Also worth commenting that the SNP have overall …

Comment posted Successful Schools campaigner, Ewan Smith, elected in Angus by Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll.

Also worth commenting that the SNP have overall control of Angus Council now which should mean the ridiculous attempt to overturn the decision to keep Muirfield school open should come to an abrupt end.

Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll also commented

• Excellent news and richly deserved success for Ewan.

Recent comments by Integrity? Not in the ConDemAll

• First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
  Newsroom

  Writing this on phone so apologies for brevity. You are of course correct that every party has fringe nutters however it gets to a qiantity where the term ‘fringe’ no longer applies as it becomes tpo high a percentage of the party. Just today there is further issue with Otto Inglis being linked to the Letter Writers Guild who pleasantly refer to the Islam Tsunami.

  It is the consistent theme and the number of incidents tgat, fpr me, makes this more than a party with a few fringe nutters. They are a party with an odious core that corrupts any desire to be a civilised, compassionate and inclusive society.

  All that said I respect their right to be that way. I just hope society at large always sees them as the disgusting people they are.

• First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
  You need to read a bit deeper than a manifesto which is basically a random collection of ideas pulled together to respond to ‘ten things that get up the nose of right wing Daily Mail readers.’ Even at that high level policy level there is little cohesiveness of policy that gives any suggestion that the policies can be realistically implemented or, most importantly, afforded.

  What is more relevant than the headline policies is the people in the party who would be attempting, and failing, to implement them. Farage himself is portrayed as this charismatic leader who, by supping the odd pint, and strategically lighting up a fag, is representing the common man as well as appealing to the man on the street scared for his job because of all these pesky foreigners. They portray themselves as a party putting Britain’s interests first and bravely fighting to preserve Britain’s place on the world map (given that their opposition to Scottish independence is a little hypocritical as the SNP are only after what Scotland what they claim to be for Britain). However that battle for Britain only seems to take place when Farrage can take advantage of a variety of television programs as their MEP’s seem to find it rather incovnetnt to actually show up at the European Parliament which begs the question ‘where are they actually carrying the fight for Britain’s future to?’

  They vehemently refute any accusation of bigotry despite umpteen links with a number of the far right parties across Europe. UKIP is a member of Europe of Freedom and Democracy and Farage certainly was co-President of the group (may well still be), the other president being Francesco Speroni who charmingly said of Anders Breivik that he was someone with ideas that are in defence of western civilisation. When another group member said that Breivik has some excellent ideas Farage, in fairness wrote to him to demand the comments be withdrawn of UKIP would pull out of the group. Not only were the comments not withdrawn, the person who said them (Mario Borghezio) added to them and further stated ‘Long live the Whites of Europe, long live our identity, our ethnicity, our race… our blue sky, like the eyes of our women. Blue, in a people who want to stay white.”

  Was Farage good to his word? No. UKIP didn’t withdraw, he carried on his role as co-president and UKIP still have many members in it and a UKIP MEP was thrown out of UKIP because she refused to be a part of EFD due to what she said were ‘extremist’ views.

  Meanwhile Farage has made a lot of noise about UKIP being the only party in the country who ban BNP members from joining. That is factually correct however easily side stepped by the party when the UKIP head of Policy invited the British Freedom Party to join UKIP – that is the party made up almost entirely of members of the BNP who set up their own party. When UKIP was asked to explain why this had happened despite their policy the answer was that their Head of Policy has been in the US and was not ‘up to speed with current policy.’ So the Head of Policy is not up to speed on policy because he was out of the country for a handful of weeks – what bloody rubbish.

  Even Alan Sked who founded the party now descibes them as extraordinarily right-wing and states they are devoted to “creating a fuss, via Islam and immigrants”. It is worth remembering that at the time of the general election when Britain (who UKIP are dedicated to protecting) was facing the worst economic crisis since the late 1930s UKIPs flagship policy was banning the burqa.

  Even if you do support their line on immigration the fact they happily dilute it in their manifesto to avoid criticism points at a party who will whore themselves to the voter where necessary but equally able to bin that manifesto should they get any power. They have a ‘Pocket Guide to Immigration’ in their manifesto which used to promise to “end support for multiculturalism and promote one, common British culture”. They quickly removed it when it attracted criticism. However despite it no longer being an official manifesto policy it disn’t prevent one of their candidates stating that Islam was Islam “morally flawed and degenerate” and he backed a controversial Dutch politician, who called Islam a retarded ideology. He further stated that “A removal of multi-culturalism and assimilation of these people needs to done to save them from the abyss of exclusion and welfare. Above all, one should not shy away of contemplating forced repatriation, or threatening it to further assimilation, as a result of their lack of economic contribution to the UK.”

  There have been many other disgusting views expressed by members of UKIP including, but not limited to:

  1. It being ‘dangerous to allow those who do not work to vote
  2. All babies with disabilities should be aborted as they are a burden (in fairness Farage condemned this one
  3. Some homosexuals prefer sex with animals
  4. A full length book on the links between homosexuality and paedophilia wouldn’t do the topic justice (she was sacked)
  5. There is no such thing as homophobia (he was sacked) although bizarrely the UKIP Youth-Chairman was also sacked when he supported same sex marriage – make your mind up UKIP.
  6. ‘Jokes’ on facebook that old people should be euthanised when they become a burden
  7. ‘Jokes’ about muslims having sex with camels. The same person then made ‘jokes’ about “paki” families going home and spreading Christmas cheer with “eggnog for nig-nogs”

  Would you say ‘there is still not a lot wrong there’?

• Argyll and Bute Council Coalition Cup 2013: runners and riders
  Agreed – a little ‘horse play’ after weeks of turmoil in Castle Kilmory is not to be sniffed at.
• First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
  Hi Jamie

  I do take your point about Salmond and the Saltire and that was what I was getting at in my last paragraph. I am pretty sure if, for example, Sturgeon or Swinney was greeted in England by a crowd of similar size singing that about the Saltire then Salmond, and many SNP supporters, would condemn it widely.

  Personally I wouldn’t take it as racist though. The union flag has, unfortunately, as an image has become associated with racist connotations due to being ‘adopted’ by groups in the past such as the National Front and, more generally skin heads (who obviously are not all racists either). The flag of a nation is symbolic of the entire nation, not a minority group, or a particular mind set. Equally the Saltire is not a symbol of the SNP, or the independence movement. It is the flag for every Scot be they unionists or nationalists.

  I do agree the protest was somewhat unsavoury but I still don’t think the First Minister should be expected to make a public statement about it. I would acknowledge that it might have been good practice to do so, and a political opportunity to distance the independence movement from any potential accusation of fostering anti-English sympathy however I don’t think it should be incumbent on him to do so.

  In a more general sense, as an Englishman living in Scotland, I don’t personally feel there is a particularly anti-English sentiment amongst nationalists. I have experienced anti-English ‘incidents’ in my years living in Scotland (and also witnessed the reverse in England) but I have always felt it is a very rare occurrence and don’t feel the independence movement has exacerbated it in any way. I think it would be a shame if this incident (which really was a small number of people) is used to evidence Anglophobia to a scale that really doesn’t exist in Scotland.

• First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
  I am far from the biggest fan of the First Minister although don’t hate him in the way some do. I probably had more respect for him 12 months ago but have not been impressed by him (or a number of other politicians on both sides of the independence argument) over the past year. However on this issue I agree with him not apologising to Farage. The only footage we have of the incident (at least that I have seen) does not paint as bad a picture as Farage is claiming. Yes it is fairly volatile but there was no physical violence and I didn’t hear anything that I would classify as anti-English racist abuse (and I am English).

  Farage is an obnoxious man and when you take a position at an extreme then it will prompt extreme behaviour from those opposed to those views. Freedom of speech does of course protect people (although not always any more) but that freedom of speech is afforded to both sides of an argument.

  It is not the First Minister’s job to apologise for, or condemn, the actions of a fairly small group of people who haven’t actually broken any laws (as far as we know anyway).

  However, in the interest of balance, what I would say is that I wager if Salmond was received like that in England by 20 odd people the reaction to it from a number of SNP supporters would be no different from the reaction of those demanding condemnation by Salmond. It is the hypocrisy of politics that we see all too often now.

powered by SEO Super Comments