Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008

Haggis Hunt is now on!

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

A Puritan collar for our pain in the neck


PERSPECTIVE

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 December 2007
To hear Gordon bleating about his 'values' is not fare for weak stomachs
IF YOU are under the age of 369 you will have missed the bracing Scottish experience that was the Solemn League and Covenant, or its even more robust predecessor the National Covenant, when everything that was most drab, philistine and narrow-minded
in Scotland mustered in Greyfriars Kirkyard to inaugurate the Rule of the Saints. The most fanatical signed in their blood and, having consequently contracted septicaemia, played no further part in the diminishment of Scotland.

It was a scene for every sanctimonious Scottish radical to envy. The malice, the hatred of art, music, laughter and, above all, Popery and its baroque splendour – here was the pure leaven of that 'progressive' Scottish philosophy that revels in the "dingin' doon" of all things gracious and elegant. It was, in many respects, a rehearsal for the Wee Scotch Senate that ornaments Holyrood today. If Covenanting was about anything, it was about banning everything that moves: ditto the WSS.

Today, on the threshold of the 370th anniversary of the Covenant, there is good news for all whey-faced Whigs, in their modern incarnation as socialists, leftists and politically correct witchfinders: the Rule of the Saints is back. Nor is its jurisdiction confined to north of the border. Gordon Brown, the Johnston of Warriston de nos jours, rules from Downing Street. Pity untutored English commentators, struggling to analyse the Brown phenomenon. They do not share our Scottish insight. We have been here before.

Crown that scowling countenance with a funereal black hat, garland the squat neck with a puritan collar and substitute a bible for the even thicker tome of tax regulations in his hand and Gordon assumes his innate identity: this is one of nature's Covenanters. Every political platform from which he spouts his wooden oratory is transformed into a pulpit. The moral high ground is his wash-pot, over sanctimony has he cast his shoe. To hear Gordon bleating about his "values" is not fare for weak stomachs.

Brown (how apt the name) really should stop dishing up his son-of-the-manse guff about having his personal formation in the feeding of the five thousand out of his father's back door. History already records that he served for 10 years as Number Two in the most aggressively anti-Christian Government Britain has ever seen.

He was complicit in the regime that refused to amend an abortion law which has sent seven million British babies to the incinerator since 1967, that introduced adoption by homosexuals and put Catholic adoption agencies out of business. So spare us the born-again hypocrisy, Gordon.

Most nauseating was the attempt to reinvent this weirdo and obsessive number-cruncher as an England football supporter, Arctic Monkeys fan and – most disturbing of all – the cultivation of the Boris Karloff smile. Fortunately, events have removed any plausible occasion for the display of that chilling rictus, which is a considerable relief.

Then there was Superbrown, the hero who single-handedly won the war on terror. What was he supposed to have done? The London bomb plot failed and the effort at Glasgow airport wrought no worse havoc than a yummy mummy in a four-wheel-drive on a bad hair day, yet it was instantly promoted to parity with New York on September 11, while Gordon chaired a Cobra meeting with appropriate solemnity. For a month or so, a public mesmerised by the welcome departure of Tony Blair bought into all the Brownite mythology his spinners could concoct. Then came reality.

Brown has not changed. He is the same unpleasant creature, gifted with effortless anti-charisma, he has always been. Peter Lilley's observation that Gordon can brighten a room just by leaving it is as accurate as ever. The aim of his life is to intrude upon and control everybody else's. He has blighted many people's retirement with his fiscal banditry in raiding pension funds, initially of £5bn a year, then increasing this to £7.3bn; he has cost British investors £270bn in lost equity values.

His competence is a myth. When he broke his own 'golden rule' that public expenditure, over the course of the economic cycle, must not exceed tax revenues, he moved the start of the cycle back from 1999 to 1997, thus helping himself to an additional £13bn of credit. He similarly and repeatedly revised his growth rate forecasts downwards, inspired by hindsight. Gordon has an uncanny psychic gift of foretelling what will happen last year.

The great guru of neo-classical endogenous growth theory likes to dazzle with his fiscal genius. A classic Brown coup was his selling off of 60% of the UK's gold reserves when the price was at a 20-year low of $275 an ounce in 1999-2002; it rose to $700 an ounce last year. That cost the taxpayer £4bn, but – hey! – who's counting? Taxpayers, in Gordon's view, exist to fork out. In his decade as Chancellor, taxation rose from 39.3% of GDP to 42.4%. In seven years' time, the average family will pay £1m in tax over a lifetime. It is called redistribution and Brown loves it.

The prospects for Gordon Brown and his marionettes (he does not have ministers in the normal constitutional sense of the term) in 2008 and beyond are delightfully bleak. The electorate has turned against them as the economic chickens come home to roost. Chicken Gordon will go to the wire, all the way to 2010, before he faces his electoral nemesis. The eerie resemblance between the atmosphere surrounding his regime and the Tories in 1992-97 speaks volumes. Never glad, confident morning again for Gordon and his creatures. It will be less an election than a cull. Lovely.



The full article contains 969 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 December 2007 8:06 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
 
1

Richardinho,

30/12/2007 00:41:53
That was almost a good article Gerald. But why did you have to inflict upon us your obsession with things that happened hundreds of years ago? You know whatever the rights and wrongs of all that, it's about time you got over it.
2

Willie Macleod,

Wick 30/12/2007 04:39:49
#1 Almost a good article? Warner is a joker no serious journalist or Writer could get away with writing such nonsense Pathetic insucure Bile
3

Willie Macleod,

Wick 30/12/2007 05:00:40
Insecure sorry #2
4

Mercutio,

FALKIRK 30/12/2007 08:16:13
Gerald right or wrong is a breath of fresh air.His historical analogies though not neccessarily 100% accurate are 100% entertaining, when a balloon needs pricking he is just the man to do it. Keep it up Mr Warner.
5

Richardinho,

30/12/2007 12:54:16
#5 agree-so what was all that nonsense about the Covenanters all about then?
6

Radge,

Aberdeen 30/12/2007 13:27:03
I want Lackey! Where's Lackey Turd to defend his master's reputation against GW's onslaught against the Dear Leader?
7

Billy1690,

30/12/2007 13:52:43
Why does Gerald Warner prefix his attack on Gordon Brown with an assault on our Scottish Protestant heroes? Before the Covenanters, corrupt Stewart kings manipulated the Scottish parliament with their appointment of puppet bishops. Does Gerald want those dark days to return?
8

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 30/12/2007 14:18:33
#8, does your name perhaps betray a point of view?
9

Richardinho,

30/12/2007 14:59:27
Pity Billy and Gerald can't get in a time machine and travel back to the 17th century. Then their rants might actually have some relevancy.
10

lettermen2,

Virginia, USA 30/12/2007 15:00:50
The late C. (Charles) Gregg Singer, explains the complex issues of Church and State in addresses(SermonAudio.com, 161) and various publications, perhaps the most recognized, THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF AMERICAN HISTORY, revised edition, 1981.
11

Itchy,

30/12/2007 15:54:30
Warner is right about Brown. Brown is a puritan.

Unfortunately, Warner thinks that the Pope knows best on everything.
12

Teemackell the Scribe,

30/12/2007 17:00:35
GW writes "IF YOU are under the age of 369 you will have missed the bracing Scottish experience that was the Solemn League and Covenant." Not so. A mere 368 year -old might have a childhood memory of the event-a very BRITISH experience, as an historian and arch-Unionist like Warner well knows. It was an alliance, both religious and military, struck in 1643 between the Westminster Parliament and the Covenanters to combat the Scottish tyrant Charles Stewart who rather lost his head six years later. As such, it is an important milestone in the eventual victory of our nascent democracy over Stewart absolutism -as was the abdication of Stewart's son James 45 years later in 1688 in favour of his daughter Mary and her husband, William of Orange. (Hello Billy 1690: There is a fraud impersonating you on

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.1924576.0.blairs_conversion_to_roman_catholicism.php.

The topic might be of some interest? Also, someone there has a query for you)

The date GW has in mind is 1637 -the National Covenant, "when", he writes, "everything that was most drab, philistine and narrow-minded in Scotland mustered in Greyfriars Kirkyard to inaugurate the Rule of the Saints. The most fanatical signed in their blood.." The first signatory was James Graham, Earl of Montrose. The future defector to the Royalists may have sold his principles for a marquisate and dressed in black armour. It is,still, a surprised to hear James Graham characterised by GW as "drab, philistine and narrow-minded." GW, of course, believes Graham became elegant, cultivated and broad-minded when he turned traitor.

Still, a wonderful kick at Gordie. Nobody does it better. "Drab, philistine and narrow-minded" sounds more like a description of the SoS Op-Ed pages while GW has been away. Welcome back.
13

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 30/12/2007 18:09:48
It was almost a good article? A bit like the curate's egg? Some good, some bad, and some for Catholic taste?

The O.T.T. seeks solace in Gordon Broon's temporary fall from grace but IF, he seriously believes a coachload of indigenous Tories are going to replicate their Southern cousins then then I'm afraid he is going to be very disappointed?

After all, these old buffers are hanging on for dear life as First Driver Eck takes them on a mystery tour?

N.B. A Guid New Year to the O.T.T.
14

Retiarius,

With Myrmillo at Batavadorum for the hols - lovely 30/12/2007 18:27:11
I don't quite agree with Teemackell about Montrose. He signed nothing to indicate any loss of loyalty to his king, and if you study the battle banners of the Covenanters in St Giles you'll see the common slogan is "For God, King and Covenant" - increasingly this was mere sophistry, of course, and it was at the point where the Covenanters "stepped over the line", as Graham saw it, that he joined the king (who he had never "left"). I'd ask Teemackell to reflect, too, that a man who invades Scotland armed only with a royal banner in his pannier and a few servants is probably acting out of a sense of principle: the mere opportunist waits his time and arrives with a host, or not at all. Finally I'd ask him to reflect that the Edinburgh mob, and despite the wishes of their political-religious masters, pointedly refused to pelt him with stones while he was being driven to the scaffold.
The 1643 alliance between the Scots and the Parliamentarians assuredly won the 1st Civil War for the latter, since it was Hamilton's 14,000 disciplined Scots who made possible the decisive battle of Marston Moor in 1644. The defeated Royalists were driven from the north and final Parliamentarian victory was assured: Naseby, a smaller battle, was a valedictory or postscript. However it was the grey, puritan syndrome which Gerald alludes to which then turned the entire Scottish scenario pear-shaped. Whereas 17th century Catholic armies might go to war with huge numbers of priests in attendance, their generals and their officers ran the war. In 1651 the brilliant Thirty Years War veteran Leslie was to complain: "The army winna fight!" because of the negative effects of the meenisters, who as a sort of Committee of Public Safety (without quite the same violence) had sacked many or most of the best officers for not being sufficiently on message with their then prevailing brand of religious lunacy. Large numbers of meenister-commissars accompanied the army, destroying esprit de corps and mak
15

Retiarius,

Civis Glasguensis Sum 30/12/2007 18:28:41
(Cont.) Large numbers of meenister-commissars accompanied the army, destroying esprit de corps and making effective command control all but impossible. The result was Dunbar - a battle in which Leslie, having brought Cromwell to the brink of perdition in the most brilliant Fabian campaign in Scottish history, saw his meenister-ridden and demoralised army ridden down by Ironside cavalry ...following a desperate and successful gamble originated and led not by Cromwell (who was having a sort of religious seizure at the time) but by his brilliant general Lambert. Yes, Lambert!
From that point onwards a dark night settled over the land. The Restoration restored normal service, but with a hefty dash of participative democracy (at least for those and such of those), but I think Gerald is right in suggesting that some of that period's baleful influence lingers ... if you've ever seen a Presbytery in action (a conventicle of elderly crows) you'll know what I mean. That GB is a product of this environment is not in doubt, and therefore GW's analysis is essentially correct.
16

Pontificatus Maximus of Avignon,

30/12/2007 18:33:57
No anniversary of the National Covenant is worthy of commemoration.
Whilst it may have solved a few problems at the time, it spawned a lot of the bigotry we still have to deal with.
Just when will the vile Orange Order and its vile members realise that the Dutch imported imposter to the throne only secured his "victory" at the Boyne as a result of paying Catholic mercenaries.

#8 is the kind of person that Scotland could well live without.

PS: despite the moniker I am a proddy!!!
17

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 30/12/2007 18:49:53
'History already records that he served for 10 years as Number Two in the most aggressively anti-Christian Government Britain has ever seen.'

By and large, this is a good article although there is a horrible confusion between being anti-Christian and being not particularly pro-Roman-Catholic. (Gordon Brown would not have made that particular conceptual error.)

18

Billy1690,

30/12/2007 21:59:46

Urban Guerrilla,Edinburgh 30/12/2007 14:18:33 writes
#8, does your name perhaps betray a point of view?

Yours should be Sherlock Homes mibbee?
19

Billy1690,

30/12/2007 22:06:09
No 17 Pontificatus Maximus of Avignon,
30/12/2007 18:33:57 says "#8 is the kind of person that Scotland could well live without.

PS: despite the moniker I am a proddy!!!"

What did I say you find objectionable? Or is it my "moniker" you find objectionable, you pretencious plonker?
20

Teemackell the Scribe,

30/12/2007 22:38:24
Billy1690: I've seen one or two of your posts in the past, including a memorable comment on the Blair conversion. I feel obliged to inform you that I referred to this in the site above. A ding-dong war of religion is going on there between, mainly Catholics, unbelievers and Orthodox. A robust defender of "our Scottish Protestant heroes" (see #8 above) would add a missing ingredient.
21

Teemackell the Scribe,

30/12/2007 22:38:25
Billy1690: I've seen one or two of your posts in the past, including a memorable comment on the Blair conversion. I feel obliged to inform you that I referred to this in the site above. A ding-dong war of religion is going on there between, mainly Catholics, unbelievers and Orthodox. A robust defender of "our Scottish Protestant heroes" (see #8 above) would add a missing ingredient.
22

Radge,

Aberdeen 03/01/2008 20:28:02
#14 Lackey you sad man, none of the points you make are questions. Leave the question marks out.

Or are you a valley girl who phrases everything as if it were a question? If so it is like totally not cool?

Write out 100 times - I must not crawl up G Broon's backside.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.