A few people welcomed the depute leader Keith Brown's admission that Westminster will never grant another Section 30 order, as if it was a long-overdue sign of some realism creeping in. But it's actually the total opposite, because he went on to clarify that independence can never be won without a referendum. By "not playing by Westminster's rules", what Brown really appears to mean is that we have to totally surrender to Westminster's rigged rules, ie. we have to accept that something as prosaic as mere electoral mandates for a referendum or for independence are no longer sufficient and that we'll need ridiculously overwhelming levels of public support that simply aren't attainable in the real world.
In truth, if we really did stop playing by Westminster's rules, it would mean saying "sorry, but we don't need an unattainable supermajority, actually, in a democracy we just need a simple majority, and we're going to seek an outright mandate for independence via a scheduled election, which is something that you have no power to stop us doing". That is so obviously the best and only way forward that it's surely inevitable that the SNP will have to embrace it sooner or later, but at the moment it looks very much like "later". It's as if we're all left twiddling our thumbs until it happens. Goodness only knows how many more years and leadership changes it will take for the penny to finally drop.
In the meantime, we do have a party in Alba that "gets it" and that will be offering voters a chance to vote for independence outright on the Holyrood list. But the problem is that there seems to be quite a low ceiling on potential support for any radical independence party, and Alba will need to max that support out if they are to win any list seats at all and thus be in a position to do anything to move us forward. In order to get that maximum support they'll need to be as broad a church as possible, they'll need to be welcoming, tolerant and inclusive. They'll need to be a 'shining village on a hill' that everyone looks up to longingly and can't wait to visit.
I don't think it should be controversial to point out that Alba are actually doing the opposite of that. They're becoming an ever more narrow sect that lives inside a forbidding fortress. Freedom of speech and dissenting views are being cracked down on, both by direct means and by fostering a climate of fear in which people feel they have to self-censor. No attempts are being made to build bridges with the significant number of people who have already felt they had no choice but to leave the party, including Eva Comrie, who was probably the most popular figure in Alba other than Alex Salmond himself. Other people who wanted to stay in Alba have been expelled, and that will presumably continue to happen. (Indeed if Yvonne Ridley's boast has any truth to it, I could be next in line, although I'm no closer to finding out, because - as I predicted last week - Alba are deliberately "throwing a deefie" and totally ignoring my emails, even though I copied them to the General Secretary, the Deputy General Secretary, the party chair and the party leader.)
On their current trajectory, Alba are likely to get between 1% and 3% of the list vote and to win no seats at all, which will simply be of no use to anyone.
If there was fundamental change in either the SNP or Alba, we might start to get somewhere, but how is that going to happen? I've made no secret of the fact that I would welcome Kate Forbes as SNP leader, not least because I think she's the most electable person they've got, but I can't see any evidence at all that she would abandon the do nothing approach on independence.
And are there any signs of life outside the SNP and Alba? Not that I can see. The ISP have apparently gone down a very peculiar path by adopting abstentionism for Holyrood as well for Westminster, which rules them out of serious consideration as a vehicle for independence. I was tickled to discover that Peter A Bell has set up his own political party, although perhaps I shouldn't be too dismissive, because if Alba do expel me, I could be needing a bolthole before too long. (I know, I know, he'd never let me in!) I suppose as a last resort some people might consider setting up yet another new party, but by God, that would be a long and hard road and might be wholly counter-productive. It would be much better to get the existing parties into some kind of shape, but how to even begin achieving that is a massive conundrum.
I'm curious at what point did the realisation finally dawn upon Keith Brown that Westminster will never grant another Section 30 Order approved referendum? He and others in the SNP have consistently and frequently said for years that position would be unsustainable and that Westminster would "succumb to the democratic pressure".
ReplyDeleteWere they either incredibly naive or feeding us a lie?
Anon at 4.38pm - feeding us a lie.
DeleteDelmax says we don't really appreciate certain realities. I do. No I don't because I AM Delmax. Golly, I wonder what I'm doing. Tee-hee!
DeleteThe criticisms of the SNP in this post need to be considered in the context of the strategic position that John Swinney laid out in his Glasgow University speech when he accepted the leadership of the party.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the strategic position at this point beyond just "increase support" and then "things will become clear"? Seems to be incredibly vague and require a considerable amount of blind faith.
DeleteAnon@4:59,
DeleteClearly increasing support for independence has to be the priority and first step.
Surely that’s obvious.
And if Ipsos polls are right and there's already a Yes majority? Would you still say it's obvious that a majority isn't enough? If so, are you even a democrat?
DeleteIf "increasing support" is the first step, what's step 2?
DeleteAlso James rightly points out there are polls putting Yes ahead. When do we move onto the next step? Just saying "we need to increase support" is an ambition not a strategy.
Anon at 5.03 pm - so obvious it wisnae even in the SNP 11 point plan for independence. Not even point 11. So anon you are wrong. Getting a referendum underway will increase support but the SNP under Swinney have now come clean. Independence is for another day under Swinney. Some far of day in a distant future when we are all dead. Swinney is a gradualist = never = Unionist.
DeleteHave a look at the SNP 11 point plan it will remind you of the lies and deceit spun by Sturgeon's gang. Here is point 8 for you to marvel at:-
" 8. If the SNP takes office the Scottish government will again request a section 30 order from the UK government believing and publicly contending that in such circumstances there could be no moral or democratic justification fir denying that request. If the UK government were to adopt such a position its position would be unsustainable both at home and abroad."
Anyone think the UK gov's position is unsustainable - Keith Brown disnae think so NOW. The SNP have been lying to independence supporters for many years now since Sturgeon took over. You were warned it was mince. The only thing unsustainable was the SNP's position.
Zzzzzzz
DeleteBrown told the audience: “People have got to accept they’re [Westminster] not going to give us one. Stop playing by their rules and thinking we’ve got to go pleading to them. I think we have to take it into our own hands.”
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean give up!
And I agree with him - it will need a referendum. Even if UDI has to happen first, and a referendum to confirm it's the Will of the People.
Oh yes, I'm sure Keith Brown and John Swinney are totally open to the UDI route.
DeleteAh well, the SNP leadership can't openly use the word "UDI", they have to allude to it. Or something like that. Perhaps they secretly plan to have 2026 as a de facto referendum, do a UDI and announce a confirmatory Referendum and surprise us all!
DeleteFor some odd reason I'm reminded of this all the same:
"I am a passenger and I ride and I ride
I ride through the city's backsides
I see the stars come out of the sky
Yeah, the bright and hollow sky
You know it looks so good tonight"
Mmmm
yeh Scottish cringe WT? You support liz truss and co?
DeleteEh are you alright? It was Sturgeon that agreed that this is not the time. If you recall. Following your logic you're the Truss fan
DeleteYesindyref2 - I told you a long time ago the SNP's secret plan was not to have Indyref2.
DeleteSo it wasn’t a secret plan cos you knew about it. Silly boy.
DeleteShhhh, you know what. It's a secret!
DeleteAnon at 5.04pm - it was a secret because numpties like you didnae know about it.
DeleteI'm for getting on with "step one".
ReplyDelete*Chaps door*
Delete"Hello there, you should support independence"
How will it happen?
"STOP FOCUSING ON PROCESS YOU YOON"
Clearly you haven't been doing that much. Not cold calling - street events where the interested come to us to get their thoughts clearer. Tunnel vision on election style cavassing is part of our problem.
DeleteWe're in a bind for a while.
ReplyDeleteIt's simply the case a good 10-20% of potential SNP supporters need them out of power for a while before they'll vote for them again. A bit like Labour. As much to do with human traits than any particular party struggles.
And then there is the non SNP indy support, the Limmy/Cat Boyd/Frankie Boyle/Wings types who are Yes but won't vote SNP.. so maybe another 5-10% of any future Yes vote is always out of reach until a campaign is started.
The thing is though the SNP in theory could change the narrative. If for example they had backed or taken over Ash Regan's Bill that would have completely changed the narrative surrounding the 2026 Election. They could have made it about independence and as an added bonus given them a higher likelihood of retaining power.
DeleteLet's be honest at this point the number of people who will vote SNP because they genuinely believe they've been running an effective component Government probably isn't that many, to counter that the only viable option is to focus on their USP: Independence. Not doing that will be a dire mistake.
Another!! the best route for independence is to let the brit parties in. Of course that would help the students and those needing help with prescriptions, brexit ... That would go well. Certainly help labour.
DeleteThe SNP have never been able to answer in a positive way questions on the really important issues regarding independence. They’ve had years to do so, but still we wait. All these glossy independence papers, and not a single one addressing the likes of currency, pensions, border with England, loss of the millions received every year from Westminster through the Barnett Formula, etc, etc. I wonder why these issues haven’t been addressed!!
ReplyDeleteUntil these issues are addressed in a positive way there’ll never be a majority in favour of independence. It will only be the ones who want independence at all costs (mainly because of their dislike for the English) and to hell with the economic consequences, and the easily brainwashed of course.
howsabout on day one, getting the full tax take in the scottish treasury? empire is always a looting operation - do you think the anglo is engaged in philanthropy?
DeleteKC at 5.53pm - why does Norway have a trillion pound wealth fund built up and is one of the wealthiest and happiest nations on earth. What's the current Britnat thinking on that fact?
DeleteThey are Scandinavian non industrial and lack the same post industrial working class.
DeleteNorway does not have a post industrial working class.
DeleteKind of a chicken and the egg situation though.
DeleteThe best time to have an outlined detailed plan is in the lead-up and during a campaign. The time when you're trying to change minds and they're open to listen.
Any other time there will be immense criticisms on time and resources being spent on something that isn't an active issue. "Why are you wasting time on a plan for independence that's not going to happen rather than sorting out the NHS!?" etc.
It's why process matters, the electorate will only care when it's an active issue and people will only campaign when there's something to unite behind/work towards (such as a vote date).
KC I've read plenty of your stuff and it is usually the same guff like "nonsense/pathetic/ looking for Nessie etc etc.
DeleteWhat's your truth that Norway found a golden goose that lays golden eggs. My truth is that Norway used their income from oil and gas wisely and the UK crooks helped themselves to some of thevrevenues from Scotland's oil and gas and wasted the rest. Scotland could have been wealthier than Norway if it wisnae a colony being exploited by the biggest colonial robbers in modern history - Westminster.
Agree and take back the territorial waters that labour gave away in secrecy. That's always been a curious one for me. If labour thought we were in a United Kingdom why would they have to sign over territory to another country if we were united in the first instance Traitorous behaviour. Was it the price for devolution? Lord !!McConnell and ermine co are the pits
ReplyDeleteJames, I fear you’ve found the limits of what can be achieved within Alba, and that Alba has found the limits of its vote.
ReplyDeleteI don’t say this as any kind of SNP loyalist, by the way. I abstained in July, scunnered with them both.
DeleteWe Yessers are very neatly snookered right now. Until the SNP finds its passion for independence again, there is no effective alternative. Depressing but evidently true.
The problem for Alba is Alex Salmond. The voters rightly or wrongly have never got over the court cases and the behaviour he admitted.
ReplyDeleteAlba needs to rebrand. A very public falling out with Salmond and new leadership. Probably Ash Regan.
Then maybe other politicians would join because I imagine Joanna Cherry, Angus McNeil et al don’t fancy joining the Alex and Tas show.
Also the SNP won’t work with Salmond because they know what he is like. They know he’s been venting his rage on them and fear his revenge.They do not trust him,
They might well work with Ash Regan
So ditch Salmond that’s the best advice to
Alba
The problem with Alex Salmond isn't so much his popularity with the wider public (or lack thereof). Farage is able to very nimbly cater to a section of the public and get results, despite his dire personal ratings.
DeleteThe problem with Salmond is that for the past three years, he has treated Alba as a personal exercise in self-flattery, rather than an insurgent political party.
The hard work of activists like Denise Findlay has been utterly disregarded. Golden opportunities have been cast aside. Because he has never had to lead a tiny, insurgent party from inception to swift electoral success, he has no conception of the time and dedication that has to go into it.
I very much get the impression that he fancied himself in the Farage or the Galloway mould in taking over Alba. He's covetous of the way in which those politicians are able, so it seems, to have electoral successes fall into their lap.
Of course, that's not the case at all. Years of hard-work, of tenacity, of putting themselves out their to face electoral defeat after electoral defeat is what has built the Farage and Galloway brands.
Farage would never have baulked at the Rutherglen by-election. Salmond did, because he and his sycophantic courtiers in the leadership could not bear the idea that he might only place a decent second, or even third.
Farage stood for parliament EIGHT TIMES before he was successful. Salmond it seems would rather bask in a pool of flattery from the faithful courtiers than engage with the hard and sometimes dispiriting work of getting a minor party off the ground.
I've said it before. Alba desperately needs Joanna Cherry as leader. She's the only person who has the presence and the tenacity to put in the hard work that needs done.
Though Salmond does have that experience?
DeleteBefore he became leader of the SNP the Party had only experienced very limited success. Unlike his successors he wasn't gifted an election winning machine, he put in a lot of work to modernise the SNP’s organisation, improving its campaigning strategies and professionalising its approach to elections.
He was also an effective communicator, often able to outmanoeuvre opponents in debates and the media. His ability to present the SNP as a credible alternative to Labour contributed significantly to the party’s resurgence.
One version of events is that Alba only sat out Rutherglen because of McEleny's ill-fated attempts to find "Andy Swan".
DeleteAlba were clear on why they didn't stand in Rutherglen. It was to give SNP a last chance to show whether they could win without Alba standing. The SNP showed they couldn't which le led to Alba intervention at the GE. Alec was very clear about this approach at the time.
DeleteYes, that was the official line. We're more interested in the real reason.
DeleteAlba didn’t stand in Rutherglen because Alex and Tasmina spent their time during July and August on their Ayes Have It Show.
DeleteThen it was too late the Rutherglen campaign had to start end of July when they had the result of the recall petition.
But Alex and Tasmina had their show so they choose to do that
Anon 7:55 - Salmond does not have that experience. I said he had no experience carrying a party from 'inception' to swift electoral success.
DeleteUnless the SNP did not exist before Salmond's successful leadership election in 1990, he does not have that experience.
The SNP had representation when he became their leader. Alba did not. It's a totally different kettle of fish.
The fact that he's too lazy to even recognise that is part of the problem.
That is a folk tale.
ReplyDeleteThe SNP had 11 MPs 1974-79 then they made the mistake of voting ‘No Confidence’ in the Labour Government. This set the SNP back for a decade.
It was hard work through the 80s and 90s of local SNP branches winning council elections and eventually control of councils that set the SNP up for success in the Scottish Parliament
The SNP was a divided mess in the 1990s, with factions disagreeing over the best path to independence. One group wanted immediate action, while the other viewed devolution as a stepping stone toward the ultimate goal. This divide defined Salmond’s first stint as leader and continued during John Swinney’s first stint as well, preventing the party from presenting a united front.
DeleteIt wasn’t until Salmond’s return in 2004 that the party found cohesion. He reformed the SNP by professionalising its campaign strategies, modernising its media approach, and broadening its focus beyond independence to appeal to more voters. This pragmatic shift helped the SNP win power in 2007, and by proving they could govern effectively, the SNP strengthened the case for independence.
So why can’t Salmond repeat the success with Alba. Are you sure it was Salmond that made all these imprints and not someone that worked for him as he doesn’t seem to be much good at tactics or strategy any more
DeleteBack in the 1990s, Salmond didn't have the Alphabetties haunting him. I’m afraid that makes all the difference.
DeleteAnon at 10.54am - correct - it does make all the difference. Back in the past the British state and their compliant media tried to launch the smear that Salmond was gay. It didnae stick. It needed Sturgeon, her Chief of Staff, Lloyd and her pal in the Daily Record to get another smear off the ground.
DeleteGaslighting SNP Style
ReplyDeleteJohn REDACTOR MAN Swinney says this on the 10 year anniversary of indyref1 :- " I think we are closer to achieving that (independence) than we were in 2014."
So the SNP after voting against a motion on actually doing something to achieve independence they vote for a motion to say they believe in independence. Action not words is required. You may say you believe in independence I say I don't believe you.
Ifs— boy you fare generate your own gas to power Baurheid
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Deletewe should have a series of annual referendums, the question being :
ReplyDeleteshould Scotland remain in the union?
- with these important questions we should insist on a super majority of 66% of the people registered to vote.
If the vote fails, we revert to original status. Think of it as like an annual marriage.
Was the EU referendum an important question?
DeleteThe problem for the SNP is that indy supporters need to rally behind a plan. The SNP plan post indyref1 was to argue for independence, ask for Section 30s in the face of Brexit and other Westminster f**k ups. When those Section 30 requests were ignored, Sturgeon went to the Supreme Court to try and get approval.
ReplyDeleteNone of this was a bad plan. Even losing the court case effectively dawned the realisation of the colonial status of Scotland. That should have proved another jump in independence. It probably did that, but at that stage, people began questioning the SNP plan for independence and other parties became obvious.
The Supreme Court has meant that elections are the sole thing that independence campaigners can show that independence is a vital, real issue.
We are obviously off to a bad start in elections when the SNP lost a bucketload of seats at Westminster. But that was an outlier of an election when people were so pissed off with the Tories that they fell back on voting Labour even when common sense told them that in terms of Scotland Labour would do nothing.
Unionist parties and the media don't fear any other party. Alba, the ISP or the Greens - only the SNP gets attacked. We need a strong SNP to help secure independence. Any other party is hoovering around for Holyrood List votes.
The SNP should be in a position to punish Labour at Holyrood. Quite how the Labour Party has went from taking over the worst political party at Westminster to plummeting in popularity weeks in the job and probably killing a few thousand pensioners come winter in the process is quite a gift.
I think the SNP for Holyrood need to be a lot softer with SNP 1 and 2. That may work well for them in say Aberdeenshire or the Borders but the gains are else every where else. That could attract disaffected indy supporters to them for the constituency vote.
I see a pro-indy majority once again after the Holyrood election. I expect the SNP will ask Westminster for a Section 30 order. And I expect that to be refused.
What is the back up plan? Here is where the SNP members need to be strong. They need to back an abstentionist plan at the next Westminster election at conference.
From then on at Holyrood they say to the Scottish people: vote for us and we will not go to Westminster. A vote for us means that we do not consent to Westminster rule. The locus of our politics is Edinburgh.
If they now win a majority of seats in Scotland and DO NOT GO to Westminster and leave it bare of Scots except a handful of Unionist lapdogs it will become exceeding obvious to Westminster that they do not have consent.
At that stage Westminster will need to consent to a Section 30. International pressure on them will be enormous. Keith Brown is essentially realising that the SNP need to play hardball, but the key thing will be will the members push through abstention for Westminster. If they don't then it buys the Union time. Perhaps a United Ireland will have to come first. Politics have a habit of getting in the way of plans.
Anon at 1.03am - says:- " Sturgeon went to the Supreme Court to try and get approval." Which point in the SNP 11 point plan does this feature. Presumably Sturgeon signed the plan off. It disnae feature at all.
DeleteShe went to the Supreme court with her Unionist Lord Advocate to get them to declare it illegal. She had previously declared in her surrender speech in Jan 2020 she would not hold an illegal wildcat referendum.
Point 10 in her plan says:- " .....seek to block the will of the Scottish people in the courts. Such a legal challenge would be vigorously opposed by an SNP Scottish Government. "
She delivered a veto to Westminster on a plate by not following her own published plan. Anon says :- none of this was a bad plan. " it wisnae in the plan in the first place. Anon is confusing a plan for independence with what Sturgeon was doing - a plan to prevent independence.
Anon - The latter part of your post is all wishful thinking the current SNP leadership will do none of that.
I get sick of the constant misrepresentation to make a point, hoping that nobody notices. Well, I notice. Here's one from elsewhere:
ReplyDelete"... the SNP also voted against the only alternative"
This was Regan's motion in Holyrood, calling for the list vote to be a de facto referendum.
But it leaves the constituency vote that could be used, and personally I think that's much better. So no, the SNP did not vote against the only alternative.
I Honestly can’t see a defacto referendum working in 2026. Regan is making a proposal to try to make Alba relevant. Regan amendment is self interest.
DeleteThe best plan is for the SNP to hammer Labour and say to Scot’s this is as good as it gets in the UK. We can do better being independent.
Do not bring forward any stupid policies and hope to still be in government post 2026
Swinney steps down
Flynn is elected and a plan for Indy proposed
There will be a period of the SNP retrenching and rebuilding
And the Yes movement should change tactics quit the demonstrations and marches and other events and instead engage with the general public and have the answer to the questions of currency etc
Flynn is a devolutionist. He finds it very difficult to use the word independence. He was the first to fly the talking shop, getting everyone round the table both unionists and Yessers (SNO approved ones). Now we have Brown with his constitutional convention - just the same thing. The SNP have no idea how to get independence for Scotland so they just keep coming up with another load of guff for us all to chew up. Seen it, done it, never again.
DeleteSNP not SNO although better mood music from the latter.
DeleteWhy would the Constituency ballot be better?
DeleteBy using the List vote, parties advocating for indy can potentially secure a more accurate reflection of public support across the entire electorate, rather than being skewed by the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system used in constituency elections, The Constituency vote can favour parties with strong local bases, often concentrated in particular regions. In contrast, the List vote can help balance geographical disparities, giving smaller or regionally dispersed pro-independence parties a chance to be better represented, making the outcome more broadly representative across Scotland. The Constituency vote also is more prone to tactical voting, where voters may choose a party they don’t fully support in order to block a less favoured candidate. This could distort the true level of support for independence and n a de facto referendum, using the List vote allows for the possibility of collaboration between pro-independence parties without them competing directly in constituencies.
Would also allow simple messaging for the election:
DeleteFirst Vote: To elect your MSP.
Second Vote: To vote for independence.
The other way around would cause more confusion.
Yesindyref2 - as usual you don't tell the whole story. Did the SNP put forward a motion for your " alternative" - no they did not. You are just playing with words. It's about the fact that they voted against ANY ACTION to achieve independence.
DeleteThey have been stringing along independence supporters for many years now.
The SNP's Public Enemy Number One is Alex Salmond, obviously. They'll reject everything Ash proposes like it comes from hell itself, whatever the consequences. Voting with the Tories for the perpetual trap of Union is nothing compared to how much they despise Alba.
DeleteWhy? Factionalism, hatred of the turncoats, etc. But beneath that is the ultimate fear they have of losing their stranglehold monopoly of Scotland's desire for independence.
Beware. Any rival to the SNP will be treated the same way. It's what you do when someone else threatens your turf. Your political opponents have their own supporters, but your life-minded rivals seek to take your own.
Edit: like-minded.
DeleteMy point is that the SNP knows no Unionist party can destroy it. Only new Nationalist party on the rise.
Which is quite ironic as when Salmond was leader of the SNP the Party was praised as being able to reach out and cooperate with other Parties. The 2007-2011 administration is widely complemented by those on all side of the political divide as being the best and most effective administration in the history of the Scottish Parliament (the public obviously agreed as well seeing how they rewarded the SNP in 2011).
DeleteNow we have The SNP today who can't even acknowledge those on the same side of the constitutional debate.
IFS - read what I said. "the SNP did not vote against the only alternative". They voted against a list vote being used, NOT a constituency vote, therefore what I said is completely true.
DeleteAnon at 1.21am. For some reason some people think Flynn would be a better leader. Like WT I disagree - Flynn is an empty vessel without any ding dong.
Anon at 6.55 am. It's a debate worth having. But Alba are pushing for the list and any indy supporting party. I think it wouldn't be accepted or acceptable, as an indication of the will of the People. Perhaps though, it should be both constituency and list. It would be hard to deny over 50% SNP on both votes, though if that was split between Indy parties again it could be challenged. If all other parties stood down, that might make it easier. Sadly that ain't gonna happen!
Yesindyref2 - read what I posted. I never said anything you said was not true. I said it was not the full story. I see no evidence that the SNP will declare a de facto referendum at ANY election never mind Holyrood 2026. I remind you that I said in 2020 after all the sec 30 requests being refused that a real party of independence would have declared Holyrood 2021 as a de facto referendum. I also remind you that you called me " wormtongue ". The truth is the wormtongues are the SNP leadership and you got it all wrong by supporting Sturgeon's gang.
DeleteThough the electorate have trouble enough as it is trying to understand why they've got two votes in Scottish Parliament elections and don't have the patience to listen to an explanation on the d'hondt system.
DeleteMaking it a de-facto referendum on both votes will cause the obvious question of: "Why do I need to vote for it twice?" and there's also the potential of obtaining over 50% on one ballot but not the other and unionists jumping on that by saying it needed to happen on both.
Anon 1.34pm - there are always excuses for not doing something if you don't really want to do it.
Delete"I see no evidence that the SNP will declare a de facto referendum at ANY election never mind Holyrood 2026."
DeleteNor me - so far.
SNP veteran backs Irish-style coalition deal with Labour.
ReplyDeleteStewart McDonald, the former Glasgow South MP, argued that Scotland’s two centre-left parties could form an alliance if there was a “messy” result in 2026. Such a partnership would be a “breath of fresh air,” he said. Writing in The Spectator, he cited the example of the current governing partnership in Ireland. “Over the 25 years of devolution, we’ve seen many different manifestations of government: minority administrations, a majority administration, and formal coalitions,” he wrote. “Yet we’ve never seen the most obvious. A coalition between the SNP and Labour, Scotland’s two dominant centre-left parties—similar to the Irish model that saw...
Labour won't touch SNP.
DeleteWhat would Labour do though if Labour + Lib Dems + Greens isn't enough to form a majority?
DeleteTories would quietly back Anas just as they did Salmond in 2007. This time round they'd even have an excuse beyond mere troublemaking: they'd be backing the precioussss Union.
DeleteMcDonald is a classic example of a Britnat who has infiltrated the SNP.
DeleteAnon 7.39 for what purpose? What does that do for independence? Sounds awfully like a unionist coalition to me. They will never lead us to independence because 1 they don't know how to or 2 they don't want to. Doesn't really matter which - result is they'll never get us independence. The sooner people realise this the better.
DeleteThe stupidity of that suggestion is that it disincentives the voter to vote SNP - why vote for the monkey when you can go direct to the grinder. This is the quality of SNP politicians.
Just noticed you said 'writing in the Spectator'. That kind of speaks for itself, doesn't it?
DeleteWT the SNP tried to ban anyone in the SNP reading or contributing to Wings but the Spectator was left alone even though Boris Johnston published an article in the Spectator stating Scots were vermin, should be rounded up in to camps and exterminated.
DeleteMcDonald actually said a coalition with the Labour Party would be a breath of fresh air. Nope it would stink to high heavens. Is McDonald preparing the ground to be Labour's Lisa Cameron? Oh wait he isnae an MP anymore - you got your jotters McDonald from the voters. Just how many Britnats are there in the SNP?
DeleteThe problems of the SNP are mixed: soft Yessers, devolutionists, careerists, and incompetents, but one thing they all have shared in is lies. For ten years lots of lies. Now the lies have ran out of Steam they are searching for new plausible guff
Delete8.29 . Broken record . Try telling the Irish they shouldna hae left the UK. You're a barheid.
ReplyDeleteAnyone notice Salmond's apparent gentle dissing of this blog at the "The Ayes have it" event?
ReplyDeleteI haven't watched the recording, but if he did diss the blog he may have done me a favour, because it's amazing how many SNP people still dismiss me as some sort of "Salmond drone".
DeleteThere's an anonymous Twitter account called 'Real Indy Loun' who I used to suspect might be Alex Salmond incognito, because there was an unusual amount of intelligence behind it and the subjects it was preoccupied with (for example the belief that "others" can somehow be treated as a proxy for "Alba" in opinion polls) were strangely aligned with Mr Salmond's own preoccupations. I eventually decided it probably wasn't him, simply because it tweeted while Mr Salmond was doing a live TV event. But whoever that account is, it made a withering and very personal comment about me a few months ago, which led me to block it. That was perhaps an early warning of the hostility that was brewing.
Re: "just a Salmond drone". You see the drive-by comments here yourself. This is "an Alba blog" to many people, who've no idea and no interest in your difficulties inside the party. It's straightforward "us and them" mentality, the factionalism which keeps the indy movement so resolutely stuck for as long as we haven't an effective unifying leader.
DeleteHe didn't mention the blog by name, just when interviewing Stuart Campbell he said that in certain quarters it's implied that Stu no longer supports independence and then asked him outright if that was the case.
Delete"This is an Alba blog to many people"
DeleteWhich is funny as he also seems to get a lot of critique that he's not supporting Alba enough on the blog.
Indeed! But these are the folk who dinnae read a word that's on the page and just want to mouth off in a fly-by comment.
DeleteAh right. Well, that might be a reference to me but it might not. I'm far from the only person who has pointed out that Campbell can't tell his readers to vote unionist, or say that he himself would abstain in an independence referendum, and then still claim to be an independence supporter.
DeleteThe Alba leadership's constant praise of Campbell is interesting, because as I pointed out the other day, if Campbell was actually a member of Alba, he would be in serious breach of the code of conduct on an almost daily basis, and they would have to decide whether to expel him or turn a blind eye. Both outcomes would be awkward, because if they did the latter they'd have no credibility in taking disciplinary action against other members for relatively minor alleged transgressions on social media. I can only assume they think he's worth all the downsides because he supposedly brings the support of a lot of people with him, but is that really true? He pushed the George Square event last week quite heavily, but during the two hours I was there, there were never more than a few dozen people. And Alba took only 1.7% of the vote in 2021 with Wings support. Is it really plausible to think they would have done significantly worse without his support? I very much doubt it.
The above is a reply to Anon at 10.50am.
DeleteHe said a "lesser blog" (than WoS) had taken that view.
DeleteAaaaaahhhhhhh. Well, if that's true, I hope it's been taken note of by the "enforcers" who have been circling around recently trying to implant the idea that any sort of public criticism of the leadership constitutes unacceptable "disloyalty". If you really believe in that principle, it's a two-way street, I'd have thought.
DeleteI believe his exact wording was "much smaller internet rivals" he didn't mention any blogs (was the last question in the interview, can skip to the last 2 minutes or so to see it).
DeleteJust ignore it. Lots of us come here first the others second and WOS very occasionally
DeleteI would be curious to hear James's view after watching the full interview between Salmond and Campbell.
DeleteHow you perceive someone online can differ after seeing them in person and hearing them explain face-to-face the reasons why they hold the views they do and act a certain way. The internet and social media in particular can be very toxic, whereas real life is obviously different.
I'm not especially planning to watch it, but I've seen and heard lengthy interviews with him before, and that of course has played a part in informing my opinion of his views.
DeleteYou haven't missed much, James.
DeleteJust because an X account tweets during a politician's speech doesn't mean it isn't them as most high-level politicians have people to tweet for them.
DeleteI know. On balance I think it's probably not him, but I certainly haven't completely rejected the idea.
DeleteJames says in his article:- " Goodness only knows how many more years and leadership changes it will take for the penny to finally drop."
ReplyDeleteSadly I believe the Britnats have got control of the SNP and I don't see them relinquishing that control very easily or soon. All it takes is for the current leadership to ensure that people like them are continually promoted and others who actually express a desire for ACTION on independence to be shunned and then expelled.
I was staggered by how much the membership were under the control of Sturgeon when they voted for Yousaf because that is who Sturgeon wanted. A completely useless character who disnae like white people, creates laws like the Hate Crime and has no plan for independence. The two other options rejected - a competent experienced Forbes and a candidate who would action independence Regan.
Then when Yousaf (the brief ) blows himself up Sturgeon puts her deputy (who for years covered up her misdeeds) in place as FM with no vote by the membership. Remember her husband had to resign for lying about a massive drop in membership numbers. Does anyone really believe Sturgeon didn't know he was lying to the members.
If the SNP lose power in 2026 though there will likely be a combination of an incredibly pissed off membership on the warpath and the careerists in the Party assessing whether or not it's in their best interests to either make the jump to Labour, pursue a career in the private sector or make money from giving speeches/being a political pundit/writing a book.
DeleteAgree but not many attractive ex politicians to make it on speaking circuit. Too many never hit the headlines enough.
Delete1149am IFS Saying the previous FM doesn’t like white people is an outrageous comment. You hit new depths. Lucky you are hiding to avoid being challenged properly by your other defamatory statements too. Gutter comments
DeleteAn anonymous poster hiding claims I am hiding. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
DeleteYou must be that numpty from Australia. Try watching his infamous WHITE speech on YouTube. I'm guessing you can access that in Australia. Or what about his statement he is frightened living in Scotland because he disnae feel safe and he is considering leaving Scotland. I assume probably to Pakistan where there are not so many white people. Disgraceful comments from an ex FM of Scotland.
Years ago you posted that other numpty Scottish Skier should sue me because I said he was a liar. Well since then ya numpty Skier posted he was happy to lie on behalf of the SNP. It's not defamation when it's true. In summary, the heat in Australia must be getting to you.
Never been to Australia but you are still in the gutter.
DeleteAutocorrect is having a feel day, so to speak.
DeleteOk Melbdon.
DeleteI hope any independence supporters who voted Labour and people who recommended people to vote Labour are feeling ashamed about their choice. Starmer is as much a British state controlled Tory as any card carrying Tory member. Not content with helping to kill thousands of children in Palestine he is happy for Scottish pensioners to freeze this winter. The fact that Free Gear Starmer gets free clothes from some rich donor is the least of his actions to disparage. Blood on your hands if you voted Labour and that's why Campbell was wrong to tell people to vote Unionist.
ReplyDeleteTry changing the record IFS!
DeleteTry changing your record KC.
DeleteTwo bald men fighting over comb.
DeleteAnonymous at 2:43 PM
DeleteIs that you Janus?
Kojak vs Yul Brynner.
DeleteIsrael vs. School dinner.
DeleteAll you need to say was Campbell was wrong, and left it at that.
DeleteAnon at 3.51pm - why do you think you have the right to tell me what to say. Did you vote Labour then? I have previously posted Campbell was wrong to say vote Unionist. That's my opinion.
DeleteStarmer now helping Israel kill people in Lebanon as well. I thought the IDF soldiers were out of control when they deliberately used bulldozers to dig up recently buried Palestinians they killed and leave the bodies lying exposed. It was confirmed when IDF soldiers who killed Palestinians in the West Bank then heaved the bodies over the edge of a multi storey building.
DeleteDid Starmer or Lammy call out the use of pager/phones as bombs by the IDF a terrorist atrocity - not a word.
IFS@9:23,
DeleteUndoubtably tragic, however what it’s got to do with this particular blog I’ve no idea. It’s as if you try to use this sort of thing to further the case for independence.
Surely a sign of just how desperate Nats have become.
KC - what's desperate is that human beings in the Labour Party accept these policies. What's desperate is that my new MP McDougall who said we were better together voted to freeze pensioners in Scotland. Desperate human beings with no real human decency.
DeleteIt's a strange time we're living in when all political parties are showing themselves for what they really are. People won't forget Labour 'the party of business' now, and some in 'the party of devolution' want a coalition with them because they share the same values.
ReplyDelete“Saying the quiet part out loud” is clearly in fashion.
Delete“Let’s just say it moved me… TO A BIGGER HOUSE!”
DeleteWhat a nasty wee arsewipe ifs is.
ReplyDeleteI could never stand Ian Funcan Smith. Creepy wee shitbag.
DeleteAnon troll - I’m not wee and I have posted that before. Why do moronic trolls always say wee this and wee that.
DeleteLook, IFS, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you should sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over.
DeletePoor wee Funky. Have a nice wee cup of decaf. That should help you control your pain and anger a wee bit.
Delete🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Just why do anonymous moronic trolls always say wee this or wee that attached to some sort of insult and then try to falsely make out they care about your health. Just so predictable. Imagination and innovation clearly beyond them. Oh and posting the same thing twice marks you out as a numpty.
DeleteNumpty
Deleteifs ...the nasty WEE numpty arsewipe.
DeleteImogen Fortescue-Smythe
DeleteI'd hate to give birth in a Serbian hospital. Or guest house. Yeughhhhh!
DeletePeter A Bell has started his own party ? Talk about a one man band ! It's only a matter of time before he falls out with himself.
ReplyDeleteHe's the neighborhood kook. He's nuts.
DeleteIt always amazes me that some people devote so much time to something that, let’s face it, is little more than a fantasy.
ReplyDeleteAs seen as the Reform 'party' congress taking place just now in Birmingham.
DeleteReform got a lot of votes and was penalized by the FPTP system. In Scotland they plan to focus on the issue of oil where they see other Scottish parties as quite weak.
DeleteSome very high-level Reform activists in Scotland were actually yes voters.
DeleteAnon at 6.22. Care to name them? Difficult task when you just made this up. Silly boy.
DeleteSuch as…?
ReplyDeleteI think the leader of reform in Scotland.
DeleteWho’s that?
DeletePeople should focus on baking. And cooking. But I worry about American actress Helen Hunt. Her lips seem medically thin. Scary. Asaaaaarrrrgggghhhh!
DeleteIt must be tough to not be welcomed by any political party James
ReplyDeleteI guess when they are all wrong and you're the only one that's right makes it doubly worse
What about setting up your own party? you could call it the even worse than Salmond party on the promise of promising something you can never achieve but at least you'll stand for election, or will you
That's a nasty comment, but true
DeleteDid Ponsonby vote yes? He seems to be in Salmond's group now.
ReplyDeleteDidn't he stand for the Liberals back in the 90s?
DeleteFor the SDP.
DeleteHe does his podcast from a bar while drinking beer. Not a great example.
DeleteWhat was the SDP? Was that the Labour snobs that teamed up with the Liberals?
DeleteStewart McDonald is proposing an "Irish style" SNP-Labour coalition. I think this is supposed to refer to FG-FF in Ireland.
ReplyDeleteI don't see this as a great idea. In Ireland it has left voters without a strong alternative to the present government. I would recommend FF going into opposition in November when FG look set to do well. That would imply a FG minority government but by going into opposition then FF set themselves up as the main contender for government next time after that.
Plus Mac Donald might not have noticed Ireland is an independent nation
ReplyDeleteConundrum. Do we want an indy Scotland to be over run by illegal and tax dodging immigrants? Do we want to give same immigrants who may adhere to radical Islam essentially a block vote. We would then have a free Scotland totally different from what we envisaged.
ReplyDeleteNow take lefties like James.
Indy is over. The world has moved on.
That’s not nice talking about the little englander 2nd home owner folk from down south like that. I suspect you are just a sad britnat realising that Brexit was always a fraud.
DeleteI’m actually a born and breed Scot. Typical childish Nat response.. let’s support Palestine .. Hamas. The Nats make a mess of everything they touch.
DeleteAnon at 9.36pm says he is a "breed Scot" - very true - bred to be a faithful lapdog for England.
DeleteBreed Scot ? Would that be a half loaf ? There used to be a lot of this shite in the 1930s when the Scottish 'race' was threatened by Irish emigration. Pish then and now replicated by BNP types going on about Asian immigrants. Fuck off south, Nigel needed ye.
Delete8:52 that you Mconnachie ?
ReplyDeleteIt would still be free. The picture you paint is intolerant and paints a strange perspective of those coming to Scotland. However, even if the population of China moved to Scotland if independent it could still decide it's own future, you might not like it but I don't like what we've got.
ReplyDeleteAbove reply to anon at 8:57
DeleteAny monarchy supporters care to explain why Charlieboy isnae dipping in to his billions and funding the Commonwealth games. Did Swinney speak to him about helping out financially when he was getting wined and dined in Balmoral by charlieboy.
ReplyDeleteDon’t know, wasn’t at the brunch
ReplyDelete