Wednesday, July 24, 2024

Two plus two equals five, Winston, and that is the change Scotland needs

One of the extraordinary things about the general election campaign in Scotland was that Labour got away with the "change" messaging, even though what they were actually doing was demanding that independence supporters should abandon any hopes for change and embrace the dismal status quo.  But if in the Labour leadership's own heads they were genuinely offering some sort of "change", what was the nature of it?

We got a remarkable insight last night when a "Labour insider" briefed the extremist pro-genocide journalist Lee Harpin that "Changed Labour Means Changed Labour" - about as moronic a reworking of "Brexit Means Brexit" as you could ever wish to see.  It was a reference to the draconian suspensions of seven Labour MPs for backing the SNP amendment to the King's Speech calling for the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap, and therefore implied that the "change" Labour stands for is about one of two things: either a) the crushing once and for all of a hated past in which Labour actually cared about child poverty and social justice, or b) the crushing once and for all of a hated past in which members of parliament could think for themselves and cast votes of principle on matters of importance.  

Judging from the coordinated strop that leadership loyalists were instructed to have on social media last night, it appears to be the latter.  We were treated to an extraordinary display of self-styled "centrists" and "moderates" denouncing their suspended colleagues as "virtue signallers" and purveyors of "performative politics" and "vibes politics".  It was like proponents of Ingsoc reminding the population that the true enemies are not Eurasia or Eastasia, but the counter-revolutionaries and thought-criminals in their own midst.  The only people standing in the way of alleviating child poverty are apparently the bastards who vote in favour of alleviating child poverty, just as two plus two equals five. The narrative seemed to be that the country had tolerated the evil of "vibes politics" for far too long but that the patience of decent, hard-working families had finally snapped all at once due to one of the most disgraceful displays of performative virtuing in world history.

Labour voters of Scotland: you may or may not have realised that what you'd had enough of was pluralistic parliamentary politics and that the change you voted for was the destruction of pluralism, but apparently that's what you were doing, so I hope you enjoy the next five years.  As far as Starmer himself is concerned, the assumption seems to be that he can do this stuff with impunity, but I'm not sure that's true.  We've already seen his disciplinary heavy-handedness directly cost Labour specific seats like Islington North and Chingford & Woodford Green. If the Tories get their act together, the luxury of throwing seats away may no longer be afforded to him. He may only have a chance of winning the next general election if he can reassemble the sort of coalition of support that took Jeremy Corbyn to 40% of the vote in 2017 - and that included a lot of people who without Corbyn might well have been voting Green or for other small left-wing parties.

There's also the problem of incongruous messaging.  Some people will have been wide-eyed and naive enough to take Starmer at his word on the day after the election when he said he was putting "country before party", but will now have seen that he's openly demanding a total slavish loyalty to the party machine in a way that has no precedent in British parliamentary politics.  In other words, he's putting party before country more than any Prime Minister in history, and at some point the penny will drop with voters that this is a guy who means the polar opposite of what he says and simply cannot be trusted.

It's also somewhat ironic that the rebels are being accused of "walking into an SNP trap" and "helping the SNP up off the canvass", because it's not the rebellion that handed the SNP a propaganda victory, it was the suspension of the rebels, which needlessly turned the vote on the SNP amendment into a landmark political event with real consequences.  The SNP can't believe their luck today, and they owe it all to Sir Kid Starver.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop keep going, donations are welcome HERE.

275 comments:

  1. The SNP under John Swinney have once again shown their worth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did it pass? Is the cap removed? Will more children now get the support they need?

      When looked at that way, you and I quite agree on his worth!

      Delete
    2. In Scotland there is no cap as SNP mitigate it with https://cpag.org.uk/welfare-rights/benefits-scotland/scottish-benefits/children-young-people/scottish-child-payment

      Delete
  2. Imagine denying children the possibility of being less hungry. Seems the Brit nats on here believe they could eat straw. Gutter politics from the Brits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All too big a contrast with the noble SNP.

      Delete
  3. No change from the Brit parties. Austerity Brexit Support right wing politics. The lies seeping out and only 2 weeks elected. Where are the Labour Party mps from Scotland now?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Labour are sticking to their principles, the Bain Principle - never support an SNP motion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They fell into a massive SNP trap. John Swinney's SNP outsmarted them once again - tick tock.

      Delete
    2. Tick tock until what? The polls have swung around in our favour again?

      Delete
  5. The Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank has estimated that removing the two-child benefit cap would eventually cost the UK Government £3.4bn a year.

    The estimated cost for the Scottish Government to mitigate the two-child benefit cap is approximately £85 million per year. For the fiscal year 2023-2024, the SNP Government underspent their budget by £244 million...

    It shouldn't be the Scottish Governments job to mitigate Westminster policies but no one can honestly say that they're unable to do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's not how it works. "Underspend" is anticipated and - spent.

      "17. The £326 million underspend is carried forward in full in the Scotland Reserve. The majority of this carry forward had already been pro-actively anticipated, and the final 2023-24 spending plans, already approved by this parliament reflect full drawdown of the balances brought forward."

      https://www.gov.scot/publications/final-outturn-report-scottish-budget-2022-23/

      (final outturns published 8 May 2024). So the same happens for the 2024-25 budget - the 2023-24 underspend is carried forward in full into the Scotland reserve."

      The Unionist opposition who try to make a thing about this are totally clueless - would anyone really want then to form the Government and try to count on their fingers?

      Delete
    2. It was bad enough having the Greens who think wasting hundreds of millions is a great idea.

      Delete
    3. Anon at 12.39. You are embarrassing yourself with your ignorance. Go get an education then come back. I’m guessing you are a unionist, declared or otherwise. You’d get on well with IFS.

      Delete
    4. "The Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank has estimated that removing the two-child benefit cap would eventually cost the UK Government £3.4bn a year.

      The estimated cost for the Scottish Government to mitigate the two-child benefit cap is approximately £85 million per year.
      "

      Working backwards from this, £3.4 bn for the UK would at 1/12th of the population, mean £283 million for Scotland alone. But if the estimated figure for mitigating the cap in Scotland is just £85 million, THAT means the cap is ALREADY mitigated to the tune of £198 million - about 70%.

      Now we know where Danny Alexander's calculator got to - the Unionists are using it. Again.

      Delete
    5. Isn't there a flawed logic though: The Scottish Government are unable to find the money to mitigate the impact but the UK Government is expected to magic up £3.4bn a year?

      Delete
    6. "but the UK Government is expected to magic up £3.4bn a year"

      The Scottish Government can't borrow beyond small limits to cover income variations, and it can't print money.

      The UK Government can borrow as much as it likes, AND print money.

      Delete
  6. John Swinney has now proven to be a good leader.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meddling in England’s business is not the route to Scottish independence. They voted for this. Let them have it.

      Oh yes, they’re having it anyway, no matter what the House Jocks say. What a waste of effort!

      Delete
    2. The Speaker has praised SNP MPs, pointing out that they are excellent parliamentarians.

      Delete
    3. 2;16 meddling in England business. Why not? we pay for the HoC and HoL. They have no issues meddling in Scotland. If it annoys them and Brits like yourself- so be it

      Delete
    4. Not this one, 3:18. There is no cap in Scotland, and there hasn’t been for years. We resolved that long before Swinney came back to be the caretaker.

      Let the English choose their own destiny. That’s the gift Scottish independence will also give them.

      Delete
    5. @4:04 The trouble with messing with the English’s business is that it plays into the whole “Family of Nations” bollocks that keeps half of Scots thinking they are British.

      We should be distancing ourselves from England’s problems, and focus on our own. We may be tied together at the hip for now, but that’s exactly what we aim to end as Scottish nationalists. Trying to help them be better dancers is just to be faithful Brits.

      Delete
    6. The 2 children cap is UK wide, and if that's "saving" the UK as a whole £3.4 billion, that means £284 million LESS in the Barnett consequentials (or block grant, whichever).

      That means £284 million LESS for the Scottish Government to spend in its budget in total. The Scottish Government spends its own money to fund any mitigation, and the rest of the UK doesn't put its hand in its pocket for any of that.

      Delete
    7. Conversely, if the UK Government removes the 2 children cap, the Scottish Government then has an extra £284 million to spend.

      That was the big fallacy of EVEL - any action of the UK Gov that affects spending in England, England and Wales or the rUK - affects us in Scotland. - either more or more often with the greedy heartless children hating UK Gov politicians - less.

      Delete
  7. John Swinney is the breath of fresh air we needed to smash the Union and give us a clear direction as to where our new dawn can be found.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What Anon @ 1:40 said.

      Delete
    2. If you stand on your head, he even has a snazzy hairdo.

      Delete
    3. Anon @ 1.41pm aren’t you the same person who said the same about Humza.

      Delete
  8. Im almost certain a lot of posters here pretending to be indy supporters are really yoons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trolls? On the internet? Unheard of!

      Delete
    2. I'm willing to bet money all those who constantly post that John Swinney has hit the ground running and is the best First Minister Scotland has ever had etc are just taking the piss.

      Delete
    3. Hows the 77th baracks tonight?

      Delete
  9. Landmark event!

    When it all kicked off, we all knew where we were!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Labour have well and truly been beaten by the SNP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The SNP laid a trap and Labour fell in. SNP are smarter.

      Delete
    2. Still to be labour in power must be a nice feeling to deprive some children of food and clothes. I believe the royals children will be fine

      Delete
    3. The centrists consider it a “flex” don’t you know. Shows the right how serious and committed they are. And shows the poor that labour doesn’t give a monkeys.

      Delete
  11. Well, try writing to your new Labour MP and asking them if they are representing their constituents as promised in their election campaign or are they slaves to Keir Starmer. Also ask if they are British Labour or Scottish Labour. Remind them that the SNP government diverted money for other desperate causes to help remove Scottish children from poverty - a cause opposed by Scottish Labour when they challenged the SNP budgets. Also suggest to them that they tell Starmer to stop spouting that economic illiterate Margaret Thatcher's nonsense about a country being just like a household and having to balance its budget. Read some basic economics and stop drivelling.
    Children are the future. Do our MPs really believe that they should grow up in poverty? What a waste of precious resources.
    By the way, I am on to my second letter to my new MP putting these and other points. I think we should keep up the pressure on these new MPs and remind them they are under scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably worth pointing out that the last Labour government under Gordon Brown lifted millions of children out of poverty.

      Delete
    2. He was chancellor in the Blair ggovernment before that. Did he want to keep that one for his own credit? How thoughtful of him, keeping it for the end.

      Delete
  12. Now that SNP M P numbers are in single figures unionist liars can make false statements about Scotland in Westminster with no right of reply. Another consequence of the actions of ISF and his fellow arseholes. Well done you idiots. No doubt an apology will be forthcoming? Thought not. Like Brexiteers the cognitive dissonance on steroids will kick in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad to be of service, Jim.

      Delete
    2. Anon@3.54pm - are Flynn and the other 8 SNP MPs not allowed to speak now.
      Blaming a poster on a blog for the SNP ills marks you out as an irrational human being.

      Delete
    3. Try not to show your ignorance of parliamentary procedure. And when you are clearly stupid to boot, best you keep quiet. Toddle off.

      Delete
    4. Anon @ 11.23pm not only are you irrational you are offensive as well. Just why do you think you can tell people to be quiet and toddle off. You really are an obnoxious person.

      Delete
  13. What, you were expecting 24/7 SNP Baaaaaad? That’s Wings and Salmond.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This blog is a member of Alba.

      Delete
    2. How can a blog be a member of a political party?

      Delete
    3. A fair fraction of the comments here are left by SNP loyalists who swoop on in, having heard that this is "the Alba blog" via Twitter or wherever. You can tell by the ones saying they're impressed at how little SNP-hate they're seeing here "at Alba," as it's typically their first (and last) visit.

      Another, larger fraction, is Dr Jim.

      Delete
  14. Absolutely. We don't want anybody pointing out the shortcomings of the SNP or complaining about a lack of strategy for independence or anything else.

    Swinney is the man for the job. Enough said!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Aye the ALBANISTS have no right of reply since they were wiped out excepting getting Salmond’s Tory chum to speak up and attack Scotlands party and parliament

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Salmond has no right to justice, either, does he Jim?

      Delete
    2. Dr Kim, LizLloyd is an English Britnat crook recruited by another crooked Britnat Sturgeon to do the British state’s dirty work.

      Delete
    3. “Scotland’s party” on 30% of the vote / don’t be silly.

      “Scotland’s parliament” is an English controlled devolved parliament so again don’t be silly.

      Delete
  16. Swinney is the uninspiring, tired old caretaker Scotland so badly needs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Joe Biden of Scottish politics!

      Delete
    2. Biden Age 81. Swinney Age 60. The anon britnats age about 15

      Delete
    3. Scotland has known Swinney for 20 years. He’s not change, he’s not renewal, he is dead wood with a sighing face.

      Delete
  17. Swinney is growing into the job and showing a sureness of touch that will one day be almost as good as Humza.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed. He needs to be given til the Holyrood election at least.

      Delete
    2. And then hurriedly replaced by someone just as loyal to Nicola. Depends who keeps their seat.

      Delete
  18. Swinney is the best man for us yoons. Have a read at Robin McAlpines latest article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And thus the worst man for us Yessers, as Robin once again describes. He’s getting the worrying habit of being right.

      Delete
    2. From that article:

      “I have it from a very reliable source that some of the most senior people in the party establishment are actually briefing that it might be better for the party to take a spell in opposition. That is coming from the people you think are busy digging you out of this. They’re not, they’re covering their own back.”

      Devastating!

      Delete
    3. A very reliable source ... aye, right.

      Delete
  19. Aye, more drivel from the underminers- a collection of children go hungry supporters mixed in with the britnat brexiters and mysogonists making up the 1.5%.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The dribble of Alba voters isn’t your problem, Jimbo. It’s the hundreds of thousands more you lost besides. What are you doing to win them back?

      “Bugger all” had better work.

      Delete
  20. They lost 10 percent of their votes but it's enough to switch seats in fptp.

    In some ways if 30percent is their low, that's not a terrible thing in the long run. But it may prove not to be their floor .

    ReplyDelete
  21. I cannae be fucked any more, with this , bye , im off to spend my time investing in the stock market.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's been my feeling since Nicola caught us in Catch-22 with the 2022 court ruling, and subsequently resigned.

      We had the wind in our sails since Indyref—quite the opposite to what the Brits expected—until then. So much hope, frittered away and gone. Now is truly not the time. The voters are as scunnered as us here.

      Delete
    2. It’s up to SNP to highlight on a daily basis the benefit of Indy. The continuing theft of our energy resources should be shouted out daily. And plans for civil disobedience should be organised by SNP if any work starts on nuclear plant. Gloves off SNP or just feck off. Confrontation was always coming. Get on with it.

      Delete
    3. Based on the last decade or so I don't see The SNP doing that.

      Delete
    4. I am an SNP supporter but I think there is a good case for nuclear as part of the overall mix. So I don't think we should pick that as a key issue.

      Delete
  22. Robin McAlpine is no friend to the SNP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neither, increasingly, is common sense, or Scotland.

      Delete
    2. He is a friend of independence.

      Delete
  23. Sorry disagree, he is a friend of McAlpine. The fringe actors always believe they are more important than they are along with the band of 1% followers.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In a way, you have to have some admiration for independence supporters, they’re a bit like Nessie hunters, in that they don’t give up.
    You have to imagine though, that the penny will eventually drop one day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Independence is supported by roughly half the country, and more as you go down the age groups. It's not going away and will rear its head every so often as the political vehicle's, the SNP most likely, fortunes ebb and flow.

      Unless there is a credible alternative to the SNP in govt in Holyrood, the govt of the day switch between pro Union and pro independence coalitions.

      Just a matter of the strength at the switch.

      Politics isn't just the here and now.

      Delete
    2. Dinnae bother, 10:26. "Nessie" is one of KC's suspiciously small puddle of cultural references he's convinced can prove that he's as good a Scotchman as the rest of us.

      Delete
    3. @11:52,
      What a load of utter nonsense!

      Delete
    4. Talk about unionists, not nationality.

      Delete
    5. Anon 9:33, you are obviously a yoon who’s revelling in the SNPs current predicament, but make no mistake, their fortunes will change again in the future. The SNP and independence movement in general might not be in a great place at present, but we’re in it for the long haul and won’t be giving up anytime soon.

      Delete
    6. Anon at 1.13. Have you been in a coma? And referring to Campbell to support your points is truly desperate. He’s a socially inadequate little arsehole. Lies distortion and an intensely stupid and gullible audience allow him to talk garbage, and the mouth frothers pay him to do so and lap it up. Each to their own I suppose. Watch, you’re dribbling again.

      Delete
    7. Why don’t you refute his points then while I dribble away.

      Delete
    8. I continue to respect Rev Campbell. He wrote the Blue Book which set out the case for independence.

      Delete
    9. Lies and distortion mixed with speculative opiniondo not need to be refuted. You present a summary of his points, backed up by credible evidence, and I will respond.

      Delete
  25. Oh dear it's Adolf in a kilt.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Worth noting that because young people favour the SNP more than old, as time goes on more of the electorate will support SNP by demographics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's been said since 2014 and the SNP support has only fallen.

      Delete
    2. It is more slow than that so we need to look to 2030s for it to have effect.

      Delete
    3. 12.55pm sorry but that is just simple analysis. There is no guarantee.

      Delete
    4. Independence has generally increased very slowly since 2014. It may have had a recent confidence shock but generally it's fluttered between 4 and 10 points above 2014 levels

      Tbh I reckon it's ONLY been old folk dying that's got it there alongside a momentary Sturgeon competence effect.

      Delete
    5. "Sturgeon competence effect"

      What competence? She handed her successor a binfire.

      Delete
  27. How's the rebuttal unit doing these days?

    ReplyDelete
  28. To all SNP supporters.

    At this stage it is best not to worry too much.

    As James has pointed out, SNP only fell 5 points behind Labour. This can be overcome in the context of a Holyrood election where the focus is not on which UK-wide government we are choosing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The focus will be on the SNPs truly awful record in government.
      A chance for the Scottish people to boot these charlatans out of power, hopefully for good, but at the very least for a long time!

      Delete
    2. 'Nothing to see here everything is fine'

      Delete
    3. (I am Anon@2:43).

      The mainstream media want you to be pessimistic.

      If we hold our nerve and continue to vote SNP we should be able to do a lot better than in the GE because the Holyrood elections do not use FPTP meaning that SNP has a very good chance to be largest party according to recent opinion polls.

      Delete
    4. One point this fails to address: All those former SNP voters who didn't bother to vote in the General Election or even worse gave their vote to Labour.

      Not addressing the reasons behind why that happened and pretending everything is fine may not be the best tactic.

      Delete
    5. Anon at 3.55. They didn’t give their vote to labour. Pretending that happened isn’t helpful. The stay at home Indy voters need to be persuaded that there is something worth voting for in 2026. It is simple, albeit not easy,

      Delete
    6. Some people did switch to Labour presumably.

      Delete
    7. In Glasgow, reports of switches straight from SNP to Reform.

      Delete
    8. There's clearly polling evidence to suggest former SNP voters switched to Labour. In the Glasgow area in particular. Pretending that didn't happen is just sticking your head in the sand.

      Delete
    9. Anon 4:22 PM: while there is some evidence of that, please remember that in the context of a Holyrood election the idea of electing Labour to replace the Conservatives at Westminster will be absent, hence those voters will be more open to voting SNP again, given that in Holyrood the choice is between Labour and the SNP rather than Labour and the Conservatives. Therefore these fears are misplaced.

      Delete
    10. It doesn't address the point that many feel like both Governments had been in power for too long.

      Labour's simple message of "change" resonated with many in the General Election and the SNP have been in power at Holyrood for longer than the Tories were at Westminster. After the last 2 years in particular the SNP haven't exactly been portraying competence either.

      Delete
    11. "After the last 2 years in particular the SNP haven't exactly been portraying competence either."

      This is where John Swinney and Kate Forbes come in.

      Delete
    12. Kate Forbes maybe but it's difficult to argue that John Swinney represents change.

      Delete
    13. John Swinney chose to stay out of Humza's cabinet, hence he can be argued to represent positive change.

      Delete
    14. Moreover, Swinney has the common touch - ordinary people relate to him.

      Delete
    15. And Humza Yousaf brought a breadth of experience, a milestone for inclusivity and representation in Scottish politics with a strong personal story and commitment to uniting the party and governing effectively for all Scots.

      It's just all words.

      Delete
    16. Humza did have a lot going for him. Unfortunately, he ditched the agreement with the Green Party, which led to problems that were too great for him to get past. He should not have done that, as Nicola Sturgeon has pointed out.

      Delete
    17. Though a lot of the wasted money on policies that never came to fruition and unpopularity with the electorate predominantly occurred whilst the Greens were in Government.

      Booting the Greens out of Government isn't what caused the decline in the polls.

      Delete
    18. As Nicola Sturgeon was very clear about on ITV Election Night, the split with the greens and a lack of push for independence were to blame.

      Delete
    19. lol. No they weren't.

      The unpopular policies and money being jizzed away left, right & center was to blame. The nickname "Humza Useless" was being commonly used before the Greens were removed from Government.

      Not to mention the fact that their former CEO (Sturgeon's husband) was arrested and charged whilst thst was all going on. Being under active police investigation doesn't inspire confidence with the electorate.

      Delete
    20. It does no favours to delude yourself into believing that everything was fine and the electorate was just simply outraged at how the 'popular' Greens were treated.

      The chaotic scenes after the Bute House Agreement ended was just the straw that broke the camel's back. The decline for the SNP started long beforehand. The Greens influence in Government simply sped it along.

      Delete
    21. SNP were becoming progressively incompetent. Saying otherwise is to be in complete denial. The good things the SNP did have been overshadowed by events of the the last few years. The provision of ferry services to the Islands is a case in point in exemplifying incompetence in government. Utterly shambolic. Please note I am not talking about the ferry contracts at Ferguson. There are other factors at play there. SNP were not involved in acts of financial dishonesty, in respect of either private or public funds, but the unionists sensed weakness in areas of actual governance and piled the politically motivated police investigation on top of that when there were and are actual areas of legitimate concern. The dishonesty narrative gained credence by association. There are also useful idiots, posting here and elsewhere, who gleefully joined in the SNP bad narrative. A S and her clique have temporarily halted any move to Independence. Only a clear out of her clique and the restoration of the NEC to its pre 2014 make up will set us back on the correct path. There is no sign of that happening, and rest assured the police investigation will still be going come 2026.

      Delete
  29. Swinney is growing into the job and showing a sureness of touch that is reminiscent of Rob Green in South Africa 2010.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Swinney is growing into the role as effectively as John Swinney in Scotland 2000.

      Delete
    2. The John Swinney of 2024 is a very different leader from the leader of 2000.

      Delete
    3. Seems to be the same thus far. Though it took 4 years of "give him a chance" last time.

      Delete
    4. john swinney is growing into the role as well as his hair is

      Delete
    5. zero tolerance for baldism surely

      Delete
  30. Just the usual Brit Nat nonesense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just the usual election drubbing if you keep that head of yours so comfy in the sand. Kiss Bute House goodbye.

      Have we got fresh Holyrood polling yet, actually?

      Delete
  31. Seems the remnants of ALBA’s 1% are all-writing in the National no doubt on instructions, claiming Cherry as their prodigal daughter. Maybe her pal Regan will persuade her to join the forces of resistance! If Cherry was so right over lgbt rights how come she got soundly beaten?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She got thrown out by the voters because she was SNP. Think about that for a moment, Jimbo. That was a safe seat. They’re all coming down.

      Delete
    2. Well according to Ms Cherry, the SNP are going down and she and Mr Salmond and Mr Davis et al, the alleged Yes movement, the supportive media and Westminster have one massive celebration ahead. So the grand plan will have paid off with the consequent court cases naturally going their way. SNP eroded. Sturgeon et al successfully jailed by those who want them clinked. Everybody seems to be happy at the thought of that and loving up Ms Cherry.

      So then, if anybody out there is still seriously seeking independence and not just using it as a guise to wipe out the SNP - who are Scotland's intended dream team? Or does that all disappear with the intended wipe-out of the SNP and everybody gives up the independence guise, throws their cloaks off and relax into their nostalgia going home to their heart of hearts Labour? The rest of Scotland are surely worn out with all this melodrama and will naturally just open arms to Labour? Is that the plan? Or is there anybody out there genuinely aiming for independence any more? So many side-shows it's hard to tell anymore.

      Delete
    3. "if anybody out there is still seriously seeking independence and not just using it as a guise to wipe out the SNP"

      Rather than SNP politicians themselves who have just been using it as a guise to get cushy salaries and big pensions?

      Delete
    4. Exactly, 8:15. Always judge people by their ACTIONS. The SNP politicians bank accounts have had an awfy lot of action thanks to our support, and Mr. Sturgeon most of all!


      @1:55. Funny, can't seem to find her saying that herself:

      https://www.thenational.scot/politics/24477244.joanna-cherry-leaving-frontline-politics-ending-column/

      She's no saint—she wasted a lot of her talent in London trying to soften Brexit when she could have put her effort into ending the union—but she's not a swivel eyed numpty talking pish like yourself.

      Delete
    5. It's also interesting that the SNP changed the rules to prevent Joanna Cherry from standing for Holyrood in 2021 but they're now talking about changing the rules back to allow Stephen Flynn to stand in 2026.

      Delete
    6. The leadership holds the members in contempt, don’t they? It’s high time for Yessers to take back the party.

      https://robinmcalpine.org/a-coup-for-scotland-part-two-soft-and-hard/

      That’s as detailed a game plan as I have ever seen.

      Delete
    7. Robin McAlpine is not a friend of the SNP.

      Delete
    8. Complacency and a Labour Scotgov is?

      Delete
    9. ​"Robin McAlpine is not a friend of the SNP"

      He's a friend to the independence movement.

      Delete
    10. When did Robin McAlpine ever stand for election ?

      Delete
  32. Making up stories about rule changes. Same old diversion from the albanists/ Labourites

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a degree of paranoia from Alba.

      Delete
    2. How is it made up?

      In 2020 the SNP rules were changed, this change required that sitting MPs must resign from their Westminster positions if they wish to run for a seat in Holyrood. The NEC at the time stated that it was intended to "guarantee constituents a full-time commitment from day one, and minimize the disruption to voters".

      Now in 2024 First Minister John Swinney has hinted the Party could axe that rule, returning to how things were pre-2020.

      Delete
    3. The bit that is made up is about the Flynn v Cherry aspect.

      Delete
    4. Abandoning the by-election rule—and sparing themselves contact with the voters—certainly smells of paranoia in the SNP. Wisely so!

      Delete
    5. Is it just coincidence that the rule was introduced shortly after Joanna Cherry expressed her interest to stand for Holyrood?

      Why introduce it then and why consider removing it now?

      Delete
    6. I think it is a coincidence. The rule by the way has not been removed as of yet so your comments are premature.

      Delete
    7. The fact they albanists admit the changes were made in 2020 would suggest they are unaware we are now in 2024. Still lets concoct a story to divert away from ALBA's internal strife. Funny how things sometimes turn out differently from their great plans pre GE. I wonder if they are going to make rule changes to allow Cherry to lead the party..... see how easy it is.

      Delete
    8. Anon's post @ 12:58 doesn't really make sense.

      It doesn't refute anything being said or answer the question as to why the rule change happened in 2020 or why they're considering removing it now?

      Delete
    9. It doesn't make sense because it is literally nonsense

      Delete
    10. Anon @ 12:58 PM, are you okay?

      Delete
    11. No, he’s not. Dr. Jim is out of pills again.

      Delete
  33. If thought was involved, you would think the exact opposite, and 50% of the electorate do. Fixed that for you. Silly billy.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The public isn’t listening about independence any more. A decade of inaction from the SNP has convinced them – correctly – that it’s going nowhere any time soon. That won’t change until the SNP is destroyed, so that’s the current priority task.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @12:45,
    “and 50% of the electorate do”
    LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This isn't really applicable here, but in case it gets deleted elsewhere.

    You can see why Joanna Cherry said in her article:

    "Lesley Riddoch always advises that columnists should never look at the comments on their columns. Occasionally, when I ignore her advice, I am surprised at the bile some readers think it is appropriate to post."

    and

    "Back in 2014 had I foreseen the level of abuse and harassment I would have to endure as an SNP MP, simply for daring to question the direction the party was taking, I would never have left my legal career to enter elected politics."

    and for information, Cherry had regular surgeries - maybe 3 or 4 a month - I checked this before, and luckily there's a few snapshots including this one:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20230602024814/https://joannacherry.scot/surgeries

    Perhaps the reason why YES doesn't go above 50% is the sheer utter nastiness of some in the Indy movement, and the totally unfounded horrible accusations.

    For shame on all of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Back in 2014 had I foreseen the level of abuse and harassment I would have to endure as an SNP MP, simply for daring to question the direction the party was taking, I would never have left my legal career to enter elected politics"

      This is just another dig at Nicola Sturgeon. Sad.

      Delete
    2. Why is Cherry raising these so-called "concerns" only now? To harm Nicola Sturgeon perhaps?

      Delete
    3. Cherry has been raising concerns for years, it's the reason why she was sacked from the front bench in 2021?

      Delete
    4. There's been constant calls over the past few years for Cherry to be expelled from the Party due to her being critical of the direction the SNP was going on. Suggesting that she's only just now raising concerns is laughable.

      Delete
    5. Independence wont go anywhere until the SNP is destroyed. We need to destroy SNP and replace it with urgency.

      Delete
    6. Poster at 3.48 will get their MBE yet !

      Delete
    7. The trouble with that idea, however, is both the ISP and Alba have shown us how impossible it is to just replace them. Don’t forget about Eva Comrie and all the other independents for independence. They all tried and they all failed an exactly the same way: pitifully few people voted for them! Right across the board. No one out there is buying what they say. They aren’t even being heard.

      Like it or not: the SNP is the vehicle. I am not voting for them until they get their act together. But the overwhelming majority of independence-minded Scots just __won’t vote__ for an alternative when it’s right there on the ballot.

      Delete
    8. Yesindyref2. You are right. The level of toxicity on here from the anti SNP brigade is both appalling and off putting. Why would anyone be attracted to Indy based on the lies and bile regularly posted here? Why would someone who is not a member of any political party and never has been, and who has never raised a finger to further the Indy cause, spend so much time on a pro Indy web site rubbishing the Indy cause?

      Delete
  37. Mhairi Black has a new Edinburgh fringe show tickets still available here: https://tickets.edfringe.com/whats-on/mhairi-black-politics-isn-t-for-me

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had previously thought Mhairi Black would go into Holyrood but the show title "Politics isn't for me" suggests that there is no way back now. SNP is losing talent. First Cherry now Black.

      Delete
    2. Black announced that she would quit about a year ago I think. The one thing she won’t quit is the limelight.

      Delete
    3. She was aye a lose cannon .

      Delete
    4. Black deserves a lot of credit. She entered the House very young. She made great personal sacrifice to do so. She experienced a lot of prejudice because of her gender. She was a breath of fresh air.

      Hopefully she will touch on these themes in her fringe show.

      Delete
    5. Well, good on her monetising her public image outside of politics for a change. At least she’s not blocking the way like her fellow attention-seekers who get elected for a cause but choose to do nothing about it once they’ve got their fame.

      Delete
    6. somewhere, there is a chip shop missing its wrapper-up-errer

      Delete
    7. the show is called "we are the people our parents warned us about"

      Delete
    8. more like a tea urn is missing its operator

      Delete
    9. I think she’d make a decent lollipop lady, with a spot of training.

      Delete
  38. Loyal Orange Lodge? They’re not quite that prevalent any more. It’s not still the 1950s, Thank God.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anon at. 1.36. You seem to struggle with clearly established polling results. Why would that be?

    ReplyDelete
  40. £80 grand a year is a considerable sacrifice after finishing with Uni.

    ReplyDelete
  41. A quick aside. No matter which side of the fence you sit on James is facilitating this blog.

    The debate is heated but James is doing this for no apparent financial gain and that deserves respect.

    Compare with pay pal Paul who bends with the wind with his wee dug money raising scam.


    If at the end of the day Indy prevails then honest folk like James will be essential to a new democracy. I say this as a committed yoon! . But if you nats win the day I’ll respect that. Until then the day of reckoning gloves are off!



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Respect to James for hosting all comers. It would be a lot less lively around here if we were nodding dogs lined up on the back window of Paul's car; seeing bulldogs all around us but convinced we are as indy as they come.

      Delete
    2. Some nasty individuals on this site. Still they are in the minority although prolific in their abusive texts.

      Delete
    3. Anon at 9.26. Agreed. To some extent it ruins it. It is a real barrier to constructive debate from both sides. If we cannot engage we cannot persuade. Such a pity. Too many sites are echo chambers. This sit could be so much more but for the toxic minority.

      Delete
    4. James is ALBA.

      Delete
  42. if only juries had been done away with and sandy brindley acting as judge, salmond would be in jail by now and sturgeon would have gotten us independence; it was like she was golfing, at the top of her backswing and salmond's insistence on defending himself, was a loud noise, putting her off. So indy becomes a shank, rather than the guaranteed hole in one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harsh but true.

      Delete
    2. Oh aye, she just sat on her hands all the way through Brexit because she was peeved.

      Delete
  43. Can we move forward to get a pro independence majority in Scotland in the next election. Make it a de facto independence elector.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be a de facto, the SNP must run it as one. Perhaps they’ll cotton on to the fact that it’s the only thing that will save now, now we’ve seen what happens when they don’t.

      Delete
    2. Yes de facto as Nichola wanted.

      Delete
  44. Ot, just me but totally diss interested of the “Brits” - a music award apparently getting all het up to represent their King. Sadly too many Scots there. Officially they could ask to run, swim, cycle etc under the auspices of the United Nations if they want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed , I don't have any engagement with sport , music or aught else if it has UK or British or GB attached. Just ignore. Boycott the BBC too.

      Delete
  45. The general election when seen in terms of vote share was not so bad.
    SNP just 5 points behind Labour.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you're name was Rupert Stinchingham you'd probably say the same. Frankly it sickens me.

      Delete
    2. It was their 5th best Westminster result ever in terms of seats which is not so bad.

      Delete
    3. All things considered, the SNP did really well in the GE.

      Delete
    4. "This is fine."

      Delete