Some readers have noticed that a blog post that I wrote on Sunday morning disappeared during Sunday afternoon. This requires explanation.
The post in question referred to an FT article by Andrew Wilson, who headed the Scottish Growth Commission that recommended what I considered to be the disastrous policy of sterlingisation for Scotland post independence.
In the post I suggested that Andrew Wilson had claimed SNP policy to be something that it is not in his FT article. As those who follow this issue well know, the SNP leadership was defeated on this issue of sterlingisation in 2019 and a motion from Dr Tim Rideout became policy instead, setting the SNP on a policy of securing a Scottish currency as soon as practicable after independence, with no tests prior to adoption being attached.
I believed my article entirely appropriate in pointing this difference out, and for suggesting Wilson was misrepresenting SNP policy as a result. He stated what he might wish that policy to have been, but not what it was.
To continue, I returned from a robust riverbank walk on Sunday to discover a comment on the blog from what purported to be a solicitor suggesting this piece was potentially libellous if I could not evidence my claims. As it happens that evidencing was not difficult. But, whenever such suggestion is made the first, cautious, reaction is to take the post down whilst the claim is investigated. So, this I did.
I completed my investigation of the claim yesterday by phoning the solicitor whose name, address and email were given in the comment posted to the blog (which will not be published). It transpired he knew nothing of it. The comment used his identity, but falsely. He now has the information and is considering whether to refer the matter to the police, I understand.
The post is now live again.
I have three responses. First, this evidences the degree of tension inside the SNP right now. I am sure that there was good reason for someone within it to comment as they did, even if fraudulently.
Second, this evidences the stress of running a blog.
Third, it means my tolerance of those I think trolling on this blog will be even lower in future.
As for the post itself, I have noted Tim Rideout commenting on the same FT piece making it clear it does not represent SNP policy. The FT should have taken more care.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Thanks for the explanation Richard – that was the thing that was worrying me, that there might have been threatened litigation – I’m glad it was false, but someone impersonating a solicitor? That sounds pretty serious.
Sorry you had to go through that just for making reasonable comment – I’m sure the aim was to keep you quiet on these matters. That in itself is interesting, because, in the grand scheme of things, it would have seemed pretty much a side-issue at the moment – perhaps not eh?
Nicola Sturgeon retweeted the link to that article yesterday. I’ve had a look just now and it seems to have been removed too? But if it’s not SNP policy isn’t it a bit odd for Sturgeon to highlight it?
She is not following SNP policy
There’s your easy explanation
It’s all very strange. Has the SNP been captured by the British State? Every move they make now seems like it’s only purpose is to prevent independence?
That is what I think.
That is why the membership put Cherry at the top of its NEC poll, I suspect.
And that is why she has been sacked.
Whether “captured” by the British State is the right word or not, I don’t know, but it’s a racing certainty the party and the Scottish Government have been penetrated. They’re up against powerful organs of the British State which have centuries of experience of infiltrating and undermining other states, organisations and individuals perceived to be operating against UK/England’s interests. On top of that they have the perfect conduit for confidential information via the Civil Service in Scotland, whose members belong to the UK Civil Service and therefore employed by Whitehall, not Holyrood. The most senior of them are by definition participants in some of the most confidential planning and decisions of the Scottish Gov. My view is that they were also significant players in the failed legal case against Alex Salmond and are heavily implicated in the subsequent events which threaten to split the SNP apart.
It smells of intrigue and covert operations similar to those employed by the USA in numerous coups and interventions in South America and elsewhere around the world – tricks learned from the methods of the British Empire. At this stage, the British State hasn’t yet got into top gear in its propaganda campaign against Scottish Independence, so we can expect lots more dirty tricks in the next 13 weeks before the May election
There is also a distinct possibility that a grand bargain is being lined up behind the scenes between the Scottish government and Westminster. There has been some signalling around things like NATO membership, Russian interference, etc that are basically the SNP indicating that they will play ball with the prevailing consensus at Westminster (and, of course, within the EU). Remember that the offer in 2014 was basically for Devo Max with control over defence and foreign policy added in. The same thing is probably being lined up this time.
On the other side, talk has drifted to the terms of any settlement after the next referendum has been lost.
In the great scheme of things, a split between the two wings of the SNP wouldn’t be an entirely bad thing as Scotland could consign the Tories and Labour to the dustbin of history, but some of the infighting around the split has been sickening and disturbing to watch. They just sacked the one person in parliament who gave Johnson a bloody nose in the last while. Stupid!
I am sure there will be a split – but only after IndyRef2
I am not sure if they published it but I sent the letter below to the FT in response to the Andrew Wilson interview.
Sir,
Re: Interview with Andrew Wilson.
Mr Wilson is an ordinary SNP member and a former MSP, and former Chair of the former Growth Commission.
He is fully entitled to his personal views, but I must correct several issues of what he claims to be the current SNP Policy. In April 2019 the SNP Conference, in a full card vote by 780 to 720, approved the policy that: “Conference considers that an SNP Government should take the steps necessary to enable the Scottish Parliament to authorise the preparation of a Scottish Currency ASAP after a vote for Independence with the aim that the currency be ready for introduction ASAP after Independence Day’. As the author of that resolution, I can state that ASAP means a couple of months and not the ’10-15 years’ in Section C of the Growth Commission.
Conference removed any implementation mechanism for his proposed ‘tests’, and per Clause 30 of the motion the implementation of the currency plan should be ‘guided by the 6 tests’. Having been duly guided, they are either already met or not relevant.
There will be a transition period when Scotland uses Sterling, but this is the 2 years or so after the vote and BEFORE Independence Day. The new currency will therefore come into use within a couple of months of that day (maybe St Andrews Day November 30th 2023, or 2024 if we are unlucky, so late January for the new currency).
Sincerely,
Dr Tim Rideout
Convener, Scottish Currency Group
SNP Policy Development Committee — Lothians Delegate
Thanks Tim
Not in the FT as yet, when I last looked
There is still a deeper issue, as we’re now finding out frpm Denise findlay: SNP policy is now no longer made by members thru their assembly. It is now whatever the murrell clique says it is. This would be devastating if they were at all interested in delivering independence.
[…] the supreme policy-making body, in that policies passed by conference become party policy, but there is no linkage between party policy and policies in the manifesto. There is no mechanism for members to force policies into the […]