Argyll's online broadsheet.

CORRECTION: That should say ‘former’ not ‘latter’ in …

Comment posted Arrogance and ignorance of ‘SNP chief’ could lose the grassroots by Integrity?.

CORRECTION: That should say ‘former’ not ‘latter’ in last sentence.

Integrity? also commented

  • Do you actually read what you’re ranting about before you start thrashing your fingers on the keyboard Willie?

    If you did then you have missed my point ridiculously badly. Or do you just want to avoid the question about whether you are ok with religious bigotry?

  • What David Cameron is alleged to have done (and let us not forget it is nothing more than alleged just now) is undeniably distasteful to the vast majority of people. However we once again see the hypocrisy of moral outrage about something that happened many years ago whilst seemingly happy to ignore inappropriate behaviour from prior years by people from within the party of preference.
    David Cameron is apparently verging on human vermin for this alleged act – almost being compared to child molesters and is not fit for office.
    Meanwhile our own MSP, Brendan O’Hara, in the past, has made remarks which suggest he is a sectarian bigot. Surely a character trait which means he isn’t fit for office, especially as he is supposed to represent all regardless of religion or football team affiliation!
    I guess we all have a line we don’t cross. Personally my line is well before sectarian bigotry and also sexual behaviour with animals, alive or dead! Maybe the latter is deemed OK by Bill, Hugh Jazz, and Willie or is it just that they refuse to criticise a member of the SNP?

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