Three Tweets

I've been caught up in a bit of a twitter storm over the last twenty four hours.

I'll come to the cause in a moment.

I'm a great twitterer and I very much enjoy it. You can exchange views with all and sundry about everything from food to football to what's on the telly. And of course there is a lot of politics where people of opposing views will express strong opinions which, even if you don't share them, are accepted to be sincerely held. Including a lot of very good people who believe in the cause of Scottish Independence.

But, to be honest, there is one group who spoil the Party and that is a small group of Nationalists collectively known as the cybernats by even the more sensible on  their own side. Almost all anonymous, I suspect with multiple twitter identities, they will every so often go into overdrive about some supposed offence to their Party or (particularly) its leaders. And they do so without any regard at all for the facts.

My first experience of this was about a year ago. John Swinney was on Newsnight and repeated the falsehood that the reason that the Referendum was in the second half of the Parliament was because that had been in the SNP Manifesto. Kez Dugdale was on for us and tried to make that point but the format prevented her from doing so and I posted a tweet observing that Swinney had been lying. I then went to bed.

The next time I looked at my timeline I was beseiged by cybernat comment that I was lying. That Mr Swinney had said no such thing and that I should apologise to him. Much of this was mixed in with personal abuse directed at me.

I was so taken aback at the vehemence and certainty of this attack this that I began to doubt myself. Perhaps I had misheard or misunderstood Swinney's remarks? Perhaps I would find myself obliged to make a withdrawal, embarassing though that might be. So, eventually I looked at the debate again on the iPlayer and Swinney had in fact said exactly what I had alleged! I pointed this out, even posting a link to the actual programme but still the abuse continued, I can only assume in the hope that most twitterers would not have time to look at the link. This went on for days and even weeks or months later would make the occasional reappearance describing me as the man who had lied about John Swinney. I remain utterly bemused by the whole incident except to say that it worried me that patent and easily verifiable truth seemed to be of no consideration in the attack.

I've been through this again over the last 24 hours. Yesterday I published my usual Sunday blog and one, perfectly sensible, Nationalist tweeted that I seemed to making a case against a No vote. In moments I responded.

@realcolinquinn Better 100 years of the Tories than the turn on the Poles and the Pakis that would follow independence failing to deliver.

Now, you can agree or disagree with that sentiment and, with the benefit of hindsight, I should have put the words "Poles and Pakis" in quotation marks for it is clearly a sentiment I was ascribing to others. I also accept that, for some people, even when put in the mouths of others the "P word" is never acceptable. But I did not for a moment expect the hysteria that has followed. I myself have been accused of being a racist. An Anti-Pakistani racist; an anti-Scottish racist; even, it appears an anti-SNP racist, whatever that is. And that is the least of it. One cybernat even attempted to report me to the Police over twitter! More worryingly, words have been put into my mouth which I have never uttered and then condemned as wholly unacceptable. Which they would have been had I said them.

Throughout I have attempted to make the simple point that the part (and it is only a part) of the Nationalists support that currently blame the English for all our woes, would, inevitably, on finding that Independence is not a cure for all our ills, look round for somebody else to blame. All historic precedent suggests that will be an internal minority as it was, to a greater or lesser degree of seriousness, for the Jews and Gypsies in Hungary; for the Anglo-Irish in de Valera's Ireland; for the Russians in the inter-war Baltic Republics and indeed for the Asians in Uganda. It is the inflated hopes that (some) have for Independence: the automatic eradication of poverty; full employment; the reversal of all benefit cuts; the insulation from all world economic factors and, on top of that, tax cuts all round, that leads one to the inevitable conclusion that many of these hopes would  be dashed. After all, in the small print, the best claim that the SNP themselves make is that we'll all be £500 better off. Not a small sum but in no way justifying that kind of transformation in our living standards.

Now perhaps Scotland could dodge the historical precedents on what usually happens in that circumstance.. Happy to have that argument but on the basis of what I have said rather than what I am claimed to have said.

And that leads me to my final tweet, one which I do regret.

While I was at the Party Conference, I nipped out for a fag and tweeted

"Two separate conversations about the fear of some Nationalist suicides on 19th September 2014. Their Party has a duty of care here."

In this I was only reporting conversations I'd had moments before but it was, nonetheless, an inappropriate topic for twitter. And its brevity made it sound flippant, which was not my intention.

But what had been the basis for these conversations, for they were in no way maliciously intended?

There is a small element of the SNP support, particularly drawn to the internet, who seem to me to winding themselves up in to a state of near hysteria about the Referendum. They are not being helped by remarks such as those made by Nicola Sturgeon that the alternative to a Yes vote would be "nothing". Yes or No, the world will go on and it is incumbent on both sides to make that clear. For there are vulnerable people in all political Parties who might not appreciate that what they are being told is mere rhetoric.

It is our great good fortune in Scotland that we do not have to make the choice "Liberty or Death". We are free already. What is on offer is only a different sort of freedom. It might not be my choice but it will be decided democratically and should be decided on fact rather than on base false assertion.

And that will be my last word on this matter.

This isnae working

It is a truth universally acknowledged that all Governing Parties lose seats in mid-term Local Government Elections. Tony Blair lost mid-term seats between his landslides in 1997 and 2001 as did Margaret Thatcher between her's in 1983 and 1987. I'm trying to keep my blogs a bit shorter so I won't diverge into why this happens but rather stick to how it happens.

It happens in three ways.

1. Previous supporters of the National Governing Party show their disillusionment by not voting at all. Those many who vote at a general Election but who do not turn out for local polls are not the same people every time. Far from it. In the bigger picture however this group is almost unimportant. If they haven't switched to the opposition (or anybody else) mid-term then they are unlikely ever to do so. And they will still vote at a General Election.

2. People vote for protest Parties. Historically this is one of the reasons the Lib-Dems traditionally do well in mid-terms. Certainly they have a genuine tradition of "pavement politics" which plays better at this level but the most honest of them would admit that there is also a "none of the above" element to this (part of their) mid-term vote. This vote might be important for the recipients of it, particularly if they believe they might hang on to it, but it's effectively useless to the main opposition. If they can't get this vote from the government mid-term they are unlikely ever to do so.

3. Previous supporters of the Governing Party switch to the opposition. This is the only really important group. Those who aren't just pissed off with their own side but sufficiently impressed with the alternative to (at least) consider giving them their support.

Now, having urged the Libs towards a bit of honesty above, I'm now going to do the same for my own side. Last week there weren't nearly enough of this last group. And that's a major problem.

Now, I know all the caveats: That these elections were only (largely) in parts of the Country that have never been sympathetic to the Labour Party; that in the few marginal Parliamentary Seats actually being contested we did quite well; that even if we didn't do particularly well, nonetheless under First Past the Post, UKIP is a major problem for the Tories.

All these things are true but a strategy based on an advantageous result between the Tories and UKIP is surely not where we should be now? The analogy is with a football team who, losing 2-0 in the last game of the season might yet avoid relegation dependent on other results. It's better than being actually down but hardly an ideal end to the year if you're more interested in what's happening on the radio than what's happening on the pitch.

I've thought long and hard about alternative explanations for why Labour is in this pickle but it is difficult to avoid the obvious conclusion: there is simply no enthusiasm for the idea of Ed Miliband as Prime Minister.

I've been going to Scottish Labour Party Conferences for a very long time and the Party Leaders speech is always a "big thing". A much "bigger thing" than the Scottish Leader's. Nationalists might protest that this is not as it should be but they should accept from me that it is nonetheless the case.

But this year, Ed came and went from Inverness largely in a spirit of indifference. We weren't unhappy to see him, we just weren't that bothered. Young members weren't pressing forward to get in the background of his photographs; older hacks to announce, on shaking his hand, that they had now done the same with every leader since Gaitskell. And no member of any age looked him in the eye and stated with any sincerity that they couldn't wait for him to be in Downing Street. Johann's speech on the following day generated an altogether greater buzz although she is, in theory, much, much further from power and, for the Labour Party at least, also a much more minor figure.

So, if Ed generates so little enthusiasm in the Labour Party, is it any wonder that he fails to do so in the Country?

Why is that? Sure he might be accused of being policy light but all Parties are policy light at this point of the electoral cycle. Sure he looks a bit odd, but Gordon Brown (who, let's not forget  pre-office at least, was longed for by much of the Party and even a significant part of the electorate) was nonetheless no oil painting.   John Major, the unjustly forgotten man who got the biggest Tory vote ever, was portrayed on spitting image as a grey man obsessed with peas.

No, Ed's problem is that he has go no back story. He is a professional apparatchik who has never had a job of any sort outside politics. And back story is important in politics. Cameron is in some ways open to a similar criticism but the Tories built a back story for him. Even the bits that Labour didn't like; the silver spoon upbringing; the high-jinks at university; the "born to rule" Eton narrative provided a certain colour. Some of the rest of it was created, such as the famous bicycling incident. And one bit of it, the tragedy of his wee boy, struck a chord across the political divide. By the eve of the Election however, like it or loath it, you felt you knew something about David Cameron.

What do we know about Ed? That his dad had a much more interesting life than him and, eh, that's it. For there is nothing to know. He moved seamlessly from University politics to Special Adviser; from Special Adviser, on the back of patronage, to being Member of Parliament for a place with which  he had no previous connection; from Member of Parliament to Cabinet and from Cabinet to Leader, pausing only to lose a General  Election on the way. The only turbulence on that journey was that he beat his brother for that  final post but no matter how that came about its difficult to see how it might be woven into a positive narrative. It is not enough

So is it any surprise that he proves less appealing to potential Tory defectors than Nigel Farage? For Farage is the master of back story. We on the left might shout about his Party's xenophobia; about their wholly unrealistic spending and tax cutting pledges; even about a false narrative as to how Farage himself is where he is. That's not the point. Who would you rather have a pint with is the question many, many voters ask? Who would be more entertaining company? Above all, who wouldn't lose sight in the pub argument of the importance of buying his own round?

I want to finish however with a blunter analogy: the reality talent show. Much as it is mocked, "the journey" is an important part of their narrative.

So it's the middle of December and you've got one vote. The finalists are on the one hand somebody who went to stage school; who then trained with one of the leading musical artists of the day, who also happened to be  a family friend, and was then found a job in their backing group. If they don't win they've got a cast job lined up in a new West End musical. Their rival is somebody who left school at sixteen to work  in a hairdressers and who, before the show, made a bit of extra money singing in pubs and clubs. If they don't win, they've managed to keep their hairdressing job open and secure bookings from a number of Miners' Welfares.  Before either sings a note, who are you voting for?

Narrative is important. And regrettably Ed's narrative does not have the X-Factor.

It's no excuse that he (only) beat two others with almost identical career paths.

We can do better.

Time to think again.

Ovations

Activists of all Parties are familiar with the need for "duty" ovations.

It is the modern convention of all Party Conferences that the leader gets a standing ovation just for turning up. And that another ovation when they've finished would follow even if, in between, they had addressed the delegates with nothing more than a selection of local names picked at random from the telephone directory.

And all Parties are also familiar with the bizarre requirement that inadequate leaders or inadequate speeches are sometimes felt to require a counter factual hysterical response in the hall.

IDS was never received other than rapturously by the Tory faithful while the utterly mundane performance by Eck in Inverness last month was cheered by the Nationalists as if the new Demosthenese were among them. Or was, at least, so cheered once they realised he'd finally finished.

But, sometimes a speech draws a spontaneous and genuine response.

Lest I am accused of gratuitously insulting the First Minister, anybody who saw his famous "Braveheart" Conference speech  where he finished by adopting the personality of William Wallace (or at least William Wallace as played by Mel Gibson) would not have failed to note that his activists were on their feet before he reached the second syllable of his final word: "Freedum!!!"

And it is not for nothing that Michael Heseltine was described as the man who could always find the clitoris of the Conservative Party.

Johann made such a speech on Saturday.

I was in Inverness for two days and by lunchtime on Saturday I had half written my blog in my head.

"We know what we're against: Independence and the Tories, but we don't yet know what we're for".

And if they were being honest, so would many of those whose freedom of expression is more restricted by collective responsibility than that enjoyed by me, a semi detached blogger with no remaining personal ambition.

All failing opposition Party Conferences are of course obsessed to a degree with the Governing Party. Labour Conferences were obsessed with Thatcher throughout the eighties. It was the one few things that united us. As indeed were Tory and SNP Conferences in Blair's Golden period from 1997 till Iraq. Had he not died so prematurely, I'm sure SNP Conferences would have become obsessed with big Donald as well.

But successful oppositions don't just offer outrage they also offer an alternative to outrage.

And Johann started to do that on Saturday afternoon. The focus might have been on her "Scotland versus Salmond" line but the more telling line was that we should be shaped not by our villains but by our heroes.

And Scottish Labour's heroes are seldom flamboyant figures. John Wheatley; Tom Johnston; Willie Ross; Geoff Shaw and Dick Stewart;  big Donald himself and, dare I still maintain it, Gordon Brown. Seldom given to grandstanding but very much given over to the daily policy and legislative grind that brings about real change in the lives of ordinary working people.

So Johann's response to the Nationalists wasn't rhetorical pyrotechnics. It was practical proposals. On personal care for the elderly; on genuine education for all; on childcare; on land reform; on prioritising child poverty.

And the hall noted that. And it wasn't the personal story at the start; or the (good) one liners on the way that brought the Conference to its feet at the end of Johann's speech. It was the realisation that suddenly we were back to being something more than "not the SNP". That we were already looking beyond 18th September 2014 to 5th May2016. That the ideas whispered on the fringe: on social housing; on local government reform; on modernisation of the health service, were not taking place in a vacuum.

We should not lose sight of the fact that it is a very long way back from the debacle of May 2011 but it was Chairman Mao who observed that the longest journey starts with a single step. At least we've finally started out on the road.

Truth is not unimportant

I see more than one thousand new clients every year. Many depart after a single visit to my office, on the basis that they don't have a case or that I'm not the solution. And these clients are almost immediately forgotten.

But some stay with you.

About ten years ago a respectable middle aged man presented in my office bearing a summons from the Court of Session seeking damages against him and the Motor Insurance Bureau for a significant six figure sum. I asked him for some background.

"My car was off the road" he explained "so I asked my pal if I could borrow his car. I assumed my insurance  would cover me and so did he. Only it didn't. And I had an accident".

Not a morally reprehensible accident, just the outcome of the momentary error of judgement that might affect any of us who drive. But one which had written off a high value other vehicle and injured its occupant and caused them significant loss of their, high value, earnings. Hence the pursuit of six figure damages.

I explained the doleful likely consequence in law flowing from this to be met with the response "but I don't have £100,000."

"Do you own your house?" I inquired, and with that the blood drained from his face. For he did, and it had a significant net value, albeit that was all he had in the world. And was primarily looked at by him not as an asset but as simply where he and his family lived in relative comfort after twenty years of honest toil..

After a bit of my ruling out the various suggestions he made as to how he might avoid losing all he had in the world, we parted company. And I've no idea what the outcome was. Although, logically. I do.

Scotland, like every other advanced legal system, has a law of verbal injury. I might not like Alex Salmond but I couldn't write a letter to the newspapers making the wholly false claim that he was a serial adulterer or a drunken sot without expecting some consequence from that action. And no newspaper would publish such an allegation anyway.

But what's been revealed this week is that some people; bright, intelligent people seem to labour under the misapprehension that the same rules do not, or at least should not, apply to the internet.

Well, they ought to (my opinion only I accept) and they do (a statement of fact).

I hold no particular brief for Mr Ian Taylor. He's a Tory and I would no more wish to be making common cause with him than Patrick Harvie would wish be making common cause with Brian Soutar. But single issues make strange bedfellows. Michael Foot and Enoch Powell famously made common cause to defeat (a particular) House of Lords reform

But what I say is this. It is unacceptable for lies to be told about Mr Taylor. On the internet or anywhere else. And even more unacceptable if lies are being told about him simply because he holds a political position that others might disagree with.

If an anti-independence website was daft enough to publish an article maintaining that Mr and Mrs Weir, the lottery winners principally funding Yes Scotland, were, contrary to all available evidence, terrible neighbours; and to do so, not because that was true,  but simply because it might discourage their continued  financial support for Yes Scotland, then I would positively encourage the Weirs to sue. Indeed, I'd act for them myself, pro bono.

For lies are never an acceptable basis of political discourse.

Some of those telling lies about Mr Taylor have seen sense. Good. Others have persisted in a spirit of defiance.

I look forward to them being asked if they own their house.

Thatcher

Your time is your time.

I went to University the same year as Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Conservative Party.

And from the first moment she featured in my consciousness as "even more right wing than Ted Heath!", I was opposed to everything she stood for.

I still am. For in the midst of all the retrospective "she changed the country" tributes, I won't forget the callous  way in which that was achieved, or ever believe that much of that change was for the better.

But all day today I have had not a sense of satisfaction but rather a sense of loss.

I  fought Mrs Thatcher and her ideas pretty much all my life. And now she's gone.

The fight will go on but it will never be quite the same.

Rest in Peace Mrs T. If only we'd had a leader like you.

Philpott

When I was much younger, a favourite essay topic was to be asked to explain the emergence of the Third Reich.

To my knowledge nobody ever wrote a single line: "Hitler was a uniquely evil man", rested their pen and expected the laurels of academe to descend upon their shoulders.

For while Hitler was undoubtedly a very evil man, he was not unique and he did not flourish without various other factors, some of them even virtuous factors, assisting his rise to power.

The Left has been under attack this week over the Philpott case, most notoriously on the front page of the Daily Mail. "It is mainly a consequence of welfare dependency that these kids have died" has been the line of attack, even as, by the same  logic, it was "mainly as a consequence of welfare dependency" that these kids were brought into this world in the first place.

But in disputing this allegation the Left has fallen back far to easily on the defence that Philpott was a uniquely evil man. Because he wasn't.

There were a number of factors which came together to create the Third Reich. I won't insult my readers by rehearsing them here and, anyway, if they were all agreed  in their relative importance then there would be no point to the essays.

And there were, I repeat, a number of factors which created the Philpott case. Not least, the media, who, in reporting after the event, have been reluctant to examine their own role in indulging this man prior to events. And one of these factors, in the State's desire to save children from absolute economic poverty, was and is an essentially virtuous one. But it was a factor.

Above all, however, the Philpott case was about domestic violence.

I don't normally write about my work. Some of it is, I like to think at least, meretricious but much of it "just" makes me money. Nonetheless, a significant part of it centres around domestic violence.

And I'll guarantee you two things about my forthcoming working week. The first is that at some point some poor young woman will arrive in the office and tell a tale about their treatment at the hands of their husband or partner which would leave a less battle hardened practitioner than me utterly bemused as to why they put up with this behaviour for so long. And the second is that some point some other poor young woman, who has commenced proceedings, either civilly or criminally, will come in trying to get these proceedings discontinued.

Now, at this point I want to stop briefly to comment on the two adjectives and the noun that I refer to above.

I use "poor" in the literal rather than colloquial sense. I KNOW that domestic violence is no respecter of class but, just as you are much more likely to be murdered if you're poor, so, unfortunately, are you much more likely to be the victim of domestic violence. It doesn't excuse for a moment domestic violence in any context to say that we cannot allow the middle classes to colonise this area as being just as common in their own experience. It is not, either in degree or frequency. And when it does occur, the victims have many more options to prevent its repetition.

And I also use "young" advisedly. I ALSO KNOW that while domestic violence is also undoubtedly no respecter of age, it is also something much more likely to be present from the start of a relationship or not at all, and young people are much more likely to be at the start of relationships. Rarely do I ask someone, leaving a violent relationship after twenty years, about when the abuse started to be met with the answer "only recently".

And, finally, to the noun. I KNOW that men can be the victims of domestic violence as well. But the extent to which this is sought by some to be portrayed as an "equal opportunity" phenomenon is, in itself, telling in its misogyny. Women can certainly be violent as well. I personally have, over the years, represented three separate women who have "gone down" for the attempted murder of their partners and at the "extreme", one off,  end I actually don't believe there is much to choose between the sexes. But in terms of regular, low level, violence I suspect the ratio is something like 1/100 and it undermines analysis of the 100 to try and lump them in with the 1 in pursuit of some sort of perverted political correctness.

So what has any of this got to do with Mick Philpott?

Well, firstly, violence does not have to violence in its physical sense. It can be just as easily part of an understood, even unspoken, background to a relationship. But, worst still, it can be simply psychological violence. And no-one watching the ghoulish exhibitionism of Philpott in his previous television notoriety can surely be in any doubt that, even if Philpott was not actually hitting these two young women, as he had hit, and worse, a previous partner, he was certainly assaulting them in every other sense of the word.

Common sense says that, after their arrest, the lawyers advising his "wife" must have told her that if she admitted what had happened, offered even perhaps to give evidence for the Crown, then, at the very least, her own period of imprisonment would be greatly shortened. And that he couldn't get to her now. And yet she didn't, standing by a hopeless defence to the end, in defiance, it would appear, of even her own family.

And that leads me to the reference to the second thing that will undoubtedly happen in my working life next week. Some other poor young woman will, on a lesser scale, attempt to the same.

For the number of allegations of domestic violence which are then attempted to be withdrawn is the secret shared by Police, Women's Aid, Social Work Departments and lawyers, both prosecution and defence. If it was true, for a moment, that all these men had been arrested; prevented from daily contact with their children and excluded from their home on the basis of false or exaggerated allegations than that would be a national scandal. Only that's not true. The "lie" is in the attempt to withdraw the allegations. And it is by no means as simple as suggesting these attempted retractions all take place because of threats or in consideration of economic factors

For the Philpott case is also about exploitation. But that exploitation is not the exploitation of the Benefit System. It is something much worse. It is the exploitation of the poverty of life expectation of far too many young women.

Neither Philpott's "wife" or "mistress" surely anticipated with enthusiasm at fifteen that the second half of their lives would end up with them sharing a house and a sexual intimacy with a man older than their fathers and in the midst of a collective pool of eleven children. But something, and not just Mick Philpott, resigned them along the way to this being their lot.

There are no easy answers here but at the danger of quoting a man with whom I seldom agree, it must surely start with education, education, education. Education at an early stage in life that a woman is entitled to be treated as an equal in any relationship. Education that violence and domineering behaviour is never a feature of true "love" and education that no matter what mistakes you might have made, threats you might receive or fears for the future that you might have, there are nonetheless always opportunities to get out.

If even some progress can happen in that area as a result of the Philpott case then perhaps in the end at least some good would have come of it.

Why I am joining Yes Scotland

For the historical record I should point out this was published on Monday 1st April, notwithstanding the date assigned by the Pacific Standard time governing the blog.

Yesterday was an odd day. I woke up earlier than I normally would have on a Sunday and then realised that this was actually more or less the same time as I would normally have woken upon a Sunday.

So, I groped my way downstairs, stuck the kettle on, and then went for the papers. Which I then read with what we lawyers call "due diligence".

And, a bit like spotting something is not quite right in a prior title deed, something in that process nagged at me for most of the rest of the day.

Showered, eventually, my plan in the afternoon was to listen to Bach's B minor Mass (it is Easter) while finishing my book, Denise Minah's The End of the Wasp Season which is, I should say, most excellent. A bit like P.D. James crossed with early Ian Banks. Andy Nicoll would sell more books if he would only surrender to pastiche.

However, the best laid plans.......as they say.... were rather postponed by my team performing better than expected against the Celtic. (OK, it was never a penalty but, then again, we had a stonewaller denied in the first half).and then further interrupted by Andy Murray's continued denial of the certainty that Scottish sports icons come close but ultimately fail.

But a bit like a nagging toothache I kept being drawn back to the morning's papers. And suddenly I remembered why.

I should be a supporter of Yes Scotland!

For my whole life I have been attracted to completely lost causes.

On Saturday, I demonstrated against the Bedroom Tax in Edinburgh. I am not much of an Edinburgh demonstrator. I much prefer Glasgow. But I like a good demonstration.

When I was younger. I even used to demonstrate in London from time to time. I also once demonstrated in Manchester, although I can't quite remember why.

But there is a certain attraction about demonstrations. For you are among............friends would be putting it too strongly................you are among at least temporary allies and you constantly hope there  will be sufficient temporary allies to make a change. As indeed, in foreign countries, there occasionally are.

But, for all its faults, in this country, change is brought about not by demonstrations but at the ballot box, and ultimately, that has to be a more satisfactory state of affairs.

So, when I demonstrated with 30.000 plus in Glasgow against unemployment in the early eighties; or the same number for a Scottish Parliament in 1993; or even more still against the Iraq War in 2003, I slowly realised that the important numbers were not those taking part but those disinclined to do so.

It didn't stop me but it slowly led me to realise that the various Trots, Anarchists and (latterly) Greens selling each other newspapers were not exactly representative of wider Scotland.

But the Trots, Anarchists and Greens are at least against the evil Tories. The evil Tories who, despite us living in a verified democracy, seem to have somewhere between 30% and 40% of the population determined to vote for them.

What does that matter however when you're on a demonstration? We are all agreed they are evil and that is surely quite enough.

And that is why I am joining Yes Scotland.

For there was a truly inspiring piece by Blair Jenkins in yesterday's Scotland on Sunday. "The Tories are Evil"  he declared. And no matter what you think, an independent Scotland would not be evil, or worse still Evil.

And I thought............I should be on this man's side. "The Tories are Evil" is surely the campaign slogan I have failed to appreciate during my whole political life.

And, in signing up to Yes Scotland, I am also proud to say that there is no lost cause that I wouldn't join.

So, sign me up, Blair Jenkins OBE.