I would totally agree with those who say that Nicola Sturgeon is by far the best leader of a political party in the UK and probably the best First Minister we could have hoped for in these times. Although looking at those other leaders this must be considered faint praise. The bar is low. But Nicola Sturgeon clears it by a very large margin indeed.
Having said that, I am not so shallow-minded as to suppose that because she is unquestionably a very fine First Minister in general terms she must perforce be regarded as infallible. Far too many people refuse to countenance any criticism of any aspect of her performance. Far too many people appear to consider it unthinkable that Sturgeon should be subject to the same scrutiny as would be considered essential in all other cases. This is stupid and dangerous. Putting any politician or party above scrutiny is arguably the most serious dereliction of our democratic duty as citizens.
I find no contradiction whatever in acknowledging Nicola Sturgeon’s superiority to other political leaders in the UK (and beyond!) while also recognising that she has performed very poorly on the constitutional issue. I am unable to deny the evidence and the observable reality of Scotland’s predicament. Taking all relevant factors into account, we are further from restoring Scotland’s independence than we were ten years ago. Support for Yes has not increased at all in the eight years since Nicola Sturgeon became the de facto leader of Scotland’s independence movement. And this while she herself stressed the importance of persuading people about independence. According to the best evidence we have, she persuaded not a single person.
Sturgeon is not short of talent. Neither is she lacking apologists who make it their mission to rationalise and excuse every failing and failure ─ all too often refusing to even admit even the possibility failings and failures. This is totally irresponsible. It is this neglect of scrutiny which has allowed the independence campaign to stagnate. And I say this as one who, as a member of the party and conference delegate at a critical time, is as guilty as anyone in this regard.
I realised my error and have been working to try and make amends. Others too are waking up to the reality of where Scotland’s cause stands right now. There has to be a change of approach to the constitutional issue. Hard as it may be for some to swallow, Nicola Sturgeon may be a fine First Minister, but as leader of the independence movement she has been abysmal.
Peter A Bell 
She might be the best violinist in the ship’s orchestra but the Titanic is still going to sink.
A more fundamental issue is that leadership is now a matter of presentation not substance. Just witness Truss’ attempts to emulate Johnson and capitalize on Thatcher’s image with various photo ops. Sturgeon is good at playing this game but for a country that aspires to go it’s own way that’s poor fayre indeed. A lot of difficult problems will need resolving and sound bites and optics are not going to cut it.
LikeLiked by 8 people
Spot on, Stuart. It is now a world-wide phenomenon that those who govern should be largely populist and puddle-deep. Nicola Sturgeon will never be the person to take us to independence – unless someone hands it to her on a plate, and, even then, I would doubt that she has a clue about what comes after. She accidentally hits on something popular, as Trump did, and claims the glory. For Scotland’s real needs, she has been a disaster. Basically, she is a moral coward and charlatan on so many fronts, this ‘feminist to my fingertips’ FM. I know it’s easy to say that when seated before the computer keyboard, but almost all that she has done has either been Labour policy beforehand or so unpopular as to be toxic. Vaulting and, ultimately, empty, ambition has been her watchword.
LikeLiked by 3 people
To be fair, it’s not Sturgeon’s fault she’s just playing the game the way it’s supposed to be played and skilfully too. The blame should really goes to Bill Clinton and then Tony Blair and everybody who had a hand in “centralisation” and the idea that politicians would rely on a meritocracy of experts to guide their decisions. As Robin McAlpine states, http://robinmcalpine.org/understand-this-crisis-or-it-will-eat-us-all/, the meritocracy part got co-opted by the self-promoters and kleptocrats. Now we are left with an entire cohort of politicians and administrations, all across The West, who are strong on presentation and entirely absent on substance. Once these are swept away by the change that is coming, we’ll have a decent shot at competent government in an independent country.
LikeLike
Don’t underestimate the importance of presentation and optics. A leader needn’t necessarily be the brains of the organisation. But they have to be the public face. The brains can always brief the face.
LikeLike
Except that the ‘brains’? don’t – and she wouldn’t listen if they did, Peter.
LikeLiked by 3 people
What a load of biased bile! Take off, at least, one of your eye-patches and look at her record in government. OK, maybe she has not, as yet, achieved our independence, but I would hate to think what Scotland would be like now had Tory or Labour been in power.
LikeLike
Maybe you should have read the article before commenting.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“I would hate to think what Scotland would be like now had Tory or Labour been in power.”
Irrespective of who sits in Bute Hoose, its always the same Whitehall appointed civil servants and heads of a myriad of state agencies spending the same budget year after year in the UKs Scotland Department. Until independence is achieved, Scotland will always be run and controlled by those with an allegiance to the British state, nae maitter wha is FM.
If anything, the performance of this FM and her ‘government’ has been much worse than ‘usual’, ferries for instance, but tak yer pick on most policy areas, including the constitutional inertia, meekly accepting an enforced brexit, funding the unionist press, funding stonewall, dubious civil service investigation into former FM, malicious prosecutions, promoting oppressive legislation the party membership never voted for – HCB, GRA etc, ignoring policies the party members did vote for, the NEC ‘fixing’, positions only for ‘friends’ of the elite, no national energy company, selling off wind energy leases cheap, trying to get rid of jury trials, drugs deaths, prisons full, poverty rising, educational attainment?, nae Scots Language Act?, £600k woven in the accounts, banning protests outside Holyrood, dire economic performance? SNP membership has left the building, COP26 missed ‘national’ opportunity, wasted mandates, wasted majorities, no vision, etc . I’m sure other folk can think of more failures, there’s a long list.
“a fine First Minister” or a hopeless tyrant?
LikeLike
Jeez! Another proto-unionist.
In terms of the most glaring “unionist”/”malcontent” arguments;
“ferries for instance” –
– well done on picking up the unionist narrative and promoting it. The SNP govt saved that shipyard, saved its jobs and gave it prestigious orders. That it has overspent is regrettable but not unusual. The Tories/malcontents portray it as a uniquely Scottish govt thing while forgetting ALL the UK govt “failures”. Like the aircraft carriers that cost over £2bn more than budgeted for, to the extent they couldn’t afford aircraft for them.
“the constitutional inertia” –
– a matter of opinion. Not one proper unionists usually trot out.
“meekly accepting an enforced brexit” –
– they vociferously opposed it, as malcontents are usually quick to point out when attacking them. Now, apparently, they didn’t oppose it enough. The whole point was to show Scots actual evidence before their eyes of the damage the union does to Scotland.
“funding the unionist press” –
– they funded “the press”. That most of it is unionist is just a fact of life. Again, it was to show the people of Scotland how “fair” the Scottish govt is. Whether you think it was a good idea or not is, again, a matter of opinion.
“funding stonewall” –
– they fund a lot of charities. Perhaps you should supply them with a list of your “approved” charities.
“dubious civil service investigation into former FM” –
– they could hardly show favour to a former FM while shining a light on Westminster shenanigans. There were mistakes but the accusations had to be investigated. To ignore them would have been hypocritical, damaging and illegal.
“promoting oppressive legislation the party membership never voted for – HCB, GRA etc” –
– right wing, conservative, Alf Garnett bunkum. At best it is a matter of opinion. At worst it is a demand for the right to abuse and exclude “others” who don’t conform to your narrow vision of “what is natural” and/or “different”.
“trying to get rid of jury trials” –
– they wanted to to reduce the number of trials requiring juries to both speed up the process and bring Scotland into line with most other countries.
“drugs deaths” –
– again, well done for picking up the unionist narrative and running with it. For one thing, drug policy is reserved to Westminster. The Scottish govt wanted to advance initiatives to combat the scourge but were stopped by a Westminster govt that didn’t want Scotland ploughing its own furrow. Secondly, it is only one demographic that is the problem. Those who became addicted in the 80s and 90s which was considerably higher in Scotland than elsewhere. That is, nothing to do with either Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP. Drug deaths among 18-35 y/o are considerably less than in England and Wales which would suggest the Scottish govt message is getting across. Not something the unionist/malcontent narrative wants publicised.
“prisons full” –
– oh the horror. Imagine imprisoning criminals. Its an outrage. Again, it flies in the face of the unionist narrative that the SNP is emptying prisons. It also ignores the fact Scotland’s crime rate is at record lows, far lower than the UK as a whole, and we have more police officers per head of popln, by far, than the UK as a whole as well. But no, lets just whine about putting criminals in prison.
“poverty rising” –
– again that unionist narrative is put front and centre by some one posing as an indy. The Scottish govt is spending £bns on trying to combat Westminster policies that are penalising the poorest in society. Poverty is in the “gift” of Westminster. The Scottish govt can only do so much without the powers of independence. But, again, well done on taking a stick you should be beating the Westminster govt with and attacking indies with it instead. I’m sure DRoss is grateful.
“educational attainment” –
– oh right, they’re implementing a radical new educational structure, as agreed by the Scottish Parliament before the SNP came to power, and current educational standards are “only” above the OECD average. A disgrace right enough.
“dire economic performance” –
– and yet more of the unionist narrative is trotted out by a supposed indy. The economy, and all the significant levers associated with it, is reserved to Westminster. Try beating them with that stick instead of indies.
“COP26 missed ‘national’ opportunity” –
– you’re just making stuff up now.
“a fine First Minister” or a hopeless tyrant?” –
– and now you’ve gone full yoon.
The stuff I have ignored is either because I agree with it to some extent or because it is just standard anti SNP, anti Indy, malcontent p*sh. If the “SNP membership has left the building” its because malcontents like yourself have depressed the life out of them by spouting all this unionist tripe while posing as indies.
LikeLike
MBP: 1. it is not that the SNPG failed to try and save the yard – it patently did try – but that it does not listen to wiser heads who know what they are talking about. It never listens. It never makes use of people who are willing to sell their expertise cheaply, but prefers to promote people who cost the earth and make the same mistakes over and over again. In relation to the ferries, that is evident.
of course there is constitutional inertia because what the SNPG is doing is wasting public money on court cases they can never win. Any half-decent lawyer will tell you if you have no case, and, if you have a brain in your cranium, you listen and you seek a different path.
They caved in to Brexit. Not as much as a refusal and withdrawal from Westminster. Sorry, that is collaboration. We can see what is happening now and the duty of care to Scotland and its people has been breached by our own elected representatives.
they should not be funding the press at all: it is privately owned and that is a subsidy to private commercial enterprises. Any subsidised paper will toe the line, but only up to the point where independence is mentioned.
Stonewall maintains its charitable status, but it is, in effect, a training ground for ‘trans’ warriors. It should receive public funding only if it can prove that it is helping ‘trans’ people. So, where are the shelters, centres, mental health work, etc. that female services are routinely required to commit to, on pain of losing their funding? Not only is female funding accountable and policed by government, the organisation must ‘share’ heir funding by allowing biological men into those services. Please stop the “puir wee sowels’ narrative. Most of these men are hairy-a***d heterosexual men with gross fetishes that females should not have to see or experience, and, particularly, young girls and children. Far too much evidence exists now to try and deny the dangers.
“… At worst it is a demand for the right to abuse and exclude “others” who don’t conform to your narrow vision of “what is natural” and/or “different”… ” They are different: they are biological men, and, while study after study has shown them not to have “female brains”, other studies have shown them to be, i the main, fetishistic and heterosexual men. But, hey, that’s not different from females? Natural? What is your idea of natural? State-assisted predation of females?
the procedure was flawed. The entire process was flawed, the women approached. All illegal, as has been proved in a court of law. Now, who do you think is responsible: the Whitehall employed civil servants or the SNP, or both?
Jury trials will not go any time soon, but, eventually, they may be retained in only the most heinous cases, I agree. However, I’m not sure that a judge sitting alone is an entirely fair substitute, so they will have to come up with something worthwhile, and, given their record, that i very unlikely.
I agree with you on drug policy and where the real blame lies, but they should have ignored Westminster and done their own thing. You see, MBP, they are gutless wonders and will never step out of line, which is precisely why we are where we are.
I can’t be bothered with the rest. Everywhere you say, this is reserved, that is reserved. The ‘malcontents’ know the more telling powers remain at Westminster. So, challenge, MBP, challenge, man. We are going to have to, you know. No other way. If the SNP can’t or won’t do it, they will not survive the next election and you are going to have to choose.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, but if the reckless hate of the SNP expressed by those who claim to be Indies on the internet prevails, independence is finished. It’s that simple. For those of us who still believe that, given unity in the Yes movement, it is still achievable, there is solace in the hope the wilfull ignorance remains a minority, malcontent internet phenomenon. But I fear that come an Indy campaign, the unionist machine will fully weaponise it and use it to break both the SNP and, more importantly, any chance of independence …. ever. Make no mistake, when the gloves come off in a full on referendum/plebiscite campaign, the malcontents will be shown to be the unwitting “catspaws” of the British state they so obviously are. I say “unwitting”, but in many cases it will be “full in the knowledge of” as they always were unionists hiding in plain sight; laughing their socks off at the dupes whose views are indistinguishable from their own affording them the perfect camouflage to destroy Yes from within. Scots, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory …. again.
LikeLike
“unity in the Yes movement”
‘SNP1: ALBA2’ and with it the election of a Holyrood pro-independence ‘supermajority’ would have been an excellent example of unity, moving the people straight to independence negotiations. But instead we had more ‘SNP1: SNP2’ and wasted list votes = election of unionist List MSP’s. That was not unity, it was deceit of the people.
Postcolonial history and theory tells us it is the dominant national party elites who end up protecting the interest of the colonizer and attacking the so-called ‘radical’ elements of the independence movement. As Frantz Fanon wrote, It behaves ‘much like a gang’ and ‘feathers its nest’ taking the people ‘up a blind alley’ This is precisely what we see.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
It was merely an example of ‘unity’ Peter, and one way to reduce the colonial parties representation. What an even larger elected majority of nationalist MSPs or MPs do with that majority is up to them. They could decide to begin to negotiate Scotland’s withdrawal from the union or, as we can see, they could opt to do nothing with such majorities. Getting well paid for doing nothing seems to be their thing.
LikeLike
It was a fantasy, Alf. It simply couldn’t work. For enough reasons to allow me to feel comfortable calling it an impossibility. What is worse is that an experienced politician like Salmond must have known it was complete nonsense. I know I can never trust Alba after that. I’m probably not alone.
Like it or not, we’ve got ourselves into a situation where Scotland’s cause is totally dependent on the SNP. It is the tool we must use because we have no other and no time to make one. Especially given the way Alba has poisoned the well. But even people who understand that it’s the SNP or nothing still insist on throwing the tool away. Sure! It’s broken. It’s still the only tool that can possibly get the job done.
What has made me despair for Scotland’s cause is the flat refusal by virtually the entire Yes movement to even attempt to repair the tool. On the one hand there those who insist it can’t be fixed and on the other there are those who insist it doesn’t need to be fixed. One way or another, Sturgeon gets left to her own devices.
It’s all fantasy, Alf. Either a fantasy about what the party is or a fantasy about an alternative. Between the two fantasist camps there is no space for the voice of political pragmatism.
I really need to find another outlet for whatever energy I have left. This is all just too depressing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I really need to find another outlet for whatever energy I have left. This is all just too depressing.”
Peter, agree with you or disagree with you the one reason for bothering with you is that, even if you are doom and gloom at the moment when perhaps you’d be better leaving the likes of Believe in Scotland to have their “Day of Action” without being an off topic wet blanket about it, you are genuine, and there is no higher accolade in my vocabulary about a person, than to call them genuine.
Take that, and run with it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“‘SNP1: ALBA2”
Not this childish pish again. People didn’t vote for Alba because they did not want to. Not because the SNP told them not to. Get over it.
LikeLike
“Unwitting catspaws” or visionaries, MBP? “Malcontents” or prophets? Those who see and refuse to be silenced. Your utter arrogance is why we are where we are because it is shared with those you lionise, the SNP leadership and cohort. How dare you say that decent independence-supporting people, who have given their best years to the party are “Unionists”. Most of us were probably campaigning when you were still in nappies. The present-day successful SNP was a gift to Sturgeon, on the backs of those who built it up, and in no small measure to one, Alex Salmond. If you are simply too narrow-minded and, yes, plain stupid, to see that we and the Unionists have nothing in common, then there is no hope for us all, none. Ask the Vichy French where collaboration with Germany got them in the end: hundreds and hundreds of unarmed people shot down in the streets while the leaders rubbed shoulders with German generals. No, MBP, we are not the problem, YOU and your ilk are – fawning, sycophants who egg on a party that has betrayed its roots and everything that it ever stood for. Do you believe for one minute that, if ALBA, for example, had not emerged and threatened the hegemony of the SNP, it would have a case in the Supreme Court? Of course not. It has stolen its recent ideas on independence from decent people who stuck their heads above the parapet, the very people you call “malcontents” and “catspaws”. If we don’t get independence soon, the SNP will be swept away, to be replaced by something far more robust, just as the Irish Party was ousted by Sinn Fein, in Ireland. If it had any real intention to bring in independence, it would not have stuck to SNP 1 & 2. Your idea of unity and mine are wholly at odds.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Most of us were probably campaigning when you were still in nappies” –
– I’m retired, how old are you? I was plastering “It’s Scotland’s Oil” stickers all over town in the early 70s. Were you?
“If you are simply too narrow-minded and, yes, plain stupid, to see that we and the Unionists have nothing in common …. ” –
– No one can tell the difference Lorncal. Bar the odd “I support independence but ….” that precedes the inevitable anti-scottish govt bile that unionists lap up. Not dissimilar to their own “I’m a proud Scot but ….” mantra. Or the “I’m not a racist but ….” that comes before an equally inevitable racist comment.
“Ask the Vichy French where collaboration with Germany got them in the end: hundreds and hundreds of unarmed people shot down in the streets while the leaders rubbed shoulders with German generals.” –
– and the plot has been lost.
“Do you believe for one minute that, if ALBA, for example, had not emerged and threatened the hegemony of the SNP, it would have a case in the Supreme Court? ” –
– I don’t believe the SNP give a sh*t about a party that struggles to register in the polls. Much less take advice from them.
“If it had any real intention to bring in independence, it would not have stuck to SNP 1&2.” –
– For goodness sake, this argument has been debunked, ridiculed and trashed so often its embarrassing when malcontents make fools of themselves by continuing to bring it up. Several points;
1. A party cannot actively campaign on behalf of another party contesting the same election. If they do, both parties will be counted as one. In this case, given Alba’s derisory showing, it would have made no difference to the outcome.
2. Even if the authorities decided to waive the law in this instance, and SNP voters gave Alba their List vote (not a given by any means) thus achieving the Holy Grail of a Super-majority …. so what? It only takes a majority of one to create a pro-Indy govt and we have that and more without Alba.
3. The SNP owe Alba nothing. If Alba want people to vote for them then they’ll have to do all the work themselves. It’s frankly pathetic to ask another party to “instruct” their voters to vote for you so you can get representation. Why would voters take any notice of such an arrogant high-handed “command” anyway?
4. Related to above, why would the SNP want to give Alba a leg up? A party who seemingly exist only to slag off the SNP and all their works. As one great sage put it; “you can’t piss on someone’s picnic and then expect to be invited round for tea”.
5. The SNP didn’t split from Alba. You can’t create a schism and then call for unity.
We will only win independence if the “I’m an independence supporter but ….” brigade either get on board or are cast adrift to rant among themselves where they can do the least damage to the Indy cause.
LikeLike
At the risk of incurring the wrath of The PAB ……..I’m completely at a loss to understand in what way she has been a ” fine FM ” . Granted you qualify your praise by comparing her to her peers , I still don’t see it .
As far as my perception goes she has been – and continues to be , an unmitigated disaster for , in particular , the cause of Independence , and more generally for Scotland .
Opening the door to an Invasion of the * Gender * Bodysnatchers ( then feeding them ) ; embracing the socio/politically disastrous Neo Lib / Con dogma : virtually giving away our abundant renewable energy resources : blootering the open goal of Brexit over the bar , wasting almost 8 years on the – from the beginning , self-evident garbage of the * necessity * of obtaining a S30 . The list goes on Peter .
All this and – the greatest failure , not advancing support for Independence a fraction of an iota
If she’s a ” fine ” FM I can’t even imagine what a bad one would look like
LikeLiked by 5 people
I can all too easily imagine what a bad FM would look like. Maybe that’s why I appreciate what we have. I rate her as a manager rather than a reformer. If she was holding the fort for someone else, she’d be ideal. But she’s been just holding the fort for rather too long. She needs to find her radical backbone, or step aside.
I’m always talking about the opportunities Sturgeon has missed. Covid, for example, was the perfect situation in which to create a massive online campaigning machine. Instead, she issued a cease-and-desist order to the whole independence movement. Madness!
But another opportunity presented itself with the pandemic. It was the ideal circumstance for her to hand over the role of leading the independence campaign on the grounds that she had to devote herself to the public health emergency. The only problem with this, of course, is that she’d have handed the reins to the likes of Angus Robertson or Toni Giugliano. But the opportunity was there to do better. And that opportunity was squandered.
Why? CONTROL! An online campaigning organisation would have been very difficult for the SNP to control. It almost certainly would have been effective. Maybe very effective. But that counted for less than the fact that it might slip out of the party’s control. Sad.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Instead, she issued a cease-and-desist order to the whole independence movement. Madness!”
Wow! She has that kind of power? Does every Indy supporter obey her every “command” like a hypnotised army? Somehow I doubt it. All she could effectively do was offer her view of the situation and let others take it on or ignore it. She couldn’t have stopped it if you let rationality be your guide. If most did heed her advice, it was because they saw the sense of it, not because they were automatons.
Oh dear, I’ll be called a Sturgeonista sheeple again. Oh well, such is the internet, malcontent echo-chamber.
LikeLike
I said she issued a cease-and-desist order. That is an indisputable fact. I didn’t say everybody obeyed it. Once again you are embarrassed by your ‘creative reading’.
LikeLiked by 3 people
To quote the letter you refer to;
“As efforts to delay the spread of COVID-19 virus are stepped up, everyone needs to do everything they can to avoid contact with others.
Obviously for our movement, that means suspending all campaigning – cancelling any planned social events and meetings must only be held if using remote technologies”
Cease and desist are not mentioned (she has only issued a “cease and desist” suggestion to active anti-vaxxers) and on-line campaigning is still a goer. Only the face-to-face stuff is to stop. It had to …. it was the law. Johnson and his cohorts ignored the law regarding this and it didn’t go down well with the public. How do you think they would have reacted to Indy campaigners wandering round their neighbourhoods and chapping on their doors?
So it is NOT an indisputable fact. Quite the opposite. And Indy supporters remained active on-line and in the Press. I remember it. I was there. I contributed to both, as did many others.
LikeLike
“All this and – the greatest failure , not advancing support for Independence a fraction of an iota”
Has she not? The last poll put Indy in the lead …. again. During the pandemic, support almost reached 60%. It may have slipped back since, but those “supporters” are still out there. They were convinced of the efficacy of governing ourselves then, when it was self-evident. They can be convinced again.
In 2011, right up to the week of the election, Labour were convinced they would be back in power after support for the SNP apparently remained at or below 2007 levels. They were wrong. Many Labour supporters who still polled as Labour supporters were actually increasingly sympathetic to the SNP and independence. As the campaign progressed that sympathy morphed into real support, the SNP won a previously unimaginable majority and Labour were humiliated.
Similarly, it is my belief (and all indies should hope it is true) that many people currently polling as No voters are just as on the cusp of voting Yes as those SNP/Labour voters were in 2011. Even in 2014, both Yes and No campaigns were acutely aware more No voters were on the cusp of voting Yes than vice versa, hence the late surge to Yes in the latter weeks of the campaign. Polls appear to show that the same situation currently exists, more people polling as No are on the cusp of voting Yes than vice versa. We wont know for sure until a campaign proper gets under way.
So, with polls showing that support for independence is actually over 10% higher than it was in 2014 (despite your claim to the contrary) and the lessons of history, I disagree with your statement.
LikeLike
” They were convinced of the efficacy of governing ourselves then, when it was self-evident. They can be convinced again.” . Christ Almighty ! she followed the ToryGov Covid * policy * TO THE LETTER : inc the disastrous ” let’s put ill old folk into Care Homes ” stroke of genius .
Look MBP , I know it’s ALL a matter of perception , I don’t claim mine is more accurate than yours or anyone else’s , but it’s the only thing I have to enable me to make a judgement on , well , anything .
When NS became leader of the SNP/FM I said to a friend ” definitely the right person at the right time ” . That those words have turned to ashes in my mouth is not something I either anticipated or take any relish in .
Let’s see what happens in the next couple of years and , obviously , if there is an opportunity to vote for Independence or in any way advance the cause I’ll take it
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is an old adage that there are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics. I think this now has to be updated to include UK polling results and GERS figure.
Nicola Sturgeon is good at winning elections despite what polls say. She was also tested in a real democratic event which affected the union in May 2021. As we all lay great stall by; this was a resounding endorsement of the independence supporting political parties in Scotland and a mandate for another democratic event to settle the constitutional question.
The fact that the political lparty which represents the views of our apparent partners in this union of equals is dingying this democratic decision is both outrageous and unsurprising. That’s something we appear to be stuck with.
Unless the work of SSRG/Salvo hare rapidly overtakes the SNP tortoise, we will be have the opportunity of a referendum, (de facto or otherwise) at some point. The way the UK is going to hell in a handcart, you would expect this to be won by the independence side.
So, I think NS has taken the movement to a stage where she can win a referendum (perhaps by default because the Tories have made such a complete arse of things).
The question remains: what next?
LikeLike
“The question remains: what next?”
No matter what the next step is, referendum or UDI, the question will remain …. “what next?”.
LikeLike
Yet again you fail abysmally to read and comprehend. Life in general throws up an endless series of ‘what next?’ questions. But as more accomplished readers will be aware, I was not referring to life in general. I was referring very specifically to a process with an identified end point ─ the restoration of Scotland’s independence.
Anticipating your next infantile retort, no, the restoration of independence isn’t the end of everything. Nor is it the only end. But it is the end of the process of restoring Scotland’s independence.
Why do I have the feeling your idiocy will foil my efforts to preempt it?
LikeLiked by 2 people
No Peter, it is you continually fails to understand, or if you do, fails to answer.
I understand you believe the way forward is to declare a UDI then, while the world patiently waits in the background, hold a confirmatory referendum of the Scottish voters months later. That is perfectly simple. All that does not “restore our independence”. It just proclaims to the world we want to be independent, albeit very vociferously. It will ultimately be up to them whether we are or not. Just as it was for all the former Soviet countries.
You always just leave us with your referendum result as if it magically makes our dreams a reality. At least Sturgeon has honestly admitted her proposed referendum is not the magic bullet in itself. And she’s right not to tempt fate by announcing “what happens next” when the world could be a very different place a year from now. “What happens next” will very much depend on the political realities of then.
If you would just admit you do not know “what happens next” after your proposed referendum for the same reason, I would be happy with that answer. It would be honest. No one could ever know this far out. But to continually lose the plot and insult people who question your apparent belief that it all ends there, leaves you just as guilty of what you accuse Sturgeon of.
LikeLike
For fairness, it is perfectly reasonable to declare what you “think” would be the next step. Or even give various possible scenarios for what “might” happen next. It is just not reasonable to leave us hanging when that is what you have effectively accused Sturgeon of doing.
LikeLike
““The question remains: what next?”
Postcolonial history and theory tells us there are usually two main possibilities:
The oppressor leaves, and the people get on with re-building their exploited nation, and rediscovering their ‘moribund culture and rusted tongue’;
or
The oppressor sends in ‘his planes and tanks’.
Colonialism is defined as ‘force’ after all, as well as ‘geographic violence’. This also explains the ‘petrification’ of nationalist representatives at a crucial stage.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is at least an answer. Though I would argue there are one or two steps regarding international recognition before the former can happen.
The last comment is a bit of a cheap shot though. Would you not fear the deployment of imperial power? Would you be one of the targets of this violence? Or would it just be the ones you appear to accuse of cowardice who suffer the consequences? It’s easy to insist others take action when you yourself are at no risk.
LikeLike
Those standing for election as nationalist members of parliament and intent (supposedly) on delivering independence and liberation of the people should be well aware of the risks involved. That is unless our national representatives know nothing of colonial history or postcolonial theory. i.e. ‘their understanding of independence remains rudimentary’ (Fanon). That arguably is still the problem with the SNP MPs and MSPs, they don’t understand that independence is decolonisation or therefore what it actually involves.
The entire independence movement is potentially ‘a target’ of an oppressor power, much as we see with ongoing prosecutions, state-coordinated online vitriol, state-funded msm propaganda, exclusion of ‘nationalists’ from positions of authority or status in social institutions (Cultural Division of Labour in Hechters ‘Internal Colonialism Mode’l) etc.
There is surely nothing for the international community to recognise until a people are finally set free and express their sovereignty, led as they must be by their national representatives. If any other country does not wish to recognise a sovereign Scottish state then they can buy their Scotch whisky, oil/gas, renewable energy, seafood, aggregates, etc. elsewhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLike
Just when I thought you had eventually thrown off your snp party blind allegiance and were looking at things from a real independence supporters perspective you then come out with THIS “I would totally agree with those who say that Nicola Sturgeon is by far the best leader of a political party in the UK and probably the best First Minister we could have hoped for in these times”. and this “The bar is low. But Nicola Sturgeon clears it by a very large margin indeed.”
Can I ask where you have been for the last 8 years where this betrayer has FAILED at every task presented to her to GOVERN Scotland , her and her moron ministers have made Scotland the LAUGHING stock of the western world from shirley anne shit for brains social security benefits debacle AND her and swinneys deviant education drag queen storytelling , humza useless’s justice GRA & HCB now SNHS destroyer , that’s not including a once WORLD RENOWNED shipbuilding reputation now lying at the bottom of Davie Jones’s locker , AND including all the things Robert Hughes writes about above “If she’s a ” fine ” FM I can’t even imagine what a bad one would look like”
AT George Pottinger , Do you HONESTLY think this collaborator and her vichy government have done better than the tory and Liebour scum governments we have had , at 71 yoa I can assure you they haven’t , they are as bad if not WORSE
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ahh …. the voice of reason 🙂
LikeLike
NO it is the voice of honesty , your interpretations and excuses of what the liar says is endless and unsupported , the EVIDENCE proves you are just trolling on her behalf , if you are Scottish you should be ashamed at putting forward excuses for the damage and failures this betrayer and her morons have inflicted on the Scottish people
LikeLiked by 2 people
The torrent of invective you sullied the thread with is not “evidence” of anything but the lack of objectivity in your opinion. As is the discredited icon you use. Nothing from the website it calls home has done anything to further the cause of independence for many years now. Quite the opposite. If YOU are Scottish, you should be ashamed of the sterling work you have been doing in furthering the cause of the union. I see no evidence of your “implied” support of independence. Only evidence of a unionist view of the only party that can deliver independence.
LikeLike
A more severe and worrying “lack of objectivity” might rather relate to those who are yet to understand that independence is decolonisation, and with that the removal of an exploitative racist oppressor.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Explain to me how you hope to restore independence without the involvement of the Scottish Government.
LikeLike
“What a load of biased bile! Take off, at least, one of your eye-patches and look at her record in government. OK, maybe she has not, as yet, achieved our independence, but I would hate to think what Scotland would be like now had Tory or Labour been in power.”
Why don’t you tell us about her record George I’m eager to hear
LikeLiked by 2 people
As far as I can make-out, Sturgeon’s government’s only achievements have been due to dumping responsibilities onto local councils. Pretty much everything to do with central government have been incompetent disasters – apart from presentation. Scottish central government is now a myriad of unaccountable, unelected public/private quangos, and a bunch of corporate lobbyists. Salmond’s government’s achievements were mostly due to enacting policies of the previous Labour/Lib Dem government, but at least they were capable of enacting policies.
And Peter’s correct: It’s people like him that are to blame.
If you want another referendum, campaign for David ‘Referendums’ Cameron – he’s the person that made the last one happen.
LikeLike
Mr E you start off not bad when you examine and expose the incompetence of sturgeon and her deviant morons then your credibility is shot to hell when you start to praise british Liebour in Scotland and the Lib dumbs both cheeks of the same colonial arse which is WM
LikeLiked by 1 person
Me Bungo Pony: Ha, I thought that would get to you. Actually, yes, I was campaigning, stickering and leafleting for the SNP in the late 60s/70s. I was campaigning at age 13/14. I left the SNP a few years ago, utterly disgusted with their ‘wokie-dokie’ policies and lack of movement on independence.
No one can tell the difference, eh? Well, you can’t! Which says a great deal more about you that it does me. I am neither a racist nor a Unionist, and, I repeat, if you are just too thick to comprehend why I would have left the SNP and want to see the back of them, I can’t help you there.
No, the plot has not been lost. Again, if you can’t see the connection, nothing I can do to help you.
Oh, I think the SNP gives a huge st about Alba, but an even bigger st about Alex Salmond, which is why they tried to oust him – doing the Unionists’ and Westminster’s work for them.
Only a formal alliance between parties is illegal. In the name of the wee man, the Unionists do it every election. The SNP leadership did not need to say anything – that is the point. Stipulating SNP 1 & 2 was a quite cold-blooded attempt to engineer the election for themselves. Believe me, MBP, when I say it will not work a second time. No one, least of all I, has said the SNP owes ALBA anything. It owes the people of Scotland a great deal, though, and has welched on the deal since 2014. You don’t, when you owe a duty of care to the Scots and Scotland, promise them that being dragged out of the EU would be a reason to leave the Union, welch on that and chase after men in frocks instead. No one commanded anything: anyone who wants independence, sincerely wants it, would have done everything in his/her power to achieve unity and unity of purpose for the greater good.
It’s not about Sturgeon and her cohort of ‘wokie-dokies’: it is about, and only about, the people of Scotland and their right to self-determination. You would know that if you had ever read the SNP constitution. You would also know that much of that which they have done is illegal. Alex Salmond has called for unity all along. Not for him the petty and self-destructive SNP 1 & 2. All it did, my blinkered friend, is allow in Unionists. Jesus Wept! I actually agree that we should have been going forward with the SNP, Alba and all the independence parties and movements, but the SNP would not play ball. I’m sorry, but you are very misinformed.
I’m an independence supporter with no ‘but’. It is the SNP and its ‘wokie-dokie’ men in frocks brigade who are the ‘but’: as in, I’m an independence supporter BUT, first, we need to ensure that thousands of heterosexual, intact men are allowed self-ID so that they can w**k all over female toilets and perv on women and girls, take over rape crisis groups all the better to service their autogynephilia, which, if you were keeping up, you and your party would know about because they boast and show pictures of their audacity on social media sites; I’m an independence supporter, BUT we need to wait until Scotland’s resources are all taken out of Scottish hands and held by foreign companies and off-shore interests so that our own people can squeal in pain and it will do them no good. Hell, why would the Scots deserve their own resources and independence. What do you think we are in the SNP: the party of independence and betterment of Scotland? Don’t answer this reply, as I do not debate with closed minds and it would take a crowbar to get yours open.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I mean …. this is what the debate has descended to. The ONLY glimmer of hope for independence I have in this toxic environment is that, despite it all, Yes is apparently still ahead in the polls. How long this will last if the anti Scottish govt “friendly fire” explodes into the public consciousness is questionable. If it does, and the SNP fall, independence falls with them. Alba appears to believe Indy voters are a homogenous mass who will simply reject the SNP and spontaneously turn to them en masse. That is hubris. It is far more likely the general population (not the echo-chamber population) will reject independence along with the SNP, and Alba will be left in the wilderness crying “it wisnae me”. It is so depressing.
LikeLike