morning rant….

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.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “morning rant….

  1. Derek, enjoy you duck egg. No mistake they want to take Scotland down. I am getting more content as time passes. Yes, Yes, Yes.

  2. Not so much that Dave would be minced, Derek, but that the debate would be mince. See my comment piece on this in last Saturday’s Express.

    • Aye right, Dave’s reluctance is entirely down to fears over the quality of any DC v AS debate. The high standard of HMG’s contributions thus far (flying by the seat of your pants, El Presidente Salmondo, join the Navy and see the Clyde, etc, etc) certainly suggest that.

      Pimping your own pieces on someone else’s blog a wee but desperate, no?

    • Not even for this will I read the Express!

  3. Eck’s latest missive to Dave has the ‘butt out’ line at the end, in the context of ‘either … or butt out’.
    http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-power-of-six/
    “However your attempt to duck a television debate on the subject is not. Either you stand up and debate or butt out of the debate for good.”

  4. Duck eggs ffs?

  5. Ha! I ‘ve done a lot of “spluttering” this past wee while. I had to stop. I’m now enjoying the faux pas that the UK government is sending out and the growing realisation of what Indy can give us. Many undecided folk thinking the same.
    Wish you hadn’t put that vision of Ruthie out there by the way!!

  6. As for Dave debating, I just can’t see it happening. No matter how good a speaker/debater he is, there aren’t enough hours in Dave’s day for him to bone up on the issues to be able to match Alex, who’s lived the arguments day in, day out for years. It’d be madness for Better Together to try, and I’m sure Eck knows that. The Yes side’s calls for debate can only be to make Dave look as though he’s scared.

    Having listened to Alastair Darling stumbling over simple soundbites in lots of radio interviews over the last few months, I can’t believe that Better Together would really like him to debate the First Minister either – he’d have to be on absolute top form to come out of it without a serious drubbing.

  7. What! Is there no case at all for the union… Over to you Mr Darling as David says your the best he can muster. Good read Mr Bateman.

  8. cynicalHighlander

    Ruth fell into the Tory camp by default as it was the only way she could get into politics IMO which is a sad indictment of the state of democracy when it is a career choice first rather than some constructive reason. Whatever she says I wouldn’t trust her.

  9. Boothman story featuring well at yer old paper and loads of comments and questions. Been posting and suggesting that they come here for more info. I feel Mr Boothmans coat will be on a shoogly peg at this rate and while I dont like to see a man lose his job, well, you reap what you sow.

  10. The reason Alex Salmond told David Cameron to debate or butt out, is the never ending injection of partial ‘Analysis papers’ produced by either the UK Government or Westminster Committees. They are spurious partisan opinions spread far and wide in Scotland as ‘facts’ by the BBC in Scotland and the compliant print press. The majority of those ‘facts’ are based on the partisan OBR projections, whom Alistair Darling in 2011 called a Tory fronted shield. The BBC in Scotland last week across the network reported an IFS report that Scotland would have a £5 billion black hole in its finances if we voted for independence, the IFS based there numbers on OBR pessimistic projections, of course. Then we have Prof David Bell and John Curtice from the ERSC ready at a moments notice to pounce on and be presented by the BBC, both paid £185,000 each of taxpayers money, one to pour cold water on any Scottish Government economics and the other to tell Scotland how we think. That’s before we even get to the Labour manned FAI.

  11. Lad’s boots, camouflage breeks and utility tops and that face.. Errghh! I may not sleep tonight

  12. ‘ I doubt if he meant Cameron to butt out of the referendum since only a UK government can deliver independence ‘

    And here’s me thinking that that you announce, assert, affirm your independence – waiting for somebody else to deliver it is a contradiction in terms.

    You are no where near old enough Derek to be one of those who, in the 70’s, would tell me on their own independent doorstep ‘Son’ – I was younger then – ‘they’ll never let us have it’.

  13. Yes, on the one hand Cameron would be minced by Salmond in debate. Cameron may be a very good speaker, but he would be massively short of convincing arguments.

    Secondly, he would be shooting himself in the foot, arguing as the leader of the most disliked party in Scotland.

    But thirdly, I also have my suspicions that Cameron is deliberately trying to keep the whole issue out of the same limelight as other, “more important” issues. He’s trying to give the impression that it’s not that important, or serious. And to do that he has to simply not be seen talking about it, hence his mere 54 seconds on the subject at his conference. So let’s keep on at him to get up and debate.

  14. “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?”

    It’s simple: these “gleeful Unionists” have become Lt. Colonel Nicholson. The Union is their Bridge Over The River Kwai. They’re so obsessed with keeping their meagre “control” over their pitiable situation that when their RESCUERS come to save them, they immediately act to aid their CAPTORS. It’s almost like a type of Stockholm Syndrome: they’ve spent so long attempting to reason and ingratiate with the people who are using and abusing them (Westminster, not the UK in general) that they will do anything to maintain that toxic relationship.

    In short, they have indeed completely lost the plot.

  15. Another example of these “gleeful Unionists”, self-proclaimed “proud Scots”, who bend over forwards to ingratiate themselves with the mainly English audience of their newspaper articles, are the two prime suspects of the SNP/Salmond hating Scottish cringe, Alan Cochrane and Severin Carrell. Up here in the Jockland unionist press, we have Magnus Gardham and Torquil Crichton. With “journos” like these, we certainly don’t have far to look to find anti-independence fifth columnists (pun intended) in the print media.

  16. Really enjoy reading your comments Derek. Sad you are no longer with BBC Scotland. Keep the blogs coming which I’ll thoroughly enjoy, especially in the lead up to the Scottish Referendum.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s