Thursday, June 20, 2013

Scottish independence: Natalie McGarry from Team Sturgeon says that the Yes Scotland campaign needs to reach out to the Scottish Conservatives, she is having a laugh, Scottish Tories won’t give up being British for the likes of Salmond and Sturgeon

Dear All

I came across an article by Natalie McGarry, member of the Scottish National Party; she says that the Yes Scotland campaign needs to reach out to the Conservatives in Scotland as they represent about 15% of the possible vote.

The big thing about Scottish Conservatives and their members is their burning desire to be British; therefore it is highly unlikely that they will be joining Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon anytime soon.

“Trial lawyers know that expert witnesses can be found to attest any position that the prosecution or the defence wish to assert”.

In the “expert” field, people can be bought; however, there is a limit which they cannot go beyond when irrefutable fact is produced. To tread beyond that path leaves you to the way of ridicule, and an early exit from being an “expert”.

Ms. McGarry says that Law and politics are open to interpretation, and given that lawyers work in both fields, it could explain why law contains so many loopholes and politics is so bad.

And another factor that interferes with law can be personal prejudice or delusion. Awhile ago leading human rights lawyer and Judge, Abie Sachs, freed a woman saying that he had weighed up the human rights of her children thus sparing her from a prison sentence!

On his part I would opine that his decision was poor legal and moral judgment, the human rights of her children have no part in the case, although a sob story is allowed post verdict called mitigation.

The human rights of the children cannot be recognised by the Court because they aren’t active in the case. Judge Abie Sachs, human rights lawyer needs to get on a refresher course, his reasoning was warped. Later in Scotland, the Children’s Commissioner starting parroting out the same claptrap citing that as a precedent, he is on circa £75k a year; patently he needs to join Sachs on the same law refresher course.  

Ms. McGarry continues by saying that the independence referendum will not provide us with reason free from passion because, by its very definition, it is a hugely emotional issue.

This is assumption, her personal experience; however the hugely emotional issues don’t seem to be reflected in the polls.

The SNP and Ms. McGarry might be quite emotional but that maybe because they are losing the argument with the very people they need to support them.

“The Yes campaign needs to assert boldly that independence offers no absolute and concrete certainties, while ensuring that there is enough detail for people to be confident in the choice they make”.

Does that statement imply that Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon should tell the truth? And who is to say that the detail provide is factual and truthful?

Leave that to Salmond and Sturgeon?

I think not, where as people can forgive mistakes, continual lying and misrepresentation is entirely a different matter.

The line that the SNP has been pushing is that vote for independence and everything else including your job, pensions and security can be sorted out later.

I wonder if Ms. McGarry would buy a house sight unseen, and with no price tag attached.

Clearly she wouldn’t, no matter who the seller was, she would want a revaluation and a full survey, she isn’t going to commit herself and her financial future and place it in the hands of someone else out with her control.

So, why should she or the SNP think the rest of us are so stupid?

As to the failed Yes campaign which according to Alex Salmond in the New Statesman, he has said that the ‘real’ campaign hasn’t even started yet.

Maybe he failed to notice, it did and it is now over.

Yes Scotland, the SNP front, she says they have to make their case free from the emotion and encumbrance of any particular doctrine, or it risks alienating swathes of the Scottish electorate who don’t see themselves reflected in the narrative that sells it.

This campaign led by the Scottish National Party is all about rich people, did she miss the ‘Declaration of Cineworld’?

Now, the SNP are deduced to trying to bribe the electorate using any cause that will attract a vote cache.

The latest is the bedroom tax, there will be others; independence isn’t about bedroom taxes or any of the other fluff which is currently being used to pad out the fact that the Scottish National Party is political bankrupt.

The biggest asset of Better Together, the opposition is Nicola Sturgeon, she drove the campaign straight into the deck; her and Salmond put their SNP cronies into Yes Scotland and then discovered that they couldn’t do the job they are being paid for.

Poll after poll shows us just how inept; and incompetent the Team Sturgeon and Team Salmond groups really are.

Everything done so far has been a complete waste of time, money and resources; this is the current problem of Yes Scotland.

Ms. McGarry seems to be saying that the Better Together campaign strategy works only insofar as the Yes campaign allows it to be.

Their strategy should have nothing to do with how Yes Scotland operates; she doesn’t quite seem to grasp that concept.

Yes Scotland is just a virtual campaign, it has no substance to it, and despite the continual talk of Salmond and Sturgeon, the campaign is wearing thin and grating on people, they have turned off, hence we have ‘screaming like a bitch in the night’ from Alex Salmond and Co.

Salmond and Sturgeon are becoming increasingly more and more bizarre, and before I forget, it appears that Ms. Sturgeon is looking Fat these days.

“The Yes campaign can choose to reject to engage with minutiae and instead concentrate on the real issue, which is democracy”.

Democracy, the Scottish National Party don’t believe in democracy, Ms. McGarry miss the facts that people who reply to consultation, the majority get their views ignored?

“The Yes campaign needs to set its own narrative. Independence as a stand-alone is a bold proposition, but it isn’t enough. The onus is on the Yes campaign is to present independence as an opportunity, not a utopian fait accompli. The No campaign will continue to use the language of fear such as “pull the rug out”, “black hole” and “uncertainty”, but these can only find resonance if the Yes campaign can’t find an alternative positive position which will capture the electorates’ imagination. Endless fire-fighting when the No campaign throws content-less firecrackers, wastes time and energy”.

One thing that the Better Together campaign can point to is facts, everything that anyone wishes to know about where they stand in the UK is all online, everything that the SNP is proposing doesn’t exist.

An example is welfare in an independent Scotland, there is no plan.

How does that square with being positive?

As to the new constitution, this is a red herring, the “victors” she says won’t write the constitution, it should be done by all Scots. That won’t happen; I am surprised that she should write such a weak point, which is entirely unsellable. If she wishes to kid herself on, that is fair enough but everyone else, a task that is clearly beyond Salmond, what hope for her?


Awhile ago I added a camel beside Nicola Sturgeon as she did her piece to camera at Yes Scotland about how ‘we need everyone’, the truth of the matter is that Ms. Sturgeon cannot get anyone. As part of Sturgeon’s pitch was a remark used by Ms. McGarry that independence isn’t a cure-all for societal ills.

The truth is that many people risk losing their jobs, in military shipbuilding, the market would quite simply collapse in the West of Scotland.

On the one hand, the SNP is selling we can have Scandinavian levels of welfare support to the poor, and to a different audience of the rich, the message is low taxation.

And you can’t have both, so who is being played for a fool?

When I read her piece I wondered if she was serious about reaching out to the Tories, so I ask myself, what is in it for them to vote indy?

That will not revive their fortunes, it doesn’t gain them seats, it doesn’t suddenly make them electable; people aren’t saying if only Scotland was independent I would vote for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.

In all parties, there are members who might be tempted to vote for independence but it isn’t quite as simple as that, who rules Scotland in the aftermath is a concern. Should the people of Scotland put their faith in Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon?

I would say no, there is an issue of trust.

And I wouldn’t place much hope in Ms. McGarry’s hope that the Scottish Conservatives will be coming over the hill to save Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon’s bacon.

If you think of Custer’s last stand, everyone at the Little Big Horn got scalped, much like Yes Scotland, the SNP, the SSP and the Greens on polling day. Will the blame game be started pre 18th September 2014 or moved to the 19th, polls will tell nearer the time!

Salmond and Sturgeon are sinking, their campaign has run aground, they will say anything to get a vote, they aren’t running a political party, it’s a clique, and these people are not worthy of running an independent country.

Ms. McGarry has a lot to learn about politics, and when to get out of investing in a collapsing market, hope and aspiration can’t stop gravity and destiny.

Ms. McGarry isn’t a Jedi and the force isn’t with her, quite the opposite.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University


Anonymous said...

Typical SNP numptie drivel.
How do people like this get column inches with this piss.
Hmm, hug a Tory.

Anonymous said...

How sad it that SNP members have to ask Better Together supporters to back them. HA HA HA

Anonymous said...

On of the poorest articles I have had the misfortune to read. Devoid of fact, full of opinions and misrepresentation, interestingly the very same things the writer accuses the democratically elected government of Scotland of. One would think an apparent representative of human rights would know better. Shame.

G Laird said...

Dear Anon

“On of the poorest articles I have had the misfortune to read. Devoid of fact, full of opinions and misrepresentation, interestingly the very same things the writer accuses the democratically elected government of Scotland of”.

Perhaps you need to re-read the article, there are plenty of facts.

There is also opinion, as I explain why Judge Abie Sachs is wrong.

“One would think an apparent representative of human rights would know better. Shame”.

Maybe you should do a detailed breakdown of what you think is wrong with the piece.

Other than assertion, you seem that ‘fact lite’.

If you don’t like the article then take comfort that the press, including the BBC, STV, and higher education universities and colleges stop by regularly to read what I say.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University