I have confessed before I am a very keen indepedenista and I await with bewilderment the array of stories which will emerge over this coming period designed to influence how we vote.
One that fair ripped my knitting was the B&Q threat not to invest in Scotland if we vote YES. How petulant and undemocratic is that? As one of their best customers I object to being threatened by a big company that does very well from Scots and would continue to do so whether we are an independent country or not.
It just isn't acceptable for big companies to try and throw their weight around like bully boys and threaten consequences if people vote the wrong way. Even those campaigning for a No vote should condemn such behaviour.
Whatever way you decide to cast your vote it should be free of such unfair and undemocratic influences. Given the very real threat to nuclear weapons and the existence of the British state if Scotland says YES you can expect tons more scare stories in the run up to September 18. Personally the idea of no more Tory Governments in Scotland after independence is so attractive it is a vote winner on its own.
I can't be the only one who sees reality mimicking art in relation to the recent prisoner exchange deal between the United States and the Arab state of Qatar resulting in US soldier Bowe Bergdahl being released from Taliban custody in return for five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay being released to Qatar.
The 28-year-old has been held prisoner for five years. For Bowe Bergdahl, could we read Nicholas Brodie from the award winning series Homeland?
I loved the TV show but given its massive audience I fear that some in America will refuse to trust soldier Bergdahl in the belief (however mistaken) that, just as in the fictional Homeland show, he may have been 'turned' while in captivity and may now be working for the Taliban.
Truth is, that is highly unlikely, but after watch the gripping show I'll bet some will see that as a very real possibility. I suppose time will tell.
I hope Bowe Bergdahl is not subjected to any unnecessary suspicion as a result of the Homeland storyline. Fact and fiction clashing with this one.
When is a toy not a toy?
Funny how the most innocent of actions can often lead to major debates and arguments. In preparation for 24 children attending Gabrielle's 9th birthday party on Saturday I purchased some foam swords for the kids to play with. An innocent gesture on my part. Tommy was not happy.
This was tantamount to encouraging violence according to him. I acquainted him with the reality of films like The Pirates of the Caribbean and their depiction of sword fencing as a defence for my choice of toy. He was having none of it. He grumbled all day. Yet the kids loved them and by the end of the party Tommy himself was duelling with the kids and shouting about how he was the champion swordsman. The argument did get me thinking though.
Should I have bought them? I'm now not so sure. Parenting is largely a job based on experience. I don't think long term harm has been done. Next time I should probably opt for kites but definitely no toy guns.