'Publish and be damned!'

by Rab Clark

‍

The phrase "Publish and be damned!" is attributed to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.

Wellington allegedly used this expression in response to a threat of blackmail regarding his personal life. The phrase means that one is willing to face the consequences of publishing something, regardless of the potential negative repercussions. It conveys a defiant attitude and a willingness to take a risk for the sake of truth or freedom of expression.

Glasgow’s own monument to Wellington stands outside the Museum of Modern Art and has become the most famous statue in the city centre thanks to the tradition of placing traffic cones on the Duke’s head. It’s a lighthearted, somewhat mischievous custom that has been going on for decades and, regardless of the reason, the cone-topped Wellington statue has become a beloved and iconic symbol of Glasgow, a tradition that locals and tourists alike enjoy participating in or simply observing.

‍

The names of Alex Salmond’s accusers, currently confidential, are going to emerge sooner or later. The so-called ‘Alphabetties’ have been afforded an extraordinary level of shielding, ostensibly because exposure of their identities might be damaging to them in some way.

We’re not suggesting that anyone should go ahead and affix the names of Alex Salmond’s accusers to the front of the Wellington statue. But we wouldn’t be at all surprised if it happened. Those names are not going to appear in mainstream media anytime soon and they’ve very rarely appeared via social media. But followers of Craig Murray, Mark Hirst, Rev Stuart Campbell and many other prominent voices in the great independence debate already know the names and only the determination of the State to punish anyone who dares even provide enough information to make ‘jigsaw’ identification possible has prevented them becoming household names.

The current behaviour of those with most to lose from full disclosure is remarkable. We didn’t know, until last night, that it is permissible in law to say anything about someone who is deceased. (It seems that there may be exceptions if there is clear evidence of defamation or incitement to hatred, both of which have been on show in recent days but we really don’t know the ins and outs.) The fact that Alex Salmond’s shocking departure appears to have emboldened some to repeat the accusations of which he was found Not Guilty says much more about those individuals than it does about him. It’s hard not to reach the objective conclusion that the sheer viciousness of commentary from some mainstream journalists and other public figures in positions of power and influence betrays a growing sense of panic.

What might they be panicking about? 

What could possibly explain such an outpouring of graceless vituperation which is, essentially, nothing more than the repetition of accusations found to be baseless by an all-female jury? 

Why are so many people in ‘respectable’ professions prepared to behave so disgracefully, showing contempt for the most basic decencies normally afforded the deceased?

We can’t say for sure but we’re prepared to take a wild guess... 

It’s worth remembering how toty and incestuous the cultural/political/media milieux are in Scotland. What passes for ‘the Establishment’ north of the border is but an unexciting imitation of the ‘real’ London version. Everyone knows each other. They attend the same schools and universities, go to the same restaurants and parties, intermarry, get jobs for one another’s relatives and friends. They compete for ever-dwindling positions of power and influence within their chosen fields and, if fortunate enough to secure one, will do anything - anything at all - to maintain their place in the pecking-order if not advance further. (Some ‘make it’ to London but most do not and have to settle for life in the county of Scotland.) Central to that ambition is a pragmatic acceptance that the perennial ‘quid-pro-quo’ reality underpinning relationships can often involve satisfying the sexual desires of others, no matter how unattractive they may be. It is a measure of how emotionally damaged many of these people are that they seem to have no compunction whatsoever about shagging folk who may be similarly lacking. The same mentality which ‘allows’ spouses to put their car keys in a big glass bowl is a constant. (We cannot apologise for using the word ‘shag’ because it is suitably blunt and crude, entirely fitting for those who would ride anything with a pulse if they thought it might advance their careers a jot.)

These stunted, disappointed libertines form lifelong connections which are cemented using a diabolical glue formed of bodily fluids, alcohol and god only knows what else. They have the dirt on one another and that, in itself, functions as a form of insurance. None dare speak the truth because it condemns them all to immediate charges of hypocrisy, a fatal accusation for anyone whose livelihood depends on the ability to virtue-signal and finger-point on a daily basis regardless of whatever they were up to the previous night. (It should also be pointed out that there are honourable exceptions. But they are, in our experience, few and far between. We know of many folk who’ve abandoned aspirations to pursue this or that career after witnessing first-hand the type of people they’d be expected to work and become ‘friends’ with.)

Most languages have idiomatic expressions which translate more or less precisely as ‘Don’t speak ill of the dead’ which is itself a first cousin of ‘People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’, a descendant of ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’. The simple moral behind them can be understood by children but is not, it would seem, applicable to the great and the good.

But let’s try to be charitable in the midst of all this anger and bile. Scotland’s self-appointed arbiters of acceptable behaviour are, perhaps, more to be pitied than condemned - after all, they can hardly be expected to show respect for the dead when they clearly have so little for one another. So, perhaps we should help save them from themselves. To that end, full disclosure of their own peccadilloes and predilections would surely help the healing process. And that, in the long run, will benefit us all.

‍