Monday, March 03, 2014
SUPPORT FOR SEPARATION SLIDES TO 17% IN SALMOND'S OWN BACKYARD.
The latest laugharendum poll is interesting. It was taken in North East Scotland, a place that the snp like to portray as alex salmond's heartland. The place where he set up the Mary Salmond foundation with one of his many wages, named for his late mother, he subscribes to the theory that there is no point in doing something good unless you ensure that everyone knows you have done it, hence the name of the charity. The latest poll gives salmond and his crackpot vanity independence project just 17% support. When we see as we are doing wee Sturgeon on the TV constantly we know they are in trouble, wee salmond goes AWOL at such times, wee heilan stoat that he is. I predict that this will drop even further and the Yes campaign headed by salmond and the snp will be humiliated. We already know that 40% of snp voters have declared that they will vote No and women are getting hurt in the crush to get away from salmond and separation. Still, big sean connery has at last made a brave dynamic entry in to the proceedings. Considering the state of the yes campaign it now looks like curtains when you consider that there are very few bad situations that the arrival of connery can't make worse. He has made a courageous and extremely exhausting intervention by writing from the Bahamas, to tell us how to vote, this is a man who loves Scotland, he loves it's mountains, it's glens, it's cliffs and it's rivers. He loves to spend time gazing at their beauty as he flies over the country on his way back to his equally beloved tax haven in the Bahamas, what a man, doesn't he make you feel humble?. 25% is now a more realistic target for the yes campaign. Serves them right for all their lies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
This in Crimea a few days ago Nationalism unchained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DJFNygHqK8
Kelly, even you should be ashamed of that cheap and nasty dig at the Mary Salmond Charity.
Check out 'The Office of Sarah & Gordon Brown' and compare the percentage of income they give to charity vs Mary Salmonds.
And hopefully he will be banned from his own back yard on Wednesday, the SNP are crumbling and it is only the bravado holding it together now.
Can you still get 9-1...get your pension on it.
Following the latest polls I reckon you will be able to make a tidy sum if your team wins, depending of course on how much you are willing to gamble but I doubt if you will be risking much.
Anonymous Byeck said...Monday, March 03, 2014 8:14:00 pm
There is no shame involved in anything bad that is said about salmond, there is nothing that can be said that would be worse than what he has said already about others.
I know that last year Gordon Brown made £1.4 million from lecture tours all of which went to charity. Gordon Brown did not have to give that money away salmond on the other hand was embarrassed in to giving up one of his wages because he was serving in two parliaments at the same time so he capitalised on his gift by exploiting his dead mother, that surprised no one. It's no great surprise to see you side with such a man.
niko said...Monday, March 03, 2014 8:03:00 pm
"Nationalism is a disease, it is the measles of the planet Earth" (Albert Einstein).
Kelly @ 8.14
Two points, first, I don't give a hoot what you say about Mr Salmond, he's a big boy and able to look after himself, but your snide comment was aimed at the charity, simply because it's in his mothers name and that is what is unacceptable.
Secondly, the £1.4 million you claim Brown has given to charity, I'll ask again, what percentage of his charity's total income does this represent vs Mary Salmond?
And maybe if he didn't pay himself quite so much in expenses, his charity would benefit even more.
Byeck said...Kelly @ 8.14 Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:16:00 pm.
My comments were not aimed at any charity my comments were aimed at salmond. He was embarrassed in to giving up one of his two wages and rather than give it up and let it go back to the taxpayer he decided on an act of clear political calculation to exploit the name of his late mother by creating a charity in her/his unusual name of salmond. He knew that anything that that charity might do would reflect positively on him. How many people called salmond do you know? I don't know any apart from him.
If you want to know anything about percentages involved then go and find the information for yourself like everyone else has to. If you want to crticise Gordon Brown's expenses then do the same, they are a matter of public record.
Clearly you are in political terms an enthusiastic and hidebound right wing amateur but I would suggest to you that if someone like Gordon Brown had any expenses skeletons in his cupboard we would have heard about them before now. I look forward to your further attempts to tarnish the character of Gordon Brown. Are you a devotee of the senator for Wisconsin by any chance, Joe McCarthy who created one of the most famous "isms" of all time after his name, you are lovely people aren't you?. Feel free to come back and tell me about your findings and we will take it from there.The following might be of assistance to you. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-2489392/Clarifications-corrections.html.
As it stands at the moment you look like nothing more than an opportunistic liar.
It's easy to tarnish GB's reputation - didn't he refer to a lady who challenged him as a bigot?
Anonymous said...Friday, March 07, 2014 7:55:00 pm.
Based on her own words about immigrants he described her correctly.
So Mr Salmond is a wee self aggrandising chancer for giving his charity the family name? Where does that leave -among others- Alfred Nobel, Joseph Rowntree, Marie Curie and....whisper it... The Office of Gordon & Sarah Brown?
Meanwhile, the Mad Fifer, though an ex politician (his words) continues to enjoy the salary and perks of a MP and ex PM, some £270k. The man has no shame.
Kelly, you're losing it...another open goal.
Byeck said...Saturday, March 08, 2014 5:26:00 pm.
None of the above as far as I'm aware created a charity for their own benefit, salmond did and he did it dishonestly by trying to con people. Gordon Brown receives the salary that he is entitled to. The fact that you actually make something out of his "ex politician" remark rather looks like desperation.
Kelly @ 2.34
You are claiming that Mr Salmond benefits from the Mary Salmond Charity in a way that none of the others I mentioned,- Gordon Brown etc -do from theirs.
I think you would be wise to withdraw that claim, or, more believably, plead insanity.
The difference between salmond and the rest of of them is that he was forced by embarrassment to give up his second salary and he cynically chose to do this with it creating a charity which he would benefit from in his own parliamentary seat. A class A rascal and con man.
salmond wasnt allowed to give up his salary due to westminster rules so had to set up the charity.
Brown claims up to £20k a week in "expenses" from his charity, in addition to his wage for being an mp who doesnt actually turn up at parliament.
Kelly @ 5.48
Kelly, you have a highly original view of morality.
On the one hand, that ex politician, the Kirkaldy Clown gets £300K of taxpayers money because 'he's entitled to it,' and trousers the lot.
On the other, Mr Salmond, gets the two salaries, that he is 'entitled to,' and gives one to Charity.
And you, the Pride of Renfrew, praise Brown and castigate Mr Salmond.
To quote John McEnroe...You cannot be serious.
That was your last comment on this subject.
Anonymous said...Monday, March 10, 2014 9:52:00 pm
You are saying that he couldn't just donate his salary to a good cause? how would they be able to stop him from doing that? Were you born an idiot or did you train to be one?.
"Brown claims up to £20k a week in "expenses" from his charity".
That's £960,000 a year in expenses, were you born an idiot and then do further training to make yourself the king of the idiots?.
The Labour Party record - despite this being a manifesto commitment for all but 16 of their 108 years.
• 1888 - Keir Hardie first pledged the Labour Party's support for home rule in an election address. -The Scottish Labour Party was founded with Scottish Home rule as a fundamental aim.
• 1918 - The Labour Party went into the General Election with Scottish Home third priority on their manifesto - above housing, pensions and education.
• 1923 - The first Scottish Constitutional Convention (comprised of Labour & Liberal MPs) was formed. - The "West Lothian Question" first raised its head under the guise "Churchill's English Problem".
• 1924 - A Labour Government proposed the first bill for Scottish Home Rule. This was talked out of Parliament and so fell.
• 1927 -The Labour Party proposed (on behalf of the Scottish National Convention) a bill for Scottish Home Rule. It was talked out of Parliament to make way for a debate on "Bugs, Fleas & Vermin".
• 1929 -Home Rule falls to 63 out of 63 priorities on Labour's manifesto.
• 1945 - Labour gain majority Government, Home Rule vanishes from their election manifesto.
• 1958 - Labour formally ditch any commitment to Scottish Home Rule.
• 1970 - Labour's delegation to the Crowther/Kilbrandon Commission on the Constitution states - "The Scottish Labour Party would actually prefer a Tory UK Government to a Labour controlled Scottish Parliament".
• 1974 - Labour bow to SNP pressure, and re-introduce devolution to their manifesto.
• 1979 - Rebel Labour MPs unite with the votes of the opposition to pass the "40% rule" which deprived Scotland of a Parliament after the referendum.
• 1992 The Labour Party pledge that a Scottish parliament will "be along in a tick".
"The only constant is change"
(Leon Trotsky).
"The only constant is change"
(Leon Trotsky).
Your last 2 posts were pretty constant ;-)
As Trotsky might have said, the only constant is change-and for you that justifies any shift in Labour party policy. The party of which you're now a member isn't the one you joined as a young man, and you know it. Had you an ounce of integrity or intelligence you would have left the Labour party by now-at what point might you have felt that membership was incompatible with your beliefs? Would it have been dropping Clause IV, Tony Blair dragging this country into Iraq, Ed Balls' current enthusiasm for Tory spending plans? You're really pretty weak minded, Terence, and tribal to the core: your constant adulation of authority figures like Castro, Benn, or Trotsky is indicative of a dependent and insecure personality. But you already know this.
Anonymous said..Sunday, March 23, 2014 3:23:00 pm.
There is not much point in sending me this, I'm not in a position to advise you, I'm not a Psychiatrist.
I just had the misfortune of finding your blog, but it did allow me a little chuckle - 45% of the electorate voted for independence - good thing you didn't bet on it. And now Labour is in meltdown. Maybe this is Karma?
Post a Comment