Labour Living in the Past With Fascist Insult

So, heckling your opponents in the Commons means that you are a neo-fascist.

Glasgow South West Labour MP Ian Davidson thinks so. But, presumably, only if you’re a nationalist.

As SNP MPs heckled him during a debate on the Scotland Bill on Tuesday night, he said: "I notice the way in which efforts have been made to shout me down.”

"That's what's happened traditionally in Scotland when people challenge the nationalists. Those of us who want to challenge the narrow, neo-fascism of the nationalists."

Now, now.

Heckling in the House of Commons is par for the course and you would have to be a real twat to consider that it was an indication of neo-fascism.

Was the Labour Party “shouted down” during the recent Holyrood elections?

I don’t think so.

However.

It should come as no surprise that a Labour MP should use this phrase against the SNP. The party, especially north of the border, have long attempted to place in the minds of the electorate some connection between Scottish Nationalism and fascism, in particular the ludicrous suggestion that the SNP should be equated with the National Socialists of Nazi Germany. When one considers the “corporate” governments of Blair and Brown this is might sound a wee bit rich.

It’s an accusation that is as tired as the Labour Party itself.

It harks back to Labour’s ideal of a one world where we would all be subject to a “dictatorship of the proletariat”, as opposed to Nu-Labour’s preference that we that we be subject to a dictatorship of the banks.

Former East Lothian MP Anne Moffat once claimed that Alex Salmond gaining power was comparable with the rise of Adolf Hitler in 1930s Germany. A suggestion that beggars reason.

And then there was Lord “Fuckwit” Foulkes who directed a "Mussolini" jibe at Mr Salmond, referring to the First Minister as "Il Duce" at a Holyrood committee. Yet another socialist from the people’s party that couldn’t wait to get into the House of Lords and join the rest of the “working class heroes”.

These are, historically, the people who use to refer to Stalin as “Uncle Joe”. Well, we all know what kind of an uncle he turned out to be.

They live in the selective past. A past that has seen the people of Scotland kick their collective arses out of Holyrood.

To refer to the 900,000 Scots who democratically elected the SNP at the last election, as neo-fascists is just fucking stupid. It is an unbelievable insult to all those Scots who fought against fascism, not only in WWII but during the Spanish Civil War and chose to think that Scotland should be a country that had the temerity to exist outwith the UK.

The guy really doesn’t have a clue as to what fascism is. He is regurgitating this pish parrot fashion. The sad, and dangerous, thing is that there are many in the Labour party that agree with him. It stems from an irrational hatred of the SNP which in itself can only come from an insular political perspective. Perhaps even fascism.

They live in the past. The era of cloth caps and rickets.

The people of Scotland have moved on. They have aspirations of a better life.

It is doubtful if that life includes a Labour party that includes the likes of Ian Davidson.

Blundering Blundell Just Won’t Give Up.

The Scotland Office just won’t give up with its daft attacks on the independence referendum. First it was the nonsense about “Two Referendums” then it got all hot and bothered about “Two Questions”. It has now gone for a hat-trick of irrelevance.

Following in the meandering footsteps of his boss, Michael Moore, David Blundell has taken another tilt at the windmill by claiming that there would “be little confidence in the referendum” because the Electoral Commission would not be involved. Instead Holyrood is to set up a Scottish Referendum Commission.

When it was pointed out to him that the legal situation meant that Commission could not be formally involved, even with new legislation he made another of his “on the hoof” promises that his government, the one in London, would be willing to “give the Electoral Commission the authority.”

So, basically, what he is saying is that the people of Scotland are not to be trusted and are incapable of running a fair and free referendum and that he and his unionist cronies would be only to happy to step in and make sure its done properly.

This is the underbelly of unionism.

So far the argument from the Moore and Mundell has been that the people of Scotland can’t be trusted to do things for themselves. They are not capable. They don’t understand things. They need help from London. It is central to the unionist argument that Scotland is incapable of hacking it as an independent nation state. Expect more of this from Labour and the Lib-Dems in the future.

If someone is feeding Scotland Office this crap then they are certainly doing a good job, as far as the SNP is concerned.

The Lights Are On - But No One’s in at the Scotland Office

It would appear that the Scotland Office is determined to show us just how little they seem to know about what is going on around them.

After the recent ridiculous statement made by Michael Moore about the legality of the independence referendum we now have blundering David Mundell putting his foot in it to try and muddy the waters even further.

The only Tory MP north of the border is warning the people of Scotland that if his government doesn’t have a say in the wording on the ballot paper then it will end up before the Supreme Court in London.

Blundell is demanding that only one question, “Independence – “yes or no” be put before the people. The Scottish Government’s has said that it is open to the option of two questions. The second, asking if, in the event that they did not want independence, would those voting want greater fiscal autonomy.

It would appear that Blundell, along with quite a few others, does not understand that a two question ballot paper will make no difference to the vote for independence. Either people favour it or they don’t.

However, its got nothing to do with that.

Blundell and the unionist cabal want the choice to be independence or the status quo. Therefore, if the vote did not favour independence they would be able to say that that people of Scotland were happy with the way things were. As that might not actually be the case the SNP want, quite rightly, to offer another option.

One could vote for independence and greater fiscal autonomy. One could vote against independence but for greater fiscal autonomy. One could vote “no” to both. This would give a clear picture of what the people wanted.

So why do the unionists see this as a problem?

Because it is. And its one of their own making.

They will go into the independence campaign telling the people of Scotland that they have been given everything that they are going to get. The London Government has already told the Scots that they will get no more than the insipid unionist Calman Report recommended. Had they given Scotland more, the fear was that by the time the referendum comes about the SNP would be able to show that with greater fiscal autonomy Scotland was better off. And the reason that they don’t want it now is the same reason that they don’t want to risk it on the ballot.

So for them there can only be straight choice between independence and the union. However, if they are confident that everything in the UK garden is rosy then surely all that they have to do is tell people to vote for the “No – No” option.

The contribution to the debate by the Scotland Office so far, has been a mixture of arrogant posturing and threats of constitutional bludgeoning.

If they have an argument as to why it would be beneficial for Scotland to remain in a political union that is well past its “sell by” date then they should make it.

So far, it would appear that they do not.

English Attorney General to Prosecute the World Wide Web

 

The Attorney General for England and Wales, Dominic Grieve, now saying that he will prosecute people who “Tweet” the names of those who have taken out super injunctions.

This will no doubt be met by a chorus of “Bring it on” from many of those who see the internet as a legitimate weapon against the old order. They will, with some justification, see this as the Government and the judiciary yet again siding with the elite.

Grieve’s views are endorsed by David Allen Green, a media lawyer and (according to the BBC) an “expert on social media”. He points out that everyone who publishes the names of those hiding behind these injunctions are open to prosecution.

Get real!

The image of Ryan Giggs was one of a consummate professional sportsman and role model for youngsters. As with Tiger Woods, this image was intrinsic to his status in both the sport and its associated commercial enterprises. As such, it is without doubt, in the public interest to know whether this remains the case. There are quite a few who portray themselves in a manner which bestows a certain status, coupled with an ability to make a lot of money. They are more than happy to use the media to promote this image. It is a public image. And that’s the point.

When that public image is shown to be a lie, then the public should be told.

This is not about privacy.

I couldn’t care less what any of these self-important twats had for their breakfast. I don’t care what hand they use to wipe their arse. And I’m certainly not in the slightest bit interested where they go on holiday and whether they get their kit off on the beach.

However, when they achieve a prominence and wealth by dint of a societal belief in a self-proclaimed portrayal then that society needs to be told that it has been deceived.

The problem over people “tweeting” the names of such people is one that has been created by the courts. These super-injunctions should have been declared dead in the water. By not doing so, judges are telling us in no uncertain terms, that the rich can have their cake and eat it.

This, rather than any tabloid styled expose, is the reason people post the names on the internet.

As for the Attorney General’s idea of prosecuting thousands (and bear in mind if he goes down this road it will become millions) of people who live outside England and Wales is a much anticipated exercise in wasting public money.

Are we to see injunctions against newspapers in Scotland, Eire, France, and the USA et al?

He might be able to go after Twitter, but unless he has any ideas on how to close down all the other websites in the world he’s doing what politicians do – talking spam. Unhelpful. Unwanted. And ultimately useless. Only to be believed by the gullible. And maybe the celebrity elite who think they can hide behind ludicrous judgements made in the now, unfortunately,  discredited English courts.

Moore’s Cynical Ploy is Only the Beginning

So, London’s man in Scotland (actually he seldom leaves London) has said that the forthcoming referendum on Scotland’s secession from the United Kingdom will only be an advisory vote.

According to the Governor General, Michael Moore, there will have to be a second vote on what has been sorted out between the two governments.

This is a wonderfully cynical ploy.

Scotland votes for independence and then agrees to give the unionists the chance to make the separation so unattractive that it can undemocratically pressure people into changing their mind. I’m not so sure that this is what any sensible government in London would want to do. Quite simply, they wouldn’t get away with it. But when one hears this sort of thing from Moore and Cameron saying he will defend the UK with “every fibre of his being” one has to wonder just how far they will go.

It is a rather desperate position to take so early on and has more to do the growing irrelevance of Moore’s office. This can be seen in the stance he has taken on the transfer of powers to Edinburgh. He refuses to give any more powers to the Scottish Government other than those deemed suitable by the unionist parties in the Calman Report.

It is still those rejected by the Scottish people that are making crucial decisions that affect their lives.

It has been said before but it is worth saying again – as far as the unionists are concerned the Scottish Parliament must never be allowed to succeed. It must be kept down and held back at every turn.

Moore might want to consider this. The SNP are the only majority Government within his beloved United Kingdom. He might also want to consider that as a Lib-Dem he is the Secretary of State for Scotland only because the coalition wouldn’t dare give the job to a Tory. 

Unlike the coalition, the minority government in Wales or the manipulated administration at Stormont, Scotland has the only government that can claim with any veracity that they have a mandate from the people. No matter how much this sticks in the craws of the unionists, it is a fact that they ignore at their peril.

Moore’s statement, unlike the Scottish Office, shouldn’t be seen as an irrelevance. It is the start of a concerted unionist campaign which will attempt to muddy the waters and disparage independence at every opportunity. Fair enough that is their job.

However, they will have to come up with something better than this.

If the Scots vote for independence, then Westminster would do well to accept it. Because, unlike 1707 the vote will not have been taken by a “Parcel of Rogues”. And they might just find  it a wee bit harder to bully and bribe their way round this one.

Blatter Goes Completely Bonkers as he Gives Kissinger a Job

As the election for the presidency of Fifa resembled polling day in Zimbabwe, it comes as no surprise that Sepp Blatter will not initiate an investigation into Qatar’s award of the 2022 World Cup Finals.

However, if the ethics or solutions committees wish to go against El Presidente and hold an inquiry, he has told them that he would not block it. I don’t really think, as it stands, the investigation to be held in Miami led by an ex-FBI man will lead to much.

But, if they did do the job properly he has just installed the very man who might just make them disappear.

In response to the allegations of corruption in Fifa, Blatter has come up with the great idea of co-opting Johan Cruyff, Placido Domingo and Henry Kissinger onto the board of the solutions committee.

Fair enough, Cruyff has a CV that most people will find acceptable. A legendary and thoughtful player and a successful manager. As with Platini, he can be seen as an antidote to the third-rate footballers come politicians who have, at present, all the ‘good jobs’.  

Domingo, on the other hand, is a man who sings at football tournaments. Blatter obviously thinks that this gives him a greater insight into the running of world football than the millions of other laymen or women around whom he doesn’t know.

But it is surely the appointment of Richard Nixon’s right hand man, Henry Kissinger, that will raise a few eyebrows within the family of football.

As National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, some may say he had a “chequered career”. But I’m not sure if that is the way he is thought of around the world, especially in Chile, Argentina, Cambodia, Timor-L’este (East Timor) and Bangladesh, to name a few. Nor am I convinced that the man who referred to Indira Ghandi as a “bitch” and all Indians as “bastards” is thought of with any affection that country.

He has avoided legal summons by investigators in France, Chile and Argentina. There have also been calls for his prosecution for war crimes, crimes against humanity and for offences against common or customary or international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap and torture.

On the hand though…

For those that remember it, Kissinger was appointed to the board of the North American Soccer League in 1978. This league was top heavy with over the hill and overpaid mercenaries from ‘footballing countries’. Poorly thought out and badly administered it folded in 1984.

That then is qualification enough for Blatter.

When he asked to be left to “sort it out”, I had high hopes of the ridiculous. But old Sepp has surpassed even my wildest expectations.

An opera singing crony is one thing. A man who is considered by millions to have conspired in the sort of crimes that sees a Serbian end up in The Hague should end once and for all any suggestions that Sepp Blatter is in touch with the real world.

Lib-Dems U-Turn on Minimum Pricing

New Scottish Lib-Dem leader Willie Rennie, is the first of unionist cabal in the Scottish Parliament to jump ship and do a u-turn on the minimum pricing of alcohol. Whether this has more to do with kicking his party got at the election or an epiphany on the road to common sense, I’ll leave for you to decide.

One thing though, it’s high time that this peculiarly Scottish and irrational opposition to minimum pricing came to an end.

During the last Parliament the SNP proposed the introduction of a minimum pricing policy for alcohol. This was roundly supported by health experts, the police and the judiciary. The unionist opposition however, opposed and defeated it. They did so, not only in the face of qualified advice, but also, in case of the Tories and Lib-Dems, contrary to what their UK leadership was advocating.

For while the Scottish Tories were claiming that high prices would not solve alcohol abuse, their masters south of the border, in the shape of Chris Grayling and Iain Duncan-Smith, were outlining proposals to ban cheap supermarket drink deals in England and Wales.

The LibDems were also put in an embarrassing position with their spokesperson Robert Brown attacking minimum pricing in Scotland whilst the UK party’s shadow business spokesperson, Lorely Burt, was calling cheap supermarket booze the “biggest problem” and reiterating” her party’s support for minimum pricing.

Both these parties will hope that we don’t remind them of how foolish and petty they have been.

As for Labour?

Well their big idea, after a study designed to do nothing more than back their stance, was to ban the non-alcoholic Red Bull. Caffeine, rather than cheap cider and vodka were what blighted the streets of Scotland according to them. What was next? The banning of coffee mornings and machines in public places?

They’re opposition was only ever based on one thing. Their irrational hatred of the SNP.

It surely could not have been because they felt that their supporters were the ones who were buying the cheap booze.

The truth is that all three voted against this in fear of it being successful. A successful Scottish Parliament, passing laws that benefit the people of Scotland, is anathema to the unionists. They work in concert to belittle it, continuously trying to bring it down to the level of a village council. They have treated the Scottish Parliament with contempt. And they’ve paid the price for that.

When the Labour long knives are put back in their scabbards and if there is a Tory left to replace Annabelle Goldie, then they too should cut the crap and do something worthwhile for Scotland. Rather than portraying the country, its Parliament and its people as some Mickey Mouse entity that would die and wither if removed from the teat of the Union.

The unionist parties and their mouthpieces in the media will look stupid over this. We can only hope that in the future we don’t forget who they are.   

Since the defeat of minimum pricing in the Scottish Parliament the UK Government has announced similar plans for England and Wales, as have Stormont ministers in Northern Ireland.