The New SNP/Green Deal: Now With Added Nuts

After all the dust has settled, it seems that through sheer lack of unwillingness by any other SNP politician, John Swinney will become leader of the SNP and in the process will become First Minister of Scotland. I’m sure that many within the SNP will be breathing a sigh of relief that there will be a swift  and seamless transition of power, with no need for a contest which will reveal any splits within the party. At first glance this might seem like a good thing, but will it be viewed like that by many members of the party, and more importantly, the voting public?

Given that the Sturgeon era was brought to a halt by controversy upon controversy, one might think that a reboot of the party might send out the message that the party leadership wanted to put clear blue water between that old regime and the new one. That they were not to be tainted by events which are soon to be revealed in court. They have chosen not to do so, and by choosing John Swinney, their seamless transition to fresh government instead becomes a seamless join with a running sore that continues to damage the SNP. From Sturgeon, to Yousaf, to Swinney. As Eric Morecambe used to say: “You can’t see the join!”

In depriving the membership of the party a say in selecting who their leader should be, they have continued in the vein of Nicola Sturgeon, centralising decision making to as few people as possible. Humza Yousaf was to the SNP what Liz Truss was to the Tories, and he has now been replaced by their equivalent of John Major. Mr Swinney is undoubtedly Scotland’s dullest and least inspiring politician, and for those of us who remember his last spell as leader, he brings with him an expectation of loss. With an impending Westminster election and a Holyrood election soon after, I can think of no worse choice that the SNP leadership could have imposed on the party. On BBC Debate Night, Neil Gray MSP, campaign manager for Humza Yousaf, said he had endorsed Humza Yousaf because he was the right man for the job, and in his opinion had been a good First Minister. He then went on to say that in his opinion Mr Swinney was the right man for the job. Fool me twice, shame on me as they say.

The whole process in which Humza Yousaf departed office raises more questions than it answers. Surely I can’t be alone in thinking that the decision to end the Bute House Agreement with the Greens was not a decision made my Mr Yousaf alone, above the heads of his cabinet, and without their endorsement? If Neil Gray, as he said, worked hard to convince him to stay as First Minister, why was he railroaded out by the rest of the cabinet? One vote from Alba would have saved him and the Scottish Government from the votes of no confidence they faced, yet the SNP made it clear that they would refuse to countenance such an offer. One has to remember that probably 95% of the Alba Party membership are former SNP members, and while they are disappointed in the party’s failure to progress independence, they recognise that the SNP are at present still the major party of independence, and as such will support them to achieve that goal. I find it bizarre that Scotland’s second largest independence party’s offer of help was rejected outright, in order to cut a back room deal with the Greens, who the SNP, not Humza Yousaf alone, threw out of government. Clearly there has been a recognition at some level that a continued joint government was not in their interest, and the rejection of Alba over the Greens again indicates no change in direction from the party. It’s akin to when Marathon rebranded to Snickers. The label changed but the nuts remain.

When the Greens asked that Labour withdrew their vote of no confidence it was quite clear to every man and his dog that a deal had been done, and that the Scottish Government was safe. The vote was, by that point, pointless. Knowing that the government was safe, Ash Regan of Alba then knew that she could cast her vote of no confidence without actually ending up being the scapegoat for bringing them down. Unfortunately this was manna from heaven for those on the more tinfoil-hatted wing of the SNP, who saw this as evidence that ALBA are an MI5 construct, and all the members are secret British Nationalists. These members are, of course, the same folk who used to attend branch meetings and conferences alongside them, and who chapped doors and delivered leaflets in all weathers with them. A more sensible approach from Ms Regan would have been to abstain, sending the message that she could not endorse them, but ultimately neither would she bring down a Scottish Nationalist government in favour of a British Nationalist one. That opportunity has been lost, and it may now be harder for ALBA to reach across to the SNP membership, something that they need to do in the next Holyrood election.

 There is more that unites us than divides us, and as someone who has not forgotten that independence is our ultimate goal, which I want to see sooner, not later, I must ask all our independence supporting politicians to focus on that goal in every act that they do. All our politicians have fallen into the trap of focussing on election cycles, when what we need to do is break the electoral system. We are being told by London that we cannot have a referendum. Good governance brings the confidence to take more responsibility, and we can bypass any referendum by having all independence parties stating, clear and simple that a vote for them is a vote to declare independence, not to seek permission which will always be refused. It’s time to put country before career. 

Some people think that a spell out of office is required to refocus, regroup and reorganise. This is akin to football supporters facing relegation, who convince themselves that after a season in the lower leagues they will come back bigger and stronger. This is seldom the case, and for many teams, that season becomes an extended period in the wilderness. We can only hope that Mr Swinney can salvage something in time for the elections, because the Yes movement cannot afford a loss in any way, shape or form.  Relegation is not an option.

Letter to The National. 03/05/24

Unity in the Independence Movement Does Not Mean Blind Obedience to the SNP

Since the election in May I’ve seen much talk online regarding the Alba Party from SNP officials, members and supporters. Indeed, in the immediate wake of the election we saw the rather disgusting sight of senior SNP officials cheering at what they thought was the death of another wing of the independence movement. Since then we have heard the incessant drip, drip, drip from SNP fundamentalists demanding that people who voted Alba should now return to the fold and unite as one, abandoning their concerns and principles in the process. I’m afraid that ship has sailed and there’s as much chance of that happening as there is of the Yes movement heeding calls from British Nationalists to abandon independence because they won the referendum in 2014.

Gordon McIntyre Kemp hit the nail on the head in his column in The National on Thursday when he said that the SNP are highly successful as a political party but not as a part of the Yes movement. The unity of the 2014 campaign came from the atmosphere generated by the movement, the feeling that everyone had something to contribute and something to gain, and that although we all desired the same aim in one respect we were not of one hive mind.

Bearing that in mind, perhaps it is not the Yes movement which must surrender to the SNP, but the other way around. Many eyes have been opened to the internal chicanery of the SNP, and when you see that kind of behaviour laid bare and take a principled stand against it, then it is highly unlikely you can stuff that particular genie back in the bottle. The shadow of careerists, bottom-feeders and carpet-baggers, along with kangaroo courts, police investigations and missing “ring-fenced” money looms large and long, and perhaps in those circumstances the best we can hope for from the SNP is that it becomes more transparent and honest internally, while at the same time holding out an olive branch to the Yes movement and learning to work with its allies in the independence movement, not against them. Instead of running lemming-like towards a cliff the SNP must now pause and take stock or fall into the abyss. Should they do so they will take the independence movement with them, and that must not be allowed to happen.

A New Green Deal? More like No Deal With The Greens…

Ross Greer, talking about The National

In Wales a “Remain Alliance” of Plaid Cymru, the Lib-Dems and the Greens have agreed to stand aside in various constituencies to allow them to maximise the chances of electing anti-Brexit candidates. In Scotland there will be no such alliance and the Green Party and the SNP will be going head to head in the fight for the pro-independence many constituences, some of which are already sitting on a razor thin majority.

It was the Greens standing in Edinburgh which split the pro-independence vote there and allowed Ruth Davidson to sneak up from list MSP to constituency MSP, a propaganda win that the Tories celebrated heartily. The Scottish Greens are unlikely to win any seats in this election so their taking part must be viewed as a vanity project in the main, and it is a vanity which looks as though it will cost them in the long term. Many of the smaller parties stand aside in the Westminster elections and there’s no shame in doing so. In fact for the Greens there would be a positive advantage to standing aside, if they have an eye on future Holyrood and council elections, as many SNP voters would possibly be more likely to give them their second vote. However, those same voters will be watching the seats the Greens stand in and should the SNP lose those seats by a small margin then they are likely to punish the Greens accordingly in future elections. Those voters have already watched as the Greens helped the British Nationalists remove the OBFA legislation and they’ve listened as MSP Ross Greer has described them as “zoomers”; watching them help deliver Westminster seats into the hands of the unionists would probably be the last straw and would in all likelihood see their future Holyrood hopes dashed.

The Green Party is the soft underbelly of the Independence movement in Scotland, and would probably be the easiest turned away from independence. As a smaller party if a committed number of people join who see green issues as more of a priority than independence or if a significant number of pro British Nationalist people joining up and steer the party away from independence to a neutral or pro-UK position then you will quickly find that their support disappears. Perhaps that has already occurred at the branch level and just hasn’t had time to filter through to the leadership yet.
With the Greens determined on standing they have instead left it up to the electorate to decide, and now it will be up to pro independence voters to use their own good judgement to decide whether to vote along party lines or to vote tactically in the forthcoming election and I fear that the Greens will be left regretting their decision to stand in an contest they could easily have sat out.

British Nationalism: Good, Irish Nationalism: Good, Scottish Nationalism: BAD!

Submitted to the Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser, 16/01/16

Tweet by Elaine Smith MSP

Dear Sir,

The name Airdrie is believed to be derived from the Gaelic An Àrd Ruigh, meaning a high pasture. The high ground near Blackhill transmitter is Duntilland, Dun being Gaelic for a fort, and this area would may well have had such a fortification in the vicinity. One only has to look at an Ordnance Survey map to see examples of Gaelic in use across the country: An Teallach, Stob a’Choire Odhair, Meall na Tarmachan; to those who know them they are expressive names which their English language equivalents cannot match. For hillwalkers across Scotland they also provide a constant source of argument as to their pronunciation! The Gaelic language has roots here and while not in common everyday use in Airdrie, is still very much part of our heritage. I was therefore pleased to see the recent commitment by North Lanarkshire Council to recognise Gaelic as a living language and their publication of a five year plan to that end, as well as beginner’s classes in the language. I was less pleased to see Coatbridge Labour MSP Elaine Smith attack the Labour run North Lanarkshire Council when they advertised Gaelic classes with the slogan “Interested in learning Scotland’s native language?” Mrs Smith appeared to take offence at the claim Gaelic was Scotland’s native language. She then responded to criticism of her stance with concerns about NLC funding of this project. This really is beyond belief! Mrs Smith has been a loud and vocal champion of Irish cultural events in Scotland. In March 2012 in an article about the St Patricks day celebrations in Coatbridge it was reported that she had said that “I have called on the Scottish Government to look at ways of assisting cultural festivals such as this to grow and develop.” She has also said that she is “proud of my Irish heritage”, and that “the Irish Catholic vote in Scotland has remained unconvinced of Scottish nationalism.“ Why is it that Irish culture is good and should be funded, but Scottish culture should be sneered at and it’s funding questioned? Why should she try to create a religious divide on the subject? Is it because Mrs Smith is a committed British nationalist, and that a Scotland divided by sectarian and religious lines is less of a threat to the British state than a united one? Similarly, the eradication of one of our native languages by starving it of recognition and funding would be just another tactic in the process of destroying a sense of Scottish national identity and replacing it surreptitiously with a common British identity. That must not be allowed to happen.

Yours Sincerely,

James Cassidy

Elaine (Not C) Smith MSP, Calmac and Hypocrisy

Letter to the Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser, 15th November 2015 (This is an edited version of a fuller letter sent to RMT News, on the same date).

Dear Sir,　

I see that Coatbridge MSP Elaine (Not C) Smith, a vocal cheerleader for Better Together, is now silent as the 2000 jobs which would have been secure running Scotlands tax system are lost to Croydon. She is silent now that Scotland is about to say ta-ta to the last of its steel industry. She is silent on the subject of her party siding with the Tories to deny Scotland the chance to operate it’s own tax credit system, and instead implementing a system where we can use our Westminster pocket money to top up the benefits they are about to cut. She has however not been silent on the alleged privatisation of the Clyde and Hebrides Ferry contract. As people across the country who are not afforded the same airtime as Ms Smith have repeatedly pointed out, this is not privatisation. In fact it’s the same tendering process that the Labour/Lib-Dem Scottish Executive followed when the contract was awarded to Caledonian MacBrayne in 2006. Back then the SNP claimed this was privatisation by the back door, a charge denied by Labour then, yet employed by Labour now they are in opposition. So if we can take that hypocrisy away we are left with the argument as to whether Calmac or Serco should be awarded the contract. From a moral point of view you could say that Serco should be discounted, having as they do a horrendous record across the world in workplace relations. They are involved in almost every sphere of life, from office cleaners to atomic weapons, and at the end of it all the money they generate goes to private shareholders; they have the global financial clout to outbid anyone, anywhere, should they wish to do so. Calmac know that they must put a bid in which is sufficiently within the same ballpark that the Scottish Government can point to aspects of the bid which will compensate for what will undoubtedly be a poorer bid in strictly monetary terms. I hope they are successful in doing so because I feel that at present we are seeing the asset stripping of everything that a future independent Scotland will need and It would be far easier to nationalise a Calmac owned ferry service than a Serco owned one.　

Yours Sincerely,　

James Cassidy,

 

Open Letter To Nicola Sturgeon: The Silence Is Deafening

Freedom of expression: not welcome within the SNP?

Around this time yesterday I posted An Open Letter To Nicola Sturgeon detailing the campaign of fear and intimidation which my family and I have had to endure for the last 9 months. We are overwhelmed by messages of support, and I’m glad to say that the negative comments have been in the tiny minority. This website had over 11,000 views yesterday, and I’ve had messages from all over the country regarding the events I have written about from strangers and from journalists. The one group who I am disgusted to say have not contacted me in any capacity has been the SNP. This is despite me emailing my concerns directly to Nicola Sturgeon and posting them to her on her Twitter account, which I am assured she operates personally.

To answer a few questions which have cropped up, and which I thought were apparent from my letter:

Have I raised my concerns with the SNP? Yes. I have had no response.

Have I reported the incidents to Police Scotland? Yes.

My letter and my replies are what I am legally allowed to write. I cannot, as some people have asked me to “name and shame” any individual or individuals. I cannot give details of what evidence Police Scotland possess, as this may be used at a future date.

I would hope that anyone looking at my Facebook profile and my letters on this site would agree that I am dedicated to the Yes movement and an independent Scotland, and that I am not a Westminster plant as has been suggested by one fanciful individual. I am saddened that some people who in the run up to the referendum were willing to question everything, now seem unable to question anything that runs counter to their beliefs. Blind faith does none of us any good.

07/04/15 The Scotch Are Coming!

The i 

Dear Sir,　

I am not a regular reader of your, or for that matter any other national print newspaper, so I am unsure if the views expressed on Monday by the likes of Messrs Terry Jowle and Rod Williams are run of the mill viewpoints or not. To me they epitomised some of the swivel-eyed anti-Scottish hatred I have been hearing on television and radio and I would be horrified if these were widely held views. I found Mr Williams comments particularly disturbing. The Scottish electorate, having come through a two year referendum on independence, is far more factually aware than many people south of the border would give credit for, and it would appear far more aware politically than much of the English electorate as well. We know fine well that with the vast majority of the electorate in England vote Conservative, Britain will have a Conservative government. Likewise if the vast majority of England votes Labour we will have a Labour government. The Scottish vote has seldom changed the balance (once in the last 69 years if I recall correctly) and in the past when Scotland has continually voted Labour many Scots felt they had made a difference when Labour had won, when in reality their vote made no real difference. They were simply in step with the English electorate. This year is no different. We will still get the government England votes for. That some people seem to believe that a handful of Scottish constituencies will bring England to its knees and drag it off to the left is fanciful in the extreme, and indeed in Mr Williams case verges on the panic inducing. All that was missing from his letter was the references to rivers of blood. As a Scot, I find it highly ironic that some English voters are now up in arms at the thought of MP ’s from another country possibly holding sway over theirs. That has been the situation here in Scotland for over 300 years. Not nice, is it?

Yours Sincerely,　

James Cassidy

Post Referendum Letters: 28/11/14 (Advertiser)

An edited version of this appeared in the Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser

Dear Sir, 

It seems that this will be my last letter to the advertiser on the subject of Scottish independence. Yesterday I sat outside the Scottish Parliament and watched the great and the good troop inside, where they announced that the Vow had been delivered, with Michael Moore MP describing it as “Home Rule for Scotland”. With home rule recommended by the Smith Commission I have nothing left to campaign for.

It’s a great pity that newspapers don’t include smiley’s on the letters page, as that first paragraph would have been accompanied by a sarcastic one. A really big one. 

Home rule? It’s far from it. The list of reserved powers is substantial. The minimum wage, VAT, fuel duty, equality, pensions, child benefits, foreign policy, weapons of mass destruction, the list goes on and on. We were promised “Near Federalism” and “Devo-Max”. We have been palmed off with ‘Devo Hee-Haw’ and it has to be remembered that these are just proposals. They still have to go in front of our Imperial Masters in London where they will no doubt be picked apart and further reduced.

After all the noise coming from Jim Murphy as he flip-flopped on the subject of tax, the reality was disappointing to say the least: 70% of taxes and 85% of welfare spending remains under London’s control. Oh, and the Scottish Government will be allowed to bid for (not renationalise) the rail franchise in Scotland. Given that it isn’t allowed to raise extra money and everything it does raise will simply reduce the block grant of our own money that we get back anyway, I’m mystified as to how it could get the funding for this without stripping it from elsewhere.  

The simple fact is we have been offered a few token changes to meet the so called Vow, which according to a Freedom of Information request made recently, the UK Cabinet Office has no record of. It would seem that with nae power comes great responsibility. We can gather in and distribute money on behalf of London and pretend it is power. But how can we do anything about poverty when we cannot even set a minimum wage? The simple answer is we cannot. We can tinker with the edges, fiddle here and there but the power to change anything in real, meaningful terms is not available to us. Former leader of the Labour Party  (Scotland branch) Iain Grey said that “any politician seeing these powers coming to them should be excited about the possibilities…” I’d suggest that if that’s what excites him he should perhaps call it a day, like many other Labour high-heidyins.  

On the upside, the Smith Commission has recommended that we are given control over road signs. Unsurprisingly I’d like them to be tartan… 

Yours Sincerely 

Jim Cassidy

The Referendum Letters: 26/07/14 (To Pamela Nash MP)

To: Pamela Nash MP

Dear Ms Nash,　

I am contacting you to seek clarification of a number of issues which have been raised at various points over the course of the referendum debate. As a constituent of yours I have many, many concerns to do with Scotland’s future. Some of these I have raised before on your website, however none of these had any response and I now see that your website is closed to all comment, so I will raise them here by email. You have campaigned regularly for the Better Together campaign, so I am sure that you will be able to fully answer my concerns.　

1. Does Scotland – including its oil revenues, of course – contribute a larger share of the UK’s income than the share of UK spending it gets? (And I mean the SHARE, not the AMOUNT – debt which has to be paid back doesn’t count as “spending”.)　

2. Regardless of whether YOU think it would be a good idea or not, is it true to say that an independent Scotland could continue to use Sterling as its currency if it chose, no matter what happened?　

3. Your campaign keeps saying that independence would make our family and friends in the rest of the UK “foreigners”. Even if we accept that’s true, what’s wrong with foreigners? 　

4. In your view, would the rUK really build and patrol a 100-mile long physical barrier of some sort across the border if an independent Scotland had a different immigration policy? (Because obviously road checkpoints alone couldn’t stop illegal immigrants, who’d simply cross on foot.) And if so, what would you estimate as the construction, manning and maintenance costs of such a barrier?　

5. The McCrone Report was kept from the Scottish public by successive Labour and Conservative governments for 30 years to prevent them knowing how rich Scotland would be if it were independent. Are you aware of any similar documents relevant to the independence debate which are currently designated secret?　

6. If I vote No in September, can you guarantee that in five years’ time Scotland will still be in the EU?　

7. If I vote No, can you guarantee that in 10 years’ time Scotland will still have a fully publicly-funded NHS?　

8. If I vote No, can you guarantee that the “Barnett Formula” used to calculate the Scottish Government block grant will still be in force by 2020 and set at the same proportions?　

9. What will be the approximate set-up/annual costs of the tax-collecting bureaucracy your party plans to implement in the event of a No vote?　

10. In the event of a Yes vote, will the UK government have an obligation to pay the pensions of everyone in Scotland who has ALREADY qualified for the UK state pension, as would be the case if current pensioners emigrated to (say) Spain or France or Australia? I’m not interested in the Scottish Government’s position on the matter, I want to know what the UK government’s responsibilities are.　

11. In your opinion, is Scotland a country or a region? If it is a country, why should it not have the rights and responsibilities of any other sovereign country?　

I look forward to your replies,　

Regards,　

James Cassidy

 

No response was ever received…

The Referendum Letters: 13/06/14

Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser

Dear Sir, 

Alistair Darlings Nazi smear attempt on Yes voters everywhere could almost be described as gutter politics, were it not for the fact that Better Together sank far below that level a long time ago. Sewer politics would be more apt. Reporting of his outburst may have gained a bit more traction had it not come in a good week to bury bad news, with the mainstream media focusing on Lallygate, when the BBC and the unionist media went into overdrive about the actions of some Yes supporters individuals comments. I have to ask myself if the world has gone stark, raving mad. Some keyboard warriors said some pretty despicable things, however we are talking about individual views here, not the views of Yes Scotland. Compare that with Alistair Darling’s leaked conversation where he states that the Scottish Independence movement is not based on civic nationalism, but he agrees with his interviewer that it is “Blood and Soil” nationalism, a phrase used by the Nazi party to describe their racially pure, aryan vision of Germany. Hardly applicable to the nationalism we have in Scotland. If you live here, you have a vote, regardless of race or ethnic origin. Mr Darling is not alone in his Nazi jibes though. Elaine Smith MSP has regularly thrown Nazi references in to her columns and letters, referring to fanatical nationalism and the lessons of history. In one of the worst quotes of all, in September 2013 the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, Johan Lamont described nationalism as “a virus”, the very same term Hitler used to describe the Jews. Can these people sink any lower? To liken your political foes as to nothing more than a virus which must be wiped out is abhorrent, yet this is not the lone nutter in the bedroom speaking. This is the leader of Scottish Labour! If it’s not the Yes supporters themselves they are attacking its Alex Salmond. Each week I call full house on Better Together’s “Alex Salmond Dictator Bingo”. Mussolini, check. Hitler, check. Stalin, check. Kim Jung Un, bingo! Talk about playing the man, not the ball! Alex Salmond may be dead and buried in 10 years time, yet the unionists make out that a vote for independence is a vote for a Scotland ruled by him in perpetuity. What we have from Better Together is a top down campaign of hatred and bile. On September 18^th, the people of Scotland will, for one day, have the power to decide the future of Scotland. Some of us will be able to look ourselves in the mirror afterwards and be proud of our actions. I do not think the Better Together leadership will fall into that category. 

Yours Sincerely,

James Cassidy