Following the Dunblane mass murder the wee shyster Salmond struck with indecent haste to get himself on the TV to share his grief with the people, and of course he made sure that he was first to call for a ban on guns. Not all guns of course nor did he know what guns should be banned but he was first that was what mattered. He also latched on to the case of the 3 broken-hearted wives of the fishermen whose boat sank with them on board, he made it his personal crusade to raise that boat, he apparently was convinced against his better judgement that he should not claim that he would bring the men back to life but he took some convincing. The other sea graves, oh yes! there are hundreds in the same circumstances; were ignored, you see the others unfortunately did not have 3 distraught grieving widows who were running a high profile campaign to have the boat recovered, that's just tough luck for the others, strike while the iron is hot said wee Eck. When he was rumbled and embarrassed at taking a wage from Holyrood and Westminster at the same time he vowed to bestow one of the wages on good causes. Then; with rat like cunning he 'found an angle' and came up with an idea for a good causes foundation. It's name? Well; how about "The Mary Salmond Foundation" I kid you not; he made certain that if he was to do something good then the world would hear about it. Hence the idea to exploit his late mother's name, now every time the foundation does good he gets the credit, what a guy, what a super Scotsman, what a low life Del Boy Shyster. As Billy Connolly once said about that other Scottish thug, union buster and capitalist hero Andrew Carnegie "he gave money away as quietly as a waiter falling down a flight of stairs with a full tray of glasses"
Today we hear it trumpeted that he is to "boycott" the open golf at Muirfield in Ayrshire because it is a male only preserve. The most entrenched section of voters against independence it turns out are women; now, call me an old sceptic but could there be a link, would anyone honestly sink that low? Read the first paragraph again please. The story emerged that the snp Scottish Government led by wee Eck (the spiv) would not darken the doors of the offending Muirfield dinosaur park but, there's always a but isn't there. It turns out that they will send a representative in his place similar to a colonial governor if you will to be a symbol of "his eckness" so they will not in reality be boycotting anything, just kind of boycotting it, so as not to cause any offence to anyone ken?
The great leader emphasises his personal sacrifice by telling the world that his devotion to golf is such that he has attended every open championship in Scotland for 40 years and, wait for it, in another exhibition of the famous Salmond hubris he forgot that more than a few of those tournaments have been at Muirfield. Take 40 years away from my own 64 years and I am 24 and I remember at that age campaigning for female equality and women's rights including a 2 month strike which I was proud to help to lead so he can hardly claim that when he was there these things were not important.
In a final piece of delicious irony which completely buries any integrity he might have had Mr. Tom English of the Scotsman newspaper offers a column today headed up by a photo. of the dashing first minister driving out of the rough on a rather splendid golf course named The Royal St. George's Golf Course in the beautiful English County of Kent from where he wrote to "congratulate" the snp supporting Ayrshire couple who won £161 million on a lottery. That golf course he was playing only 2 years ago was guess what? I think you might be ahead of me by now; it was a famous fortress of the male only variety, a proud sexist establishment.
Would you Adam n Eve it? You could not make it up could you? Has any politician ever shown such arrogance? Has any politician ever shown such contempt for the electorate? Has any politician ever treated women with such patronising disdain? Ladies and gentlemen I give you wee Eck the first minister of Scotland and, catch this one; he wants to rule an independent Scotland where his word will be law. Be careful when you vote.
You might not like Salmond's policies, and you might resent the fact that his party is in power in Scotland instead of yours: but this article is just a bilious, inarticulate diatribe against a man who you clearly believe to be utterly, utterly lacking in any empathy or human feelings. That type of mythologising of your identified enemy just shows nothing more than a scabrous, bigoted, hate filled and thoroughly irrational personality. Try to develop some sense of self awareness, because this blog shows you in such a bad light. Any comment on the Herald's story on Unite's machinations in Paisley, by the way? Or were you blissfully unaware of what was going on around you? Or, perhaps, the Herald made the whole thing up.
Anonymous said...Sunday, July 07, 2013 3:36:00 pm
It’s not that I don’t like Salmond I loathe and despise him, he only has feelings for Alex Salmond and he is dangerous, if he gets the power he seeks there will be a fortune to be made in prison construction.
“Unite's machinations in Paisley”
These would be the “machinations” that were advertised in the local press before the meeting which was in fact a public meeting right? I was at the meeting and had the pleasure meeting, speaking and shaking hands with len McLuskey, I wished him well. Yes brainy one the Herald did make it up and it can only do that when clowns like you swallow their bate. You and people like you are grist for the mill owned by Salmond and the other reactionary right wing fraudsters in Scotland, you eejit!
No, Councillor...these machinations involved signing folk up to the party without telling them, a detail that was not advertised in the local press, resulting in two party members being suspended and Labour HQ taking over the selection process.
And you call Mr Salmond a fraudster.
Byeck said...Tuesday, July 09, 2013 7:52:00 pm
Organising to get your own favoured candidate selected is as old as politics itself. All anyone can do is deal with it when made aware of it. Do not kid yourself that you will eradicate it though because you won't.
It is as usual noteworthy that you become exercised by it when it happens to be Labour when even someone like you must know that it goes on in all parties. Battles for the Leadership of political parties can be most brutal affairs. It also goes on in a most vicious way when someone is running to become the new Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Convener of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the President of the USA; and of course for the the successor to the throne among the British monarchy which often leads to murder, infanticide and all kinds of jolly shenanigans. It's labour this time so the Tory press want to splash on it; so what's new. I personally think the Unions should have far more power.
Kelly @ 12.42
You could be right about His Holiness and Obama,damn foreigners, but the Convener and the Archbish!! Surely not...they're British.
Anyhow, back to the cesspit that is Scottish Labour. Can we have your take on Mr Milibands reasons for deciding to have union members 'opt in' to finance Labour, rather than the current system?
Why would he feel obliged to bite the unions and risk bankrupting the party?
Seems a damn strange thing to do and your views would add immeasurably to the general gaiety.
So the Herald made up something on Sunday that was advertised in the local press last year? That would indicate that you're writing about two different things, wouldn't it? Frankly I'm astonished that you can hold two thoughts in your head, councillor: I didn't think you had it in you. Nice of you to call me brainy-everything's relative, though, isn't it?
Byeck said...Tuesday, July 09, 2013 7:52:00 pm Delete
The meeting in Paisley which was described as "machinations" was advertised in the local press and was a public meeting.
Anonymous said...Friday, July 12, 2013 9:11:00 pm Delete.
The Herald linked the Falkirk story to a previous meeting which took place in Paisley, a meeting I attended, what is it that you do not understand?
Kelly @ 7.52
Councillor, you have now replied twice to my 9th July post and totally ignored my 10th July post, asking for your views on the reasons Miliband felt the need to take on the Unions on the opt-in or opt out issue.
C'mon Big Man...let's be 'aving yer.
So what did the Herald make up, then? Are you really off Douglas Alexander's Christmas card list or not?
Anonymous said...Sunday, July 14, 2013 8:17:00 pm Delete
They suggested that the meeting in Paisley was a secretive attempt to unseat Douglas Alexander. It was a public meeting which was advertised on line and in the local press, a meeting attended by approx. 150 people at which Douglas's name was not mentioned.
Byeck said...Kelly @ 7.51 Sunday, July 14, 2013 7:32:00 pm Byeck ......
I was not aware that I had missed answering one of your posts, even you must know that I try to answer everything that people send me. It occurs to me that it might be interesting to hear you tell us why he felt the need to do what he did, I know why he did it; he was "Murdoched" Which is a way of saying that a right wing story was put together which put him in an awkward position, actually he handled it rather well. Like most people who take a genuine interest in these matters Milliband will know that the real scandal in terms of political donations lies with other parties and labour and the Unions are actually the most open and transparent.
Kelly @ 7.32
Councillor, a gentle reminder...it's Labour and Unite under investigation for fraud in Falkirk, not Murdoch.
Now, I don't know, but it seems to me, saying that Miliband was too weak to stand his ground - Murdoched?- is a grand way of buggering up any chance Mrs K had of ever becoming Lady K.
Domestic harmony is now but a memory, Terry, stand by for a handbagging.
Post a Comment