Wednesday, January 17, 2024

Vote James Kelly #1 for Alba's Committees and Constitution Review Group - here are my priorities if I'm elected

The next National Council of the Alba Party will, I believe, be taking place in Edinburgh on Saturday 27th of this month.  It will be electing members of four committees - the Conferences Committee, the Disciplinary Committee, the Appeals Committee and the Finance & Audit Committee, plus also on this occasion it will be electing members of a special Constitution Review Group.  I've put myself forward as a candidate for all five bodies, and receipt of my nomination was acknowledged, so as far as I know I'll be on the ballot form for all five.

As I may have mentioned once or twice or even seventeen times, I came within just 0.5% of being elected Alba's Membership Support Convener a few weeks ago, which would have carried with it an automatic place on the NEC.  However I then missed out on one of the ordinary member slots on the NEC, which was not particularly surprising given that there were a remarkable eighteen candidates jostling for just four male slots.  So you'll understand how keen I am now to continue to have some sort of role going forward (I've been an elected member of the Appeals Committee since last February).

Obviously given the democratising pitch I ran on a few weeks ago, I'd be particularly keen to be elected to the Constitution Review Group.  If that happens, the ideas I'd be looking to pursue are - 

An NEC wholly elected by one member, one vote (with the exception of the leaders of the parliamentary groups who for obvious reasons should continue to be there as of right).  I'm proud to have played a part in bringing this matter onto the agenda, and the leadership seem to have indicated that we're now pushing at an open door.  However, we still need to make sure we walk through that door.  The NEC is the governing body of the party and it is indefensible that around half of it is currently elected only by the relatively small minority of members who pay to attend conference.

Members of other committees should also be elected by one member, one vote.  Making sure ordinary members of the NEC are elected by the whole membership is the big priority, but I see no good reason why the same should not also be the case for members of other committees too.  For example, the Conferences Committee wields immense power and party members should be the masters of it.  At present they have no direct say over its composition at all.

An expanded NEC with more ordinary elected members.  The proposal to move to six male and six female ordinary NEC members, rather than the four of each we have at present, was a very positive and sensible one and should be revisited.

Looking at ways to give all members a vote on the most important matters.  There was a good deal of sneering at my suggestion that all members could take part in conference votes online while following the event via live stream.  The idea that it isn't even technically feasible to do that doesn't stack up in my view, however I do accept that it is unlikely to happen in the near future.  What I do think we could look at, though, is separating out the really important votes on a carefully selected basis and giving all members a say on them via online party-wide "referendums".

There's an argument that the need for transparent publication of internal election results should be written into the constitution.  Many members were profoundly shocked that the results of the ordinary NEC ballot last month were essentially kept secret, with even the candidates ourselves only receiving partial results.  This is obviously unacceptable - there is no true democracy without transparency.  It cannot be allowed to happen again, and perhaps the simplest way of ensuring that it doesn't is to write safeguards into the constitution itself.

Iron out the oddity of how the Party Chair is selected.  At present the leader of the party proposes a Chair who is then approved by the NEC.  I was a member of the NEC when this procedure was first used, and of course there was no issue because we were all extremely happy with the nomination of Tasmina.  However as a matter of principle I wasn't at all clear as to whether we as NEC members had the power to withhold approval of the nominated candidate and what would have happened if we did.  It would probably be simpler if the Chair was directly elected by members, or failing that by the NEC.  If there's good reason for it to be an appointed position, perhaps we should just be honest in the constitution that an appointed position is what it is.

I am also, of course, very open to suggestions from Alba members about other ways the constitution can be improved.

If I am fortunate enough to be elected to any of the other committees, my priorities will be transparency, the empowerment of members, the rejection of factionalism and cliquishness, and a scrupulously fair discipinary process that is never abused in the way that has sadly become all too common in other parties.


Before we finish, a reminder that the Scot Goes Pop opinion poll fundraiser urgently needs a boost - let's not leave it in limbo for months.  It's important that not all Scottish opinion polling is commissioned by anti-independence clients - we need to make sure that occasionally questions are asked that Yes supporters want asked.  Donations can be made via the fundraiser page HERE.

However if you have a Paypal account the best way to donate is via direct Paypal payment, because that can totally eliminate fees depending on which option you select, and payment usually comes through instantly.  My Paypal email address is:

jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

89 comments:

  1. “there were a remarkable eighteen candidates jostling for just four male slots”

    Am I right in guessing that there is a 50:50 rule for men and women on the committee? How many women competed for their positions?

    I sympathise in general with women’s rights issues like all female shortlists for constituency candidate selections. Women’s representation in parliament matters a lot. I’m not so convinced, however, that it’s needed for committee that’s inherently for internal party business and not representing the public will and therefore representative balance.

    Just my thoughts, based on that line. I don’t mean to interfere. Remove this comment if necessary. And better luck this time in the contest!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To answer your question, there are four male slots and four female slots to ensure parity. From memory I think there may have been fourteen candidates for the female slots, but I'm not 100% sure of the exact number.

      Delete
    2. Good to see: gender balance is very important.

      Delete
    3. Beats me how the SNP and the Greens do that, especially the Greens, when they believe everything is fluid. Do they reelect every day to try and achieve some sort of balance as members make up their mind what they are on any one day.

      Delete
    4. Glad to hear the competition for the women's places is just about as fierce as for the men's.

      The SNP notoriously reserved places on their Holyrood regional lists for people with self-identified disabilities, with predictably undemocratic results.

      Delete
  2. I love the passion but I really wonder if there are too many committees for committee's sake in these things. What on earth is an appeals committee and why can't one NEC suffice as the members instrument to debate and take on important matters like appeals and the constitution? And be accountable alongside a conference? It's a political party of 5000 or so members, not the NHS.

    Did the SNP have all of these in the 70, 90, 00s? Genuine question. Do we think the paperwork involved in all this will encourage one voter to change their mind? It's the creation of these wee fiefdoms which has been the SNPs demise if you ask me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Committee work is quite needed for a modern day party. Things are not as simple as in the 1970s.

      Delete
    2. Anon at 10.50pm: The NEC certainly couldn't function as both a Disciplinary and Appeals Committee because an appeal obviously has to be to a separate body from the one that made the original decision.

      Delete
    3. True. Anon's point about fiefdoms, though, rings all too true. They're the rot that ruins everything. Just look at the SNP now for a sobering reminder.

      Delete
    4. I agree, keeping people busy and engaged is the main benefit I see of these committees. Not sure it really anything on though and has potential for silos and squabble over meaningless things.

      Delete
  3. Yousaf isnae comfortable with National in the SNP name he says. ( Sturgeon said the same. ) Neither am I they should call themselves SBP - Scottish British Party. Like his boss Sturgeon he really is British - just British Asian. Sturgeon 100% British - as she said herself.

    Sturgeon's British gang ain't getting my vote. It's National in the name because Scotland is supposed to be a Nation but the SNP want to keep us as an English colony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We’re all British, until we get independence anyway.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous - decolonise your mind. The UK is a shithouse of a country.. the SNP smells of British shit - so do you.

      Delete
    3. Was just stating the obvious.
      You spout some nonsense.

      Delete
    4. You haven't a bloody clue if you think going around with a mindset that you are British will help Scotland be free. That's assuming you want to be free and don't currently fly a butchers apron in your garden - as you are Brutish.

      Delete
    5. Anon at 11:11, we’re all Scots but also British, whether we like it or not, until we’re independent.

      Delete
    6. There's a difference between what your colonial masters call you and what you call yourself. "Boy."

      Delete
    7. Anon at 12:03 is just stating the obvious ffs.

      Delete
    8. You're internalising the obvious. I reject being called British the same way Africans and African Americans reject being called the N word.

      Delete
    9. Anon at 12:32, your just being ridiculous. Get a grip.

      Delete
    10. Okay, describe what it means to you when you describe yourself as "British" then?

      It's all just words on paper, right? It doesn't really hurt you? Maybe you even feel a little misty for "the great times" we've had together, while they've been stealing our wealth and self-worth. Maybe that's all cool to you. Maybe, just maybe, you kinda almost even like it.

      Not me. Scotland is not theirs. I am no Brit.

      Delete
    11. Better get behind the SNP if you want independence then. No point abstaining, spoiling your ballot paper or voting for a fringe party and splitting the nationalist vote, as some are threatening to do.

      Delete
    12. 不不不不不不不不不不不

      Delete
    13. Anonymice at 12.03pm and 12.20pm - so are we all British are we - no Welsh no Irish and no English. Good luck telling that to some of the engerlund football hooligans. See when you were completing your census form - assuming you did - why did they give you options if we are all British. I identify as Scottish and no anonymouse is getting to tell me otherwise. You can identify as British but that makes you a Britnat.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous at 11.11am - I do post harshly at times and it is deliberate. Some people need woken up out of the torpor they are in.

      People who say they are British but support independence - oxymoron not your normal moron.

      Delete
    15. “Independence for Scotland “, are you losing the plot????
      I never at any point said I liked being referred to as British, far less proud to be British, all I said is we are British, whether we like it or not, until we become independent.
      Surely not too difficult to grasp.

      Delete
    16. Anonymous at 1.47pm stop wasting my time. Your actual post says " we are British, " so you are just being an arse or thick. It's not whether you like it or not - you identify as British. You can be British if you want I’m not. So speak for yourself and cut out the "we" stuff. I'm beginning to think you don't even see the oxymoron and are just a moron.

      Delete
    17. “Independence for Scotland “ what a dickhead you are.
      I won’t be engaging with you again.

      Delete
    18. A British moronic anonymous poster makes my day. Cheers.

      Delete
    19. IFS at 2 24, I agree with a lot you say but have to say the anonymous poster had a legit point.
      I, like you, and I’m sure the anon poster you took issue with as well, want independence now. However that hasn’t always been the case, think back we fought as one in world wars. In 1939 we stood alone against Nazi Germany. I think old soldiers, sailors and airmen, who fought alongside English, Welsh and Irish would turn in their graves at your, quite frankly, offensive remarks. Some would use stronger language am sure.
      So yes of course we all want independence now, though we are still British until that momentous day, but you should think more carefully before you hit the keyboard.

      Delete
    20. KC - full marks for not being anonymous - so what are these offensive remarks exactly? You refer to " English, Welsh and Irish" so in your mind these nationalities exist. I think you should think more as well. I await you telling me what my offensive remarks are. Any human being can choose their identity - it's not for others to tell them what they are. That's why the census has options and those options include Scottish and thats what I ticked. What anyone who fought in the wars thought their identity was is up to them. A British identity is an imperial identity to help create the British Empire. All empires are created on the lives and backs of oppressed people. So if that floats your boat that is your decision.

      Delete
    21. KC says:- " In 1939 we stood alone against Nazi Germany, " I think a lot of old soldiers no matter their national identity would be able to recognise that statement is wrong - not opinion but factually wrong. Is that an offensive remark or educational? I try to educate people but strangely they get defensive and then abusive. Still waiting for an explanation of what you found offensive.

      Delete
    22. Well said K C, excellent post.

      Delete
    23. The Poles who flew so heroically for the RAF were no Brits, and certainly no less than the Welsh, Scots, English or Irish who joined them.

      Delete
    24. K C, I agree with most of your post. I support independence, but in a way it’ll be sad, as like you say we fought as one in WW2 to help free Europe from evil. I’m sure everyone at that time was proud to be British and fight for the nation as one.
      However we have moved on and I feel independence would benefit Scotland immensely now.
      On the point of us being British, of course we are, until we become independent, and anyone who says we’re not is talking nonsense.

      Delete
    25. Anonymous at 6 .25pm 6 Points - please read slowly and let them sink in.

      1. The census disagrees with you. Have you complained to the government's of Scotland Wales N. Ireland England that they are talking nonsense or is the truth that in the real world rather than your British Boys fantasy world we are not all British. Try looking at Census results on identity - it isn't 100% British.

      2. The Germans the Italians the Japanese all wanted their own big Empires. Even Churchill said he was trying to save the British Empire. There is no good Empire - never has been - some are more cruel and evil than others. The British Empire had many cruel and evil episodes.

      3. It won't be sad in any way at all to leave the UK behind, and the very fact that you think that leads me to think you ain't really an independence supporter. The UK committed many atrocities against Scotland over hundred of years.

      4. How on earth can you be sure that everyone at the time was proud to be British. I've heard some stupid claims but that is a cracker.

      5. Telling everyone what their nationality is isn't just authoritarian it is fascist in its outlook.

      6. This lie KC posted about fighting alone in 1939 is classic Bitter Together stuff from 2014.

      Delete
    26. IFS, I posted a comment this afternoon stating an opinion, which I stick by. I haven’t the time to be on here debating and arguing with people, unlike you, who appear to be on 24/7 arguing and taking issue with just about everybody who posts a comment. I’m afraid I’ve got better things to do.
      I stated earlier I agree with some of what you say, and we both support independence after all, but everybody is entitled to an opinion.
      Maybe you should wind your neck in a little.

      Delete
    27. Completely agree with KC here. The IfS poster goads people constantly claiming either numpties or not really a Yes supporter, with impunity. Puts me off posting.

      Delete
    28. The end as usual from people who cannae accept they are posting pish. Personal insults. KC maybe you should stop posting telling people they are British. Nae answer to the census point have you.

      Delete
    29. IFS, you appear to have a high opinion of yourself.

      Delete
    30. Anonymouse at 11.23pm - what -,do you have a low opinion of yourself. Sorry to hear that. Is that why you hide as an anonymouse with nothing useful or interesting to say.

      Delete
    31. IfS you are anonymous! what are you on about? Is for your middle name "of' like?

      Virtually every post you write either includes name calling, goading that someone's not an independence supporter.

      Hiding behind a keyboard with an alias.

      None of these bring anything to the debate. I don't know why your rubbish gets allowed to be honest on what's a decent blog.

      Delete
    32. It's not anonymity as such that's the problem, it's that so many people post as Anon you don't know who's who. I've asked people to end a comment with a 'signature' - it can be any name you want - just to identify one Anon from another but nobody seems willing to do so.

      Delete
    33. KC complains that I post a lot. That person who posts as anonymous posts way more than me. Anonymous 8.06am you really are stupid - dam I did it again - called a stupid person stupid - I guess you want me to lie and say stupid people like you are just brilliant and full of superb insights and brimful of knowledge. People insult me all the time - just like you have done but you don't like it back. You are too stupid to realise the very, very basic point Felix makes. I could post under the name Fraser Calderwood - how would you know that is my real name. You won't so you are a numpty. You could be KC posting as anonymous. You say "I don't know" ( that is obviously a common term used by you ) why my posts are allowed. It's called freedom of speech - ya numpty - something clearly alien to you. You talk about debate - when did you address the points I made - you didn't.

      Felix at 9.03am I have suggested many times in the past on SGP what you are suggesting - anonymites are never interested.

      Delete
    34. RP

      I've ignored you entirely IfS until now, you are patronising and condescending to other independence supporters all the time on practically every comment. That's not an insult, it's a fact based on the comments above. It's counter productive and unnecessarily mean. It doesn't win over anybody. It comes across shouty.

      The comments function is a bit annoying but people value their anonymity. As you clearly do as your name is Independence for Scotland, hardly a Sunday name. Yes, people post under anonymous. Yes, it can be difficult to follow if it's the same person or not as Felix says... it's a slightly annoying trait of the blog...at most. I don't think it means start calling folk numpties and stupid. Constibute to the contents of the posts about independence which helps us drive discussion or just keep calling people numpties. People have freedom of speech too to call it out.

      Delete
    35. RP, thanks for identifying yourself. The anon thing is a bit more than slightly annoying, I found myself unwittingly having a go at a poster the other day on the assumption he was the same guy who'd been arguing with me previously. Apologies were offered and accepted so no harm done but it would be so easily avoided if people would just put some identifier on their posts. Say what you like about IFS but there's no mistaking who it is!

      Delete
    36. RP - I generally commend people if they use a moniker to identify themselves. Sadly the penny doesn't seem to have dropped with you that it is nothing to do with anonymity but everything to do with continuity of posting and clarity. It is nothing to do with the risk of losing anonymity but just plain laziness or discourteous to other posters. Did you even read my post above. As regards your point about contributing to debates on SGP I have done so for years. Where have you been? Feel free to criticise me. Numpties have been insulting me for years on this blog but they runaway when they are presented with a cogent argument. Why on earth do you think I should accept this. So I have the freedom of speech to call you out. Your post is just an ad hom attack. I reserve the right of reply. People who comment on my posts with respect get respectful answers. If they don't like them and insult me then they run the risk of being insulted again. Your post contains absolutely no comment at all on the issue. So I'll assume you think the poster has the right to tell me I am British not Scottish. My conclusion is you are an authoritarian numpty. If you don't think my conclusion is correct - your choice - argue why or insult and runaway. Most insult and runaway. I don't force people to read my posts. I don't try to win over anybody. I post my analysis.

      Delete
    37. IfS

      I am well aware what the issue is, I still don't think you're aggressive technique is merited. I think you're a numpty to be honest, I can't think of a better description but there you go - we're equal now. You butt into every comment on here and sideline the argument with name calling. It's boring and i'm calling you out on it.

      Felix

      It really is just a mildly irritating thing, sorry. Everyone's entitiled to get frustrated at their own things but I am pretty sure most people would find this as a low rank irritant. Try to explain this to someone in whatever room you are currently in, maybe it will give some perspective. The guy above constantly bemoans it as if it's some kind of cowardice. None of it merits anyone having a go at anybody, in my opinion.

      RP

      Delete
    38. RP says he knows what he issue is but disnae say what it is. You chose what all numpties do - insult and runaway - pathetic. RP says I butt into every comment. The authoritarian numpty disnae seem to realise it is a public forum.
      RP says " none of it merits ......" well in your authoritarian world somebody telling you you are British when your chosen identity is Scottish may mean nothing but it does to me. RP if that disnae bother you does that mean you are British as well. I like to know if Britnats are about on SGP. Cannae ever remember anybody posting as RP before over all the years. Plenty of annoying nicophants though.

      Delete
    39. IFS, do you get a kick out of taking issue with just about everybody that posts on here? It’s ridiculous the way you go on, and you certainly ain’t doing anything for the independence cause.
      According to you there’s a lot of numpties on here. Well I’d say you’re the biggest numpty of all.

      Delete
    40. RP, thanks for your reply although I have to say it comes over as a bit patronising to me - I assume that's not your intention. I've never said it's that important that posters identify themselves, merely that it would cut out confusion and that it's just simple good manners.

      Certainly I've never claimed anonymity justifies name-calling and insults. Indeed I've been attacked twice on here as a unionist, ironically by an anonymous poster (or maybe two - who knows) precisely because I DO identify my comments and so can be targeted individually.

      Anyway, I'll leave it there as I was only trying to improve the flow of the blog and discussions about anonymity and the idiosyncratic nature of IFS posts means we're getting off the subject of independence.

      Delete
    41. Felix - this thread was all about Scottish identity - a core element of Scottish independence. I did not butt in, as RP said, it was my original post, but some plank said we are all British. That is a part of the ongoing brainwashing of people to slowly remove the Scottish identity from the UK. How do you think we ended up speaking English. My identity is Scottish and I won't allow some authoritarian person to tell me otherwise. Who does RP think he is anyway - the blog's moderator.

      Delete
    42. IFS, all the “plank” said was we’re British until we become independent. A blatantly obvious statement to any sane person!!

      Delete
    43. Anonymous at 6.59pm I refer you to my post at 7.21pm Jan 19. I’m not saying it all again. So you are calling me insane and numpties say I am terrible for insulting people. Try looking at a census for Scotland and educate yourself.

      Delete
  4. Just a reminder to everyone that when I delete a comment, all of the direct replies are automatically deleted. So if you see a comment that's pretty likely to be deleted (and in the most recent case I think it probably would have been pretty obvious), it might be best to post a fresh comment rather than hit the direct reply button.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James, I take it please release me. got his wish and you released him back to where he came from.

      Delete
    2. He’ll probably be back as an anonymous numpty .

      Delete
    3. I hate those guys. They're all too feart to sign their comments. ;)

      Delete
    4. I didn't see the offending comment.

      Delete
    5. Please release me in a previous post told James to take a hike. Never a good idea to tell your host to take a hike.

      Delete
    6. Although he did draw attention to an attack post on me from a few weeks ago by John Robertson, in which the Prof had an ultra-vague whinge about me not posting "helpfully". Judging from his own recent output, apparently what I should be doing is collating bad news stories about ferries in New Zealand, the Channel Islands, Tahiti and Burma, in order to contextualise CalMac's failings so they don't look quite so bad.

      TalkingDownForeignFerriesTwo.scot

      Delete
    7. I saw a separate now deleted comment from John Robertson with an adolescent reference to 'poop'! Please tell me he's not a real professor.

      Delete
    8. Probably on reflection he'll be relieved I deleted it! It was a puerile comment that would have embarrassed an eight year old.

      Delete
    9. A real professor is too up his own arse with self-regard to use such language for a wee pun? Get a life grandads. Alba Goes Pop OK?

      Delete
    10. Grandad!!!? I've seen your picture Prof!

      Delete
  5. Jamie Dawson, KC for the UK Covid Inquiry actually said this:- " The extent to which the approach to the management of the pandemic was influenced by the Scottish Government's key objective of achieving independence is also an issue which we will seek to address."
    Well Mr Dawson you can seek all you want but I can tell you right now you will find nothing because they did nothing to achieve independence. Now if you want to seek out ways in which they avoided Indyref2 then that may have had an impact on Covid because they worked really really hard on that.

    Baroness Hallet, the Inquiry Chair/Judge says Scotland is a devolved nation. There is no such thing. If she truly wants to be accurate she should be saying Scotland the Colony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This bollocks about "nations" inside the UK. Call us regions. The British among us will like it. We're proud of our shortbread tins and frightful accents, masta.

      Delete
  6. I have decided to add two more possible spoilers for my ballot paper NOT MY PARLIAMENT and NOT MY UNION. That's now a choice of 5 I have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL, and a fat lot of good it’ll do.

      Delete
    2. Nobody serious world thinks voting anybody but SNP gets us independence. Seen the splitting and booing of independence politicians in Catalonia and thought out strength was everyone more or less knew we have our vehicle, warts and all.
      Alba has it's charms and I salute Salmond in many ways but let's not pretend anyone will get the nuances when the SNP lose 30 seats.

      Delete
    3. Current favourite is STURGEON THE BETRAYER

      Delete
    4. The fewer the letters, the bigger they can be.

      INDY

      Delete
    5. A lot of Indy supporters appear to have lost the plot. All this talk of staying at home and spoiling ballot papers is just bonkers.

      Delete
    6. INDY is now officially on the list - but not very high. You don't want to make the writing too large and accidently cross over a box. I will vote Alba or ISP if someone stands in my constituency - more likely ISP - I won't be voting for Sturgeon's pal Oswald who replied to me once and told me to trust Nicola and herself to deliver indyerf2 - she should be on the Traitors.

      Delete
  7. In a previous post I described how Yousaf is making a mess of the situation re the post office scandal. Today it came home to roost in his shambolic performance at FMQs. The diddy managed to find a banana skin, slip on it and shoot himself in the foot all at once. He provided Ross with all the ammo he needed by his unclear flip flopping position and allowed him to portray Yousaf as someone who is more interested in protecting his bloody awful Lord Advocate and her malicious COPFS than exonerating the victims of the Post Office scandal.
    The real criminal in this disgraceful scandal are all the senior people in all the institutions involved and the politicians who sat on their hands. Let's be clear the COPFS are as guilty as anyone.
    If Yousaf makes a mess of this when it was so easy not to do so - where is this sure footedness numpties have been prattling on about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I viewed FMQs. I thought Humza in fact did very well and that Ross's questions were wide of the mark and didn't show understanding of Scotland's distinctive legal system. Ross was exposed by Humza.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous at 8.12pm care to explain:
      1. Were wide of the mark - how exactly?
      2. What did Ross not understand about Scotland's legal system?
      3. How was Ross exposed by Humza? What was the subject matter?
      4. Please explain Yousaf's current position on exonerating the Scottish PO victims because it seems to change all the time. I am sure the poor victims who do not know at present whether they should continue their individual appeal cases or not would be delighted if you could clarify it for them.
      I'm all ears.

      Delete
    3. Ross was certainly out of his depth.

      Delete
    4. I feel IFS criticism of Yousaf is over the top. He needs to be given a chance.

      Delete
    5. Anon 8.57am - in what way was Ross out of his depth. Please explain.

      Delete
    6. Anon at 9.07am - in what way was my criticism over the top. Please explain.

      Delete
    7. IFS: Humza has to deal with this type of question from Ross week-in week-out. I believe he deserves our support in doing so. The SNP government will take no lessons from the Conservatives on how to respond to the situation.

      Delete
    8. Some people really need to give Humza a break.

      Delete
    9. The trouble with anonymites is they don't even have the courtesy to say if they are responding to my exact post. Anyway I see no explanation for a statement that Ross was out of his depth. Nor do I see an explanation for my criticism being over the top. What I do see is blind knee jerk party political responses - SNP good Tories bad.
      It was simple Yousaf just had to take the side of the Scottish Covid victims but instead he took the side of the malicious and incompetent COPFS who prosecuted them. By default that is the side you two anonymites have taken and you should be ashamed of yourself. These post office victims have suffered enough but you want them to have to go through appeals that are no less than retrials which could take many years to complete. Give Humza a break you say - I say give the Post Office victims a break.

      The COPFS behaviour and actions on this matter joins a list of malicious and incompetent cases but Yousaf backs up his unionist Lord Advocate.

      Delete
  8. IfS: we should take stock of where we are, rally behind the SNP, and move forward. Alternative political parties are not a good idea because they split the vote.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon at 2:23, indeed. IFS and others on here can’t grasp that point though.

      Delete
    2. We will have to keep making the argument, 2.39.

      Delete
    3. I hear you Pete. Are you for a de facto referendum today or was that yesterday?

      Delete