Double post about Scotland.

AARGH! I said it again!

One more time and you will summon the ghost of Hazel the McWitch.

What? Scotland?

BlackBart wrote:What? Scotland?

You sound like the Labour Party

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1192881577258299398

Almost impossible to imagine Labour on just 12% in Scotland. Scotland was the Labour Party not that long ago

Still love the fucking Tories though eh, dontchya.
/leftist rage

Who, me?

No.

From yesterday's meeting in Dublin of the International Grand Committee on Disinformation and "Fake News" - The evidence.

Lord David Putnam:

[The report is] being blocked because it begs real questions of the legitimacy of the original referendum ... the last thing in the world that Boris Johnson wants is a debate on the legitimacy of that result.

twitter link to video

Has he seen it then?

I don't know but I am waiting for a reply to that very question.

He's not listed as a committee member, but I don't know whether MPs not on the committee get access to the report.

Circumstantially Caroline Flint's behaviour in recent months speaks against the report being quite so extreme.

via politico.eu

Caroline Flint. Despite backing Remain during the referendum, Flint is a northern MP with a Brexit-backing constituency who believes Brexit means Brexit.

Which Brexit is she thinking of?

Well, the point is that she backed remain and is on the committee, and thus has seen the evidence and report into Russian interference. If that evidence raised compelling questions into the legitimacy of the referendum it would seem strange that she continues to back implementing leave on the basis of that referendum being legitimate.

Thommo wrote:Well, the point is that she backed remain and is on the committee, and thus has seen the evidence and report into Russian interference. If that evidence raised compelling questions into the legitimacy of the referendum it would seem strange that she continues to back implementing leave on the basis of that referendum being legitimate.

No. Not really - she's a "Brexit means Brexit" person and we don't know, yet, which Brexit she is thinking of.

Also, if the report raised no concerns over the legitimacy of the vote, its release would change nothing. If the report were to have found, "We investigated and found nothing wrong.", holding it back benefits whom?

Yes, really. She backed remain and her mind was changed by the result of the referendum. If she found out that result was illegitimate it would be extremely odd for her mind to remain completely changed when removed from the very reason she changed it.

Compared to the speculation of someone who may not have even seen the evidence, that provides motivation for a healthy dose of scepticism.

It might be worth mentioning that until now all the credible information made public (at least as far as I'm aware) regarding Russian interference suggests it was neither widespread nor effective. That doesn't make it ok, of course, but it probably means the reason for this government report being suppressed is rather more mundane. Governments suppress negative reports, inquiries and papers with monotonous regularity and tend to time the release for less damaging moments or days when they can "bury" them. Sad, but true.

Edit: Typo.

I personally suspect there is very little of import in the report.

Withholding it though makes it a "safe" topic that the opposition can waste time questioning and speculating about and later be shown to be harmless.

Far better than them analysing in detail the current Brexit plan or why so many Tories want to drop the economy into the toilet.

Regarding the edit: We already know Russia made some efforts to interfere in the referendum (and most elections across Europe in the last half decade as well). The question the committee was trying to answer is how extensive and how effective those interferences were. If and only if they were very widespread and fairly effective (of the order of reversing the direction of half a million or so votes) would that call the legitimacy of the referendum into doubt.

The report clearly would not conclude "we investigated and found nothing wrong". This does not mean it concludes that there's evidence of the result of the referendum being illegitimate. There's an extremely wide centre ground between those possibilities.

If (as would appear likely) the reality lies somewhere in that centre ground then the government is cynically suppressing the report to avoid any negative press or negative spin, rather than avoiding real questions about the legitimacy of the referendum. That possibility would hardly be great, but it would, unfortunately, be business as usual.

Thommo wrote:Yes, really. She backed remain and her mind was changed by the result of the referendum. If she found out that result was illegitimate it would be extremely odd for her mind to remain completely changed when removed from the very reason she changed it.

Compared to the speculation of someone who may not have even seen the evidence, that provides motivation for a healthy dose of scepticism.

It might be worth mentioning that until now all the credible information made public (at least as far as I'm aware) regarding Russian interference suggests it was neither widespread nor effective. That doesn't make it ok, of course, but it probably means the reason for this government report being suppressed is rather more mundane. Government's suppress negative reports, inquiries and papers with monotonous regularity and tend to time the release for less damaging moments or days when they can "bury" them. Sad, but true.

I am skeptical of a person with a "Brexit means Brexit" stance. How does not releasing the report help anything?

Be sceptical of her, that's fine. I suggest scepticism towards people who haven't seen the evidence as well. Puttnam's speculation matters more if he's got access to evidence that we don't than if he does not.

Thommo wrote:Be sceptical of her, that's fine. I suggest scepticism towards people who haven't seen the evidence as well. Puttnam's speculation matters more if he's got access to evidence that we don't than if he does not.

Have you seen the evidence? How does not releasing the report help me see the evidence?

How does listening to Puttnam's speculation help you see the evidence?