Where Now for Paul McBride?

High-profile QC, Paul McBride, has left the Scottish Conservatives following the election of former BBC journalist Ruth Davidson as the party's new leader. And he didn’t go quietly.

McBride was scathing in his criticism of the Scottish Tories.

As someone who has suffered first hand from the actions of brain-dead religious bigots, his main concern centred on The Party’s opposition to the SNP's legislation to tackle sectarianism and he has been highly critical of Ms Davidson's campaign manager, MSP John Lamont, who is also the party's justice spokesman.

Describing the party as "a bunch of unreconstructed morons", he said, "They have replaced one nice woman with one not so very nice woman."

Mr McBride later released a statement which added: "The Scottish Tories are no friends of the people of Scotland.

Rounding on the MSP group at Holyrood he added that they were, “divided and dysfunctional.” And that “Their only policy is to oppose everything and contribute nothing.”

"Half the membership wants the party abolished and 87% of the electorate despise them.

"Their naked opportunism regarding the minimum pricing bill and the offensive behaviour bill demonstrates why they will remain unelectable.

Well, better late than ever from the man who abandoned his lifelong support for the Labour Party just two short years ago, after deciding that they too were a useless bunch. Although not quite as useless as the lot that he’s just left. Why he ever thought that either had the potential to be anything else is a mystery.

By and large, all opposition parties in Holyrood contribute little and oppose the SNP as a matter of course. It has nothing to do with the Government’s policies, rather that the Government is the SNP and cannot be seen to succeed.

But where now for BBC Scotland’s favourite lawyer?

I get the impression that he is a political animal and seemed as stick-on to some day move into that arena. But he has now burned two pretty big bridges, as far as such a career in Scotland is concerned.

I doubt that there is much mileage to be had from the near extinct Lib-Dems or the Greens (the Party that is, not his beloved Celtic). And as a strong opponent of independence it would be inconceivable that the SNP would get his support. He has come away with some daft pro-unionist guff in the past. Remarks which now seem somewhat contradictory.

But, as it is the Unionist Parties that oppose the introduction of the legislation that he so wishes to see passed into law, he now finds himself in an increasing group of high-profile Scots such as Sir David Murray who are pro-unionists who have had to accept that the SNP are the best equipped Party to govern Scotland.

If only those pesky nationalists didn’t want independence.

How Can the Unionists Run a Referendum That They Do Not Want?

We are still waiting on the reasoned argument for the retention of the Union. Believe you me. If there was an overwhelming argument that outlined the benefits to Scotland remaining in the Union we would have heard it by now. Instead what we have had are the tactics of fear and intimidation.

The scaremongering can easily be shown as just that. Whether it comes from politicians or their friends such as Citigroup, who’s clumsy and remarkably stupid outburst about investing in an independent Scotland might have made for fleeting headlines in the Unionist media, they are along with the rest of the invective, easily shot down.

When it comes to Scotland, Westminster’s track record of playing fast and loose with democracy should not be forgotten. The manipulation of the first devolution referendum and the consistent use of the civil service to produce spurious statistics to give a less than truthful picture of an independent Scotland are well documented. And I would be surprised if they are finished with the use of the latter.

But its not so easy now. People no longer have to rely on a biased media. Those who wouldn’t be seen dead in the corridors of the Daily Record, the Scotsman or the BBC can, and do, make legitimate challenges to the propagandists through the internet.

So, having lost the argument so far, it would appear that the hijacking of the referendum is becoming the favoured policy of many at Westminster and their subordinates north of the border.

The idea is not new. But as the main London parties seem to be accepting that they are losing ground, this last-ditch tactic is surfacing surprisingly early.

They were against a referendum. They’re still against a referendum. However, some now seem to think that, as its going to happen, they should be in charge of it. Of course the raison d’etre for this is no more convincing than the argument for the status quo.

Are we to have a referendum, that is the sole result of the Scottish Parliamentary Elections, run from another country by those who don’t want it in the first place?

The referendum was in the SNP’s election manifesto. But the Unionists chose to ignore this in the sure and certain knowledge that the voting system devised by Westminster would never return a majority SNP Government. Now they are scratching around the rubbish for some way of denying the implementation of that manifesto.

Calling on the UK Parliament and the courts to declare the referendum illegal at such an early stage in the debate shows that the Unionist argument is pretty much lost before it starts.

I doubt this will worry the Scottish Government. It will not be the SNP who will be portrayed as interfering, arrogant draconian bullies.

As much as David Cameron is detached fro the realities of Scotland, I doubt he is a stupid as some in his party.

But, I might be wrong.

Iain Grey Bows Out With Predictable Vitriol

After Labour’s defeat in the last Scottish Parliamentary Election, Iain Grey did the decent thing. He took the blame and fell on his political sword. But in his final speech to the Scottish Labour Party it was a return to the empty anti-nationalist rhetoric which has done so much damage to his Party. It came as no surprise that this would be the basis of his farewell address to the conference. It really has been all that the Party has had to offer during his stewardship.

He accuses the SNP of bringing “vile poison” into politics.

He warned the candidates for the post he has now vacated, that the “cybernats” and “bed-sit bloggers” will “call you traitor, quisling, lapdog and worse”. They can also expect to have their appearance, integrity and sexuality questioned. He told them that they can also expect their families and their faith to be dragged into what he calls “the vitriol”. And, he says, it will be worse if you are a woman. (Presumably women will be threatened with a “doing”.)

Why this has anything to do with the SNP is unclear. Argument by association might work at a Party conference but it fails every test of critical thinking. That however, has never been a strong point of Mr Grey’s Labour Party. Would it be considered legitimate to tar Labour with the same brush as the BNP, the Scottish Defence League or the sundry pro-unionist knuckle-dragging groups and individuals found on the internet simply because they oppose independence. Of course not. That would be stupid.

Of course Iain Grey has never been a traitor. The use of that word is emotive, not reasonable. However, it is difficult for any UK Party to convincingly deny being influenced from London. That is something that they have to live with. Labour however, have the added problem that many perceive the Party to be under the undue influence of those outwith Holyrood. On more than one occasion during Iain Grey’s leadership it appeared to dance to the tune of its members on Glasgow City Council.

In the past Iain Grey has been criticised here. But never for his “appearance”. I couldn’t care less if he went around in a string vest and pink tutu. As for his sexuality? Well, that’s just simply, none of my business. Attacks on his family should be roundly condemned as insidious and cowardly, with those involved being tracked down and prosecuted where possible.

What he has been criticised for was leading a Party of negativity. A Party of considerable arrogance. A Party that took its support for granted. A Party that thought that all it had to do was continually rubbish the nationalists, at the expense of all else, and the votes would come tumbling out of the ballot box.

The negative campaign that Labour waged against the SNP is recognised as one of the main reasons for their humbling at the hands of the Nationalists.

Labour has to move on from “Nat-bashing”. The people of Scotland have shown that they will not be swayed by a constant mantra that is really nothing more than accusing them of gross stupidity for voting SNP. The Party has to stop reacting to what the SNP do. It has put forward alternatives. They have to stop depending on their friends in the media. People have long since seen through the constant rubbishing of Scotland and the Scottish Government by such as the Daily Record, the Scotsman and BBC Scotland.

Many thought that they had seen and heard the last of this. We can only hope that Iain Grey’s speech will be the end of it. Let’s hear about what is right with Labour and not what is wrong with the SNP. But let’s hear it in the form of an alternative vision for Scotland.  

Whether the Party has such a vision remains to be seen. It certainly did not while Iain Grey was at the helm.

Tories Should Back Scottish Referendum if They Want EU Changes

Nice to see so many in the Conservative Party demanding a referendum on leaving a union.

However, the referendum that they should be backing is on their doorstep.

One sure-fire way that the Eurosceptics in the Tory Party and elsewhere could renegotiate the terms of EU membership would be to back Scottish independence.

After separation, both Scotland and the remaining parts of the old union would have, as new nation states, reapply for membership.

The Tories however, have never seen the benefit of a separate Scotland which would rid them of all those irritating Scottish Labour MPs and give them the chance to rule in perpetuity.

And as fellow members of the EU, their students could study at Scotland’s universities for free.

Just a thought.

Time to Give the Unionist Bullies a “Doing”.

Meanwhile, over at "Barristers and Boilermakers Club", the Labour Party’s Iain Davidson has been throwing his considerable weight about.

During a private hearing of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee he threatened to give the SNP’s Dr Eilidh Whiteford, MP for Banff and Buchan, a “doing” if the discussions were leaked to the media.

For those unfamiliar with the parlance of Scotland, what Davidson meant by this remark was that he would physically assault Dr Whiteford and give her a beating.

For those unfamiliar with Iain Davidson, he has already had to make an apology for calling the SNP neo-fascists during a parliamentary debate.

For those unfamiliar with the Labour Party’s tactics when it comes to dealing with Scotland, this will come as no surprise. Threats and intimidation of the Scottish people is the hallmark of its approach to the impending referendum on independence.

Its no surprise that when a Party attempts to bully a country that one of its members should see it appropriate to bully an individual.

The apologists for this most boorish behaviour claim that the phrase was taken out of context and did not refer to a “physical assault”. What kind of assault it we are supposed consign to it then, remains a mystery. Unless it is something along the lines of the “doing” that the Labour Party got at the hands of the SNP in the last Scottish Parliamentary election.

There was no apology, only an excuse.

Unable to provide a cogent rationale for remaining in the Union, the tactics, as with all Unionists, continue to be grounded in fanciful apocalyptic scenarios which see an independent Scotland as a Third World Country, rife with religious persecution and a haven for terrorists. (What! – no cannibalism?)

Basically they think the people of Scotland cannot be trusted. And, if they cannot do what they told, they will be threatened with punishment. Logically then, the next step will be some sort of punishment.

Whether that takes the form of the promised and petty fiscal sanctions or indeed a “doing”, its perhaps time that the people who choose to make their lives in Scotland and wish control over those lives, called the Unionist bluff.

Who knows, the ultimate sanction might be getting thrown out of the UK. Probably by some Westminster playground bully.

Coalition Needs to Get Little Man Moore out of the Deep End

One wonders if the Coalition’s overlord in North Britain, Michael Moore, is secretly on the side of those wishing for independence. There can be little doubt that he is well out of his depth. And that is quite astonishing when you consider that he has a seriously diddy job.

The latest desperate utterings from the “Man with no Brain” have been as daft, if not dafter, that any that have preceded them.

Overlumpenstupidfucher Moore’s new argument for remaining part of the Union is that an independent Scotland would have been too small a nation to have contributed to the liberation of Libya. In doing so, he not only alienated even more Scots but successfully insulted the “smaller” nations that did take part in the NATO operation to protect the Libyan people in their struggle to topple Gaddafi.

NATO was quick to confirm and commend the role of the countries that are not as big as huge countries such as England. 

But more than anything, it shows the depths to which this man will plumb. To hitch his ill-considered rhetoric onto the back of a people’s fight to overthrow a murdering tyrant shows just how far “Liberal” values have sunk since they became the junior Tories. A statement as inaccurate as it is offensive.

And it appears that he is no better than Danny Alexander when it comes to arithmetic.

According to the moronic Moore, an independent Scotland’s spending over the last 30 years would have left it with a £41 billion deficit. The actual figures, released by the Scottish Office (which Moore claims to be in charge of) reveal that, by being part of the Union, Scotland has incurred a share of the UK debt that is in fact £60 billion.

Therefore, and this might just be a wee bit tricky for the Lib-Dem dunderhead to grasp, an independent Scotland would have been almost £20 billion better off.

What the Union has done during this period is to burden every Scot with an extra £3,800 worth of debt that they would not have incurred had the country been independent.

This however, is the man that the coalition chose. They can ditch him. Unfortunately though, many of those who elected him will have to suffer in embarrassment for a few years yet.

Scotland may well be a “little” country. But it has sent giants forth into the world to be remembered by posterity. Moore is a little man who will soon be sent south to surely find his rightful place in obscurity.

Just For the Record

Not so long ago it was BBC Scotland apologising to Ally McCoist over a piece of selective editing in a deliberate attempt to suggest that the Rangers manager took a flippant view on sectarianism.

This week it is the Daily Record that has been forced to apologise. This time to Celtic boss Neil Lennon after Saturday's back page headline read “Who’s More Hated at Ibrox (is it Lennon or the Taxman). Celtic informed Scotland’s one-time leading daily that it would be withdrawing all cooperation with troubled tabloid until it received “a suitable and substantial apology”.

In fact it is a bit of a surprise that Rangers didn’t have a go at the rag as well.

The Monday edition of the Record offered an apology for using the word “Hated”. In a desperate attempt cover their arses the Record admitted that the headline was “a misjudgement and not intended to stoke up feelings before ahead of yesterday's match.”

The cringing continued with an apology for any offence that it may have caused Lennon, his family and supporters saying that “The Daily Record has a long history of condemning intolerance in all its forms.”

Well it does have a long history. And as such, people expect the editorial team to have better judgement. Its hard to imagine that those responsible for this headline underestimated the affect of the words that were used.

It was done for affect. That's what headlines do. Or at least thats what they're supposed to do. They tell the reader what the story is about. In this case the Record told all who read it that this story was about the “hatred” felt at Ibrox for the Parkhead boss. It was a typical tabloid headline for a typical tabloid story. Absolutely no evidence that anyone at Ibrox “hates” the taxman, let alone Neil Lennon, was offered in what was a tawdry piece shit-stirring.

However, like the BBC, the Record was quick to realise that it needs access to both halves of the ‘Old Firm'. Losing the support of either side would see the paper's sales drop even further. 

Just as in the case with McCoist, the media in Scotland have been found guilty of attempting to fan the flames. Only to get their fingers burned in the process.