Two people same bollocks

So today Prof John Curtice came out of the shadows to impart his great wisdom on us all.

Obviously having not been on the BBC for a few weeks Curtice decides to come out with a wee story to keep the yoons happy. Apparently Nicola Sturgeon will not call another independence referendum for at least five years because she is afraid for her job.

Curtice goes on to talk about Brexit and support for yes staying at 47% so Nicola Sturgeon won’t risk another referendum. Bollocks, but on q out pops dark money herself, you know the so called future leader of Britain and the free world who doesn’t answer any questions but can’t seem to resist an anti independence referendum story.

Does Davidson actually only ever talk about independence, it’s the only thing she seems capable of commenting on. Total clown of a politician, she even makes Douglas Ross look sane.

At no point in this story does John Curtice take into account the YES movement, or the huge SNP membership, does he seriously think that they will sit back and wait for five years, if there was any risk for the SNP losing their jobs I would think it would be taking those factors for granted. I still think Indy2 happens by 2021 at the latest. Curtice and Dark Money TankStraddler Davidson can go do one together, there’s a sick thought.

Advertisements

19 comments

  1. trispw

    I think Nicola will always put Scotland before her own career. But, she will be wary of when to call a second referendum.

    In theory, if you lose a referendum, you do have to wait maybe 10 years before you have another one, but in some circumstances, things completely change…

    There will be some people who voted to stay because of tax jobs in Cumbernauld, and others who voted no because they worried that the shipyards would be shut and that thousands of jobs would go and communities would be wrecked, some who worried about the withdrawal of troops or a long list of other lies that they told. All happened anyway.

    But there was a specific warning from Davidson and her bag carrier and tea boy, Muddle, that we would be thrown out of the EU and that that would be catastrophic for us.

    (I’m aware that there is a subtle difference between being thrown out and dragged out, but in the end, the result will be much the same. Food shortages don’t distinguish between such niceties.)

    So, we should be entitled to another referendum, now based on exactly the opposite argument. We can be with the EU OR we can stay in the UK.

    Nicola will call it when it is judged by a lot of advisors that it is the right time.

    She respects the result of the 2014 referendum but knows that things have changed. SNP and Greens were elected on the platform that whilst respecting the 2014 results, that would change if there was a substantial change in our situation. The two parties are in a majority. Parliament has agreed that.

    However, it is possible (although unlikely) that the UK will negotiate a deal that will be good for Scotland and the UK. We could have a Norway option deal.

    All along she has said that she will give the UK a chance to do the right deal with Europe. If and more likely, when that fails will be the time to act, I suspect.

    We shall soon know.

    As for Davidson, isn’t it time she did something about her day job.

    Her daft arsed MSP keep opening their stupid mouths and putting their oversized feet in them. Murdo about Tayside Health (PRI), the Justice shadow about a criminal case which was actually mishandled in England, where, if I remember rightly HIS party is in power, and their education spokeswoman who fell flat on her face by openly lying about results.

    Then her MPs are a disgrace with Thomson rattling on about vacuum cleaners and Hair making an idiot of herself over farmers and fire brigade VAT.

    Of course, the BBC and the Tory Press don’t bother to correct their lies, but seriously, isn’t it worrying that the leadership isn’t doing something about their open lying… that’s when they aren’t being racist and homophobic.

    Meanwhile, Ruth hides from the Press as did May and some junior immigration minister both of whom were in Scotland today.

    I see that the Colonel’s latest non-job job is writing a book on famous women (in between military trips to Afghanistan and baking cakes on telly).

    Embarrassingly she arranged for an interview with fellow Tory Andrew Neil through the spectator, but at £40 a ticket, no one wanted to go see her, so the Spectator is now giving the tickets away.

    Jeeez.

    • grumpyscottishman

      Tris
      As I have said to Alan below there is a risk in waiting too long. The mandate is now and any delay will run the risk of alienating many in the party and the YES movement. Nicola Sturgeon will put Scotland first I agree with you there but delay will risk losing all and for me the article is designed to sow the seed of doubt. There are no guarantees in waiting beyond 2021, as you say Brexit might not be too bad, Labour might sort themselves out and win a future election, or Brexit could be that bad that we are back at 2014 and people fear losing the tiny amount they have left based on a project fear two backed by the media. I don’t envy the SNP or Nicola Sturgeon as maybe she can’t win but to wait too long will see them lose ground. A lot of unknowns I appreciate that but I also think sowing the seeds of subtle doubt, esp about Nicola Sturgeon motives, could be more dangerous in the long run. Def interesting times but for me it has to be called before 2021 or a clear manifesto commitment that a majority SNP Government at Holyrood is a declaration to begin negotiations to leave the union.

      Thanks for commenting.
      Bruce

  2. Alan

    What did Curtice actually say? According to the article:

    “It’s very contingent on Brexit. I mean I think at the moment the odds are against it, but probably only marginally.”

    He added: “If the SNP were really thinking of holding an independence referendum any time soon, I’m not quite sure we would have had such a quiet summer from the First Minister, whose most notable appearance seems to be conducting a band for the opening of the European Championships.”

    Sir John said: “If you make the assumption that Ms Sturgeon wants to remain first minister until at least May 2021 – and if you also make the not unreasonable assumption that if she holds an early referendum and loses she’s out – you can see that she has a strong disincentive at the moment to go (for Indyref2).”

    That’s it. I don’t see anything overly objectionable there. The real hack is the article’s writer who is just leading with Curtice’s (cherry-picked) quotes and then padding it with stuff from other sources. Credibility by association, I think it’s called. And even Curtice himself said “probably only marginally” – meaning it’s effectively a coin flip.

    And it really is. Whether or not IndyRef2 is called in this parliamentary term really does depend upon what happens with Brexit. And not even Curtice probably has any idea where that’s going to end up.

    • grumpyscottishman

      Alan
      For me it’s the implication, it’s the sowing of doubt and the questioning of motives. Of course Nicola Sturgeon will call the date of Indy2 but what he fails to take on board is that the mandate is now and to go past 2021 the SNP risk alienating the yes movement to a degree and that is something I don’t think can be discounted at all. There is no guarantee that the SNP and the Greens will do enough in 2021 to have a majority at Holyrood, you also have the now it is not the time comment from May becoming set in stone and too many will meekly accept that. I do think the SNP have to at least set a date before 2021 because anything less could see a split within the party and the movement, everything the yoons are hoping for and for me what the article is designed to help bring about.

      Thanks for commenting.
      Bruce

      • Alan

        I must pull you up there – “the mandate is now and to go past 2021…”. What the hell does that mean and what happened to 2019 and 2020? The 2016 mandate does not impose a time limit nor a time requirement. Even then, it is fundamentally based upon a caveat. The only putative deadline imposed upon that mandate is the 2021 elections – it remains active until parliament dissolves for those.

        The mandate will be 100% respected as long as there is a referendum in 2019, 2020 or even the early part of 2021. It will also be respected if the UK does not leave the EU(or remains in the single market) – all these power grabs in the EU Withdrawal act ends up nullified and binned.

        What Curtice actually said was quite accurate and valid. The real target of your anger is the grubby hack who wrote the article – Gareth McPherson – for wrapping those statements in a sharply biased political cloak. Or maybe his boss, whatever hack editor told him to do this piece.

        • grumpyscottishman

          Alan
          I agree that mandate runs in 2021 and given any referendum will no doubt end up in the courts time is running out but my biggest gripe, as I said, is the implied belief by Curtice that Nicola Sturgeon is more concerned for her job and like Tris has said I just don’t accept that. That is about sowing doubt. I also noted that he was not taking into account the yes movement or SNP members, James Kelly wrote a blog about it last night and that fact will also have an impact. Nicola Sturgeon does not lead the yes movement but does rely on it for votes so both need each other and both can’t afford to take either for granted. The writer has put his slant on the article granted but the things I have mentioned are from quotes from Curtice.

          Thanks for commenting.
          Bruce

          • Alan

            Right, but: Sir John said: “If you make the assumption that Ms Sturgeon wants to remain first minister until at least May 2021 – and if you also make the not unreasonable assumption that if she holds an early referendum and loses she’s out”

            Assumption one: Sturgeon wants to remain first minister until May 2021
            (assumption one point five: she loses the referendum)
            Assumpton two: If she loses a referendum, she has to resign.

            The ‘you’ from “if YOU make the assumption” is clearly the hack he’s talking to. Not us readers.

            Mind you, it is very dangerous to talk about assumptions in a political context. All manners of reactionary characters respond as if it were NOT an assumption, but a naked statement of fact.

            • grumpyscottishman

              Alan
              Assumption and opinions are the same pretty much. It would be interesting to see the interview or a proper transcript but I don’t think Curtice would have badly miss interpreted to be honest. I think he likes the lime light and having met him and seen him in action through my job I have my opinions.

              Thanks for commenting.
              Bruce

  3. Ricky

    They are just shit stirrin’ , nothing more . This is the political season of silliness , where nothing happens and t our opponents have to be heard for fear of not being heard . Take a different look , Westminster agree that Scots are sovereign , in 2014 the sovereign vote was to remain in the UK , in 2016 the Tories stupidly had another referendum and the sovereign Scots voted to remain in the EU . Now does Westminster parliamentary sovereignty over rule Scots sovereignty ….NO , do they have the legal power to remove us from the EU , don’t know . But since the U.N. states the UK is made of a principality , province (protectorate) and TWO countries , legally it might get really interesting .

    • grumpyscottishman

      Ricky
      I think the Scottish Government will lose the Court case in the Supreme Court as our laws are made up on the hoof and I don’t actually trust the judges at all, sad but true. It will still be interesting as you say and it is a slow news period but it’s about stoking the doubts first and to question Nicola Sturgeons motives. I don’t trust any of them.

      Thanks for commenting.
      Bruce

  4. mearnsgeek

    > Does Davidson actually only ever talk about independence

    Yes, because that is precisely her job IMO – don’t let the Tory voters and activists forget about the big, bad spectre of independence and get complacent.

  5. grumpyscottishman

    mearnsgeek
    It’s definitely part of her job but the other part is to come up with alternatives and if we had a decent media she would be held to account on that but nope she isn’t.

    Thanks for commenting.
    Bruce

  6. Pingback: Is Nicola sitting on the fence? | Grumpy Scottish Man
  7. www.lowsodium.com

    I know!? Sɑid Larry. ?I wager he likes angels as a result of he
    has them around all of the time. Maybe he and the angels play
    housеhold video games like we do sometіmes. Maybe tһey ρlay Monopoly.?
    This made Mommy snicker actually hard.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.