2007 - 2021

Ruth and Co have far more than a PR Problem

js62362700The Tory Rape Clause is a perfect storm of austerity, bureaucracy and misogyny, it exposes the punitive ideological agenda of Britain 2017, but it also exposes the biting hypocrisy of Ruth Davidson. She has been showered in plaudits by commentators for years and given a free pass as her own party mirrors her southern counterparts policy by policy. The Rape Clause brings this into sharp relief.

Shameful Silence

Davidson has risen to prominence in Scottish politics by an aggressive media campaign attempting to detoxify the Tory brand. Quiet on policy (whisper it their the same as Westminster) and loud on photo-ops (tanks are the chief motif) she has been extraordinarily successful in resurrecting the Scottish Conservatives. Aided admittedly by the collapse of Labour she has created this persona as a sort of Tumshie Thatcher; tough but essentially harmless.

This has only been possible with the surround-sound of a gaggle of Boy Fans, amongst them David Torrance at the Herald). Iain Martin at Cap X, and Fraser Nelson at The Spectator.

Martin famously wrote last year that:

“A second independence referendum is off the agenda for the foreseeable future, no matter what happens in the EU referendum”, whilst Nelson has written screeds about how the entire Indyref2 is a ruse to mask Sturgeon’s crippling popularity collapse. Torrance nurtures his trope that Scotland and England are basically the same in all aspects and attitudes, a message that is repeated religiously in his weekly column like a prayer mantra.

The myth of the Scottish Tory revival under Davidson (now completely debunked) could only be sustained by a combination of ecstatic prose and the deep ignorance of southern media.

c8ujnuaxkaacaz6But she now has more than a PR problem.

No amount of cow photos, tank shots or football pics will do it. This is not just an episode of The Thick of It. Davidson and her allies have three problems.

The first is that it exposes her own personal hypocrisy and cowardice and for a politician who prides herself on ‘tough talking’ this is a real difficulty.

The second is that for the Scottish Conservative Party the myth of autonomy and of somehow being different from those bad Southern Tories is completely exposed.

The third is that, though no-one would admit it publicly, Davidson, surrounded by her cheerleaders, were working themselves up to her leading the next No campaign. As Chris Deerin put it:

“There are precious few heroes kicking around. Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown are off the scene and can only be bit players. Corbyn’s an unspeakable calamity. May’s a scary and stern southern Tory. Even David Bowie’s gone. In Scotland itself, Labour is abject, and languishes in third place behind the Conservatives. The only possible standard-bearer is Ruth Davidson. And for all that she’s popular, clever and effective, she is nevertheless a Tory, and still in the process of rejuvenating the party’s long-toxic brand.”

That looks extremely  unlikely now as Davidson hides and tries to distance herself from the morally repugnant social policies her party embodies.

This is not however a constitutional question. It is a matter of decency, humanity and integrity, qualities that are lacking in the Conservative Party. This is why George Square will be full tonight with people of all parties and none.

Bella contacted Ruth Davidson to request an interview but have had no reply.

Comments (41)

Join the Discussion

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

  1. James Mills says:

    If , instead of offering an interview on policy , you had presented her with an appearance on HIGNFY or some other inane celebrity show , she would have bitten off your hand .
    Superficial is the word that best describes our Ruth .

  2. James Bisset says:

    *cough* Typo in second para ‘their’ should be *they’re*.

  3. Richard MacKinnon says:

    You say ‘Davidson and her allies have three problems. The first is that it exposes her own personal hypocrisy’. What exposes her hypocrisy?
    ‘The second is that for the Scottish Conservative Party the myth of autonomy and of somehow being different from those bad Southern Tories is completely exposed.’ Don’t all Scottish parties have that same problem. With representation in both places even the SNP have to give the impression that their Westminster ‘branch’ MPs make a unique but significant contribution.
    ‘The third is that, though no-one would admit it publicly, Davidson, surrounded by her cheerleaders, were working themselves up to her leading the next No campaign…………………That looks extremely unlikely now as Davidson hides …………….’. Does it? I do not get the impression she is avoiding the role of leading the next unionist campaign. I get the complete opposite impression. I think she is already positioning herself as ‘leader of’. Look at the Tory campaign leaflets for the May council elections, its full of the fight for the union. Ruth Davidson and her team see this as a chance to win over hardline Labour unionists. Ruth as defender of the union. She is not running away from it she is running toward it.

    1. scrandoonyeah says:

      I think you are right on the money………the only problem is that she is running a three-legged race (when the other participant is not) and lumbered with the Tory shit as a partner. And when the other participant skips merrily by, and she has tripped herself up for the umpteenth time her frustration and inner rage will boil over for all of Scotland to enjoy……..can’t wait for the starting gun.

      She is a flawed individual and when she is put under pressure her true angry self and inadequacy come simmering to the surface and you can see the confusion and panic in her face. She can’t hide from herself.

      1. Craig P says:

        I love that imagery!

      2. Gene Maxwell says:

        You only have to watch her in a debate, jumping from foot to foot like a boxer in the ring, spoiling for a fight and getting more and more shouty. Calm, measured destruction of the opponents argument really is not Ruth’s forte…

        1. Richard MacKinnon says:

          I agree Ruth’s style is a bit ‘put on’, its as if she is trying a bit too hard to be serious. But she is not the only one that grates, most of them do, Nicola has a really annoying mannerism. She gives the impression that she finds the whole FMQ thing tiresome, she just cannot hide her irritiation at having to constantly answer the same stupid questions. There is another trait of Nicola’s, learnt from her predecessor that bugs me, she scoffs mid sentence. I’ve heard her style of speaking described as ‘a woodpecker’ , which I recognise.
          I read that when over in the US recently NS was voice coached to tone down the strident tones and deliver a softer voice and that it worked. She should keep it going. It worked for Margaret.

          1. John says:

            And Davidson should also take lessons , big time !

          2. scrandoonyeah says:

            Richard…….oh dear, triviality…. so you are saying politicians have annoying habits, but so has everyone.

            Focus your observations on Ruth Davidson’s psycho-pathology. It is amazing what they reveal if you allow yourself the freedom to be objective……. and it is not a pretty sight

            Please don’t attempt to trivialise and compare one against the other in an attempt to save Ruth……it is much more serious and I think you know that.

          3. scrandoonyeah says:


            PS. If you are a troll………you are not very good

  4. John says:

    Would love to see Davidson lead the next referendum debate , then people will see the snarling , jeering , preening , hysterical Tory persona that is her real identity . Of course there will be no policies in there that are her own ,or any that are of a benefit to the Scottish nation . She will await constant instructions from her masters down south before she opens her mouth . The people of Scotland are not naïve this time round , they will not be fooled twice . Combine her with her cheerleaders in the MSM ,BBC and her own cohorts then that should be enough to see her off for good ! .

  5. Redgauntlet says:

    Ring, ring, it’s 7:00 A.M.
    Move yourself to go again
    Cold water in the face
    Brings you back to this awful place

    Knuckle merchants and your bankers too
    Must get up and learn those rules
    Weather man and the crazy chief
    One says sun and one says sleet

    A.M., the F.M. the P.M. too
    Churnin’ out that boogaloo
    Gets you up and it gets you out
    But how long can you keep it up?

    Gimme Honda, gimme Sony
    So cheap and real phony
    Hong Kong dollar, Indian cents
    English pounds and Eskimo pence

    You lot, what?
    Don’t stop, give it all you got
    You lot, what?
    Don’t stop, yeah

    You lot, what?
    Don’t stop, give it all you got
    You lot, what?
    Don’t stop, yeah

    Working for a rise, better my station
    Take my baby to sophistication
    Seen the ads, she thinks it’s nice
    Better work hard, I seen the price

    Never mind that it’s time for the bus
    We got to work and you’re one of us
    Clocks go slow in a place of work
    Minutes drag and the hours jerk

    Yeah, wave bye, bye
    (When can I tell ’em what I do?)
    (In a second, maan, alright Chuck)

    Wave bub-bub-bub-bye to the boss
    It’s our profit, it’s his loss
    But anyway the lunch bells ring
    Take one hour, do your thang

    What do we have for entertainment?
    Cops kickin’ gypsies on the pavement
    Now the news has snapped to attention
    Lunar landing of the dentist convention

    Italian mobster shoots a lobster
    Seafood restaurant gets out of hand
    A car in the fridge, a fridge in the car
    Like cowboys do in TV land

    You lot, what?
    Don’t stop, give it all you got
    You lot, what?
    Don’t stop, huh

    You lot, what?
    Don’t stop, give it all you got, yeah
    You lot, what?
    Don’t stop

    So get back to work and sweat some more
    The sun will sink and we’ll get out the door
    It’s no good for man to work in cages
    Hit the town, he drinks his wages

    You’re frettin’, you’re sweatin’
    But did you notice, you ain’t gettin’
    You’re frettin’, you’re sweatin’
    But did you notice, not gettin’ anywhere

    Don’t you ever stop, a long enough to start
    Take your car outta that gear
    Don’t you ever stop, long enough to start
    Get your car outta that gear

    Karlo Marx and Frederick Engels
    Came to the checkout at the seven on eleven
    Marx was skint but he had sense
    Engels lent him the necessary pence

    What have we got? Yeah, ooh
    What have we got? Yeah, ooh
    What have we got? Magnificence
    What have we got?

    Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi
    Went to the park to check on the game
    But they was murdered by the other team
    Who went on to win fifty-nil

    You can be true, you can be false
    You’ll be given the same reward
    Socrates and Milhous Nixon
    Both went the same way through the kitchen

    Plato the Greek or Rin Tin Tin
    Who’s more famous to the billion millions?
    News flash, ‘Vacuum cleaner sucks up budgie’
    Ooh, bye-bye, bub-bye

    Joe Strummer: a true legend: 1952 – 2002…

    A true legend…

  6. Redgauntlet says:

    Joe Strummer has been dead for 15 years and I am still gutted….fucking Joe Strummer…Joe would have been right behind us…Joe was a fucking legend…Joe came to play in The Barrowlands in the late 80’s and Glasgow STOPPED…

    …it’s fucking Joe Strummer. He’s a socialist like us!!!! And he’s no poor!!!!

    He’s a fucking legend, the fucking hero of the Barrowlands…Joe Strummer and The Clash….what a fucking privilege to have lived at the same time as Joe Strummer….

    Name me one band that could write a track like “Police and Thieves” these days….

    1. Andy coats says:

      Actually written by Murvin junior Smith and covered by The Clash.



      1. Redgauntlet says:

        Allan, what is wrong with the F word exactly? You know, it’s only the British – aye, the British – who are so up tight they get antsy about swearing? It doesn’t happen in Europe.

        It’s the Calvanist tradition.

        How can there be taboo words in 2017? How it is possible?

        Why don’t you choose your words, and I’ll choose mine? That’s what is called living in a free society…

        Andy and punklin, thanks for the heads-up on “Police and Thieves”…

        1. Jo says:

          It isn’t a “British” thing. It’s just that some of us are able to express a view without effing and blinding all over the place. I think it’s quite sad that you think you’re awfy trendy by rolling out the F word. You’re not. You just make yourself look like an obnoxious foul-mouthed eejit! Thankfully that’s not how most of us wish to be seen in Scotland. We can engage in debate with confidence and don’t have to throw in swear words all over the shop!

    3. punklin says:

      ‘cept they didn’t write it; Junior Murvin did. Loved Clash version tho’.

  7. Donnie McCulloch says:

    I believe the tories could not give two hoots as long as money they save at the expense of the poor and vulnerable can be given to their wealthy pals!

    Could you imagine the outrage if the SMP has implemented or even tfloated this policy, everyone rightly would be up in arms!

    Where are the Scottish press?

    Where are JK, Dam Snow and others who told Scots how great this union is and why we should stay on it not up in arms?

    This is a policy akin to 1960s China!

    Davidson and her party must be held to account on this, not for political reasons but for moral and level of acceptable decency in the society we live in.

    Better together, I think not!

  8. Alf Baird says:

    Worth considering the (historical?) Tory mindset, with reference to how they ‘dealt’ with ‘rebellious’ Scots in George Square in 1919, which possibly helps explain the ongoing spate of illustrative behaviour patterns:

    “The Coalition Government sent 10,000 English soldiers; armed with machine guns, tanks and a howitzer arriving on the Friday night to restore order, the largest deployment of British troops on native soil. A 4.5 inch Howitzer was positioned at the City Chambers, the cattle market was transformed into a tank depot, Lewis Guns were posted on the top of the North British Hotel and the General Post Office, armed troops stood sentry outside power stations, docks and patrolled the streets.”

    And all because workers wanted a 40-hour week!

  9. Kenny Smith says:

    Let’s be honest when the mooth 1st came on the scene we all probably thought the same that no matter who or what Tories will forever be off the menu but as much as I disagreed with everything she stood for I thought she was a decent speaker and went a bit at detoxifying the brand but let’s be honest since Indy ref she has felt emboldened to be what was the real Ruth all along. I’m a Rangers fan but it disgusts me to see them turn into full on no surrender party. There’s no real critical analysis from the media when she backs the repugnant policies, no real solutions to the problems she highlights, all she has is vote no cause I’m determined to be in the lords.

    Sorry but cany help it but I hate them, I hate her and although I wish her no physical harm I wish her nothing but what’s she’s due for her sins because all I hear is Scotland is shit, we need England, altogether now ” we,r shit n we know we are ” I’d say no thanks to that!!

  10. MBC says:

    Greetin’-faced nyaff.

  11. Billy George says:

    There is no doubt that Ruth has fallen for herboqn hype. Her ego rather than her inate lack of talent shall be her downfall.

    1. Billy George says:

      Sorry that should read ‘her own hype’

  12. john m rudkin says:

    if ruth davidson didnt have the tv and radio stations and the main stream press behind her she woudnt get away with the tory policies that attack the poor and disabled the new tory rape policy is an attack on all women when you think the tory leader in westminster is a woman the tory leader in scotland is a woman it is outrageous that they have passed into law a policy that treats women with complete contempt the people of scotland are finding out that ruth davidson is an evil wicked career politician that will do and say anything that westminster impose on scotland and without the backing of the mainstream press she would be crucified

  13. Jim Bennett says:

    I think that what this article misses is a recognition that there is a constituency in Scotland for rancid Toryism. There is a strong minority current in Scotland which is doing well financially and very quietly happy to defend their position by voting Tory. That coupled with a unionist/racist element in Scotland’s working class (either formerly Labour or Tory) means that there is a current which will happily live with Ruth’s hypocrisy, pro-UK Govt assaults and anything that rubbishes Nicola.
    Ruth will get away with her nonsense for years to come because many, many people simply will not accept rational dissection of her position. She has nothing to lose because, unlike Nicola, she has no responsibilities. Any mistakes by Nicola mean that people actually suffer; mistakes by Ruth mean nothing because she governs nothing. That means unless Ruth claims for too many taxis, or lies about her pie eating, she’ll be with us for a long time to come; very annoyingly!

    1. MBC says:

      Aye, soor pussies and nawbags and other greetin faced nyaffs.

    2. Alf Baird says:

      In addition to the two ‘natural’ anti-independence groups you mention, Jim, there is a third group, i.e. the folk from rest-UK now living in Scotland, 80% of whom voted No in Indyref1 according to voting intention surveys. Historically (over last 100 years and more) this is the largest immigrant group to Scotland, and by 2018 may account for over 15% of Scotland’s population. On this basis that group alone may therefore account for 30-40% of all No votes in Indyref2. Arguably it is this, ‘culturally British’, group that props up the ‘natural’ ‘Scottish’ No vote (pushing it towards 50% of the electorate or more), and which also tends to vote for anti-independence parties at any and all elections, as reflected in certain rural, island, and Edinburgh constituencies still held by unionist parties, and where there are significant rest-UK populations.

      1. Jo says:

        That’s a very hostile approach towards people who have come to Scotland from other parts of the UK. It’s not healthy or helpful either when it is often argued that nationalists hate the other UK nations and especially the English.

        1. Alf Baird says:

          In what way is it “hostile”? Population movement is a reality, data is available for analysis, as is the propensity of a specific group to vote in a particular way, e.g. reflecting specific dominant cultural influences and values. I think it is an interesting phenomenon that people from rest-UK are TWICE as likely to vote against Scottish independence as are people born in Scotland. I think it is interesting to discuss why this may be so, not least as this group may be expected to make up 30-40% of all No voters at Indyref2 and they will therefore have a material influence on the result, as in 2014. Yet there has been very little discussion about what can be done to alter this group’s dominant anti-independence voting preference, other than a polite ‘don’t mention it’. As for being “hostile”, if I were ever lucky enough to be invited to go and live in another nation and then decided to actively vote against that peoples’ right to their nationhood, might that not be considered “hostile”, or at the very least disrespectful?

          1. Jo says:

            Your response simply confirms what I said to start with.

            You appear to want to blame non-Scots for strengthening the NO vote. I think that’s a terrible position to adopt and your hostility is clear. I’d imagine most reasonable people would want no truck with it including the SNP.

            In my own circle there are people who voted YES and others who voted NO. They are all Scots.

            I think your attempts to demonise “in-comers” are dangerous and wrong. And I say that as someone who voted YES. Views like yours, for me anyway, will prevent many NO voters from reconsidering next time.

            Scotland is a welcoming country and I think you make a huge mistake by stirring up hostility against those living here who hail from other parts of the UK while conveniently overlooking the fact that many Scots voted NO as well.

          2. Alf Baird says:

            Jo, you have made absolutely no attempt to address the detailed points I made. The reality, in Indyref2014, was that, based on known immigration rates from rest-UK, and voting intention surveys, the rest-UK ‘group’ probably accounted for approximately one third of the total No vote. Among other things, this implies that the ‘rest-UK’ vote took Scots ‘No’ voters over the line, and it also suggests that a majority of Scots did, in fact, vote for independence. Whilst I think this is a pertinent area for considered analysis and discussion, you merely seek to make misguided and, with respect, somewhat mischievous accusations against me, I assume in an effort to close down discussion. I appreciate you may not like my conclusions, which I only base on the available evidence and data, but that is no reason not to discuss what is clearly an important issue, or to revert to name-calling.

  14. MBC says:

    I hope we’ve seen peak Harrison. My other half said to me out of the blue the other day that she really gets on his nerves. If he can say that others must be thinking the same. The novelty and the honeymoon are surely over.

    As Mike has noted, she is pretty lite on policy. Her whole pitch is greetin at the SNP. And that becomes tiresome after a while.

  15. Clive Scott says:

    Nicola should turn every answer to a Ruth question at FMQ’s into asking Ruth to explain her support for the rape clause. When Murdo jumps to his feet in defence of his dear leader Nicola should remind him of his record of abject failure to win electoral mandate at any stage in his career (as recently outlined in Wings Over Scotland).

  16. Kat Hamilton says:

    Hope nicola and co don’t let ruth off the hook on their return from parliament recess…let the public know what a shallow, mean minded leader they have in her…don’t spare her any grief…she’s ideal for better together mark 2, though maybe she’s damaged goods now…..bet brewer and co won’t subject her to any angst on the subject…or phrase it as snp have powers to mitigate it, why the fuss..as my mum used to say, lower than a snakes belly…

  17. MBC says:

    Alf, 75% of one million over 65s voted No, feart for their pensions, and instinctively fearful of independence and major change and hating the SNP as Labour die hards. (= 75% of 800,000, since there was an 80% turn out). That’s a massive 600,000 Naw votes just from the pensioners.

    By comparison there were an estimated 400,000 ‘rUK’ residents of whom 75% also voted No. That’s 300,00 Naw votes from ‘rUK’ voters resident in Scotland – half the size of the pensioner vote. (What proportion of ‘rUK’ No votes were also over 65s is not known. I.e., how many belonged to both groups – there must be some cross over – but more likely that most rUK voters were not pensioners but working age who have come here to take up a job offer). 75% of EU residents (75% of 180,000) also apparently voted No, thinking they were safer as part of the UK. (That worked out well for them, didn’t it?)

    You are probably correct that a majority of Scots born narrowly voted Yes, certainly those under the age of 65.

    But the plain fact is that if 60+% of Scots born had voted Yes, this would have negated the nawbags amongst the other three No-majority groups and we would have crossed the winning line.

    1. Jamie MacDonald says:

      I would guess that the crossover of over 65’s and from rest of UK would be substantially more than you suggest, certainly in my own area this seems the case, many have second (holiday)homes here, how is it ensured that these people did not get a vote last time round ?? If they are paying council tax on a property is it not an easy step to get on the electoral register from there?I also heard that some students from rest of UK had a vote, which I don’t think was correct, they would also have a vote in their own part of UK, I feel they should give that up, if they intend to vote and stay here and work for a while..
      I find it ironic that people from rest of UK living here would vote against Indy, whereas open up the vote to the rest of the UK, an the general consensus seems to be they would be glad to see the back of all of us!!Scots, English, Welsh, Northern Irish, and EU citizens living in Scotland- Yeez ur aw Jock Tamsons bairns noo!

    2. Alf Baird says:

      Thanks MBC, however I believe there is a strong likelihood that the 2011 ‘rest-UK’ census data may be understated, and of course is now well out of date anyway, and in terms of actual voting numbers does not take into account various other factors (e.g. non responses to census, holiday homes, students, BTR and associated voter registration and postal vote opportunities (which did end up inordinately high, with limited checks and balances), propensity to vote, ongoing increases in migration from rest UK, etc). It does not take much to get this rest-UK figure to 25% or even 30% of the overall 2m No votes, which would imply the rest-UK share of Scottish population (or those registered to vote at least) to be around 15% (or more) and not 10% (as per 2011 census). For info, in some rural and island areas a more recent 2015 census indicated rates of rest-UK (English) population at 33% (Mull) and even up to 50% (in some Northern Isles), I assume this includes a fairly high incidence of retirees which is likely to be a more general theme here, as you mention (i.e. propensity of over 60s to vote No). What this also seems to reflect, in my view, is a strong correlation between increased migration from rest-UK and an increasing No vote.

      1. Jamie MacDonald says:

        Alf, agree wholeheartedly with the above, checks must be more stringent in a future vote, ensuring full residents only get to vote.
        However this does not address your final point, which if attempted, it seems, will immediately induce the kind of comments already received.. There was, discussed in a debate I heard, talk of making a younger person’s vote count for more in such decisions, as they (it was argued) have more to gain\lose depending on result in a referendum..
        Cue the abuse..
        Should those born here and\or the younger generations have a vote with more clout?
        I personally feel that would be a can of worms, but you are right, this needs discussed, I met one retiree from England, benefiting from all the free prescriptions and insulation for his home, not a particularly friendly chap, he made me think of those Americans on tv, isolating themselves out in the woods preparing for armageddon.. He described the SNP to me as Nazi’s !! People like this will never vote for Scotland cos they love the UK(England mostly) more.
        But then, don’t ask them to go and live there again..
        I would suggest any future vote be overseen by the EU authorities, stringent checks made on postal votes and actual residency as mentioned, and perhaps linked to a clause where one needed to be resident here since the first referendum?Income tax (Aristocrats woud be excluded of course!)or pension\benefit paid at an address in Scotland for the intervening period September 14- date to be announced..
        Surely for the foundations of an independent Scotland we want people who are fuly behind it, the chap described wants his own wee bit of Scotland for himself and no-one else.. He will increasingly isolate himself in a Scotland that wants to share itself with everyone that cares for it and wants it to be a success.

        1. Alf Baird says:

          Thanks Jamie, I certainly agree with you on the need for improved checks and balances and for enhanced qualification/franchise for voting on constitutional matters. On the franchise, Nicola’s view is that everyone living here has a stake in Scotland, though clearly some are using the opportunity to put a (Tory) stake into Scotland as it were. The reality internationally is that you generally need to be born in a country to be allowed to vote on important constitutional matters, and even the Brexit vote was not dissimilar to that. So, it is Scotland that is being rather ‘liberal’ here with its voting franchise.
          Key thing here is that, once the ‘Scottish’ unionist rump vote level is reached (which it probably has done now), it is the rest-UK vote (however constructed!) that is being used to pull No over the line by contributing 30%+ of the No vote overall. So, this is, quite obviously, a vitally important constitutional matter, which surprisingly many people have simply disregarded.
          There is clearly an added challenge in seeking to convert rest-UK voters to Yes given they are twice as likely (80%+) to vote No to begin with. Many of my neighbours, of whom I would add are good friends, are now from rest-UK and I can say in all honestly that virtually all are No voters, and in elections they do vote for any unionist party (even LibDem!) in order “to keep the SNP out”. Psychologically and culturally, many of them cannot bring themselves to vote for Scottish independence and they tend to have, to put it mildly, a deep dislike of the SNP and what it stands for. Whereas many Scots are seeking to build a fair and democratic society, the rest-UK No vote is essentially a vote for their continued British nationality irrespective of Westminster policies, which tends to make so-called ‘unionists’ rather more nationalistic than Scots Yes voters, in my opinion. This also reflects the fact that unionist parties have all now consolidated around the one same overriding policy goal of anti-independence, which is, at its base level, a choice between a ‘British nation’ and a ‘Scottish nation’, and in which it seems inevitable that the majority of rest-UK voters will tend to back the former.

          1. Jamie MacDonald says:

            Right then Alf, born in Scotland it is. Now we’re cooking..

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.