Tuesday, 07 February 2012 06:29
121 Comments
By a Newsnet reporter 
A Glasgow Labour councillor has been banned from holding office over alleged comments he made about a case involving the alleged rape of a nine year old.
William O’Rourke, who represented the Greater Pollok ward, was suspended from the party last March after he allegedly suggested that the young victim may have been a willing participant and that the girl “wanted it to happen”.
O’Rourke is alleged to have made the comments at a personnel appeals committee hearing into the case after the care worker who was dismissed for allegedly having sex with the child, O’Rourke is said to have asked if the girl “wanted it to happen” because no force was used and that she was not a “typical innocent nine year old”.
He also made a comment about the child’s mother being a prostitute and went on what the Police Officer described as a ‘rant’ about promiscuous children and the need to lower the age of sexual consent.
Glasgow Labour were accused of closing ranks in order to protect O’Rourke after it emerged Baillies Jim Scanlan and Jim Todd were also present at the hearing, but had said nothing.
O’Rourke’s comments were only made public after a Strathclyde Police Officer who was a witness at the hearing reported concerns and an official complaint was lodged with the Standards Commission for Scotland, which regulates the behaviour of politicians.
O’Rourke was then suspended from the Labour party after the report was leaked to the media. He was also sacked from Strathclyde Police Authority, the personnel appeals committee and the boards of council-owned companies City Parking and Glasgow City Markets.
The incident is acutely embarrassing for new Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont who is the local MSP for the Pollok area and who is a member of the Pollok branch.
Ms Lamont herself sparked controversy last year after she described the appalling treatment of an apparent rape victim who had been forced, claimed Ms Lamont, to hold up her underwear when giving evidence in court.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
However, it later emerged that the case had been a fabrication which had originally appeared in the Glasgow Evening Times – the paper subsequently issued an apology.
To date, Ms Lamont has failed to acknowledge her mistake which was used at the time in order to attack the Scottish Government over the low rate of convictions for rape.
Comments
#
2012-02-07 08:54
Quoting Louperdowg:
Don't hold your breath.
I am keen to hear Johann Lamont's views about this case.
Don't hold your breath.
#
2012-02-07 08:53
What is it about political power that makes those seeking it so rabid. It is quite disgusting.
#
2012-02-07 17:52
J[quote name="tartanfever"]What is it with Labour and rape cases ?[/
Somebody actually thinks a nine year old child is sexually aware ?
Geez! Isn't that a bit perverted ?
How on earth can you think of a nine year old child in those tems.
Sick !
Somebody actually thinks a nine year old child is sexually aware ?
Geez! Isn't that a bit perverted ?
How on earth can you think of a nine year old child in those tems.
Sick !
#
2012-02-07 09:10
Scanlan and Todd should go as well these two must be the lowest of the low to be able to justify this. I see that the two of them are baillies and that the Administration in Glasgow wanted to award them with gold medals - now at least we know what they would have been getting them for. The Labour Party in Scotland should copy lemmings and voluntarily walk over a cliff,
Thank goodness a decent policeman did what was right. Thanks to Strathclydes's finest.
Thank goodness a decent policeman did what was right. Thanks to Strathclydes's finest.
#
2012-02-07 10:08
Scanlan & Todd should be making a statement. How do they justify keeping quiet other than to protect the party.
#
2012-02-07 09:14
Oh hypocrisy thy name is Johann. Child abuse, rape, child poverty, it really doesn't get more serious. But apparently if you are a Labour councillor ranks are closed or if you are a Labour leader the facts aren't that important. May is not coming round quickly enough boys and girls.
#
2012-02-07 09:25
Getting rid of this wee numpty is one way of creating an empty Ward for a "Big Gun" Labour numpty to stand in his place I suppose.
#
2012-02-07 10:16
Quoting Jim Johnston:
But they have not, "got rid", he is only suspended, so will be back. Question is, "Has his constituency selection committee reselected him to stand in the coming election"?
Getting rid of this wee numpty is one way of creating an empty Ward for a "Big Gun" Labour numpty to stand in his place I suppose.
But they have not, "got rid", he is only suspended, so will be back. Question is, "Has his constituency selection committee reselected him to stand in the coming election"?
#
2012-02-07 13:59
Hi Auld Bob,
You're obviously more a student of Labour shenanigans than I am.
In answer to your question, and not to reply to a question with a question .....but does it really matter which numpty they sellect ? They are all out of the same trough.
I believe the good folks in Glasgow will give them the straight answer in May. That must scare them to death.
You're obviously more a student of Labour shenanigans than I am.
In answer to your question, and not to reply to a question with a question .....but does it really matter which numpty they sellect ? They are all out of the same trough.
I believe the good folks in Glasgow will give them the straight answer in May. That must scare them to death.
#
2012-02-07 09:44
O/T
Constitutional law expert Matt Qvortrup (who's comments have previously been seized upon by unionists)makes a definitive statement on the legality of a referendum:
heraldscotland.com/.../...
Yes, it was buried away!
Constitutional law expert Matt Qvortrup (who's comments have previously been seized upon by unionists)makes a definitive statement on the legality of a referendum:
heraldscotland.com/.../...
Yes, it was buried away!
#
2012-02-07 10:14
Wow! Well done Dougie, a must read!
But the key is in this paragrapah:
"Of course, such legalistic pondering is of little consequence to those who think politically about independence referendums"
But the key is in this paragrapah:
"Of course, such legalistic pondering is of little consequence to those who think politically about independence referendums"
#
2012-02-07 10:23
It's getting rubbished on twitter by other commentators who have legal knowledge, folk like LallandPeatWarr ior and Alan Trench
Alan Trench @devomatters Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
.@hspolitics M Qvortrup has a small point about the importance of politics in indep/secession cases, but is wrong on almost every detail.
Alan Trench @devomatters Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
.@hspolitics M Qvortrup has a small point about the importance of politics in indep/secession cases, but is wrong on almost every detail.
#
2012-02-07 11:17
Maybe technically so Snowthistle, but remember that lawyers make a living from such protracted debates and slightly different interpretations of the law and legal rulings. It's a circus.
One thing over-rides the constructs that laws are every time - basic human rights. The right to self determination in inalienable. The law is an expression of society, if a majority in a society clearly states the desire for self determination the law becomes obsolete. The dog wags the tail not vice versa.
I'm not a massive fan of lawyers and legalities that fly in the face of common sense as can be seen.
One thing over-rides the constructs that laws are every time - basic human rights. The right to self determination in inalienable. The law is an expression of society, if a majority in a society clearly states the desire for self determination the law becomes obsolete. The dog wags the tail not vice versa.
I'm not a massive fan of lawyers and legalities that fly in the face of common sense as can be seen.
#
2012-02-07 11:34
The law is like Humpty Dumpty in through the looking glass - it means what ever we, the people, wish it to mean.
The problem with legal experts is they are too wrapped up in the idea that law is sacrosanct forgetting that it is, itself, always changing and adapting to political circumstance - and that is Mr Qvortup's point.
The problem with legal experts is they are too wrapped up in the idea that law is sacrosanct forgetting that it is, itself, always changing and adapting to political circumstance - and that is Mr Qvortup's point.
#
2012-02-07 12:48
Quoting Mad Jock McMad:
AyE! I left this comment in my usual fashion. If it does nothing else it may result in a few soiled underpants somewhere.
I would humbly point out to the learned professor that Scotland's situation is not like any example he quotes. Scotland and England were the only two signatories on the Treaty of Union and their status was as equal sovereign states. Both countries were already under the rule of a common monarchy. The English throne already ruled the Principality of Wales and included, (by act of the Parliament of Ireland), the Irish crown. Thus the treaty was a political union of two sovereign parliaments that already shared a Monarch. There is much confusion about how this came about.
Most would seem a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters. Some references to the matter read, “The Treaty, (ACT), of Union”, and that is wrong. There are three documents that brought about the Joint parliament at Westminster that we now know as, “The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland”. These documents are: - The Treaty of The Union of the Parliaments dated in 1706, which leads to - “The Act of Union”, passed in the Parliament of Scotland and, “The Act of Union”, passed by the Parliament of England. In fact the Scottish act was amended by the Scottish Parliament before it was accepted and passed by the English parliament. Now Parliament process is that a bill is drawn up, debated upon, voted upon and, if only if passed, becomes an Act Of Parliament. Neither of these ACTS OF PARLIAMENT was, “THE PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN”, but were acts of the respective sovereign states that enacted them that created that parliament.
“So why is that important?”, you may ask and the answer is this. The present Westminster parliament, (By the way, built with UK taxpayers money after the Old English Parliament burned to the ground), will be what ends when, (not if), Scotland pulls out of, “The Treaty of Union”, and tears up its own, “ACT OF UNION”.
As to their legal right to do so – They are withdrawing from a two partner treaty so there will be no legal, “Parliament Of the United Kingdom”, after that point. Now the facts are this – The Grand Seal of Her/His Majesty's Parliament of England & The Grand Seal Of Her/His Majesty's Parliament of Scotland were destroyed under the terms of the Union and a new Grand Seal of Her/His Majesty's Parliament of the UNITED KINGDOM made to replace them. No parliament can be legal unless it bears that seal and neither can any bill become an act. That is because of Sovereignty and The United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy – (sovereignty is delegated to the legally elected representative of the people).
Now for the killer bit – The Monarch is, “Queen/King of England”, and the people of England are her/his subjects as the monarch is sovereign. The monarch is also, “Queen/King of Scots”, and the monarch in Scotland is the subject of the Sovereign people of Scotland. This sovereignty in Scotland also includes the right to dismiss a Monarch who does not do proper duty to the people of Scotland and thus to dismiss the parliament that has been appointed by them. That, though, depends if that Parliament has their mandate in the first place. At this time the Westminster Parliament does not have a mandate of the People of Scotland but the Parliament at Holyrood most certainly has. Furthermore, any doubt that Holyrood is not a, “Wee pretendy parliament”, was proven wrong on the day it was convened for when Winnie Ewing made her declaration before Her Majesty Queen of Scots, Winnie boldly stated that she was reconvening the old Scottish parliament. This historic statement has never been challenged.
The law is like Humpty Dumpty in through the looking glass - it means what ever we, the people, wish it to mean.
The problem with legal experts is they are too wrapped up in the idea that law is sacrosanct forgetting that it is, itself, always changing and adapting to political circumstance - and that is Mr Qvortup's point.
AyE! I left this comment in my usual fashion. If it does nothing else it may result in a few soiled underpants somewhere.
I would humbly point out to the learned professor that Scotland's situation is not like any example he quotes. Scotland and England were the only two signatories on the Treaty of Union and their status was as equal sovereign states. Both countries were already under the rule of a common monarchy. The English throne already ruled the Principality of Wales and included, (by act of the Parliament of Ireland), the Irish crown. Thus the treaty was a political union of two sovereign parliaments that already shared a Monarch. There is much confusion about how this came about.
Most would seem a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters. Some references to the matter read, “The Treaty, (ACT), of Union”, and that is wrong. There are three documents that brought about the Joint parliament at Westminster that we now know as, “The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland”. These documents are: - The Treaty of The Union of the Parliaments dated in 1706, which leads to - “The Act of Union”, passed in the Parliament of Scotland and, “The Act of Union”, passed by the Parliament of England. In fact the Scottish act was amended by the Scottish Parliament before it was accepted and passed by the English parliament. Now Parliament process is that a bill is drawn up, debated upon, voted upon and, if only if passed, becomes an Act Of Parliament. Neither of these ACTS OF PARLIAMENT was, “THE PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN”, but were acts of the respective sovereign states that enacted them that created that parliament.
“So why is that important?”, you may ask and the answer is this. The present Westminster parliament, (By the way, built with UK taxpayers money after the Old English Parliament burned to the ground), will be what ends when, (not if), Scotland pulls out of, “The Treaty of Union”, and tears up its own, “ACT OF UNION”.
As to their legal right to do so – They are withdrawing from a two partner treaty so there will be no legal, “Parliament Of the United Kingdom”, after that point. Now the facts are this – The Grand Seal of Her/His Majesty's Parliament of England & The Grand Seal Of Her/His Majesty's Parliament of Scotland were destroyed under the terms of the Union and a new Grand Seal of Her/His Majesty's Parliament of the UNITED KINGDOM made to replace them. No parliament can be legal unless it bears that seal and neither can any bill become an act. That is because of Sovereignty and The United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy – (sovereignty is delegated to the legally elected representative of the people).
Now for the killer bit – The Monarch is, “Queen/King of England”, and the people of England are her/his subjects as the monarch is sovereign. The monarch is also, “Queen/King of Scots”, and the monarch in Scotland is the subject of the Sovereign people of Scotland. This sovereignty in Scotland also includes the right to dismiss a Monarch who does not do proper duty to the people of Scotland and thus to dismiss the parliament that has been appointed by them. That, though, depends if that Parliament has their mandate in the first place. At this time the Westminster Parliament does not have a mandate of the People of Scotland but the Parliament at Holyrood most certainly has. Furthermore, any doubt that Holyrood is not a, “Wee pretendy parliament”, was proven wrong on the day it was convened for when Winnie Ewing made her declaration before Her Majesty Queen of Scots, Winnie boldly stated that she was reconvening the old Scottish parliament. This historic statement has never been challenged.
#
2012-02-07 16:02
No that I want tae be correcting you or anything Bob but as far as I'm lead tae believe Scotland doesn’t have a his/her 'Majesty', Scotland has a His/her 'Grace'. A subtle point I know but an important one, I feel, considering the discussion with regards to sovereignty and where it lays.
#
2012-02-07 11:50
I haven't read much of Alan Trench but I do read Lalland's blog (when I can understand it...)
He tends to take a purely legalistic view on things and ignores the human aspect. I think people who are legally minded tend to hold that over or at least favour the legal points over the actual will of the people which is in the end what really counts.
Its a bit of a circular argument, we vote our legislators into office, they can't then make laws and create new courts in order to keep themselves in place and expect us to be content with it.
That is the bottom line, we have so-called lords and MP's at westminster 'fixing' a legal document so they can keep their jobs, it boils down to that and nothing else in my view.
He tends to take a purely legalistic view on things and ignores the human aspect. I think people who are legally minded tend to hold that over or at least favour the legal points over the actual will of the people which is in the end what really counts.
Its a bit of a circular argument, we vote our legislators into office, they can't then make laws and create new courts in order to keep themselves in place and expect us to be content with it.
That is the bottom line, we have so-called lords and MP's at westminster 'fixing' a legal document so they can keep their jobs, it boils down to that and nothing else in my view.
#
2012-02-07 12:28
Re: Alan Trench, you should read some of his stuff, he is not on our side but is as near to impartial as I have come across. I think he is Welsh? He certainly speaks a lot about Welsh devolution
devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/
devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/
#
2012-02-07 13:00
It is, after all, in the interests of the legal profession to make everything a purely 'legal' matter.
In reality, it comes down to what two different countries, represented by two different parliaments actually choose to do. The notion that a court in one such country can somehow stifle the democratic will of another through the application of technicalities is frankly absurd. It is an interesting legalese discussion, but not much more. Unless of course Westminster is stupid enough to create another Ireland and send troops up.
It has taken some time, but I think Westminster has finally realised this is not the same as simple primary legislation, and the notion of Westminster saying 'NO' to the wishes of Scotland are in reality a thing of the past.
With each passing day, Westminster becomes less relevant to Scots. Technicalities are all they have to hang their coat on, as exhibited recently by the legalese nonsense spouted by Jim Wallace. Technicalities, hubris and not a whole lot more.
Frankly, most Scots couldn't care less what the London pretendy 'supreme' court thinks of the matter. It is an English court with politically inspired pretensions to power and grandeur. It is irrelevant.
It is only a matter of time before Scotland gives Westminster its P45 .
In reality, it comes down to what two different countries, represented by two different parliaments actually choose to do. The notion that a court in one such country can somehow stifle the democratic will of another through the application of technicalities is frankly absurd. It is an interesting legalese discussion, but not much more. Unless of course Westminster is stupid enough to create another Ireland and send troops up.
It has taken some time, but I think Westminster has finally realised this is not the same as simple primary legislation, and the notion of Westminster saying 'NO' to the wishes of Scotland are in reality a thing of the past.
With each passing day, Westminster becomes less relevant to Scots. Technicalities are all they have to hang their coat on, as exhibited recently by the legalese nonsense spouted by Jim Wallace. Technicalities, hubris and not a whole lot more.
Frankly, most Scots couldn't care less what the London pretendy 'supreme' court thinks of the matter. It is an English court with politically inspired pretensions to power and grandeur. It is irrelevant.
It is only a matter of time before Scotland gives Westminster its P45 .
#
2012-02-07 14:45
In reality, it comes down to what two different countries, represented by two different parliaments actually choose to do. The notion that a court in one such country can somehow stifle the democratic will of another through the application of technicalities is frankly absurd.
Spot on RL and I believe this to be the heart of Prof. Qvortrup's statement.
Spot on RL and I believe this to be the heart of Prof. Qvortrup's statement.
#
2012-02-07 10:24
Its obvious that it was meant to be front page but it somehow just slipped down the list.
Probably a computer glitch.
I wouldn't read too much into it.
Probably a computer glitch.
I wouldn't read too much into it.
#
2012-02-07 12:53
Quoting Louperdowg:
Talking about computer glitches. This morning I tried to find the actual text of, "The Treaty Of Union", but had no luck whatsoever. Plenty misleading stuff like headings saying, "The Treaty, (acts), of Union", (three different docs). I've never had bother finding the actual text for the treaty before. Is there some kind of conspiracy?
Its obvious that it was meant to be front page but it somehow just slipped down the list.
Probably a computer glitch.
I wouldn't read too much into it.
Talking about computer glitches. This morning I tried to find the actual text of, "The Treaty Of Union", but had no luck whatsoever. Plenty misleading stuff like headings saying, "The Treaty, (acts), of Union", (three different docs). I've never had bother finding the actual text for the treaty before. Is there some kind of conspiracy?
#
2012-02-07 20:24
"ARTICLE XXI. - Royal Burghs.
That the Rights and Privileges of the Royal Burghs in Scotland as they now are do remain entire after the Union and notwithstanding thereof."
Experts on Common Good - Andy Wightman for instance - have demonstrated time and again that the above Article has been trampled underfoot by successive Local Govt Acts.
That the Rights and Privileges of the Royal Burghs in Scotland as they now are do remain entire after the Union and notwithstanding thereof."
Experts on Common Good - Andy Wightman for instance - have demonstrated time and again that the above Article has been trampled underfoot by successive Local Govt Acts.
#
2012-02-07 10:43
interesting comment:
'This, of course, does not mean that the larger state is happy with the secession. The Soviet Union was far from happy with the secession referendums in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – and Slobodan Miloševic was anything but thrilled by the referendums on independence in Bosnia, Croatia and other republics on independence from Yugoslavia. To claim that Scotland does not have a legal right to hold a referendum on independence is to use the very same argument as Mr Miloševic . And, it seems unlikely that any British politician would want to adopt a position that failed for a notorious dictator.'
'This, of course, does not mean that the larger state is happy with the secession. The Soviet Union was far from happy with the secession referendums in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – and Slobodan Miloševic was anything but thrilled by the referendums on independence in Bosnia, Croatia and other republics on independence from Yugoslavia. To claim that Scotland does not have a legal right to hold a referendum on independence is to use the very same argument as Mr Miloševic . And, it seems unlikely that any British politician would want to adopt a position that failed for a notorious dictator.'
#
2012-02-07 11:19
It's a little gem to be cut and pasted. The unionists find themselves on the wrong side of the debate b- yet again.
#
2012-02-07 12:56
Perhaps it is interesting but quite misleading. These things refered to were not attempts to break a treaty of two equal sovereign partners but of overlord states being defied.
#
2012-02-07 13:56
What I found interesting was this "And, it seems unlikely that any British politician would want to adopt a position that failed for a notorious dictator."
The thing is I'm not so sure I think the british government has many similar traits to notorious dictatorships.
The thing is I'm not so sure I think the british government has many similar traits to notorious dictatorships.
#
2012-02-07 13:59
Well, the LibDems did say they wanted to be progressive and then turned out to be nothing of the sort, so they're a bit like Mugabe in that respect. And some of them are probably vegetarians, like Hitler.
#
2012-02-07 12:14
Matt Qvortrup wrote a similar article in the Scotsman on 11th January. We should encourage his contributions on a regular basis to counter the Westminster-centred guff uttered by Jim Wallace. Here's the article: scotsman.com/.../...
#
2012-02-07 13:43
I liked this from the article.
This, of course, does not mean that the larger state is happy with the secession. The Soviet Union was far from happy with the secession referendums in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – and Slobodan Miloševic was anything but thrilled by the referendums on independence in Bosnia, Croatia and other republics on independence from Yugoslavia. To claim that Scotland does not have a legal right to hold a referendum on independence is to use the very same argument as Mr Miloševic . And, it seems unlikely that any British politician would want to adopt a position that failed for a notorious dictator.
This, of course, does not mean that the larger state is happy with the secession. The Soviet Union was far from happy with the secession referendums in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – and Slobodan Miloševic was anything but thrilled by the referendums on independence in Bosnia, Croatia and other republics on independence from Yugoslavia. To claim that Scotland does not have a legal right to hold a referendum on independence is to use the very same argument as Mr Miloševic . And, it seems unlikely that any British politician would want to adopt a position that failed for a notorious dictator.
#
2012-02-07 10:14
O/T
Anyone looking for a laugh this morning should go to The Scotsman article written by some raving monarchist.
The article alone is worth a laugh or two but nearly all the comments have been removed.
Trying to work out who said what to whom is like trying to do The Times Crossword in the dark.
scotsman.com/.../...
Anyone looking for a laugh this morning should go to The Scotsman article written by some raving monarchist.
The article alone is worth a laugh or two but nearly all the comments have been removed.
Trying to work out who said what to whom is like trying to do The Times Crossword in the dark.
scotsman.com/.../...
#
2012-02-07 10:46
Why is the Scotsman (Scottish based newspaper) showing a picture of the Queen with the crowd holding Cross of St George flags?
#
2012-02-07 11:38
Because, for another few years, we're still British, the Queen is still queen and yesterday was the sixtieth anniversary of her accession to the throne. She happened to be in England yesterday, which is why the crowd were holding English flags. I don't understand why "Old woman not dead yet" is news, but it does appear to interest fans of the old woman, who like to see pictures of what she's been up to.
#
2012-02-07 12:22
This should be well noted
So when the Queen visits Scotland and we get critised for handing the kids Saltire flags, we can point to this
Frankly Im actually pleased that the children were waving St Georges flags, its there flag and they should be proud of that.
The bit that annoys me is when we do the same here waving the St Andrews flag and we get called everything under the sun.
So when the Queen visits Scotland and we get critised for handing the kids Saltire flags, we can point to this
Frankly Im actually pleased that the children were waving St Georges flags, its there flag and they should be proud of that.
The bit that annoys me is when we do the same here waving the St Andrews flag and we get called everything under the sun.
#
2012-02-13 04:39
Usually any signs of being proud of our country equals having "huge chips on our shoulders"...
#
2012-02-07 12:24
Quiote funny actually that the Scotsman has removed comments 1 through to 25 on the story
#
2012-02-07 14:26
I think maybe their moderator has gone into overdrive - take a look at how many have gone from here.
scotsman.com/.../...
Shurely Shome Mishtake?
scotsman.com/.../...
Shurely Shome Mishtake?
#
2012-02-07 11:30
"Unfortunately we are now in a political situation where criticism of the SNP is leapt upon for being “anti-Scottish” or “biased against independence” or some such similar charge. What I detect here is a growing movement intent on intimidating papers like The Scotsman from subjecting the SNP to the same level of attention their predecessors received. The fact of the matter is that the SNP has an overall majority at Holyrood, its actions matter and its behaviour is worthy of the closest scrutiny and, when necessary, criticism. We regularly carry stories critical of the Westminster coalition, but we don’t hear Unionists decrying us for being disloyal to Britain."
The Editor of the Scotsman in response to the political bias and inaccurate reporting in the Scotsman.
The Editor of the Scotsman in response to the political bias and inaccurate reporting in the Scotsman.
#
2012-02-07 17:11
No Louperdowg, all the labour press releases attack either us, the coalition or both and the Northbritonpers on never miss any of those.
#
2012-02-07 11:53
Even their Fred Goodwin poll asks "Was the Queen right to revoke Fred Goodwin’s knighthood?", like Cameron had nothing to do with it.
#
2012-02-07 11:57
The Editor of the Scotsman(sic),c an most certainly count on not getting a penny piece from me or mine, ever again!
His response to you is so weighted it proves he's quite a stranger to the truth.
The transparent answer could have been contained to just a part of his response; ".. The fact of the matter is that the SNP has an overall majority at Holyrood, its actions matter and its behaviour is worthy of the closest scrutiny and, when necessary, criticism."
Methinks, he doth squirm far too much!
His response to you is so weighted it proves he's quite a stranger to the truth.
The transparent answer could have been contained to just a part of his response; ".. The fact of the matter is that the SNP has an overall majority at Holyrood, its actions matter and its behaviour is worthy of the closest scrutiny and, when necessary, criticism."
Methinks, he doth squirm far too much!
#
2012-02-07 14:15
Quoting Jiggsbro:
Yes indeedy!
Someone should tell him that 'hypocrisy' isn't spelled 'criticism'.
Yes indeedy!
#
2012-02-07 12:10
It totally sidesteps the problem though, of course we want equal scrutiny for all politicians and their actions but we don't get that, at best we get misrepresentati ons, at worst (or is it worse?) we get plain old lies.
I never read the Scotsman anyway, its pretentious and has its collective head up its own collective fundament.
I never read the Scotsman anyway, its pretentious and has its collective head up its own collective fundament.
#
2012-02-07 12:17
I bought a copy of the Scotsman once although I did get the newsagent to pop it inside a copy of Readers' Wives.
#
2012-02-07 13:50
I would never buy that rag, I prefer Big & Busty.
Oh dear, I fear the tone has been lowered.
:-/
Oh dear, I fear the tone has been lowered.
:-/
#
2012-02-07 14:16
Quoting pa_broon74:
Ditto! I get it for the crossword and the gardening section news.
I would never buy that rag, I prefer Big & Busty.
Oh dear, I fear the tone has been lowered.
:-/
Ditto! I get it for the crossword and the gardening section news.
#
2012-02-07 12:34
You only have to read the Maddox story about Midwinters comments to realise the Editor of the Scotsman is talking guff!
#
2012-02-07 12:58
The editor of the Scotsman should spend exactly one minute on Google searching under Scotsman for the phrase **** Accused,as I did and came up with this.
SNP Accused 346
Labour Accused 60
Tories Accused 28
Lib Dem Accused 28
I rest my case
SNP Accused 346
Labour Accused 60
Tories Accused 28
Lib Dem Accused 28
I rest my case
#
2012-02-07 13:33
Google searched for:
The scotsman "SNP accused"
= About 16,000 results (0.29 seconds)
The scotsman "Labour accused"
= About 4,400 results (0.30 seconds)
The scotsman "Tories accused"
= About 2,080 results (0.20 seconds)
The scotsman "Liberals accused"
= About 2,040 results (0.22 seconds)
Further research has been done on this site on the very topic...
newsnetscotland.com/.../...
The scotsman "SNP accused"
= About 16,000 results (0.29 seconds)
The scotsman "Labour accused"
= About 4,400 results (0.30 seconds)
The scotsman "Tories accused"
= About 2,080 results (0.20 seconds)
The scotsman "Liberals accused"
= About 2,040 results (0.22 seconds)
Further research has been done on this site on the very topic...
newsnetscotland.com/.../...
#
2012-02-07 13:37
Google counting is rarely a useful or informative argument. For example, those 346 "SNP accused" hits will include any articles in which the SNP accused the Westminster government of some wrongdoing.
#
2012-02-07 13:41
Look at the different search I carried out and look at the results achieved by all different search criteria in the link I provided above and ask yourself, why the SNP consistantly scores up to 4 times the number of hits than Labour or even more against the Liberals and Tories.
It doesnt matter how you do it, add the word 'Accused' to the letters 'SNP' in any search and the results rocket in number!
It doesnt matter how you do it, add the word 'Accused' to the letters 'SNP' in any search and the results rocket in number!
#
2012-02-07 13:46
But the SNP is the government in Scotland. Therefore, any story in which they are accused of something - or in which they accuse someone else of something - is inherently more news-worthy than similar stories about other parties. There are likely to be more stories about the SNP in general, simply because they're in power. Regardless, counting how many times two words are used together tells us nothing about how those words are used: who is accusing whom of what.
#
2012-02-07 13:58
The searches go back years and years... I have seen newspaper story's from 2003 (When Labour were in power)... scotsman.com/.../...
Also, remember that Labour are a UK party, but still the SNP accused headlines completely outnumber them (and the SNP are only in Scotland)!
Also, The Tories and Lib Dems are in power in the UK government... you can't suggest that The Scotsman newspaper do not cover Westminster political news!
The bias is clear as day.
Also, remember that Labour are a UK party, but still the SNP accused headlines completely outnumber them (and the SNP are only in Scotland)!
Also, The Tories and Lib Dems are in power in the UK government... you can't suggest that The Scotsman newspaper do not cover Westminster political news!
The bias is clear as day.
#
2012-02-07 14:03
But you're searching a Scottish paper. Do you not think it likely that they will give some priority to Scottish stories? And the count still tells you nothing if you do not know the context in which the words are used.
The Scotsman has - like the BBC - enough examples of clear bias and hypocrisy. Adding in unsubstantiated complaints about meaningless Google statistics only allows them to ignore the valid complaints and focus on the invalid, characterising them as 'paranoid' or 'whinging', and then extending that characterisatio n, by association, to the valid complaints.
The Scotsman has - like the BBC - enough examples of clear bias and hypocrisy. Adding in unsubstantiated complaints about meaningless Google statistics only allows them to ignore the valid complaints and focus on the invalid, characterising them as 'paranoid' or 'whinging', and then extending that characterisatio n, by association, to the valid complaints.
#
2012-02-07 14:02
The scotsman "accused snp"
About 1,040 results (0.28 seconds)
The scotsman "accused scottish labour"
About 2,350,000 results (0.29 seconds)
Its how one asks the question.
About 1,040 results (0.28 seconds)
The scotsman "accused scottish labour"
About 2,350,000 results (0.29 seconds)
Its how one asks the question.
#
2012-02-07 14:06
And how one interprets the results.
Google hit counting is even less reliable than blindly quoting Wikipedia.
Google hit counting is even less reliable than blindly quoting Wikipedia.
#
2012-02-07 14:28
change it to The scotsman "Accused Scottish labour", -"SNP"
and you get = 4 results (0.17 seconds)
Just about all of these story's are written with anti-SNP sentiment, take the snp out of it and you end up with just about no circumstances where Labour have been 'Accused' and the SNP were not part of the Story.
and you get = 4 results (0.17 seconds)
Just about all of these story's are written with anti-SNP sentiment, take the snp out of it and you end up with just about no circumstances where Labour have been 'Accused' and the SNP were not part of the Story.
#
2012-02-07 22:06
O/T
But only 4 hits on google is pretty good!
There is a game computer techies play trying to get 'NO HITS' on google.
Don't know what they call it.
Sorry slow news day.
But only 4 hits on google is pretty good!
There is a game computer techies play trying to get 'NO HITS' on google.
Don't know what they call it.
Sorry slow news day.
#
2012-02-07 14:41
"snp accused" site:scotsman.com 1880 results
"labour accused" site:scotsman.com 1890 results
And still those results tell us nothing meaningful.
"labour accused" site:scotsman.com 1890 results
And still those results tell us nothing meaningful.
#
2012-02-07 15:07
Actually the figures for me are, using google.co.uk
"snp accused" site:scotsman.com 10900 results
"labour accused" site:scotsman.com 1880 results
True it does not say anything specific about the stories but it certainly defies statistical randomness where the results should be much closer to each other. There is definitely a statistical bias but by how much cannot really be calculated without going over every individual article.
"snp accused" site:scotsman.com 10900 results
"labour accused" site:scotsman.com 1880 results
True it does not say anything specific about the stories but it certainly defies statistical randomness where the results should be much closer to each other. There is definitely a statistical bias but by how much cannot really be calculated without going over every individual article.
#
2012-02-07 22:49
"snp accused" site:scotsman.com 10900 results
I can't reproduce this result.
it certainly defies statistical randomness
Not really. Particularly when you take into account that it returns hits where the words appear in comments, as well as in articles. Randomness isn't a factor, but all sorts of online behaviours are.
I can't reproduce this result.
it certainly defies statistical randomness
Not really. Particularly when you take into account that it returns hits where the words appear in comments, as well as in articles. Randomness isn't a factor, but all sorts of online behaviours are.
#
2012-02-07 15:00
Here what I found on Google:-
kevinwilliamson.blogspot.com/.../...
This was from when he took over at the Scotsman. Apparently the Editor of the Scotsman claims Edinburgh is not a Scottish city its british!
kevinwilliamson.blogspot.com/.../...
This was from when he took over at the Scotsman. Apparently the Editor of the Scotsman claims Edinburgh is not a Scottish city its british!
#
2012-02-07 15:47
Regarding the Scotsman's editor's statement:
As the old saying goes - butter wouldn't melt.
As the old saying goes - butter wouldn't melt.
#
2012-02-07 10:46
Unless I am mistaken it appears that the article attacking Alex Salmond in yesterday's Herald by Kate Devlin for his use of the word gauleiter has suddenly been removed from the online version.
Perhaps for legal reasons.
Perhaps for legal reasons.
#
2012-02-07 15:51
They must have read all the statements, brought to light in these comments, uttered previously by politicians who have used the same word.
#
2012-02-07 12:32
I wrote this the other day in response to a poll showing 50% still against Independence. I have since revisted it and made a few changes. Hope you enjoy.
I can’t understand why it’s so hard to see, this 50% are they smarter than me?
I see this nation has been lied to and worse, remember the days when to speak Scots was a curse
The McCrone report, are the people aware? We’ve been robbed for decades, do they really not care?
The mob down in Westminster they hid it away, you know the rest – every dog has his day
Your country’s too wee, too poor and too dumb; you’re better off staying under Westminster’s thumb
You’ll be treated like sheep and fed evermore shite, but you’re first on the list when we want men to fight
All that oil that has flowed, it flowed straight down to London, the tax and the wealth spent by Lord’s gay abandon
As the bankers and lifelong peers built the M25, more people in Scotland found it hard to survive
According to stats. we’re the sick man of Europe and does anyone care?
Labour? – once the party of the millions, now sadly, the party of the millionaire
They’ve sold us out lock stock and barrel, the opposition to Tories? Oh well maybe the odd quarrel
We were used as the lab rat with the poll tax from Thatcher
Can you believe she was once called stunning by that diddy Geoffrey Archer?
Well both of them proved the old saying in my hous
“you don’t need a long neck to look like a goose”
She never thought Scotland would survive all that mess
But we’re starting to flourish, - how’s Geoff doing and the evil Baroness?
The corrupt Murdoch press, pollies in their Sunday best, watch them grin at all of their might
Puppet masters supreme, with their left build a dream, whilst stealing our rights with the right
Spare a thought for those pollies the left and the right, their paymaster’s one in the same
Their God –FIAT money, I’m telling you honey, they’re playin the unlosable game
The Biased Broadcasting Corp and all of their cronies, treat the Scottish with scorn like we’re worthless pit ponies
Yes you’re kept in the dark and told God awful lies, whilst they feed in the trough, showing off their school ties.
The MSM they’re just the same, to see them slag Scotland is really a shame
It’s got that bad, I can’t help feel amused, especially when I see the headline “SNP accused”
The Scotsman, the paper, it once was a “read” now the Dandy and Beano leave it for deid
And just for the record, that daily’s the same, some call it the retard, it’s just no in the game
The Sun’s just as bad, remember the noose? remember my line, about long neck and goose?
Thank God we’ve got Bella and Newsnet to read, and the more people read them, the more we’ll succeed
But don’t think it’s over, there’s more work to do, our kids need a future, and an end to the “broo”
Our laws need reforming, the poor need a voice, and when casting a vote, hey we want a REAL choice?
And we’ll have no more tugging forelocks and going cap in hand, for the people are sovereign and we own the land
Aye those absent landlords, they’ll be next to go, how much poison they’ve dumped, God only knows
Not till we have our own Highland clearance, only then will we stop, and IT’S OUR FRIKKIN OIL! – EVERY LAST FRIKKIN DROP!
Just imagine for once, how it might feel, when there’s TV and papers telling it for real
And the Scots tell the Scottish how it will be, and the news is about Scotland as yer eating yer tea
There’s no “Murr-durr” headlines instead there’s debate, a new found confidence in this egalitarian state
And you smile to yerself as poverty dies, and we’re no longer dumbed down by those old Whitehall lies
With your cheaper gas, the hous now feels cosy, the economy’s booming and it’s all looking rosy
Then maybe you’ll stop and ask - how can this be?
Aye the Scots voted YES! Aye and Auld Alba’s now free!
I can’t understand why it’s so hard to see, this 50% are they smarter than me?
I see this nation has been lied to and worse, remember the days when to speak Scots was a curse
The McCrone report, are the people aware? We’ve been robbed for decades, do they really not care?
The mob down in Westminster they hid it away, you know the rest – every dog has his day
Your country’s too wee, too poor and too dumb; you’re better off staying under Westminster’s thumb
You’ll be treated like sheep and fed evermore shite, but you’re first on the list when we want men to fight
All that oil that has flowed, it flowed straight down to London, the tax and the wealth spent by Lord’s gay abandon
As the bankers and lifelong peers built the M25, more people in Scotland found it hard to survive
According to stats. we’re the sick man of Europe and does anyone care?
Labour? – once the party of the millions, now sadly, the party of the millionaire
They’ve sold us out lock stock and barrel, the opposition to Tories? Oh well maybe the odd quarrel
We were used as the lab rat with the poll tax from Thatcher
Can you believe she was once called stunning by that diddy Geoffrey Archer?
Well both of them proved the old saying in my hous
“you don’t need a long neck to look like a goose”
She never thought Scotland would survive all that mess
But we’re starting to flourish, - how’s Geoff doing and the evil Baroness?
The corrupt Murdoch press, pollies in their Sunday best, watch them grin at all of their might
Puppet masters supreme, with their left build a dream, whilst stealing our rights with the right
Spare a thought for those pollies the left and the right, their paymaster’s one in the same
Their God –FIAT money, I’m telling you honey, they’re playin the unlosable game
The Biased Broadcasting Corp and all of their cronies, treat the Scottish with scorn like we’re worthless pit ponies
Yes you’re kept in the dark and told God awful lies, whilst they feed in the trough, showing off their school ties.
The MSM they’re just the same, to see them slag Scotland is really a shame
It’s got that bad, I can’t help feel amused, especially when I see the headline “SNP accused”
The Scotsman, the paper, it once was a “read” now the Dandy and Beano leave it for deid
And just for the record, that daily’s the same, some call it the retard, it’s just no in the game
The Sun’s just as bad, remember the noose? remember my line, about long neck and goose?
Thank God we’ve got Bella and Newsnet to read, and the more people read them, the more we’ll succeed
But don’t think it’s over, there’s more work to do, our kids need a future, and an end to the “broo”
Our laws need reforming, the poor need a voice, and when casting a vote, hey we want a REAL choice?
And we’ll have no more tugging forelocks and going cap in hand, for the people are sovereign and we own the land
Aye those absent landlords, they’ll be next to go, how much poison they’ve dumped, God only knows
Not till we have our own Highland clearance, only then will we stop, and IT’S OUR FRIKKIN OIL! – EVERY LAST FRIKKIN DROP!
Just imagine for once, how it might feel, when there’s TV and papers telling it for real
And the Scots tell the Scottish how it will be, and the news is about Scotland as yer eating yer tea
There’s no “Murr-durr” headlines instead there’s debate, a new found confidence in this egalitarian state
And you smile to yerself as poverty dies, and we’re no longer dumbed down by those old Whitehall lies
With your cheaper gas, the hous now feels cosy, the economy’s booming and it’s all looking rosy
Then maybe you’ll stop and ask - how can this be?
Aye the Scots voted YES! Aye and Auld Alba’s now free!
#
2012-02-07 14:46
Keef if you dont mind I would like to copy this and hand it around a few dont knows. Powerful stuff which will help me convince others of the merits of independence.
#
2012-02-07 19:58
Well said !
Two and a half years to go. Plenty of time for the NO voters to be persuaded to see sense and be converted to the YES cause.
Saor Alba
Two and a half years to go. Plenty of time for the NO voters to be persuaded to see sense and be converted to the YES cause.
Saor Alba
#
2012-02-07 15:52
It's passing strange that a newspaper which claims to be "Scotlands",and has a falling circulation, chooses to come off the fence and take a pro-Unionist line in the referendum debate. An impartial stance might add to the debate and keep what readers they have. The present policy can only lead to diminished sales and hasten closure.
#
2012-02-07 16:07
Apologies - OT:
Mandarins 'freeze out' Alex Salmond' s civil servant from independence talks
The Daily Telegraph has learned that the permanent secretaries from all the Whitehall departments no longer discuss Scotland if Sir Peter Housden, the Scottish Executive’s permanent secretary, is present.
Their strategy for the forthcoming independence referendum would usually be discussed by all the permanent secretaries at their weekly meeting on Wednesday morning in Whitehall.
But senior sources have told this newspaper that the unprecedented action has been agreed by the other permanent secretaries because of they no longer believe they can have “free and frank discussions” on Scotland in front of Sir Peter.
Full article here: telegraph.co.uk/.../...
Mandarins 'freeze out' Alex Salmond' s civil servant from independence talks
The Daily Telegraph has learned that the permanent secretaries from all the Whitehall departments no longer discuss Scotland if Sir Peter Housden, the Scottish Executive’s permanent secretary, is present.
Their strategy for the forthcoming independence referendum would usually be discussed by all the permanent secretaries at their weekly meeting on Wednesday morning in Whitehall.
But senior sources have told this newspaper that the unprecedented action has been agreed by the other permanent secretaries because of they no longer believe they can have “free and frank discussions” on Scotland in front of Sir Peter.
Full article here: telegraph.co.uk/.../...
#
2012-02-07 16:25
Just read that article
Its by Simon Johnson - so pinch of salt needed.
'It has come from the top that if there is anything very sensitive about Scotland then it cannot be discussed in front of him' - Which means Westminster has something to hide
Reading the article I'm reminded that the establishment really dont like the Scots getting above themselves
We apparently are supposed to know our place ant that place is subserviant to the English governing classes and establishment.
This is clear when Whitehall accuses Sir Peter Housden, the Scottish Government’s permanent secretary of 'going native'
They must have thought that Sir Peter was syupposed to keep an eye on us and report back as to what were up to and not start actually acting like a proper permanent secretary working and supporting the democratically elected Government of Scotland.
Its the old 'Johnny Foreigner' ethos that they have, if your not English, then you must be foreign and anyone that is perceived to be helping the 'foreigners' in this case the Scots, must have 'gone native'
Its by Simon Johnson - so pinch of salt needed.
'It has come from the top that if there is anything very sensitive about Scotland then it cannot be discussed in front of him' - Which means Westminster has something to hide
Reading the article I'm reminded that the establishment really dont like the Scots getting above themselves
We apparently are supposed to know our place ant that place is subserviant to the English governing classes and establishment.
This is clear when Whitehall accuses Sir Peter Housden, the Scottish Government’s permanent secretary of 'going native'
They must have thought that Sir Peter was syupposed to keep an eye on us and report back as to what were up to and not start actually acting like a proper permanent secretary working and supporting the democratically elected Government of Scotland.
Its the old 'Johnny Foreigner' ethos that they have, if your not English, then you must be foreign and anyone that is perceived to be helping the 'foreigners' in this case the Scots, must have 'gone native'
#
2012-02-07 16:50
The frequent usage of 'gone native' in the context of Sir Peter Housden merely confirms the colonial time-warp the Westminster ruling classes, and the senior civil servants, including Gus O'Donnell, inhabit. Incidentally, there is more discussion of this on the NNS Article on the BBC censorship of the FM.
#
2012-02-07 23:06
I've spent a long time today on a John Redwood blog. Not only did I give him something to think on, I had a great time shooting down what, must be among the most ignorant crowd of people I've come across for quite a long time. I think I must have shot down every Englanders urban myth ever lied about.
#
2012-02-07 21:50
Clocked both this story and another of Cochrane's rants. Jeez, that paper really needs tae find a hobby. Scotland is pants, Alex Salmond is evil, sweaties need to be grateful to our ancient and still really powerful union, blah, blah, blah and did ah mention that Salmond is eeeeeevil. I politely posted that their message is received and understood. :)
#
2012-02-07 23:34
This is totally unacceptable behaviour by these (very) Senior Civil Servants.
Senior Civil Servants are bound by their post and duty to be totally loyal to the department that they serve. i.e. If a Permanent Secretary is employed by the Scottish Government, he is expected to facilitate their policies and decisions without question. PSs of other departments shoould only represent the views of their ministers on matters relevant to their departments.
What really concerns me about this article is why the PSs of departments such as HMRC, DWP, DEFRA, DECC, etc. are even discussing "Their strategy for the forthcoming independence referendum"
WTF is going on? If it is, as I suspect, central politicising of our SCS by the UK Government, then gauleiter is too small a word.
Senior Civil Servants are bound by their post and duty to be totally loyal to the department that they serve. i.e. If a Permanent Secretary is employed by the Scottish Government, he is expected to facilitate their policies and decisions without question. PSs of other departments shoould only represent the views of their ministers on matters relevant to their departments.
What really concerns me about this article is why the PSs of departments such as HMRC, DWP, DEFRA, DECC, etc. are even discussing "Their strategy for the forthcoming independence referendum"
WTF is going on? If it is, as I suspect, central politicising of our SCS by the UK Government, then gauleiter is too small a word.
#
2012-02-07 16:35
People in England starting to wake up to the fact that an over dominant SE England is marginalising not only Scotland and Wales but other parts of England also:
guardian.co.uk/.../...
guardian.co.uk/.../...
#
2012-02-07 17:16
What I would like to underscore is how interested we all here are with the labour same olds, that as soon as Dougie told us about the Qvortup's article not a single comment refers to o'rourke or Glasgow labour.
I wonder why?
I wonder why?
#
2012-02-07 17:20
Breaking News:
Another Labour Councillor Elaine Little (South Ayrshire) has defected to the SNP from twitter (Anniesland SNP)
Another Labour Councillor Elaine Little (South Ayrshire) has defected to the SNP from twitter (Anniesland SNP)
#
2012-02-07 17:32
"In May 2008, Ayr West Cllr Elaine Little resigned from the Labour Party and became an Independent." (wiki)
Did she rejoin it again?
Edit - Here's an Ayrshire Post story from a couple of years ago on the South Ayrshire Labour stushie
ayrshirepost.net/.../...
Did she rejoin it again?
Edit - Here's an Ayrshire Post story from a couple of years ago on the South Ayrshire Labour stushie
ayrshirepost.net/.../...
#
2012-02-07 17:34
Elaine Little: south-ayrshire.gov.uk/.../...
Was an Independent and a member of SNP no mention of Labour!
Was an Independent and a member of SNP no mention of Labour!
#
2012-02-08 04:11
south-ayrshire.gov.uk/.../...
It says at the bottom of the page:
"Non-financial Interests[...]
SNP Party (Member) "
It says at the bottom of the page:
"Non-financial Interests[...]
SNP Party (Member) "
#
2012-02-08 04:13
It says on her page for South Ayrshire council that she's "SNP Party (Member)" and has notably been signed in the past few days (06/02/2012), presumably for the updates on her membership status?
south-ayrshire.gov.uk/.../...
south-ayrshire.gov.uk/.../...
#
2012-02-07 19:34
I just read that again, and the second time what popped out at me was what, exactly O'Rourke was commenting on: "the care worker who was dismissed for allegedly having sex with the child."
Well done, that Polis.
Well done, that Polis.
#
2012-02-07 22:19
Wonder what happened to his Lairdship now doing his best to thwart his countrymen when this was once his opinion
"we are sovereign within the Union and we can walk out any time we want". Those are the exact words once uttered by Michael Forsyth, an arch-unionist and Secretary of State for Scotland under the last Conservative government, uttered January 1997
"we are sovereign within the Union and we can walk out any time we want". Those are the exact words once uttered by Michael Forsyth, an arch-unionist and Secretary of State for Scotland under the last Conservative government, uttered January 1997
#
2012-02-07 23:09
To help the Scotsman reach its potential , might I suggest that no one either visits or comments on their site.
I'm sure it might persuade those requiring publicity via advertising to think how best to use their marketing budget.
I'm sure it might persuade those requiring publicity via advertising to think how best to use their marketing budget.
#
2012-02-08 01:45
I agree with that however it may provide a great deal of space for unionists to spread their lies, fears etc
#
2012-02-08 01:43
I'm truly horrified by this. What else is there to say. These people should not be in positions of power.
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- East Lothian: Labour ally with...
From BBC Scotland:- 1229: Tory John Lamo... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Found it here: bbc.co.uk/.../... (http:/... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
I promise I won't mention it again every... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
OT on FMQs today .. BBC bias naturally w... - The 'Great Debate' isn't just ...
And the considerable danger in following... - Conservatives at war over Came...
The Dis-Respect Agenda is in full swing ... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
“We hear from the leadership of the SNP ... - Conservatives at war over Came...
If Babe Ruth feels betrayed, she ain't s... - The 'Great Debate' isn't just ...
Was Angus refusing "to acknowledge peopl... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
Suggestion taken on board tartanfever a... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
I would also add, even if they (the SNP)... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
Thats exactly what I'm suggesting DW. - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
Marga - there's a vast difference betwee... - Cameron now not fussy about ...
Irony and hypocrisy, all in less than t... - A Unionist lexicon: An A-Z of ...
I think there was one fairly vocal SNP e... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Council news - leader of "Independents" ... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
"In its latest statement, the Edinburgh-... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
the SNP voted for 'no confidence' in Cal... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
OT. Clackmannanshir e Council has been t... - Cameron now not fussy about ...
So Rebekah's friend Dave isn't fussed ab...