Ms Sturgeon was incensed that Blair had ripped up a decades-long consensus on the means by which Scotland could legitimately express a desire to become independent, but Dewar stood his ground - he pointed out that it was possible/likely that if the SNP ever won a majority of seats, they would do so on a minority of the vote, and that couldn't possibly be a mandate for independence.
Essentially Dewar was making a lot of the points Ms Sturgeon now makes about the nature of a 'legitimate' indy mandate, and yet Ms Sturgeon emphatically rejected them at the time and branded them a democratic outrage. She was adamant that the truly legitimate path to independence was one that didn't even involve a referendum at all.
Given the circumstances, that might be a rather useful piece of footage to have, although it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. The only people who may have a realistic chance of tracking it down would be BBC employees with access to 'BBC Redux' - a sort of on-demand digital archive of all BBC programmes going back many years.
Successful politicians are usually very good at 'bending' their opinions and views to fit the political landscape of the time.
ReplyDeleteI think you can apply to get access to view archive footage for research /educational purposes, So if you were making a film of Nicolas political views you could ask to use that clip as an example of how here views have changed over the years, but don't think you can get access to the footage to use as a stand along clip on twitter etc
I think NS will be going soon anyway. Which means we'll have a new SNP leader who'll be less cautious than NS.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure. I can't see a clear, reprehensible breach of the code. She first heard tell of the allegations from Aberdein before first hearing about them properly in a meeting Salmond arranged on personal / party business at her private residence.
DeleteIf Salmond had wished to meet with her in her capacity as FM, he would have needed to arrange this via the Scottish parliament and met her there or at Bute House, with the meeting minuted. He came to see her privately, so set the nature of the meeting. Two of the complainers were employees/a member of the SNP, so that's party business. Of course during the course of the meeting, Salmond may have inappropriately tried to steer things to what was government business. Which I imagine led to Sturgeon no longer having contact with him after the meeting to avoid a conflict of interest.
Certainly, the meeting confirms that Sturgeon did know about the allegations so didn't set up Salmond. Something everyone agrees on. If the fantasy that she arranged the allegations was true, she'd not have met him.
Certainly, if Sturgeon was flagrantly breaching the code back in 2018, and Salmond knew it, then he has failed in his duty as a former first minister and privy councilor in not reporting this, and should be subject to retrospective action. To aid and abet a breach of the ministerial code makes you unfit for office. I could never vote for someone who knew the ministerial code was being breached flagrantly and turned a blind eye. And if you keep such information to yourself for later use in personal vendettas, you should be allowed nowhere near the government of Scotland.
Previously, I was open to what an Alex Salmond led list party might be offering. However, if he is attempting some sort of revenge (and I'm always cautious of what the UK media tries to sell me), then he must want to ensure the failure of such a project and to make people definitely vote SNP. I, like most Scots, vote for people who put the nation before themselves and their careers / grievances. I could never vote for anyone who takes revenge on someone else, even if the latter was guilty. I look for higher standards. If Sturgeon had treated Salmond unjustly, I would expect him to rise above it and put the nation first.
While I 'await the courts decision' on Sturgeon, as I afforded Salmond, I'm 100% voting for Christine Grahame SNP in May, and will most likely vote SNP on the list. I really like Joan McAlpine and hope for similar caliber. There'd have to be a candidate I really didn't like topping that regionally for me not to.
Should sturgeon have to go, there are lots of excellent candidates that could replace her. And on we will march to independence.
As support for Yes is nothing to do with Sturgeon or Salmond, the polls will be unaffected. Scotland's future lies in the hands of Scottish people, not its politicians.
Less cautious, she has never mentioned a section 30 order. She has stated if the S.N.P. get a majority in the Scottish Parliament we WILL have a Referendum
Delete"Certainly, the meeting confirms that Sturgeon did not know about the allegations"
DeleteThis is a lot of nonsense. Alex Salmond was compelled to give his version of events by the inquiry and he was obliged to do so. He did not attack Sturgeon, someone on the committee leaked the comments to the media. (At the height of the pandemic on the day with the worst figures yet. Whose interest would that serve, I wonder?) Salmond has been cleared of all the changes against him and yet he is still treated with contempt by his former party and its leadership, many of whom continue to smear him despite his innocence. Sturgeon is responsible for her own lies and if she is found to be in breach of the ministerial code she has no one to blame but herself. Any damage to the cause of independence is entirely her own. Brushing it under the carpet was not an opinion. Salmond was compelled to tell the truth to the inquiry. The fact that the truth implicates Sturgeon in lies to parliament is entirely her responsibility. None of us want the party and the movement to be in this position, but brushing it under the carpet is not an option, and will not help the cause. We need to face this and move on as best we can. Salmond and Sturgeon were two of the best leaders our nation has ever had, but if we are to arrive at independence then another will need to emerge to lead the way.
DeleteI agree with Scottish Skier (11.08 am) above. Some leading Scottish bloggers seem to be taking a kind of absolute pro-Salmond line, that characterises the current First Minister in really negative terms, while Alex Salmond is portrayed as a wholly honest and heroic figure with ony the purest of motives. I suspect that the truth of this matter is complex. Some of the elements in the mix include personal ties, unclear organisational procedures, media coverage that cannot be trusted, and a wider context in which long-established forms of privilege are increasingly being challenged in many areas of society.
DeleteSome bloggers seem to be taking an absolute truth line. That seems to me to be the right approach.
DeleteSome commentators on blogs need to spend more time reading the papers published on the Inquiry website and less time posting uninformed suspicions and conclusions.
As we all know, to quote the man himself/his lawyers, Salmond has 'made mistakes' and 'could have been a better man' so we know he's not whiter than the driven snow. But then I don't think Sturgeon or anyone ever is.
DeleteSalmond is a former FM and privy councilor. He knows the rules. If he was aware the FM was breaching these in her dealings with him, he should have reported it at the time. To not do so is a failure in his duties and would mean he was complicit in any apparent breach and so unfit for future office. If he only reports breaches of the code when compelled to do so it's even worse; like he was trying to cover them up. If he saved them up for a vendetta would mean he should never be allowed near office.
I think an investigation into whether salmond breached the ministerial code would be fair. He still holds a government position; that of privy councilor, so the rules definitely apply.
And donrayjay I am quite aware how the British press spin things, hence my caution and use of 'if' etc.
DeleteHowever, if this is true:
In the submission, the former first minister said that Ms Sturgeon had misled parliament and broken the ministerial code with breaches including failing to inform the civil service in good time of her meetings with him.
Then surely Salmond himself has breached the code for failing to inform the civil service in good time of his meetings with Sturgeon. He is a former FM and privy councilor; the rules still apply. The same standards should apply to former ministers when dealing with government business, particularly if they still hold high level government positions like Salmond does.
Based on what Salmond has said, it seems he may have breached the ministerial code so should, in all fairness, be investigated too. If found guilty, he should not be allowed to stand for office again.
Skier - continuing the more than 3 year persecution of Salmond. Shameful.
DeleteSays the person relentlessly persecuting the 100% innocent (until found guilty) sturgeon.
DeleteUnlike you IFS, I don't have side in this so am not biased and blinded by loyalty to a politician. You seem very loyal to Salmond? If so, that's dangerous as you should only be loyal to the nation.
It seems you want to exempt people from the rules. Trump does that.
I want to live in a fair Scotland. If the meeting between Salmond and Sturgeon at her house was 'dodgy' somehow, with the ministerial code being broken, they should both be investigated over it, and both suffer punishment if necessary. Surely you agree?
We are talking about meeting between the FM and former FM / a privy councilor. They both know the rules very, very well. If it was government business, both were responsible for ensuring it was minuted and reported to the civil service. Under no circumstances should Salmond have tried to meet with Sturgeon about the government investigation privately. If he did, it would raise very serious questions about him.
Salmond isn't above the law. If he is saying their meeting should have been reported to the civil service earlier than it was, then why didn't he report it in good time? He's the former FM and a privy councilor. Why on earth did he wait two years to bring this up? He should have told the civil service immediately if the meeting was government business. He hold a government position and will be collecting a nice pension for being a former FM.
In contrast, if the meeting was intended to be about party business and non-minuted as Salmond must have requested / Sturgeon understood when she invited him to her home, then nobody broke the code.
It takes two to tango. Don't let your loyalty to politicians blind you. Nobody is an angel. We saw in the USA what happens when people become blindly loyal to politicians.
Yes I'm sure I remember seeing this. But people do change their opinions over time. I know I have, sometimes quite drastically, largely through greater experience and maturity. It doesn't mean that she wasn't sincere either then or now. But in any case, I believe, as Scottish Skier has pointed out many times, that her present tactics are correct.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Wikipedia Dewar appeared five times during that period:
ReplyDelete525
23 March 1995
Glasgow, Scotland
Donald Dewar, Margaret Ewing, Ian Lang, Ray Michie
555
7 March 1996
Newcastle, England
Rosie Boycott, Andrew Foster, Gerald Malone, Joyce Quin
584
20 February 1997
London, England
Donald Dewar, Germaine Greer, Michael Howard, Roy Jenkins
628
14 May 1998
Glasgow, Scotland
Donald Dewar, Charles Kennedy, Raymond Robertson, Elaine C. Smith
658
22 April 1999
Glasgow, Scotland
Donald Dewar, Alex Salmond, Jim Wallace, David McLetchie
I attended the meeting of the SNP National Council back on the 25th of March 2000 at the Mitchell Library theatre in Glasgow when the party decided to change its policy away from a majority of MPs being a mandate for independence to that of it needing to be achieved via a referendum. I was vigorously opposed to it that day but I remember being rather surprised by some of the people who supported it from the podium. The policy itself was the brainchild of the party leadership but it was given strong support by some people whom I thought might have been strongly opposed to it. One in particular in my opinion was Kenny McAskill. I do not know Kenny's view on the matter these days as it has been over 20 years since I last held a discussion with him. I do know from various recent reports in the media, however, that he may not be fully in agreement with some of the strategy being pursued just now by the current leadership of the SNP to achieve our end goal. The point that I am making towards you, James, and others who are critical of the current leadership is that the policy reached back in March 2000 - even though I disagreed with it - was in response to the situation at that time. Times change and on the day in 2011 when we won a majority in the Scottish Parliament I had a wee chortle to myself and conceded that the policy adopted back in March 2000 might just have been the correct one. We might now have moved to the point where that policy needs to be revisited but I would not be critical of anyone for an opinion on the strategic way forward that was held well over 20 years ago.
ReplyDeleteAs we draw closer to a Scottish independence referendum we will see ever increasing dramatisation of how Scotland and its Scottish independence leaders are muddled and untrustworthy you will be told that to find truth you need the BBC the British newspapers and the British government .
ReplyDeleteDesperation at Westminster drives desperate people to say despicable untruths.
Westminster is the most practiced propaganda outfit in the world
Scotland is the nearest country to England
England will lie steal kick and kill to keep Scotland
The worst is still to come
Scottish indy isn't about Sturgeon or Salmond or Johnson or any politician, and only unionists think it is. It why they don't understand why the UK is slipping from their grasp.
ReplyDeleteThe latest headlines just confirm this.
I wonder what odds I would get on a double of Evans being in the House of Lords by the end of the year along with Trump being in Moscow after claiming political asylum also by the end of the year.
ReplyDeleteHere is a list of eposides of BBCQT that Donald Dewar appeared on around that timeframe.
ReplyDeleteEpisode 658 - 22 April 1999 – Glasgow - Donald Dewar, Alex Salmond, Jim Wallace, David McLetchie
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0942032/?ref_=ttep_ep13
Episode 628 - 14 May 1998 – Glasgow - Donald Dewar, Charles Kennedy, Raymond Robertson, Elaine C. Smith
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1119461/?ref_=ttep_ep16
Episode 286 - 20 February 1997 – London - Donald Dewar, Germaine Greer, Michael Howard, Roy Jenkins
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1120624/?ref_=ttep_ep5
Episode 258 - 14 March 1996 – London - Donald Dewar, Michael Heseltine, Gerry Robinson, Shirley Williams
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1147298/?ref_=ttep_ep10
Episode 525 - 23 March 1995 – Glasgow - Donald Dewar, Margaret Ewing, Ian Lang, Ray Michie
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1147268/?ref_=ttep_ep11
Posted these with some links to details (not links to videos, still looking) and ut went into moderation, so I am trying the list without links. It's Donald Dewars appearances around the time you mentioned.
ReplyDeleteEpisode 658 - 22 April 1999 – Glasgow - Donald Dewar, Alex Salmond, Jim Wallace, David McLetchie
Episode 628 - 14 May 1998 – Glasgow - Donald Dewar, Charles Kennedy, Raymond Robertson, Elaine C. Smith
Episode 286 - 20 February 1997 – London - Donald Dewar, Germaine Greer, Michael Howard, Roy Jenkins
Episode 258 - 14 March 1996 – London - Donald Dewar, Michael Heseltine, Gerry Robinson, Shirley Williams
Episode 525 - 23 March 1995 – Glasgow - Donald Dewar, Margaret Ewing, Ian Lang, Ray Michie
The principle that a clear majority of Scots should vote in favour of independence for that to be acceptable is one I agree with, whether that be through a referendum or a national election.
ReplyDeleteFor an election though, it would have to be crystal clear that you’re standing for outright independence with no referendum.
I think the Westminster election 50%+1 mandate is a perfectly acceptable way of getting a mandate for indy.
ReplyDeleteI understood that or a consultative only referendum like 2014 were the established ways.
I do think a majority of votes cast is required for the mandate as I want Scotland to get the government it voted for. Large majorities on minority shares of the vote is British unionist.
The were three episodes that Donald Dewar participated with a Scottish panel in the period 1995 -2000 you have in mind, they were;
ReplyDeletePre 1997 General election
23 March 1995
Post 1997 election
14 May 1998
Scottish Parliament election QT
22 April 1999
By a process of elimination I think it must have been 23 March 1995. Nicola Sturgeon herself was on the panel in a 1998 episode, so it must have been before that, and realistically it would also have had to be before she stood in Govan in 1997.
DeleteWill Bottler Boris still be whistling the same tune after the May election?
ReplyDeleteI hae ma doots.
I don't think you can compare an indy mandate via a Westminster UK election and a Scottish election.
ReplyDeleteIndy via 50%+1 for a UK union election sounds absolutely fine to me. A UK election is a very appropriate place for this. 50%+1 is the mandate for the Scottish Grand Committee to meet and vote to withdraw Scotland from the HoC, so ending its mandate to govern Scotland.
With a Scottish election, it's a bit more complex. For a start, there are two votes. What if you say 50% on the constituency gives the mandate, and you end up with 49.9% on the constituency and 51% on the list, maybe because people confused the two? Does that mean no indy and no referendum? What about the other way around? Play it safe and say <50% on both votes? For the SNP or all indy parties? for the latter, all parties would need to make the same manifesto commitment. And why 50%? What if some of the other small parties are neutral on indy? Why should they count for no? Shouldn't they be eliminated as 'dk's and %'s calculated again? It opens up all sorts of opportunities for people to argue the electorate didn't understand...it's not clear...so not valid even though the electorate might well have tried to say Yes.
And what if all confirmed Yes parties get 49.9% on both votes with polls at 55% Yes? What then? No referendum even though Scots want indy?
Some of the same problems apply for Westminster, but less as there's just a single vote. Also, Scots MPs have zero power in Westminster as they are treated like vermin lepers, so folks will be happier to make the election about that. For Scots elections, it's about who you want governing Scotland pre and post-indy, Schools, hospitals and so on. What if you are a Tory yes voter? Westminster elections were also the historically recognized method for indy; that and it's hard for unionists to delegitimize these as they are a great British vote organised by london.
Most importantly, a party cannot make the election about indy; only scots voters can do that. If the SNP tried to make an election about indy when that's not what voters wanted, they may well punish the SNP, even though they do want indy, but via a referendum.
I want our Yes to be crystal clear for Scots and the wider world. No ambiguity. In order of preference, to achieve this, I think it is best done by:
1. Indyref (most preferred)
2. Westminster election plebiscite
3. Scottish election plebiscite
4. Ireland style if England tries to shut down voting (least preferred)
They said the deal would be great for N. Ireland...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-nireland/northern-ireland-britain-supply-chain-at-risk-of-collapse-hauliers-warn-idUSKBN29E0NB
Northern Ireland-Britain supply chain at risk of collapse, hauliers warn
DUBLIN (Reuters) - The supply chain between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is a “boat breakdown” away from collapse as a result of the post-Brexit regulatory border, the UK’s Road Haulage Association (RHA) has warned the British government.
Evans, Perm Secretary will be attending a Committee meeting for 5 Th. time on Tuesday. That is a lot of lies that needed subsequent clarification by more lies.
ReplyDeleteRe majorities. Majority of MP's, majority of votes, super majority. The UK tradition is FPTP, an anti-democratic voting system, but it's what the Tories and Labour have given us and it's what they want. They have no plans to change to PR.
ReplyDeleteJohnson was elected on a minority of the votes on a 67% turnout, so an even smaller minority of those entitled to vote yet got an 80 seat unassailable majority to do what he likes.
So if we were to go into a UK GE on the basis that if SNP won the majority of seats then we would negotiate Independence, that would be fine with me. Hoist by their own petard.
Alternatively, May's election on the same premise, a majority of independence MSP's then withdraw MP's and negotiate Independence.
On Section 30, if that was still the preferred Plan A, then we should not "ask permission" but state, prior to May, that we will negotiate an S30 for a referendum to be held on [Date] and if these negotiations fail to materialise then May election is Plan B.
While I think a simple MPs majority is sufficient for a referendum, are you seriously suggesting that the goal of independence is 'Scots not getting the government they voted for'? If we want to be forced out of unions against our will, we can have that in the UK.
DeleteJames, do you think this clip may have came from the same episode? Looks like it could be in the date range you specified.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmjbluHnuc0
I am continuing to look for it regardless and will message the user who posted this to see if he has more (though it was posted 2015, so slim chances).
No, I don't think that clip is even from Question Time. It sounds like Kirsty Wark was the moderator.
Delete