The impertinence of BLiS

That wasn’t thunder you heard. It was the sound of thousands of jaws hitting the floor as people read the latest outburst from former accidental Shadow Scottish Secretary and sole Westminster representative of the pretendy wee party, Ian Murray.

That noise wasn’t a sudden gust of wind, it was the collective gasp of amazement at the pathological lack of self-awareness exhibited by this pompous clown. For someone so closely associated with the arrogant detachment and serial ineptitude which has reduced British Labour in Scotland (BLiS) from dominant political force to farcical rump in little more than a decade, it defies belief that Murray should presume to lecture anybody about a “lack of understanding of the political dynamic in Scotland”.

But presume he does. And with not the slightest hint of embarrassment at the mind-bending, toe-curling, stomach-churning hypocrisy. As an MP for a constituency in England, Dave Anderson may be an even more ludicrous choice to shadow David “Snackbeard” Mundell than Murray, but at least he has wits enough to know the value of options in politics. Perhaps because he is not part of the BLiS clique, and has therefore managed to avoid being infected by the mindless hatred that afflicts the members of that sorry tribe, Anderson does not react to suggestions of a deal with the SNP by launching a torrent of bile.

Anderson may be just as detached from the “political dynamic in Scotland” as any British politician – including Murray – but at least he isn’t hobbled by the intellectually crippling resentment of the SNP that is the defining characteristic of BLiS. He may not have any better understanding of Scottish politics in the early years of the 21st century than anyone else who has to rely on the British media and/or dispatches from a North British branch office that hasn’t yet moved the bell-bottoms and kipper ties from the wardrobe to the dressing-up box. But Anderson appears to have a mind which is at least functional and, if not actually open, then at least ajar.

As we lift our chins from the floor and resume normal breathing after that sharp intake of shocked breath, we note that Murray is lost for a means of rationalising his hysterical reaction to Anderson’s rather tepid and, under normal circumstances, quite uncontroversial comments. In a frantic effort to justify his preference for a Tory government over an accommodation with the SNP, Murray resorts to the old Project Fear trick of plucking a scary-sounding number out of the air. Inexplicably, he drops the adjective from the now tediously familiar term “black hole” that he and his fellow British nationalists insist is the economic legacy of Westminster rule in Scotland.

Perhaps, in order to better serve the ruling elites of the British state, he needs a wee refresher course in dishonesty, deceit and duplicity.

Views: 2689

Many thanks to everyone who has been kind enough to make a donation.
Your generosity is quite extraordinary, and very much appreciated.
All monies received are used in furtherance of the campaign
to restore Scotland’s rightful constitutional status.

Please follow and like us 🙂

9 thoughts on “The impertinence of BLiS

  1. Iain Barker

    Ian Murray is just another one of those resentful creatures who hates the fact they weren’t born English. I suppose if they really stopped to think about it the English wouldn’t want him representing them either.

  2. Iain MacLaren

    Hi Peter. As entertaining as your acerbic taking-down of fairly peripheral (from the point of view of your website) characters such as David Torrance, Owen Smith, David Mundell, Jackie Baillie and countless others unfortunate enough to disagree with you is, please could you kindly give us the benefit of your thoughts on Nicola Sturgeon’s raising of “reverse-Greenland” today?

    This seems much more relevant to the actual purpose of your website.

    I’d be interested in your opinion on what can reasonably be inferred from that, in terms of her enthusiasm for an early second referendum.

      1. Iain MacLaren

        “I simply retweeted an interesting article!” is what she accurately said afterwards. I was wondering why she did that.

    1. Peter A Bell Post author

      Nicola Sturgeon did not “raise” the issue of the so-called ‘reverse Greenland” option. She merely retweeted an article on the topic posing a question as to whether it might have potential.

      Actually, what is most interesting about this whole thing is thing is the fact that you (doubtless quite genuinely) believe that the First Minister did raise the matter. It is an excellent example of how the media contrives to deceive people. It started with The Herald which covered the story with a claim that Sturgeon had “hailed” the proposal. In an attempt at subtlety which might itself have intriguing implications, the lie did not appear in a headline or in the text of the article, but in a picture caption.

      Within minutes, the lie had been picked up by others with as little interest in the truth as The Herald. By morning, it had become part of the cosy consensus among inept and indolent journalists. And it had been planted into the minds of people who will automatically accept any #SNPBAD story as well as those who, inexplicably, have not yet learned to distrust EVERYTHING they are told by the British media.

      That’s where we’re at. In a few days or weeks or months whenever the ‘reverse Greenland’ option is mentioned unionists will be tripping over one another to point out how Nicola Sturgeon once said it would absolutely definitely be the totally perfect solution for Scotland. A new truth has been manufactured.

      1. Iain MacLaren

        Thanks for replying Peter. I think you might be surprised at the extent to which I genuinely agree with what you say about how the media presents a “story” (to stretch the definition in this case).

        As it happens, in this case I saw Nicola Sturgeon’s tweet and was surprised at the content of the attachment – I haven’t read the Herald article as I’m not a subscriber. I’ve seen the Herald headline though, and believe it or not I agree with your take on that.

        Leaving the Herald aside, my surprise at her retweeting the piece was that it appeared to favour a non-independence solution to the EU problem. I think that was an interesting thing for someone in her position to have done, and I think that much can be said without having to view anything through a media-perspective. I think it shows that she has an open mind to possible solutions – perhaps the tricky bit for those wishing an early second referendum is to acknowledge that the solutions she is considering are not exclusively independence-based.

    2. Almannysbunnet

      It’s like Nicola Sturgeon being accused, in the days before twitter, of supporting a “reverse Greenland” option based on the fact that she had been seen reading a book on it.
      God help her if a Herald journalist spots her reading a Terry Pratchet novel.

  3. Fairliered

    Iain, I don’t know what Peter’s view will be. Mine is that Nicola is raising all the options other than independence so that when the unionists discount them all, the only remaining option will be independence.

    1. Iain MacLaren

      That may well be the case, and I appreciate that take on it.

      I am still interested in Peter’s view though, perhaps with particular reference to this website’s ‘About Us’ page, and its aspiration to be “credible” and a “positive, honest lens”.

Leave a Reply

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

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By :