Monday, March 11, 2024

Like it or not, independence is unlikely to be won without leading involvement from the "elephant"

As long-term readers of this blog may recall, I was an elected member of the Alba Party's NEC between September 2021 and October 2022.  For most of that year-and-a-bit, I was pretty happy with the party's general direction of travel, both in policy and strategic terms.  However a watershed moment of sorts arrived in the summer of 2022 when Nicola Sturgeon finally announced her strategy for winning independence, which involved asking the Supreme Court to rule if the Scottish Parliament had the power to unilaterally call an independence referendum, and then moving on to using the Westminster general election as a de facto referendum if the Supreme Court ruled the wrong way.

That plan was a lot more radical than I expected, because prior to that Ms Sturgeon had always rubbished the idea of any non-referendum route.  Now, the details of the plan were absolutely not the ones I would have chosen if I had been in charge.  I would have preferred to see the Scottish Parliament go ahead and legislate for a referendum and put the onus on the UK Government to launch a legal challenge if they wished.  I would have preferred to see Ms Sturgeon engineer an early Holyrood election to use as a de facto referendum rather than taking a gamble on the 'away fixture' of a Westminster general election.  But as I said on this blog at the time, we had to be realistic and accept the fact that the Scottish people had selected Ms Sturgeon and the rest of the SNP leadership to be the decision-makers, and therefore they were the ones who were always going to choose the details of any plan, and not anyone else.  What mattered is whether the thrust of the plan was taking us in broadly the correct direction, and if it was, we needed to throw our weight behind it.

I believed - and still believe - that Alba's response should have taken that realistic approach.  By all means spell out where you think the details of the plan are wrong, but make very clear that you're not going to let those quibbles get in the way of fully supporting the central element, namely the use of an election to finally allow the Scottish people to make a decision on independence, and undertaking to do whatever you can to secure a successful outcome.  And, for good measure, claim the announcement of the plan as an astounding triumph for Alba's campaigning to pressurise Ms Sturgeon into reversing course and accepting the wisdom of a de facto referendum.

What Alba actually did was pretty much the complete opposite of that.  From the word go, Ms Sturgeon's announcement was treated as an obvious con-trick, and instead of discussing how we could make the de facto referendum work, all the chatter seemed to be about how we could cause as much damage to the SNP as possible at the general election.  Talk of standing against the SNP across the board in every constituency actually increased rather than decreased, even though a single, unified slate of pro-indy candidates is plainly an absolute must in any de facto referendum fought under first-past-the-post.  And Alba seemed to double down on its determination to help bring about Ms Sturgeon's resignation as First Minister, which history now shows made no sense at all.  When Ms Sturgeon departed, the de facto plan went with her.  Whereas by keeping her in harness, we could have given the SNP no easy way off the hook, and perhaps forced them to reluctantly deliver the goods just for once.

I suspect we came across as angry that Ms Sturgeon had "spoiled" things for us by giving us more or less what we had been demanding all along.  It must have looked like nothing she announced would ever have been good enough for us, we would just have reflexively denounced it anyway.  In a nutshell, we must have looked disingenuous and like bad faith actors.  So not only was the approach unhelpful for the independence cause, it was bad for Alba's own future electoral prospects.

I disagreed with Alba's response and I spoke out about it at some length.  From a personal point of view, the timing couldn't have been much worse, because I suspect what I said may have cost me a handful of crucial votes at the Alba conference in October 2022 and led to me being narrowly voted off the NEC.  But after all these years as a blogger, I just wouldn't know how to stifle an opinion on an important subject or say something I don't believe to be true.

That's why Professor Robertson's comments the other day about this blog having become my "Alba career blog" were so offensive and ludicrously off-beam.  Yes, I stand in Alba internal elections, and I have the same competitive instinct as anyone else and always want to be successful.  But the reality is that if I only cared about that, or even if that was what I mostly cared about, the content of this blog would often have been the complete opposite of what I actually wrote.  A great many Alba conference-goers took the very simple view that the one and only objective was to bring the SNP down and have Alba become the main independence party in the SNP's place. They didn't want to hear an unpalatable message from me about how the world is more complicated and messy than that, and that actually the most effective and quickest method of winning independence may be to help make an SNP plan work, even if that means lots of SNP MPs we may not be crazy about on a personal level being re-elected.  That was the message I delivered just the same, and I suspect I paid the price for it.

After I was voted off the NEC, it seemed to me that things got even worse for a few months.  The antagonism towards the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon just seemed to be off the scale, culminating in a tweet along the lines of "a vote for the SNP is a vote for Jimmy Savile".  That genuinely shocked me.  Senior Alba figures started to give the impression of "celebrating" bad polls for independence, on the basis that it made the SNP look bad, and anything that was bad for the SNP must be good for Alba - thus losing sight of the cardinal rule (which in fairness Alba have since seemed to relearn) that a pro-independence party should only ever be seen to be talking up independence support in the polls, not talking it down.

Once again I spoke out loudly about where I thought my own party was going wrong, and that led just over a year ago to The National doing a double-page spread without my prior knowledge about how I as an "Alba blogger" had been heavily critical of the party's direction and "didn't know what the hell was going on anymore".  This was all deeply uncomfortable. A number of people tried to tell me, effectively, that I wasn't "real Alba" - that the only true Alba position was to want to totally destroy the SNP, no matter how long that took, and that anyone who didn't susbscribe to that view could only ever be marginal in the Alba party.

So I can't help but note the irony that a year later here I am, still at the heart of the Alba party - not as an NEC member but as an elected member of other committees - while a considerable number of the "destroy the SNP and replace it with Alba" diehards have suddenly walked out.  I would never have seen this chain of events coming in a million years, and clearly there must have been a lot going on behind the scenes to lead those people to become so disillusioned so quickly.  They've moved on swiftly to the new "Independents 4 Independence" project, but I think yet another reality check is in order here.  While it's merely an incredibly hard task for Alba to replace the SNP, even in the long term, it's utterly impossible for independent candidates to replace the SNP, so in a strange way by going down this road they've given up on their whole goal - although they may not realise that yet.

By their very nature, independent MPs are ephemeral and leave no party organisational structure behind them when they depart office.  All that happens is that the established parties then come back and fill the gap.  But the other fundamental truth about independent candidates is that they very rarely get elected in the first place.  I think we all know that Eva Comrie is a genuine one-off, and although the odds are heavily against her, it may just about be possible for her to build up a head of steam by campaigning on the Grangemouth issue and through sheer force of personality.  But if what Alf Baird was proposing the other day comes to pass, and if pro-indy independents stand in every Scottish constituency, the likelihood is that the vast majority of them will score a very low vote.  It will be an almighty struggle to even get the media to count those votes as votes for independence - the likelihood is they'll just tot up SNP + Green + Alba and won't even look at the independents.  

So how this is going to help the Yes cause is far from clear.  I worry that people will look back in a few years and only then will they realise the extent to which they lost all perspective.  At this moment of danger for the independence cause, we need to go into the general election as united as possible - not in the sense of liking each other or agreeing with each other about everything, but in the sense of being a cohesive voting bloc in a first-past-the-post election.  Instead most people seem to be perversely focussed on making the independence vote as fragmented as possible - and that of course includes the SNP leadership themselves, with their idiotic decision to expel Angus MacNeil and put up a candidate against him.

The SNP are not, as Somerset's leading Tory blogger put it yesterday, a "dead elephant blocking the road to independence".  They in fact still represent the considerable bulk of the independence movement and it's therefore hard to foresee any circumstances in which independence can be won without the SNP playing a leading role.  Any hard-headed Alba strategy for winning independence should thus be about using electoral success to exert pressure on the SNP to belatedly start playing that leading role.  The only exception to that, the only route to independence without the SNP, might be if Humza Yousaf somehow clings on as leader after a crushing defeat, and then 10-15 SNP MSPs decide their party cannot be won back and strike out on their own.  But right at this moment that looks like a long shot.

*  *  *

The 2024 Scot Goes Pop fundraiser is now underway.  Please click HERE if you'd like to help keep this blog going strong throughout this crucial general election year.

Alternatively donations can be made direct to my Paypal account.  In many ways this is preferable because the funds are usually transferred instantly, and fees can be eliminated altogether depending on which option you select from the menu.  My Paypal email address is:

jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

108 comments:

  1. Excellent post, James. I think a lot of the problem stems from the fact that certain people have lost all perspective. They have correctly identified that a fair number of independence supporters are disillusioned with the SNP, but have lost sight of why. Most ordinary independence supporters do not care about destroying the SNP or taking vengeance on Ms Sturgeon for slights imagined or real. They became impatient and disillusioned precisely BECAUSE of the internecine squabbling and the factionalism and the personal vendettas that seemed to take priority over independence. Leaving the SNP and carrying those personal vendettas over to another party may have felt good as a way of thumbing their noses at those in the SNP they disliked. But on its own, it did very little to attract independence voters to Alba as a viable alternative, because voters simply saw it as an extension of the factionalism that latterly consumed the SNP.

    For far too long many people within Alba allowed their personal grievances to negatively affect the course of Alba. Much as it is a symbolic blow to Alba to lose some fairly prominent members, perhaps their departure will allow the party to take stock and decide whether they wish to simply be the Sturgeon Hate Club - in which case they're unlikely to ever be seen as particularly relevant by the Scottish public - or whether they wish to reorient themselves as a viable, independence-driven party for voters who lost patience with exactly this sort of behaviour within the SNP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous at 3.55am if someone got their pals to make up lies to try and get you sent to jail on false charges of sexual assault I very much doubt you would see that as " slights imagined or real " . I suspect you would see that as unacceptable and abhorrent criminal behaviour. Hey perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps you would see that as normal behaviour.

      Delete
    2. (Different anon)

      @IfS: Sadly, the trial by media was entirely successful in destroying Salmond's reputation with the public. Women in particular, going by my own conversations, are convinced that no group of women would testify falsely against him on such painfully personal matters, and that's the end of the matter. Verdict: GUILTY. Except, of course, the court found him innocent…

      I don't think there's any way back for him with the public. Nicola could be trialled and sentenced, but his accusers are anonymous and untouchable.

      Delete
    3. Alex Salmond was not found innocent, he was found not guilty
      Except why did his lawyer ask for mitigating circumstances in saying Mr Salmond wishes he was a better man

      Delete
    4. The difference with Nicola Sturgeon is the entire SNP and the country knows she never misappropriated a single penny of anybody's money, and they'd still vote for her right now if she returned

      Delete
    5. Technically speaking, as you are, the options for the jury are: guilty, not proven, and acquittal.

      Publicly speaking, people bought the reporting and call him something else.

      Delete
    6. Britnat anon at 2.14pm pissof with your lies. I wish you were a better person.

      Delete
    7. Anon at 2.17pm - where is the missing ring fenced £600k then did it break through the fence make a run for it on its own and disappear down the magic rabbit hole you clearly popped up from.

      Delete
    8. Anon at 2.17pm - the options for a jury are guilty, not guilty and not proven. You are innocent until proven guilty therefore not proven and not guilty are verdicts of innocence. Straightforward stuff.

      Delete
    9. @IfS

      2:17 here. I think the court ruled correctly. But the great majority of Scots disagree with you and me. His polling is atrocious for that reason.

      Delete
    10. Anon at 2.27pm - Despite Salmond winning two court cases against Sturgeon it just shows how the Britnat media supported Sturgeon and how much influence they still have over people. Independence supporters who are always saying everything the Britnat media print are lies suddenly believed them about Salmond. The same type of people who say there is no problem with the ferries being built at exhorbitant cost and massive time overrun and it is all Britnat media lies say Salmond is guilty because the Britnat media say so.

      These people think they are free of Britnat manipulation but they ain't.

      Delete
    11. IFS, as ever, perfectly encapsulating the kind of unhinged, disproportionate, obsessive fury that has characterised a lot of Alba support, and that has convinced large parts of the electorate that the party is a collection of mentally-unbalanced, swivel-eyed nutters. That characterisation is of course unfair to the many in Alba who are decent, hardworking, proportionate people. Unfortunately, much like IFS, the loud, perpetually-angry contingent with nothing insightful or constructive to say are the ones who have dominated Alba for the past three years.

      I knew the moment I mentioned 'slights, imagined or real', he'd be along to soil his undergarments with fury. The problem is that certain Alba members whipped themselves into such eye-popping rages about Sturgeon over the past 7 years that they could no longer contain it when they spoke to the electorate. It's also why the likes of Findlay will struggle when she pursues her Independents for Independence folly. Hatred of Sturgeon has become these people's defining personality trait. They've mistaken their angry Twitter bubbles for real life. Gust as IFS - a lonely, pitiable individual - spends his days filling up these comments sections with his enraged witterings, so certain Alba members become more and more emotional incontinent when it came to the object of their obsession. And all that that sort of behaviour demonstrated to Joe Public when they came across it in real life is that certain Alba members, like IFS, would benefit from psychiatric treatment.

      I have a friend who still lives in Rutherglen who had the misfortune of encountering Findley when she was out canvassing (prior to Salmond announcing he wasn't standing). She found Findlay to be a deeply unpleasant, ranty individual who seemed to become angrier and angrier the less interest she showed in discussing the evils of Sturgeon. Sturgeon is long gone by this stage. The problem is that some Alba members have whipped themselves up into such hysteria over the years about her, that they struggle to accept she's gone. The Scottish public don't care anymore. Like Corbyn, she's history, and the IFS's of the world, who always lacked control over his emotions, struggle to accept that.

      The best thing Alba can do, if it wants to succeed in any measure, is have a cull of the obsessives. They will turn on Salmond of course, and likely declare with a sort of breathless, bright-eyed gusto that he is a puppet of Sturgeonism and in fact always has been. Such is the baffling, irrational nature of obsession.

      But like IFS, they're demonstrably more damaging to the cause than anything else. Alba has gotten nowhere after three years of their endless spleen-venting about a leader who's no longer leader. Time for the sensibles of Alba to have their time in the sun.

      Delete
    12. Hey big brave anon at 4.03pm - I’m not an Alba member so you are talking crap. I also said I would vote ISP in the Uk GE. You don't know me arsehole. It disnae take much time to diss people like you with their lies. The worst thing Alba can do is listen to moral free rants from a poster who is happy to condone criminal behaviour. That's you by the way anon. Sturgeon's criminal gang are still in charge and they still have, probably paid for, advocates like you. Footes robots are even better than a Foote soldier like you.

      Delete
    13. Big brave anon says " angry twitter feeds for real life " - I ain't on twitter so wrong again pratt. The incontinence that can be found is the massive dump of made up crap you have deposited at 4.30pm and then ran away stinking of Sturgeon shit.

      Delete
    14. I agree with you James, Independent candidates, will have a very hard time of it, collecting votes, at the UKGE 2024. Their one good point is they give Scots Indy voters, someone to vote for. SNP and Greens do not provide that option, as they are not Indy parties. With Independents include, perhaps 30% of Scotland may have the chance to vote for Indy. I hope I'm one of them, only time will tell.

      Delete
  2. Independence isn't a live issue because Scots, the swing voters anyway, don't see it as a live issue. The SNP are in a bad way but they can't magic up enthusiasm for something that for extraneous reasons has become a second line issue. Going to the supreme court but then not having the strength to go forward to defacto was a bad mistake as it signalled yellow belly. Trump card shown for no tangible benefit if you don't play it.

    SNP will come again just as Labour may come again. It's a popularity contest and it will swing back. It wasn't like labour thought we should fold after 2014. Alba keeps some grassroots busy while the cycle goes on. Keeps some passion there which is a good thing but you don't throw away the biggest party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your right when you say the cycle could swing back to the SNP, after Labour have a high tide in 2024. But to what end? SNP will never again be an Indy party. They will compete with Labour to be the best left of centre Devo party. They therefore hold no interest for Indy voters.

      Delete
  3. I think it's bubble politics. I cast my eye here and there regularly and don't even know some of these names, and I'm in a bubble, at least of people who are active online. Alba is a pukka political party with a well-known leader, love him or hate him. ISP is a registered party and has some history. Independents always have a difficult time, and generally only have a real chance if the candidate was for a party before like Angus Macneil.

    These are unknowns outside their own bubble, they'll be lucky to get 50 votes, and that'll be family and friends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Independents 4 Independence is probably the most naïve and nutty plan that I've ever seen in politics.

      Is the idea really that it's *being members* of a party that corrupts candidates? Sign a membership form and suddenly you transform from a good honest Scot into a calculating political stooge?

      Hello, it's *power* that corrupts. Shouldn't be a problem for Indies 4 Indy, of course, but purely because naebody will notice let alone vote for them.

      Delete
  4. The Question of independence needs to be separate from the usual very unpopular policies that the snp hold and pursue on the back of the independence vote, I will never vote for a unionist party, folks like myself are wary of giving snp our votes because they will say that ie you have voted for all the gender nonsense that is hidden in our manifesto that most people have no understanding of, never mind what all the acronym's mean , I suspect this is by design, if this issue is not solved then I cant see things improving for snp and sadly for independence.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good, thoughtful comments today. I had expected our Brit Troll KC to post 11 emoji in response to James talking about a de facto referendum. Perhaps he did and has been deleted, or maybe he only gets that excited for IfS.

    Anyway, my view is that Independence is clearly off the table for this year's general election. That's partly the SNP's doing—well done on voting for the Continuity Faction in last year's leadership election, folks—and partly the prospect of an imminent end to Tory rule. Plenty of Scots are going to give Labour a shot, whatever we think about that idea. Fighting an indyref (of whatever format) with a Labour landslide due in a few months would have been an uphill battle, even if we had the leaders who wanted it.

    Indy's hope lies in Sir Keir's hands. The worse he treats Scotland, the quicker we'll get our wind back. The prospects are looking good on that front.

    Then it's back to the SNP: do you want independence or not?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "They in fact still represent the considerable bulk of the independence movement"

    They in fact still FALSELY represent the considerable bulk of the independence movement is how I see it. No surprise to most long term readers of SGP I guess. So shall we just wait until all of Sturgeon's gang are deid and then hope someone takes over the SNP leadership who actually wants independence. Oh and Murray Foote is long gone as well. Say wait another 30 years. Another 30 years of colonisation. Another 30 years of Scotland's economy being run down, it's resources stripped bare and a lot more nuclear waste dumped in Scotland from more nuclear power stations. The continuation of a corrupt justice system. The rewarding and acceptance of criminal behaviour. It seems Scots are very slow learners - 10 years of Sturgeon's gang isnae enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All true, besides the slow-learners bit. Scots are no worse than anyone else. We're just plain stuck. Look around and you'll see the same abuse of voters' trust in every democracy. Left parties promise transformative reform, gather the votes, and squander the power they get by delivering on nothing. Starmer will perform that whole bad-faith dance again, just as Blair before him. Obama did it too, copying Clinton, in America. It's just eternal for these careerist vampires.

      Anyway, you're bang on the target about the need to oust the Anti-Independence leadership in the SNP. I don't hate the party—indeed, I reckon it's practically irreplaceable—but I loathe Nicola and Hamza's faction squandering our chances and the lives of everyone in Scotland, just for their own comfort. It's absolutely critical to oust them.

      Delete
    2. if Sturgeon or Yusaf thought they could carry Scots through on a defacto referendum, they'd call it tomorrow. Real politik suggests there is a residual worry our own people would scupper it by a) not giving it a majority b) mass boycott from the other side. They likely want to call it, under the circumstances of London intransigence, as a confirmatory vote rather than a 50/50, or even less likely result, which would put the cause back further than it is already.

      Delete
    3. @1:45. A boycott is not going to happen in a plebiscite election. Are the British parties going to pull out and surrender every seat in Scotland to the SNP? Absolutely not. They will always stand against the lot of us.

      A boycott is more of a problem for the "wildcat referendum" route which was ruled out by the court, anyway.

      Delete
    4. Anon at 1.45pm - the fact that you even consider the possibility of a boycott of an election demonstates your poor uninformed thinking which you demonstrated even further in the rest of your post. To sum up the remainder of your post, what you are saying is that after many years of promising a referendum and winning elections on the back of these promises the SNP leadership are political cowards. Wrong, they don't want independence - it's as simple as that - they want power and money.

      Delete
    5. Anon at 1.50pm - Sturgeon ruled out the "wildcat referendum" referendum route in her speech in January 2020. The court did not rule it out. It just declared as all colonial masters would do - you cannae have your self determination unless we allow it. Pretty obvious that a colonial court like the UK Supreme Court would declare as it did - and Sturgeon knew it would. So get your facts correct.

      Delete
    6. @IfS: True, but bear this in mind: a future Scotgov pressing forward with a "wildcat referendum" would now be up against a ruling from the UK's (illegitimate, colonial, but existing) supreme court. Britnat-run councils would be well armed with that, both politically and legally, to refuse to administer the referendum in their areas. That's the boycott danger of a referendum: not the voters, but the local authorities who run the vote.

      The court ruling was a black day for Scotland. A terrible strategy, and the day I finally gave up any hope for Nicola.

      Delete
    7. Anon at 10.40am - there was a lot I was not happy about with the SNP but I decided to give them the benefit of doubt until Sturgeon made her surrender speech in Jan 2020 in which she said she would not be holding a wildcat referendum. This was only a few weeks after promising a referendum to get votes in the 2019 UK election. I then knew she would get it declared illegal to have any referendum without Westminster approval. That is a subservient Britnat position. The details of what she did to Salmond confirmed to me she was a completely untrustworthy character who is happy to break the law in some ways but not to have a referendum. That was when I started to call for a de facto referendum at the 2021 Holyrood election. SNP/WGD numpties told me there was no need for this as Sturgeon would deliver a referendum after the election if we just all voted SNP. Of course Sturgeon just delivered another false promise of a de facto referendum but again in the future at the next UK election. It's called keep kicking the can down the road until even the thickest start to realise what is going on. Now we have the same script but a different leader who is Sturgeon's glove puppet. Vote SNP for independence maybe, possibly, some time in the future.
      It always was Sturgeon's strategy to get Indyref2 declared legal. That of course is more proof that Scotland is a colony. The people of Scotland cannae have a referendum unless England says yes and they have got the supposed party of independence to collude with them to tell the people of Scotland we cannae have a referendum. Well we can - a de facto referendum has always been there just waiting for a true party of independence.

      Delete
    8. Correction at 12.34pm - declared illegal not legal.

      Delete
    9. “Independence for Scotland “, well as much as a lot of us loathe Sturgeon now, we should at least be greatful for her coming up with the de facto referendum idea.

      Delete
    10. She didn’t come up with it. It was in fact the SNP’s policy before devolution. It’s the principal means for democratic independence movements, worldwide, and has worked many times. An election is as good as a referendum.

      If Nicola really meant it, that October ruling was the moment to name the date. But she didn’t, did she? Instead she quit.

      Delete
    11. Anon at 12.50pm - where do you get this stuff from that Sturgeon came up with the idea. Members of the SNP had been punting it as plan B for years during Sturgeon's reign but as anon at 1.52pm rightly says the concept has been around for a long time.

      Delete
    12. Anon at 2.31pm - I doubt you are genuine but explain why it is a long shot then. It couldn't be more simple to do.

      Delete
    13. Anon at 5.27pm - aye you are as genuine as a 9 pound note.

      Delete
    14. Actually, it's been done successfully by other independence movements before. It's the most straightforward, assertive and democratic route to independence. Maybe that's why it "concerns" you?

      Delete
    15. The anonymous commenter claiming a de facto referendum is a "long shot" is almost certainly "KC". He's displaying all the hallmarks of the comments I have to wade through and delete on a daily basis.

      Delete
  7. You are quite correct that Alba "looked disingenuous and like bad faith actors". If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

    This goes back to the party's very birth. We are sitting between the anniversaries of its being registered with the Electoral Commission on 8th February 2020 and its official launch on the 26th March 2020. Salmond spent the intervening time cosplaying as a wounded elder statesman, which backfired completely when he launched straight back into the grubby politics of petty revenge - simultaneously pretending to be "helping" the SNP which doesn't want him back.

    Even recent events, like Salmond's refusal to run in the Rutherglen by-election was more about keeping Alba's spoiling powder dry for the UK general election. If he had stood and lost his deposit, it makes Alba's plan to stand a dozen spoilers look even more foolish.

    That election will come and Alba will lose its deposits anyway. Holyrood 2026 will roll around and Alba won't get anyone elected. Its most significant achievement has been arguably draining enough members from the SNP to swing the leadership election into Yousaf's corner instead of Forbes.

    Wake up. The office bearers and candidates hand-picked by Salmond are mostly shite. They're people who lost internal contests within the SNP and are too unskilled to make it outside of politics. The only reason they're still in control of Alba is because they've abused every single trick in the handbook of dirty politics, including writing constitutions to suit themselves, pressuring competitors to quit by various means and rigging internal elections. What a joke it would be if any of it was funny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Its most significant achievement has been arguably draining enough members from the SNP to swing the leadership election into Yousaf's corner instead of Forbes."

      I don't believe for a moment that's true. It's a seductive argument until you think about it in detail. Only some of Alba's members would otherwise have been SNP members - some had never been SNP members, others had long since left the SNP before Alba's creation. Then you have to remember that some people would have abstained even if they had been SNP members, and a non-trivial minority would have voted for Yousaf. I struggle to see how there were enough votes there to get Forbes over the line.

      Delete
    2. I don't believe it either, which is why I said "arguably." It is simply that I cannot name a greater achievement to credit Alba with. There just isn't one that even comes close to that.

      Delete
    3. At the very least, I think you would struggle to deny that Neale Hanvey has become one of the two or three most eloquent proponents of the gender critical case in the UK parliament, and in that sense Alba's existence has helped shift the dial on a key issue.

      Delete
    4. That I would credit to Hanvey personally. Not Alba as an organisation. Is that the best you can offer for Alba's greatest achievement? I'd say that underlines the situation it is in.

      Delete
    5. Oh come on. He wouldn't have had the space to do that in the SNP. That was a party that had already proved itself capable of suspending him in the middle of a general election campaign for nothing more than a couple of retweets.

      But in any case, Alba aren't in power, so how would you expect them to rack up "achievements"? What would you say the Liberal Democrats have achieved recently, for example?

      Delete
    6. Alba drew attention to Prof McCorquodale's suggestion that the Supreme Court judgement may be legally flawed. Not sure if they took it any further though.

      Delete
    7. Anon at 5.51pm - it's a colonial court so it's judgement will be legally flawed in terms of the UN rights/Human rights to self determination.

      Delete
    8. Yousaf won with votes transferred from Regan who is now with Alba.

      Delete
    9. What a ridiculous comment. The bulk of Regan votes transferred to Forbes.

      Delete
    10. 1st round Yousaf 24,336 Forbes 20,559. Regan 5,599

      2nd round Yousaf 26,032 Forbes 23,890

      My take on the vote is that SNP members had the opportunity to vote for a leader that actually wanted independence - Regan - but chose not to. Disnae seem like a party of independence to me. Especially won run by Murray Foote.

      Delete
    11. Nothing stopped Hanvey from doing the same as an independent MP. If he were to leave Alba, the credit for what he's been doing leaves too. That is why I think he had a solid lock on Mid Scotland & Fife #1 even before Comrie quit.

      I don't give a crap what the Lib Dems have done recently, but Alba is nowhere near their league. It's not even near the SSP. It's not my job to come up with ideas to save Alba. I don't even think there is a way to. It's electorally unsellable, its brand is so tainted now that a fresher party NOT led by Salmond is more likely to gain traction.

      What if that happens, hmm? What if ISP wins more list votes than Alba in 2026?

      Delete
    12. "It's not my job to come up with ideas to save Alba"

      Nobody has asked you to or needs you to. But I note your inability to answer the question about the Lib Dems.

      Delete
    13. Not ridiculous James, Yousaf won the leadership with a surprising number of members preferring him as a second choice to Forbes. That wasn't expected at all and if Forbes had absorbed nearly all of Regan's votes, as was expected, she would have been leader.

      Delete
    14. Hey, you're the one who asked me to explain how Alba could create any achievements without being in power. That's my point, no power, no achievements.

      The Lib Dems? They've actually won a few seats in the past few years. Coalition in five? councils. Plenty of bread and butter constituent networking. Enough "achievements" to lie about. They may be in relatively terrible shape compared to themselves 15 years ago, but compared to Alba they've definitely got some real presence to work with.

      Delete
    15. I’m lumbered with a Lib Dem MP and MSP—Christine Jardine and Cole-Hamilton, good grief!—I doubt anyone in Scotland will ever be represented by Alba in both parliaments.

      Delete
    16. 4:59am: You're descending into Narnia here. A substantial majority of Regan voters transferred to Forbes. What were you expecting - unanimity?

      8:56am: If your point is that a party that hasn't been in power yet can't gave any achievements, you would be equally damning about the vast majority of other three-year-old parties in the western world.

      Delete
    17. I remember we were all saying that Yousaf would have to get the job done in the first round as he couldn't rely on getting much at all from Regan's transfers. I'm happy to be corrected but I think I remember you saying that yourself, James.
      If Forbes had taken 90ish% of Regan's share, which seemed quite feasible during the campaign, she would be leader now.
      Anyway, Yousaf actually picked up nearly a third of Regan's transfers which was very surprising and got him over the line fairly comfortably.

      Delete
  8. The problem is the elephant is losing its memory. Us mice need to roar. Don't let Yousaf and Foote threaten us with their claim that SNP losing seats will damage the independence movement. Support for indy will be at least 50% whatever the result of the Westminster election. Dump the likes of Stewart MacDonald.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aye the shouty SNP advocates are just trying to blackmail and bully people into saving the skin of SNP politicians that do not deserve to be saved. Dump the likes of Blowhard Blackford and let him go to the House of Lords along with the other Britnats for services rendered to the British state.

      Delete
    2. Anon at 4:37 and IFS, with respect I have to disagree. If the SNP do lose a lot of seats at the GE it will ultimately damage the Indy cause, I have little doubt. We will, of course, recover but it will undoubtedly be a major setback.
      People should use their heads when casting their vote and think of the possible consequences.

      Delete
    3. Anon at 5.43pm says " People should use their heads when casting their vote...." most people use a pencil.

      Delete
    4. IFS, I note in an earlier post you say you’re going to vote ISP at the GE. What do you aim to achieve by doing that? Personally I see it as a wasted vote and ultimately a vote in favour of the union!

      Delete
    5. Anon at 8.50pm - people used to say in past years a vote for the SNP was a wasted vote. It wasn't then it is now.

      Delete
  9. Like or not, we will probably never get independence as long as the elephant lives on. It’s not going to be easy situation to resolve, but those are the cold facts of the situation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A realistic assessment.

      Delete
    2. You're going to have to get this metaphor straight, guys. According to "the Rev", the SNP is an elephant THAT IS ALREADY DEAD. It's apparently causing a major road obstruction, and the task at hand is to clear it out of the way. But now you're telling us the elephant is alive and well, but you want to murder it?

      Delete
    3. It seems what's needed is a trunk call to Bath.

      Delete
  10. Anon at 6.44pm - two points.

    1. You say " Majority support is not and NEVER has been for full independence." Wrong - Scotland was independent for hundreds of years.

    2. As you advocate Federalism it would be reasonable to assume you know what it is. So care to tell us countries with Federalism that have the same degree of imbalance between England and the other 3 nations of Scotland/Wales/N. Ireland in terms of population and economy. I await your response with interest. No response will mean you are a dense Britnat who posts pish like point 1. above.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No need to label or call names.

      Seeing as you’re waiting for a response:

      1) you’re right, I should have said in centuries or since modern democracy.

      2) I don’t have an example but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

      & then there’s the London Assembly too.

      Delete
    2. Anon at 9.04pm - 1. There is no democracy for Scotland never mind modern. As long as the English have 10 times as many Scottish MPs in Westminster there will never be democracy for Scotland. There is only a colonial relationship and guess what England isnae Scotland's colony.
      2. No you don't have an example because nobody daft enough other than the House Jock called Gordon Brown and you would come up with such nonsense. What does the London Assembly have to do with anything.

      In summary both your points are nonsense.

      Delete
    3. I think we’ll agree to disagree. The LA point was to do with an open-mindedness about England’s future but never mind.

      Delete
    4. IFS, complete and utter balderdash! England has10 times the population of Scotland, so that’s why it has 10 times the MPs!
      Plus the colony nonsense you keep spouting is really quiet embarrassing.

      Delete
    5. Anon at 10.15pm why on earth do you think I would be interested in England's future. I'll leave that to the English just as I want the English to leave Scotland's future to the Scots.

      Delete
    6. Utter Balderdash says Britnat Biggles from Blighty. Hey KC you are English aren't you. A sneaky English Britnat posing as a Scottish independence supporter is pretty pathetic. Do you think you are in the Secret Service or something. On His Majesty's Service undercover on that extremist site called SGP where some posters are revealing a British state secret that Scotland is a colony. English twit.

      Delete
    7. IFS, no I’m not English, I’m Scottish born and bred. Live in D & G as I’ve told you before.
      Get your facts right for a change!

      Delete
    8. We all know that's not true. Anyone born and bred in Scoland has a somewhat broader reference point for this country than "Nessie".

      Delete
    9. Britnat English anon - aye Scottish people say utter balderdash - aye right. You are a House Jock - a wannabee Englishman. Fully colonised.

      Delete
    10. The facts I stated in my post at 8:48 are 100% correct.
      I guess it’s hard to take for you, that a Scotsman can be as strongly against independence.

      Delete
    11. IFS, just thought I’d change it slightly.
      Just in case you’re a bit confused, “balderdash” basically means “nonsense “.

      Delete
    12. Britnat English anon - you have a colonised mind - you are a wannabee Englishman - you currently are a subservient House Jock but would rather be an Englishman. You would rather be one of the ruling nation than the subservient House Jock. Just trying to help your self esteem by telling you you are English. I mean you love being ruled by the English don't you. So surely you want to be one of them. I fully understand your predicament.
      Decolonise your mind or go full in and be English. Stuck in the middle as a House Jock - who would want that.

      Delete
    13. Britnat English anon - - I know what balderdash means and I know why you use it. Your use of the word balderdash is part of your subconscious desire to be English. Not long before you are saying jolly good show old boy or that's not cricket old chap or tally ho. You have a colonised mind.

      Delete
    14. So IFS, how do you see things panning out over the next few years? Do you see any possible route to independence? It’s looking rather bleak isn’t it!
      Seriously, as I see it, the only hope I see for you is a dramatic change in the SNPs fortunes. Then I admit you might have a slight chance. I’m sure, deep down, you agree.

      Delete
    15. @BritAnon

      Suggested reading:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Skin,_White_Masks

      Highly recommended. I think you'd have a particularly interesting time reading Fanon. He describes the Martinique experience with crystal clarity, both at home and in Paris.

      To address your second point: Martinique is still French, like Scotland is still English. It's a sobering reminder of what's at stake here, too.

      Delete
    16. Britnat anon - just keep on posting. Your own posts confirm to anyone with a reasonable intelligence that Scotland is a colony. It's been bleak for Scotland for 314 years now. As England initially took control of Scotland by deceit, bribery, blackmail, intimidation of weak minded parliamentarians then backed it up with Redcoat forts and garrisons and genocide. Bleak days indeed. Oppressive laws followed by ethnic cleansing. Bleak indeed. The installation of English into Scotland as the oppressors language. Bleak bleak. Control of media to condition Scots to be subservient to their English masters so that they actually think it is a good thing for the English to have 10 times as many votes as Scots in Westminster. Very bleak. Propaganda to condition Scots to accept their place as grateful House Jocks - that would be you Mr House Jock - subservient, subjugated and a regular measure of humiliation thrown in. The bleakest of bleak. Of course House Jocks see themselves as part of the family - England's family - but you never are really part of England's family are you. Tolerated as long as you do what you are told - that's the role of the House Jock. You live in Bleak House but you don't even realise it and that is top trump bleak.

      Delete
    17. IFS, well, as expected, you couldn’t answer my question, and instead choose, as usual, to trot out another pile of nonsense.
      I understand it was a tough question for you, but thought you at least might have had a stab at it, rather than once again sticking your head in the sand.

      Delete
    18. Hey dim House Jock - you have been reading my posts. I already answered it many many times. A de facto referendum. Not tough in the least as I had already answered it. You need to pay more attention instead of trotting out your standard nonsense comment. Now have a rest it must be tiring sucking up to the English all the time.

      Delete
    19. Hey dim House Jock you have a cheek complaining I haven't answered your question. I have given you a platform many times to explain what is so good about being a Britnat House Jock. Silence from you to my question. You cannae even put a few sentences together to tell us independence supporters why we should submit ourselves to subservience, subjugation and humiliation like you. Do you just like kissing ass - is that it?

      Delete
    20. Britnat House Jock at 2.34pm - aye right. Post it again then.

      Delete
    21. Britnat House Jock - then why do you keep repeating nonsense nonsense nonsense. That's all you've got isn't it. Aye you have better things to do - kissing English asses.

      Delete
    22. IFS, nobody spouts nonsense like you. You’re on a different level.

      Delete
    23. You really think you’ll make him stop? You’re spam here.

      Delete
    24. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

      Delete
    25. IFS is the best poster on SGP and has been for years. You anonymous posters are feeble intellects.

      Delete
  11. For a while, the SNP looked like a competent alternative government for an independent Scotland. More than competent, they looked innovative, popular, and talented. Then gradually they fired the imaginative and argumentative people and got involved with ridiculous gender politics. In Robin MacAlpine's words they became an idiocracy. So did my own party the Scottish Greens. Independence needs to have competent looking people waiting to take control. Idiocracies will wait in vain for voters to entrust them with the levers of power. My 34 year old son who would love to see independence has drawn the same conclusion: Independence is dead for the time being. I am 70 and I no longer think I will see it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You could vote for Alba in the coming elections and help Labour out that way

      Delete
    2. Probably not, though, as they're not running in most seats. I don't expect to have that chance myself.

      Delete
  12. The last 12 months or I have heard from Alba is that data shows we need to be nice to SNP to make progress . The data from by elections shows that the 2,3 or 4 preferences comes from SNP number 1 . These voters may vote Alba on the list if we build on that . This was especially true of 2 that left the NEC . Membership convener and national organiser when presenting the data .

    Then there was the Scotland United reach out again mostly to the SNP .

    Not sure what meetings you have been attending as to me there has been too much focus on being ‘nice ‘ to snp . Not anti SNP .
    For me we need to be seen by voter as something different to vote for be clear what that is .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scotland's voters know that Alba is completely different from the SNP, that's why they don't and won't vote for them

      Delete
    2. It's also just plain hard for new parties to break through in politics, especially without friends in the London media.

      I remember very well the hype around Rise, for instance, who fell as flat as can be, upon contact with the electorate.

      Delete
    3. Rise: "The Scottish Syriza"

      https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13215063.scottish-syriza-stand-next-holyrood-election/

      But then they got half a percent of the list vote and shut up shop.

      Delete
  13. Federalism is impossible without a written constitution.

    Currently, WM has the power to amend or repeal *any* existing law, at whim, by a simple majority vote. What it can't do is bind its future self. Even the basic idea of "enshrining the permanence of the devolved assemblies" is impossible, because WM can simply amend whatever law was put in place and duly abolish them immediately. This is no small technicality, it's the fundamental basis of "parliamentary sovereignty" and the unwritten constitution.

    https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/38265/the-case-against-parliamentary-sovereignty

    Simply put: we aren't ever getting federalism. It's as incompatible with British rule as Scots electing their own President.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This isn't a BritNat commentator troll, he's Alex Salmond getting back to his Labour roots

    ReplyDelete
  15. @11:09 Nicola had the open goal of Brexit in front of her, though. It can't all be his fault. She flinched and never took the shot.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon at 11:11, you are correct, Brexit was the moment. We may never get another chance like it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m sure we will get another chance, though it’s not imminent.
      Realistically the GE needs to be written off, as it’s very difficult to see a big SNP turnaround in such a short timescale.
      Surely in the aftermath of a poor showing by the SNP at the GE, Yousaf will be replaced and hopefully we can look ahead with real positivity. A good showing at the Holyrood election in 2026 would surely be the platform to drive forward, especially in the wake of another pro Indy majority.

      Delete
    2. I think there’s a real chance independence will be achieved one day and our great, great, great, great, great grandchildren will reap the enormous benefits that independence will undoubtedly bring.

      Delete
    3. Agreed. It will be achieved within three years and its benefits will reverberate down the generations.

      Delete
  17. For the life of me I can't understand why so many independence bloggers are so anti-queer. The idea that biological born women need to be protected from trans women is ludicrous, and quite frankly bigoted. The main perpetrators of violence against women is straight men, and as for trans women in sports, not one Olympic gold medal has been won by trans women. Trans people suffer discrimination and violence mostly by straight cis men and discussions like these allow thar abuse to be legitimised. While people have a right to express views, they don't have a right to further stigmatise a marginalised group and deny them basic human rights they themselves are privileged enough to enjoy

    ReplyDelete