The tartan elephant

Blogger of the Year PETER RHODES on the Scottish issue no-one mentions, the public face of British jihad and the legacy of Carry On.

Published

ACCORDING to scientists in Tennessee, life on earth could be wiped out by a giant asteroid hitting the planet on March 16, 2880. I'm sure that's the day we've got the plumber coming.

THINGS to do on a wet bank holiday. We watched the late, great Lauren Bacall in North West Frontier, the 1959 yarn set in British India and co-starring Kenneth More. Have you noticed something about these pukka, stiff upper-lipped epics of Britain and the Raj? You can't watch them without expecting Terry Scott to march into shot with a platoon of The Third Foot and Mouth Regiment or hear Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond (Sid James) doing his dirty laugh. Carry On Up the Khyber (1968) has a lot to answer for.

ANOTHER TV debate, another exercise in ignoring the tartan elephant in the living room. Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling both avoided mentioning one of the biggest issues driving the campaign for independence, the simple fact that a lot of Scots don't like the English.

I DIDN'T quite follow Salmond's argument on deprivation. Scotland has its own government and Salmond is First Minister. Yet he seemed to relish presiding over a land where, according to him, the health service is crumbling and thousands of families are slithering into poverty. Is none of this his fault?

WHENEVER Channel 4 wants to wind us up, it does an interview with a member of that small clique of bearded, media-savvy jihadists who tend to live in London or Luton and can be relied upon to say annoying things. A few days ago, discussing the murder of the US journalist Jim Foley, one of these characters said: "At the moment we've got a man called Steven Sotloff." We? What is he trying to tell us when he uses the word "we"? That he is a member of Islamic State? How worried should we be? Probably not all that worried. The thing these alleged spokesmen for holy war have in common is that they profess a burning desire to live under sharia law, while being very reluctant to go and live in a sharia state. t I can't help thinking of that scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian when Brian's mother appears on the balcony and tells the crowd to clear off. To rewrite the line slightly: "Now, you listen here. He's not a jihadist, he's a very naughty boy."

MEANWHILE, amid the endless analysis of Boris Johnson's column on revoking the UK citizenship of suspected jihadists, one phrase deserves repeating. It is Johnson's passing (and so far unchallenged) reference to "the bonkers Tony Blair."

A READER rubbishes my suggestion that the previous convictions of defendants should be revealed at the start of a trial. He writes: "If I am tried for burgling No 1 Acacia Avenue, the fact that I have previously burgled Nos 2 and 3 doesn't mean that I must also be guilty this time." Well, of course it doesn't, my light-fingered friend. But it is still part of "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," so why should the jury not be told about your past offences? Don't you have enough faith to believe your fellow citizens would be able to judge the difference between an unfortunate coincidence and a rubbish alibi?

I RECENTLY referred to the Beeb's royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell. His full name is Nicholas Newton Henshall Witchell, which sounds as though it ought to be the first line of a poem. Off you go . . .