The Law of Unforeseen Consequences
Who’d have thought you’d ever put Norman Tebbit (‘semi-trained polecat’) and Brian Wilson (the ‘Highland communist’) on the same page? But then, who’d have thought you’d have seen George Galloway leaping to the defence of Nigel Farage? The Union divide puts people floundering about in company they’d probably never keep but the twisted logic of deference to the British State is a funny matchmaker. Strange Days indeed.
The path between here and Autumn 2014 is going to be a rocky one, but few could have imagined the Constitutional intervention put forward by Norman Tebbit this week as the prospect of a Lesbian Queen emerged as a referendum game-changer.
Clearly we had all been focusing on the constitutional consequences of the annulling the Treaty of Union, then along comes this body-blow to the Treaty of Crowns and before you know it the whole panoply of grovelling, flag-waving British monarchy could come crashing down in a heap of pink tiaras, brought down by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill.
The shrewd old Tory grandee pointed out the less obvious problem with basic social equality , stating:
When we have a queen who is a lesbian and she marries another lady and then decides she would like to have a child and someone donates sperm and she gives birth to a child, is that child heir to the throne?
It’s a question we’ve all been worrying about Norman. As food banks fill up and austerity hits home, I’m sure many households are thinking: ‘But what about a future artificially-inseminated heir, how will that affect the continuity of the Battenberg dynasty?’
Then, in comments which (worryingly) appear to show that he seems incapable of distinguishing between homosexuality and incest Tebbit joked that the change could allow parents to marry their children as a way of avoiding inheritance tax:
It’s like one of my colleagues said: we’ve got to make these same sex marriages available to all. It would lift my worries about inheritance tax because maybe I’d be allowed to marry my son. Why not? Why shouldn’t a mother marry her daughter? Why shouldn’t two elderly sisters living together marry each other?
As the British establishment implodes in a fit of it’s own reactionary ridiculousness, Tebbit stands as testimony that all that is wrong about Britain stuck in a 1950s timewarp and ruled by this outmoded Westminster elite. But so does Brian Wilson who today claims that @theSNP ‘s policy on immigration “border on the ridiculous” – this from the party who’s own position on Dungavel has been one a shameful one.
These policies – colluded to by Labour and whitewashed by Wilson – were driven not by the human rights of children but by the political expediency of tribal party politics and sacrificed on the altar of the Union.
Are we seriously to believe that we in Scotland couldn’t deliver a more humane, flexible, progressive and appropriate immigration policy than that presided over by the UK? Such as the case of the Ay family detained for 13 months – or countless cases of abuse at the hands of British authorities and under British regulations.
Is this really all we aspire to in Scotland?
This is the Britain of yesteryear, let’s step forward to a more progressive future and leave these old men in the darkness.