What is the point of debating with a Scottish politician who says: "We are not genetically programmed to make political decisions in Scotland?
I presume that she really meant: "We, in Scotland, are not genetically programmed to make political decisions". The alternative would suggest that once outside Scotland, Scots would be able to operate effectively, but then that would rule out the genetics element (you take that with you), so we'll assume that the ex-English teacher had a momentary lapse!
Is it worth then, maybe, making the point that she and all her colleagues are drawing their salaries under false pretences? What is the point of them sitting there in Holyrood, all genetically incapable of making a political decision.
Is she aware of the provenance of Keir Hardie? Does she know of Jimmy Reid, or Ramsay MacDonald, John Smith, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling, or even Johann Lamont? I wonder if she had a moment of doubt about the country's safety when Mr Cameron announced that, although he was not Scottish, his grandfather used to live just outside inverness.
Maybe it's just me, but these few words made my flesh creep. It's almost like she felt that some sort of apartheid was justified. There are Scots and there are political masters, that is to say the white men, like David Cameron and George Osborne, whom, I suppose, she considers to be genetically programmed through their aristocratic and royal connections, to make political decisions.
Now I know why the No campaign don't want to see Scotland independent. They see themselves and their fellows as an inferior breed, of lesser political ability, there to be ruled by their betters.
I'm beginning to empathise, rather than sympathise, with native Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians and other races across the world who found that Britnats considered them inferior and unqualified to rule themselves.
I wonder if she refers to Cameron as "sahib", or "massa", or if she just curtsies and stays quiet for fear of embarrassing her lesser self.
