Tuesday, December 1, 2020

A quiet revolution inside the SNP

Just before Tony Blair invaded Iraq, something which he had plainly already made up his mind to do, he sent out junior ministers to claim they were making a "last push for peace".  It was the ultimate Orwellian linguistic trick - framing the warmongering government as peace-lovers, and the anti-war resistance to the government as the obstacle to peace.  I was reminded of that episode the other day when Alyn Smith started his rather brazen crusade against "factionalism" within the SNP - which was really a pitch for people to vote for his own diehard faction in the name of anti-factionalism.  And yet we know that one or two souls were naive enough to be impressed by his words and to take them at face value.  So the question was whether enough people would be hoodwinked to change the trajectory of the SNP's internal elections over the weekend.  Judging by Mr Smith's own result, his gambit failed.

Policy Development Convener Election (first preferences):

Chris Hanlon 43.3%
Alyn Smith 37.5%
Graeme McCormick 19.3%

Final count:

Chris Hanlon 54.8%
Alyn Smith 45.2%

That really is an astounding result when you consider that Mr Smith is far, far better known than Mr Hanlon.  OK, conference delegates are perhaps a little less likely to be 'starstruck' than the rank-and-file membership, but even so.

I've lost count of the number of times over the years that it's been suggested that SNP members might use an internal election to push the party in a more radical direction.  Usually nothing materialises, which makes this batch of results all the more remarkable.  Perhaps delegates could sense that independence was on the ballot this time, and that it was now or never if we were to get back on track in terms of strategy.  Take a look, for example at the contest for President - everyone knew that Mike Russell would win, but what we were waiting to see was whether Craig Murray would secure a big enough minority of the vote to send a message about members' unease in regard to the lack of urgency on an independence referendum. I think it's fair to say that he exceeded expectations.

SNP President election:

Mike Russell 61.7%
Craig Murray 24.5%
Corri Wilson 13.9%

The headline result is Joanna Cherry's triumphant return to the NEC - a body that has lost its way to such an extent that, under the control of Alyn Smith's anti-faction faction, it made a botched attempt to bar Ms Cherry from standing in last year's general election.  Her unofficial running-mate Neale Hanvey was well off the pace on the NEC vote, but managed to win a place on the Conduct Committee - quite an achievement for someone who was himself suspended from the party until only a few months ago.

Arguably the most important results symbolically are the oustings of Rhiannon Spear and Fiona Robertson as Women's Convener and Equalities Convener respectively.  Both had narrowly won their positions last year in the face of a fierce challenge, and I had thought they might hold on with a bit more to spare this time due to Colette Walker and others decamping to a new fringe party.  Their unexpected defeats will surely make it a lot harder for the leadership to press ahead with plans for self-ID.

But in a sense this outcome poses a dilemma for one or two of the rebels too - having won the party back to some extent, won't it be harder to justify sabotaging the party next May by splitting the vote on the list?

107 comments:

  1. No, because voting for a list party IS MULTIPLYING THE VOTE, NOT SPLITTING IT. Sheesh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Voting for a list party is not splitting the vote (even less multiplying it), but throwing the vote away. There's no difference between not voting at all and voting for a list party that stands zero chance of passing the threshold.

      Delete
    2. If Yes parties do end up with far more seats than votes (which is a long shot fraught with risk as your excellent article detailed*), it means Scotland 'Has not got the government it voted for'.

      If Scotland 'Getting a unionist government it didn't vote for' is unacceptable, how is 'getting a pro-Yes party government it didn't vote for' acceptable? It's ok to have an elective dictatorship as long as it's 'our lot' in charge?

      If Scotland is to make a success of independence, it must be because that's what most Scots voted for, and they get the government they voted for. Swapping one kind of elective dictatorship for another is a recipe for a very unstable and disastrous start to independence. One that would lead to a collapse in governance and popular 'rebellion' of some form very quickly. The briefest glance at the history books tells you this.

      From someone complaining about careerism, I've have thought you'd understand this; parties winning a disproportionate number of seats attract careerists like flies to shit.

      As for me, I'll be voting for Joan McAlpine SNP on the list again if I can as per your recommendations on her stance regarding GRA etc.

      ---

      * https://wingsoverscotland.com/ams-for-lazy-people/

      Delete
    3. I used to think that voting for another 'independence' party on the list, was 'gaming the system' -- ie, attempting to secure non-proportional representation for one 'side'. Now it seems to me to be a perfectly sensible approach to choosing who I vote for: in my constituency, I can choose the person who I think is the best representative of me and my views at Holyrood, and on the list I will be able to vote for a parliament which is overall committed to independence.
      This decision on how to vote has not been based on any calculation of what the effect will be, if everybody does as I do..........

      Delete
    4. Sure, the British FPTP system delivers 'what voters voted for', i.e. big elective dictatorship majorities on minorities of the vote.

      It's actually the constituency FPTP element of Holyrood AMS which could theoretically be 'gamed' (or inadvertently give one side far more MSPs than vote share). The PR bit can't be gamed as it's PR so proportionate. The consistency FPTP element was originally desired by Labour and the Libs to give them safe seats.

      So if Yes (or No) did end up with a significant number of excess seats, it would have done the 'Great British' thing and achieved a Westminster style government.

      Anyway, I like my local SNP list candidates, and with other pro-indy parties on notably less than 5% (1% for this new SIP), I don't think I'll be gambling to hand unionists seats.

      Delete
    5. Frank Waring, Everyone's entitled to vote for whomever they want - there's no gaming the system no matter how you vote - but the one thing you have to realise is that if you vote for a list party that gets less than 5% it's the same as if you hadn't voted at all. In that case you haven't gamed the system then, but the system gamed you.

      Delete
    6. If many people decide who their votes will go to, based on their opinion of what everyone else is going to do, the result is likely to be entirely chaotic (in the mathematical sense). My advice would always be 'Play a straight bat, And vote for those whom you wish to see in Parliament!'

      Delete
    7. "multiplying the vote"

      What a load of tripe. It's sad we've reached the stage where RevStu is just flat-out deceiving his readers, but doubtless many will believe him. Presumably this means we can still 'look forward' to the spectacle of a new fringe party that is either run by Wings or backed by Wings. Spoiler alert: it will take less than 5% of the vote in each region and won't win any seats.

      Delete
    8. Skier - McAlpine is standing in Dundee City East constituency. I've told you this before.

      Delete
    9. "What a load of tripe. It's sad we've reached the stage where RevStu is just flat-out deceiving his readers"

      Ah, ad-hominem abuse rather than addressing the point, what an unexpected surprise. The undisputed fact of the matter is that WHETHER IT ENDS UP AFFECTING THE FINAL RESULT OR NOT, voting for a list party multiplies the vote, by a factor of between 7 and 10, because every vote for the SNP on the list will be divided by that many while votes for a list party will count in full. That's multiplication - well, to be precise it's the absence of division but it amounts to the same thing. The one thing it DEFINITELY isn't is a "split".

      As for your continued blind-faith insistence that you know authoritatively how parties that don't even exist yet might do at an election that's still six months of events away, meh. We'll see. I'm in the fact-analysing business, not the proclamations business.

      Delete
    10. Martin, people used to say that voting for the SNP was throwing your vote away.

      Delete
    11. "Martin, people used to say that voting for the SNP was throwing your vote away."

      Unionists claimed this, yes. They still do. Never once heard an independence supporter ever claim it. Only unionists.

      Delete
    12. "As for your continued blind-faith insistence that you know authoritatively how parties that don't even exist yet might do at an election that's still six months of events away, meh. We'll see. I'm in the fact-analysing business, not the proclamations business."

      Doesn't the whole gaming the list vote plan hinge on you projecting how the SNP will do six months from the election? In fact it requires voters to know the result before they vote, both in terms of who will win the constituency and how many other people are going to join them and vote for this list party. Get either of these wrong and both their votes could end up not counting.

      Everyone I've come across who is promoting a new list party seems absolutely convinced they know how the SNP will do anyway.

      They seem to know that a small list party will win seats in my region; something both the Greens and Libs failed to do. 4.7% of list votes went to the Greens last time, gaining zero seats. 3.7% for the libs resulted in no seats either.

      Lucky I voted for Joan McAlpine.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    14. If you seriously think any new Independence supporting party is going to break the 5% threshold you are even more delusional than I suspected Rev Stu.

      I had to laugh when I heard you were thinking of creating a WoS Party. As someone who is unwilling (or unable) to listen to the opinions of others you'd make a terrible leader. This too, when you have the brass neck to be constantly criticising Nicola Sturgeon.

      You are nothing but a liability to the Independence movement, a spoiled bully who provides a website as a platform for unionists and extremists to bad mouth the SNP.

      Delete
    15. Skier - McAlpine is standing in Dundee City East constituency. I've told you this before

      Och pants; didnae notice the SNP announcement. Well, good luck to her.

      Still most likely to be a vote for the SNP here as ISP is nowhere to be seen and is being promoted by the BBC / SE England blogs.

      Delete
    16. IDS: Martin, people used to say that voting for the SNP was throwing your vote away.

      Think about this way - if you vote for the SNP and SNP wins the absolute majority of MSPs, you have (I'd say now at least) 50% chance of the referendum in the year after the election. I also think the leadership got the message this weekend about where the SNP's priorities should be and why it is called SNP and will act accordingly.
      If you vote smaller parties the vote gets split and even if they enter Holyrood (which is not only highly unlikely, but bordering impossible now) the main message will be that the main party of independence didn't get the majority. 10 per cent of lost vote on different smaller indy parties could even mean Labour, Tory and LibDem majority. Then our chances of referendum and independences would be zero. I'll give both votes to SNP and see what happens - if they do nothing with it in a year, then I'll forget they ever existed. But - I do think they are aware of this now and that a big number of us aren't happy.

      Delete
    17. Skier says- " didnae notice the SNP announcement " - no you don't notice much do you - your own party and you don't know what is going on in your own region but you are an expert on everything.😂😂😂😂 Idiot.

      Delete
    18. Skier says - " I like my local SNP list candidates" - you didn't even know who was on the list. You thought McAlpine was still there. Idiot.

      Delete
    19. Skier says - "Luckily I voted for Joan McAlpine. " - no you didn't you voted SNP on the regional list which being the South of Scotland was a sensible vote. But you are still an idiot.

      If you want to vote for McAlpine get a move on to Dundee.

      Delete
    20. Martin, 6.48pm. In 2016 I voted SNP constituency and Greens Regional list. West of Scotland region. The Greens are in effect a list only party. They only stand a few in constituencies and will never win. My vote for the Greens helped to elect a Green MSP and in turn a majority for independence in the Scot Parliament. A vote for the SNP in my regional list would have achieved nothing. I have therefore practical experience of where analysing your region can be worthwhile in achieving an SNP government.

      Of course that is not to say that will be the exact same in 2021.

      If we were voting for actual independence then I would without any hesitation vote both votes SNP.

      As it stands we are voting for another promise of a "legal"referendum. My trust in Sturgeon is very low for a range of reasons.

      Delete
    21. IDS - I'm not telling anyone how to vote (I'm not even an SNP member) - and yes - regions are different as to whether to vote for the SNP or the Greens to maximise the vote.
      My trust in Sturgeon was more or less lost after her Brexit speech (I mean why did they hype it up before if they knew all she was going to say was we go high when the go low and we'll do FA for the time being) - but I'm looking at this from the point what brings independence closest now. And Sturgeon is popular with don't knows and also quite good with older people now after covid and she's probably the best person to get us to the referendum. SNP has to get to 50% for this to happen. And I assume that she does know that she'll be gone for good if nothing happens next year (probably together with the party)
      You can have a much harder person leading the SNP, but if they end up with 30, 35 or even 40% of the vote in May- it gets us nowhere.

      Delete
    22. RevStu: On the subject of "addressing the point", there's an excellent article I can recommend for you that explains why it's not possible to game the system (ie. to "multiply the vote"). It was written in the run-up to the 2016 election by a chap called Stuart Campbell.

      Some of us have remained consistent in our views since then, because we realise that the electoral system doesn't change just because our feelings about it change.

      Some of us.

      Delete
    23. 'Scots voters are idiots' is classic unionist.

      Yes, clever voters don't check who is standing in their own constituency before voting (I was pleased to hear Grahame will be my local candidate again), but check who is standing in other consistencies far from them.

      Like 'stupid' Scots 'vermin', ahead of May I will check who standing on the regional list in my area for parties. When I did this last time, Joan McAlpine was there, so I voted for her and the other SNP candidates like a 'idiot' jock who doesn't listen to advice from southern England.

      Delete
    24. Skier you are the site idiot and you prove that on a daily basis.

      Delete
  2. A really encouraging moment. Perhaps the point at which the SNP was saved. If it can re-accommodate the wing of the party that is less woke and more urgent on Indy (the Traditional Nationalists for want of a better term), the threat of a serious split should be over. Furthermore, there is hope that the leadership will take note and begin to steer away from such a cosy relationship with the nasty radical-woke wing of the party. Failing that, it bodes well for the party not falling into the hands of that wing whenever Nicola does end up standing down (which, after 6 years in office I would expect by the SP election after next).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thomas - in my opinion there should be an absolute time limit on how long one person can serve as FM - I would suggest 10 years.

      Delete
  3. I think that we can thank the work done by Rev Stu and others at raising the issues that the SNP has been facing. These results are very encouraging. I could not, in good conscious, support a political party that would take away the rights of women.

    Everyone has the right to live life the way they want as long as they are not harming others, but allowing people with male bodies in women's toilets, prisons and crisis centers is harmful. These internal election results means that I am confident that I will vote SNP for my constituency vote next year (something that I wasn't sure about). However, I think that this episode has shown how dangerous it is to give one political party sole ownership over the cause of independence. My second vote will be going to ISP.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good results all round. Parties will always have 'factions', especially movements such as the SNP, and it is importance balance is maintained.

    It also shows how there's nothing particularly wrong with the way the SNP is structured; if members want to influence things, they readily can.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes - this talk about 'factions' is a bit tiresome. If SNP didn't have 'factions', every member would think the same - which... well... wouldn't be a healthy thing for a party and is basically impossible anyway.
      I just hope all of them - NEC members, MSPs, MPs etc (from Joanna Cherry to Alyn Smith) can move away from this transgender topic which in the end is of a little interest to vast majority of voters.
      The whole thing reminds me of the antisemitism issue in the Labour - a topic used just to hit the opponents within a party on the head with. I hope the SNP won't take that route.

      Delete
    2. Martin, you are right that it is not abnormal for a political party to have factions. However, the SNP is the party of independence and if a faction that is in positions of power and influence is not interested in independence then that seems a pretty serious problem to me.

      Delete
    3. It's so funny. For all my life I've been told 'Don't vote SNP as they want to tear our precious union apart at the first opportunity! All they think about is independence and nothing else! They've totally ignored the day job to focus relentlessly on independence!'.

      Now, with independence in sight, unionists be all suddenly like 'Don't vote SNP because they don't want independence!'.

      It's hilarious. You couldn't make it up. Real last throw of the dice stuff.

      Pretty damn clear the unionists absolutely do not want an SNP (+ green) mandate for iref2 next May. Kinda settles it in terms of how I'll be voting.

      When the BBC / unionists and associated concern trolls start telling me to vote SNP, then I'll start looking for an alternative.

      Delete
    4. IDS
      Yes - I think everyone who's a SNP member should put independence first. But there are other things where people have to think the same. For example, I don't think Alyn Smith's a unionist. But he wouldn't have been my choice for a NEC member had I been allowed to vote.
      I also have a feeling there are lots of personal issues around these 'factions'. I hope they'll now put their boyfriends, girlfriends, sisters, GRAs etc aside and work together so that SNP wins the election and we can have a referendum shortly after that.

      Delete
    5. Martin, nice to have a reasonable reply for a change rather than that stalker Skier who says everyone is a Unionist who does not use the exact words he would use never mind have an INDEPENDENT mind on how to achieve independence.

      I am sure the SNP will win the election and I will be voting for them in the constituency. I just think it is a pity we do not have a leadership bold enough to put a mandate for actual independence in the manifesto.

      Delete
    6. Says the man claiming the SNP don't really want indy and have gone unionist.

      Talk aboot seeing unionists under the bed...

      Delete
    7. Skier like Britnats is a stranger to the truth. Of course I don't use the term Unionist, so once again you are lying Skier.

      Just when is this referendum taking place Skier? So confident that you run away from the question every time.

      Delete
  5. Questions: Is the SNP in any fit state to lead a campaign to secure Scottish independence, still less win it? When will it be ready? Does it need a new leader? When will s/he be in place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A new leader would really need to be more popular than Sturgeon with the electorate, with such a change backed by the majority of the party membership, assuming Sturgeon wished to continue at the helm.

      Delete
    2. No, the SNP doesn't need a new leader. Why would a party that's polling at 55 per cent or so (which party in any country with some sort of PR is polling that high?) need a new leader? It needs turning away from some issues that are not of a great interest to voters and focusing a bit more on different indy issues now in general and it will be good to go for the elections and the referendum shortly afterwards.

      Delete
    3. Is it significant that you chose not to answer the two prior questions?

      Delete
    4. To answer your question to Skier,
      1: evidently the SNP is capable of democratic participation by members to elect people like Joanna Cherry and reject others determined to pursue self ID. This looks to me like healthy democratic change, and a welcome return to its core message.
      2: No it does not need a new leader, it is already led by the most popular politician in the UK.

      Delete
    5. To answer more directly Frank..

      No, I don't think the snp need a new leader because sturgeon is a very popular one amongst both members and the electorate, which reflects her competency and general likeability. It's only if this were not the case woukd it be pertinent to start asking about a change.

      Unionists of course would love to see a change.

      Delete
    6. The SNP needs its leader to apologise to Salmond for 3 years of persecution.

      Anyone turning a blind eye to this has totally lost any sense of right and wrong.

      Delete
    7. Nonsense
      SNP didn’t bring charges against Mr Salmond

      Delete
    8. Has Sturgeon been found guilty of something? Maybe by the courts? How about the parliamentary Standards committee? An internal party investigation? Has Salmond even clearly and openly claimed she personally persecuted him for 3 years?

      So far, all I can see is a trial unionist media / bloggers / commenters guilty verdict.

      Delete
    9. Callaghan and Skier you have lost any sense of right and wrong.

      Sturgeon has said she is sorry for failing the two Scotgov initial complainers. The Court of Session said her government failed Salmond by taking actions that were an unlawful, unfair and tainted by bias process. She failed Salmond just as she failed the two complainers but she only apologises to the complainers. More one sided bias by Sturgeon - it seems the head of the gov and her civil servants take no responsibility for their actions and based on the committee hearings they say they did nothing wrong and have learned no lessons.

      The people at the top set the standards - the rest follow.

      Delete
    10. Sturgeon wasn't mentioned in the Court of Session ruling. Salmond didn't take her to court; she was just noted as an interested party. He called for Evans to resign, making no such call for Sturgeon or ministers.

      And the British civil service in Scotland isn't controlled by Sturgeon. You give yourself away by trying to pretend this is the case in the same way the BBC and unionist media outlets do.

      In democracies, the civil service is one arm of government, and ministers the other. The civil service is supposed to be impartial. It proposes legislation (such as the harassment procedure) to ministers who work with it to implement this as appropriate. However, ministers do not hire and fire civil servants for very, very obvious reasons; the civil service is supposed to be impartial. It recruits independently of ministers; at most they might get a say in final selection. Like Sturgeon could pick one of three London choices for PS and selected Evans.

      In an indy Scotland our civil service would be impartial as it would be Scottish. However, as part of the UK, our civil service is run from Whitehall so is very, very much British unionist, as Salmond has learned.

      Of course unionists like to pretend it's Scottish and that 7/9 of the complainers were minions of Sturgeon and the SNP rather than, correctly, fully paid up whitehall employees...

      But they've failed because Scots are not idiots.

      Delete
    11. In general Scots aren't idiots but you are.

      1.The Inquiry is investigating the First Minister, HER Scottish Government and HER special advisers.

      2. Why apologise to the initial two complainers if it us nothing to do with her?


      3. Why has she submitted written evidence to the inquiry?

      You have nothing but crap to post in reply. You are a proven liar and not the best person by far advocating for her but being an idiotic fanboy you don't see thst do you!

      Delete
    12. I should have also reminded the idiot Skier that Sturgeon signed off the process.

      Delete
    13. So Fergus Ewing signed this policy off yes?

      Delete
    14. And she signed off a retrospective enquiry into child abuse. Are you unhappy about that too, or is it just the sexual abuse of 'WOMEN!' you think can be ignored if it happened in the past?

      Delete
    15. Idiot Skier goes off on one.

      Totally irrelevant nonsense.

      Obviously , the point to anyone that is not an idiot is that the nothing about the child enquiry has been declared unfair, unlawful and tainted by bias by the Court of Session. Has it Skier ? - you just love your deflection and lies.

      I never said historic allegations of sexual abuse should be ignored.

      There really should be some sort of maximum number of lies you can post and then get banned. You idiot Skier would need a very high maximum limit indeed.

      What is this stupid obsession you have with Fergus Ewing? You are such an idiotic timewaster.

      Delete
    16. You just seemed to think allegations of past sexual abuse should be ignored with the holyrood policy no enforceable retrospectively. Ergo, if ministers had sexually abused people in the past, they could avoid investigation, as recommended by Whitehall.

      Or do you think it was right that the Holyrood policy was made retrospective?

      Delete
    17. Skier like Britnats is a stranger to the truth.

      Skier the idiot clearly does not understand the difference between "historic/past " and "retrospective".

      Delete
    18. retrospective
      /rɛtrə(ʊ)ˈspɛktɪv/
      Learn to pronounce
      adjective
      looking back on or dealing with past events or situations.

      Delete
  6. why is everyone running around like headless chickens? the SNP and Greens are going to win people just need to stay focused.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Exactly
    But there are people who crop up on here and other blogs who are not actually in favour of Scottish independence , they ask the daft questions and try and incite discontent .
    The SNP has the support of the majority let’s move it to a vote and organise independence when we win it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As an SNP voter (but not member) I'm very glad to see some balance restored at the top of the party, it feels like the ship has been righted. Time to focus on the main event now, lots of work to do!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Some good news to a point. The SNP be should be about Scots Indy first second and last and not about some cabal of non Scots Nats pursuing their own agendas.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The SNP has been infiltrated. I kept giving them my faith they were going to come out fighting this next election but my faith has been burnt. SNP 1 ISP 2 in fact if the ISP stood on the constituency I'd vote for them there too. Sick to the back teeth of people like Smith and Wishsart. This is last chance saloon for SNP, if they meekly roll over now it will be their fault if indy is put back not ours. There comes a time when loyalty is abused, votes counted for granted and I think we are seeing that now "you don't like it, we'll who else you gony vote for" People might just stay home uninspired which is worse than voting another indy party

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a complete waste of a list vote that will be. There is no way on this earth ISP will obtain 5% on the list in any region of Scotland.

      Wisen up ffs and stop buying in to the crap being peddled by non-entities like Rev Stu and his little (but noisy) band of extremists

      Delete
    2. At the moment I feel voting SNP is wasted. I'm not asking for armed insurgency but c'mon get the finger out. Forget about all this other garbage and put indy front and centre and force the issue other wise what is the point. Anyway at this rate no one can say with any certainty how the list vote will play out. The SNP have been given a warning shot across the bows with this election if they can up their game trust me no one would be happier to back them. The SNP had 2 main principles independence and nuclear disarmament and to me it looks like they are back peddling on both.

      Delete
    3. No one happier than me I meant

      Delete
  11. Interesting that Wings are taking the credit! We who remained in the Party to fight the cult received nothing but abuse on Wings. Members took back control of the NEC...not Wings !
    The blog attacked the decent hard working members who remained IN the Party.

    As for the future...unless further changes take place very soon I favour a leadership contest. A Very professional and experienced politician like Nicola will be a loss. However when she denies knowledge of the abuse against Joanne Cherry then her integrity is in question.

    Several MPs and MSPs should remember the core purpose of the SNP. It is time they focused on Independence and put Scotland First....NOT a cult.

    Until Independence vote SNP but join/stay in the party and vote for those who want success for their Nation not narrow self interest. Look at who has taken roles in your branch, look at who turns up to vote for them.

    It is OUR Party.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Old Scottish Grannies saying. Sticks an stanes ul brake yer brains but names will never hurt ye.

      Delete
    2. Spot on Julia. SNP members got it in the neck from the trolls, and not just on Wings BTW.
      I'm concerned though that the remaining deadwood might try to halt a real push for independence going ahead.
      The new NEC needs to flex its muscles and launch an Indy campaign in the new year.
      YES Groups at present are producing their own materials because the SNP have been half asleep for years now.
      There was never any chance of me leaving the SNP.
      It's part of my life. Sniping from the sidelines gets us nowhere. Stick with it.

      Delete
    3. Ramstam says - "because the SNP have been half asleep for 6 years now" - correct now they are 3/4 awake. You cannot fix problems without recognising them first.

      Good stuff - get on and give us a vote for independence that is all that independence supporters like me want from the SNP.

      Delete
    4. "Interesting that Wings are taking the credit! We who remained in the Party to fight the cult received nothing but abuse on Wings."

      Did you? Who from?

      Delete
    5. Anyone insulting people with the pejorative term 'woke' is no better than those insulting people with the term pejorative 'TERF'. Two cheeks of the same erse.

      Delete
  12. Correct. SIP Are completely unknown to the electorate.
    Like Rise the SIP will take a few votes then simply disappear.
    Voting Green on the list will help elect a YES MSP.
    Voting SNP 1&2 in South Scotland will likely add 2 YES MSPs.
    It's important to check out the SNPs strength in your local area.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also SNP in the H & I region. If the SNP get over 50% in any region they pick up list seats too. See North East Scotland 2011.

      Delete
  13. Anyway, this development obviously confirms that anyone who was previously telling you the SNP NEC is a dark and sinister organization accountable to no-one was, well, straight out lying to you. Most likely because they are a unionist. That or woefully misinformed, so shouldn't be relied upon.

    The folks that were saying otherwise, and that members could quite readily change the NEC if they wanted because the SNP is democratic, are the ones to trust.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You idiot Skier - you were the one saying there was nothing wrong. You were the one saying only unionists think there is something wrong that needs changing in the SNP.

      Your capacity for lying and/or self delusion is infinite. You clown.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I said it wasn't a dark and sinister organization and could be readily changed democratically if people were not happy. I wasn't bothered, but I'm glad of the changes if they bring balance and make others happier.

      People remember what both of us said.

      Delete
    3. Skier says - "I wasn't bothered" - people don't need to remember anything those words reflect your thoughts.

      You weren't bothered you say that the NEC had been taken over by people who couldn't care less about independence. You were happy for another 5 years of Tory rule to build the vote up you said just to make sure. It is people like you that were rejected at the weekend.

      I on the other hand applaud the SNP members who woke up and have started to put the SNP back on track to be THE party of independence once again. The job is not finished but it is a very good start. I also applaud all the bloggers who helped bring the need for change to the attention of SNP members.

      Delete
    4. Maybe you could provide evidence that previous members of the NEC were all unionists who weren't interested in indy? That's something of a Trump-like claim. You are seeing unionists under the bed again.

      But yes, as someone who doesn't go around screaming 'woke' and 'terf' at people, the whole fringe GRA thing is way down my list of priorities, as was reform to the 'dark and sinister' NEC as it functions in an efficient, democratic manner, as just demonstrated.

      As far as I can see, blogs did not make any contribution to the changes in the NEC, which were simply the result of members favouring the policy platforms / stances of those standing, as presented at the conference.

      Certainly, those who have done nothing but attack the SNP for months on end can take zero credit for any changes and for indy when it comes.

      Likewise, SNP members absolutely don't listen to daily mail type 'woke'-attacking English politics blogs which promote a 'don't vote SNP message'.

      Delete
    5. Skier - lying again - never said they were all unionists.

      "As far as I can see." - clearly that's not very far.

      So Skier when was the last time the NEC discussed Scottish independence?

      Are you just an idiot or an Alyn Smith sock puppet?

      Delete
    6. "You weren't bothered you say that the NEC had been taken over by people who couldn't care less about independence."

      Maybe you can explain what you meant here if not that you believed the previous NEC had become unionist?

      You really tie yourself in knots sometimes.

      Delete
    7. Skier - I'll ask you again when was the last time the NEC discussed Scottish independence ?

      Delete
    8. So are the NEC pro-indy or unionist? You keep changing your position.

      Delete
  14. Alyn Smiths eyebrows must have got a cracking workout when the results came in.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I believe the outgoing SNP treasurer let it be known at the SNP conference that the SNP paid an MPs libel case expenses. Anyone know who and how much?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Mr. Eyebrows" - I believe settlement and costs

      Delete
    2. Thanks Julia,

      as an SNP voter and previous contributor to SNP funds that is the sort of thing I did not contribute to help pay for. I contributed to help the cause of independence and to get to be able to vote for independence not pay for Mr Eyebrows verbal cock ups.

      Delete
  16. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  17. James, you say on Twitter you just don't get why people are attacking J. Cherry - come on really?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Excuse me Jimmy but over here we get little info. Did the side that wants independence sooner rather than later win ? Or is there another issue I am missing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bill, There are now more folk on the SNP NEC now who view Scottish Independence as matter of urgency..
    That's it in shorthand anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ramstam, hopefully that is the case. According to Dot Jessiman the NEC never discussed independence. That is just ridiculous. Hopefully that will change.

      They could start by asking the Scotgov why they keep producing that propaganda gift, called GERS, every year to the Britnats. One of the main factors stopping some people voting for independence is they believe Scotland has this massive deficit - as per the GERS report - it is of course complete nonsense but the Britnats can say the Scotgov produces it. Scotgov - Just stop producing it now!

      Delete
    2. Agreed. I’ve always thought of GERS as a westminster tool. In the present circumstances all that scot.gov can demonstrate is competence and we should report accordingly. Alongside that we should also plan and exhibit that plan too for ‘the future’

      I’ve always wished that somehow the 2014 ref. had somehow been pushed into the following Scottish parliament term so as to have a full term of SNP majority behind us as campaigning began. In that way, I’m a gradualist, but even gradualists break into a run when the finish line is in sight.

      Delete
    3. Also agree but snp in tricky position as they were happy enough to use the figures pre 2014 to demonstrate the financial viability of an independent Scotland so it would look like they dumped Gers because they didn't like how it reads. More Must be done to highlight the inadequacy of the figures and emphasis that it shows how the union is failing Scotland

      Delete
    4. Donald, love your comment "even gradualists break in to a run when the finish line is in sight"

      Delete
    5. Unknown - the SNP previously said that Derek McKay would produce an alternative to GERS.

      GERS was admitted to be anti independence propaganda by the Tory Sec of State for Scotland Ian Lang in 1992 when he first unveiled it.

      Delete
    6. Most Scots know GERS is shite. Hence 56% Yes.

      Delete
    7. Skier idiot perhaps without GERS it would be 60% yes but that is not the point of your post is it - you are just an idiotic stalker.

      Delete
  20. Ipsos Mori poll

    Yes 56
    No 44

    SNP set for a majority.

    https://news.stv.tv/politics/snp-set-for-majority-at-2021-scottish-parliament-election?top

    ReplyDelete
  21. Replies
    1. I am commenting gratuitously as James’ filters seem to be allowing me to. Normally they don’t!

      Delete
  22. Great news about the Vaccine approval.

    However, Michael "The Lurch" Blackley of the Daily Mail at the daily coronavirus briefing tries to get Sturgeon to say she will publicly be one of the first to get the vaccine to prove it is safe to vaccine doubters.

    Of course his pathetic attempt was to create a headline "Sturgeon jumps the queue". Sturgeon as ever bats it back with a lot more patience than most people could muster and says no.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I never thought there were so many thin skinned folk in the world, for gods sake get a life.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Skier the demon Unionist hunter says you are a Unionist if you use the term Britnat.

    Grizebard says Dec1 2020 at 5:59pm on WGD "They Britnats will always try to......"

    I look forward to Skier calling his fellow Sturgeon Fanboy Grizebard a Unionist next time Grizebard posts on SGP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I said independence supporters don't normally use the term repetitively. Wee ginger dug has used it 3 times in the past three months for example.

      Delete
    2. You can tell real people as their posts read like what real people might say in real life.

      For example, I don't throw insults around on here because I don't in real life.

      Do you call people 'idiots/fanboys/woke' to their faces in real life all the time?

      Or maybe you are coward and only do so online because in real life if you'd get your erse kicked for it?

      And do you rant about 'britnats' incessantly to strangers on the bus?

      Genuine questions.

      Delete
    3. You don't throw insults around - Skier what a delusional liar you are.

      Delete