"Scotland might surprise you"

[craig 5,199]

Would you vote for George Galloway ? John Reid? Michael Mather? Roseanna Cunningham ?

 

If I felt they were the best politician for my constituency then yes I would.

[Super Cooper 0]

If I felt they were the best politician for my constituency then yes I would.

 

But he is not there to do what is best for you and your people, his type are there to gain political power for his own people. If you compare how many Celtic supporting Catholics are currently in positions at government both in Scotland and England and compare it to Rangers supporting Protestants, there is a clear unbalance. Not that supporting a football club or being a certain religion is the defining aspect. It can be one or the other too. These people are not brought up to be normal, honest and fair minded, they are brought up to hate and stick together within themselves.

 

And by the way, this sort of thing does not just apply to government, it applies to courts of law, the police, the media and the entertainment business too. These people have just about got a complete grip of this country. It is so one sided it is frightening. They managed it by claiming unfair treatment, they claimed oppression of their people and they claimed they were persecuted and where "sitting at the back of the bus" all the while they were employing within their own groups and rising up the ladders of every major sector in society. Of course their claims were just a smokescreen for exactly what was happening in reality. They are taking over and forcing us out.

 

If Galloway had any sort of power he would have you and your people hanging from lamp posts. Giving these people too much power is very very dangerous.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Super Cooper

[D'Artagnan 173]

Always amazes me how the Rangers unionist supporters keep stum on what the unionist politicians did for Rangers when we needed help.

 

None of them - Murdo Fraser excluded can claim any credit Bearger - in fact when you look at Westminster's Early Day Motion 913 - a certain one should be ashamed of himself. The only Unionist politicians who appear to have done anything to help Rangers are those from Ulster.

 

This post was a collective criticism of the failings of our country to stem and respond to a hatred - a presumption of guilt before trial which even those in authority failed to take cognisance of.

 

The only reason I make reference to the aspirations of self governance is that the considerable failings at a number of "safety checkpoints" suggest to me, we are still too immature to consider self governance.

[craig 5,199]

But he is not there to do what is best for you and your people, his type are there to gain political power for his own people. If you compare how many Celtic supporting Catholics are currently in positions at government both in Scotland and England and compare it to Rangers supporting Protestants, there is a clear unbalance. Not that supporting a football club or being a certain religion is the defining aspect. It can be one or the other too. These people are not brought up to be normal, honest and fair minded, they are brought up to hate and stick together within themselves.

 

And by the way, this sort of thing does not just apply to government, it applies to courts of law, the police, the media and the entertainment business too. These people have just about got a complete grip of this country. It is so one sided it is frightening. They managed it by claiming unfair treatment, they claimed oppression of their people and they claimed they were persecuted and where "sitting at the back of the bus" all the while they were employing within their own groups and rising up the ladders of every major sector in society. Of course their claims were just a smokescreen for exactly what was happening in reality. They are taking over and forcing us out.

 

If Galloway had any sort of power he would have you and your people hanging from lamp posts. Giving these people too much power is very very dangerous.

 

 

I think you are missing my point SC.

 

The OP was suggesting, or at least it looked to me like they were suggesting, that they would not back any politician that had been part of the movement to destroy Rangers, due to their Celtic leanings. My point was merely that I wouldn't make my political representative decision based on their football team preference but would base it solely on how well they could do for my constituency as a politician.

 

If I felt that my political representative was forwarding the cause of only a certain segment of their constituency then I wouldn't support them - but that would be based on what they were doing as a politician, not their football leanings.

 

In fact, I would suspect that I would not vote for someone who was being pro-Rangers to the detriment of Celtic fans (If we can simplify this as a Rangers v Celtic issue for a moment) because a politician's remit and obligation is to his/her WHOLE constituency.

 

My entire point is that I would never vote for, or against, someone purely because of their football leanings, which is what the OP was suggesting.

[craig 5,199]

EDIT : Wasn't the OP that suggested it but rather a subsequent post to the OP.

 

Apologies D'Artagnan.