Donald Trump is not a GlobalScot

This isn't really a proper blog post. More an explanation of why I now have three articles in draft form and am making no progress with any of them.

On Wednesday 25 April I watched Donald Trump's appearance before the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee of the Scottish Parliament. Those of you who also witnessed this circus will understand when I say that I disgusted and angered by Trump's behaviour. His arrogant disrespect for the committee, the Scottish Parliament, The Scottish Government and the First Minister was quite appalling.

He came before the committee completely unprepared assuming that he could get by with nothing more than his pompous, over-bearing bluster. And when challenged to provide evidence to back up his increasingly deranged claims, he capped his ludicrous performance by declaring, "I am the evidence!".

Chiels that winna ding?

I am, by nature, by inclination, by training and by habitual practice, a rather analytical person. Those who know me well would probably scoff heartily at this as a bit of an understatement. They might instead suggest that I tend to take an issue, any issue, and methodically pick it to shreds before embarking upon a minute forensic examination of the fragments. I rarely take things at face value. I nurture a healthy scepticism and a cynicism that would be rather less healthy did I not strive to keep it in check.

I rarely accept that there are only two sides to a story and if I see no more than both sides of an argument then I reckon I am missing something potentially crucial. For me, every shade of grey is infinitely divisible and to fail to appreciate life's rich complexity is to be guilty of the kind of intellectual indolence that I deeply regret in others and abhor in myself on those occasions when, being but human, I fall into error.

Tory hypocrisy

David Cameron's deputy in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, was recently reported as complaining that the SNP were not sufficiently focused on local issues in the council election campaign because they were more interested in the referendum on independence.

Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson has claimed that the Nationalists are trying to turn the local election campaign into a dry run for the independence referendum.

Prime Minister heads north of the Border to step up fight in defence of the Union

I raised a more than slightly quizzical eyebrow at this in part because of a campaign leaflet I had received on behalf of a Conservative local election candidate here in Perth. A leaflet which contains a call to arms for unionists across the ward sandwiched between something about Perth City Hall and a curiously congratulatory piece about the SNP's protection of greenbelt land.

Protecting the Union
The referendum campaign will start in earnest soon after the Scottish Government's consultation and the May local elections. As Scottish Conservatives we are proud of our Scottish heritage but equally proud to be British. Perth and Kinross and Scotland, remain fairer, stronger and richer in the Union.

Scotland & NATO: The real debate

Scotland and NATO - A new alliance?

Notwithstanding the mischief-making efforts of the BBC and others to turn the issue of SNP policy on NATO membership into a contrived controversy, there is unquestionably a genuine debate to be had. There seems little point in hoping that this debate will be advanced by those whose sole purpose is to find in it a stick with which to beat the SNP or its leadership. Fortunately, there remain in the desert of Scotland's mainstream media a few oases of intelligent, reasoned journalism. One voice of sanity that manages to rise above the cacophony of rancorous anti-SNP propaganda is that of George Kerevan.

In a thoughtful and thought-provoking piece in The Scotsman (It can happen!), Kerevan suggests that NATO membership is "a question of morality". (George Kerevan: Nato membership is a question of morality) A suggestion that would doubtless prompt the response from many that non-membership is equally a question of morality. There is a subset of this group who would go further and insist that even to think about the possibility of discussing a change to the SNP's long-standing policy of non-membership is to cross one of their "red lines". It was this group which was the target audience of those elements of the media intent on creating an impression of a damaging "split" within the party. Kerevan's argument is addressed to the more open-minded among us.

Careless words

Johann Lamont - gaffe-prone

You've probably heard it said that good courtroom lawyers never ask a question unless they know the answer they're going to get. Likewise, politicians need to be aware of how the form of words that they use is going to be turned back on them by their political opponents. In her speech at the launch of her party’s local election campaign Lamont gave her political opponents the gift of a large stick when she acknowledged that the SNP would increase its number of councillors. Naturally, her political opponents took the offered sticke and proceeded to beat her with it.

It would be good to think that Lamont was regretting her blunder.  One might hope that a lesson had been learned and that she would be more circumspect in future. But the suspicion is that she will refuse to acknowledge that the form of words she used were ill-judged and instead resort to blaming others for twisting those words. Doubtless her words have been twisted. But that was to be expected when they came with a big label saying, "Twist me!".

NATO & SNP

First of all, let us be clear about why this topic is even being discussed at this time. It is most decidedly not because of anything said or done by the SNP. To whatever extent there is a significant debate going on about a possible shift in the SNP's policy in relation to NATO, this is entirely due to some substance-free speculation by the BBC. Speculation which was surely indulged in with the intent of provoking precisely the kind of outraged reaction graciously provided by some SNP members. This kind of political mischief-making is hardly new. Even this particular manifestation of it has a history. Fully two months before the BBC picked up on it Kenny Farqharson was flying the same speculative kite in Scotland on Sunday and urging us all to remember where we read it first. How disappointing for him that it took the BBC to succeed where he failed. And without even crediting him as principal mischief-maker.

Another thing worth noting is the response of the anti-independence alliance to the BBC's empty speculation. Am I the only one to notice the striking similarities in the language used by both Ruth Davidson and Jim Murphy? Or the fact that both came out with the identical sound-bite, "The SNP just don't get defence!"? Reading from the same script? You be the judge. But there is no doubting the drooling glee with which they both pounced on the opportunity to portray the SNP as undecided and internally riven on the matter of NATO membership. A number of SNP members and supporters have subsequently fuelled this perception by comments on Twitter and elsewhere. But is there any rational justification for the fuss?

"Skintland": Satire?

Skintland

Let me make it clear from the outset that I do not accept that the scurrilous cover image which The Economist chose for its UK edition was ever meant to be a joke as has been claimed. I am firmly persuaded that it was always intended to be precisely what it appears - a crude, casual but quite deliberate insult. Intentional but not calculated, other than to the meagre extent that the target of the insult was only those "uppity Jocks" and so it could safely be assumed that nobody would question it. Everybody would go along with the slur.

Of course, as far as ultra-parochial, London-centric journalists are concerned, "everybody" is a very restricted audience indeed. Few outside their own clique, and then mostly the kind of people who think Alan Cochrane is a knowledgeable and erudite commentator on Scottish affairs.They knew they were publishing a nasty, gratuitous insult, but that didn't matter because the people they were insulting don't matter.

Such is their contempt for Scotland and its people, for anyone outside their conceptual village, that it didn't even occur to them that this facile, intellectually bankrupt vilification compromised their normal editorial standards. Had the object of abuse been almost any other nation - France, Germany, even Greece - alarm bells would have rung somewhere in the offices of The Economist. But no! It's only Scotland, so it's not even worth a thought. The mindset is all too familiar - not only to people in Scotland but to those in the "far-flung" regions of England as well.

Such is my take on it. But some have chosen to try and rationalise this puerile pap by passing it off as satire. So let's indulge the apologists for a moment and judge it in those terms.