Thursday, December 18, 2014

A heartfelt plea to the imaginary Scotsmen in Dan Hodges' head - please stop doing beastly things to Dan Hodges

I still haven't got around to doing my Top of the Pops list of the stupidest things said by unionist politicians and commentators in the two or three days immediately after the referendum.  There are some absolute corkers in there, which all seemed pretty stupid even at the time, but needless to say they look utterly risible now that a bit of water has flowed under the bridge.  Each and every one of them, though, has just been effortlessly surpassed by something said by a unionist commentator a whole three months after the referendum.  Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mr Dan Hodges.

"I’m not sure what’s going on in Scotland at the moment, and I’m not sure I want to know. But I know this. Diana has gone. And someone up there has to start to get a grip."

From the incredulous tone of that remark, you'd be forgiven for thinking that something truly unspeakable must be going on here in Scotland - you know, a horror akin to the Reavers in Firefly and Serenity who have been driven mad by a disastrous scientific experiment, and who roam the galaxy looking for men to eat alive for sheer pleasure, before plastering the bloody remains all over their spaceships. However, what Dan is actually referring to is the fact that some of us would quite like to have another peaceful democratic vote on our constitutional future at some point in the years ahead, and don't accept that the vote in September settled the matter for the remainder of time. But, hey, that's kind of similar to eating people alive, isn't it?

Specifically, Dan can't get his head around the idea that 59-year-old Alex Salmond, who can quite reasonably expect to still be around in twenty years from now, thinks that a second referendum will happen (gasp) within his lifetime. What an ABOMINATION.

Dan's spectacular loss of the plot hasn't come completely out of the blue, though. A few weeks before the referendum, he penned an article about Scotland that seemed uncharacteristically reasonable - he basically said that the London establishment should just chill out and let Scotland get on with it, he didn't think we would vote to govern ourselves, but if we did that would be fine. However, there was still a distinct trace of menace in there, because he made a gratuitous aside about how the referendum would settle the matter forever (or words to that effect). When I read that, I thought to myself - where's he getting that from? I assumed that it was probably just the normal unionist arrogance of thinking that they can make up the rules of the game as they go on, and that the rest of us just have to go along with it. But no - it's become clear that he really did have it in his head that some kind of definitive promise of "finality" had been collectively made by Scotland as a nation.

Hence, his current grievance is based on a complicated and largely fictitious account of how the referendum came about and what its intended parameters were. The only question really is whether he knows that he's invented most of the story.

"Scotland wanted to resolve – once and for all we were told – the issue of whether it remained part of the United Kingdom, via a referendum."

You were told the "once and for all" bit by who exactly? By Scotland's popular national spokesperson David Cameron, perhaps?

"And that referendum was duly granted."

No, it was not "granted". It was legislated for by Scotland's own parliament, and by no-one else. All the Edinburgh Agreement did was remove any ambiguity over the parliament's legal power to take that step, but the Scottish Government always held the belief that they could have gone ahead anyway. Whether a challenge in the courts would have occurred or not, and whether it would have succeeded or not, will now remain unknowable. That being the case, you are in no position to claim that London generously "granted" a referendum, even in the most indirect of senses.

"It was free. It was fair."

Well, it was free. But as for "fair", you're having a laugh aren't you, Dan? Did you sleep through the "shock and awe" campaign of terror waged upon the people of Scotland by the entire London establishment, including by some institutions that are legally or constitutionally obliged to remain neutral, or indeed to stay out of politics altogether?

"It cost £13 million."

Er, so what? All elections cost money, and that's the price we pay for being a democratic country. Or is the subtle implication here that the long-suffering English taxpayer "indulged" a crazy whim of the Jocks? If so, that's utter tripe. As already stated, the referendum was brought about by Scottish Parliament legislation - Westminster didn't take care of the bill.

"And having voted in their free, fair, multi-million pound election, what did the people of Scotland, and their elected representatives, do next? They said “That’s no good! We’ve been cheated! We demand another go!”."

Is that code for "we might legislate to have another go"? As it happens, we don't need to feel cheated to think it's perfectly OK to do that - we just need to think we live in some kind of democracy. The basic rule of democracy is that people get periodic chances to determine how they're governed - as far as I can gather, next year's general election won't be the last one ever, and consequently won't decide which government is in power in the year 2150. (Or perhaps it will on Planet Hodges.)

Oh, and by the way - we were cheated, actually. The London government broke every constitutional rule in the book by secretly colluding with Buckingham Palace to bring about an "intervention" on behalf of the No campaign by the Queen. And that's before we even get to the shameless bias of the London-based broadcast media. Not that this makes any difference to the democratic principle I've just set out, but it's well worth bearing in mind anyway.

"Alex Salmond, who had said the referendum represented the “last chance” for independence, is now telling anyone who will listen he believes he will witness independence in his lifetime."

Does anyone actually recall Mr Salmond saying that it was the "last chance"? It would have been a very odd thing for him to say, given that it was actually our first ever chance to vote for independence. The inverted commas suggest it's a direct quote, but if it is (and I have my doubts) it must be taken way out of context, because it flatly contradicts what he repeatedly said throughout the campaign - namely that he thought constitutional referenda were a once-in-a-generation thing, but that even this was only a "personal view", ie. it wasn't binding SNP policy. And note that even Salmond's personal view did not imply, let alone clearly state, that a second referendum could not happen in his lifetime. Quite the reverse - a generation can be as little as fifteen years. It sure as hell isn't "forever", Dan.

"The man [Jim Murphy] who had claimed we would all be better off together, told his audience “I need no one’s permission. I consult no one on the issues that are devolved in Scotland other than the people of Scotland and the Scottish Labour Party. That's the way it's going to be in future”...We are part of a political union. It is a union that was reaffirmed, by the Scottish people, a couple of months ago. And we all have a stake in that union. Even us knuckle-draggers south of the border...When Jim Murphy boasts “what happens in Scotland will be decided in Scotland” does he not wonder what conclusion his English colleagues and the people they represent will draw?"

Oh, I do love you, Dan - only in your world could Jim Murphy be a Cybernat. Doubtless Michael Forsyth will have become an evil separatist by next week's column.

"Do the people and politicians of Scotland honestly think the rest of the United Kingdom is going to simply sit back while they carry on the way they’ve been carrying on before, during and after September’s referendum? Do they genuinely believe they can continue demanding a series of referendums on independence in perpetuity, until they get the result right, or get bored of asking the question?"

Dan, let me put this to you. If as an English political class you want the result to be decisive and lasting, what you do (as you once suggested yourself) is step back and let Scotland make the decision for itself. What you don't do is beg - literally beg - Scotland to "stay" in return for Home Rule, near federalism and Devo SUPER Max, and then break that "Vow" within hours of the polls closing. You really have no-one but yourselves to blame, I'm afraid. The temptation of holding onto our natural resources and our usefulness as a nuclear weapons base was, I suspect, just too great.

Ah well, never mind. You're in danger of cracking up over this, Dan, but at least it makes a nice change from the 748th minor variation on your traditional "Ed Miliband is a bit like Frank Spencer" article.

62 comments:

  1. Have you noticed how, when the referendum result is mentioned by curmudgeonly Telegraph bloggers and other outraged unionists, it is always in the form of "It is a union that was reaffirmed, by the Scottish people." And yet when the issue of having another referendum comes up we get "the people of Scotland, and their elected representatives [said] We’ve been cheated! We demand another go!" So on the one hand all of the people of Scotland voted against independence but on the other all of the people of Scotland want another referendum. You bloody Scots, you're all the same! I guess we just want it both ways. Or something.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It was a completely crackers column, but the somewhat interesting thing is that it appears to have been provoked by Jim Murphy "Scott-ifying" everything (e.g. "patriotic Clause IV"). Given that Dan Hodges appears to be a one-man wing of the Labour Party, it might not signify anything more than his mad ramblings, but if it is a more commonly held view it could be significant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Given that Dan Hodges appears to be a one-man wing of the Labour Party"

      He's not even a Labour member anymore - the final straw for him was Labour's very mild reluctance to vote in favour of bombing Syria back to the stone age.

      Delete
  3. Damn jocks. It's as if they think they can have the 'best of both worlds', benefiting from the 'safety and security of the UK', but with a 'strong Scottish government' which they can use to as for another referendum in the future if they want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wherever did the jumped up little Celts get that idea from...?

      Next the buggers will be wanting to "pool and share"!

      Delete
  4. Jim Murphy needs to present a independentist image, in order to attract back former Labour voters, so his Establishment handler speaks to Dan's who has him write this piece. So obvious. We can expect a lot more of this before Jim's reinvention is complete.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree that this is what they are at. Fabrication 'that that Murphy is trying to strike out on his own! He's defying London!'. All nonsense, of course.

      Delete
  5. We have to be grateful for this multitude of hardcore unionist crackpots, who cannot keep their traps shut. Those nutters, who are keeping the constitutional issue on the burner, and who continue to harden the YES vote, and even push up support for Scottish independence ever so gently. Let them have their say - they are doing their job magnificently. We owe them so much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt that they're really having any kind of impact. Political commentators have virtually no influence these days.

      Delete
  6. I didn't know who Dan Hodges was. Now I do. The Scots in his head are his problem. Maybe he should go and see a psychiatrist.

    Mind you, the more the stupid London press attack Scots, the more we will want Independence. I know the Labour Party thinks the voters don't remember, but that just shows how ill-informed they are about how Scotland thinks. We didn't forget the Poll Tax and we won't forget Labour joining with the Tories in project fear.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is that a typo James? Did he really mention Diana? WTF..??

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yet more hilarious burying your head in the sand - commenting on a Dan Hodges column whilst ignoring slightly more signfiicant events in the real world:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30525539

    No doubt it is all the Queen's fault!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gloating at the possible demise of a major industry and people losing their jobs isn't a good look.

      Delete
    2. Whereas ignoring the potential for this to happen entirely is the moral high ground?

      I live in Aberdeen so I don't need to say that I want the oil industry to thrive, and I think it will. But it's a clear illustration of what was said repeatedly throughout the campaign - that permanently pinning your spending plans to a volatile industry would be problematic.

      North Sea revenue has been about 15-20% of our total revenue in Scotland in recent years. It's about 1-2% in the UK as a whole. The falling price won't make a dent in public spending with us part of the UK (it will probably help as it generates growth in other areas of the economy) whereas it would have had a very serious impact on our economy if we were independent.

      Nobody is asking people to take that on board and ditch support for independence entirely. What would be nice is an honest objective analysis of the facts, rather than sticking our heads in the sand and crying "scaremongering" whenever anyone raises a serious point about it.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your comments. I responded in that way to the first "anonymous" comment because it was clearly trolling.

      I think the high price of oil over the last few years, which was partly due to temporary conditions (high asset and commodity prices due to QE), created an irresistible temptation for Salmond to fight a campaign partly based on oil wealth ("one of the richest countries in the world"). After all, that is his background and is probably why he got involved in nationalist politics in the first place.

      Yet I think this temptation was a blind alley. Everyone can see that oil production has passed its peak and that revenues will inevitably decline. It's just a question of whether this happens gradually (with a high oil price) or more suddenly.

      I think that, if anything, oil was a weakness in the independence campaign. It wasn't the catastrophe for the campaign that it could have been if most of this year's price fall had occurred before September 18th, rather than after. I still think it was a net negative, for instance the coverage of Ian Wood's comments. If people moved to supporting independence due to oil, they would have done it a long time ago.

      In the (near?) future, oil will inevitably play less of a role in the debate. You'll still get folk harking on about McCrone and so on, but they would support independence anyway. The challenge for the Scottish Government (whoever forms it) will be to attract new industry and investment to replace oil when it diminishes.

      Delete
    4. Wilber - so we don't have to "entirely" ditch our support for independence? Crikey, that's generous of you.

      Delete
    5. When the price of gold falls do Unionists hand over their gold to their neighbours?
      Might as well if you planned your budget on the old price.

      Delete
  9. It's actually pretty half-hearted for the now standard clickbait from Hodges and the Torygraphs dwindling band of commenter-trolls desperately trying to generate 'outrage'-pageviews. I presume it would be considered OTT and the ramblings of a lunatic if you started from the premise that the author was ever a serious political commenter, but Hodges never has been and never will be that. The admiration of the most gullible and clueless tories that fall for his vapid screeching hardly qualifies him for anything other than tedious clickbait and justifiable mockery.

    You would get as much sense and insight from the out of touch westminster bubble twits shrieking witlessly about scotland on Stormfront Lite / politicalbetting (where, hilariously, Hodges is worshipped and adored) which is saying quite something. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm not gloating about it at all - although I have to confess that the hubris of the past and current SNP leadership regarding the oil price (a contender for a "Top of the Pops list of the stupidest things said by SNP politicians" perhaps?) is amusing.

    I simply find it hilarious that James Kelly prefers to witter on about the Queen and Dan Hodges whilst ignoring real world issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The oil price is red herring, its exactly the same as Labour droning on about one year of lower tax income from the oil industry (that happened to coincide with a year of record investment in infrastructure paid for by... Yup, tax breaks from oil revenues) which meant 'catastrophe' for a would-be independent Scotland.

      Delete
  11. Whereas I simply find it hilarious that you obliviously couldn't actually quote any of these "Top of the Pops" things to say, thus rendering your ignorant twattery far more stupid and amusing than the imaginary quotes in your head.

    Not to mention the ironic hubris of trying to blame the SNP for a downturn in an industry while the incompetent Osbrowne has to rely on yet another house price bubble in London (because that always ends well, doesn't it?) as his own deficit target failure turned out to be yet another omnishambles of his own making.

    As for real world events, how's Iraq and Afghanistan coming along? Another triumph is it? Mission accomplished? Christ, what a fuckwit you seem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You really are a very angry man! You need to calm down or else you will give yourself a stroke!

      To answer your question, the SNP's blueprint for independence, including a pledge to provide free full-time childcare, was based on an oil price of 110 dollars per barrel. It is currently $63 a barrel. I thought you would know this?

      I can also provide some other quotes if you like from Salmond:

      For example, when he said that the pund was ''a millstone round Scotland's neck'' and that an independent Scotland should join the Euro.

      That is, of course, the same Alex Salmond who this year was adamant that an independent Scotland would be part of a .........sterling currency union!!!!

      Or what about his letter to Fred Goodwin when Goodwin made the single most calamitous of his many catastrophic decisions at RBS — to over-extend and recklessly buy ABN Amro, a Dutch bank riddled with toxic debt.


      ‘Dear Fred, I want you to know I am watching events on the ABN front closely. It is in Scottish interests for RBS to be successful and I would like to offer any assistance my office can provide. Good luck with the bid. Yours for Scotland, Alex.’


      Delete
    2. Bizarre to quote Salmond's note and ignore that the real regulation of bank takeovers was with the FSA, Treasury, Chancellor, BBA in London and they were all asleep. Though possibly not bizarre as I suspect you are a fake account.
      Incidentally Michael Hesiltine predicts the UK will use the Euro.

      Delete
    3. To Anonymous at 11.45am:

      Aye we heard you the first, second, third, tenth, thirty-second, ninety-eighth and thousandth time you told us these spectacularly trivial wee stories on these threads. Is the new Britnat strategy to BORE THE CYBERNATS TO DEATH?

      Delete
    4. Ok, I understand: the currrency that you use, the collapse of Scotland's bank and the price of North Sea oil are 'spectacularly trivial' issues. You lot really are in denial.

      Delete
    5. Alex Salmond writing a moral support letter to a bank manager is so boringly trivial. Especially your twice daily repetitive re-posting of it. Yaaaawwwwwnnnnnn. Meanwhile lets pretend the UK govt weren't up to their eyeballs in the deal, THAT'S non-trivial the important bit, actually. It was the Westminster Labour government that brought the UK economy to it's knees, not a wee letter from Mr Salmond. But, hey, don't tell the Scots the real facts, lets pretend the evil SNP were to blame for the failings of the banks.

      Christ, you guys are so desperate.

      Delete
    6. You really are a very stupid man! You need to stop posting such idiotic vapid tosh or else you will give yourself another brainfart!

      How dumb do you have to be to prove my point for a second time and instead shriek about RBS? Everyone else has spotted your desperate idiocy since the difference between a note and the actual regulation of the banks and the handing to Goodwin of a Knighthood by Darling and chums is so blatant and stark? Is that seriously the best you've got? LOL

      Why would I be angry when the oblivious comedy is this good from fuckwit unionist trolls? :-)

      You still cheering on the carnage in Iraq like a good little mindless poodle?

      Delete
  12. I see that another National Front reject from PB is gracing us with their wisdom.

    Has Sir (Lord soon) I Wood apologised for his lies about jobs for life in the North Sea?

    Has Cameron D grovelled for his lies about 40 years or more of prosperity in the North Sea Oil industry?

    Has any of the Scotophobes ever some up with a reason why you oppose independence and freeing the poor little bigots of England from subsidising the Scotish parasites?

    ReplyDelete
  13. It was incredibly stupid of anybody to think that there wouldn't be a neverendum, in spite of any claims earlier in the campaign that the referendum was a "Once in a lifetime" or "Once in a generation" opportunity. Maybe it could possibly have been true if we were referring to the life cycle of a Golden Retriever, but not that of a human.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Might have been a once in a [insert timespan here] if it was conducted fairly.

      But we're not allowed to say that lest we seem chippy.

      Delete
  14. I thought this was a pretty poor article from Hodges - apropos of nothing really and not helpful. There is a nugget of truth at its heart - there are issues that matter more to the British people than the constitutional settlement for Scotland, so patience for endless debate will wear thin, particularly as the free and fair referendum yielded a clear result. But I don't think the SNP/yessers can be blamed for making hay from the uncertainty that surrounded the "vow", or that we can expect the debate to subside until the powers are tranferred (although I similarly think it is nonsense to pretend that Scots thought they were being offered everything bar defence and foreign policy). Similarly the need to sort out the constitutional settlement for rUK means the debate will continue, and Hodges can hardly expect the Scots to be mute on that.

    I hope once the powers are transferred and the constitution is rejigged people move on. Otherwise Salmond's words about Scotland needing to unite after the referendum (anticipating a yes vote) will look pretty hollow.

    But it is amusing to see Hodges being slammed on here as "not a serious commentator". He called the Indyref correctly, for example "it’s fairly obvious to anyone not emotionally invested in that campaign that the Scottish people are going to reject independence in precisely three months' time" and he was one of the first voices from Labour to acknowledge that Ed Miliband is a dud - a view now commonly accepted (which was not the case when Hodges began his - admittedly rather obsessive - output on the younger Miliband). His post on Nick Clegg today is brave, interesting and I expect will be seen as very perceptive when Clegg is reappraised in the fullness of time. You may disagree with him, he may get issues wrong from time to time (as all do) but he is a serious commentator.

    Meanwhile on the matter of oil - noone is celebrating the job losses. But the volatility of oil prices is a very important issue in the independence debate and it remains an achilles heal for the yes campaign. Their refusal to seriously engage with the issue and consider how an independent scotland manages that exposure, and the preference for some on here instead to label anyone who raises it a scaremongering scotophobe racist or to try to deflect with some nonsense about London house prices (now declining, while employment and wages increase...) or Iraq or Afghanistan, are both alarming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, Flockers, why do you keep having to put "free and fair" in front of the word referendum?

      If you really thought it was true you wouldn't have to keep saying it, would you?

      Me thinks Flockers doth protest too much.

      #DevoSuperMax #HomeRule #TheVow #NearFederalism

      Delete
    2. You might note that the headline post denied the referendum was fair and indeed said Scots were cheated, a risible notion. I was responding to that. Sadly it seems to be necessary sometimes to assert what should be an accepted truth.

      Delete
    3. It's not just this thread, you do it all the time, day after day, regardless of the headline post.

      Do you think if you keep repeating it we might forget the last minute promises to deliver home rule for Scotland, a promise that has already been broken with the Smith Commisison reserving 70% of taxation and 85% welfare with Westminster. Yep, free and fair right enough, lol.

      #NotHomeRule #HomeRuleLiars

      Delete
    4. @Flockers 1.03pm: "there are issues that matter more to the British people than the constitutional settlement for Scotland"

      Sure you didn't mean to say "there are issues that matter more to the English people than the constitutional settlement for Scotland."

      Delete
    5. "I hope once the powers are transferred and the constitution is rejigged people move on."

      Yes, I'm sure we will, Flockers, just so long as the Smith Commission proposals are beefed up massively to meet the solemn promise that was made to voters of "Devo SUPER Max", "Home Rule" and "near federalism". Mind you, if that doesn't happen, it'll be a very different story. Let's hope common sense prevails in London, eh?

      Delete
    6. "But it is amusing to see Hodges being slammed on here as "not a serious commentator". He called the Indyref correctly"

      Chortle. Just how difficult is it to "call" a coin-toss correctly?

      Delete
    7. There's little point in us having the same debate again, but you know that the "vow" was a promise of extensive new powers. That is what the leaders of the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour signed up to on the front page of the Record. The Smith Commission report, which the SNP has agreed to, states that "the recommendations set out in the agreement will result in the biggest transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament since its establishment...the [Scottish] Parliament will also assume a range of new, important, individual powers in policy areas such as taxation, welfare, employability, transport, energy efficiency, fuel poverty and onshore oil and gas extraction. All these powers have been agreed between all the political parties". The promise of delivering extensive new powers is in the process of being delivered.

      A few loose statements using terms of uncertain meaning (you yourself have contradicted yourself on here in your own interpretation of devomax, often claiming it means everything bar defence and foreign policy and then occasionally accepting that some currency-related matters would also be excluded) to explain the concept don't change the fact that what the leaders offered was extensive new powers, and that's what is being granted. As you will recall, Salmond and Sturgeon were dismissive of the vow at the time, saying that it went nowhere near far enough. Even Mick Pork observed at the time that it was nothing like Devo Max (as he understood it).

      I have said before, and will say again, that the vagueness of the vow was an epic mistake and that the lack of detail and thought about the broader implications will haunt the main UK political parties. Similarly failing to mention the need to address the West Lothian question, though it should have been obvious, was a bad mistake. So the UK parties should expect some stick.

      But when these powers are delivered I hope - and believe - that the majority of people will move on. That is not to say there will not be further debates about what other powers could be devolved over time. The British constitution is seldom static. But that those debates will be marked by a more constuctive tone than you show on here, with less of the petulant nonsense about the Scottish people having been cheated by an unfair referendum and deceived by a promise of powers that have not been delivered. On each question the opposite is the case.

      As for Hodges' ability to correctly call the coin-toss - I can think of a fair few on here who proved unable to do that and quite hysterically mocked the supposed ignorance of those who took a different view.

      Delete
    8. You're dreaming, Flockers. If you want people to "move on", the promises will have to be delivered. In full. It's a great pity (for your side of the argument, I mean) that the Scottish electorate aren't as "worldly" as you - they didn't get the memo explaining that only certain promises made during the campaign were meaningful, and that others were just "loose statements" that shouldn't be taken remotely seriously. As it is, I'm afraid people are expecting to get the whole lot. Annoying for you, but there it is.

      "you yourself have contradicted yourself on here in your own interpretation of devomax, often claiming it means everything bar defence and foreign policy and then occasionally accepting that some currency-related matters would also be excluded"

      Oh, come off it. I'm happy to confirm that I have never, ever, at any point, thought that Devo Max would involve the use of a different currency.

      "As for Hodges' ability to correctly call the coin-toss - I can think of a fair few on here who proved unable to do that and quite hysterically mocked the supposed ignorance of those who took a different view."

      Hmmm. I don't think you're quite getting this coin toss analogy, are you? I'll have a think and see if I can explain the concept of pot luck to you even more simply.

      "the petulant nonsense about the Scottish people having been cheated by an unfair referendum"

      You should take up a job as the head of Vladimir Putin's Election Fairness PR Department. You're tailor-made for it. To hell with rebutting the overwhelming proof of unfairness - just stating over and over again that "it was fair!", "it was a great election!", "anyone who says otherwise is a petulant child!" will suffice.

      Delete
    9. One of the interesting themes of our conversations is that you seem to hold a somewhat lower opinion of the Scottish people than I do. In your worldview, they are a cowed and naive bunch, terrified by political arguments, gulled by George Galloway, prone to leap to assumptions without any substantive basis, tricked by the Queen into *shock* thinking carefully about their decision, unable to discern fact from opinion in media reporting and maddened by the failure to deliver extensive powers of a process that the SNP itself has supported and agreed to.

      Ask yourself, who really believes your nonsense about the Scottish people being cheated, either in the referendum or by the Smith Commission process. Sure, your acolytes on here will buy it, and like you draw more fuel for their anger. But who else? You don't hear Sturgeon or Salmond coming out with this nonsense. The Scottish people haven't taken to the streets. Some SNP councillors burned the Smith Commission report, were widely mocked and then suspended from their party. No international body has criticised the referendum. The yes campaign celebrated it right up until the last moment.

      Fortunately for all of us the Scottish people are altogether more mature, measured and sensible than you credit them. You do them a disservice by trying to incite a deep sense of grievance, particularly when others, including your own party leadership, are more focussed on being constructive.

      Delete
    10. "Ask yourself, who really believes your nonsense about the Scottish people being cheated, either in the referendum or by the Smith Commission process"

      Oh dear - you really are out of touch, aren't you? Answer : more than 50% of the adult population of Scotland. Check last week's full-scale YouGov opinion poll.

      "The yes campaign celebrated it right up until the last moment."

      Do you mean the official Yes Scotland campaign? I'm presuming you don't mean the hundreds of Yes campaigners who protested about bias outside the BBC headquarters in Glasgow?

      "One of the interesting themes of our conversations is that you seem to hold a somewhat lower opinion of the Scottish people than I do."

      Quite the opposite. Your definition of maturity is "acceptance of the cynicism of the Westminster game". I despise that worldview, and I'm thrilled that opinion poll after opinion poll confirms that the people of Scotland are treating it with the contempt it deserves.

      We'll have those promises delivered IN FULL, please.

      Delete
    11. Ah yes, the famous Yougov poll which asked people whether the referendum was unfair....(or not)

      Given that 45% of Scots voted for independence, its no surprise that a majority would like more powers than are offered by the Smith Commission process. That doesn't say anything about the fairness of the process or whether people think they have been cheated. By all means show me evidence that a majority of Scots are as paranoid as you, or that any international organisation has declared the referendum unfair.


      Delete
    12. It's vastly amusing that Flockers obliviously proves my point 100% about Hodges but sadly doesn't have the requisite intelligence to realise it. "it’s fairly obvious to anyone not emotionally invested in that campaign that the Scottish people are going to reject independence in precisely three months' time" - is quite clearly not only wrong but the kind of tedious clickbait that out of touch and not very bright tories love from Hodges. Fact of the matter is it was very far from obvious and the staggering panic that set in as the first Indyref got down to the wire proves that point irrefutably. The utterly desperate wheeling out of Brown and THE VOW with the wall to wall unionist media propaganda blasted 24/7 to accompany it comprehensively debunks Hodges inane wittering.

      You prove it again (thanks!) by this - "and he was one of the first voices from Labour to acknowledge that Ed Miliband is a dud " No, he wasn't. That was always the line from the Blairites supporting brother David going into the leadership election. Hodges did what he was told (they used him to brief against little Ed then and indeed now) then went above and beyond it with his calling of the result for brother David before it was announced. That's the most pertinent fact about Hodges and little Ed. His criticisms of little Ed and Labour are all based on him getting that call so publicly wrong, nothing more to it than that. His actual critique is simply whatever the nearest Blairite says to him in a phone call which is why it's such lightweight drivel. Everyone knows (well everyone but idiot PB Tories and Hodges) that little Ed isn't a pitiful figure of fun because he's far too left-wing. As if!! All that foaming at the mouth about "Red Ed" was Blairite and tory drivel which absolutely missed the point. Little Ed has thoroughly pissed off the Labour base because it's so bloody obvious he has no strong left of centre beliefs and is just another lighweight Blair wannabee with no conviction. (Just like Cameron and just like Clegg admittedly). Little Ed is particularly bad at it since the whole Blair act was 99% Public Relations and soundbites which little Ed is hilariously terrible at. Again, so are the incompetent fop and calamity Clegg but "wethpect" shows you how little Ed always takes it to another level when he listens to his idiot advisers and tries to do the whole 'acting natural' comedy turn.

      The truth is little Ed is doing so badly because he always was and always will be a small political figure of little consequence. No big iideas, no convictions, no clue. There just isn't very much to him at all. Hence "little" Ed. He flips and flops from triangulating desperately on the tories to suddenly realising his own supporters are so desperate many of them will vote for a bunch of poundshop racists in the kippers. This is the idiot who took A YEAR to finally decide the bedroom tax might not actually be a great idea.

      LOL

      That says it all. As does the adoration of Hodges by the most amusingly out touch tories and westminster bubble twits..

      Delete
    13. " I expect will be seen as very perceptive when Clegg is reappraised in the fullness of time. "

      Comedy Gold! :-D

      Like history would prove Blair right about Iraq? Yeah, not looking too clever is it? It is however the usual idiot clickbait from Hodges though. Trite contrarianism for the sake of pageviews.


      What is irrefutable is that Clegg is utterly toxic and has been for years. Those who called that very early on are the ones who were right and they did so on the basis of the MANY huge strategic errors and frankly jawdroppingly stupid things Clegg has done and made his party do as he scrabbled desperately to stay in power while keeping Cameron and the tories happy.

      Only a fool like Hodges (and his imbecile fanboys) doesn't understand that the fib dems are thought of by most voters as unprincipled yellow tories because of Clegg's actions. The "new world" Hodges witters on about is one where the westmisnter parties have never been held in more contempt and calamity Clegg is one of the big reasons why.



      "Even Mick Pork observed at the time that it was nothing like Devo Max (as he understood it)."

      I understand it far more acutely than comically out of touch tory twits ever will, Flockers old bean. The basic point you don't have brainpower to grasp is that I am not the media, the TV networks or almost every single newspaper in the land who were overwhelmingly biased for the unionists and blasting THE VOW propaganda 24/7 and wall to wall. Pretending that didn't have an effect and that it was not laughably skewed towards giving the vague promises of more powers far more substance and than they contained is admittedly amusing. However, it is also clearly the westminster bubble view of someone who wasn't anywhere near the actual campaign and is still looking to justify that stupendously desperate panic move which is going to have BIG repercussions for years and years to come.

      Delete
    14. (although I similarly think it is nonsense to pretend that Scots thought they were being offered everything bar defence and foreign policy).

      There were those however on the unionist side who clearly thought they were offering it. It is funny that the writer should speak (jokingly no doubt in intention) of Michael Forsyth being seen as a separatist, since Forsyth was on the BBC referendum results programme and when asked what should happen next after the result was announced replied that nothing less than full "devo-max" would fulfil the promises made. When asked if that meant he was in favour of a full federal arrangement for Scotland within the UK he said he was. A bit of a turnaround for Lord Forsyth given his previous opposition even to devolution.

      It is easy now to revisit the events n the light of the result and say the unionists didn't mean to offer devo-max, and many on the pro-independence side were warning this was not what was being offered at the time and trying to counter the perception that it was, even as the media were reporting that devo-max and devo supermax were on the table and the no side were happily allowing that perception to take hold. The fact of it is that, at the time, if that had been what it took to get the no vote they would have done it.

      Delete
    15. "By all means show me evidence that a majority of Scots are as paranoid as you"

      If you mean show you evidence that the public do not think the Vow has been delivered, I have already given you it. I can take a horse to water but I cannot make you drink. You are so far adrift from reality now that it's genuinely difficult to know what to say to you.

      Nevertheless, I'll try. My strong advice to you is to stop banging your head against a brick wall. You did your level best in the early days after the referendum to weave a narrative of "it's over, it was fair, time to move on". At that stage it even looked possible that narrative might have taken root. But it did not. It failed. People are not ready to move on, and they won't be until the promised Home Rule is delivered. It's not even particularly your fault (or the fault of others like you) that the narrative failed - it turns out that it was always doomed to fail, because people actually heard what Gordon Brown said, took it seriously and remembered it. It has held fast in their memory, and I'm afraid there is no going back. The only remaining question is whether this process has Devo Max or independence as its final destination, and no, there won't be any convenient pause of a few decades along the way while people "move on" without the goods in their hands, as you'd like them to.

      It was a decent enough effort, Flockers, but I don't really feel any sympathy because it deserved to fail. You're on the wrong side of history.

      Delete
  15. "Has any of the Scotophobes ever some up with a reason why you oppose independence and freeing the poor little bigots of England from subsidising the Scotish parasites?"

    You appear to think that both positions are incompatible. It is entirely possible for the English to own the Scots, control their resources and dictate to them politically whilst simultaneously slashing their spending money you know. Next phase is to make the Scots as poor as Wales whilst ensuring they have no say whatsoever in the English parliament. Mwahahahahahah, suckers!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Regards the oil prices, how come it was such a big deal that there was apparently a £4bn black hole in Scotland's finances (which didn't take into account any savings we might make from no longer spending billions subsidising trident, Hs2, crossrail etc etc) but no-one seems to notice that Scotland has been getting allocated a share of UK's black hole amounting to over £11bn every year for the last 5 years? Why is "£4bn" bad but £11bn good?

    Only the Scots would be daft enough to think no oil revenue is somehow better than reduced oil revenue, because that's what the Britnats are trying to get us to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think major oil-producing countries are deliberately keeping oil prices down in order to punish Putin. A country like Norway, which had the foresight to put away oil revenues to cover a rainy day such as this, is in an enviable position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Saudis want to wipe out the fracking companies.

      Delete
  18. It appears Murphy is having an impact on Scottish voting intentions.

    https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3495/Vote-shares-for-main-parties-unchanged-but-Green-vote-hits-record-high.aspx

    Ipsos Mori for Dec 13-15th..Scottish subsample. Labour at low teens, Libs and Tories even lower... SNP at 50% area... projecting wipeout of Labour seats in Scotland

    This is another point that Dan Hodges will have trouble understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  19. http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/iain-macwhirter-plummeting-oil-price-stirs-troubled-waters.114828069

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh Mick, I do love you.

    Despite the fact Hodges called the election early, decisively and correctly, and you were wrong, with your usual chutzpah you declare him to be the dolt.

    Then you deny that Hodges was one of the first Labour voices to declare Ed to be a dud, by advancing evidence that Hodges was indeed one of the first Labour voices to declare Ed a dud.

    And then you top that, apropos of nothing, by going on an extended rant about Ed's deficiencies that includes the line "no big ideas, no conviction, no clue", a line that could almost have come from Hodges' pen.

    Your second post then descends into the downright bizarre. Quite why you think I believe Blair will be vindicated by history over Iraq, when I hold a diametrically opposite view, I cannot fathom. Quite what the relevance of Blair's legacy is to whether Nick Clegg's performance will be reappraised is beyond everyone, I suspect. All you've done is demonstrated the limitations of your intellect. You cannot see beyond the immediate. The excitement in the yes campaign offices made you think yes would win; Clegg's dismal ratings makes you think he will forever be viewed as a calamity and will be denied the historical reappraisal that is afforded to every leading politician (some to their benefit, some to their detriment, some to no real effect).

    Finally, you end with one of your trademark rants about the biased media, completely forgetting that you reassured us (by which I mean you screamed that we were idiots for not understanding) that the media were held in contempt by the Scots and noone trusted them and the referendum was all about trust (repeat ad nauseum until referendum defeat). Comical inconsistency. FWIW I believe the vow did have an impact, but we'll never know how much. I've never thought that particularly matters, because I have always believed - and said on here -whether the vow swung the election or effected no votes at all, the Westminster parties had to deliver it. They are and I am pleased about that. Meanwhile, perhaps you could clarify your position. During the last week of the election you seemed pretty clear that the vow had no impact, the yes campaign was smashing the no campaign on the ground, gaining converts every day and the vow was the subject of mockery and contempt, believed by no-one. Has your view changed? If so, perhaps it might call into question the quality of your original analysis.

    Of course, I'm just living in the Westminster bubble and apparently trying to justify the vow (despite, er, repeatedly saying it was a massive error).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not as much as I love the comedy gold you obliviously churn out, Flockers old bean.

      "Despite the fact Hodges called the election early, decisively and correctly,"

      How desperate do you have to be to continually deliberately misconstrue what I said? I made certain I was crystal clear, though I must admit I didn't actually think you were SO pathetic that you would try to pretend the point wasn't about what Hodges actually said and not the 50/50 yes no result. I'll repost it since it appears you might actually be too dim to understand what Hodges was getting at. (which is quite an accomplishment)

      "it’s fairly obvious to anyone not emotionally invested in that campaign that the Scottish people are going to reject independence in precisely three months' time" - "Fact of the matter is it was very far from obvious and the staggering panic that set in as the first Indyref got down to the wire proves that point irrefutably"

      Has it finally sunk in yet old chap? I expect not, but keep trying. Your inept fumbling and excuses are as delightful as always. ;-)

      "Hodges was one of the first Labour voices to declare Ed to be a dud, by advancing evidence that Hodges was indeed one of the first Labour voices to declare Ed a dud."

      Again, a trite and vapid complete misrepresentation of what I said. Your usual efforts in other words.

      I told you precisely who the first voices against little Ed were and it was the Blairite MPs in his own party led by brother David. That Hodges did as he was told and briefed against little Ed FOR THEM does not make that any less true or in any way disprove the central point that Hodges is just a right-wing mouthpiece for the Blairites and always was. Your complete avoidance of the central theme of Hodges rants against little Ed speaks volumes as it is undeniable that Hodges attacks little Ed from the right when the public simply do not view him as the 'Red menace' the Blairites, Hodges and dimwitted tories do.


      "no big ideas, no conviction, no clue", a line that could almost have come from Hodges' pen."

      That was never Hodges central critique because it was never the Blairites or the tories critique. He main beef with little Ed has always been that he wasn't brother David and that he wasn't far enough to the right and thus wasn't sufficiently 'respectful' of the ultra-Blairites who wanted to mirror then outdo the tories on almost every single policy area. From cuts to privatisation to immigration and welfare Hodges has always been just another right-wing voice shouting for more and more. Hodges jumped on the bandwagon when it became blatantly obvious that the electorate certainly didn't think little Ed was some Stalinist bogeyman but a convictionless lightweight but the fact of the matter is Hodges always, but always, attacked little Ed from the Blairite and tory right-wing. (which is why so many tories love his inane dribbling) I note with vast amusement that's twice now that you've tried to wriggle out of the central point by retreating into pitiful semantic gymnastics as it is the usual response from you.

      Delete
    2. "Quite why you think I believe Blair will be vindicated by history over Iraq, when I hold a diametrically opposite view, I cannot fathom."

      I'm now entirely prepared to believe that you simply aren't bright enough to understand basic political points. So I'll try to help you yet again.

      "I expect will be seen as very perceptive when Clegg is reappraised in the fullness of time."

      THE most famous modern example of an unpopular politician using the "reappraised in the fullness of time" excuse for a massively unpopular course of action is Blair and Iraq. Is that too complicated for you to grasp or would you like a link to explain Iraq and Blair's many, many statements to that effect on it? *chortle*

      I admit I was wrong to expect you to have the intelligence to understand that was the reason why I used that as shorthand to explain Hodges trite contrarian lunacy about Clegg, but it get's very tiring having to explain everything to someone who doesn't seem to have a clue about politics and needs to be treated like a child. Speaking of which..

      "Clegg's dismal ratings makes you think he will forever be viewed as a calamity "

      Wrong again chum. Long before Clegg hit his hilarious lows I knew he was courting certain disaster and the most amusing thing is that at least one of the most prominent lib dems knew it too. That would be Kennedy who won more seats than Clegg did and warned him point blank what cosying up to the tories would mean. So it has proved and only a complete fool doesn't realise lib dems are in the trouble they are precisely because of that and Clegg's complete lack of principles. Of course tory twits want to pretend that Clegg is hard done by because he's kept them in power (since, as we all know, the incompetent fop coudn't win a majority) but the truth is the tory/lid dem love in has been pure electoral poison for them and Clegg was warned it would be because it was hardly rocket science to see that it was.

      "The excitement in the yes campaign offices made you think yes would win"

      Bullshit. I was rarely in those offices for very long as the campaign was on the ground and it was there where I formed my opinion of how things were proceeding which was that it was far closer than the westminster bubble twits like Hodges ever thought it would be. So it proved.

      "Finally, you end with one of your trademark rants about the biased media"

      Only an out of touch tory twit could dismiss the facts as a 'rant'. Fact is all the newspapers bar the Sunday Herald were pro-unionist. That's 37 national or daily newspapers. Fact is even BBC insiders like former Newsnight correspondent Paul Mason called it correctly.

      "Not since Iraq have I seen BBC News working at propaganda strength like this."

      Not to mention the academic study which proved that bias across the broadcasters news output.

      http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/06/30/i-was-bullied-bbc-over-academic-report-indyref-bias-scottish-media-blackout-must

      The public does hold the media in contempt and trusts them less and less. Just like they hold the out of touch westminster parties in contempt. Doesn't mean absolutely nobody will vote for them though any more than it means that the blanket media bias didn't have have an effect on voters. Though I admit that is yet another obvious fact that seems far too complex for your overly simplistic and trite 'analysis'.

      Delete
  21. "Comical inconsistency. FWIW I believe the vow did have an impact, but we'll never know how much."

    Completely oblivious which just makes the irony all the more hilarious.


    "the Westminster parties had to deliver it. They are and I am pleased about that."

    I hate to break it to you old chap but absolutely nothing has changed. They may or may not get their act together and cobble something that will pass cowardly Cameron's irate backbenchers and the Lords. For right now it's still business as usual and THE VOW is just another huge promise and pledge from westminster political leaders to deliver when they get elected. Something their hilariously low popularity figures prove might not be too wise an idea.

    "trying to justify the vow (despite, er, repeatedly saying it was a massive error)."

    Every time you post on James blog you trot out the usual thin and intellectually bankrupt series of excuses for THE VOW. So instead of whining about how we all have it wrong, perhaps you should, er, just admit that the reason it was a massive error is because of the biased unionist media collusion and the way the westminster bubble twits used it and presented it. You know, like we always do. :-)

    By all means Flockers old fruit, make another twat of yourself like the last time you scurried off looking for quotes and came back looking desperate and dishonest.

    If you think you are advancing anything other than the stereotype of the comically out of touch tory twit on here I fear you will end up as disappointed as ever.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Not much point engaging with your bizarre combination of evasions, irrelevancies and outright falsehoods in those last three posts, so I will confine myself to noting that at least, as ever, your views are consistent with Alex Salmond's. He too has had cause to reconsider the vow in hindsight.

    At the time Salmond dismissed the vow as a "last minute offer of nothing". Now he believes that devolution of all tax and spend powers was offered. Some "nothing".

    In the spirit of Christmas, I'll give you an early head's up. The Independent is running a story tomorrow about Salmond hinting that the SNP would be prepared to vote on matters affecting only the English in support of a Labour minority administration. I am sure you will find a way to support what would be an astonishing volte face.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your comical bluster is as free of any proof as always Flockers old bean so I'll let that inform readers of James blog as to who it is who is being dishonest.

      "At the time Salmond dismissed the vow as a "last minute offer of nothing". Now he believes that devolution of all tax and spend powers was offered. Some "nothing"."

      You are clearly descending ever further into some of the most comically banal and oversimplistic misinterpretations of politics I have ever seen. Even for Stormfront Lite /PB this would be idiotic and trite. Again, you have to have everything spelled out to you like a child.

      We in the Yes campaign always thought THE VOW was last minute panic bullshit from desperate unionists. So how stupid do you have to be not to understand that what we think about the vow is NOT THE SAME as the massive claims the UNIONIST PARTIES AND OVERWHELMINGLY UNIONIST MEDIA made about the vow. Of course they are bloody different you bumptious twit. Why on earth wouldn't we hold up the vow to what the unionists were claiming it was since we think it's bullshit and nowhere near enough for scots who want more meaningful powers.

      Jesus christ Flockers, seriously, how thick are you? This is getting painful to watch with you scrabbling about desperately huffing and puffing cluelessly.

      The point you hilariously keep wanting to dodge is that it will be the scottish public who eventually decides who was lying and who was correct in their view of the VOW. Not me, not Salmond and certainly not the incompetent fop Cameron or the AWOL Brown who has very tellingly scurried off. The VOW has not been delivered and just how substantial it is if it ever does get delivered and whether it is anywhere near enough will be entirely up to the scottish public. It's certainly not looking good so far for the DevoULTRA and "near federalists". Hence the amusing despair from unionists who belatedly realise it will be round their neck from now on just as much as the "Better Together" slogan.

      I'll give you an even earlier heads up Flockers old fruit. A long, long time ago before something called the McKay commission even reported I flagged it up as an obvious flashpoint and the best chance the fop and Clegg had to deliver their manifesto commitments for tackling the WLQ. Guess what? They ducked it. So all the amusing panic and bluster from tories now over EV4EL (primarily because the fop Cameron is terrified of his own backbenchers and the kippers, as usual) is worth absolutely nothing. The tories had the chance to set out a clear path and set of principles for the WLQ, in the event of the first independence referendum not being won, but you blew it. So I'm afraid the 'outraged' shrieking of tories now will be hilariously ironic if (and it's a big IF as the Independent has form on running mere speculation as fact) the SNP do as the other westminster parties do on those kind of votes. You don't like it then legislate against it chum because you've had an entire parliament to do something about it and done sweet FA.

      In what universe do you imagine that petulant squealing from tory MPs and their idiot cheerleaders will have the slightest bearing on SNP policy if it is to the benefit of scotland and the scottish public? Yeah, we're REALLY scared of upsetting a bunch of out of touch westminster tory twits.

      ROFL

      Delete
    2. "In the spirit of Christmas, I'll give you an early head's up. The Independent is running a story tomorrow about Salmond hinting that the SNP would be prepared to vote on matters affecting only the English in support of a Labour minority administration. I am sure you will find a way to support what would be an astonishing volte face."

      I can only speak for myself, but I welcome it wholeheartedly - it's exactly what I called for a couple of weeks ago. You also haven't been paying attention, old chap (again), because it's not the first time Salmond has dropped that hint.

      Delete
    3. Such hints (SNP might form a proper coalition with Labour) must be very, very worrying for McMurphy. I mean if you can vote SNP knowing that would deliver a Labour UK government...

      Explain's Cameron's 'Vote SNP - Get Labour' stuff anyway.

      Of course once the result is in, so long as hints were just that in the papers, it renders them meaningless. Job done.

      Delete
  23. Just because it is in a newspaper does not make it true.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In Scotland, reading it in a newspaper increases the odds of it not being true. If it is in the Scotsman or the Record or the Mail, those odds approach certainty. If read on the BBC, absolute certainty.

    ReplyDelete