Thursday 26 November 2015


A man who might be expected to know something about the area.
But as Craig Murray will tell you, they never listen to people who know anything about anything.
Aye, so you will be.
Playing soldiers while other people suffer.
What would a country like Saudi Arabia need £3.9 billion of arms for?
Oh yes, ISIS.
I wonder if he has worked that out yet.
And worse, whose side he will be on when it's all over.
If only you would lead.
Sums him up. Please, I want to be Winston Thatcher and
 Margaret Churchill all rolled up with Tory Blur.

For those who have a passing interest in the truth, Alex Salmond did indeed unveil his portrait today in Edinburgh at lunch time.

He had attended First Minister's Questions in his capacity as a MSP, and afterwards hosted a reception for veterans. He also briefed MSPs on the Syrian situation. 

He knew about the Syrian situation, you see, because he himself had been briefed the evening before by the Cabinet Office (along with some other Privy Councillors), of exactly what the Prime Minister would say. There was no need for him to be in Westminster.

It should also be noted that when The Prime Minister makes a statement, the leaders of the opposition parties are required to give a response. That would be Mr Corbyn first  (not Hilary Benn), then Angus Robertson (not Alex Salmond). That's the way it is done. You'd have thought they would know that kind of thing.

The Prime Minister has said that a debate will be held next week on whether or not to go to war.

Mr Salmond's duties in Scotland were pre-existing. The notice of the Prime Ministerial statement was made latterly.

It says something for the state of the press and of the opposition parties that the best that they can do to fight the SNP is to tell half truths and apply innuendos to the comings and goings of Alex Salmond.

Perhaps if there were a policy or two from the opposition parties in Scotland... and I mean policies that don't fall to pieces within an hour, the newspapers would be able to propose a better and brighter future for us under Labour or the Tories.

 As it is, of course, all any of them can do is bleat SNP bad.


  1. To be fair, if Muddle/Mundellwhoisface hadn't attended, there would be the same reaction from nationalist sites, pre-existing or not. But politics being politics, senior MPs are supposed to be omnipresent.

    Back to more serious issues, I'm going to be blunt, so apologies for the strong language and long winded rant.

    Cameron has't got a fucking clue.

    When Thatcher sent a task force to the Falklands, the objective was clear. The enemy forces were identified. Targets were noted in advance. Not everything went to plan but in war nothing ever does,

    Syria is a complicated mess. Let's not forget last time Cameron wanted air strikes, it was against Syria is support of ISIS. Now there is no clear distinction about what side supports what,

    I study military history as a hobby, But I can't identify a clear strategy here from Cameron, If you support the Kurds, you are going to piss off Turkey. If you attack the Kurds, you will piss off the Kurds and the Russians while ISIS will cheer you on, If you attack ISIS, you have to do so in support of the Kurds (see above). At least, that's what I think would happen.

    If you must take action, then the only clear course of action is to support Assad and Syria. But air strikes will not defeat ISIS. Only ground forces can do so. But where the hell does Cameron get this 70,000 figure from? And numbers mean fuck all if the forces aren't disciplined. Rebel forces tend not to be.

    I don't think any politician has any idea what to do. Cameron in my view is wanting air strikes so he can join in. But the prick decimated our military aircraft not so long ago, We cannot go storming in on the ground either as there is most definitely no exit strategy,

    None of the other parties has a clue either, Corbyn thinks everyone will site nicely round a table and make a settlement. Which means he's no clue about ME politics. Or more likely, he will not go against his beliefs. Labour is about to self-destruct over this issue anyway, I predict at least 4 shadow cabinet resignations. And the SNP seem to be opposing air strikes simply because it is the Tories who are proposing them.

    Baldrick has a cunning plan..... can't be any worse than what is out there....


    1. I think we might want to add to that mix, Zog, where the funding for IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesch comes from,...

      Most seem to agree that Saudi is involved in funding them, along with Qatar, Bahrain and other Gulf states. I've even heard that Israel is involved!

      When the fighting is over (and who decides that it is) what will happen?

      Russia and Iran want Assad to stay. Saudi and the Gulf states want him gone. Heaven knows what the West wants. Britain will want whatever America wants, being pretty much a vassal state.

      Burt who will prevail?

      Given that the idiot Cameron (yes, I said idiot) wanted to go to war to support the rebels a few years ago, what will he do when Russia says no.

      Benn was on the radio this morning saying that the UN has given its permission. Lawyers are not in agreement. (Mind Benn was taking the credit for "stopping" the tax credit changes, when , even in the Lords they voted against a Liberal Democrat motion calling for them to be scrapped, so he talks a load of nonsense.)

      I don't know what's motivating the SNP's stance, but I'm against Britain getting involved because I don't see a way out, Britain can't afford it, Getting involved in killing people in Syria seems to be followed with them killing people in the West. (Livingstone is right, in my opinion: 7/7 was a direct result of the UK's involvement in Iraq.)

      And whose to say that revenge won't come to Scotland. You can bet that London will be sown up tight, but will Security Services be so interested in Edinburgh or Glasgow?

      If someone has a cunning plan that isn't bollocks, I'd love to hear it.

      I wouldn't trust Cameron to make tea, to Hammond to be able to drink it, and Fallon seems to me to be slightly less than the full shilling.

      No thanks. Better Together pooling and sharing killings. UKOK.

    2. Much of what you say makes sense, appart from the SNP opposing just because the Tories want it, I'd say they are opposing for the reasons you, yourself, outlined.

    3. Could it be that the SNP oppose air-strikes perhaps because "Syria is a complicated mess" and it is impossible to work out what can be achieved by air-strikes and that there is no clear objective in sight? Perhaps the SNP sensibly, with Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan in mind, realise that military action by the UK would inevitably exacerbate an already volatile situation. It will never happen but perhaps the UK and USA could go some way to win hearts and minds by admitting that their own actions in the Middle East were tragic errors with consequences and that they would be willing to make reparation to the victims of their actions. I wonder what the arms manufacturers, in the safety of their mansions, would advise Cameron to do?

    4. They are also listening and responding to the will of the majority of the Scottish people - in other words - what they are elected to do.

    5. It seems to me that anyone looking rationally at the arguments for and against action (mindful of the fact that the UK cannot afford to contribute a huge amount, given the fact that to maintain Trident, they have been obliged to rid themselves of much that would have been of need to them in this kind of war) would conclude that on balance, UK action would be likely to make things worse rather than better.

      And that, the voice of their constituents is saying, lets spend the money on something more djd says... their job.

    6. I didn't mean to be over-critical about the SNP. I agree with their stance. But what I want to see is a real alternative to air strikes. I can't think of one, except to bite the bullet and support Assad. For all his faults, he is not sending suicide bombers into European cities,

      The Western powers are the cause of many problems in the Middle East, but not all of them. But however we have got to where we are, the current problem does need dealt with. Arguing about who did what is for a later date (or in the case of Chilcott, another life).

      I was ranting a bit yesterday after watching parts of the debate, so clarity of thought was absent without leave.......

      Although I may just be right about Corbyn and his soon to be depleted shadow cabinet.

      Oh well, it's the weekend.


    7. Yes, the West is at fault in the ME, but you can't lay everything at their doors....except that a lot of the faults in the Middle and Near East countries are down to their construction... and guess who was at the back of all that.

      Additionally, if the West would stop providing them with weapons it might help a bit, although I accept that Russia would happily take over.

      I wonder if Britain needs to do anything at all. If it won;t do any good, why do it?

      I'm sure that other countries aren't doing anything warlike... Is Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland?

      The notion that Cameron has that they must be seen to be doing something, is stupid, unless he can show that what he is going to do is going to make a difference... a positive difference.

      Like Saddam or Qaddafi, Assad is a horrible dictator, BUT, firstly, he has been providing a reasonable standard of living and a reasonably secure society. And secondly it doesn't seem to occur to the West that these disparate countries, made up of various sects, tribes and nationalities NEED a strong and unyielding leader.

      Norwegian style democracy wouldn't work... as we see everywhere they have attempted to install it (albeit with their own man in charge).

  2. I cannot for the life of me remember a book written after the first World War which concerned the fact that the only people to come out of war successfully are the arms merchants. Everyone else is doomed. We have always said that if mankind had put as much effort into winning the peace as they do waging war, that the people who have been killed in the past and those doomed in the future, one of them might have found a cure for cancer for instance or pushed mankind further along the road in many other ways. Instead we squabble and fight and then a few years later, well apart from the English, we are friends again.
    The thing about Alex Salmond really annoys me, not the same fuss over more than half the Labour Party and leader (LEADER?), who were so cowardly they stayed away from the Trident Debate thus allowing the Government a free run.

    1. Big business does nicely out of wars Helena.

      Halliburtons (Dick Cheney's company made billions out of Iraq.

      Cameron must be under huge pressure from arms manufacturers to get it though parliament as quickly as possible so that they can order their new porches.

    2. Big business does nicely out of wars Helena.

      Halliburtons (Dick Cheney's company made billions out of Iraq.

      Cameron must be under huge pressure from arms manufacturers to get it though parliament as quickly as possible so that they can order their new porches.

  3. Tisk, should have read the name of the book written after the first World War.

    1. Could it be?

      War is a racket,
      Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler


    3. Well done Jim!

    4. You're welcome, I came across it a few years ago, in a charity shop; it's an interesting read. I'll need to have a rumage and see if I still have it.

  4. The problem for Bomber Cameron is that Bomber Blair along with HM press has already fooled the British public into attacking a Middle East country based on lies.
    Fool me once,shame on you.
    Fool me twice,shame on me.
    However,it may be easier to fool British MPs but if it goes pear shaped then they will have to carry the can.
    Perhaps,like Blair,they will have gone on to greater things by the time an official enquiry reports back on the Syria shambles.
    Our national interest is very definitely not going to be served by military intervention in Syria but Dave looks like he wants his place in history as a Churchilian style British know Strong,Decisive etc etc
    He should be careful what he wishes for.

    1. ... and the arms manufacturers would like their share... and Dave might get loads of directorships out of them, for when he's Lord Eton Pig Boy.

      Margaret Piggy Churchill.

  5. Tsk, should have read That I could not remember the title of the book.

  6. tris in your new found self appointed role as apologist for Alex Salmond

    The fact is who gives a toss if he was at westminster he is just a lowly
    MP now. Angus Struan Carolus Robertson MP is the SNP's Parliamentary Group Leader
    and Alex merely his bag carrier .

    The only privy Alex has unfettered accesses to at Westminster is the MPs privy
    whereupon he can gaze on all the graffiti to be kept updated with the latest news .

    Alexs Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
    And then is heard no more. It is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.

    time for him to zip it shut

    1. Dear me, Niko, in view of the bile you've been posting this week I suspect your piles are playing up again? You should be aware that Salmond has been a Privy Counsellor for years and the Queen says he's purr-fect at giving her advice. Salmond may have his faults but he is no idiot and I suspect history will be kinder to him than Blair and Brown.

    2. Well Niko, that was my point. I'm not an apologist for him. As John says, he certainly has his faults. But what The Tories and labour were saying was that it was unconscionable that he missed Cameron's statement, given that he is teh Foreign Affairs man for the SNP.

      I was pointing out that it didn't matter who he was, his boss in London did the reply to Cameron.

      He was able to go to Scotland without hearing the statement having been given access to it as a PC, which as John says, he has been for some time. Every FM of Scotland, Wales and NI is a PC in case they have to be party to confidential information.

      Now get some Preparation H.

    3. NIKO,

      I should imagine that Salmond will be remembered in history as one who helped consign Scottish Labour and their rUK party to a political grave-yard from which there is no return. To be fair, their previous and current alliances with the Tories is also a contributory factor ! Murphy, Foulkes, Reid and Baillie etc etc to the rescue heh heh!

  7. JRB

    No doubt iffen u wuz to write the ' life And Times Of Alex Salmond ' BUT
    as we all know history is written by the winners and not the losers hunnered
    years from now in some dusty room a scribe will put Alex down in a footnote
    of history Alex Salmond sometime nationalist politician .......


    Yes well I myself am on the privy council i dosh out the bog rolls
    and it was well commented how nice and quite a meeting it had been
    without old whining guts Salmond being there it was like breath of fresh air.
    and he couldn't try and nick all the spare bog rolls like wot he usually does.

    1. Oh, that's interesting Niko.

      I always wondered why every time Munguin went to dinner at the Salmonds' he mentioned that there were rooms full of bog paper.

      Now we know the reason.,

  8. Think I'll just leave this here.

    1. Frankie Goes to Hollywood's version is better. (Showing my bloody age now!)


    2. Frankie goes WHERE ???!?! Zog?


      There's got to be better way, Arbroath, to quote the great man (or Frankie!!!)

  9. Especially for you Zog!

    1. Actually... you're right. It's better.

  10. Off topic, but Grant Shapps has just resigned his ministerial post.

    Couldn't happen to a nicer person.......


    1. About time. It's not looking healthy what's been happening in the upper echelons of the Tory Party.

      Shapps is the worst kind of Tory.