Sunday, January 3, 2021

New article, and Somerset stalker update

First of all, I've written today's National Extra piece on the subject of Boris Johnson's suggestion that Scotland won't be allowed a say on its own future for another thirty-four years.  You can read it HERE.  

Secondly, I regret I have to report that my long-term stalker from Somerset has written yet another article about me on his website.  This is at least the 678th time it's happened, and as usual he's howling in barely coherent rage.  Yes, I'm weirded out by his creepy obsession, but I can't deny I do feel slightly sorry for the guy as well.

(For those who don't understand the concepts of irony and sarcasm, I'll explain the above paragraph when I have eight months to spare.)

The trigger for Stuart's fury on this occasion was something I tweeted yesterday - 

"Stuart Campbell's earnest belief that he can get rid of the wildly popular Nicola Sturgeon in the next four months is bordering on comical."

He then set about trying to 'disprove' the premise of my tweet in a really rather odd and counter-productive manner.

"So, for the historical record: I have no belief whatsoever, earnest or otherwise, that I can get rid of Nicola Sturgeon in the next four months.

I’m an idiot..."

No comment.

"...with a website."

This is indisputably true.

"I have no power."

Agreed - hence the word 'comical'.

"This site has for some time called for Sturgeon to resign because it is our belief that she’s going to have to anyway."

So to sum up - you're putting pressure on her to go and actually think she will go, and yet you think that's somehow different from having an earnest belief that you're going to get rid of her.  Well, all I can say is that I admire the exhibition of advanced hair-splitting, but it doesn't change my assessment that it's all rather comical.  Nicola Sturgeon has reached almost unprecedented levels of popularity in public polling, and has taken the independence movement to sustained majority support for the first time ever.  The notion that she's on the brink of being deposed is fanciful in the extreme, and can only really be explained by heavy-duty wishful thinking on the part of people who are blinded with rage towards her.

The rest of the article is an extended, unhinged and utterly unconvincing waffle about the reasons Ms Sturgeon will supposedly no longer be SNP leader in four months' time, which culminates in quite possibly the most bonkers sentence Stuart has ever written in his life - 

"And let’s be clear: the only thing the Unionists fear is Sturgeon going in the next few weeks."

The terrifying thing is that he probably believes that to be true, even though anyone who hasn't lost the plot can see that it's self-evidently the polar opposite of the truth.  Whatever anyone may think of Nicola Sturgeon, she's plainly one of the finest political communicators in the entire English-speaking world, and her opponents would think it was Christmas all over again if they were suddenly facing someone less formidable.

"they’ll celebrate the near-certain avoidance of an SNP/indy majority, aided by the idiotic “both votes SNP” argument (ironically promoted by James Kelly) that ensures hundreds of thousands of pro-indy votes are wasted"

Oh dear.  Don't tell me I'm going to have to remind Stuart yet again of his splendid "both votes SNP" article from the run-up to the 2016 election in which he sagely explained to readers why attempts to game the electoral system were "a mug's game".  You know what?  Some of us understand that the way an electoral system works doesn't magically change just because our feelings towards it change.  Electoral systems are stubborn in that way.

"Information to which I’m privy would get me put in jail if I published it"

Here's the irony of this situation: I'm fairly sure I'm also privy to at least some of the information Stuart is referring to, and it leads me to have great concerns about the events that led up to Alex Salmond being put on trial.  I'm on record as saying that if Mr Salmond were to set up his own party, I would probably support it, which would put Stuart and I on the same side.  But being a supporter of Mr Salmond doesn't preclude me from having a sense of realism about Nicola Sturgeon and the vital role she will have to play if Scotland is to become independent any time soon.

47 comments:

  1. Absolutely. The events around AS departure are sickening, but we can’t give up the fight for independence now. The truth will out in the end. But there’s no point shooting ourselves in the foot with internal wars at this crucial juncture. It’s both votes SNP in May. But the leadership is on notice after that, as far as I’m concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You know what's funny, James? Your article in the National calls for the exact same thing I'm calling for - a plebiscitary election. And you know full well that Nicola Sturgeon will never ever deliver that, because she keeps saying that she won't. So you know she needs to go just as much as I do. The only difference is that you don't have the courage to say so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know if you actually realise the extent to which your bitterness is coming across, Stuart. It's extreme and it's clouding your judgement in a big way.

      Regular readers of this blog will be bemused by the notion that I shy away from expressing my true opinions - if anything the complaint (not least from yourself) is usually that I'm too forthright. So if I say that I think it would be suboptimal to replace Nicola Sturgeon with someone less charismatic on the eve of a crucial election, you can probably take it as read that I kind of, y'know, mean it.

      Delete
    2. Hello Stuarts, what's your thoughts on this idea from your fellow ex-pat?

      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

      Delete
    3. You're at the moment a danger to the independence movement. SNP must win and SNP must get more than half of MSPs. NS's aware that she has to deliver this year and that if she doesn't she'll be gone. What happened to Salmond's history (and I have no idea what happened and I'm not privy to any info - but I do talk to enough people to know that for majority it is history).

      Delete
    4. Campbell, unlike your blog, this blog supports independence. Unlike your blog, this blog allows honest opinions, even when James disagrees with them, as long as they remain respectful.

      Unlike your blog, this blog covers a wide range of topics, and doesn't almost exclusively focus on the SNP as "the enemy of independence" as yours does. Intrigued by a remark made by a "Stu-worshipper", I broke my own rule and visited your blog, scrolling back through your blogposts, looking for "non-SNP-bad" posts. I gave up after checking the last 100 blogposts (about mid Oct 2020). I had found 4 blogposts that could be construed as anti-unionist. The other 96 were posts, where you were drooling your bile and hatred of the SNP.

      You've transformed yourself from being a really effective "Daisley- basher" (among others), into a sex-obsessed bore, who, in the fight for independence, has become as useless a ps a chocolate fire guard.

      Since the Dugdale court case, your fall has been pitiful to watch. It's very sad.....

      Alex Birnie

      Delete
  3. Used to be a fan of his. He has lost the plot.

    Even if everything Stuart says is true (which I do not concede), all he's really proven in all the ramblings amongst innuendo is a fairly innocuous error and no maliciousness from Sturgeon. Why would any sane independence supporter not support her in those circumstances? Imagine in the history books trying to narrate why we gifted the unionists a resignation because of an admin error at best or a zealotry over the ministerial code.

    ReplyDelete
  4. UN AGENDA 21 and the "New World Order"

    Agenda 21 is called Agenda 21 because it happens in (20)21!

    And for those who don't remember what was fixed by the UN (United Nations)(!!!) within this Agenda:

    Reduction of the world population to 500 million people (remember: now we have more than 7 Billion!)

    This program contains a LOT of things, but I guess this point is the most significant at the moment.

    Please also google “Georgia Guidestones” to learn more about the program.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

    A reduction of human population from 7,5 billion to 500 million cannot done by "socially / socioeconomically responsible actions" – it is simple genocide.

    A multi-Billion-mass murder.

    You simply cannot shoot so many people without resistance coming up very fast. So you have to find a method for killing them which lets you "insert the killing bullet" somehow unrecognized and let the lethal condition have effect so much later, so that in the meantime you have enough time to insert this "bullet" into all the others you want to kill.

    Well…

    Here we are.

    Everybody who can think may remember this situation and think VERY well BEFORE accepting ANY form of vaccination these days.

    No matter what anybody tells you, tries to prove you, or gives you whatever kind of legal threat if you don't take it.

    We already read here about laws and regulations putting everyone who does not want a vaccination in the corner of "being a threat to public health" and therefore be detained in (prison-)camps.
    but at the end: what is better: prison or death…

    Your choice….

    A very personal choice..

    And all in all a gigantic crime on humanity.

    Everybody in government, health care system, police who joins this forcing of the people into vaccination may be reminded that with a little bit of thinking and a small test of responsibility and conscience there are enough sources which could show you the big picture.

    Everybody who then does not stop is either too stupid to learn and see or a criminal.

    New World Order agenda also includes transgender recognition what we see as the Gender Recognition Act and Hate Crime.

    Do you see a problem here?

    COVID 19 is not as you might think 19 because it happened in 2019 but is Gematria for AI which is short hand for Artificial Intelligence.
    So COVID 19 means
    COVert
    IDentification for
    Artificial Intelligence

    Yes injectable nanotech does exist to place bots into your bloodstream and monitor everything you do and everywhere you go and every transaction you make. The progeniture of a "Slave Race" thats if you are chosen to be one of the 500million.

    Its time to REBEL.
    NO LOCKDOWN(UP)
    NO MASKS
    NO VACCINES
    No GENDER RECOGNITION ACT
    NO HATE CRIME BILL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Try Wings....tell them Nicola is behind it. They will devote articles to it.

      Delete
    2. Wow, just wow, you sound like my cousin, the only thing you left out is 5G being the delivery method for Covid-19. What colour is the sky in your world?

      Delete
  5. Gosh, that sounds like Scottish labour`s manifesto

    ReplyDelete
  6. Really begining to wonder what Wings us trying to achieve now? NS is riding high in popularity worldwide just now. The yoons would love her to resign. It would be used as ' She does not want to lose Indy on her watch, she knows it going to be No again,' Just as the establishment set sights on Corbyn, now NS is in the cross hairs..ably abetted by wings! I don't give a feck if she knew long before court case that AS was too tactile for some. Nor if she knew the UK civil service were planning to bring him to task. She was damned either way. Admit she knew, and be accused of covering up for him by not acting herself' The policy to include ex ministers was not in place and the Civil servant legal team were already telling them they had no case by end of 2018. Maybe NS was confident the matter would be dropped? The women didn't want it to go to court either. Mr L of Herald was awfy cozy with one civil servant involved..even went on a wee junket with MSPs and a civil servant? Who leaked it to press when Civil Servants case got dropped?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've assumed he wants to keep his website and/or any side earnings from MI5 going until retirement. If Scots vote Yes, Wings is finished as a source of income.

      Given Salmond was found completely innocent, there of course wasn't actually anything for anyone to know about. All Sturgeon could ever have known was that Salmond wasn't a sex pest. This would explain why her and Murrell have both sworn that 'never in all the decades we worked with Salmond did we ever see evidence for sexual misconduct'.

      So questions like 'when did you find out about the completely baseless allegations about Salmond' etc become rather meaningless. The public asks 'who cares?'. It's only if Salmond was guilty does the public want to know if you knew it and tried to cover it up.

      Are we truly to believe an FM should stand down because there's maybe a question over when she first 'got wind' of big fat unionist lies whitehall manufactured to take out Salmond? That it's somehow a crime for her to have maybe got a warning one day followed by the full rundown from Salmond a few days later?

      So Mrs Sturgeon, when did you first hear the serious allegation that the moon is made of cheese? Oh, so you maybe knew about the cheese rumour on Monday not Wednesday! Gotcha! Resign!

      This is what unionism has been reduced to.

      Right now the following desperately want Sturgeon to resign:
      - Tories & assorted rabid unionists
      - Daily Mail, Telegraph etc
      - People who call scots 'cowards, monkeys, transfans, woke, idiots, vermin...'
      - Wings over Quintessential Englandshire

      I'm going to err on the side of caution and suggest it's probably better Sturgeon stays in place.

      Delete
    2. Polling sites have a bright future under indy. Should attract larger audiences as UK polling sites stop discussing Scottish polls.

      Delete
  7. Remind me please James. Which of the assumedly pro independence groupiscules made up of the less than 1% of the Scottish electorate have elected Campbell as one of their candidates? Will he stand in a constituency or on a list? Will he stand?

    It ia all very well stitting on the sidelines. Sometime, maybe, he will put himself up for election. Though that could turn out to be a bit of a disaster for his ego.


    ReplyDelete
  8. I believe the best opportunity for Scotland to become an independent nation is to treat the upcoming Scottish Parliamentary election as a vote on independence. However, Nicola Sturgeon will not do this. I really wish that she would, but she just won't. For that reason, I think that Rev Stu is fundamentally correct. Those against independence would be much more intimidated by an SNP lead by Joanna Cherry or Alex Salmond, because they would not limit themselves to a 'cap in hand - hope that Boris gains a conscious' approach.
    And lying to parliament is a serious issue. Nicola Sturgeon should not have done that. She is being temporarily protected by the media on this issue, but that protection will disappear if there is a vote for independence. Her choices will be used against the wider yes movement. Nicola Sturgeon did the wrong thing.
    And writing this is difficult because I like Nicola Sturgeon. I believe that she was a very competent minister and that she is a good ambassador for Scotland. But she is terrible at picking other ministers. An example of this is Shirley-Anne Somerville. The Scottish Government has not been as good since Nicola Sturgeon took over.
    But perhaps the issue isn't the leadership. Maybe the problem is the SNP itself. Maybe they have been in power too long and are heading the same way as the Labour Party, believing that its founding principle should only be brought about in a specific, impossible way, and allowing careerist who profit from the current situation to dictate policy.
    Ultimately, I think Rev Stu is correct in his analysis. If we don't use this upcoming election as a vote on independence, then Scotland will not be independent for at least another 4 years. PM Johnston will not agree to a section 30 and he will not be put under any pressure to do so by an SNP lead by Nicola Sturgeon.
    The only way I will support 'both votes SNP' is if the upcoming election is a plebiscite on independence. If the SNP choose not to do this, then my second vote will go to the ISP.
    ISP may not receive enough votes to win any seats, but I would rather back with the party that will try its best to achieve independence but can't, over the one that could but won't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She [Nicola Sturgeon] is being temporarily protected by the [British Unionist] media

      Jings. So, let me get this right... unionists really want her to resign / be taken out but are rallying round to protecting her at the same time?

      You've been reading too much wings.

      And any good careerist backs independence now as that's what most Scots want. Careerists are the weather vanes and the wind has changed, meaning so have they.

      This stuff is all so gloriously contradictory. 'All these ex- labour careerists who have moved to the SNP / independence because they just do what the public want don't in fact want indepdence so are not careerists at all as they are doing the opposite what the public want!'.

      ISP are currently on less than 1%. They need to be hitting 10% nationally for you to be sure they'll get some seats.

      Delete
    2. I note Skier does not put forward any argument against using the May election as as vote for actual independence. Is this because James Kelly now advocates this approach now? Not so prompt to call James a Unionist are you!

      More and more independence supporters see the merit in this approach but others are stuck in the 2014 past.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Douglas,
      Nice to meet you. I must admit, you have me at a bit of a disadvantage. My understanding was that Rev Stu was not a member of the Independence for Scotland Party as he was still considering forming his own under the Wings banner. I was also unaware that the ISP had already provided details of some of their candidates for the upcoming election. Could you provide me a link? I would be grateful as I like to research potential candidates.
      In response to your point regarding Rev Stu's views, I didn't comment on them. I was saying that I believe his analysis regarding Scottish independence is correct. I tried to provide an explanation as to why I hold that view. Please accept my apologies for not being clear.
      The reason why I would vote for a 'splitter' group instead of an established party is for two reasons. First, I believe that the ISP has the sincerest determination to bring about independence for Scotland as soon as possible. Second, I believe that have alternative pro-independence voices in our parliament will strengthen our clause, as it will allow people with different but sincerely held beliefs to be represented.
      Finally, I believe that safeguarding the rights of women in Scotland is very important. I have concerns regarding recent legislation that is supported by the SNP and the Greens. Everyone has the right to live in dignity and to be respected. And women deserve the right to feel safe if they are sent to prison or are visiting a victim support center. I feel it is wrong for those with male genitalia to enter spaces designed solely for women. I want to vote for a party that agrees with that principle.
      One final point. My understanding is that Rev Stu does not and has never held the views on the Hillsborough disaster that you have ascribed to him. (link provided: https://wingsoverscotland.com/to-the-editor-of-the-scotsman/). I hope that this has answered some of your questions regarding my comment.
      P.S. The only cult I have ever supported is Blue Oyster cult! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipqqEFoJPL4)

      Delete
    2. I understand Mr Campbell is an English citizen / taxpayer who is normally resident in England by free choice.

      He's one of Tory Gove's ex-pats 'Scots' who don't want to live in Scotland, but feel they should get a say, from a warm English beer garden, in how Scotland is run.

      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

      Forgive me if I tend to ignore such people.

      Delete
    3. Skier for someone who claims to be a member of the SNP not only do you know little about what is happening in your own party you seem to like to read a lot of Britnat media - the latest being the extreme Britnat Tory Telegraph. You will never get rid of the cringe reading all these Britnats sources.

      Delete
    4. An 'English' citizen?

      No such thing; British yes, English no

      Delete
    5. Sure, Campbell isn't Scottish by your definition, but a Brit.

      However, we can and do define for voting and/or tax purposes, who is Scottish and who is English, Welsh or N Irish.

      I'm a habitual resident of Scotland who pays Scottish income tax and is a register voter. I'm legally Scottish by those definitions. This allows me to vote in Scottish Elections while preventing me from voting in e.g. Wales at the same time.

      I understand Stuart Campbell is English by these definitions - through free choice - although he has done a 'Michael Gove' when it suits.

      Delete
    6. According to the BBC and assorted unionists, Margaret Ferrier is a 'Scottish MP'. That means they consider Campbell English by the same definitions.

      Delete
    7. Skier - see when you were highly qualified but couldn't get a job in Scotland and you had to leave Scotland did that mean you were no longer Scottish?

      Delete
    8. "PS. The only cult I have ever supported is Blue Oyster cult!"

      Ah, a kindred spirit 😉

      Delete
  10. "Here's the irony of this situation: I'm fairly sure I'm also privy to at least some of the information Stuart is referring to, and it leads me to have great concerns about the events that led up to Alex Salmond being put on trial."
    I wouldn't use the word 'irony', James -- but this sentence does expose a fundamental weakness in the position you take. I'm just an ordinary member of the public, so all the things that are being kept officially secret are indeed unknown to me. But I am pretty sure that everybody who is professionally or personally concerned in the affair -- all the journalists, bloggers, special advisers, senior civil servants, commentators, policepersons, and all the social circles of all these people know as much as they care to about it. You believe, I think, that if only the facts can be made to remain officially unknown, politics can be made to proceed as if they were really unknown.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sigh. No, I do not believe that at all - although you could have asked me, rather than trying to put words in my mouth.

      Delete
    2. Right - got me there. Bang to rights!

      Delete
  11. Biera

    Good to meet you too.

    I have no idea whether Stu stands for the Independence for Scotland Party or not. Neither do I have information on their candidates list, sorry. I would imagine that, as it hasn't got his name in it's headline that he'd reject it out of hand. If he intends to stand under some sort of Wings over Scotland banner, then that might be more sensible from his point of view. The recent opinion poll, evidenced here, suggests that fringe, nationalist parties will get a tiny percentage of the vote. IMHO that is not a risk worth taking.

    Re your comment:

    "The reason why I would vote for a 'splitter' group instead of an established party is for two reasons. First, I believe that the ISP has the sincerest determination to bring about independence for Scotland as soon as possible. Second, I believe that have alternative pro-independence voices in our parliament will strengthen our clause, as it will allow people with different but sincerely held beliefs to be represented."

    But you have no idea whether Stupot is going to stand for them, do you? Please, please provide evidence that Stupot has any conviction beyond his current account. We were a honeypot for him and he made the most of it. You believe otherwise? I am disappointed in myself for beiieving in him.

    You add a couple of points:

    "Finally, I believe that safeguarding the rights of women in Scotland is very important. I have concerns regarding recent legislation that is supported by the SNP and the Greens. Everyone has the right to live in dignity and to be respected. And women deserve the right to feel safe if they are sent to prison or are visiting a victim support center. I feel it is wrong for those with male genitalia to enter spaces designed solely for women. I want to vote for a party that agrees with that principle."

    Me too.

    Finally, he did say that about Hillsborough. Whether it is still available, who knows?

    Once you are inside a cult it is difficult, nay impossible, to walk away. It took me ages to realize that your new hero was my new nemisis.

    Best wishes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. OK, Back to the subject in hand.
    If the SNP declared that because a referendum was being blocked by London the May election was to be a plebiscitory election deciding independence itself, I wonder just how quickly a S30 order would be offered?
    A good reason IMO that the SG are keeping quiet on any possible plan B.
    It seems highly probable to me that Nicola Sturgeon is following the EU roadmap to indy/EU accession.
    See the UK/EU divorce deal for more information on EU new states membership.
    International recognition of an independent Scotland is absolutely essential. Nae shortcuts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ramstan,

      Could you tell me more?

      Delete
    2. The EU rules for new states joining make clear that the situation Scotland finds itself in anent independence must be resolved and be watertight legally before we could join.
      That is the SGs view too.
      It's all stated in the 1,700?
      page Brexit document, though of course Scotland isn't named specifically as we're not currently a state.
      Presumably these scenarios would have been discussed behind the scenes and off the record when the FM had talks in Brussels a while back.
      The UK clearly wanted to block a future indy Scotland joining the EU.
      What they clearly failed to achieve was a veto on Scottish membership.

      Delete
    3. It has not been blocked by Johnston, he knows damn well he cannot. Westminster has already conceded that the Scottish people are Sovereign.

      Delete
  13. Beira Nevis,

    It might be worth your time reading through the comments here. There are disagreements and stuff. It is pretty healthy. We are not obligated to take a particular 'party line'. You and I can discuss stuff without either of us being 'snuffed' out.

    I recall being 'snuffed out' on Wings by it's editor. That would be Stu.

    Different time, different place, no doubt.

    Not really a free space unless you ultimately agreed with the editor. That would be Stupot.

    I prefer this to that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Spot on!! His Ego became bigger than him and so many of us who dare to disagree with him was blocked. He is dangerous to Scotland's future, he acts like a little "Hitler" with his wee soldiers doing the dirty by trying all they can to discredit Nicola and get rid of her. If we lose Indy we know it is Salmond & his desperate need for revenge, wealthy Campbell on the back of all his hundreds of thousands of crowdfunding money, now why would he want Indy when his crowdfunding would dry up. The man has done a Trump and lost the plot.

      Delete
  14. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55530721

    EU firms refuse UK deliveries over Brexit tax changes

    Some specialist online retailers in various EU countries have said they will no longer deliver to UK addresses because of tax changes due to Brexit...

    ...At the same time, international shipping companies including Federal Express and TNT have said they are levying additional charges on shipments between the UK and the EU.

    They said this reflected the increased investment they had had to make in adjusting their systems to cope with Brexit.

    The moves follow changes in VAT rules brought in by HM Revenue and Customs on 1 January.

    VAT is now being collected at the point of sale rather than at the point of importation, a change that HMRC says will ensure that goods from EU and non-EU countries are treated in the same way.

    This essentially means that overseas retailers sending goods to the UK are expected to register for UK VAT and account for it to HMRC if the sale value is less than €150 (£135).

    'Not what we wanted'
    "For providing this service, [HMRC] intend to charge a fee to every company in the world in every country in the world which exports to the UK," said Dutch Bike Bits on its website.

    "Clearly this is ludicrous for one country, but imagine if every country in the world had the same idea.

    "If every country decided to behave in the same way, then we would have to pay 195 fees every year, keep up with the changes in taxation law for 195 different countries, keep accounts on behalf of 195 different countries and submit payments to 195 tax offices in 195 different countries, and jump through whatever hoops were required to prove that we were doing all of this honestly and without any error."...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Skier - referencing the British state propaganda BBC as a trusted source once again. No wonder he is full of the cringe. All he does is read Britnat propaganda.

      Does Skier trust the Britnat BBC - as he is fond of saying - " that is a sign of a unionist"

      Delete
  15. "Information to which I’m privy would get me put in jail if I published it"

    I think it's fair to say that if you are privy to information key to the very future of the Scottish nation, but you are not willing to share it because it might detrimentally affect your own life / career, then you are no Robert the Bruce / Michael Collins / Gandhi.

    As for those on here claiming to 'know stuff the rest of yous don't' but can't tell us for similar reasons; well you don't really support independence then. Certainly not with any real conviction if you aren't willing to make such a 'Braveheart' sacrifice for the cause.

    If I was privy to such info, I would tell people and risk it to help secure indy. However, I personally don't know anything secret.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If I was privy to such info, I would tell people and risk it to help secure indy."

      Yeah, of course you would, mate. You don't even have the courage to use your real name in internet comments, but you'd definitely go to jail for the cause.

      Delete
    2. Skier - so you are saying James Kelly should reveal the info he is aware of or he doesn't support independence either. No of course you won't say that because you just direct your ire based on personalities rather than the contents of their words.

      You don't know anything secret because nobody talks to you.



      Delete
  16. Well said! It's about time someone stood up to Wings and his misleading SNPbad articles. Imagine quoting a bunch of unionists to undermine the biggest part of the yes movement. He's worse than the Daily Mail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well unknown Skier is always quoting " a bunch of unionists" so I guess he is worse than the Daily Mail as well. Personally I would put Skier in the Daily Express category.

      Delete