So I am reading my London Times while breakfasting and find myself spluttering into my soft-boiled duck egg when I read of Ruth Davidson being allowed to speak at the Tory conference just ahead of David Cameron as… “proof of Cameron’s determination that the Tories will fight ‘tooth and nail’ for the Union…”
Tooth and nail??!!
When Dave can’t bring himself to front up in a televised debate? !
Televised debates are about the only thing he can do. Eton-trained Dave is an effortless public speaker such is his confidence. Remember his freewheeling offering to win the leadership? He is a fantastic public speaker…
How could a journalist write that line…proof of Camerons’s determination etc…with a straight face? Is it possible for anyone following this from now on to claim he is fighting tooth and nail when the most normal and surely the easiest modern platform to change the way people think is spurned in favour of one of his bitterest political opponents?
Is anybody out there seriously buying the line that it is oor Alistair’s job to stand in for the Tory Prime Minister? Surely even die-hard Unionist Tories – good morning to you all – recognise that he is ducking out because he would be minced. Isn’t it a journalist’s job to reflect that reality rather than perpetuating the myth that Dave is leading like Henry at Agincourt?
“Further proof”…Well it may further proof of his claim to be fighting tooth and nail but God help us all in these benighted islands if its actual proof.
On Alistair by the way, there was another beautifully ironic moment on WATO yesterday (World at One –BBC jargon) when Osbourne excoriated the Labour government for the financial mess they left the country in. I shouted out: “That was Alistair…and you want him to speak for you in the biggest threat to Britain since Hitler?”
I notice Ruthy now dresses like Mrs T – so that’s what happened to her old wardrobe – a bit different from her usual garb when she worked beside me. She tended to lad’s boots, camouflage breeks and what I would charitably describe as utility tops. When I presented BBC radio coverage of an election – which one I’ve no idea – she was the reporter picking up interesting stuff on the news wires and running in to studio to gives us updates. And very enthusiastic she was too. What I never guessed was that she was a right-enough Tory. I mention it because you never know with folk and nothing she ever said on air to my knowledge betrayed her personal politics. (If I had known, I’d have got somebody else to be the reporter….)
The other killer line in the Times is in the story about oil revenues being less than the SNP Government say they will be. (The line coming from that impeccably unbiased source, Revenue and Customs). The Times says: “Unionist politicians were gleefully confident that the new figures torpedoed the idea of an oil fund…etc”
Unionists…gleeful…about no oil fund? Is that true? Have these people lost their minds? How could any Scot rub his hands with delight at his country being less well off? Have we not reached a surreal time in our history when those who are elected to be our representatives and leaders take perverse delight in being told by their own side that their country is poorer than they thought?
Are there any other people on the face of the Earth who would take that position against both their own interests and that of their people? Has Union turned us into idiots as well as relative paupers that we revel in poverty and lack of progress?
Of course when I say “against their interests”, the truth is that their short-term interest is only in winning the referendum not in supporting Scotland and the Scots. Maybe they are to be pitied for being the world’s weakest patriots. Either way, if the Times is right about their reaction, they are truly muttonheads. And they’ve fair put me off my breakfast.
PS as it were…I hear Samond’s advice to Cameron to butt out of Scotland’s affairs is used as a cover for Dave’s Desertion. My recollection is that Salmond used that specifically in relation to London interfering in the legality issue surrounding the referendum and was making the case that he could run his own without London’s “help”. I doubt if he meant Cameron to butt out of the referendum since only a UK government can deliver independence and Salmond has always seen the PM as his oppo and main opponent, rather than Johann. Also he wouldn’t have agreed and signed the Edinburgh Agreement if he wanted Dave to butt out.