It seems The Scotsman has a problem with the SNP winning the Scottish election on the back of a massive war chest of funds, largely financed by one man.
What exactly is the problem?
The SNP were funded legally and it’s not the Nationalists fault that Labour have had a mini-implosion financially and have had to cut back relative to other parties. Even still, Scottish Labour weren’t so skint as they still managed to spend £1.1m to the SNP’s £1.385m. The Lib Dem accountants will be scratching their heads at how a 133% increase in spending resulted in 3 fewer MSPs. The answer may of course have something to do with that guy that leads them. You know the bloke, a bit fuzzy round the edges, Nicolas something…
And anyway, we’ve known for months that Brian Souter was writing large cheques for the SNP. It hardly constitutes front page news here and now in December.
So what’s really going on here? Well, I did suspect The Scotsman was being particularly one-sided in its views yesterday on prescription charges and other stories relating to the SNP. This seems to have continued apace today. Maybe with all the negative headlines that Labour have been receiving of late the editors of the Edinburgh paper, well known for their unionist outlook, have decided it’s time to give the SNP a bit of a kicking for no particular reason.
So in the future I may perhaps have to go back to The Times to get my daily read. If only it hadn’t been Recruitment day in Scotland…
Does competition help the NHS?
19 minutes ago
4 comments:
Of course the difference is the Nat's did actually change their bus regulation policy to suit Mr Suitor.
Not to mention their surprisingly lukewarm support for same sex adoption.
Hmm.
Oh, come now, let's not let that get in the way of a good blog title ;)
Valid points though in a way. But then, a lot of things are changing from the SNP manifesto at the moment. Who is to say the buses policy would have altered regardless of who funded the party?
I can't say I will ever get too hot under the collar about bus policy though, regulated or unregulated.
Denying adoption rights to same sex couples would seriously dismay me but we'll see how it pans out...
Not to mention their surprisingly lukewarm support for same sex adoption.
I hate to say I told you (Jeff) so, but ...
People like Souter always exact a price for their support; as you say, we'll see how it pans out. I've no doubt he runs good bus/train services (a lot of the Stagecoach buses round my way seem to run half-empty, but the diesel and drivers still have to be paid for) to comply with his service contracts. Sigh ...
Hi Bill, good to see your conviction for retiring from blogging is as lasting as Gordon Brown's assertion that he's a conviction politician ;)
Off and on for a couple of days I've been thinking of a good comeback to your post that would prove you wrong about potential cash-for-policies. I've failed to come up with one.
Perhaps Souter getting his way on a few things is just much easier to swallow when it's the party I like that he backs.
Post a Comment