The Sunday National’s summary of the policies and positions set out by the three candidates in the SNP leadership contest is useful even if for no other reason than to illustrate how little is on offer to Scotland’s independence movement. The total absence of any new ideas is incredible given that there has been an eight-year hiatus in which to consider the matter. The paucity of ideas is clear evidence of how effectively the Sturgeon clique shut down all discussion of strategy within the party and, to a worrying degree, the wider Yes movement.
Humza Yousaf’s big idea is a series of regional assemblies where SNP members can have “honest and frank discussions” about this and that. It hardly matters what is discussed because as many of you may remember, this has been done before. Managed by Keith Brown, it was one of those initiatives by which Sturgeon sought to enthuse – or at least placate – those who weren’t entirely sold on her strategy of doing nothing in the hope that the accelerating degeneration of Westminster governments would be sufficient to increase support for independence. I attended one of those Citizens’ Assemblies and was hugely impressed by the wealth of ideas generated by the Yes activists assembled. None of this has ever been reflected in the SNP leadership’s ‘thinking’ on how to progress Scotland’s cause. As with all of these can-kicking initiatives, nothing happened. Nothing changed.
Now, Humza Yousaf wants to do it all again. He is so lacking in intellectual substance as to be unable even to devise a new ‘initiative’. Instead, he resorts to dusting off something that has already proved to be a pointless exercise – unless the point is to keep potentially critical activists occupied for a wee while.
So far, so bloody useless! But as if eager to confirm his status as the continuity candidate committed to maintaining Nicola Sturgeon’s legacy of lethargy, Yousaf says he thinks all options that are “within a legal framework should be on the table”. Which means no options other than the Section 30 process because the legal framework to which he refers is that which has been erected by the British state for the purpose of preserving the Union. That’s right! Useless Yousaf’s ‘plan’ for restoring independence is to use a process designed to prevent independence being restored. Had Humza Yousaf been party to any honest and frank discussions about strategy he might be aware that the Section 30 process is deprecated by a large and growing part of the independence movement. Outside the bubble within which the Sturgeon clique isolates itself for fear of contamination with new ideas, the realisation is dawning that there is no legal route to independence in the sense that Yousaf uses that term.
If restoring Scotland’s independence is a priority for SNP members then they must discount Humza Yousaf as party leader.
The same goes for Kate Forbes whose position on the constitutional issue makes Yousaf look like a wild-eyed radical. She hasn’t even bothered with one of those initiatives. Instead, she parrots Sturgeon’s line about winning mandates at elections and using them to demand a Section 30 order. As if this hasn’t already been done! To no avail! It is the very definition of a failed strategy!
The campaign teams behind both Forbes and Yousaf face the unenviable task of trying to find a new form of words to present stale old ideas. Thus, the series of policy papers that Sturgeon was belatedly cobbling together is now a “new prospectus outlining what would happen in the first 10 years of Scotland after independence”. Spot the idiocy? How the hell can anybody say what would happen in the decade following an as yet unknown date? Either in the sense of predicting or prescribing? It is utter nonsense by which Forbes insults our intelligence. It is a rash person who would presume to predict what might happen over the next ten days, never mind ten years!
There is one superficially fresh twist to the proposal put forward by Kate Forbes. She says the SNP’s silly prospectus for an unknowable future should be “written by the party and not the British civil service”. Duh! If her Sturgeonesqe dedication to the British gold standard of Section 30 wasn’t reason enough for independence activists to reject Kate Forbes then the fact that she supposes the party preparing its own campaign materials to be a particularly clever idea is surely the clincher.
The distinct impression given by both Forbes and Yousaf is that they haven’t given the constitutional issue a moment’s thought in the last several years. Their proposals look like they were hurriedly assembled from Sturgeon’s scraps all glued together with a bit of rhetoric. If this is the best the SNP can do then it is time they stopped calling it the ‘party of independence’.
The only faint glimmer of hope for Scotland’s cause is Ash Regan. Not so much for what she has said as for what she hasn’t said. She hasn’t explicitly repudiated the Section 30 process. But at least she hasn’t embraced it in the way the other two have. If I choose to hope this might be firmed up as an unambiguous rejection of that process then it is only because there is no hope whatever to be found elsewhere.
Neither has Ash Regan openly acknowledged that it will be necessary to step outside the legal and constitutional framework which constrains Forbes and Yousaf. But she has spoken of taking control of the process. Which at least hints at her readiness to think what the others consider the unthinkable. Her ‘voter empowerment mechanism’ may be no more than the de facto referendum plan with added jargon. But it is possible to discern in her words a space where a genuine #ManifestoForIndepen
dence might be inserted at a later time.
Ash Regan’s position on the constitutional issue falls well short of the boldness and assertiveness that Scotland’s cause requires. But unlike Forbes and Yousaf she doesn’t rule out a more robust approach to the constitutional issue. We can only hope that she continues to develop her thinking along these lines. And that SNP members see the need for that more aggressive approach to restoring Scotland’s independence.
Peter A Bell 
More dispiriting having attended one of these events is how much the clichés were lapped up by the audience. The single point of hope of something different was raised by Ash was negatively recieved. All in the room deferencial to Westminster.
LikeLiked by 6 people
Others have remarked in similar vein. You’re right. It is depressing.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Could it be depressing because those who attended were, in the main, Sturgeonites? She has managed to simultaneously create a stasis while also giving every impression of progress. Nothing she has done, except in her very early days, has been remotely progressive, radical or far-thinking. Too many of those still in the SNP, many, remember, hard left former Labour supporters who have alienate almost everyone with madcap policies that are designed to stymie independence. The old SNP radicals are all gone – dead, given up or moved over to ALBA and other independence parties – and they were the very backbone, soul and heart of the original party. The SNP is simply no longer the SNP, and will never be again until the ‘wokerati’ and all their baggage are given the Order of the Boot. That is what it is going to take. When a parasite moves into any area of existence, you have to eradicate it in order to start afresh. Ash Regan’s agenda might be too radical for those who will lose out, but for the biggest part of the YES movement, she is not yet radical enough. She has guts. No one can deny that, but can she put them to the test on independence, not just the GRRB?
LikeLiked by 6 people
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
LikeLike
Indeed! I get Ash Regan’s points unfortunately, she hasn’t had time as yet to flesh them out.
To me , reading between the lines I can see formulations coming to the fore from Ash; time is not on her side.
And a biased media who is not going to analyze any of Ash’s statements, as you need a media who in turn would assist in fleshing out these very statements.
Woe betide any media stenographer who strays from the unionist narrative or heaven forfend even mentions or notices an independence orientated candidate.
🐼🐼🏴🏴
LikeLiked by 4 people
“To me , reading between the lines I can see formulations coming to the fore from Ash; time is not on her side.”
Nor are punters. You can get 25/1 against Ash on the Betfair Exchange as her odds continue to drift.
LikeLike
One speech can turn it all around.
LikeLike
Agreed, but she is under the most gross pressure from the Sturgeonite lobby. They threw everything at Kate Forbes, and, now, they are driving a wedge between Ash Regan and the members. None of this is incidental; it is all carefully orchestrated between the continuity lot and the MSM. Yes, just one really radical speech would do it. That could turn it all around. What has she to lose, really? If she doesn’t, it will be the back benches, anyway; if she does, she will make her name. She should cast her eyes across the water to Ireland where the two women of Sinn Fein have brought NI and Ireland closer to reunification that ever before. They are not afraid of a border poll which they might not win first time, but will eventually.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aye lorncal, Sinn Fein have BELIEF in their country and the people whom they seek to represent in stark contrast to the charlatans who have taken over control of the SNP.
As this hustings charade progresses to farce Ash Regan must surely recognise the necessity of stridently calling out the Section 30 process for what it is by reinforcing the argument for Independence and delivering her own considered vision of the way forward for Scotland.
Regan from here on in must robustly attempt to present the alternative strategy at every opportunity given. Playing by the SNP rules of engagement will end in failure for herself and potentially disaster for Scotland’s aspiration to Independence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Peter, no amount of great speeches will turn it around, the fix is in, all Murrell has to do is inform his poll firm Mi-Voice that there’s a load of votes that need to be added to the original votes and the company is obliged to carry out his instructions, if that isn’t bad enough the SNP HQ bosses have called in GCHQ to make sure there’s no irregularities (The Russians did it BS).
Then you have the likes of Mairi McAllan and Emma Harper blatantly breaking party rules to promote Humza Yousaf, add in that the contestants only have a month to put together a leaders policy, nigh impossible if you ask me, and that the expenditure is set at £5000, which isn’t enough though Yousaf seems to be spreading his that well that one would think HQ was also funding his campaign.
Then you have the Britnat MSM al but ignoring the only real indy candidate Ash Regan, because they fear her.
This SNP leadership contest is an utter farce, you know it, I know it, and so does a helluva lot more folk, the membership needs to grow a pair and do something about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t tell me what I know.
LikeLike
…….”Now, Humza Yousaf wants to do it all again. He is so lacking in intellectual substance as to be unable even to devise a new ‘initiative’.….
So far, so bloody useless! “
from the 1930s to the 1950s the Daily Mirror ran a strip cartoon, ‘Useless Eustace’.
It has already been adapted on some websites (including here, today!) to describe this serial ministerial failure.
If he actually becomes FM, expect ‘Useless Yousaf’ to grow wings and take flight across the MSM. Can a restoration of SLab hegemony be far behind?
LikeLike
I go back to what I said yesterday, that it’s important for those voting to also think who they don’t want as FM. Here’s what I posted elsewhere.
I was at the National’s Sturgeon rally and as always I like to look around and take it all in, but not really listen to speeches. Yousaf’s however was outstanding, up and at ’em inspirational.
But I don’t think he’s really an original thinker, all his stuff so far is a rehash. He’d have a strong place on campaigns, and it seems the 3 of them get on grand even if they’re in competition.
There was Salmond with the wheeling and dealing, Sturgeon with the law and constitution, both took that as far as it could go, and now it’s all about the economy. A lot of almost overnight conversions from NO to YES is possible from what I hear from people.
So Honest Forbes as FM and a good focus on the economy, and Brave Regan as Constitution secretary, and the job’s a good ‘un.
Just to point out by the way, that the descriptors are what they said about each other when asked!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just to add that Forbes said she would set out the finances for the first 10 years of Independence, and that’s exactly what I wanted (posting in the Herald) for Swinney to do for Indy Ref 1 – unsuccessfully sadly.
And no, I don’t mean that Charlotte Street “plan” 😦
LikeLike
Utter pish! How the fuck can Forbes ─ or anyone else, for that matter ─ “set out the finances for the first 10 years of Independence”? There will be at least three elections in that period. How can she possibly know what government will be elected on what manifesto? How can she possibly know what the circumstances will be? It is total nonsense that will only impress gullible numpties.
LikeLiked by 5 people
It’s called a “10 year plan”. Google it with “… for the economy”.
Meanwhile there’s this for those paying attention:
Forbes’s would be specific for Independence, not Devolution. It’s very clear she doesn’t have a “colonial mindset” 🙂
LikeLike
Or even better:
“The next ten years have been branded the “decisive decade”.
In the next decade, we face a choice to either lead or to lag behind other successful economies all whilst we recover from Covid, deliver net zero, tackle structural inequalities and grow our economy. We choose to lead.”
https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-national-strategy-economic-transformation/pages/1/
Something similar for the Indy prospectus, with an easy-read leaflet as well, would do the job nicely I think,
LikeLike
Fantasy!
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Fantasy!”
I like your enthusiasm 🙂
LikeLike
We live in a world where the President of the United States only has to stumble a little and the global economy goes into turmoil. In that world, only the most pathologically credulous individuals believe there can be such a thing as a 10-year economic plan. Look to history, fool! And listen to JK Galbraith.
“The problem of the modern economy is not a failure of a knowledge of economics; it’s a failure of a knowledge of history.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
As a micro business that’s survived through many UK governments and all the Holyrood ones, plus bank crashes, recessions, covid and even Brexit, I prefer to set out a plan for the future, even up to a few years ahead, as it highlights weaknesses, strengths, where you are most vulnerable, where it’s worth trying to save money, where it isn’t, and which supplies it’s most worth spending time getting quotes for to get the best prices in future. Plus of course using all information, examining the marketplace, and setting prices to optimise profits and turnover, while providing quality products, excellent and personal service, reasonable prices and repeat customers. Another year of survival and still got a roof over our heads and food on the table. Miracles!
And you?
LikeLike
What will be the US Dollar / Scottish Pound (?) exchange rate seven year after independence?
LikeLiked by 2 people
What will Scotland’s rate of unemployment be five years after independence?
LikeLiked by 2 people
What will the rate of inflation be in Scotland four years after independence?
LikeLiked by 2 people
What will the Euro / Scottish Pound (?) exchange rate be nine years after independence?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just tell me all the factual information on which a ten-year economic plan might be based.
LikeLike
You really don’t understand the point of a plan, do you!
Doesn’t make you a bad person all the same 😎
LikeLike
I think what Peter is trying to say here, is that setting out an exact Economic plan for 10 years set into the future, in the manner Fobes is suggesting, isn’t realistic.
Its not like she is in Government and sets out the future vision, they way they do just now.
We don’t know who will be in Government by then, and also, actually, when we will get to Independence.
If we go by either Yousaf or Forbes, we will still be hoping for Independence 10 years from now!
However, there is always a vision for how Scotland could possibly make use of the 1st 10 years of Independence.
That is not quite the same thing as a definitive Budget plan.
It is also more honest to say this is what we could do, and what we can do, than pretend to set out exactly how finances are going to be at that time, as we won’t know here and now exactly how those finances will be.
Besides don’t you think the anti Scottish pro London lot would not have a go, the way they always do, if we try to be so perfectly exact?
But we all know there is an awful lot that needs to be done, and can be done within the first few years of Independence, and actually, there is much that can be done here and now, particularly with Local Government structures.
But again, that is not the same as setting out how the Economy will be run way into the future.
One other thing, I think Peter is getting at here, with this 10 year plan idea, is the fact its being talked up while brushing aside the how, of actually getting there.
For the fact is, the Forbes route to Independence, is not going to work, if it still insists we ask London permission to have a vote.
And this line about “Legal” routes the Sturginistas , like Humza, keep insisting on, is also a route to nowhere.
So, when we hear them say all these things about finances over 10 years, or however many years, while keeping to the present approach to Independence with no challenge to that, we have to wonder about these candidates’ vision for Scotland.
I mean, if they still want to be asking London for permission for 10 years or more, and some elected SNP politicians do want to be, they now openly talking of 2050, being a time for Independence, then any “10 year plan” is totally meaningless, and misleading, into the bargain!
LikeLike
That is exactly the point. A plan requires reliable data. There must be some ‘fixed points’ in order to plot a journey. In a period defined as the ten years after an unknown date there are no fixed points. None whatever. There can’t be. Because we don’t even know the starting point. So, the whole of that ten year slot is free to slide along the scale of time. It can cover any period from now into the distant future. Even where there are points on the calendar which are relatively reliably known events ─ such as elections ─ we have no way of knowing which elections far less what will be the outcome and therefore the manifesto that will be implemented.
To illustrate the point with an extreme example, the second election within that ten year period might result in a Conservative government in Edinburgh which dumps every bit of the ‘plan’ and starts reversing whatever bits have been implemented. A Tory government may seem unlikely now. But how can we know what a new, post-independence, genuinely Scottish Tory party will look like to voters. There is some reason to believe a Tory government is possible. When there was such a thing as a real Scottish Conservative Party seven or eight decades ago, it won a plurality of the vote in Scotland.
Kate Forbes isn’t talking about a plan. At best, she is talking about an aspiration. But it’s more like a fairy story to tantalise the credulous.
And, of course, there is the fact known to all who know the first thing about political campaigning. People don’t vote what they know. They vote what they feel. Economic arguments do not serve to inform voters’ choices. What they do is provide a plausible rationalisation for choices motivated by factors less intellectual. That’s why the British put out such a torrent of economic disinformation during the 2014 referendum campaign. It wasn’t to persuade people. It was so people who had already made up their minds could point to the numbers and claim to have a rational reason for having chosen as they did.
Conclusion? NEVER put bean-counters in charge of a political campaign. They simply don’t understand how these things work. They imagine a mechanical world. In reality, the world is an amorphous organic blob.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gordon. sorry just saw that while finishing off – see below my reply to Ding Dong (possibly ex navy lark?).
There’s a complete difference between an “annual budget”, and a “10 year plan”. If you don’t have a plan, you live day to day, with no investment into the future. The plan tells you where to invest – hopefully for maximum benefit. The SG’s funds are actually split into day to day spending, and development.
LikeLike
I’ve said exactly that to a couple of posters on WOS who monotonously demand ” show us the money ” ie in ADVANCE of achieving Independence & as a prerequisite of convincing people to vote YES . When asked ” how ” ? How TF can you * guarantee * the future economic conditions of anyone in this globalised economy we live in , subject to regular * shocks * , unforeseen geopolitical events eg the ( Proxy ) War in Ukraine/Brexit etc not to mention the predations of International Capitalism – which neither knows nor cares about the effects of it’s actions on National Govs or their people ?
If you’re going to try to sell people Independence like a commodity ,by appealing to their material self-interest alone , you’ll always be vulnerable to precisely the scare tactics we witnessed by our opponents in 2014 – ” Oh your pensions won’t get paid ” ” you’ll be out of the EU ( ha fucking ha ) ” ” you’ll be like Greece , without the sun ” , in short , you’ll face economic apocalypse . It worked .
The appeal to Independence has to amount to more than ” you’ll be £20/30/40 pw ” better off if you vote YES .
Anyway you could * prove * the economic case for Scottish Independence simply by lifting a finger , pointing it southwards and asking ” look at the fckn shape of THAT , do you really think we couldn’t do a whole lot better if Independent ” . Anyone who answers ” no ” will never vote YES anyway ( and probably needs psychiatric help 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
” when asked ” how ” ? ………..they have no answer , other than to waffle gibberish about , effectively , making people promises ( that can NEVER be guaranteed ) and a tartan version of ” Jam the morra “
LikeLike
Any 10 year plan can only amount to wishful thinking, especially a 10 year economic plan.
But there has to be a way for potential leaders of political parties to demonstrate their intentions if elected, to enable voters to make an informed choice. It can be done.
It wouldn’t look very good if they said they didn’t have a plan because they didn’t know what would happen after their first ten days in office.
LikeLike
Yes, but it doesn’t stop having a plan, following it, monitoring it, and updating on a yearly or even quarterly basis. That last 10 year one for Devolution in 2022 was perhaps a bit of a hangover, and Forbes would clearly be restricted at the time in terms of policies. But as FM there could be changes. The FoAI weren’t too impressed.
Behind such plans there is or should be, financial modelling, but I’d like to see a much more ambitious one, almost certainly in conjunction with the FoAI. Such a thing was on its way in days of yore in my previous life, I worked on it. Doesn’t seem to have got very far though, apart from maybe at the heart of the then burgeoning oil industry. I’d also like to see it have an app the general public could play with. No advance notice to the unionist media of course!
https://fraserofallander.org/economic-modelling/
I posted about this in the Herald during Indy Ref 1 but unfortunately nothing happened. Saw your post on the previous thread by the way – I think there will be absolutely no change at all with Yousaf, Indy not till 2050 at the earliest, but don’t under-rate Regan – she’s learning fast.
Sorry if this is a bit rushed, tea time and TV!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Forbes is barely out of Cambridge Uni with a history degree and has zero business experience at even middle management level. Yousaf is the same, no experience outside politics. What do any of them know about managing a business never mind a national economy? They don’t even understand that independence is first necessary to be able to even think about turning around an asset stripped colonial territory still very much locked in to serving an exploitative imperial ‘mother country’. They have no concept of what needs to be done to remedy Scotland’s under-developed and exploited economy and people under colonial rule. First thing any nationalist leadership needs to undertake is ‘a reasoned study of colonial society’. They still need to do this. You cannot cure an illness if you do not know what it is.
LikeLiked by 4 people
That’s incorrect Alf, Forbes is a chartered accountant and worked as an accountant for Barclays for over 2 years according to her profile. She also of course took over from Derek McKay as finance secretary, and is 32 years old, not barely out of Uni (she also went to Edinburgh).
Anyway, her ability actually has nothing to do with whether or not a 10 year economic plan is worth it, or not.
LikeLike
My understanding is Forbes is not a chartered accountant. If you have proof please show it.
LikeLike
For goodness sake, don’t be silly. Google it yourself.
LikeLike
“To qualify as an ICAEW Chartered Accountant you must complete the ACA, a highly-respected professional qualification that requires students to complete at least three years on-the-job training while passing a series of exams. ”
“HND students at Scottish Further Education Colleges aspiring to progress to chartered accountancy have gone on to a further two year’s university study before starting training towards chartered accountancy. ”
There is no way a History graduate can be a Chartered Accountant in 2 years.
LikeLiked by 5 people
“She then went on to work for Oxfam Scotland before studying to become a chartered accountant and working for Barclays.”
wiki does not say she ever completed her chartered accountant exams. 2 yrs working for Oxfam and Barclays does not a chartered accountant make. Much like Maggie Chapman never finished a PhD.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re not very good at google, are you? 30 seconds (I’m drinking my tea which is why it took so long):
https://find.icaew.com/search?term=kate+forbes&location_freetext=&lat=&lng=&filters%5Btype%5D=#results
Now then, are you going to admit you got it wrong?
LikeLike
Please explain how can she can qualify after ‘just over 2 years’ in-the-job when:
““To qualify as an ICAEW Chartered Accountant you must complete the ACA, a highly-respected professional qualification that requires students to complete at least three years on-the-job training while passing a series of exams. ”
So she is not (or has never been?) a practicing accountant and has no ‘certificate’ to do so? Hence still a trainee essentially? Seriously, doing just over 2 years as a trainee student accountant does not make for an experienced anything, chartered or otherwise. Someone still serving an apprenticeship maybe, at the very beginning of a career. Still, slightly better than her predecessor at Finance? I suppose the outgoing FM is still described as ‘a former lawyer’, though many know how that ended.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dearie dearie me, you are funny.
There is a clue – as well as “MSc”, she has “ACA” after her name.
Here’s another clue:
“To become a chartered accountant you must complete 450 days of on-the-job training alongside the study elements of the ACA qualification. To do so you will need to secure a training agreement with a company or accountant authorised by ICAEW.”
That would be Barclays, and over 2 years (2 and a half it seems) would comfortably cover 450 days for a hard-worker like Forbes.
I did all this at the time she took over from McKay as the extreme unionists below the line on the Herald were doing exactly the same as you are – trying to discredit her. Well, you’re as out of luck as they were.
You have a lot to learn young grasshopper.
LikeLike
Incidentally, there are many employers have special arrangements for people who work for politicians, over and above what are available to normal punters, to gain qualifications. It makes sense for all 3 parties (pardon the pun). It’s one of the reasons people are prepared to work for politicians for low wages – or even none. And the company does pay them a wage while they’re working there getting those qualifications.
LikeLike
Not a practicing or certified CA means precisely that. Required duration of training is still 3-5 years. ‘Just over 2 years’ isnae ‘3 years’. There are many clubs with members. Why not a Scottish one?
Anyway, the far more important leadership issue you ran away from was this:
“They don’t even understand that independence is first necessary to be able to even think about turning around an asset stripped colonial territory still very much locked in to serving an exploitative imperial ‘mother country’. They have no concept of what needs to be done to remedy Scotland’s under-developed and exploited economy and people under colonial rule. First thing any nationalist leadership needs to undertake is ‘a reasoned study of colonial society’. They still need to do this. You cannot cure an illness if you do not know what it is.”
Tak yer time….thars nae rash.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Take it up with the ICAEW. You are totally and utterly wrong, own up.
LikeLike
Not a practicing or certified CA means precisely that. And ‘just over 2 years’ does not mean 3 years. One’s membership perhaps rushed through to coincide with 2016 election?
What about the other question on a strategy to repair an exploited and under-developed colonial economy – too difficult?
Even your ‘name’ is confused – like ‘yesindyref2’ is ever gonna happen!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Alf, I think you and reality never saw eye to eye.
As for your “colonial” hobby, I’m not interested as I said before.
LikeLike
Postcolonial theory is based on the reality of living in colonial societies. Of course, your version of ‘reality’ may well be that Scotland’s resources are not plundered, that our political decisions are not made for us by another people and culture (who also take a high proportion of our best jobs), and that our culture and languages (and hence our indigenous people) are not intentionally marginalised and made subordinate.
Here it may be worth remembering that denial of these and other oppression’s forms a fundamental part of the ‘colonial condition’, permitting colonialism to continue.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Alf, you’re an enthusiastic dude, and perhaps instead of trying to teach your papa how to suck eggs, you could modernise the thing and put it into a sensible readable chunk size thing which relates to the grid, energy, water, and even now, oil and gas. And fish, thanks for all the fish.
None of the idea of Westminster sucking Scotland dry is new to me. I came to support Independence between two general elections which effectively saw the number of SNP MPs rise from 1 to 2 to 7 to 11.
Yes, Scotland had been sucked dry before then, and before oil, and during the two world wars, and the Napoleonic, and back to the Treaty of Union, and the Darien “Adventure”, and even back through the years when Scotland had to pay tribute at the small palace built for the King or Queen of Scotland just off what is now Trafalgar Square and Whitehall, so they could go down and kneel before the King or Queen of England and – literally – pay tribute. Nothing changes.
But with 11 MPs, at last there was a chance of doing something about it – till the SNP fell apart with the internal strife that we would see now, but the three candidates seem to get on together.
Get it? Instead of trying to preach to the already converted and knowledgeable in your terms, get out there and preach to the NOes – in theirs.
Gwan gwan gwan, I daur ye.
LikeLike
https://find.icaew.com/search?term=kate+forbes&location_freetext=&lat=&lng=&filters%5Btype%5D=#results
LikeLike
LikeLike