and another thing…

And all this leaves Alistair Darling as the Tory Prime Minister’s puppet. When Cameron can’t front up, it is a Labour MP who steps forward to do his work for him. Darling has just become the Tory Party’s Save the Union mouthpiece. Leading a united campaign of Unionist parties including Cameron’s Conservatives is one thing, replacing him is quite another.

If a televised debate is now an essential aspect of our politics, it is a Prime Minister’s duty to participate and represent his side – on behalf of all the people he represents.  In fact, look at it another way, Darling should have told Cameron that it was his duty to speak up against Salmond head-to-head and should have made clear that he (Darling) would only debate with Salmond after the Salmond-Cameron programme.

It rather proves my point that Darling is the willing stooge that he hasn’t done so. The words: “But it’s your responsibility, Prime Minister,” should be ringing in Cameron’s ears. So the deal clearly is that Cameron can’t stand up in part of the United Kingdom, which he governs, because he is a Tory who can’t command respect. What better evidence could you have of a failing United Kingdom…of a kingdom which is in decline and no longer represents Scots?  Our county, Scotland, is a NoGo Area for the leader of the United Kingdom. He requires an anointed placeman to state his case on his behalf. Darling is now the Tory Prime Minister’s Lord Lieutenant. No doubt, like the Queen’s loyal representatives, he will be on hand to greet his Chief when he deigns to turn up on foreign soil.

Why not turn this debate scenario round…if Salmond had refused to debate with  Cameron on television, can you imagine the apoplexy in the Unionist media? If  Salmond said he would stand aside and let Dennis Canavan debate with Cameron, because he is the leader of the Yes campaign, can you picture the jeering headlines, the endless laughter and incredulity that would have caused?

Darling is getting Cameron off the hook, acting as his agent and front man in Scotland. However Miliband tries to distance himself from the policies – and that’s a limited effort – Labour is standing shoulder to shoulder with the London neo-cons and their right to introduce their policies throughout the Union. In fact that is what this referendum is about. Labour is saying: We disagree with Tory policies but we will defend to the death their right to make them – here in Scotland.

The current myth is that Cameron shouldn’t debate with Salmond because it’s a decision for the Scots alone. But this isn’t a decision, it’s only a debate.  We will decide for ourselves, all we’re asking is that Cameron does what he did for the General Election and appears on television with his opponent. He can’t argue it isn’t important either, as those debates won Clegg a place in government. And, surely his argument about it being a Scots-only affair falls at the first hurdle because he himself says this a matter for the whole UK. So one day it is, the next day it isn’t.

And if it’s true only the Scots who are the voters should be playing all the key roles, why doesn’t he condemn the donation of £500,000 to the No campaign by Ian Taylor of Vitol who doesn’t have a vote in the referendum? Double standards, perhaps?

So we now have the disgraced Chancellor, a man whose morals evaporate when money is mentioned – half a million from the revolting Vitol source, more than the First Minister’s salary in outside earnings and flipping his house four times – on the stage as a Tory puppet, his mouth opening and closing as Cameron pulls the strings.

There is something of the music hall grotesque about this unedifying old pals act embarrassing themselves this way. And for what? To prevent the Scots standing up for themselves and implementing policies that suit them. Independence is about self respect, something Alistair and Labour seem to have misplaced.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

0 thoughts on “and another thing…

  1. Exactly. Darling in effect is saying “I’d rather see the Tories sit permanently in a Westminster government, than be the Prime Minister in an independent Scotland.

    • My take David McCann is similar but nuanced.

      To me Darling is saying that he would prefer the Tories misruling Scotland, from their London Base, than allow the Scottish people (not the SNP) be sovereign.

      It is London power and their local agenda against the Scottish people

  2. Sums it up neatly!

  3. Misplaced self respect indeed. What on earth is the future Lord Darling thinking about?

  4. What else can you expect of a Labour MP who chose to address the Scottish Tory Conference to thunderous applause. That far up ‘call me Dave’s’ arse that only his saville row loafers are visible.

  5. Well said Derek.On the button as always.
    One of the things that has become very clear to everyone in Scotland during this debate is that the Labour party stands for….well the Labour party and whatever policies they make up on the hoof to improve their electoral chances.
    Darling was part of the Blair Tory government (as were most of the current Labour leadership) so Tory thinking sits very comfortably with him/them.
    Up the workers.

  6. Darling is now David Cameron’s “little helper”. Has a certain ring to it.

  7. Surely just the thought of Alastair Darling walking grandiosely into the House of Lords, unelected and dressed in his ermine robe, with an imperious look on his face whilst collecting up to £300.00 per day to sit and talk nonsense while ordinary people queue at food banks and can’t afford to heat their houses, surely that must turn the stomach enough to realise something is far wrong in this country and voting No will just allow the current disgraceful system to continue.

  8. Darling is simply a self-serving individual, To stick a serial Westminster trougher up as the face of Better Together, shows the disregard the Unionists have for our intelligence.

  9. @mogabee
    “Darling is now David Cameron’s “little helper”. Has a certain ring to it”

    David’s little Darling?

    Another excellent article Mr Bateman.

    I think your contributions will make a difference.

  10. Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.

  11. Just loving Derek’s thoughtful contribution to this debate. Both of my daughters are now following this blog.

  12. @X_Sticks “I think your contributions will make a difference”. Total agreement. Derek’s style of writing is different from some of the other excellent pro-independence bloggers and he has acquired quite a following already. Every thoughtful contribution swings folk to YES and as the word spreads so will there be an increase in YES voters. Thank you Mr. Bateman.

  13. Most of us at the start of all this thought it would difficult for Labour, Lib Dems and the Tories to share the No Better Together platform. Turns out we were all wrong.

    Confused though as to what Gordon Brown’s splinter movement is doing. Still haven’t seen anyone in the MSM quiz Darling or McDougall on that. But given Brown’s tarnished reputation (which has received additional varnish in the past week courtesy of McBride), then I suspect we’ll be seeing even less of it as time goes by.

  14. Darling is a sociopath, a common Scottish Labour trait. As a person from a working class background, I find myself sickened by Darling and Labour’s behaviour. I recall a TV programme, it may have been “The Nazis; a warning from history” which asked the question of the German people, “How did an intelligent people allow themselves to be taken over by gangsters?” Well that question can be asked of the people of Scotland (and the English and Welsh). How on earth did we allow ourselves to be governed by the likes of Darling? Even in Opposition it is apparent that Darling is seriously wanting in almost every department, including intellect, social conscience and morality. He has simply sold his soul for gold. Not English gold, but the NeoCon rewards for supporting extreme London economics and policies. Has he no shame? It’s a rhetorical question, I know, but the answer is obvious. I could understand if he had old fashioned views on the UK, a kind of post-Flashman nostalgia for Empire, but it’s not even this. His position is motivated by pure greed for money, social advancement and power (London power). Sad, dangerous and true.

  15. Breaking News UKPM union party leader won’t debate as Nats do Tory hatchet job for them.

Leave a Reply