Where is the anger?

Despite the fact that it is dated three months ago, I had not previously seen the Tweet from Mhairi Hunter pictured above. As you would probably expect, Ms Hunter has blocked me ─ doubtless along with all other voices that dissent from the Sturgeon doctrine. I am grateful to Stu Campbell (Wings Over Scotland) for bringing it to my attention. Not that I personally was under any illusions about the reality of Nicola Sturgeon’s ‘plan’ for a referendum / de facto referendum. I predicted it would be a sham even before it was announced and have been trying to point out the reality ever since. It may be helpful in getting this message through to Sturgeon/SNP loyalists to have someone so close to the First Minister state so clearly the fact that the ‘plan’ is a pile of pish.

Mhairi Hunter is wrong about one thing, however. It is not the Scotland Act that is preventing the Scottish Parliament legislating for a real constitutional referendum. What is preventing a referendum that stands as a formal exercise of Scotland’s right of self-determination is solely and entirely lack of political will on the part of the SNP+SGP/Scottish Government. It is the First Minister’s timorous aversion to confrontation that is the obstacle preventing progress for Scotland’s cause. It is the SNP’s pusillanimous prevarication which has put Scotland’s democracy and distinctiveness in great and imminent jeopardy.

Scotland has been failed in various ways by our entire political elite. It is long past time the people of Scotland got angry about this.

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 PayPal

19 thoughts on “Where is the anger?

  1. So, it’s there in black and white:

    The ‘de facto referendum’ strand of the ‘plan’ is in fact a referendum to request that we can have a British sanctioned Section 30 referendum in which the British get to decide the rules, terms and conditions.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. That’s pretty much it. In relation to the restoration of Scotland’s independence, both the proposed referendum and de fact referendum are totally meaningless. The absolute best possible outcome is that we would end up right back where we are now. And that only if having had the referendum doesn’t prove to be the setback any sensible person would expect it to be.

      Sturgeon is driving Scotland’s cause into a mire from which there is little chance of escape because in her list of priorities that cause comes a distant second at best to winning elections and retaining power.

      Liked by 6 people

  2. ” where is the anger ?

    Only in blogs like yours , WOS , BB , YFS , Craig Murray’s and – increasingly – in the once admirably conciliatory R McAlpine’s . The rest , it appears , of the Sturgeon-opiated masses still afflicted by narcolepsy – defined as ” a chronic sleep disorder characterised by overwhelming daytime drowsiness and sudden attacks of sleep. ” . ” People with narcolepsy often find it difficult to stay awake for long periods of time, regardless of the circumstances ” .

    Can it be argued the people are NOT having difficulty staying awake ( ie aware ) , regardless of the ( in our case , perilous ) circumstances they/we are facing and are NOT prone to ” sudden attacks of sleep ” when confronted by undeniable evidence of Nu SNP’s failures ? The most grievous of which is the failure to progress the Indy case in any meaningful way .

    A ” cold turkey ” cure is essential , a painful withdrawal from WM permission- addiction , and Sturgeon adulation ; but the only things on offer are the emaciated * turkeys * of a – extremely unlikely – ” non-self-executing ” Ref next year and the ” give us ANOTHER mandate , vote SNP ” disguised as Plebiscite ( kinda ) UKGE sleight-of-hand chicanery

    Liked by 5 people

  3. I hope you are feeling a bit better Peter, as the saying goes old age doesn’t come alone.

    Anyway, Hunter is a good friend of Sturgeon’s so we should believe what she has to say on this matter.

    This is how I see it panning out.

    The mock indyref is a ruse, to adhere as many indy supporters to Sturgeon as possible for when the UKSC denies the right for Sturgeon to hold it, and it must, the stability of the union is imperative at all times, then Sturgeon can say I tried but the UKSC said no. Another reason the UKSC must say no, is that Sturgeon would be found out, assuming yes romped home and nothing came of it.

    Now with the mock indyref out of the way let’s look at the plebiscitary GE, I’d fully expect the SNP under Sturgeon to run with the GE billing it as a plebiscite, this cunning plan would see almost all indy supporters back it in the hope of winning as many indy minded MPs seats as possible, the emphasis being on the SNP obtaining the majority mid 50’s or so.

    Of course, there will be some sort of challenge to it being a plebiscitary GE in which Sturgeon will back down after a bit of toing and froing with regards to legalities, but in the end the union will remain intact, and Sturgeon will have her tranche of MPs and any notion of independence will disappear like snow aff a dyke in Spring, only to reemerge in 2026.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Her successor will then reset the clock to 2015 and the process will be repeated. The UK and the USA simply cannot afford an independent Scotland for the foreseeable future. The former needs the revenue and the latter needs the nukes.

      Liked by 7 people

      1. The US doesn’t ‘need’ the nukes – it has plenty of its own. It needs compliant allies who can join in on threatening Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela etc. in order to give itself ‘buddy cover’ for its increasingly lawless excursions into world wide sabotage, coups and illegal wars.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Not sure if Jams O’Donnell’s comment got deleted but he/she/they/ mentioned that the USA doesn’t need the nukes. Of course they do. They’re not stupid enough to use their own. Besides Liz is itching to prove her manliness. She’s be more than happy to push the button for them

          Liked by 1 person

      2. USA wouldn’t mind Scotland being Independent.
        I can’t see any reason for America to object.
        If that’s what Scots want, (and we do) then they will go along with it.
        Scotland would probably still be in NATO.
        Where the nukes are based on the island of Great Britain, would be another matter, however.
        I’m sure they can find a nice wee place for them somewhere in deepest England!

        Liked by 1 person

  4. I agree with everything you say, Peter, and with your conclusions, but I have to take issue with the NS is fearful/timid, etc. trope. She has instigated division across every facet of Scottish life – brazenly, openly, without a qualm. I honestly do not think it is fear of confrontation – God knows, her tenure has been peppered with confrontations – but pure, unadulterated bone-headedness. We all know people like this, those who would risk going down with the ship rather than turn the wheel 45 degrees and avoid it when it is getting bigger by the minute. Wait, they say, I have a better plan and don’t you interfere with it. She cannot be wrong but must always be right once she has decided to embark on a particular course of action.

    The course of action – or, rather, inaction – in this case is summed up inn the word, devolution. She and the cohort around her have settled for that. It is not fear of confrontation but more ensuring that she does nothing that might upset the British State because she sees the world, and Scotland, in, basically, the same light. Why do something that you have no inherent belief in? What NS believes in are herself and the perpetuation of the party, nothing else. All we do is keep on harming our psyches when we keep mentioning that the SNP could do this, that or the other. Not a hope in hell. Time to move past that and start to fight tooth and nail to show up the SNP and NS for what they are, for how they have deliberately deceived the Scottish independence movement and, ultimately, to take SNP supporters away from that party.

    It is no use saying that we can force the SNP to take baby steps towards autonomy because we can’t if it is not willing. I can think of not one person within the SNP (parliamentary group) at the moment who shows any inclination to actually push for independence. If we don’t start understanding that there is not a snowball’s chance in hell of getting them to make moves towards independence and start to make the moves that need to be made through the various strands of the independence movement, we will still be here at the next GE and the next SE lamenting our fate. As soon as the Supreme Court bring in its ruling (assuming it is going to be negative) and in the knowledge that the SNP has no intention of having anyone or any party elected under the independence banner except itself, and will try to gull people into voting it into power for another five years and still do nothing for independence, we should be looking to turn to international law in the name of the Scottish people who want independence. By-pass the SNP completely. By-pass Westminster completely.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. “The course of action – or, rather, inaction – in this case is summed up inn the word, devolution”

      Lorncal, don’t you mean ‘collaboration’.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. You’re right, Lorna. ‘Fearful’ is the wrong term. No politician – certainly no female politician – gets to where Sturgeon is by being ‘fearful’. But I’m not quite sure what the word is for her aversion to confrontation. As you correctly point out, it cannot be born of timidity. But that she is hugely averse to confrontation is beyond doubt.

      On reflection, I think this may in part be her lawyerly training. In part also, it is an aversion common to many (all?) politicians. Perhaps any individual who attains a position of some power, but I reckon politicians in particular. They may start their careers filled with the drive to win. But having won, they are filled with a dread of losing. They are ‘special’. They have acquired to sheen of near-infallibility that accompanies success. They are celebrities. That status is very fragile. It is vulnerable to even seemingly trivial missteps. And when it goes it goes completely. So, for the successful politician, fear of losing becomes a major motivation.

      In Sturgeon’s case, I suspect her aversion to confrontation may be largely ideological. She just doesn’t believe that’s the proper way to do politics. It may be a bit sexist to say it, but she wants to bring a ‘woman’s touch’ to politics. She believes, I suspect, that she carries the torch for all of womankind and must bring something distinctively feminine to the role. This may be true of all female politicians, to some extent. But I think it may be particularly true in Sturgeon’s case.

      Reading back that last paragraph I see it is less sexist-sounding than I feared but has the characteristic of oversimplification which often goes hand-in-hand with such ‘isms’. This is two folk chatting online. We’re not writing a treatise here. I’m sure you’ll make due allowance for the sweeping generalisations and stereotyping.

      Not ‘fearfulness’, then. But a core belief that she must assiduously avoid the habits and practices of ‘traditional’ male politics.

      Unfortunately, British politics is all about the macho. It sneers at consultation and collaboration and such ‘foreign’ concepts as consensus and communality. It reveres domination. So-called ‘soft power’ is fine for civil servants and diplomats. But serious political actors have to be hard-as-nails. Or they have to put on that facade.

      Maybe Sturgeon is just miscast.

      (Passing thought: Salmond had (has?) a talent for British-style politics. Maybe that explains why Sturgeon turned against him. And why he…. No! I’m drifting too far off-topic now. And in a direction perhaps best avoided. Does that make me ‘fearful/timid’?)

      Liked by 1 person

  5. “… It may be a bit sexist to say it, but she wants to bring a ‘woman’s touch’ to politics. She believes, I suspect, that she carries the torch for all of womankind and must bring something distinctively feminine to the role… ”

    No, it is not sexist from my perspective, Peter, because I agree with you. However, perhaps she doesn’t realise it, but female politicians are very like male politicians. I’ve never been able to discern any major differences. To boot, she cannot lay claim to feminism, albeit she does, when she hands away all female rights to men in frocks. Excellent piece in The National today about feminism and what it is about. So many men accuse women of having over their spaces, so serves them right if ‘trans’ women are now taking over theirs. This essay nails it, although I’d add that women never ever wanted to BE men or to do away with men. The sensible ones always knew that co-operation between the sexes works best. Female oppression is, nevertheless, tied in very tightly with alienation from fair economics, with an underlying layer of entitlement on the part of men. It’s the same with the working-class – deprive them of life-affirming sustenance and you control them.

    I have to say that I never felt that Alec Salmond was overly macho, and I had quite a few dealings with him through work, and he was never less than respectful, but he was, and is, the most astute politician I ever met, and I met quite a few, so, yes, I do see how Nicola Sturgeon might have found him a ‘threat’, shall we say? He was never less than utterly determined to achieve independence: you never doubted that when you spoke to him.

    I think you probably have it when you say that politicians can become like megastars, and I believe that NS is a wee bit susceptible to flattery and being in the limelight – and that would make you fearful of falling out of favour. I wanted to be a politician when I was about fifteen, but I grew out of it. I wouldn’t have trusted me not to descend into starry-eyedness and thinking I was the bees knees, descending into being “a richt wee madam”. Self-awareness is an excellent leveller.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. I wonder the First Minister’s response to the latest Trussism on Independence, where she states, and again with her now oft used phrase that’s she’s very clear, etc, etc.
    That if the UK Supreme Court rules in favor of even the modest opinion poll idea (for such it will only be as it stands) from SNP, Prime Minister Truss has insisted such an Independence vote should never happen.
    Well so much for any pretense we are “Equal Partners” in a political Union.
    Truss has spoken, and so that’s that!!
    Nobody from SNP has spoken back so far, I notice.
    Tho, I’m sure someone will get round to saying something eventually!

    Liked by 3 people

  7. Even if the UKSC sanctions the mock indyref that leads nowhere, the UK PM Liz Truss will block it and stop the mock indyref from happening.

    Liked by 1 person

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.