I flew back from Amsterdam yesterday after a month spent campaigning for Julian Assange, much of it organisational rather than public. Seeing Scotland with perspective after a month away really brings home the astonishing state of Scottish politics, particularly around the Independence movement.
Support for Independence is as consistently high as it has ever been. Polls this last six months have varied between Yes lead and No lead, but almost all have been in the 48‒52 region for either side, i.e. a tie within the margin of error.
The Unionist vote continues to be very heavily weighted by older people – in this YouGov poll the 65+ age group are 72‒28 Unionist, and that is very much in line with the 2014 referendum and all polling since.
It is not unreasonable to conclude that the slow upward trend in the Independence vote since 2014 is a result of new 16- to 24-year-olds becoming eligible at 60% Independence support, replacing 72% Unionist voters who leave us.
It makes more sense that Unionism relates to a generation’s experience of the Second World War and its aftermath and the last days of Empire, rather than being a form of mental decline that awaits everybody as you get older – though the Project Fear pensions scare tactics of the unionists will have played a part.
I am fascinated by the volume of churn. According to this poll – and it is not an outlier in this respect – 20% of 2014 No voters have switched to Yes, but 17% of Yes voters have switched to No.
That is a remarkable level of volatility. The extraordinary campaign gain of 15 percentage points by Yes in 2014 is therefore certainly repeatable. I would argue that the overwhelmingly unionist ambient media, absent any Independence campaigning, means that a campaign by both sides could only lead to a swing in one direction.
But the paradox which is much more interesting is that there has been a very significant opinion poll swing of support away from the SNP, ostensibly the party of Independence, without any commensurate drop in support for Independence.
This has not been accompanied by any significant growth in support for other pro-Independence parties, including Alba.
The answer to this conundrum is fascinating. There remains massive support for Scottish Independence among Labour voters in Scotland.
I have this last ten years pointed out from time to time that, very consistently, opinion polls in Scotland show about a quarter of Labour Party voters in Scotland support Independence. The obvious explanation of the current surge in Labour support while support for Independence remains firm, is that this percentage has increased.
About one third of those intending to vote Labour in this recent YouGov poll, voted for Independence in 2014.
If I may be so presumptuous as to explain what you are looking at, in a sample of 1103 Scottish adults, approximately 440 both said they were intending to vote Labour at the UK General Election, and were prepared to say how they voted in the 2014 referendum.
Of these Labour voters, approximately 297 had voted No and approximately 143 had voted Yes. The Labour Party needs to accommodate itself to the Independence support in its own ranks.
In another specific question the poll shows that 40% of Labour voters in Scotland support a second referendum in the next five years. That will be difficult to manage for uber-conservative Starmer once the Establishment get him into Number 10.
The poll throws up some more interesting reflections on the complexities of Scottish politics. Only 78% of SNP voters would definitely vote for Independence, a factor which plainly looms large in the mind of their careerist MPs.
40% of Green voters oppose Independence. Independence is supported by a significantly higher proportion of Reform UK voters than Green voters. I still haven’t quite got my head round who Reform UK are, and why they feature in polls. Has anybody ever actually met one of them?
The SNP is now looking to move on from the Sturgeon debacle, with a leadership and party machine absolutely dedicated to denial that she did nothing to attempt to achieve Independence, while splitting the party by her extreme identity politics ideology.
It is interesting that the haemorrhage of party members from the SNP preceded the haemorrhage of public support – I suppose the members had a closer view of the abandonment of effort on Independence – but the public have now definitely caught up.
So the SNP are faced with an obvious strategic need to re-establish the connection between voting SNP and Independence. This has led to a very strange outcome. Firstly, the much vaunted special party convention in Dundee to debate the issue decided – nothing whatsoever. It didn’t really debate the issue, rather being a procession of leadership-directed drones.
The SNP is now sending out an entirely mixed message. It is doubling down on the Sturgeon identity politics agenda – pursuing gender recognition reform forlornly through the courts, and astonishingly pressing ahead with its crazed proposal to abolish jury trials in sexual assault cases. The rationale for this appears to be that all men are evil, so if you send some innocent ones to jail it’s all good anyway.
On top of which the SNP has suspended Angus Brendan MacNeil MP and Fergus Ewing MSP, for the crime of entering politics to further the cause of Independence, rather than to take some kind of continuous assessment programme in political correctness.
So Sturgeonite business as usual appears to be underway. Then suddenly Humza Yousaf pulled a six-foot rabbit named Harvey right out of the hat, by endorsing a plan that if the next Westminster general election returns a majority of SNP MPs, then the UK government would be invited to open negotiations on Independence.
Which is, on the face of it, quite a shock. A majority of MPs could be attained on 40% or even less of the popular vote. This linking of the inadequacies of First Past The Post elections with Independence potentially hoists the unionists with their own petard – but what does Yousaf really mean?
A fundamental question is how this is different to asking for an S30 order for a referendum. The SNP position is that, if Westminster refuses an S30, that just has to be accepted as Westminster is sovereign.
So the 600 billion dollar question is this: what does Yousaf do when Westminster simply says “no” to his request to open negotiations?
Because the truth is, without a threat of simply declaring independence and standing on Scotland’s right of self-determination, Yousaf’s new position simply amounts to stopping begging London on his knees for an S30 Order, and begging London on his knees for negotiations instead.
There is enormous distrust of Yousaf’s motives in the Independence movement. By making the criterion the election of SNP MP’s – as opposed to a majority of votes for Independence-supporting parties – Yousaf has provided, in theory, an answer to that burning question of how the SNP re-aligns the Independence vote to itself.
Not only does he provide a motive for those Independence supporting Labour voters to back the SNP, he also builds a powerful defence against other Independence supporting parties – Alba, ISP and in a lesser sense the Greens.
If Yousaf meant his new policy, this could obviously deter other Independence supporting parties from standing candidates against the SNP and splitting the vote, fatal under FPTP.
I have personally so far taken the view that Alba must stand against the SNP because the SNP has zero intention of progressing Independence, and Alba must ultimately supplant it. But if the SNP were saying a majority of SNP MPs would be taken as a mandate for Independence, I might feel compelled to support them and not split the vote; there are a number of key constituencies where even 2 or 3% to Alba could cost the SNP the seat.
But the difficulty here is that Yousaf does not seem to say an SNP majority would be a mandate for Independence: he seems to be saying that it would be a mandate for negotiations. That appears something of a straw man – hopefully the upcoming SNP conference might provide some clarity about what this means, but plainly the ambiguity to date is deliberate.
Yousaf is to be congratulated on tactical cunning. His posturing has put many of his radical pro-Independence opponents like me into a false position.
Having for years criticised the SNP for doing nothing to forward Independence, many now find themselves echoing unionist concerns that a majority of seats through FPTP is not a sufficient mandate and that the bar should be higher.
I however would be perfectly happy with the Yousaf formula – if I believed he meant it.
My conclusion from all this is that Alex Salmond is a far better political strategist than I am. That is of course obvious, but I am occasionally guilty of thinking myself more clever than I am.
While I have been pushing that genuine Independence supporters must commit to fighting the SNP everywhere, Salmond has kept his powder dry, refraining from standing in the coming by-election humiliation of the SNP in Rutherglen, and continuing to plug his proposal for an electoral alliance of pro-Independence parties, despite its contemptuous rejection by the SNP.
The advantage of this is that Salmond is not wrong-footed by Yousaf’s apparent conversion to radical pro-Independence action. He has his powder dry to move either way.
I confess I am wrong-footed. I don’t believe in Yousaf’s good faith; but it is not a convincing electoral position to tell people not to vote for the SNP as the established pro-Independence party in order to further Independence, when the SNP do actually for once take a radical Independence position.
It will be an interesting autumn.
I was talking yesterday to SNP MP Tommy Sheppard about an immigration case where I am helping one of his constituents. I found myself wishing that we were back in the halcyon days of 2014 when we were all working together in a good cause. Tommy features in the photo that is still atop my personal Facebook page.
I cannot understand what drives the SNP to expend all its energy on culture wars issues. If the SNP is serious about attaining Independence in the short term, can it not put its culture wars agenda on ice, as matters to be decided in an Independent Scotland?
But they plough on regardless. This is campaigning yesterday in the Rutherglen byelection.
📣 “We’ve got a real chance to send a shockwave in this community and send a message that we reject Brexit and Westminster austerity.”
The campaign hub in Rutherglen is absolutely packed as @KatyLoudonSNP and @HumzaYousaf join activists for the #SuperSaturday.#VoteSNP pic.twitter.com/95Rj3Dcefd
— Olaf Stando 🌻 (@OlafSNP) September 30, 2023
The flags are not saltires. The core message does not include Independence. The SNP is simply determined to make life impossible for those of us who dearly wish to bring the Independence movement together again.
I find it impossible to believe that the SNP is not under the control of the UK security services. No other explanation of the party’s bizarre and counterproductive behaviour makes any sense.
————————————————
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
In the unlikely event Humza’s indy posturing is in good faith how does he extract anything from Starmer? That arrogant porcine buffoon is as implacably opposed to independence as Douglas Ross and will become even more reactionary in office. Picture his response once the rightwing press start pretending he is a dangerous radical squatting in Downing Street. He would be dancing if Humza showed up issuing demands. It would work out perfectly for both of them.
The only way that Humza will be able extract an Indyref out of Starmzy, U Watt, is for there to be a hung parliament at Westminster in which Labour needs SNP (along with Lib Dem & minor party) support to be able form a government. Of course, Starmzy has said he won’t do a deal with the SNP under any circumstances, but we all know he tells lies (and then, despite video evidence to the contrary, denies having ever told them*).
Such a hung parliament is obtained by the Tories losing 53 – ca. 100 (depending on how the SNP does) seats, compared to end of year 2019. At the moment, they’re forecast to lose more than that, with Labour having a 65% chance of getting an overall majority (according to Betfair), and maybe a 15% chance of being able to form a minority government with only Lib Dem (or Lib Dem plus minor party) support. So the best way for Independence supporters to achieve their goal getting another referendum a.s.a.p. is to swallow their pride and campaign hard for the Tories in seats 90 – 150 on this list:
https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/conservative#UKParliament
So, instead of lying on a beach for two weeks in Kos or wherever next summer, why not have a two-week autumn break in, for example, Carlisle, sleeping in a Travelodge and pushing a thousand Tory leaflets a day through people’s letter-boxes? And then, of an evening, why not buy drinks for people in local hostelries and inform them of Starmzy’s slightly outre, never publicly recanted views on life, love & society?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner#Reaction_and_aftermath
* Starmzy’s (in)famous ten pledges are still up on his website. The man don’t give a ****:
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
Starmer is as deep state as it gets. There is not a chance he would enable Scottish independence under any circumstances. In the event of a hung parliament he would simply govern with the Tories in a German or Irish style grand coalition. The Tories would offer no obstacles to anything he intends to do as prime minister.
Thanks for your reply U Watt. Whilst the deep state would prefer Scotland to remain part the UK, it’s not a sine qua non, otherwise it would have never allowed the Indy Ref in 2014, especially as it would have been aware that spasms of Scottish nationalism can come from nowhere (see the 1967 Hamilton by-election).
The UK state at least likes to present an illusion of choice in politics, a myth that a grand Tory/Labour coalition (outside of wartime) – with an official rainbow Opposition consisting of a whole 75 or so MP’s from the SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, the DUP etc – would dispel. Compare that to the Dail in Ireland where the government and the (mostly left-wing) opposition are nearly the same size.
In addition, Scotland becoming independent is no guarantee that it will remain independent. If, post-Independence, Scots vote for Unionist parties to form the Scottish government, there could well be a referendum which could result in Scotland re-joining the UK, just on less favourable terms.
His lies and 180s have all been winked at and suppressed by commentariat because those u turns only disadvantage ordinary people. That would not be the case if he offered the SNP a 2nd indyref. That would provoke bedlam because it is something that would pose a grave threat to wealthy elites and the British state.
Sir Keir is one of their number so he would not entertain the idea in any case under any circumstances. It’s not 2014. That first indyref was granted only because victory for the British establishment was viewed as a formality and it was believed it would firmly put to bed the whole idea of Scottish independence. They would not have taken the risk if polling showed what it does now. So this is one vow you can be sure Starmer is not going to break.
As for an independent Scotland wanting to go back to being ruled by the English .. that was probably viewed as a likelihood by English elites every time a people abandoned them over the last 250 years.
Thanks for your reply U Watt. How exactly would an independent Scotland pose a ‘grave threat’ to wealthy elites in the rest of the UK? It would just mean that an extra £20 billion or so over and above the Scottish tax take wouldn’t have to be spent on Scottish public services – so their taxes could be slightly reduced, without affecting public services in England, Wales & Northern Ireland. Those resident (or owning companies) in Scotland might have more of a problem but, in most cases, it would be fairly easy for them to move both themselves and/or their capital to another jurisdiction.
How many referendums have there been in Commonwealth countries on re-joining (what little’s left of) the British Empire? I expect that, were there to be any, votes in favour might be higher than many people would imagine – especially if, courtesy of the UK government, the citizens could have per-capita public spending levels similar to those in the Falkland Islands etc.
That’s just chauvinist delusion running away with you. Across two and a half centuries there have never been any demands from former colonial subjects for a return to rule by the English. Anytime, any place, no matter how impoverished the former colonised. If there had been they would be waved as a giant flag by empire nostalgists and apologists.
Thanks for your reply U Watt. Maybe that’s because most citizens of the many Commonwealth countries that have seen their GDP’s per capita in today’s money stagnate since the 1960’s – and, in some cases, actually go down – are too pre-occupied with day-to-day survival. Obviously the leaderships of these countries aren’t particularly hankering after the British Empire. The problem is we don’t have any counter-examples – African countries that never left the Empire – with which to compare things.
Mr Murray has pointed out that an independent Scotland might affect Britain’s permanent seat on the UN Security Council. If one can’t help America break the rules, one might expect a decline in one’s income stream – a much greater loss than the paltry 20 billion you suggest Lap Ag. Do you think T Blair’s 100 million or so has been generated by him saying important things to hedge-fund managers and stockbrokers or by doing important things for hedge-fund managers and stockbrokers? War profiteering is much more profitable than profiteering, the clue is in the word “War”. As some old geezer once said “The sinews of war are infinite money”
Being a top A-level maths student has not helped you do the math Lap Ag.
Thanks for your reply Will. In the event that Scotland attains Independence, the residual UK’s permanent seat on the Security Council will likely be going nowhere, as it should still have thermonuclear weapons and submarine-launched ballistic missiles to deliver them (if probably only to the South Atlantic Ocean). It’s just how these things work* – North Korea might be on the Security Council before too long. Rather than being a net boon, helping the US break the rules by getting involved in its illegal wars these past two decades has been *costing* the UK (a ****-ton of) money. I know that inflation is with us once again, but I still wouldn’t call £20 billion a paltry sum. Of course I don’t think Blair is making his millions from what he’s doing for financial institutions now; he’s making them for what he did for them when he was PM – i.e. not putting up taxes on them. As I may have mentioned before, there’s still plenty of bribery in UK politics – it’s just that the bribes mostly come later. Lastly, I wasn’t even a top A-level maths student at my sixth-form, having dropped out of further maths as I couldn’t be arsed with it – too busy enjoying myself in my bf’s Citroen AX – but I still got an A-grade in normal maths.
* See the P.R. China with respect to the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan) circa 1971.
You would not call 20 billion “a paltry sum” because I don’t think you address the issues.
The game is “Narrative Control” and those who play this game think in trillions ergo 20 billion is gnat’s piss.
Consider the words of George Kennan, who like Acheson, “was there at the Creation”.
“Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.”
— George F. Kennan
To Blair’s eternal shame, his antics in facilitating the invasion of Iraq and the slaughter of it’s people, dovetail nicely with Kennan’s prognosis.
And on and on we go – the US means war and war means the US and that means many tens of trillions of dollars for some individuals, not the countries those individuals reside in.
To borrow the words of another, though I forget who, “It’s just how these things work”
Thanks for your reply Will. Can I ask which individuals have made ‘many tens of trillions of dollars’ from war? The richest American, Elon Musk, is worth around $200 billion (always nice to see African-American immigrants doing well for themselves). Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defence corporation, currently has a market capitalisation of around $100 billion. For comparison, NVIDIA has a market cap of over a trillion dollars, and Apple Inc nearly three trillion.
” Yousaf is to be congratulated on tactical cunning. His posturing has put many of his radical pro-Independence opponents like me into a false position. ”
This recent bit of kidology from Hapless Y is only “cunning” if you consider “Baldrick” a strategic genius on a par with Sun Tzu .
At this point the black hole of political talent, failed/aspiring showbiz wannabes and demented *gender* Torquemadas that comprise the Party-formerly-known-as Scottish and (not embarrassed by the) National description will say anything to anyone at any time/place – no matter how risible, contradictory or plainly cynical if it means salvaging their positions as Troughers-In-Chief at the interminable (they hope) In Dependence Banquet.
They are – with the brazen arrogance & bad faith that has become their defining characteristic (+ bumbling incompetence) – attempting to blackmail the pro-Independence demographic by waving this latest chimeric super-carrot and defying people to not rally to the (false) flag.
They can f*** right off, as far as I’m concerned. They are sheep in wolves’ clothing and the only direction they are heading is to the political abattoir.
ALBA had better shape up and stop getting distracted by nonsense like Slavery Reparations and evincing a more combative stance re TAKING our Independence; or else it will follow same road to perdition without having barely left the starting blocks.
I believe you are right, Robert, the SNP elite are thoroughly shameless; being a colonial administration they will promise anything to hold on to votes, but will deliver nothing, aside from more draconian laws which mystify the people and hold back the independence movement they have now ruptured after taking the people up successive blind alleys. Postcolonial theory does of course predict such events. Ultimately the people need to better understand their ‘condition’ and the only remedy for it, which is liberation. This requires a ‘new way of thinking’:
https://peterabell.scot/2023/08/27/the-new-thinking/
What does postcolonial theory say about slavery reparations? I would hope it doesn’t describe such a policy as “nonsense”.
I also imagine the descendants of the Clearances victims would appreciate some form of ongoing financial compensation (not that anything can ever truly compensate).
Postcolonial theory tells us that colonialism is primarily economic plunder, i.e. the theft of another peoples resources, which includes exploitation of the people themselves. Yes, of course there is a case for compensation.
Among many other resources, Scotland is being plundered of its abundant renewable energy which by 2030 could be worth perhaps in excess of £60 billion a year at current prices.
Mr Hughes I much enjoyed the linguistic banquet your comment contains. I would respectfully ask that you to attempt to continue this largesse, where appropriate, in your future contributions.
“The Unionist vote continues to be very heavily weighted by older people…”
Well, I am 75 and if I were allowed to vote (I believe I’m not) I would vote for Scotland to remain part of the UK. That’s not (entirely, at least) the result of senility or nostalgia. I know that a lot of blood was shed and many terrible things done on the road to Union, and it seems a shame to throw away the fruits of that painful struggle just when Britain as a whole seems to have settled down to a reasonably stable state.
There used to be a joke in my family that the “British Empire” should be called the “Scottish Empire”, because of the high proportion of Scots who were involved in creating it. Although the Empire has a bad name nowadays, I believe it did a fair amount of good as well, and I wonder whether it is prudent to start dismantling the Commonwealth from the centre out, so to speak.
There are a lot of independence movements in the world today, and one can easily see why. We look at London in particular and see it as a hub of corruption and privilege. But can we be sure that an independent Scotland would really be better off? The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence. Scots would be rid (more or less) of the London government, but would the newly empowered (and no doubt rapidly growing) Scots government necessarily be any better?
To my mind, the pros and cons are balanced enough that I am inclined to fall back on the old conservative guideline: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
“But can we be sure that an independent Scotland would really be better off? The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence. Scots would be rid (more or less) of the London government, but would the newly empowered (and no doubt rapidly growing) Scots government necessarily be any better?”
Of course we can’t, but that is not the point. Independence movements over the globe and over time have shown that rule by your own, however corrupt, venal and inefficient, is usually preferred to rule by others, however beneficial, honest and wise. If the Scots want to go to hell in a handcart, why can it not be their handcart?
“If the Scots…”
But it is not “the Scots”, in the ethnic sense, however that might be defined, who have a vote on these issues, is it? It is for people who reside in Scotland, whether they consider themselves Scots or not. Interested members of the large Scottish diaspora, in particular those resident elsewhere in the UK or the EU, apparently need not apply.
The distinction between a Scot as an inhabitant of Scotland and as a descendant of a family that has always lived in Scotland is not something that can be settled with any precision. For starters, how long do you, or your ancestors have to have lived in Scotland for you to count as a Scot and conversely, how long can they have resided outside Scotland before you lose your Scottish status. Is it enough to have been born in Scotland? What about Scottish families who have lived in the Caribbean since the C18th? Much simpler to define Scots for these purposed as those who are domiciled in Scotland and will be directly affected by what they are voting for. Ethnicity doesn’t help: what is the genetic difference between a family that has lived for generations in Dumfries and a similar family from Carlisle?
In your simplistic and incorrect assumption of a homogeneous people, perhaps you are missing a reasoned analysis of colonial society that is subject to ‘colonial procedures’; this includes significant cultural and demographic change as well as economic and political exploitation.
You suggest “Ethnicity doesn’t help” despite the fact that an independence movement depends on the solidarity of the oppressed ethnic group.
“Much simpler to define Scots for these purposed as those who are domiciled in Scotland and will be directly affected by what they are voting for”.
Simpler is not always better.
My comment here was largely inspired by a discussion overhead in Catalonia, where I think deliberate social engineering has recently been much more significant than in UK’s Scotland, which concluded that, by simply restricting a referendum vote on Independence to those born in Catalonia, and currently resident, with at least one parent also born in Catalonia, a small majority in favour could be achieved, whereas counting the votes of all residents, it cannot.
“Simpler is not always better.”
How about “more logical”?
“You suggest “Ethnicity doesn’t help” despite the fact that an independence movement depends on the solidarity of the oppressed ethnic group.”
If your oppressed group is not ethnically distinct from their oppressors, how can identification on ethnic lines help their solidarity?
In a colonial society the more ‘assimilated’ native will tend to adopt (or ‘mimic’) the culture, language, values and perhaps even prefer the ‘superior’ identity of the oppressor. However, if the colonised and the coloniser were the same ethnic group/identity, there would be no colonisation and hence no desire for independence/liberation.
According to Professor Michael Hechter: “the colonial incursion of England into the Celtic lands” sought to enforce ‘Anglicisation’ and to make these peoples “English in fact, as well as in name”. However, “such ethnic re-identification was a possibility only for a small elite within the periphery”. Hence “the bulk of the peripheral population will be confined to subordinate positions in the social structure”. In addition to Anglicisation of native elites, the import of a meritocracy mainly from the ‘mother country enables the creation of a “cultural division of labour” which was “formed in ethnic terms, rather than social class”.
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2021/08/15/determinants-of-independence-ethnicity/
“…what is the genetic difference between a family that has lived for generations in Dumfries and a similar family from Carlisle?”
The Carlisle one votes Tory?
Scots don’t vote Tory generally speaking – the Tories are still hated here. The Dumfries family, although it doesn’t vote Tory, has a Tory MP. Go figure.
“Scots don’t vote Tory generally speaking”
So true, James V. Scots made Scotland into a ‘Tory Free Zone’ in the early 1990s. It is primarily due to significant in-migration from rest-UK over the past 25 years that the Tory vote has made some recovery in Scotland.
The constituencies in Scotland recording a stronger vote both for the union and anti-independence all contain significant populations from rest-UK, also oriented towards the professional and managerial class; this confirms the presence of an ethnic (i.e. cultural, linguistic, national identity etc.) divide. All peoples in self-determination conflict are linguistically and culturally divided, and Scotland is nae different.
Getting rid of London will make no difference unless Scotland gets rid of the £, Nato and the EU. Anything less than this is moving the deckchairs….
I award this comment “post of the month.” Scottish independence would be “very nice” (I am not Scottish) but the Westminster blob is merely a subset of a larger superblob and any “escape” would be illusory.
Scottish Independence would enable the Scots to get rid of Faslane (and Coulport), Squeeth, thus making most of them a lot safer. I doubt the Yanks wouldn’t mind too much, especially if the Vanguard subs (or their replacements) had to be berthed at Kings Bay, Georgia, in exchange for a hefty rental charge. Also Scotland doesn’t have to get rid of the EU because it isn’t in it.
The idea that the “Union” isn’t broken – and wasn’t intended to be at its inception – is simply ludicrous. The idea that Westminster is stable is just as ludicrous; see Braverman’s crusade against human rights. Once those are gone, just you see how the stories treat those their former leader (and PM) consider to be “vermin”. The Clearances were horrific enough but that won’t stop these bastards.
That was supposed to read “Tories” not “stories” but they may as well be synonymous; the former are infamous for telling large tales.
What are we seeing here? NuSNP voluntarily (at least superficially) splinters into irreconcilable factions.
* Expulsions from Westminster and Holyrood, pour encourager les autres (to resort to force is to admit to weakness).
* Unnecessary candidate deselection battles (East Kilbride & Strathaven).
* Farcical and untenable candidate selections (North East Fife as one example).
* A bizarre, über hyperbolic Twitter campaign from a previously Jackson’s Entry controlled entity (HuzTaeBeHumza) charging Yousaf with insufficient Identity politics purity.
To understand this we may be advised to take the Algerian civil war of the 1990’s as a case study.
The civil war was sparked in January 1992 when the Algerian military stepped into cancel the second stage of the scheduled elections. In the first stage, the Muslim Brotherhood, aligned Islamic Salvation Front (ISF) won by a substantial margin. This was an existential threat to the party of the previously monolithic, National Liberation Front (indistinguishable from the Algerian military). The ISF stood on the same platform the National Socialist had in Germany almost exactly 59 years previously, “vote us in and you’ll never have to vote again”.
The civil war that ensued began with the ISF enjoying the support of the majority of the people. From this seeming position of strength, the ISF was worn down over a period of years. The brutality of the war matched and exceeded the images of the Napoleonic campaign on the Iberian peninsula committed to paper and canvas by Francisco Goya.
There have long been rumours that from the outset, that Algerian Military Intelligence infiltrated the military wing of the ISF, the Islamic Armed Movement (IRM) and its various offshoots and factions. These rumours are now mainstream to the extent that they are becoming accepted historical fact.
The purpose of Algerian Military Intelligence appears to have been two fold.
* To accentuate the most extreme interpretation of religious doctrine within the opposing side.
* To ferment artificial divisions on the rebel factions based on infinitesimally tiny differences in interpretation of religious text.
These tactics would drive a wedge between the rebels and the populace while breaking the armed groups into ever smaller cliques, who would eventually commit all their energies to a fight amongst themselves to the point of mutually assured destruction.
Is this what is happening now, here?
Substitute Identity politics for religion and it looks a hell of a lot like it.
If so, I was wrong, or at least the British Security Services are in error. I had supposed that the end goal of MI5 was to create a fundamentally damaged, but superficially viable SNP. An Irish Parliamentary Party for the 21st century, a domestic servant.
In delivering the coup des grâce to the SNP, MI5 (and their trans-Atlantic helpers) are in danger of creating a gap in the forest canopy. In such a gap, a new, vigorous tree can flourish.
Yes / No volatility reinforces the obvious need for a super majority.
If shareholders are protected against a simple majority changing the constitutional architecture of their company why shouldn’t people be protected against a simple majority making fundamental changes to their country.
Because it isn’t democratic.
The ability of majorities to kick minorities in the teeth is one of the many flaws in the system that we refer to as “democracy”, but isn’t.
It is hardly ever acknowledged that democracy and human rights are incompatible. Indeed, pure democracy cannot even coexist with the rule of law as usually understood.
If a simple majority always gets what it wants – and in particular can always overturn decisions made earlier – no law can be regarded as permanent.
A well designed constitution looks to protect against a simple majority trampling the minority.
On a major constitutional change a simple majority makes no sense and just invites the exact opposite a few years later, but sometimes the opposite ain’t going to happen.
It’s not easy for U.K. to re-enter EU and it wouldn’t be easy for an independent Scotland to re-enter a (Dis)U.K.
So to say if 51% want to leave it’s democratic knowing that once left a majority the other way could not easily effect a return, well that’s not democratic. It’s just political expediency masquerading as democracy.
You seem to be making a few tacit assumptions, Fwl. You speak of a “constitution” – who is to devise and approve this constitution? Is it to be voted on by the people (democratically), or written and imposed by a small oligarchic clique – like the US Constitution, for instance?
You actually write “… if 51% want to leave it’s democratic… well that’s not democratic… It’s just political expediency masquerading as democracy”.
Perhaps you should take a little time to think through your basic beliefs. If a 51% vote is not democratic, but just a “masquerade”, what would be democratic?
As I understand it, your thinking is that democracy is what the people want – as long as it fits in with your own ideas of what is right. But that is exactly what is incompatible with democracy.
Like virginity and freedom of speech, democracy is indivisible. Either the people are sovereign and have supreme power, or they don’t.
The history of “democracy” is a long series of attempts to simulate democracy while actually keeping control in the hands of a tight oligarchy. That’s how it was in Rome, in England, and in the USA.
“It is hardly ever acknowledged that democracy and human rights are incompatible. Indeed, pure democracy cannot even coexist with the rule of law as usually understood.
Rule by a simple majority vote on all occasions is incompatible with human rights. This is why democracy is not the rule of a simple majority on all occasions.
“Rule by a simple majority vote on all occasions is incompatible with human rights. This is why democracy is not the rule of a simple majority on all occasions”.
So how do you define democracy? If it’s not the rule of a simple majority, what is it? And who says so?
If democracy is incompatible with “human rights”, it seems to me that it’s “human rights” that have to go. They are perfectly fine as aspirations – well, some of them are anyway. But it makes no sense to try to enforce them as laws.
If I am dying of thirst in a desert, what has become of my human right to water? If I live under a dictatorship, what has happened to my human right to political liberty? Those aren’t “rights”, but – as I said – aspirations. Jeremy Bentham put a stake through the heart of “human rights” 180 years ago:
“That which has no existence cannot be destroyed — that which cannot be destroyed cannot require anything to preserve it from destruction. Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense — nonsense upon stilts. But this rhetorical nonsense ends in the old strain of mischievous nonsense for immediately a list of these pretended natural rights is given, and those are so expressed as to present to view legal rights. And of these rights, whatever they are, there is not, it seems, any one of which any government can, upon any occasion whatever, abrogate the smallest particle”.
– Jeremy Bentham (“Anarchical Fallacies”, 1843)
“Rule by a simple majority vote on all occasions is incompatible with human rights. This is why democracy is not the rule of a simple majority on all occasions.”
Rule by the majority on any occasion is incompatible with human rights, at least those of the minority on the losing side. The only form of democracy that has any compatibility with human rights is when decisions have to be unanimous, as was the case with jury decisions until very recently.
Independence would be a major issue for the USA, I believe. Therefore, it is not necessarily fantasy to think that the CIA (and MI6) would take an interest in Scottish politics. The CIA playbook on removing troublesome governments, colour revolutions 101, specifically involves funding and training ‘friendly’ politicians and radical groups. How many Scottish politicians have been across the water for indoctrination ? Who funds the trannies ?
Follow the money, cui bono !
There’s a supreme irony in Americans insisting we remain under the rule of an English King, when they continue to hail their 4th July revolution and subsequent emergence as an independent nation.
American government policy is shot through with hypocrisy and double standards. Just look at the attempt of the Confederate States of America to secede from the USA, as its rulers believed they had every right to do following the precedent of the Declaration of Independence. And of course subsequent events such as the secession of Kosovo.
Independence from British rule for me, but not for thee. Americans did not even recognise Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence, because after all, a state cannot merely declare itself an independent sovereign entity. It goes without saying what they did was exactly what the Americans did themselves, declaring themselves independent from British rule!
It is quite unfortunate, as if they had not been treated so poorly (even moreso by the British and their dated policies that did not understand the situation at all), Zimbabwe might be a very different country today, which I say with some sadness having a personal relation to the place. If one is to judge intent based off of actions, then it would appear the intentions of the British and Americans have always been to destroy and isolate the country and make its people suffer as much as possible.
The only reason I have any doubt that a self-declared independent Scotland wouldn’t be treated the same way is maybe because the Scottish are harder to ignore than Africans whose mistreatment is variously ignored, accepted, and taken for granted; but nonetheless, I recall Obama in 2014 speaking out against Scottish independence, and there can be no doubt that intent would be about the same and all parties would try to prevent independence (as we all saw in 2014) through manipulation and subterfuge, and should “the worst” come to pass, they would undermine an independent – and especially a post-UDI – Scotland in every way possible.
They are all utter hypocrites, the whole lot, and that’s to say the least of them.
The current US establishment reminds me very strongly indeed of the Roman people of the Republic and Empire. They, too, were exceptional and entitled. All you had to do, anywhere in the empire, was to declare “Civis Romanus sum” (“I am a Roman citizen”) and attitudes would change very rapidly and completely.
Romans, too, were convinced that only they were entitled to freedom – they deserved it, as they were the bravest, most principled, most loyal, and generally the best. That turned out to be the case only for as long as the legions went on winning consistently. Cannae, the Teutoburger Wald, Carrhae, Adrianople and other crushing defeats periodically gave them a clue.
I don’t think the USA would have too much of a problem with an independent Scotland so long as they could be sure that Scotland would remain part of NATO and that the Scottish government would not have any foreign policy ideas that opposed those of Washington.
“I find it impossible to believe that the SNP is not under the control of the UK security services. No other explanation of the party’s bizarre and counterproductive behaviour makes any sense”.
This comment more than anything resonated with me and I absolutely believe it to be the case. No anti-Westminster party the size of the SNP could or would be free from infiltration and agent provocateurs from the security services.
Humza Yousaf was inducted into the US State Department’s, International Visitors Leadership Program while in his second year as a humble parliamentary aide to his uncle, MSP.
The IVLP identifies “future opinion leaders”.
Jenny Gilruth was in Washington as part of an IVLP delegation, 35 working days after being sworn in as a rookie MSP.
MPs Patrick Grady and Angela Crawley were on the same IVLP trip as Gilruth. Neither declared the State Department gratuity in their HoC register of interests. The trip took place while Westminster was sitting. Apparently their constituents didn’t need to know what they were up to while “on the clock”.
MP Stewart McDonald attended a 10 day “conference” at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars. The WWICfS is a rather obvious State Department front.
In November, Kate Forbes will attend the Liverpool conference of the British American Project. This Thursday to Monday (inclusive) event takes place while Holyrood is in session. Forbes is unable to be present at an AUOB march she promised to attend (Glasgow) or one on her doorstep (Skye), but she can arrange childcare and traipse to Liverpool to attend a State Department / CIA front.
Aside from the State Department/CIA machinations, the WEF “Young Global Leaders” program also does its best to make sure “democracies” get a suitable leader. Interesting article below about narcissism in western political leaders… Humza’s predecessor springs to mind.
https://gaiusbaltar.substack.com/p/what-is-wrong-with-the-western-political
I expect a similar situation is in place for all Western political parties. Alba will be being infiltrated as we speak. Can anyone devise a counter strategy?
“Humza Yousaf was inducted into the US State Department’s, International Visitors Leadership Program”
If I could be bothered and if I wasn’t afraid, I would set up a site where voters could quickly look up a candidates record on attendance at such things, making it easy to avoid voting for a neoliberal stooge.
I would also add that it is my belief the ferry fiasco is 100% UK Government backed. No ferry(ies) continue to break down on a constant basis without interference. Not just one or two ferries but several…. 🤔
What a lovely wee Cairn ❤
❤️
“I find it impossible to believe that the SNP is not under the control of the UK security services. No other explanation of the party’s bizarre and counterproductive behaviour makes any sense”.
But does that not apply equally to the UK government?
That goes without saying
… UK security services themselves controlled, or profoundly influenced by, who or what powerful influences exactly, would you say, sir?
All comes down to money and power. Not so much a shadowy elite as the corrupt scratching each others backs to advance their agendas.
The USA agenda is hegemony. The UK agenda is ride on the USA coat tails until an opportunity arises to stab them in the back and grab power – the fantasy of Empire 2.
“All comes down to money and power”.
Which are fungible and interchangeable.
The whole party? Hysterical nonsense.
Re: ‘About one third of those intending to vote Labour in this recent YouGov poll, voted for Independence in 2014. If I may be so presumptuous as to explain what you are looking at, in a sample of 1103 Scottish adults, approximately 440 both said they were intending to vote Labour at the UK General Election, and were prepared to say how they voted in the 2014 referendum. Of these Labour voters, approximately 297 had voted No and approximately 143 had voted Yes.’
If I may be so presumptuous as to correct our host by informing people that, according to the (presumably unweighted) YouGov data, roughly 221 people in the survey said they would vote Labour at the next General Election (20% of 1103); roughly 48 of those voted Yes in the Independence Referendum (13% of 367); roughly 121 voted No (27% of 448); leaving roughly 52 (221 minus 48 & 121) who didn’t vote (I’d imagine mostly because they were too young in 2014). So overall, approx 22% (48 / 221), rather than a third, of people who said they intend to vote Labour actually voted Yes to Indie.
Utter nonsense. You are evidently unable to read the tables.
Thanks for your reply Boss. I’m wearing my glasses so am perfectly able to read the table; I also got a grade A in A-level maths. I’m afraid what I wrote is not nonsense – unlike politicians, numbers don’t lie: 20% of 1103 is around 221 people, (and of those, only about 169 claimed to have voted in the 2014 referendum).
Furthermore, we don’t know how many prospective Green & Reform UK voters support Independence, as no data are given for those parties in the table on page 7 of the PDF in the link. However, even if they were, the small sample sizes would make any interpretation statistically dubious. (Note: I’ve checked the link and confirmed that the data are unweighted).
The clue is in “A-Level Maths”.
We don’t do these in Scotland (except in anglicised private schools).
So either way LA is an outsider.
It is correct to say, however, that the (unweighted) sample size is too small to make any safe judgement about the meaning of the data in this particular case – either by Craig or by LA.
But Craig has the unrivalled advantage of being a Scot (albeit of foreign birth) living in Scotland, and furthermore someone who has a deep understating of this subject.
His overall point is beautifully illustrated by Tom Welsh – above – who is broadly in the same age-group as me.
The distressing conclusion (for me) is that our demographic will have to die off before we see independence.
Sadly, for me, a price worth paying – because the chances are high that I won’t see it.
But its inevitability will mean that I can die happy!
Thanks for your reply Hamish. I’ve never claimed to be Scottish, although I have spent a couple years working in Glasgow. You’re correct in that the errors on sample sizes of 1000 or so are fairly large, but such samples still have some statistical validity. My point was that our host’s statements about 440 people in the survey saying that they’ll vote Labour at the next GE and a third of them having voted Yes in the Independence referendum were incorrect. In the absence of terminal illness, it’s possible that you may live to see Independence – see my reply to U Watt above.
“His overall point is beautifully illustrated by Tom Welsh – above – who is broadly in the same age-group as me.
“The distressing conclusion (for me) is that our demographic will have to die off before we see independence”.
Don’t look at me. I live in England, so I have no say in the matter. Not that I would anyway, as I gave up voting long ago. A most unhealthy and pointless habit – it only encourages them.
“Only 78% of SNP voters would definitely vote for Independence”.
As a non-Scot it has never occurred to me that the SNP was not equivalent to a Scottish Independent Party. I have also assumed that Alba acted as a kind of ginger group to speed up the independence process, which was lacking not intent but in political will to drive it forward. But it looks to me that Alba is the actual Scottish Independence Party to be clearly differentiated from the SNP and should promote itself as such. Apart from this, I guess that “Alba” doesn’t mean much outside of the Scottish political culture and “Scottish Independence Party” would spell out clearly what it stands for as distinct from the SNP.
“As a non-Scot it has never occurred to me that the SNP was not equivalent to a Scottish Independent Party”.
In politics, as in “business”, it is a cardinal error to assume that an organisation’s name has anything to do with its actual purpose.
For example, look at the British “Conservative”, “Labour”, and “Liberal” parties, or the US “Democratic” party.
Got it: you’re a Trump supporter who believes that the 14th Amendment wasn’t seriously debated…
You Americans are funny! I don’t much like Mr Trump, although he seems to be more or less sane and thus has a commanding lead over some of his rivals. I don’t support any American politician, although I quite like Ron Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, and one or two others.
And as for the “14th Amendment”, I neither know nor care what it is. Americans (actually a tiny coterie of rich merchants) didn’t like being governed from London, so they rebelled. Then they were given a constitution by much the same coterie, in order to prevent democracy; then they added various amendments to it, as one might tack on some bits of plastic or corrugated iron to a leaky roof; and ever since they have consistently ignored both constitution and amendments. And now they labour under a burden of taxation and oppressive laws far, far worse than anything London ever imposed on them.
Who cares?
Ah! Now I see! You accuse me of being “a Trump supporter” because I mentioned the “Democratic” party as being deceptively named, but not the “Republican” party.
It’s not just that I got bored after three parties. It’s also that the USA actually is a republic, so the Republican Party is not (necessarily) deceptively named. After all, Rome under Gaius Julius Caesar was a republic – if you get my drift. And Revolutionary France when they were beheading people left, right and centre. And Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang, which had annoying student journalists buried alive.
“In politics, as in “business”, it is a cardinal error to assume that an organisation’s name has anything to do with its actual purpose.”
Three weeks? But the sign outside says 59-minute cleaners!
Yes, that’s just the name of the shop, luv. We take three weeks to do a shirt
Bonzo Dog Doo-dah Band, “Shirt”
They are not even sincere or consistent in their identity politics and hate crime convictions (or distractions). Yesterday at Ibrox’s “Armed Services Day” Scots regiments were filmed belting out the whole gamut of sectarian songs. As usual not a peep from ScotGov or any SNP figure. The country’s most glaring form of hate has been conspicuously omitted from the SNP hate bill/ tolerance agenda. For genuine Scottish nationalists extreme British nationalist bigotry would have been at the very top of their proscription list. For the achingly virtuous SNP to exempt and tolerate this one particular form of hate is something else about them that doesn’t smell right. Another aspect of them that seems bizarre and counterintuitive, further feeding the suspicion they are controlled by the UK security services.
HUMZA is W.E.F. Says it all for me.
“I find it impossible to believe that the SNP is not under the control of the UK security services. No other explanation of the party’s bizarre and counterproductive behaviour makes any sense.”
This seems to be the reality, Craig, and it also fits with colonial history and postcolonial theory. We should expect no less. That Sheppard recently wrote about the lack of nationalist representation in the House of Lords also seems to reflect the reality of the situation.
Maybe like other colonies, current and former, it’s time Scots got in touch with the UN Decolonization Committee: https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2023/09/29/we-are-already-at-60-if-the-un-franchise-was-used/
Don’t they pull the strings of any source of power in the land?
The fact remains that these ‘services’ are tasked to protect the economy and security of England-as-Britain, which maintains and depends on the continued exploitation of Scotland and the Scots, as has been the case since 1707. That is a colonial relationship, hence the quest for decolonization.
If, as you suggest, the SNP is thoroughly compromised, is not the plan simply to lose the majority of seats via FPTP and thus allow the unionist side to crow loudly that the SNP and therefore the conflated (in their minds) independence movement has utterly failed and is now discredited. It may be that support for independence is still high in opinion polls, but a crushing SNP defeat at Westminster after touting this plan will surely be regarded as a positive outcome for unionism as it can be used as a demoralizing message to be constantly hammered home via the union-compliant media? The hope on their side would be that with this psychological blow at the WM ballot box, amplified loudly and endlessly by local media, that finally the support for independence in opinion polls will begin to slip as activists and supporters lose hope, and any sight of independence light at the end of a very long union sabotaged tunnel? Opponents of independence want us to pack up our toys and slink away in despair. Losing heavily at WM after announcing this plan is a way (they hope) of making that happen.
In short: If Humza and co. are just plants, is defeat on this platform the goal?
Dear Craig
I am a book publisher and I am looking to publish a new book detailing the illegality of the treatment of Julian Assange. I hope to have your permission to use extracts from your blog, especially Your Man in the Public Gallery. I have sent full details by email and contact form.
Very best wishes,
Alistair Diamond
“I find it impossible to believe that the SNP is not under the control of the UK security services. No other explanation of the party’s bizarre and counterproductive behaviour makes any sense.”
Sounds about right, add to that, that the party is now jam packed with lying, deceitful, grifting careerists who care not about Scottish independence, no more votes for the SNP at any election.
Vote Alba, Join Alba, or vote for the ISP.
👍
“…the party is now jam packed with lying, deceitful, grifting careerists…”
Naturally, as it is the party of government.
As Lord Acton remarked 136 years ago, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Subsequently, Frank Herbert explicated, “All governments suffer a recurring problem: [p]ower attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted”.
““…the party is now jam packed with lying, deceitful, grifting careerists…”
Naturally, as it is the party of government.”
But also such people are more useful to the world’s security services who would be expected to promote their careers. The freebie jaunts to Washington etc. are talent scouting exercises.
Perhaps, Tom, but it does not explain the almost pathological addiction to virtue-signalling that has overtaken the population and which has allowed the grifters to create so much damage. The go-slow devolutionists have always been there, but they have been augmented by the me-ists whose sole preoccupation is themselves and their careers. Then, come the really dangerous ones. They are the ideologues who will countenance and brook no opposition to their plans for the rest of us, whether we like those plans or not. Their foot soldiers, of course, will be hung out to dry when their usefulness has passed. No narcissistic elite can allow such a threat to their existence once the goal has been achieved.
First-rate journalists in America and Canada have followed the money and the smell and they have led them to billionaires who have a vested interest in (Big) technology, biotech, pharma, medicine, prosthetics, etc., and to one of the biggest legal firms (American, of course) on the planet, Denton’s which, obligingly drew up the template. It really isn’t the British State that is fomenting all this – or at least, it is certainly not the main player – but American hegemony. We are all aware of how far up the American bahookie the UK is, and, while the British State is an underhand organ quite capable of destroying us and quite willing to do so if the need arose, it is not alone in that pursuit, and certainly not the Numero Uno. Hosting the nuclear ‘deterrent’ is our Achilles’ Heel, and our geopolitical importance to the (Northern) European project cannot be underestimated, particularly now that the geopolitical tectonic plates have moved so much in the past few years.
The ‘woke’, and specifically, the ‘trans’ movement within that larger ‘woke’ movement is not some minor distraction that can be brushed aside for now, until we achieve independence. Basically, the independence movement is asking every concerned female in Scotland to voluntarily give up every single right/convention ever won to men in frocks. Support for independence is going to fall in those circumstances unless and until this is understood. Women are not going to vote for a party, any party, that tells them that it will be all right on the night. I say it again: independence is remote so long as this ‘woke’ lobby has the upper hand. The whole of the UK, and every other European and former colonial countries has been taken over by this nihilistic ideology. Does anyone seriously – I mean, seriously – believe that we can slough off the UK yoke and all will be well if this lot are still around? We will be in hock to American geopolitics and American ambitions, but even more so because America is where this ideology started life – and it started life there, and spread outwards for a reason, but not for any happy-clappy utopian future.
“Perhaps, Tom, but it does not explain the almost pathological addiction to virtue-signalling that has overtaken the population and which has allowed the grifters to create so much damage. ”
No, that’s good old divide an’ rule. First you corrupt them, then you get them fighting amongst themselves.
Baynard: pathological virtue-signalling has little to nothing to do with divide and rule. It is, rather, indicative of a society that has lost all sense of equilibrium, and it reeks of infantile black-and-white reasoning. If anyone wonders how the German people under Hitler, the Russian people under Stalin, the Cambodian people under Pol Pot or the Chinese people under Mao allowed themselves to be seduced by totalitarian nonsense whose end result was startlingly evident from day one, this is how it was done. If you can persuade people that they are, literally, the opposite sex and that that is a matter of state policy, you are more than half-way to overturning that society. Many women, the barometers of social change (because it invariably affects them to a far greater degree) were on to this in early 2015, and were warning the Scottish government. Needless to say, the SG would not listen, and, now, even hitherto settled law has to be re fought for in court, costing millions to individuals, groups and the public purse, having already caused harm.
While Lord Acton did indeed say that absolute power corrupts absolutely, about power he only said that it tends to corrupt. A distinction that many people ignore.
Just a few thoughts from an outsider…
On whether or not Sturgeon did anything to further the cause of Independence – the Scottish public may be catching on that she didn’t, but for the UK media it still seems axiomatic that she was a tenacious Independence fighter to her core. Of course that suits their narrative that the Independence issue can now be buried in the political graveyard alongside Sturgeon herself.
“all men are evil, so if you send some innocent ones to jail it’s all good anyway” – exactly. And if a few of those “evil” ones sent to jail can be your own political enemies, it’s all even better. Always a nice attack card to have in hand, and strengthened further by Scotland’s particularly cosy relationship between government and prosecution.
“Humza Yousaf… if the next Westminster general election returns a majority of SNP MPs, then the UK government would be invited to open negotiations on Independence” – well, now I’m weeping with laughter. Like inviting the UK supreme court to rule on whether the Scottish Parliament has the right to organize another referendum – which really helped who and in what way, exactly?
Finally, on whether the SNP might be under the control of the UK security services. I’m absolutely not a conspiracy theory kind of guy, but I am a firm believer in Occam’s Razor, which points to the simplest theory being the most likely to be true and useful. Usually Occam’s Razor argues against conspiracy theories, but in this case it points straight at that very conspiracy as being the most rational and straightforward conclusion from the facts presented.
“but in this case it points straight at that very conspiracy as being the most rational and straightforward conclusion from the facts presented.”
So how then are you not a conspiracy theorist?
The simplest theory is that the people running the SNP are greedy and incompetent but that wouldn’t sit with the notion that they’re good guys and therefore incapable of doing anything wrong.
“The simplest theory is that the people running the SNP are greedy and incompetent ”
How does that conflict with the idea that the party has been infiltrated by the security services?
“but that wouldn’t sit with the notion that they’re good guys and therefore incapable of doing anything wrong.”
Have you actually read Craig’s post, because it appears not? I would recommend that you do as then you will discover what he really thinks of the SNP. (Clue: it’s not that they are good guys incapable of doing anything wrong.)
“The simplest theory is that the people running the SNP are greedy and incompetent”
If they are greedy and incompetent they are more likely to enter into conspiracy to further their greed and hide their incompetence.
“Usually Occam’s Razor argues against conspiracy theories“.
LOL
So the rulers don’t cooperate behind the scenes then? They don’t stage any forked-tonguery ever?
Oh wait, on occasion 7314 out of the last 10,000, they did “conspire”, and you were so clever as to notice after you did some forensics. But you wouldn’t want to be like one of those warped types who assumes the rulers act behind the scenes. No, sir! Because that’s the short road to thinking B52 bombers crashed on the Moon, Elvis Presley works in a chipshop in Neasden, and the Earth is flat.
The way most people use the term “conspiracy theory” is idiotic. Who’s that good for?
Get your premises in order, and know what the sensible questions to ask are, before you start talking about Occam’s razor.
“Usually Occam’s Razor argues against conspiracy theories being wrong“.
FTFH.
Tom Welsh, you’ve just demonstrated the accuracy of Bayard’s observation below (Oct. 2, 22:25).
“The way most people use the term “conspiracy theory” is idiotic. Who’s that good for?”
I think that’s fairly obvious, conspirators. If you can conflate in people’s minds theories that are obviously bunkum – “the world is controlled by the lizard people from their base on the dark side of the moon” with theories that could quite easily be true – “the SNP has been infiltrated by the UK security services” through the link that they both involve a conspiracy and produce a term to encapsulate that link, then you can use the bunkum theories to discredit the theories that you don’t want people thinking might be true.
Bayard, this is very true, reflexively conspiralogical irrational thinking among the population indeed provides cover for genuine conspiracy.
But such thinking is also useful far more broadly for any system of exploitative, manipulative power because it spreads disinformation at the grass roots level, promotes sensationalism, dilutes and displaces critical thinking, and diverts people away from taking action into trying to convince others that merely believing in the Grand Conspiracy will solve all the world’s ills in one fell swoop, and that taking any action is otherwise pointless. It is also divisive and encourages arrogance, because conspiracy theorists become intoxicated by their supposed secret knowledge, and come to regard the majority of people as mere sheeple, with the remaining minority all being evil agents of the purported Grand Conspiracy.
The commercial media needs no incentive to promote sensationalism because it attracts audiences for their advertisers, simultaneously undermining said audiences discernment against the inflated claims made in said adverts. The big social media and video hosting platforms don’t even need to employ journalists or expensive video crews, just a few programmers to write self-optimising algorithms that inevitably end up directing the most controversial protagonist users towards each other’s comments, by automatically monitoring the threads for ‘engagement’ ie. click-bait potential.
“It is also divisive and encourages arrogance, because conspiracy theorists become intoxicated by their supposed secret knowledge, and come to regard the majority of people as mere sheeple, with the remaining minority all being evil agents of the purported Grand Conspiracy.”
Such people have been with us from the dawn of civilisation: it is so much easier to blame one’s ills on some malign foreign entity than to admit that they may be self-made. However, the modern use of the term “conspiracy theory” is to discredit any criticism of the elite, on the grounds that anything that suggests that two or three are gathered together with an aim to do others down in any way is a “conspiracy theory” and therefore de facto false.
Who knows about SNP? But the main opinion pollsters almost certainly are in the control of the security services, so their findings are not credible. Now they’re promoting Starmer, while trying to scupper the Lib Dems, the SNP and Sunak – so that his non-labour party gets in, with the help of their army of liars below-the-line in the Guardian and other places.
The SNP was boosted to kill off the radical left movement in Scotland about 50 years ago. Parallel things happened in South Wales and Northern Ireland. I wouldn’t have thought it was likely in Scotland beforehand, but there you go – it happened. A range of techniques was used to take the sting out of radical movements all around the world. Mostly after that the party helped the Tories, for example in 1979 when they brought down the Labour government and ushered in Margaret Thatcher, and then again in 2019 when they allowed people to believe they were oh so different from the Liberal Democrats in their attitude towards the thought of a parliamentary majority for a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn. Something to do with stars being in the right alignment and Scots not being allowed a vote on whether Scotland could be in the EU apparently. Ah well, that will explain it. Lies upon lies. And a case of “Who are you looking at, you race traitor or English b***ard?” if anyone notices.
What you may not realise is that even the straightforward question “If there were an election tomorrow, who would you vote for?” befuddles minds. F*** the politicians and all other gobbers on the television and Facebook.
Sure there is specific work the pollsters do, such as asking “What’s the most important issue for you – employment, housing, the economy, Brexit, education, or the cost of living?” when for most of the white population it’s actually what they see as too many non-whites walking around as if they belong here, as the controllers of opinion are VERY well aware. Enoch Powell lives.
The Tories will win the next general election with a majority of seats, possibly an increased one. That’s the prediction I make on the basis of my appraisal and analysis. Today it’s Heil readers against “cretins” who “mock” the death of little boys who died of cancer. Far more interesting than what the guy did (which was vile, but as far as I can tell it was nowhere near as vile as it’s being portrayed, but the truth isn’t the issue for most people) is the media reporting and the desired (controlled) opinion response.
Middle class types who think they’re rational most of the time haven’t really got anything to teach anyone about how the social psychology of being influenced really works, which is fundamentally not about reason but about emotion.
You can see this very clearly with BOTH the use of the image of that poor little boy when he was still alive, leading out a national football team, etc., and generally inspiring love from everyone who has a heart, AND the use of his memory combined with “kill the scrotes” by the Daily Heil right now.
Every radical critic should understand this kind of thing, but hardly any do.
Orwell wrote about it.
Re: ‘for most of the white population it’s actually what they see as too many non-whites walking around as if they belong here’
Is this why, since the British Democratic Party’s* Julian Leppert lost his seat in Waltham Abbey Paternoster back in May, there isn’t a single local councillor representing a far-right party anywhere above parish level in the whole of Britain, TH – despite the population of Britain having increased by around 10 million in the last 25 years, mostly due to immigration by people who aren’t white? Contrast this with la France, where a politician from a far-right party will probably become the next President.
* According to Wiki, the BDP are the only far-right party in the country with any electoral representation whatsoever – with a full three parish councillors (some of whom may have stood unopposed) to make sure that their village floral displays are well maintained etc.
British racists have both the main centrist parties.
Thanks for your reply Greg. I was waiting for that – or something like it. So are we to take it that British racists are perfectly happy voting for a government in which three of the four current holders of the Great Offices of State (including the PM) have brown skin – and the one that doesn’t is married to a Japanese lady? Amongst their shadows on the opposition front bench, there’s only Lammy, of course – but a 25% ethnic minority quotient is still substantially higher than that of the country overall (around 15%). I’d also point out that last year the government allowed around 800,000 people to legally come and stay in the UK, most of whom were not white.
Racists know very well the role that Braverman and other brown reactionaries perform within the ultra-right nativist surge across Europe and beyond.
Lammy too, a shameless chancer propagandising for apartheid Israel.
All of them are captured by the term Useful Bigots.
Thanks for your reply Greg. So all these British racists, many of them without any academic qualifications, realise that the black & brown people at the top of the two main political parties are just window-dressing for reactionary policies (like allowing around 800,000 mainly black & brown people a year to settle in Britain) – yet Nick Griffin, a British racist who got into Cambridge University, didn’t realise that posing next to a large jar of Marmite in a party political broadcast just over a decade ago would lead to the BNP getting sued to **** by Unilever, and having to settle out of court for an eye-watering sum that would decimate the party’s finances and result in them only being able to field eight candidates at the 2015 general election (down from 340 at the one before, where they obtained nearly 2% of the vote), and henceforth being confined to the political wilderness. It’s a funny old world.
Update: I’ve just looked up Nick Griffin on Wiki and found out that he actually studied *law* at Cambridge. In the words of Stewart McDonald MP, reflecting on Alex Salmond’s performance in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Shouldn’t laugh though – top KC barristers like Victoria Prentis, Suella Braverman & Starmzy don’t understand the law either:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/09/grayzone-interview-with-max-blumenthal/comment-page-2/#comment-1044504
(Correction to my above comment: The BNP fielded 338 candidates in the 2010 UK general election, not 340 – I’ll get it right in a minute. Apologies for any confusion.)
Stewie MI5 McDonald fan in the house. ⏰⏰⏰
Thanks for your reply Greg. Not really a fan of McDonald. I was taking the piss out of him and his lack of magnanimity in victory.
Another correction to a previous comment: Jeremy Hunt’s wife is Chinese, not Japanese. That was a bad miss – I really need to check things on Wiki before I post on here. To be fair to me though, Hunt himself has been known to make the same mistake:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/30/jeremy-hunt-makes-terrible-gaffe-about-his-wife-in-china
” there isn’t a single local councillor representing a far-right party anywhere above parish level in the whole of Britain,”
Lack of political representation of far right parties says nothing about the prevalence of racism amongst the British, as I suspect you already know. The far right is about much more than racism, things that are not popular with the vast majority of voters. In any case, in general, no people likes having foreigners coming to live in their country in large numbers; it doesn’t matter what colour your skin is. Conflating that with racism has ever been a cheap trick of demagogues.
Thanks for your reply Bayard. The lack of political representation of far-right parties in Britain compared to many European countries says plenty about the prevalence of racism amongst the British: it says that, in general, British people are (a lot) less racist. Of course the British far-right is about more than racism – these days, it’s also about Islamophobia. Most of the people who do vote for the BNP etc don’t want Britain to become a fascist state; they just want ethnic minorities out – particularly Muslim ones. People who are not racist but are to the right of the current Tory government (e.g. want lower immigration) can vote for the populist Reform UK (assuming they don’t do any deals with the Tories), or possibly for the Reclaim Party, the Heritage Party or UKIP*. Unless I’m missing something, in the UK, demagogues like Farage have been keen to point out that opposition to mass immigration *shouldn’t* be conflated with racism. Conflating the two is generally the preserve of the political establishment.
* Because I’m generous – perhaps too generous – I don’t count UKIP in its present incarnation as far-right, and the same goes for the English Democrats. Whether they are or not, however, doesn’t make any difference to my original point, as neither of those parties now has any local councillors above parish level.
“The lack of political representation of far-right parties in Britain compared to many European countries says plenty about the prevalence of racism amongst the British: it says that, in general, British people are (a lot) less racist.”
Racism is a belief, like sexism, religion or AGW. It makes people believe things that are contrary to the observed facts. Politics does this as well, but only to the extent that political parties embody beliefs. Those who hold a belief do not necessarily vote for political parties who hold the same belief. If this were the case, we would see, at least at local government level, a plethora of parties representing Muslims, Catholics, and supporters of Chelsea FC. Whereas in the real world, we have socialists voting Tory.
The British have always, rightly or wrongly, treated the far right as a bit of a joke, which is far more likely to be the cause of their poor showing in the polls than an absence of racism, especially since racism is not the preserve of the far right and, indeed, like sexism, can be found right across the political spectrum.
Thanks for your reply Bayard. Agree apart from the AGW bit. The reason that most British people often treat the far-right – up to and including the Nazis (see ‘Allo ‘Allo!* etc) – as a bit of a joke is partly because it’s the British way of dealing with unpleasant realities, but also because they’re not racist.
* Don’t forget that sitcom also made comedy characters out of Gestapo agents – though I don’t recall any complaints on ‘Points of View’ about it. These days we don’t make fun of Nazis – we just send them free bazookas and allow them to film British forces personnel showing them how to use them and then put the footage on t’internet.
B: “Racism is a belief, like sexism, religion or AGW.
It’s puzzling why you persist in making yourself appear so foolish with this insistance, Bayard. AGW is as much a “belief” as the internal combustion engine at this point. Err… you _do_ recognise the reality of the ICE, right?
One of the real problems you make for yourself here, is that one has to weigh up everything said by you against the background of such an absurd denial of established fact. (Particularly when you stubbornly insist on stating such falsehoods while lacking the courage to actually discuss them.)
I mean, could you really entertain the views of a Flat-Earther, and take them seriously about anything else at all? The ecological equivalent of a flat-Earther is what you have now become. At least flat-Earthers have the courage to discuss their strange assertions 😉
NB: any ensuing discussion about AGW would be off topic and should take place in the discussion forum, not here.
Fair enough, Mod.
Bayard : I would be delighted to discuss this in the forums, and will start a thread there for this express purpose:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/climate-change-denialists-who-get-all-shy/
Bayard, I second glenn_nl’s comment at 21:13 above. Please let’s get this sorted out in the forums instead of repeatedly clashing over it on the main blog. If my friends are really facing serious prison terms because they “believe things that are contrary to the observed facts”, I’d like you to explain clearly where we’re getting it wrong.
“One of the real problems you make for yourself here, is that one has to weigh up everything said by you against the background of such an absurd denial of established fact.”
Why does this remind me of the reaction of a born-again Christian when faced with an atheist? I could say exactly the same about yourself.
(Particularly when you stubbornly insist on stating such falsehoods while lacking the courage to actually discuss them.)
I’m perfectly happy to discuss things, but not when they are prejudged to be falsehoods and the “discussion” is just a repetition on my interlocutor’s part of those prejudices. It is pointless discussing anything with anyone who is not prepared to give any ground.
“I’d like you to explain clearly where we’re getting it wrong.”
I’d be happy to do that, but, unfortunately, previous experience tells me that that would just end up in me being told I am talking shit. Why is it so important for you and glenn_nl to put me right on what you obviously see as my mistaken beliefs? The only other place where I see such evangelism is in religion. You make my point.
B: “I’d be happy to do that, but…”
Stop making excuses. There’s now a thread in the forums specifically for this point that _you_ just raised where we can discuss it, and you can complain to the mods if you think you’re being treated unfairly.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/climate-change-denialists-who-get-all-shy/
The Mods have said we’re not to discuss this off-topic. Now kindly stop trolling us with your little hit-and-runs, man-up, and discuss it in the forums. Put up or shut up, in other words.
Bayard, your reply to me is merely a personal insult, whereas site moderation rules say you’re to engage with the arguments presented rather than the person presenting them. You’re also disregarding a direct request from moderation to take this discussion to the forums. So you seem to consider yourself above the rules, “more equal” than other commenters.
But your comments in general appear to promote socialist values. This is likely to reinforce the quite common opinion that socialism is just an affectation, mere virtue signalling, especially as you’re obstinately hogging the limelight of the most recent page – which is also where you’ll post your next piece of climate change denial.
Bayard is not a socialist. That you represent him as one and use that as an opportunity to rubbish socialism is another notable self-tell in this thread.
Bayard will correct me if I’m wrong but any exchange I have had with him suggests a proud capitalist and royalist.
Greg Park, thanks for the correction; presumably I had formed an incorrect impression from the subset of Bayard’s comments that I had read. Yes, hopefully Bayard will clarify.
But I think you’ve misinterpreted my motive (which you shouldn’t be imputing anyway according to moderation rules). I regard the social values as one of the three fundamental or primary political values, namely social (red), ecological/environmental (green), and personal values (blue), which would all thrive better were they regarded as the essential elements of a great synthesis, rather than the basis of a pointless battle.
I’ve been getting into arguments with Bayard about various things on here for quite a while, Greg, and I still don’t know whether they are male or female. I think the fact that you seem to think that you know is another notable self-tell on this thread.
Please, everyone, stop airing views about other commenters’ styles and motives for commenting and whether they infringe commenting guidelines. Such remarks are inevitably off topic here.
Comments concerning blog moderation should only be posted in the Blog Support forum.
Kindly keep the focus in this thread on issues raised in Craig’s article: “Meanwhile, Back in Scotland”.
[ Mod: This comment has been moved to the Discussion forum. ]
—
Craig: this issue of gender politics cannot be left till after independence or you are saying to females in Scotland that they should wait to have this cleared up after independence. Would you, as a man, be happy for me to tell you that we will be allowing all your hard-won rights to be transferred to a bunch of men in frocks, but vote for independence anyway? The SNP has lost the women’s vote – or, at least, that past of it that is over thirty. I want to see independence as much as anyone, and more than many, but I really cannot see the draw in having my rights stripped away as we enter an independent Scotland.
The second point I would like to make is that the gender movement has youth at its core (at least the front-line does, the billionaire backers are much older and far more cunning and willing to use their foot soldiers to erase females from public life in order to create a new, money-making utopia for billionaires), ergo, while the youth of Scotland might well be much more open to independence than older members of society who, perhaps, cling to the ‘war years’ and austerity, they are far less likely to back off from the gender war – and it is now a war (of attrition).
The billionaires cannot actually afford, once they have turned society on its head in order to drive through changes that will benefit only them, to leave the genderists in situ. Like all totalitarian/fascist movements, right and left, they will begin to chomp up their advance guard. These people, the genderists, are far, far more dangerous to the British State than independists could ever be. We just want to break up the Union; they want to destroy society to the extent that even the elites will have no place to hide – and they will have no time for independence either. The genderists are not homosexuals or lesbians, for whose treatment we should atone because they offered us no harm. The two groups are very, very different. We connect them at our peril.
It’s strange how we can disagree on some economic matters and the best way to go forward with saving the planet and still stick together as a party and pursue independence but hastening the speed with which someone can call themselves by another gender and them not having to wait for years to see a specialist doctor seems far too much to bear.
I think I’m correct in saying that Ireland has implemented this change some 8 years ago and has somehow survived the apocalypse. I appreciate the reference to ‘Culture Wars’ but the only warriors seem to be those fighting against any change.
But as for Yousaf’s promise of opening negotiations I am reminded that working as a low level civil servant I thought that somehow the questionable decisions made by politicians were ‘part of a bigger plan’ that I wasn’t aware of and that they ‘knew things I didn’t’ and ‘planned for the longer term’. None of that was true of course and they did many things without thinking them through and left the civil service to clean up the mess while blaming us for it. This is simply Yousaf digging himself out of a hole and kicking the can a little further down the road hoping that someone can bail him out of it. Of course with the BBC constantly telling everyone how awful Scotland is, how Labour are doing so well and how wonderful Starmer is, they are drumming up support for him and Yousaf will indeed struggle to get a majority of MPs.
Speaking of Scotland’s bad and goofy government. Canada’s is worse. Check out the recent NaziGate scandal….’Beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down there.’
Canada with NATO Alliance Hunker Down to Defend Race War Against Russia
https://dissidentvoice.org/2023/10/canada-and-the-nato-alliance-hunker-down-to-defend-race-war-against-russia/
it’s not just Canada. it is liberals throughout the west. this article appeared in Politico yesterday with stunning predictability.
https://www.politico.eu/article/fight-against-ussr-nazi-waffen-ss-trooper-yaroslav-hunka-world-war-ii-soviet-union-germany/
this episode has confirmed once again the old adage, ‘scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds’
it’s “complicated”. uh huh, seems simple to me, a young Ukrainian lad, with his simple desires to kill Jews and Poles, given an opportunity to do so by the nazis he admired as “angelic”, and then, decades later, given a standing ovation by a bunch of trained seals in the Canadian Parliament for doing so.
https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/when-even-the-nazis-arent-nazis?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
Caitlin Johnstone has some good points on this, which seems to be an emerging line of defense for the highly embarrassing revelations about Canada flooding out after the Ovation fiasco.
she is spot on as usual. few see them with clearer eyes.
‘Martin Luther King has been historically revised as an innocuous shitlib. George W Bush is just a harmless old painter. Nazis are just brave heroes protecting their homeland..’
Perhaps the Care Inspectorate Scotland is pointing the way forward for getting the populace on board for independence – give me a child under the age of 7 and all that – with its forthcoming webinar.
“Webinar: Supporting potty learning in early years settings, and an introduction to the Health and Care (Staffing) (Scotland) Act 2019.
Join us to discover the role that ELC providers can play in empowering and supporting parents with the best advice so that they can effectively potty train their children and avoid problems”. —–
I really cannot subscribe to the view that the SNP is so heavily infiltrated by the security services that it no longer wants to fight for independence. Rather, I think it is run by greedy self serving individuals who will change their views depending on the next gust of wind. In Jo Grimond’s time, the Liberal Party was in favour of independence. If the Lib Dem’s went back to that stance, and meant it, they would mop up many of the votes from Labour voters who want independence but won’t vote SNP.
“Rather, I think it is run by greedy self serving individuals who will change their views depending on the next gust of wind.”
I think it far more likely that the party has ended up with such people as a result of covert steering from outside influences than that those influences are actually running the party behind the scenes. After all, how many of the SNP’s top brass have nipped across the Atlantic for a bit of political further education courtesy of the US of A?
Norway used its North Sea oil bonanza to create a sovereign wealth fund and establish one of the most prosperous and equal societies on earth. By the time we get any sort of control over our North Sea assets they will be worth fuck all. What other country had such vast wealth and saw absolutely nothing from it, squandered on tax cuts for rich English Tories?
Well said Jules Orr, and Norway has the contract to exploit the largest oil reserve left in the North sea, Rosebank, 80 miles west of the Shetland isles, whilst the Scottish colony is deprived and Westminster is reaping billions in windfall benefits. Bastard pirates they are – nothing else matters for these crooks.
“Norway used its North Sea oil bonanza to create a sovereign wealth fund”
It was only able to do that because it didn’t have a government that habitually lived beyond its means. If the British government had put the oil in a sovereign wealth fund, all that would have resulted was that we would have seen the sort of borrowing the current governments have indulged in a few decades earlier. There’s very little point in saving money if it just means you have to borrow to make ends meet.
Just watched HMP Belmarsh: Maximum Security. Producer: Annabelle Draper (no, I hadn’t heard of her either).
This show is two hours long, and doesn’t once mention the prison’s most famous inmate. They have plenty of time to interview tough-guy career criminals with a history of extreme violence, and cynical prison guards. But not a word about Julian.
Maybe there’s a reason the producer/director’s name wasn’t shown until the end of the titles; IMDB says she’s never done anything except titillating tabloid crap.
‘ Just watched HMP Belmarsh ‘ one might ask why… Obviously some hardened thug is going to make better television than somebody just being held on remand.
‘better television’ ? surely that was not the idea behind the production, its mere combing egos of a failed judiciary and its institutionalised thuggery, whilst a new high court judge is annointed into making colonial laws work for England Nato and the rulling establishment cabal.
But what would you know of holding a remand citizens with fake charges in a high security prisons next to a fully functioning airfield.
“‘better television’ ? surely that was not the idea behind the production”
Sadly, PM is right. The purpose of television is to get eyes on screens or transmit a narrative. The days are long gone when there was any intention of educating the viewers except in a very minor way.
Front cover of the latest edition of Time magazine, “Meet the Newest Class of Next Generation Leaders”
https://time.com/
Hopefully puts to bed all these conspiracy theories.
The opinion polls seem to be stuck in a rut of being two or three percent either side of 50:50. That’s pretty much where they were in the runup to the once in a lifetime referendum.
Opinion polls are a general indicator, but as was shown by less than 38% of the electorate actually voting Yes, an indication in the opinion polls of 53% does not necessarily translate into victory for the pro-independence side.
I think there are several reasons why the high heid-yins of the SNP are reluctant to risk another referendum. One is that they know that 53% in the opinion polls is very difficult to translate into victory at the real polls. They remember the images of the tear-streaked faces of Thatcher and Truss leaving Downing Street and the shrunken figure of Salmond slumped in the back of the limo leaving Bute House when the truth sank in that Scotland really doesn’t want independence.
Another reason is that they’ve seen the books. They know how screwed we in Scotland would be by now if we had self-amputated from the munificent hind tit of the UK. They also know that Scotland would be at the back of the queue, behind Serbia, of countries applying for EU membership. The EU has learned a painful lesson from their experience with Greece and they no doubt recognise that any financial figures submitted by the SNP with an application are likely to be full of bullshit and with more holes than a Swiss cheese.
Support for the SNP has disappeared; the reputation of the party has been ruined by corruption by Sturgeon and its politicians lack of effort in getting another referendum.