Missy M’s Sin of Omission 146


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.


146 thoughts on “Missy M’s Sin of Omission

1 2 3 4 5
  • craig Post author

    Doug Daniel,

    I am not accusing Gillian of lying. I am sure she is a very honest person. And maybe she was really upset to see her friend discomfited. But I would say there are scores of videos of my public appearances on youtube, including plenty when I am answering questions. I don’t think they bear out the manner Gillian ascribes to me. But anyone can look and judge for themselves.

  • Ishmael

    I swear it’s so….something.. All the utter two faced people who have come on this blog of late. Claiming support, respect, BUT etc etc. Amazing, many i’v never seen before, and won’t again I bet.

    You don’t support Craig, you don’t support anyone or anything that may effect your position. The perception of voters. Constantly working on your self involved lifestyle blog.

    You never say anything meaningful or useful because your stupid and have a high capacity for self delusion. Why you hold the positions you do. Suppressing truth and justice and serving power and privilege,..

    Let’s not kid ourself that’s exactly what most are about. To do that to voters is like handing the burglar your keys. Or in this case handing Westminster the Scottish peoples lives.

  • yesindyref2

    Ishmael
    Sadly Westminster already holds much of Scottish peoples lives in its hands, the details are set out in the Scotland Act Schedule 5 “Reserved Matters” – http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5 (with some pathetic amendments 2012, and some pathetic Smith ones to come).

    That’s what the SNP are targetting by trying to achieve a large group at Westminster – reducing and removing as many of them as possible. Pro tem – the ultimate target for them remains, as it always has been, Independence.

  • Ishmael

    Nope , I don’t buy it. ‘Independence’ through Westminster.

    It’s a crime if the SNP don’t get of there butts now and engage the base of newly engaged citizens (not members) to push for another vote. Crime. It’s those people who made it even close, you need that sort of engagement for it to be a democratic change. + What has Westminster got to do with your independence?

    You gather the momentum again. Make it possible, have a vote and leave. Or just declare it after overwhelming support is gained.

    It’s nonsense, you don’t want to because it would be a shake up within Scottish society, powerful interests don’t want. It’s not going to be a nice thing for some inside and outside. I think it’s also cowardly.

    If you ask me, If the SNP wanted, really wanted it, Scotland would be independent today. This it what really bugs me, because it seems to me it’s craig and other community campaigners who really did want it.

  • Ishmael

    It has to matter, like the bedroom tax matters. Not the right outlook? No, you win because it matters and your not prepared to compromise, perfect.

    “Sorry no job” ….O really?

    Ps, It’s really not about the job to me, I don’t agree with Craig it’s best spent energy. But it’s very sad to have it confirmed.

  • Airdrieonian

    After September 19th Is was as mad as Hell. Seriously, for my own good I had to remove myself from certain social situations where I knew that No voters would be. That all passed, thank goodness, but I still think that there should have been much more straightforward, tough talking from the Yes side during Indyref. We needed to act like winners. I think that Craig would bring this to the table. There will be people whose minds will never be changed, so fuck them. It’s the soft No votes we needed to win. Pussy footing around and attempting to be reasonable clearly didn’t work last time. If we get another chance I hope that the gloves come off, and hands get dirty.

  • The United Kingdom of Bohemia and Galicia

    The SNP served its purpose when it threw the referendum. The UK regime that created it now plans to abase and pervert its ersatz party into a roach motel for civil society. Petty squabbles are part of the plan.

    Fuck the SNP and its programmatic minutia. Independence will issue from the peoples as the UK collapses in failure and disgrace. Peace and development, justice for torture, rights of the child for protection from a pedophile regime – these will bring not just independence but the end of a degenerate UK that has no reason to exist.

  • paul

    If you ask me, If the SNP wanted, really wanted it, Scotland would be independent today

    When asked by a canvasser how pro – independence I was on a scale of 10, I replied 10, but was concerned that the SNP seemed to be about 5 (maybe 4.5 on reflection).

    Their goal was, I think, devo-max. That’s what their incomprehensible currency board version of independence amounted to anyway. I think they were as scared as the unionists of something as disruptive as a yes vote. All the energy came from the grass roots of the yes campaign, an occasional newsletter suggesting you could win an ipad or a large,speculative and unread policy document was never going to set the nation on fire.

    Basing the loyalty question on an incoherent,malevolent policy that has proven to be of no benefit to anyone and a good deal of hardship for many, seems to be a pretty effective filter to all but placepeople.
    There is not much of an ethical dilemma in choosing between a vote against your party and the wellbeing of your constituents.

    I think the SNP are getting a little dizzy with the upsurge in membership, the polling data and the dreams of a westminster balance of power scenario. Hence the ‘grown up’ consensus view of what a modern, disciplined party should be.

    If that strategy works for the good of this region of the UK, fair enough, but I’m not sure it will.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    John Goss 12:10 am

    Thank you, very much appreciated and the same to you.

    Craig Murray 2:14 am

    For the reasons I have already given I don’t see much evidence from her blog posting that Gillian Martin is particularly honest. She’s either honest and can’t read, or clever and unscrupulous.

    Kind regards,

    John

  • Craig Evans

    Dear Craig,

    I was at that meeting at Insch and I remember the lady asking the question you refer to: Now what I do remember is a full answer which the questioner took your reply with ill grace and managed to anger most of the audience with her own reply.

    Good luck to you, we do need you on the YES side and thank you for your efforts over the last year or so.

    Your day will come, perhaps as an MSP?

    Best wishes for 2015

    CraigE

  • Derick Tulloch

    Craig

    First and last word from me on this forum on this subject

    Irrespective of all that went before, your reaction to failing vetting demonstrates (and keeps demonstrating, again and again) that the panel and then the appeals panel were correct to decline to approve you.

    Give it a rest, eh.

  • paul

    Derick Tulloch:
    Craig’s reaction was positive and conciliatory, certain members of the SNP were anything but. It was as if they were declaring that they will have no truck with the kind of person that would see honourable members of the political class in prison.

  • Rob Royston

    Paul, You have it absolutely right. Just about everyone commenting against Craig are people closely connected to, or are, people with irons in the fire for election themselves. They want to be in coalition with war criminals and the protectors of all kinds of low life.
    Fifty years I have voted for Independence, I would rather let the young take up the fight with truth and justice on their side than watch anyone representing me having to choose sharing policies with people representing the monsters that I want to break free from.

  • nevermind

    Thank you Craig Evans for your eyewitness as to what happened at Insch, it puts the continuous diversional tittle tattle, hallo and good bye derrick, by some here into the right perspective at least.

    Paul point is also my feeling, the SNP offered devo max to Cameron, as their first point to the Indyref. Only when he refused did they slowly change tack. The SNP was not prepared with only one single newspaper being supportive.
    Contrast that to their eagerness to please our public bankers and the monarch, much courtesying and agreements all round.

    The SNP should carry their Independence banner into the election, whoyever not? They should not make any tacit agreements, unless they are able to offer voters a conclusive 5 or 10 point plan of a coalition implementation agreement, issues on which they agree to act within the first Parliament.
    By the looks of it they can’t agree on very much at all with Labour, playing into the hands of the Tory’s who, in a spirit of promoting apathy some more, are already planning for two possible GE campaigns. The second campaign would be the one that decides on the coalitions to be formed.

    Funny that, we did not get a second election on their choice of speed dating partner, which just to reiterate, left the Lib dems bones on the plate, made them into an electoral liability.

    Maybe Indyref2 would care to find out who in the SNP has informed the Unionist press and briefed them to please Jim Murphy?

  • Herbie

    “Just about everyone commenting against Craig are people closely connected to, or are, people with irons in the fire for election themselves.”

    Thanks for that, Rob.

    I suspected as much.

    The usual selfish party insiders hoping for personal advancement, and nothing for Scotland itself. Same old. Same old.

    I hope the new intake of grassroots party members publicly identify these greasy polers and deselect them at local branch, choosing genuine for Scotland representatives only.

    Scotland needs a new beginning, and a radical break from the old boys network of the past.

    There’s no hope otherwise.

  • Doug Daniel

    “The usual selfish party insiders hoping for personal advancement, and nothing for Scotland itself. Same old. Same old.”

    Well I can’t speak for the others who have commented criticisms of Craig here, but I’m just looking to put the record straight, because his characterisation of Gillian was totally unfair. Now she’s being accused of all sorts, because if Craig said it, then it must be right.

    Oh, and I’d never even been to an SNP meeting before the referendum, so I certainly couldn’t be classed as a “party insider”.

    “I hope the new intake of grassroots party members publicly identify these greasy polers and deselect them at local branch, choosing genuine for Scotland representatives only.”

    Err… The subject of this article is PART of the new intake. Don’t let facts get in your way, though.

    “Scotland needs a new beginning, and a radical break from the old boys network of the past.”

    People taking one man’s word as the gospel and deriding anyone who speaks against it is “radical” eh?

    The way some of the folk speaking up for Craig here have developed their own wee groupthink is sadly predictable. Anyone who dares disagree with Craig’s version of events must be a party apparatchik looking to clamber up the greasy pole, or worse, they want to be in a coalition with war criminals and blah blah blah. How mind-numbingly depressing and pathetic.

    And considering Craig’s allegations that started this whole episode – that he’d been disbarred for refusing to offer unquestioning loyalty – how utterly, utterly ironic.

    Oh internet, thanks for showing humanity in such a kind light yet again…

  • Schrodingers cat

    1. during the referendum, everything was up for grabs. unfortunately we lost

    2. The GE in May will not be a rerun of the referendum nor will a 2nd referendum be offered in the manifesto (pointless, we would require the support of over 250 UK MP’s to deliver it)

    3. There will be no declaration of UDI, The SNP is no longer a protest party, it is a party of government that people vote for, for a variety of reasons, not just independence. (NS’s words)

    4. The question of independence is off the menu for a generation. (albeit that generation ends at 10.01pm on the 7th of May)

    5. The GE in May will be fought on a manifesto of Devo Max, ie FFA and control over everything except defence and foreign affaires

    6.Defence and foreign affaires are Craig Murray’s specialities subjects but are the 2 areas of power the SNP manifesto will be conceding back to Westminster. For now.

    this is probably why the SNP deem CM unsuitable to be a candidate in May. However, if we get 50+ SNP MP’s elected and the westminster arithmetic is in our favour we might just succeed in “holding their feet to the fire” and deliver full devo max for Scotland.
    If that happens, then Defence and foreign affaires will be straight back on the menu and CM will be at the forefront of the campaign. Indeed, we will need him, since defence and foreign affaires will be all that is left for us to bicker about

  • technicolour

    Hmm, Doug, did you read Craig’s last reply? Or indeed, any of his replies? Including his request for other people at the meeting to contribute their observations? “People taking one man’s word as the gospel” – not really.

  • Herbie

    Doug

    The SNP is not a new party, but with the massive recent increase in membership it now has the characteristics of a new party.

    New parties on the up are a magnet for wannabees, carreerists and dupes.

    I’ve outlined, with examples, why that’s so above.

    All I’m saying is that local constituencies be mindful of the above when choosing a candidate from the official list.

    They should be particularly mindful not to choose those whom the central committee are most desirous of pushing forward.

    They should choose independent minded candidates who owe no special allegiance to the party heirarchy, but rather choose those who put Scotland first.

    Should they fail to do that now when they have the chance they’ll never get the chance again.

    That’s all I’m saying.

  • yesindyref2

    Doug
    Small correction, Craig isn’t new intake from what I gather, he’s a member since 2011 after the Holyrood Labour meltdown.

    Nevermind
    I could ask the local branch to find out but they’d think I was a wacko. As for the choices for the Referendum, in 2007-8 the national conversation (NC), the SG (SNP) discussed 5 or 6 of the following options on a multi-question consulation referendum: 1) abolish Holyrood 2) less powers 3) Status Quo 4) More powers 5) Devo Max 6) Independence. The SNP were, are and always will be, a party of Independence, but are also democratic. In the event there was less than 10% support for 1, 2 was fairly meaningless and unsupported, 3) had substantial support, 4) is in fact almost a duty of any Government at Holyrood. They couldn’t campaign for 5 themselves as they were obviously campaigning for 6, they asked for some party or group to come forward for Devo-Max, civic Scotland or perhaps even Labour, but nobody did. In the end there was am ultimatum from Cameron / Moore on a decision, the SNP waited till the last minute then agreed the one question ref. All this is verifiable if you research, the full NC archives are on the scotgov website.

    Paul
    A lot of pro-indy supporters have wondered about the SNP, and even the official YES campaign. I think the problem is that support was at 25%, and the only way it could ever get to over 50% IS (not just was) if the idea caught fire and that very grassroots organisation happened. The YES website was designed for that, otherwise it was garbage. Your existence and commitment (as Craig’s also) proves the strategy worked, and is still working, and will succeed, in my opinion, in substantially less than 5 years.

    Schrodingers Cat
    6 is interesting. I kind of doubt it, perhaps it’s more that Craig is obviously against Devo-Max. Well, I daresay 80% or more of Indy supporters won’t be satisfied with that, but since the all-out Indy attempt got slightly less than the 50% needed first attempt, then it’s back to the gradualist approach – Devo-Max – and pateince until the next opportunity for another ref. Which will need poll support consistent at 60% or more to make the result almost certain, the Ref a near formality.

  • yesindyref2

    Oh, I forgot. I’m not a nominee, totally unaligned before September, frequent online critic of the SNP at times (A9 cameras, criminal legal aid etc.), and might well fail vetting also even if I put myself forward. I would have probably passed on the bedroom tax question as it was incredibly obviously not a YES or NO answer needed – I’d say both onw word answers were fails – but a more detailed, explanatory and provisional answer, showing an understanding of the ethics but pragmatism – and team work – involved.

  • Herbie

    You’d think though with all Craig’s work there’d be a bit more than a brief and curt three line email dismissal.

    Not even a phone call.

    That revealed a lot in itself.

    Perhaps the hack that sent it was embarrassed over the briefing she knew they were doing behind his back.

  • yesindyref2

    Herbie
    Bearing in mind that just about all the media is antagonistic to the SNP, particularly as they’re the spearhead of Independence for Jockland, the less the SNP say when they don’t have to, the better. They can never know who is going to “go public” with it …

  • Beth

    Honest men don’t watch every word they say. I became aware of Craig during the referendum campaign. It seems to me that the information he gave in his much viewed speech in St. Andrews helped strengthen the resolve of Yes voters and gave them important facts to pass on to family and friends. It does seem as if the SNP don’t really value his contribution. Do we want people who only repeat what they are told to say or do we want people with morals and convictions? If the SNP betray their supporters and new members by becoming the new Lib Dems then that support will disappear. Craig should stand as an Independent Candidate.

  • Doug Daniel

    yesindyref2 – I suppose Craig is the subject in the sense of Subject-Verb-Object grammar order, but I mean Gillian – she’s only been in the party since the day after the referendum!

    Technicolour – Craig described Gillian in a way I’ve certainly never heard her described before, and yet the comments are full of people referring to her as a greasy pole climber etc, all on the strength of an assumption that Craig made (and has at least admitted may be wrong, albeit grudgingly). There are about 100 comments before Craig Evans’s one (and I’ve seen someone else on Facebook who was at it say they actually agree that Craig was too dismissive, so it’s all about perception), so if that’s the proof that people didn’t take one man’s word, then it doesn’t wash (and it’s not even applicable because I’ve never actually said anything about Craig’s conduct at the meeting, just his characterisation of Gillian.)

    Herbie – Your message seems a bit mixed. Are we to watch out for careerists who have decided to infiltrate the SNP as if it were a new party, or the candidates who are favoured by the central committee? The person Craig attacks in this article fits neither description, and the only reason I’ve been commenting is because someone I know has been characterised erroneously.

    For what it’s worth, I actually share your concerns about people favoured by the high-ups being selected, although I don’t think people should be rejected solely on that basis. But Tasmina Sheik-Ahmed certainly springs to mind, given how blatant it was that the party hierarchy wanted her to be high up the list during the Euro elections. (I don’t share some people’s conspiracy theories about her going for the Falkirk candidacy being the real reason for Craig’s rejection, though.)

    As for Craig’s rejection not being given more than a three line email, that’s clearly the standard way of dealing with it. Are you suggesting Craig deserves special treatment not awarded to other failed nominees? I can’t help feeling this whole business has its roots in the idea that Craig should have been given some sort of preferential treatment in the whole process due to his public profile, as if the SNP should have been grateful for well-known faces deciding to stand. There’s certainly been a whiff of entitlement throughout this whole sorry affair.

  • paul

    Paul
    A lot of pro-indy supporters have wondered about the SNP, and even the official YES campaign. I think the problem is that support was at 25%, and the only way it could ever get to over 50% IS (not just was) if the idea caught fire and that very grassroots organisation happened. The YES website was designed for that, otherwise it was garbage. Your existence and commitment (as Craig’s also) proves the strategy worked, and is still working, and will succeed, in my opinion, in substantially less than 5 years

    pure and utter bollocks.
    I am for independence, currency wise, foreign policy wise, but most importantly scotland wise.
    While I despise the UKIP, I do not wish to support something as demented as the eurozone. A greasy,greeedy carve up beteween the large banks(let us try and forget about ‘central banks’) and the corporations which rent them.
    Independence is the ability to chose,and refuse.

  • technicolour

    Doug: a quick look back at the original post shows me that Gillian was described as ‘perfectly nice’ – an assessment with which, it seems, you’d agree.

  • Rob

    Odd that some female gets offended, flounces out of a meeting and everyone rushes to her defence. Craig complains about rejection by the SNP and everyone then piles in to condemn him, conveniently forgetting his distinguished contribution to human rights. Jack Straw will be grateful to these trolls.

    My understanding is that the SNP has become a tightly disciplined party, perhaps in response to its haphazard history, and that discipline has paid obvious dividends – just consider the endless ‘gaffes’ of UKIP. Given Craig’s CV and his campaigning energy, the SNP might see him as a threat to their ‘safe pair of hands’ approach.

    Happy New Year Craig

1 2 3 4 5

Comments are closed.