Last week there was a little stooshie over an interview in which Alex Salmond appeared to defend Margaret Thatcher’s economic policies. I’m not interested in discussing the merits or otherwise of Thatcher’s policies just now. What interests me about this story is that it is a perfect example of the danger the SNP is always in, having positioned themselves as primary political spokespeople for the nation of Scotland.

For a number of years in the past the SNP has used the slogan “Scotland’s Party”. You often hear them distinguish themselves from other parties by highlighting the fact that the other parties are “run from London” and so on and so forth. It is inherent in the nationalist ideology that there is a distinctively “Scottish” point of view. As the main nationalist party in Scotland, the SNP has to make sure it always represents this “Scottish” point of view.

Of course, it’s not unusual for a political party to claim to represent an entire group of people. For instance, the Labour Party would claim to represent working class people (or, in today’s language, “Hard Working British Families”). But it’s one thing to try to represent a particular sub-set of the population. It is quite another to try and represent an entire nation.

Of course, there is no “Scottish” point of view. However, the SNP often do a fairly good job of convincing people that there is. They will often tell you they are the only party standing up for Scotland’s interests, and I often think that some people south of the border really do believe that what the SNP says is an accurate reflection of Scottish opinion.

The danger for the SNP, though, is that they always have to make sure that they actually do provide an accurate reflection of Scottish opinion. This will often means that the SNP ends up doing what is popular rather than what is right (this probably explains why many of the SNP’s policies are so populist). A lot of the time, what is popular and what is right will be aligned. But what if they are not?

The thing about Alex Salmond’s interview was not that he said “I didn’t mind Thatcher’s policies so much.” The problem was that he said “Scotland didn’t mind Thatcher’s economic politics so much.”

The interview with Iain Dale in Total Politics sees Mr Salmond being his usual presumptuous self. He sees himself as speaking for Scotland. In fact, he is only qualified to speak for himself or, at the very most, for the SNP.

I suspect that if Alex Salmond simply said, “I didn’t mind Thatcher’s economic policies”, you wouldn’t have seen a fraction of the outrage. There might have been a few “Tartan Tory” jibes, but that would have been about it.

It was the fact that he was attempting to speak for Scotland — and he got it wrong. If you are going to be arrogant enough to speak for the whole country, you need to make sure your finger is right on the pulse. Make one little slip-up and you end up offending most of the country.

What I find most strange about this whole Celebrity Big Brother hoo-ha is the idea that Channel 4 should apologise and the fact that the Carphone Warehouse have felt the need to withdraw their sponsorship of Big Brother.

So Carphone Warehouse finds the racism broadcast by Channel 4 deplorable. Presumably Carphone Warehouse want to dissociate themselves from the racist comments made by Big Brother contestants.

But Carphone Warehouse has been sponsoring Big Brother in some form or another for years. So are we to assume from this that Carphone Warehouse condoned the several instances of bad behaviour that have happened in the Big Brother house since they began sponsoring the programme?

Did anybody, for instance, say that because Carphone Warehouse sponsored Big Brother then they must have supported Sandy taking a massive slash in the kitchen bin? Of course not. If you sponsor a reality programme, you ought to expect reality — good and bad — to be associated with your brand. But nobody will expect you to like everything that makes up reality. None of us do; why should Carphone Warehouse be made to feel any different?

Clearly, the entire row has been blown out of proportion. This whole thing does stink a little bit like a coordinated campaign. People are amazed that Ofcom has received so many complaints about Big Brother now, but that is just the nature of campaigning today. The internet spreads the word and empowers people to do this sort of thing very easily.

Just like the complaints about Jerry Springer: The Opera, the numbers will be misleading because of the nature of the campaign. In future, complaints on all matters will be measured in tens of thousands — not dozens like they were just a few years ago.

As Chris Dillow says, criticising Channel 4 is just shooting the messenger. Besides, surely Channel 4 should be applauded for bringing the issue to the fore.

It is a cliche to say that Big Brother isn’t a “reality” television programme. But it is really. What we are seeing here is what Jade Goody, Jo O’Meara et al really think. Of course, were they not shielded from “the outside world”, the protagonists would have stopped bullying Shilpa Shetty as soon as the issue of race came up. But because they are not aware of the public reaction we continue to see their true colours; we are seeing the real reality.

I have always liked Big Brother compared to other reality television shows because it focuses on these kinds of issues that affect us all. Other reality shows focus instead on, for instance, which celebrity can eat the grossest animal gonads. Big Brother is smarter than that.

So imagine now if Channel 4 had decided to censor Big Brother by deleting all of the comments made by Jade et al against Shilpa Shetty — which I presume is what those who are complaining would rather have happened. That would have completely gone against the entire point of the programme. Channel 4’s job is to show us what is going on inside the house and to ask us what we think of it (by the mechanism of the regular public vote for eviction). What else are they supposed to do?

As things stand at the moment, you can probably expect Jade to be evicted unequivocally and she will face a fierce and worldwide public reaction. She will have paid her price for her racist comments and for losing the game of Big Brother (ironic, given the fact that Jade — having been on Big Brother before — was said to have an upper hand over the celebrities in terms of winning the game). Everybody looking on will have a pretty good idea that racism causes a great deal of offense.

Had Channel 4 censored the comments, nobody would know anything about it and Jade et al would have got off with their bullying. Then there would have been a real reason to criticise Channel 4 — for covering up the misdemeanors of the racist housemates and allow them to get away with it without having to face the reality of the offense their comments make.

Put simply, it is not Channel 4’s fault of some of the people in the Big Brother house turned out to have racist views — although it’s clearly not as simple as racism, as Robert Sharp excellently points out in a good post looking at class and other issues surrounding the row as well, as does Cassilis.

As for those people who claim that people like Jade Goody and Jo O’Meara are role models for young people — bollocks! If anybody has Jade Goody as a role model — which I highly doubt! — then they are already a lost cause.

I saw Big Brother’s Little Brother the other day. On it was Paul Morley, who rather optimistically saw this as a potential turning point. He said perhaps this was the turning point where people realise that celebrating non-entities is pointless because there’s nothing to celebrate about them.

I also saw a few people comment on the fact that it was the foreign housemates — Shilpa, Jermaine and Dirk — who were smarter than most of the British housemates. I think this says something about celebrity culture in the UK. I’m not a snob about this, but the Celebrity Big Brother gig probably only appeals to a certain kind of celebrity.

An funny comedian, for instance, would not be seen on CBB today — although you did when Big Brother was still new. That’s because Big Brother is now associated with the Jade Goodys of this world. Shilpa, Jermaine and Dirk probably didn’t realise this. Shilpa said in the house, “This is what the modern UK has come to?”

Fortunately, Shilpa is incorrect in this instance — because she has only been living with the real dregs that British celebrity has to offer. It is a pity that it is this shameful side of British culture that the world is seeing. Come the eviction, everybody will be reminded of the downright mediocrity — and unpopularity — of Jade Goody.

Update 23/01: I can’t believe it took me this long to realise the mistake I made in the title…

I wrote about the queue I stood in the day before Standinaqueue Day, and I somehow got sidetracked into talking about weirdos in trains. I have only just started on that, stay tuned for another train weirdo post to come one day.

But yesterday — the day after Standinaqueue Day — I did manage to find the time to stand in a queue. I feel a bit bad for not submitting a story to Standinaqueue, but what can you do if you haven’t stood in a queue on Standinaqueue Day? If only I could have moved that queue to a day before, but I think I already messed the queue around enough as it was.

It was in the little shop in Potterrow at the University. It was a long day, so I had to buy some sandwiches. I don’t often go to the shop there, but I think usually there are three tills but one queue. But today the queue was kind of loosely formed, although it extended fairly far back. It was difficult to tell whether somebody was in a queue, looking at something on the shelf or just standing around.

Tentatively, I joined what I thought might have been the back of the queue. Turns out I was standing next to somebody who was already in the queue. I was put off by the fact that he was chatting to two friends. But I then realised that I had pushed my way in front of his two friends! Oops. The guy graciously signalled to me to go ahead, but I felt bad so I just stood on the spot until he had been served.

Queues are not the only seemingly mundane things that can vex you though. As I said, I went into the shop to buy a sandwich. When I went up to the fridge with the sandwiches in it, I was faced with an awful dilemma.

There are clearly two tiers of sandwiches. On one low shelf we have “Simply Scottish” sandwiches. This is clearly the no-frills option. Basic fillings, cheap packaging. It looks like it probably has horrible white bread that tastes of polystyrene, and it wouldn’t surprise me if semen is used instead of mayonnaise.

On a higher shelf there are the more expensive Ginsters sandwiches from Cornwall. They are more expensive, but they look absolutely gorgeous and the packaging isn’t made of toilet paper. And how can you argue against fillings such as “roast chicken stuffing”?

Obviously, I chose the Ginsters sandwich. But as soon as I had paid for it, something struck me. Edinburgh University has a well-known divide between the (mostly) English (mostly) well-off “yahs” on the one hand, and the (mostly) Scottish (mostly) less well-off people on the other.

I personally think the divide is overhyped. I think in some ways it’s only really bad if you’re looking out for it. But I’m noticing it more and more as I near the end of the uni “experience”. Still, there is no denying that at least the perception is that there is some kind of class / nationality divide at Edinburgh University.

And I had just come out of my shop, having snobbishly turned my nose up at the basic Scottish sandwiches in preference for the more expensive English sandwiches with posh fillings. All of a sudden I became conscious of the fact that I was carrying Ginsters sandwiches. People were probably making judgements about me.

“Look at him; he’s a total yah for not eating the Simply Scottish sandwiches like normal students with massive debts,” people said to me in my head. Am I becoming one of those awful people who started university with a Scottish accent but have magically attained a posh accent somewhere in the intervening three years?

Ah, bollocks to it. Those sandwiches are so tasty. How could I resist the “meat feast” triple pack?! I may as well boycott Marks & Spencer now. I know where to go for my posh sandwiches from now on: the humble union!