FREEDOM!!!! [4]

{{ For the first time in my life I am seriously worried about Scottish Nationalism.
Not how the SNP will do in elections (that's separate from Independence as polling shows with SNP polling down and independence holding steady- the why to that is the worrying point to this post)

It started when Kate Forbes stood for election and very nearly won, that was the first warning sign all was not right.
Now personally I was not a fan of hers as I find her to right leaning, too happy for her strict religious views to influence her decisions, and her lack of any real government experience was a problem, in short my objections were on policy and experience or lack of.
But it was more the fact that someone with little to no track record or public profile could very nearly become leader of the country, it indicated half the SNP voters were veering way right.

The other day I had this confirmed in worrying terms in a conversations with folk I have known for decades, and who previously I would have described as either liberally inclined or left of centre.
This time however I found I was being accused of being no less than a traitor to my country and a globalist who wanted to hand my country to foreign influence and even as being pro-Westminster.

Why? Because I refused to condemn or vilify the First Minister Humza solely on the basis he is a Muslim from an immigrant family (he was born in Glasgow to immigrant parents).

The Scotland I have fought for my whole life was always one in which what a person does is more important than where they come from or what their ancestry is, a society in which those with skills are recognised and can advance, and those born without such natural skills are helped and where necessary cared for by that society.

The Scotland I heard being argued for by people I thought I knew is one based on anti-immigrant right wing culture wars.
The arguments put, and they were often lets say vigorously put, as in it nearly came to blows when I refused to agree with their view and strongly argued against it, is that Humza should be disqualified on the basis of being Muslim and because he has a duel passport with Pakistan through his parents and therefore his 'loyalty' to Scotland cannot be trusted.
No reference to his actual record, or the policies his government pursues (pro-trans, pro-gay inclusivity is not very Muslim!) but these people can jump through hoops to justify what is just racism. The pro-trans/gay stance of his government proves he is part of a globalist cabal, shaping society against its will, whilst simultaneously being a secret hard-line Muslim wanting to turn Scotland into Iran (they drag Sunak into this too given he also is a Muslim).

It was both shocking and horrifying to find people who for decades have supported a liberal SNP still supporting independence but a very different sort. The sort of nationalism I was hearing is the worrying sort of nationalism previously associated with English Nationalism, groups like the BNP. Groups whose nationalism is based on fear and hatred of the Other. That's mired in conspiracy theories and has to  perform mental gymnastics to justify itself. In short the frightening sort of nationalism Scotland had previously avoided. }}

Very contradictory thinking often seen in those who are threatened by "other". But it will always be a tangled web: there is a strength in cultural cohesiveness, though often a brittle strength. I think people lose track of the brittleness while blinded by the simple purity of a unified culture.

{{ What worries me Halfy is the broader Western issue this is representative of. These same people a decade ago were left of centre, now they espouse right wing talking points.

But what really disturbs m is not this drift in society to the right, worrying as that is, but rather why?

For the last few decades we have been told, warned and informed about how China and Russia ( not exclusively, but as the main players) have been infiltrating social media and the like in order to stir up culture wars and cause division.

And here we are, a few decades later and society is fractured along cultural lines and divided.
This is great for totalitarian regimes, democracy cannot survive without compromise, it relies at its core on people of very different viewpoints coming together and finding a middle ground, a compromise all can live with.
If that cant happen nor in the end can democracy, it will collapse.

And when I hear people I've known for years, in some cases all my life, talking this way, holding these views, I don't hear them I see marionettes dancing to a foreign tune. This is equally true right and left, you have to sow seeds in both camps till they won't even talk to one another and instead only attack, vilify and declare the other side non-British/American whatever your nation. And if we are not there already we are frighteningly close to it.

And that worries me more than everything else, not that society is having serious debates over cultural issues, I don't think it is, rather culture wars, deliberately seeded by nations who wish us nothing but harm, are tearing our democracy apart. }}

{{ The SNP faced their first electoral test since Humza took over, and they got humped, losing the Rutherglen seat to Labour on a swing of about 20% which is 9% more than national polling indicated. Such a swing at the general election would see Labour dominate at pre-independence referendum levels and the SNP reduced to about 6 MP's from their current 20ish.

So bad news all round for the SNP. Well mainly but it's not quite as simple as it seems.
Rutherglen is no safe SNP seat, it's switched hands each time at the last 3 elections.
Labour poured a fortune of resources into the by-election as well as bussing in Starmer several times to make personal appeals, something they cant afford to do at every seat in a general election.
The MP vacating the seat that led to the election was the ex-SNP minister convicted and fired for breaking covid rules, and the public hate those who broke the rules they were forced to stick to, thats not circumstances likely to rise again. Though my view is even without that they would have lost, just not quite so badly.

But the one thing no commentary I have found has mentioned, which is odd to me, is the SNP having 20 MP's is the anomaly. It's only a feature of the last 10 years, and it's very circumstance specific.
In my view Scots as a block are a bit more strategic and canny in their voting than in England, and far less likely to have loyalty to any one party. When folk decided to send the SNP to Westminster, its because the alternative was Tories - the people they were trying to get rid of so no, Labour under Corbyn who it was clear were in England unelectable and so couldnt beat the Tories, and in Scotland Scottish labour were too, having gone through sometimes 3 leaders in as many years, with one claiming Westminster Labour treated Scottish Labour as a branch office. Labour were a wasted vote and no one thought after the branch office remark they were much good to stand up at Westminster for Scottish interests. So we sent the SNP to do it.

But that's changed now. Labour seem on course to win enough in England to stand a reasonable chance, but they come from so far behind they will need to win in Scotland too to do it. And getting rid of this awful Tory government is way more a priority than anything else for most Scots. So at a general election where Labour have a chance of outing the Tories, Labour it is. I may vote Labour myself for that very reason.

But I suspect it will be quite a different pattern when it comes to the next Scottish Parliament elections.
Whilst polling for the SNP is way down, support for independence has been holding steady and in fact increased by a percent and has been sitting strong at 49%.
The desire for independence amongst half the nation has not gone away, it just got more complicated, that's all. }}

I think the people that you argued with should not be labelled with the usual leftist dog whistle of being 'right wing racists' just because they are concerned with immigration from muslim backgrounds. A lot of people that I know, and indeed myself, have been gradually drifting away from being lifelong 'lefties' due to immigration policies of the West. It's been a fucking disaster. Just look at the destruction of whole cities in America because of Democrat immigration and racial policies. Philadelphia was ransacked by black looters, New York is overrun with illegal immigrants from war torn countries and failed states in the south, London is now about 80% black and Asian, with the subsequent exponential rise in extreme violent crime and ghettos. The law in both countries seem helpless to protect ordinary law-abiding citizens of any race. People who were previously pro-immigration are looking at the invasion of Italy and thinking this is appalling and scary. So, if Scottish people are turning away from their traditional tolerance, it's not their fault, it's the British country which is now run by two muslims and a Hindu. They are obviously pro-immigration. As for the trans thing, Sturgeon put the kibosh on any hope of getting the female population on board. In my opinion, if you look at it dispassionately, Enoch was right. and I would never, ever ever, in a million years would I have thought that even 5 years ago. Humza useless can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas, says it all really.

{{ Concerned with immigration is not the same as "he's not one of us" or "he should go back to India" or "he's a plant to turn the UK muslim" or "he isn't a real Scot". Those are simple racism, Figg.
As to 'Humza useless can't even bring himself to condemn Hamas, says it all really' says it all you just made that up more like!

In fact he wrote on twitter this morning-  'My wife Nadia & I spent this morning on the phone to her family in Gaza. Many others in Scotland will be deeply worried about their families in Israel & Palestine. My thoughts and prayers are very much with those worried about loved ones caught up in this awful situation.' which was a post he attached to MP Brendan O'Hara's ( my own constituencies SNP MP) post which read-   'The scenes we are witnessing from Gaza and Israel are deeply disturbing. Along with the rest of the international community, we condemn the actions of Hamas, just as we condemn the killing of all innocent civilians, be they Israeli or Palestinian.'

As to a changing Britain, it's called history, it's what happens, it's what's always happened, no doubt the neolithic Brits weren't to keen on all those foreign Beaker people coming in with their fancy pots, and the Beaker people didn't like it when the Celts turned up in numbers from Germany, and the Celts weren't to happy when the Romans homed into view and crossed the channel, and the Romans weren't too happy when the Saxons, the Jutes and the Angles turned up, then of course that lot weren't happy when the Danish and the Vikings took over half of England, but that was ok because history had the French on the horizon and the Normans showed up to move in, and so on and so on, age after age, decade after decade. There is no such thing as Britain as a set thing a set culture a set race, there's never has been.


But for the record I wouldn't condemn Hamas either. Its not as simple as good side bad side. What is happening is utterly awful and appalling to Israeli civilians, just as it has been for Palestinians civilians for decades under Israel's illegal armed occupation. This has been a long time in the build up, and I think what has triggered it erupting now is the negotiations started by Trump and continued by Biden to normalise relations between Saudi and Israel among others - the issue being those talks exclude, at Israel's demand, any discussion or consideration of the Palestinian people. For the Palestinians their hopeless, horrendous situation looks like it will remain unaddressed and their plight will never change, and no political solution is being offered or seriously discussed, worse those they might expect to defend or back them are turning their backs on them for the sake of, from a Palestinian perspective, nothing more than money.  Israel won't even enter discussions of their treatment of the Palestinians, or give up their illegal occupation, or allow the Palestinians their own free state, or any state at all. So what's left is violent desperation.

One of the interesting not mentioned part of all this is what Palestinian are doing right now is in fact legal under international law, it's Israel who are in breach of the law.
The UN Charter is quite clear on this, resolution 37/43 section 2 says it- 'Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation, by all available means, including armed struggle.'
As under International Law the Israeli settlements are illegal and count as occupied territory, the Palestinians are within their legal rights to use any means necessary.}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:


As to a changing Britain, it's called history, it's what happens, it's what's always happened, no doubt the neolithic Brits weren't to keen on all those foreign Beaker people coming in with their fancy pots, and the Beaker people didn't like it when the Celts turned up in numbers from Germany, and the Celts weren't to happy when the Romans homed into view and crossed the channel, and the Romans weren't too happy when the Saxons, the Jutes and the Angles turned up, then of course that lot weren't happy when the Danish and the Vikings took over half of England, but that was ok because history had the French on the horizon and the Normans showed up to move in, and so on and so on, age after age, decade after decade. There is no such thing as Britain as a set thing a set culture a set race, there's never has been.
.}}

Firstly, I support the Palestinians more than the illegal settlers. What the state of Israel have done is akin to genocide. And there was no way that the Palestinians could have fought the Israeli army with stones and rocks. However, this could escalate badly, especially if it is Iran handing out the weapons to Hamas.

Secondly, yes it is history, but generally the invading culture has just that, a culture, Romans brought roads and sanitation, new technologies, Celts brought their art etc etc, but what have the current 'invaders brought to Britain, oh yes, stabbing, looting, machete attacks, acid attacks, bride burning, genital mutilation, organ harvesting, drug gangs, muggings, shootings, forced marriage, child marriage, grooming gangs, ghettos, violent drill music, honour killings, terrorism, fundamentalism, bombings, anti-white racism and demands for reparations for stuff we apologized and paid for centuries ago...shall I go on..they brought their shit cultures here and we just have to smile and say 'diversity is our strength', I can't think of one positive contribution to the indigenous culture, its all degradation, violence and the Haitification of Britain.

{{ Lets take the largest immigrant group in the UK those from India/Pakistan.

Culture-

Prominent UK journalists-  journalists Krishnan Guru-Murthy and Naga Munchetty.
Prominent comedians- Nish Kumar, actor and broadcaster Sanjeev Bhaskar, and writer and actress Meera Syal
Arts - Sir Anish Kapoor. His creation, the ArcelorMittal Orbit at the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London, is the largest piece of public art in the UK. He was also the first living artist to be given a solo show at the Royal Academy of Arts in London.
Film- Gurinder Chadha, director of films such as Bhaji on the Beach, Bend It Like Beckham and Viceroy’s House.
Academia- Kumar Bhattacharya, Baron Bhattacharya (1940–2019). Born in Bangalore, the Britain-Indian engineer was Professor of Manufacturing Systems at the University of Warwick and founded the Warwick Manufacturing Group.
Sir Venkatraman Ramakrishnan. The India-born American and British structural biologist was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry and is currently the President of the Royal Society.
Food- 'Survey's find that an Indian take-away is three times as popular as the UK’s traditional take-away, fish and chips, and 3 million Britons say they prepare an Indian-inspired recipe at least once a week. Chicken Tikka Masala, which is actually a British creation, consistently ranks high in polls of the UK’s favourite meals.'
Community service-  the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (BAPIO), a voluntary organisation for doctors of Indian origin in the UK, estimates that there are more than 50,000 medical professionals of Indian origin (including both Indian and British citizens) serving the NHS in the UK.

I know what you're thinking, yeah buts that Indians they're fine its those nasty Muslims you have to be careful of.
Well Britain has a long history there, in the 8th century Alfred, he of the burnt cakes, minted coins with Arabic on one side. By the 16th century there were all sort s of Muslims living in London, Cardiff, Glasgow, Liverpool, Tyneside, and Hull. Basically anywhere with a port.
So Muslims have been living and contributing to the Uk for a very long time. Currently, Muslim run businesses generate approx 31billion a year to the Uk economy. They make up 26% of all NHS Doctors and nurses. Due to their religious law under which they have to give 2.5% of their income to good causes, they contribute more than any other British group to UK charities.
An interesting one is if you ask a British Muslim if they are Muslim or British first they will almost certainly answer Muslim. Which is the same answer you get if you ask a Muslim in Pakistan or any other county, however if you ask them if they are proud to be British you get a response of 83% in favour, which is on average 4% higher than for anyone else in Britain answering that question, I'd say no for example.
Another interesting, and perhaps surprising stat from the Muslim council is about 'cultural Muslims' those who still adhere to some Muslim culture but are in fact otherwise completely secular, they estimate among under 25 UK Muslims the figure for them may be as high as 70%.
So Muslims have been contributing to Britain, economically, culturally and practically for centuries.
The problems are the same old problems of the UK masked by making it about race, it's about poverty, it's about underclass and working poor and working class being shat on over and over, but if they divide us into factions we will never do anything about it, too busy trying to get rid of that Muslim next door in case he's a jihadist, when in reality his only real problems are the same as yours. }}

{{ They haven't just made a success within our culture they have added to it, a show like Goodness Gracious Me got millions of viewers, there aren't millions of Indians to watch it, most of its audience were white Brits, because the content, and in fact the whole point of the show was to make fun of the Indian/British experience, of the shared, mixing and differences of culture. It sits alongside other well remembered sketch shows like the Fast Show as part of British comedy culture.

Indian fashion, particularly female fashion is massively popular among white British women, especially the younger generation. It is a part of the modern British fashion look.

It might just be curry as you dismissively put it, but it's still the most popular meal in Britain, it's part of British food culture, it's a British dish, invented in Britain by immigrant Indians specifically to suit the native white British taste, a perfect example of the two cultures interacting and producing something new and yet uniquely British.

The Tories didn't bring Indian and Pakistani people here, the post WW2 government did in order to create the NHS and restaff UK infrastructure after the death toll of the war left us short of people to work.

There are in fact 69 Mosques in Bradford out of a UK total of 1,825. Islam is the second-largest religion in the UK at a 'whopping' 6.7% of the population.
For comparison, Bradford has 166 Churches out of a UK total of over 40,000. And 46% of the UK population are Christian.

'People who don't speak English and want Sharia Law.'- Figg

Most first generation immigrants don't speak the native language well or often at all, this has always been true, it was true of the first wave of Indians to come here too and Punjabi was often still used within the family as the dominant language for a generation or two, this is just normal human behaviour.

As to them wanting Sharia law-

6% sought a "separate Islamic life as far as possible" and 1% wanted a "'fully separate Islamic area in Britain, subject to Sharia Law and government".- National Secular Society (who carried out the largest survey of British Muslim attitudes to date)
by my count that means 93% of British Muslims don't in fact want it.

There are aspects of Sharia law I'd be happy for Britain to adopt, there is some good stuff in there as well, I particularly like the no interest on loans one

As to the Burka I'm not a fan but it's such a tiny minority it's up to them really, I don't believe in telling people what to wear. But as a good idea of numbers, France who got so het up about them they banned them, at the time they did so according to studies of the time (i news), 1,600 women wore the burka in France, or 0.04% of the French Muslim population or 0.03% of the overall French population. Makes you wonder if it's worth all the fuss really.

its the white working-class boys doing the worst at school- Figg

No it's not, it's poor people.

'in every ethnic group, pupils eligible for free school meals had a lower average score than non-eligible pupils'- UK Education Department GSCE results

In terms of attainment judged on just race the Chinese are top, followed by Indian, with White Irish and Asians tied, mixed whites next then whites, who are pretty much right in the middle, the lowest groups for attainment are Gypsy Romania, Irish Traveller, Mixed and Black Caribbean, Black Other. Or all the poorest groups in UK society.

If you go on ethnicity and gender- 'in every ethnic group, girls had a higher average score than boys'.

The same is true versus school meals or not, those poorest and in need of free meals do worse than those who are better off across all ethnicities.

It's not the colour of skin making the difference, it's social levels in society. It's poverty, across all races. }}

"The MP Ben Bradley, speaking in a House of Commons debate in February 2020, said: “We know that on average boys consistently underperform against girls, and white boys from disadvantaged backgrounds underperform against boys of all other races and ethnicities.

“Only around a third of white working class boys pass their maths and English GCSEs,” he said, “(and) disadvantaged white working class boys are 40 per cent less likely to go into higher education than disadvantaged black boys.”

"The latest report, from parliament’s education select committee, confirms that almost 1m white working-class children, especially boys, are seriously struggling. They now fare worse in education than every other minority group except Gypsy/Roma and Irish Travellers."

The Spectator

{{ Boys consistently underperform against girls in all ethnic groups, race has nothing to do with it, it's gender based (or more likely the speed at which the genders mature).
Note he compares whites from disadvantage backgrounds to 'boys of all other races and ethnicity'. That not like for like, because if you exclude middle and upper class from other races the figures suddenly seem more reasonable in their context and more equal.
The claim only a third pass their maths and English, that's higher than the official figures for the last year of exams we have for blacks, Caribbean blacks as well as the groups he does mention. All in the latest figures doing worse than whites.

And of course a higher percentage of white kids dont go into education, there are way, way more white kids in the country and a high percentage of them are poor, if you turn it round and say 60% of all white kids are more likely go onto higher education it seems perfectly fine.
The Select Committee he speaks of did indeed find about 1m white working class children are struggling, but as a proportion of the total white school population, and as such far more white kids grow up in poverty just by sheer numbers. There's a lot more of them, about 20% of the country are white kids of school age, so obviously when the country is struggling economically, as it is, white working class will be hit hardest as they are the largest group. It's not race, its poverty. More white kids equals more white kids in bad home conditions equals poorer outcomes. Black kids in poor areas do just as bad, if you compare directly like for like the outcomes for black, Indian or white kids in poverty hotspots are the same. It's just Indians are less likely to be in poverty, they tend to be very industrious and to be involved in business, as are the Chinese who are in such small numbers most of those here are work related and their kids go to posh schools not state ones, the immigrant groups who come out top of the list in education are those most likely to be from affluent backgrounds by percent of population. And those with the worst outcomes are those who are most likely to be found in poverty- white working class, black working class, and at the bottom Irish travellers and Romany. It is, as always has been the case, about wealth, and the lack of it in the bottom end of society.
White kids aren't doing poorly at school because of immigrants, but because far too many white working class kids grow up in poverty.  }}

To say that it is purely due to poverty is missing the point, obviously poor kids get a bum deal, but BAME kids now get affirmative action, they get attention in the media with the elites on the left wringing their hands over black crime and black gangs. They are conveniently ignoring the imported 'Yardie' culture of the West Indies, which has far more to do with gang culture than poverty. Other ethnic minorities dont walk round with machetes. Just a personal anecdote to highlight their skewed attitude, I recently had a conversation online with someone about the old housing crescents in Hulme which is a majority black area of Manchester. When I was studying at Manchester Poly in the 80s I used to squat with some friends in the Crescents, although students used to get grants rents were still expensive and I also worked in the kitchen of a local vegetarian cafe washing pots and cleaning their vegan curry poo-splattered toilets (obviously I washed my hands a lot)  to get by, so squatting made sense.
We were talking about the music scene in Manchester and how all the most creative bands lived free in Hulme Crescents. Then suddenly the person class/race shamed me by saying did I as a middle-class student having a whale of a time pretending to be edgy in Hulme, ever think about the black people living next to me, and did I think that I should feel guilty because they were more disadvantaged than me as a middle-class/white person because they were selling drugs on the streets and stealing everything that wasn't nailed down.
First off, fuck off to the patronizing git, I worked hard for that education, and secondly, nothing was to stop these kids educating themselves, as presumably they had access to school like the rest of us, and nothing was forcing them to sell drugs to buy expensive trainers. There is ZERO moral argument for stealing or drug selling, but the 'leftie' thought that middle class white students had a cross to bear for the bad choices of others. The 'leftie' conveniently ignored the macho gang culture of West Indian men, and the fact that single mother households without fathers were more likely to live in poverty, and other disadvantaged ethnic groups like white boys were just left on the scrap heap because they were seen as having an advantage just because they were white therefore why bother with them they could sink or swim, and Asians/Chinese were doing better at school than everyone else because of family cohesion, strong work ethics and no victim mentality and an innate sense of self-respect. So yes, some groups are poor, and some are forgotten, and some are congenitally incapable of self-improvement because they think the world owes them a living for something that happened 200 years ago.

Humza Useless about Scotland.

"Some people have been surprised or taken aback by my mention on my social media that at 99 percent of the meetings that I go to, I am the only non-white person in the room.

"Why are we so surprised when the most senior positions in Scotland are filled almost exclusively by people who are white?

No wonder Musk is calling him a "blatant racist", that's because he is. He just doesn't get Scotland being a 99.9% white country. Thick or disingenuous, you decide.

{{ Oddly enough was talking with someone earlier about how Musks comment just betrayed his ignorance of the context and what it refers to.
What Humas is referring to is that statistically, per head of population minorities are represented in the major Scottish institutions as you would expect, up to a certain level.
Once you get to the top jobs suddenly there aren't any, at all, where there should be at least a few.
His statement is entirely backed up by the numbers. For some reason minorities only rise to the middle ranks, never higher.
Even the BBC did one of their 'is it true' debunking pieces pointing out Musk was completely wrong and why. It's probably still on the BBC Scotland news page somewhere. }}

oh the BBC that beacon of impartiality.

I have to ask why he is always referring to race, when surely all people living in Scotland are Scottish regardless of melanin content. Surely people should be judged on merit, character, and aptitude, not race or religion. All the years of progress towards equality is being turned into a race war because of people like him. Thats why affirmative action is pointless, unfair and inherently racist. Martin Luther King would be in despair if he lived in 2023.

{{ He isn't always referring to race. The right talk about race much more, much, much more, usually being outraged at the left, over non-existent, misunderstood or out of context statements like this one. He refereed to race in this instance in a twenty minute speech (from which the right constantly pluck the same few out of context lines) that was about race, making it a tricky subject to avoid in his speech, and he was one of many speakers in the Chamber.

And yes the BBC can have a bias, but no one in their right mind would accuse them of bias TOWARDS the SNP. Believe me if the BBC could have used this to attack Humza they would have.}}

{{ Well it's been a wild few days in Scottish Politics. I was rather hoping it would be too irresistible for Figg, but so far she has resisted!

Scotland's First Minister Humza has resigned ahead of a vote of no confidence in the Parliament, so Figg was right about his days being numbered, just not for the right reasons, it has nothing to do with Hate laws and only tangential with social issues. This was pure politics at its crazy mentalist, which for a politics watcher like myself is a lot of fun. I think politics is the only spectator sport where it being played badly is as entertaining as it being played well.

So what has happened? Well, the roots of it lie in three main things. Firstly the SNP party election that led to Humza becoming First Minister, in that the right of the SNP under Kate Forbes came very, very close to taking control of the party. Though they narrowly lost it was as if they suddenly realised there were more of them than they had individually suspected, as such they have found a strong voice in the party and have been pressuring Humza more on certain policies. Policies which Humza, who is considerably more centralist than Sturgeon was, was inclined to go along with. These policies largely centred around less of a focus on social issues more on economics and the case for independence, and doing that the right of the party felt meant ditching the Greens from the coalition government, as the Greens are the biggest influence on the government for social and green policies which cost a lot and often are not popular with voters. This tension between the SNP and their coalition partners the Greens has been bubbling and festering away ever since Humza came to power.

Then a few things happened all together, first Scotland failed to meet its ambitious climate targets - on a slight tangent here this is one of those things I've never understood why governments do, make specific targets they almost certainly can't live up to or meet, they set themselves up for failure - the Tories have been doing it over and over with immigration numbers, NHS waiting times and Sunak's 6 pledges to judge him on, and the SNP did the same with climate targets. In reality, Scotland has cut its carbon emissions by 50% in 10 years, the targets we missed were missed by less than 2% It's still an amazing accomplishment, if they hadn't set an unrealistic target to meet to start with. It should be a good news story, but instead of 'Scotland's record breaking emissions cut' it gives our right wing press the opportunity instead to crow, 'SNP Climate targets missed' and can easily be made into a bad news story.

Anyhow, the next thing to come along was the Cass Report which was into the treatment of trans patients in the English NHS. It raised some question around the science behind some treatments, and although it only applied to England's NHS, Humza, who is as I mentioned more socially conservative than Sturgeon, and unlike her has pressure from the resurgent right of his party, choose to take a cautionary approach and suspended treatments in our NHS pending further scientific study and information. This infuriated the Greens who believe the Cass report is a Tory commissioned right wing hit job to attack the trans community and should have been ignored.

And then came another announcement on the climate targets, Humza had made concessions to the right of his party, the SNP was going to abandon having climate targets altogether. This made their coalition partners extremely unhappy and they let everyone know.
Things were coming to a head, and under increasing pressure from the right of the SNP Humza decided to end the coalition with the Greens and run a minority government administrations.

And that's when things exploded. The Greens did not take well to being dumped from power and had a bit of a hissy fit.
The Scottish Tories under weasel Ross sniffed an opportunity and tabled a vote of no confidence in the SNP government - which requires a majority vote in the parliament, and the Greens immediately announced they would vote with the Tories.
Doing so would tip the numbers in favour of Humza going, and assuming the Tories, Labour and Greens all voted together, and all the SNP and indie aligned independents voted against, the numbers would be tied with just one MSP left to decide, the only MSP belonging to the Alba party, headed by ex SNP leader Alex Salmond and the one MSP being Ash Reagan, who resigned from the SNP to join Alba and has no love of Humza who, at the time, called her defection, “no big loss”.

So Humza instead chose to jump before he was pushed. A choice that will probably, for now, save the SNP government, as the Greens have now declared they will in fact vote against the Tory vote of no confidence, and doing so would secure the SNP in power, Tories plus Labour is not enough votes to overturn the pro-independence parties combined.

Which brings me onto the biggest political puzzle here - did the Greens jut have a fit of anger? Or was there some sort of plan? Because if there was a plan I don't know what it was, and I'm having a hard time seeing one. They were primarily annoyed about the lack of commitment to the climate targets, and secondarily about the Cass report being implemented. But getting rid of Humza is almost certain to lead to an SNP government that is closer to centre right than left and even less inclined to go along with the Green party agenda, getting rid of the SNP at this point and forcing an early election would almost certainly result in a loss of seats for the Greens as well as the SNP, with Lib Dems and Labour most likely to pick up the gains (historically smaller parties in coalitions don't do well after the coalition breaks up) so again their policies would be less likely to get implemented.
Politically the wiser choice would have been to support the SNP or not on a policy by policy basis in the parliament, free of a formal deal to support them on everything, which may even have given them more leverage. As it is they will end up with a less responsive to their ideas SNP government, or an even less responsive than that to their ideas Labour or Tory administrations. But every result of the Greens actions seem to me to lead to a result worse than the position they would have been in allied, but not bound to, a minority SNP under Humza.
Now they have forced Humza out but their reversal on the no confidence vote indicates to me that they have realised getting rid of the SNP would not help their cause any. And by still acting like getting rid of Humza is enough, as if he was the main issue they had is, at best, I think a story they are trying to convince themselves of, as any replacement to Humza is going to be even less receptive to the Greens than he was. It seems a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

So what now? Well the SNP elect a new leader and then the Parliament has to vote them in, the Parliamentary vote has to happen within 28 days of the new leader being elected, but that election could take anything from a few days to a few weeks - the right want Kate Forbes to stand again given she was within a few votes of winning last time, if she does win then it would see a pretty fundamental shift from a left of centre to a right of centre party. And the hard core of the party in power and current leadership want John Swinney to return, he's an old hand at the tiller, been in government in various roles since Salmond's days, and he's well respected and has remained above the fray in recent years. Very much in the trusted elder statesman category these days in the public mind. He would certainly be a steady hand and the most likely to get a grip on the party itself and restore discipline, he certainly has more intimate knowledge of its workings, and that of the Parliament than Forbes but he does have the baggage of being the continuity candidate when maybe people wish for more change. It shall be interesting to watch at least. }}

{{ Interestingly worded article on the BBC website. The recent unrest over immigration leading to riots and such in England finally tries to make an appearance in Scotland, with an anti-immigration demonstration today in George Square in Glasgow. Except only 350 people turned out for it, and several thousand pro-immigration protesters turned up to counter them.

However the BBC reporting on it is laced with what I can only call hints to Scottish people. If you are English or otherwise what was really going on would not be readily apparent from the reporting, it would just contain a few lines that might seem disassociated or without context for why its there. But if you are Scottish the wording, clues and the rest tell the full story. The puzzling bit is why didn't they just say it plainly?

Here's what I mean-

'A group of masked men, believed to be from the Green Brigade "ultra" group of Celtic fans, were contained by police in a corner of the square..... The masked group of men, believed to be from the Green Brigade, had earlier tried to join the anti-racism side of the demonstration but were guided away by police.' - BBC

This is the first major hint to what's going on here and requires its own bit of context I am afraid- Celtic are a football club founded by catholic immigrants, they are staunch Republicans, supported the IRA during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and tend to favour Scottish Independence.

“Far-right activists rushed to confront them, singing "Rule Britannia" and spooking some police horses.” - BBC

The clue here is in what they are singing and that the report choose to mention it by name. The 'far-right activists' were also draped in Union Jacks as the illustrative photograph on the article shows. There is one other place in Scotland you will regularly see lots of Union Jacks and hear songs like Rule Britannia being sung, and that is at Ibrox stadium, home to Glasgow Rangers. Staunch Unionists and above all staunch Monarchists, and above all else protestants.

On the surface this is a simple immigration versus anti-immigration protest. Under the hood it's the west coast of Scotland's old fracture line along religious and Unionist/Independence lines combined with over a hundred years of rivalry and hatred.
And the BBC report tells you this, but only if you know how to read the couple of clues scattered throughout the full page article. Which is an odd choice of reporting. }}

I think, like all else, the English reporting of Scottish events is to subliminally put ideas into heads that are looking for "something". It has nothing to do with immigrants, thats just a topping, British reporting is like a home made birthday cake, This segment is the icing, underneath is one layer of sponge that is the editors, producers and script writers, the cream is the top dogs that pour the money into the reporting and newspapers, the jam is the tv level and the final layer of cake is top MPs, top funding from very rich people who may or may not live here and the Government. All know what the feck is going on, all pat themselves on the back, all are lighting little fires of their own and all are getting rich on it. How best to lead a country ? get to people through a medium thats instant, in colour, obtainable and social. We all have tvs........let alone mobiles, laptops etc... show them the "cake" and let them guess how its made. Enough follow and say the same thing and job done. Cant go against the majority can you ?

Scotland cut carbon emissions by nearly 50% in 10 years? That's amazing, how was that done?

{{ By switching from carbon based to green energy. We shut down the last coal mine a while ago now. We still have nuclear, and we have Hydro, and we have lots of wind and are adding wave to that as the technology develops. For the last 3 years Scotland has prodcuced enough green energy to supply the entire country twice over. The greater mystery therefore is why do our fuel bills continually go up?

The answer of course is it's not our energy. Westminster when it sold off the oil gave it all away to private enterprise in return for a straight tax fund- so whilst Norway has over a trillion dollars in its soverieng fund from oil, Scotland got, nothing at all.
Most of our electricity goes on the UK national grid to be used by the much larger popualtion of England, and our gas mainly is exported to make huge profits for oil companies.
Just about the only people who dont benefit from Scotlands massive energy resources are the Scottish people, in fact we are negatively effected by at as our energy is more expensive now than ever. }}

It's ridiculous that Scotland's energy is all siphoned off like that. There should be at least some regional benefit for regional effort.

America's made maybe a 10% reduction in 10 years?

{{ We are the only country in the world to have discovered large oil reserves and somehow got poorer as a result! This is the consequences of not having political control of your own country or what happens to it. }}

Minimum price of alcohol in Scotland rises by 30%:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg2d2kdgzeo