An audio podcast version of the above video can be heard HERE, and will soon be available on Apple Podcasts HERE.
I now have fifteen regular monthly Ko-Fi supporters, thanks to someone new signing up over the last 48 hours. I reckon if I could get up to several dozen monthly supporters that would make it sustainable for me to keep making content. If you'd like to help inch me closer to that target, please visit my Ko-Fi page HERE. Remember that if a recurring monthly donation isn't suitable, the page also accepts one-off donations of any amount.
McAlpine and his ilk are on the periphery of genuine grass roots independence supporters but need to be noticed and therefore produce such crazy proposals now and again but have not the gumption or the tools to put their ideas in actions. I think they are happy with getting noticed now and again particularly by the right wing press.
ReplyDeleteMcAlpine accepted the brexit result of 52% of England and Welsh supporters voting for it. 62%of Scots said no and were ignores. Remember the first Devolution vote which labour gerrymandered. In my view if brits vote 49% for the union we should have independence. 50% each Full autonomy within a republic structure.
ReplyDeleteExcellent video. I agree with your viewpoint and I am happy to see that you still hold with getting an independence mandate through a de facto referendum. It will of course be harder to get a majority yes vote using a U.K. GE compared with a Holyrood election but it has the advantage that the Britnats cannae say it is illegal to hold a vote on the constitution via a UK GE. It's a very basic first step to independence to get a proven mandated vote for Scottish independence.
ReplyDeleteIt is beyond me how an independence supporter can say they support independence by advocating doing nothing ( like some of the numpties who post btl on SGP and on WGD).
It is also beyond me that some people who claim to support independence think the UK will grant a sec 30 when polls are at, say 75% yes, when Westminster will be guaranteed to lose. It is NEVER going to happen.
At present independence is stalled and that is down to numpties supporting the corrupt and devolutionist SNP leadership over the last 12 years. It's not radical new policies that is required it's independence leadership and you won't get that from Swinney just as it was nowhere to be seen from Yousaf and Sturgeon.
We are locked into an increasingly unpopular union with a much larger country. A far right fascist party looms over the UK. the only current legal route out of the union is a referendum and that is currently in the gift of the UK government. None of the main UK parties would grant such a referendum, so stalemate.
DeleteOn the other hand the UK government does not want to admit that the union is a prison from which there is no escape.
Some people have suggested using a Westminster or Holyrood election as a plebiscite for a unilateral declaration of independence. I think this is risky because it would scare off waverers (who we need) and allow unionists to portray the plebiscite as a hijack.
However others have suggested making one of the elections a plebiscite a vote on allowing Holyrood to hold referendums would be a much stronger strategy. Unionists would not be able to oppose the move without admitting that the union is a prison. Waverers would be assured that the actual referendum would be a separate event from an election, with enough time and space to debate the pros and cons of independence properly.
I think this is a credible strategy with a realistic chance of succeeding.
IFS, I know you’re no Sturgeon fan but credit where it’s due. Whatever you think of her she was a formidable communicator. At her peak she could fill a stadium and had something approaching rock-star appeal with her audience. Very few politicians can pull that off. Yousaf was a great communicator too, especially in more conversational settings, though he never had Sturgeon’s ability to command a big crowd. You don’t have to like either of them to recognise that communication was one of their strengths. And I’d give both of them credit for being prepared to speak clearly against hatred and prejudice rather than exploiting those divisions for political advantage. You don’t have to like either of them to recognise those qualities.
DeleteIndependence will come through democracy and like it or not the largest pro-independence party by far is the SNP. It won't come through some sort of popular uprising (Robin McAlpine) or UDI (Peter A Bell) .
Delete10.33 and 11.33am are perfect examples of why we have made ZERO progress towards independence over the last 12 years when Westminster has been in complete disarray and decline. They admire people and a party that is supposed to have independence as its raison d'etre yet does NOTHING to achieve it. In fact it has brought the SNP party into disrepute by its unwelcome policies and corrupt behaviour. If a leadership is using its skills set to feather its own nest rather than obtain independence I do not see any reason to admire that skill set. Quite the opposite in fact. They deserve to be condemned as charlatans.
DeleteIFS -And your plan for Scottish independence is ?
DeleteTopher . Not sure where you have been for the last decade but multiple mandates for Indyref2 have been won by the SNP but Westminster just says no. Westminster will just say no to your your approach as well. Your suggestion is not credible but just another waste of time. The only way progress can be made is demonstrating a clear vote for INDEPENDENCE has taken place in Scotland.
DeleteIFS, that conflates strategic failure with bad faith. You can argue Nicola Sturgeon’s gradualism did not get independence over the line before she was prematurely brought down but “charlatan” simply doesn’t fit the political figure we actually witnessed. At her peak Nicola Sturgeon was an exceptional political operator. She was a masterclass in comms, message discipline, cut-through and rock-star appeal. She could fill Scotland's biggest arena, dominate a campaign and connect with voters in a way no contemporary Scottish politician could match. She made sure the SNP was Scotland’s dominant political party. Nicola Sturgeon’s political talent was exceptional. Scotland also greatly admired her and Humza Yousaf for an anti-hate and anti-sectarian politics, in a Scotland with a rising tide of hate, rather than populist dog-whistling at the most marginalized in society.
DeleteAnon@10:03am, a Sturgeon worshipper and rather sad individual.
DeleteA De Facto referendum, like all referenda, is a vote for the electorate on a subject or proposition. It is NOT to elect politicians to the gravy train.
ReplyDeleteSo, ATLS' supposed de facto independence referendum in 2026 was not a referendum at all: as ATLS candidates sought election as MSPs.
Likewise, I cannot imagine the SNP colonial administrator troughers ever rejecting the opportunity for a place on the Holyrood or WM gravy train to use an election as a genuine de facto referendum.
For career politicians, priority is getting elected, swearing fealty to the English Crown and start collecting the UK state salary, expenses and pension payments for as long as possible.
Ach there's always the Alliance for the Liberation of Scotland
DeleteATLS's Roddy Macleod is a self-declared Putinist. Is that company you want to keep?
DeleteAnon 10.53 That partially explains why ATLS received an incredible 13 votes in a recent Aberdeen local election!
DeleteFrom McAlpine's article: "For example, a referendum is an agreement signed by both sides which states they will abide by the result."
ReplyDeleteNonsense. THAT was the Edinburgh Agreement, and it wasn't even legally binding.
He says: "But we will win because we build a position of strength ..."
He said the same thing back in 2014 after the Ref on Glasgow Green apparently, including "no 2nd Referndum until 2023" much to the distress of a (then fellow) Winger I was talking to who wanted his life back.
The guy is all waffle and no porridge. Pass the salt.