Are they the SNP Sacrificial Lambs?

Posted on October 21, 2023October 21, 2023 by Angry Weegie

There was a time when it was said that SNP MPs were going to Westminster to find a way to lose their jobs. It was called settling up, not settling down, a phrase first coined in the early days of the election of SNP MPs and often repeated as a promise (by those seeking election) or an accusation (by those unhappy with their MP’s performance).

Of course, these days are long gone and very few (very, very few) SNP MPs are now prepared to sacrifice their position, their salary and their virtually unlimited expenses just to trigger Scottish independence. Out of the Union or still in a job, there’s really no choice, is there? When you can make all that money and all you have to sacrifice is your country’s freedom, why would you turn down the cash?

“There’s no such thing as society”. So said Margaret Thatcher, and the majority of the SNP MPs seem to be hell-bent on proving that it’s true with their obvious concentration on their own careers, their own positions, and, above all, their own incomes.

But wait. Has something unexpected happened? Have SNP MPs at last found a cause for which they are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice, risking all that money for which virtually no work is required? It certainly seems like it.

So, what is this cause that so many MPs are prepared to put their futures on the line, prepared to bet £350k annually on a winner takes all gamble.

They’re enthusiastically supporting a three-way bet on GRRB, Hate Crimes and Jury free trials for sex crimes, and at the moment, it looks like their gamble is going to fail.

They’ve found out that the majority of their constituents are solidly against all three, but that hasn’t caused them to have any sort of rethink. The recent by-election in Rutherglen and Hamilton saw the SNP vote fall from 23,775 to 8,399, a fall of almost 65%, but initial reaction from the party doesn’t show any signs of a rethink either. In fact, if anything, the opposite seems to be the case. What they say their loss was due to was Margaret Ferrier, the low turnout, or tactical voting by Tories for Labour. OK, I know parties always blame someone or something else for a defeat, but when combined with no obvious effort to change what they must realise is the basic cause of the problem, it doesn’t bode well.

The only change in SNP rhetoric is the much more frequent mention of independence, though that’s not a surprise. One thing that can virtually be depended on is the party highlighting the advantages of independence as the election looms while, of course, continuing to do nothing to make independence a practical reality and then forgetting all about it once the election is over. The one time they tried to ignore independence before the election, in 2017, they lost half a million votes and 21 seats, so they haven’t repeated the mistake (or haven’t up till now). Unfortunately, they are now finding out that mere mentions of independence, combined with absolutely no effort to make it happen and further combined with a set of policies that only their payroll support is no longer going to cut it.

There have been some changes at Westminster. Steven Flynn, the Westminster leader, has been shuffling his front bench team to concentrate on the issues which he believes will stem the flow of support in next year’s UK election. However, astonishingly, he has chosen to remove all emphasis from independence in favour of today’s issues like energy prices and the cost of living, effectively blaming independence on the disaster of Rutherglen and Hamilton West. Does he not realise that the majority of SNP voters support independence? Does he not remember what happened in 2017 at a time when SNP support nationally was much higher than now? Has he not read the SNP constitution? Without independence, the SNP are just another British party content with devolution and if they no longer enthuse the independence vote, they will fail.

Support for the SNP throughout Scotland is now much lower than last year. In May, 2022, support for the SNP in a Westminster election was 44%, rising to a high of 51% in December. There’s only been one Scottish Westminster poll this month, a YouGov poll conducted between 2nd and 6th, so the Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election would have had some impact on the outcome.

If this was the result in next year’s UK election, the SNP would lose 24 of their current 43 seats, a number they’ve already managed to reduce from 48 through a combination of independence inactivity (Neale Hanvey and Kenny MacAskill) and a desire to purge the party of anyone who wants independence (Margaret Ferrier and Angus MacNeil). Feeding the poll numbers into the Electoral Calculus’s seat predictor gives the following:

The SNP’s pursuit of Margaret Ferrier resulted in the recall petition and their virtual wipe-out in the by-election, something that wouldn’t have happened if Nicola Sturgeon hadn’t been so desperate to get rid of her that she started a witch-hunt eagerly taken up by the rest of the SNP wokies. Only the SNP’s support for her removal kept the issue in the public eye. Without that, the issue would have died following a few obligatory complaints by the opposition parties. As it was, Margaret Ferrier was punished three times for one offence, suspension from Parliament, a community service order from the court and the loss of her job, all for an offence for which virtually no members of other parties were punished.

So, is next year’s UK election going to be more of the same from the SNP? Will they tell us about all the good things that only independence can bring? Will they present the us with what remains of their stock of tired, mouldy old carrots, recycled from 2019, 2017 and 2015 and still expect us to be just as accepting as we were when the carrots were fresh? Do they really think that a lesser emphasis on independence plus the continuation of unquestioning support for highly unpopular policies aimed at destroying the rights of women and children are going to lead to electoral success?

Are all the MPs that stupid (hint, some are) or is this just part of some grand woke plan to get rid of the few remaining semi-sensible ones to guarantee a continuation of the woke dream for years to come?

Is this what the so-called leaders of the independence movement have come to?

BEAT THE CENSORS
Many Facebook sites are increasingly censoring bloggers like myself who can be critical of the actions of the SNP and the Scottish Government. They are attempting to prevent bloggers from getting their message out, so we have to depend on readers sharing the blog posts. If you liked this post or others I have written, please share this and take out a free subscription by clicking the follow button on the home page or on the posts. You will then be notified by email of any new posts on the blog. Thank you.

SALVO
The progress of Salvo has been the most encouraging development since 2022. It is doing sterling work educating Scots about the Claim of Right and spelling out what it means that the Scottish people are sovereign, not any Parliament. Salvo has joined with Liberation.scot to develop campaigns the results of which will be available soon.

LIBERATION.SCOT
We are seeking to build up liberation.scot to at least 100,000 signatures as part of our plan to win recognition at the UN as an official liberation movement. We intend to internationalise our battle for independence and through the setting up of the Scottish National Council we will develop our arguments to win progress in the international courts. Please help by signing up at liberation.scot. The membership of liberation.scot is also where the first members of Scottish National Congress will be balloted for selection.

The Priorities of the Scottish Government

Posted on August 17, 2023August 18, 2023 by Angry Weegie

What should be the more important to the Scottish Government? Saving the planet or saving Scotland?

Recent activity of the Scottish Government (or should I say the Scottish Green Government) has concentrated on bringing forward legislation that, at least according to Lorna Slater and Patrick Harvie, will make Scotland a fairer place, reduce Scotland’s impact on our planet, hasten the advent of net zero and show the rest of the world how to do it. But whatever happens, we have to be first. It just won’t be the same if we’re not world leading.

So, what’s the plan? Though plan might be the wrong word as there’s not been a great deal of planning so far. We’ve had the GRR Bill debacle, the HPMA Bill debacle, the DRS Bill debacle and now the Great Heat Pump Saga debacle. All these Scottish Green initiatives were characterised by only being discussed with people and groups who agreed with the government and not being interested in taking into account opposing ideas or suggestions.

Were the government shocked to learn that most women weren’t keen on the idea of men with lippy and a wig invading their safe spaces and waving their willies? If only they had been asked.

Were the government shocked to learn that many crofters and others living in places where fishing would be banned by HPMA depended on fishing for their survival? If only they had been asked.

Were the government shocked to learn that many people weren’t keen on replacing a recycling system where local authorities came along and collected bottles, jars, cans and other recyclable material and replacing it with a privatised one which only dealt with bottles and cans and where individuals were responsible for taking stuff back to a recycling centre that could be many miles away and which resulted the cost of purchase for some items increasing by over 100%? If only they had been asked.

Were the government shocked to learn that many people were distinctly unhappy about being told they would quite soon have to replace their gas boiler with a heat pump, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis at a cost of (apparently) anything up to £50,000-£60,000? If only they had been asked.

As no government estimate of cost (or anything else) is forthcoming (of course, that needs planning), we have to rely on unsubstantiated stories in the media describing the experience of various individuals.

These stories tell us that air source heat pumps are unsuitable for the Scottish climate, not just because they apparently don’t produce as much heat as a gas boiler and therefore need a modified central heating system with larger radiators, but mainly because the cost of the electricity needed to run them is horrendously expensive in Scotland, three times the cost of gas.

We now have the utterly ludicrous situation that Harvie, who appears to be acting on his own in this, is now making it virtually impossible to install one common form of green energy, solar panels, because of his desire for every residence in Scotland to convert to heat pumps.

These fiascos are perfect examples of the actions of Scotland’s Green infused government.

The Scottish Green Government’s new policy introduction goes something like this. Think of an idea. Announce it. Then (if you can be bothered) investigate the practicality of introducing it. But, on no account speak to anyone affected by the policy unless you know they’ll agree with you, even if you have to pay them to agree.

But is there a point to all this (small g) green activity?

Let’s revisit the original question. What should be the more important to the Scottish Government? Saving the planet or saving Scotland?

Will these proposals save the planet or even contribute to saving the planet in any meaningful way? Much has already been said about the DRS, so let’s look at the Greens latest wheeze, the heat pump.

Let’s take it as correct that all countries should reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases to prevent catastrophic climate change, even though there’s a substantial body of opinion against that view.

The world total of greenhouse gas emissions in 2021 was 54,593 Megatonnes (million tonnes). In the same year, Scottish emissions were about 41.6 Megatonnes and, like most Western countries, are reducing, mainly thanks to the Western trend of outsourcing manufacturing to China and other Far Eastern countries. 41 million tonnes sounds like a lot, but putting it in context, Scottish emissions represent three quarters of one tenth of 1 percent of the global total (0.076%), which could be described as a drop in the ocean (or a puff in the air?).

Looking at the longer-term trends, in 2015 (the first year of the Sturgeon era), Scottish emissions were 48.1 Megatonnes, so the 2021 figure shows a reduction of 14% (average 2.3%/year) over that period and a 49.2% drop from 81.9 Megatonnes in 1990 (average 1.6%/year), so as you can see the reduction in emissions is accelerating without the drastic intervention proposed by the Scottish Green Government.

The three biggest greenhouse gas emitters are China (25% of 2021 levels), USA (11%) and India (7%). China’s emissions have shown a 12.8% increase since 2015 to the 2021 figure of 13,710 Megatonnes. Should China maintain that level of increase, it would result in a daily increase of 789 tonnes. Or, to put it another way, should Scotland miraculously reduce its emissions to zero by tomorrow, it would take China about 53 days to replace the Scottish figure.

So, the Green Government proposals would result in a 53 day reduction in world emissions. It would also result in a vast amount of money (£ billions) being spent by Scottish householders on upgrading their heating systems and if they’re spending all their money on heat pumps, they’re certainly not spending on anything else. Is all the financial pain to the Scottish people and the knock-on negative impact on the Scottish economy inherent in the Government proposals justified by the virtually zero impact on world emissions?

Surely, for any right-thinking person, the answer is no.

The Scottish Green Government proposals will not save the planet or even contribute in any meaningful way to saving the planet, but they will wreck the Scottish economy and put hundreds of thousands of Scottish households into debt.

Global and country data quoted above has been sourced from https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions. See full figures here. Scottish figures come from the Scottish Government website.

A Scottish political disgrace

Posted on August 2, 2023 by Angry Weegie

After a thoroughly nasty set of campaigns from her opponents, the recall petition for Margaret Ferrier has succeeded, with the two major parties in Scotland (with loads of help from the media) managing to persuade just over 14% of the electorate to sign. Commons rules meant Margaret was not permitted to put her case before the recall was officially announced, but by that time Labour had already been campaigning for about 2 months. Margaret immediately leaves the Commons and will likely be succeeded in a by-election sometime later this year by a numpty from the Labour party, whose only contribution to the Rutherglen and Hamilton constituency will be his smirking appearance at the post-election photoshoot. You can be sure that he was only picked (over 4 real local candidates) because he agreed to do what he was told by his London bosses.

The recall petition was ‘cleverly’ arranged to conclude while Parliament was on holiday, so maximising the disruption as the by-election can’t be arranged until the Commons returns in September. It means that Rutherglen and Hamilton West will be without representation for some months, so constituents, please make sure you have no problems needing support from your MP until after the by-election and even then, hope that the MP has a team who have some clue and can be bothered to make the effort, though, as we’re talking Labour, that’s far from guaranteed.

Certainly, Labour’s contribution to the campaign was a series of leaflets more notable for their lies and smears than for their policy content. For one example, see here.

At least, you can understand what drove Labour to create the opportunity, first by voting in the Commons committee to make sure that a 30 day suspension was agreed, triggering the recall petition and then conducting this nasty campaign, disguising their party self-interest in a cloak of public concern. They desperately wanted this by-election success to demonstrate that Labour are back to being a political force to be reckoned with in Scotland, even though victory, if it happens, is likely to be more to do with the expected disintegration of the SNP vote rather than any increase in Labour support.

But what’s in it for the SNP? When Nicola Sturgeon prompted this witch hunt against arguably the most hard working SNP MP, but one whose support for independence was at odds with the leadership of the current party, the SNP were riding high in the polls, with the worst of the Hate Crimes Bill, the GRRB, DRS, the offshore wind auction and the rest still to come. Could she have anticipated the backlash and the impact on SNP support or, as many have said, could she have planned it?

But now, with SNP support heading for the toilet, Sturgeon’s replacement decided to continue the persecution of Margaret Ferrier, thus really annoying the large number of constituents who previously supported the SNP, but who had no desire to get rid of Margaret. Of course, they had no voice in the recall, but will certainly make their voice heard in the by-election.

Let’s not forget that the SSP, the Scottish Socialist Party, another supposedly independence supporting party, were also campaigning for the recall, even though they had virtually nothing to gain from a by-election. Perhaps they thought they were on safe ground with no actual independence party standing to point out that the SSP, like the SNP and the Greens, are another party who seem only committed to independence when it suits them.

So we are where we are. If Margaret chooses not to stand again, the constituency will lose a hard-working MP with a proud record of backing local issues and local people. Even worse, her replacement will be either be the Labour candidate who lies about being local (unless you think Partick is part of Rutherglen) or the SNP one, said to be the laziest councillor in South Lanarkshire. Some choice!

So the good people of Rutherglen and Hamilton West have a choice to make. We don’t yet know all who’ll be standing, but the two candidates who have so far been put forward by Labour and SNP are certainly not ones I would vote for (and I have a vote).

One last general point. Are the recall rules fit for purpose? Is the tiny 10% of the constituency electorate (OK 14% in this case) really sufficient to end the career of an MP, especially when the combined might of parties attracting virtually 100% of the voting public are campaigning for the recall? Is it fair that those who oppose the recall get no voice? Is it fair that parties supporting the recall get to campaign for weeks before the recall petition is officially launched, when the MP is prohibited by Commons rules from putting her case during that time? Is it fair that parties can spend up to £10,000 each and make use of party members time, limited only by the number of members in each party, when the MP is effectively on their own? I realise you can’t expect fairness from Westminster, but surely this is just too one-sided.

Margaret Ferrier – Labour’s medical lies

Posted on July 5, 2023July 5, 2023 by Angry Weegie

A few weeks ago, I published a post commenting on a leaflet issued by the Labour party pretending to be a personal letter from Richard Watson, part time local GP and full time Labour activist. The leaflet set out Labour’s campaign strategy if a by-election should occur in Rutherglen and Hamilton West constituency. Their campaign would be solely based on smears, lies and exaggerations about Margaret Ferrier, the sitting MP, with no indication of any policy or planned activity to benefit the residents of the constituency because, as Labour is an English party, policy is made in London and is rarely designed to benefit anyone in Scotland. In fact, Labour policy is now indistinguishable from that of the Tories, so they definitely would want to hide it from Scots voters. Do you think it’s a good idea to elect a man whose party is based in another country?

In the post, I commented on the exaggeration (some would call it lies) in the leaflet of the current stage of the pandemic and, specifically, how many people were affected at the time of Margaret’s travel to London. Remember, at the time, there were no restrictions on travel to work and as Westminster rules prevented MPs participating in debates remotely, if Margaret wanted to take part in the debate, she had no choice but travel to London.

In the leaflet, Watson claimed that at the time of Margaret’s journey to London on parliamentary business, on 28th September 2020, Scottish hospitals were full and the virus was spreading faster in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK, a bold claim considering the much greater incidence of the disease in England.

Do the statistics justify the claims?

Were Scottish hospitals full? Based on Scottish Government figures, the number of patients in hospital with suspected or confirmed Covid were as follows. I have compared the 28th September figures with those on 21st January to show how close to full the September figures were.

Date	Number in Hospital	Number in ICU	New admissions
28th September, 2020	123	12	26
21st January, 2021	2,053	156	179

Scottish hospitals were not full on 28th September. The Labour statement is a lie.

Was the disease spreading faster in Scotland than in any other part of the UK. Based on NHS England, here are the comparative figures for England on 28th September, 2020. For context, the English population in 2020 was 10.3 times that of Scotland, so, if the virus was spreading at a faster rate in Scotland, you would expect the English figures to be less than 10.3 times the Scottish figures.

Date	Number in hospital	Number in ICU	New admissions
28th September, 2020	1,955	245	308
	15.9	20.4	11.8

The second row shows how much greater than Scotland the English figures are. In all comparisons, the English figures exceed the population multiplier. The disease was not spreading faster in Scotland than in other parts of the UK. The Labour statement is a lie.

For those who think that this is petty point-scoring, that the actual numbers don’t really matter, just consider. Labour didn’t have to make these statements. But they did. So, if Labour are prepared to lie about the Covid situation at the time of Margaret’s journey to London to get their own way, what else would they be prepared to lie about.

Of course, the Labour Party have a bit of a history of lying to us Scots. Remember Labour canvassers in the run-up to the independence referendum telling pensioners that a Yes vote would mean they would lose their pension? Labour thought it was an acceptable campaign tactic to terrify vulnerable Scots pensioners so they could get their own way. Not much has changed.

Do you really think it’s a good idea to elect a man whose party believes that lying is a reasonable campaign tactic?

As the quote at the top says, once you’ve been shown to have told a lie, everything else must be suspect. Labour’s whole argument against Margaret Ferrier is riddled with lies. Can we believe anything they are telling us?

Sweet music from the Plastic Humza Band?

Posted on June 18, 2023 by Angry Weegie

The Scottish Government are deeply frustrated. They’re deeply frustrated by the UK government’s failure to allow them to implement laws passed by a majority of MSPs. They’re also deeply frustrated by the Scottish public’s inability to see the multi-cultural and anti-discriminatory benefits of women with willies and the health benefits of walking miles to the nearest recycling point with your load of glass bottle returns.

So, what do a bunch of immature government ministers do when they’re deeply frustrated? Well, of course, they lash out.

However, they can’t lash out at Westminster. They’ve tried that before, but unfortunately (for them), Westminster has a bigger lash available so it did them no good. They will always end up on the losing side.

So, the Scottish Government have decided to punish the public because the public find it much more difficult to fight back. They can show the public who’s boss without too much danger to their egos.

As they haven’t yet been allowed to re-introduce the death penalty for misgendering their ultra-sensitive, wee wokey friends, their latest Green-inspired wheeze is to give Local Authorities the power to introduce financial and potentially criminal penalties for misgendering recyclable rubbish. If you look at a piece of plastic packaging and your eyes tell you this is recyclable waste, but someone from the council has a different view, you might be fined up to about £60 for putting it into your recycling bin. Do it a second time and you may be referred to the police for possible criminal prosecution.

Now, I hear you say, surely there’s nothing wrong with asking householders to be careful filling their recycling bins, with a wee incentive if necessary.

But wait, aren’t there snags?

A lot of plastic packaging isn’t marked as recyclable or not, so you’re left to guess whether you can put it in your recycling bin. You may opt for the safe choice and consign it to landfill, defeating the whole purpose of recycling. Or you may think it fits the local authority criteria for recycling and take the risk that it’s OK. A risk that might cost you £60.

All local authorities in Scotland have their own rules about what they’ll accept and that probably won’t cover every type of packaging marked as recyclable. Even when you’ve learned them, the local authority’s rules are unlikely to cover every possible type of packaging, meaning you will have to contact them to get a definitive ruling or face another £60 mistake.

How will the local authority know you were responsible for putting the packaging in the bin? As bins are generally put outside at night and are not locked, the opportunity is there for neighbours or others to put their overflow in your bin. Will the presence of the packaging in your bin be sufficient to levy a fine? Will you be required to prove the identity of the real culprit to escape punishment?

How will the local authority know what’s in the bin? You can’t expect the refuse collectors to check every bin for incorrect content. It’s impracticable, it would take far too long. Another method would be to have a group of bin inspectors who would tour round the area making random inspections of bins, though even that would be difficult if they were expected to view everything in the bin. Of course, the cost of the inspectors would have to be paid for by finding enough people to fine.

These are real problems making it more difficult for householders to stick to the rules and avoid costly mistakes. These are real problems that really need to be addressed before implementation, but which almost certainly won’t be because it isn’t in the government’s and local authority’s financial interests to make the scheme easy to use. The Scottish Government are searching for a win to make up for recent setbacks, but you have to wonder if, like so many of their recent initiatives, this has all the hallmarks of policy announced without considering all the possible complications. Or is it just another policy to be announced but quietly dropped in a year or so, having done its job of creating a virtuous headline.

Margaret Ferrier – The final countdown

Posted on June 7, 2023 by Angry Weegie

So finally, we have the answer to what happens to SNP members when Nicola Sturgeon takes the huff.

Margaret Ferrier was much too keen on independence to have a place in Sturgeon’s SNP and, on top of that, she was getting too much publicity for all the hard work she put into campaigning. How dare she take some of the attention away from the glorious leader.

In Sturgeon’s SNP, you’re either ‘in’ or ‘out’, and Margaret wasn’t one of the ‘in’ crowd. So, when the chance arose to get rid of her, Sturgeon grabbed it with both hands.

“Off with her head”, said the yellow Queen, and all the obedient courtiers followed her lead. A nod and a wink to the media led not only to a deluge of column inches and TV and radio minutes, but also to a crowd of reporters (definitely not journalists) surrounding her home for days on end, making normal family life impossible. Imagine the stress that would be creating.

Losing the whip and suspension from the party followed, all arranged to make sure there was no let up on the stream of bad publicity, painting Margaret as pretty much the most evil person in Scotland, all this for trying to do your job and support your colleagues.

Sure, Margaret made a mistake. She should have waited until she got the result of the test, but she was under pressure to stick to arrangements she had made, particularly the debate she was leading in Westminster, where remote attendance was not permitted at that time.

While all other parties would have supported their member in such circumstances, the SNP were leading the charge to get rid of her. The difference between Margaret’s treatment by the party and that of other SNP elected members who made mistakes was huge.

Think of Patrick Grady, who made unwanted sexual advances to a junior member of staff. From the very top of the party, every effort was made to minimise the incident and support Grady, but not his victim. See The National’s view of it here. By the way, his punishment from Westminster was a two day suspension, though two years earlier, a Tory MP had been suspended for six weeks for a similar sexual offence.

Think of Jordan Linden, former leader of North Lanarkshire Council, also accused of sexual impropriety (SNP have a thing about sex, don’t they). Again a cover up and again more support for the alleged perpetrator than for the victim and those who reported it. A police investigation is on-going. See the Daily Record’s view here.

Calls for Margaret’s resignation followed. Do the ‘right’ thing, they all said. Just resign. Don’t make us have to get you suspended from Westminster and launch a recall petition. Just make it easy for us to replace you. Among the many calling for her resignation were members of her own constituency party. How could the local MSP and the local councillors be so quick to jump on the hate Margaret Ferrier bandwagon when they all owe their positions to the support they got from Margaret. They are the lowest of the low.

By this time, the Labour party had joined in the witch hunt. Sensing the opportunity to double the number of Scottish MPs (yes, they’ve only got one, Ian Murray, the only Labour party member in Scotland who owns his own Union Jack suit), they joined the SNP in campaigning as if the by-election had already been called.

Both parties conducted pretty nasty campaigns, focussing entirely on spreading abuse and lies about Margaret Ferrier, though Labour wins the prize for the nastiest leaflet.

But none of this would work without a suspension from the Commons. Following an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the Standards Committee recommended a 30 day suspension, which had to be approved by Parliament before becoming effective. In the last 50 years, only three MPs have been suspended for 30 days or more, Ian Paisley Jnr. (DUP) for failing to declare family holidays paid by the Sri Lancan Government, Keith Vaz (Lab) for offering to buy cocaine for sex workers and the aforementioned Rob Roberts (Tory) for breaching Parliaments sexual misconduct policy. No other MP has been suspended for breaching Covid rules, even though many have admitted to doing so.

Yesterday, 6th June, a vote in parliament resulted in approval of the committee’s recommendation. Both Labour and SNP members voted in favour, with Alba MPs being the only Scottish MPs to vote against. A recall petition is therefore triggered, with a by-election if 10% of the constituency electorate vote for it.

The action of the Labour MPs is understandable as they see this as the opportunity to revive their flagging fortunes in Scotland. Party advantage always trumps common decency.

But what’s the excuse for the 14 SNP MPs who voted in favour. There’s unlikely to be any party advantage as the SNP are unlikely to win the by-election. So why? Did they think they were doing the ‘right’ thing? (don’t make me laugh), or was this a case of Nicola Sturgeon’s spite being carried forward despite the change of leader? Does Sturgeon still wield that much influence that they were too afraid to go against her wishes? Or was this another case of acting despite the likely party disadvantage. Not the first time this has happened, of course. I am reminded of the party refusing to support Neale Hanvey (another strong independence supporter) in the 2019 election despite the opportunity to remove the then shadow Scottish Secretary of State (Neale won anyway as an independent without party support).

Here are the 14 SNP MPs who put Nicola Sturgeon’s spite above common decency, failing to support an ex-colleague, despite several of them probably in part owing their position to Margaret Ferrier’s campaigning efforts.

We’ll all remember these names next year when the UK general election comes along and we’ll be pleased to offer them as much support as they offered Margaret Ferrier, a thoroughly decent and hard-working MP who in no way deserves what she is going through.

The rotten corpse of the Labour Party in Scotland speaks from the grave

Posted on May 31, 2023June 13, 2023 by Angry Weegie

Last weekend brought what must be one of the worst examples of political canvassing in Scotland as the Labour party continued running an election campaign when no election has been called. Labour’s attempts to generate excitement for an election which may never happen has been going on for weeks now, with them spending vast amounts of time, effort and money on a campaign that doesn’t yet exist and may yet never exist if the Tories in Westminster get their own way.

If Labour want to spend their money on non-existing elections, that’s up to them, as long as they stick to the bounds of decency and propriety. However, on this occasion, they definitely crossed the line.

Labour sent out an election communication to constituents in Rutherglen and Hamilton West pretending to be a personal letter from a local doctor using a handwriting font, presumably to try to fool people into believing it was a genuine personal letter. The imprint at the end of page one of the leaflet (let’s call it for what it actually is), which political parties are obliged to add to election material, gives away the source and the reason for it being sent out.

Note that so-called Scottish Labour couldn’t even bring themselves to support a Scottish printing business. The leaflet was printed in Wales. The imprint is only on the first page of the leaflet, hoping, no doubt, that people won’t notice it.

The local doctor, Dr. Richard Watson, the alleged creator of the leaflet, is a Labour party member, one of the few remaining Labour party members in the constituency, but at no time in the leaflet is he identified as such. (Am I the only one who has difficulty in referring him as Dr, Watson, bringing back memories of the much nicer Dr, Watson in the Sherlock Holmes stories.) As an aside, he was recently in the press for getting punched by one of his patients. While no one will condone violence against a doctor, or anyone else, his reputation is such that some may be surprised that it’s only happened once.

The leaflet reveals that the Labour party’s master plan for regaining the seat is to trash the reputation of the incumbent MP, Margaret Ferrier. They are helped in this by Commons regulations which prohibit Margaret from challenging Labour’s nasty slurs, but allow Labour free hand in making them. Slurs are all Labour have as they don’t have any Scottish policies, policy making being reserved to London, and, in any case, London’s policies are virtually indistinguishable from the Tories and wouldn’t go down well with many Scottish voters. So best not to tell anybody.

Is this leaflet, piling more stress on Margaret Ferrier, the action of a doctor, whose Hippocratic oath requires him to do no harm, or is it the action of an uncaring politician who will do or say anything, no matter what harm it does, as long as his candidate benefits. Is there not a conflict here that needs to be investigated? I wonder what the General Medical Council’s view would be?

Let’s look at the leaflet in more detail.

We’ll ignore the first part of the first page, which is just Watson telling us all how good he was during the pandemic and how he thinks he never made a mistake (would it be churlish to say he’s just not admitting to any mistakes?), because he apparently believes that making a mistake, no matter what else you’ve done, means the end of everything. We know Margaret made a mistake. I won’t go through the background to it as I’ve already covered it here for anyone who hasn’t read it, but should it be the end of everything, especially as she’s already been punished, much more severely than any other MP who broke the rules.

I’ll just make a couple of comments.

Average daily new cases and admissions to hospital because of Covid at the last week of September, 2020, when the incident took place, were low at 538 and 35 respectively, compared with (eg.) 2,352 cases and 201 admissions the following January (from Scottish Government statistics). As a GP, Watson would know that, so his statement is at least an exaggeration.

The leaflet was sent out last Thursday, before the planned Commons vote the next day. The statement that Margaret was suspended for 30 days is therefore incorrect (the vote wasn’t held because of lack of MPs), just wishful thinking on Labour’s part.

The second page is just party political nonsense. Labour’s replacement “lives here and cares about our community”, so what so does Margaret.

“While Margaret was breaking rules”, really, when we are talking about one incident. He was “trying to support his students in impossible situations”. “Impossible”, does that mean he didn’t succeed?

However, there is one sentence in the leaflet that I agree with. “We deserve to have a functioning MP.”, because that’s what we have now. Margaret is a well-liked, hard-working MP who helped many of her constituents during the pandemic, a fact to which many would attest. She has not “failed to represent the people of Rutherglen and Hamilton West “, but there’s every likelihood that replacing her with a Labour party stooge would do just that. People stopped voting for Labour because they realised they were useless, all promises and no delivery, and this nasty leaflet is unlikely to change many minds.

Labour are calling for a “fresh voice”. Remember what the Labour party brought to Scotland when they were in charge in Westminster. They brought PFI, a funding scheme for building projects which forced local councils to pay vastly more for schools, hospitals and other public buildings than they were worth and is arguably the main reason for the funding pressures councils are in today, because they are still paying for Labour mistakes as they will be for the next 20 to 25 years. Remember also when Labour returned £1.5Bn to Westminster, because they really couldn’t think of anything to spend the money on. Still, it got Jack McConnell a peerage, so it was money well (not) spent.

So, let’s look at the person Labour are proposing to replace the hard-working incumbent, Margaret Ferrier. Even local Labour activists didn’t want him. He was imposed by the party in preference to four other local possible candidates and many activists have said they won’t support him. An admittedly left-wing view of his anointment can be seen here.

Remember too that Labour want to deny the people of Scotland the ability to decide on their form of government. The Labour party died in Scotland following their alliance with the Tories in the Better Together campaign in the independence referendum which showed clearly that they were just another English party with little or no interest in Scotland. Nothing that’s happened since them has made anyone rethink that view.

Is this the fresh voice the people of Rutherglen and Hamilton West want and need, a bunch of unionist chancers whose only policy to support the people is to try to trash the reputation of a well-liked, hard-working local MP?

It’s a conundrum

Posted on May 24, 2023 by Angry Weegie

This is a post looking for answers, because I’m confused. Being confused is pretty much my normal state, or, at least, has been my normal state ever since 2015.

In this case, my present confusion centres on the currently expressed SNP strategy for what they would do in Westminster after the next UK election in the event of a hung parliament. Would they offer support to one of the two major parties to take them over the line and, if so, what would their terms be?

This has been the subject of much comment from senior SNP politicians in the last few weeks even though we’re at least 12 months, maybe even 18 months, away from the election. It must be said that speculating on their strategy (if that isn’t too strong a word in relation to today’s SNP) is a common ploy by SNP politicians in the run up to a UK election, giving themselves some sort of justification for being there at all and giving Scottish voters a reason to keep supporting them.

Now the terms for doing a deal in Westminster is normally along the lines of “you give us a Section 30 and we’ll go along with whatever rubbish legislation you want to bring forward”, knowing, of course, that the legislation wouldn’t apply to Scotland in the event of independence. This also means they can talk about independence without actually committing themselves to doing anything, a bit of a win-win situation for today’s SNP.

Of course, there are snags to the SNP’s plan. The major parties would first try to do a deal with the LibDems and history shows the LibDems would jump at the deal to regain some relevance. So if the LibDems had enough MPs, any deal with the SNP would be dead in the water. Bye, bye, section 30.

However, the SNP have also placed constraints on doing a deal. Yousaf has ruled out the Tories:

Humza Yousaf rules out IndyRef deal with the Tories

Humza Yousaf has insisted that not even the promise of a second independence referendum would persuade him to do a deal to keep the Tories in power at Westminster.
(Sunday Times)

It seems independence is less important than virtue signalling that the Tories are beyond the pale.

Even though the Labour Party have repeatedly ruled out any association with the SNP, Yousaf and other senior SNP figures have laid out their ‘terms’ for doing a deal with Labour to put Keir Starmer into number 10. There have been some differences of opinion as to what these terms might be. Yousaf says an agreement on a section 30 would be required, while Stephen Flynn (SNP’s Westminster leader) reckons they would be looking for increased devolution powers.

Stephen Flynn has hinted the SNP would consider rolling back on demanding a second independence referendum in exchange for supporting a Labour government, as he said his party would want more powers to back Sir Keir Starmer’s party.

In a subtle softening of the stance set out by other key SNP figures, Mr Flynn called for “meat on the bones” of devolution as he suggested support for Labour in the wake of the next general election may not be wholly contingent on being granted a section 30 order for indyref2.
(Scotsman)

So, are SNP the party of independence or are they the party of devolution?

If we assume that, as party leader, Yousaf would have the final say (big assumption?), and the SNP demand a section 30 as the price for supporting Labour, given that support for the Tories is off the table, the only circumstances in which this would arise is that Labour are in a minority if the SNP abstain in a vote of no confidence, but have a majority with SNP support.

Now here comes the question. If Labour are in a minority without SNP support, where is the advantage to Labour to agreeing a section 30 with the SNP, given that, following a successful referendum, the SNP would withdraw from Westminster, leaving Labour in a minority again, subject to the risk of losing a vote of no confidence. Why would Labour, fearing the loss of a vote of no confidence, agree to a strategy which leaves them open to the loss of a vote of no confidence.

The only two answers I can come up with are:

No they wouldn’t, Keir Starmer isn’t that stupid (surely not).
Yes they would, but only in bad faith, coming up with all sorts of excuses that now is not the time.

On one hand, there’s no advantage to Labour to say yes, so they’ll say no. On the other, there’s no advantage to the SNP for Labour to say yes, because they certainly won’t mean it. So if the SNP are really a party desperate for independence, what’s the point of this Section 30 ploy?

Come on guys, come up with the (obvious) answers that I’ve missed.

(PS. Thanks to Wings for some of the links above)

Sturgeon’s SNP – the timeline of failure

Posted on April 17, 2023April 17, 2023 by Angry Weegie

On and immediately after Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation, everybody who was anybody was either heaping praise on the dear, departed First Minister or telling the truth, I thought I’d have a go as well. Why not, I thought?

I had decided to wait until after Sturgeon’s final FMQ’s in the hope that she might show some humility or even some contrition for past mistakes, but, as we all know, Sturgeon believes she has never made a mistake, so admitting any failing was never going to happen. Just another example of wishful thinking on my part?

As most regular, or even occasional, readers will know, I’m not one of Sturgeon’s fans, though it was not always the case. Like many others, I was extremely disappointed when Alex Salmond resigned following the 2014 referendum, but I thought, in Nicola Sturgeon, we had a replacement who would continue to develop the case for independence. Independence, I thought, was certain in my lifetime, but I was a young and easily impressed 70-year-old then. Those were the days!

Little did I know that 2015 was the high point for the independence campaign and from then, it would be all downhill.

Who then would have been able to imagine the mandates given and the open goals ignored, not missed, because the SNP refused even to take a shot.

And who then would have been able to imagine what would have changed by 2023. Today, the party seem up to their necks in problems: the sudden, unexpected resignation of First Minister; the missing £600,000; the fiddled leadership election; the unlikely battlebus purchase; the former CEO arrested and questioned by the police for 11 hours and who knows how many more. But does this come as a surprise to anyone paying attention to what has happened, or not happened, over the 8+ years since Sturgeon took charge? It shouldn’t.

Let’s look at a brief history of Nicola Sturgeon’s time in charge of the SNP.

2015

The Westminster election, the first after the referendum and after Sturgeon’s coronation. Polling was showing overwhelming support for the SNP, so the leadership knew they were going to win big, though perhaps not just as big as it turned out. However, for reasons known only to Sturgeon, the manifesto included the statement below that a vote for the SNP was not a vote for independence, supposedly, but unneccessarily included so as not to frighten off potential SNP voters who might be ambivalent about independence. However, it’s unlikely the statement had any significant effect on the outcome of the election, but it set the scene for what was to come.

Here’s an extract from the 2015 manifesto. Is it significant that the heading says “Home Rule” (a unionist construct) and not independence? The remainder of the extract then lists a series of expectations which, as we now know, were never realised and, in any case, given the huge English majority in Westminster, were never realistic as the leadership would have known. It was not about “making Scotland stronger at Westminster” as that just wasn’t possible, so what was it about?

This was one of only four mentions of independence in the manifesto, none of which suggested there was any plan, or even any intention, to achieve it and, in the following twelve months, nothing was done. A failure.

2016

Two elections this year, or rather one election and a referendum. The election was for the Scottish Parliament, resulting in another big win for the SNP, though they just failed to repeat the majority achieved by Alex Salmond in 2011. This wasn’t a problem as they had the support of the Greens, who, at that time, were still considered to be an independence supporting party. More of that later.

The 2016 manifesto contained seven mentions of independence, a 75% increase compared to 2015, and it also promised some action. Unfortunately, as we came to expect from a Sturgeon led government, none of the promised action was ever delivered.

Surely the most significant statement was the one on the left, or at least, so it seemed at the time. Here, at last, were definite criteria for progressing an independence campaign. Note that no mention is made of the infamous Section 30, introduced later as yet another stalling tactic.

Of course, as we now know, the significant and material change in circumstances mentioned above did occur, but no use was ever made of it to progress independence.

2017

The election came as the result of a surprise decision by Prime Minister Theresa May (remember her?) in an attempt to get her Brexit bill through Westminster. She had hoped to get a larger majority and a stronger mandate for her plans, but instead, she lost seats and, ultimately, lost her job. However, the Tories’ loss of seats was tiny compared to the SNP’s. The SNP lost over a third of their MPs, falling from 56 to 35 by the simple expedient of ignoring independence.

The manifesto did contain 8 mentions of independence, but no promises of action. As can be seen from the excerpt on the left, being taken out of the EU against our will (in 2016) had morphed into once the final terms are known (by 2020), a handy 4 year delay. The party was also asking for a “triple lock” mandate. One mandate wasn’t enough to trigger action on independence, neither was two mandates, it had to be three mandates. As we now know, three mandates was still not enough.

Could be a cue for a song …
“There were three Indy mandates,
Spaffed against the wall …”

The SNP had been unprepared for the election, both financially and politically, coming less than a year after the double expenditure in 2016 and being in the middle of their mid-term fallow period, when they didn’t normally feel the need even to talk about independence. Despite unionist media claims that thousands of SNP voters transferred to unionist parties, the simple truth is that about half a million independence supporting former SNP voters just couldn’t be bothered turning out to vote for a party that didn’t consider independence a priority.

In the following twelve months, no action was taken to further the cause of independence.

2018

The start of arguably the worst action ever undertaken by Sturgeon’s SNP, the attempt to discredit Alex Salmond to prevent his return to front-line politics, an attempt that eventually culminated in a High Court trial on trumped-up sexual assault charges.

The action had actually started towards the end of 2017, when a decision was taken to introduce a procedure covering sexual assault charges against former ministers. How this developed is covered extensively by Calton Jock in his posting about the case, so those who want to find out more can read it here.

Sufficient at this stage to say that a procedure covering harassment by former ministers was specially produced by a combination of politicians and civil servants working in concert (some might call it a conspiracy) to prevent Salmond returning to politics. Salmond’s view was that the procedure was flawed and unfair. After several unsuccessful attempts by him to have the procedure reviewed independently, he was forced to take the Scottish Government to court, resulting in a win for Salmond at a cost of over £500,000 to the Government (and the taxpayer). Interestingly, the Scottish Government had continued with the case despite legal advice and only gave in when their own legal team threatened to resign when they found out the Scottish Government had been lying to them.

So determined were the plotters to remove Alex Salmond from politics, that following the loss of the civil case, they escalated the case to the police. Salmond eventually went to trial in 2020 facing 14 charges, all from people with a connection to the Scottish Government. This was despite an unprecedented attempt by the police to drum up other accusations by interviewing over 400 other women with even the slightest connection to Salmond and despite various members of the Scottish Government trying to induce their contacts to make complaints.

Salmond was acquitted of all charges, but that has not stopped members of Sturgeon’s government and other SNP supporters continuing to smear him.

Obviously, with all these legal shenanigans going on, no progress was made to bring independence closer.

2019

The 2019 General Election came again as a surprise and again was an attempt by the Prime Minister Boris Johnson to increase his majority to make it easier to get his often controversial legislation passed. His attempt was much more successful than Theresa May’s earlier attempt, though, despite the large majority he gained from the election, he failed to last out the full term.

The SNP went with a manifesto that was long on the advantages of independence, but short on the actions the Scottish Government were intending to take to achieve it. The extract below is typical of the content of the manifesto.

The manifesto contained 17 mentions of independence, mainly telling Scots how independence will improve their lives, but there was not one mention of how the SNP proposed to achieve it. The extract on the left was typical, proposing a referendum in 2020 with no idea how it might be brought about.

But then came Covid, an excuse for delay so good, that it is almost impossible to believe that Sturgeon herself wasn’t responsible for the pandemic. Covid not only gave the SNP the excuse to stop campaigning (obviously every single person in the government was so tied up with Covid, that no one could be spared for anything else), but it also allowed laws to be passed to prevent all other campaigning, and it was obvious that no election or referendum would be held during the pandemic. This was despite elections and referendums going ahead in other countries with Covid restrictions in place. What was special about Scotland?

It wasn’t as if the restrictions led to Scotland surviving the pandemic particularly well. The Scottish death rate may have been the best among the home nations, but was still among the highest in the world.

So the promised 2020 referendum was cancelled but Covid did give Sturgeon the opportunity to enhance her reputation through frequent television appearances.

2021

The 2021 Scottish election, when Sturgeon advised candidates to remove references to independence from their election literature and when the SNP gerrymandered the regional list to put Sturgeon supporting woke candidates at the top in each region, displacing independence supporting candidates like Joan McAlpine. This was the point when I gave up all hope of the SNP ever returning to being a party of independence. I resigned. Better late than never?

Unlike most of the earlier manifestos the 2021 version contained several promises of action. Look at all the promises made in the in the extract on the left and try to think when these independence related actions went ahead. (Spoiler, they didn’t.)

As I’ve said, promises don’t always lead to delivery in Sturgeon’s SNP.

Another planned event in this year which didn’t go ahead was the Scottish Census, held every ten years since 1801 and only cancelled once, in 1941 because of WWII. Using Covid as an excuse, the Scottish Government postponed the census till the following year. The census went ahead as scheduled in all other parts of the UK. It is not known what particular aspects of the Scottish census made holding it in 2021 too much of a risk, but other events would suggest that the Scottish Government must have gained some advantage. No results have yet been released from the delayed census.

However, what did go ahead was the passing of the Hate Crimes Bill which made it a criminal act to say something which another person took offence to, even if no offence was meant. Of course, if a criminal offence is to be determined by another’s opinion, it is difficult to know in advance whether what you say is against the law. Better to shut up and not take the risk. Was that the real objective?

Here is an extract from the bill (now an act, but not as yet in force as Police Scotland have said parts of it are unenforceable). Note that the impressively long list of characteristics doesn’t include sex, subject to a later decision on whether it should be included or not, which means hate speech against women is not included. It is ironical that a man wearing a dress is covered by the legislation, but a woman isn’t.

The Scottish Diversity and Inclusion Strategy, described in the extract on the left, led to the Gender Recognition \Reform bill. Interestingly, as with the Hate Crimes Act, the protected characteristics mentioned do not include sex.

Following the election, the SNP decided to formalise the relationship with the Scottish Greens and they were invited to form a coalition with two Green MSPs becoming government ministers. It was about this point that both parties, having for years been flirting with gender reassignment policies, seemed to become full-on transgender parties, dropping their interest in Scottish independence beyond its use as a marketing tool. In the eighteen months following, the impression was widely gained that Scottish Government policies were either designed by the Greens or were designed to keep the Greens on-side.

2022

The one action the Scottish Government took in relation to independence was to ask the Westminster Supreme Court if the Scottish Government was permitted to hold a referendum on independence. Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court said no, as everyone in Scotland expected, with the apparent exception of Scottish Government ministers.

However, there was no follow-up action, no attempt to argue against the decision.

The one major parliamentary activity was the debate on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. To say the bill was contentious would be the understatement of the year. The main area of disquiet was the inclusion of self-id, not mentioned in the SNP manifesto. This removed the need for a medical diagnosis of gender disphoria, replacing it with a simple unsupported declaration that the individual is now of a different sex (or gender). Poll after poll has consistently shown that a large majority of Scots are against the government’s plans for the introduction of self-id, but no changes were made to take account of these objections. In fact, the provisions contained in the bill were entirely designed with reference to only the minority point of view. Women’s majority viewpoints were ignored, were even declared “invalid” by Sturgeon.

Westminster have indicated that they will use the provisions contained in Section 35 of the Scotland Act to strike down the GRR Act due to its impact on the UK-wide 2010 Equality Act. The Scottish Government have decided to take legal action against Westminster to overturn the decision, an expensive action which is extremely unlikely to succeed. It is perhaps indicative of the relative priority placed by the Scottish Government on these pieces of legislation when they are contesting the Westminster decision affecting Gender Recognition Reform, which only a small minority of Scots support, but just accepting the Supreme Court decision affecting independence.

2023

What can be said about the SNP in 2023? If the SNP are to continue as Scotland’s major political party, changes must be made. Their position of virtual domination in Scotland was created by Alex Salmond and was continued by Nicola Sturgeon only by virtue of her ability to use Alex Salmond’s legacy as a marketing instrument. Her skill was to persuade so many to believe that today’s SNP was still the SNP of 2014, while converting the party into a vehicle for her own ambition, her true ambition, to become Scotland’s most famous political figure of the 21st century. Her every action was based on enhancing her own reputation, not on enhancing the chances of Scottish independence. It was this desire for fame and success that seemed to drive her to seek to destroy those who represented a challenge to her position or those who would disagree with any policy she supported. She wouldn’t ever change her mind, because changing your mind or being persuaded to accept a different opinion was weakness and weakness couldn’t be tolerated.

One aspect of Sturgeon’s SNP has been its ability to deliver electoral success. Unfortunately, this success has created two situations which have contributed to their current problems and may even become the reason for their downfall.

Electoral success persuades those who are benefitting from that success to accept unquestioningly everything the party does, whether they agree or not. A lack of debate within any party leads to the party stultifying, not developing.

Electoral success also attracts those who are not in tune with the party’s goals but who seek electoral success for its own sake, simply for the money, the power and the fame which it brings.

Sturgeon’s SNP has a substantial number of elected members who fit into one or both of these categories and more and more members are starting to realise this, causing the current steady stream of leavers, the loss of membership income and the potential loss of seats and therefore income at next year’s Westminster election.

Postscript

For the government of any country considering independence, there are two actions in particular that they must take.

Firstly, they must begin a continuing process of educating the citizens of the country to show them the benefits that each will gain from independence. This process should begin as soon as independence is mooted and must be continued right up to the date of decision. It should be constantly updated to reflect the then current circumstances. Only then will the people be persuaded that independence is essential.

Secondly, they must begin a continuing process of readying the country for independence by reviewing its infrastructure, its systems of governance, its financial systems and its trade and political relationships and upgrading or replacing where necessary. It is essential that, when independence comes, the country is independence-ready and does not have to go through a period of months or even years of adjustment, preventing the country from getting the benefits of independence that its people were promised.

In both of these areas, the Scottish Government can only be described as having failed.

There has been no consistent campaign to show the people what independence will mean and why they should vote for it. What efforts the Scottish Government have made have been limited to telling the people to persuade their family, friends and neighbours without providing the materials and the information necessary to support such a campaign. The Scottish Government should have been leading the charge, not introducing road blocks.

There has been little effort made to ready the country for independence. The introduction of a few tax processes and social security processes is not good enough. The lack of trading and other relationships with our European neighbours is not good enough. The lack of a truly Scottish Civil Service able to run an independent country is not good enough. In almost every area, the Scottish Government’s attitude has been either there’s plenty of time or we can’t be bothered because nothing’s going to happen for years. Neither attitude takes us to independence. Neither attitude is a winner.

Things have to change and have to change fast. Let’s finish with an instruction to the Scottish Government. Let’s hope the government, under its new leadership, will pay more attention than the lot that went before.

Scottish Government. The time to start is now. It’s time to shit or get off the pot as our American cousins say.

Margaret Ferrier – an SNP stitch-up

Posted on April 1, 2023 by Angry Weegie

While we will all acknowledge that Margaret was wrong to travel to London while waiting for the results of a test, her travel back was following advice given to her by parliamentary authorities, advice also given to several other MPs, what we also need to acknowledge is the huge difference between the treatment she has received, both from the media and from politicians, and the treatment meted out to others who broke the rules. In particular, the response of her “friends” and colleagues in the SNP must have been particularly difficult for her to bear.

Known not to be a keen supporter of the SNP’s gender reform plans, but a keen independence supporter, she received no help from the party, who took the opportunity to try to rid themselves of someone who wasn’t following the party line.

A party member lauded a few months earlier by Nicola Sturgeon for being the hardest worker in the party, she was suddenly the most evil person in Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon immediately called for her to resign, a call that was echoed by many other members of the party, particularly many in her own constituency. It must have been sickening to have the Rutherglen SNP MSP and several local SNP councillors, all of whom had only been elected to their positions through Margaret’s efforts, turn on her, joined enthusiastically by the convenor of the Rutherglen constituency association, her former campaign manager. Politics may be a dirty business, but surely this was beyond reprehensible.

No help, no sympathy, no duty of care, only ‘get out of here, we don’t want you any more’.

Of course, the moment it hit the news again, we had Humza Yousaf, himself in his position under extremely suspicious circumstances, calling for her to resign, just like his former (current?) boss and vowing to spend money the party doesn’t have to campaign for a recall, despite the increasing likelihood of a Labour victory in any by-election. It seems that it’s more important to get rid of a pro-independence MP from Westminster in case she shows the SNP benchwarmers up. However, as we’ll see, not all Covid rule breakers are bad.

It should be pointed out that Margaret broke no Covid laws. At the time only government guidance existed, not legally enforceable, which is why she wasn’t charged with breaking any Covid laws. There were none. Margaret was charged with reckless endangerment, a charge no other MP, or indeed, no one else has ever faced in relation to the Covid crisis. Here’s an extract from Scottish Government advice at the time.

Extract from Scottish Government advice as at October 2020 (highlighting is mine)

We want people to be safe. We are not advising that people who have already booked holiday accommodation in October need to cancel. More generally, please think about whether you need to travel, especially if you live in or would be travelling to, or through, the central belt. The Scottish Government is asking people within the central belt areas to think carefully about whether they need to travel outside their local health board area and, where that is necessary, to plan to do so safely.

Working from home is expected of all those who can. Non-essential offices should remain closed. Public transport use should be minimised as much as possible – such as for education and work – where it cannot be done from home.

At the time MPs were not allowed to take part in commons business remotely. Margaret was scheduled to lead a debate on that Monday, which she could not do from home. One of the reasons for travelling to London was her desire not to let her colleagues down. Ironic, really.

Was her treatment different from that meted out to other political figures? Let’s look at a few examples.

Peter Gibson (Tory MP)

The Darlington MP travelled 250 miles with covid during lockdown, and encouraged constituents to do the same. Speaking to a local newspaper, Mr Gibson said he first came down with a cough on March 18 – before the lockdown, while working in Parliament, and was advised to take the train home. When it was suspected that he had covid, he was advised to travel to and isolate at home, undertaking a 250 mile train journey from London.

He hasn’t been sanctioned and he’s still an MP.

Kit Malthouse (Tory Minister)

POLICING minister Kit Malthouse sparked virus panic in the Home Office after breaching Covid rules, it’s claimed.

Mr Malthouse, 54, took a test on his way to the office but did not wait for the result before going in. It later came back positive. Staff were forced to self-isolate and the Home Office’s HQ in central London had to be deep cleaned and the air vents changed, the Sunday Times reported.

Mr Malthouse has said he did not have symptoms and had taken a “precautionary” fast-acting test which delivers results within 30 minutes. (Why did he do that if he didn’t have symptoms?) Government guidance says workers should remain socially distanced after taking a test until they receive the all-clear.

He hasn’t been sanctioned and he’s still an MP.

Dominic Cummings (Advisor to the PM)

Dominic Cummings trips have been well publicised, first to Durham, 264 miles from his home in London, apparently the only place where he and his wife could get childcare, and then to Barnard Castle, to test his eyesight. You might think an eyechart would be the safer way.

Much embarrassment for the Tory party, but no jail time for Cummings.

King Charles III

As Prince Charles, he and his entourage travelled from his normal residence in England to Balmoral, where, as he had symptoms, he was tested and found to be positive. He and his wife self-isolated, but members of his staff were seen in the village, risking the spread of the disease in an area previously free from infection.

No action was ever taken against any of them.

Ian Blackford (SNP Westminster leader)

Ian Blackford isolated himself after a 600-mile trip to his Skye home while the UK was in lockdown, while calling for Dominic Cummings to resign or be sacked for his trip to Durham. He denied wrongdoing, as MPs were entitled to return home from London to self-isolate.

No action has been taken by either the party or the police.

Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater (Green MSPs)

Scottish Greens co-leaders Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater were forced to apologise after being pictured in a pub, breaking Covid rules on indoor social gatherings. The two leaders, along with fellow MSP Ross Greer and another man, were seen together in an Edinburgh bar. Edinburgh’s Covid restrictions at the time meant only three households were allowed to be together in indoor hospitality.

The Scottish Greens said its MSPs had made an “honest mistake”.

For the greasy gender Greens, an apology was enough to get them off the hook. The only action taken was for Nicola Sturgeon to reward them with a promotion to her Cabinet, an action repeated by Humza Yousaf. It appears that some Covid rule breakers are acceptable to the SNP leadership.

So why the difference in treatment? Nicola Sturgeon was obviously annoyed because Margaret was strongly in favour of independence, but not a strong believer in the party’s concentration on gender issues and we all know what happens when Sturgeon gets annoyed. No one gets away unscathed with annoying Sturgeon. And, of course, anyone in the party who wants to make progress has to follow Sturgeon’s lead or they’ll likely suffer the same fate. It was the reaction of the SNP leadership that triggered the media frenzy and resulted in the action from the same compliant prosecution authorities and police that had delivered the earlier stitch-up of Alex Salmond.

Ironically, Margaret might be saved by the Tories who don’t want to create a precedent which might affect the decision in the on-going Boris Johnson affair, but we won’t know until the Commons returns from their Easter break.

	Angry Weegie on Are they the SNP Sacrificial L…
	GM on Are they the SNP Sacrificial L…
	Angry Weegie on Are they the SNP Sacrificial L…
	GM on Are they the SNP Sacrificial L…
	GM on Are they the SNP Sacrificial L…