SNP should hang heads in shame for avoiding legal responsibility of proper government

SNP MSP Joan McVulpine’s reaction to dilemmas she doesn’t like was tediously predictable – she has previous for landing herself in the proverbial

Redesign coming fir Moan McVulpine – Dinnae worry

MOST POLITCAL nerds were glued to Newsnat last week when they should have been watching the Olympics.

So they missed not a jot of the BBC’s clandestine attempts at getting the SNP’s propaganda message oot tae the lumpen masses.

In the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation’s pro-seperation sights was Ian Gieyadoingson who Chairs the Tooweetoopoortoostupit Affairs Committee – a sinister Westminster organisation geared toward destroying the aspirations of ‘right thinking’ Scottish people.

Joan McVulpine, a flapping and undignified Parliamentary aide writes a column which virtually naebudy, no even SNP drones, takes seriously.

The ‘specially’ chosen for the list MSP blows more than a gasket every week and accuses anyone opposed to SNP policy as anti-Scottish or worse – Anti-Scottish!!!

McVulpine heads the Firstminster as his favourite parliamentary aide and thus gets away with behaviour which would result in the average drone SNP MSP getting the boot. Or at least a public ‘doing’.

Elsewhere, wilting wallflower, Dr Eilidh Yellowford MP plays the victim card in order to do her bit to undermine the substance of the Tooweetoopoortoostupit Affairs Committee which Gieyeadoingson presides over.

Gieyeadoingson’s boorishness provided the excuse by letting Yellowford smear him with importune use of language.

He asked Yellowford if she could attend an important meeting and she said she was ‘doing’ something else more important. In a rage the Labouring boor ranted: “I’ll gie ye DOING.”

Her accusation let her bow out of the Committee and gave the SNP carte blanche to sanctimoniously bleat to their ‘bravehearts’ back home that they had no democratic representation in a committee full of ‘English’ Tories.

Meanwhile, Mr Gieyeadoingson appeared on Newsnat to discuss the constitutional legality of any referendum called by a devolved government.

Just like the bloody Tories and Lib-Bents and Labourers he sided with the lawyers who say that without a Section 30 order the referendum will not make it past the bloody coortroom.

Anti-Scots the lot of them. Don’t they understand that the SNP has the sovereign Scottish people’s best interests at heart.

If that means that they have to operate ootside o’ the law then that’s whit they’ll mibbe no dae.

So, now that the SNP are faced with the rock and a hard place of ‘bow to the law or we’ll see you in coort’ the only thing they have left is to sling mud and concentrate on the behaviour of a pitiable auld boor like Gieyeadoingson.

Oh, and try to associate the Labouring Party with the Tories and reiterate the claim of Anti-Scottish forces at work by referring to  ‘haun in the till’ ex-Firstminster Henry McPish.

Auld Joanie bringing up the anti-Scots clarion call! There’s a thing when faced wi’ grown up politics!  Bless!

COMEDY RELIEF

Advertisements

10 Comments

Filed under Law, Moan McVulpine, Opinion, Referendum

10 responses to “SNP should hang heads in shame for avoiding legal responsibility of proper government

  1. You’re beginning to make me feel a bit sorry for Moanie Joanie as well now!!

  2. The Anti-Scots diatribe could take root Stuart. If this kind of nonsense was coming from a run of the mill Cybernat or Ultimate Cybernat then I might agree with you. (Obviously conditionally on the reasons for the pity).

    I occasionally read Alex Massie and was quite pleased that he generally concurs with my belief.

    If you haven’t read his piece, it’s here: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2012/08/patriot-games-and-other-scottish-scoundrels/

    Regards

    NB: Any chastisements or criticisms you have are most welcome.

  3. Thanks; just being ironic really, as per Rev Stu. On her £60k salary and a few hundred per week for her Record column she certainly shouldn’t be immune to reasonable criticism.

    Interesting why the Record gave a platform to someone who tends to go about things in quite a divisive manner.

    Or as Massie says, perhaps they’re just trying to make her look bad.

    • At best I find the anti-Scots stuff distasteful. At worst there’s a whiff of McCartyhism about it. Probably overstating the case, but you would think the SNP media relations people would have something to say on this kind of thing. I find it a turn-off to the point of disgust.

      • Presumably her articles are cleared by the SNP hierarchy beforehand, particularly since the adverse publicity she’s attracted, and because she’s apparently a close Salmond aide?

        Dog-whistle/soundbite quasi-jingoistic demagogic level stuff it may, but presumably Joanie and/or whoever else has a hand in it thinks equating Labour with the nasty English Tories is to best way to win over red Clydeside and that kind of demographic.

  4. £400 per column indeed. Nice work if you can get it.

  5. Had another read of Ms McAlpine’s article, because to be honest there’s so much of that kind of thing around now – NNS and WoS, most obviously – that I don’t really take too much of it in.

    But I don’t think it’s here most obvious example of the ‘anti-Scotland’ schtick. She seems to have moved more to the Tories v Scotland/SNP thing rather than Unionists v Scotland/SNP and to that extent excluded everyone else who supports the union other than the Tories, but of course she then lumps Labour in the with Tories.

    So maybe just a change of nuance, but on the other hand I think she’s deliberately tried not to be too explicity with the ‘anti-Scotland’ theme, and indeed uses McLeish as some kind of proxy to get it in at the end and merely alludes to supporting what he says rather than agreeing with him explicitly.

    What really annoys me is this kind of thing though:

    “There’s nothing we hate more than being patronised – and that’s exactly what Davidson and the Tories are doing.”

    Ironic, clearly, because she’s patronising us by presuming that she’s speaking for all of Scotland.

    And this kind of crude nonsense:

    “Findlay wants the Scottish parliament to have the economic power to protect the poorest…”

    Aye, like cutting corporation tax I suppose.

    (By the way, I don’t think is was Alex Massie who suggested that the Record may be giving Joanie a platform to make her look bad, as I claimed. Must have read that somewhere else!)

    • Thanks Stuart

      “But I don’t think it’s her most obvious example of the ‘anti-Scotland’ schtick.”

      I was surprised that it surfaced at all considering the stooshie back in January. It’s the sort of thing which, when it’s repeated, can justify the neo-fascist label which occasionally gets chucked in the SNP’s direction. Her status and position in the party makes it worse.

      “Ironic, clearly, because she’s patronising us by presuming that she’s speaking for all of Scotland.”

      Three important points in one here. I am becoming increasingly convinced that SNP supporters don’t do irony (though that’s roundly contradicted by one of my mates who’s staunch SNP).

      The speaking for Scotland irritates me immensely. The first spat I had with Wings (badly argued by me due to not realising what I was up against) concerned this.

      And thirdly, it reeks of the type of hubristic denial and over inflated ego which we’re all capable of suffering from from time to time. Argentina 78 an aw that.

      I looked into some background stuff regarding Davidson (which included a piece by your good self more than a year ago) and where we are at present.

      One thing he reiterated with Linda Fabangroovy on Scotland the Nicht last night was: “The Scottish people are sovereign is not the same thing as the Scottish Parliament is sovereign.”

      Cuts to the chase on the ‘debate’ you were having the other day with Rev Stu.

      I’m convinced the demonisation of Davidson by the Nats (and admittedly he doesn’t help himself too much) is that the Nats know this sovereignty thing only too well and they dearly want to undermine the findings of Davidson’s committee in the eyes of their own supporters and the wider Scots electorate – someone being labelled a misogynist or sexist is virtually as taboo as being called a homophobe these days.

      Davidson could do better in the way he delivers his message, but the message isn’t just the witterings of an anti-SNP misogynist thug led committee member.

      I re-read the Joanie piece myself and it’s curious how this sentence: “His language so alarmed English members of the committee that he was forced to explain that he didn’t mean “doing” in a sexual way.” doesn’t correspond with the reporting of the actual alleged incident.

      According to the Beeb and the Sun (picked for balance) no one else in the committee heard Davidson say that he would give Whiteford a “doing”. And that included Tory females who would have made capital out of it if it had occurred the way Whiteford spins it.

      Subtle but not so subtle.

      Sorry about the novel – but it’s certainly helped clarify some thoughts I’ve being mulling around in my head.

      Regards.

      • Indeed. Any chink, weakness or faux pas is exaggerated, distorted and generally bent out of shape in order to demonise and discredit, both the person involved and their wider political purpose.

        And because Davidson is a bit of a loose cannon he’s an open goal for this kind of thing (if you excuse the mixed metaphor!).

        Reminds me of Iain Gray and that sandwich shop incident during the Holyrood campaign. He should have tried engaging with the protester, but clearly didn’t, and the rest is history. In the grand scheme of things it wasn’t really relevant in my opinion, but it seemed to become one of the pivotal events of the campaign.

        Cochers is another one who just goes that wee bit too far and, for example, that “fascist Tory git” jibe at him the other day can be turned around because in the past he’s compared Salmond to Stalin and Mussolini (or whoever).

        it works both ways, of course. For example, with Joanie, to an extent, I suppose. I recall standing up for her when I thought that that business about abusive marriages and all that was twisted a bit to misrepresent what she’d said.

        However, the cybernats seem to go particularly over the top with this kind of thing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s