Either I’m psychic or Alex Salmond reads this blog and just does things to wind me up. Six weeks after being castigated for stating that Salmond launched his 2005 General Election campaign by standing in front of that ridiculous statue of Mel Gibson in Stirling on 6 April to mark the Declaration of Arbroath. I suggested this was dog whistle politics. It turns out I had misremembered this, and was instead standing next to an actor dressed as Robert the Bruce.
Well, two years later, he’s ditched the claymore, but he did indeed choose to mark the Declaration of Arbroath by standing in front of Hollywood’s most famous anti-semite (can’t find any useable photos online, but they’re all up on PA Photos if you have access).
No doubt my dear SNP friends will be quick to claim that this is irrelevant, that the SNP are civic nationalists not ethnic nationalists, and that I’m spreading lies again, but let’s be clear. By explicitly posing outside of this statue he isn’t merely associating himself with William Wallace and all the blood and tears that is associated with him – he’s associating himself with the film version of his story which was a pack of lies. Presumably we are to believe that the Queen is Wallace’s distant ancestor, and that’s why he is happy for her to remain the Head of State of an independent Scotland?
Oh, and lest I forget, Mel Gibson is an adherent of exactly the kind of ‘muscular christianity’ that Brian Souter is such a fan of. Are we starting to see a pattern here?
Normally, I would say the answer is no. However, Angus MacNeil does unfortunately fail the hypocrisy test on two grounds:
Firstly, as I wrote earlier, he voted against the Sexual Orientation Regulations. In his view therefore, what a person gets up to in their private lives is fair game and legitimate grounds to be denied public services.
Secondly, his party accepts enormous cash donations from people like Brian Souter, who has similar views about sexuality. Despite the high handed role that MacNeil has taken about the cash-for-peerages scandal, we have heard not one peep from him on this issue.
On the other hand, it does appear that the Sunday Mail has quite seriously stepped over the line (credit: Iain Dale). On balance it probably should not have been published, at least in the way it was. But if it means and end to those ghastly hagiographic articles about MacNeil being an ‘honest crofter‘ and latter day Jefferson Smith, there will clearly have been a rather thick silver lining to this particular cloud.
Having read this article, I’m having visions of Brian Souter and Alex Salmond bogling together to Sinitta’s disco beat (yes, yes, I know the story doesn’t involve either of them, but it’s in my head nonetheless).
A couple of weeks ago, I was castigated for saying that nationalism was an ugly thing, citing the example of “Scottish Nationalists chucking faeces through English peopleâ€™s letterboxes“. I later apologised for capitalising the en in Nationalist (I never meant to imply I thought it was SNP policy), but insisted (and insist) that it is the sort of nasty thing that nationalism leads people to conclude it is acceptable to do.
Via the English Democrats, I now learn of a Scottish website encouraging Scots to do exactly this to their English neighbours as the ‘ultimate revenge’. Only it is plastic. And meant as a ‘practical joke’. Ho ho ho.
Of course, the English Democrats have gone off on one, suggesting it is possibly an offence. I’m in the very uncomfortable position of actually agreeing with them for once.
So, all my SNP friends who have declined to condemn their party for accepting half-a-million poonds from Scotland’s most famous homophobe and then failing to vote for legislation designed to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, will you condemn this?
Just add your denunciation in the comments box below.
UPDATE: postapoo has gone down, but their jape has resulted in the first bit of publicity for the English Democrats in years. Sky News. Metro.
Interesting to see that, of the 6 SNP MPs, 1 voted for the sexual orientation discrimination regulations, 1 voted against, and 4 sat on their hands.
This, just days after receiving half a million pounds from Scotland’s homophobe-in-chief, Brian Souter.
Did they abstain to avoid provoking their new cash cow? What implications does this have for the Scottish Parliament? The Scottish public have a right to know.
Interesting to note that the MP who voted against them was Angus MacNeil. Angus has been lionised in the media over the last few months because of his involvement in the cash-for-peerages allegations. To read the Guardian over the last year, you would think he was a candidate for sainthood. Perhaps those journalists might want to revise their opinions of the man.
Do you think, when Alex Salmond explained that he was against the Union, Brian Souter thought he meant something else?
I suspect the SNP have made a bad mistake here; they’ve just aligned themselves with one of the most toxic figures in British business today. The gloves can start to come off now.
UPDATE: PinkNews coverage. Quoth Peter Tatchell:
“The SNP would never accept a donation from an avowed racist, so why are they accepting funding from a man who is clearly homophobic?” commented Peter Tatchell, of gay pressure group OutRage!
“Accepting this tainted money is an outrageous insult to every gay person in Scotland and to everyone who loves and respects human rights.”