https://rumble.com/vkj4p3-doctors-for-covid-ethics-symposium-1.0.html#:~:text=%3Cscript%3E!function(r,div%22%3A%22rumble_vhwyjt%22%7D)%3B%3C/script%3E

 <script>!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u4"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");</script>

<div id="rumble_vdk769"></div>

<script>

Rumble("play", {"video":"vdk769","div":"rumble_vdk769"});</script>

DOES NICOLA STURGEON PREFER A FEDERALIST COMPROMISE?

For some time I have believed and stated that Sturgeon is, by her nature, a manager and not a visionary who would use every opportunity available to take Scotland out of the union.

It should be pretty clear by now that her super-cautious approach ensures that she will never dare to move against the British establishment and its Deep State. We know them all too well to have to explain why Scotland's institutions from its government down, are so deeply intertwined with Britain's that nothing short of wholesale destruction and a new beginning from scratch could ever free Scotland of those ties.

That is why I believe Sturgeon would choose an end to the impossible dilemma of preparing for a putative referendum which, by her own acknowledged rules of needing first to obtain a Section 30 Order from Westminster, she can never expect to be held. That is why I find myself agreeing unexpectedly with Stephen Daisley in the Spectator when he suggests that the FM is taking us all for a ride.

Those few who bothered to watch in its entirety the FM's Ministerial Statement last Wednesday may have noticed her reply to Liberal Democrat, Mike Rumbles, on his comments about federalism.

Replying to Rumbles she said, "We cannot unilaterally turn the UK into a federal country. That requires the UK government ... I will leave Mike Rumbles to continue to beaver away to try at some point to deliver federalism and I will be the first to congratulate him for it."

Now, admittedly she also observed in that reply the sheer futility of anyone trying to persuade the WM government to take federalism seriously. They don't and they never have. The UK establishment and its government appear to suffer from a clinical pathology in its inability and mulish refusal to understand the most basic principles of federalism.

Sturgeon's reply should be understood in that context and her promise to congratulate Rumbles be nothing more than sarcasm. But I cannot help detect just a hint of wishful thinking in that reply saying "We cannot unilaterally turn the UK into a federal country. That requires the UK government."

Was there the teeniest suggestion there that she would be open to multilateral talks on federalism along the lines of her open invitation to have cross-party talks with the unionists as well as holding a Citizen's Assembly on Scotland's constitutional future?

Certainly, Craig Murray, an ex-UK Ambassador and far more experienced political commentator than I seems to have when, last Wednesday, he tweeted:

"Sturgeon's 'Citizen's Assembly' will do nothing to advance the cause of Independence, but fumble around looking for federalist compromise. Establishment controlled, it will achieve nothing because designed to kick the Indy can 2 more years down the road."

Taking her speech in its entirety, interpreting her invitation for cross-party talks with unionists and a citizen's assembly on Scotland's constitutional future I can only arrive at the conclusion that her 'update' last Wednesday was really nothing to do with preparations for another referendum on independence.

It was something else entirely: while preparing a legislative framework for another referendum of sorts (with no question decided upon to put to the electorate) the speech was really an open invitation for cross-party talks and the creation of a citizen's assembly. Nothing more.

So before Sturgeon's followers become too excited about another referendum having been announced they should sit down, take a few deep breaths, and listen to or read what she actually said. Wishful thinking, as we all should know by now, has only led us down a road to nowhere.

ANOTHER 'CUNNING PLAN' WHEN NOTHING HAS REALLY CHANGED?

On my first reading Nicola Sturgeon's recent article in the National, This Plan is Ambitious AND Credible - it can win us Independence, (I will re-read it just in case I missed something) and apart from being worn-out by its length what most struck me is how Sturgeon's lawyer's mind is able to spin out bullshit ad nauseam and where we really learn nothing new.

A certain popular indy commentator (whose broadcasts I normally respect) got very excited about Sturgeon's puff piece over Easter, especially about her vague promises for a new currency. These promises are nothing new; they were made weeks ago in an attempt to appease the SNP membership some who were gearing up to oppose the disgraceful 'Growth' Report.

So why are informed indy commentators making such a big deal about it now? Perhaps because they are desperately looking around to comment on some good news emanating from the FM when in the real world there is none?

Sturgeon intends to go ahead with Wilson's neoliberal proposals, Sterlingization, the Six Tests and the ill-termed Solidarity Payment. And this piece in the National is nothing more than a suitably-couched declaration that nothing has changed, she's the boss and the rest of us had better shut it and eat up our cereal.

She glibly compares an independent Scotland's sterlingization to the early Ireland whose economy only ever began to flourish after the ditching of Sterling, not before it. She also tries to perform the impossible by assuring us that the Wilson proposals are 'only a framework and menu of options', that they are not exhaustive but prescriptive!

Well, if that's really true then why bother to push them in the first place in the place of something more dynamic to really address the needs of a young Scottish economy, our widespread poverty and a New Green Deal?

'There will be no austerity' she promises us while pushing for a fiscal policy that is ALL about the swingeing implementation of an extremely harsh Tory austerity. Tell people one thing and do the very opposite :(

So what is it to be, Nicola? Because it can't be both things at once. Or is that what you have convinced yourself can happen, you can have your neoliberal cake and eat it while the rest of the poor in this country nourish themselves on thoughts of How wonderful your new Neoliberal Scotland will be?

Somehow I can't see any of that happening and I really can't see the SNP Conference buying it either. Because if they do, not only would we be seeing a party which was considered Centre Left under Alex Salmond's management lurch violently to the Centre Right but a confirmation that Sturgeon's intentions for a New Scotland are really nothing at all but much more of the same old (but tartanized) Tory politics from which we are desperately hoping to escape :(

But to end on an encouraging note which is specifically aimed at the cyber-bullies who we all know and love. Your Leader has this to say to you:

"Vigorous debate is healthy and we should never shy away from new ideas. Being able to have these debates openly and honestly, and accommodate different views, is a strength of our movement, not a weakness."

Now there's a challenge!

https://www.thenational.scot/news/17586824.sturgeon-our-currency-position-is-ambitious-and-credible-it-can-win-us-indy/

HOME RULE, NOT INDEPENDENCE?

I can see where Sturgeon's priorities lie: she is primarily concerned about the devastating effect Brexit will have on Scottish jobs and the economy. That's perfectly understandable for any responsible politician.

It also fits in with her managerial outlook on government which is to her almost all-consuming. She is a manager by nature, not someone with a vision to campaign for independence as did Alex Salmond.

Her whole style of governance points to where the technocrats are given preference over the old-style politics which Salmond was brought up on. And that is where there is the disconnect between her and many of us in the Indy Movement.

I believe that is a major reason behind the way she keeps our movement at arm's length. She needs us because, without us, she has no real power-base to be getting on with. But her instincts are to woo her fellow technocrats and the privileged classes of Scotland because that's where home is to her.

As for the rest of us, she's taking us for granted; a great mistake which could well be fatal for her at the next Holyrood elections.

Where independence is concerned, she is taking a slow, gradualist approach, anticipating that a GE is in the offing, hoping to form an alliance with Corbyn to obtain the granting of an S30 from him instead.

In that scenario she will lay herself open to the 'federalist' moves currently being promoted through WM. She would be much more at home with federalist 'home-rule' than leaving the union