The following formed part of a comment on an article I posted earlier today. My emphasis.

Clearly the list parties are a gamble but given nothing has happened in the past five years then blowing an election term or two to experiment with list parties might just be worth it.

This follows a couple of days of comments on Twitter which, while less explicit, helped reinforce the impression that the idea of handing the government of Scotland to the British Tories has already been normalised to an extent which is of very great concern to those of us who care about Scotland at least as much as we care about some narrow political agenda.

This casual, flippant acceptance of allowing the Scottish Parliament to fall back into the hands of those who would see it crippled or destroyed derives principally, if not entirely, from the promotion of so-called ‘list parties’. It is an essential part of the message being peddled by or on behalf of these parties that ‘it’s OK not to vote SNP’. This is supported by a generalised and escalating denigration of the SNP which, however justified it may be in certain specific regards, tends to obscure the fact that the single most important objective of the independence movement in relation to the next Holyrood election is ensuring the biggest win possible for the SNP.

To put an SNP administration in jeopardy on the vanishingly remote chance of getting a seat or two for some list party or parties is just plain madness. To gamble our Parliament on a bit of dubious electoral jiggery-pokery is sheer insanity. To fatally undermine the SNP at this time REGARDLESS OF ANY FAULTS OR FAILURES is tantamount to a betrayal of Scotland of the same order as that which was perpetrated in 1707.

The inanity spouted by Alyn Smith and others about ‘never closer to independence’ makes a vague kind of sense in one regard only. We have an opportunity such as has not arisen previously and such as must not be squandered as so many opportunities have over the past five years. The chance is there to use the SNP as the lever to prise Scotland out of the accursed Union. Many factors have conspired to create unprecedentedly propitious conditions. But it only works if we use the SNP.

I find it remarkable – were I given to conspiracy theories I might say suspicious – that it is precisely at this moment of unique and almost certainly never to be repeated opportunity that we are being actively encouraged to withdraw support from the SNP and turn to some cobbled-together ‘alternative’. When within the Yes movement we have people opining that a decade or more of ‘Scottish’ Tory rule “might just be worth it” something is seriously amiss.

If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.

Donate with PayPalDonate with Pingit

29 thoughts on “Warning!

  1. This is absolute bollocks. If the SNP fail to retain power it’ll solely be because they’ve let their CONSTITUENCY vote collapse. They’re currently on course to win a majority on constituency seats alone, so NOTHING that a list party or parties could do poses any risk to them whatsoever.

    And of course, since they evidently have no intention of delivering independence, it wouldn’t make any difference even if it did. They’ve had a pro-indy majority for the last five years, and what fucking good has it done us?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It is to be expected that many of those who have been taken in by the novelty of the list party fantasy will resolve the conflict with their support for independence by convincing themselves that encouraging voters to abandon the SNP cannot possibly have any ‘unfortunate’ consequences. They are absolutely persuaded of the efficacy of their magic solution and cannot tolerate that being questioned. Not even in their own minds. Especially not in their own minds.

      Life’s experience has taught me to be extremely wary of such evangelical fervour. I find cynicism a more substantial shield than delusion.

      We saw – and still find – this near-religious belief in consequence-free action among those I have branded ‘The Postponers’. That is to say, those who adhere to Pete Wishart’s faith in the existence of an ‘Optimum Time’ (for a new independence referendum) which will come to us as surely as the dawn if only we take patience to a ‘higher plane’ where it morphs into a kind of intellectual hibernation. Just as ‘The Postponers’ will not entertain questions about the implications of delay, so believers in the pure power of the list party cannot abide to have their dogma challenged.

      But those of us who are disinclined to abandon their intellectual capacity for the false comfort of religious faith realise that actions always have consequences. And that, especially dealing with people, and even more so when dealing with people en masse, there is no necessary mechanical relationship between the action and its consequences. People are complicated. Relationships between and among people are complicated. The relationships between deeds and their effects could hardly be the exception that the faithful need theirs to be.

      The consequences for Scotland’s cause of abandoning the SNP as the lever by which our nation’s independence will be restored are potentially catastrophic. To contemplate any action which has this effect must be to gamble with the cause. One might sensibly argue that the consequences are minor. One cannot sensibly assert the absence of any consequences. To sensibly argue that the consequences are minor one would necessarily have to identify those consequences and make a persuasive case for them being trivial. One would also be obliged to rule out all other possible and possibly more serious consequences. This would be a rational response to those who question the proposed action. This would, in fact, be the rational approach to formulating the proposal. Healthy cynicism bids one question everything, first and foremost one’s own preconceptions and prejudices.

      This is most assuredly NOT what is happening either in the case of the indefinite postponement of a new referendum or as regards a list party ‘strategy’ to flood the Scottish Parliament with pro-independence MSPs.

      The list party strategy is being sold entirely and exclusively on the basis of a presumed highly desirable effect. Look at this wonderful outcome! Would you like to have this wonderful outcome? Then do as we say without question! The strategy is presumed to be ‘The Solution’ in the same way that the Union is presumed by Unionists to be the ideal constitutional settlement. Its wondrousness does not have to be proved. It just is!

      I’m not buying it! Being more open-minded than adherents to the faith, I accept that it is possible the strategy might work. If absolutely everything goes as its proponents insist it will and if absolutely nothing deviates from that in the slightest way there is a theoretical possibility that the outcome might be some approximation of that which is promised. Being a cynic, however, I am bound to observe that this would not be characteristic of the real world. If things don’t always go wrong then the precautionary principle demands that we assume many things will go wrong. We plan for reality. No matter how dull and boring that may be.

      I am an ‘ordinary’ person to the same extent that any of us conform to such a standard. I am a citizen of Scotland and a voter. I am not untypical of the people who must be persuaded if the list party strategy is to have any chance of working in the way its advocates insist it will. Not only am I not persuaded, but no effort is being made to persuade me. The list party strategy is being SOLD to me, but nobody is making a persuasive rational case for it. It is being sold to me in the same way as online adverts try to sell solutions which will transform your ten-year-old Dell laptop into a super-computer. Look at what it does! Don’t ask how it does it! And definitely don’t wonder out loud how something powerful enough to do what is promised can have no side-effects.

      Open as I am to the idea that the list party strategy MIGHT work in something like the way promised I cannot accept that it is the ideal solution. Because not being blinkered by a prior commitment to this novel strategy I am unable to ignore the other strategy. The one we’ve had for as long as might as well be forever. The one we have used before. The one that is tried and tested. The one that has been examined and scrutinised and interrogated and found to have no significant deleterious consequences. The one which, even if it hasn’t been entirely successful up to now, at least has a well-established potential to bring success. Nobody, as far as I can tell, is arguing that using the SNP as the tool with which to restore Scotland’s independence cannot work. Nobody – other perhaps that the odd obvious nutter – is suggesting that using this tool that we have already fashioned for the purpose would risk catastrophe for Scotland’s cause. The thing about using the SNP as has always been the intention is that if it fails, it fails safe.

      That there are problems with the SNP is undeniable. I would be the last person to deny it. I have hardly been anyone’s idea of the party loyalist. But I don’t look at the faults and failings and immediately assume the tool is fucked beyond any possible utility. I ask WHY it is not working. Or has not worked. And I conclude that it hasn’t worked because we are not using it properly. As is so often the case, it’s user-error. Rectify the user-error and we have the powerful tool we need. It is not necessary to go running around looking for an alternative. What we have is perfectly adequate for the task. What we have would be ideal if we applied our energies to deploying it in such a way as to realise its potential. And if it still fails, it fails safe. Or at least relatively safe.

      I ask questions. All the time, I ask questions. I hope and strive to ask every possible question. And to recognise every possible answer. That won’t happen. But I find it a useful way of approaching problems. For example, I ask what is the worst possible outcome of the next Scottish Parliament election. (I trust we’re all agreed that this should be our focus at the moment.) I identify the worst possible outcome as the British parties retaking control of our Parliament. That is the stuff of nightmares for anyone who cares about Scotland. The alternative to an SNP administration is a ‘Scottish’ Tory government serving its masters in London without the slightest regard for the interests of the people of Scotland. It’s a no-brainer! Whatever else the Yes movement does as a force in Scottish politics we MUST ensure a decisive win for the SNP in 2021 – or whenever the election is held.

      This is so important, so crucial, that it must be the focus of all our energies. We simply cannot afford to give the slightest impression that it is not vital to vote SNP. It doesn’t matter if we’re saying its OK not to vote SNP in the regional vote only, there is no way of avoiding this message spilling over into the constituency campaign. That is just one of the consequences that the list party advocates decline to address. It is a consequence which cannot sensibly be dismissed, The situation is such that even a small negative effect on the SNP vote could have massive implications.

      Naturally, I also ask what would be the best outcome of the next Holyrood election. The outcome I, would wish for both in the context of good governance and in consideration of the fight to restore Scotland’s independence. The outcome I identify is a massive victory for the SNP. A substantial majority necessarily made up of both constituency and regional seats. Ideally, 50%+ in both votes. Thus we create the lever that will be strong enough to break open the British state and allow Scotland to escape the Union.

      It is the ONLY way we can create such a lever. Even if the list strategy worked perfectly and didn’t lose us the pro-independence majority and SNP administration it’s outcome would NOT produce a lever such as the SNP might be. We are working within the British political system. We have no choice but to do so. That is what there is until we can create and fully implement a system of our own. The British political system responds only to brute strength. It is vulnerable only to brute strength as typified by first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections. It follows that in order to break the British state in the ways that we must be strong according to the criteria recognised by the British political system. That means channelling all our strength through one party. And only the SNP can serve this purpose.

      This is NOT a proposal for a one-party state as some exceptionally shallow people may shrilly insist. It is a one-party solution to a particular problem. A problem which cannot otherwise be resolved.

      A ‘Rainbow Parliament’ may sound wonderful. There is good reason to suppose it would be wonderful. Or pretty good. There is cause to suppose this is what will arise as Scotland develops a distinctive political ethos. But a multi-party situation would be utterly useless to the independence movement. Worse than useless. It would maximise potential divisions of the kind that the British political elite is so adept at exploiting. It just wouldn’t have the clout. It wouldn’t work. So, even if the list party strategy succeeds in it own terms, it inevitably fails in terms of restoring Scotland’s independence. And there’s always the other consequences – up to and including the risk of losing the SNP administration and/or the pro-independence majority, both of which are vital.

      The worst thing about the alternative party proposals is not the disregarded potential consequences. The worst this is not the risk involved. The worst thing is that it is pointless. It is unnecessary. It serves no purpose. Not so long as we have and use the SNP. The worst thing is not that the tool we’re being offered is a very poor tool. The worst thing is that we are being asked to shun the tool that we know with something approaching absolute certainty can be effective IF WE USE IT WELL!

      In arguing for the novelty of their wondrous solution the advocates of the various ‘cunning plans’ that have proliferated since 2014 point with bitterness at the SNP’s failures over that same period. The opportunities that have been missed. This argument only has persuasive power to the extent that we assume the SNP is necessarily like this. That it must inevitably fail us. That it will always miss opportunities. That the way things have been is the way they must always be. That the Yes movement – including SNP members – lacks the power to change things. If that is the case, Scotland’s cause is doomed.

      If the Yes movement lacks the power to influence its own de facto political arm what possible hope might there be that we might influence affairs such as to bring our government home and build a better Scotland and create a better society and follow our aspirations rather than being driven by our fears. If we cannot harness the effective political power of the SNP in the service of Scotland’s cause then the question must be asked whether we are even fit to call ourselves the sovereign people of Scotland.


  2. I have commented on your posts and ASKED and PLEADED with the SNP membership to take back control of the party , as a non member but a voter for the SNP I have ONLY 1 route to show my disgust , anger and feeling of being betrayed by a party that’s raison detre is supposedly independence and that is to NOT vote for them
    I have stated on here and on other blogs that the SNP hierarchy are basically BLACKMAILING independence supporters , they and their members ridiculing non member voters by threatening that if you don’t vote SNP and NS you will get a yoonionist party in government and indy is gone , that is self explanatory

    You and other SNP members want to berate and ridicule people who are so disgusted by the clusterfuck that is the current situation that they are attempting to divert around it and show their determination to gain our independence , yet that honest determination has to be mocked and denigrated because it might ( may , possibly ) affect the SNP vote

    I ask you with respect Mr Bell WTAF are the membership of the SNP doing to rectify the clusterfuck , the absence of ANY ROUTE to independence , the capitulation and subservience of our sovereignty by the FM , the lack of ANY legal challenge to the ICJ , the refusal to be taken out of the EU against our expressed wishes , the reviled and abhorred GRA and HATE LAWS and so on and so on

    I have read of MANY members writing and complaining to the hierarchy and to NS herself but still the clusterfuck goes on , amplified by Wishart , Nicolson , Smith and others blocking members and ignoring them on twatter

    So quite honestly unless and until the MEMBERSHIP take back control of the SNP party and address the clusterfuck people will resort to desperate measures , DON’T BLAME THE VOTERS FOR WANTING INDEPENDENCE BLAME THE SNP AND NS FOR NOT GIVING US THE CHANCE TO GET IT

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I don’t think we can accuse Peter.A.Bell of not questioning SNP leadership!
      He recently resigned from SNP over its lack of drive for Independence.

      However, the threat of a new List Party, is creating a bit of a stir across the YES movement. Some support the idea, others unsure.
      But I think we need something.
      The reason some are going the List only route, is to avoid splitting the main Constituency votes. We saw that happen when the Greens stood in Edinburgh Central, which they had next to no chance of winning, but did get enough votes to stop SNP winning, and we ended up with Ruth Davidson. I think she would still have got into Parliament even if she didn’t get the votes, as she must have been on the tory List. I’d be surprised if she wasn’t on it as a fallback. But it did deprive us of an additional pro Independence MSP.
      It must be noted, Patrick Harvie also stood in a Constituency, in the center of Glasgow (Kelvin), but thankfully the SNP got more than enough votes to prevent a similar split and giving us another Unionist by default. But I thought it a high risk move on his part. He was always going to get in with the List anyway, at that time at least. Not so sure he will make it thru so easy next time, if at all.

      So I get those concerns, but as I have said elsewhere, I don’t see how List only groups can threaten SNP, and (pro Independence), as it stands. I would like to think it would help matters along.
      Much depends on the credibility of any such new List group, and just now, we don’t know if others will turn up who might have greater clout, or if this new group becomes something stronger than it is at the moment.
      I’m guessing there might well be others. But all that remains to be seen in the days and weeks to come.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Just to correct any misapprehension, I did not resign from the SNP. AT one point I fully intended to. But actually doing it was delayed for reasons I have no need to explain. Suffice it to say that I was persuaded by third parties as well as my own cool judgement that I should retain the ability to speak as a party member for the time being.

        I have nothing to say about the rest that I have not already said to no avail.


    2. My point, had the red mist of rage no obscured it from you, is precisely that the SMP membership and the Yes movement aren’t doing enough to get the party back on track. My point is that we should put our energies into this. My point is that this would be a considerably more sensible option than venting your frustration in blind disregard for – or dumb denial of – the potential consequences.

      My fucking point that you miss by an astronomical distance because you can’t be arsed taking a moment to read what I’ve written and understand it is that I AM BLAMING THE SNP, you fucking cretin! But instead of just blaming then and then going in a self-destructive strop, I propose to fix the fucking problem! Because I’m a fucking grown-up and not a fucking petulant child!


  3. I absolutely agree that we have to give the SNP, as the only party capable of delivering independence, one final chance to get it right. They need to be made aware that we want them, if they win the SE in 2021, to move immediately to a position where they can deliver independence and negotiate the fair, equitable and equal return oil powers and assets. Another Independence Party arising was always on the cards, mainly because it is the established pattern when the main party stalls and is going nowhere. The main mistake made was to translate the NO vote into something that had to be placated and pandered to, instead of identifying its rabid, selfish and anti Scottish core as utterly detrimental to our future.

    This pursuit of a second indyref – any indyref – was always going to become the stumbling block that it is. In Wings today, a tweeter is shown who actually says that, even if the independence movement led to a huge majority of independence seats but not a majority in the polls (and, extrapolated, he probably means, not in an indyref) that would negate independence. This is what pursuing a pre independence referendum has led to: the overwhelming assumption that, without an indyref sanctioned by Westminster, our independence has no meaning. How on earth have we allowed this to happen? Any referendum is supremely unnecessary in law; we have the Treaty of Union, which may be resiled. I think, like the ‘woke’ brigade at the heart of the SNP right now, many have refused to contemplate any other way to independence except by means of a pre independence referendum and that has gained traction to the point where it has taken on mythical status, and all because NO voters must be placated. Why? Presumably, because they can issue a call to arms if they are thwarted? That is why it is absolutely essential for us to remove independence from the domestic arena after 2021, and, preferably, before then.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. There is so much that is right about this that I had to like it despite the stuff about the Treaty. What you say about the obsession with one process is so true. The SNP and a very large part of the Yes movement has been blinded by this obsession. The ‘cunning plans’ of all kinds are tokens of the frustration this obsession has engendered. Frustration is not a great aid to clear thinking. As is evident from the foolishness of these ‘cunning plans’. And for the fact that so many are determinedly ignoring the obvious solution. Well said!


  4. Peter, I have to agree with Robert above. At the last election ( from memory) I think the SNP received something like a million votes in the list and won one seat. Any independence party who only fights in the list is absolutely no threat to the SNP. Again, in the last election, it was the list seats that brought a resurgence in the unionist parties. One only has to look at the Scottish government figures for the election to see just how many independence votes were wasted by voting SNP in the list seats. You say “that it is precisely at this moment of unique and almost certainly never to be repeated opportunity” I would ask you, what opportunity? You yourself have slated the SNP for wasted opportunities so what makes you believe that the SNP are about to miraculously change course.
    The SNP have laid out their policy on independence and that is simply to continue to ask the UK to grant a section 30. Something which will never happen. It is at the stage now, that if Sturgeon does not go soon then it will be the case that any new party will have to fight the next election in direct competition to the SNP.


    1. I don’t believe in magic and I don’t do faith. Take that as your starting point when you try to sell me one of those ‘cunning plans’.

      FFS! How can you not see the utter stupidity of arguing that the SNP needs to change its approach to the constitutional issue but that the one thing you are absolutely NOT prepared to do is make the effort to bring about that change? I have tried very hard to encourage people to take a rational, analytical approach to politics. To engage with politics intellectually rather than emotionally. I read comments such as yours and feel a profound sense of failure.


      1. I am not advocating “magic” Peter. I am advocating common sense. I seem to remember you arguing for the SNP to change their constitutional approach and I wonder if perhaps I have been reading a parody blog instead of yours as I did not realise your thoughts were that everything is honky dory in the SNP. You attitude it seems to me is very contradictory . I do seem to remember that the criticism you have been levelling at the SNP of late was rather late in coming and I remember making a comment one on one of your rants that you had decided belatedly to take the road to Damascus. Can I suggest that if you are intent on being a serious commentator on the independence issue, you firstly stop calling people who disagree with you stupid and secondly try to adopt a less contradictory mindset? Otherwise, you leave it open to your readers to form their own opinions of the definitions of stupidity.


          1. Seeing as Peter seems to be intent on insulting people and has a mind-block on the regional voting system, I thought I would offer this, taken from “An Independent Scotland” blog site. It gives all the figures for both the Constituency votes and the Regional ( list). There is a hell of a lot of information in this particular blog but perhaps the most pertinent chapter is this one ( which I have altered slightly as he used the greens as an example) I have used party X.
            Taken from “An Independent Scotland” blog site
            Conclusion in the 2016 election, if only 50% of people voting had given their regional vote (second or list vote) to one particular party.

            Option for those of you who would prefer the largest pro-indy majority possible in Parliament then you may wish to consider giving X your 2nd vote. Just for fun let’s see what would have happened if 50% of the SNP list vote had instead gone to X. Parliament would look like this…
             SNP – 59 seats
             X – 27 seats
             Con – 22 seats
             Lab – 17 seats
             LD – 4 seats
            That would have meant an independence-minded parliament of 86 independence against 42 Unionist

            These are simple facts. If you would like to dispute this Peter then do so and if you wish to check for accuracy then feel free to go to the blog site and the blog below. It explains every single result in the 2016 Scottish elections.

            D’hondt Vote Until You’ve Read This
            May 10, 2019


            1. Why only assume 50%? Why not 60%? Or 80%? Or 100%? Fuck it! Since it appears you’re allowed to assume whatever you want, why not assume x gets every single vote cast? The one thing which we’re apparently NOT allowed to assume is that these cunning plan parties will perform mush as new parties have in the past. Let’s not muddy the waters with evidence and analysis! Let’s just use that ‘special’ arithmetic where 2 plus whatever number you choose equals whatever number you need!


              1. Peter, you seem intent on fathoming the depths of illogicality in your ramblings., You speak about evidence without, it seems the realisation that you can’t have evidence for something that has not happened. What you do have is a thought-out scenario which can work and I have suggested where to look to see this perfectly feasible outcome. You have decided not to do this, or at the very least have decided not to comment on it.
                Now as far as evidence is concerned in relation to the SNP, of that there is an abundance, in respect of the way they have deliberately put off any move towards independence and deliberately failed to use the mandates they said they needed to progress independence over the last five and a half years. This despite people like yourself being members, proof indeed that they do not listen to the membership, and you actually think they are just going to roll over and change because you wrote a blog in which you say you think they will. You need to get a grip.
                You really should take a breath and just think of what you are saying because it just doesn’t make sense


                1. Just so you know, I’m ignoring you. now. All your comments do is evidence a profound lack of comprehension. That and the fact that you take great pride in that lack of comprehension. You will never be able to address the point I’m making because you will never understand it. And it is a crucial point. So, best I waste no more time and attention on you.


  5. When I made the comment quoted above the intention was to find out why a list party is a bad idea. If there is a genuine risk I’d like to hear it instead of the Chicken Little comments with little or no substance. If I wanted those there are plenty of outlets to choose from.

    Gordon Keane so far has provided the best information with the Ruth Davidson case. Well I’d like to hear more examples as both sides are really not delivering – though the why not’s are slightly ahead at this point.

    Thanks Peter for pushing this as a bad idea. It probably is for a whole host of reasons. It’s also worth exploring for a whole host of reasons. The first of which might be “what does it really take to get a party off the ground”. It’s all good ammunition for the travails that await on the road ahead.


    1. These ‘cunning plans’ are NOT worth exploring. They are a pointless distraction. Pointless because the very best that they might achieve in the highly unlikely event that they are as brilliant as is claimed by those who devised them and have none of the unfortunate side-effects that are being glossed over is to give us no more than what we already have and can readily keep simply be doing what we did to get what we have.

      The idea that these list parties are going to pressure the SNP leadership in any way is an obvious fallacy. If you bother to think about it. Even supposing these list parties managed to get candidates elected – and that is massively unlikely – then they will only have any influence at all so long as there is an SNP administration. A couple of MSPs from fringe parties will be chocolate teapots in a Scottish Parliament dominated by the British parties. But, and this is the point that requires some actual thought, they will also be chocolate teapots as far as the SNP administration is concerned.

      That is why it is the SNP we have to focus on. If we do not force the SNP to change its approach to the constitutional issue then we’ll end up after the election with the same approach as we have now but with a couple of nominally pro-independence MSPs constantly sniping from the sidelines. That’s IF the diluted and confusing message to voters doesn’t result in parliamentary arithmetic that the British parties can exploit.

      These ‘cunning plans’ necessarily fail in terms of real-world politics even if they succeed in their own fantastical terms!

      I vowed I wasn’t wasting any more time on the ‘cunning plan cults’. So I’ll finish with yet another bit of the thinking that the cultists consider an unnecessary strain on their minds. Suppose the ‘cunning plans’ succeed spectacularly. Suppose the outcome was as per the wildest dreams of the ‘cunning plan cult’ leaders. Suppose we end up with a Scottish Parliament flooded with pro-independence MSPs many of whom got there by what will inevitably be portrayed as ‘cheating’. What do you suppose might be the British state’s response? We know they want rid of the Scottish Parliament. We know they’re planning to cripple and/or close it. Why the fuck would they NOT seize on this as an opportunity to do what they so desperately want to do?

      And before anybody jumps in imagining I have thought of it, I am well aware that the British state can wipe devolution away with the stroke of a pen. But why then would we create circumstances that make it easier for them to do so? Why would we provide them with a way out of whatever political restraints there are?

      The whole fucking thing just hasn’t been thought through.


      1. Peter, you might have noticed that the SNP have had numerous “clever plans” none of which came to fruition. I find it difficult to believe that you are virtually advocating a one-party state. The present “clever plan” which you have vehemently criticised, is to keep on asking for a section 30, therefore, you are suggesting that we all throw our lot in with a party who through your own admission is leading us up a one-way street with a dead-end at the top of it,
        By the way, if you look at the devolution settlement you will see that the only way the Scottish parliament can be scrapped is by the Scottish people voting for it in, guess what? a referendum.


  6. ..”I find it remarkable – were I given to conspiracy theories I might say suspicious – that it is precisely at this moment of unique and almost certainly never to be repeated opportunity that we are being actively encouraged to withdraw support from the SNP and turn to some cobbled-together ‘alternative’.”..

    It’s been right in front of your nose (and many others) for quite some time now what exactly was going on, on that other site and yet you continued to exacerbate the situation by constantly attacking Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP in general. Take some responsibility for what’s happening now. Worse still what may happen next.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.