Alex loves Sarah – true by TH

ARE Alex Salmond and Sarah Palin Facebook friends, I wonder?

The Alaskan governor and her hordes of hangers, gun nuts, homophobes, secessionists and government-haters constantly send out the message that any criticisim of their candidate or their party isn’t just wrong – it’s unpatriotic.

If you don’t support the Republicans – or more precisely, if you support the Democrats – then you must hate your country.

And then there’s Alex and his gang of supporters. Yes, they love Scotland, but they hate their opponents much, much more. And if anyone dares criticise the SNP, why, that’s because they hate Scotland, they think the Scottish people are too stupid to run their own country.

Listening to The World This Weekend today, I even heard nationalist lickspittle objective commentator Iain Macwhirter buy into this lie. He told the programme that in 2007 the Labour Party had told the Scottish electorate: 

“…you can’t stand up, you’re useless, your too wee…”

Really, Iain? Labour actually said that? I’d be interested to see the proof of that.

What he is doing, of course, is buying into Salmond-speak, or Palin-speak, if you like. Any rational criticism of the SNP/Republicans is twisted and deliberately misinterpreted so that it becomes an attack on Scotland/America itself. And if you’re a Labour/Democrat politician, that means you’re a Unionist/Liberal who can’t be trusted with the reigns of power.

Status update: Alex is smirking.

Status update: Sarah is gosh darnit, just lovin’ her country so much… etc..


Filed under Alex Salmond, Politics, SNP, United States

31 responses to “Alex loves Sarah – true by TH

  1. “cecessionists”

    Best-educated generation in history, did Miliband say ?

  2. Oops. Sorry. Thanks. Sorted. Just a typo, honest.

  3. Tom, sorry, but this is base nonsense in my eyes…

    The SNP constantly fight on issues, on logic and on hard data. Not on some whimsical patriotism that you seem to have plucked out the blue air.

    The £1bn the SNP are calling for is with good reason. The UK Government aren’t necessarily being ‘unpatriotic’ in withholding it but they do lack good reasons.

    For free school meals, the policy is being backed by parents, teachers, poverty campaigners and the benefits are multiple and long-term. Labour are blocking it for political reasons because they want to break the historical concordat. So again, not “unpatriotic” but certainly not worthy.

    I could go on and on but Labour, sometimes, need to just sit back and say “good job” to a Government doing just that.

    PS As a fan of the SNP, I can assure you I am not a gun nut, homophobe, cecessionist and/or government-hater.

    PPS In so many words, yes, Labour have been saying what Iain MacWhirter suggested for decades. What alternative reason do you have for Scotland being the only sizeable nation in Europe that isn’t independent?

  4. And there you go again – Labour don’t want independence, so therefore we must hate Scotland.

    I want Scotland to stay within the UK for exactly the same reason that (most) Americans want Texas and California to remain in the Union: it benefits both parties. You may not agree with that analysis, Jeff, but please don’t tell me I’m anti-Scottish just because I believe Scotland is better off as part of the UK.

    By the way – you certainly are a secessionist if you want Scotland to secede from the UK.

  5. Jane Spencer

    But like the Murphy’s eh?

  6. Robert

    New Labour has enough hangers on scroungers people seeking jobs looking for a way forward, one MP told a Forum the 42 day is evil it’s vile and will not vote for it, after speaking with the leader he votes for it, then gets a nice little job within government as a bag carried for Brown, is that right Mr Trickett. We have nothing to shout about in this country.

  7. Jeff,

    I think it’s a bit too simple to characterise Labour as being overly negative, although there is probably an issue about message that needs to be learned.

    It’s worth remembering that this need for positivity took the SNP in Holyrood a long time to achieve. Nicola Sturgeon for example became famous for regular demands that ‘the minister must resign’ in the early years.

    Eventually however the SNP did learn from this and thus were able to present an effective campaign in 2007, and now. Sturgeon especially saw the value in a different approach which is why she is now a very effective politician (and probably the party’s next leader).

    However whilst there is a need for Labour to look at their message there’s also nothing wrong with challenging the government on occasion, especially when there is a genuine disagreeement over the policy being pursued. That’s always the role of opposition but especially under a minority government.

  8. Chris' Wills


    I remember, long long ago, when Labour party peeps would claim that the SNP were tartan tories. Obviously a lie as they tend to be a left wing party.

    However, casting aspersions isn’t limited to the SNP, nor is lying.

    Oh; according to the SNP, assuming you aren’t egging the pudding, then I’m a traitor as well :o)

    The SNP have a tendency to be viruently anti-English as well, something I have encountered as I don’t speak like they think a good scot should.

  9. Rapunzel

    Speaking as a non-Scot, non-SNP supporter who has lived and worked here for several years, I love Scotland!
    I would welcome a reasoned debate on independence and all its ramifications, with proper explanations as to exactly what form the SNP hope it would take with regard to such issues as membership of the EU, economic, foreign and defence policy, relations with the rest of the UK. And in the course of that debate I should like my opinions to be heard and respected, not dismissed if I disagree.
    I’m sure the SNP wouldn’t want to be accused of bullying their opponents, would they!

  10. What’s the difference between Alex Salmond and a hockey mom?


  11. Johnny Norfolk

    Alex Salmond has just called Brown a ‘Sub Prime Minister’

    Why did i not think of that.

    Salmon is for Scotland. Brown is for the Labour party and his own power its as simple as that.

  12. Tom, isn’t this a bit rich from the a member of the party that said that if you don’t support their security proposals, you’re on the side of al-Qa’ida?

  13. Will – I hadn’t realised that, but it sounds a great idea for a blog post. Can you send me details of which minister said those words? Thanks.

  14. Jeff, but please don’t tell me I’m anti-Scottish just because I believe Scotland is better off as part of the UK.

    By the way – you certainly are a secessionist if you want Scotland to secede from the UK.


    Where did I say you were anti-Scottish?

    You’ve assumed I would vote yes in a referendum. I’m currently undecided but I won’t stand idly by and let people make a mockery of the debate.

    Up your game.

  15. Jeff – you asked: What alternative reason do you have for Scotland being the only sizeable nation in Europe that isn’t independent?

    A very simple reason: at every single opportunity, including the Scottish elections of 2007, the Scottish people have, of their own volition, using their own judgment, chosen overwhelmingly to support parties which oppose independence.

  16. Chris Jones


    Geoff Hoon in a dreadful performance on Question Time this week did indeed the “you’re with us or against us” mantra when dealing with you party’s chilling and Orwellian proposals for a unified database on all our communications.

    Oh and Jeff didn’t call you as anti-Scottish: A case of hearing what you want to hear when it comes to engaging with an alternative viewpoint?

  17. Iain Macwhirter said that Labour had been telling the Scottish people “you’re useless…”

    Jeff said “In so many words, yes, Labour have been saying what Iain MacWhirter suggested for decades.”

    But only someone who is anti-Scottish would say that the Scottish people are “useless”. Therefore, according to Jeff, I, being a member of the Labour Party, am anti-Scottish.

    Unless you think you can tell Scotland it’s useles and still be patriotic?

  18. Chris Jones

    Tom, I think Renton did have a go at doing that in Trainspotting 😉

  19. Jane Spencer

    Tom, this is starting to resemble the sort of “cornered dog” ranting that one would have considered beneath someone in elected office.

    The intention to be humourous in the link between Salmond and Palin failed, and so therefore you resort to the same old humourless nonsense in your response to comments.

    Here’s a suggestion for you, maybe when you stop labelling SNP politicians and members as anti-English, Tartan Tories, and any other abusive terms you and your colleagues tend to use, perhaps they might stop labelling you anti-Scottish.

  20. DMEA


    At the 2007 Scottish election the Labour party sent out leaflets which read “Break up Britain: end up broke!”

    The underlying message from that is: Scotland can’t be independent. It’s too wee, too poor and too stupid.

    If you want to argue the positive case for unionism then you really need to do better than telling the Scots that they, uniquely amongst the nations of the word, are genetically unfit and unable to manage their own affairs.

    Quite frankly, if it is true that we were to end up broke by breaking up Britain, what does that say about the Labour party’s management of Scotland over the last few years?

  21. Johnny Norfolk

    Tom your party started this devolution for Scotland and you let a genie out of the bottle.
    Like all you do you never think of the consequenses.
    When I see what a difficult time you are having in Scotland it cheers me up no end.
    Your heart land was Scotland that you took for granted and it will loose you the next election, even if you do claw some back.
    Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

    I thank the SNP every day.

  22. Indy

    The thing is that unionists rarely if ever make a positive argument for the Union so it is not surprising if they get a negative reaction. It is usually along the lines of ‘Break Up Britain End Up Broke’ type of lines as DMEA points out. And that is anti Scottish. What is being said there is that if Scotland was self governing it would be less successful than if it was governed by Westminster. That is anti Scottish, no two ways about it. Let’s imagine if Scotland was a country in Africa which was still somehow a part of the British Empire and people argued against independence because it would not manage to govern itself as well as if it was being governed by Westminster. That would just be racism plain and simple.

    If people like you could manage to say yes I think Scotland could be a success as an independent country but I think it benefits both parties to remain in the UK that would be different. But you don’t. You just try and scare people into sticking with the status quo. And of course your colleague Jim Murphy has now taken it to a whole other level by claiming that Ireland and Norway are insolvent! Completely untrue and also offensive. When your party has reached the stage of abusing other countries in an effort to score points over the SNP you have just lost it completely.

    It’s hardly worth bothering to respond to the idea that Alex Salmond has anything in common with Sarah Palin. That is a desperate version of the Tartan Tory smear which is just rubbish, as everyone knows. The SNP Government is doing things that Labour voters in your constituency want to see and that the Labour led Executive could have done but didn’t, like extending the central heating programme and putting more money into it, like ending any further privatisation of cleaning and catering in the NHS and building the new Southern General without PFI. Voters in your constituency are not stupid, they know who the right wing free marketers are and it’s not the SNP.

  23. joe bonanno

    So why devolution?

    Are we talking genuine independence or does Scotland still expect a generous subsidy from the English taxpayer and the EC? (We’ll forget about the bank bailouts for the purpose of this exercise).

    Do the Scottish people really believe that the only thing preventing Scotland from becoming a thriving industrial and financial nation at the heart of Europe is the fact that they are part of the UK?

    Did Salmond really suggest that with the creative energy unleashed by independence Glasgow will become the music capital of Europe and Edinburgh the film capital? So what’s stopping them from being that now? Get on with it.

    Get real folks. Scotland is a subsidy junkie with the State being responsible for a greater part of the country’s GDP than some of the Soviet satellites pre-the wall coming down. According to The Times 163,000 Scots are net tax-payers, the rest are net beneficiaries.

    Scotland is an African feeding station waiting for the fortnightly arrival of the steam-chicken – nothing more nothing less.

    Until Scotland becomes a country that can actually pay its own way in the world how can ipso facto it become independent?

    And please don’t give the one-word answer ‘Oil’ – because that argument doesn’t begin to stack up.

    Independence and its subsequent mythical benefits are merely a piece of flim-flam conjured out of thin air by politicians chasing your vote.

  24. Brian Hall


    Are you Labour party member then?

    Perhaps the removal of Scottish MPs from the houses of commons would solve a lot of these issues; one to which I am sure we can both agree on; disagreeing of course in the rest of your frankly bizarre and utterly nonsensical statement.

    p.s We will be requiring that bit of coast back from Arbroath to Berwick.

  25. Indy

    You said: “What is being said there is that if Scotland was self governing it would be less successful than if it was governed by Westminster. That is anti Scottish, no two ways about it.”

    A simple rewording of your assertion shows it to be twaddle. Utter tripe.

    You’re claiming that the opinion that Scotland benefits economically from being part of the United Kingdom is inherently “anti Scottish”.

    But that’s the general opinion of the majority of people, those who don’t support independence. And it’s backed by the latest version of GERS, published under the SNP administration in June 2008, which estimated fiscal deficits as follows:

    2002-03: £3,813m
    2003-04: £5,364m
    2004-05: £4,722m
    2005-06: £1,490m
    2006-07: £2,652m

    The two most recent years are each within a couple of hundred millions of the SNP’s own estimates, although of course they use the current balance rather than including capital expenditure. It enables them to spin deficits as surpluses.

    So who exactly are you calling “anti Scottish”? The majority of Scots? Scottish government statisticians? Standard & Poor’s? Oxford Economics? The National Institute of Economic & Social Research?

    Just one more question. Do you really believe your own rhetoric?

  26. Indy

    Yes I believe it. You are going to see Scotland do what you believe to be impossible. It’s going to be an interesting experience for you.

  27. Brian Hall

    Lets do some real research. Lets not waste time with such inherent nonsense as ‘The majority of Scottish people do not support independence’. We can twist and turn on that all day and get no-where.

    If were going to talk about the ‘spending deficts’ of countries lets look at Scotland (part of the UK and lets not pretend independent) and the UK as a whole.


    2004-05: £4,722m
    2005-06: £1,490m
    2006-07: £2,652m


    2004-05: £19,800m
    2005-06: £33,500m
    2006-07: £49,500m

    Lets break that down

    Scotland/UK Deficit (%)

    2004-05: 23.85%
    2005-06: 4.5%
    2006-07: 5.36%

    Over the three years – 8.6%

    Scottish Population as % of UK – 8.4%

    A trifling difference Mr. Unionist. Now I admit that perhaps over time we may see a very different view, over 10 years/100 years/whatever, the point being, that in the end everything balances out and is ‘ok’. So bearing this in mind will the sky fall down if Scotland is independent ‘no’.

    There are lies, damned lies and statistics?

  28. Pingback: thingummy » Blog Archive » Mindless link propagation

  29. Vincent Mc Dee

    I’ve been to busy conferencing to read you Tom and let me say I could not believe Jeff’s, had to come and see it for myself.

    What’s the matter with you mate?

    We do not hate opponents, actually we respect and appreciate them as they help to improve us.

    What we hate is petyness, tackyness and bad manners.

    Is this because the minister position you lost because of blogging and befriending Cairns publicly?

    Palin? Shame on you.

  30. Brian

    Erm, who exactly is claiming that the sky would “fall down”? Or is that just another straw man?

    Now, I provided five years’ worth of data, but I note that you opted to reply in terms only of the most recent three. Could I perhaps trouble you to add 2002-03 and 2003-04 back into the mix? Then, if you have time, a longer period: from 1990 or so, perhaps? That would give a clearer picture, I’m sure you would agree.

    Thanks everso! 😉

  31. NodToBob

    A Palin-Salmond axis; you really are scraping the barrel, Tom.

    There is a case to be made for the union, which any good Nat, I think, would recognise. We profoundly disagree with it, of course. We think it’s wrong and Scotland would be better off as a normal independent state, but nobody would seriously dispute your right to your view.

    Where I think you folks fall down is in the way propound your arguments. MacWhirter was right: Labour might not explicitly say that Scotland is too wee and poor and stupid to go it alone, but that’s the definite undertone in your message.

    The prime example was the way Brown and co pounced on the banking crisis to argue for the union. The glee they displayed in pointing out (what to them were) Scotland’s shortcomings was unedifying. I’m sure I’m not the only one that sees this sort of thing as craven, the worst expression of the Scottish cringe. It’s almost as if you’re celebrating (alleged) Scottish failure. And you’ve been doing it for decades so it’s no wonder some question your patriotism.

    That’s not to say that you don’t have a legitimate viewpoint, like I said. But you’re essentially for defending the established order, for clinging on to nurse for fear of something worse; and unfortunately for you it’s an inherently a negative narrative (hence your perpetually sour tone I suppose). No excuse for penning crap article like this though.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s