Nicola Sturgeon, former first minister and charlatan
For all her triumphant big rally promises of ‘independence around the corner’, how she was ‘utterly dedicated to the ideal of self-governance’, and ‘despised’ the Tories, the first victory of Tory oppression over her policies saw Nicola Sturgeon buckle and walk away.
She was not going to let her image of popularity be tarnished. Image is everything. Get out before being pushed out. All those selfie events were not going to be lost in the wash. It does not matter whether she did it because she had no game plan to stop Westminster intervention, or whether she felt the police were taking too close an interest in the SNP account books. WQhat was shocking was she flounced off in an over-confident manner leaving chaos in her wake.
International leaders and press paid traditional goodbyes, but none wanted to acknowledge she exerted more of a sly strategy between colleagues than ever for an independent Scotland. They did not see the mediocre colleagues she chose to join her in taking decades of SNP work down.
Most social observers spotted her self preservation skills early, some shouted foul, some liar, and some step aside. Her hubris, her inability to take sound advice from senior counsel was her undoing. She bulldozed the GRR Bill through Parliament ignoring how it was alienating the very women who could be found smiling next to her in her selfies.
The past two years have seen a Tory administration at No 10 Downing Street fall flat on its face, lie, corrupt, humiliated and prove itself incapable of good governance. The antics of Tory Mafia make the failings of Sturgeon’s tenure look small potatoes.
But Scotland is a small country of five million or so souls, where the mildest earthquake, or a politician walking into a lamppost, is noticed in an instant. The question on democrats’ minds is not can we survive the hand rubbing glee and the gloating from our oppressors, some who knew Sturgeon was a gradualist, if that, but whether she has left the people with any hope of restoring genuine independence.
She has left Scotland facing a strolling take-over by the British State. She left as support for independence was falling, again. The fear in the crowd is that Sturgeon has left Scotland facing a probable minority administration, the unionist Labour party back with some SNP seats. Some people ‘detest’ Nicola Sturgeon and her scabby crew so much they add, ‘so be it’.
What we are left with is a backbench Madame Defarge, Sturgeon orchestrating votes for Humza Yousaf to see him annointed first minister, keeper of the secret cupboards, and protector of her international reputation. “What we need is to make Nicola Sturgeon a “global ambassador for Scottish independence”, he said, “I think she will do a fantastic job”, elevating the least qualified person in Scotland for the post. That’s the level of his political thought. You do me a favour and I protect your arse. It’s family business.
STURGEON IS TO BLAME FOR THE DAMAGE TO THE SNP
By Kevin McKenna
BEGUILING narrative has begun to emerge among some commentators and political analysts about the nature of the SNP leadership contest. It indicates that the brutal intensity of the hustings has eroded support for the SNP and damaged the wider case for Scottish independence. Beguiling, but mince. If you believe this you haven’t been paying attention to what’s been going on inside this party over the last few years.
Anyone who has truly observed how the SNP has been conducting its internal affairs will know that there would soon come a day when scores would have to be settled and bad blood allowed to bubble forth before being expunged. As Michael Corleone told his perfidious brother-in-law Carlo in The Godfather: “Barzini is dead. So is Phillip Tattaglia. Moe Greene. Stracci. Cuneo. Today, I settled all family business, so don’t tell me that you’re innocent. Admit what you did.”
It fulfilled the prophecy of Clemenza, the Corleone family’s genial hitman, earlier in the movie: “These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood.” In Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP the bad blood has been festering for several years and sooner or later all family business would have to be settled one way or another. If it hadn’t occurred during the leadership contest it would have happened eventually.
This party has been at war with itself ever since Nicola Sturgeon took the reins. She and her most loyal glove-puppets point to eight electoral successes as proof that all has been well. Yet, such has been the weakness of the opposition at Holyrood during this time that, to paraphrase the old apercu about Labour’s former dominance in Scotland, a monkey in a yellow rosette would have prevailed in many constituencies.
It’s become startlingly obvious since 2017 that the party leadership had begun using “independence” as a vote-winning tool at elections. Its professional wing would all be instructed to tweet furiously about independence in the days before an election.
And then, when the vote was safely in the bag and the coast was clear they could get back to doing what they do best: virtue-signalling about “progressiveness” and acting like chocolate soldiers as they waved their fists from a safe distance about other countries’ wars.
Any lone wolves who broke from the pack by expressing a desire to find a workable Plan B were howled down before being silenced. The message was clear to anyone questioning the strategy of central office: if you want a future in this party then keep your mouth shut.
When Kate Forbes trashed Humza Yousaf’s dismal record in government across three different cabinet postings, she was merely reflecting a discontent that had been simmering inside the party and in the country at large for several years.
If she is to become leader, her best chance of persuading soft No voters of the case for independence starts with being honest about the SNP’s failures. And not by treating the electorate as mugs and pretending they were any good at reducing health inequality or bridging the mortality gap that exists between Scotland’s most affluent and disadvantaged communities.
Party loyalty was tested and measured in a series of initiatives designed to deflect from its lack of commitment to addressing the issues that really matter in the lives of most Scots. Thus, we had the utterly fatuous Named Person proposals followed by the spanking debate and minimum alcohol pricing. This was followed by the Offensive Behaviour at Football Act and the Hate Crime legislation (the most egregious failure of Mr Yousaf’s error-strewn career).
These were all flagged up as being consistent with a “progressive” agenda. But they were about as progressive as Genghis Khan. Real people know what real progressiveness looks like and it’s a million miles away from hectoring working-class communities about their family lives and their use of language.
The middle-class commentariat wagging their fingers at the rest of us over soy lattes in Giffnock and G12 reinforced the notion that Scotland’s political elites were merely talking to themselves in their exclusive, platinum-card lounges. “I’m having a pronoun-naming party next Sunday. Would you like to come along? Brenda the rubber fetish drag artist is entertaining the kids. And by the way: did you see how many likes I got on Twitter for my alfalfa and sweet potato fricassee?”
Those within the party who rejected the progressive lie gradually found themselves isolated. The National Executive Committee was hollowed out by bad actors and then became the main instrument of the party politburo for dealing with insurgents. It began acting like an Inquisition, brutally marginalising and intimidating those who dared to question the groupthink. So out of touch were they with public opinion and the views of their own rank-and-file members that they sought to strong-arm their calamitous GRR legislation through Holyrood. In the process they rejected all reasonable compromises that would have maintained the dignity of those authentically seeking to change their gender while protecting women’s sex-based rights.
They arrogantly ignored all the warnings about what might happen when violent men sought to exploit this legislation and then paid the price when it was revealed that rapists were being set loose in women’s prisons. This starkly epitomised what their “progressiveness” was all about: risking the safety of vulnerable, working-class women for a self-indulgent, middle-class caprice. This is when the mask slipped and the public began asking questions about how a party elected to govern in the interests of all the people had been captured by an elect who had detached themselves from reality. The dramatic dip in support for the SNP and independence in general has its roots in this. The “brutality” of the leadership contest is merely the natural consequence of what some of us knew would transpire once this was held up to the light.
In truth, there’s little about it that’s been brutal at all, except perhaps the attempts by the Yousaf camp to knock Kate Forbes out of the contest, aided by their media lickspittles. This was of a piece though with the way that this party has been treating some of its female members for many years.
If Mr Yousaf’s camp think their man was subject to cruel and unusual treatment by Ms Forbes they should consider what might happen to him over the course of a gruelling referendum campaign. The British establishment don’t take prisoners and are already relishing the prospect of a serial and spineless failure in Bute House.
Which is presumably why Mr Yousaf and his increasingly frantic support base of Westminster and Holyrood wage thieves don’t want one any time soon.
Time is now for theTrue Indy mps Msps to unite and stand up to these Gravy🚂🚂🚂🦠🐀.
Yousaf’s (or Forbes) election will confirm that the SNP membership rump (now just 25,000 at best) is made up of the payroll, the woke, the middle class, and assorted ‘new Scots’, the latter also middle class, none of whom appear to know what independence really means – i.e. decolonisation.
Meanwhile the real independence movement, comprising a mass of mostly working class Scots speakers, has moved on. Postcolonial theory predicts such a ‘rupture’ between the culturally assimilated bourgeoisie who seek only a compromise with colonialism (continuity?), and the lumpen proletariat who seek a complete break with it, and that an independence movement depends on the solidarity of the latter, being the oppressed ethnic group:
Click to access THEORETICAL+CASE+FOR+SCOTTISH+INDEPENDENCE.pdf
The true legacy of corrupt narcissist, liar and con artist.
Exactly so. The damage to the SNP has not been superficial but the party I used to vote for has been stabbed to the heart and is a zombie entity whose sole aim is to survive. It really should be put out of its misery and stop embarrassing and debasing Scotland’s standing in the world.
Kevin McKenna is right, of course, just like Labour before it, the SNP has become a job creation scheme for the middle class. They have contempt for the ordinary voter and have junked every opportunity to change things by addressing the many inequities that exist in Scottish society, since after all, they are part of that rarefied elite that isn’t having to struggle within the worsening economy.
I would like to think that the SNP is close to collapse but there is a desperate effort going on to prop up the decomposing corpse and pretend that bits aren’t dropping off. We can only guess at the reasons for trying to delay the inevitable but I can’t help but think that we’ll never be allowed to find out. Elites always protect one another.
“What does Professor Baird mean by ‘newScots’? Ian MacQuarrie
Humza for Glove Puppet!
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
““What does Professor Baird mean by ‘newScots’? Ian MacQuarrie”
Awbody comin fae ither kintra’s an ither naitional cultur’s/identities wha noo stey in Scotlan? This also appears to be the Scottish Government’s general meaning of the term.
Meanwhile and in conjunction with developments since 2014, the online Yes movement, many suffering from a type of PTSD after the No vote, turned in upon itself. Gradualism was replaced by glacialism ie. risk aversion to the point where blatant inaction was applauded and excused as ever more elaborate theories supporting the sit on your arse for Indy ‘strategy’ were enthusiastically promoted in the guise of cunning plans etc..
Some shut downs in common usage I recall were:
Never interrupt your enemy when they’re making a mistake.
Slowly, slowly, catchee monkey.
Remember who the enemy is.
We need to all be singing from the same hymn sheet.
Get the popcorn in.
What would you do then?
Criticism over the lack of any visible work or effort toward Indy by the SNP was met by swift, sometimes brutal put-downs. Being told to shut up by your own side and accused of doing the unionists work for them or even being called a unionist was common.
Nicola was what Nicola was and the SNP became what it became, but the bottom line is that much of the Yes movement bought in to it, because it was the easy option. The Torys were so inept that we didn’t have to do anything. They would do it for us wouldn’t they? Many bought in to this simplistic idea. The sing from the same hymn sheet crowd stifled healthy debate. Debate that would have helped sustain us because it’s healthy, it’s the life blood of any movement.
We can blame the SNP and they deserve it, but the Yes movement needs to take its share of the blame and learn from it. We allowed ourselves to become marginalised. It was gradual and insidious and we met it with reluctance and disbelief but it happened nonetheless.
As the penny finally drops among the faithful that we’ve been betrayed and its extent is realised, then we must accept we have a mountain to climb. We are fighting a formidable adversary in the British State. They have shown they will use every means at their disposal to hang on to Scotland and I have no doubt they would have ignored a Yes vote in 2014. This is as Alf says, just a step in the process to self determination.
There is no amount of mis-management, propaganda or dirty double dealing that’s ever going to stop us fighting for independence. We will pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and get back in the game, regardless.
I watched the debate??? on the despicable bbc tonight and it was clear that mentorn were up to their usual tricks with audience selection , it was also clear that Hazmat Useless has been coached within an inch of his life, every answer was prepared and some were even polished
I also watched the bbc Scottish news at lunchtime and when they were talking about the leadership contest there was an underlying banner footnote proclaiming Humza for FM , this constitutes psychological messaging or in common parlance brainwashing which is showing extreme bias , not that we will be surprised
I would hope that Ash Regan and Kate Forbes will report this egregious despicable behaviour to the electoral commission , but there again it is obvious that WM and the establishment will want a serial adulterous consistent failure to become FM as that would just be a continuance of the previous serial failure sturgeon
KF and AR have already publicly stated, during hustings, that there were people in the audience who, somehow, had also attended earlier events. Reaction from the media? None.
There is a host of other issues, all pretty controversial, surrounding Yousaf which the media has buried. Reaction? None.
It stinks. It seems clear they want Yousaf as FM perhaps because he will mess up repeatedly as he’s done so often in other posts. And his Party will be out of office pretty darn quick! The real shocker is that the SNP membership can’t see this and the so called “big hitters” are endorsing him. They must know that coaching won’t cut it if he gets the job. He will crash and burn as the phoney he is and will take the Party down with him.
i agree with many of the comments here but it is difficult o ‘Like’ or even reply to individual comments.
i stared reading Alf Baird’s essay, which came up easily on clicking the link. However it is very hard to navigate, even on a laptop screen which is the largest i have, and , when I enlarge it in order to read it, it is difficult to find the continuation when I get to the bottom of one column.
Am I the only person with this problem? Is there a way of finding my way round the presentation more easily, since i cannot read very small print? I admire much of Prof Baird’s work (bought Doun-Hauden soon after it was published by Amazon) and it is frustrating not to be able to read his thoughts easily, especially considering the care and knowledge he puts into his writing.
When Prof Baird reads your piece he will send you a hard copy. He just needs your address.
Thanks, for thatsuggestion. Who do I send it to?
One of his replies is atop this comments list. Reply to it asking for a copy, and then work out how best to have it reach you.
As I do not have a contact for Prof Baird, I think I can get my daughter to print it for me, possibly sufficiently enlarged as to be readable now that I am living near her, which is, unfortunately, in England! Not adapting well to the move!
Okay – but if you have a problem, Baird will answer your request.
aranyer 1936. There’s a button to click to top left that converts the pdf to Word. Then you download it. It’s bigger and dead easy to read.
Thanks, Andy. You live and learn. 🙂
I think there is an option to enlarge the text in the pamphlet pdf. I have printed copies available and could send you that but would need an address.