Talk:Ian Blackford

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If he's in the Privvy Council[edit]

Should he be styled the Rt Hon?

Sammartinlai (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Yes, he now is. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral planners[edit]

I really don't think we need to know that the family "drive a Range Rover." But should Blackford's working "part time for funeral planners, Golden Charter Limited, earning £3,247.25 each month between April 2020 and March 2021." be mentioned? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also don't think his stepson's employment needs to be reported here. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds is his second job, reported and talked about extensively in the press, not of public interest? The source is Parliament's TheyWorkFor You website and the Press and Journal. It was a feature of his re-election campaign and an MP earning nearly 50% of their MP salary from outside work is extremely interesting. You will notice that Geoffrey Cox has a whole subsection of his Wikipedia page for the same reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Cox_(British_politician)#Outside_work_whilst_employed_as_an_MP
And his stepson is employed by him - something he would no longer allowed to do if he had been elected in 2017/19 because of the nepotism is a controversial thing. Again, his employment is a matter of public record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:26E3:B80:7CA9:491B:CB82:7F2C (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If these topics have indeed been "talked about extensively in the press", there might be justification if you provided appropriate press sources? Yes, Geoffrey Cox (British politician) provides a useful comparison. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martinevans, here is some press coverage:

Scotsman: https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/snp-westminster-leader-wont-give-lucrative-external-roles-1444864

Herald: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18107769.snp-westminster-leader-owes-1m-windfall-boris-johnson/ https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15418286.snps-westminster-leader-blackford-makes-clear-he-wont-be-giving-up-lucrative-outside-interests/

Press and Journal: https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/2513944/ian-blackford-to-give-up-controversial-and-lucrative-business-position-15-months-after-agreeing-to/

The Times: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snps-westminster-leader-ian-blackford-a-hypocrite-for-other-jobs-dnnbh5brz

Express: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1226714/snp-news-ian-blackford-scotland-independence-referendum-second-jobs-spt https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1310467/snp-news-ian-blackford-jobs-politics-nicola-sturgeon-scotland-spt

Scottish Sun: https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/1306708/snp-ian-blackford-second-jobs-westminster-hypocrisy/

Would you prefer I edit it into its own section like Geoffrey Cox? There is certainly enough column inches written about it for a well cited paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:26E3:B80:7CA9:491B:CB82:7F2C (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we can discount the Scottish Sun as tabloid. And I can see only the top of that article in The Times, as it's behind a paywall. But it does seem to be quite widely reported. There's also this snippet in New Statesman about Blackford's response to "Lib challenger Craig Harrow distributed a leaflet in the shape of a £50,000 cheque"... Also spotted this article where "Inverness news and views" tell us that he claimed "£256,000 SNP expenses." Happy to see the views from any other editor(s) before you go ahead and create a section or paragraph. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will discount your snobbery (because the political journalists at the Scottish Sun are widely respected) and go ahead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8084:26e3:b80:7ca9:491b:cb82:7f2c (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "my snobbery". All variants of The Sun are considered to be "Deprecated Deprecated". See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: " There is consensus that The Sun is generally unreliable. References from The Sun are actively discouraged from being used in any article and they should not be used for determining the notability of any subject." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "funeral planners" is the best way to describe Golden Charter Trust Limited, as it makes them sound a bit too much like wedding planners. They are a "UK-based funeral plan trust". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Soubry's comment about Blackford's croft[edit]

Anna Soubry said "apparently his small, simple croft is valued at somewhere in the region of half a million pounds". This was clearly a mistake on her part. A croft is a form of land tenure not a building. Blackford is a tenant and cannot sell the croft. He may well own the building on the croft, and that is presumably what Soubry was referring to it, but the house is not the croft as the Wikipedia article on croft (land) makes clear. Some crofts are only farmland with no buildings. Retaining the comment only adds to the confusion that is widespread about what crofts are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie Threepwood (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She was being sarcastic. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was sarcasm, which I doubt, I don't think Wikipedia should contain clear factual errors just because a politician was trying to be sarcastic. The croft itself cannot be worth £500k because it cannot be sold on the open market. It doesn't belong to Blackford anyway. If it did he would not be a crofter.
It is hard to have sensible discussion of land issues in Scotland because even elected Scottish politicians do not grasp the basics. Wikipedia should not be fogging the issue. Jean de Luz (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is probably not the best place for a "sensible discussion of land issues in Scotland". I personally have no doubt that Soubry was just out to make political capital through a sarcastic retort to the word "crofter". But if there are any WP:RS sources, that take Soubry to task over her soundbite, they could probably be added for balance, perhaps in a footnote. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soubry was revealing her ignorance, which undermined her attempted sarcasm. The croft probably is small, simple and pretty much worthless, so her sarcasm failed. I can't see any justification for retaining a jibe that was made in error. It would be pointless to explain why Soubry was wrong. Just remove it. There's no need to debate why she was wrong. The article points out that Blackford was a merchant banker, which is both true and relevant, and that he was mocked for it. That's fair enough. Jean de Luz (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think most people would think of a croft as a very lowly dwelling. But that's just my opinion. I guess it's not unusual for a Tory MP to reveal their ignorance about something. One might criticise Blackford for being disingenuous in the first place. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are correct in saying that most people are wrong then I think it is all the more important that Wikipedia is right. My brother in law is a crofter but the croft that he farms doesn't have any buildings on it. Croft really isn't a synonym for a cottage. Blackford certainly was being disingenuous and I have no interest in defending him but Soubry's comment is a distraction. It looks utterly ridiculous to anyone who knows about crofting and it has no place in Wikipedia. It's a small point, but it damages Wikipedia's credibility. I mentioned this discussion to a senior lecturer in Scots Law and his comment was "Wikipedia is unreliable? Who knew?"
If I remove Soubry's error would you reinstate it? If so I won't bother. I am not getting into an editing war. Jean de Luz (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is saying nothing about crofts here. If that subject interests you, by all means go have a look at croft and correct all you like Those 17 words, in speech marks here, are fully attributed to Soubry. So please go back to your senior lecturer in Scots Law and tell him that Soubry is unreliable. We can probably guess what he'll say. I also have no interest in any edit war. But I'm not convinced by your reasons for removing the Soubry quote. And it wasn't just her doing the mocking, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Blackford&oldid=1206718647"