The less-deserving pro-independence website

Wings Over Scotland


The Giga-Lie

Posted on February 13, 2013 by

We’ve spoken before on this site about a couple of political concepts based around different ways of winning votes by bombarding the electorate with untruths so relentlessly that they come to be accepted as fact.

One of them, the “Big Lie”, was a term infamously coined by Hitler to describe a strategy regularly deployed by the Nazis in which a falsehood would be perpetrated which was so diametrically and spectacularly at odds with the reality, people would instinctively reject the thought that anyone would have the bare-faced audacity to say it if it wasn’t true, and therefore it must be.

mpossiblethings

Language needs some kind of brand new term, though, to accurately encapsulate the magnitude of what Scottish Labour have just tried to pull off.

The Scotsman today carries a story entitled “Westminster bans word ‘separate’ after SNP complaints”. (We’ll digress for but a brief moment to idly speculate on what the headline might instead have said had the protagonists been reversed – “Embarrassing climbdown for SNP over biased and misleading debate name”, perhaps.)

The article relates that House Of Commons clerks decreed the use of the pejorative term “separation” to describe independence to be – well, to be pejorative – and therefore inappropriately neutral for a debate in the house. They amended the title of a Labour debate from “The Royal Mail in a separate Scotland” to the fair, accurate and inoffensive “The Future of the Royal Mail in Scotland”. So far so trivial, right?

Astonishingly, Labour responded by cancelling the debate entirely, in a fit of pique at not being able to use what the clerks had described as a “leading” and “impartial” [sic] title for it. In essence, this highly-paid group of adult men and women charged with (and handsomely remunerated for) conducting the United Kingdom’s political discourse announced that it was their ball and they were taking it and going home.

That a troop of elected tribunes of the people would behave like sulking primary-school children in a playground is remarkable enough. But the statement released by Iain McKenzie, the Labour MP for Inverclyde in whose name the debate was entered, blew it clean out of the water for sheer jaw-dropping unbelievability.

“Last night, Mr McKenzie said he was cancelling the debate, which was due to be held in Westminster Hall not the Commons main chamber, in protest because the decision meant MPs were not free to debate independence properly.

He said: “MPs need to be able to question the government about what Scotland leaving the UK would mean for our constituents. My debate on the Royal Mail was intended to put the question to government about what independence would mean for a service that is vital to people across Scotland.

“We need a fully-informed debate ahead of the referendum in 2014 and these are exactly the kind of questions people need answers to.”

A Labour spokesman added: “This is a blatant attempt by the Nationalists to shut down debate in the UK Parliament.””

We’ll rewind and replay that last bit for you in case you missed it while you were searching around on the floor for your jaw.

A Labour spokesman added: “This is a blatant attempt by the Nationalists to shut down debate in the UK parliament.””

If you’re looking at your screen, blinking and re-reading those words over and over again to double- and triple-check that they say what you think they say, then congratulations – you’re still a functional and rational human being. Because it’s true: Labour really did actually, literally close down a debate in a giant toys-out-of-the-pram tantrum, and then bare-facedly accuse someone else of doing it.

We feel embarrassed about even spelling this next bit out to an intelligent audience who can already see it perfectly clearly, but we’re hoping the act of doing so will provide us with some sort of therapeutic closure:

Changing the name of the debate to a fair and neutral one does NOT prevent Labour or anyone else from being able to “question the government about what Scotland leaving the UK would mean for our constituents“. It does NOT prevent them from holding a “fully-informed debate“, and it does NOT prevent “the kind of questions people need answers to” from being answered.

Staggeringly, mind-numbingly obviously, the ONLY thing that does that is if you cancel the debate altogether because you’re in a huff about not being allowed to give it a biased name.

Labour’s actions go beyond what even Joseph Goebbels would have dared attempt. They’re not only telling a “Big Lie”, they’re actually telling people that they’re telling them a lie as they do it. The word “big” just doesn’t do it justice. This is a meta-lie, an uber-lie, a giga-lie. The degree of naked, open contempt it shows for the electorate is the most impossible thing anyone’s ever asked us to believe before breakfast.

———————————————————————————————–

Print Friendly

1 Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. 15 03 15 21:36

    The Devo Files: Iain McKenzie | A Wilderness of Peace

79 to “The Giga-Lie”

  1. Morag says:

    I don’t think the clerks can simultaneously have described the term as “leading” and “impartial”, given as these two words mean pretty much the exact opposite….

  2. Swello says:

    The other point from the article is one of those statements that appears to contradict the headline:
    Headline: 
    Westminster bans word ‘separate’ after SNP complaints
    From the article:
    “Last night, a Commons spokeswoman said the change was made for procedural reasons, not because of complaints.”
     
     

  3. Doug Daniel says:

    Swello – technically, it’s correct. The SNP complained, and afterwards, Westminster decided to ban the word for procedural reasons.
     
    But it makes a much nicer headline to place the blame on the SNP, and open the door for Labour’s “OMG they’re shutting down debate!!!!” pish. I’m sure that’s a TOTAL coincidence, though.

  4. bigbuachaille says:

    This petulant wee tantrum typifies all that is wrong with (specifically west of) Scotland Labour. The tribal hatred for the SNP, the party which promotes the policies and values which the Labour Party long ago abandoned, underpins everything related to this group of West of Scotland MPs.  The historical atmosphere of entitlement to power still poisons their minds, and the electorate of Scotland is the loser.  The George Square fiasco, where G Matheson simply ripped up the proposal because he couldnae get his own way is another example.
    All this would retain only comedy value if it were one, single occurrence. However, Scottish Labour has been bullying its way through all aspects of Scottish politics for years, and they apparently think it’s normal.  Power is their goal, not policies.  The inevitable conclusion is that Scottish Labour are prepared to wreck Scotland if it gets in the way of political power for the party and personal power for the individual members.

  5. Marcia says:

    O/T from Politicl Betting:
    Ipsos-Mori poll on Scottish Independence, the changes are from their last poll in October.
    Should Scotland be an independent country?

    Yes 34% (+4)
    No 55% (-3)
    Undecided 11% (-1)

    On the ratings on how some of the politicians are viewed in Scotland, will also give comfort to the SNP and supporters for Independence.

    Satisfied/Dissatisfied
    Alex Salmond 50/43, net rating of plus 7
    David Cameron 27/67, net rating of minus 40
    Nicola Sturgeon 50/33, net rating of plus 17
    Alastair Darling 33/32, net rating of plus 1.

    There was more good news for the SNP in the poll when it comes to asking voters how they would use their first vote if there was a Holyrood election tomorrow (again changes from the last Mori poll in October)

    SNP 43% (+3)
    Labour 35% (-)
    Conservatives 13% (-)
    Liberal Democrats 7% (-1)
    Others 2% (-2)
     
     
     

  6. CameronB says:

    What about inviting international observers, is this within the SG’s remit?

  7. David Milligan - a very Sovereign Scot says:

    I would offer “Goebbelism” as the new word to be applied.  And it might be nice to explain it to the uninitiated.  Delicious in fact.

    The next stage to that as in your article would be “Uber-Goebbelism”.  If it’s used enough, the very fact that the House of Commons might eventually ban its use would be very telling in a way the “Separate” is not. 

    Try it out, the words run off the tongue delightfully.

    Kindest regards,

    David Milligan – a very Sovereign Scot  

  8. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Swello – technically, it’s correct. The SNP complained, and afterwards, Westminster decided to ban the word for procedural reasons.”

    Aye. ‘Tis very sneaky wording, but you can’t pull them for it because one thing DID happen “after” the other one. The connection is heavily implied, but not actually stated.

  9. David Milligan - a very Sovereign Scot says:

    The same phrase could be applied to Westminster’s description of Scotland having been absorbed into England and renamed.

    That’s an “Uber-Goebbelism” also.

    Kindest regards,

    David Milligan – a very Sovereign Scot 

  10. FreddieThreepwood says:

    Re SLAB’s obsession with attacking the SNP/Salmond at every turn – even when said turn doesn’t even exist …
    It appears Eck recently spoke at a private meeting of EU ambassadors in London. It was the sort of Chatham House event that occurs at certain levels of politics and diplomacy all the time – not everything heads of governments or their representatives say can be in the public domain.
    La Curran’s petulant response? ‘More secrecy from Alex Salmond … what has he got to hide?’
    The page in my Thesaurus with ‘pathetic’ on it is getting worn to tatters.

  11. CameronB says:

    @ Rev. Stuart Campbell
     
    Are you sure you meant the debate was both “leading” and “impartial”?

  12. Robyn - Quine fae Torry says:

    Despite voting for the SNP in recent elections, I was born and bred a Labour supporter (I was born and grew up on a street called Keir Hardie Street).  So, like a silly teenaged girl, I’ve carried a wee bit of hope in me that Labour will get its act together and we could rekindle the relationship.  However, in light of recent events: Anas Sarwar, Anne Begg not replying to my letter as a concerned constituent, and now this latest fiasco, I think I am now experiencing the final stage of grief: acceptance. No more going back and forward in my mind, no more emotional rollercoaster, no more chances.  I’m looking forward to organising the divorce party, and writing the break up song – any suggestions for a title?  “Get Fucked Stud” would be a contender if it wasn’t already taken.
     
     
     

  13. tartanfever says:

    Blimey, this is ridiculous. So what’s next ?
    Well for the Nazi’s they included such actions as deliberately burning down the Reichstag in a black flag operation to turn public opinion against the communists….
     
    Hopefully we won’t see that, but I’m sure we’ll have some more Dave ‘Nats put a brick through my front window‘ Maddox type stories.

  14. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Are you sure you meant the debate was both “leading” and “impartial”?”

    Oddly enough, I do:

    “According to the spokesman, the clerks who work in the Table Office, where MPs table motions and questions, refused to change the title back because the use of separate is “leading” and ­“impartial”.”

    I’ve added a “[sic]” to indicate the Scotsman’s error.

  15. Willie Zwigerland says:

    Robyn – Scottish Labour are continuing to do their best to push the “too stupid” canard.  

  16. frankieboy says:

    Lets just call it LYING because that is what it is. Its not impartial or biased. It is a LIE. The SNP may have complained but to say they are somehow at fault would be like saying the person that phoned the police to report a murder of which the offender is subsequently jailed is a grass.
    Its gangsterism, on an industrial scale and the Westminster bubble has its code for everything. Thick as thieves whilst sharpening their daggers. The distance between the benches is a calculated length and part of’tradition but so is walking in two’s with your opposite chum to listen to Matron reading her script.

  17. velofello says:

    @ Robyn – Quine fae Torry:
    I hope your Mammy doesn’t read your post G..F… S, Such language from a teenage girl!
    Seems to me that you have for some time been underwater swimming Labour political style. Vision a bit blurry, can’t hear anything,need to keep your mouth shut even when things around you are a bit fishy. 
    Now that you’ve surface you can take a deep breadth, talk, hear, and see things clearly.
    Not bad is it?
    song title – Surfacing to clear blue sky?

  18. Hetty says:

    Perhaps they think people are just automatons? They really are scraping the barrel here, lets hope everyone sees through their utter contempt for a decent intelligent debate.

  19. Davy says:

    Watching bairns throw their toys out of the pram suddenly comes to mind, but one of the great things about independence is Scotland will no longer have to pay for that bunch of scroungers in the House of Commons or Lords. Apart from our SNP MP’s the rest of the Scottish MP’s (labour) appear to have no inclination to put Scotland ahead of their own selfish natures. Just think of the money we will save not having to pay for that bunch of cringing Mp’s and lords, it cost 1bn to run Westminster and our share would be around 85million, you can build a few hospitals & schools and fill in the potholes every year with that type of money. Plus it would do more good for Scotland.
    Vote yes to get rid of the Westminster scroungers.
    Alba Gu snooker loopy!   

  20. BM says:

    They did the same thing in the Scottish Parliament with their debate on welfare/”freebies”, IIRC.

  21. Davy says:

    Robyn Quine fa torry,
    foo aboot ” A Lament for the Lamont’ables “, or ” Its all Ours, ‘Honestly’ “.
    Enough fa me.  

  22. cath says:

    I can’t decide whether it’s this is hilarious or so truly pathetic one shouldn’t laugh. So this apparently vitaldebate on the Royal Mail..intended to put the question to government about what independence would mean for a service that is vital to people across Scotland.”
    is cancelled because the title is changed to “the future of the Royal Mail in Scotland”, which sum up exactly what the debate was about? Just because the moronic numpties can’t get their favourite word “separate” in the title??? Then they accuse the SNP of stifling debate?
     
    For the love of all that is holy is there no way we can recall these people, or stop paying them or something? That is so mind-bogglingly unbelievable it’s almost beyond comprehension.
     
     
     

  23. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Most detailed info so far on Feb 23rd rally”

    I’m rather pissed off at having been suckered into promoting a gender-whinge agenda.

  24. FreddieThreepwood says:

    @ Robyn-Quine fae Torry
     
    The Yes Scotland website has film of Dennis Canavan revealing his painful journey from the unionist arms of Scottish Labour. Might help you …

  25. Mosstrooper says:

     Do not imagine that this visceral hatred from members of the labour party toward the SNP is recent. Over 50 years ago I was elected by my peers as shop steward. At a branch meeting of the union I was proposed as secretary only to have the proposal turned down by the chairman because I was not a member of the labour party. Indeed it was known that I was a nationalist. Fast forward 20 years and I was appointed by the members of my association to be their representative on COSLA.  About two weeks after this appointment I was told by the chairman that comments had been made about my suitability because of my membership of the SNP. and that ” for the sake of the association” the committee had appointed someone else.
    Never was there any comment about my ability or competence simply that I was a nationalist and a member of the SNP and therefore not a member of the Labour party.
    The above story is not to elicit sympathy or to bemoan my fate merely to point out that their hatred runs deep and has lasted long and is not likely to ameliorate as the referendom draws nearer and the polls begin to climb toward a yes vote.

  26. Doug Daniel says:

    Stu – what do you mean? Is it not a rally against the BBC refusing to provide proper balance in debates about independence?

  27. EdinScot says:

    This is certifiable stuff from Labour.  Blaming others for shutting down their own debate!  Welcome to our parallel universe here in Scotland in 2013, where the Unionist poliicos want to keep us shackled to their rotten decaying Westminster corpse whilst they force feed us their crazy talk otherwise known as horseshit.  Wont it be worth an X next to YES to never clap eyes on their like again and all of us to smell the fresh clean air of Independence as the choking smog finally lifts from our fine land.

  28. Eddie Dow says:

    slightly off topic, but on the same strain, I read an article in my local rag (printed by Johnstone press) about the upcoming cuts to the budget for Argyll and Bute, apparently the workers unions have approached the SG twice, and stated that while they know the block grant from Westminster is being cut, it was basically still the fault of the SG and the SNP led council that we face job losses and service cuts because they didn’t do anything about it and passed on the cuts! I couldn’t believe what I was reading, but then when I did a bit of digging, I found that the original complaint had come from the opposition, both labour and independent councilors here are trying to pin the cuts solely on the SG, despite the fact the SG have no real control over the amount of the block grant, and have even less money each year to distribute.
    I was trying to explain this to my wife, who has absolutely no interest in politics, and the easiest analogy I could come up with was this, Imagine that the power company switched off your electric supply, then told you that it was your fault you had no power because you were not using the switch properly, and when you called an electrician to fix the switch, he tells you again that it is your fault, not the power company, but no matter how you try to use the switch differently, nothing changed.
    It doesn’t matter how the SG try to juggle the money they are given by Westminster, cuts are inevitable when that income is cut every year, and the only way to avoid this is to skip the middle man (WM) send the tax revenues etc straight to the SG and let them spend it the way it should be spent, not on illegal wars and wmd’s etc.
    As far as the story about Labour throwing the toys out the pram, it is by no means a surprise, in the few places where Slab have either kept control or recovered control of the council office from SNP leadership, they are breaking their backs opposing, undoing, and undermining anything remotely related to an SNP policy.
    And, as the good folks of West Dunbartonshire will testify to, their labour run council are so dedicated to their electorate, that they barely work part time hours, never turn up for surgeries, and won’t even respond to emails from the very people who voted them back in over the SNP! and they expect those people to support them in their anti Independence efforts!!

  29. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Stu – what do you mean? Is it not a rally against the BBC refusing to provide proper balance in debates about independence?”

    “Those programmes that are broadcast are dominated by the same political parties and mostly male pundits, with little regard for balance.”

  30. H Scott says:

    Hitler actually condemned the Jews for using the ‘Big Lie’, he didn’t endorse it.
    Goebbels also condemned the English (probably meant British) for using the ‘Big Lie’ too:
    ‘The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.’

  31. Doug Daniel says:

    Oh, didn’t see that bit.

  32. Robyn - Quine Fae Torry says:

    @ Freddie Threepwood
     
    That was brilliant.  What an asset he is to the campaign.  It does make you wonder as well about these “radical students” back in the day at Glasgow uni; have all of them lost their backbone?  The ones he mentioned obviously have and the gravy train is just too tempting to them but the fact that their is a Labour for Independence group does make you wonder who else might come out in support for the Yes cause.  Although, maybe the examples he mentioned are secret independentistas because they are not exactly a hindrance to the Yes vote that is for sure. 

  33. Andrew S says:

    I like the idea of “Goebbelism”  and “Uber-Goebbelism”.  May I suggest taking a leaf from the Malcolm Tucker plhrasebook and having an “Omni-Goebbelism” .   That seems to capture nicely the whole MSM and Lab/Con/Lib tactics.  They’re engaged in an omni-goebbelism campaign.   Truth and honesty have no place in such a campaign. 
     

  34. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Hitler actually condemned the Jews for using the ‘Big Lie’, he didn’t endorse it.”

    See here, though:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie#Usage_in_Hitler.27s_psychological_profile

  35. Keith B says:

    I can understand why the SNP would want to do this – remove a pejorative word from the vocabulary of the debate.
     
    On the other hand it is not all a bit daft as separation is exactly what we are arguing for; the separation of a voluntary union of two recognised states with continuity of treaties with regard to each component part as well as continuity of membership of international organisations (as was the case with the United Arab Republic).
     
    Surely the SNP, if they are asking us, the public, to trust them with the nations future, should also trust the public enough that we have the ability to understand the nuances of the debate and should be hammering the “No’s” with the fact that they are running around using a word which they clearly have no understanding of its meaning and significance in terms of the independence debate.

  36. ianbrotherhood says:

    @Rev Stu –
    “Those programmes that are broadcast are dominated by the same political parties and mostly male pundits, with little regard for balance.”
    So, that one clause – which states a simple fact – reveals that the whole rally is driven by a ‘gender-whinge agenda’?
    Seriously?
    If there’s something fishy about the organisation behind this rally, please share.

  37. muttley79 says:

    I can’t help getting the feeling that the No campaign is less than united.  Too many things are occurring which suggests there are different agendas going on.  There is not enough evidence yet, but it does seem that Scottish Labour M.P.s are being set up for a fall.  They are acting in a most fear stricken way, and it cannot all be coming from the Yes campaign and Salmond.

  38. Cuphook says:

    Apparently the SNP Nazi dictatorship is one step closer. I know it’s only Twitter but I do find it useful for gauging the opposition. They seem to be panicking a bit today. 

  39. H Scott says:

    Rev
    I wasn’t arguing any virtue of the Nazis, simply that the way the ‘Big Lie’ is reported or commented on in the UK is itself a ‘Big Lie’. I can’t recall seeing anywhere in the English/British media, history books, etc where the first six words of Goebbels I quoted above is actually quoted, and the impression is always given that Hitler and/or Goebbels endorsed the ‘Big Lie’ rather than condemned it.

  40. Morag says:

    I feel the problem is less with “separation” than with “separatist”.  The phrase “separatist rebels” has been common in news reports, often acompanying tales of violence and shooting and blowing things up.  We all know these “separatists” are violent extremists who probably don’t wash either.  “Supporters of independence” is altogether too respectable.

  41. Jiggsbro says:

    Hitler actually condemned the Jews for using the ‘Big Lie’, he didn’t endorse it.
    Goebbels also condemned the English (probably meant British) for using the ‘Big Lie’ too.
    Hitler was condemning the Jews, certainly. He did that a lot. Goebbels was admiring of the English, not condemning. And both of them went on to endorse the principle by using it.

  42. muttley79 says:

    I think using the words ‘Separation’ and ‘Separatist’ immediately show that the person or organization using them is against independence (unless someone said it in irony).  These terms are deliberately used to attempt to de-legitimatise the overall cause, in our case Scottish independence.  It is usually used by the establishment of a state, politicians, media etc, to protect itself and its own power.  The terms also imply that those supporting change are extremists, or at least have the potential for extremism.  Therefore, the use of the terms can directly lead to propaganda and attempts at closing off debate.

  43. TamD says:

    A classic example of doubleshite. Heaping lies upon lies. BTs version of double speak

  44. Cuphook says:

    It looks like the Unionists have agreed on the line that the SNP are Nazis. It’s amazing how quickly Labour apparatchiks can agree with Tories.
     
    As we laugh the Unionists will be busy Googling synonyms for ‘separatist’ – perhaps we should open a book on what the new scare word will be. Any ideas?      

  45. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “So, that one clause – which states a simple fact – reveals that the whole rally is driven by a ‘gender-whinge agenda’?”

    I didn’t say the “whole rally was driven by” it, I said “promoting” it. Why is it relevant? Is the march about political balance or gender balance? There is no connection between the two.

  46. Training Day says:

    @Morag
    Correct, the BBC allow Labour in Scotland to use the ‘separatist’ term (and Lamont does it every week at FMQs) as it conjures up images of violence and bloodshed.
    There’s a study here somewhere about how the BBC interchanges ‘separatists’, ‘insurgents’, ‘rebels’ and ‘freedom fighters’ depending on how friendly/unfriendly a state is seen to be to Western interests.

  47. ianbrotherhood says:

    Rev, sorry, but it’s a bit of a stretch to even say that any ‘agenda’ is being promoted – all that achieves is provide some with a half-baked excuse not to attend: ‘It’s thae feminists behind this so I’ll no’ bother after all…’
    Perhaps the ‘gender’ debate is one worth having elsewhere, but right now it just muddies the waters. It IS irrelevant to this rally, which is why I’m baffled that you brought it up at all. 

  48. Barontorc says:

    O/T but I think worth saying that the whole broadcasting world and print media seems to be remarkably shtum since Moore’s howler of a publication hit the streets and we were told that we Scots, Welsh and N Irish are all English as UK-ers.
    Isn’t it just amazing to see the ‘Mrs McClafferty’s cat syndrome’ enacted so quickly to bury bad news.
    Can just imagine the edict from Boorman to his BBC apparatchiks being hastily drafted and covered with phlem and no small teardrops!

  49. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “It IS irrelevant to this rally,”

    The organisers don’t seem to agree.

  50. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “O/T but I think worth saying that the whole broadcasting world and print media seems to be remarkably shtum since Moore’s howler of a publication hit the streets and we were told that we Scots, Welsh and N Irish are all English as UK-ers.”

    Mm. I just did a search of the Record and Sun, and couldn’t find a single (relevant) occurence of the word “extinguished” in either one, which is a little odd.

  51. james morton says:

    The problem with the big lie is that for it succeed you must shield people from the truth and stifle dissent, for truth is the mortal enemy of the lie. Paraprhasing Dr Goebells, but it does highlight a major problem for the better together camp.
    Once you start down this road creating a narrative fallacy to drape around your negative campaigning, you can’t go back. Nor can you change tack or approach regardless of events. As reality butts in, as it always does, the lie seems more and more absurd. For instance the whole SNP stifles debate attack after the commons upheld a complaint about the name of the debate. Anyone reading the “scoop” quickly realises that there was in fact, no scoop to be had, and end up wondering what labour have been smoking.
    Look what happened with their tall boy bomb that was supposed to sink the referendum altogether. Instead it became clear that Cameron and moore dropped it on their own flagship instead. Result – the release did not have the effect intended, but the need to promote the lie requires them to carry on as if it had. People can pick up on the disconnect between what they intended, and what actually happened. Further events have also pushed it to the back pages of the news cycle rendering it useless.
    Each attack they make is swatted down, usually by themselves at times. So they obfuscate and divert attention, make jokes etc etc, as they look about in panic for something new to keep the lie afloat.
    Remember also, that this advice they released was meant to be their secret weapon. They used it and blew it. They have nothing else than rehashed & warmed up leftovers from their previous campaigns. Or they play numberwang with statistics to make increasingly bizaare and surreal claims that reek of panic.

  52. H Scott says:

    Jiggsboro
     
    Goebbels was not endorsing the English use of the ‘Big Lie’, his words that I quoted show that. That is my final comment on the matter.

  53. Macart says:

    I take it there has been no Labour MPs sticking their collective heads above the trenches to answer the most obvious of questions?
    Do you agree that Scotland should be extinguished? I mean Mundell was happy enough to confirm his stance on that, how about those brave wee Labour soldiers in Westminster? What pile of crap will they come up with to justify that position I wonder?

  54. ianbrotherhood says:

    @Rev Stu –
    ‘The organisers don’t seem to agree.’
    Fair enough. That’s your take on it. Maybe I’m being suckered too, but I’ll give the organisers the benefit of the doubt and hope others do too – if I see any evidence of a ;’gender-whinge agenda’ I’ll ensure you get full details.

  55. CameronB says:

    @ ianbrotherhood
     
    Do you think I should carry on with a petition, or would that be harmful to the Campaign for Balanced Broadcasting in Scotland effort?

  56. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

    “Goebbels was not endorsing the English use of the ‘Big Lie’, his words that I quoted show that. “

    Accusing your opponents of doing the thing YOU’RE doing is a central component of Big Lie strategy. Look at “Better Together” last week trying to tell people YesScotland were the ones doing the negative campaigning.

  57. ianbrotherhood says:

    @Cameron –
    I’m really not the person to ask right now – I keep catching glimpses of thinly-disguised agendas and getting horrible flashbacks sparked by the stench of ulterior motives. Perhaps you should ask someone who hasn’t been duped into acting as a useful conduit for radical feminist subversives. (smiley)

  58. CameronB says:

    It is a bit of an early start for those of us who don’t live near Glasgow. Suppose its too late to put the start back an hour or two. 😉

  59. Albalha says:

    As posted elsewhere, I’ve just heard Cathy Jamieson use ‘separation’ during Scottish Q’s …. is that permissable now?

  60. Jiggsbro says:

    Goebbels was not endorsing the English use of the ‘Big Lie’, his words that I quoted show that.
    The words you quoted were an entirely neutral description of the principle, which neither condemned nor endorsed it and therefore show nothing other than that he was aware of it. It was Goebbels’ later adoption of the principle which serves as his endorsement. It isn’t unreasonable to use his later endorsement to shed light on an otherwise neutral prior comment. In any event, the tactic existed before Nazism and persisted after Nazism. Linking the two generally allows the Big Liar to divert attention from the lie and onto Godwin’s Law, and is therefore unhelpful. Equally, denying the link allows suspicions to be raised. The whole subject is toxic and it’s generally better to simply highlight the lie (and the truth), rather than highlighting the lying itself.

  61. H Scott says:

    ‘The words you quoted were an entirely neutral description of the principle,’
     
    No they were not. Any literate person could only read those words as an endorsement.
     
    Goebbels:
    ‘Good propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that people cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be successful in the long run.’

  62. Barontorc says:

    Crivens and Jings – to me a lie is told by someone who knows the truth but says the opposite to delude the listener. It’s not a lie to repeat something you believe to be true.
    For instance I can say quite categorically that “Unless it is YES Scotland, it will be NO Scotland”, which on the face of it is gibberish, but not to me. To me, it is a true statement of fact.
    The truth is, we will be subsumed to the point of being extinguished, if we vote to accept what the UK /England will do to us, as their way ahead. With alarming contempt UK Gov use ‘extinguished’ as acceptable terminology. Cat and bag, foot and mouth, this is respect?
    For Moore and Cameron to say Scotland is better in the UK, is from the Scottish perspective a wild and emphatic lie, but from a UK/English perspective it is true without Scotland the UK will suffer economically and it’s much better for them that Scotland remains. And this is to their sole benefit. All indicators show Scotland will negatively prosper if remaining part of the union.  
    What Moore and Cameron say is true from the UK’s perspective, but to us Scots,and I include all Scottish unionists as that, these are lies, simply lies against Scotland.
    The only way we can be assured of our future as a country, is to put our all into the bag of those who care for Scotland alone and who truthfully will go forward to secure that.  

  63. Tamson says:

    I expect we’ll hear a fair bit from McKenzie in the runup to the referendum. He’s the political nonentity who got elected in the Inverclyde by-election in 2011, having previously been the leader of the local council (a Lab-Con coalition, which trailblazed the way for the numerous such “keep the SNP out” stitchups which happened in 2012).
     
    Mr McKenzie will of course be desperate to retain the Union, because he has no abilities at all, other than fighting to keep his snout in the trough. He represents the only area in Scotland which is, in a sense, dying: Inverclyde was the only part of Scotland to see a net population decrease in the last census. It’s also an area high in poverty, crime, and drug abuse, whilst being low in aspiration, hope, and vision: natural Labour territory.
     
    The prominence of Scottish by-election winners in Labour history is an interesting subject: those perceived as having “stopped the Nats in their tracks” seem to attain a certain mystique in the Westminster village, whatever their actual ability. There was Donald Dewar, of course, the vile Helen Liddell, and Douglas Alexander too. Willie Bain even managed to attach his name to one of Westminster’s more pathetic examples of politics before people.

  64. Chic McGregor says:

    Apologies for repeating a post made elsewhere but this article is a more appropriate place for it.
     
    Having always believed that Scotland was a clearly delineated country, the situation for me had been one of merely changing constitutional status back to independence and that therefore usage of terms like ‘separatists’ were wholly inappropriate.

    [As compared to less well defined areas like the Basque region (part of which I believe is in France) where they would be separating out a brand new country.]

    It is therefore ironic that with the recent revelation that Scotland is just a region of Greater England (yeah right!), they should choose to bar the usage now.

    Or – conspiracy hat on – could this be seen as an attempt to re-bottle that genie by the UK government?

  65. Baheid says:

    FD Roosevelt “The Fala Speech” its on utube about 3mins in.
    Talks about ‘the big lie’ and quotes Mien Kampf, (hope thats how you spell it).

  66. Jiggsbro says:

    No they were not. Any literate person could only read those words as an endorsement.
     
    And yet, earlier, you were saying those same words showed that he was not endorsing it. The fact is, the words you quote make no judgement whatsoever on the Big Lie. Any literate and impartial person, seeking to come to a conclusion rather than to reinforce one, could see that. But your defence of Goebbels is way off-topic. Whether he would have approved or not, the English (read ‘Westminster’) are still practising the Big Lie and it’s still working. Except, it seems, with younger people, who are more likely to find their own news from multiple, on-line sources rather than relying on the MSM.

  67. CameronB says:

    I thought the Big Lie was about how the Jews were destroying Germany. Not my interpretation, but Hitler’s. Not really relevant here, except in terms of the destructive implications of continual repetition.

  68. alasdair says:

    Incredibly I’ve heard this story reported on the BBC Radio Scotland earlier this evening!  Repeating the lie … I was so astonished I got up from my dinner and turned the sound up all the whilst exclaiming loudly to my bemused children about it :-/

  69. CameronB says:

    Further to my previous post, scrub that thought about it not being relevant. It is, in terms of the similarity of methodology – scale of lie and repetition.

  70. Chic McGregor says:

    Just to clarify, the reasons I gave for not attending the rally on the 23rd (which were removed by NNS) were nothing to do with gender politics. 
    I subsequently challenged their action and that post was eventually removed as well, but some here may have seen that post and thought it too was because of gender politics.  It was not, I only read about that aspect of the rally here for the first time. Just felt I should make that clear.
    I have no idea why they objected to me airing my reasons, other than perhaps they thought those reasons might dissuade others. 
    My reasons were I believe not at all sinister in fact quite innocuous or so they seemed to me. However, just in case they may be correct and justified in thinking they might put others off, then I will not repeat my reasons here as I have no desire to do that. 

  71. mogabee says:

    “Just to clarify”
     
     Hell, now I am intrigued! You can tell me……..honest! I won’t tell anyone else!!!

    (only jesting obviously!)

  72. ianbrotherhood says:

    @Chic McGregor –
    Please man, please please let’s not fan this one any more – I’ve already been in a big bad mood with Rev earlier today over this…it’s your shout, aye, but sometimes there’s a lot to be said for saying nothing at all. I still have skelp-marks from a recent ‘learning experience’ at the hands of an irate Rev when I did something similar. 
    Gang canny mister! (smiley)

  73. Chic McGregor says:

    @mogabee
    It is not worth being intrigued by it.  It is just a slight difference in policy.  It is not anything else.  I know the organiser and have communicated with him and he entirely understands my position and I understand his.  Furthermore I acknowledge that he may be right and indeed I hope he is right I would love him to be right. I am also sure that if things were instead to be as I wish he would also hope that he was wrong. That is the way those of us who want Scotland to have normal levels of self-government are. We all have the same aim.   
    Furthermore, the people at NNS are intelligent pro-independence people.  While it is always annoying to have posts deleted, upon reflection you can usually see at least where they are coming from.  In this case, I think it may be that they think my views may have dissuaded others.  I don’t think so personally, because already others I know have independently come to the same view.  It is by no means a rocket science type thing.  However, in deference to their track record I will not repeat my view anywhere else, as they may well be right.
     

  74. Chic McGregor says:

    @ianbrotherhood  As you can see from my last post I HAVE resolved to saying nothing, however I did not want anyone thinking it had anything to do with the gender politics theme under this article.  I think that issue has been blown out of proportion.

  75. ianbrotherhood says:

    @Chic McGregor –
    Understood. 
    Slainte.

  76. Atypical_Scot says:

    I’m fairly certain that the Better annexed campaign will employ their master genius law advisers to prove that the union of the crowns in 1606 ‘certainly’ extinguished Scotland’s crown and therefore an independent Scotland cannot have a ‘Royal’ Mail.
    Should Scotland remain annexed by England?



Comment - new users please read this page first for commenting rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use the live preview box. Include paragraph breaks or I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




↑ Top