I presume they are attempting a little saltire subterfuge but are more likely to be skewered by the rotisserie-esque portent of its design.
G H Graham – sorry -snap!
The Tory Double Cross.
How long I wonder until some wag with graphics talent puts a slight kink in the end of each arm of the crooked cross?
“Scottish Tories have just launched a new logo to BOOST attractiveness of the brand.”
Oh crap. I can’t believe it. Just when things were going so well for independence. This could change everything.
In 2006 when the last Tories logo was revealed, it was admitted that the Tories paid a designer £40,000 to replace the torch with a tree which they claimed it represented “strength, endurance, renewal and growth”. Lord Tebbit’s opinon at the time was that it looked like “a bunch of broccoli”. I wonder how much they spent on the latest version?
The image reminds me of the table top game, Pick Up Sticks where players attempt in turn to remove one stick from a loosely stacked pile without disturbing any others. otherwise losing their turn.
Perhaps there’s a metaphor in there: Tories attempt in turn, to remove each & every blue stick until only the red one remains without anyone noticing? Hey presto, ENGLAND!
And since England = Britain = UK, the one state, one party, one nation is complete. Hang on, I heard that from someone else already. Oh, that’s right, Ed (Comprehensively educated) Miliband, secret Conservative ajutant.
G H Graham
Why would someone want to suggest the Tories would use a Buddhist symbol?
I don’t understand what the light blue line is for in the new Tory logo. That doesn’t appear in the Saltire or the Union flag. Besides, the logo looks like it’s from the 80s. It’s really very poor.
Well London Labour have been re-branding too with their one nation tory union jack stuff. How long before ‘Scottish’ (ahem) Labour join them?
For the Tories, I thought the tree was better. I remember in the past going out to vote SNP, seeing the new Tory tree on the ballot and almost switching allegiances due to the inspiring nature of their logo. I felt filled with British pride, and as strong/sure as an oak. Then I remembered they were really shit so voted SNP.
The old Tory tree logo didn’t work because it was full of dead wood.
God, I’m almost funny.
G H Graham
Sorry for going O/T but I was wondering if this is the sort of thing that Lamont agrees with with regards to Social Services.
Is this the sort of thing that we van expect from GCC in future?
“Children removed from parents because the parents support Independence!”
The leaked poster is brilliant. I agree with Marcia, it should be everywhere. It’s all we need really to show or give to waverers. I’m going to try to print some and give them to all my unconvinced friends, family members and acquaintances. Keep up the good work!
Doug, I think the lighter blue is a small acknowledgement of the proper background colour of the Saltire. The dark blue in the rest of the logo is the blue of the Union Flag. That one little streak of lighter blue is their token Scottish colour.
Dead tree for a double cross.
They’re being a bit obvious aren’t they? :)
This is well OT, but you’re all invited to hear Campbell Martin & other speakers laying out the case for a Socialist Scotland and the SSP’s role in the Yes campaign – the Civic Centre, Glasgow St, Ardrossan, 7pm this coming Tuesday – we’ve been out leafleting all week, are hoping for a decent turnout. You’ll be made very welcome.
Thats where the Rotherham case ultimately leads to. But as has been pointed out elsewhere the two foster parents once were labour voters, so the real crime is apotaspy . Director of SW Joyce Thackery has previous at Bradfird Youth Service of this type of fuckwittery as well as the recwent sex grooming scandal in Rotherham. See Provate Eye past copies
Has anyone else noticed that today on Google News Board that ” Scotland ” does not exist in the U.K.
Can anyone find an answer for me?
I complained to Google years ago that Scotland,England and Wales aren’t identified on their maps,we’re all just “United Kingdom”. Of course I got no response whatsoever! I just emailed Historic Scotland the other day for using Google maps and got some insipid,pish reply that didn’t even remotely address the point I was making!
It took me a minute but it was just a typo methinks.
Apostasy is the word, and I agree with you.
I assume he meant apostasy.
The headline reason is that, as children from a minority ethnic background, then being in the care of UKIP members might be a bit fraught. Certainly Nigel Farage’s opening gambit when interviewed about this was to decry open door immigration,
I don’t know enough about this case to judge, there may be more, or less, than meets the eye
RE UKIP fostering.
It was not too long ago that supporting independence / the SNP could get you fired. We even have unionists today trying to ‘out’ independence supporters to their employers in the hope of causing the individuals concerned harm, ridiculous as that is today.
But then at the same time, the British Government banned party political broadcasts by a number of legitimate democratic parties as recently as 1965 (e.g. SNP, Plaid) even though these had elected representatives in parliament etc. Within living memory for many.
Britain has a very, very poor history of democracy and is well known for suppression of it both at home and abroad.
UKIP have certainly attracted a number of BNP supporters to their cause and they have had candidates who have stood for election that were previously active in the BNP so people do have some justifiable concerns.
From what I’ve read it seems the foster parents were previously members of the Labour Party but how much of that is spin I’m not too sure.
If they were BNP members would people feel comfortable with it?
I don’t know enough about UKIP apart from them being little Englanders, if UKIP does have the same\similar goals to the BNP then surely people should be concerned?
I don’t understand this ‘being outed’ for supporting independence can get you into trouble with your employer.
Is this a middle class thing?
No wonder we are shite at rugby.
If you are in need of a laugh go onto the better together twitter site and have a look at the pictures of their day out around the country They claim many were pleased to see them but I could not see a member of the public (even in the background) in their photos The streets appeared empty
UKIPs views on immigration aren’t that far from labour or the tories and none of their views are illegal. vulgar and distasteful but not illegal. I’d like to know who informed social services as they were members of a political party as that data is usually private so probably a data protection breach. Also does a persons political views affect your ability to foster children? Remember the couple had being foster parents for 7 years with no complaints and the woman has a mixed race family. They were good enough to foster when they voted labour. Perhaps UKIP are taking labour votes? And this cannot be allowed in Rotherham (monkey in red tie country
Real social workers must despair when this kind of rubbish happens. Excuse typos keyboard is on last legs.
I GENIUNELY wondered if I was on bbc scotlandshire instead of the real thing …
Re people fearing for their jobs for supporting independence, as an SNP activist on “Royal Deeside” I can tell you there are people who work on the big estates (Balmoral, etc.) who do conceal their politics for fear of their employer finding out. This is still true today.
Had a look at there facebook page of the pics!
Their double cross does appear to be another own goal Enjoy!
An act of treachery, perpetrated on a previous partner in a deceit.
The term ‘double-cross’ has been used in various contexts for many centuries, usually as a straightforward reference to the shape of two crosses, as in the architectural design of cathedrals for example. That meaning is unrelated to the current figurative ‘cheating’ usage of ‘double cross’, which dates only from the late 18th century.
To find the origin of the expression ‘double cross’ as it is now used, we need to look first at one of the many meanings of the noun ‘cross’. From the mid 1700s, a ‘cross’ was a transaction that wasn’t ‘square’, i.e. not honest and fair. The term was most often used in a sporting context, where a cross was a match that was lost as a result of a corrupt collusory arrangement between the principals involved. You might expect that a ‘double cross’ was a deceit in which two parties collude in a swindle and one of them later goes back on the arrangement, crossing both the original punters and his erstwhile partner in crime. Although that is the case, the term ‘double’ doesn’t here mean simply ‘two times’. ‘To double’ had long been used to mean ‘to make evasive turns or shifts; to act deceitfully’. This derives from the imagery of someone doubling back over a previous route. This ‘doubling’ gave rise to the term ‘double dealing’, which has been used since the early 1500s to refer to someone duplicitously saying one thing and doing another, for example, a ‘double agent’.
Given that, by the mid 1700s, the language included both ‘cross’ and ‘double’, it wasn’t a great leap to introduce the term ‘double cross’ to refer to aggravated duplicity. Double crossing dealings are the precise opposite of those that are ‘fair and square‘, but the two expressions do have one thing in common – they are both tautological. ‘Fair’ and ‘square’ both mean honest and ‘double’ and ‘cross’ both mean dishonest.
The earliest reference that I have found to ‘double cross’ in print is in David Garrick’s 1768 farce The Irish Widow. The play centres on various practical jokes, and the phrase occurs as a play on words between two of the meanings of cross – ‘marriage’ and ‘swindle’:
Sir Patrick O’Neale: I wish you had a dare swate crater [dear sweet creature] of a daughter like mine, that we might make a double cross of it. Mr. Whittle: (aside) That would be a double cross, indeed!
The sporting usage was defined a few years later, in an early self-help tome, written by ‘Two Citizens of the World’ and ‘Containing Hints to the Unwary to Avoid the Stratagems of Swindlers, Cyprians and Lawyers’, i.e. How To Live In London, 1828:
“A double cross, is where a boxer receives money to lose, and afterwards goes in and beats his man.”
A systematic policy of double crossing was given the UK government’s official, if covert, sanction during the WWII. In 1941, MI5 set up a military counter espionage unit called The Twenty Committee, chaired by John Masterman. The naming of this unit clearly linked the double crosses of the Roman numerals for twenty (XX) with one of the unit’s aims, which was to ‘double cross’ Germany by coercing German spies to become English double agents. The coercion was less than subtle; captured German agents were given an offer they couldn’t refuse, i.e. feed false information back to Germany or be shot.
During the Cold War, following the publishing of Masterman’s The Double-Cross System in the War of 1939-1945, in 1972, the terms ‘double cross’ and ‘double agent’ became much more commonplace
It’s nice to see the tories are as unthinkingly stupid to themselves as they are to the rest of the country. HERE COMES THE “DOUBLE CROSSERS” the new tory motto for Scotland.
What a sad collection of pictures C.H. Mind you I had to laugh when I saw the wee lassie wi her SALTIRE flag.
Actually the new Scottish Tory logo reminded me of Ker-plunk! Loss of marbles is the first thing that springs to mind, combined with that ‘going down the plug-hole’ effect when you pull the wrong sticks out and lose.
I could have saved them a fortune on their logo, here you go:
(OK that didn’t work – imagine a union jack in this space…)
Sunday Herald is apparently running a front page claiming that the SNP are pledging a smoke free Scotland. I wonder how long they’ll give the SNP before claiming this to be “another” failed SNP pledge.
Went to see Skyfall last night. Good film, but parts of it could be a unionist propaganda movie.
Bond waxing lyrical about “that damn ‘love of country’” when his motivation for his job is questioned. Then we go back to his childhood home – an isolated house called Skyfall somewhere in the general direction of the Drumochter Pass. Complete with stag and ancient retainer gamekeeper who doesn’t know what young master James does for a living.
Then cut to the end and we have Bond on the roof of the MI6 HQ in London looking out over the cityscape, shot slightly from below, and one huge Union flag right beside him with half a dozen others visible on other rooftops in the background.
I kind of wonder what Sean Connery thinks of that, at the moment….
I think he might too busy with a basin to comment at the moment Morag.
Just wondering here if Andrew Wilson was on the same Norwegian trip as Iain McWhirter last week.
Leaving links that direct readers to “The Scotsman” and “The Herald” boosts their click rate which means they can stay in business longer so they can continue to print bare faced lies & pro British State propaganda.
Reading & responding to their editorials won’t change their attitudes until the Administrator is called in to begin the process of winding up both these titles. The sooner “The Scotsman” & “The Herald” disappear from the internet/news stands, the better we will all be.
It is simply unhealthy to have these two Scottish titles unable to present clear, fact based evidence, offer a blanced viewpoint & thus allow the reader to reach their own, reasoned conclusions. Democracy is better served when the spectrum of opinion is expressed in equal measure once the truth is uncovered using thorough, investigative journalism.
Neither paper delivers good, investigative journalism especially when it comes to politics anymore beyond the token opinion pieces by a few half hearted, half arsed converts. And what does it say about their target audiences when they are clearly more interested in the financial distress of an old fashioned, bigoted football club from Glasgow?
In essence, the two titles are colloquial comics in which the content is directed by people only too willing to head a propaganda news channel on behalf of corrupt unionist parties from Westminster.
But hey, if you enjoy the status quo, go right ahead and click away. Just stop moaning every time Gardham gets out of bed early to alleviate his all consuming, chronic, vindictive, bitter hatred of Scotland’s altering political course by publishing lies, misleading statements, contradictory ‘facts’ & yet another headline using the phrase “…Salmond accused of …”
G H Graham
That’s good, Rev….really good.
That’s what should be getting plastered all over billboards once we enter the last year before the Referendum. I can’t see how the Unionists are going to get around it.
What would their version be…
Say ‘No’ to being an equal nation in the world
Say ‘No’ to re-investing the oil money into future industries
Say ‘No’ to regulating the Banks. Believe in the Free Market
Say ‘No’ to the EU and the United Nations when they ask us not to fight illegal wars
Say ‘No’ to banking the oil money into a trust fund just like Norway
Say ‘No’ to taking the same standards such as Scandinavia
Say ‘No’ to …to….to….(struggling)….(struggling)….errrrrrr….gonnie just stay in the Union, eh…please..gonnie…it’s great ye ken!
Noticed a story in the Herald today (please don’t visit them) about Labour changing the rules over list candidates at Holyrood. Previously a candidate wasn’t allowed to stand on both the list and in a constituency, which led to many of the old guard being dumped out in 2011. Clearly they are setting things up to help get some of their usual suspects back in at the next election.
However, there’s an additional hurdle. Basically it seems, it’s very hard to oust a sitting MSP, so another rule change is needed. The current 22 nonentity Labour list MSPs are set to kick up merry hell about it.
Fun and games awaits, hopefully.
Ooooooo Guardian’s in bother again fer faddling with contributor’s articles. This one on Catalan independence.
just read that myself, shocking. I suspect going by the Newsnetscotland article that the problem isn’t Guardian editorial bias (not that it isnt there!) but more likely the Guardian’s Spanish correspondent, it sounds like the bias and editing is happening when the articles are being translated.
I also see Kevin McKenna has another good article up today. Rapidly becoming a lone voice of reason at that publication, but at least theres one now. What a change from a few months ago when he was singing Lamont’s praises and attacking Salmond at every opportunity.
O/T I had a very long and interesting chat with a very good friend from right back to childhood. We live quite far apart now, but met for a good catch up last night.
He votes SNP but for the moment – due primarily to emotion he fully admits – is somewhat torn by the referendum and is stuck on ‘No’. The reason? Well, he is half English and thus so is half his family; this leaves him with a strong emotional attachment to ‘British’ which he finds hard to overcome. He is no fan of Westminster and as noted votes SNP and would be open to Devo Max. We talked for a long time about the politics and history of the independence movement and maybe I have given him more cause to think whether he should vote with the heart or the head.
However, what was very nice to hear was he said something along these lines: “While for the moment I believe it is better for the UK to stick together and I expect I’ll vote ‘No’, I will still vote SNP. I am also very angry at the way the SNP are being demonised by the press; they are doing a lot of good for Scotland and I will not stop voting for them”.
As I’ve said before, the unionist tactic of playing the man not the ball is a tactic destined to failure. It was nice to hear it straight from someone who’d say ‘no’ if polled for the moment and who is not deeply into politics, but paying some attention.
Seems to me that the No camp have put the cart before the horse. They’re pulling out all the arguments to win the referundum and save the Union, rather than trying to save the Union then win the referendum. Took me a while to figure out what “banal” Unionism really meant. They are trying to defend the idea of a Union while standing by as the westminster parties do their very best to dismantle it. It would explain why so many of their arguments are so childish. It’s why a certain Mr Hothersall could declare in a comment on one of LPW’s recent blog posts; without the slightest trace of irony, that there was no strategy to labour in Holyrood when it came to attacking Salmond and the SNP.
If they had the conviction of the their professed beliefs and came out campaigning against cuts to public services, saving the NHS, regulating banks, an end to the harrassment of out elderly and disabled. If labour came out and said it would undo the damage of coalition and undo the damage done by blair and brown. The indy ref would be a tough prospect to sell.
But they are by and large blind to the fact that the Union is falling around their ears. They are obessed with the idea of a Union because it’s been there for so long. They’ve forgotten what it stood for while worshipping the symbols.
Thats why Hothersall could make that comment and how Darling could talk about us being culturally impoverished because we wouldn’t be listening to British music anymore. It’s why Brown could say we would be a colony and Miliband wants to wear Thatchers mantle and Lamont wants to kiss it’s hem.
But at the heart of this no campaign is a contradiction. The first Unionists were in fact strong nationalists with strong sense of what was right for Scotland and what Scotland could bring to the table. It was to be a partnership of equals. But look closely at this campaign and you see no sign of that whatsoever. If they try to define it in positive terms it is always what Scotland will lose. What Scotland will suffer. Its as if they don’t want to admit what the UK would lose if Scotland leaves. They can bring themselves to position their arguments in that way for fear it would cost them votes. So the campaign of negativity is purely political. Its not because they believe it, its because they think its the only way to win the vote.
The Guardian is swiftly becoming a title that doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. Almost against reason isn’t it, that Kevin McKenna is the only commentator attracting a decent review??!!???
To be fair, his writing had picked up a good deal of recent times. I think after Johann’s lurch to the right Mr McKenna felt quite betrayed. That can often open your eyes a bit.
Sorry to go O/Tish here but as I said on cybernats site I think the uniomnists are treating the referendum as a 100M sprint as opposed to a marathon, which it actually is. !000′s of apologies for the London (cough) Olympics (Cough, cough) imagery here.