By Alex Robertson

Mr Salmond said it for many of us last week at First Minister’s Questions when he said to Johann Lamont, “so much for the quality debate.”

This was said in response to a highly personal and unprovoked attack on the First Minister by the Scottish Labour leader.

It is not the first time it has happened, and she is not alone in ad hominem tactics.  At the close of the Ryder Cup trophy awards in Chicago, Mr Salmond was booed by sections of the crowd, whether disgruntled Unionists or just alcohol fuelled golfing boors, we will never know.

Whatever, the moment was symptomatic of the dangers of conducting a debate which is characterised, not by the healthy exchanges of views or an honest plea for arguments to be heard, but the gutter-politic of petty name calling, personal insult and of demonisation.

It is something that is deeply corrosive and, I think, extremely dangerous.

In the back of my mind for a long time now has been the fear of what happens if you demonise a political proposition, or rather those who propose it.

Johann Lamont’s gloating of the booing that met the First Minister in Glasgow during the welcome afforded the Olympians and the same that was heard as he was introduced by his Chicago hosts, was unbecoming.

Mr Salmond attended both events in his capacity as First Minister of Scotland – he was representing all of us regardless of political stripe.  To boo him was to show disrespect, not just to the office of First Minister but to the nation of Scotland.

The apparent endorsement given by Lamont and others from within Scottish Labour to this behaviour sends entirely the wrong signal to those whose actions ought to have been condemned outright if commented upon.  Once we lose respect for our democratic offices then we lose respect for ourselves.

Rhetoric is a powerful weapon and care must be taken by our elected representatives not to be seen to be endorsing extreme language or actions.

The rhetoric employed by sections of the media and the Unionist parties in the ‘great debate’ is worrying.  History tells us that inflammatory or uncompromising words can sometimes lead to unintentional consequences.

A recent Northern Irish contributor to the referendum debate, speaking on Radio Scotland, remarked how the moves towards Irish self-determination found itself obstructed by an intransigent Unionist movement opposed to any kind of change to the constitution.

The wording of the 1912 Ulster Covenant, drafted by Unionists in response to the increasing support for a relaxing of the hold London held over the provinces, was such that it gave rise to a perceived threat of violent opposition should any such Home Rule move succeed.  The covenant signatories, all men, pledged to defend themselves “using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland.”

One of the signatories, Frederick Hugh Crawford, boasted that he had signed his name in blood, and the formation of a Unionist militia of 100,000 men was planned the year after.  The female equivalent of the Ulster Covenant, saw the “women of Ulster”, pledge: “desire to associate ourselves with the men of Ulster in their uncompromising opposition to the Home Rule Bill now before Parliament.”

According to this analyst, the result of the defiant and clearly threatening rhetoric led to the formation of a reactionary group we now know as the IRA.

Let me be clear: I am emphatically against violence as a political ploy, root and branch, and so are the SNP and their supporters.  No one would wish such a scenario to befall Scotland, and it is surely not the intention of those speaking out against the idea of independence.

But there is already a very real consequence to the increasingly inappropriate rhetoric adopted by the Unionist side – the booing of our First Minister is a manifestation of this rhetoric and the demonisation process.

We are already bombarded with rhetoric that places the SNP and Alex Salmond in the same category as dictators and extreme groups.  Unionist politicians and indeed journalists, frequently compare Mr Salmond to notorious dictators, alive and dead.

Less inflammatory terms are adopted by other media professionals who frequently describe Mr Salmond as “smug”, “shifty” or “cunning”.  Contrast this with the descriptions of Johann Lamont’s attack on Universal Benefits as “courageous” and Ms Lamont herself as “brave”, as she seeks a “mature” debate.

Sports journalist, and now BBC Scotland Radio presenter Graham Spiers last week launched an attack on Alex Salmond claiming the FM would hijack the Ryder Cup in 2014.

“Mr Salmond is going to muscle in on this big time, big style” he said on STV’s Scotland Tonight.  The journalist and broadcaster, speaking on Radio Scotland a day later, claimed that the First Minister was booed at the Ryder Cup closing ceremony because he was a politician.  Spiers implied that Mr Salmond should not have been there.

Mr Spiers is a Labour supporter and once caused Radio Clyde to be reprimanded after electoral rules were broken when he and show host Peter Martin promoted the Labour party on the day of the 2010 General Election vote during a live football phone-in show.   Thus, his attack on the First Minister sounds like another attempt by a Unionist commentator to demonise ‘shifty’ Salmond who is out to politicise everything.

The end result of all this might be to so alienate and disparage the independence movement that they create a victimised section of our society.   And the price of that is a deeply entrenched bitterness and resentment.

What is going to happen on Referendum-Day plus one?  Either a majority emerges in favour of independence, or in favour of staying in the union. And what then?

Either way, it is likely to be a narrow victory for whoever wins. But we have to take extreme care that whoever loses does not feel they were cheated, ambushed, or marginalised.

For that way lies disaster and years, perhaps decades of acrimony.  And that must be avoided at all costs.

So what can we do to stop that dive to disaster?

I think there are three things we need to do urgently.  First we somehow need to read the riot act to those taking part in the debate that we, the people, will not tolerate gutter tactics, manipulation of news and intolerant name calling.

Second, we must make it clear to the media that their conduct has not gone unnoticed and that those who would distort facts to satisfy a political agenda should be exposed.

And third, we need a referee.

We need an independent and objective body willing to monitor media behaviour, address complaints and report on the fairness and accuracy of news reporting.

I believe the problem is a real and present danger to our nation, and the means I have described are a strong defence against those whose motives are not the purest and whose scruples about a clean and fair debate are less than adequate.

But as the feelings of resentment rise each day, it is high time to impose some zero tolerance measures.

Comments  

 
# megz 2012-10-08 06:51
Couldnt agree more. Labour also seem to be wanting to start a class war. first with their universal benefits talk, then JL attacking both Nicola Stugeon and Alex Salmond over their salaries. this cannot be allowed to continue, atleast not unchallenged.

ALready the Labour run councils have started deliberately attacking the most vulnerable in hopes of causing outrage amongst the voters. Its all the SNPs fault they will cry as they try to undermine the SNP and independence. I low will they sink to preserve the union? Well in my opinion, if i were a vulnerable person i would be concerned about my time left on this mortal coil.
 
 
# bodun 2012-10-10 17:19
Here is the latest shot in the barrage:

bbc.scotlandshire.co.uk/.../...
 
 
# UpSpake 2012-10-08 07:12
Who would be our 'Referee' Alex ?. It could be no-one from the media, governance, civil service, or in fact any other organisation in Scotland so tainted over so many years are any such organisations.
Only a non UK referee would do and one charged with impartiality such as from the office of the OSCE.
Such recognition of the need for arms length monitoring of Scotland's referendum debate was recognised way back in February by the SDA and the wheels were set in motion.
All that it would take now would be for a 'formal' request from the Scots Government for such valuable assistance, for it to kick into gear.
For if not, much of what you fear might happen may well happen.
 
 
# Davy 2012-10-08 07:18
Yes, another independent body preferrably from the UN to monitior MSM output regarding the referendum would be very welcome. It would also put the wind up the BBC our so called state TV broadcaster and may put a sniff of fairness into their very bias reporting.

If you are into science-fiction/fantasy may I suggest you look at 'labour hames' latest offering from Ian Smart, somehow after lamont's speech on the 25th Sep the SNP are now tories and have tories policys ??? wavy lines ~~~~ wavy lines ~~~~
 
 
# Breeks 2012-10-08 07:33
I completely agree too.

Personally, it's the media which most needs held to account. Any rational and objective journalism would recognise misconduct and agitation and portray it as such. Instead we have the BBC and mainstream media lending credibility to this bitter Unionist invective.

It would be interesting to speculate on who might make the best referee too.
 
 
# Allan Christie 2012-10-08 07:42
Excellent article and couldn't agree more.

Sometimes I actually think Labour are trying to provoke some sort of reaction with all that negativity and sniping and use it against the SNP.

The current problem for Labour however is not the 2014 referendum but its demise in Scottish politics, hence the reason for the bitterness!!
 
 
# gus1940 2012-10-08 08:37
O/T

At the March and Rally on 22/9 there was a minor scuffle over a Union Flag and 2 or was it 3 individuals were led away by the police.

Were they arrested?

Were any of them charged?

If the answer to the above is YES have they appeared in Court and been tried.

If YES to that why haven't we been told the verdict(s), Names and Punishment if found guilty?
 
 
# DonaldMhor 2012-10-08 09:10
Quoting gus1940:
O/T

At the March and Rally on 22/9 there was a minor scuffle over a Union Flag and 2 or was it 3 individuals were led away by the police.

Were they arrested?

Were any of them charged?

If the answer to the above is YES have they appeared in Court and been tried.

If YES to that why haven't we been told the verdict(s), Names and Punishment if found guilty?






No you are not of topic Gus I have had exactly the same thoughts on that incident . On my blog I have been contacted by a man called mark who was the kilted warrior who did the litter lifting and took down the Union Flag from the grassy embankment and the trees. I witnessed the event and took many photographs of the culprits. Mark has told me that he was held for 8 hours in the cells and then charged. He will appear this month. I have no knowledge of the rest of the flag bearers being charged, at least two of them were involved in the affray. I am utterly convinced that this was a state sponsored event as is the boo boys vendetta. The individuals concerned were not very keen to be photographed and one in particular went to great lengths to hide his face. It would be highly unlikely that the forces of the UK state will not meddle in and try and influence the referendum by any means they have. Two years is a long long time in politics and they have a lot of resources and form on the subject, we can expect plenty of attention as referendum day gets nearer. Of that I have not a shred of doubt. I am now going to issue a FOI request to Lothian and Borders police, to find out who has been charged and with what.

tiny.cc/vhrulw



Macart , for these very reason I now never click on any UK Newspaper site, thus denying them clicks for advertising, and have stopped my BBC, licence fee DD. It is my personal act of civil disobedience, which I am quite prepared to go to jail for.
 
 
# Macart 2012-10-08 10:16
I have long since dumped my newspaper subscriptions in the bin Donald and have reduced site visits to one mainstream outlet only (Guardian) simply because they still publish works by likes of Leslie Riddoch, Mike Small and even Gerry Hassan, its also handy to confront misrepresentati on and outright spin as and when you find it in public forum. The Guardian readership still see themselves as left of centre even if their editorial staff have gone off message. I've seen several conversions made onsite in the last few months.

The others I have studiously refused to visit for the self same reasons as yourself and have advocated action on the lines of subscription dumps to any who would listen. The likes of the Telegraph, Mail, Express, Scotsman are merely propagandist bile sheets with the Herald swiftly catching up following Gardham's installation. See how popular he is when the numbers nosedive.

I prefer the more honey than vinegar approach masel'. The nastier it gets, the more pleasant and reasonable I become.
 
 
# Macart 2012-10-08 08:56
We've all known for some time that these would be the tactics employed by those with unionist agendas. They have no positive message in support of continued union therefore they must destroy our argument. They will do this through any and all means necessary as they see it. They will mislead, misrepresent, insult and provoke. They will try to unsettle and draw angered or even violent response, they sow these seeds of division deliberately and maliciously and then blame the independence minded for their own socially divisive actions.

I know I've felt near mindless rage at online assault or outrage at some particularly odious piece of reportage as have almost every one of us who post, its only human. Mr Robertson is correct, we cannot, must not respond in kind. Todays herald home page for instance trumpets the result of a new poll giving the union a 25pt lead. A poll result top billing on a home page for a national newspaper. Slow news day in the middle of conference season?

Keep calm and carry on, two years to go.
 
 
# J Wil 2012-10-08 09:22
The demonisation of Alex Salmond and the SNP.

It's symptomatic of the old adage, "if you can't get the ball get the man".
 
 
# velofello 2012-10-08 10:06
gus1940: thanks for raising the subject of the union flag issue.
By chance I looked up to Princes Street and witnessed the event and I've been thinking over what judgement can be passed.

Is displaying a union flag at an independence rally a deliberate act of provocation?And so an offence?

Is pulling down a flag, or a poster a chargeable offence? Does it make a difference if it is a union flag?

At least one of the two unionists jumped on the kilted warrior. And that surely is assault?

There is a photo showing the unionist 'provocateurs' standing beside their flag and giving two fingers to the rally supporters. Surely that was the cue for the police to step in? The police removed the union flags as they marched off the individuals and so can it be construed that the union flags were offending provocative objects at an independence rally?
 
 
# Embra 2012-10-08 20:32
I found this whilst browsing through some great vids of March + Rally 22nd Sept,

www.youtube.com/.../

As you can see at 2.12 on the timeline - they were walking among us! It's them eh?
 
 
# Barontorc 2012-10-08 23:35
Embra - that is "spooky" alright.
 
 
# gus1940 2012-10-08 10:06
O/T

I see that the cover price for the selfstyled 'Scotland's National Newspaper' (oxymoron if there ever was) has risen to £1.10.

Anybody, other than those who still buy it for the Death Notices, must have more money than sense.

Still, this latest sign of desperation should knock another few thousand off the ever decreasing circulation and hasten the bogroll's inevitable early demise.

Are JP going to be able to continue to justify publication up to Referendum Day?
 
 
# sneckedagain 2012-10-08 10:16
Re the TNS-BMRB poll in today's Herald I have been trying to get some information on it - what was the question, etc but there is no information availble on that even on the TNS BMRB web page.

I have little doubt the support fot independence is weakened at the moment. This is an object lesson to those who think that newspapers and the media have little effect on people's positions on political matters.
The continuous assault on the SNP, on Alex Salmond and on Nicola Sturgeon has a substantial effect which we will have to counteract. It probably has a diminishing effect, however, and I'm sure we are keeping our powder dry to some considerable effect.
Nonetheless those who think we are winning the war because we are winning battles online should smarten up. The majority of our voters do not take politics online.

We should wise up also to the insemination of Anti Independence messages in our schools. The favoured unionist line being fed to our pupils is "the SNP wants 16 and 17 year olds to have the vote because they (the SNP)think it is easier to deceive 16 and 17 year olds"
 
 
# Training Day 2012-10-08 11:20
Polls - especially those conducted on behalf of organisations like the Herald - are meaningless until the Devo Max option is formally ruled out. The language used by the representative of TNS BMRB as quoted in the Herald (fresh challenges 'every day' to the viability of independence (but not to the union),the SNP being challenged ever more frequently etc.etc. does not suggest a wholly impartial stance. He who pays the piper...
 
 
# davemsc 2012-10-10 02:40
The question used was the rather verbose one proposed by the SNP in 2007, so it's not the currently proposed "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?" Therefore I would question the validity of the results in comparison to any other recent research using the more up-to-date question.
 
 
# km 2012-10-08 10:42
Just had the misfortune to browse the Better Together website. Didn't realise that the Better Together campaign had been forced by BBC lawyers to remove the BBC logo from their leaflet:

bettertogether.net/.../...

This, combined with their confusing use of the Better Together slogan, and the failure to register themselves with the UK Information Commissioner, is symptomatic of their disjointed and unprofessional approach.

Everything in the leaflet is just more scaremongering and besides, is a puerile and negative argument.

And they conclude, "As the First Minister found out when he was booed by thousands of Scots on Friday, we will always find a way of making our voices heard".

As Salmond said, so much for the quality debate.
 
 
# Mad Jock McMad 2012-10-08 10:44
I agree whole heartedly with the tenor of the article but am concerned about the paranoia of some posters.

The Unionist ploy in the 70's was to destroy any confidence in the Ulster Police Force that remained in the Catholic areas which brought about the use of the notorious 'B' specials as the 'police' could not cope.

Independence supporters who start demonising the Scottish police force - for what ever reason - are drifting down the very line this article is seeking to highlight and prevent.

The 'NO' camp's only remaining option is to 'demonise' the 'Yes' campaign the problem is the 'respected' sources sre either suffering failing circulation or dropping audience numbers and are ultimately talking to themselves and not the Scottish people.

I recommend watching 'Built in Britian' on the BBC iplayer - it has something to say about the economic dangers of UK Government putting all its eggs in the one economic basket(case) and the presenter actually praises the Scottish Government for bringing the second Forth Crossing forward for logical economic reasons and the potential cost of the current Forth crossing failing is estimated at over £3 billion per year to the Scottish Economy.
 
 
# gus1940 2012-10-08 11:42
'Built in Britain'was very interesting with its suggestion that the continual ploughing of billions into SE England Infrastructure may not be such a good idea for the rest of The UK.

Perhaps J Lamont could suggest initiating discussion of same or even the setting up of a Commission to look into the matter. - some hope.

Has anybody compiled a schedule of the various SE England Infrastructure Projects carrioed out over say the last 50 years with the amounts spent adjusted to reflect today's prices.

Such a schedule would be useful ammunition.
 
 
# Training Day 2012-10-08 12:05
A laudable article, Alex, but destined I am afraid to fall on deaf ears in the 'Scottish' media and in the Unionist camp. It is precisely because they have little rational argument to offer that this demonisation will continue - and will in fact get worse.

Like you, I wonder if the hacks in the 'Scottish' media actually understand - or care - how much damage they may be occasioning by their routine and casual vituperation of supporters of independence. Unless the quality of the debate improves out of sight, we could be in for a grim harvest after 2014 regardless of the result..
 
 
# velofello 2012-10-08 12:25
i gave up on holding a modest portfolio of shares many years back. The reason. I was chuffed when they were up in value, gloomy when they were down, and in a restless frame of mind when there wasn't any movement.
I feel the same about polls.
MJMcM - I surely hope you aren't referring to me ref your comment on demonising the police. The police stepped in to stop an assault, its as straightforward as that. My musings are on how the justice system will deal with the issue.
 
 
# Mad Jock McMad 2012-10-08 14:49
Nope Vello simply pointing out the dangers of slipping into a them or us attitude wrt the polis.

The courts .... well .... :-D
 
 
# Caadfael 2012-10-08 14:25
I'm much the same Velofellow,but have held the best despite the vagaries of the market as every dog has its day, thus I'm much more laid back and will only invest in Scottish start-ups as they are the proof of our free university education system,thus deserving of our support.
 
 
# Rafiki 2012-10-08 14:28
A query: I was not aware of the booing at the Chicago ceremony. Could it have been because Scotland is a part of the Ryder Cup team, and certain Americans are sore losers?
The Glasgow boos would probably be the disgruntled Labour Party.
 
 
# clootie 2012-10-08 16:19
Lamont may not have hit bottom yet.

I had hoped for more after the lesson that negative attacks don't work but alas no.

Gutter politics that should disgust everyone regardless of your political leaning.
 
 
# weegie38 2012-10-08 19:15
Quoting clootie:
Lamont may not have hit bottom yet.

I had hoped for more after the lesson that negative attacks don't work but alas no.

Gutter politics that should disgust everyone regardless of your political leaning.


Why is anyone surprised about Lamont? Have we all forgotten the fabricated rape case scandal?

newsnetscotland.com/.../...

I've come to regard her as lower than even Iain Davidson: he is nothing more than an ignorant boor. Lamont ain't much brighter, but she seems willing to resort to any tactic, no matter how underhand.
 
 
# tartanfever 2012-10-08 16:26
My brother attended the Ryder Cup this year with some work colleagues and friends. He would never boo AS, but his friends did.

I'll let you take a guess where most of them are from.

Clue - mostly south of Watford.
 
 
# JRTomlin 2012-10-08 17:25
It would seem time to talk to organizations such as the Jimmy Carter Center or another with a similar record. A well-known and respected organization from outside the UK should be brought in to oversee this process or I have little doubt there will be abuse.
 
 
# Etrigan 2012-10-08 20:50
I like to go to the Google home page, click on the news tab, then type in Alex Salmond. You get a long list of horrible stories about Eck. Then type in Johann lamont and see the list of stories for her.
Show anyone you can, then ask them if they think there may be a wee bit of an agenda going on.
 
 
# Lardybloke 2012-10-09 07:12
OH! MY! GOD!

The utter brass necked hypocrisy of this web site!!!

When I read the shockingly nasty vicious bile directed to anyone even remotely unionist on this site and then I read this pile of garbage I relly wonder what planet some people are on! How can a so-called "Newsnet" site publish Paul T Kavanagh "and his dug" and also have the effrontery to publish this bollocks?

Leading politicians get booed at the TUC Conferences, Police Federation, even George Osborne at a Paralympic medal ceremony, but Heavens above! Don't let anyone know that the Almighty Sun Shines Out Of His Arse Great Imperial Eck might not be loved and worshipped by everyone in the universe!

The biggest obstruction to Scottish independence is the immoveable mass that is Eck's Mighty Ego. This is only going to be greater when he sees such sycphantic rubbish such as this.

I don't expect for a minute that the "moderator" that censors this site to allow me to be published even to be abused by others, but I just thought I would point out their shocking hypocrisy.
 
 
# Embra 2012-10-09 21:42
'Eck' as you call him can look after himself I'm sure.

I'm not sure I understand the point you are making.

You clearly don't want to debate issues, instead voicing the highly convincing argument that 'Ecks fat' and so on.


Pathetic drivel.


If you believe that we are better together, tell us why?
 
 
# snowthistle 2012-10-09 21:54
Little bit of friendly advice, I've noticed over the years that if you refrain from swearing then you have a much better chance of getting your post published.
I'm sure you have a wide enough vocabulary to express yourself.

P.S What exactly was your point
 
 
# Mad Jock McMad 2012-10-09 22:00
Luckily Newsnet does not conduct itself the same way as Labour Hame or Tory Tartan Shortbread Tin or all of the 'Bitter Together' facebook and websites which would mean your post would have been booted.

It is more revealing to let you post your mini troll attempt as it is clear you do not have a clue about your subject.

Wee Eck is not the 'Yes' campaign the 'Yes' campaign is a cross party campaign involving all sorts from the Scottish Socialist Party via the SNP, onto Labour, Libdem and even some Tories and many with no political afilliation at all.

Here's the strange thing: we are talking about what is best for Scotland going forward, about how Scots can sustain and build on our inherent social democratic mores, how we can create a better country for all who live here and the total rejection of all the Westminster Parties stand for in their neo-liberal rob the poor to pay the rich lunatic soup of a world they live in. It is about stoping Scottish taxes being consumed by the ever greater 'subsidy junky' maw of London and the SE - independence is about a lot of things but about Wee Eck? ...... Only in the minds of the great Unionist unwashed and unthinking.
 
 
# cynicalHighlander 2012-10-09 22:21
Quote:
I don't expect for a minute that the "moderator" that censors this site to allow me to be published even to be abused by others, but I just thought I would point out their shocking hypocrisy


Lard is welcome but it might of helped if it had been kept in the fridge rather than allowed to get rancid and become unusable.
 
 
# xyz 2012-10-09 23:20
I'm going to take a guess that you have no arguments for maintaining the political union, so you resort to a puerile personal attacks on the first minister of Scotland.

Do you care about Scotland? Do you live in Scotland?

"The reason being independent will be better for you and for Scotland is simple. Being independent will mean the people who care most about Scotland – the people who live in Scotland – will be taking the decisions about our future. "

www.yesscotland.net/.../

Scotland gets 9.3% of UK spending, but generates 9.6% of UK taxes. We generate over £1,000 more tax per person than the average across the UK. Over each of the last 6 years Scotland’s finances have been stronger than the UK. And over the past 30 years, we have had a relative surplus of £19 billion.

www.yesscotland.net/.../
 
 
# Davy 2012-10-10 07:37
Quoting Lardybloke:
OH! MY! GOD!

The utter brass necked hypocrisy of this web site!!!

When I read the shockingly nasty vicious bile directed to anyone even remotely unionist on this site and then I read this pile of garbage I relly wonder what planet some people are on! How can a so-called "Newsnet" site publish Paul T Kavanagh "and his dug" and also have the effrontery to publish this bollocks?

Leading politicians get booed at the TUC Conferences, Police Federation, even George Osborne at a Paralympic medal ceremony, but Heavens above! Don't let anyone know that the Almighty Sun Shines Out Of His Arse Great Imperial Eck might not be loved and worshipped by everyone in the universe!

The biggest obstruction to Scottish independence is the immoveable mass that is Eck's Mighty Ego. This is only going to be greater when he sees such sycphantic rubbish such as this.

I don't expect for a minute that the "moderator" that censors this site to allow me to be published even to be abused by others, but I just thought I would point out their shocking hypocrisy.



It is nice to see "Unionisum" at its best, as it follows the dictates of Lamont and Davidson in trashing either the First Minster or Scotland or both.

Keep up the good work and when you finally remove the brush-handle from your rear-end and allow the brain cell to move, the relisation that Alex Salmond and the SNP puts their country first before their party, which is the complete opposite of the Scottish unionist parties as shown at their recent conferences.

Vote Yes, Vote Scotland.
Alba Gu Brath.
 
 
# lochside 2012-10-09 21:23
You miss the point Lardyarse..Eck represented the Scottish people at the events where he was booed. Unlike you, I felt personally insulted on behalf of my nation, although I also felt it was unfair on AS, who I do not worship or always agree with, as I am not an SNP member. But your insulting characterisatio n of the First Minister as 'the great Imperial' etc. betrays your true intent..which is more of the same gutter-based guff emanating from the sewer that passes for the Unionist 'case' for a No vote. By the way the 'immoveable mass' obstructing Scottish independence is the visceral hatred that Unionists like you invest in a man, who is and has been democratically elected, unlike the pair of glove puppets worked from the back: Lamont and Davidson, whose latest pronouncements have Westminster spin doctors slavers all over them.
 
 
# call me dave 2012-10-09 22:13
# Lardybloke 2012-10-09 08:12

If I was attending an event and the representative of Scotland was a certain Lamont I would not be booing as it would give a bad impression of all Scots and Scotland.

Meanwhile if your dropping in from time to time can you do something your 'better together' Tory / Labour coalition politicians can't do?

Just give me one reason for maintaining the status quo.
 
 
# Breeks 2012-10-10 07:18
Lardybloke - Pehaps if the Unionists hadn't sought to embarrass Alex Salmond by orchestrating a 'boo' at the Olympic Reception in Glasgow, then impolite booing would be regarded for it is, and not on the political agenda at all, - (which incidentally is the reason it wasn't picked up as reportable news by journalists at the event). Since its the Unionists, with no positive contributions to make to the question of Scottish Independence, who resort to the peurile gutter politics of 'booing for appearances', and as you yourself illustrate, make personal attacks on personalities, you should ask yourself exactly who it is setting the bar so low.

If you've nothing more to say Lardybloke, no actual point to your statement, then all that is left is rudeness and offence.

I don't care what your persuasion is, unionist or nationalist, but if you're here to defend the Union, put some substance into your comments or keep your insulting language to yourself.
 
 
# Angus 2012-10-10 20:05
The resorting to abuse shows a side has lost the debate. Nicola Sturgeon also received an earfull of abuse, to which she handled correctly by brushing it off and didnt resort to bringing up what Ms Lamont (and her husband on the Glasgow council) take home in their pay packets.
This week has seen an astonishing amount of media and unionist abuse being thrown at the SNP, and it was the same in last year's election, which we know the result of, so it proves that people generally go against this kind of behaviour. The choice of words used by Ms Lamont, as well as Ms Davidson, have left myself and many Scots, political thinking or not, feeling very insulted.
 
 
# Hillside 2012-10-11 00:12
I'm always a bit bemused by the personal attacks on Alex Salmond. You know the sort of thing - That he has a huge ego, that he's self serving etc etc etc. These attacks are presumably by people who voted for Cameron, Milliband or Clegg. Some people just don't understand the concept of irony.
 

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.

Banner

Donate to Newsnet Scotland

Banner

Latest Comments