It’s nothing to do with a viewpoint, it’s to do with gross disloyalty and a cynical ploy

This post is not specifically about Andy Murray, it’s about issues arising from his behaviour and the general manner in which the whole thing was run.

What has come through loud and clear today is that most of the English and over half the Scots wish now to live and let live, to coexist.

But we see a 20 000 signature petition to run the vote again. Which side do you think is trying that and which monolithic organization did the same in Ireland when they didn’t like the democratically delivered result of No?

Now people who try that sort of thing on are going to get the sharp end of the stick from us. And no, it is not hatred for Scotland, nor for the Scottish people – it’s that we’re not going to take the c*** from the other side.

Ditto goes for the media. All over the media today are set pieces by bought journos exonerating Murray for what he did.

No – sorry – no.  No, he’s not getting off the hook like that, any more than Cameron, who is also toast. And every time the media tried it, in would come Scots and English of one mind, which must be a first.

Here’s one of the early retorts:

# The lesson for Murray should be clear.

The time for free shots at the English has now gone. It’s no longer a sport to be played with impunity.

If you belong to a state and you represent it at the highest level (because you are talented, and you are), the members of that state expect you to at least acknowledge them and not express your desire to be rid of 80% of them.

But still they tried it on, saying that anyone decrying Murray, a great champ, was a nasty hater – the usual puerile language and tactic and we, frankly, are not abiding it. Someone said a ‘Murray hater’ was also anti-feminist?

Whaaa? She wanted a fight?  She got one:

# Sigh. Feminists get attention because they are networked, and have been since the 1970s. Virtually every “womens section” of the media was rapidly colonised- out went articles about cooking, in came articles about the patriarchal phallocracy.

Here at the Telegraph, a solitary feminist only has to stamp her feet on Twitter and a bell rings on Radhika Sanghani’s desk, and the next thing there’s an article about “outrage” or a “backlash”, then you look on Twitter and it’s three screechy usual suspects having a tantrum.

Add to that that many Feminists have now figured out that trolling for trolls is itself away of campaigning- get some beered up halfwit to take the bait and say something rude, its front page news and a court case- and that rather explains your question Brooke.

Not that you read the comments, but if you did it would.

And so it’s gone all day. People who can’t accept things, can’t accept the reality of howthe tide is turning are coming in and making all sorts of accusations, only to have them stonewalled over and over:

# Look it’s really quite simple, if Murray is brainless enough to get involved in such an emotive political subject, after other public figures had been targetted for their opinions then more fool him. Although I doubt the morose millionaire Murray will be particularly bothered by any of it anyway. And if he is, toughshyte – its of his own making.

Over and over they got it wrong and over and over it was answered:

# I don’t actually think Sanghani hates men. She comes across as rather sad; a normal girl who was brainwashed at University. It’s like someone who joins a religious cult, kind of thing.

The problem is that the stuff and nonsense her head was filled with leaves her unable to actually understand the world – men, relationships, society, etc- hence the frequent sense of bafflement that comes through in her articles as she wrestles with everyday social and emotional situations.

So someone came in, having seemingly missed all of this and just repeated the same point, as if it makes it true by repeating it – that Murray ‘has a right to his opinion’.

No one was even questioning that, you silly person. It’s an irrelevance. Yet another commenter takes up the baton, coz I’m knackered by now:

# I think you’ve missed part of the point in this article, which was the timing of the tweet.

Both by tradition and law, there is no broadcasting of political viewpoints on polling day. To tweet when he did was crass and boorish, and of course drew a great deal of attention as everybody else had, rightly, shut up. If he had something to say, he should have done so earlier.

As all the others on both sides did. Both sides. Including the Yes side. But did this stop them? No, they went to another online paper and tried it there. And over there, yet another normal person answered it the same way:

# I think it was cynical of Murray to have kept his silence for the last 3 years, only to speak out at the start of polling. Although he could not personally vote, he was well aware that his comments would sway people to support the Yes vote, whilst allowing no-one time to react to his comments.

Guess what? Someone else then came in, totally oblivious to the discussion and asked why a sportsperson can’t have an opinion?

Now this is the point one stops, sits back and really thinks about the mind of someone who would just ride in over the top like that.

And yet again, one of us painstakingly explained:

# Andy Murray publicly declared his support for one side of the argument just before the vote and justified his decision with the shallowest of reasons.

He did so in the knowledge he could influence others, he had previously stated he wouldn’t take sides and that all he is known for is playing tennis. No-one should be influenced in such an important matter by someone they only know for playing sport, but he must be aware they can be, so his input was ill-judged and he does deserve condemnation for it.

Not of the type I have no doubt he has received, but condemnation nonetheless.

There were some loons who went OTT and spoke of Dunblane and the like. Then one of the Yessers said well, we should now forgive Murray his silliness because it’s all over and ‘we’ had got the result we wanted.

Now hang on, I didn’t mind really on the issue itself – there were advantages both ways – but I was dead against Wee Thug Maoist Alex’s bully tactics. And so, it seems, were many of us.

So once again, a commenter came in to set the record straight:

# If you were threatened by one side of the campaign, why should you forgive and forget? Jim Sillars promised a day of reckoning and that typified the nature of his argument. It was notable that Alex Salmond constantly whined about Westrminster bullying as his own campaign’s efforts to intimidate were widely reported.

That should not be forgotten or forgiven, as there is no place for such behaviour in a civilised society. We should be grateful this matter could be and was settled by a democratic vote, but we should also expect it to be. Were Scotland’s police not politicised, I would expect them to deal with this. As it is, I expect they will quietly ignore it.

Now that’s a reasoned statement, so in came a reasonable Yes voter and said yes but it’s over. Can’t you let it be? Can’t you find it in your heart to forgive Murray?

Why? Why would we? He’s not sorry. His was an overtly political last minute move designed to sway his fans in Scotland, during the lull.

And in came yet another commenter to do the job:

# Why did he accept the OBE if he had such feelings? a bit hypocritical if you ask me.

So someone came in and said oh for goodness sake, he’s a sportsman, not a politician. He plays tennis, he does not play politics, he’s not interested.

What an amazing statement. So one more commenter answered:

# Actually, he does. As far as it’s possible to be seriously annoyed at someone you’ve never met, well he pushed me to that point. Like with most of the yes camp rhetoric, it WASN’T the fact he expressed his opinion, of course – it was HOW he expressed it and the TIMING of it.

He tried to be the deciding factor which would push the ‘yes’ vote over the edge, he WAS playing politics and quite frankly, as someone who has achieved fame and notoriety AS A TENNIS PLAYER, he used his status in a way which could easily be described as ‘manipulative in the extreme’.

All of this comes from a Scot. He has totally lost my support (not that he gives a stuff and nor would I expect him to) and I would imagine, that of many of his fans.

Now that was one of the Scots themselves writing that. But does that affect the Yessers at all? Not a bit of it.

Another one, can you believe it, comes in with, ‘For Pete’s sake- assess the man on his performance, not on his views about his native land.’ This constant attempt to not have Murray accountable for his actions and on what grounds? He can play tennis.

So it took another commenter:

# “For Pete’s sake- assess the man on his performance, not on his views about his native land.”

I would love to, I would love to do that with all athletes. However, he chose to put his views forward in this most timely and …

Well, it went on in the same vein the other comments did. You see what’s happening here? These ordinary people are not going to be browbeaten, forced to drop their anger at what Murray or for that matter, Cameron, did.

Nor will they at Clacton, nor will they in May 2015. We will say what needs saying, we will keep saying it, no matter how much you try to stop it by calling it names, calling it obsessional, trying to shut us up.

So in came someone with a great long tome about being reasonable and understanding Scotland only wanted to be recognized, only wanted a fair say and all that. And Andy Murray, then, is perfectly entitled to be both Scottish and British.

You see – once again, ignoring that that’s not what we were saying at all. It was the timing and the cynical way it was done.

So yet another commenter felt he had to answer this:

# I’m an Englishman first and British second. Personally, I don’t see a conflict of interest – it’s perfectly possible to be proud of being both, and it makes sense to want more independence for your country. What’s desperately needed now though is an agreement that works for everyone in the UK.

But what has been difficult to stomach is the impression the ‘Yes’ campaign tried to give that Scotland has been brutally oppressed by England for 300 years, when actually the partnership with England has served Scotland incredibly well.

Despite what Salmond says, Scotland is nothing like apartheid South Africa, and he’s certainly no Mandela figure.

You see – we are NOT happy and we’re NOT going to stand by when drivel is spoken by the other side any more.

There are two villains coming out of this – two main villains. Not so much Wee Alex who was doing as expected, nor Brown and Co who also ran true to form but the two arch-cynics in this.

By far the more important is Cameron and he is going to get his. It will take some time.

The other is Murray, only as a public figure who commanded affection and abused it. Obviously he is not as vital as Cameron but that doesn’t mean he’s going to be forgiven, as he thinks he will be. People have long memories for things like this.

2 comments for “It’s nothing to do with a viewpoint, it’s to do with gross disloyalty and a cynical ploy

  1. September 20, 2014 at 9:03 pm

    We’re only cheering Murray because he is the only ‘British’ tennis hope for the moment.

    We know that he was never going to be the easiest sporting hero for us to accept. No doubt, many British Wimbledon fans think that as well. That said, better together — for better or worse. 😉

    Roll on, English Parliament.

  2. Viscount Rectum
    September 28, 2014 at 7:00 am

    Is Radhika Sanghani ugly enough to shag ?, thats what is important

Comments are closed.