When you take the piss out of a paralysed dog it’s called expressing the bladder

express

The headline is accurate. I did it more than 5 000 times for my lovely paralysed retriever, who lived 5 years in wheels. Now when I see the word ‘express’ I think of that. When I see the above, I think buckets of it.

Here’s what Salmond actually said:

Some people say that the failure of these institutions, the blurring of the boundaries between party, government and prosecution service mean that Scotland is in danger of becoming a failed state. I disagree. The Scottish civil servant hasn’t failed. It’s leadership has failed. The Crown Office hasn’t failed. It’s leadership has failed. Scotland hasn’t failed. It’s leadership has failed.

Salmond clearly disagreed with the Express view. Isn’t he saying Scotland is ready but, in his view, just needs a change of leadership?

Is the Express saying that all of the efforts of the millions to make this the kind of country with an economy, culture and political institutions demonstrably superior to those in many other European states, including England, are somehow discounted by this one case?

My dog’s bowel was not paralysed. Like the Express she could defecate freely, anywhere.

express

36 thoughts on “When you take the piss out of a paralysed dog it’s called expressing the bladder

  1. “Salmond clearly disagreed with the Express view. Isn’t he saying Scotland is ready but, in his view, just needs a change of leadership”

    After yesterday I’m not sure Salmond cares a jot about Scotland’s Independence. It was all me me me.

    The Unionist establishment are right behind . . .even Going to court to help him bring down the most popular FM we have ever had weeks from an election.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Yes it’s possible to look at Salmond’s exact words. But he knew he was giving the papers and broadcasters ammunition to damage The FM.

      The BBC’s Sarah Smith joined and accidentally told the nation on the 6pm news that “Alex Salmond had claimed that The FM had broken the ministerial code and he thinks she should resign.”

      A mistake anyone could have made, especially someone paid to convey news.

      Like

    2. “After yesterday I’m not sure Salmond cares a jot about Scotland’s Independence. It was all me me me.”
      nonsense. He was fitted up and would have been in jail, this now a proven innocent man.

      Nicola, is being protected by the Crown office ( who have an ex Mi5 officer within their ranks.) The Advocate General, who watched £600k of public money go down the drain, while the SG solicitors warned them it would fail. It did.

      Then when the failed, they tried to get him through a criminal assertion in court, they failed. Their cover up of foul deeds, is mostly now known, but if he was under threat yesterday of jail if his full evidence had been shown. Despite of it’s being in the public domain, he was stopped from speaking of it.

      Sorry, he has every right to defend himself, he did it yesterday, and despite the threats, came out of it very well indeed.

      There is a rot in the SNP ranks that needs taken out.
      The lord Advocate is at the committee on Monday I believe, and Nicola on Wednesday, we will see if they get grilled for 5.5 hrs as Alex Salmond did. They won’t of course.

      So yes we want Indepdence, and I always have. But there are times and circumstances when things just need to be put right. This is one of them.

      Note also, Nicola has had mandates to pursue Indy, plenty talk, but no action.
      When she works with the ” Crown” office, The Advocate,
      Tells you all you need to know about her intentions.
      This was clearly shown also in the Keating case, where those against Scotland proving it’s sovereignty , the ” against ” crew, ie The SNP, the Lord advocate AND… the Crown office.

      !0k Scots have donated to see this happen. Yet they all held hands against us being proved Sovereign, and that is a belter, if you really want to see their intentions.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Leslie Wilson writes: “The Advocate General, who watched £600k of public money go down the drain, while the SG solicitors warned them it would fail.”

        I’m puzzled. Is he suggesting that the Advocate General WAS involved in this matter? I have heard no such thing. Or is he suggesting the Advocate General SHOULD have become involved? Surely not: only a a Unionist would prefer a UK government law officer to intervene.

        Or is Mr Wilson just getting a bit mixed up here?

        So in case it’s confused thinking, this is for information. Her Majesty’s Advocate General for Scotland is one of the Law Officers of the Crown whose duty it is to advise the Crown and the government of the United Kingdom on Scots law. The Office of the Advocate General for Scotland is a ministerial department of the UK government.The position is currently held by Lord Stewart of Dirleton, aka Keith Stewart QC who was appointed Advocate General for Scotland in October 2020.

        Like

      2. Mr Wilson also writes: ‘When she works with the ” Crown” office, The Advocate, Tells you all you need to know about her intentions.’

        Is the suggestion here that an ASSOCIATION with the term “Crown’ somehow taints or delegitimises someone’s INTENTIONS with respect to Scotland’s independence? That’s a leap!

        Presumably the ‘Advocate” being referred to here by Mr Wilson is NOT the Advocate General but rather the Lord Advocate? (According to Wikipedia) in Scotland the office of Advocate to the monarch is an ancient one. The first recognised Lord Advocate dates from 1483, serving King James III i.e. before the Union of Crowns. At this time the post was generally called the King’s Advocate and only in the year 1573 was the term “Lord Advocate” first used. From 1707 to 1998, the Lord Advocate was the chief legal adviser of the British Government and the Crown on Scottish legal matters, both civil and criminal, until the Scotland Act 1998 devolved most domestic affairs to the Scottish Parliament.

        Since devolution, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, the independent public prosecution service for Scotland, is a Ministerial Department of the Scottish Government. So long as Scotland – whether independent or not – is a ‘kingdom’ i.e. with a monarch, an association with the “Crown” will remain.

        This republican trusts the information is of assistance.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Leslie Wilson
        “Nicola has had mandates to pursue Indy, plenty talk, but no action”.. . . . . . .Nonsense

        What about starting an Independence campaign in 2017 followed by T. May calling a snap GE. for June.

        “Sorry, he has every right to defend himself, he did it yesterday”.

        Salmond wasn’t defending himself, he wasn’t on trial, it was the Scottish Gov’s handling of an investigation that was being investigated.
        He was working to have the FM removed in the days before a crucial election.

        Like

  2. O/T—A. Starwars is to be branch office manager. A Tory leader in Scotland under a Tory leader in England–how Labour has changed!
    Bet the Daily Supress LIKES that!

    So we have an elected Scottish Tory leader sacked by Downing Street, and replaced by DRossy–who is kept out of the Union Unit , presumably because he is a “Jock”.
    And we have an elected Scottish Labour leader dumped because millionaire donors wanted him out. Replaced by Starwars–bet they LIKE him!

    Vote for a Brit Nat puppet. No thanks!

    Liked by 3 people

  3. I don’t subscribe to all these other mediums so sorry to inflict this on you all but you seem a decent bunch and I have to get this off my chest. Admittedly I couldn’t stomach following the full ‘Enquiry’ yesterday but the thing that struck me most was the insinuation that after giving Salmond the apparent indication she was ‘supportive’ Sturgeon then, to his shock, took an ‘inordinate’ length of time to then change her mind about intervening and informing the Cabinet Secy which by all accounts was a breach of the Ministerial code. (not sure if I have got that accurate) but the question that seems to be screaming to be asked and yet wasn’t is why? I’m just guessing here but perhaps it might have had something to do with the nos of complaints that had hitherto been made and those that might have been forthcoming. To my mind if there had been one, two or more minor complaints then the ‘mediation’ process which Salmond (for obvious reasons) was keen to pursue may have been an option but clearly that wasn’t the case.
    Just to clarify I Had great respect for Salmond before all this came to light and I still regard him as an astute Politician and has had my full support but at best, by his own admission, has got himself into many unseemly situations which for any politician let alone for SNP given the hostile Press is to my mind unforgiveable and has let himself, the Party and may have damaged Independence cause. Sorry to ramble on but obviously the vulture press/Opposition parties are having a field day and my only hope is Sturgeon puts on one of her robust performances to restore confidence.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. It’s fine. Do not worry too much. It will blow over. There is too much other important matters going on. People will be concentrating on. It will just be stalemate. Everyone has an opinion.

      Like

  4. Anas gets the poison chalice. Could it get any worse. Running out of candidates. No one to stand. Another contender to put negative support even lower. Some people never learn.

    The Express lies again. Quelle surpris. 30,000 readership in Scotland. Ageing Tories. Going down further.

    Reach PLC. Sold by the pornographer. owner. No one would buy it. Manages on advertising. Gossip and scandal? A fixation with the royals.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I see the SNP ultras aren’t happy that an honest man spoke truth to power. That’s the same ultras who want you to wheest for indy, while Scots law is disabled to accommodate misogynistic ideology.

    It’s narrow minded parochialism that got us in this mess, so more of the same is simply unhelpful.

    Like

    1. You are right Cameron, I think the ONLY real way for us all to see the truth more closely, would be a reputable Judge and carry out a case to find out the truth of it all, as proposed by Kenny Mackaskill.

      To just carry on with all this in the back ground is not going to be in Scotland’s people. I am a long term SNP member, in fact they are only party I have ever voted for.

      But what has been going on, really needs to be fully exposed, and the truth will determine what comes next. But I am confident, the dream ain’t gone.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Without an SNP government, while shackled to the Brit state, that dream would and will turn into an absolute nightmare.
        A few weeks to a major Scottish election, and this c**p is all folks are worried about really? Shelve it, work to ensure a win for the SNP in May, then all the dirty linen at top level civil service etc in Scotland can be washed and hung out to dry. I used to vote Labour, until I realised what lying thieving troughers they are. Handing £BILLIONS back to Westminster in 2006, plunging Scotland’s councils into £BILLIONSof debt’ with their PFI scam, for the honest few decades! Despicable.

        The work that the Scottish National party have put in to start to repair the damage of 300+ years of British rule is phenomenal if you really look at what they have achieved against massive odds. No genuine independence supporter will allow the British state to reverse those achievements, by playing into the hands of the English government in promoting the Brit states’ sh**show in Scotland right now. This is not a ‘banana republic’ as called by the English government and their disgusting anti democratic media. Scotland is a country with a democratically elected government but rest assured, if the British Nationalist state really panic they’ll dismantle Holyrood until they can install a British Nationalist party at the helm in Scotland. That would be a banana republic for sure. Terrifying.

        Liked by 3 people

      1. Cameron
        You 100% correct
        Look no further than the USA and its legal
        Constitution which for a hundred years and more
        Has achieved exactly what aims it set out
        Where are the Native Indians now
        Why so many guns in society
        Why Big Neo liberal capitalism runs the show
        Why ethnic minorities especially Blacks struggle so much
        Why it has such inequity
        Why World Hegomony
        Why such high levels of poverty
        Why so much global far less at home Environmental destruction
        Answer
        It is all legal

        Liked by 3 people

  6. The whole shenagins stinks to high heaven. No idea what Salmonds game is, unless he is playing the Brit state in some way, for their attempt to stitch him up, or he has lost the plot completely. Who really is the target of his ire. I don’t suppose he has much respect for the English civil servants installed in the Scottish government by the English government.
    The right wing BritNat colonists will print whatever sensationalist lies they want. Go to the shops late evening, the piles of daily lies in print are a sight to behold. It’s not of interest to most people, they have far too much to worry about right now, there is a pandemic on and an economic BritNat catastrophe to boot.
    The British Nationalist state has form in dividing people in order to control their resources, proving a bigger task for them now though.
    Saor Alba.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. ArtyHetty. Alex Salmond is not playing a game. He had to go to the Court of Session to fight an illegal precedure that had been devised to ‘get him’. He won, although it left him £90K out of pocket, even after being granted exceptional damages.

      He had no choice about the criminal case against him. He was cleared of all charges. More legal expenses.

      He had no choice about the inquiry. There was talk of forcing him to attend if he didn’t. He had been totally silent since the criminal case – until yesterday. But more legal expenses.

      It’s not a game. This is deadly serious. The Scottish Government have been up to dirty tricks and are desperately trying to conceal the evidence.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. The civil service, the ones installed by the EngGov have been up to the dirty tricks. Oh what they wouldn’t do to silence the SNP, oust the FM and take over the Scottish parliament and it goes without saying to put an end to any notion of Scottish independence once and for all.
        I know the A. Salmond was cleared, didn’t know he had been left out of pocket. He was stitched up clear as day. Brit state dirty tricks, disgusting.
        Who is really driving all of this sh**show, what’s the real motive(s).
        Meanwhile the utter corruption at all levels of the English government is being swept under the carpet, it’s a massive brush, and the carpet is the size of a small planet.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I contributed to his legal costs but sorry to disagree Salmond was not cleared of all charges technically a charge of ‘attempted rape’ could still be brought. While I agree there is some info that should be before the Committee and isn’t that doesn’t detract from the fact by his own admission his behaviour around women has been less than acceptable and while perhaps not criminal in law nonetheless by his actions he has brought this sorry episode into the media spotlight at a time which could not be worse for both the SNP and the Indy movement.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Mr Albiston, given your evident knowledge perhaps you could clarify something here.

        Is there a distinction to be drawn between ‘illegal’ and ‘unlawful’? I thought there was. Are you using the term ‘illegal’ in a strict sense based on legal authority or imprecisely, loosely?

        The one thing that following all this has prompted in me is a wish to enhance my understanding of the relevant legal and institutional matters involved. An early lesson has been that ‘words have meanings’ – often quite precise ones and ones that have significance!

        Liked by 1 person

    1. I watched the entire 6 hr evidence session and have never seen the like before. Mr Macwhirter seems to agree.

      If we ever get to see the evidence that is being suppressed by the state a lot of people might have to shift their opinions pretty quickly.
      But then again maybe not. Its a lot easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled as Mark Twain said.

      Like

  7. All the new names coming out to defend Salmond, arguing his case pushing for The FM to be toppled at this critical time.

    Valuing MacWhirter’s opinion.

    Labeling posters as “SNP Ultras”

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Oh ma sides are aching through laughing at some comments here trying to stir it.
    Good on you for being anchored, the Depress has been a rag for decades, and a retriever is far more honest than a pet Turdo…

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Does the Scottish Gov have right to freely select the Lord Advocate and Permanent Secretary of choice. Or are they given a list approved by Westminster from which to select the appointee. Obviously biased to favour Westminster allegiance. Or has a previous unionist regime. (Pre 2011!) made any of the appointments?

    There were reports a previous permanent secretary? went rogue. ie supported Holyrood/Independence. According to the unionists faction. (Westminster).

    Like

  10. Re- Legerwood’s contribution at 6:57 PM where he/she wrote: “Is the evidence being suppressed by the state? Or by the law of the land that applies to all?”

    I would strongly endorse the recommendation that all interested in the legal issues surrounding the Harassment committee of inquiry and its links to the associated, prior court cases should read what has been written by legal professionals in the Newsnet article (source below). As Legerwood notes, it provides an explanation of relevant law.

    It also describes the nature, key role and responsibility of the Scottish Parliament’s Corporate Body in recent controversial events. It confirms its cross-party membership.

    I suggest that anyone planning to express further opinion on the matter should at the very least read this:

    Source: https://newsnet.scot/news-analysis/salmond-scottish-parliament-spcb-and-crown-office/

    Moreover, reading in detail and critically the actual transcript of the hearing Mr Salmond attended is also advised. Then none here would risk errors comparable to those appearing in BBC output.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.