Paul McBride QC is no shrinking violet - quite the contrary. As one of Scotland's most outspoken unionist lawyers, having once been a vocal member of the Scottish Labour party but defected to the Scottish Tories in 2009, he enjoys the limelight and the attention he receives in the Scottish MSM.
The QC is a fan of Celtic FC and has represented them on several occasions. It is also reported he is currently representing Andy Coulson in the ongoing investigation into phone hacking.
A busy man by all accounts is Mr McBride, yet he's found time to add his support to George Galloway's latest entry into the literary world with his publication Open Season: The Neil Lennon Story. Being a typical unionist Mr McBride couldn't resist having a dig at the SNP, but his effort was a disgrace to all self-respecting Scots, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Mr McBride... warned of possible damage to "social cohesion and related matters" if voters backed independence in a referendum.
To imply sectarianism would increase in an independent Scotland is not only foolish - he has no evidence - but totally irresponsible from a person of his professional standing. His opinion is so blatantly absurd it deserves to be labelled a non-story.
source
Posts
12 comments:
Disagree slightly with your definition of this news story – I see it as a 'dangerous' non-story
In his professional capacity Mr McBride purports to stand against religious bigotry and sectarianism.
However, when wishing to achieve his own political ends he blatantly uses that very same religious bigotry and sectarianism in an attempt to sway and influence solely the Catholic community into voting against Scottish independence.
There must be some word(s) in the English language that aptly describes such a duplicitous individual.
i agree JRB and ought to have included the word dangerous in the post.
What I do hope is that Alex Salmond has a wee word with the boss of the Catholic church here and voices his anger at such irresponsibility from McBride.
The problem lies with the press who printed the nonsense, I think it was The Scotsman.
Two QC's showing really very seriously flawed reasoning, McBride on sectarianism/independence then Geoffrey Robertson (newsnight last week) on megrahi/Scot's law.
I thought you had to be sharp to be a QC? Or perhaps the old advert for QC Pale Cream British Sherry is apt, and you only need to be Quam Clarum.
Haha, the things you remember. I can remember that rubbish gag from a cheesy advert in the eighties but I can't remember if I locked the car this morning.
Mr McBride has vented his spleen in relation to the Lennon verdict by questioning the jury system as it currently functions. ''He complained that in Scotland, unlike many other systems, we had jurors who could not read, who could not write and who were laden with prejudices. Something had to be done, said Mr McBride, to resolve this problem.''(Scotlawthoughts).
Now I daresay none of us would like to be judged by a jury comprised of people who can't read or write, & who were laden with prejudices. But we wouldn't be, because although there may be one or two such people in a jury they wouldn't all be like that.
To be judged by a jury of your peers means just that - they will be a mixed bag.
Mr McBride seems to be a very sore loser, & a man who thinks he can criticise the decisions of the court with impunity.
It was the Scotsman pa-broon but then it's drifted to the Record etc I believe.
Naw, you don't have to be sharp to be a lawyer. That's a lie. All you have to do is read statute books. (So says a retired legal friend of mine who made a very good living in the profession). She said a good lawyer will always find something in aged or modern legislation to help/hinder a case.
Observer, from an experience some years ago the ability to read and write is part of the process because, as I understood it at the time, someone who didn't have these skills may not be able to understand various aspects of evidence.
Nowadays it's perhaps different but for a man who is able to represent defendants and also undertakes prosecution cases then he's an affront to his peers.
Ah the fearmongering rears it's cretinous head, yet again. So wearisome, so predictable and so vindictively inaccurate. Does McBride have crystal balls to gaze into? Does he handle them furtively, as apparitions to be cherished with their pronouncements on whatever matters to himself?
...and if one crystal ball is bigger than the other; does it offer a differing perspective on matters of foreseeable importance than the lesser crystal ball variety?
... and does he wrap them in cotton wool as befitting their fragility?
One would have thought ownership of crystal balls would have produced enlightened thought processes.
Apparently not. Mind you, in Scotland lawyers with crystal balls are not unknown. Particularly if accompanied with the hearing of voices. The Scottish judiciary appears to have it's fair share of crystal ball owners amongst the legal fraternity who attained high public office. Do they not?
I await McBride's ascension to ermine in due course. By Westmidden appointment,naturally. Ownership of crystal balls are highly thought of in some quarters, it would seem. If recent history is anything to go by, that is.
As an old chum used to say "same crap, different day" more of the same old, same old unionist rubbish
Wisnaeme, I missed Wednesday's Newsnicht but watched it last night. McBride was on saying how much effort the Scottish government was putting into dealing with sectarianism.
Dangerous stuff though Dram when a person in his position spouts such drivel.
One might ask (if a real journalist were on Newsnicht) how much effort is the Union government putting into dealing with English riots?
But when you look beneath the surface of what he was saying--it comes down to that the Scots need the English to keep them from sinking into barbarity. Recent events would indicate otherwise.
Good assessment Jeanne. I can't see many middle-of-the-road tories supporting his stance either, but then he wasn't aiming at them - unless they are Catholic.
Post a Comment