The pie man cometh: Offord derangement syndrome

IN THIS WEEK’S Scotsman I wrote about how “Brexit Derangement Syndrome” lives rent free in the minds of many politicians, commentators and activists who cannot brook any criticism or even accept established facts.

BDS first arrived on our shores in the early hours of 23 June 2016 when the largest turnout of any British democratic vote gave a resounding Yes to taking back control by leaving the European Union. Some people started to behave very strangely and sought to overturn the democratic decision, using every delay or legal procedure available to deny what we had chosen to do.

They invent statistics, like Brexit reducing the UK economy by four per cent of GDP through to 2030 (former Tory MP Tobias Ellwood used to claim it was four per cent annually) and now Rachel Reeves is saying “by as much as eight per cent”.

These are not facts but wishful thinking based on spurious estimates that are contradicted by the hard evidence of trade and tax receipts which can actually be measured. The book 75 Brexit Benefits is green kryptonite to such people so I carry a copy with me at all times (sadly I have no space here for extensive lists).

Unfortunately, BDS can mutate, and has appeared as new variants such as “Boris Derangement Syndrome” and “Farage Derangement Syndrome”. These display the same symptoms of foaming at the mouth and talking utter gibberish that even AI cannot make sense of. The syndrome infests the victim’s brain with an unwillingness to see two sides of an argument or accept any evidence that on occasion Brexit, Boris or Farage might have been good for us.

While time should be the greatest healer for such unfortunates, I raise this well-known phenomenon because I believe it is already taking a grip of our media, and from those carriers it will spread throughout April and no doubt reach its zenith on or around 7 May.

I call it “Offord Derangement Syndrome” because it is the only way to describe what is breaking out like a rash amongst media hacks, the symptoms being the snarky column inches they write as they hyperventilate. Known as ODS, it should be pronounced “O-di-ous” to reflect the harm it can bring to its victims.

once a Lord, always a Lord, don’t you know

The syndrome has already taken hold of some Labour and Conservative politicians I have met. The afflicted immediately want to talk about Malcolm Offord and little much else as we approach the Holyrood elections. We can spot the tells: a focus on Malcolm Offord the wealthy man who likes yachts and nice properties – and once a Lord, always a Lord, don’t you know.

When I served two terms in the Scottish Parliament I got along fine with political journos such as Kenny Farquharson, Chris Deerin and Paul Hutcheon. Yet I do detect in their recent writing about Malcolm Offord an inability to comprehend why anyone, like so many Scots before him who made their pile in London, would then want to come back and – even more inexplicably – give up so much to join, of all places, the supposedly lofty corridors of Holyrood. To me that rather says more about Malcolm Offord’s critics than it does about him.

It does not seem to occur to them that wealthy people might genuinely want to do good for their community and their country. Maybe the problem is they don’t meet enough really successful people? Maybe the incumbent MSPs of Holyrood and their media pack are so used to meeting lobbyists, grifters and smooth talkers that they cannot recognise sincerity or handle candour when it’s right in front of them?

In a Daily Record article by Paul Hutcheon, Offord’s purchase of a Loch Lomondside property was used to emphasise his wealth, a form of “othering” to diminish the idea he came from the ordinary background of a Greenock tenement. The article was replete with the property’s sales puff about his “resplendent country home” having a studio for “artistic pursuits”, as well as “meticulously landscaped lawns … leading down to a private jetty and slipway – perfect for boating enthusiasts who wish to explore the tranquil waters of Loch Lomond”. Hutcheon went on to discuss names of his yachts and said ,“voters should not be fooled by his man-of-the people act”.

That is nothing but a form of inverted snobbery, verging on petty bigotry

The Daily Record’s message was clear; everyone should know their place and have no aspirations beyond their born class. Getting a degree and doing well for yourself in business so you can buy nice things means you can no longer relate to your origins or connect with the people you are from. That is nothing but a form of inverted snobbery, verging on petty bigotry.

Offord’s purchase of that property, located in the Dumbarton constituency, later became the basis for Labour “sources” to suggest he chose it so he could stand against Labour Deputy leader Jackie Baillie. It was all nonsense on stilts, but it played up the negative trope and deflected from Offord’s policies of reversing Scotland’s economic and public sector decline.

We need more people buying nice houses, sailing yachts on the Clyde and spending their money in Scotland; we need more entrepreneurs building businesses, creating jobs and paying more in taxes than they have ever received in state benefits or services over their lifetime. Offord has done all of these positive things; we need more millionaires not just in Scotland but in Holyrood so those who decide on our laws and level of taxes have an idea of what brings prosperity to Scotland and us ordinary taxpayers – and what sends it elsewhere.

It is not difficult in listening to the man when interviewed or reading up on his background to find an immense pride in his Scottish heritage. When starting out in the City of London, rather than hide his origins he used his Scottish background to build useful connections. It should be no surprise then that he would want later to make Scotland a success story by first establishing a business in Scotland’s financial quarter and then seeking to liberate us all from the regulations and taxes that hold Scotland back.

Yes, Offord is a wealthy self-made man; he is a positive example of meritocracy that Scots used to be proud of rather than denigrate. Yet it is clear the Labour Party want to still talk of him as Lord Offord despite him resigning its trappings, prestige and attendance allowance. Those with ODS are apt to ignore the many Scottish Labour peers that – unlike Offord – continue to sit on Westminster’s red benches: names such as Lords Watson and Browne or Baronesses Curran and Liddell. Check their voting records.

It was no surprise then to find Chris Deerin, in Labour’s house weekly The New Statesman, also dwelling on Malcolm Offord’s wealth and how he enjoys yachting. Frankly, I preferred the revelation, uncovered during Offord’s BBC Scotcast interview, that he cannot resist a Scotch Pie most days – suggesting he has far more in common with ordinary Scots than his detractors would like us to know.

caring about Scotland was taken in with his mother’s milk

That is of course the point, ODS and all these other syndromes prevent consideration of any normalising narratives or facts. Those suffering from it become unbalanced and cannot consider Malcolm Offord as “one of us”, he cannot have anything in common with “us”. How dare he come back to Scotland in 2013 after working in London – our capital city after all – to establish a business based in Edinburgh that invests in Scottish manufacturers selling abroad? What’s not to like about that?

Then there was the lazy journalism of Kenny Farquharson in The Times arguing Offord was using racist tropes about migrants and crime – when the evidence, as discovered by Linda Holt writing here in The Reformer, showed Offord did indeed have a legitimate point to raise. Evidence from both Oxford University’s Migration Observatory and analysis of police arrest data by the Centre for Migration Control found foreign nationals are overrepresented among people cautioned or convicted for some crimes, including sexual offences.

Yes, there are necessary caveats about statistical evidence – but this is due to the fact the authorities will not collect the information in a manner that might reveal if migration is impacting on our crime statistics. Meanwhile, it is not difficult to see an alarming increase in sexual assaults that otherwise goes unexplained. As Linda Holt pointed out, those that intentionally shut down the question of why girls and women are being assaulted more than before are committing the same error as those who covered up the rape gangs that are a national scandal.

For Offord, caring about Scotland was taken in with his mother’s milk, his wealth doesn’t matter. The real issue is: will Malcolm Offord’s policies make Scotland successful and attract people that have left Scotland to return, build their futures and pay their taxes here? Will they result in a safer Scotland, a better educated Scotland and a healthier Scotland? All of that is worthy of close questioning and scrutiny. But suffering ODS means playing the man rather than the ball.

If considering Malcolm Offord’s and Reform UK Scotland’s policies requires lying down in a cool dark room to overcome ODS, then it’s time for the Scottish commentariat to try it.