Let's hear it first for John Mason MP, whose gagging desire to really stick his Highland dancing shoes into the British government has left him looking very, very foolish.
He has defended his indefensible defence of the bogus asylum-seeker and benefit fraudster Fatou Gaye by saying that,
"The real issue here is over the efficiency of the UK Border Agency - that this Whitehall agency went to the expense of deporting Ms Gaye to the wrong country of origin without checking basic facts is just unbelievable."
This is a classic example of the psychological phenomenon known as 'transference'. Being an incompetent and inept fact-checker himself - having defended a bogus anylum-seeker and benefit fraudster on the basis that she was Ivorian when she came from Senegal, how could he be otherwise? - the only response of which he is capable is to lash out at others for the incompetence and ineptitude of their fact-checking; a reaction at once so arrogant and yet so juvenile that his very competence for office should be questioned.
And wouldn't you know it, the profoundly unserious Christina McKelvie, whose only previous contribution to Scottish public life as we know it has been to trivialise the, er, battle for Iwo Jima (strange, but true), has had to backtrack like nobody's business, saying,
"As an elected representative I take on cases in good faith.
"Whilst I am disappointed with the outcome for Fatou, my concern has always been for the wellbeing of four-year-old Arouna and the effect on his health due to multiple detentions. I still believe that we should not detain children in this manner under any circumstances."
In an ideal world, one would of course agree; yet the child in question would not have been in detention had their mother not been engaged in a course of criminal conduct for which she has paid twice - once, by being kept in detention before deportation, and twice, by being imprisoned for her crimes upon being returned to the UK. Nobody has been more responsible for the wee one's detention than their mother.
It cannot be said too often - the Scottish National Party, and by extension its philosophy of Scottish civic nationalism, stews in a culture of lawlessness. Its illegal seizure of the title 'The Scottish Government' to describe its minority Scottish Executive, a title to which it has no right or claim but which it just took anyway, should have been all the warning that the Scottish people needed that the SNP's schoolteachers, lawyers and hack writers considered themselves to be at war with the United Kingdom. These people have no concept either of law or of the rule of law. The SNP will do and say anything to achieve its goals, and applaud and encourage any illegality and lawbreaking if it perceives it to be against the interests of the British government.
They're not fit to govern a gold club, let alone a nation.