I caught this oddness recently…
Labour’s Patricia Ferguson said: “It is utterly absurd for Alex Neil to claim that independence will end poverty. He is treating the people like fools. Poverty wasn’t created in 1707 when we joined together and it won’t be abolished by erecting a border at Gretna. That is a malicious falsehood put about by those not brave enough to tell people what their politics are really about.”
Now, as far as I know, if Scotland votes Yes in 2014, there aren’t any plans to “erect” a physical border at Gretna. It would stop all the marriage custom coming in and out for a start.
Secondly, after saying this she has the cheek to say “malicious falsehood” in the next sentence.
Now let’s get on to the Tories…
Scottish Conservative finance spokesman Gavin Brown said: “The Scottish Government is once again preaching its very own brand of flat-earth economics. If it wanted to spend more money as a separate country, it would have to either borrow significantly more, or tax significantly more. It would be interesting to know which route the SNP intends to take.”
I highlight “flat-earth” because if my party had just allowed government funding to go to creationist schools I would be a bit more careful in my choice of anti-science phrases.
So what did Alex Neil say to rile these two up so much…
“I honestly believe that if we were independent and could manage our own resources in our own way not only would we get much higher levels of employment amongst younger people and indeed older people, but we could do what every Scandinavian country has done and effectively eliminate poverty from our society.”
Possibly true, possibly not but in fairness to the Tory guy, he at least responded to a conditional with conditional, something that Patricia Ferguson was unwilling or unable to do.
All I am saying here is, and for the millionth time this is from an independence supporting non-party-not-joining-party-either person, who has got the positive story here?