Sunday, October 20, 2019

FACTCHECK: Have the SNP "gone into alliance with the DUP to kill independence"? (Spoiler: No, they haven't.)

The beautiful city of Bath in south-west England has been the source of a surprising number of furious anti-SNP rants over recent weeks, but today has seen perhaps the most unhinged of the lot.  Apparently (and brace yourself for this) the SNP are about to enter into "an alliance with the DUP...to kill independence".  Which would be absolutely shocking if it were true.  To quote the immortal line of 1980s Doctor Who assistant Tegan Jovanka, "if" is truly the most powerful word in the English language.

The basis for this latest ludicrous Wings claim is a tweet from James Melville claiming that the DUP are "on board" for a second EU referendum and that it's likely that the votes are now there to make that referendum happen.  Now, first things first: we do actually have to test the accuracy of Mr Melville's claim.  I'm sure he's a great bloke, but he's also well known on Twitter as a bit of a Remain/People's Vote propagandist, so naturally he's going to sometimes say things that turn out to be a tad over-optimistic from his own point of view.  I can't see any evidence at all that the DUP have come out for a second referendum - there's speculation that they might do, but to the extent that they've commented on the record, they've given the firm impression that they won't.  And even if they do, I'm doubtful that would be enough to swing the balance in itself.

If the SNP and the DUP do end up walking through the same lobby in favour of a People's Vote, does that mean they're "in alliance" with each other?  No, it does not.  That's one of the silliest and laziest allegations in politics.  In a binary vote, all you can control is which way you vote and your reasons for doing it.  You have no control whatsoever over how other parties vote, and in many cases you may not even know what they're planning to do until the vote is actually underway.  Parties can sometimes end up voting in the same lobby for polar opposite reasons - indeed, that happened only yesterday.  The SNP voted for the Letwin amendment because (among other things) they think the new deal gives Northern Ireland an unfair advantage over Scotland, and the DUP voted for the Letwin amendment because they think the deal is bad for Northern Ireland.

And in the unlikely event that a People's Vote is actually held, would that have the automatic effect of "killing independence"?  No, of course it wouldn't, for the obvious reason that we don't know what the result of the People's Vote would be yet.  If, for a second time in four years, the people of Scotland voted emphatically to remain in the European Union but were outvoted by people in another country, that would strengthen rather than weaken the case for independence.  And it's perfectly conceivable that could happen.  Although most recent polls show a Remain lead, it's usually not an enormous one, and in any case the referendum choice would be framed as "Deal v Remain" rather than "Leave v Remain".  The Brexiteers will have something positive to sell, and that could make all the difference as the campaign unfolds - especially with the financial muscle of the Tory party firmly behind them.  I have a sneaking suspicion that the dread words "best of both worlds" might be given another outing.

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm on the record as being sceptical about the SNP's strategy of backing a People's Vote, and I do still worry about the danger of throwing away the casus belli for an early indyref.  But I also think it would be a rather good idea to avoid hyperbole and hysteria about the effect of the decision that the SNP have made.  It's far from clear that it's going to be the unmitigated catastrophe that Wings is so vividly painting in his readers' minds.

And why in the name of all that is holy is an alleged independence supporter trying to push the self-destructive narrative that the SNP need 50%+ of the vote (as opposed to the SNP and Greens winning a majority of Holyrood seats between them) to claim a renewed mandate for an independence referendum in 2021, if required?  And why does he chuck in gratuitous attacks on other miscellaneous SNP policies such as the fictional "car park tax" and tail-docking of working dogs?  Is he trying to do the unionists' work for them?

Oh no, I was forgetting, he wants to be Deputy First Minister.  Silly me.  (Although that probably amounts to the same thing.)

60 comments:

  1. The Bath bawbag is an increasingly sad figure; an embarrassment to himself and to his rapidly dwindling legacy from 2014.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think Sammy Wilson is on record as saying the other day that the DUP don't want a second referendum. And even if they did, it's still not clear there'd be the votes in Parliament for it, as you'd need most of the Tory rebels who lost the whip to vote for it, which isn't a given, and minimum Labour rebels to vote against, which also isn't a given.

    And even if a 2nd referendum amendment passes, it's not clear if the Government wouldn't just pull the withdrawal agreement bill instead anyway, rather than accept a 2nd ref, and if they do there's still no clarity on who'd lead an alternative Government long enough to actually legislate for a 2nd ref, or whether we'd just have a GE instead.

    So things are still as up in the air as ever over Brexit and the only real constant in the whole sorry saga seems to be that whenever you think "this is the moment it will all be decided" inevitably that is the moment where it is NOT all decided and the story moves on but with no real progress.

    ReplyDelete
  3. James,

    I always admired our foreign correspondent from Bath. Up and until I didn't. It came as a bit of a surprise to me that he was running his blog much in the same way as a red-tops' editor might run his newspaper. Looking for the most controversial ideas and supporting the wrong side. We should maybe have seen it all coming with his utterly ludicrous views on the Hillsborough disaster, which didn't work for me, and I suspect lots of other folk too.

    When he ran on stuff we could all get behind, he was very, very good. Whatever has happened to him is frankly sad and tragic.

    He would argue that transgenderism is on everyone's lips, when I have to actually, explain to folk what the heck it is. I don't know what is the matter with him, but he really needs to take a break for a while. For, far from being a useful resource, he has become something of a nightmare.

    I get the impression that no-one will be able to talk him down. He is in a crash and burn mindset and doesn't actually care too much who or what he demolishes in the process.

    I think the guy needs help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bizarre.

      You literally just stated that you only liked WoS when he wrote stuff you agreed with. The very definition of a one-eyed bigot.

      What is ludicrous about his view on the Hillsborough disaster? 96 Liverpool fans died because a load of other Liverpool fans decided the best response to meeting a wall of bodies in a tunnel was to push as hard as they could. The 30 year campaign by the permanent victhims to absolve themselves of all blame will not ever change the facts.

      The point is that the consequenses of self-ID have not hit the general public yet and when they do there will be Hell to pay for those pushing perverts into schools. Sacrificing independence for Scotland so that some half-wit politicians can boost their rainbow stoked egos is not something 99.999% of Yes voters agree with.

      Delete
    2. Hello Stuart. Nice to see you using the third person rather than the royal 'We' for once.

      As for Hillsborough, if you bothered to read any of the reports (e.g. Taylor) you'll find that the tunnel to the terrace was sloped downwards. No-one needed to push to end up putting all of their weight on the people in front - all it would take is a single person to slip, and like dominoes everyone would be pushed forward towards the front. Basic physics. But given your mad theories on Lara Croft, it's understandable you don't get it.

      Delete
  4. Oranger Order calling for unionists not to resort to anti-English violence in response Johnson's brexit deal.

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-nireland-exclusive/exclusive-irelands-orange-order-discourages-protests-over-brexit-deal-idUKKBN1WZ0NP

    Exclusive: Ireland's Orange Order discourages protests over Brexit deal

    BELFAST (Reuters) - The head of Northern Ireland’s influential Orange Order said on Sunday unionists in the province should avoid staging violent protests over British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal despite feeling that they had been let down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You consider protesting against the UK government to be "anti-English"?

      Delete
    2. As the DUP. They're not complaining about the actions of Scottish / Welsh MPs/parties

      Delete
    3. It was you, not the DUP, who described the potential violence as "anti-English".

      When the SNP protest the actions of an English-based party, would you say that's an anti-English complaint?

      Delete
    4. I don't think you're getting an answer to that one, Arlene.

      Delete
  5. If the SNP and DUP find themselves on the same side against London rule, then the union has very little time left.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read that as 'unicorn has very little time left'!! Oops.

      Delete
  6. Would be funny if the Scottish Courts rule England is breaking its laws again by not signing that begging letter to the EU.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "And why does he chuck in gratuitous attacks on other miscellaneous SNP policies such as the fictional "car park tax" and tail-docking of working dogs? "

    He's trying to put together a Grand Coalition involving Jackson Carlist and Wee Ginger Dug?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Rev Stu is not an SNP supporter. He works towards an independent Scotland and is also an animal lover. The SNP allowing the mutilation of puppies risks putting off potential Yes votes and also runs counter to his principles. That's why he raises the matter.

      Do you put supporting everything madmentalnicky does ahead of animal welfare and the rights of children not to be poisoned and castrated?

      Delete
    2. I'm just a career psychopath who enjoys bumping his gums.

      I was of course quoting from the writings of The Proprietor And Master Of Us All, so I would urge caution in your future use of these texts.

      Delete
  8. The "Wings" site has a handy list of links to various categories of sites - Scottish Politics (which used to contain Scot Goes Pop!, until Stu had one of his irreversible fits of petulance, and took it down), UK Politics, and "Zany comedy relief", which contained the latest witterings of notable Unionist trolls.

    I'm afraid that Stu has transformed his site from being a "required daily visit" to the category of "Zany comedy relief". I still visit "Wings" daily, but instead of turning to him, in the expectation of him debunking some Unionist media nonsense, I now have the same kind of trepidation that I have, when I open one of the "Zany comedy relief" links like "Alan Cochrane", or "Ian S Smart", only it's not nearly so funny reading anti-SNP rhetoric when it's coming from Stu.

    I agree with previous posts. He has become a sad caricature of everything he ever castigated amongst unionist journalists.

    The war of words that is now in full flow between Stu Campbell and James Kelly is sad, and I wish it hadn't started, but James's views mostly coincide with mine, namely that, although I don't always agree with SNP policy or tactics, I recognise that they are the only political weapon we yessers have which has a hope of obtaining independence via the ballot box, and attacking them "full on" as Stu is doing, has turned him into an enemy of the campaign for independence.

    We can wrap it up in any conciliatory language we want, but when personal ambition gets in the way of the common goal, and we have to analyse Stu Campbell's writing, with the same level of criticism (that he has taught us to apply to Cochrane, Daisley et al), then it's time to call a spade a spade. Stu Campbell has betrayed the yes movement, in his desire to plonk his arse into a seat at Holyrood.

    I'm open to being proved wrong, but all the evidence points to that conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair, he has every right to develop political ambitions and has a strong track record of achievement in support of Yes.
      I don't think talk of betrayal is any more helpful than Wings' anti-SNP output. He's entitled to his opinion and we can all consider our approach to his next fundraiser, if there is one, very carefully.

      Delete
    2. That's fair comment, John. If opinion sharing is a one-way street though, it becomes a completely different animal. I am now blocked from commenting on Wings, and while I am not sure how widespread his blocking has become, it is readily apparent that comments from the more eloquent critics are becoming few and far between. Mr Campbell is churning out nothing but anti-SNP propaganda nowadays (When was the last Wings blog, where he supported the SNP on ANY subject?), and it becomes harder and harder to come to any conclusion other than that he has declared war on the SNP ...... for whatever reason. I don't CARE what his reasons are. His constant drip, drip, drip of poisonous innuendo is doing nothing for the furtherance of Indy and everything to aid unionism.

      At what point does a former ally become recognised as an enemy of the cause? I will never put another penny into that man's crowdfunders, and I will continue to express MY opinion of his shenanigans as long as he continues with them. He'll mend him and his political ambitions.

      Delete
  9. There's so much love from England in the comments section of the BBC article about Scotland's highest court assessing whether England is breaking the law.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No one in the English media wants to address the fact and inform the English public that they are not sovereign when the Tories or the Brexit party keep insisting they are
    This is a lie, in England parliament is sovereign not the people, the people of England have never been sovereign since their monarchy ceded that right to the parliament of England
    You can't have a democracy and a monarchy at the same time, it's not constitutionally possible, in fact constitutionally the only sovereign nation in these islands is Scotland where the interests of the people are an instruction to the Scottish parliament not as in England the other way round

    As the English are about to find out when they inadvertantly attempt to change the constitution of Scotland just like they did with Northern Ireland which they are allowed to do because Northern Ireland is essentially England, unless the Irish change that from what the DUP signed them up to

    It's about time the English start learning who it is that has the brains around here for a change, of course that will never happen because they don't have brains enough to learn and haven't yet seemed to notice that every time Boris and his band of little rascals tries something the people behind making a fool of them and thwarting everything they try is us the Scots they seem to hate so much
    There might be more of them in England but they're not very bright

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't think you really understand the DUP, James. They don't stand FOR something; in the great tradition of unionism (the Ulster variety, that is) their identity revolves entirely around what they are AGAINST. Customarily in the past, that has been Catholics, but this has masked the deep contempt they have for the English as well. Now that - at least in their perception - the English have betrayed them by proposing a border down the Irish sea, all bets are off. They were previously foursquare behind Brexit because they thought it would strengthen the barriers between NI and the Republic while undermining the hated Good Friday agreement. Now that it's obvious that the exact reverse is happening, the next best option is to reverse Brexit entirely and put it back the way it was. If there is a chance a second referendum will do that, so be it. It's no skin off their nose since there was a heavy remain majority in NI, and if it enrages the English, who cares?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed, the DUP are not a political party in the normal sense of the word, they're fanatics in the same vien as the core of the Tory party and indeed some Labour as well
      Improvement of their country or policy mean nothing to these people, it's all about power and control for the sake of it and sectarianism is their tool of choice

      Delete
    2. "I don't think you really understand the DUP, James."

      What is that in response to? Is that in response to "the DUP voted for the Letwin amendment because they think the deal is bad for Northern Ireland"? If so, it's an over-interpretation of what was intended to be just a fleeting summary of the DUP's stated position on the deal.

      Delete
  12. The EVEL English government has sold out N. Irish unionists to the republicans and 'Brussels'.

    Sinn Fein are saying to the DUP 'But we told you not to trust them. Maybe you should have listened'.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just as well you don't comment on Wings James you would be sworn at and banned for having a different viewpoint from the great "Leader"

    ReplyDelete
  14. I see Stormont is now moving to prevent the 'UK' government making abortion legal in N. Ireland.

    If abortion remains illegal there, it will be because the English EVEL government wants that as English MPs have the power to overrule Stormont if they want (e.g. as they have done for Scotland, overruling Holyrood when it didn't consent on devolved brexit areas).

    If English MPs overrule the DUP on this too, it will do wonders for unionism.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You're such a thin skinned child Wings, and like all children who can't get their way you stamp your feet and throw a tantrum when you're caught out

    You've been telling lies and ommitting the truth and found out doing it

    ReplyDelete
  16. Scot Nats and Irish Republicans were 100% honest when they told unionists never to trust Westminster.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-50094038

    NI newspapers: Unionist fury over Brexit 'betrayal'

    In a rare show of unionist unity, there is collective outrage from the DUP, UUP and TUV in Friday's News Letter to Boris Johnson's Brexit deal.

    "A great [British] betrayal" is the unequivocal verdict, as the parties line up to condemn the agreement they fear would create a border in the Irish Sea.


    Scottish unionists take note. There is no union love. They'll milk Scotland until it doesn't suit them, then they'll shit all over you in a second, just like they've done to the N. Irish unionists.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You're again taking wings comments out of context. He's clearly not claiming the SNP will literally be in alliance with the DUP, so what the point of contradicting that claim in a literal sense is, lord only knows. The context, very obviously, is that, if the SNP were to vote with the Tories for the Brexit deal, then the claim could/would be made from their opponents that they are in an alliance with the tories or something similar ala 1979, so by definition in a binary vote, if they are not voting with the tories, the counter claim could be made that they would be in an alliance with the DUP if they voted for a second referendum, as much as they would be with the tories if they voted for Brexit. It would be a defence to allegations of any alliance with the Tories for voting for Brexit.

    The point being the SNP need not worry that they could be perceived as aiding the tories because the alternative is assisting the DUP. The allegations therefore of doing an unholy deal with an unpopular party, ala the 1979 fiasco, wings suggests could be made whichever way the SNP vote on a second referendum so they should not worry about the fall out or the claims of opponents and focus on the option most likely to deliver an independence referendum and/or independence.

    Now whether you agree with Wings sentiment or not, it most definitely is not a crazed or demented position to take. If its the DUP or the Tories, your in a supposed or perceived alliance with according to your opponents, then the tories don't sound too bad is a perfectly reasonable proposition. I'm not sure I agree with it, given the way Scotland voted in the EU referendum but its definitely worthy of consideration rather than trying to portray it as some sort of demented rantings of a madman.

    Wings focus is upon engineering an independence referendum and independence rather than trying to appease or gain popularity amongst remain supporting voters to win elections. The SNP however have to balance acting in Scotland's interest with delivering a referendum and in this instance its a difficult tightrope to walk.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He's clearly not claiming the SNP will literally be in alliance with the DUP"

      Oh for heaven's sake, that's exactly what he's doing. Read the article if you don't believe me - he states it absolutely explicitly.

      Delete
    2. The substantive point of my post stands, it is not a question of semantics but meaning. He used the word alliance but he's not suggesting any form of agreed formal alliance between the DUP and SNP but that both parties will undertake the same action to produce the same effect. He clearly states also 'the Tories don't sound too bad now do they', and he doesn't propose any form of agreed formal alliance with the tory party if the SNP votes for Brexit. Its very much partnering with the tories vis a vis partnering with the DUP for this particular vote that is the issue in his post, so if he's not proposing any sort of formal alliance with the Tory party how could it be perceived that he is proposing any form of formal alliance with the DUP in the event of the SNP voting for a referendum.

      The term alliance is used for vitriolic emotive effect to emphasise the point made rather than as a label to describe a formal relationship the DUP would have with the SNP. And you know that very well, you're being disingenuous for mischief making purposes to undermine and discredit Wings probably due to his recent attitude toward the SNP.

      I've read the article and its meaning is very clear and no amount of pedantry or semantic schinanigans will change that.

      Delete
    3. Indeed it won't. It's meaning is absolutely crystal-clear and draws no distinction whatsoever between "agreed formal alliances" and "non-agreed, non-formal alliances". (Nor, incidentally, did my own reply draw such a distinction.)

      You're performing semantic gymnastics to try to get Mr Campbell's words to fit into the innocuous frame you want them to fit into, but I fear that's a lost cause. He did actually say that the SNP would be going into alliance with the DUP. That's what he said, no more and no less, and that's what he meant, no more and no less. Here is the quote in full, and as much as I admire your loyalty to the man, no amount of foot-stamping or sophistry is going to change the fact that these are Mr Campbell's own words. Nobody put them in his mouth.

      "And let’s just spell it out, because some people are clearly a bit dim: if the above scenario materialises, the SNP will be in an alliance with the DUP to stop Brexit and kill independence."

      (The bold text is Mr Campbell's own choice of emphasis.)

      Delete
    4. Lets clear this up crystally

      "FACTCHECK have the SNP gone into alliance with the DUP to kill independence, no they haven't"

      "The SNP are about to enter an alliance......"

      The Wings article is both hypothetical and conditional

      if......materialises , the SNP will be..........

      Your reply inferred Wings stated the SNP HAD entered an alliance with the DUP, an historical fact. Or about to enter an alliance i.e. certain to undertake a course of action.

      Which clearly was not the case.

      The next sentence in the wings article which follows your own citing

      "The DUP? The Tories don’t sound quite so bad now, do they?"

      Hence the point is very much the SNP having a 'whatever you want to call it with the DUP as opposed to the same thing with Tories.

      An alliance is defined in a dictionary as

      "a merging of efforts or interests by persons, families, states, or organizations"

      It would be difficult to argue that the SNP and DUP are not merging efforts or interests by voting together on such an important vote with such huge wide ranging implications.

      Context is not an innocuous frame but a very important frame of reference for any statement. Labour have always blamed the SNP for 1979 and voting with the Tories for Thatcher and the SNP counterclaims of a Labour/Tory alliance during indyref 'standing shoulder to shoulder'etc.

      The context for wings article is, as you know, that the SNP delivering the result of the EU referendum could be perceived as a relationship with the Tories which Labour and the SNP have for many years been at pains to strenuously avoid and implicate the other with.

      So again the point is, whether you agree with it or not, that the DUP are as toxic as the Tories and given the amount of time Labour and SNP politicians have spent trying to discredit the otherside with association with the Tories must be perceived to matter.

      I didn't state you or Wings had used the term formal relationship but if there is no formal relationship inferred by Wings why the hyperbole.

      An organisation ENTERING or ABOUT to ENTER into also implies some form of action, activity or formal undertaking rather than being 'in a state of' as mentioned by wings.

      Wings simply states that if the SNP did vote for the referendum they would be in a state of alliance, 'a condition of being in alliance with i.e. the merging or sharing of interests or activities with, whether they liked it or not rather than entering into an alliance with the DUP as you implied.
      He also clearly contrasts this relationship with the alternative, the Tory party as his substantive point.

      Kill is an emotive word for ending independence, the alliance with the DUP, emotive terminology its' intended to invoke a reaction, to question the current strategy and reconsider the options, that's it. There is no suggestion whatsoever that we are about to see the Scottish Democratic Unionist National Party of Northern Ireland.

      What is actually crystal clear is that any phrase taken out of context to discredit an individual should be called out. You cannot remove the context of the content however hard you may try.

      Delete
    5. What should certainly be called out is you posing as 'Mr Balance' when you've already outed yourself as a partisan Wings cheerleader in an adoring comment further down this thread.

      I'm not going to waste any further time responding to your truly desperate points of pedantry, hair-splitting and reinterpretation. What I will say, though, is that I categorically reject your claim (and I believe you're probably the person who made a similar claim on an earlier thread using a different moniker) that I somehow "know what you're saying is correct" and that I'm just "pretending" to "misunderstand" Wings' posts.

      I understand them only too well, sunshine.

      Delete
    6. If we were talking about a regular punter, then parsing sentences might be a worthwhile exercise. However, Mr Campbell is no ordinary punter. He is a highly skilled journalist and wordsmith and the obvious interpretation of his words is EXACTLY what he means to say.

      He is now doing exactly the same thing as Cochrane, Daisley and others have been doing for the last half decade - using his considerable literary skills to maximum effect, to damage the SNP. Cochrane, Daisley and that gang are doing it to damage the cause of independence, and Mr Campbell used to excoriate them for their cunning use of words to create the worst impression of the SNP, thus damaging the yes movement.

      He now claims that his insinuations against the SNP are to "protect" or "save" the independence movement, but how is this possible? If damage is done to the electoral prospects of the SNP, then this will harm the independence movement, and it matters not a jot, who is doing the damage.

      Daisley, Cochrane and the rest have been trying to damage the SNP for years. Campbell has joined them.

      The only response from yes voters to Campbell should be "Et tu Brute?".

      Delete
  18. Survation and Opinium have Remain v The Deal at 42% a piece, interesting times.

    ReplyDelete
  19. As for Bojo's deal...

    Here is what Scots subsamples say:
    Comres:
    44% Oppose
    27% Support

    40% Oppose
    22% Support

    2:1 opposed. Only a minority of Leave 2016 voters are backing it.

    I don't think it would be wise for Scots MPs to back such a deal, even if Johnson offered them the moon on a section 30 stick. Which he hasn't. And won't.

    If brexit pushes England to indy, it will be quick. Same way they are dumping N. Ireland. It would be by giving a Section 30 and hoping Scots vote Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Screaming Lord SutchOctober 21, 2019 at 3:23 PM

    Vote for me, don't vote for that Wings guy or theSNP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Screaming Sir JamesOctober 21, 2019 at 3:44 PM

      Now it's GWC's turn to outline the case for the Scottish Unionist Party (1986 Newco version).

      Delete
    2. Don't vote Tory. They're not unionist.

      As the DUP/Orange Order old saying goes 'Never trust a British Tory'.

      Delete
    3. S Sir J, Never heard of the Scottish Unionist Party.

      Delete
    4. Screaming Sir JamesOctober 21, 2019 at 8:37 PM

      Wikipedia is your friend. (See, life isn't such a hard and lonely road.)

      Delete
  21. Nicola Sturgeon's SNP are doing a fantastic job of smashing the English parliament to bits, she's got a tyre lever in a crack of their Westmister Parliament and she's breaking it open faster than they can fix it
    Every time they think they're making progress the SNP crack another piece off the base of their dyke and let more water flood in, no matter what they do they're not going to repair this amount of damage by sticking a finger in the gaping hole now being exposed
    It shouldn't be long before the English hate us so much they'll be begging Scotland to go away and leave them alone, when that time comes we'll only be too glad to see the back of English politics pretendy two party no party system

    Sorry England but we found out a while ago that who runs things isn't who you think it is and your votes only count for one party and that party is bad for Scotland, and that party is all of them

    ReplyDelete
  22. Wings is a radical thinker, a disruptor its' in his DNA. In that sense Wings is comfortable in a radical, disruptive organisation while it is innovative, trailblazing and avant garde, but as the indy movement itself becomes more popular, accepted and mainstream its no surprise that he is going off message and moving to a radical edge of it, pushing ideas and propositions which are uncomfortable or beyond the envelope of mainstream indy thinking.
    Its worth remembering that what once was radical can quickly become mainstream, Scottish independence itself was something of a radical proposition, only a short time ago in political terms. It would therefore be foolish to be dismissive of the radicals and divergent thinkers just because they're novel or depart from the party line, or the tried and tested familiar concepts because constitutional change itself involves challenging and changing cultural attitudes and often involves progressing the radical to the usual.
    Radical thinking can drive ideas to overcome challenges and obstacles even if its uncomfortable, difficult or initially unpopular. I urge everyone not to berate or dismiss Wings and other radical thinkers but to ponder, consider and use their ideas to challenge and question current paradigms and beliefs and accepted conventional ways of thinking about things within the SNP and the wider indy cause.
    A new, more radical indy political party may be needed or different strategies, deals or partners if a roadblock to indy emerges. Beating Labour in a UK general election in twenty years time cannot be the priority for the independence movement. The EU referendum presents a unique chance, an ideal mandate and an opportunity that may take another generation to replicate if it is missed. How best to capitalise on it may require a change of course or at the very least an open mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's take today for example.

      Wings suggests in an article that the SNP should extract a promise of another Indyref from UK 'opposition' parties for their MP's votes for a second EU referendum.

      So while he complains the SNP are wasting time asking the Tory Government asking for a Section 30 order, his suggestion is to ask a bunch of politicians who aren't even in a position of power to offer anything for a future promise of Indyref 2. Furthermore he has stated recently on a number of occasions his belief that a GE will not be forthcoming anytime soon.

      Next, on his Twitter feed, he mentions his disdain at Westminster politicians for apparently stopping Johnson's Withdrawal agreement vote today, claiming they will come across as a bunch of bullies to the public. Except of course that he's wrong, that motion was passed on Saturday and as today would make it a second vote, it was Parliamentary protocol that stopped the vote - not MP's.

      This is not being a 'radical thinker', 'innovative' or 'trail blazing' - it's called just being wrong.

      Whether or not he goes ahead with any political ambitions he may have remains to be seen, but something is very apparent, he appears to have taken on some of the very traits of politicians that he dismisses so readily.

      More apparent, as today's examples demonstrate, is his desire to lie, bend the truth or at least distort it. Such a shame.

      Delete
    2. There's a very big difference between being disruptive and being destructive.

      What actually is the big idea here anyway? What's the innovative, cutting edge thinking? Doing a deal with the Tories to implement Brexit in return for an indyref? I've already explained why that isn't possible, but even if it were, the moment for doing that would almost certainly have long since passed by May 2021. So what will be the Wings party's plan for bringing about an independence referendum? Would there even be a plan at all?
      Would the manifesto just say "IT'S TOO LATE, WE'VE MISSED OUR CHANCE"? That's the logic of his last post but one.

      Delete
    3. The distinction between disruptive and destructive is very much in the eye of the beholder, particularly in the non physical or metaphysical sense. There's no adoration for wings or suggestion he's correct and certainly no mention of anything he does or says is cutting edge. Cutting edge to me is being a pioneer or at the forefront of knowledge generation in any doctrine or philosophy.

      Radical is just thinking outside the box or differently from others. Rejoining the UK may one day be radical but unlikely to be perceived as cutting edge.
      I just urge tolerance and consideration for a range of ideas and viewpoints even if they differ from the majority or are critical of the SNP. Wings ideas should be scrutinised and challenged, but inciting a witch hunt because he doesn't act like he's part of a cult is a bit much.

      Delete
    4. You're not urging tolerance - you're urging people to refrain from expressing dissenting views. "Consideration" is code for "no, you can't criticise this opinion, it has special status". That's intolerance, not tolerance. That's stifling of debate, not encouragement of it.

      But maybe it all looks different in a "metaphysical sense", who knows.

      Delete
    5. Balance Baby ...... "I just urge tolerance and consideration for a range of ideas and viewpoints....". You might try suggesting that to Stu Campbell, whose "tolerance and consideration of ideas and viewpoints" that differ from his, doesn't have any stretch .... at all. His "tolerance and consideration" consists of banning anyone who disagrees with him, from posting comments on his blog.

      Delete
  23. Young James, as from midnight tonight no baby in the womb of a woman is safe from immediate extinction and destined for the NHS galvanised bucket.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you dislike the change in Northern Ireland abortion law, you have nobody to blame but your "precious union". It's been directly imposed by London.

      Delete
    2. It's a fine Great British Law passed by brexiters.

      As a trading block, the EU leave such things up to member states. A domestic matter only.

      Delete
  24. So, the English Tories successfully forced gay marriage and legalisation of abortion on the N. Irish unionists / Orange Order.

    Another great day for unionism.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Young James, I did not say I disliked the change in abortion law I just pointed out the consequences and the Irish have been wanting the London intervention. Perhaps you have been obsessed with your petty nationalism to keep up with NI.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The British wanted the London intervention. It's the essence of unionism.

      Delete
  26. Loyalist anti-English* mobs gathering.

    https://twitter.com/Paul_UTV/status/1186347058036461568

    People from Loyalist communities are gathering in East Belfast to discuss their concerns about Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal.


    ----
    *Unionist term for people from Wales/NI/Scotland angry at Westminster rule

    ReplyDelete