Tainted Love

After watching Newsnight Scotland last night, I almost felt queasy at the thought that I support a political party that was once led by Gordon Wilson for a full eleven years. I trust he was excellent in a variety of other ways (I'm too young to properly remember), because his views on gay marriage are nothing short of nauseating. Apparently heterosexual couples will somehow feel that their marriages have been "tainted" if gay people are also allowed to marry. Can there be a more textbook example of the meaning of the word 'intolerance' than that? Never mind that not a single heterosexual marriage will be interfered with or downgraded in any way - for the likes of Wilson, if an 'unclean' person is allowed to do the same thing as him, that's somehow sufficient to 'corrupt' him by association. It's the rough equivalent of demanding that ethnic minorities must be banned from owning umbrellas, on the grounds that white people simply wouldn't be able to bear to touch their own brollies otherwise, and they'd get so wet.

The argument that the SNP shouldn't be bothering with this issue because a change in the law would benefit relatively few people is also deeply troubling. The whole purpose of legislative safeguards (and indeed constitutional safeguards in many countries) to protect minority groups is precisely that such people are supposed to matter just as much as anyone else, in spite of their numerical disadvantage. Or are we supposed to say - who cares about equality of access to public buildings for wheelchair users? After all, most people don't use wheelchairs.

And the formal statement issued by the Church of Scotland (suggesting that it would be dangerous to proceed on gay marriage because it might have an effect on heterosexual marriages that no-one has actually thought of yet) is risible beyond words. It reminds me of the Yes Minister scene where Sir Humphrey, having failed to dream up a credible argument against proceeding with a policy, resorts to a grave warning that he "foresees lots of unforeseen consequences". Not good enough - if the churches want the law to actively discriminate against a minority, at the very least the onus is on them to specify precisely how heterosexual marriages would be damaged by the alternative course of action. I wish them luck. As for the church spokesman who implied that gay marriage is the solution to a problem that doesn't exist, I'd suggest John McKee's recent article on Labour Hame ought to be required reading -

"I was a pretty fantastic liar – a master. Gay people are, were, made to be. Once the realisation took hold, the fear – it’s the fear that’s the problem – built a structure of outward deceit. Every time a mate said “don’t be such a poof” to you because you don’t fancy going out that night or some other social inadequacy worthy of the epithet, your stomach does three somersaults. Every time, for eight years. Not a day – barely an hour – went by without someone pejoratively using “gay” – mainly to mean “bad”...

...the problem is the pervasive and powerful idea of that his civil partnership was different to a heterosexual marriage. The power of this difference holds even more sway outside of cushy green tea-sipping philosophy Narnias. It is this same notion that suffocates the life of gay teenagers...

Marriage is the social benchmark of acceptance. It’s special in society – a condition that the state grants privileges to, that families celebrate and that reeks of social approval – it validates relationships. That same validation should be offered to the love between two men or two women: it will go a long way to breaking down the difference that I have described. This is why marriage for gay couples, not just civil partnerships, is necessary."

Is McKee overstating his case? Is it going too far to suggest that people who simply oppose gay marriage are having the same destructive effect as the peddlers of homophobic 'banter' in the playground? For as long as someone like Gordon Wilson thinks that the mere fact of sharing the institution of marriage with gay people would somehow "taint" his own marriage, it's hard to conclude that the answer can be anything other than 'no'.

When oh when are Labour going to start bashing the SNP hard enough?

There are times on Labour Hame when it's fiendishly difficult to know whether what you're reading is a spoof or not. However, it seems Richard Olszewski genuinely intended the following to be taken as a serious piece of strategic counsel -

"I don’t think we need to change that much. We just need to shout a bit louder to get our message across to the voters and bash the SNP harder."

That, of course, is the rough equivalent of a Tory activist in 1995 saying something like this -

"No cause for alarm, chaps. All we need to do is bang on about Europe more, and remind people that John Major is far more charismatic than Tony Blair, and then everything will be as right as rain."

Or, to borrow my old mate Kevin Baker's favourite (and typically porn-flavoured) catchphrase, "Do it again, only HARDER!!!"

An unintentionally vivid insight into the modern Tory view of women

Neil Benny at Tory Hoose, speculating on why Alex Salmond has 'held back' with Ruth Davidson thus far -

"Salmond has a problem with women. When he debates them in his normal manner he looks like a monster. It’s OK for him to rough up Ian Gray, he’s a man and can take it. Doing that to a woman would look terrible on TV – like kicking a puppy or punching a cow."

So let me get this straight - debating in a robust fashion with a female politician would look like "kicking a puppy" or "punching a cow"? Just remind me, is Ruth Davidson a confident and articulate 33-year-old woman, or is she in fact an eight-year-old girl with braces and pigtails?

It's as if they think they've elected a human shield...

Your verdict : if they were wise, Labour would pick Ken Macintosh

This is probably the kiss of death if Murdo Fraser's example is anything to go by, but for what it's worth, your advice to Labour is to elect the MSP for Eastwood -

Ken Macintosh 44%
Tom Harris 29%
Johann Lamont 25%

I must say I'm slightly astonished to see Bomber Admin in second place, although perhaps that's more an indication of just how awful a leader Johann Lamont would be. Labour's very own Ian Smart gave her this ringing testimonial over at A Burdz Eye View yesterday -

"...while Johann may even be a strategist, the problem is that her strategy is wholly misconceived.

Insofar as one can work out what criticisms she has of the 2011 Campaign, they appear to be the wrong criticisms. Not that we were insufficiently negative but rather that we were not negative enough. Not that many of our candidates were useless but that they were simply badly organised and under-resourced. Not that Scotland has moved forward but rather that it must be persuaded to move backwards.

You genuinely wonder if the only chance that she might support a multi-option Referendum would be if the other option was the outright abolition of the Scottish Parliament."

Unfortunately, Ian then ruins this perceptive analysis by announcing that he's plumping for Admin of all people, on the curious grounds that, while Harris may have the wrong ideas, it's better to have the wrong ideas than no ideas at all. Seriously, it's not, Ian. Margaret Thatcher had the wrong ideas, John Major had no ideas at all (other than the Citizen's Charter). Who did less harm as Prime Minister?

There's no denying that Admin is very articulate and has a strong personality, so perhaps that's why he did tolerably well in the poll - these are unquestionably perceived as leadership qualities. But if anyone doubts that he would be an utter disgrace to his office, it might be an idea to peruse this selection of his recent tweets, as collated by RevStu. Some of them are admittedly legitimate (if unwise) examples of political knockabout and mischief-making, but others are deeply offensive or frankly delusional.

* * *

Many thanks to everyone who left a comment of encouragement on the previous thread - I wasn't fishing for that, honestly! I just thought I'd better give some kind of explanation of why blogging here is likely to be (at the very least) slower than it has been. One interesting point that a few people raised is that "blogging matters", especially in the run-up to the independence referendum. It's very hard to judge whether that's true or not. I can't help feeling at times that I'm exclusively speaking to two groups - the already converted and the totally uncovertible (ie. people like Alex Gallagher and the Kevin Baker Fan Club). Because the daily readership of a blog like this is relatively modest, it's hard to escape the feeling that these are the only types of people who ever visit. But on the other hand, the absolute unique visitor figures over a longer period (such as a month or a year) tell a very different story. So I suppose the real question is - can a blog expect to have any real impact on the large number of casual visitors who just drop by once or twice, and perhaps only stay for a minute or two? Very hard to know. But if by any chance it can, the good news is that the pro-independence blogosphere (which of course is much broader than the SNP blogosphere) has never been in a healthier state.

Poll : if they were wise, who would Scottish Labour elect as their new leader?

Apologies for going quiet of late. I suffered a bit of a setback during the latter part of the summer - it was a very minor thing, on the face of it, but for some reason it had a profound effect on me, and I've been (for want of a better phrase) reassessing my priorities ever since. To begin with I was able to 'blog through it', so to speak, although it was probably noticeable that my posts became somewhat half-hearted. But just recently I've found that I've completely lost all interest in following political news, which makes writing a political blog a touch difficult! It may just be a temporary phase I'm going through - time will tell. In the meantime, one thing I can still do is run the poll that I've been planning for a while on the Labour leadership contest. The question is the same as for the Tory poll I ran a few weeks ago - it's not about who you would like to see as Labour leader (because it would work in the SNP's favour or whatever), but who Labour would pick if they were wise. And there's no cop-out "who cares?" option - we all know that would win by a mile, and tell us absolutely nothing!

I must admit, though, that I haven't really got a clue what my own answer would be, other than "not Admin, obviously". Macintosh is the more likeable and assured of the two credible candidates, but he's so softly-spoken that I can't help wondering if he might run into the same problems that John Swinney had as SNP leader. It also shouldn't be forgotten that he made a spectacular error of judgement over the Shirley McKie affair, giving foursquare support to the breathtakingly arrogant pronouncements of fingerprint experts who had already been utterly discredited.

You can find the voting form in the sidebar, and the poll will close tomorrow.

Devastation stalks the streets : the GB football team won't be coming to Hampden

Nick Pearce writes in the Telegraph about the unveiling of the Great Britain football teams' fixture list for next year's Olympics -

"As neither team will play group matches at Glasgow's Hampden Park Scotland supporters may miss out on the unique experience of seeing Team GB perform on Scottish soil."

Does anyone want to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a brilliant piece of ironic wit? No, didn't think so. This is the Telegraph we're talking about, after all.

The choice of Manchester and Cardiff is a bit startling, though - I had always assumed the English FA would want to keep their Greater England teams firmly confined to the Imperial Capital and Acknowledged Centre Of The Known Universe. Presumably they've calculated that Welsh supporters will at least be ambivalent about the whole enterprise - I don't think it's too outlandish to suggest that every GB kick of the ball at Hampden might have been greeted by a chorus of boos. It would have brought a whole new dimension to the term "home game".

* * *

Someone once damningly said of Geoff Hoon - "I bet he thinks he's a great communicator". I think we can safely say the same is also true of James Murdoch.

Q. Do you exist, Mr Murdoch?

A. Mr Watson, it's important to, uh, acknowledge that, to the extent, uh, that discussions about whether I, uh, exist may or may not have, uh, taken place, I was not party to them. I was never told, uh, at any time that I exist - it's conceivable I may, uh, have been given a heads-up about rumours that, uh, someone had seen me around, but as I clearly testified to the, uh, committee earlier, that's not something I recall. The question of whether I, uh, exist or not is a matter for others, and it would not be, uh, appropriate for me to speculate, uh, at this time.

Poppy zealotry

I'm glad a sensible compromise has been reached to allow the England football team to display poppies, but some of the language used along the way has been monumentally silly. David Cameron, for instance, described FIFA's original decision as "outrageous". Really? FIFA have done many things recently that could reasonably be described as "outrageous", but I'm not sure that insisting upon a rule that everyone knew about in advance is one of them. "Over-zealous" would perhaps be a better description - which coincidentally is also an apt characterisation of the attitude of so many to the poppy tradition. We've grown up to have such reverence for the poppy and what it symbolises that we lose all sense of perspective sometimes. The worst example of that was when the Royal British Legion criticised Mary McAleese for failing to wear a poppy during her inauguration as Irish President in 1997. Now, why should a demand for an Irish official to display a symbol associated with the UK be regarded as anything other than risible? And yet because it was a poppy, that seemed to trump everything - including common sense, realism and sensitivity to the traditions of a different nation.

The Scottish Tories make a historic mistake - but you weren't expecting them to break the habit of a lifetime, were you?

A 'steady-as-she-goes' choice of captain can sometimes be wise, but not when the ship sunk without trace fifteen years ago. The Tories had a golden opportunity to reconnect with the heartbeat of modern Scotland yesterday, and even to steal a pass on Labour in the process, but they've fluffed their lines yet again. So they're now stuck with Ruth Davidson for what could well be a very, very long time, and they'll just have to cling to the positives, such as they are. And those positives can only really be her personal qualities, because her wizard strategic plan seems to be (as Murdo Fraser pointed out) to carry on doing exactly what the party has been doing for many years and expect different results. Yes, it would normally be a matter of some note that the Tories have elected a young, articulate woman as leader, but they've had an articulate female leader for the last few years, so clearly that in itself isn't sufficient. And as for Davidson's youth and "freshness", that could well be a double-edged sword - I'd suggest that 32 is at the absolute extreme lower end of the age range within which someone can look plausible as a party leader. Even Alex Salmond was three years older than that when he first became SNP leader in 1990, and it was a good three or four years later before he stepped out of the shadow of Jim Sillars and really looked like a man in command.

So what happened yesterday is undoubtedly a retrograde step for the Scottish Tories, but is it bad for Scotland as well? My gut feeling is yes, because a Fraser victory would have finally forced the UK government to reluctantly accept the realities of the new Scotland. As it is, Davidson joins Willie Rennie as yet another loyal Scottish cheerleader for the London delusion that nothing really changed in May, and therefore nothing needs to be done. But as Kenny Farquharson has pointed out, that stubbornness could easily backfire on the unionist parties and make full independence a more attractive proposition to the electorate than would have been the case had devo max been embraced. And it has to be said the SNP's own long-term electoral prospects in large swathes of Scotland are looking considerably brighter today.

Chris Woodhead : our children just aren't miserable enough

Chris Woodhead, former chief inspector of schools in England (and professional buffoon), has delivered some jaw-dropping pronouncements in his time, but this one takes the biscuit -

"Our current pre-occupation with happiness and well-being is stupid and is likely to lead to further under-achievement because real learning involves challenge, difficulty and unhappiness."

Unhappiness is part and parcel of the learning experience, he says.

"I don't want kids to be desperately miserable but we don't want them to be complacent and self-satisfied all the time."

What a fabulous point, Chris. A miserable childhood is a small price to pay for not turning out like you.

* * *

Tweet of the Day (nay, of the century) comes from former MSP Andrew Wilson :

"Congratulations to @iainmartin1 on your 40th. You have the body of a 39 year old and the politics of a 139 year old..... Many happy returns."

Separation, floccinaucinihilipilification, and other words that weren't used at the SNP conference

Natural pessimist though I am, I must say I entirely disagree with Kate Higgins' assessment that the latest YouGov poll showing 34% in favour of independence and 52% opposed has "burst one of the SNP’s bubbles". If I'd known the poll was coming, I'd have practically bet my house on the figures turning out like that - there just seems to be some inbuilt reason why YouGov produces higher support for the No side than certain other pollsters, such as TNS. What really matters is the trend, which is in line with other recent polls in showing a significant boost for Yes.

The other interesting question is - what is it about YouGov's methodology that produces such different results? Is it their tendency to pose the question in a way that Alan Cochrane would heartily approve of, or is there some reason why people who join internet polling panels might be more hostile to independence than others? The latter possibility may seem fanciful, but I seem to recall that YouGov openly admitted in their early days that there were one or two questions on which their panel always produced skewed results, regardless of weighting to take account of demographic imbalances. The increase in internet usage since then may have resolved that problem, of course.

And of course no Scotsman report on an independence poll would be complete without a run-out for "Template Quote C" from the Captain of Team Scotland -

"For the first time in 20 years, the SNP held a conference where separation was the only word..."

The only word that wasn't used? Well, you're half-right, Margaret, it wasn't used, but there were many, many other words that proved equally surplus to requirements, such as "floccinaucinihilipilification" and "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis".