Ambitious SNP Westminster hopeful Gillian Martin seeks to bolster her standing within the party by a peculiarly snide attack on me, in which she continually reiterates how much she likes me but…
Among the buts is this story about the Yes campaign meeting Gillian and I both addressed in Insch:
One thing that jarred very much with me as we took questions from our very mixed audience of Yesses Nos and Undecideds on that night of the panel we shared, was the way Craig responded to a genuine question from an undecided person in the audience. He effectively called her and her question ignorant. She left straight afterwards. I know this because she is a friend of mine I hadn’t seen in ages and had wanted to say hello after. But she was gone. She had been rubbished and presumably left angry and humiliated. Given a kinder response she may have stayed and may even have been persuaded to vote yes. I don’t know if she did, but no matter.
I actually recall the incident very well. The questioner asked how an independent Scotland could possibly afford all the infrastructure of central government that currently existed in London, by way of ministries etc.
I replied that Scotland was already paying for 10% of all that infrastructure in London. With that same money, we could pay for the infrastructure of central government in Edinburgh, the difference being that the net drain on the economy as our taxes left for London would be stopped, and that this money would now be spent in Scotland. Undoubtedly there would be initial start-up costs on infrastructure but these should be seen as capital spending stimulating demand in the economy, not as loss. The view that such spending was a loss was the ridiculous Thatcherite fallacy of economics.
Gillian Martin may consider that “I effectively called her and her question ignorant”, and I suppose that is one possible analysis. But I promise you the question and answer were as I just related. I had no doubt the question was asked as a unionist sneer and if my answer rubbished it, so be it.
But here is the important point. As the young lady did indeed rather ostentatiously leave the meeting after my response, I asked some of the meeting organisers what that had been about. They told me that she was very well known in the community as an active Conservative and that an immediate family member of hers held some position in the Tories.
Now Gillian Martin claims the woman was a friend of hers whom she had wanted to greet. In which case Gillian Martin must know that she was a Tory. In which case, her omission of this most relevant of facts from her account of the event is a deliberate ploy aimed at discrediting me.
I don’t think I have met Gillian Martin apart from that meeting, and she struck me as perfectly nice. But ambition does unfortunate things to people. I do hope the brownie points were worth it, Gillian.
May I offer as an antidote this conversation I had yesterday with that most thoughtful and perceptive of Scottish interviewers, Derek Bateman.
Michael Martin, that famous Glasgow Labour bruiser said that if you want to understand Scottish politics, watch The Godfather.
Here’s Craig going before the candidature committee:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBzfY8ABR9E
Gillian says she is a writer, so she should have known what your response was to her well known questioner friend, a local Tory.
Why did she say that ‘he effectively called her and her question ignorant’, when that was not so? maybe other participants can collaborate what you said before they are ‘persuaded’ that they heard and seen nothing, went to the loo, played candy crush,etc.
Has Gillian Martin got some new book or other arty creation coming out? In which case one should question whether this really is an amicable way of boosting her blog hits?
Dad’s Army
Incidentally, on the very long time bit, the young lady appeared to be a generation younger than Gillian Martin. If she really hadn’t seen her for a very long time, that would have been in childhood, in which case the description of friend is unusual. Something does not add up.
John Goss,
I’m a bit of a Left Wing Capitalist Myself…and I agree with you. Sometimes, if you Really Want it..well its normal to get turned down at an Interview…why on earth did you think you were the Best, and Normally I say to My Friends (like I did a couple of weeks ago – Try Again)..But she’s been turned Down..and doesn’t want to Try again…Yet She would Obviously Be Completely Brilliant at The Job. She has all The Qualifications and All The Skills.
Being Turned down for a job, can be Extremely Hard..but I just Tried Again..if I really wanted it. Yes I got turned down again. At The Third attempt…..
Tony
its the interview practice you see..eventually you understand the rules to get the job.
“Something does not add up.”
Oh my God, it’s another conspiracy!
As for boring party drone, I never belonged to a political party before and joined up after the ref, just like Gillian did – and thousands of others who had been (and possibly still are basically), unaligned.
You get more bees with honey as they say sometimes, but with your style it’s more likely to be flies.
Yes I have read the full blog and nothing in it makes it any better. It is in my opinion bellow the standards expected of any candidate in any party.
A large section of no voters were persuaded by Gordon Brown’s Devo Max ‘vow’ which Labour was hammering out on the eve of the referendum. Since then the most recent opinion poll shows support for independence at 52%, just in case you don’t realise that % includes no voters which you’ve insulted. Labour is on their knees praying for an SNP candidate like you.
Of course no voters made the wrong decision that doesn’t mean it’s right to insult them especially when a large amount we’re pensioners who was scare moungered by the Labour party.
We have made progress in reaching out to no voters locally by persuaded them that independence is the only way forward with some even joining the SNP. That is in my opinion the best approach and I strongly believe that insulting them is counter productive. It is my opinion that if you ever want to stand as a SNP candidate your not fit unless you retract that blog and apologise as hard as it might be.
Dadsarmy
Nobody is claiming anything is a conspiracy. Nobody is claiming anybody other than Gillian Martin is involved in telling this particular tale. It is a feature of the intellectually challenged political conformist to believe that by simply yelling “conspiracy theorist” they can invalidate any argument.
You are currently droning against me on multiple sites. When you joined the SNP is irrelevant. And I said nothing that referred to when you joined the SNP. I don’t care.
No answer my point about how the young lady’s age mitigates against your earlier post. And perhaps explain to me why you are so convinced that I am wrong in my account of a meeting at which you were not present? Bear in mind that about three hundred people were present and I am contacting some of those at present for their account.
Caterina,
Craig’s a Good Man. I have never met him..But He Did Something Really Special. If you don’t understand what it is, then you are still in political nappies. Who The Fuck are You?
Is that an insult?
Tony
John Goss
Did you watch any of the autumn SNP conferences on TV? Resolutions are put, speakers speak for and against, and delegates vote. The NATO one was a very close call, and you could tell from the leadership faces they were on edge,, while trying to appear confident.
In the event it was 52% for full NATO membership, two list MSPs resigned but stayed on as Independent MSPs (rightly staying on in my opinion), but mostly perhaps all, voted with the SNP.
Thing is that all policy is adopted by majority and then supported by all. Not generally my cup of tea, but then we are in a democracy and should support the decision of the majority – while continuing for instance, to work on changing NOes to YESsers.
My opinion can be bought by no cheque book, and in the SNP it’s one person, one vote. I’ve not been the quietest member at the two branch meetings I’ve attended, but I’ve been listened to with respect, and perhaps some agreement as well. If a political party isn’t open to change then it’s as dead as Latin.
(sign-in changed from dadsarmy which I used by mistake).
I am grateful to Grouse Beater for the juice of his piece. As a confirmed ‘stalker’ and master of intention I copy the ‘ad rem’ here intended to fill the eyes and burn the hearts of Craig’s detractors:
1. He is not a team player. (By what yardstick can a man be judged not a team player when it comes to torture and rape? The term is standard right-wing procedure to eliminate a man’s opportunities of enhancement by claiming he is incapable of loyalty.
2. He assumed vetting was a mere formality. (This puts thoughts into a man’s head. In effect, it creates a falsehood. How does the critic know what the individual was thinking at that time, or at any time? There is absolutely no evidence to suggest Murray thought the vetting process anything but a close inspection of his political record, his attitude to key SNP policy, and his allegiance to the cause of self-governance.
3. He has the gift of the gab. (This is double-edged – it means either the speaker has enough erudition to talk on most subjects, he or she is well read, or alternatively is pathetically shallow. He waffles.
4. He’s got a big mouth, self-opinionated, a sulker. (Meaning, he has empirical evidence for his views, is prepared to voice protest, and shows annoyance if rebuffed. The accusation usually is one made by somebody opinionated.
5. He didn’t make the grade. (An attempt to demean. Here, the antagonist is admitting he doesn’t know the criteria for selection – it could be the ability to down five pints at one sitting, a la Farage – but by heck, he’s happy to parade ignorance of it.)
6. Discipline is important in any party. (Said comrade Stalin. And as it turned out, Stalin had a particularly extreme form of discipline in mind. The unthinking reader is expected to assimilate what that empty slogan means, precisely.
7. He handed a bucketful of ammunition to our opponents. (Unlike the reckless firebrands who run amock composing accusation and false witness, and afterwards express triumphant glee at another’s misfortune.
8. He has contempt for the party and will surely resign. (This issues from experienced hangmen. Bewilderment over a vetting procedure is not contempt.)
9. I have a concern about people here as a student who then live abroad. (As close to a racist statement as one can get without crossing the line, but certainly insulting to the many non-Scots in the SNP, or who are supporters of independence.
10. His career was undistinguished. (Erm, decidedly not. International attention for Uzbekistan’s record of torture, a committed campaigner for human rights, and a biographical book on the events made into a radio play by a distinguished playwright raise his achievements above the faceless bureaucrats with whom he mixed.)
11. His intent was to use the SNP to get into parliament. (Slander.)
12. I think him a fool- oh look, he can’t take criticism. (A variation on the cliché ‘touching a nerve’ whereby insulting a victim publicly causes him to say things he’d rather not have said. Had the individual taken it on the chin he would, of course, be accused of hiding something, or of running away.)
13. And one for the road …
14. He would have been a disaster; I think the selection committee may have realised that from the get-go. (Defamation of the selection committee: insinuating its members had made up their mind before the candidate sat down for interview, thus rendering the process of vetting a mockery, the candidate hoodwinked into a kangaroo court to be humiliated and sent home.)
https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/about/
Please, Caterina don’t use phrases like “reaching out” its completely politically incorrect now..that’s Blairspeak – as if you have been Trained By The Common Purpose Tavistock Psychologists like me..You see…I didn’t go on their final course. I refused..I understood what the final course did..It seems you got it just by looking at your hero
ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR
Dear oh Dear.
Tony
Craig,
“Your loyalty to your friend is admirable, but I don’t quite understand why you believe she should be allowed to post criticisms of me, but I should not be allowed to post criticisms of her. Why do you believe that?”
Who said you couldn’t post criticisms of her? I’m just asking why you need to make a false characterisation of her in order to do it. Maybe you feel she’s done that to you, but I don’t really think “she started it” is a valid reason.
The point is this entire article hangs on the premise that Gillian knows fine that her friend is a Tory. But it’s a friend she says she hasn’t seen in ages. I’ve got friends I haven’t seen in years whose whole lives have changed since I last saw them, and I only know about it from Facebook – and I’ll bet they wouldn’t know I was an activist during the referendum campaign. And yet, from this one assumed fact, you’ve decided she’s a party hack, trying to blacken your name in her quest to climb the party ladder. Well, she’s not.
Caterina
One of my daughters voted no, I daresay she’s not evil, thick or cowardly, quite the reverse. She had a valid concern – mortgage and being very close to the edge on finances but just OK. She asked because she knew I posted a lot in the Herald and researched my comments, but there was no definite answer I could give her (and I did extra research).
Will she be YES next time? Perhaps. The case would have to be made better and I’m afraid I agree.
Yesindyref2
I am very sorry for your lack of parenting skills, but its not my fault. You personally have been absolutely obsessive in posting a great many derogatory comments about me on many, many websites over a long period. Who are you?
Forgive me if I am posting this in the wrong thread. I just read this in Bellacaledonia and felt it would help Craig’s morale to know that he is not alone among Scotland’s radicals:
“The shock of democracy is hitting the SNP as much as anyone. Nicola Sturgeon has made some wise noises about become a different kind of party. In government, a much better than expected land reform bill is probably its first expression. And yet the party’s own courtiers still seem to think it wise to block popular figures from the campaign like Craig Murray because he isn’t tame and compliant in the manner expected. Indeed, the party’s more craven members took to social media to discredit Craig Murray as if the last year hadn’t happened. And if the leadership can’t understand that politics has changed it will suffer”
… and …
“The SNP is Scotland’s great hope of the moment. When democracy was measured it showed two things; a massive desire for change and a real willingness to see the SNP as the vehicle for that change. If it can channel that great reforming energy effectively it will change Scotland forever. If it behaves like it has behaved in the past and has started behaving again – well, it has nothing to lose apart from 60,000 members.”
Craig, despite this petty snub you have received from an outdated party hierarchy, I hope that time will heal the hurt and you will be back fighting the good fight in Scotland. Scotland’s radicals needs good people like you!
Craig
Get out of your own backside, the world does not revolve around your ego though you very clearly think it does. I only vaguely heard of you before about 3 weeks ago, and have no personal interest in you either. What you are doing is your best to put into disrepute the party without which we wouldn’t have had a referendum, and won’t get a second one.
I don’t need evidence from some meeting or other about your attitudes not just to anyone who dares to criticise or disagree with you, but also to NO voters who are completely entitled to their opinions, and it seems from some of your postings, to women as well – half the population of Scotland (more than half).
To be blunt, I think you’re not just a loose cannon, but a liability.
” No voters were evil, stupid or cowardly. I am however fully convinced that those three categories cover every possibility, ”
You just don’t get it do you?
The only way the next independence referendum will to be won is by persuading No voters to change their minds. Insulting them is not likely to achieve this. If anything it’ll just make them more entrenched. If the SNP really did turn you down because of this they were right to do so.
Sorry, here’s the link, http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/12/30/so-far-so-good-british-unionisms-review-of-2014/
No good diverting from the facts here, this is about more than just a No versus those who understood what Independence meant, but about misrepresenting a fellow members answers, putting words in his mouth and accusing him calling somebody else, a Tory mind, of being ignorant.
Soon someone who has got spine will come forward and say how it was, how they heard it and then Caterina you can go back and sit with your labour and unionist pals. It was not Craig who informed the press, it was an own goal by SNP stooges.
You stand up for your heap of rubble, but don’t you drag all those young souls who had enough of these backhanded ways with you, if you can’t reform yourselves and allow candidates some Independent thought, rather lick spittle than evolve, that is your game,. Thousands of new members will not help you suck up to Labour or any other main party, replicating the harm and game play of decades.
The SNP if not for Independence, they stand for control, no Independent thought behind that. I know what happened to the Greens in German when they went into coalition with the socialists, they became breakfast.
That is the destiny of a Westminster coalition party after a round of speed dating, in all truth, coalitions are no more than that. When they take weeks to hammer out policies one by one, usually, and still get it wrong, the doughy eyed in the SNP believe that their way through the lobby troughs of Westminster will be paved with nothing but sheer genius.
Amateurs who have become establishment and wannabe down there mixing it.
Brian Fujisan must be really cheesed off by now, he won’t like this maggoty wriggling one little bit.
This just gets better and better. By your own admission you insulted some punter for her supposed ignorance (ie she didn’t agree with you) and, of supreme importance, you did it /before/ you knew of apparent Tory family link yet you wonder why the SNP think you’re a liability.
Whatever forensic intellectual qualities you may possess your tendency to grovel to acolytes and insult enemies renders you totally unfit for public office – of any kind.
It’s like watching someone being fitted for a bespoke straitjacket.
Craig, you have called me, on this comments board, a party lacky, and someone else a party drone. I presume from this you will be resigning from the SNP party of which you appear to hold in contempt?
And you, yesindyref2, No.1 must be on holiday, were never interested in Independence, you don’t even understand what that means, you are a control freak just as so many others, a damage control man who has shown his true self.
thank you for that, it will open the eyes of many.
“I don’t need evidence from some meeting or other about your attitudes”
Why not?
a troll feast, Burns eat your heart out, time to go and share my pillow.
I’m reminded somehow of Thatcher’s quip “I’m enjoying this” when Geoffrey Howe got fired up, it was as telling as “mauled by a dead sheep”. The mistake is to think that Geoffrey Howe suddenly had a revelation and the worm had turned. Truth is the great enemies Nigel Lawson and Howe were both appointed to the Cabinet not by Thatcher but by the City of London and she resented their presence but the narrow limits of her actual power meant she could not ever get rid of them, as well as the fact they were secretly allied, despite the pretence of public antagonism and both worked assiduously inside government full-time for competing factions of the same banking interests and had no care for anything other obeying their actual employers often very damaging, every instruction. I suppose they were far from the first to make more on the side from politics, for themselves and vastly more still for others, but never before I don’t think had it been so blatant and on such a scale.
This disenchantment with politics outweighs somewhat my disappointment that there is no way, no simple handheld cheap and cheerful gadget or gizmo to distinguish older Whitworth and BSF 55 degree thread types from 60 degree UNC/UNF or metric types, external, internal or both; thread gauges can determine threads per inch or in the metric nomenclature, pitch, but the human eye and no simple device utilising our vastly greater technological capabilities than heretofore has yet to be invented that can handily distinguish 55 from 60 degrees infallibly at such near microscopic levels. The problems, the great risks and dangers this still causes could not have been imagined, indeed might have been thought solved when Joseph Whitworth established a revolutionary game-changing standard back in 1841.
“I am very sorry for your lack of parenting skills, but its not my fault.”
There we go again, a pathetic puerile response.
Seriously laddie, take a break, have a few drinks, put a padlock on the keyboard, leave it until after the New Year. The one good thing about your multiple posts trying to continue discrediting the SNP and justify the unjustifiable is that you have become unusable for the Unionists or the Unionist parties. Even they are too kind-hearted to exploit your self-destructive tendencies.
Have a break, leave the bone alone, heal, and come back refreshed in the New Year, and a Happy one to you.
“by your own admission you insulted some punter for her supposed ignorance ”
au contraire, by his own admission he merely answered the question with accuracy and facts.
Incidentally Craig, the person you’re describing as a “young lady” is in her late 30s. So unless “ages” has recently been defined as a unit of time equalling 25 years or something, the insinuations made in your replies to Dad’s Army are also incorrect.
Boab he did not call you a party lackey. He wrote:
“You will have to expand on that. What in this particular post illustrates a lack of diplomatic skills? And what do you know of what diplomats actually do, as opposed to the Ferrero Rocher adverts, and the skillsets required?”
And your answer?