Yesterday the Scottish Government published “Scotland’s Right to Choose“, its long heralded paper on the path to a new Independence referendum. It is a document riven by a basic intellectual flaw. It sets out in detail, and with helpful annexes, that Scotland is a historic nation with the absolute and inalienable right of self-determination, and that sovereignty lies not in the Westminster parliament but with the Scottish people.
It then contradicts all of this truth by affirming, at length, in detail, and entirely without reservation, that Scotland can only hold a legitimate Independence referendum if the Westminster Parliament devolves the power to do so under Section 30.
Both propositions cannot be true. Scotland cannot be a nation with the right of self-determination, and at the same time require the permission of somebody else to exercise that self-determination.
I was trying to find the right words to discuss the document. One possibility was “schizophrenic”. The first half appears to be written by somebody with a fundamental belief in Scottish Independence, and contains this passage:
The United Kingdom is best understood as a voluntary association of nations, in keeping with the principles of democracy and self‑determination.
For the place of Scotland in the United Kingdom to be based on the people of Scotland’s consent, Scotland must be able to choose whether and when it should make a decision about its future.
The decision whether the time is right for the people who live in Scotland again to make a choice about their constitutional future is for the Scottish Parliament, as the democratic voice of Scotland, to make.
Yet the rest of the paper completely negates this proposition and instead argues that the necessary powers must be granted by the Westminster Parliament:
The Scottish Government is committed to agreeing a process for giving effect to its mandate for a further independence referendum. When they make a decision about their future, the people of Scotland must do so in the knowledge that their decision will be heard and respected and given effect to: not just by the government in Scotland, but also by the UK Government, by the European Union and by the international community.
For a referendum to have this legitimacy, it must have the confidence of all of those that it would effect. This means not just the UK Government acknowledging and respecting the Scottish Government’s mandate, but the Scottish Government and UK Government seeking to agree the proper lawful basis for the referendum to take place.
We call on the UK Government to enter discussions about the Scottish Government’s mandate for giving the people of Scotland a choice, and to agree legislation with the Scottish Government that would put beyond doubt the Scottish Parliament’s right to legislate for a referendum on independence.
I am frequently told that this paper is all just a cunning ploy, and that when the Tory Government rejects – as it will reject – this servile request to grant Scotland the powers to hold a referendum, the Scottish Government will go to court to say it has the right to a referendum.
If that really is the cunning plan, it is the most stupid cunning plan since Baldrick and his turnip. In what way does publishing an official Scottish Government paper which states explicitly that a referendum “must have” the agreement of the UK government to be legitimate, prepare the ground to go to court and argue the precise opposite? Plainly that is not the intent here.
Nicola Sturgeon’s speech presenting the paper made the acceptance of a veto from “the rest of the UK” on the holding of a second referendum even more explicit:
It is based on the solemn right of the people of Scotland to decide their own future.
The Scottish Government believes that right should be exercised free from the threat of legal challenge.
In line with our values, we acknowledge that a referendum must be legal and that it must be accepted as legitimate, here in Scotland and the rest of the UK as well as in the EU and the wider international community.
We are therefore today calling for the UK Government to negotiate and agree the transfer of power that would put beyond doubt the Scottish Parliament’s right to legislate for a referendum on independence.
And what does Ms Sturgeon plan to do when Boris Johnson just says no, as he assuredly will? To be fair to Nicola, she could not have been clearer about what she intends to do. Absolutely nothing different.
Of course, I anticipate that in the short term we will simply hear a restatement of the UK government’s opposition.
But they should be under no illusion that this will be an end of the matter.
We will continue to pursue the democratic case for Scotland’s right to choose.
We will do so in a reasonable and considered manner.
So this is the Sturgeon plan: in the short term, we accept Johnson can block Independence. Beyond the short term (how many years is that?) we do nothing except continue in democratic politics as the SNP already is, operating at Holyrood and putting before Scottish voters “the democratic case for Scotland’s right to choose”, while accepting Westminster’s veto. This will have the pleasant side effect of keeping Ms Sturgeon living very nicely indeed in Bute House, with her husband picking up a massive salary as CEO of the Party, and the SNP just like the last five years doing nothing whatsoever about Independence other than occasionally blether about it, “pursuing the democratic case”, while very explicitly accepting Westminster’s veto.
The truth is there is no route to a referendum by legal challenge in the UK courts. The UK Supreme Court has already ruled that Westminster, the “Crown in Parliament” is sovereign, that the Sewell Convention has no legal force and that any powers that the Scottish parliament has, and indeed the very existence of the Scottish Parliament, is entirely at the gift of Westminster. The clue is on the tin. It is the UK Supreme Court. To be fair the Scottish Government paper plainly does not anticipate any such pointless legal challenge, though it is not inconceivable that one may be futilely undertaken at some stage to keep the SNP’s pro-Independence activists happy, by pretending to do something and kicking Indy yet a few months further down the road.
Because the truth is, that is the purpose of the current Scottish Government paper. The reason it is schizophrenic is that it is a deeply dishonest document. All the stuff at the beginning, about Scotland’s ancient right as a nation and the sovereignty residing in the Scottish people, is no more and no less than window dressing to keep Scottish Independence activists happy. The actual meat of the paper, that Indyref2 “must have” Westminster agreement or it is not legitimate, sits there like a great steaming turd whose stink cannot be disguised no matter how much the SNP leadership has tried to conceal it under flowers.
I have to say, I am astonished how many very decent people in the SNP have fallen for the trick.
The Scottish Government position is fundamentally incorrect. The Independence of a nation is a matter of international law, not of domestic legislation. The UN Charter enshrines the right of self-determination of peoples, and nobody has argued that the Scots are not a people in the encapsulated sense.
It is perfectly normal for States to become Independent without the permission of the state from which they are seceding. The UK Government itself argued precisely this position before the International Court of Justice over Kosovo. I here repeat a post I wrote almost exactly one year ago setting out the legal position:
BEGINS
The London Supreme Court last week not only confirmed that the Westminster Parliament could overrule at will any Scottish Government legislation, irrespective of the Scotland Act and the Sewell Convention, but it also ruled that Westminster had already successfully done so, by retrospectively passing provisions in the EU (Withdrawal) Act that overruled the Bill on the same subject, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, that had already been passed by Holyrood.
Not content with that, the London Supreme Court confirmed that London ministers may, by secondary legislation, under the Scotland Act decree laws for Scotland that are not even passed through the Westminster parliament.
Which leaves Scotland in this extraordinary situation. English MPs or English ministers in their London Parliament can, at any time, impose any legislation they choose on Scotland, overriding Scotland’s parliament and Scotland’s representation in the London parliament. Yet, under the English Votes for English Laws rules of the London Parliament introduced by the Tories in 2015, Scottish MPs cannot vote at all on matters solely affecting England.
That is plainly a situation of colonial subservience.
I am firmly of the view that the Scottish government should now move to withdraw from the Treaty of Union. Scotland’s right to self determination is inalienable. It cannot be signed away forever or restricted by past decisions.
The Independence of a country is not a matter of domestic law it is a matter of international law. The right of the Scottish Parliament to declare Independence may not be restricted by UK domestic law or by purported limitations on the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The legal position is set out very clearly here:
5.5 Consistent with this general approach, international law has not treated the legality of
the act of secession under the internal law of the predecessor State as determining the effect
of that act on the international plane. In most cases of secession, of course, the predecessor
State‟s law will not have been complied with: that is true almost as a matter of definition.5.6 Nor is compliance with the law of the predecessor State a condition for the declaration
of independence to be recognised by third States, if other conditions for recognition are
fulfilled. The conditions do not include compliance with the internal legal requirements of
the predecessor State. Otherwise the international legality of a secession would be
predetermined by the very system of internal law called in question by the circumstances in
which the secession is occurring.5.7 For the same reason, the constitutional authority of the seceding entity to proclaim
independence within the predecessor State is not determinative as a matter of international
law. In most if not all cases, provincial or regional authorities will lack the constitutional
authority to secede. The act of secession is not thereby excluded. Moreover, representative
institutions may legitimately act, and seek to reflect the views of their constituents, beyond
the scope of already conferred power.
That is a commendably concise and accurate description of the legal position. Of major relevance, it is the legal opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom, as submitted to the International Court of Justice in the Kosovo case. The International Court of Justice endorsed this view, so it is both established law and the opinion of the British Government that the Scottish Government has the right to declare Independence without the agreement or permission of London and completely irrespective of the London Supreme Court.
I have continually explained on this site that the legality of a Declaration of Independence is in no sense determined by the law of the metropolitan state, but is purely a matter of recognition by other countries and thus acceptance into the United Nations. The UK Government set this out plainly in response to a question from a judge in the Kosovo case:
2. As the United Kingdom stated in oral argument, international law contains no
prohibition against declarations of independence as such. 1 Whether a declaration of
independence leads to the creation of a new State by separation or secession depends
not on the fact of the declaration but on subsequent developments, notably recognition
by other States. As a general matter, an act not prohibited by international law needs
no authorization. This position holds with respect to States. It holds also with respect
to acts of individuals or groups, for international law prohibits conduct of non-State
entities only exceptionally and where expressly indicated.
As I have stressed, the SNP should now be making a massive effort to prepare other countries, especially in the EU and in the developing world, to recognise Scotland when the moment comes. There is no task more important. There is a worrying lack of activity in this area. It may currently not be possible to spend government money on sending out envoys for this task, but if personal envoys were endorsed by the First Minister they would get access and could easily be crowd funded by the Independence Movement. I am one of a number of former senior British diplomats who would happily undertake this work without pay. We should be lobbying not just the EU but every country in Africa, Asia and South America.
My preferred route to Independence is this. The Scottish Parliament should immediately legislate for a new Independence referendum. The London Government will attempt to block it. The Scottish Parliament should then convene a National Assembly of all nationally elected Scottish representatives – MSPs, MPs and MEPs. That National Assembly should declare Independence, appeal to other countries for recognition, reach agreements with the rump UK and organise a confirmatory plebiscite. That is legal, democratic and consistent with normal international practice.
There will never be a better time than now for Scotland to become an Independent, normal, nation once again. It is no time for faint hearts or haverers; we must seize the moment.
ENDS
Events since I wrote that have made the case still stronger. With the UK now leaving the European Union, EU states will be extremely eager to recognise Scottish Independence and get Scotland and its resources back inside the EU, while sending out a strong message that leaving the EU can have severe consequences. At the UN, the UK’s repudiation of the International Court of Justice ruling and overwhelming General Assembly mandate over the Chagos Islands has made the UK even more of a pariah state, while senior statesmen in the developing world see Scottish Independence as a wedge issue to open the question of the UK’s ridiculous permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
The claim that to proceed to Independence without Westminster consent is illegal and illegitimate lies at the heart of this truly disgraceful Scottish Government paper. That claim is wrong at every level.
You cannot both believe that the Scots are a people with the right of self-determination, and believe that Westminster has a right to veto that self-determination.
This paper by the Scottish Government is nothing more and nothing less than proof that the gradualists who sadly head the SNP are perfectly happy operating within the devolution system and have no intention of ever paying any more than lip service to Independence.
——————————————
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 every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Alternatively:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
Excellent article, Andrew.
Strong action must now be taken.
No dithering! No ifs! No buts
Craig, you too are a gradualist. Your blog shows you bank in London with Natwest. You are hedging your bets if you advocate immediate Inde, yet keep a foot firmly in Westminster. We have to starve England of its assets in Scotland, and if we withdraw cooperation, investment, and business enough, the torture will help England let us go. I like your offer (as a former diplomat) to commend Scotland’s sovereignty to nation states abroad, and hope that Holyrood hears it. However, the good is the enemy of the best, and in your case, your voice is standing out as the clearest support for Inde, and I suggest we need your attention focused on domestic progress meantime.
Natwest is owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland…
It is pretty well known I worked in the diplomatic service for a couple of decades. My bank account was therefore opened in London. I also have a Russian email address as it was the only email domain permitted in Uzbekistan. Relics of a peripatetic life.
Just wait for London to request an index linked repayment of the Darien bailout, that caused Scotland to join England in the first place. Then there are those RBS bailouts……
fair assessment….. if nothing else happened in the proceeding 310 years eh?!?
but lets challenge it at face value.
closest reports and papers from Scotland showed around 1/3rd of scotlands GDP was invested in Darien, nothing near “bankrupt”. as a consequence of English and Spanish aggression and trade blockage/ aid embargos against the panama settlers of Scotland agitating and starving them of aid or resources, the scheme failed…… and Scotland still wasn’t “bankrupt”.
then the treaty…. Scotland got…. £398,000 in an equivalence payment as a result of signing (bought and sold for English gold, truest ditty ever written)….. when England was £18 million IN DEBT…. Scotland since then has lost all control of its management over its laws rules trade deals resources regulations measures coinages you name it…. AND we got lumbered with 30% (scotlands pop. was 1/3rd of englands in 1707) of englands £18 million debt……
pfffft don’t even begin with the fallacy that “Scotland” had any liability in the failure of a bank with the name “Scotland” in it… ask ‘merica how much THEY bailed out UK banks first huh.
anyway pray tell, WHAT imaginary indexed dossier of costs will Westminster place on Scotland from “Darien”…. response should be considered and reasoned and factual, if you cant manage that plus a cognitive rebuttal, don’t even reply…. stay quiet and accept you #IgnorantUberBritNat like a good sport. #DissolveTheUnion.
Did I mention bankruptcy?
Better to consider what might happen in the future and take it into account than call people ignorant.
There was no Darien ” bailout “. The Darien scheme failed therefore it was not bailed out.
There were bribes to people who lost money to get them to sell out Scotland.
With respect Alistair, how long is this “torture” process going to take? A year, 2 years, 20?
And what power in reality does the average punter in Scotland have to “starve England of it’s assets”?
What we have in Craig’s article is a bit more informed version of the Stu Campbell position over on “Wings”. They are both substantially right in their assertions.
I still think Sturgeon should be given time, however it should be measured in weeks, not even months and far less years.
Galt, Wings to my knowledge has never called for UDI and has actually said that it would be tantamount to a coup. You seem to have imagined something otherwise.
Hatuey
Terminating the Treaty of Union 1707 cannot be a UDI by definition.
Maybe, maybe not, but I think that was what Galt meant. Regardless, according to some, a decision of that magnitude would require clear majority support. The best argument against that is that in parliament elections it’s seats that count, not vote share — and that’s something they drum into politics students.
On the basis of vote share, every political decision ever made in British politics was arguably illegitimate — I can’t remember any government that had more than 50% of the vote. Is there one?
The only way to determine that would be a referendum.
Hatuey
I think the last UK gov that got more than 50% was in the early 1950’s and that was just only over 50%.
So I agree with your points re percentage vote share. Scotlland has to get over 50% according to the Britnats but the Britnats themselves can get any percentage vote share to get a mandate. It’s called gerrymandering and the Britnats love it. They love raising the bar for Scotland.
If you look at a definition of UDI Scotland cannot declare UDI by definition. As a sovereign nation it can terminate the Treaty of Union.
I never quite got how we have large echo chambers and many ideas around the same principle, and cant coalesce around the simple facts….
this is a representative 21st century democracy.
we elect MPs empowered by our will as sovereign over monarch and any heads of state (Scotland only), to represent our will.
our will, vested in them, can be used in any way “they deem fit”. its invested in their words deeds and actions, also know as manifestos/record in govt. but it is “their” words and deeds. ie. they are not “delegates” of our will, we have no dained to produce such an action. they are “represent” our will, to the best of their ability according to oath, using their talents and experience.
so. rep’ democracy. 5 year elections. representatives not delegates. under a UK constitutional framework.
and then you have all the blah blah blah in between called “politics”.
Now, a simple solution and example of bypassing the blah blah is:-
“peoples petition for the support in independence of Scotland”, basically the Scottish Greens manifesto but civic community controlled.
~every constituency runs a petition with a 1 year sunset clause on the above. make the threshold 60% too remove any ambiguity, with 1 chosen delegate representing each constituency petition (empowered to directly follow the letter of the mandate they are delegated to enact on our behalf) and a clear threat to each and every MP that these signatures in support for declaring independence also support a recall by election to any Scottish MP who refuses to accept said petition papers……..
1 year campaign, 4.2 m registered electorate. inc 16-17 yr olds and EU citizens, say 4.5 m.
get 2.7m signatures of support from the electorate, then simply do as craig describes within one year of the sunset clause…. bypassing Westminster and the SNP, empower elected delegates and crowdfund the whole thing from the ground up, send a copy of the petition papers and signatures to the UK, SNP, Holyrood, and send the “delegates” to the UN HQ and invite the EU and UN nations to recognise the delegates, their independence declaration petition, and get 12 nations to recognise Scotland as an independent nation state. ~
machinations of independence consequences and their political discussions would then inc all Scottish MPs ,Msps ,MEPs, Councils and community groups AND the elected chosen delegates of the petition around the table VS Westminster and the tories…… at least we can empower them to negotiate with SHARP teeth and with still a fresh taste of the british nationalist shite they’ve been feeding us for decades STILL in all our mouths….. depending on the taste, we may decide to eat at another table from now on.
I TOTALLY agree with people like craig and pete A bell,…. I COINED the #SNPShitebags a long while back…. too scared to rock an already holed sinking shittania…. lets BYPASS them. end this charade, if the SNP wont, we may as well band together and do it ourselves. too many options available to even consider downing tools and civil disobedience. that’s quitin’ talk.
“Scotland Didn’t Quit the UK, The UK Quit Scotland A Loooong Time Ago”.
” We have to starve England of its assets in Scotland, ”
For example?
Do you not fear that might invite some retaliatory action?
not so much a problem when you consider the financial sector and savings/hedge funds management in Scotland is like 60-70% of the TOTAL 64bn per year trade value of the Scotland/UK trade statistics……
prudent Scottish financial sectors and practices have 100s of billions of funds registered in Scotland, insurance products aplenty…… and to refuse much of what England offered us in trade between nations in spite or thought of asset security of rUK, would equate a negative economic factor on englands side far more than it would Scotland…… those funds and savings and products are far more secure in an indy Scotland than a bankrupt Brexit britian….. no matter what bojo and co tell to contrary. the management and trust fund committees know that too lol. not much more can be used to threaten scots to stay…… questionable its even required to THREATEN scots of a dire world if they took independence…. sure scots created the ENLIGHTENMENT ERA and the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION amongst others….. oh well…..
too wee… too poor…. too stupid…..
repeat after me, this is a british Brainwashing Channel production….
too wee…. too poor… too stupid….
(pan out, fading to black, a small lone square 5L tartan painted oil drum marked “$15/barrel”…… dire bagpipe music echos to silence….. fade to black.)
So does that mean Scotland will take over RBS and repay money poured into propping it up by the British government since 2008.?
The idea that appealing to the EU in expecting the EU to recognise Scottish independence without England’s approval after how the EU has treated Catalonia is quite frankly laughable. Yes of course Scotland is a colony, as it would also be as a ‘independent’ EU member.
It is doubtful that Scotland would meet the EU convergence criteria, and that all 27 EU members would agree to Scotland joining the EU, as France blocked EU expansion until the EU is reformed towards closer fiscal integration that Germany would and has blocked,
I also fail to see the point of independence under Nicola Sturgen as a confirmed deep state ‘Russia-gater’ indicating she is only a tool of US imperialism, or as a EU member where under the 2 pack amendment to the fiscal compact the Scottish budget would have to be pre approved by the EU commission.
Of course Scotland should have the right to self determination, as the Crimea and Catalonia should, but that does not prevent me pointing out the absurd contradictions in those advocating for Scottish independence. Iceland is not a EU member and managed the financial crisis far better than the EU managed in Greece, Italy and Ireland so is a far more credible model for Scottish independence.
Iceland’s successful approach having its own currency of default, capital controls and jailing bankers while not instituting austerity required by EU memorandums of understanding enforced by the Trokia, would not of been allowed as a EU member, particularly as part of the Eurozone. The Trokia has projected Greece to have to run austerity (a primary budget surplus) into the 2060s, does Scotland really want that? Iceland came out of the crisis while remaining one of the most equal OECD countries, so is a far better model for Scottish independence.
OT: What are you views on Nord Stream II sanctions, Mr Murray?
Is it time ror Europe as a whole to ban all American corporations, citizens and military staff from existing here?
I think it is.
The price for relaxing that is dissolution of Capitol Hill, lifetime bans on all US lawmakers voting for anticapitalist legislation and a £25trn fine to stop them doing it again.
They will not hand over the money so asset seizure across Europe would be the way to go..
America is no longer a human construct…..so none of its constituent parts should be treated with human courtesies….
Rhys
Isnt it strange, US could threat and sanction europe openly, but no european nation have the courage to condemn this behavior!
If Russia did the same, oh boy…
Jack, you said earlier “People here may not even honk because they dont want to end up in possible trouble”.
Europe is not shy about ‘honking’ at Russia.
Do you think, is it because Europe doesn’t expect troubles and really doesn’t belive in ‘russian threat’?
The decision by Germany not to respond to the actions by the USA shows that the EU is a subsidiary of the USA without any powers to either construct its own military defenses or to secure a sovereign energy policy nor its own foreign policies.
If nothing else should condemn Hitler in the eyes of Europeans, just the fact alone that through the pan European war he set into motion and losing he made possible the loss of sovereignty of Europe to the USA.
The last person who acted to keep some sense of this sovereignty was DeGaulle when he pulled France out of NATO.
A Tory MP Sir William Cash compared leaving the EU like defeating Hitler. Cash added we will not be governed by another country, that this was a great moment for Britain, now we are not shackled to Europe.
Cash went on to say (with regards to the EU) we will still trade on friendly terms with our European neighbours,but we will have our own laws not EU ones. This vision of British independence inspires so many.
Cash ended with we will have our democracy and independence back.
I’m lost for words on the levels of hypocrisy here.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18116273.tory-compares-johnsons-brexit-defeat-hitler/
The generation brought up post-war on comic weeklies with characters saying “Die Britisher!” and “Tally ho chaps!”… will soon be on their last legs… and people will find Johnson’s “independence” is more like a total screw up… then people may start seeing the UK’s real (rather small) place in the world… maybe…
Reports by local canvassers on former Labour voting Northern seats, comment that many former Labour supporters were very patriotic and did not like Corbyns support of what they perceived to be various dodgy foreign regimes (and the IRA ),
Now you can argue that this is because they have been brainwashed by the mass media. But I wonder if it is more straightforward than that. Older voters tend to be Brexit supporters. Older voters were raised by parents who lived through WW2 or they lived through jts immediate aftermath. It is perhaps not surprising that these households were sceptical of Germany – after the horrors of Nazi-ism – and of France where the collaborators of Vichy France were remembered along with the fascist regimes of Spain and Portugal under Franco and Salazar and Italy under Mussolini. Russian occupation of Eastern Europe did not appear to be a good thing for the occupied countries either. More recently the fallout from events of 2008 made them glad never to have swapped sterling for the euro.
So the older generation grew up in households with a heavy degree of scepticism about many of our European neighbours, a belief in self reliance and a distaste for the ever closer financial and political union being pushed by France and Germany. The results were clear in The Referendum.
It is going to be few years yet before the British electorate as a whole can be persuaded it wants to be remodelled as new Europeans.
Thanks, Mrs Pau!. You may be right. I have English close friends who could be described as working class and are, if they know anything about it, unimpressed by the sub-recent history of mainland Europe. Some of them also complain about recent immigrants from E Europe (Lithuania is often mentioned) taking factory jobs at pay rates for which locals cannot afford to work. I would have thought a solution to that issue would be to set and enforce a proper living minimum wage for full-time work. Not that any Tory government would want to do that. But it might solve that problem. Then there are the self-employed immigrant tradesmen: plumbers, painters, etc. Many come from Poland, where efficient training during traditional apprenticeships seems to turn out skilled and willing operators who are more attractive to English and Welsh householders than the home-grown alternative. I get the impression that this preference has more to do with reliability and flexibility than with price per hour or per job. When looking for someone to redecorate a flat in an inner London suburb, where there is a shortage of such labour, why should I risk the uncertainty associated with using a home-grown tradesman when I know that a Sardinian acquaintance will do the job efficiently at short notice, with minimum disruption to residents’ use of the space, and with absolutely no mess left to be cleared up at the end of the job? Of course there are many highly-skilled English-trained tradesmen and tradeswomen, but perhaps they and those who train them should put more emphasis on things like reliabilty and adaptability.
My plumber complains that he has to register as a professional tradesman. And pay annual fees to maintain this registration and keep his skills up to date. European workmen do not, so it is not a level playing field.
Mrs Pau!
There’s certainly anti-German prejudice related to WW2.. but the UK voted in 1975 by 67% to 33% to join the EU… and that’s when a much higher proportion of the population had a direct or next generation connection with the war. Brainwashed by the mass media is about right… years and years of drip drip anti-EU propaganda by the tabloids and little positive said… I reckon…
The EU that UK voters chose to join in 1967 was presented to them as a customs union of a small group of western and northern European countries. Since then it has expanded greatly
in size and in ambition. Sadly successive UK governments have misled the country about this,, rightly fearing a backlash (eg predicting only 15000 Poles would arrive each year and most only stay a couple of years.) Leading labour politicians have been particularly guilty of signing up to a more extensive and integrated European superstate while obfuscating to sceptical UK voters. Now their patriotic constituency is punishing them.
The trouble is you are implying a narrow win in a referendum is some kind of mandate and are absolving low information voters if any responsibility of actually seeking out facts re Corbyn and the EU…in short the leave voters if not genuinely stupid were wilfully ignorant
Interesting article, but my concern is the use of the term “schizophrenia” to describe the holding of two mutually contradictory views, redolent of the old idea of a “split personality” or “divided self”. This is an anachronistic understanding of schizophrenia, Also should any person’s suffering be used to denounce a political position? In the past, the SNP’s view might have been described, even by those of us on the left, as “spastic”. Thankfully, we have now left all that abuse behind. We should not use schizophenia as a dreogatory metaphor either.
Why stop there? Let’s ban lame excuse, toothless watchdog, short-sighted behaviour, deaf ears, every use of the word “stupid,” ….
As per the great philosopher Orwell, the correct term for simultaneously holding two contradictory ideas is …. “DoubleThink”.
Orwell was not a great philosopher, essentially he was a propagandist.
The correct term for holding two contradictory opinions, ideas, or feelings is ambivalence. it is a very common human trait.
Aside from that your comment is spot on.
This englishman cares not if the UK survives as it is or changes. I will not be upset if Scotland stays in, or gains independence. I passionately hope Ireland unifies however.
The arguments on the road map to independence debate are as chaotic here as they ever have been. It’s passion without purpose or plan.
Nothing is mentioned about the resulting state, which will be run by an elected assembly drawn from the ranks of the SNP, Tory, Labour and Liberals. Most of them will be from the SNP swamp who will end up considerably richer than Tony Blair.
This state will also have a bent judiciary, damned by the shame of judgments following the fit up after Lockerbie. No independent judiciary that Scottish citizenry can rely on, should remind Craig of the times he witnessed the result of a judicial system without independence he so vividly described in his accounts from Uzbekistan.
The arguments put forward by campaigners for Indyref2 show that having impossible ideas before breakfast can go on all day and late in to the night.
Craig Murray with a tin hat and claymore? laughable. Have his mail forwarded to the hotheads in the rear with the gear please…_
Media is key. Having the capacity to offer an alternative to BBC propaganda is key. Gawd knows we have the talent; Craig M., Paul C., Stu C., Mike S., Phantom Power and others (why the worrying gender imbalance?). Leaving aside that certain egos will not cooperate, a TYT type net based show should be possible. Start with a weekly, video podcast and expand to a daily schedule when funding is secured.
Slugger O’Toole manages a monthly video podcast with a target population a little over a third of Scotland’s.
What if we’re reading Boris Johnson all wrong?
Nicola Sturgeon has apparently written to Johnson requesting a section 30 order and everyone is assuming automatically that it’ll be refused, but what happens if it’s not?
Suppose Dominic Cummings looks at the polling for independence and suggests to Johnson that yes, grant them their section 30 order but stipulate that they have to hold the referendum on or by Sturgeons stated timescale of August 2020.
That creates a major problem for Sturgeon because Johnson will be seen to be conceding to her demands and also facilitating her preferred IndyRef2 date. Sturgeon can’t refuse or argue against it because it’s exactly what she’s been saying to everyone since before the GE.
But……….the polls say that support for Scottish Independence isn’t there…………..
So, Sturgeon has a choice. She either refuses Johnsons offer and is seen to be frit and not as keen on independence as she makes out to be, or she accepts Johnsons offer, goes ahead with a second referendum knowing the support isn’t there and knowing that if she loses, she’ll be seen as a failed leader and will have taken independence off the table for a good couple of decades at least.
Johnson would appear to be holding all the cards here because it all hinges on what Dominic Cummings thinks and say what you want about him, but he’s far from stupid.
This could be a real problem for Sturgeon, the SNP and the Indy cause.
An interesting ‘whatiff’, but still a ‘whatiff’. My reaction is simply…..so what…_
Mist: the numbers do not stack up for a referendum at all, at any time, unless there is some miracle that happens over Christmas and the Archangel Gabriel comes down to tell us we have been granted that particular wish: to win an indyref. Anyone who was likely to change from NO to YES has already done so, many EU residents in Scotland who might have voted NO last time to save themselves from being repatriated, as they saw it, thanks to BT propaganda, have left these shores thanks now to Brexit hostility, and rUK voters, the biggest NO voting group per capita (even bigger than the indigenous (UN term) Scottish NO group) has been growing exponentially. Just how do we get a YES vote? Even taking into account that the UN Charter is opposed to those from the country from which independence is being sought having a say on how those who desire self-determination may map their future, that would involve taking away the rUK vote, which is a non-starter both from a human rights perspective and from precedent.
The only hope we have now is to resile the Treaty. There is no other route out of this mess. Waiting and waiting to see if Brexit delivers more harm to your population so that they might – might – vote YES next time, is anathema. The Union between Scotland and England has had a profound psychological effect on Scottish minds, and it has created something very akin to Stockholm Syndrome, where no evidence whatsoever that shows that the Scots would be worse off staying in the Union than they would be out of it, makes the slightest difference. We are starting to behave as the First Nation peoples on their reservations have behaved, as Australian Aboriginals have behaved, as all overwhelmed and hopeless people have behaved down through the centuries: we have massive drug and alcohol problems, ingrained poverty and lack of opportunity; and little incentive to take hope by the throat and make it ours.
Resiling the Treaty or dissolving it needs no supermajority. It would be legal and democratic because the case would rest on the flagrant breach of the Treaty, of Scotland’s silencing within the Union; and of the loss and potential loss of our resources and ability to drive forward our economy in parallel with our own needs. Yes, we might not win (personally, I believe we would) but a second indyref is a huge risk, as the second Quebec indyref proves. If the state itself and its adherents within the territory that is wishing to be independent work against a YES result, we are finished anyway, and no one who has any knowledge of how the British State works, can be in any doubt that it will fire its entire arsenal, and then some, at us next time.
Lorna:
I can understand your frustration. Westminster and the British Establishment are dishonest and corrupt endeavours. But many Scots still are unsure that independence would provide a solution. I don’t mean the lunatic unionist fringe – but just ordinary folk. What do you suppose is their greatest concern? What is the principal impediment preventing an overwhelming support for independence?
If ordinary folk could just see that staying in the Union does them no favours – quite the opposite – they might be persuaded, but I’m not sure even then. Those who voted for Brexit will suffer the most when it hits home. Ordinary people so often vote against their own best interests, and I’m not trying to be patronizing, just truthful. I think that, with independence, there are more than just economic factors at play, albeit economic factors still weigh heavily. I believe there is a bias in favour of the Union that bears no relation to rational thought. The status quo is always preferable until it cannot be borne any longer. The problem we have is this: that time is not our friend because the Brexit negotiations will leave us hugely vulnerable to predation in trade deals, to loss of the powers we have and to virtual extinction as a people. If there was the slightest hope of Johnson and his Tories changing the balance of power in the Union, we might have some hope, but there really is not, and we must save ourselves now. We have done more than our fair share to make the Union work. If people refuse to budge, there will come a tipping point when their concerns will be swept away before an unstoppable tide of anger.
Reference “rUK voters” (is this a purposeful euphemism?) I don’t see a clearly homogeneous group. Working class, English newcomers move into predominantly Scottish, working class districts and send their kids to State schools. Integration is possible.
Middle class, English newcomers move into “little England” ghettos and send their kids to private schools. They’ll never integrate as long as they have holes in their arse.
The move by the Scottish government to impose full business rates on private schools next year is genius both in practical terms and sending a message.
Viv: If three-quarters (almost 75%) of rUK (English, Welsh and NI) voters voted NO in 2014, that made them, whatever their class, colour, creed, etc. the largest single (per capita) NO-voting group. I believe something like 47.3% of Unionist Scots (indigenous) voted NO (under half, and half is less than three-quarters). That is not to say that rUK voters would vote NO by 75% (almost) again, but I wouldn’t want to bet on that not happening either, would you? The Quebecois lost their second indyref by believing that they had ‘persuaded’ their own NO voters and the Anglophones that independence would serve them all better. They failed. I rather think we would, too. International law was breached in 2014 because indigenous peoples are entitled, under its auspices, to choose their own future. The 52.7% or thereabouts of indigenous Scots who voted YES were cheated out of their independence. That is fact, not speculation. If we wish to avoid a repeat of 2014, we really need to persuade a helluva lot of people now or we find an alternative route to independence. I hope that rUK voters will not vote NO if there is a next time, but I’m not sure that we can take that as read. Of course, it is very much better to take everyone with us, but the right to self-determination should not and does not rest on whether we need the permission and goodwill of non-indigenous Scots to follow our own path. The very fact that so many rUK voters voted NO in 2014 suggests that colonialism is at play here because colonialism is defined as those from the part of the state from which the other part of the state wishes to secede or wishes to leave or wishes to end the union between them, make it impossible or extra difficult. There is a right in international law to self-determination and human rights; there is no right to stymie someone else’s self-determination or human rights. I am not trying to be anti anyone here; I well appreciate that we need to bring as many people with us as possible, but, in the end, we must make a decision about our own future and we cannot have others dictating that future to us.
When people start talking about “indigenous Scots” — i.e. racially pure— they can count me out. And there’s no way to sugarcoat that, however much you try.
The SNP isn’t a nationalist party. The working definition as far as voting is concerned is down to residency. And I like that.
Your solution isn’t even as simple as you suggest — if being Scottish is the definition rather than residency, you’d need to offer votes to Scots that live elsewhere. How would they vote?
Mist, the chances of that happening are so unlikely that we need not take it seriously. People forget that the British establishment (rightly) regards Scotland as a stupendously valuable possession. You don’t take unnecessary risks or play games with things of such importance.
The role of Sturgeon’s SNP is going to look increasingly questionable to many in the Indy movement over the course of the next few weeks. I’m confident that by Easter the SNP will be looking for a new leadership (not just a new leader) and a new way of looking at things. It’s going to get ugly first.
In the longer term things look more promising. Boris will probably dismantle the Barnett formula and we could easily end up with a very a hard Brexit.
Misery, crisis, and change are the best of friends. It’s a friendship that goes back centuries. That’s what we should be toasting on Hogmanay— “to misery, crisis, and change!” — forget the SNP.
mist001
More doom and gloom from the independence supporter Mistyeyes. Misty always sees the downside of everything. From saying all the time Sturgeon won’t have a referendum in 2020 he now spins a negative spin if it happens.
With independence supporters like mistyeyes Scotland is bound to get independence.
What if we are reading mistyeyes all wrong and the man from France is not an independence supporter.
Funny that when cult members have no reply to something that they’re not smart enough to even imagine happening, then they revert to questioning the integrity of independence supporters and so what if I currently live in France, does that make me less Scottish than you or something?
Maybe Cubby is one of these guys you see on the High Street in Embra, dressed up in all the old Highland gear with fake muskets posing for the tourists? Who knows, eh? 😉
Mistyeyes
Nothing but doom and gloom from you. I generally find that people who claim to be smarter than others are nothing of the sort.
The only cult about is Wings cult members like you. Not long before you get the special Wings OBN badge.
Your comment of “Cult members “ gives your game away !
Mark Robertson
I like golf – is that what you mean?
If not care to clarify
–> “What if we’re reading Boris Johnson all wrong?”
If you voted for Boris Johnson, you read him all wrong.
The only thing I’d say that we know for sure about Boris Johnson is that he is a big liar. He lies easily, whenever he wants to, and of course, the powerful let him get away with it because a Boris government suits them.
Of course, such a liar is a complete overthrow of any concept of democracy. Citizens can not exercise power and make choices when what they are being told is big lies and utter nonsense.
This of course can mean that Boris will do some things unexpected and not mentioned in the recent election. Since he is a big liar, who can know? Of course, it is highly likely that the voting public won’t like the changes, as they are highly likely to favor the oligarchs behind Johnson and screw over ordinary citizens.
Wallace
88% of what Johnson says is lies and the other 12% is racist muck.
Cubby
88%?
Nah. Every Tory is 100% liar.
Johnson is a super saturated liar at 188%
Super deception. Precipitation only avoided by virtue of his support from Trump which is keeping the kettle of European division boiling. We have been favoured with our very own golden calf replica of Trump to worship in the form of Zhonson.
The twinkle dust is in the manifesto… no more boycotting of shitty little Nazi regimes who keep people in concentration camps.
” Far from stupid”
Really? Is the government helping itself to the proceeds of selling military assets a good idea , or is that why England has just been defeated by Russia in Syria?
A thousand years of investment in Britain is plundered to pay for the Thatcher Tory gambling Bill’s from 2007.and to prove that Tory dogma works when everybody can see plainly that it doesn’t. Why doesn’t, cummings not just open a slave market? After all even slaves have to be given minimal sustenance to survive, which is the condition of the majority of the population.
Stupider than stupid and Corbyn is wiser than wise to oppose him defiant even now. Imho Nicola Sturgeon dropped Labour in it big time by dangling her support in exchange for indyref2.
Johnson could then portray a vote for Corbyn as the start of the divorce process. I have no doubt the election was rigged by postal votes and maybe this is why. Democracy and the Market rule ( and they are controlled by the 1% ) OK?
The one thing I can say from years of being involved in American elections is this. If the system allows a loophole by which the election might be stolen, then its a near certainty that the election will be stolen.
Elections are fights among the powerful for control of power. This means power and great wealth for the victors. I don’t see any sign of such morality in either the US or UK that would have people who have some power and who are fighting to grab more power then saying that “oh, it just wouldn’t be right to steal it”.
If there is a loophole by which an election might be stolen, then it has been stolen. Count on it.
Wallace: yes, we’ve just seen that happen in Bolivia. An election stolen by the rich.
no indyref campaign has yet begun, no lines drawn, no debates had… on Scottish independence Vs a boris Brexit Britain, even IF we don’t know their EU trade position and deal, we would still start the next campaign ON 45-49%,…. it is YET to get proper full acknowledgement and reporting from the unbiased media and broadcasting corporations across the UK…… a starting January 31st Scotland being in a Brexit bojo Britain DURING indyref2 will do nothing except push the indy vote past 60%….. thus the no to indyref2 from the british unionist tories rhetoric….. you place too much brains and tactical analysis in the hands of the tories tbh lol
England cannot afford to lose control of Scotland. Politically it would ensure almost perpetual Conservative government in what’s left of the union. So ask yourself why a referendum has been refused….
Excellent letter Craig, if the Points you pick out in Nicola’s letter are contrived as a get out with honours strategy, then it will backfire on both her and the SNP. You wont be the only one noticing this. Her next move after the certain rebuttal to come will tell us.
You certainly should be taken on by the Scottish Government as a plenipotentiary
You have the experience and the nous. Lets keep hearing from you, Your views are
enlightening.
Donald Laing.
The world truly is in a fearful state of vulnerability – that is not in question. Globalism has advanced and swallowed up all the nations, peoples and kindreds and made every nation a slave to the market and more or less all humans slaves in the market. Globalism is actually another term for world communism; where policy affecting all people, nations and kindreds are determined by a Presidium, Soviet or Commission appointed by the elite/ Material Interests. We have been forewarned of the intentions of Big Brother but seem powerless to prevent him. By making all nations economically + financially interdependent, one reduces them and humanity to an economic value, obliterates the liberty of each and, their cultural singularity – one progressively eliminates the traditions of each nation, people and kindred in a world construct which spiritually could be defined under the name Babel. Now of course the tower of Babel never got built according to its architectural diabolical plan; and the constituents rather engaged in internecine strife.
Britain at the moment, for example, is dependent on Chinese Government money to preserve both its steel industry and nuclear energy sector. Needless to say – Britain has no leverage to affect Chinese Government totalitarian policies in Hong Kong or anywhere else in the Peoples Republic; though these policies enslave millions of ethic/cultural minorities in concentration/reeducation camps. Britain is also a hostage to Saudi Arabia and Israel – though no one one allowed to say it out aloud. Britain now possesses practically zero liberty and its claim by Manifest Destiny to an exceptional influence has become hollow and ludicrous. It has been swallowed up by the Leviathan of Materialism it created. A proper economist – I mean a truthful one – could explain why unremittable debt has to be discharged by pounds of flesh – by a sufficient number of dead bodies. Since the debts is in trillions only billions of dead body will suffice. So – rather than world harmony under a supposedly benign Presidium of the Elite administered through UN institutions into which the present blocs become amalgamated – rather than this – the financial regime we allow dictates the necessity of war between the blocs and a period of general and extreme chaos where the majority of humans get liquidated. Because of land mass realities -China, the US and Russia will better survive the necessary war or series of wars – and one can project such a devastation of Europe as to cause its effective obliteration. Unfortunately – nothing of the world crisis described above – was discussed in our general election campaign and nonsense of pantomime.
Alternatively or perhaps in cohort with war adventures- the ledger may be balanced by technological means – that is to say, the billions of expendable humans could be got rid of by the combination of blanket microwave exposure and vaccine assault – which are now both being advanced at breakneck speed.
@ Joseph Martinus,
I think you are on the wrong site my darling. Try here…_
https://www.davidicke.com/
Joseph:
I’m afraid you’ve been misled about money – just like the rest of us. This may help.
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/12/21/the-magic-money-tree/
Best,
It’s not communism at all…are workers owning their means of production?
It is very likely that both the Scottish and Brexit referendums were FIXED and so too were the 2015 and 2017 elections – though it is harder to fix a general election than a referendum. Hence the winter election to minimise turnout which makes it easier to fix. This time the deepstate orchestrating it has had to get extra heavy to get their result, because of all the extra new registrations and it is now just a matter of hours and days before the full extent becomes evident.
What are we going to do about it?
Isn’t it strange, the result? “Long queues around the block” and “record voter registratons” (I assume mostly the young) and then the voter turnout apparently isn’t higher than 2017. How does that add up?
The postal vote system in the UK can obviously be used for ballot stuffing. Were the “record voter registrations” fake to enable postal vote rigging?
I find it hard to believe that massive election rigging (actual counts not just the constant anti-Corbyn propaganda BBC and MSM) could take place in the UK. After all, so many people would need to be involved and any of them could blow the whistle. But the result just seems very strange.
OnlyHalfALooney –
My contact at Electoral Commission tried to claim that IDOX do not actually handle the returned postal voting packs despite solid evidence that they do, as documented in a video on YouTube. She did not try to explain how a council could justify paying IDOX to take care of everything if all the most labour intensive checking still required individual council workers? If true, this would represent an economically illiterate decision… Was she ignorant of this fact, or was she just lying to me? Why lie? This might be a strong tell regarding the weak link in the chain that IDOX could potentially be exploiting.
The IDOX service is called the “Postal Vote Managed Service” Go to their Website https://elections.idoxgroup.com/
We need to know which Councils use the IDOX Postal Vote Managed Service: no reply on that from the Electoral Commission yet although it is information that must be available to them. This service was used by Glasgow City Council and is featured in the promotional film “Glasgow City Council votes for IDOX” This film showing comprehensive handling of all aspects of the postal vote process. 27 Oct 2016 – Uploaded by IdoxPLC In this short video, Glasgow City Council discuss how Idox services help them deliver elections. Glasgow City Council votes for Idox – YouTube: https://youtu.be/i-7ybYfSjZw
After the outer envelope is opened and the verifications have taken place this is a point in the process where the ballots in their sealed A envelopes are removed to be stored separately with only the numbers printed on both the envelope and the ballot to identify them. This is the point where blocks of alternative envelopes containing matching number identifiers can be substituted.
The printing and sealing of these replacement envelopes could be fully automated to reduce risk. When stored batches of envelopes are presented for opening in front of witnesses the deception has already taken place. Postal ballots are mixed in with regular ballots at the time of counting, but there is still a way to distinguish them after the fact.
If it was possible to seize these ballots and or the discarded A envelopes, which I am informed are stored for one year, then there is a way to detect fraud. First you need probable cause and access to the evidence. What would that take?
Any legal eagles out there? Is there a whistleblower ready to spill their guts knowing how many kids will starve because of this deception. Yes we can do something, but it starts with ditching the apathy.
The Turkish AKP party’s five-point plan for rigging elections (according to whistleblowers):
– The use of bogus opinion polls
– The intentional miscalculation of votes during counting, resulting in incorrect results being recorded and sent to the electoral council
– The bribery or threatening of returning officers to stop the miscounting being reported to the authorities
– The misleading announcement of the AKP’s scale of victory early on in the election night to demotivate opposition counting observers and incentivising them to abandon the ballot boxes
– The use of fake addresses and dead people as voters
And they don’t even have a postal voting system.
I see. A supposed Turkish AKP party plan but no source, and no evidence. The Istanbul elite who oppose AKP would certainly be only too happy to come up with an accusation. The only question is that it is not obvious that AKP has any need to rig the elections, though the Istanbulis have a lot of psychological difficulty in admitting it. Voting for Erdogan is like voting for Johnson – only an idiot would do it, but they do, nevertheless.
I’ve been trying to gather solid data on where IDOX is used, and where it is not. There is a remarkable evasiveness on the part of local authorities to divulge this information, and one has to wonder why. I have a feeling that areas where IDOX is used will show a remarkably higher level of suport for the Conservative party, than those which do not.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s not a giraffe!
I have contacted Craig to beg him to write a new post raising the possibility that this election was stolen. If you had IndiRef2 in a few weeks or months it would be pointless because IDOX control the vote handling and they will rig the result to suit Tory interests just as they did the last time.
There are too many anomalies that cannot be explained and they need investigating. I have sent several emails to a contact I established at the Electoral Commission who has been surprisingly prompt and cooperative with her responses. She spent over 50 minutes talking to me on a direct line that she provided me with. Not sure what to make of that but if it looks too good to be true… I remain suspicious.
The complete data sheets for all constituencies must be published at some point. I do not know what the normal timeframe is for gathering this data, but this can be conveniently and plausibly delayed due to the holiday. I think it is also important to ascertain how many councils outsourced their vote handling to IDOX and from that list target which constituencies show unexpected results.
Places were turnout was documented as lower than in 2017 despite solid evidence of long lines of young people waiting in the rain to vote. Results that contradicted even the most ambitious expected Tory swing. Constituencies where Universal Credit and significant hardship would have driven higher Labour support but a Tory candidate won. Historic Labour seats that supposedly switched to a sizable Tory majorities despite strong local support to the contrary.
Tory seats that were expected to fall to Labour or LibDem candidates, but were held by an unexpectedly comfortable margin like Boris’s own seat which he seemed to know was not in danger. Boris didn’t even bother to vote in his own constituency, he was so confident of winning. He gained a 7000 plus majority despite totally neglecting his constituents; leaving the UK to avoid the vote on Heathrow expansion; the students at Brunel and the VoteyMcVoteface campaign. He knew something we didn’t: that Tory landslide was in the bag because the Tories put it there!
I know that some of the above will be written off as a sad coincidence, but the volume of collective anomalies is just not believable. As I have written in my previous posts the results totally defy illogical. The consequences of this election are already unfolding as the Tories move swiftly to consolidate absolute power. Even if there is a remote possibility that something can be done, surely we must try? What constitutes a reason to challenge an election result? Who is able to authorize that challenge? What would allow police to investigate, take ballot papers away for testing and question IDOX employees?
I would like to see massive protest marches and a nationwide strike organized before strikes are outlawed in the UK and the army is sent in to suppress peaceful protests. All of Craig’s priorities like freeing Julian and IndiRef2 will be permanently blocked by this oppressive regime. All of my own progressive ideas will be binned now, as there is no progressive future unless we overturn this stolen election. We have far too much to lose if we do nothing; please encourage Craig to write a new blog post to at least explore this possibility.
Isn’t it strange, that after an election in which there were many truly bizarre results, with electoral swings heretofore unseen, that there has been a complete absence of MSM analysis. You’d think this would be something the pundits who live and breathe this stuff would be all over, but it has scarcely been mentioned. I find that very odd, nobody seems interested in the data behind the result. All they want to do is drum into us all about the indominatability of Johnson’s majority, and cement the idea that he can be PM for the next decade or more, if that’s what he wants.
Ross – Explaining the unfathomable Tory landslide is impossible so the media just don’t go there. There has been significantly more focus on why Labour lost in order to bed in the falsehood that it was because Corbyn is universally despised and not trusted by the public. The media hope that you were not singing “Oh Jeremy Corbyn” at one of his massive rallies and you will not be in contact with others who were at such rallies all over the country. The BBC made sure you never got a peek at them. Labour MPs are not helping by endorsing this Tory fallacy, but the BBC are quite selective about whose opinion they seek.
During the campaign we got photo ops with Boris where he was kept well away from the public to avoid a plethora of embarrassing scenes which still got caught on camera anyway. Get Brexit Done was all he banged on about despite all of the well known negative consequences of going ahead with this disaster. Boris offered nothing except a possible halt in the swingeing cuts of the last nine years and a promise to restore the number of police and nurses ousted over the same period. It was like an untrustworthy thief promising not to steal anymore and give a few items back.
The 40 new hospitals might well be built by US Healthcare giants after they get their grubby hands on our NHS. Even if some Labour voters actually believed Boris’s lies, a tall order given his consistent track record for lying, there were still major disincentives to voting Tory: Universal Credit, food banks, worries over the NHS, the two child policy, the bedroom tax, low wages, zero hours contracts and so much more. No one votes to risk having their children starve or to end up freezing to death on the street! It just didn’t happen.
There were so many reasons not to vote for Boris the only explanation is nationwide Stockholm syndrome or they stole the vote. 37% voted by post, almost twice as many as last time; most of those votes were “handled” by IDOX! Those were not newly registered elderly; many were students caught between voting at uni or voting at home, but not wanting to miss out. BBC interviewers have made sure that the Labour manifesto remains drowned out by their obsession with anti-Semitism as if he and not Boris or the Tories are racist.
The fully costed investments are still being presented as undeliverable, but in reality if there were multiple Labour programs that got put on hold, the offer to ditch Universal Credit and stop the conscious cruelty of austerity would have been enough to persuade most people. There is a deliberate effort to paint Corbyn’s offer on Brexit as so incredibly confusing that it was rejected. Leave voters would not have been confused about the alternative of Brexit with workers protections under Labour or crashing out with no deal and massive redundancies under the Tories. Most would have thought a second vote was worth the risk and I sincerely doubt their decision would have been swayed by Corbyn’s neutrality.
Despite all of the relentless negative messaging by the BBC and right-wing print media, none if this was not expected to deliver the desired result – it didn’t need to as it was only done and is still being propagated to lend plausibility to a truly incredulous result. We need to change the narrative through progressive websites, blogs like this, social media and Hashtags; these are a few I found: #postalvotegate #Idox #GEFraud #PostalVotingFraud #InvestigateIDOX
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s not a giraffe! Let’s stuff that duck for Christmas dinner…
Kim – i have written before here, that there is a way to use statistical analysis to determine if something is askew – that is all that can be done after the fact. Appealing to Craig is not going to change much – what is he supposed to do? He constantly writes about injustice and criminal state actions and does plenty but he is still one man.
The Empire is mighty and it is not easily defeated.
If the undoctored data is available and can be independently verified by experts, then the doubts can be legitimately raised.
In the meantime all the shouting in the world that one has been conned in broad daylight results in nothing except being made to look like complaining about losing. The trick of the conmen on the street with the 3 cups asking you to ‘find the cup below which the coin resides’ is just that and the punter always loses – and they never can prove it was a trick.
There are number of amateur sleuths and analysts working on it now and the conmen can see us doing it – the huge story that works around a ‘Sting’ is still being deployed, like the story writters in the Guardian and BBC with voxpops of these who turned Tory after all these years. Just like in the film of that name. The stories about postal voting this time are part of the sting – the Tories sending out envelopes; the Crick interview with Raab; the late pv’s found to be sent to Chingford where IDS survived by an equivalent number of votes; Kuenssbergs acting and aside to camera….the msm’s combined story telling is what sells the sting.
Now, the main thing to do is to identify the places where the anomalies exist as has been done by the excellent commentator at Off-G here
https://off-guardian.org/2019/12/20/official-secrets-lies-and-the-five-eyes/#comment-107213
When such larfe discrepancies are shown – they perforce require further attention. THAT IS ALL WE CAN DO as far as I know.
Unless there are mass protests in the streets like they do in ‘3rd World’ countries when such practices result in mass strikes and police and army start shooting protestors only relenting when it becomes impossible for the thief politicians to function- only then are results overturned and new ‘elections’ called.
But that REQUIRES the LOSING candidate to DECLARE a FIX – would that even be possible to do without the msm having a field day?
Don’t forget that the recent coup in Bolivia was delivered even as the international monitors declared that the government HAD won the election.
In the meantime the conmen are celebrating their win and they don’t care!
But their victory has brough their third world election fixing HOME where they hoped it wouldn’t be so obvious and it is upto US to point at that blatant injustice in our own localities where it has happened- outrage and justice like charity begins at home.
I don’t think there was any rigging of the election other than social media propaganda and smear campaigns.
The main problem is our first past the post system which has distorted a 3% swing to Tories as a 60% majority of seats in parliament while the party didn’t even get 50% of the votes
We’ll soon see if what you think is correct or the data shows something else.
It was stolen before during and after.
Before: the years of media wide character assassination and unadulterated propaganda. The absurd polls creating expectations. The complete absence of balanced reporting and debate. Total failure to discuss policy. Total abdication of journalistic responsibility to parse and interpret government lies.
During: Private companies with ties to one party in control of postal vote validation but with virtually no intelligible oversight by electoral commission. The Ashcroft poll showing as much as 38% of the electorate used a postal ballot. Far more than enough leeway to hijack the election before a single vote is counted.
After: The total absence of any meaningful analysis or challenge to the ‘result’.
The last comment is interesting because as Craig forecast the media are now pushing for Labour to become “centrist” ie right wing when just a few days ago the articles about Labours loss pointed the reason/s for defeat were down to personal opinion of Corbyn and Brexit….now suddenly the problem was down to left wing policies apparently
You mean ‘follow the money’!
It suits Sturgeon (braveheart)to go on about Indy2. She has no other vision for Scotland. All her and husband and other members of the SNP have their noses in the trough. It is to their benefit to rant about indy2 and defer because they make more monies.
Braveheart will end up with a peerage and get a place in the House of Lords.
The only person who has fought for independence was Alex Salmond. He would be the best person to fight for independence again. But he has been stitched up with sexual allegations for the next few years.
Where is Bravehearts support for him ?
“It suits Sturgeon (braveheart)to go on about Indy2. ”
You obviously haven’t got a clue, no self respecting indy voter mentions Braveheart.
George
I am sure you know that the SNP have a long standing policy of not supporting the H. Of Lords
The old UK policy of divide and conquer is it.
All will become clear soon enough on the Salmond front. Attentive students will be aware that Wings was interviewed by Salmond not so long ago, and that there was a distinct change in the Reverend’s perception of things after that interview. Something rattled him and he hasn’t been the same since.
Hatuey
That is a possibility.
Another is that he was interviewed by special branch about the same time.
Any evidence to point to your possibility being more likely than mine?
Yes, plenty of evidence. The Interview was on TV. Compare Wings before that interview to Wings after it; it’s like two different people. To an extent he gave up on making the usual arguments and case for Indy after he met Salmond.
I’m actually deeply surprised that nobody else has mentioned this and quietly assumed it was so obvious as to not be worth mentioning. That said, I think this is the first time anyone has said it. Maybe they have and I missed it. There are legal limits on what can be said, of course.
Hatuey
Plenty posters said what you said on Wings BTL but only once. The site owner then banned them.
I am not saying that what you say is impossible.
I watched his interview with A Salmond.
That’d surprise me, cubby. I’m guessing you have no evidence.
Hatuey
Saw the site owner posting they were banned/gone or whatever choice of words used at the time on BTL. Wings has changed in recent months in many different ways. Full of a lot of Campbell arse lickers like Mistyeyes.
If there was an independence referendum now then the outcome would be the same as before. It seems pretty obvious to me that the best way to drum up support for the case for independence is to have Westminster appear to come down against it. The bubbling discontent stirred by the SNP will eventually lead to a majority for independence based upon the specious argument “they are trying to prevent it so it must be a good thing”. When polling for independence reaches 60% that will be when the campaign for a referendum begins in earnest.
I speak as a southerner and a unionist.
“If there was an independence referendum now then the outcome would be the same as before.”
And you know this because how?
David Jonson
As a southerner and a unionist care to tell us why the union is so good for Scotland and why so many Scots are wrong? The positive case for Scotland in the union please. Not why Scotland can’t be independent.
Ask Scots. They voted for it.
Under duress and a hailstorm of propaganda every day for months, a good number of Scottish pensioners who think newspapers tell the truth were gaslighted into voting to remain in the UK in 2014 referendum. Nothing in the least miraculous about that. Propaganda and threats work. Big deal. They let their children and grandchildren down badly. Others did too.
The only argument for the Union that is left standing is more akin to a feeling than anything substantive— “I just like being British, even though being British is quite illogical and contrary my interests…” That’s basically all that’s left.
When Scotland finally becomes independent we must establish something like a truth and reconciliation commission and get to the bottom of why influencers in the media, politics, and other institutions did everything they could to stifle our country’s development towards independence and why they were motivated to scupper the chances of so many, even loved ones and friends.
I’m sure what we find under those rocks will shock people, just as revelations about the Stasi role in East Germany before the wall came down shocks people to this day. I expect there will be a case for putting people in prison when the truth is known.
We are in the middle of a really dirty war. A lot of people in Scotland don’t seem to get that. They put a lot of money and effort into hiding the truth of it. Craig knows it because he saw it up close. It’s going to get a lot dirtier too.
Merry Christmas.
I’m a veteran of the marijuana legalization fights in the states. There, the first attempts at a referendum were defeated by similar gas-lighting tactics. In the states, it was the liquor companies campaigning against marijuana legalization and spending money on gas-lighting tactics that said everyone would be driving stoned and thus everyone would all die in horrible car accidents it this passed. And of course, the Police-Prison-Industrial Complex saw a threat to their power and money. Thus, the first attempts at referendum went down to narrow defeats.
The second attempts were different. Such tactics didn’t work the second time around. By then, the public knew that it had been liquor companies funding those ads. But for whatever reason, a second run at those same gas-lighting scare tactics failed to move the population.
Looking back, it appears that the first close-but-failed attempt for change laid the groundwork for the second attempt to succeed. The issue became legit and mainstream, even after it lost. The activists were no longer a handful of misfits arguing for something crazy, but were instead shown to be serious by the 48% or so of the vote that they’d gotten. And the old scare tactics were now worn out.
Also, after it succeeded, there was no chance of going back. Legally, someone could put another referendum on the ballot to make it illegal again. But you don’t ever see it because it would lose badly and be a big waste of money. Now everyone can see that all of the scare tactics were fake and that things are nowhere near as bad as the frighteners made it look and there is no chance in heck of going back.
Best of luck!
Hatuey
Pensioners being told by British Labour in Scotland to get ready to lose their pensions the day after independence. Labour the self styled party of the people
I think you’ll find that propaganda is a feature of any political campaign.
Thanks, Wallace. I think you’re right and a lot of people will see through the lies next time. The problem is securing the next time. I still think brexit and Boris could be so bad for Scotland that we won’t need another referendum.
Disagree about gas lighting. See my comments above re wW2 and it’s aftermath.
MJ
I have – no positive case put forward. Do you want to have a go?
If people in England cannot put forward a positive case for Scotland in Union then this most successful union in history can only be successful for England.
Don’t ask me. I didn’t have a vote and couldn’t care less.
I asked Mr Pau! – always a committed unionist – for the arguments in favour of it. He said he no longer thinks it viable and would support Scottish independence and be keen to see a unified Ireland. He did add that an independent Scotland should be totally independent, with border posts, separate customs and its own currency. He supposes it woukd continue to be a member of the Commonwealth. Not sure how it would affect armed forces.
As a US citizen hoping for Scottish Independence, suggesting if you do so to please ensure you obtain and keep your own currency, without which there is no sovereignty.
I agree and hope that’s the plan.
When are you all going to realize that even with all your wise words etc. In the end you are going to have to do what every other free country had to do fight for it I know no one wants violence but with all their refusuals they will force you to resort to it and they will be forgetting that every time they forced people to resort to violence they the establishment lost do you honestly think they will give up stealing Scotland’s oil gas and,brain power without a fight ??? They will tell you do not believe the SNP lies you really are to small and to stupid to run your own country
“Somewhere, somehow, somebody must have kicked you around some
Who knows maybe you were kidnapped, tied up
Taken away and held for ransom
Honey, it don’t really matter to me, baby
Everybody’s had to fight to be free, you see”
— Tom Petty
If nations could only go independent with the blessings and agreement of the occupying powers, then it would be very rare for a nation to become independent. It might occasionally happen, but to even get to that stage the people desiring independence would need to make their nation ungovernable and unprofitable for the occupying power before it would be granted. A nation just going along smoothly and paying taxes to the occupying power would never be granted independence. The occupying power would always just say no.
If a nation had to wait for the Occupying power to voluntarily grant independence, America’s national anthem would still be God Save the Queen.
I still think the most interesting change of events in regard to Scotland is the UK leaving the EU. The EU would always back up one of its member governments. But, when the UK leaves the EU, now suddenly the EU has no obligation to back up the UK in this regard. And instead, would simply see a very pro-EU place which has recently been in the EU (and thus easily aligned with EU law and policy). Add to that the fact that by this time, I doubt anyone in Brussels is very fond of Tories, and the point where the UK officially, completely leaves the EU becomes an important date, as on that date EU objections to Scottish independence not only disappear but are highly likely to reverse into strong support for Scottish Independence.
Scotland is never going to regain its independence by simply asking Westminster very nicely to grant it. The English tradition is that people who do that end up drawn and quartered.
In this case, more likely to starve.
I am with you Craig as are many YES groups. This is the fudge we feared would happen.
A section 30 is not a legal requirement towards independence but merely a courtesy.
We can take it, we the people.
Somehow I think the balance of position will shift.
Interesting now that Wings is partly neutered by a twitter ban.
We will be heard and gain our independence.
Scotland was certainly out on a limb in the 2019 British general election. The results in the three constituent countries of Great Britain were as follows:
England: right, far right and nationalists 52%, centrists, 12%, left 34%
Wales: right, far right and nationalists 53%, centrists, 6%, left 41%
Scotland: right, far right and nationalists 72%, centrists, 10%, left 19%
Or if we ignore Liberal Democrat wall-p*ssers, we get the simpler figures for right versus left:
E: 61:39
W: 56:44
S: 79:21
Or simplifying further: the right got 1.5 times as many votes as the left in each of England and Wales, and 4 times as many as the left in Scotland.
N_ would you care to say what your definition is of “right”, “far-right”, “centrist” and “left”?
I don’t vote “Liberal Democrat” either, but I’m not sure that “wall-pissers” is an intelligent or insightful description.
Can you even really define what it means to be “right” or “left”?
Thank you.
Can I have the right to hold a referendum. Pretty please, because I have over eight percent of the seats, have now won three Westminster majorities.
No you can’t. Now fuck off. We have the majority.
OK then, sniffle, sniffle, whinge, whinge.
I am trying to detect a flaw in your logic Craig, but at this moment I simply can’t.
Why do you want a referendum anyway – and a referendum that we won’t give you.
Because, sniffle, sniffle, that’s what we need.
It’s all right for you Boris with your stonking majority which is less than ours in terms of percentage vote and percentage of MPs.
Sniffle, sniffle, why will you not give us the choice.
Fuck off, told you before, no referendum, have you not got it yet
.
Oh, ok then! At least we stopped Brexit!
The Un Biased bbC..This is how Scotland is treated…All The Time.. By the bbC.
If it’s not the tory benches in the H of C emptying every time an SNP MP stands to speak for Scotland..It’s this –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=2bqktOh3UlM&feature=emb_logo&
[ YouTube: “BBC cuts off FM as she is taking questions” – Nicola Sturgeon was taking questions from the media when the BBC simply cut away to go to the Victoria Derbyshire show. ]
Why do you watch it then Brian? I haven’t watched it for years.
John
I don’t watch it..I don’t have a TV.. And will never give the bbC a penny.. Four times I have been protesting at bbC’s Glasgow office.. I come across these things elsewhere,,Indy pages ect.. But I have to Suffer every four years when the World Cup comes along.
lol, Brian you’re a better man than I.
I still pay my license fee. Maybe I’m not rebellious enough!
But the PM PROMISED to cancel the TV licence on the campaign trail just a couple of weeks ago!
So everyone should cancel their dd and not renew IMMEDIATELY.
Cite the PM’s promise and send any demands to Downing Street – bozo will call the beeb and tell them to let you off!
You give them your shilling, then you’re fully responsible for what they do with it.
“London will never give independence. We have to take it” …… who says? If we look at the recent history of the Westminster parliament, with regard to granting independence, the record is mixed.
In the last fifty years, 21 countries have become independent from the UK, and of those 21 countries, all but a tiny handful have seceded peacefully, and by negotiation with Westminster.
Why will Scotland be different IF A MAJORITY OF SCOTS WANT INDEPENDENCE?
wRT Scotland, the UK has acted reasonably and lawfully, and in a democratic way towards the calls for independence. There has only ever been one plebiscite on independence, (willingly arranged by the UK government) and a majority rejected it. Until the UK government have seen clear signs that the majority of Scots want independence, they are absolutely correct to ignore those calls.
It seems to me that those calling for UDI are putting the cart before the horse. UDI will happen if a) A plebiscite demonstrates a majority in favour, and b) The UK government has ignored such a plebiscite and acts in an undemocratic way. Neither of these events have occurred.
There is still doubt as to how many Scots want independence. It seems to me, that while we should (and must) approve of the SNP government keeping the political pressure on, the believers in independence need to be concentrating on persuading our neighbours, friends, and relatives, rather than making baseless accusations against Westminster, and even worse, casting doubt on the sincerity of the SNP leadership.
If the leadership DOES turn out to be “comfortable with their cosy sinecures” as many people are implying, then we will have to take action to remove and replace them, but so far, I see no evidence of that.
What I DO see is that there aren’t enough Indians, and too many folk aspiring to be chiefs. If we provide Sturgeon with sufficient numbers of converts to the cause of independence, and she then drags her heels, THEN we can start moaning about “cosy sinecures”. Until that time, if we haven’t individually persuaded at least one undecided or soft no voter to the cause, then we have no right to criticise. If Sturgeon is hamstrung by the fact that there aren’t enough yes voters behind her, that’s down to us…..
Because Scotland is an integrral part of the United Kingdom.
Now Bozo Boris is backing the Space Force.
So, allegedly, was Ireland. So, supposedly, was French Algeria a constituent part of Metropolitan France.
Alex
” wRT Scotland, the UK has acted reasonably and lawfully ”
This is Factually False.. The Front page DR headline was unlawful for a start. ‘ The Vow ‘ Of which not one word of was Honored..
Here in Scotland it’s not Lawful to ignore the UN either..Re Human rights, War Crimes ect
My comment was with regard to Scotland, and the UK government. The UK government is not responsible for DR headlines, and “The Vow” was in no way illegal. Leaving that aside, if politicians were to face legal sanctuons for every thing they write or say, they’d all be in jail. You can’t say that “The Vow” was illegal and that it was then ignored, and then expect to allow Alex Salmond to say “Once in a lifetime” with zero comeback from unionists.
I don’t know what you are referring to when you talk about ignoring the UN, or Human Rights, or War crimes? Are any of those in relation to how the UK government has acted towards Scotland?
My point is that when folk say things like “London will never give independence” they are ignoring history. The history of countries becoming independent is actually one of the better parts of UK colonial history. I’m not condoning what was done in the name of empire, but you can’t deny that granting independence was one of the less grim parts of British colonial history. The UK establishment are in no way saints, but to suggest that they will act against international law, in the face of demands for independence from a MAJORITY of Scotland flies in the face of historical evidence to the contrary.
Alex ..Sorry
I was going to present some Facts to you.. but sadly I would be wasting my time.
The Vow changed what was on offer in the referendum and was a very straightforward breach of purdah and electoral regulations. It isn’t even debatable.
Hatuey
I agree.
No argument that it was a dirty trick, but who broke the regulations? The DR? Or the PM? If you remember, nobody admitted to being a party to “the vow”. I’m not trying to pretend that Westminster is going to be friendly towards the indy movement. That would be daft, but the implication of this blog from Craig is that the UK government will act unlawfully, and again, I draw your attention to the historical record of the UK negotiating independence with most of the countries gaining independence in the last fifty years.
The UK government are within their right to disband Holyrood. They’d be mad to do so, because that really would ensure that Scotland becomes independent, because the SNP would revert to the pre-Holyrood position of claiming independence after a GE, when they secure a majority of MP’s.
This is all about politics and numbers. As soon as we get the numbers, independence will come. I’m not a constitutional expert, but even I can see that independence depends on nobody but ourselves. We are fancying about, proclaiming this and that, while at the same time, the polls show only 48% of Scots want to be independent. That’s no good!
Instead of all trying to become constitutional lawyers, second guessing Sturgeon, Cherry, and the other SNP experts, we are doing little to persuade our neighbours. If every single SNP member, converted one neighbour a month, we’d have a majority in less than a year. As it is, since the referendum, too many folk have taken their eye off the ball. There is only ONE group of people who matter in this whole affair …… NO voters. Once we persuade enough of them, it doesn’t matter one whit what Mad Boris says or does, we will become an independent country.
Alex Birnie
Polls are not always correct by any means.
The Infamous vow also broke the Edinburgh Agreement.
If the Britnat parties – ie Cameron/Milliband and Clegg signatures etc were falsified why did they agree to set up the Smith Commission to implement the vow. Which as we know they never did implement it in full. Murray Foote the editor of the Daily Record says all the parties were involved and thought it was a great idea. Ruth Davidson says she told Cameron not to do it. The Britnat parties own the vow of that there is no doubt. The 2014 referendum was supposed to be a vote between independence or the current situation. That was what Cameron insisted on. They broke the agreement with a few days to go and changed the prospectus for voting no. You don’t get a much bigger example of pockling a referendum than that.
As Sturgeon refuses to campaign on Independence, but prefers to bolster the SNP vote at every single election with her “unionists may safely vote SNP” spiel, it is difficult to expect individuals to do the work the SNP refuses to do, while they pick up their very very substantial salaries courtesy of the British state.
You’re stuck in the past, Craig. She absolutely did that before the 2015 election, but only a prophet could have predicted a jump in the number of seats won from 6 to 56, after the disappointment of the referendum. She made a bad judgement of error in 2016, by being far too cautious, but as the 2014 referendum result has receded into the past, her rhetoric has become more assertive.
What we all seem to forget, is that she isn’t addressing a massively popular independence movement, backed by hugely popular acclaim. She is nursing along a population which is only gradually moving towards the idea of independence, with backing from only just under 50% of that population, and hampered by a MSM that is almost unanimously opposed to independence.
“It is difficult to expect individuals to do the work”??? No it isn’t!! It’s the minimum expected from any self-respecting yes enthusiast!!! What would be great – really great – would be if those who are being supported financially by indy supporters to use their considerable powers of persuasion to move us along the path towards independence, would use those powers of persuasion to boost the morale of indy supporters, rather than pour poison into their ears.
When I read your blogs nowadays, and more particularly, the blogs of your self-confessed friend Stu Campbell, it is difficult to determine whose side you are both on. If I want to feel discouraged, I can read Stephen Daisley.
Before I get accused of being a SNP sheep, I am a labour supporter, who has joined the SNP, not because of any heedrum-hodrum nationalism, but because I recognise that the only chance my grandchildren have of living in a social democracy, free of Tory rule, is if we as a country separate ourselves from a country which still suffers from “toryitis”. Scotland has been cured of that affliction since 1955. Once independence comes, the SNP will almost certainly split, but right now, they are our only hope of achieving independence by political means, and those who act as “Wormtongues” rather than cheer them on, are doing Westminster’s work, not Scotland’s.
If I were to succumb to a bit of “wormtonguery” myself, I might suggest that indy is coming too quickly for some of those who have nice wee sinecures as “Indy pundits”???, but that would be unfair, wouldn’t it? As unfair as the arrows being launched against Sturgeon et al?
Alex, your final paragraph and point was a poor attempt to be insulting which let the rest down.
There’s a fundamental difference of opinion here; we are talking about both Sturgeon’s strategy and her political character and nous. Her leadership has been a failure unless you judge it in very narrow and normal terms.
But these aren’t normal times. Brexit changed everything and the argument for independence has failed — there’s been no anticipated movement in the polls, not really. That’s a huge failure. Brexit was a gift to the Indy movement and the SNP bottled it and failed to capitalise on it.
And despite what you say, it is for leaders and politicians to lead and shape debate, not us. The SNP up until recently didn’t even attempt it.
Before the 2017 GE, my local SNP MP was scolding people for going to a pro-Indy demo when, as he put it, they should have been canvassing for him to keep his job. That sums them up — independence was treated as an embarrassment to them, a distraction.
Support for the SNP is very close to collapsing massively. You should bear that in mind. It seems ridiculous to say it now after their recent victory, but I know so many people who are close to throwing in the towel with them.
The situation they are in today is very similar to the position Scottish Labour was in in 1992. On the face of it, 1992 was a great election for Scottish Labour. We ended up with John Major — millions of Scottish voices cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced…
To answer that rhetorical question that politicians ask themselves from time to time when looking to bolster self-confidence, “who else are they going to vote for?”; the answer is nobody, we’ll go back to our hopeless lives and give up on politics.
It’s time to act. This is the last chance for the SNP, not just Sturgeon.
Hatuey, we will just have to disagree. Apart from the usual suspects saying so, I see little sign that “support for the SNP is very close to collapsing massively” and as evidence, I go by actual electoral results, rather than circular conversations held in the fishbowl of indy sites, full of impatient enthusiasts.
I, too have doubts about the caution being displayed by the SNP leadership, but my criticisms are tempered by “realpolitik” which is what has to happen in the real world, where support for indy hovers around 49%. I definitely draw the line wrt criticism of the SNP WAY, WAY before the line that Craig and his buddy Stu Campbell have crossed!!
Their cynical sneering at the SNP leadership and “cosy sinecures” is no more justified than my barb about “Independence coming too fast, which might end the “cosy sinecures” that Craig and Stu enjoy, supported by indy enthusiasts. Is my barb unfair? Of course it is! – but no more unfair than their unfounded snide remarks about “cosy sinecures” for the SNP leadership. If you are going to throw mud, don’t be surprised and flabbergasted if some of it gets thrown back.
I had a one-on-one conversation at a constituency meeting with Alex Salmond just after the 2015 election, and he remarked that Nicola Sturgeon wasn’t a gambler like he was (his words), but that he had no doubts about her character and determination to see Scottish independence. I’m going to believe Alex Salmond …… unless the usual suspects are going to include him in their “cabal of traitors”? Have we gone THAT far down this road?
Contrary to what you said, Fatuey, this is NOT a conversation about Sturgeon’s strategy and her political character and nous. If it was, I’d be contributing vigorously. This blog is a conversation about the imagined treachery of the SNP leadership, and my reply is that you’d better come up with a helluva lot better evidence for that than just wild accusations.
The REALLY galling thing for me, the thing that sticks in my throat, is that, after independence, when I’m shopping around for another political party, the so-called indy-lovers, who call me a “SNP sheep”, will be sucking up to the SNP leadership, telling them that “they never doubted for a minute”……
Well, we don’t need to agree to disagree; we can be patient and wait, which is what you’re advocating anyway. I hope I’m proved wrong but I’ve been calling out Sturgeon since the Brexit vote and everything I’ve seen since then tells me I was right.
I cancelled my membership after May humiliated her with the “now is not the time” line and I still can’t believe our national leader took that in those circumstances. May was a complete lightweight whose arse would’ve collapsed at the first sign of a mass movement led by the SNP taking to the streets.
It would be very easy for the SNP and the Indy movement to engage in a mass civil disobedience campaign that effectively forced the issue on all this and took it to the next level. Doing so might cause inconvenience for many and even reflect badly in some ways, but it would also jolt people into thinking about things and debating the issues which is a good thing when the whole MSM is rigged against you.
The atmosphere would, I expect, change dramatically. Even those who are against Indy would agree a referendum was the way forward — a child could win that argument. And with the pound tumbling and the EU beckoning Scotland and sending out the right signals, I don’t think it would be long before Boris agreed to indyref2 as a way of stabilising the situation.
I’m sure we will never know, not as long as Sturgeon is leader. But before you scoff, consider that the above strategy towards promoting and fomenting change is the historical norm, tried and tested across the world throughout hundreds of years of history. The current SNP strategy of playing by their adversaries’ rules is quite anomalous and to my knowledge has never succeeded anywhere, ever.
To be clear, nobody here, and certainly not me, is promoting anything resembling violence or law breaking. Civil disobedience can take many forms. The Indy movement has more going for it than most too, with the SNP so dominant. We should be discussing creative ways to do that instead of taking oaths to our opponents and their institutions.
Is the independence movement serious? Is the SNP serious? Do they really want independence or is it just some sort of hobby or fashion statement? Maybe it’s like supporting a football team, a sort of game, and I’m reading it all wrong. Maybe I need a new hobby. Maybe we all do.
There is a way through this impasse, though, assuming we want through it. I don’t think we are even close right now.
There is no “reply” button on your last reply, so I’m answering you hear. Everything …… every single word you have written ignores the fact that all the evidence points to the fact that we don’t – yet – have a majority in favour of independence.
Every single thing you say would be true ….. IF there was a majority for independence …… but there isn’t. Nobody is more impatient than I am for independence (I’ll be 70 in July), but everything you suggest will FAIL if there isn’t a majority.
Everything I said is based on the polls showing virtually no movement in the right direction and the absence of a majority. It’s on that basis that I say the strategy has failed. It’s on that basis that we need to do something else. And it’s on the basis of doing something else that I’m confident the polls will change.
The problem with the current approach is that it doesn’t work. If it worked, I’d love it. We are no closer to a referendum today than we were just after the brexit vote.
When do we agree that the strategy has failed? How do we falsify it? How many years? You tell me. It’s a fair question. When and how do we determine that this “softly, softly” stuff has failed? We’ve been doing it for three and a half years.
Another problem with the current failed approach is that people will give up and the opportunity presented by brexit will be lost. That’s on you and those who support the current approach, as well as those who came up with it.
That makes you the gamblers, not Salmond and those of us who see the folly of a battered wife asking her wife-beating husband if she can leave.
We have Shanghai economics, dismantling of the public sector, the end of the Barnett formula, and undoubtedly another criminal war against Iran to look forward to, based on the current direction of travel. And that’s on you too, you and the failed self anointed leadership of the independence movement, the currently configured SNP.
Will you come on here in another 3 years and tell me I was right? Will we even have internet access? Nobody knows where the bottom is as far as brexit is concerned.
And btw, to suggest Craig Murray and Wings are in this for the money is a slur that I was tempted not to even dignify with a response. You’re out of order.
Those pied-piper politicians you’re following are on funny money and the vast majority are lightweights by the most sympathetic standards, owing “their” success in its entirety to ordinary people up and down the country who vote with their hearts and deserve better than this granular crap. Again, all on you and yours’.
You say “potaito”, I say “potaato”. It’s curious how folk interpret the same data differently. You say that the SNP strategy has failed, because the polls haven’t moved.
I say that the polls have slowly moved up from 45%, to around 49%, which (while admittedly too slow) is the result of a combination of political efforts by the SNP and ordinary yes voters refusing to lie down under the continued onslaught of anti-indy propaganda (by an almost 100% unionist MSM), and continuing to fight for independence, by talking to their neighbour’s. I’m fairly sure that most commentators expected the indy campaign to go back in the box, and for the polls to return to sub-30%. The fact that it hasn’t is an indicator that this campaign will continue.
You say that “people will give up”. I disagree. Even with the naysayers griping and moaning, there is absolutely NO indication that indy supporters are wavering. The recent election result proves that. The campaign IS working.
As to your comments about me being “out of order” with my “slur” on Craig Murray and Stu Campbell being “in it for the money”?? Really? More out of order than they are, for suggesting that the SNP leadership are “in it for the money”? Pot? Kettle? My comments about that are not meant to be seriously accusing them, but to point out how wrong they are to cast such innuendos.
We have less MPs than we did after the 2015 election. We also have less MSPs than we did before the last Holyrood election. I could easily find a number of polls that show support has barely budged, by respected pollsters too.
I’m not seeing these signs of success you refer to. Quite the opposite. And remember, brexit should have resulted in a surge.
But you didn’t answer my question; when do we call time on it and admit it’s failed? What’s the Yardstick? I’m genuinely asking. Please tell me.
“We have less MP’s than we did after the 2015 election”. That’s true, but if we are failing, as you suggest, why do we have thirteen more MP’s after the latest election? By your logic, “stagnation” means we should have around 35 MP’s or less. I really can’t understand people who can turn a landslide election victory for the SNP into “not seeing the signs of success”. That really IS “you say potato, I say potato”!!
As I’ve said elsewhere, I think The SNP leadership were far too timid before the 2016 election, which allowed Ruth Davidson to gain ground. It’s of far less significance, but the crooked “lend us your regional vote” campaign conducted by Tommy Sheridan’s crowd and the RISE folk wasn’t exactly helpful, either.
You can dig up all the polls you want, but the fact is that there HAS been a slight increase in the polls for yes, against the expected crash of the indy support that the unionists gleefully predicted.
“When do we call time on it and admit we’ve failed?”??? The simple answer is “never”, but I’ll assume that you mean that the present way of going about it, using the SNP has failed? If Boris says no to a section 30 order, and Sturgeon does not forge ahead with plans for a referendum anyway, then I’ll admit the SNP have failed. If Boris challenges the Referendum in court, gets told by the court that the referendum is legitimate, and the SNP subsequently don’t conduct a referendum, then I’ll admit the SNP have failed. If the court supports Boris, and the SNP don’t put Plan B into action, (which would be turning the 2021 Holyrood election into a direct plebiscite), then I’ll admit that the SNP have failed. If, after having a resounding victory in the 2021 Holyrood election/plebiscite-on-independence, the SNP don’t declare independence, then I’ll admit the SNP will have failed. Until then, the game is still live. You give up on independence if you want. I’m in it for the long haul …. insh’ Allah…..
Hatuey
Why are you not naming the local MP you refer to?
Happy to name him — Stewart McDonald. I didn’t think anyone would care.
And yet again, you conflate two different issues. You are talking about Brexit. I’m talking about Independence. I have no idea what destination is on the front of YOUR bus, but my bus says “Destination – Scottish independence”.
To mangle the analogy even further, the bus is only half full. The driver, (Sturgeon) is stopping at every bus stop, inviting passengers to get on. Meanwhile, the rowdy kids at the back are kicking up … “Why do we keep stopping? Never mind those other passengers!! Let’s just get to the terminus!”. The problem with the rowdy kids at the back is that they don’t realise, that before the bus is allowed into the terminus, it has to be more than half full, otherwise it will be turned away.
Almost every gambit that I’ve ever heard from “the rowdy kids at the back” ignores the basic rule …… “Buses that are less than half full will NOT be welcomed into the club of independent nations”.
No matter who the bus driver is, no matter how charismatic he or she may be, a less-than-half-full bus will be turned away.
Alex Birnie
” If I want to feel discouraged I would read Stephen Daisley” that’s a great line.
That’s why I ignore WOS as much as possible now.
Cubby, what has happened to WOS is a complete mystery to me. He has gone from being the sharpest weapon the indy movement had against the lies and spin of the MSM, to using the exact same methods they use, against the SNP.
Something weird has happened, and it seems to be a quite recent phenomenon. I’m banned from commenting on WOS, as have a number of folk who query his change of stance.
He refuses to answer the questions about what is different about him forming a party to get regional votes from SNP voters, when he was so dismissive about RISE and Solidarity trying the same tactic in 2016.
James Kelly has challenged him to conduct proper polling among SNP members to determine how many of them would be willing to vote Wings in the regional vote, but the poll he conducted recently was risible. His questions couldn’t have been more leading and biased though he tried, and even though, the numbers the polls produced were nothing like the numbers required to make a difference (no matter how much spin he tried to put on the results).
He’s far too intelligent not to realise that what he is doing and saying is counterproductive to the independence effort, and I am at a loss to determine what’s happened to change him in this way…
Sad.
Maybe he wonders what has become of people like you, Alex. Party loyalty might be something you value above all else but it isn’t something you can take for granted amongst people who are less partial.
Hatuey, you obviously don’t read other people’s contributions before you can jump to erroneous conclusions. What makes you think I “value party loyalty above all else”? Was it my declaration “I am a labour supporter”? Perhaps it was my use of the phrase “after independence, when I’m shopping around for another political party”? Maybe it was “Once independence comes, the SNP will almost certainly split”?
My loyalty is purely to the cause of independence. The SNP is just the rather uncomfortable bus we are using to get to our destination, nothing more. My difficulty is with the folk, who while declaring undying loyalty to the goal of independence, are busy doing everything they can to damage the bus, attacking the driver at every opportunity, even suggesting that the driver is driving around in circles, because she doesn’t want to lose her job.
Stu Campbell and Craig Murray used to be the riflemen on the top of the bus, shooting at the snipers who were trying to stop the bus. Now, they are largely ignoring the snipers (who are still there, still shooting at the bus), and concentrating on trying to coerce the other passengers to stop the bus so that they can sack the driver.
It’s a mystery…..
Your analogy might have made some sense if Boris was driving the bus. And he is. And we are all heading for a cliff.
And instead of stopping the bus and getting us off before it’s too late, sturgeon is telling is to sit tight because she’s going to ask the driver for a fifth time if we can get off at the next stop. And he’s going to say “no” again, to which she has no response.
It’s party loyalty that is keeping you on that bus. If you were simply loyal to the cause of independence, you’d be worried about that cliff and contemplating alternative approaches to getting off the bus.
The strategy under sturgeon was initially the same one I’m advocating now. Then after May humiliated her, it changed to “we need to wait and see what brexit amounts to”. Recently it changed again to “we will keep asking nicely and it some point the driver will agree that it’s up to us…”
We are about to go off a cliff that we made clear we don’t want to go off. The SNP manifesto of 2015 is an embarrassment to those who wrote it. If she can’t do something about all this, and that’s understandable, she should say so and let someone else take over.
Hatuey
I am not a member of the SNP nor have any loyalty past or present to Labour or any party and as I have said to Craig in the past on Wings I don’t do hero worship for anyone be it Campbell , Sturgeon, Salmond, Murray, WGD. or Kelly. I read what they say and look at their actions. Wings is turning into a cult where its followers jump to Campbell’s tune without any of the critical analysis that Campbell USED to do so well himself. Some of them have not learned a thing.
I am for giving Nicola Sturgeon the time ( before the 2021 Scot parliament election) to deliver an indyref or independence. After that new ball game.
It isn’t just about London either. Washington isn’t going to let the United Kingdom fragment, with all the implications for the military and economic power, having finally secured its prize of an ‘independent’ UK and a yes-man in Johnson to do their bidding,
The dirty general election campaign and downright suspect result show how far they’re prepared to go in lying, smearing, threatening and manipulating to force the UK into breaking with the European Union in the harshest and most divisive way possible. (This is possibly less obvious in Scotland where the progressive force of the SNP could triumph – here in England, all opposition parties were ruthlessly crushed by the combined Tory/state machine.)
And if anyone thinks the Tories and their backers will just allow Scotland and Northern Ireland to hold fair referendums and then leave with good grace if they want out, I fear they are being naive. On the contrary, they will fight tooth and nail to keep the UK together. We could easily end up in a Ukraine situation, where the whole UK is at the centre of a power struggle among the powers.
All that said, I wish you luck and believe Scottish independence is within reach. I think Craig is right, however, that independence will probably have to be organised and declared from Scotland. I also share the doubts about Sturgeon, who seems to me (from afar, admittedly) to be making the same mistake as Swinson in believing she can in any way deal with Johnson. Perhaps she is bluffing for tactical reasons – but then I thought that about Swinson.
As wise man Frank Zappa once said… ”Government is just the entertainment division of the Military-Industrial Complex”.
Unfortunately, I find it highly unlikely that the people who really wield the power will allow Scottish independence.
Will the people on here and elsewhere who say the Scottish should be prepared to risk their lives for it be on the front line when and if the SHTF?
100%
A UK attempt to use force to block Scottish independence would be likely to be as unpopular in the U.S. as the use of force to block Irish indpendence in 1919-22 was. At least, if the American people are able to learn what is going on. Which the MSM will be bound and determined to prevent. So it’s up to us to circumvent them.
The spineless maggots of the north of England that have gone cap in hand to an old Etonian would be less effective than they maybe think. Tell them we’re independent. Don’t ask.
Spineless as opposed to vertebrate maggots, do you mean? And they have hands? And wear caps too? (Never pay any attention to anyone called Stewart, that’s my advice.)
They thought it was more important to teach a lesson to the politicians who tried to deny effect to the decision of the voters in the Brexit referendum. I, for one, am unwilling to say that they were wrong.
They may well have been imprudent in originally voting for Brexit, but upholding democracy is much more important than whether or not Brexit is prudent. The people decided, let their decision stand.
And, if the general election meant anything, it was a second vote for Brexit.
Binkov’s bollocks ….. an analysis of what would happen if civil war broke out between Scotland and England…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKej2FYrKSA
[ YouTube: “What if Brexit leads to a Civil war? Scotland and N. Ireland fight for independence” ]
At this time in my life, major lifelong personal goals achieved, barriers broken and down, an inner joy that stems from inhibitions scattered to the winds, a different future, a free-er me if not the countries I love -the constituent nations of Britain, Scotland the Mighty, first and foremost, but Enger-land, Wales and anyone else with us, of us, I do wish them the merriest times, Christmas, New Year and future times for all time to all, to Craig Murray, trolls, mods, hasbarists, onionists, muppets, spooks, and f-wits, lovers of truth, the brotherhood of man everywhere, Europe, our kin, the SNP, the Scots and anyone who for sure wouldn’t like to know me, all the best. Free the weed too Nicola, pronto, cut the duties on baccy and booze, let cultural stoned, half-drunk, oblivious stocious Scotland bloom, don’t be killjoy nannying hectoring lecturing would-be saints, be Nicola the Bold, Party Animal extraordinaire, or fade to nothing, loser scumbag control-freak machine politician, debatably human.
As you were, folks.
I’ve been using comments in newspapers and blogs for the last year to give the link to your article on the Scottish Parliament’s right to resile the Treaty of Union with England. Many people like it, but no one with authority or the necessary public confidence acts on it in any way. I even wrote to you once asking you to give leadership to some kind of National Scottish Convention to take independence out of the hands of the SNP because I had come to believe that the SNP will actually lose us our opportunity for independence. By trying to stop Brexit its interest moved to the UK away from Scotland’s independence. It became a British party that fielded candidates only in Scotland and formed the devolved government of Scotland.
If someone with the necessary authority and confidence of the public does not act soon, I believe it will be too late. You seem to me to have the necessary knowledge and experience, and the confidence of enough Scots to initiate an independence convention if the Scottish Parliament and MPs do not act. Please, Craig, Act for Scotland!
Check out George Galloway speaking some straight forward common sense on the inherent oddness of Scottish nationalists seeking independence from the UK but dependence within the EU.
Fwl..
GG is always Screaming for nations to be independent.. But not the nation he was born in..Sorry Fwl, I like many of your post’s..Much wisdom .. And I loved how GG took on the senate..
But there’s Limits. Re his Hypocritical stance on Scotland.
And to Add..GG is Lying when he says ..A Resource Rich Nation will like Scotland will Depend on the RUK.. Cos that’s what he is trying to say.. And It’s NOT Common Sense..
What is a Fact is that London Cannot afford to lose Scotland… And if anyone Believes the Conservatives Subsidise Scotland out the goodness of their heart…Do the research..Jeezo.
As an English woman I would be happy to see a truly independent Scotland. Here I differ from my Scottish academic sister in law, who basically is happy with status quo. She does not think an independent Scotland would be better off in the EU – as a tiny nation it would be in competition with other small poorer EU countries for a share of EU resources. And the EU pot to distribute will be smaller once GB leaves. She thinks an independent Scotland should def have its own currency and joining the euro would be a bad move, giving up sovereignty to the EU.
the EU pot to distribute will be smaller once GB leaves
maybe, but once Scotland joins the EU, after passing the acquis communautaires into law, then it would contribute roughly half of all Scottish VAT receipts into the general EU budget, but would receive more back in the short & medium term as the country is built back towards the EU average in infrastructural etc terms….
I can’t see temporary funding issues stopping serious EU/Écosse relations, as the rest of AirstripOne declines
Cheers for the Support Mrs Pau
I hope your Academic Sister in Law sees sense somtime
Scotland is the most resource rich nation in the EU…and arguably in the world.
Mrs Pau!
“As a tiny nation”
You should refer her to the list of wealthiest countries by GDP per head. She will see that the most of the top ten are nearly always small independent nations.
It is not some law of physics that small countries are poor. I am afraid to say that this is a sign of the conditioning that has been ongoing by the British media for a long long time.
I don’t trust Galloway. In Arron Banks’ hacked twitter messages, Galloway and Banks seem to be great chums. One is a message from Galloway’s wife asking for money for “the family” “facing bankruptcy”, which would also be “fatal for him politically”.
Question for moderator: I hesitate to post the relevant twitter message in full. I am not sure what the legal situation is in the UK. Rather not?
I have two versions of the dumped messages from different sources. The versions I have seem legit. I realise that versions with fake messages were quickly put out (with things like “northern monkeys” added) possibly as a countermeasure..