WHY THE SNP MP’s AND MSP’s ARE SILENT!


People wonder why all these elected SNP MP’s and MSP’s say nothing about the Stonewall takeover of the SNP? Why they went along with the obviously ineffective S30 strategy for so long? Why they sat and said nothing while the NEC became increasingly appointed rather than elected? Why small fringe groups were given way in excess of the representation their true numbers justified? Why they allowed National Council to be scrapped allowing a Presidential level of control and a pathway to introduce policies without any scrutiny or input from the branches and ordinary members of the Party?

The answer is they all knew this because it was all planned. Nicola Sturgeon became leader in November 2014. At the first Conference after her appointment the first part of the plan went before Conference in April 2015. Everything was going well and the SNP were on the verge of winning 56 seats out of the 59 available in Scotland.

The following resolution was agreed unanimously by Conference “No member shall, within or out with the Parliament, publicly criticise a group decision, policy, or another member of the Group”

So there you have it. All possible independent thought was removed by this decision and anybody raising any concerns about any matter, policy or otherwise would be wide open to the most severe disciplinary action, perhaps even including expulsion and deselection. Absolute power was thereby handed to the leadership cabal and they were not slow to exercise it. What followed was the lunchtime resolution which came later where in a sparsely attended session Angus Robertson got National Council scrapped, a complete reorganisation of how the NEC was put together and before anyone realised the powers of ordinary members were neutered and the way was clear for the leadership to do what they wanted without challenge. Power was moved ruthlessly from the branches to the centre with strict control on candidate selection procedures being taken under the wing of the NEC and severe manipulation of timings, including rejecting candidates for refusing to support “policies” no members had ever voted on like GRA and self ID.

So what had been the most democratic of all parties suddenly became Stalinist in its behaviour. All of a sudden party discipline replaced debate. Anyone who raised opposition was ruthlessly stamped on. Joanna Cherry became the target of the Woke youth for the “ crime” of opposing GRA and supporting Woman’s Rights. Selection rules were amended to ensure Joan McAlpine could not possibly top the list because like Joanna she also supported Woman’s Rights. 

So fiddled was this procedure across the country the SNP followed legal advice and could not even reveal the results of the contests as they were warned they could face massive damages in court if they did from candidates who were not BAME or disabled and who lost out in selection despite polling much higher levels of support from members than the “successful” candidates. The whole process was a joke, people who were already in elected positions, found relatively minor ailments that allowed them to be classified as “disadvantaged” and therefore to be guaranteed the top position in any area list, irrespective of the number of votes cast for each candidate by the ordinary membership. So we had the ridiculous situation where members voted, then were refused the right to know the election results, only to be informed of the “winner” on a “trust” basis. Third World Banana Republics would hesitate before adopting such a system but the Nu SNP had no such problem with it.

There is nothing more certain than this will eventually all come crashing down. They have got away with it because the SNP have been electorally successful since 2015 and members have been willing to let it go. That however is changing, as often happens in these situations, those in power, having got away with this type of abuse, become overconfident, push it too far and they create an adverse reaction. It can be gradual but can explode without warning as a realisation spreads that their loyalty has been exploited in an unfair and damaging way. I would argue that the gradual realisation is already well underway, and while still not organised, is becoming more serious and gaining ground.

About time would be my reaction. When I was active in the SNP it was a true joy. Yes there were different views, often very serious debates within the NEC, but that debate was enjoyed, celebrated even. Conferences where policy outcomes could not be forecast and where a good quality debate could change outcomes was the norm. It created the feeling that being a member really mattered. That ordinary members were directly involved in policy and campaign development. Compare with today where everything is stage managed. Controversial policies get nowhere near a place on an Agenda because of the fear of rejection. Where Conference’s main role is as a fundraiser.

So the above explains why the Leadership have enjoyed unchallenged power. Where they hold many in the Party in check by strict discipline that does not tolerate any challenge to what is dictated from the top.

It is disappointing because it reveals that those current elected members of the NuSNP are never going to deliver Independence for Scotland. If they cannot stand up to defend the rights of the ordinary members of their own Party then they are never going to stand up to the might of the British State. So easily bribed with salary, so easy intimidated by their own leadership are not the qualities required for victory.

So, in my opinion, it’s all change for Independence, that is now the top priority.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland

BEAT THE CENSORS

Unfortunately some pro Indy sites operate censorship if a blogger dares to criticise the SNP, no matter how justified that criticism might be. This transforms them from being pro Indy sites to being only propaganda sites for one Party. By this very act they damage Independence by limiting freedom of speech. Never a very wise action. Sensible people enjoy debate and like to decide for themselves and not have this determined for them by others. This site promotes Independence and does not censor except in exceptional circumstances where abuse or known falsehoods are submitted. Please share articles from this site to overcome all attempts to close down free speech in Scotland.

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

Free subscriptions are available on this site from both the Home and Blog pages. This will ensure you will be notified every time a new article is posted. Each article already gets posted to many thousands of people, I hope you will come and join us. You will be most welcome.

SALVO

Now that Salvo has been launched it needs everybody to join and get behind this important, vital even, development. I have never encouraged readers to donate to Yours for Scotland indeed I operate a limit that even when people are overcome and demand the ability to donate I operate a strict limit of £3 per donation. I said that any excess to the costs of running this site would go to worthy Yes events. I have made some donations in the past but yesterday I gave a three figure sum to Salvo. I want to do more so while I am keeping, at this stage, the maximum donation to £3 I am now encouraging readers of Yours for Scotland to donate regularly with the assurance that every penny raised, over the running costs of this site, will be donated to Salvo. Salvo is a people’s movement and it needs us, the people of Scotland, to give them the funds they need. Thank you.

51 thoughts on “WHY THE SNP MP’s AND MSP’s ARE SILENT!

  1. It may explain but it does not excuse. It certainly explains why I will not vote for the current incumbents, their silence condemns them.

    Liked by 30 people

  2. “No member shall, within or out with the Parliament, publicly criticise a group decision, policy, or another member of the Group”

    Given the criticism that the likes of Joanna Cherry has received from fellow MPs – see twitter feeds of some of the most nototious SNP so-called Woke members – maybe we should check to see that the recorded resolution has not been altered to read something like:

    “No member shall, within or out with the Parliament, publicly criticise a group decision, policy, or another member of the Group UNLESS THE PERSON BEING CRITICISED IS NOT PART OF THE GROUP FAVOURED BY THE LEADERSHIP”.

    Liked by 22 people

    1. At the time Joanna Cherry was informed by Rhiannon Spear during a Twitter spat that she (Joanna) was doing herself no favours ‘madam’, a branch member asked me to formally complain using my official role as branch secretary. I was happy to do so, using that infamous “no member shall, within or out with the Parliament, publicly criticise a group decision, policy, or another member,” as a basis for the complaint. I eventually received a reply from Angus McLeod who informed me that there was no case to answer. Mind you, that was before he was thrown under the bus by the very same cabal. To this day, I have nothing but admiration and respect for Joanna’s forbearance. How she managed to retain her poise and her incisiveness in the face of the barrage of insults she faced from the nasty little wokies, I will never know.

      Liked by 20 people

      1. Remarkably, Spear, of all people, was singled out by the FM for a special sympathy mention. Whatever Spear’s purpose was in seeking elected office within the SNP, it wasn’t to promote independence. Her actions always seemed more akin to those of a provocateur rather than a genuine indy supporter. No surprise she exited the scene. Damage done, division created, mission accomplished.

        Liked by 9 people

  3. One of the most important blogs ever posted. I only understood the significance of these events on second hearing, a while back. Most SNP members/supporters are probably unaware of the coup d’etat that was orchestrated by the Sturgeonist clique. The death of party democracy and wholesale gerrymandering of the juvenile fanatics is explained here. Needs a wider audience if folk are to past the selfie-celebrity illusion of indy leadership and reclaim the party.

    Liked by 21 people

  4. All decision making has been ended. The Times article below has the evidence. If you do nothing you cannot get it wrong appears to be her answer as “leader”. Sit on the votes we have and keep power.

    She has made one political call and that was supporting and giving power to the TransCult…she thinks that was a good move!

    The latest Indy support was forced on her and the lack of planning and preparation is quite obvious.

    Times article
    https://archive.ph/rWcWu

    Liked by 23 people

    1. Thanks for these two links Clootie.
      Yes indeed incompetence and empty ambition laid bare.
      Sturgeon’s legacy is GRA reform and continued installation of Stonewall at the heart of Holyrood, before departing for her international job.
      U. S. I expect, where sex offenders are impregnating women in the female prison estate.
      She’ll fit in well.

      Liked by 4 people

  5. As soon as this.. “No member shall, within or out with the Parliament, publicly criticise a group decision, policy, or another member of the Group”

    Became part of Sturgeons way of controlling her CULT, Any & ALL true yessers with a working brain should have ditched that party then.. WHY did hard working activists accept this?

    Liked by 16 people

  6. That we realign ourselves behind something “not” the SNP seems unavoidable now, and in fact, long overdue.

    What I am extremely reticent about is, if we are realigning ourselves, is it wise to realign ourselves behind “anything” that is in any way remotely codified by the colonial 1998 Scotland Act? If we must bypass a compromised and dysfunctional SNP “Government”, why not bypass the whole compromised and dysfunctional assembly, together with the Scotland Act which compromises it?

    The Scotland Act does not empower Scotland’s people. It empowers Westminster and usurps power from us. It is our sovereign birthright and the Claim of Right which puts power in our hands.

    What does make Holyrood attractive is a recognised mechanism for legislating on the procedure of democratic process; it gives us the familiar saddle and reins to ride our democratic old nag of a horse with a “conventional” degree of control. On the other hand, a “red sovereignty” Convention of the Estates route to Independence hasn’t even seen in harness for 315 years, and threatens to become a bareback race for the line, clinging for dear life to the back of a wild animal.

    “IF” there is an element of bluff being called about Sturgeon’s categoric promise of 2023 Referendum, then we must be ready for the bluff to collapse, and have our Convention of the Estates ready to step into the breach. That means having the Convention established, codified, and at least in the process of securing Legal Personality. It must have all it’s Constitutional ducks in a row, and we MUST understand that the threshold for victory in a Westminster Plebiscite is 30 from 59 seats.

    Do not let the 50%+ share of the vote criteria which decides a binary referendum be confused with the 30 seat criteria which marks the threshold of a Scottish mandate. They are NOT the same processes. 30 seats is a mandate which cannot be overruled, by virtue of the Claim of Right, and Scotland can end the Union and properly claim it was achieved lawfully through Westminster’s First Past the Post Democracy. It is not any lesser a Democracy in the eyes of the law, International Law included.

    Scotland’s Sovereign mandate of 30 seats cannot be out-voted or overruled, and Westminster cannot quibble with the democracy of it’s own system. I hope we’ll do much better than 30 seats, but that’s the finish line.

    Time is very short for doing this, but we must be bold and resolute.

    Now I know we YESSERs are divided on this. Some of us fret that a Westminster 30 seat majority carries a lesser democratic mandate than a 51% share of the vote in a specific binary Referendum. It rings the alarm bells that we might have minority support for Independence. But don’t forget, that’s the Referendum Westminster is absolutely determined to deny us, and at the same time, dictate all the rules if we have one anyway.

    But let us be sensible, and see whether we can manage this fear of bolder initiative.

    Sadly, the 1707 Treaty of Union does not have a 2009 Lisbon Treaty like the European Union. We have no Article 50 protocol, (which itself, is just the very briefest of paragraphs), but it nevertheless gave Brexit a procedure, a timescale, and an end point, in other words how to withdraw from the Union.

    Without going all through Brexit, thanks to Joanna Cherry, we know beyond all doubt that Article 50 Notification was the sovereign prerogative of the member Nation, which that member Nation could have arbitrarily withdrawn. For the two years of the Transitional Period, Brexit had a kill switch.

    Just because we don’t have an equivalent Article 50 in our Treaty of Union, doesn’t mean we cannot create one.

    It is my belief that Scotland’s Convention of the Estates needs to be clever, and insert it’s own Article 50 equivalent into it’s Plebiscite Election Manifesto. For example, a 30 seat pro-Independence majority doesn’t mark the instant end of the Union, but marks the start a two year (say) Transition Period, which will then be put to a Scottish Referendum which will either abort the breakup of the UK or formally end it.

    In this way, a Scottish Convention of the Estates takes command of Scotland’s Constitutional Sovereignty, takes command of the voting franchise, takes command of Scotland’s place in the Union, and puts Westminster on notice that the Union is over, exactly the same way the UK told Europe that Brexit meant Brexit. But unlike Brexit, Scotland would have a confirmatory referendum with a 51% vote share threshold. But that referendum will also feature a tempting post UK Trade Agreement, – not a hostile one like Brexit.

    Scotland and England will have a two year opportunity to discuss the terms of an amicable divorce, disentangle our economies, just like Brexit, and work at a Trade Agreement where an Indy Scotland either in EFTA or full EU membership, becomes a buffer state between England and Europe, with a hard Border in Scotland diffusing the Northern Irish Protocol, filtering English / EU trade which meets compliance criteria.

    An Independent Scotland becomes an intermediary between England and Europe, but invests heavily in the huge natural deep harbour of Scapa Flow, to create a bulk carrier facility and distribution centre which takes away much of the congestion from ports along the European seaboard.

    Everybody wins. England gets pain relief with it’s Brexit experiment, Northern Irish trade goes through customs at a Scottish Border, Europe can begin dealing with with some English Trade but via Scotland and under the European Court jurisdiction. Scotland gets an amicable Independence of course, a big shot in the arm for our Northern economy and our port facilities, and EU or EFTA membership if we want it. (Or a third option with Scotland’s status being similar to EFTA but unique; “SCOFTA”…. EU compliant, but also a portal for other global trade, just like the English trade, which is EU compliant. (Looking at you BRICS, but sshhh don’t tell anybody).

    This could mark the beginning of unprecedented prosperity for Scotland as we race to catch up with 300 years of being a second choice economic backwater, when Scotland could and should have been the epicentre for European / Global maritime distribution all along.

    Before long the North Coast 500 might be number of HGV’s driving past the door every day like Dover. Be careful what you wish for.

    Liked by 16 people

    1. “What I am extremely reticent about is, if we are realigning ourselves, is it wise to realign ourselves behind “anything” that is in any way remotely codified by the colonial 1998 Scotland Act?”

      Same here, Breeks. I refuse to be cajoled into using the devolution independence referendum route as “the” option. As far as I am concerned the best and most direct route is and has always been since 1707 to send a majority of anti-union MPs on a mandate to end the union, to reconvene the old Scotland Parliament, to repeal the Act of Union with England and to repeal the ratification of the treaty on behalf of Scotland.

      The devolution independence referendum route was the only an option to be considered in 2014 because the SNP did not have a majority of MPs, only a majority of pro-independence MSPs. But that is no longer the case. Since 8th May 2015, the main route to the end of the union is wide open in front of us. This is a route that has no obstacles in it other than the ones fabricated by the unionist Sturgeon. This route is totally under control of Scotland’s MPs, not England MPs or England’s executive and it is therefore a much better and more reliable route than Sturgeon’s bogus S30 submissive referendum.

      Since Sturgeon took over, she has been relentlessly attempting to decouple the SNP from the historic association that a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence. This makes the SNP at all practical effects, until the moment the UK government has no longer use for Scotland, a devolutionist party exactly like labour is. But it also does other two things:

      1. It disenfranchises yes voters who have no lost love for devolution. Disenfranchising these is a necessary step to keep independence at bay if they are to keep the pretence that devolution works.

      2. It renders majorities of the SNP useless as we have seen for the last 7 years. In practical terms, what this does is to deliberately lock us away from the route of a plebiscite election in a General election as a viable option to exercise Scotland’s self determination. This is what this political fraud has been doing since took over the SNP leadership from Mr Salmond.

      I will not play this game. I will cast my vote in the next general election ONLY for a party of independence. An independence party is in my eyes a party for which each vote it receives is an endorsement for independence, no ifs, no buts. I do not give a sht for how many union supporters cast a vote for the party. I want a clear manifesto stating in black and white that a vote for the party is a vote for independence, therefore a majority of MPs of this party is a mandate to terminate the union and repeal the Act of union with England and the Treaty. I will not vote ever again for a mandate to beg for a stupid referendum, to beg for an S30 and, to beg for the condescendence of England MPs, to beg for more devolution, or for “progress” that is at all practical effects toxic social engineering on an industrial scale. It is independence, and by that I mean terminating the union, or I will spoil my ballot.

      if no political party responding to that criteria emerges. then I will spoil my ballot and will continue to direct my full attention to the encouraging options opened by SALVO.

      As far as I am concerned, devolution died the day England MPs encroached in Scotland’s rights to steal our powers and assets by unilaterally amending the Scotland Act against the vote of a majority of Scotland MPs. That was in my view unlawful and a double breach. A breach of the Claim of Right and indirectly the treaty of union that is supported by it. It was also a breach of a bipartite agreement between two parties: the UK parliament and the executive of Scotland who agreed that original Act. Such move by England MPs and the ratification of that move by the Queen with the royal stamp, at all practical effects imposing absolute rule over Scotland, was in my view enough reason to declare both things, the Scotland Act and the Treaty of Union, null and void.

      “If we must bypass a compromised and dysfunctional SNP “Government”, why not bypass the whole compromised and dysfunctional assembly, together with the Scotland Act which compromises it?”

      Spot on, Breeks. That is the exact same question I have been asking myself since 8th May 2015, and continue to ask myself every time Sturgeon or one of the labour like devolution drones in her SNP, talks about the S30, or mentions the meaningless expressions “legal referendum” or “gold standard”. As far as I am concerned, when you have the route of a majority of MPs open in front of you and it has been open for 7 years, the referendum option with an S30 is no longer “the gold standard”. It is at best a bog standard fake thinly coated in yellow paint.

      Liked by 16 people

    2. Salmond is very astute (apart from the colossal mis step of handing power to Sturgeon) – The Claim of Right must be front and center. Westminster has recognised our written constitution and there can be no putting the genie back in the bottle or pretending The Claim of Right is not current. The extraordinary step of altering the Hansard record shows just how serious this is.

      Our next step must be to identify, as you say, the means of using The Claim of Right. It is not through Vichy Holyrood – the intent and abilities of the inhabitants of that place are the stuff of nightmares. Everyone – YES and unionists – everyone is sick to death of an oppressive, entitled, self serving and grossly incompetent political class, both here and in Westminster – Truss as PM? Can you imagine??? Poor brave, competent, honourable ALBA – a lonely voice in the night.

      We need to focus fully on The Claim of Right. The Council of the Estates must be structured to be inclusive – The Claim of Right belongs to all sovereign Scots – and it must be independent of the political class. The structure and powers of this body must be accepted by the Scottish Courts – there so much work that is urgently needed and it happening – there is hope! I am grateful to the SSRG and Salvo for the magnificent work they are doing.

      Once there is a fair, competent, empowered and accountable body that protects the needs and values of Scotland and her sons and daughters then I believe independence will be unstoppable.

      Liked by 15 people

  7. The wheels are coming off the transcult bogie and not a moment too soon. Sturgeon and her cabal are still flogging this dead horse.

    However I am hearing that the cashflow (or the extreme lack of cashflow) is causing major problems. This might be the final straw.

    To all the SNP MSPs and MPs – when sturgeon is gone don’t bother with the excuses : “I tried to stop them…” ; ” I was unaware of the problems….” I didn’t know what was really happening….” ; ” i had to obey for party discipline…” etc. These feeble excuses didn’t work in the past and they wont work now. You are all finished.

    And when the truth comes out – you will ALL be marked with sturgeon’s brush. Hell will mend you you shower of cowards.

    Liked by 25 people

  8. I’m going to be honest, I’ve been a complete tit since we got our own parliament. I fail to see why I’ve been going out and voting In a Westminster elections when (1) if my vote sent more MPs to Westminster than any other party we’d still be in this union because our politicians have now changed the rules without telling anyone (2) I fail to see what difference 59 MPs from Scotland could make against 500+ MPs from England regarding giving a single thought for the people north of the border. What have I been doing? And more to the point why have I been doing it? I haven’t benefited my people or my country one single bit with my vote.

    The day after 18.09.14 we had English votes for English laws, now let’s look at the Treaty of Union we all know it state both sides are equal, so let’s go back to Westminster who set up a new act of Union based on the Idea that we have a parliament in Scotland which UKG can overrule whenever it wants and where it states the Scots have to seek permission to be Independent in the form of a Section 30 order now lets have a look at the seating arrangements again in Westminster 59 Scottish MP’s out of 650 MP how is that equal and isn’t that English laws interfering in Scots law.
    The Scottish parliament in my opinion no longer serves the Scottish people, if it can be overruled by Westminster. The Scots before 1997 didn’t need to seek a Section 30 to be Independent, me personally I want to go back to the time before 1997 maybe its because I’m an old man. I’d rather see the SNP say they’re no longer going to take part in the Scottish parliament and remove themselves from Holyrood as it isn’t a parliament free to represent Scottish interest, but is purely there to in prison us as a nation.
    A bully can only be a bully if they are allowed to be. Scotland is being bullied by England. Scotland should therefore say no, enough is enough and withdraw its consent from Parliament(s), public and civil life, and withhold money, Westminster would sit up and listen to us then. But the SNP are either not big enough or strong enough to do this, but I think it’s more of the case that they don’t want to do this, they really are happy with the status quo.

    Liked by 16 people

    1. You are too hard on yourself 100%… Like all of us you used the tools we had and trusted our policies and politicians if the day.

      I was shocked at EVEL coming through at that speed too. Westminster decided not to give England approximately 7 devolved parliaments for fear of losing control of English democratic development. When Blair reneged on his promise to England, that was arguably as bad as the lies that took us to war in Iraq and the PPP scandals.

      That aside … You raise a very interesting notion in Westminster… A campaign for SVSL – Scottish Votes for Scottish Laws at Westminster. One great move would be to get the 59 to debate, at Westminster, whether to have a Scottish vote on leaving the Union, and what the franchise would be.

      And if course, only to be attended and voted in by SVSL politicians. Why not we start a campaign for that?

      You’re a star, 100%.

      Liked by 8 people

    2. I agree with Tombkane. Don’t be too hard on yourself 100%Yes.

      Here’s a little reminder of the Sturgeon that most people saw in 2014…

      Compared to todays Sturgeon, you begin to wonder if we have a Manchurian Candidate situation, or else wonder when the swap was made… and what they’ve done with the real Nicola. I mean, the “nice” Nicola could be in France, locked in the dungeons of the Fortress of Pignero, wearing an iron mask and not allowed to speak to her jailer.

      Don’t laugh. “Something” very odd has happened here, hasn’t it?

      Liked by 5 people

  9. Iain, just look at the Tory leadership contest (farce) is this not how all parties in the UK act (in their own interest) it is not just Sturgeon and her cohort that need to go it’s the whole damn system of government in the UK, (revolution) – independence can not come soon enough to safe us from this corrupt government two party system. Personally I would like to see many more independents in power – do we really need political parties at all?

    Liked by 11 people

    1. “it is not just Sturgeon and her cohort that need to go it’s the whole damn system of government in the UK”

      Sturgeon and her cohort are a product of that system.

      Independence, and by that I mean proper independence, would get rid of both.

      Liked by 9 people

  10. Interesting article which very much reinforces what the SNP has become under Sturgeon.

    But we can win moving past blockers like Sturgeon. Alba fired the starting gun, Salvo and the SSRG do fantastic work explaining how there are clear routes to independence that require not the consent of a hostile Westminster full of hostile English MPs.

    Breeks makes some excellent points about an independent Scotland being a buffer to England, and part of the EU or EFTA thereby allowing England to get on with its Brexit. And this is all achievable. No sturgeon required. In fact her grip on things may be a tad, and then some, more insecure than we think.

    Alba, Salvo, SSRG, and perchance some presently undisclosed SNP, are now setting the running. Let’s support them.

    Liked by 16 people

    1. ‘ …and perchance some presently undisclosed SNP’

      Iain has written previously that this blog is read by some in Holyrood. We have to assume that they are speed readers and are in danger of sitting out the zeitgeist. Someone on Wings wrote of the selfless attitude of Kenny MacAskill, (backed by Neal Hanvey) in going against his professional etiquette to call out the Westminster charade. Would we had more of their ilk.

      The false dawn of the SNP is there for all to see.

      Liked by 12 people

  11. From a business perspective, I can affirm.
    I’ve worked in businesses where the executive directors despised one another. They were all proficient in their respective fields and the business flourished. A little tension is healthy.
    I’ve worked in businesses where the executive directors were selected for their fealty to the CEO. Talent and experience were peripheral, collegiate adherence was compulsory, group-think was mandatory. These businesses went into terminal decline.
    The SNP ranks at Westminster are an object lesson. What talent exists is banished to the back benches. Mediocre sycophants occupy the front benches and hold preposterous, vanity titles.
    Yesterday at PMQs, Boris Johnson taunted our windbag in-chief with statistics regarding drug deaths in Scotland. Blackford lacked the wit to deviate from script and point out that drug treatment policy is reserved and our jumped up Toon Cooncil in Edinburgh cannot address the issue as it wishes (or put more accurately lacks the guts to defy colonial edict).

    Liked by 13 people

    1. “Blackford lacked the wit to deviate from script and point out that drug treatment policy is reserved and our jumped up Toon Cooncil in Edinburgh cannot address the issue as it wishes”

      It is responses like this from SNP MPs what really makes one wonder what the hell it is they have been doing in Westminster since 2015 and what kind of unionist game Sturgeon’s SNP are playing at.

      If it is a reserved matter if falls directly on the hands of the windbag and the rest of Scotland’s MP amoebas sitting in Westminster. Scotland’s reserved matters are THEIR responsibility because they are the ones who hold the powers to solve those. So, hell yes, that the drug treatment policy has not changed in Scotland cannot be blamed on England MPs. It has to be blamed on the Scotland MPs who instead of taking that bull by the horns, have lazily handed over OUR powers and OUR sovereignty to England MPs to deal with it. They could have recouped back those powers together with everything else since May 2015, therefore the responsibility for not having done so falls squarely on their lap.

      If your boss asks you to sort out their car and you delegate on a third party of your choice to repair the car, when the car stops working your boss will not blame the third party who repaired it. They will blame you for failing to fulfill the task, for not doing your due diligence and for not seeking a better way to deal with the problem. It was your choice after all to select that business, therefore the responsibility is yours. That the third party did not do their work is not your boss’ problem. It is your problem. You are the one who made the arrangement with the third party, not your boss. I do not see why there is any difference here. We do not send those MPs to Westminster for decoration, we send them to look after our reserved powers, USE them, and RETURN them to Scotland. The powers are ultimately reserved to Scotland, which the windbag and the rest of the SNP amoebas are representing in the union. Therefore If the third party (the England MPs) are misusing our reserved powers, then it is the windbag’s duty and the SNP MP amoebas’ to find another third party to use them better, that third party could be Holyrood.

      It is a very different matter that for over 300 years successive cohorts of Scotland’s MPs, including from 2015 those who claim to be anti-union, have been transferring the custody of OUR sovereignty, OUR powers and the custody of OUR old Scottish Parliament to England MPs. What they cannot do is to transfer those powers to an entity that makes a mess of things and then attempting to shift their responsibility for transferring those powers.

      When England MPs impose toxic policies on Scotland they can only do it in two ways:

      1. Without Scotland’s MPs’s consent – this is a direct breach of the Claim of Right and indirectly the treaty of union that rests on it. If this is the case, then it has been the duty of those Scotland’s MPs to have declared the treaty of union null and void

      2. With Scotland’s MPs consent – if this is the case, then the windbag party’s MPs need to stop the charade and the theatrics and explain to people exactly what they are doing: they are willingly handing our powers to England MPs instead of taking them back and they are ultimately responsible for all the toxic policies England MPs are imposing on us because those Scotland MPs have always had in their hand to stop it.

      So which one is it?

      Since 8th May 2015 the political party of the windbag in chief has had the opportunity to flex Scotland’s constitutional muscle, to DEMAND England MPs and UK peers stick strictly to each and every single one of the fundamental conditions of the Treaty of Union, of which the Claim of Right is one, or to immediately recoup Scotland’s “reserved” powers to put them back into Scotland’s hands. If they have not done so, it is not because they are reserved matters, it is because they did not want to do it and in their coward quest for not being seeing by the people of Scotland as responsible for 7 years of continuous failure to uphold Scotland’s interests and for not implementing Scotland’s Claim of Right, they are now trying to decouple independence from the party itself in order to cajole the people of Scotland into an state of permanent devolution. It is unacceptable.

      The Windbag was not voted in to rule Holyrood. He, with the other 46 SNP MPs amoebas, was voted in TO TRANSFORM Holyrood into the old parliament of Scotland with its full power by ending devolution and bringing back every single power the windbag and his colleagues have handed over to England MPs to administer since 8th May 2015. So why does Holyrood today have less power than it should? Why do we in Scotland still have those appalling statistics in drug deaths when since 8th May 2015 the SNP has had the power to bring that power to Scotland to change it?

      Liked by 7 people

  12. Breeks is right the Indy movement has to completely realign, no more following politicians (of any party) down the garden path, they follow us, no more playing nice, no more begging bowl at the Westminster table, We need to take an entirely different direction with an entirely different mindset, forget independence we already have it, we just need to exercise it, we need to re-establish the Claim of Right, reconvene the Convention of Estates and take our country back to do that we need a platform, clearly that’s not the SNP, my hope is something comes out of the SSRG conference later this month that gives us something to unite behind and a direction to move in

    Liked by 12 people

  13. I think we’ve reached a watershed in the Independence movement, I think it’s time to realise we’re never gonna win independence via a referendum or plebiscite election or any other democratic process that involves the British state the forces against us are just too powerful we had that chance in 2014 and although we ran them close we still lost, some would argue including myself that we actually won but here we are still tied to the union nonetheless, but it wasn’t a complete loss because one thing it achieved was to put the question of independence front and centre of Scottish politics for the first time in over 300 years and it isn’t going away until the matter is settled so in that respect it was a victory .

    In light of recent revelations from the SSRG, I’ve come to the conclusion in 2014 we we’re campaigning and voting for something we already have, we don’t have to win independence we need to re-establish it nobody needs to be consulted it’s already ours, maybe these “Parcel of Rogues” didn’t sell our independence in 1707 maybe we’ve just been conned into believing they did, we need more clarity on that and hopefully the SSRG will supply that, then maybe we can stop campaigning for independence and begin re-establishing all our rights as written in the Treaty of Union including reconvening the Convention of Estates and putting on trial those who have collaborated with the British state against the Scottish people, then and only then we can ask the Scottish people and only the Scottish people, “Do you want to remain in this god forsaken union” or “do you want freedom”

    Liked by 10 people

  14. If the SNP had any backbone, right now, today, any number of Constitutional ultimatums could be flying back and forth between the SNP and UK government over the Northern Irish Protocol, and the UK Government’s resolve to break International Law and renege on it’s international agreements.

    Scotland could and should be taking the principled stance that Scotland is appalled by the very prospect, and will not in any circumstances be party to deliberately breaking International law, and threaten to walk out of Westminster if the action continues. We wouldn’t even need to wait for either a referendum or a plebiscite General Election and specific Independence mandate. We could simply have no part in Westminster’s perfidious shenanigans, and when we are ignored, we cant exit Westminster with our heads held high and the UK plunged into an immediate existential constitutional crisis. Sadly, we are forced to conclude that an immediate constitutional crisis would terrify the ill prepared SNP more than it would Westminster.

    Instead, the SNP will sit on their hands, and leave it to the House of Lords to take the initiative over the Common’s flagrant disregard for International Law, leaving the SNP looking resigned, if not complicit, with the flouting of International law. Yet another open goal squandered.

    If not an ultimatum over the Northern Irish Protocol, Scotland might also take a principled “not in my name” stance over the sending of arms to Ukraine, thus becoming a participant in the war rather than demanding the immediate cessation of hostilities. But that route is closed to us after the SNP’s longstanding neutrality condemning all wars, was booted into orbit by “No fly zone” Sturgeon and war “pigeons” like Smith and MacDonald.

    Every day could be Independence Day in Westminster, if the SNP had any of ALBA’s passion and commitment, but instead of leading from the front, the SNP is a fatberg of inertia which needs pushed to one side before any progress on anything can squeeze past.

    It’s not a recent phenomenon either, Scotland could have had it’s own status and EU Protocol if Sturgeon had pursued a Scottish backstop in 2016 to the same extent the Irish did. We had the same International Treaty jeopardized by Brexit. It was all there for the taking, even Independence itself was within our grasp, but the SNP were frozen like bunny rabbits in the headlights, and completely impotent.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. No problem at all Breeks for Sturgeon and her government to abet the breaking of international law.

      Certainly sends out the message that Scotland is as rotten and untrustworthy as the Westminster Tory Government. All this supposed keeping close with the EU and then Scotland and its government does this.

      And the war in Ukraine. Well we know the Scottish governments position on this which is to put the military in against Russia. Bellicose war mongering international treaty breaking – that’s Scotland’s public presentation.

      Liked by 5 people

  15. That’s a viscerating article, Iain. You have said it as humanely as possible, but it’s irrefutable that the SNO members have been abused. They have not been listened to, respected, allowed to shape policy, allowed to speak freely.

    And your article gives a thundering answer to the question if why that is.

    It’s the New Labour playbook. This is chilling and was planned in advance… “Absolute power was thereby handed to the leadership cabal and they were not slow to exercise it. What followed was the lunchtime resolution which came later where in a sparsely attended session Angus Robertson got National Council scrapped, a complete reorganisation of how the NEC was put together and before anyone realised the powers of ordinary members were neutered and the way was clear for the leadership to do what they wanted without challenge. ”

    I wonder if it was before or after the cheek to cheek with Alistair Campbell.

    I know there are good people in the SNP. They have been abused. There are also power-grabbers in the SNP, and they have been laser focused on assuming power, and not shy to use it once they had it.

    Liked by 7 people

  16. I wonder if it was before or after the cheek to cheek with Alistair Campbell.
    Repeatedly and for years nicoliar has shown us what she is. How more people don’t see her/me,me,me I really don’t know. Bare faced yoon!

    Liked by 8 people

  17. 🎵We’re all goin’ on our summer holidays🎵
    Such was the refrain of the SNP Westminster delegation.

    I’ve been fortunate in most of my professional life to have been occupied in project work. The hours are long and uncertain. Monday to Friday? I wish. You grab holiday time when you can get it or bank it up for the end of the project. It’s not conducive to a settled domestic life, but the reward is the personal satisfaction of bringing a project to a successful conclusion. Not for me the daily monotony of administrative work. Horses for courses I guess. That’s not to devalue administrative work, it’s entirely necessary.

    Point being that the SNP Westminster delegation apparently conceive of their roll as administrators. Psychologically they’ve “earned their holiday”. Their job is complete for the summer, time to kick back and relax. No imperative for them to expend their precious holidays campaigning for independence like those “amateurs” in ALBA, Salvo and the SSRG. Just what the hell they think they’re administrating is beyond me.

    Breaking the Union is fundamentally a PROJECT. Not an administrative process. If the SNP Westminster delegation can’t grasp that they must be removed and replaced with experience Project Managers who know how to get the job done.

    Liked by 6 people

  18. “ Breaking the Union is fundamentally a PROJECT. Not an administrative process “ 👍

    The perfect summary of the difference between the two camps. Project Team versus Programme Administrators

    “Project management is like juggling three balls: time, cost and quality. Program management is like a troupe of circus performers standing in a circle, each juggling three balls and swapping balls from time to time.”
    G. Reiss

    Liked by 3 people

  19. Yes, Iain, in a nutshell. It was, indeed, all planned from the moment we lost the referendum. The foot draggers moved to take control to prevent any moves towards independence this side of eternity, and they were very swiftly joined by the men in frocks and their enablers.

    We can name them all, and we should. These people destroyed a democratic party for power and influence. I do not believe that Nicola Sturgeon ever believed in independence: that was what bugged me at a joint leadership meeting when she seemed very coy about independence.

    Stupidly, poleaxed by our defeat, I just didn’t put two-and-to together, and it was not until 2015, and all those GRA fanatics starting pouring into the party that I started to twig. I am so angry with myself for not cottoning on sooner, but we were all in a state of dejection and despair, and I was not alone. I loathe these usurpers, these middle-class professionals and pampered haters of women, because, believe me, it is also planned that the men in frocks will take over every female seat, every female position in all the parties, not just the SNP.

    The Aunties are in position to enable just that and the young handmaidens are eager and willing to sacrifice all female solidarity (and, in a supreme act of gross stupidity, their own futures) for a kind look from a man or an activist or a so-called ‘trans woman’ – indeed, anyone with male appendages who is capable of breathing.

    However, he more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that this is not the end for females, but just the beginning of a new dawn: we are being ‘evolved’ rapidly to fight the destruction of our species, other species an our plant – which GRA reform is, an evolutionary cul-de-sac. The same, I believe, is true of the Scots, who, once again, will find the courage and will to stand up and take back their country from those who use it a a milchcow and pied de terre, while ruining our culture, infrastructure, languages and continuity as a nation and people.

    Despair not: we are being toughened up on all fronts for what is coming. Darwin was a great man, but he got it only half-right; and he didn’t take the female of the species into account at all; they never do, because they all, these great men, see only their own reflection looking back at them. Our planet is a living, breathing, entity, part of a galaxy and universe of which we have little knowledge, and, as past events have proved, it doesn’t take kindly to being treated like a disposable hankie. It will fight back. Mother Nature will fight back. Balance will be restored, whatever it takes. That is what the powerful and wealthy, those who stand on the necks of the oppressed never understand.

    Liked by 5 people

  20. «If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act»
    Robert Jackson. American lawyer & politician.
    The amazing conformity of the masses and opinion during the Covid episode has given the political class some very questionable, counter democratic notions regarding their function.
    Dissent is not a disorder, politicians with delusions, however, are disposable.

    Liked by 5 people

  21. In that speech she says:

    “friends, I can’t tell you how much I wish we had won”

    Why was that? Was it because the yes side did in fact win but she was on the other team? Or she could not tell us because she was in the yes team but she did not want it to win?

    My bet is the “swap” was done even before indyref took place. At the point she was delivering that speech above, in my personal view, she was already well anchored on the other side.

    Why do I think that? This was published in the guardian on 31st October 2014:

    “Labour faces massive losses to SNP at UK general election, poll shows” (Severin Carrell, 30 Oct 2014)

    In the body of the article this bit was written:

    ” a new poll by Ipsos Mori for STV showed that a record 52% of Scottish voters would vote SNP if there were an immediate general election, implying the SNP would win 54 Westminster seats”

    That poll predicted 52% vote for the SNP and 54 seats. That is an immediate mandate for Scotland’s independence. Right there. just 41 days after the Independence referendum.

    That speech above was delivered AFTER that poll. If she really wanted the yes side to win she would not have said in that speech “one day Scotland would become independent” She would have mentioned the yougov poll, would strike while the iron was hot to fan the flames of discontent among the people because of the vow and EVEL and got into that GE on a mandate for independence, all or nothing. She would have won by a landslide. There was something else stopping her.

    That yougov poll predicted in October 2014 that the SNP would win 54 seats and 52% of the vote. This poll was done BEFORE this political fraud announced that a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence or for a referendum. She did not do that until early 2015. What this means is that the 52% of the vote and the predicted 54 seats would have been achieved under the assumption a vote for the SNP was A VOTE FOR INDEPENDENCE. You can see what this meant for the establishment: if the SNP leader had gone into the GE as normal, and by that I mean, with the assumption that a vote for the SNP was a vote for independence, the establishment would have to admit that Scotland wanted independence. They would have at that point everything: absolute majority in Holyrood, absolute majority in Westminster and majority of the vote. There would not be a way out from independence.

    There is something else. That poll was conducted in October 2014, that is BEFORE Sturgeon took over the leadership of the party, therefore is there any doubt here about which leader was responsible for that massive upsurge in the vote? It was not her.

    With that level of vote less than two months after the referendum and with the astonishing way in which this woman swiftly removed the wheels off the SNP MP majorities by claiming a vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence or a referendum, is there still anybody who thinks the referendum was not rigged?

    In 2014 Mr Salmond had a huge breakthrough and I do not mean “almost” winning the referendum (I am convinced and will be convinced until the day I die that yes won that referendum). The breakthrough is that for first time in 300 years he opened wide the main route for Scotland’s independence, the route that does not rely on devolution nor requires “agreements” with Westminster or Section 30’s. That route is sending a majority of anti-union MPs. Mr Salmond made it possible for first time since the SNP started.

    Is there anybody who still don’t see why Mr Salmond had to be removed from Westminster and Holyrood? is there anybody who still don’t see that the nonsense of the complaints procedure, the alphabets and the criminal case was all about taking Mr Salmond away from the SNP majorities in Westminster and a potential for up to 52% of the vote to have gone towards the SNP demonstrating the will of the people of Scotland is independence?

    Do we all start to see why this woman has been so busy in the last 7 years removing the wheels of the SNP, dismantling it and disengaging it from its members, running like fire away from plebiscites, running like fire away from anti-union supermajorities, and actively decoupling voting for the SNP from independence? What this political fraud has been doing, since that poll took place in October 2014, is frantically attempting to close that route Mr Salmond had just opened in 2014.

    I blame squarely this woman and will do for the rest of my days for Scotland not being independent today. Scotland should have declared independence in May 2015. This political fraud put a stop to it and has been slamming the breaks on independence ever since.

    We need to continue pressing for a plebiscite General Election, no matter how much this political fraud bumps her gums about devolution referendums, obstacles, S30s and the tories. We need to keep that route to independence Mr Salmond opened for us in 2014 wide open and use it at the first opportunity. If that means bypassing completely the SNP, so be it.

    Liked by 7 people

  22. Mia, a plebiscite GE almost inevitably requires an SNP vote – a vote which I won’t be giving them and I’m sure I am not alone. The whole situation is fraught with danger – a particular danger being a unionist win as folk will spoil ballot papers , refrain from voting if they do not have a larger than life alternative to the SNP.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “a plebiscite GE almost inevitably requires an SNP vote”

      That would only be the case if the unionist Sturgeon suddenly had an epiphany and explicitly state that the SNP accepts that a pro-independence majority of the seats in the GE is a mandate to initiate independence, not “to negotiate” independence mind because independence must be a fact in that scenario, but to start it by terminating the treaty of union and negotiate the division of assets.

      Any other decaffeinated versions of the above will lead us to where Sturgeon has taken us for the last 7 years: nowhere. Therefore a vote for the SNP would not help anything.

      I can categorically say here I will not cast a vote for the SNP neither in the upcoming GE or the Holyrood election after that. My last vote for them was in 2019. As far as I am concerned they were given in 2019 (and in 2017 and 2015) all what they needed to terminate this union and deliver independence, yet they chose not to do so. They chose to preserve the union abusing our pro-independence votes, our trust and our patient. I cannot forget nor I will ever forgive that.

      There is absolutely no point in wasting our votes on Sturgeon’s (or Robertson’s) SNP if all what they are prepared to offer is more of the same shite they have been offering for the last 7 years. The sooner we start facing and accepting the facts, the sooner we can move on. And the fact is that since Sturgeon took over the SNP became a unionist party, a pro-devolution version of New Labour.

      This quote is from Douglas Ross intervention during the debate about the Claim of Right that took place at the Commons during the 27 January 2020, less than 2 months after the GE 2019:

      “Independence and separation never featured on an SNP leaflet; they did not want to tell people that the election was about that. Interestingly, a number of SNP MPs who were returned here—and I am looking particularly at the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), because his letter was put out in the public domain—were writing to Labour supporters to say, “Vote for me this time; you may be a traditional Labour supporter and a strong Unionist, but vote for me on this occasion not to support separation and independence, but just to stop the Tories getting in.”

      This is the response from Doogan:

      “Yes indeed, we did write to non-SNP supporting members of the Angus electorate, and I am sure we did that elsewhere in Scotland. It was to invite them, notwithstanding their views on the constitution, to take a view on a more progressive way forward for the country of Scotland, and that is exactly the view that they took and I am pleased that we did that”

      You have to wonder why would they write such letter in the first place, if not to deliberately destroy the perception of the SNP as the party of independence and, in the process, to give ammunition to the colonial parties to trash any mandate for independence the SNP might have. Those are not the actions of somebody who seeks independence. Those are the actions of somebody who is determined to stop it.

      This quote is also from Mr Doogan on the same day:

      “My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who secured the debate, said very clearly in her excellent speech that not everybody in Scotland is persuaded of the case for independence, and there is not a single SNP MP on these Benches who is not on that page. However, we will not be swayed from our priority to ensure that the case for independence is aired as clearly and manifestly as possible. My hon. Friend made the case that devolution is not an event, it is a process. What will the Minister and his Government do when they run out of concessions to make—because it will be independence?”

      As you can see, less than 2 months on after the a GE where they got 47 MPs in parliament allegedly with a mandate “to give Scotland a choice” and “to stop brexit”, Mr Doogan still thinks the SNP priority is not deliver that choice they got the mandate for, it is “to ensure that the case for independence is aired as clearly and manifestly as possible”. So one has to wonder, how is the case for independence aired if you are writing to labour voters to get their backing to crush your mandate for independence? And if their main “priority” is to air the case for independence, what the hell had they been doing since 14 November 2014?

      One would be forgiven for assuming from the last sentence of that quote that Mr Doogan is a staunch gradualist who, despite his party holding a majority of MPs and therefore the ability to terminate the union and deliver independence, he rather sticks to progressive, never ending devolution. Devolution is going to take us nowhere because the uK gov will never “run out of concessions to make”. It will be in perpetuity grabbing powers from Holyrood and then lending, that never handing back, a reduced version of the same powers over and over again.

      We already got devolution with Labour. I did not vote for the SNP in 2019 to “air the case for independence” nor to invite Labour voters to endorse the SNP to take Scotland on “a more progressive way forward”. I voted for them to cut the crap and effing delivering independence. Had I seen that stupid letter written to labour voters and I would have not bothered in casting my vote for them in 2019 either. I feel betrayed and cheated. But rest assured I will never make that mistake again and I am sure other people thinks exactly in the same way as I do.

      So, in conclusion, having onboard in a plebsicite election or not an SNP whose goal is not delivering independence, but rather “to air the case of independence” and “to take Scotland on a more progressive way forward” will not make an ounce of a difference UNLESS they EXPLICITLY state in ALL their brochures, manifesto, cover letters and speeches that their MPs are anti-union and a majority of anti-union MPs, no matter what party they come from, is a mandate TO DELIVER independence.

      If they do not explicitly acknowledge that, then a vote for them is as good as a vote for Labour in the matter of independence: absolutely pointless. They have already acknowledged that they attracted unionist labour voters in 2019 by giving up on independence and the thing is that unionist labour voters do not belong in the same party as traditional SNP pro-independence voters. You can only keep them voting for the same party if you deliberately cheat one of the two groups. 7 years of stasis demonstrate it is the traditional SNP voters the ones that are being cheated .

      In other words, we are on our own and we have been on our own since Mr Salmond stepped down. Personally, I think we will be better of by not wasting anymore of our time and energy pinning for the SNP will turn back to what it was when Mr Salmond was leading it because with that shower of new labour/devolutionist gravy train riders on its ranks it never will. We are better off taking the bull by the horns and bypassing them completely instead, just as we bypassed the original labour in 2015. We may fail the first time round, but we will succeed in the next. After all Sturgeon and her gradualists have already lost us 7 years, 3 general elections and 2 Holyrood ones. Perhaps risking wasting another one but ditching the SNP from our pro-indy boat and regaining control of our course of travel is a worthwhile sacrifice to make.

      At this point, what else do we have to lose?

      Liked by 2 people

  23. Thanks for the reply Mia. I don’t know how much time I have left , certainly can’t wait for two GE ‘s to take place and have no desire to watch incoming unionists at Holyrood undermining and selling off our country.

    We are up against time and the possibility of greater damage to our country, it’s infrastructure and economy.

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: