I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in the British (English) parliament.
You've spent years campaigning for the SNP to change. That was my complaint. Do you now want rid of the SNP? If so, well done!
But how many years has that taken!? Better late than never, I suppose, although it's taken a long, long time.
You overlooked the behaviour of Swinney and Sturgeon for years! Alex Salmond did the same with Sturgeon. He admitted his mistake with Sturgeon. You, on the other hand, think your support for Sturgeon was fine up to a point. You're wrong! You should just be like Alex and say it.
I agree but I suspect it doesn't matter. Not at this point at least. At this point I see us further away from independence than we've been in my lifetime.
We were completely suckered into supporting devolution. We were suckered into supporting a Section 30 referendum. And, possibly most damaging of all, many of us were suckered into withdrawing our support for Alex Salmond.
Settling the wrong done to arguably Scotland's only independence-supporting First Minister is the only way I see out of this current malaise. If you see another way, please advise?
I know we're on Peter's site and he still thinks he has a solution but, for me, the most urgent thing is justice for Alex Salmond. It's required BEFORE anything else might work imo.
No we are not suckered in to a ref... we let honest john know in no uncertain terms that the first past the post system of voting whose result is good enough for england to decide the future of the Uk for the next 5 yeras is the way ......that their version of demockracy wins...... that honest john should develop B++++ to explain to england that is how we Scots will proceed... and of course if honest john doesn't want that then he will be the committed devolutionist that Scotland doesn't need... and as Nick Robinson ended his conversation on R4 at 730am this morning.... " thank you John Swinney... first minister of Scotland... FOR NOW ".....
You are correct to say we must restore independence in Scotland. It is an internal matter.
You are mistaken to say we can't use the Scottish Parliament. We can't use it as it is. But who says it cannot be something other than what it is? The people of Scotland are sovereign. That means the Scottish Parliament is whatever we say it is.
Go back to 2014. WM didn't give Scotland a referendum,despite what some think. Holyrood did. WM role was just passing powers for the vote to British citizens in Scotland (Holyrood) under Scottish law.But therefore the result should then be acted on by Holyrood,but it goes back to WM under English law that passed the powers.
That is why the Sec30 is so devious,the result does not go back to the parliament that actually gave the referendum. Meaning the British win,even if they lose the vote. They(WM) didn't hold the referendum,HR did.
The British establishment may be corrupt parasites,but they are not stupid,Peter.
Do you really think they would create devolution,Sec30 process because it could end the union? No,they created Holyrood because it cannot act as a real parliament. It isn't possible,and even better for the British is that they cannot be blamed,because they cannot give Scotland a real parliament.
It is not a 'Scottish' parliament. It was created under the English crown,in the landmass and legal system of WM. Devolution act. WM is in England,under a different legal system from Scotland.
I will explain to you why it cannot be Scottish,ever.
Anyone can be a British citizen,so theoretically therefore you could have Holyrood with no actual people with Scottish ancestry,just British citizens in Scotland elected to HR. Holyrood is just legally(In Scottish law) in the part of the Great Britain Island(Land's End to John o' Groats) with Scotland in it.
The Kingdom of Scotland is sovereign. That is the entity in the Treaty of Union in Scottish sovereign law.
Scotland within Great Britain landmass context is not sovereign,this is what Holyrood is under.
The British cannot give Scotland a real parliament,it is not possible. That can only happen under the sovereignty of the Scottish crown.
For the simple reason,we have to have that citizenship for those parliaments to sit.
The Great Britain parliament is not the Scot/Eng former parliaments in one place.
The GB parliament was created through the Treaty of Union to dissolve the legal border between the sovereign Kingdom's,by creating a citizenship for the Island itself,Great Britain. Then a parliament for that citizenship.
It created a new identity,from scratch. The Treaty of Union is left behind in the sovereign Kingdom's,under the sovereign crowns.
There is no act of the Great Britain parliament that repeal the Treaty of Union in Scotland,anymore than it can repeal the Treaty of Arbroath. They are locked behind a wall marked Scottish crown.
Anything created by the Great Britain Island parliament is for British citizens(like Holyrood),that citizenship(or any of it's institutions) can never overrrule the sovereignty of the Scottish crown to repeal any act of the Scottish parliament,pre British.
The Treaty of Union passed by the Scottish parliament Jan 16th 1707ad.
1)Scottish Law will remain sovereign
2)Scottish crown will remain sovereign
3)Only parliament and citizenship will become British to share an open border between the two sovereign Kingdom's.
It did not create a country,it is just a political union to get rid of that pesky legal border.
How "seriously uncomfortable" a place is it for John Swinney?
I suspect he's actually perfectly comfortable. He has thirty odd percent of Scotland fooled or pretending to be fooled. Nicola Sturgeon was nowhere near as comfortable. She was flustered. Sometimes angry. Arguing with her own supporters, setting referenda dates before backing down and eventually going to a British court to prove herself wrong! She wanted to be wrong. But she was publicly humiliated with each and every referendum date expiring in the midst of the most public embarrassment.
And that was over independence. Arguably, the worst stick aimed at her was over her nonsensical gender policies.
Swinney is comfortable and relaxed by comparison. No one in the SNP can seriously say that they expect a referendum, it's a joke. It's not even a funny joke. It's a decade old and was made up in obvious lies! How anyone can still be fooled is astonishing and John Swinney is laughing at his own supporters.
I take your point. He is in a strong position regarding the election. However, any interviewer can challenge him due to the disparity between his statements and the increasingly evident reality. He can be made to look foolish just by referencing Streetings's remarks. Whether anybody will actually challenge him is a different matter.
I think the crunch will come after the election when it becomes apparent that Swinney has no backup plan. The only thing he can do is start talking about the Westminster election. There will probably be some turmoil in the party, too. There are many Scottish nationalists in the party who cannot possibly be impressed by what Swinney is doing. There is pent-up anger there that will have to be vented some time.
There is also the matter of the actual harm Swinney will do to Scotland's cause. But I think that will be tomorrow's article.
I agree. Unfortunately I can only forsee mild challenges from the media. John Swinney is liked by the devolutionists and the Unionists. I bet he's friendlier with Keir Starmer than Anas Sarwar is. I remember Swinney smiling happily whilst siding with English mayors all lined up behind Starmer. How anyone could look at that picture and not see the reality is absolutely beyond me.
You'll know better than I do how the SNP works and how rules have been changed to make a leadership challenge more unlikely. It's good news for me. I want rid of the SNP. I've read your recent thoughts with interest.
My thoughts are always evolving, Joe. Circumstances change, and personal perspectives have to adapt. My current thoughts regarding the SNP serve as a prime example. Up until fairly recently, you would have found me saying that we must force the SNP leadership to rethink its approach to the constitutional issue. My thinking then was that the SNP was going to form the next government, and so our best bet for progressing Scotland's cause in the next five years was to get the SNP back on track by whatever means we had at our disposal.
That didn't pan out. Due to the combined efforts of the SNP loyalists and the SNP haters, it proved impossible to get the independence movement behind an initiative that would have put the SNP under serious pressure.
Now, such an effort is irrelevant. As far as Scotland's cause is concerned, the election is a write-off. All that is left is to think about what might be done after the election.
My thinking now is that we must have a new party to serve as the political and parliamentary arm of the independence movement – either to replace the SNP or to become a sufficient electoral threat to force the SNP to change.
Obviously, New Scotland Party was intended to fill this role. It is still the ideal party for the job, being strictly a national constitutional party. But it would take a lot of money and effort to get things up and running. I have neither the pockets nor the heart for that project. If somebody were to donate half a million tomorrow, I might be persuaded to get back to work. But that's not very likely.
You don't seem at all familiar with the concept of changing your mind or changing circumstances. You seem unable to grasp that the way things are now is not necessarily as things were ten, twenty, or thirty years ago.
For example, it may be fair to say the SNP is a devolutionist party now. But it has not always been that way. In fact, the SNP in the years leading up to the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament would be better described as devolution sceptics. The SNP was arguably the most sceptical of all parties towards devolution. The Tories being stolidly against anything that smacked of modernity or progress.
Convincing the SNP membership that devolution could benefit Scotland's cause was a significant challenge. If they were convinced, you should be too. And for the same reasons.
Even if you couldn't see the benefits of devolution then, it's foolish to deny them now. As I have pointed out before, Scotland's cause flourished alongside the SNP in the first decade of devolution. This progress would not have happened without a Scottish Parliament that the people of Scotland slowly began to regard as their own and as important as Westminster, if not more so. Scottish general elections, with results that actually reflected the mood of the people, made progress for Scotland's cause possible.
By the middle of the second decade, devolution should have been on the way out. That is when the extent to which politicians had settled into the devolution arrangement became apparent. But for the 2007 election and the first pro-independence government, devolution would have begun to collapse at that time.
The 2011 election result and the referendum provided another reprieve for devolution. Almost the moment the referendum was over, the SNP began backing away from independence and favouring devolution. They started to see their role as making devolution work better for the people of Scotland. It was only a coincidence that this also benefitted the career politicians and their entourages. Honest, guv!
The referendum and the Yes campaign distracted people from the increasing weaponisation of devolution against the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament at the same time as the career politicians increasingly came to see devolution as their best option. It was a double whammy of devolution getting worse and politicians becoming more attached to it.
This is one of the main reasons I identified September 2018 as the latest date for a new referendum. I said at the time (2015) that if we did not commit to a new referendum immediately and pencil September 2018 as the date, Scotland's cause would suffer. Who can say I was wrong about that?
Another insulting opening paragraph from a man who, until very recently, thought the SNP might deliver independence. And who knows, you might go back and think that again at some point.
My opinion hasn't changed because I've always been right about both the SNP and their failing support for independence. I don't need to justify my earlier errors, such as support for Nicola Sturgeon, because I've not made errors and I've never supported Nicola Sturgeon or anything about her, ever! The same goes for John Swinney and every other devolutionist pretending to support independence.
Why don't you just admit that you got it wrong, openly and willingly admit your mistake. Alex Salmond did. He told me to my face that he was wrong about Nicola Sturgeon. You tell me that you were justified in supporting Sturgeon up to a point. You weren't. She failed. She had no chance of success. It was obvious. You were mistaken. Alex was mistaken. Be like Alex and admit it!
Having previously committed unequivocally to hold a 'referendum' if there were to be an SNP parliamentary majority after the upcoming Scottish election (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqHkMJu4TSU&t=2s) Swinney will now be pressed on how he will make good on his promise to deliver.
Given Streeting's outburst it is probably that Swinney will be asked endlessly by journalists between now and 7th May to
a) reveal his secret plan (which he can't)
b) admit his 'vote SNP for a referendum' campaign is a bogey (which he won't)
A constantly squirming Swinney might just open the eyes of the circa 35% of likely voters that support the SNP under the current circumstances that he and his SNP are clueless about restoring Scotland nation-state status.
I have to hand it to him, Swinney may not be a good liar, but he has an imperishably shiny brass neck.
He's taken next to no action on the legal gender ruling, he's constantly hiding documents on the Alex Salmond case, some long after it became illegal (and he has now won yet another leg of the legal wrangle), and I bet he'll position himself to win the election without a majority.
I've never, and never will, trust the SNP. Sturgeon and Swinney are only two of their devolutionists pretending to support independence. My guess is that every SNP MSP now secretly prefers devolution. In Westminster they hardly even bother pretending.
I'm reading the new Stuart Adamson book and I know Pete Wishart's cousins from Dunfermline. Pete was in Big Country for a wee while and he's quoted in the book. He makes more sense when talking about music than he does when talking politics.
Stephen Flynn is worse. Pete knows he's lying but doesn't care. Flynn is actually lining himself up for a career as a devolved politician. It's obvious! How anyone can support independence AND the SNP is beyond me.
"... and I bet he'll position himself to win the election without a majority"
I've always felt that was his real objective: In this event he can claim that, as he doesn't have the requisite 'mandate', there is no onus on him and his party to pursue Scotland's Cause but just enough votes to continue to enjoy the pay, pension and perks associated with being in office.
He will obviously be a bit concerned on reading that (some) mappings from vote share to parliamentary representation indicate an overall majority of seats for the SNP at the 7th May election.
However, in the (still) unlikely event of a parliamentary majority resulting Swinney can always claim, if vote share turns out as polls currently indicate, that the 2011 conditions haven't been repeated after all - circa 35% and 31%, respectively of constituency and regional ballots is some way short of the 45% and 44% achieved in 2011.
I agree, Stephen. Another term in which to enjoy the financial rewards without having to deal with anything related to independence is exactly what Swinney is aiming for.
I keep seeing anxious Scots referring to Swinney's pay packet... and the perks... as if this was some fantastic treasure... well its not its pretty average for career politicians who network... who know where development works are in the plan... so why is Swinney doing it... because he is basically a used car salesman who has hit pay dirt... and its a relatively an easy number as you always avoid giving direct answers about the cars performance or long term prospects..
But it's not "average" to the average person, is it? It's a fortune to those who struggle to make ends meet. And what do we get for paying him £182,000 a year? Betrayal.
Exactly. He's a mediocre politician who has found a sinecure and will not risk that for anything. And really the policies he proposes are unimportant so he can ignore their import or development and not be controversial or have to expend any effort on them. Even the really bad ones like grr which legal status he ignores. Too difficult to sort that.
YOU ARE NOT HAVING ONE..ya sh*tty wee jocks..(you missed that last bit oot!)...so I'll pit it in fur ye Peter.
Isn't it great when a plan comes together Peter? Now you know why I keep that stone in my pocket ..it's for the foreign parasitic english b*st*rds. Have you seen the comments in 'the National...'
Comments:
So what now.?.UDI?...that's a disaster.!....well what else can we do?.......oh let me let me kick their asses. They believed Holy Wullie....I am casually sharpening my Lochaber....
So we the pathetic wee Brigadoon Scots are tae listen tae the stinkin' foreign english b*st*rds who will tell us whit tae dae...grrrrrrrr!..ah doan't think so.....
As my auld mammy used tae say...HELL MEND YE!... 300 years to catch up.
I'd like tae meet chubby Streeting......he widnae like tae meet me.....
So whit noo angry Scots?
Close the border.... extract foreign english from important positions....head of Police Scotland. first...any military english b*st*rds in control in OOR army. ( american warplanes OUT.)..a Hostile environment for any geriatric foreign english white trash retired here...(spoiler alert ..we hate ye)Foreign land owners triple taxed....or we take it back....no hidden investments...
Send nuclear weapons from Faslane tae westminster..compulsory purchase of Balmoral....then burn it doon..tartan carpets as well.....Scottish pound... Scottish bank......passport( for the foreigners next door)...Grangemouth up and running..only Scots vote for Scotland..Build a statue to lizzie 1..an' then knock it doon....George Square now Robert the Bruce Plaza. Any foreign english street names gone... eg cumberland street etc
All resources back in OOR hands and we can set up fair prices for energy for our foreign english neighbours..another spoiler alert...(we are now the hostile neighbours.).how's that sound chubby streeting?
All fake foreign english political parties oot....only real Scottish anes...
How's that for the first day?Any other suggestions welcome.
You've spent years campaigning for the SNP to change. That was my complaint. Do you now want rid of the SNP? If so, well done!
But how many years has that taken!? Better late than never, I suppose, although it's taken a long, long time.
You overlooked the behaviour of Swinney and Sturgeon for years! Alex Salmond did the same with Sturgeon. He admitted his mistake with Sturgeon. You, on the other hand, think your support for Sturgeon was fine up to a point. You're wrong! You should just be like Alex and say it.
I think we've covered this. You're just embarrassing yourself now.
That's funny, I don't feel embarrassed at all but I was never fooled by Sturgeon or Swinney or the SNP.
We have to repeal the Treaty of Union inside Scotland. There is no other way. That is what sovereignty is.
We cannot use Holyrood,it is not considered Scottish under Scottish law,it is a British institution.
Therefore having a sec30 is a complete pantomime.
Any 'yes' vote goes back to WM,outside Scottish law and crown?
We can use Holyrood elections though,use them as a plebiscite. Just not the institution itself,that is British.
I agree but I suspect it doesn't matter. Not at this point at least. At this point I see us further away from independence than we've been in my lifetime.
We were completely suckered into supporting devolution. We were suckered into supporting a Section 30 referendum. And, possibly most damaging of all, many of us were suckered into withdrawing our support for Alex Salmond.
Settling the wrong done to arguably Scotland's only independence-supporting First Minister is the only way I see out of this current malaise. If you see another way, please advise?
I know we're on Peter's site and he still thinks he has a solution but, for me, the most urgent thing is justice for Alex Salmond. It's required BEFORE anything else might work imo.
It's happened again! An entire comment vanished because I happened to click outside the text box. Very frustrating.
I know that feeling, happens to me quite a lot. Very frustrating!
Oh well, if you find the energy I'll look forward to your reply.
No we are not suckered in to a ref... we let honest john know in no uncertain terms that the first past the post system of voting whose result is good enough for england to decide the future of the Uk for the next 5 yeras is the way ......that their version of demockracy wins...... that honest john should develop B++++ to explain to england that is how we Scots will proceed... and of course if honest john doesn't want that then he will be the committed devolutionist that Scotland doesn't need... and as Nick Robinson ended his conversation on R4 at 730am this morning.... " thank you John Swinney... first minister of Scotland... FOR NOW ".....
You are correct to say we must restore independence in Scotland. It is an internal matter.
You are mistaken to say we can't use the Scottish Parliament. We can't use it as it is. But who says it cannot be something other than what it is? The people of Scotland are sovereign. That means the Scottish Parliament is whatever we say it is.
Go back to 2014. WM didn't give Scotland a referendum,despite what some think. Holyrood did. WM role was just passing powers for the vote to British citizens in Scotland (Holyrood) under Scottish law.But therefore the result should then be acted on by Holyrood,but it goes back to WM under English law that passed the powers.
That is why the Sec30 is so devious,the result does not go back to the parliament that actually gave the referendum. Meaning the British win,even if they lose the vote. They(WM) didn't hold the referendum,HR did.
The British establishment may be corrupt parasites,but they are not stupid,Peter.
Do you really think they would create devolution,Sec30 process because it could end the union? No,they created Holyrood because it cannot act as a real parliament. It isn't possible,and even better for the British is that they cannot be blamed,because they cannot give Scotland a real parliament.
It is not a 'Scottish' parliament. It was created under the English crown,in the landmass and legal system of WM. Devolution act. WM is in England,under a different legal system from Scotland.
I will explain to you why it cannot be Scottish,ever.
Anyone can be a British citizen,so theoretically therefore you could have Holyrood with no actual people with Scottish ancestry,just British citizens in Scotland elected to HR. Holyrood is just legally(In Scottish law) in the part of the Great Britain Island(Land's End to John o' Groats) with Scotland in it.
The Kingdom of Scotland is sovereign. That is the entity in the Treaty of Union in Scottish sovereign law.
Scotland within Great Britain landmass context is not sovereign,this is what Holyrood is under.
The British cannot give Scotland a real parliament,it is not possible. That can only happen under the sovereignty of the Scottish crown.
I think there is too much confusion.
There is no Scottish parliament
There is no English parliament
For the simple reason,we have to have that citizenship for those parliaments to sit.
The Great Britain parliament is not the Scot/Eng former parliaments in one place.
The GB parliament was created through the Treaty of Union to dissolve the legal border between the sovereign Kingdom's,by creating a citizenship for the Island itself,Great Britain. Then a parliament for that citizenship.
It created a new identity,from scratch. The Treaty of Union is left behind in the sovereign Kingdom's,under the sovereign crowns.
There is no act of the Great Britain parliament that repeal the Treaty of Union in Scotland,anymore than it can repeal the Treaty of Arbroath. They are locked behind a wall marked Scottish crown.
Anything created by the Great Britain Island parliament is for British citizens(like Holyrood),that citizenship(or any of it's institutions) can never overrrule the sovereignty of the Scottish crown to repeal any act of the Scottish parliament,pre British.
The Treaty of Union passed by the Scottish parliament Jan 16th 1707ad.
1)Scottish Law will remain sovereign
2)Scottish crown will remain sovereign
3)Only parliament and citizenship will become British to share an open border between the two sovereign Kingdom's.
It did not create a country,it is just a political union to get rid of that pesky legal border.
Let me stop you right there. There were no citizens in these islands until the Human Rights Act of 1998. Prior to that, we were subjects of the crown.
"Bow down and greet your imperial masters"
How "seriously uncomfortable" a place is it for John Swinney?
I suspect he's actually perfectly comfortable. He has thirty odd percent of Scotland fooled or pretending to be fooled. Nicola Sturgeon was nowhere near as comfortable. She was flustered. Sometimes angry. Arguing with her own supporters, setting referenda dates before backing down and eventually going to a British court to prove herself wrong! She wanted to be wrong. But she was publicly humiliated with each and every referendum date expiring in the midst of the most public embarrassment.
And that was over independence. Arguably, the worst stick aimed at her was over her nonsensical gender policies.
Swinney is comfortable and relaxed by comparison. No one in the SNP can seriously say that they expect a referendum, it's a joke. It's not even a funny joke. It's a decade old and was made up in obvious lies! How anyone can still be fooled is astonishing and John Swinney is laughing at his own supporters.
I take your point. He is in a strong position regarding the election. However, any interviewer can challenge him due to the disparity between his statements and the increasingly evident reality. He can be made to look foolish just by referencing Streetings's remarks. Whether anybody will actually challenge him is a different matter.
I think the crunch will come after the election when it becomes apparent that Swinney has no backup plan. The only thing he can do is start talking about the Westminster election. There will probably be some turmoil in the party, too. There are many Scottish nationalists in the party who cannot possibly be impressed by what Swinney is doing. There is pent-up anger there that will have to be vented some time.
There is also the matter of the actual harm Swinney will do to Scotland's cause. But I think that will be tomorrow's article.
I agree. Unfortunately I can only forsee mild challenges from the media. John Swinney is liked by the devolutionists and the Unionists. I bet he's friendlier with Keir Starmer than Anas Sarwar is. I remember Swinney smiling happily whilst siding with English mayors all lined up behind Starmer. How anyone could look at that picture and not see the reality is absolutely beyond me.
You'll know better than I do how the SNP works and how rules have been changed to make a leadership challenge more unlikely. It's good news for me. I want rid of the SNP. I've read your recent thoughts with interest.
My thoughts are always evolving, Joe. Circumstances change, and personal perspectives have to adapt. My current thoughts regarding the SNP serve as a prime example. Up until fairly recently, you would have found me saying that we must force the SNP leadership to rethink its approach to the constitutional issue. My thinking then was that the SNP was going to form the next government, and so our best bet for progressing Scotland's cause in the next five years was to get the SNP back on track by whatever means we had at our disposal.
That didn't pan out. Due to the combined efforts of the SNP loyalists and the SNP haters, it proved impossible to get the independence movement behind an initiative that would have put the SNP under serious pressure.
Now, such an effort is irrelevant. As far as Scotland's cause is concerned, the election is a write-off. All that is left is to think about what might be done after the election.
My thinking now is that we must have a new party to serve as the political and parliamentary arm of the independence movement – either to replace the SNP or to become a sufficient electoral threat to force the SNP to change.
Obviously, New Scotland Party was intended to fill this role. It is still the ideal party for the job, being strictly a national constitutional party. But it would take a lot of money and effort to get things up and running. I have neither the pockets nor the heart for that project. If somebody were to donate half a million tomorrow, I might be persuaded to get back to work. But that's not very likely.
Changing your mind in changing circumstances is a good thing. Opposing a devolutionist party is a very good thing!
I'd like to say more but I'm a bit short on time just now... I need to dash away.
You don't seem at all familiar with the concept of changing your mind or changing circumstances. You seem unable to grasp that the way things are now is not necessarily as things were ten, twenty, or thirty years ago.
For example, it may be fair to say the SNP is a devolutionist party now. But it has not always been that way. In fact, the SNP in the years leading up to the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament would be better described as devolution sceptics. The SNP was arguably the most sceptical of all parties towards devolution. The Tories being stolidly against anything that smacked of modernity or progress.
Convincing the SNP membership that devolution could benefit Scotland's cause was a significant challenge. If they were convinced, you should be too. And for the same reasons.
Even if you couldn't see the benefits of devolution then, it's foolish to deny them now. As I have pointed out before, Scotland's cause flourished alongside the SNP in the first decade of devolution. This progress would not have happened without a Scottish Parliament that the people of Scotland slowly began to regard as their own and as important as Westminster, if not more so. Scottish general elections, with results that actually reflected the mood of the people, made progress for Scotland's cause possible.
By the middle of the second decade, devolution should have been on the way out. That is when the extent to which politicians had settled into the devolution arrangement became apparent. But for the 2007 election and the first pro-independence government, devolution would have begun to collapse at that time.
The 2011 election result and the referendum provided another reprieve for devolution. Almost the moment the referendum was over, the SNP began backing away from independence and favouring devolution. They started to see their role as making devolution work better for the people of Scotland. It was only a coincidence that this also benefitted the career politicians and their entourages. Honest, guv!
The referendum and the Yes campaign distracted people from the increasing weaponisation of devolution against the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament at the same time as the career politicians increasingly came to see devolution as their best option. It was a double whammy of devolution getting worse and politicians becoming more attached to it.
This is one of the main reasons I identified September 2018 as the latest date for a new referendum. I said at the time (2015) that if we did not commit to a new referendum immediately and pencil September 2018 as the date, Scotland's cause would suffer. Who can say I was wrong about that?
Another insulting opening paragraph from a man who, until very recently, thought the SNP might deliver independence. And who knows, you might go back and think that again at some point.
My opinion hasn't changed because I've always been right about both the SNP and their failing support for independence. I don't need to justify my earlier errors, such as support for Nicola Sturgeon, because I've not made errors and I've never supported Nicola Sturgeon or anything about her, ever! The same goes for John Swinney and every other devolutionist pretending to support independence.
Why don't you just admit that you got it wrong, openly and willingly admit your mistake. Alex Salmond did. He told me to my face that he was wrong about Nicola Sturgeon. You tell me that you were justified in supporting Sturgeon up to a point. You weren't. She failed. She had no chance of success. It was obvious. You were mistaken. Alex was mistaken. Be like Alex and admit it!
Having previously committed unequivocally to hold a 'referendum' if there were to be an SNP parliamentary majority after the upcoming Scottish election (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqHkMJu4TSU&t=2s) Swinney will now be pressed on how he will make good on his promise to deliver.
Given Streeting's outburst it is probably that Swinney will be asked endlessly by journalists between now and 7th May to
a) reveal his secret plan (which he can't)
b) admit his 'vote SNP for a referendum' campaign is a bogey (which he won't)
A constantly squirming Swinney might just open the eyes of the circa 35% of likely voters that support the SNP under the current circumstances that he and his SNP are clueless about restoring Scotland nation-state status.
I have to hand it to him, Swinney may not be a good liar, but he has an imperishably shiny brass neck.
He's taken next to no action on the legal gender ruling, he's constantly hiding documents on the Alex Salmond case, some long after it became illegal (and he has now won yet another leg of the legal wrangle), and I bet he'll position himself to win the election without a majority.
I've never, and never will, trust the SNP. Sturgeon and Swinney are only two of their devolutionists pretending to support independence. My guess is that every SNP MSP now secretly prefers devolution. In Westminster they hardly even bother pretending.
I'm reading the new Stuart Adamson book and I know Pete Wishart's cousins from Dunfermline. Pete was in Big Country for a wee while and he's quoted in the book. He makes more sense when talking about music than he does when talking politics.
Stephen Flynn is worse. Pete knows he's lying but doesn't care. Flynn is actually lining himself up for a career as a devolved politician. It's obvious! How anyone can support independence AND the SNP is beyond me.
"... and I bet he'll position himself to win the election without a majority"
I've always felt that was his real objective: In this event he can claim that, as he doesn't have the requisite 'mandate', there is no onus on him and his party to pursue Scotland's Cause but just enough votes to continue to enjoy the pay, pension and perks associated with being in office.
He will obviously be a bit concerned on reading that (some) mappings from vote share to parliamentary representation indicate an overall majority of seats for the SNP at the 7th May election.
However, in the (still) unlikely event of a parliamentary majority resulting Swinney can always claim, if vote share turns out as polls currently indicate, that the 2011 conditions haven't been repeated after all - circa 35% and 31%, respectively of constituency and regional ballots is some way short of the 45% and 44% achieved in 2011.
He presto, the get-out clause!
I agree, Stephen. Another term in which to enjoy the financial rewards without having to deal with anything related to independence is exactly what Swinney is aiming for.
I keep seeing anxious Scots referring to Swinney's pay packet... and the perks... as if this was some fantastic treasure... well its not its pretty average for career politicians who network... who know where development works are in the plan... so why is Swinney doing it... because he is basically a used car salesman who has hit pay dirt... and its a relatively an easy number as you always avoid giving direct answers about the cars performance or long term prospects..
But it's not "average" to the average person, is it? It's a fortune to those who struggle to make ends meet. And what do we get for paying him £182,000 a year? Betrayal.
Exactly. He's a mediocre politician who has found a sinecure and will not risk that for anything. And really the policies he proposes are unimportant so he can ignore their import or development and not be controversial or have to expend any effort on them. Even the really bad ones like grr which legal status he ignores. Too difficult to sort that.
A nice analogy.
YOU ARE NOT HAVING ONE..ya sh*tty wee jocks..(you missed that last bit oot!)...so I'll pit it in fur ye Peter.
Isn't it great when a plan comes together Peter? Now you know why I keep that stone in my pocket ..it's for the foreign parasitic english b*st*rds. Have you seen the comments in 'the National...'
Comments:
So what now.?.UDI?...that's a disaster.!....well what else can we do?.......oh let me let me kick their asses. They believed Holy Wullie....I am casually sharpening my Lochaber....
So we the pathetic wee Brigadoon Scots are tae listen tae the stinkin' foreign english b*st*rds who will tell us whit tae dae...grrrrrrrr!..ah doan't think so.....
As my auld mammy used tae say...HELL MEND YE!... 300 years to catch up.
I'd like tae meet chubby Streeting......he widnae like tae meet me.....
So whit noo angry Scots?
Close the border.... extract foreign english from important positions....head of Police Scotland. first...any military english b*st*rds in control in OOR army. ( american warplanes OUT.)..a Hostile environment for any geriatric foreign english white trash retired here...(spoiler alert ..we hate ye)Foreign land owners triple taxed....or we take it back....no hidden investments...
Send nuclear weapons from Faslane tae westminster..compulsory purchase of Balmoral....then burn it doon..tartan carpets as well.....Scottish pound... Scottish bank......passport( for the foreigners next door)...Grangemouth up and running..only Scots vote for Scotland..Build a statue to lizzie 1..an' then knock it doon....George Square now Robert the Bruce Plaza. Any foreign english street names gone... eg cumberland street etc
All resources back in OOR hands and we can set up fair prices for energy for our foreign english neighbours..another spoiler alert...(we are now the hostile neighbours.).how's that sound chubby streeting?
All fake foreign english political parties oot....only real Scottish anes...
How's that for the first day?Any other suggestions welcome.
For OUR Scotland and her FREE friendly weans.
To paraphrase:
Streeting: "Up yours, jockos!"
Brown: "blah, bluster, bluff, whine & whinge"
Me: "Phew - that was a close one!"