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.

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

  1. September 19, 2014 at 20:34

    Where is Murray’s ‘gross disloyalty’ if it is Murray’s you refer to in the title?

    Re the ‘cynical ploy’, are you saying that Murray timed his tweet so that it would move voters to ‘Yes’ but without any opportunity to have his views rebutted?

    • September 19, 2014 at 22:12

      Calum, you’re deeply chagrined and that’s understandable. For you and for thousands of others, it’s a bitter blow. I’ll not attempt to diminish that.

      As so many commenters have pointed out, of whom I’ve quoted but four or five from the hundreds, there’s also a feeling in England that people,mainly immigrants in the uncontrolled immigration, have taken advantage of our hospitality, only to spit in our face and take the Michael.

      Everything about Murray’s move was badly timed and for the wrong reasons. These people feel betrayed by him in doing as he did when he did it, and for the clear reason he did it at that time and not days earlier. Plus he has form badmouthing the English among whom he lived.

      For Salmond or yourself or anyone else up there to do that – well, that’s to be expected or at least understood. There’s quite a bit of history. But turn it round and imagine I’d been living among the Scots for years, enjoying all the hospitality you gave and then an issue came up, say a place at the UN table for either England or Scotland and I said, whilst still in Scotland, “Anyone but the Scots.”

      You’ll see what I mean. There are many English who are not all that happy with young Mr. Murray’s behaviour. As for Salmond, I don’t think they’re too worried now. He had his shot, it’s over and one thing Alex Salmond never did was run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.

      You can put any good arguments you like against that view of the English but it’s not going to stop them thinking it. To show you what I mean, I just went into one article and pulled out a comment which longer than one line:

      Trot 2013

      Murray may hold and express his opinion. No bile there. As a celebrity his opinion carries weight and he knows that. Murray could have published his opinion at any time and – as with any other celeb speaking ‘from the heart’ – that would have been fine. However the timing of his expression of opinion was deceitful; late enough to prevent any reply but just in time to catch the waverer’ – in other words to have the maximum political impact. To say he behaved honourably is to see his action one dimensionally and with naievity. To say he may be admired is the opinion of a schoolchild.

      See what I mean? Identical argument from someone entirely different from those quoted in this post. There is a deep feeling about this man.

      However, as said in the post, Cameron is far more the target now. That’s whom I have my sights on.

  2. September 19, 2014 at 22:22

    You haven’t answered my questions. Your post is titled, ‘It’s nothing to do with a viewpoint, it’s to do with gross disloyalty and a cynical ploy.’

    So what is the ‘gross disloyalty’ to which you refer?

    What is the ‘cynical ploy’?

    • September 19, 2014 at 22:28

      I have answered it – I’ve spelt it out in detail in the comments. Look at my reply [before these two comments – the one by Trot] and there it is in there. There’s the cynicism. As for the disloyalty, it’s spelt out in my analogy of me in Scotland making such statements.

      The bottom line is it doesn’t matter a damn what I say and marginally more what you do. What matters is that there is a widespread feeling, as I’ve already quoted over and over, that he has been those two things.

      I’m not making it up or creating something from nothing – here was the very next comment in the thread:

      Murray has been supported to the ends of the earth by the English especially at Wimbledon. I think it was very unwise to put himself in such a position. He will know as well as any that it was starting to look a little like the Scots against the English. If he gets boos at Wimbledon this year it will be down to his own stupidity. I for one will not be cheering him on.

      There was abuse of Murray on Twitter. There were just as many comments from the English condemning those idiots – there are idiots on both sides. Nobody rational on either side would tolerate for a minute abuse of Murray. For a start, that would cloud the real arguments which have been put over and over in this post and comments below.

      As I said before though – he’s a minor issue now. There is Cameron, Devo Max, the West Lothian and the Barnett questions to come, things which really do matter.

      Just one more on Murray:


      He would have been wiser, to have kept his own counsel, until after the result, and he could then have taken a lead from the Glasgow Herald who gave a very wise “No, but …”, which would have stood him in good stead and given the impression that he has broader perspective and a bit more wisdom after the opportunities he has had (that his talent, hard work and the considerable support from his family and GB Sport, have given him(. Instead he comes across as naïve and quite self-indulgent about it. No-one would have been bothered if he had kept quiet and it would have reflected better on him. He should not be surprise if his “popularity” which is a fickle thing anyway, wane. I don’t think has surprised anyone, but disappointed people for his judgement which is, in effect, poor manners, and he knew he would upset people, so why do it?

      Leaving aside all other matters for the moment, you see the type of comment which is being made over and over by different people?

  3. September 19, 2014 at 22:38

    Do you subscribe to the views ‘that he has been these two things’?

    • September 19, 2014 at 22:43

      Well I’d hardly have put all those quotes in otherwise. This is where I’m from. I have no issue with Scotland, in fact I love it. No issue with Scots – I’m surrounded by Scots in my circle. I see Scots as our cousins and brothers, especially you.

      But this thing by him went down very badly with the English, far worse than I think he even realizes, although maybe he does now. The measure of that is that everyone’s really forgotten about all the rest of it now down here – except for Cameron and to a lesser extent, Murray.

      This worries me more:

      … because it is Scot against Scot and no one wants that.

  4. September 19, 2014 at 22:58

    Do you think anyone here was bothered about celebrity support? The debate was a million miles ahead of this. He supported independence: fine. Had he supported No: fine. No effect.

    The debate may have been portrayed as being anti-English: absolutely wrong. The key was about bringing decision-making back into our own hands. If you wish to see this as anti-English then so be it but you’re wrong.

    You, and others, have little to concern yourself with if you’re bothered about Andy Murray’s words. A Liverpool supporter living in Manchester says, ‘Any one but Man U.’ Grow a skin!

    Read my post here and you may understand or you may go ballistic. I don’t know. I don’t care.

  5. September 20, 2014 at 03:04

    The English have been slapped in the face. It is like a married couple who have a life formed together for 20 years and one decides she/he has had enough. And has slapped the face of the other. Sure there are two to discuss, but only one has shown disloyalty and only one has started the whining and accusations, mendacities, exaggerations and violently assaulted not only the other but the relationship too. The other is hurt and dismayed.

    If that couple are to go on together, the whiner, the one who slapped the face of the other, cannot expect the action to be just ‘moved on’ from. Can you see the same double-standard we see daily when one gender takes upon itself the right to ‘slap a face’ but denies the right of the other to return the slap?

    The English must be given an opportunity to vote on keeping the relationship or stopping it right there before Scotland decides that a slap is not enough and starts using bagpipes.

    • September 20, 2014 at 07:52

      I’d agree. This has all been about poor Scotland. Just because I say that, does not mean I want a divorce. In any family, one child is getting more attention and affection and the other feels he’s getting short shrift. Doesn’t mean one does not think the other is the brother. Same family – just some issues.

      We were in a United Kingdom by name, obviously not by nature. If this question of disbanding the UK was to be resolved, then all members of the family needed to be asked. The ones having what I consider an overwhelming right were the Scots living down here. Why would they have no say in Scotland? It’s bizarre.

      As for the other countries in the UK – well, there’s an argument we should have had the vote too.

      I’d also like to touch on the tricky one of how one can be Unionist here but not with the EU. That’s a hard one to justify, I agree. Both are run by crooks, for their own purposes and are interfering with the personal lives of their outposts.

      I can only point to the 307 years in which the United Kingdom or Great Britain lived, fought wars etc. together. The EU, on the other hand is a monstrosity of latter years, meant to create a giant mafia politburo and vassals below. One is neutral, the other is, frankly, evil.

      A certain devolution or autonomy is necessary. Within Russia, there are autonomous republics which, in practice, are semi-autonomous and yet they manage. They combine for defence purposes, they’re friendly to the neighbouring republic – hate to say iot but it’s a federalist model.

      Federalism in itself is not bad, providing there’s true semi-autonomy. This will now become a post methinks.

  6. September 20, 2014 at 12:06


    Marriage? This analogy is apt but only to a degree. The expectation in a marriage is that both are equal. The union was not and could never be a ‘marriage’ of equals. With its much larger population and gross economy it was inevitable that decisions would be made to favour the majority, and many such decisions were made by Scots at the centre of UK government.

    The corollary is that such decisions are not made with the interests of the minority at heart. The minority was not just those in Scotland but also in Wales, Northern Ireland and many in ‘outlying’ parts of England, ‘outlying’ being outwith the London and the South-East. This doesn’t mean that all decisions made are against the needs of those other areas but rather that their needs were not paramount.

    It is in the context of this very unequal ‘marriage’ that Scottish voters demanded that a degree of decision-making be returned to the people of Scotland. Regions of England suffered as did Scotland but that Scotland was a country with its own institutions brought focus to the people’s will that wasn’t possible in parts of England.

    That you believe that ‘regionalising’ England is part of an EU plan I leave untouched.

    Devolution of powers to Scotland was not wanted by the political establishment. Few want to give up power. Of concern in the 1970’s was that Scotland, had it known the extent of the oil riches in Scottish waters, would have voted for independence. This information, the McCrone Report, was denied to the Scots for 30 years. But such was the demand for devolution that central government relented, not for any positive reason but only to stop the rise of the SNP.

    Was the desire for devolution a slap in the face of ‘England’? Surely, in a marriage, you wouldn’t want power to be almost entirely invested in the hands of one partner. Denying a share of power would be the act of a bully.

    Devolution came and devolution worked within its constraints but major constraints there were.

    As both the Labour and Conservative parties in the UK moved to the political right – you may see both parties as being on the left – the gap between UK and Scottish politics widened. This gap wasn’t always seen in electoral results given the almost tribal response of many voters to a Labour badge but at ground level change was in progress. The rise of the SNP firstly to a minority government in 2007 and then majority in 2011 was symptomatic of a break between the directions of UK and Scottish politics. I have no doubt that the policies of the current UK government were a major factor in the rise of support for Scottish independence.

    You may see this rise as a slap in the face but, again, the marriage is unequal. You may say that Scotland gets more out of the marriage than England in terms of public spending – £1200 is often mentioned – but what is rarely stated is that for all bar one of the last 33 years, I think it is, Scotland has contributed more to the UK than is returned – £1700 is the equivalent figure. Of course, the UK has been running a deficit and so all parts of the UK have been spending way beyond that which is raised.

    Would you in a marriage control the purse strings of your spouse against her/his wishes? Surely not.

    If your first indication that your partner was unhappy was the message, ‘I’m thinking of leaving’ then I could understand your seeing this as a slap in the face but, in many marriages, the signs are present before. They were in mine but I didn’t see them in time. If you saw the independence referendum as the first sign of unhappiness then, like me, you have been blind to what was happening.

    The desire for independence has nothing to do with hating the English, well there may be a few, but has everything to do with running our affairs in the best interests of those who live here.

    This brings me on to my second point which deals with the question, ‘Should voters in the rest of the UK have had a vote in the referendum?’

    The question should be split to become,

    ‘Should Scots living in the rest of the UK, or beyond, have had a vote?’ and

    ‘Should all voters in the UK had a vote?’

    ‘No’! to both

    Now let me explain.

    One of the many criticisms was that the desire for independence was ethnic nationalism. Had Scots, those born in Scotland, in England been given a vote then the criticism of ethnic nationalism would stand. Place of birth as a voting criterion would confirm that the desire was ethnic in origins. Had those living in Scotland but born elsewhere been denied a vote this too would have confirmed that ethnic nationalism was at the heart of the referendum.

    Did you really want ethnic nationalism on your northern border? Do you really want ethnic nationalism anywhere?

    Fortunately, our nationalism is civic and not ethnic. It has no component of ethnicity. Choose to live in Scotland then be part of us and vote. Choose to live elsewhere and you resile your right to choose how those in Scotland live.

    Now we come onto the question of whether the referendum should have been UK-wide. The union of England and Scotland, as with all bipartite treaties, requires both to make but only one to break. Can there be any other way?

    Should a marriage split only when both agree? Surely, you are not supporting this contention? Surely, you do not support the contention that voters in the rest of the UK should be in a position to force Scotland to stay in the union even if 100% of Scottish voters wanted to leave? This would be an abuse of power beyond all imagining and beyond the beyond the bounds of democracy.

    Would you accept that in any EU referendum that the UK’s position should be determined by all voters within the UK? Surely not! That would be undemocratic. Some wanted the Scottish referendum run along those undemocratic lines. Shame!

    The argument might be made that there are parts of England with larger populations which have no opportunity to vote on devolution far less independence and, therefore, it is wrong that Scotland has the chance. This is an argument without foundation. Two countries, not regions, came together and one had the opportunity to leave.

    The point has been made that in a marriage both have the opportunity to talk before one makes the decision and that this has been missing here. This is wrong. Scotland raised the question of leaving and so the decision to leave had to be Scotland’s only. Over the last two years there has been debate both within and outside Scotland on the merits or otherwise. Having had the debate the decision rested with Scotland because only Scotland had expressed sufficient desire to leave.

    At no time has there been a movement of sufficient size within England for English voters, those who live in England, to vote on breaking the union. It is entirely appropriate for English voters, if there is the demand, to vote on whether England should leave the union.

    There is no doubt that, for me, Scottish independence, is of the heart and mind. I was born, and have always lived, in Scotland. Do not mistake my background as showing my desire is ethnic. Independence for Scotland is for all who choose to live here. Scotland, still part of the UK, is for all those who choose to live here.

    If you still feel you’ve been slapped in the face then …………

    • September 20, 2014 at 12:08

      I thank you, Calum. Whatever one agrees with or not, yours is a genuine contribution and I welcome the chance to see the other side put. Those currently annoyed with me over WTC7 will disagree but I assure them it is but a postponement and I’ll be in swinging the broadsword before too long. Every point they make will be analysed.

      All I want on the Scottish question is for people to be able to judge from a range of views presented and backed up.

      And I genuinely sympathize, particularly if there was ballot rigging, the current topic.

  7. Wolfie
    September 20, 2014 at 14:03

    My Spanish wife commented that he was out or order in saying what he did. Probably shaved a few million off his sponsorship potential with that one, the silly little boy.

  8. September 20, 2014 at 15:14

    Murray, like me, was not constrained from making a comment on the referendum when he did. We all, me, Murray, J K Rowling etc, are free to say what we wish when we wish. Consequences: that goes with the territory.

    • Wolfie
      September 20, 2014 at 20:18

      I work freelance, insulting the client is a freedom that I have but not only is it foolish it also can make me a hypocrite under certain circumstances.

      I suppose it reveals the childish streak I’ve observed in many a Scot or Welshman, perhaps its us English who have infantilised them with our suffocating care?

  9. September 20, 2014 at 21:29



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *