Mitchell won the Oliver Brown Award (to the public figure judged to have done most to advance Scotland’s self-respect) in 2018. That’s Sean Connery, Alex Salmond, him…and me, to list only a few. HTF!?

At TuS, we’ve been dragged yawning on a regular basis to respond to his anti-SNP drivel. Did they upset him back then as they seem to have those huffs Stuart Campbell, Robin McAlpine and Craig Murray?

Here are some of the more recent thoughts.

In July 2023:

Politico.eu today have the strangest of takes on SNP funding – ‘Only dead people donate to the Scottish National Party’ – it relies on member subscriptions and bequests left by supporters in their wills.

The seemingly healthier basis, for writer Andrew McDonald based on the thoughts of Prof James Mitchell, would be ‘big ticket donors.’

What? Like Russian oligarchs or hedge fund managers who want to turn your party, say Cons or Labour or Lib Dems, into their servants?

In the context of democratic politics, isn’t the SNP model morally superior?

Also, what would they need lots of money for? They alone have the ground troops to still put the leaflets through the doors. I’ve done it and rarely if ever saw Labour supporters, far less the others, on those streets.

Humorous extracts such as:

It’s not quite the image the nationalist party — which self-identifies as a vibrant movement of the masses, with youth on its side — wants to portray.https://www.politico.eu/article/scottish-national-party-donations-humza-yousaf-alex-salmond-nicola-sturgeon/

make little sense in a piece lauding the value of big money influence. Do the youth want to be backed by rich elites? More Prof Mitchell thinking?

And:

Membership is known to have slumped dramatically. 

Yes, from 104 000 to 72 000 but still 10 to 50 times bigger than the others?

In March 2023:

Tory Lord Ashcroft owns the Holyrood mag and the right/Unionist drift in coverage has been notable.

Today, see the above.

Who is this expert?

Prof James Mitchell is a long-time critic of the SNP, deluded New Labour enthusiast, with a clear Unionist agenda making him far from ‘expert’ in the full academic sense of the word.

See:

Labour’s revival puts SNP on the defensive: https://sceptical.scot/2022/10/labours-revival-puts-snp-on-the-defensive/

Take the issue of independence out of Scotland’s election and the SNP would be struggling: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/03/take-independence-out-scotland-elections-snp-struggling

and

SNP’s independent Scotland would be a ‘little Britain’ as expert tears into ‘dismal’ second Indyref2 paper: https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snps-independent-scotland-would-little-27509049

Try searching for Scottish political scientists and Mitchell does not appear. Prof Sir John Curtice at Strathclyde, for all his faults, has a far great profile. The far more evidence-based methods of Prof Ailsa Henderson at Edinburgh as opposed to the largely opinion-peddling of Mitchell, are also at the top.

Henderson, of course, is too honest to suit the MSM agenda, saying things like this on the Conservative hold in Galloway and West Dumfries, in the BBC election coverage in 2021, she said:

Labour voters have already tucked themselves up behind the Conservatives to prop up the Conservatives in a way. There is a smaller swing between Labour and the Conservatives because that swing happened last time. We are seeing smaller swings in the seats already held by Unionist parties. That is an example of that in Galloway and West Dumfries.

Sarwar to Cook: Get her off!

In August 2022:

Professor James Mitchell is one of the nation’s leading expert on the constitution, devolution, the Scottish Parliament and Government. He’s seriously worried about the state of our democracy. In a no-holds-barred conservation with our Writer at Large, he lays it on the line about independence, the SNP, Westminster and systemic political failure IF you want to diagnose the health of Scottish democracy, there is only one man to turn to: Professor James Mitchell from Edinburgh University, a leading authority on Scottish politics. He has spent a lifetime dissecting the constitution, devolution, and the workings of the Scottish Government.https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20800885.neil-mackays-big-read-scotlands-top-political-scientist-diagnoses-scottish-democracy-verdict-patient-serious-trouble/

First and quickly, James Mitchell, then Neil Mackay, OK?

Mitchell is a long-time critic of the SNP, Labour supporter, with a clear Unionist agenda making him far from ‘top political scientist.’

See:

Take the issue of independence out of Scotland’s election and the SNP would be struggling: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/03/take-independence-out-scotland-elections-snp-struggling

and

SNP’s independent Scotland would be a ‘little Britain’ as expert tears into ‘dismal’ second Indyref2 paper: https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/snps-independent-scotland-would-little-27509049

Try searching for Scottish political scientists and Mitchell does not pop up by himself. Prof Sir Curtice at Strathclyde, for all his faults, has a far great profile and the far more evidence-based methods, as opposed to the largely opinion-peddling of Mitchell, of Prof Henderson at Edinburgh, are at the top, if there is such a thing in research.

Henderson, of course, is too honest to suit the MSM agenda, saying things like this on the Conservative hold in Galloway and West Dumfries, in the BBC election coverage last year, she said:

Labour voters have already tucked themselves up behind the Conservatives to prop up the Conservatives in a way. There is a smaller swing between Labour and the Conservatives because that swing happened last time. We are seeing smaller swings in the seats already held by Unionist parties. That is an example of that in Galloway and West Dumfries.

Sarwar to Cook: Get her off!

I agree with Mitchell that Scotland’s democracy can be improved but our electoral system allows a voice for minority parties, such as the Greens recently, and Scottish Socialists in the recent past, unheard of at Westminster and rare elsewhere, making it far more inclusive than most.

Enough