2007 - 2021

Be Prepared

We are used to politicians engaging in habitual hypocrisy and being, what was the famous phrase, ‘economical with the truth’? But the scale of Ruth Davidson’s monumental misdirection in Glasgow yesterday is still staggering. As a leader of a party that has just being exposed with Windrush and the Hostile Environment and delivering the most extreme immigration policies in decades, and having presided over a party in Scotland littered with unreconstructed bigots the Conservative leaders latest repositioning as an enlightened social democrat is astonishing.

Ruth the Brand has long ago broken any connective tissue with the Scottish Conservative Party or the Conservative Government. She floats free from public accountability or rational discourse.  Yesterday Channel 4s Ciaran Jenkins wrote: “Ruth Davidson is outlining her vision for the economy later in a speech at Glasgow Univeristy. I’ve been told I can’t interview or question her about it. Regrettable but important you know we tried”. This is a hermetically-sealed politician. She’s given not so much a free-pass by the Scottish press pack as slavering hagiography.

Witness Chris Deerin, fresh from fluffing his close personal friend Andrew Wilson’s Growth Commission writing (‘Why Ruth Davidson is Heading to Westminster‘):

“I’ve met a lot of politicians in my time, old warhorses and young lions, and she is the genuine article, the real deal, a politician of surpassing talent. She is built for the big stage: charismatic, funny, as sharp as a shipyard put-down. She works for audiences in Scotland because she is ordinary and has a bit of patter, and she works in the southern shires because she has that recognisable trait of can-do, not-buggering-about, up-and-at-‘em spirit. She wasn’t in the Territorial Army for nothing: as Wodehouse describes Bertie Wooster’s love interest Honoria Glossop: “one of those robust, dynamic girls with the muscles of a welterweight and a laugh like a squadron of cavalry charging over a tin bridge.”

Strenuously avoiding the desire to veer towards a psychoanalysis of Deerin’s “commentary” – the political analysis is clear. “The Scottish Tory leader is too young, too talented, and too ambitious to sit on Holyrood’s opposition benches for much longer” writes Deerin oozing antipathy to Holyrood and deference to the Westminster machine.

As the writer Jamie Maxwell notes: “It’s not that the centre/centre-right commentariat don’t know about Ruth Davidson’s habit of pandering to xenophobic & racist elements in Scottish society, it’s that they don’t care. Publicly acknowledging the fact would upset their campaign to have her installed as Tory leader.”

Not only is Davidson’s speech wildly at odds with the government she claims to be influential in, its wildly at odds with her own stated position. On Good Morning Scotland (in May 26 last year) she defended Theresa May’s immigration cap, then said that Scotland needed to attract a higher share of migrants – before finally saying that the current level of migration in Scotland was “probably about right”. At best it’s incoherent.

Clearly this is a game, but what sort of game?

There are a host of very specific measures she could have backed that would have been genuinely interesting. Backing the devolution control of immigration being the most obvious, but also specific Scots visas, a post study work scheme, or an op-out for seasonal workers would all have been possible. There was nothing.

We’ve become used to this. But what is going on?

It could be that Theresa May’s government is even weaker and more shambolic than it appears, and that internal knives are being sharpened for a soft-coup bringing in a new series of ghastliest with Davidson as a sort of human-shield donned in a commando beret and clutching a large bottle of Calpol.

It could be a Blairite entryist attempt to take over her own party at a UK level and save it from its own toxic dysfunctionality.

But that toxic dysfunctionality is hugely popular and regularly returns a party riddled with nationalist fantasists to high office, and Davidson’s own actual power base is hugely over-played by her own supporters. More likely you’d have is a bold move to make a breakthrough for the Scottish elections of 2021. Her supporters dwell within a political-reality-bubble every bit as tightly defended and sealed as Scottish nationalists, in which “Davidson as FM in 2021” is a realistic proposition.

This would require self-deception on a mass-scale. It would be Trumptastic. Consider this statement for pure history-wipe:

“While it’s all very well for me, or other centrist politicians to espouse the merits of a market economy, how does that work for a teenager growing up in a pit town with no pit, a steel town with no steel, or a factory town where the factory closed its doors more than a decade ago?”

But then just when you think the Davidson-Gove conspiracy is a joke without credibility and she can’t possibly be thinking about a bid for office in England she say this:

“How does that feel to a member of generation rent, moving to London for their best shot, living in Zone 6, paying half their stagnant salary on a commute, knowing all the while there is no chance of saving enough to ever own their front door?”

Who is she addressing here? It couldn’t be clearer.

As Chris Deerin gushes in the New Statesman:

“I’d bet money, though, that Ruth Davidson will end up at Westminster. She’s too young, too talented, and too ambitious to sit on the opposition benches at Holyrood for much longer. She has the chops for the big offices of state, and, as has been noted by many, the kind of liberal instincts and personal charm that can attract voters from across the political spectrum. So, to my English friends: not now, not this decade, but soon. She’s coming. Prepare yourselves.”

The questions looms as to why such unsurpassed talent should be on the opposition benches and not in high office, but such issues are irrelevant in times of post-truth, Trumpism and media chumocracy.


Comments (56)

Join the Discussion

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

  1. john w shaw says:

    The sooner the better Ruth is shuttled down to London. Just wish she could take all her Tory party with her ?

    1. Werner Pretorius says:

      Beware – she might follow Paisley’s example and sit as MSP, MP & (as long as our membership remains) MEP.

      Imagine getting Ruth Davidson from three sides.

  2. Charles L. Gallagher says:

    Anybody up for a ‘crowd funder’ to buy her a ticket to London, one way of course.

    1. john w shaw says:

      Not sure now is London far enough away ?

      1. Charles L. Gallagher says:

        You know John, you’re right, how about South Georgia? She can rant at the seals and penguins and play with any of the old scrap whaling machinery, not as good as tank but being a Tory playing make-believe should be no problem.

        1. Interpolar says:

          No, London is far enough. Psychologically, it’s further than Bruxelles on any account.

        2. Alistair Taylor says:

          Charles, the rats have just been eradicated from the island of South Georgia.

          1. Charles L. Gallagher says:

            Alistair, I know, sadly we haven’t found a solution to the ‘rat’ problem in Scotland.

  3. Alasdair macdonald says:

    You are right, Mr Small, to flag this up. Over the past month there has been a number of pieces in a number of media outlets, particularly the preciously self proclaimed ‘progressives’ – New Statesman, Guardian, Observer – quite overtly promoting her case: for what?

    It appears that from the drooling in London that there are many who want her at Westminster, but, in what role? As a replacement PM? As a ‘stalking horse’ for someone like Michael Gove or another figure behind him?

    Your ‘Blairite entryism’ into the Tory party is an interesting one. Certainly there are many in Labour to whom she appeals. In the 2014 referendum, she appeared prominently as a NO spokesperson with Ms Johan Lamont sidelined. Clearly she appeals to the metropolitan Blairite media. Her shielded and, consequently, unexamined, campaign allows her to present a chameleon-like figure: “what is it you want? I can give you it. It is a bit like Gore Vidal’s characterisation of the American President as a front for powerful people, who decided to go the whole way and appoint a bona fide actor in Ronald Reagan, who could deliver his lines well and act a genial persona, while talking tough.

    Today on GMS, she was not interviewed, but there was an interview with the editor of the Tory website Conservative Home. (They seem to be interviewed quite often. How frequently are you, Mr Small, or Wings, or Wee Ginger Dug, etc asked on?) Gary Robertson pointed out the contradiction with regard to immigration that you have, but the interviewee simply waffled it aside and went on to re-state the ‘pitch’.

    The word ‘hubris’ is floating near the front of my mind.

    1. John S Warren says:

      A nicely made comment. I have always thought Gore Vidal’s ‘characterisation’ was speaking to something important, perhaps touching on a deeper insight into our times than even he knew; about the underlying processes of modern public political discourse in the democratic tradition, especially in an age of instant, world-wide media.

      I was in Boston once, when Ronald Reagan was making a speech (it must have been during an election). It was open-air, and I attended out of curiosity. I was astonished by the preparation, the clever (alarming?) use of music and the effective use of theatrics, with a crafted, rising excitement towards his arrival. Everything was slick, professional, accomplished and well modulated; they knew how to manage an audience response (all these years of monitoring audiences in the movie industry coming into play?). Reagan knew how to deliver a script, and was very effective, but without saying anything of substance (which made it seem even more adroit).

      I had always dismissed Reagan with contempt, as a B-movie actor with unattractive links in the 1950s to the House Committee for Un-American Activities. Seeing him “live” in Boston was a sobering experience, and I left the event doubting that any of our politicians in Britain could actually politically survive for long in American politics, or deliver that popular authority. Perhaps I had just seen the future, without realising it ……

      1. Alasdair Macdonald says:

        John S Warren, The book, ‘The Selling of the President’ dealt with Richard Nixon’s successful 1968 campaign and describes how slickly such a personally unattractive character was marketed. For example, in 1968 there were riots in most major American cities and Nixon was calling for tough action. All his speeches on the matter and camp[aign ads had the music “Hot time in the ol’ town tonight.”

        Ronald Reagan had undoubted charm as attested by many on the other side of the fence, such as Senator Tip O’Neill. His bonhomie, person-to-person, seems to have been quite sincere. There seems to be a similar coaching of Ms Davidson to present a feisty, chirpy, plain speaking, woman of the people. I have never met her so I do not know what she is ‘naturally’ like. Her predecessor Annabel Goldie, whom I did meet on a couple of occasions, was in person, ‘warm’ and genuinely witty in a very pawky way. When Ms Davidson took over, she presented like an earnest Girl Guide, who had no real depth. Undoubtedly, she has learned in the job, but, I think there has definitely been grooming and ‘product marketing’ going on. In open debate, she is no match for Nicola Sturgeon and, at Westminster, she would struggle against some of the figures on all sides who are formidable debaters. I think the protective cocoon around her is to avoid the chance of exposing her weaknesses. She would, however, be better than Mrs May, but that is setting the bar pretty low.

        1. Alasdair Macdonald says:

          I ought to have added that for all his personality problems, Richard Nixon was one of the most intellectually competent Presidents of the post war era.

          1. Alistair Taylor says:

            Oh yes, he illegally bombed Laos and Cambodia. Absolute psychopath.

  4. scrandoonyeah says:

    I am reminded of that first world war poster…..with a twist

    ‘Your country needs ME’ me,me,me,me,me,me……….me,me,me,me

    England that is

  5. Welsh Sion says:

    Anagram corner Number 532 b: (If you’ll permit me an extra ‘t’)

    Ruth Elizabeth Davidson = Lez/bi and avoids the truth.

    And in reply to Alasdair macdonald:

    “The word ‘hubris’ is floating near the front of my mind.”

    As eny fule kno, nemesis is also not so far behind …

    1. Ruth Davidson’s sexuality is entirely irrelevant so that and any other comment focusing on that will be deleted.

      1. penguin says:

        Given how much is made of her being a Rabid Bull-dyke with an Irish Catholic fluffer and being pregnant then any comment about her sexuality is entirely justified.

        You don’t get to use it to show how liberal and ultra-modern you are then complain when others point out your stinking hypocrisy.

        Also for a H1b5 fan to moan about sexual comments! That’s one of your favourite attacks on rival teams. The ones who didn’t protect paedophile coaches mind, unlike your beloveds.

        1. Wow brave anonymous Penguin warrior. What exactly is my stinking hypocrisy? Sorry i get to set the rules here and discussing a politicians sexuality is entirely irrelevant. Such anger, even in the close season …

  6. Wullie says:

    Meteoric indeed for somebody who has never ran a wulk-stall!

  7. Kenny Smith says:

    Totally overblown and overhyped. Her party comes a distant 2nd yet Bernard ponsonby declares she has been given the tag “Messiah” I’m utterly sick of the way she goes to ground and of the way the media soft glove her any time hard questions should be asked. Hate is a strong word so I’ll just say I strongly dislike her and all she represents. A waste of air

    1. Bruce Leighton says:

      Totally agree with you since she came on the scene in Scotland I have never liked the rotor party and her false smile makes me want to puke

  8. Hal Martin says:

    Davidson is clearly given an easy time in the Scottish media because she used to be in their ranks as a BBC journalist. She is educated in English and used to be a Signaller in the Terries before breaking her back there in an accident; she knows communication, military and otherwise, and how to use it, a la Orwell when he worked in the Ministry of Information during WW|II. The fawning Deerin article, and language used, are indeed interesting. More like a love letter, and a deluded one at that, to an army leader, than an actual news article.

    Ruth Davidson has been an outsider all her life and is, to me, a mentally and emotionally damaged person: the only child in her school on a zimmer frame (after she was horribly run over by a truck at five years old), gay and a member of a church that would not allow female ministers at a time when she clearly wanted to serve in some capacity (she was a Sunday school teacher), Tory in a party that produced Clause 28 in a country that hates Tories.

    There is something very strange, angry, madly ambitious, and pugilistic going on in Ms. Davidson’s psyche and worldview: you get the feeling she hates Scotland and almost wants to take revenge on it in some way. She seems a very cold and vicious person, like many religious people (Theresa May), and I wouldn’t trust her as far as I could throw her. She’s a disgrace, as is the free and easy ride she is given in the Scottish media.

    1. Alf Baird says:

      The vast majority of (extra)ordinary working class Scots can readily see Davidson for what she is – a silver tonged two faced Tory mouthpiece who can never be trusted. As Deerin’s comments suggest, she is appealing primarily to the English middle class and the thoroughly Anglicised Scots middle and upper classes who culturally value her dubious ‘attributes’; hence her success in central Edinburgh where many of the residents are predominantly of that ilk inclusive of thousands of students many from England, and who also by a long way quelle surprise collectively returned a big No vote in 2014. This and Davidson’s apparent appeal to England’s Tory elites across politics, media, business, military etc reflects a cultural difference between Scots and English and our perceptions of others. And with Davidson gone what we may soon witness is the two main British ‘one-nation’ parties at Holyrood led not by Scots but by Englishmen, Leonard and Tomkins, both ultra-hostile to Scottish independence, and both prepared to ditch any political policy difference by collaborating in ‘Better Together’ which is effectively a last stand for British (one nation) Nationalism and its aim to retain Scotland as a relatively powerless territory of England. The latter would make for an interesting and a rather obvious cultural (including linguistic) split between pro-British and pro-Scottish protagonists at Holyrood which reflects rather obvious differences in national identity. Who says the Yes/No vote on Scotland’s independence which is in effect a decision on our preferred national identity is not ultimately a cultural and hence a binary decision?

    2. David Allan says:

      Hal I’m In complete agreement.

      One reason she is given a “free and easy ride “by the media is I suspect due to the character flaw you identify and so aptly describe.

      She is full of bluster nothing else and the real Ruthie would emerge if any media pundit got close.

      She is riding the lucrative political gravy train!

      A Unionist Careerist. Who has jumped on the back of the “Better Together Bandwagon” .

    3. Jim Bennett says:

      Hey Hal,
      The very best analysis I’ve read of her yet. Thank you! Did you ever read Leo Abse’s psychological critique of Tony Blair? You should try a longer version of your succinct analysis for publication!

  9. Brian MacLeod says:

    We keep mentioning the Scottish media.

    I’d love to have Scottish media.

    What we get is English/Westminster centric media. The message is there is nothing good happens in Scotland especially if the SNP touches it.

    It is utterly depressing.

    I don’t read or watch it for the same reason I don’t get my water from the sewage outlet.

    1. Moira Cochrane says:

      Here in Scotland all we get from the media is that nothing good happens in Scotland especially if the SNP touches it! We are all utterly depressed by it – and this is in our own country.

    2. Charles L. Gallagher says:

      Brian, I love the analogy with water and sewage, sums it up brilliantly.

  10. Elaine Fraser says:

    In last few months I have been quietly asking ‘No’ /Labour voters how they are feeling these days. Really depressed to report that many say they ‘ like Ruth Davidson’. Have been gobsmacked a couple of times on hearing this from social workers, teachers etc. When I looked surprised and say ‘but she’s a Tory’ only a couple have added, ‘I wouldn’t vote for her’. Thing is I dont believe them. Even traditional Labour voters know Labour is over.

    This is not a bout policies and Im not sure it ever will be again . This is all about personality and some (how many? just becoming fed up and looking for a change – any change. Personally I can’t see Ruth Davidson jumping the Eton queue for the top job down South. But up here ? The lazy media have all but crowned her.

  11. Big Jock says:

    Standing on a tank with a Union Jack. That is the image everyone remembers. She is a dog whistle politician. Her demographic are the ultra Brits. That’s how they won a few seats in Scotland. She appeals to the unsavoury elements of Scottish society.

    She is a British Nationalists. That’s why she could never become first minister. The numbers don’t stack up. No Scottish nationalist would ever vote for her, and no moderates would feel comfortable voting for an ultra Brit. That only leaves old people , Orange people and bigots. Maximum Ruth is 25%-28%. It’s not enough.

    1. Alf Baird says:

      As “her demographic are the ultra Brits”, and as most ‘Scots’ reject Tory ideology which we must always assume still includes eventually abolishing Holyrood, then maybe England is the best place for her? She could really turn the screw on Scotland from a position of power in Westminster.

    2. Charles L. Gallagher says:

      Jock, given the way farmers and fishermen in NE are now feeling I think it will be back to about 15% and in the usual Tory fashion she’ll get a whisper in her shell-like, times up, go away or as I would tell her FO.

  12. Craig P says:

    She would get found out soon enough in England, unless the media decided to treat her as the new Farage and give her as easy a ride in England as she gets in Scotland.

  13. Me-Bungo-Pony says:

    Ruth Davidson, the woman who got to play politics on the “easy” setting. As with all who have thus dodged significant challenge, she will struggle badly when “easy” is no longer an option.

  14. Willie says:

    Colonel Davidson to give her her full military title is a one trick pony.

    Her modus operandi is simply to demean, denounce and decry like the snarling attack dog that she is.

    And who can forget the blimp like picture of her sitting with legs akimbo on the barrel of a tank.

    This of course appeals to some of the elderly, the Orange Order and others of the Brit Nat – National Front persuasion.

    Her appeal is limited and Ruth the Mooth will never be First Minister. And all this guff about being the next Prime Minister is just that, guff.

    Moreover, and this is a big moreover, a lot of people will consider it wrong for her wanting to birth a child so that it can be brought up by two same sex parents.

    With no bias whatsoever against sexual orientation, many people consider that a child should be brought up with a mother and a father.

    Moreover her very public announcement of her pregnancy was very carefully stage managed and this will not have gone unnoticed.

    But maybe children in the modern world don’t need fathers or even need to know who their father was.

    None of us after all chose to be born.

    But I digress. Davidson is an aggressive baying one trick politician, and the press are giving her an easy time because it suits the unionist establishment propaganda agenda.

    1. Jim Bennett says:

      “many people consider that a child should be brought up with a mother and a father”.

      Many people are bigoted twats.

      1. Willie says:

        They do Jim, and many are not bigoted twats, if that is what you are suggesting.

        1. Jo says:

          True. It is possible to hold that view without being a bigot.

  15. tartanfever says:

    Bella Editor – We are used to politicians engaging in habitual hypocrisy and being, what was the famous phrase, ‘economical with the truth’? But the scale of Ruth Davidson’s monumental misdirection in Glasgow yesterday is still staggering.

    Also Bella Editor today on twitter (on the non-death of journalist Arkady Babchenko) – ‘Putin apologists will have their work cut out today. Look forward to watching the spectacle’


    1. Yeah – how stupid of me – I was uniquely fooled globally wasn’t I?

      Your equation of Putin’s Russia as having some supposed common cause with Scottish nationalism is grotesquely stupid.

      Now run along

  16. Geordie says:

    Good article, measured and insightful. Makes a pleasant change from a lot of the anti-SNP negative Indy crap so common on Bella’s Facebook these days.

    1. Sorry we’re not a party political outlet, never have been, so there is a danger on the Facebook group that you might encounter views that are not your own.

  17. David Allan says:

    perhaps not politically correct – wait till the hormones kick-in! the tough facade may crumble!

  18. Alba woman says:

    Ruth Davidson continues to defend the indefensible with her support of the Rape Clause. What has she offered the children of Scotland to assist the development of their full talents.? She offers nothing but a dystopian future for our beloved children.

    Davidson had no hesitation in being part of a strategy to undermine Scottish society with her choice of and support for dubious candidates and affiliates of the Orange Order.

    Not the best choices Ruth. Maybe in a few months you might make other more valuable choices for our children’s future.

  19. Angus MacRuary says:

    Ruth Davidson reminds me of Carlos Kaiser, the Brazilian footballer who was basically crap but managed to hide his limited ability for years by being able to do a few tricks, get signed up by major teams and then feign injury to avoid playing. He became what was known as a “farce footballer”. Ruth Davidson is a “farce politician”, the empty barrel that rumbles and then rolls away when someone wants to look into it.

    1. MBC says:

      A phoney.

  20. Iain McIntosh says:

    “As the writer Jamie Maxwell notes: “It’s not that the centre/centre-right commentariat don’t know about Ruth Davidson’s habit of pandering to xenophobic & racist elements in Scottish society, it’s that they don’t care. Publicly acknowledging the fact would upset their campaign to have her installed as Tory leader.””

    Very well and accurately put!

    Ms Davidson’s warts and personal defects are being air brushed from our screens and airwaves by her friends. I am confident she will trip up, bullies always do!

  21. w.b.robertson says:

    Dear, dear. Many folk may not like her, even detest her – but she is the most successful Tory politician that has turned up in Scotland for decades. So she is economical with what many view as the truth. So what- she is a politician. She also delivered seats. Political activists should be careful with their choice of words. Hate is often born out of fear.

    1. David Allan says:

      “She also delivered seats” beating the post-referendum drum for unionism Annabelle Goldie would likely have delivered the same!

    2. Alf Baird says:

      She may have delivered seats, but that has not been so difficult on the back of Scotland’s rapid and substantial ongoing pro-No population change. The census tells us that some one million people have come to live in Scotland from rest-UK over just the past two decades, since devolution in fact. These people are mostly cultural No voters. Were Scotland’s population to continue to undergo such change, as seems highly likely for a number of reasons, Scots will probably become a minority within Scotland by 2040 if not well before. The current unionist held constituencies well reflect this rapid population change and the distinct voting preferences of this group. In essence a monkey could win these seats so long as it was waving the union flag and learned to say ‘SNP bad’. As Davidson has proved, she does not need to say anything worthwhile or even remotely believable in order to get votes for her party, and the msm do not question whatever she utters. She is primarily selling and protecting the one-nation message for British Nationalism and hence offers a robust anti-independence stance at all times. That is the strategy. That is essentially her role and the role of her monkeys, sorry, colleagues. They have no other purpose. A move to Westminster is her reward. And the possibility once there in the corridors of real power to do real damage to Scotland.

  22. David Allan says:

    Aye ALF , if we are to be deprived again we indigenous Scots will mibbees just have to descend on the Irish Republic where there exists some hope some aspiration and continued membership of the EU.

    If they’ll have me. I see myself settling into retirement in County Kerry! Hopefully my family will follow.

    1. Alf Baird says:

      I might say the same David, not least as ma grandfaither wis a Durkin fi Cork, and my wife the daughter of an O’Sullivan also from that area. Ireland is our dear friend and ally. However, as the great twa Corries said, independence is near…..bureaucratically and constitutionally all that requires to dissolve the UK parliamentary charade of a union is a majority of Scotland’s MP’s, that wi hae juist noo, and for Blackford to do that now, to tear up the treaty and act of union and throw it at them, and say goodbye, fer guid.

    2. Charles L. Gallagher says:

      David, many years ago I took the precaution of taking-up my Irish Citizenship and now I’m glad that I did. I’m sure that you’ll find the Irish very welcoming and Co. Kerry is very nice with some wonderful scenery and excellent salmon/sea trout/trout rivers.

      Personally I hope to survive long enough to have my Scottish Passport.

  23. Wul says:

    This actually worries me quite a bit.

    It seems Davidson has learned a lesson that Trump already knew; it doesn’t actually matter what your own policies are or what you say. The job is to create a buzz around yourself and go as far as you can. No one really cares about facts, the story is all that matters.

    This story is called; “Ruth Davidson is Going Places” That’s all she needs. That and enough “media commentators” ( I won’t call them “journalists” because they are not) who also want to get in on the buzz.

    It seems to signal the beginning of the death of any sense of responsibility in public affairs. Sure, we’ve always had sensation and spectacle, but this is a new, frightening phase where you don’t even need to bother about or acknowledge facts.

    For her to say “While it’s all very well for me…to espouse the merits of a market economy, how does that work for a teenager growing up in a pit town with no pit…” when her own party sanctioned the beating of miners by police, the impoverishment of manual workers, the destruction of trades unions and the selling off of the decent public housing that gave people security, that is just breathtaking in its hypocrisy, cynicism and malefaction.

    We are in a sorry state.

  24. Cubby says:

    Our media is a national disgrace. Propaganda TV channels and propaganda writing journalists. English owned through and through spouting a lot of lies and crap to support British Nationalism.

    Vote for Scottish Independence or future generations will suffer the slow slow death of Scotland as a nation.

    Lying British Nationalists want Scotlands resources. How can you be friends with someone who has pinched your wallet and then tells you to be grateful when they give you some of its contents back.

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.