So when his 'Scotland please stay' comment was broadcast at the Brit Awards last week it really meant nothing to me except that I did have a wee giggle because whilst I'm all in favour of wide ranging debate in the run up to the momentous referendum on Scotland's future in September surely we as a people have more substance than to allow ourselves to be influenced by a multi-millionaire pop star exile who hasn't stayed in the UK since 1974? And I mean that from both sides of the argument. I love Sean Connery's acting. He was the best James Bond ever and his supporting role in The Untouchables remains a classic performance. But he doesn't live in Scotland. He won't be directly affected by whatever we as a nation decide to do. That important decision is ours to make. I'm glad Sean Connery, Brian Cox and Alan Cumming (absolutely love him in 'The Good Wife') are on the same YES side as me but their opinions are frankly less important than those actually entitled to vote. Just because talented actors or pop stars say they support something should not make up someone's mind. We are surely better and more intelligent than that.
What actually annoyed me more than the Bowie quote was public schoolboy Cameron having a laugh about the comment and saying how happy he was that it had been made, and that it would undoubtedly reach people that he couldn't. Agreeing to a public debate with Alex Salmond could do that.
Mind you given some of the incredible scare stories emanating from the largely negative NO camp over recent weeks I can well understand why Cameron is trying to make the most of Bowie's comments. We can't keep the pound, we'll lose pensions and even our oil is under threat should we vote YES. A load of baloney. How long before we are told we can't use the name Scotland if we vote for independence in September?
Is the media giving Rebekah Brooks an easy ride?
It would appear the influence of the former News International executive now on trial in London for various phone hacking related offences, Rebekah Brooks, is still very much alive. I can't believe how easy a ride she was given by the mainstream media in relation to her performance in the witness box last week. We were told she was near to tears as she revealed private and personal details about her life. I was sure one of the many broadcasters or journalists covering the criminal trial would make the obvious point that it was supremely ironic to hear Mrs Brooks near to tears and so upset about her personal and private life being made public when she spent her entire life profiting from doing exactly that to thousands of other 'victims' of the Sun and News of the World which she edited. However the way it was reported was all lowered tones and sympathetic voices. The sheer hypocrisy of this woman courting sympathy given the way her newspapers ruined countless lives and reported private and personal details of targets, and their families over the years made me sick. Her softly, softly treatment at the hands of the mainstream media makes me angry. Her influence and power would appear to be very much intact despite the fact she stands accused of serious offences. Ultimately the jury will decide her fate.