Unexpectedly, the election for leader of the SNP has become a true hinge moment in the entire history of the Scottish nation.
Sure of their control of the party, the devolutionists in the SNP have openly come out with the proposal that Independence is merely an “aspiration” – Humza Yousaf’s exact word.
Stewart McDonald and Alyn Smith have set 2050 as a possible Independence date. Humza has poured scorn on the idea that 50% + 1 of votes would be sufficient for Independence, thus conceding the Tory proposals for a qualified majority and abandoning the principle of the 2014 referendum.
This puzzles me entirely. If 50% + 1 for the Union is enough to decide for the Union, why is 50% + 1 against the Union not enough to decide against the Union?
Why can I have my will thwarted by losing by one vote, but Gordon Brown not have his will thwarted by losing by one vote?
Above all, Yousaf, Smith, McDonald and a large number of SNP elected parliamentarians have stated explicitly that Independence can only come with Westminster’s agreement.
They have conceded that London has a permanent veto over Scottish Independence.
Even Nicola Sturgeon never explicitly came out and said that, though her insistence that Independence must be legal in terms of UK domestic law had the same effect.
The problem is that, if you believe that London has a right of veto over Scottish Independence, you cannot actually believe that Scotland is a nation with the right of self-determination.
A vote for Humza Yousaf is a vote for decades more of devolution. Which is why a majority of the SNP MPs and MSPs, collecting huge salaries from the UK devolution settlement, have come out in support of him.
Humza is the trougher’s trougher.
Not only is the “official” Sturgeon continuity SNP solely devolutionist, its primary interest in devolution is to pursue identity politics, rather than general wealth equality.
Hence we have had radical reform on Gender Recognition, but timid and tiny efforts at Land Reform, which have paid tens of millions of public money to the Duke of Buccleuch and others for small parcels of marginal land they did not want to keep.
Hence the attempt to move the conversation on to whether candidates will, within the devolution settlement, carry on a hopeless legal battle with London over gender reform, whereas the solution which the SNP is supposed by its constitution to advocate is the opposite: obtaining Independence for Scotland so Scotland can settle these matters for itself.
Ash Regan offers the opposite view. She espouses precisely what I have advocated on this website for a decade – that Scotland’s elected representatives should declare Independence, as has been the normal and accepted route to Independence, in a world where over half the states have become Independent during my lifetime.
So SNP members have the clearest choice. If they vote for Humza they are voting for devolution and no action on Independence apart from “aspiration” and “conversation”.
If they vote for Ash they are voting for confrontation with London and eventual UDI. As the SNP continues its electoral dominance, this is a major turning point.
It is not entirely plain which side of this divide stands Kate Forbes, but I believe she is closer to Ash’s position than to Humza’s.
The key point is that nobody knows what the SNP members actually think about all this. The choice will get clearer to them as hustings go on these next few weeks.
The SNP leadership have spent eight years dismantling the democratic mechanisms of the party. Conferences have been cancelled or reduced. The last one was about a fifth the size they were from 2014 to 18, and heavily influenced by the payroll vote.
The National Executive is dominated by representatives of affiliated groups, who are massively over-represented compared to those elected by the party conference.
There has been no election by the entire party membership for twenty years, nor I believe any other kind of whole membership vote.
The SNP staff and SNP elected representatives are very heavily behind the Sturgeon agenda. Because of Sturgeon’s personal crusades they are far more interested in identity politics than in Independence.
The presumption has been that this is representative of the SNP’s current membership.
Certainly it is true that over 10,000 members left the party, dissatisfied with Sturgeon’s commitment to Independence. 6,000 of them formed the Alba party.
It is also true that many young members have joined who are much more interested (as is their right) in gay and trans issues than in Independence.
But I suspect that the SNP elected members and staff, and those wannabe careerists dominating their youth groups, are less representative than people realise. On Twitter, the SNP appears almost exclusively a matter of pronouns and rainbow flags, cf. the much lauded Mhairi Black intervention to attack Kate Forbes.
Yet I believe there are tens of thousands of ordinary members whose primary interest is still Independence – and Independence quickly, not in 2050.
I meet these people at Yes group, AUOB and similar events. They have remained loyal to the SNP in the patient belief that things will come right and action on Independence is pending.
It seems to me that the SNP leadership have miscalculated their membership – because the leadership has been in a small cocoon of staff and troughing MPs and MSPs not too bothered about Independence.
I think the members are about to let the leadership know what they really think, in the first opportunity for decades.
While I would love to see Ash in charge, I suspect the ultimate beneficiary may be Kate Forbes.
It is an STV election. I suspect that followers of Ash and Kate will largely transfer between each other. To be plain, to win Humza needs to be far ahead on first preferences.
That is looking highly improbable. The devolutionists have badly miscalculated.
A final thought. I do not trust Peter Murrell at all to run the election. Voting is electronic.
Candidates have no method to tally those issued with voting logins against the party membership, and to do sampling to check that all those electronic votes are from real, existing members. Or indeed from real people at all rather than just batches of fake names to support batches of logins.
That is just one weak point in the system. There are many others. It would be much better if a respected organisation were brought in that oversees the whole process including verification sampling of voters.
The SNP uses MiVoice, which does not do this. The Electoral Reform Society would do it.
Do not hold your breath for a fair voting process. At the very least, the person in charge should not be under police investigation for fraud.
————————————————
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
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
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
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.
Since The UN Charter expresses the position that peoples have the right to self-determination in Article 1 of Chapter 1, and in Article 2 it also makes clear that the integrity of states is vital, it seems somewhat of a self-interested spin for Westminster to delimit that right with regards to Scottish independence.
At the very least there is inconsistency between what the UN Charter acknowledges as a right and what Westminster deems to be conditional.
Yes. Also the International Court of Justice made clear in its Kosovo Opinion, and I believe elsewhere also, that the right to territorial integrity refers to annexation of territory by other states, and is not a bar to secession.
The UK argues it is not bound by treaties that sound in international law, including the treaty that s the basis of the creation of the UK. What’s the legal / historical basis for the UK position? The assertion that the UK has a constitution of parliamentary sovereignty. A dualist state.
The UK applies pre-Union England’s Bill of Rights 1688 to the current UK but, why should it be accepted as legitimate that the 21s century UK state has the Kingdom of England’s 17th century constitution of “Crown in Parliament” parliamentary sovereignty?
As Neale Hanvey MP and Sara Salyers of Salvo have highlighted: Scotland entered a political union with England which left Scotland’s territory, law & institutions intact. Scotland’s constitution stands not on England’s Magna Carta or Bill of Rights 1688 but on Scotland’s Claim of Right (1689) which upholds the popular sovereignty of the Scottish people.
The International Court of Justice is rather more likely to take the rack outlined by Craig with regard to places like Kosovo, Chechnya and Ossetia – in short, places few people born west of the Fulda Gap have ever heard of – when they are sovereign territory of states labelled rogue by the peacemakers of the West than, say, Donbas, Catalonia or Kurdistan, to day nothing of dead old Alba
Many genuine independence supporters have been thoroughly Stockholmed into believing the troughers share their ambition. They will likely stand by the troughers to the bitter end; that is until the troughers are finally forced into retirement having taken everything they could.
However those elements most vocal and condescending in support of the troughers I refuse to believe are independence supporters at all. They are almost certainty trougher family members or sundry accomplices and beneficiaries. Time to stop taking these types at face value.
“There has been no election by the entire party membership for twenty years, nor I believe any other kind of whole membership vote.”
If I recall, there was a vote of the entire party membership for the post of depute leader in 2016.
The candidates were Angus Robertson, Alyn Smith, Tommy Shephard, Chris McEleny.
I was so surprised when Angus Robertson won by an overwhelming majority. I was sure that he would come last. The other three candidates had obvious merits, such as Smith (rhetoric) and McEleny (passion).
I wonder if even back then there were some shenanigans? A feature of falsified elections is very often that the “winning” candidate must be seen to win by a great margin.
Tommy,
OK, Donald. You were surprised by the result, so the election was rigged. Gotcha…….
Of course it was rigged. As was Robertson’s nomination in Edinburgh Central
So this one will be rigged? So what’s the point? Is there anything that can be done?
They will be taking a risk if they do that. Murrell and Sturgeon would need to be desperate. I was half expecting and hoping the chief constable would step down after Sturgeon bailed out. Tons of folk will be willing to fund the costs of a legal challenge.
“Is there anything that can be done?”
You could go to law over it. Even if you lose it will make it harder to further down the road.
I don’t care about Robertson’s nomination. Candidate nomination has always been a source of contention, right back to before Salmond’s reign.
However, the allegation that the ballot for deputy leader was rigged in favour of Robertson is a very serious one, and should only be made if the person alleging it has some concrete proof …. of the non-Donald Trump kind …… not the “everybody knows” type of “proof”.
So, fire away Mr Murray – let’s see your “evidence”.
How many years has it taken Trump to prove the election of Biden, WAS rigged?
That Russia gate was a CIA construct? That there were no Iraqi WMDs, that even I knew!
Instead of looking for state secrets, like Dunblane, your aren’t going to find out in your life time……. the murder of Scottish children hidden for 125 years, WHY FOR GODS SAKE!
That Robertson was flown out and became NATO secretary. So he was never investigated!
Be careful what you say on here about Baron Robertson of Port Ellen, Highlander – particularly in relation to the Dunblane massacre – in case he sues this site. He’s got form in this area:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3644610.stm
Enjoy the rest of the weekend.
Out comes the trumpian allegations.
“So, fire away Mr Murray – let’s see your “evidence”.”
In the absence of proof or disproof we are left to consider what’s most likely.
Fwiw, Mr Murray pointed to psephological shenanigans prior to the Edinburgh Central MSP election in March 2021:
“The blocking of Joanna Cherry from standing in Edinburgh Central by Nicola Sturgeon in order to shoo in her anointed successor, NATO’s Angus Robertson, protégé of Lord John Kerr, secretary of the Bilderberg Group and my former boss (remarkably all that is straight fact), should be reason enough to vote against Robertson, even if you don’t know the truly filthy story that lies beneath.”
Hmm. No reply. Why am I not surprised??
I voted in the Angus Robertson/Tommy Sheppard etc Depute leader vote. Robertson was arrogant in his ‘I know Nicola personally’ stance. I was disappointed to see no transparency within the voting system and already then had doubts about the outcome. He then went on to propose huge changes to the constitution at conference – much of it so wordy and convoluted that I’m sure many weren’t really aware of exactly what they were voting in. My cynicism with the SNP started then and grew exponentially until I left several years later. Best thing I ever did.
“He then went on to propose huge changes to the constitution at conference – much of it so wordy and convoluted that I’m sure many weren’t really aware of exactly what they were voting in.”
So the rank and file voted themselves out of power, or at least that’s how the votes were counted…
What Scotland needs is a healthy set of independence focused parties.
The current SNP is chronically diseased, but not necessarily terminally, but as long as the FM and her loving husband stay true to their word (by definitely not leaving politics) it will have no remedy to its condition.
“What Scotland needs is a healthy set of independence focused parties.”
By healthy you would mean ‘not infiltrated’? How could that be done?
Integrity, discipline and hope – the age old recipe.
Infiltration is ever-present in this struggle, as is bribery and subversion.
Scotland, put on your biggest boots and fear no ankle-biter.
Excellent summation of the situation from Craig. Obviously Regan is the best hope for all who truly want independence but, like Craig, I think the majority of Regan voters will have Forbes as second preference. But with the Murrells in charge of the voting process even that may not be enough. It is all very sickening.
do you have to make a second preference vote? or will those who voted for one preference alone be barred from a count?
The payroll have settled on Identity politics as their preferred weapon by proxy.
Outwith its role in helping cult formation and control, the GRR performed a useful function in the wider society for Sturgeon’s NuSNP.
Identity politics ©️ is the brand name for Poststructuralism. The birth and development of Poststructuralism is lost in the mists of time. Exact dates are unknowable. Poststructuralism has been described as “a new mutating anti-Enlightenment liberalism”.
In the late 60s, we know that oor very ain R. D. Laing was developing theories that questioned the nature of reality in a Western context. Laing’s thought experiments were sadly not destined to remain forever trapped in an esoteric bubble. Through the 70s, the ideas that would eventually form Poststructuralism were bandied around academia. By the 80’s or early 90’s the concept of Poststructuralism had sufficiently crystallised that university syllabuses were produced. In the early 90s Robin McAlpine graduated with an Honours Degree in Poststructuralism. Tellingly, Robin now repudiates the entire doctrine.
The role of the Anglo-American, Permanent state in the evolution of Poststructuralism is uncertain. What’s clear is that they quickly understood the function it could play in furthering their agenda.
In 2010, Wikileaks disclosed that long-time, prominent, American feminist Gloria Steinem was registered by the CIA as a “Change agent”. In the context of the time, feminism could be considered “identity politics”.
For the Permanent state, Identity politics functions to Distract, Divert and Divide. Traditional, Structuralist analysis of society, grounded in Enlightenment rationality raises troubling issues for the Permanent state such as wealth inequality and distribution of political power. The Permanent state required a means to control the populace and divert their attention from interfering in “their” purview. Their end goal is a never ending, binary, culture war which prevents us from rebelling against our minimum wage, zero hours contract, existential cage.
Poststructuralism deifies individuality and disparages the collective. Any casual observer of history knows that any concession wrestled from the establishment by the workers was obtained through the organisation of collective agency. This is the crux to understanding the utility of Poststructuralism to the Permanent state.
There is some degree of consensus that puts the point at which the Poststructuralist virus escaped the academic laboratory and entered the real world at roughly 2013. From this point, legions of humanities graduates indoctrinated in Poststructuralist dogma spread into the political ecosphere. These young, middle class graduates (something with Politics in the title) found a welcome berth in what became NuSNP. Constituency staff, researchers, SPADS, even some elected representatives were inculcated in the utility of Poststructuralist credo.
A breed apart, they formed a Mafia of the mediocre, a self-supporting group to reach otherwise unattainable heights like a Catalan castell. STEMs graduates are conspicuous by their absence in NuSNP (or any other mainstream political party for that matter).
Whatever their shortcomings, the middle class humanities graduates that make up the ranks of the Trans activists are not short of vigour fuelled by fanaticism. They also have that precious commodity; time. A combination of the “bank of mum and dad” and the fact that the androgynous wee freaks have never seen the inside of a gym.
Mao harnessed the energy of the Red Guard to further the Cultural Revolution. Youth, ideological militancy and a disdainful rejection of moderation make useful traits in the short term.
As the Gang of Four and now Sturgeon have found out, the tolerance of the masses to this rejection of established cultural norms and reality itself has limits. Once the extreme consequences of Identity politics start to impinge on the daily existence of the masses, a forceful counter-momentum naturally coalesces.
The Identity politics activists and the those on the State-funded payroll are often indistinguishable. Constituency workers, researchers, SPADS, the remunerated staff of an ever-expanding nebula of Identity pressure groups given astonishing amounts of public money despite the vanishingly tiny numbers they purport to represent.
Under examination, superficially “grassroots” demonstrations are revealed to be peopled by activists leaching off the tax payers. In some cases, entirely AstroTurf operations are setup by the Executive to give a veneer of public demand where none exists.
In a neat exercise in feedback, these “minority interest groups” are granted seats on the NuSNP NEC to outvote the elected members.
You playing with that A.I. thingy again?
You’re aware of an AI text generator that works in Scots? A cannie find a spell check that works in Scots.
“A breed apart, they formed a Mafia of the mediocre”
Common Purpose anyone?
Good explanation.
“Constituency workers, researchers, SPADS, the remunerated staff of an ever-expanding nebula of Identity pressure groups given astonishing amounts of public money despite the vanishingly tiny numbers they purport to represent.”
Possibly to the extent that there are more trans activists who are not trans than there are trans people.
excellent post. But I fear the audience are either already aware of the iniquities of the process you describe, or are the ones you describe so eloquently who will dismiss it, – those already committed to the dodgy identity ideology , and already receiving the benefits. That’s a tough audience to convert by reason and discourse.
The divide between the hard and soft sciences is itself such a huge problem for understanding society, for understanding why families keep losing loved ones to differences and disorders they can’t conceive of, that the system is so bad at helping. The only thing that merges across the two is better understanding of evolutionary context, helping understand our commonalities as well as diversities.
Well argued …… right up until the final thought, when Craig became Donald Trump.
So independent observers will have the means to verify the vote?
Bollocks to democracy! Forget about the once in a lifetime referendum.
UDI worked so well for Rhodesia. Let’s ape the Rhodesians.
UDI has worked so well for Transnystria. Let’s ape the Moldovans of Transnystria.
UDI has worked so well for Donbas. Let’s ape the Russians of Donbas.
UDI has worked so well for Catalonia. Let’s ape the Catalonians of Spain.
UDI worked so well in 1776 for the native peoples of America. Let’s ape that.
To hell with democratic referendums. Let’s not bother to respect the results.
“To hell with democratic referendums. Let’s not bother to respect the results.”
Aye, to hell with Scotland voting to stay in the EU.
To hell with the people of the north of Ireland having the right to hold a referendum on leaving the union every seven years.
When will the English get a vote on independence from Nireland and Scotland?
Poor old middle England. Most oppressed place on earth, copyright Daily Mail.
When will the English get a vote on independence from Nireland and Scotland?
If you want a referendum on that, you could start by voting for one. Do you expect everything just to be given to you?
It’s working-class England round here. All I do is pay for it.
Really?
A word of advice – whinging gets one nowhere. YOU NEED TO TAKE ACTION
That’s going so well in Scotland, isn’t it? ;O)
What makes you think that the people of NI have any such right? Haven’t you read the Good Friday Agreement? The people of NI will get a referendum when the Secretary of State for NI SAYS they can have a referendum, and not before.
The decision to hold a referendum is entirely in the hands of the SS for NI. The people of NI are in even more of a Tory bind than we are…….
“Scotland” did not vote whether to stay in the EU.
It was the people of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (+Gibraltar) who voted.
It doesn’t matter a jot whether Rutland or Shetland or Banff & Buckie or Dumfriesshire, or any other cluster of counties in the UK, voted one way or another.
“It doesn’t matter a jot whether Rutland or Shetland or Banff & Buckie or Dumfriesshire, or any other cluster of counties in the UK, voted one way or another.”
— Ebenezer Scroggie
Oh but it does. Brexit cut clean across the sovereignty of the people of Scotland via The Claim of Right, effectively Westminster breached the treaty of union, and if we’d had a FM with the courage of their convictions Holyrood would’ve annulled the union there and then.
Ex-Welsh FM Carwyn Jones actually pointed this out in a speech, but Sturgeon being a unionist completely ignored it.
Ebenezer Scroggie: a wise old friend of mine, Sid Scroggie, once told me do not treat Scotland as if it’s a county in England.
You, Ebenezer, refer here to Scotland as if it’s just a cluster of counties. May I remind you that Scotland is a country in its own right; we joined in a union with England and called this a United Kingdom, but can separate that union if we choose to do so.
Can I also say that, importantly, Scotland is a democratic country much more democratic than England, and although we crave our independence we also highly respect the democratic process, requiring a majority before we implement independence.
A majority of seats or a majority of votes in an election will give us the legal rights we require.
I agree with you, Ebenezer, when you say Brexit was a U.K. vote and not a vote by each country in the U.K. and so the U.K. vote stands. However, I think the point being made about Scotland voting to stay in the EU is to say that Scotland was then ignored in terms of what shape Brexit would take.
Surely if two of countries voted to stay in the EU (Scotland and NI), their preferences indicated that a soft Brexit would be better than a hard Brexit but Westminster being ninety percent English went ahead with England’s preference of a hard Brexit, making it well known that it was ignoring completely any input from Scotland about what shape Brexit should take.
Your way would actually be “bollocks to democracy”; not allowing people to change their minds when new information comes to hand certainly isn’t democracy.
I’m sure everyone in Scotland really feels so much better off in the nine years since IndyRef 1… /s
In 2014, much like in 2011 and 2016, a referendum was put before an electorate without first actually sufficiently informing that electorate with a detailed analysis/plan of alternatives to the status quo and probable consequences.
Scotland is fortunate in having recognised that error and began the groundwork for the next IndyRef (though many of us would wish it had been started sooner, been more widely publicised and be used in the very near future, not maybe by 2050…)
England has carried out such a grievous act of harm, yet likely won’t get a chance to begin to correct it until long after 2050.
“UDI worked so well in 1776 for the native peoples of America. Let’s ape that.”
If the history books you are reading say that the Native Americans were in charge of the United States of America in 1776, you should get some new ones.
Fuck.. Well As A Warrior Count me in For Craig and Family..And Our Scotland .
Your post is a rather good exposition of the logic of an anti-establishment partei which won’t be granted its wishes by the hegemony, only by bold, independent action which will probably fail. By the sound of it, the Snat establishment has got used to the corruptions of office and will do what it takes to keep its snout in the trough. It reminds me of Uncle Tom, late of Stornoway, objecting to Scotland County Council as another unnecessary and expensive tier of bureaucracy. I was vaguely in favour on the basis of liking any scheme which diminished the power of the Westminster regime.
I’m sceptical though that a candidate within the Snats can be a genuine possibility for an alternative policy; more a decoy. Good luck anyway.
SNP is fully captured.
Labour Party will soon be joining them – already captured, next to be in power.
“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves”
The Labour Party was captured long since.
I left it when Kinnock betrayed the miners. A decision long-vindicated.
Starmer, successor the the obvious Tory (indeed neocon) Blair, ’emerged’ from occult origins by obscure mechanisms, to ensure that when the Tories (now in reality UKIP) became unelectable even in England, there was a reliable establishment placeman to ensure neoliberal/neocon continuity.
He did a ‘necessary’ job on Corbyn, who almost succeeded in putting a relatively moderate socialist programme into government (he was much less radical than Clement Attlee – or Harold Wilson for that matter). The main instrument of his defenestration was the sleekit recalibration of legitimate and justified anti-Zionism as a redefined “anti-semitism”. Utterly bogus.
And so, as Chris Hedges elegantly has it:
“The architects of imperialism, the masters of war, the corporate-controlled legislative, judicial and executive branches of government and their obsequious mouth pieces in the media and academia, are illegitimate. Say this simple truth and you are banished, as many of us have been, to the margins. Prove this truth, as Julian did, and you are crucified”.
The same forces are working in Scotland to prevent our liberation, because that would mean the end of the evil British state. Their agents are deeply embedded in the SNP.
“The same forces are working in Scotland to prevent our liberation, because that would mean the end of the evil British state. Their agents are deeply embedded in the SNP.”
=====
The same claim is being greeted with great (simulated?) hilarity BTL on The Herald. There are repeated challenges to “name names” – so far without fruit.
Do you know any? If you do, please don’t post them in case our host gets into trouble. He has suffered enough already.
Grousebeater names some of them here:
https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2023/02/24/the-snps-cannibals/
Hopefully Craig will cast more light on the matter with McDonald’s emails.
In the fulness of time, I have no doubt that the facts about the Salmond stitch-up will emerge.
Protection is slipping away from the aiders and abetters. I think, though, NS with her imminent UN appointment (thanks to Brit state nomination) will gain some immunity.
History, if not the courts will judge.
“There are repeated challenges to “name names” – so far without fruit.”
“A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them”
This quote can equally applied to Sturgeon’s SNP.
” He has suffered enough already.”
Whilst I feel sure your concern is appreciated, I have to point out that the depth and breadth of a person’s suffering can never be known by others, why even their “confessor’s” can only guess.
“The same forces are working in Scotland to prevent our liberation, because that would mean the end of the evil British state. Their agents are deeply embedded in the SNP.”
Most of Ireland became independent from the UK and yet that didn’t deliver independence from the forces you mention so formalindependence wasn’t enough. I suspect that would be true of Scotland also.
Liarbour decided to rely on parliamentary means in the early 20s (er, the 1920s I mean) and it’s been betrayal ever since.
Wrong again! The Atlee government redistributed wealth downwards ( NHS etc ) and the Wilson government continued this process, many would argue to a greater degree.
Right, Squeeth you can stop reading now, the next bit is just for the adults.
Adults, I seem to recall, that after the sun had set on the Wilson government say about 1974, when I checked the stats concerning wealth inequality in Britain, it was the most equitable in our history,
Also, If you find yourself beset by yappy ankle-biters put on your biggest boots. Actually, I never take mine off. (No, not even in bed. )
No, no new money went into the newfangled NHS and the working class became liable to income tax. Social spending on poor people didn’t reach the proportion of 1929 until the early 70s.
Actually IIRC the 1970-74 Tories under Heath / Anthony Barber were the last Government to improve the GINI Coefficient.
Wilson came back in 74 and things have been going downhill ever since
The big problem is the vote counting will it be open and transparent?
I for one doubt it will, here’s an idea: why don’t we have international or UN observers watch the vote counts? It’s a terrible state of affairs to have to say this, but this where we are with the current SNP.
What I particularly like about Regan is her willingness to share control of how and when the Scots will decide their fate.
This is in stark contrast to nearly every other leader anywhere else in the world (Russia and China being the worst examples and Westminster not far down the line in relation to Scotland’s right to choose). Alex Salmond also understood where real power should lie and the importance of that source. If Sturgeon understood it, she abused it to her own ends.
I sincerely hope the ordinary members of the Scottish National Party appreciate that power lies with them and not those who espouse leadership.
I have no doubt that demands for a qualified majority are mostly being made in bad faith, but of course it isn’t unusual for referendums asking for radical change to require some sort of qualified majority. It has a very obvious purpose: insurance against a back and forth on an important matter. The problem isn’t so much that a qualified majority is being asked for in this particular instance, it is that this wasn’t even seriously considered for the Brexit vote.
I can think of two situations where implementing sweeping changes based on 50%+1 can be appropriate:
1. In a country such as Switzerland which has a long tradition of important referendums and of voters factoring in the required consistency bias themselves.
2. When the status quo cannot continue anyway and one has to choose between two radical options. In this case there is no reason to prefer one of the two radical options just because it is what will result from inaction.
Scotland does not fall under case 1, but it arguably does fall under case 2 due to Brexit and the prospect of joining the EU after a secession.
The chances of Spain not vetoing admission of an amputated Scotland’s application to join the queue (behind Serbia) to join the EU are exactly nil.
They’d happily take in Ukraine because that country has got so much agricultural and mineral resources, but Scotland? Nah! A few tatties and neeps and that’s about it.
“The chances of Spain not vetoing admission of an amputated Scotland’s application to join the queue (behind Serbia) to join the EU are exactly nil.”
— Ebenezer Scroggie
The above has been debunked on numerous occasions, and anything that weakens Westminster is a boon for Spain, they want Gibraltar, in anycase I think EFTA would best suit Scotland, giving it access to as many markets as possible.
Agreed RoS. The EU elite are determined to disappear up their own arses at the moment. Independence for Scotland is what I want. Efta/EEA would be more than enough..
Ebenezer, what is an ‘amputated Scotland’? You can’t amputate yourself from yourself. Perhaps emancipated would be more appropriate. Also, as the first former EU member to re-enter I think Scotland would be a bit of a shoo-in but only if we want it. If we’re not a desirable bedfellow then why is poor old England clinging onto us for dear life?
A self-amputated Scotland is a form of self-harm.
Ebenezer, So Ukraine would have been best served staying part of Russia by that logic…? Perhaps there is something in your argument but do not see it applying to Scotland and England. Although there is some history there I believe, more so than Russia and Ukraine. Interesting viewpoints that you have, quite thought provoking even if we don’t agree.
Amputating lump of cancerous gangrene on south border of Scotland sucking all the resources from it is not ‘self harm’. Quite the opposite, it’s necessary operation if we want the patient to survive.
Ebenezer that’s complete nonsense, Ukraine has grains not much else. Scotland has oil, gas, electricity, water power for homes and business; fish, grains, food, whisky – whisky, the U.K. biggest export.
Scotland pop 5 million
Ukraine pop 45 million
Scotland surrounded by seas
Ukraine virtually landlocked, Odessa its difficult main port
Scotland traded with EU countries long, long before 1707 Denmark Norway Sweden Poland etc etc all have Scottish people in their history as great mayors, politicians, business people. You need to get your head in a book, Ebenezer, learn about Scotland past before you make silly comments.
The EU would love Scotland as a member and would fastrack us. Ukraine? Nah, too much risk even now after what’s happened. The EU have said maybe in 20 years, we will wait and see.
Spain? They want Scotland in the EU so they can fish freely in the cold waters around our coast.
Get real
“Scotland does not fall under case 1, but it arguably does fall under case 2 due to Brexit and the prospect of joining the EU after a secession.”
There is also the fact that the UN considers colonialism as “a scourge” which “should be ended”, calling for administrative powers “to be on the right side of history” in this regard. A majority vote in favour of independence/decolonisation must be respected, and with any voter franchise also taking account of population displacement under colonial rule. Notable that UN-C24 rejected the UK’s Falklands referendum result because it excluded the descendants of the people who were evicted over a century before.
A great many colonies were/are left holding violated and deceitful treaties from imperial powers and Scotland seems little different. Hopefully UN member states, many themselves former colonies, will respect a majority of Scots voting for self-determination independence even if our neighbour disnae. Any states not recognising Scotland can always buy their whisky somewhere else.
“At the very least, the person in charge should not be under police investigation for fraud.”
Ah, that’s why he is under investigation for fraud, so that he will do as he is told WRT counting the votes in the election. I was beginning to wonder.
Is there any other advantage to electronic voting apart from the opportunities it offers for electoral fraud?
It can be quite convenient when important people can be blackmailed. Remember the Biden press conference where he said that in case of war in Ukraine the US will end Nord Stream 2 no matter what? And when asked how that is possible just insisted there is a way but didn’t want to say how? That was a joint press conference with German chancellor Scholz. Who then proceeded to answer the same question with a lot of words saying essentially nothing at all.
Here is how that might be related to the topic: In the last federal elections in Germany, the Christian Democrats had absolute chaos and in the end did not produce a candidate for chancellor who had any chance. The Social Democrats, in a far more orderly way, came up with Scholz, a spectacularly boring person who was best known for two scandals:
1. As interior senator of the German city state of Hamburg, in 2001 he made the state begin to torture suspected drug dealers by administering them emetics with physical force. This practice had almost led to a death in Frankfurt in 1998, so most reasonable people were horrified but not surprised when Achidi John died from it in Hamburg in 2001. (He got large amounts of water and ipecacuanha administered through a stomach tube.)
2. In 2016, Scholz was first mayor of Hamburg (that is, he led the government of the city state) when the state’s revenue office passed on the reimbursement of 47 million Euros from a private bank whose seat is in Hamburg. This was inexplicable because this money was the proceeds of a crime committed against the taxpayer. The bank and/or its clients had received this money as ‘reimbursement’ for taxes that had never been paid. The fraud involved shipping goods around in a circle (in reality or on paper) between several EU countries. The revenue office claimed, implausibly, that they were afraid of legal uncertainties. Scholz got into trouble when the diaries of the bank’s owner were found in a raid. He solved this problem by implausibly claiming that he did not remember his meetings with the banker at all.
In both cases it seems possible that American services have evidence that could in principle force the hands of the German legal system and land Scholz in prison for a substantial time. Perhaps it wasn’t a coincidence that even before the elections it was clear that such a person would be our chancellor, or that there was a strange consensus among German mainstream media to treat these issues as irrelevant.
It is some indictment of Sturgeon and her SNP (as it must now be referred to) that they have no shame, or sense of responsibility to the people who voted for them, that independence is considered a footnote, a vague aspiration for some decades hence. And on that basis not a subject they need to concern themselves much about. This would have provoked incredulity some years ago, but now the docile loyalists see no issue with admitting it. One could only ask of them, “Well, what are you here for, and what are you claiming these over generous salaries, expenses and benefits for?”
Their sense of entitlement is extraordinary. They are somehow convinced that the Scottish people will keep voting them in regardless because…. eh, they represent er, um, something vague which is best defined as ‘We’re not the other parties, and we’re Scottish’. So that’s fine then. And they can live the life, as can the myriad of special interest groups and advisers who have awarded themselves large grants, jobs and influence in the party. It is a self-perpetuating machine. Physics, however, tells us that such a thing is in the end an impossibility, as the energy dissipates and declines. The horror on their faces as the penny drops is tragicomic. What, they would have to get ordinary jobs which might contribute to society in health or education for example, which pay a fraction of what they are accustomed to. Oh, the shame. What a blow to the wine collection, trips abroad, chauffeurs and big houses.
It has become blindingly obvious now that the very rapid resignation of Sturgeon had a lot more to it than her proffered reasons. She had an iron grip on the party and its finances. Sure, she would eventually move on, but one so committed would normally plan that out some time in advance, maybe at the end of a parliamentary term, and make sure their successor was in place. Why scuttle out so rapidly without notice, and plunge her party into such an obvious state of disarray which threatens its future as a credible force? They are coming apart at the seams and anybody who thinks Humza has any credentials as a future FM and party leader must be deep in denial.
Retrospect is a wonderful thing and already we can see how Sturgeon led them up the garden path. Putting all her energy into social policy around gender is an unbelievable narrow basis on which to claim you are ‘progressive’, and it surely shows the desperate lack of imagination or political strategy for a broad based political movement. Any competent leader would understand that, even if desirable, social change is to be negotiated with some tact, but far more importantly is dependent on the structural issues around the economy, health, education etc. In other words, make some progress in those areas, demonstrate your competence and vision, and social change will evolve in tandem with those things. Get them wrong, or just make a hideous mess of them, and you are left clinging on to them as the only thing you can parade as evidence of your virtues – which in turn people will find increasingly thin, superficial and obvious camouflage. Humza is following the script to the letter, and appears to have no independence (sic) of thought whatsoever. They are so deep in the cult that him and the others think we must all be outraged at the values of Kate Forbes. The opposite is the case for many voters who see her as a voice of reasonable sanity, whatever her other qualities.
That is a measure of the depth of the crisis Sturgeon has left behind with her sudden run for the hills. She knew what was coming down the road and none of it was good. So she dumped it in somebody, anybody, else’s lap. Such is her conviction in her own ability and legacy. What a diabolical farce, a chaotic demise which will take years to recover from.
“Why scuttle out so rapidly without notice”
Could it be something to do with the rumoured UK-recommended (UN?) posting?
Alf, do you think the UK has shafted her on it and she has panicked and bolted thinking her protection has been removed? Or is this the promotion to the international stage that she has worked so hard shafting her country for?
Unlikely. Allowing her to be humiliated is one thing, but allowing her to be destroyed might act as a deterrent to other patsies eager to betray their country to UK/US interests.
I don’t think so, Alf. She would have a much stronger claim to such a job after leaving a successful administration, with her flagship policy implemented. She is leaving, whatever she says, after looking very foolish, if not humiliated, by it. She also knows there may be financial and legal scandal to come, and has given up the position where she might have had some influence on stifling it through her network of legal and media patsies.
GM – my understanding is that the UN(?) posting starts in the Summer, so we will soon know either way. Immunity from prosecution seems to be part of any deal.
Ian – The Brit state has long experience working with and nurturing collaborators in colonial territories worldwide. Sturgeon has been portrayed internationally as a successful leader, and almost sanctified by the msm. Few outsiders know about the rupture she has caused by taking the independence movement up blind alleys and intentionally delaying/preventing independence, which only causes further problems down the line.
Postcolonial theory suggests this is a well trod path of dominant national party elites:
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/07/18/determinants-of-independence-colonialism/
Oh well, if immunity from prosecution is part of the deal that changes everything. It would be the perfect get out of jail card for her (literally). And we can see why she would chuck her supposed legacy under a bus, not to mention her support for independence. In the end it has been all about her vainglorious career and ego, with Scotland a mere staging post on the journey to the kind of international nonentity she craves (with gargantuan salary to match). It seems the pompous preening and posing that she made her career out of may have served her well. Just imagine the endless opportunities for vacuous speech making, not to mention the virtue signalling self-righteousness she specialises in.
> It has become blindingly obvious now that the very rapid resignation of Sturgeon had a lot more to it than her proffered reasons.
It’s far from obvious to me what was the reason for the resignation’s extreme rapidity. In fact I don’t know why she quit at all.
If something happens suddenly and unexpectedly, it’s reasonable to look for something immediately preceding the event, that might explain it. GRR and its prompt rejection by Whitehall is the only candidate event that jumps out, but it doesn’t seem to me sufficient to explain her jumping ship.
So my guess is that there’s something very smelly in the fridge.
The slight whiff of something-a-bit-off is turning into a powerful stench. See the lead story in the Sunday Mail
“FRAUD COPS QUIZ SNP CHIEFS: Probe on indy £600k days before Sturgeon quit
SNP officials were questioned by detectives investigating an alleged £600,000 fraud just days before Nicola Sturgeon resigned.”
The story can be found on the Daily Record website: Cops quizzed senior SNP members over fraud allegations days before Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation (26 Feb 2023)
thank you for your thoughtful contribution.
Do you believe it’s going to be a stitch-up?
Stitch up? 101%.
The possible involvement of Murrell and the rest of the leadership cabal (senior employees as well as “elected” posts) greatly concerns me as they undoubtedly have form in election fixing, Given that the winner will almost certainly be next FM is there some public interest argument for ensuring that the election is independently monitored ?
We seem to have forgotten we are entitled to ask why such responsible and properly informative journalism as this is not routinely available in any mainstream media outlet. Just because we have given up on the possibilty doesn’t mean we should simply accept the abject deriliction of democratic duty, otherwise which complicity is the more depressing — ‘theirs’ (producers) or ‘ours’ (consumers)?
We seem to have forgotten we are entitled to ask why such responsible and properly informative journalism as this is not routinely available in any mainstream media outlet. Just because we have given up on the possibilty doesn’t mean we should abjectly accept the dereliction of duty in the msm generally, otherwise which complicity is the more depressing — ‘theirs’ (the producers) or ‘ours’ (the consumers)?
“We seem to have forgotten we are entitled to ask why such responsible and properly informative journalism as this is not routinely available in any mainstream media outlet”.
It’s no secret – if you look in the right places.
See it all massively and extensively explained at Media Lens here:
https://www.medialens.org
Read also Cromwell and Edwards books – most recently their book “Propaganda Blitz”.
And for a full analysis of the subject read Chomsky and Herman’s masterwork:
‘Manufacturing Consent – The Political Economy of the Mass Media’ (Pantheon, 1988), Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky set out their “propaganda model of media control”.
A summary can be found here:
https://www.medialens.org/the-propaganda-model/
The ruling classes have no intention of allowing mass access to the truth. The billionaire press and state broadcasters such as the BBC are there to ensure that a carefully curated version of reality, favouring wealthy interests and imperialism, is all that most people will see.
We are privileged to have in Craig Murray someone who fully understands this, and can bring a mass of professional hinterland and integrity to his analyses.
Yes indeed. Well said.
” It is not who votes that counts but those that count the votes.”
Scots have somehow been conditioned, despite a hundred years of decolonisation, to believe England must now grant permission if countries are to stop bring ruled by it. No one has been more influential in this conditioning than the party of Scottish independence. Ash Reagan is suddenly threatening to unbrainwash Scots and derail the mighty gravy train. Expect scribes in coming days to start representing her as a kind of Scottish Putin or Corbyn. A threat to all that is decent and good. Her loose talk is putting some meticulously feathered nests at risk.
I joined the SNP as a life member after the 2014 Referendum and lost interest a few years ago for obvious reasons. Therefore I must still be a member and have a vote.
Craig, your article has motivated me to reconnect and vote in this leadership vote.
Perhaps there are others in the same position. From memory there were 100,000 new members after the ref.
A personal issue which the president has had to overcome is that “elements” within the Spanish intelligence service had been tapping his phone, via Pegasus spyware, for a year. Shrugging his shoulders, he said that when you’re trying to “build a new country … you have to assume this could happen”.
— ‘Catalan president visits Ireland to strengthen ties’, RTE, 26 Feb 2023
“There has been no election by the entire party membership for twenty years, nor I believe any other kind of whole membership vote.”
How was this engineered? How were the necessary rule changes made so that pay-roll votes and affiliates could dominate (like in the Labour Party)?
It’s now nearly two years since you assured me that Scotland would be independent within two years. I may be doing you a disservice but in your reply, I do think you inferred that I was not quite the full shilling to question your assertion. We are now into 2023, Elsie has hit the eject button and the SNP are barreling towards the cliff edge at a rate of knots. I will check back in 2025, all the best
What infrastructure decides how the vote is to be carried out?
I had previously read in comments that it was to be a postal vote, not that that would really be any better (given IDOX…)
From a long, long distance away in the southern hemisphere, the pathway to degradation of the SNP in Scotland looks uncannily like that of the Greens in Germany.
Groundhog Day !
Stevie Boy, I thought the action in the film takes place in the same geographical location. As far as I have been “told”, Scotland and Germany are in entirely different geographical locations, are you able to clear this up for me? Thanks in advance.
On another point, I take it you were as shocked as I was concerning grisley Gizlan Maxwell’s criminal activities in Florida in 2006? Is she not the very definition of a unrepentant, predatory pdf file, who is an “existential” threat to British children? Your wisdom would be greatly appreciated on this very grave matter. I could tell by your response to my suggestion that she should be “Begum-ed”, that you had a lot more to say on that loathsome criminal. Don’t pull you punches, I feel like you could enlighten me, so please don’t hold back.
Hard Hitting as usual. If Murrell is in a key position in relation to votes and voting, the election is irretrievably corrupted. Integrity can be assured by Sturgeon and Murrell’s removal from the election process. The failure to distance themselves will confirm their partiality. I am finding it hard to accept that Scotland has become as corrupt as an 18th century Indian dynasty. I notice still no answer to the position of Yousaf’s once-assistant – now MP – Anum Quaiser, whose pathetic, out-of-her-depth performance in WM raises the issue of just how did she get such a position? I guess that is democracy, SNP style, folks.