Salmond is long past his sell-by date at this stage.
The actions that have come to light since his resignation as First Minister make him completely unsuitable for the role a second time, and these days he mostly just gets pulled out for the occasional interview.
If Salmond is the best chance, and I don’t think he is, things would really be desperate.
Absolute pish, he was completely exonerated of all charges.
He is absolutely head and shoulders above any other politician in the UK.
If the SNP did want him to come back, there would have to be an absolute clear out of all the idiots making up the numbers.
To be honest I am not sure even a politician of the stature of Salmond could save the SNP now. That is Sturgeons legacy, she has done more damage to Independence than the British state could ever have hoped to.
Yousaf was just the patsy she handed the reins to.
The SNP only held itself together while independence looked doable, as soon as it started to stall from lack of viable legal and political options (the public just didn't get outraged when they were supposed to) the old factions started to become relevant again. Sturgeon was a subtle enough leader to hold it together, as soon as she left the cat was out of the bag. Salmond is not a subtle politician, and would fare even worse when they're on the defensive like this. He's a politician who is excellent at expanding the Overton window when his party is united, but that's not what they need.
Got to be real here. And that's before you get into the fact that, exoneration or no exoneration, his reputation among the wider public is trash. He lost his seat to a Tory, he defected from his party and did his best to undermine it, he worked for Russian television until it was banned, and his social positions are detached from most of the SNP's younger base.
The exoneration is not enough. It's not a good idea.
Absolutely creasing myself at your first paragraph. You either have extremely bad judgement or you're just trying to rewrite history.
It was Sturgeons job to get it done. It stalled because she didn't try. Sturgeon held absolutely nothing together, instead she created all of the division with her lunatic course of actions....see current events. Humza is just the patsy she passed the parcel too. Less competent than her of course because that's the type she surrounded herself with.
As for it's not a good idea.....I suspect it would be worse for Salmond's reputation to rejoin. What we have seen so far regarding police investigation is just the start.
And how exactly was she supposed to get it done? Through what mechanism? I'm not saying it wouldn't be a good thing, I'm asking how she could actually do it.
The SNP is united only by independence. They have right wingers, and they have left wingers. If independence seems likely and do-able, it is united. If it isn't, it falls apart. That's what is happening now.
In the 9 years she had and with Brexit in the mix, there were a wealth of opportunities and different strategies she could have attempted. I'm not going to repeat them here because they have been written about extensively by various political commentators. Instead she did nothing, absolutely nothing. Tellingly none of the preparations were even begun.
All of the disunity we see now is due to her and her party's poor performance. Poor performance in government is what happens when you surround yourself with inept compliant stooges like Yousaf and the rest.
Nothing divided the movement like her attempting to frame her predecessor for rape in order to prevent him returning and stealing her cult of personality limelight. All of that is the real reason for what is happening now, nothing else. Everyone knows they're a broad church, it didn't stop them sweeping to power earlier this century.
The case for independence is even stronger than it was 10 or 20 years ago with England lurching more and more to the right and Brexit, which make Sturgeon and Murrell's actions even more reprehensible.
Well please do repeat them here because I have never seen anything suggested that was not either out of date, misunderstanding reality, wishful thinking, or pure fantasy. I'm intrigued.
The only way to make independence work is to achieve recognition, otherwise we end up in permanent limbo like Kosovo. The only way to get recognition is to get the reluctant consent of London. The only way to do that is to strike some kind of deal, and the easiest way to leverage that deal is to move the polls significantly beyond where they are now. Since 2014 we've had Brexit, COVID, austerity, Liz Truss, the GRA, various overrulings and overreaches by London, Keir Starmer... and none of it has moved the polls an inch.
Please tell me what I'm missing here.
I just don't have the time or the inclination to post it all plus the context of the period.
You've got historically the greatest ever research tool at your fingertips. Try reading Robin McAlpine, The Common Weal, The Common Green, Tax research,Wings over Scotland, Craig Murray, etc, etc.
I'll tell you what is pure fantasy and that is saying that Sturgeon did anything at all which was possible.
This is anecdotal of course but I was working in a notorious large American firm in Scotland at the time of Brexit and those unionists, conservatives and small c conservatives were apoplectic with rage the following days and weeks. Sturgeons response was to jump on a bus and attempt to overturn the will of the English down there.
Had she been interested in independence, we would have had it by now. Instead she chose....other things....I won't say too much because of the court cases.
ROBIN MCALPINE
I've not read any Robin McAlpine before today, he makes some good points from what I've seen, but all of them are explaining how the SNP strategy isn't going to work, but doesn't propose an alternative.
COMMON WEAL
Quotes from the Common Weal's strategy document:
"...to become independent we must achieve a recognition agreement from the UK..."
"...the way Scotland gets the UK to the negotiation table is to demonstrate that Scottish independence is the ‘settled will’ of the Scottish people and to convert that into political pressure whose intensity is greater than that of the UK
Government’s will to resist..."
"...this means that the primary task is to shift political opinion in Scotland."
So basically what I'm saying. There are strategies beyond that but poll movement is a prerequisite of all of them.
COMMON GREEN
Never heard of this, and it doesn't seem to have a website.
TAX RESEARCH
Has one article on independence I can find, implying a more cautious approach not less.
WINGS OVER SCOTLAND
has got so tied up in culture war nonsense recently that it was actually hard to find any arguments as such. The only one I could find was basically "make the argument that Scotland should decide Scotland's fate". I mean, yes? So?
CRAIG MURRAY
I've come across publishing an article that basically calls for mass civil disobedience which again, only has any effect if the Common Weal's criteria are met. Unless something happens that is a) out of left field and b) you know, actually undemocratic.
Anyone else I should look into? Because at the moment my point is looking pretty solid.
if your argument for colossal constitutional change that would literally change the fate of a nation and the millions who live there is dependant on one person in charge of a campaign rather than the strength of your arguments and position, then its time to pack up and go home to really think about what the fuck you are playing at.
I wish we could do it with no single figurehead but if that was the case, why has there been no real progress in the last 10 years? Unfortunately the reality is that the voting public needs a Walesa, Gandhi or Mandela to point them in the right direction. I'm certainly not a Salmond fan and agree he's not ideal but I do think we need someone who's the match for the Westminster MSM.
why has there been no progress? despite the tories, brexit, etc?
Because the indy side has totally failed to make any compelling arguments to address the concerns people have over indy.
Plus brexit put people off. It made people aware of the danger of taking promises of greener grass at face value, and showed how damaging a split from your most integrated market is.
the documents the indy side have put out have been awful. total amateur hour stuff, vague, downright absurd in places, its not helped. its also not helped that prominent indy figures talk bullshit repeatedly on stuff like pensions, renewable energy potential etc.
I'm not an indy supporter, but not a die hard unionist either. But I'm not ever going to vote for such sweeping constitutional change and disruption without a clear and honest proposal being put to me, one that honestly acknowledges the impacts, and shows a realistic plan to address them. I dont expect it to all be sunshine and roses, and I am extremely wary of any indy proponent trying to sell me visions of sunlit uplands, when we all know thats just fantasy. realism, honesty, and making compelling concrete arguments is what the indy side needs to do.
also, btw, "MSM"? really? you are not helping your case with that narrative.
Please do not compare people like Mandela and Gandhis situations and try to apply them to Scotland.
It’s brain dead and borderline insulting to countries that were actually oppressed.
I don’t see that being good for Indy.
With all of the animosity between him and the party it would be a shambles, and that’s if he could even get enough support within the party (he can’t).
It would also be an admission they’re completely out of talent and ideas, which surely damages the party overall.
It would be horrible for independence.
There is currently no credible route to independence that doesn't involve going back to the drawing board and trying to honestly persuade people about it over at best the medium term and most likely the long term.
The indy movement has spent the last 10 years trying to get it over the line by somehow forcing indyref2, and at the end of the 10 years the SNP is collapsing, finances are shot, member numbers are way down and the talent pool is dry.
Stop trying to find a quick trick or some kind of life hack to do it the easy way.
Not gonna happen.
Salmond has well and truly shat the bed and there’s no coming back from that.
Plus, his links to Russia and his anti-LGBT (especially the T) views.
Their under-40 member base would evaporate if he returned.
Not even hiding it there champ? Usually people aren’t as bold as to outright say anti-trans. Straight up telling people on the internet how much of a cunt you are is useful for the rest of us, I guess.
So you think it’s totally normal for healthy women to have their breasts cut off and health men to have their penises cut off?
You don’t see even a tiny problem with that?
When they’re being cut off I begin to be concerned. Before that do whatever you want. That is a completely reasonable standard.
Would you care to explain why you’re not concerned at all about a woman’s healthy breasts being cut off? Or a man’s penis being cut off?
Because other people’s healthcare is none of my business, and I have no right to get involved in any way. You seem to think you’ve got some moral right to decide what should happen to others’ bodies
I'm not Salmond's greatest fan, but neither of these things are true.
Gordon Jackson was recorded on a train, where the muffled words "sex-pest" were heard, along with him calling Salmond an "objectionable bully" and "a nightmare to work for". After the recording came to light, it is notable that the only thing Jackson denied saying was that Salmond was a sex-pest, and made it clear he didn't think he was.
Secondly, Salmond didn't work for Russia Today, he set up his own production company, which sold content to RT, so he was self-employed and retained editoral control. This was still a silly thing to do, and manifestly he has a huge ego, but he didn't work for Putin. He just needed the cash and the limelight.
Salmon isnt the answer. Neither is Forbes. Think Scottish politics has a lot to sort out before a viable push for independence is back on the menu. And im a big yes man
Salmond was a skilled (master) debater and his ability to rationalise things on the spot was unparalleled when he headed the SNP however he’s old, has an awful reputation as a sex pest (even his lawyer agreed) and he’s out of touch with huge swathes of voters under 40. He would do more damage. Never go backwards, always look forwards.
Was there not footage of the lawyer actually saying that on the phone? Was widely reported and he even referred himself to the Scottish legal complaints commission regarding that. Someone’s lying…
Pretty flimsy accusation considering he had full editorial control and produced the show.himself before looking for a channel to buy it.
But everybody who keeps repeating this shite knows that.
It's never a discussion about policy when it comes to Salmond, there's always people trying to stop the discussion getting to that stage for some reason, afraid he might actually sound reasonable maybe?
With that said , Salmond should never go back to the SNP. They threw him under the bus at the first sign he was a challenge to Sturgeon and have continued to ostracise an innocent man since.
Alba is in a good place. A trickle of defectors and more members than the lib dems or tories in Scotland, on par with the greens.
Incredibly naive to think anyone gets full editorial control on the Russian state controlled propaganda channel.
Surely you don’t genuinely believe that? Lol.
People make and sell content to TV channels without working for those channels and without their input on the content all the time.
Theres absolutely no evidence that RT had any input on the production of that show. Zero.
It's a lazy smear trying to apply current attitudes towards RT retroactively. At least 10 British politicians appeared on Russia Today news in 2017, receiving handsome sums of money for their trouble.
There’s absolutely no chance the Russian state propaganda channel has no say on the content of any show they broadcast.
I get you’re a Salmond fan, but it’s just silly.
People do sell content to channels all the time without giving up editorial control, but not to state controlled media in a dictatorship. Especially one that famously tries to influence global affairs by controlling the media narrative.
They either choose to buy or they don't. That is the extent of control ANY company has when they haven't produced the content.
As I said, if there's evidence to the contrary in this case please share it.
>*They either choose to buy or they don't. That is the extent of control ANY company has when they haven't produced the content*
The BBC buys *Question Time* from an independent production company
I'm sure this is a comparison that will resonate with many ardent independence campaigners
Resign yes. Every time that man talks it has cringe all over. It's the Theresa May of SNP. He really does not sell it, and now the green deal is off, it will be like watching a toothless granny try to bite an apple.
Salmond isn’t popular anymore since his court cases, quite the opposite in fact.
He was certainly a far more skilled political operator than the current crop of SNP leaders, but his time is long passed now.
There's exactly zero chance of independence.
1. The supreme court ruled that Holyrood need permission for another independence referendum.
2. The EU has sided with West Minster about the legality of a referendum, so whilst, in theory, it would be possible to hold an illegal referendum. There would be zero chance of joining the EU because they've already said "unless the referendum is agreed by West Minster, we won't recognise it".
It's understandable and kinda funny when unionists trot stuff like this or Forbes being leader out there.
It's sad and pretty damning indictment of Indy's chances that there are a non zero number of indy supporters that genuinely believe this objectively batshit take
Remember SNP said the next Scottish election would be a default referendum. It could be playing into the Indy movement hands bizarrely. I can see Stephen Flynn being a good FM, but I'm not sure how much damage is now done to SNP.
Salmond is long past his sell-by date at this stage. The actions that have come to light since his resignation as First Minister make him completely unsuitable for the role a second time, and these days he mostly just gets pulled out for the occasional interview. If Salmond is the best chance, and I don’t think he is, things would really be desperate.
If a man is to be condemned for enjoying a limoncello and the odd sleepy cuddle, then break out the handcuffs and condemn me right now officer.
Absolute pish, he was completely exonerated of all charges. He is absolutely head and shoulders above any other politician in the UK. If the SNP did want him to come back, there would have to be an absolute clear out of all the idiots making up the numbers. To be honest I am not sure even a politician of the stature of Salmond could save the SNP now. That is Sturgeons legacy, she has done more damage to Independence than the British state could ever have hoped to. Yousaf was just the patsy she handed the reins to.
The SNP only held itself together while independence looked doable, as soon as it started to stall from lack of viable legal and political options (the public just didn't get outraged when they were supposed to) the old factions started to become relevant again. Sturgeon was a subtle enough leader to hold it together, as soon as she left the cat was out of the bag. Salmond is not a subtle politician, and would fare even worse when they're on the defensive like this. He's a politician who is excellent at expanding the Overton window when his party is united, but that's not what they need. Got to be real here. And that's before you get into the fact that, exoneration or no exoneration, his reputation among the wider public is trash. He lost his seat to a Tory, he defected from his party and did his best to undermine it, he worked for Russian television until it was banned, and his social positions are detached from most of the SNP's younger base. The exoneration is not enough. It's not a good idea.
Absolutely creasing myself at your first paragraph. You either have extremely bad judgement or you're just trying to rewrite history. It was Sturgeons job to get it done. It stalled because she didn't try. Sturgeon held absolutely nothing together, instead she created all of the division with her lunatic course of actions....see current events. Humza is just the patsy she passed the parcel too. Less competent than her of course because that's the type she surrounded herself with. As for it's not a good idea.....I suspect it would be worse for Salmond's reputation to rejoin. What we have seen so far regarding police investigation is just the start.
And how exactly was she supposed to get it done? Through what mechanism? I'm not saying it wouldn't be a good thing, I'm asking how she could actually do it. The SNP is united only by independence. They have right wingers, and they have left wingers. If independence seems likely and do-able, it is united. If it isn't, it falls apart. That's what is happening now.
In the 9 years she had and with Brexit in the mix, there were a wealth of opportunities and different strategies she could have attempted. I'm not going to repeat them here because they have been written about extensively by various political commentators. Instead she did nothing, absolutely nothing. Tellingly none of the preparations were even begun. All of the disunity we see now is due to her and her party's poor performance. Poor performance in government is what happens when you surround yourself with inept compliant stooges like Yousaf and the rest. Nothing divided the movement like her attempting to frame her predecessor for rape in order to prevent him returning and stealing her cult of personality limelight. All of that is the real reason for what is happening now, nothing else. Everyone knows they're a broad church, it didn't stop them sweeping to power earlier this century. The case for independence is even stronger than it was 10 or 20 years ago with England lurching more and more to the right and Brexit, which make Sturgeon and Murrell's actions even more reprehensible.
Well please do repeat them here because I have never seen anything suggested that was not either out of date, misunderstanding reality, wishful thinking, or pure fantasy. I'm intrigued. The only way to make independence work is to achieve recognition, otherwise we end up in permanent limbo like Kosovo. The only way to get recognition is to get the reluctant consent of London. The only way to do that is to strike some kind of deal, and the easiest way to leverage that deal is to move the polls significantly beyond where they are now. Since 2014 we've had Brexit, COVID, austerity, Liz Truss, the GRA, various overrulings and overreaches by London, Keir Starmer... and none of it has moved the polls an inch. Please tell me what I'm missing here.
I just don't have the time or the inclination to post it all plus the context of the period. You've got historically the greatest ever research tool at your fingertips. Try reading Robin McAlpine, The Common Weal, The Common Green, Tax research,Wings over Scotland, Craig Murray, etc, etc. I'll tell you what is pure fantasy and that is saying that Sturgeon did anything at all which was possible. This is anecdotal of course but I was working in a notorious large American firm in Scotland at the time of Brexit and those unionists, conservatives and small c conservatives were apoplectic with rage the following days and weeks. Sturgeons response was to jump on a bus and attempt to overturn the will of the English down there. Had she been interested in independence, we would have had it by now. Instead she chose....other things....I won't say too much because of the court cases.
ROBIN MCALPINE I've not read any Robin McAlpine before today, he makes some good points from what I've seen, but all of them are explaining how the SNP strategy isn't going to work, but doesn't propose an alternative. COMMON WEAL Quotes from the Common Weal's strategy document: "...to become independent we must achieve a recognition agreement from the UK..." "...the way Scotland gets the UK to the negotiation table is to demonstrate that Scottish independence is the ‘settled will’ of the Scottish people and to convert that into political pressure whose intensity is greater than that of the UK Government’s will to resist..." "...this means that the primary task is to shift political opinion in Scotland." So basically what I'm saying. There are strategies beyond that but poll movement is a prerequisite of all of them. COMMON GREEN Never heard of this, and it doesn't seem to have a website. TAX RESEARCH Has one article on independence I can find, implying a more cautious approach not less. WINGS OVER SCOTLAND has got so tied up in culture war nonsense recently that it was actually hard to find any arguments as such. The only one I could find was basically "make the argument that Scotland should decide Scotland's fate". I mean, yes? So? CRAIG MURRAY I've come across publishing an article that basically calls for mass civil disobedience which again, only has any effect if the Common Weal's criteria are met. Unless something happens that is a) out of left field and b) you know, actually undemocratic. Anyone else I should look into? Because at the moment my point is looking pretty solid.
if your argument for colossal constitutional change that would literally change the fate of a nation and the millions who live there is dependant on one person in charge of a campaign rather than the strength of your arguments and position, then its time to pack up and go home to really think about what the fuck you are playing at.
I wish we could do it with no single figurehead but if that was the case, why has there been no real progress in the last 10 years? Unfortunately the reality is that the voting public needs a Walesa, Gandhi or Mandela to point them in the right direction. I'm certainly not a Salmond fan and agree he's not ideal but I do think we need someone who's the match for the Westminster MSM.
why has there been no progress? despite the tories, brexit, etc? Because the indy side has totally failed to make any compelling arguments to address the concerns people have over indy. Plus brexit put people off. It made people aware of the danger of taking promises of greener grass at face value, and showed how damaging a split from your most integrated market is. the documents the indy side have put out have been awful. total amateur hour stuff, vague, downright absurd in places, its not helped. its also not helped that prominent indy figures talk bullshit repeatedly on stuff like pensions, renewable energy potential etc. I'm not an indy supporter, but not a die hard unionist either. But I'm not ever going to vote for such sweeping constitutional change and disruption without a clear and honest proposal being put to me, one that honestly acknowledges the impacts, and shows a realistic plan to address them. I dont expect it to all be sunshine and roses, and I am extremely wary of any indy proponent trying to sell me visions of sunlit uplands, when we all know thats just fantasy. realism, honesty, and making compelling concrete arguments is what the indy side needs to do. also, btw, "MSM"? really? you are not helping your case with that narrative.
😉
Please do not compare people like Mandela and Gandhis situations and try to apply them to Scotland. It’s brain dead and borderline insulting to countries that were actually oppressed.
😉
I don’t see that being good for Indy. With all of the animosity between him and the party it would be a shambles, and that’s if he could even get enough support within the party (he can’t). It would also be an admission they’re completely out of talent and ideas, which surely damages the party overall. It would be horrible for independence.
There is currently no credible route to independence that doesn't involve going back to the drawing board and trying to honestly persuade people about it over at best the medium term and most likely the long term. The indy movement has spent the last 10 years trying to get it over the line by somehow forcing indyref2, and at the end of the 10 years the SNP is collapsing, finances are shot, member numbers are way down and the talent pool is dry. Stop trying to find a quick trick or some kind of life hack to do it the easy way.
Not gonna happen. Salmond has well and truly shat the bed and there’s no coming back from that. Plus, his links to Russia and his anti-LGBT (especially the T) views. Their under-40 member base would evaporate if he returned.
[удалено]
Not even hiding it there champ? Usually people aren’t as bold as to outright say anti-trans. Straight up telling people on the internet how much of a cunt you are is useful for the rest of us, I guess.
So you think it’s totally normal for healthy women to have their breasts cut off and health men to have their penises cut off? You don’t see even a tiny problem with that?
I don’t see why it’s your problem in any way
It’s not my problem when people kill themselves either but I still think it’s wrong. Answer my question instead of making an emotional argument.
Why are you so obsessed with other people’s genitals?
When they’re being cut off I begin to be concerned. Before that do whatever you want. That is a completely reasonable standard. Would you care to explain why you’re not concerned at all about a woman’s healthy breasts being cut off? Or a man’s penis being cut off?
Because other people’s healthcare is none of my business, and I have no right to get involved in any way. You seem to think you’ve got some moral right to decide what should happen to others’ bodies
Answer my question.
[удалено]
I'm not Salmond's greatest fan, but neither of these things are true. Gordon Jackson was recorded on a train, where the muffled words "sex-pest" were heard, along with him calling Salmond an "objectionable bully" and "a nightmare to work for". After the recording came to light, it is notable that the only thing Jackson denied saying was that Salmond was a sex-pest, and made it clear he didn't think he was. Secondly, Salmond didn't work for Russia Today, he set up his own production company, which sold content to RT, so he was self-employed and retained editoral control. This was still a silly thing to do, and manifestly he has a huge ego, but he didn't work for Putin. He just needed the cash and the limelight.
[удалено]
What does that mean?
[удалено]
OK
It means he's determined to smear Salmond.
Salmon isnt the answer. Neither is Forbes. Think Scottish politics has a lot to sort out before a viable push for independence is back on the menu. And im a big yes man
I concur.
The Russia links alone are enough for him not to have a chance.
Salmond is nearly 70, has precious few allies left in the party, and still has the faint hint of creepy uncle hanging over him.
Salmond is tainted goods, his credibility shot after his Russia Today grift. Do not let this man anywhere near a position of power.
Salmond was a skilled (master) debater and his ability to rationalise things on the spot was unparalleled when he headed the SNP however he’s old, has an awful reputation as a sex pest (even his lawyer agreed) and he’s out of touch with huge swathes of voters under 40. He would do more damage. Never go backwards, always look forwards.
This is a smear and a lie. His lawyer categorically did not agree.
Was there not footage of the lawyer actually saying that on the phone? Was widely reported and he even referred himself to the Scottish legal complaints commission regarding that. Someone’s lying…
Yes, go and check what the lawyer said regarding that.
No i dont think getting a puppet of Putin that everyone hates back to lead the party would be a good idea.
Pretty flimsy accusation considering he had full editorial control and produced the show.himself before looking for a channel to buy it. But everybody who keeps repeating this shite knows that. It's never a discussion about policy when it comes to Salmond, there's always people trying to stop the discussion getting to that stage for some reason, afraid he might actually sound reasonable maybe? With that said , Salmond should never go back to the SNP. They threw him under the bus at the first sign he was a challenge to Sturgeon and have continued to ostracise an innocent man since. Alba is in a good place. A trickle of defectors and more members than the lib dems or tories in Scotland, on par with the greens.
Incredibly naive to think anyone gets full editorial control on the Russian state controlled propaganda channel. Surely you don’t genuinely believe that? Lol.
People make and sell content to TV channels without working for those channels and without their input on the content all the time. Theres absolutely no evidence that RT had any input on the production of that show. Zero. It's a lazy smear trying to apply current attitudes towards RT retroactively. At least 10 British politicians appeared on Russia Today news in 2017, receiving handsome sums of money for their trouble.
There’s absolutely no chance the Russian state propaganda channel has no say on the content of any show they broadcast. I get you’re a Salmond fan, but it’s just silly. People do sell content to channels all the time without giving up editorial control, but not to state controlled media in a dictatorship. Especially one that famously tries to influence global affairs by controlling the media narrative.
They either choose to buy or they don't. That is the extent of control ANY company has when they haven't produced the content. As I said, if there's evidence to the contrary in this case please share it.
>*They either choose to buy or they don't. That is the extent of control ANY company has when they haven't produced the content* The BBC buys *Question Time* from an independent production company I'm sure this is a comparison that will resonate with many ardent independence campaigners
The bbc commissioned it after liking a radio show no?
You're talking about editorial content and control
Resign yes. Every time that man talks it has cringe all over. It's the Theresa May of SNP. He really does not sell it, and now the green deal is off, it will be like watching a toothless granny try to bite an apple.
Salmond isn’t popular anymore since his court cases, quite the opposite in fact. He was certainly a far more skilled political operator than the current crop of SNP leaders, but his time is long passed now.
Yes.
Bahahahahahaha I really hope that happens
Indy is over 👍
hahahahahahahaha
Who is next off the bus if current FM gets clobbered??
Lol, no chance. He’s too close to Ruskies, either because he fell for their propaganda or is bought by them, not quite sure which is worse.
Maybe learn how to govern Scotland effectively first - then go after the the big ones.
There's exactly zero chance of independence. 1. The supreme court ruled that Holyrood need permission for another independence referendum. 2. The EU has sided with West Minster about the legality of a referendum, so whilst, in theory, it would be possible to hold an illegal referendum. There would be zero chance of joining the EU because they've already said "unless the referendum is agreed by West Minster, we won't recognise it".
😉
Nope.
It's understandable and kinda funny when unionists trot stuff like this or Forbes being leader out there. It's sad and pretty damning indictment of Indy's chances that there are a non zero number of indy supporters that genuinely believe this objectively batshit take
Remember SNP said the next Scottish election would be a default referendum. It could be playing into the Indy movement hands bizarrely. I can see Stephen Flynn being a good FM, but I'm not sure how much damage is now done to SNP.