My friend and mentor the much-missed Gordon Wilson used to run Radio Free Scotland, a pirate radio station supporting Independence. It was broadcast entirely illegally, a crime the state took very seriously in the 1950’s. Some of the others involved were of the group that liberated the Stone of Scone temporarily from Westminster Abbey. That was a serious crime too. One of the most enjoyable evenings of my life, one I remember 40 years later, was a boozy dinner with this whole group at Gordon and Edith’s home in Broughty Ferry.
At the time, the state’s arguments against “pirate radio” included national security and interference with emergency services. The entirely illegal Radio Free Scotland actually gave its address as SNP HQ!
This criminal tendency did not prevent Gordon from becoming leader of the SNP and a very respectable solicitor. So how did the SNP morph from being a party that had a very elastic attitude to obeying the laws which suppressed Scotland, to being a party whose leadership cheerleaders are today, in their scores, defending on social media the imprisonment of a working class, ethnic minority Independence activist for organising an entirely peaceful and successful pro-Independence demonstration that passed off entirely without incident?
A party in government naturally has a different perspective to a party of protest. But how those in authority deal with protest, and particularly protest which does not conform to the neat template authorities may wish to confine it to, is a fascinating study. It is the difference between authoritarian government and liberal government, on a continuum. But broadly speaking deprivation of liberty for peaceful protest is acknowledged as the hallmark of a very authoritarian government.
Thus the Extinction Rebellion protests, which deliberately made no effort to conform to regulation around protests and which were deliberately designed to cause maximum disruption to ordinary traffic in London, resulted so far in no prosecutions pushing for imprisonment for protesting or blocking streets unless criminal damage was involved, and even then I am struggling to find examples of imprisonment. Friends of mine who deliberately participated in avowedly illegal Extinction Rebellion protests have been tried and received small fines.
Similarly, a great number of the Black Lives Matters protests, in the UK and elsewhere, were illegal in the sense of not being pre-planned and following police and council regulation. Some caused deliberate damage to statues etc. Again, I am not aware of any cases of people being imprisoned for organising Black Lives Matters demonstrations.
As a young man, I took part in the Occupation of the site of the Torness nuclear power station which disrupted its build substantially. Again, nobody was imprisoned. Looking at my own history, I gave speeches to illegal gatherings at Occupy London, both at St Paul’s and at Parliament square. When the Occupy movement took over universities to protest against tuition fees, I spoke to an illegal occupation at Cambridge university. The university hired security staff to prevent my speech, so the students gathered and sat in the foyer and I gave my talk from the public pavement outside the building, over the heads of a row of security staff, projecting through the double doors of the foyer. Again, nobody got imprisoned.
People do however get imprisoned for organising “illegal” demonstrations. Not in western democracies so much, and I think I have demonstrated until now not normally in Scotland nor England in recent times. But I have witnessed people get imprisoned for “illegal” political demonstration, in Uzbekistan and in then dictatorship Nigeria. It happens quite often in China. Alexei Navalny himself has been imprisoned before in Russia for organising demonstrations without a permit, as have many other opposition groups. Bureaucratic violation is the entirely common tactic against the opposition in Russia, where demonstrations are allowed but there is often some “hitch” with the paperwork.
The imprisonment of Manni Singh is inexcusable. The demonstration he organised was joyous, massive and caused zero damage and zero violence. Over 100,000 people took part coming from all over Scotland in an absolutely determined effort to express their desire for Scottish Independence. The large majority, however, were Glaswegians and represented a significant chunk of the population of the city. It was very much a family occasion.
I spoke at the event, as at the identical demonstration the previous year, and was in touch with Manni throughout the organisational period. Manni is very much an auto-didact in politics. There are aspects of his eclectic beliefs, including for example a fondness for the work of Douglas Murray, which are pretty well the opposite of my own beliefs. But Manni is a good man and, as I have frequently explained on these pages, I have never chosen my friends on the grounds they agree with me about everything. It is also true that Manni has since fallen out with All Under One Banner and its current leadership. Personally I like, as in actively enjoy the company of, all of those involved and have been saddened at my inability to bring them back together. None of which should bear any relation to jailing Manni for organising a political demonstration, but all of which has been thrown up as chaff on social media to obscure the issue.
The 2018 AUOB march was massively successful. I was the first speaker, and I have never had such an exhilarating political experience, not even when addressing the massive Stop the War rallies in London. The 2018 Glasgow march introduced AUOB as a massive political force in Scotland, and particularly in Glasgow.
Tens of thousands of SNP members take part in AUOB demonstrations. I have marched on them beside Joanna Cherry, Chris Law, Ivan McKee, and other SNP worthies. But behind the scenes, all is not the harmony that it may seem. Peter Murrell and Nicola Sturgeon are extremely wary of any part of the Yes Movement they do not control. Nicola Sturgeon has been invited again and again to speak at AUOB demonstrations, and has always refused. Even when promised by AUOB that she could choose the other speakers, and ne’er-do-wells like Tommy Sheridan and myself would be rigorously kept away (to which I had agreed).
The official explanation is that as First Minister, Nicola has to represent the entire nation so may not take part in partisan political events. Yet strangely, that did not stop her attending and speaking to either anti-Brexit demonstrations or gay rights events. That an SNP leader can speak at political events but not for Scottish Independence is, ahem, counter-intuitive.
I suspect Nicola finds the company at anti-Brexit demonstrations more to her taste than she would the company at an AUOB march.
What happened with Manni is that Glasgow City Council looked to try to change the start date of the demonstration and bring it forward from 1.30pm to 11am. This was explicitly to reduce the size of the demonstration – there is no doubt about this, they directly said so, and Manni was keeping me informed in real time. And this is the simple truth – the move to hamper the demonstration and limit its size was absolutely initiated, led and followed through by the SNP group on Glasgow City Council. The SNP Glasgow city councillors are very much directed by the Sturgeon inner coterie, particularly commissars Mhairi Hunter and Rhiannon Spear. The SNP was looking to hamper the impact of AUOB in Glasgow, for its own political reasons.
The AUOB marches attract Independence supporters from all over Scotland. People come down by ferry and coach from the Highlands and Islands. I have met people on them who travelled all through the night. At the time Glasgow Council decided to bring forward the start time, it was already too late; coaches, ferries and advance train and bus tickets were already booked. We are talking about a march that took nearly three hours to pass any one spot. The chaos and disorder from trying to change the starting time would be greater than the disciplined march proceeding as planned by the organisers. That is the decision Manni took. He started the demo 150 minutes after the Council approved time.
I knew of all these problems in real time, and I made a point of speaking with the senior policeman in charge of the march. Amusingly, I recall they really were “Gold Command” or some such TV thriller designation. “Gold Command” was entirely happy and had no complaints. It had been a peaceful, orderly and very good humoured event. I was told directly.
It was the SNP group on Glasgow City Council who insisted that council officers report Manni Singh to the police and demand action against him. It was not an initiative by the Police, who had been quite happy with the demonstration.
This is a photo of an “illegal” demo in Minsk:
This is a photo of an “illegal” demo in Russia
This is a photo of an “illegal” demo in Hong Kong
This is a photo of an “illegal” demo in Barcelona
and here is a photo of the “illegal” demo in Glasgow organised by Manni Singh:
Have we seen protests from the SNP leadership about the jailing of Manni Singh? No. Yet we have seen vociferous protests from them about the restriction of demos in Russia, Belarus and Hong Kong. What we have seen, throughout Twitter and Facebook and below the line at every Scottish newspaper and pro-Independence website, is dozens and dozens of SNP Sturgeon loyalists lining up to justify the jailing of Manni Singh, indeed in some instances to salivate over the jailing of Manni Singh.
I am not going to post individual examples, but you can find them very easily if you Google search for Manni Singh on Twitter, look through the replies to this tweet from Angus Brendan McNeil, or look through this thread in the National.
It is a simple fact that, on Twitter in particular, the SNP loyalists who are tweeting that Manni Singh should be jailed for “breaking the law” are exactly the same accounts that massively retweeted Dani Garavelli’s articles denying the innocence of Alex Salmond. They also bear an extremely high correlation with those whose primary focus is on issues of sexual or gender identity, in which I include the broad range of feminism, sexual identity and gender rights.
What has happened to the SNP? It has become very comfortable with authoritarianism. It has a claque which operates both on social media and at party conference, which pursues Clinton style identity politics allied to neo-con policy. They have adopted a focus on foreign policy which accords entirely with the NATO agenda. You hear a very great deal from the party leadership about the rights of people in Belarus, Russia and Hong Kong. Yemen, not so much, and Palestine is entirely off the agenda. In fact, among the claque, enthusiastic support for the Israeli Defence Force appears to be a badge of honour.
If you look through the Twitter replies to Angus Brendan MacNeil above, you will see a prominent member of the online claque call Angus Brendan a “Tory” for opposing Glasgow City Council over the jailing of Manni. These are precisely the same people who are ardently pushing for the Hate Crime Bill and criminal enforcement of politically correct speech in Scotland. I have seen them attack great Independence supporters like Brian Cox and Elaine C Smith for pointing out the dangers of the Hate Speech Bill for the arts.
Those who cannot see the jailing of Manni, the Hate Crime Bill, and dare I say the prosecution of me for reporting the defence evidence in the Salmond trial, as symptoms of a serious underlying problem with civil liberties in Scotland today, are closing their eyes. There is a nasty intolerance about the claque running the SNP.
The reasons for jailing Manni being put forward by loyalists all over social media – he started the demo late, he didn’t have insurance, there were not enough licensed bouncers as stewards, he didn’t fill the right road closure form – are PRECISELY the reasons authorities and their loyalists put forward for banning all the protests pictured above. It is what Putin’s supporters say about Navalny.
The vast majority, 99.5%, of SNP members remain very decent and humane people who just want to see Scotland a normal free country. A very great number are realising that something is badly wrong in the party, even if opinion polls are great. Power is not an end in itself. It is only of value if you do good with it.
At the moment, power in Scotland is being abused.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
Scotland seems to be the worst afflicted part of Britain when it comes to reactionary “muscular” liberals. Both the SNP and the Scottish Labour party specialise in them. Any theories as to why Scotland is overrun with them?
Because the Tory party isn’t a very fashionable party to join in Scottish cities?
That’s almost certainly it.
Because its full of Scots. Poor Scotland, the poor man’s lefty paradise. Wait until it joins the EU then you’ll see reactionary lefties. Shoot yourself now, then may you find real paradise.
You couldn’t have given yourself a more apt name.
Going by this post, England sounds like it’s still a relatively free place. Scotland should consider tying up with them somehow.
‘Going by this post, England sounds like it’s still a relatively free place. Scotland should consider tying up with them somehow.’
Oh, that is so amusing. Please tell me you are being ironic? Or did you mis-type? Did you mean Scotland should consider tying them up somehow?
I did mis-type. What I meant to say was:
As a foreign observer with no stake in the fight, I can’t help but observe that the actually existing Scottish political elite that independence would objectively elevate from control of a satrapy to rule of a sovereign state (within the confines of U.S. hegemony) – notwithstanding any fine ideas for the future idealistic nationalists may hold in their hearts – seem like a crowd of f***ing nightmares.
It just seems noteworthy to me somehow, even without any implication of virtue to Westminster.
David G: as an outside observer, you make some good points that any Scot should heed and, indeed, should be working out for him/her self. I think it comes partly from a Calvinist streak that still runs through Presbyterian/Catholic/secular Scotland, with few escaping its tentacles; partly from the SNP itself that has made a rod for its own back by trying to be ‘whiter-than-white’ because of the unceasing and often pointlessly nihilistic criticism from Unionists; and partly because the party has allowed itself to be infiltrated in recent years by the same ‘wokerati’ who escaped from the confines of the dying Labour branch in Scotland and settled itself into the SNP, as the other left-of-centre political movement or who simply entered the political bubble straight from university and have not yet grown out of their idealistic multi-faceted ‘woke’ agenda, usually associated with 14-17-year-olds. The last will either be ousted or they will oversee the death throes of the party they have colonized. To put it concisely, David, we have done it to ourselves.
Wokerati? How do you spell that properly ?
Two quick thoughts, Craig – more will no doubt occur.
Firstly, there is no point comparing the Glasgow march with demonstrations in Belarus,Moscow or Hongkong. In Belarus riot police beat up peaceful demonstrators, in Moscow the police don’t treat non-violent demonstrators tenderly either. Nothing of that in Glasgow! Honkong saw violence on both sides, and so was again very different to Glasgow, where there was no violence on either side.
Secondly, there is no point in making comparisons with the ” hitch in the paperwork” reason used to ban demos in Russia. The paperwork was entirely clear in the Glasgow case – including the new specified time – and the demonstration itself took place without violence. Unlike in Russia, where if there is a hitch in the paperwork the demo either doesn’t go ahead at all or is met with official violence if the ban is defied.
In that case then, according to your own account, there was absolutely no reason to prosecute the organiser, and even if there was, a simple fine would have been quite sufficient, in view of the complete lack of trouble, which vindicated his stance, and the complete lack of any good reason, other than political, to switch the time – which, had it been followed, may have had the consequences they claimed they were eager to avoid.
I think it’s reasonable to interpret the prosecution as Singh’s punishment for preventing just such foreseeable consequences of the time-slot change, and the bad publicity for AUOB that they would have generated.
“Firstly, there is no point comparing the Glasgow march with demonstrations in Belarus,Moscow or Hong Kong”.
Quite true, but perhaps for different reasons than those you have in mind. Simply put, Belarus, Russia and China are different countries from the UK. They have their own peoples, their own history, their own traditions, and their own laws.
It may be tempting to ascend the moral high ground and criticize the way foreigners choose to run their countries. But it’s none of our business.
Especially since British citizens don’t seem to have the slightest say in how Britain is run.
To some extent I agree there’s no point comparing Glasgo with capital cities of other countries. Also I think Mr. Manni Singh’s protest was aimed at something different than presidential elections.
I’d compare it with a protest in some russian peripheral city, for example, Khabarovsk recently protested against the detention of their City Mayor.
Or, I’d suggest an entirely fantasy situation – if Mr. Singh would have organised a protest in London questioning the legitimacy of Mrs. Elisabeth Windsor’s being the head of your state for too long, then it would be comparable with Minsk or Moscow protests.
” hitch in the paperwork” McKindle I had 4 years to experience hitches in paperwork and other assorted excuses and diversions when applying to hold car boot sales to benefit the Glasgow sick children’s hospital , although a different political group (liebour) was in control of the GC council the method used was the same , when permissions were almost granted , up would pop more legislation and rules to circumvent and comply with and when those were overcome more would be invented
The organising of these marches require massive amounts of negotiation , organisation , time and commitment , and obviously with ALL the relevant conditions being agreed and all the documentation and rules being understood Manny like everyone else in his position would be hoping for a successful conclusion to his endeavours , then for the council to DEMAND alterations to an already agreed agenda within weeks of the march which would effectively create confusion and disappointment and severely impact the numbers able to attend . I have to wonder at the competence and motives of officials who are unaware and unable to forward plan for eventualities of increased numbers of participants and have the ability to plan accordingly
We are all Belarus.
All the above is true, but it’s still the case that he got HIMSELF put in jail. He was given a curfew order by which he’d have been free to walk the streets in daylight hours and sleep in his own bed at night, which he rejected in what must have been the certain knowledge that they’d put him in jail instead. (So I don’t buy the argument that he couldn’t accept it because he couldn’t have driven his taxi under the curfew. You can’t drive taxis in jail either, and taxis also operate in daylight hours.)
It is an absurd sentence for organising a peaceful demo, but the bottom line is that it’s entirely his own doing that he’s behind bars for it. What did he think they were going to do, let him decide his own punishment?
I think your point about ti being an absurd sentence is the outstanding point, and his decision doesn’t mitigate, or alter, that in any way.
Nor do you address why the prosecution happened in the first place, why the absurdly draconian sentence, and why organisers of ER protests, which caused far more disruption, did not suffer a similar fate.
He breached the conditions of a licence., regardless of whether we agree or not with the decision of GCC.
A licence, huh? Imprisonment over a licence. “Oh yes, this is a democracy; you can demonstrate, but only if we grant you a licence“.
The prosecution happened because he broke the law in a fairly major way – 100,000 people on the streets is not a trivial matter – and he was also pretty in their faces about it. As Craig will tell you, the law tends to rather get the hump when it’s publicly defied.
What purpose would have been served by keeping him under curfew at night for two months escapes me. He’s hardly a danger to the public. But maybe he doesn’t have money to pay a fine, I dunno.
And I noted in my comment that everything Craig said was true, so I’m not quite sure what you’re arguing with anyway.
Community service then? Otherwise we might as well be on the Island of Dr Moreau: “He who breaks The Law goes back to the House of Pain!”
Ok, fair enough, but I think your interpretation of ‘breaking the law in a fairly major way’ is a bit of hyperbole – since the police professed themselves quite content with the conduct of the march. Changing the march time doesn’t suddenly make it a heinous crime to decide it is in the best interests of everybody to stick to the already agreed plan.
[ Habbabkuk, same identicon as ‘Arthur’ below. ]
—
Ian – why are you assuming that the demonstration would have turned violent had it actually taken place at the new earlier time laid down by the Council? Are you not impugning the good sense and sense of civic responsibility of the many tens of thousands of participants?
Rev,
Manni was given an ‘out’ just like Winston Smith, all he had to do was accept 2+2=5.
He didn’t and now he is paying the price with loss of liberty and vilification from enemies and so called allies alike.
I think it is important to make a stand and I am grateful to Manni for drawing attention to the prejudice and intolerance of the Scottish branch of the Establishment.
2+2 does equal 4 but I’m quite sure I wouldn’t have been brave enough to say it.
Thank you Manni for saying it for me.
Murder is breaking the law in a major way. Rape is breaking the law in a major way. The Kray Twins broke the law in a major way.
Organising a peaceful protest that became illegal after coaches had left if breaking the law in a minor way, if not, given the last minute deliberate time changes, merely a technical way Anyone one that supports Any sentence, no matter how mild, to restrict the freedom of the accused does not deserve the freedoms their forefathers fought for.
A very disappointing And unchristianly opinion from you Stuart. if you genuinely are a man of the cloth.
[ Habbabkuk, same identicon as ‘George’ above. ]
—
Are you seriously claiming the Rev. Stuart Campbell is a good Christian (whatever that means) on the basis of his opinion about Manni Singh’s sentence?
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
A bad Christian that should have been. Apologies.
“Manni was given an ‘out’ just like Winston Smith, all he had to do was accept 2+2=5.”
No, that would involve making some sort of statement that wasn’t true. But he WAS guilty. He did organise the march without a licence. You can argue the severity of the sentence – community service would indeed seem both more commensurate with the offence and more appropriate – but the fact of the matter is that he absolutely definitely broke the law. He entered a guilty plea.
“the police professed themselves quite content with the conduct of the march”
If you drive past a school at 80mph, they don’t let you off the speeding fine just because you didn’t actually hit anyone. I’m sure the sentence would have been considerably more severe if it had all kicked off.
Rev,
Yes, Manni did break the law, no argument from me there but it did not merit public beheading, chemical castration or incarceration.
This was a politically motivated and therefore sinister punishment up to and including the escalated sentence.
It was a punishment meted out as a message to the wider independence movement.
2+2=5 is about control.
“Yes, Manni did break the law, no argument from me there but it did not merit public beheading, chemical castration or incarceration.”
And he wasn’t sentenced to any of those things. He was given a curfew order, a pretty light penalty involving having to stay indoors in his own home some of the time. He CHOSE to go to jail instead.
ER and BLM protests are sanctioned illegal protests which is why the police leave them alone even when they doing criminal damage. The demonstrations in Hong Kong, Belarus and Russia are Maiden style regime change operations run from NATO countries. The crowd will be seeded with agent provocateurs, often neo-nazis, who will attack the police in the hope of provoking a violent response which can be put on the internet and used to rally support from the minority of the population who would support a supposedly “democratic”coup. This is exactly the kind of thing “centerists” are in favour of in other countries. They were probably hoping for disorder at the Glasgow march to discredit AUOB.
“Alexei Navalny himself” Its himself then.
The police don’t leave Extinction Rebellion alone. The action in London in April 2019 set the record for arrests at a protest in the UK. That record was shattered by a factor of three at the Extinction Rebellion action in London that October. Those arrested are charged, tried and fined; I have attended the court hearing of a friend and three others, and seen fines imposed ranging from £70 to £120.
In the UK, police haven’t attacked Extinction Rebellion in London; that’s probably because of our committed non-violence policy, and the high proportion of grandparents, doctors and other medical staff, business people, school inspectors, software engineers and other professionals among us. However, in Brussels, Extinction Rebellion were met with pepper spray and water canon.
This may be down to differences in interpretation? My reading and understanding of the main argument presented by Mr Murray in this piece is one based on the principle of a differing application of the law towards different individual people/groups.
Indeed, a number of evidence based examples are provided to illustrate the point. A point which is further strengthened by comparing and contrasting some of those examples with a practical common sense decision not to risk potential problems arising from the predictable frustrations of people travelled some distance over many hours arriving to find they are too late.
Now I think further on the matter I do recall seeing some observation somewhere recently on this very principle of the law being different for different groups (which by logical and rational Enlightenment principles would implicitly include individuals). I couldn’t swear to it but I think this might have been within a wider context of some kind of polling figures.
My recollection, which might be faulty, was the conclusion towards the application of such a principle was something along the lines of:
“No big deal here, just the core principle of criminal justice – that the law should be the same for everyone – being casually tossed aside by almost one in seven Scots.”
It would seem that a great many of us are, from time time, affected by such senior moments.
If you’d like to furnish us with some examples of illegal marches on an even remotely comparable scale being conducted IN SCOTLAND and either not prosecuted or met with a much lighter sentence then I’m sure we’re all ears. Otherwise your attempt at ironic sarcasm is a bit feeble.
The principle is the relevant criteria here and remains valid. Attempting to excuse a differing application of the law based on drawing geographical boundaries represents the feeble element in this particular instance.
It really is time some people made up their minds on such principles rather than flip flopping all over the place to suit their own self identified subjectivity.
It is surely possible that, as a political service, he challenged the court to imprison him for such a trivial offence against authority. What he has done is to expose the nature of the state, its tendencies-which are of very longstanding and have little to do with the Westminster connection- towards authoritarianism, and the existence of similar instincts within the SNP. And at both the highest, leadership levels,and, in the persons of apologists for this unforgivable behaviour by the court, at the grassroots.
Scotland needs to take a long and thoughtful look at itself, what sort of a society it was under the Stuarts, what sort of a society it was when it sat on top of the British Empire, and what is signified, today by its enthusiasm for the US imperial policy, its fight against Corbyn’s mildly reformist Labour policies and its embrace (see pic above) of the neo-liberal EU.
Those who want a better world, and long for an end to the political logjams as evils dispute their relative virulence, support Scotland’s drive towards independence and a better Scotland, with very different principles from those found in Westminster, what we don’t need is another Fine Gael planning deep discounts for capitalists and looking forward to inheriting all those English language reserved spots at the trough in Brussels.
Highly plausible. ‘Do your worst, show your true face.’ Heroic.
As I understand Craig’s detailed and admirably clear report, the only offence was starting the meeting at 1330 (1.30 pm) instead of 1100 (11 a.m.)
How can it be illegal to start a legal meeting 2.5 hours late? Is unpunctuality now illegal?
Agree. Why not rouse up a small crowd of supporters at 11.00am and declare the march started? If the rest of the crowd are late that’s not your problem. Didn’t the organisers think of this, or were they, shudder, attempting to stick one up their council overlords?
I agree with the Rev. Why did Manny break curfew?
Did Glasgow CC bring forward the start time to alleviate the disturbance to City businesses?
Certainly not the pubs. At the end of the march the pub we went to was shoulder to shoulder as were many in the area.
I do feel sorry for Manny, and it disturbs me that Nicola gets such criticism, the balancing act she has to follow is not easy.
Free speech is everything brothers and sisters, but try not to do our oppositions job for them.
I still find Craig’s words moving. I was there on 1th January 2009 to hear him speak.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/06/inspiring-day-fighting-palestine/.
s/be 10th January
I disagree with calling AUOB ‘as a massive political force in Scotland’.
It’s a simply a social gathering for like minded people trying to recapture or recreate the feel good feelings of euphoria which the run up to the 2014 referendum generated. They get together, they march, they sing songs, they fill the pubs afterwards, then they go home.
As I said the other night, if they were serious, they would take their 80,000, 100,000 (insert any number that springs to mind here) marchers and they would march on Bute House demanding change.
But they don’t do that. In fact, they go out of their way to appease everyone and not upset any apple carts.
So no, it’s far removed from being any kind of political force.
Musty
You of course sit on your backside in France attacking all and sundry.
While others do the same on theirs in East Kilbride, or equivalent cubbyholes.
Iain Stuart
You stalking me from East Kilbride.
Questions for Glasgow City Council:
Did the “No Evictions Glasgow” demonstration in Glasgow on the 17th of June 2020 have GCC Approval especially during Covid-19 lockdown restrictions?
If so what were the conditions and did they comply?
If not was the No Evictions Glasgow organiser reported to the PF by GCC?
Did the National Defence League counter demonstration (allegedly under the premise of defending the statues of George Square) the same day have GCC Approval again especially during Covid-19 lockdown restrictions?
If so what were the conditions and did they comply?
If not was the NDL organiser reported to the PF by GCC?
Photos and video footage of these events show the lack of social distancing but more importantly the disorder which is in direct contradiction to the peaceful nature of AUOB March that Mannie Singh has been jailed for the heinous crime of STARTING TWO AND A HALF HOURS LATE!
Absolutely agree JWT and these questions SHOULD be answered
Are BLM and Extinction Rebellion allowed as they are astroturf, not grassroots?
I’m with XR and I’m not astroturf, and neither are any of my XR associates.
I’m heading into London on Monday:
https://extinctionrebellion.uk/uk-rebellion-2020/
Just remember you ride inside the Tube not on the roof.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2019/oct/17/protesters-dragged-off-dlr-train-as-extinction-rebellion-delay-commuters-in-london-video
That action, by a single Affinity Group*, has been debated among the overall movement. Such actions are now advised against; we are going to parliament:
– FAQs: DISRUPTION:
– Will you be disrupting people trying to get to work?
– Our actions have a key element of disruption which means there is always the possibility of disrupting the public. We have learnt from all our previous actions, however, and will aim to not disrupt ‘ordinary people’. Our focus will be on parliaments.”
https://extinctionrebellion.uk/uk-rebellion-2020/faqs/
* Affinity Groups consist of around a dozen members and are autonomous. That highly untypical Tube action, so highly publicised by the corporate media, was a single Affinity Group’s group’s decision, though opposed by most in the overall movement.
” Such actions are now advised against; “
Because it made you look silly and you got the shit kicked out of you.
Not likely to be many people about in London on a Bank Holiday weekend during ‘lockdown’.
Well the corporate media certainly gave it a lot of attention, far out of proportion to its significance, as are you, Kempe. You’re usually a stickler for the facts, so I suggest you go read the IPCC reports, and I’ll see you on Tuesday in Parliament Square 😀
“I’m with XR and I’m not astroturf,” you might not be.
” and neither are any of my XR associates.” as far as you know.
Last time I checked my local group’s funds stood at about £10 per member, and the national working groups’ funds were about three times that; if anyone is paying us it isn’t showing up on the balance sheet. We make our own banners and patches and block-print our own clothing; the Red Rebels make their own costumes, and we make our own figures for the displays and processions.
But what does it matter anyway? The climate and ecological crises are objectively verifiable, so someone had better do something. If some billionaire wanted to fund us, it would prove only that they aren’t terminally stupid. Unfortunately, most of them are 🙂
bullcrap as applied to blm. but congratulations on spouting a politically correct talking point.
In 2013 and 2014 I travelled extensively in Scotland, often speaking to people about independence. Many times a person would tell me that they favoured independence, but were worried, indeed put off, by the SNP, which they feared could prove authoritarian.
My answer to that was, and remains, that if you want rid of the SNP the best path is independence, because the SNP serves as a focus for political organising and influence at Westminster, but once Scotland is independent, SNP support will fall, permitting Scotland’s more proportional electoral systems to enable a vast diversity of smaller parties, stimulating genuine citizen engagement in democracy.
Well said, Clark. An independent Scotland will seen the rebirth of diverse democracy in Scotland. Until independence, vote SNP.
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
Not sure that a vast diversity of smaller parties is necessarily a good thing.
A non-vast diversity of smaller parties led to the Callaghan government losing a vote of confidence, thus ushering in Margaret Thatcher: was that a good thing, did it stimulate genuine citizen engagement in democracy?
That was under the Westminster system where any more than two parties inevitably “split the vote”.
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
Of course is was under the Westminster system, it wouldn’t be under the French or the American system or the Indian system, would it. The point, surely, was that the existence of small parties like the three Ulster ones (perhaps there were even four?), the Scots Nats, the Welsh Nats and the Liberals led to the fall of the Callaghan government and the ushering in of years of Thatcherism.
What makes you think that a proliferation of smaller parties in the parliament of an independent Scotland will not make it difficult to achieve the stable government the country will need and will not make it impossible to avoid the sort of dirty little compromises and deals that are needed in Israel, whose parliament is blessed with a wide range of smaller parties?
It was Callaghan’s failed government that brought Thatcher to power. If Callaghan had survived the no-confidence vote and limped on until October, do you really think the result would have been different?
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
Maybe, maybe not, one can speculate endlessly.
What is beyond dispute, however, is that the government fell because it could not attract the votes of most of the Ulster Unionists, the SNP, the Liberals and the two Northern Irish Nationalists. In other words, the voted of those smaller parties Clark seems to think will “stimulate genunie citizen engagement in democracy” (whatever he means by that).
“What is beyond dispute, however, is that the government fell because it could not attract the votes of most of the Ulster Unionists, the SNP, the Liberals and the two Northern Irish Nationalists.”
Ah, the old ‘blame the SNP for Thatcher’ trope….You forgot to mention the Labour Party? Callaghan himself blamed the back-stabbers in his own party for his government’s demise. Did you forget?
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
Jeff – I don’t think any members of the Parliamentary Labour Party voted against the government in that fatal vote of confidence.
“Strong and Stable” Arthur? I think we’ve had too much of that already.
Arthur
“the Scots Nats, the Welsh Nats and the Liberals led to the fall of the Callaghan government and the ushering in of years of Thatcherism”.
I guess Margaret Thatcher herself and the collapse of the so called “Social Contract” and Callaghan’s pact with the unions, had nothing to do with Thatcher’s rise. Not to mention manipulation of British politics from the US, which has been going on since just after the war.
Thatcher did not rise like a Phoenix, who was assisted by ideological helpmates and money
from potential beneficiaries. Don’t ever forget that her husband was chairman of Burmah oil(that’s also an interesting long story that joins up nicely with “North Sea Oil”) and the role of that bonanza for many) in saving that Tory administration, but note the oil connection. Somewhere, often buried, in all these major historical events is Oil and its key strategic role in supporting all the technological changes that have facilitated the current world.
Clark – take some credit for trying to maintain the context in your posts, of our current politics, in the dwindling efficacy and sustainability of the oil (and fossil fuel industries in general).
The essential point is that Scotland is shackled to an entity(mainly England) that is grossly overpopulated and hopelessly under resourced. If we can get free of this english millstone it will be a wondrous thing. Personally think that Scottish independence is near impossible under these circumstances. A few tank regiments and carefully selected squaddies will ensure the union.
“was that a good thing, did it stimulate genuine citizen engagement in democracy?”
Citizens engaged in democracy at the subsequent election. Tens of millions of them.
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
Still on your vast diversity of smaller parties, Clark : look at the composition of the Israeli Knesset. Look at the peculiar manoeuvres and ghastly horse trading that are necessary to form a halfways viable government thanks to the proliferation of small parties brought about by pure proportional representation.
I think Scotland is very different from Israel.
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
Jeez, you really are very sharp, aren’t you.
Scotland and Israel are indeed very different countries. For example, Israel gets more sun and uses a different language.
But , more to the point, Israel has a proliferation of smaller parties in its parliament and that makes it necessary to make all sorts of unsavoury deals to get a government with a halfways stable majority. What makes you think that things would be any easier if there were many smaller parties represented in the parliament of a future independent Scotland? Or do you believe that Scots are politically more mature than Israelis? The latest shenanigans so eloquently depicted by Craig would seem to indicate otherwise, wouldn’t you agree?
I’ve never been to Israel, but in Scotland I indeed encountered far better political awareness than where I live, in Essex.
The sorts of deals you describe just get forced to within the major parties if the parliamentary granularity is too coarse; in parliament they get debated in front of a wider, more diverse audience.
No, I think that the latest attack on Craig indicates that power is too concentrated, making corruption too easy.
@Arthur
Do you seriously believe the Israeli Knesset and the post-election political horse-trading with quite extreme parties is applicable to Scotland? If so, why hasn’t it happened already, the first election to Holyrood was held in 1999.
Israel has small ultra-Orthodox parties and right-wing extremists. The analogy really doesn’t hold any water. The UK is the only country in Europe using FPTP , look to say ,Germany as an example. They use AMS/MMPR(as Scotland does) , as too does New Zealand. Do you think New Zealand is a terrible politically chaotic country?
I think many people forget we had three general elections in under five years. To Europeans we, the UK, started to look chaotic and unstable politically. Who knows what the future holds?
First you need to win Indyref 3, the decider after the 1-1 stalemate. When it has become obvious that the moon on a stick aka “independence” is nothing of the sort.
There is no way the Scottish people will vote over 50% in Indyref3. The delusions of people on this site are hilarious.
Mr Murray still imagines that an Independent Scotland would have a foreign policy that John Pilger would be proud of.
It’s all fantasy. But fun to watch.
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
I entirely agree that the foreign policy of an independent Scotland would be neither better nor worse than that of the current UK.
Supporters of independence will of course say “ah, but at least it would be OUR foreign policy”.
That would be a very stupid remark, because the implication would be that “A” is bad if it comes from the UK but good if it comes from an independent Scotland.
PS – what is Indyref3?? 3 ??
Indyref3 is the obvious result of Indyref2 going to the Independence side. The decider after a 1-1 draw.
And it would come after a couple of years of Indyref 2 just to make sure the people hadn’t changed their minds.
When the pie in the sky SNP wishlist has proven to be wishful thinking and is slowly dismantled by reality.
Around the same time as the new Anglo trading CANZUK block starts gathering momentum and grovelling cap in hand to the EU looks like a singularly daft idea to most Scottish people.
From conversations during my travels in Scotland, the UK’s highly aggressive foreign policy is a major impetus towards independence. The nukes on the Clyde are highly unpopular, and I saw “Bairns not Bombs” stickers everywhere. One of the major reasons for the collapse of Labour support in Scotland was New Labour’s enthusiasm for war.
Few countries have a worse foreign policy than the UK, so Scotland’s would likely be better by chance alone.
Clark
They wouldn’t be “alone” they would be dancing to the EU which supports the Jihadists in Syria, Libya etc. With catastrophic results (See the migrant crisis via the destabilisation of both ends of the Med). Scotland would have no influence with the EU whatsoever, but would be obliged to fall into line as a tiny peripheral entity. In any case the UK is not in any position for an aggressive foreign policy either way.
They would also have to keep the Faslane nukes, or else pay an astronomical price for their removal while signing up to new expensive commitments with NATO. There are no free lunches and the idea they would somehow hang on to free universities and a generous welfare state while building a hard border with their main trading partner is, frankly, for the birds.
And of course, most British people also oppose these disastrous foreign policy adventures anyway. They are not separating themselves from the UK public in that respect. They are in tune with it.
Glasshopper
“They would also have to keep the faslane nukes or else pay an astronomical price for their removal”.
The classic attitude of a colonial Britnat mindset.
It is NATO that supports jihadism far more than the EU*, and the link is pretty obviously through Saudi Arabia, its state religion Wahhabism being the jihadist ideology. The NATO-Saudi link proceeds through 1945 Quincey Agreement between Saudi and the US, and through the British royal family, or have the Windsor princes stopped visiting the Saudi royals each year to sell them BEA Systems’ weapons and then do the Sword Dance together? The jihadists in Syria and Libya are an expressions of Saudi / Gulf Monarchy territorial ambitions, which NATO supports against Syria, which as a Ba’athist state has ties via the former Soviet Union to Russia.
* France is the exception here being, like the UK, a Nuclear Weapons State and hence one of the five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, holding international Veto power.
I expect that Westminster will have to pay the majority for the removal of its nukes.
Scotland will be well placed economically as it has copious renewable energy, plus some remaining oil reserves.
Cubby. You are delusional. Not only would they lose the eggs from the golden goose via tax receipts for highly paid and prestigious jobs, but they would be obliged to put something else very expensive in its place. A lose / lose scenario for a socialist Shangri la that wants to give free stuff – like free universities – to its people.
Does anyone at Independence Central actually think this stuff through?
There is a big, big difference between investing in the education and welfare of the population, and “giving away free stuff” – something that the deindustrialised UK seems to have forgotten, to its enormous cost.
Glasshopper
“Cubby, you are delusional” – the type of words said to independence supporters wanting democracy throughout the British Empire by Colonial mindset Britnats.
Glasshopper do you live anywhere near the nuclear arsenal stored on the Clyde?
Clark.
Fair points. But the EU is a toothless outfit that has little say either way. They won’t have any meaningful say unless they start spending astronomical sums on a EU army and I don’t see that happening. We have to look at the world as it is.
For what it’s worth, i’m on your side re our adventures, but I don’t see Scottish Independence as part of the equation. It is an irrelevance. And if Mr Murray imagines an independent Scotland would be some kind of anti-zionist/neocon bulwark, then he probably needs to see his nurse. It’s highly unlikely Faslane is going to change at all. It would be very expensive and relatively, more so for Scotland. It would be another of the many things the SNP told supporters that turned out to be rubbish prior to the Indyref3 vote.
As far as “Scottish” oil goes. It is British oil that Britain has invested tens of billions in over many decades via a vast infrastructure of roads, bridges, pipelines, etc. Primarily English money. There is no such thing as Scottish oil as they will discover should they leave the UK and want to trade with their biggest customer.
Clark
It is “free stuff” because most of it is fluff degrees of little importance. i’m with you on the serious education and advocate it should be free here too.
But of course it isn’t free here. And neither would it be in an independent Scotland.
The EU is very successful economically and industrially; it seems not to want much “meaningful say” in the aggressive sense that your call for a large military implies. Faced with the mounting climate and ecological crises, war has to become a thing of the past, or civilisation does; nations simply can’t afford to fight each other and make the changes we need to prevent ecological breakdown and the consequent collapse of civilisation.
Fundamentally, I think it comes down to whether you believe the Scottish people are capable of making the correct decisions or not. The beautiful thing, imho, is how there are perfect templates on how to proceed in the marvellous forms of Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway. Follow their examples and Scots will be happier, healthier and richer.
And as for the English, they’ll be envious, and furious with the clown horror show at Westminster.
The relevance of Scottish independence is that its supporters want no part of the aggressive entity that UK has become, and the people of Scotland have the right to withdraw from it.
The way to eliminate the impetus for war is to start building the infrastructure to synthesize liquid fuel.
“They would also have to keep the Faslane nukes, or else pay an astronomical price for their removal while signing up to new expensive commitments with NATO.”
This might be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read here. If an independent Scotland chose to let the rUK keep using Faslane for Trident, it would be for billions of pounds in annual rent. But absolutely nobody could FORCE it to do so, let alone to PAY for it.
Glassshopper seems to be fond of the quaint old “too wee, too poor, too stupid” argument used against Ireland a hundred years ago with little success.
@ Clark
Scotland has given the UK many of its leading hawks over the years: Blair, Rifkind, M.Forsyth, John Reid, George Robertson, not many Tories obviously, due to their relative electoral rarity in Scotland. As for the future, it really depends how Scotland wishes to position itself doesn’t it. A role like that of Ireland / Scandinavian countries would be my ideal. This ‘projecting hard power’ i.e., brinkmanship the UK wants to involve itself in will probably result in catastrophe when they discover the limits of such an aggressive posture against a capable foe.
The SNP used to oppose Scottish Nato membership up until quite recently, from the 1980s until its 2012 conference, i.e., during the Cold War. Why they’re so up for membership now is mystery, maybe fear of taking a different position, who knows?
In supporting NATO, the SNP leadership seem to have forgotten why so many of the people in Scotland want independence. Ahh, the lure of power – “I’ve reached the top, and had to stop, and that’s what’s bothering me” – the Scottish hawks were flying to Westminster for its nuclear-backed fire until the SNP top brass began clearing a short cut to NATO.
Well the SNP leadership had best stop trying to emulate Westminster, because that’s precisely what the membership wants independence from.
Goose
Blair Rifkind Forsyth Reid Robertson – they are all Britnats. All signed up to the the Ragman Roll.
The authoritarian, corporatist, tendencies within the SNP predate the present disgusting display by some way. Remember the early elections for Holyrood? Every lamppost festooned with party placards. Colourful, fun, envigorating democracy at work. Small but energetic parties that were denied MSM coverage got their message out and were returned to the (then) Assembly.
The mania amongst councils for outlawing political posters on council owned “street furniture” can be traced back to 2010. https://theferret.scot/councils-election-poster-ban-scotland/
Many if not most of these councils have the SNP in at least partially control.
The vibrancy of democracy is to be diminished for the sake of a few hours clean up by council staff?
If it’s really such a problem have the parties post a bond (£500?) by the election agent and if the posters aren’t removed within a fortnight after the election, the bond can be absorbed by the council against the cost of their workers removing the material.
Cooncil workers are routinely used to cut grass verges that would otherwise become environmental friendly wild flower meadows for pollinating insects.
She spoke at the rally in George Square.
At the Conference she said it made her feel proud when she saw the march in Edinburgh.
Did it? Why the fuck wasn’t she there, then?
Ello, ello, ello, what kind of language is this from a Rev?
Exasperated language I should think and I understand why!
As a family, we are all greatly disturbed by the authoritarianism demonstrated by the present SNP leadership. This is not the Scotland I want to see. We need more wisdom and empathy, not less.
According to a wiki article he isn’t a real Rev:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wings_Over_Scotland
That explains the swearing as well. So far as I know people don’t get summoned before a court for impersonating clerics. Nevertheless, Stuart Campbell, as far as I’m concerned, if you haven’t been properly ordained, you shouldn’t be using the title, and no-one should recognise it.
Rational Wiki is at least as real and reliable a source as you are.
See https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki
and, according to their site has been quoted in:
AlterNet, The Blaze, The Boston Globe, Business 2 Community, Canada Free Press
Carroll County Times, ChicagoNow, The Columbian, The Conversation, Cult MTL, The Daily Kos, The Daily Titan, DeSmogBlog, El País, El Universal, Fanpage.it, Faro de Vigo, The Federalist, Felix, Gawker, Gizmodo, The Guardian, Heat Street, Houston Press, The Huffington Post[, The Huntsville Times, The Independent Online, The Liberty Conservative,
The Los Angeles Times, Malaysian Digest, Metro, MSN.com, NBC News, The New Republic, The New Statesman, New York Magazine, Opposing Views, Paste, Petoskey News-Review, The Queens Chronicle, The Raw Story, Salon, Slate, Snopes.com, The Southland Times,
The Telegraph, ThinkProgress, The Vancouver Courier, Verdens Gang, The Wake, The Washington Post, The Week, Wired, and WMNF
Which I would be willing to bet is more than you’ve been.
What is missing in Craig’s post is whether Manni was advised to plead Guilty on the understanding that he might receive a milder sentence than he actually did. In hindsight we can say that was bad advice, but we do not know the rationale behind his decision, there may have been an economic factor to consider, justice does not come cheaply.
“Which I would be willing to bet is more than you’ve been.”
Hahahahahahahahahaha. You’re right, though, I don’t think I’ve ever appeared in the Vancouver Courier, Malaysian Digest or whatever the fuck “Verdens Gang” or “The Wake” are.
Foul-mouthed hypocrite.
Seems like “Rev.” stands for “revolting” in your case.
Note to moderators.
Pretty sure if I posted this you would be on my case. The actual content doesn’t bother me in the least.
One rule for some – another for others is it.
Wasn’t that the one organised between her and the National? Had nothing to do with the Yes movement. It was a cynical move to address independence supporters and use the carrot of independence to get their votes for the Dec election.
What has happened to the SNP?
The worst thing that could happen : ‘[They] got civilised’, to borrow Mickey’s line in Rocky 3. …They’ve gone from plucky underdog fighters to comfortable (electoral) champions in Scotland.
You’ve stated many times, events and the membership will force their[her] hand on the independence issue; the membership’s radicalism hasn’t waned one bit. This is the SNP – Scottish National Party – the clue is in the name! This, even if the leaderships’ determination is wavering somewhat. Tbh, the only reason Sturgeon isn’t under real pressure right now is the covid issue and its impact in terms of thwarting party gatherings.
It’s the same situation with Labour and rogue Blairite ultra Starmer; winning the leadership back for the party’s hawkish right is one thing, knowing what to do next quite another. He’ll have to reveal his true political colours eventually, some issue will come along. It’s pretty clear already to those paying attention where his political allegiances lie; Lords’ Woodcock and Austin and the pay offs tell us that, and his s.cabinet is like a who’s who of Corbyn haters.
All in good time.
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
It’s all very well running down all the existing parties, Goose – the Tories, Labour, the LibDems and now the SNP. But if none of them is fit to run the country (whether it’s the UK or an independent Scotland), then who should, in your opinion? Theorising is good fun but you have to think practically from time to time in real life.
The system produces these lousy careerist politicians.
At a UK level, dump FPTP and you’d open the whole game up. What we’re really struggling against in the UK is a political orthodoxy which mitigates against new thinking, new ideas, and seeks cross-party consensus on everything to the detriment of democratic choice. The party establishment (PLP) froze out outsider Corbyn.
Scotland already uses MMPR (a proportionate system) for Holyrood elections, term limits might help shake things up, idk? Post independence, the SNP will probably split anyway, solving the problem with a new socially liberal, centre-left party fronted by someone like Joanna Cherry perhaps?
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
Goose
You disapprove, it seems, of seeking cross-party consensus on everything. Fair enough. But why should that be to the detriment of, or run counter to, democratic choice?
Surely the parties that have been elected are the result of democratic choice? And is it not their democratic choice if they decide they wish to aim at cross party consensus wherever possible?
Or are you in favour of every party – including, presumably all those new parties you seem to think will soon emerge – sticking rigidly to its original positions?
Because the public get frozen out of democracy by the chosen few at the top of each major party, who think they know best and no longer need to listen.
Look at Starmer’s aloof leadership style: he’s another top-down manager;an unapproachable Blairite. Someone who will seek to close down internal party debate New Labour style . Remember the then 82 year old Walter Wolfgang being manhandled out of conference for shouting “rubbish” during Jack Straw’s speech on Iraq then held under a terrorist law?
Once comfortably in place these people are contemptuous of democracy, they see it as an annoying inconvenience. Sturgeon is showing signs of developing such an elitist, ivory tower mindset.
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
I think that what you’re really trying to say is that every political party is itself a coalition. But that has nothing to do with the discussion underway, which I thought was about the desirability or otherwise of having many smaller parties (that was Clark’s opinion which I was discussing).
Since you mention a historical event – Wolfgang Walter at the Labour Party conference, do you recall a top Labour politician called Michael Foot? He was a top and essential minister (of employment) comfortably in place in the Callaghan ministry and therefore one of the cjosen few. Would you say he became contemptuous of democracy and developed an elitist, ivory tower mindset?
@Arthur
Don’t see Michael Foot’s relevance to today’s political debate?
If the person is an intellectual heavyweight, like say a Tony Benn or a Michael Foot or indeed an Alex Salmond; someone who is representative of the membership, as those all were, then aloofness is obviously less of a problem. What Blair represented however, and what Starmer likely will too, if he wins, is a whole different situation. Policy developed in secret (sofa govt), excluding input; policy which is contradictory to Labour’s values, and opposed by the majority of supporters. That is obviously not a good thing.
Personally, I don’t think Labour should split. The SCG should keep the pressure on Starmer over his 10 pledges and an alternative party should be established ‘The Socialist party'(TSP) , i.e., a twin-track approach. If TSP becomes popular, imagine Labour’s right-wingers trying to attack a ‘socialist party’ while claiming to be one themselves.
– “Surely the parties that have been elected are the result of democratic choice?”
They are the result of democratic choice within a highly constrained system.
The Westminster “Winner Takes All” system, mistakenly referred to as “FPTP”, applies a positive feedback loop to the democratic system making only two outcomes overwhelmingly likely, thus producing a two-party system that excludes other, vitally important matters such as environmentalism. It is similar to the circuit arrangement in a logic gate, the basic component of computers; although the transistors from which it is constructed can produce continuously variable output, the surrounding system is contrived to constrain the transistors so that only two output states are stable, all other outputs rapidly leading to one of those two states. Of the dozens of political parties only two have any chance of gaining power, and thus they attract the vast majority of votes, locking in the two party system. It’s a self-reinforcing loop which needs to be broken.
Well put, Clark.
@Clark
“Thus producing a two-party system that excludes other, vitally important matters such as environmentalism.”
It’s even worse than that. The actual manifestos aren’t even legally binding. And major, important policies can be reduced to a single, vague line in a manifesto, hidden among many other policies; from which parties then claim they have a absolute mandate to carry out sweeping change(s). It’s utterly absurd. Future historians will be amazed the public didn’t all call it out for the demonstrable sham it is.
I do wonder how much the US is a factor in keeping our(UK) two-party system in place? New Zealand voted to dump FPTP and opted for MMPR, Australia uses AV (lower house) and an STV proportionate for the(upper house) Senate iirc; Canada uses FPTP , like the UK. The US uses winner-take-all. The US can’t have multi-party system ever, if you think about why; it’d mean the break-up of the US. You’d get a Texas National party, a Californian national party and the union would start to wobble. All this talk about Russian interference, if Russia and China really wanted to they could cause chaos.
Oh look a video of nicola speaking at the neo con CFR!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIeA1Gkaz6w
Its now obvious whats happened to the SNP 🙁
unfortunately, the cfr is worse than simply neocon. much worse.
I’m in my mid 50’s now and supported the independence cause for over 10 yrs. Like so many, Labour got my vote previously. After 2014, the mask had truly slipped from Labour and the personal feeling of anger and betrayal will never leave me. Not because they didn’t support independence, but because of their cosy relationship with the tories and their policies. Their ‘anybody but the SNP’ stance showed they didn’t care about the class of people they claimed to represent. As an Aberdeen resident, seeing a Tory/Labour coalition in council to keep out the largest party from ruling adds further weight to this.
Why is this relevant? Firstly myself and others won’t blindly follow a party again. Eyes have been opened. We will lift the lid, probe and expect more from our elected officials than pre 2014. Secondly, the Glasgow clique (I’ve seen it called the Yes Bar clique as far back as 2015) are as blinkered to the rest of Scotland as Westminster is. The current political agenda seems irrelevant to many, with things like land reform, estate management, tourist infrastructure all absent to the degrees required. In the beginning, the feminist agenda was good and indeed long overdue, refreshing perhaps. It now appears anti male, a world where male majorities were bad has turned into a world where female majorities are good.
The cabinet used to visit all parts of Scotland and expose themselves to local questioning, a practise introduced by AS and carried on by NS. This appears to have been discarded since Brexit. I remember sitting in the Music Hall in Aberdeen where all questions were being asked and answers attempted. There was no hiding place. It felt like democracy, where I learned more about society’s problems from the questions rather than the answers. An appreciation was gained of all the problems politicians are expected to solve. Yes, I know Covid has changed everything but these problems with the SNP were around long before Covid.
The SNP pledges from the last 3 elections have not been met despite overwhelming majorities: vote SNP to make WM listen, vote SNP to stop Brexit, vote SNP for indyref2. After the last election, to be told by the FM to ‘simmer down, these things are complicated’ when indyref2 hasn’t been delivered has made me think the mask is slipping with this SNP leadership, which takes me back to the start. Look at what happened to Labour when the mask slipped.
Get out of the Yes Bar, out of Glasgow and into Scotland. Ditch the bad law making, and stop pretending we have a Presidential electoral system
Alan L
Point of information.
The Yes bar has been closed for some time now – nothing to do with the virus.
The “sentence” on Manni was out of proportion to his “illegal” activity. Bit like Thomas Muir being transported to Australia by a britnat Scot for daring to fight for human rights and an independent Scotland in the so-called united kingdom.
I’m really not sure one can legitimately compare being forcibly transported to the other side of the planet for life with being telt to stay in your own hoose at night for a couple of months.
Depends on the hoose though.
The alternative to organising a demonstration is to leave it disorganised. Therefore there should be no such “offence” as “organising a demonstration”, since doing so is a service to society, the opposite of a crime.
The alternative to the above is to admit that the system is not a democracy. If only licensed “demonstrations” are permitted, it’s government by officials ie. a bureaucracy rather than a democracy.
An Entirely logical and clear argument Clark. I wholeheartedly agree.
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
No, Clark : the alternative to organising a demo is not to organise a demo.
I think the word you seem to be searching for might be ‘encourage’, ‘initiate’, or even, if you have a particularly undemocratic bent, ‘incite’. But not ‘organise’.
Arthur is confusing opposite with alternative.
I believe the reason you’re seeing such brazen authoritarianism is the panic spreading through parts of the establishment. The status quo has never been so vulnerable. Has anyone ever known polls consistently showing support for independence >50% ? In London, we’ve got Johnson, a man who most Tories are embarrassed by if they’re being candid. You’ve got the furlough scheme that’s ramping up the current a/c deficit to an unsustainable degree; a highly likely Brexit no deal on the horizon, due to Johnson overpromising on negotiations; basically talking himself into a corner with his own party… Everything is falling into place for independence without struggle.
The union is ripe to fall and the increasing authoritarianism is an expression of the deep establishment nervousness and unease about a natural process they haven’t got a clue how to stop.
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
Assuming you’re right, Goose, is independence born out of chaos necessarily the bet start for a new state? Look at the interwar history of central and eastern Europe, look at the Congo (RDC) , look at many of the South American countries.
It’ll be as messy as the English political establishment choose to make it.
Though, if the UK leaves the EU (after this transition period) without a trade deal , they[UK govt] won’t be in a good position to create antagonism with a newly independent Scotland. Especially if Scotland is being fast-tracked back into the EU.
Look at Cameron and Osborne’s threats made in the referendum campaign in 2014, over not using the Pound sterling, that revengeful attitude revealed to Scots the true nature of the union. Not a union of equals and mutual respect but one of threats and intimidation.
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
I think you’ve changed your argument somewhat , Goose. Before you were basically saying that the government was incompetent (hence the chaos) but now you seem to be saying that the government will deliberately foment chaos. Which is it?
So you get incompetence – fuelling support for independence – followed by vindictiveness post-inde.
Where’s the incongruity?
You could see both; the point being, that to not accept independence and pursue a hostile approach to a newly independent Scotland, as Cameron and Osborne promised in 2014, would be futile and expensive for the rUK already reeling under covid and ‘no deal’.
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
So, Goose, now it’s vindictiveness and it’s post-independence. But I got the impresssion from your post at 15:28 that you were talking about what’s going on in the UK at the moment? Please re-read!
The UK establishment’s hostility to independence is a constant thing.
It was on show in 2014, from all English Westminster parties. Remember Cameron’s tearful visit to Scotland and the vow? George Robertson’s absurd apocalyptic scare-mongering around what is, when all said and done, a small European country of just over five million people.
I don’t know if there’ll be vindictiveness post-independence, how could I? My point was, if there is, it’ll be futile and costly at a time when the rUK will be in need of friends and trading partners. Frankly it’d be like London picking a pointless fight with Éire.
Sensible English people will be totally relaxed and fully understanding, and wish the newly independent Scots well.
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
Goose
You refer to the “UK establishment’s ” hostility to independence. You also refer to 2014. Was 2014 not also the year when the Scottish people showed their hostility to independence in a referendum?
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
Goose
“I don’t know if there’ll be vindictiveness post-independence, how could I?”
But you seemed to be strongly suggesting there would be. Please re-read your post at 16:16. But thank you for the clarification.
77th are out tonight…
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
Jeff
Just polite debate and discussion. Feel free to join the conversation if you have anything useful to contribute…
@Arthur, you seem to be nitpicking and playing semantics.
“But you seemed to be strongly suggesting there would be. Please re-read your post at 16:16. But thank you for the clarification.”
I’m basing that belief on Osborne’s threats to an independent Scotland in 2014’s ref campaign, i.e., real, recent history it’s the only thing we’ve got to go on. That Tory govt made it perfectly clear an independent Scotland would get no help or favours from rUK and couldn’t use the Pound sterling they emphasised a hard border too. Look how angry and aggressive the unionist side became defending the union; as if Scotland were their property and seeking independence was somehow an hostile act, and not simply the democratic desire for true nationhood.
@Arthur
It could be argued Johnson’s steadfast refusal to grant an S30 is a hostile position to take, considering it was part of the SNP’s electoral platform and the Scottish people endorsed that position. Why does the Tory govt, with so little support in Scotland think is has the mandate to invalidate the SNP’s mandate? Why can’t they be neutral?
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
Goose
Nitpicking and semantics? I always find it’s helpful to use words correctly and to avoid even minor errors of fact when discussing complicated issues.
But anyway, let’s get back to what is your major problem, which appears to be that none of the existing political parties cut the mustard for you whether in the UK or in Scotland. Can you tease out what you think should happen apart from the SNP splitting and Keir Starmer becoming less aloof and rehabiltating the Corbynites?
[ Habbabkuk ]
—
Goose ( 18:47 )
Why should the UK government be neutral on a question affecting the very existence of the UK?
@Arthur
Can you tease out what you think should happen apart from the SNP splitting and Keir Starmer becoming less aloof and rehabiltating the Corbynites?
I don’t think ‘I’ need do anything, events will inevitably lead to change without any input from myself whatsoever. You’ve just got to be able to read the runes(trends) and predict the future.
@Arthur
Why should the UK government be neutral on a question affecting the very existence of the UK?
Because Scotland isn’t the UK’s(in reality London’s) prisoner. If your partner wanted to leave you, you could plead for them to stay, highlight the advantages, but beyond that, threats etc, are totally inappropriate. Something Osborne failed to grasp.
– “Was 2014 not also the year when the Scottish people showed their hostility to independence in a referendum?”
I was there, and it was close. I personally encountered no hostility to independence; I did hear of some and see reports of it, but that was from a small and unpleasant minority. The Yes campaign was certainly the party of future, culture and progress. Supporters of No kept it mostly to themselves, and when they did speak they did so quietly, seeming almost embarrassed. Their attitude towards politics seemed to be “for goodness’ sake don’t touch it; it’s falling apart as it is”. Yes was definitely the side of optimism, and No of pessimism.
When the Thursday of the vote came it was the only rainy day in weeks. The day had a tangible air of pessimism; it was a day for No, I could feel it. The weekend following the result, Glasgow seemed dead, a city defeated.
So an Indian man is in jail for Scottish freedom how many Scots are ??? The
Exactly right, Goose. And the ironic part is that it’s britnat intransigence, arrogance and ignorance which is doing the most damage to their so-called united kingdom. You’ve got to laugh.
The shit will likely hit the fan soon, as October is the self-imposed deadline the Tories have set for reaching a deal, they’ve repeatedly reiterated that there will be no costly extension.
So after 4 years + they leave with no deal as the could’ve done on 24th June 2016. Pfft!
Great post, and some proofreading will only make it better.
Its patently obvious Sturgeon and Murrell don’t want Scottish independence, oh they trumpet it, for their own party’s benefit when needed but actual independence doesn’t appear to be on the agenda.
What happened to Manni Singh is a disgrace, and in my opinion Manni is an example, of what independence demo organisers can expect from the SNP in the future if they don’t conform to the Sturgeon/Murrell doctrine. Sturgeon has no right to complain about any other countries handling of demos, not now that she’s imprisoned Manni, Christ we’re meant to be on the same side singing from the same hymn sheet it’s not Manni who should be locked up, he’s only doing what the SNP heirarchy should be doing pushing and promoting Scottish independence.
Sturgeon has betrayed us there’s no doubt about it now, we voted for her and her party not just to implement a few competent policies but to deliver independence. In six years since Salmond kept his promise Sturgeon hasn’t even come close to it, even when Westminster tore itself apart on Brexit Sturgeon remained tacit on independence. Now she’s pushing Self-Id the GRA and the Hate Crime bill, most of society don’t see these policies as important or even proper, yet her clique push on regardless, even Westminster has kicked them into the long grass.
For years any prominent politician promoting Scottish independence would struggle to get a modicum of airtime on the British nationalist tv channels, unless it was to pose negative questions, on a three against one basis. Yet miraculously Sturgeon now finds herself on the BBC and Sky news channels 5 days a week she also has airtime on LBC radio and Radio Scotland daily which has saw her popularity and trust ratings soar.
Why would the British nationalist establishment allow Sturgeon such an amount of airtime knowing fine well that her popularity and ergo the popularity of independence would increase, unless of course they know that she’s no intention of pushing for independence, and giving her this airtime will lead to her party winning next years elections comfortably and allowing her to further implement her plans which don’t include Scottish independence.
“Power is not an end in itself”
Rhetorical question:
Where did you get that naive idea? For the political elite, power is very much and end in itself.
“The vast majority, 99.5%, of SNP members remain very decent and humane people who just want to see Scotland a normal free company”.
So the tiny minority who have taken over the party and now seem to control it must have acted cleverly and used all means to capture the party apparatus.
That doesn’t speak well of the health of democracy in Scotland; nor of the prospects for independence.
– “So the tiny minority who have taken over the party and now seem to control it must have acted cleverly and used all means to capture the party apparatus.”
Maybe a few, but there are other factors at work. “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”; SNP MPs sit at Westminster, that heart of corruption, with power much closer to absolute than Holyrood’s. And that system selects for the “ambitious” and the “charismatic”, those most susceptible to being seduced by power, despite initial good intentions.
Organisations like AUOB make arrangements well in advance, and (as far as I’m aware) tell the Police and Councill, well in advance. When the council sits on that information and then makes approval conditional on changes, too late to put into effect, that shows their bad faith. They don’t want the march, so they approve it subject to unworkable conditions. This doesn’t apply just to Glasgow.
Or is it merely incompetence in council decision-making?
Derek
See my post below. Malice not incompetence.
‘What we have Become’ is inherent in the Royal Warrant that cites a demand the Commissioners are responsible for ensuring that the Stone returns to Westminster Abbey for the next and all future coronations of monarchs of Great Britain.
Now know :
ELIZABETH THE SECOND, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Our other Realms and Territories, QUEEN, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all whom these presents may concern:
GREETING! WHEREAS the Stone of Scone, whereon the Kings of Scots used to be set at their inauguration, belongs to US in right of the crown; AND WHEREAS it is Our wish that all future Sovereigns of the United Kingdom and of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Their Other Realms and Territories should continue to be set upon the said Stone of Scone at Their Coronation…
Here of course lies the rub… as witnessed by Prince Andrew!
Craig, a small typo:
” who just want to see Scotland a normal free company. ”
Did you mean “country”?
This is an aside, or query, that in no way tries to contradict the message of this post.
I am not a “Putin supporter” (which sounds very like the “Putin apologist” or “useful idiot” deployed by parliamentarians in their silly reports). But, when it comes to Mr. Navalny, is it not the case that: he insisted that at least one of his protests take place in a square where he knew historical reenactors were (with permit long since obtained) already holding their annual fair – and he therefore, to ensure maximum disruption and police reaction, disregarded the permit he had been given to hold his protest elsewhere in the city (this according to the (fairly diverse and independent) Russian media, admittedly, but also a friend who happened to be in Moscow on business); and, Mr. Navalny, it appears, is a vile racist, as the Guardian was embarrassed to discover when doing a puff piece promoting him as the great liberal hope for Russia (on his 2% of the vote). We are all liberals here dismayed by the authoritarianism of the current Russian government: surely this doesn’t mean we need to hold up for admiration any crook, thug or apparatchik who presents himself as “liberal” (especially as it was such “liberals” who came close to destroying Russia in the 1990s – a subject I, for what it is worth, know a little about (a very little).
There was a march the previous year in Glasgow that took place at the later time with absolutely no problems that was approved by the council. A precedent was on record.
I attended both marches – no problems at all
The council out of malice changed the time late in the day to an earlier time ignoring the precedent set the previous year.
In my opinion there are cuckoos in the SNP nest wearing union flag jackets.
‘.. there are cuckoos in the SNP nest wearing union flag jackets.’ Correct ‘Cubby’ well put… with a thirst, an aspiration, an obsession for recognition by the Queen.
SNP at higher levels is dominated by agents of The British State.
Agreed Hamish, here the diametric is an authoritarianism within the SNP as revealed by Jim Spence who said he believes that the SNP vote, as well as its membership, will, at some point, fracture over, for sure, the EU issue and perhaps NATO as well.
This I beleve is the conundrum.
No doubt cubby
Wee nicola is agent orange
In all seriousness of course they’ve been infiltrated
As if the lettered agencies would not interfere
Craig makes a powerful case, but I remained concerned that Manni declined the restriction of liberty / curfew order and therefore opted for a prison sentence. Why did he do that and why Craig do you not set out this important contextual point. It still seems wrong that someone is imprisoned for 72 days for organising this whilst a blind eye has of late been turned to so many other unauthorised protest, but it makes a difference to how one thinks about it and how one responds emotionally when one knows that he could have taken the curfew option.
Secondly, has something gone wrong with the default part of the sentencing process? I can understand that if an offence does not really justify even a short period of imprisonment and the court is looking at non-custodial options the duration of a non-custodial alternate might well be longer than a short custodial option, but if so and if the non-custodial option is put forward and rejected (as here) then why was the duration of the non-custodial option automatically the length of the custodial? It would have made more sense if it had been say 72 days non-custodial curfew or say 14 days custodial – take your pick.
My third question and apologies if already asked and answered but who brought the prosecution: was it Glasgow City Council or the COPFS i.e. was a political or a non-political body?
Finally, and in passing does it really make any sense to be seeking independence at the moment: oil and gas revenue has been hammered and Scotland would be without a sovereign credit record and (presumably) unable to print its own currency.
Fwl
It made sense each and every day for the last 313 years to be seeking independence.
Fair point though perhaps you have to be Highlander to truly benefit from that perspective.
Fwl
No not really – like all its colonies England has been ripping off Scotland from day one of the Union. Scotland had no national debt at the time of the Union and then had to take on 25% of England’s National Debt after Union. England’s debt was run up due to its liking for wars – a bit like today.
Was there never any brief period when Scotland did quite well out of the Union ?
The Act of Union gave Scotland unrestricted access to what up until then had been the English empire trade with which made Scotland very wealthy. Scotland’s heavy industries would never have developed they way they did otherwise.
That’s what I thought until Cubby enlightened us otherwise.
Anybody can print their own money. The trick is getting other people to accept it.
Governments achieve this by taxing the population, saying the tax can only be paid in their own currency and imprisoning anyone who fails to pay.
Any country which doesn’t issue its own currency cannot be truly independent (eg all countries using the euro).
I had thought that in the old days part of the appeal of the SNP was roving around with pirate radio.
Looking at the England & Wales CPS guidance on the Public Interest Test part of a decision whether to prosecute for public protests it clearly says that It has long been recognised that a prosecution does not follow automatically whenever an offence is believed to have been committed and endorses the approach adopted by Sir Hartley Shawcross, the Attorney General in 1951, who stated in the House of Commons that: “It has never been the rule…that criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution”. Therefore where there is sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, prosecutors must go on to consider whether a prosecution is required in the public interest.
It goes on:
“In public protest cases, prosecutors must apply the public interest factors set out in the Code, having regard to this guidance. A prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is sure that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour, or unless the prosecutor is satisfied that the public interest may be properly served by offering the offender the opportunity to have the matter dealt with by an out-of-court disposal.
Assessing the public interest is not simply a matter of adding up the number of factors on each side and seeing which side has the greater number. Each case must be considered on its own facts and on its own merits. Prosecutors must decide the importance of each public interest factor in the circumstances of each case and go on to make an overall assessment. It is quite possible that one factor alone may outweigh a number of other factors which tend in the opposite direction. Although there may be public interest factors tending against prosecution in a particular case, prosecutors should consider whether nonetheless a prosecution should go ahead and those factors put to the court for consideration when sentence is passed.
The list of public interest factors to consider as set out below in this paragraph and paragraph 22 are not exhaustive. Prosecutors must also have regard to the public interest considerations set out in the Code. Prosecutors should bear in mind that a prosecution for offences committed during a public protest is more likely to be required where:
Violent acts were committed that caused injury or it is reasonable to believe they could have caused injury;
The suspect took a leading role in and/or encouraged others to commit violent acts;
The suspect was in possession of a weapon at the time of the offence;
The suspect took steps to conceal their identity;
Significant disruption was caused to the public and businesses;
Significant damage was caused to property;
The suspect has a previous history of causing violence, damage, disruption or making threats at public protests;
Threats were made against an individual or business that caused or it is reasonable to believe they could have caused alarm, fear or distress.
Applying the public interest factors set out in the Code, prosecutors should bear in mind that a prosecution is less likely to be required where:
The public protest was essentially peaceful;
The suspect had no more than a minor role;
The suspect has no previous relevant history of offending at public protests or in general;
The act committed was minor;
The act committed was instinctive and in the heat of the moment.
Prosecutors should consider the incident as a whole in order to assess the context in which the offence was committed. It may be that the alleged act committed is so remote from the main action that it cannot be considered part of it and should be considered as an incident on its own. If so, prosecutors should consider whether they need to refer to any other guidance such as that listed in the introduction.”
Gordon Wilson was our MP, for many years. We always voted SNP then. Gordon was such a fine person and a man of integrity, someone who inspired trust and confidence. I stopped voting SNP after a ‘run in’ with then SNP Government Health Minister Nicola Sturgeon in 2008. She refused to answer my question about prevention of Clostridium difficile in Scottish hospitals, (based on the Stoke Mandeville and Maidstone Inquiries recommendations), but promised a ‘full written reply’. Of course it never came. I can still picture her smirking face, as she assured the crowd this issue was ‘personal to Jennifer’. Shortly afterwards some poor old ladies in Ninewells Hospital caught Clostridium difficile and died after a patient, known to be infected, was transferred into their ward. Moving patients around wards and hospitals, was one of the dangerous practices I was campaigning to stop.( I’ve kept all my documentation Nicola and have written my story).
It seems history is repeating itself with Covid-19 after SNP Government legislation was enacted to remove elderly ‘bedblockers’ from hospitals. Many were sent to care homes, by that time infected with the virus. The carnage which followed was inevitable and preventable, but Nicola is calling these discharges ‘clinical decisions’ i.e. It’s all the doctors’ fault. She never takes the blame for anything but Teflon does wear off eventually.
BTW Before the Trolls and Bots start calling me a Tory voter or whatever, I always vote, but have been known to ‘dump’ my vote on a no hoper if I am not happy with the candidates. Like Craig I long for some honesty and integrity within our political and justice systems.
Jennifer Allan
Just how do you know many were sent to care homes infected with the virus?