Here we go!

And so it begins. Or should I say, so it continues. The same petty politicking on the part of the British parties that marred the last parliament. The same determination to score a hit on the hated SNP regardless of any damage that might be done to the nation. The same blind pursuit of a political agenda driven by resentment and fear in contemptuous disregard for the needs, aspirations and priorities of Scotland’s people.

And it’s not even subtle. The British parties don’t even have the good grace to try and disguise their malicious purpose. Absolutely nobody, other than a handful of British nationalist fanatics, is in any doubt that the attempt to repeal the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act 2012 is motivated by anything other than a determination on the part of the British parties to undermine the SNP administration.

That the legislation is flawed seems to be a matter of general agreement. That it is, nonetheless, supported by an extraordinarily large majority of Scotland’s people is beyond doubt. Were the British parties in the slightest bit concerned with responding to the public mood, they might seek constructive engagement in an effort to amend the legislation. But they are concerned only with flexing a bit of British imperialist muscle. They see this as a chance to show their disdain for the democratic choices of Scotland’s people.

Spouting their irresponsible and deeply offensive nonsense about the “Ulsterification” of Scottish politics, shit-stirring British nationalist goons such as David Torrance have been eager to jump on the bandwagon that Ruth Davidson set rolling during the recent election campaign with her brazen appeal to the rabid fringes of British nationalism. It is that fanatical fringe that the British parties are addressing with their campaign to repeal the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications legislation. The 80% of the people of Scotland who support the measure are disregarded in favour of a tiny, but extremely vociferous minority.

Why?

We might suppose that this is no more than the British parties seeking to give the SNP a bloody nose. It is all too easy to believe that they might be just as small-minded as that. We’ve seen ample evidence that they are happy to denigrate NHS Scotland, for example, in the name of their grindingly relentless #SNPBAD propaganda war. But there may be more to this. Given that the British parties and their accomplices in the media are prepared to stoop to promoting the notion of “Ulsterification”, why should we not suspect that they are perfectly capable of seeking to aggravate and exploit sectarian divisions?

Is it really so hard to believe that the British state would resort to the tactics of divide and rule that have served it so well in the past? Remembering the deceptions, distortions, dishonesty, defamation and scaremongering of the first referendum campaign, can we discount the possibility that British nationalists are hoping for a revival of the worst of the sectarian violence that for so long blighted Scottish society?

Is there any doubt that the mainstream media, compliant as ever to the interests of the British establishment, would contrive to blame such violence on the SNP administration?

Whatever your views on the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act 2012, are you content that the British parties should be trying to use the issue as a political weapon against the democratically elected government of Scotland?

Views: 3268

Many thanks to everyone who has been kind enough to make a donation.
Your generosity is quite extraordinary, and very much appreciated.



Please follow and like us 🙂

4 thoughts on “Here we go!

  1. Iain MacLaren

    Introducing the idea that your political opponents might favour a return of “the worst of the sectarian violence” is a bit of a stretch, even by your own standards of grotesque caricature.

      1. Iain MacLaren

        From your reply, it doesn’t appear that I missed anything specific. If you’re minded to give an example of what you claim, please kindly bear in mind that my general objection to your analysis is that it relies upon caricature.

  2. Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells

    It is ironic that Ruth Davidson goes on and on about why we should forget the referendum of 2014, while simultaneously appealing to those voters who won’t forget about 1690.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com