Friday, January 10, 2025

THE ALBA FILES, Part 1: 'A McCarthyite atmosphere', 'trial by vagueness', 'the ugly lust for revenge of an authoritarian leadership' - read the full text of the defence document I submitted prior to my Alba disciplinary hearing in December

Welcome to a new series of articles on Scot Goes Pop entitled 'THE ALBA FILES' (before anyone panics, it's only a name).  Now that I'm irrevocably out of Alba and no longer owe any loyalty to the party, I'm going to try to help Alba members make up their own minds about the state of their own party by putting as much information as realistically possible into the public domain.  Baby steps to begin with - I'm going to start with the full text of my own defence document submitted in advance of my "disciplinary" hearing in early December.  For privacy reasons, I've made one very small alteration to the text - I've switched to using the name "Colin Alexander", because his real name (which I used in the submitted document) is not in the public domain as far as I know.  "Colin Alexander" was a pseudonym he used in the guest post he wrote for the late Iain Lawson's blog.  As it turned out, being involved in guest posts for the Iain Lawson blog was just about the most dangerous activity for Alba members - the suspension/expulsion rate as a result of doing so was exceptionally high.

WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO DISCIPLINARY REFERRAL 

My name is James Kelly and I have been a paid-up member of the Alba Party since it was created in the spring of 2021, almost four years ago now.  My monthly subscription fee has continued to be regularly deducted from my bank account, even though I have been arbitrarily suspended from the party at the whim of the General Secretary for the last two months, and denied absolutely all of the rights of membership that the fee is supposed to be in exchange for.  I cannot even access the party website.  That state of affairs is self-evidently outrageous and indefensible.

In happier days, I was an elected member of this party's National Executive Committee between September 2021 and October 2022, during which time I also served on the Finance & Audit Committee.  I was an elected member of the Appeals Committee between February 2023 and January 2024.  As far as I am aware, I am still to this day a member of the Disciplinary Committee and the Finance & Audit Committee, having been elected to those bodies in January of this year, although obviously that has been interrupted by Mr McEleny's decision to arbitrarily suspend my party membership.  I was also elected in January to the Constitution Review Group (CRG), although several weeks before my party membership was suspended, I was informed out of the blue by Mr McEleny that the NEC had removed me from that elected position - an unconstitutional decision that the NEC quite simply had no power to take.  Additionally, I was elected as the Organiser of North Lanarkshire LACU earlier this year.

Although I have strong suspicions about the real reasons for the remarkably casual decision to suspend me and refer me to the Disciplinary Committee (those suspicions relate to the leadership's determination to snuff out any serious talk of internal democratisation of the party, and also to an attempt by at least two well-connected individuals to abuse the disciplinary machinery as a way of furthering their campaign of bullying against me), I am none the wiser as to the 'official' reasons.  Other members of the Disciplinary Committee must be equally baffled - unless of course they have been supplied with information that has been withheld from me, in which case due process would dictate that they will be compelled to completely set aside that information in considering the complaint.  But assuming that they only possess the same document that I was sent, described variously as the "disciplinary report" or the "disciplinary referral", they like me will have next to no information on Mr McEleny's official reasons for thinking I should actually be facing this hearing.  The document is hopelessly deficient and defective in numerous respects - 

1) It alleges that I have breached the "social media policy" and specifically references a section of that policy about "being abusive", and yet not a single social media post is linked to or referred to.  There is not even the vaguest hint of what the content of the relevant social media posts was, or on what grounds Mr McEleny formed his alleged belief that they were "abusive".  Given that my Twitter profile states that I have posted more than 17,900 tweets since I joined the site in early 2009, Mr McEleny appears to be inviting members of the committee to play guessing games about what on earth he might be referring to, and even more disgracefully he appears to be inviting me to play guessing games in formulating my defence.  He is trying to set me a task he knows to be utterly impossible.  Realistically, this means that he is not being honest about having found abusive social media posts (if he had done, he would undoubtedly have quoted them or linked to them - it would have been the work of seconds), and is hoping committee members may fill in the gaps for him by trawling through my 17,900 tweets and "getting lucky" with one or two.  I am extremely confident that if they attempt to go down that road, they will not "get lucky", because to the very best of my recollection I have *never* been abusive on social media.  However, let me be clear - if by any chance I am ambushed at the hearing with questions about specific tweets that were not brought to my attention at any point before the hearing starts, I will refuse to engage with those questions, and quite rightly so.  Due process requires me to be fully informed of what I am actually accused of in advance so I can put together a proper and considered defence.  The committee will have no business upholding a complaint based on allegations that were not mentioned to me until a last second ambush.

 2) In contrast to the complete absence of information about which social media posts are being referred to, the document does link in an "update" to five specific blogposts.  However, the only clue as to the relevance of mentioning these blogposts is the observation that "Mr Kelly took to...his blog to discuss internal party business".  None of the four sections of the Code of Conduct which have allegedly been breached even refer to (let alone forbid) the discussing of internal party business, so there is no clue whatsoever as to what part of the content of the blogposts Mr McEleny thinks are breaches, or in what way he is alleging they are breaches.  Once again, Mr McEleny is inviting committee members to play guessing games or to fill in the gaps for him, and once again I must point out that due process means that the committee simply cannot proceed in that way.  If I am suddenly ambushed with more specific allegations on the night of the hearing, I will refuse to engage, and the committee will have no right (or not if due process is applied) to uphold a complaint on the basis of a last-second infusion of specificity.

3) The narrative explanation of how the complaint came about begins with some members of the Constitution Review Group supposedly alleging that my April blogpost 'The case against a small political party treating its own members as the enemy' constituted a "breach of trust" and "undermined the work of the CRG".  But the narrative then swiftly moves on to the vaguer allegations about aspects of my conduct that supposedly occurred much later.  It is far from clear whether the present disciplinary referral relates only to the later vague allegations, or whether the "breach of trust" allegation also forms part of the case against me.  It is admittedly hard to see how it can do, because none of the four sections of the Code of Conduct alleged to have been breached mention anything at all about breaches of trust or confidentiality.  Nevertheless, the fact that I have been left unsure as to what is and what is not part of the present case against me is plainly an absurd situation.

4) If I am forced to err on the side of caution by assuming that the "breach of trust" allegation may form part of the current case against me, there is yet again no information provided to enable the committee to proceed with any meaningful deliberations on that issue or to enable me to put forward a meaningful defence.  It's extraordinary that I have to point this out, but Mr McEleny is alleging that I have disclosed confidential information, but hasn't actually bothered to specify what that confidential information is.  He does link to the blogpost in which the breach of confidentiality is alleged to have taken place, but that is of very little help, because the blogpost makes clear at the outset that I am bound by confidentiality rules and will therefore not be discussing the work of the CRG.  Nowhere in the blogpost do I make any statements about what was discussed at meetings of the CRG, or what decisions were reached at those meetings.  So the only possibility left is that Mr McEleny is alleging that I revealed confidential information by some extremely indirect means, but if that's the case the onus is on him to explain in what form I did that, what that information was, and what evidence he has that the information ever existed in the first place and was covered by confidentiality rules.  Does it for example appear in minutes of meetings of the CRG?  If so, why didn't he provide the relevant quotes from those minutes?  Does it feature in secret recordings of meetings that Mr McEleny can supply?  That is the kind of bar he would have to clear if he really wants to advance the "breach of trust" argument, but he has not even come close to clearing it.  It is frankly nothing short of astounding that he hasn't even bothered to mention what secret information the individuals who made the initial complaint felt I had disclosed.  Mr McEleny has literally provided zero supporting evidence to support the allegation of a breach of trust, and in those circumstances I must respectfully point out to committee members that they literally have no choice but to dismiss that allegation.  If they do not, they will have abandoned any semblance of due process and will have brought Alba's disciplinary procedures into disrepute.  And again, if the allegations suddenly and magically become more specific once the hearing is actually underway, that will make no difference, because I will not have had the proper opportunity to submit a considered defence.

5) The four sections of the Code of Conduct allegedly breached refer to "injuring the party" or members of the party.  Mr McEleny has wholly failed to explain in what way he believes I have caused "injury".  They refer to an expectation that Alba members will conduct themselves to "high standards of decency".  Mr McEleny has wholly failed to explain in what way he believes I have fallen short of high standards of decency.  They refer to a requirement that Alba members should use social media "responsibly".  Mr McEleny has wholly failed to explain in what way he believes I have used social media "irresponsibly".

Mr McEleny is essentially inviting the Disciplinary Committee to conduct a "trial by vagueness" and to overlook the almost total lack of detail and supporting evidence, simply because of a nod and a wink from him and the rest of the leadership (perhaps considerably more than a nod and a wink) that they want the complaint upheld and will be displeased with committee members if it is not.  The committee should tell Mr McEleny in no uncertain terms that they refuse to play that game.  Unfortunately, though, as a member of the Disciplinary Committee myself, I know as well as any other committee member that 2024 has seen extraordinarily severe punishments meted out for minor infractions or even in cases where there has been no discernible wrongdoing whatsoever.  In the last few months, there have been at least two outright expulsions from Alba and at least one suspension of six months.  That contrasts with Alex Salmond's twenty years as leader of the SNP in which by all accounts only one expulsion occurred, and that was for the extremely serious reason of the individual in question being found to have committed decades of domestic violence and abuse.  To put it mildly, that is not a favourable comparison for the Alba Party, and is not one that we as members of the Disciplinary Committee can take any pride in.  

A McCarthyite atmosphere has taken grip of the committee under its present composition, and to some extent that has been fostered by the ongoing attitude of Mr McEleny himself.  At the start of this year, he explicitly demanded that the committee expel Colin Alexander from the party because of an utterly harmless Twitter joke at the expense of Mr McEleny (touchy, much?), and because Mr Alexander had written a blogpost raising legitimate concerns about the conduct of Alba's internal elections in autumn 2023.  Extraordinarily, the committee caved in to Mr McEleny's wholly inappropriate demand and expelled Mr Alexander.  Mr McEleny then demanded that punitive action be taken against the brave whistleblower Denise Somerville, who had uncovered potential evidence of irregularities in the same internal elections.  Shamefully, the committee caved in to Mr McEleny's outrageous demand and suspended Ms Somerville for six months, without even backdating that penalty to take into account the period of arbitrary suspension she had already suffered at Mr McEleny's whim.  And then Mr McEleny demanded punitive action against Geoff Bush for giving an entirely inoffensive interview to The National about the need for cooperation and ecumenicism between pro-independence parties.  To my absolute astonishment, the convener of the committee "spontaneously" announced midway during the hearing, after a painfully long pause, that he thought Mr Bush should be expelled from the party.  Members of the committee may recall that my shock at hearing the word "expulsion" was both immediate and audible.  And yet mysteriously the majority of the committee instantly fell into line with the convener's wish, in spite of the fact that none of them seemed to be able to articulate why they were doing so.  A cynic might almost wonder if some sort of informal 'briefing' had occurred before the meeting.

The pattern is clear: the disciplinary procedure is not being used in the proper manner to tackle genuine wrongdoing, but is instead being cynically abused to crack down on legitimate dissent against the leadership and individuals close to the leadership.  This state of affairs need not have been allowed to develop if members of the Disciplinary Committee had actually fulfilled their roles conscientiously, but instead the leadership seem to have some sort of improper hold over some (not all) of them.  This dismal pattern is continuing in my own case, where the leadership's underlying aim seems to be to take extreme revenge against me because I took a prolonged stand in favour of internal democratisation of the party, and publicly called into question whether the repeated boasts that Alba in its current form is a "member-led party" really stack up.  That is, frankly, a point that Alba members have every right to ponder and debate.  I suspect there's also a strong element of Ms Shannon Donoghue and her partner Mr Chris Cullen seeking revenge against me for more personal reasons, because I stood up to their repeated bullying attempts at the in-person CRG meetings, and subsequently on Twitter.

At the conclusion of one of the disciplinary hearings earlier this year, the committee convener tried to wrap things up with a little monologue, insisting we all had to remember that whatever disagreements might occur between us during meetings, we were all united by being independence supporters and that was the really important thing.  As I said to him at the time, those words rang extremely hollow, because he had only just cruelly trampled all over decent independence supporters by expelling or suspending them, for no good reason other than to satisfy the ugly lust for revenge of an authoritarian leadership. I trust the convener will have enough sense of shame to refrain from launching into a similar monologue if he plays any part in upholding the farcically vague complaint against me, one that is so insubstantial that it practically ceases to exist the more you look at it.

But my even fonder hope is that the scenario will not even arise, because the committee will at long last take a stand against the prolonged pattern of injustice by refusing to uphold this latest bogus and maliciously-motivated complaint.  That way Alba might belatedly start to become a worthy successor to the Salmond-era SNP, in which all decent independence supporters were welcome, in which nobody was expelled without exceptionally good cause, and in which all members could express their views freely without constant fear of arbitrary punishment.  

In closing, I want to make some general observations about Alba's social media policy, which is an inspiring document due to its fearless commitment to freedom of speech - 

"We want debate and discussion to flourish on our channels and will encourage feedback wherever appropriate"

That could not be further removed from Christina Hendry's and Chris Cullen's oft-rehearsed conception of Alba as a sort of secret society in which members have an absolute duty to remain silent about their own views at all times, except possibly behind closed doors (but even there conditions would apply).  I must be honest here and say I much prefer the social media policy's more liberal vision of what Alba is, and I'm relieved that's the one that has been given constitutional force.  But it's little wonder that there's so much puzzlement and consternation in Alba's ranks that Mr McEleny and the Disciplinary Committee have repeatedly breached both the spirit and the letter of the social media policy by taking extreme steps, up to and including expulsion, to prevent members from exercising their right to engage in "flourishing debate and discussion". 

Mr McEleny's reply might be that the social media policy to some extent contradicts itself by also giving examples of how freedom of speech might in some cases be limited.  But that being the case, the devil is obviously in the interpretation.  The simplest way to judge how the social media policy is being interpreted in practice, and where the true balance lies between freedom of speech and any restrictions, is to look at the example set by leading members of the party.  Here are some tweets posted by very senior Alba members in recent months - 

Zulfikar Sheikh, 3rd October 2024: "Zionist J talks such garbage."

(Note: "J" is a reference to the journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer.)

Zulfikar Sheikh, 8th September 2024: "It all started when her wee gang couldn't get their way."

(Note: The 'her' referred to is Denise Findlay, who was the elected Organisation Convener of the Alba Party less than a year prior to Mr Sheikh posting his tweet.  The 'wee gang' seemingly refers to other prominent and highly respected former members of our party.)

Zulfikar Sheikh, 11th September 2024: "Truth is coming out now for the wee gang of malcontents...they were obviously planning all along, totally disgraceful."

Zulfikar Sheikh, 11th September 2024: "When all fails this is the special language they adopt...ignore the wee gang."

Zulfikar Sheikh, 11th September 2024: "It's always the usual suspects of the wee gang of malcontents.  They obviously have too much free time."

Zulfikar Sheikh, 30th October 2024: "This man has no shame, no compassion for the man that he talks about, without Alex, Swinney & his wee gang would be nobody's.  We haven't forgotten what you & your pals try to do to him, just will be done very very soon."

Chris McEleny, 21st November 2024: "Define irony: Mhairi Black, who spent 10 years at Westminster with her snout in the Kit Kat trough"

Chris McEleny, 14th November 2024: "How creepy.  Some wee social media weirdo at the Scottish Parliament actually zooms in on women's footwear to brief the press."

Shannon Donoghue, 19th May 2024: "No it's not wrong, and if I'm really honest, I'm sick of the wee victim act.  I've seen Eva first hand at conferences with the wee gang.  She was privy to info being on NEC that Grangemouth was a key seat for them.  The only one lacking unity is her."

(Note: "Eva" is a reference to Eva Comrie, who was our party's elected Equalities Convener just weeks before Ms Donoghue posted her tweet.)

Shannon Donoghue, 6th July 2024: "You, is the simple answer. You and the wee gangs attempt to tarnish the party. You do more damage to Indy than good. Disgraceful."

(Note: The above was a *direct reply* to Denise Findlay, our party's former elected Organisation Convener.)

Shannon Donoghue, 6th July 2024: "James Kelly really tweeting about self-awareness. The gift that keeps on giving."

Yvonne Ridley, 10th September 2024: "A "wee gang of malcontents" that's one way of describing a treacherous bunch of mean girls & frit blokes whose ambitions far outweighed their abilities. You're all fighting like ferrets in a sack right now, threatening to sue each other over an App that involves dodgy dealings & Israeli technology."

Yvonne Ridley, 10th September 2024: "The Aye App - @gracebrod1e @Scotpol1314 @mickbrick54 @geoffbush they all invested in it. I think @LeanneTervit Schemes for Indy was supposed to be the first beneficiary but she reckons she was shafted. Apart from sleepless nights over treachery, I lost nothing."

Yvonne Ridley also notoriously posted a shameful tweet in early 2023 claiming that a vote for the SNP was a vote for Jimmy Savile - admittedly she later seemed to delete it, but she certainly didn't face any disciplinary action for it.

All of the above tweets would technically, on a literal reading, fall foul of the line in the social media policy about the "targeting of individuals", and I must admit none of the tweets are remotely to my own taste.  The kind of nasty language these people have used is just not my cup of tea, and I personally do take pride in maintaining a much higher standard of respectful behaviour on social media than that of Ms Ridley, Ms Donoghue, Mr McEleny and Mr Sheikh.  That said, I think Alba have been extremely wise in using a minimalist interpretation of the "abusive behaviour"/"targeting of individuals" language, thus allowing these four senior people to be deemed to have stayed within the strictures of the social media policy.  It's entirely sensible that Alba's interpretation of the policy has given far greater weight to the provision guaranteeing freedom of speech.  However, that does mean that Mr McEleny's risible attempts to apply a completely different standard to lowlier figures such as myself must by definition be doomed to failure.

We also mustn't lose sight of the even more colourful example of social media behaviour that has been set by Mr Stuart Campbell, who is technically not an Alba member, but is the celebrated author of the party's very own "Wee Alba Book" and is regarded by many as the party's de facto spiritual godfather.  The Alba leadership have regularly praised him to the skies as a moral lodestar and shining example to us all, describing him on one memorable occasion without any apparent sense of irony as a "man of unimpeachable integrity".  So let's take a quick look at Mr Campbell's standard of behaviour on social media, which it's safe to assume the Alba leadership must regard as effortlessly consistent with the party's social media policy.  

Stuart Campbell, 16th November 2024: "I don't keep having to delete my tweets because I've made an absolute c*nt of myself like Narinder does."

Stuart Campbell, 18th November 2024: "F*ck off, *unt."

Stuart Campbell, 11th November 2024: "I've repeatedly said it's a genocide. He's a liar as well as a stupid c*nt."

Stuart Campbell, 15th October 2024: "He admitted no such thing, ever, you repellent cowardly scumbag c*nt."

Stuart Campbell, 13th October 2024: "You know f*ck-all about him, so maybe YOU should stop being a c*nt and shut up."

Ah.  OK.  If this kind of thing is Mr McEleny's idea of excellence on social media (and it really does appear to be), then his claim that I have fallen short of the appropriate standards is going to be just a trifle tough to maintain with a straight face.  Perhaps he thinks I just don't use the C-word often enough - is that it?!

(submitted 25th November 2024)

161 comments:

  1. Looks like I am the only one to show interest on this one, so far, James.
    The usual blabbermouths seem remarkably reticent.
    You present a compelling case of blatant victimisation and a complete disregard for Alba internal rules.
    Will be fascinating to read what the Committee's response was to the very salient points you raised (if they even bothered) in the next 'episode'.
    However, even from the stuff you have initially posted, it would seem that Alba is fish-head-rotten to its core.
    Popcorn standing by.................

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The usual blabbermouths, you blabber?

      Delete
    2. Don't worry, Dave, your mouth blabbers enough for all of us.

      Delete
    3. But Dave is a warrior! Do we listen and take note or just piss ourselves laughing. Queers for Palestine I say!

      Delete
    4. Obviously you have already bought your ticket, pal?
      Enjoy.

      Delete
    5. Big Eater From PerthJanuary 11, 2025 at 7:04 AM

      Francis is a lying blabber.

      Delete
    6. Musk-Campbell Fruitcake CompanyJanuary 11, 2025 at 1:48 PM

      The Bathites have turned up!

      Delete
    7. Big Fibber from Perth.

      Delete
    8. I’ve read your Journalism David. It’s almost as bad as your moustache.

      Delete
  2. How does Alba get away with this?
    It seems they can act with impunity.
    This is down to Kenny but I presume Kenny is just ineffectual and I doubt he will make a good leader as he can’t stand up to Tasmina and her nasty clique

    Ash Regan is not in the clique but will she be any different. A good question to ask at the hustings

    ReplyDelete
  3. Help ma boab James! I do like your blog for the analysis but you have been fucked over buddy. Sometimes in life we need to decide.. what will I achieve by seeking justification.. these folk are scum. Rise above it, stick what you are good at. Take this as some friendly advice from a yoon!

    Let these filth stew in their own juice. Stick to your analysis.. you excel at distilling the facts.. yes you put a bit of spin on things a times but hey ho! So does Curtice.

    Pick yourself up. Put it behind you and move on. You’ve said your piece. Sit back and watch these bullying bunch of shites self destruct. We all know that about Ridley .. her background. Tas et al. Give it a year or two and they will turn on each other!

    Move on with your life and leave these saddies to theirs. All the best James and keep your head up. I may be on the other side of the political divide but wish you well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would cherish being associated with those sentiments.

      Delete
  4. McEleny is a fat bastard

    ReplyDelete
  5. James, I posted it before but I think it is worth pointing out again that it beggars belief that people who claim to be so outraged by the unfair, unlawful and tainted by apparent bias process applied to Salmond are happy to do the same sort of thing to you. The subject matter may not be the same or be as serious as with Salmond but the same despicable type of process is being applied to you and no doubt others in Alba.

    I did have a laugh at anyone seeing Campbell as "the party's spiritual godfather". It's a wonder then that Alba haven't had a party slogan saying:- " f*****g vote Alba ya c***s".

    I did notice in the tweets in your article that the same regular use of
    " wee" this or that is used by these nasty characters in Alba as per the nasty trolls on SGP. The mark of nasty characters trying to belittle and bully.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely.

      And the worst thing about the Right F***ing Reverend Stu: he didnae even tell his readers to vote Alba.

      What a pole star he is for the movement.

      Delete
    2. Do you read political blogs to be "told" how to vote?
      I and many others no doubt read this blog, Wings, previously Iain Lawson's blog and several others for opinion, comment and analysis not found anywhere in MSM
      They all offer their own insights but I for one, take no voting direction from any of them

      Delete
  6. James, do you think they even read it? Given that you strongly suspect your dismissal to be a fait accompli and the charges deliberately vague, I think there's every chance they didn't even extend you the courtesy of reading your submission.
    One thing about malignant narcissists, they really don't like being criticised.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, very interesting. I read that article by CA who used to and still does I think, post on Wings. But also used to on the National / Herald before they charged people for the "privilege" of posting regardless of if we bought the paper copy some times. Supposedly to get rid of the unionist "trolls" as they called them. Sigh.

    I also read all the comments below the line, seeing names that used to and maybe still do, post on various forums including Wings of old. And the thing is this - while I often may not have agreed with them, they were genuine. And therefore are entitled to have a point of view. There's also one or two I met in the flesh at one time or another.

    It's pretty obvious that since there is no single universally accepted path to Independence or even getting the right to vote on it in some way, there is going to be a lot of upset, anger, and a whole load of different views.

    Most excellent :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forgot to say. As well as "Pay to give an opinion", or "pay to speak", there's "pay to vote" it seems. So much for "Free"dom of Speech. Not you you dirty handed pauper, only us rich dudes can speak and vote. Bye bye universal suffrage, hello feudal.

      Know your place, peasant. That would be grovelling at their feet, hanging on their every word. FTFAGOS

      Delete
    2. I'm thinking of joining so I can get paid for my opinions. Soybds the Kezia Dugdale's latest gig.

      Delete
    3. ..sounds like Kezia Dugdale's latest gig. (!)

      Delete
  8. I have sought guidance from my spiritual godfather - and he has confirmed that James Kelly should be banned for being prissy on the Internet. (This is also dealt with by Alba Constitutional Rule 34 Sub-Section g (iii) (2025 remix). )

    ReplyDelete
  9. As soon as the “elite team” had an issue with you they should have emailed/ spoke to you as to any concerns. The truth seems to be that the Secretary believed he could act with authority based on his relationship with the leader(s). He did what he was told although it may be he saw you as a threat to his position.
    Talk about self destruction.

    ReplyDelete
  10. One thing that I love about this blog is the mutual understanding and respect consistently shown between the people who post comments.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I see Swinney is pushing for a N Ireland style 'trigger' for Indyrefs.
    Logical move and one which is difficult to democratically argue against.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keir Starmer: "lol, no"

      Delete
    2. Very baaad David says:- it " is difficult to democratically argue against".
      Sturgeon/Blowhard etc all argued the same thing. Democratically unsustainable they said. Unbelievable that people still believe this same nonsense. They cannae deny Scottish democracy for ever the SNP leadership cry. Oh yes they can and they will. There has never been democracy for Scotland. Scotland is a de facto colony. Baaad David disnae seem to realise that baaad Westminster disnae need to argue against it. They don't care. The process Swinney and David think is fine involves the Secretary of State for N. Ireland giving approval for a referendum. The sec 30 gold standard Sturgeon blabbered on about involved the PM giving approval for a referendum. They are fundamentally the same - Westminster has to approve - but they won't.

      John the Redactor says:- " If there is an acceptance that there is a route by which this can be addressed for Northern Ireland, there has to be an acceptance of a route for Scotland - that cannot be resisted. That is just a logical, democratic consistency that cannot be sustained." I’m pretty confident it will be sustained long enough for John the Devolutionist to happily go off in to retirement with his nice FM pension. Who knows he may even write a book.

      More carrots for the gullible and very baaad David is determined to make you munch away on them. The other more important question is how long can SNP members keep eating these carrots without getting indigestion.

      Delete
    3. I think that there is going to be a fair bit of mileage for the SNP in contrasting the Northern Ireland situation with that of Scotland - both from the constitutional angle and their direct relationship with the European Single Market.

      Delete
    4. Anyone at this point who argues that Westminster will find something the SNP does "difficult to democratically argue against" or that they will "give into the democratic pressure" frankly isn't interested in there being a route to independence anytime in the foreseeable future.

      We all know that nothing will be achieved by such nonsense except waste even more time. The goal is independence not slogans the SNP can use at election time.

      Delete
    5. Is Humza going to write a book? Will he need help to write it? Will it be entitled WHITE? Will anyone buy it?

      Delete
    6. Anonymous at 12.51pm:

      Maybe it will be called "Humza: In His Own White"?

      Delete
    7. David - that includes approval by a UK Secretary for State. Good luck with asking politely “please sir, can we have a vote for our Independence?”

      What do you think the last few years have been?

      Delete
  12. Whether Alba like the contents of this blog or not, it's rather telling that this blog is the only platform where any discussions are had. Don't know any other blog where Alba news, queries are discussed.

    Strange to make an enemy of one of the few sympathetic voices with a semblance of clout in the online community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a really good comment. Apart from an occasional piece in The Notional (the newspaper which loosely supports an independent Scotland), Alba barely gets mentioned anywhere.
      Their actions will now mean that the only place the party does get discussed will likely be a constant artillery barrage of negativity.

      Delete
    2. It is interesting because Stu Campbell is aware of the same information as James. He knows perfectly well that the NEC elections were rigged and he knows about the bullying.
      The fearless journalist wasn’t so fearless then

      Delete
    3. In fairness to Campbell, he's never been an Alba member so he has no personal investment in the internal workings of the party, only it's political output.

      Delete
    4. He has no personal investment in the SNP either, but that doesn't stop him writing damning articles about their internal machinations. His "journalistic integrity" goes out of the window where Alba is concerned.

      Delete
    5. Campbell is dangerous. In fairness to Campbell……… why ? He has never been fair.

      Delete
    6. Campbell is not dangerous. He is a sad wee man with no stake in the politics of Scotland who has hoodwinked a small group of mouth frothers into giving him money. End of.

      Delete
  13. James - you used the term "McArthyite" to describe the actions concerned. I think that most historians would tell you that "Stalinist" would have been a far more accurate description. Had this occurred in 1930's Soviet Union then I have no doubt that your minimum punishment would have been expulsion to a labour camp in Siberia.
    I am, however, also interested in your reference to 'Colin Alexander' and Ian Lawson's blog being an anathema to some people inside Alba. Why was this? I admired Ian greatly but I had always thought that when he left the SNP he did so to join Alba. Is that incorrect? I occasionally read Ian's blog. Quite often it was highly critical of the SNP but I don't recollect ever seeing criticism of Alba within it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Iain did join Alba, but he was also involved in Salvo. There was a key turning-point at an Alba conference (I'd have to check which year it was) when Alex Salmond made a very angry speech directed against Salvo's Sara Salyers, and that led to a cooling of relations. Iain then remained a critical friend of Alba and allowed guest posts that brought to light the scandal of the rigging of the 2023 Alba internal elections. Colin Alexander was expelled for writing his guest post, and Denise Somerville was suspended for six months for providing some of the information for the guest post 'Requiem for a Dream', which was written by Jacqueline Bijster and Jackie Anderson.

      Delete
    2. Many thanks, James. I was not aware if this information.

      Delete
  14. From a ALBA perspective the costs in time effort and money is just crazy. It is certainly the case that the “purist” ALBA is no such thing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What a bunch of charmers. You're well rid of them, James.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Especially the Harrison who has her hair in a scrunch fountain. Does she think it's 1993?

      Delete
  16. I think many in ALBA are in shock and will be reassessing their involvement. Let’s hope it will not impact their wish for independence

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If that's KC, and I think it might be, I do admire your inventiveness. Flagged up for the unwary.

      Delete
  17. See that Nicola Sturgeon has waited until Salmond was cold in his grave before sticking the knife in again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Salmond was a bully. He didn’t change when he created Alba. The poor man is dead but he was no saint, Sturgeon likely learnt her own bullying behaviour from him.

      Delete
    2. Are you a saint?

      If not, I do hope people slag you off when yer deid, because that seems to suit your own standards.

      Delete
    3. Thinking Sturgeon's a bully, it's clear you never met her

      Delete
    4. 8.03pm what was your experience like. Did she lay her hands on you and heal you? Did you get a selfie?

      Delete
    5. No. He got a spoon.

      Delete
    6. If I'd been wrongfully nearly put in jail,.I'd have been far worse.

      Delete
  18. Am I right in thinking that Colin Alexander had an ongoing spat on Wings with an individual who may now be a regular poster here but is now using a different name?
    I remember Colin getting called Coco the clown a lot (making up silly names is this person's MO).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I very rarely look at the comments section on Wings, so I don't know. Colin was certainly prolific on Twitter, so it wouldn't surprise me if he was on Wings too.

      Delete
  19. It's a sorry tale, but I can't help but think that it reflects on the entire party and not just the individuals youve quoted. Politics is supposed to be a serious business about making the lives of people better. This is numpty stuff. I doubt that the other parties are much better.

    A plague on all your houses.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Stuart Campbell isn’t an ALBA member. You should retract that or make it clear he isn’t.

    Can’t help wonder why the two of you continually fall out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A direct quote from the document: "We also mustn't lose sight of the even more colourful example of social media behaviour that has been set by Mr Stuart Campbell, who is technically not an Alba member, but is the celebrated author of the party's very own "Wee Alba Book"

      I await your grovelling apology, Anon at 4.09. Always best to actually read the blogpost you're harrumphing about - it can save a lot of embarrassment.

      Delete
  21. It might help if you also published the written documents that contained the charges against you otherwise it's like clapping with one hand

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're trying really, really hard with this snide stuff, but we'll have to mark this down as another failure because the disciplinary referral has "PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL" slapped all over it. By all means apply to McEleny for special dispensation if you want to see it - I'd be only too happy to publish it because it's an absolute joke of a document.

      Delete
    2. Would like to see it too.

      Come on Chris. Get it out there.

      Delete
    3. Genuine question (I'm not the above anonymous btw)...what would be the consequeneces if you did publish it? I mean, they can't expel you twice.
      As for confidentiality, I'm not a lawyer so you might need to consult one, but absent some consideration, I don't believe you have a contract with Alba. You didn't come into possession of the document by any criminal or nefarious act, so I don't see how it's enforcable?

      Anyway, best of luck.

      Delete
  22. “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” - L.P. Hartley, “The Go-Between”.

    2024 was the year Labour won a huge WM majority in a GE that looks increasingly like a historically aberration.

    2025 is a new year of uncertainty. I have no idea what it will bring, but what I’m sure of is that the politics of early and mid 2024 have been brushed aside by everything that has happened since that GE.

    I’m not saying a national for-Indy Scottish settled will in place now. Just that 2024 polls on Indy are only useful for historical comparison purposes, and don’t reflect where we now find ourselves at.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a little disheartening that there seems to be a big shift happening in UK politics and despite independence support being at around 50% in the polls the chaotic nature of UK politics isn't being utilised the press the independence message hope.

      The SNP are speaking like we're still on step 1 of the journey spouting vague nonsensical lines about "hope" whilst we're seeing people flock to Reform and they're looking set to have a foothold in Holyrood in 2026 despite hardly doing any campaigning up here. Reform are taking advantage of the situation whilst the SNP have regressed & Alba have screwed up being a viable alternative.

      Delete
    2. Alba were never a viable anything

      Delete
    3. They sound like the sort of people who laugh in expensive restaurants so that other people will think they are having a good time. Inside they are silently screaming 😱.

      Delete
    4. At the very least Reform have proven that it doesn't take 50 years to set-up a viable Political Party (like or loath them their polling doesn't lie).

      SNP supporters have insisted that it would take too long to setup an alternative to them & for that reason we all need to give them our unconditional support... but Reform has proven how quickly an alternative to a main political party can rise with the right messaging & being seen to be an alternative to the status quo. Imagine what an alternative political party actually offering something positive could do. Alba may not be the solution but SNP supporters need to stop with the lies that something like that can't happen.

      Delete
    5. If Reform succeed - in England, they are just a bunch of right wing eccentrics up here - that will be largely down to the gullibility of sections of the English electorate such as the Red Wall and the voters in Clacton etc.

      Delete
  23. We all know what James did as all his blogs and tweets are public

    James was elected by Alba National Council delegates which represent the Alba LACUs.

    Yes he grew apart from the ruling cabal but not from the members who nearly made him membership Convener and subsequently voted him on to 3 Alba committees

    It’s an insult to democracy to expell him and an insult to every member that voted for him

    And it’s worth remembering the ruling cabal are only in place because the elections were rigged

    ReplyDelete
  24. Did McCarthy play for Scotland?

    ReplyDelete
  25. And yet you read it! Seems of few Albanists are on here to try and divert. They aren’t successful. As for the actual “charges” there seem to be trivial. I think offence by the leaders was always going to be taken. They don’t like any challenge even when democracy is suggested in the party.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's safe to say there's an anonymous trolling operation going on from Alba HQ or people close to Alba HQ to try to muddy the waters. I've just deleted about four or five comments, but some of them have been up for hours, so I'll respond to the mischief-making allegation in case anyone saw it - no, I have not altered the document from the one I submitted, it's absolutely identical except for a) Colin Alexander's name, b) the correction of two or three minor typos and grammatical errors (like swapping "were" for "was"), and in a single instance the replacement of the words "working group" with "Constitution Review Group" for the sake of clarity. Those are not substantive changes and you damn well know it. Keep this game-playing up and I really will publish all the available documentation regardless of how many times the word "confidential" was slapped on it by Tas, Corri or McEleny. As my American mum would say, you're cruisin' for a bruisin'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James, are you under any legal obligation not to publish Alba's confidential material?
      I'm only asking because it doesn't seem like Alba are under a legal obligation to follow any sort of conventionally accepted disciplinary process.
      If you had been booted out of a job in the same way they kicked you out of the party you'd be advised by a solicitor to take it to tribunal quicker than you can say constructive dismissal.

      Delete
    2. Somebody actually said to me the other day that if I crowdfunded for legal costs and took Alba to court, I'd probably win and potentially bankrupt the party. I'm not a legal expert, so I don't know how true that is, but it certainly sounds plausible, because Alba's action against me has breached their own constitution and disciplinary rules, and also breached natural justice. So the only question would be whether Alba can be legally held to their own constitution. I'm not sure what would be gained by bankrupting the party, though, because they're going nowhere electorally anyway.

      Delete
    3. Normally unfair dismissal can invoke an industrial tribunal, which is free, but I believe that those kind of laws don't apply to political party's. As far as I am aware, there are no laws concerning political party's disciplinary committees or their procedures (unless it involved physical violence, obviously). They can do what they want.

      Delete
    4. I think it is a bit akin to being unfairly kicked-out of a lawn bowling club, but without recourse to the national lawn bowling association.

      Delete
    5. Putting the word confidential in a document is meaningless in your circumstances. Take legal advice. Then publish.

      Delete
  27. Interesting to read your comments James. It seems to me as an outsider that too many Albaites are too consumed with grievances than actually trying to develop a legitimate functioning political party. Constantly spitting out bile at the SNP was always going to backfire especially at any notion of gaining regional votes for Holyrood which would require SNP supporters to use their 2nd vote for Alba.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Mr Stuart Campbell, who is technically not an Alba member, but is the celebrated author of the party's very own "Wee Alba Book"

    Thought it was Robin McAlpine who wrote it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On a point of pedantry, yes, but Campbell was the "editor" and anyone who has ever had their work "edited" by Campbell (I'm one such person, believe it or not) knows that he ends up writing 20-40% of it himself. Robert Holmes as script editor of Doctor Who is a good analogy. But yes, technically that was an error, I meant to say "editor" and only noticed the mistake afterwards.

      Delete
    2. Explains a lot.

      Delete


    3. It looks like the Alba Party is now turning in on itself, fighting like ferrets in a sack. While this infighting is disappointing, it’s a sign that it’s time for the independence movement to move on. Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon are yesterday’s news. The challenges ahead require unity and a forward-thinking approach, not endless squabbling about past divisions.

      While we sit here arguing amongst ourselves, the world isn’t standing still. In UK politics and internationally, events are unfolding that could profoundly impact Scotland’s fight for independence. If Reform UK, under the leadership of Nigel Farage, were to gain power, the chances of an independence referendum would be zero. Worse still, a Farage-led government could instigate a Catalonian-style crackdown on independence supporters.

      Some may look to the International Court of Justice or the United Nations for recourse, but the harsh reality is that the international climate is shifting. Global powers are increasingly ignoring the rules: Putin has set a dangerous precedent, and Trump appears poised to follow suit with ambitions regarding Greenland and possibly Panama. The trend is clear—large nations are seizing land and resources from their neighbors, and international norms are eroding.

      James I sympathize with your position and acknowledge that Alba treated you scandalously. However, the time has come to move on and put Alba behind you ,it's not worth the stress.The independence movement must unite and rally behind our leadership. We are entering what could be the most challenging period in the fight for independence.

      If a right-wing English nationalist government, free of any guardrails on its behavior, takes power, Scotland’s future will be at even greater risk. We need to develop a clear, unified strategy to advance the cause of independence in this difficult context. Division and infighting will only weaken our movement when we most need strength and solidarity.

      It’s time to leave the past behind, unite, and move forward together for Scotland’s future.

      Delete
    4. The Alba Party is already "behind me", I'm no longer a member and I never will be again. But if by "move on and put Alba behind you", what you really mean is "abandon your plan to publish a series of articles putting as much information into the public domain as possible", no I most certainly will not be abandoning that plan, and I've explained my reasons pretty clearly. If you don't want to read those articles, all I can suggest is that you come back in a couple of months. The coast may be clear by then, but no guarantees.

      Delete
    5. "It’s time to leave the past behind, unite, and move forward together for Scotland’s future."

      That's not possible for Alba while it has its severe problems of lack of democracy and accountability. Yousaf and later Swinney have promised reform in the SNP but that doesn't seem to have happened yet. Some time ago Swinney warned his cabinet to shape up or ship out, there's at least a couple of clingers need to go. And the Greens need to replace the leadership and its prospective successor (Greer) and get some totally fresh blood.

      Until that's done, calls for unity are premature. Can you imagine YES uniting behind - McEleny for instance?

      Delete
    6. Or Harvie / Slater / Greer? For me, Swinney might be OK but he needs to become totally ruthless and clear out the underbrush.

      Delete
    7. The future of Scottish independence is John Swinney....

      Sounds like it's very much the same as the past.

      Delete
    8. Looking at John Swinney's personality and capability over the last decade... if he suddenly became ruthless and implemented necessary changes it would be the biggest surprise of the century.

      Delete
    9. In a recent interview Swinney blamed the severe loss of SNP members, the severe loss of SNP MPs and the severe reduction in SNP vote share on UK austerity. That reply disnae give me the impression he sees any need to make any changes. In his mind it's clearly all the voters and Westminster's fault

      He also told Aberdein in the same interview he had a plan for independence but he wisnae telling Aberdein and his colleagues what it was. The secret master plan has been officially resurrected again. Finally, he has also said he is in regular contact with Sturgeon. Did he get that masterstroke of an idea of a secret plan from Sturgeon?

      So are the trolls who tell me Sturgeon is in the past and I should move on going to tell Swinney and Sturgeon the same.

      Delete
    10. Swinney is just Sturgeon in a suit.

      Delete
    11. Ach, there's always the ISP. 😏

      Delete
    12. Na the ISP are too busy focusing on the oath of allegiance as the top issue for Scots at the present moment.

      Delete
    13. Just watched Swinney on the Sunday Show and I think Swinney revealed the secret master plan for independence. ( Spoiler - he didn't - he disnae have one ).

      First of all he repeated his comments about the situation in N. Ireland and democratic deficit etc etc. Then he says:- " I have got to build public support for independence. It's only when independence becomes an overwhelmingly popular concept in Scotland that we will be able to make progress on that journey."

      This is pretty much the same stuff Britnats used to say. Sturgeon had her surrender speech in Jan 2020. This is John Swinney's surrender statement.

      Overwhelming is a very flexible word and it could be 60% one year and then when polls rise it jumps to 70% the next year and then 80%. Some Britnats would still say 80% is not overwhelming.

      John the Devolutionist is playing by the Britnat rules. Namely, Scotland is a colony and when Westminster says jump Swinney says how high.

      Cameron got a mandate for an EU ref on 37% of the vote and implemented leaving the EU on Less than 52% but Swinney says we need way higher than that - what exact figure he disnae say - just that it is overwhelming. He disnae say who decides what figure must be reached to be overwhelming.

      Swinney is just kicking the independence can down the road. If you agree with Swinney and consider yourself an independence supporter you are kidding yourself on. When Swinney retires independence will be no further on and it won't be by accident but by design.

      Note that Swinney says that it is only when support for independence is overwhelming will " progress " on that journey be possible. He disnae even say independence will happen - just progress will then be possible.

      The SNP is not Party of independence. Fine if you want a more left wing party than Labour but independence - nope - Swinney and Sturgeon have had 10 years to reach this moving target of an overwhelming nature. He ain't ever going to do it - whatever the overwhelming figure is.

      Delete
    14. The nation needs Peter A Bell !

      Delete
    15. IFS. Same nonsense. Give us peace.

      Delete
  29. From the Herald: "Fresh defect hits Glen Sannox as it finally begins Arran service"

    As the article, says it's a snag like previous ferries had and all new ships have. The mezzanine deck needs a component which is on its way. Quite often Calmac don't even take bookings for the mezzanines.

    The Herald used to be a great Scottish newspaper, being the Glasgow Herald, now it's a hysterical rag, fit only for mopping up hydraulic fluid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True, yir2. A sad decline in quality. Apart from one wee bit about Musk (inevitably), the entire front page of today's Sunday Herald is Scot Gov baaaad. It's just another propaganda sheet nowadays.

      Delete
    2. Nevertheless the ferry situation is scandalous, for which the SNP SG is largely to blame.

      Delete
    3. The problem is every time the Herald runs a "Ferries bad" article, tourists cancel their accommodation bookings, even on routes where the ferries are running perfectly normally. The stupid Herald has cost tourism in Scotland millions, tens of millions of pounds, and the overall economy even more.

      Delete
    4. Aye . Fit about the HS2 scandal though? Maks ferry overrun costs look like a drop in the ocean.

      Delete
    5. Yesindyref2 1.26pm - in a colonial situation organisations like the Herald are there primarly to help endure Scotland remains a colony. They do not care about damaging the economic wellbeing of Scotland.

      Delete
    6. Always amazes me how some Scots completely fail to see the bigger picture in relation to MSM coverage of similar so-called 'scandals' on these islands -- and the MASSIVE difference in how they are ALWAYS repeatedly spotlighted and headlined in Scotland, compared to the MUCH LESSER coverage they receive elsewhere.
      'The Ferries' is a typical case in point.
      It has been headlined to the n'th degree, down to almost every loose nut and bolt, in the Press - and the hyperbolic nature of that coverage has, without doubt, had a totally negative effect on public perception of travel to and from some islands, probably leading to equally adverse effects on tourism to those islands.
      In actual fact, though, when you compare Calmac's overall performance levels to other ferry companies both in the UK and further afield (as Prof Robertson has consistently done) you find that it stacks-up very well indeed.
      In contrast to the almost never-ending Press coverage of that topic......there has been comparatively much less routine headlining of other massively costly 'scandals' south of the Border - Hinkley Point, Crossrail, WM Renovation, Writing-Off of over £40 Billion of Covid Fraud, Massive Overspend of over £30 Billion on a failed WMTest/Trace System, HS2 etc....
      Yes, they 'make the news' occasionally, but with nowhere near the consistency of the ferries story.
      Even something as inevitable as seasonal traffic disruption due to icing on road bridges during a severe winter slip quietly by in England and Wales, but are deemed 'scandal/crisis' up here.
      The purpose of all this negative 'Scottish' MSM coverage is simply to indoctrinate Scots that we are basically shite at doing pretty much anything, when, in most cases, the opposite is true.
      The fact that some folk up here swallow that Union-Biased-MSM- Bilge and actually seem to revel in it, is as ridiculous as it is sad.

      Delete
    7. @David Francis You're sounding like one of those conspiracy clowns

      Delete
    8. The biggest contributing factor by far to the ferry scandal was the SNP SG’s decision to award the contract to build the 2 ferries to Fergusons, in an attempt to make political gain, which has of course backfired so spectacularly.

      Delete
    9. Anon at 3:39



      Did it 'backfire' as spectacularly as Labour's disastrous PFI which has cost Scotland £30 Billion so far or the Tory Brexshit which has cost Scotland £15 Billion and still counting?

      Wee snivellers like you REALLY do not like such appropriate comparisons and contexts, do you?

      Delete
    10. On the contrary.....David Francis debunks the usual yoon MSM trash to which you no doubt subscribe.

      Delete
    11. My post @ 4-19pm in reply to Anon @ 3-04pm

      Delete
    12. What is this 'scandal' with the ferry company over 90% of whose ferries run on time?

      Delete
    13. Quite incredible how some attempt to defend the SG in the ferry scandal.

      Delete
    14. Anon at 3:39 PM
      Fergusons built 3 perfectly good hybrid ferries, I've been on all of them. The problem was the sheer and utter stupidity of wanting duel fuel diesel and gas to "lead the effing world", requiring separate and very different pipes and tanks, refuelling, and plus the availability of LNG. Totally moronic. If they'd stuck to the proven formula, there'd have been no need to go to Turkey to get more ferries, and the new ferries would have prevented much of the disruption.

      The Sannox will be good, and later the Rosa, but I think they'll prove expensive to maintain and refit.

      Delete
    15. Pathetic deflection by D Francis, who seems unable to accept any criticism of the SNP.
      He’s even a Sturgeon worshipper!! How sad.

      Delete
    16. Nothing 'pathetic' about what I posted, at all.
      I totally accept that huge mistakes were made regarding those boats, but what I also accept and absolutely KNOW, is that virtually every single major infrastructure project on these islands which I have watched over my lifetime, had greatly over-run in terms of both time and money - many by far more than the ferries.
      I highlighted some of them above, but the total list is huge.
      And those 'scandals' have, almost entirely, been at the door of Unionst Parties in Govt.
      So, I put the ferries story into its proper context, nothing more.
      The mere fact of doing that, seems to make some folk apoplectic with rage, because the humungous faults of OTHER Parties ( who some of them probably support ) are brought into sharp focus.

      Thankfully as the SNP Vote continues to rise again and islanders get one of the best overall-performing (and some of the newest ) ferry services in Europe, things will simply move on - and the Union-Biased MSM and its cretinous 'believers' will be forced to seek out something else to whine about.
      T'was ever thus..........

      Delete
    17. Pathetic stuff from D Francis. And a Sturgeon worshipper into the bargain!! How sad.

      Delete
    18. Just how many 'copy and pastes' are you gonna use, you irrelevant Anon Twat???

      Delete
    19. The ferry situation is a scandal according to Pacific Quay.

      Delete
    20. Building a ferry isn't a major infrastructure project.

      Delete
    21. And these boats have off-the-shelf dual-fuel Wartsila engines, so obviously there is nothing new about it.

      Delete
    22. My favourite bit was Jenny Gilruth leaping on the podium to tell parliament that she had the answer to why Fergusons not being able to cover their contract was accepted. Lumbering the taxpayer with a £90 million liability didn't involve an extensive risk-assessment, it was a two sentence e-mail from the transport minister. It's beyond comedy. Anyway, the Scottish taxpayers have paid the £90MM and a whole lot more, and we are lumbered with an albatross-hanging-from-the-neck shipyard.

      Delete
    23. @annoymous 3.39.

      The fact that it kept a significant amount of people from being made redundant obviously passed you by.

      Delete
    24. @9:07,
      You’re attempt at defending the SNP SG in the ferry scandal beggars belief!

      Delete
  30. "Ugly lust for revenge" is part of your headline on the Alba party
    Isn't that exactly what Alba was initially set up to be in the first place so should come as no surprise to anyone that that is what they continue to be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd say it devolved into that (and then devolved further into merely a source of pointless but moderately lucrative jobs for a handful of people and their relatives), but its initial message of "Alba on the list, SNP on the constituency" seemed pretty honestly intended as a plan for electing a more pro-independence parliament without harming SNP representation in any way

      Delete
  31. As I said previously, James - ALL Political Parties are massively flawed, relatively corrupt, relatively inept, relatively useless and perpetually mendacious.
    But they are an unfortunate necessity, in our present democratic system.
    So......as well as picking the lesser of those evils to vote for/support, we should also choose one which actually has the ability to WIN at election-time - one which can actually attract a mass-vote from the Scottish public.
    That completely rules out Alba.
    Time to live in the real World and consign that laughing-stock bunch of rejects and conspiracy clowns in the gutter, where they belong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Time to live in the real World and consign that laughing-stock bunch of rejects and conspiracy clowns in the gutter"

      Conspiracy theories like Operation Brsnchform was organised and implemented by the British State as an attempt to jail Nicola Sturgeon and harm independence?

      Delete
    2. Anon @11.54am.

      What is a conspiracy theory for kids. Kids definition. Conspiracy theory. noun. : a theory that explains an event or situation as being a result of a secret plot.
      That is about the right level for your comment - childish.

      Did the British state buy the motor home using SNP monies and park it on Murrells mothers driveway for years without Murrell knowing. Is Murrell working for the British state against his wife? Is that part of your conspiracy theory?

      Delete
    3. Did the British state buy the motor home using SNP monies and park it on Murrells mothers driveway for years without Murrell knowing. Is Murrell working for the British state against his wife? Is that part of your conspiracy theory?

      Anon @11.54 is pretty clearly mocking the idea that BF is a British state op, not endorsing it

      Delete
    4. I have never suggested that Branchform was a British State Conspiracy.
      What I have said, however, is that the Police response to a purely financial case, with the sheer number of officers and the infamous blue forensic tent outside the Murrell's home address - more activity than seen at most murder scenes - and the massive Press-Posse which was 'tipped off' to be there, was completely OTT compared to other 'politically slanted' cases elsewhere.
      And anyone who is remotely knowledgeable about past covert activities of The British State in the political arena and other areas, already knows it has been 'involved' in undermining the Indy Movement from its very inception and, as a matter of routine, has used, is using and will always use the British MSM to assist it in doing so.

      Delete
    5. Surely it would be easy for the Murrelld just to explain where they put the money? Yes there may have been an OTT response but that may be the extent of any kind of conspiracy. I mean, it's not an insignificant sum to have mislaid. And that is the heart of the matter.

      Delete
    6. The on-going criminal 'case' means that nobody should be saying anything much at all - although you would not know that, from all the Police Leaks to the Press on a regular basis.
      And the Murrells maintain there is no 'missing money'.
      Only time will tell if that is correct, or not - certainly not sites like Wings or the like.
      And, if you can show me ANY criminal case in Scotland or the UK, involving ONLY alleged financial offences, where the Police have been so overwhelmingly present at someone's home address, complete with Forensic Tent, please do - because I cannot recall any in my lifetime.
      As far as I know, even the Police themselves have never put any figure whatsoever on the amount of money they are actually investigating as having been 'misused/misplaced' and I would be extremely surprised if it was anything like the sum you quote.
      And finally, for context, in 2025 even the amount you state would barely buy a 3 bed semi-detached house in London or a nice 4 bed detached in Bearsden, Glasgow.

      Delete
    7. David the words you and your ilk ( I know you like that word) continually miss out is " ring fenced " but you know that don't you.

      You seem more upset by a blue tent than £600k going missing. Strange values.

      The money was raised for Indyref2 on a " ring fenced basis"from members of the public of whom a proportion will be SNP members. As Indyref2 did not happen none of the funds should have been touched apart from those returned upon request to donors.

      Your comment on putting things in context is BIZARRE.

      Your post also ignores the matter of the auditors comment on the SNP accounts re documentation/records on donations not being kept.

      Delete
    8. David it's not the amount I state, it's the ring fenced fund, and it's just one portion of the money being investigated. If you recall there are other sums including legacy gifts that run way over the 600000. But the tent and the police presence are actually irrelevant only the money is relevant. That and possibly the jewellery, the car and the campervan.

      Delete
  32. John Swinney: Says his aim is to remain First Minister until 2031.

    Nicola Sturgeon: Says independence is now off the radar.

    Why are we supporting these people again?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NS is irrelevant and best ignored. Hugely over-rated and a pretty rubbish FM in retrospect.

      JS is OK but he won't be FM until anything like 2031.

      The times, they are a-changing.

      Looking forward to the future, and hopefully Kate Forbes as FM.

      Delete
    2. Serious question: If John Swinney wins the election (SNP success would be seen as being his success) why would he leave to allow Forbes to takeover?

      Delete
    3. "Why are we supporting these people again?"

      Simple answer: because if the only alternative is Alba, you'll just get suspended or expelled.

      Delete
    4. —because we support independence

      Delete
    5. The alternative is Anas and Dame Jackie.

      Delete
    6. "because we support independence"

      And we get that by voting for people who aren't interested in actually pursuing it? That's worked out well for the last decade!

      Delete
  33. Let’s all hope there’s no more problems with Glen Sannox, and she enters service tomorrow. Hard to believe it’s over 7 years since she was launched to great fanfare by wee Sturgeon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A pity that the ship wisnae an aircraft carrier.

      Delete
    2. I call it The Flying Scotchman. Nessie would be a better form of transport.

      Delete
    3. I bet Sturgeon knew the windows were painted on when she launched Glen Sannox, unlike the rest of us who were taken for fools.

      Delete
    4. Surely the painters knew?

      Delete
    5. Scandalous when you think about it.

      Delete
    6. Scots are freezing in their homes whilst surrounded by wind farms and oil and gas deposits but the UK spends billions on building aircraft carriers to bully other countries around the world. Aircraft carriers that they struggled to put planes on and are often out of service due to construction faults. Faults that the UK media not only play down but present on TV a propaganda programme about a carrier's activities. Rule Britannia and all that crap.

      Meanwhile we have to wait until someone decides there is overwhelming support for independence before the SNP will consider doing something says Swinney. Just how will the likes of Scottish Skier (arch SNP propagandist spin this). I already know how baaad David Francis will spin it - vote SNP we are shit and we know it but all the rest are more shit.

      That's what happens in colonies the colonial power trashes any political party daring to be not subservient to the colonial power (Westminster).

      The question should not be are you "yes yet" but do you realise Scotland is a colony yet.

      Delete
    7. Rule Britannia indeed IFS😁

      Delete
    8. KC you have the hots for Nessie but she says the feeling is not mutual.

      Delete
  34. From the National: "John Swinney rejects Nicola Sturgeon's 'independence off the radar' claim"

    It's clearly off her radar - 2 years since she resigned as FM and she's done nothing for Independence in those 2 years.

    And if anyone wants to contradict that - WHAT has she done for it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I mean John Swinney is obviously going to say that. Wouldn't be able to use it as a carrot to get elected if he outright admitted to continue doing exactly what he did as Sturgeon's Deputy: Absolutely nothing.

      Delete
    2. Don’t believe the press

      Delete
  35. Wee Sturgeon? Your mysogeny is there for all to see. You don’t care about the ferries.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hot off the press.

    Glen Sannox maiden voyage at risk of cancellation!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see it’s the main story on the Herald website.

      Delete
    2. If you lived on the Clyde you'd know there's a wind getting up.

      Delete
    3. But yes, the Herald rag is a lie of dishonest omission - high winds.

      Delete

    4. It will only not sail if the winds are high enough to force cancellations of all sailings on Monday morning.
      In other words......NOTHING to do with the boat and EVERYTHING to do with extreme weather and passenger safety.

      Delete