FOLLOWING THE events of the recent week or so in the indyref debate, AhDinnaeKen presents some highly selective quotes chosen at random which sum up, in anticipation, this editor’s creeping torpor and sense of trepidation at the inevitable tedious grievance fuelled acrimony to come:
By Longshanker aka @ergasiophobe
“A man with a grievance may easily become a bore, and this may be true of a nation with a grievance.” – Claim of Scotland, HJ Paton 1968
Correct! Never a truer word said. There’s a sizable minority of Scots just now who are boring the rest to bitter screaming tears of monotony. The referendum is giving these bores a collective voice which has droned on and on for what is literally years now – it feels like decades. It’s not exciting, it’s not convincing and it’s not inspiring. It’s exceedingly boring and sometimes it feels like it’s a deliberate Nationalist ploy. The SNP do better in votes with low turnouts, so it makes sense for them to bore everyone but the most committed and fervent to tears.
“…and it is now likely that transfer of North Sea oil to Scottish ownership would occasion much bitterness in England if not an attempt to forcibly prevent it.” – The Hallowed McCrone Report 1975.
The howls of outrage etc at Bullingdon Chancer Osborne’s declaration of “economic warfare” appeared to come as a surprise to some. McCrone predicted it back in the day and, with the spectre of independence having raised its inevitable head, the UK state has acted in kind.
What did the Nationalists expect? Kid gloves? Automatic indy? A velvet divorce? Think again laddies. Years of acrimony and, not so petty, petty squabbles are on the cards for god knows how long. Hurrah! Bet you can hardly wait.
“No one wiff (sic) a semblance of understanding of Scottish history and indeed the Scottish character would have made a speech such as the one the chancellor delivered last week.” – Alex Salmond, Business for Scotland speech, 17 Feb 2014
AhDinnaeKen agrees with the sentiment of the Firstminster’s statement. The Bullingdon Chancer of the Excequer’s visit to Edinborrow rankled. Hardball politics usually does. It strips away the veneer of the daily fluffy ‘reality’ most of us like to live with and leaves you staring directly at the raw naked ugliness of aggressive state power. Not nice.
But, Salmond could just as easily have been saying the above in terms of himself.
Attending conveniently unrecorded meetings with corporate media moguls in order to lobby for monopolies against the greater public interest is questionable at best, despicable at worst. Given that Salmond’s reward would have been a positive headline or two in a newspaper which is almost as equally despised as it is loved, it makes you wonder about the lip service paid to the ‘sovereignty’ of the Scots by the likes of Salmond.
A sizable minority of Scots don’t forget actions like that. Nor do they forget being lied to over legal advice, nor witnessing firsthand Scottish natives being walked over roughshod by the Firstminster in order to further American tycoon’s business interests. And it’s worth remembering that that action turned out to be for the greater good – we don’t think.
“Can we stop having English Tory MPs turning up in Edinburgh to bully the Scots and to poison the relationships between Scotland and England.” – Stewart Hosie MP 18 Feb 2014 The Referendum Debate – BBC Scotland
Professor Adam Tomkins (a despicable Unionist) of Glasgow University said, in relation to the Nationalists: “…their strategy has changed. No longer seeking new votes (nor to win) but merely to shore up their core.”
Hosie’s core message in his referendum debate statement is clear. It’s a sure sign that the Nationalists are resorting to type. The enemy, as far as they are concerned, is the Auld Enemy. The English Tory MP referred to, of course, was the Bullingdon Chancer, George Osborne.
Much as the Chancer represents a branch of politics which is allegedly anathema to the majority of Scots, he is still the second most powerful politician in the land.
The Nationalists never had, and probably never will have, a mandate to declare UDI or dictate who can or cannot visit Scotland’s capital city. Therefore the Chancer has as much democratic right to deliver speeches wherever he wants in the United Kingdom – be that London or Edinburgh or wherever – as anyone else.
For a bitter and twisted Nationalist like Hosie to imply that Gideon has no place in Scotland is what is really ‘poisoning’ the debate and it’s sure to spoil the relationship between the two major regions of the UK. It begs the question, just how cordial will those negotiations with rUK be in a future independent Scotland?
Luckily, there are more temperate pro-indy voices in the debate:
“I think it might be a good idea to avoid that kind of language, even if people feel that George Osborne’s intervention was not constructive.” – Patrick Harvie – 18 Feb 2014 The Referendum Debate – BBC Scotland.
Stated to directly counter Hosie’s unpleasantness, Mr Harvie may represent a party which makes less of a connection with Scots voters than UKIP, but his voice in the indy debate articulates the feelings, hopes and emotions of many less zealotous participants in the referendum’s politicking. Harvie knows exactly the type of sentiments and forces that crass unbridled statements such as Hosie’s are capable of unleashing into the populace at large.
He further added:
“Ask better of all your politicians on both sides than that kind of language.” – Patrick Harvie – 18 Feb 2014 The Referendum Debate – BBC Scotland
Well said Mr Harvie. For the thousands of voters out there who find the impending anti-Scots, anti-English rhetoric of the Nationalists tasteless, dangerous and unbecoming of pretenders to the crown, your temperance, assurance and political emollience is a welcome antidote to the tedious abrasiveness so far witnessed/suffered/endured by everyone else.
“Labour’s devolution plans were lost and, in the aftermath, SNP MPs helped to eject the government by opposing it in a vote of confidence. The Conservatives won the resulting general election, and went on to hold office for the following 18 years. Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s Scottish home rule was resolutely off the Western agenda.” – The 1997 Scottish referendum: an analysis of the results.
Nationalism by its very nature is myopic. The practitioners of its blacker arts are narrowly focussed on a single goal and cannot see beyond those limited parameters.
Anyone with half a brain and an ounce of compassion in their soul could see what was coming with Thatcher the milk snatcher in 1979. And the great irony of the SNP’s treachery against their own sovereign people was that they were the main proponents in assisting her to achieve her smash and power grab on the great Scottish oil bonanza of the 1980s. Oh, the black black irony at the consequences of their actions.
Onyhoo, the Nationalists lack of foresight, more than anything else, is a phenomenon which has remained consistent since 1979 to the present day. Worth remembering post September 18.
“After some of the cross-border ugliness and bad feeling that’s been whipped up by the actions of Unionists lately, the only outcome of the referendum that will allow the people of Scotland and England to regard each other with dignity and mutual respect in the future is a Yes vote. Crawling pathetically back to London with our tail between our legs won’t do it.” – Wings Over Scotland – any day of the week
And then we have the alleged grass roots antidote to mainstream media bias in the form of poisonous, hate-preaching, relentlessly boring websites such as Wings Over Scotland.
Loved by its acolytes as much as it is laughed at by everyone else, the Napoleon complexed, Gollum lookalike, editor of the site injects grievance, poison, bitterness, acrimony, falsehood, fraudulence and McCarthyite tendencies into the veins of the minority online section of the indy debate.
Yet, worryingly, senior Nats not only encourage such sentiments, they actively endorse them; Nicola Sturgeon, Roseanna Cunningham, Joan McAlpine, Ewan Crawford, Christine McKelvie, Angus MacNeil and, of course, anti-English Stewart Hosie, to name but a few.
With words like “cowardly” entering the lexicon of political debate from the upper echelon of the Natterati, it’s no surprise that sites like Wings take succour and flourish.
The danger for the indy minded acting as apologists for the site’s constant stream of bilious hatred and tediously boring grievance is, that they remain blind to and oblivious of the consequence of much of what Wings is actually saying.
To paraphrase Firstminster Salmond above, Scots don’t like being referred to as “cowards” or “pathetic” or “snivelling” by people who don’t even have the balls to live in Scotland. It shows a grave misunderstanding of Scottish history and character to think that calling more than half of the population “cowards” and “cringing pitiful scum” will be productive and convincing.
For the righteous and already convinced it may be so. For everyone else it’s a repugnant, albeit laughable, turnoff.
It’s why, the recent change of strategy by the Nationalists to resort to type ie castigating the ‘English’ as the enemy is bad news for everyone. Political debate will become increasingly fraught and polarised. More heat than light will be generated and, no matter the result in September, the country will be plunged into the socio-political darkness of blame, counter blame and recrimination. Or something equally as unpleasant.
Grievance is a bore. Actively nurturing that grievance for political advantage eventually stops being a bore and becomes dangerous.
Let the Nationalists inspire you with their vision of freedom’s hinterlands by all means. But as soon as they start talking of cowardly English or Scots, challenge them head on.
Such sentiment has no place in the debate. That it’s beginning to take centrestage is more than boring – it’s a real and present danger.