Wednesday saw two celebrities heavily criticised for their 'shocking' use of controversial terms live on air. In case you missed it, they were Katie Price, for her use of the N-word on ITV's This Morning, and Orlando Bloom for using the word 'pikey' when speaking to Radio One's Nick Grimshaw. Rightly so, I hear many of you say. Others, I imagine, will think it another example of political correctness gone mad. I, personally, am a little more troubled by the fact that the so-called elite (so many of them are anything but), the Establishment, are just not held to the same standard. Boris Johnson is a case in point.
I do not know that 'mutton-headed', or 'mugwump' are particularly offensive terms ('piccaninnies' and 'watermelon smiles' most certainly are), but that is besides the point. The point is that Boris, and people like him, can say just about anything they like, no matter how inappropriate or offensive, and it is all laughed off as 'high jinks' and 'joshing'. Whilst I am no fan of the PC Brigade, I do so wish that the rules were applied equally to all. For example, if I were to call Boris a bison-headed, Bullingdon, bumboy, or referred to the Duke of Cambridge as an inbred, ill-favoured, imbecile, I would probably be called a vicious, zealous, cybernat, unless I had attended Eton, Fettes, or Gordonstoun, in which case it would all be just jolly japes.
There are plenty of people who either can't see it, don't want to see, or won't see it, but the BBC is biased. Here, they are contributing to the narrative that the Tories, led by Ruth:Warrior Unionist, will see off the threat of a second independence referendum, slaying the SNP at the forthcoming general election.
We are expected to believe that the Conservative party, who polled under 15% at the 2015 UK election, and just 22% at the 2016 Scottish election (even Thatcher did better, for crying out loud), are in the ascendant here in Scotland. I could be wrong, but I simply do not see a sizeable number of Scots (up to 30% if one poll is to be believed), surrendering the NHS, sacrificing their sons and daughters, and selling their Grannies, just to save the Union. It was always too much to expect, that the BBC, who have become a tool of the Establishment, the official British State Propaganda Service, might make more of an effort to at least appear impartial, but this is beyond a joke.
We already know how very much that the Unionists/BritNat press love to report that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP have been "slapped down", or "dealt a hammer blow. Now they've decided that the First Minister is becoming a laughing stock for allegedly attempting to downplay the role of independence in the forthcoming general election.
In reality, it is they who are the laughing stock, since they seem to contradict themselves at every opportunity. Either the First Minister and her Government are obsessed with independence, or they are not. Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are either neglecting the day job by failing to focus on health and education, or they are not. The Unionist press and politicians really must make up their minds which it is.
Jeremy Corbyn's mind must move in a parallel universe if he believes the Labour Party are authentically left-wing.
Many Labour members in the Parliamentary Labour Party, more than a few in the Scottish Parliament, and "fixers" like Alastair Campbell, Peter Mandelson, and John McTernan, can hardly be described as left-wing. Many of them are of the centre, which it can be argued, is well to the right of where it once was. Some are decidedly right-of-centre, to the right of say, Ken Clarke, and you have to wonder if they wouldn't be more at home in the Tory Party. I would suggest that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters aside, it is the Labour Party who are a "poor imitation" of a left-wing party.
After the unexpected Tory majority in 2015, the narrow UK vote for Brexit, and the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States, you will forgive me if I, like so many others, has a healthy scepticism of the polls.
Who of us believes that Labour has their finger on the pulse in Scotland? Strange, is it not, that the Unionists, who's elected representatives are dispersed across three parties, all of whom are struggling, claim that the SNP, who have by far the most MSP's and MP's in Scotland, are out of touch. If Labour are so fond of polls, they would be well advised to try and understand why poll after poll has them languishing so, though it is probably too late for that.
I beg your pardon! Just who do the Labour Party think they are patronising? What bloody minded stupidity is this?
I am a progressive. As far as I can see, it is the United Kingdom that it backwards, bringing back blue passports, the Royal Yacht Britannia, and the days of Downton Abbey, in some sort of sick, twisted Dickensian dystopia. If the likes of Kezia Dugdale are the problem, Jeremy Corbyn perhaps isn't the answer.
Instead of focussing on local issues, all too predictably, the Unionist/British Nationalist parties are determined to turn the forthcoming local elections into a referendum on a second independence referendum. Here, as an example, Kezia Dugdale clearly states that which we already knew: her first priority is the Union.
How depressing that she can't even see the contradiction in her message. It really is high time Davidson, Dugdale, and Rennie, got back to the "day job", of dealing with the here and now, instead of obsessing over an independence referendum that is at least two years away. Perhaps yet another bloody nose at the ballot box will finally see them get "the message" that repeatedly putting Scotland second is electoral suicide.
You literally couldn't make it up. Today we had failed, former Tory Leader, Michael Howard (who still speaks in that bizarre, stilted way, which I always suspected might be an attempt to disguise the fact that he is Welsh, but only makes him sound as creepy as he looks), effectively threatening the Spanish over Gibraltar. Talk of the EU handing Spain a veto over Gibraltar caused the man with "something of the night about him" to invoke the spirit of Thatcher and The Falklands.
On hearing this, my initial reaction was, in the unlikely, unthinkable, event that it came to military conflict, what would the British send? A few destroyers that break down in the wrong water? A misfiring submarine? An unfinished aircraft carrier without any aircraft?
Howard isn't alone in ludicrously irresponsible sabre-rattling, some media outlets quoted comments attributed to retired Rear-Admiral, Chris Parry, on the state of Britain's capabilities in relation to those of Spain. The gist of what he said is that whilst the British are less military might and more morris dancer, it could still outdo a nation of flamenco dancers and bullfighters. Britain, about to flounce out of the EU, an institution set up to prevent European powers from going to war with one another, is already threatening war with another European power. Is this what it has come to? Is this seriously what Davidson, Dugdale, and Rennie think is "better together"?