Before or after the secret-salary-top-up?!! :duck:Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Printable View
Before or after the secret-salary-top-up?!! :duck:Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Good point, MPs and MSPs should not be allowed second jobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
https://news.sky.com/story/westminst...15-4m-12758768
Quote:
Westminster Accounts: MPs earn £17.1m on top of their salaries since the last election - with Tories taking £15.2m
I think this was my point, a couple with no kids and wages they had will be able to spend on pricey pots etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Since90+2
Yes but it’s important to leave the impression they stole them.[emoji6]Quote:
Originally Posted by J-C
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-65373659
Why would it be proving so hard to find auditors willing to take this on? It's nearly eight months since the last ones closed the account.
And why would Blackford claim to have fully briefed Flynn in December when it turns out he knew nothing about the auditors quitting until February?
https://twitter.com/connorgillies/st...dxJXScFNwz8V4A
SNP membership on the rise.[emoji106]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Who's going to believe that? Particularly if Blackford's got anything to do with it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
The SNP's civil war erupts in Westminster | The Spectator
Is it any more contentious than some of the stuff you post from The Express/Sunday Mail/Daily Mail?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I believe it.[emoji106]Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're an SNP fanboy. You'll believe anything they put out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
How's "better together" coming along? How much better off are we compared to 9 years ago?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
[emoji1787]Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
We aren't getting an answer to that anytime soon...
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
The better together and brexit crew don’t really care about that. It’s all union flags and Rule Britannia.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're new here, aren't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by HarpOnHibee
There was some chat on Newsnight or Sky about the membership numbers since 2014.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Part of the discussion was that a lot of the newer members were the ones that were responsible for the shift more towards the green agenda and identity politics stuff.
It was never front and central under Salmond, and whilst I appreciate the world has moved on since then, do you think there is any merit in the above view?
Is there maybe a group of SNP members that are the similar to how Momemtun influenced Labour re Corbyn? Yousaf would do well to avoid that path as best as possible.
Listening to Salmond and McKaskill's recent interviews, Alba seem to be talking a lot of sense.
I used they think they were the radical ones but I'm now wondering if there's is the more sensible approach than the SNPs.
Don't you think there's a possibility that recent events - tent in the Murrells' garden, spurious headlines in the papers for weeks and a few arrests - but with no charges brought - might lead to a bunker mentality and a defensive bounce amongst those who aren't inclined to believe all they read?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Or that some folk have actually been quietly disillusioned with the old guard, and a fresh start under a new leader might bring about a bounce in membership, even if he is perceived to be the continuity candidate?
I certainly found it easy to accept that membership numbers would have dropped off as Sturgeon and co started to pursue largely unpopular policies such as the gender bill.
Shooting Blackford the messenger may be your action of choice but an increase wouldn't be much of a surprise to me tbh. I've been trying to keep an open mind on it all but I can't pretend there isn't a bit of me that wants to fight their corner with them a part of me that had been getting pretty disillusioned.
If the polls keep plummeting for the snp then I'd say noQuote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
Polls and memberships are different things though and might go in different directions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Polls might be affected by the more whimsical deciding to take their vote elsewhere, not unreasonable.
I don't think it's unthinkable though that you might see a hardening of those already sympathetic under what could possibly be perceived to be an attack.
I hope so but I think 40% either side are hard yes or no, independence will happen or not on the 10%. SNP should put most of their energy into this group and I think they definitely haven't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
If you read the links I posted you'll see that Blackford has nothing to do with the membership update. I'm just pointing out he's been called out as a liar by Flynn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Class maths whilst the bairn jumps over me. I was going to say 45% but then I thought have the polls not been further either way. I'm not sure, but it is probably 45% that won't changeQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
It looks like the appetite for party numbers to be produced will continue for a while. Do you have any idea what the other political party numbers are in Scotland?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Think you're right here. Task for SNP is not only to target the 10% undecideds, but also to hold onto the 45% Yes voters they already have. This is what the current media / BT onslaught is about, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
I wonder if the Scottish Lib Dem’s even have as many members as the SNP has added in last couple of weeks?Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yesterday - Scottish Conservative chairman Craig Hoy claimed the SNP "is addicted to secrecy".Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Today - The Scottish Conservatives told STV News it does not publish its membership figures.
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/snp-mem...der-party-says
Well not the tories, they're refusing to release theirs.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
I think there has been some members noisier than other in recent years pushing the party. That’s all very well but they are doing it as a form of short cut without taking the general public with them. There is only so far you can stretch that elastic band before it snaps back to the middle. I think we’ll see that over next couple of years. The party will be firmly back in the centre for the Scottish elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
This happens in all parties imo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Tories, whilst asking for full transparency of others, have refused to publish their numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Any Labour peeps know what the Scottish numbers are?
The greens have 7646
You say some members but nearly half your membership just voted for someone who is against gay marriage and single mothers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I think Sturgeon’s departure has lifted the veil on your membership and it is a lot less progressive than your party has admitted to.
I don't think it was half the SNP membership, was there not about 20,000 who didn't vote at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
I guess that will be me then :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
There’s a figure of 16,000 or thereabouts that I have seen. But I don’t think that includes affiliate members. If you are in a Labour-affiliated union you can choose to have your subs go to the union or to Labour. If your union subs go to the party you get a vote in internal party elections - leadership, NEC etc - and some other elements.
All the big unions are affiliated. What I am uncertain about is whether the sub to Labour is opt-in or opt-out. I think it used to be opt-out across the board but some may have changed. I think Unison switched to opt-in a few years back.
I'd be surprised if the conservatives even have that number.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Fair point, I wonder if they just wanted Salmond back :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
You'd hope not. Although unfortunately members doesn't equate votes, so a descent proportion of mentalists vote for them up hereQuote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
I saw that figure a while back when Corbyn had folk swarming to the party in England, not so much here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
It'd be nice if the branch office could update the press. 😆
Cheers anyway. 👍
Edit
Heard some numbers last night.
Red branch office 7000
Blue branch office 3000
Orange branch office in the hundreds.
I don’t think she ever said she was against single mothers? I’m pretty sure she said it was a choice she had not made. Clumsy wording but I don’t think anyone seriously thinks she wants to outlaw it? And the same with gay marriage. She was very clear she would 100% protect gay marriage as a right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
It’s fun for opponents to characterise her that way but most people can see through it.
It’s like calling Starmer a Tory. Everyone knows he’s not but because he copies them a lot it gives an easy target.
It’s all knockabout stuff though so go for it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, I was careful with my wording. I believe she called having a child out of wedlock ‘wrong’ and said she would have voted against equal marriage. I think there was an element of having her cake and eating it by saying she would nevertheless uphold the law etc. You can’t really pitch for office by doing otherwise! But like you say, all in good spirit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I think the key point I was making was about the membership though. I think the SNP likes to portray itself as young, vibrant and progressive. The reality is that the membership is heavily skewed to ABC1s, is 71% over-50s and nearly half of them are over-65s. The evidence base for a trend towards ageing and less socially liberal does exist but obviously doesn’t apply to everyone, and nor should age be treated as deterministic.
For whatever reason, half the party electorate did go with the small government, low tax candidate with personal views deemed by many to be socially illiberal. I think that is interesting in what it might say about the membership, far more than what it says about Kate Forbes.
I'd be interested to hear what else you think she could have said in the circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Possibly that some members can differentiate between the personal and the professional when looking at a candidate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Is she for small government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I find a lot of what you say about the SNP is taking nuggets changing and growing them then running with it. What is the make up of other parties or unions, you think it's minorities and the young. It's a fact younger people are more likely to vote snp and independence. I also believe most people that voted Forbes respect that Forbes repeatedly said she chooses to live her life one way, but doesn't force or tell people how to live their life on social choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
The stuff about low tax small government is just made up, her ideas with common weal will show that but you'll not care I presume?
I made it clear in the following sentence :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Is she low tax?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
You contradicted yourself in the following sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
I said she had her cake and ate it. She knew that her principles didn’t stand up to scrutiny so she said she would bide by the law, as if somehow she had a choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I judge her on her words and actions and I would say yes, she is.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
Her national economic strategy read like an application for the IMF. No mention of the public sector to any real extent but she does talk about making Scotland a “magnet for global private capital”.
When she laid out her multi-year spending review before she went off, it was huge spending cuts in the public sector, reduction of services, reduction of public sector staff, selling off public buildings and cutting or merging the non-departmental agencies of government. Nothing about tax rises, in fact the IFS modelled her numbers and said they didn’t budget for any increase in higher rate for at least four years. Even the Fraser of Allander Institute called it ‘stark’.
And let’s not forget her work on the Scottish Growth Commission. Proposing an effective cap on public debt of 50% of GDP, which would make it one of the lowest in the OECD. But reducing public borrowing not by increasing tax, especially tax on the wealthier, but by reducing public spending.
That’s all Tory playbook stuff. And that’s what a lot of your brethren voted for. In fairness maybe they didn’t know.
You can be pretty disgusting when you want to be, can't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
What are you on about? What is 'disgusting' about saying she knew her principles wouldn't stand up to scrutiny?Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I really, really hope she replaces Yousaf and starts to press ahead with all of the above. Fantastic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye
Why do the SNP wear white roses at Parliament? Is it gesture-politicking or does it have a deep and significant meaning?
Possibly Rosa alba, the wild scottish roseQuote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
The white rose became a symbol of the Jacobite cause
From Hugh MacDairmid poem the Little White Rose.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Surely not, Hugh McDarairid may have been been a co-founder of the National Party in Scotland in 1928 the predecessor of the SNP, but he was also a fascist who felt that a Nazi invasion of England was in Scotland's best interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
I think quite a few founder members of the SNP in the 30's were fascist sympathizers but surely the modern SNP are not going to draw attention to this.
Stand by with your tin hat on…. Incoming defence and denial of the founders will be along shortly :faf::faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
You sure?Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
There have been a few mentions of those leanings on here.
Christopher Grieve had some talent but he was also a fascist prick.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
About as boring as who’s fault slavery was but crack on if it floats your boat. I prefer looking forward.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I look forward to seeing a socialisty Labour Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Like what they had when I was nipper.
They built houses n'****, could run a railway and a power grid. Stuff that was highly practical for everyone.
What with them becoming totally different to their roots it's highly unlikely.
Liberals aren't exactly the bastion of powerful thinking they were in the past.
Republicans and Democrats in America literally exchanged places on the political spectrum at one point.
The SNP mirrored Irish and other European nationalist movements. Pre-holocaust Fascism had an allure and calling to arms for those with resentments and axes to grind. From my pov they were still rammed with weirdos up to the late 1970's when a few alternative, more practical voices started to be heard 21st century SNP is barely recognisable to the Ku Klux Kailyard types from the 30's. If you get a chance dip into MacDiarmids early political letters. A fevered crank.
Not many political parties have gone unchanged. Look at the Tories, at one point they thought it was their god given right to exploit the whole globe for the own personal gain - now its just a few islands off the west of Europe and the tiny ones here and there upon which they stash their loot and mess up the locals. I suppose it is global given they allow any old war crim, drug lord or Putin peeps to bank with them. Second British Empire that set-up. ******* cockroaches.
I'm not describing the voters of those parties btw, only the make-up of the front of house people. Before anyone goes bananas.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Did McDiarmid not stand for election for both the Nationalist party and the communist party. He got kicked out of nationalist party for being a commie and kicked out of communist party for being a nationalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
He sounds like someone who has supported every political stance at some point or other.
None of which is relevant to the SNP today.
I think he was a complex guy. But the SNP does make it relevant with the white rose stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
Like quite a few writers from that era they followed political fashions/passions. No doubt he was an anti-English bigot though, a strand that stands out for me. A true commie wouldn't push that line at the time. He wasn't alone with that melting pot of views within the early SNP.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
But let's face it though he saw himself as an intellectual, semi-permanently blootered out of his gourd on whisky most of the time (an almost de riguor sign of patriotism in Scotland back then), with a bigoted streak - an unhealthy combo.
The SNP should really have rebranded in the 80s but none of them had the smarts.
Some of his poyums are good from what I remember...
"Never call me British,
For it is far too near Brutish
and that is the difference between U and I."
Nah, maybe it's doggerel.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
You think fascism is relevant within the SNP today?Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
I think he was a complex guy. But the SNP does make it relevant with the white rose stuff.[/QUOTE]
According to George Galloway the SNP wanted a Nazi invasion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9szHpDRpNQ
Somebody just quoted George Galloway. Close the thread.
Sent from my YAL-L21 using Tapatalk
No. But I think the White Rose and Arthur Donaldson stuff should be quietly binned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
According to George Galloway the SNP wanted a Nazi invasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9szHpDRpNQ[/QUOTE]The "SNP" at the time were some pish breeked dudes in bothys getting angrily zonked and angrily writing letters. Lucky if they had 200 people who supported the guff they came out with.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
[emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by McSwanky
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
https://twitter.com/conor_matchett/s...5gOSNOyaA&s=19
"Scottish Labour, Scot Tories, and the Scottish Lib Dems can't crow about transparency if they are fundamentally unwilling to share their own membership figures
Do as I say, not what I do doesn't fly when you attack the opposition for failing to do something you yourself won't do"
"Doesn't matter if they're published in accounts, what matters is up-to-date figures as that is what they demand of the SNP."
"Pointless decision to not provide figures too, undermines the best attack line they have on the SNP at the moment which is that the current crisis is one of a failure of transparency
Doesn't hit as hard if you just ignore questions from journalists about your membership figures"
I edited my response to MA who'd given an assumed number for the Red branch office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Grieves
The numbers I was quoted was Tories 3,000, Labour 7,000, and Lib dems in the hundreds.
The only way we'll get accurate figures is if the transparency asked of the SNP is reciprocated by the unionists.
The "SNP" at the time were some pish breeked dudes in bothys getting angrily zonked and angrily writing letters. Lucky if they had 200 people who supported the guff they came out with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
It's possible to agree with George Galloway about "then" but consider that the party may possibly have changed over the following three quarters of a century or so to the point where they're worth voting for.
There seems to be a real obsession with history and the past when it comes to putting a pro union argument forward. Lately we've had everything from slavery to the "tartan tories" stuff from the seventies and now this. A positive case for the future within the union would be most welcome instead of bickering about nonsense that is largely irrelevant. It's starting to feel a bit like Putin and his inane ramblings about the past to try to justify actions that are going to make the future bleaker for all around him.
The lack of transparency by the SNP led to the CEO resigning. I don't get the obsession with membership numbers, it doesn't equate to votes cast for any of the parties. I get this investigation is boring as...but seriously could that journalist not be concentrating on something more important right now that affects the entire country as opposed to a tiny % of party political members who have a higher degree of passion for politics than folk out there with nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/archivists-garden/index-by-plant-name/white-rose-of-scotland-scots-rose-burnet-rose#:~:text=The%20Burnet%20Rose%20has%20become,li ttle%20white%20rose%20of%20Scotland.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Throughout Britain, Europe and Asia it is found on coastal sand dunes and limestone heath. Next to the thistle, Rosa spinosissima is probably our most emblematic native plant. It has been used as a Scottish emblem since Charles Edward Stuart or 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' (1720-1788) and may have been the source of the Jacobite white cockade.
The poem celebrates the white rose of Scotland, not fascism.
The only way to get accurate figures is surely by releasing accurate figures, not by pretending they're 30-40k higher than they are, accusing the media of lying about the numbers then eventually having to come clean only when pressed by your own MSPs.Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo7
The only reason anyone's remotely bothered about this is because of the fanfare the SNP create around party membership numbers (bit like the yams and their obsession with size). Otherwise I doubt it would attract much attention. Trying to gain mileage by pointing out how much bigger their numbers are than the other parties is comfort blanket stuff.
After what's happened I'm actually surprised the SNP are still trying to big the numbers thing up. Who's going to believe anything they say now?
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Santa Cruz
The press rightfully investigated and ran to ground the situation of the SNP membership, but when other parties jumped on the bandwagon, they themselves should be squeaky clean on their branch numbers.
It's all a bit attendances at the fitba for me, so let's be having them, as the journalist is going to continue until he gets them, unless he's told otherwise.
I believe in 2021 when Sir Keir blagged his way to become leader of the Labour party, the numbers quoted leaving were 190,000
I'm sure it'll all die down in a couple of days unless the SNP numbers fall again.
When did they lie about membership numbers?Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm sure that's true. But the author also wrote 'A plea for a Scottish Fascism' and 'A programme for a Scottish Fascism'. He also speculated that it would be better if the Germans won WW2. Now I think he was all over the place and could overlook a young man blowing with the political wind. Others are less forgiving. I guess the question is how comfortable are you with his early writings?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
It was in response to reports of dropping membership. The former Chief Exec gave Murray Foote the wrong numbers and he fed them to the press. It came out at the leadership election. Foote resigned as he had been put in a position where he lied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
To be honest, I couldn't care less about mcdiarmid or what he said or wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
The scotch rose was a symbol of Scotland long before he wrote a 4 line poem about it.
The rose of all the world is not for me.
I want for my part
Only the little white rose of Scotland
That smells sharp and sweet—and breaks the heart.
There, I've quoted the poem, does that make me a fascist?
As an aside Gavin Bowd's "Fascist Scotland" is a good read.
One explanation he gives as to why fascism never really took hold here is that it had to carve out a new niche for bigotry in Scotland, in what was an already crowded market.
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Going around quoting poetry, your def for the watching.[emoji6]Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm pretty sure you must already know the answer but...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
SNP media chief Murray Foote resigns over membership dispute - BBC News
Swiftly followed by Murrell's resignation.
No. But if you look at Kato's posts you'll get a sense of the strength of feeling from someone who supports independence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
That's one person's view.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
Do you at least accept that the wearing of the white rose of Scotland has absolutely nothing to do with Hugh mcdiarmid or fascism and was a long standing symbol of Scotland for centuries before he wrote a poem about it?
I think it is to do with MacDairmid https://www.thenational.scot/news/19...e-white-roses/Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
https://www.itv.com/news/2015-05-27/...-queens-speech
That's up to you, but I know that history is on my side.Quote:
Originally Posted by archie
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/archivists-garden/index-by-plant-name/white-rose-of-scotland-scots-rose-burnet-rose#:~:text=The%20Burnet%20Rose%20has%20become,li ttle%20white%20rose%20of%20Scotland.
Roses also have a long history as an emblem and are regularly seen in heraldry. For example the white rose is the plant badge of the Clan Keith which dates back to the time Malcolm II (died 1034) and the Battle of Barrie in 1010. David I (c.1080-1153) granted the family lands in Lothian in 1150. Later Robert the Bruce (1274-1329) granted the hereditary Marischal Earldom to Sir Robert Keith after the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314.
https://www.fairfaxhouse.co.uk/articles/in-the-name-of-the-rose/#:~:text=As%20a%20symbol%20associated%20with,for%2 0the%20Jacobites%2C%20of%20legitimacy.
The White Rose is perhaps the most evocative and powerful of Jacobite symbols, a significance it retains even today. Wearing the White Rose or displaying it on personal possessions signified complete dedication to the Stuart cause, even unto death. For Catholic followers of Jacobitism the rose also possessed an intense religious importance as an emblem of the Virgin Mary. As a symbol associated with royalty the rose has a long history in both England and Scotland, where it is recorded as a Stuart royal symbol from the fifteenth century. White, meanwhile, is the colour of purity and, importantly for the Jacobites, of legitimacy.
It appears that only opponents of independence are seeing anything to do with fascism in the wearing of the white rose.
Carol Monaghan mp tagged Hugh MacDairmid in her tweet on wearing a white rose for the swearing in. I didn't know his past or if she did but very foolishQuote:
Originally Posted by archie
https://twitter.com/CMonaghanSNP/sta...-queens-speech
https://twitter.com/CMonaghanSNP/sta...-queens-speech
The national is hardly an opponent of independence, Carol Monaghan snp mp either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
How could they buy a motor home without him the treasurer knowing about it. There is 80k for vehicle assets in the accounts he signed off.
BBCandrewkerr
·
The SNP’s former Treasurer Colin Beattie has told journalists that he “didn’t know” about the SNP’s motorhome. He was asked: “Did you know about the motorhome purchase and did you sign it off?” He replied: “No, I didn’t know about it.” Mr Beattie then walked away from the group
Video
https://mobile.twitter.com/ginadavid...27588959444992
Maybe that £80k related to another vehicle or vehicles?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Straight out the Trump/Putin playbook.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
I don't think so as that would mean the motorhome hasn't been put in the books. Does seem utterly bizarre he didn't know about itQuote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
No tin hat required. The SNP were involved in some questionable activities before and during WW2 hardline supporters can't really defend or deny this they are much more likely to say er....er....er.... I look forward not back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Berwickhibby
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOzf5XXftrU
Obviously the one that Nicola is learning to drive in. If only the journos could run this to ground. 🚙Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
OK. I don't think the SNP has adopted the White Rose as a fascist emblem. That's just daft. But it is clearly linked, by the SNP, to Hugh Macdairmid. And he has written some questionable stuff along with the poem. That's the issue for some people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Do either of them link the scotch white rose to fascism? I must have missed it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Eh she makes it clear she wore it due to a fascist. I believe its a poor move they should ignore him he was decades ago, certainly not tweet his name. I on the other hand believe SNP of today should be in anyway blamed or connected to him. Its like praising Trumps Republicans for Abraham LincolnQuote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
I think you know that she used his name because of the poem and not his background.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Runrig has the monument to him on the cover of the album 'Amazing Things', should we decry Runrig as supporters of fascism??
Of course she used his name because of his early work for snp and not for his fascism, I believe that is poor and the same with runrig. Most SNP supporters and myself were saying Starmer shouldn't have quoted Margaret Thatcher, not due to the quote but due to her other opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Would you have a poem by Mussolini on your wall or a painting from Adolf, I think not regardless of their quality
This is like saying Labour are anti-Semitic just because they are in the middle of a civil war over the issue. Nobody really believes they are but it’s used by their opponents. It’s a bit boring to be honest.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk