Blood in the water

Nicola Sturgeon is in trouble. Some will choose not to believe it when I say this, but I take no pleasure whatever in saying that the peg on which Nicola’s jaikit hangs is starting to look a bit shoogly. Contrary to the views of many Sturgeon/SNP loyalists and the brain-dead #WheeshtForIndy mob, I have never been ‘anti-Sturgeon’. I have never called for her to resign. I have never said she should be replaced. In fact, I have frequently chastised those who do say she should go. In part, this is because I still have a great deal of admiration for Nicola Sturgeon. She is, as all but her most virulent detractors will concede, an accomplished communicator. She performs well in debates and shines at the weekly FMQ slapstick. I think she has been a very good ─ at times excellent ─ First Minister. But as de facto leader of the independence movement, she has been a ghastly failure.

Whatever Nicola Sturgeon had hoped would ensue from publication of the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) judgement last Wednesday, she probably didn’t anticipate that it would lead to serious and widespread questioning of her own judgement in referring the draft Referendum Bill to the UKSC. But that is what has happened. And, as in the proverbial floodgate being opened, questioning of her judgement in this instance has led to ‘re-examination’ of her record ─ particularly on the constitutional issue. That must have been the last thing she wanted. Because, as I have noted on numerous occasions, that record does not stand up well to scrutiny. To date, Sturgeon has managed to avoid that kind of scrutiny from within the Yes movement.

She has always had her critics within the independence movement. In fact, I came quite late to that game having been among Sturgeon’s stauncher defenders. We’ve all got to wake up some time. A lot of people seem to be rousing simultaneously. There’s a tipping point at which the rational, constructive criticism descends into raw attacks. When there’s blood in the water, a feeding frenzy inevitably follows. Nicola Sturgeon has been badly grazed by the whole UKSC referral business. There may not be actual blood in the water yet, but the scent is there and is being picked up.

The extent of this fresh scrutiny/criticism of Nicola Sturgeon was brought home to me yesterday, when I attended the All Under One Banner (AUOB) march and rally in Glasgow. Given the short-notice and last-minute changes to the departure point and route, not to mention the atrocious weather conditions, the event was surprisingly well attended. We marched from Glasgow Green along the river to rally at Pacific Quay, outside the BBC Scotland HQ where a sizeable crowd listened to a series of speakers drawn from across the Yes movement ─ except the SNP. I think every one of those speakers was openly critical of Nicola Sturgeon. It was the focus of my own address. I had anticipated that my remarks would not be well-received. I was wrong.

The fact that so many different speakers were voicing their dissatisfaction with Sturgeon’s ‘leadership’ of Scotland’s cause, and that so many people approached me afterwards to say how much they agreed with what I’d said ─ often adding their own criticism ─ made me realise that her relative immunity from scrutiny has come to an end. Robin McAlpine has penned a blog article which effectively summarises most of the criticism. I don’t agree with him on every point. But the gist of what he says reflects the mood I picked up on at the AUOB event.

Already, some of the characteristics of the feeding frenzy are in evidence. Some angry folk go straight from ‘she’s got things wrong’ to ‘she has to go’ without passing ‘think’. Personally, I like my porridge hot and my politics cold. Not that there isn’t room for passion in politics. But some parts of our politics are better kept as free of emotion as may be possible. We really have to stop and consider the potential implications of Nicola Sturgeon’s removal. But first, we have to think about whether it is actually possible to remove her if she doesn’t want to go. I really don’t see how it could be done. There would have to be a very evident mass outcry against the First Minister for her to even consider resigning. I don’t want that. I fear there would be a lot of collateral damage.

There are calls for Nicola Sturgeon to quit. Angus MacNeil MP is among those urging that Nicola Sturgeon should resign and the SNP/SGP block the election of another First Minister in order to force an extraordinary Scottish Parliament election which would be made a plebiscite. The British parties and the British media would obviously like to be able take such a big political scalp. If there must be a ‘de facto’ referendum, then it is undoubtedly better that it be a Scottish election. But I remain more than dubious about the whole idea. As ever, I ask “What next?”.

The process is messy and disruptive. The First Minister resigning followed by up to four weeks of attempts to fill the role, then the closest thing to a snap election as we can get in Scotland, all involves a great deal of upheaval. Add the inevitable negative spin of the British media and the theatrical outrage of British politicians and we could be looking at a thoroughly disgruntled electorate. Which isn’t what you want if you are hoping for a good turnout.

Against all this upheaval and public bad humour must be weighed the realistically anticipated gain from a plebiscitary election. Could it achieve enough to make it worth the trouble? Personally, I doubt it. I am firmly persuaded that the next democratic event addressing the constitutional issue must be the final such event. It must be decisive. It must be conclusive. It must settle the matter beyond question. A plebiscitary election can never satisfy these criteria. It would all but certainly be a de facto referendum about having an actual referendum which itself might be inconclusive if it followed the pattern of the referendum formerly proposed for next year but now ruled out by the UKSC. Because they were asked to rule it out by the Scottish Government that was proposing the referendum. No! I don’t get it either!

As well as the long-overdue willingness to scrutinise Nicola Sturgeon’s whole approach to the constitutional issue, I sense increasing awareness of the urgency of getting Scotland out of the Union. As yet, not enough people realise just how urgent is our need to restore Scotland’s independence. It may not be quite a case of now or never. But it is certainly a case of now or never in a long time and with much greater difficulty. Looking at the situation rationally, it seems beyond question that the British state will seek to put further impediments in the way of the people of Scotland exercising our right of self-determination. They want the ‘Scottish problem’ solve once and for all ─ and to their satisfaction. Which means they want to lock Scotland into the Union ever more tightly. This, they can do. The Union gives the British ruling elite the power to do pretty much as it will with Scotland.

In such situations, it is wise to proceed on the basis of something approaching the worst case scenario. That would be a unilateral change to the British constitution which would create a new ‘Great Britain’ constitutionally defined as indivisible and indissoluble. Very much like the constitution which binds Catalonia to Spain. I expect the Union and it’s preservation to loom large in the next UK general election ─ which will be held no later than autumn 2024, and quite possibly as early as spring 2023 ─ although this does not seem likely. Whenever that election takes place and whatever the outcome, the next UK government is likely to be committed to a more or less Draconian solution to the ‘Scottish problem’. All of which means that bold, decisive action to escape the fate of being irrevocably(?) locked into the Union is needed now!

In turn, this means that bold, decisive action must be taken by the First Minister and Scottish Government that we have right now. It is difficult to say with any certainty what kind of time-frame would be required for the process envisaged by Angus MacNeil. Probably not less than 9 months and maybe as much as 18 months. During which time the British government might easily frustrate the process by calling a UK election.

We should not be in this perilous position. That we are is entirely down to the near-total lack of strategic thinking in the SNP and the bad choices made by Nicola Sturgeon. But while it is essential that there be adequate scrutiny of the party of government and that the findings be conveyed to the people, it would be foolish in the extreme to linger long in the blame game. We have to be able to move beyond the past failures of the SNP/Scottish Government. Once we’ve correctly understood where we are and how we got here, it is time to focus on where we want to go and how to get there.

As we consider how to move on from the SNP/Scottish Government’s mistakes we have to accept that however we decide to compensate for and rectify those ‘missteps’, the SNP is going to be part of the ‘solution’. It cannot be otherwise. Being realistic, no other party is going to be the party of government within the time-frame available to us. Even if an extraordinary Scottish Parliamentary election is contrived and called as a plebiscite, it is more than likely that the most effective voting strategy for the purposes of Scotland’s cause will be voting en masse for the SNP. What we would be seeking to create in this plebiscitary election is a ‘supermandate’ for the party of government. Only the SNP is in a position to be the party of government. Votes for other pro-independence parties could inly undermine that ‘supermandate’. We could argue about how badly the ‘supermandate’ would be undermined. But nobody could sensibly argue that reducing the vote for the party of government wouldn’t reduce the clout it could wield.

Talk of votes for all pro-independence parties counting as ‘Yes votes’ in a plebiscitary election is all very well in principle. In practice, a vote for the party of government will carry more weight than a vote for, say, Alba. That is basic political realism.

The SNP is the only realistic candidate to be the party of government. Just get used to that fact, because there is no credible prospect of it changing any time soon. Whether or not Nicola Sturgeon will be the candidate for First Minister is a different question. Part of me hopes she is. But I fear Nicola has a lot of work to do if she’s to convince the Yes movement that she can be an effective leader of Scotland’s cause. There’s blood in the water. She may well have succumbed to the feeding frenzy by that time.



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

39 thoughts on “Blood in the water

  1. I think she is trapped, which is of her own making. If she leaves then all the detail on Alex Salmond et.al. may start drifting out. Any illegalities may well come out and bite her on the *rs

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That is a thought that occurred to me. She wants to leave on a high, obviously. But she must be worried about what might come out once she’s no longer the boss. I’m wary of saying too much about this, however. Such things tend to drift into speculation about what might be revealed. And that speculation tends to get silly.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Aye Peter, in her role as “de facto” leader of the Independence movement Sturgeon has proven herself to be workshy and indifferent to the concerns arising from her failure to act on Scotland’s behalf.

    Whenever and by whomever the bloodletting commences the flow will not be staunched by those whom Sturgeon has sought to bring to her “inner circle”.

    To date none in the upper echelons of the SNP appear to have the balls or the appetite to publicly and meaningfully challenge her intransigence and therein lies the problem, NAE COMMITMENT.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. She CAN turn this around I believe, if she’s minded to. We are where we and the snp are the only ones who COULD move us on anytime soon.

    Its the unionist’s job to constantly demand ‘answers’ (to which dog whistles we dutifully produce detailed explanations for them to tear to bits, thereby completely diverting the reason for our cause). Maybe our best focus is visibly ramping up the current visceral anger, demanding SG protects us, by taking steps to remove us, from the rapacious British state.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. In the last few days several bloggers have produced articles that at their core all come to the same conclusion that we can never unite under Sturgeon.
    I ran a YES stall from 2012 to 2014. A dozen activists turned up to help every week from a wide range of backgrounds. I never heard a word of conflict between them on Politics. The only negative vibes I received were from SNP members raising the issues of
    a) Using SNP budget to buy YES material
    b) That SNP members were on the YES stall instead of on the SNP stall.

    I would argue that the decades of being the “Party of Independence” has created a silo mentality. A fortress haven.

    We need NEW leader of the SNP or we will get nowhere and like you I acknowledge Sturgeon’s skills but her Achilles heel is the need to have rigid control.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I don’t do fantasy politics. It is just too unlikely that Nicola Sturgeon will volunteer to remove herself from the equation. And what those who revel in this fantasy fail to factor into their ‘thinking’ is that even if Sturgeon steps down, it will be in favour of someone who thinks exactly as she does.

      Getting rid of Sturgeon is neither a realistic option nor any kind of fix. In fact, it is largely because people cling to such fantasies that the SNP and Sturgeon have been able to get away with failing Scotland’s cause as badly as they have. People who have wrapped themselves in such delusions see no need to force the SNP to do what is required.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. If we don’t have a change of direction from the SNP then we have no Indy campaign. I don’t see Sturgeon having a damascene moment and backing a wider YES campaign. That isn’t fantasy it is reality.

        Like

        1. Then you are giving up. You won’t admit that you’re giving up. But it’s what you’re doing. If you refuse to pursue the only viable option, then you are giving up. You can tell yourself you’re pursuing some alternative option and this will allow you to feel better about yourself. But you’re giving up.

          You’re not alone. Part of the reason we’re in this situation is that so many people, as soon as they saw that the SNP was broken, just walked away and found themselves a pretendy tool to play with instead of trying to fix the only tool that can actually do the job. I know this to be true because I was one of those people. Or at least, I was on the verge of being one. But I couldn’t deny the logic. Others seem to find that easy. But I just can’t do it.

          The logic has just one message for us. Fix the SNP. Or let the Brits win.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Yes, Peter, and in layman’s terms, Scottish politicians are metaphorically ‘between a rock and a hard place’… Regarding the above replies, I’ve gone to click a like and then changed my mind; after all, you’re correct to write: “Fix the SNP. Or let the Brits win.” This certainly wasn’t easy to write, let alone agree with the words!

            Like

            1. It was easy to write in the sense that it is obviously the case. It’s not easy to be happy with the situation. But the situation doesn’t give a shit how unhappy you are with it. Situations are bastards like that.

              Like

  5. Christ Peter, you don’t want this and you don’t want that, do you actually think we’ll ditch this onesided union without any collateral damage, or nasty machinations from Westminster? I don’t.

    Why does Sturgeon want to wait another two-years for a GE, and why does she want to wait until next Spring to hold a conference on how we exit this prison we now find ourselves in when there’s a quicker route via Holyrood that allows 16 and 17 years olds the vote. The obvious answer is she’s stalling for time, even Martin Geissler on the Sunday Show this morning knew that when he put it to the SNP’s Deputy Leader Keith Brown.

    Meanwhile this will get your dander right up.

    It sets out the evidence that Scotland while in a political and economic Union was never in a territorial Union.

    https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2022/11/26/reclaiming-the-rights-of-scotlands-people/

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Republic: this is not new knowledge, but it does bear repeating. An-in-depth study of the Treaty and its Articles, alongside all workings, speeches and actions surrounding the Treaty shows quite conclusively that the Treaty was limited and, therefore the Union was limited. It was always intended, as any constitutional lawyer worth his or her salt could show, that the Union was to be a partnership of equal countries. England’s MPs moved almost immediately to capture Scotland’s institutions, especially its higher legal institutions, in order to advance its own cause at our expense. God, I feel like ripping my jumper with my teeth, I get so annoyed at this. Had the Treaty been properly dissected and analysed long since, we would not be in the mess we are in now. Even the Scotland Act and devolution are illegal under the Treaty because England did not devolve at the same time as Scotland. All of this is provable if the SG would only move its rear end and have the Treaty ‘sound’ in law and a case build around England and England as the UK’s blatant, deliberate and cynical manipulation of the Union for its own benefit. No more bloody pre independence referendums! Totally unnecessary. Ratifying referendums after independence are the norm and cover the legal and democratic sides. The political needs to be put into action post haste.

      Peter: you are right. HM Government will move with all haste now to ensure we cannot escape. However, so long as we are alert, they will not be able to do anything with the Treaty because it may be ruled on only in international law. I think they will try to use the Acts of Union, making people believe that these created the Union and are, therefore, under Westminster control. Nah. They cannot alter the Treaty and, unless the SNP and the Unionists together really sell us out, they cannot be repealed or replaced easily. All the older constitutional lawyers warned of the perfidy of rUK, and our own toom tabards in trying to keep the status quo (for them) and in trying to shaft us all over again in any negotiations. Beware the Jim Wallaces, the Ming Campbells an the other Unionist cabal who would hand us over without a flicker of conscience.

      Liked by 2 people

  6. All very interesting, to be fair.

    The important thing is for the whole YES movement to be very very, very, NOISY. Don’t let brave Caledonia go back to sleep for another 315 years. And don’t let the SNP hierarchy get away with waffle.

    But brave Caledonia’s the hypothenuse;
    Then, ergo, she’ll match them, and match them always.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. “The process is messy and disruptive.”

    Independence from the Brit state is always going to be “messy and disruptive” given the dubious nature and ‘values’ of the oppressor; however, the SNP leadership unnecessarily delaying matters further will only serve to considerably worsen the situation down the line, as we continue to see. You are right Peter, independence is more urgent now and this has been caused by the dominant national party elites’ ‘petrification’ at the required point of declaring independence, much as Frantz Fanon predicts in his decolonization template. Here the imperial power is given plenty of additional time and opportunity to further tighten its grip primarily because the dominant national party has failed to deploy its elected majorities in any meaningful sense.

    Albert Memmi refers to the outcome as “a calcified colonized society” which is a consequence of two processes: “encystment originating internally and a corset imposed from outside”. The SNP elite has chosen to serve as a colonial administration thus protecting the colonizers interest at the expense of the peoples’ liberation, ensuring their oppression continues. Once the colonized elites assume the colonizers values they have confirmed their own condemnation. That condemnation stretches across the entire elected SNP national representatives at both Holyrood and Westminster, for they have condemned their own nation and people through their inaction and deceit.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. All fine Peter but when you write
    “the next democratic event addressing the constitutional issue must be the final such event. It must be decisive. It must be conclusive. It must settle the matter beyond question”
    What is that event? What would happen? Who would be involved? And why would Westminster take note – not agree as they will never do that, but have to respond beyond,”oh really”

    Like

    1. I’ve said what the event must be. I’ve explained it. The democratic event that we must achieve is one which serves as a formal exercise by the people of Scotland of our right of self-determination. Most obviously, this would be a referendum. But it would have to be a referendum authorised by and held under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament ONLY.

      The Scottish Parliament must assert the competence to authorise and conduct such a referendum in defiance of the British state. The British state, if it chooses to challenge this, will be obliged to make arguments which say out loud the things it holds to be true but would prefer for the moment to pretend that it doesn’t. The British would have to argue before whatever court or courts it ended up in that Scotland IS NOT a nation; that Scotland DOES NOT have the right of self-determination; that the people of Scotland ARE NOT sovereign; and that Westminster has greater democratic legitimacy than Holyrood.

      Contrast this with the pathetic farce of the SNP/Scottish Government’s little adventure in the UK Supreme Court. It’d mak ye greet!

      People have been conditioned (colonised minds) to think in terms of legality under local (British) law. In reality, local law counts for nothing in such matters. It is superseded by international law. What matters is that our process accords with international law and ─ perhaps more importantly ─ that it conforms strictly to democratic principles. It is actually the British state’s efforts to prevent us exercising our right of self-determination that is unlawful. But, again, people have been conditioned to endlessly question the legality of what Scotland does or proposes to do while blithely accepting the British standard as the one against which all actions must be assessed.

      The only way to have the issue fully tested in the arenas that matter is for us to just do it and let the British try to stop us. That’s what Norway did when it broke free of the political union dominated by Sweden. With all the usual caveats about the dangers of simplification, the story starts, as all such stories must, with the nation that wishes to dissolve the union breaking the rules which bind it to the dominant ‘partner’. Norway declared its intention to set up its own consular service thus breaching the terms of the political union which reserved foreign policy to Sweden. Sweden refused to recognise the legislation passed by the Norwegian parliament and the Norwegian government resigned; provoking a constitutional crisis when it proved impossible to form a new government.

      To resolve the issue of Norway’s constitutional status, the Storting (Norwegian parliament) voted unanimously to dissolve the political union with Sweden. This was on 7 June 1905. Crucially, in order to seize total control of the process, Norway avoided the offer of a negotiated settlement which would have allowed Sweden a measure of influence. Instead, the Storting immediately scheduled a referendum for 13 August – around nine weeks after the vote to dissolve the union.

      That referendum resulted in a ‘Yes’ vote of 99.5%.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Since the FM has said over and over again that she respects the Supreme Court’s decision, she will NEVER go against it and hold an unauthorised referendum – unauthorised, that is, by Westminster.

        It would be ‘unlawful’ and would be boycotted by approximately 50% of the electorate. Rule of law, etc., which she would uphold since she trained as a lawyer.

        I don’t like it but that’s what would happen and that, I suspect, would be the end of it. It probably wouldn’t even make it to the domestic Courts let alone the ICJ.

        I note what you say about Norway but wasn’t Norways situation with Sweden less complex than our entanglement with England, in that it appears that it was just the Monarchy that kept them in a union.

        Norway already had its own Parliament, rather than a devolved one, and other institutions. Once Norway set up the consulates it was a slap in the face to the King of Sweden and the union dissolved rather easily, and simply, after that.

        Like

          1. Me neither but this: “But it would have to be a referendum authorised by and held under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament ONLY.” is not going to happen whilst Ms Sturgeon is FM. Will public opinion shift the FM’s position? Nope.

            It’s incredible that we are not even allowed to give our opinion on our own country’s future. That should get the ICJ involved right there.

            Since that’s apparently not an option, identifying the level of support can only be obtained via an election – UK or Holyrood. If we get a majority then, no doubt the UK government will try to deny it or just flat out ignore the result.

            After that, what? Withdraw MPs and set up Constitutional Convention and appeal to ICJ since all routes blocked?

            Meanwhile several years will have passed and I expect I’ll be deid. End of story, for me at least, if not for Scotland!

            Any other routes?

            It’s very difficult not to hate the bastards who got Scotland into this effing union in the first place even if that’s pointless.

            Like

            1. You’ve given up. It’s all there in your first paragraph. You cannot sensibly say that you have abandoned the effort to make the FM do her job and simultaneously claim that you are still trying to get the thing done. In what way can you possibly be trying when you’ve thrown away a vital tool? Unless you have come up with a way of getting the job done without this vital tool, it makes no sense. And if you’ve hit on a way to restore Scotland’s independence that doesn’t require the participation of the First Minister and Scottish Government, I’m sure we’d all love to hear it.

              Like

              1. No, I haven’t given up. I’m frustrated because I’ve had my three score years and ten and I’m running out of time to see Scotland free. Political wheels grind very slowly.

                To be frank and I have no ill will towards her, Ms Sturgeon is a road block to independence. I’m not capable of stiffening her spine nor is the independence movement. She is what she is.

                A different person is needed, a different character altogether who will take on Westminster, dump the reverence for our neighbours’ law (which should be disregarded as irrelevant anyway) and hold a referendum under international law rather than theirs.

                Like

                1. Failing that, and it wouldn’t be my first choice, an early Holyrood election as a de facto referendum.

                  Like

                  1. So, nothing that will or can be effective. Very much like Sturgeon, in fact.

                    Who do you imagine would be First Minister after this phantom extraordinary Scottish Parliament election? It is all but certain it would be Nicola Sturgeon. And, if the ‘de facto’ (fake) referendum goes as its proponents hope, it will be Nicola Sturgeon in an even stronger position. She’ll be sitting there with a solid majority and a massive vote share ─ over 50% if the ‘de facto’ referendum fans get their way ─ giving her a mandate to do… what? Plead for a Section 30 order? Or, as appears to be her new ‘strategy’, refuse to ask for one but wait for it to be offered?

                    It’s no change! As is obvious if you bother to think it through. The only way an extraordinary election could make a difference is if the government was elected on a #ManifestoForIndependence. None of this ‘de facto’ referendum pish. Just call it what it is ─ an election. But vote for the party that is (a) most likely to form the government and (b) is standing on a #ManifestoForIndependence.

                    The problem with that is that we had the chance to so this very thing last year. And almost nobody in the Yes movement could be bothered. Either they’d given up like you or they were off pursuing some side project that has been no more effective in bring independence closer than Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP. What reason is there to suppose that the Yes movement will unite to force the SNP to adopt the #ManifestoForIndependence on pain of mass defection to whatever party is standing on a #ManifestoForIndependence? What reason is there to suppose that things will be any different from last year? What reason is there to suppose Yes activists have got any better at listening?

                    As I have said before, it’s not just the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon that have fucked up. The Yes movement is just as culpable because the Yes movement made a choice NOT to use its strength. The Yes movement got lost in a variety of delusions about a thousand and one different ‘routes’ to independence and chose NOT to take the route that was right in front of them. It was a choice that was the aggregate of all the small choices made by people like yourself who refuse to deal with the reality because they are too profoundly in the fucking huff with some fucking politicians!

                    No wonder I swear! Scotland’s cause means something to me and I’m watching it being trashed by an assortment of fucking idiots.

                    Like

                    1. To be honest, it sounds as if you’re the one who’s given up!

                      Not only do you think Ms Sturgeon isn’t up to the job (I agree) but, according to you, neither is the Yes movement!

                      I guess we’ll see what happens but I won’t be holding my breath waiting on Ms Sturgeon taking us forward. After all, her ’emergency’ meeting of the SNP’s NEC isn’t going to be held until the ‘New Year’ which certainly isn’t going to be 3 January ’23. More likely spring time. Some ’emergency’, eh?

                      Meanwhile, the poor getter poorer, colder and hungrier.

                      Like

                    2. If I had given up, I wouldn’t be putting in the effort that I am. But any effort is all but bound to be wasted unless you’re working on a realistic appreciation of the situation. It is necessary to know what went wrong if it is to be put right. It is necessary to identify the things that won’t work in order to get to the things that will.

                      If I had given up on both the SNP and the Yes movement, why would I be urging the latter to use its muscle to push the former in a more productive direction?

                      Like

  9. Peter,

    Your words reminded me of what Saruman said to Gandalf in Lord of the Rings:

    ‘We must join with him, Gandalf”

    For many Sturgeon has become the Sauron of Scottish politics and the suggestion of joining with her is out of the question. That does not mean they have given up.

    Like

    1. Who is First Minister? Do some research and find out who the First Minister is. I’m pretty sure you’ll find it is Nicola Sturgeon. Nicola Sturgeon is the First Minister. You have to stop blanking this vital piece of knowledge from your mind.

      Nicola Sturgeon is the First Minister. That is one of those things we grown-ups call ‘facts’. It is an irrefutable fact. As you will find should you attempt to refute it. Nicola Sturgeon is the First Minister. Or if you’d prefer, the First Minister is Nicola Sturgeon.

      Once you have this fact firmly lodged in your mind, explain to us how we restore Scotland’s independence without the active cooperation of the First Minister. Who, lest you’ve forgotten already, is Nicola Sturgeon.

      Don’t bother giving me any other shit. Just the explanation of how we progress the process of restoring Scotland’s independence absent the participation of the First Minister (Nicola Sturgeon).

      Alternatively, ─ although I don’t recommend it if you want to avoid looking a total fanny ─ you could attempt to refute the claim that Nicola Sturgeon is First Minister of Scotland.

      Anything other than either of these I will simply ignore. You may consider that rude. I don’t give a fuck.

      Like

      1. Fantasy politics

        I don’t mind your rudeness, pomposity or silly repetition , although it doesn’t help your arguments.

        You say you don’t do fantasy politics.

        After sounding like Dorothy Bain in the Supreme Court in the first part of your article ( couldn’t make her mind up which way to go) you eventually tell us of Sturgeon ‘She will turn this round I believe’, and of the SNP ‘ they are the only ones who could move us on any time soon’

        I don’t believe either of these two assertions.

        Readers of this blog can come to their own conclusion as to who the fantasist is.

        As you say you will ignore this post I will say thank you for letting me have my say.

        Am I now banned from making my views known?

        Like

        1. I can’t find where I said ‘she will turn this round I believe’. I certainly HOPE she will turn this around. Because no body else can. She is the First Minister. The SNP is the party of government. Unless you have one of those ‘cunning plans’ that I so enjoy tearing to shreds, she will be FM and the SNP will be the party of government for as long as it matters.

          If you don’t understand the role of the FM and governing party, should you even be commenting?

          Very evidently, you are not banned. So you can quit playing the victim. It’s pathetic.

          Like

          1. You are correct. It was a comment from another poster which I mistakenly attributed to you. My apologies for that.

            I don’t have any plans to offer, cunning or otherwise, I wish I did.

            My patience with Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP has been exhausted. I cannot believe that they will provide the solution, or be involved in providing it. They have been more involved in preventing it in the past few years. Events will tell.

            Thank you for reminding me that Nicola Sturgeon is the FM. I’ll try not to forget.

            Like

              1. I will never give up. But I will decline to be led down what I perceive to be another blind alley.

                Nothing would please me more than to see that your way forward has been successful, and if it is I will be at the front of the queue in congratulating you, and eat as much humble pie as you care to serve. ________________________________

                Liked by 1 person

                1. If you’ve given up on the First Minister and the Scottish Government then you have given up on independence. I do not expect you to admit it. But you have. Maybe in your head and your heart you haven’t. But in the real world, you have.

                  Like

                  1. I have given up on the current First Minister and her supposed Government, which does nothing but march to her tune, a combination of ‘Somewhere Over the Rainbow’,’ The Grand Old Duke’ of York, and ‘ I did it My Way’.

                    Like

  10. Colonized-elites

    SNP elite has chosen to serve as a colonial administration
    Extremely deceitful and most treacherous NuSNP’s deception
    The colonizers’ agents are ignorant: where sovereignty lies
    The politicians aren’t serving their voters; so we despise

    Both Holyrood and Westminster, hey have condemned their own
    Nation and people through their inaction and deceit: disown
    The outcome’s “a calcified colonized society” – UK beside
    Originating internally alongside corset imposed from outside

    More than three centuries have passed – as I’m writing this
    And realising that our ancestors had similar feelings to us
    Centuries, more like minutes, between the ages we discuss…
    Quietly Resuming Scotland’s independence peacefully, no fuss!

    Ewenart

    © Ewen A Morrison

    Liked by 2 people

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.