Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Scotland’s unpopular First Minster Nicola Sturgeon says she will shed no "crocodile tears" over Labour's "pitiful and sad" demise, if Sturgeon thinks this ‘have a laugh’ at Labour will deflect the public from the Michelle Thomson story then she is sadly deluded

Dear All

If you are Nicola Sturgeon, you are desperate to turn the public and media’s attention away from the Michelle Thomson story.

It’s too good; it’s too sweet a story to walk away from.

What did Nicola Sturgeon know?

What did her husband Peter Murrell know?

Why is Pete Wishart squealing about the Thomson story like he accidentally trapped his bollocks between the bath and the wash hand basin in the toilet?

What involvements did the SNP Candidate for Provan have with Michelle Thomson?

Why are the SNP secretly planning for a by-election in Edinburgh West?

Who in the SNP ordered this?

Was it Nicola Sturgeon?

Was it Peter Murrell, the SNP Chief Executive?

Did Nicola Sturgeon believe Michelle Thomson when she said she was innocent?

Did Peter Murrell, the SNP Chief Executive believe Michelle Thomson when she said she was innocent?

See what I meaning about questions, they could be stacked higher than cow shit, if stacking cow shit is your past time. You would need a lot of cows shitting 24/7 to keep ahead of the questions regarding this saga.

Yesterday, I read a Pete Wishart tweet which indicated he was unhappy about the Mainstream media’s continual coverage of the Michelle Thomson story.

What difference does it make to him because Thomson resigned the SNP whip and now sits as an independent?

Is it because one of the ‘victims’ in this Thomson saga was a cancer victim?

In an attempt to divert attention away from Thomson and the SNP, unpopular Nicola Sturgeon has decided to go with the demise of the Labour Party in the UK. This would tend to suggest that the SNP had been successful right from the start; the Nationalists have been going about 80 years. They have only been successful for about 8 years, hardly a legacy of achievement. It is hardly worth bumping your gums over, Sturgeon joined the SNP when about 16; she is 45 now.

Parties like families rise and fall; that is the nature of politics, Labour’s fall has been particularly hard, in Scotland, the worse result since 1918. That failure didn’t happen over night, many people were involved in the slide downwards; mostly due to their lack of commitment to the voters they were elected to serve.

In an interview with Alastair Campbell, (his brother used to work in the Glasgow University library) ex director of communications for Tony Blair, Sturgeon says that Labour was not "capable" of providing strong opposition to the Conservative government.

And in another bizarre part of her statement she goes onto to say that the SNP was "filling that void".

It takes more than sitting in other people’s seats to fill a void, it takes more than just carping, it takes more than money comes from ‘magic money trees’ to be a credible opposition. Unlike most people I know some of the SNP MPs from my time as a former SNP member; they aren’t quality by any means.
Labour has a new leader, Jeremy Corbyn, he succeeded Ed Miliband, Miliband lost the election in both Scotland and England by sitting on the fence. He thought he could ‘hedge his bets’ and try and do a deal with the SNP if the numbers didn’t work out in his favour. The Tories used this to stir up people against him, by the time he did climb off the fence with a no deal pledge, it was too late.

Ed Miliband should have said no deals with the Nationalists under any circumstances right from the start, he gave the impression by default it is was okay to vote SNP and still get a Labour Government. Of course, that isn’t the whole picture; Labour in Scotland didn’t see or choose to turn a blind eye to the rot that had set in over decades because some people were dragging the party down.

Do you remember me banging on about how the Labour Party needed to do a cull of Glasgow Labour Councillors? It seems yet again, I got in there first, there was a cull and about 20 people were de-selected for various reasons.

I didn’t agree with all the de-selection choices but that cull saved Labour from being defeated in 2012 after a considerably period of bad press which was for the most part self inflicted.

Some elected people at the MP level, thought it was a good idea not to work but have the constituent do it for them, and then they would sign the covering letter or simply blank the constituent altogether. Why work when the votes were ‘in the bag’ appeared to be some people’s attitude, the thing with public discontent is that it is like oil in a water system; eventually a small drop ruins the entire supply.

The results of Westminster 2015 speak for themselves. 

One thing which the Scottish Labour Party is waking up to is that things have changed politically in so many ways, now it will be hard graft all the way to win, and like puppies, the Labour Party will find out that politically campaigning isn’t just for Xmas.

15 minutes at FMQs in Holyrood won’t cut it for voters; Labour will have to return to the values of public service. In the old days, you could rely on your elected representative, these days that confidence is gone; some people think that if they are loyal to the party machine then everything will be ‘all right’.

It won’t.

It might take a couple of bods to get you selected as a candidate but it takes a majority vote in an entire constituency to elect you to public office. When I was younger, I thought that elected people must be special in some way, when I got into politics I found that wasn’t the case by any means. This is one of the reasons that I urge anyone who wishes to stand for public office to give it ago, I did in October 2013, came 7th out of 14 people standing. If I had more time, I reckon I could have placed 5th or possibly 4th.

When I listen to Nicola Sturgeon saying that Labour is not "capable" of providing strong opposition to the Conservative government, I think back to her previous statements and remember how she got it spectacularly wrong.

Anyone remember her crowing about how the SNP would win the Glasgow City Council election 2012?

How about how the SNP would win Scottish independence?

The SNP have benefited from the failure of other people, this isn’t the same as being successful in their own right, when Jim Murphy who was the former leader of Scotish Labour said rather quickly after winning the leadership that he had fixed Labour’s problems, I thought that was a remarkable statement.

The problem was some of the people, and they were still in positions which they needed to be removed from, yes, a cull was needed by due to the run in to Westminster 2015, this couldn’t happen. So Labour went into an election with people that the public had turned away from, and didn’t want, they paid the price for the public wanting change. 

Labour has make a start in wanting to bring back its fortunes, of course that will involve a lot of ‘discussion’ to get policies and new people to take Labour forward, and none of this can be based on what the problems of the SNP are.

The Michelle Thomson saga is interesting from the point of view that the SNP have positioned their cult members as the ‘social justice champions of Scotland’, this is a lie to fool the gullible, and at present, the lie has worked, but you can’t fool the people all the time. The Police are investigating the Thomson saga which might result in someone getting charged with criminal offences of alleged mortgage fraud.

And because Michelle Thomson is close to Nicola Sturgeon and the senior SNP leadership who actively endorsed her, everything will be gone over with a fine tooth comb. The damage to Michelle Thomson is huge, which explains why the SNP are backing away from her at a rate of knots, so far I haven’t seen any MP, MSP, MEP or Councillor stand by her, I discount what Wishart is saying because the media blowtorch is now turned towards Nicola Sturgeon and her husband Peter Murrell, the SNP Chief Executive.

I have said it before and I will say it again, Nicola Sturgeon and her husband Peter Murrell are rats, it is interesting that although Thomson jumped from the ‘rat ship’, the ‘Civic Nationalists’ have no loyalty to Thomson, hence secretly planning for a by-election.

This shows that the SNP isn’t just substance lite as we well know, but the people in it are remarkable shallow and quick to turn on each other. If Thomson does make a comeback, she will know a lot more about the SNP than she did previously, she knows that trust doesn’t exist.

Speaking of "filling that void", I doubt Sturgeon’s opinion of Scottish Labour will really turn the spotlight away from Michelle Thomson and the SNP, it is as I said, too good and too sweet a story to walk away from.

This is one story which will run and run, especially because one of the people affected by this is a cancer sufferer.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University


Stuart 64W said...

Quite how the function of First Minister can be separated from the internal machinations of the SNP is beyond me.

As Mr Murrell (aka Mr Sturgeon Chief Executive of the SNP) shares a bed with the First Minister, how much input into Ms Thomson's removal as MD of 'Business for Scotland' did Nicola Sturgeon have?

"It also emerged that Business for Scotland, the prominent pro-independence campaigns that was co-founded by Thomson before last year's Scottish referendum, had secretly stripped Thomson of her role as a paid consultant after rows about the conflicting roles of senior figures in the campaign.

The Sunday Herald reported the decision to cancel Thomson's contract was covered up by Business for Scotland to protect its public image before the referendum, while Thomson was allowed to remain as managing director and spokeswoman but unpaid.

According to leaked internal emails, her removal came after an intervention by Peter Murrell, chief executive of the SNP and husband to Nicola Sturgeon"


Given that this is the case, and that Nationalists were constantly telling us that 'Business for Scotland' was an Independent, self funded, grassroots organisation.

So can anyone explain how and why the Chief Executive of the SNP intervened to remove Michelle Thomson from her post, in a 'self funded, grassroots', organisation?

As surely it's nothing to do with him?

Or the SNP?

I'd really like to know how that is possible.....

As I suspect would the Electoral Commission.

I think we should be told, don't you?

G Laird said...

Hi Stuart

Well said, there is a whole host of questions to be answered on the Michelle Thomson saga.

"As Mr Murrell (aka Mr Sturgeon Chief Executive of the SNP) shares a bed with the First Minister".

Do they share a bed?

I know they are married, but I have no knowledge of what happens in Sturgeon Mansions, only thing I know for a fact there is no Syrians in there despite Sturgeon's 'I will take a Syrian refugee' by Nicola.


Anonymous said...

If Sturgeon had any real leadership (or Salmond for that matter) they would have dealt with this matter ages ago.

As to her business interests, it matters little that they may have been legal. But they certainly do not fit in with the image that the SNP like to promote.

I want someone to interview Mhairi Black and ask her if she thinks it is morally right to buy from vulnerable sellers to resell at huge profit.

You can bet there is an instruction from SNP High Command telling all MPs and MSPs to ignore such questions.

The whole matter stinks, and couple with further revelations about what Hyslop knew regarding T in the Park, the SNP has proven itself to be just the same as any other political party.

Anonymous said...

well done again Georgieboy

Keep exposing the twats


Euboy said...

'Unpopular First Minister'... Haha, that's effing hilarious!!! Do you REALLY attend a university's?

Freddy said...

Well said George watching this from sunny Crete trying to catch up and loving it, herr problem is she has nothing to offer and knows it. If not this time next time that old saw about fooling some of the people etc will eventually kick in .

Sherbie said...

This whole affair stinks big time. There is much here to be investigated,,, heads should roll at least.

s said...

Just keep changing the subject is her motto. Sturgeon is SO hard to believe. I wonder which way she will turn/squirm next. A friend of mine sent an e .mail to Stewart Maxwell over the Fiona Hyslop cover up. People in Holyrood want Hyslop to appear before the committee again. They don't believe Hyslop. There was a document containg over 600 pages of "mainly REDACTED pages", what has NOT been fully disclosed by Hyslop? Methinks, along with many others, that there are a "big lot of lies" being told here.


s said...

Forgot to add, Syewart Maxwell NEVER replied to my friend's e.mail.

Sherbie. said...

@ euboy,,
Well,,,, un-truthful Nicola Sturgeon then,, that seems more appropriate. That WILL lead to "unpopular"Nicola Sturgeon, but then blinkered NATZ puppets like you CANT SEE THAT