"For much of last year, this site advocated a rational but unpopular position – namely that the SNP, which at the time held the balance of power in the UK parliament, should offer to support Theresa May’s soft-Brexit deal in exchange for the transfer of powers to hold a second independence referendum."
What's wrong with that sentence? Well, where to begin. First of all, the SNP didn't hold the balance of power in the UK parliament - if that had been the case, Jeremy Corbyn would have been Prime Minister, not Theresa May. Secondly, the position Wings advocated was not "rational but unpopular" - it was in fact popular (with Wings readers) but irrational. Yes, the SNP could have made Theresa May an offer, but it would have achieved absolutely nothing. Her reply would have been -
"Our Precious United Kingdom is not for sale. We do not do deals with separatists."
You might argue that would have made her crazy when somebody was trying to save her bacon, but nevertheless it's indisputably what she would have said. And actually from her own point of view it would have made perfect sense, because the SNP weren't in a position to deliver the deal anyway. They didn't have enough votes to put the matter beyond dispute, and more to the point some of the Tory MPs who voted for the deal would have immediately swung the other way if they knew that "the precious" was at stake.
So by all means criticise the SNP for not doing the things they could have done to bring about independence or a choice on independence. But don't criticise them for not attempting something that was never in their power, and that would have simply have left them looking a bit foolish, a bit cynical, and above all else strategically naive.
The trouble now James is that a lot of us don't trust the SNP on Indy. Who amongst us trusts the people who tried to send Alex Salmond to prison?
ReplyDeleteIain, well Skier seems to still trust them but he is an idiot.
DeleteI still trust them and I’m no idiot.
DeleteAnyone who calls a person an idiot for making a perfectly reasonable prediction is not very smart.
We will see soon enough if trusting the SNP is foolish May 2021 isn’t that far away
Terence what is happening in May 2021 other than another election that the SNP will win?
DeleteTerence did you believe all that guff Murrell said to the inquiry. That will certainly give me a good clue as to whether you are an idiot.
Delete55% of the voters in Scotland trust them. That you and Wings over Scotland (who isn't even a voter in Scotland) don't just mean that you and he don't. You don't speak for the entire Scottish nation.
DeleteAnd 'Independence for Scotland', calling the majority of voters in Scotland by some distance 'idiots' might be something you should sit down and think about for a while.
DeleteJ R Tomlin - never said I speak for the people of Scotland. Never said the majority of voters were idiots. You seem to have the same reading problem that Skier has. Unless you are Skier of course. I said Skier was an idiot.
DeleteWhy do YOU think you know what the majority of Scottish people think? I vote for the SNP and independence if the SNP ever give me the chance so therefore I am part of the 55% you quote and I don't trust the current leadership - why should I?
Do YOU speak for the entire Scottish nation? I never made any such claim but others seem to do so - delusions of grandeur obviously.
Who amongst us notice how things got iffy when we got an influx from the demise of another party that was full of cliques and backstabbers, the people who were rising through the ranks, so to say, to places of power. We got trouble from Tory civil servants we got trouble from previous Labour members not all just a few of them but enough to cause problems. Almost I think as a plot/plan to sink us not as a planned plot but just one that came about by accident and then used by a few thinkers to cause the problems. Somehow my thinking here doesn't make the sense I hoped it would.
DeleteAnd also independence was polling below 50%. Everyone forgets that. If a section 30 was offered I believe it would have resulted in another failure. It's going to be hard to pull the polls over 60% continually, the atrocious destruction that will happen starting 1/1/21 will, I believe carry us forward.
ReplyDeleteJames, Your site your choice what to use your platform to say. I agree that this old article of Wings did not deserve to be dragged out again as like you I thought it was poor but did it deserve your time to comment on it.
ReplyDeleteWe have the Scottish Parliament spending time debating about changing one word - gender to sex and the Chief Exec of the SNP and others in the Scottish gov embarrassing Scotland and disgracing themselves on a weekly basis.
We have the Groundhog Day routine of a promise of a referendum by the SNP before an election again and the Britnat Brexit Armageddon post Hogmanay. Not to mention Covid.
It's from a Wings article dated yesterday.
DeleteYes and the Wings article refers to the original old article hence me saying "dragged out again". You did read the article didn't you before commenting?
DeleteI can see that your attitude must be a real asset in getting people onto the Yes side.
DeleteJames commented on an article published yesterday, you go on and on* about your particular hobby horses, I think I know which I prefer.
*and on
"but did it deserve your time to comment on it"
DeleteYes, it did, and as we've discussed again and again, it's not on for people to tell me what I should and should not blog about. You specifically agreed with that point, so why are you doing it (again)? I would have deleted your comment if there hadn't been replies.
James, I fully accept your right to post your articles on whatever you want as it is your site. I clearly say that in the post. Obviously you thought it deserved your time to post on it I was just expressing my opinion on your article - surely that is acceptable.
Deletecan you just go and post someplace else your just an annoyance to most of us here. Most likely you are to people you meet in real life too
DeleteRingobrodgar - aha another one with minor(?) delusions of grandeur. Well I say minor since unlike others who seem to think they speak for the whole of Scotland you only think you speak for all readers of this site.
DeleteRingobrodgar, It would appear that you are someone who cannot handle the truth. Hopefully it will not be a permanent problem. Alternatively you may just be a plain ordinary troll. Pray do tell.
Hobby Horses What!
ReplyDeleteScottish independence. Brexit Armageddon persecuting Salmond for 3years Covid
Get a grip .
It's easy to make predictions about what's going to happen in Scotland when you don't live here. I think foreign interference in Scottish election should be banned. If it's not ok for the Russians why is it ok for other groups
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter James, forget about it. It's in the past and now irrelevant. If you want to have an argument with Wings (and Stu with you), save it for something current. Instead put some music on or something ..
ReplyDeleteHow is an article Wings published yesterday 'in the past and now irrelevant'? Stu Campball is constantly attacking Nicola Sturgeon in particular and the SNP in general which, seeing that it is constant, is pretty current as well. If he wants to get off his hobby horse then I suspect James will as well.
DeleteIs there some sort of competition as to who can post "hobby horse(s) the most this evening.
DeleteTomlin 1 Theuniondivie 1 Independence for Scotland 2
Again, Tom: that comment would have been deleted if there hadn't been replies. I'll blog about whatever I choose. If it displeases you, other blogs are available.
DeleteJames, of course you can blog about whatever you want. You do a great job at it.
DeleteThe point I make is that this is an old argument, endlessly and exhaustively aired in the past, so there seems little point in going all over it again. You and Wings will not agree on this, ever, so why raise it again, unless just for the sake of the stooshie, which is pointless.
I dread the possibility that Wings will respond to your post, and we'll be off again. God help us all.
How is in the past he spends every day campaigning against the Scottish government and FM.
ReplyDeleteSchrodingers Murrell
ReplyDeleteI was aware of the meetings at my house ( written submission to the inquiry)
I wasn't aware of the meetings at my house ( answer to Cole -Hamilton at the inquiry)
I was aware of the meetings at my house ( answer to Wightman at the inquiry)
Murrell is either:
1) a liar who cannot remember his story
2) has early onset dementia
3) has no respect for the Inquiry and the Scottish parliament and is taking the pish
4) someone who is not fit to be Chief Exec of the SNP
Or a mixture of the above.
Early onset dementia is not a joke to victims and families. You are a very unpleasant individual.
DeleteSkier - Not as unpleasant as you by a long way. Nothing to say about the real content of the post do you - so you deflect.
DeleteIf it is not down to no. 2 what is it then? No. 1 or no. 3 or both even.
Is this man fit to be Chief Exec of the SNP?
What astonishes me is that anyone who is pro-indy even reads WoS now.
ReplyDeleteA bit of a logic malfunction there Graham - if you don't read it then how can you make that comment? Clearly James Kelly reads WOS and hopefully he is pro-Indy.
DeleteSo your comment astonishes me.
I read wings and I read The Scotsman I really really agree with anything that written.
DeleteSo there's nothing on WoS now attacking the only party with a realistic chance of delivering independence?
DeleteThat'll be quite the U-turn since I stopped looking at it.
About 9/10 of his posts are related to trans issues, none of my comments are approved on his site any more
ReplyDeleteHe just attacks the SNP and is determined to bring Nicola Sturgeon down - he's basically doing the unionists jobs for them
Going back to the trans issue, he's taken a lot of joy in the "victorys" he thinks he's won
For the gender vs sex one. Allowing victims to pick the gender of their medical examiner would have allowed them to pick a cis women. Restricting this to picking their sex, would mean if they picked female, they could have a trans man doing the procedure (by Wings/Stu's) definition
His own transphobia is highlighted as soon as you remember trans men exist as well as trans women
There's no such thing as Transphobia. Just rational humans who know mammals can't change Sex versus a gang of mentally deranged perverts.
DeleteOnly Nazis use Cis to describe people. Well done on outing yourself.
If the SNP votes were the difference between one thing winning over another then they held the balance of power. That's what the term means. They held power to do something to enable a Scottish vote and did nothing through fear of what scum propagandists would say. That is literally giving power over US to THEM. Or in other words treason as they betrayed an entire country.
Pretend this isn't just your personal hatred of a man who showed you up, but we know what happened. We all saw it. We know who the guilty parties are. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
Pee-Jay, there is such a thing as transphobia, and you've just given a cracking example of it, which I'll happily add to my growing collection of hate speech on this topic. So, cheers for that.
Deletehttps://news.yahoo.com/transgender-brits-struggle-against-toxic-095625451.html
DeleteHasn’t Sturgeon said she will have a plan B but that she won’t go into it because she’s focussing on the case for plan A?
ReplyDeleteFor what it’s worth, I think the UK govt will engage on another referendum if the SNP win a majority of votes but there might be caveats (e.g. a third question).
You may be right, but I do not see why the Westminster Government should give Scots a second bite at the Independence cheery when they are doing everything in their power to neater Scotland. What does Boris Johnson have to lose by saying, "NO, we are still in an economic crisis following Brexit. I'll let you know when WE decide you can have another vote".
Delete'What does Boris Johnson have to lose'
DeleteScotland, forever. He's already put Yes ahead by saying no once. If he keeps it up there'll be no way of keeping Scotland voluntarily in the union, so the UK would come to an end one way or another. Hell, look what happened in Northern Ireland and most people there actually supported being in the UK. Can you imagine it of a majority of people had been pro-reunification?
Refusing an S30 is a union destroying, Yes vote generating machine that will keep on printing until the UK falls apart. It's why even John Major is talking about holding iref2; it's the only way to save the UK.
Union2 There'll be NAE caveats like a second question.
DeleteNo SNP Leader that swallowed that shit would survive for long.
In 1979 we were shafted by the insertion of the 40% rule.
The dead were counted towards the requirement as were non voters.. Remember some folk just never vote.
There was a YES Majority, but it was denied by EnglandUK acting against Scotland.
This is old news to some, but younger folk are unaware of the sleekit gerrymandering that has gone on.
Make no mistake, we are Not dealing with honourable people.
Also, some "Scots" would betray their own people for a seat in the house of Lords.
Also crucially, the London treasury are desperate to hang onto the £billions of Scottish revenues and taxes that they collect annually. Apart from the Holyrood so-called grant none of these are under scottish democratic control.
Keep flying your kite Union2.
Tell yer pals the Scots are in the mood for sovereign independence and anything less is 20 years too late.
Clarification. Meant NAE additional DEVO option.
Delete'What does Boris Johnson have to lose'
Delete'
Scotland, forever. He's already put Yes ahead by saying no once. If he keeps it up there'll be no way of keeping Scotland voluntarily in the union, so the UK would come to an end one way or another.'
Why do you think Johnson'd care about Scotland or UK. He only cares about what's in his short-term interest. If something keeps him a PM six months longer, he'll do that. And - as losing the referendum would mean he'd have to step down right away - I'm quite certain what he's going to choose.
It's not like we don't know who Johnson is and how he's been behaving during the past 20 years. It really is naïve to expect he's going to do a right thing because it's either morally right or in some sort of UK interest,
Tories really aren't the party of Thatcher, Cameron or May anymore. Those were malicious, but you could reason with them to a degree.
This is now an irrational breed of English nationalists who only have their own short-term interest at heart. Plus they are not the brightest ones.
Had he been concerned about losing Scotland or about doing the right thing, he wouldn't have done most things he had done during the past year.
To pick up on the comment made on the last thread, i'm going to wait too see what the parties come up with in their manifestos before deciding if going to go with SNP 1&2 or SNP & Green.
ReplyDeleteHowever now that the James Hamilton inquiry has been widened (after Alex Salmond questioned that its original mandate was a 'straw man made to be blown over') I think that there is a high chance that it will find that Sturgeon broke the ministerial code at least once if not twice. With no majority to protect her she would loose the ensuing VoC and so who her replacement would be will also be part of my decision.
Interesting; do you vote - at least in part - for leaders rather than a party?
DeleteI've personally never voted for a leader, but only ever for my local candidate / their party and its general policies. So if Sturgeon was not leader of the SNP, it wouldn't make any difference to whether I vote for them. After all, I can't actually even for for her, but for my local candidates only. That is where it might become more about where I liked someone personally or not. Certainly, whether it's Sturgeon or someone else at the helm, I will definitely be voting for Christine Grahame SNP in May. I would need an extremely good reason not to do that whoever was party leader.
The public as a whole are largely the same. Hence many Tories think Johnson's a total erse yet they still vote Tory; they're voting for the party and not for him.
Unionist do seem to be under the impression that if Sturgeon stepped down, the SNP would get less votes. It's very difficult to understand why they think that. Unless the replacement was a total erse, it will make no difference. In fact it may well boost SNP support as the public punish unionists for their second witch hunt after they set up Salmond. The current attempts to take out sturgeon certainly have reinforced my support for the SNP. I get a similar impression from friends and family.
the public will not give a shit if Sturgeon has somehow technically breached a code by not minuting a meeting or something. They care about important things like brexit, covid, the economy... Unionists dancing in glee at having disposed of a competent and popular leader during a major national crisis will not, I imagine, win them many favours with a now pro-independence public.
Also, the Greens could really do themselves harm by standing should to shoulder with the Tories to vote out Sturgeon. I know some SNP-Green voters who'd immediately become SNP-SNP if they did.
DeleteIf I were Harvie, I'd seriously consider abstention in the case of a unionist led VoNC.
What is the important word missing in that long rant of Skiers - the most important word missing of course is independence - Scottish independence.
DeleteSkier is nothing but a party apparatchik - it's all the SNP it's all Sturgeon. Nothing more than the Labour Party style of politics the party comes first.
Of course the other thing Labour never liked and still don't is the truth - same as Skier. The truth matters especially when it relates to trying to send an innocent man to jail.
I suppose if Sturgeon is found guilty of breaking the code in some minor way which the public are unlikely to care about, she can do the right thing and officially resign. The greens can support her in this, resolving any moral dilemma.
DeleteShe can then stand again for the post of FM, seeking the new confidence of parliament and the Greens can vote for her, content that she did resign.
Unionists lose support for trying to take her out, Greens stay on the moral high ground and don't lose support.
Yes, that would work very well.
For my constituency vote I tend to take the person who is standing into account as well as their party's policies when deciding to vote; after all they are the person who is going to be my direct representative in Parliament if elected. For my regional vote I look at the party as a whole and vote based on that and that includes my impressions on their leader yes. Of course Nicola could stand down loose a VoC in regards to being First Minister and stay as leader of the SNP, which may well happen in the short term.
DeleteAs for your second point we will see when/if it happens. THe SNP are certainly going to be the largest party what even happens, to say that loosing your most proficient and popular politician (which Nicola is by a country mile) will have no negative effect on polling is wishful thinking IMO. Her replacement could well be perfectly competent but seem a total erse in the eyes of the public just because s/he is not as good as Sturgeon.
I suppose if Sturgeon is found guilty of breaking the code in some minor way which the public are unlikely to care about, she can do the right thing and officially resign.
DeleteSure if you can prove that the public didn't care about how they broke the code then that would be fair enough - not sure how you would ascertain that fact though, a series of polls on the question I guess would be the easiest. Although this seems a rather time consuming and expensive way of doing things.
I'm very much of the impression that if you break the rules then you have to face some repercussions. It only seems to be Conservatives that seem to think the opposite recently (ie Priti Patel)
Anyhow as you think that if it happened it would make no impact on the SNPs polling (or could well help) I'm sure it doesn't bother you either way.
SNP 1&2 as a member and supporter since I got my first vote aged 21, and that year they changed it to 18 (1973) I never voted for another party. So now with a vote for an MSP then a vote for a party as I see it a vote for an SNP MSP then a vote for another party is not a sensible way to go. I cant vote against my party.
DeleteI'm very much of the impression that if you break the rules then you have to face some repercussions.
DeleteYes, me to, hence suggesting she'd need to resign as FM. You can't really get a bigger repercussion than that.
A VoNC would only happen if she didn't stand down. I think we can imagine it won't come to that as she will step down voluntarily. It was, after all, Sturgeon herself that asked the parliamentary standards committee to investigate her; a chip off the old Salmond block.
Following resignation, the could then choose whether to stand again for the position of FM.
This is accepted as the morally correct thing to do in such circumstances. It is very common that when MPs/MSPs are called to step down and do so, they then stand for election again.
That option is open to sturgeon, and the parliament would decide democratically whether they think she should be made FM again, not her. The public would also get a say come May.
I can't see any issues with such an approach; 100% right and proper.
Of course if the breaches of the code seem very serious, it's unlikely she'd be reelected by either the parliament or the electorate, and so probably would not try to stand anyway.
Support for the SNP isn't related to Sturgeon anyway; there's just no correlation in data to support that. At most there's a loose correlation that when a party is popular, so is the leader. Correlation not causation. The SNP would have to elected a total fkwit to replace her before you could see damage votes-wise. She is not a president; the cabinet run Scotland, not the FM. It's a multi-party PR democracy.
Never in my cream puff have a voted for leader not a party. Doesn't matter if the Tories elected the nicest, most competent leader world; you won't get me voting Tory. I like Harvie but will never decide to vote green because of him, but because I liked the local candidate + party manifesto. If he was a complete ass, only then might I struggle with a green vote. But then maybe my green candidate didn't like the way the party was being run so it would be wrong to note for him/her...
I've never met anyone who voted SNP specifically because of Sturgeon (although I suppose there must be a handful out there). The only people I've ever met who say they definitely won't vote SNP 'cos of sturgeon' are unionists.
--
On my regional vote I look at my list MSPs as again I'm not voting for the party leader here. It's no different to my constituency vote. I cannot see me refusing to vote for people standing on either my constituency or my regional list because I didn't like a candidate standing elsewhere (e.g. Sturgeon). I really like Joan McAlpine and it would have made no sense to me to vote against her last time if I didn't like Sturgeon. In fact if e.g. I didn't like Sturgeon's GRA approach, voting for McApline was a very sensible thing to do. This is why Wings is talking pure shite on this matter. 'The SNP has lost it's way so don't vote for SNP candidates you like who can put it back on track' is straight up unionist.
If I was a green voter, then of course I might act differently on the constituency and vote SNP because green wasn't an option.
You are trying to get Nicola, the same as you thought you would Get Alex. All a bunch of British Nationalists The B.N.P.
DeleteWhen the Britnat media discusses fishing and oil what word is NEVER used - Scottish that's what. It's English or British or UK or Britain. The vast majority of fish caught and oil reserves resides off the coast of Scotland. It's our resources but we have no say as all these countries fight over the spoils.
ReplyDeleteNow the bampot Brexiteers are openly and proudly declaring N. Ireland has the best of both worlds - in the EU and the UK - a border down the Irish Sea something they said would never happen - a semi detached N. Ireland. They are sticking two fingers up to Scotland.
Meanwhile the Scottish Parliament argues over the meaning of the words gender and sex.
"Meanwhile the Scottish Parliament argues over the meaning of the words gender and sex."
DeleteIt's just really you and the English wings site that are wasting time on this issue. That and continuing to persecute Salmond by dragging him through yet another investigation.
Not content with normal lying Skier moves up a level to the Trump and Britnat standard of lying.
DeletePeople like Trump Johnson Gove Murrell and Skier are trying to normalise lying.
About 9/10 of your posts are not about independence, brexit, covid, the economy... but about minor domestic issues such as parliamentary committees on complaints handling procedures.
DeleteForgive me, but I'd not let you anywhere near indy strategy development, all you pretty much do is 'focus on the day job' like unionists demand.
Skier -.Still waiting for you to say how many of these confidential agreements the Scotgov have with lawyers - you know the made up excuse you dreamed up to explain why the Scotgov will not release its legal advice.
DeleteThe trouble with people like you is you take a position and then just lie your face off rather than admit you were talking pish.
About 9/10 of your posts are lies and pish.
Pishymacpishface
100% correct.
Delete"the public will not give a shit if Sturgeon has somehow technically breached a code by not minuting a meeting or something. They care about important things like brexit, covid, the economy... Unionists dancing in glee at having disposed of a competent and popular leader during a major national crisis will not, I imagine, win them many favours with a now pro-independence public."
I repeat again that it would be wise not to hang Wolffe out to dry lest he do what Lord Keen did when the Tories shat all over his legal advice.
DeleteEach time you force your most senior law officer to angrily resign, you can be pretty sure the next person to fill the post - assuming you can find one - will be less competent.
No, it would be far better to discuss with Wolffe in confidence about what confidential advice he would be happy to see released, if any. Also that it would not be illegal to do so regarding contempt of court.
The contempt of court which Mrs Murrell arranges to protect her friends/lovers who she knew were lying as she was in at the beginning of the whole plot? That contempt of court which is preventing the whole truth from being published? That lucky happenstance of a contempt of court?
DeleteSkier - you admit that your confidential agreements nonsense was just that - nonsense then you bring into play more nonsense about contempt of court. Oh and of course your nonsense that all the legal advice was provided by the Lord Advocate when it is a matter of record that the Scotgov got both internal and external legal advice throughout this scandal.
DeleteHappy to see Wolfy boy go - he of the malicious prosecutions - you of course having no standards of decency have no problem with a top law officer in Scotland who admits to malicious prosecutions.
Skier you are a charlatan and a troll and a stalker.
Unknown, correct I would not give a shit either. The problem is that she and all her cabal did a lot lot lot more than that.
DeleteWhy didn't Salmond just release all the legal documents?
Deletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-54343018
She said the committee was still awaiting responses from the government, Mr Salmond and SNP chief Peter Murrell.
This has meant the committee has been unable to hold further evidence sessions, with Ms Fabiani saying the inquiry "simply cannot proceed at this stage"...
Mr Salmond's lawyers have written to MSPs saying the former first minister was "very keen to provide as much information to the committee as he is permitted by law", but said there were some "legal restrictions" to this.
They said "pertinent material" had been handed over by the government during Mr Salmond's trial, but said they had been told "it would constitute a criminal offence" for them to release it.
Skier - of course if you weren't such an idiot you would know the answer to your question. But of course as ever with you you do not want to know the truth. Try reading the papers posted on the Inquiry Committee website. You might learn something rather than spending your time posting pish on here.
DeleteNicola Sturgeon stated in her closing speech, at the end of the S.N.P. conference, If the Scottish people elect an S.N.P. majority, note majority, there will be a referendum for independence in 2021.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Salmond enquiry, the people involved work for the British British Civil Service on behalf of the Scottish Government. The defendants were asked to go to the police but declined. It was a West minster stitch up, in my opinion,
So you are finally admitting that Sturgeon and Murrell work for the english? Also Smyth, MacDonald, Wishart, Somerville, Dempsie, Robertson and the rest? Well done on seeing the truth that's been staring you in the face for the past 6 years.
DeleteDo not be daft like your mate Grove,
DeleteWilliam, Sturgeon could have put a stop to the whole business at the Judicial Review stage. She had the power to do so. Salmond asked her - he told her she would lose the Judicial Review and it would only be bad for all - she blanked him.
DeleteWhy do that?
There is holding on to what you hope to be true and cold hard reality.
Sorry William, your comment about the referendum - watched the speech - care to quote the words where she said that? Must have missed that. Not even Skier is saying it will be in 2021 and he lies all the time.
Read her closing speech at the S.N.P. conference.
DeleteWilliam, ignoring difficult questions does not make problems go away.
DeleteWhy do that? - why did Sturgeon blank Salmond - she could have stopped the judicial review as it was obvious the case would be lost by the Scotgov. The Scotgov process was not declared unlawful unfair and tainted by apparent bias just because Judith MacKinnon had previous meetings with the complainers. It was a ridiculously one sided process.
Stopping the Judicial Review would not have stopped the criminal case. So why waste all that public money and end up with the current Inquiry?
I've listened to her speech twice. Early part of next parliament - not 2021. Never heard her say SNP majority - heard the people of Scotland giving her the authority.
You seem to be hearing what you want to hear. If I am wrong quote me the words.
William, it is not and never has been a "Salmond enquiry".
DeleteIt is an inquiry into the FM, Scottish government and SPECIAL ADVISERS.
Plus, if the SNP had done a deal with the Tories backing Brexit, their own position (of not doing deals with the Tories and not backing Brexit) would have been completely compromised. And many supporters would have left them. Probably including me.
ReplyDeleteYou have NEVER been a supporter of Scottish independence.
DeleteI wonder how you imagine you know that.
DeleteIn fact, I've been a supporter of Scottish independence since 5am on June 24 2016.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxRw5KYJV2s
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete--Ah, OK, if deleted comments leave a trace, I'll put it back. What it said was that my first move after switching to Yes was to try and get my own party then, which was Labour, to back Yes. I got nowhere with that, so I left Labour and joined the SNP in Dec 2016.
DeleteAnd I've been campaigning for them ever since, as anyone who googles me will see.
I understand Wings was not opposed to brexit / didn't vote against it?
ReplyDeleteIf that's correct, he's part of the reason we are in the shit and so can't lecture anyone on the matter.
please see earlier post
DeleteI understand he didn't vote Remain in the referendum. I think that's the case. Did he not abstain / spoil his ballot?
DeleteIf so, he didn't oppose brexit and along with other abstainers, stood by and let Leave win.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-undecided/
The alternatives are that he voted against English independence ('Remain') while advocating Scottish indy, which makes him a total hypocrite, or he voted Leave which put Scotland in the shit.
Wings is either an anti-democratic foreign influence in Scottish self determination or the same for England.
DeleteIt's why you should only campaign where you live (or at least where you intend to live at the earliest possible opportunity).
For God's sake, Scottish Skier, every member of the EU was, is, and will remain an independent country. The question of joining or leaving the EU is altogether unrelated to any of independence.
DeleteOut of interest when did you start thinking that WoS was anti democratic. Certainly not during the period early 2016 to late 2017/early 2018 when you were promoting his site by through a link to his site through on you signature on another forum? (it was actually through that link that I 'found' his site.
DeleteI'm assuming that you didn't have a problem with him posting about Scottish politics from England back then - can't see why you do now.
Skier says - " You should only campaign where you live". - more pish from Skier.
DeleteOn the AUOB march in Glasgow in January I walked alongside some Yes Cymru supporters who had got up in the middle of the morning to travel to Glasgow to support Scotland in its desire for independence. I very much doubt Skier was there.
In fact I bet he has never been to an AUOB march anywhere because he would see the range of people from beyond Scotland who attend and are welcomed by all.
"Out of interest when did you start thinking that WoS was anti democratic. Certainly not during the period early 2016 to late 2017/early 2018 when you were promoting his site by through a link to his site through on you signature on another forum?"
DeleteWe've discussed this before. When it became clear to me that Wings had absolutely no interest in living in Scotland at all, but much preferred England and it's 'brave' people (compared to the 'cowardly' Scots yes voters).
Many Scots live in England somewhat against their will, for work etc. When I graduated in the late 1990's from two of Scotland top unis, I almost had to leave my country as a migrant to find work in England, such was the union benefit to Scotland.
I was fooled into believing that Wings was in a similar position, and was looking to return to Scotland now that he'd established himself as a popular blogger here. Also, he was apparently registered to vote here, which would qualify him as legally a Scot; the only legal recognition of Scottish citizenship.
If he has the right to vote here and is angling to move back asap, then that's not interfering. If he's not remotely interested in living in Scotland and happy to vote in Bath, then he should not interfere.
I had various discussions directly with him and my opinion changed based on that, as per the above.
And linking to a site doesn't actually advocate a site; Wings links to many unionist papers, blogs etc. He even has Alan Cochrane's site on his front page.
I will not interfere in the politics of other countries. I may have opinions which I express in my own country / in private, but it's not for me to tell people how to vote in their country. If 'Welsh Scots' want to march in support of Scottish indy, that's of course absolutely fine. If they can vote here, they are Scottish.
DeleteHowever, we can't complain about English Tories flying up to tell us Scots how to vote if we are happy to Welcome Welsh independence supporters on AUOB marches who are calling for Scots indy. I think that's a fair point.
It is however fine for Welsh, English, N. Irish, French… to campaign for the right of Scots to choose; it’s just they should not be telling Scots what that choice should be.
So Welsh indy supporters can march in support of Scotland’s right to chose indy/the union. Likewise, Boris can come here to campaign for that same right. The right to self determination is an international human right, so promoting that across the world is fine IMO. But the actual choice Scots make is for registered Scots voters alone, and this decision should be free from external interference.
Wings has been making a living running a blog discussing Scottish politics for nearly a decade. He could do that fine from Scotland, but has decided he wants to live and vote in Bath. In the EUref he chose to not be a Scots voter, but an English one. It's his choice to be English. I've questioned him and he's freely admitted he is living in England by his own choice, preferring it and its people to Scotland/Scots. It's his choice to be legally English (living there paying taxes and voting in Bath); he decided that, not me.
But none that you said in your replay to me is anti democratic. People commenting on other countries politics on blogs /social media is ten a penny these days. AS you say if people tell people to vote then its different, but from what i can tell Wings has never done that. Maybe im missing something here....
DeleteYes, writing a blog with your thoughts is fine; I have never said it's not. That is technically passive; people come to the blog freely.
DeleteHowever, Wings isn't passive, but active. He seeks out Scottish people on social media (e.g. here and twitter before he got banned) to give push his political views unsolicited. He does this for financial gain from England as a registered English voter (I understand). He has travelled to Scotland to campaign previously from his financial base in England.
Countries as a rule normally have strict laws on organisations based outside their borders attempting to influence the political process though campaigns and associated financing.
Wingsoverscotland is based in England and during the 2014 campaign, registered using a mailbox in Edinburgh to 'appear' Scottish.
If Scotland had been independent, I very much doubt that a foreign organistation could have legally involved itself both in the referendum in such a way. As part of the UK it's possible though; hence London interfering in Scottish self determination.
I think my position is fair; whether people back indy or not unless they are registered to vote here (or soon will be), they should keep a respectful distance from the political process. If I go on English websites actively seeking out English people to voice my thoughts on the best way for them to vote, it would be at best very disrespectful and at worst external interference. At least it would be so if I had no intention of living / voting there, and went around called English folks 'cowards' etc.
And just because something happens a lot doesn't make it acceptable, moral or legal. Pickpockets are '10 a penny' in some cities, but that doesn't justify it.
DeleteAnd it's not possible for anyone to tell anyone else how to vote. It's actively seeking out voters in another country to give them your thoughts in an attempt to influence their political decisions that is questionable in terms of self determination.
Russian or English websites attempting to persuade Brits/Scots to vote a certain way is the same thing, particularly if authors of these actively 'visit' (online or for real) the countries concerned, seeking out voters.
Pickpockets are '10 a penny' in some cities, but that doesn't justify it
Delete**
Pickpocketing is illegal, what WoS is doing is not.
It's actively seeking out voters in another country
**
Can you demonstrate how he actively seeks out voters. From what I see no evidence of him seeking out traffic to his site via paid advertising etc etc. Nor does his site appear on the top three pages of a google search of 'Scottish politics' or 'Scottish Independence' so he his not even bothering to work on his SEO to seek out voters. I would image most of his traffic is organic - ie people visit the site because they have hear of it or click on links that people share on social media etc ( or have linked in their signature on forums). If you really want to influence voters in other countries you have to have multiple bot farms doing things explained in articles like this:
https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/blog/2018/05/08/large-scale-twitter-bot-farm-targeting-londoners/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43093390
particularly if authors of these actively 'visit' (online or for real) the countries concerned, seeking out voters.
**
Again you will have to demonstrate how he is seeking out voters...
**
He seeks out Scottish people on social media (e.g. here and twitter before he got banned)
**
Wingsoverscotland is based in England and during the 2014 campaign, registered using a mailbox in Edinburgh to 'appear' Scottish.
**
Ill need some evidence of this please.
Countries as a rule normally have strict laws on organisations based outside their borders attempting to influence the political process though campaigns and associated financing.
**
Indeed they do. They have rules for campaigning and financing organisations based inside their borders two. Are you saying that bloggers should have to register themselves and declare their finances before they blog on political subjects?
Skier in all the AUOB independence marches that have taken place all over Scotland I'll repeat what I said upstream - never been to one have you?
DeleteNow careful Skier - liars tend to get caught out as Murrell, Sturgeon, Evans, MacKinnon, alphabet women, Richards, Allison, Somers have all found out and you have shown yourself to be a liar just like them.
I have been on the last three Glasgow marches, the last two Edinburgh marches, and a Stirling(Bannockburn one). I am sure you have marched down to your local shops.
"Ill need some evidence of this please."
Deletehttp://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PerPar2395
Primary name: Wings Over Scotland
Referendum: he Referendum on Independence for Scotland 2014
Referendum outcome: Yes
Designation status: Not designated
Status: Authorised
Date registered: 05/06/2014
Suite 55
196 Rose Street
Edinburgh
EH2 4AT
United Kingdom
https://www.mbe.co.uk/edinburghwestend/contact-us
Contact Mail Boxes Etc. Edinburgh - West End
You will find us at:
196 Rose Street
Edinburgh
EH2 4AT
Scotland
Why not register in Bath if being based there is fine?
I suspect if Scotland was independent, foreign based entities would not be allowed to set up campaigns financed from abroad via a Mail Boxes etc PO box on Rose Street.
DeleteBut I think we can all agree that Wings is, by free choice, legally an English citizen, and not one who is merely giving his thoughts passively on Scottish politics, but unquestionably, by his own admission and actions, trying to influence it.
As noted, if his intent is to move here asap and/or he'd been already registered to vote / was doing so consistently, then that's different. If you are voting here you are legally Scottish; that is the only current legal definition.
However, if someone choses freely not to live in Scotland, not to pay taxes here, to vote elsewhere etc, they should refrain from trying to unduly influence the political process of 'self' determination in Scotland as they are not part of the self.
I think this is a fair point I apply to 'ex-pat' Scots of both pro-indy and pro-union persuasion.
Can you demonstrate how he actively seeks out voters.
DeleteNo problem at all.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/your-money-at-work/
I've also seen him marching here with big banners after travelling up from England.
Again, I ostensibly have no issue with this if he's registered to vote here or at least has the intent to do so at the earliest possible opportunity. Yet here we are 6 years on and from this article, and well, I think we can conclude he much prefers England; something he openly admits if you ask.
I do greatly sympathise with many 'ex-pat' scots who have had to leave Scotland to find work. I stayed with a really lovely couple in a B&B outside of Leicester and had a great interview with the Environment Agency who subsequently offered me good job. However, I was being forced to leave my home country, family and friends because I was struggling to find a decent job in Scotland even though I was highly qualified. A Scotland suffering mass emigration (1 in 10) while SE England boomed on oil profits. It can be soul destroying to be forced to leave your country like that. So if such people long for Scottish indy and return home, then that's fine; their support is understandable and welcome.
However, if you love living elsewhere and have no real interest in living in Scotland, leave it to Scots to decide what's best for Scotland.
Thanks for that. But at this time as you say he was
Delete'apparently registered to vote here, which would qualify him as legally a Scot; the only legal recognition of Scottish citizenship.'
Therefore his campaigning on Scottish politics was not anti democratic as he had legal Scottish citizenship.
If you can just provide your evidence for him actively seeking out Scottish voters since he stopped becoming a Scottish voter (lets say from early mid 2015 onwards) then we can leave it there.
Skier - I' ll take no answer as a confirmation that you have NEVER been on an independence march. If you had you will have seen flags from numerous places beyond the borders of Scotland - eg Wales, Denmark, Catalonia, Basque, England.
DeleteSkier would say they should not come to support us - what an arse Skier is!
Quick browse through WoS archives for the period preceding Indyref shows he was indeed living in Scotland (and ex pat returned home) and therefore a 'legal Scottish Citizen' and fully entitled to actively seek out voters as demonstrated above.
DeleteOf course post the referendum he moved back to Bath and has since continued to commentate on Scottish politics etc as is his right to do so.
Glad we have cleared up that he was not Baths equivalent of a Russian bot farm!
Adam, that was a lot of work to once again find that Skier posts pish.
DeleteYou said he hadn't advertised his blog (from England) when he had. I'm not sure if was registered to vote here at the time (the adverts are six months before the vote), but he was living in bath advertising his English blog in Glasgow. Funds were being channeled through England for a campaign in Scotland.
DeleteHe came back to Scotland, then left again because he prefers England, so clearly he had no interest in living in Scotland; he just visited to try and interfere with the outcome of a referendum in a country he didn't live in. I'm not sure how that makes things better? If he's moved up and stayed (which at the time I though was his plan), that would be quite different, but he just popped up to influence things using his position as a unionist (it's that which gives him the freedom to choose where to vote easily in the UK) then fucked off again to starting voting back home in his beloved England. He was back in England by the 25th September.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/some-rest-for-the-wicked/
This was legal as you say; legal under great British unionist law. I don't imagine it would be so easy in an independent Scotland for citizens of other countries to do this.
Anyway, I clarify my legal definition of a Scot to be a Scottish voter and registered here for tax purposes. 'No representation without taxation' as the saying goes. That would not have applied to Wings in March 2014 I imagine, nor in September of that year.
As for recently...
He's posted on here and other blogs seeking to promote the ideas on his blog. He has sought out Scots such as James to argue in public (online) they are wrong and his English ideas are correct.
But of course back in 2014 I wasn't saying what I'm saying now because I thought he did want and plan to 'return home'. However, he's not a Scot expat in England, but was briefly an English expat in Scotland in 2014, by free choice. He has chosen England as his home freely. He voted in Scotland as an English citizen who used British laws to briefly obtain Scottish citizenship to effect the outcome of a referendum here.
Anyway, I don't believe there's much point in repeating ourselves. Readers are wise enough to judge whether or not they think Wings - an English citizen - is attempting to influence Scottish politics with his blog and temporary use of British laws to influence the outcome of votes here. No amount of pedantry will get around the reality of the situation.
An quick final check and Campbell has lived most of his life - since 1991 - in England, buy free choice (in his own admission).
DeleteAs Scottish citizenship comes from residency for tax and voting purposes, that would definitely make him an English citizen. I doubt he was register for income tax in Scotland in 2014, in which case he was not Scottish in the full legal sense, but just taking advantage of British unionist law regarding voting rights.
I must admit thinking (or rather not giving it enough thought) that tax and voting were linked, but of course they are not. Best to improve the definition. If someone is, by free will, choosing not to pay tax in Scotland, they should not be trying to effect how Scots taxes are spent; that would be anti-democratic.
So, in summary, Campbell has lived most of his life in England and freely chooses that, presumably paying tax (income, vat, council tax etc) there not in Scotland, so not properly contributing to the Scottish tax pot nor 'community'.
DeleteHe tries to influence the outcome of votes in Scotland though campaigns financed from England, including with advertising in Scotland.
He even uses unionist laws to register himself to vote in Scotland when it suits him to try and effect the outcome of votes; votes which he’s not prepared to live with the consequences of.
Instead, he fucks back off to his favoured England a few days later leaving actual Scots (residents) to live with the outcome. He then writes blogs attacking those in Scotland who have stayed and lived with the aftermath of said votes, berating them from England because they are not running Scotland the way he wants.
He’s particularly active on domestic policy; policy he doesn’t have to live with as he doesn’t live in Scotland.
Yes, that about sums it up.
If he’d moved up and stayed, I’d not be complaining.
Indeed, from the popularity of his blog over recent years and the fact that people are willingly happy to contribute to its running that people are more than happy with him continue blogging. Your the only person i see getting het up about the fact that he lives in England (certainly not seen anyone but you accuse him of undue 'foreign influence', So we will leave it there.
DeleteHis blog doesn't seem very popular these days; not from web stats. Maybe readers unhappy with him abandoning Scotland after popping up to vote here when he feels like it?
DeleteAnd I don't mind that he lives in England and loves the place. It seems to annoy some readers of his blog though; they really don't like it being mentioned for some reason. Ends up with debates like we are having.
Anyway, here is what unionists think on the subject.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/08/20/michael-gove-suggests-scots-living-rest-uk-could-vote-second/
Michael Gove suggests Scots living in rest of UK could vote in second independence referendum
The Cabinet Office Minister tweeted that extending the franchise to include Scots based south of the Border was an "interesting idea."
I'm personally against that. It's either blood and soil nationalism or pretty anti-democratic. Maybe the next franchise can only be extended to people who are normally resident in Scotland and registered here for tax purposes?
Seems fair to me. Would you agree?
Skier you once said that I should get off my arse and do something for independence and join the SNP. It seems you couldn't get of your arse and attend an AUOB march anywhere in Scotland. Are you secretly like your ex pal Campbell living in England and cannae be bothered travelling to Scotland. It wouldn't surprise me based on all the other lies you post. Anyway if you do live in Scotland it seems you are the lazy arse.
DeleteDepends how you define 'popular' I guess.
DeletePersonally i don't think that 'ex pats' should get a vote. I guess we will see when the draft referendum legislation is published who the Scottish Government want to allow to vote in a future indy ref.
Of course back in 2013 Nicola Sturgeon introduced the legislation to the Scottish Parliament that allowed WoS to campaign for the 2014 Referendum. SNP MPs agreed for that to be acceptable and voted for the legislation to become law.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2013/14/schedule/4/part/2
I suggest you contact your MSP and register the fact that you don't think it is correct that the same could happen in a future indyref, he/she will unlimatly the one who gets to vote on this matter. What Michael Gove thinks he he has no vote on the matter - just as he had no vote on the matter in 2013.
on what basis do you "understand" Wings was not opposed to brexit etc? Seriously interested.
ReplyDeleteon what basis do you "understand" Wings was not opposed to brexit etc? Seriously interested.
ReplyDeleteapologies for the double post as I'm not sure as to how it works
ReplyDeleteJohn Jones, you are making a fundamental mistake in assuming Skier is telling the truth. He lies most of the time. I've no idea if Wings was for Brexit or not but I do know about Skier lying.
ReplyDeleteSkier - still waiting for you to say when the old NEC last discussed independence. You know the old NEC you thought was fine. The old NEC that the SNP members voted a lot of them out but you saw no problem.
ReplyDeleteYou never seem to know much about what is going on in your party. Spending too much time with your Britnat friends - oh sorry don't want to upset your Unionist friends by calling them Britnats.
Why on earth does it matter what the old NEC thought.
DeleteWhat kind of idiot argues about the views of a group which doesn't exist?
Pathetic deflection. The old NEC was not fit for purpose if you support independence. You Skier saw no need for change - pretty uninformed aren't you - spending too much time with your Unionist friends.
DeleteI saw no need for change in the way the NEC was elected. It wasn't a dark and sinister organization as some SE England loving, websites claimed. It is and remains democratic and accountable, as the election of Cherry et al. shows.
DeleteUnlike some, I'm not unduly obsessed with 'woke female penises'.
DeleteMore pish from Skier trying to reinterpret his views - truly unbelievable - deflection must be your middle name. I raise the fact that the old NEC never discussed independence and you go off on one about Wings and penises. The person who says he is not obsessed with "woke female penises" seems to be the same person raising the matter.
DeleteYou are obsessed with Wings - very very strange - what was it that poster said - that's right you used to refer people to Campbell's site but he rejected you and you went off in a 3/4 year huff. Rejection hurts eh. Time to grow up you Pratt.
When exactly did Campbell 'reject me'? Maybe you can explain this to us all since you seem to know something I don't.
DeleteSkier you should know when it happened not me but it obviously still rankles considering how obsessed you are with him.
DeleteIFS, You pull up Skier for his SNP support, yet you still haven't answered my question. I repeat here - do you still intend to vote SNP 1&2,?
ReplyDeleteIf the new SNP NEC is an improvement - I think it is BTW - then you'll be backing the SNP all the way in May, won't you?
This is what Alex Salmond advocates I understand.
DeletePresumably Wings will now back the SNP as well, or is he anti-Salmond and anti-Cherry?
DeleteThese both back SNP 1 & 2.
Ramstam, no idea where you asked me that question but unlike you and Skier I will answer your question but I will remind you that you have ignored many questions I have put to you.
Delete1) I pull up Skier for being a liar.
2) I pull up Skier for deliberately posting deflecting pish.
3) I pull up Skier for being a lowlife with no sense of decency.
4) I pull up Skier because he cannot debate has poor knowledge and low intellect.
5) I pull up Skier because he defends the criminals that tried to put Salmond in jail in the most evil way.
Ramstam, you asked do I still intend to vote SNP 1 and SNP 2.
Delete1) I never said I would vote SNP 1 and 2 - no idea where you got that idea from. Have you the same reading problem Skier has.
2) I have never voted SNP 1 and SNP2.
3) I have always voted SNP in the constituency and made a decision about what other independence supporting party to vote for - often Greens as per 2016.
4) with regards to how I will vote in 2021 I will vote SNP constituency.
5) In the regional list how I will vote will depend on current unknown factors - if there is a mandate for ACTUAL independence in the manifesto then I will vote SNP.
6) If the success criteria for obtaining a referendum is clearly defined and it requires a majority vote for the SNP in the regional list then I will vote SNP.
7) if I think that voting SNP on the regional list will increase the number of SNP MSPs or if the success criteria for a referendum is defined as a majority of SNP MSPs rather than independence supporting MSPs then I will vote SNP.
Now that I have done the courtesy of answering your question with its built in error perhaps you may want to consider addressing any reasonable questions I put to you in future.
I plan to back Salmond and vote SNP + SNP. I won't be persecuting him by going against what he's always advocated.
DeleteSkier you really are a pathetic tosser. What utter pish you post.
Delete'The omelette of strategic naivety....' is what, exactly? An incomplete piece of folk wisdom? '.... is made by breaking the eggs of tactical sophistication!', something like that?
ReplyDeleteI am noticing that on all the Scottish sites I read, the National, this one and even Wee Ginger Dug, the number of anti SNP and FM posts are increasing daily. I have of course been banned from WOS as I expect many others have. So called independence supporters use this ploy to create an illusion of professing their strong adherence to Scotland withdrawing from the United Kingdom, whilst insidiously doing all in their limited abilities to destroy it. Their Machiavellian manoeuvres are pitiful to read, full of childish ad hoc diatribes, desperately trying to convince readers of their fallacious well meaning support. I am also somewhat mystified that people In Scotland would actually support a political party from Bath in England, Why, I ask myself?
ReplyDeleteRamstam, some questions for you.
ReplyDelete1) Is Murrell a fit and proper person to hold the position of Chief Exec of the SNP?
2) Is it appropriate for a couple to be party leader/FM and Chief Exec of the SNP?
3) Why has Ruddick not said anything about the messages taken from her phone?
4) Why does Ruddick not just release her reply(s) to Murrell messages?
5) Why does Ruddick not come out and deny the Whattsapp group(s) with special advisors - "the council of war".
Repeat of the same posts from this chap. Over and Over. More repeats than the BBC.
DeleteThe SNP are utterly corrupt, and basically a dictatorship.
DeleteWithout any doubt, history has shown that people really like that. The setup comes with a near complete public lobotomy on failures and outrages. I'm sure they will do very, very well.
Kinda weird dictatorship where members elect their local candidates, leader, NEC etc, and voters get regular elections.
DeleteAlso, anyone heard of a dictatorship where the governing party doesn't have a majority?
My daughter learned all this at school. It's not complicated.
Ramstam, as I said to William Purves upstream ignoring difficult questions does not make the problem go away.
DeleteUnknown - this post is not a repeat - you are a useless troll.
DeleteBut if you want I can repeat it a few more times.
Skier: She is a dictator in the SNP. That's also what I said firstly. SNP MSPs, SNP MPs, and even SNP 'cabinet' ministers very obviously count for nothing as far as SNP decision making goes. They may as well be cardboard cut-outs, bricks, or other inanimate objects.
DeleteVery obviously there is only one person that counts.
If she's a dictator, how come she didn't decide the outcome of the NEC elections (the main decision making body of the party) or who will be standing in constituencies next Mat? Members voted on these, including myself. Pretty shit dictatorship.
DeleteI was told Murrell controlled all this like he controls Scotland, which was obviously a big fat unionist lie.
If there was a concrete, agreed plan for plan B then it would B a matter for discussion. As it stands, it is a matter for debate as to what plan B would B. And my word it's an egotistical battle for Bdweebs with most proponents using it as a vague marketing vehicle for themselves. 'B is ME'. Whatever.
ReplyDeleteThere are vastly more important things. I guess they are too difficult.
As for Stuart Campbell, I have no idea what his hate thing is about the 2006 gender recognition act. Presumably he recently discovered it. Getting the legislation to comply with the human rights act is something he hates, so he must be against the human rights act because that's the root cause of his mega-angst. That's all about something that has been going on for 14 years that has been completely and utterly uncontroversial. I guess he is bored, and has run out of people to slag-off.
Campbell has also been a propagator of the Donald Trump fake-news revision of the definition of the political term 'woke'. That's something Trump achieved with world-wide success. It takes 5 seconds to look up the definition of 'woke'...
Should Scotland be an Independent Country?
ReplyDeleteYes: 52% (-2)
No: 48% (+2)
Via
@Survation
, 4-9 Dec.
Changes w/ 28 Oct - 4 Nov.
Change is within the margin of sampling variation.
DeleteIs that now 14th or 15th poll in a row with a Yes lead?
16th according to twitter.
DeleteHuge men/women imbalance: women 58/42 for Y, men 55/45 for N. I haven't been keeping up, is that normal in recent polling?
DeleteScottish Parliament Voting Intention:
ReplyDeleteRegional List:
SNP: 41% (-2)
LAB: 20% (+1)
CON: 18% (+1)
GRN: 10% (=)
LDM: 7% (=)
BXP: 1% (-1)
Constituency:
SNP: 53% (-1)
CON: 20% (+1)
LAB: 20% (+2)
LDM: 6% (-2)
ISP about 1% at most again then, with less than 6 months to go.
DeleteEnter your source please, otherwise nobody can believe you.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.survation.com/scotland-political-polling-december-2020/
DeletePoll results and tables here.
Regional list as follows:
41% Scottish National Party (SNP)
20% Scottish Labour
18% Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party
10% Scottish Green Party
7% Scottish Liberal Democrats
1% UKIP
1% Brexit Party
1% Another Party (e.g. ISP, SSP, Solidarity)
Good to read WGD's most recent article in which he provides a positive update on his health and as ever points out the rank stupidity of the Britnats.
ReplyDelete"come hell or high water I'll be playing a full and active role in the campaign that lies ahead of us in 2021, it's going to be a much better year than 2020"
Note to William Purves if WGD thought a referendum was happening next year I' m pretty sure he would have mentioned it. He didn't.
IMO He was referring to the poll in May but also the Indyref which Keith Brown said is coming in 2021.
DeleteRamstam, I know you want independence so do I but this wishful interpretation of what people say will not deliver it. If he thought a referendum was happening next year he would have said do.
DeleteSturgeon could easily have said 2021 but she didn't.
Sturgeon could easily have spelled out what was the success criteria to deliver her mandate to have a referendum but she didn't.
Sturgeon could have said she was dropping the insistence on a sec 30 gold standard referendum but she didn't.
Has James Kelly said indyref2 is coming in 2021 - no.
Has any independence blogger said indyref2 is coming next year - not that I am aware of.
I mean even the liar Skier won't say indyref2 is happening next year.
Now perhaps Keith Brown thinks he will leader next year.
A mandate for actual independence in the manifesto for May 2021 is what is needed and a leadership that will deliver it.
A quick count and about 80% of your posts on here don't mention independence IfS. That's surely of concern? Why aren't you focusing more on independence?
DeleteAlso, out of curiosity, do you agree with The Tories that 'ex-pat' Scots who normally live in England should be allowed to interfere in Scottish politics, including e.g. voting in iref2?
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18663614.scottish-independence-michael-gove-sparks-anger-voting-rights-comment/
MICHAEL Gove and George Galloway sparked an angry reaction last night when they questioned who should get to vote in a second Scottish independence referendum.
Galloway, who is currently leading the anti-independence Alliance for Unity party, tweeted to say that if there is an indyref2 then people born in Scotland but now living across the rest of the UK should be able to vote.
The former Labour MP wrote: “.. 795,000 Scots living elsewhere in the UK MUST have a vote. If UK expats can vote in General Elections from Spain then an existential question like separatism MUST be answered by all Scots.”
Skier - you can pissof with your questions you don't answer mine - so take a hike with your curiosity.
DeleteClearly only someone as "highly qualified " (your own words) as yourself could possibly do that quick count. The things you learn when bashing rocks for a living.
Skier you are full of shit.
We can assume you are in agreement with Gove and the unionists then? It's not a complicated question. No links or proof required. Just a Yes/No.
DeleteI don't agree that 'ex-pats' should get a vote. Do you?
Who is this "We can assume" that you think you speak for - delusions of grandeur again - do you think you are Royalty or something - Prince Skier ready to step in to Prince Andrew's shoes. You are full of yourself Skier - full of shit.
DeleteNow if I was an idiot like Skier I would say only Britnats (or unionists in Skiers outdated 2014 world) only use the term "ex-pats" but I won't since I am not an idiot like Skier.
So Skier are you a Britnat who uses the term ex pat or just an idiot?
Skier says - "it's not a complicated question" - I agree - was my question regarding your attendance at independence marches too difficult for you - a simple yes or no - surely you must know if you have ever attended an independence march - quite easy to recognise them by the saltires flapping in the wind - or were you one of the ugly characters standing at the side with their Union jacks.
DeleteStill trying to think up a reason (lie) why you have NEVER attended a march. Too scared to attend are you?
I've attended 3 indy marches. One prior to iref1 and two since then. Two in Edinburgh and 1 in Gala, these being nearest to where I live. What of it?
DeleteSo what do you think of Gove's idea about 'ex-pats' who normally live in England getting a vote in Scotland? How about letting them just register to vote here briefly for elections / referendums even if they don't intend to live here but prefer England?
If they don't have any relations / friends here to register temporarily with, they could be given a PO box on Rose street for the purpose? Just for the short period ahead of the vote and they'd only need to be here for a most a few weeks before returning to England / Wales / NI.
I disagree with this and think people should be living and paying taxes here normally to vote or should stay out of Scottish politics. Scots resident here on a permanent basis should chose how Scotland is governed, not citizens of other countries. Would you agree?
Still trying to think up a reason (lie) why you have NEVER attended a march
DeleteYes, you are correct, this is a lie. As detailed, I have attended 3.
Clearly only someone as "highly qualified " (your own words) as yourself could possibly do that quick count. The things you learn when bashing rocks for a living.
DeleteIs this you mocking independence supporters again, namely those who work in the geological sciences and aspiring amateurs?
Fair enough if you don't like individuals, but mocking entire groups (geologists, university graduates, people with early onset dementia...) reveals something very unpleasant with your character.
No just mocking a pompous prick like you Skier the highly qualified one. My wife has one of those geology hammers and would hammer me if she thought I was referring to all geologists - just you you absolute roaster.
DeleteSo why did it take you so long to come up with the three marches? Why did you not see all the different flags at the marches? Just made it up did you? How about you are short sighted and you forgot your glasses - that will save you making up a story.
Only people normally resident in Scotland should get a vote. No blood and soil nationalism like your side kick Terence Callachan is well known for. No holiday home owners. Gove is a slimeball prick.
There is a difference between welcoming support from other nations and who gets to vote - surely even an idiot like you can see that but your hatred/weird obsession with Campbell distorts all your viewpoints - sad very sad that you regularly display that.
Allowing personal hatred of an individual to distort your opinion so much that you will always disagree with what they say is - well sad.
" So by all means criticise the SNP for not doing the things they could have done to bring about independence or a choice on independence."
ReplyDeleteThe words of James Kelly the site host.
Funny how none of the brave people on this site that are quick to call someone a Unionist have not dared to call James Kelly a Unionist.
Anent a 2021 referendum. We shouldn't be putting a blogger under the spotlight, when we have the SNP Depute leader Keith Brown performing more like a press officer.
ReplyDeleteAll he seems to do these days is respond and comment on opinion polls.
Time IMO to bring in some good public communicators recently elected onto the SNP NEC. The enthusiasm and talent is certainly there.
Grove's plan implies the application of an ethnicity test.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise how do we decide who is a Scot!
To work and have any consistency, all non-Scots living here would be unable to vote. Unworkable, and a sign of England/UK panic about the 2021 Indyref and the likely outcome under the present franchise.
Ramstam - ever thought that Gove and other Britnat diddys like DRoss talking all this pish about how a referendum should be conducted is solely to con people in Scotland into thinking they will agree a sec 30. One thing that has never changed about Britnats is that they are devious deceitful bastards.
DeleteThe Britnats don't want the May election used as mandate for independence.
Should read Gove. Or could be GROVEL!
ReplyDelete