A New Hope
“A New Direction, a New Hope” – sounds like the new Star Wars movie but it’s the latest slogan from Scottish Labour. The beleaguered Anas Sarwar kicked off the New Year with a speech titled ‘A New Direction for Scotland’. He told the room a vote for his party in 2026 is one to “reform, renew and deliver” and “We need a Government to sell Scotland to the world, not just to Scots”.
As an early sign of such vigorous leadership he has announced that Labour will abstain on the proposed Scottish budget (which we covered here).
He said: “At this current stage, we will abstain from this budget, because this budget is going to pass anyway. It has the votes of another political party, at least one other opposition political party. So we are not going to vote against this budget. We will abstain from this budget. But if the Scottish Government wanted us to support the budget, they should have set up a new direction. They didn’t.”
Poor Anas Sarwar has had the look of a contortionist in recent months as he twists and turns. First he was sure that GB Energy would be based in Scotland and have a big impact on reducing energy bills (it won’t), then he was sure that the WASPI women would be recompensed (they weren’t), then he and his MPs were queuing up to keep the two-child cap in place – now he agrees it should be mitigated in Scotland as soon as possible.
It’s all a bit of a shambles.
Labour abstaining means the SNP’s budget will pass.
Labour couldn’t really oppose it and vote down significant funding including: universal winter heating payments for older people; £6.9bn total investment in social security including the Scottish Child Payment; £2bn overall increase in frontline NHS spending, taking overall health and social care investment to £21bn. To do so would be political suicide. To not do so looks like shambling incompetence.
This matters, because Sarwar was, like Starmer, the Union’s great hope. Look, “here comes change, real change” was the mantra. Writing in the Herald today about the rise in support for independence (‘The Union is on borrowed time: Yes camp must prepare for indy‘) Neil Mackay notes: “What matters …is the behaviour of the incumbent London government. Keir Starmer was a Hail Mary for many centre-left floating voters in Scotland. A forlorn hope.”
That change hasn’t materialised. Indeed, Starmer now repels many voters as much as the Tories. With the Tories you knew you’d get stabbed in the front; with Starmer, coming from a tradition of social democracy, it feels like he’s stabbing the country in the back.”
“Many of those Scottish floating voters, who were crucial to electing Starmer, voted Yes in 2014, or are what you might call Yes Curious, not because of flags or patriotism, but because they’re fed up to the back teeth with Westminster trashing the country.”
“Independence offers a rather undefined way out for them, an alternative to Westminster that has appeal precisely because it lacks clear delineation. When something lacks detail – like Brexit – voters can project almost anything onto it.”
“To many, that nebulous “anything” is preferable to Westminster right now, and so independence gains. The same holds true for Reform in England. Farage offers to those on the right an alternative to what’s gone before.”
Britain in 2025 seems like a weird place. We now have Andrew Tate announcing he’ll run for office (the BRUV party wants more wrestling), and polls like this showing the desperate state of English politics:
🗳️ Who should be the NEXT Prime Minister?
🟪 Nigel Farage: 23%
🟦 Kemi Badenoch: 13%
🟥 Angela Rayner: 9%
🟥 Rachel Reeves: 6%
🟥 Wes Streeting: 4%Via @Moreincommon_, 20-23 December pic.twitter.com/L7RTjjpUB3
— Stats for Lefties 🍉🏳️⚧️ (@LeftieStats) January 6, 2025
It was widely predicted that Keir Starmer’s ‘Blairism Re-Heated’ would be an absolute disaster and open the door to an even more extreme right than the shambolic Tory party, and that has come to pass. It’s a pattern seen everywhere from Macron’s decline (doing deals with anyone to stop the left), to the departing Justin Trudeau in Canada, to the tragi-comedy of Kamala Harris’s campaign and Biden’s reign. Centrism, in its various manifestations, is a failed project which cedes power to the far-right.
As political commentator Joe Guinan puts it: “The dead husk of existing politics, policed against left challenges and aiming to rule through political supply control, means again and again we roll the dice on a choice between neoliberal centrism and far-right populism. We can only do this for so long before the latter wins.”
Scotland itself is not immune to the populism of the far-right which attracts support from strange quarters as the hysteria of culture war rages hard. But, there is a fallacy about the inevitability of all of this, and the nurturing of alternative radical politics is the antidote to failed centrism, and here in Scotland we have at least the glimmer of an alternative.
“England’s difficulty is Scotland’s opportunity” to borrow a phrase from Daniel O’Connell. As Mackay writes: “Independence is no longer tied to the SNP, but to Labour’s failure.” True, but not good enough on its own. Failure at Westminster was always a useful recruiting sergeant for the independence movement, it motivated political change under Thatcher, under the chaotic Theresa May, the improbable Boris Johnson and now under the disappointing Starmer. But we need more than failure we need credible alternatives, radical solutions and a route map to self-determination. We need new forms of politics not just the 2014 campaign re-heated. Herein is the Yes movement’s dilemma: how to navigate through the chaos of contemporary Britain and build on the growing support for Scottish independence not just by pointing at the wreckage but by pointing to the shore.
We are supported only by our readers. We don't have corporate backers and we don't take advertising, so we rely entirely on your support.
Help to support independent Scottish journalism
Think outside the box …just finished reading a book which puts forward sensible way forward…or should it be sideways..outwards..inwards
Put the brakes on the economic growth mantra.its a killer
What was that Meg?
I would be more concerned about our Government selling Scotland to the highest bidder, whatever stripe.
they already have, in the past 12 years even more land that was public is now under private ownership
You’re conveniently ignoring Ross Greer’s heroic and tireless campaign that has saved Loch Lomond from England’s grabbing hands again and again. Stop whingeing and vote Green. If not, shut up and wallow in transphobia.
Not sure if this is directed at me but why should I or anyone else vote for the Scottish greens when they also have a track record of backsliding on their principles & lending support to the great NATO endeavour the Scottish government has been cunningly designed to represent. I am phobic of so called humanity in general regardless of gender classification.
Labour & Conservatives lied about state of public finances and their economic plans prior to 2024 General Election. This accusation came from a variety of disparate sources such as IFS, Lib Dem’s, SNP so it is no surprise that they suddenly found out the economic situation was so much worse than they supposedly thought. The troubles they are experiencing since being elected are exposing the untruths they told to get elected.
What I find surprising is the sheer political ineptitude they are demonstrating in implementing a range of policies- cut WFA, not implementing WASPI recommendations, even the Inheritance Tax on farmers which will not save a lot of money but are very unpopular with significantly large sections of electorate who they persuaded to vote for them last year.
From a Scottish perspective to have Labour MP’s representing Scottish constituencies voting for policies at Westminster while Labour MSP’s are simultaneously demanding that Holyrood implements policies to mitigate the harm of these self same policies just makes them look unprincipled and opportunistic.
It is a similar problem that Tories previously had and shows the absurdity of UK controlled political parties having elected representatives in Holyrood.
If Sarwar has a plan for Scotland why didn’t he let Labour run Wales in on the plan years ago?
hmm, I see a storm on the horizon this summer, wie further o’erseas intervention & mass slaughter a’ in the name ae western fkn ‘democracy’
Get the popcorn in and watch the show……………Starmer/Badenock(sic)/Farage in an absurdist smear fest for the lost soul of England ( a proud and decent people). Of course the rest of us suffer the consequences. All this and Trump operating like a Mafia boss. Who would have thunk it?
A small and reasonable “surge” toward regained sovereignty, but whoever leads Yes (does Swinney look like a revolutionary?) must make it clear that he/she will insist that if independence becomes the preferred wish of the Scots there will be a referendum, with or without Westminster.
My preference would be a simple Declaration of Independence—-like Mauritius.
Perhaps that nice Mr Musk will help……..I’m sure he would like to!
Nay sure Musk is quite right wing enuff for NATO & apartheid loving money grubbing fascistic Scotland.
Comedy gold.
Nothing comic about it, the various parties that sit in the Scottish parliament might as well give up the pretence that they even agree to disagree since they more or less to a person agree that in performing its function as an essential part of the British state the job of their government is simply to maintain the charade that Scotland somehow is some great safe haven-like peace loving nation whilst all the while Scotland’s only real function now is to serve NATO’s expansionist imperialist interests whilst cowering behind the ridiculous excuse that this is in order to protect us from the non-existent threat of a Russian invasion. Laughable, it would be, were it not for the great human cost & suffering such charlatans are perpetrating.
It wasn’t a simple declaration of Independence.
Mauritius was granted its independence as part of the process of decolonisation that the British Labour Party began in 1946, when it became evident that the Empire was financially unsustainable. At the 1965 Lancaster House Constitutional Conference, it was agreed that independence would be granted if a newly elected Mauritian government, under a newly established Mauritian constitution, passed a resolution for independence by a simple majority in the Mauritian parliament.
Mauritius became an independent monarchy in 1968, with Queen Elizabeth remaining as its unelected head of state. Mauritius abolished its monarchy in 1992, with the last Governor General becoming the country’s first elected president.
(Of course, Scotland isn’t a colony, so there’s no constitutional comparison.)
I was in Mauritius in a Royal Navy ship just prior to independence (to protect UK assets).
Isn’t a colony where one country is politically controlled by another, and its assets used for the benefit of the controlling power?
That would be Scotland, with no “right” to self determination, or any sovereign control of any aspect of our lives from broadcasting to passing laws in our supposed parliament
@gavinochiltree, you could argue that a once-partly-autonomous member of a hegemonic league can move over time towards becoming a colony-like entity (and further on to become part of a unitary state), although I think it would be more accurate to represent the UK as the hegemonic league under England at the apex of the British Empire (which contains real colonies still) which is in turn the bottom empire to the USAmerican Empire (under the combined military dictatorships of NATO and the Royal Prerogative).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony
The problem, of course, is that under the British quasi-Constitution, the nature of the beast is artfully masked. But if England consistently acts like a hegemon through its various organs of state, government and other institutions towards the rest of its UK league members, then that is suggestive of its true nature. I suspect that EU diplomacy was putting pressure on the UK to reform and codify its quasi-constitution (which is ripe for exploitation by foreign powers), which in turn influenced sections of the British Establishment to support Brexit more strongly. This can be seen in the EU moves against British tax havens, which were typically set in colonies or similar offshore jurisdictions.
What constitutes a ‘colony’ depends on which dictionary you consult.
But, yes; generally, a colony is a territory that’s subject to some form of foreign rule. But Scotland is no more subject to foreign rule than Galloway is.
I was thinking similar, the idea of Scotland not being a colony has lost all credibility.
And yet it’s still believed; the claim still has propaganda value and populist appeal in our grudge-and-grievance politics.
An accurate account of where we are and why we got here. Unfortunately England, and the oligarchy that runs it, knows that the last thing they can afford to do is to allow Scotland to escape with it’s multitude of resources. That way leads inevitably to the plughole.
No Westminster government of any stripe will allow another referendum on independence; they got too much of a fright last time. What are we to do? We fight against the tide of negative lies and scare stories of Scotland being a basket case that has the intended effect of terrifying the old and the gullible. Without any real support in Main Stream Media we will struggle to convince the necessary numbers on the obvious case for Independence. Should we turn our back on Westminster and bring those ignored and ridiculed members home to work on persuading the undecided?
Maybe we should follow the Frech example and intruduce direct action. They have great success when they drive the tractors into town. Should we all take our cars with Saltires flying and add to the chaos in London? That might raise a very useful campaign by the residents to send us on our way. On the other hand we must avoid the Irish Easter rising route but, the longer things drag on, we may find some of the more desperate falling into that trap.
I like this. I recall a news headline “for the price of a few phone calls the IRA have brought the city of London to a standstill” which was the result of an IRA game of shell and pea where they’d phone warnings about having placed bombs on certain motorways leading into London with the odd one being for real. Because of its effects on the economy, it’s about the only time WM sat up and took notice with the exception of when govt ministers themselves were the target.
I got through about 4 whole paragraphs of the mislerabist spew.
It’s hellish
I see that ‘Meet the Rees-Moggs’ has tanked on the Discovery Channel. ‘Such a shame. ‘Thoughts and prayers, etc.
You always bring such insight and joy to these pages
Chortle! Your critics appear somewhat deflated. An outbreak of January Blues in the Unionist troll community, perhaps?
It looks like it, though ‘mislerabist spew’ has some merch potential
Ha ha!
It could be the new Eton Mess.
Vote SNP because everything else would be shitter and I want a one party State. Wow. Your done.
You are just showing your ignorance and bias with this comment A one party state is where all opposition parties are banned or restricted by government. Holyrood is contested in an open election under PR by a variety of parties of different political persuasions. Although the SNP have emerged as largest party since 2007 only on one occasion have they commanded an overall majority. Your one party state accusation is mince.
There are a variety of reasons why electorate vote SNP with other parties being shittier being one reason as it is in many elections elsewhere. The biggest reason is support for independence and this is unlikely to change until Scotland becomes independent when many voters will look elsewhere.
Statan if you are fed up with SNP rule and want it to end perhaps you should support independence.
Fantastic, sir. Thank you!
Scottish Labour seems completely deflated just now, and are apparently devoid of any ideas or ambition for Scotland. I find it a bit surprising that there are no calls from within to set themselves up as an independent Scottish Labour party. Though I suppose the problem with that – for them – is the ‘independent’ bit. But still, it seems like the obvious thing they should do if they want to be taken seriously.
Its true of the Scottish Tories too Paddy. Murdo Fraser failed in 2011, when he lost to Ruth Davidson, and again in 2024 when he lost to Russell Findlay. Both times he proposed a new sister party could stand in Holyrood elections, citing the party system in Canada. I think that Labour are even more now defined by their Unionism rather than any other sort of -ism – certainly not any form of socialism.
There aren’t [m]any calls for an independent Scottish Labour Party from within the Labour movement in Scotland for much the same reason that there aren’t [m]any calls for independent Scottish trades unions. Unity is strength has always been a mantra of the Labour movement.
In truth, sections of the labour movement in Scotland seems to be far more open to the idea than the Scottish Labour Party, as evidenced by the distinctive policies of the STUC, notably on the issue of self-determination for Scotland.
Then their members should join the Labour Party and help shape its policies on localism and self-determination. (Localism and self-determination are a bit different from ‘Independence’ though.)
Spoiler: The Labour Party in Scotland has no policies on localism or self-determination. It shows no inclination to develop policies of any kind. As Andrew Tickell wites in ‘The Sunday National’ (12 January 2025), “…what limited policy commitments there are are inexplicable and incoherent, a mess of tactical positions dredged in partisanship, with no obvious consistency or strategic coherence.”
Quote: ‘It was widely predicted that Keir Starmer’s ‘Blairism Re-Heated’ would be an absolute disaster and open the door to an even more extreme right than the shambolic Tory party, and that has come to pass’.
Leaving aside the fact that ‘absolute disaster’ is hyperbolic in the extreme, what do you think would have staved off the rise of Reform that was already well on its way before Labour got elected, given Reform’s very good election results (as many votes as the Lib Dems I believe)? Who exactly ‘widely predicted’ a moderate Labour government would open the door to Reform specifically? Do you think a more radical leftist Labour government would be staving off Reform effectively (even assuming the economic woes of the country could have stood a huge increase in spending that would entail)? I think that cloud cuckoo land.
Reform were on their way regardless and there are hard / far right forces on the rise across Europe and the US and at the moment no moderate sitting governments seem to have the answers to combat them very well. It is all too easy to say Labour bad (a knee jerk reaction all too predictable by the right and indeed, nationalists, an unholy, tacit alliance) that is leading to a Reform government. One could equally say the total opposite is true – the left need to actually deal with the issues right leaning voters are concerned about (e.g. immigration being the top of the list) since it is the voters who will decide all of this, not journalists, and voters who have wanted repeated (mainly Tory) governments to deal with but have not. This requires some genuine hard choices, dropping the arrogance of we know best, and grown-up politics in general, not tribalism and a retreat into a fantasy world.
Niemand – the SNP are critical of Westminster Labour government on issues such as WFA, WASPI and 2 child benefits. Scottish Labour are opposed to these policies too – are they Reform enablers too? In fairness to SNP they are as critical of Reform, if not more so, as any other political party. To accuse independence supporters (SNP by association) being Reform enablers is an unjustified smear.
You appear to be implying that criticising or opposing the current government is giving succour to Reform – surely that is the role of opposition parties?
Reform attract support for a range of reasons a significant one of which is the high level of dissatisfaction with major parties leading to some voters backing Reform to express this dissatisfaction. The best way to counter this is good governance which improves the lives of majority of people.
It is unjust by the fact Labour is being accused of opening the door to Reform. That is also a smear. This is not about not being critical of Labour, it is about those trying to destroy them, undermine their efforts in government at every turn. The irony is that in very many ways the SNP and Labour are close politically. Apart for the crucial question of independence, it is infighting and the trashing of Labour to help try and bring about its collapse is what is most likely to lead to a Reform government next. One can discuss specific small differences with Scottish Labour but right now what matters most is the UK government.
So in wildly radical move, what I am suggesting is a constructively critical approach to the current UK government, not a destructive one.
Niemand – Please give me instances and policies where SNP are trashing (rather than opposing) Labour at Westminster.
As I have outlined above the major areas of criticism are:
Cut to WFA – also opposed by Scottish Labour.
Not implementing the independent ombudsman report on compensation for WASPI women.
The 2 child benefit cap – also opposed by Scottish Labour.
Farmers Inheritance Tax
The government’s continued supply of weapons and support to Israel – also criticised by many in Scottish Labour.
Are you seriously telling me that SNP should support the above policies because Labour are frightened of Reform?
Stephen Flynn congratulated Keir Starmer in his response to Elon Musk at PMQ’s today.
The SNP are not responsible for propping up Labour either in Scotland or outside Scotland especially as they are their main opponents in Scotland. This is also a 2 way street with Labour happy to oppose and attack SNP at Holyrood which may lead to an increased support for Reform in Scotland. You are aware of what the Bain Principle is?
The way to stop Reform is
(I)to implement policies that help the vast majority of people.
(I)to implement PR electoral system which will reduce chance of Reform gaining a majority with 1/3rd of popular vote.
(iii)to implement restrictions on individual political donations to reduce outside influence.
(iv) implement Levenson 2 to control the feral press in this country.Labour are now suffering from the same excessive press hostility the SNP have had to put up with for last 10 years.
(v)implement some liability on social media firms output.
If Labour, 6 months into governing at Westminster with a massive majority, are reduced to saying don’t criticise us because it will help Reform it says more about how many mistakes they have made so far. In short Labour needs to up it’s game.
I wasn’t referring specifically to SNP politicians or political parties in general, I was referring to all those ‘commentators’ on the moderate right, centre and left who are trashing Labour at every opportunity, with glee and malice – all forms of media (mainstream or otherwise) is full of such people and they are dominating the discourse and of course, as usual their trashing comes from opposite ends of the spectrum – ‘why all these inhuman cuts?’, followed by, ‘profligate spending that will bankrupt the country’; ‘public services are on their knees’ but ‘the farmers inheritance tax will bankrupt them all’ (read: we want it all but don;t want to pay for any of it).
The effect is the same – they, along with the propaganda and lies of the hard right itself, are the ones who are most likely to lead to Farage as the next PM. Meanwhile the current Labour party, struggle with woeful difficulties of 14 years of Tory neglect and incompetence (have we forgotten the disastrous fiasco of their latter years?) and have been in power a matter of months only after many years in opposition. Yet the knives are out on all sides, almost from day one. I find it pathetic and indulgent.
Niemand – I don’t disagree that media response is over the top but this is partly due to the 24 hour nature of media and hype of social media.
There has also been a form of civil war in Labour Party since Jeremy Corbyn was leader. Regardless of your view of him as a leader he was undermined in part by opponents within Labour Party. Corbyn’s supporters are not in a forgiving mood and are therefore quite open in their criticism of Keir Starmer but he does have a large majority. (Corbyn did get more votes in 2017 than Starmer got in 2024 elections.)
The wide ranging nature of criticism of Labour government could also partly be due to fact that Labour won a massive majority with only 1/3rd of votes cast on a turnout of barely above 50%. The truth may be that they were never very popular in first place and support was more based around unpopularity of incumbent Tory government.
Except that what you suggest, Niemand , does not address the root cause of the rise of the far right: the off-the-scale inequalities which characterise the current neoliberal stage of capitalist exploitation. True, the left has so far failed to find a compelling strategy to confront it. But giving up is hardly the answer. My own hopes lie in a radical politics of alliance.
‘Far-right’ politics aren’t new; they’ve been a recurring phenomenon in the UK since the early 20th century, with the formation of a succession of fascist, Nazi, antisemitic, and Islamophobic movements, all of which have employed populism (the exploitation of popular discontents for political ends) in the pursuit of power . One of the earliest examples of fascism in the UK is Rotha Lintorn-Orman’s anti-Bolshevik British Fascisti, which she formed in 1923.
The ‘far right’ came to be dominated in the 1960s and 1970s by self-proclaimed white nationalist organisations that opposed immigration by people they classified as ‘non-white’. The idea stems from ‘white supremacy’, the belief that some people (themselves) are morally superior to/more pure/’whiter’ than ‘others’ (people whose ethnicity is different from their own, people from the LGBT+ communities, women, ‘graduates’, politicians, etc.) and should therefore dominate society.
Since the 1980s, the term’s mainly been used to describe those groups who wish and campaign to preserve and extend their ‘superior’ culture and identity (Britishness, Scottishness, Islam, heterosexuality) over what they perceive to be ‘inferior’ cultures and identities.
The threat posed by the ‘far-right’ has evolved and continues to grow. Prior to 2014, so-called ‘far-right’ activity was confined to a small, established group that promoted anti-immigration and other white supremacist views. These groups tended to present a low risk to our security.
But in recent years, multiple attacks have been carried out by people who hold such views. An official report, published in 2019, highlighted that we in the UK have experienced the highest number of ‘far-right’ terrorist attacks and plots in Europe.
We need to continue to counter such criminality. We can believe and campaign for whatever we like, but violence should remain a monopoly of the state, under democratic control, and deployed only to enforce our equal rights and personal security.
Whatever happened to devo max? I think there is great danger in this simple unionist or separatist dichotomy which plays straight into the hands of the ruling class allowing them to do whatever they like behind the scenes so long as their potential electorate is distracted with petty debate, meanwhile Eurofighter jets continue their low flying over the town of Lossiemouth causing air noise pollution, adversely affecting the ecology & environment whilst increasing the likelihood of high blood pressure, cardiac disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, cancer, increased risk of cardiac arrest & stroke. How precisely is this supposed to give any resident any confidence at all that the British state or indeed its junior subsidiary partner at Holyrood is doing anything other than laughing behind our backs whilst pocketing their overly generous salaries & directing investment towards the arms trade, further unnecessary infrastructure & madcap schemes to launch further surveillance equipment into the atmosphere. These muppets need held to account, having failed year upon year in their duty of care it is high time auld Vladimir sent in the KGB & rounded up the lot.
Devo Max was ditched in 2014 because it would have won. It suited both the SNP and the Unionist parties to have a binary referendum. The problem for Labour, who were the previous proponents of Devo Max, is that they don’t want to strengthen Scotland’s devolved powers and they can’t define what it is and where it ends. Once you start outlining why Scotland should have more democracy it leads inexorably to the logical outcome: independence.
As for low-flying planes these are part of a militarised Scotland that is an inevitable part of us being tied to the British state. Lossiemouth, like Trident and the bombing rage at Cape Wrath are other examples, as are the depleted uranium testing in the Solway Firth. See here: https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/09/16/scottish-independence-and-the-uks-depleted-uranium-weapons/
and here:
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2023/10/31/operation-joint-warrior-bombing-cape-wrath/
My understanding was that Alex Salmond wanted DevoMax as a 3rd option on ballot for referendum in 2014 but David Cameron refused and insisted it was a binary choice. AS then agreed to binary referendum as this was consequentially only referendum on offer.
Happy to be corrected.
I think you may be right John
There would have been big arguments about what DevoMax was in practice no doubt but I do think that not only would it have been most popular option in 2014 it could have helped avoid the polarisation and stasis of Holyrood and political discourse in Scotland that has followed.
I always remember a conversation between George Reid & David Steel post 1997 agreeing that Devomax(Steel)/Indy lite (Reid) was probable next destination for Holyrood.
I’d have voted for full fiscal independence or ‘devo-max’, on condition that local government in Scotland was granted the same independence of the Scottish government that the national government would have enjoyed of the UK. I’m a big fan of fiscal federalism.
Yeah, that was never going to be something you could vote for.
…which was why I voted for the third option, ‘None of the Above’. In a binary choice between the status quo and a pig in a poke, I’d always opt to cast a protest vote.
and I’m sure that was an act of huge significance
No one’s vote is an ‘act of huge significance’. It’s just (ideally – in an ideal speech community) the contribution of one’s own ha’penny worth to the formation of the general will of that community (a.k.a. ‘democracy’).
This was also my understanding which is again annoying & further fuels resentment since the tacit implication remains that Scotland is unable to make any decision vis-a-vis future direction without first going cap in hand to number 10 & the Scottish Parliament appears quite resigned to this ridiculous state of affairs. I still don’t get why the SNP did their U turn on NATO membership, nor do I understand why anyone should have faith in them changing their position post-independence particularly when they have the current leadership in place, if they do not have an officially designated tory tartan for these tartan tories then it is about time they fired an email tae the relevant quango & got one done in time fur Rabbie Burns Nicht where they should be able to gather round the campfire & raise a toast tae wur most radical poverty stricken bard driven intae an early grave by previous cod wallopers sich as they appear tae be. I am grateful to you both for your replies but this does not alter the fact that what we are witnessing in these islands is not any kind of progress but instead an actual accelerated regression towards a hitherto unimaginable dark age of death, disease & destruction reminiscent of the most horrendous dystopias ever imagined.
To get a better understanding of why the SNP abandoned its opposition to NATO it is helpful to examine the career and affiliations of Angus Robertson.
‘Worth noting that Robert Burns was never called ‘Rabbie’ in his lifetime. He was sometimes known familiarly as ‘Robin’.
“Worth noting that Robert Burns was never called ‘Rabbie’ in his lifetime. He was sometimes known familiarly as ‘Robin’.”
Shall we add that to our list of national grievances?
The notion that any interest in Scottish culture or political agency is founded on grievance seems to be an obsession of yours. It is completely irrelevant to my point.
The bogus, ersatz familiary of ‘Rabbie Burns’ and ‘Oor Rabbie’ is just part of the dubious legacy of the Burns Cult, a crime against culture perpetrated overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, by Scots.
@Graeme Purves, do you mean half German, London born former MP for Moray Angus Boab who is now overlord of Scottish cultural output?
‘Half German’ – ‘London Born’? Getting a bit ethno-nat here.
You follow German Boab & see how far that gets ye
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy808e4p9j9o?fbclid=IwY2xjawHsi_xleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRLUADDYt7yxHDfnoWqXJwfFbfBwYA3ixOVBIrpQE7B56Z2ImOtUfxp1Rw_aem_uUMOG0_mDONVg0O61aVeYg
Oh, richt up tae his oxters, A’m thinkin! 😉
Germanophilia beats Anglophobia hands down.
well, it would appear that such is the confidence amongst the ruling classes of England (Britain) & Germany that they are at the moment quite happy to show their solidarity against the insignificant lower orders & of course those pesky Russians without whom incidentally Hitler would have won WW2, though there is an argument to suggest that in the hearts & minds of much of the US & Western Europe Adolf’s mob carried the day, as we can easily see for ourselves whenever we tune in to the latest chaotic happenings, mass destruction, slaughter of innocents & on into that deep dark hole in which our idea of what Scotland might once have been is seen to have been buried deep under a steaming pile of toxic verbiage
That sentence is far too long to be meaningful, mark. Too much toxic verbiage?
Let me know how long or short you would like your sentences & I shall give you a quote, but if unwilling to pay in notes, shut your cakehole.
@Graeme Purves Or German Boab (GB) as I from now on have decided in light of recent events should be the more appropriate moniker
Huv ye, aye?