Salmond denies sexual misconduct allegations

[Nearly Sane]

As I said Brown and Blair, not Thatcher and Kinnock.

See post 438

[ProfessorDavey]

See post 438

But gradualist vs nowist isn't really a policy difference is it - the policy, namely Scottish independence, is agreed by both - the difference is on tactics.

[Nearly Sane]

But gradualist vs nowist isn't really a policy difference is it - the policy, namely Scottish independence, is agreed by both - the difference is on tactics.

It is a fundamental difference of approach to their central policy. It is not just about personality as you have suggested.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is a fundamental difference of approach to their central policy. It is not just about personality as you have suggested.

Sorry it is tactics - I image both the gradualists and the nowists actually want independence now. But it is of course not in their gift so there are differences in opinion on the tactics of timing as to when to try to get another referendum (which will be necessary to achieve their policy aim) to give the best chance of winning.

If becoming independent was in the gift of the scottish government and there were some in the SNP that wanted that to happen tomorrow and others for it to happen in 10 years time, then I'd agreed that would be a difference in policy (but not the main policy of independence), but that isn't the case here.

And I think this is also about personality and legacy too.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry it is tactics - I image both the gradualists and the nowists actually want independence now. But it is of course not in their gift so there are differences in opinion on the tactics of timing as to when to try to get another referendum (which will be necessary to achieve their policy aim) to give the best chance of winning.

If becoming independent was in the gift of the scottish government and there were some in the SNP that wanted that to happen tomorrow and others for it to happen in 10 years time, then I'd agreed that would be a difference in policy (but not the main policy of independence), but that isn't the case here.

And I think this is also about personality and legacy too.

I didn't say it wasn''t personality but that it wasn't ONLY about personality which is what your post suggested.

Also there is a big part of the nowists who doubt the commitment of the gradualists to independence and think they are content to take the money for being MPs and MSPs.

[Gordon]

I suspect a real risk here given the drift towards majority support for independence within Scotland, as recent polls suggest, is that the circumstances surrounding Salmond himself may work against that end as events play out - and of course if Salmond has a grievance he is fully entitled to pursue that.

As NS says the SNP are a house divided right now and, in my view, they would be wise to get all their dirty laundry aired well before the Holyrood election scheduled for next May since Brexit will impact in the interim, and for the SNP the opposition to Brexit within Scotland plays well for them so any negatives from Brexit would perhaps help them offset any Salmond-related damage - provided of course the SNP don't implode first.

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't say it wasn''t personality but that it wasn't ONLY about personality which is what your post suggested.

I never said this was all about personality - what I said was that there were few major policy differences between Salmond and Sturgeon - they are Brown and Blair not Thatcher and Kinnock policy wise.

Also there is a big part of the nowists who doubt the commitment of the gradualists to independence and think they are content to take the money for being MPs and MSPs.

But Salmond was the arch gradualist when he had power and influence - his approach from 1990 through to the 2014 referendum is playbook gradualist.

Why is he suddenly a convert to fundamentalism - legacy - he needs independence and he needs independence now (or at least in a couple of years) or he is a footnote in history. Otherwise he becomes Goldsmith rather than Farage.

[Nearly Sane]

I never said this was all about personality - what I said was that there were few major policy differences between Salmond and Sturgeon - they are Brown and Blair not Thatcher and Kinnock policy wise.
But Salmond was the arch gradualist when he had power and influence - his approach from 1990 through to the 2014 referendum is playbook gradualist.

Why is he suddenly a convert to fundamentalism - legacy - he needs independence and he needs independence now (or at least in a couple of years) or he is a footnote in history. Otherwise he becomes Goldsmith rather than Farage.

It'e not really about Salmond v Sturgeon in that sense. It's about a split in the party. Salmond has become the great lost leader for those who think that there needs to be a much more aggressive policy on independence. It's not Salmond stirring that up - he's too busy with the fall out on the legal case and the enquiry.

I don't think you know enough here to understand the various flows within the SNP.

[ProfessorDavey]

It'e not really about Salmond v Sturgeon in that sense. It's about a split in the party. Salmond has become the great lost leader for those who think that there needs to be a much more aggressive policy on independence. It's not Salmond stirring that up - he's too busy with the fall out on the legal case and the enquiry.

I don't think you know enough here to understand the various flows within the SNP.

Or perhaps you are too close to see the wood for the trees?

But you do understand my comparison with Goldsmith and Farage I trust?

[Nearly Sane]

Or perhaps you are too close to see the wood for the trees?

But you do understand my comparison with Goldsmith and Farage I trust?

  I just know more about the SNP and what is going on than you do. And yes I did understand your comparison which is why I pointed out why it is invalid .

[ProfessorDavey]

And yes I did understand your comparison which is why I pointed out why it is invalid .

Why is it invalid?

[Nearly Sane]

Why is it invalid?

See post 457

[ProfessorDavey]

See post 457

I don't think that addresses my point - specifically why someone who was an arch-gradualist, indeed incurred the wrath of the fundamentalists over devolution should have become the poster boy for the very people who must have hated his slowly, slowly approach (1997-2014) from devolution to opposition to in government on the basis of overall competence, through to majority sufficient to call a referendum. And why is he unwilling to disavow them of being seen as a fellow traveller on the nowist agenda (which he didn't adopt when he had power).

I would suggest the answer lies in two (or is it three words) - power-base and legacy.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think you know enough here to understand the various flows within the SNP.

Perhaps I don't, but I would have thought that Jim Sillars would, and he seems to agree with me that this is primarily, indeed near exclusively, a battle of personalities and for power rather than over policy.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps I don't, but I would have thought that Jim Sillars would, and he seems to agree with me that this is primarily, indeed near exclusively, a battle of personalities and for power rather than over policy.

Hmm that you are citing mad uncle Jim on this highlights your lack of knowledge

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think that addresses my point - specifically why someone who was an arch-gradualist, indeed incurred the wrath of the fundamentalists over devolution should have become the poster boy for the very people who must have hated his slowly, slowly approach (1997-2014) from devolution to opposition to in government on the basis of overall competence, through to majority sufficient to call a referendum. And why is he unwilling to disavow them of being seen as a fellow traveller on the nowist agenda (which he didn't adopt when he had power).

I would suggest the answer lies in two (or is it three words) - power-base and legacy.

Brexit and polls

[ProfessorDavey]

Hmm that you are citing mad uncle Jim on this highlights your lack of knowledge

I think that suggests a level of bias on your part. Regardless of your personal opinion on Jim Sillars I think it is hard to deny that he has an excellent inside track on the goings on within the upper echelons of the SNP, certainly much better than I do, and I suspect much better than you do too.

[ProfessorDavey]

Brexit and polls

Why would either of those coalesce a previously negative group (fundamentalists) around the arch gradualist Salmond (rather than the other arch gradualist Sturgeon), and why would either of those move Salmond to accept their support as a power base, outside of his unerring need for ... err ... a power base.

Answers on a post-card please.

[Nearly Sane]

I think that suggests a level of bias on your part. Regardless of your personal opinion on Jim Sillars I think it is hard to deny that he has an excellent inside track on the goings on within the upper echelons of the SNP, certainly much better than I do, and I suspect much better than you do too.

Except given your lack of knowledge what you think her isn't that useful. It's not just that Jim isn't that close to the SNP anymore  but that he has rather obvious agenda.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except given your lack of knowledge what you think her isn't that useful. It's not just that Jim isn't that close to the SNP anymore  but that he has rather obvious agenda.

I suspect he is a hell of a lot closer to those in the upper echelons of the SNP than you or I.

That he has an agenda doesn't mean necessarily that what he says is invalid.

[Nearly Sane]

Why would either of those coalesce a previously negative group (fundamentalists) around the arch gradualist Salmond (rather than the other arch gradualist Sturgeon), and why would either of those move Salmond to accept their support as a power base, outside of his unerring need for ... err ... a power base.

Answers on a post-card please.

Again this just shows a lack of knowledge
 Those arguing for more aggressive measures are not a set of people who have always done so. Rather the majority are people who were gradualists who because of Brexit and polling have moved to that position. They see Salmond as a king over the water figure and think that the  very success of the SNP has made some comfortable. It's worth remembering that the SNP is a very different beast than when Salmond took over - and even from 2014. The party membership quadrupled at the time and it's still dealing with that effect.

The interesting thing is how this has somehow got entangled with the GRA reform policy mentioned earlier. Many of the longer term members see an influx of people that they think are there for their careers - something that was once not an option when you were a member of the SNP, and they think some are more interested in a rather different form of identity politics than independence. It will be interesting to see how some of the selection battles for the next Holyrood elections go - keep an eye on Argyle and Bute.

[Nearly Sane]

I suspect he is a hell of a lot closer to those in the upper echelons of the SNP than you or I.

That he has an agenda doesn't mean necessarily that what he says is invalid.

No, it doesn't make it invalid but you have to read any comments from him in the context of that agenda.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree with a lot of this.

https://archive.is/Jugy4

[Nearly Sane]

Scottish govt defeated for second time on its approach to the Salmond inquiry


https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2020/11/25/scottish-government-defeated-again-over-refusal-to-publish-salmo/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAI_zTT6dQF9y2tKUkYadt8XsuFuNYajwedzec3HYlxqAZcMWf4oP4kktQGgKrc7YlGXCJKpt51xUrqNP5kDI7JOD-Roye3OpY3mBsR9NZgbqpce8igBRWALirH6Ay_gMD5HHhZKS17U0vDZMIz4af3yQmqO_KyQlXAATGFA0RYb_

[jakswan]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/alex-salmond-inquiry-former-first-minister-brands-nicola-sturgeons-account-simply-untrue-leaked-evidence-3090560

From the article:-
In response, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Douglas Ross, launched a blistering attack on the First Minister and said he expected to see her resign if Mr Salmond’s evidence was proven to be true.