Our friends, in the South
It’s tempting to be taken in by the performances of Westminster politicians when they come to Scotland. David Cameron was full of self-effacement and humility in Edinburgh last week, and Michael Moore talks in soft and moderate tones of seeking only to “help” the Scottish Government whenever he speaks to the Scottish media. But if you want to see how our partners in the Union REALLY feel about us, it’s best to watch how they behave when they’re safely back at home.
The contempt for Scotland, and the Scottish Government in particular, just leaps off the screen. The Secretary of State for Scotland is supposed to be Scotland’s man in the government, not the government’s man in Scotland. It’s a post that the Lib Dems said they would abolish altogether in their 2010 manifesto (which is doubtless why in 2012 the job is not only still in existence under the coalition, but occupied by a Lib Dem). And it’s supposed to be a representative figurehead through which the opposition can challenge the UK government’s policies relating to Scotland.
But in the entire half-hour, only one notable question is actually directed by Labour (in the shape of Margaret Curran, who must have been ill) to Moore about his own administration’s conduct. Rather, the rest of the time he’s invited by members of Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories to offer his opinion (which invariably concurs with theirs) on the actions of another body, which is not permitted any opportunity to answer back. The proceedings can be accurately summarised thusly:
RANDOM MP, ANY SIDE: “Does the Secretary of State agree that the SNP are simply ghastly, and that they smell and all their mums are ugly?”
SECRETARY OF STATE: “Yes. Yes I do. But the Honourable Member should rest assured that this government is doing everything in its power to put the jumped-up little Scotch oiks in their place.”
(Repeat ad infinitum.)
The sheer disrespect in which Scotland is held by the Commons is demonstrated by the constant hubbub of noise over which some questioners fight to be heard, and which the Speaker repeatedly but ineffectually attempts to silence. The volume of contempt rises significantly if any SNP member rises from their seat to speak, only to be all but drowned in jeering, catcalling and hooting from all sides of the House.
When you’re implored over the coming years to remain in our “shared home“, never forget what our position in that home is. We’re not the husband or the wife, nor even a slightly sulky teenager or a new-born and wanted child. We’re the dog. And a dog that keeps making a mess on the carpet, at that. Vote No in 2014 and we’ll have our faces rubbed in it for a generation.
Honestly, I know a lot of very well-cared-for and indeed pampered dogs. Dogs whose owners are so fond of them, they care for the dog's welfare above their own.
You must know some very abusive dog owners. Maybe I could give you the email address of the SSPCA? I have to say I'm struggling to think of a normal family analogy for what is going on. The only really analagous relationships (including the canine kind) are abusive ones.
I can't agree. While attitudes are happily changing, I suspect most people wouldn't consider rubbing a dog's nose in its mess to be "abuse" per se, rather an attempt at discipline. It would be seen merely as trying to teach the dog how to behave the way its owners want it to.
After all, nobody is obliged to keep a dog they don't want, yet many do anyway because it serves some sort of purpose they find desirable or valuable. I think we all know what value Scotland holds to the Union, but we still don't get to sit at the table with the rest of the family at dinner time.
Well, when you put it that way….
Exactly my thoughts Stu.If you could ensure the `"Scottish voter" were presented with a sample of this performance we would win the referendum hands down. And if the boot were on the other foot and Holyrood treated the English in this fashion the BBC would be presenting it ad nauseum! And as you say if we vote No the above performance will look polite.! If only the MSM were honest!
I could only watch about the first minute. An English MP suggesting that the national debt should be shared out according to the Barnet formula.
Now I don't know if that is even a feasibile proposition, but it clearly wasn't a serious one. It was nothing but point-scoring. Moore answers that he doesn't think Scotland will become independent anyway. "Stronger together weaker apart." (He'll bring in "hard-working families" any minute now.) Then he seemed to be drawing breath to give vent to some argument suggesting that he will be bang alongside Westminster in loading as much debt on to his own country as possible – I don't know, I turned off then.
It's bananas. There's only one answer to that, and that is that the apportioning of assets and liabilities will be a matter for negotiation, which will undoubtedly be fairly complex, and not amenable to sound-bites in the Commons. Is Moore going to say that? Of course not. The whole thing is a waste of time they could all be using to play "Angry Birds" or something.
Bercow's pic, at the top of the article.
He stood as the Conservative candidate for Motherwell in 1987 (I think), and published a leaflet declaring "Ravenscraig is now profitable and its future is safe in our hands". I remember sending it to the Herald when the Tories closed Ravenscraig in 1992. It was published in Tom Shields Diary.
I only realised it was the same guy because the Herald dredged the thing up out of their files and remarked on it when he became Speaker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km6fQLzK-uo&context=C3421c95ADOEgsToPDskK0x0BrBayMiLO8FA6kS1MP
Full video here
Morag, I am ashamed to say that the little shitt suggesting the debt shoul be subject to the Barnett formula was Alun Cairns, a Welsh Tory (very rare species).
"The sheer disrespect in which Scotland is held by the Commons is demonstrated by the constant hubbub of noise."
Sorry RevStu, but you sound like a wee angry man with a chip on both shoulders. It seemed like fairly standard Commons fair to me. Especially when you consider that the chamber was filling up for what appeared to be PMQ.
Part of the speaker's remit when 'Gorbals Mick' was ousted was to stop this type of behaviour in the Commons. So, getting all hot and bothered, just because it's Scottish Questions and the mythical "us" that were involved, is at best thin skinned and at worst paranoid ignorance.
"We’re the dog."
You can only feel like that if you grant your consent.
"Vote No in 2014 and we’ll have our faces rubbed in it for a generation."
I remember a No vote which resulted in our faces being rubbed in it for 18 years. Go figure.
I know you wouldn't stop my comments, so any reason why my comment on this piece isn't getting through?
Longshanker. several of us have experienced problems getting comments through on other posts. It may be an over-sensitive spam filter. Try typing something short and new, without using the cut-and-paste function.
Thanks Morag
First attempt failed
Trying again
Not just cut and paste
Appears to be double carriage return as well
Any news on why the ‘MP for Farrkirk’ aff the news got barred from parliament? I would have thought Labour wid gain support from drappin the heid on tory cunts. Has either of the Millibads ever smacked anyone or told Cameron tfo?
Politics ignores the working class and assummes we’re all stupid and behave like sheep
whatever
The Westminster club have always shown contempt for their Scottish colony. There have been far too many examples of this behaviour and worse. It's another nail in the coffin and another good reason for divorce. This marriage has long been an abusive and unhealthy one. Divorce ASAP is the only sensible route.
Longshanker, what actual "no" vote was that, would you care to explain? It woudln't be the referendum where 51.6% voted "yes", would it?
Morag
I'm being flippant and facetious of course, but the reference is to the No confidence vote of 79.
Boring I know, but nevertheless an unignorable part of Nat heritage.
Who's ignoring it? History is always interesting.
"I'm being flippant and facetious of course, but the reference is to the No confidence vote of 79."
…which was, of course, actually a Yes vote, since the motion before the House was "This House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government" and the answer required to kick said government out (successfully achieved in this case) was Yes. So even your snide semantic nitpicking is actually still wrong.
1) Check your definition of flippant and facetious.
2) Check the context regarding the language used.
3) Add lack of nous regarding humour to your readiily apparent lack of nous regarding irony.
4) Replace snide with 'mildly mocking'.
5) Reappraise 'semantic nit picking' as your game. Your reply, ironically, confirms it.
6) Get over yourself. Being right all the time is a pathology which severely diminishes your credibility. You should reappraise your attitude – you do, after all, have a talent and voice worthy of consideration.
Regardless of the above, you have much more form than me at 'semantic nit picking' and you don't need to be an 'ace investigative journalist' to uncover the evidence which backs up the assertion.
Yeah RevStu!
I mean, Longshanker is wrong all of the time and he has MUCH more Credibility than you!
….anyhoo… Michael Moore … wouldn't or couldn't answer the question? What are they up to? Why do they think they can get away with it? And OMG, the sheer impertinence of the SNP asking him to explain what the UK Government actually had in mind (apart from empty soundbites for the benefit of a compliant press).
I think RevStu runs an interesting site Longshanker.
Do you, Longshanker, run an interesting site?
Just asking
I think RevStu runs an interesting site Longshanker.
Read the second half of no.6 in my post above.
Do you, Longshanker, run an interesting site?
You're going to have let me know the point you're trying to make with the question. I think I know where you're going, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Spell it out for me.
Longshanker,
I did try to do this sort of thing myself about year ago. It didn't work out for numerous reasons. I went back to being a reader and occasional commentator.
There are quite a number of web sites that I read fairly regularily. This one is a new addition to my daily read. I was surprised that you chose to say this:
<blockquote>Sorry RevStu, but you sound like a wee angry man with a chip on both shoulders.</blockquote> That was not the general impression that I got from my reading of the site.
As I said, I think it raises useful points, etc. Perhaps you too have a web site that I could read and decide whether or not it is my cup of tea?
Or perhaps not.
"This one is a new addition to my daily read. I was surprised that you chose to say this:"
If you're in tune or agree with RevStu, douglas, on any of his points, his writing style is powerful and convincing – even when some of his posts are as insipid and dull as the 'honey dripping beehive'.
Disagree with him however and you see a different kind of creature that does no-one, especially himself, any favours.
This post by RevStu is petty parochialism at its worst. The yah boo of neddy 'Wee Scotlander' divisiveness. I think the online referendum/independence debate can do without this kind of nonsense. Anyone familiar with televised Commons debates ought to have had the nous to realise that Scottish Questions was pretty tame by normal Commons standards.
Strangely enough douglas, RevStu, has inspired me to put a blog together. But it wont be able to match his for scope and depth – he plainly has a lot more time on his hands than I have.
Once I hit the fifth blog post I'll ask RevStu for permission to post a link here. Don't expect too much in the way of Independence opinion though, I really am at a loss regarding which way to vote when the referendum comes.
Longshanker,
I'll look out for it!
"Anyone familiar with televised Commons debates ought to have had the nous to realise that Scottish Questions was pretty tame by normal Commons standards."
You wilfully miss the point. In a normal Commons debate the two sides of the House are attacking each other, not an external third party that is not given any opportunity to defend itself.
Cheers douglas
RevStu said:
"You wilfully miss the point"
Not at all. I've seen all sides of the house attacking the SNP and the Liberals on separate occasions. This didn't look or feel any different. Granted, it was unusual to see Labour, Tories and Liberals jeering from the same hymnbook over such a sustained period. But, correct me if I'm wrong, I took your point to be that Scotland, the Scottish Government and the mythical "us" were being treated with contempt during this debate
.
As it's you who decides who the mythical "us" are, it can be discounted as irrelevant.
Of course the Commons, in general, has contempt for the Scottish Government in the context of Independence/referendums. But, correct me if I'm wrong, there were at least three SNP MPs in the House. They're big boys with thick skins and I thought Mike Weir conducted himself more than competently.
As for Scotland being treated with contempt – ?????. I didn't see anything different from standard Commons fare other than it being a bit tamer than normal. To take offense citing it as contempt against Scotland is nothing less than faux offense. My reading of Scottish Questions in this example was that the Big Bad Unionists are running scared. Why else would they appear so united and play the "does the minister agree with me" game?
Oh! And third parties who can't reply being attacked in the house is fairly regular practice – take the European Parliament for example.
What could be more petty and parochial than posting on a site dedicated to Scottish politics as Longshanker….By all means take the high ground and to some extent I agree on the general rabble on the commons. However please don't pretend you are just on here to ensure fair play….
"the mythical "us""
You might be mythical, but I'm pretty sure I'm not. And there's nothing faux about my offense.
"And third parties who can't reply being attacked in the house is fairly regular practice – take the European Parliament for example."
When did all three main parties ever devote an entire parliamentary session to mocking and attacking the European Parliament? When, in fact, have anyone but the Tories referred to it in a derogatory manner at all?
@kenny campbell
"What could be more petty and parochial than posting on a site dedicated to Scottish politics as Longshanker…"
Ah. I see. Argumentum ad hominem. Sorry Kenny, I don't recognise the validity of your point – explain please.
However please don't pretend you are just on here to ensure fair play…
I've only every offered my opinion – no pretense involved.
@RevStu
"You might be mythical, but I'm pretty sure I'm not."
Yet, depressingly, your willfuly obtuse obfuscation does kinda prove your predictability – if nothing else.
And there's nothing faux about my offense.
You're ludicrously easily offended then. You need to be thick skinned for political commentary. Consider withdrawing to protect your thin skin.
When did all three main parties ever devote an entire parliamentary session to mocking and attacking the European Parliament?
Where did I say that an entire parliamentary session was devoted to it?
Same pattern every time with these trolls. Nothing good comes of them. Still, RevStu has had better ones than this. I wonder how many of them are the same one or two crackpots as I know he's had some really strange or unstable ones stalking him for long periods at times and inventing all manner of weird ways to pester him.
@shodan
Same pattern every time with these trolls.
Sweeping generalisations now – bless.
Nothing good comes of them.
So, nothing good comes from providing an alternative opinion? I thought that was what democracy and online debate was about.
I wonder how many of them are the same one or two crackpots as I know he's had some really strange or unstable ones stalking him for long periods at times and inventing all manner of weird ways to pester him.
I assume you're talking about yourself here. I fail to see any reasonable justification for its inclusion otherways.
At best it makes you sound like a dribbling sycophant, at worst a posturing catamite.
If you want to diminish someone's opinion or argument don't indulge in stupid name calling coupled to fantasy scenarios. You only fulfil the stereotype of an intolerant cybernat.
"Where did I say that an entire parliamentary session was devoted to it?"
Then it's not the same thing, is it?
"Where did I say that an entire parliamentary session was devoted to it?"
Then it's not the same thing, is it?
By your own admission, the entire session of Scottish Questions wasn't devoted to attacking and mocking the Scottish Parliament either. Margaret Curran had a go at the coalition administration – as mentioned in your body copy – and I distinctly remember at least 3 SNP MPs having their say. So the point of your question is?
"Margaret Curran had a go at the coalition administration – as mentioned in your body copy"
Yes, and I noted how much it stuck out that the opposition, very briefly, was attacking the government rather than ganging up with it to attack a completely different one.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you imagine you're proving with this tedious hairsplitting. Does the fact that 24 minutes rather than the full 26 (or whatever) were spent attacking the SNP change the underlying point one iota? No, clearly not.
"Does the fact that 24 minutes rather than the full 26 (or whatever) were spent attacking the SNP change the underlying point one iota?"
Apology accepted. Not so hard really – is it?
If that's what you think just happened, knock yourself out.
I know it is dangorous to intervene on family arguments, but can I point out to lonshanker that he has not contributed anything of any iterest or value to this thread?
Siôn Eurfyl Jones
Can I point out that three spelling mishtakes in one rambling sentence contributes even less.