Appointment on merit, nationality, or the old school tie?

Perhaps confirming the Willie Ross precedent that the most committed British nationalists can paradoxically prove to be the most parochial Scots, this Scotland on Sunday article reveals that former Scotland rugby captain Jim Aitken has donated £100,000 to the Conservative Party, but also notes that he has dismissed talk of Englishman Andy Robinson becoming Scotland rugby coach as a "lot of nonsense" - solely on the grounds of his nationality. Well, I can't say I've been following the ins and outs avidly, but the last time I checked that particular piece of 'nonsense' seemed highly likely to come to pass.

Fancy that, someone being appointed on merit. Isn't that the stock explanation for why it's perfectly all right that half our future Tory cabinet all went to the same school?

Keeping score on Maggie-isms

"You turn if you want to - this administration is not for turning."

For some time now, Kezia Dugdale has prominently featured those words by Alex Salmond at the top right corner of her blog. The not very subtle (and frankly rather silly) message presumably being that anyone who'd use a Thatcherite phrase must be a bit of a Thatcherite themselves. Well, call me cynical, but I don't imagine Kezia will be going out of her way to draw attention to the fact that Hazel Blears has now joined the club in the most cringe-inducing manner imaginable -

"YouTube if you want to..."

Especially as that can only be seen as a blistering attack on Kezia's political hero! (No, not George Foulkes...)

Polling clichés

While I'm waiting with baited breath to see how AM2 plans to persuade us that the latest YouGov poll somehow represents yet another unmitigated calamity for the Nats, it's worth pointing out Caron's rather desperate attempt to paint yesterday's two Lib Dem triumphs in local council by-elections as being more significant than the poll. Doubtless the SNP will be bitterly disappointed not to win the Inverness seat, but when Caron goes out of her way to suggest a specific local reason for this failure, it does rather counteract her efforts to portray the result as being of huge national significance! The line about the by-elections being more important because 'five times as many people voted in them' is a fairly tired piece of spin as well. It's rather like the individuals who seriously think they're undermining the results of an opinion poll of 1000 respondents by making objections like "well, which 1000 people was it?" or "hmmm...I note they didn't ask the remaining 4,999,000 of the population".

Back in the real world, there are several health warnings that need to be attached to a single poll - there's a margin of error of 3%, there's a 5% chance it might be a rogue poll, it's only a snapshot of opinion at a particular moment in time, etc, etc. But for all that and everything, we all know - and that includes Caron in her heart of hearts - that a well-conducted opinion poll is a better guide to the national state of play than a local council by-election.

"Who's soaring now?" asks Caron. If that's a serious question, the serious answer is the jury's out, but on the basis of the available evidence it's rather more likely to be the SNP than the Lib Dems.

Marketing Sciences : 'Others' gain ground as Labour takes massive hit

Given the extraordinary sequence of twists and turns that have occurred in the present parliament, it would be extremely dangerous to suggest the events of recent days represent some kind of defining moment that has effectively settled the outcome of the next general election. However, a drop in support for Labour of five full points in the first poll since the McBride affair certainly looks potentially significant.

Conservatives 43% (-1)
Labour 26% (-5)
Liberal Democrats 21% (+3)

Could this be a game-changer in Scotland as well? There appears to be no Scottish breakdown available at this stage (and I suspect there won't be) but it's interesting that it's the Liberal Democrats and 'others' that appear to be benefitting from the Labour collapse. And, of course, the general rule of thumb is that a slump in Labour's fortunes can only assist the SNP, whether directly or indirectly.

The dark heart of nationalism : personal pronouns

Oooh, nationalism. It has to be said that, even as a nationalist myself, I appear to have a weak understanding of the concept. Fortunately, some of my fellow nationalists, especially British nationalists such as the self-styled Alpha Male of Scottish political blogging AM2, possess much greater self-awareness on the matter than I do, and are fearless in exposing the narrowness, pettiness and frankly sheer utter evilness of the philosophy they have espoused all their lives. AM2's latest courageous piece of self-reflection on the subject is somewhat startling - it appears that the "divisive essence of all nationalism" lies in the seemingly mundane use of the words 'we' and 'they'. I must admit the malevolence of personal pronouns had never occurred to me before, and it'll be fascinating over the days and weeks to come observing how non-nationalist politicians - devoid as they are of divisive essences - simply never utter the words 'we' and 'they'.

In other matters, AM2 notes that Alex Salmond should "respect the law" and allow the UK government to build new nuclear power stations in Scotland. And I'm sure just as soon as we see a court order confirming that, contrary to all popular belief, the Scottish government do not in fact possess a clear-cut statutory power to reject new-build nuclear at the planning stage, he will do.

AM2 - nationalism, pronouns, and a complete reinvention of the law, all in the space of about 100 words. I salute you, sir.

Cybernit to Lard Jorge - we lake U reely

Speaking as a one-time 'belligerent' on the Scotsman and Herald boards (how else could I have become quite so versed in the ways of a certain Alpha Male?) I must say I'm nothing but delighted when Lord George Foulkes goes into so much detail about his dislike of the 'Cybernats' - it leaves you in no doubt that he must waste a fair bit of his precious time reading contributions from the likes of me. Always nice to know one's labours have not been in vain! But especially interesting to see today that one of his biggest bugbears appears (weirdly) to be the fact that the aforementioned Cybernats don't always use the correct grammar or spelling.

But, come on George, you and I both know the pivotal question here. Are they doing it deliberately?

'Iain Macwhirter - journalist and blogger'

Quite amusing after all the venom that's been directed at Iain Macwhirter as a result of his denunciation of the blogosphere that when he appeared on Newsnight Scotland tonight the caption read "Iain Macwhirter - journalist and blogger". Gordon Brewer also went out of his way at the start to say "he also writes for his own blog" which led to something of a startled reaction from Macwhirter. I can't remember him ever being introduced in such a way on television - was someone on the programme staff making mischief?

God save us from the wrong national anthem

With apologies in advance to Montague Burton, this is indeed a post about Scotland's sensational triumph earlier today at the World Curling Championships in Canada. But before everyone looks away, what it's really about is the fact that in honour of the victory, the event organisers played that well-known Scottish national anthem God Save the Queen at the closing ceremony! But I'm thrilled to see a couple of Canadian blogs were as quick as anyone to express dismay at this blunder.

Of course, technically speaking it wasn't a mistake - dirge though it is, God Save the Queen is the official anthem of the whole United Kingdom, so it's just as logical to use it for a Scottish curling rink as it is for the England football team. But of course the organisers should really have played the anthem requested by the national governing body in question - and if by any chance the Royal Caledonian Curling Club did sanction God Save the Queen, then some very serious questions need to be asked!

Sign off with Salmond

As I sign off from this ever more surreal debate about firearms legislation, I think I'll leave the last word to our current First Minister, or more specifically his contributions to the post-Dunblane parliamentary debates way back in 1996 -

"People were, rightly, touched by the Dunblane tragedy and that feeling has hardened into a determination to try to prevent that sort of tragedy from happening again. Everyone who argues that case realises that there can be no absolute guarantees, but we can move the boundary somewhat and make it less likely that such a tragedy will happen again. That makes the case for a complete ban on handguns."

"No system of checking, however rigorous, can prevent every unsuitable person from gaining access to guns. It has been said in the debate that the police made mistakes, as if that were an argument against a complete ban on the civilian use of handguns. The fact that the police make mistakes is one of the arguments for such a ban. No system of checking is foolproof and any system that depends on people is essentially flawed in that human beings, including the police, make mistakes."

"We should start from the principle that no one should own a handgun and only then should we discuss the exceptions. The position adopted by the Japanese in this respect is enlightening. In that whole country, there are 58 handgun licences. Hon. Members will be aware of the Home Office statistics, which point to some correlation between the number of legal firearms in circulation and the incidence of firearm homicide."

"The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), in an interesting speech, made the reasonable point that one cannot prove anything absolutely through international comparisons. One comparison should, however, be introduced into the debate. In the United States, which has some of the most lax gun legislation, there are 27 times as many firearm killings per million than in the United Kingdom. In Japan, where the basic principle is no handguns, the killings number one eighth of the UK total. For all the differences in culture and experience in the international comparisons, those figures are very compelling."

"If any lesson is to be learnt from Thomas Hamilton's actions, it is surely that rapid-fire weapons are the most deadly. Hamilton fired a hail of 106 bullets in a matter of seconds--that damage from a handgun should surely never be allowed again. Of course hon. Members have a point when they say that a madman could take a machete or another weapon and try to inflict damage, but few other weapons can inflict the carnage of a rapid-fire handgun."

Not for the first (or last) time, Alex Salmond says just about everything I would ever want to say - and he says it far, far better.

Your starter for ten

How refreshing it is to at long last be able to get back to the innocent pleasures of AM2-watch, I've been having withdrawal symptoms. This week the self-styled Alpha Male of Scottish political blogging plays Bamber Gascoigne (what fun) and challenges his readers to spot that the current economic crisis is truly global. In the light of which, he suggests it is a "rhetorical inanity" for Alex Salmond to claim that the fate of Scottish banks "is a legacy of the Union". But has it been any less inane for so many people (not naming any names of course) to conveniently attempt to re-cast a global crisis as a Scottish-made problem that can only ever be addressed by a British-made rescue?

As I'm feeling generous, a small tip for AM2/Scottish Unionist - if he's ever looking for a particularly outstanding example of "rhetorical inanity", I do seem to recall an astonishingly ill-advised use of the expression "game over" a few weeks back...