Exciting new product range
Posted on
October 08, 2012 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
We’re figuring out, painfully slowly, how the painfully slow CafePress website works, and to celebrate somehow navigating our way through another horrendous maze of contradictory menus we’ve got another set of splendid items which, if purchased in sufficient numbers, will GUARANTEE Scottish independence or your money back.
Click the image to visit the new section of the store. Money-back guarantee only applicable if Scotland fails to achieve independence within 30 days.
I got my bag the other day. Love it.
Ach, I’d love to get my hands on some of that gear, Rev Stu. Unfortunately I’m in Shanghai and for some reason the CafePress site has run foul of the Great Firewall of China. One of these days I’ll get a VPN sorted out and put a big order in. Promise.
The tote bag wasn’t quite the shape I was expecting (wanted it longer and narrower than it is), but actually it’s just about right for my recorder roll, music stand and sheet music. The recorder class is going to get an eyefull.
I’m using the “we’ll take it from here” mug and the “a hundred of us” mouse mat at work. I had the “all our base” sweatshirt on at the weekend.
You know, this stuff if so cool you should advertise it more widely.
I’m thinking sets. Mugs, glasses, coasters and so on. One of each, or perm any four….
@Morag
or an AYeful. I’d quite like to see more things with Aye or Yes on them – to work at a subliminal level – plays on the word “eye”, e.g. Aye Candy. Aye to Aye,
‘Neoliberal’ field bag and ‘All our Base’ hipflask ordered!
Perfect for my January walk up the old ‘Waverley’ line!
Cheers Stu!
That image above makes a good desktop background!
It would make for a good bit of publicity from anyone that works in a big office or the like.
Any chance of a “I was just thinking” mug. Jeannie’s quip some days back still makes me smile – grimly. With + 40 years of marriage under my belt when my wife starts with ” I was just…”, I think Awe naw, and now of Jeannie with “the light brown hair(?).
“Money-back guarantee only applicable if Scotland fails to achieve independence within 30 days.”
Think you might have that one the wrong way round! Seems unlikely that we’ll get independence by 7 November 2012! – and if we don’t, you’re going to have to give everyone their money back!
Alternatively – you didn’t say from which date the 30 days start.
You been taking lessons from the Unionists in double-speak?
why’s the annoyed wildcat attacking scandanivia? and turning it’s back on canada and the usa?
the unionists will be harsher and less lucid critics;-)
I’ll have to get something from your store at some point, although I might just increase my PayPal subscription fee instead since the t-shirts all seem to be white (and I have a thing about white t-shirts!)
By the way, I was looking through your Twitter conversations with certain people tonight, and it suddenly struck me how far more likely non-politicos are to be persuaded by arguments that you put forward than those of folk who keep wrapping the independence debate up with their own pet projects. Especially ones who have spent years participating in political campaigning and have thus lost sight somewhat of what it is that matters to those who don’t vote. If these people’s arguments haven’t gotten folk off their arses to vote in elections, why should they prompt people to bother voting in a referendum?
As I say, just a thought…
@Velofello
It’s ok, Velofello. Mr. Jeannie regularly inflicts his own version of psychological warfare with the phrase, “I’ll do it in a minute” – by which he means, roughly, never! Maybe that would make a good t-shirt or mug for the No Campaign – “Vote Yes? – I’ll do it in a minute”
I kind of like, “Vote Yes? – in a heartbeat!”
Like the idea of more “AYE”-based stuff. In other news, currently toying with “RUTH DAVIDSON THINKS I’M WORTHLESS”…
“I’ll have to get something from your store at some point, although I might just increase my PayPal subscription fee instead since the t-shirts all seem to be white (and I have a thing about white t-shirts!)”
Much prefer black myself, but CafePress’ prices for black Ts are so insane that it’d make more economic sense just to buy people’s votes directly.
“By the way, I was looking through your Twitter conversations with certain people tonight, and it suddenly struck me how far more likely non-politicos are to be persuaded by arguments that you put forward than those of folk who keep wrapping the independence debate up with their own pet projects. Especially ones who have spent years participating in political campaigning and have thus lost sight somewhat of what it is that matters to those who don’t vote. If these people’s arguments haven’t gotten folk off their arses to vote in elections, why should they prompt people to bother voting in a referendum?”
Mm. It’s particularly dismaying when people insist on forcing issues through the prism of their own bugbears, as happened last night. I retweeted something this morning from Scot Goes Pop which was especially depressing in terms of someone acting in the most obviously, ludicrously irrational way imaginable because the need to have a kneejerk-obsessive’s reaction has robbed them of any grip on sanity.
That’s what I mean when I describe Wings Over Scotland’s goal as “intelligent tabloid”. It doesn’t just refer to a style of writing, but an attempt to relate to what normal folk care about rather than just us politics nerds. It’s why I try not to publish stuff that’s just partisan ranting, and it’s why I highlighted the Scotsman’s poll on Ed Miliband becoming Prime Minister.
If you read the papers or watch the politics shows, the universal view is that his conference speech was a complete game-changer. Yet realistically, what proportion of the country will ever actually watch it? 1%? And even most of them will have already made their minds up in advance. The Scotsman poll shows the reality, and the fact that the paper ignores what its readers keep telling it is, I’m certain, a significant part of why its circulation is plunging down the toilet.
Yeah, I’m currently commenting on the same Edinburgh Eye blog as James Kelly. I’ve gotten her to move from calling Alex Neil a misogynist to admitting that maybe he’s just ignorant, so that’s a start. I’m not sure why I’m bothering though, because this is a person who accused a rape victim of being a #rapeapologist because the person was defending Julian Assange.
It seems ironic that someone should fling around terms like “bigot” in such a bigoted manner. Is labelling someone a misogynist because he holds particular views about abortion any better than labelling someone a man-hater for trying to argue for basic women’s rights? Apparently it is, presumably because she’s in the right and everyone else is wrong.
And she then has the cheek to moan about people not doing enough to win her over to independence. Why should people waste their energy trying to convince someone who so clearly thinks everyone should think like they do?
Anyone that has been involved in leftie politics for any length of time will become familiar with the “purity fights” when they all go to extremes to show how purer than others they are.
in fact, they do other things usually seen elsewhere with hipsters and bands, where they claim to have been in it longer than you, and will go off them in great, theatrical flounces.
“The Burd” and Edinburgheye are two such individuals
You have a point there Erchie – the last time The Burd deigned to reply to one of my comments on her blog (thus I rarely bother these days), it was to basically tell me that I had less right to voice an opinion in the SNP than folk who had been in it for decades. Similarly, I noticed her pulling the old “how many doors have you chapped?” type line against Stu on Twitter last night.
It is very, very similar to the “I was into the Manics BEFORE they turned rubbish – you only started liking them because of The Drinking Song” arguments I used to see folk getting involved in on Manics forums when I was a teenager.
(Okay, okay, maybe I took part in a few too…)
However, EE’s main problem is she seems to have decided she is right and anyone who disagrees is not just wrong, but also a misogynistic bastard. And if you try to reason with her, you’re a misogynistic bastard too. She doesn’t stop to think about why people have reached a particular point of view and that perhaps you’re just coming at it from a different angle from she is – you simply hate women.
It’s a great way to encourage informed debate…
The Burd is forever trying to push this “organic” rubbish as well. Ask her how she would like to be a sick lamb, and told she can’t have any medicine because that’s evil chemicals, and she gets very huffy. Point out that the organic movement actively encourages farmers to treat sick animals with sugar pills instead of actual medicine, and she changes the subject.
You’re OK on there as long as you agree with her. Otherwise, not so much.
“You’re OK on there as long as you agree with her. Otherwise, not so much.”
Oh, you don’t have to tell ME that…
“However, EE’s main problem is she seems to have decided she is right and anyone who disagrees is not just wrong, but also a misogynistic bastard. And if you try to reason with her, you’re a misogynistic bastard too.”
Aye. It was especially impressive to see some poor sod who’d said that women should have the right to unrestricted abortion on demand get lumped with the “misogynist” tag. Quite a leap, that one.
@Doug Daniel,
This debate has got out of hand. It’s one thing to question Alex Neil’s judgement in giving his personal opinion – and we’ve had the argument about that – but to accuse him, or anyone who defends him, of being misogynist, and of setting the abortion debate back by decades, is taking us into the realms of the madhouse. I notice that on Twitter, as well as elsewhere, these people have now moved the ‘debate’ on to Neil being a right-wing reactionary and stating that his comments have aroused their suspicions that he’s done a secret deal on abortion with the Catholic church!
I don’t understand Edinburgh Eye’s position at all. She’s clearly an angry woman. But to use Neil’s comment as a reason for voting No in the referendum strikes me as the most disingenuous reason I’ve ever heard from any prospective No voter to justify their position. Even if the position she attributes to Alex Neil was correct (which it isn’t), her line that she’ll be voting No because she doesn’t want to live in a country with Neil as Health Secretary is so obviously self-defeating given that a No vote would give her Jeremy Hunt as Health Secretary. Although I’m no cheerleader for the SNP, Alex Neil is a much better choice as a Health Secretary than Jeremy Hunt, there’s no debate there.
As for Kate Higgins? Unfortunately, one of the downsides of the blogosphere is that it often encourages people, in the absence of any peer review, to develop much too high an opinion of themselves, and their opinions – present company excepted Stuart! But she’s harmless and unthreatening which, I suspect, is one of the reasons that the MSM seem to like her.
“develop much too high an opinion of themselves, and their opinions – present company excepted Stuart!”
Oh, I definitely have much too high an opinion of myself and my opinions. Luckily nobody ever listens to me so it doesn’t matter.
So some folk prefer to vote No because they want a 12 week limit?
I’m extracting the urine, but following ‘their’ logic.
@Rev Stuart Campbell,
Is that you fishing for compliments again? OK, I’ll bite only this far: no-one would accuse you of being “harmless and unthreatening”.
“I don’t understand Edinburgh Eye’s position at all. She’s clearly an angry woman. But to use Neil’s comment as a reason for voting No in the referendum strikes me as the most disingenuous reason I’ve ever heard from any prospective No voter to justify their position”
Right this is turning into some sort of bitchfest, but fuck it.
I’m getting sick of seeing her describe herself as an undecided voter but constantly moaning that the Yes side aren’t doing enough to win her vote. Everything seems to be a fucking excuse for voting “no”, as if the entire Yes campaign is supposed to bend over backwards to accommodate her precise vision of Scotland (which she never actually articulates) just to get her one, solitary vote on board. It’s like some beautiful woman giving you a list of challenges to perform to win her hand in marriage, telling you that you can’t afford even the slightest mistake, only to reach the end and find she’s gone off with the toe-rag next door after all. Well fuck it, vote no. We don’t need 100% yes to win.
“As for Kate Higgins? Unfortunately, one of the downsides of the blogosphere is that it often encourages people, in the absence of any peer review, to develop much too high an opinion of themselves, and their opinions – present company excepted Stuart! But she’s harmless and unthreatening which, I suspect, is one of the reasons that the MSM seem to like her”
I suspect one of the main reasons the MSM like her is she’s more than willing to stick the knife into the SNP, which is curious given her long history with the party. To be fair, they’re being consistent here – they like Ian Smart too as they think he’s a pro-Labour blogger who isn’t scared to criticise his own party. That’s fine, there is absolutely nothing wrong with critical voices, and in fact they’re absolutely crucial to avoiding complacency. The problem comes when such people start getting congratulated more by opponents than their own lot, and take this as confirmation that they’re succeeding in not being partisan.
There seems to be a little section of the Twittersphere that takes great pride in attracting kudos from the likes of Duncan Hothersall, folk who criticise meaningless policy positions to make it look like they’re not partisan, and then encourage opponents to be more and more critical of their own party, in the name of being a “rational Nationalist”, or whatever. The folk who get caught up in this think they’re a cut above the likes of us on here, but they’re fooling themselves.
It’s all one big circle jerk.
Bitchfest, you said it.
A small handful of unreconstructed 70s feminists who equate abortion with “reproductive health”. No, you freaking morons, reproductive health is sexually transmitted diseases, and cancers of the reproductive tract, and fertility, and a lot of stuff like that. Abortion is something else.
They shouldn’t be so confident that every single woman wants nothing more from a society than free abortion (right up to term?) on demand, no questions asked. They shouldn’t be so confident that every woman in the bloody country thinks of nothing more than a possible unwanted pregnancy, and whether she’ll be able to abort it right up to five-and-a-half months gestation.
I would never, never presume to criticise another woman’s choice in this matter, because I have had friends who have had abortions and I know the grief and soul-searching that came with the decision. It’s hard enough without meddling busybodies butting in with their dogma. However, at the same time I’m very uncomfortable with the whole subject. A healthy pregnancy is a wonderful gift. Many women would give literally all they have for that. Women’s natural instinct is to want to preserve infant life whenever possible. Women in general are not unambiguously pro-abortion in principle.
Why are these unreconstructed 70s feminists so aerated about the “right” to late-term abortion, anyway? It’s not a cure for failed contraception. If that happens, the abortion is much earlier. The VAST majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. There are few, and quite specific, reasons for later procedures. Non-viable or severely handicapped foetus. Rape victim in denial. Life-threatening illness of the mother that makes carrying the pregnancy to term too dangerous. That sort of thing.
This is actually quite rare. I wouldn’t be in favour of preventing these procedures, but we have to be clear what we’re talking about. A fairly rare procedure necessary to address specific problems. Are these wimmen really getting all aerated about the independence debate over a handful of difficult medical situations?
Or do they really think, honestly, that they should have the absolute right to abort a healthy, normal five-and-a-half month foetus if they just didn’t get round to it earlier? That’s what they really, really want? More than anything else, from an independent Scotland?
These people seem to live in a very strange place I don’t recognise. I suspect most of them are post-menopausal anyway. Well, let them vote no. This woman says, hell mend them. And if they find themselves in a UK where the Tory government has reduced the legal abortion limit to 12 weeks, serve them bloody well right.
@Doug Daniel,
I suspect that you’re saying here what a lot of other people are thinking. The only point I’d add is that people like EE can position themselves in the manner that you’ve outlined here because of the perception (real or imagined) that the Yes campaign has a ‘problem’ in attracting female voters. In effect, it’s a form of opportunism if you think about it. That’s why they can’t believe their luck when, on occasions like the present, they can make a spurious association between independence and an issue like abortion, it provides an issue on which they feel they can speak with greater authority, hence their propensity to inflate it as an issue. But I’m with you:
“Well fuck it, vote no. We don’t need 100% to win”.
On Kate Higgins, I don’t know that much about her – I don’t use Twitter myself – though, of course, I’ve seen her on the telly. She strikes me as being reasonably competent and I can’t think of anything to add to that. That’s a good point that you make, though, about her and Ian Smart.
@Morag,
I think that the polls Stuart has cited on another thread demonstrate that women are divided on abortion. I don’t think that the importance of women’s reproductive health can be overstated but as you know the issue for most radical feminists is reproductive rights. I have to say, I’m with the radical feminists on this one – as both a lapsed Catholic and a socialist I would say that! – but at the same time it has to be acknowledged that you’re probably speaking for half the women in the country.
It is true that the vast majority of abortions are conducted in the first trimester – it’s 91 per cent – and there’s the rub. It’s this statistic that provides the window for people like Jeremy Hunt to start the process – and for them it will be a process – of infringing women’s reproductive rights.
I don’t know if these women are menopausal but my real fear on this issue is that contained in your closing sentence. The right is in the ascendant in England, and not just in the Labour and Tory parties. For anyone in Scotland who is genuinely concerned to protect women’s reproductive rights, not to mention a wide range of other issues, this is bad news. But, this time, unlike the 1980s and 1990s, we have the chance in 2014 to vote Yes and do something about it. This time, we don’t have to be spectators at Scotland’s decline.
The idea of killing a healthy five-and-a-half-month foetus appals me.
The idea of forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she doesn’t want appals me.
What I don’t understand is how this appalling dilemma can be turned into a shouting match about “reproductive rights”. It’s a horrendous situation no matter which way you slice it. Either result is a bad one. A mature debate about how we can avoid anyone actually getting into this situation in the first place might be a good place to start.
@Morag,
“A mature debate about how we can avoid anyone actually getting into this situation in the first place might be a good place to start”.
I can’t see why anyone would disagree with this but, like it or not, women in Scotland and other countries do get into this situation, and we can debate it all we want but I can’t see how, realistically, we can eliminate it. Given that, the mature debate that you refer to must, at some point, move on to the issue of women’s reproductive rights.
I’m not disputing that. But when it gets to the point of various women shouting that they’ll vote against independence unless they have the absolute right to abort a healthy five-and-a-half month pregnancy on a whim, as if it was the same sort of thing as having the right to pierce their ears or tattoo their shoulders, then somebody’s priorities need rearranging.
And that’s even before we note that the UK Health Minister is actively campaigning for a 12-week limit.
@Morag,
If there is anyone out there who does treat abortion with the same seriousness as they do a tattoo or an ear-piercing, then I’m with you all the way on that one. As for the “shouting women” you refer to, maybe we should remember that, often, the people who shout the loudest are the people who have the least to shout about.
Morag – EE does indeed think there is a case for having no limit on abortions whatsoever. It brings up interesting issues – could a woman really abort her baby just as she’s going into labour, for instance? Sounds ridiculous, but that’s what having no limit means. There are things about abortion that I don’t understand, and that’s mainly because we’re never allowed to talk about it, lest it magically leads to pro-lifers getting it banned. At what stage do we define a foetus to be a “proper” baby, and is that definition due to medical or moral issues?
I’ve never given abortion much thought, since it’s not something which has affected me so far. I didn’t even know what the limit was until this story came out. But ironically, it’s this attempt to shut down debate which has led me to feel the need to find a position on this. I can’t help feeling their over-reaction is completely counter-productive, because suddenly there will be people questioning whether they DO agree with a 24 week limit after all.
And above all, you look across the different laws around Europe, and there’s no real consistency (except that even Jeremy Hunt’s 12 week figure is suddenly put into perspective.) But one thing that DOES seem quite common is a much shorter period than the UK (12 – 18 weeks) but with the proviso that abortions can still be carried out later on if the foetus is found to have abnormalities. It’s interesting that Norway, the best place in the world to be a woman supposedly, has a 12 week soft limit, an 18 week hard limit, and then allows for special circumstances thereafter.
The main thing is, if 24 weeks is truly the right limit, then surely it would remain so, even after public debate? Why can’t the issue even be brought up without calls for resignations?
YesYesYes – I can’t disagree with you. As much as I hope Scotland is a far more female-friendly nation post-independence than it is now (although it’s already better than England and many other places), I don’t want independence becoming nothing more than vessel for various radical feminist ideas that end up putting off more than they attract.
It’s always interested me that people are chastised for talking about there being such things as “women’s issues” because we’re told that ALL issues are women’s issues. Except for abortion, apparently. “Oh no, you chaps leave that to the lassies instead of wading in with your muckle great boots…” (Kate Higgins is particularly vocal about what she sees as Alex Salmond’s gender-stereotypes for ministerial roles – health and kids for women, economics and justice for men – and yet Alex Neil is being criticised partly for being a middle-aged man. He can’t win…) All this is part of trying to explain why women are put off independence, although one of Lalland Peat Worrier’s recent blogs exposed the myth behind that “phenomenon”.
One thing I’ll say about the Women For Independence grouping (which I backed wholeheartedly at first): my sister identifies herself as a feminist, and is in favour of independence. She considers a group aimed specifically at women to be patronising. Who knows, maybe it’s really just some Entryist group, like Labour used to get with the Trotskyites in the 80s… Okay, I’m going into conspiracy theories now, better stop.
I joined them, just to see. Nothing to see so far. If they start on about abortion rights, I’ll unjoin.
I remember years ago we were being told the SNP only did so well because all the women were voting for Alex Salmond’s big brown puppy-dog eyes.
Yes, really.
Ha ha! As a matter of fact, my sister’s main reason for voting for the SNP in 2007 was because “Alex Salmond has a happy face.” Which, along with the fact my mum thinks he’s great, is why I’ve always been sceptical about the “women hate Salmond” idea.
@Doug Daniel,
As you know, there is a downside to this. How many times have you read or heard in the MSM the absurd point that ‘Alex Salmond’ is seeking to win ‘his’ referendum in 2014! When you encounter this, or variants of it, as you often do, it leaves you with the impression that if there’s a Yes vote in 2014 it’s only Alex Salmond that will win his independence, the rest of us, it seems, will be left in some kind of free-floating twilight zone.
Although I’m not a huge fan of the SNP, it’s at times like this that I do recall the work that was done by earlier generations of SNP members who worked tirelessly to keep independence on the agenda. We all laugh at Scottish Labour now, a bit like the Lib Dems, but in those early days, it wasn’t as fashionable to do this. But they did it and faced the wrath of what was once a well-oiled Scottish Labour spin machine as a consequence. I suppose if there is one important difference between Scottish Labour and the Lib Dems today, it amounts to little more than the point that at least the Lib Dems still have a few principles left!
This is where something Cammers said might be an advantage. He spoke about the Westminster government delivering a “people’s referendum”. Quite what he meant by that is anybody’s guess, as it appears that the Scottish government has achieved 100% of what it set out to achieve (even the votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, which may have been intended as the non-deal-breaker sacrifice). And even if you accept the fairy-story that Cammers has denied the second question, er, wasn’t it the very people themselves who were demanding a second question?
Nevertheless, if he’s trying to position this as the referendum somehow being taken away from Alex Salmond and gifted to the people, isn’t that just what we want?
“I suspect one of the main reasons the MSM like her is she’s more than willing to stick the knife into the SNP, which is curious given her long history with the party. To be fair, they’re being consistent here – they like Ian Smart too as they think he’s a pro-Labour blogger who isn’t scared to criticise his own party. That’s fine, there is absolutely nothing wrong with critical voices, and in fact they’re absolutely crucial to avoiding complacency. The problem comes when such people start getting congratulated more by opponents than their own lot, and take this as confirmation that they’re succeeding in not being partisan.”
This is precisely right. But while Smart slags off Labour occasionally, Higgins seems to have spent almost all of the last six months giving the SNP a booting rather than the Unionists. Which is fair enough if that’s what she feels most like blogging about, but to then have her as the representative of the nationalist side on TV shows is problematic.
While I commend the awesomeness of the apparel would it not have been more fitting to have a Scottish company produce it?
“While I commend the awesomeness of the apparel would it not have been more fitting to have a Scottish company produce it?”
You find me one providing the service CafePress does, I’ll use it in a heartbeat.
I’ll put my feelers out on Twitter and see what I can come up with!