…but I shall do it anyway.
I came today across this statement which I wrote in December 2014 for distribution to SNP members when I was standing for selection as an SNP candidate. I don’t recall anybody else sounding this warning in 2014, and I feel rather proud of my intuition.
I think we have to avoid the trap of managerialism – of being just another political party but a little more competent and fair. We should maintain a firm thrust towards the goal of national freedom…
I want to end the Union, not to run it.
Within the SNP we must guard against success leading us to develop our own careerists. Professional politicians in Westminster have become a parasitic class with interchangeable beliefs, out for themselves. There are too many of them – Special Advisers, research assistants etc. The number of politicians paid for by the taxpayer has quadrupled in 30 years…
I want the dynamic citizen activism we saw in the Yes campaign to lead to a new kind of politics in Scotland. Bubbling up from ordinary folk. And I want that energy from the people to defeat the forces of the mainstream media and the unionists here in the coming election.
Together, we can do it.
Having been nominated to stand for selection in 19 constituencies – without in a single case having initiated it myself – I was of course barred from standing by the central party. What ordinary SNP members in the 2015 selections would have made of this pitch we can never know. I am of course trying again to see what they make of it today. My pitch has not changed.
Go for it, things are going to get a lot worse and you will provide a calm, measured and knowledgeable voice. All the best
I’m not sure it is wise to focus so much on personalities and individuals here. if the cause of Scottish independence is right, then it shouldn’t be disrupted by fits of pique about candidate selections. i am sure the central party had their reasons, and it is better to let the matter drop and campaign for the wider cause. Numerous people stand for parties and are not selected, as with any other job – that is the way of the world.
Tom what would it take for you to say thus far and no further ?.
The undue haste in distancing from perfectly good MPs and MSPs because the unionist press are pursuing them
The obvious lack of enthusiasm in going for a second ref vote
The dropping of the word independence from literature
The airbrushing of Alex Salmond from party history
The block by the FMs office of Alex Salmond entering Holyrood
The vendetta against Alex Salmond instigated from the very highest management of the SNP
The pursuit of a criminal conviction and setting up of a police unit dedicated to this task
The blocking of the most competent MP we have because she dares to attempt to push for a second indy ref vote
The saying there is none so blind as those who cannot see comes to mind waken up you are being led up a blind ally and you cant see it
Robert Graham
I, you and all others who want independence only win when we get independence.
I have no doubt WGD knows fine well what has been going on with Alex Salmonds persecution but for his own reasons he seems to think it is best that it is all forgotten about. His decision. Time will tell if it is correct.
As I said to WGD when he said there would be no mandate for actual independence in the 2021 election but there would be a mandate for a referendum – deja vu. It is starting to feel like we are in the movie Groundhog Day. Another election another mandate for a referendum delivered – rinse and repeat. I am sure the SNP should be in the Guinness book of records for successive mandates for a referendum that are unused.
Will we be saying in 2026 – another election another mandate for a referendum?
Cubby…
You said “Will we be saying in 2026 – another election another mandate for a referendum?”
If we are , I doubt we will , but if we are and have been taken for a ride we simply take the next step.
Betrayal , double crossing , bribery etc etc has been part and parcel of England’s control of Scotland since day one of that union .
I trust SNP and I trust NS to get Scottish independence
If I’m wrong and usually I’m not I’m glad to say but if I am wrong on this one and SNP and NS have betrayed us we will as the Scottish independence movement move on to the next step.
There’s no stopping us now
Terence
Sorry to say but over the years of reading your comments you are regularly wrong so your confidence does not fill me with confidence.
So let’s say the SNP win an overwhelming majority in 2021 – how long do you wait before you think – mmm perhaps I have been taken for a ride. 2023 2024 2025.
I want a party to vote for that puts a mandate for independence in its manifesto – not another promise of a referendum.
If Craig receives an answer from the man Mc Cann, it will be full of obtuse remarks about his blog posts and his grievance with a holed Scottish justice system.
I don’t think Independence will be a word in his reply.
I have yet to find out what lies behind the rumour of AS starting a new party to provide a vehicle for all Independence minded voters.
Imho there is no chance of Craig being accepted as SNP candidate, as he would be subjected to multiple smears and agent provocateur heckling/disruptions.
Why would he want to take that path when a clear distinction between the SNPs eternal wait for a Westminster’s agreement, and a timed active campaign to achieve Independence, is required as polls show more and more voters had enough of this managerial pondering by a small clique of self-serving careerist who find nothing wrong in garnering police powers to undermine the courts.
should Craig stand, I will decamp for a month and help his campaign, however he sees fit. Maybe some here could work out a policy framework, a ten point plan to Independence, or such like, by listening to local SNP members and engaging the grass roots to get a campaign on the road.
Waiting for Godot, at a point in time when Brexit looms and people are anxious to change the future for their children, when the offshore crooks in the city of London corp. waiting with baited breath to feed some more on handouts and taxes from magic money trees/printing, is a stymying prospect to anybody who wants to see change.
Well said. Independence is off the agenda submission to Article 30 prevalent and the contradiction in terms that is, “Independence in Europe” needs to be dropped and open up the real agenda of Sovereign Independence with all the options that that entails. A campaign of information about the EU and bring home a possible million plus voters who voted to “Leave.”
You’ll find out what “the real agenda of Sovereign Independence” entails by shortly after Britain goes over the Brexit “transition cliff” on Hogmanay Night, or perhaps even before. Your usage of the notion of national “independence” is identical to UKIP’s.
My advice, as a non Scot is for AS to start a new party, with CM as his deputy. We has seen how small parties can influence bigger ones in even the sump of Wesminster and the PR of Scottish elections is more amenable to actually gaining seats.
It might concentrate the minds in the SNP on what they were supposed to be about.
What examples of smaller parties “influencing” bigger ones do you have in mind? I can think of three cases straight off where smaller outfits helped bigger parties and doubtless their movers and shakers got cause to acquire big grins on their faces, because this is politics and politicians are creeps who don’t help other politicians for nothing:
* SNP helped the Tories, 1979, ushering in the Thatcher premiership, 1979-97
* Liberal Democrats helped the Tories, 2010-15
* DUP helped the Tories, 2017-19
Might there be a pattern?
Correction: Thatcher premiership 1979-90; Tory premierships 1979-97.
An independence pressure group would be better, one without any political representation ambitions.
Alex Salmond would certainly make for a fine figurehead and spokesperson should he be interested. A rival political, single issue party, in the mould of UKIP would simply embroil independence supporters in a huge tumult, which unionists and their press would present as chaos and in-fighting.
If such a pressure group were to discuss what leftwing stuff might go into a written Scottish constitution, it might be possible to link up with the people around Mélenchon in France and maybe eventually with some serious leftwing types in other countries including even (gasp!) England.
The “independence first, then sort everything else out” line has a curious mix of emotion and logic that ends up failing to direct both. A bunch of politicians who have actually been administering quite a bit in Scotland while it’s still in the union can’t easily win the middle ground with that kind of attitude, because people don’t know what they might do from the day after a Yes win and don’t trust them. At the moment one looks in vain for influential leftwing supporters of independence who say openly that they want to redistribute wealth away from the Scottish rich, abolish the monarchy, and have a written constitution. “It’s up to an independent sovereign country to decide whether it has a written constitution, or a monarchy, or a law enabling the rich to hide most of their money or alternatively swingeing top rates of inheritance and income tax” isn’t an attractive position, but some just can’t get their heads round that because they kind of are “single issue”. A forum for sensibly discussing what kind of changes it would be nice to have in Scotland could be a positive thing.
I hope Craig stays outside the tent and carries on p_____g on the corruption inside.
* SNP helped the Tories, 1979, ushering in the Thatcher premiership, 1979-97
.
Simply not true.
Other than that Thatcher’s premiership ended in 1990 and so I should have said “Tory government, 1979-97”, it is true. The SNP brought down the Labour government. There was a vote of confidence on 28 March 1979, called by Margaret Thatcher, leader of the Tory party which was then in opposition. The Labour government lost. Had the 11 b*stards in the parliamentary SNP voted against Thatcher’s motion, or even abstained, the Labour government would have won. But all of 11 of them chose to vote in favour of Thatcher’s motion.
You can see the list of which parties voted how in the Commons here:
FOR THE TORY MOTION (TOTAL 311):
Conservative Party (279)
Liberal Party (13)
Scottish National Party (11)
Ulster Unionist Party (5)
United Ulster Unionist Party (1)
Democratic Unionist Party (1)
Independent (1, James Kilfedder)
AGAINST THE TORY MOTION (310):
Labour Party (287)
Labour Co-operative (16)
Plaid Cymru (3)
Ulster Unionist Party (2)
Scottish Labour Party (2)
ABSTENTIONS
Speaker of the House (1)
Deputy Speakers of the House (3)
Labour Party (1, Sir Alfred Broughton)
Social Democratic and Labour Party (1, Gerry Fitt)
Independent Republican (1, Frank Maguire).
But don’t worry N_ labour got their own back when they campaigned in 2010 with the Tories against the SNP resulting in labour losing its grip in Scotland.
What do all these parties have in common? Careerist mentalities.
The SNP is wholly Blairite now save a few good MSPs absolutely no good Westminster MPs though. Too busy doing coke and enjoying the pleasures of Dolphin Court no doubt.
Today Boris Johnson made his own brother a lord for no reason other than he is his brother. He quickly followed this up by making the Labour quitters all Tory lords.
Later today we discover that Boris had assigned a private company to “deal with” the bank of England payments. As the Chancellor – and there for Boris – can order money into existence at will it would appear that they’ve Assigned a company to pour newly minted money straight into their offshores.
This is quite unprecedented. Never has there been such a blatant example or corruption.
EvenThe Krays Would have been more subtle
Are you taking the p*ss, Shatnersrug?
One big difference being that in an election there are more than two parties, whereas in a confidence motion on a government there are only two options.
That two parties ran candidates against the National Party 30 years later (and indeed in every other election) doesn’t make them supportive of each other.
N
You conveniently ignore the abstentions don’t you. You are a Britnat chancer.
The SNP had every right to vote against labour as they stitched up the 1979 Devolution referendum whereby a majority vote for a Scottish parliament was declared insufficient. The exact same majority that now takes Scotland out of the EU against its will. 52% majority is ok for what England wants but in 1979 52% is insufficient for what Scotland wants. That’s Britnat democracy for Scotland in a nutshell.
Labour were masters of their own demise.
Callaghan had no majority.
He then went into a pact with the liberals, liberals saying they would vote with labour in any no confidence motion.
This inevitably broke down, after Callaghan refused to call a general election, leaving the labour party without the liberal party to prop it up.
I also remember the devolution vote was hijacked by labour with the 40% rule.
You mentioned neither of these facts.
How you would expect the snp to vote for such a labour party, I’ll never know.
……and Labour brought down Scotland by
1. Not revealing the content of the McCrone report
2. Cuddling up to the Tories in 2014
Paul Hampton and Out+of+Africa
Spot on Comments.
The intention of SNP was not to bring in a thatcher govt though was it Marxist
Thatcher coming in was a by product of the vote of no confidence in that labour govt
SNP voted no confidence in that labour govt for good reason
SNP didn’t vote for thatcher as well you know
Your description of what happened is not correct Marxist , you already know that
The SNP vote of no confidence in the labour govt was not a vote for Margaret thatcher it was a vote to get rid of James Callaghan in the winter of discontent I remember it well I lived through it , did you ?
The general election that brought in Margaret thatcher was in May 1979
The vote of no confidence in labour govt was March 1979
And of course the reason SNP voted no confidence in labour govt is that the Scottish independence referendum on 1st March 1979 showed a majority in favour of it but because that majority did not account for more than forty percent of the whole population of Scotland labour ditched the idea.
So Marxist …SNP didn’t team up with the conservatives SNP voted no confidence in the labour government for totally different reasons to the conservatives
“The SNP brought down the Labour government.”
Hardly. Nor did they install Thatcher. I think you’ll find it was the voting population who made the choice – so blame them instead.
The SNP didn’t have the power to remove a government or install a new one. They could, however, lend their support to the campaign to hold an election to consult the people.
The pathetic Callaghan administration was a lame duck from the outset, with a majority of just 3 soon whittled away to a minority. The Liberals made a pact to prop them up but eventually withdrew. Possibly Labour could have struggled on for another 5 months if not for the no-confidence vote, but is that really what the public wanted? Labour had to face its day of reckoning in 1979 one way or another. So the people were duly consulted (partly thanks to the SNP), and in general they seemed to prefer the Tories.
Surely you believe in democracy? Then what’s wrong about giving the people a chance to vote?? Would you prefer that the electorate wasn’t consulted at all when the government is in meltdown?
It wasn’t the Scottish voters, much less SNP voters, who selected a Tory majority. The SNP didn’t favour the Tories; the English voters did – in sufficient numbers to return a Tory majority of 43. So why don’t you blame the English voters instead of the SNP? (Is this another case of the “SNP baaaad” mantra?)
N
I see you are at it again with your old trope about the SNP helping the Tories – total nonsense. It is sad that a Britnat like you only has this nonsense to turn to. Where is the case for the Union? Where are the broken promises of the vow?
Your fellow Britnats in Scotland are in total disarray. Your Britnat leader Johnson is thrashing about trying to save the Union but he does not have a clue – just like you.
I just don’t think we can any longer ignore the fact that the Labour Party has been completely infiltrated by Tory sympathisers and it’s been like that for a long time – but since the labour leaks It’s implicitly clear what has happened. So getting annoyed at the SNP for something that happened 40 years ago seems pointless. Callahan was on the labour right – he and Healey implemented the bogus IMF loan that brought about the huge cuts and closures that thatcher was it too happy to take the blame for, but had Callahan won policies would have continued and ultimately he’d have lost at the next election.
Labour started Openly working with the tories against the SNP in 2010 probably covertly before then.
What we saw then was a stitch up at cost to British working classes, worst hit was Scotland and the north.
By 2010 Scots had had enough and voted for the SNP. Alex is a skilful political mover and had Scotland in his heart. Whilst Blair’s Labour became the Tory light we see in action now.
But here’s the thing. The Blairite stitch of of the Labour Party from ‘95 – 2015 – resulting in a party polling less that 25% – is happening now in the SNP it started when Alex inexplicably stood down after losing the Indy vote. (I was speechless – the Indy vote was a huge success – not because it could have won, but because it galvanised Scots, Alex could have built so much on that, and we know he would now be pushing the next ref centre stage.)
The SNP closed ranks, Nicola shit to the front – the identity politics poster child, the strong woman. Mark my words because I’ve lived through this in the Labour Party. The Establishment have the SNP and any attempt to take it back will be let with the same force that hit us when we tried to claim labour for the working classes. Craig threatened with jail, Alex smeared and almost prosecuted as a pervert.
Johnson just made the Labour plotters lords for services rendered to the establishment. When will the first SNP MP end up there? 5 years? 15?
These are dark days my friends and we are all on the same side. Bickering about who caused Callahans demise is a waste of energy.
And I say this 30 year Labour Party member and activist
And cubby, N_ isn’t a Britnat. He’s an internationalist socialist, it may appear the same to a Scottish nationalist, but it isn’t.
As for me, I really don’t know where to go for here. I shan’t leave Labour because I like to use my voting right, t seems to annoy the party machine and that’s good enough for me.
But we are in Dark times and we need to watch each other’s backs.
Shatnersrug
And I suppose Ian Murray British Labour in Scotlands one and only MP is an international socialist as well as he goes about Edinburgh in his Union Jack suit.
No British Labour in Scotland just like the rest of the parties are British Nationalists and so is N and anyone who supports the UK. British Nationalists the Nationalists who cannot see that they are Nationalists.
Labour members overwhelmingly followed the advice of Osborne, Aaronovitch et al in selecting a new leader. They have got what they deserve.
Cubby, I just happened to notice your name mentioned over on Wings, by a Robert Graham, not sure if you saw it, and not sure of the reference ‘did you win’ but it’s here in case it’s of interest:
https://wingsoverscotland.com/wolves-and-vampires/comment-page-1/#comment-2552984
The Wings article is also relevant to the SNP shenanigans.
Contrary
Thanks. I did see it. It happens now and again. I don’t post there now because i never post where a site owner makes it clear I am not wanted.
I was just stating on WGD that I wanted the SNP to put a mandate for independence in its 2021 manifesto – a manifesto that says a >50% vote share is a mandate for independence – not to be confused with a second referendum. To me that should be a given for a party that wants independence. Sick of all this nonsense about asking May then Johnson’s permission – just more Cringe. Most on WGD just do what they are told by the Party.
If Craig or the moderators ever make it clear I am not wanted here I will be happy to oblige.
Aha, I see, loads of folk disappeared from Wings, and it’s hard to keep up with who or why (too many people!). I agree with your comment on the mandate for 2021 as well – I really can’t face even looking at WGD site any more though, the degree of denial and foaming No Debate environment is too much to bear. I’ve tried to sort it a bit on John’s site – although we disagree on a few things, he does still like me to come on and make comments as a kind of support mechanism (I kind of helped him through the worst part of his ‘difficult period’ so think it’s just a hangover from that) so don’t want to just give up on it – but I do have to clench my teeth and keep quiet a lot.
What I don’t understand: in what way do people think they are going to get what they want – independence – if they never speak out or demand it? Being in denial about the SNP behaviour helps no one, and causes harm – to the SNP and to us. By keeping silent ‘lest it offend’ they are saying that anything goes – they are enabling things like those disgusting tweets Stu displayed in his piece. I am wholly bewildered by this behaviour – but I also wasn’t aware how long it has been going on or how widespread. I didn’t actually believe anyone would ever truly trust a politician of any colour and have such faith. Well, that’s what I get for making assumptions, more fool me.
I have to say – I’ve enjoyed your contributions here on Craig’s blog – you took the place by storm when you started getting into it 😀 . I was used to the range and type of comments one finds here from indulging in a lot of Skripal gossip way back now, so it was refreshing to see a different viewpoint, and watching you discover ‘the usual suspects’ 😉 It’s hard to change your ‘home blog’ once you are settled though, I find, so good on ye for keeping up the contributions in blogs other than Wings.
Contrary
Thanks again for your kind words.
I am only interested in freeing my country from the dead hand of the evil bastards in Westminster. The party I thought was the mechanism to get us there seems to have been infiltrated by people who for various reasons do not share that ambition. It is only the SNP members who can rectify the situation. If not the new parties will just grow and grow. As you say there are a lot of head in sands people who cannot face up to unpleasant facts and difficult decisions.
I base my opinions on evidence and facts not on the individual saying them – so while I do not post on Wings that does not mean I disagree with everything he says. Similarly, posting on Craigs site or WGD does not mean I agree with everything they say either.
Only a fool does not consider changing their opinion when the facts in front of you change.
Yep, agreed. It’s always good to see that level heads still get a say, Cubby
Keep going.
Both Sturgeon and Starmer will no doubt be relieved their respective Party conferences have been cancelled.
Both look to have overpromised and face growing restlessness among their memberships. This is one reason I wouldn’t be overly concerned. Leaders can’t resist a tide of opinion within their own ranks forever. Labour voters aren’t suddenly going to fall in love with centre-right politics, New Labour and the Blairites again. Not after having experienced ‘feeling good’ about their party for the first time in a long time under Corbyn, and winning 40% in 2017’s GE proving a leftist manifesto can win. Ditto the SNP, Sturgeon and co aren’t bigger than the membership and the movement; SNP’s whole raison d’être of independence.
The exasperation in some the commentary seems to come with an underlying assumption the membership are powerless victims in all this. In reality, without the membership, Sturgeon and the centrist, gradualist clan who surround her, have nothing.
Yeah, if you’re brain is geared towards accepting what the tabloids and BBC, Sky tell you believe, that’s the view of Corbyn you’ll have.
your typo
We were constantly told by centrists and assorted Blairites, that under any leader other than Corbyn, Labour would be 20pts ahead.
Funny how Starmer’s Labour aren’t 20pts ahead of this shambolic crew, then? Starmer’s Labour are polling in the margin of error of what Corbyn achieved in 2019 (32%).
Excellent point. Starmer is liked more in the political classes (in “North London” and elsewhere) and he moves much more easily in their circles than Corbyn ever did, but Labour under his leadership is LESS popular than it was during much of the time when Corbyn was leader, and, as you say, the party is about as popular as it was during the December 2019 election. Journalists and politicians and gobby “experts” are taking their own desires for reality. They think if they’d like to go to a dinner party with somebody then the person must be “popular”.
Starmer is the kind of “opposition leader” the Tories want. Many Tory chatterers (unlike “white van man”) are fond and respectful towards him. They quite liked Blair and Miliband too and for that matter they weren’t especially haty of Wilson in the 1960s, but they truly despised Corbyn and we all know why. If it wasn’t so sad it would have been funny when Starmer criticised the government for issuing coronavirus instructions by tweet…by himself posting a tweet. The Tories won’t be shaking in their boots at that. It’s not like when some rich Tories made arrangements to hoik their money out of the country in the event of a Corbyn win.
BUT…not so many real people in the population are interested in party politics now as was the case up until last winter, and this change isn’t reflected in the polls. The psychology of it is similar to if somebody has been stabbed on the street, after which most close family members won’t be much interested in what happens in the football that night. They may take it in that their team won 3-0 or lost 2-1, but it won’t mean so much to them emotionally. It won’t get much of their attention.
Many people that I speak to are DAZED. They cannot think much about facts such as that a lot of people stayed inside their houses for MONTHS except for weekly trips to the shops when they didn’t have to – there was no law or state policy making them. It’s like a behaviourist’s happy dream and everybody else’s nightmare. A similar observation can be made about how people are thinking – or not thinking – about changes in state health provision…real changes that have actually occurred and many “know” about but which aren’t getting talked about much in the media.
Yep, pure projection by the MSM.
I think Starmer may not even make it to 2024’s election as leader as he slowly reveals who and what he is, members and Labour voters will likely be repulsed. His socioeconomic instincts and globalist views are clearly hawkish, right-wing and authoritarian. Whether he’s an establishment plant, as some allege, I’ve no idea?
There are already signs of dissent in the ranks though. The membership numbers aren’t showing it yet, because there’s a lag between people ending their membership direct debits and it showing in the official records – they keep the memberships running allowing people time to reconsider.
Who is the more foolish, the fool or the fools who spend their time here reading and responding to what the ‘fool’ typed?
Easy to criticise, I could be vicious if I chose to be, but… I think that kind of stuff inappropriate.
———————-
As for confusing the electorate with the membership, it wasn’t an either-or type choice. Had the PLP got behind Corbyn he could have sustained the gains of 2017’s GE, it was only a coordinated vicious smear campaign involving the Tories, PLP and media that fatally undermined him.
The Donald wants to postpone the election, says he’s worried about mail in ballots, where on earth could he have got idea that from!!
@GFL – Trump may well be out of the presidential race soon. Yesterday his campaign stopped spending money on TV ads – supposedly only “temporarily”, but did you notice the reason they gave? The reason is said to be that Bill Stepien replaced Brad Parscale as campaign manager and he needs to take stock. Well Stepien got the top job two weeks ago, so if all the only think that’s happening is that he is “taking stock” he could have done it then. Trump is sh*tting himself. That’s obvious from his plaintive cry for postponing the election, which the Republican leadership slapped straight back in his face. He’s gutless. He’s all mouth and no trousers.
Having sent military [*] “little green men” into Portland, Trump has now ordered some into Chicago too. If this scumbag isn’t stopped soon, he’s going to start shooting protestors,
Note
(*) Or do they count as “paramilitary” rather than “military”. They are said to be from “Homeland Security”? I’m not convinced all of them really are from the DHS’s “Border Patrol Tactical Unit” (BORTAC), given that BORTAC are supposed to wear insignia and reportedly at least some of the guys in Portland aren’t wearing any. Perhaps Keith Schiller knows what’s going on?
@N_
The US seems to be in a bigger political mess than the UK.
Have you seen the recent footage of Biden going out on stage only to forget where he is? The Democrats can’t be feeling all that comfortable knowing Biden has to debate Trump.
“…but I shall do it anyway.”
Good for you! Enough of false modesty!
BREAKING: Peerages confirmed for the following (among others):
How anyone can claim we live in a democracy?
Ian Austin, John Woodcock and Frank Field are particularly horrific to Corbyn supporters.
And Ruth Davidson? the House of Lords has no revising role in Scotland. What is she doing in the HoL?
Ian Austin and John Woodcock urged voters to elect Johnson in December 2019’s election remember, claiming Corbyn wasn’t fit for office .They were given lots of media time publicity while doing so too. The whole thing stinks, and insomuch as Starmer thinks their elevation ok – after campaigning against their own party – it speaks volumes. Centrists really do detest the left more than they dislike the right.
John Woodcock resigned to face sexual assault investigations.
Weird vetting, I guess?
Serve the establishment?
Get in there.
I shouldn’t ever, never ever, try to read it, @S
John, OMG, Woodcock ??? OMG !!! is it a real name???
well, John, ahem…
designed to race facial assault, OMG !!!!
designed to face racial assault, OMG !!!
resigned to race facial assault, OMG OMG !!!
well, Tanya, let’s read it all once again….
If you write a novel with a character who quickly gained a huge fortune, wouldn’t it be a bit too much to name him Skorobogatko? (skoro = quickly, bogat = rich, -ko makes it a bit funny). Yet you can look up Alexandr Skorobogatko, and it is an actual person.
John Woodcock resigned from the Labour Party to avoid sexual misconduct allegations.
Just the sort of chap for the House of Lords.
Prime minister’s brother too, life peerage. No wonder they feel able to scold other countries.
The House of Lords has a role in legislating in Scotland on “reserved” matters. At least Davidson probably won’t be PM now.
It has no revisory function though on Scottish legislation. Which is what most of its day-to-day business is about in terms of the rUK.
Both big parties at Westminster parties are currently poised to review the HoL’s role and functions. Labour talk of a ‘Chamber of the regions and nations of the UK’. you can see the potential trap here for nationalists.
Donald Dewar et al in setting up the Scottish parliament made sure, the HoL had no revisory role regarding legislative areas devolved to Holyrood.
The above exchange shows that N_ knows more about the constitution than you do.
—————-
Probably so. I’m fundamentally lazy around acquiring detailed knowledge on any subject unless I have to, much like our current PM.
My point was more about the dangers of the hard won devolution settlement being unravelled by Westminster, in the guise of a more democratically inclusive upper chamber, with both major UK parties promising reviews in their manifestos.
And btw, I do know about reserved matters.
My post wasn’t incorrect, Scottish legislation i.e., that brought forward by the elected govt in Scotland, isn’t subject to the various review stages/possible amendment by the HoL. Unlike the Westminster legislative process.
@ Frank Hovis.
Yes. He used to boast about graduating from St John’s, Oxford.
He is so formulaic.
N
Well well well – even the blind squirrel comes across an acorn every so often. A true and accurate statement from N. Well done keep up the good work.
There is something horribly atavistic about this whole ‘peerage’ business… If you are ‘useful’ or proven you are useful in serving power, there will be a ‘title’ and trough for your snout. Game of thrones without the dragons. You couldn’t make it up.
And Assange sits in a dungeon because he upset the King.
Plus ça Change.
Peter Tatchell said:
Black and Asian people are excluded from being the head of state. Only first-born descendant of all-white senior royals are UK’s heads of state. This is racism.
—
and this is atavism, too
What he actually said was “UK’s head of state is first-born descendant of each generation of all-white senior royals. Black & Asian people are therefore excluded from being head of state for foreseeable future. This is institutional racism”
Very different.
Also bollocks.
Kempe
Are you actually saying Harry was pushed out of royalty for marrying Megan ??? Shagging no problem , but polluting blue blood ???
I think that is what you’re implying.
Of all the outrageous things you have ever said, that is the ultimate bullseye.
I’m convinced the Queen is a feminist never a racist.
Are you really trying to say that the male custodians of white supremacy have told the Queen that there is no room at the palace for a married Megan?
What century, or what planet do you live on?
Kempe, I didn’t understand what is bollocks. Could you clarify?
Mr.Tatchell highlighted some of the features of the monarchy. Mr. Tatchell himself called it racism. I have described this as “atavism”.
You clarified that the words were “institutional racism”, and you rated it different from what? From “ordinary racism”?
You’ve written “also bollocks”. What does “also” mean? What was the first bollocks then?
We were taught that non-constructive criticism has no value, so could you please say your own position/assessment of monarchy?
Peter Tatchell is such a piffling nincompoop these days that he should be in the lords.
RE Tatyana at 11.39
Bollocks is another way of saying total rubbish, as it is also the vulgar term for testicles, so some people would call it rude, at least in the UK.
You are right, it is not constructive criticism. For republicans like myself the role of the Royals is deeply repulsive as they have gained their position by virtue of an accident of birth rather than by merit. It’s a tradition that has no value.
To me Mr Tatchell is a kind of hero because he attempted at one stage to arrest Robert Mugabe for his crimes when he came into the country.
Institutional racism is more insidious than ordinary racism in that it means it is a ingrained feature
or essence of an institution like the police force or the army or any organised group.
Can I also say that it is very brave of you to attempt to improve you language skills by joining in the conversations here.
Yes. Nepotism is alive and well in the corridors of Whitehall.
What about Claire Regina Fox and Kate Hoey – Brexiteers and both former Marxists and ex-members of the Communist Revolutionary Party.
Seen as sinners who have repented, I suppose?
Not the first…
Alistair Darling became a ‘darling’ of the establishment after playing a prominent role the anti-independence effort, he once flirted with communism. As did one of most right-wing figures from the New Labour era, John Reid, he was too right-wing even for the guardian’s resident centrist Polly Toynbee, who described Reid as “having the zeal of a convert [to Blairism].”
“How anyone can claim we live in a democracy?”
I haven’t heard anyone claim that for a while.
Goose
In Scotland we have NEVER had a democracy.
What I think the apologists for the Sturgeon and Murrell cabal need to ponder is this; while the FM’s efforts as a colonial administrator may have gained her plaudits from the mainstream media and establishment (some grudging, some genuine) the actual cause (and indeed, the very concept) of independence hasn’t won a single ounce of reprieve from those same people. Not one.
You may ask why that is, but I rather suspect those of us who accept the truth about the present SNP leadership know already.
Craig hasn’t really mentioned all the recent personnel changes in govt’s security agencies. I’d be intrigued as to what your ‘sources’ are saying?
Cabinet Secretary and National Security Adviser : Mark Sedwill replaced by David Frost
MI5 : Ken McCallum replacing Andrew Parker
Mi6 : Richard Moore replacing Sir Alex Younger(who is leaving the service altogether)
GCHQ : Lindy Cameron replacing Ciaran Martin
Taken together, don’t all these changes seem unusual? If there were some huge scandal behind it not that we’d know, the powerful would close ranks obviously.
I know if these changes had happened under a Corbyn-led administration, it’d be a big story, and no doubt presented as sinister.
Johnson does what he likes because he knows nobody in the political establishment or MSM has the moral authority to criticise him. They all knew what he was yet they all tried to get him elected.
I would like to question some of the statements in your 2014 letter:
“Professional politicians in Westminster have become a parasitic class with interchangeable beliefs, out for themselves”. This is an over-generalisation. There are many Westminster MPs who are committed to improving society in areas in which they have specific competence and experience. If you listen to debates, you will find many powerful speeches from backbenchers. The system that exists makes it very difficult for them to have an impact on policy.
“There are too many of them – Special Advisers, research assistants etc.” I do not agree with this statement. An MP needs to represent their constituents across a very wide range of issues. They need support staff to help them to remain well-informed. I challenge you to find any MP who you personally respect and trust, who would agree that they have too many support staff. When you were an Ambassoador, how many staff did you have working with you, to support your role?
“The number of politicians paid for by the taxpayer has quadrupled in 30 years”. What is the evidence for this? What about the analysis, by Lesley Riddoch and others, that local democracy in Scotland is structured into much bigger units than in most other European countries, resulting in a disconnect between citizens and their local representatives.
You are defending an indefensible position there..
There are dozens and dozens of them on the taxpayers’ payroll.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsecret/contents.htm
My new MP in December employs four, ie we pay for them.
So far she has spoken in the House on one occasion and appears to have total invisibility.
Mary,
As someone who works for an MP, I would like to explain the need for multiple staff members, as many people don’t fully understand the work.
The office I work in has 4 staff members in the constituency and 1 based in WM.
The office has over 100 active constituency cases staff are working on which range from complex immigration cases (particularly with Brexit immigration cases now make up an even larger part of the work), helping constituents who have been paid incorrect welfare, emergency housing, organising food bank referrals.
Staff usually spend several hours each day on the phone or seeing constituents face to face (pre covid) and the rest of the day working on resolving their issues, by writing letters/emails and on the phone to government departments. Many of the cases take months to resolve. The MP trys to meet as many of these constituents when parliament is not sitting and holds surgeries in different community settings in which people can drop in and ask advice.
These cases do not include ongoing correspondence with constituents over local and national campaigns eg emails generated by petitions.
This does also not include the high volume of covid related queries.
All MP offices are run separately so all aspects of running an office (HR, budgets, admin, expenses, utilities, training) are organised by staff members and the MP.
The Westminster staff member supports parliament based activities (press, social media, briefing for committees and speeches, APPGs, diary management, travel, working on raising constituency issues with relevant ministers, meetings with stakeholders relevant to the MPs portfolio).
I hope this helps you understand why your local MP employs staff.
Thank you, Sarah. That is a really useful insight into how parliamentary members’ offices work.
Reads like a glorified citizens advice service.
Pathetic that ‘our representatives’ see this as their role.
Perhaps the MP should have all enquiries and petitions to their office rejected out of hand? Would you rather citizens be unrepresented? Perhaps MPs should not be answerable at all, or the position as MP be abolished and we get governed by a Supreme Ruler? Kindly tell us what they really ought to be doing, I would like to hear your ideas on how the system be improved.
What’s pathetic is your trolling that it’s not a representative’s role to represent.
Come off it, the only reason that so many people need help is because MPs have abandoned them en masse and go through the motions of helping the lucky few. How much of my money do you take for what you do?
The costs of staff for every MP is registered, together with their other expenses. Why do you expect a poster here, who is as entitled to remain anonymous as yourself, to provide you with such personal details?
If it’s public domain how can it be personal? Bear in mind that it’s my money….
Squeeth is right.
Having dealt extensively with an MP, I can say that the ‘representation’ aspect is bullshit.
Still, I tried.
That was when the individual was Lib. Now that it is a Tory, I would not bother.
I think some here are living in cloud cuckooland, simply knee-jerk reacting to their jobs being dismissed as fake. Get a real job, or make your job count. Stop trying to defend it.
Most of this ‘work’ is campaigning for re-election. It is work that used to be left to the constituency party to carry out, through salaried agents, part time employees and, mainly, volunteers, members of the local party.
By professionalising political campaigns and putting the MP’s staff on government salaries the power and influence of local party members is diminished. It was, and is, a characteristic of Blairism/Starmerism that membership numbers shrunk. There is no interest in learning the opinions of the members, and no enthusiasm for their playing any role in political campaigns that postmen and couriers could not do as well.
It goes without saying that most of those working for MPs are auditioning for future careers in party politics. And, while employed thus, are learning nothing of the realities of life under capitalism.
You wrote that “most of those working for MPs are auditioning for future careers in party politics. And, while employed thus, are learning nothing of the realities of life under capitalism”.
I invite you to think about this: who would be interested in taking a job on a low salary as a consituency worker, or as a parliamentary assistant in London on a salary that is hardly able to pay for London accomodation? Who would have the skill set and motivation to do such a job? It will inevitably be someone with an interest in the political system.
‘The realities of life under capitalism’?? These realities walk through the door of constituency offices every day of the week. Many of those who turn to their MP for help are those who have been utterly failed by the health and social care system. Environmental, poverty, disability, etc etc pressure groups are constantly communicating with MPs to ask them to bring up issues in Parliament.
The Scottish media are completely useless at providing information and understanding about how the Westminster and Holyrood systems actually operate on a day to day basis, and what our elected representatives and their staff actually do. Political coverage is largely restricted to cartoon portrayal of the activities of a small number of high profile individuals.
I suspect there is dwindling faith in the old canard of the fundamental decency and nobility of MPs .We had a vivid insight over the past 5 years into what the Parlianenrary Labour Party is composed of.
John, the point that I was trying, clumsily, to make was that this Parliamentary Apprenticeship programme, which brings us likes of the Blair babes, is designed in part to exclude veteran party members and local figures from Parliament. And to ensure that, by the time they get there, new MPs understand their role as voting fodder and loyal centrists so well that nothing will tempt them into career endangering independence of thought.
Of course not. Mary is never wrong about anything, which explains why she has apologised for nothing at all to date.
Where’s Tatyana when you need her glenn_UK. You are usually a double act.
I don’t believe Tatyana and I have exchanged posts for months, Mary. You could prove me wrong by citing when this “double act” last took place…? Otherwise, you can fail to apologise for yet another untrue accusation, as is your custom.
There is nothing I said that is untrue
Q Are you a frequent multiple poster on here using another name?
Good question, the smell of self-pity is all over that post.
The costs for staffing are astronomical. Remember that there are 630 MPs. Perhaps that is why they are referred to as ‘troughers’.
£166k London. £155K Non London plus office costs, accommodation, travel, plus plus
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/mp-costs
The concept of ‘troughing’ refers to MPs being able to make money on the side, for example as company directors, and the previous pattern of abuse of the expenses system. The staff employed by MPs are not paid high salaries. Scottish MPs need to have somewhere to stay in London, and travel back and forward on a regular basis. Because of irregular House of Commons hours (pre-covid) they cannot not do so on cheap pre-booked flights or rail tickets, but need to use expensive flexible tickets. They need to pay rent on a local constituency office, etc. if you sit down with a piece of paper and work out how much all the work described in Sarah’s previous comment actually costs, you can see that it is not ‘troughing’.
While I think that there are many ways that the parliamentary system can be improved, for example by building in much more participative/citizen democracy, I do not believe that ‘troughing’ by SNP MP’s is part of the problem.
Article in The Herald that seems to encapsulate all the complaints made here about the SNP’s current leadership and direction:
Opinion: Kevin McKenna: SNP needs to dump the middle-class mediocrity.
Makes for sobering reading, they really are headed in the wrong direction and have forgotten their purpose.
Goose.
Kevin McKenna’s very good article on the takedown of Joanna Cherry and the rot that’s corrupted the SNP from within.
McKenna points out that the Tories will be raising a glass to those within the SNP who put up the obstacles to stop Cherry from running for Edinburgh South, and of seeing a fresh face at Holyrood who could’ve gotten independence back on track.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18621688.kevin-mckenna-vendetta-joanna-cherry/
A Stalinist purge,(without the violence I might add) is happening within the SNP, on those who oppose or don’t quite agree with the GRA bill or Self-ID or the proposed Hate Crime bill.
Watch out Joan McAlpine, James Doran, and other who oppose this madness.
His comparison to New Labour’s control freakery seems pretty apt. The court of Queen Nicola will clearly brook no dissent.
She’s surrounded herself with ‘yes men’ ..and women and is increasingly out of touch. I didn’t realise it was that bad.
She should understand bossy, feminist outfits are divisive and extremely unpopular. Feminist Initiative (Swedish: Feministiskt initiativ) saw its already small support levels collapse. Why she’d want to steer the SNP in that direction is a mystery.
Goose.
I think its about control, the proposed Hate Crime bill leaves very little room for dissent, the woke group within the SNP are pushing the GRA, Self-ID bills, and hoping to deselect or keep at arms length possibly to Westminster those MSPs, MPs who disagree with them, independence is a non-starter.
Sturgeon and Murrell have a vice like grip on the party, and obviously control the party’s NEC as well, going by the very unusual rule changes to thwart Cherry’s return to Holyrood. I can see several SNP MSPs defecting to the new independence parties at Holyrood, they didn’t sign up for this corrupt and twisted agenda, they signed up hoping to see Scotland as a independent nation.
Why are they ramming this authoritarian PC agenda down people’s throats?
There’s clearly little appetite in Scotland among voters, on the left or right. Just seems so absurd.
Yeah, I saw Kirsty Blackman’s tweet about staffers, and Craig’s response.
It seems they’re using wholly contrived reasoning to deny Joanna Cherry an opportunity to challenge the Politburo Sturgeon has established.
“Why are they ramming this authoritarian PC agenda down people’s throats”
Goose.
That’s a very good question, one of which I don’t have the answer to, though there’s a woke movement especially in Stirling that’s infected the party. I recall the Libdems took money from the puberty blocking companies, you know the kind that turns little boys into little girls and vice versa, when they’re not at the age to really understand what’s going on.
It could be that its just about filling the SNPs coffers and backhanders from those companies, the SNPs fighting funds are low, and a ring fenced indy fund has disappeared, officially misplaced. Either way the woke movement obviously sanctioned by Sturgeon and Murrell is likely to leave the party fractured, if the hated bills become law, expect even more disaffection from within the party, and from the pro-indy electorate.
It is just not right that a husband and wife team run the SNP. Too many SNP members just turn a blind eye to this unacceptable concentration of power. In fact too many SNP members turn a blind eye to a number of things that are not right in the SNP.
Cubby.
Yes you’re absolutely right, Sturgeon and Murrell look to have complete control of the party, a party that will probably fracture, or see members leave in great number if they continue to push policies such as the GRA,and the Hate Crime bills.
These bills are alien to most party members, yet they continue on with them at a crucial time with support for independence in the mid 50’s percentage wise, and at a time when Johnson wants to weaken our parliament through a power grab.
ROS
I hate the Hate Crime Bill – will saying that be a hate crime ( I hope it isn’t applied retrospectively like the process used to persecute Salmond ) if the bill is passed or is it only if you think it or is it both. The SNP have totally lost the plot with this Bill and too many other matters. It is almost as if they are deliberately trying to push people away from voting for them. When James Kelly of Scot goes pop starts saying the same then you know the SNP are on the wrong path. They say they are too busy with the virus to spend time progressing independence but the SNP seems to have time for all sorts of other vote losing actions.
There’s always been that divide between the fundamentalists and gradualists. The SNP is obviously a broad church, and just as with the UK Labour party, the pushy right/ centre-right are always more forceful in imposing themselves.
No doubt you could make a list of the good SNP ‘MPs and MSPs’ but I’d wager they’re not the sorts who’d elbow their way to the top like the careerists do? It’s a perennial problem, this situation whereby the worst people seem to rise to the top in politics, due to their ruthlessness, while the good politicians languish, powerless.
Even if that were true Goose with the SNP in mind and I don’t think it is, Sturgeon and Murrell have the final say, we don’t have time for this, with the ensuing power grab from Westminster that will seriously damage our parliaments ability to run the country, as Westminster takes control over devolved matters, leaving Holyrood akin to a Stormontised talking shop.
Yes, there is a risk of that. Westminster(Tories) used Brexit and the responsibilities that were repatriated, to take a bite out of devolution. No doubt if Westminster can bind Scotland into the UK more, with say some HoL role(under review), they will. Maybe they’ll hold out the prospect of more powers for Holyrood in a package that involves giving the HoL some input?
On the so called knights, along with Ruth Davidson, Boris Johnsons brother Jo, billionaire Tory donor Michael Spencer, Ken Clarke, Phil Hammond, and Theresa May’s billionaire husband Philip, and a newspaper owner, are all to receive honours, or bumped up to the House of Lords.
Sir Ian Botham (cricketer, and passionate Brexiteer) also joins the House of Lords, Theresa May, will now be known as Lady May.
British nationalist cronyism at work.
Shockingly bad, but its almost expected now. Can only imagine the newspaper and BBC response to a PM Corbyn list like this:
Lord (Piers) Corbyn, Lord (Chris ) Williamson; Lord (Len) McCluskey, Lord (Seumas) Milne…Lord (Matt) Wrack
Not as funny as the Lavender List….;O)
‘Goose’ has made about a score of posts on this one page alone – it’s pretty hard for anyone to keep up with that, and frankly I’m glad nobody is bothering to try. Particularly when one sees the quality diminished by the need for such voluminous output.
Yes, posts that took around 30 seconds a piece, to type.
Barely 5 minutes, if that, taken collectively.
G: “Yes, posts that took around 30 seconds a piece, to type.”
Indeed, I imagined as much.
it would be most appreciated if you put a bit more effort into it than that. And made a lot fewer of them. Imagine how this board would look if everyone just banged out scores of posts an hour with such idle, poorly considered musings.
Hey Habb, long time no hear, still pumping out the establishment narrative?
Jill
July 31, 2020 at 23:47
“What about Claire Regina Fox and Kate Hoey – Brexiteers and both former Marxists and ex-members of the Communist Revolutionary Party.”
—————————————————-
Yes Jill I was reading about that earlier today; very strange.
I also read about a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, Munira Mirza, who is head of Downing Street policy unit, Appointed by Boris Johnson and regarded as the most important advisor after Dominic Cummings.
Today was the first time I’ve ever heard of her from a newspaper.
The MSM would have had a field day if she had been appointed by Jeremy Corbyn.
Nothing new there. You forget that former Trotskyist turned Saviour of the Human Race Alisdair Darling.
Statist ideologues aren’t that different; only anarchists repudiate the state in favour of the rule of law.
What are the chances the Nicola will get a title in the next decade?
@ Nickle101
Hopefully the title ‘Late’.
Why is the Tory MP who has been arrested on suspicion of rape not being named? One rule for Tory MPs, another rule for Alex Salmond and the rest of us. Outrageous!
The ‘establishment’ looks after its own. It is much more anti-Salmond/SNP than anti-Tory.
The poodles in the Daily Telegraph☢ and Daily Mail☢☢ play along.
☢ Telegraph – an antiquated from of communication
☢☢ Mail – a form of communication becoming obsolete – often prefaced by ‘Snail’
I thought that myself until I realised the MP has not been charged, just arrested, which presumably means he has been interviewed under caution. Now released on bail and the police are remaking tight lipped about it. If charged he will be named and it is at that stage where the handling of the matter can be compared to the AS case.
“If charged he will be named and it is at that stage where the handling of the matter can be compared to the AS case…
Are you absolutely sure about this “Bob”? Because here are two articles, one from the Times and one from the Daily Mail, naming AS as being “under investigation” in England, even though he hasn’t been charged with anything down there.
But I’m sure there’s a perfectly simple explanation for why the situation is really quite different and it’s ok to name AS while the Tory’s identity must absolutely be kept confidential…
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8146617/Alex-Salmond-faces-fresh-allegations-time-London-MP.html
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-salmond-faces-fresh-police-inquiry-after-court-victory-t3gphjlb6
Stonky, no, I’m not sure but it seems like an explanation. The allegations seem only to have been brought to the attention of police on 31 July. If the MP is charged his name will have to be published. I suspect, but don’t know, that a quick arrest was made so the MP could questioned in order to ward off any future criticism. It is all very strange but in not naming him the police seem to have followed the protocol used in countless other cases. I can’t speak to the detail of the AS case other than he seems to have been treated unfairly from the start with the internal inquiry that preceded the police action proven to be flawed. I still think it is likely the name will emerge very soon and may well be mentioned in the HoC using parliamentary privilege. Not sure why you put my name in quotations – I assure you it is real and is mine.
I guess I was being unnecessarily sarcastic Bob. The simple fact of the matter is that there is absolutley no worthwhile legal difference between the accusations that have been levelled against AS in England, and the accusations that have been levelled agaisnt this Tory.
But the MSM are happy to plaster AS’s name all over their front pages with regard to his accusations, while the (presumably English) Tory is granted anonymity.
“I want that energy from the people to defeat the forces of the mainstream media ..”
Sadly the nitty gritty reality of politics is not all intellectual. What about the muddy boots that entered your flat? The daily routine of personal intimidation against dissidents is done by thugs on licence from long prison sentences for violent crimes or other antisocial crimes like drug trafficking and threatening clients who are putty in the government’s hands.
What has emerged in politics in this country is an menace against dissidents which looks more like the criminal mafia or the criminal Islamic State. Anybody who refuses to toe the smooth party line is spied on in the privacy of their homes, their private activities publicised, like Craig’s private address in Edinburgh, and criminal proceedings launched against them, while the criminals used by the police have their crimes erased for services rendered to the mafia in government.
It’s clear to.me that the future of Scotland’s desire for independence will look like Northern Ireland’s long struggle against Westminster. Criminality is the other side of the Crown. Anybody who refuses to understand how the state weaponized criminals has been asleep for the last five years in which Islamic State has been weaponized against Iraq, Syria and Libya.
Scotland’s future is not blood , sweat and heroic tears but metal pipes, knee-cappings and rough justice UNTIL you decide which side your bread is buttered on.
The gangster state of America will licence the Queen to use whatever criminal means necessary to subdue the popular demand for independence, while the plastic orangutan in Washington keeps crocodile tears for the puir wee martyrs it has given licence to be harangued.
Stalin did the same. He released criminals to cause havoc and weaponised them against dissidents. There is nothing new under the Sun.
Under noted Craig is a piece by Iain Lawson that I think summarises very well where so many SNP members and supporters are at the moment.
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2020/07/30/i-am-getting-angry/
You talked of energy from ordinary folks bubbling up. Well that energy is indeed still very much extant in the independence movement. But the cult of managerialism, the overbearing sense of entitlement, the rotten and corrupt disfiguration of vetting and selection, this is causing activists to boil up. And it will be the SNP, or at least the SNP in its current format’s undoing.
The recent decision to debar sitting MPs from standing for election at Hollyrood as already engendered a huge backlash. Widely understood as a crude restriction to stop Joanna Cherry and allow free passage to the Angus Robertson the decision has now ensured that Robertson will NOT be the next MSP.
His bloated arrogance and sense of entitlement together with his association with corrupted selection and vetting procedures has been a step to far. He and his managerial wife will be gone.
And the cult, the managerialism, the sense of the God given right to election that now pertains, that I think is about to change.
Be interesting to find out if Iain McCann has gotten back to you yet Craig on your application for vetting, and whether you will this time pass vetting to allow you to go forward for consideration as a candidate.
Willie
Sometimes standing behind a man with little honour is a woman with less honour.
There may not be an SNP conference but the SNP members in Edinburgh have the ability to send the correct message by not selecting Robertson.
Nae “independence” polls in the Scottish, Sunday papers. Odd. Who paid YouGov to conduct the Scottish, popularity contest (field work 28th to 30th July)? Were the results that “bad”?
On the subject of weird. Fatality rates in hospitals with +ve Covid test in July (omitting figure 1st July, including figure 1st August) per capita.
Scotland 0.73 per million, Wales. 12.1 per million, Northern Ireland 2.13 per million, England 40 per million.
John Nicholson SNP MP
Quote in yesterday’s National newspaper – “Although the BBC has come under fierce criticism over the past decade, it is an institution which should be preserved and cherished, Nicholson argues.”
That quote says it all about some of the people in the SNP. Cherish the BBC for goodness sake from an SNP MP who is supposed to want independence. Nicholson used to work for the BBC.
The BBC like all the media in Scotland are against independence and continually tell Scottish people they are rubbish – full on British state propaganda and Nicholson says we should cherish them.
Good afternoon Craig,
I just love the satire in your words at the top of this post.
A perfect rejoinder, artfully balanced given all the scars on your back from the ne’r do wells that you warned about, who now run the SNP.
We know the likely result, but as this communication and the preremptory reply in managerial prose, of which you for forewarned will become important pieces of evidence in a chain, it is exquisitely written.
Fair made my day sir.
Hope all is well with your good self given the excrement we are all having to wade through in these strange times.
There are traps other Parties have fallen into. Factionalism is almost certainly the most dangerous and, with the entire media set against Scottish independence, you can bet the house on that same media going to extraordinary lengths to highlight the chasms opening up within the independence movement.
The seething hatred between the sides will be shamelessly exploited to further the Unionist cause. Be clear about that and be under no illusions about it. If the deep divisions achieve anything it will only be defeat. Nothing else.
There is certainly a high risk of that, but why then are the SNP being so divisive and treating the membership so appallingly?
Blame the intolerably woke, and insufferably authoritarian SNP leadership.
The Intercept carried a quote in a recent piece, from British Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger, who said in 1783 that “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.” It seems fitting to the SNP’s wokeist legislative programme
‘Challenge Woke Authoritarianism and you challenge their constructed reality. Just as Jessie Owens challenged Hitler, anti-political correctness dissidents embarrass the Woke Totalitarians.’
Nigel Farage, is that you?
I detest Farage, but I do support free speech.
Read about the GRA , Sex self-ID plans, and Humza’s ludicrous Hate Crime Bill which is so broadly drafted it’ll make permitted free speech a legal minefield – it’s vague ‘highly likely to offend’ nonsense.
Waiting on events is the worst faction of all.
Thelma
August 1, 2020 at 23:17
“Why is the Tory MP who has been arrested on suspicion of rape not being named? One rule for Tory MPs, another rule for Alex Salmond and the rest of us. Outrageous!”
——————————————————————
Yes Thelma I found that odd. I have searched the internet asking the simple question; under what circumstances can a rape suspect be identified by the UK police? I have ,up to now, not found anything useful about the subject.
I remember Cliff Richard being named by the Police and the BBC as a suspect in sexual offences. His house was raided by the police and a BBC news helicopter filmed the action. He was abroad at the time. He was never charged. What justification did the police have to name him?
What justification was used to to give anonymity to this latest suspect Conservative MP?
He has never been charged.
A poster on WGD says he has a very poor opinion of Alex Salmond and if he doesn’t keep quiet and ruins everything he will have an even lower opinion of him. He thinks the stars are aligned for independence and it is looking good for independence by 2030. Yes 2030- a crystal ball doesn’t get even come close. Obviously the stars can stay aligned for 10 years.
So Mr Salmond you have plenty of time to write any book you want according to the poster Christopher Rosindale.
The Times is reporting that Salmond is writing a book to possibly publish next March to scupper the SNP Holyrood vote. But certain bloggers are saying he is not writing a book – who to believe??
if procrastination continuous and the Bbc does begin to point to splits in the SNP, with nothing else emerging as a second anchor for peoples desires for Independence to hang on, then who will take up the cudgel?
Next January, due to the lack of sinergy and resolve at Westminster, we will see and ugly dirty campaign being waged to cure NI of its past 20 years of cooperating with the neighbouring republic. This will bring the Irish together and it is possible that a united Ireland is on the cards before Scotland gets its act together.
Craig:
As you clearly demonstrate, the Scottish police are deeply corrupt and the SNP is controlled by
a thoroughly dishonest and likely corrupt group. Why do you think Scottish
independence will work well? Will Scotland really be better off?
Nick Patterson
” the SNP is controlled by a thoroughly dishonest and likely corrupt group ”
In other words by Westminster, which is the place they claim they want to be separate from. So the answer to your question, Will Scotland really be better off? must be Yes, after the dog poo of Westminster control has been sticked, wiped , scrubbed and toothbrushed off.
Scotland could go forward , like Syria , with a NATO proxy
trust army of criminals , controlled by a NATO proxy tyrant called Erdogan, and submit to the will of the Golf Caddy Orange Potus, otherwise known as Israel arsewipe Trump.
Trump undoubtedly needs Israel’s blessing to get elected, but how many hoops will they make him jump through to get his X factor gold button flattened?
In the same way, Sturgeon and weirdo Humza Yousaf have to keep ingratisting themselves to Bojo to stay in office , when their stated aim is the opposite.
Is the sole function of a political movement to serve the interests of their tyrant overlords? I must be missing something, because all political minds seem to agree that this is the only way politics can be done. Just do the opposite of whatever you want to get done
«I think we have to avoid the trap of managerialism – of being just another political party but a little more competent and fair. We should maintain a firm thrust towards the goal of national freedom…
I want to end the Union, not to run it.
Within the SNP we must guard against success leading us to develop our own careerists. Professional politicians in Westminster have become a parasitic class with interchangeable beliefs, out for themselves.»
I think it is amusing to create the “Labour” version of this by replacing:
“national freedom” with “social-democracy”, “political” with “thatcherite”, “the Union” with “thatcherism” and “SNP” with “Labour”, and “Westminster” with “New Labour” (or “the Labour right”):
[I think we have to avoid the trap of managerialism – of being just another thatcherite party but a little more competent and fair. We should maintain a firm thrust towards the goal of social-democracy…
I want to end thatcherism, not to run it.
Within the Labour party we must guard against success leading us to develop our own careerists. Professional politicians in New Labour have become a parasitic class with interchangeable beliefs, out for themselves.]
the snp has moved from being a small rebellious party with a single minded goal INDEPENDENCE,to a larger political party wanting to be recognised as politicians taking on the job of running their country of scotland,and making a fair job of it, with very few powers needed to run a country,hence the problem with foodbanks and poverty, if the scottish government had more financial powers they could make changes in the way scotland was run and help poverty,only by having independence will scotland be able to make the changes that are needed to change the way scotland is run,the snp party hierarchy have moved from working class routs to middle class professional politicians,who are now looking after themselves,and independence is less important,the snp are starting to make the same mistakes the labour party made in scotland,with facebook and the internet things move at such a pace,the political parties cant keep things quiet as in the past,the snp must take a good look at themselves before they lose their core vote.
What is the title of the book about the 2000 Ghana elections