Jump to content

'The Alex Salmond Show' - On Russia Today


Jambo-Jimbo
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Stay off the lager.

How

 

Thems the facts

 

Then again maybe his good lady is a guise like plenty MP's have when they like to take it  up the

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • JamboX2

    17

  • Phil Dunphy

    14

  • Space Mackerel

    15

  • Roxy Hearts

    21

Just now, Phil Dunphy said:

 

 

Based on what, exactly?

 

If you honestly think the vote was hijacked by non-Scot voters then you're, quite frankly, a dangerous individual.

The analysis of the demographics. Dangerous individual? Give it a rest for goodness sake! I'm an ordinary person wishing to see my country govern itself like normal countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roxy Hearts said:

The analysis of the demographics. Dangerous individual? Give it a rest for goodness sake! I'm an ordinary person wishing to see my country govern itself like normal countries.

 

The "analysis" is nonsense. Unless you spoke to every single person who voted, then your claim is whimsical, romanticised garbage.

 

If the majority of Scots wanted to be independent, then it would've happened.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

 

Based on what, exactly?

 

If you honestly think the vote was hijacked by non-Scot voters then you're, quite frankly, a dangerous individual.

There have been a few polls showing that the majority of Scots voted Yes. Ruk voters voted about 70 to 30 No and EU voters 65 to 35 No. No Rgument with that as it was always stated the vote was for everyone living in Scotland.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's have a closer look at some of the numbers.

 

122,036 votes cast in Dumfries and Galloway - 65.67% voted against. So the majority of those people weren't from Scotland.

 

61.10% of 378,012 votes cast in Edinburgh were No. The majority of those people weren't from Scotland either?

 

206,486 votes in Aberdeenshire, 60.36% majority against. Loads of non-Scottish people in the Grampian area then.

 

This the majority of Scots voted Yes nonsense is laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, XB52 said:

There have been a few polls showing that the majority of Scots voted Yes. Ruk voters voted about 70 to 30 No and EU voters 65 to 35 No. No Rgument with that as it was always stated the vote was for everyone living in Scotland.

 

 

I didn't take part in any of those polls.

 

Did they send that out to every voter? Polls mean nothing in these debates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the last Edinburgh census, 2011.

 

Quote
  1. 401,000 people in Edinburgh were born within the UK.

 

Quote
  1. Of those Edinburgh residents born in the UK, 335,000 or 83% were born in Scotland,14% in England, 1.6% in Northern Ireland and 0.5% in Wales.

 

But of course, it was only the non-Scots who voted No. Those numbers totally add up :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldny have polls near an election I say also had the kids not had a vote the Naw vote would have been even better..What gets me about the SNP  is the fact they have swallowed the Tories lot from the days gone by  yet want to be independent

 

Even kept Major in for longer thing is the SNP are scotlands Tories and always have been

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yabadabadoo1874again
21 minutes ago, jambo1961 said:

Shouldny have polls near an election I say also had the kids not had a vote the Naw vote would have been even better..What gets me about the SNP  is the fact they have swallowed the Tories lot from the days gone by  yet want to be independent

 

Even kept Major in for longer thing is the SNP are scotlands Tories and always have been

 

Ragin' BritNat Red Tory...

 

Shat it and voted no.  Yes?

 

Your BritNationalist utopia isn't going so well is it.  No?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

The "analysis" is nonsense. Unless you spoke to every single person who voted, then your claim is whimsical, romanticised garbage.

 

If the majority of Scots wanted to be independent, then it would've happened.

 

 

Calling me a dangerous individual nullifies any respect for your responses. 

 

You Britnats really are something when you're up against it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Roxy Hearts said:

Calling me a dangerous individual nullifies any respect for your responses. 

 

You Britnats really are something when you're up against it.

 

 

And you CyberNats hate it when folk present evidence to counter your nonsensical ravings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yabadabadoo1874again
1 minute ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

And you CyberNats hate it when folk present evidence to counter your nonsensical ravings.

 

 

CyBritNat!!! 

 

Kinda rolls off the tongue...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

And you CyberNats hate it when folk present evidence to counter your nonsensical ravings.

What nonsensical ravings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, yabadabadoo1874again said:

 

 

CyBritNat!!! 

 

Kinda rolls off the tongue...?

 

If you've had a stroke.

 

1 minute ago, Roxy Hearts said:

What nonsensical ravings?

 

Your nonsense about the majority of Scots voted Yes.

 

Mind numbing gibberish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

If you've had a stroke.

 

 

Your nonsense about the majority of Scots voted Yes.

 

Mind numbing gibberish.

Scots born 52.7% voted yes. If it was a Scots only vote then we would have. 

 

Away with your serfdom and subservience. No respect for your ranting garbage.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yabadabadoo1874again
6 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

If you've had a stroke.

 

 

Your nonsense about the majority of Scots voted Yes.

 

Mind numbing gibberish.

 

The online rantings of a CyBritNat...???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Roxy Hearts said:

Scots born 52.7% voted yes. If it was a Scots only vote then we would have. 

 

Away with your serfdom and subservience. No respect for your ranting garbage.

 

 

You seem to be of the belief that your respect means anything to me, you're literally words on a screen to me.

 

Laughable words at that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

You seem to be of the belief that your respect means anything to me, you're literally words on a screen to me.

 

Laughable words at that.

 

Well if it's only words then why the need to call a person you don't know a "dangerous individual" on the basis that that person has more respect for his fellow Scots men and women running their own affairs? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Calling me a dangerous individual nullifies any respect for your responses. 

 

You Britnats really are something when you're up against it.

 

 

Up against it ☺

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Well if it's only words then why the need to call a person you don't know a "dangerous individual" on the basis that that person has more respect for his fellow Scots men and women running their own affairs? 

 

Those nasty foreigners ruining it for you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

I didn't take part in any of those polls.

 

Did they send that out to every voter? Polls mean nothing in these debates.

I can have fun with some of the britnats on here but you're just a loony. Bye 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Phil Dunphy said:

 

Those nasty foreigners ruining it for you. 

Absolutely not considering I'm part Italian and Irish. I was just making a point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Roxy Hearts said:

It's some of the types of attitudes on this thread that turned me to independence a long time ago. Playing the man as usual.

 

I know we all do it but he doesn't represent every thought for Scots and we did vote for independence it was others who lost it for us. That includes propaganda.

 

Most people been playing RT 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Salmond is the key culprit for the defeat in 2014 and his actions since have done him or the yes movement no favours. The SNP surge was Sturgeon. He has rode a wave.

 

My issue is there's a lot of duplicity here and a bit of smoke and mirrors. If you look into the company he set up (Slainge Media Ltd) there's a few startling revelations to cast doubt on his "editorial independence" on RT.

 

1. He says it was a company set up after the success of his show in order to meet the request for a permanent show. Check Companies House (we all can for free) https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC572513. Set up before the Fringe run in July.

 

2. The company has a share capital of £2. Two share holders - Mr Salmond and Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh. A £1 each. There are no standard securities, unsecured loans or cautionary obligations on the company. So the operating budget will be a £2 as that is the operating budget of Slainte Media Ltd. The statement from Salmond is he will produce the show and sell it to RT. On £2? Really?

 

I'd add there is an ability to underwrite the shareholding. But that is nearly always (to secure a creditors credit) matched by a standard security. None are registered. These must be registered against the company on CH within 21 days. But this show is apparently already being produced.

 

3. If we put these two together the question to be asked is where is the funding to make a show for RT coming from if the company has a capital of £2? If it is RT, then he and Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh are being paid by RT to make a show by RT and packaged as being by his company then he will be bound to adhere to RT editorial guidelines and therefore not free to speak his mind - as he has claimed.

 

There's a bit to this if the surface is scratched. It's clearly why Sturgeon has moved to distance herself from him yesterday and by virtue the SNP.

Good post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

If only he had been given a half hour slot a week on the BBC then this would never have happened :-D

Could you imagine the Britnat cringers? They can't cope at the moment. The BBC should do it as it isn't going to change anything now as the cringers think he's a busted flush...... etc, etc, etc.

 

 

..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
5 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

Could you imagine the Britnat cringers? They can't cope at the moment. The BBC should do it as it isn't going to change anything now as the cringers think he's a busted flush...... etc, etc, etc.

 

 

..

 

The Brit Nats are counting down the last days of the UK entity, it’s funny as ****. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

The Brit Nats are counting down the last days of the UK entity, it’s funny as ****. 

They're posting links to all sorts of stuff. They're a bunch of weirdos. They should be comfortable with the lovely, cuddly uk we live in. It's equally perfect for everyone....!

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
5 minutes ago, Roxy Hearts said:

They're posting links to all sorts of stuff. They're a bunch of weirdos. They should be comfortable with the lovely, cuddly uk we live in. It's equally perfect for everyone....!

 

 

 

 

The English empire is on its final knees, it’s all over bar the singing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

If only he had been given a half hour slot a week on the BBC then this would never have happened :-D

Apart from his regular appearances on the Beeb did he need a show?

 

Equally, what part of impartially is served  by the BBC giving him a show? Which ex-patty leader has their own show?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

michael_bolton
8 hours ago, Phil Dunphy said:

Let's have a closer look at some of the numbers.

 

122,036 votes cast in Dumfries and Galloway - 65.67% voted against. So the majority of those people weren't from Scotland.

 

61.10% of 378,012 votes cast in Edinburgh were No. The majority of those people weren't from Scotland either?

 

206,486 votes in Aberdeenshire, 60.36% majority against. Loads of non-Scottish people in the Grampian area then.

 

This the majority of Scots voted Yes nonsense is laughable.

 

I don't know whether or not the majority of Scots voted for independence, but I do hate to see poor arguing go unchallenged.

 

This post is simply statistically illiterate.

 

Your focusing in on individual areas is irrelevant to the point you're arguing against. This wasn't a local election, it was a national, first over the line referendum.

 

No won by just under 400,000 votes. The 2011 census shows around  million non-Scottish born people living in Scotland. I have no Scotland-specific evidence, but since net migration to the UK rose in that period and Scotland's projected population grew, I'd suggest that number of non-Scottish born Scots had probably risen a smidgen by 2014.

 

Poles have shown that non-Scottish British nationals voted No at around 72%, meaning over 300,000 of the No votes are already accounted for before taking into account that non-British born voters voted No at around 60%. If you remove these groups, that less-than-400,000 majority for No starts to look pretty shaky. Your glib dismissal of the (unprovable, but perfectly feasible) idea that non-Scots swung the referendum does no credit to your analytical skills.

 

You highlighted three areas that were always likely to produce a majority for No due to a combination of economic, demographic and geographical reasons. Yet the nationwide trends show that it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the non-native vote won it for No. I don't recall this even being a particularly controversial idea at the time. I think it's to Scotland's immense credit as a society that this has been accepted. In lots of parts of the world non-natives would have been denied a say and would then have been widely vilified for influencing the result. It's proof of Scotland's robust democracy that neither of these things happened.

Edited by michael_bolton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

michael_bolton

Back on topic, there seems to be an incredible level of naivety when discussing Russia Today. Especially in comparison to other 'acceptable' organisations.

 

I'm not for one second suggesting that RT is particularly desirable from a moral viewpoint, but you're living in a fantasy land if you think its competitors are, and you're living there as a result of the media you're used to receiving.

 

The BBC may be more willing to be critical of UK political figures than RT is of Russian ones, but the BBC also produces much more morally questionable output on wars around the world than RT does. How do those two factors balance out? As for levels of being a state mouthpiece, Owen Jones quotes a senior BBC journalist as telling him that the BBC is 'set up to be the transmitter of mainstream ideology'. But that can't be right, since only the Russians do that... A Cardiff University (one of the UK's main journalist providers) study showed that BBC output generally has a strong bias towards the government of the day. In discussions about the EU, the BBC is significantly more likely to present the views of business leaders than ITV News is, for example. Business representatives outnumber trade union representatives almost twenty to one on the BBC. It's  a right-wing mouthpiece representing the government's viewpoint, in the same way as RT. But it's different, because...?

 

The Russian government may murder journalists, but I think anyone who genuinely believes that the UK government doesn't have blood on its hands on a regular basis is a fantasist. How do we balance out different kinds of state-sanctioned death? I see Dr David Kelly's body was cremated recently. Is Russian state-sanctioned death somehow worse?

 

This is just a stick to beat an individual with. It's daft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, michael_bolton said:

Back on topic, there seems to be an incredible level of naivety when discussing Russia Today. Especially in comparison to other 'acceptable' organisations.

 

I'm not for one second suggesting that RT is particularly desirable from a moral viewpoint, but you're living in a fantasy land if you think its competitors are, and you're living there as a result of the media you're used to receiving.

 

The BBC may be more willing to be critical of UK political figures than RT is of Russian ones, but the BBC also produces much more morally questionable output on wars around the world than RT does. How do those two factors balance out? As for levels of being a state mouthpiece, Owen Jones quotes a senior BBC journalist as telling him that the BBC is 'set up to be the transmitter of mainstream ideology'. But that can't be right, since only the Russians do that... A Cardiff University (one of the UK's main journalist providers) study showed that BBC output generally has a strong bias towards the government of the day. In discussions about the EU, the BBC is significantly more likely to present the views of business leaders than ITV News is, for example. Business representatives outnumber trade union representatives almost twenty to one on the BBC. It's  a right-wing mouthpiece representing the government's viewpoint, in the same way as RT. But it's different, because...?

 

The Russian government may murder journalists, but I think anyone who genuinely believes that the UK government doesn't have blood on its hands on a regular basis is a fantasist. How do we balance out different kinds of state-sanctioned death? I see Dr David Kelly's body was cremated recently. Is Russian state-sanctioned death somehow worse?

 

This is just a stick to beat an individual with. It's daft.

Good post.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone

Spacey gets constant grief on here on almost every post, yet he posted several tweets pointing out the hypocrisy of the reaction to all of this and only one poster made one comment on one of them.

 

Is it because most politicians of all persuasions are hypocritical, self-serving, lying sacks of shit? Yet some folk want to make out that it only applies to one side because they treat politics like football.

 

Life tip; if you think the Conservatives, SNP, Labour etc genuinely care about you over power, seek help.

 

The fact is, all media is biased in their own ways and some are more biased than others. Many politicians have taken RT money while in office and I'd bet given the opportunity to make more money after, would do the same thing.

 

Ruth Davidson and Anas Sarwar both tried to turn this into a political point scoring exercise by making it about the SNP or Sturgeon. Fact, Salmond is currently a punter like you and I. He can do what he likes within the rules of law. Bizzare that more folk are more upset about what a former first minister is doing than with our head of state for having offshore accounts. But then again not that bizzare given the British propensity for subservience under the class system.

Edited by AlphonseCapone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

Spacey gets constant grief on here on almost every post, yet he posted several tweets pointing out the hypocrisy of the reaction to all of this and only one poster made one comment on one of them.

 

Is it because most politicians of all persuasions are hypocritical, self-serving, lying sacks of shit? Yet some folk want to make out that it only applies to one side because they treat politics like football.

 

Life tip; if you think the Conservatives, SNP, Labour etc genuinely care about you over power, seek help.

 

The fact is, all media is biased in their own ways and some are more biased than others. Many politicians have taken RT money while in office and I'd bet given the opportunity to make more money after, would do the same thing.

 

Ruth Davidson and Anas Sarwar both tried to turn this into a political point scoring exercise by making it about the SNP or Sturgeon. Fact, Salmond is currently a punter like you and I. He can do what he likes within the rules of law. Bizzare that more folk are more upset about what a former first minister is doing than with our head of state for having offshore accounts. But then again not that bizzare given the British propensity for subservience under the class system.

Thing is though, it's not really about hypocrisy or beggar thy neighbour type stuff.

 

This is a huge lapse in judgement. RT has been active part of the Russian disinformation campaign in the west. Watch the Adam Curtis documentary on BBC iPlayer - Hypernormalisation. Explains it very well and how western media and campaigns (Fox, Brexit, Trump) have began using similar tactics partly in pay of Russian outliers and agents.

 

To it's credit the SNP and indy-movement unlike other groups (Catalonia's Puidgemont has met with the likes of Assange a man clearly in the orbit of Russia by his actions for example) have managed to keep clear of this.  But there's always been those happy to lap up the type of fake news that furthers the destabilisation agenda on the fringes. Salmond carries weight in the movement. He is a trusted and almost sanctified figure within Yes. By accepting the RT rouble and having a show on their network he's giving them credibility within the movement and tugging a part of the movement into that worrying orbit.

 

It's a huge misjudgement on his part. Huge.

 

Granted your average punter won't care.

 

Really recommend the documentary Hypernormalisation. Very interesting and explores a lot of this stuff about media credibility and disinformation being used here, in the States and Europe and it's origins in Russia via the Kremlin through Sputnik News and RT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

Spacey gets constant grief on here on almost every post, yet he posted several tweets pointing out the hypocrisy of the reaction to all of this and only one poster made one comment on one of them.

 

Is it because most politicians of all persuasions are hypocritical, self-serving, lying sacks of shit? Yet some folk want to make out that it only applies to one side because they treat politics like football.

 

Life tip; if you think the Conservatives, SNP, Labour etc genuinely care about you over power, seek help.

 

The fact is, all media is biased in their own ways and some are more biased than others. Many politicians have taken RT money while in office and I'd bet given the opportunity to make more money after, would do the same thing.

 

Ruth Davidson and Anas Sarwar both tried to turn this into a political point scoring exercise by making it about the SNP or Sturgeon. Fact, Salmond is currently a punter like you and I. He can do what he likes within the rules of law. Bizzare that more folk are more upset about what a former first minister is doing than with our head of state for having offshore accounts. But then again not that bizzare given the British propensity for subservience under the class system.

 

This is something which always amazes me, how some people take politics so seriously, genuinely thinking and pushing a narrative that somehow their party is better than the others, that their party is morally superior than the others, that their party is whiter than white and is more trustworthy and honest than the other parties. 

When the fact is the vast majority of them are nothing more than a bunch of self-serving lying hypocritical arseholes, who lie through their teeth just to get your vote and once gotten will completely disregard any and all promises made to you, (just ask any student about student fees for example), yet these things seem to be conveniently forgotten by their supporters, who defend them time and time again.

 

I have seen many Labour & Tory Governments on a national level make a complete pigs ear of things, and end up embroiled in sleaze & corruption, only to be replaced by the other party promising to clean things up and bring real change, only for once they get in power, for the cycle to start all over again, all that's different is the faces and names of the sleazebags, oh and the colour of their rosettes. 

 

It's true that Salmond is a free agent, however where it would become a real problem for the SNP is if he were to still be an official spokesperson for the SNP, that in my opinion would be a massive political gift to all of the SNP's opponents both at Holyrood and Westminster.

The SNP needs to fully distance itself from Salmond whilst he is working for/on behalf of RT, whose paymasters it should not be forgotten have a dedicated branch to try and meddle in and influence other countries elections and if Salmond were to still be a spokesperson for the SNP he and the SNP would just be labelled as mouth pieces for the Kremlin by their opponents.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
35 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

Thing is though, it's not really about hypocrisy or beggar thy neighbour type stuff.

 

This is a huge lapse in judgement. RT has been active part of the Russian disinformation campaign in the west. Watch the Adam Curtis documentary on BBC iPlayer - Hypernormalisation. Explains it very well and how western media and campaigns (Fox, Brexit, Trump) have began using similar tactics partly in pay of Russian outliers and agents.

 

To it's credit the SNP and indy-movement unlike other groups (Catalonia's Puidgemont has met with the likes of Assange a man clearly in the orbit of Russia by his actions for example) have managed to keep clear of this.  But there's always been those happy to lap up the type of fake news that furthers the destabilisation agenda on the fringes. Salmond carries weight in the movement. He is a trusted and almost sanctified figure within Yes. By accepting the RT rouble and having a show on their network he's giving them credibility within the movement and tugging a part of the movement into that worrying orbit.

 

It's a huge misjudgement on his part. Huge.

 

Granted your average punter won't care.

 

Really recommend the documentary Hypernormalisation. Very interesting and explores a lot of this stuff about media credibility and disinformation being used here, in the States and Europe and it's origins in Russia via the Kremlin through Sputnik News and RT.

 

But Salmond isn't think about the SNP and Independence anymore (he'll always support it of course), he is more interested in being a TV star. It all started with his Fringe show. Many top level politicians move onto more money spinning ventures when they are done; often advising businesses or doing keynote speeches. Salmond has simply done this but combined it with his desire to constantly be in the limelight.

 

The SNP and Sturgeon have distanced themselves from it already. It's possibly a misjudgement from Salmond, but it certainly has little political capital despite how desperately Davidson and Anas try to make it so.

 

I'll check out that documentary though cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
33 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

This is something which always amazes me, how some people take politics so seriously, genuinely thinking and pushing a narrative that somehow their party is better than the others, that their party is morally superior than the others, that their party is whiter than white and is more trustworthy and honest than the other parties. 

When the fact is the vast majority of them are nothing more than a bunch of self-serving lying hypocritical arseholes, who lie through their teeth just to get your vote and once gotten will completely disregard any and all promises made to you, (just ask any student about student fees for example), yet these things seem to be conveniently forgotten by their supporters, who defend them time and time again.

 

I have seen many Labour & Tory Governments on a national level make a complete pigs ear of things, and end up embroiled in sleaze & corruption, only to be replaced by the other party promising to clean things up and bring real change, only for once they get in power, for the cycle to start all over again, all that's different is the faces and names of the sleazebags, oh and the colour of their rosettes. 

 

It's true that Salmond is a free agent, however where it would become a real problem for the SNP is if he were to still be an official spokesperson for the SNP, that in my opinion would be a massive political gift to all of the SNP's opponents both at Holyrood and Westminster.

The SNP needs to fully distance itself from Salmond whilst he is working for/on behalf of RT, whose paymasters it should not be forgotten have a dedicated branch to try and meddle in and influence other countries elections and if Salmond were to still be a spokesperson for the SNP he and the SNP would just be labelled as mouth pieces for the Kremlin by their opponents.

 

 

I don't understand it either. Each party (even the Tories!) usually have a few good manifesto pledges and between them you could come up with something decent. Voting is basically going for the one with the most pledges that resonate with you. But the folk that think everyone of their party's pledges is the best are folk I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them. But then the problem is, how many of them actually follow through with them.

 

I think the SNP and Sturgeon have distanced themselves tbf. If he still has any position in the SNP bar regular member, which I don't think he does, then it would be wise for them to drop him from it. Likewise in any future campaigns they'd be best placed to keep him at a distance.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seymour M Hersh
17 hours ago, Phil Dunphy said:

Let's have a closer look at some of the numbers.

 

122,036 votes cast in Dumfries and Galloway - 65.67% voted against. So the majority of those people weren't from Scotland.

 

61.10% of 378,012 votes cast in Edinburgh were No. The majority of those people weren't from Scotland either?

 

206,486 votes in Aberdeenshire, 60.36% majority against. Loads of non-Scottish people in the Grampian area then.

 

This the majority of Scots voted Yes nonsense is laughable.

 

Has there ever been a breakdown of how the EU nationals who were given the chance to vote ended up voting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck
On 11/11/2017 at 12:47, JamboX2 said:

 

Salmond is the key culprit for the defeat in 2014 and his actions since have done him or the yes movement no favours. The SNP surge was Sturgeon. He has rode a wave.

 

My issue is there's a lot of duplicity here and a bit of smoke and mirrors. If you look into the company he set up (Slainge Media Ltd) there's a few startling revelations to cast doubt on his "editorial independence" on RT.

 

1. He says it was a company set up after the success of his show in order to meet the request for a permanent show. Check Companies House (we all can for free) https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC572513. Set up before the Fringe run in July.

 

2. The company has a share capital of £2. Two share holders - Mr Salmond and Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh. A £1 each. There are no standard securities, unsecured loans or cautionary obligations on the company. So the operating budget will be a £2 as that is the operating budget of Slainte Media Ltd. The statement from Salmond is he will produce the show and sell it to RT. On £2? Really?

 

I'd add there is an ability to underwrite the shareholding. But that is nearly always (to secure a creditors credit) matched by a standard security. None are registered. These must be registered against the company on CH within 21 days. But this show is apparently already being produced.

 

3. If we put these two together the question to be asked is where is the funding to make a show for RT coming from if the company has a capital of £2? If it is RT, then he and Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh are being paid by RT to make a show by RT and packaged as being by his company then he will be bound to adhere to RT editorial guidelines and therefore not free to speak his mind - as he has claimed.

 

There's a bit to this if the surface is scratched. It's clearly why Sturgeon has moved to distance herself from him yesterday and by virtue the SNP.

 

Ah-ha, “The Chronicles of the Deer” MkII - a device to avoid paying top rate of personal tax on top slice income. All perfectly legal if morally questionable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yabadabadoo1874again
1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Nats comparing RT to the BBC :rofl:

 

BritNats and...British Broacasting Co + unquestioning conditioned advocacy = congratulations your kept very well informed.... by your own standards that is...!!! LOL ??????  !!!  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BBC  is a joke

 

To feart to offend anyone

 

Also a Synagogue at prayer for some  oops sorry thats a no no

 

To think the  so in so's who run the gaff didny want  the funders  to find out what wages were dished out sickened me to the core

 

Get rid of it and the over paid arseholes in charge  of the  corporation  they are worse than Politicians  when begging scrounging and free loading is at hand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn
4 hours ago, yabadabadoo1874again said:

 

BritNats and...British Broacasting Co + unquestioning conditioned advocacy = congratulations your kept very well informed.... by your own standards that is...!!! LOL ??????  !!!  

 

 

 

 

 

You’ve obviously never watched Russia Today son. Although let’s be honest, that goes without saying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MacDonald Jardine
4 hours ago, jambo1961 said:

The BBC  is a joke

 

To feart to offend anyone

 

Also a Synagogue at prayer for some  oops sorry thats a no no

 

To think the  so in so's who run the gaff didny want  the funders  to find out what wages were dished out sickened me to the core

 

Get rid of it and the over paid arseholes in charge  of the  corporation  they are worse than Politicians  when begging scrounging and free loading is at hand

WTF is the reference to a synagogue about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...