The Arrest of Manny Singh 158


On Saturday, I was an eye-witness to Manny Singh, organiser of the huge pro-Independence demonstration through Glasgow, co-operating efficiently and respectfully with the police in keeping order and protecting public safety, and in making sure the event was a joyous family occasion, successful and enjoyed by everyone. That included Manny liaising regularly with the most senior police officers in charge of the march. Before I made my speech, I asked him how it was all going and Manny volunteered unasked that the Police had been brilliant. From what I witnessed, the respect was mutual.

It is then extremely perturbing that, two days after the march, Police Scotland arrested Manny for organising an illegal procession, a charge that carries a maximum three months imprisonment. Plainly the orders for this radical change of attitude have come from very high. The defence of this draconian measure by SNP Glasgow councillor and ex-BBC intern Rhiannon Spear gives a clue as to where this is coming from.

Still more of a clue is the astonishing four page attack on Yes supporters that took up the the front and four pages of the Herald the day after the demonstration, in which the SNP’s NATO and monarchy enthusiast Angus Robertson and extreme Cold War Russophobe Stewart McDonald vented their spleen at Independence supporters who dare to take a more radical line. It was very thinly disguised as an attack on online abuse – of which in four full pages not one single example was given by them, let alone any qualitative or quantitative analysis.

McDonald in a lengthy rant in the article makes plain that what he really cannot stand is rather people do not accept his Establishment view, who criticise the BBC, and embrace “conspiracy theories.”

This is the essential background to the arrest of Manny. Now the SNP has a highly ambivalent attitude to Manny’s organisation, AUOB. AUOB is the main vehicle for public pressure for early Independence, while Nicola Sturgeon has embraced a strategy of kicking a new Independence referendum ever further into the long grass, while a national consultation is held, or Brexit plays out, or a citizens’ assembly discusses federal solutions, or whatever else excuse comes to hand.

In terms of electoral success for the SNP, Sturgeon’s strategy is undoubtedly brilliant. The SNP stands unchallenged in the polls at 46%, with the Tories in second place trailing woefully behind on 22%. The SNP is an incredibly successful political machine, and one which can keep the highheidyins in a very comfortable living indeed for life. To say that the SNP hierarchy are very comfortable on the UK gravy train would be a massive understatement. They are in no hurry at all to make a bid for Independence that may put their careers and livelihoods at risk.

The only problem is the wider Yes campaign and the wider SNP membership, who had been under the impression that they were putting their hands in their pockets and donating, and were out there in the cold delivering leaflets, because the SNP was the vehicle for Independence, not just to support Scotland’s very own highly paid ruling political class. These people continually applied inconvenient pressure, both online where their criticisms of the BBC and other establishment pillars were an embarrassment to the comfortably ensconced, and by continual street activity as through AUOB.

Nicola has had to make repeated SNP conference speeches and every time been forced to pretend she is interested in pursuing Independence at a future date. Surely, SNP HQ thinking runs, it would be better to take some of the pressure off her by hobbling support for the pesky online Independence supporters and those noisy marchers?

AUOB had applied to Glasgow City Council in September for permission to hold the recent march. As it was a repeat of the entirely peaceful and successful one last year, there was no reason to suppose any problem might arise. Then just ten days before the march, Glasgow City Council called the organisers to a meeting and demanded the start time be moved forward from 1.30pm to 11am because of “potential disruption” and “public order concerns”.

The proposed change was quite openly an attempt to reduce the numbers on the march for “ahem” reasons of public order. The organisers made plain that it was not possible at that late stage to make the change. The march had been widely advertised, coaches had been booked, and people were quite literally traveling from all over Scotland – which of course is what Glasgow City Council were precisely trying to prevent.

A committee of two SNP and one Green councillor, completely ignoring the entirely trouble free experience of the previous year, ruled that the march must kick off at 11am. Manny simply responded that in the interests of free speech, he would ignore the council’s ruling, and he did so, with great success.

The proof of the pudding is of course in the eating. The Council was simply wrong – there were in fact zero public order or safety problems involved in the march, and their pretended concern stands revealed for what it was, a pathetic attempt to hamper free speech and hobble the demonstration of massive public support for Independence. Even the SNP Deputy Leader Keith Brown turned up, though he said pretty well nothing about Independence while introducing the SNP candidates for the Euro elections.

In view that their pretended concerns proved – as everybody always knew – completely unfounded, the councillors involved stand exposed as despicable abusers of the power they were granted by the very people who were marching.

It appears from Ms Spear’s tweet that it is SNP run Glasgow Council – and I would bet after consultation with SNP HQ – who have now doubled down on their stupidity and arbitrary repression by ordering police to effect Manny’s arrest. Well, there are 100,000 of us at least who would happily stand beside him in the dock.

The man who has organised the most successful pro-Indy campaigning since 2014 has been arrested, just for doing precisely that. Yet so far there has been not a single gesture of support for Manny, public or private, from any of the SNP hierarchy. Why do you think that is?

The attempt to hobble and limit the AUOB march, and the extraordinary four page entirely unprovoked attack the next day on “cybernats”, form part of a coordinated effort by the SNP leadership to control the wider Yes movement and subdue the demand for early Independence. They failed with AUOB due to Manny’s courage and integrity – hence the vindictive order for his arrest.

UPDATE

I wrote this before seeing this excellent article from Paul Kavanagh, which makes precisely the same arguments. Paul commands much broader respect than I do across the Independence movement, peculiarly enough because it took him two years longer to spot, or at least speak out about, the problem with Sturgeon and Murrell than it took me. But if you read the comments on his article, you will see that there is massive agreement on this from numerous long term SNP members.

——————————————

Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the articles, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



 


158 thoughts on “The Arrest of Manny Singh

1 2 3
  • Alasdair Galloway

    Craig when you write “In terms of electoral success for the SNP, Sturgeon’s strategy is undoubtedly brilliant. The SNP stands unchallenged in the polls at 46%, with the Tories in second place trailing woefully behind on 22%. The SNP is an incredibly successful political machine” I think you make two errors. The first one is what follows this directly – that the aim of SNP High Command is to keep themselves in the comfort to which they have become accustomed. You don’t actually know that, do you? I can understand the implication, but that is all it is – an implication, or as the lawyers would put it, circumstantial. Let’s suppose that there was another vote and much the same outcome. It would, I think be fair to say that Alex has not done too badly financially since quitting as FM in September 2014? And many of the same faces are still there – most notably Swinnie’s. Do you not think Sturgeon could do at least as well (albeit in a different way)?

    More importantly, though secondly, if the SNP don’t keep winning where does that leave us? What do you think of the possibilities of a second vote if Ruth Davidson were the tenant of Bute House? Keeping the SNP in power is not an option, sadly its not sufficient, but it is necessary. To do that successfully means engaging with people whose own views of independence are much less certain than ours are.

    My own view of her strategy is that first of all she wants to look – best word I can come up with just now is – “presidential” – that she is calm, cool, collected and perhaps even a wee bit above the whole thing. This differentiates her from Alex’s approach – Alex is a gambler who has no problem about mixing it, but it does make him a wee bit of a “Marmite” politician (I like Marmite btw), who attracted great loyalty but also considerable hostility. He was divisive, but Sturgeon it seems to me is trying to be less so. Where there might be something in your argument (and also Paul Kavanagh’s) is that sometimes she maybe overdoes it, but I can see her point.

    Secondly – and I think most importantly – when we do get indyref2 – and lets face it, if she approached WM for this now, the chances of her getting this from WM are about nil – she wants to face the electorate able to say “Look, I tried this, I tried that with regard to Brexit. They are rolling back powers from your Parliament and I have done all I can to persuade them otherwise. The only thing to do is to get out of here folks”.
    I think the one thing that unifies this is that whereas the previous approach had a high degree of emotion about it, when Alex was in charge, Sturgeon is moving things more in the direction of a calculated and rational proposition that will be more inclusive, soothing the worries about an independent Scotland of the voter who is marginal in either direction.

    Lastly, re Ms Spears and the AUOB march, I think we need to know more about the circumstances that led to GCC tried to shift the timing of a march that had been well-publicised as starting at 1.00-1.30 to 11.00 with less than 10 days notice. That is completely and utterly mad and even more inconsiderate. But the question is who is responsible?

    I don’t know how much experience you have or working with senior local authority officials? I had about 8 years’ worth some time ago and still bear the scars, as far too many of them are laws unto themselves, as well as being lying bastards. For instance if, say a fortnight before the march, someone in the Scottish Ambulance Service (again for instance) wrote to GCC expressing concern about the safety of folk put into their care during the time of the march, it is perfectly possible that the senior official who works with Ms Spears might have put it to her that there was no alternative other than to move the march to 11.00 because the other traffic would be lighter. “You really don’t have any alternative Chair, unless of course you want to be responsible for the death of anyone whose ambulance is delayed by the march”. All they need is the excuse, and don’t forget this person was almost certainly appointed to his/her present position by the previous Labour administration.
    I am sure you will remember when Humphrey Appleby would say to Jim Hacker “that’s very brave of you Minister” when the latter came up with some scheme that Appleby wanted to strangle at birth. My experience of local authorities is that it is much much worse there.

    Now, you can put me down as no more than apologist for SNP HQ/ Mr & Mrs Murrell and that I have absolutely no hard evidence for my alternative explanation. And you are dead right. But then again Craig – neither do you!

    Lastly, lets suppose Mr Singh had not been charged? We can jump up and down all we want about how unreasonable the whole thing is, BUT the fact is that he was told to move the time of the march (utterly unreasonably) but did not. Thus the Civic Government Act was breached, and a crime has been committed. Lets suppose Susan Aitken – perhaps at the FM’s prompting – gets the Police to drop the charge. What then? You don’t need to much imagine to foresee the Unionist claque rising up as one, arguing that the entire justice system is being polilticised (ridiculous I know, but how often are they not?). I think we can do without that. Anyhow the case will not be at the Crown Office – seems to me unlikely the Glasgow PF’s office will get to deal with this one on its own – and my personal hope is that Manny gets a wee letter telling him he done wrong and be better next time. In parallel, the arrangements for the next AUOB march are worked out well in advance and written in stone so that there is no scope for repetition.

    Btw, re frustration, please don’t imagine I don’t share this. I have just turned 67 and very much, when its my time, I want to go in a Scotland that has reclaimed its sovereignty. However, the reality that we will have one more go at this in my lifetime weighs heavy on me. I hope you understand.

    • Hatuey

      It’s very easy to get lost in the shadows of existing realities and outcomes and to forget what could have been.

      A lot of people are criticising Sturgeon’s approach to indyref2 and Brexit with the benefit of hindsight today, but I am not one of them. I criticised her approach over 2 years ago (on here and elsewhere). And I predicted then that it would lead us exactly towards the mess we find ourselves in today, waiting for Brexit to be resolved.

      Holyrood is a powerless talking shop. It’s my guess that the vast majority of SNP supporters would stop voting for the SNP, if independence was not a policy goal. The grassroots of the independence movement get virtually nothing from the SNP dominating Holyrood. Personally, I really couldn’t care less how they spend the pocket money.

      You might object to that assessment and point to prescription charges and other mitigating achievements, but there’s a case for saying we should be doing precisely nothing to cushion the blows that come from Westminster; the people of Scotland voted to stay in the UK, so let them suffer at the hands of Tory austerity like the rest of the UK. And when they feel that lash stinging on their backs, maybe they will wake up and smell the indy coffee.

      It’s very easy to measure the success of Sturgeon’s approach to independence with a simple question; are we closer to an independence referendum today than we were on the 27th of June, 2016? Back then, everything was so clear — we had a rock solid and unequivocal mandate and the way forward seemed simple.

      The “not at this time” humiliation on its own was a scandal. I still can’t believe an SNP leader took that, in those circumstances, and had no response. Nothing.

      I look at the passion and confidence of Sinn Fein politicians and compare it to ours; it fills my head with possibilities and my heart with darkness.

      Brexit was a gift from the Gods delivered right to our doorstep. Sturgeon returned it to sender.

      • Jo1

        Hatuey

        If you want to admire Sinn Fein, knock yourself out but don’t expect such comparisons to increase support for Independence in Scotland. It’s reckless. And by the way, SF are so “passionate” they’ve let their own Assembly be suspended for more than two years! They’ve also sat quietly by and allowed the DUP to ignore the fact that NI voted Remain! Frankly, the very idea of introducing SF into the discussion on Scottish Independence is a bloody suicidal strategy.

        “Back then, everything was so clear — we had a rock solid and unequivocal mandate and the way forward seemed simple.”

        A mandate for what? Another referendum?
        Not possible without a S30 order.

        An unauthorised referendum?
        Those backing the status quo would almost certainly boycott it.

        UDI?
        Just not do-able as it would run into all sorts of issues…not least of which is that “the people” already said no. To ask people a question, get an answer and ignore it isn’t a great advert for anything.
        Plus, there is no mandate whatsoever for a UDI.

        I honestly believe that a significant number of people voted SNP back in 2007 because of policy. You’ll remember there was a huge stooshie over Labour’s plans to close A&E facilities at Monklands and Ayr Hospitals which the SNP opposed. I felt that made a lot of voters start to pay attention to actual SNP domestic policies. Remember too that many people had deserted Labour because of Blair and Iraq.

        You’ve mentioned other policies yourself. You didn’t mention tuition fees. There’s another huge policy… the SNP is now the only Party at Holyrood that wants Scottish Water to remain in public hands.

        It is all very well to be for Scottish Independence but to focus on that alone and ignore the significant responsibilities attached to being in government isn’t reasonable.

        This, from you, is so incredibly selfish I couldn’t believe it.

        “but there’s a case for saying we should be doing precisely nothing to cushion the blows that come from Westminster; the people of Scotland voted to stay in the UK, so let them suffer at the hands of Tory austerity like the rest of the UK. And when they feel that lash stinging on their backs, maybe they will wake up and smell the indy coffee.”

        Rough translation, you’re not getting what you want so **** everybody. “Let them suffer.” you say.

        How long, exactly, do you think the SNP would have been in government with such an irresponsible approach? It wouldn’t have lasted five minutes. What Party, with only ONE policy, would last longer?

        So the SNP don’t measure up for you. Now that we’ve seen the example you’d have them follow – Sinn Fein – I’m not surprised!

        • Hatuey

          Can’t you read? I said I don’t care how they spend the pocket money. When someone says they don’t care about something, it’s impolite to go on about it. That covers about half of the garbage you have written above.
          Moving on…
          I didn’t mention UDI or an unauthorised referendum.
          As for the Section 30 denial, left to responsible citizens like you, we’d wait a generation. And that’s the problem you have with your blind loyalty and passive aggression — it leads nowhere as long as some Tory keeps saying “now is not the time”.
          It’s for you and people like you to tell us what you intend to do in say 16 months when Ruth and her gang say “no” once more, as they have pledged to. By then, of course, we might even have Farage or Boris to contend with.
          You clearly know very little about Sinn Fein and their role in the closure of Stormont. If you did, you wouldn’t blame them in any way for that. The story involves fraud on an industrial level and huge failures in terms of implementing the GFA.
          But I do admire Sinn Fein, you have me there. I admire the way they refuse to even sit in that blood-soaked charnel house that SNP MPs are fighting to embed themselves in. And I admire their authenticity.

          • Hatuey

            Jo1, have you given up already?
            Maybe you can come back at me when you find some answers…

          • Jo1

            Hatuey
            I have plenty of answers but when you merely engage in insulting those who disagree with you it simply isn’t worthwhile to engage further.

          • Hatuey

            Another poor little snowflake. You were quick enough trying to insult me — the sequence of events is time stamped above for all to see.
            You simply picked a fight with the wrong guy.

          • Jo1

            Hatuey

            “You picked a fight with the wrong guy.”

            Oh dear, oh dear. There’s just no better example of how immaturity can kill a debate stone dead!

            I did not pick a fight with you. I made valid points but disagreed with you. And to you that’s picking a fight. To think differently from you isn’t allowed.

            You responded by accusing me of being unable to read, you dismissed my views as “garbage” and now I’m a “snowflake”. You have continued to insist others have got it wrong but you’ve yet to say what YOU would do!

            If you can’t engage without insulting other folk then I can only hope no one ever suggests using you to persuade people to come over to YES!

          • Hatuey

            I always assumed stalkers would be interesting on some level… how wrong I was.

      • Alasdair Galloway

        Well I dont know about powerless because I dont want to start sounding like David Mundell, but talking-shop I dont think so. After all, were it not here our NHS would be substantially privatised and waiting for the Yanks to complete the process. That is just one example – HE fees etc.
        Cushioning the blows is quite different and with respect I dont think such as prescription charges is a good or accurate instance. These are part of the health portfolio which is devolved, just as HE fees are part of the education portfolio, which is also devolved. On the other hand, “the bedroom tax” has never been part of a devolved portfolio and it has been a matter of some frustration to me that the SG have softened that blow, mainly at the instigation of the Labour Party. Then there was Damian Green braying at Stephen Gethins a year or so ago that “you have the powers [to create welfare payments]”, which is true enough, but not the revenue raising powers, other of course than income tax. Adam Tomkins put precisely this sort of thing – give them powers to do things but not the revenue raising powers to pay for them – some years ago, and I am surprised and disappointed that they have not seen this one coming. However, in the last few months they seem to have learned that lesson.
        As for “not at this time”, just what would you have had Sturgeon do? Challenge Theresa May to a square go? Go out and hold an illegal referendum, or one that had no legal standing? Craig Murray wrote some time ago that the UK govt would use the “Madrid strategy” – realise that as the central govt they hold the legal cards, so just keep saying “No”.
        That said, I think going at a referendum during Brexit would be foolish. We wouldnt have known the outcome – we still don’t, and there could be better to come – a hard Brexit with BoJo in Number 10 and Dominic Raab as Chancellor, with Gove in the Home Office? I agree Brexit was a gift from the Gods, but it is best left unwrapped the optimal moment and I just don’t think we are at that point just yet.

        • Hatuey

          I thought your comment was going along quite typically and inoffensively until you started talking about a “square go”. At that point it became insulting but it’s essentially the usual argument we have heard for being loyal and doing nothing, and I can get that a thousand times a day just about anywhere.
          Before going any further, I think you should address the questions and points I make, rather than the questions and points you wanted me to make (the ones you have been basically programmed to answer). I’m not accustomed to being ignored and misrepresented like that.
          It’s interesting, though, that we have tried the strategy you advocate to the letter and it hasn’t worked in 3 years, yet you want to continue with it. That’s a special kind of institutionalised.
          Do you honestly think it’s going to be any easier to get a section 30 in a year or two when Brexit is somehow resolved and they start bombarding Scotland with the propaganda along the lines of “let’s just have a few years to stability” and “everybody is sick of political upheaval, let’s just move on”?
          How does your argument work if there’s a second Brexit referendum and Remain wins? Have you even thought this through? I’ll tell you exactly what a second Brexit referendum would result in; Remain would win and we would have no mandate or argument for a Scottish Independence referendum at all. Game over. Opportunity absolutely lost.
          Once we accept that the approach you and the SNP have tried has been a failure, we can joyfully go on to consider alternative approaches. I haven’t suggested an alternative yet, despite what you with your “square go” reference and your little friend Jo1 imagined.
          And, so, I come back to my question which if you answer honestly will take us in the right direction: “are we closer to an independence referendum today than we were on the 27th of June, 2016?” I’m certain we aren’t. If you think we are, maybe you can explain why…

      • Dave

        The problems in NI are due to climate change legislation promoting fraud on an industrial scale, not easily resolved, as if proved, as opposed to incompetence, requires resignations and prosecutions all round, and that wont happen if it lets the other side in.

        Brexit is a spectacular opportunity for Scottish independence, by securing a promise to allow a referendum by Westminster in exchange for supporting May’s Deal, not that I support Scottish Independence, but not taking the opportunity shows the SNP doesn’t either. It shows they want devolution in UK and EU.

        • Dave

          The SNP are in a very comfortable position, as a stronger voice for Scotland party occupying a Westminster/EU/NATO aligned ‘centre ground’, hence their anti-Russian rhetoric, efforts to keep England in the EU and votes to destroy Libya.

          Not without casualties, such as Alex Salmond losing his seat in a heartland area and facing unspecified allegations which are impossible to disprove and the prospect of splitting over left, right and centre policy as the aim of independence wanes.

        • Jo1

          Dave

          I’m aware of the issue you refer to which left Arlene Foster up to her neck in it.

          ” Brexit is a spectacular opportunity for Scottish independence, by securing a promise to allow a referendum by Westminster in exchange for supporting May’s Deal, not that I support Scottish Independence, but not taking the opportunity shows the SNP doesn’t either. It shows they want devolution in UK and EU.”

          I’m intrigued by this claim. You’re suggesting the SNP back May’s deal in exchange for a S30 order? What makes you think the Tories would agree to that? I personally doubt it.

          Second, what sort of reaction would such a move receive? I don’t know if you’re Scottish but Labour circles, even now, are fond of claiming that the SNP helped to bring in Thatcher in 1979. I shudder to think what Remain voting Scotland would make of the SNP ignoring the Remain position and endorsing Brexit instead in exchange for a S30 order. Perhaps the reaction would be to respond by sinking Indyref2 via an even bigger NO vote.

          I think the situation really isn’t as straightforward as some suggest. Most of all I just don’t believe there is enough support for Independence, right now, to win Indyref2 and win it well. That is the greatest risk. I’m not saying risk isn’t necessary sometimes but some are higher than others. To lose one Independence referendum was painful. To lose another when the political climate was all wrong would be very difficult to come back from. It could lose the SNP everything.

          It’s peculiar to read different people demanding Indyref2 right now without considering whether the vote will be won. It doesn’t seem to matter to them. I find that astonishing.

          • Dave

            May’s Deal is worse than Remain, but England voted clearly to Leave, so let England deal with it and the SNP can say independence is now vital for a good Remain deal.

            The problem, I agree, is another referendum would be lost, because although Scots voted Remain twice, remaining part of UK is stronger sentiment than remaining part of EU. If it wasn’t an independence in EU referendum would be won. But you need Westminster’s agreement to hold it.

  • Gary

    I think you are a little uncharitable to the SNP leadership.

    Independence is NOT dependent upon 50% plus one vote being in favour. It’s not even dependent upon 100% being in favour. It’s dependent upon the UK establishment accepting it.

    You have written about how independence can be had without resort to a referendum authorised by the Westminster Government and that international law specifically states that independence cannot be prevented by a refusal to grant referenda etc.

    But in reality we see this often, recently Catalonia voted in favour of independence and yet their leaders were imprisoned and the result ignored. The international community looked the other way. The only time it DOESN’T look the other way is when they have an interest in the country becoming aligned with them when it was not already, or perhaps to prevent it becoming aligned elsewhere.

    To this end, many years of SNP Government in Holyrood and majority SNP from Scotland sent to Westminster is the only strategy that stands a chance of success. Not only is it building support for a party which stands for independence but it normalises it as a political view.

    At some point the view becomes overwhelmingly obvious, even to unionist Westminster Governments and they HAVE to act. Unlike small island nations overseas the UK has a very REAL and NECESSARY interest in Scotland which is financial and also integral to it’s being. As we saw in 2014 it won’t give that up easily and will use every single dirty trick in the book to ensure Scotland stay poor and dependent. Hence the ’emptying out’ of Scotland’s assets ie Army, Navy, Air Force, Public Bodies, Civil Service etc. It’s no accident that we have one tax district and England has many, no accident that National Insurance Offices were closed and centralised to Longbenton as was Insolvency, no accident that Tax Collection Offices have been vastly reduced. They ARE cost cutting excercises, they ARE centralisation but they are ALWAYS centralised OUT of Scotland, always.

    If we DID have a referendum tomorrow, would we win? Would we lose by a tiny percentage, again? So, should we wait until the pressure for independence has reached it’s critical mass and a win is inevitable? Because if we have one now, and lose, we would NEVER have another opportunity, ever…

    • Dave

      Waiting until you can win is perfectly sensible, but constitutionally holding a referendum when you can is better, because you can’t determine when a referendum is held, and so holding a referendum progresses the prospect of independence, even if the referendum is a lost cause.

    • Hatuey

      “should we wait until the pressure for independence has reached it’s critical mass and a win is inevitable?”

      We have no evidence to suggest that waiting will result in increased pressure, critical mass, or a win. The evidence suggests that if you do nothing, you get nothing. That so widely the case in virtually all walks of life (outside of paint drying) that it might be regarded as a sort of truism.

      Nobody will answer my question though; “are we closer to an independence referendum today than we were on the 27th of June, 2016?”

      How you answer that has serious implications for Nicola and her strategy.

  • Dave McEwan Hill

    I don’t expect any balance from Craig Murray since he got turned down as a prospective SNP parliamentary candidate for the SNP. He made it plain that he would no be prepared to accept party direction and instruction at the interviews etc on the vetting panels.
    Manny Singh refused to do what the police told him at Edinburgh last year and then lied about. He refused again at Glasgow this year and has been hauled up. So what is the big deal?There is no way the SNP can be officially in close-up with this. So is Manny trying to damage the SNP? Who is Craig Murray working for?

    If the SNP gets four of the six EU seats on 23rd May (entirely possible as Nicola Sturgeon is doing so very well) this will be seen as a really stupid and worthless distraction. Who is responsible for it? And why? Deep state anyone?

    • Hatuey

      We could easily ask who you are working for. McDonalds?
      People get bogged down in paranoia online but there’s a very easy way of dealing with these concerns. Try this; evaluate the opinions of others and decide if you agree or not, regardless of who they might be working for…

    • Hatuey

      Who cares how many seats the SNP gets and why would anyone care? The games that people play…

1 2 3

Comments are closed.