What do you think of crowdfunding a Go Away Tony Blair appeal, in hope that we can pay him to leave us alone? — Audrey, Glasgow
SINCE the publication of the Chilcot report, it seems that Terrible Tony is desperate to find some means of diluting horrifying memories of the Iraq War.
Recently, it was rumoured that he would be returning to politics to “save us” from Brexit. The Duke of Delusion had obviously decided that the way to make us forgive him for lying about WMD, is to try to salvage our place in the EU.
Blair, after all, never does anything that doesn’t in some way benefit himself. However, the public backlash to this supposed return was overwhelmingly negative. I personally said it would be akin to Harold Shipman returning to medical practice.
Accordingly, Blair has now sought other means to convince us of his greatness. In truly stomach-turning news, he has purportedly asked film producer James Gay-Rees to make a feature-length documentary about his life. This vanity project will no doubt be designed to convince us that we, in fact, have it all wrong about dear old Tony, and he’s actually a really nice guy.
Certainly, with all Blair’s ego-driven nonsense occurring unimpeded, it is hardly surprising that the public are now considering outlandish measures to stop his activities on this planet. The proposed Go Away Tony Blair Fund is a perceptive notion, as Blair’s two main motivators are money and ego. By appealing to the former, we may smother the latter.
If the authorities refuse to arrest him for war crimes, we might as well look at other methods of isolating him from society. Just £1 from every citizen in the United Kingdom would produce a sum of money that even a greedhead like Blair could not ignore. If he accepted the cash, he would be made to sign an agreement whereby he would sell off his assets, donate the proceeds to charity and bog off to an island somewhere and never return.
Should Blair refuse, then I suggest we donate the money to the families of soldiers who fought in the wars Tony so enthusiastically waged. This might be the Kickstarter campaign needed to give Blair a long-overdue kick up the backside.
Should I feel guilty about liking Tunnock’s Teacakes? — @RabBrucesSpider
THIS question, I assume, is about Boyd Tunnock being against Scottish independence. At the time, Tunnock’s backing of the UK was heralded as one of the great victories for the Better Together side. It also led to some rather zealous Scottish nationalists boycotting Tunnock’s productions altogether.
Although this might’ve seemed like an over-reaction, it is hardly surprising. I’m guilty of it to some degree. However, I tend to limit my embargoing to xenophobic newspapers, offensive TV presenters and bigoted politicians.
Essentially, I avoid things that are harmful to society – and teacakes are certainly not harmful to society. Indeed, there is plenty to like about the foamy tea-time treats.
As much as supporting companies that back Scottish independence is generally a good thing, to get lost in a bog of embargoes would be foolish.
Moreover, political opinions are rarely cut and dry. JD Wetherspoon’s, for instance, backed Yes in the first Scottish independence referendum, but then went on to support Brexit. Suddenly, your cheap pint on a Friday night is standing for both the views of Nicola Sturgeon and Boris Johnson simultaneously.
Consider also the example of the makers of Irn-Bru. Barr’s chose to be impartial during the first indyRef. Do I therefore consider myself indifferent towards Irn-Bru? Of course not. After all, it mixes extremely well with vodka.
To constantly live your life through the veil of politics is not a wise choice and, frankly, there are better things to feel guilty about than buying British teacakes. For example, if you ever click on an internet link to The Sun or the Daily Mail, you are committing a much greater crime than you would be if you were munching on a caramel bar.
Tunnock’s might’ve made a slight tactical error in divulging their backing of the Union, but at the end of the day, they’re still a Scottish company who deserve our support. It would take delusion on the scale of the embarrassing Scottish Resistance group to believe otherwise.
How beneficial would it be for one of the French presidential candidates to declare his/her support for an independent Scotland in EU? — @fournet15
THE presidential election in France is upcoming, and once again there is reason to believe that the far-right will seek to capitalise on clear weakness and division on the French left. Marine Le Pen, best described as France’s answer to Nigel Farage, has gone from being a fringe contestant in French politics to a legitimate leadership contender.
Le Pen’s success can be likened in some ways to the rise of UKIP in Britain and Donald Trump in the US. Through the perpetuation of xenophobic, bigoted rhetoric, Le Pen has fanned the flames of hatred in France, uniting people under the false banner of national pride. With Trump now sworn in as President, the far-right can rightly claim to have the wind in their sails.
By contrast, the French left presents an image of disunity and disillusion. With the disastrous regime of Francois Hollande ending, they are left with a choice between former prime minister Manuel Valls and radical socialist Benoît Hamon, the latter of whom has drawn comparisons to Jeremy Corbyn. Neither Valls nor Hamon seems likely to win anything besides pride in this year’s election.
As such, neither candidate would stand to gain anything much from declaring support for an independent Scotland in the EU. But I’d be quite happy for either to do so. After all, the French left is in dire need of le sexy socialisme – and there’s nothing sexier than supporting an independent Scotland!
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here