With the Scottish Parliament election only weeks away and opinion polls showing that the SNP are the least hated party, here’s another chance for you all to sing their campaign song and help them to get the majority in Parliament that they’re desperately trying to avoid.
Let’s get everyone in the country singing together with one voice.
(SNP 2026 campaign song – to the tune of ‘O Sole Mio’)
Just one more mandate, give it to me Then you’ll get Indy, we promise, you see Though you may think you’ve heard this before We need a mandate or we’re oot the door
Just one more mandate, we still need the cash This could be our last chance, before the backlash We’re not used to working, we need to be free To write newspaper columns, do spots on TV
Just one more mandate, we’ll promise the moon But after election, a different tune When we’re campaigning, it’s Scotland the Brave But once you vote for us, it’s you who’s the slave
Just one more mandate, we’ve no Indy plans We’ll spend all your money promoting just trans Because it’s important (and we all agree) That men show their willies for young girls to see
Just one more mandate, is it not enough That once every five years, we talk Indy stuff We’ve made it so obvious, why can’t you see If you stick with us, you’ll never be free
And now the blood is rising and your heart is beating faster, why not vote Alliance to Liberate Scotland everywhere you can. Give them the chance to keep independence on the agenda. No one else will. Certainly not the SNP or the English unionist parties.
This is the second blog I’ve used the same title for, the original one about the Syrian invasion being way back in 2015 (who knew I’ve been blogging for 10 years).
“Oh, what a lovely war” was a film (which I liked) made in 1969 about the Great War of 1914-18, the war to end all wars it was called (I wonder how that turned out). It was a war in which millions died for no particular reason at the whim of their rulers. It was really just an argument between the German Kaiser Wilhelm II and the King of the United Kingdom and British Dominions and Emperor of India George V about who had the biggest and bestest Empire or, more realistically, who had the biggest and bestest willie. George won because he had the biggest title and he was the biggest prick (I know it should be the bigger prick, but I’m allowed some license).
Now the UK government are financing a remake in real life in Ukraine. Unfortunately, the shooting (wow, what a pun!) has gone on longer than Starmer expected so, as co-producer, he’s had to boost the budget by £3bn a year for as long as Zelensky wants to keep it going (remember, as director, he’s paid for each month it lasts). So far, the casualty rate has been disappointingly low and the casualties have been mainly Russians and Ukrainians, but the recently appointed Leader of the Western World, Sir Keir Starmer, has a plan to improve matters.
“We’ll put peace-keeping boots on the ground and peace-keeping planes in air to monitor any peace agreement in Ukraine to make sure it doesn’t happen. We have to get the British casualty rates up there with the biggest and bestest in the world, because, as everybody knows, Britain is a world power and every patriotic Englishman (including every Scottish, Welsh and Irish Englishman) is only too happy to die for his country, England. I am patriotic too, but in a different way that doesn’t involve dying.
“We’ll make sure these Ruskies are made to realise they can’t dictate who’s in charge in Ukraine and we’ll dare Putin to fire his nuclear weapons at us, because, if he does, we’ll retaliate, assuming, of course, we get US permission in time”, he said.
Or at least, that’s what he should have said, but he’s never been quite able to string a truthful sentence together, so he probably did his bestest.
He’s now preparing to put the UK on a war footing, possibly the only example of this when there’s no war, but he won’t be afraid to declare war on Russia to justify his decision and he knows all his Western allies will quickly follow his lead, or they’d better as 90% of British forces will already be dying in Ukraine and there will be hardly any left. But he won’t be worried as he and his family have probably already got their seats booked on the Airbus A-390 escape pod headed for Washington with all the really important people to run a government in exile.
But, surely there are politicians who aren’t in favour of war, politicians who want to see a peaceful resolution and an end to the deaths?
SNP politicians, for instance. Their former leader Alex Salmond and many of their former senior members often spoke out against war and the need for a political resolution to conflict. The current leadership couldn’t be in favour of a continuation of the war, could they?
Well, let’s see.
Swinney goes all out to support Starmer’s position on Ukraine, but at the cost of how many Scottish lives?Flynn is in favour of increased defence* spending. I wonder if he’s got shares in armaments companies.Swinney thinks it’s important to support Ukrainian independence. Pity he doesn’t feel the same about Scottish independence.
Swinney and Flynn taking the Scottish government another step along the way to full support of Westminster’s position on Ukraine. Yet another of the SNP’s long held policy positions binned, particularly the one on Scottish independence. When did the SNP become an overtly pro-war party, where unity with Westminster becomes more important than an end to conflict and death.
While I’m at it, can I just say that Keir Starmer is the worst PM in modern times. To be fair, it wasn’t a high bar to clear as that can be said about every PM elected in the last 50 years. It’s astonishing that we can think about every new PM that “at least they’ve got to be better than the last one”, only for it to turn out they’re even worse. How low can we go? Can we go lower than one who boasts openly about breaking every pledge he made to get elected (Is a pledge different from a promise? Don’t pledges count?) and boasts about his involvement in corruption. He might at least have the decency to try to hide these things like a proper PM.
PS. *In the phrase Defence Spending, Defence can be taken as a synonym for Attack, as the vast majority of Defence spending is spent on attacking and invading other countries.
BEAT THE CENSORS Many Facebook sites are still censoring bloggers like myself who can be critical of the actions of the SNP and the Scottish Government. They are attempting to prevent bloggers from getting their message out, so we have to depend on readers sharing the blog posts. If you liked this post or others I have written, please share this and take out a free subscription by clicking the follow button on the home page or on the posts. You will then be notified by email of any new posts on the blog. Thank you.
SALVO The progress of Salvo has been the most encouraging development since 2022. It is doing sterling work educating Scots about the Claim of Right and spelling out what it means that the Scottish people are sovereign, not any Parliament. Salvo has joined with Liberation.scot to develop campaigns the results of which will be available soon.
LIBERATION.SCOT We are seeking to build up liberation.scot to at least 100,000 signatures as part of our plan to win recognition at the UN as an official liberation movement. We intend to internationalise our battle for independence and through the setting up of the Scottish National Council we will develop our arguments to win progress in the international courts. Please help by signing up at liberation.scot. The members of liberation.scot have been asked to approve their new constitution, a necessary step towards international recognition.
Just to show I’m not the horrible anti-SNP blogger many think I am, here’s my contribution to the SNP’s 2026 campaign. It’s freely available to the party to commission a recording from someone who can actually sing (so not me) to be played at campaign events for the 2026 election. As you can see from the picture, John Swinney has already learned the words and is giving it laldy from the podium.
Just one more mandate
(SNP 2026 campaign song – to the tune of ‘O Sole Mio’)
Just one more mandate, give it to me Then you’ll get Indy, we promise, you see Though you may think you’ve heard this before We need a mandate or we’re oot the door
Just one more mandate, we still need the cash This could be our last chance, before the backlash We’re not used to working, we need to be free To write newspaper columns, do spots on TV
Just one more mandate, we’ll promise the moon But after election, a different tune When we’re campaigning, it’s Scotland the Brave But once you vote for us, it’s you who’s the slave
Just one more mandate, we’ve no Indy plans We’ll spend all your money promoting just trans Because it’s important (and we all agree) That men show their willies for young girls to see
Just one more mandate, is it not enough That once every five years, we talk Indy stuff We’ve made it so obvious, why can’t you see If you stick with us, you’ll never be free.
BEAT THE CENSORS Many Facebook sites are still censoring bloggers like myself who can be critical of the actions of the SNP and the Scottish Government. They are attempting to prevent bloggers from getting their message out, so we have to depend on readers sharing the blog posts. If you liked this post or others I have written, please share this and take out a free subscription by clicking the follow button on the home page or on the posts. You will then be notified by email of any new posts on the blog. Thank you.
SALVO The progress of Salvo has been the most encouraging development since 2022. It is doing sterling work educating Scots about the Claim of Right and spelling out what it means that the Scottish people are sovereign, not any Parliament. Salvo has joined with Liberation.scot to develop campaigns the results of which will be available soon.
LIBERATION.SCOT We are seeking to build up liberation.scot to at least 100,000 signatures as part of our plan to win recognition at the UN as an official liberation movement. We intend to internationalise our battle for independence and through the setting up of the Scottish National Council we will develop our arguments to win progress in the international courts. Please help by signing up at liberation.scot. The members of liberation.scot have been asked to approve their new constitution, a necessary step towards international recognition.
First, an apology. It’s been ages since my last blog posting, occasioned in part by an accident I had just before Christmas last year which left me struggling a bit with concentration for a few months, and partly by there being so little positive happening in the independence scene. Though there’s been much improvement in the first issue, unfortunately I can’t say the same for the second (but more later).
12th October, 2024 a date that will always be remembered for the death of Alex Salmond, whom many have characterised as the greatest Scottish political figure of modern times, or even the greatest ever. For myself, all I can say is he was the greatest in my lifetime so far and I cannot see that changing given my age and the current state of politics in Scotland.
I only met Alex a handful of times, mostly at SNP and Alba campaign events, though he played a big part in my life in encouraging me to become more active politically, starting in the run up to the referendum in 2011. One event I remember particularly was when Alex, turning up late from an earlier event that had overrun, probably because he talked too much, arrived with a bunch of Alba pens which he gave out to those standing close to him. Down to his last pen, he spotted me standing a few yards away. He strode over and gave me the pen “you can have the last one, Ron”. I was just a guy he had met a few times, more a casual acquaintance than anything else, but that was his style. I cherish the pen. I’ve still got it and will use it only sparingly to make sure I keep it forever.
But I want to take this opportunity to comment on the response of our two governments and the reaction of the English MSM to Alex’ death.
Handed to opportunity to show they were a proper government capable of reacting with speed and consideration to a situation no one could have anticipated, the Scottish Government stumbled and fell at the first hurdle. On hearing of Alex’ death, their first action was to send Kate Forbes to London to persuade Westminster to pay for the repatriation of Alex Salmond’s body. It was not unexpected that Westminster weren’t keen. In recent history, their financial dealings with Scotland have all involved money going the other way, so you can imagine their confusion when asked to pay for something to benefit Scots. ‘Does not compute’ you can hear them saying. While the two governments were arguing about who should pay, Sir Tom Hunter stepped in and paid for a private plane to bring Alex back to Scotland. The Scottish Government later claimed that they had (belatedly) offered to pay for the flight. That may or may not be true, but their excuse for their delay was that there was no protocol in place for them to act. An extremely poor excuse in my opinion.
Whether the Scottish Government’s lack of decency in the face of a tragic event was caused by them not wanting to be decent to a man they had spent 10 years trying to destroy, whether they were just too embarassed being put in a position where doing ‘the right thing’ went against all they had tried to do for 10 years, or whether they were just too inept to make a decision quickly enough, can only be speculated on, but, whatever the reason, they certainly managed to make Scotland look as if it had a parliament full of numpties. However, no matter how bad that looked, there was worse to come.
The North Macedonian Government have received much praise for their reaction to Alex’ death, holding a memorial service and providing a guard of honour at an officially arranged send-off, making them look like a government that understands how to respond to the death of an important visitor to their country. So here was the opportunity for the Scottish Government to make up for their appaling handling of Alex’ repatriation. All they had to do was follow the North Macedonian example.
But what happened was almost exactly the opposite. A hastily arranged press release from Murray Foote about his decision to resign as SNP CEO, a press release that could easily have waited for a few days as he won’t actually leave until a replacement is found, was deliberately designed to take attention away from Alex Salmond’s return, and was followed by John Swinney’s equally hastily arranged embarrassing statement praising Foote’s contribution to the party (helping to flush them down the pan, perhaps?). No comment on Alex’ return, no official welcoming party from the Scottish Government or the SNP, no red carpet, no guard of honour, all as if it just wasn’t happening. Fortunately, the Scottish public knew how to act. Hundreds turned up at Aberdeen airport to accompany the hearse on its way to Alex’ home, Yes Bikers leading the way and a long column of cars following, most with Saltires waving proudly in the wind. The Scottish public did what the Scottish Government were unable or unwilling to do, making them look even more useless.
How could our government do that? (Are they even our Government any more?) How could they insult Alex Salmond and his family like that? Why would they want to show themselves as a bunch of useless toerags who couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery? Why would they want to disgrace Scotland on the international stage as a country who can’t even acknowledge the death of a former leader? Why wouldn’t they have something to say about the man who brought the SNP from the fringe of Scottish politics to a leading position, the man without whose efforts they wouldn’t have their current jobs and income?
Was it incompetence? Their actions, or lack of them, around the repatriation of Alex Salmond’s body could, if you were feeling generous, be put down to their total inability to do anything properly, but surely their lack of acknowledgement of Alex’ return must put incompetence into the unlikely category.
Was it jealousy? They were never able to do what Alex did, He built up the SNP and the reputation of the Scottish Government but in the last 10 years (the Sturgeon years) the only way for the SNP has been down.
Was it hatred? It certainly was for Sturgeon and her pals. Sturgeon’s one ambition in government was to show she was better, more popular and more internationally recognised than Alex Salmond and, when she failed, she tried to have him jailed on made up accusations of sexual impropriety from her political allies and friendly civil servants. Though these efforts were unsuccessful, they affected Alex financially, they impacted on his reputation and the stress could also have ultimately cost him his life. Is it too strong to call Sturgeon and her fellow conspirators murderers?
While the Scottish Government were doing their best to ignore Alex Salmond, which I suppose was a bit better than their attitude to him when he was alive, the unionist media were making up for that in spades. Columnists and (so-called) reporters were falling over themselves to say the most nasty things they could think of, not constrained by the laws of libel following Alex’ death. I won’t repeat examples of what I mean as they are (covered much better here in Wings) for those who haven’t alread seen them.
What has prompted this outpouring of abuse in the media against a man who, now deceased, can no longer hurt them or argue against their political views? In my opinion, this is simply an effort to besmirch Alex Salmond’s reputation to try to prevent him becoming a martyr who, in death, still has the ability to lead and encourage Scots to work to deliver his dream of Scottish independence. Their hate pieces, with one or two exceptions (you know who you are Kenny Farquharson), are not so much aimed at Alex Salmond as they are at what he stood for. In effect, the pieces are just a continuation of their efforts to make sure Scotland continues as a willing colony whose only function is to deliver Scottish assets and Scottish production to benefit their English coloniser. BBC Scotland (should it be renamed BBC Coloniser?) continue in their leading role in this regard, commissioning productions from those known for their dislike of Alex Salmond and getting their news broadcasters to drop direct or implied insults into any news item that mentions his name.
However, have the media gone too far this time? Have they now reached a point where even those who wouldn’t necessarily have agreed with Alex Salmond are now concerned that an individual is being traduced within hours of death and for days afterwards, even before a funeral could be held. There used to be an unwritten law that the period before the funeral was respected as free from criticism, a sort of a purdah period if you like, but just like the purdah period before an election or a referendum, this is no longer recognised by the unionist media who just can’t wait to disparage all things Scottish.
All in all, I don’t think either government or many in the media can look back on their efforts following the death of Alex Salmond with any great satisfaction. – Westminster did what they always do for Scotland, nothing. No surprise there. – For the Scottish Government, this has been a disaster. Had their objective been to show themselves as a group of petty incompetents, they would have succeeded royally. – Those in the media who were trying to show Alex in a bad light went so far overboard that they generated more disgust at their efforts than belief in their point of view.
In the end, the unionists won’t win. The nastier they become, the more abuse we get, the more they tell us Scots and Scotland are just shite, the more Scots will realise that they’re just a lying bunch of thieves whose only interest is benefitting England at Scotland’s expense and the more Scots will work to achieve Alex Salmond’s dream of an independent Scotland joining the world community of nations on equal terms.
BEAT THE CENSORS Many Facebook sites are still censoring bloggers like myself who can be critical of the actions of the SNP and the Scottish Government. They are attempting to prevent bloggers from getting their message out, so we have to depend on readers sharing the blog posts. If you liked this post or others I have written, please share this and take out a free subscription by clicking the follow button on the home page or on the posts. You will then be notified by email of any new posts on the blog. Thank you.
SALVO The progress of Salvo has been the most encouraging development since 2022. It is doing sterling work educating Scots about the Claim of Right and spelling out what it means that the Scottish people are sovereign, not any Parliament. Salvo has joined with Liberation.scot to develop campaigns the results of which will be available soon.
LIBERATION.SCOT We are seeking to build up liberation.scot to at least 100,000 signatures as part of our plan to win recognition at the UN as an official liberation movement. We intend to internationalise our battle for independence and through the setting up of the Scottish National Council we will develop our arguments to win progress in the international courts. Please help by signing up at liberation.scot. The members of liberation.scot have been asked to approve their new constitution, a necessary step towards international recognition.
There was a time when it was said that SNP MPs were going to Westminster to find a way to lose their jobs. It was called settling up, not settling down, a phrase first coined in the early days of the election of SNP MPs and often repeated as a promise (by those seeking election) or an accusation (by those unhappy with their MP’s performance).
Of course, these days are long gone and very few (very, very few) SNP MPs are now prepared to sacrifice their position, their salary and their virtually unlimited expenses just to trigger Scottish independence. Out of the Union or still in a job, there’s really no choice, is there? When you can make all that money and all you have to sacrifice is your country’s freedom, why would you turn down the cash?
“There’s no such thing as society”. So said Margaret Thatcher, and the majority of the SNP MPs seem to be hell-bent on proving that it’s true with their obvious concentration on their own careers, their own positions, and, above all, their own incomes.
But wait. Has something unexpected happened? Have SNP MPs at last found a cause for which they are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, risking all that money for which virtually no work is required? It certainly seems like it.
So, what is this cause that so many MPs are prepared to put their futures on the line, prepared to bet £350k annually on a winner takes all gamble.
They’re enthusiastically supporting a three-way bet on GRRB, Hate Crimes and Jury free trials for sex crimes, and at the moment, it looks like their gamble is going to fail.
They’ve found out that the majority of their constituents are solidly against all three, but that hasn’t caused them to have any sort of rethink. The recent by-election in Rutherglen and Hamilton saw the SNP vote fall from 23,775 to 8,399, a fall of almost 65%, but initial reaction from the party doesn’t show any signs of a rethink either. In fact, if anything, the opposite seems to be the case. What they say their loss was due to was Margaret Ferrier, the low turnout, or tactical voting by Tories for Labour. OK, I know parties always blame someone or something else for a defeat, but when combined with no obvious effort to change what they must realise is the basic cause of the problem, it doesn’t bode well.
The only change in SNP rhetoric is the much more frequent mention of independence, though that’s not a surprise. One thing that can virtually be depended on is the party highlighting the advantages of independence as the election looms while, of course, continuing to do nothing to make independence a practical reality and then forgetting all about it once the election is over. The one time they tried to ignore independence before the election, in 2017, they lost half a million votes and 21 seats, so they haven’t repeated the mistake (or haven’t up till now). Unfortunately, they are now finding out that mere mentions of independence, combined with absolutely no effort to make it happen and further combined with a set of policies that only their payroll support is no longer going to cut it.
There have been some changes at Westminster. Steven Flynn, the Westminster leader, has been shuffling his front bench team to concentrate on the issues which he believes will stem the flow of support in next year’s UK election. However, astonishingly, he has chosen to remove all emphasis from independence in favour of today’s issues like energy prices and the cost of living, effectively blaming independence on the disaster of Rutherglen and Hamilton West. Does he not realise that the majority of SNP voters support independence? Does he not remember what happened in 2017 at a time when SNP support nationally was much higher than now? Has he not read the SNP constitution? Without independence, the SNP are just another British party content with devolution and if they no longer enthuse the independence vote, they will fail.
Support for the SNP throughout Scotland is now much lower than last year. In May, 2022, support for the SNP in a Westminster election was 44%, rising to a high of 51% in December. There’s only been one Scottish Westminster poll this month, a YouGov poll conducted between 2nd and 6th, so the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election would have had some impact on the outcome.
If this was the result in next year’s UK election, the SNP would lose 24 of their current 43 seats, a number they’ve already managed to reduce from 48 through a combination of independence inactivity (Neale Hanvey and Kenny MacAskill) and a desire to purge the party of anyone who wants independence (Margaret Ferrier and Angus MacNeil). Feeding the poll numbers into the Electoral Calculus’s seat predictor gives the following:
Image courtesy of Electoral Calculus
The SNP’s pursuit of Margaret Ferrier resulted in the recall petition and their virtual wipe-out in the by-election, something that wouldn’t have happened if Nicola Sturgeon hadn’t been so desperate to get rid of her that she started a witch-hunt eagerly taken up by the rest of the SNP wokies. Only the SNP’s support for her removal kept the issue in the public eye. Without that, the issue would have died following a few obligatory complaints by the opposition parties. As it was, Margaret Ferrier was punished three times for one offence, suspension from Parliament, a community service order from the court and the loss of her job, all for an offence for which virtually no members of other parties were punished.
So, is next year’s UK election going to be more of the same from the SNP? Will they tell us about all the good things that only independence can bring? Will they present the us with what remains of their stock of tired, mouldy old carrots, recycled from 2019, 2017 and 2015 and still expect us to be just as accepting as we were when the carrots were fresh? Do they really think that a lesser emphasis on independence plus the continuation of unquestioning support for highly unpopular policies aimed at destroying the rights of women and children are going to lead to electoral success?
Are all the MPs that stupid (hint, some are) or is this just part of some grand woke plan to get rid of the few remaining semi-sensible ones to guarantee a continuation of the woke dream for years to come?
Is this what the so-called leaders of the independence movement have come to?
BEAT THE CENSORS Many Facebook sites are still censoring bloggers like myself who can be critical of the actions of the SNP and the Scottish Government. They are attempting to prevent bloggers from getting their message out, so we have to depend on readers sharing the blog posts. If you liked this post or others I have written, please share this and take out a free subscription by clicking the follow button on the home page or on the posts. You will then be notified by email of any new posts on the blog. Thank you.
SALVO The progress of Salvo has been the most encouraging development since 2022. It is doing sterling work educating Scots about the Claim of Right and spelling out what it means that the Scottish people are sovereign, not any Parliament. Salvo has joined with Liberation.scot to develop campaigns the results of which will be available soon.
LIBERATION.SCOT We are seeking to build up liberation.scot to at least 100,000 signatures as part of our plan to win recognition at the UN as an official liberation movement. We intend to internationalise our battle for independence and through the setting up of the Scottish National Council we will develop our arguments to win progress in the international courts. Please help by signing up at liberation.scot. The members of liberation.scot have been asked to approve their new constitution, a necessary step towards international recognition.
After a thoroughly nasty set of campaigns from her opponents, the recall petition for Margaret Ferrier has succeeded, with the two major parties in Scotland (with loads of help from the media) managing to persuade just over 14% of the electorate to sign. Commons rules meant Margaret was not permitted to put her case before the recall was officially announced, but by that time Labour had already been campaigning for about 2 months. Margaret immediately leaves the Commons and will likely be succeeded in a by-election sometime later this year by a numpty from the Labour party, whose only contribution to the Rutherglen and Hamilton constituency will be his smirking appearance at the post-election photoshoot. You can be sure that he was only picked (over 4 real local candidates) because he agreed to do what he was told by his London bosses.
The recall petition was ‘cleverly’ arranged to conclude while Parliament was on holiday, so maximising the disruption as the by-election can’t be arranged until the Commons returns in September. It means that Rutherglen and Hamilton West will be without representation for some months, so constituents, please make sure you have no problems needing support from your MP until after the by-election and even then, hope that the MP has a team who have some clue and can be bothered to make the effort, though, as we’re talking Labour, that’s far from guaranteed.
Certainly, Labour’s contribution to the campaign was a series of leaflets more notable for their lies and smears than for their policy content. For one example, see here.
At least, you can understand what drove Labour to create the opportunity, first by voting in the Commons committee to make sure that a 30 day suspension was agreed, triggering the recall petition and then conducting this nasty campaign, disguising their party self-interest in a cloak of public concern. They desperately wanted this by-election success to demonstrate that Labour are back to being a political force to be reckoned with in Scotland, even though victory, if it happens, is likely to be more to do with the expected disintegration of the SNP vote rather than any increase in Labour support.
But what’s in it for the SNP? When Nicola Sturgeon prompted this witch hunt against arguably the most hard working SNP MP, but one whose support for independence was at odds with the leadership of the current party, the SNP were riding high in the polls, with the worst of the Hate Crimes Bill, the GRRB, DRS, the offshore wind auction and the rest still to come. Could she have anticipated the backlash and the impact on SNP support or, as many have said, could she have planned it?
But now, with SNP support heading for the toilet, Sturgeon’s replacement decided to continue the persecution of Margaret Ferrier, thus really annoying the large number of constituents who previously supported the SNP, but who had no desire to get rid of Margaret. Of course, they had no voice in the recall, but will certainly make their voice heard in the by-election.
Let’s not forget that the SSP, the Scottish Socialist Party, another supposedly independence supporting party, were also campaigning for the recall, even though they had virtually nothing to gain from a by-election. Perhaps they thought they were on safe ground with no actual independence party standing to point out that the SSP, like the SNP and the Greens, are another party who seem only committed to independence when it suits them.
So we are where we are. If Margaret chooses not to stand again, the constituency will lose a hard-working MP with a proud record of backing local issues and local people. Even worse, her replacement will be either be the Labour candidate who lies about being local (unless you think Partick is part of Rutherglen) or the SNP one, said to be the laziest councillor in South Lanarkshire. Some choice!
So the good people of Rutherglen and Hamilton West have a choice to make. We don’t yet know all who’ll be standing, but the two candidates who have so far been put forward by Labour and SNP are certainly not ones I would vote for (and I have a vote).
One last general point. Are the recall rules fit for purpose? Is the tiny 10% of the constituency electorate (OK 14% in this case) really sufficient to end the career of an MP, especially when the combined might of parties attracting virtually 100% of the voting public are campaigning for the recall? Is it fair that those who oppose the recall get no voice? Is it fair that parties supporting the recall get to campaign for weeks before the recall petition is officially launched, when the MP is prohibited by Commons rules from putting her case during that time? Is it fair that parties can spend up to £10,000 each and make use of party members time, limited only by the number of members in each party, when the MP is effectively on their own? I realise you can’t expect fairness from Westminster, but surely this is just too one-sided.
BEAT THE CENSORS Many Facebook sites are still censoring bloggers like myself who can be critical of the actions of the SNP and the Scottish Government. They are attempting to prevent bloggers from getting their message out, so we have to depend on readers sharing the blog posts. If you liked this post or others I have written, please share this and take out a free subscription by clicking the follow button on the home page or on the posts. You will then be notified by email of any new posts on the blog. Thank you.
SALVO The progress of Salvo has been the most encouraging development since 2022. It is doing sterling work educating Scots about the Claim of Right and spelling out what it means that the Scottish people are sovereign, not any Parliament. Salvo has joined with Liberation.scot to develop campaigns the results of which will be available soon.
LIBERATION.SCOT We are seeking to build up liberation.scot to at least 100,000 signatures as part of our plan to win recognition at the UN as an official liberation movement. We intend to internationalise our battle for independence and through the setting up of the Scottish National Council we will develop our arguments to win progress in the international courts. Please help by signing up at liberation.scot. The members of liberation.scot have been asked to approve their new constitution, a necessary step towards international recognition.
So finally, we have the answer to what happens to SNP members when Nicola Sturgeon takes the huff.
Margaret Ferrier was much too keen on independence to have a place in Sturgeon’s SNP and, on top of that, she was getting too much publicity for all the hard work she put into campaigning. How dare she take some of the attention away from the glorious leader.
In Sturgeon’s SNP, you’re either ‘in’ or ‘out’, and Margaret wasn’t one of the ‘in’ crowd. So, when the chance arose to get rid of her, Sturgeon grabbed it with both hands.
“Off with her head”, said the yellow Queen, and all the obedient courtiers followed her lead. A nod and a wink to the media led not only to a deluge of column inches and TV and radio minutes, but also to a crowd of reporters (definitely not journalists) surrounding her home for days on end, making normal family life impossible. Imagine the stress that would be creating.
Losing the whip and suspension from the party followed, all arranged to make sure there was no let up on the stream of bad publicity, painting Margaret as pretty much the most evil person in Scotland, all this for trying to do your job and support your colleagues.
Sure, Margaret made a mistake. She should have waited until she got the result of the test, but she was under pressure to stick to arrangements she had made, particularly the debate she was leading in Westminster, where remote attendance was not permitted at that time.
While all other parties would have supported their member in such circumstances, the SNP were leading the charge to get rid of her. The difference between Margaret’s treatment by the party and that of other SNP elected members who made mistakes was huge.
Think of Patrick Grady, who made unwanted sexual advances to a junior member of staff. From the very top of the party, every effort was made to minimise the incident and support Grady, but not his victim. See The National’s view of it here. By the way, his punishment from Westminster was a two day suspension, though two years earlier, a Tory MP had been suspended for six weeks for a similar sexual offence.
Think of Jordan Linden, former leader of North Lanarkshire Council, also accused of sexual impropriety (SNP have a thing about sex, don’t they). Again a cover up and again more support for the alleged perpetrator than for the victim and those who reported it. A police investigation is on-going. See the Daily Record’s view here.
Calls for Margaret’s resignation followed. Do the ‘right’ thing, they all said. Just resign. Don’t make us have to get you suspended from Westminster and launch a recall petition. Just make it easy for us to replace you. Among the many calling for her resignation were members of her own constituency party. How could the local MSP and the local councillors be so quick to jump on the hate Margaret Ferrier bandwagon when they all owe their positions to the support they got from Margaret. They are the lowest of the low.
By this time, the Labour party had joined in the witch hunt. Sensing the opportunity to double the number of Scottish MPs (yes, they’ve only got one, Ian Murray, the only Labour party member in Scotland who owns his own Union Jack suit), they joined the SNP in campaigning as if the by-election had already been called.
Both parties conducted pretty nasty campaigns, focussing entirely on spreading abuse and lies about Margaret Ferrier, though Labour wins the prize for the nastiest leaflet.
But none of this would work without a suspension from the Commons. Following an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the Standards Committee recommended a 30 day suspension, which had to be approved by Parliament before becoming effective. In the last 50 years, only three MPs have been suspended for 30 days or more, Ian Paisley Jnr. (DUP) for failing to declare family holidays paid by the Sri Lancan Government, Keith Vaz (Lab) for offering to buy cocaine for sex workers and the aforementioned Rob Roberts (Tory) for breaching Parliaments sexual misconduct policy. No other MP has been suspended for breaching Covid rules, even though many have admitted to doing so.
Yesterday, 6th June, a vote in parliament resulted in approval of the committee’s recommendation. Both Labour and SNP members voted in favour, with Alba MPs being the only Scottish MPs to vote against. A recall petition is therefore triggered, with a by-election if 10% of the constituency electorate vote for it.
The action of the Labour MPs is understandable as they see this as the opportunity to revive their flagging fortunes in Scotland. Party advantage always trumps common decency.
But what’s the excuse for the 14 SNP MPs who voted in favour. There’s unlikely to be any party advantage as the SNP are unlikely to win the by-election. So why? Did they think they were doing the ‘right’ thing? (don’t make me laugh), or was this a case of Nicola Sturgeon’s spite being carried forward despite the change of leader? Does Sturgeon still wield that much influence that they were too afraid to go against her wishes? Or was this another case of acting despite the likely party disadvantage. Not the first time this has happened, of course. I am reminded of the party refusing to support Neale Hanvey (another strong independence supporter) in the 2019 election despite the opportunity to remove the then shadow Scottish Secretary of State (Neale won anyway as an independent without party support).
Here are the 14 SNP MPs who put Nicola Sturgeon’s spite above common decency, failing to support an ex-colleague, despite several of them probably in part owing their position to Margaret Ferrier’s campaigning efforts.
Image courtesy of @Gillian_Emm
We’ll all remember these names next year when the UK general election comes along and we’ll be pleased to offer them as much support as they offered Margaret Ferrier, a thoroughly decent and hard-working MP who in no way deserves what she is going through.
BEAT THE CENSORS Many Facebook sites are still censoring bloggers like myself who can be critical of the actions of the SNP and the Scottish Government. They are attempting to prevent bloggers from getting their message out, so we have to depend on readers sharing the blog posts. If you liked this post or others I have written, please share this and take out a free subscription by clicking the follow button on the home page or on the posts. You will then be notified by email of any new posts on the blog. Thank you.
SALVO The progress of Salvo has been the most encouraging development since 2022. It is doing sterling work educating Scots about the Claim of Right and spelling out what it means that the Scottish people are sovereign, not any Parliament. Salvo has joined with Liberation.scot to develop campaigns the results of which will be available soon.
LIBERATION.SCOT We are seeking to build up liberation.scot to at least 100,000 signatures as part of our plan to win recognition at the UN as an official liberation movement. We intend to internationalise our battle for independence and through the setting up of the Scottish National Council we will develop our arguments to win progress in the international courts. Please help by signing up at liberation.scot. The members of liberation.scot have been asked to approve their new constitution, a necessary step towards international recognition.
This is a post looking for answers, because I’m confused. Being confused is pretty much my normal state, or, at least, has been my normal state ever since 2015.
In this case, my present confusion centres on the currently expressed SNP strategy for what they would do in Westminster after the next UK election in the event of a hung parliament. Would they offer support to one of the two major parties to take them over the line and, if so, what would their terms be?
This has been the subject of much comment from senior SNP politicians in the last few weeks even though we’re at least 12 months, maybe even 18 months, away from the election. It must be said that speculating on their strategy (if that isn’t too strong a word in relation to today’s SNP) is a common ploy by SNP politicians in the run up to a UK election, giving themselves some sort of justification for being there at all and giving Scottish voters a reason to keep supporting them.
Now the terms for doing a deal in Westminster is normally along the lines of “you give us a Section 30 and we’ll go along with whatever rubbish legislation you want to bring forward”, knowing, of course, that the legislation wouldn’t apply to Scotland in the event of independence. This also means they can talk about independence without actually committing themselves to doing anything, a bit of a win-win situation for today’s SNP.
Of course, there are snags to the SNP’s plan. The major parties would first try to do a deal with the LibDems and history shows the LibDems would jump at the deal to regain some relevance. So if the LibDems had enough MPs, any deal with the SNP would be dead in the water. Bye, bye, section 30.
However, the SNP have also placed constraints on doing a deal. Yousaf has ruled out the Tories:
Humza Yousaf rules out IndyRef deal with the Tories
Humza Yousaf has insisted that not even the promise of a second independence referendum would persuade him to do a deal to keep the Tories in power at Westminster. (Sunday Times)
It seems independence is less important than virtue signalling that the Tories are beyond the pale.
Even though the Labour Party have repeatedly ruled out any association with the SNP, Yousaf and other senior SNP figures have laid out their ‘terms’ for doing a deal with Labour to put Keir Starmer into number 10. There have been some differences of opinion as to what these terms might be. Yousaf says an agreement on a section 30 would be required, while Stephen Flynn (SNP’s Westminster leader) reckons they would be looking for increased devolution powers.
Stephen Flynn has hinted the SNP would consider rolling back on demanding a second independence referendum in exchange for supporting a Labour government, as he said his party would want more powers to back Sir Keir Starmer’s party.
In a subtle softening of the stance set out by other key SNP figures, Mr Flynn called for “meat on the bones” of devolution as he suggested support for Labour in the wake of the next general election may not be wholly contingent on being granted a section 30 order for indyref2. (Scotsman)
So, are SNP the party of independence or are they the party of devolution?
If we assume that, as party leader, Yousaf would have the final say (big assumption?), and the SNP demand a section 30 as the price for supporting Labour, given that support for the Tories is off the table, the only circumstances in which this would arise is that Labour are in a minority if the SNP abstain in a vote of no confidence, but have a majority with SNP support.
Now here comes the question. If Labour are in a minority without SNP support, where is the advantage to Labour to agreeing a section 30 with the SNP, given that, following a successful referendum, the SNP would withdraw from Westminster, leaving Labour in a minority again, subject to the risk of losing a vote of no confidence. Why would Labour, fearing the loss of a vote of no confidence, agree to a strategy which leaves them open to the loss of a vote of no confidence.
The only two answers I can come up with are:
No they wouldn’t, Keir Starmer isn’t that stupid (surely not).
Yes they would, but only in bad faith, coming up with all sorts of excuses that now is not the time.
On one hand, there’s no advantage to Labour to say yes, so they’ll say no. On the other, there’s no advantage to the SNP for Labour to say yes, because they certainly won’t mean it. So if the SNP are really a party desperate for independence, what’s the point of this Section 30 ploy?
Come on guys, come up with the (obvious) answers that I’ve missed.
(PS. Thanks to Wings for some of the links above)
BEAT THE CENSORS Many Facebook sites are still censoring bloggers like myself who can be critical of the actions of the SNP and the Scottish Government. They are attempting to prevent bloggers from getting their message out, so we have to depend on readers sharing the blog posts. If you liked this post or others I have written, please share this and take out a free subscription by clicking the follow button on the home page or on the posts. You will then be notified by email of any new posts on the blog. Thank you.
SALVO The progress of Salvo has been the most encouraging development since 2022. It is doing sterling work educating Scots about the Claim of Right and spelling out what it means that the Scottish people are sovereign, not any Parliament. Salvo has joined with Liberation.scot to develop campaigns the results of which will be available soon.
LIBERATION.SCOT We are seeking to build up liberation.scot to at least 100,000 signatures as part of our plan to win recognition at the UN as an official liberation movement. We intend to internationalise our battle for independence and through the setting up of the Scottish National Council we will develop our arguments to win progress in the international courts. Please help by signing up at liberation.scot. The members of liberation.scot have been asked to approve their new constitution, a necessary step towards international recognition.
On and immediately after Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation, everybody who was anybody was either heaping praise on the dear, departed First Minister or telling the truth, I thought I’d have a go as well. Why not, I thought?
I had decided to wait until after Sturgeon’s final FMQ’s in the hope that she might show some humility or even some contrition for past mistakes, but, as we all know, Sturgeon believes she has never made a mistake, so admitting any failing was never going to happen. Just another example of wishful thinking on my part?
As most regular, or even occasional, readers will know, I’m not one of Sturgeon’s fans, though it was not always the case. Like many others, I was extremely disappointed when Alex Salmond resigned following the 2014 referendum, but I thought, in Nicola Sturgeon, we had a replacement who would continue to develop the case for independence. Independence, I thought, was certain in my lifetime, but I was a young and easily impressed 70-year-old then. Those were the days!
Little did I know that 2015 was the high point for the independence campaign and from then, it would be all downhill.
Who then would have been able to imagine the mandates given and the open goals ignored, not missed, because the SNP refused even to take a shot.
And who then would have been able to imagine what would have changed by 2023. Today, the party seem up to their necks in problems: the sudden, unexpected resignation of First Minister; the missing £600,000; the fiddled leadership election; the unlikely battlebus purchase; the former CEO arrested and questioned by the police for 11 hours and who knows how many more. But does this come as a surprise to anyone paying attention to what has happened, or not happened, over the 8+ years since Sturgeon took charge? It shouldn’t.
Let’s look at a brief history of Nicola Sturgeon’s time in charge of the SNP.
2015
The Westminster election, the first after the referendum and after Sturgeon’s coronation. Polling was showing overwhelming support for the SNP, so the leadership knew they were going to win big, though perhaps not just as big as it turned out. However, for reasons known only to Sturgeon, the manifesto included the statement below that a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence, supposedly, but unneccessarily included so as not to frighten off potential SNP voters who might be ambivalent about independence. However, it’s unlikely the statement had any significant effect on the outcome of the election, but it set the scene for what was to come.
Here’s an extract from the 2015 manifesto. Is it significant that the heading says “Home Rule” (a unionist construct) and not independence? The remainder of the extract then lists a series of expectations which, as we now know, were never realised and, in any case, given the huge English majority in Westminster, were never realistic as the leadership would have known. It was not about “making Scotland stronger at Westminster” as that just wasn’t possible, so what was it about?
This was one of only four mentions of independence in the manifesto, none of which suggested there was any plan, or even any intention, to achieve it and, in the following twelve months, nothing was done. A failure.
2016
Two elections this year, or rather one election and a referendum. The election was for the Scottish Parliament, resulting in another big win for the SNP, though they just failed to repeat the majority achieved by Alex Salmond in 2011. This wasn’t a problem as they had the support of the Greens, who, at that time, were still considered to be an independence supporting party. More of that later.
The 2016 manifesto contained seven mentions of independence, a 75% increase compared to 2015, and it also promised some action. Unfortunately, as we came to expect from a Sturgeon led government, none of the promised action was ever delivered.
Surely the most significant statement was the one on the left, or at least, so it seemed at the time. Here, at last, were definite criteria for progressing an independence campaign. Note that no mention is made of the infamous Section 30, introduced later as yet another stalling tactic.
Of course, as we now know, the significant and material change in circumstances mentioned above did occur, but no use was ever made of it to progress independence.
2017
The election came as the result of a surprise decision by Prime Minister Theresa May (remember her?) in an attempt to get her Brexit bill through Westminster. She had hoped to get a larger majority and a stronger mandate for her plans, but instead, she lost seats and, ultimately, lost her job. However, the Tories’ loss of seats was tiny compared to the SNP’s. The SNP lost over a third of their MPs, falling from 56 to 35 by the simple expedient of ignoring independence.
The manifesto did contain 8 mentions of independence, but no promises of action. As can be seen from the excerpt on the left, being taken out of the EU against our will (in 2016) had morphed into once the final terms are known (by 2020), a handy 4 year delay. The party was also asking for a “triple lock” mandate. One mandate wasn’t enough to trigger action on independence, neither was two mandates, it had to be three mandates. As we now know, three mandates was still not enough.
Could be a cue for a song … “There were three Indy mandates, Spaffed against the wall …”
The SNP had been unprepared for the election, both financially and politically, coming less than a year after the double expenditure in 2016 and being in the middle of their mid-term fallow period, when they didn’t normally feel the need even to talk about independence. Despite unionist media claims that thousands of SNP voters transferred to unionist parties, the simple truth is that about half a million independence supporting former SNP voters just couldn’t be bothered turning out to vote for a party that didn’t consider independence a priority.
In the following twelve months, no action was taken to further the cause of independence.
2018
The start of arguably the worst action ever undertaken by Sturgeon’s SNP, the attempt to discredit Alex Salmond to prevent his return to front-line politics, an attempt that eventually culminated in a High Court trial on trumped-up sexual assault charges.
The action had actually started towards the end of 2017, when a decision was taken to introduce a procedure covering sexual assault charges against former ministers. How this developed is covered extensively by Calton Jock in his posting about the case, so those who want to find out more can read it here.
Sufficient at this stage to say that a procedure covering harassment by former ministers was specially produced by a combination of politicians and civil servants working in concert (some might call it a conspiracy) to prevent Salmond returning to politics. Salmond’s view was that the procedure was flawed and unfair. After several unsuccessful attempts by him to have the procedure reviewed independently, he was forced to take the Scottish Government to court, resulting in a win for Salmond at a cost of over £500,000 to the Government (and the taxpayer). Interestingly, the Scottish Government had continued with the case despite legal advice and only gave in when their own legal team threatened to resign when they found out the Scottish Government had been lying to them.
So determined were the plotters to remove Alex Salmond from politics, that following the loss of the civil case, they escalated the case to the police. Salmond eventually went to trial in 2020 facing 14 charges, all from people with a connection to the Scottish Government. This was despite an unprecedented attempt by the police to drum up other accusations by interviewing over 400 other women with even the slightest connection to Salmond and despite various members of the Scottish Government trying to induce their contacts to make complaints.
Salmond was acquitted of all charges, but that has not stopped members of Sturgeon’s government and other SNP supporters continuing to smear him.
Obviously, with all these legal shenanigans going on, no progress was made to bring independence closer.
2019
The 2019 General Election came again as a surprise and again was an attempt by the Prime Minister Boris Johnson to increase his majority to make it easier to get his often controversial legislation passed. His attempt was much more successful than Theresa May’s earlier attempt, though, despite the large majority he gained from the election, he failed to last out the full term.
The SNP went with a manifesto that was long on the advantages of independence, but short on the actions the Scottish Government were intending to take to achieve it. The extract below is typical of the content of the manifesto.
The manifesto contained 17 mentions of independence, mainly telling Scots how independence will improve their lives, but there was not one mention of how the SNP proposed to achieve it. The extract on the left was typical, proposing a referendum in 2020 with no idea how it might be brought about.
But then came Covid, an excuse for delay so good, that it is almost impossible to believe that Sturgeon herself wasn’t responsible for the pandemic. Covid not only gave the SNP the excuse to stop campaigning (obviously every single person in the government was so tied up with Covid, that no one could be spared for anything else), but it also allowed laws to be passed to prevent all other campaigning, and it was obvious that no election or referendum would be held during the pandemic. This was despite elections and referendums going ahead in other countries with Covid restrictions in place. What was special about Scotland?
It wasn’t as if the restrictions led to Scotland surviving the pandemic particularly well. The Scottish death rate may have been the best among the home nations, but was still among the highest in the world.
So the promised 2020 referendum was cancelled but Covid did give Sturgeon the opportunity to enhance her reputation through frequent television appearances.
2021
The 2021 Scottish election, when Sturgeon advised candidates to remove references to independence from their election literature and when the SNP gerrymandered the regional list to put Sturgeon supporting woke candidates at the top in each region, displacing independence supporting candidates like Joan McAlpine. This was the point when I gave up all hope of the SNP ever returning to being a party of independence. I resigned. Better late than never?
Unlike most of the earlier manifestos the 2021 version contained several promises of action. Look at all the promises made in the in the extract on the left and try to think when these independence related actions went ahead. (Spoiler, they didn’t.)
As I’ve said, promises don’t always lead to delivery in Sturgeon’s SNP.
Another planned event in this year which didn’t go ahead was the Scottish Census, held every ten years since 1801 and only cancelled once, in 1941 because of WWII. Using Covid as an excuse, the Scottish Government postponed the census till the following year. The census went ahead as scheduled in all other parts of the UK. It is not known what particular aspects of the Scottish census made holding it in 2021 too much of a risk, but other events would suggest that the Scottish Government must have gained some advantage. No results have yet been released from the delayed census.
However, what did go ahead was the passing of the Hate Crimes Bill which made it a criminal act to say something which another person took offence to, even if no offence was meant. Of course, if a criminal offence is to be determined by another’s opinion, it is difficult to know in advance whether what you say is against the law. Better to shut up and not take the risk. Was that the real objective?
Here is an extract from the bill (now an act, but not as yet in force as Police Scotland have said parts of it are unenforceable). Note that the impressively long list of characteristics doesn’t include sex, subject to a later decision on whether it should be included or not, which means hate speech against women is not included. It is ironical that a man wearing a dress is covered by the legislation, but a woman isn’t.
The Scottish Diversity and Inclusion Strategy, described in the extract on the left, led to the Gender Recognition \Reform bill. Interestingly, as with the Hate Crimes Act, the protected characteristics mentioned do not include sex.
Following the election, the SNP decided to formalise the relationship with the Scottish Greens and they were invited to form a coalition with two Green MSPs becoming government ministers. It was about this point that both parties, having for years been flirting with gender reassignment policies, seemed to become full-on transgender parties, dropping their interest in Scottish independence beyond its use as a marketing tool. In the eighteen months following, the impression was widely gained that Scottish Government policies were either designed by the Greens or were designed to keep the Greens on-side.
2022
The one action the Scottish Government took in relation to independence was to ask the Westminster Supreme Court if the Scottish Government was permitted to hold a referendum on independence. Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court said no, as everyone in Scotland expected, with the apparent exception of Scottish Government ministers.
However, there was no follow-up action, no attempt to argue against the decision.
The one major parliamentary activity was the debate on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. To say the bill was contentious would be the understatement of the year. The main area of disquiet was the inclusion of self-id, not mentioned in the SNP manifesto. This removed the need for a medical diagnosis of gender disphoria, replacing it with a simple unsupported declaration that the individual is now of a different sex (or gender). Poll after poll has consistently shown that a large majority of Scots are against the government’s plans for the introduction of self-id, but no changes were made to take account of these objections. In fact, the provisions contained in the bill were entirely designed with reference to only the minority point of view. Women’s majority viewpoints were ignored, were even declared “invalid” by Sturgeon.
Westminster have indicated that they will use the provisions contained in Section 35 of the Scotland Act to strike down the GRR Act due to its impact on the UK-wide 2010 Equality Act. The Scottish Government have decided to take legal action against Westminster to overturn the decision, an expensive action which is extremely unlikely to succeed. It is perhaps indicative of the relative priority placed by the Scottish Government on these pieces of legislation when they are contesting the Westminster decision affecting Gender Recognition Reform, which only a small minority of Scots support, but just accepting the Supreme Court decision affecting independence.
2023
What can be said about the SNP in 2023? If the SNP are to continue as Scotland’s major political party, changes must be made. Their position of virtual domination in Scotland was created by Alex Salmond and was continued by Nicola Sturgeon only by virtue of her ability to use Alex Salmond’s legacy as a marketing instrument. Her skill was to persuade so many to believe that today’s SNP was still the SNP of 2014, while converting the party into a vehicle for her own ambition, her true ambition, to become Scotland’s most famous political figure of the 21st century. Her every action was based on enhancing her own reputation, not on enhancing the chances of Scottish independence. It was this desire for fame and success that seemed to drive her to seek to destroy those who represented a challenge to her position or those who would disagree with any policy she supported. She wouldn’t ever change her mind, because changing your mind or being persuaded to accept a different opinion was weakness and weakness couldn’t be tolerated.
One aspect of Sturgeon’s SNP has been its ability to deliver electoral success. Unfortunately, this success has created two situations which have contributed to their current problems and may even become the reason for their downfall.
Electoral success persuades those who are benefitting from that success to accept unquestioningly everything the party does, whether they agree or not. A lack of debate within any party leads to the party stultifying, not developing.
Electoral success also attracts those who are not in tune with the party’s goals but who seek electoral success for its own sake, simply for the money, the power and the fame which it brings.
Sturgeon’s SNP has a substantial number of elected members who fit into one or both of these categories and more and more members are starting to realise this, causing the current steady stream of leavers, the loss of membership income and the potential loss of seats and therefore income at next year’s Westminster election.
Postscript
For the government of any country considering independence, there are two actions in particular that they must take.
Firstly, they must begin a continuing process of educating the citizens of the country to show them the benefits that each will gain from independence. This process should begin as soon as independence is mooted and must be continued right up to the date of decision. It should be constantly updated to reflect the then current circumstances. Only then will the people be persuaded that independence is essential.
Secondly, they must begin a continuing process of readying the country for independence by reviewing its infrastructure, its systems of governance, its financial systems and its trade and political relationships and upgrading or replacing where necessary. It is essential that, when independence comes, the country is independence-ready and does not have to go through a period of months or even years of adjustment, preventing the country from getting the benefits of independence that its people were promised.
In both of these areas, the Scottish Government can only be described as having failed.
There has been no consistent campaign to show the people what independence will mean and why they should vote for it. What efforts the Scottish Government have made have been limited to telling the people to persuade their family, friends and neighbours without providing the materials and the information necessary to support such a campaign. The Scottish Government should have been leading the charge, not introducing road blocks.
There has been little effort made to ready the country for independence. The introduction of a few tax processes and social security processes is not good enough. The lack of trading and other relationships with our European neighbours is not good enough. The lack of a truly Scottish Civil Service able to run an independent country is not good enough. In almost every area, the Scottish Government’s attitude has been either there’s plenty of time or we can’t be bothered because nothing’s going to happen for years. Neither attitude takes us to independence. Neither attitude is a winner.
Things have to change and have to change fast. Let’s finish with an instruction to the Scottish Government. Let’s hope the government, under its new leadership, will pay more attention than the lot that went before.
Scottish Government. The time to start is now. It’s time to shit or get off the pot as our American cousins say.
BEAT THE CENSORS Many Facebook sites are still censoring bloggers like myself who can be critical of the actions of the SNP and the Scottish Government. They are attempting to prevent bloggers from getting their message out, so we have to depend on readers sharing the blog posts. If you liked this post or others I have written, please share this and take out a free subscription by clicking the follow button on the home page or on the posts. You will then be notified by email of any new posts on the blog. Thank you.
SALVO The progress of Salvo has been the most encouraging development since 2022. It is doing sterling work educating Scots about the Claim of Right and spelling out what it means that the Scottish people are sovereign, not any Parliament. Salvo has joined with Liberation.scot to develop campaigns the results of which will be available soon.
LIBERATION.SCOT We are seeking to build up liberation.scot to at least 100,000 signatures as part of our plan to win recognition at the UN as an official liberation movement. We intend to internationalise our battle for independence and through the setting up of the Scottish National Council we will develop our arguments to win progress in the international courts. Please help by signing up at liberation.scot. The members of liberation.scot have been asked to approve their new constitution, a necessary step towards international recognition.
While we will all acknowledge that Margaret was wrong to travel to London while waiting for the results of a test, her travel back was following advice given to her by parliamentary authorities, advice also given to several other MPs, what we also need to acknowledge is the huge difference between the treatment she has received, both from the media and from politicians, and the treatment meted out to others who broke the rules. In particular, the response of her “friends” and colleagues in the SNP must have been particularly difficult for her to bear.
Known not to be a keen supporter of the SNP’s gender reform plans, but a keen independence supporter, she received no help from the party, who took the opportunity to try to rid themselves of someone who wasn’t following the party line.
A party member lauded a few months earlier by Nicola Sturgeon for being the hardest worker in the party, she was suddenly the most evil person in Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon immediately called for her to resign, a call that was echoed by many other members of the party, particularly many in her own constituency. It must have been sickening to have the Rutherglen SNP MSP and several local SNP councillors, all of whom had only been elected to their positions through Margaret’s efforts, turn on her, joined enthusiastically by the convenor of the Rutherglen constituency association, her former campaign manager. Politics may be a dirty business, but surely this was beyond reprehensible.
No help, no sympathy, no duty of care, only ‘get out of here, we don’t want you any more’.
Of course, the moment it hit the news again, we had Humza Yousaf, himself in his position under extremely suspicious circumstances, calling for her to resign, just like his former (current?) boss and vowing to spend money the party doesn’t have to campaign for a recall, despite the increasing likelihood of a Labour victory in any by-election. It seems that it’s more important to get rid of a pro-independence MP from Westminster in case she shows the SNP benchwarmers up. However, as we’ll see, not all Covid rule breakers are bad.
It should be pointed out that Margaret broke no Covid laws. At the time only government guidance existed, not legally enforceable, which is why she wasn’t charged with breaking any Covid laws. There were none. Margaret was charged with reckless endangerment, a charge no other MP, or indeed, no one else has ever faced in relation to the Covid crisis. Here’s an extract from Scottish Government advice at the time.
Extract from Scottish Government advice as at October 2020 (highlighting is mine)
We want people to be safe. We are not advising that people who have already booked holiday accommodation in October need to cancel. More generally, please think about whether you need to travel, especially if you live in or would be travelling to, or through, the central belt. The Scottish Government is asking people within the central belt areas to think carefully about whether they need to travel outside their local health board area and, where that is necessary, to plan to do so safely.
Working from home is expected of all those who can. Non-essential offices should remain closed. Public transport use should be minimised as much as possible – such as for education and work – where it cannot be done from home.
At the time MPs were not allowed to take part in commons business remotely. Margaret was scheduled to lead a debate on that Monday, which she could not do from home. One of the reasons for travelling to London was her desire not to let her colleagues down. Ironic, really.
Was her treatment different from that meted out to other political figures? Let’s look at a few examples.
Peter Gibson (Tory MP)
The Darlington MP travelled 250 miles with covid during lockdown, and encouraged constituents to do the same. Speaking to a local newspaper, Mr Gibson said he first came down with a cough on March 18 – before the lockdown, while working in Parliament, and was advised to take the train home. When it was suspected that he had covid, he was advised to travel to and isolate at home, undertaking a 250 mile train journey from London.
He hasn’t been sanctioned and he’s still an MP.
Kit Malthouse (Tory Minister)
POLICING minister Kit Malthouse sparked virus panic in the Home Office after breaching Covid rules, it’s claimed.
Mr Malthouse, 54, took a test on his way to the office but did not wait for the result before going in. It later came back positive. Staff were forced to self-isolate and the Home Office’s HQ in central London had to be deep cleaned and the air vents changed, the Sunday Times reported.
Mr Malthouse has said he did not have symptoms and had taken a “precautionary” fast-acting test which delivers results within 30 minutes. (Why did he do that if he didn’t have symptoms?) Government guidance says workers should remain socially distanced after taking a test until they receive the all-clear.
He hasn’t been sanctioned and he’s still an MP.
Dominic Cummings (Advisor to the PM)
Dominic Cummings trips have been well publicised, first to Durham, 264 miles from his home in London, apparently the only place where he and his wife could get childcare, and then to Barnard Castle, to test his eyesight. You might think an eyechart would be the safer way.
Much embarrassment for the Tory party, but no jail time for Cummings.
King Charles III
As Prince Charles, he and his entourage travelled from his normal residence in England to Balmoral, where, as he had symptoms, he was tested and found to be positive. He and his wife self-isolated, but members of his staff were seen in the village, risking the spread of the disease in an area previously free from infection.
No action was ever taken against any of them.
Ian Blackford (SNP Westminster leader)
Ian Blackford isolated himself after a 600-mile trip to his Skye home while the UK was in lockdown, while calling for Dominic Cummings to resign or be sacked for his trip to Durham. He denied wrongdoing, as MPs were entitled to return home from London to self-isolate.
No action has been taken by either the party or the police.
Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater (Green MSPs)
Scottish Greens co-leaders Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater were forced to apologise after being pictured in a pub, breaking Covid rules on indoor social gatherings. The two leaders, along with fellow MSP Ross Greer and another man, were seen together in an Edinburgh bar. Edinburgh’s Covid restrictions at the time meant only three households were allowed to be together in indoor hospitality.
The Scottish Greens said its MSPs had made an “honest mistake”.
For the greasy gender Greens, an apology was enough to get them off the hook. The only action taken was for Nicola Sturgeon to reward them with a promotion to her Cabinet, an action repeated by Humza Yousaf. It appears that some Covid rule breakers are acceptable to the SNP leadership.
So why the difference in treatment? Nicola Sturgeon was obviously annoyed because Margaret was strongly in favour of independence, but not a strong believer in the party’s concentration on gender issues and we all know what happens when Sturgeon gets annoyed. No one gets away unscathed with annoying Sturgeon. And, of course, anyone in the party who wants to make progress has to follow Sturgeon’s lead or they’ll likely suffer the same fate. It was the reaction of the SNP leadership that triggered the media frenzy and resulted in the action from the same compliant prosecution authorities and police that had delivered the earlier stitch-up of Alex Salmond.
Ironically, Margaret might be saved by the Tories who don’t want to create a precedent which might affect the decision in the on-going Boris Johnson affair, but we won’t know until the Commons returns from their Easter break.
Angry Weegie 