Stew on Twitter: "I wonder if James Kelly knows that he was *on the Alba NEC* when it officially adopted the Nordic model as policy?" pic.twitter.com/UzD9dJe7IW
— Wings Over Scotland (@WingsScotland) May 22, 2025
For someone who is so insanely belligerent and abusive, there's an almost childlike naivety about Stew at times. He genuinely seems to be asking whether I didn't even notice that I was on the governing body of a political party, or whether (the only other possible interpretation) I was on the governing body of a political party without noticing what policies that party was adopting.
Not that this makes much difference, but on the principle that "truth matters", I really must point out that the latest claim Stew is making is yet again false. In fact, I was not on the Alba NEC when the Nordic Model became party policy. It was adopted as policy on 11th September 2021, which was the first day of the two-day inaugural Alba conference in Greenock. At that point I was not an NEC member, but merely a candidate for the NEC. The ballot for NEC members took place during the conference and did not close until the end of session on the 12th. The results were revealed to the candidates on the 13th, so I did not become an NEC member until around two days after the Nordic Model became policy.
I did not attend the 2021 conference because I live with a vulnerable person and Covid remained an unacceptably high risk (in my opinion it was irresponsible of Alba to hold a fully in-person conference at a time when other parties were not yet doing so). However, if I had been able to attend I would have voted against the Nordic Model becoming policy. I would have been on the losing side in that vote, but I would not have been in a minority of one, because I saw on the live-stream that at least one Alba member was brave enough to speak against the motion.
But having been outvoted, precisely what does Stew think the oddity of my position was? Does he really think no-one should be on the governing body of a party unless they agree with every single one of that party's policies? If he does, it's little wonder that he's always been unwilling to be a member of any party that is not called the Wings Party and is not led by himself on the "Il Duce" principle.
As I've pointed out many times, all anyone can do is find the political party that is the closest fit for them. You're never going to find the perfect fit - there are always going to be at least one or two policies you strongly disagree with. For independence supporters who oppose the Nordic Model, there's a particular problem, because the only major pro-indy party that actively opposes it is the Green Party. My policy disagreements with the Green Party on other matters clearly outweigh my agreement with them about the folly of the Nordic Model.
In any case, nobody in their right mind is going to just crudely count up the policies they agree with and the policies they don't - some issues are more high-tariff than others, and independence has the highest tariff of the lot. (Unless your name is Stew Campbell, of course, in which case gender identity politics is far, far, far more important than independence, or indeed than any other subject in the known universe.) I do feel strongly against the Nordic Model, but that's always going to be a lower priority for me than independence - which is why, for example, I openly supported Ash Regan in the 2023 SNP leadership election even though she is one of the highest-profile proponents of the Nordic Model.
Nevertheless, I can assure Stew that the Nordic Model was very much on my mind when I was standing for the Alba NEC in 2021. That's why, in the summer of 2021, I recorded a podcast interview with the prolific Canadian blogger Maggie McNeill, who is a semi-retired escort and perhaps the most eloquent critic of the Nordic Model anywhere in the world. You can listen to the podcast HERE or via the embedded player below.
I wonder if RevStu knows what the Alba policy on Nordic model was when he wrote the Wee Alba Book?
ReplyDeleteGreat point!!
DeleteHonest question: what else besides gender policies turns you off so about the Greens? I’m in the same boat as you, James, as being pro-indy, firmly pro-legalisation of sex work, and dismayed about the Greens belligerence against Andy Wightman and, of course, their shocking incompetence during their brief stint in government. So it’s not exactly a demanding question! But I’m interested in what puts you off them so much more than the SNP. To me, neither party is attractive.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, the Greens activists I’ve met are as sound and decent people as the SNP members that I know. But both their parties leaderships are risible.
Top of the list would be gender self-ID. But what magnifies that issue about a hundred times over is the Stalinist (or at this stage I should say Albaesque) way the Greens shove that policy down their members' throats. It's literally impossible to be a Green member and to openly hold gender critical views, as Topher Dawson discovered.
DeleteGender self-ID is probably still the majority view in the SNP, but it never quite - almost but not quite - became impossible to dissent from that view as an SNP member, and it's certainly not impossible now that Kate Forbes is Deputy First Minister, and now that John Swinney has quietly pulled the party back from the brink.
Oh, apologies, I see you specifically asked about non-gender policies. There wouldn't actually be that much. I agree with a lot of the comtents of the 2021 Green manifesto. I'm opposed to nuclear power, for example, and I think the climate emergency is real and needs to be tackled. If the Greens would just drop their identity politics fanaticism and get back to basics, I wouldn't be that far distant from them.
DeleteSame. Stuart Campbell’s predilections quite aside, the Greens gender stuff is fair game to object, simply because they enforce it so religiously on their own ranks and, no doubt, the doorstep. Last time I ever met a Green at my door was decades ago, when, yes, their candidate was trans. She lost handsomely. They seem to have forgotten our estate exists, since.
DeleteLike you, I’m well aligned to their policies overall. That’s why I voted for them for so long. Credible, passably sane leadership is all it’ll take to give me a political home again. I want to vote Green! Why aren’t they letting me!? Who stole my party?
I think my issue with the greens is that it’s being influenced by new candidates who seem to think Harvie isn’t radical enough and I think there’s trouble brewing for them in the future. I agree with their stance on trans inclusivity - I think anyone who has undergone surgery should have legal protections that woman have. I’m less convinced when it comes to sports or shortlists tbf - the problem is there’s no room for any kind of give and take in the greens - to find a way forward. They’re so hardline in the way that Rowling or Cherry are on the opposite side - so it’s no use. I think they’ll become more like that. Also quite a few of their councillors or candidates are completely off putting on social media - they seem unhinged.
DeleteCampbell will be writing the Wee Reform Book.
ReplyDeleteThe Wee Red White and Blue Book
Delete“We must kill independence stone cold dead in order to have independence.”
George Orwell must be getting sick of all the homage.
I think those rexpressing identity politics fanaticism recently are those who would be right wing. Many on hear do seem to have a particular concern over individuals private parts.
ReplyDeleteWhat does "rexpressing" mean, for those of us who don't speak fluent Woke?
DeleteMany on hear ?
DeleteAnon at 4.22 pm: I agree.
DeleteOf course you agree with yourself, that's only natural.
DeleteAnon at 9.31 pm ... you're wrong but who cares?
DeleteHow can I be wrong? My *opinion* is that it's only natural! And you care, otherwise you wouldn't have replied! Sheesh!
DeleteWhat is woke? Right wing numpty ?
ReplyDeleteTry stern-bwag.
DeleteOch, follonshog shall be!
DeleteThis.
DeleteState of.
DeleteAnon moron @ 7:03 Woke = anti - White.
DeleteAnon 8.24 , Woke = anti-stupid.
Delete8.03: Nope. Just "This".
ReplyDeleteHi James: Why wasn't this filed under the new "Reporting the Reverend" branding?
ReplyDeleteGood morning,
DeleteI speak on behalf of a most earnest and noble, political and satirical cause.
We hereby announce the launch of the Campaign to Bring Back "Wings Watch." (Colloquially known as The Twitchers.) Stand with us in our fight to restore the one true branding to this venerable establishment's reportage of Scotland's Most Unhinged Blogger (let alone Somerset's).
While "Reporting the Reverend" helpfully reminds us of the great, departed Rev. I. M. Jolly, and many an annual visit of his, and by no means do we intend to supplant this fine sub-brand completely, we do however stand firm in our principles, behind the binoculars, nevertheless.
Be they blue, great, willow, or coal, be they jiggly or taut, or, even and especially when they're tweeting inscrutable song about ardent British Nationalism being Scotland's last dear friend, one thing can be sure: we like nothing better than some good tits in front of our lens. Long may it continue!
"Why wasn't this filed under the new "Reporting the Reverend" branding?"
DeleteBecause 'Reporting the Reverend' is operating in a rota system with 'Stew-Time' and 'no branding'.
Do keep up.
It might be useful if you concentrated on independence and polls rather than a vendetta against Alba, Wings and the Labour Party
DeleteLabour Party= Unionism, Wings=unionism/reform, ALBA=not sure
DeleteIt might be useful too if Alba and Wings packed up. What's the point of them ?
DeleteWGD has its audience but leave others to “stu” and die in their vine.SGP can promote independence.
ReplyDeleteIt does (promote independence).
Delete