I gather the Scottish newspapers are going big on the story tomorrow. The Independence Live interview recording is available here and gives the opportunity for a much more reasoned and expansive view of developments.
[it has since been put up on Youtube and I have been able to embed here]
http://new.livestream.com/IndependenceLive/CraigMurray
But it is worth reiterating the point that I only went public on this issue after I was phoned at 8am Saturday morning by The Scotsman (or their sister paper Scotland on Sunday). The Scotsman had already been alerted to the story and been briefed in some detail from within the SNP, in a manner plainly hostile to me. Exactly the same had happened, with the same Scotsman journalist, when I first started to pursue my candidacy a few weeks ago. I therefore decided to get out what had happened from my perspective, using social media.
I had written on 26 December an email to the SNP suggesting we develop an agreed media line to get out the fact I had been rejected as a candidate in a way that did as little mutual harm as possible. I had contacted Derek Bateman with a view to breaking this through his programme. I never received a reply to that email to the SNP. Instead someone in the SNP briefed The Scotsman against me.
That the corporate media would use this episode to damage both me and the SNP was entirely predictable. But it was not me who called the media in, and it is not in my nature to kow-tow humbly when I am being attacked.
UPDATE
I am adding into the text a comment I made below in response to people who refuse to take on board simple facts which they do not like.
1) I did not talk to the Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday. They phoned me at 8am and they had already been briefed and recounted to me a great many facts down the phone that could only have come from within the SNP. They did not say “Oh, Hi Craig, any news?”.
2) I said nothing to the Scotsman other than to confirm it was true I had been refused at assessment, and that I was very disappointed. I said nothing else.
3) It was not the first time someone had briefed the Scotsman on this and they had contacted me. It happened a few weeks ago too. The motive was very plain – to get the Scotsman to print disobliging things about me being a vicious cybernat (which worked- eejits keep happily quoting the same out of context phrase the Scotsman used in these comment threads, and throughout the blogosphere).
Craig
You are still angry, and that is not a good frame of mind to make decisions. The correct response would have been to go out and get blind drunk so that you were too hung over to return phone calls. Your posts imply, although you don’t quite accept it openly, that the question was nothing to do with the “bedroom tax” but about team commitment. You knew that someone in your position would be asked this, and should have prepared for it. You knew yourself that a simple “no” was all that they needed to disqualify you: but you said it anyway. It does seem that you did not really want to be part of the SNP, or if you did only on your terms not theirs. I should think that they reckon to have been doing quite well enough not to have to pay a price to get you on board.
Politics, to quote Bismark, is the art of the possible. The price of entering the game is to accept that constraint.
” or if you did only on your terms not theirs.”
Craig was doing his level-best to be an alternative voice within his party of choice. Now if he wishes to, he has been freed from the compunction to water-down his ideology to acquire maximum support. Maybe it’s time he came out as a clear alternative. Scot’s Indy might grow under another label. NATO? EU dominance and force-fed TTIP?
Dear Craig –
Talking of dense – I told you that you would not be accepted. I wished you well, as I would any nutjob seeking entry into the SNP, but you cannot really have believed any sane person would give you house room as a candidate, can you? Your judgement, as ever, is pleasingly awry. You are doomed to wither, but it’s fun to watch your disarray.
2nd division. NLP, confused thinking, homespun advice, plus pithy meaningless quotes.
O/T If true, this news will be music to all ears but especially to John Goss.
Last British inmate at Guantanamo set to be freed in the new year in fresh push by Obama to empty prison
Shaker Aamer, whose family lives in South London, has been detained at the US base in Cuba without trial or charge since November 2001. He is understood to be among 64 prisoners to be freed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2888964/Last-British-inmate-Guantanamo-set-freed-new-year-fresh-push-Obama-prison.html
It strikes me as very odd why someone from the SNP would release this information to the Scotsman, a paper who vehemently oppose the SNP.
Surely the SNP must have known, that by releasing this information you would defend your position, which would lead to damaging headlines for the SNP.
I see no win situation for the SNP on this matter, and whoever released the information, has either been foolish or mean’t to harm the SNP’s cause.
Unless of course you yourself released it under anonymity, that I could understand, due the way they treated you.
one factor which enables the usurpers to remain in control of our lives is the fact that otherwise intelligent people accept ridiculous pre-conditions in order to get – at least intellectually – a “piece of the action”. this tactic may be just about functional in the long periods when political life just limps along, but it is quite inadequate at times when the situation requires a serious shift of paradigm. one striking example of this is the acceptance of a bogus equivalence between some hazy notion of democracy and its ghostly simulacrum – the almost empty ritual of voting every few years. until we have elaborated, and begun to institute, a more substantial notion of democracy, all these games mean very little in real terms – except to the usurpers, who are thus enabled to remain in control indefinitely.
Bismarck may have been correct as a tactician, but the question who defines what is possible must sooner or later be confronted and interrogated. if Bismarck had been in charge of our evolution we would still be living in trees eating bananas.
one sad thing about the dumbing down of Britain in the last four decades is the almost complete loss of any sense of the power of ideas and ideals. as Yeats put it:
the best lack all conviction,
the worst are full of passionate intensity…
the boat is springing leaks all over the place, and the whole of public life amounts to little more than an elaborate exercise in denial. as a nation our subservience to an Imperium (the “US”) which has become the plaything of a global organized crime syndicate is almost complete.
“Of course one could argue that SNP “Central Office” might think that a candidate with Craig’s views on several aspects of UK foreign policy might play well with the Scottish electorate, but against that must be set the risk that it will think “once a “traitor”, always a “traitor”….”
———————————
Habb
When did telling the truth make someone a traitor? is the truth no considered lies under certain circumstances.
When someone who worked for the system for many years decides the lies, deceit and possibly the murder of innocent people, can no longer be seen as working for the better of that countries, aims and goals.
Decides to reveal and hopefully halt those unjust actions, that person is then classed by people like you as a traitor.
Westminster politicians and Lords are the REAL traitors pretending to work for the good of masses when in reality they’re only advancing their own positions, and wealth at the expense of the masses.
Be careful MR when you throw the word traitor around like confetti, you never know where it might land.
Craig Murray worked for the FCO and yes he saw and did things that he’s probably not proud of, but and its a very big but, he’s took a stance against the machinations of Westminster elite, when it would have been so much easier just to have kept him mouth and eyes shut, to such despicable events.
Tell me what have you done lately to fight injustice, oh that’s right, you support the side that often causes injustice silly me how could I forget.
Mary at 5.52 p.m. that is the best news if it materialises. This phrase “cleared for release” can be a nonsense phrase. Shaker was cleared for release in 2007, and then again later in 2009. Because he has been tortured it could reflect badly on the UK secret services and government if they knew about it. Obama said he would close Guantanamo Bay when he was first elected. He has obviously had a hard time convincing others that having a prison that hold people without trial because they are Muslims is wrong. Or perhaps because Obama will soon be out of office he wants it to appear that he did keep one of his promises. For Shaker, and his family, it has been a nightmare. He has a son in secondary education who he has never seen. It is good that the Daily Mail has got involved in this even at this late stage, whereas others, like Craig, Andy Worthington in particular, Shaker’s tireless and brilliant lawyer, Clive Stafford-Smith, myself to a lesser extent, have been fighting for years. But the main thing is, if it happens, he will be coming home. Fingers crossed.
Dear Craig,
I would have liked to see you stand for selection. I think that the SNP with such predicted large gains in 2015 should be big enough and mature enough to be able to accommodate different voices like yours – indeed it is going to have to with 75000 new members- and I am sure your contribution would have been very valuable.
However, I can understand the reluctance of the party machine to take you on board, if what they have prioritised over the next year or so is a very tame and dependable cohort of MPs who may have to make compromises for the sake of wider gains. There is little doubt that they believe you will frighten the horses.
That is a judgement call they have to make -and while I disagree with them, I recognise they have both a duty and responsibility to make such a call.
What really shocks me, however, is the fact that you received no reply to your suggestion that news handling should be done in such a way as to avoid unnecessary damage to both the organisation and yourself – any your statement that Scotland on Sunday could only have been briefed by someone within the SNP.
If you can substantiate this, then this should lead to an urgent high level investigation within the SNP. If an SNP official has been guilty of this, there should be immediate consequences. It is completely reprehensible behaviour – of the kind most of us associate with unionist parties. It has done no-one any good at all.
I know that you have had your denigrators – and maybe one of these with an inside track to officials has done the briefing – but whatever the source – whoever is responsible has neither the interests of the SNP – or the wider independence movement – at heart.
I wish you well in your principled fight for justice on so many fronts.
Republicofscotland
“Habb
When did telling the truth make someone a traitor? is the truth no considered lies under certain circumstances.”
_________________
Re “traitor” : I was pointing out that that is how Craig might be seen by others – firstly, by the FCO, now by the SNP. You know perfectly well that I wasn’t expressing a personal view.
My “…IT will think “once a “traitor”, always a “traitor”….” refers (EMPHASIS ADDED – “it” being in this instance the SNP).
Capeesh now?
“Re “traitor” : I was pointing out that that is how Craig might be seen by others – firstly, by the FCO, now by the SNP. You know perfectly well that I wasn’t expressing a personal view.”
———————–
Habb
Yes well its not the first time you’ve “pointed it out” one could begin to think you’re taking great schadenfreude over the matter.
It certainly looks that way.
There are 53 constituencies in Scotland at which currently the SNP has no elected representative.
They have to choose who they think may be the best candidate to put forward and it is right that they would have a selection process.
How to measure any prospective candidates “suitability” has to be difficult, but to disqualify someone who may sell their soul simply to obtain power is not the type of candidate that I would put very high on the list.
My problem with UK politics is that there would appear to be too many head nodders in every party that will say whatever the party tell them to say, even when they profoundly disagree.
Every view and opinion should be relevant, especially within politics. It would seem that not all agree and that being a part of the herd is the only way to go.
Bollocks.
It’s worse than that; it’s trying to establish that a candidate will sell his principles *and* the people down the river.
In my constituency the SNP councillor having been elected on an SNP ticket, been supported by SNP voters and members, having been in receipt of funding raised by those members, decided their career was better served by defection to the Labour party whip.
I accept the Party rule book. I accept the collective will of the party. I am able to influence that as an equal with other party members whom I accept as equals. I have one aim and goal. That is Independence for Scotland. Once that is achieved then I may decide to support another party, but for now the only vehicle for delivering Independence in Scotland is the SNP.
So what is in the best interest of the SNP? It is most certainly not speaking to journalists from Unionist propaganda sheets. The person or persons who did that to Craig should be ashamed and should consider any position or membership in the Party they hold. They should have the courage to apologise to this man too.
But the best interest of the Party. to which many of us now belong, is also not airing dirty laundry in public. So please could we hear no more of this matter. And if Call Kaye ( with an e ) has this as its phone in subject tomorrow please please, could all of you refrain from participating. This is an internal matter. It does not help us win the wider argument , nor further the cause of Independence, which transcends other considerations.
I would have thought that before urging silence the party (small ‘P’; it’s not the only one) needs to take steps to make it known that this is being ‘dealt with internally’. And how it is doing so.
So you don’t join and work together to hash out a good policy for Scotland, among peers. All they care about is your personal compliance level. With what sounds like basic Tory class bias policy’s, forever.
Pretty much what i’d expect.
Incidentally, Davidb, what profits it a party, if it gains its goal, but tramples on its remit to care for the people in the process? Does the end justify the means?
I’m astonished the SNP think Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh can be elected in a place like Falkirk. Speaking as a ‘bairn’ she’s too posh. How inept. Labour will get in. Or maybe SSP if they put up a decent candidate. But if Vronsky is right there are big problems in the selection process.
Well said Thepnr.
Contrast that with Jompry “That is a judgement call they have to make -and while I disagree with them, I recognise they have both a duty and responsibility to make such a call.”
Doesn’t that make Jompry a head-nodder? Can somebody please explain to me this mysterious “duty and responsibility”?
these ‘intellectuals’ who can write so eloquently can nod-along even more elegantly?! Yes, we are fools, it is oh-so-subtle like a magician’s slight-of-hand, we don’t see it. These insecure jackasses, scared off by Craig Murray, have a “duty and responsibility”? Tell me about it, I’m all ears!
And here, comes along another one, “DavidB”, another stingless bee, or another ‘B’ like Bush & Blair (unlikely, coz this little b is scared of a little radio chit-chat??!!). Wow, impressive, the stuff you guys are made of! And you want to ‘free’ Scotland by hoodwinking your own people? Hmmm, let’s think this one through.
Davidb your lack of guts and balls is also an ‘internal matter’. Wimp!
I thought Chapter 1 was just a taster and a bit lack-lustre, short on grisly detail and was all we were going to get without buying the bumper edition of the book, but chapter 1 was little more than just the gentlest of introductions, here’s chapter 2 and it’s getting a whole lot more interesting …
How The BBC Stole The Referendum – by GA Ponsonby – Chapter 2
Republicofscotland, you’re only encouraging ‘it’ by engaging, again and again.
Davidb, on the contrary re ‘dirty laundry’, secrecy and opacity do not democracy make.
Still can’t work out why anyone genuine from within the SNP would go to the Scotsman with this, knowing the contempt most have for that paper.
There was the ‘secret’ document from John Swinney, a while back, leaked, when it turned out not to be secret; Then the ‘secret document’ on NHs ‘cuts’ ‘leaked’ two nights before the Ref, which weren’t secret at all and not cuts.
Clearly some people are not fit to make the necessary sacrifices for ‘freedom and democracy’…. that’s coming…..later.
Surly it must be, they sacrifice so much of there own humanity. Look at all the people they help kill. Or just use and toss away. It takes proper material for that kind of job.
There is no nice, proper, smooth, cordial, change or revolution to speak of. This does not imply violence, but still, it’s very nature…etc
If they were just trying to oust CM, the ‘selective question’ would seem to be an entirely daft way of dealing with a potentially unwelcome candidate…
RepublicofSchizoland:
“I see no win situation for the SNP on this matter, and whoever released the information, has either been foolish or mean’t to harm the SNP’s cause.
Unless of course you yourself released it under anonymity, that I could understand, due the way they treated you.”
Make up your mind, RepublicofSchizoland, one moment you are accusing Craig of being dishonest and deceitful, and then a second later you are chiding Habbabkuk for pointing out the insecure psychology of the SNP “leadership”?! And you are not confused?
You had better apologise to Craig and thank Habba for explaining — both promptly.
Ah, the hit squad has arrived. mLeslie, likes her principled men, but only from a distance, just as Labour=SNP, a thought that was made clear by Alex the fishy Salmond during the last few days. The SNP is playing Scottish voters something rotten and I very much hope the Green party is fielding a full slate, cause they will get the disaffected young SNP membership vote.
I’m with Frazer, go for it, but pick the right spot and make sure you got a team. Forget about the SNP, they are Labour in a yellow blue coat.
Dear Villager
Thank you for your comment. It’s not a difficult concept. People charged with vetting and assessing prospective candidates have a “duty and responsibility” to reach decisions according to how they perceive the best interests of the party will be served. That’s what they have been tasked with.
I hardly see how simply stating that they have a “duty and responsibility” to arrive at a judgement in relation to the suitability of all prospective candidates ( that’s their job!} earns me the accolade of “head-nodder”.
I think it’s pretty clear from my post that I – along with many others – believe they called it wrong in relation to Craig Murray. And in particular, the way they have handled the situation merits further public investigation.
@Nevermind
Are you a chancer? LOL
I was Labour but haven’t you heard Labour is dead in Scotland, they killed themselves.
I still haven’t the least idea how this candidate vetting works, if there is a central list of ‘eligible’ candidates for any constituency, subject then to a branch level ballot between several competing eligible candidates then what has taken place in respect to Craig has not been a branch matter, but higher up, branch members not even being given the chance to vote on their preferred candidate. This reeks, both this decision in the case of Craig Murray, and the process itself. By who, or what and how is the central decision made –on the say so of the leader, on tablets of stone handed down from self-selecting undefined bunch of high heid yins, by whoever shouts the loudest?
Shouldn’t the members in the first instance get to decide who comprises the vetting committee or whatever this shady bunch like to call themselves? Any party member care to shine a light on something which should be and must rightly be public knowledge, is this a modern internally democratic political party or a secret society? I know Labour Tories and the rest do not even pretend to openness on this or any other matter, but there has been wide acceptance, perhaps naively that the SNP differed qualitatively and were if nothing else, forthright about their internal workings.