As you can see from the top of the sidebar, I now mainly use a Gmail account, but I still have a Yahoo email account from years ago that I need to check fairly regularly. I'd really like to be able to do that without being forced to pass a link to a "news story" describing Alex Salmond's flag "stunt" (ie. waving the Scottish flag in celebration of the all-time greatest Scottish sporting triumph) as "childish". Or at a pinch, I'd even settle for not having to then find out that the "childish" jibe was solely based on the opinion of a single southern commentator - Ian Dunt - who knows nothing about Scotland and understands even less. Hint : the indulgence of one random man's opinion ain't "news", guys, anymore than the last piece of Scottish political "analysis" that you linked to on the Yahoo UK homepage was news.
In any case, can Dunt convincingly justify his claim that Salmond waving his country's flag was a "stunt" and "childish", when presumably Cameron's repeated breathless attempts to exploit Murray's triumph in the sacred name of Britishness were all perfectly "mature"? You won't be surprised to hear that the answer is a resounding no.
"Not so long ago Alex Salmond was considered a political genius. He outmanoeuvred his Westminster opponents at every turn, ran rings around the vestiges of talent in Hollyrood and struck the right balance of cheery bonhomie and statesmanlike vision in his TV appearances...
But yesterday's clumsy attempt to politicise Andy Murray's Wimbledon win showed the wheels coming off the Salmond bandwagon."
First of all, mate, I hope it's not too cruel of me to point out that most people who know the first thing about Scottish politics are generally aware that there's only one 'l' in the word 'Holyrood'. Secondly, are you seriously telling us that Salmond was a genius - but then he waved a flag and suddenly wasn't anymore? Do you have the faintest idea just how daft that sounds?
Oh, and by the way, if Salmond was indeed considered a genius by Mr Dunt until "not so long ago" (presumably in the halcyon pre-flag days), why did we mysteriously never see any articles on the Yahoo UK homepage telling us about that? Why were we treated to the "insight" of Mr Jeremy Warner instead?
"BBC cameras cut away just as he and his wife were unfurling a large Saltire behind David Cameron's head, amid crowds cheering the historic victory. It would have looked bad if the cameras caught him waving it, but by showing just his frantic efforts to get the flag out, it came across as particularly amateurish."
So let me get this straight - his main shortcoming was failing to hypnotise a television director? Is that what the "pros" do, Ian?
And justify the word "frantic", please. That kind of bluff to support your preferred narrative would work a hell of a lot better if we hadn't all seen the footage for ourselves.
"As Salmond insisted today, he had no control over the seating arrangements, so it wasn't a purposeful effort to photobomb the prime minister. Nevertheless, the short clip made Salmond look cheap, childish and, as Labour MP Tom Harris put it, 'naff'."
Wow. So you've found one Scot to agree with you, Ian - and he just happens to be the right-wing, constitutional reform hating, David Cameron installing, supremely ironic Downfall spoofing, teenage mother bashing, "Admin" of the Labour Hame website. Why not chuck in Duncan Hothersall and make us even more impressed?
"The Murray victory should, if anything, be a boost to the Scottish first minister. While most of the talk – including that from Murray himself – has been of the importance of a British winner in a British sporting event, it cements the impression of Scotland being a country of weight..."
Most of the talk? Would that be most of the talk from people like these who painted the streets of Dunblane in the blue and white of the saltire last September to salute Murray's US Open win? Or are you merely referring to the talk you hear from people very much like yourself, Ian, who live in exactly the same place that you do, ie. London? Or the talk from commentators in the same provincially-minded London media that you yourself are part of? If so, you've unwittingly put your finger right on the nub of this matter - a distorted and unbalanced London-centric perception was precisely the problem to which a well-placed saltire was the solution.
The acres of drivel written about Alex Salmond over the last couple of days - simply for capturing the mood of the nation by doing the most natural thing in the world - leaves only one possible conclusion to be drawn. If opponents of independence in the south of England are that desperate to find the tiniest excuse to smear the leader of the pro-independence movement, they must be profoundly scared of him.
Well said James.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to the pictures in this weeks Scotland on Sunday of Salmond waving a swastika.
ReplyDeleteAch, I see GA Ponsonby in newsnetscotland has had a similar idea!
DeleteYou are correct, they are scared, very scared. I'm a Scot in London for the past five years and work in a central London office with about 40-odd mostly middle-class home county English colleagues. We are nearing the end of the second day after Wimbers and so far nobody in the office has mentioned Sunday's events, nothing. There has been some talk on football, cricket and rugby, but no tennis. It is so eerie it feels like the Wimbledon final never happened.
ReplyDeleteOf course they know too well it was a Scottish person who won it and one they have never warmed to. He's not one of them, never was and it's too late to claim him. Murray is a champ, but he's not their champ, not like Wiggins, Lewis or Ennis. Their comfort blanket is the butcher's apron, the imperial shield that brought distant colonies law and order, railways, bureaucracy and sanitation in between the casual slaughter, genocide, oppression, torture, concentration camps, exploitation and Rule 303. But somehow they didn't mind Tim Henman wrapping himself, with the Wimbledon crowd, in the St George's Cross, or weren't that bothered to see young Royals wearing Engerlaand football shirts, nor do they bat an eye lash when international commentators repeatedly call HRH Liz the Queen of England.
But the Saltire is a threat, it cannot be seen or used because it cannot be wiped from history. Scotland doesn't really exist as a country to them, take away nationhood and you don't have a right to exist, it is a region as promoted by both Labour and the Tories. Scotland is allowed to be part of Great Britain aka Greater England and governed by reserved powers, and by that respect it is fed, watered and looked after by their 'superiors' as they see fit. Murray won but he wasn't supposed to, the porridge mooths are mean't to be bettered by the Oxbridge set as per 300 years of script.
They are frightened because Murray achieved greatness and Salmond shoved it down their throats in their own back yard and they have nobody turn to except the right-wing press which tries to maintain the comfort of the Union-I'm-Alright-Jackery. They are now trying desperately trying to replace the void left by Gordon Broon with Alex Salmond, a Scottish hate figure that was built up originally with Paxman's Scottish 'Raj' outburst.
The next General Election will be built up in the right-wing press with a conservative victory in mind, and touch of UKIP flavour. Nothing can threaten this plan, especially the upstart Scotch and their token rebel flags. A Yorkshireman friend (Yorkshire first England second) put it bluntly one day, he said 'the English love Scotland, they love the scenery, they love the whisky and the golf, but they don't want the people'. I begged to differ, I said the English need us because we're the last of the imperial punchbags. Because without us the English would have to look in the mirror, and that frightens them to death.
If Timmy Henman had ever won, and Cameron waved a St. Dodes cross, would it have even been mentioned in the press?
ReplyDeleteOr how about John Major being filmed in the England dressing room after the 1991 Rugby World Cup final, just months before the 1992 general election?
ReplyDeleteHilarious.
ReplyDeleteWritten though, by an Englishman, for consumption by Englishmen with never a thought to the feelings of Scots, who, pretty much to a man, nationalist or colonialist, think of it as a Scotland victory.
Naff? Oh what a funny man Bomber Harris is, what?
Was it "naff " when Princess Anne waved a Union Flag at the Paralympics?
No. She was supporting her country.
Was it "naff" when David Cameron waved a Union Flag at the Olympics?
No, he was supporting his country.
Why on Earth, then, would it be "naff" for the First Minister of Scotland to wave a Scottish Flag?
You know, the only thing I think was "naff" over all these sporting events, was the Queen allowing herself to be used at the Olympic opening ceremony. That truly was infra dignitatem.
Cameron inviting Murray to Downing Street and going to the door with him (which I heard he did) so that they could be photographed together might be considered by some to be a stunt, but I think that it was more that the man was offering congratulations on behalf of the UK.
I'm sure that, in the fullness of time, Mr Salmond will do the same when Andy is in Edinburgh.
No one of course would care what Mr Harris was doing about the tennis, as he is simply not important enough to excite any interest.
He seems to me to be a bit of a failure.
He FAILED to get into the shadow cabinet because no one voted for him, and he's a bit on the right wing side for Ed to choose him.
He FAILED to be elected to the Scottish leadership. No one voted for him, perhaps because his platform was that Labour should be the party of Business!¬!.
Lamont handed him a job as Internet advisor and after a few days in the post he was obliged to resign over a faux pas, having FAILED yet again.
Loser Harris.
Good article as always James.
ReplyDeleteThe sheer scale of the comical lunacy from the bigots who were foaming at the mouth over Salmond and a Saltire was surprising even if their response was all too predictable.
Murray's reception in Dunblane will be moving and in sharp contrast to the faux outrage from the BritNat cretins.
"He seems to me to be a bit of a failure.
He FAILED to get into the shadow cabinet because no one voted for him, and he's a bit on the right wing side for Ed to choose him."
Not quite Tris.
He mysteriously quit from the shadow cabinet not too long before Watson quit and I doubt that is all mere co-incidence. The splits and infighting between the Brownites and Blairites are breaking out again.
He's definitely a loser though as the Blairites are emerging resurgent just after he runs off to spend more time with the family.
Come back to PB James.
ReplyDeleteStewart Dickson is back on now.
I can't - I'm banned. I was going to say "take it up with Mike Smithson", but in actual fact I wouldn't advise that, because the Kafkaesque rule is that anyone who mentions a banning is liable to be banned themselves. That's exactly what happened to me.
ReplyDeleteI was delighted to hear that Stuart returned a day or two after my banning. Presumably his own ban automatically lapsed when the Vanilla comments platform was introduced. Hopefully Smithson will show more sense than he has done up to now, and won't reimpose the ban yet again. (Although betting on Smithson's good sense is never the wisest idea.)
Aye, good commentary. I also found the yahoo article by accident, I didn't read it because its on Yahoo so probably beneath the Mirror in terms of journalistic integrity. I found the comments to be more disappointing, some proper morons on there - to be people to be so adamant yet so ill-informed...
ReplyDeleteIts another example of bog roll unionism, Dunt has attached a couple of used toilet roll tubes to his face and pointed them at Tom Harris for an opinion and his own fevered imaginings ignoring everything else.
Most of the people commenting won't be voting so I don't suppose its worth getting ones knickers in a twist, but still... The extent to which some are brainwashed is frightening.
Thanks for the correction Mick. I thought he didn't get elected to the British shadow cabinet, and that he failed to get a place in the "leader's discretion" places.
ReplyDeleteI knew that he stood down in the leadership contest here. I assume when it became obvious that he was going to get a derisory vote.