Is wheeshting an answer? Is wheeshting a solution? Was it wheeshting which got our Parliament reconvened? Was it wheeshting that took that Parliament away from the British parties? Was it wheeshting that got us the first independence referendum? Was it wheeshting that gave birth to the Yes movement? Was it wheeshting which doubled support for the restoration of Scotland’s independence?
When was wheeshting ever an effective way of bringing about meaningful change? What great social reform was ever achieved by wheeshting?
Would I remain silent in the face of the British Nationalist threat to Scotland if that was the only way to avert that threat? Perhaps I would. But it is for those who tell me to ‘Wheesht for Indy’ to persuade me that my silence would somehow contribute to saving Scotland from that threat when the only evident beneficiaries of my silence are those who have demonstrated their unwillingness to pursue the only thing that can save Scotland – the restoration of our independence.
Will I remain silent as the SNP leadership’s apologists – such as Paul Kavanagh-Mosson – hurl straw man arguments, gross misrepresentations and downright lies at myself and the growing number of others who are in total despair of the party we helped elect ever doing what we we elected it to do – work for the restoration of Scotland’s independence?
Will I fuck!
I make no apology for the expletive. I express myself as I think appropriate and this is the least that is called for in the circumstances. Those whose priority is to evade the real issue will, as always, seek to make my ‘manner’ the issue instead. Let them! Were I to refrain from swearing they would only find another way to evade the issue. Tossing out a couple of wee sweary words sorts the cowardly evasive chaff from the serious straw quickly and efficiently.
I express myself thus mainly because that is precisely how I feel. And I believe in being honest about my views. Although were I to be completely honest about my attitude to the ‘Wheesht for Indy’ mob, this article would be unreadable. They started out as the self-righteous, self-regarding, self-appointed guardians of ‘The One True Yes’ when the movement was still finding its many voices. They were the sanctimonious priests of the happy-clappy cult of positivity who patrolled social media like vigilantes hunting down anyone who said anything that might not have been said by Pete Wishart; beating them into submission and silence with an armoury of trite apothegms and couthy clichés and glib admonitions to remain true to that magical form of words which would convert every No to Yes. A form of words which remains a mystery to this day. A ‘better independence message’ that is apparently still to be found or formulated.
These volunteer sheriffs of Twittersville and unauthorised constables of Zuckerburgh have now been deputised as the Bute House palace guard. They infest social media like the ants which sally forth to defend the nest – and the queen – from any perceived threat. And you don’t have to do much to be perceived as a threat. All it takes is one slightly awkward question. I have hundreds of them! And I will not wheesht until I get answers!
Iain Lawson makes the point very well. The questions and concerns about the leadership and management of the SNP are not going to go away. The thing about the ‘Wheesht for Indy’ mob that irks as much as their supercilious prating is that their efforts are inevitable futile. If the tactic of shouting down those who scrutinise and challenge the political establishment was effective then there never would have been any great social or political reform. Women didn’t get the vote by obediently shutting up when ordered to do so by the men (and women!) who were quite comfortable with the ways things were. Women’s suffrage came about largely because significant numbers of women (and some men!) wouldn’t wheesht! Instead, they shouted loud enough and long enough to make the status quo distinctly uncomfortable.
Those women and countless reformers before and since persisted in the face of torments far greater than the calumnious yapping of a wee ginger dog. They wouldn’t wheesht. And neither will those of us whose only intent is to save Scotland’s cause and the party that is the essential political arm of that cause from what ails it. There is something very, very wrong in the upper echelons of the SNP. Contrary to Kavanagh’s inane and rather frantic-sounding lies, we are not seeking to bring the party down. We know that we cannot afford for the SNP to fail. And it is failing! Kavanagh and his ‘Wheesht for Indy!’ cronies are deluding themselves. And we can no more allow ourselves to be placated by that delusion than we can sit silent while Scotland’s cause is sacrificed on the altar of partisan devotion and wishful thinking.
No! I will not ‘Wheesht for Indy!’ I will shout and yell and scream for the restoration of Scotland’s independence until I lack the breath to make a sound.
If you find these articles at all interesting or thought-provoking, please consider sharing it with your contacts or making a small donation to help maintain and improve this site.
20 thoughts on “Will I ‘Wheesht for Indy’?”
NO FUCKING SEC30 !
FUCKING RECALL ALL MP’s TO HOLYROOD TO CONVENE ON SCOTLANDS FUTURE !
LETS GET TAE FUCK !
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shout loud and proud Peter. Many are with you now. One of your more scathing articles from the heart which was aj joy to read and simultaneously miserable to believe. More power to your keyboard Peter.
Well said Peter.
WGD didn’t mention anyone by name in his article, but you did him the discourtesy of doing so in yours. Many times.
It means he is able to make a general point, whereas all you are able to do is make ad hominems.
Basically speaking that makes you his inferior, as if he didn’t exist you’d have had nothing to write about.
Hoist by your own petard here Peter.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Fuck me but you slaver some monumental pish. Here is my conclusion. Observe as I demonstrate how I can make anything at all lead to that conclusion. Did I not say I was going to ignore your silliness? If not, I’m saying it now.
QED. Game set and match to me, I believe.
I didn’t think it was possible for you to get more infantile. Well done, sonny!
I always did like your humour, not a lot of people get it 😎
Peter is not the only blogger to make mention f the Paul Kavanagh article.
And the WGD post was a very obvious rebuke to the likes of Peter A. Bell, and Wings, etc, as well as to others.
Such as those others who write posts critical of SNP strategy in The Glasgow Herald, or in The National…… and that, these days, is a lot of folks!
What do you suggest we all do? Say nothing?
But when someone with a widely read Blog such as WGD, puts out a post that misrepresents what others have actually said, then it is to be expected, those others will respond.
The fact is, current SNP policy for Independence is never going to work.
It is holding this country back, and allowing the tories, (and their allies) to do as they please.
It is not those who ask the questions who are in danger of consigning us to endless tory rule, but the SNP Leadership, doing absolutely nothing in the face of Westminster oppression!
Senior SNP politicians girn off forever, and ever, week after week, month after month about one “outrageous” London policy after the other, and what good does it do?
What Westminster does, it does, and cares not in the slightest for anything Scottish politicians say. The can grin and girn and girn as much as they like, but London doesn’t care one wee bit!
We need action from SNP, not words.
No one wants to see SNP fail, but the Party is in danger of betraying this country the way it is going on.
That is the reality of it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gordon, the WGD article wasn’t inspired by Peter, it wasn’t even inspired by Wings, It was because of a poster that had come on to a previous thread saying they thought the SNP were actually against Independence. I think the response article was a bit of a mistake, and said that in not so many words “But please WGD, keep this as a haven from the Sturgeon wars for non-participants”. But it’s not easy to stay out, when effectively personally challenged.
I agree with Alin below – take the best of both arguments (according to own beliefs as well). But the general rule should be same as in old UseNet for me or MB days for others who could afford a one bit per second phone call – address the argument NOT the person.
Aye! Imagine that, hawd yer wheesht.
Growing up , early years ,had plenty of training in Hawding my wheesht.
Don’t speak until spoken to.
Sunday school or high headyin from the Kirk is paying a visit.
On and on Hawding my wheesht.
Then I broke out and gave that up
To many with their own agenda’s and hypocrisies.
To hawd yer wheesht, is to demean yersel.
Telling it like it is , is a healthy option
Good for mental well-being.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You said “we are not seeking to bring the party down”, Peter.
I think you should have said “i” instead of “we”.
A lot of the bad feeling just now is because there are plenty online posters precisely trying to bring the party down, and a lot of genuine posters cant seem to see this. There are folk egging on genuine indy folk that are no friends of the movement.
The day after Westminster effectually shut down devolution, and virtually no blogs are posting about it.
Beware the enemy within.
There is a reason I no longer read WGD but still visit this site daily…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anyways, the thing is this. Peter A Bell, like his articles or not, agree or not, is a genuine poster, and is prepared to hold points of view that are not the “norm”. This makes the articles worth reading, even if not to agree with. And of course for anyone with an open mind, it might make people question what exactly IS the norm? As I’ve said elsewhere, if there wasn’t a Peter A Bell, we’d have to invent him.
But it is similar with WGD. What is a pity is when one point of view tries to suppress another, and “we” have seen this with a previous blog war, where both blogs suffered as a result, though they might not think so.
It needs all the blogs, and the differences are what make them even more interesting. Disagree strongly for instance with a certain Bath-based blog, but first ask ourselves the question – did an article make us think? Personally I couldn’t be bothered with the below the line nonsense; I do have an info only wordpress but the first thing I did was turn off comments.
In a way it comes down to this: if we don’t like a blog or a blogger THEN DO IT OURSELVES.
Better late than never Peter, was trying to tell you since 2014, it’s frustrating isn’t it?
My sentiments exactly.
I like WGD but the blog has turned into an apologia for Sturgeon. Any criticism and you are hounded out as a Brit- Nat.
Anyway, changing tack. The guardian have done an article on Dougie Ross who doesn’t think there is any conflict in him approaching Scottish football clubs to arrange a zoom meeting or something to ascertain the impact on clubs when fans are excluded. Apparently, he sees no conflict cause be attends police meetings and his wife is in the police. Is this man a complete idiot. The next time a club who didnt attend the meeting or lacked enthusiasm will know who to blame if they get a dodgy decision and Ross is officiating.
Reblogged this on New Scotland.
I read WGD article which set me thinking, then I read this article which also sent me thinking. I now think the answer may be to do as PAB says whilst having an eye on WGD comments – no reason not to take best of both arguments.
The thing I really hate most of all from the SNP leadership is the silence. Too much is at stake to simply believe all is in hand, we need some feedback. Why on earth would we want a referendum when those No’s we need have not been told a single answer to the questions raised in 2014.
Hate crime bills, named persons bill and so on, sap energy and resources but most importantly cost votes – why is the leadership so inherently stupid? Leave these until indy has been achieved and focus all resources on independence.
One thing is for definite, if we lose – SNP will be finished overnight.
As independentistas we all want to achieve the same outcome. That said, the evidence of subterfuge by the current leadership is being exposed by the day and it inflames my sense of the injustice regarding the mistreatment of AS. We need action and results not more hot air from the leadership. As for the WGD he expresses an opinion that I disagree with but he is entitled to say what he thinks is right even when he’s barking up the wrong tree. If the leadership doesnt listen to the membership it is time for them to move aside. I have always been concerned of the threat of an inside job which would destroy the party from within but everyone will form your own view as to what’s happening. As for your blog Peter…. superb as usual. & FS30
LikeLiked by 1 person