Controversy as SNP consult Souter on drugs By Paul Hutcheon Scottish Political Editor THE SCOTTISH government has been criticised over talks with a controversial party donor on drugs policy.
Bus tycoon Brian Souter's charity was granted a private meeting with an SNP minister on the new administration's "pro-abstinence" strategy.
The same organisation, the Souter Charitable Trust (SCT), was linked to the £1 million campaign in 2000 against the promotion of homosexuality in schools.
The charity, whose aims are the "relief of poverty" and "advancement of religion", funds organisations which help people with drink and drug-related problems.
Deputy justice minister Fergus Ewing is taking the lead on formulating a new approach to combating drug use, and plans to publish his strategy in the spring.
The January meeting, which took place at Holyrood, has worried opposition politicians, who believe the SNP should not be giving preferential access to party donors. The Sunday Herald last year revealed how the SNP dumped their policy of re-regulating the bus network after Souter donated £500,000 to their election campaign.
A government spokesman said: "This was one of a number of recent private meetings arranged with the voluntary sector to discuss the new drugs strategy and in the hope of building consensus around our new approach. The discussion centred on the Souter Charitable Trust and drugs projects."
Green MSP Patrick Harvie said: "Brian Souter's donation has already tilted SNP transport policy in favour of bus operators and against the travelling public. Ministers should be very wary about letting him tinker with social policy too. If the history of drugs policy over the last 30 years shows one thing, it's that just say no' just doesn't work. I hope the SNP understand that even if Brian Souter doesn't."
|
|
Posted by: george alexander, north lanarkshire on 10:53pm Sat 15 Mar 08
Religion and politics keep well apart. I'm sure that the SNP will be carefull not to conflate the two here but Huthcheon is well within his rights to point the possible conflict out.
Religion and politics keep well apart. I'm sure that the SNP will be carefull not to conflate the two here but Huthcheon is well within his rights to point the possible conflict out.
Posted by: prof plums on 11:26pm Sat 15 Mar 08
oh jings I am sure Fergus Ewing has met loads of people as he formulates this
oh and the bus reregualtion was long gone before souter turned up -- just imagine if there was re reuglation and souter's buses were the ones that won it -- what a yelp from the opposition and the Herland then
as for the greens they now are against bus operators it seems -- stick to your car folks everyone else is
oh jings I am sure Fergus Ewing has met loads of people as he formulates this
oh and the bus reregualtion was long gone before souter turned up -- just imagine if there was re reuglation and souter's buses were the ones that won it -- what a yelp from the opposition and the Herland then
as for the greens they now are against bus operators it seems -- stick to your car folks everyone else is
Posted by: Observer on 11:33pm Sat 15 Mar 08
Personally I am very uncomfortable with the SNP accepting money from this man he is a homophobe and a religious nutter. I would hate to think that he would have any influence on SNP social policy. Patrick Harvie is quite right to point out that the history of drugs policy in the past 30 years has largely been about abstinence and it clearly hasn't worked.
Personally I am very uncomfortable with the SNP accepting money from this man he is a homophobe and a religious nutter. I would hate to think that he would have any influence on SNP social policy. Patrick Harvie is quite right to point out that the history of drugs policy in the past 30 years has largely been about abstinence and it clearly hasn't worked.
Posted by: Arthur on 12:14am Sun 16 Mar 08
So if a donor comes in the name of a front organisation, that's fine. Every time I wait for a bus I curse the name of Brian Souter, whose s hit buses remain unregulated thanks to his largesse to the SNP.
Coming so soon after the bigot bishop backing the Nats, this is beyond alarming.
So if a donor comes in the name of a front organisation, that's fine. Every time I wait for a bus I curse the name of Brian Souter, whose s hit buses remain unregulated thanks to his largesse to the SNP.
Coming so soon after the bigot bishop backing the Nats, this is beyond alarming.
Posted by: subrosa on 12:18am Sun 16 Mar 08
I'm not at all uncomfortable with the government meeting with Brian Souter's charity as long as they include all other organisations connected with drug rehabilitation.
As for Brian Souter being a homophobe and religious nutter - that's just untrue. Have you seen the material our very young children are being taught (and badly in most cases) observer? IMO he was completely correct to try to halt the introduction of this to schools.
As for his religious beliefs I think they ought to be personal. He does not inflict them on anyone. I know many people who I would consider religious fanatics and Brian Souter is not one of them.
I'm not at all uncomfortable with the government meeting with Brian Souter's charity as long as they include all other organisations connected with drug rehabilitation.
As for Brian Souter being a homophobe and religious nutter - that's just untrue. Have you seen the material our very young children are being taught (and badly in most cases) observer? IMO he was completely correct to try to halt the introduction of this to schools.
As for his religious beliefs I think they ought to be personal. He does not inflict them on anyone. I know many people who I would consider religious fanatics and Brian Souter is not one of them.
Posted by: Sean McLeod on 12:30am Sun 16 Mar 08
The premise of this story is that if you give money to a political party you are thereby barred from speaking to that party.
This position is just wrong.
Extra care has to be taken but Souter is entitled to his views as much as everyone else (although there are a good number of his views I would not approve of).
The premise of this story is that if you give money to a political party you are thereby barred from speaking to that party.
This position is just wrong.
Extra care has to be taken but Souter is entitled to his views as much as everyone else (although there are a good number of his views I would not approve of).
Posted by: Steve A, Glasgow on 12:32am Sun 16 Mar 08
Religion aside i would not want my kids being told that homosexuality is normal in anyway!
Religion aside i would not want my kids being told that homosexuality is normal in anyway!
Posted by: Bruce, Glasgow on 1:26am Sun 16 Mar 08
Either the article or Subrosa is wrong, as the article refers to SCT having as its aim the "advancement of religion". Personally I would prefer Brian Soutar to keep all his views including his political, religious and homophobic beliefs to himself. Neither he nor his organisation should have anymore infuence on social policy than the rest of us. Is this another case of money talking to the SNP?
Either the article or Subrosa is wrong, as the article refers to SCT having as its aim the "advancement of religion". Personally I would prefer Brian Soutar to keep all his views including his political, religious and homophobic beliefs to himself. Neither he nor his organisation should have anymore infuence on social policy than the rest of us. Is this another case of money talking to the SNP?
Posted by: Yes its a democracy but you only get to say the things we've ok'd first on 1:40am Sun 16 Mar 08
Brian Souter is not a homophobe and those who interpret his position on Section 28 as such are the ones with the prejudiced view. Many, people, parents in particular, were extremely concerned about the whole Section 28 debacle, and especially about the sight of Labour people running around like headless chickens refusing to listen to any opposition of their proposals without shouting "homophobic" in response. It was a piece of nonsense!
The vast majority who opposed the move did so for a very simple reason, they thought exposing children of PRIMARY SCHOOL AGE to such subjects was ill-advised and that it was too early to do so. What is homophobic about that? I would say nothing. It is a view and that is all and those who decide it is a homophobic view are guilty of far worse. The public and personal attacks on Soutar ever since are really quite disgraceful and for what, for daring to express a particular view? For having the courage to say what he thought? What is this? A dictatorship? The man is entitled to his view as were many others who did so at the time in opposing the change Labour fell over themselves to deliver. Such views were dismissed as belonging to lunatics with religion and the fact that many belonged to concerned parents with valid points to make was ignored utterly. So now Brian Souter has presumably forfeited his right to express a view on anything, is that how this works?
Presumably the SNP talk to a wide circle of people so I'm not sure how Souter can be seen as having "preferential" access or influence. Hopefully the SNP takes on board the views of everyone it speaks to and pays attention. I see no crime in that and frankly I'm disappointed in Paul Hutcheon for making a big such a big deal out of this and opening up a thread which will no doubt consist mainly of intolerant rubbish from the usual suspects - extremists themselves at times - all aimed at Brian Souter as an individual. As always the issue at the centre - drugs - will be buried beneath the bile. How sad that so many on these threads claim to believe in democracy while at the same time they shamelessly target specific groups when it suits and would, if they could, deny those people the right to express a view on anything. And they see Souter as the one with the problem?
Brian Souter is not a homophobe and those who interpret his position on Section 28 as such are the ones with the prejudiced view. Many, people, parents in particular, were extremely concerned about the whole Section 28 debacle, and especially about the sight of Labour people running around like headless chickens refusing to listen to any opposition of their proposals without shouting "homophobic" in response. It was a piece of nonsense!
The vast majority who opposed the move did so for a very simple reason, they thought exposing children of PRIMARY SCHOOL AGE to such subjects was ill-advised and that it was too early to do so. What is homophobic about that? I would say nothing. It is a view and that is all and those who decide it is a homophobic view are guilty of far worse. The public and personal attacks on Soutar ever since are really quite disgraceful and for what, for daring to express a particular view? For having the courage to say what he thought? What is this? A dictatorship? The man is entitled to his view as were many others who did so at the time in opposing the change Labour fell over themselves to deliver. Such views were dismissed as belonging to lunatics with religion and the fact that many belonged to concerned parents with valid points to make was ignored utterly. So now Brian Souter has presumably forfeited his right to express a view on anything, is that how this works?
Presumably the SNP talk to a wide circle of people so I'm not sure how Souter can be seen as having "preferential" access or influence. Hopefully the SNP takes on board the views of everyone it speaks to and pays attention. I see no crime in that and frankly I'm disappointed in Paul Hutcheon for making a big such a big deal out of this and opening up a thread which will no doubt consist mainly of intolerant rubbish from the usual suspects - extremists themselves at times - all aimed at Brian Souter as an individual. As always the issue at the centre - drugs - will be buried beneath the bile. How sad that so many on these threads claim to believe in democracy while at the same time they shamelessly target specific groups when it suits and would, if they could, deny those people the right to express a view on anything. And they see Souter as the one with the problem?
Posted by: Mick on 1:57am Sun 16 Mar 08
Can I ask Yes its a democracy but you only get to say the things we've ok'd first, what subjects are you refering to that PRIMARY SCHOOL AGE children shouldn't be exposed to?
Can I ask Yes its a democracy but you only get to say the things we've ok'd first, what subjects are you refering to that PRIMARY SCHOOL AGE children shouldn't be exposed to?
Posted by: John J. Sheridan, Z'ha'dum on 2:00am Sun 16 Mar 08
I have no religion whatsoever.
I agree with Mr Souter 100%
Does that make me some kind of homophobic criminal?
I have no religion whatsoever.
I agree with Mr Souter 100%
Does that make me some kind of homophobic criminal?
Posted by: Yes its a democracy but you only get to say the things we've ok'd first on 2:47am Sun 16 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Mick[/bold] wrote:
Can I ask Yes its a democracy but you only get to say the things we've ok'd first, what subjects are you refering to that PRIMARY SCHOOL AGE children shouldn't be exposed to? [/quote] Mick,pretty stupid question you pose. I take it you just dont care to address the other valid points raised?
JohnJ in the times we are now living, yes it does. You either go with the set script or you will be castigated. The fear strategy is succeeding in ensuring most people keep their valid views to themselves. Its called intimidation.
Mick wrote:
Can I ask Yes its a democracy but you only get to say the things we've ok'd first, what subjects are you refering to that PRIMARY SCHOOL AGE children shouldn't be exposed to?
Mick,pretty stupid question you pose. I take it you just dont care to address the other valid points raised?
JohnJ in the times we are now living, yes it does. You either go with the set script or you will be castigated. The fear strategy is succeeding in ensuring most people keep their valid views to themselves. Its called intimidation.
Posted by: Carronade, Falkirk on 2:52am Sun 16 Mar 08
We live in a mixed secular/religious society; it is therefore reasonable for government ministers to take into account all opinions, on any topic, for which they are considering legislation. That, surely, is the meaning of democracy. I consider myself as a non-theist, which surely is my right.
For far too long the present anti-drugs policy has been a failure. Witness the crime and violence, along with the wealth acquired by "drugs barons" and the cost to the public purse which results from it.
If there is any chance of a better solution being found it must surely be explored and, if necessary, implemented.
We live in a mixed secular/religious society; it is therefore reasonable for government ministers to take into account all opinions, on any topic, for which they are considering legislation. That, surely, is the meaning of democracy. I consider myself as a non-theist, which surely is my right.
For far too long the present anti-drugs policy has been a failure. Witness the crime and violence, along with the wealth acquired by "drugs barons" and the cost to the public purse which results from it.
If there is any chance of a better solution being found it must surely be explored and, if necessary, implemented.
Posted by: T. McP on 3:27am Sun 16 Mar 08
They do not want certain drugs to be de-criminalised because this would be competition for the ALCOHOL & TOBACCO BARONS who are allowed to sell drugs that are apparently more damaging than Class "A"
I have no problem with whoever may have the nous to sort out this abominable anomaly.
And despite the invasion of Afghanistan, heroin abuse has multiplied, with the military apparently working on an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with heroin production.
Anyway, it is not illegal to grow poppies, is it?
I wonder, how come so much of the stuff makes it's way into Glasgow?
They do not want certain drugs to be de-criminalised because this would be competition for the ALCOHOL & TOBACCO BARONS who are allowed to sell drugs that are apparently more damaging than Class "A"
I have no problem with whoever may have the nous to sort out this abominable anomaly.
And despite the invasion of Afghanistan, heroin abuse has multiplied, with the military apparently working on an agenda that has absolutely nothing to do with heroin production.
Anyway, it is not illegal to grow poppies, is it?
I wonder, how come so much of the stuff makes it's way into Glasgow?
Posted by: T. McP on 3:31am Sun 16 Mar 08
Just to clarify.
By they, I mean the Westmobster outfit.
I don't think we could adopt a different policy without them having a say as regards keeping the law the same as in England.
As they do.
Just to clarify.
By they, I mean the Westmobster outfit.
I don't think we could adopt a different policy without them having a say as regards keeping the law the same as in England.
As they do.
Posted by: Wenceslas, Back of Beyond on 3:56am Sun 16 Mar 08
As part of the coverage of the recent ranting bishop on the BBC, there was some film of Brian Souter during the Clause 28 campaign. What he seemed to be saying (in that extract at least) made the bishop's comments the very essence of moderation.
I wouldnt imagine his views on drugs would be very progressive
As part of the coverage of the recent ranting bishop on the BBC, there was some film of Brian Souter during the Clause 28 campaign. What he seemed to be saying (in that extract at least) made the bishop's comments the very essence of moderation.
I wouldnt imagine his views on drugs would be very progressive
Posted by: M77 on 6:55am Sun 16 Mar 08
Sadly yet again Paul Hutcheon and the Sunday Herald can't help but have a go at Christians. This paper is anything but impartial and continually spouts its anti-Christian prejudice. The subsequent comments which have been allowed to be posted back up this analysis.
On the subject of drugs (and sexual health) the harm reduction approach can hardly be said to have been a great success.
Sadly yet again Paul Hutcheon and the Sunday Herald can't help but have a go at Christians. This paper is anything but impartial and continually spouts its anti-Christian prejudice. The subsequent comments which have been allowed to be posted back up this analysis.
On the subject of drugs (and sexual health) the harm reduction approach can hardly be said to have been a great success.
Posted by: Gonyursel, Glasgow on 7:11am Sun 16 Mar 08
[italic][bold]So that imbecilic manufactured PC noun 'homophobe' starts to appear again.Will homosexuals,cross-se
xuals,by-sexuals,mul
tisexuals,cross gender sexuals,cross species sexuals and the rest go away and do whatever it is they do and give us all[/bold] [/italic] peace
So that imbecilic manufactured PC noun 'homophobe' starts to appear again.Will homosexuals,cross-se
xuals,by-sexuals,mul
tisexuals,cross gender sexuals,cross species sexuals and the rest go away and do whatever it is they do and give us all peace
Posted by: Rodmac, Glasgow on 7:53am Sun 16 Mar 08
Disappointing article when I expect better from Paul. The charity I work for, along with many others, also had meetings with Mr Ewing. This should have been highlighted instead of selecting one organisation. We certainly do not have any spare money for supporting politicians. I think Mr Soutar should be applauded for his support of this organisation rather than be subjected to the innuendo, regarding him, and his support for the SNP, inherent in this article.
Disappointing article when I expect better from Paul. The charity I work for, along with many others, also had meetings with Mr Ewing. This should have been highlighted instead of selecting one organisation. We certainly do not have any spare money for supporting politicians. I think Mr Soutar should be applauded for his support of this organisation rather than be subjected to the innuendo, regarding him, and his support for the SNP, inherent in this article.
Posted by: Richard, Bannockburn on 7:55am Sun 16 Mar 08
Right, Let's get some things clear:
Mr Soutar is a fundamentalist christian with views that many people would find offensive, however he has every right to believe whatever he wants. If he thinks he can further his views by sponsoring a political party then that is within his rights as long as he does within the rules of electoral law.
If the SNP are stupid enough to be funded by a right wing homophobic zealot then that is their look out. As you can see from some of the posts above there is still quite a lot of bigotry about so if the SNP want to tap into this then it's up to them.
For what it's worth, I find Mr Sotar's views repulsive and the SNP's indulging of him typical of a party without a political philosophy beyond narrow nationalism and grievance politics. Get it right up you all you trots and lefties who have flirted with these nutters, if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.....
Right, Let's get some things clear:
Mr Soutar is a fundamentalist christian with views that many people would find offensive, however he has every right to believe whatever he wants. If he thinks he can further his views by sponsoring a political party then that is within his rights as long as he does within the rules of electoral law.
If the SNP are stupid enough to be funded by a right wing homophobic zealot then that is their look out. As you can see from some of the posts above there is still quite a lot of bigotry about so if the SNP want to tap into this then it's up to them.
For what it's worth, I find Mr Sotar's views repulsive and the SNP's indulging of him typical of a party without a political philosophy beyond narrow nationalism and grievance politics. Get it right up you all you trots and lefties who have flirted with these nutters, if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.....
Posted by: Normal Person, 950-610 on 8:02am Sun 16 Mar 08
[quote]If the SNP are stupid enough to be funded by a right wing homophobic zealot then that is their look out. As you can see from some of the posts above there is still quite a lot of bigotry about[/quote]
[bold]Especially yours Pal.[/bold]
If the SNP are stupid enough to be funded by a right wing homophobic zealot then that is their look out. As you can see from some of the posts above there is still quite a lot of bigotry about
Especially yours Pal. Posted by: Richard, Bannockburn on 8:09am Sun 16 Mar 08
Normal person? Silent majority? Religious right? Tartan taleban? Freakin idiot.....
Normal person? Silent majority? Religious right? Tartan taleban? Freakin idiot.....
Posted by: agnes from kinross, perth on 8:18am Sun 16 Mar 08
Richard or is it Dick from Bannockburn - oh you are a wee bitty touchy aren't you. The only one who sounds like the Taleban my dear is you.
Richard or is it Dick from Bannockburn - oh you are a wee bitty touchy aren't you. The only one who sounds like the Taleban my dear is you.
Posted by: Richard, Bannockburn on 8:24am Sun 16 Mar 08
agnes,
You think? It's me is it?
Nothing to do with a morally corrupt policitcal movement for sale to the highest bidder then? Do you want to compare my views to the taleban?
Do I believe my relgion is the only true one and that non-believers will burn in hell? Nope, not me, does the Taleban? Oh My goodness yes, does Mr Soutar? Absolutely!
Do I think sexual orientation is a matter of 'morality'? Of course I don't, to do so would be positively medieval. Do the Taleban? You'd better believe it! and Mr Soutar? he only spent a fortune to perpetuate that evil view...
do you see where I'm going with this? Don't attempt to tar me with your nasty wee innuendoes and lies...
agnes,
You think? It's me is it?
Nothing to do with a morally corrupt policitcal movement for sale to the highest bidder then? Do you want to compare my views to the taleban?
Do I believe my relgion is the only true one and that non-believers will burn in hell? Nope, not me, does the Taleban? Oh My goodness yes, does Mr Soutar? Absolutely!
Do I think sexual orientation is a matter of 'morality'? Of course I don't, to do so would be positively medieval. Do the Taleban? You'd better believe it! and Mr Soutar? he only spent a fortune to perpetuate that evil view...
do you see where I'm going with this? Don't attempt to tar me with your nasty wee innuendoes and lies...
Posted by: beeree, local on 8:34am Sun 16 Mar 08
Ah!!
Trump & Soutar & ?
You have the best politicians money can buy
Ah!!
Trump & Soutar & ?
You have the best politicians money can buy
Posted by: Beeree, local on 8:35am Sun 16 Mar 08
Ah!!
Trump & Soutar & ?
You have the best politicians money can buy
Ah!!
Trump & Soutar & ?
You have the best politicians money can buy
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 8:37am Sun 16 Mar 08
Labour. Cheapest politicians money can buy. Anyone for lunch?
Labour. Cheapest politicians money can buy. Anyone for lunch?
Posted by: craig banks, stonehaven on 8:44am Sun 16 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
Personally I am very uncomfortable with the SNP accepting money from this man he is a homophobe and a religious nutter. I would hate to think that he would have any influence on SNP social policy. Patrick Harvie is quite right to point out that the history of drugs policy in the past 30 years has largely been about abstinence and it clearly hasn't worked. [/quote] Patrick Harvie is the one with the conflict of interest here.
Observer wrote:
Personally I am very uncomfortable with the SNP accepting money from this man he is a homophobe and a religious nutter. I would hate to think that he would have any influence on SNP social policy. Patrick Harvie is quite right to point out that the history of drugs policy in the past 30 years has largely been about abstinence and it clearly hasn't worked.
Patrick Harvie is the one with the conflict of interest here.
Posted by: Richard, Bannockburn on 8:44am Sun 16 Mar 08
Donald,
What has this got to do with the Labour Party? You can't blame the Labour Party for the SNP's decision to sell itself to a religious zealot. It's not England's fault either, though by the time that nats whip themselves into a self-righteous lather they'll be blaming everybody but themselves. As Usual.
Donald,
What has this got to do with the Labour Party? You can't blame the Labour Party for the SNP's decision to sell itself to a religious zealot. It's not England's fault either, though by the time that nats whip themselves into a self-righteous lather they'll be blaming everybody but themselves. As Usual.
Posted by: Observer on 12:17pm Sun 16 Mar 08
In what way does Patrick Harvie have a conflict of interest Craig Banks - do tell. Yes subrosa I am pefectly aware of the kind of literature that children will see in relation to homosexuality - one that sets it in context as it is PERFECTLY NORMAL. Brian Soutar is hopelessly old fashioned and out of touch with reality of a modern 21st Century country he has demonstrated that by his blinkered homophobic views on the repeal of Section 28 which as a parent I was delighted to see the back of as, were all of my friends who are parents. If he is so hoplessly wrong about sexual EQUALITY then God knows what his views on drugs will be. I just hope Fergus Ewing takes it all with a pinch, no make that a pillar, of salt.
In what way does Patrick Harvie have a conflict of interest Craig Banks - do tell. Yes subrosa I am pefectly aware of the kind of literature that children will see in relation to homosexuality - one that sets it in context as it is PERFECTLY NORMAL. Brian Soutar is hopelessly old fashioned and out of touch with reality of a modern 21st Century country he has demonstrated that by his blinkered homophobic views on the repeal of Section 28 which as a parent I was delighted to see the back of as, were all of my friends who are parents. If he is so hoplessly wrong about sexual EQUALITY then God knows what his views on drugs will be. I just hope Fergus Ewing takes it all with a pinch, no make that a pillar, of salt.
Posted by: mt on 12:32pm Sun 16 Mar 08
My religious beliefs are personal to me but the Jehovah Witnesses came to my door yesterday. I accepted leaflets and was invited to their next meeting. It is my choice whether or not I read their leaflets or attend their meeting because this is a free I country.
I expect the Scottish Parliament to listen to all charities, religious points of view, police, business, Mr and/or Mrs Public + the weans, etc and to then govern appropriately.
I believe that to criticise them for doing so is daft
My religious beliefs are personal to me but the Jehovah Witnesses came to my door yesterday. I accepted leaflets and was invited to their next meeting. It is my choice whether or not I read their leaflets or attend their meeting because this is a free I country.
I expect the Scottish Parliament to listen to all charities, religious points of view, police, business, Mr and/or Mrs Public + the weans, etc and to then govern appropriately.
I believe that to criticise them for doing so is daft
Posted by: Mick on 12:34pm Sun 16 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Yes its a democracy but you only get to say the things we've ok'd first[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Mick[/bold] wrote: Can I ask Yes its a democracy but you only get to say the things we've ok'd first, what subjects are you refering to that PRIMARY SCHOOL AGE children shouldn't be exposed to? [/quote] Mick,pretty stupid question you pose. I take it you just dont care to address the other valid points raised? JohnJ in the times we are now living, yes it does. You either go with the set script or you will be castigated. The fear strategy is succeeding in ensuring most people keep their valid views to themselves. Its called intimidation. [/quote] Maybe in your opinion, perhaps I should have got you to okay it first!
Yes its a democracy but you only get to say the things we've ok'd first wrote:
Mick wrote: Can I ask Yes its a democracy but you only get to say the things we've ok'd first, what subjects are you refering to that PRIMARY SCHOOL AGE children shouldn't be exposed to?
Mick,pretty stupid question you pose. I take it you just dont care to address the other valid points raised? JohnJ in the times we are now living, yes it does. You either go with the set script or you will be castigated. The fear strategy is succeeding in ensuring most people keep their valid views to themselves. Its called intimidation.
Maybe in your opinion, perhaps I should have got you to okay it first!
Posted by: Mack on 12:54pm Sun 16 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Richard[/bold] wrote:
Right, Let's get some things clear: Mr Soutar is a fundamentalist christian with views that many people would find offensive, however he has every right to believe whatever he wants. If he thinks he can further his views by sponsoring a political party then that is within his rights as long as he does within the rules of electoral law. If the SNP are stupid enough to be funded by a right wing homophobic zealot then that is their look out. As you can see from some of the posts above there is still quite a lot of bigotry about so if the SNP want to tap into this then it's up to them. For what it's worth, I find Mr Sotar's views repulsive and the SNP's indulging of him typical of a party without a political philosophy beyond narrow nationalism and grievance politics. Get it right up you all you trots and lefties who have flirted with these nutters, if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.....[/quote] Richard, I see in your post you're saying there is still quite a lot of bigotry about. You had proved this anyway, your own post is full of it!
Richard wrote:
Right, Let's get some things clear: Mr Soutar is a fundamentalist christian with views that many people would find offensive, however he has every right to believe whatever he wants. If he thinks he can further his views by sponsoring a political party then that is within his rights as long as he does within the rules of electoral law. If the SNP are stupid enough to be funded by a right wing homophobic zealot then that is their look out. As you can see from some of the posts above there is still quite a lot of bigotry about so if the SNP want to tap into this then it's up to them. For what it's worth, I find Mr Sotar's views repulsive and the SNP's indulging of him typical of a party without a political philosophy beyond narrow nationalism and grievance politics. Get it right up you all you trots and lefties who have flirted with these nutters, if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.....
Richard, I see in your post you're saying there is still quite a lot of bigotry about. You had proved this anyway, your own post is full of it!
Posted by: R MacLeod, Glasgow on 12:55pm Sun 16 Mar 08
Let me get this right donate to the Labour Party (legally or otherwise) you become a Lord and make Laws this is OK.
Donate legally and openly to SNP not allowed even an opinion on laws let alone make laws.
HMM that sounds equitable and democratic.
Old stuff,
Brit Nat= good
Scot Nat= BAD!!!
Let me get this right donate to the Labour Party (legally or otherwise) you become a Lord and make Laws this is OK.
Donate legally and openly to SNP not allowed even an opinion on laws let alone make laws.
HMM that sounds equitable and democratic.
Old stuff,
Brit Nat= good
Scot Nat= BAD!!!
Posted by: Garry Otton, Scottish Media Monitor com on 12:55pm Sun 16 Mar 08
That's not all Souter's guilty of. BADGE OF SHAME. Read it free on Scottish Media Monitor.
Before we all get carried away with Nationalism... After a wee bit of help from Brian Souter, not only did the SNP drop its resolution to do away with bus de-regulation, they failed to put to tender plans to offer a hovercraft service across the Firth of Forth making Stagecoach a likely beneficiary; seeking £3.3m of funding until the service became profitable.
At a speech in the name of one of Scotland's most vile homophobes, Alex Salmond claimed that Scottish schools could learn from the strong moral values he claimed were taught in Catholic primaries and secondary schools! He gave “unswerving support” for more ‘faith’ schools. He even had the cheek to attack opponents of these sectarian schools. Salmond praised cherry-picking Catholic schools as “second to none”. Instead of addressing Catholic resistance to diversity at the very heart of its education system (just look at recent comments by the rather camp Bishop of Motherwell), Salmond lectured us [italic]outside[/italic] the system saying: “We must celebrate – not tolerate – diversity and distinctiveness within our education system”. (Like Catholic schools are such a glowing example!)
It doesn’t stop there. Following a meeting of ‘Muslim leaders’ at Bute House, he’s promised to roll out separatist schools for them too! (Sunni; Shia etc.. we don't know). Clearly, any outstanding issues within the ‘Muslim community’ surrounding the treatment of women, forced marriages, female circumcision or homophobia have been brushed under the carpet for now.
Vote Green!
That's not all Souter's guilty of. BADGE OF SHAME. Read it free on Scottish Media Monitor.
Before we all get carried away with Nationalism... After a wee bit of help from Brian Souter, not only did the SNP drop its resolution to do away with bus de-regulation, they failed to put to tender plans to offer a hovercraft service across the Firth of Forth making Stagecoach a likely beneficiary; seeking £3.3m of funding until the service became profitable.
At a speech in the name of one of Scotland's most vile homophobes, Alex Salmond claimed that Scottish schools could learn from the strong moral values he claimed were taught in Catholic primaries and secondary schools! He gave “unswerving support” for more ‘faith’ schools. He even had the cheek to attack opponents of these sectarian schools. Salmond praised cherry-picking Catholic schools as “second to none”. Instead of addressing Catholic resistance to diversity at the very heart of its education system (just look at recent comments by the rather camp Bishop of Motherwell), Salmond lectured us
outside the system saying: “We must celebrate – not tolerate – diversity and distinctiveness within our education system”. (Like Catholic schools are such a glowing example!)
It doesn’t stop there. Following a meeting of ‘Muslim leaders’ at Bute House, he’s promised to roll out separatist schools for them too! (Sunni; Shia etc.. we don't know). Clearly, any outstanding issues within the ‘Muslim community’ surrounding the treatment of women, forced marriages, female circumcision or homophobia have been brushed under the carpet for now.
Vote Green!
Posted by: Oldsmiddy, Perth on 12:56pm Sun 16 Mar 08
" I believe that to criticise them for doing so is daft"
What certainly is daft is to have private, undisclosed meetings with a party sponsor on policy issues, when you have already have something of a dodgy track record with said sponsor over another policy which directly affected that sponsor's interests.
Frankly this makes Wee Wendy's £950 look like child's play. I sincerely hope Mr Hutcheon will go after the SNP on this as fervently as it went after NuLabour.
And how many moe religious freaks is the SNP consulting? The Scientologists claim to have the cure for drug addiction in Narconon. Google it to see what you get. Is Mr Salmond speaking to the Hubbardistas as well, or haven't they given the SNP any donations yet?
" I believe that to criticise them for doing so is daft"
What certainly is daft is to have private, undisclosed meetings with a party sponsor on policy issues, when you have already have something of a dodgy track record with said sponsor over another policy which directly affected that sponsor's interests.
Frankly this makes Wee Wendy's £950 look like child's play. I sincerely hope Mr Hutcheon will go after the SNP on this as fervently as it went after NuLabour.
And how many moe religious freaks is the SNP consulting? The Scientologists claim to have the cure for drug addiction in Narconon. Google it to see what you get. Is Mr Salmond speaking to the Hubbardistas as well, or haven't they given the SNP any donations yet?
Posted by: Reader on 12:57pm Sun 16 Mar 08
Well said Richard when will people wake up to what a nasty zenophobic homophobic right wing reactionary party the SNP are.
Well said Richard when will people wake up to what a nasty zenophobic homophobic right wing reactionary party the SNP are.
Posted by: Reader on 1:00pm Sun 16 Mar 08
Well said Garry Otton and Oldsmiddy to. It's about time people woke up, the SNP are not left wing and they do not believe in equality. They are right wing, anti homosexual, pro business, anti working class.
Well said Garry Otton and Oldsmiddy to. It's about time people woke up, the SNP are not left wing and they do not believe in equality. They are right wing, anti homosexual, pro business, anti working class.
Posted by: Disgusted Dorothy, Glasgow on 1:04pm Sun 16 Mar 08
I do believe they will be consulting many and various 'freaks' with an interest in Scotlands progress.
That way they have a chance of coming to a balanced conclusion.
I want this government to be inclusive not exclusive and that ,I believe is what they are trying to do.
All opinions should be sifted through so that the intelligent way forward can be found.
This is what consensus politics should be ,and I'd like to see it work in my country.
Stupid sniping from the sidelines doth not progress make.
I do believe they will be consulting many and various 'freaks' with an interest in Scotlands progress.
That way they have a chance of coming to a balanced conclusion.
I want this government to be inclusive not exclusive and that ,I believe is what they are trying to do.
All opinions should be sifted through so that the intelligent way forward can be found.
This is what consensus politics should be ,and I'd like to see it work in my country.
Stupid sniping from the sidelines doth not progress make.
Posted by: Celtic Lion, Roar on 1:06pm Sun 16 Mar 08
Hahaha. Reader you didn't finish your post with "You couldn't make it up."
Hahaha. Reader you didn't finish your post with "You couldn't make it up."
Posted by: Mack on 1:07pm Sun 16 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Richard[/bold] wrote:
agnes, You think? It's me is it? Nothing to do with a morally corrupt policitcal movement for sale to the highest bidder then? Do you want to compare my views to the taleban? Do I believe my relgion is the only true one and that non-believers will burn in hell? Nope, not me, does the Taleban? Oh My goodness yes, does Mr Soutar? Absolutely! Do I think sexual orientation is a matter of 'morality'? Of course I don't, to do so would be positively medieval. Do the Taleban? You'd better believe it! and Mr Soutar? he only spent a fortune to perpetuate that evil view... do you see where I'm going with this? Don't attempt to tar me with your nasty wee innuendoes and lies...[/quote] Richard I think its obvious where you're going with it. In the process of doing so however your own prejudices are making themselves clear also. I don't agree with the things you are saying, I also think you are expressing your views very aggressively and coarsely but I will defend your right to say it. Brian Souter has the same rights and I will defend those too. The innuendo and lies peddled about Brian Souter for some years now simply because he expressed a particular view is what is "repulsive". Your hatred of him is clear. You condemn his views but your own posts are full of hatred towards groups you clearly despise yet you seem to think its ok for you to do that. I think your thinking is pretty twisted. Wosrst of all youre dragging other issues into this which have nothing to do with it while missing out other things that are important.
Richard wrote:
agnes, You think? It's me is it? Nothing to do with a morally corrupt policitcal movement for sale to the highest bidder then? Do you want to compare my views to the taleban? Do I believe my relgion is the only true one and that non-believers will burn in hell? Nope, not me, does the Taleban? Oh My goodness yes, does Mr Soutar? Absolutely! Do I think sexual orientation is a matter of 'morality'? Of course I don't, to do so would be positively medieval. Do the Taleban? You'd better believe it! and Mr Soutar? he only spent a fortune to perpetuate that evil view... do you see where I'm going with this? Don't attempt to tar me with your nasty wee innuendoes and lies...
Richard I think its obvious where you're going with it. In the process of doing so however your own prejudices are making themselves clear also. I don't agree with the things you are saying, I also think you are expressing your views very aggressively and coarsely but I will defend your right to say it. Brian Souter has the same rights and I will defend those too. The innuendo and lies peddled about Brian Souter for some years now simply because he expressed a particular view is what is "repulsive". Your hatred of him is clear. You condemn his views but your own posts are full of hatred towards groups you clearly despise yet you seem to think its ok for you to do that. I think your thinking is pretty twisted. Wosrst of all youre dragging other issues into this which have nothing to do with it while missing out other things that are important.
Posted by: Peter Thomson, -22% for Wendy on 1:13pm Sun 16 Mar 08
Things are at a pretty pass when the pro unionist political editor has to pull up a meeting from nearly two months ago to peddle the SNP are no better than Labour line.
This has nothing to with Souter and everything to do with Unionist mud slinging.
If you have any experience of regulating a registered charity you will know the numbers of checks and balances that are in place to ensure the money raised by the charity can only be used in certain, clearly defined ways that are for the public benefit.
If the Souter Charity is willing to fund a national poster or TV campaign, like Frank, for zero tolerance of drug abuse and that is within their charitable statement of effect then they can.
The decision to do so will not be Souter's it will be Souter's Charity's Board as they are all jointly liable for any decision.
If Hutcheson really cared so much about political integrity he would be campaigning for Wendy's removal as she is guilty by her own admission of illegal and criminal electoral actions and their cover up.
Things are at a pretty pass when the pro unionist political editor has to pull up a meeting from nearly two months ago to peddle the SNP are no better than Labour line.
This has nothing to with Souter and everything to do with Unionist mud slinging.
If you have any experience of regulating a registered charity you will know the numbers of checks and balances that are in place to ensure the money raised by the charity can only be used in certain, clearly defined ways that are for the public benefit.
If the Souter Charity is willing to fund a national poster or TV campaign, like Frank, for zero tolerance of drug abuse and that is within their charitable statement of effect then they can.
The decision to do so will not be Souter's it will be Souter's Charity's Board as they are all jointly liable for any decision.
If Hutcheson really cared so much about political integrity he would be campaigning for Wendy's removal as she is guilty by her own admission of illegal and criminal electoral actions and their cover up.
Posted by: Reader on 1:15pm Sun 16 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Disgusted Dorothy[/bold] wrote:
I do believe they will be consulting many and various 'freaks' with an interest in Scotlands progress. That way they have a chance of coming to a balanced conclusion. I want this government to be inclusive not exclusive and that ,I believe is what they are trying to do. All opinions should be sifted through so that the intelligent way forward can be found. This is what consensus politics should be ,and I'd like to see it work in my country. Stupid sniping from the sidelines doth not progress make.[/quote] Are you joking ? The SNP want more faith schools, they want to bring down the abortion limit, they are quite happy to take money from and listen to a religious maniac who is using his money as a front to pose as a charity to propogate his right-wing views. This man has no business being listened to by the Scottish Government unless money talks. And with them it obviously does. Soutar. Trump. Who next ?
Disgusted Dorothy wrote:
I do believe they will be consulting many and various 'freaks' with an interest in Scotlands progress. That way they have a chance of coming to a balanced conclusion. I want this government to be inclusive not exclusive and that ,I believe is what they are trying to do. All opinions should be sifted through so that the intelligent way forward can be found. This is what consensus politics should be ,and I'd like to see it work in my country. Stupid sniping from the sidelines doth not progress make.
Are you joking ? The SNP want more faith schools, they want to bring down the abortion limit, they are quite happy to take money from and listen to a religious maniac who is using his money as a front to pose as a charity to propogate his right-wing views. This man has no business being listened to by the Scottish Government unless money talks. And with them it obviously does. Soutar. Trump. Who next ?
Posted by: Garry Otton, RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM on 1:17pm Sun 16 Mar 08
Mack: "The innuendo and lies peddled about Brian Souter for some years now simply because he expressed a particular view..."
All £2m of it! And nearly brought down a democratically elected government with a rooked opinion poll in the process! What planet are you on, love?
Mack: "The innuendo and lies peddled about Brian Souter for some years now simply because he expressed a particular view..."
All £2m of it! And nearly brought down a democratically elected government with a rooked opinion poll in the process! What planet are you on, love?
Posted by: Gary McL, Edinburgh on 1:21pm Sun 16 Mar 08
In the course of work recently I had lunch with a leading journalist you'd know from the BBC. She told me that Brian Souter had quietly and substantially backed a Scottish invention that helps people come off Methodone. Hardly anyone who gets put on Methodone gets off it. He has backed something progressive. I am gay and I did object to his argument in the debate some years ago, but each to their own - and this is something very helpful and good. I imagine this is why the minister is speaking with him - for good reason. The new gornment's ministers aren't afraid of acting, it seems, and are not like some of the **** we've had before. The article above was not very detailed, to put it mildly. Garry Otton please note and don't be so extreme!!
In the course of work recently I had lunch with a leading journalist you'd know from the BBC. She told me that Brian Souter had quietly and substantially backed a Scottish invention that helps people come off Methodone. Hardly anyone who gets put on Methodone gets off it. He has backed something progressive. I am gay and I did object to his argument in the debate some years ago, but each to their own - and this is something very helpful and good. I imagine this is why the minister is speaking with him - for good reason. The new gornment's ministers aren't afraid of acting, it seems, and are not like some of the **** we've had before. The article above was not very detailed, to put it mildly. Garry Otton please note and don't be so extreme!!
Posted by: Reader on 1:22pm Sun 16 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Peter Thomson[/bold] wrote:
Things are at a pretty pass when the pro unionist political editor has to pull up a meeting from nearly two months ago to peddle the SNP are no better than Labour line. This has nothing to with Souter and everything to do with Unionist mud slinging. If you have any experience of regulating a registered charity you will know the numbers of checks and balances that are in place to ensure the money raised by the charity can only be used in certain, clearly defined ways that are for the public benefit. If the Souter Charity is willing to fund a national poster or TV campaign, like Frank, for zero tolerance of drug abuse and that is within their charitable statement of effect then they can. The decision to do so will not be Souter's it will be Souter's Charity's Board as they are all jointly liable for any decision. If Hutcheson really cared so much about political integrity he would be campaigning for Wendy's removal as she is guilty by her own admission of illegal and criminal electoral actions and their cover up. [/quote] Typical comment from the nats they worship at the altar of Paul Hutcheon when he is crucifying Wendy Alexander over an admin error by one of her staff, but they can't take it when their own very dodgy dealings are examined.
The point of this story Peter Thomson is that just say no to drugs does not work. In your own words you seem to think that as long as Mr Soutar can fund a national poster campaign for zero tolerance of drug abuse he should be able to, even if that goes against all the other advice the Scottish Government will receive on this problem. Money talks.
Peter Thomson wrote:
Things are at a pretty pass when the pro unionist political editor has to pull up a meeting from nearly two months ago to peddle the SNP are no better than Labour line. This has nothing to with Souter and everything to do with Unionist mud slinging. If you have any experience of regulating a registered charity you will know the numbers of checks and balances that are in place to ensure the money raised by the charity can only be used in certain, clearly defined ways that are for the public benefit. If the Souter Charity is willing to fund a national poster or TV campaign, like Frank, for zero tolerance of drug abuse and that is within their charitable statement of effect then they can. The decision to do so will not be Souter's it will be Souter's Charity's Board as they are all jointly liable for any decision. If Hutcheson really cared so much about political integrity he would be campaigning for Wendy's removal as she is guilty by her own admission of illegal and criminal electoral actions and their cover up.
Typical comment from the nats they worship at the altar of Paul Hutcheon when he is crucifying Wendy Alexander over an admin error by one of her staff, but they can't take it when their own very dodgy dealings are examined.
The point of this story Peter Thomson is that just say no to drugs does not work. In your own words you seem to think that as long as Mr Soutar can fund a national poster campaign for zero tolerance of drug abuse he should be able to, even if that goes against all the other advice the Scottish Government will receive on this problem. Money talks.
Posted by: Gary McL, Edinburgh on 1:23pm Sun 16 Mar 08
I hasten to add that I didn't use any swearing in the above post - not sure where the asterisks came from!! Auto-censorship? I used the plural of a popular name for a small cat...
I hasten to add that I didn't use any swearing in the above post - not sure where the asterisks came from!! Auto-censorship? I used the plural of a popular name for a small cat...
Posted by: Disgusted Dorothy, Glasgow on 1:25pm Sun 16 Mar 08
Reader , stop frothing at the mouth , it is so unattractive!
Be calm!
They will listen to a great number of people along the way, they may or may not agree with them.
As for Mr Soutar, much has been made of his stance against clause 28 ,his main premise was that he did'nt want homosexuality as part of the school curriculum.I have already stated my opposition to sex education in schools , it is difficult to teach and should be the job of parents.
As for donations to the SNP it was legal and it was his money.
Reader , stop frothing at the mouth , it is so unattractive!
Be calm!
They will listen to a great number of people along the way, they may or may not agree with them.
As for Mr Soutar, much has been made of his stance against clause 28 ,his main premise was that he did'nt want homosexuality as part of the school curriculum.I have already stated my opposition to sex education in schools , it is difficult to teach and should be the job of parents.
As for donations to the SNP it was legal and it was his money.
Posted by: Reader on 1:27pm Sun 16 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Gary McL[/bold] wrote:
In the course of work recently I had lunch with a leading journalist you'd know from the BBC. She told me that Brian Souter had quietly and substantially backed a Scottish invention that helps people come off Methodone. Hardly anyone who gets put on Methodone gets off it. He has backed something progressive. I am gay and I did object to his argument in the debate some years ago, but each to their own - and this is something very helpful and good. I imagine this is why the minister is speaking with him - for good reason. The new gornment's ministers aren't afraid of acting, it seems, and are not like some of the **** we've had before. The article above was not very detailed, to put it mildly. Garry Otton please note and don't be so extreme!![/quote] Details please if you want anyone to believe you. Or are you just another sad nationalist pretending Brian Soutar is a nice man and pretending that you are gay into the bargain. No gay I know is as philosophical about Brian Soutar's hatred of them. Is Bishop Devine just misunderstood to ? Another friend of the nats.
Gary McL wrote:
In the course of work recently I had lunch with a leading journalist you'd know from the BBC. She told me that Brian Souter had quietly and substantially backed a Scottish invention that helps people come off Methodone. Hardly anyone who gets put on Methodone gets off it. He has backed something progressive. I am gay and I did object to his argument in the debate some years ago, but each to their own - and this is something very helpful and good. I imagine this is why the minister is speaking with him - for good reason. The new gornment's ministers aren't afraid of acting, it seems, and are not like some of the **** we've had before. The article above was not very detailed, to put it mildly. Garry Otton please note and don't be so extreme!!
Details please if you want anyone to believe you. Or are you just another sad nationalist pretending Brian Soutar is a nice man and pretending that you are gay into the bargain. No gay I know is as philosophical about Brian Soutar's hatred of them. Is Bishop Devine just misunderstood to ? Another friend of the nats.
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 1:29pm Sun 16 Mar 08
I'm disappointed in this article from start to finish and especially in Paul Hutcheon. The headline attached is worthy of the Sun when it comes to misleading people.
As previous posts, the more reasonable ones, have pointed out the SNP will clearly be consulting widely on this issue and it will simply not be the case that they have consulted only with Brian Souter. I hope they publish a list during the week confirming that.
The most worrying message emerging on this thread is the one that suggests only certain types of people are entitled to be involved in consultation. It would appear that Brian Souter isn't, nor are people with spiritual beliefs and Garry Otton makes clear his own preferred target when it comes to prejudice and hatred! How very fair of him, not!
Oh and actually Garry, you are badly misquoting Salmond on his recent speech about schools. You are right that he didn't attack catholic schools for refusing to embrace diversity, he suggested all of Scotland should embrace diversity by accepting and celebrating the fact that we have a wide choice when it comes to our education system! Get it right and don't twist things to suit your sad, divisive, sick message.
I'm disappointed in this article from start to finish and especially in Paul Hutcheon. The headline attached is worthy of the Sun when it comes to misleading people.
As previous posts, the more reasonable ones, have pointed out the SNP will clearly be consulting widely on this issue and it will simply not be the case that they have consulted only with Brian Souter. I hope they publish a list during the week confirming that.
The most worrying message emerging on this thread is the one that suggests only certain types of people are entitled to be involved in consultation. It would appear that Brian Souter isn't, nor are people with spiritual beliefs and Garry Otton makes clear his own preferred target when it comes to prejudice and hatred! How very fair of him, not!
Oh and actually Garry, you are badly misquoting Salmond on his recent speech about schools. You are right that he didn't attack catholic schools for refusing to embrace diversity, he suggested all of Scotland should embrace diversity by accepting and celebrating the fact that we have a wide choice when it comes to our education system! Get it right and don't twist things to suit your sad, divisive, sick message.
Posted by: Vronsky, Purgatory, third level left, next to women's lingerie on 1:29pm Sun 16 Mar 08
Just because d1ckheads say something, it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
I’m an SNP supporter but far from happy with the Soutar Syndrome - by which I mean Salmond’s irresponsible and unconsidered courtship of the various cultural superstitions and idiocies that abound in our - and any - society.
It’s easy to ignore the brain-stem dead Labour rent-boys posting here, but as they say say in Tennessee, even blind squirrels find the occasional nut.
Salmond’s courtship of the various and numerous God-squads should be a little more distant. He should remind himself of the Scottish proverb: when ye sup with the deil, use a lang spoon.
Just because d1ckheads say something, it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
I’m an SNP supporter but far from happy with the Soutar Syndrome - by which I mean Salmond’s irresponsible and unconsidered courtship of the various cultural superstitions and idiocies that abound in our - and any - society.
It’s easy to ignore the brain-stem dead Labour rent-boys posting here, but as they say say in Tennessee, even blind squirrels find the occasional nut.
Salmond’s courtship of the various and numerous God-squads should be a little more distant. He should remind himself of the Scottish proverb: when ye sup with the deil, use a lang spoon.
Posted by: Reader on 1:33pm Sun 16 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Disgusted Dorothy[/bold] wrote:
Reader , stop frothing at the mouth , it is so unattractive! Be calm! They will listen to a great number of people along the way, they may or may not agree with them. As for Mr Soutar, much has been made of his stance against clause 28 ,his main premise was that he did'nt want homosexuality as part of the school curriculum.I have already stated my opposition to sex education in schools , it is difficult to teach and should be the job of parents. As for donations to the SNP it was legal and it was his money.[/quote] The SNP are a right wing reactionary party funded by extremeists who are passing themselves off as social democrats and stupid posters like ''observer'' who should know better have fallen for it. Yes I do get angry when I read these comments. People should know who and what the SNP are. They are narrow and nasty.
Disgusted Dorothy wrote:
Reader , stop frothing at the mouth , it is so unattractive! Be calm! They will listen to a great number of people along the way, they may or may not agree with them. As for Mr Soutar, much has been made of his stance against clause 28 ,his main premise was that he did'nt want homosexuality as part of the school curriculum.I have already stated my opposition to sex education in schools , it is difficult to teach and should be the job of parents. As for donations to the SNP it was legal and it was his money.
The SNP are a right wing reactionary party funded by extremeists who are passing themselves off as social democrats and stupid posters like ''observer'' who should know better have fallen for it. Yes I do get angry when I read these comments. People should know who and what the SNP are. They are narrow and nasty.
Posted by: Garry Otton, Scottish Media Monitor com on 1:34pm Sun 16 Mar 08
It is not extreme, Gary to express your opinion. There are many religionists in Scotland that can and do express theirs even more virulently. They would deny others their rights (like the camp Bishop of Motherwell did last week), but I don't deny them their right to practice whatever superstition they fancy!
If what you say about Methadone is true, that would be a useful contribution from Souter but that is not yet in the public domain.
It is not extreme, Gary to express your opinion. There are many religionists in Scotland that can and do express theirs even more virulently. They would deny others their rights (like the camp Bishop of Motherwell did last week), but I don't deny them their right to practice whatever superstition they fancy!
If what you say about Methadone is true, that would be a useful contribution from Souter but that is not yet in the public domain.
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 1:40pm Sun 16 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Disgusted Dorothy[/bold] wrote:
Reader , stop frothing at the mouth , it is so unattractive! Be calm! They will listen to a great number of people along the way, they may or may not agree with them. As for Mr Soutar, much has been made of his stance against clause 28 ,his main premise was that he did'nt want homosexuality as part of the school curriculum.I have already stated my opposition to sex education in schools , it is difficult to teach and should be the job of parents. As for donations to the SNP it was legal and it was his money.[/quote] Dorothy thank you for pointing that out. I recall at the time many parents expressing the same concern in the Section 28 debate and it was nothing to do with homophobia. Their treatment by the Labour Party, and by many sections of the media, was shocking. The reaction to Souter in particular however has been more shocking still, and still it continues. It seems to me that there is a real strategy afoot to intimidate all of us into silence on certain subjects. I find that disturbing too when some of the more hostile posters also claim to believe in democracy.
Disgusted Dorothy wrote:
Reader , stop frothing at the mouth , it is so unattractive! Be calm! They will listen to a great number of people along the way, they may or may not agree with them. As for Mr Soutar, much has been made of his stance against clause 28 ,his main premise was that he did'nt want homosexuality as part of the school curriculum.I have already stated my opposition to sex education in schools , it is difficult to teach and should be the job of parents. As for donations to the SNP it was legal and it was his money.
Dorothy thank you for pointing that out. I recall at the time many parents expressing the same concern in the Section 28 debate and it was nothing to do with homophobia. Their treatment by the Labour Party, and by many sections of the media, was shocking. The reaction to Souter in particular however has been more shocking still, and still it continues. It seems to me that there is a real strategy afoot to intimidate all of us into silence on certain subjects. I find that disturbing too when some of the more hostile posters also claim to believe in democracy.
Posted by: Observer on 1:40pm Sun 16 Mar 08
Reader are you Grahamski he name checks me as well I don't know what I have done to deserve such an, ahem, ''honour''. I have said my piece my opinions on this are well known, I would second Vronsky's very good post (as usual from him) but no Party is perfect and I am sure there are plenty within the SNP who will act as a brake should this go too far. And in any case if the worst cane to the worst I could vote Green. Not Labour - ever.
Reader are you Grahamski he name checks me as well I don't know what I have done to deserve such an, ahem, ''honour''. I have said my piece my opinions on this are well known, I would second Vronsky's very good post (as usual from him) but no Party is perfect and I am sure there are plenty within the SNP who will act as a brake should this go too far. And in any case if the worst cane to the worst I could vote Green. Not Labour - ever.
Posted by: Peter Thomson, -22% for Wendy on 1:41pm Sun 16 Mar 08
Reader - unlike your name, you clearly never do.
Have you seen the ads for the 'Frank' campaign which are on telly at the time most teens watch?
They are both humourous and pointed making it clear that it is the individual that chooses to use drugs or not.The role is preventive and educative, much more effective than having to deal with the impact of drug taking.
The areas where drug problems are endemic will never be responsive to such a program as the reason the young people and adults use drugs in this case is to escape from their surroundings which 50 years of Labour rule in Scotland has done little or nothing to improve as one in four children in poverty in Scotland and an average male life expectancy of 57 in these areas so succinctly demonstrates.
Why no comment on my point about Wendy's illegal activities? She is more dangerous to Scottish morals than Souter.
Reader - unlike your name, you clearly never do.
Have you seen the ads for the 'Frank' campaign which are on telly at the time most teens watch?
They are both humourous and pointed making it clear that it is the individual that chooses to use drugs or not.The role is preventive and educative, much more effective than having to deal with the impact of drug taking.
The areas where drug problems are endemic will never be responsive to such a program as the reason the young people and adults use drugs in this case is to escape from their surroundings which 50 years of Labour rule in Scotland has done little or nothing to improve as one in four children in poverty in Scotland and an average male life expectancy of 57 in these areas so succinctly demonstrates.
Why no comment on my point about Wendy's illegal activities? She is more dangerous to Scottish morals than Souter.
Posted by: Garry Otton, Scottish Media Monitor com on 1:42pm Sun 16 Mar 08
"Oh and actually Garry, you are badly misquoting Salmond on his recent speech about schools. You are right that he didn't attack catholic schools for refusing to embrace diversity, he suggested all of Scotland should embrace diversity by accepting and celebrating the fact that we have a wide choice when it comes to our education system! Get it right and don't twist things to suit your sad, divisive, sick message."
Tell that to a gay kid that ends up in a Catholic or Islamic school, Clare. Divisive? How about sectarian schools. Or do you prefer to call them 'faith' schools. Whatever.
"Oh and actually Garry, you are badly misquoting Salmond on his recent speech about schools. You are right that he didn't attack catholic schools for refusing to embrace diversity, he suggested all of Scotland should embrace diversity by accepting and celebrating the fact that we have a wide choice when it comes to our education system! Get it right and don't twist things to suit your sad, divisive, sick message."
Tell that to a gay kid that ends up in a Catholic or Islamic school, Clare. Divisive? How about sectarian schools. Or do you prefer to call them 'faith' schools. Whatever.
Posted by: Gary McL, Edinburgh on 1:44pm Sun 16 Mar 08
I cannot breach any confidences or I'd not get invited back! I can assure you that what I wrote is a fact. But maybe Paul Hutcheon who is a good journalist will follow up. The real issue is the cost to Scotland, and Scottish lives, of drug abuse -- and the real question is how to solve it. Not had much success to date, have we? By the by Garry I agree with a lot of what you say but I do think you go OTT. We'll never all have the same view about everything.
I cannot breach any confidences or I'd not get invited back! I can assure you that what I wrote is a fact. But maybe Paul Hutcheon who is a good journalist will follow up. The real issue is the cost to Scotland, and Scottish lives, of drug abuse -- and the real question is how to solve it. Not had much success to date, have we? By the by Garry I agree with a lot of what you say but I do think you go OTT. We'll never all have the same view about everything.
Posted by: Reader on 1:47pm Sun 16 Mar 08
Peter Thomson if you think that an admin error by a junior member of staff is more imprtant than demonising homosexuals then I think you have a one track mind. Imagine you were a child in a Scottish school. A Catholic one, and you realised you were gay. If Brian Soutar and Bishop Devine another nat lover had their way you would feel dirty and ashamed. That is far more wrong than banking a cheque you shouldn't have.
Peter Thomson if you think that an admin error by a junior member of staff is more imprtant than demonising homosexuals then I think you have a one track mind. Imagine you were a child in a Scottish school. A Catholic one, and you realised you were gay. If Brian Soutar and Bishop Devine another nat lover had their way you would feel dirty and ashamed. That is far more wrong than banking a cheque you shouldn't have.
Posted by: Garry Otton, Scottish Media Monitor com on 1:49pm Sun 16 Mar 08
I'm passionate about human rights, Gary. If that's OTT then so be it.
I'm passionate about human rights, Gary. If that's OTT then so be it.
Posted by: Richard, Bannockburn on 1:51pm Sun 16 Mar 08
Clare,
Of course you're disappointed in the article - it doesn't attack the Labour Party. When Mr Hutcheon was muck-raking and giving it to the Labour Party he was a fantastic journalist. When he sets his sights on the SNP's sleaze all of a sudden he's not? Mr Hutcheon has no political axe to grind, he'll go after anybody and any party. When the nationalists were urging him further on with his digging into perceived Labour sleaze he was a hero. I take it he should turn a blind eye here and leave the nationalists alone?
Oh and actually Clare, Garry is paraphrasing pretty accurately Mr Salmond's obsequious speech when he he had the audacity to suggest that Scotland's non-denominational schools could learn a lot from the sectarian catholic schools. It beggars belief and I would really like Mr Salmond to explain to me exactly what my children could learn from a catholic school.
Clare,
Of course you're disappointed in the article - it doesn't attack the Labour Party. When Mr Hutcheon was muck-raking and giving it to the Labour Party he was a fantastic journalist. When he sets his sights on the SNP's sleaze all of a sudden he's not? Mr Hutcheon has no political axe to grind, he'll go after anybody and any party. When the nationalists were urging him further on with his digging into perceived Labour sleaze he was a hero. I take it he should turn a blind eye here and leave the nationalists alone?
Oh and actually Clare, Garry is paraphrasing pretty accurately Mr Salmond's obsequious speech when he he had the audacity to suggest that Scotland's non-denominational schools could learn a lot from the sectarian catholic schools. It beggars belief and I would really like Mr Salmond to explain to me exactly what my children could learn from a catholic school.
Posted by: Peter Thomson, -22% for Wendy on 1:52pm Sun 16 Mar 08
Reader another we fly in your ointment:
If the SNP are rabid right wing fascists, as you claim, why is the CBI whining over the introduction of LIT? Why are the Scottish Tories siding with Labour in Scotland? Why are the Lib Dems looking to make common cause with the SNP?
Labour calls the SNP 'Tartan Tories' while the Tories call then 'Secret Socialists' so what is the truth and can you, as you asked an earlier blogger, prove your case?
See, your 'Rab the Ranter' position makes little or no sense
Reader another we fly in your ointment:
If the SNP are rabid right wing fascists, as you claim, why is the CBI whining over the introduction of LIT? Why are the Scottish Tories siding with Labour in Scotland? Why are the Lib Dems looking to make common cause with the SNP?
Labour calls the SNP 'Tartan Tories' while the Tories call then 'Secret Socialists' so what is the truth and can you, as you asked an earlier blogger, prove your case?
See, your 'Rab the Ranter' position makes little or no sense
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 1:57pm Sun 16 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote:
In what way does Patrick Harvie have a conflict of interest Craig Banks - do tell. Yes subrosa I am pefectly aware of the kind of literature that children will see in relation to homosexuality - one that sets it in context as it is PERFECTLY NORMAL. Brian Soutar is hopelessly old fashioned and out of touch with reality of a modern 21st Century country he has demonstrated that by his blinkered homophobic views on the repeal of Section 28 which as a parent I was delighted to see the back of as, were all of my friends who are parents. If he is so hoplessly wrong about sexual EQUALITY then God knows what his views on drugs will be. I just hope Fergus Ewing takes it all with a pinch, no make that a pillar, of salt. [/quote] Observer, and you have demonstrated by your blinkered attitude that you are fully immersed in the "democracy with conditions" brigade. Just who do you think you are that you have the right to sit there and decide who gets to have a say in a consultation process? Is that how you would have Scotland after Independence? Is it only your views that count and will anyone who disagrees with you be denied the right to participate? What will you do Observer, shoot them? How very democratic.
The article clearly omits to say that consultation will include, and has included, many more people than Brian Souter. It is clearly designed to create mischief for the SNP. Does that not upset you? Are you not disappointed in Hutcheon that this is a piece designed to damage the SNP? I am.
On Section 28 you are also misleading people. Many parents expressed concern about the priorities of the Labour Party at the time and were concerned too about the implications of abolishing Section 28. I know lots of parents who felt that way and they are NOT homophobes. You just throw that word around Observer and you are not entitled when it doesn't apply to those people. I know many gay people who believe that the homophobe word is now the most over-used word ever and that 99% of the time it is thrown at people who aren't homophobes in an attempt to shut them up! But then they are democrats and they are ok with people expressing a view, unlike you. Whatever you think Souter demonstrates by his actions your own words say a great deal more disturbing about you. You are intolerant of any view on this subject today that doesn't match your own. That is a dangerous place to be.
Observer wrote:
In what way does Patrick Harvie have a conflict of interest Craig Banks - do tell. Yes subrosa I am pefectly aware of the kind of literature that children will see in relation to homosexuality - one that sets it in context as it is PERFECTLY NORMAL. Brian Soutar is hopelessly old fashioned and out of touch with reality of a modern 21st Century country he has demonstrated that by his blinkered homophobic views on the repeal of Section 28 which as a parent I was delighted to see the back of as, were all of my friends who are parents. If he is so hoplessly wrong about sexual EQUALITY then God knows what his views on drugs will be. I just hope Fergus Ewing takes it all with a pinch, no make that a pillar, of salt.
Observer, and you have demonstrated by your blinkered attitude that you are fully immersed in the "democracy with conditions" brigade. Just who do you think you are that you have the right to sit there and decide who gets to have a say in a consultation process? Is that how you would have Scotland after Independence? Is it only your views that count and will anyone who disagrees with you be denied the right to participate? What will you do Observer, shoot them? How very democratic.
The article clearly omits to say that consultation will include, and has included, many more people than Brian Souter. It is clearly designed to create mischief for the SNP. Does that not upset you? Are you not disappointed in Hutcheon that this is a piece designed to damage the SNP? I am.
On Section 28 you are also misleading people. Many parents expressed concern about the priorities of the Labour Party at the time and were concerned too about the implications of abolishing Section 28. I know lots of parents who felt that way and they are NOT homophobes. You just throw that word around Observer and you are not entitled when it doesn't apply to those people. I know many gay people who believe that the homophobe word is now the most over-used word ever and that 99% of the time it is thrown at people who aren't homophobes in an attempt to shut them up! But then they are democrats and they are ok with people expressing a view, unlike you. Whatever you think Souter demonstrates by his actions your own words say a great deal more disturbing about you. You are intolerant of any view on this subject today that doesn't match your own. That is a dangerous place to be.
Posted by: Reader on 1:59pm Sun 16 Mar 08
Peter Thomson you have completely ignored my comments about homophobia why have you ignored that, it was the main point I was making. But the local income tax is not costed and we don't know who it will actually benefit - if you haven't read it yet I would recommend you read Iain McWhirters article. We know a lot of rich people won't have to pay a penny. Faith schooling is a very right wing concept and Alex Salmond is in favour of it. As far as their other policies go, the council tax freeze clearly benefits the better off at the expense of the poor. And the courting of Donald Trump and the interference in the Aviemore planning application because of another one of their donors speaks for itself.
Peter Thomson you have completely ignored my comments about homophobia why have you ignored that, it was the main point I was making. But the local income tax is not costed and we don't know who it will actually benefit - if you haven't read it yet I would recommend you read Iain McWhirters article. We know a lot of rich people won't have to pay a penny. Faith schooling is a very right wing concept and Alex Salmond is in favour of it. As far as their other policies go, the council tax freeze clearly benefits the better off at the expense of the poor. And the courting of Donald Trump and the interference in the Aviemore planning application because of another one of their donors speaks for itself.
Posted by: Richard, Bannockburn on 2:00pm Sun 16 Mar 08
Peter,
The answer to your question is that the SNP can be both or neither. They are a single-issue party with no discernable political philosophy other than the destruction of the UK. Their hatred for Britain seems to be all-encompassing, so you can have the loony left and the loony right and the just plain loony all in one big happy family...
Peter,
The answer to your question is that the SNP can be both or neither. They are a single-issue party with no discernable political philosophy other than the destruction of the UK. Their hatred for Britain seems to be all-encompassing, so you can have the loony left and the loony right and the just plain loony all in one big happy family...
Posted by: Peter Thomson, -22% for Wendy on 2:03pm Sun 16 Mar 08
Reader - a minor error times how many at £955? Look at the regulations, Wendy broke the law as donee, she failed to abide by the law as she was required to do and has driven a coach and horse through Scots Law by the implicit agreement by the EC and Fiscal that she did not mean to, so that's OK.
It's not just Wendy, she is simply the tip of Labour's Tammany Hall practices as have been revealed alround Scotland as Labour councils got the boot last May, West Dumbarton, East Lothian, South Ayrshire to name but three. Then there is her dubious involvement in the TESCO development in Paisley, other electoral funding discrepancies and iffy transfers of Labour MSP funds to Labour National funds in the guise of computer services.
And you wonder why Labour is in the thick and steaming with Wendy at a -22% approval rating?
If you really cared about the Labour Party in Scotland I would suggest that you get to Aviemore and do some Augean Stable cleaning.
Reader - a minor error times how many at £955? Look at the regulations, Wendy broke the law as donee, she failed to abide by the law as she was required to do and has driven a coach and horse through Scots Law by the implicit agreement by the EC and Fiscal that she did not mean to, so that's OK.
It's not just Wendy, she is simply the tip of Labour's Tammany Hall practices as have been revealed alround Scotland as Labour councils got the boot last May, West Dumbarton, East Lothian, South Ayrshire to name but three. Then there is her dubious involvement in the TESCO development in Paisley, other electoral funding discrepancies and iffy transfers of Labour MSP funds to Labour National funds in the guise of computer services.
And you wonder why Labour is in the thick and steaming with Wendy at a -22% approval rating?
If you really cared about the Labour Party in Scotland I would suggest that you get to Aviemore and do some Augean Stable cleaning.
Posted by: Clare, Lanarkshire on 2:05pm Sun 16 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Richard[/bold] wrote:
Clare, Of course you're disappointed in the article - it doesn't attack the Labour Party. When Mr Hutcheon was muck-raking and giving it to the Labour Party he was a fantastic journalist. When he sets his sights on the SNP's sleaze all of a sudden he's not? Mr Hutcheon has no political axe to grind, he'll go after anybody and any party. When the nationalists were urging him further on with his digging into perceived Labour sleaze he was a hero. I take it he should turn a blind eye here and leave the nationalists alone? Oh and actually Clare, Garry is paraphrasing pretty accurately Mr Salmond's obsequious speech when he he had the audacity to suggest that Scotland's non-denominational schools could learn a lot from the sectarian catholic schools. It beggars belief and I would really like Mr Salmond to explain to me exactly what my children could learn from a catholic school.[/quote] Richard, my feeling about Paul Hutcheon today is that he has used a headline which doesn't reflect the facts and has misled people considerably. I believe the SNP will have consulted widely on this issue. I don't believe Mr Suiter will have been the only one.
I am happy for the SNP to be treated in the same way as other Parties in the media but all of the facts should feature in articles. This one today lets Paul Hutcheon down. I am no rabid nationalist I assure you and I have previously been attacked on these very threads, for making some constructive points about certain nationalist policies, by the real rabids who will suffer no criticism of the SNP whatsoever. So you have that wrong too.
And Garry is indeed misquoting what Mr Salmond said in his speech. Mr Salmond urged all of Scotland to embrace diversity instead of intolerance. Twisting what he said doesn't change his message although I understand that your own intolerance won't allow you to accept anything Salmond said in that particular speech.
Richard wrote:
Clare, Of course you're disappointed in the article - it doesn't attack the Labour Party. When Mr Hutcheon was muck-raking and giving it to the Labour Party he was a fantastic journalist. When he sets his sights on the SNP's sleaze all of a sudden he's not? Mr Hutcheon has no political axe to grind, he'll go after anybody and any party. When the nationalists were urging him further on with his digging into perceived Labour sleaze he was a hero. I take it he should turn a blind eye here and leave the nationalists alone? Oh and actually Clare, Garry is paraphrasing pretty accurately Mr Salmond's obsequious speech when he he had the audacity to suggest that Scotland's non-denominational schools could learn a lot from the sectarian catholic schools. It beggars belief and I would really like Mr Salmond to explain to me exactly what my children could learn from a catholic school.
Richard, my feeling about Paul Hutcheon today is that he has used a headline which doesn't reflect the facts and has misled people considerably. I believe the SNP will have consulted widely on this issue. I don't believe Mr Suiter will have been the only one.
I am happy for the SNP to be treated in the same way as other Parties in the media but all of the facts should feature in articles. This one today lets Paul Hutcheon down. I am no rabid nationalist I assure you and I have previously been attacked on these very threads, for making some constructive points about certain nationalist policies, by the real rabids who will suffer no criticism of the SNP whatsoever. So you have that wrong too.
And Garry is indeed misquoting what Mr Salmond said in his speech. Mr Salmond urged all of Scotland to embrace diversity instead of intolerance. Twisting what he said doesn't change his message although I understand that your own intolerance won't allow you to accept anything Salmond said in that particular speech.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 2:08pm Sun 16 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Richard[/bold] wrote:
Peter,
The answer to your question is that the SNP can be both or neither. They are a single-issue party with no discernable political philosophy other than the destruction of the UK. Their hatred for Britain seems to be all-encompassing, so you can have the loony left and the loony right and the just plain loony all in one big happy family...[/quote] ha ha ha ha ha
If I'd just watched the dour forecasting from journalists fromas wide a range of opinion as the BBC, Sunday Herald & the DAILY RECORD basically all saying that Wendy will sink or swim at the Labour Conference in two weeks time, I'd probably come on these forums spouting absolute pissh too....... anything to avoid actually dealing with the reality of a 11% SNP Poll Lead and a massive 75% leadership lead between Salmond & Wendy.....
Richard, the answer to your question is that.....
[quote].... [bold]Labour[/bold] can't be both or neither. They are a single-issue party with no discernible political philosophy other than the retention of an outdated[bold] UNION[/bold] . Their hatred for [bold]Scotland[/bold] seems to be all-encompassing, so you can have the loony left and the loony right and the just plain loony all in one big happy family...[/quote]
Richard wrote:
Peter,
The answer to your question is that the SNP can be both or neither. They are a single-issue party with no discernable political philosophy other than the destruction of the UK. Their hatred for Britain seems to be all-encompassing, so you can have the loony left and the loony right and the just plain loony all in one big happy family...
ha ha ha ha ha
If I'd just watched the dour forecasting from journalists fromas wide a range of opinion as the BBC, Sunday Herald & the DAILY RECORD basically all saying that Wendy will sink or swim at the Labour Conference in two weeks time, I'd probably come on these forums spouting absolute pissh too....... anything to avoid actually dealing with the reality of a 11% SNP Poll Lead and a massive 75% leadership lead between Salmond & Wendy.....
Richard, the answer to your question is that.....
.... Labour can't be both or neither. They are a single-issue party with no discernible political philosophy other than the retention of an outdated UNION . Their hatred for Scotland seems to be all-encompassing, so you can have the loony left and the loony right and the just plain loony all in one big hap
Comment | Read Comments (242)