I assumed that a political party as astute at communications as the SNP would be familiar with the term ‘damage control’. But, given Joan McAlpine MSP’s Daily Record column today, it seems such political acuity hasn’t filtered down to the backbenches.
In her column, McAlpine’s compares the union to a “marriage of a talented, well-educated girl with good prospects and her own income, to a domineering manâ€.  A man who thinks she “can’t be trusted to manage her own money†and who will cut the pin money “if she gets uppityâ€. But fear not gentle reader. For Scotland eventually “recognises the relationship for what it is – an abuse of powerâ€.
Coming just over twenty-four hours after the Sunday Herald’s revelations alleging how Bill Walker MSP mistreated his three ex-wives and step-daughter, McAlpine’s invocation of spousal abuse and control is utterly crass. Comparing politics to domestic violence is at best tasteless, and at worst deeply insulting.  Labour MP Owen Smith apologised for making similar comments in 2010, and I think McAlpine should do likewise, instead of declaring herself proud of such ill-thought polemic.
And it was all going so well. It was even going well in yesterday’s Daily Record feature, where McAlpine herself states:
“We all want a more successful, fair and equal country where everyone shares the success.
“That’s what Daily Record readers want and what I want as well but you can’t make the case for that by moaning – you have to be positive.â€
So where’s the positive agenda? I don’t think I need to remind the SNP of their ‘women problem’ facing them when it comes to a vote on independence – plenty of others have catalogued it. I suspect however successful the local election results in May, the new troops of SNP councillors will remain male, pale and stale.
I know there are SNP members, both activist and elected, who care deeply about the problems facing Scottish women. But when I read drivel like McAlpine’s column, it just leads me to think that the only goal for too many nationalists is independence and independence alone. Not day 2, or year 2, or the second decade after independence.
Despite Nicola Sturgeon noting yesterday that independence is the means and not the end, such distasteful and negative comparisons like those drawn by McAlpine between Scotland and England makes me think that for some, winning the referendum is the only thing that matters. Scottish passports as more important than supporting the 1 in 5 women who experience domestic abuse in their lifetimes. Saltires given more prominence than getting rid of the 12% gender pay gap. Wrangles over the constitution instead of righting the wrong of child poverty.
It may seem the Scottish people are now more receptive than ever to arguments for independence, thanks to the Scottish Government’s ability and expertise, and its positive and progressive outlook, but women remain more dubious.  Lesley Riddoch rightly identifies the turn-offs: “constitutional nit-picking and ego-ridden banterâ€, instead of the big ideas and ambitions that drive politics and change. McAlpine’s column is yet more ill-put grievance, when the SNP needs to keep talking about vision and ambition.
#1 by Danny on March 6, 2012 - 7:36 pm
Glad someone else said it. I’ve read both of McAlpine’s columns and they were both quite insulting.
#2 by Indy on March 6, 2012 - 7:54 pm
Totally agree that “comparing politics to domestic violence is at best tasteless, and at worst deeply insulting.”
But you have just made that bit up.
Nowhere in Joan McAlpine’s article is there any mention of domestic violence so I suggest you re-word your own article pretty quickly.
#3 by Kirsty on March 6, 2012 - 8:01 pm
Domestic violence isn’t just physical: it can be sexual, psychological or emotional. The controlling scenario portrayed in the column reflects the two latter components. It’s naive and wrong to assume that just because a victim isn’t being physically assaulted by their partner that they are not the victim of domestic violence and abuse.
#4 by Commenter on March 6, 2012 - 8:25 pm
If you say that McAlpine’s piece described a situation of domestic violence – a bossy spouse who holds the purse strings – then the logical conclusion is that Scotland suffers from… “political violence”, due to being deprived of power and handed an allowance. A little OTT, I think, but you’re implying it, not Joan.
#5 by Indy on March 6, 2012 - 9:09 pm
That is exactly what I was going to say. I didn’t see what Joan was talking about as equating with domestic violence or abuse. Just a very old fashioned view of marriage.
Seriously thought I was going mad and missing something that everyone was seeing but have read subsequent comments from women saying they think it’s totally fair comment.
Personally I have always found the Union/marriage analogy daft but was not invented by Joan McAlpine! Does no-one remember Divorce is an expensive business????
#6 by Alec on March 6, 2012 - 11:31 pm
Anyone here pushing that analogy? No? What do we have to excuse, then?
For both parties. And, as you well know, those making the divorce analogy have been pushing the idea that the ‘marriage’ makes both parties happier/stronger which emphatically aint what McAlpine is saying.
~alec
#7 by Indy on March 7, 2012 - 7:14 am
Yes Alec – that’s the whole point!!
The marriage analogy is well used as an argument in favour of the Union.
You know a couple of weeks ago Labour Hame published an article which started “I am a Unionist at heart. I see the union of Scotland with England and Wales as a marriage. A happy marriage beats all the alternatives. It is an institution that has stood the test of time.”
Now Ian Smart – who now says that an analogy between marriage and the Union is the most outrageous thing he has ever heard and should result in Joan McAlpine getting the sack – has written numerous articles for that very website! So clearly the marriage analogy is only unnacceptable if the author suggests that the marriage may be less than happy because one partner completely dominates the other!
I don’t know – it’s a good thing that Paul Scott published his book likening Scotland’s position in the UK to being in bed with an elephant some years ago otherwise he would probably be getting accused of bestiality by now!
#8 by Alec on March 7, 2012 - 9:29 am
Huh? The whole point is that McAlpine is pushing a line which is based on images of spousal abuse, whilst individuals pushing a pro-Union line are pushing one based on images of contentment and happiness and joy and marital respect?
I bet you thought you were saying something else.
To be apposite you’d have to produce examples which portray Scotland as the female partner in such a marriage, which then suggest she’d be reduced to penury on divorce whilst the male partner retains all the wealth.
Can you?
Who on this thread is doing that?
That looks a pedestrian piece, but it’s based on positive images. Unlike McAlpine’s… erm… negativity.
~alec
#9 by Richard on March 7, 2012 - 8:01 am
Sorry to be pedantic, but you’re playing with words here. Abuse can be sexual, psychological or emotional. Violence is, by definition, physical. There was no mention of violence in Joan’s article. Please don’t conflate two distinct concepts.
#10 by Kirsty on March 7, 2012 - 8:17 am
I disagree, and it’s disappointing for this to digress to pedantry and semantics
#11 by Alec on March 7, 2012 - 9:33 am
Until he beat a teenage girl around the head with a heavy object, Bill Walker hadn’t used violence against her. He still had brutalized her.
~alec
#12 by Richard on March 7, 2012 - 10:54 am
Exactly, but Kirsty was trying to say that Joan was talking about violence when she quite clearly wasn’t.
I also think that it is disingenuous to pretend that Scotland’s relationship with Westminster hasn’t been abusive.
#13 by Alec on March 7, 2012 - 10:27 pm
Only someone who has not been the victim of prolonged mental and emotional abuse from a family member could possibly think the absence of _physical_ violence in a proposed scenario is anything other than a non-point.
That’s why I don’t.
~alec
#14 by Richard on March 8, 2012 - 7:00 am
You’re missing the point, Alec. I’m not commenting on domestic abuse at all. I’m simply saying that Kirsty was reading things into Joan’s article which simply weren’t there. It is this misrepresentation of opponents’ arguments in order to create mock outrage which has degraded politics over recent years and turned disenfranchised large sections of the population. Well, one of the reasons anyway.
#15 by Alec on March 6, 2012 - 10:30 pm
McAlpine said “marriage of a talented, well-educated girl with good prospects and her own income, to a domineering man”. Kirsty’s _interpretation_ – which I agree with – was that she compared politics… no… she compared Scotland to a brow-beatened, abused woman.
(And what’s worse, she compared England – not some nebulous concept of Westminster or the Union – to an abusive man.)
There was no fabrication.
Perhaps you think everyone else is dim enough to believe this sophistry and convoluted efforts to ascribe the most charitable interpretation to McAlpine’s words, perhaps you genuinely cannot see what’s wrong with them.
I don’t know.
What I do know is that either McAlpine and her defenders are the outnumbered by thickies, or they simply are not half as clever as they think they are. I’m going for the second one.
~alec
#16 by Doug Daniel on March 7, 2012 - 11:14 am
I wouldn’t call it “outnumbered by thickies”, but certainly outnumbered by people who a) see a prominent nationalist getting some flak and see an opportunity to inflame the situation; or b) have a habit of being overly-critical of fellow nationalists because they like to think they are above certain facets of the whole debate.
Or c) have just jumped the gun a bit and misinterpreted Joan’s words.
I dare say there is a fair chunk of the afore-mentioned thickies in there too, mind.
#17 by Alec on March 7, 2012 - 12:33 pm
Basically, then, the rest of the band is out of step ‘cept McAlpine and you.
~alec
#18 by Doug Daniel on March 7, 2012 - 3:13 pm
Well if the alternative would imply some sort of gap in my intelligence, then the alternative is blatantly wrong…
#19 by M G on March 6, 2012 - 8:11 pm
Kirsty,you ‘don’t want to read such drivel’,don’t buy the Record
#20 by Doug Daniel on March 6, 2012 - 8:22 pm
“McAlpine’s invocation of spousal abuse and control is utterly crass. Comparing politics to domestic violence is at best tasteless, and at worst deeply insulting.”
I would say “crass” is accusing someone of something they’ve not done, which seems to be becoming a bit of a habit when it comes to people misinterpreting Joan McAlpine’s comments. Read the article again, and please quote the line that comes even close to comparing the union to domestic violence. All I can see are comparisons to undermining confidence, which is exactly what goes on when we’re told lies about Scotland being a subsidy junkie, and the “Scottish cringe” is the result of that undermining of confidence.
“But the husband complains she can’t be trusted to manage her own money. She would squander it.” – Westminster does not trust Scotland to look after its own finances, that’s obvious and always has been. So she’s bang on the money.
“Anyway, it isn’t really hers, it belongs to both of them. How selfish and greedy is she to even suggest keeping it to herself!” – If this isn’t an accurate portrayal of the unionist side’s new “the UK is a redistributive union” rubbish, then I don’t know what is.
“Here’s the deal. She hands over all her assets to him and he will give her a handout in return. He’ll decide the amount, but she can then spend it as she likes. Who can argue with that?” – That’s the Barnett Formula and the Scotland Bill in an absolute nutshell. The Scotland Bill is changing the variable rate of income tax from 3p to 10p, and we’re supposed to be grateful for this pathetic excuse for devolution?
“But if she gets uppity, mind, her money will be cut. She should remember how lucky she is.” – Well, we’re constantly being told how lucky we are to be in “the most successful union in the history of the world” (excuse me while I throw up). And devolution, as the Scotland Bill shows us, is a two-way street – Westminster can and will take back powers when it sees fit.
“Eventually she recognises the relationship for what it is – an abuse of power.” – An abuse of power, NOT physical abuse, and what is the Tories’ social engineering experiments if they are not abuses of power? They’re talking of giving well off people a tax cut next – how dare they think they can get away with that?
“Her husband makes the most appalling investment decisions that threaten to bankrupt them both – macho stuff like war games and a £100billion new Trident weapons system – the ultimate boy’s toy. That was money she could have spent on the kids’ future.” – WMDs are macho crap, and that money should be getting spent on solving Scotland’s social ills, not keeping the UK in the running in global willy-waving contests.
Call it simplistic if you want. You can even accuse her of being as bad as the politicians who try to excuse public spending cuts by kidding on that national finances are in some way comparable to household budgets if you really want to, but please, don’t accuse the woman of saying things she hasn’t said.
#21 by Jeff on March 6, 2012 - 8:25 pm
‘crass – without refinement, delicacy, or sensitivity; gross; obtuse; stupid’
I’m not sure where you’re getting your definition from Doug but the above seems to be spot on the money for what Joan wrote today as far as I am concerned.
#22 by Doug Daniel on March 6, 2012 - 8:40 pm
I would say accusing someone of comparing something to domestic violence when they’ve not done so is very much in keeping with that definition. Especially to then link it to the Bill Walker revelations.
I would certainly say it is more crass than someone perhaps labouring a point a bit. Maybe that’s just because I like to keep the word “crass” for particularly blatant blunders.
#23 by Jeff on March 6, 2012 - 8:56 pm
Oh, I get it now Doug. I thought you were defining the word ‘crass’ there but you were just saying that putting words in Joan’s mouth is also crass. I’m a bit slow in the uptake today.
To be fair, despite my support for the SNP, I don’t take to Joan at all so there could be some bias here but it’s nonetheless so utterly far removed from anything the vast majority of the SNP MSPs come out with that one has to wonder if a decision has been made to make Joan the ‘attack dog’ of the Nats, the Lord Foulkes of 2011-2016. That’s fine if that’s been calculated and worked out as worth furores such as these but it doesn’t mean we have to like it.
Also, fyi, for me the order is:
muddle
crass
gaffe
fiddle
scandal
#24 by Doug Daniel on March 6, 2012 - 9:32 pm
Well, if people keep creating uproar every time Joan writes an article or a tweet that is a bit more “up front” than what others are saying, then whether or not she’s purposefully playing up to an attack dog role, the complaints about her will sound more and more like cries of “WOLF!!!” to those who aren’t political nerds like the rest of us.
Still, even if you’re not exactly in her fan club, comparing anyone to Lord Foulkes is a bit below the belt 😛
My scale is something like:
bit unfair
not very nice
pretty tasteless
quite pathetic
crass
obscene
utterly disgusting
#25 by EphemeralDeception on March 14, 2012 - 7:50 am
This makes for a more accurate, logical and especially informative post than the main post itself.
Its a shame that Kirsty focused on semantics rather than what was highlighted about the substantive unequal relationship between the UK and Scotland.
How would Kirsty illustrate the relationship and does she agree with any of your points above, I wonder?
#26 by Jeff on March 6, 2012 - 8:28 pm
I still can’t believe Joan wrote what she wrote as it is so tasteless. Furthermore, this is her first article for the Daily Record so did the SNP press team clear it before it went to print? I wouldn’t be surprised if they did.
Also, she is flatly contradicting the words of Alex Salmond here in the referendum consultation document of all things:
“Scotland is not oppressed and we have no need to be liberated. “
#27 by Commenter on March 6, 2012 - 8:35 pm
“Scotland is not oppressed” does not equal “Scotland has all the power it needs and there’s nothing to be gained from independence because the relationship between Scotland and England is perfect”.
#28 by Indy on March 6, 2012 - 9:14 pm
I’m sorry but I really genuinely don’t get this. I agree Scotland isn’t oppressed and I don’t think that is what Joan is saying.
But equally Scotland is not an equal partner in the Union either.
In our constitutional set-up the power really lies with Westminster and will continue to do so unless we become independent.
So I see Joan McAlpine’s marriage analogy as valid – inasmuch as any marriage analogy can be. I don’t really think that marriage is a good analogy for the Union but as I said she didn’t invent it.
It was Labour who started the divorce is an expensive business stuff – even though for many women divorce is the most liberating thing they have ever done.
#29 by Jeff on March 6, 2012 - 9:30 pm
Saying that Scotland is not an equal partner in the Union is like saying that Falkirk would not be an equal partner in an independent Scotland.
And Joan is going a long way beyond simply comparing the Scotland/UK relationship to a marriage, come off it.
#30 by Indy on March 6, 2012 - 9:47 pm
Have we been reading the same article?
#31 by R.G. Bargie on March 7, 2012 - 1:31 pm
“Saying that Scotland is not an equal partner in the Union is like saying that Falkirk would not be an equal partner in an independent Scotland.”
You mean it’s entirely accurate?
#32 by Doug Daniel on March 6, 2012 - 9:38 pm
“It was Labour who started the divorce is an expensive business stuff – even though for many women divorce is the most liberating thing they have ever done.”
Yes, some of the outrage I have seen elsewhere from people of a Labour persuasion rings rather hollow when you bear this in mind. “They don’t like it up ’em, sir!” springs to mind…
#33 by Commenter on March 6, 2012 - 8:32 pm
I’m always a wee bit surprised at the capacity of the leftish tweeters to get into outraged shrieking mode, and again I’m surprised in this instance.
The piece is simplistic and tabloid, but hardly beyond the pale. All the gasping and fainting is a bit much! Chill oot!
#34 by Steve on March 6, 2012 - 8:46 pm
I think there’s been a big over reaction to this piece from Labour hacks and others. Their outrage doesn’t seem genuine to me a lot of the time.
I include some of Kirsty’s piece in that I’m afraid. The implication that the SNP are trying really hard to win independence as though that’s a bad thing is revealing. Maybe if the Labour party hadn’t given up on its principles some time ago it would understand the passion and determination that comes form having a political party united in its mission to deliver on something it believes in.
But that said I do think Joan’s piece is crass. It is making an analogy that the relationship between Scotland and England is like an abusive marriage. The relationship Joan describes is one of domestic abuse. Her points (as Doug illustrates above) are all fair enough, so there’s no need to do it in this way in my opinion.
It seems to me that the more sympathetic but not simply toe-the-line nats are comfortable with her piece because, basically, they are comfortable with the idea that England abuses Scotland. I personally don’t really buy that, the abuse I see in society is a bit more complex, it happens in the workplace, it happens between the rich and poor, between the powerful and the vulnerable right across the UK. I hope an independent Scotland would tackle some of that abuse and the inequalities in our society, but I don’t think it’s as simple as shaking off the evil English and running free in a land of milk and honey.
Either way, it’s tomorrow’s chip wrappers, we’ll all be getting outraged at something else in a day or two I’m sure.
#35 by Nikostratos on March 6, 2012 - 8:49 pm
Kirsty
‘for some, winning the referendum is the only thing that matters.’
Oh! do come on you have only just noticed??????
Still musnt grumble Joan McAlpine is the best recruiter the ‘Union’ supporters could ask for.
as she said
‘ Sometimes, translating a political relationship into a human equivalent makes us see things clearer.’
Hmm! sometimes deconstructing Joan McAlpines column gives a very clear insight into her psychological processes
in fact more than she probaly would wish to reveal.
#36 by Commenter on March 6, 2012 - 9:37 pm
You are probably right, and expressing things in marital terms like “separation” or “divorce” is unhelpful. I look forward to those terms no longer being used in the debate.
#37 by R Pollock on March 6, 2012 - 9:47 pm
It’s a legitimate area of discussion to question whether the personification strategy in Joan McAlpine’s article with regards to Union is contradictory to the positive message agenda, poor in timing or persuasive. Whether indeed it is offensive can be debated too.
However, more than half the content of this article in Better Nation is not on any of these points. In fact it’s not based on any explicit or implied aspect of Joan McAlpine’s article at all.
The author shows a leap of judgement here. She claims this “drivel… leads her to think” McAlpine just has a solitary goal of winning independence with no aspiration for the future. McAlpine only wants independence for its own sake is the author’s jist. There’s nothing in the article that suggests any of that. Just because the author is somehow lead to think down a particular peculiar line of thought doesn’t mean we should be led to believe any of the original Joan McAlpine article actually bears any semblance to it.
In saying that there may well be people that do have a narrow short view about independence. Maybe the author of this blog just wanted to blog on that and couldn’t wait to get it out by twisting it into this article debate. I don’t think by doing so does that debate any favours nor insinuating bizarre intentions about Joan McAlpine’s aspirations for an independent Scotland.
#38 by BaffieBox on March 6, 2012 - 9:49 pm
Must admit, I was startled by the outrage on Twitter and had to go and read the article in question, when previously I would have just ignored anything in the Record. The extent of the faux-outrage has only meant that thousands of people have probably been pushed to the Record website, justifying their decision to give Joan a platform.
I dont really understand the reaction. It’s a crap article, of that there is no doubt. We need to aspire to something better than this but it is no worse than what has gone before.
In fact, I’m desperately trying not to take it seriously it’s that poor, but certain elements of truth are hard to ignore. For example, the way Unionists have tried to bully Scotland on an RBS bailout for example is hugely relevant and has very real parallels to psychological abuse. It is a very valid comparison to make IMO.
Im all for debating articles like Joan’s seriously, and criticising it where it is merited (and there is huge merit in criticising her approach), but it is very difficult to engage in debate with anyone wilfully and deliberating warping the metaphor as domestic abuse or feigning outrage like Angus MacLeod or Ian Smart have on Twitter.
The article is bad and we should debate domestic abuse or the Union outside the blast zone of articles like Joan’s. But I get the distinct impression, it’s not about domestic abuse or about the Union for some people, and that we’ll debate the article rather than the subject at hand. It’s about Joan MacAlpine and the need for a scalp. For that reason, Im out.
#39 by Indy on March 6, 2012 - 10:32 pm
Agree – I don’t think it’s a good article but don’t see what there is to get outraged about either.
Amusingly I recall some of the twitterati now equating abuse of power with domestic violence were the same ones accusing the SNP of dirty tricks over Ian Davidson’s remarks about Eilidh Whiteford getting a doing. It’s all in the eye of the beholder I guess!
#40 by Craig Gallagher on March 6, 2012 - 9:56 pm
This post smacks of something composed in anger and haste, rather than thoughtful consideration. Although I sympathise entirely with the sentiments about domestic violence, and its trivialisation in political debate, I can’t help but read this as a reply by someone who was looking to be offended about this issue. McAlpine is comparing the Union to a well-known stereotype about marriage in Scotland, one that actually runs both ways, if you think about the way that Johann Lamont is being portrayed as a classic Scottish matron; McAlpine is also actually advocating a situation in which a person who feels they are being treated unfairly strongly consider ending the relationship, not because of the physical and emotional stress that they are under, but because of their clear-headed recognition that this situation isn’t working for them.
The point I take most issue with is your tying it to the allegations regarding Bill Walker. You can’t just have a problem with this discourse because of its proximity to such a thing: you either always have a problem with it or are manufacturing one now. McAlpine is either always wrong to write this way, or she is never wrong. I’m not a fan of zero sum games, but considering the ferociousness of your reaction, couching it in such terms seems appropriate.
The problem with modern Britain is how easily offended everyone is about everything, especially everything topical. Domestic abuse is not a trivial issue, but equally it is not something to get outraged over for a week and then we all move on. I’m not saying that’s necessarily what you are doing Kirsty, just that, to my mind, the proximity of the two things is irrelevant to the overall seriousness of the issue.
#41 by Doug Daniel on March 7, 2012 - 8:32 am
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there, Craig. Good comment.
#42 by Craig on March 7, 2012 - 8:14 pm
Many thanks, Doug. Usually, when I see someone has replied to a comment of mines on BN, I get all het up and ready to reply with about four paragraphs! Nice to be able to be concise this time.
#43 by Don McC on March 6, 2012 - 10:22 pm
Since the Scottish Parliament was set up, how many SNP MSPs have had to resign their position due to “scandal”? I can only think of one and his crime was that it snowed. Heavily. In Scotland.
In comparison, Unionist MSPs have dropped likes flies, scandal after scandal forcing them to go. You can see why they’re desperate for scalps but they’ve now called for resignations on soooo many occasions now (can anyone name an SNP minister who hasn’t faced a call for their resignation?), sometimes for completely trivial things, that nobody listens or cares these days. Doug mentions the danger of “the boy who cried wolf” syndrome but I think we’re already there.
Was Joan’s article well written? Was it a good analogy to use? Certainly, the article could have been better written and the analogy, one employed by Unionist parties all the time, isn’t the best but the faux outrage, and it’s cynical propagation, is laughable.
#44 by Doug Daniel on March 7, 2012 - 8:50 am
“can anyone name an SNP minister who hasn’t faced a call for their resignation?”
I think Bruce Crawford and Angela Constance have thus far managed to avoid being called towards the guillotine…
#45 by Iain Menzies on March 7, 2012 - 2:13 pm
I demand Bruce Crawford resigns!
#46 by Doug Daniel on March 7, 2012 - 10:57 pm
I stand corrected, said the man in the orthopaedic shoes.
#47 by Iain Menzies on March 7, 2012 - 11:46 pm
tsk! just what one would expect from a cybernat like you! blatantly disableist jokes! 😉
#48 by David Smillie on March 6, 2012 - 10:50 pm
Damn good article from Joan as far as I’m concerned. We’re constantly being warned about the horrors of divorce by Unionistas, all she did was give the perspective of the injured party.
Maybe the Record is going to get better. Mind you, it’s got a long way to go.
#49 by Davy Johnstone on March 6, 2012 - 11:14 pm
Be honest now, the only reason the Labourites are moaning is because they still haven’t got over their shock at the likes of Joan McAlpine writing for “their” paper.
It’s that Labour “entitlement” thing again and when something rubs up against that, they go all frothy at the mouth.
Get used to it, things are changing, in directions you never dared to think of and at a rate faster than you are capable of dealing with.
#50 by Hugh Jarse on March 6, 2012 - 11:19 pm
Gnats in overdrive tonight defending McAlpine.The article fails the gnat mantra of positivity and to publish an article that alludes to abuse is a spectacular own goal after the Bill Walker revelations – remember him the future ex MSP for Dunfermline ? Joan better take heed to the three strikes and your out rule,unless it was intentional to let her have free reign.Happy days.
#51 by Doug Daniel on March 7, 2012 - 8:51 am
“Gnats” – how nice. Great to see the level of debate is not plummeting through the floor.
#52 by MadJockMcmad on March 6, 2012 - 11:29 pm
Now the question of who is going over the top here is one that Better Nation needs to hold a mirror against itself.
McAlpine’s main point is Scotland can either play the ‘battered, dependent, wifie always waiting for her man (in the shape of Westminster) telling her what to do or stick two fingers up to Westminster and get out of a politically abusive relationship.
The problem for the left in Scotland is to wake up to just how dependent it sees itself on what ever the Labour Party says is right rather than thinking for itself. Political correctness gone wrong will not save this benighted Union – it is well passed that.
If all you can whine about is the metaphor being used then you have already lost the argument with yourselves let alone anyone else.
Labour is not a socialist party and has not been since the electoral disaster of Micheal Foot. The party’s policies are so far to the right of centre they are indistinguishable from the Libdems or Tories. On Radio 5 Live today Milliband was ripped to bits by callers for being inadequate, a poor leader and then rest.
Here’s the game now on in Scotland – you are either for independence or non-existent ‘jam tomorrow’ from Westminster. Ms MacAlpine is in the former and is clear in saying it. Now just where do the Better Natuion whiners lie because running down Scotland and ‘jam tomorrow’ just is not cutting it and the argument for the status quo does not add up. How will devo-max work as the Westminster Government will not countenance it on the referendum and have no White Paper in place to support it.
Kirsty – you maybe very PC about domestic violence – it is just a shame you are not as awake to the serial rape and abuse of Scotland over the centuries.
#53 by Alec on March 7, 2012 - 10:04 am
No she didn’t. She said England. It was doubly off colour.
Last time, she thought she was being clever when she described Labour, the Tories and LibDem Parties – and not the actual people who make them up – as anti-Scottish.
But, at least she tried. The same cannot be said about this:
Whoopsie.
Labour never was a socialist Party. There were socialist elements to it, but remained Labour.
~alec
#54 by MadJockMcmad on March 7, 2012 - 3:19 pm
Alec – you are struggling to make much sense here or are you just upset that the DR is giving a platform to a non Labour politician?
May I ask which Labour are you talking about?
The Labour of Maxton, Hardy and John MacLean which is the Labour I was brought up on?
The Labour of 1945 whose implementation of clearly socialist mores of equal access were the inspiration for many other European countries post the 1945 war.
Harold Wilson’s Labour with its distinct social democratic policies?
Tony Blair’s neo-liberal Labour of the centre right which is the current incarnation on public view?
Maybe you mean the disaster area that is Labour’s Scottish region which means a Labour of endless negativity, sniping, shooting themselves in the foot, in fighting, back stabbing, micro-management, bullying, mysoginy and lies – all that before we even know what Labour sees as Scotland’s future except ‘jam tomorrow’ and constituency parties which are increasingly turning against London control of all aspects of selection procedures – all reflected in a Caird Hall two thirds empty for Milliband’s speech that even the BBC could not edit away.
I return to the substantive point I made – if you are reduced to arguing about the metaphor rather than the content, this can only mean you have difficulty countering the argument.
The PC ‘outrage’ is simply hubris to deflect from the political reality you are facing – Labour has no policies to effectively argue against the pro-independence position except the too wee, too stupid, too small narrative of Scotland that failed in 2007 and even more spectacularly in 2011.
The pro-independence movement has grown beyond ‘Wee Eck’ worship and ‘Braveheart’.
It is not tied to any political party except in using the SNP as the means to its end. The movement is well informed, litterate and understands clear why it wishes Scotland to withdraw from the Treaty of Union, it acknowledges the risks involved but believes the benefits are much, much greater; based on observation and research of other similar sized countries who are or have recently become independent.
It is ironic the pro-Union side are now where the pro-independence argument was in 2007 – emotive, lacking direction, calling on ‘Braveheart’ imagery, talking of ‘fighting’ and all enmeshed in a bubble of fear while projecting their fears onto their Scottish bogeyman – Wee Eck.
Westminster’s response to the declared wish for a new UK Union of a confederal nature by (in poll after poll) 65-70% of Scots is to try and legislate to ensure it can never happen through the increasing dog’s breakfast that is the Scotland Act Ammendment Bill a bill originally cooked up by Brown and Wendy Alexander to ‘kill the SNP and the increasing support for independence – stone dead’. In the same way the 1998 Scotland Act was supposed to ‘kill the SNP stone dead’ along with the Holyrood electoral system which was designed to ensure the SNP could never get an overall majority.
The pro-Union side appears to have no understanding of the dynamic under pinning their serial failure to kill the SNP stone dead. In the latest poll 71% of Scots stated their first preference is for a confederal UK Union to which Westminster’s answer remains the same as in 1997 – maybees aye, maybees naw and only if you vote against independence.
I would suggest the question is now becoming about the sort of Scotland you wish for your children and grandchildren where a vote ‘yes’ retains the Scottish social democratic ethos, while a vote ‘no’ drags Scotland down into the neo-liberal privatisation of public services which is increasingly the norm in England.
#55 by Alec on March 7, 2012 - 10:22 pm
Wait, wait, wait… are you suggesting that Labour is a mixture of various traditions; some of which are explicitly socialist, some of which are socialist-inclined, some of which hail from elsewhere?
I agree.
~alec
#56 by Jen on March 6, 2012 - 11:57 pm
One thing for sure, good publicity for the DR.
#57 by Craig on March 7, 2012 - 8:25 pm
I doubt the Daily Record could be happier with Joan’s first column. The one thing missing from this entire debate is the recognition that McAlpine writed for a tabloid now, not a purported broadsheet like the Scotsman. We can correspondingly expect the quality of her writing to come down while the emotive content of her pieces will increase.
#58 by Jeff on March 7, 2012 - 9:11 pm
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect an MSP, any MSP, to maintain a quality threshold irrespective of who they are writing for. The suggestion that it’s ok to dumb down or be mildly offensive because one is writing for a tabloid is concerning.
#59 by Craig Gallagher on March 8, 2012 - 12:25 am
I agree that it’s not unreasonable, Jeff, but I don’t think it’s realistic. Look at the way George Galloway wrote (and, I believe, still does) for the Daily Record for years. High on emotion, low on policy. I’m definitely not suggesting it’s ok to dumb things down for a tabloid – far from it – but that doesn’t mean I don’t expect to see it happen.
#60 by Doug Daniel on March 9, 2012 - 12:15 am
But you do have to write for your audience. If someone wants to read a broadsheet-style column, they’ll buy a broadsheet instead of a tabloid.
#61 by Barbarian on March 7, 2012 - 12:56 am
At the risk of bringing the wrath of certain nationalists down on my head, I have to agree with Kirsty’s article.
Moreover, my view is that for all her journalistic brilliance, Joan McAlpine is naive as a politician, and is going to be a hinderance to the SNP.
The “anti-Scottish” jibe a few weeks ago proved this, and her comments on the link appear as if she is commenting on a blog. You can get away with loose and patronising comments on a blog.
I have no desire to see any politician toppled to be pefectly honest, as such actions are a convenient and inconvenient distraction from real policies, depending where you stand. What makes Joan a liability for the Scottish Government is that she is a close ally of Alex Salmond. She is an easy political target, and that will be exploited.
Someone in the SNP needs to reel her in sharpish. But that won’t happen, not as long as she continues to have Alex’s support, something unlikely to disappear.
This article of Joan’s will soon be forgotten. But she has atrtacted attention twice in a short space of time. How long before then next one? And then another one? She could be building a political reputation for all the wrong reasons.
#62 by BaffieBox on March 7, 2012 - 6:39 am
I certainly agree, but I dont think theres actually that many nationalists supporting Joan. Her article has found some modest support but generally people have criticised it as a poor article and acknowledged it as divisive.
However, it’s difficult to focus on that while we try to cut through the hysterical and hypocritical outrage that we’ve seen. There have been plenty of examples in recent history that demonstrate the personification of the “Union” as a human relationship has long been an acceptable and largely effective device for keeping Scotland psychologically in line. It seems it’s only offensive and outrageous when the nationalists try it, and in the Record of all places. She still made a crap case for independence mind, which is what we should be debating.
Instead, we have to discuss how on earth parallels to “domestic violence” have been lifted from her article. Ive struggled to get the “domestic abuse” angle, never mind “domestic violence”. It seems Joan isnt the only one who is polarising the debate.
#63 by Indy on March 7, 2012 - 7:24 am
I don’t think anybody would have paid a blind bit of attention to the article really had there not been such an OTT reaction to it. All that has done is draw attention to it and most folk I know have been scratching their head at the interpretation which may be genuine in some cases but in many other cases clearly is not but completely politically driven. As a consequence everyone is talking about it and considering the extent to which Scotland really is an equal partner in the Union – the answer being obviously not!
#64 by Don McC on March 7, 2012 - 7:08 am
While there’s no denying that Joan has attracted attention twice in a short space of time now, Barb, I would argue against that being a bad thing. Yes, the Unionists tried desperately to put their own spin on her “anti-Scottish” jibe but most Scots aren’t stupid, they can see through that to what she was getting at. As with this article, could she have put it more “delicately”, taking account of Unionist sensisitivies? Yes. Was the outrage of that comment just as fake is the one over her more recent comment? Yes.
#65 by Doug Daniel on March 7, 2012 - 9:27 am
Still waiting to hear where Joan actually compared the union to domestic violence. Ian Smart can’t point it out either, and his retort is far more visceral than Kirsty’s.
On the other hand Malcolm Bruce has actually described the self-determination movements of places like South Sudan, Chechnya and South Ossetia as “nursing their grievances”. I don’t see mass outrage over that, though. Perhaps because it’s par for course for British nationals to make disparaging comments about other countries, because we’re the greatest nation in the world and everyone should bow down to us.
That attitude of Bruce’s ties in very nicely with the characterisation Joan has made.
Incidentally, am I the only person who is uncomfortable with the idea being implied by Kirsty, Ian and others that domineering males can only achieve their position through physical or mental abuse? I know couples like that, and although I’m not in favour of the way they conduct their relationship, they did not get where they are through the man beating or constantly belittling the woman.
Maybe Joan should have used a BDSM couple as an analogy instead…?
#66 by Alec on March 7, 2012 - 9:51 am
He might be closer to the mark in South Ossetia, but only by coincidence.
We aint discussing what Bruce said, we’re discussing what McAlpine said (the day after a serial wife beater was discovered in the SNP). To be apposite you should show a trend of comments like this, and approval from those who’re critical of McAlpine.
Unlike McAlpine’s disparaging comments about the whole of England?
“Domineering” does indeed suggest at least one of those tactics.
Having watched you seeking McAlpine’s acquittal, I now see you trying to move discussion away from it to comments which are no more – and, imo, a lot less – open to unfavorable interpretation.
You, as I said above, have applied the most charitable interpretations to her comments; and now are hoping to place the toughest standards on others’ comments.
Maybe she should have. She didn’t though, and she’s an MSP with a paid newspaper column. She presumably considered her article, then wrote and re-wrote it; unlike Kirsty who trotted out a blog piece gratis.
I’d say there’s a greater pressure on her to watch her words than mere bloggers like what Kirsty is.
~alec
#67 by Doug Daniel on March 7, 2012 - 11:02 am
“We aint discussing what Bruce said, we’re discussing what McAlpine said (the day after a serial wife beater was discovered in the SNP)”
But I don’t accept the premise that Joan was making a comparison to a marriage where the wife is beaten, so the link to Bill Walker is insidious. As for not discussing Bruce, I’m making a comparison between the mock outrage over Joan’s article, which didn’t say what opponents claim it says, and the complete lack of comment from those same people on another recent comment that actually did make insulting remarks. I didn’t realise you controlled the parameters of debate on Better Nation…
“Unlike McAlpine’s disparaging comments about the whole of England?”
So you accept Bruce was indeed disparaging about other countries?
““Domineering†does indeed suggest at least one of those tactics.”
No it doesn’t. You can dominate someone purely because of the way your personalities interact. As someone who has suffered from chronic shyness most of my life, I am very aware of the fact that I have friendships and previous relationships where I’ve allowed the other person to be the dominant party to my own detriment, and that has not been as a result of them hitting me or trying to play with my mind – just a difference in self-confidence. Joan’s article describes someone with a lack of confidence allowing a more confident person to dominate them, with that person eventually finding their self-confidence and realising the relationship is not healthy for them. There is no need for violence or mental abuse to be a part of any of that.
(Oh, and I’ll thank you in advance to not misinterpret me here as saying that women who suffer from domestic abuse are bringing it on themselves for playing the victim.)
“You, as I said above, have applied the most charitable interpretations to her comments; and now are hoping to place the toughest standards on others’ comments.”
Whereas Kirsty and others have chosen to apply the least charitable interpretation. That’s how these things work. Similarly, if these people are keen to seek such tough standards from others, then they are to expect people to seek the same tough standards from themselves.
“I’d say there’s a greater pressure on her to watch her words than mere bloggers like what Kirsty is.”
Sorry, but that is an exceptional cop-out.
#68 by Alec on March 7, 2012 - 1:23 pm
Stop right there! Kirsty said domestic abuse, NOT specifically physical violence!
D’you have any idea how w-e-e-e-e-rd it looks to see you quibble about degrees of abuse from the more powerful party in a relationship?
About South Ossetia? Yes.
I have no intention of getting further embroiled in a discussion about Bruce; or, at least, not until you demonstrate that his stated beliefs are commonly held amongst the pro-Union argument, and that those criticizing McAlpine would defend Bruce.
In my experience, introducing new information here and there are part of either an ill-formed argument or a conscious attempt mislead and win through default.
That aint what you said. You said “domineering” NOT “dominat[e]ing”. And it most certainly is not the image which McAlpine created.
You cannot have it both ways, Doug. You cannot implicitly accept that I am out to win at all costs, but am following rules of debate and giving the most charitable interpretation to someone’s argument UNTIL SHOWN OTHERWISE, and then present yourself as a potential victim of dishonest argument.
That’s a circular argument. Kirsty and others have made their case. Yours is based pretty much solely on a tortuously literal reading of McAlpine’s comments and now the patent – or is it blatent? – attempt to redefine the terms of the discussion by introducing the topic of physical violence.
No, it’s an entirely unremarkable observation. Power and responsibility. McAlpine so cleaarly craves power, but is less keen on accepting responsibility for it.
In the anti-Scottish thing and now this, she comes across as a mixture between a disapproving great aunt and chanting football thug.
~alec
#69 by Alec on March 7, 2012 - 1:31 pm
Am NOT out to win at all costs.
#70 by Doug Daniel on March 7, 2012 - 3:30 pm
I’m getting bored of this now, especially when your very first sentence is completely wrong:
“Stop right there! Kirsty said domestic abuse, NOT specifically physical violence!”
The case for defence which, unlike Joan’s article, specifically uses the phrase “domestic violence”. Observe one of Kirsty’s paragraphs in whole:
“Coming just over twenty-four hours after the Sunday Herald’s revelations alleging how Bill Walker MSP mistreated his three ex-wives and step-daughter, McAlpine’s invocation of spousal abuse and control is utterly crass. Comparing politics to domestic violence is at best tasteless, and at worst deeply insulting. Labour MP Owen Smith apologised for making similar comments in 2010, and I think McAlpine should do likewise, instead of declaring herself proud of such ill-thought polemic.”
It is absolutely clear what Kirsty is accusing Joan of. So your later accusation that I’m the one introducing the topic of physical violence is completely disingenuous.
#71 by Alec on March 7, 2012 - 10:12 pm
Yet you replied.
Doug, you’ve got yourself into a pickle, and it all was entirely avoidable.
You and others have shot from the hip thinking this was a re-run of the anti-Scottish thing which, if only if people listened, youse’d be able to make your case. In a way it was a re-run – McAlpine’s boorish belief that she’s the arbiter of Scottish identity – but the cheapening of domestic abuse has struck a very bad chord, without or without it coming the heels of revelations about Walker.
On seeing just how badly they judged the negative response, some have dismissed it as a pettifoggery (although it clearly is important enough to them for a response).
You have sought damage control by projecting accusations of disingenuous references to domestic abuse onto Kirsty. If she is shown to be a misandric feminist, McAlpine should look less worse by comparison.
The snag is that your excoriation of Kirsty’s comments is based around your interpretation of her phrasing; nowt to do with what she explicitly said. In contrast, your objection to our excoriation of McAlpine’s comments is that we’re basing it around our interpretation of her phrasing; nowt to do what she explicitly said.
You’re hedging your bets, and transparently so.
~alec
I’m sorry if you and McAlpine think
#72 by Doug Daniel on March 7, 2012 - 10:54 pm
No Alec, the people who have shot from the hip are those who have homed in on a single word (abuse) and decided that this means Joan was comparing England to a husband that beats his wife. It’s that simple.
Kirsty has accused Joan of comparing the relationship between Scotland and England to that of domestic violence. She used those exact words. There is no ambiguity there, so there is no need to “project accusations”, and there is nothing disingenuous in highlighting the exact wording someone used. This is not like the anti-Scottish thing, where it was necessary for people to cut Joan’s sentence off half-way in order to make it fit their needs – the words Kirsty used are in black and white (well, black and grey).
But whatever, you’ve clearly made up your mind so there really is no point in me trying to convince you any further. There is no more clarity to be sought, especially now that you’re calling similarities contrasts.
The strange thing is that you say it has struck a very bad chord. You obviously read/follow different people from me, because in the comments I’ve seen on Twitter and blogs, I see far more men getting het up over this than women. In fact, it seems to have engaged women far more than the usual online debate. So as others have said, it’s clearly “mission accomplished” as far as Joan is concerned.
(And incidentally, aye, I do think. No apology required though.)
#73 by Indy on March 8, 2012 - 6:37 am
Interesting point. Although I have noticed that it is possible for women to disagree without turning it into a witch-hunt, Kirtsy excepted perhaps. In particular it strikes me as ironic the number of male commentators lecturing Joan about wjat it really means to be dominated while at the same time demanding that her male boss sacks her for having offemed them!
Happy International Women’s Day everyone!
#74 by JPJ2 on March 7, 2012 - 10:12 am
I was not impressed by Joan’s article but I am not impressed by Kirsty’s either.
The primary driver of the reaction to the Joan article is that of a jilted lover i.e. “Scottish” Labour feels itself let down by its lover the Daily Recoed.
Anyway, isn’t it about time anologies to marriage from all sides were set aside (I nearly said put to bed) as it they don’t, in fact, illuminate the debate on independence
#75 by Malc on March 7, 2012 - 10:20 am
Haven’t read the article, and I’m not going to bother.
Is there an argument that, with all due respect, Joan McAlpine is doing just what most politicians do – trying to get media attention? The anti-Scottish thing, and now this might be crass or whatever, but they have succeeded in getting her a bit of press. Perhaps if we stopped giving this kind of thing oxygen, well, we’d see less of it?
Just an idea mind.
#76 by Ben Achie on March 7, 2012 - 1:02 pm
I haven’t read the DR article.
I haven’t read all this either.
Surely the point is that the Union is not being regarded as a partnership of equals by the huge majority at Westminster.
It is perfectly reasonable to make a comparison with a marriage.
QED (whatever that means!)
#77 by Alec on March 7, 2012 - 1:33 pm
Malc and Ben, not reading a blog piece or newspaper article is your choice. It is, however, kinda important if you want to comment on the discussion surrounding them.
How d’you know, for instance, that the point is whatever you think it is?
~alec
#78 by Angus McLellan on March 7, 2012 - 1:39 pm
If the fuss isn’t just a storm in a teaspoon then it’s all going swimmingly well for Ms McAlpine and the Daily Record. Both want to be noticed, the first in order to advance a cause, the second to sell papers. Not quite up there with Souness signing Mo Johnston, but the reactions are funny all the same.
#79 by Indy on March 7, 2012 - 3:38 pm
like
#80 by Craig Gallagher on March 8, 2012 - 12:27 am
This example of internet cross-pollination is very #distressing
#81 by Malc on March 7, 2012 - 1:55 pm
Perhaps Alec, but my point wasn’t related to content, merely motivation.
#82 by Galen10 on March 7, 2012 - 3:49 pm
Two words…. storm, teacup.
The initial article is facile, and was obviously written with the intent of being provocative, in a newspaper that could hardly be said to bea beacon of progressive politics, or to have anything of much value to say to or about the Scottish people.
Kirsy’s response is overblown politically correct bilge, apparently intent on taking offence and (deliberately?) putting the worst possible spin on an already fairly weak piece of journalism. All Kirsty has achieved is giving the piece the oxygen of publicity, when it didn’t really deserve the oxygen of oxygen.
People need to clam the hell down, take a few deep breaths and regain a sense of perspective.
#83 by Barbarian on March 7, 2012 - 5:48 pm
Well, one thing is for certain, we got a lively debate!
#84 by Iain Menzies on March 7, 2012 - 5:49 pm
If England is an Abusive Husband…….and Scotland a beaten wife……what does that make Ireland?
#85 by Indy on March 7, 2012 - 10:21 pm
Well that was where I always felt the marriage/divorce analogy always fell down. Cos don’t forget about Wales too! To be married to England, Wales and Northern Ireland – especially when you knew that half of Northern Ireland really wanted to run away and shack up with the rest of the island – would be erm, how do they put it on facebook? “It’s complicated”. That would be something of an understatement wouldn’t it???
#86 by Observer on March 7, 2012 - 7:39 pm
it was a pretty rubbish article because Scotland has volunteered to be part of the union so Joan is describing her readers as being weak. This idea that Scotland is in an abusive relationship with England is a tad insulting when most people (so far) have voted for it.
Joan is a champion for cybernats but her articles are not going to persuade anyone who is not a natural nationalist as she is.
Kirsty went OTT but to be honest I can understand why.
#87 by Doug Daniel on March 7, 2012 - 10:56 pm
“Scotland has volunteered to be part of the union”
When did we do that?
#88 by Duncan on March 7, 2012 - 7:46 pm
Is it an abuse “of power” to tell Scotland we will not let you use the pound. Knowing that it cannot be prevented?
Is it an “abuse of power” to tell Scotland you cannot have a referendum unless we say so?
Is it an “abuse of power” to answer a legitimate SNP question on Kinloss and Lossiemouth in the commons, by sneering ” if the honourable gentleman’s party gets their way Scotland will be flying by the seat of their pants.”
Is it an “abuse of power” to refer to all Scottish nationalist supporters as fascist? (Davidson)
Is it an abuse of power to lie that patients in Scottish hospitals are having to share blankets? (Bailey)
Joan MacAlpine used the term “an abuse of power.” At no time did she refer to or imply domestic abuse this is just desperate unionist hysteria. Hilarious and pathetic, and which is driving the votes for the SNP up and up, along with the membership figures. Grist to the mill. Keep it coming unionistas. The SNP could not afford this publicity.
#89 by Indy on March 7, 2012 - 10:37 pm
Abuses of power eh?
Let’s see.
There is the golden oldie McCrone Report of course. It takes a special kind of duplicity to sit on a report showing that oil revenues could completely transform the Scottish economy while at the same time telling Scottish people that independence would make their country as poor as Bangladesh.
But that’s probably nothing to a government prepared to write off an entire fishing industry as “expendable” in European negotiations, all the while pretending that there was nothing they could do.
Which didn’, of course, stop them annexing 6,000 sq miles of Scottish sea and sea bed away from Scottish jurisdiction in 1999 with no discussion, consultation or even explanation.
Or – here’s a good one – signing a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Gadaffi designed to enable the transfer of Megrahi back to Libya to help British business interests without telling the Scottish Government. Then attacking the Scottish Government when they released Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
Or, as you say, threatening to take the Scottish Government to the Supreme Court if they dare to hold a referendum as they were elected to do unless it is on the terms that the UK Government wants to impose.
We could probably go on all night there are so many examples. After a while it actually becomes quite boring.
#90 by Allan on March 7, 2012 - 8:28 pm
Might also be an idea if people actually read things before commenting, instead of every debate descending into a he said/she said argument that turns off voters.
#91 by Marad103 on March 7, 2012 - 9:56 pm
Iain Menzies
“If England is an Abusive Husband…….and Scotland a beaten wife……what does that make Ireland?”
It’s obvious isn’t it. There’s the older more mature child who has already left and become independent, then there is the smaller child who doesn’t want mummy and daddy to split up and cries from the sidelines.
#92 by Barbarian on March 7, 2012 - 10:45 pm
And are now as skint as mummy and daddy…….
#93 by Doug Daniel on March 7, 2012 - 10:55 pm
Smaller child = Wales or Northern Ireland?
#94 by Iain Menzies on March 7, 2012 - 11:36 pm
I think he means Northern Ireland…..tho to make this really work…Northern Ireland would have to be younger twins….
#95 by douglas clark on March 8, 2012 - 12:00 am
Joan McAlpine made an analogy that has been used on both sides of the debate. It seems strange to me that the idea that Cameron is the spurned suitor, or that Lamont is the ever forgiving wife should be the subject of such rancour.
If any of you have read the more rampant elements of the Telegraph or Daily Mail comment’s columns, it seems to me that relationships between Scotland and England are often characterised in assumed dominant, submissive marital relationships. The Paw Broon / Maw Broon relationship to be precise.
What was a reasonable way of explaining the shortfall in Scotland’s fiscal position has been twisted by some, and I’m looking at you Jeff, into something it never was.
This comment will be awaiting moderation until the cows come home, the sun becomes a red giant or the heat death of the Universe hits.
#96 by GMcM on March 8, 2012 - 4:56 pm
Late arrival to this particular party but when I read the post I had a feeling I knew how the comments would go. I wasn’t disappointed.
We have the same people using the same arguments the last time Joan opened her mouth and let her true thought s ooze out.
She clearly presents an image of Scotland as down-trodden, brow-beaten women at the mercy of an abusive husband (England). Not specifically ‘domestic violence’ but quite clearly domestic abuse.
However the same apologists within the SNP ranks are saying her words have been twisted, she didn’t mean what is being attributed to her comments etc.
She was wrong to use that analogy and you should stop defending her and accusing others of feigning outrage.
It is not the use of marriage that is offensive to people when talking about the constitution, it is using the analogy of an abusive marriage that is crass. The only people who are conflating and confusing the issue are those who are defending the indefensible.
#97 by GMcM on March 8, 2012 - 5:05 pm
One other thing and I’m sure the SNP supporters will be able to help out here:
How often did they have to defend individuals/SNP because of offensive comments in the last parliament?
I remember the SNP ministers making a mess of policy and you defending them on those grounds but I can’t remember you having to make this sort of defence, and it is becoming more regular.
Is it possible that the majority is letting the real SNP out the bag, the mask is slipping etc and that you are now fighting fires that previously you didn’t have to as every word coming out from SNP HQ was so carefully worded?
You are so close and yet so far from realising your dream (not plural as there is only one) that some within your ranks will say and do anything now – the frustration is quite evident.
Disclaimer: this is just my view on the mindset of some SNP members – you may disagree and I don’t mind that. Now let the salt see the vinegar!
#98 by Jeff on March 8, 2012 - 5:29 pm
I’m probably not best placed to answer your question Gerard but I think you’re right about some in the SNP saying and doing anything being somewhat off the leash.
I think this might increasingly be the case if Salmond and the SNP can’t budge the poll ratings in the right direction. A bit like a football team who are 2-0 down with 10 miunutes to go, silly things can understandably happen. (We are of course more than 10 minutes away from the referendum so this is just bona fide silliness here as far as I’m concerned).
#99 by Indy on March 8, 2012 - 5:58 pm
The answer is very rarely.
There is a much higher standard applied to SNP members than to opposition members.
That’s actually fair enough because we are in government and we are the ones advancing the case for independence so we can expect a higher level of scrutiny from the media and so on.
What I think people do find frustrating is that while we can accept that higher standards are expected of SNP members, that doesn’t mean that other members should have no standards at all.
But we can look at a couple of recent incidents – Jackie Baillie’s comments about hospital patients having to share blankets because of SNP cuts and claiming Scotland had the highest levels of hospital acquired infections in Europe.
Both of those claims were untrue. Not debatable, just untrue. Factually wrong.
Whereas with an issue like this it’s debatable. Some people think what she said was fair enough, others think it was crass and tasteless. Most people don’t really care.
But let’s imagine an SNP politician said something that was untrue – not accidentally, not because they had been given the wrong information which could happen to anyone. But intentionally.
So yes I find that frustrating. I don’t mind our people having to abide by a higher standard but the disparity should not be so great.
#100 by Iain Menzies on March 8, 2012 - 6:28 pm
Im not sure i would agree that a higher standard is expected of SNP members actually.
Rather i think the SNP has a real problem with the quality of some of its MSP’s. Personally i think this McAlpine is abit of a numpty, but thats just a matter of opinion.
I will never forget watching the results come in on election night, sitting in my flat with a couple of ubernat mates who had NO IDEA who half of those getting elected for the SNP were.
I think it is quite clear that no one with any sense of proportion, even in the SNP, expected to see so many SNP MSP’s, and frankly alot of the dross that was filling ballot papers got elected *cough* Bill walker*cough*.
#101 by Indy on March 8, 2012 - 6:44 pm
Well it is. Think about what constitutes a “scandal” for the SNP.
Think about the number of times insinuations have been made and resignations called for.
On each and evey occasion that SNP ministers have been accused of behaving improperly they have referred themselves for investigation and on each and every occasion it has been found that no impropriety happened. Every single minister has faced calls for resignation incidentally.
Look at the ministerial resignation which did happen. Because of the weather! The exact same thing happened down south and elsewhere in Europe. Not only did no minister resign no-one even called for them to resign.
And if you take this stramash – what is it about really? The Bill Walker thing – yes, that is a genuine issue and the SNP acted instantly and decisively and suspended him from membership.
But do you realise there has actually been MORE of a fuss about what most people saw as a fairly anodyne article in the Daily Record than about Bill Walker? Any dispassionate observer would think actually this is a completely disproportionate level of fuss about a wee column for a tabloid newspaper. Yet it was what Johann Lamont chose to lead on at FMQs. Quite bizarre when you think about it.
The reason is simple. The SNP suspended Walker therefore he could not be got at. They are desperate for a scalp, any scalp, and that is why things get blown way out of proportion.
Even if you think the article was tasteless and crass it is hardly a resignation issue is it? Yet people were screeching for her to be expelled from the party! No rational person could think that was warranted.
#102 by Iain Menzies on March 8, 2012 - 8:49 pm
Oh now thats what i call revisionism!
The resignation that did happen didnt happen because of the weather.
I remember that day, I was on the Phone to my Dad that night (at about half 9) and as i was on the phone to him my Step brother arrived at his place. He had only just gotten home having left to go to work before 8am, Travelling from Harthill to Livingston, where upon he found himself in the car park that was the M8. And heard said minister on the radio. He didnt get out of walking distance of the Harthill services, and people who had been stuck in their cars for most of the day, who hadnt so much as a bottle of water, were being told in no uncertain terms that they must stay in their cars, that they couldnt even get out to get water, or go to the toilet. When said minister goes on the radio and tells people that is they try to, for example, get a drink for a thirsty child that THEY are the problem, not a mishandled response to the weather, then yes the minister should resign.
#103 by Doug Daniel on March 9, 2012 - 12:22 am
Actually, I’ll agree with you here Iain. Indy is wrong, it wasn’t the weather that got Stevenson sacked.
It was the BBC.
#104 by Barbarian on March 9, 2012 - 8:42 am
Wrong – Salmond sacked him. That I got from a very well placed source, better than any BBC numpty journalist has.
There’s a little thing called ministerial responsibility. The SG ended up rolling out other minsters – eg Mike Russell – because they one they had made a complete ballsup. The minute a senior minister has to be brought out is a bad sign. Contrast the difference when Keith Brown took over the reins.
#105 by Allan on March 10, 2012 - 1:09 pm
Completely agree! We were coming back from holiday on the Sunday night and we were told by the Captain on our flight to expect heavy snow showers on our arrival. It was right that Stevenson went because his department failed to act on Met Office warnings and make suitable contingency arrangements.
As Barbarian pointed out below, contrast Stevenson’s approch to that of his successor Keith Brown.
#106 by GMcM on March 9, 2012 - 8:58 am
I disagree on a couple of points Indy. I agree that the SNP are held to a higher standard when the debate centres around separation but for day-to-day policy I disagree.
It is my belief that people expect more from the Labour Party. If you’ll let me explain why I hold this view: People across the UK have always seen Labour as the party who have their hearts in the right place (a poll last year showed that even though they wrongly blamed Labour for the economic mess, they did believe Labour were acting with the best of intentions) and who represent the ordinary person.
Therefore they expect more from Labour when in power and even in opposition. Look at all the good the Labour Party have achieved in our history and especially or recent history – real, tangible successes that have improved the lives of the majority of people in the country, however expectations are so high for the party that any failure has the potential to be fatal.
I would also ask you to look back to the time the SNP were in opposition and honestly assess how the worked as an opposition. It seems by the accusations of Labour being ‘oppositionalist’ that no other party in the history of politics has ever acted in such a way. The SNP certainly did but some seem less prepared to look back further than 2007 (or year zero) in an objective manner.
The second thing I disagree with is the calls for resignation. Ask yourself why each minister was being asked to resign – look at the resignations/calls for resignation for Tory/LD/Labour members of Westminster and Holyrood.
Frank McAveety had to resign because he lied to Parliament about a lunch; Wendy because she handed back money and was absolved of wrongdoing by those who investigated the incident. The SNP were at the front of those calling for resignations.
Salmond has lied to Parliament – has he stepped down? Sturgeon vouched for a criminal; Hislop made a meal of the CfE; McAskill released a convicted mass murderer without longevity assessments by oncologists etc
Now I’m not saying that they should all resign, rather that you have to see that in some ways its the same for all parties.
#107 by Brian Nicholson on March 8, 2012 - 6:35 pm
It has always been my view that the outrage of opponents measures how close the writer has come to the point being made. The vitriol of counter attacks from the anti-independence camp, including more than few here, strikes me that Joan made the argument she intended to make.
The over-controlling characters are always shocked when confronted with the abuse. After all, many do not see as abuse but as looking out for the wee lasses best interested. They see themselves as doing good. They are indignant that any would see their actions otherwise.
Westminster believes they are acting in the best interests of Scotland and are appalled when their “benevolence” is rewarded with anger and accusation.
Many here share that reaction, not the least the writer of this article on this blog.