Under false pretences
We’re still supposed to be on a skeleton service for the festive period, but we couldn’t just let this one slide. The cashflow problems at the Labour Party must be more severe than previously thought, because the entire organisation seems to be sharing a single email account. We got yet another begging letter today, from the same address previously named as “Iain McNicol” and “Ed Miliband”, but today’s one was credited to shadow women’s minister Gloria De Piero.
Alert readers will recognise the appeal as one we’ve been watching for 11 days now. It’s an attempt by the UK party to raise some cash to employ 10 campaign assistants specifically for Scottish Labour. The jobs are still openly listed as such on the Labour website’s situations-vacant page. Yet the party seems oddly reluctant to say so.
Not one of the emails we’ve had about the fundraiser so far mentions Scotland. All three claim that the money is needed to fight “the Tories”.
De Piero’s is the most specific, claiming that Labour needs the cash to fight in “the seats where the Tories are right on our tail”. But every one of the posts is in “Scottish Labour Party offices across Scotland”, and the Conservatives haven’t exactly been a notorious electoral force north of the border for some time.
In fact, when we looked at every current Labour seat in Scotland, we found that the Tories are in second place in just seven of them, with absolutely none of those even remotely close enough to qualify as “right on our tail”:
AYR, CARRICK AND CUMNOCK
Labour majority over Conservatives: 9,911
CENTRAL AYRSHIRE
Majority: 12,007
DUMFRIES AND GALLOWAY
Majority: 7,449
EAST LOTHIAN
Majority: 12,258
EAST RENFREWSHIRE
Majority: 10,420
EDINBURGH SOUTH WEST
Majority: 8,447
STIRLING
Majority: 8,354
The Tories are currently polling just 13% in Scotland, four points down on their 2010 total, so it seems safe to say they’re not going to be posing too much of a threat in seats with an average majority of 9,835. Indeed, there’s a strong case that those are likely to be among the safest Labour seats in Scotland, as the SNP will have to come from at best third place in order to capture them.
Indeed, in every single one of those seven constituencies, even if every SNP voter from 2010 tactically voted Tory (or vice versa) Labour would still retain the seat.
Labour’s Scottish fiefdom is under attack from the SNP, not the Tories. Yet the party is flatly lying to its supporters to try to get money from them, by pretending that the cash is to fight off the Conservatives in Lab-Con marginals.
There are almost no rules governing political parties telling lies in their literature. The sole exception, the only time they’re legally required to tell the truth, is during “direct solicitations of donations for fund-raising”. This is plainly one of those. Perhaps a note to the Advertising Standards Authority might be in order.
“Perhaps a short note to the Advertising Standards Authority might be in order.”
link to asa.org.uk
[…] We’re still supposed to be on a skeleton service for the festive period, but we couldn’t just let this one slide. The cashflow problems at the Labour Party must be more severe than previously thought, because the entire organisation seems to be sharing a single email account. We got yet another begging letter today, from the same address previously named as “Iain McNicol” and “Ed Miliband”, but this time credited to shadow women’s minister Gloria De Piero. […]
They are reluctant to mention it’s for Scottish Labour because it’ll become and arguing point later on that Scotland is subsidised £87,500 more than the rest of the UK.
So, Labour have been caught lying again. You’d think that after all this time they’d have perfected the art.
Ba-Humbug, Give em a wee break Stu, it is the season of goodwill to all men after all.
Keep hold of those e-mails, will be handy for another article when SLab & Tory form an alliance in Scotland to halt SNP. How can they explain that one away, give us money to beat the Tories that we are in cahoots with.
If indeed they are breaking any kind of law then lets get it out there, a hefty fine of about £37.50 could see SLab going bust, not to mention the bad publicity…
Quelle suprise! To think Lab would treat the English and Welsh electorates with the same contempt (e.g. electorate = stupid and won’t notice) that they’ve been treating Scots with for decades … .
It’s rather frustrating that we’ve no obvious channel for wising up our cousins South of the Border.
Interesting. Maybe they think Labour supporters in England might be more reluctant to fund a “help us fight off a party that may help pull us left again” campaign than the usual “lets pretend we’re not just as Tory as the Tories and beat them in marginals crap they alway come out with.
I refuse to belief that Jim Murphy would tolerate such behaviour. You are implying that Jim Murphy would allow people across the UK to be mislead in order that he could receive the funds for his campaign in Scotland.
I’m shocked!
…but not surprised 🙂
The ‘rules’ don’t count when we are talking the Unionist parties. They either ignore them (nobody takes them up on it or if they do they get strangled with bureaucracy) or they change the ‘rules’.
Didn’t the ConDems rush through a Law to stop them being sued over their ‘workplace’ wheez when a young university graduate challenged them in the courts and won?
8/12 £ 32.105 raised
22/12 £ 29.222 from target
whenever 13.05 gmt A whisker away from total £ 87.500 aye the cats Maws. I know its still christmas hols but why does they’re Email have just the time,is the calander on holiday.( naw dont think aboot it lol)
Personally I see the distribution of it it as proof positive( if any was needed) that Labour are still a U.K. wide Party first and foremost, and not as independent from London as Mr Murphy makes them out to be. How embarrassing!!
ASA say – Make a complaint:
(5)-“we can have an ad changed if it’s a minor mistake…If it’s not that simple, we may need to conduct a formal investigation,”
Well, as all the evidence points to blatant lying, i think we can safely state this is not a “minor mistake.”
Picking up on Bob Mack’s thoughts, wouldn’t it be nice if one of the MSM journos did their job and asked wee Jimmy if the Scottish Labour Party had a completely separate means of financing itself from that of the London branch office.
They could then follow up by asking how SLab is actually funded and maybe slip in one about SLab card-carrying membership numbers.
Sorry, I must be short on my anti-hallucinogenic meds again, I thought for a moment I was in a rational universe. Silly me.
Ed’s appeal is the more telling – they clearly see Scotland as being an automatic seat filler for them and hence the line about fighting to beat the tories. They seem convinced that the election will be so close that a handful of seats could make all the difference and that these seats will be from Scotland – in my mind it actually makes the case for an overwhelming vote for the SNP…
Good luck with the ASA. Chocolate teapot. From the same mould as the Electoral Commission. FSA etc. “Light touch” (aka bu**er all) regulation.
Not sure that the ASA complaints procedure would cover this. It’s not an ad in the media but a direct mailing to someone who has signed up to receive such crap (and we are all extremely grateful Stu 😛 ).
They aren’t overtly “advertising” anything; they are begging for Stu’s hard earned dosh.
a “get it rite fuckin up ye” is more in order
Well done Rev, they obviously thought there would be no scrutiny and it would all slip below the radar during the festive holidays. Hah!
The whole Slab brand is nothing more than a mirage foist upon the feeble minded Jocks, by some senior placed marketing divvie in London. Their reign is over,and it’s time to save the Scottish electorate from anymore of their antics.I look forward to reading the outcome of the ASA enquiry.
The Direct Marketing Association/Commission, however, has a listed member “The Labour Party” :
link to dma.org.uk
If you can craft a suitably worded complaint, they might be able to help clarify the exact nature of the mailshot contents.
Just saying 🙂
I think you must be on the dandelion and burdock Rev, big Jimba runs the ENGLISH Labour Party in jockland with an iron rod and a begging bowl. Once Jimba phones the londinium SLAB controllers to see what they have told the EBC ( or what EBC have told them) then EBC will call a press conference for Jimba to explain to all the thicko jocks how stupid they are. In his low sexy voice. Where the french woman comes in search me.
A whisker? A whisker? high voice required, If the Labour party can’t raise £87.000 quid in 11 days methinks £29.000 must be a tad more than a whisker, coz when you’re broke, you’re broke and maybe they don’t realise the folk they’re hoping to employ might just be reading this and think “Do i want this job”? Really???… Just when i think about it, maybe Murphy’s got some goodwill gifts he could auction from when he was popular, like our previous First Minister and popular guy…Well mibbees NAW EH…. I am Alex Salmond…
Anyone know what’s happened to the Butterfly Rebellion? Their website has not been updated since November 24th.
found this while searching for something else
never put in a bid though but it might interest someone
link to ebay.co.uk
Sorry should have headed last post as O/T
Considering that at least one of the email writers is a millionaire, it wouldn’t hurt him to put his hand in his pocket for the good of the party & all that but no-they expect the mugs in the electorate to cough up for them.
Well it might be Christmas but I for one do not feel at all disposed towards giving SLAB or any other WM party a single penny after the way they have & continue to decieve the electorate. If we can’t trust a word they say why would we want to fund them?
There is one aspect of this whole charade that the Labour Party is correct on, and that is their campaigning email address – one nation politics says it all about the state of unionist politics in the UK – right wing, sectarian, racist, anti-social and corrupt.
The Labour Party have a good few millionaires within their ranks, some of them are even multi-millionaires, but yet here they are scrounging off Jo Public.
Something seriously stinks about all of this.
Put it this way, if i were a wealthy man and an organisation close to my heart needed to raise that sort of money i would happily donate the lot without a second thought.
Mind you, they do say that a fool and his money are soon parted. Perhaps that is why they have to ask their supporters because nobody else is prepared to throw good money after bad. They know its a lost cause and are not prepared to gamble with their own money.
Something about this is absolutely hum-dinging.
Probably the rotten corpse of The Labour Party.
Beware, Skeletor and the Orcs are on the prowl.
I’m enjoying my Xmas chocolates and Labours melt down…,.delightful.
Craig Murray is creating some stooshie on Facebook. His blog says that the SNP has disbarred him!
Instead of throwing his toys out of the pram why doesn’t he just stand as an Independent, then he wouldn’t have to follow party discipline.
[…] Under false pretences […]
I’m guessing Craig Murray’s past, his comments about no voters ect are potentially too controversial for the SNP.
clearly winning Scottish seats helps fight the Tories… Total nonsense article. You’re demeaning yourself and the Yes movement generally. Please stop…
Just to be clear, I voted yes.
“clearly winning Scottish seats helps fight the Tories”
That’s not what the email says. It says it’s specifically money to campaign in “seats where the Tories are right on our tail”. There is NOT ONE such seat in Scotland. It’s a lie.
As this is the season of peace & goodwill, maybe we should suggest the Labour party try crowdfunding.
It can be quite successful!
link to wingsoverscotland.com
Jim Arlene: I’m enjoying my Xmas chocolates and Labour’s melt down
Jim, is ‘Labour meldown’ one of the flavours? And is it in a red wrapper or blue? A box of political chocolates.
How about…
Lib-Dem Fudge
Ukip Alien Crunch
Orange Lodge Bitter
Tory Nut in Lard
🙂
O/T
Well done everyone who contributed to G A Ponsonby’s crowdfunder for the revelatory book…it’s just reached it’s target.
link to indiegogo.com
Re Craig Murray
By posting that disbarred article today, he has demonstrated that SNP made the right decision. In his statement he laid down several challenges to the party line & when he wasn’t accepted he immediately took to the web to air his grievances.
Sorry but the SNP are better off without him. He has proved that he’s a loose cannon & they can’t afford any of those. The prize of winning more powers from WM is more important than one man who is clearly not a team player. They don’t need any prima donnas particularly when they are doing so well.
If he can’t support a party line then he should be standing as an independent. This is the same reason that Lesley Riddoch declined to stand for election-she couldn’t guarantee that she could support any party if she disagreed with their decisions.
We need people of independent thought capable of raising issues but beholden to none of them. I saw Craig (& still do) as one such person.
@lollymum
Please reaize that the Slabling in question is a milliona?re because of putting hands in other peoples’ pockets for the good of himself.
And whether or not you want to finance him is out of your control because your taxes benefit him by paying a salary and no doubt the music played on expenses.
Scotland/Scots are a profitable colonial enterprise and won’t be let go of any time soon.Read a bit of British Empire history and see how the natives are dealt with when they get uppity. Expect to pay for your chains in every sense of the word.
Nigel Farage named ‘Briton of the Year’ by Times Newspapers.
Now we have confirmation the Union is giant con trick.
Well done. WoS is right on their tail. Its a clear attempt to defraud so ASA need to be involved. You can serve time for this and if the SNP were doing this, the BBC freak show would be all over it, like the noble and honest journos they’re world famous for being so good at and unbiased too. lol, the gits.
Disappointingly difficult to register a complain with the ASA: I can’t find an email address. I hope someone plans on writing?
Briton – I thought we were all Ukish now?
@Grousebeater
Tory Nut in Lard
This last one’s a ffoulkes?
Add?
Pistacchio Creams for the Greens
Vodka and Vanilla Milk Cups for the SSP
Dark Chocolates with Fine Malt Whisky centers for the SNP
Lollysmum 6.11pm, good post,what a lot of folk commenting on Craig Murray’s blog don’t seem to worked out is that the so called ‘bedroom tax’ question was simply asking – When you are a WM MP will you follow the SNP party line?
His response signals he would not so the SNP have made the correct decision once again.
Too drunk too comment (its the season too be jolly ffs) but suffice to say Morag may have had a point. Respect to her. BTW never realised Morag wrote a book.
I still likre Craig Murray and hope he will keep on going. I also hate the fact of political party whips, I would much prefer my MP votes in the best interests of his constituents.
I will be canvassing, leafletting, phoning anything to help the cause
Lollysmum 6.11
Just that.
Back in November Murphy set a target of Scottish Labour raising £1 million to fight next year’s general election partly by boosting the party’s membership and flagging business links. He also pledged to spend at least £5,000 in every Holyrood and Westminster seat, have at least one paid organiser in every region and ensure the Scottish leader appoints all staff, including the general secretary.
Overseeing all this largess will be a five-man commission comprising the leaders of Glasgow, Aberdeen and North Lanarkshire Councils who will decide how the extra money will be spent! Now there’s a thought!
Perhaps this is a new Labour tactic, not mentioning the SNP. I wonder how long they can go without nat-bashing?
Fighting the Tories? Hahahahahaha.
Labour trying to mislead the public?
SAY IT AIN’T SO! 😀
re Craig Murray:
It’s normal (and sensible) for any party’s vetting panel to throw a few stiff questions into the grey areas between personal integrity and party discipline. What they are correctly testing is where your moral boundaries lie. It’s probably just as damaging to answer ‘I would always vote with the party, no matter what’.
If his blog is to be believed, seems to me Mr Murray was a bit naive in not probing the question further before answering.
A vetting procedure that is too casual ends up in a UKIP situation – with a succession of embarrassments.
@John Young
Craig Murray was not asked ” When you are a WM Mp will you follow the SNP party line?”. I think he was asked”If the SNP decide to go into coalition and support the Bedroom Tax, will you follow the party line?” He answered “No”, what would your answer be?. Totally different question from your version.
T222Deracha says 7.47
Yes, because I am a SNP MP and my constituents voted for me to follow and respect all the SNP’s policies.
Been interviewed when I and others thought I was a dead cert for the job and also watched others miss out when they had the credentials. Some you win some you lose Craig, them’s the breaks and opposing opinions will blah about the decision. Thing is, it is done now so there ye go, onwards to the election. Craig Murray has enough experience of life and by the looks of it potentially enough support to see him elected as an Independent, if that happens he is batting for our side and I for one wish him awrabest. I also wish one and all the same for the festivities and hope we all do oor bit for the upcoming election.
O/T wherabouts are ye’s in France Bugger and Auldrock? I am based in the Cotes d’armor at present, lovely fowks witha right love of the Scots based upon my experience thus far.
@kininvie totally agree. I was going to post a similar thought earlier but was distracted by real life (dinner).
@T222Deracha on the same lines, if it had been a question fired at me (and I’ve done many, many “boards” – on both sides of the table – to understand the protocols) I would have probed a bit further to try and winkle out the rationale for the question. I’d be surprised if Craig didn’t have the opportunity to seek clarification.
Rev Stu
Okay. I didn’t realise that. Apologies for not reading carefully before I posted.
I do think it’s a bit of a technicality though. It’s fair enough to say “fight the Tories”, generally. As the first emails did. Scottish seats could well make the difference between the Tories being in government.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the specific “Tories on our tails” is just an honest mistake.
Personally, I’m really disappointed with Labour but don’t feel they’re comparable with the Tories. So I find this stuff a bit partisan and off putting. I think a lot of people will be in a similar position.
One of the things I hoped for in voting Yes, was a less partisan and petty politics. Call me an idealist! I’m sure labour are as bad or worse but someone’s got to lead the way. So this kind of thing doesn’t help.
All the best
Donald
K1 says:
“Well done everyone who contributed to G A Ponsonby’s crowdfunder for the revelatory book…it’s just reached it’s target.”
link to indiegogo.com
_______________
And well done to you for helping to push it over the line.
Can’t wait to get my hands on a copy.
😉
It seems that a lot of people think that honesty and integrity are less important than ‘the benefit of the party’.
The very criticism that is made about SLAB.
I think Craig Murray’s blog response to not being selected to stand for the SNP, totally vindicates Morag’s view that Craig is indeed a loose canon.
He’s like the 2 SNP MSPs who left the party to become independents after the majority vote at SNP conference in favour of joining NATO. Never mind what the majority want, for some people it’s always me, me, me. If he had been selected he would have provided too much ammo for the opposition, and caused unwanted divisions. Of course, if he stands as an independent, he could take votes from SNP and let one of the dreaded unionist parties in – so already a somewhat detrimentally divisive figure. ;-(
Let us all unite to oust the unionists, and then, when independent, the individualists can stand on a platform of their beliefs.
Aw thanks Stoker, that was nice 🙂
If I might comment on the Craig Murray posts above.
I find the posts above seriously worrying in the way they actively seek to mislead by omission.
In the immediate aftermath of the referendum result there was much promise of all sections of the Independence movement, regardless of party affiliation, supporting the best candidate to unseat the red and yellow tories in Scotland regardless of whether that candidate was SNP, Green, Socialist or Independent.
It is all very well and entertaining to constantly shoot at the easy targets such as the red tories. However, the Westminster election is but 5 months away and the self indulgence of the echo chamber is not a realistic approach as a way forward.
The current position is that one section of the Independence movement, the SNP, has positioned itself publically as ruling out any coalition with the traditional blue tories but appears willing to contemplate sustaining a red tory administration in Westminster should next year’s GE prove inconclusive.
The question then arises as to what red tory policies would the SNP, as only one section of the Independence movement, support for movement on further powers for Scotland? This poses a further question as to whether the answer to such a question would be supported by swathes of its new membership as well as the other sections of the Independence movement?
What the posts above tellingly fail to spell out was that the question Murray was asked in regard for maintaining party discipline and collective responsibility was whether he would support continuation of the bedroom tax.
What the posts above seem to be conveying is that it is OK to lambast the red tories but when it comes to the crunch, in order to support the SNP they are willing to countenance red tory policies and even blue tory policies.
Tell not just me, down here in the old SRSY, but also all those new SNP members who joined for a break from the tired old Westminster gang culture and the rest of the Independence movement in Scotland and those south of the wall looking to that movement for inspiration and a way forward out of the straitjacket of the stale British State:
how is this any different from the blue, red or yellow tories? How would it go down in in the rest of the UK never mind Scotland, if one section of the Independence movement, the SNP, took over monopoly control of the Independence movement and sustained the hated tory policies, like the bedroom tax, austerity or tuition fees to maintain this joke a red tory party in power in the hope of gaining more scraps of powers in Scotland?
Is this what all the new SNP members as well as the rest of those in the movement outside of the SNP are working for?
Swapping the red tories for the tartan tories?
Rather than behaving like red tories and supporting the Grandees, careerist, apparatchiks and hierarchy of just one part of the Independence movement who seem to want to take over monopoly control, just like the red tories, if you were serious you would be tearing into these chancers and schooling them in the new realities.
But if you just want to play at it, to sit self indulgently in an echo chamber pretending to be different from the red tories whilst all the time emulating them that’s your problem.. Just spare us the bullshit that you represent something different.
It’s up to you.
From Twitter
It would appear that Unionists are now using Craig Murray’s blog to have a go at SNP.
K1 re GA Ponsonby,
It’s been well worth it and reading chapter 2 made my blood boil. Will definitely purchase the book.
Regarding Craig Murray I have a funny feeling the decision was perhaps already made – hence the question that was put to him!
Hats off to Mr Murray as a principled human being. There’s the rub of party politics though – it has to be disciplined and I know I could never do the job.
I think Craig Murray would be a great independent candidate. Go for it Craig,
From tomorrow’s Telegraph, no further comment necessary
“Today, it seems as if the only political argument in Scotland is the struggle between the Nats and Labour for voters in the Central Belt, many of whom live on benefits, most of whom used to be unthinking Labour supporters. Enterprise Scotland, aspirational Scotland, hard-working Scotland: all are being ignored in a competition for the support of those who, if offered a job, would run a mile.
Indeed, there might seem to be so little distinction between Labour and the Nats that they could easily join forces. As no one else is using the label at the moment, why not call themselves National Socialists?”
Craig Murray is obviously NOT a suitable candidate because he has opinions of his own? Is that what some are arguing?
I must be mad because that is exactly the type of person I would want representing me. Do you think any individual who is a member of any party agrees totally with all their policies?
It would be a strange world if they did, the name that a party choose to call themselves is not important. Neither even is all the policies that they propose.
The people chosen to represent that party by the constituents are far more important. Having integrity is an honorable trait.
I will not vote for a party that supports the bedroom tax and abandons it’s principles in the process in order to achieve power.
FFS that’s exactly what I have been fighting against!!
The SNP could have explained in detail directly to Craig Murray what their misgivings are. They haven’t. They gave him no feedback.
So far I am picking up that Craig Murray is:
1. Divisive and not a team player as he wouldn’t vote FOR the bedroom tax.
2. Criticism 1 is built on the premise of his total opposition to propping up the British “One Nation” Labour Party in Westminster.
3. He is politically naive for not understanding that 1 and 2 would help promote Scottish independence.
4. The unionist press would write articles criticising and mocking him (like all the ones about Alex Salmond, but far worse).
@ cearc
It isn’t anything to do with honesty & integrity being less important than the party line at all. It is about a COUNTRY relying on a group of people to go to Westminster to push for Scotland’s interests. The SNP will be elected upon the contents of a manifesto given to voters prior to the election & upon which the party will be judged. How would the electorate feel about the people they’ve voted for going back on their promises? That would make them no better than Lib, Lab or Con if they did that. Voters would never trust them again.
It isn’t about party benefit but it is about Scotland’s benefit & as I said before that is more important than one man. SNP have a duty to select/approve the right people to represent the party & Scotland. To my mind, they’ve done that here & CM is now venting his ire on the internet & doing untold damage.
Individual MP’s don’t decide for themselves-they are part of a team with an agreed line on each issue because they have to keep their word to the electorate.
I’ve just watched Craig Murray’s Skype interview with independence live and I felt that he gave a clear and reasoned explanation for going public with what happened. I also thought it was admirable how despite the many personal attacks and disappointments he has to endure, he continues to be thoughtful and honest in his comments and always tries very hard to be accurate and fair in his answers.
While feeling personally very disappointed that his candidature was not approved, I am sure that he will continue to be an asset to the Independence campaign in whatever capacity he fulfils. You can’t keep a good man down, and he clearly excels in both intellect and integrity.
@Lollysmum
With the greatest respect, Craig Murray by joining the SNP and putting himself forward as a potential candidate has not caused untold damage.
My anger at this decision is not against Craig Murray but at the panel who appear to have rejected him on spurious reasons based on answers to ridiculous questions in an interview.
Seriously, I know of few people better qualified to work on our behalf as an MP, I don’t want sheep or party apparatchiks.
I’d rather have an honest man any day of the week, the fact that some middle ranking official in the SNP hierarchy fails to see that has definitely spoiled my day.
We aught to be moving forwards not backwards.
There is nobody arguing that, Alex.
Nor does anybody here know why Craig Murray was not positively vetted.
His response was unwise but I know that the persons involved in any SNP vetting panel will not disclose reasons for turning down applicants. That would be unkind,ungenerous and unfair.
These things are never lightly done and having been involved in vetting panels in the past and having been vetted myself I understand the huge imperative that decisions do not become the subject of uninformed speculation.
I have enjoyed Craig’s participation but his comments were unwise
Dave McEwan Hill
I sympathise with your comments and understand where you are coming from, but have you watched the interview with Craig which I mentioned above? It might give you more insight into why he made his comments. If someone did leak to the Scotsman then I think questions need to be asked at HQ.
Craig Murray is an openly vocal advocate of UDI. No one will be allowed through the vetting procedure with with such undemocratic views that would give the SNP real problems further down the road.
I think that Craig Murray can still be a great asset in Scotland and has plenty to give the cause of further democracy and Independence. Right now it will not be from a prospective SNP MP position.
@Dave McEwan Hill
Simply, would you support the bedroom tax if told you MUST because it was for the party good?
@Alex Clark 9:09pm
I’m not sure whether you’re annoyed that Craig has been denied selection based on his own account of the proceedings or if you are genuinely of the belief that SNP would support bedroom tax.
If it’s the former, it’s always difficult to form a balanced judgement based on a single side’s “evidence” and not have access to a verbatim account of the events as they unfolded.
I have no doubt that Craig is a principled and extremely open and honest person but, that is not the issue. The issue is much greater than a single person’s beliefs and values. He joined the SNP for a purpose and now that his purpose has been denied, he has chosen to go public with his version of events.
If your issue is with the bedroom tax aspect, all selection processes in which I’ve had a role (both sides of the table) use hypothetical questions and scenarios. They are always challenging and sometimes involve a great deal of soul searching. When it is a straightforward question and results in internal and/or moral conflict, that is a good thing because it shows the question is both well constructed and targeted. At that point I would (if the candidate) seek clarification, context and rationale. If I was the questioner, I’d be waiting for the candidate to ask more questions and make sure they understood the context.
I really don’t believe that the SNP are pro bedroom tax but that the hypothetical question was a simple tool to test both loyalty to party and a potential strategy and, more importantly, the candidate’s judgement.
Things are never as straightforward as they may be presented.
Only SNP members can be SNP candidates for obvious reasons. How can an Independent candidate stand for a political party. It’s a nonsense. An Independent candidate funded by SNP members. It’s a nonsense and probably breaking Parliamentary rules. Any candidate must be a member of the Party, obviously to follow the Party rules, voted and decided by members. It is undemocratic to approve a candidate that doesn’t follow Party rules.
Do not give the Labour/Unionist one penny more to act against Scottish interests. They are already funded by interest groups, so have to govern against the public interest. In their Party’s interest not the electorate.
@Lollysmum
Agreed. Candidates stand on their party’s manifesto. If elected and in government, those who voted for them expect then to deliver. They are not expected to pick and choose policies which suit their personal views. That’s what independents can do.
Also, to those who can’t understand why CM was asked about the bedroom tax … for heavens sakes, it was a hypothetical test question. It was an imaginary situation. It was not a suggestion of a real world policy change. Like a Tory candidate being asked if that party wanted to renationalise Royal Mail would the candidate back them? Correct answer, Yes. Imaginary policiy, unlikely situation, no relevance to real policies.
OOT…
Interesting article from Nafeez Ahmed on the Henry Jackson Society…
link to theguardian.com
Politics is a collective process or it is nothing.
I was vetted at the same session Craig was. Full day affair: group work, QT mock panel, Questionaire (Yes The Advocate General for Scotland is….see below (nobody got it).
The Bedroom tax question was an ‘Ego test’ given to all candidates. Are you up for collective responsibility, or are you not? And if not what would you do about it?
We are not fn about here. We are in an existential struggle with a wounded but still hugely dangerous collapsing empire, for the very existence of Scotland. And we cannot afford to humour princesses of either gender.
I didn’t pass my vetting. Dammit. But I’m no greeting about it. The cause is greater than ego
Morag. All (well, some anyway) is forgiven.
Craig. Take a step back. Listen to the criticism as well as the praise. and block the bloddy concern trolls: please.
and then back to the fight against the real enemy
Jim Thomson
“I really don’t believe that the SNP are pro bedroom tax but that the hypothetical question was a simple tool to test both loyalty to party and a potential strategy and, more importantly, the candidate’s judgement.”
Well surely Craig Murray passed the test on all (loyalty, strategy and judgement) counts?
Jim. Bloddy Wallace.
I knew dat. Bah!
The labour party was long ago destroyed from the inside,not
by anyone shouting at it from outside.
So too other organisations who were possible threats to the establishment.
It’s what they do.
We have only one choice at the moment.
Let the snp do it’s job,and support them fully,do not be
fooled or distracted.
The snp want an indepedent Scotland.
It’s what they do.
If you join a team you play where the manager tells you to play if you decide to change position you leave a gap in your defence for the other team to score then the manager subs you and you throw your toys out the pram as you leave the field after having let the team down. Scotland is the team and the SNP are our players so better subbed now as later after the damage is done. Last thing we need is a Prima Donna forward, there can only be one Captain on the team and one manager on the touch line….Too many football analagies?..probably right…I am Alex Salmond
@Murray McCallum 10:06pm
How would any of us know? We weren’t there.
Final Sunday Herald front page for 2014;
link to t.co
jim Thomson
I refer to the hypothetical pro bedroom tax question. Craig’s “no” was the correct one on all counts. No?
His opposition to propping up a British Labour government fits OK with me too.
The purpose of hypotheticals like the one Murray wrongly blames for his failure to be selected is not a simple Yes/No but to ascertain how a potential candidate will respond and whether he understands the procedures inherent in the party system and can form a dignified and coherent response to unpalatable situations. It’s a question with no good answer to find out how you work with others in extremis and if you even can should the need arise.
For those throwing up their hands in horror at the bedroom tax I have some good news for them. The SNP don’t support it. The clue was in the question being purely hypothetical.
Up and down scotland there will be many, many fine people hoping to get selected for the SNP and for other Yes parties. The sad fact of the matter is they won’t all get selected. However, we will almost certainly not be hearing quite as much megaphone ‘anguish’ from all those who don’t as we are hearing from Craig right. This will be despite them not giving the unionist media such huge open goals as Craig has. (yet he and a few other have somehow forgotten that he did)
Lollysmum,
If the SNP put support for the bedroom tax in their manifesto then yes, the MPs should support it but if they later decide to support it as a bargaining chip, then no, MPs should be free to oppose it.
You will recall that the Liberal’s manifesto was opposed to tuition fees, a policy that only lasted a couple of minutes once they were offered a few plum jobs.
Quite rightly, their support has crashed.
If the SNP did the same on one of their manifesto policies, I would hope that the same would happen.
It is not only undesireable but rather impractical for the SNP to want all its members to be stereotypical yesmen to the leadership regardless. It is party containing people of many political opinions who have joined to help independence and who will only go so far with policies that they do not like .
It is perfectly possible to have an independence party with joint agreed positions on key issues and free to express their own outlook on all other matters.
When the councillors burnt the Smith report, Nicola Sturgeon could have just said that it was not SNP policy to do so. Matter over.
@Murray McCallum 10:17pm
I repeat, I wasn’t there so, I don’t know.
@ Alex Clark
I didn’t say that Craig putting himself forward had done untold damage. The post on his blog & the subsequent chatter about it on Twitter & other online places has done the damage & will be used by MSM & others.
Look at the comments on Scotgoespop & see the posts from Stoat, a Better Together activist who was using film of Craig publicly insulting No voters (from a YES platform) to sway voters to switch to No in the run up to the referendum. He was a gift to them.
I actually do respect & like Craig however he is politically naive & espouses personal views that are so far from SNP on some issues that MSM would have had a field day with him. No party is going to risk that.
@Jim Thomson
Jim, lets call a spade a spade.
He wasn’t picked simply because he is a maverick, same reason that he was turfed out of the Civil Service.
Questions about bedroom tax ect. are all red herrings, a means of deflecting the truth. He was too hot to handle and it is as simple and as plain as that.
I truly believe that this decision though has been a mistake and is a big negative for the SNP. Maybe they will take this criticism on board and be less likely to make another mistake like this before May.
No political party should be immune from criticism and it hurts me to find that I am so angry at this.
Nobody is perfect and I don’t expect to elect angels every time I go to the polling booth. Those that do the judging are not perfect either. They might do well to acknowledge that before passing judgment.
Agreed Natasha, SNP need to identify the source of the leak, and quick.
Craig Murray had a job interview and he didn’t get it. Welcome to reality. Its one man, he’s not the messiah. Its the future of the nation state of Scotland, need it be said:D
If political Parties have a manifesto they should stick to it, to the best of their ability. That is one of the strengths of the SNP they carry out their manifesto.
It the Unionists Parties who break their promises (secretly) and lie, with disastrous effects and consequences.
The hypothetical question was a really poor one. They should have just asked the candidate to say they would support the Party on ANY vote.
Given the shite hypothetical, Craig Murray was right to say “no” on all counts. For me, being loyal to your Party means not allowing it to destroy itself, e.g. by voting to support the bedroom tax.
morag sure called craig murray issue. nail on head
Iain Gray’s Subway Lament at 10.18
Exactly. Craig’s high profile, highly public and damaging reaction probably indicates that the decision was the correct one.
@murray mcallum
Aye but it’s not about that , it’s his reaction that is the problem .
@Alex Clark 10:24
I agree with you about his individuality, which is where his application probably fell down. Reading other people’s responses to the Bedroom Tax question (other candidates commenting in a variety of places across blogs, facebook, twitter etc.) that wasn’t the single reason for rejection. There must have been other aspects of his demeanour, behaviour, responses or whatever, that shaped the outcome for him.
Others have pointed out that we are now moving into serious politics territory and as such there is an absolute need for team players and not prima donnas/loose cannon/renegades etc.
There will always be aspects of core policy that cause friction within a party and those should only surface at conference during debates. Have a grown up debate, vote, go with the majority and, most importantly, STICK WITH THE DECISION.
I am absolutely certain that there will be many MPs, MSPs & MEPs who feel uncomfortable with certain votes but they would be mightily pissed off if, when one of their pet subjects came up for a vote, some of their party member colleagues abstained or voted against.
The whole point of a party is to have consensus, otherwise you have to be an “independent”. I think that (independent) is where Craig’s future lies.
RE Craig Murray,
People should read this from Scott goes pop and the comments below.
link to scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk
It seems that Craig has managed to become the news today – I happen to think that the Guardian Poll information was actually a better story. Its a shame that Craig kicked it into touch.
The SNP knew damn well what CM’ bedroom tax answer would be.
There is far more to this than meets the eye.
As a supporter of him and most of his views i find this SNP decision very hard to take.
Craig, if you are reading this i’m sorry to have to say that by going public with this matter the SNP can now feel vindicated in their decision.
IMO, there is a far bigger question emanating from all of this – who “leaked” party/government private business to that filthy Unionist rag? The very same rag that shat all over our hopes, dreams and aspirations.
If that’s true then that person has to be severely and swiftly dealt with. That is far worse than CM going public – he’s not an SNP official, the Hootsman informant will be.
If you write a blog,your chances of becoming a candidate diminish rapidly,look at ian smart,labour
Craig Murray is perhaps too much his own man for him to fit easily into the structure of a political party. This shows us just what we lose under the party system. We do not advance as a nation, as a democracy, by being ruled by political drones and ‘yes-men’. We advance under the prodding and cajoling of the ‘awkward squad’, the ones who have a vision of a better future for us all.
The SNP have every right to decline any candidate, and in Craig’s case I think it was due to his statement that “my voice within the party will be against any coalition agreement with Labour or Tories.”
At Westminster the SNP will have to do deals with others, and bite the bullet on some unsavoury issues, but I really hope that Nicola Sturgeon understands that removing the Bedroom Tax, like getting rid of Trident, is non-negotiable.
If the SNP are going to end up as part of a coalition at Westminster after the next election, they are going to need a very disciplined set of MPs to pursue Scottish interests there. It seems like Craig Murray couldn’t promise to be part of that, so it’s reasonable not to take him on as a candidate.
The fact he has immediately gone public to attempt to cause embarrassment when the SNP didn’t select him, shows they made the right decision.
Personally I’d have thought less of the SNP if they’d taken him on as a candidate – it would have looked as if they were looking for controversy/spectacle, which is not what we need.
The last time I had a failed job interview I didn’t immediately take to social media to trash the reputation of the company that turned me down. I worked on the principle that there may be future opportunities with that company.
No doubt this little difference of opinion will be splashed all over the unionist press and touted as a ‘Blow for Sturgeon’.
@ Dave McEwan Hill
The big irony here is that there will be a portion of the 75,000(ish) new SNP members quite excited to be taking part in hustings and for the first time in their lives feel part of the political process.
That’s the big story here, not one person’s disappointment that he wasn’t suited for the job.
There’s going to be many candidates hit with questions far harder, tougher (and yes, some will be sillier) than Craig had to answer simply because there has been an explosion in the democratic process within the SNP and other Yes parties. That’s not a criticism, that’s what happens when you get such an incredible number of new people wanting to take part in the SNP and the political process. That means a lot of disappointed guys and gals who won’t get selected but that is the process. It’s a selection. I can understand people being unhappy (I’ve no doubt I’ll be consoling some of them) at failing to get selected, but come the fuck on! Ye kent fine well ye might no get it. Enough with the petted lip for those who didn’t make the grade because we simply won’t have time for it as the campaigning starts in earnest again in the new year.
I truly believe that what Scottish/UK/World politics need are more individuals not less.
Playing follow the leader, when the leader wants to rob you and enrich his friends at the same time is foolish.
More individual voices should be heard, else who will be there to speak of tyranny when the time comes?
Wouldn’t it be logical for the party manifesto be finalised before the selection of candidates?
Then, any candidate who didn’t agree with anything in the manifesto could be honestly and openly rejected.
A question on the bedroom tax was obviously a trick question given the opposition to it in Scotland.
Well done Craig Murray for yet again standing up to your principles and not lying to get selected.
The SNP must be disciplined but also remain honest. If everyone is expected to follow the party line no matter what, what is the difference between the SNP and one nation Labour?
Candidates must agree on core principles but be free to exercise their conscience. Craig Murray is 100% behind the very reason for the SNP’s existence. If it is not too late, I would like the rejection to be reversed.
I haven’t quite finished reading the comments about Craig Murray and the bedroom tax, but I think a point that everyone has missed so far is that the bedroom tax is mitigated against in Scotland by the Scottish Government to the tune of £50 million, and I think that’s 100%.
Any MP, whether SNP, Independent of even Lab, their first responsibility should be to their constituents, not to themselves or their own views, and if the SNP decided any policy was for the benefit of Scotland then the MP’s first thoughts should be “is this of benefit to my constituents?”.
Clearly Craig Murray put his own beliefs first, and I would disqualify him just on that basis – as unsuitable to represent a constituency. let alone a solid successful political party.
On top of that clearly that question wasn’t the only one asked, there would have been several others, and it could be his answer to any one of those, or his background where he wrote a blog specifically about a “member of the public” he was in dispute with – it might be a constituent next time – and also his attitude to the 55% NO voters, which isn’t going to help advance the cause of the SNP for more powers up to Devo-Max, nor even of Independence itself.
Without a significant number of the NO voters changing their mind, even a referendum every week would only ever return a NO vote. Insulting NO voters is completely a “NO-NO”, and I’d also disqaiify him on that basis if I wwas on a panel for the SNP.
If it’s any consolation, I doubt I’d pass such an interview either. I too am a maverick, and my only recourse would probably be as an Independent candidate – or for “The Maverick Party”.
Interesting that they can’t admit to fighting the SNP, might be because it’s a uk wide fundraiser but also it hints at a lack of certainty about grassroots pro-uk support.
Amazing how much detail people claim to have about an interview.
Dozens of people all acquired accounts of a private interview shortly after it took place.
…I very much doubt it!
Internet gossip cut and pasted from blog to blog.
I think too many people have forgotten what we are trying to achieve. I supported Craig Murray but if the panel (who I also respect) did not chose him the matter is closed.
A fair society is the aim and we need an organisation that can deliver it.
The objective is more important than anyone.
@ Stoker, 10:51pm
Is there proof that particular information was leaked to the Scotsman or were they on a “phishing” expedition?
Even if info had been leaked, my first reaction would not have been to go public, but, to refer it back to the party for inquiry, that is, if I was concerned about my cause rather than my ego. If there was no response at all from the party, I would then consider what to do next.
Having read Craig’s submission, etc., I am not surprised that he was rejected. His reaction compared to that of others seems over the top and has handed ammunition to unionists. Just look at the way it has been received elsewhere when really it is a non-story about someone who has not passed muster. I think it is vengeful and that disappoints me more than anything because I am an admirer of Craig Murray.
A question on the bedroom tax was obviously a trick question given the opposition to it in Scotland.
Well done Craig Murray for yet again standing up to your principles and not lying to get selected.
One moment its a “trick” question, the next he has principles. This was nothing about the bedroom Tax – The SNP vote against it at Westminster every time there is a vote. Its Labour that either fail to turn up or abstain.
Sorry to pick on you Rock as there are others also not seeing the irony in this. its a test of party loyalty – when the chips are down and the party whip needs you to vote in a certain way – what would you do?
There might actually be a good reason to vote for something if you can then defeat it at the next session.
This interview is about representing your constituents and the SNP in the House of commons in Westminster. You need to be capable of being a team player – if you vote against any motions that the party whip tells you to then you are jeopardising something bigger than just your personal views on a single subject.
MPs are the foot soldiers on the front line – if you are not up to the job then you should not even be there.
Clearly Craig Murray put his own beliefs first, and I would disqualify him just on that basis
Haha fucking ha. Join the party, leave your reasons and beliefs at the door. Just toe the line and you’ll do well!
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.”
“There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother.
Orwell 1984
Which other aspiring candidate has had a campaign against his suitability as a candidate? There was a time when Alex Salmond was considered by the high heid yins as unsuitable material.
It seems the SNP is stating loud and clear that the ‘party’ is above personalities.
I hope it wasn’t merely playing to a vociferous gallery.
Another point. They are also the beliefs of the SNP. Should the SNP disqualify itself from politics?
I am really pissed at this, it is an SNP decision and a mistake. Why? because not everyone on the Yes side was a supporter of Independence but most would vote SNP in 2015.
Not accepting candidates because they tell the truth is a mistake. Troughers and those of self interest would simply have said YES to the question through lying teeth.
Who do you really want representing your interests?
A honest man with principles or a toady that will say anything.
Perhaps Craig Murray is better suited to be a candidate in Scottish elections than Westminster ones. The Scottish system allows for a more democratic selection and representation of views. The first past the post system requires somewhat robotic behaviour to function and so party discipline has to be enforced.
Maybe he could run in Berwick as a candidate for the Scotland’s New Port party.
Personally I am pessimistic about winning by playing the system and think that some kind of UDI is going to be inevitable – but I hope I’m wrong. Murray is right that devo max won’t do it – Scotland is already or about to start paying for the Unionist’s new base in Bahrain – obvious he needs a war to rally the peasants.
Ah well, as a conspiracy fan Murray should at least be happy that his reaction to the devastation of, er, not being selected, has provoked some unionist fifth columinists to reveal their true colours. Or is that too far fetched even for Craig? 😉
@ Clootie, 11:34pm
Exactly and if the Scotsman came fishing for a story, all he had to do was tell them it was a matter for the party, so “no comment”. If leaked, it is also a matter for the party.
@Derick Tulloch @10.05, great post, and I’m really sorry you didn’t get through, as just reading that, you are very mature and thoughtful.
I was on the fence about this issue, as I admire Craig Murray, but your post has made up my mind!
I was always one to be out on a limb, but you are right, the party’s might will only be achieved by its unity, and it is why I joined SNP!.
Sorry thepner,
A honest man with principles or a toady that will say anything.
He demonstrated that he did not have principles working in a team environment.
If he did then Craig Murray would not be all over twitter and as many blogs as he is. He has made him self a liability to the whole Independence movement. None of this shit needed to be aired in public.
Dozens of candidates will not be selected to represent the SNP for a whole host of reasons. Craig Murray is only one person who has failed to make the grade. The reasons for this decision should rightly remain within the SNP and the selection committee.
Well I guess SNP members can cease all future reference to career politicians in the Conservative & Labour Party.
Silver linings and all that.
Look, the guy’s got a big mouth, he’s self opinionated, he’s a sulker, do you need anymore flaming evidence of anybody’s unsuitability for anything that requires a bit of even personality and temperament, this guy’s a liability..Now, as you just read that who got annoyed real quick, I don’t know this man but i have read his stuff, nothing wrong there, but do you see the SNPs point, if i can annoy you in half a dozen words of print, what can he do even accidentally live on the telly.. I am Alex Salmond…
Well I guess SNP members can cease all future reference to career politicians in the Conservative & Labour Party.
Silver linings and all that.
How come? Because Craig Murray became the news today for being one of many that did not pass a selection process?
Do we all have to bow down to Craig Murray? I happen to think that he has done some good work, has some admirable views – but he – like dozens of others didn’t make the grade at the end of the day.
This has absolutely nothing to do with a Yes or No question. Its something like a four interview that all candidates go through for this SNP candidate process. Its only Craig that has narrowed things down to a single bedroom tax question – I doubt very much if anyone would fail for one single reason.
Adrian B,
“This interview is about representing your constituents and the SNP in the House of commons in Westminster.”
“Sorry to pick on you Rock as there are others also not seeing the irony in this.”
What about the irony in your own comment?
You can either be like Labour clones who followed the party line and voted for an illegal war AGAINST the wishes of their constituents.
Or you can be like Robin Cook who resigned from the party on a matter of principle, and probably was murdered as a result.
The whole point of a constituency MP is to act according to the wishes of your constituents and not simply tow the party line, unless it was in the manifesto.
If Craig Murray was elected as an SNP MP and his constituents were dead against the bedroom tax, would you expect him to vote for it if the SNP made a deal with Labour and supported the bedroom tax even if they were against it in their manifesto?
As I said, party discipline is for core issues. The core issue of both the SNP and Craig Murray is Scottish independence, as is ours.
The SNP might have had other issues with Craig Murray. But to reject him on a hypothetical question about the bedroom tax is dishonest in my view.
Democracy and freedom cannot be achiieved in this way – that is why we don’t have them despite decades of Labour dominance in Scotland.
The wording would be more appropriate to England although Labour will raise the Tory ‘bogeyman’ in an effort to polarise the Scottish vote – or should I say deceive the voters into believing they will save us from the Tories by voting Labour. If Labour was the strong political force it was thought to be then funding would not be required. Laziness, taking voters for granted and plain abuse of the system have lead to this. I have never been canvassed by Labour and in local, Scottish, WM and Euro elections can count on one hand the leaflets I’ve received. They’ve assumed us to be a block vote whilst doing nothing for us.
As nobody except for the vetting panel knows the story here and they are not going to indulge in any public conversation the debate here is a little pointless.
Some of Craig Murray’s views are very controversial indeed and dangerously politically naive.
@ Rock
Craig is a big boy now – he is well able to handle himself in the real world. This whole sorry episode has nothing to do with the bedroom tax.
Adrian B
I’m just stating the fact that the SNP, like the Conservative & Labour Party, are a large, serious and professional political Party.
They all select and prefer candidates that will follow the Party line.
It’s one less thing to differentiate on. I used to like the old “broad church” stuff. I guess the enthusiastic Party member will see this as progress.
In my view at least this has been a sad day for those that supported Independence and just as importantly a different kind of politics.
What is the point of Independence if the same party political system is allowed to remain?
I want change but not for the sake of change but in order to make a real difference. How can we make a real difference when we exclude independent voices, can you answer me that?
If anyone still thinks the SNP made the wrong decision go over to the thread on Scot goes Pop and read what Stoat ( a unionist troll) has to say on the matter. S/He confirms Morag’s theory that the press would have had a field day.
Rev, are you putting in a complaint to note to the Advertising Standards Authority? Or do you want a crowd of us to do it?
and I have no idea why so many of you are banging on about Craig Murray. If he failed MP selection then let him try for a 2016 nomination. Yawn.
We should be focusing on figuring out how to have the SNP adopt 2 Green/SNP candidates in exchange for an electoral pact – and maybe a soc or two as well
OR a pledge to make the Greens 1st pref in the list come 2016 in exchange for their support at constituency level in 2015
Or a combination of both.
Murray McCallum,
Craigs worst trait seems to be that he has managed to shit on his own doorstep. The SNP have had by any accounts an overwhelming number of new members and new candidates for Westminster.
Like any growing organisation the forward planning has begun for the future. The 2015 election is only a handful of months away and candidates are required to fill seats from all across Scotland. Many did not make the grade – Craig is only one of them.
I wish Craig well for the future but I do not think that he has handled his belief of self entitlement to the post and the SNP well.
Craig can be a worthy part of the fight for Independence – but he also has to realise that at present the SNP are in a position (sty least in the short term) to maximise on the powers that come the the Scottish Government.
The more meaningful powers that they have available to them as soon as possible then the better for Scotland as a whole.
Craig believes that these extra powers are not as good as Independence – but has failed to notice that Independence is not on offer due to a lack of support on September 18th 2014 at polling stations all over Scotland.
I want Independence – BUT for now we must extract all the meaningful power from Westminster that we can. Independence will come.
Craig Murray needs to learn quickly about the reasons behind questions – some people were asked a question about the bedroom tax, in other parts of the country the questions have been different but the psychology is the same.
Expect to be asked very difficult questions for a job at £30,000 in the Private sector. If £65,000 + expenses paid from public money is on offer and you are representing Nicola Sturgeon in Westminster then expect a tough ride.
This is not a free gig to people that have their own blogs.
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.
Albert Einstein
Thepnr,
I want change but not for the sake of change but in order to make a real difference. How can we make a real difference when we exclude independent voices, can you answer me that?
I wish that Craig had not made a meal of this whole process. He is NOT entitled to be the one person that rises above all of the others to represent his constituency, wider Scottish public and the SNP in Westminster without going through a valid process of selection to secure the best candidate for the job.
Thepnr
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.
So why should Craig Murray rise above the talent and ability of all other candidates to secure the post of SNP candidate for a seat in the the Falkirk area?
@Adrian B
Am I wrong in stating that he was offered an opportunity to put himself forward as a candid date both in Falkirk and Airdrie as well as 17 other constituencies?
The point is. in my view at least, better candidates are hard to come by. Why do you think the SNP are riding so high in the polls? I doubt that it is due to decisions like this.
It’s clear we don’t see eye to eye on this subject, I would prefer my elected official to think for themselves and not have to kow-tow to anyone.
Thepnr
Nobody who watched the SNP 2012 Conference debate on TV about NATO membership would have any doubt that members, MPs and MSPs definitely do think and have their own opinions. The vote in the end was just 52% in favour of supporting full NATO membership as opposed to Partners for Peace.
Yet the Party got on with it, accepting the democratic vote, and got behind the policy. There were some exceptions for whom NATO was clearly more important to them than the Party they belonged to – 2 MSP resigned from the SNP, some councillors.
And that’s the point isn’t it? As an individual I can have views on absolutely everything, and probably nobody on this planet will have exactly the same set of views as I do. If I make common cause with anyone, WE are going to have to compromise on some issues. Well, some of my views are not that important to me, but some are. Some wuld be show-stoppers, others I can shrug my shoulders, and compromise for what is more important to me.
As far as the SNP is concerned, I’m not anti-Trident particularly, it’s for others to decide if we need it. I also don’t agree with the new drink-driving limit, partly because we get a lot of tourists from England who drive to Scotland, perhaps having stopped for lunch along the way.
But none of those is as important to me as Independence so I joined the SNP – first party ever – to support the cause, even though there are some policies I disagree with.
As a member that’s fine, but if I want to be an elected office bearer for the SNP I would realise that I would, mostly, have to toe the line, though I daresay if there was one or two issues I couldn’t support, then as long as I “let them know” in advance, the review panel could decide if that mattered – or not.
The bedroom tax question was not a genuine question, it was as Rolfe says on Scot Goes Pop, designed to see how the candidate could justify either a yes or a no, to see how thet handl;e such a situation. If, and it’s a big if, CM’s response to that question had anything at all to do with his failing to be selected, then it’s not his “no” answer that failed, it’s the way he handled it.
As others have said, he showed himself, especially with his silly blog entries and apparently his facebook outburst, to be entirely unsuitable as a candidate for public office for any political party, and thank goodness it’s happened now before he’s done any real damage.
@yesindyref2
It’s funny because I mostly agree with you. However what’s the difference between toeing the line and stepping over the line?
Just obeying orders so not guilty?
I can’t help but think he has taken the bait of a journalist fishing exercise, with prospective candidates announcing their approval by the SNP left, right and centre all over social media it doesn’t take a genius to work out that Craig’s silence in this area meant he did not get approval. If bait was taken without referring back to the party spokespersons then that, regardless of the subsequent blog post, illustrates a certain naivety and perhaps a lack of respect for matters of process. He is now a member of a political party applying for approval to represent that party, its members and members of the public within a constituency, a party that’s facing a hostile media for which any chink in their armour will be fully exploited. Whatever the merits of his candidacy and the strength of his character, those would seem to have been overshadowed today by a demonstrable lack of judgement. Talk about giving the other side a stick to hit us with… in fact they don’t need to hit us at all because one side of the yes movement is lashing out at the other side today because of one failed candidacy application, jeez
@Indigo
Let’s get something straight. All evidence to date shows that Craig Murray joined the SNP and applied to stand as a candidate for election.
A panel of senior SNP members decided in their wisdom that said candidate was not to their liking.
Why? that is the question and I doubt we know the truth.
You may not like the other side of the Independence movement lashing out but that is the reality. Should the SNP be immune from criticism for their decisions?
No one should be immune from criticism, else what’s the point?
Thepnr,
In my view at least this has been a sad day for those that supported Independence and just as importantly a different kind of politics.
I am actually looking for a different kind of politics. I do think that it is possible to achieve – but we must get away from Westminster to have the best chance of this becoming a reality. It cannot happen until we do because the Westminster way of politics will be forced upon us from the other Unionist parties. Its how they all work – right down to council elections. It can get better but we really have to keep fighting against WM parties and the media. We must bring people from our local communities on side.
What is the point of Independence if the same party political system is allowed to remain?
Independence is about making the decisions in our own Parliament for the people of Scotland. Achieving a better way of conducting policy and politics in that Parliament can happen if we shape it that way.
I want change but not for the sake of change but in order to make a real difference. How can we make a real difference when we exclude independent voices, can you answer me that?
At least let me try – not convinced that I can actually have the all singing all dancing answer. Perhaps longer term dialogue may help.
First of all I wish to say that i feel that the Scottish Government has done some really effective work with the rather mean and minor powers that it actually has. The way that John Swinney has managed the Scottish budget is quite extraordinary in the last few years. Things could have been much much worse – my brother spends about £150 (effectively a tax for his illness) every month on medicine as he is living in the South of England. Further education is much more accessible in Scotland due to not having silly fees for people wanting to improve their levels of education. Free bus passes and other things are helping many in Scotland make life easier.
I think that the voices of many people are listened to by Government. They actively want to hear voices from the third sector on many parts of policy and they are much more opening and welcoming about it than I think we have ever seen in the past.
Craig has a voice, he has a blog – he talks and listens to people here too. He reads the comments even if he does not have the time to comment on every subject. I have seen Alex Salmond a few times and observed him at a few events. One thing that I can say is that he listens and he has made absolutely sure that Nicola will do the same.
The Greens listen to people as do the SSP – and I think that right now it is important that voices are heard. There is a limitation to all this listening though – sometimes you will find that just as in family life decisions go against you in certain instances. This is not the system failing – it is the system working.
I actually have the same weakness in my mind to – sometimes I feel that this might not be possible, but that is just what the unionist want us to feel. They use the bigger force mantra that we saw in the Indyref campaign. The one were subjecting your opponents to a bigger brute force power is the way to achieve the desired effects. I am so tired of this method – I want hope.
I do hope that you are active in politics locally. You are a good man with decent qualities and a willingness to help others with less than you. I think that you have probably done a great deal of worthwhile work that has not seen these pages over that last few years.
@thepnr
Alex – I appreciate where you are coming from, but let me throw you a hypothetical question…
You are an SNP MP. In exchange for SNP support, the UK government has offered to scrap Trident, but only if the SNP supports the bedroom tax AND agrees a cut in the minimum wage. (It’s hypothetical, OK?). In a collective decision, the SNP group at Westminster has decided this is a price worth paying.
Are you going to vote with them or against them?
thepnr
“However what’s the difference between toeing the line and stepping over the line?”
As a member of a party (first time ever), that’s something I’m unlikely to have to worry about. If I was to put myself up as a candidate, it’s something I’d have to find out about first, and then have to think about!
Nearly 3 years ago I had a discussion btl in the Guardian about this, and my view was that I’d never join a party because I’d be unable to toe the line on all their policies. The answer was that if everyone thought that way, there’d be no parties, no common cause, and no progress. That if I agree mostly, then I should join and work within the party on those things I disagreed with.
Well, I’ve already expressed my opinions at a couple of meetings, and been well received if not agreed with (or disagreed with), so it seems to be a good idea so far. I think the SNP is democratic, certainly in my branch, and perhaps my main interest is to change it if neccessary, to make it even more so.
I guess the bottom line is taht if we live in a democracy, we have to accept the will of the majority (except perhaps for a few redline issues). It’d be the same by and large, in a democratic political party.
Of course the party shouldn’t be immune from criticism, especially criticism by its members to whom the party is answerable – but Craig has made an internal party process a topic of public discussion, why? What does he hope to achieve by this?
In doing so I believe he has demonstrated a lack of judgement in his handling of the situation. I’m a new member of the SNP, I’ve attended branch meetings and been on a steep learning curve with regards to party comms these past few weeks. Whatever anyone’s opinions of procedures and processes and management, surely it must be recognised that it is this careful and cautious approach that delivered the majority which delivered the referrendum in the first place? That caution should be respected even if not agreed with.
To apparently so disrespect the management, coordination, judgement and professionalism of the organisation he sought to represent by posting a blog with such an accusational tone I find, frankly, puzzling for someone with his experience.
@Adrian B
Truce called for. We really are not that different, I had hoped for more from the SNP who I intend to support in 2015.
It worries me that if they can alienate a decent(though controversial) man for what appears to be petty politicking then they may also alienate 1000’s of others.
That is my fear.
thepnr (response to indigo)
Personally I don’t see any harm in one side of the Indy movement disagreeing with the other. One of the mainstays of a lot of Indy postings I’ve read is a desire to see more democracy for Scotland.
Well, one of the fundamentals of democracy is argument, a good old-fashioned rammy! Otherwise we’d all be sheep. Baaaaaaa!
The Scotsman has really taken a hatchet to the Murray story, wait until you see it. Labour are now calling on SNP to make their position on the Bedroom Tax clear, and saying SNP are taking up with the Tories.
Comments are predictable – control freakery. No room for individuals etc.
Gonna be bad today :((
@kininvie
You may have picked the wrong question for me!
Although I would scrap Trident in an instant I would never agree to a cut in the minimum wage and keeping the bedroom tax.
People in the immediacy are much more important than Trident which will not be renewed anyway, by any government IMO.
And they’ve used Craig’s words as a weapon against the party he applied to represent, thought he was smarter than this tbh, responding to provocation from a unionist newspaper in the way he did leads to entirely predictable results
Thepnr,
Am I wrong in stating that he was offered an opportunity to put himself forward as a candid date both in Falkirk and Airdrie as well as 17 other constituencies?
I thought it was about three in total that he was nominated for. The one that he went for did not pass him through to the end of the process. I do not know the actually reasons although I do have my own thoughts that I aired earlier. Having a well known name that was big on UDI meant that Craig would need to work harder.
The point is. in my view at least, better candidates are hard to come by. Why do you think the SNP are riding so high in the polls? I doubt that it is due to decisions like this.
Craig has the capacity to be a real thorn in the establishment side at Westminster. Of that I have no doubt what so ever.
It’s clear we don’t see eye to eye on this subject, I would prefer my elected official to think for themselves and not have to kow-tow to anyone.
All elected officials must think for themselves. Perhaps Craig didn’t manage to convince the people that he needed to that he was up to this task. If Craig had put out a quiet press release on his blog to say that he had not progressed in the selection process to the end a wished the other candidates well then I could have had better respect for him. As things stand he has managed to annoy me and is quite content in trying to derail the process.
Who ever now wins the right to stand in this seat has a poisoned chalice and the media will compare them to CM, bring up the SNP process and generally move the story from local needs to SNP BAD.
Job done – CM couldn’t have done all this if he had joined the labour party and campaigned for JM to be leader.
@Adrian B
Sorry but that last post really did make me LOL. Pointing the finger of blame at Craig Murray is easy for SNP supporters as they believe in their leaders.
For the rest of us, well maybe we see it from a different perspective. Not everything is as simple as Black and White.
Can’t the SNP share some of the blame for the shit that will be thrown in our direction in the media tomorrow.
In my view they should, they are the other half of the story,
@valerie.
The perverse thing here is that those in the media who know it was never about the bedroom tax will still tell those readers it was, and people will believe such crap
Thepnr,
Truce called for. We really are not that different, I had hoped for more from the SNP who I intend to support in 2015.
Agreed – although I never felt we were really against each other. We have a different perspective on things. Sorry if I came across as combative, it was not the intention.
It worries me that if they can alienate a decent(though controversial) man for what appears to be petty politicking then they may also alienate 1000’s of others.
That is my fear.
CM has been a British ambassador – I do not really think that this is anywhere near the scope of things that Craig has had to deal with. This is actually rather minor in comparison. He might not like or agree with the process of SNP MP selection but everyone else that has entered has to go through the same process.
Don’t treat Craig as being precious – I doubt he would like it much ;D. Politics can be a rough game – prospective candidates should not be given an easy time. Westminster opposition parties can be notoriously nasty. The Lib Dems are the worst.
As long as a fair contest has happened – I doubt there will be much to really complain about. The May General election is going to come around very fast.
@thepnr
Well, there you go, Alex – but you didn’t actually acknowledge the bit in my question about the fact that there had already been a collective (ie democratic) decision. And that, of course is the crucial point in all of this wretched business about CM.
Like you, I loved the free-for-all anarchy of the Yes campaign. But the next phase requires a killing, disciplined focus in a hostile environment. And those who can’t stomach the need to hold their noses and vote are better out of it. And that applies to Craig M, me and probably you too. There’s no lack of stuff to do.
Would i agree with Craig Murray on many issues he discusses ?
Absolutely.
Would i vote for Craig Murray to be my local MP if he represented the SNP but i thought he was a liability ?
If i say i would not vote for him based on my personal view of him and we miss out on a WM majority of Scottish seats by my non vote based on not liking a candidate, would i also be a hero of principle, or condemned as a principled fool who cost his team/country the chance to make 5 million lives better ?
Sorry but that last post really did make me LOL. Pointing the finger of blame at Craig Murray is easy for SNP supporters as they believe in their leaders.
Hold on – you are the one that supports the SNP – I do not. I support the end goal of Independence. I just know procedure from every day life.
For the rest of us, well maybe we see it from a different perspective. Not everything is as simple as Black and White.
That is not a bad thing – but sometimes people like to view things in that manner to understand the options better without getting involved in the actual issues.
Can’t the SNP share some of the blame for the shit that will be thrown in our direction in the media tomorrow.
In my view they should, they are the other half of the story,
I don’t think we should blame them just because a man that did not get selected is. I will not pick up my pitchfork with out asking some questions and looking at the subject after taking a step back. Its better to take in a wider view at the beginning.
@Andrew
I’m still on side my friend, deflected often but steadfast. 🙂
link to heraldscotland.com
Craig Murphy failed to gain his local nomination. Hutcheon mixing it.
Is this is the trouble he can cause in the election process, what trouble he would cause if he had been chosen. Playing right into the Unionist hands. What a loser. He did not deserve the nomination. The cause is greater than one person. Mavericks can never see the end game. He should hang his head in shame.
And the unionists will be loving this; the Yessers are fighting amongst themselves. Of course Craig Murray is entitled to be disappointed, hurt, angry but using social media to deal with it doesn’t seem to me to be a statesman-like approach. All we have as a result is something for the unionists and the media to use as a stick to beat us.
Self interested, self serving Murray doesn’t deserve the nomination. Try joining another Party, looks like the Unionists would have him. Much like a typical Unionists. He helps their cause. Who would join a Unionist Party in Scotland, but only in self interest.
Derick , thank you for your information , sorry you didn’t get selected you sound very much to my taste in candidates.
Those who create and then believe their own hype are not to my taste – no matter how much I enjoy what they have to say.
Individual thought is for discussion, debate and reaching conclusions which then become part of reasoned manifestos.
I assume the best man or woman became the SNP candidate.
The bedroom tax has already been mitigated in Scotland, thanks to the SNP, who had to ask Westminster’s permission. How absurd in that, it was Labour/Unionsts who introduced it. Scotland has not even enough powers to run the country for the good of the people. It costs more than it saves. Scotland have to put up with Westminster’s secrecy and lies. Unionists politicans can’t even read a balance sheet. Unionists politicians attack the poor and vulnerable and reward the wealthy, for the trouble they cause.
I haven’t kept much abreast of this Craig Murray stushie, but it seems to me to be a storm in a tea cup. I mean I’ve got some time for Mr Murray, however what about those SNP members who have served their party for years, went through the same selection process and yet were still not selected?
Is anyone asking why they were not selected? Does anyone care? Is it only because Mr Murray has some profile that folk feel he should have been selected or preferred over others? Should he have been a shoe in because of his writing and past record, impressive as both may be, or should the criteria be that much more strict for all?
I’m sure a lot of dedicated SNP members didn’t get selected, so what’s the gripe about? If Mr Murray is a believer in independence he’ll dust off, sit out his time on the subs bench and get on with it like the rest of us, perhaps even stand as an independent. Either way people have much greater issues facing them out there than this.
A wee point.I have known Ian Hudghton for many years.He has worked extremely hard for our cause and I have no doubts about his commitment to it.I am happy to accept the decision of his panel re Craig Murray because he has a huge breadth of experience in such matters.I am disappointed that Craig Murray has chosen to publicly throw his toys out of the pram.It vindicates the decision made by the panel.He has many qualities and abilities,but lacks some which are essential for an SNP candidate.He has a view of the way forward which is contrary to that endorsed by conference and has made it plain he will follow his own agenda rather than that endorsed by conference.It would have been a bit of a slap in the face to myself and many other members who have gone through the democratic,sometimes tedious and time consuming,process of developing consensus and forming policy had he been selected.
A big Thankyou to all the people who do so much work at branch level and throughout the party.Good luck and best wishes to Craig Murray.
Ken500 says:
28 December, 2014 at 6:43 am
Craig didn’t get selected…let it go!
I do not understand this level of personal attack on someone who made such a major positive contribution during the Referendum debate.
There are hypothetical interview questions and there are simply daft ones – this bedroom tax one fits the latter – and now it has given ample ammunition to Labour etc. With so many new members, so many people seeking candidacy approval, it was always a risk information about the process would leak out,surely.
And having read the P Hutcheon Herald story it’s rather disappointing to see the SNP, like New Labour, are just as likely to parachute in favoured candidates with no local connection. Some I understand standing in multiple ‘SNP should win’ seats. Such an unedifying element of party politics, it’s something I’d have hoped a party like the SNP would be against.
I can only hope the thousands of new members won’t fall for it and choose the best person for their seat.
And only one point on Craig Murray (I wasn’t at the selection so haven’t a clue what happened) it seems he’s been an SNP member for 3 years, not just joined as some folks seem to think.
Seasons G’s everybuddy.
Regarding article, you could always send Ed a cheque (on behalf of the people of Scotland) to the magnificent sum of zero pounds, zero pence only (£0.00).
A bit like the nothing minus that Scotland received from Westminster as a Merry December day present.
I wonder if a cheque like that would even go through? 😉
I have experience of the selection process several years ago and can confirm it is rigorous and exhaustive. I was invited to express my views on any aspect of Party policy on which I disagreed In my case it was the monarchy- I made it through vetting my point being dissent is expected. I understand the disappointment but her has to put it beind him as many others have
Valerie @ 11.59 and Dorothy @ 8.07
Thank you. Really appreciate that.
To clarify one point. This was not the actual selection that we are talking about, but the very first part of the process. The whole thing is actually pretty robust
1 Application to be added to the approved candidates list (this is the part that I, Mr Murray, and many many others did not make it through). This time.
2 Nomination for the seat. Prospective candidates on the approved list then need to be nominated to be able to put themselves forward for any particular constituency. You need either a branch within the constituency, or 10 individual members to put you forward
3 Selection by the constituency. Nominated candidates are voted for, or not, by individual members. One member one vote.
So in my constituency we now have 9 approved, nominated, candidates from whom we have to choose. Of that at least 4 are absolutely top notch. That’s what the process is intended to do.
I have never met Mr Murray, but by all accounts he is an able fellow and should make a good candidate. Many an MP, MSP, MEP, Cooncillor, etc, did not make the election process first time around and had to find another constituency. It is hard to beat the local worthies who have worked the area for years and should not be taken personally.
Mr Murray should know better when dealing with the press, specially Mr Hutcheon who will be all friendly on the phone and then stick the knife in. His years of dealing with the British Diplomatic Corps should tell him that.
Best of luck to you sir and good luck next time. Please, please, make sure there is a next time. I have a bundle of excellent candidates to chose from in Maryhill and I would not wish to upset anyone. I just hope the chosen one will cause as much mayhem among Labour’s ranks as I might have done.
Anybody in need of a good laugh (or maybe cry) should proceed to the Telegraph Scotland Section and read the the article by Bruce Anderson which is the most astonishing load of patronising uninformed total bollocks.
I’m sure that Rev Stu could usefully comment on it.
There are also some other articles worth a read in the Section in particular the one about how Milliband was banned from Labour’s eve of referendum rally. It may explain why Holyrood’s reigning ‘Debater Of The Year’ was knifed shortly thereafter and has since been disappeared.
It’s well worthwhile keeping an eye on what The Guys In The Black Hats are up to in the media.
Murray didn’t get selected, he should let it go. If he can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. He did no more than many people in the Referendum debate. Or is he above the criticism, he demands for free speech. Many people in the SNP and others did more to campaign and get the Referendum on the Agenda.
He should have let it go. If he wants respect he should respect others. If you join a Party or Association follow the rules or don’t join.
Saturday 27th December 2014 on Chris’ cartoon thread @ 2.29pm someone by the username of ‘Mark Wilkinson’ either intentionally or unintentionally derailed the topic of conversation with a blatant falsehood.
He stated that Craig Murray “was turned down for refusing to back the bedroom tax.” He then provides a link for others to visit CM’ blog.
To go off-topic is one thing but to mislead others whilst doing so is a completely different kettle of fish.
_____
Saturday 27th December 2014 @ 5.21pm on this thread, and whilst people were still discussing the CM topic on the other thread, ‘Flower of Scotland’ introduced the CM topic.
The original subject of this thread was and is far more important than some guy not getting a job. The Rev had just exposed The Labour Party again deliberately lying to and misleading the general public in order to extract money from them.
_______
Craig Murray was NOT turned down because he refused to back the bedroom tax. Anyone with the most basic understanding of political interview procedures knows that.
I happen to share Alex Clark’s view on the importance of having people who will speak out but at this stage in the journey the most important factor is making sure we have team players on board or we’ll never reach our destination.
The SNP are about to steer our movement through an extremely critical and dangerous period of our journey (Warminster) and they need to have 100% confidence in their chosen crew when the waters start churning, and churn they will.
Our system is all about “Party Politics”, not the individual.
Lets keep our focus and stop being sidetracked by trivial matters.
And btw, just for the record, to my knowledge the SNP have NEVER stated they would form a coalition with Labour. They have stated, however, that they would be willing to work with them on an issue by issue basis but not at the expense of their more important beliefs such as Trident etc.
@deriktulloch
On your point 2, can the 10 members be non relevant branch connected, as it were?
Looks like we will get the backing of the sun newspaper for the GE
As it will help their agenda of less labour mps
This might be a very good thing
Albalha‘s comment at 9.00am fits well with me.
I’m also surprised at the level of concern that independence supporters have at the the thought of the unionist press launching attacks on individual SNP MPs.
Why don’t they get Alan Cochrane (or someone from the Mail) to vet their potential candidates in the selection process?
Albahala 9.00
10 members from any branch within the constituency can nominate a candidate for that constituency.
And then the nominated candidates have to get elected by the membership. Nobody, however high profile, is entitled just to waltz in to a seat. This is not the Labour Party
The Sun just supports more sales of the Sun. Falling Sales? Total greedy opportunists. Criminal evil Murdoch, the Reptile.
How much is a whisker?
Presumably if another email arrives then it has a different order of magnitude down south?
Poll, voter intentions and opinions looking good ….
link to heraldscotland.com
The significant thing has to be that voters say Smith isn’t enough and the SNP, in sufficient numbers, can extract more powers.
@mealer 8.26, You opinion on the selection block of CM is spot on. While I really enjoy listening to Craig speaking, and agree on many issues, this is Party politics. Unfortunately his public reaction does vindicate the SNP committee.
Don’t you just love the unionist press. Our area had Craig Murray as a speaker in an early Referendum public meeting and contacted the press, but none were interested enough in him, despite his colourful past, to mention the meeting.
Now he is front page news.
Thanks @dericktulloch.
Fair point re SNP/Labour difference which I’m aware of. I suppose though it’s the idea that central HQ will try and influence who gets nominated in particular seats, basically the more winnable ones rather than perhaps a candidate standing in an area of relevance to them.
That’s party politics of course.
In 25 years I have never seen any evidence of HQ attempting to parachute in ‘favoured’ candidates. The membership wouldn’t stand for that for a single nanosecond!
The only thing that strikes me as ‘off’ about the Murray story is the bit about Scotsman reporters apparently having been briefed about the story by the SNP (and that is Craig’s explanation for why he made a fuss about it on his blog).
If that’s true, it’s disappointing.
Plus, I know discipline is needed in a serious political party but there’s the risk you end up with a party full of talent-less, moral-less and personality-less drones like Scottish Labour, if you reject anyone with a shred of personal integrity. Just saying.
@ Anyone.
Can someone put up the “archive” link, i have accidentally deleted the one in my bookmarks.
Ta much.
🙂
I’d like to wish Craig Murray the best of luck. We’ve all had our moments with the No voters – I myself called them the greedy, the gullible or the gutless. However I realise that approach is doomed as we need a majority to get indy through. I’d like to see him stand as an Independent candidate in one of those labour strongholds that the SNP would be unlikely to win. Who knows? Another Martin Bell? He’s a man of freedom and principle and as such needs to be unfettered (I imagine) by party whips etc? It would be good to see him in Westminster sticking it to the establishment!
Although we all know that the No vote won by 55% it’s been mentioned on this site that when the whole electorate was included then only 46% voted to stay in the Union – not exactly a thumbs up for Great Britain? That’s a minority for the status quo and that’s what is rattling them. And let’s face it that was a poor result when they had the might of the BBC and MSM behind them. 2014 was about exposing them for what they are – a bunch of manipulative liars – and also for enlightening a huge number of the population to what’s actually going on in the corridors of power. And don’t forget what’s going on elsewhere – for example Russel Brand’s “The Trews” now has a higher readership than the Sun.
Next time…
Stoker
link to archive.today
I am very disappointed that CM has not been accepted as a candidate by the SNP. As a new member I hoped that he would be in the team sent to Westminster in May 15.
Mavericks are good for politics as long as they have life enhancing principles.
I hope he will stand as an Independent like Margo.
Also, the Times votes Nigel Farage “Briton of the Year”.
link to munguinsrepublic.blogspot.co.uk
@Stoker 9.31
What exactly are you complaining about? I was exasperated and annoyed by the amount of bad publicity Craig had engineered on Facebook where there are lots of Independence sites.
As I said before if Craig stands as an Independent for Independence, he will do very well. The SNP is a tightly disciplined party and he is a loose cannon.
However I wish him well and hope that he calms down and continues to be a member of the SNP. We need all kinds of people working for Independence but it is much more than all about one man!
Thank you Marcia.
_________________
Murphy accused of abandoning truth by former Labour spin doc
link to archive.today
Funny that when Craig Murray was attacking the Westminster government over foreign policy, referendum tactics and most recently Jack Straw and rendition flights in UK, he was completely ignored by the BBC /MSM and treated as a nutter perhaps due to British government briefings to editors.
Now he gets headlines when having an egotistical go at the SNP.
Kalmar,
That is indeed the issue. Why, who and with whose authority were the Scotsman briefed about Murray both yesterday and three weeks ago.
Unless the SNP put in their manifesto that they are willing to go into coalition and might thereby support the bedroom tax then their MPs should not be bound to support it. Only manifesto policies should be binding on them.
As they have alleviated the bedroom tax to some Scotland it would be quite immoral to support keeping it in full for the rest of the UK.
Loose cannon or not CM’s knowledge of the backdoors of power, from 20 years in the diplomatic service, is something that would be more than a little advantage to them.
Tight discipline might be important for a small party in establishing themselves but as a major party they can afford it. It is actually an advantage if members are free to express their opinions without checking with HQ.
If the party managers don’t like what was said it is easy enough to say that it is not party policy but members also have their own opinions.
cearc
The “Bedroom Tax” question was merely hypothetical to test candidate’s response to party discipline which has stood the SNP well when as minority administration and potentially in a Westminster hung Parliament after May.
Party managers do not decide who passes vetting and several candidates fail each year or first time round.
I think there was a deal done, Labour didn’t want Murray elected, he would have stood up (under parliamentary privilege if elected) and said things the powers that be don’t want known. The SNP are part of the that establishment, as you ALL will find out in time.
Re the Craig Murray selection – although ‘hypothetical’ the question about the bedroom tax was pretty daft. There was always the chance this would be leaked and used against us, whatever answer was given.
We have the potential scenario for SNP candidates at the hustings in Falkirk, Airdrie and several other constituencies. Question from the audience –
“Craig Murray was the preferred candidate for this constituency but was rejected because he refused to support the bedroom tax, surely that must mean that you and every other candidate selected for the SNP do support this tax. Is this correct?”
I’ve been a member of the SNP for 50 years and have never voted for anyone else. That does not mean that I have agreed with the SNP all of that time. I have written to Alex Salmond and previous leaders many times complaining of policy. After the Referendum, in my desperate disappointment, I wrote to Blair Jenkins And Alex Salmond and accused them of being too soft and trying to be too nice.
However I have always realised that we have to work inside the party to achieve results and that the SNP are the only party that will realise my dream of Independence.
I was very supportive of Craig Murray when there was a discussion on here about him, but I’m afraid he is going to be a bad influence on people who have just joined the SNP. His publicity, on Facebook, about his apparent disappointment at not being selected, shows why he was probably turned down.
We should turn our attention to the Rev,s thread. I am sorry if I interrupted it .
@Jim McIntosh 11:38
and ask yourself “Who leaked that question?”
So, Labour caught red-handed misleading UK Labour party members, whoda thunk it? Given they regularly lie to the entire UK electorate, and the entire population of Scotland, it is not so surprising.
Perhaps a few of the party faithful might now realise they are being sold a dud, and are taken for fools by their ‘leaders’.
Looking forward to the election campaign.
Discipline is important within any party and you only need to look at the shenanigans which went on in Argyll and Bute Council where a number of councillors flung their dummies out of the pram because SNP HQ said not to go into coalition with the Tories and Lib Dems !!
They deserted the SNP, jumped to the independent councillors group, contradiction in terms I know, but responsibility payments, however, aided their conversion. That’s why the selection process is so important. The SNP is inherently democratic so its strategies and process need to be adhered to for the greater goal. So long as we are assured things were done with proper transparency and procedure then democracy within the party is safeguarded. Folk might not like the result and if that’s the case appeal or change the process or indeed join Scottish Labour or the Lib Dems.
I never thought Craig would make an SNP candidate. He’s too outspoken and doesn’t come across as a team player.
That’s not to say that I think these are bad traits, quite the opposite.
I do think he would make a better independent MP who was able to speak his mind without having to take heed of party policy.
I would love to see him in WM. He would be a thorn in the side of the establishment and the more of them the better.
I hope he stands, and with careful choice of constituency I believe he could be elected.
I was surprised at his strop about not being selected. He seems to be unable to cope with any sort of rejection and it is a trait that he himself maybe needs to look at. It is something that a good politician must learn to live with. Things do not always go the way you would like. You have to learn to deal with it and move on. Attempting to trash the source of your rejection is not always the wisest move.
Bang on, X_Sticks.
@Jim McIntosh, we only have Craig Murray’s word that was the reason for his rejection also I’m almost certain I read either on here or on twitter last week that the bedroom tax question was being asked.
Another UD,
Hypothetical or not, unless it was manifesto policy MPs should not be bound to agrree. Especially when it was clearly against not only their own principles but also the wishes of the electorate.
Quite frankly, should the SNP go into a coalition I would never vote for them again.
An uneven coalition (the other party would have far more MPs) would be throwing power away.
A minority would have influence on every vote unless the Tories and Labours combine. That would of course completely destroy what little credence that the Labour Party have left, certainly in Scotland. Despite that I think it is not to be ruled out for the sake of the union.
X_Sticks,
The Scotsman contacted him, they had already been briefed.
link to craigmurray.org.uk
There is a degree of misunderstanding here.
Craig Murray has not been refused a candidacy.
He was not being vetted as a candidate.
He has been considered at this point not a suitable person to be considered for inclusion on a list of applicants for selection as the candidate in a parliamentary seat.
Every seat in Scotland will now have a list of potential SNP candidates and the closing date to be included is the 31st December.
The SNP routinely and sensibly have always resisted the temptation to parachute in candidates with high public profile and prefer to offer approved candidate status to hard working applicants with a record of long term reliable commitment to the party. In the not too distant past, before the SNP became eminently electable, it was only the deeply loyal and committed nationalist that sought candidacy.
As one who has not achieved approval and then subsequently done so I have experienced the system. It is as lot more vigorous now but there are many reasons for any person not being passed.
Essentially candidates are required to have a comprehensive knowledge of party policy, to agree with the vast bulk of it and to be judged able to articulate effectively it in frequently hostile public areas. They also have to disclose truthfully any personal blemishes or misdemeanours and generally to have record of some length and effectiveness in the parties activities.
There will be hustings across the country in the new year and shortly afte wards every party member will have the opportunity to vote for the candidate for their constituency from a list of approved candidates who have all either got minuted branch nomination or the support of ten members resident in that constituency. We have several good guys with obvious energetic party commitment to chose from in Argyll and Bute.
In this OMOV system it is not possible for SNP HQ to enforce any candidate on any constituency (unlike Labour in Gordon Brown’s constituency in which Labour HQ is selecting the candidate, not the local party)
I have read with interest a lot of Craig Murray’s brave battle against the UK establishment. Some of his political views however are a bit scary or just naive. I hope he stays with us however.
But I have to agree with others here. His rush online after being turned down at this point rather undermines his credentials. Many in the past have quietly gone off,dusted themselves down and come back in a wiser position next time
@cearc
Yes, I read that, and it would seem we have a mole in the SNP who is most likely a unionist plant and is out to create division in the pro-independence camp.
Strikes me that we need some transparency over WHO briefed the Hootsman. That might give us some interesting information.
@cearc
I would say this is just the unionist mischief makers, trying to divide and conquer. I believe the Scotsman did the contacting.
I would also urge wingers and all indy supporting people to ignore the allegations of SNP spokesman briefing the press.
If it is so let the Scotsman name the person, I bet the can’t because there isn’t one, they have put a spin on the story.
@annie, I don’t really care that CM was rejected, he is only one candidate, and anyway as you say, I’m sure there was more to his rejection than that. I just think we may have stored up problems later on for the actual candidates in 2015, whether it be in interviews with the MSM or on the hustings.
I wasn’t aware the chance of that question being asked was on twitter last week, but if it was, it shows a lack of foresight by CM not to have a suitable response.
Paula Rose says:
28 December, 2014 at 10:17 am
How much is a whisker?
Over on Scot goes Pop there is a similar thread as to Craig Murray.
Two posters stand out, in particular, Mick Pork and Rolfe.
Mick Pork, easily the most erudite and incisive, saaying that the question really does not have an answer and is designed to see how the recipient responds. Remember that the SNP is a broad church and has jogged along with a range of opinions but a consensual approach to policy.
Rolfe who was pretty vituperative about Craig, which promted him to respond in person and address Rolfe as Morag!
Does Morag have a cat called Rolfe? (Whiskers link?)
I have read Craig Murray’s account of this and I am puzzled at many levels
First: in what circumstances could the situation arise? Labour at Westminster have stated quite clearly that they will scrap the bedroom tax if they form a government.
link to labour.org.uk
Nicola Sturgeon has said in terms that if the SNP hold anything like the balance of power in a hung Westminster parliament they will not go into coalition with the Conservatives
In that context, what possible scenario would lead the SNP to instruct their MP’s to vote for the bedroom tax?
Second: The Scottish government has chosen to spend money on mitigating the effects of the bedroom tax in Scotland. To me this suggests that opposition to that tax is a high priority and, indeed, a matter of principle. Why would it ever arise that the Westminster reps were required to vote in favour of something that Holyrood reps have decided they cannot/will not implement? How is that conducive to “discipline”?
Third: assuming that this was designed to flush out “loose cannon” which the party thinks it cannot afford, would it not have been better to ask whether the candidate would support the murder of the first born, if instructed to do so by the party? If exaggeration maketh matters plain that would get to the point rather more directly, would it not?
Fourth: what is the point of party discipline which renders it a good thing no matter what the issue? I fully support the concept where manifesto commitments are concerned. Any party is necessarily a coalition of different views. The manifesto ought, it seems to me, to distill those policies which all within the party can support. Despite widespread cynicism, the manifesto matters, for it is the only thing which tells voters what they are voting for. We take the breaking of such pledges seriously still ( see tuition fees and the lib dems if you doubt that) though the propaganda machine pretends otherwise in their will to undermine confidence in democracy. We should take that seriously, because if that is not upheld all you are left with is a beauty contest, and our perceptions of who is a “good chap” are readily manipulated by the media: most of us do not know these people as people, and we cannot know them. Compare the situation in America where the party manifest hardly exists and people vote for individuals in its absence. Is that the model you prefer? Not me. I want something solid in the manifest so that I have some rational basis for my vote.
Fifth: Because a party manifesto is indeed a distillation of what all party members can agree on there is necessarily a great deal on which the document is silent. We project our own values on those areas, often, since the “good chaps” tendency is in play, though not alone so long as there is a manifesto. So what should happen about those areas? Conventional wisdom says that an appearance of unity is essential and so you have the whip system. It is interesting to note that on some issues it is acknowledged that people cannot be whipped for they will not comply. Abortion votes are one such issue,for example: they are called matters of conscience. Why is reproduction acknowledged as a matter of conscience but attack on the poor is not? Why does a principled stance on the latter not command the same kind of respect as the same kind of stance on abortion? Where is the substantive difference? I see none. Why is it assumed that people will vote against a party which has many principled voices and positions, so long as manifesto commitments are honoured? I do not see that as a reason for distrust, and I think there are many like me
Sixth: It seems to me that there are different kinds of people who go in for politics. Some have a bee in their bonnet about one particular issue and will support their party in line with the whips demands on any other issue, so long as their own particular obsession remains party policy and they believe that issues is a shared goal. Others believe that gaining power is the most important thing since nothing can be achieved without it: and they are right to some extent. However we have seen where that goes in the journey Labour have made. Compromise is necessary, but if you throw out all principle in pursuit of power then there is no point in giving it to you: for in the end you serve the party itself, and it is not for any particular purpose. Roy Hattersley was good on that when Blair came to power and I have seen nothing to suggest that he was proved wrong over the years.
@Fiona
You said it so much better than I could! Conscience is all we have; if we give that up, we are nothing.
X_Sticks,
Absolutely, especially as this is the second briefing.
This really needs to be addressed before more people start thinking that the SNP are no better than the Labour Party. Especially as Craig had already asked for a joint position for the press.
I reckon a lot of people who mistook a political party for a political movement are realising the difference about now. It will be very bad for the SNP to be losing members but excellent for The Scotsman’s headline writer.
I left the snp after 20 years membership my reason was I had come to the conclusion that they were not fighting back against their critics and so were doomed to fail I mean talking about going in to coalision with labour the party who lied about them and are still doing so ,to me that says it all the snp to me lack a backbone and any one that has one they do not wish to know I would still vote for snp as they have done great things for the people of Scotland and I want independence but as i say they lack that fight back that I would like to see
Craig Murray was far too rude about NO voters after the 18th Sept, for a prospective Scottish MP at least. People put up with enough shit in their lives and they are certainly not going to vote for anyone who’s insulted them. Suck it up Craig. Don’t shoot from the hip etc.
link to tlio.org.uk cartoon.
🙂
I’m not sure why people imagine that Murray would have been so fantastic as an SNP candidate. For starters he’s English, from Norfolk, but more importantly his background is Liberal party politicking from the age of 15. He was president of his student union as a liberal democrat and remained a member of the party until 2005. Not only that but he had the ultimate unionist job as a UK ambassador. He didn’t take any kind of principled stand against UK government activities e.g. by resigning, instead he was sacked then found himself a conscience.
To me he comes across as a man with his eye on the main chance, looking for opportunities for a platform. He’s picked out Scottish Independence as a likely target , but I don’t think Scottish voters would have been impressed.
I recall Natalie McGarry saying on Twitter a couple of weeks ago that this was her 2nd or 3rd attempt at becoming a candidate. She has a huge history of fighting for independence & is also a founder member of Women for Independence. She wasn’t complaining about not getting through in previous years-just stating a fact which would also help supporters to remain grounded.
I agree with Terry @ 10.49am- I also see Craig as a Martin Bell type independent MP & I think many of us recall the good that Martin Bell did during his term in WM. The electorate was hugely impressed by him & his stance of not being beholden to any party. He stood up to the elite & always voted for what was right. That is the beauty of WM system-one person can be heard.
I like Craig but I always suspected that he might struggle within a party system because he is an independent in thought & deed. If Craig were to try crowdfunding a campaign as an independent then I would be one of the first to contribute because I do see a place for him in WM.
It is my understanding that a coalition with the Tories is ruled out and a formal coalition with Labour is also ruled out although an informal agreement to vote with Labour issue by issue would be considered on a quid pro quo basis. There would be no cabinet posts or ministerial cars up for grabs.
Sometimes in everyones life you don’t get the position you want does that mean you phone up the papers and gripe, blog on the internet, greet to anybody who’ll listen and then blacken the people you applied to coz you did’nt get your way, as i said before i dont know this person but i do know some 6year old kids who behave in exactly the same way..and still his little feet are stamping, and still people are paying attention to this petulant child and the more you look the more he’ll stamp. I wonder why he did’nt get the job eh…Hmmm?
Considering I made it clear over at Scot Goes Pop that Rolfe is me (longstanding Blogger ID), then questions about my cat’s name are a bit unnecessary.
Lots of people have articulated the concerns I expressed earlier about Craig Murray as an SNP candidate, so I didn’t see any great need to come in myeslf and repeat them. Especially not considering the way I was treated earlier. But someone seems to make a habit of going to him and telling him, “Morag’s talking about you,” and he then promptly shows up wherever I am and attacks me. It happened again last night on Scot Goes Pop. This in itself isn’t the behaviour of someone suited to be an SNP candidate. He should be able to cope with criticism better than that.
Nothing about what has happened surprises me in the slightest. Craig Murray may have many sterling qualities, but these aren’t the sort of qualities needed in an SNP parliamentary candidate. Many people are puzzled as to how come someone with a background in the diplomatic service didn’t understand that question and couldn’t work out a way to answer it satisfactorily. I think that in itself says quite a lot.
(Of course, we don’t know that his answer wasn’t satisfactory. We only have his assumptions about why he was rejected. I think it might have been possible to figure out that he isn’t a team player and would have problems with party discipline without that particular question being asked at all.)
We also only have his assumption that someone within the SNP briefed the Scotsman. It’s entirely possible that the Scotsman worked out what was going on (it was hardly rocket science, I’d worked it out myself and was waiting for the balloon to go up) and went on a fishing trip. Considering that the intent of the journalists seems to be to use the situation to damage the SNP, that’s far more likely.
The whole situation has escalated far further than I imagined it would. That blog post yesterday was a spectacular error of judgement. Murray has brought the private, internal SNP selection procedures into the public domain in a very personal and critical article. He has handed a bucketful of ammunition to our opponents, in particular allowing Labour to claim that all SNP candidates were required to commit to voting in support of the bedroom tax (even though this is not even remotely true).
I’m assuming he intends to resign from the party, as how can he want to continue as a member of an organisation he has such contempt for? If he doesn’t, I think there’s a fair chance he might be expelled on account of what he said yesterday.
This is all very distressing, but I hope the whole affair can burn itself out with the New Year celebrations and we can go forward into the 2015 election as a united party. Craig Murray might do well as an independent candidate, even.
“We’ve decided you’re not fit to be a candidate, if you question this decision you prove us right!”
Why can’t there be a list of endorsed & unendorsed candidates for a particular constituenct then leave it up to the branch to decide who they want. That would be democratic. CM has been a victim of the chaterati and the selection star chamber. Nobody knows exactly who the SNP now are, the massive influx of new members have yet to let their presence be felt. Those who are prominent in the party now may yet find their future is behind them in a “broad church” set-up.
This affair has been very badly handled and lessons need to be learned, public utterances on prospective candidates unsuitability are disgraceful, particularly coming from folk who talk about party unity.
Seems the majority view of the SNP on the Bedroom Tax can be changed at will, with some posters accepting the SNP can be fluid with their policies.
The majority of the SNP members are never wrong but the majority of those who voted in the Referendum voted NO, yet everyone here refuses to accept that majority view.
Never forget, just because a majority of people think something is right, that does not make it so. Those who never question the majority view are known as sheep and will be treated as such by our lords and masters.
Getting back to the primary purpose of this thread, the main thing that occurs to me is why aren’t the funding emails coming from the Scottish leader for Scottish posts instead of a no mark MP (Gloria De Piero)that most peoople have probably never heard of?
Something is going on within Labour-is JM being sidelined already as JoLa was?
Stoker @ 10.59am posted an article about a former Labour spin doctor saying that JM was making things up as he went along.
It strikes me that Labour’s factions are fighting back against the ‘anointed one’.
If that’s the case then I say excellent stuff & keep it coming. The truth will out 🙂
Hazel, and Dr. Jim. You’ve both said a lot of what I was thinking but didn’t quite have the courage to say after the way I was set upon a couple of weeks ago.
Someone doesn’t make it in the LibDems after many years within the party. In 2011 the SNP secure a landslide victory making an independence referendum a near-certainty, and he promptly joins up. Opportunism isn’t hard to spot. He now wants into Westminster for his own purposes, mainly attacking Labour and Blair over Iraq. The SNP maybe looked like his best route there.
I have no idea how he managed to be selected for the diplomatic service, but indeed that is an uber-unionist position. His career was undistinguished and his handling of the issue that led to his sacking pretty cack-handed. You either deal with your concerns quietly within the system, or resign and then go public. “He was sacked and then found a conscience?” Mmmm.
I’ve long felt that the Yes movement was being used by someone with the gift of the gab, and a gift for attracting loyal groupies. I think the SNP was sufficiently aware of the problems he might pose that he was never going to be selected as a candidate, and for myself I’m mightily relieved.
He could have accepted his failure to be approved with good grace, as many others have done, and continued to work within the SNP for the good of the independence movement. Instead he has gone public with the most damaging allegations about the internal vetting process. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he’s expelled over that, assuming he doesn’t resign first.
If his intent all along was to use the SNP and the independence movement as a vehicle to get into parliament, then that game’s abogey anyway.
Were she still with us, I think Margo MacDonald might have something to say about political conformity.
Mind you, it’s the same for all political parties. They begin by questioning received wisdom and authority cheered on by us, the voters, only to demand no one rocks the boat when they gain power.
There’s a truthful moment in the movie, Viva Zapata lifted from actual record when Emiliano Zapata, the chief leader of the Mexican peasant revolution, successfuly entrenched in governance of his local territory, Morelos, meets a deputation of peasants. One, bolder than the others, steps forward to criticise Zapata for inertia and laziness, for not doing enough to alleviate their plight. Where was the land reform he had promised and fought for?
Furious at the challenge to his judgement and authority, Zapata demands to know ‘the name of that upstart!’
Zapata later realised he has stopped taking advice from those who knew better, from the grass roots; he was out of touch with the very people whom he had championed and from whom he had arisen.
T222Deracha says:
“the SNP can be fluid with their policies.”
They can indeed, joining NATO, what next, keeping Trident!.
@lack of focus by stunningly boring posters
HELLO – the thread was illegal fundraising needing to be raised with to the Advertising Standards Authority . . . wakey wakey
Also the Guardian coverage of their latest poll was way better than their embarrassing prediction of 10 seat the last time
Good front page on the Sunday Herald – if I recall that was the message that Alex was trying to get accross
@Lollysmum
“why aren’t the funding emails coming from the Scottish leader for Scottish posts instead of a no mark MP”
“Jim Murphy wants your money” isn’t going to go down too well is it 😀
fred at 1.22
correction
“We’ve decided you’re not fit to be a candidate, if you question this decision PUBLICLY WITH LOTS OF PROFILE you prove us right!
Craig has every right to ask for clarification (though I’d be surprised if he is not aware of reasons)and put his name forward again.
Our sheltron (the SNP), will only remain effective if it maintains it’s tight cohesion.
I want what is best for Scotland, so will continue to vote SNP, even though there are a number of issues on which I can’t support them on. I think that is what’s called mature pragmatism.
I am Zapatista….. I’m also Alex Salmond. 🙂
It is normal in a court of law for the judge to counsel the jury to steer clear of extraneous influence, in particular newspapers and television news, and social websites so that nothing sullies or sways their decision other than the evidence presented to them in court.
By intemperate comment and scurrilous innuendo made public of a man’s alleged character and disposition, consequently creating debate and controversy, his open candidature is certain to be tarnished before he sits down for questioning.
Such a casuality has the right to sue for defamation.
It seems to me the demeaning term, ‘loose cannon,’ often lifted and repeated carelesly from an original accusation as if universal in all a man does and says, is more appropriately appended to persons self-elected to the role of public denouncer.
Moreover, accusations of the dangers in ‘going public’ are risible when promoted by someone ‘going public’ about their feelings.
My point is plain:
Whether or not an individual thinks a person has ‘personality issues’ incompatable with good party harmony – and that individual might well be correct – those misgivings should not made public to such an extent that the resultant commotion might predetermine a committee’s decision undermining their right to judge by person-to-person discussion and answer.
Profound reservations strongly held, and based on concrete evidence, not mere opinion, should be submitted in writing to the committee making the judgement.
Sorry to hear you got so much stick for pointing out the blindingly obvious about Murray Morag. I’m sure there are plenty of talented and loyal SNP members who haven’t devoted years of their lives to the Lib Dems, who will make excellent candidates for us.
The other thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet is his use of desperately poor Uzbeki women for sexual services, including spanking apparently. I think that would be my first question to him on a selection panel – “how much money did you spend in lapdancing clubs in Uzbekistan?” Given that the SNP sees the future of Scotland as being a progressive Northern European nation, with a goal of equality for women, it would be a bit much to have this kind of chauvinistic throwback representing us at Westminster.
Oh heck, Hazel, even I wasn’t going to mention the stories I’d heard in that direction.
Who gives a damn about Craig Murray? There’s a saying, “No player is bigger than the club”, he clearly thought he was, or didn’t understand what vetting is all about.
His response should have been along the lines of “Personally I am against the bedroom tax and would never vote for it, but if it was for the greater good of the party and Scotland, then I would always put my personal opinion to one side and vote with the SNP group”.
Now I am nowhere near Craig Murray academically but even I understand how it works. Theoretically then he may have passed the vetting and won the election and became an SNP MP and ignored the whip and voted how he wanted.
So I suppose I admire his honesty in that regard albeit he was a little naive. However to go blabbing to the papers and castigate the SNP on his own blog is unforgivable.
So good riddance to Mr Murray.
It’s not so much stories, as he and his now wife give interviews about it:
link to britishtheatreguide.info
For my part I’m extremely happy and relieved that the SNP rejected him.
i like CM, i think he would make a great MP. but what has happened is nothing to do with morality or his ability. During the referendum, the official yes camp distanced itself from WOS. this was necessary to avoid having to answer questions about some of the posts on WOS, It also served WOS since they were not obliged to toe the official YES campaign line. CM has a well documented past and is a popular blogger, I think the SNP has decided that CM can do more good for indy where he is and that as an SNP MP he could have been a liability, eg, SLAB are already calling for the SNP to clarify its position on NATO. CM is very anti NATO etc. as am I, but were i to stand as a PPC, my anti nato stance would be unknown and couldnt be used as a stick to beat the SNP. Ask yourselves if you think it would serve either Stu Campbell or the SNP were Stu to become a SNP MP, i think you will find that it would clip both their wings. This episode is not an excuse to rubbish CM’s reputation ladies
CameronB Brodie says:
“I want what is best for Scotland, so will continue to vote SNP, even though there are a number of issues on which I can’t support them on. I think that is what’s called mature pragmatism.”
Correct Cameron, the issue is that were both you and CM to become SNP MP’s your differences of opinion with SNP policy would not be used as a stick to beat the SNP, CM’s would have been. Its a shame as he is a talented public figure but his past publicity i think was against him in this case
hazel says:, “apparently”
Morag says: “stories”
I hope you two have proof on what you are implying ?.
@Morag
we are not obliged to agree with each other. neither are we oblged to carry out character assassinations on other independence supporters. There are PPC’s who have been accepted who have only joined the SNP in the last few months, so what? do you have a problem with that too?
Schrodingers cat says at 3.36 is spot on.
Its horses for courses and the SNP needs pro indy bloggers and journalists to say things “consensual” politicians can’t.
Character assassination?
Morag
“He could have accepted his failure to be approved with good grace, as many others have done, and continued to work within the SNP for the good of the independence movement. Instead he has gone public with the most damaging allegations about the internal vetting process.”
CM “I had intended to keep this a private grief if possible, but I was phoned at 8am this morning by the Scotsman, who had plainly been briefed in some detail from within the party hierarchy”
Hazel
For starters he’s English,
You fell at the first hurdle.
I wouldn’t be taking the vetting chair with SNP any time soon.
wee hint, count how many SNP cabinet ministers were born in England, starting with Nicola Sturgein
Just when you think Brit Nats couldn’t be any more iggerent. link to telegraph.co.uk
English and is married to a far younger, non Scots wife who worked as a dancer in a night club.
All real, true patriotic Scots will be against this outrage.
@ BTP
Err-wasn’t Nicola Sturgeon born in Irvine, Ayrshire?
His problem is that he was a Liberal Democrat from the age of 15 and was a party activist for years. I’m surprised anybody thinks the SNP should overlook this, although I’m not surprised Murray’s supporters are trying to pretend that this isn’t the main criticism of him. He also sexually exploited poor Uzbeki women in strip clubs in Uzbekistan, taking advantage of his powerful and privileged position and their desperation. Don’t bring his wife into his bad behaviour, except that he appears to have exploited her too. She’s done nothing wrong. He has.
Nicola Sturgeon was born in Irvine. I hadn’t heard England had claimed it. How interesting.
I stand corrected.
Just checked up but wonder where I picked that one up?
Anyway, it doesn’t really matter where you are born in the SNP, I hope?
Just as well I didn’t apply.
I used to play the piano, for a short while though, in a bordello.
“Don’t bring his wife into his bad behaviour”
Then why the hell are you posting links to an interview with his wife where she explains how she met her husband and her work?
“I used to play the piano, for a short while though, in a bordello.”
Did you just escape from a Western?
“Then why the hell are you posting links to an interview with his wife where she explains how she met her husband and her work?”
Because she’s spilling the beans on his exploitative antics. Like I said, she’s done nothing wrong. No judgement there.
@Bugger
No, it does not matter where you were born. Angus Robertson was born in London, and numerous other SNP elected representatives and activists are from England. All that matters is that you support independence and conduct yourself in a professional and decent manner.
In Marrakesh?
Controversy!
Disagreements within the ranks!
All healthy for democracy in my opinion.
@Hazel
I was just reading some posts and I saw your post saying that Craig Murray was English and is a former Liberal Democrat as reasons why he should not be a SNP candidate. This is offensive and is verging on ethnic nationalism, I think it is ethnic nationalism. It does not matter where people are from. It is completely unacceptable. Also, in regards to Craig Murray’s personal life, you and a few others must be going very near libel territory, if you have not actually reached it.
@Bugger
Eh?
Perhaps MacBeth’s witches on here might like to speculate on whether Mr Murray might run as a YES candidate in the constituency of his choice agin the official SNP candidate?
The Bordello was in Marrakesh and not a Western fillum.
@Bugger
Got you now.
Hazel’s statement: The other thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet is his use of desperately poor Uzbeki women for sexual services, including spanking apparently.
You do realise, don’t you, unless you have personal first-hand witness together with incontrovertible evidence, that that claim, is libellous?
What a delightful example of méchanceté femelle! Didn’t realise that the SNP meant the Spiteful Nasty Party – thank you for the elucidation Hazel et.al.
Stoker: “The SNP are about to steer our movement through an extremely critical and dangerous period of our journey”
Stoker, you the man. Yes, and potentially the most advantageous, leading on to our ultimate destiny (target!).
What’s needed is almost military discipline, the knowledge that the rest of the bunch always have your back. I’d suggest the SNP put in a mentor system for the new MPs. with the existing 6, Salmond if selected (it’s not certain until voted for), and elected, and any others who have served before – specifically in Westminster.
Loose cannons, apparently a military term for loose cannons on a warship, are the last thing you want as you’re about to deliver the coup de grace and get run over by the cannon ricocheting about the place, going off on its own erratic journey, with a lot of balls following it. Almost as bad as forgetting your wadding!
Morag
Judging by your comments on Scot goes Pop under your other name (why can’t you be honest enough to say who you are) you obviously don’t welcome me or people like me in the SNP. I came to Scotland to study (for three years, as it happens, not four, but let’s not quibble). I fell in love with a Scot and with Scotland, moved away for educational reasons, moved back because of homesickness and have lived, worked, paid taxes and EDUCATED HUNDREDS OF SCOTTISH CHILDREN here over the past sixteen years.
I’ve twice stood for the SNP in council elections. I had to persuade my Glasgow born husband to ‘follow his heart’ and vote Yes. I brought up three children to believe in social justice and the chance to create a better country than the one I grew up in which embraced Thatcher and all her vile policies. Sorry if I don’t fit into your personal criteria of what makes someone Scottish enough.
Enough said.
By the way, I wasn’t even born in England – I was born in Ghana. Does that rule me out too?
You’d get my vote Natasha.
Natasha, I’ve been Rolfe on Blogger for longer than I’ve been using my own name on independence web sites. I was entirely clear about who I was in that very thread.
You need to read what I wrote again. I was expressing concern about people who had only lived in Scotland as a student in a closed university setting joining the SNP and getting all excited about independence. In particular, I remarked that leaving as soon as you graduated and never moving back for the next 30 years didn’t speak to deep love or familiarity with the country.
Same with people whose only connection is through ancestry, or holidays spent in Scotland. They’ve never lived as part of a Scottish community.
You just said you have lived and worked in Scotland for 16 years. How could you possibly think that anything in my post applied to you?
@Natasha
Any right thinking person knows that it does not matter where you were born or where you are from. Alex Salmond has said this often and it is true. I read the post in question, and I have no idea what the individual in question was refering to by living in a Scottish community, what it means, or why it is important to them, or even relevant in any way.
The reason I didn’t mention any of the stuff Hazel has brought up is that I do not know, personally, if it is true or not. It was however one of my original concerns, that having that sort of allegation attached to a candidate is yet another thing the hostile media could and would pick up and use to smear the SNP. They’re very good at avoiding defamation suits by using phrases like “has been alleged” and “unproven allegations” and so on. Still gets the rumours circulating again.
That’s not the main issue though.
The main issue is that Craig Murray applied for a job he was unsuitable for, and didn’t get it. His subsequent behaviour has demonstrated very clearly exactly why he was unsuitable. (If it wasn’t already obvious, which it was of course.)
There will be some strokes administered – everyone be very careful.
Hello Morag
It wasn’t obvious to me why Craig Murray was unsuitable but hey I haven’t been a member of the SNP for the last 40 years or whatever.
Playing party politics is a negative in my view. Craig Murray I believe would represent his constituents with integrity and honesty.
I put honesty and integrity way above party. I doubt you could have an issue with that.
What could possibly matter more than integrity unless you have none?
Natasha:
Morag, judging by your comments on Scot goes Pop under your other name…
She uses a pseudonym?! How interesting.
PS: Little has been said about the panel that composed the truly clunking question on the bedroom tax. Quite frankly, if it’s an indication of their intellectual vigour they should be replaced by another group – immediately!
PPS: Did you know that a vote for Craig Murray is certain to put the Tories back in Westminster- no! Wait. Maybe it’s Labour. Or was it the Born Again Vegans? Damn!
🙂
Morag
Look at your own words. You appear to be dismissive of people who
only lived in Scotland as a student in a closed university setting joining the SNP and getting all excited about independence. In particular, I remarked that leaving as soon as you graduated and never moving back for the next 30 years didn’t speak to deep love or familiarity with the country.
Same with people whose only connection is through ancestry, or holidays spent in Scotland. They’ve never lived as part of a Scottish community..
I – and my Glaswegian husband! – could easily have been one of the former group, if he hadn’t been fortunate enough to find work back here. Some of my cousins fall into the latter group, and they are ardent supporters of independence in deepest Essex, of all places! You shouldn’t write people off and make assumptions about them on those kind of criteria. I have a lot of respect for you, Morag, but on this occasion your comments appeared petty and vindictive.
By explaining how long I have lived here and how I have contributed to the struggle for independence, I was trying to explain that it does not matter where you come from, it’s what you believe that matters. But even if I had only lived here for six months, would that invalidate my support for independence? I hope not. I was simply trying to make the point that being Scottish is a state of mind, and you cannot judge someone purely on the basis of where they have lived or for how long. Maybe I didn’t explain it very well. But then, maybe you didn’t explain your point of view particularly well either.
@Alex Clark
Thanks! I don’t think I’d pass vetting, though. Too much of a fully paid-up member of the awkward squad.
Morag: His subsequent behaviour has demonstrated very clearly exactly why he was unsuitable.
You mean if dumped in the river and he floats he must be in league with the Devil, but if he sinks he was a sinner and deserves to perish?
By the way, I marvel at the lengths you go to blacken an individual’s character and then, duly hung, drawn and quartered, show a modicum of clemency by suggesting he wasn’t all black.
Without awkward people we can only go backward. I respect awkward.
Thank God the Rev has started a new thread – you guys have completely gone off the deep end in spades – WHAT ABOUT ADVERTISING STANDARDS AND ILLICIT FUNDRAISING? – ANY ONE MAKING A COMPLAINT? let the Unionists do their own work – dont do it for them.
(Theres a mad telegraph tory in the next thread – I wonder how many of you will be able to ignore that distraction???
@Cadogan Enright
That will be because you say so then. That’s an attitude I will not accept. Not all dissenting voices are the enemy.
Unless you choose to make them so.
Natasha, of course it doesn’t matter where you’ve come from. It’s where you are in yourself that matters.
I’ve come across a fair number of people who have never lived as part of a Scottish community who decided to join the SNP for various reasons. Memories of a holiday, Scottish ancestry or surname, or just romantic feelings for the underdog. I can’t think of one case where it ended well.
Maybe living in Scotland for four years as a student 30 years ago and never returning to live in all that time would be enough, but my feeling is that it probably isn’t. Obviously the SNP isn’t going to turn anyone in that position down for membership, but my experience makes me wary of such people trying to acquire positions of power in the party.
Grouse Beater, I have been on the internet as Rolfe since 2003. I decided to use my own name for independence-related discussions when the campaign started, because I didn’t want to hide behind a pseudonym. Unlike you.
Blogger still logs me on with the old identity. I don’t want to change it as it would throw a lot of people on blogs unrelated to the independence issue, where I’m well known as Rolfe. I was quite open on that thread about being Morag on Wings, and have been previously too.
What have you against pseudonyms anyway, “Grouse Beater”?
And do you really think that the SNP were all set to welcome Craig Murray as an ideal candidate but someone saw some grunt BTL on Wings had called him a loose cannon and that poisoned the process and they decided to reject him on that account?
I think you need to get a grip.
Done a bit of checking and it seems the ‘austerity’ question was fairly standard for possible SNP candidates.
Who else had the ‘bedroom tax’ question?
Sure like me you have people you can ask.
Morag
Just wanted to say that I do have respect for you. A lot.
We just have to agree that there will be issues where we disagree.
Having an opinion doesn’t mean it is the right opinion to have. We are all entitled to them though, Else we are lost.
@Grouse Beater
Surprisingly maybe, I have great respect for you. I think I like people more when they disagree LOL.
Thepnr, this isn’t about honesty and integrity. We’re told that several candidates managed to convey a “no” answer to the bedroom tax question and still pass the selection process.
The question was designed to find out if the applicant had the ability to answer the question in a considered and diplomatic manner. It’s somewhat astonishing that someone who has been a diplomat was unable to recognise this. It was designed to determine if the applicant understood the collective decision-making process, and their own role in that process if they were elected.
Hyopthetical scenarios that seem bizarre to outsiders are common in job interviews and other such candidate selection processes. Anyone who has ever applied for a moderately high-level position will be familiar with them, and has probably rolled their eyes at them too, but the interviewers are doing it for a reason.
A flat “no” was probably not a good answer, but on the other hand an unqualified “yes” (“I’d eat babies if Alex Salmond told me to”) probably wasn’t very smart either.
Bear in mind we only have Craig Murray’s opinion that he was failed on that question. He may well be entirely mistaken. I don’t think anyone who is otherwise impressing the selection panel fails on a single question. His inability to work as part of a team, in particular as a junior and subordinate member of a team, is something that shines out from almost everything he has written.
This isn’t about accommodating Craig Murray’s (or his fans’) belief that the SNP should be falling over themselves for his charisma, or being “fair” to him. It’s about selecting the people who are capable of being welded into the SNP’s Westminster team for 2015-20. The party needs team players and Craig Murray simply isn’t one.
He could be a perfectly good maverick independent candidate. He wanted to piggyback on the organisation and finance of a successful party, but clearly that isn’t the right vehicle for him.
Albalha, people have tweeted that all the applicants in that particular vetting session got the bedroom tax question, and that at least two people who indicated it would be a red line for them still passed the selection process.
I imagine they showed that they understood what was being asked, and the powers of deliberation needed to come to a considered decision.
Morag: I have been on the internet as Rolfe …
Sorry to disappoint, I’m not interested in explanations of righteousness; to much hypocrisy at one time.
In any event, persisting in kicking a man up the arse will never get you ahead of him.
In the article Stu says: “there’s a strong case that those are likely to be among the safest Labour seats in Scotland, as the SNP will have to come from at best third place in order to capture them.”
Well I can’t speak for the other areas Stu but I know a wee bit about Stirling as an activist here and I would say that Stirling is not as safe a Labour seat as you think. There are three reasons why the SNP can and will win here.
1. The current MP, Anne McGuire, is standing down and she carries a huge personal vote. Her replacement, Johanna Boyd, is leader of Stirling Council and has been parachuted-in.
2. Labour on Stirling Council went into a formal coalition with the Tories and many Labour voters are still very angry about this which will cost them valuable votes in May.
3. Labours General downturn, Jim Murphy being elected as Scottish leader, and the broken vow will ensure many voters vote for the SNP. And I’m sure we’ve all seen today’s Sunday Herald front page.
However even with the ‘perfect storm’ above, there is one other thing above all else the SNP needs:
A STRONG LOCAL CANDIDATE
because the candidate selection should be about choosing THE BEST PERSON TO BEAT THE LABOUR CANDIDATE. Without this, any advantage from the reasons above will be lost as will the seat.
There are six candidates in the race to stand for this seat. Two of them are standing elsewhere and are not from Stirling, this will diminish their chances as members usually prefer to go with a local candidate. One was involved with the Yes Advisory Board and another was previously part of the SNP communications team in Westminster. Both poorly presented at the recent hustings though so I would class them as rank outsiders.
Two others are local but have no previous political experience, so it’s a huge leap into the dark for them and maybe they should think about standing as Councillors at some point in the future? Perhaps they are using this as an exercise to raise their profile for that very thing but clearly they’re out of their depth.
Out of the other two candidates, one is an activist who ran the local Yes campaign but unfortunately does not have the necessary ‘fight’ in him to beat the Labour candidate. He stood as a paper candidate three times in the 80’s, lost a local by election and lost being elected for local Council in 2012. Let’s not also forget that he was in charge when Yes lost locally so it’s not exactly a proud record to be standing on and to be candid, the Labour candidate would seriously damage him at any hustings because of his lack of depth, knowledge and experience.
Which leaves only one other candidate, an elected councillor with 7 years experience, a voracious canvasser of 15 years with a fearsome work rate. He presented himself as the clear frontrunner; he was the only candidate to directly answer the questions put to him at recent hustings, showed the right amount of drive and enthusiasm but also has the necessary campaign experience to win. However I am slightly concerned that recent decisions within the Party and the increase of new members mean that the profile gained by previous unknowns just by being involved with the Yes campaign or people being put forward who are a certain ‘fit’ may result in the best person not necessarily being the one who is elected.
Morag,
“He could have accepted his failure to be approved with good grace, as many others have done”
By your logic should we the 45% also not accept our failure on 18th September with good grace as the 55% unionists have done?
You have a personal undisclosed agenda against Craig Murray and are not in any way an objective commentator on the issue.
Craig Murray has stated that the SNP MEP and 2 SNP MSPs were who heard his appeal were extremely hostile to him and someone in the SNP definitely briefed the press against him twice. He cannot be lying.
Opportunist or not, he campaigned tirelessly for independence and if the Yes campaign had been led by radicals like like him rather than the tame Blair Jenkins, we might have crossed the 50% mark.
On one hand we are trying to convince no voters to change their minds. On the other we are branding those who have changed their minds in our favour as opportunists.
The SNP must remain very different from Labour in the way they operate. If we don’t question and criticise them when necessary, it will become Labour Mark 2 in Scotland.
Whoever dreamt up the bedroom tax question must be the most stupid official in the SNP.
I don’t think it’s libelous to note that Murray was a visitor to Uzbeki strip clubs. He gives interviews about it after all.
I don’t think it’s “spiteful” to object to privileged and powerful Western men going to poor countries and sexually exploiting the women there, but I guess we’ll have to agree to differ on that point.
His background and behaviour are moot anyway, given than the SNP have rejected him as a candidate. All that’s left now is his supporters making him look even worse than he already does.
Alex Clark: Cadogan Enright…
Difficult, Alex, to take offence from anybody named Cadogan Enright.
🙂
@Morag
In my view you’ve gone and done it again. I hold out an olive branch and toss it away.
Do you think you would have made a good diplomat Morag? That makes me laugh. You, like me and many others who post here are individuals.
Not one of us will ever be right all of the time, though we will be right some of the time.
Any party, and I don’t care what they call themselves that only will welcome Yes Men to the fold has an issue as far as I’m concerned.
Is just following orders because the party says you must so as discipline is maintained acceptable in all circumstances?
Not in my view. Seems I must be on a different wavelength to those that run and control the political parties in the UK.
OK I’m a dick.
Hazel:
I don’t think it’s libelous to note that Murray was a visitor to Uzbeki strip clubs.
That is not what you wrote. You are as adept at spinning as Ms Kerr. Please desist before I puke.
Rock:
Whoever dreamt up the bedroom tax question must be the most stupid official.
It has the hallmark of a question concocted by a right-wing think tank handed to employers to root out union members at interview who might be prone to dissent over wages and hours and working conditions.
Rock – “someone in the SNP definitely briefed the press against him twice. He cannot be lying.”
Lying, perhaps not. Jumping to the wrong conclusions, almost definitely. He was taken in by the reporter, took the bait and swallowed it, hook line and sinker.
As far as Morag having a previous agenda I have no idea. I don’t. I’d only barely heard of him before the Ref, possibly in connection with his views on EU membership, or the maritime boundary median line, but having read the “contretemps” about Morag and him, I took 10 minutes to look at his blog and that’s just how long it took me to decide I wouldn’t want him in my paty, not unless it was called the “NO-hating Maverick Party that wants to stay at 45% and not one vote more thanks very much you evil thick b’tards”.
His blog is there for all to see, including for any selection panel.
Not for the first time I’m getting tired of “Grouse Beater’s” personal attacks on me. I said nothing about Craig Murray that wasn’t already public knowledge or a reasonable (and apparently pretty mainstream) assessment of his character based on his public utterances.
I said I was concerned that he would be a liability as an SNP candidate or MP because he has shown himself to be a loose cannon and anything but a team player, because of his vilification of No voters, because of his opinionated, controversial and sometimes erroneous blog posts, because of his poor judgement as exemplified by a number of these blog posts, and because of his lurid past which would be an absolute gold-mine for unionist politicians and journalists desperate to smear an SNP candidate.
Everything there has been said by others both in this thread and elsewhere. It’s not exactly Mystic Meg or rocket science. I also remarked from the start that I admired his stance on human rights issues, but that didn’t entitle him to walk into an SNP candidacy.
It now transpires that the SNP selection committee was of approximately the same opinion. It has also become clear from Murray’s behaviour yesterday that they were absolutely right in the decision they took. His immediate reaction was to try to adopt the hard-done innocent pose by publicly and vociferously criticising the SNP and its candidate selection procedures. That really should be that.
After what he said yesterday, he should resign from the party. How can he remain as a member, honourably, after publicly trashing it on his blog?
That “Grouse Beater” continues to try to make this story about me, and accuses me of “blackening [Murray’s] character” says more about his personal vendetta and his discomfiture about finding himself in the wrong than anything else.
Thepnr, if you look at the timing of the posts, you’ll realise that I didn’t read your “olive branch” because I was typing my post when you wrote it. If you think my honest attempt to explain the situation was throwing this away, though, I’m sorry. It was an honest attempt to explain the situation.
I don’t think I’d make a good diplomat. Or MP. That’s why I have never applied for a job as either.
Craig Murray applied to be approved as a potential member of the SNP’s Westminster team. That’s very different from being an ordinary party member, and requires a very particular sort of person. Not a “Yes Man”, but not someone who is completely incapable of working within a team, under a team leader, either.
He wasn’t suitable for the position he applied for. It’s not up to me or you to second-guess the selection committee’s decision. I’m absolutely OK with it, so I’m trying to explain it to you. If you’re not, then I’m sorry but I can only be glad it wasn’t you on that committee.
“That is not what you wrote. You are as adept at spinning as Ms Kerr. Please desist before I puke.”
Quote what I said that makes you think I deserve threatening with lawyers. A silencing tactic if I ever saw one.
As for spinning, you’ve been doing this right through this thread. Don’t think people can’t see. I’ll give you one thing, you’re good at projecting – “puke”.
Not meaning to interrupt, but just to point out –
Craig Murray is a WOS contributor.
He has commented on this site many times, and there is no logical reason to assume that he is not reading this thread, so…
It would be ‘nice’ if we could stop referring to him as if he’s some kind of weird alien (e.g. Gordon Brown, Kezia Dugdale, Danny Alexander, Professor John Psephologob etc etc.)
As they say, ‘just sayin’, like’…
@Alex Clark says: 27 December, 2014 at 9:09 pm:
“Craig Murray is obviously NOT a suitable candidate because he has opinions of his own? Is that what some are arguing?”
No, Alex, it is NOT what others are saying but it IS what you choose to interpret it as. Furthermore, your claim that, “I must be mad because that is exactly the type of person I would want representing me.” exposes why you are totally wrong in your views. No one expects anyone to agree 100% with the SNP democratically agreed policies, (and all SNP party policy must be made via proposals made and seconded and debated at national conference).
What they do expect, and rightly so, is that those selected as candidates should accept the democratically agreed policies of the party as agreed at National Conference. The time for a candidate, or elected political person, disagreeing with those policies is before they are accepted as party policy at National conference. Furthermore the correct way to do so is to propose an amendment or an alternative proposal to be debated at that national conference.
After conference democratically decides what party policy should be it is the candidate, or member’s, place to accept the democratic decision of the majority at conference.
Do you really want a party that goes to war with itself after it has already made democratic decisions? If you do then perhaps you should join one of the unionist parties where, once elected, the leader of that unionist party is allowed to act as a dictator and make decisions that the whole party must accept. In my book that defines a dictatorship.
The only issue I have with Craig Murray is that I’ve been wary from the very day he joined the SNP that he wanted to use the party for his own personal advancement, after failing in the LibDems. From everything I knew about him, and he’s a very public persona with a controversial blog, and someone who has been all over the news in the past, I was always concerned that he would be an absolute disaster if he were approved as an SNP candidate.
That’s it. I thought he was a bad pick as a candidate, for the reasons I stated, and said so a couple of times. For my pains I was subjected to the most vile abuse here on Wings. You’d think I’d denied the True Cross or something.
I even said, in the midst of the onslaught, that if Craig Murray passed the SNP selection process, stood as a candidate, won a seat and became a good and effective MP for the party, I’d be very pleased (though also very surprised). It would be nice to be proved wrong, I said.
Well, the selection committee seem to have agreed with me. And yet still the vilification continues. Isn’t it about time for a repeat of the post about shit spewing from all my orifices? That’s the level of discourse some people stoop to in their defence of their guru and idol.
We are where we are! That’s a win not a loss.
Ian, it would be good if you could point out any post Craig Murray has made here that wasn’t as a result of someone telling him he was being criticised on Wings, and him coming here to attack the person who was criticising him.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen him participate as an ordinary commentator. All I recall is “Morag, what have I done that you should revile me so?” and similar self-serving posturing. Inability to let criticism slide off your back is another thing that doesn’t make for a good candidate of course.
@Morag
Absolutely and positively refusing to accept any guru or idol is a positive. I have none, do you too?
Back in your box is just another term for do as your told. We need people who will say No, not where is the box.
“Grouse Beater”, it’s Dr. Kerr, as well you know.
Dr. Morag Graham Kerr, BVMS, BSc, PhD, CBiol, FIBiol, MRCVS. On my business cards.
Once had a much-loved cat called Rolfe, and for various reasons used his name when posting on the internet back in 2003-11. It’s not been a secret that I’m Rolfe, not for quite some time.
Who are you by the way?
Thepnr
I’ve been a member of the SNP for 3 months and 2 meetings (missesd one), whereas CM has been a member for 3 years. It seems to me I know far far more about the SNP in my 3 months than he has in 3 years.
“Any party, and I don’t care what they call themselves that only will welcome Yes Men to the fold has an issue as far as I’m concerned.”
I believe there are some SNP members who voted NO, but seriously, all thd SNP members I’ve met so far have different views, different opinions, and aren’t afgraid to voice them – or write up letter to HQ when neccesary expressing disquiet / disagreement. I’m fairly noisy – but well received in spite of that. Others are just as “noisey” and – “dis”agreeable 🙂
It seems to me though, that the SNP know how to handle differences of opinion – there are many, as anyone who watched even this year’s conference bits on TV will know. There was, for instance, a passionate debate on the quota resolution, which I found fascinating. And I’m not an anorak, honest.
Ian: Craig Murray is a WOS contributor.
I would think he’s mortified. At least the vetting panel retains a dignified and discreet silence, refusing to rub salt into the wound. But there’s no stemming the torrent of condemnation from the Righteous Brigade. On the basis of examples here I doubt such people would pass a vetting procedure by the SNP.
Hazel: A silencing tactic if I ever saw one.
Intriguing phrase, one Ms Kerr uses regularly when faced with opinion not her own.
I’m compelled to add I tire of the unpleasantness that invariably results from topics bitten by the humorless Ms Kerr and her aids.
Night all.
Alex, apparently several people managed to say “no” to that question and still pass the selection process.
It’s very obvious that Craig Murray failed the selection process because he wasn’t a suitable candidate for the job. It’s a far wider consideration than a yes or no answer to one question. An unqualified yes was probably just about as bad an answer as an unqualified no.
I don’t like the man, but I appreciate that many people do. That’s fine. But being an SNP candidate or MP isn’t a popularity contest. It’s about having the specific qualities required for the position. His performance in the selection process, plus what is there for all to read in his blog and elsewhere, led the selection committee to the conclusion that he didn’t have these qualities.
I don’t believe anyone is asking for unquestioning “yes-man” loyalty. They’re looking for political nous, and indeed diplomatic nous, which Murray appears to lack very conspicuously. Many people believe he would have been an absolute disaster as a candidate.
I’m not sure why you believe so strongly that he should have been approved. Look at all the fantastic candidates who have been approved! A couple of people in my own branch, who didn’t say a word to the membership until they’d received word of their approval. I’m thrilled that they’re going forward, and neither of them is a yes-man (or woman).
In contrast Craig Murray was running round telling the world that he was putting himself forward as a candidate, for weeks before the selection process started. I replied to several breathless tweets declaring that he was standing as a candidate, asking if he’d actually passed the vetting (because I privately believed he was unlikely to pass).
He seemed to believe it was all a formality, and the selection committee would be so dazzled by his public profile they’d be unable to turn him down. His 300-word statement pretty much dictates terms to the party. Does none of this give you pause?
‘Aids’! – aides – now there’s Freudian slip! 🙂
@Alex –
Don’t know the patois in Dundee or thereabouts, but in Glasgow, a ‘warmer’ is a woman (yes, always an adult female) who stirs trouble.
In Dundee, Glasgow, and everywhere else, such people are best avoided.
Just sayin’, as they say.
(And, P.S., they really hate it when you ignore them!)
@Murray McCallum says: 27 December, 2014 at 9:22 pm:
“The SNP could have explained in detail directly to Craig Murray what their misgivings are. They haven’t. They gave him no feedback.
So far I am picking up that Craig Murray is:
1. Divisive and not a team player as he wouldn’t vote FOR the bedroom tax.”
Whoa! There! Murray. Where do you get that guff from? I’ve already showed the real facts. We in the SNP are democratically correct in the way we do business.
Party Policies are decided at National Conferences, (remember the NATO Debate as shown on National TV)? First of all a member moves a motion at branch level and, if seconded, that motion goes forward. Unless, of course there are alternative motions or amendments. In which case it is debated and voted upon at the branch and the democratic result goes forward to National Conference. There may well be other conflicting motions from other branches and these too go forward to conference.
Then conference debates and votes upon the motions and the result is a democratic party decision. It is thus the place of party members to accept the democratic will of the party, (whether they agree with the decision or not).
That was the actual question Craig was being asked to answer. “Will you accept the democratic decisions of the members no matter if you disagree with them”. His answer was that he would not and thus proved not to be a suitable democratic person to become a candidate.
I’ll put that another way – Craig was not astute enough to realise the implications of the question nor quick thinking enough think on his feet.
Facts are facts – SNP policy is made by the members and each member has exactly the same number of votes. Thus all policy is democratically arrived at and all democratically minded members accept it.
If they cannot do so their only option is to do as those who couldn’t accept NATO Membership and resign from the party. We lost several elected members that way over that NATO membership vote. We do not need such defections in a real democratic party.
Yawn! Tired and off to bed. Night all.
“Grouse Beater” tries various underhand tactics to silence people who are awkward enough to point out his errors and dishonesty. It’s not surprising that more than one person has noticed this.
I didn’t even join this thread until the next one was starting. Pretty much every reservation I ever had or expressed about Craig Murray as a candidate had already been articulated by someone else before I said a word. This isn’t about that.
It’s about “Grouse Beater” (who doesn’t even have the courtesy to address people by their correct titles) being absolutely incandescent to be proved wrong.
He was convinced Craig Murray would pass the selection process and go on to be a high-profile candidate and possibly win his seat and go to Westminster. He was looking forward to gloating and rubbing my face in it when this happened. See what an excellent person this is, who was reviled by the shit-spewing Morag, and so on.
If that had happened, and my anticipated disaster hadn’t come to pass, I’d have been happy to admit I was wrong. I said so at the time.
The selection committee agreed with me, and more than that, Murray’s actions yesterday proved they were bang on the money. Several people in the thread above had the grace and politeness to remark that I’d called it right. “Grouse Beater” on the other hand is compelled to go on painting me as some sort of monster, because he can’t accept he was wrong.
This is a no-win situation, and one can only hope the boil can be lanced as quickly as possible and the whole affair be forgotten as the New Year sees the start of the campaign proper. If people continue to demand that the SNP adopt a patently unsuitable candidate, it’s not going to help.
Ian, I’m still the one blamed for stirring up trouble, when the position has been explained by many posters here, and it’s a minority still trying to defend the indefensible Mr. Murray?
Maybe you need to recruit him into the SSP, if you think so highly of him.
I didn’t realise you were ignoring me. I find I rather like it. Pray continue.
Ian: (And, they really hate it when you ignore them!)
Chuckle. 🙂
This may shock some………… but I’ve got Morag’s back re. CM’s unsuitability, though probably not for all the same reasons. That said, enough said.
Eyes on the prize folks.
@:Stoker says: 28 December, 2014 at 9:31 am:
” … I happen to share Alex Clark’s view on the importance of having people who will speak out but at this stage in the journey the most important factor is making sure we have team players on board or we’ll never reach our destination.”</I?
Then, Stoker, you are every bit as wrong as Alex Clark. Most SNP members do not agree 100% with Party Policies and that is exactly as it should be. There are, though, times and places to voice that disagreement. These are at branch and/or constituency meetings. Each and every SNP party member has exactly the same number of votes – ONE.
Not only that but each of us has the right to propose a party policy, or amendment to a party policy, at branch or constituency meetings. If we manage to have it seconded and it is opposed then we get to debate and vote upon it. That is how the SNP does business and that is where any member, from a new member to the party leader, whether a party official or elected to government member can voice their opposition to party policy.
Craig Murray failed that test and stated he would not accept a properly decided democratic decision.
There is little to be gained by the party members deciding on party policy if elected to government members are to go against the democratically decided party policy and leave the party to either join another or become independent?
Did not the democratic decision of the party to retain NATO Membership then have elected members leave the party show the stupidity of doing so? Craig failed to understand the point of the question and, it seems so also have several commenters on this forum. The fact is the questioners probably opposed the Bedroom tax too. That was not the point, though, accepting the democratic will of the party members was the point. The question was couched in the terms of, “IF the parliamentary group …”. Craig was not being asked
to agree or disagree with the particular policy. He was being asked if he would follow the democratic will in the party.
“Grouse Beater” says:
She uses a pseudonym?! How interesting
Mmmm, self-aware irony, presumably.
I don’t know what your reasons are, Cameron, but I probably agree with them too.
It should be possible to have a reasonably forthright discussion about a high-profile personality’s suitability to be a Westminster candidate without doubters being subjected to the sort of abuse I was handed. Some people seem to think there is an obligation to say nothing but good of someone going forward as a prospective candidate. I couldn’t disagree more. The time to realise what a disaster you’ve just selected isn’t when your opponents take the guy to the cleaners in the press.
Of course, most people don’t tell the world that they’re going to be SNP candidates before they’ve passed the vetting. Craig Murray seemed to assume it was merely a formality. When he chose to declare his interest, he invited comment, adverse as well as positive.
(As an aside, an SNP member in my own branch, someone I never encountered before the referendum even though she lives only about five miles from me so I assume she’s a recent joiner, surprised the hell out of me a couple of weeks ago by announcing at a branch meeting that she’d passed the selection process. I was delighted, as I’d seen the discreet but crucial role she’d played in Farming for Yes. She has all the makings of an excellent SNP MP, and I was happy to support her as our branch nomination to stand against Mundell. But she didn’t want people to know until she’d passed. She didn’t have to take any flak, in consequence – not that flak would have been appropriate there. But that’s how you do it if you don’t want to hear that some people don’t really rate you.)
The capacity to respond with dignity and restraint to criticism is one of the things a good candidate needs. Murray’s response to criticism – which he invited, by going public with his ambitions – was far from edifying, both here and on his own blog. I think he’d have been a disaster, and I think the selection committee may have realised that from the get-go. If people think that’s being “unfair”, they need a crash course in political reality.
Morag: He was convinced Craig Murray would pass the selection process and go on to be a high-profile candidate and possibly win his seat and go to Westminster.
Sorry (Ian) only just read that piece of utter nonsense and all the other stuff after it.
I’m going to put the writer’s over-wrought fantasy down to loss of sleep, or unreliable memory – I’ve never uttered a single opinion verbally or in writing about Murray as a good or a bad SNP candidate.
I do not know the man, and so am unable to judge. I do, however, know when a person is getting slandered.
In this sort of instance an apology is expected, but quite frankly, I don’t give a damn.
Second try: night all.
Craig Murray mortified? So he should be, by his own actions.
He assumed that the SNP couldn’t possibly turn him down as a candidate, and let the world know he would be standing. He wrote a personal statement that was practically a series of ultimatums to the party. These are my terms, accept them. He co-operated with a newspaper article describing him as a candidate, with the rider that he was still waiting for the results of the vetting process seeming to indicate he thought it was a mere formality.
He failed to understand the point of a specific question which ironically was intended to test the applicant’s diplomatic skills and ability to give a well-considered answer to a very hard situation.
Instead of reflecting why he had failed the vetting process he decided it was anyone’s fault but his. He posted a vituperative and intemperate blog post lambasting the SNP leadership and internal processes. In the course of that he made public certain aspects of the selection process that were capable of being spun negatively in the press. (It seems Labour is seriously declaring now that the SNP plans to vote for the bedroom tax in order to support a Tory administration. Unless that’s a parody account.)
It was more or less a letter of resignation. How can anyone honourably remain in a party after displaying such contempt for the party in public? If he wants to stay he could try an abject apology but somehow I don’t think that’s his style.
And someone is worried that comments BTL on a blog will cause him to be “mortified”? Oh dear. And he may have more to come. I suspect it’s not quite over yet.
Morag
Is that RuralL….. by any chance? If so, I’d say an excellent candidate.
I don’t think so, Yesindyref2. I don’t think it’s confidential that I’m referring to Heather Anderson. I was surprised when it was announced that she was on the list because she hadn’t breathed a word in my direction, but then everything fell into place and I was immediately delighted.
She slaved hard behind the scenes with Farming for Yes, while trying to juggle very no-voting business clients. I realised over the campaign that she has a very shrewed political brain, and knows an enormous amount about the politics of the farming industry. For a seat that is almost entirely rural, she’s a perfect fit. She also doesn’t grandstand, and she behaves impeccably in collective decision-making.
I understand there are several excellent candidates for the nomination though, and hustings have been arranged. I won’t definitely decide who to vote for until I’ve heard everyone speak. Taking on Mundell is a big ask for whoever gets the gig.
I just mentioned Heather as an example of a new member (as far as I know) who knows how to behave within a group and a party, and negotiated the shark-infested waters of the selection process with aplomb. Murray could learn something.
“Grouse Beater”, you’re not fooling anyone. You attacked me unmercifully for expressing my opinion about Murray. You were quite obviously waiting your chance to have another go when he was selected as a candidate for a constituency.
He would have been an unmitigated disaster. His recent blog post and other comments merely confirm it. Get over yourself.
I’m sorry that the SNP found Craig Murray’s honesty did not fit with their plans to become part of a Westminster Government. I always read Craig’s blog, I don’t always agree with his view but his desire for Scotland to be free has never been in doubt.
The problem with Scots MP’s going to Westminster is that they seem to become absorbed into the Establishment and are never again the same as the person who was elected initially.
In the depression following the NO vote many joined the SNP as members and I almost did as well. What stopped me was that I felt that something was not right with the SNP’s acceptance of the integrity of the voting procedures. They did not seem to feel the same sense of loss as those in the street and blog led Yes campaign, their lives could continue as normal.
Craig says that he contacted the SNP to work out a way of releasing the news of his rejection and the very next morning the Scotsman was on the phone with all the inside information. Which mole within the SNP went to the Scotsman? That’s what an honest party would be working to find out.
Nice reply from the subject under discussion on his own blog: “Some of you are very dense.”. Add that to his comments about NO voters being “thick” or “evil”, and methinks his ego is as much bigger than he is, as he thinks he is than the SNP. Anyway, here’s what the Scotsman also said yesterday in its Leader:
“It has to be said, however, that the accusations Murray makes this weekend – hinting darkly that the SNP’s new cadre of professional politicians are in danger of betraying the principles of the party – miss their target by a country mile. His comments suggest more of a fondness for a conspiracy theory than any rational analysis about the state of the SNP leadership. The more sensible conclusion is Murray has misunderstood the nature of the modern SNP – and the SNP has understood the nature of Craig Murray all too well.”
Luckily, while attempting to take down the SNP in a hissy fit, he has actually managed successfully to do his own damage limitation on their behalf. If the Unionist parties try to use this, they lose. Nothing new there then these days.
Like the man said “it’s an old story”.
Wonder how the Unionists select their candidates a shoe in. There’s only one applicant get them in. Get the banks, Unions hierarchy or hedge fund backers Quids in. The Mafia. Get their skates on. How many lies can they tell In front of PR paid, cardboard cut out supporters. Tell lies to destroy their own party.
Two mavericks don’t make it, right.
You attacked me unmercifully for expressing my opinion about Murray
Once again you pay scant attention to truth. Your replies are neither rational nor calm. Please desist.
YesindyRef2: his comments about NO voters being “thick” or “evil ”
Quite a number of prominent independence supporters expressed their anger at the harm No voters have done. Vehemence abated because the chief opponents of full democracy are gone or in disarray.
The SNP has, in the main, been a good administration for Scotland – the only excuse the opposition needs to smear and demean. They don’t need a Murray or anybody else for that task.
If Murray is, as the harpies will have it, his own worst enemy, why the need to keep kicking and spitting? The man is down and out.
It’s repulsive to see so many act like vultures over a corpse. Let’s have some decency and dignity.
‘Ignored communities have forced the elite to listen by getting organised,’ says the Guardian. ‘There’s hope for democracy.’
Surprise, surprise, that claim doesn’t include Scotland and the Yes voters.
Ken: Wonder how the Unionists select their candidates.
Probably on the tried and tested basis of ‘you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.’
🙂
I would like to personally and publicly apologize to Morag for previously doubting her view on this issue.
Sometimes the method of delivery kinda obscures the message!
Although an avid reader of WoS this is my first post so please bear with me.
I would like to comment on the ongoing CM topic, i don’t know the chap and only read his blog a few times, lets just say his style “wasn’t to my liking” so i don’t intend to comment on him personally and whether or not he is or is not a suitable candidate. I just want to be more general in my comments.
I feel it is imperative that candidates for WM elections, or any other elections for that matter, are strong team players. Those intending to put themselves forward have to realise that they are no longer just individuals with their own thoughts, passions and agendas, they represent and are the face of the party they are members of.
Sure not everyone will agree with everything the party puts forward, however we need that unity and adherence to the whip to promote the party as an entity rather than picking and choosing what they decide to do as individuals. The time for arguments over policy should be done behind closed doors following the party constitutional arrangements and the democratic outcome followed, not as an individual protest vote at the ballot box in WM.
Think of this, if we sent 10.20.30 or whatever the number of SNP MP’s to WM and allowed them to cherry pick what they would vote for or against then we would be a very weak force indeed. If that was the case then we would be as well sending independents and leave them to get on with it, I don’t think that would get us very far or very quickly towards the big prize.
A manifesto will be democratically written and I for one would expect every MP to stand by it, rather than go off on their own tangent, remember there is strength in numbers. in essence what i am saying is that a vote in commons is not the time or place for personal views or internal differences and grievances.
There is always the argument of party v constituents but my simplistic answer is that if candidates want to put constituents before the wider party agenda then they should stand as independents and still offer their hand to independence.
The SNP has evolved from a tight membership working as one strong unit over the years to become the admirable force we currently enjoy and i wouldn’t like to see us diverge from those principals that have served us so well over the long years.
I have to admit I was not in favor of new members being allowed to stand for election, i would have preferred a cooling off period where candidates could “do their apprenticeship” and show who and what they are rather than jumping in at the deep end with whatever baggage, agenda or liability they may be carrying, hence my thoughts of a cooling off period.
In the meantime i welcome all new members and give my support to those who will be standing for the WM15 elections whilst sympathizing with the disappointed.
United we stand, United we will not fail
“Hazel: A silencing tactic if I ever saw one.
Intriguing phrase, one Ms Kerr uses regularly when faced with opinion not her own.”
Threatening someone with libel lawyers is an “opinion” is it? Don’t you ever get dizzy from all that spinning?
“I’m compelled to add I tire of the unpleasantness that invariably results from topics bitten by the humorless Ms Kerr and her aids.”
I don’t know Morag any better than I know you. In other words not at all. My opinion about Craig Murray is what brought me to post on this thread. Why don’t you give up on the insinuations and address the substance e.g. his long career as a liberal activist? If was that interested in Scottish independence why didn’t he sign up to the SNP the first time he was in Scotland as a student. Political consistency isn’t too much to ask of party candidates.
“‘Aids’! – aides – now there’s Freudian slip!”
How unpleasant. Diseases, “puking” – I’m assuming you just can’t help yourself. What a shame for you Mr Beater.
@ Rob Royston, 4:45am
Is it a surprise that they should attempt to continue as normal? The SNP isn’t just a political party, it is the party of government at Holyrood and is the only party representing Scottish interests at Westminster. By the way, does “normal” include the First Minister resigning? Also, the SNP has to act as their position demands. They cannot accuse the UK government of electoral abuse, not without a shed load of evidence, and getting the Referendum off the ground at all required a lot of negotiation. Also, after the Ref, there was immediately the start of preparing for the next GE; a short time because of the circumstances.
It is easy to complain when you don’t have the responsibility/accountability. That applies to the Craig Murray situation too.
Did any other candidate for nomination feel the need to “work out a way of releasing the news…” to the press? Does he always do this when he applies for a job?
As I said before, I had no objection to CM applying and admire his stance on many issues, but, when I read his blog and especially his candidate submission, I could understand even from that why he was most likely an unsuitable candidate for any political party. He must have known that publishing that blog would cause trouble. It would be disloyal no matter which political party/organisation was concerned and it certainly shows a lack of discretion. To say that his action was disappointing is an understatement.
It might be enlightening to take note of the Scotsman’s comment referred to @ yesindyref2, 7:49am
@ Derick fae Yell, 10:10am
You are a gentleman and a diplomat. Would you like to apply for candidate nomination? 🙂
Has any of the local readers here thought about applying for any of the jobs advertised, to “help” poor Labour in their time of need? I’m sure with the level of political knowledge here, Labour will be more than glad of the offers. 🙂
@ Penderyn
Think that suggestion might be a non-starter. People like to know they are getting paid for their work. Labour are still sending out begging emails to raise the costs of the 10 posts.
Remind me Stu-how long did it take Wings crowdfund to raise £110,000+ last year? 8.5 hours I think.
Looks as though Labours appeal is on it’s knees whilst still a long way from the finish line. Ah bless 😉
@ Betty Boop, 11.27am
Nothing that the Scotsman prints will be pro SNP. It may look like it but it will be written to cause splits among those seeking Independence.
Craig Murray has a long history of battling against the evils of the establishment. He has more on them than they feel comfortable with. Anyone who says he is a “loose cannon” has not thought it through. He targets what he sees as evil illegalities and lets fly. If the SNP sees fit to sit in government, joined at the hip to his targets, then they get hit as well, and in my opinion deserve all the damage it brings on them.
I’ve been an Independence voter all my life, voting SNP for over 50 years because I saw them as the only path to my goal. I never dream’t that they would ever consider supporting a Labour or Tory administration, but it’s worse than that when we saw how they lied to, and cheated, the Scottish people to get enough of them to vote No.
Craig Murray would have been a mighty weapon on the SNP side but his fearlessness makes many of them worry that he could get them into trouble along with him as he rocked their comfortable boat.
Lollysmum, 53,000 in 8 and a half hours, that was the original ‘target’. Of course the final amount was your quoted amount 🙂
@Thepnr says:27 December, 2014 at 9:57 pm:
” … Simply, would you support the bedroom tax if told you MUST because it was for the party good?”
Wait-up, Thepnr, the whole point of the question asked seems to be flying above most heads on the forum. I’ll say it again. The first point is that, “The SNP”, is not the members elected as MPs, MSPs, MEPs or to office as party officials. The hierarchy DO NOT thus dictate, or make, party policies.
SNP Party Policy is laid down by democratic decisions taken by delegates appointed by branches at National Conference. So there is no question of the party hierarchy dictating what party policy is nor of, “The Hecht heid ains”, dictating or forcing party policies upon either members or candidates.
Thus all party members, prospective candidates, elected candidates and party officials are duty bound to accept the democratically decided policies of the party. Anyone who cannot accept such policies must resign. If any member cannot accept the democratic policy then they have no place anywhere within the party. The time and place for any member to voice opposition to party policy is at branch meetings, at constituency level and then at National conference.
If the majority vote at national conference goes against them then they either accept the majority decision or they resign their membership. So this matter of Craig Murray’s refusal to accept an hypothetical party policy if he became an elected person sees him rule Himself out as a candidate.
Simply put – if any matter is already agreed SNP party policy then it has already been agreed as such by a majority of the membership at conference. This is where the SNP differs from all other parties – it is the membership who dictate policies by democratic vote and all members have the same number of votes.
Thank you Derick, you are a true gentleman.
Some people seem to have an issue with the way I come over on the blog. It’s difficult to express nuance and personality in typed comments, and if I’m not doing that I probably can’t help it. I try to respond to what other people have actually said though, not to their style.
I appreciate that some people think Craig Murray would have been a good candidate. I disagree, pretty strongly as it happens, but I don’t think they’re bad people for holding that opinion. It would be nice if we could keep things at that level, rather than mounting scatalogical personal attacks on people who express an opinion someone disagrees with.
What Rob Royston said is interesting. I expected to be devastated when I realised the referendum was shaping up to be a No, and I couldn’t understand why I wasn’t. I was at the count, and despite the result I felt little worse than I had at previous elections when the SNP hadn’t done as well as hoped. It was almost as if my subconscious realised straightaway that this wasn’t a final defeat, but rather just another step along the road.
I found myself comforting devastated Generation Yes and other group activists, and actually saying, “Look, we’re the SNP, we know how to handle this, we’ve done it before and we’ll do it again. We get up, dust ourselves off, and keep going.”
Having said that, a lot of individuals were devastated, even within the SNP. Nicola Sturgeon gave an interview in yesterday’s paper where she described her tears as she realised the result was a No. The point is that the SNP as an organisation exists, and is strong, and is geared up to continue the struggle. That’s what gives us strength and comfort. I didn’t really realise that until the result came through.
Nicola’s tears weren’t broadcast though. The party leaders performed well to the cameras, and didn’t become hysterical. I don’t see that as a reason to question their committment.
And thank God the party didn’t start alleging ballot-paper tampering, when there isn’t the slightest shred of concrete evidence that happened. That way lies madness.
This
“The point is that the SNP as an organisation exists, and is strong, and is geared up to continue the struggle”
One of the most distinguished ‘loose cannons’ in the SNP alumni is Alex Salmond himself, and all the better for it.
By alteration to long-standing out-dated SNP policy he brought about, and the toppling of some of the SNP’s most hallowed shibboleths, he’s no respecter of authority.
He also became a severe critic of the SNP under the leadership of Jim Sillars.
Moreover, he was a wonderfully effective thorn in the side of Westminster arrogance, and indeed, plans to repeat the exercise but this time from a place of greater strength.
I wish him well.
K1
Thanks for that-rather knocks Slab’s appeal into a cocked hat doesn’t it-theirs has been running for days now 😉
Salmond was actually expelled from the party. It was his behaviour after that happened that changed the course of history.
*gets popcorn*
Agh! Shutting down! I can’t stand any more of the Craig Murray comments. We have a GE to win. Please let’s disagree without being disagreeable.
Salmond was actually expelled from the party.
… suspended for membership of the ’79 group, expulsion upheld but then rescinded, allowed back a month later, and later elected SNP Vice Convener of Publicity. A committed and determined ‘loose cannon’ that no self-respecting harpy would ever support as SNP candidate.
As is the poster’s habit, misleading half-baked half-truths from the self-styled ‘academic,’ Ms Kerr.
I like grouse – why do people pride themselves on beating them?
Mmmm, nice popcorn.
(How do you get to be an academic, other than by holding an academic position in a university? Inquiring minds want to know.)
FFS grouse-give it a rest
Still trying to figure out what was inaccurate about what I wrote, by the way. Salmond was expelled from the SNP. Torrance may not be good for much, but he quotes the exact text of the letter sent to Salmond on 20th September 1982.
Is there something ambiguous about the word “expelled” that “Grouse Beater” is having difficulty with?
Salmond and his 79 Group colleagues decided to appeal the decision, and the Appeals Committee considered their submissions for about 40 hours over a period of three months. The expulsions were upheld by 9 votes to 2, and the decision was ratified by National Council on 30th April 1983.
Neil McCormick then dreamed up a creative compromise which allowed Salmond and others who accepted the terms to be re-admitted to the party on 25th May 1983. This compromise involved the expulsions being retrospectively converted to temporary suspensions. It was Salmond’s exemplary handling of this delicate situation, and his willingness to write the necessary climb-down letter to National Council that led to this outcome, and to his subsequent rise in the party.
So, where were the “misleading half-baked half-truths” in what I wrote? Shorn of the detail, it was completely accurate. Salmond was expelled from the SNP on 20th September 1982 and re-admitted on 25th May 1983. Rather longer than a month.
The moral of the story is that Wikipedia isn’t a reliable or comprehensive source of information. I think “Grouse Beater” is already in such a deep hole that stopping digging might be advisable.
My original point was of course that there is a distinct possibility that Craig Murray might also find himself expelled from the SNP, and if that happens it will be interesting to see how he handles the situation and how it all pans out.
FFS grouse-give it a rest
I will NOT be silenced – oops! Sorry, that just slipped out.
Can’t recall where I picked up the phrase.
🙂
Sorry, but I just noticed this. Jim Sillars has never been leader of the SNP. What on earth is “Grouse Beater” raving about?
Gordon Wilson was leader of the party from 1979 (taking over from Billy Woolfe) until Salmond became leader himself in 1990. Salmond remained leader until September this year apart from the 4-year period of Swinney’s leadership in the early naughties.
Is it possible “Grouse Beater” didn’t actually know that Salmond had been expelled, and went scratching around Wikipedia in his surprise at learning the information, hoping to prove me wrong?
Where is he copying this nonsense about Sillars being party leader from?
Anyone who seriously thinks Craig Murray is in any way comparable to or on a par with Alex Salmond is delusional. Alex Salmond is a political genius who transformed the SNP after a period of conflict with the leadership of Gordon Wilson. Craig Murray is heap bad medicine, as recent events have made abundantly clear.
Has “Grouse Beater” really been silenced by the revelation of his own ignorance and errors? One can only hope so.
Has Grouse Beater been silenced [by my superior intellect]?
Here is how defamatory is your normal mode of opinion; I quote you exactly.
“He [Craig Murray] would have been a disaster, and I think the selection committee may have realised that from the get go.”
In one sentence you demean the integrity and honesty of the SNP’s vetting committee and its procedures. You also insinuate the members of the committee had made up their mind of Murray’s alleged unsuitability before he sat down to be interviewed; and in so doing you insult Murray by suggesting the entire procedure was a charade, his call to examination a waste of time, an invitation to be humiliated.
Unwittingly, you support my assertion that idle speculation of a man’s integrity made in the social media, particularly by an erstwhile colleague, is wholly unprofessional, and will influence committee members’ judgement. It doesn’t matter if the target refuses to respond – sustained gossip is enough to unsettle. You admit it in that statement.
It is common practice for members of institutions, bodies, and company bosses to trawl the internet for references to a candidate, a search for their attitudes and reactions to current affairs, and any note of their achievements or misdemeanours.
Anybody who thinks that does not happen is a fool.
You are a vet. Well, thank goodness vets are barred from operating on humans.
I wish you well for your ‘academic’ pursuits. At least they might keep you off the streets!
PS: I’m smiling. I know it irritates the hell out of you.
🙂
Paula Rose: I like grouse…
Reciprocated. 🙂
Paula, you might appreciate the reference to pole-dancing made in my latest essay:
‘The Curious Case of Craig Murray’ – Grouse Beater on WordPress.
Grouse Beater
Sadly instead of reading the criticism and thinking about it, much from his own supporters, he’s continuing in his self-destruction. What he should do is drink and be merry!
His continuation has served one useful purpose though, if the Unionists try to use it, they’ll be easy to discredit.
Has “Grouse Beater” figured out yet that Alex Salmond was EXPELLED from the SNP for a period of over eight months, in 1982-83? Or that Jim Sillars has never in his life served as leader of the SNP?
Is there any chance at all that he’s going to apologise for his own “misleading, half-baked half-truths”? Thought not.
Someone else at a vetting panel. Quite a good read.
link to misssymartin.blogspot.co.uk
@ Marcia, 10:00am
Thanks for posting that link.
I notice he has also tried to justify his action by being interviewed by D Bateman. Digging deeper holes, comes to mind – total distraction.
I left a subtle comment on that url and they say that irony is wasted on the thick.
I’m quite disappointed by Derek Bateman’s approach to this. Handing Murray another platform for his self-justification, and three separate articles in NNS bigging him up and ignoring the manifold problems with his candidacy. Not very professional.
Sorry about the length of the next post by the way. I wanted to pull some things together that I hadn’t felt it appropriate to say earlier.
My comment on Grousebeater’s blog that remains in moderation. Tut tut.
“Sorry, I completely disagree with pretty much every point in this article.
Like Mr Murray I went through the vetting process, and like him I also failed it. As it happens I was not approved due to one point which I disagree with, and on one point where sadly I think the panel was correct to fail me (alas!). Over the years hundreds of people have had the same experience, including some current elected SNP politicians who failed vetting first time round. To my recollection only one has had a public strop about it. It hurts, but the mature reaction is to learn from one’s mistakes and either seek to improve at a future occasion, or contribute in other ways. Not for riches or for glory….
If Craig is reading this then I think the personal and public attack on members of the appeals panel was particularly ill advised. Nobody, however high profile, is bigger than the movement and the overall prize – that being a fair, equal, democratic Scotland, extracted from the current near colonial situation where our resources are being stolen while we have no significant influence on where that money ends up.
Before this nonsense I was a supporter, and I still think that Craig has a lot to offer the cause, if he would just take a step back, reflect on recent events and consider how he might best contribute
Craig’s behaviour since not being approved pretty much confirms that the vetting panel, and then the appeals panel, were correct not to approve him. Morag, God love her (and like Mr M) has a somewhat abrasive style. Nevertheless she called this one correctly.”
Grouse Beater, you have a very strange idea of what constitutes defamation. Also of how any sort of selection process works.
It seems very likely that the SNP didn’t have the slightest intention of approving Craig Murray as a candidate, well before it got to the actual vetting. There is an enormous amount of information about him in the public domain, and a great deal of it is not to his credit. It is normal practice to research such things in advance.
First, the lurid past. The accusation of drunkenness in the workplace. The misogyny, the exploitation of women. The mishandling of the whistle-blowing episode. (You either try to handle the matter quietly, internally, or you resign FIRST and then go public.) All of this is in the public domain, so there’s no use shouting “where’s your evidence for these smears?”
Then, the blog. Lots of intemperate, highly opinionated articles, many showing a marked lack of judgement and evidence-weighing skills, and some containing serious errors. The reader can see commentators trying to draw Murray’s attention to some of the errors, and being rebuffed. The entire oevre isn’t something any PPC should have in his CV.
Also, there are books and other public utterances, containing a lot of personal information, again much of it not helpful to someone seeking elected office.
Then, the ego. This clearly isn’t someone who would happily settle down and work as one unit in a team, respecting a team leader. He always has to be the one who’s in the limelight, and right. His touting of himself as a prospective parliamentary candidate, attending hustings and giving press interviews about it, before going through the vetting process (which he seemed to see as a mere rubber stamp on his awesomeness), is just one example. There’s a serious lack of self-awareness in that. How could anyone with his past possibly imagine that his vetting would be a formality, especially in a party that had sufferered from the Bill Walker affair? His inability to handle criticism in a level-headed manner is another.
The insulting remarks about No voters is a particularly blatant and damaging instance of the above. It’s simply unacceptable that an SNP PPC should have statements like that in the public record. These people would be his constituents, were he elected.
Roll all of that up together and you have a potential media firestorm. The anti-SNP journalists were probably already drafting the articles, which thank God they have had to spike in favour of the rather smaller beer of “The SNP is a stalinist dictatorship which is going to force its MPs to vote for the bedroom tax.” It’s all very well to say that the press will attack the SNP no matter what they do, but it kind of helps if the muck they’re raking isn’t actually true.
There’s also the question of his fundamental reason for wanting to be an MP. Is it to stand up for Scotland and get the best deal possible out of Westminster, or is it to use parliamentary privilege to attack the previous Labour government and call for Tony Blair to be impeached? The SNP might prefer to have some control over whether one of its MPs went down that line, but with Murray elected, there would probably have been no way to stop him.
And you seriously think the selection committee would be approaching an applicant with that background with an open mind?
The SNP has taken the most professional line. It went through due process. The applicant went through the vetting procedure. Was there anything he could have said that would have induced them to pass him, with that background? I don’t know, but clearly if there was, he didn’t say it. Grouse Beater talks as if the vetting process is a court of law, where juries must put prejudicial information out of their minds and decide on the facts presented on the day. It’s nothing like that. The applicant’s past, in the public record, is a vital part of the assessment. Bill Walker, again.
But rather than hand the man a catalogue of personal criticism, the SNP sent Murray a polite rejection email which even included a wee bit of ego-boo. Good approach. A rejection is a rejection, and there’s no point in upsetting the applicant to no good purpose. It’s then up to him how he handles it.
First, Murray contacted the SNP to talk about how to release the information to the press. That’s quite some brass neck, for starters. How many other failed candidates thought they merited a special SNP press release? It was entirely Murray’s own choice that his ambitions to become a candidate where public knowledge, but he then wanted the SNP to intervene to spare the blushes of this one special snowflake?
Then a journalist from SoS phoned him, in what was quite clearly a sting operation. There was plenty of information available to form an approach that could be represented as showing that an SNP insider had leaked information. All Murray has to say was, “I’m naturally very disappointed, but the most important thing is to get the right candidates elected next year to stand up for the peeople of Scotland. I will naturally give my full support to whoever is selected to stand in my constituency.” End of. Engage “diginified silence” mode.
Whatever he actually said to the journalist, and he claims to have said nothing out of turn, the subsequent blog articles were a melt-down of epic proportions. Five of them now. He put details of the SNP’s internal selection procedures into the public domain, putting the most damaging spin possible on them, and handing the anti-SNP journalists a shed-load of ammunition. Some damage has been done, but the huge upside is that it is now limited. The much more massive damage that would have ensued from Murray standing as an SNP candidate has been averted.
Now one thing Murray does seem to have going for him is charisma. He has a following of loyal fans who are blind to their hero’s feet of clay and see nothing beyond their vision of a brave human rights activist sacrificing his career to blow the whistle on the British state. They’re so dazzled by this, and the fact that the man was once an ambassador, that they see nothing incongruous in idolising someone who once sought and achieved a position at the very heart of darkness. These acolytes will no doubt continue to protest, but thankfully the whole business will blow over with the New Year.
I don’t really see how Murray can, in honour, remain a member of the SNP after trashing the party so publicly on Saturday. I assumed when I read that blog article that he intended to resign. If his main reason for joining in the wake of the 2011 landslide was to use the party’s surge in popularity to gain elected office for himself, he might as well, because it’s fairly obvious that’s not going to happen now.
So, we’ll see how this plays out. But spare me the whining about defamation, and get wise both to how selection processes work, and to the full history of the applicant in question.
Derick, I see your post on “Grouse Beater’s” pathetic article still isn’t approved. Why debate on a platform where your voice will simply be stifled?
Good luck with any future attempts to pass the SNP parliamentary vetting, if you still want to. Having been through it once will make it a lot clearer what you have to do to pass the next time.
I also failed my first vetting (for a council nomination; being a parliamentarian isn’t anywhere in my list of life goals), simply through not doing my homework. I didn’t realise the homework was required, and in fact my mother had just died so I wasn’t really thinking clearly. I received a pleasant email explaining why I failed, and encouraging me to try again, including the information that many people who failed first time have gone on to be highly respected elected representatives.
Of course I girned a bit to the few people who would listen, but when the opportunity arose to have another go when a by-election was called, I did the homework and passed. I girned a bit more about the trouble that would have been saved if they’d just passed me the first time (the homework was easy and obviously I could have done it in a week), but you know what, they were quite right.
So all the best for the future. I have nothing but admiration for anyone prepared to relocate to London and get involved in the bear pit that is Westminster, in pursuit of the greater good of Scotland.
Thank you.
I would much preferred to have kept personal failure private, but if exposing that disappointment publicly helps in any small way to damp down the current CM nonsense it’s a price worth paying.
The national movement does tend to attract persons of strong opionions though, Grousebeater CDM and yourself included. Makes things a bit too interesting sometimes though!
CDM (Construction Design & Management)! meant CM of course. Duh
Cadbury’s Dairy Medal? (That goes back a bit, but it dates to the time when the initials of one of my PhD supervisors were CDM, so it’s an old joke.)
enough
too much character assassination of indy supporters, it serves no purpose
i like CM, i dont think the occassional wild card is a problem, galloway still got elected etc
i dont think CM’s suitability was the issue, this was a pragmatic decision by risk averse SNP officials, perhaps the history of such hostile press has made them understandably cautious, (they managed to get robertson to resign because of a heavy snow fall one winter)thats why I disagree with the SNP on this, simply because the press will come hunting for us anyway. that said, the decision has been made and i respect their decision, since now we have no way of ever knowing whether it was the right or wrong one. I think he was right to contact the SNP with regards a joint press release, CM not getting selected is news, (not a snowflake) and if someone in the SNP did brief against him to the press, as he claims (i see no reason to disbelieve him) then that was not well done. I dont think it was neccessary and better communication might have avoided much of this bickering (WOS comments section reads like an agony aunt column at the moment)
Thanks for posting an actual reasoned argument, instead of the personal attacks from people like “Grouse Beater” who seem to have no other way to express themselves.
I don’t agree with you, but we can’t do a controlled experiment with reality. We can’t know what would have happened if Murray had got through the vetting, so we guess. You think it would have been OK, I think a major disaster has been averted. A wild card in a large party is one thing, but within the small SNP Westminster group it would be a huge hostage to fortune.
You know, I’m told that so many people have passed the selection process that some constituencies practically have a football team of nominees to choose from. I’m thrilled to bits by this, because I was quite worried a few months ago that the party might struggle to find enough quality candidates prepared to go to Westminster. In this context, why take the risk of selecting someone with that amount of baggage?
I think Galloway was a problem for Labour. Bear in mind that after he became a high-profile and controversial figure he stood as an independent or as the leader of the party he himself formed.
I think if Craig Murray wants to get into Westminster, that would be a far better way to achieve his ambition.
thanks for the reply Morag
Morag says:
“personal attacks from people like “Grouse Beater”
I dont like personal attacks on any indy supporter, you, GB or CM. we get more than enough of that from the unionists. I have commented alongside GB for many years, never met him/her, but enjoyed his comments and found him to be educated, informed, witty and very literate. The same can be said for yourself Morag and CM. Im so glad all 3 of you are on our side and not the unionist.
“we can’t do a controlled experiment with reality”
agreed. we will never know, so no point flogging a dead horse or cat 🙂
“I’m told that so many people have passed the selection process that some constituencies practically have a football team of nominees to choose from. I’m thrilled to bits by this”
Totally agree, i remember a time in the Bon Accord branch in Aberdeen when we couldnt find enough people to stand in every council ward, and some that did stand only did so on the understanding that there was no chance they could win!!!
Then again, I still think CM would have been a great MP 🙂
“why take the risk of selecting someone with that amount of baggage?”
I take your point Morag, Which was probably the rational behind not selecting CM, but politics is about taking the right risks, not avoiding them.
“I think Galloway was a problem for Labour”
He did represent labour in the 16/17 y.o. debate during the referendum.
I cant stand Galloway, I’m not suprised that even labour loath him too. The BBC even edited out his inappropriate comments to save unionist blushes. CM is a saint in comparison
I guess we all just need to agree to disagree on this one folks. and move on
Time GB & M took this ootside and Ah’m no’ haudin’ the jaikits.
“we can’t do a controlled experiment with reality”
agreed. we will never know, so no point flogging a dead horse or cat 🙂
meanwhile, in a collapsed 11th dimensional parallel universe, coming to town very near you……..the FM Craig Murray is about to address his adoring fans, lol
donald anderson says:
Time GB & M took this ootside and Ah’m no’ haudin’ the jaikits.
lol, i was gonna suggest they got a room, ha ha ha ha
Schrodingers cat says:
donald anderson says:
Time GB & M took this ootside and ah’m no’ haudin’ the jaikits.
lol, i was gonna suggest they got a room, ha ha ha ha
They know they fancy each other.
It’s also, obviously, about deciding which are the right risks and which are the wrong ones.
In this situation you have a controversial candidate who seems to be pushing his candidacy with the agenda of using his parliamentary presence to pursue Tony Blair for war crimes. You may decide that’s an agenda you can get behind, and you can cope with the problems you’ll inevitably encounter of getting the guy to be a team player. Maybe. Just possibly, that’s a “right” risk. (Actually I don’t think it is in the present situation, but it’s arguable.)
But then the candidate in question has a loose mouth, and a lurid past that pretty much adds up to all Christmases come at once for the muckraking unionist journalists who’ll grab at anything to discredit the SNP. You can imagine the headlines. At this point, is it still a “right” risk? Maybe not.
I think Craig Murray would be an interesting independent MP. I can’t see him as a fit with the SNP group, not now, not ever.
Morag says:
“politics is about taking the right risks, not avoiding them.
It’s also, obviously, about deciding which are the right risks and which are the wrong ones”
agreed, we just disagree about what was the right decision. nothing more.
“a controversial candidate”
controvesial is good sometimes. He is also a very effective debater. Russell Brand is also very controversial and an excellent campaigner and speaker. controversial isnt always bad.
“who seems to be pushing his candidacy with the agenda of using his parliamentary presence to pursue Tony Blair for war crimes.”
So What? The SG want to indite blair for war crimes. This is mainstream SNP policy! That is one of the tasks the newly elected SNP MP’s will be expected to pursue!!
link to heraldscotland.com
“You may decide that’s an agenda you can get behind, and you can cope with the problems you’ll inevitably encounter of getting the guy to be a team player”
Having served in the war in the gulf, I would love to see blair charged with war crimes?
“Maybe. Just possibly, that’s a “right” risk.”(Actually I don’t think it is in the present situation, but it’s arguable.)
No it isnt, I would have happily held Craig Murray’s jacket while he put the boot in at Westminster and called for Blair’s head on a stick!!
“The candidate in question has a loose mouth, and a lurid past”
I had hoped that the character assassination would stop Morag. GB wasnt threatening anyone with legal action or lawyers, he merely pointed out that some opinions and comments were verging on the “libellous”. You may think CM was an unsuitable candidate, fair doos Morag, I respect your position, I just dont think it is neccessary to include such adjectives as “Lurid” to your comments
“that pretty much adds up to all Christmases come at once for the muckraking unionist journalists who’ll grab at anything to discredit the SNP
You can imagine the headlines. At this point, is it still a “right” risk? Maybe not.”
The media will do that anyway, the same arguement could be employed against CM and WOS and during the referendum it was. Should we all just shut up shop because it is too risky?
Irrespective of all previous issues, the reaction to not being approved is the overwhelming factor here.
Politics is a collective process, or it is futile
Therefore it needs people who can work collectively.
I think the reaction to not being approved demonstrated what was implicit in a lot of what went before.
SC, you only have to look at the public record of Murray’s past to see that “lurid” is a perfectly reasonable description of it, indeed quite restrained. And if his comments about No voters, in public, repeated a number of times, don’t come in the category of “loose-mouthed”, then I don’t really know what does.
I think you have to recognise when absolutely factual things are being pointed out about someone you happen to admire, and stop shouting “character assassination” and “libel”.
The press are always on the lookout for something negative to smear the SNP with. That doesn’t justify handing a package to them which pretty much amounts to a wet dream for muckrakers.
i didnt say it was libellous, others on this thread did, i said it was unneccessary.
Schrodingers cat says:
i didnt say it was libellous, others on this thread did, i said it was unneccessary.
He say and she says. She says and he says …
@ donald anderson
snigger
It must be all this talk of lurid wet dreams,
Are we going to put this one behind us folks? Unfortunately there are no winners, just disappointment.
Rev, Rev there’s a naughty boy being smutty!
Not many things in life are necessary. Breathing, eating, drinking, sleeping and maintaining one’s body temperature about covers it.
Until Murray announced to all and sundry that he was putting himself forward as a wannabe SNP candidate for Westminster, there was no need to dwell on any of that. Mere criticism of the errors and misconceptions on his blog would suffice, to counter the uncritical adulation he was afforded during the referendum campaign.
Once he went public about his parliamentary ambitions, however, it was absolutely in everybody’s interest to remind people about other issues which had a bearing on his candidacy. As someone else remarked, two words. Bill. Walker.
I thought it was unnecessary to go on about Pole Dancers. Whit’s wrang wi’ Poles? We’ll be discriminating against Welsh sheep next.
Morag says:
“It seems very likely that the SNP didn’t have the slightest intention of approving Craig Murray as a candidate, well before it got to the actual vetting.”
Morag,
By saying the above you have brought the SNP into disrepute, the integrity of the vetting panel is also being maligned.
Paula Rose says:
Rev, Rev there’s a naughty boy being smutty!
from the naughty step….
a big boy did it and ran away, honest Paula
PS. I know a lot about horses, my wife’s a nag 🙂
Morag says:
“Until Murray announced to all and sundry that he was putting himself forward as a wannabe SNP candidate for Westminster, there was no need to dwell on any of the following necessities of life, eg. Breathing, eating, drinking, sleeping and maintaining one’s body temperature”
I’m not sure I can provide the professional help you so obviously need!!!!
Very funny. I’m ROFL, honestly.
Jings, I don’t want to set it all off again, and probably nobody’s reading any more anyway, but you have to look at the third paragraph in this post here.
link to wingsoverscotland.com
That was posted on 11th December, about a fortnight before Craig Murray had his public meltdown about the question. And, supreme irony, it was posted only half an hour after Murray himself had posted one of his periodic “why are you being so nasty to me” comments.
If nothing else, it at least puts to bed the allegation that the question was only made up to trip Murray. (Of course the poster who mentioned it thought it was being given to all of the awkward squad to eliminate them, so maybe we’re no further forward.)
What, you think the vetting panel goes into every encounter with an applicant with a blank, open mind, and no preconceptions about the person? That’s pretty naive.
It’s inevitable that there will be a lot of examination of everyone’s past before the interviews even start. That’s recent past, such as insulting No voters repeatedly in public, and more historical matters. Pointing out that this happens isn’t maligning the integrity of the panel, it’s acknowledging what their job is.
So, someone who has applied turns out to be a non-starter. What to do? I don’t think there’s a single instance of the SNP telling an applicant to bugger off before they’ve been in front of the vetting panel. And if they’d done that with Murray, would anyone be any happier with the situation? He’s be screaming that he wasn’t even given the opportunity to impress the panel. Obviously, they give every applicant an interview, regardless.
So, there will be a lot of pre-judging going on. It’s inevitable. In the case of an applicant with an extremely high public profile, it’s very likely that minds might be made up already if that profile contains a sufficient quota of flashing red lights. In my view Mr. Murray’s public profile lit up like an acid house Christmas tree in warning signs. The vetting panel aren’t daft.
If Murray is telling the truth about being greeted with hostility in his appeal interview, my interpretation of that is that the panel had his number at an early stage and were getting a bit narked at his lack of self-awareness, and failure to get the message.
Pointing out that the selection committee do their homework and may well have had sufficient information to have come to a fairly firm provisional decision even before Murray walked in the door isn’t maligning them, it’s crediting them with a bit of professional competence.
@Rev, & anyone else who’s been following this thread –
Morag’s comment at 7.40 is out of order – it should be deleted.
To even tangentially conflate Craig Murray’s extra-curricular activities with the behaviour of a convicted serial wife-beater is beyond the pale.
Morag,
“Dr. Morag Graham Kerr, BVMS, BSc, PhD, CBiol, FIBiol, MRCVS. On my business cards.”
“I’m quite disappointed by Derek Bateman’s approach to this. Handing Murray another platform for his self-justification, and three separate articles in NNS bigging him up and ignoring the manifold problems with his candidacy. Not very professional.”
Didn’t you think Derek Bateman was very professional in repeatedly being a BBC apologist? You have fallen out with him TOO?
It seems the only qualification you lack is the common sense gut feeling of the average person on the street.
To get independence, we will need the support of the common person. And it is street fighters from the RIC and people like Tommy Sheridan and Craig Murray who will get us that support.
The vast majority of qualified persons like yourself voted No, spectacularly so in the SNP heartlands, whereas common people in Glasgow, Dundee and North Lanarkshire voted Yes.
If SNP officials involved with the vetting process are as arrogant as yourself, I would be very disappointed.
Derik Fae Yell:
My comment on Grousebeater’s blog … remains in moderation. Tut tut.
Ms Kerr:
Derick, [sic] I see your post on “Grouse Beater’s” pathetic article still isn’t approved. Why debate on a platform where your voice will simply be stifled?
Derik
Until I log on, the system holds back all first timers, not me. I have a full and eventful life outside my blog, people to see, places to go! It was published in full, receiving a response or two.
Only torturers interpret silence as a point of view…
…oh, and self-aggrandising trolls who boast, ‘He’s too scared to reply.’
I left this thread late last night; be content knowing that so far many hundreds have read your alternative view, and still counting.
Peace, brother.
🙂
Well, you know what Rock, I bust a gut trying to persuade people round here, 68% No voters, to vote Yes. It would be too bad if the Yes campaign only talked to one sort of person.
I heard the generalisations going on after the vote. It’s all the fault of the women, the old, the comfortable middle classes, the non-Scots-born.
I’m female, I’m over 60, I’m middle-class and comfortable for the moment anyway. I was born in Scotland (actually North Lanarkshire, does that help any?) but like Stuart lived in England for a long time. I began to feel a bit hunted.
Does any of this matter a damn?
Tommy Sheridan does what he does best, and he’s behaved pretty well throughout the referendum campaign. I admired the way he handled things, and the way he stayed calm when people attacked him. He hasn’t tried to be selected as an SNP candidate, because he knows that’s not his thing. He’ll go on appealling to the sort of person he appeals to, and all the best to him.
Craig Murray wanted to do something he wasn’t suited for. You may think it’s arrogant to point this out, your business.
Ian Brotherhood: Morag’s comment at 7.40 is out of order – it should be deleted.
Try libellous. Then again, if one is intent on defaming an individual because you’re convinced being outspoken is a virtue why hold back?
Fair point to Grouse Beater, the same misunderstanding about approval of first comments happens here too.
I still think the article was pathetic though. Complete misunderstanding of the nature of a selection process, and how it differs from a court of law.
Ah, Grouse Beater has to spoil it again. Leaving aside the misuse of the word libel in Scotland, there’s absolutely nothing defamatory in that post.
It’s blindingly obvious that a party that has had its fingers burned over one MSP’s past history, will be pretty damn interested in any new applicant’s past history. Over the past few days many others have explicitly pointed out the relevance of the Bill Walker affair to the SNP’s vetting processes and Craig Murray’s situation. You going to round all them up and accuse them of defamation?
Morag is seriously out of order here.
This thread – viewed as a whole? – is utterly shameful.
Grouse Beater + Derik Fae Yell
I set up a wordpress blog and disabled comments (I hope)! Same as grousebeater I have other things to do and firstly, comments would also hang around before being published, and secondly I’d feel obliged to answer them!
For me it was a limited purpose “read-only” blog, probably outdated by now as well, as it has indeed, been onwards and upwards.
(later) Good article by the way Grouse, I like the way you don’t name anyone, just their quotes. Doesn’t mean I agree with it, but we all have our our own opinions, as we should.
One problem is that if he / you / anyone thinks the outspoken criticisms of him now are bad, as an MP for a party, especially one in such an rUK loathed position, he would be open to far far worse, as would the party by selected association. As an Independent he could tell them to go f*** themselves – and probably would, though without the sweary words.
Ian Brotherhood
Ian, Craig Murray has become THE news, and news is entitled to be discusssed, vigorously. In public office he would have been likely to get far more serious attacks, on any perceived weakness.
Anyway, as they say, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. People often remember the name, but not why.
Morag,
“Well, you know what Rock, I bust a gut trying to persuade people round here, 68% No voters, to vote Yes. It would be too bad if the Yes campaign only talked to one sort of person.”
Well Craig Murray, in the SNP for only 3 years, was much more successful than you were then.
Trying to convince the 70% elderly British nationalists and probably 75% of the middle class is a total waste of time and resources in my view.
It was a serious failure of the SNP that they couldn’t get a Yes vote in their ‘heartlands’. Their new support is coming from the grassroots.
You might be an SNP activist and tireless independence campaigner but from you comments I have got the impression that you are too qualified, and therefore too arrogant, to convince the people we need to cross the 50% mark – the working class that voted No.
The SNP official who devised the bedroom tax question should be named, shamed and sacked in my opinion. To use such a hated policy even in a hypothetical question is extremely stupid and hypocritical. I want the SNP to be and to remain an honest party, not become a Labour like party machine.
And do you now agree that the BBC apologist Derek Bateman was absolutely wrong in his repeated view that the BBC were not deliberately biased against independence?
I used to receive posts from Derek Bateman, but haven’t for a few weeks. Was it something I said?
Lots of good forums sprouting up, but I just don’t have time for them all and this one is becoming too time consuming with in house arguments. Everyone is entitled to their view and to disagree with each other. That is healthy for democracy, but it can be off putting for some not as determined as myself.
Rock
Unexpected moral dilemma questions are common in interview situations. The more difficult the question the more effective it is. These questions never have a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer. Sometimes they don’t have a correct answer at all. The point is to test how the candidate thinks on their feet in response to the most awkward possible theoretical question, and how they justify their response.
link to everydayinterviewtips.com
Ian Brotherhood – the point about Bill Walker is that there was a guy who did pass vetting AND was nominated as a candidate by a branch or by 10 individual members AND was selected and duly got elected. And then turned out to be a total liability. No system is perfect, but whatever system is used it needs to be as robust as possible, preferably to weed out the obvious non-starters as quickly as possible.
I can see that there is arguement for having an open selection process whereby any person could put themselves forward to constituency members. However, I do think that having an agreed, democratically overseen, professional pre-vetting system does make it easier for members when we come to decide who to vote for. 80 years of sometimes bitter experience clearly informs the SNP process.
My constituency now has nine nominated SNP hopefuls to choose from. Some of them are very good so it’s a difficult choice. The fact that they have been vetted means that I don’t have to spend days researching each one online to check if they have called No voters ‘thick’ or ‘evil’ or are a general liability.
Grousebeater – thanks for clarification. From memory I have commented on your blog before but maybe it was from a different computer so the system picked me up as ‘new’.
Do you mean you used to receive email notification of Derek’s blog posts, Donald? If that’s stopped I suspect it’s something to do with the software. I’ve noticed Derek isn’t very techie. I don’t imagine he’d deliberately stop sending notifications to people, if he even knew how to do it!
I’ve always disagreed with him about the BBC bias question, and argued with him about it on his blog, although I did try to see it from his point of view too.
I did my best, in the area where I live, like a lot of other people did. It’s anything but an SNP heartland by the way. We have a Tory MP! (Yes, that one.) At least No activists weren’t going round the doors showing undecided voters a video of me saying that everyone who voted No was too stupid to breathe unaided, and so putting them completely against the Yes side.
Morag says:
31 December, 2014 at 9:51 am
Do you mean you used to receive email notification of Derek’s blog posts, Donald? If that’s stopped I suspect it’s something to do with the software. I’ve noticed Derek isn’t very techie. I don’t imagine he’d deliberately stop sending notifications to people, if he even knew how to do it!
Yes. That would be correct. I’m not techie enough to get back oan and I haven’t said a bad word to him. I didn’t agree with his analysis of the EBC, but understand where he is coming from so didn’t comment on that. Haven’t seen his defence of CM, so can’t comment on that either. It is a very good blog and hope to get back on soon. Haven’t time for all the other nice blogs and hope peace will break
out soon on this one.
YesindiRef2:
Good article by the way, Grouse. I like the way you don’t name anyone…
Always best to put forward considered argument and avoid personal insult; difficult when somebody is determined to defame. The entire repetitive tirade against Murray could have been conducted by asking the question, what criteria should exist for selection that avoids the old and the conventional and welcomes the new and the radical? That sort of thing.
I regard as pure hokum the claim Murray shows contempt for the real vetting committee (not the alternative one on this thread!) by questioning its criteria for selection.
My essay that went viral, ‘The Pitch,’ is a similar attack of the BBC’s inept way of rendering programme submissions akin to Strickly Come Dancing, an elimination contest rather than a business-creative deal.
What this spat has shown is an urgent need to discuss ways of alleviating the tension between priorities exercised by SNP party officials and managers when set against the wishes and idealism of constituency members. With such a dramatic rise in membership the SNP can’t toddle along in the old way. The new want to see they have influence and are not invited to meetings merely as a rubber stamp.
Rock:
a guy who did pass vetting AND was nominated as a candidate by a branch or by 10 individual members AND was selected and duly got elected. And then turned out to be a total liability.
Ask any harrassed, abused woman how long it took for her to realise her husband is an alcoholic. They will tell you it took years. Men are clever at hiding their boozing, even from close work colleagues. In any event, alcoholism is a gradual thing; there isn’t any way you can legislate against it by interview alone.
When starting a project I always take the production producer out to lunch. If he orders a small wine or fruit juice with his midday meal he gets the job. If he orders two pints of beer, two whisky chasers, and then a bottle of wine his arse is out the door!
How can a one-chance vetting committee spot an alcoholic unless the candidate turns up drunk? Well, one way is by making discrete calls in advance asking for references – note the word ‘discrete.’
But that isn’t what Ian Brotherhood is complaining about here…
Lots of people got the bedroom tax question. Someone even posted about it here, weeks before the Murray thing blew up. It’s a psychological ploy to see how the applicant handles himself when faced with a pretty extreme curve-ball.
A lot of people seem to be assuming that the “right” answer was to agree slavishly that you would vote in favour of the tax. That’s a misconception of what the question was about.
The people who got through seem to be the ones who approached the question thoughtfully and demonstrated that they were able to take on board the ramifications of the scenario – whether they eventually came down as yes, no, or refused to commit themselves.
I got a less extreme version of the question in my vetting last year, about voting to close a school in my ward which had been the subject of a high-profile parents’ campaign to keep it open. It was perfectly obvious that the panel didn’t expect or want a simple yes/no answer, but wanted me to show I understood how that situation might arise and how I would think it through.
MPs have to be a lot better at this than councillors though. They’re likely to find themselves on the wrong end of Gavin Esler or Kirsty Wark in a bad mood. They’ll be handed trick questions, right out of left field, live on air. They have to be able to PERFORM. They have to be able to take on board a hostile interview, think on their feet, and give a considered answer.
Calling for the person who devised the test question to be “named, shamed and sacked” is pretty appalling. Nobody else going to condemn that attitude? This was a professional screening process for a shot at a high-salary job. Why shouldn’t applicants be asked a testing question that isn’t what it might seem at first sight?
Only one person who took the test is bleating about this, although quite a lot of people didn’t pass. The irony that the person bleating is the person who might be expected to have the diplomatic skills to handle it better than most is absolutely priceless.
I think if anyone here had gone round making discreet (that’s how you spell it) inquiries about any applicant for candidate screening, on their own initiative, and then posting the results of this prying, it would have been entirely out of order.
But you know what? All that happened was that people gave their opinions on a candidate’s suitability, based entirely on material that was already in the public domain, and indeed common knowledge.
That’s how democracy and free speech work, when someone is vociferously promoting his ambitions to secure a high-salaried job in public office.
He’s at it again by the way. A sixth blog post, once again justifying his own position and behaviour.
This one is attacking Missy Martin. Murray is making insinuations about her motives, calling her an “ambitious SNP Westminster hopeful”. My irony meter just exploded.
note the word ‘discrete.’
Not that ‘discrete,’ not seperate or remote, but discreet – that is, tasteful, subtle, retrained, but above all – fucking modest.
Craig Murray, 10.18 pm, 30th December 2014.
“No voters were evil, stupid or cowardly. I am fully convinced that those three categories cover every possibility.”
bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/12/30/so-far-so-good-british-unionisms-review-of-2014/
” the party’s more craven members took to social media to discredit Craig Murray as if the last year hadn’t happened.”
um……i wonder if Robin has been reading this thread…
Craig is doing a pretty good job of discrediting himself at the moment.
The comments on his MissyMartin blog article are painful. He’s accusing Gillian of lying about the meeting she described, and calling everyone who disagrees with him a party lackey, a drone, and worse.
Someone described his behaviour as “link watching someone being fitted for a bespoke straitjacket”.
I don’t know why he doesn’t just resign from the SNP, when he obviously holds the party and everyone else in it in such contempt.
“once again justifying his own position and behaviour. This one is attacking Missy Martin.”
I thought CM was replying to an earlier article by Missy Martin.
“That’s how democracy and free speech work”
“ambitious SNP Westminster hopeful”
seems a pretty fair description of any PPC, I dont see any insult in this
“… the party’s more craven members…”
You know, that’s a fantastic article of McAlpine’s, overall. But his one-liner about the Murray affair suggests he had absolutely no conception of the problems with Murray as a candidate for any political party.
As Derick said, Murray discredited himself. He wasn’t “blocked” for not being “tame and compliant”, he failed to be selected as a potential candidate because he was an obvious gross liability. If Robin hasn’t figured that out yet, he needs to wise up.
And I for one object to being described as “craven” when I was pointing out the problems weeks before this all blew up and getting pelters for it.
Yes, SC, he was replying to Gillian’s article. By calling her a liar, on pretty flimsy grounds which are really no more than supposition.
Murray’s use of the term “ambitious SNP Westminster hopeful” certainly sounded as if it was meant to be a put-down. Just a bit hilarious from someone who desperately wanted to be an “ambitions SNP Westminster hopeful” himself until less than a week ago, and is basically bitching about not being allowed to do that.
“He effectively called her and her question ignorant. She left straight afterwards” Missy M
CM
“I replied that Scotland was already paying for 10% of all that infrastructure in London. With that same money, we could pay for the infrastructure of central government in Edinburgh, the difference being that the net drain on the economy as our taxes left for London would be stopped, and that this money would now be spent in Scotland. Undoubtedly there would be initial start-up costs on infrastructure but these should be seen as capital spending stimulating demand in the economy, not as loss. The view that such spending was a loss was the ridiculous Thatcherite fallacy of economics.
Gillian Martin may consider that “I effectively called her and her question ignorant”, and I suppose that is one possible analysis. But I promise you the question and answer were as I just related. I had no doubt the question was asked as a unionist sneer and if my answer rubbished it, so be it.”
“I don’t quite understand why you believe she should be allowed to post criticisms of me, but I should not be allowed to post criticisms of her. Why do you believe that?”
“perhaps explain to me why you are so convinced that I am wrong in my account of a meeting at which you were not present? Bear in mind that about three hundred people were present and I am contacting some of those at present for their account”
i wasnt at the meeting in question, but 300 others were. ill suspend judgement on what the correct version of events was until someone comes forward to corroborate.
then we will all know which version is the most accurate. i suggest you do the same
btw, I think Robin McAlpine is very aware of the situation. He has demonstrated his wisdom on many occassions.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on most of that. It is, as you say, a matter of interpretation.
you know Morag, there is a very obvious reason why CM was not selected as a PPC, and it isnt because he is a gross liability. this thread would have discussed them had you not jumped in with boh feet an used such unnnecessary language
1. during the referendum, everything was up for grabs. unfortunately we lost
2. The GE in May will not be a rerun of the referendum nor will a 2nd referendum be offered in the manifesto (pointless, we would require the support of over 250 UK MP’s to deliver it)
3. There will be no declaration of UDI, The SNP is no longer a protest party, it is a party of government that people vote for, for a variety of reasons, not just independence. (NS’s words)
4. The question of independence is off the menu for a generation. (albeit that generation ends at 10.01pm on the 7th of May)
5. The GE in May will be fought on a manifesto of Devo Max, ie FFA and control over everything except defence and foreign affaires
6.Defence and foreign affaires are Craig Murray’s specialities subjects but are the 2 areas of power the SNP manifesto will be conceding back to Westminster. For now.
this is probably why the SNP deem CM unsuitable to be a candidate in May. However, if we get 50+ SNP MP’s elected and the westminster arithmetic is in our favour we might just succeed in “holding their feet to the fire” and deliver full devo max for Scotland.
If that happens, then Defence and foreign affaires will be straight back on the menu and CM will be at the forefront of the campaign. Indeed, we will need him, since defence and foreign affaires will be all that is left for us to bicker about
From Craig Evans on CM’s Blog
Dear Craig,
I was at that meeting at Insch and I remember the lady asking the question you refer to: Now what I do remember is a full answer which the questioner took your reply with ill grace and managed to anger most of the audience with her own reply.
Good luck to you, we do need you on the YES side and thank you for your efforts over the last year or so.
Your day will come, perhaps as an MSP?
Best wishes for 2015
CraigE
no longer a matter of interpretation. Seems pretty clear to me
Humble Morag’s Rumbles
(With apologies to Private Eye)
“I have also been aware that if I write to the paper, no matter how short or carefully-crafted the letter, it will be edited to add a spin away from the message I had intended to convey.”
Lesson: When I spin, it isn’t spin.
And later in the same thread:
“My main complaints were the character assassination of Martin Sime (for political reasons) and the appointment of Gardham.”
Dr. Morag Kerr, December 2012, explaining to the editor of the Herald why she was ceasing to buy his newspaper, her letter reprinted in Wings as a topic.
***********************************************************
On this subject, on this site, that’s it from me, folks.
I wish those addicted to obnoxious indignation liberty in 2015.
Yours, (in a sort of way)
Grouse Beater
That’s all very logical, but it suggests that the SNP knocked back an otherwise suitable candidate because they thought his skill set wasn’t a perfect fit for this election. That they were lying to him about the “not following agreed policy” thing.
I don’t think suitable candidates are kept off the list for that sort of reason. If it ever arose at all, a wee quiet word would be the way to go. And I think Mr. Murray’s toys-out-of-the-pram reaction to events says more about this than anything. The end result of it all, of course, is that there’s no way he’s going to be on the approved list in the future, now. The smell of burning boats is just too strong.
There was a reason he wasn’t suitable. Whether the committee felt this could have been remedied for a subsequent election is open for debate, but it’s not going to happen now, is it?
That last was directed to SC’s last-but-one post. Sorry, busy here.
My, “Grouse Beater” has been a busy beaver, hasn’t he?
Lesson: When a letter appears with my name attached to it, it should have MY spin on it, not some sub-editor’s.
And I fail to see the point of the references to Martin Sime and Magnus Gardham. The Herald is a newspaper. If it chooses to traduce the name of an individual, not for things he actually did but by putting a false interpretation on events, and appoint a blatantly biassed unionist political editor, I have a right to stop buying it. And to tell them why.
I’m, not quite sure what “Grouse Beater’s” problem is with this.
Whether the committee felt this could have been remedied for a subsequent election is open for debate, but it’s not going to happen now, is it?
which is why i was urging caution and asking you to avoid un necessary adjectives
” if the party you want to work for don’t, you can bet the parties you don’t want to work for will.”
Thats from Missy M’s blog.
You might be advised to tell her to practice what she preaches.
Her version of events has already been questioned, not by CM, but by someone who was at the said meeting 9see above). If she is chosen as candidate(thats also a pretty big if now) the opposition candidates may well ask her why she is telling “untruths” about other SNP members?
Well, you take that up with her. Several other things Murray said in these comments tend inadverently to suggest her version is closer to the truth.
He also told Yesindyref2 her daughter was “evil” for voting no because of money worries, and made snide remarks about “poor parenting skills”.
When I was a very junior university lecturer, I attended a training course which was extremely interesting. We were encouraged to think not about what we wanted to say or do in a particular situation, but on what outcome we wanted. Craig Murray may want to insult No voters, he may feel it’s justified and all that sort of thing, but he’s not considering the desired outcome. Or if he is, he’s going about it a very strange way.
The most obvious outcome of course is that No voters will be alienated and resist becoming potential Yes voters. The other clear outcome is that the SNP simply won’t even think about approving him as a candidate any time in the future.
Trashing the party in his blog on Saturday wasn’t smart either, if he retained any hopes of advancement in the future. People can wish him well and say “we need you Craig” and talk about Holyrood 2016 all they like, but after the way he has behaved this week, he’s blown it.
tend inadverently to suggest her version is closer to the truth.
not sure what you mean, i wasnt at the meeting but others were and are backing up CM’s version. What am i supposed to believe?
as you pointed out, it may now, for CM, be academic, but not for Missy M or yourself if ever you wish to stand and represent the SNP in the future
“after the way he has behaved this week, he’s blown it”………so have you and missy
Whatever. This is getting a bit pointless. Watching Murray in melt-down is beginning to wear a bit thin, and he’s pretty much toast now anyway.
Schrodingers cat
One apparently at the meeting, not “others”. You’re already making it plural rather than one single person who may, or may not have been there and may or may not be factually relating what happened – same as missy or craig. How long ago was this meeting? How many people remember every single detail of every single meeting they’ve been to – or spoken at – and that works for all those involved.
Morag
Yes, not very clever. Mind you it’s water off a duck’s back to me, I’ve mentioned my NO-voting daughter (who I’m proud of) a few times, and had all sorts of comments! My point in doing it is “division” i.e. absence of except in Carmichael and other Unionists’ minds, and “tolerance and free thought”. It’s our own choice, and let nobody force us to any other.
I see from another thread Craig has been forced to leave his laptop at home by his family, and hopefully he’ll come back after his break back with a different strategy. He may have been well known in some YES circles, but not in all, perhaps not by many either. He has now had publicity and his name will be better known by the average punter. He should use that and move on. As next year should we all!
As for the SNP it may have done some good for them to be opened up a little to see inside for the average punter – who I doubt expects perfection. They’ve been voting Labour for donkeys’ years before recent events, with whole loads of genuine scandals to put them off. I think people prefer mistakes rather than flawless performances.
I wasnt really taking sides, just encouraging people to use more temperate language. a bit academic now since he as been refused
yourswas the best advice to Craig, “let it rest, go have a drink and switch of your laptop, etc.
you have a good new ear dads
Yes. Thing is, getting to Independence isn’t about one person, it’s about all of us, more than 50% of us.
And yet getting Independence is about individuals, every one of us individuals, every one of the 5.4 million of us.
Happy New Year to you too, cat, and everyone else!
@everyone
When, oh when is the penny going to drop?
Paula Rose is one of the WOS regulars who has all-but begged for this thread to just stop.
Stop it!
It’s damaging to the site, and it’s damaging to those who participate in it. Please consider, seriously, who has been most damaged by the whole ‘Craig Murray’ episode. Is it Craig Murray?
And who’s been most damaged by this thread? Currently 433 comments, and 50, maybe 60 posted in the last three days by Morag alone. Does Craig Murray give a fuck either way?
Who benefits from this boring shite?
What do newcomers make of it?
Does it produce anything positive?
Has anyone emerged ‘victorious’?
FFS people, seriously, get a grip – you’re being taken for a ride.
Happy New Beer and seasons girnings to all our readers; lurkers, trolls, whingers, moaners, Fainthearts and Bravehearts.
Suas an Phoblacht.
Ian, it’s a damned disgrace, people spewing vitriol & excercising their ego’s when we have a general election to win in five months. They should be ashamed of themselves, it’s endless me,me,me,me,me. Do they realise what complete arses they’re making of themselves and what damage they’re doing.
You get all sorts on websites and some on here could be using the hospital computer at Carstairs.
That said, all the sest in ’15.
*Irony meter explodes*
Ian, Fred and Donald – Happy New Year 🙂
That goes for Morag too!
yesindyref2 says:
1 January, 2015 at 4:45 pm
Ian, Fred and Donald – Happy New Year 🙂
That goes for Morag too!
Bah Humbug.