ON several occasions in the last five years, we’ve been invited to consider the alluring possibility that the Union is in trouble. Mostly, the sense of jeopardy is heightened after a string of opinion polls indicating a majority inclination towards Yes.
At other times an egregiously reactionary spasm by the Johnson administration can trigger optimism, such as his proroguing of Parliament in 2018 or the sealed-bid auctions of PPE contracts for Conservative Party platinum card holders that now pass for due process in public-sector procurement.
A prescribed set of actions normally follows, chief among which are increased television appearances by Gordon Brown in which he rides out to save the Union. More recently, these have been re-inforced by announcements from the Johnson regime indicating the establishment of pro-Union initiatives.
On becoming Prime Minister, Johnson announced that he himself would become the unofficial minister for Scotland. He rowed back on this during the Scottish election when alarmed Conservatives north of the Border finally convinced him his presence here would wreck their hopes of beating Labour to second place.
READ MORE: Why the majority of Scots would, despite its flaws, vote to keep the monarchy
Last year, he announced the first of the Scottish love-bombs, with a media blitz costing around £5 million and featuring adverts in cinemas, television, radio and online. A source at the time said the aim was to put the Union “front and centre” and to tell us that Scotland was a top priority following Brexit.
Only two months ago, Alister Jack, the Secretary of State, heralded the advent of Project Love. “What we’re doing is strengthening the Union; that’s the policy across Whitehall,” Jack said. “We recognise that there are many, many great benefits to our family of nations and maybe we don’t trumpet them enough.”
A month later, Brown launched a campaign of his own, presumably alarmed that others were muscling in on the last remaining fiefdom he holds in his increasingly desperate attempts to maintain political relevance. In this he changed tack slightly by introducing the concept of “Middle Scotland”. His own two-year-old think tank, Our Scottish Future, would, of course, play a central role in this, having now been converted into a “campaigning movement”. This, said Brown would put the “positive, progressive and patriotic case for Scotland in Britain”.
Brown is the man whose incompetence and weakness in a wretched three-year stint as prime minister propelled the UK into 11 years (and counting) of a hard-right Tory Government. Within weeks of launching his new Unionist campaign he had secured a meeting with the Earl and Countess of Strathearn, aka the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, aka Prince William and Kate Middleton. Observing the protocol of these meetings, Brown has since refused even to hint at the subject of their discussions.
Earlier this week, he did let slip that, in view of the upcoming European Championship, they talked a lot about Birmingham Villa, the prince’s favourite football team. Villa, you see, have a player who is central to the hopes of Brown’s favourite international football team. It may be though, that the extravagantly gifted Jack Grealish will be used sparingly by the England team manager, Gareth Southgate.
Once more though, the intrepid readers of The National have risen to the task. One of them, who works in the catering firm detailed to provide purvey for the Browns and the Strathearn-Cambridges during their summit, has provided me with a rough transcript of what passed between them all. I reproduce it here as it was reported to me.
PW: “So, I’m hearing the Union is in trouble. Perhaps there’s something Kate and I can do to help.”
GB: “To hear you say that, your Royal Highness, gladdens this old Fife heart of mine. When I tell my drinking chums about that in the Kirkcaldy Miners Welfare there’ll be singing and Highland Flinging on the streets of Raith.”
PW: “Yes, yes, dear chap. All very good, but so long as I’m not actually required to frequent these places, Kate and I are good to go. We both have a strong affection for these types of chaps, whom we got to know when we studied origami and millinery at St Andrews but we need to be subtle about this.”
GB: “Don’t worry; mum’s the word, or should I say ‘ma’am’s the word’. Through my personal think tank, we can organise lots of events where you can put on your kilt and meet real Scottish people in their natural habitat. Maybe some Highland Games and a few grouse-shooting parties.”
PW: “Yes, just check in with my private secretary, MacDuff. We have a spare week around November and then we can skip 2022 as we’ll be having our statutory baby to help take the heat out of the Brexit debris. But I think we might be able to give you a week in the spring of 2023. How does that sound?”
GB: “I understand completely, your Royal Highness, and may I be the first to pass on my congratulations at the news of your impending concupiscence.
‘IF you’re looking for a suitable venue for this sacred act might I suggest the exclusive honeymoon suite at the appropriately named Windsor Hotel on Victoria Road? It has a restaurant, bar, a shared lounge and a garden and it’s slap bang in the middle of Kirkcaldy. It would show Scottish voters that you and Kate really mean business in supporting the Union.”
PW: “With all due respect to the quality of hospitality at this splendid-sounding establishment I’m not really sure it would create the right ambience for what we normally do on these occasions.”
READ MORE: Gerry Hassan: Even Unionists see asking royals for help is desperation from UK
GB: “Say no more, Your Highnesses, say no more (taps nose conspiratorially) nudge, nudge; a nod’s as good as a wink to a blind horse. Perhaps you’re looking for somewhere a little more adventurous. There are some great caravan parks dotted around the East Neuk if you’re looking for something a bit more intimate.”
(At this Kate begins to tremble violently and Sarah Brown rushes to fetch her some water)
PW: “My dear chap; I’m not sure you quite grasp the portent of these moments. To paraphrase our favourite singer Mr Loaf, ‘We’ll do anything for the Union but we won’t do that'.”
GB: (offended now and brow darkening): “Well, if that’s the way you feel about it, your Highness, we could always ask your brother and your esteemed sister-in-law. They’ve always had the common touch and the people of Fife would take them to their hearts.”
PW: “What street did you say that hotel was on again ..?”
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel