Why do the SNP refuse to engage with the Yes movement?
ISN’T is strange that when you express a view on Scottish independence that doesn’t adhere to the SNP line (whatever it may be) that some diehard party members immediately launch a torrent of criticism, accusing you of being disloyal, not a ‘true’ indy supporter, a troll, or worse?
I’d have thought that after recent events in the party (on which I needn’t go into detail) they’d be slightly more circumspect and willing to welcome people into what should a broad church.
But no – if you’re not an SNP supporter you’re an outcast, which is a great shame.
I was working at the post-referendum SNP conference in Perth and had a lengthy chat with the late Gordon Wilson, my former MP and the party leader from 1979-1990.
During our conversation Gordon reflected on the huge upsurge in SNP membership following the indyref, but warned that party leaders would have to manage their expectations, as well as those of the wider body of Yes supporters who were not SNP members.
The party seemed to agree – at least off the record – but their statements proved to be weasel words. They never intended to give voice to people who were not members; they didn’t (still don’t) want to encourage debate on the way forward for an indy Scotland; and they want (and still do) govern by diktat.
In the years since, nothing has changed in the party. At the weekend, while Humza Yousaf was extolling the virtues of his latest plan for indy – that an SNP majority of Scottish MPs at the next general election would be a mandate for it – over 5000 Yes supporters walked through the streets of Stirling to Bannockburn in a call for action now.
Yousaf’s pledge is no different from any of the previous electoral mandates the SNP have had and have squandered.
To have any chance of living up to what their party stands for (Scottish independence) they must embrace the entire Yes movement – and yes that includes Alba, however distasteful the SNP hierarchy view the prospect.
With Labour expected to have a decent shot at re-establishing at least some of their previous standing in Scotland, the alternative to real action from the SNP will be electoral oblivion.
Why should we pay this clown’s £245,000 Partygate bill?
SO, the weasel’s legal costs for the Partygate probe are around £245,000 which Boris Johnson expects taxpayers to pay, while the inquiry itself comes in at £460,000 – and for what?
To prove to a committee of MPs that this apology for a human being (and PM) is a liar?
Everybody and their auntie knows as much, but still we have to go through this expensive charade.
In case you’ve not seen the report, here’s a snippet from the end of the summary:
“17. The question which the House asked the Committee is whether the House had been misled by Mr Johnson and, if so, whether that conduct amounted to contempt. It is for the House to decide whether it agrees with the Committee. The House as a whole makes that decision. Motions arising from reports from this Committee are debatable and amendable. The Committee had provisionally concluded that Mr Johnson deliberately misled the House and should be sanctioned for it by being suspended for a period that would trigger the provisions of the Recall of MPs Act 2015. In light of Mr Johnson’s conduct in committing a further contempt on 9 June 2023, the Committee now considers that if Mr Johnson were still a Member he should be suspended from the service of the House for 90 days for repeated contempts and for seeking to undermine the parliamentary process, by:
1a) Deliberately misleading the House
1b) Deliberately misleading the Committee
1c) Breaching confidence
1d) Impugning the Committee and thereby undermining the democratic process of the House
1e) Being complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee.
We recommend that he should not be entitled to a former Member’s pass.”
The committee made its intentions clear, but Johnson, ever the escape artist, quit as an MP before he could be removed.
And he expects us to pay the bill for his abhorrent behaviour?
Millions of people behaved sensibly during the pandemic, abiding by all the restrictions on social gatherings; and tens of thousands could only visit dying relatives and see them through the glass of hospital or care home doors.
To see him smirking his way through the subsequent inquiry and all the questions about his behaviour as if the rules didn’t apply to him made my blood boil.
The government claimed there’s a precedent for supporting ex-minister with legal representation, but has anybody seen it?
Can anybody find it?
The SNP, LibDems and Labour all railed against Johnson having his legal bill paid, and we can only hope Westminster authorities eventually change their minds and admit there is no precedent and force the buffoon to pay for his own mess.
On another subject entirely, I am pleased that Sarah Bradley and her partner Youssef Mikhaiel have had something of a reprieve after he was locked up in Dungavel immigration detention centre and told he was being deported.
The couple are planning to marry this year, but the Home Office doesn’t recognise their relationship because they are not co-habiting – which goes against their religious beliefs.
Youssef – and aeronautical engineering graduate from Glasgow University – suffers from a rare condition Fabry Disease, and there is no treatment available for it in his home country Egypt.
His lawyer Usman Aslam managed to stop his removal after taking the case to the Court of Session, which will decide if the Home Office was right to try to remove him while there was an application to remain here pending.
Have you ever known the Home Office to be right about anything?
I thought not.
Cruel, toxic and inhumane – will the UK Home Office ever change?
The Home Office is cruel, increasingly toxic and inhumane, but will it ever change?
Sarah Bradley took to the digital world yesterday to issue a plea for help after her partner – who was being held in the Dungavel Immigration Removal Centre in South Lanarkshire – was told he was being taken to Manchester to be deported.
Youssef Mikhaiel is a University of Glasgow aeronautical engineering graduate who was diagnosed with a rare medical condition – Fabry disease – in 2020, and was about to present medical evidence to stay here on humanitarian grounds when he was detained.
This morning, Sarah had a call from him saying he was being taken to Manchester for a flight back to Egypt.
Fabry disease starts in childhood with a build-up of a type of fat in the body’s cells. It progressively worsens and can result in potentially life-threatening complications, like heart of kidney failure, or stroke.
There is no treatment in Egypt for the condition.
Youssef’s lawyer is Usman Aslam, who is well-known in and around Scotland’s immigration courts and tribunals, and he has a letter from an Egyptian hospital saying the absence of treatment would cause “intense suffering or death” to Youssef..
We seem to have become desensitised to the Home Office’s ‘hostile environment’ that began to rear its ugly head over a decade ago, but Usman says their behaviour is becoming increasingly “toxic”.
Usman told one newspaper: “Usually they take a year to make a decision but on this one I have a funny feeling they will make it in hours and say they’ve refused it and are still going to remove him.
“The number one priority is now to stop the flight and thereafter I’m going to apply for bail to get him released.
“He’s never missed a meeting, is not a flight risk so is the wrong person to detain.”
Sarah told The Scotsman: “On the best of days, Youssef walks around with occasional cramps, but other days he can be in severe pain.
“He’s the kind of person who does everything by the book … until now, we’ve never had a problem.
“But on this occasion, the Home Office, instead of going through the official procedure and calling his solicitor to find out what is happening, made the decision there and then to start the procedure of detainment.”
Good luck to the couple as they challenge the worsening cold-heartedness of Home Office immigration policies, which have been constantly slated for their total disregard for the rights and well-being of individuals fleeing persecution or seeking a better life in the UK. The policies have had a detrimental impact on vulnerable individuals and families, perpetuating a culture of fear, injustice, and discrimination.
The hostile environment policy aimed to make life so difficult for undocumented migrants that they would choose to leave the country and it has resulted in widespread discrimination and violations of human rights.
Many migrants have been denied access to healthcare, housing, and employment opportunities, leaving them in vulnerable and precarious situations. Families have been separated, and individuals have been subjected to harsh detention conditions and forced deportations.
Also, the UK’s use of thee immigration detention centres has raised serious concerns about the treatment of individuals awaiting immigration decisions. Detainees, including vulnerable groups such as survivors of torture and victims of trafficking, have been held in detention for indefinite periods, often in prison-like conditions. Reports of abuse, neglect, and inadequate medical care have emerged, highlighting the inhumanity and violation of basic human rights in these facilities.
Human rights groups and experts have condemned the detention of children in such centres, which can have a severe and lasting impact on a child’s well-being, mental health, and development.
But the hostile environment will remain until there is a comprehensive reform of the UK’s immigration system. Policies should protect human rights, adopt a more compassionate and fair approach, and be based on respect, dignity, and the recognition of the value that migrants bring to the country.
Detention should only be used as a last resort, and alternatives should be more widely explored. Access to essential services and support should be guaranteed for all individuals, regardless of their immigration status.