Young guns, havin' some fun.......

It's only just over two years, August 2009, since media gunslinger Wild Jim Murdoch spread fear among the citizens of Media City like a loose gun in a bar-room brawl. Jim rode intotown from his old man's BIG M ranch all tooled up and ready to deliver the annual McTaggart lecture, to fire off some warning shots at the BBC and to warn the Corporation that he and his daddy were gunnin' fer it.

Just you wait until the Tory posse arrives, he snarled, the BarBarCee ranch will be under seige and I'll be raiding and harrying you 'til you give up your plum steers and I rustle them off. We're gonna buy the BSkyB ranch and take over the whole county, so you'd better watch yore step!

The young gun was out of its holster and going after senior BBC henchmen and they quaked at his power.

Well today, the gunslinger was run out of town. The sherrif's posse that he thought he had bought has been blabbing to Judge Leveson and the youngster's power base was revealed as diseased and corrupt.

 Young Gun Jim his Pop Big Rupe Murdoch and a red haired moll.

No shoot out at the old corral for this brave boyo. Slinking off to the good old USOFA to keep his head down and lick his wounds and seek the comfort of his daddy's ranch.

to be continued........

Megrahi accuses McAskill

Headline in today's Herald:

Megrahi: how MacAskill linked my release to dropping my appeal

The story states

"The authorised biography of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi reveals for the first time that the minister responsible for deciding whether he would return to Libya actively encouraged Megrahi to give up his case in the appeal court, telling a senior Libyan minister in a private meeting in Edinburgh that "it would be easier for him to grant compassionate release if I dropped my appeal".

Read more here......

There's a lot of stuff about how McAskill wanted to avoid further embarrassment to the Scottish Justice System if the appeal revealed some flaws in the process and in the conviction, but I think the SNP let Megrahi go just to stick two fingers up to the UK government.

They did it because they could and it annoyed the UK authorities... no other reason needed.

Bought and sold for American gold....

...or is that Australian gold...??

Anyway.

Isn't it interesting to see the different moral fibre of our political leaders. Ed Miliband stands up to the Murdoch machine and ensures they don't get their hands on the control of BSkyB. A courageous but correct action given the stench emanating from Rupert Murduch's newspaper lined pig sty. Ed did this knowing that News International doesn't forgive and forget. He personally and the Labour Party nationally will pay for this temerity. Even so, it's the right thing to do and he did it.
 
Compare and contrast.  

Last week old Rupe Murdoch, cap di capo of the News Corp gang, tweeted oor dear leader....to wit...

 "Alex Salmond clearly most brilliant politician in U.K. Gave Cameron back of his hand this week. Loved by Scots."

Quid pro quo time baby. And then some. Today's newly launched Murdoch lavvy paper has the exclusive story of the date of our proposed referendum on "independence". That's our referendum, the one Eck said was the "Scottish peoples'" and mere elected Prime ministers had better get their hands off pronto!

Well it turns out it's not the "Scottish peoples'" referendum after all: it's old Rupe's referendum. Eck believes he owns it, (he is the Scottish People, after all)  but today he gave it away to Rupe  in return for his few nice words. And, one assumes, support for his party in coming months and years. Again assuming that Eck can continue to find nice we newsy nuggets to feed the hungry Murdoch maw...

Rupert Murdoch was an Aussie who became a Yank because American law demanded it for his business interests, the better to devour profits. He is the leader of an organisation currently being revealed as as morally decrepit as it is possible to be. There is not one jot of evidence that cares for Scotland, its people, its constitutional arrangements, its future prosperity (or otherwise), its relatonships with its neighbours or anything at all about us.

 I can exclusively reveal that an "independent" Scotland 

will be using the Dollar. American, Australian whatever.

Rupert Murdoch cares about his profits and his papers and his organisation will do anything (proof everywhere from law courts to telephone accounts to public inquiries to the homes and relatives of murder victims) to keep the presses running and the profits flowing.

Nationalists are fond of quoting a few lines of Burns about the Scottish nobles who conducted the squalid negotiations surrounding the Treaty of Union in 1707.

"We're bought and sold for English gold
sic a parcel of rogues in a nation"

Well Eck has outdone even them. He's been bought and sold for AmerAussie gold by a man who apparently cares not one jot about nation, nationality, nationhood or any similar concept. Unless, of course, it suits his business. Then he buys it up.

You can't spend the same pound twice....

The Centre for Public Policy Research (CPPR), an independent thinktank, has looked at the SNP's "policy" of investing oil revenues in a "fund" to build up capital for future use a la Norway.

The CPPR report reaches the conclusion that the amount suggested by Alex Salmond (£Ibn/year)  would;

a) be a great loss to the public purse in the recovery from the current recession.

and

b). not be enough to generate the income Mr Salmond claims it would.

And of course, to the chagrin of Nationalist economic ministers, you cannot spend the same pound twice....

Another SNP promise undercooked, not thought through, undeliverable...

A Leap of Faith sans Nat irony...

Oh wad some pow'r the giftie gie us

Tae see oorselves as ithers see us...

Robert Burns, no Nationalist he....

Kenny McAskill, SNP Justice Minister and erstwhile overnight resident of the cells at Wembley Police Station, was today asked, on BBC TV, about Dave's promise to have another look at the powers at Holyrood should Scots vote against "independence", as is likely.

The bold Kenny opined that he needed more details, as believing any promise from anyone who is not a Nat would be, and I quote, "a pig in a poke"!!!

When it was pointed out that "independence" was the ultimate pig in a poke, or "leap of faith", he collapsed into full minutes of  meaningless burblings.

The JM looking intelligent

Aaarghh! he said. And blueuughhh! And BuuurbleBuurbleBuuuuuurble... eventually, regaining his composure,.... Ah but, he said, unionist Tory/Labour leaps of faith are different in warp and weft from Nationalist leaps of faith.

And, y'know, not a hint of irony from the JM. Good, eh?

It's here, at 41 minutes into the broadcast

As my old Granny used to say "Aye right!".

Cliff? What **@@!!** cliff?!?!?

If you don't believe in leaps of faith how can you believe in "independence"?

To his credit, the JM, ex-res of the pc s at Wembley, didn't say that to believe anything else would be "anti-Scottish".

Which makes a change these days. 

But then, maybe he just forgot......

Greece.....

Is Greece an "independent" country?

Should we copy them?

Just a thought.....

Anti-Scottish loathing and the Nazi Gauleiters

I remember, in the 1970s, it was quite common in the right wing press for cartoonists to portray Prime Minister Harold Wilson as some sort of fascist in a black uniform, jackboots peaked cap, arm band, horsewhip, sash etc. It passed almost unremarked.

Times have changed. Nowadays the mention of Hitler or the Nazis is enough to stop an internet conversation in its tracks. Godwin's Law states that, if you have to quote the Nazis back at your opponent, the argument is getting closed down, and you are on a loser.

Is it different if your opponent brings up the Nazis first?

Alex Salmond has compared a BBC political adviser to a "Gauleiter", a Nazi local organiser.  He also called the BBC "a tinpot dictatorship" after an invitation to comment on the Scotland-England rugby match was withdrawn.

I don't know if Eck has a case. No doubt there will be investigations and enquiries and press statement wars in the next few days until it all blows over.

But I do know that the SNP has form in name-calling anyone that doesn't cooperate with their views 100%.

Joan McAlpine, Alex Salmond's chosen chronicler, claimed that it was anti-Scottish to interfere with their referendum and to oppose a devo max question on their referendum. Mike Russell called opposition parties anti-Scottish during last week's Education debate at Holyrood.  There have been other examples, in fact it used to be quite common for words like traitor and quisling to get thrown around quite freely by Nationalists.

It's interesting to ask why these examples are all happening now. For the past few years the Nationalists have been on their best behaviour: not a lot of anti-English spleen, or accusatory bile has been evident. I presume it has been the proximity to power and the justified fear that such nastiness turns off the voters. So the word has gone out to "Tone it down lads, keep a lid on the insults and more extreme rhetoric. Just for the time being. Later. Well...". Even the cybernats have been almost nice.

 Now the veneer has cracked and we see the old opinions expressed anew. If you don't agree with them you're "anti-Scottish", a "gauleiter" even in one case you must "loathe the very concept of Scotland". Maybe they just got complacent, thinking their Holyrood majority makes "independence" inevitable. In which case why rein in your real opinions? Or maybe it just became too much to hold in and hide the truth: they really do believe that, if you don't agree with them, then you are not fit to inhabit their new Utopia. You (i.e. the majority of Scots) are just not Scottish enough.

Which is one very good reason not to vote for them or support their "independence" referendum or their bogus "devo max" fallback plan.

The Sage of Banff

There's been much talk among Nationalist activists and  in the press and TV praising the SNP's "positive" campaigning.

Labour, so goes the latest surge of informed opinion, is far too "negative".  The SNP, on the other hand is, in its desire to destroy the UK, much more "positive"!?!?!

I have to say I can't see it myself. Isn't breaking up a successful partnership for no good reason about as "negative" as you can get....?

..a point made by this recently unearthed vignette, thought to depict a folk legend of the North East and first performed in 1928 after it was found mouldering in the library of the University at Aberdeen.

The Sage of Banff.

Scene 1. The wind howls. A weary traveller in Banff and Buchan trudges along a dusty path, past a remote cave opening. The traveller stops to rest.

A  fat, bald sage, wild in aspect and oily in nature, leaps from the cave, his face contorted in a self-satisfied smirk.

Weary Traveller “Och! Ye gave me quite a start there man. Who are you and whit are ye up tae”?

Sage “ My name is Eck, the sage o’ Banff, and I carry the ancient Revelation of the Salvation of the Scottish People as my mission and legend”.

W T “Issat so? What have you to reveal to me, oh wild sage”? 

Eck, confidentially in the ear of the traveller.. "Listen tae me. Ye must cut aff yer right arm to be saved".

W T "Whit? Are you nuts"?

Eck, insistently   "I repeat. Ye must cut aff yer right arm to be saved. It's the only positive thing to do. And anyway, it isnae working, it was attached to you 300 years ago by a parcel o' rogues. Are ye ignorant of your own history, man?".

WT "Don't be daft. I need my right arm, it's a natural attachment and it works perfectly. Look." He waves his arm up and down and round and round.

Eck "Dafty ye are. It's a trick perpetrated by the crafty body unionists in London. The connection is unnatural. Yer arm is being manipulated from Westminster. Can ye no' see"?

WT "Are you aff yer heid, Eck"?

Eck "Au contraire" says Eck, a bold European wild man he, and fervent supporter of Amputation in Europe, "Au contraire, it's you that is irrational. And negative"

WT "Wait a minute. You want me to cut off my right arm, you witter on about 300 year old rogues, and you accuse me of irrationality. And what's negative about wanting to keep my body intact? You really are nuts".

Eck takes hold of the travellers shoulder and gazes levelly into his eyes. “Did you know that, through the cunning manipulation of Barnett Formula, the government has ensured that the average length of the adult male arm in England is ¾” longer than the corresponding arms of the Celtic nations? Did ye know that? Significant, is it not”?

WT “What’s that got to do with anything? I like my arm, I want it and I need it and it has done me no harm and much good over the years.”

Eck, craftily "Ah but. Can you prove you need your right arm? Eh?".

WT “But it’s my arm. Why should I have to prove that I need it”?

Eck. “So. You cannot justify the use of your own existing right arm, even after 300 years of manipulation by the rogues…d'ye no realise that you're just being relentlessly negative man? Haudin' on tae your useless arm indeed. How can ye no' see that? Why can you not be more positive like me? Chop it off! Now!"

WT "To be honest I thought that hanging on to all of my bodily limbs was quite a good strategy for a productive life. Anyway, I see you've still got both your arms attached, Mr Sage.... how comes that then?"

Eck, defensively "Aye well, I need it to shake hands wi' the Queen. And ye can't visit the Bank of England for them to dictate your fiscal policy if you've only got one arm. It widnae look good, would it? Anyways, your just evading the point are you not? How can you, without being relentlessly negative, justify not chopping off your right arm? C'mon. Stop switherin' man. Gie's your reasons, and they better not be negative!"

WT "Well, I use my arm to write, to lift a pint, hold a fork, control the steering wheel, pat my wife on the bum and other normal but useful actions. It seems ok to me, and if I didn't have it, I would be short of a useful limb."

Eck. "Ah but where's the proof"?

WT "It's my arm. It works. I like it. What more proof do you need"?

Eck, dismissively "Call that proof? Don't ye realise, ye would be much better off without it? If you cut off your right arm, you would be free to do so many other things"

WT "Such as"?

Eck. Thinks for a minute. "Wellllllll. You could learn to drive with one arm. Plenty of smaller people do it.., I’ve got an Irish cousin who did it….".

WT " But I'm not Irish. Why would I do it"?

Eck "You could easily grow another one. The new arm might not be as effective as the old one, but it would not be manipulated by the English. Oops by Westminster I mean. Sorry. We’re definitely not racist, us wild sages…"

WT “You really are crazy. I have no interest in your silly scheme of limb separation. I just want to get on with doing the things I need to do, like getting on with my journey, the state of the roads and getting home.”

Eck “But if you cut off your arm, the journey will be so much easier.” His eyes light up “You’ll be lighter for a start”.

WT exasperatedly "Let me get this right. You want me to chop off my arm, because of some surgery you say happened 300 years ago, you cannot give me any sensible reason for doing so, you cannot tell me how I would survive without the arm, but still you want me to do it? And you call me irrational".

Eck "That's about it. ... can ye no’ see the logic?".

"Cut aff yer arms to spite yer face... "

WT “Away an’ bile yer heid”, sets off towards home, shaking his head in disbelief and looking back in mystified wonder at the oily sage..

As he passes into the distance, Eck the sage, thwarted by his failure to persuade the weary traveller of the case for chopping off his arm, calls out in frustration…..“Traitor. Quisling. Anti-amputationist!”