INSULTS AND THREATS MORE LIKELY TO BE FROM UNIONISTS

Today Stuart Campbell has been defamed in the Scotsman.

Stuart, as we all know, is perfectly capable of taking care of himself. He has, as you will see from the link, demanded an apology and a retraction, and I have no doubt he will go to the Press Complaints Commission should one not be forthcoming. You don't mess with the Rev!

I actually wonder at the stupidity of the editor at the Scotsman. Bending the facts slightly is one thing. Lying through your teeth, another. Five minutes of research would have saved him making a fool of himself. 

But more widely the bias of the press is becoming worrying and vilification of "cybernats" but not of "britnats" is damaging the debate.

Let's be fair. Most people probably (and I'm no exception) say things in blogs or on Twitter, momentarily forgetting that they are public domains. Anyone can see an open blog and, depending on who is following whom, Twitter can have a massive impact. 

But, although from coverage you'd never have guessed it, a poll carried out for the Daily Express in March of this year showed that Pro-Independence supporters are far more likely than Unionists to receive hate mail or suffer insults for their political beliefs. 

Credit to them for publishing the poll (unfavourable as it is to their side), even though the tone of the article makes little of the findings, and is illustrated by a picture of a unionist who has been insulted. However it does include this paragraph: "In a worrying development for the Better Together campaign, 21 per cent of those planning to vote Yes have received abuse or threats compared to just eight per cent of those planning to vote No."

Not being a reader of the Express, I'd not heard of that poll until today, when I read about it on Scot Goes Pop. Can you imagine how many other papers and TV channels would have run with the story if it hadn't shown such an imbalance for their side? The BBC would have been overjoyed and dedicated a whole dumbed down programme to it.

No other mainstream media seem in the least interested in publicising some of the nonsense that emanates for the keyboards and Twitter Accounts of BT/UKOK/NO supporters. Like this little gem (above) for example. 

I read with dismay some of the words written by Jamieson yesterday, and dismissed them as trouble making ramblings. I just hope that he doesn't have a point.

MICHAEL KELLY: STAND-UP COMEDIAN

Here's a little laugh from the Scotsman (printed in England) courtesy of Michael Kelly:

THE Labour Party in Scotland goes into 2013 in buoyant mood and filled with a commitment to make this phase of the anti-independence campaign a positive one. Alistair Darling has already gone on record with this sentiment closely backed up by Johann Lamont. The party has recovered its confidence, and not before time. Because it is Labour that will win or lose the referendum campaign for Scotland.

Why Labour has recovered is easy to define. After the last UK and Scottish elections the party was at such a low ebb that it simply had to make changes. And it did. The most significant of these has turned out to be the election of Johann Lamont as leader of Scottish Labour.

Her performances at First Minister’s Questions have destroyed the God-like way Alex Salmond formerly bestrode the chamber. That has raised morale throughout the whole of the Labour party, not just among MSPs but down to the grass roots that were in despair not long ago. The other significant factor was the retention of control of Glasgow City Council – not just by the skin of its teeth but by a comfortable margin.

SNP RESIGNATIONS OVER NATO ...

Two MSPs have resigned from the SNP as a result of the conference vote to join NATO.

John Finney and Jean Urquhart, who are both Highland Region list members, announced their decision this morning.

They don't intend to stand down as list members and will continue to support the government as independents.

Needless to say the news makes the headlines of both the Scotsman and the Herald. The Record makes it their second story.


It will not change the situation in parliament. The two new Independent MSPs have indicated to Alex Salmond that they support the rest of the government's programme and will continue to vote with them on matters other than Nato. They will, of course, continue to support the YES Scotland campaign.

Some will suggest that they should stand down and I can understand that, but I can also see why they hae deided to stay. They stood on the platform of a non-Nato Scotland. It is is SNP which, democratically, (vote of 426 - 332) changed its policy. There was bound to be fall out, and there may yet be more.

Whilst I'm sorry that the pair have felt it necessary to resign, I respect their position. Conscience is something that is sadly lacking in so many politicians. It is hard to be critical of it when is does show itself. 

Should members of other parties not consider their position?

There are, I am sure, on the Labour benches, many who take strong issue with Mrs Lamont's assertion that Scotland is a "something for nothing" country and with her move to the right, so welcomed by the Conservative group. Thus far none has had the guts to do what John and Jean have done.

Equally, when the Conservative Party leadership elections took place last year Murdo Fraser stood on a platform of drastic change, removing their connection to the English Tories and renaming them in an attempt to bury the Thatcherite past. He had a number of supporters on the Tory benches, and indeed came second in the contest. When, by fair means or otherwise, David Cameron's preferred choice, Ruth Davidson, won, thus ensuring totally loyalty to the English party, Murdo meekly accepted a junior role in the parliamentary party. There were no resignations from the party.

Murdo and his supporters were proposing a new right of centre party because the old one was no longer fit for purpose. Where, I ask, are the principles of these people?

In light of the SNP resignations, the parliamentary arithmetic still gives the SNP a majority, but one that is far slimmer than the one that they started with.

Tricia Marwick's election to presiding officer obliged her to stand down from the party, and Bill Walker left the party following the disclosure of his lack of disclosure in respect of his past domestic life. 

BETTER OFF TOGETHER BEING WORSE OFF TOGETHER

One of the problems for "No" campaigners is that they have very little that is positive to advance as reasons for their argument.

I've no doubt that they feel what they feel with all their hearts, but therein lies the problem.  It's mostly sentiment and little logic that forms the basis for their arguments. 

Most of them, particularly Labour supporters, but increasingly Lib-Dems too have nothing good to say about the Tory dominated government in the UK, but they have to somehow make it sound better than a Scottish government, which might largely consist of their own people, without seeming to be anti-Scottish.

So it is little surprise they are left looking less than consistent in their arguments.

Poor old Alistair Darling found himself as a victim of this situation in two articles in The Scotsman yesterday. Darling, the ex-finance minister, warned in one article in the paper, that if George Osborne didn't change direction immediately, he would do immeasurable damage to the British economy from which it would not recover for many years. 

He painted a picture of a gloomy future and, given the unlikelihood that Osborne will follow the Darling plan for recovery, it seems likely that, if Darling is right, things can only get worse. 

Adding a measure of verisimilitude to Darling's predictions David Cameron himself has recently said he thinks that the economy won't start to get better before 2020, and he, after all, is unlikely to be painting an unnecessarily depressing picture of the future under his stewardship. 

A few pages later in the Scotsman, however, Mr Darling wearing the hat of the head of the 'Better Together' campaign appears to argue that Scotland would be better as a part of the United Kingdom, and therefore that it would be worse off with a (very possibly) Labour-led government in Edinburgh making decisions on the economy. 

Summing up his arguments, but 5 pages apart, it appears that Scotland will be better off as part of a state that is heading towards economic melt down and high unemployment, than being a country standing on its own with the chance of introducing economic policies tailored specifically to its needs.

It seems to me that that's a confused message to be sending out, and one which leaves one or the other argument ...or both, looking vulnerable.

I sympathise with his predicament. He has chosen to be,  or been pushed into being, the front-man for a campaign which seems to be Tory dominated, and thus far has been funded by donations from rich boys' dining clubs in the South East of England, at the same time as feeling that he has an obligation to attack the economic plans of the very people with whom he is teaming up.

Politics isn't always easy.

*******

I remember reading that the 3 unionist parties had chosen people to represent them as leaders of the Better Together Campaign. Alistair Darling was to represent Labour, and as the biggest unionist party would take the overall lead. Charlie Kennedy was to be the Liberal voice and Annabel Goldie, the Tory representative. Has anyone seen or heard of either of the other two?

Finally, seriously, who would you like to see leading Better Together? Alistair's position seems rather dubious (and always did). He may be Labour, but he's a tad pan loafy. Would someone a bit more down to earth, and less Morningside be more appropriate?