Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 28th August 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Inside Home Affairs - Drug figures make grim reading



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 07 August 2008
By Michael Howie
TODAY sees the publication of the latest figures on drug deaths in Scotland.
Recent trends have painted a fairly bleak picture of the human cost of drug abuse in Scotland. In 2006, 421 drug-related deaths were recorded, up from 336 the previous year.

The Scotsman was told in January that the total for last year is expec
ted to top 400, and could set a new, depressing record. Experts say the total will probably rise in years to come, as more people succumb to years of sustained abuse of heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances.

Add another, legal, drug – alcohol – into the mix and you have a deadly combination that is likely to claim more lives as a result of long-term abuse, rather than from single-event overdoses.

Despite the Scottish Government initiative launched in May, it is likely that the numbers of fatalities from drug abuse will remain high for years to come.

One of the country's leading experts told The Scotsman:"The profile of those dying is changing. They are older people who have been injecting for a long time. They may suffer from hepatitis, malnutrition, mental health problems.

"They are suffering a complex mix of physical and mental ill health. For this reason, it's likely we will see death rates remain high for years to come."

Experts say treatment of drug addicts therefore has to become more holistic, with support for the mentally ill given priority.

The Scottish Government is currently prioritising the delivery of treatment.

A delivery reform group, comprising experts in the drugs and alcohol fields, has been tasked with ensuring those who need help getting off drugs are receiving it.

Proposals for a new national body to ensure consistent drug treatment will be discussed at a major conference to be held in September.





The full article contains 308 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 06 August 2008 9:44 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Brits 'n' pieces,

07/08/2008 00:25:05
1,000 extra police would help. These new officers could police drug dealers and help reduce drugs available to people not already on them.

This is Scotland's "top priority" according to Alex Salmond and the SNP. So why when Scots are dying all around him does he refuse to release the funds for our country's top priority and instead spend cash on Islamic festivals?

The SNP are shameful in this regard. Scotland needs those police, Scotland was promised those police and now the SNP have turned their back on that promise people are dying, more children are being inrtoduced to drugs everyday because the police aren't there to prevent it.
2

Senga Jean,

07/08/2008 00:48:39
~1 Your Unionist bias is showing. the SNP are doing a first class job in Government. All Governments of recent years have supported ethnic events for the simple reason that it creates an inclusive society not a bigoted,perverse hate filled community. It all contributes to peace and goodwill and less crime.
3

Brits 'n' pieces,

07/08/2008 00:56:19
2 Senga Jean

But are these "NEW" festivals are top priority?

Not if you ask the SNP. But yet, when you judge them on what they are doing.

New police they claim is a top priority and yet there are 0 new police officers and more new festivals/independence campaing/new signage for SNP workplaces.

Salmond should really campaign honestly on "New Festivals/Signs for my cronies is Scotland's top priority".

And people die because of Salmond's wanton recklessness with his promises.
4

Scullion,

Canada 07/08/2008 01:37:07
More police, while an admirable intent, is no solution. No one embraces drugs because of more police and it won't prevent the susceptible from abusing alcohol. People use these substances as comfort from the horrors of their own lives. Attack poverty and give people who are marginalized hope and you'll see drug use plummet.
5

Brits 'n' pieces,

07/08/2008 01:52:25
I am always appauled that SNP supporters condone deception in power and brush deaths of Scots under the carpet in favour of a glossy plitical party image. The SNP are the same as Labour in this regard.

The symptom of poverty that causes deaths is violence and the availability of guns, knives and drugs.

The causes of poverty are spending your money on drugs.

Police can in theory effectively break this cycle by taking drugs and drug dealers off of streets. Taking guns and gun dealers off of streets. Taking violenct criminals and violence of our streets.

But the SNP would rather throw parties for potential voters of foreign religions and put up pretty signs for themselves and tour the country boosting their own egos. This is their top priority, not as they promised 1,000 extra police.

Why do people vite Labour/SNP when they care nothing of Scots dying? When they just show crocodile tears at election time and then turn their backs for the lion's share of their term.
6

Guga II,

Rockall 07/08/2008 03:30:29
#5. You may not be shedding crocodile tears, but your cr*p and bulldust is showing.

The SNP have been in power in Scotland for about a year. Labour were in complete control in Scotland for well over fifty years. So why didn't your precious unionists sort out the drug and other crime problems? Not forgetting the Tories in your own country.

You've been reading too much of AM Squared's BNP blog.
7

frank mcbride,

lusitania 07/08/2008 03:46:01
Who is the Unionist bampot who is determined to shut down internet comment???

Whoever you are, you're on to a loser. You are an imbecile, boy. In fact, morons consider you defective.
8

,

07/08/2008 06:03:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

E300,

07/08/2008 07:10:14
I suppose in the Darwinian tradition it all helps to improve the gene pool as the druggies are slowly eliminated!
10

Randomly Blocked Poster, ,

07/08/2008 07:13:47
What's the problem?
11

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 07/08/2008 07:44:28
The real drug problem is our failure to supply drugs only through self-financing and client monitoring clinics (and to provide horrendous punishments for all other suppliers). In this way pushing, crime amd the barons become redundant; and the scale of the drug problem rapidly declines. QED.
12

,

07/08/2008 09:08:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

Brits 'n' pieces,

07/08/2008 09:08:33
6 GugaII

The difference is that Labour didn't promise the extra police. They just snivelled and said it wasn't the poor criminals fault and they'd tackle the causes of crime with banning jail sentences and giving criminals extra money.

The SNP actually promised in a manifesto 1,000 extra police before an election and people voted for that policy. It was a prominent promise and was in fact referred to by the Alex Salmond as the "people's top priority."

The SNP having been succesful on their flagrant lies are now adopting the Labour policy of spin your way out of it. MacAskill has spent £500k on giving criminals action adventure holidays, Salmond 300k on Islamafest and so on.

The SNP are just frittering our money away on everything apart from priority number 1. The result of which is Scots are dying from crime in record numbers.

That is why the SNP are digusting. So are you for putting your own 'face' above the lives of other humans. Saying the SNP are as bad as Labour is true, but not an acceptable excuse.
14

Scottish 'N British,

07/08/2008 09:36:34
If we put aside Salmond's grandstanding, it's clear to see there is no real direction with this administration.

Very piecemeal, designed, IMO, to stay populist. Backed up by the 'sctivists' on these boards who are now actively keen to stifle debate.

Also, Newsnight Scotland the other night debated the future of Scottish school exams. On the very day when Fiona Hyslop had been trumpetting the rise in pass marks, she was unavailable for this programme. Nor was her deputy, Maureen Watt. Given Watt's predeliction for putting her foot in it, her absence was probably a wise move.

Not very 'open and transparent'.

15

Guga II,

Rockall 07/08/2008 09:38:15
#13. More BNP garbage.
16

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 07/08/2008 09:57:36
"The Scottish Government is currently prioritising the delivery of treatment."

However, this is the same failed strategy as before - regard the drug user as a victim having no free will or ability to decide and "treat" them. Which usually amounts to pumping in another drug to keep them high in a failed attempt to stop them being an anti-social and criminal nuisance to the rest of productive society.

It's this dependency culture which has ruined tracts of Scotland and encouraged Labour to keep the plebs down and in their place as voting fodder. I'm disappointed but not completely surprised to see the SNP adopting much the same tactic. Although the Islamafest largesse isn't completely relevant to this it does illustrate that votes are there to be bought which is not a sensible route to go down and the funding of religious groups regardless of who they are is not the province of the government. I don't buy that this is a gesture to demonstrate "inclusiveness". The Muslim community hardly reciprocate!

What I see is needed is a clearer definition of rights and wrongs. If criminals and drug dealers feel they have little to face in the way of penalties and the dependency culture means that users are also not punished in some way but actively encouraged to seek dole money and incapacity benefit this whole mess starts to erode the culture we're looking for.

Rewards are the other side of the equation - we need an enterprise culture which does not regard employment in the public sector as the main aim. Taxes need to be reduced. Penalties - prison has to stop being a soft option purchased at vast expense by the long-suffering taxpayer. No-frills (Sky TV, Pool tables, gyms), hard work and longer sentences for drug dealers and other serious criminals. That will start to empty the overstretched prison accommodation and start to give a measure of confidence back to a quite ineffective judicial system.

Above all politicians have to stop regarding tax revenue as thei
17

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 07/08/2008 09:59:50
...their personal plaything and return better value to the taxpayer. When the drug dealers and crims start shivering in fear that's when you'll know we're succeeding.
18

Scottish 'N British,

07/08/2008 10:11:53
MacAskill started out being macho and stating he was on the side of the victims, and that he had no intention of rewarding criminals with plasma TV's, gyms, etc.

So, have they been removed? In a word, NO.

MacAskill's proposals for prison reform, etc, won't work.

There's no radical approach. His whole approach is designed to meet the challenge with one eye always on costs, especially on new prison builds.

MacAskill's response to the knife culture is alarming. Imploring/threatening the judiciary, knowing full well he can't make them do anything of the sort, only served to make him look weak and ineffective.

The SNP say they are keen on listening. The public want criminals locked up, not out on licence.

That means building new jails.
19

Alan B,

07/08/2008 10:14:02
While i doubt the snp's approach will make a significant change into the drug problems of scotland, we will have to wait and see as a government needs time for change to take effect. What we do know is 17yrs of tory rule and 10yrs of labour did not work.

#11 Rulesbutnotrulers, what you say does make sense and is one approach to try.

Personally i would like an approach comes down alot harder on hard drugs. We seem to have taken a softy softy approach for so long. Firstly suppliers should get tough sentences. That means either life (and that means life) or sentenses that atleast mean serving more than 20yrs. Secondly we should take the drug users of the streets. Say a boot camp type of thing. Take all heroin addicts, put them in some rehab camp. Where they go till clean and their problems have been addressed + say 1yr. Any further use then they go back to the camp. This would mean that the whole demand would be removed.
20

Rabbies Wee Bruthir,

07/08/2008 10:22:16
16 The Former Mr. Angry,Perth 07/08/2008 09:57:36

Interesting thoughts, but no solutions, only rhetoric, and veiled racism, and bigotry.

The problem will not go away by 'attacking it with a big stick'.

The root causes of drug addiction must be tackled, the availability of drugs, poverty and isolation.

BOT:
As for the comments on alcohol, it is now apparent, that 'alcohol' has become the new 'smoking', as far as the meedja and our politicians are concerned.

However the fact is that the people are feed up with the politicos 'dictating' how they should live their life, so I issue this warning to them.

If politicians continue to attack the people of this land and their legal lifestyle choices, then beware, as you will go the way of all who dared to attack the rights of man!

You will be removed from power and consigned to the backwaters.

Remember you represent the PEOPLE you do not represent your self or some nutter pressure group, such as ASH!!





21

Alan B,

07/08/2008 10:34:06
#The Former Mr. Angry

I agree with #20 that your own racism is showing. How dealing with a serious drug problem can be turned into bashing muslims is beyond me. The issue is a cheap shot at the snp that all people should reject unionist or nats alike.
22

subrosa,

07/08/2008 10:58:04
# 12

Hurray along, time you were at the doctors for your next medication. It's dangerous for your wellbeing to live in fantasy land and not good for your blood pressure having to conjure up all these blatant lies.

Do you realise what a fool you sound? Nope didn't think so. Perhaps your medication may help you be less hateful for a short while. Then again I doubt that as your hatred of the SNP is certainly a serious phobia.
23

subrosa,

07/08/2008 11:00:33
Scottish 'N British, 07/08/2008 10:11:53
'MacAskill started out being macho and stating he was on the side of the victims, and that he had no intention of rewarding criminals with plasma TV's, gyms, etc.

So, have they been removed? In a word, NO.

MacAskill's proposals for prison reform, etc, won't work.'

The boys toys in prisons can't be removed as it will affect the Human Rights of prisoners. Haven't you been keeping up with the news?

Kenny MacAskill has made progress regarding the open estate system (one third less and double the management). Haven't you been keeping up with the news?

24

Derek23,

Norwich - well, everyone's got to be somewhere. 07/08/2008 11:02:57
What no-one has dared to suggest is the basic problem is the way we deal with drugs - legal and illegal.

Instead you all seem to bang on about trying to make a regime (prohibition) work, when there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that it can ever do so. The same goes for Scottish government's latest pie in the sky ideas which are based on the same beliefs (rather than evidence) as the long failing UK national policy.

So the first step scrap the drug war hype and then develop an EVIDENCE based drugs policy, one that doesn't draw artificial lines between legal and illegal substances, which doesn't promote organsied crime, doesn't allow pushing (advertising) and does allow protect of those most at risk.

But until that happens, get used to the high death rate because it isn't going to go away.
25

Scottish 'N British,

07/08/2008 11:40:00
23

You make my point - he plays to the gallery. Why state (on TV) that he'll remove these when, as you say, he can't.

Perhaps you could ask him why he did this and give us some feedback?

The Robert Foye scandal shows the folly of his prison policy.


26

The Former Mr. Angry,

07/08/2008 11:46:12
Rabbies Wee Bruthir,07/08/2008 10:22:16

I did offer solutions if you'll read my post again without being blinkered by your own rightness. I wasn't going to mention the Islamafest thing but it had been mentioned in one earlier post as an example of waste of taxpayers' money which could be usefully employed on the fight against crime. In any event, would we be so enthusiastic about pouring 100,000s of pounds into promoting Hinduism? Why single out Islam as being a deserving recipient. Seems pretty racist and irrelevant to me to do so.

Back to topic - in one sentence the solution is clearer rewards for productive work and much stiffer penalties for breaking the law in a way which is both reckless and demonstrably lethal.

The softy approach has not worked - the stats do not lie!
27

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 07/08/2008 12:08:43
#24 Derek.

Re-read post #11.
28

Jorel,

dunkirk 07/08/2008 12:16:37
vote greens, they will solve the problem.
29

The Trossachs Hasher,

07/08/2008 12:34:17
The softly softly approach definately does not work and I certainly object to the amount of taxpayers money which Scotland spends every year on keeping these addicts on theirs meth substitute.

Everyone knows the risk of drugs - how addictive they are and how they ruin your life. But we still have people who start themselves on drugs safe in the knowledge they will get medical and benefit support to help them carry on with their habit.

Anyone who is stupid enough to take drugs is not fit for anything - least of all a meaningful and productive life.

Druggies should have their benefits stopped and their kids taken off them. They should then be put into specialist detox units until they have successfully got themselves clean and stayed clean for at least a year.

No sympathy, no soft soaping.

If more people objected to their taxes being paid to keep these people in meths then maybe the government (any government - they are all just the same) would think again about how they approached this ever growing problem that shows no signs of going away.
30

Derek23,

Norwich, so what? 07/08/2008 12:41:03
Rulesbutnotrulers #27

My apologies, I must have missed your comment at #11.

I should have said "What no-one in government and the media is wiiling to accept is the basic problem is the way we deal with drugs - legal and illegal".

I think we agree though, whilst we have a drugs policy based on some crazy belief system, rather than of real solid evidence, we'll always have this problem.

And of all the Scottish politicians, Annabell Goldie is probably your biggest problem as far as hoping for a sensible drugs policy goes, although Alex doesn't help.
31

,

07/08/2008 13:08:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

Scottish 'N British,

07/08/2008 14:29:12
31

These people should be isolated from society. Essentially this would mean Government-intervention in the drugs trade, in effect doing what the dealers are doing, but in a controlled environment, and a future without these parasites.

Burglary, shoplifting and now it's reported, muggings, are fuelled (certainly the last 2) largely by druggies desperate for cash to fuel their habit.

Who knows what the extra cost would be, if any - after all we're already paying for this through increased nsurance and higher prices and, haha, extra police.
33

Alan B,

07/08/2008 14:51:25
Part of the problem is political. We do not have a liberal party that is actually liberal and putting a legalisation view to the public. And we do not have a law and order type party (which the tories are most likely to assume the mantel off) putting a hardline view and then letting the public choose which way to go.

Instead we have a wish washy approach from the polical parties.

With crime in general we have the same issue. Some off the parties say prison does not work. Yet we have had sentenses that get smaller and smaller with probation used as an automatic early release scheme to allow bigger headline sentences.
34

Scottish 'N British,

07/08/2008 14:59:21
Problem is we're TOO liberal.

In the 80s and 90's, this left wing goody-goody viewpoint, first seen in the old Liberal party, seeped into the Labour party and as Thatcherism became vilified and marginalised, became accepted as the way ahead.

As a result society now has an added tier of bureaucracy in the shape of care assistants, outlying officers and the like.

The liberal way has been trialled for over 2 decades, and has shown to be a failure.
35

Alan B,

07/08/2008 15:06:33
#Scottish 'N British

I would disagree with what you say here for a few reasons.

Firstly
"The liberal way has been trialled for over 2 decades"
We have not tried legalisation so we have not tried a liberal way.

But neither have we tried a hardline approach (which i would favour regarding hard drugs and serious crime aswell). As we have had softer and softer sentensing.

I also would not disclude thatcher from soft sentencing as alot of that continued and happened during her time in power.

We have had an approach which is neither liberal ie legalisation nor a hardline approach to both the pusher and user.
36

Alan B,

07/08/2008 15:18:10
#Scottish 'N British

just on a poin of accuracy.

"In the 80s and 90's, this left wing goody-goody viewpoint"

For 17 yrs of these 2 decade, it was a supposedly right wing government. I agree with your underlying point by i think you are trying to excuse the tories when it was them in power during this period.

All the parties are pretty much of a much taking a woolly approach. None of them are liberal and advocate legalisation. And none of them are hardline.
37

Scottish 'N British,

07/08/2008 15:23:48
36

No, no.

I'm not trying to excuse any Tory government from their failures. Jeez, far from it.

You can't, however, have failed to note the fierce opposition they met when trying to tackle unemployment, drugs, etc from Labour and the Liberals.

I should have added that this left-wing goody-goody viewpoint was most prominent in our schools and councils.



38

Alan B,

07/08/2008 15:35:22
#Scottish 'N British

Leaving aside unemployment for a moment as it is abit of a different issue.

I agree there is what you would classify as a "liberal" establishment that is soft on crime and makes excuses for it. (personally do not think it is liberal as it has nothing to do with legalisation or decriminalisation).

The thatcher government was abit weird. She was meant to support a hardline view (ie death penalty) but never really pushed her supposed hardline view on crime. (Maybe there were too many other issues at the time).

I do agree with you in that i would support a much more hardline law and order stance when it comes to hard drugs. Although might be tempted to legalise softer ones.

While i do agree with you regarding lab and lib (and snp for that matter) councils and they are no different to their national parties in that wooly leftish agenda/approach.

Going to school in the 70s/80s think the "liberal" establishment view was more in england that scotland. Scottish schools i think were more conservative with a small "c" than england at the time. That thinking in scottish education came abit later. Also reflected by the more traditional teaching methods of scottish schools rather than the alternative approaches in england from the 60s. Maybe that was just the schools i went to though.


39

Derek23,

Norwich, sweet as it is... 07/08/2008 16:20:29
Some of you clearly don't understand the legalisation debate. The legalisation case goes way beyond a simple "liberalisation", indeed it isn't really about liberisation at all and certainly isn't "going soft" or anything stupid like that.

Illegal drugs are not controlled drugs, if you don't control the supply of a substance, you can't begin to claim to control that substance. Legalisation is all about doing that, controlling the trade. Legalisation is about having laws which can actually be made to work.

The problem with prohibition is it that treats the very people it claims to want to protect as the enemy, it therefore doesn't have the support of the section of the population it's trying to influence. Any law like that is bound to fail and prohibition has definatly failed.

Laws which work in the favour of the consumer have the respect of the consumer and so are easy to enforce. Hence it's possible to have controls over who sells drugs, where from, age limits, purity and strength controls, health education, safer use campaigns, restrictions on places where the drugs can be used and all the rest that you simply can't have under prohibition.

Indeed, prohibition promotes anarchy, as has been mentioned it fuels crime with eye watering profits and undermines respect for the law. Hard line authoritarians crack me up when they spout support for the war on drugs for that reason.

If you want effective laws, demand an end to the war on drugs, simple as.
40

Alan B,

07/08/2008 16:50:58
#Derek23

"The legalisation case goes way beyond a simple "liberalisation", indeed it isn't really about liberisation at all"

That makes no sense. To legalise drugs or decriminalise them is by definition liberalisation. (As such that part of your agruement is about semantics.)

I understand the argument for legalisation or even decriminalisation. I would probably legalise softer drugs.

To say prohabition has not worked is slightly misleading. It has not worked with the softly softly approach that we have taken with both suppliers and users.

As i said in an earlier post i can see an arguement an argument for both a hard line approach to hard drugs and legalisation/decriminalisation but not the wooly approach we take now. And would come down on a hardline type of approach for hard drugs, removing both supplier and user from the general population.

I think your statement "develop an EVIDENCE based drugs policy" is just waffle. As it depends on what you are seeking as an outcome and how you want to interprete any evidence. That type of language is best in leftish socialogical dept.

Out of interest how would you legalise as i notice you have not outlined how you would approach that. Complete legalisation? Only for registered people? Only from restricted outlets? Only on the premises of restricted outlets like chemists at the moment? If you are going to try to sell a viewpoint you have to put much more meat on your approach.




41

Conan the Librarian™,

07/08/2008 17:27:15
31
Dane Bramage I agree completely; prohibition has never worked nor ever will.

However there is money to be made...
42

An Greumach Mor,

Scotland 07/08/2008 18:10:48
Drugs policy if so flawed it is laughable.

I agree with many of the posters. No illegal drugs are controlled. From the villages to the cities they are available everywhere.

It makes a very good excuse for deprevation and political failure in places like the East End. "Its the Drugs that did it"

It keeps the police full of excuses and constant supply of young people to lock up in the ever expanding and expensive criminal justice system then over to the prison system. All total wastes of money.


Since the beginning of time people have got high. For a small minority it is a problem. Far the vast majority it is not. Addiction and compuslive behaviour are misunderstood and represent a small number of cases. You just never know if it will be your child.

Drugs policy is emotional not sensible.

Control the supply of drugs. Kill the criminal empires of many of the countries largest organisations. Remove the profit. Remove the reason for dealing in the first place.

Drugs policy is failed. Drugs policy is a waste of time, money, effort and young lives.
43

Conan the Librarian™,

07/08/2008 19:13:54
42
Wise and wasted words, An Greumach Mor.
44

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

07/08/2008 20:24:23
Everyone always talks about the costs, but never about the benefits. You can't do proper cost-benefit analysis just by counting costs.
45

The Spectator,

07/08/2008 20:48:11
No wonder Salmond is so keen to award loads of our dosh to certain communities; http://tinyurl.com/5eau74

Better keep Councillor Hanif on side Salmond eh?
46

Conan the Librarian™,

07/08/2008 21:06:45
44
Hey Friend, can you do one?

45
I too have shot a gun...Have you knitted anything interesting recently?
47

The Spectator,

07/08/2008 21:33:41
Conan the Librarian™, # 46

Is the SNP sending it's activists to Pakistan to train on assault weapons?
48

The Spectator,

07/08/2008 21:45:12
When did the SNP "discover" that councillor Hanif had training in the use of assault weapons?
Has Salmond informed MI5 that one of his major activists has been training in Pakistan on assault weapons, has Salmond asked his activist who he was training with?
The SNP are quick to smear others as traitors, it appears as if the traitors are much closer to home, what do you think Salmond?
49

Conan the Librarian™,

07/08/2008 21:46:27
47
Why should they?

Are you implying that the SNP is a terrorist organisation?

A scarf? Perhaps mittens? Willie Warmer?
50

Conan the Librarian™,

07/08/2008 21:51:41
48
Being able to aim and shoot a gun is not a periquisite of terrorism, Spectator.

Ask most any inhabitant of North America.
51

The Spectator,

07/08/2008 22:02:21
Conan the Librarian™, # 49

"Are you implying that the SNP is a terrorist organisation?"

Some of their members look like they might be acquiring military training abroad for some unknown reason. Salmond gave the Scottish Islamic Foundation £215,000 lately.
What are the arrangements for overseeing the disbursemnet of those funds? AK47/74 rifles can be bought for $15/20 dollars in Pakistan. A few hundred AK47/74s, in trained hands, could be used to hold a small Scottish city. Where has our money gone, does Salmond know? He knows that he has got at least one councillor trained to use an AK; are there any more?

MI5 should investigate the SNP forthwith, although, I doubt they need an invitation. Salmond's recent £215,000 donation to SIF will have raised certain antennae!
52

Conan the Librarian™,

07/08/2008 22:11:24
51
Aye. Right.

You seem like a likely recruit.

Fancy a wee trip to Pakistan?

You get to shoot up large photies of Blair.

(They are a wee bit backward here)

For a few Rupees more...

Photies of Salmond :-)
53

,

07/08/2008 22:15:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
54

The Spectator,

07/08/2008 22:30:50
Conan the Librarian™, # 52

I think you are just a little backward, shouldn't you call up "Banks" to shut this conversation down?

What kind of target was councillor Hanif shooting at when he just happened to fire the Kalashnikov? Or, did somebody just walk up to him in the street, hand him an AK and say fire this and he says, "all right."
When did someone last approach you in the street with a similar proposal?
When did Salmond know that Cllr Hanif had carried out the actions alleged? Was Hanif tipped off by the SNP that this information was coming out and "advised" to stay in Pakistan to avoid embarressment to the SNP?
Will Cllr Hanif be going to Guantanamo Bay?
Is Cllr Hanif a Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) Officer?
55

,

07/08/2008 22:38:38
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
56

Conan the Librarian™,

07/08/2008 22:45:44
54
I'm backward eh?

What target do you think he was aiming at?

A nice juicey AH-64? That would have cut him in half if he had shot at it?

I'll go easy on you now.
Having guns is only a crime in this country. In other countries Wedding parties shoot off rounds...
And if there is a US helicopter above it, it is taken as hostile fire...cue all the wedding party atrocities...
57

Rosscobhoy,

07/08/2008 22:51:25
Legalise it all and tax it, or ban tobacco and alcohol if they are serious about tackling our drugs problems.
58

,

07/08/2008 23:01:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
59

Conan the Librarian™,

07/08/2008 23:56:41
58
Last time I shall comment upon Banks.

Ever.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.