RuamRudy

You posted 1 minute and 5 seconds of a speech that consisted of much more. I appreciate that the thought of being able to denigrate a brown skinned man who, at the most superficial of glances, said something which could be construed as racist is catnip to you, but if you had bothered to use your intellect rather than allowing your true nature to lead you down this alley of fallacies, all your inherent biases wouldn't be laid bare once again.

If Jonnyf used the same device whenever he mentioned anyone else who had a regional accent then that might make sense. I don't recall him being consistent on that though.

He doesn't oppose white people in positions of power. If you had bothered to look beyond the rage bait headlines that hooked you so effortlessly, you would have realised that. Why?

Also his native land. By the way, you spelt white incorrectly.

Interestingly, an Iowa LGBT group criticised the sentence was being overly harsh. "true justice should always strive to be about rehabilitation, reconciliation, and healing communities. It is difficult to see how a 16-year prison sentence accomplishes any of those goals." https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1105131

What is my agenda? Should I restrict my posts to topics of which you approve? Maybe you can let me know in advance what topics you think I should be permitted to comment on?

When making an unsubstantiated statement, the burden of proof is generally on the accuser. You have made the same accusations several times and you have repeatedly failed to provide a shred of evidence to back it up. The very best you can do is say "some people suggest".

Do you genuinely not know our FM's name, or is this an attempt at humour? What is the issue about a Scotsman wearing a kilt? That's also less than clear in your post.

"They hate us" & "they all have an innate hatred of us" in the same post. Such a lack of self awareness...

There would appear to be some aspects of totalitarianism that these guys approve of...

Which people? Some people have come to the conclusion that the earth is flat. They are still wrong.

When you have to rely on Paul Joseph Watson to make your point, I think you are giving away a lot more about yourself. What are you going to post next - Tommy Robinson or the EDL?

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to think otherwise.

Then if you are living in either England or Wales, I suggest you write a strongly worded letter to your MP - but do not stray outside the boundaries of the guidelines I posted or you could find yourself in trouble. You see, the excerpt I posted is not the Scottish legislation, but that which already exists in England and Wales.

The Scottish Government donated money to the Gaza relief efforts of the UN Relief & Works Agency. The UK government also gave them money. What is your point?

So do you disagree with the excerpt of the hate crime law I posted?

Do you have evidence that the FM used taxpayers' money to release his family?

I suspect that Chomper may be right - it's a distraction that is guaranteed to get people riled about (relatively) minor things rather than having them focus on the big, generally more widely impactful things. The SNP badly lost its way, and a lot of goodwill, by going down this rabbit hole. That other parties, having seen how much harm it's done to the SNP, are willing to go the same way is beyond me.

If there is any doubt about what a racist political leader in Scotland looks like, here is one for you all to be outraged about.

What complete and utter guff you have written here. I gave a link which clearly puts his comments in context but you either fail to understand the subtlety or it doesn't fit your agenda. Are you that which you accuse others of? If you want to highlight blatant racism, look to the leader of the Tory party's Scottish branch.

No, it's not. Did you read the article to which I linked? Make you should start there.

You state that you don't do cheap point scoring yet you refuse to put his words in the context of which they were said, and you insist that your interpretation is the correct one? Ok...

Exmouth swimmer fined for 'wee in the sea' This is beyond parody. If she had used the public toilets, it would most likely have ended up on the same place anyway. "South West Water had ‘spilled’ sewage into Exmouth seas 97 times this year so far and has pumped sewage continuously for over 2,500 hours in the last 4 months"

So which is it - you took the quote out of context to score cheap, tawdry points, or you simply didn't bother to to understand the context of his speech?

If taken in isolation rather than in the context of the full speech then you could be forgiven for making such an incorrect assumption. If cheap, tawdry point scoring is your intention, however, I don't think you should be forgiven for selective quoting. Humza Yousaf's speech in context after Elon Musk 'racist' allegations