Macwhirter’s links to Sturgeon

They say if you ever visit a sausage-making factory, you’ll never eat one again. Is it the same with visiting a Macwhirter piece in the Herald? Should be, but sometimes the dark self-destructive side in all of us just wants some of that stodgy, greasy, fatty thinking.

He will not leave that young woman alone. Now he’s waving his Weiner at her claiming, like his hero Boris, ‘Scottish nationalists find themselves on the same side as Northern Ireland Unionists.’

Notice the lower case ‘n’ and the capital ‘U’. Clever, wot?

Supposedly, the Scottish nationalists (sic, he is) need to reassure voters that Scotland can have an soft border with England and if the EU gets heavy on sausages, they’ll impose a hard one in Ireland and then we’ll get a hard one too. Contrary to all the evidence including the EU and the USA’s firm stated commitments to protecting the peace deal, he thinks a sausage war in Fermanagh likely and that will put an end to Scottish independence – cheap sausage meat?

Anyhow, we’ve thoroughly digested the border issue here, before. See:

Footnote: According to the DUP, sausages did not evolve but were created by God in 3 400 BC

17 thoughts on “Macwhirter’s links to Sturgeon

  1. Well I think, if you’re not careful, everyone will think you’re both starting Toulouse the plot and acting like the wurst kind of brats…

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Just as Scotland has been told lies by British nationalists (no longer “unionists” in the age of Brexit) for decades, so Boris told direct lies to the DUP over the NI border.

    Macwhirter seems to have taken the King’s (of the World?) shilling these days, and therefore, his commentary is one-sided and not credible or very creditable, either to himself or his readers.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. ”..his readers ” Apart from John ( occasionally ) are there any regular readers of Macwhirter/The Herald ?
      It has become the worst kind of Unionist propaganda sheet ! Yet , only a few years ago it boasted the likes of the inimitable Ian Bell !
      Sad , so sad !

      Liked by 4 people

  3. Here Gordon Ross talks about the ‘trade deal’ the English government have made via the ‘European free trade association’, which, would have implications for an independent Scotland. Scotland’s border would remain completely open with England. Thoughts?


  4. The two most important issues for Johnson and Co. at present are not “losing” Scotland and a trade deal with the USA.
    All their shenanigans in NI should be seen through that prism because they have previous form for their willingness to dump NI when it suits.
    Beyond these two objectives,they have no strategic interest in Ireland.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Useful article by Ben Wray in Bella Caledonia last week entitled: ‘100 Years after Partition: is Irish Re-Unification in Sight?’ It gives an insight into how political attitudes to and aspirations for re-unification are evolving within the Republic .


      In a section of the article titled ‘Partition: A “compromise solution”, or an imperialist ploy?’ we learn that the BBC is running a series to mark the centenary of Northern Ireland and ‘in a piece on how the Irish border was created, Eimear Flanagan states: “Partition was viewed by the British Government as a compromise solution”.’

      Wray writes: ‘In this presentation, the British Government appears as the paternal, even-handed administrator, simply looking to keep the peace by negotiating a compromise, and with no intrinsic interests of its own. Kieran Allen, Sociology professor at the University of Dublin and author of the recently released ’32 counties: the failure of partition and the case for a United Ireland’, is unsurprised by the BBC’s depiction.

      “That is traditionally how the British Empire is presented, that it’s a sort of neutral arbiter, between Hindus and Muslims in India, or being Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.”

      ‘Allen says that Irish partition was actually part of a broader Tory strategy towards Empire, which sought to deal with growing discontent in the colonies after WW1 by “whipping up chauvinism”. The creation of the six-county state in the north was specifically designed with this purpose in mind; as a bulwark against revolution.’

      Allen tells Bella. “The original proposal for partition in 1912 was for four-counties, then there was a proposal in 1920 for a nine-county Ulster, and eventually they settled on a six-county Ulster, because, as James Craig, the first prime minister of Northern Ireland, said at the time, that was the largest amount of territory that would allow for ‘a decisive Protestant majority in which unionist power would be guaranteed, in perpetuity’. That’s why it happened.”

      So times they are changing!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I personally preferred the explanation of having a heavily militarised forward base in the most prosperous and industrialised part of Ireland, ready to invade and retake the rest of Ireland when the opportunity arose or it became expedient to do so.

        Liked by 2 people

  5. If everyone went vegetarian and ate vegy sausages there’d be no problem, my meat eating bro who lives in Aussieland liked our vegy sausages in a pie, when he visited us a few years ago…amazing. 🙂 Problem solved, lol!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.