Argyll's online broadsheet.

So you’re not a member of SNP so …

Comment posted Labour in helpless self-harm over Blair money by Integrity?.

So you’re not a member of SNP so won’t comment on their funding sources. Are you a member of Labour then as you seem ok abo commenting on their sources?

So if a politician beat his wife up you would oppose thm funding a party but no problem with a film star doing it?

Integrity? also commented

  • And Brian Souter denying equal rights is not an opinion, that is also a fact. Whether he is a great Scot is an opinion, in mine he is far from it.

    Accepting money from him whilst shouting about a fairer more just society is also a fact. My opinion is this makes the SNP hypocritical IF they want to point fingers at other parties for accepting what they consider to be inappropriate money.

  • I would put the same point to you that I previously made more generally (and fair play to JnrTick for responding to it)

    Are you happy with the SNP taking Connery’s ‘domestic abuse’ money and Souter’s ‘denial of equal rights’ money?

    And to maybe see off one challenge I am not comparing these two things to the deaths in theIraq War but they are still blights on society.

  • First off John let me apologise for the tone of my post. In retrospect I appreciate it was a tad over the top! I do get a little frustrated when political differences and the consequential challenges (either between candidates or supporters of parties) appear to drift away from what a candidate can deliver and focus more on personal aspects. My post wasn’t just aimed at you but also at others on here (and I also accept entirely that the SNP supporters are no more guilty of this than the supporters of other parties).

    Yes I of course accept that people should be able to ask question of politicians however in this particular case I question the motivation behind your questions. Of course Mary has a history with the Blair/Brown government , any labour politician who was a party member during that era must have one. Are you looking for a full CV of her time with the party or is there something in particular you are trying to get her to ‘reveal’. Why not just ask a direct question about whatever it is that seems to be potentially concerning you? Does it potentially affect how she would represent A&B? If so I would as keen to hear about it as anyone. Similarly posting a link to an 80 page document which simply confirms she was on the Salary Review Board and asking her if she is the same Mary Galbraith (when you already know she is), then a link to another document which just confirms exactly the same thing. Do you have an issue with her being on the Salaries Review Body? If so, what is it?

    As you know I work with politicians fairly regularly and I don’t actually share the scepticism that a lot of people have. Of course there are bad eggs but there are bad eggs in all walks of life. Unfortunately too many supporters of political parties are far too keen to jump on even a hint of ‘dodginess’ even if there is actually no ‘dodginess’ to be landed on. I personally prefer more straight talking political debate (sadly very far between in this day and age) with straight questions rather than fishing in a pond questions.

  • If I make thinly veiled attempts to blacken someone’s character then I would expect someone to ask me to provide something more concrete than a throw away insinuation. If I couldnt provide anything other thann ‘becasue I say so’ then my credibility is rock bottom.

    if people trying to blacken Mary Galbraith’s name can’t provide anything other than unevidenced statements then I apply the same judgement to them. Why should I research an unsubstantiated claim made by someone else?

  • But what is her close association? Is it just that she was in the party?

    So far we have had a link to an 80 page document which simply lists her as being a member of the Salaries Review body.

    If people have a specific beef about what she has personally done then lets hear it rather than seeing suggested links which amount to nothing.

Recent comments by Integrity?

  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    Who is stating that it won’t go ahead, all be it in a revised form?
  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    And they would have got away with it if it wasn’t for those pesky kids…

    (I’ll get my coat)

    The extent to which it is defective must be marginal if it got as far as appeals to the Supreme Court.

    Be interesting to see how much any revisions are actually material in terms of what is rolled out but my gut feeling is that they will be marginal and a lot of people happy at today’s ruling are going to be spitting blood.

  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    My personal view on this is that we are better without the thumbs up and down. They don’t mean anything and they just clutter the page. I think they are more of a trivial facebook/twitter thing than something for a forum.

    You also get people who simply use them just because they don’t like the poster regardless of what they say. I am pretty sure if Malcolm or NCH posted a story about a lovely old lady being recognised for her lifetime commitment to helping retired guide dogs there would be someone petty enough to give it a thumbs down!

    However I appreciate people might like them.

  • Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
    It is probably worth being clear that this will not stop it being implemented – it just means there will be some amendments to it. Amendments which could have been got to without a stack of cash wasted on legal battles if politicians could be a little more grown up and a little less obsessed with never admitting they don’t know everything.
  • What now for Scotland?

    Like indy1 it was a campaign packed with untruths from both sides and it further demonstrated that our politicians will say anything to hoodwink the public to voting their way. We are already seeing the Remain camp back pedalling on two of the claims they pedalled relentlessly in order to get votes.

    I think you’re pessimistic in terms of the number of previous NO voters that this will swing. Hardly scientific I know but I have been very surprised at the number of friends of mine who have already said they will now vote yes, some of them who were staunch No voters before. However I’m not basing this view on what a few of my mates say! There is just an inherent logic that such an issue is bound to cause a degree of swing toward Yes and we know that swing doesn’t need to be substantial.

powered by SEO Super Comments

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Related Articles & Comments