Pete Wishart has blocked me but he thinks it funny to make a crack about my pinned tweet. For the record the words of the tweet are very personal to me and what I’ve been through recently. But an MP sees fit to make fun of me.
— Denise Findlay (@GraceBrodie) February 17, 2021
I don’t think that’s acceptable
Rob Dunsmore spent about an hour today lecturing me about how I should denounce you for "importing the far-right language of QAnon into Scottish politics". He sent me a screenshot of that tweet at least four times.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) February 17, 2021
They are obsessed. It’s not political, it’s personal. If I’d known for some reason it was a trigger for them, I wouldn’t have pinned it.
— Denise Findlay (@GraceBrodie) February 17, 2021
The tweet isn’t anything about politics
— Denise Findlay (@GraceBrodie) February 17, 2021
I presume it's the use of the word 'storm' that's leading them to think that. But it's a hell of a conclusion to jump to, and says a lot about their own prejudices.
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) February 17, 2021
Storm?? ‘Calm before the Storm’ everyone says that.
— Denise Findlay (@GraceBrodie) February 17, 2021
Wee bit reminiscent of 'reap the whirlwind'. A lot of conclusions getting jumped to.
— Sunny Radiator (@RadiatorSunny) February 17, 2021
The language of the far right being normalised in the independence movement.
— Robertomg (@RobDunsmore) February 17, 2021
As a Eurovision fan, I'd just like to apologise to the world for the Netherlands' disgraceful attempt to import far-right QAnon language into the contest in the lyrics of their 2014 entry Calm After The Storm. OK, 2014 was three years before QAnon even started, but THAT'S NO EXCUSE.The last time someone said that, they were talking about the word "woke". (LOL)
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) February 17, 2021
I know a good psychiatrist.
ReplyDeleteWTF!
ReplyDeleteThe lockdown has had an effect on quite a few people. It will pass.
ReplyDeleteWho the hell is Denise Findlay and should we care?
ReplyDeleteThat aside, seems to me that Carwyn Jones understands things a whole lot better than many. But then he's Welsh and not e.g. an English blogger or rampant British unionist who can't help but fixate on all the wrong things.
https://archive.is/PR1Yh#selection-1459.3-1475.156
Boris Johnson the reason support for independence is soaring, ex-Labour chief says
...“Boris Johnson is head of a government that is very English nationalist in its outlook,” he told Constitutionally Unsound, the podcast by Edinburgh University’s Centre on Constitutional Change.
"Very anti-Scottish, actually, and anti-everybody else from my perspective. If you keep on saying 'no' to democrats you give succour to people who are far more extreme.
"There are consequences of saying no to a democratic election result and that's something we should all bear in mind.
"How do you say in the long term 'no, no, no' when people in Scotland keep voting 'yes, yes, yes'? That's a fundamental problem that can only end badly."
Overturning democratic elections would put the UK into very, very dangerous territory.
If Johnson somehow managed to prevent Scots voting, he's also doing that to other ethnic minorities - and potentially majorities - in the UK.
So the Welsh have every right to be worried as it will be them next. Also the N. Irish, maybe blacks, dogs, Irish... Jews... Muslims. If it's ok to deny one group a vote, what's stopping you?
Even the English should be very very, concerned.
If Scots are denied democracy, then it's only a matter of time before they come for the English who oppose them.
'First they came for the Scots, but I didn't speak out because I was English...'.
And this never ends well. To deny democracy is to turn to violence as you can't stop people voting without that ultimately. Declaring voting 'illegal' is for dictatorships, not democracies.
People mocked by 'jackboots on the streets' while jackboots started beating up people in Myanmar and Belarus just days after the elections were overturned. Jackboots marched the streets of N. Ireland for most of my youth and most people there actually backed being British. Imagine they'd been pro-unification? Would have made the troubles look like tea with the vicar.
People simply claiming democracy was overturned saw a violent assault on the US capitol. Can you image what would have happened if Trump had actually overturned an election he lost and kept himself in power? We'd be watching a mass uprising like in Myanmar and how would he have kept that down but with jackboots.
Which is why we shall have our referendum if we vote for it. The alternative is unthinkable.
Peace ends the day democracy is denied. It is not a path that can be followed.
Incidentally James, to be clear, my comment on this Denise Findlay person not a reflection on the article, just a genuine who the f**k is she?
DeleteIn terms of social media spats etc, as a general observation, I find that the most vocal are normally the least influential.
Denise is a former member of the SNP's Conduct Committee, although I do feel you may be missing the point slightly. The people who were being vocal in this case were her detractors. She probably is quite influential - a lot of people were looking to her for advice on voting in the NEC elections.
DeleteSmearer Skier (liar since 2014) - demonstrating for the umpteenth time he knows nothing about what is going on in the SNP but claims to be a longstanding member who thinks everything is just fine.
DeleteThanks James, I now know who she was. I am a member, but not a very active one on a daily basis. This applies for many members I imagine. I do my bit, vote etc when we can, but am not involved in all the internal tussling etc. In that sense, I and others like me are probably much more reflective of voters I'd imagine. We pay sufficient attention to pass informed judgement, but are not in any 'camp', so tend to look from a third party perspective.
DeleteAnd the second part of my comment wasn't specifically directed at her / your post as noted, hence stating it was a 'general observation'. It was more directed at people who just spend their time insulting folks on social media and peddling garbage. Very vocal but of zero influence. I guess like the detractors you mention and some regulars on here.
IfS, the fact you are not a member of the SNP comes across as very obvious. You don't seem to know anything about the party at all.
DeleteI may not be close to the inner workings, but you seem as far away as Bath.
Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) - smearing again. Lies and smears are all you have got. I know more than you about what is going on in the SNP and you are the member.
DeleteAll this people must sign up to lists stuff or they get nasty consequences is the road to nasty authoritarianism. Whatever happened to the nice SNP that just wanted Scottish independence.
ReplyDeleteAye, you know, the ones that don't constantly post personal insults in their comments.
DeleteSmearer Skier (liar since 2014) - you lie and you lie constantly. You smear and you smear constantly.
DeleteYou first started insulting me or have you forgotten that.
I offered you a truce twice but you didn't want to know. So stop your whining and try and improve your standards.
Can you provide a link?
DeleteI long for the days of innocent until proven guilty personally.
SS is convinced that posting more and more deflections will prevent the truth emerging.
DeleteThe SNP needs to stop the lockdown via rule changes to prevent debate. Policies should not be dictated to members.
Erm, okey dokey.
DeleteYou can just post 'the truth' if you want. Feel free. Neabody's stopping you.
Julia, could you please provide a link to the data which you said you'd seen showing a membership exodus from the SNP to ISP? A few of us were asking in an earlier thread but I guess you missed it.
DeleteInstead of harassing Julia perhaps SNP members should think about why do they not get access to membership figures on a regular basis.
DeleteI was merely politely responding to her post in which she took at swipe at me for saying people shouldn't use insults.
DeleteNobody is preventing Julia writing a blog where she exposes the truth about whatever it is she wishes.
An Inquiry that allows those being inquired in to to determine what evidence is allowed is not a just and valid Inquiry.
ReplyDeleteIt looks to me that a judge led public Inquiry will be needed. Or perhaps Salmond will take it all to the courts again. Whatever happens the whole business has brought the Scotgov/SNP and Scottish Parliament in to disrepute.
Erm, the committee only has a minority of snp members.
DeleteHamilton is an Irish qc and not part of the government.
Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) - your post for a change is accurate but irrelevant to my original post and misleading.
Delete1. The Inquiry is NOT inquiring into the Committee members so your point is irrelevant and misleading.
2. I never mentioned the referral to the Ministerial code that Hamilton is carrying out in my post.
So why don't you just pissof with your nonsense - stalker.
The law decides what evidence can and cannot be published, that and that alone.
DeleteAsk Lady Dorian.
More pish from Smearer Skier ( liar since 2019) Evans and Wolfy decided what can be published and what is to be redacted.
DeleteInstead of posting pish why don't you just pissof.
We are absolutely heading for the unionist trumpists failing to accept the outcome of proportionally representative due democratic parliamentary process involving independent international observers.
ReplyDeleteWith the conspiracy theories having to be made even wilder by the day to explain the ever growing number of huge holes in these, the institutions themselves are now being attacked.
...Which can help you guess where this grand conspiracy stuff is all probably heading; for the bin along with the MBGA hats.
Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) smearing again.
DeleteOn another matter: I get the point that alternative Indy parties polling <1% have no chance. However, if, say, Glasgow keeps polling high for SNP right up to election day, how can an ISP vote, for example, do anything other than possibly change exactly WHICH Unionist gets a list seat? And, in the admittedly unlikely event of the ISP poll figure rising to ~5% (at which point, I confess, I'd be mulling over giving them my list vote), is there any way that could damage the SNP numbers elected? I'm asking specifically about Glasgow (and any other area where the SNP look like sweeping the constituency board), NOT a blanket policy for the whole of Scotland. I willingly concede that you know a lot more about this than I do, I'm honestly asking for advice.
ReplyDelete"how can an ISP vote, for example, do anything other than possibly change exactly WHICH Unionist gets a list seat?"
DeleteBecause it takes a list vote away from the SNP, and even if the SNP sweep the constituencies in a region, it's still perfectly possible for them to win a list seat if their list vote is high enough. That's what happened in the north-east in 2011. Is that unlikely? Maybe, maybe not, but it's certainly a hell of a lot more likely than ISP reaching 5% in any region.
Incidentally, if ISP are polling at 8% or whatever on the eve of polling, my attitude would change - but they won't be (barring some sort of big name involvement, of which there's absolutely no sign yet).
Thanks, James. That's clarified things for me.
DeleteThe SNP's immediate concern is left/liberal leaning votes shifting to the Greens rather to the phantom ISP.
ReplyDeleteSerious question. Who are the ISP?
ReplyDeleteNames, policies etc.
We on this blog hear the name, but unless a household name who's trusted by yessers stands I fail to see why I should risk my vote for another "rise" party.
Also, I'm suspicious that ISP won't come to an accommodation with Action for Independence. Why is that?
Why stand against each other and defeat the intended purpose.
Are IFS out to stymie a good idea and who benefits from that.
Prove me wrong. Get your act together.
On household names, Andy Wightman I believe is to stand on the Highland list. Maybe not confirmed but his credentials as a land/Green campaigner will help his chances.
ReplyDeleteHe mibbe doesn't have the profile of a Margo but he's weel-kent to Yessers.
Who have ISP got? Or AFI?
I'd dearly like to see the back of the likes of Alex Cole-Hamilton.
Voting SNP on the list means he could lose his Edinburgh West constituency yet still be elected on the list.
I'll be checking out who the Greens are standing on the Lothians list.
Absolute disgrace that the Scottish parliament won't publish the already widely published Salmond submission. Total disgrace. A complete stitch up. Can only be explained by a completely corrupt Scotland at every level I tell you! Scottish government corporate body must be under sturgeon's thumb just like the police, CPS, committee, unionist parties, judges, lawyers, everyone!
ReplyDeleteListening avidly to the spellbinding detail anent this gey expensive enquiry.
ReplyDeleteAlso TBH losing the will to live.
Like most of the voters I believe.
Ramstam - you had the cheek to call me a Unionist from England.
DeleteMy reply to you is GIRUY and that's from a Weegie who lives in the friendliest city in the world but we don't take shit from anyone .
Ramstam - you clearly are incapable of seeing that the SNP/Scotgov for the last 3 years and still ongoing have been focussing on Get Salmond instead of Get Independence and then cover up cover up.
ReplyDeleteIf you are an independence supporter then that should bother you.
When Nicola and Alex have said their spiel, we'll see what transpires.
ReplyDeleteNae doot somebody will be crying "whitewash" at the end of it.
I repeat- Alex should have taken the not guilty verdict and decided whether to rejoin the SNP.
Quit while you're ahead is sound advice and I'd rather both were putting their energies into the fight for independence.
IFS, Ye say ye're saut 'n' vinegar.
I prefer broun sauce wi mine actually.
That makes us vernear neebors!
Ramstam it is clear that the complications of the Inquiry are way beyond you.
DeleteMarried at first Sight is probably more your thing.
You really don't have a clue do you.
Salmond did not create the Inquiry the Scottish Patliament did. The Inquiry insisted on Salmond telling the truth but would provide him with no funds to pay his solicitors who if he made any mistake in his submissions he risked being prosecuted.
Salmond did not create the referral to James Hamilton re Sturgeon breaking the Ministerial code. Sturgeon referred herself because she accepted there was a case to answer. If you look at the correspondence Hamilton kept pressurising Salmond to send in his submission.
So your comment that Salmond had a choice to just walk away is just pure ignorance.