Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
azzuri

Souter donates £500,000 to SNP!?!?....

I was just listening to BBC Radio Scotland for the pre-football chat and heard on the news that Brian Souter has donated £500,000 to the SNP in order that the 'inbalance' is redressed in Scottish Politics.

I don't have a link or a source for this yet - but absolutely brilliant news if it's true! Smile
SLG

I heard there was going to be a big story breaking today. This must be it.

Not sure I'm too happy about the SNP taking his money though.
azzuri

...story has now been confirmed by the BBC website.

see - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6462119.stm

Quote:
Stagecoach tycoon donates to SNP

Leading businessman Brian Souter is to donate £500,000 to the Scottish National Party in the run-up to the Holyrood elections in May.

The head of the Stagecoach group said it was vital to correct the imbalance in funding in Scottish politics.

He said Scots had a definite right to self-determination.

Mr Souter, 52, previously funded the campaign to prevent the abolition of Section 28, the law which blocked the promotion of homosexuality in schools.

The Keep the Clause campaign was unsuccessful and the law was abolished in 2000.

The tycoon is known to be an SNP supporter but his donation has given the Nationalists a huge campaign boost.

Mr Souter's company, which began with two buses in Perth, now employs 31,000.

The donation means the SNP has already exceeded its target of raising £1m for the election.

SNP leader Alex Salmond set a new target of £1.75m at his party's conference in Glasgow.

Mr Souter's donation comes the day after former Royal Bank of Scotland chairman Sir George Mathewson announced he was supporting the SNP.

Mr Salmond said: "The SNP have the momentum. For the first time in Scottish political history, the SNP's positive and forward-looking campaign will be able to compete with Labour's negative scaremongering on a level financial playing field."

He added: "Brian Souter is one of the outstanding entrepreneurs of his generation, totally self-made and hugely successful.

"I am very grateful for his encouragement and support."
SLG

It's a lot of money. Although I think his previous associations will do a wee bit of damage to the SNP. They're not going to turn down that sort of money though.
azzuri

I thought Al Fayed was looking to give the SNP around the same amount late last year?

I think if Souter was going to cause the SNP a lot of damage they would turn it down, but you are right SLG, half a million pounds is a LOT of money to a Scottish political party.
Karenisabitch

The SNP don't sell peerages and have never been involved in a financial scandal so they arerigfht to take the cash.

You can't compare Soutar to Al Fayed - although some of Soapy's business practices and old-fashioned religious views might upset a few peeps.

Apparently £1M of the Labour donation from someone called Hattel is gonna be spent in Scotland...
SLG

I think that, in theory, they are right to take his money. This will put some people off voting for the SNP. Especially after some of the stuff Cunningham and Fergus Ewing have come out with recently.
azzuri

...the BBC has got a few digs in already. They have already added to the quote from below to the original article.

Quote:
'Homophobic prejudice'

Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson told BBC Scotland: "I don't think the sum of money Brian Souter has donated - and obviously that's up to him as an individual - is the key issue here.

"The key issue would be the impact of the SNP's policies on the average family in Scotland.

"As Labour has shown this week, that means that the average family would be £5,000 a year worse off."

Green MSP Patrick Harvie called on all parties to condemn homophobia in the wake of Mr Souter's donation.

Mr Harvie, who is also a gay rights campaigner, said: "I call on all parties standing in the Scottish election to disassociate themselves from homophobic prejudice such as Mr Souter's former political enterprise.

"It is essential that serious politicians avoid any taint of pandering to bigotry, whether that be racial, religious, homophobic or any other kind."
Jimbo

This is a great windfall for the party and couldn't have come at a more fortuitous time. The SNP has just circulated all members asking for badly needed donations to help fund the forthcoming elections. Brian Soutar should be applauded for putting his money where his mouth is. Will Blair now deem Soutar not to be a real businessman?

Coming in the wake of Prof' Hallet and George Matthewson, it adds credibility to the SNP when the public see business people of this stature backing the case for independence.
Economist

Brian Souter's views on the whole Section 28 thing a few years back were utterly disgraceful. But this isn't about that, and he is a hugely successful businessman and entrepreneur. When you consider the types of individuals the Unionist parties get their money from........
Karenisabitch

Guys, the SNP is a broad church and people are entitled to their views even if we disagree with them. I think some of Brian Soutar's business practices are pretty shameful and most of us have probably all been on a Stagecoach bus journey where the door was hanging off, or the heating wasn't working or the bus was filthy! I know I have!

The important thing is he believes in independence and is willing to put his money where his mouth is. As long as the SNP give his dodgier views no special consideration, I have no problems with it if it means we can compete with the Unionists on their level.

Oh my gawd I am actually starting to sound sensible and not a bitchy remark to make!

I must be losing my touch!

Miaoww!
azzuri

...maybe it's just that this forum is a lot more civilised than other ones you are used to frequenting? Wink
Aventinian

It's rather funny how if any party you lot don't support takes a penny from someone vaguely unpleasant, it's roundly critised; and yet now, everyone's morals seem to have gone out of the window at the first scent of lucre.

I recall Niall's quote on another thread about this story with the Lib Dems - http://www.sundayherald.com/news/...es_storm_over_party_donations.php - it read something like this:

"This is a bloody disgrace. Hundreds of his workers were cheated out of their pension rights by what can only be described as flagrant theft! Shame! Shame! On the Lib Dems, taking that donation. Have they no scruples? No Morals? No decency? No! They grovel on their bellies like snakes for donations from any source, no matter how despicable or dishonest."

I wonder where that sort of spirit has gone with everyone?
Jimbo

Aventinian wrote:
It's rather funny how if any party you lot don't support takes a penny from someone vaguely unpleasant, it's roundly critised; and yet now, everyone's morals seem to have gone out of the window at the first scent of lucre.

I recall Niall's quote on another thread about this story with the Lib Dems - http://www.sundayherald.com/news/...es_storm_over_party_donations.php - it read something like this:

"This is a bloody disgrace. Hundreds of his workers were cheated out of their pension rights by what can only be described as flagrant theft! Shame! Shame! On the Lib Dems, taking that donation. Have they no scruples? No Morals? No decency? No! They grovel on their bellies like snakes for donations from any source, no matter how despicable or dishonest."

I wonder where that sort of spirit has gone with everyone?


Niall speaks for himself, not for me, The SNP or anyone else I know. I think you would be the first person to point that out in any other thread. Shocked
kevin04

I'm delighted that Souter has donated such a healthy sum of money towards the SNP, fantastic news indeed, it's also making headline news across Scotland aswell, the SNP CAN win this election and people are believing this aswell, i was talking to a few people in the pub when i was home at christmas time about politics and most of them were saying "i'll give the snp a chance, we've got a parliament why don't we use it to it's full "

although i disagree with souter's clause 28 campaign a few years back, i'm happy he's put money into the snp camp.

I'm hungover from drinking far too much watching all the rugby yesterday but i'm still SMILING for some reason,

i think it's time, i hope it's time, maybe it is time!

roll on MAY!
George

Aventinian wrote:
It's rather funny how if any party you lot don't support takes a penny from someone vaguely unpleasant, it's roundly critised; and yet now, everyone's morals seem to have gone out of the window at the first scent of lucre.

I recall Niall's quote on another thread about this story with the Lib Dems - http://www.sundayherald.com/news/...es_storm_over_party_donations.php - it read something like this:

"This is a bloody disgrace. Hundreds of his workers were cheated out of their pension rights by what can only be described as flagrant theft! Shame! Shame! On the Lib Dems, taking that donation. Have they no scruples? No Morals? No decency? No! They grovel on their bellies like snakes for donations from any source, no matter how despicable or dishonest."

I wonder where that sort of spirit has gone with everyone?


Ah struggling again eh?........This weak attempt at conflating donations from a business man with who has 'controversial views' with someone who was found to have illegally denied workers their pension rights and avoided paying tax on savings interest is a tactic we have come to expect from you.

Indeed the SNP maintained the moral high ground by refusing Al Fayed's offer of support...........blowing your "first scent of lucre" theory apart. I'm also sure that the SNP have never accepted donations from criminals......something that cannot be said of some (all?) of the Unionist parties.

Feel free to list those many contributors to either the Labour party or indeed the Lib Dems & Tories criticised on this site...........we can all then discuss whether or not criticism was fair.

Now, if you wish to question Souters motives and whether or not the SNP is beholden to him in any way then that is a fair question, although the Sunday Herald deciding his views on section 28 are worth a front page headline is sad.

Finally, this has been a fantastic week for the SNP, just when the media where asking if their campaign had peaked too early....it steps up a gear.
Aventinian

Jimbo wrote:
Niall speaks for himself, not for me, The SNP or anyone else I know. I think you would be the first person to point that out in any other thread. Shocked


Fair point, but I'm taking an overall impression rather than singling anyone out individually as a hypocrite. If some dodgy donation gets given to any other party, there's generally outrage on this board; meanwhile if it goes to a Nationalist party there is wide-spread support.
Aventinian

George wrote:
Ah struggling again eh?........This weak attempt at conflating donations from a business man with who has 'controversial views' with someone who was found to have illegally denied workers their pension rights and avoided paying tax on savings interest is a tactic we have come to expect from you.


And I suppose libel is your debating flavour of the month? Ian Suttie was cleared of any impropriety regarding his taxes.

Even his opponents in the trade unions, in regards to the 2004 receivership admit that he has not acted illegally in relation to the other matter - 'Graham Tran, of the trade union Amicus, said: "I am not suggesting for one minute that he has done anything illegal"' (reported in the Herald 17 Feb 2006)

It should be remembered that this man saved the company that later went into receivership and kept its employees in jobs for two years.

Anyway, a bit of book-fiddling is nothing on being Scotland's most notorious homophobic bigot.

Quote:
Indeed the SNP maintained the moral high ground by refusing Al Fayed's offer of support...........blowing your "first scent of lucre" theory apart. I'm also sure that the SNP have never accepted donations from criminals......something that cannot be said of some (all?) of the Unionist parties.


So in other words, you know nothing, but you're quite happy to make accusations because you're too lazy to actually research anything?

Anyway, as for Al Fayed - he did not make an offer of support, he said that he was open to being approached by the SNP for support. That's a whole different ball game in terms of party funding. The SNP could not be seen to initiate the contact, obviously. They didn't even rule him out either, they simply said that they had no plans to contact him.

Quote:
Now, if you wish to question Souters motives and whether or not the SNP is beholden to him in any way then that is a fair question, although the Sunday Herald deciding his views on section 28 are worth a front page headline is sad.


Personally I'm not all that bothered about who donates to political parties, I just don't like hypocrisy.
Rinty

b

I think it is disgusting that such a bigot and homophobe can donate in this way and I am astounded the SNP took the money. Following Roseanna Cunninghams recent disgusting statements and the SNPs apparent support for catholic groups and others to have the right to discriminate against gay couples, I think this will lose the SNP a substantial block of the LGBT vote in Scotland.

The SNP have obviously decided that the money and the potential pro-business vote is more lucrative and taken a business decision.

In my opinion, it is a mistake to take this money. Soutar is one of Scotland's most disgusting bigots and I think this is like taking money from a known racist. All parties need money but there is a limit as to who you can accept it from. Soutar is way over the limit for me, unless you think his views are acceptable.
Aventinian

Personally I think this is the SNP being torn in two directions: there is the old socialist branch and the small-c conservative business branch. One believe that if Scotland becomes independent it'll be a haven for socialism; the other believe it will become a utopia of pro-business and free market policies.

The leadership seem to be waving towards the latter at the moment. But a potential division ahead?
George

Aventinian wrote:
George wrote:
Ah struggling again eh?........This weak attempt at conflating donations from a business man with who has 'controversial views' with someone who was found to have illegally denied workers their pension rights and avoided paying tax on savings interest is a tactic we have come to expect from you.


And I suppose libel is your debating flavour of the month? Ian Suttie was cleared of any impropriety regarding his taxes.

Even his opponents in the trade unions, in regards to the 2004 receivership admit that he has not acted illegally in relation to the other matter - 'Graham Tran, of the trade union Amicus, said: "I am not suggesting for one minute that he has done anything illegal"' (reported in the Herald 17 Feb 2006)



Ah, now that the allegations in your original post have been demonstrated to have been nothing more than a bitter rant you resort to your next tactic; deliberately misrepresenting a post.

Nowhere in my post do I say anything that is not true, he illegally denied his workers settlement that they were entitled to and he was indeed taken to court for not paying tax on interest payments.

Not quite the same as someone holding a controversial opinion, that's my point. Perhaps though there is something else you know about Souter that equates the two?

Aventinian wrote:

It should be remembered that this man saved the company that later went into receivership and kept its employees in jobs for two years.

Irrellevant to your original assertion, you're meandering again.
Aventinian wrote:

Anyway, a bit of book-fiddling is nothing on being Scotland's most notorious homophobic bigot.

Now who's libelous?

Quote:
Indeed the SNP maintained the moral high ground by refusing Al Fayed's offer of support...........blowing your "first scent of lucre" theory apart. I'm also sure that the SNP have never accepted donations from criminals......something that cannot be said of some (all?) of the Unionist parties.

Aventinian wrote:

So in other words, you know nothing, but you're quite happy to make accusations because you're too lazy to actually research anything?

Aventinian, do yourself a favour and stop digging. Don't you recall the convicted fraudster who donated large amounts to the Libs recently. I'm not sure if a decision has yet to be made on whether they have to pay it back.

As far as accusations are concerned, remember it is you who have been making them......falsely. Where's the list of all the contributers to the Unionist parties that you say have been attacked on this forum?

Aventinian wrote:

Anyway, as for Al Fayed - he did not make an offer of support, he said that he was open to being approached by the SNP for support. That's a whole different ball game in terms of party funding. The SNP could not be seen to initiate the contact, obviously. They didn't even rule him out either, they simply said that they had no plans to contact him.

Seems to satisfy even your subjective definition of "first scent of lucre"..........oh, and it wasn't pursued.

Quote:
Now, if you wish to question Souters motives and whether or not the SNP is beholden to him in any way then that is a fair question, although the Sunday Herald deciding his views on section 28 are worth a front page headline is sad.


Aventinian wrote:

Personally I'm not all that bothered about who donates to political parties, I just don't like hypocrisy.


Nor me, but you have conflated two very different donors in order to fabricate hypocrisy.
Aventinian

George wrote:
Aventinian wrote:
George wrote:
Ah struggling again eh?........This weak attempt at conflating donations from a business man with who has 'controversial views' with someone who was found to have illegally denied workers their pension rights and avoided paying tax on savings interest is a tactic we have come to expect from you.


And I suppose libel is your debating flavour of the month? Ian Suttie was cleared of any impropriety regarding his taxes.

Even his opponents in the trade unions, in regards to the 2004 receivership admit that he has not acted illegally in relation to the other matter - 'Graham Tran, of the trade union Amicus, said: "I am not suggesting for one minute that he has done anything illegal"' (reported in the Herald 17 Feb 2006)



Ah, now that the allegations in your original post have been demonstrated to have been nothing more than a bitter rant you resort to your next tactic; deliberately misrepresenting a post.

Nowhere in my post do I say anything that is not true, he illegally denied his workers settlement that they were entitled to and he was indeed taken to court for not paying tax on interest payments.


Well then, to clarify, what criminal convictions does this man have?

Quote:
Aventinian wrote:

It should be remembered that this man saved the company that later went into receivership and kept its employees in jobs for two years.

Irrellevant to your original assertion, you're meandering again.


Of course it's relevant. You're suggesting this man is somehow fabulously more immoral than Souter. Which is nonsense.

Quote:

Aventinian wrote:

Anyway, a bit of book-fiddling is nothing on being Scotland's most notorious homophobic bigot.

Now who's libelous?


That's what's called fair comment insofar as it is my opinion. He is homophobic by my reckoning, that makes him a bigot and he is certainly notorious for it.


Quote:
Quote:
Indeed the SNP maintained the moral high ground by refusing Al Fayed's offer of support...........blowing your "first scent of lucre" theory apart. I'm also sure that the SNP have never accepted donations from criminals......something that cannot be said of some (all?) of the Unionist parties.

Aventinian wrote:

So in other words, you know nothing, but you're quite happy to make accusations because you're too lazy to actually research anything?

Aventinian, do yourself a favour and stop digging. Don't you recall the convicted fraudster who donated large amounts to the Libs recently. I'm not sure if a decision has yet to be made on whether they have to pay it back.


Whether or not they have to repay it, the Commission responsible acknowledged that they acted in good faith.

But anyway, that's entirely unnecessary since I've destroyed your Al-Fayed line of argument.

Quote:
Nor me, but you have conflated two very different donors in order to fabricate hypocrisy.


One engaged in debatably immoral business practices; the other is debatably immoral in his beliefs. Where's the argument?
macnumpty

I notice that a lot of the outrage has been voiced on grounds that Brian Souter is a homophobe, so the SNP must be anti-gay, so anyone condemning the cash is standing up for the LGBT community and so on. I'm particularly concerned that a number of people are suggesting that we now have to choose between the SNP and the equality movement. I still don't think we have to do that, and here's why:

Souter has given the SNP the money to campaign on the current official policies that the party already has, particularly independence, which Souter supports. If he has given the cash in an attempt to get the SNP to change its policy - in the way that Labour exempted F1 from a ban on tobacco advertising following the £1m donation from Bernie Ecclestone - then he will be disappointed as Conference sets SNP policy, and that's based on proposals getting support from most delegates, rather than who wrote the party the biggest cheque.

I was in the Hall when Alex Salmond read out Souter's letter, and I cringed when I heard who signed it, I'll admit that. But £500,000 is £500,000, and if it doesn't lead to a change in policy - which it surely can't - then it's fine. Souter might not make the best bedfellow but as long as the SNP continues to support equality then I'm happy. No one is making gay SNP supporters choose between our community and our Party just yet.

I can also live with the fact that the price of a Day Ticket on my local Stagecoach service has gone up 20p. Wink
Jimbo

I don't think it's the case that Brian Soutar hates homosexuals. It's a matter of his Christian beliefs. The bible says homosexuality is wrong and Soutar just happens to believe this. Soutar's views may be out of date and out of touch but he is deeply religious and believes these teachings. It just so happened to suit the New Labour propagandist tabloids to brand him homophobic just as it suited the Tory orientated tabloids to constantly refer to Mandelson's' homosexuality and both groups to scandalise Charles Kennedy to sink the liberals. Soutar is no different from any other Christian in this country and it's not yet a crime to have deep Christian beliefs. Too many people in this country get wound up by the tabloids and are all too ready to jump on the tabloid bandwagon before logic sets in.
October1974

Travelling back from London today and given a copy of the Times I thought i'd see what their take on this was and the SNP Conference. Well there was nothing what so ever in the paper. I even looked in the foreign section. Zilch not even a line.
Rinty

g

He IS a homophobe, he is a bigot, he is also a bully who pays s**t wages, takes over state owned compnaies with hostile tactics, and is anti-trade union. But he has a lot of money and he is giving it to tthe SNP.

If anyone really believes that there are no strings attached they are delusional. I would refuse his money in the same way that I would refuse any other anti-trade union business mans money or any other bigot be they racist, homophobic or both.
Jimbo

October1974 wrote:
Travelling back from London today and given a copy of the Times I thought i'd see what their take on this was and the SNP Conference. Well there was nothing what so ever in the paper. I even looked in the foreign section. Zilch not even a line.


On the same theme: I was talking to a friend in London yesterday and the subject came up that they (she and her London friends) thought that Brown if he became PM would take New Labour back to the left and that he would be better than Cameron. When I said we were hoping to be shot of New Labour at the next elections she was shocked that we would prefer Cameron. I pointed out to her I was talking about the Scottish elections she was silent for a minute then asked "When are they?" They seem to have no idea just exactly what is going on up here. The reporting on Scotland's elections down south must be absolutely zero.
wisnaeme

Rinty wrote:

He IS a homophobe, he is a bigot, he is also a bully who pays s**t wages, takes over state owned compnaies with hostile tactics, and is anti-trade union.


Agreed. I also disliked Carnagie for his beezness pratices but I was appreciative of his public works including the old swimming baths in Dunfermline when I was younger. Even in Coventry there are still two public libraries with his name engraved in stone on them. So I'll settle for Souter's part payment attonment until his money's well spent and until any other unsavoury facts emerge about the creature. As an old campaigner I have learnt a thing or two. Use their laws against them,use their system against them and use their money against them.

Maybe Souter's sister and himself will confirm the effectiveness of my way of thinking.Aye, was she and himself not right affronted by yon Embra anti congestion charge campaigners. Something to do with capitalism, anti congestion charge adverts and paid for advertising space on her buses going in and out of Embra or so I've heard. Laughing Laughing Laughing

.
Corby Boy

It is a media black out down here. No one has a clue and to be honest doesn't care. If Scotland left the union in two months time, I don't think too many people on the street would bat too many eyelids.

Some, even think Scotland is a totally separate country anyway. The union doesn't define English politics and culture half as much as it does in Scotland.
mairead

Pardon me, but since when was having an opinion not allowed in this country. Souter is entitled to his just as we are entitled to ours, and at least he wasn't promised a title in return for his cash. Duh
And was his company the only one involved in the pensions issue? I think not.
Rinty

He is entitled to his opinion mairead, but his opinions would mean that I would refuse to get in to bed with him (politically speaking of course). Racists are also entitled to their opinion but if we accept their money we ARE endorsing their opinion.

The SNP also recently supported the right of Catholic adoption agencies to discriminate. Is this the vision of an independent Scotland we are looking at? That bigots and religions can have clout as long as they donate to the party?
azzuri

...is he a racist though?
kevin04

another thing is that no one south of the border in the media seems to be taking into account the Scottish Election and like wise up here regarding the Welsh assembly elections, How are Plaid doing? Do they have a good chance of winning down in Wales? I've even tried the bbc-wales website and nothing on it regarding opinion polls or anything for the senedd,

Maybe they're will be more coverage on the bbc in later april, early may of the elections but if the snp win it's surely a historic moment for the United Kingdom and it might even come as a shock to the english as they have had a lack of coverage of the political landscape in scotland at the moment
mairead

Rinty, I do take your point, but at the end of the day, Souter is not a politician, (and I hope he never will be.)
I just felt that his past opinions should have no bearing on today's agenda for independence.
By the way, I don't hold with discrimination in any way, shape or form. I just think we all have to live our lives as best we can and support what we truly believe in, and while I will openly and often loudly debate an issue with most folk, I also realise that I have to sometimes heed what others are saying, not necessarily agree with them mind, but I do listen and take some opinions on board.
I do believe with all my heart in an independent Scotland, and to be honest, have never come across any great and viable reason why we cannot go it alone. I believe in Scotland and her people, all her people. Slainte
macnumpty

Rinty wrote:
He is entitled to his opinion mairead, but his opinions would mean that I would refuse to get in to bed with him (politically speaking of course. Racists are also entitled to their opinion but if we accept their money we ARE endorsing their opinion.

Alex Salmond read out Souter's letter at Conference - it basically said, "I want independence and here's £500k to help you get it." No instruction to the SNP to adopt anti-Trade Union, anti-gay, anti-anyone policies. The fact is, the world has changed a good deal in the years since the Keep the Clause campaign. Souter failed at that, Civil Partnerships are a reality, and gay couples now have the legal right to adopt. No administration in its right mind would seek to turn back the clock at this stage and Souter's chequebook is not what determines SNP policy. Simple as.

Quote:
The SNP also recently supported the right of Catholic adoption agencies to discriminate. Is the visions of an independent Scotland we are looking at? That bigots and religions can have clout as long as they donate to the party?

We can see across the Christian denominations a schism developing on the various Churches' response to gay rights. The Catholic establishment has taken a small-c conservative approach to the issue. Seeing as their adoption agencies are private bodies, and they cite reasons of faith for their approach, any government imposing this legislation is surely guilty of religious discrimination? Allowing private agencies to set their own policy is a fair compromise: I can still adopt with a partner in the future, and RC organisations get to maintain what they view as the teachings of their faith. (Incidentally, how many people that would be turned away on such grounds by such an agency would it occur to even to go that agency in the first place? Conversely, how many people that would consider an RC adoption agency as their first port of call would find themselves rejected on those grounds? I can't see the figure being that high)

And how is allowing private organisations to set their own rules for their own institutions 'giving them clout'?
October1974

Quite right. The world has moved on since he tried his daft crusade. Anyway his money will be used by the Party to elect councillors and MSP's who will be gay and straight and the genie ain't going back in the bottle. He knows it.
Rinty

h

If you really think that there will be no strings attached and that Soutar wont seek something for his money the "n" in SNP must stand for niaive.

This is money for someone who he thinks can beat Labour as he opposes labours stance on gays.

It comes shortly after the SNP defended the right of catholic adoption agencies to discriminate under the guise of "scotland should decide not westminster" and it is now obvious what Roseanna Cunningham was doing when she made her disgusting stand in Parliament - she was fundraising!
mairead

Aw Geez Rinty. don't be such a pessimist.
macnumpty

Re: h

Rinty wrote:
If you really think that there will be no strings attached and that Soutar wont seek something for his money the "n" in SNP must stand for niaive.

I'm not saying Souter won't seek anything. He might do, he might not, but what I am saying is that if he does seek anything, he won't find it.

Quote:
This is money for someone who he thinks can beat Labour as he opposes labours stance on gays.

Given that the bulk of SNP MSPs have supported the legislation passed on gay rights, Labour's stance is our stance.

Quote:
...it is now obvious what Roseanna Cunningham was doing when she made her disgusting stand in Parliament - she was fundraising!

Some fundraiser. Most of her Parliamentary colleagues voted the other way. Given that fact (and check the Official Report if you don't believe me), anyone who was looking to donate to an anti-gay Party would not seek to donate to the SNP. If Souter's donation was based on homophobia then that would make him a prize idiot: not just for homophobia, but for handing over a very large wad of cash to a party that has a record to be proud of on gay rights.
Rinty

h

The SNP questioned the westminster interference on the issue and supprted the right of catholic agencies to continue to discriminate. They accused Labour of reneging on an agreement to allow this.

If Cunninghams attempts were not fundraising then why does Scotlands most prominent homophobe now suddenly want to invest in the SNP?

No Azzuri, I didnt claim he was racist. What I was saying is that, if we are to ignore Soutars homophobia because he is donating, we can assume the same would apply if a known racist wanted to give money to the SNP.

I think the desire to fund a good election campaign is clouding the vision of SNP supporters, this will come back to haunt all of you.

Solidarity hold our Executive meetings in Glasgow's LGBT centre where we enjoy the support of many of the most prominent LGBT campaigners. I will ask this weekend when I am in the cafe/bar after the meeting and get back with a sample of opinion from that community to Soutars donation.
macnumpty

A few points:

1. Not allowing Catholic adoption agencies to set their own rules could force them to violate a principle that, rightly or wrongly, is part of that religion's teachings. The principle of allowing everyone to express themselves and live their lives as freely as practicable actually supports the Catholic position: a gay couple can still adopt elsewhere, the Catholic agencies maintain their teachings, both sides come away with something.

2. What part of "Brian Soutar supports independence" are you having difficulty with?

3. You are conveniently forgetting that the majority of the SNP group voted against Cunningham. She lost the argument in the Party. That the bulk of the party's MSPs supported the right of gay couples to adopt would perhaps undermine the idea that the SNP supports homophobia, so if that were Soutar's #1 priority, the SNP would not, I repeat, not be £500,000 richer.

4. Take a straw poll if you must, but don't you dare present the results as the 'thinking of the gay community'. We are as diverse in our politics as any other group and if you suggest that that anything, whatever they say, is "what the LGBT community thinks", then this member of that community will, for one, view any such post as intensely patronising.
Aventinian

Jimbo wrote:
I don't think it's the case that Brian Soutar hates homosexuals. It's a matter of his Christian beliefs. The bible says homosexuality is wrong and Soutar just happens to believe this.


Just because you think homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean you should seek to impose your beliefs on others in a holier-than-thou style. By advocating the state take a position, that's precisely what he is doing.

That's why I don't like him; if he held these beliefs privately, then I couldn't give a tinker's cuss what he thought.

macnumpty wrote:
Souter has given the SNP the money to campaign on the current official policies that the party already has, particularly independence, which Souter supports. If he has given the cash in an attempt to get the SNP to change its policy - in the way that Labour exempted F1 from a ban on tobacco advertising following the £1m donation from Bernie Ecclestone - then he will be disappointed as Conference sets SNP policy, and that's based on proposals getting support from most delegates, rather than who wrote the party the biggest cheque.


So just like the Labour Party in that respect? Funny how it never quite works like that in practice...

Corby Boy wrote:
Some, even think Scotland is a totally separate country anyway.


I think everyone who isn't mentally challenged knows what country they live in.

azzuri wrote:
...is he a racist though?


Nope, but he's just as bad. And at least racists don't think that by refusing to educate children that they could be anything else, that they'll mysteriously turn white.
Aventinian

kevin04 wrote:
another thing is that no one south of the border in the media seems to be taking into account the Scottish Election and like wise up here regarding the Welsh assembly elections,


That's because they are quite frankly still a good while away.
Rinty

g

numty,

I totally disagree with you on the catholic church. Religious groups simply cannot use their superstitions to justify discrimination.

"Take a straw poll if you must, but don't you dare present the results as the 'thinking of the gay community'. We are as diverse in our politics as any other group and if you suggest that that anything, whatever they say, is "what the LGBT community thinks", then this member of that community will, for one, view any such post as intensely patronising."

FFS numpty, I am not being patronising. I know the views of all my gay friends and so far you are in the minority. This weekend I will be able to ask the views of others who are not in mt circle of friends or in my political party. The LGBT centre has a very wide range of people from different backgrounds using the place as well as being the office for Stonewall, LGBTY and other groups, it is a good place to get a "sample".
Corby Boy

Av, there are a fair few mentality challenged folk living around here I can assure you.
macnumpty

Rinty,

It seems to me that you're wanting to portray religious groups as backward-looking basket cases, that you view them as deviating from the established mores of modern society (That's how it seems - it may not be your intention but that's how it comes across). That's precisely the sort of viewpoint that the LGBT community has had to struggle against for so long, and if my perceptions are accurate, I'm disturbed that this is the approach that supporters of equal rights are now taking. Simply putting the boot on the other foot isn't the path to equality, and taking rights away from one group in the name of rights for another isn't the path to acceptance. All I'm suggesting is that Scotland is big enough for both the Catholic establishment and an open, confident gay community. That there are those on both sides who want people to choose between one or the other saddens me, it really does.

And I'm sorry, but you are being patronising. Are you honestly saying that the people you meet at a cafe at the weekend are a representative sample, just because of the groups they happen to belong to?

I'm sure you're in this for the right reasons, and I'm glad that when there is a discussion about equality, you'll be on the right side of it. But when there is no unanimity within my community about an issue (the fact that I'm arguing this, along with others, shows that there is no unanimity), then speaking on behalf of us becomes far more complex and far more difficult. I accept that I'm probably in the minority and that following the Section 28 row, Soutar's name will always conjure up bad feelings. However, opinion is divided and anyone who says 'the gay community thinks X' risks alienating part of that community. There's also an implication that someone's political opinions and sexual orientation are (or should be) linked which I find concerning.

As I said, I know there are concerns, and I can see the logic behind them but on this occasion I disagree with them... and I look forward to an SNP-led administration proving me right! Wink
Rinty

b

No I am not being patronising. I dont say that the LGBT centre is a representative sample but I do see it as a good place for a sample. I know at least one person who works there and one who frequents the place that are christians, I know some who are political, some who are not, I think it is a reasonable mix.

What you did in your post there was suggest a statement about religion, attribute it to me and then further associate it with a whole movement for equality.

My view on religious hostility to sexuality is that it is superstition and nothing more, not a reason to base an argument for the right to discriminate based on sexuality.

The biblical excuse for opposition to homosexuality comes from a part of the bible that also says we shouldnt eat shelfish and shouldnt wear garments made of two different fabrics.

If a christain thinks homosexuals are immoral while tucking in to a prawn cocktail, wearing cotton boxers with elastic waistbands, then they are bigots and just hate gay people.

I dont think that religious people are basket cases but their beliefs cannot be allowed to be used as an excuse for inequality. My wife and my mother are both practising christians yet dont share soutar's views on sexuality, my comments are aimed at the chiristians who believe, like soutar dies, that homosexuals are deviants and that giving them equal status in society will lead to them corrupting our children.

I do think that it is important for political parties to not be seen to be associated with bigots and Soutar, to me, is disgusting.
macnumpty

Well, I was careful to point out that I was talking about my perception of your argument: if I got that perception wrong then I apologise. And the LGBT Centre is probably as good a place as any for a sample but I'm not convinced that that in itself says very much. When for all the obvious reasons we don't even have a clear fix on the number of gay people in the country (the last major piece of research put it at 6%, some estimate that it's actually 10%, others think it might be as low as 2%), it's logical that as a group, we're going to be hard to quantify, and harder still to attribute a uniform opinion to. That's why the wisest thing is to tread carefully.

I don't think anyone on here is arguing that Soutar is right (I certainly am not), but the fact is that this is one in which the different denominations (and groups within them) have their own view. Yes, it might be backward, yes, it might be cretinous, but I don't see how dictating terms to them is going to actually change their opinion. Nor do I see how barring someone from the entirety of public life because of their idiocy on one subject is going to solve the problem.

On Christianity: the issue of sexuality is currently causing much hand-wringing in the Christian Establishment (the row in the Anglican Communion is a case in point), and if any worshippers are getting their religious instruction primarily from a third party in the form of the clergy, rather than individual study and thought, then you're going to have a situation where those worshippers' views on moral issues is going to reflect what they've been taught. People learn from their experiences. Does that make them bigots? Yes, but their main fault is for being lazy about their faith and not taking the time to explore it on their own initiative. The fault lies with those people who taught them: they are the real bigots. That's the problem we need to tackle. Remember also these are the people who preach morals week in, week out. When Bishop Devine preaches against homosexuality, that's a problem: people may look to him for moral and spiritual guidance. People only look to Brian Souter to run a decent bus service. (Frankly, in my experience, he isn't great at that either, but we'll leave that one for another day.)

I'm not accusing you of this, I would be wrong to do that, but I do want to bring to your attention my concern that just as gay people have had to combat the 'gays = perverts' image (some are, most aren't), now we see a similar approach being used against faith groups: a 'worshippers = bigots' image. Again, some are, but most, like your family, are not. The threat is that the approach is gaining momentum and it means we've come full circle as a society, that we still have to brand a group as deviant. I maintain that Scotland is big enough for gay people and the Church. Let the Church go its own way and let members of my community go our way: the minute you stop one from pursuing its own approach, you legitimise stopping the other, and the reason I'm against placing the restrictions on their adoption agencies is that I wouldn't want restrictions placed on how I could lead my own life.

We've won the latest big battle, we've got the right for gay couples to adopt. Why waste time now quibbling over using certain agencies when we have so many other options? There are more important battles to fight, like combatting homophobia in the workplace.
Rinty

g

Still shoudnt have taken his money. Wink A polite refusal or a donation to LGBT Youth's excellent adult literacy project would have got just as much publicity. There is far too much spent on election campaigning materials rather than good old fashioned work in the community, our budget is £40k total and we would have said no to Soutar.
macnumpty

Well, I did cringe when they read out his name... though I do feel slightly guilty when I swore after finding out the Stagecoach day ticket where I live had gone up by 20p. Wink

Like I say, though, I'm hoping for lots of opportunities over the next four years to crow about how his £500k helped us put equality measures into law. Very Happy
agentmancuso

George wrote:

Don't you recall the convicted fraudster who donated large amounts to the Libs recently.


He wasn't a convicted fraudster when the donation was made. The donation was checked with the relevant authorities at the time, who cleared it completely.

The question of whether it was a wise move to accept money from a financial high-flying is worth raising, but it is a different question.

In the uneven playing field of British politics it is perhaps inevitable that smaller parties like the Liberal Democrats and the SNP feel pressured into taking money from slightly unsavoury sources just in order to compete with the powerful vested interests behind Labour & the Tories. For that reason, I think a legal limit on donations to political parties would be a good thing.

Souter is an arse, but given the financial inequalities in our system, I see no reason to criticise the SNP for taking his money. The smugly righteous handwringing from the Tankies is typically contemptible.
SLG

agentmancuso wrote:
For that reason, I think a legal limit on donations to political parties would be a good thing.

Absolutely. I can't understand why this has never become more of an election issue. Reform of party funding is essential IMO.

In the meantime I won't say I'm unhappy with a few businessmen redressing the balance in the SNP's favour though.

       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> Scottish Politics and Independence
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Our Scotland Hit Counter 'Top Scottish Websites' - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Top Site - Topsites Top 100 Scottish Websites Our Scotland Forums Critical Acclaim ~ Politically Progressive Top Sites Tartan Army Topsites View Site Stats Our Scotland Blog Scottish Politics Scottish Lads