Trump on TV

I watched the BBC program me on Trump carefully and thought that it gave a fairly decent picture of the issues. Any programme is limited so it is forgivable that it omitted the disgraceful actions of local and national politicians. However, there are other films and sources for these. The only thing most people need to know is that there is now proof that if you want to protect the environment, none of the big 4 parties can be trusted.

The BBC film is available on iplayer until next Monday but you might also wish to view this short film (with a cameo from me)

The wrong side of a hole from jon Pullman on Vimeo.


  1. Good for you Debra.
    Iam glad to see someone is standing up to Trump!!
    I can see its more to do with getting houses built and he couldn't care less about the families who suffer for his GREED!!

  2. Why people are so against this is beyond me. A couple of people being relocated is a small price to pay for such a brilliant investment to the city. I am sorry, but the economy of Scotland takes priority and this is something that any other city on earth would spill blood for, and we are fighting against it?

    Let's be frank about this, the people against this do not give a damn about the SSSI or the people being relocated. They are using this as an excuse to fight their Marxist, anticapitalist agenda that says billionaires are evil and profit is immoral. If I was Trump I wouldn't have bothered with all the stress and would have picked up and moved to the next city by now, luckily for the people of Scotland he seems to like Aberdeen enough to tolerate being demonised by these folk.

  3. First time I've been called a Marxist! This blog is called National Disgrace, Scoundrel and Extremist because that is what the Trump Organisation have called me (not all at once!). I am none of these things.

    But I do appreciate the value of rare and beautiful places. And I can not support forcing people out of their homes especially as Trump repeatedly said that he had all the land he needed for the original application. If he did not need the land in 2007, he doesn't need the land now.

    And I believe that the claimed economic benefits are overblown and a distraction from moving the economy of the NE of Scotland from oil to the new energy futures building on the undoubted sub sea expertise here.

  4. Thanks for replying, Debra.

    You say you cannot support forcing people out of their homes, but does that count no matter what? If it was a two billion pound investment, could you sympathise with it then? Five, ten billion? There has to come a time when national interest is prioritised over the interest of a small handful of people, now so more than ever in these economically difficult times.

    When the oil runs out Aberdeen will be in trouble. It's investment like this that will keep the city afloat. I stand by my opinion that this is anticapitalism cashing in a golden opportunity.

    Off topic, for our peak oil crisis we really need to be going down the French route and investing heavily in nuclear energy for the years to come. I even heard rumours that the Greens were coming round to it!

  5. Anon
    Trump has repeatedly said he does not need these properties to develop his resort.
    If the residents freely sell to Trump that is one thing. But Compulsory Purchase Orders were not meant to be used for private profit and should not be so used.
    I don't care if it's a £100,000 development or a £170billion development ... In fact of course, the bigger the development the more the developer can afford to offer. I think Trump sees CPOs as a way to get these properties cheap - at pre his development value.
    But this is not about cash. It is about the human rights of people who do not wish to sell not being compelled to sell.

  6. The cpo issue has now been laid to rest, Trump's confirmed he won't seek them (earlier this year); are you still opposed to the £750 million development? The only downside to the resort now seems to be the loss of a mile or two of coastline. The potential economic benefits are far from "overblown" as you state; the PGA chief executive tipped the course a few months back to host the Open and Ryder cup, despite it being far from complete, tournaments worth in excess of 80 million apiece. This in addition to the near certain influx of golf tourists which will benefit the area.

  7. Yes.
    Still opposed to the destruction of my constituents lives ... Bunds currenty being built around the Munros : conifer hedge planted around the Milnes - harassment continues.
    Still opposed to the destruction of SSSIs.
    Still unconvinced re the economic benefits.

    Not seen anything to change my mind.


I am happy to address most contributions if they are coherent. Comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will be posted.

Please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person.

The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.