Why is the BBC manufacturing computers?

I pay my licence fee and I expect to get broadcast television - that is what the licence fee is for. It's a bit like going to a cafe and paying for a bacon roll & coffee and receiving exactly that.

But the BBC is not like a cafe. Ask for a breakfast and they'd likely come back with a breakfast plus a doctor to give you free nutritional advice then manufacture their own vegan sausages.

This may sound daft but that is, in essence, what the BBC does. As part of the BBC's Make It Digital initiative for all of 2015, every Year 7 schoolchild in the UK is to receive a free Micro Bit computer. That is, about one million 11- and 12-year olds will get this programmable kit (which can be connected to a PC and programmed to operate its LED lights or magnetometer, for example).

Although the BBC's aim is laudable, and they are doing it in conjunction with a large number of partners so are not bearing the full cost by themselves, I do have concerns.

I pay my taxes so that the government, whether at Westminster or Holyrood, can use the money to pay for vital public services like the NHS and education. If we need to encourage children to take up computer programming, that should be done via the respective Education Departments. That's what I pay my taxes for.

I don't expect that when I pay to receive broadcast TV that I am now also funding school education. With the recent announcement that the BBC will now fund the cost of providing over-75s with a free TV licence, the BBC is now also part of the respective Welfare Departments.

So I welcome UK Culture Secretary John Whittingdale's announcement of a 'root and branch' review of what the BBC is for.

I'm pretty clear about why I pay my TV licence and why I pay my tax. I don't pay my TV licence to top-up the welfare and education budgets. How many great programs are never going to get made because of these decisions?

And that's me only scratching the surface. Just what else is the BBC doing that has got absolutely nothing to do with satisfying the reason I pay my TV licence?

Sturgeon China visit 'over-shadowed' by BBC reporting

According to tonight's BBC Reporting Scotland program, First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon's visit to China was 'over-shadowed' by Alex Salmond's comment yesterday that a second independence referendum was 'inevitable'.

However, the China Daily article describing her visit doesn't mention this at all but instead concentrates on the trade deals struck.

So just where is this 'over-shadowing' taking place?

That's right: it's taking place within the BBC and then greedily snapped up by the Unionist press within the UK. As far as I can tell, China isn't the least bit interested in whether Scotland has another referendum or not. In China, Sturgeon's trade visit is 'over-shadowed' by China's love of Scottish produce and the trade deals done.

Whatever strange prism the BBC are using to view the world, they should throw it away now...

New Book Launched!

I have just self-published a new book called Sci Fives. It is a collection of five science articles that I have written, all at the popular-science level.

Below are the details of the five articles. Please also visit the book's Amazon page. 

Thanks,

Greg.

1. Has NASA Photographed the Face of God?

IF YOU BELIEVED the moon landing were fake, how would you react when a lunar satellite photographed Neil Armstrong’s footprints in the lunar dust and thus proved them to be true?

A humorous look at our need for conspiracy theories, the space race, space tourism and the incredible images of the Apollo landing sites from the LRO (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter).

2. Extraordinary Connections: Our Ancient Immune System

HOW DOES THE body recognise invading pathogens like HIV or TB? That answer won its discoverers the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine.

But even the winning scientists weren’t expecting it to reveal ancient molecules that connect all life on Earth. You’ll never eat a BLT (bacon-lettuce-tomato) sandwich in the same way again!

3. The History of the Dinosaur

DINOSAURS WERE WIPED out 65 million years ago. Or were they? Crocodiles are their distant cousins. But they are not the only survivors of Archosauria still alive on planet Earth today…

4. Space Money

WHAT IS THE point of spending money on space when poverty exists on Earth? When the world spends more on art and antiques than it does on space, that is the wrong question.

There are important economic, scientific and humanitarian reasons for spending money on space. Crucially, these lead to the real question we should be asking…

5. Words for Pluto

Astronomy books used to say “not enough is known” about Pluto and, as a child, that deeply annoyed me. Did we really have so little words for Pluto? Finally, the New Horizons probe was launched to study the planet Pluto – but just six months later, Pluto was demoted to dwarf planet.

However, astronomers had not been idle during that time. With help from the Hubble Space Telescope and revolutions in ground-based telescope design and computer processing, a surprising amount was found out about our favourite dwarf planet.

So just what kind of world is Pluto?

The Rise of the Cyberbuts!

Have been thinking up words to act as the Unionist equivalent of cybernat - here are some previous suggestions.

I'm not sure they're the best of terms. However, I've now come up with a new one: cyberbut!

The 'but' on the end stands for British Unionist Troll.

So what do you think - is cyberbut the Unionist equivalent of cybernat?

(Though I'm sure some of you would prefer something more provocative like cybertraitor but the Unionist side could use that against the ScotNats too.)

Scottish Labour prefer Tory rule from Westminster than Labour rule in Holyrood

This week saw Osborne deliver a Tory budget, which contained the expected attack on the poor and the gift of further benefits to the rich.

Surprisingly, Scottish Labour are complaining about this budget.

Ian Murray, the last Labour MP in Scotland and thus the Shadow Scottish Secretary, has written to David Mundell, the actual Scottish Secretary, to ask for the Scotland Office (which is a Westminster department) to assess just how badly Scottish families will suffer as a result of this budget.

Then - and this is unbelievable - Ian Murray demands that

the powers over welfare promised in the Smith Commission are passed, in full, to the Scottish Parliament. 

and embarrasses himself even further by arguing that the Westminster

Government’s continued insistence to retain the veto power over welfare changes and the reservation of housing benefit must be addressed in amendments to the Scotland Bill

But he and his Labour party colleagues were the ones who argued for Scotland to remain within the Union. That is, Ian Murray preferred to see Scotland ruled by the Tories at Westminster than to see Scotland ruled by his own party at Holyrood.

So whenever you hear Scottish Labour complain about the Tory budget, please respond with "still, better than Labour ruling an independent Scotland, eh?"

Because that is their belief.

And then they wonder why they don't do well in elections...

Is this a useful word for a Unionist cybernat?

Been trying to rack my brains for a good Unionist equivalent to the term cybernat.

In an earlier post, I came up with BritNatBirdie - BritNat for Unionist, obviously, and Birdie for the Twitter symbol. Not sure it's the best word ever.

Then I thought of cyberyoon, the phonetic spelling of cyberun (from cyber + un from unionist). Not sure it's that great either but does have the advantage of sounding a bit like cyberloon.

Finally, I came up with cyberjack - from cyber + jack from the Union Jack flag, which is the Unionist's symbol.

So...

...is cyberjack a useful equivalent to cybernat?

Or does cyberyoon work better because it sounds a bit more sinister?

Any thoughts?

Was Doctor Who aired early last year to influence Scotland's indyref outcome?

The BBC have announced that the new series of Doctor Who will return to our TV screens on 19th Sep 2015. But during the year of the Scottish Independence Referendum ("indyref"), it aired on the 23 Aug 2014. That now stands as the earliest autumn airing of Doctor Who in 45 years.

Coincidence?

Before you think I'm a mad conspiracy theorist, let's remind ourselves of how Doctor Who was used during indyref. Here is what Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson said in Nov 2013 (reported in this Scotsman article):

“The SNP simply cannot guarantee that we’d still get Dr Who after independence.”

This was followed in above article by this:

A Scotland Office spokesman said yesterday: “Contrary to what the Scottish Government assert, a vote to leave the UK is a vote to leave its institutions, including the BBC.”

To counter this, Blair Jenkins - who was chief executive of Yes Scotland during indyref and had previously been Director of Broadcasting at STV, and Head of News and Current Affairs at both STV and BBC Scotland, said:

 "That the No campaign is using Doctor Who to try to further their campaign of fear and negativity is laughable. If they are prepared to offer this kind of nonsense, why should we believe anything else they say?"

Wings over Scotland nicely took the Unionist's claims apart at the time.

You thus have to accept that the Tories decided to bring Doctor Who into the indyref argument. Why did they do that? Of all the things the Establishment could have used to try and convince Scotland to vote No and thus stay in the Union, they chose Doctor Who. Remember that when you are reading this. The Establishment chose Doctor Who as a weapon to fight the SNP with.

Now with that thought in your head, what is my complaint? Doctor Who aired on 23 Aug in 2014, just a month before Scotland went to the polls to answer the question "Should Scotland be an independent country?" This is unusually early for any new BBC programme - the Autumn Schedule doesn't normally start in the last month of Summer; instead, it is normal to start the Autumn Schedule in the first month of Autumn (i.e. September).

So why aren't the BBC doing what they did last year and airing it in mid-August? What has changed so much between this year and last? Is the change of broadcast date because there isn't a Scottish Independence Referendum this year?

Here is a list of first-aired dates - in col. 4 - for New Who, taken from a Wiki page:

This shows that, since the reboot of Doctor Who, it has never been aired that early in their autumn program.

It has been aired in August in Classic Who twice - once, in 1968 (airing 10th Aug) when Patrick Troughton played him but he had 44 episodes to fit in and it ran until June, and second, in 1975 (airing 30th Aug) when Tom Baker was the star but he had 26 episodes to fit in and it ran until March - but given the huge number of episodes back then, that is understandable.

Thus, airing it on 23 Aug in 2014 was the earliest airing of Doctor Who in 45 years - not since Patrick Troughton and his companions Jamie and Zoe met the Dominators has it been shown that early.

For me, this is proof that the BBC used the airing of Doctor Who as a political tool to try and influence the outcome of the referendum. Last year's series was also the first full series to feature Scottish actor Peter Capaldi as the Doctor. It may have been thought that airing a Scottish Doctor - who would be speaking with his Scottish accent, unlike Scottish actor David Tennant, who faked an English accent for the role - in the run up to the referendum would have helped convince Scots that they were a valued part of the Union.

It was already known at the time that younger voters were more likely to vote Yes while older voters, especially pensioners, were more nervous of change and therefore more likely to vote No. It may have been thought that airing a Scottish Doctor early would have helped convince young Yes voters. (This recent survey details some interesting indyref voting stats.)

However, I don't believe for one second that this early airing had anything to do with the actors or writers or producers of Doctor Who. They would have been as powerless as the rest of us over that decision, i.e. Peter Capaldi is blameless, as is Jenna Coleman and Steven Moffat.

Given that the Establishment was simply throwing everything at the referendum, including the Tories telling us that if we voted No we wouldn't get to watch Doctor Who, one can only imagine the BBC received political pressure to air Doctor Who just that little bit earlier than usual. If this is not the case, then the BBC has to explain why last year's airing was the earliest in 45 years and why they are not airing it so early again this year.

Answers on a postcard, please...

Some Evel highlights

Some highlights from Monday's debate, with some comments from me.

Alistair Carmichael:

"That was how we built the consensus in Scotland that then led to the creation of a Scottish Parliament. Ultimately, that is what the people of England are going to have to do. They are not entitled to use the United Kingdom Parliament as a proxy for an English Parliament."

i.e. England - from churches to trades unions - needs to debate the issue of English devolution, not have it done thru the back door of English Votes for English Laws

"In Scotland last year we went through a painful process that ultimately led to the people of Scotland deciding to remain part of this United Kingdom. We did it on the basis that we are all equal participants in this Union. I made those arguments in good faith and I believed at the time that the Conservatives did so, too. It is difficult for them to sustain that proposition if they insist on proceeding in this way."

i.e. if the Union parliament is basically no more, what was the point of arguing for it?



Chris Grayling:
"My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have all lived with this situation for 20 years. The difference now is that we are legislating again: first for Scotland, to give significantly more powers to the Scottish Parliament, and later in this Session we shall legislate for Wales, to give significant additional powers to the Welsh Assembly. It is surely therefore right that, as part of our desire to protect our Union, we make sure that any resentment in England about the fact that those powers are not replicated there is addressed to the maximum degree."

I note the lack of legislation for England!


Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP):
"Last night we discussed Scottish laws and whether they and Scottish powers should preside at Westminster or Holyrood. Ninety five per cent. of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons, as well as the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, want those powers to be moved to Scotland, but 500 Labour and Tory MPs who are not from Scotland walked through the Lobby and applied a veto. Why does Scotland not have a veto when the Leader of the House wants an English veto?"

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab):
"I have the document with the proposed changes to the Standing Orders, which were suddenly presented last week. There are 22 pages of new Standing Orders. ...introducing a range of very complex things..."

i.e. a bit of a cheek to rush thru such a big document!

Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con):
"The problem with changing Standing Orders is that, as we know from experience, Governments can just suspend them on the day, without any recourse; if the changes were made in primary legislation, Governments would have to repeal the Act."

Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP):
"The Leader of the House seems to be making a perfectly good pitch for an English Parliament, which is a perfectly legitimate pitch to make. Why will he not make the case for that, rather than for this constitutional fudge?"

I agree - we need an English devolved parliament. Time for a federal UK!

Chris Grayling:
"Because I value the strength that this Chamber brings. To take away its remit over English matters would be to devalue it. We need to ensure that there is fairness in this Parliament; we do not need to dismantle our constitution to the point where we have an English Parliament as well."

What?? It doesn't "devalue" Westminster to remove Scotland from it but it will "devalue" it if we create an English parliament? In that case, if it doesn't "devalue" Westminster, we'll have independence please!

Ed Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab):
"I want to ask the Leader of the House a very simple question. As I understand it from his proposals, the Speaker will have to adjudicate on what is an English-only Bill. Where is the definition of an English-only Bill set down? The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) raised the issue of tuition fees and its Barnett consequentials. Where in the proposals is the definition set out?"

Chris Grayling:
"The test that will be used is very simple: is it a devolved matter or not? Health and education are devolved. If it is a devolved matter, it will be covered by the proposals"

Alex Salmond:
"To pursue the point that was made by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), the former leader of the Labour party, the Leader of the House indicated to me earlier that tuition fees would be a matter reserved for English MPs, but under the proposals, it is for the Speaker to certify which matters are reserved. How does the Leader of the House know, before the Speaker’s certification, that that matter will be certified, despite the Barnett consequentials that affect my constituents and many others?"

Chris Grayling:
"Of course it is a matter for the Speaker, but the test that will be applied in the Standing Orders—against which the Speaker will make his decision—will be whether or not a matter is devolved."

i.e. the Tories want a devolved English parliament inside Westminster but won't change the fact that Scotland's budget is not set independently from England's but will still exclude Scottish MPs from those decisions that affect Scotland's budget.

Sir Gerald Howarth:
"The Labour party was desperate to appease Scottish nationalism in 1999 and failed to address the West Lothian question posed by her former hon. Friend, Tam Dalyell, the one-time Member for West Lothian. Had Labour addressed the issue at the time, we would not be in this position today. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is proposing a simple remedy that addresses a long-standing sense of grievance in England."

i.e. the Tories are now the party of grievance. Instead of moaning about what powers they don't have, they should just shut up and use they powers they do have!


I'm only about halfway through watching this debate. I'll post more highlights over next few days.

Is Osborne's budget pure anti-Catholic?

If you have more than two kids, there'll be no money from the tax-payer for kids 3 onwards. Given that Catholics are opposed to contraception, then this probably affects Catholics more than Protestants.

It is impossible to be celibate - which is why Priests then abused whoever was within their reach. Sex will out, no matter what. I'm not sure how many other religions practiced within the UK fully ban contraception but most seem to allow birth control.

Does this accidentally penalise Catholics more than any other group?

Who's long-term plan is it anyway?

Osborne and Cameron go on and on and on about their "long-term economic plan."

But who's long-term economic plan is it anyway?

Back in 2010, Ed Balls was advocating that it was wrong to try and remove the deficit over one parliamentary term (i.e. over 5 years) but instead to do it over two terms (i.e. over ten years). And what has Osborne done? He's followed Balls' advice!

Then earlier this year, as Osborne threatened even more swingeing cuts in the first two years of the new parliament, Nicola Sturgeon advocated that it was better to increase spending and thus take a bit longer to reduce the deficit. And what's Osborne done? He's followed Sturgeon's advice!

So it sounds to me as if it's the Balls-Sturgeon long-term economic plan that Cameron-Osborne are following!

What do you think?

Is Osborne forcing younger workers to pay for older workers?

Osborne's budget today revealed a lot and will take some time to study the detail. However, one thing stands out.

He's increased the minimum wage to a so-called living wage BUT he's not asking the employers to pay for this because he's reducing their corporation tax from 20% to 19% and then down to 18% a year later.

So it's the tax-paying public that's paying for this so-called living wage - which is really an increase in the minimum wage. And it's only over-25s that get this increase - under-25s will still be on the original minimum wage.

Tax credits are also being brutally cut, which will thus disproportionately affect the under 25s. I could be wrong but it looks to me like younger workers are being used to pay for an increase in the wages of older workers.

What do you think?

The BritNatBirdies on Sturgeon

You've heard of cybernats? Well, here's the Unionist equivalent - the BritNatBirdies. Lovely things they tweet about our First Minister...

Only one man can save the Union - but who???

The Greek OXI vote in their referendum has pushed the European Union into dangerous territory. Will there be a Grexit? Will the Euro plummet, causing another world recession? Will the European Union collapse?

Who can save us from this catastrophe?

We need someone who has saved the world before!

We need someone who has saved a Union before!

Only one man fits the bill!

Dum-dum-duuum!!!

It's Gordon Brown to the rescue!!

Image taken from here.

"This is not Germany's flag, France's country, ECB's culture, IMF's streets. This is Europe's flag, Europe's country, Europe's culture and Europe's streets!"

Go, Gordon, go!!!

Is this the best Greek placard ever?

Seen on the BBC News live coverage of the Greek celebrations at a NO vote in their bailout referendum.

For its directness and conciseness, this is possibly the best placard in the world ever.

Thankfully, the individual holding it is untraceable on Twitter and thus will remain off Blair McDougall's #clypegate list!

Slim Watch No. 007

The goings-on of the world-famous The Valorie-Restricted Three: Crash-diet Carmichael, Low-cal Mundell and Binger Murray.

For a quick definition of what a valorie is, see here.


Binger Murray's guilt at gobbling up all the valories of his Scottish Labour MP colleagues has obviously faded. On Monday, he stood up in the House of Commons and demanded that he be allowed to eat up all the valories of everyone in the Holyrood parliament!

"Why should they get to run things up there," Binger demanded, "when I can run Holyrood from down here?" Despite the belly rumbles of Labour supporters across Scotland, he ploughed on, demanding that Holyrood set up a commission to examine how stupid it would be for Scots to hold their own purse strings and for a Scottish OBR to be set up to examine how stupid they currently are with the pocket money Westminster gives them.

This greedy little glutton's desire for more and more of the belly-filling good stuff knows no bounds. And his demands came after he lunched on a whole roast baby camel in the Exotic-Meats Wing of the Commons' Canteen. And we thought whole curried goats were his thing - they're obviously just not large enough for this all-consuming valories glutton. Perhaps he felt jealous of Boris Johnson, who happily tucked into a plate of camel and was so happy, he even took photos of it.

Image of a roast camel, taken from here

On the opposite side of the green benches was Low-cal Mundell, sadistically starving himself of any valories at all. In fact, he declared, if he was having nothing then the rest of Scotland should have nothing either. So he vetoed every amendment put forward during the Scotland Bill debates. Yes, there's most definitely vetoes in the House of Commons if not in the Bill.

Afterwards, he went to the Beggars Wing of the Commons Canteen and sat out on Beggars' Balcony which was designed to be just out of reach of the poor beggars who congregate there looking for a rich Tory to toss them some scraps. Cunningly, Low-cal had ordered the rounding up of the beggars of Ferguslie Park in Paisley and for them to be dumped there for the occasion.

Feasting alone on a banquet of calamari, parma ham, goji berries, Thai-curried yoghurt, grilled starfish with a Chivas Regal jus, salt-baked sea bream on a bed of saffron-infused rice, sautéed hop shoots with chives and garlic (reputedly, hop shoots are the world's most expensive vegetable), bbq'd white-horse steaks, dishes of chorizo in cider, fried oyster and shiitake mushrooms, buffalo wings and delicately spiced frogs legs, Low-cal Mundell put aside his diet and enjoyed himself. With each aromatic forkful, he leaned over the balcony and waved it teasingly at the Paisley beggars. They pleaded and begged him for some, their outstretched hands reaching pityingly towards the food-adorned balcony. Low-cal smiled in that nasty way Tories do. "You're getting nothing from me!" he shouted at them before stuffing the rich forkful in his gold-plated gob.

"That's the way to treat demanding Scots," he boasted to the Canteen staff who nervously tried to hide their embarrassment at the humiliatingly derisory way he was treating the poor Scots with such obvious joy and keeping everything in the banquet for himself. Readers need not worry about the plight of the Paisley beggars though - Low-cal had them re-rounded up and stuffed in the empty vault that once held the McRone Report. No doubt they'll be released in 30 years time.

Speaking of hiding, Crash-diet Carmichael tumbled into the Commons to demand all indefinite articles in the Scotland Bill be changed to their definite form. Here's an example from Hansard:

With insights like that, the residents of Orkney & Shetland will surely keep him regardless of the outcome of the legal challenge against him. You never know when you'll need an A changed to a The, so better safe than sorry.

So that's my VR3 round-up of the week and without a doubt, the runaway chart-topper is Low-cal Mundell who inflicted an Oliver Twist-style single-bowl diet upon the Scots, joyously denying them everything when they asked if they could have some more.

Will Low-cal hold on to the top spot or will Crash-diet's grammar frenzy help him claim the VR3 crown? Only time will tell...

Tune in next week for more unbearable goings-on of the most famous diet-group in the world, The Valorie-Restricted Three!

Last week's update: Slim Watch No. 006

In politics, what is a valorie?

What is a valorie? It is an acronym for the unit of parliamentary majority within a constituency. It is defined thus:

Valorie: votes above largest other recipient in election 

For example, say there are two candidates standing in an election within a constituency. Let's call them Mr A and Mr B. When results are announced, Mr A gets 10,800 votes and poor Mr B only gets 7,500 votes. Mr A's majority is thus 3,300 valories (formed by subtracting Mr B's votes from Mr A's).

Of course, you could define it as votes above the half-way mark. Half-way in this example would be (10,800 + 7,500)/2 = 9,150. Then Mr A would have a majority of 10,800 - 9,150 = 1,650. But that's not the way it's done. (In any case, that would be the vahoots - votes above half of overall total.)

In a competitive, winner-takes-all approach, what you really want to know is by how much did the winner thrash his closest rival? So you take the winner's votes and subtract from them the runner-up's votes and what you are left with is the valories.

It really is that simple.

Of course, the thing you want to avoid is reducing your valories or being forced by your voters to go on a valorie-restricted diet. Sadly, that is not always possible - just look at The Valorie-Restricted Three!

The new abuse in Scottish Politics

To solve a problem, you first have to define it. Calling nasty tweets 'online abuse' is about as useful as the term 'crime' - it's just too broad to be useful. Sub-categories of crime - like assaults, theft, murder etc - allow for a meaningful analysis that can lead to policies that tackle specific identified problems.

Online abuse, like physical abuse, can be motivated by different causes: racial, homophobic, misogynistic etc. The Scottish Independence Referendum has given rise to the need for a new one: natism.

In yesterday's post, I defined it thus:

Natism: discrimination or devaluation based on a person's civic national identity.

Although politicians and others used every dirty trick in the book to ensure the NO vote was victorious, these people are not traitors. They have no more betrayed their country than being gay is a betrayal of heterosexuality. Being a BritNat is not a betrayal of being a ScotNat and vice versa.

Like gay or straight, some people feel they are British and others feel they are Scottish. Some are bisexual, feeling both identities. They are not betraying anyone. Civic national identity is just another part of who we are.

Therefore, natism is wrong and all engaging in it should stop. Natism is not debate but abuse. Stopping natism is not stopping debate. Unlike gay or straight, civic national identity can change and I will continue to argue the merits of independence.

Just I won't be engaging in natism.

Don't let Blair McDougall redefine Unionistism as misogynism

Blair McDougall is now mostly famous for his #clypegate dossier, revealing abusive tweets from some SNP members.

Admittedly, some of the tweets are a bit pathetic. But in my post yesterday, I revealed how McDougall was trying to infer that use of the word "bitch" implied you were a misogynist, i.e. a hater of women.

But the same people sending this abuse to the likes of Margaret Curran or JK Rowling are also the same people who love Nicola Sturgeon to bits. That doesn't sound like a misogynist to me.

Instead, it sounds like someone who hates people that put the Union before Scotland. That is, their first loyalty is to Westminster, then their second loyalty is to Holyrood. In the SNP, first loyalty is to Holyrood, then Westminster.

What term can we use for people who hate those who are Unionists? The simplist solution is to add the suffix -ism and thus we get Unionistism. The opposite would be Nationalistism - or Natism for short. This parallels misogyny (hatred of women) and misandry (hatred of men), i.e. we have two separate words.

However, we could parallel sexism/sexist and have the one word to mean both Unionistism and Natism. All I can think of  is constitutionism and constitutionistism, which are far too large.

But I prefer the word Natism for this - it's nice and short like sexism. Given the argument we're having in the UK over the constitution is really one over what nation you prefer, UK or Scotland, then both sides of the debate are nationalists - ScotNats or BritNats.

So my word for this kind of hatred is natism, with a lower-case n. I'd define natism as "discrimination or devaluation based on a person's civic national identity." That is, it is not racism or ethnicityism (if that's even a word) because twins could split over such an issue, one choosing Scotland as his/her nation and the other the UK as his/her nation. Obviously, both twins would be of the same parentage so ethnicity would be irrelevant.

Now the big question - should natism be a crime? Should we pass anti-natism laws in the same way we pass anti-racism and anti-bigotry laws?

That may be the way forward in tackling online abuse from all sides in this constitutional debate. But let's call it what it is. It is not sexism but natism.

What is proportionate action for using the word "bitch" or "traitor"?

It's easy to go from zero to mad and be that angry forever. Much harder to analyse what has happened and then decide to be slightly angry or just angry or mega angry and to be that way for 1 hour or 3 days or 7 weeks.

Blair McDougall is still calling for the SNP to take action on those alleged SNP members in his #clypegate dossier for using bad language on Twitter.

Some are using the word "bitch" against female politicians; some use the word "bastard" against the male ones. Is "bitch" misogynistic? If so, should "bastard" be considered misandrist (i.e. hatred of males).

For me, I see those words as either side of the same coin. If you have an emotional outburst against someone, it's common to use a derogatory term that describes their gender. "Cunt" is one I think of as unisex, used against both men and women.

Of course, men are also called "bitches" and women are also called "bastards" but I think they're generally seen as gender-specific.

I don't think use of the word "bitch" is enough to make you a misogynist. I think other corroborating evidence is required. But for Blair McDougall, "bitch" is enough:

But what action should the SNP take against people who use these words? Blair McDougall isn't clear what he expects to happen. Should all such people be thrown out of the party? Is that an over-reaction, the equivalent of being super mad forever?

Or should the SNP ask those it finds to have been abusive to apologise on Twitter to the person(s) they abused and ask them to better behave themselves in future?

Or should there be the equivalent of a swear-box - an SNP Twitter-abuse box? There could be a menu of fines, depending on exactly what you said.

Of course, other parties would have to do something similar. Becoming over emotional and then ranting online is not the preserve of just some in the Nationalist camp - there's those in the Unionist ranks too.

To be clear, abuse is wrong. Bad language is usually seen as being abuse and I guess if I was on the receiving end of it, I'd view it that way too. But proportionate action is difficult to judge. Just what does Blair McDougall want the SNP to do?

Ian Murray wants to run Holyrood from Westminster!

During the Scotland Bill debates in the House of Commons on Mon & Tue, Ian Murray (the only Labour MP in Scotland and thus the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland) put forward two amendments that showed Scottish Labour still haven't learned from their past mistakes.

He, a Westminster MP, wants Westminster to tell the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood what to do. First up was his proposal to order Holyrood to set up an independent commission to study the impact of Scotland taking control of its own finances (i.e. FFA, full fiscal autonomy). Second up was his proposal to order Holyrood to set up a Scottish version of the OBR (Office for Budget Responsibility) that will closely monitor Scotland's finances.

This beggars belief (and that's ignoring the implied massive insult that Holyrood is too stupid to manage its own finances and thus must be told by Westminster how to do it).

The whole point of Holyrood is that it runs itself with its own elected MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament). It is these people that decide how their own parliament should operate, what departments they should have and what departments they can afford to have. This is called devolution and the purpose of it is to allow that parliament to run its own affairs.

Scottish Labour were pilloried last week by themselves in frank admission after frank admission by senior figures - from former leaders to former First Ministers - that they just did not understand devolution when they were in power in Holyrood. They also complained that Westminster kept interfering in what they were doing.

Did Ian Murray watch that programme? If he didn't, he can read my write-up of it and my further analysis of it. Of course, he was probably too happy watching Blair McDougal's diversionary tactic of #clypegate unfold to learn any lessons from the program. If he'd watched it and thought about it, he'd have never suggested that a Bill whose function is to transfer power to Holyrood should be amended to include direct orders about how they must then use those powers.

They say that those who don't know history, repeat the mistakes of history. Ian Murray either doesn't know the history of his own party or just doesn't understand what devolution is. Instead of helping his party recover, he's just helped consign it to the dustbin of Scottish political history.