One interesting point that Mark Diffley made is that he feels demographic changes are one of the three main factors that have driven movement to Yes (the other factors being the pandemic and Brexit). As regular readers will know, I've always been very sceptical about the idea of passive demographic drift producing a Yes majority, because people tend to become more conservative as they get older. But it's not outlandish to suppose it could have been worth one or two percentage points to Yes over the last six years, which is not to be sniffed at.
On a personal note, I'd also like to clarify that I did not in fact widen my eyes disapprovingly when Gordon mentioned that Mark had worked for the No side in 2014. It was actually a look of surprise because I noticed that my microphone had been temporarily cut off. The timing was totally coincidental. Just wanted to clear that up!
I very much enjoyed watching Mary Ann Kennedy's musical contribution immediately after the discussion. Although I was vaguely aware that she came out for Yes in 2014, it was fascinating to hear her say that she was "born indy" and that even as a schoolgirl she was incensed by the events of 1979. Not only is that a useful reminder of how many musicians are Yes, it's also a reminder that having a long association with the BBC does not preclude support for independence. At the start of 2014, I was in the audience at a ridiculous hour of the night for a live World On 3 episode presented by Mary Ann, and I recall that she asked Yves Lambert for his thoughts on the upcoming indyref based on the Quebec experience in 1995. He gave an answer that I suspect may have horrified BBC bigwigs listening in London - it was along the lines of "if you become organised, something really special can happen". After a second or two I realised there were microphones everywhere, and that if I started applauding enthusiastically it would be heard live on Radio 3!
I believe that an edited version of the Believe in Scotland panel discussion may be posted on Facebook at some point, so keep an eye out for that.
It may be false memory but I seem to recall Professor Curtis saying that you can't normally factor in age into swings etc. Otherwise we'd always have Labour Governments at a UK level etc.
ReplyDeleteHowever he said the gap in the 16-24 range is so vast that it could actually make a difference as time passes.
Clearly we can't wait 20 years for this to naturally happen. But even 6 plus years from the Indy ref will have an effect.
Its all about small gains... pro EU, EU nationals with a dog in the race now, liberals who can't stomach Boris and his clan, hard-core Labour voters who don't want to return to Blair, business people who are scared of Brexit. I could go on and on.
Individually they don't change the game. Collectively they can and in my opinion have.
Add in to that how trusted Nicola is and covid and it feels we are on the brink.
Forgot to say.. Al
DeleteI think one difference may be that being for independence is not actually a liberal/conservative divide, or not naturally so. There are good reasons why a small c conservative might prefer independence to being stuck with the Tories who give conservatism a bad name.
ReplyDeleteAs distinct from the Tories in Scotland who give conservatism a good name - you kidding!!!
DeleteThere’s a clear understanding (in my head) that once you have made the jump ( if it is a jump) to yes then that’s where you stay. That’s slightly different to being ‘born indy’ I think. So us oldies will carry on being Indy even as we grow more appalled at the youth of the polis.
ReplyDeleteJames I respectfully have to disagree with you regarding demographics .I don't think it is as simple as you get older you get more conservative .I think there are other factors in play .
ReplyDeleteMany of the 60 plus grew up in a Scotland that was very different one where the " wee defeated the Nazis " feeling was strong . Showing my age here when cinemas finished the performance with GSTQ .
Being a long hauler I have found canvassing people of that vintage come from a generation where the idea of Scottish Independence was a considered a bit whacky and supporters of Indy considered harmless eccentrics .SNP good for a noise up at a bye election but that's all.I have tried my utmost but many of this age group just don't think Scotland can survive economically .It doesn't matter what evidence you produce they won't change.
Younger generation especially those under 30 they can't remember or have never lived in a Scotland without a Parliament this group of young Scots don't have the Scottish cringe .My own kids their friends and any I have canvassed support for Indy is rock solid Independence is their birthright and 2014 is unfinished business as far as they are concerned . I doubt this belief will fade with the years .Also it is significant at some point a cross over will occur when most of those left alive will have voted Yes in 2014 .The national recollection of 2014 will be one of disappointment and missed opportunity.
Just as an aside is there any figures on support among young woman as my hunch is that it's even stronger support for Indy with young women .Is this a Nicola affect
Is there an argument that the country the UK was of the 50s and 60s no longer exists.
DeleteNHS disappearing, pensions low, opportunities for the young restricted. If you cherish these things the status quo is no longer an option.
How you convince people is another question though.
Al
If you look at the census, you can see British national identity is strongest in those born just after WW2. This is the post-war baby boom effect.
DeleteIt then declines steadily towards the young, with the 'devolution generation' being the most strongly 'Scottish only' (70%+) and least British.
Interestingly, British also declines again in the pre- post-war generations, i.e. the very oldest residents (who can often speak Gaelic or nearly 100% scots).
This is because 'British' as a 'nationality' is a relatively new concept tied to the post-war social democratic consensus.
Prior to WW2, Scotland was Scotland, part of the British Empire. The loss of Ireland and the post-war decline in the empire saw unionists try to push a new pan-British identity to hold together the crumbling empire base. The post-war consensus was instrumental in forging this pan British unity in that generation. British nationalised industries and institutions were everywhere in Scotland, from British Coal to steel, to Rail, to leyland... Britain gave you a job, welfare, a pension... Thatcher shut down, sold off or privatised Britishness in Scotland, telling Scots 'there's no such thing as British society' putting it into permanent decline north of the border. This left Scottish society to take over again.
It's why Europeans don't call use British, but English, Scots etc... Same for accounts of wartime. They’ve always known us as that, with British only really a term Brits call themselves for a relatively short period in history. De Gaulle thanked the Scots for helping liberate France. For him, they were Scots, not Brits. Britain wasn't a nation/country, but an empire encompassing a large number of these.
That aside, studies show people don't become more conservative / Tory with age. It can just appear that way, as it does in Scotland with unionism. The older generation are not really more conservative, they are just more British through circumstance.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/706889
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/01/24/we-dont-get-more-conservative-as-we-age-it-just-looks-that-way/
It's why the UK is in serious trouble.
Rocksie67 - I think your post is spot on. Well done.
DeleteAll the Britnats do is just delay the inevitable. Just like they pockled the 79 referendum and delayed the Scot parliament for 20 years when the next vote came it was overwhelming for devolution. The only way the Britnats can stop independence is to introduce a fascist police state.
We are living through the dirty fag end of the British Empire. England will have to stand on its own two feet and try to prosper through its own efforts rather than looting other countries resources.
Scottish Skier - that’s an incredibly helpful post.
DeleteJames - could you post Scottish Skier’s comment as a free standing post?
“This is because 'British' as a 'nationality' is a relatively new concept tied to the post-war social democratic consensus.”
As a musician myself, my, admittedly subjective, impression is that my large circle of musical friends and acquaintances is running at around 90% in favour of Indy. Artists in general tend to be adventurous types, and the prospect of the artistic renaissance that normally goes along with countries becoming independent encourages our hopes of more gainful employment!
ReplyDeleteAgree with Rocksie on the demographics James. If the natural state of play was liberal young, conservative old,society would never change. Yes there are blips. Trump America. Brexit Britain. But the flip side is the the liberalisation of, for example, of attitudes on sex, the environment, capital punishment etc. over the last 50 years. I'm 56 and believe me our generation is not becoming significantly more conservative as we age and we are becoming more trusting of your generation to deliver change
ReplyDeleteA challenge on the comment "people become more conservative as they get older".
ReplyDeleteThat can be true AND they can remain YES supporters. I fully expect the political makeup of Scotland to remain broadly similar to what it is today. That does not mean we will have people demanding London Rule.
Many of the countries which have gained their Independence had strong internal forces to maintain the status quo. Post Independence their conservatism ( large or small C) does not change it is instead directed into building their new nation.
We will always have a far left and a far right as all nations have.
When the dam bursts the water behind doesn't keep the same shape it always had!
BBC Scotland politicise the Coronavirus Public Health Daily Briefings.
ReplyDeleteThe scumbags at the BBC now broadcast DRoss and a pet expert Professor instead of actually listening to the FM and the professionals in charge. DRoss states the message is not clear and the BBC guy agrees. They do this whilst cutting off the people spending time actually trying to brief the public. The Britnats, the BBC and STV deliberately go out their way to confuse and prevent a clear message being broadcast to the public.
Britnats do not care if people get sick they just want Scotland to be the same or worse than England when it comes to the virus. As far as the media and the Britnats are concerned Scotland cannot be better than England at anything.
Yours for Scotland a blog by Iain Lawson
ReplyDeleteTHOSE NEC PROBLEMS
Who is the person in the photo at the top of that article?
Based on Skiers replies below re the Whatsapp messages I'm betting it is him.
DeleteBBC seem to have finally realised that Andrew Neil is a rubbish broadcaster that's not worth the extortionate salary he demands.
ReplyDeleteIf he'd been a decent, honest and truthful interviewer, his show might have had better ratings.
Peter Murrell CEO Scottish National party Whatsapp messages to Sue Ruddick Chief Operations officer Scottish National Party
ReplyDelete25th January 2019
Timed at 10.12.45
"Totally agree police should be asking the police questions...report now with the PF on charges which leaves police twiddling their thumbs. So good time to be pressurising them. Would be good to know Met looking at events in London"
Timed at 11.37.10
"TBH the more fronts he is having to firefight on the better for all complainers. So CPS action would be a good thing."
It would appear that the SNP recent NEC meeting couldn't find the time to discuss the above. The police are investigating the leaking of this info to MacAskill MP SNP. Not a word from the NEC or Murrell or Ruddick or Sturgeon after more than a week. Silence it would seem is golden in the SNP. The same time of gold used for the gold standard sec30 referendum - FAKE.
Yes, the leaking of this information out is extremely serious and whoever gave it to MacAkskill / unionist newspapers needs to be prosecuted. The goal was clearly an attempt to damage the indy movement. I hope the police catch who it was.
DeleteIt was certainly pretty stupid to break the law like this for a couple of pretty innocuous out of context tweets.
At least the tweets debunk the demented myth that Salmond was set up by the SNP in league with the CPS and police. Very obviously from the tweets the SNP are not in control of these; if they were, they'd have no need to attempt to 'put pressure' on them.
It's pretty clear Murrell is concerned by the growing list of allegations from a range of people, including attempted rape, and the hugely damaging effect that could have on the SNP/indy if true. If he was an elected official / member of the Scottish government, he should of course stay away from putting pressure on the CPS/police. However, as a civilian, there is no issue.
If the police were 'twiddling their thumbs', I'd be furious myself in the face of such allegations.
Do we know if Murrell was good friends with any of the complainers? This would certainly explain the tweets. If a female friend of mine told me someone had tried to rape them I'd find it hard to resist wanting to put as much pressure as I could on the police. I could do this in a civilian capacity or even as their MP. Pressure is fine as long as it doesn't affect outcomes. In the end, the pressure has led to Salmond being found completely innocent. If murrell did put pressure on the police, Salmond can thank him for the trial that cleared his name!
Anyway, I'd like to hear both Murrell and Salmond's side of this story. Without that, it's not possible to make a sound judgement as to any 'guilt' in the matter.
"TBH the more fronts he is having to firefight on the better for all complainers"
DeleteAssuming Murrell actually said these things - which we can't be
sure of as we only have criminal unionists as a source - that's actually a really interesting sentence.
He doesn't say 'the better for us', 'the better for me', 'the better for us all'... which would have been very revealing.
He doesn't even say...
'the better for the party'...
But really quite the opposite, i.e. "The better for the complainers".
Well yes, it would be. Absolutely. No doubt about it. And very damaging for the SNP if it turned out Salmond was a criminal perv all those years.
Certainly, I'm really fucking glad the messages were not:
"Totally agree police should not be asking questions...it's bad they are not sitting back twiddling their thumbs here. Would be a good time to be pressurising them to ease off. Also would be good to know Met are not going to be looking at events in London"
"TBH the less fronts he is having to firefight on the better for the party. CPS action would be a very bad thing for us."
Typo/ correction:
Delete"Totally agree police...." should read "Totally agree people should be asking the police questions"
Apologises for any confusion but Skier doesnt need any help in this anyway.
Can anyone give me a link to where Wings' accounts / tax returns are published? I want to make a fair comparison between e.g. who is funding him vs the SNP. SNP stuff is all online and freely available.
ReplyDeleteI've asked a few times on the site but my posts never make it past moderation for some reason.
Skier seems to conveniently ignore. " report now with PF on charges" - So the police report is with the PF so what exactly is Murrell suggesting PEOPLE pressurise the police about and why is it anything to do with Ruddick and Murrell if it is with the PF. Indeed why is it anything to do with them at all?
ReplyDeleteThe governing party in Scotland's Chief Exec getting involved in a criminal case - how exactly is that appropriate. Add in the fact he is married to the FM of Scotland - on what planet can anyone think this is appropriate. Oh that's right PLANET SKIER!!!!
Skier - "Salmond can thank him (Murrell) for the trial that cleared his name." Yeh I am sure Salmond has sent him a thank you card and a box of chocolates.
ReplyDeleteSkier you are not just on a different planet but a different galaxy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI was being tongue in cheek, but I assume you supported salmond going to trial just like murell did? Surely you supported the Scottish government and police investigating the accusations and not sitting on their assets twiddling their thumbs?
DeleteWhat we know for sure is that sturgeon and murrel were not part of this 'plot' to manufacture claims of sexual assault against salmond, even wings agrees with that. He had an article recently where he discusses in detail how sturgeon - and presumably so murell - only learned about the sexual assult claims against salmond in April 2018.
So, salmond may have been set up, but not by sturgeon and murrel, obviously.
This is what I don't get. Even wings argues that it's an - I quote - 'undisputed fact' that Sturgeon (and so Murell) first learned that a number of women had made accusations of sexual assault on the 2nd of April from Salmond himself, or possibly 4 days earlier from Salmond's long term friend and former chief of staff Geoff Aberdein. Nobody seems to be disagreeing with this.
Deletehttps://wingsoverscotland.com/the-people-in-the-room/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45294504
Even the most rabid of unionist rags have reported the same.
So, we can only conclude, that neither Sturgeon - nor presumably murrell - were involved in the 'manufacture' of the sex assault allegations, as they only found out about them from Salmond/his team shortly after Salmond did.
It also follows that, since the court case arising from the allegations didn't take place until March 2020, neither Sturgeon or Murrell could have possibly known Salmond was innocent until then. Just like the rest of us, they would have to assume he was possibly guilty. Only the accusers and Salmond himself would know the real situation, and without all the evidence presented in court, nobody else could judge either party fairly.
Which is why if you ask people exactly what Sturgeon's role in this conspiracy against salmond is, nobody can actually explain it. She just is involved ok! Long live Bath and England!
Certainly, if this was all Sturgeon's doing, it must be the first time in recorded history that the leaders of a political party, who are 'keen to keep themselves in power', have manufactured a massive party scandal going back years to attack a very popular former leader that retired years ago and doesn't even hold an elected position, for no obvious reason.
DeleteMI5 prep for the worst in 2014 re-hashed makes a lot more sense.
Skier - you just keep on demonstrating that you do not have a clue. I supported Salmonds crowdfunder for his judicial review. Which he won. Unfair unlawful and tainted by apparent bias the judge declared. The judge also declared that the report produced by the Scottish government on the charges was not to be ever made public.
DeleteThis scandal was stinking all the way back then and it continues to stink now but Skier has been unable to smell it. You just keep on with your fantasy explanations and misrepresentations Skier. You flood this stream with lots of nonsense to try and confuse matters.
More and more people know the truth as every day passes. You do a disservice to the cause of independence.
I supported Salmond's crowdfunder too. I smelled an MI5 rat and wanted to let the courts be the judge. I was worried I was wrong about the man, but had faith in my gut feelings based on what I knew. I was very pleased when he walked free. I'd told a lot of people that the allegations were a surprise to me and I hoped /felt they were probably false.
DeleteSorry, but no, I don't understand this conspiracy.
Please explain it to me and detail who was involved, including their roles. With the evidence of course.
I genuinely am open to this. You can't expect people to base their vote on rumours, unionist newspaper cuttings and bloggers who prefer the company of English folks to the cowardly Scots.
But surely you can understand when people inform me e.g. Nicola Sturgeon was involved in a conspiracy against Salmond that involved false allegations that she 'undisputedly' ((C) Wings) didn't know about until Salmond told her, I'm kinda skeptical.
That when asked if she 'knew of Salmond's reputation' and the fact that women were apparently 'warned not to be alone with him' she categorically said she knew nothing of this.
If Sturgeon had wanted to set up Salmond, she'd have said he had felt her ass a couple of times when drunk... that she knew 'he was a ladies man', 'had heard the rumours', and 'yes, knew of the warning not to be alone with him'.
The fact sturgeon was not an complainer made me suspicious. After all, here and Salmond have worked together forever. If he was a perv, she'd know and would say so in court.
She did none of these things. She claimed the exact opposite.
Wow, you are REALLY bad at reading.
DeleteSkier - you continually slag off Wings on this site but when Campbell turns up in person and gives you an opportunity to converse with him direct you do a runner. You are no braveheart Skier.
Delete"MI5 prep for the worst in 2014 re-hashed makes a lot more sense."
DeleteSo during the run-up to the actual referendum, when the Yes campaign, fronted by Salmond, was gaining in the polls and sometimes even getting a majority, MI5 decided the situation wasn't serious enough to deploy this smear; but in the middle of 2018, with Yes hovering around the usual mid-to-high 40s, no referendum on the horizon, and Salmond a has-been, THAT was the moment they had to break the emergency glass?
Doesn't make much sense, really.
Skier - "criminal unionists as a source" - now Skier you seem to know who leaked these messages so should I assume you have informed the police or are you perverting the course of justice by withholding relevant information pertaining to a crime. Or as is more likely you don't have a bloody clue about anything to do with this scandal as you keep on demonstrating.
ReplyDeleteWell, the police are investigating the leak because it was a crime, hence 'criminal'; something you have been at pains to emphasise.
DeleteAs a rule, I don't tend to trust criminals.
And if someone is leaking information to the unionist press that clearly has the potential to damage yes parties, it's fairly easy to guess which side they are on!
Skier says the leak was an attempt to damage the SNP by criminal unionists. He also says that the Whattsapp messages are just fine nothing wrong with them - time to move on nothing to see here. Even Skier must see that this take on the scandal makes no sense at all. (The evil unionists leak messages that Skier says are exemplary examples of a fine upstanding man.) Well maybe not - Skier does have some capacity for ignoring facts and making up his own stories.
DeleteSkier - you may want to note that contrary to what you posted above they were not "tweets" they were Whatsapp messages. It says that in my initial post so why did you keep saying tweets. Just like the Britnats over the virus you are using a tactic of sowing confusion by posting a lot of misleading nonsense.
DeleteSkier - " and if someone is leaking is leaking information to the Unionist press that clearly has the potential to damage yes parties, it's fairly easy to guess which side they are on."
DeleteError once again Skier. The Whattsapp messages were sent to Kenny MacAskill.
The leaking to the Unionist press (as you call them) was actually carried out when the leak was passed to the Daily Record all these years ago of the gory lies by the initial complainers. Still no investigation into who leaked the details by the Scotgov. I wonder why?
Aye, Its less creeping conservatism.
ReplyDeleteMore a case of seeing the light - and then being unable to unsee it.
Not many - if any - have gone from Yes to No since 2014.
There is also false recall, which you can't account for.
The Union is slipping away and they can't do anything to stop it.
The polling suggests otherwise, and false recall can work both ways.
DeleteDidn't know that Comic Relief was on this year...
DeleteScottish numbers: 26 September 2020
ReplyDelete714 new cases of COVID-19 reported; this is 11.5% of newly tested individuals
Prevalence now significantly higher in Scotland than rUK and we're up to 11.5%, over double the WHO threshold for control of the epidemic.
Who could possibly predict this:
ReplyDeletePolice have been called to break up a number of parties at the University of Edinburgh's main halls of residence.
Officers said they had dispersed "numerous" groups on Friday night at Pollock Halls of Residence, which houses about 1,900 students.
Scotland's National Clinical Director Jason Leitch said the pandemic was now "accelerating" in Scotland
ReplyDeleteMr Leitch said the trend in Scotland would now be for rises of "300 to 400 to 600" in the number of cases, rather than smaller increases.
"Our pandemic in Scotland is presently accelerating - and we need to manage it," he told the BBC.
It'll be England pulling up the drawbridge soon, calling Scots infested plague carriers.
Up shit creek - they can call us what they want that's never been a problem for them. If they close the border that's fine by me. But of course England does not have the courage to stand on its own two feet. Always wanting to loot other countries resources is their game.
DeleteHere you go again. The reality is that the reported new cases are almost certainly under reporting the true figure in England due to the virtual collapse of the testing system . Whereas here in Scotland the test and protect system is working really well as is the turnaround of getting results. The sad fact for England there were 30 deaths compared to 0 reported hospital based covid deaths in Scotland.
ReplyDeleteAlly
While Scotland has not reached the >5% for weeks WHO threshold yet (8 days so far at >5%), it's clear that if action had not been taken, things would definitely get out of control. It's good to see they moved as soon as it went >5% for a single day.
DeleteI'm not sure about under-reporting in England, but for reported numbers, the infection rate in Scotland is ~20% lower than England per captia over the last few weeks. A lower infection rate and tighter restrictions to keep it that way is what the electorate want, and rightly so.
The difference this time is the UK government making 10's of 1000's of Scots unemployed by withdrawing the furlough scheme in the middle of a pandemic. The excuse that 'but covid just makes these bar/restaurant/hotel etc jobs redundant forever so we shouldn't save them' is not going to convince anyone. The idea that the tourism / hospitality industry is gone forever is a joke, especially as they are bigging up a vaccine within the next 6 mounts or so.
The Tories like a large pool of unemployment as it makes for desperate workers willing to take low wages. It's just they have to make it appear the unemployment isn't their fault. Covid is perfect cover for them. Large Tory majorities = long dole queues. Anyone around in 1980's Scotland will remember this. They're the party of unemployment.
245,363 tests processed in UK today, 17,518 in Scotland, testing higher per capita in rUK and positivity rate lower.
Delete-Both indicators the pandemic is being better controlled in rUK.
DeleteExactly! And why is it working better in Scotland?
DeleteBecause the people trust and respect the Scottish government advice in a way that folk in England don't for Boris and Co.
"245,363 tests processed in UK today, 17,518 in Scotland, testing higher per capita in rUK and positivity rate lower."
DeleteErm, the more people you test, the lower the % positive you get. This is basic statistics.
Testing is normally a reflection of how bad things are; the worse they are, the more you test.
And England (6675.9/m)) has a total of 32% more recorded cases per capita than Scotland (5059.6/m), and 44% more deaths. I'm struggling to understand how that's 'better controlled'.
44% more deaths is better? What kind of sick fuck are you?
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/deaths
Unionists: Complaining that the Scottish government has let uni students into halls of resident at the same time as ending furlough for uni hall staff so they'd be unemployed without the students.
ReplyDeleteThe Scottish electorate are not idiots.
Interesting Opinium poll this evening - it puts SNP UK-wide at 6 per cent (the highest I've seen it so far in any UK-wide poll - they're usually on about 4 per cent) - it'd mean nearly 70 per cent in Scotland alone. I wonder what the sample was.
ReplyDeleteIt'll be tiny. And 6% does sometimes happen, it's just a sampling quirk.
DeleteMore interesting Labour ahead by 3 pts (Opinium), looking increasingly likely Keir Starmer will be next PM. Con may change leader but whether that would have an effect who knows. Starmer quoted as saying SNP have a mandate for indyref2 if they win a majority at Holyrood 2021.
ReplyDeleteScottish independence won't be won by looking South.
DeleteStarmer is trying to keep on the right side of SNP voters anent an Indyref mandate for pure self-interest.
It'll take at least 2 General elections to beat the Tories.
50+ anti-tory SNP MP's are on his mind not respecting Scotland's right to self-determination. Learn the lesson.
All BritNats are the same.
Starmer will beat Boris to PM, I'll wager anything you like on it. He only needs a narrow defeat and right now he's ahead. His approval ratings are much higher, Labour policies are much more popular and his now ahead in who would make the best PM . If there's a change at the top of the Tories then all bets are off, but Starmer will beat the calamitous, hapless, bumbling Bpris by a distance.
DeleteOh and the divisive issue of Brexit is pretty much settled for a decade, even Ed Davey has conceded to not have the Lib Dems to campaign to rejoin the EU. All signs point to a Labour victory at the next GE.
DeleteAll signs point to a Britnat victory at the next GE and the continuation of the 313 year old English dictatorship. Tories/Labour/Lib Dems/ whigs all imperialist English controlled dictatorship.
DeleteStarmer has led Scottish Labour to a record low in the polls. At least 6 points down on the disastrous 2016 result.
DeleteI think Labour could make some inroads in Scotland, at least at Westminster level again, if the UK party adopted a reverse brexit stance. If they don't they're fucked here.
DeleteHow on earth are Labour not ahead in England BTW? I mean jesus... bungling racist PM... thousands dead, a second pandemic wave with furlough being ended, disastrous brexit, rogue state breaking international law...
DeleteAnd Labour trail the Tories in the polls? Why on earth are they not 30 points ahead?
It's hard not to conclude that people in England just like all this shit. Bloggers who freely choose to live there included. Little chance of anything but British trump nutter Tories in charge for the foreseeable.
The Britnat Marr show tells you that UK students are being persecuted by the bad governments in the UK. However, it must tell its viewers that it is worse in Scotland because students have been told in Scotland they won't be going home for Xmas. The Tory Camilla Tominley is of course lying when she says this. Just par for the course for a lying Tory who used to work at the Express newspaper. Of course the Britnat Marr does not correct her.
ReplyDeleteBritnats/Tories what a bunch of untruthful chancers they are. The UK is a disgusting entity.
Hospitalisations are now rising and ICU admissions increasing, we're approaching a very scary time. Scotgov should impose travel restrictions to prevent the spread to less infected areas.
ReplyDeleteOn Politics Scotland Brewer puts it to John Swinney ( Mr gradualist) that it may not be appropriate to have the election in May 2021. Swinney replies with a pretty weak defence of the need to have the election but says that the Scotgov will have to consider that possibility and work on contingencies. Swinney did NOT come across as someone determined to get a super majority in Holyrood and prove the case, once again, for our democratic right to have Indyre2 and of course achieve independence.
ReplyDeleteSo if the election does not take place what sort of logic contortions will all the people on WGD and Skier come up with then.
Wake me up when the SNP get round to giving us a vote for independence - wait a minute scrub that - the next one might not be for another 307 years.
Salmond, who's always been great mates with Swinney, was the most famous SNP gradualist.
DeleteI'm still waiting for you to explain the role of Sturgeon in the Salmond conspiracy. What about Swinney? What part did he play?
DeleteIf they were involved, please tell me how. If they were not, that's great. Please confirm.
This should be easy for you to answer either way.
Skier NOT the Braveheart - aye you ran away from Campbell. I used to think you were James Kelly but Kelly would never post any of the complete nonsense you posted above. Also Kelly may not like Campbell either but at least he has the courage to stand up to him on his own site. Not you Skier.
DeleteYou post all your fairy story crap full of factual errors and expect me to be your own personal information service. What a brass neck Skier.
You are repeating yourself about Salmond and gradualism - you said that already - running out of things to say - or bad memory. I neither worship Salmond or Sturgeon as Gods so you are wasting your time with this nonsense.
Sounds to me Swinney is keen for the election to go ahead and any bridges will be crossed when we get to them.
ReplyDeleteUnless like you ISP you're a half glass empty kinna guy/guyess.
Tell your SNP branch delegate to vote on the plan B motion at the SNP conference.
And surely an attempt to defer the 2021 SP election is more likely to come from a panicky London than the government here.
You're beginning to sound like SNP Bad.
Check the opinion polls. That'll cheer ye up.
If you're a genuine Yesser that is.
I hae ma doots..
If the ISP do as well as the Greens or the Libs on the List in my region, they'll not win a single seat and hand a few more of these to the unionists. Neither made the 5% threshold.
DeleteSame story for the Greens in central Scotland and NE Scotland.
They won only 6 seats. Hell, the libs who had the benefit of full coverage from the BBC only managed 5.
This is why I will never trust anyone that tells me I can safely use my 'second, spare / extra vote' for a small list party at 'basically no risk'. It's a straight out lie. That or a deliberate attempt to split the indy vote. That or they don't understand the system so should be ignored.
Voting for a small list party is very risky. By all means vote for them if you really like them above all, but do so knowing the risk.
Ramstam - " I hae my doubts." So do I about the SNP leadership.
DeleteI'm a kinda open my eyes look at facts/evidence and apply a modicum of intelligence kinda guy. Not a stick my head in the sand kinda guy.
I am not an SNP member. You can call me SNP bad if you want I'll just call you independence bad in return if that is your level Ramstam.
Re the opinion polls - as they are so good why the hell are the SNP not getting us to hell out of this god awful union.
As far as I am concerned I want to vote for independence - you know actual independence not all these bloody promises of a referendum.
In the midst of the Covid crisis I'm sure you don't want an Indyref this Autumn.
DeleteWhat pisses me off is the lack of action on independence since 2014.
We were promised action virtually every year. Nothing transpired.
Why are we not leafletting to inform voters of Scotland's wealth and Holyrood's lack of powers?
Our MP's should make Scotland Centre stage by the use of parliamentary tactics.
ISP you're clearly frustrated, but shooting ourselves in the foot when the public are moving towards YES makes no sense.
Sort out the rogue element on the SNP NEC (something you can't do as a non-member).
Then get some of our best MP's into Holyrood.
Brexit looms. London's incompetence will increase indy support by the spring, and we'll have the result of the legal challenge.
NS is having to permit debate at the SNP Conference because of growing unease.
Things are moving behind the scenes, but you will influence nothing outside of the SNP.
IoS, I listen to evidence too.
DeleteNobody is providing any for me about the roles of Sturgeon, Swinney etc in setting up their long term friend and mentor.
I ask again; please detail their roles, with links, so I can make a fair assessment.
Thanks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI share the frustration too Ramstam. I have little doubt however that Yes would have lost a referendum held in the past 6 years. Maybe a sudden snap one days after the brexit result might have had a chance, but still unlikely. Campaigns have never stopped; everyone has a position on indy; it is central to life in Scotland now. It's not 2011 any more. Leaflets, doorstepping etc are unlikely to make that much of an impact.
DeleteScots voted no in 2014, and by a decent enough margin to mean they probably were not going to overturn it for a good few years, short of something huge happening.
The brexit vote shocked them, but they then held increasingly back waiting to see how it all panned out. And it was not cut and dried; many Yes supporters back Scotland in the EFTA for example.
However, deep down, the plates have been slowly shifting and those that said Yes briefly after june 2016 have now decided firmly that's what they think is best. Boris's refusal of an S30 has helped push many to yes; how dare this Englishman from another country take their vote off them. Who the hell does he think he is!
I don't think covid has much to do with polling; the Yes crossover was before it hit, and had been moving that way for the past 3 years. If anything, it's just confirmed to people that London is incompetent and nasty.
That and underlying demographics eating away at a Britishness that's passing into history after being a quite fleeting part of Scotland's history.
I too would like to see improvements made to the NEC. I don't know enough about everyone on it to pass judgement from my armchair, but it does seem overly bulky and should be accountable / transparent.
But then delegates get the chance to vote on that soon when they vote on this after hearing what Cherry, MacAlpine etc have to say. I'll be voting for the latter on the list again if she's there in my region. I won't be throwing my most important vote away for a party polling 1% promoted by English blogs that don't publish accounts.
Ramstam - too bloody right I am frustrated. Why do we need a referendum? This gold plated Sec 30 stuff is just nonsense. A democratic vote for a party that puts actual independence in its manifesto is all that is needed. A greater than 50% vote.
DeleteI have voted SNP all my life and I now feel that the current leadership are conning me. I'll ask you again who thought it was a good idea to scrub Salmond from the SNP history and who took the decision. This was done before the trial - prejudging the decision - disgraceful. The SNP are under the control of people who are not interested in independence - that is my opinion and I am entitled to it - and it is up to the membership who I am sure are like me 100% for independence to do something about it.
A simple example - The GERS report every year gives Britnats ammo against independence. They say it is the Scotgov telling the people of Scotland that Scotland is an economic basket case. GERS of course is just propaganda but it has been around since 1992 and the SNP just let it happen every year. Talk about shooting yourself in both feet. This is the type of stuff that leads people to think the SNP are just comfortable with a bit of devolution.
Skier - " the FACT Sturgeon was NOT a complainer made me suspicious." Here is another of Skiers contradictory assumptions. Skier says he has no idea who the complainers are but categorically assures us that Sturgeon is not one of them - based on what knowledge - SFA knowledge. Can anyone ever have posted so much crap on one subject as Skier has on this stream. But he just keeps on coming - making a total arse of himself.
ReplyDeleteErm, the papers all say Sturgeon didn't know about the complaints until April 2018, as per the Wings article where he says this is 'undisputed'. Did she make complaints of sexual assualt she wasn't aware of?
DeleteThey also say they came as a shock to Sturgeon in her own words, long term friend of Salmond. Was she shocked to discover she's made formal complaints she couldn't recall making?
They also say she knew nothing of any apparent advice to 'not be alone with him', again straight from her own mouth. Hardly very accusatory.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45294504
She as also a defense witness for Salmond. You understand that mean she was lined up to testify against the accusers in favour of Salmond? Yes, to, in effect, say the accusers were not being truthful, but Salmond was.
I ask again. Please detail her role.
To be clear, I am aware that Sturgeon apparently fell out with Salmond over his RT show, which she worried would damage the party due to its Russian links. For him to step back, only into a role which would give the unionist rags countless headlines with which to bash him/the SNP with, was bound to piss her off. I do understand her anger.
DeleteHowever, my opinion was that while the Russia Today show would make any political comeback for Salmond impossible - something he would know full well himself, ergo had no intention of returning - it would not have any impact on the SNP, not if he was retired from politics.
And that's what the case was.
It's why I don't believe the feeble 'Senior SNP were out to get Salmond to stop him making a comeback' shite. All his actions are consistent with him have zero intent to do so in any significant way. I mean Jesus, an FM with a show on RT? Lol. Aye right. Nope, he chose to return to civilian life for good.
That and he's hitting retirement age too.
So please someone give me a decent motive for senior SNP to apparently undertaken such a massive exercise in self harm as to manufacture a huge popular leader sex abuse scandal dating back years.
DeleteThe only people I can see with motive are MI5 starting from the time Salmond became FM. Which is precisely when he magically became a sex pest according to his accusers. That or some poisoned individuals with personal grudges who are unhappy because he didn't get them something they felt was their right.
Skier - more rubbish - " you understand that means she was lined up to testify against the accusers in Salmonds favour." Just another casual assumption made by Skier. Witnesses called by the defence are often hostile/unwilling witnesses. If you don't know that you are deliberately misleading or just plain ignorant. You are starting to remind me of the person who claimed Sturgeon wasn't outside the court to give Salmond a big hug after the not guilty verdict because of the virus. The people plotting on the Whattsapp are all Scotgov/SNP personnel. Who runs the Scotgov/SNP - the Murrells.
DeleteWhy don't you just tell us what Sturgeon has done exactly, other than have something of a falling out with Salmond over his RT show?
DeleteWhat has she done and what were the motives?
If you want people to not trust Sturgeon, you need to actually explain why. You need what she's done with evidence and, crucially, credible motives.
As far as I can see, the Wings blog and all the papers have made it clear she didn't make any complaints against him, didn't know of the complaints until Salmond told her, told all the papers she was really surprise by the accusations, had never heard any rumours of such behaviour or the manufactured warnings apparent given to women such as her that spent time along with the man, and didn't testify against him. This doesn't come across as particularly malicious to me.
So, please, please, please explain what she's done 'wrong' exactly, other than no longer being on great terms with Salmond like she used to be.
Peter Murrell doesn't run the Scottish government.
DeleteWhat kind of demented fantasy is that? He has zero voting rights in parliament. Zero. Zip. Zilch.
Firstly, Scots choose the government, obviously. Not Murrell.
At most, Murrell has some influence over SNP parliamentary policy, but clearly not much over it's elected members given the number of open critics of certain aspects of this, Joan MacAlpine my list MSP included.
He certainly has absolutely naff all influence over the Scottish civil service, the boss of which is Westminster. London selected Leslie Evans and pays her wages. When the latter sought to start an investigation into allegations of salmond attempting to rape someone etc, Murrell would not have been able to stop it, even if he'd wanted to (and I hope to god he did not want to stop it). Zero influence on anything.
And Sturgeon approved the investigation because how could she not? Was she to try and brush the allegations under the carpet? Should she have used her influence to try and block the police / CPS investigation?
Please explain all this to me and other readers instead of just attacking my posts.
All you are doing is telling people to believe something without actually explaining to them what it is they are supposed to believe. They've just to take your word for it that sturgeon was up to something. You can't seem to tell us what that was, what exactly it was she did, and what the motives were, just that 'she was right!'
If you know, just tell us all!
One of the worst affected halls is Glasgow University's Murano Street residences where at least 172 students have tested positive for Covid-19 and hundreds more are self isolating.
ReplyDeleteLucy Owens, a student living in the Murano complex and who has coronavirus, questioned why students had been brought back given so much learning had moved online.
She asked on the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme: "What are we paying for? I could do everything I am doing from my house, so why have they sent us here?
"I know we're making the most of this accommodation because we're stuck in it all day but we're not really making the most of being at university.
"Putting two thousand students into such a confined area, something like this was bound to happen."
No shit, which clown was responsible for this.
My understanding is that halls of residence staff across Scotland all face redundancy unless halls are occupied due to the UK government ending the furlough scheme in a month.
DeleteHalls of residence staff in England of course fact the same fate, hence universities were keen to bring students back on campus there too.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteUK government are saying halls staff jobs should not be saved because halls won't be needed once the pandemic is over, with covid making staff roles 'redundant in the post-covid world'.
DeleteJust like they were not needed after Spanish or Hong Kong flu pandemics.
Of course the students themselves don't want this and don't want to put thousands of halls staff out of a job. Hence they massively support Scottish indy and...
https://www.fenews.co.uk/press-releases/48981-almost-nine-in-ten-students-are-keen-to-return-to-campus
Almost nine in ten students are keen to return to campus
I bet nine out of ten drinkers wanted to return to pubs, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea though.
DeleteUp shit creek - "so why have they sent us here" - no one forced her to go there - that student was a carefully selected Britnat - who also said her parents blamed the Scotgov. Just standard stuff from the Britnat media - hunt down someone who will say what they want and put them on the telly.
DeleteJames have you been analysing the recent Opinium poll that showed the SNP on 6% nationwide? Can we look forward to an article?
ReplyDeleteSkier - " I mean Jesus, an FM with a show on RT" - so how does RT compare with the BBC when it comes to propaganda against independence. I know who has been working against independence since 1922 and it ain't RT.
ReplyDeleteAn FM with a show on the BBC - that's what we have every day but if we apply your contorted logic then Sturgeon supports the BBC.
I'll give you one thing Skier you can sure produce some volume of absolute mince. It would be a full time job trying to read and post where you are wrong on all your crap.
Erm, Sturgeon doesn't have a paid for show on the BBC.
DeleteIt would absolutely be inappropriate for to have one, yes, even if it was BBC 'Scotland'.
But Salmond's RT show is fine as he's retired. He knew when he went on RT it would be fine because he's retired. People don't really care now.
If he wanted to stand again, he would definitely need to give it up and the media would tear him to shreds anyway over it, just as they've tried to. Of course, Sturgeon has been the one taking all the flack for it as she's the SNP FM being asked about it all the time by the unionist media. No wonder she was a bit pissed off.
You seem to agree with me that an FM should not be in the pay of a foreign news channel, even an English one (BBC). So you must agree with me on Salmond and RT should he want to make a comeback, right?
As a civilian he can do what he likes. It's a decent show and I, like the Scottish population, have no issues with a him doing such things to earn a living post-politics. However, as an elected official, it would be questionable. As FM, it would really be an absolute a no-no, whether it's the BBC or RT.
Skier - never said Sturgeon was paid by the BBC. You are full of straw men arguments, deflection and just downright error strewn comments. You are the person who raised Salmond being FM on RT - no one else.
DeleteSkier - according to you Peter Murrell gets paid a large salary for doing what - nothing! You really don't have a clue.
ReplyDeleteI answered your question - the Murrels are responsible for what goes on in the SNP and Scotgov. The buck stops there. I told you before on a previous thread that your pathetic attempts to goad me in to posting information that would break the law shows your character in a very poor light.
Sturgeon signed off the new RETROSPECTIVE Scotgov harassment process that her Chief of Staff was involved in that targeted FORMER ministers. There is no other country in the world that has a process that includes former ministers. The UK civil service advised against including former ministers. What other former minister has it been used against since it was introduced all those years ago? None is the answer - it was designed to attack Salmond. The Scotgov already had a harassment procedure but it was decided it was insufficient - they couldn't get Salmond.
At first I thought you were just ignorant but now I think you are deliberately posting to mislead.
PS Skier - you ignore my questions all the time but think you have got some absolute right that I should answer your questions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHe gets a salary for being CEO of the SNP. As you are not a member, so presumably don't fund this salary, I'm not sure what your complaint here is. All chief execs of all parties get a salary.
DeleteNo, Sturgeon does not tell the Scottish civil service what to do, nor does she pay their wages. Nor does she tell committees what to do, or MSPs how to vote. She has some sway over here own MSPs, but that's it. And she's FM because Scots put her there by voting for her / the SNP.
She isn't a president; she doesn't have executive powers. Murrell has none at all.
As for retrospective, are you saying that perverts should be allowed to walk free from past sexual assaults if they happened a while ago? Seriously? How long before you think perverts should be let off the hook? A week, a year, 5 years?
Are you saying criminals should not be retrospectively prosecuted for crimes they committed in the past?
Are you saying if Saville was alive, his actions shouldn't be investigated retrospectively?
If Salmond had attempted to rape someone, are you saying he should have been let off as it happened before there were procedures in place for dealing with such things at Holyrood?
Sure he was innocent, but it's only since march we've known this.
Yes, I can fully understand why unionists in London wanted the new procedures not to be retrospective, what with the Westminster pedo scandals etc. I can fully understand why they wanted their own perv pasts to be brushed under the carpet. I'm very glad the SNP didn't want to hide any perv skeletons in their closet.
And, if unionists were against retrospective investigations, surely that means they were trying to protect Salmond? You seem to be claiming that Britnats tried to protect Salmond? Really? I'm not sure that's a good thing to claim re the ISP if he's backing them.
You still have not explained what Sturgeon has done exactly.
Apparently, her 'crime', in your eyes, was to agree that claims by some women that Salmond abused them (and even tried to rape one) should be investigated. That's not a crime in my book, and I think most decent Scots would agree.
Nor of course did she make any accusations against him. Quite the opposite.
'The UK civil service advised against investigating former ministers [for sexual abuse]'.
DeleteYes, I'm damn sure they did. #kiddiefiddlers #cyrilsmithetc
Is Salmond a unionist? If the new procedures were only designed to target Salmond as you say, why did Whitehall advise the Scottish government against implementing them? If it was all about Salmond, Whitehall must have been trying to protect him. This is Salmond we are talking about. If Whitehall got wind he could be faced with sex assault allegations, why the hell would they try to stop that? Only if he was one of them would they do that.
Or, more sensibly, it wasn't about Salmond in particular, and whitehall was primarily trying to protect its own former ministers who may have been up to no good in the past.
Skier - the two initial complainers had already had their complaints investigated under the original process. Changing a process and applying it retrospectively to the same complaints is out of order. You are deliberately trying to mix up a criminal charge with the initial Scotgov process in your posts. Any of the alphabet women could have taken their complaint directly to the police at any time. As I said before you are trying to sow confusion. Shameful.
DeleteDeflection and misrepresentation is your game - but why?
According to Skier Sturgeon and Murrell are nearly powerless and cannot take any responsibility for what the people who work for them do never mind Murrell in the Whatsapp clearly encouraging PEOPLE to pressurise the police in Scotland (to do what exactly since he says the police have already sent their report to the PF) and also try and get another prosecution underway in London.
Skier away and wander in to the disgusting world of Saville and Cyril Smith if you want - nothing but deflection.
Sturgeon says there are now 122 people in hospital in Scotland with coronavirus, an increase of 17 on the previous day. And there are 16 people in intensive care, an increase of four on the previous day. Sturgeon says these figures show the virus is spreading and that the higher case numbers are not just explained by more testing. She says on 15 September there were just 48 people in hospital, meaning hospital numbers have doubled in a fortnight.
ReplyDeleteHow are the new case and % positive numbers looking?
DeleteRising or falling?
We were waiting for your update.
Skier - "I'm very glad the SNP didn't want to hide any perv skeletons in their closet." Wrong again. The initial investigation was by the Scotgov under their new process. The criminal investigation was by the police. So what was Murrell and Ruddick and PEOPLE doing pressurising the police in Scotland and London.
ReplyDeleteYour comments have no consistency or logic - one minute it was nothing to do with Murrell he is a jolly nice chap, next minute the SNP were right to get involved but this involment was not Murrell who actually does nothing and has no responsibility for anything in the SNP.
Total nonsense you are posting. I wouldn't like to have you as a defence lawyer that's for sure. So just why are you defending the indefensible with all your contradictory posts, deflection and just plain inaccuracies.
So now it wasn't the SNP out to get Salmond, but the civil service and police following up on the accusations, which we both agree didn't come from the leaders of the SNP.
DeleteGlad that's cleared up.
If a number of women I knew told me they'd been sexually abused, and the police were twiddling their thumbs, I'd definitely put pressure on them. Not you? Is this like how you think we can let rapists off the hook retrospectively?
And anyway, we've no evidence of what Murrell did or didn't do apart from some whatsapp messages that apparently came from him according to a criminal who is anti-independence. Before we can judge these, we'd need to see them confirmed as from him, and in the full context of the conversation. What you have presented so far would be completely inadmissible in court.
Don't recall saying murrell was a nice chap. You just made that up. He might be a total asshole. I've never met the guy, so don't know.
What he certainly doesn't have is power over the police and CPS. You were at pains to show us this with your whatsapp messages which, if true, showed his frustration at these not chasing up the Salmond allegations on behalf of the victims.
Once again, please detail the nature of this conspiracy, who did what, and provide the evidence.
Skier - "glad that's cleared up" - the amount of crap you have posted will take an eternity to clear up. Stop misrepresenting what I post.
DeleteSkier - Campbell got it correct the other night - you REALLY REALLY have a problem reading.
DeleteI posted numerous times that the police had already passed their report to the PF - that's procurator fiscal - its in the Whattsapp but you seem to keep missing it.
skier - " your Whatsapp messages" - clearly you do have a problem reading accurately or you are deliberately misleading. What is it? They are Murrells Whatsapp messages not mine.
DeleteCampbell is talking about me?
DeleteI'm flattered.
Must be some truth to what I'm saying.
Can we see these original whatsapp messages or do we need to just trust the Daily Record on them?
DeleteSkier- " As you are not a member so presumably do not fund his salary" - what exactly is the relevance of this comment. Only SNP members are allowed to comment on this scandal is that it?
ReplyDeleteFYI, I have contributed to the SNP funds over a long time as have many other people who are not members but vote SNP. I won't be contributing any more money until the anti independence scumbags are out of the party.
Just more deflection and irelevant comments by Skier.
It would be useful if you could tell us who these anti-independence scumbags are, and provide the evidence to that effect.
DeleteI'm sure there are a few MI5 in there. Probably a few labour type careerists too, but then they'll be pro-indy soon enough if the populace are, such is the nature of these folk.
I'm sure there are some MI5 involvement in the ISP too. It would be a dereliction of duty if not. It's a perfect way to split the indy vote.
Skier - deflect deflect deflect all the time. Pathetic.
DeleteThat'll be a no then.
DeleteSkier - "you seem to be claiming that Britnats tried to protect Salmond" - no that is you on planet Skier in a different galaxy once again. More deflection and nonsense. In fact your posts are like a tsunami of nonsense,
ReplyDeleteNo the obvious point is that the Scotgov were so determined to put in their new process that retrospective complaints against former ministers were admissible even though no other country in the world has this and were advised against it. They lost the judicial review wasting a large amount of public money that Evans cannot quantify seemingly.
If the initial two complainers charges were as serious as they subsequently stated at the criminal trial why did they not go to the police in the first place. Why go through the charade of the revised Scotgov process? Who did leak their gory details to the Daily Redcoat and why has there never been an investigation in to the leak? Who authorised the removal of Salmond from the SNP history - according to Skier it couldn't have been Sturgeon or Murrell they have no authority in their party and don't have a clue about what is happening in their party.
Murrells letter to the Scot parliament committee - it wisnae me guv I know nothing.
You said the Scotgov process was 'solely made retrospective to target Salmond' and 'whitehall advised against this'.
DeleteSo I am right in saying Sturgeon directly went against what the unionists wanted here, yes?
Yes, the allegations were false, as the court concluded. But we know Sturgeon / Murrell were not responsible for these; they were told about them by Salmond.
I don't know what it is you wanted.
Let's keep this simple.
When the allegations came to light in April 2018, what would have liked to see happen?
1. Nothing. The SNP ignore these and try to have Holyrood do the same. They agree with whitehall that any investigations should not be retrospective. If Salmond (or anyone else) did actually assault/harass people, they don't have any means of progressing with complaints if the incidents were in the past.
2. There is an initial (totally botched) Scottish government investigation to see if there has been a breach of harassment policy, with complaints about incidents even many years ago being investigated, like e.g. the Jimmy Saville inquiry. based on findings, materials are supplied to the police. Senior SNP support this.
Skier - total waste of time conversing with you - you just ignore the facts you don't like - there is something wrong with you or you do on it purpose just to be an xxxxxxx.
ReplyDeleteI ask again, please list the senior SNP who are unionists, with evidence to that effect.
DeleteAlso confirm those involved in setting up Salmond, with what they did exactly, with evidence.
All I know is that some women, some of which are apparently in the SNP, made up some accusations and encouraged others to do similar. This group does not involve Sturgeon, even though she spent the most time with Salmond, often alone.
Can I safely vote for Joan MacAlpine on the list? What about Christine Grahame? Paul Wheelhouse? How about Swinney?
I promise I will not respond, but let you explain all this to us in detail first. Then we can discuss.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI guess we can tick Alex Neil off the list.
DeleteHe's right at the heart of the SNP, former Salmond cabinet and doesn't seem to think there's definitely been a conspiracy, and if there was, it was the 'organs of the [British] state', not the SNP.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-52017020
But he added: "If the organs of the state like the [UK] civil service, the [historically unionist leaning] Crown Office and government advisers [aka UK civil service] were involved in any such conspiracy, that's a very serious matter.
"So my view is that, once the coronavirus crisis is over, there needs to be an independent judge-led inquiry to find out was there a conspiracy, if there was what was the conspiracy, who was involved and was there criminality involved in such a conspiracy."
I totally agree.
Am I right in understanding most/all of accusers are British government paid civil servants rather than people we'll be voting for in May 2021?
Wait, so 7 out of the 9 accusers are not remotely SNP, but British civil servants on the direct Westminster payroll?
Deletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51926614
One is an 'SNP party worker', and only one a 'politician' of some form (the hand on the leg in the car claim)?
Shit, this 'high level SNP conspiracy' thing even more ropey than I thought.
Skier - " am I right........" you are never right about anything on this matter. Total plonker.
DeleteEven Richard fucking Leonard gets it, takes some doing to be outwitted by that clown.
ReplyDeleteMr Leonard highlights scientific modelling which predicted that the virus would spread in student accommodation.
Mr Leonard says: "We are seeing a situation where the Scottish government has failed to anticipate, failed to plan, failed to put in place the testing infrastructure and, frankly, failed to act on the scientific advice."
The Scottish Labour leader says there should have been a "more cautious approach" to the mass return of students with a "default position" of distance learning.
How are the case numbers and % positive looking?
DeleteFlip flop, flip flop
ReplyDeleteStudents who are struggling at university accommodation following a spate of Covid outbreaks have been told they can return home.