In their urgency to foist Sturgeon’s nominated devolutionist successor on Scotland, the media are going all out against Kate Forbes for saying she could never vote for gay marriage. But they have not noted that Humza Yousaf also did not vote for gay marriage, he absented himself.
It is absolutely plain that he did this on a totally false pretext. He claims he had an urgent meeting with the Pakistani Consul General to discuss the case of a man on death row in Pakistan for blasphemy.
How can anybody argue with such a crucial mercy dash?
Except that the appointment was arranged, deliberately to coincide with the gay marriage vote, almost three weeks in advance. The chap could have been executed in the intervening period, if that was genuinely the concern.
The evidence that it was a deliberate ruse is cast iron solid.
The Equal Marriage vote took place on 4 February 2014. On 14 January 2014, three weeks in advance, the Minister for Parliamentary Business had entered it into Humza Yousaf’s ministerial diary (as all other ministers).
Just two days later, on 16 January 2014, Humza arranged his “urgent” meeting with the Pakistani Consul General for 19 days later, to miss the gay marriage vote.
This could not be an accident. The conflict would instantly have been highlighted in the ministerial diary – that is what they are for.
At 19 days’ notice it plainly was not an urgent dash to save somebody’s life. The awful cynicism of using such an excuse and sheltering behind the suffering is breathtaking.
Everybody at the time knew that Humza had deliberately dodged the vote, after criticism from the Muslim community in Glasgow (on which he depended electorally) for supporting the earlier stage of the Bill.
That is why this parliamentary question was asked, establishing beyond doubt these inconvenient facts.
All the Scottish media at the time knew that Humza had dodged the vote. Now he is the anointed one, they have conveniently forgotten it.
I might add something from my perspective as a former senior diplomat. The Pakistani Consulate in Glasgow deals with assisting the interests of Pakistani nationals in Scotland, and with visas. You might as well discuss a death row case with a Pakistani train driver as the Pakistani consul.
Consuls are low status diplomats. The Pakistani Consul General’s diary would not need 19 days’ notice to see the Scottish Justice Minister: he would be delighted to get the meeting.
Here is a photo from the Facebook page of the mighty Pakistani Consul General in Glasgow this month, showcasing his important meeting with… a Scot who shoots goats.
The notion that a meeting with the Pakistani Consul General needed 19 days’ notice and could only be scheduled to coincide with the gay marriage vote – is such obvious nonsense it insults our intelligence and damages the moral stature of all those who parrot the lie.
Humza bottled the gay marriage vote and came up with a really unpleasant ruse to justify it, profiting from the suffering of someone on death row.
For him then to attack Kate Forbes for her views on gay marriage – which are at least honest – is sickening.
I fully support equal marriage and I was very saddened at the time to have a slightly bitter disagreement with my old friend and mentor, Gordon Wilson, over it. Scotland has a legacy of social conservatism. Moving on from that is painful for some people.
I support Ash Regan. A breath of fresh air. Left wing economics and urgent on Independence.
————————————————
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.
Humza Yousaf, a nasty piece of work if ever there was one.
I recall in the 2015 General Election in which there was serious expectation that the Conservatives would lose (not by me, I have to say) that one of the main Tory attack lines was that Labour could only win with coalition support from the SNP which would lead to Labour being held over a barrel and forced to give a second Scottish Independence vote which could/would lead to the break up of the UK.
It was an attack line the BBC was happy to run with of course and I remember that after one of the TV debates in the ‘spin room’ where all parties gather to give their responses to the debate John Pienaar set up a joint interview between wee Dougie Alexander and the aggressive, sneering Yousaf. The contrast between the two could not have been starker, wee Dougie, meek and mild, against the angry, aggressive Yousaf. Clearly the message from the BBC was that this was a malign tail that was going to wag the wee dog.
And, of course, it worked, well done BBC, Cameron got his unexpected majority.
Good post, but what I and many others pointed out in the run-up to the 2015 GE, was that far too many people based their prediction on the opinion polls and were only looking at the Tory and Labour vote, which admittedly showed the most slender of leads for the Tories of about 1-2%. What these people ignored, was that UKIP were consistently polling 17-20% and that these people were likely to be the ones who would decide the outcome. Contrary to what some on the left believed, UKIP voters were not all ignorant fools and as many of us called correctly, a good number would vote tactically, to ensure Miliband stays out of Downing Street and that Cameron (under pressure within his own party) delivers their much-vaunted EU referendum. Lo and behold, the UKIP vote dropped to 12% on election day, with the Tory vote jumping by 6% or so and thus delivering the majority. The rest, as they say, is history.
It is for this reason that I find it hard to muster much sympathy for those who voted NO in 2014, then Remain in 2016 and now express buyers remorse. The odds of being taken out of Europe against their express wishes by 2020 were very real, but I and many others received some pretty nasty rebukes for predicting this. That we wanted to be proved wrong doesn’t provide any solace, given the multiple spurned opportunities the Sturgeon regime have since squandered.
You are right to highlight Humza’s lies as it speaks to his fundamental character. But they are also trying to portray him as a good liberal and a force of ‘progress’ (like them) against the Calvinist reactionary Kate Forbes. A continuation of course of a very long running SNP scam: using social liberalism as cover for their rightwards economic shift. (A crude scam Cat Boyd and David Jamieson of Conter have been pointing out forever).
Yousaf has a history.
Caught and convicted of driving with no insurance whilst heading to an overnight function with his not then wife.
Cousin to an in the know early doors approved candidate trading under another name and not the name used when he was, a, director in an Islamic charity where hundreds of thousands of government grant could not be accounted for.
And husband to his second wife a other early doors in the circle candidate using her own name.
And minister and husband who with his wife engaged with individuals who masqueraded as parents to give false information to try to entrap a nursery who didn’t have space for the great man’s child. And then the ultra popular nursery put through the wringer of governmental inspections.
Some, would say that Humza, is, a nasty vicious sneaky piece of work. And from reports in the media they could well be right and then some.
The report by Craig Murray today of him using a man on death row as a ploy to avoid voting certainly reinforces that.
The cousin you refer to with the Islamic charity was a very regular member of this blog community for many years, and I do not believe did anything wrong.
Douglas Alexander……..meek?
You sure.
Douglas Alexander……..rapacious carpetbagger.
I’m sure.
The complaint about the nursery was upheld.
The “entrapment” to which you refer consisted of a newspaper making inquiries about vacancies for children with western sounding names versus children with Asian sounding names. Vacancies for the latter were not available. Vacancies for the former were.
No time for Yousaf here but facts are facts.
To be clear, the Care Inspectorate report finding didn’t concern discrimination:
Humza Yousaf under-fire after Care Inspectorate report into his nursery complaint fails to mention discrimination (Express, 7/12/21)
— Speaking to the Scottish Daily Express, Neil LaL, President of the Indian Council of Scotland, said: “The Indian Council of Scotland are pleased to report that Little Scholars in Broughty Ferry have been given the all clear in that there was no discrimination in the final report by the Care Inspectorate in this sorry saga.
With our investigation, we concluded that there was no evidence of discrimination, which is clearly backed up by the findings of the Care Inspectorate.
“Albeit this was a personal family matter, Humza Yousaf has involvement with the fake nursery applications and has abused his position as health minister and not followed proper procedure.
“He has failed in his role and is unbecoming of a government minister and an MSP. We feel he should be apologising to the nursery staff and the owners.”
Yousaf then tried to sue for discrimination but recently dropped the claim:
Embarrassment for Humza Yousaf and his wife as they drop high-profile legal action against nursery (Express, 7/2/23)
— Humza Yousaf and his wife Nadia El-Nakla have dropped their £30,000 legal case against a Scottish nursery they claimed racially discriminated against them.
The pair launched a high-profile court case against Little Scholars Day Nursery in Broughty Ferry in Dundee after they roped the Daily Record into an undercover investigation into it.
They worked with the paper to submit a number of false applications after being told there was no space for their daughter. They alleged that the nursery responded to fake inquiries from parents with “non-ethnic” names, saying spaces were available.”
I see that The National has an online piece now, highlighting this “discrepancy”… https://www.thenational.scot/news/23336139.humza-yousaf-missed-equal-marriage-vote-2014/
That’s interesting. They had a piece just putting forward the dodgy Humza excuse. I contacted the journalist to say why this was wrong. But when I look now there seems to be nothing about the “discrepancy” and, though slightly changed from the original, it’s just gone back to uncritically promoting Humza’s version again?
McPrävda dae whit wee Peter and the odious Sue Ruddick tell them.
Looks like he is using the old “I got a big boy to do it in someone else’s pants while I had arranged to run away” defence…
Excellent article from Craig. Hopefully a few unquestioning eyes will have been opened.
What’s amusing is that the bovine hypocrites falling over themselves to rubbish Kate Forbes are going to look like the stupidest mammals on the planet when they start trying to concoct a rationale for supporting Humza. And the even more bovine Tory/Slab/Libdems aren’t going to believe their luck as they ream them a new orifice.
Mhairi Hunter is on Twitter begging for “someone” to “intervene” and put out the binfire. Too stupid to understand that there isn’t any “someone”. All the “someones” are gone. Anyone with any intelligence, gravitas, or political acumen was deliberately and systematically neutralised, marginalised, or forced out by Chief Mammy and the Sturgeon cultists. Hunter to the fore.
Her own boss and the “husband” turned the party into a fiefdom, and this is what happens when the foundations of a fiefdom start to crumble.
Oh and you don’t have to be a (former) diplomat to understand the Consul General issue Craig. Anyone who’s every had any professional dealings with a Consul General knows exactly how important their role is. I suspect I could call the Pakistani Consul-General tonight at ten, and get a meeting tomorrow morning…
So, the someones have all been forced out the SNP. Time for the nobodies, then. Remember there are over 100,000 nobodies in the SNP and it’s one nobody, one vote.
Whoever controls the megaphone controls the message, and unfortunately there is a tiny clique of nobodies in the SNP who have total control over the megaphone. They are the only ones whose voices are allowed to be heard, and they’re currently running around lighting binfires and trying to chuck people in them.
So, the next leader of the leading political party for independence in Scotland will be chosen for their opinions about Gay marriage?
Just asking.
Sorry, and GR as well.
It’s a good indicator of their level of bigotry.
Doubts about same sex unions is not just concerned with social conservatism so much as why do homosexuals feel the need to ape heterosexual marriage even going to the length of finding women to bear surrogate children.
All too Huxley/Orwell by a mile.
The latest stats for these unions suggests they are relatively short lived owing to infidelity on the part of one or both partners.
Why bother.
Re Yousaf, he might be dissembling.
https://www.meforum.org/2095/islams-doctrines-of-deception
Allah alone knows.
“Ape” is a nasty framing of gay marriage.
“Ape” meaning “to copy” has been around for 400 years. https://www.etymonline.com/word/ape. Stop looking for offence where it doesn’t exist.
Aping something means not doing it properly.
Here, that homosexual marriage is a fake version of real marriage.
Homosexual ‘marriage’ is a parody of the real thing.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
If gay people want to be together – fine! They are properly free to do so, thankfully now without legal consequences. Legal partnerships are available.
I struggle to understand why they ‘need’ to – yes – ‘ape’ an institution, marriage, which by its very definition is unavailable to them, and its parody is a carefully crafted legal fiction.
Kate Forbes is an admirable, brave young woman (though if I were still in the SNP I would vote Ash as she is sounder on economics, and a true believer in independence).
But I fear Kate has been led into a trap, and I hope Ash avoids similar. The aim is to neuter a major part of the independence movement so tragically ruined by Sturgeon.
The Establishment (which has used identity politics to divide the Left against fighting the true enemy) is quite clearly orchestrating this situation.
The chosen anti-independence champion is being supported by an unhloly alliance of the State Broadcaster, the Yoon press and the Murrell faction which stole the SNP.
We need to get away from the whole nonsense of ID politics and get back to breaking up the evil Brit state, and getting Scotland free.
Hamish McGlumpha
I’m sure you know this, but since 2014 (later in NI), marriage in the UK is the union of two people. They do not have to be a man and a woman but previously they did. My memory was that people who already had civil partnerships got married, and it mattered to them that they were now treated equally. So this is not a parody, it is the real thing.
I think that is to be welcomed, because I remember the 70s – [male!] gay people were perverts, to be kept away from children, harassed by pretty-boy police, attacked in the street. The “is Boy George gay” hysteria, and cups of tea. Now it is (mostly) accepted – chat show hosts, women footballers – and the world didn’t end. (Not so much in Saudi Arabia etc..)
I am an outsider on the election, but for what it’s worth I agree completely with your last point: so far the reporting is all about gender, and now marriage, when surely that sort of thing should wait? Get independence and then have lots of political parties. But how can the SNP give up power, once (if ever) it’s achieved its original goal?
“I’m sure you know this, but since 2014 (later in NI), marriage in the UK is the union of two people. They do not have to be a man and a woman but previously they did”.
This is precisely what I meant by a “legal fiction”.
Whatever else two men (or women) do – they cannot in any real sense – marry. The word and the concept are reserved to those capable of procreating with each other.
I am happy that gay people are no longer persecuted – but neither should their delusions be indulged by the state.
The word [marry] and the concept are reserved to those capable of procreating with each other.
That would mean that the sterile and the old cannot marry. But they can.
I wonder Andrew if you are not trying to be obtuse?
Indeed males and females who marry, can for various reasons be or become sterile, they can also chose not to have children and that does not prevent them from marrying. These are personal matters and are not the business of the state. But the institution also has social and legal dimensions, and for some, religious ones. And it is these the state recognises and regulates.
Marriage is found in all societies, and is of ancient origin. It serves socially to identify children by defining kinship ties to a mother, father, and extended relatives. The state seeks to regulate this by regulating it contractually and because marriage serves to regulate sexual behaviour, to transfer, preserve, or consolidate property, prestige, and power, and most importantly, it is the basis for the institution of the family. That institution is what ideally protects and nurtures children.
For the above reasons it has always hitherto meant the voluntary union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. That is because only men and women together can make children. So whilst individual choices and medical conditions that may render a given individual relationship sterile, what we can say unequivocally, as that same-sex relationships are de facto and irremediably sterile.
Hence they fail to come within the commonly understood ambit of marriage. I have no doubt, that notwithstanding the present aberrant fit that so-called progressive societies have taken in relation creating its parody for same-sex couples in these strange times, in the long sweep of the history of human societies (if indeed we have a future) – future societies will see this for the aberrant spasm that it is, and the true nature of marriage will persist so long as human societies do.
HG: “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.”
Where is that written? In the Bible? Even if it is, any right minded person wouldn’t care. But it isn’t in any case.
Why should gays marry? Because ‘marriage’ has thousands of laws giving rights and responsibilities which are absent in a mere partnership.
Quite some bigotry going on here, I have to say.
Hamish McGlumpha: “…it has always hitherto meant the voluntary union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”
That will be a considerable surprise to a good many Muslims, and a few Hebrew patriarchs, including Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon.
One man and one woman? Seriously? The bible is littered with major figures who had numerous wives and concubines. Many parts of the world through much of history have had polygamy. And where there is alleged monogamy, infidelity is rife.
All these claims for heterosexual marriage are completely bogus.
Personally, I don’t think bigot is good either. These conversations go sour so quickly.
I quite admire Forbes for stating what she believes in, and if she follows Christian ethics then on the whole that’s pretty good. Although a bit weird about sex and pleasure, so I wouldn’t want her to decide what other people can do. (Theresa May going to church every Sunday, but organising Windrush expulsions midweek. I’d call that bigotry.)
But, continuing on, appealing to tradition cuts both ways. Yes, marriage here has traditionally been a man and a woman, with different rules in other places and times. But for centuries, homosexual men have been executed by the state. Why keep one tradition but not both? Or, if it’s good to stop the second, then why not stop both?
Oh, I just looked at the news, and the Free Church of Scotland is accusing Forbes’ critics of being bigots.
“Kate Forbes is standing on the basis of her policies. The fact that she is being criticised for her Christian convictions shows a level of bigotry that has no place in a pluralistic and diverse society.”
I don’t think it will end well.
What latest stats. What I’ve just found searching a bit, is MM marriages seem to have a similar divorce rate to FM, while FF rate was higher.
What does it matter anyway? I love it when anti-gay bigots trot out figures relating to the relative successes of marriages, as if they cared a jot about that. Suppose stats showed, say, red-heads have poorer marriage stats than the general population. Whould the anti-gay crowd start shouting that red-heads shouldn’t get married?
Of course not. It’s nothing but bigotry.
Well strangely enough civil partnerships (same sex) cannot be dissolved simply on account of infidelity on either side. This is what mainly distinguishes them from civil marriage (opposite sex).
Perhaps it’s about integrity, as it should be.
Kate Forbes – tells the truth.
Ash Regan on Twitter: “I am utterly appalled by the misogynistic attacks on Kate Forbes because of her faith. Kate is and always will be a great friend and colleague and it distresses me to witness this. It must stop immediately.”
Humza Yousaf on twitter: “Equality and the protection of rights are at the very core of my being. I have lived my entire life in Scotland as a minority, often having to fight for my rights. I want there to be no doubt in anyone’s mind, whoever you are, that I will fight to protect all of our rights.”
but about the constant attacks on Forbes because of her religion:
Humza Yousaf: (complete and utter silence).
Forbes could’ve stymied the unamended GRRB by voting against it, but she chose not to why? when her religious beliefs are said to be so strong, however she was shrewd enough to cut short her maternity leave to jump on the leadership bandwagon, she has however put her foot right in it this time with her comments.
More importantly she said in a recent interview that she wasn’t too keen on the 50+1% victory, and wanted to build up the indy masses till the figure was overwhelming, and Westminster would need to get around the table.
No its Ash Regan that we should be voting for.
Do you share Ash Regan’s horror of what Forbes has been subjected to? You haven’t said.
The charge of hypocrisy is fair.
Far too many politicians and officials wrongly class social media criticism as abuse.
Forbes sits in Sturgeon’s cabinet, deeply opposed to key policies, but doesn’t resign? No, she merely obfuscates her opposition, by finding excuses to miss key votes.
And this recommends her as a principled person fit to lead the party? How exactly?
It looks like she was putting her salary and pension before her principles.
How are attacks on KF because of her religious beliefs misogynistic?
“I have lived my entire life in Scotland as a minority” (Humza Yousaf)
Well, I have lived my entire life in the UK as part of an oppressed minority, the Scots. Why does Yousaf think Scots fowk want independence if not to be liberated from oppression? He has no idea what independence means or why it is necessary for Scots.
https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/wp.towson.edu/dist/b/55/files/2022/05/The-Socio-Political-Determinants-of-Scottish-Independence.pdf
It’s notable how they all object to Forbes’s Presbyterian beliefs but not to her austerity programmes as finance minister. I struggle to believe in any case that the PMC careerists who dominate politics and media are genuinely passionate about gay marriage. From its inception in our political culture the issue has reeked of empty posturing, latched onto to provide a veneer of nobility to neoliberalism & western chauvinism. Could be I’ve very badly misjudged these people.
Well done Craig for pointing out the hypocrisy of the media and of Yousaf, he (Yousaf) has in my opinion been a failure in several posts such as Justice minster and of late Health secretary. I’d also imagine, he’ll be Sturgeon and Murrells preferred candidate.
As you say we should all get behind Ash Regan’s bid for the leadership, as for Forbes she’s seriously damaged her chances of winning the contest with her views on several matters.
A fake Mercy dash.. Well done for exposing this Craig.
Where is Humza’s humanitarian Concern for Julian being Tortured in Belmarsh… Silence.. From all of the SNP in fact.. Sickening.
Agree, beyond shame.
Headline : Now SNP leadership frontrunner says having children outside marriage is ‘wrong’
From the contentious gender self ID issue with Sturgeon, to reviving the puritanical, societal stigmatisation of the illegitimate, with Forbes?
What next? Forbes argues for Victorian Workhouses to be brought back for unmarried mothers?
If you find yourself in a hole, keep digging?
If the SNP leadership bid doesn’t work out, she’s a shoo-in for becoming a future ‘Ruling elder’ in the Presbyterian Free Church.
As my uncouth, pro-inde Scottish uncle might say of Forbes’ views on premarital sex : Ye dinnae buy a car these days, without test driving it first.
We must assume that you are aware that ‘uncouth’ and ‘pro-indie’ are mutually exclusive.
As indeed are ‘goose’ and ‘gander’.
What happened to the guy on death row though?
Yes that was my first thought too.
Humza Yousaf knows the ins and outs of that guy’s case. He is, I am led to believe, a public official in Scotland. Send him an email. I am sure he will be happy to assuage your concerns. According to the above article he has spent a long time studying this tragedy. Hope that helps.
“The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of two millions is a statistic”
Der Schwarze Obelisk (1956) Erich Maria Remarque
“SNP leadership frontrunner Kate Forbes has said she believes having children outside of marriage is “wrong”.
The devout Christian attributed her views to her faith as a member of the Free Church of Scotland and said it was something she would personally “seek to avoid”.
Her comments come hours after the favourite to succeed Nicola Sturgeon as leader was engulfed by controversy after saying she would have voted against gay marriage if she had been an MSP when it became law in Scotland in 2014.”
So the only alternative to Humza is a nasty little Christian. Good luck Scotland!
Vote for the SNP you little bastards!
From 2009 : More than half Scots babies born out of wedlock : https://www.heraldscotland.com/default_content/12385084.half-scots-babies-born-wedlock/
In a few years she’ll co-author a book with Liz Truss : How to win voters over to your cause
Only alternative? Good luck with trying to read the article in full.
I was referring to the two front runners, one of whom will become leader by manipulation and fraud if not by a fair vote. Yes they are the only two options, because the SNP leadership will be as fair and honest in their approach to this ballot as the US Democrats were when nobbling Bernie Sanders the first time he ran. That’s my point.
“Devout Chris”? How did she get elected?
Looks like Craig is once again looking at the Evidence and coming to the one conclusion that suits his narrative.
I suppose that is what happens when you try to adjust said evidence to your own theory.
Not his theory his *prejudice*
My theory is that Craig hates the SNP with a passion.
So will throw everything and anything he can at them as a revenge mission.
Even to the extent of promoting support for the most transphobic candidate in a party in which he is not a member.
Regan will lose. Craig can then rave “I found another conspiracy”, for Craig’s World.
Regan may well lose, but if the SNP had any sense they’d stop that old fart Murrell from interfering in the process. Let’s repeat the contest all again in a year’s time, sans Murrell. Because it’ll be a year lost and Regan might not be interested in standing again. Forbes was a weak candidate who seems to have KO’ed herself, and anyone with an ounce of political insight knows Humza will be a disaster.
Have you thought, that just maybe, Murrell and Sturgeon might want the next leader to fail? To contrast starkly with their relative success? Being vainglorious is a thing among politicians.
Great stuff Goose! A salutary plop into the Craig’s World conspiracy bucket.. It’s kinda obligatory here. :-
I’m a bit puzzled about how the Murrells will control the election? MIscount the votes?
One of the reasons the GRR etc have become the main issues is that Regan announcedlast week in the Sunday Mail that it was going to be the top topic of her leadership bid. Naturally Cherry is a egging her on.
Priory to that we had expected the debate to be around independence and the candidates’ proposals for achieving it. The Tory media and this blog are, of course, delighted to seize on the triviat and badger the candidates on “morality” matters as a diversion from taking independence seriously. It is an easy thing for them to do. Interview subjects are dictated by the hostile questioners who also have the benefit of post interview edits.
I”m an SNP member and not too impressed with any of the candudates so far, but at least I have a vote. I don’t normally get involved in much discussion of Tory or Labour elections as I don’t have one there. I wonder how many Craig’s Worlders have a vote in the SNP?
“how the Murrells will control the election? MIscount the votes?”
Yes, or rather exercise the electronic version of ballot box stuffing. The candidates have no ability to check on the process at any stage.
> I’m a bit puzzled about how the Murrells will control the election? MIscount the votes?
You can choose to put your trust in Mr Murrell if you like, but I’m not sure I’d have faith in his ability to make things add up. Here’s a couple of numbers relevant to evaluating his integrity and openness: 600k & 107k. Not so easy to “account” for those, is it? (However, like Nicola, we can’t comment on matters currently under investigation by the polis.)
> One of the reasons the GRR etc have become the main issues is that Regan announcedlast week in the Sunday Mail that it was going to be the top topic of her leadership bid.
No, the main reason the GRR bill is such a huge topic is that Sturgeon railroaded it through in spite of its unpopularity with the electorate, then picked a seismic constitutional fight over it with the big boys, and is now running away leaving others to take the inevitable battering.
> The Tory media and this blog are, of course, delighted to seize on the triviat and badger the candidates on “morality” matters as a diversion from taking independence seriously.
It’s hardly “triviat”, given that it involves an unprecedented constitutional challenge on which Scotland is very likely to get stonewalled by the Supreme Court – again. (St Nikki has form on that score … what an embarrassment to the nation!)
If you followed the blog a bit more closely, you’d know that Craig Murray’s overarching priority for Scotland is independence, so a diversion onto other issues is hardly welcome. As he pointed out on Twitter yesterday:
“I do have a hierarchy of issues. Independence is far and away the most important. Which is why I support Ash Regan.
The GRR Bill requires some sensible amendment, ie those convicted of sexual offences lose the right to self ID. Large majority of trans people not affected.”
Craig’s position on GRR is much more nuanced than the kind of polarised moral badgering you’re alluding to.
You obviously aren’t familiar with Craig’s stated opinions, but that hasn’t stopped you rushing to judgement.
> I”m an SNP member and not too impressed with any of the candudates so far, but at least I have a vote.
Indeed. So pessimism is entirely justified.
Ash Regan is the only one who said GRR would be her top topic in her campaigb
” All the other candidates are basically saying, even if we’re dominating in the polls and independence support is running at 70%, none of that matters, because without Westminster’s permission”
Really?. I’ve missed that can you quote them?
I’m voting ABA (anybody but Ash) Have you nominated her?
The only candidate opposing austerity is the only one professed ‘socialist’ Tom cannot stomach.
Make of that what you will..
Dawg,
DAWG> I”m an SNP member and not too impressed with any of the candudates so far, but at least I have a vote.
Indeed. So pessimism is entirely justified.”
Sure. Nicola was exceptional and is a great loss. Scotland will miss her.
But then Ross, Sarwar Stammer and Sunak are not a high bar.
.
“Nicola was exceptional”
I think Scotland would be better off without that sort of exception.
Hi Bayard
“I think Scotland would be better off without that sort of exception.”
Ah not all. She was/is an extraordinary politcian. Held her party together and won every election at every level for eight years. Climaxing with a record vote at council level. She not only dominated politics in her own country, but won respect elsewhere and gave Scotland and the idea of Scottish independence international credibility too. A superb communicator and debater and an awfy nice wee wummin tae.
Wha’s like her? Damn few and they’re a’deid!
Of course, the resignation was a CONSPIRACY* give it a few weeks and Nicola will reluctantly declare that as her successor has failed to capture public support, she in reponse to public demand has decided to return by acclamation, to resurgently lead the nation once more. ” Oh flower of Scotland …..
* ( I thought that bit might win me some bonus points here) .
What basis do you have for using the term phobic against Regan? All I found is that she quit over gender self-ID.
All I found on this by Forbes is she maintains that “a trans woman is a biological male, who identifies as a woman” but believes they should feel safe to do so. Forbes unnecessarily adding the term biological there, probably because of her dualist spiritualist beliefs which undermine her own argument.
GratedApe
Illustrates how dumbed-down and toxic this whole debate has become.
You’re either supportive of the GRRA or a raging transphobe. Little acceptance that it’s possible to be neither.
Reminds of the trans activist on the BBC Question Time panel two weeks ago in Scotland who was given special time to defend having aggressively tweeted, in response to a simple question about why the need for tampons for transwomen, calling the questioner a blackwoman & b*tch.
I don’t think he needs a basis, he’s lashing out. I suspect (pray) that in the ultimate ironic signing off Sturgeon has f**ked up the coronation succession and Ash Regan might be the next leader of the SNP, surprising us all and getting independence back on track.
It would be the best mistake Sturgeon has made
I’m a bit surprsed by the accsations that Nicola had not organised a tidy succession.
If she had that would have been yet abother CONSPIRACY wouldn’t it?
But which succession precedent should she have followed. The Tories or Labour?
I think she is pretty confident she has organised a tidy succession for Humza. Remember Peter is still counting the votes.
I think we can assume God is a lonely hermaphrodite?
A couple of ironies are Christians protecting ‘womens’ rights’ while revereing their highly misogynist Bible
And JK Rowling whose computer games start with a choice of which gender you choose to be
It’s a funny old world,
> I think we can assume God is a lonely hermaphrodite?
No, it’s just that Mrs God identifies as a ‘she/her’ and thus scarcely merits a mention. It would be a bit hypocritical for the holey text to feature women in a prominent role – except for the bless’ed Mary, who was only singled out for getting knocked up by the Big Fella. (Surely His Missus can’t be too happy about that? Maybe that’s why He’s been so quiet for the last couple of millennia?) Mind you, He is partial to a threesome – He just uses a different Word for it! He swaps his toga for a dress and goes by the name of ‘Trinity’.
The Old Testament was so riddled with contradictions, they had to write a New one. Even that was in need of an upgrade … and the version according to Spike was a huge improvement.
Ironies abound, even for all those womens (plural? surely you’re not implying there’s more than one type of woman??) – like J K Rowling. I’m not sure how many computer games she’s written though – I think she just did the books.
Yes, the world is f’n ridiculous sometimes!
Gawd almighty!
What are the range of views on gay marriage within the L*G*B*T constellation? In Chapter 14 on Pim Fortuyn, authors of Bad Gays: A Homosexual History (Verso, 2022) Huw Lemmey and Ben Miller write about an umbrella coalition splitting after rich white gays got access to live-saving drug protection against HIV-AIDS and moved to the mainstream (gay marriage, military service). According to the book, this politically powerful demographic in the Netherlands combined these policies with sometimes right-wing, anti-immigrant Islamophobia. I don’t know anywhere near enough about politics in the Netherlands to comment, but the authors say that there and elsewhere the less mainstream views of the L*G*B*T constellation which reject this reworking of the conservative patriarchal family are generally not being heard very loudly in the debates.
CM – “the media are going all out against Kate Forbes for saying she could never vote for gay marriage”
I see the shitlibs of Novara media are also going all out against Kate Forbes because of her views on gay marriage,etc. Aaron Bastani and Michael Walker didn’t appear to know that she held a high ministerial rank within the Scottish government. They also gave a nod to Humza Yousaf because he had said that he would vote for gay marriage. They didn’t mention Ash Regan. Novara were fully behind the anti-semitism smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn.
If I had a vote, I’d vote for Ash Regan, because I support independence for Scotland. Kate Forbes promo film refers to self-determination.
I think we can both agree there’s a big difference between abstaining and voting against something
I think we can both agree there’s a big difference between abstaining and running away
Nice article. Greetings from Koh Phi Phi.
Frankly I’m astonished Mr Yousaf is their annointed one because I heard him speak for the first time yesterday and was struck virtually instantly that he is a fraud. Not just an uncompelling speaker with a weak pitch but without a scintilla of sincerity in his delivery. Are the SNP high ups who are pushing him so lost in a world of shallow deception and self service that they cannot see what any normal human can? It is very sad because from any angle Scotland needs to get away from the Tory/Torylite basketcase more than ever. When Alex Salmond was at the helm there was a leader who looked like his heart was in that mission. Hamza Yousaf strikes me as someone who regards leading a chained Scotland as an end in itself or even just a CV-embellishing stepping stone.
Does anyone think this despicable person would be in the position he is if he had been say a white skinned, ginger haired, Scottish man ?
Just sayin’
Anthony, there aren’t any “SNP high ups” any more. Sturgeon’s evisceration of the party, and her removal of any talent that might pose a remote threat to her hegemony, means the SNP is now led by a claque of boily-faced student zealots who have never run anything more complicated than a bath. They are currently running around out of control, gleefully lighting binfires and chortling at how clever and powerful they are – “We can destroy anybody we don’t like!”
The “adults” who do remain are all cowardly sycophants who wouldn’t dare to speak a word out of turn.
Someone should ask old Humza whether or not he feels that gay men ought to have the right to get married in a mosque. That should establish what he really thinks.
The way Kate Forbes has been villified is disgusting.
I think the establishment plan on using Scotland’s social conservatism to bring down the snp, and bring Scotland back to either of the two main bigot parties.
The marionettes of Thames House and Foggy Bottom have been busy in the last 24 hours.
Stewart McDonald invites us to imagine an independent “Scotland 2050”. McDonald attended the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars for a “Defeating Disinformation Workshop” (3rd – 9th Feb. 2020). The WWICfS is a de facto annex of the State Department.
Alyn Smith says nothing other than a referendum conducted under a S30 order will be legitimate, knowing full well that a S30 will NEVER be granted.
Smith’s personal staff includes a Senior Case Worker who spent 27 years working for GCHQ Cheltenham finishing as a Senior Executive Officer. It would of course be unreasonable to infer that the individual in question was necessary a plant, Craig after all worked in the belly of the beast and is wholly committed to the cause.
I hope Stewie’s emails pour light onto these Black Ops that are shaping Scotland’s destiny. What would happen if SNP voters were forced to confront the reality of what is going on?
McDonald and Smith have never been this brazen before. Are their case handlers emboldened or concerned?
A third option? The present time of turmoil is an opportunity to manipulate the SNP into tearing up the first article of its constitution and formally become the party of devolution.
This would be a miscalculation. Entirely removing the pretence that the SNP stands for independence would leave the field open to ALBA or others.
Cut down an auld diseased tree and a vigorous new sapling will take advantage of the gap created in the canopy.
Thank you Vivian, and may I take this opportunity to draw your attention to this book, whose subject matter is entirely on topic.
https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/article/issue/85/the-scottish-national-party-and-the-american-state/
“Circumstantial connections between Sturgeon’s inner circle and the Anglo-American Security State are copious.”
The British American Project gets a mention too.
I may not be entirely unfamiliar with the author of that essay ?
Thank you Craig. I feel it cannot be emphasised too strongly or too often that our elected leaders are selected for us from behind closed doors by an unknown deep state and then crowned with the assistance of the media.
There are a number of world leaders of a particular type who appear to have been selected because they are young, attractive, intelligent, and score highly on the corporate “big five” personality traits – “extravert”, “open”, “agreeable”, “conscientious”, “calm”. Justin Trudeau and Jacinda Ardern exemplify the type but there are many others. Above all, they are “biddable” – they do as they are told by their “mentors”. However these people do not have the stomach for a fight and are being replaced by tougher characters as the US empire finds itself increasingly on the ropes.
hamish Mcglumpha :” if I were still in the SNP I would vote Ash as she is sounder on economics, and a true believer in independence.”
Well one must say in response – if true, that’s her goose cooked. Expect a “Jeremy Corbyn” to be done on her.
Less of the goose cooking business please. lol
Ash Regan is the only one prepared to directly link her success and the party’s success to independence. This is a clear, unequivocal goal-oriented approach. She should challenge the other candidates to do the same. All the other candidates are basically saying, even if we’re dominating in the polls and independence support is running at 70%, none of that matters, because without Westminster’s permission, via a section 30 order, nothing is happening on the independence front.
Claim of Right is a founding principle of the Treaty of Union and it was reasserted by a cross-party Scottish Constitutional Convention held in 1989. “The sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs.” I’ve read the David Leask, Herald piece trashing that idea, but Scotland was never a colony of England, nor defeated in battle. The union was a voluntary arrangement. It therefore makes little sense for Scotland’s politicians to have to beg London for permission to implement the will of a majority of Scots?
OK Goose. assuming you’re gender=gander is ‘female’ gander being the male equivalent-so not personal-any goose or gander will do for cooking.
I am sure you got my point that whatever happens-it wont be a ‘free’ election. Ash will be reduced to, ash by corbynisation or is that carbonisation, at any rate there will be a media roasting of anyone not part of the happy post-sturgeon settlement.
I was shocked to read that the Murrell (he/him)male castrato/eunuch (servant of our great fishy Scottish trans movement ) will be entrusted to count the votes.
Genuine question- isn’t there an alternative for a process of such compelling political interest in Scotland. After all, the ‘Murrell'(he him/it) has form for less than scrupulous interpretation of his duties? Reluctance to pass that duty over to a less partisan fonctionnaire would in itself surely be questionable.
dgp, I think you just created a new word, “Corbynisation”. I have never heard it before.
A jewel in an amusing comment, thanks.
Scotland never defeated in battle?
Hhmmm! A bit of historical revisionism there.
Has the first battle of Falkirk been airbrushed out of History? Culloden too?
“Scotland never defeated in battle?”
To the extent that it led to a permanent takeover of the functions of the state, no. The Battle of Falkirk was not like the Battle of Hastings for all that the Scots lost on that day.
The First Battle of Falkirk was comprehensively lost by Scotland. So was Culloden.
It was Scotland which took over the UK State when James VI rode South and seized control of Whitehall, quite literally by the back door in a place which is still referred to as Scotland Yard.
It wasn’t the British Parliament which took over The Estates of Scotland. It was the Scottish parliamentarians who went South to line their own pockets at English expense.
The UK was created by Scotsmen, for the benefit of Scotsmen, in two stages spaced approximately a hundred years apart.
Culoden was not a defeat of Scotland. It was a victory for one side in a dynastic struggle over another- the House of Hanover over the House of Stuart; Hanoverians over Jacobites.
That really is a misleading characterisation, though it is what the British state was always keen to teach.
Read any of the current historigography. Murray Pittock’s “The Myth of the Jacobite Clans” is an excellent starting point.
With all due respect, the SNP and the independence movement are looking rather provincial.
Surely that depends on where one is standing? Your assertion may have some resonance to keyboard warriors in natoland and their controllers but in London and Washington the planners have nightmares about an independant Scotland. Indeed they have nightmares about any form of independance , anywhere. Their stated goal is full spectrum dominance across all domains.
Remember, sloppy assertions will not be tolerated.
I have to say I’m quite surprised but perhaps the board is being trolled more than usual. I doubt that the US empire had nightmares about an independent Scotland when Salmond et al. wanted to stay in the EU and NATO.
A couple of references above to SNP vote counting. I was a member for 3 years from Sep 2014 (then I decided party politics weren’t my thing), and my vote for depute went through mi-vote (mi-voice), a 3rd party.
https://www.mi-voice.com/managed-services/balloting-services/e-voting/
YIR2, well hopefully that answers my question
Hopefully. There’s many a slip twixt cup and lip, and though I don’t think Murrell is fiddling the vote, I always keep an open mind. In fact my mind is so open it’s practically empty.
Regan and Forbes asking for verification on Twitter. Comments suggest the company will be in Murrells control. I suppose that might mean that Murrell will appoint/commission the company and thus have influence over what they do. (It really must be emphatically distanced from anything Murrellish.)
I think we are creating a Scottish neologism here: a “Murrell” noun – corrupt manipulation by a quasi-official to favour a particular electoral or judicial outcome. (To replace ‘gerrymander”, which has American etymology.) See also verb to Murrellise. As in “the Scottish Leadership election was Murrellised”. See also the Glaswegian colloqial expression “lying pos”.
I think “murrell” as a noun, as in “he was found guilty of false representation and murrell”, has a pleasing mediaeval ring to it, but the verb should also be “murrell”, like with “murder”.
There seems to be considerable misgivings about Humza’s candidature, not just the running away from votes.
Ian Lawson writes about the insecurity felt by the Indian, Sikh, Muslim and Jewish interreligious community.
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2023/02/22/faiths-united-by-humza-yousaf/#like-15091
Craig Murray –
@CraigMurrayOrg
3h
I do not support Humza, another Independence blocking SNP man.
But honesty is important. The “Indian Council of Scotland” and “The Muslim Council of the UK” are fake, astroturf organisations like “Vote No Borders”.
Craig Murray –
@CraigMurrayOrg
3h
The “Indian Council of Scotland” is a Tory front that gave an award to Rangers and explicitly supports Arlene Foster to be involved in Scottish politics.
The “Muslim Council of the UK” is dishonestly confusing with the eminent “Muslim Council of Britain”.
I’m in no way defending Yousaf, he’s utterly toxic and we must vote for Ash Regan as the new SNP leader – she’ll work with Alba to reach our goal. However, the ICS isn’t what you think it is. If this is anything to go by, it’s against Scottish independence, period:
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Findian-council-scotland-claim-new-28641874
Indeed RoS, and “Neil LaL, chairman of the Indian Council of Scotland, attended the launch of Together UK Foundation in London last week” (December), and is chairman of a Scottish Conservative group, according the National in 2021.
Oh, I see Craig is already on this.
Fareweel to a’ our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory,
Fareweel ev’n to the Scottish name,
Sae fam’d in martial story.
Now Sark rins o’er the Solway sands,
And Tweed rins to the ocean,
To mark where England’s province stands –
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation.
—
They’ll call it ‘being Humza’ed’
cont.
What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro’ many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few
For hireling traitor’s wages.
The English steel we could disdain;
Secure in valour’s station;
But English gold has been our bane –
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation.
O would, or I had seen the day
That treason thus could sell us,
My auld gray head had lien in clay,
Wi’ Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour,
I’ll mak’ this declaration;
We’re bought and sold for English gold –
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation.
Goose.
Alastair McDonald’s version is the best in my opinion, as is his Hey Johnny Cope.
Parcel O’ Rogues, sung by Alastair McDonald – YouTube, 3m 17s
Hey, Johnnie Cope, sung by Alastair McDonald – YouTube, 3m 16s
I like this one, but as far as I know there’s no youtube version of it.
There was once a day, but old Time was then young,
That brave Caledonia, the chief of her line,
From some of your northern deities sprung,
(Who knows not that brave Caledonia’s divine?)
From Tweed to the Orcades was her domain,
To hunt, or to pasture, or do what she would:
Her heav’nly relations there fixed her reign,
And pledg’d her their godheads to warrant it good.
…
Thus bold, independent, unconquer’d, and free,
Her bright course of glory for ever shall run:
For brave Caledonia immortal must be;
I’ll prove it from Euclid as clear as the sun:
Rectangle-triangle, the figure we’ll chuse:
The upright is Chance, and old Time is the base;
But brave Caledonia’s the hypothenuse;
Then, ergo, she’ll match them, and match them always.
mmm, “bold, independent, unconquer’d, and free”
I’ll drink to that.
Steeleye Span recorded a fine rendition of ‘Parcel of Rogues’ back in 1973:
Steeleye Span: Rogues in a Nation (2009 Remaster) – YouTube, 4m 35s
I think this might be it.
James Malcolm: Robert Burns – Caledonia – YouTube, 4m 58s
Jings thanks, yes it is!
Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh
Thanks for that version: it’s very sombre and pretty good, I also like the sterheid tiles in the piccy, it reminds me of my auld close I used to live in.
Maddy Prior the singer is as near as you can get to a Scot while still being English. In fact if the English Unionists have their way and rebuild Hadrian’s Wall, then Stones Barn she set up for music courses will be in Scotland I think.
With apologies to Iain Banks:
“I’m not arguing there are no decent people in the SNP but they’re like sweetcorn in a turd; technically they kept their integrity but they’re still embedded in shit”
You people who want independence for Scotland have got to stop obsessing about the trees and see the forest.
You have a serious political problem: the people who don’t want Scottish independence have taken over the party, the SNP, which attracts most of the votes of people who do want Scottish independence.
Of course this is a deeply dishonest strategy (pioneered, as far as I know, by Tony Blair who took over a traditionally socialist party in order to perpetuate Thatcherism), but it’s also devastatingly effective.
It’s going to take creative minds, and clear focus on the main goal, to defeat it. I sympathise with your cause. But as of now, I see no hope of progress.
“We’re all doomed” Private Fraser, Dad’s Army
Blair is a mere “jenny-come-lately” to this party. The moment “democracy” developed in ancient Greece this “deeply dishonest strategy” appeared and was commented on by observers. There is a view, which I favour, that the history of Republican Rome, was simply one of how to short circuit an authentic “Tribune of the Plebs”
and thwart the will of the people.
There is an alternative, I believe it is called Alba. I know nothing of this “Alba” save the name Salmond. but if he is to be an authentic “Tribune of the Plebs”, there is only one way to find out.
Therefore, I say to all you proud Scots, “suck it and see”
I stand corrected, history is obviously not my strong point.
Apart from that, I take it you more or less agree with me.
“Apart from that, I take it you more or less agree with me.”
No I completely disagree with you. I don’t know – you don’t know – nobody knows.
But I know why I disagree with you. You can’t simply sentence a whole nation, especially a nation so politically benighted as Scotland, to dwell in “the quietude of despair”, especially when nobody knows the outcome. You might might be correct in the analysis you provide (I know nothing of the current political situation in Scotland) regarding this current moment but I am old enough to remember the collapse of the Eastern Block. To say it happened overnight is NOT an exaggeration.
I was watching something like the TV program “Newsnight” .the day before the collapse. The show featured the usual MIC droids, all COMPLETELY certain that the disturbances in the Soviet Union would amount to nothing. When I got up the next day the Soviet Union was gone. Do you take my point?
To offer an analysis, especially one as hopeless as yours, seems nihilistic, at best. All political parties contain sell-outs, from democracy’s birth to right now – it was ever thus, thats why I mentioned the historical context.
If you wish to explore the implications of YOUR analysis (“But as of now, I see no hope of progress”) in greater detail, read Philip K Dick’s story ” Faith of Our Fathers” When I had the same thought as you are offering, I found the answer in that story. The line between analysis and fear mongering is very fine.
Ludwig Wittengenstein suggested we are “bewitched” by language. It is so powerful that, on occasion, instead of “us” using “it”, “it” uses “us”. I am “bewitched” by language ten times a day and I am very old and have a lot of experience. The dangers of linguistic “bewitchment” only cease when we die.
” The moment “democracy” developed in ancient Greece this “deeply dishonest strategy” appeared and was commented on by observers”
Defeating this strategy would require a thorough understanding of who is promoting it, why and how and for that knowledge to be widely understood not just in this case but as a general understanding of the strategy. Here’s a lawyer who wants to fight the current internal SNP coup within the party, but I think it’s time to go to law. Isn’t an association like the SNP legally a contract between its members?
@Roger The only socialism in the Liarbour partei was strictly of the national variety.
Yes but it was traditionally socialist, in that people did and, amazingly, still do, associate the Labour party with socialism of the non-national variety.
“It’s going to take creative minds, and clear focus on the main goal, to defeat it. I sympathise with your cause. But as of now, I see no hope of progress.”
And since its a conspiracy they will have to be conspiracy theorists.
yesindyref2
If the unionists move the border to Hadrian’s Wall they will lose that part of England which lies between Hadrian’s Wall and Scotland.
Stop the press!
Shock, horror! Sam Smith has been ‘misgendered’ by Bob Geldof in a This Morning interview. Geldof referred to Smith as ‘he’ rather than the ‘they / them’ Smith prefers. As I understand it, misgendering is a crime punishable with death by stoning in Scotland?
When will this torturous BS end, with those pushing this repressive woke crap told to stick their pretentious gender pronouns where the sun don’t shine?
Still time for a late entry to save the snp conservative types. Robertson changes his mind, dumps the kids and rides to the rescue?