2010). However, the rules relating to unspent monies (known as underspends) were relaxed in the late 1999s by the then UK Government. Prior to the late 1990s, any departmental underspend would automatically transfer back to the centre. However, the introduction of End Year Flexibility (EYF) allowed departments and devolved administrations to carry forward unspent monies from one year to the following. This was partly as a result of the move to Spending Reviews which outlined three-year DELs, but was also designed to prevent the practice of inefficient spending by departments concerned at losing money – in essence “spending for the sake of it” at the end of financial year. The Coalition Government elected in 2010 ended this system of EYF and introduced a “Budget Exchange Mechanism” (BEM) in its place. This system allowed for a limited amount of unspent monies to be carried over from one year to the next. Departments and devolved administrations would inform the Treasury in November what they were expecting to underspend in that financial year. Any underspend beyond that amount would return to the centre. Accumulated underspends were also to be returned to the centre as part of the BEM. The Finance Ministers Quadrilateral meeting of 14 July 2011 agreed a modification to this arrangement. Devolved administrations would be allowed to carry over unspent monies from year to year up to a set limit, rather than having to estimate anticipated underspends to Treasury in November. It was agreed that the Scottish Government would be allowed to carry over up to a maximum 0.6% of Resource DEL and 1.5% of Capital DEL from one financial year to the next.

Edited by Pinhead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also an open letter from Swinney that explains:

 

£145m is the true underspend

Updated on the

14 January 2015

 

 

The Scottish Government firmly believes Scotland will prosper best when all revenue raised here stays here.

 

Meantime, there is an obligation upon us to ensure what funds the UK Government does allocate to Edinburgh are managed responsibly. That’s why this government ensures that we put every penny we receive towards improving the lives of people in Scotland.

 

In contrast, Brian Wilson’s comments (Perspective, 10 January) betray the same problems understanding ­public spending that must have bedevilled the Labour Party when they managed Scotland’s finances.

 

Mr Wilson’s colleagues managed to forget to spend £700 million in one year and left more than £1 billion in a Treasury bank account which could have supported our economy and public services.

 

Thankfully the SNP secured the release of that money.

 

I can assure Brian Wilson, and your readers, that if the £444m of underspend he ­refers to was all money over which I had control, then every penny of it would be being invested properly to mitigate the impact of ­Westminster cuts and welfare reforms.

 

The £444 million underspend against the annual accounts-based budget, ­reported in the Final Outturn Report and in the media last week, also reflects variances in Annual Managed Expenditure programmes and other technical non-cash accounting budgets – for example depreciation and impairments.

 

So such underspends therefore do not reflect a missed opportunity to spend more on public services – much as Mr Wilson and his Labour ­colleagues try to claim otherwise. The reality is that the fiscal underspend the Scottish Government has available from 2013-14 to invest in public services is only 0.5 per cent of our budget, or £145 million.

 

Far from keeping it a secret, I announced it to Parliament in June, and confirmed that it would be carried into the next year – and that every penny would be allocated to support people in ­Scotland.

 

On top of that, some £31 million of financial transactions was also brought forward to support vital investment in housing and regeneration. This is funding restricted by Treasury rules and can only be used for the provision of loans or equity investment beyond the public sector and has to be repaid to HM Treasury in ­future years.

 

We agree that Scotland’s schools and hospitals are worthy of the best possible levels of investment and, until we are responsible for our own financial affairs, they deserve better than the successive real-term cuts to which Scotland’s budget has been subject and which the Labour Party clearly intend to continue.

 

JOHN SWINNEY

Deputy First Minister

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...