Tuesday, 1 December 2015

The Amazing Disappearing Dugdale

All of Scotland's civic society, always so desperate to hear the latest pearls of wisdom from this month's Scottish Labour branch manager, is bereft that Kezia Dugdale - usually so keen to try and promote herself - is in hiding.

The hard-Right Unionist leader has vanished over the last week or so since the putative British bombing of the Syrian people has become the major political talking point of the hour. 

She has sent Ian Murray out to claim that she is "against air-strikes", but by fleeing from the public eye at this time of international crisis, it appears clear that she has done so in the cause of plausible deniability. 

To wit: Dugdale's support comes from the extreme Right of British politics. The erstwhile Daily Mail columnist is backed by Scottish Labour, which is by some considerable distance the furthest-Right part of the Labour party. For her to oppose war on Syria's people would lead to a withdrawal of support from the far Right of Labour: the McTernans, Harrises and Murphys. 

But she will well remember the bitter consequences for Scottish Labour of backing a savage attack on civilians: before the horror of the Iraq savagery in which Scottish Labour systematically slaughtered over a million people, Scottish Labour had fifty-six deputies in the Scottish Parliament, and forty-one MPs at Westminster.  Today, it has a solitary MP (the representative for the seething masses of Morningside), and just 37 deputies in Holyrood. It is predicted to lose every constituency in May's general election to Holyrood.

Dugdale is hiding because she knows what the consequences will be in May should she be seen to support yet another Scottish Labour war on Muslims. Already, she is relying on the increasingly-discredited List system to return any deputies to Holyrood. Being seen to stand four-square behind the Tories - yet again - can only damage her electoral prospects. 

Yet, opposing war on Syrian civilians will damage her standing amongst the blood-cult psychopaths who prop up her "leadership" in Scotland. 

So she hides, and flees, and maintains radio silence, and while she maintains her position in Labour by refusing to condemn the war, she slithers around corridors, whispering into various ears that she's against it. But always, with plausible deniability. 

It is utter personal and political cowardice by a nonentity concerned above all with her own position, and without a single thought to the thousands of civilians who will be massacred to satisfy the Labour bloodlust. 

Isn't it time to flush her out? To force her at least to make her position clear?

The British have the ultimate decision whether or not to commit Scottish working-class kids to fight - and die - in the middle East. For all the talk about respect and autonomy, the Scottish Parliament is refused the power to prevent it. And for all the talk of war, there's not a Scottish Labour activist shrieking for war who has joined the anti-Isis army, or has sent their sons or daughters to do so. It's other mothers' children  they want to send to war. 

Holyrood held a debate on Britain's savagery in Iraq. And Scottish Labour stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the Westminster Tories and Blair's regime to support it in that Holyrood debate. 

Our national parliament mightn't have the power to stop the war in Syria: to stop working-class economic conscript kids from killing and dying for nothing - but we have the power to make a statement. 

And we should make that statement. 

Holyrood should hold a debate denouncing war on Syria's people, and demanding that if the British do decide - as seems inevitable - to rush back to war, Scottish regiments are not sent against its will. 

Let's flush the despicable, racist, hate-filled, violent blood-cult of Scottish Labour out, publicly and irreversibly. Let us flush Dugdale out as yet another middle-class lawyer happy to send Scottish working-class kids to their grisly deaths, to become killers, to suffer mental trauma for the rest of their lives. 

Kezia Dugdale pretends to be the "leader" of a political party. But she hides, like a capybara in the sunshine, when she's forced to make a decision. 

So let her come to Holyrood and make her position clear, not through some Union Jack suit-wearing goon from Morningside.

Are you in favour of war, or are you in favour of peace? Do you stand with the Blairites and the Tories, or do you stand with Scotland? 

You're the "leader", Kezia. It's time to lead. And if you want to encourage the Right to go to war, then do so openly. Have - for once in your pathetic, miserable career - the courage to say so.

This isn't the time for sitting in primary schools gurning, or galloping to threatened workplaces to get your photo taken, grinning with delight at the workers' plight, outside them. 

It's a time for leadership. And if the "leader" of Scottish Labour continues to refuse to talk in public about this dreadful war, she ought to be forced to. 

Let her speak for, or against the motion: "this House denounces any British military operation in Syria". 

Rats breed in the dark. Get them in the open. 

3 comments:

  1. "Holyrood should hold a debate denouncing war on Syria's people, and demanding that if the British do decide - as seems inevitable - to rush back to war, Scottish regiments are not sent against its will. "

    Hear,hear!

    ReplyDelete
  2. She's probably still looking up Syria in her "Big Girls Book o' Furrin Places", and hasn't got past Auchtermuchty yet.
    A debate in Holyrood would be an excellent idea, but only if ALL members were made to attend. I am heart-smitten at the thought of innocent men, women and children being murdered in the Middle East in the name of every Scots citizen, on the say-so of the UK parliament. If I wanted to be classed as a murderer, I would go out and kill somebody myself and take the blame myself for the result.
    I might never have to, if they set up another Chilcott enquiry into my crime.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is only one Regiment left, the Royal Regiment of Scotland, all lumped together affectionately as the "The Jocks", at least according to the army website.

    ReplyDelete