Liz S

Where political parties are open to accepting donations from various sources, the question is , what do those who donate large amounts to a political party expect in return ?

Like say for example a Private Healthcare company ?

As in one who donates to a Shadow Health Secretary , who is a member of the UK official opposition party , where it is , via polling, anticipated that they as the official opposition party are likely to win the next UK GE.

Take a look at the UK Parliament website under various Labour MP’s names and see under their ‘Registered interests’ who has donated to them as various Labour MP’s.

You will note that there is for many Labour MP’s, including the new mob elected in Scotland, donations from ‘Labour Together’ and also from various Trade Unions. (as well as donations from the same wealthy individuals). Why ?

In March 2024 it was reported that the “Labour Party nets record £13m in individual donations” .

“Three main individuals donated more than £8.5m to Labour in 2023, taking personal donations to a 19-year high” .

“The biggest donations came from Gary Lubner, a South African who made his fortune through vehicle window repair, and gave the highest amount of any single donor at £4,527,500”.

“Supermarket tycoon Lord Sainsbury of Turville donated £3,070,000, and his daughter Francesca Perrin became the highest-donating woman the party has ever had, giving £1,060,000”.

“Labour also received more than £1m from Ecotricity, the renewable energy company owned by multimillionaire Dale Vince”.

I saw that (Baroness) Margaret Curran’s son Chris Murray, who is (unfortunately) now my MP and who replaced the excellent SNP MP, Tommy Sheppard , had received a donation of £6500 from Tracey Ullman, would that be the same Tracey Ullman who did the quite unfunny and decidedly sickening Scottish twee sketch of Nicola Sturgeon (in 2017)?

A-Sketch-Not-Politically-Motivated-On-Behalf-Of-The-Labour-Party-Then-Tracey……

Chris Murray was also one of the ‘Chosen ones’ to get £10,000 from Labour Together in 2024 , as Edinburgh East & Musselburgh I believe was a key seat for Labour to win last year.

Remember also the onslaught of online propaganda on YouTube , where we were subjected to Sarwar & Baillie interrupting our watching various YouTube videos with an irritating regularity , just to try and brainwash us all into voting Labour in Scotland via their false slogan of “Change” with Labour……..that is where a lot of the ‘donation’ money was being spent…….as in online propaganda….to allow Sarwar & co to produce election campaign videos to lie to us all…….as now we all see that yet again there is no change with Labour…..same as the BT lies that they, Labour, told us all in 2014.

Boothman just another propaganda merchant whose ‘Labour’ connection apparently dictated his bad attitude and substandard work output clearly also driven by his bias…..as people like him just cannot hide their contempt and indeed perhaps even their hatred for the SNP.

You know this is what is so ludicrous about the current uproar on the question of the BBC’s lack of objectivity in relation to the documentary that they pulled on the lives of children in Gaza, all because a relative of a Hamas Official was the Narrator.

Apparently it “breached editorial guidelines” and so it was then seen as being a case of “the BBC being not “sufficiently proactive” with initial editorial checks” where “the BBC director general Tim Davie has now vowed to take action “to prevent such errors being repeated”.

So BBC HQ condemns this , yet their news branch office in Scotland is allowed to continue their ongoing campaign that sees a distinct lack of impartiality when it comes to the SNP as a party and as a Scottish government .

We also see BBC Scotland news teams make a seemingly concerted effort in them going into ‘protection mode’ on behalf of a Labour MSP who is also the so called Scottish Labour ‘leader’ when, politically, times are tough for the Labour party.

How about Tim Davie “vowing to take action to prevent his Scottish Branch office news teams from making their repeated errors” errors that always seem to only negatively impact the SNP as a party , and also at least get them to attempt to adhere to the supposed BBC’s “editorial guidelines”.

As the BBC news teams here in Scotland (and their so called Political editors) seem to be playing ‘fast and loose’ in their interpretation of the ‘news where we are’ and also as them ever being considered as a trusted news source in Scotland……..which reminds me how apt this below quote is for the BBC News ‘where we are’……….

The quote “If someone says it’s raining and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the f****** window and find out which is true, this is a reminder that journalists should verify information rather than simply presenting conflicting claims, especially when it’s a matter of observable fact like the weather. This emphasises the importance of firsthand observation and fact-checking in journalism”

(Sadly lacking in Scotland…….and we all know why).

Alas the BBC here sources much of their ‘news’ from claims and quotes taken from those who are in political opposition to the SNP and also from certain individuals who are also known to oppose the SNP, as well as Trade Union representatives who have a strong link to the Labour party (#ConflictOfInterest)…….all of whom the BBC platform on a regular basis….as the BBC in Scotland must have them all on speed dial due to them frequently making either a constant appearance on BBC Reporting Scotland or being always quoted on the BBC Scotland pages of their BBC website.

Really who trusts the BBC for any of their news nowadays or indeed much of the compromised media that exists in all formats, who as a majority, all oppose the SNP and also oppose Scottish independence……..fake news dictated by what is obviously a compromised editorial lack of standards (and obvious bias) against both Scotland and also against our democratically chosen Scottish government.

Liz S

Footnote –

Scottish Labour to announce plans to make more use of private sector despite major Oxford University research review proving it will lead to ‘higher rates of avoidable death’