BAD COMPANY

The Daily Record website yesterday had a shocking story to tell. It was all about a company that went bust in 2012. While creditors are left out of pocket, the two brothers that owned the company are living in big houses and driving luxury cars with private plates. Without so much as a hint of irony, the paper then talks of how one of the brothers won a bidding competition to play for Celtic in a charity match in 2011. For the hard-of-thinking, pictures are provided of the guy hugging Henrik Larsson on the pitch and dressed in a Celtic tracksuit. The implication is obvious; somehow Celtic are connected to this pair.

With barefaced audacity, the DR also tells us how the brothers transferred payments from customers to a connected company, owned by them and their family. Shameful, eh? And not only that but it seems they swindled HMRC as well, which is perhaps fitting, since their business was all about helping folk avoid taxes. They deprived the Treasury of about £350m a year, the Record tells us primly. The brother that played in that game for Celtic paid £200k for the privilege, we're informed. I think we're supposed to infer that Celtic should be handing that money back for the creditors.

Isn't it strange how the Record has suddenly become the champion of HMRC and ready to argue on behalf of creditors being stiffed? I don't remember them being concerned when another company went bust in 2012. Even when the administrators of this other company invented a 'holding company' to shove all the debt into, the Daily Record said nothing. In fact, the DR made nothing but excuses for this other company, even going to the extreme of accusing HMRC of maliciously 'going after' the company.

The two brothers that ran the company the Record reports on have been banned from being "involved in forming, marketing or ­running a company." It is pretty obvious from the report that the Record approves of this course of action. Funnily enough, when it comes to that other company that went bust in 2012, the paper feels entirely differently. Not only do they not want former directors banned but they have been actively campaigning for them to be reinstated. As Greavsie used to say, it's a funny old game!

Speaking of that old company, the new company and its new/old club actually managed to beat Hibs yesterday. As if to provide a case for it being still the 'same club' Willie Collum was there to provide a wee favour, just like in the grand old days of yore. Alan Stubbs was understandably furious but, unfortunately, his memory is beginning to play tricks on him. He said, about the Lee Wallace foul on Paul Hanlon, "I've been in management a short time. I was player a long time. Over the years, that decision would be given 100 per cent of the time." Sorry, Alan, but you're wrong. I remember that exact same scenario occurring on a few occasions in the past. It used to look to me as if it was something that Rangers practised at Murray Park. A Rangers player would commit an obvious foul on an opponent, play would stop and Kenny Miller would then run at the goal unopposed. It was cheating, pure and simple, and it's obviously been resurrected with the aid of our 'impartial' officials. Not that we'll see any condemnation in our media. Wallace himself said that his team was 'phenomenal'; presumably he includes Collum in that assessment!

Meanwhile, on the political front, Jim Murphy desperately brings up the ghost of Thatcher to frighten us all into voting Labour. With the collusion of the Daily Record, he brings up the hoary, old chestnut of the SNP 'bringing down' the Labour Government in 1979, allowing Thatcher in. Does anybody still believe this shite? For anyone that wasn't around back then, that wasn't how things happened.

In 1974 Labour, under Harold Wilson, won the General Election by only three seats. This slim majority vanished by 1977, forcing Jim Callaghan, who had taken over from Wilson, into a pact with the Liberals. The pact ended in September 1978 and it was understood that Callaghan would call another election. He didn't. Instead he limped on through the Winter of Discontent, which turned everyone against both Labour and the unions. Callaghan's government was living on borrowed time. He was going to have to call an election sometime in 1979; an election he was going to lose.

After the debacle of the Scotland Referendum and the way the Government moved the goalposts, it was inevitable that the SNP would vote against Callaghan in any no-confidence vote. And not only the SNP voted on Thatcher's side; the Liberals and the Ulster Unionists opposed the Government for varying reasons, while the Irish Nationalists abstained. It is quite disingenuous to put the blame for the defeat squarely on the shoulders of the SNP. The SNP had 11 votes to contribute, while the Liberals had 13. Strangely, though, you never hear Labour blaming the Liberals for their defeat.

In the ensuing election the Tories won quite comfortably. If Callaghan's Government had bumbled on for another few months it is probable that their election defeat would have been even more decisive. The contention that the SNP vote suffered because of the perception that they had ganged up with the Tories against Labour is utter nonsense. In the 1979 election, of the nine seats lost by the SNP, seven of them were captured by the Tories. The fact is that the SNP manifesto in that year was too left-wing for their erstwhile demographic and this was reflected in the party's reaction to the election results. It has taken a while, but the demographic of the SNP has changed considerably from that of the 1970s and there would be no switch back and forth between SNP and Tory anymore.

A couple of folk commented on here yesterday about how Celtic supporters shouldn't be voting SNP due to the legislation about sectarian singing and the like. I don't know about you, but I don't vote just because of what football team I support. I leave that kind of thing to McMurdo and his ilk. If Scottish independence meant rule by the Orange Order, don't you think they'd be in favour of it? The fact is that it's the Union that keeps all this shite going. The Church of Scotland was disestablished a long time ago so it's only by being tied to England, where the C of E is still the established church, that the bigots can claim that we live in a 'Protestant Country'. That's why they all clamour for the Queen and claim her as head of their religion, even though a proper Protestant church, like the Church of Scotland, doesn't believe in having a church head at all. Take away their Union and their sense of superiority will fall like a house of cards.

As for the idea that the SNP, and other independence parties, are all in favour of children all going to the same schools, well what about it? As it stands currently there is no such thing as a non-denominational school in Scotland. Every school is obliged to have religious education and religious observance and it is supposed to be predominantly Christian, even in areas where there is hardly a Christian to be found. If a Scottish government was to do away with RC schools it would also have to make so-called N.D. schools operate along the lines of state schools in America. Personally, I don't have a problem with that.

A bit of a stooshie has erupted over Mick, of Bampots Utd. fame, putting up posts from other blogs. The guy that runs Scotzine, Andy Muirhead, had a go at Mick for 'stealing' his stuff, even though Mick is always at pains to clearly show where his posts came from. The website Bella Caledonia also had a go. I'd never heard of Scotzine or Bella Caledonia until I read some of their stuff on Mick's blog and followed the links he provided. Mick also introduced me to On Fields of Green, Wings Over Scotland and others that I can't recall offhand. Probably other people found out about these websites through reading Mick's blog. I know for a fact that many of my own readers came here only when they discovered it on Bampots Utd. Unlike me, however, others seem to be totally ungrateful about Mick drumming up new readers for them. I really don't understand what their problem is.

Mick has also drummed up a lot of sales for my books and asks for nothing in return. In fact, he expressed his surprise and gratitude that I'd mentioned Bampots Utd. in Clash of the Agnivores, even though it was the very least I could do for all his help. As my wife said, "Make sure you mind and thank that guy that's always mentioning your books!" Regular readers of Mick's blog will know that I'm not the only author to benefit from his support. Again, he has asked for nothing in return. You don't even need to send him a book if you want it reviewed and promoted; he buys a copy himself!

Bella Caledonia, on the other hand, does things differently. Last summer I noticed a 'Book Review' section on the site and asked if I could have Torrent and Clash of the Agnivores reviewed. The guy agreed, as long as I sent paperback copies. I paid for the books on Amazon, as well as the postage, and sent them to the P.O. Box I was asked to send them to and then...nothing. I've even sent a couple of e-mails, just for some acknowledgement that he received the books but again...no reply. Hopefully he enjoyed the books, even though he seems reluctant to let anybody know about it.

Bella Caledonia tried to get some kind of debate going on Twitter about reblogging and whether it was a compliment or theft. I suppose I could ask the same question about my books: compliment or theft? As for reblogging; what's the problem? It's not as if Mick was passing it off as his own work; he always stated where it came from and provided a link. If folk are that desperate to keep their stuff on their own website then they should set something up so you can't copy it or make their site subscription-only or something. Let's see how many followers they get then!

Social media is supposed to be all about the free and frank exchange of ideas; a new medium for those fed up with the mainstream. Some folk, however, want you to get down on your knees and beg for permission to promote their viewpoint. Bella Caledonia and Scotzine are also constantly asking for donations; perhaps they expect the same if anyone reblogs their articles! There's only one thing that can be said to such people. It begins with 'F' and ends in 'uckoff'!

"Ye kin read it - but don't tell anybody else aboot it, right?"