Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Daisley, the neocon link list, and the 1967 "liberation" of East Jerusalem

As a small addendum to the previous post, I've just noticed somebody on Twitter pointing out that Stephen Daisley used to write for the Times of Israel, where his mini-biography describes him as writing "from a centre-right perspective". It also reveals that he has (or had) a blog called The Eclectic Partisan. Having looked it up, what I found most immediately fascinating is the contents of his link list -

CiF Watch (a website devoted to finding anti-Semitism in The Guardian regardless of whether it is there or not)
Commentary Magazine (self-described as the "flagship of neoconservatism")
David Frum (speechwriter for George W Bush)
Harry's Place (blog that mostly bashes the Left)
Janet Daley (yup, you know who Janet Daley is)
Jerusalem Post
Jewish Chronicle
John Rentoul (arch-Blairite who had no hesitation in saying he preferred Cameron as PM to Miliband)
Julie's Think Tank (now a protected blog, but from what I gather appeared to follow a neocon line)
Martin Bright (formerly of the "Tony Blair Faith Foundation")
Melanie Phillips (yup, you really, really know who Melanie Phillips is)
National Review's The Corner
The New Criterion
Nick Cohen (the neocons' favourite ex-leftie)
Rob Marchant (member of the Blairite Progress group)

Now, admittedly, you can't necessarily judge a man by his link list - I have one or two blogs on my own list that I often profoundly disagree with. But it has to be said there is a fairly consistent ideological theme running through Daisley's list like a stick of Blackpool rock.

There's nothing wrong with being a "centre-right" admirer of neocons if that's what floats your boat. But I really, really struggle to reconcile this more authentic version of Daisley with the image he's tried to project of himself in his STV articles, which is presumably self-consciously tailored for a Scottish audience. His fervour for Tony Blair and Liz Kendall suddenly makes a lot of sense, but not necessarily in the context of his supposed "inchoate" attachment to Labour as a "transformative left-of-centre political force".  Anyone voting in the Labour leadership election might want to be a tad suspicious about the motivations for his relentless assault on the radical left - is he really, as he presents himself, a man rooted in Labour values who is simply trying to help rescue the party from itself?  Probably not.

Incidentally, you might be interested to know that Daisley said on his blog a couple of years ago that Israel "liberated" Jerusalem in 1967 (ie. by conquering the Arab-dominated East Jerusalem). By any standards, that is a grotesque and - to use one of his own favourite words - unhinged interpretation. There comes a point where you just have to conclude that a man has utterly lost all sense of perspective on his favourite subject, and that he has forfeited any right to be taken seriously when he writes about it, regardless of the quality of his prose.


  1. Not to be paranoid at all, but you have to ask yourself, how does someone apparently so zionist end up working for STV?

    1. Maybe he couldn't get a job anywhere else?

    2. Maybe STV doesn't have a "no zionists" rule.

    3. The Zionism is hardly the main reason.

      'Scottish' Labour has a long, long history of patronage for their little 'helpers', spads and various over the hill MPs and MSPs in the media. Most obviously in the Record and STV. It's not even something they've tried to hide because it was so bloody obvious.

      A nod and a wink or a word from someone in senior SLAB or westminster Labour was always enough ensure jobs for the boys.

      Not any more though.

      Can you imagine the state of Ian Murray, the last Labour MP in scotland, when the results came in? All those spads, young careerists and SLAB hangers on desperately ringing his phone off the hook shouting "Gizza job! " :-D

      Which brings us back to our boggle-eyed NeoCon who, as I noted on the previous post, sounds precisely like someone desperate to get a job on Fox News or some other right-wing zoomer media outlet.

      Fact is there's nobody left to take Daisley's calls and he has no 'sponsor' to keep STV's management and moneymen sweet. No wonder he seems to be using STV as a shop window to sell his pen to the highest right-wing zoomer bidder.

      It's not as if it's remotely credible for a supposed national broadcaster like STV to keep on someone as latantly biased and jaw-droppingly out of touch with Scottish opinion as Daisley is.

      Let's be clear, the sort of whackjob NeoCon/Atlas Shrugged views Daisley is busy promoting on STV are currently being laughed it in the U.S. as GOP Circus#2 (The Trumpening! :-D ) plays out to vast amusement.

      So STV have someone representing them in a plum internet job who is a wee bit on the extreme side even for some mainstream Republicans!!

      Scottish viewers are JUST A TOUCH more leftwing than the kind of Fox News values Daisley promotes. Hell, the vast majority of Labour voters in Scotland will hardly be amused to read the kind of half-arsed smearing of Corbyn from that kind of extreme NeoCon perspective.

      It can't last and I strongly doubt it will.

      The time when Labour could 'safely' drop one of their more 'excitable' minions into a 'backroom' media internet job and not worry about it are long gone. With TV audiences still relentlessly dropping and internet use still rising people will actually see what Daisley writes and they'll notice it.

      Nor are any SLAB 'minders' left to give Daisley a call and reign him in as he goes of the zoomer end into boggle-eyed NeoCon ranting.

      There may be some room in the London media bubble for that kind of ultra-Blairite/NeoCon babble but most of the plum jobs are already taken with Blair and Bush cronies filling out their allotted places as reward for their unswerving loyalty.

      You never know though, maybe Melanie Philips or Janet Daley need a 'handyman' with a strong stomach and a go-getting attitude. ;o)

  2. I've unfollowed Steven Daisley because his tweets and articles were becoming more and more annoying and frankly bizarre.

    During the referendum he presented himself as a moderately-veiled Yes. His "diary" was generally pro-Yes. He said things which certainly indicated he had voted Yes and was an SNP voter. As we moved into 2015 however he has become more and more critical of both the SNP and the entire independence movement. Some of his criticisms border on the paranoid and the surreal.

    I feel that I allowed myself to be seduced in part by the witty, apparently pro-Yes writing, and by the cute Twitter avatars. Clark Kent reading a news report about Superman with a cute visual pun, and then Orville. Now it's pug dogs. But none of that is who he is.

    I don't know who he is. I suspect he's a pen for hire, or rather a pen writing stuff he hopes will lead to hires, or at least to payday. I wonder if there's a real person in there at all.

    1. Sorry, Stephen. I always get the wrong spelling.

      He's only 29, as you say. That's not much life experience to be so opinionated, or to be laying down the law to people far more intellectually equipped than he is.

    2. People are oppinionated no matter what age they are, and I don't believe it mellows with age.

    3. I'm not sure he's actually opininated though, as opposed to manufacturing whatever rhetoric he believes his audience wants to read.

  3. He also refers to himself in his Times of Israel biography as a Zionist.

    I wonder if there's an element here of presenting himself so as to appear sympathetic to the concerns of his audience - a Zionist to Times of Israel leaders, from a traditional labour-supporting family to the STV audience, but by suggesting he might be a Yes voter, appealing to the pro-independence side too....?

  4. Zionists look on their supporters in the western media the same way Lenin looked on the likes of the Webbs - useful idiots.

  5. I read some of his articles and found myself confused by what he was trying to say. His home spun memories of his traditional Labour grandpa and his apparent devotion to Jim Murphy at his neo con best. His supposed admiration for Nicola Sturgeon and his disdain for the SNP.

    In the end I decided life was too short. I think it's good to read those who you disagree with but reading someone who seems to be trying to cover all the bases - to coin a phrase, no thanks.

    1. I thought at first his pose of having a massive gay crush on Jim Murphy was just a runnng gag, as who on earth could be attracted to Jim Murphy, gay or straight? But then it seemed to be real.

      Now, I don't know. I think Daisley is all shop window, with nothing in the actual ship.

  6. Well, he's getting back slapped by southern journos all over Twitter today, and I suppose that's what really matters.

    I doubt he really thinks he's convincing anyone, and the crowd he is playing to are peers in other papers in hopes of getting a job there on the basis that 'he's a good 'un, got the right ideas'.

    1. Agree, he's putting himself in the shop window.

  7. I am not going to get into a discussion about the Middle East because frankly I do not know enough about it comment.

    What is interesting, however, is that the parts of the article about Corbyn's statements and associations:

    "He invited “friends” from Hezbollah and Hamas, both proscribed terrorist organisations. Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah says of Jews: “If they all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide”. Hamas is committed by charter to “struggle against the Jews” until the “obliteration” of the State of Israel."

    "He invited Raed Salah, leader of the Islamic Movement, to tea on the Commons terrace. Salah promotes the blood libel that Jews murder children for blood to bake in their matzah and claims that thousands of Jews stayed home from work at the World Trade Centre on 9/11, a key component of the conspiracy theory that Jews and not Islamic fundamentalists were behind the attacks."

    He invited Dyab Abou Jahjah and shared a platform with the Belgian radical. Abou Jahjah called the killing of British soldiers in Iraq “a victory” and the 9/11 terrorist atrocities “sweet revenge”. He says Europe has adopted "the cult of the Holocaust and Jew-worshiping its alternative religion”, and in response to the Danish Mohammed cartoons he called on Arabs to spray paint walls across Europe with "hoax gas-chambers built in Hollywood in 1946 with Steven Spielberg’s approval stamp, and Aids spreading fagots”.

    Elsewhere, his connections to Holocaust-denier Paul Eisen have been documented by the Jewish Chronicle. Corbyn claimed in an interview with Channel 4 News that he had no contact with Eisen in recent times but might have given money to his organisation some years ago. In fact, as JC political correspondent Marcus Dysch has revealed, Corbyn attended a 2013 event for Eisen's Deir Yassin Remembered group

    He cannot recall meeting Abou Jahjah, despite a picture of the two of them sitting side-by-side on a panel. He was unaware of Eisen's views at the time. He stresses that Salah "did not at any stage utter any antisemitic remarks to me".

    Do people really think that such comments and associations are appropriate for someone who represents a democratic and progressive party, let alone someone who aspires to lead that party and become Prime Minister?

    And to those on the Left, can you honestly say, hand on heart, that if a UKIP or Tory politician had made similar comments or had similar associations, you would not be outraged?

    1. Erm, putting questions about the validity of such claims to one side, I don't think you'll find many people who'd vote for a Corbyn led Labour party on this site. It's a pro-indy blog and Corbyn is a unionist MP for Islington, London, England.

      If you want to personally attack Corbyn in front of his supporters, you'd be better finding a strong left Labour blog in England for that.

      I personally couldn't give two hoots about who English Labour finally elect as leader.

    2. As for right-wing politicians associating with 'undesirables...'

      That's not something that would outrage me at all; it's normal. Thatcher was best mates with Augusto Pinochet for example.

    3. "Do people really think that such comments and associations are appropriate for someone who represents a democratic and progressive party"

      I think Diane Abbott made a reasonable defence of Corbyn:


      She's right that people are cherry-picking individual incidents from a very long career and presenting them sensationalised and out of context. Of note, apart from the 'friends' comment (which I think was unwise but was Corbyn trying to be polite) there is no comment in that report from Corbyn which reflects badly on him, every quotation is from someone else whom Daisley believes contaminates Corbyn by association. I prefer to look at Corbyn's long history of anti-racism and anti-discrimination activism to get an idea of his own politics. He also associates with Jewish groups (such as Jews for Justice for Palestine) which the report does not mention.

      There's not necessarily a problem with associating with people who are unsavoury, but who have power and influence and have to be dealt with. Or if there is a problem, then the same standard has to be applied to the right in politics, who do it all the time. There have been deals with Gaddafi, deals with Saudi Arabia, deals with Uzbekistan, and on and on.

    4. "I think Diane Abbott made a reasonable defence of Corbyn"


      "Abbott, who nominated Corbyn for his leadership bid, said the frontrunner was being smeared by people trying to make him guilty by association – because the British establishment is “frozen with fear” about the prospect of his victory."

      They are not 'smears' at all; Corbyn has not challenged the validity of any of the claims and it is perfectly valid to ask why he appears on platforms with people who are anti-semitic, homophobic, deny the Holocaust, etc.

      “If over those 30 years he has been on a platform with somebody it is now clear is an antisemite or a holocaust denier or whatever it is … given the often chaotic nature of liberation movements, it does not make him a fellow traveller with antisemitism.”

      I can just about accept that he may attend meetings with people whose views he is not aware of but that does not explain why he calls Hamas and Hezbollah 'friends' when, as he surely must be aware, Hamas is committed by charter to “struggle against the Jews” until the “obliteration” of the State of Israel."

      And how then can you explain the fact that he invited Raed Salah to tea on the Commons terrace, wrote a letter to the Church of England in support of Rev Stephen Sizer who suggested that Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attack on the twin towers, and has associated with Paul Eisen, a self-professed Holocaust denier?

      These are all things that he has actively chosen to do.

    5. UK government / Tories are currently signing deals with Iran; the government of which has, in the past, been associated with Hezbollah and talked about 'wiping Israel of the face of the earth'. This suggests the Tories indirectly support Hezbollah and are anti-Zionist surely?


      *For reference, I support trying to ease tensions with Iran through dialogue.

    6. UK government / Tories are currently signing deals with Iran; the government of which has, in the past, been associated with Hezbollah and talked about 'wiping Israel of the face of the earth'. This suggests the Tories indirectly support Hezbollah and are anti-Zionist surely?

      Eh, no, because unlike Corbyn, the UK Government talks to both Iran and Israel. Corbyn says that he engages with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah because he wants to bring about peace but he only seems interested in talking to one side. If you are on the other side and see him calling people who want to bring about your destruction 'friends' then you probably get the idea that it rather a one-sided dialogue.
      Interesting that you do not comment on anti-semites and Holocaust deniers that I mention and with whom he has deliberately chosen to associate

    7. I think Abbott was right to say that Corbyn's opponents are cherry-picking isolated events taken out of context. More fundamentally, it is not clear whether the charge against Corbyn is that he is anti-semitic, or merely that he exercises poor judgement. For example, once again, no-one mentions Corbyn's associations with Jewish groups If he were anti-semitic, would he speak warmly of eg B'Tselem on his website?

      To take one example of how context is important - Rev. Sizer whom you refer to was banned from social media by the Church of England but his ecclesiastical superior the Bishop of Guildford made it clear that he did *not* think Sizer was anti-semitic. So that is at the very least an open question:

    8. Interesting that you do not comment on anti-semites and Holocaust deniers that I mention and with whom he has deliberately chosen to associate

      Why is it interesting? I'm not a Corbyn supporter nor a Labour voter. He can have tea with Attila the Hun - and laugh at his jokes - for all I care. Likewise whoever English people want as their Labour Party leader is their business. I said that earlier.

    9. I personally don't think that Corbyn is anti-semitic. I think that Daislety offers a credible explanation at the end of the article:

      "Jeremy Corbyn is not an anti-Semite and nor are most people on the Left. He is a petition-signer who never reads the small-print, a sincere man blinded as so many radicals are by hatred of the United States and Western power. But his ascendancy comes at a time of great upheaval and populist torrents battering the centre-left and centre-right. It is a storm in which the organisation of politics against the Jews could once again prove an anchoring force in Europe."

      Nick Cohen has written about the mess that many on the Left have got themselves into in 'What's Left.' He basic thesis, backed up with plenty of examples, is that parts of the Left are so blinded by anti-Americanism that they are prepared to enter into alliances with those who share that anti-Americanism but also have deeply reactionary attitudes towards women, gays, etc, etc. So rather supporting the Palestinian cause but making clear that they will not support groups that are homophobic, misogynisitic, etc, they form unholy alliances with them and do not challenge their prejudices.

      I also think that domestically, a significant proportion of the Left has given up on the white working class and in its pursuit of identity politics has again made dubious alliances. You see this in its extreme form with Respect/ George Galloway aligning with reactionary Islamists but also with more mainstream Liberals who have no problems ridiculing Christianity (I am not religious, btw) but who are ultra-sensitive to offending Islam and who can't bring themselves to defend free speech (eg, Charlie Hebdo, etc).

      Ref Rev. Sizer, he is a holocause denier. When Le Pen, David Irvine, etc deny the Holocaust, the Left (correctly) is outraged. So why should Corbyn not be held to account for associating with such a man?

    10. " Corbyn says that he engages with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah because he wants to bring about peace but he only seems interested in talking to one side."

      Trial by Daily Mail. Guilty M'Lud! LOL

    11. Yes trial by Daily Mail - yes that same Daily Mail that supported Hitler in the 1930s and is still owned by the same family trust ....

  8. The final straw for me was this latest article: http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/1327193-stephen-daisley-on-liz-lochhead-and-the-national-theatre-of-scotland/

    In which Daisley refers to William Wallace as someone who "slaughtered thousands of soldiers of a country that we are now in a union with" and compares modern-day celebration of the Scottish Wars of Independence to the celebration of Confederate Civil War generals in the U.S. South. I don't know what audience he's trying to play to, but the comparison between popular resistance to a brutal occupying force and the racist fight to keep slaves was particularly jarring to me.

    Still, it would explain why Daisley is so down on the Palestinians for having the effrontery to exist.

    1. I saw a tweet of his about that, which at first I took to be dead-pan tongue in cheek, maybe in the style of @Lord_Darling. But it seems it was serious.

      I wish Wings didn't keep getting into conversations with him, because it means he keeps crossing my timeline when I'm now actively trying to avoid him.

    2. Sorry, I mean @A_LordDarling of course. The parody account.

    3. Just one point on the Scottish 'Wars of Independence', we were already Independent; those wars were to stay independent.

    4. William Wallace was a heroic man. But let's be honest with ourselves here - he fought for one French Norman King against another French Norman King, both of whom held lands and titles in both countries. When the war was over, the Scottish people were 'liberated' to return to serfdom under Scottish Lairds who could have their way with you and your entire family and you wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it except bow and scrape your way out the door afterwards.

      Freedom, folks - 13th century style.

      We romanticise it way too much!

    5. @Brian Powell

      Seconded. Scotland (most of it) was repelling foreign invaders. It did so successfully until James Stewart got London stars in his eyes and then a parcel of rogues sold us down the river for some baubles.

    6. James Stewart was descended from the first Tudor King, Henry VII and was the son of the cousin of Queen Elizabeth I. His great uncle was the infamous King Henry VIII of England.

      It makes you wonder - for just how long were Scotland and England ruled by members of the same family, with our occasional wars and spats being the result of what was, basically, a family falling out?

  9. Here comes our rUK social democratic revolution:

    Con 42% (+2)
    Lab 28% (NC)
    LD 8% (+1)
    UKIP 9% (-1)
    Green 6% (+1)
    SNP 5% (NC)
    Other 3% (NC)

    New high for the Tories from Comres; highest since January 2010.

    Scottish subsample run of the mill:
    49% SNP
    21% Lab
    17% Con
    6% Green
    4% Lib
    3% UKIP

    Normal subsample caveats apply.

    1. Scottish subsample:

      As you may know the Labour Party is in the process of electing a leader. Thinking about the candidates to be leader of the Labour Party, would you vote for Labour if Jeremy Corbyn was the leader?

      19% Would
      60% Would not

      And that's with Corbyn the most popular of the options.

    2. The majority of people who have only a passing interest in electoral politics haven't gotten to know Corbyn yet. The Conservatives and SNP are enjoying their honeymoon period after their large electoral victories. I am sympathetic to the view that something very fundamental has shifted in Scotland which will prove difficult for any Labour leader to reverse, but still wouldn't draw any definitive conclusions from a poll at this stage.

    3. Sure, early days. I did wonder...However, having spent considerable time debating the Corbyn thing with people who live in England of all political persuasions (weather forum with a politics section so not dominated by politics nerds), the conclusion is that Corybn is totally unelectable. Even 'old Labour' voters said they thought his election would be a disaster.

      England was positively left wing when Foot was taking on Thatcher by comparison to today. 55% voted for UKIP + the Tories in May. Tories were on what 42% back in 1983 and much less right wing than the current bunch.

      Anyway, time will tell. No sign of anything so far, even with Corbyn splashed on ever front page. If anything, the Tory lead might be growing. Certainly stable.

    4. 14 point lead for the tories. Beautiful!

      3 figure landslide majority if it comes to pass.

    5. Just a pity for you that the election isn't for another four and three-quarter years, Aldo. Although your comment isn't quite as wildly optimistic as a tweet I saw today saying the poll "suggests" Labour will be out of power for "twenty years".

    6. A majority of 16 will do for now.

      If labour do get smashed in 2020 then they could be out of power for 20 years. It took them 14 years to recover from their 1983 defeat - and 2020 could be even worse than that.

      It's a good time to be a tory!

    7. SNP are slipping - ONLY 49%?!? What's going on? I thought they were well on course to be the first ever party to reach 107%....

      The data I looked at suggested SNP 43%, Greens 5%, with about 12% of the sampleeither refusing to give their voting intention or saying they don't know. Those are unionists - they're just in the closet.

    8. I have my popcorn ready for the coming Tory EU ref internal 'debate'.

      I'm old enough to remember the wonderful entertainment that brought last time.

      Certainly, depending on how Corbyngate comes along, the two main English unionist parties tearing lumps out of themselves on either side of the HoC would be quite a site. A great example of governance for us all.

    9. Meanwhile the SNP will be ripping itself up over the question of a future indyref. Should we hold one? Should we not? Should we wait? For how long? What if we lose AGAIN? But if we bottle it we might never get the chance again!!! AAARRGGHH!!!! Shut up Sillars you're a fcking liability - get back in your retirement home!! What? You're going to set up a rival party? Don't you DARE! Get back here! Jim? Please come back....

      Should be fun!

    10. Looks like we wont have to wait for the split. It's underway already. A new party, the Scottish Left Project, is to run for Holyrood on a platform of indy+socialism. So that's 3 ways the pro indy vote can go - SNP, Greens or SLP. Could be problematic if the SNP, due to its governmental responsibilities, comes to be seen as 'too moderate' on the issue of independence.

      I wonder why all Scottish pro indy parties are left wing? It's always about socialism. We are a country of 5 million people. Are we defined by socialism so much that its all our nationalist parties can talk about?

      Just once I'd like to see a Scottish indy movement determined to leave not just the UK but also the EU and recast Scottish society according to the teachings of Adam Smith. I could never vote for it - but it would be good for a laugh and would mean Scotland, from a political perspective, is more than just a one trick pony.

  10. Daisley writes clickbait. That's all it is. He has a running thing with the Rev on Twitter so that he's got someone well known and respected on the Yes side to at least give him a degree of sympathy while writing articles that are very, very clearly designed to enrage Yes voters and people on the left as much as possible. I gave up reading him when he tweeted (around the time of the nonsense with Murphy and Izzard in St. Enoch Square) something like "Would you take your kids to a Labour rally? Would you take them to an SNP one? That's the difference." I found that pretty objectionable since I sort of knew a couple of the people involved in the counter-rally (if it can even be called that) and I genuinely wouldn't be afraid of leaving my kids with them, never mind taking my kids to the rally. My only concern at a Labour rally, frankly, would be that they might hear Murphy speak and think he made sense.

    Anyway, I made this point in reply to Daisley and he responded with something like "You're right! I hate Scotland!" I replied again asking what he actually meant by the original tweet and got no reply. It's trolling, it's dog-whistling about praying the rosary with his old-Labour granda, it's the illusion of even-handedness and the endearing love of pugs, the cutesy hero-worship of Jim Murphy, the bromance with Campbell...all of it. He makes his living from getting your eyes on the ads on the STV site. He has no other function. Don't give him the pleasure.

  11. For Corbyn, the "our friends in Hamas" line is taken a little out of context and that's not fair. It's also worth bearing in mind that Hamas has electoral and popular support. Saying you can't talk to them is like saying Major should never have spoken to Gerry Adams. It's just nonsense to talk about a peace process that only allows one side to have a say. And just because Israel doesn't explicitly say it wants to destroy Palestine, it already occupies all of what was once Palestinian territory, it has a blockade on travel and trade with the remaining Palestinian areas (which with the wall are a virtual prison camp) and it's bombed civilians (including children) numerous times in recent memory. It's a complicated, ugly business and I don't think it would be a bad thing to have a voice somewhere in the upper echelons of politics to stand with Palestine, or at least to letting Palestine's very real grievances be addressed.

    (As an aside, if we're going to talk about nations oppressing religious minorities, we might want to ask about the state murder - often in collaboration with active paramilitary terrorists - of Catholics in the UK, the continued protection of the soldiers involved and the indulgence of bigoted bullshit like Ian Paisley, Orange Walks and "Rangers" Football Club.)

    As for his electability, I think some underestimate what is possible. People are utterly sick of the state of democracy across the western world right now. It's been expressed in a lot of different ways: the Scottish movement, of course; the growth of UKIP across Britain; growing support for Greens across Europe, maybe most notably in the Green Revolution in Germany; the growth of some sinister far right parties, mostly in northern Europe and some spectacular left surges in southern Europe, especially Greece; the growth of the Tea Party and the libertarian movement in America, as well as more and more influential voices willing to talk about (and deliver) more leftist policies. Corbyn might be well placed to take the machinery of a large party with experience of government and apply his "radical outsider" persona to pursuing a different kind of policy than is currently available in the UK. Railway nationalisation, for example, has support from a majority of TORY voters! There are also many, many people who can be re-engaged with politics given the right campaign as our own referendum showed. Corbyn looks like a fairly ordinary bloke, not a fucking animated waxwork like Cameron or Milliband. He just might be able to get people to believe he actually cares about them. Who knows? Maybe he really does.

    1. Glasgow ex UlstermanAugust 25, 2015 at 7:40 PM

      Kenny, you are the typical narrow back bigot. Your words tell exactly were you come from!

    2. You mean like these anti-Semites / Nazi sympathisisng No Thanks / Better Together campaigners?



      They're definitely bigots. Can't see anything in Kenny's post to suggest he's one.

    3. Apparently there were two unionist victories on September 19th - one at the ballot box and the other in George Square, lol.

      Is that too much? :0)

    4. Glasgow Working ClassAugust 25, 2015 at 9:00 PM

      So Kenny is your pal ! People who mention other people they disagree with have issues. Like why mention Rangers!! They are a second rate fitba team. I reckon Kenny may be a closet anti proddie/Jew bigot.

    5. "Kenny, you are the typical narrow back bigot. Your words tell exactly were you come from!"

      Hes posting on a website called Scot goes pop about Scottish independence for people interested in Scottish independence. No one minds where anyone comes from. Except you.

      ex ulsterman. Seriously, like anyone gives two shits.

      fyi, ex aberdeenshire.

    6. He didn't mention Rangers, he mentioned "Rangers", you know, with inverted commas and a wink.

      I don't follow football, but understood there was a difference.


      ex-Highlands, ex-Nigeria, ex-Highlands again, ex-East Lothian, ex-Fife, ex-Edinburgh, ex-France (briefly), ex-Back to Edinburgh, now Borders... if that's relevant.

    7. Leon Trotsy fae GlesgaAugust 25, 2015 at 9:27 PM

      Do I have to sign up with the Scottish Stasi to comment on here?

    8. Glasgow Working ClassAugust 25, 2015 at 9:35 PM

      Jock Skier . Maybe he meant the Texas Rangers but was unable to qualify.
      Aye Right.... Bigot.

    9. Forgive me, but are you saying Rangers are bigots?

    10. Glasgow Rangers Orange FellowAugust 25, 2015 at 11:26 PM

      I do not know if Texas Rangers are bigots. But maybe some are.

    11. Why does putting the name of a football team in inverted commas make you a bigot?

  12. After Corbyn wins it won't be long before his "Donkey-Jacket" moment.

    1. Glasgow Working ClassAugust 25, 2015 at 8:01 PM

      The Capitalist system will be his end not the Dunkey Jaickit. That is why the Scot Nat sis embrace Capitalism although pretending they are kind of different to the people that live in the likes off the Calton. Just like Labourr did. Two cheeks same arse.

    2. And still unionists will lap up unionist media propaganda. How unionists in Scotland love the Daily Mail!

    3. It simply has to be the Scotsman for me.

    4. Enjoy the Scotsman. You may not be able to for much longer, what with the long term sales decline and associated financial mire.

      I remember when it could quite justifiably claim to be 'Scotland's national paper' back in the day. A shadow of its former self now.

      Still, times changed and it never changed with them. But then I suppose that's conservatism for you ;-)

    5. It should still outlive the national by a number of years / decades / centuries.

    6. Okay, maybe not centuries. The lifetime of any newspaper print version can be no more than 20 years max. But an online presence could continue.

      Someone has to cater to us 'Brit Nats'.

    7. Adolph Glasgow BitteAugust 25, 2015 at 9:09 PM

      Well we have the Nationalist that is similar to the drivel writen by Joselh Goebells. What a great read.

    8. Glasgow Working ClassAugust 25, 2015 at 9:13 PM

      Aldo. The London Times has been around for some time.

    9. Chinese stock market crash, horrible plane crash in England, America to elect actual vegetable as President - as confirmed by genetic testing.

      National headline: Nicola Sturgeon on FFA: It's OOR mass poverty and we'll be huvin it!

    10. Interesting article on the Scotsman from a former Editor:


      The Scotsman no longer makes money; the presses in Edinburgh have been sold off; the staff have been moved out of the Holyrood building into a 1960s office block towards the outskirts of the city and, appropriately, across the road from a cemetery.

    11. Pray tell what were the circulation figures for "The National" at last count?

    12. Not sure. Wings over Scotland is way more popular I believe (more readers than the Scottish Sun paper copy), but then future is digital as you noted.

      I read The National, but don't buy the print copy so I and others don't count in paper circulation figures. Still, nice to see a wee touch of balance on news stands in the local co-op.

      I used to buy the Scotsman from time to time a long, long time ago. Stopped when it went downhill.

      Also used to read the English Telegraph when given free on flights with work. God it's crap these days; sort of upmarket look, but cheap tabloid content. I think its problem is the internet; you read a story, think it sounds not right, go on line and find it's untrue. The days of the lazy (or even biased) journalist are numbered IMO; too much info out there at the touch of a smartphone. Folk just go fishing for themselves.

      Dead tree press is surviving on the over 65's who are the only group that still back the union in majority.

    13. Not true. Only one age group backs the union, the 25-39s.

      Yes, you do get biased and inaccurate 'old' media. But the same is also true of new media. In fact, whilst TV, radio and newspapers have to maintain some kind of standard and be held publicly accountable, an internet site can say, well - anything really. If you grew up with nothing but internet access you could be forgiven for thinking that the holocaust was faked, 9/11 was an inside job, global warming isn't happening and Scotland runs a surplus with North Sea oil a mere nicety.

      While new media will eventually become THE media, it is still in its infancy and still has a lot of maturing to do.

      The daily circulation figure for the national is 15,000. The Scotsman about 30,000. Scottish Daily Mail - 99,000.

      You would think more nationalists would buy it - support the cause.

    14. Wee error in there - only one age group backs indy - the 25-39s.

    15. In the latest poll, Yes gets a majority in the under 55's comfortably; both age group divisions here. From survation too; the pollster that called the iref bang on. They don't provide more detailed breakdowns, only 3 groupings. However, if you look at other polls in the past with more age splitting and average, only the over ~65's back the union in majority.

      Latest panelbase shows the same.

      Tables available online. Just google for them.

      Polls were done by the British Daily Mail and British Sunday Times for reference.

    16. "you would think more nationalists would buy it - support the cause."

      They purchase an online subscription, like me. It's not last gasp funded by click bait advertising like the failing Scotsman. The National makes money.

      Shit man, as a Tory, can't you see the business potential when half the population back indy? The pro-union press is overcrowded with ailing titles. With indy, there's a market.

    17. Ah, so now its the under 55s....

      You were telling me yesterday you would have to go into a bowling green or old folks nursing home to find a unionist majority. 55 and up isn't exactly ancient these days Scottish Skier - and a 55 year old could conceivably live another 40 years. Certainly 20, if they play their cards right.

      Then you have the problem of peoples' views changing as they get older. I'm a cynical bastard and I'm only in my thirties. Ten years ago I was a left winger.

      As you get older and have to work hard, suffer life's knocks and as you accumulate wealth, property and a stake in this country of ours, the less likely you are to rock the boat. That's just a fact of being alive.

      So, if peoples' views alter as they age, then you have a problem. Scotland has an ageing population. The percentage of old grumps is increasing, not decreasing - and, as immigrants flood in to compensate, they will also bolster the pro union camp. Immigrants don't vote separatist, generally. They prefer the status quo for a variety of very good reasons. Eastern Europeans want the EU and Indians/Pakistanis are known for their admiration of all things British.

      I cannot see immigration being scaled back in the years to come. England is full and soon there will be an overspill into the Celtic nations. And perhaps that will be the final nail in the coffin not just of Scottish nationalism but also Welsh nationalism and Irish Republicanism too.

      And with that, I'll bid you goodnight.

    18. I thought 'mass immigration' fuelled support for 'independence'?

      It's what Farage and co bang on about all the time / what's behind the EUref thing is it not?

  13. Glasgow Working ClassAugust 25, 2015 at 11:36 PM

    25 tae 39ns, thats the wans that leave tae go tae England or elsewhere. Not surprising as hypocrisy is established in the younger. They go away for a better life to pay less tax but want the rest to stay at home while they sing hard done tae songs aboot Scotland. Just like the Irish, lets blame England.

    1. I did find it astounding that a clear majority of 16-24s were in favour of union. It reaffirmed my faith in the yoof, that's for sure.

      As for my fellow millennials, I am shocked. You have memories of the cold war, you witnessed 9/11 and the international banking failure. Yet you still think smaller is better, safer?

      Go sit in the corner.

    2. 'Scots' (Scottish Born) voted Yes; English (born) voted No. By GWC's logic, that means English people prefer to keep on blaming Westminster / those down south for any problems in Scotland. In contrast, Scots (born) wish to blame nobody but themselves in majority.

    3. Civic nationalism is blind to your point of origin though - or is supposed to be, at least. Everyone's view counts the same - whether you're English, Scots - or whether you landed here on a plane from China just last week.

      Also, a reality check. 3.6 million people voted in the indyref. It was a secret ballot. Nobody knows for sure who voted for what. All we have is a few polls sampling on average about 1000 people each. That's nothing in the grand scheme of things. I understand that the correct mix in a polling sample should, in theory, allow us to make accurate conclusions. But just look at what happened in the general election.


    4. I don't see how my point raises any questions about civic nationalism. All people living in Scotland were given a choice. These people also freely choose their national identities. That is civic nationalism. If the Scottish Government had excluded English migrants from the iref franchise - just like the UK government plan to exclude my wife from the EU ref - you'd have a point as it would be moving into ethnic nationalism.

      All I stated was that studies show that people born in England and living in Scotland were much more likely to opt to remain 'British' so they could complain about Westminster / the government people has elected in England not running Scotland well. In contrast, people born in Scotland opted in majority to be 'Scottish' by backing independence, so allowing Scotland to take responsibility for its own problems.

      Polling for the GE was absolutely bang on - got SNP, Lab...Con..Lib levels to within 1% or so on average - on so I've no idea what you mean here.

    5. For someone who believes in civic nationalism you sure do enjoy picking apart who voted for whom and where they come from. If English people did vote no then I doubt they did it so they could continue to have whingeing rights re the British government. If Scottish people voted Yes then I equally doubt that their motivation was so that they could only blame themselves if anything went wrong.

      The polling for the GE was a disaster. They predicted Labour 34, Tories 33. In reality, the tories were about 6-7 points clear.

      So polling can be wrong. It has the potential to miss certain things, particularly if respondents are a bit embarrassed about certain beliefs of theirs.

      All we know for sure about the indyref is that a majority of people in Scotland said 'no'. Trying to break it down beyond that is conjecture - and pointless if you are a civic nationalist.


    6. If you vote to remain in the union, then you are voting for the right to moan about the UK government / what English, Welsh and N. Irish people choose for this as well as Scottish. I was responding to Glasgow's weird logic which says the opposite.

      If you vote for indy, then you are voting for the right to moan about a Scottish government only and the choice of Scottish people.

      Given democracy is all about voting for the government you want regularly over the government you don't, it goes without saying moaning about the latter is an everyday part of it.


      We are talking about Scottish polling. It was very accurate in the May GE. Here is the PoP from WST based averages:


      I'm not sure that could have been more accurate!

      Are you saying researchers at the university of Essex are 'overly focussed' on talking about where people came from in relation to how they voted? They were a partner in the study I'm talking about.

      I suspect they were just looking for the most important factor in every independence referendum; which country people primarily identify with, whatever their origins. Incidentally, a ~1/4 of English people identified with Scotland as a country and voted for that. I know some; call themselves 'English Scots' just as my wife is 'French Scots'. I see nothing wrong with that as you seem to be implying there is.

    7. There is nothing wrong with identifying with a particular nation. I'm just saying there is an unhealthy focus amongst some nationalists on what polls say about how "blood Scots" did vote / would vote. We are all in this together (to borrow that over used expression) and everyone will have their own reasons for voting the way they did. We can't possibly know how they voted anyway - as it was a secret ballot.


    8. It's you that talked about 'blood Scots' what ever that is in your mind. I only mentioned country of birth and self national identification (which generally correlate strongly globally); something academics and pollsters have been looking at.

      Maybe you could elaborate as to what you feel a 'blood scot' is?

      Would I qualify? I'm 1/4 Irish on my mother's side. What about my daughter? She's half French. Does she qualify as 'Blood British' too incidentally?

      And you can know how people voted. You ask them. Given different pollsters are asking different 1000 standard samples and getting the same answers, we can conclude there's something to this.

      And it's hardly a surprise that people born in Scotland might be more likely to see themselves as Scottish and vote Yes as a result. Jeez, if Scotland was strongly British in identity rather than Scottish, we wouldn't be debating the topic of independence.

      Note the referendum study I've been talking about had a sample size of 5000 which gives an MoE of 1.4%.

  14. Had a look at the survation tables Scottish Skier.

    16-34: Roughly 60-40 YES
    35-54: Roughly 51-49 YES
    55+: Roughly 65-35 NO

    It doesn't QUITE match the picture you've painted, does it? Huge majority of the 55+. Middle agers a virtual dead heat with all to play for. Younguns look like a lost cause but aren't totally beyond reach. Plus a lot of those people will get jobs, mortgages, cars and pensions and vote "no" in later life.

    You know, you actually had me worried for a minute. I might've known it would be all spin and no substance.

    Couldn't find the Panelbase one.

    1. You need to look at all polling. MoE is way to big on individual cross-breaks. A single poll was what got No Thanks all worried in the iref.

  15. Glasgow Working Class says they "leave tae go tae England or elsewhere. Not surprising as hypocrisy is established in the younger. They go away for a better life to pay less tax..."

    Oh really? Scots are moving to England to pay less tax? Are you sure that England has a lower rate of tax than Scotland? Are you not confusing England with la la land in your imagination?

  16. Looks like you are getting targeted by the Brit Nat bigots and trolls.James I guess they must be upset at the collapsing Stock Exchanges and their vanishing Pension Funds. Oh that's right - something that was only meant to happen if Scotland voted Yes, oh dear! KARMA IS A !!!!!

  17. Coming back to the Scotsman newspaper topic:

    Douglas Fraser ‏@BBCDouglasF 3 mins3 minutes ago
    Scots newspaper sales Jan-Jun down ave 10+% on last year. Biggest faller @scotonsunday -20% to 24k. Pro-'yes' Sunday Herald: +15.5% to 29k