...was an accurate description of the situation, in no possible Universe anywhere. But thanks for making me smile with that "You made yourself look like a dick" comment - which I couldn't help but read in the voice of a petulant teenager having a tantrum.
It's quite simple: you've overreacted to what was a fairly bland and sensible statement by Ed on the subject of the matter having been 'settled for a generation', blowing it up into this terrible horror-story that he would veto any and all attempts at Scottish self-determination under all circumstances, and calling him a dictator.
It is ridiculous hyperbole. Even the most basic understanding of English is adequate to determine that much. That you don't, speaks not so much perhaps to your understanding of English - though one can't help but wonder - but perhaps more to your own deep-seated fears and prejudices.
For the love of all that's sacred, give it up.
If ever DS has had a post in the voice of a petulant teenager having a tantrum , this is it,
You do not understand the nature of debate and get all stroppy when you do not get your own way. Lol
Yes and No spend audited by the Electoral Commission relates to the 16 week period prior to the referendum. Scotlands Future was produced 10 months before the election.
And was legitamite government spending. Same as the pro union publications by Westminster.
The electoral commission, as evidenced by their report, validated that.
You have yet to provide a quote from the Electoral Commission that they 'happy'. I have provided information from the report you linked (and I have read it unlike you) that shows the scope of the Electoral Commission and that it didnt include Scotlands Future. It is all in the report - you should really read it!
Strange I always thought SHOUTING ON A FORUM WAS DONE BY PUTTING THINGS IN CAPITALS.
Feel free to show me me where I was shouting about lies. I have said that you should stop lying about the Electoral Commission being 'happy' when you have provided no evidence to support this. I DID NOT SHOUT IT.
So no answer to my questions just insults. It is a trait that you have. How many people on this thread have you insulted? Is it 4 or 5? Is it because you have no answers to their questions that you insult them? Makes you look churlish
You really have read the report. Pity you cannot understand it. Look at chapter 5 again specifically the paragraphs I flagged up before.
As for you, what, telling people they are liars in a debate is like the wee kid in the playground who when confronted with the truth points there finger at everyone shouting " liar, liar . You are all liars"
And was legitamite government spending. Same as the pro union publications by Westminster.
The electoral commission, as evidenced by their report, validated that.
Just because you say it doesnt make it true. You keep on going on that the report evidenced it. The only thing you have managed to state is that they were 'happy' by omission. Is that really all you have?
I have read Chapter 5 - there is nothing in it that confirms that the the Electoral Commission were 'happy', that is was 'legitimate Government spending'. 5.152 to 5.154 does not state there were happy. It does not state any opinion.
So a simple question for you - Where in the report does it say they are 'happy' or that it was legitimate government expenses?
To continue to say that the report evidence that they were happy or that it was 'legitimate government spending' is just wrong.
ps the electoral commission did not think it was a yes manifesto or it would have been included in the yes spend
That was untrue. As I said (and noted in the report that you have linked to but not read) the Electoral Commission only looked at spend in the 16 week period prior the the referendum period. That is a fact. Not opinion, but a statement of fact. As Scotlands Future was printed and published in November 2013 then it was outwith the remit of the Electoral Commission.
You really have read the report. Pity you cannot understand it. Look at chapter 5 again specifically the paragraphs I flagged up before.
5.152 to 5.154 states what the UK and Governments did. It offers no opinion or legitimises what they did.
5.148 and 5.149 I have absolutely no idea what the relevance of this is. This deals with the regulated 28 days period prior to the referendum which in no way covers the time period of Scotlands Future being printed and published.
As for you, what, telling people they are liars in a debate is like the wee kid in the playground who when confronted with the truth points there finger at everyone shouting " liar, liar . You are all liars"
You can insult me all you want. Water off a ducks back to me. Im happy to debate facts. You made a statement, repeated it on several occasions but have yet to provide any evidence to support that statement.
I have provided you with evidence that it was not in the Electoral Commissions remit to look at this - you have provided no evidence that refutes this.
Confronted with the truth - Ha Ha Ha. Your opinion is not the truth. You have provided no evidence that the Electoral Commission were happy or that they said it was legitimate Government spending. Just because you say it doesnt make it true!
Just because you say it doesnt make it true. You keep on going on that the report evidenced it. The only thing you have managed to state is that they were 'happy' by omission. Is that really all you have?
I have read Chapter 5 - there is nothing in it that confirms that the the Electoral Commission were 'happy', that is was 'legitimate Government spending'. 5.152 to 5.154 does not state there were happy. It does not state any opinion.
So a simple question for you - Where in the report does it say they are 'happy' or that it was legitimate government expenses?
To continue to say that the report evidence that they were happy or that it was 'legitimate government spending' is just wrong.
You said in response to BS:
That was untrue. As I said (and noted in the report that you have linked to but not read) the Electoral Commission only looked at spend in the 16 week period prior the the referendum period. That is a fact. Not opinion, but a statement of fact. As Scotlands Future was printed and published in November 2013 then it was outwith the remit of the Electoral Commission.
to state:
is not even remotely true.
I am at a loss as to how someone who has supposedly read the report can continue to make statements like you are making.
The Electoral Commission were satisfied that it was legitimate government spending, They were also satisfied that the 16 documents that Westminster produced were legitimate government spending.
Again so you can read it, please try to understand what is being said by them:
Information from the Scottish and UK Governments
5.152 In November 2013, the Scottish Government published a document
entitled ‘Scotland's Future’ that set out “why the Scottish Government believes
the people of Scotland, individually and collectively, will be better off with
independence.’
5.153 In the lead up to the referendum, the UK Government also published a
series of 16 documents that provided analysis on ‘Scotland’s place in the UK
and how it contributes to and benefits from being part of the UK.’
5.154 Both the UK and Scottish Governments also distributed public
awareness information to all households in Scotland, as well as running
advertising campaigns in August 2014.
If any rules had been broken the report would have reported it. That they did not shows that there was no breach of the rules and they were happy with what had been published.
By both sides.
They, explicitly, in the report designate the publication as a Scottish Government publication. As this was an official report they are duty bound to be as accurate as possible. If you think that they were inaccurate then write to them and complain.
5.152 to 5.154 states what the UK and Governments did. It offers no opinion or legitimises what they did.
5.148 and 5.149 I have absolutely no idea what the relevance of this is. This deals with the regulated 28 days period prior to the referendum which in no way covers the time period of Scotlands Future being printed and published.
You can insult me all you want. Water off a ducks back to me. Im happy to debate facts. You made a statement, repeated it on several occasions but have yet to provide any evidence to support that statement.
I have provided you with evidence that it was not in the Electoral Commissions remit to look at this - you have provided no evidence that refutes this.
Confronted with the truth - Ha Ha Ha. Your opinion is not the truth. You have provided no evidence that the Electoral Commission were happy or that they said it was legitimate Government spending. Just because you say it doesnt make it true!
Feel free to prove me wrong. You haven't so far.
Why do i get the feeling that you have completely lost the point here.
A troll is someone who joins in posts but does not contribute to the debate at hand
Because there is no debate to be had. You have been found out as a desperate nationalist troll who knows he's wrong but keeps on digging. You don't answer any questions put to you. You are a troll.
Couldn't agree more and the majority of Scots voted No and should now be allowed to get on with their lives at least for the next decade or so before having another referendum.
Eh?
So, if next year a poll shows 95% of Scotland wants independence they have to wait a further 8 years?
Do you even remotely understand what democracy is?
There was a vote and Scotland is still currently part of the UK. Democracy in action.
And if the majority of Scotland want out of the UK in the future, who is anyone to deny them just because there was a vote in 2014? Certainly not you.
The Electoral Commission were satisfied that it was legitimate government spending, They were also satisfied that the 16 documents that Westminster produced were legitimate government spending.
Again so you can read it, please try to understand what is being said by them:
Information from the Scottish and UK Governments
5.152 In November 2013, the Scottish Government published a document
entitled ‘Scotland's Future’ that set out “why the Scottish Government believes
the people of Scotland, individually and collectively, will be better off with
independence.’
5.153 In the lead up to the referendum, the UK Government also published a
series of 16 documents that provided analysis on ‘Scotland’s place in the UK
and how it contributes to and benefits from being part of the UK.’
5.154 Both the UK and Scottish Governments also distributed public
awareness information to all households in Scotland, as well as running
advertising campaigns in August 2014.
If any rules had been broken the report would have reported it. That they did not shows that there was no breach of the rules and they were happy with what had been published.
By both sides.
They, explicitly, in the report designate the publication as a Scottish Government publication. As this was an official report they are duty bound to be as accurate as possible. If you think that they were inaccurate then write to them and complain.
I am reading it. At no point have you produced anything that states that they were 'happy' or that it was 'legitimate government spending'. The best you have is that they are 'happy' by omission.
In terms of 5.152 to 5.154 which you have quoted - where in this part, or any part of the document did they say they were happy/content/legitimate government spending. Where in any part of the document did they express an opinion about Scotlands Future.
I have consistently maintained that it was not in their remit, which explains why they offer no opinion on it. If it is not in their remit then they will not offer any opinion favourable or otherwise on it.
You continually state that as they offer no opinion then they are happy. Please show me where it comes within their remit?
You have absolutely nothing but word plays on this. You have no evidence to refute that it was not in their remit which is why they didnt comment.
If it was not in their remit why would they report broken rules? It was not in their remit so they didnt even look at it.
In terms of what is being said by them:
In 5.152 they state that the Scottish Government produced a document - Scotlands Future was produced by the Scottish Government - I fully agree with this. That is a fact.
They do not however offer any opinion as to the validity of that document.
In 5.153 they state that the UK Government published a series of 16 documents. Again this is a fact. It does not offer any opinion as to the validity of that document.
In 5.154 they state that the UK and Scottish Governments distributed public awareness campaigns and distributed information to households. Again this is a fact. Again though it does not offer any opinion as to the validity of any of what was sent.
This was an official report into the Scottish Referendum and how the vote was conducted not a review of literature produced by the campaigns. Read the remit of the Electoral Commission - it doesnt cover materials produced.
Because there is no debate to be had. You have been found out as a desperate nationalist troll who knows he's wrong but keeps on digging. You don't answer any questions put to you. You are a troll.
LOL. There is no debate going on because people like you come on and make asinine comments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Please feel free to join in the topic anytime you want
Because there is no debate to be had. You have been found out as a desperate nationalist troll who knows he's wrong but keeps on digging. You don't answer any questions put to you. You are a troll.
Pretty sure you cannae just go accusing fellow posters of being trolls
I am reading it. At no point have you produced anything that states that they were 'happy' or that it was 'legitimate government spending'. The best you have is that they are 'happy' by omission.
In terms of 5.152 to 5.154 which you have quoted - where in this part, or any part of the document did they say they were happy/content/legitimate government spending. Where in any part of the document did they express an opinion about Scotlands Future.
I have consistently maintained that it was not in their remit, which explains why they offer no opinion on it. If it is not in their remit then they will not offer any opinion favourable or otherwise on it.
You continually state that as they offer no opinion then they are happy. Please show me where it comes within their remit?
You have absolutely nothing but word plays on this. You have no evidence to refute that it was not in their remit which is why they didnt comment.
If it was not in their remit why would they report broken rules? It was not in their remit so they didnt even look at it.
In terms of what is being said by them:
In 5.152 they state that the Scottish Government produced a document - Scotlands Future was produced by the Scottish Government - I fully agree with this. That is a fact.
They do not however offer any opinion as to the validity of that document.
In 5.153 they state that the UK Government published a series of 16 documents. Again this is a fact. It does not offer any opinion as to the validity of that document.
In 5.154 they state that the UK and Scottish Governments distributed public awareness campaigns and distributed information to households. Again this is a fact. Again though it does not offer any opinion as to the validity of any of what was sent.
This was an official report into the Scottish Referendum and how the vote was conducted not a review of literature produced by the campaigns. Read the remit of the Electoral Commission - it doesnt cover materials produced.
They do not care about the literature. That is beyond their remit. All they care that is campaign literature , by both sides, is included in the spend allowed by the campaigning groups. ( I suggest you read the report, they make this quite clear)
The literature produced by the Scottish Government and the Westminster government are not regarded as campaign material but as legitimate government information.
If they thought otherwise they would have had to have highlighted that in the report. They did not.
The validity of what was contained in the documents is beyond their remit even if it had been campaign material.
As I underlined for you, the report specifically says that the materials were produced by the Scottish Government and the UK Government.
Do you think they are, to use your favorite word of the moment, lying. If so make a complaint to the relevant authorities.
It's quite clear from all of the independence threads that an intelligent, adult debate can never be had on this subject. I just come here for the comedy value
They do not care about the literature. That is beyond their remit. All they care that is campaign literature , by both sides, is included in the spend allowed by the campaigning groups. ( I suggest you read the report, they make this quite clear)
The literature produced by the Scottish Government and the Westminster government are not regarded as campaign material but as legitimate government information.
If they thought otherwise they would have had to have highlighted that in the report. They did not.
The validity of what was contained in the documents is beyond their remit even if it had been campaign material.
As I underlined for you, the report specifically says that the materials were produced by the Scottish Government and the UK Government.
Do you think they are, to use your favorite word of the moment, lying. If so make a complaint to the relevant authorities.
Scotlands Future was independence literature - some would argue that it was party political and at a cost of around £1m was it not? Paid for by the Scottish Government.
The electoral commission were happy that it was not And Scottish government spending was under the rules of the Electoral commission. The electoral commission would not look at what Westminster produced as they were not seen to be part of the campaign. (LOL)
They do not care about the literature. That is beyond their remit. All they care that is campaign literature , by both sides, is included in the spend allowed by the campaigning groups. ( I suggest you read the report, they make this quite clear)
How can they, in your words, be ‘happy’ that it is not party political if their role is not to review it? Surely, common sense, would assume that for you to make a comment that the Electoral Commission were ‘happy’ it was not party politicial then they would have to have a remit to review it?
You cant have it both ways. If their role is not to review the literature then how can you possibly state that they were happy that it wasn’t party political?
In terms of spend the Electoral Commission are only concerned with the spend by Registered Campaigners during the referendum period – 16 weeks prior to the referendum. (Its in the report – you should read it). As I have stated on numerous occasions Scotlands Future was produced in November 2013 well outwith the timescales for the 16 week prior to the referendum.
The Registered Campaigners are listed on pg 151 of the report. Scottish Government nor the UK Government are listed as Registered Campaigners.
So they have no remit to review literature, only interested in spend by Registered Campaigners (which the Governments werent) during the 16 weeks prior to the referendum yet despite this – you and you alone – maintain that they are ‘happy’ that it was not party politicial?!?!?!
My stance has always been that they have remained neutral on this as it was not in their remit.
The literature produced by the Scottish Government and the Westminster government are not regarded as campaign material but as legitimate government information.
If they thought otherwise they would have had to have highlighted that in the report. They did not.
The validity of what was contained in the documents is beyond their remit even if it had been campaign material.
Says who? The Electoral Commission have made no such statement as it is not their remit to do so. They don’t have and didn’t want the remit for this.
If it is not in their remit then they wouldn’t comment on it – this is the approach they have taken.
You have yet to produce a quote from the report that shows that they are ‘happy’ or that it was ‘legitimate government spending’. Not one quote despite being asked on numerous occasions.
As I underlined for you, the report specifically says that the materials were produced by the Scottish Government and the UK Government.
Well that is true – I don’t dispute that they were materials produced by the Scottish and UK Government. In fact in my last response I stated that this was fact. Again though you have not yet provided a quote that shows they were happy or that they regarded Scotlands Future as legitimate government spending.
Do you think they are, to use your favorite word of the moment, lying. If so make a complaint to the relevant authorities.
No I don’t think that the Electoral Commission are lying. At no point in their report did they use the words happy or legitimate government spending in relation to anything regarding Scotlands Future. It is you and you alone that have put words into their mouths that they haven’t said. I have maintained, and the report confirms this, that it was not in the remit of the Electoral Commission to comment on this which is why they didn’t in the report.
Your response here that it was not in the Electoral Commissions role to review literature (which I have previously stated) contradicts your claim that they were ‘happy’ that it wasn’t party political or that it was ‘legitimate Government spending’. If their role was not to review it and it happened outwith the timescales that they were concerned with then how on earth can they be ‘happy’?
How can they, in your words, be ‘happy’ that it is not party political if their role is not to review it? Surely, common sense, would assume that for you to make a comment that the Electoral Commission were ‘happy’ it was not party politicial then they would have to have a remit to review it?
You cant have it both ways. If their role is not to review the literature then how can you possibly state that they were happy that it wasn’t party political?
In terms of spend the Electoral Commission are only concerned with the spend by Registered Campaigners during the referendum period – 16 weeks prior to the referendum. (Its in the report – you should read it). As I have stated on numerous occasions Scotlands Future was produced in November 2013 well outwith the timescales for the 16 week prior to the referendum.
The Registered Campaigners are listed on pg 151 of the report. Scottish Government nor the UK Government are listed as Registered Campaigners.
So they have no remit to review literature, only interested in spend by Registered Campaigners (which the Governments werent) during the 16 weeks prior to the referendum yet despite this – you and you alone – maintain that they are ‘happy’ that it was not party politicial?!?!?!
My stance has always been that they have remained neutral on this as it was not in their remit.
Says who? The Electoral Commission have made no such statement as it is not their remit to do so. They don’t have and didn’t want the remit for this.
If it is not in their remit then they wouldn’t comment on it – this is the approach they have taken.
You have yet to produce a quote from the report that shows that they are ‘happy’ or that it was ‘legitimate government spending’. Not one quote despite being asked on numerous occasions.
Well that is true – I don’t dispute that they were materials produced by the Scottish and UK Government. In fact in my last response I stated that this was fact. Again though you have not yet provided a quote that shows they were happy or that they regarded Scotlands Future as legitimate government spending.
No I don’t think that the Electoral Commission are lying. At no point in their report did they use the words happy or legitimate government spending in relation to anything regarding Scotlands Future. It is you and you alone that have put words into their mouths that they haven’t said. I have maintained, and the report confirms this, that it was not in the remit of the Electoral Commission to comment on this which is why they didn’t in the report.
Your response here that it was not in the Electoral Commissions role to review literature (which I have previously stated) contradicts your claim that they were ‘happy’ that it wasn’t party political or that it was ‘legitimate Government spending’. If their role was not to review it and it happened outwith the timescales that they were concerned with then how on earth can they be ‘happy’?
They were happy that the publication was not party political and was a legitimate Scottish government publication. I hope you can understand it now. They say in their report that it was a Scottish Government publication. So again I ask you, do you think they were lying?
They were happy that the publication was not party political and was a legitimate Scottish government publication. I hope you can understand it now. They say in their report that it was a Scottish Government publication. So again I ask you, do you think they were lying?
Do you even read my replies? - you certainly don't answer any of the questions that I ask within them.
They were happy that the publication was not party political and was a legitimate Scottish government publication. I hope you can understand it now.
Where did they state that they were happy it was not party political and that it was a legitimate Scottish Government publication? You have yet to produce a quote from the report that shows this. I have asked you consistently and all you have is bluff, bluster and 'happy' by omission.
So again, if their remit is not to review literature and it is outwith the 16 week referendum period then how on earth can you say that they were 'happy' and that it was 'legitimate government spending' when they have used no such words?
They say in their report that it was a Scottish Government publication.
I can now tell that you don't read my responses. I have no argument that it was a Scottish Government publication. It was paid for by the Scottish Government. I have stated that as fact in my last two responses - something that you would know if you read them.
My whole point is that you have yet to provide a quote that shows that they are 'happy' that it was free from political bias or legitimate government spending. In fact in your last response you agreed that it was outwith their remit to review literature.
Again I ask if it was outwith their remit to review literature then how can they possibly comment that is was non party political?
For the avoidance of doubt I have condensed my last response to you. You obviously didnt read it so here goes again. I have even put the relevant word in bold:
No I don’t think that the Electoral Commission are lying. At no point in their report did they use the words happy or legitimate government spending in relation to anything regarding Scotlands Future. It is you and you alone that have put words into their mouths that they haven’t said. I have maintained, and the report confirms this, that it was not in the remit of the Electoral Commission to comment on this which is why they didn’t in the report.
Perhaps you might want to answer my questions that relate to the contradictions in your responses? Perhaps you might want to give us a quote from the report that uses some form of phrase around 'happy' or legitimate government spending' in relation to Scotlands Future?
Do you even read my replies? - you certainly don't answer any of the questions that I ask within them.
Where did they state that they were happy it was not party political and that it was a legitimate Scottish Government publication? You have yet to produce a quote from the report that shows this. I have asked you consistently and all you have is bluff, bluster and 'happy' by omission.
So again, if their remit is not to review literature and it is outwith the 16 week referendum period then how on earth can you say that they were 'happy' and that it was 'legitimate government spending' when they have used no such words?
I can now tell that you don't read my responses. I have no argument that it was a Scottish Government publication. It was paid for by the Scottish Government. I have stated that as fact in my last two responses - something that you would know if you read them.
My whole point is that you have yet to provide a quote that shows that they are 'happy' that it was free from political bias or legitimate government spending. In fact in your last response you agreed that it was outwith their remit to review literature.
Again I ask if it was outwith their remit to review literature then how can they possibly comment that is was non party political?
Are you saying that Governments can't be biased?
For the avoidance of doubt I have condensed my last response to you. You obviously didnt read it so here goes again. I have even put the relevant word in bold:
No I don’t think that the Electoral Commission are lying. At no point in their report did they use the words happy or legitimate government spending in relation to anything regarding Scotlands Future. It is you and you alone that have put words into their mouths that they haven’t said. I have maintained, and the report confirms this, that it was not in the remit of the Electoral Commission to comment on this which is why they didn’t in the report.
Perhaps you might want to answer my questions that relate to the contradictions in your responses? Perhaps you might want to give us a quote from the report that uses some form of phrase around 'happy' or legitimate government spending'?
Do I have to post it again:
Information from the Scottish and UK Governments
5.152 In November 2013, the Scottish Government published a document entitled ‘Scotland's Future’ that set out “why the Scottish Government believes the people of Scotland, individually and collectively, will be better off with independence.’
5.153 In the lead up to the referendum, the UK Government also published a series of 16 documents that provided analysis on ‘Scotland’s place in the UK and how it contributes to and benefits from being part of the UK.’
5.154 Both the UK and Scottish Governments also distributed public awareness information to all households in Scotland, as well as running advertising campaigns in August 2014. So are you saying they are lying when they stated this in an official report?
Information from the Scottish and UK Governments
5.152 In November 2013, the Scottish Government published a document entitled ‘Scotland's Future’ that set out “why the Scottish Government believes the people of Scotland, individually and collectively, will be better off with independence.’
5.153 In the lead up to the referendum, the UK Government also published a series of 16 documents that provided analysis on ‘Scotland’s place in the UK and how it contributes to and benefits from being part of the UK.’
5.154 Both the UK and Scottish Governments also distributed public awareness information to all households in Scotland, as well as running advertising campaigns in August 2014.
So are you saying they are lying when they stated this in an official report?
Again not an answer to any of my questions. I have no idea why you continually post 5.152 to 5.154 of the report. It does not support your argument.
Where within 5.152 to 5.154 does it state they are 'happy' or that it was 'legitimate Government spending'? In fact where within 5.152 to 5.154 do they express any opinion about anything?
So are you saying they are lying when they stated this in an official report?
Did you not read my last response or the response before that? For the avoidance of doubt I will put it in capitals - maybe then you will read it.
NO I DO NOT THINK THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION ARE LYING. I HAVE NEVER ONCE ACCUSED THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF LYING. IT IS YOU WHO ARE PUTTING WORDS IN THE ELECTORAL COMMISSIONS MOUTHS
Here are the facts that I don't dispute:
The Scottish Government produced Scotland's Future
The UK Government produced 16 position papers
The above two facts are not in doubt. Maybe you can stop asking me whether I agree with this.
What I dispute is that the Electoral Commission expressed any opinion on the validity of these documents. I dispute that they were 'happy' that it wasnt party political or that that they expressed an opinion that Scotlands Future was 'legitimate government spending'. Despite repeated requests you have not yet produced a quote that even resembles this.
So, if next year a poll shows 95% of Scotland wants independence they have to wait a further 8 years?
Do you even remotely understand what democracy is?
There was a vote and Scotland is still currently part of the UK. Democracy in action.
And if the majority of Scotland want out of the UK in the future, who is anyone to deny them just because there was a vote in 2014? Certainly not you.
Well, in reality there won't be a poll next year showing 95% in favour of independence, your just making stuff up now to justify yourself.
Democracy certainly isn't holding a referendum every five years or so until you get what you want. If the majority of Scots don't want to leave the UK, then we don't need to have a vote for a while yet.
Again not an answer to any of my questions. I have no idea why you continually post 5.152 to 5.154 of the report. It does not support your argument.
Where within 5.152 to 5.154 does it state they are 'happy' or that it was 'legitimate Government spending'? In fact where within 5.152 to 5.154 do they express any opinion about anything?
Did you not read my last response or the response before that? For the avoidance of doubt I will put it in capitals - maybe then you will read it.
NO I DO NOT THINK THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION ARE LYING. I HAVE NEVER ONCE ACCUSED THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF LYING. IT IS YOU WHO ARE PUTTING WORDS IN THE ELECTORAL COMMISSIONS MOUTHS
Here are the facts that I don't dispute:
The Scottish Government produced Scotland's Future
The UK Government produced 16 position papers
The above two facts are not in doubt. Maybe you can stop asking me whether I agree with this.
What I dispute is that the Electoral Commission expressed any opinion on the validity of these documents. I dispute that they were 'happy' that it wasnt party political or that that they expressed an opinion that Scotlands Future was 'legitimate government spending'. Despite repeated requests you have not yet produced a quote that even resembles this.
I have constantly over the past few exchanges shown you that the electoral commission have referred to Scotlands Future as a Scottish government publication. So in the spirt of debate; can you link to any source that shows that it is not a legitimate Scottish Government publication. The stage, my tribalist friend is all yours.
Comments
He's just a typical nationalist troll.
Oh, bu**er, nobody told me!
A troll is someone who joins in posts but does not contribute to the debate at hand
If ever DS has had a post in the voice of a petulant teenager having a tantrum , this is it,
You do not understand the nature of debate and get all stroppy when you do not get your own way. Lol
And was legitamite government spending. Same as the pro union publications by Westminster.
The electoral commission, as evidenced by their report, validated that.
You really have read the report. Pity you cannot understand it. Look at chapter 5 again specifically the paragraphs I flagged up before.
As for you, what, telling people they are liars in a debate is like the wee kid in the playground who when confronted with the truth points there finger at everyone shouting " liar, liar . You are all liars"
Just because you say it doesnt make it true. You keep on going on that the report evidenced it. The only thing you have managed to state is that they were 'happy' by omission. Is that really all you have?
I have read Chapter 5 - there is nothing in it that confirms that the the Electoral Commission were 'happy', that is was 'legitimate Government spending'. 5.152 to 5.154 does not state there were happy. It does not state any opinion.
So a simple question for you - Where in the report does it say they are 'happy' or that it was legitimate government expenses?
To continue to say that the report evidence that they were happy or that it was 'legitimate government spending' is just wrong.
You said in response to BS:
That was untrue. As I said (and noted in the report that you have linked to but not read) the Electoral Commission only looked at spend in the 16 week period prior the the referendum period. That is a fact. Not opinion, but a statement of fact. As Scotlands Future was printed and published in November 2013 then it was outwith the remit of the Electoral Commission.
to state:
is not even remotely true.
I am at a loss as to how someone who has supposedly read the report can continue to make statements like you are making.
5.152 to 5.154 states what the UK and Governments did. It offers no opinion or legitimises what they did.
5.148 and 5.149 I have absolutely no idea what the relevance of this is. This deals with the regulated 28 days period prior to the referendum which in no way covers the time period of Scotlands Future being printed and published.
You can insult me all you want. Water off a ducks back to me. Im happy to debate facts. You made a statement, repeated it on several occasions but have yet to provide any evidence to support that statement.
I have provided you with evidence that it was not in the Electoral Commissions remit to look at this - you have provided no evidence that refutes this.
Confronted with the truth - Ha Ha Ha. Your opinion is not the truth. You have provided no evidence that the Electoral Commission were happy or that they said it was legitimate Government spending. Just because you say it doesnt make it true!
Feel free to prove me wrong. You haven't so far.
The Electoral Commission were satisfied that it was legitimate government spending, They were also satisfied that the 16 documents that Westminster produced were legitimate government spending.
Again so you can read it, please try to understand what is being said by them:
Information from the Scottish and UK Governments
5.152 In November 2013, the Scottish Government published a document
entitled ‘Scotland's Future’ that set out “why the Scottish Government believes
the people of Scotland, individually and collectively, will be better off with
independence.’
5.153 In the lead up to the referendum, the UK Government also published a
series of 16 documents that provided analysis on ‘Scotland’s place in the UK
and how it contributes to and benefits from being part of the UK.’
5.154 Both the UK and Scottish Governments also distributed public
awareness information to all households in Scotland, as well as running
advertising campaigns in August 2014.
If any rules had been broken the report would have reported it. That they did not shows that there was no breach of the rules and they were happy with what had been published.
By both sides.
They, explicitly, in the report designate the publication as a Scottish Government publication. As this was an official report they are duty bound to be as accurate as possible. If you think that they were inaccurate then write to them and complain.
Because there is no debate to be had. You have been found out as a desperate nationalist troll who knows he's wrong but keeps on digging. You don't answer any questions put to you. You are a troll.
Eh?
So, if next year a poll shows 95% of Scotland wants independence they have to wait a further 8 years?
Do you even remotely understand what democracy is?
There was a vote and Scotland is still currently part of the UK. Democracy in action.
And if the majority of Scotland want out of the UK in the future, who is anyone to deny them just because there was a vote in 2014? Certainly not you.
I am reading it. At no point have you produced anything that states that they were 'happy' or that it was 'legitimate government spending'. The best you have is that they are 'happy' by omission.
In terms of 5.152 to 5.154 which you have quoted - where in this part, or any part of the document did they say they were happy/content/legitimate government spending. Where in any part of the document did they express an opinion about Scotlands Future.
I have consistently maintained that it was not in their remit, which explains why they offer no opinion on it. If it is not in their remit then they will not offer any opinion favourable or otherwise on it.
You continually state that as they offer no opinion then they are happy. Please show me where it comes within their remit?
You have absolutely nothing but word plays on this. You have no evidence to refute that it was not in their remit which is why they didnt comment.
If it was not in their remit why would they report broken rules? It was not in their remit so they didnt even look at it.
In terms of what is being said by them:
In 5.152 they state that the Scottish Government produced a document - Scotlands Future was produced by the Scottish Government - I fully agree with this. That is a fact.
They do not however offer any opinion as to the validity of that document.
In 5.153 they state that the UK Government published a series of 16 documents. Again this is a fact. It does not offer any opinion as to the validity of that document.
In 5.154 they state that the UK and Scottish Governments distributed public awareness campaigns and distributed information to households. Again this is a fact. Again though it does not offer any opinion as to the validity of any of what was sent.
This was an official report into the Scottish Referendum and how the vote was conducted not a review of literature produced by the campaigns. Read the remit of the Electoral Commission - it doesnt cover materials produced.
LOL. There is no debate going on because people like you come on and make asinine comments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Please feel free to join in the topic anytime you want
Pretty sure you cannae just go accusing fellow posters of being trolls
The literature produced by the Scottish Government and the Westminster government are not regarded as campaign material but as legitimate government information.
If they thought otherwise they would have had to have highlighted that in the report. They did not.
The validity of what was contained in the documents is beyond their remit even if it had been campaign material.
As I underlined for you, the report specifically says that the materials were produced by the Scottish Government and the UK Government.
Do you think they are, to use your favorite word of the moment, lying. If so make a complaint to the relevant authorities.
If it acts like a troll, then it's a troll. He doesn't answer any questions. All he does is post child like drivel.
You are confusing me now. I originally stated:
You replied:
You now state:
How can they, in your words, be ‘happy’ that it is not party political if their role is not to review it? Surely, common sense, would assume that for you to make a comment that the Electoral Commission were ‘happy’ it was not party politicial then they would have to have a remit to review it?
You cant have it both ways. If their role is not to review the literature then how can you possibly state that they were happy that it wasn’t party political?
In terms of spend the Electoral Commission are only concerned with the spend by Registered Campaigners during the referendum period – 16 weeks prior to the referendum. (Its in the report – you should read it). As I have stated on numerous occasions Scotlands Future was produced in November 2013 well outwith the timescales for the 16 week prior to the referendum.
The Registered Campaigners are listed on pg 151 of the report. Scottish Government nor the UK Government are listed as Registered Campaigners.
So they have no remit to review literature, only interested in spend by Registered Campaigners (which the Governments werent) during the 16 weeks prior to the referendum yet despite this – you and you alone – maintain that they are ‘happy’ that it was not party politicial?!?!?!
My stance has always been that they have remained neutral on this as it was not in their remit.
Says who? The Electoral Commission have made no such statement as it is not their remit to do so. They don’t have and didn’t want the remit for this.
If it is not in their remit then they wouldn’t comment on it – this is the approach they have taken.
You have yet to produce a quote from the report that shows that they are ‘happy’ or that it was ‘legitimate government spending’. Not one quote despite being asked on numerous occasions.
Well that is true – I don’t dispute that they were materials produced by the Scottish and UK Government. In fact in my last response I stated that this was fact. Again though you have not yet provided a quote that shows they were happy or that they regarded Scotlands Future as legitimate government spending.
No I don’t think that the Electoral Commission are lying. At no point in their report did they use the words happy or legitimate government spending in relation to anything regarding Scotlands Future. It is you and you alone that have put words into their mouths that they haven’t said. I have maintained, and the report confirms this, that it was not in the remit of the Electoral Commission to comment on this which is why they didn’t in the report.
Your response here that it was not in the Electoral Commissions role to review literature (which I have previously stated) contradicts your claim that they were ‘happy’ that it wasn’t party political or that it was ‘legitimate Government spending’. If their role was not to review it and it happened outwith the timescales that they were concerned with then how on earth can they be ‘happy’?
They were happy that the publication was not party political and was a legitimate Scottish government publication. I hope you can understand it now. They say in their report that it was a Scottish Government publication. So again I ask you, do you think they were lying?
Do you even read my replies? - you certainly don't answer any of the questions that I ask within them.
Where did they state that they were happy it was not party political and that it was a legitimate Scottish Government publication? You have yet to produce a quote from the report that shows this. I have asked you consistently and all you have is bluff, bluster and 'happy' by omission.
So again, if their remit is not to review literature and it is outwith the 16 week referendum period then how on earth can you say that they were 'happy' and that it was 'legitimate government spending' when they have used no such words?
I can now tell that you don't read my responses. I have no argument that it was a Scottish Government publication. It was paid for by the Scottish Government. I have stated that as fact in my last two responses - something that you would know if you read them.
My whole point is that you have yet to provide a quote that shows that they are 'happy' that it was free from political bias or legitimate government spending. In fact in your last response you agreed that it was outwith their remit to review literature.
Again I ask if it was outwith their remit to review literature then how can they possibly comment that is was non party political?
Are you saying that Governments can't be biased?
For the avoidance of doubt I have condensed my last response to you. You obviously didnt read it so here goes again. I have even put the relevant word in bold:
No I don’t think that the Electoral Commission are lying. At no point in their report did they use the words happy or legitimate government spending in relation to anything regarding Scotlands Future. It is you and you alone that have put words into their mouths that they haven’t said. I have maintained, and the report confirms this, that it was not in the remit of the Electoral Commission to comment on this which is why they didn’t in the report.
Perhaps you might want to answer my questions that relate to the contradictions in your responses? Perhaps you might want to give us a quote from the report that uses some form of phrase around 'happy' or legitimate government spending' in relation to Scotlands Future?
Information from the Scottish and UK Governments
5.152 In November 2013, the Scottish Government published a document entitled ‘Scotland's Future’ that set out “why the Scottish Government believes the people of Scotland, individually and collectively, will be better off with independence.’
5.153 In the lead up to the referendum, the UK Government also published a series of 16 documents that provided analysis on ‘Scotland’s place in the UK and how it contributes to and benefits from being part of the UK.’
5.154 Both the UK and Scottish Governments also distributed public awareness information to all households in Scotland, as well as running advertising campaigns in August 2014.
So are you saying they are lying when they stated this in an official report?
Again not an answer to any of my questions. I have no idea why you continually post 5.152 to 5.154 of the report. It does not support your argument.
Where within 5.152 to 5.154 does it state they are 'happy' or that it was 'legitimate Government spending'? In fact where within 5.152 to 5.154 do they express any opinion about anything?
Did you not read my last response or the response before that? For the avoidance of doubt I will put it in capitals - maybe then you will read it.
NO I DO NOT THINK THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION ARE LYING. I HAVE NEVER ONCE ACCUSED THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF LYING. IT IS YOU WHO ARE PUTTING WORDS IN THE ELECTORAL COMMISSIONS MOUTHS
Here are the facts that I don't dispute:
The above two facts are not in doubt. Maybe you can stop asking me whether I agree with this.
What I dispute is that the Electoral Commission expressed any opinion on the validity of these documents. I dispute that they were 'happy' that it wasnt party political or that that they expressed an opinion that Scotlands Future was 'legitimate government spending'. Despite repeated requests you have not yet produced a quote that even resembles this.
Well, in reality there won't be a poll next year showing 95% in favour of independence, your just making stuff up now to justify yourself.
Democracy certainly isn't holding a referendum every five years or so until you get what you want. If the majority of Scots don't want to leave the UK, then we don't need to have a vote for a while yet.
That's Democracy.
I have constantly over the past few exchanges shown you that the electoral commission have referred to Scotlands Future as a Scottish government publication. So in the spirt of debate; can you link to any source that shows that it is not a legitimate Scottish Government publication. The stage, my tribalist friend is all yours.