Sunday, March 19, 2017

Salmond and Farron go the full Donald Trump

Both Alex Salmond and Tim Farron have gone the full Donald Trump today, with Salmond getting into an absurd spin about whether he described the 2014 Independence Referendum as a once in a generation event, and Tim Farron accusing Theresa May of being anti-NATO.

The former First Minister was speaking on Radio 5 Live’s Pienaar’s Politics programme earlier today, and said:

“The phrase was not once in a lifetime, it was the opportunity of a lifetime, I said it on the Andrew Marr show, it’s just one of these collective myths that evolve.”

Sources include Press and Journal here.

However there is plenty of footage showing that he actually did say it.

Andrew Marr asked Salmond whether he would come back for a second independence referendum if there was a narrow "Better Together" win, and concluded his question with the words

"You've talked in the past about it being once in a generation, is that still your view?"

and the then First Minister replied, as you can see on the clip below

"Yes it is."

Salmond then added a reference to the period of nearly 20 years between two previous constitutional referenda in Scotland. He twice referred to the 2014 as a "once in a generation" opportunity, saying

"In my view this is a once in a generation, perhaps even once in a lifetime opportunity for Scotland."

And it wasn't just one person's opinion either. The Scottish government's official prospectus for Independence, "Scotland's Future" which you can read at,

states clearly in black and which under answer 557 on page 556 of the document,

"It is the view of the current Scottish government that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity."

See this clip which starts with a short extract from the Salmond interview with Andrew Marr referred to above, shows the passage in "Scotland's Future" and then has lots and lots of instances of Nicola Sturgeon referring to the 2014 referendum as once in a generation or lifetime.

After lots of people started sharing these video clips showing that he did say "once in a generation," Salmond then denied having denied it. He really has gone the full Donald Trump.

And so has Lib/Dem leader Tim Farron, when he accused Theresa May of being anti-NATO.

Ironically, the speech in which Farron went the full Donald Trump himself was when he accused Theresa May of following the policies of Donald Trump, saying

"The politics of Trump. Of Putin. Of Le Pen. And now the politics of Her Majesty's Government. Welcome to the new world order. This is the new normal, the new status quo."

"Aggressive. Nationalistic. Anti-NATO. Anti-EU. It is the post-war internationalist consensus unravelling in real time. Winston Churchill's vision for a world that achieves peace through trade, common values and shared endeavour evaporating before our eyes."

Many aspects of this ludicrous rant from Tim Farron are completely and utterly at variance with the facts.

* The British government has been and remains extremely critical of Putin's government in Russia, imposes sanctions on Russia and recently moved British troops to support a fellow NATO member that we were afraid Russia might invade.

* The British government has refused to have anything to do with Marine Le Pen (and been criticised for it by Nigel Farage)

* The British government has been making a huge point of its' support for NATO, meets the4 2% defence spending target and has encouraged other NATO members to do so, and has pressed the Trump administration to reaffirm its' commitment to the NATO alliance

 * Far from rejecting Churchill's vision of peace through trade Theresa May has stressed the need for free trade and a global Britain which wants more free trade in practically every speech she has made about Foreign policy.

I don't accept that the positions of Theresa May's government are aggressive, nationalistic, or anti-EU beyond respecting the referendum decision to leave, but to accuse her government of being anti-NATO, anti-trade, pro Putin or pro Le Pen is just plain daft.


Jim said...

thats another thing I have problems with, They said it was "once in a generation" often "once in a lifetime"

Then tried to cover that with "unless a significant constitutional change occurs". Now it seems that "Brexit" is a significant contitutional change.........but here is the kicker


Brexit has not happened yet, it wont happen until 2 years after formal notice is given from the UK that we intend to leave the EU.

On the day of brexit (which if article 50 is triggered today, would be 20/03/2019) then there may have been a constitutional change, but until then there has not been.

All the hype I see about this and what "may" happen, or what "way not" happen during the negotiations, and then trying to hold that as a potential for a "constitutional change"
For goodness sake, this is not blooming 'Minority Report' here.

Anonymous said...

So Jim, if someone was threatening to shoot you in the head, you wouldn't try and defend yourself and mitigate the consequences, no you would wait until you had been shot then see what happens.

Jim said...

you are mixing apples and pairs here. Threatening someone with "shooting them in the head" is threatening extreeme vilonence. So a person would be realistically entitled to use "self Defence" in these circumstances.

This is more akin to, "you have all made a decision to change the family car, and I am going to go negotiate the deal" Then you all decide to leave the family in case i buy you a Peugeot"

Jim said...

Also being shot in the head tends to cause death, which is irreversible.

Article 50 is not irreversible, not only does it clearly allow anyone to re-join the EU, it actually tells them they can and also tells them how to do so.

Anonymous said...

The problem is you've made your preference clear and refuse to negotiate, all you want is a Peugeot 403.

Jim said...

For the last time, listen closely The Negotiations have not even started, yet alone concluded"

Chris Whiteside said...

I think we all know that Brexit is nothing more than an excuse for what the SNP would have wanted all along to do anyway.

Leaving the EU is a particularly poor excuse given that all the arguments against leaving the EU apply to leaving the UK, some of them far more strongly - for example, the UK single market is four times more important to Scotland than the EU one.

So a better analogy than the idea that someone is threatening to shoot Jim in the head is that the SNP are like a patient who has been told that doctors they don't trust are proposing amputate a couple of their fingers, and they respond by insisting

"I demand the right to saw my entire arm off instead!"