So just a quick recap for anyone coming to this discussion late. Last night, Craig Murray published a blogpost arguing that if the next Westminster election is not a genuine plebiscite election (I'll have more to say later about how he's choosing to define "not a genuine plebiscite election"), the Alba Party should stand candidates against the SNP in every single Scottish constituency - even though he freely concedes that this would split the pro-independence vote in a first-past-the-post election and probably lead to unionist parties needlessly gaining seats from the SNP. A few hours later, I wrote a blogpost of my own explaining why I thought Craig's proposal was crazy, and today Craig has written a reply to my reply. This is my reply to his reply to my reply - and hopefully you'll indulge me for posting about the subject again, because Craig has asked me a number of specific questions which I think should receive an answer.
First of all, let me reciprocate the respect Craig extended to me in the opening remarks of his reply. Craig is someone who gave up a glittering diplomatic career and ultimately even served several months in prison because he repeatedly refused to compromise on his principles. That's something that must command tremendous admiration, and it's unlikely that most of us could honestly say we'd be similarly brave in the same circumstances. He's also a lifelong proponent of independence for our country, and a fearless defender of human rights in all parts of the world.
Turning to the substance of his reply, I'm going to start with the seemingly bewildered observation he makes at the very end, because it's so wide of the mark that it made me laugh slightly -
"I am genuinely perplexed as to why James left the SNP at all if he wished to campaign for them. I certainly will not myself remain in the Alba party if it sees itself as not a real alternative for Independence, but simply a bolt-on to the SNP for the Holyrood list vote elections."
I'm not sure Craig has thought this through, because presumably he and I both joined the Alba Party at roughly the same time, ie. shortly after its public launch in the spring of 2021. In doing so, we were both joining a party that had in its mission statement from day one a commitment to campaign for SNP first-past-the-post candidates. It fully honoured that commitment in the 2021 Holyrood election - the leaflets, the party election broadcast, the public statements from the party leadership were all crystal-clear that people should vote SNP in the first-past-the-post ballot. Alba's intention was not to destroy the SNP or even to harm them, but instead to augment the pro-indy representation they were able to deliver on the constituency ballot, and to make it more pluricentric.
So the real question is for Craig: if he doesn't want to be part of a party that behaves in that way, why did he join one? Why didn't he instead join a party committed to campaigning against SNP first-past-the-post candidates, or at the very least a party that was neutral on whether people should vote SNP in the first-past-the-post ballot? "Simply a bolt-on to the SNP for the Holyrood list vote elections" is a needlessly pejorative way of putting it, but yes, Alba launched as a strictly list-only party for Holyrood, following the example set by other parties that intended to stand only on the list, such as Action for Independence and Independence for Scotland. That was absolutely fundamental to my rationale for joining, as it was for a great many others - I would have had no interest whatever in joining a different sort of party that was trying to burn the whole house down by splitting the pro-indy vote in the first-past-the-post ballot.
The only way Craig's comment might make some kind of sense would be if he's hinting that the list-only nature of Alba (designed to produce a pro-independence "supermajority", if you recall) was simply a ruse to get the party off the ground during the first few weeks, and that the true purpose of the party was always to try to harm the SNP, even if that meant a reduction in pro-independence representation at Westminster and Holyrood. If that is what Craig is getting at, I simply cannot and do not accept that it's true. The Alba leadership are people of tremendous integrity and I do not believe for a moment that they would have coaxed people into defecting from the SNP on a false prospectus. They inspired us with a vision of a list-only party that would build on the SNP's electoral success rather than attempting to tear it down, and I'm sure that's exactly what they intended to deliver.
Let's ensure that Alba stays true to those exhilarating founding principles, because make no mistake: what Craig and others are proposing is that the party should mutate into something radically different. It's not only card-carrying Alba members like me who will feel they've been left stranded if that happens - a number of people who enthusiastically voted Alba on the list in 2021 have left comments on Scot Goes Pop over the last couple of weeks saying that they wouldn't vote for the party now, due to the alarming recent chatter (especially at the party conference last month) about potential vote-splitting interventions in first-past-the-post Westminster elections. Given that Alba only received less than 2% of the list vote last year, it may be hard to imagine the party actually losing support, but if we follow Craig any further down the road he's suggesting, we could be in for a nasty shock.
Craig asks how, other than by standing against the SNP in first-past-the-post elections, Alba will ever "get a platform to point out the SNP are not a real Independence party". I don't accept that is the current aim, but even if you think it should be, the answer to the question is pretty straightforward - you simply do what Alba was founded to do. You stand and make your case in elections that are conducted by voting systems that don't punish a split pro-indy vote. You sit out the elections where it would be extremely damaging to intervene. Both the Holyrood list ballot and local government elections are conducted by proportional representation, and that's plenty enough for Alba to be getting on with.
I think it's actually extremely helpful and honest of Craig to set out the downsides of standing against the SNP in Westminster elections - he accepts that we'd be resigning ourselves to a very long process before we'd have any realistic chance of achieving the goal of independence, and that along the way we'd probably be gifting SNP-held seats to unionist parties such as Labour. That usefully confronts people with the grim realities of vote-splitting under first-past-the-post. I've had the impression that until now quite a lot of people have thought it's some sort of free lunch.
Craig asks me: "for how many decades is he prepared to assert that we should vote for SNP MPs, who will never make any move for Independence?" Again, I think the real question here is for Craig: by prematurely giving up on any hope that the SNP leadership can be pressurised or shamed into genuine action, how many decades in the wilderness is he prepared to risk consigning the independence cause to? Three? Four? Five? More? Because if we cross the Rubicon and decide the SNP should be destroyed, there's no going back. We can't have buyer's remorse five years down the line just because we start wondering if maybe, just maybe, the massive advantage of having an SNP majority in the Scottish contingent at Westminster was something we didn't explore the full potential of. Once it's gone, once we've helped to destroy it, it's gone for good.
Craig takes particular exception to my assessment that Alba would almost certainly be "humiliated" if it stood in a UK general election. He points out that he has personally stood in two parliamentary by-elections, receiving 5% and 2.7% of the vote respectively, and didn't feel remotely humiliated, because he'd had the chance to air his views in a free democratic process. I think this is an argument over semantics, because the point I was making was that the vote Alba can expect to receive would be extremely low - and in fact I think it would be much lower than 2.7%. Whether that's "humiliating" or not is in the eye of the beholder, but that doesn't change the substance of the point - if you receive a derisory vote, then a) you're not achieving your objectives, and b) you're suffering a monumental psychological setback that in the worst case scenario might finish the party off.
I'm going to have to take issue with the way Craig characterises the basic difference between his views and mine. He suggests that we only disagree about what should happen if the next Westminster election is not a genuine plebiscite election, and that we are fully in agreement that Alba should not stand against the SNP if a real plebiscite election occurs. But the problem is that Craig's notion of what constitutes a real plebiscite election is much narrower than mine. He seems to think the only thing that would qualify is an election in which the SNP promise in advance to declare UDI if they win a majority of seats. Indeed, if I'm reading him correctly, he seems to suggest that anyone who doesn't support such a declaration shouldn't be considered a true independence supporter. By that definition, even I would be excluded from the ranks of "real Yessers" because I think UDI would be wildly premature in those circumstances.
What makes a genuine plebiscite election different from previous elections is that if you win a majority of the popular vote, you declare that you have a mandate for independence. Not a mandate for a referendum but a mandate for independence itself. You then demand that the UK government negotiate an independence settlement. You certainly don't demand that they negotiate the terms of a referendum, because a referendum would no longer be required. If they flatly refuse to negotiate or to acknowledge your mandate over a prolonged period, you might eventually start thinking about UDI as a potential tactic, but that would be a last resort, not the first recourse.
Craig chides me for setting up what he calls a straw man by implying that he thinks Alba could win seats or overtake the SNP at the next general election. But in fact it wasn't a straw man, because the words I used were not "at the next general election" but "any time soon". Craig makes clear that he thinks, based on the Irish precedent, that Alba could overtake the SNP within around twelve years - well, to me, that is very much covered by "any time soon". I said to Yvonne Ridley earlier today that I thought a plausible timescale would be more like twenty or thirty years, and even after that length of time it would be a long shot.
Think about the mountain Alba would have to climb to overtake the SNP, even in the very long term. The biggest issue is the success of the SNP and the mainstream media (especially the BBC) in thoroughly toxifying the Alba brand last year by cynically connecting it to memories of Alex Salmond's trial, and to an acquittal which they seemed to regard as a meaningless technicality. That's not such a problem for as long as Alba's aim is to win a wedge of seats under proportional representation, because a significant minority of the public remain sympathetic to Mr Salmond. But it becomes a huge problem as soon as you set yourself the far, far more ambitious target of becoming the majority party. You'd need huge numbers of voters who at the moment hold Alba and its leader in complete disdain.
OK, at the end of Craig's twelve year period, Alex Salmond might no longer be leader (he'd be 79 years old by then), but we shouldn't regard that as a magical solution, because a change of leader - inevitable though it is in the long run - may cause more problems than it solves. If there's one thing more dangerous for a small party than getting negative publicity, it's being totally ignored by the media, and that could well happen as soon as Mr Salmond departs the scene.
An alternative scenario is that the SNP's supremacy could yet be seriously challenged by a much stronger "post-Alba force". Perhaps there'll be a second wave of defectors from the SNP, but instead of going straight to Alba, they might set up a wholly new party to avoid any baggage. Perhaps there would then be a merger with Alba to create a big tent party under a fresh name. But that's all very speculative, because it may be that Alba's failure to achieve the instant success many expected will prove to be a deterrent in future, and that as a result disgruntled SNP parliamentarians may instead seek to achieve change from within.
Finally, on a point of semi-pedantry (I say 'semi' because it does make a touch of difference to the substance of the debate), Craig has given a false impression about the recent Panelbase poll. It did not, in fact, suggest that Alba would take 4% of the Westminster vote - that was the Holyrood list vote. Alba were actually shown to be on 2% of the Westminster vote, and even that has to be seen in the context that Panelbase have tended to produce better numbers for Alba than any other polling firm.
James, you will no doubt correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be starting from the premise that the SNP is pro-independence. What evidence has there been of that since Nicola Sturgeon took over?
ReplyDeleteSigh. There are people in the SNP who will claim with an absolutely straight face that the Alba Party are opposed to independence. There are people in the Alba Party who will claim with an absolutely straight face that the SNP are opposed to independence. My own view is that we should try to be better than this petty and destructive nonsense.
DeleteRight, but if the SNP do not move forward with a proper plebiscite, what are we supposed to do? Sit around and wait for the SNP to do something? The SNP has done bugger all to advance the cause of independence in eight years. If they won't do it, someone else must. It may as well be Alba.
DeleteNow, if the SNP does move forward with a proper plebiscite election then, of course, we should step back in all but our two seats.
If things aren't going to plan, do you usually blow yourself up for the sake of "doing something"?
DeleteI believe we are agreed that if the SNP holds a proper plebiscite election, we (Alba) should facilitate success, ie, standing, at most, in the two seats we hold.
DeleteBut what if the SNP do not do that? Well, political parties exist to do things. We are not supposed to be talking shops. For how long do we await Nicola's next "cunning plan?" She has had eight years and now she's doing something (well, sort of) for which others have been agitating for several years. If she pulls back, how will we ever get independence? A change of SNP leadership? Why would that make any difference? Current management has turned the SNP into a pre-2007 Labour Party.
So either we get a win at the (ahem) Supreme Court or NS goes for a true plebiscite election. If she does neither, the cause of independence has not been moved forward one bit. Yes, it will take us decades to get back to where we were but that will still, in my estimation, be quicker than waiting for the SNP leadership to "do something."
"We are not supposed to be talking shops."
DeleteI've no idea what point you're making there, because Alba have stood in two national elections in the last eighteen months. Even if we do the obviously sensible thing and continue to sit out first-past-the-post contests, the danger of us ever being just a talking shop is pretty much zero.
A Unionist attack line from a couple of years ago, was to point to the pre-Brexit negotiations, and ask 'do you really want to put yourself through more years of hell like that?' My answer to this line was to claim that the idea that there would be honest and good faith negotiations _before_ independence was fantasy. No doubt rUK would negotiate trade, border and citizenship relations with an independent Scotland, but that they should do so with what a clear majority of the existing country regard as basically a region of the UK, seems to me to be well beyond 'unlikely', and verging on 'impossible'. Since it became clear that Westminster is never going to allow another referendum, I've always thought that the Scots will never be 'given' independence -- they will only get it, if they have the will to take it. 'We Scots will be independent, provided you negotiate satisfactory terms with us' doesn't really hack it.
ReplyDeleteBy "take it", you mean UDI? Even that would be a largely symbolic gesture, it wouldn't in itself make us independent.
DeleteWhat will make Scotland and independent country is (a) setting up the institutions of an independent country, and (b) therefore being recognised as an independent country by the UN. It is true that the uncertainties of this process would be removed, if Scottish independence was sponsored by the rUK. But rUK will only do that, if the Scots have the will to take independence anyway. If the Scots will only take independence if the English agree to give it to them, the English will never give it to them. Why should they?
DeleteThat appears to be nonsensical - how does (b) flow from (a)? The missing intermediate step is an agreement with the UK government - no other country will recognise our independence without that.
DeleteKosov has been recognised without Serbian agreement.
DeleteAnd if NATO had been bombing London recently, that would be an excellent and relevant point.
DeleteKosovo isn't a member of the UN.
DeleteThe question for me is whether alba standing at Westminster furthers their cause of being elected on the list (and being politically relevant) or hinders it.
ReplyDeleteI see the list as the only real likely place of a breakthrough in the next ten years say.
If the electorate punish them for splitting the movement then it could be a mistake.. but they don't need the support of everyone, they need the support of 5-6% to gain influence as a lever on the SNP which is what their purpose is. To force them to deliver. So on this key question, I'm unsure and can see both points.
And in that practical spirit of whether it will help or hinder it will probably be determined by how the political winds are perceived to be blowing. If there's any significant discontent at a renege from a real pleb then they might stand in some places where they perceive they might make gains (and not elect an outright unionist which is also an electability consideration).
ReplyDeleteThey need to be seen as the real yes party they are, continually highlighting the issues affecting Scotland (like Kenny did),demonstrating SNP intransigence but not actively splitting the vote as most SNP voters appear to take their steer from sturgeon who uses the BBC to demonise salmond.
Terrible situation.. I want in my heart for them to stand everywhere. Not sure if it'll work...salmond if course kens all this so will put up Kenny and Neale and maybe 1 or 2 others if no pleb materialises which it won't.
In fairness you say it's the mainstream media who demonise salmond, James but actually it was the nawbag sturgeon and others who used BBC etc as a platform to do so and they were only too grateful to cooperate and encourage.
ReplyDeleteIn that context you can see why real yes alba supporting people are pretty sick of SNP and have little patience for them..
The argument comes down solely to whether it benefits alba in the minds of an uninformed and mixed commitment pro-indy electorate to stand.. SNP is a fake yes party for now this much is clear.
I disagree with your first comment - it was also the BBC themselves. It was pretty cynical what they were doing - giving Alba "airtime" as a tick-box exercise but wasting it all by talking only about the trial.
DeleteIt's not my main thrust...sturgeon and others were clearly leading it. And real yes felt sick at it..hence we think they're fake
DeleteNo wonder Sturgeon loves the BBC. They allowed her to continually go on TV and basically say the jury got it wrong and Salmond is a very very bad man. For a broadcaster and the FM of Scotland to publically question the decision of a jury without putting forward any new evidence is a total disgrace. Of course not one of the journalists put it to Sturgeon that it didn't say much for her judgement to work for such a bad man for all these years.
DeleteThere is your explanation for why Sturgeon said the BBC is a key and valued institution. The BBC helped her put the boot in to Salmond and to this day continues to suppress the yes vote which in turn suits her just fine.
And the fact that 40,000 English people (net migration) are moving here every year (the flows are even bigger)...source: nrs and the fact that sturgeon wants to increase that by 100k over the next ten years source: national economic transformation strategy for Scotland suggests time is at a premium...
ReplyDeleteWe're about to lose as they're likely 3/4 nawbags and won't change and if you don't like the language then maybe you are too.
So, this points to action...and perhaps a bit of risk...another argument for go for it ..as we'll likely be in a demographic wales situation in 2035.
Hence I'm torn
I have been asking about this 40,000 people claim for years now. Can you link me to your source, because I have never been able to find any evidence to back this claim up.
DeleteIn other words, Scotland is facing an 'invasion of English migrants'? Sounds familiar ...
DeleteIn trying to sort out my policy on what's become a rather confusing issue, I've arrived at a test of certainty vs uncertainty. The certainty is that -- by my personal standards, not as an objective claim -- the SNP has become an evil party.
DeleteOn this point, I'll quote you (James Kelly) as follows: "The biggest issue is the success of the SNP and the mainstream media (especially the BBC) in thoroughly toxifying the Alba brand last year by cynically connecting it to memories of Alex Salmond's trial, and to an acquittal which they seemed to regard as a meaningless technicality." I don't think people should give in to this act of despotic cruelty by the SNP, simply accepting that Salmond is 'damaged goods', or has too much 'baggage' and that thus Alba is helpless. In fact, that act (and the associated treatment of his supporters) was my main reason for joining Alba, when I hadn't belonged to a political party since the 1990s.
The uncertainty factor is whether holding my nose and voting SNP will help to bring about independence (or, putting it another way) whether not doing so would contribute to preventing independence.
I prefer certainty. But I confess that this argument is backed up by something that may provoke the label of 'emotional woman, voting with heart rather than head'. In 2011 I voted wholeheartedly for the SNP, but now I don't think I would be physically capable of putting an X in the box opposite an SNP candidate, even one whom I might respect as an individual. And there are probably a good number of other independence supporters who feel the same way. This is a political fact to be considered when planning our electoral strategy, and perhaps arriving at a new one.
The unionists will applaud you.
DeleteMid census estimate 2016, National Records of Scotland.
DeleteTo year end 30th June 2016, 8,800 net immigration from rUK. Trend for the previous three years was basically steady.
The 40k per annum is hyperbole.
Here are my sources: https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//statistics/migration/flows/jul-22/ruk-mig-tab2.xlsx
DeleteAnd "a 25% increase in people relocating from the rest of the UK to Scotland would double net migration and add 100,000 people to Scotland's labour pool over the course of this strategy" https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-national-strategy-economic-transformation-delivery-plans-october-2022/pages/5/
And that line verbatim from the NSET ""a 25% increase in people relocating from the rest of the UK to Scotland would double net migration and add 100,000 people to Scotland's labour pool over the course of this strategy" means 10,000 a year based upon a 25% increase in people locating from rest of UK. which means 40k is the existing amount from rest of the UK per year and the extra 10k per year is the 25% increase.
DeleteSo Sturgeon's own economic transformation strategy agrees with my sourced numbers.
"Anonymous November 2, 2022 at 12:42 PM
DeleteMid census estimate 2016, National Records of Scotland.
To year end 30th June 2016, 8,800 net immigration from rUK. Trend for the previous three years was basically steady.
The 40k per annum is hyperbole."
Not correct. I can't verify your numbers but that's a net flow. It could be 50k in (of 75% no voters) and 41.2k out (of 50%-60% yes voters). My sourced figures which are consistent in Sturgeon's own devo economic strategy suggest the true extent of the immigration of no voters. We are being anglicised deliberately and until it's "safe" to do so there will be no section 30
Thank you James for a very calm and considered response to Craig Murray. I am an ardent fan of Craig but in this instance I agree with you.
ReplyDeleteFirstly I like this respectful debate between 2 prominent fellow ALBA members. I think that ALBA's commitment to being a list only party at Holyrood was somewhat predicated on the SNP playing ball, but we all know what happened with the SNP strategy on the list, facilitating many unionist list MSPs. The SNP was clearly attempting to strangle ALBA at birth. Given the popularly held conviction, which I share, that the SNP leadership is not at all interested in independence, and will do all it can to have another go at killing off ALBA, then why would ALBA members not come to the conclusion that under the current cabal, the SNP is NOT a party of independence, and treat it accordingly. What difference does it make if the pro -union MP sent to Westminster is a blue, red, or yellow one ? The remaining grassroots SNP activists are less than happy with the inaction at the top of the party and are no doubt becoming restless, and there are maybe, just maybe, some signs that some SNP elected representatives have rediscovered their backbones. The current leadership needs to be ousted or radically change their political priorities before I for one will agree that the SNP should not be utterly destroyed.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Geoff, but this is exactly the kind of talk that proves Alba is a Unionist puppet party, as many in the SNP have long suspected. The quicker it dies off and lets the real parties of independence get on with things, the better. 🤦♂️
Delete"Alba is a Unionist puppet party"
DeleteOch, away and stop being so bloody stupid.
Is it really anymore stupid than the claim the SNP isn't a pro-indy party (or even an anti-indy one)? That the SNP need to be destroyed?
DeleteAnd whilst you're pushing back on those comments too, it isn't stopping them coming. It's as the agenda to destroy the SNP is more important than indy itself.
"Is it really anymore stupid than the claim the SNP isn't a pro-indy party (or even an anti-indy one)?"
DeleteNo, I would say it's equally stupid. Can we now look forward to you taking responsibility for the stupidity of your own comment?
I was being deliberately antagonistic in response to the posts and themes here. Craig Murray might be happy rewriting history ("Independence will never be achieved with Westminster agreement" - what, like your man Salmond doffing cap and asking for a S30?
Delete"Any MP not prepared to defy Westminster for Independence is a Unionist. That is every SNP MP." Yep, that was the precedent set by your man Salmond, etc.) and Alba supporters might be happy to revel in 1970 style student politics, and lash out at any party not indulging in the same, but the SNP have to at least present as a party of government, not a protest group.
It's why Salmond, when he was in complete control with a majority at Holyrood, didn't "UDI" either.
"what, like your man Salmond doffing cap and asking for a S30?"
DeleteBut he didn't, did he? Unlike Nicola Sturgeon, he was prepared all along to go ahead without a Section 30 if needs be.
Forteanjo - the SNP is supposed to present as a party of Scottish independence not a party of devolved Unionist government. The SNP leadership are more interested in keeping their current devolved positions of power and short money from Westminster. That makes the SNP a Unionist party.
DeleteWell, I suppose it takes a Unionist to recognise a Unionist party. 🤦♂️
DeleteBy your logic, no pro-indy party could ever form the Scottish government. Did your logic apply when Salmond led the SNP? Or he we an exception?
Others have accused you of being a troll. I believe that to be the case now.
Forteanjo - I do not speak for Alba. My agenda is Scottish independence and the truth. Both of which the SNP leadership care little for.
DeleteForteanjo - plenty previous posters claimed I was a Unionist. Most of them poor deluded numpties who no longer post who think you must support the SNP or you are against Scottish independence. People like Ramstam who insisted Sturgeon would call a referendum for 2021. Your comments lack originality and you think only unionists can identify a Unionist party do you. That comment alone identifies you as a numpty.
DeleteYour silly comment about logic is well just silly. The difference is whether a devolved government is seen as a stepping stone to independence or permanent end game. The evidence is that the SNP leadership see the devolved government as most satisfactory and are more than happy with the current situation to continue.
Salmond called a referendum. Sturgeon has continually promised a referendum since 2017 - raised funds in 2017 on the back of a promise and still no referendum. She also never said she would ask permission from a Britnat court for a referendum before the May 2021 Scottish election. The truth clearly hurts you. Take it out on Sturgeon not me or continue to be a numpty. Your choice.
Its that unionist "independence for Scotland"....again.
DeleteIs that the anonymous who just loves selfID and wants to dress up as a woman and sit in a wheelchair. Or just another plain numpty. Thanks for sharing your very limited thoughts.
Deletehttps://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/files//statistics/migration/flows/jul-22/ruk-mig-tab2.xlsx
ReplyDeleteAnd "a 25% increase in people relocating from the rest of the UK to Scotland would double net migration and add 100,000 people to Scotland's labour pool over the course of this strategy" https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-national-strategy-economic-transformation-delivery-plans-october-2022/pages/5/
If the SNP don't advance independence, then what does it matter how many seats they have, whether they have a majority, or whether any other party stands against them?
ReplyDeleteIf the SNP don't actually advance independence, whats the point of the SNP at all?
How many times are you supposed to "Vote SNP to get an independence referendum" before you twig that the coconut is stuck to the stand? You can't keep asking people to vote for them again and again with no forward motion.
Last chance saloon, for me.
They've said that if the court case isn't successfull, they'll hold a plebiscite election.
If they don't - its time to tear it all down.
If they hold and win one, ask Westminster to negotiate independence, Westminster say no, and the SNP say they'll hold Westminster's feet to the fire ....by holding another plebiscite election - its time to tear it all down.
Tearing it all down only sets the independence movement back decades if you think the current setup is going to get you independence. Otherwise, it is doing exactly what we're doing now - voting SNP each time - that is setting the independence movement back decades.
"If the SNP don't advance independence, then what does it matter how many seats they have, whether they have a majority"
DeleteBecause the only alternative to the SNP having Westminster seats, and a Westminster majority, is unionist parties having Westminster seats, and a Westminster majority. Unionist parties having the majority is, to state the bleedin' obvious, extremely bad for the independence cause. If you want to talk about setting the independence movement back decades, throwing seats away to unionist parties is precisely the way to go about it.
Hope this helps.
James it is true that a kid on Independence Party (the SNP) is preferable to the Tories but it is a sad sad affair if that is now our only choice. No wonder so many Scots emigrated over the centuries.
Delete"If you want to talk about setting the independence movement back decades, throwing seats away to unionist parties is precisely the way to go about it."
Deleteyou mean like the SNP did at holyrood and in the council elections?
I very loudly criticised their actions at the council elections. Holyrood is a much more complex issue. They could hardly be expected not to stand on the list - the Electoral Commission would have suspected cheating if they'd done that, and once you stand list candidates, then realistically you've got to ask people to vote for them.
DeletePeople who angrily criticised the SNP for throwing away a "supermajority" at Holyrood are going to look more than a little disingenuous if they start appearing hellbent on throwing away the supermajority we actually have among the Scottish contingent at Westminster.
James, you are correct that the SNP could hardly be expected not to stand on the list in May 2021. But Sturgeon chose to slaughter Alba in the media relentlessly, smear Salmond and claim she knew the alphabetties were very upset at Salmond being involved in politics again and generally be a nasty bitch about all things Alba. She never said anything critical about wee Patrick or the Greens even though they do stand in some constituencies against the SNP and as a result they got a reasonable result on the list vote. In fact Sturgeon attacked Alba more than the Tories and WGD numpties now complain about people pointing out the SNP's failings in government. What a cheek. Sturgeon set the standard.
DeleteShe did all the above as James knows and they will continue to do this as it's crystal clear the aim is to strangle Alba so it doesn't get a foothold. This is so they can dominate pro-indy politics without attempting to deliver indy.
DeleteSo, given this absolute certainty the debate is not about pro-indy working together given the dominant SNPs attitude to Alba but is solely aboot whether Alba standing at wm will hurt their chances at holyrood list where their real chance lies.
It's difficult to argue it will without testing it. So I expect alba probably will. Here and there, the 2 incumbents and 2 or 3 more. Why not? They'll demonise albat at holyrood 26 anyway this much is crystal clear. So alba should test the water in seats that they think SNP will win anyway (so they don't get accused of letting in nawbags which SNP actually have done in their droves twice).. seats like Dundee
As Geoff points out above, the main problem with the SNP is the hierarchy at the top .... Sturgeon/Murrell and all their "anointed" placemen/women + (with a few exceptions) the "gravy train" MP's at Westminster.
ReplyDeleteI believe the majority of the grass roots SNP members are as scunnered with the lack of progress towards Independence as the majority of Alba members posting here are .... I submit in evidence for this claim the dramatic collapse in SNP membership from 100,000 to the estimated 25,000 or less today.
Yes, there are SNP members who will follow no matter what but I for one believe there is an awakening of the base of the SNP to the fact that Sturgeon has NO intention to advance the cause of independence and that her agenda is to remain "Queen Bee" in Bute House as long as possible.
What is the solution to this problem ? .... Sturgeon, Murrell et al must be purged from the SNP and new PRO INDY leader installed (Joanna Cherry springs to mind !!), if this is affected then the schism between the SNP & Alba should be relatively easily healed since the political objective is the same.
As has been pointed out with respect to the GRA nonsense currently being enacted, many MSP's are deeply unhappy with this legislation to the point of Resignation, voting against or abstention.
Maybe, just maybe the Rubicon has been crossed for Sturgeon.
I believe the way ahead is for Alba members to reach out to those in the SNP who are still committed to the goal of Independence and offer support in their bid to return their Party to the ideals it was founded on.
I'm with you, James, we need co-operation not confrontation between those who have our Nation's future at heart ..... and yes, Craig Murray is indeed one who believes in that goal.
A pathetic defence by the SNP and wishy washy Wishart in The National regarding their ignorant walk out. They should be apologising not trying to make excuses for their hypocritical behaviour. It doesn't matter if they couldn't contribute to the debate they should have been there showing their support for the point being made. Namely, Scotlands energy resources are being stolen at the same time as its people are paying an exhorbitant price for their gas/electricity.
ReplyDeleteIt's ok for these SNP MPs sitting in the cosy warm House of Commons then going home after a night in the bars/restaurants to a nice cosy warm home heated by taxpayer expenses. Cosy slippers Wishart is a chancer who has been decades in Westminster and achieved nothing of worth.
I joined ALBA to replace the SNP. The 2021 election left no time to arrange ALBA candidates in constituencies. We have time now. James you say some ALBA members will walk , if ALBA stands against the SNP. I wonder in comparison to that , how many will walk if ALBA remains a Holyrood list pop-up party?
ReplyDelete"The 2021 election left no time to arrange ALBA candidates in constituencies."
DeleteThat is an absolutely desperate attempt to rewrite history. That isn't the reason Alba didn't stand in the constituencies and you know that perfectly well.
It's long overdue that people who say it is nonsense that Scotland can be a colony need to look at the definition of a colony before spouting their own nonsense. Tom Arthur SNP says we were colonisers. Too true - some were and the SNP are continuing that role today keeping Scotland subjugated and subservient just like a colony. Arthur is wrong as well because he is referring to the whole nation of Scotland being colonisers.
ReplyDeleteIndividual Scots signed up to the Britnat Empire and helped colonise countries/lands across the world. I repeat individual Scots self identified as British. Scotland as a country was treated as a colony by Westminster from 1707. People like Alistair (Union ) Jack are modern day sellouts/ colonial governors to/for the English coloniser.
The fact is there is a bit of racism going on with people who say we Scots are not colonised like India or Africa.
When you have people like Arthur who do not understand their own country's history and the impact of the British Empire on it is it any wonder the SNP are useless as leaders of independence.
A man/ woman has made legal history by being found guilty at the same trial of two offences as a woman and two offences as a man. Will he/she spend time in a woman's prison and then be transferred to a man's prison? Or spend time in a man's prison then be transferred to a woman's prison? Or will he/she be given the choice of spending the time in whichever prison he/she wants? Or will the judge just give up and tell him/her to go home and make up his/her mind as to whether he/she wants to be a man or a woman and risk Sturgeon's gang calling him a transphobe?
ReplyDeleteIn other news a fully able man has self ID as a DISABLED trans woman and goes about her business in a wheelchair.
This is Sturgeon's World coming soon at a place near you. Bonkers.
What on earth has Nicola Sturgeon got to do with a mentally disturbed Norwegian man? Utter garbage.
DeleteAn anonymous poster is enraged. What's up didums you fancy a turn in a wheelchair as well.
DeleteI'll spell it out for you. It's the direction of travel. That's why the post says "coming soon at a place near you". Another example for you to get all enraged about is the Canadian father who refused to call his daughter by her preferred pronouns and was jailed by a judge for not doing so. It's the direction of travel. A possible future. Got it now ya numpty.
Of course you conveniently ignore the fact that the court case I mentioned is in Dundee - didn't you. Last time I looked Dundee was part of Sturgeon's empire.
Care to apologise for your garbage comment - probably not eh.
PS Sturgeon's gang will be after you for calling a trans woman mentally disturbed. You terrible transphobes you. Just as well you are anonymous.
A small example of how anyone can change their mind - even Irish Skier.
ReplyDeleteYears ago Skier claimed on SGP that because I used the term British Nationalist and the abbreviated version Britnat was a clear sign I was a Unionist as none of his friends used it. Remember this is the guy who claims to be a polling expert.
Skier now says in reply to another poster on WGD about using the above terms:
" Paul uses the term all the time so I wouldn't worry about it. It's purely descriptive."
So there we have it - Skier gives his seal of approval. Changing your mind is nothing to be ashamed of. Well done Skier.
I note on WGD that the Irish Skier is starting to irritate other WGD numpties with his postings. The only thing that surprises me is it took so long. The Irish Skier has currently self ID as an expert on NIreland and his continual posting on NIreland is annoying some numpties. At least they don't have to put up with his posts on unisex toilets in Edinburgh and the Borders as per SGP in times past.
DeleteMore Carrots for the numpties.
ReplyDeleteThere he blows. That great whale of a man Blowhard Blackford excitedly announces he has won a historic vote for Scottish independence. Oh well we cannae claim any more that the SNP MPs achieve nothing by being in Westminster. Did wishy washy Wishart turn up for the vote? At least we know he didn't vote against as nobody did.
So I guess we don't need a referendum now. All that remains is for Blowhard to tell us our own Independence Day will be .............
I guess I was also wrong that Blowhard would never deliver independence. Can't wait for the Independence Day party. Carrots anyone?
Anyone hear any fireworks going off to celebrate this historic victory vote. Nothing in my area. Surely there must have been some in Edinburgh Central.
DeleteThe whale Blowhard needs to be careful he doesn't get so excited he blows his blowhole. He'll be calling for another General Election soon, just after he's choked on his carrots.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for the racist Britnat mad British/Irish liar Skier, he changes his mind every time Sturgeon does.