Every time I write something about the SNP, I optimistically think there's nothing more to say. They couldn't possibly surpass the idiocy previously shown, but they can and they do. And as always, I am proved wrong.
We have seen many examples of the way dictatorships worldwide silence opposition to their political agenda. Closing down any kind of public debate. Censorship of the media, with the state taking control if the journalists attempt to think for themselves.
Of course, we associate dictatorship with some kind of revolution which overthrows a previously democratically elected government. Usually this involves violence of varying amounts of brutality. But occasionally it is achieved by stealth, over a quite long period of time.
At the recent SNP conference, a long time activist and member of the party was making a speech. This man was from a very different generation than the present leadership. He was making a point of order, which the chair decided wasn't a point of order, and wasn't going to be heard by the conference. This took place on a live television feed from the event in Glasgow. So the entire world, if it had wished, would have been able to witness what happened.
The chair, Derek Mackay, was adamant the old gentleman was not going to go ahead with his point, and was loudly telling him this, while the man was attempting to make his point. Suddenly, the live feed was cut, blacking out the argument between the two men. This was met with a huge sense of shock. The ruling party in democratic Scotland had blacked out something that they thought would embarrass them!
The live feed was back in around ten minutes with no mention of the argument. No explanation of the loss of the live feed. It was as if nothing had happened. Now, this is control freakery of the most paranoid kind. The public were stopped from being able to witness one SNP member having a frank exchange of views with another party member.
Of course, the SNP strictly forbid any member of the party criticise another member in public. This rule is official party policy. Not a suggestion.
Are you getting the picture of what this political party are doing? It's not a very pretty picture at all.
Over the past summer we have seen many (13) marches through various towns and cities in Scotland. These have been for the pro independence group, AUOB or All Under One Banner, proporting to be made up of people who support independence, but from political parties other than the SNP. They have had success in raising moneys for the cause, but not necessarily for the independence campaign.
One would think that they would be a united bunch, but now, at the end of the "marching season," there appears to be a split in the ranks. It's not clear who is against whom, but money would seem to be a factor. They carry plastic buckets on their marches for supporters to drop money into as they pass through. This obviously brings in quite a tiny sum over the summer months. At this point I thought they might be called All Under One Banknote.
I have no idea how much they have collected or where it ends up, but rumours are emerging of some kind of impropriety in the counting process. God only knows what the outcome of these events will be, but AUOB might now be known as All Under One Bankruptcy.
The delegates at the SNP annual conference I mentioned earlier, were waiting with bated breath for the speech from the Dear Leader. Would she announce that she would be asking for another independence referendum? We all knew this wasn't going to happen, but the faithful in the audience, a mixture of old people and even older people, looking like day trippers from 57 retirement homes, were still hoping she would spring a surprise and actually say something they longed to hear. And no, I don't mean, fish is for lunch. In the end, they were disappointed on both fronts.
Her speech was more of the waffle she is good at spouting, and managing to mention independence but only in as much as saying it was inevitable, but probably not in the lifetimes of 90% of this audience. She could probably have read out her Tesco shopping list, and she would get the mandatory standing ovation, well at least from the few who could stand without help.
Back at the Scottish Parliament, the usual unseemly squabbles are in full flow, with the leaders of all parties, hurling insults at each other, like small children at an out of control 6th birthday party.
What with the allegations of sexual improprieties still hanging over her predecessor and mentor, Alex Salmond, and various blunders of her collection of hopeless ministers, she is going to be busy keeping the ship afloat without having to tell her Cultists that there isn't going to be another independence referendum while she's at the helm. The polls aren't in her favour, but she has to keep dangling the carrot of independence in order to keep the Cult voting SNP.
She will try to keep going until the next Scottish election, but if the case against Salmond goes to court, there could be some very negative fall out surrounding her involvement in other "unofficial" accusations involving him.
There are also murmurings around her competence to deal with the ever more radical end of the Cultist spectrum.
None of this is good for brand Sturgeon, but it could be excellent entertainment for those of us who would like to see the back of the SNP administration.
About the Creator
Michael Blair
I'm a medically retired grumpy Scotsman with a good sense of the ridiculous. I write some political satire and some more serious pieces. I'm here to wake people up!
On twitter I'm @mmjblair and email me at [email protected]
Keep reading
More stories from Michael Blair and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Mother Sturgeon, Cult? Discuss
I know I have written several pieces on the subject of the SNP and its effect on the life of Scotland and its political and people. So I decided to take a break from Scottish politics for a wee while. Unfortunately, I have no option but to write a little bit more about the present status of the SNP attempts to push for a second independence referendum and sundry other matters. Deep breath and here goes.....
By Michael Blair7 years ago in The Swamp
Berlin Blackout Sparks Alarm After Left-Wing Group Claims Responsibility for Sabotage
Start wrBerlin is no stranger to political protest, but a recent citywide blackout has pushed Germany into uneasy territory. After tens of thousands of residents were left without power, a left-wing activist group came forward claiming responsibility, framing the incident as an act of political sabotage aimed at forcing attention on climate policy and technological governance. The claim has intensified public concern, not only about the blackout itself, but about the growing willingness of activist groups to target critical infrastructure. What began as a disruption has now become a national debate over the limits of protest, the definition of extremism, and how democracies should respond when political activism crosses into sabotage. The Blackout That Shook the Capital The outage affected multiple districts across Berlin, disrupting homes, businesses, and public transport systems. Traffic lights failed, trains were delayed, and residents reported hours without heating, internet access, or reliable communication. While hospitals and emergency facilities relied on backup generators, authorities acknowledged that the incident placed significant strain on public services. Initial reports described the blackout as a technical failure. That explanation changed dramatically when a left-wing group issued a statement online claiming responsibility, describing the outage as a deliberate act designed to expose what it called the “fragility of systems that sustain an unjust and destructive status quo.” The group framed the sabotage as non-violent, arguing that disruption — not harm — was the goal. The Group’s Message and Motivation In its statement, the group linked the blackout to broader grievances over climate change, artificial intelligence, and what it described as government inaction. According to the group, modern societies continue to rely on fossil fuels, centralized energy grids, and rapidly advancing technologies without sufficient democratic oversight. By targeting infrastructure, the activists said they hoped to demonstrate how vulnerable modern life is — and how urgently political priorities need to shift. This rhetoric reflects a growing strand within radical activism that views disruption of everyday life as a legitimate tool. Supporters argue that traditional protests no longer generate meaningful political change. Critics see a dangerous escalation that risks normalizing tactics once associated with extremist movements. Government and Security Response German authorities reacted swiftly. Interior Ministry officials condemned the sabotage, stressing that interference with critical infrastructure is a serious criminal offense regardless of political motivation. Investigators are now working to verify the group’s claim and determine how the outage was carried out. Security agencies have also launched a broader review of infrastructure protection, particularly energy systems that are increasingly decentralized and digitized. Officials warned that while the blackout did not result in fatalities, similar incidents could have far more serious consequences in the future. Several political leaders called for tougher penalties for those who sabotage essential services, arguing that democratic societies cannot tolerate actions that endanger public safety. Public Reaction: Sympathy Meets Anger Public opinion in Berlin and across Germany has been sharply divided. Some residents expressed sympathy with the underlying causes highlighted by the group, particularly concerns over climate change and unchecked technological power. However, frustration and anger dominated many responses. Small business owners reported financial losses. Families with elderly or medically vulnerable members described fear and anxiety during the outage. Commuters voiced outrage at being used, in their words, as “collateral damage” in a political statement. For many, the group’s justification rang hollow. While climate anxiety is widespread, the idea of sabotaging infrastructure crossed a line. Protest or Extremism? The central question now facing Germany is how to define actions like the Berlin blackout. Is this civil disobedience, or does it constitute political extremism? Legal experts point out that intent matters. Civil disobedience traditionally involves breaking laws openly and accepting consequences to highlight injustice. Sabotage, by contrast, is covert and risks unintended harm. The blackout’s scale and impact complicate claims that the action was harmless. German history adds another layer of sensitivity. The country remains acutely aware of how political extremism — from both the far right and far left — has threatened democratic stability in the past. As a result, there is little tolerance for actions that undermine public trust or safety. Infrastructure as a New Protest Target The Berlin blackout underscores a worrying trend: infrastructure has become a new battleground for political activism. Energy grids, transport networks, and data systems are increasingly seen as pressure points capable of generating maximum attention with minimal effort. Experts warn that this approach carries serious risks. Even well-intentioned activists cannot fully control the consequences of infrastructure disruption. Power outages can affect hospitals, emergency communications, and vulnerable populations in unpredictable ways. There is also concern that such tactics could inspire copycat actions — not only by activists, but by criminal or hostile actors exploiting similar vulnerabilities. Political Fallout and Policy Implications The incident is already shaping political discussions in Germany. Lawmakers are debating whether existing laws adequately address sabotage motivated by ideology. Some have proposed expanding surveillance powers or tightening restrictions on protest activities near critical infrastructure. Civil liberties groups caution against overreaction, warning that broad crackdowns could erode democratic freedoms and push activism further underground. They argue that the solution lies not only in security measures, but in addressing the grievances that fuel radicalization. The challenge for policymakers is finding a balance: protecting infrastructure without criminalizing dissent. A Warning for Europe Berlin’s blackout is being closely watched across Europe. As cities become smarter, greener, and more interconnected, they also become more vulnerable. Energy transitions, while essential for climate goals, introduce new complexities into grid management and security. The incident serves as a reminder that resilience is not just about technology, but governance. Transparent decision-making, public trust, and credible political pathways for change are crucial in preventing radical escalation. Conclusion: A Line Has Been Crossed The claim of responsibility by a left-wing group has transformed the Berlin blackout from a technical incident into a political reckoning. While the urgency of climate change and concerns about technology are widely shared, the method chosen has sparked fear rather than consensus. Democracies depend on protest, but they also depend on trust and safety. When activism turns to sabotage, it risks undermining the very values it claims to defend. Berlin’s blackout is more than a disruption of power — it is a warning about how fragile the line between protest and extremism can become in an age of crisis, urgency, and political frustration.iting...
By Muhammad Hassan7 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.