Politics and Hot Air
Dan Hodges does a good demolition job on Nigel Farage in his Telegraph blog although sadly this will do nothing to halt the UKIP bandwagon at the forthcoming Europeans elections where voters in England seem determined to give the established parties at Westminster a bloody nose.
Now I think the Scottish Parliament has insulated Scotland from UKIP to a degree at least because while the Scottish Parliament is far from perfect it does at least have the virtue of being broadly representative of the Scottish people, Government ministers down the years (of all political parties) appear to have been relatively decent, honest and hard working.
And, of course, there hasn't been anything like the terrible MPs' expenses scandal which has effectively destroyed the reputation of the Westminster Parliament.
So while the Scottish Parliament cannot afford to rest on it laurels, there is no doubt in my mind that it's a much more 'fit for purpose' legislature than the Palace of Westminster with its House of Commons and House of Lords.
Nigel Farage is the new Sarah Palin, rambling on crazily about Russia
By Dan Hodges
Nigel Farage as Sarah Palin looks remarkably like Mike Myers as Wayne
Nigel Farage has just completed a fascinating phone-in with Telegraph readers. The discussion was wide-ranging, and the Ukip leader engaged with it in his usual avuncular style.
That is until the conversation turned to his professed admiration for Vladimir Putin. At which point, not to be put too fine a point on it, he fell apart.
It was like watching a rerun of Sarah Palin’s career-defining – and ending – interview with Katie Couric. Asked about her take on foreign affairs, the Republican vice-presidential candidate famously started rambling on about how she could see Russia from her home state of Alaska.
Farage began rambling on about how Britain was an island. Russia, we had to understand, wasn’t an island. So Putin’s aggression in Ukraine was understandable.
In fact, he’d been provoked. Not just by the EU. But by William Hague. The mobilisation of the 76th Russian Airborne Division, the 31st Airborne Brigade and 18th Mechanised Brigade were all because our hitherto inoffensive-seeming Foreign Secretary had been “very provocative” towards Vladimir Putin and his people.
Though the EU was obviously responsible as well. It had asked the Ukrainian people if they wanted to be part of the EU. Which Farage seemed to imply was almost a declaration of war in itself. Especially when nobody in the Ukraine wanted to join the EU anyway.
At this point the moderator, Tim Stanley, finally felt the need to step in and question the assertion that nobody in Ukraine supported EU membership. “Well,” the great tribune of the people responded, “maybe a substantial minority do want it. But we shouldn’t have offered it to them.”
And so it went on. Asked about Barack Obama’s statement that he wanted Britain to remain a part of the European Union, Nigel Farage responded “Everything the Americans have asked us to do since 1945 is wrong.”
Everything. Since 1945. Like when they asked us not to invade Suez. Or when they asked us to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in the fight against communism. Or when they asked us to help expel Saddam from Kuwait.
If it was left to Ukip, Britain would fight fewer wars, he said. And get the public finances under control. Although yes, Ukip did have a policy of increasing spending on the Armed Forces by 40 per cent. Because although we wouldn’t be fighting any wars, the world was a much more dangerous place. And so we had to have lots more troops. To not fight those wars.
Except maybe in the Falklands. What would we do if Argentina invaded? Although they probably wouldn’t because now the Falklands were well defended. Any attack by the Argentines would “cost them heavily”. Even though our Armed Forces had been effectively neutered. But what if they did successfully invade? What would we do then?
What indeed. Sarah Palin was once a new and refreshing political voice. She was “taking on” the establishment. She spoke directly to “the ordinary folks at home”.
Remind me. Whatever happened to her?
Bucket, Porridge, Farage (11 May 2013)
| Porage or Porridge Oats |
I think Matthew Parris may just have stumbled upon Nigel's Achilles Heel - the use of humour to poke fun at people who behave in this ridiculously pompous way - instead of coming across all red faced, angry and po-faced.
Come to think of it, the 'Farridge versus Faraage' debacle may help to explain why UKIP has failed to ignite in Scotland - since we Scots are so generally very disapproving of people with affected airs and graces.
And in support my theory, I just remembered that I was at college and university with a chap called Neil Farage - and Farridge is how he and we pronounced his name. I wonder where he is now?
So if UKIP's poll ratings begin to drop like a heavy stone - remember, you heard it here first.
"Farage disparaged"
"A number of voices are this week calling the UKIP leader “Nigel Farridge”. This is to be encouraged. It is almost four years since, in this Diary column (September 10, 2009) I deplored Mr F’s poncified pronunciation of his own name, as in “massage” or “entourage” rather than the good old English forage, cribbage or cabbage. Like the way Hyacinth Bucket switched to Bouquet, and pretentious nitwits are now pronouncing “homage” as om-ahge.
And this from a professed Europhobe! Nigel Farage responded with good humour in our Letters column, confessing that his family name used to be pronounced and spelt “Farridge” — but that someone wrote “Farage” on a marriage certificate in 1890 and “Farage” it stayed. Mr F went on to accuse my ancestors of “Frenchifying” our own name, Parris, but this is the opposite of the truth: the double “r” distances us from Paris. Anyway, he concluded: “I suspect it is a little too late for rebranding.” Oh no it isn’t, Mr Farridge."
Double Standards (11 May 2013)
Nigels seems to be hogging all the news headlines these days - first it was Nigel Farage (pronounced Forridge) whose Arthur Daley/Del Boy impression - seemed to impress at the recent local elections in England and Wales.
Then a big blast from the past comes along as Nigel Lawson - Margaret Thatcher's former chancellor - announces that come the referendum in 2017 (assuming there is one) - he's voting to pull the UK out of the European Union (EU).
Now I don't agree with either of the two Nigels, but I can see that the second one has at least a serious political argument to make - which is that the the UK should be free to make its own big decisions on tax and spending - and how to run the economy in the best interests of UK citizens.
In other words, why do we need or want a giant, overblown bureaucracy in Brussels telling us how to do these things - when all we want is the ability to trade freely and on a friendly basis with our good European neighbours - instead of getting into bed with them politically and culturally speaking, as well.
Well to my mind that's exactly the sort of relationship that I would want to see between Scotland and the rest of the UK - a settlement whereby the control of the Scottish economy rests with the Scottish Parliament - not the Westminster Parliament in London.
The Scottish Parliament would then raise all taxes and then pay our fair share in terms of issues that are arguably better and more efficiently handled UK-wide - for example, defence spending and foreign affairs.
Now this is the so-called Devo-Max option which recognises that Scotland is very different from the rest of the UK and should have strategic control over its own economy - instead of all the key decisions being made by another government in London.
In which case why do the two Nigels both support economic freedom for the UK outside the EU - while opposing economic freedom for Scotland inside or even outside the United Kingdom?
So it seems to me the two Nigels are operating to a double standard - in the sense that they are demanding something for the UK which they are keen to deny Scotland.
Or to put it another, they are just trying to eat their slice of cake and yet hold on to it at the same time - two slices for them and only one for the rest of us, is how I would put that.
But in my opinion you can't have it both ways and so if things continue in this dishonest fashion - I'll need to think carefully about my preference for Devo Max.
If I'm denied a vote for what I think is best for Scotland in Devo Max - then maybe I should just vote Yes to independence after all.
Because as things stand there's a real good chance that the UK voters will support a withdrawal from the European Union by 2017 - or whenever people finally have their say.
And whatever your politics, you have to admit the people having their say over Europe is long overdue - it's a glaring a democratic deficit, if you like, particularly against the backdrop of the people of Scotland having their own referendum on Scottish independence in 2014.
