By golly, they're bitter at the moment, aren't they?
Bitter about the Olympics, bitter about the continued failure of referendum polls to move in their direction.
But nowhere more bitter than over the leadership's attempt to dump the party's historic opposition to NATO membership. It's still being kept fairly quiet, but it's becoming clear that behind the scenes there is the beginning of a ding-dong, membership-card-tearing, People's Front of Judea-type rammy.
For example, have a look at this fairly prominent Nat blog:
"I regret that since I began arguing the case against NATO, a rather large number of SNP supporters have demonstrated the kind of unwillingness to tolerate dissent of any kind, on Twitter, on YouTube, on the blog, and, I regret to say, in violently abusive comments which I have removed at the pre-moderation stage, and in abusive emails.
(I had heard such accusations made against a sector of the party support, but always argued it was an unrepresentaitve minority.)
I'm sad about that, not for myself but for the 'nice' party's image.
Of more concern is the apparent inability to engage with any debate above the level of sloganising and protestations of undying loyalty to anything the party says or does, or with complex, detailed arguments, and the 'magic wand' approach to independence.
This is matched only by the uncanny silence of the party hierarchy and professional communicators, who nonetheless produce, daily, a blizzard of press release on just about anything under the sun - except defence matters and NATO.
As I said, I will continue to campaign for independence, but almost certainly outside of the party - and also against Scotland's membership of NATO. It is really only a question of whether to wait for the October vote or leave now. In the light of the face of the party that I have experienced recently, I think it will probably be the latter."
I would say to Mr Curran that he ought to consider more carefully those he associates with. The record of political parties which behave like cults, in which dissent from the leadership is suppressed, in which the paramount aim is power first and sort out the details later, is not good. It never ends well.
Still, it might discourage Mr Curran from writing "Alex Salmond is a great statesman" in bold red type in every other blog he writes, which can only be a good thing.
(Eagle-eyed readers might noticed that I've updated my blog list for the first time in months. There are some hilarious new ones there; some intentionally so and some, er, probably not.)
10 comments:
You nicked my quote and proved my point at the same time Smee.
Unintentionally to both. What do you mean?
http://moridura.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/the-snp-nato-and-end-of-dream-of.html#comment-form
Are you sure you're not my evil twin smee?
Ah, THAT comment. I had read it, but the quote-nicking was subliminal.
"Evil twin"?
"You see the Sith and the Jedi are similar - in almost every way..."
Intolerance within a party or any movement towards those who discern not to follow the official line is of course unacceptable.
Whilst not an SNP member (or indeed consistant supporter) such practitioners of this intolerance should reflect that Salmond and MacAskill were dissidents from the line of the Wolfe-Wilson leadership and were expelled from the party for a period.
You mention parties that behave like cults. Like the Conservatives and Thatcher. Even Salmond has not had song written as an official jingle saying how great he is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8aFObkl1CY
Bloody Saachis-------
The Olympics. Probably no long term change in who is supporting what than the planned Bannockburn fest in 2014 will do for the nationalist side.
I was checking up the record of the USSR team in 1988, the last year it competed. Noticed that the Lithuanians had a disproportionate amount of medals. Which part of the USSR left first-----?
However in tribute to the common effort of the Russian, Ukrainian, Georgian, Lithuanian etc athletes some music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yDrtNEr_5M
It can only be a metter of time before Nat Buffter Smee and his tory attack blog is exposed as Alan Cochrane's twin sister or some other insipid unionist malcontent.
Brilliant post makes me laugh everytime I read it and true.
You wish
sm753 Stick to the Scotsman ya bitter prick.
Whether the SNP are pro or anti NATO, whist interesting in the abstract, signifies little except to dyed in the wool SNP members, and perhaps supporters of dependency like yourself with an axe to grind, and a hold on reality as shaky as Nick Clegg's principles.
Much like the rest of the unionist carpet biting tendency, demanding minute details from the SG about Scotland post independence, whether in relation to a future constitution, EU membership, currency to be used, head of state etc., they are all a massive distraction.
The Scottish people will decide all these matters at the right juncture, which certainly isn't now, or indeed over the next 24 months. None of these items is in the gift of the current SG or the SNP, and they are no more obliged to give chapter and verse about them, than the unionist supporters of dependency and their useful idiots pedalling the virtues of devo-whatever are obliged to tell us every detail of what that would mean.
Of course, FFA or devo max is a dead duck, as even if you lot could agree a common platform, you have zero prospect of getting it thru Westminster.
So, even if the Scottish people vote NO in 2014, the unionists will still get a kicking in Scotland down the line. If the Tories win the 2015 GE, the SNP will wipe the floor with the dependency parties, and even if the Red Tories in Newer Labour manage to win, they will never be able to deliver more devolution, so the ultimate result in scotland will be the same; only the timing may differ.
sm753, you are obviously as knowledgeable about these issues as you are about defence and security; i.e. you know jack shit.
Galen10
Post a Comment