Val, it's not misogyny that got Sturgeon – it's her wokester ideology
That's not the Royal Military Tattoo, the annual extravaganza at Edinburgh Castle, she's on about, but an actual tattoo she's had inked on her wrist. According to what she told her mother, which every parent knows may not be the whole truth, it's an 'infinity symbol' capped with an arrow, which she describes as a 'symbol of strength'.
Who would deny her this wee act of rebellion? After a spectacular fall from political grace and a very public marriage break up, Sturgeon has certainly been through the wringer.
Yet strength is what the rest of us required throughout her reign as First Minister, especially during the pandemic, when Boris Johnson kept having to ban things to stop her sounding tougher.
The female population in Scotland needed particular fortitude to withstand her assault on their identity. Promoting her disastrous 'gender recognition' reforms, she kept insisting that 'trans women are women' when quite obviously they are biological men.
It was all terribly disturbing, especially when a bloke named Isla Bryson, who used 'her' penis to carry out two rapes, was placed in a women's prison. Sturgeon's refusal to define this individual as male pretty much did for her political career.
Her biggest ambition was Scottish independence, a cause she managed to set back for generations by demonstrating just how badly her party would run everything. Amid ill concealed contempt for the Monarchy, she railed against Westminster and obsessed about 'hate crimes' while Scottish NHS waiting lists exploded.
Year after year, Scotland recorded the worst drug-related death rate in Europe. 'If I could turn the clock back… I would have done things differently,' she claimed, in what was not exactly a heartfelt apology for so many lives ruined and wasted.
These days, she seems to be spending a lot of time with her old pal Val McDermid. In an interview with The Telegraph, the author claims Sturgeon has been 'treated appallingly' and is the victim of misogyny.
'I've seen some of the stuff she gets poured on her head and it's horrible,' McDermid said. Apparently, she is taking comfort from the new tattoo. Aye, well – it will take much more than a bit of ink for her country to recover. We can only hope that the 'infinity' symbol does not make her legacy indelible.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Keir Starmer urged to stand up to EU over new tough holiday checks on British citizens
Keir Starmer was challenged to 'stand up' for Britain and fight tough new checks for UK citizens travelling to the EU. The Prime Minister was warned that the new regime, which will require Britons to prove they have medical insurance and a return ticket, will cause 'absolute chaos'. Nigel Farage made clear Sir Keir should not accept the incoming rules and insist on a new deal. The Reform UK leader told the Mail on Sunday: 'The PM's got to be tough. 'He needs to stand up and say this is completely over the top.' And Shadow Transport Secretary Richard Holden said 'hard-working Brits' were coming off 'second best' because Sir Keir failed to negotiate a better deal. Mr Holden added: 'So much for Starmer's so-called reset with Brussels. We're once again a rule taker, not a rule maker, and we have nothing to show for it.' The criticism began over details of a strict new digital system which will apply to Britons and other non-EU travellers from October 12. As well as the medical insurance and return ticket requirements, non-EU passport holders will have to have their fingerprints and a photograph taken the first time they use travel into the EU. Passengers are also expected to be asked a series of questions to check they have proof of accommodation and enough money for the trip. At most airports and ferry terminals, passengers will undergo the process at automated kiosks. But those who answer no to any questions are expected to be quizzed by a border officer, who could refuse entry. The long-awaited 'entry/exit system' (EES) will also automatically flag arrivals at risk of overstaying. Under post-Brexit rules, Britons without the right to work or reside in the EU can only stay for 90 days in any 180-day period. The new entry system has been long in the planning and is only due to be fully operational across the EU next April. But there are fears that as the system begins there will be huge queues at EU airports, as well as delays at Dover, Folkestone and London's St Pancras station – where French border checks are carried out before people embark on cross-Channel journeys. And last night, Mr Farage said Brussels had created a system that was almost as strict as 'getting into America'. He added: 'How on earth we managed to negotiate a deal as bad as this, I do not know. 'For all the travellers who go to France, to have to prove medical insurance will be a very lengthy process. 'Once again, Starmer has gaslit the public, telling us we've got a deal where we can go straight through [digital passport] gates.' But a Home Office spokesman said the Government had 'been working closely' with the European Commission, member states, local authorities and the travel industry to prepare ports for EES. They added: 'We are supporting ports and carriers to ensure EES registration is simple for anyone travelling to the Schengen area.'
Daily Mail
26 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
'Gag' on top brass after RAF chief claims UK could not fend off Russian onslaught in the event of war
Labour has been accused of 'gagging' military chiefs after being embarrassed by an RAF officer's claims that Russia could overwhelm Britain's defences. Earlier this summer there were complaints of 'unprecedented' interference by Downing Street to ensure that key announcements on defence were made by politicians, not military figures. The move prompted accusations of 'micro-management' by the Labour Government when senior officers were also restricted at one key conference to only speaking 'off the record'. But now sources have told The Mail on Sunday that No 10's move came after senior RAF officer Blythe Crawford lifted the lid on the weakness of UK air defences. Speaking at a Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) conference in April, Air Commodore Crawford revealed the results of a special war-game simulation based on the first day of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It showed the UK could not successfully fend off a similar Russian attack made up of jets, drones and missiles. Air Comm Crawford also warned that the UK, despite being on the western edge of Europe, can no longer make 'assumptions that we are safe', adding: 'We need to assume that we're under threat.' A few weeks later, ahead of a major land warfare conference it was hosting, RUSI alerted the military chiefs attending to a 'late change in reporting rules' which meant most speeches and panel appearances by officers 'will not be for reporting'. Now there are claims that officers attending next month's Defence, Security and Equipment International show in London have received a directive reminding them that they could not speak to the media without Downing Street's permission. Tory Armed Forces spokesman Mark Francois branded the Ministry of Defence 'a real mess' under Labour, adding: 'The MoD is not a happy ship at present.' But last night a Government source insisted there is no 'gag' on public speaking, saying: 'The process has always been on a case-by-case basis.' They added that this arrangement had been 'in place under governments of all political colours'.
Times
40 minutes ago
- Times
Liberal Britain's had its fill of illegal immigration. Why now?
On Tuesday morning, Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, went on the BBC's Today programme to be interrogated about the government's new 'one in, one out' plan to deport illegal migrants back to France. It is the 'right principle', she said, that people who arrive on small boats should be returned. Amol Rajan, the host, pressed Cooper. 'The trouble is, a year on from being in power, the numbers are going up, not down,' he said. 'Don't you think, if you said … 'we hope to return 5,000 a year through this scheme' it would help win the public over?' You could hardly hope for a better encapsulation of just how far the liberal consensus on migration has shifted in this country. Neither the Labour home secretary nor the Today show host interrogated the assumption that illegal migrants should be deported; it was merely a question of how many and how fast. Ten years ago, at the peak of the Syrian refugee crisis, with some desperate migrants boarding boats to reach Britain, both took a very different tone. In September 2015, Cooper, as shadow home secretary, was granted an emergency debate in the House of Commons on the refugees. She made a firm appeal to the conscience of parliament, insisting that 'we have a moral duty to do more'. A few months earlier, Rajan wrote an opinion column in the Evening Standard lamenting the 'general public hysteria about foreigners invading our island nation' as he attacked our 'inhumane' asylum system. The point is not that the politician and the journalist were wrong then and right now — no doubt both stand by their 2015 positions — but rather that the terms of this discussion have shifted quite remarkably. We are now having the debate about migration, both legal and illegal, on ground once occupied by the likes of Nigel Farage and Migration Watch. The hard-right flank is no longer even embodied by Farage but the erstwhile Reformer Rupert Lowe, who is making arguments for mass deportations and 'remigration'. What political theorists call the Overton window, the parameters within which a public discussion is held, has moved firmly to the right. Even The Economist magazine, staunchly anti-Brexit and shaper of elite opinion, recently ran a leader calling for the United Nations refugee convention to be scrapped altogether and replaced with something new, freeing wealthy countries from their current obligations towards asylum seekers. Alexander Casella, who ran the UN's refugee programme in Asia until 1996, heartily agreed with The Economist's position. 'This is what many people in the migration policy world think,' he says. 'The conventions, their time has passed. This whole system of having people come, screening them, keeping the refugees and doing something else with the non-refugees, it just doesn't work any more. We need something new.' • Will UK-France treaty stop small boat crossings? The deal explained The same shift in tone has taken place across Europe, where the Schengen free movement zone is becoming increasingly constricted. Ten years ago this month, Angela Merkel famously told Germany 'Wir schaffen das' — we can manage this — as she opened her country's doors to a wave of Syrian migration. Today, Germany has introduced enhanced border checks, as have Austria, Poland and Sweden. We have clearly passed an inflection point in Britain, too. But why? What changed? Some of the answers are staring us directly in the face. As the home secretary pointed out on Tuesday, we are now 400 weeks into the small boats crisis and more than 25,000 people have come this year already, which is a record. America's re-election of Donald Trump, who has effectively shut down the asylum system on his own southern border, along with Reform's surge in domestic opinion polls, has also highlighted just how fed up many voters are with a system that has seemingly veered out of control. Polite opinion is belatedly responding to this shift. 'Attitudes have hardened around asylum because of the visible lack of control in the Channel and around asylum hotels,' says Sunder Katwala, director of the British Future think tank. 'It's the visibility of it.' The particular imagery of boats landing on beaches provokes an atavistic recoil from many in this country, which has always seen the Channel as its moat, protecting Britain from unwanted continental advances. 'Boats are more worrying than Eurostar trains and lorries,' says Katwala. The roots of our current predicament go back decades, though, well beyond Trump or Reform. There were, of course, rows and riots over Commonwealth migration in the 1950s and 60s, culminating in Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech in 1968. But our contemporary debate over immigration really began in 1997 with the election of Tony Blair. Net migration almost tripled in the first year of the Blair government, which relaxed rules around work and study visas. Blair was committed to his vision of a cosmopolitan, open-minded Britain, and keen for the economic benefits of immigration. And so, in 2004, as the European Union prepared for the accession of eight new eastern European countries, Blair made a fateful decision. Rather than adopt transitional controls of up to seven years on migrants from the new countries, Britain became the only major EU country not to apply temporary restrictions. At the time, government estimates put the maximum expected number of eastern European migrants at 13,000 a year. But almost half a million came in the four years that followed. Jack Straw, who was the foreign secretary at the time, later described the decision as a 'spectacular mistake'. 'It was obvious that their public assertion was untrue,' says Sir David Davis, the Conservative MP who was shadow home secretary in 2004. 'That's where it all started really. Frankly, until then, people weren't terribly bothered.' A month after the accession of the 'A8' countries, in June 2004 Britain held European parliament elections. The UK Independence Party (Ukip) won more than 16 per cent of the vote, doubling its share from 1999, and was rewarded with 12 seats. 'I think you can draw a straight line from there to Brexit,' says Davis. From 2004 onwards, net migration into this country was about 250,000 a year. So when David Cameron and the coalition government came into power in 2010, the new Tory prime minister made a speech promising to bring that figure down into the 'tens of thousands'. This provoked a huge row, with Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat business secretary, calling the speech 'very unwise' and saying it risked 'inflaming extremism'. Migration did drop briefly in the early years of the Cameron government, though nowhere close to the prime minister's stated target. But by now the world had entered the era of the smartphone, in which hyper-mobile migrants (and people-smuggling gangs) were able to communicate and move across continents with far greater ease. The internet meant Britain's pull factors — relative wealth, generous welfare provision, a large and poorly regulated grey economy, old imperial connections and use of the global lingua franca — became ever more apparent and appealing to far-flung populations. Combined with this were rising push factors, such as mounting war and instability. The number of people forcibly displaced by conflict doubled between 2015 and 2024, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The human exodus caused by the Syrian civil war was heartrending, but by 2015 the hardening response to it also highlighted the limits of public sympathy on migration across Europe. Between 2014 and 2016, John Dalhuisen was the director for Europe of Amnesty International Global, at the heart of its response to the crisis and a staunch critic of the 'one in, one out' deal between the EU and Turkey signed in March 2016. Then he had a change of heart. 'By 2017 I realised I was badly wrong,' he says. 'It was a volte-face.' He now runs the European Stability Initiative with Gerald Knaus, who helped broker the 2016 deal with Turkey that significantly reduced the flow of boat crossings. (Under the deal, a Syrian migrant arriving by boat in Greece was sent back to Turkey; in return a Syrian asylum seeker from Turkey was let in to the EU.) 'I never really abandoned the underlying principles, I just felt the [human] rights folk were miscalculating,' he says. 'There was a flat refusal to acknowledge an underlying political reality, which is that if societies are offered a choice between open borders or borders closed cruelly, they will choose the latter. We've seen that everywhere, again and again. The politicians have to offer control. Asylum for all is a beautiful moral intuition but it's not politically achievable.' Does the former Amnesty International man not worry about pandering to public sentiment that is arguably driven, at least in part, by xenophobia and racism? Isn't he letting the right set the terms of the debate? 'Is it pandering? Yes and no. The ultimate objective is to prevent really quite toxic political forces from coming into power. If you care about a rights framework, you need to keep these people out of power.' The small boats era began with a handful of Channel crossings in late 2018, as smugglers shifted from using lorries and ferries. Numbers peaked at more than 45,000 in 2022, although this year is on track to exceed that. In March 2020, under pandemic conditions, the government also began housing some asylum seekers in hotel accommodation as an emergency measure. By 2023, some 50,000 asylum seekers were living in hotels, costing the taxpayer millions of pounds a day. Alongside this, legal migration soared too. In 2021, Boris Johnson's government made a very Blair 2004 choice, taking the post-Brexit decision to liberalise visa applications from the rest of the world. The idea, as Priti Patel, the home secretary at the time, has put it, was to attract the 'brightest and best' to work in care homes, IT companies and at universities, hopefully boosting our flaccid economic growth. But again, the government drastically underestimated how many would come. In 2023, net migration reached a remarkable 906,000. 'People were understandably surprised by this,' says Davis. 'It was politically tone deaf. The Treasury as an entire department is like a drug addict, addicted to using the increase in the size of the workforce to grow the economy rather than improving productivity. They had allowed a whole load of industries to become dependent on it — hospitality, agriculture. They couldn't give up their supply.' Many of the Johnson-era visa rules were subsequently tweaked and immigration this year is expected to be less than half the 2023 number, at about 350,000. But with illegal migration still soaring, pictures of boats crossing the Channel daily still dominating the television news channels, and Sir Keir Starmer's promise to stop them proceeding slower than a Dieppe ferry, public anger remains high, which explains why that Overton window keeps moving. According to YouGov's opinion tracker, some 56 per cent of people think immigration and asylum is the most important issue facing this country, coming in first ahead of the economy on 46 per cent. The problem, Dalhuisen points out, is not just uncontrolled immigration itself but the perception of government impotence. 'People sense there's something wrong with the entire system,' he says. 'That's a dangerous and febrile position to be in.' Yet if (and it is a big if) something like the one in, one out scheme with France does actually work, and can be expanded across Europe, then Katwala believes the government has a chance of weathering this issue politically. 'If Starmer visibly has control, he would be in a more comfortable position,' he says. 'Net numbers are coming down and immigration's salience isn't as high for Labour voters. I think he's got a shot at this issue, if he can show that co-operation leads to some control.'
