By Liz S

“Lib Dem leader signals party could back Sarwar as first minister”.

( “could” in that sentence is quite interesting, as one wonders if currently that is only a possibility as a scenario, then what would it take to definitely make the Lib Dems to then confirm that they “would back Sarwar as First Minister”) ?

The BBC wrote that “Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Alex Cole-Hamilton has signalled that his party could back Labour’s Anas Sarwar in a vote to nominate a new first minister”

He also “confirmed he would not support Conservative leader Russell Findlay or Reform chief Malcolm Offord in a vote to nominate a new first minister”

He , Cole-Hamilton “emphasised his party’s priorities were the NHS, education, transport and the cost of living”

(He , Cole-Hamilton, forget to add that his number one priority is the UK State being maintained to still include Scotland within it).

He also said “It doesn’t mean forming a formal coalition” (with Labour). And that “no pacts or alliances has been agreed with Labour”.

(Yes that seems credible (Not), because I am sure that neither he nor Sarwar have ever discussed a way to try and “oust the SNP” and so then “work together” in the same way that Malcolm Offord insisted Sarwar had suggested to him).

Then in a classic sitting on the fence, for now that is, he then said.

“If there was a chance to remove the SNP from power by backing a party “which shares our values, we will look seriously at that”, adding: “But I’m not going to make a commitment.”

(Also known as him waiting to see what way the wind blows i.e. waiting on the results of the election. However what should be worrying to voters is that if the Lib Dem leader states that his party “share the values” of the current Labour party, then that is , at this moment, not a very positive or tempting prospect for all voters to get behind, surely ) ?

Also worrying is that U turns seem very popular with pro UK parties and also popular with their branch offices , as this BBC article exposed this as a situation for Cole-Hamilton when they also wrote this:

“The Liberal Democrats previously opposed nuclear energy – aligning with the Scottish government’s view – but the party has since changed it stance”.

“Cole-Hamilton told Radio Scotland Breakfast that small modular reactors “should be part of the mix” because the party had concluded that the “threat” of nuclear waste was not as bad as it used to be“

(So “not as bad as it used to be”, but then not completely free from all threat , but just , according to Cole-Hamilton , less of a threat, based on what evidence , dodgy dossiers perhaps, sourced from those whose self interests aka business interests takes precedence over public health and safety?)

Cole- Hamilton added: “We’re not ideological about this, if it makes sense to have that part of the mix for when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining.”

OMG that is some bad logic is it not, yet somehow it is also so very very Lib Dem and also so very very Cole-Hamilton.

I think we all surely know by now that team BT from 2014 never disbanded but are still very much active (as one voice in respect to Scotland) all in their quest to try to stop Scottish independence by fair means or foul (so far it’s been mostly foul means that they have used).

Vote for Scotland’s best interests in May , which then means do not vote for any pro UK party…….as currently they all seem to be “going nuclear” in more ways than one.

Liz S