I am now officially sick to death of hearing or reading journalists making a big thing out of Tavish Scott not mentioning Nick Clegg in his leader's speech to Scottish Conference on Friday. Apparently, according to Raymond Buchanan, Brian Taylor and Saturday's Courier, this means that Tavish is trying to distance himself from Nick and considers him an electoral liability.
That would be why Tavish gave Nick such a warm introduction on Saturday, then. And that wasn't cobbled together at the last minute as some PR stunt because of the press - it was in the agenda, printed weeks ago, and always had been planned that way.
The body language between the two of them was very positive. One thing I have learned over the years is that Tavish Scott is rubbish at faking it. What you see is exactly what you get with him.
I am fairly certain that there are issues on which the two of them disagree, but the signs were all of a very cordial relationship between the two leaders. To suggest otherwise is just mischief making.
2 comments:
"One thing I have learned over the years is that Tavish Scott is rubbish at faking it. What you see is exactly what you get with him."
I absolutely agree.
The media's obsession with creating divisions where they don't exist is frankly tiresome. Of course there are obvious differences between Nick and Tavish and clearly Tavish is trying to be his own man, but to deduce anything else from his not mentioning Nick in his speech is ridiculous.
Perhaps Tavish was only too aware of the risks of couting controversy by referring to the coalition in Westminster and sensibly chose to steer clear of it?
You mention the body language - a key indication of a "cordial relationship". But some people don't want the facts to get in the way of a good story.
If Nick was such an "electoral liability", why take the risk of inviting him to the Scottish LD conference in the first place?
Sick to death? Labour had 13 years of it, the Tories also had a decade of it.Get used to it , this was the bandwagon you were happy to ride from the luxury of opposition.
Post a Comment