I was watching This Week on the BBC last night, and Andrew Neil teased John Nicolson that the SNP had given up campaigning for Independence, and never mentioned it any more. I have known John since student days, and much respect him. He is a very professional man and put in a very professional performance on the show. He can be relied on, despite his arch asides, to follow a party line.
How did John reply to the charge that the SNP had stopped campaigning for Independence? Did he reply, “No Andrew, we remain fully committed to the goal of Independence and that is our number one priority.”?
No.
He said “we have to respect the decision of the electorate”, a line taken straight from Nicola Sturgeon.
The problem with this is that it is exactly the Blairite line. Liz Kendall argued in effect that the electorate voted Tory, so Labour have to be Red Tories to respect the electorate.
It is a trite phrase. Nobody would argue you should disrespect the electorate. But it then elides into a distortion. To respect the verdict of the electorate means to accept your loss on this occasion and the processes of the state proceed on that basis, without any attempt to subvert the democratic decision. It does NOT mean the losing side had to change its beliefs, go quiet, or stop campaigning ready for the next time.
Since the referendum I have spoken on many stages in favour of Independence across Scotland, under the aegis of a whole variety of organisations only a minority of which are anathema to the SNP. Yet it occurs to me that of all the distinguished people I have shared platforms with, I have not witnessed a single one of the SNP’s MPs argue for Independence. To my certain knowledge they have declined many invitations to do so.
The SNP instead is setting out its stall as a kinder and more efficient manager of the governmental institutions of Scotland within the UK. It is elevating managerialism into a cult. Forget Independence and admire John Swinney’s figures. This is reinforced by another managerialist subtext, “the only organised opposition at Westminster.” Opposing the Tories is undoubtedly a good thing. But all this is symptomatic of the SNP becoming over-comfortable within the governmental institutions of the United Kingdom. All the energy expended pointlessly on the glorified local council powers of the Scotland Act while our country is dragged into yet another neo-con war against the will of the Scottish people.
When the media were promoting a narrative of potential ill-behaviour by new SNP MP’s, Tommy Sheppard famously declared “We have not come to act up, but to settle up!” What precisely have the SNP MP’s done that showed a scintilla of desire to “settle up” and end the Union? Where are the Parnellite tactics? A more honest declaration would be:
“We have not come to settle up, but to settle in!”
John Nicolson was led on to discussing his prospects of re-election last night, in response to a joke about Michael Portillo’s defeat. Andrew Neil gently reminded him he was not meant to want to be in Westminster long term. I am willing to bet a million pounds with anybody that the SNP structure is already giving more thought to defending its Westminster seats than to ending the union before the next Westminster election. I think deep down everybody reading this will find they believe that too.
Leadership loyalists will respond with a) more managerialism – we run the country better blah blah blah – and b), the argument that the SNP has to entrench in power before trying again for independence and win trust by – more managerialism. Oh OK, that’s actually the same argument. They don’t have another one.
The problem with this is gravity. In politics no party remains at the heights of popularity forever. Events take their toll. I suspect that what Nicola agreed with Dave this week about extending the extreme surveillance state to Scotland will be a little wave of erosion once we get told of it. The SNP will, regardless of anything I think or write, sweep the Holyrood elections. But that will likely be the high point of their absolute dominance of Scottish politics.
Let me put it this way. It is definitely a possibility that the coming real domination of both MPs and MSPs will never happen again. If the SNP do not even try to use that dominance to deliver Independence, then what is the point of the SNP?
Oh sorry, I forgot. They manage the institutions better, and are an effective opposition at Westminster. That apparently is the point. But not what I joined for.
I think they’ve convinced themselves that Devo-Max is the much-preferred option of Scottish people – so that’s what they are pursuing, they can’t however come out and say so.
They might also think that right now, they do not have enough support to make the final push for independence. But I agree entirely they will not have an indefinite favourable window to pursue independence (it surely closes if Corbyn revives Labour), and they have to be ready to move quickly for when this Tory government presents them with an opportunity to do so.
I agree entirely. I have been an SN member for 20 years and will not be voting SNP at the forthcoming election. I will vote for a party that has the confidence to go to the polls with the confidence to put a commitment to IndyRef2 in their Manifesto.
This is a crucial point. The SNP are MEANT to be believe that Independence is the one single policy which would give most benefit to Scots. They appear not to be very confident in that given they refuse to campaign on it!
I have asked the Question to myself, is a party who is NOT confident on Independence the best party to take the movement forward? Sadly, I think not.
Peter A Bell
“Scottish National Party is actively engaged in thwarting the aspirations of those who would see Scotland’s rightful constitutional status restored.”
_________________
I suppose that by Scotland’s “rightful constitutional status” you mean Scottish independence.
Could you explain the sense in which you are using the word “rightful”?
“Indeed, the ANC made the same mistake in South Africa, they left the Central Bank alone and their economic woes never left them.”
That makes no sense.
SA has it’s own currency, and the ANC appoints the SARB governor and his deputies. The mismanagement of the SA economy has taken place in the fiscal sphere, which is the responsibility of the Executive; monetary policy, under the SARB, has been fine.
I agree entirely however that an independent Scotland needs it’s own currency. In the short-term, there’s probably no option but to continue using the pound (even if rUK objected, Scotland could use the pound in the same way that Ecuador uses the US dollar), but monetary independence under a Central Bank of Scotland should be established as soon as feasible.
“But we need our bastards to be bigger bastards than the other bastards”
Human debasement, ‘justified’……… And you may even get American backing..
ps, Your bastards anyway.
You didn’t win that one, but if you had it would have been because you were successful in your attempt to be a bigger bastard.
Got it now?
🙂
Craig Wilson
So, in a petulant strop because the SNP manifesto doesn’t contain a commitment to a second referendum you will give preference to a party that cannot possibly deliver a second referendum.
I would ask if you’d thought this through, but I fear the answer might be in the affirmative.
Probably pointless to mention this but independence is ALWAYS in the SNP manifesto. It is the unchanging central plank of the party’s platform.
Fredi
“Indeed, the ANC made the same mistake in South Africa, they left the Central Bank alone and their economic woes never left them.”
________________
Their economic woes have nothing to do with widespread corruption, ill-directed state spending and the redistribution of jobs according to colour rather than ability of course.
Perish the thought.
You’ve got it the wrong way round, Fredi – were it not for the SA Central Bank, South Africa would now be in the same economic position as Zimbabwe.
Peter A Bell
Don’t forget to get back to us with an answer to my question, will you.
If you can, of course.
13h45 refers.
I’v lost nothing….
Except your last avatar, Ishmael…
@Craig Wilson
That’s a great idea, that’s the spirit. So vote for a party that gets one or two MSPs, have a minority SNP Government who approach me asking for a referendum and I say “No, oh no, you couldn’t even get a majority Government, you have no mandate for a Referendum”.
Yes please.
Signed
David Cameron.
Peter Bell
From your reply it appears you have a very short memory, and, lack an understanding of how quickly things can change in politics.Let me give you an exact example of your lack of understanding;
“you will give preference to a party that cannot possibly deliver a second referendum.”
If you delete second the sentence would read “you will give preference to a party that cannot possibly deliver a referendum.”
By voting SNP for the last 20 years, for 12 years of that 20 that is exactly what I have been doing!
Bringing me on to my next point, oh, look, time and the winds of change meant that all those SNP votes I made (while they had zero chance of winning an election), meant my vote was not wasted.
A stronger voice for Independence is what I’m voting for.
Just imagine, if 1 RISE MSP put a proposal to Holyrood for IndyRef2, would the SNP really vote it down and become the laughing stock of UK and possibly world politics?
@yesindyref2;
The SNP can only be brought on side if they see their lack of confidence in Indyref2 is going to cost them votes.
Do you really think that voting a party who isn’t confident enough to campaign on having Indyref2 is the best way to gain indyref2? You should change your username to @yesindyref2onlywhenSNPdoesnthavethepowertoholdone
That is what will happen, when the SNP start to lose votes, Indyref2 will be the 1st thing back in the manifesto
I hesitate to quote Derek Bateman in this company… but this sets out the case for SNP caution over bellowing too loudly about a referendum rerun:
However, I firmly believe that too much open discussion about a second vote plays into the hands of our opponents. It is difficult to over-emphasise the fear and loathing the prospect of a re-run elicits among No voters, including, I suggest, those who may ultimately be persuadable and whose votes we will need to win. The referendum, however enervating for us (with the obvious caveat) was on the other hand a draining and stressful period for those convinced their country would be isolated and bankrupted outwith the UK. To confront them just a year later with the idea of another one looming in short order will repel them further and push them into the knee-jerk ‘The Nats are Nuts’ camp. For me one of the defining strengths of Yes has been its non-threatening, non-violent nature – that is not always the case in self-determination campaigns. We – and the SNP government – have won over many uncommitted Scots by being reasonable and competent, contradicting what many used to think of as quackery or extremism. The fervid propaganda of the lurid Press still plays on this theme with some success so it’s important to maintain our demeanour of being level-headed and serious-minded. I’m afraid that arguing today for the next best slot for another go has exactly the opposite effect, suggesting a hot-headed and unreasonable enthusiasm. There is no escaping either the implication from this white-hot zeal that September 2014 was not the resolution people expected it to be and that the outcome was somehow equivocal. It wasn’t sold as that at the time. Nor would we have accepted any attempt by Whitehall to re-run had their been a narrow Yes vote from which they devised a means of contesting the result a year later. We asked the Scottish nation what it wanted and we got the reply.
http://derekbateman.co.uk/2015/11/30/you-only-vote-twice/
I think the point that handing the opposition a comic stereotype they can play with is entirely valid. Equally, kindly showing them a split in opinion – like this one, already out there in flashing lights -is destructive as it will be jumped on by the unionists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11939276/SNP-split-over-Nicola-Sturgeon-referendum-strategy.html
Ca’ canny, Craig. This isn’t a demo.
Craig lost all credibilty to advocate for Scottish Idependence when he rejected the right of the population of the Crimea to decide their own future.
Ba’al Zevul;
There are major issues with this way of thinking, which the SNP simply do not understand. I will try to explain;
“It is difficult to over-emphasise the fear and loathing the prospect of a re-run elicits among No voters, including, I suggest, those who may ultimately be persuadable and whose votes we will need to win”
No voters are indeed the opinions that need to change. The Q is the best way to go around that.
Now, at all times,to give yourself the best chance of converting them, you need to be supremely confident on the needs and benefits of independence. If you are not then ask yourself, if a No Voter see’s the SNP are not even confident enough to talk about independence, never mind campaign for it, are they really going to change their mind to being pro-indy? Nope, that is why the way the SNP are making a horses arse of indyref2.
The other side of the coin, is being confident, and relying on their skills improving on the next campaign.
All the SNP need to do is say, “independence is the single policy which would give most benefit to Scots, a vote for the SNP is a vote for Scottish Independence”.
You know the SNP keep going on about independence polls? rather than going on about independence? Well, they may lose votes, they may gain others, but, this would give the SNP a definitive answer on whether IndyRef2 would be successful.
@Craig Wilson
At the moment the polls are over and below 50%, for an average of 50% according to Scot Goes Pop, and it can be checked.
Do you think a Referendum held, say, in September 2016 would return a YES vote? With any defree of probability? I think that’s – 50/50. I would prefer the next Ref to be rather more probable of returning a YES.
I personally expect Indy Ref 2 around 2018-19, with Independence for 2021. It’s moving slowly, but surely towards a YES.
@YesIndyref2
I have given you your answer already. You didn’t understand it.
If the SNP go to the polls and clearly say “SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE IS THE 1 SINGLE POLICY THAT OFFERS MOST BENEFITS TO SCOTS. A VOTE FOR THE SNP IS A VOTE TO GAIN SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE”
The election result provides an answer that nobody can argue with.
Or, they can duck, run and hide when the question of Scottish Independence comes up. But, lets face it, this approach isn’t going to convert many No Voters. People can tell if others are so un-confident that they are scared of discussing it never mind campaigning on it.
Perhaps I didn’t make that clear, the ANC accepted a ‘system’ that would (and did) throw their hard fought freedom away, because it never freed them from poverty.
They could have defaulted on the apartheid debt passed on to them, they could have formed their own independent central bank, they could have created a commodity backed currency and avoided the inevitable impoverishment model that western central banking is so adapt at creating.
According to Naomi Klein,
“What happened in those negotiations is that the ANC found itself caught in a new kind of web, one made of arcane rules and regulations, all designed to confine and constrain the power of elected leaders. As the web descended on the country, only a few people even noticed it was there, but when the new government came to power and tried to move freely, to give its voters the tangible benefits of liberation they expected and thought they had voted for, the strands of the web tightened and the administration discovered that its powers were tightly bound.”
“Other than a handful of economists, nobody wanted to talk about the independence of the central bank, a topic that works as a powerful soporific even under normal circumstances. Gumede points out that most people simply assumed that no matter what compromises had to be made to get into power, they could be unmade once the ANC was firmly in charge. “We were going to be the government— we could fix it later,” he said.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/nicho-mojalefa-ntema/series-2-constituting-codesa-mistakes/10151623787598558/
@Craig Wilson
Yes, and I disagree with you. You clearly didn’t understand my answer (two can play that silly game).
I refuse, however, to lower myself to this level: “You should change your username to @yesindyref2onlywhenSNPdoesnthavethepowertoholdone”.
@ Fredi –
What you’re quoting is an argument for removing central bank independence, so I don’t know what point you think you are making.
And the idea of creating a commodity-backed currency, like the gold standard, is a proven disaster. God-forbid anyone in Scotland thinks this is a good idea.
I’m sure you’re well-intentioned, but you don’t sound like you know what you’re talking about.
Aye, but 90 thousand people joined after the referendum, including me. The overwhelming majority are resubscribing.
If the leadership gives up on independence, what do you think the now 3/4 of members who are solely in it – for the long haul – for independence are going to do about it? Now I know there is a vetting system to keep troublemakers like Craig away from the list of candidates, but there are plenty who get past vetting who are also only and alone in this to free their country. We get to deselect in this party.
For now, I have doubts about the lack of resistance shown to the biased media, but hope the leadership know what they are doing. I want one thing only. Independence. I put in time and money solely in pursuit of that aim. I have no interest in Schools or council house construction tractor statistics. I expect the party to deliver Independence in about 5 years from now. After Gideon wins the next Wasteminster election, and those eejits who oppose then see their only escape as voting yes at Indyref2.
Now, at all times,to give yourself the best chance of converting them, you need to be supremely confident on the needs and benefits of independence.
Leaving aside the distinctly Blairish ‘you gotta do this’ approach, yes, that’s true up to a point. OTOH too much jingoism allows the already viciously hostile media, and the army of SPADS the UK taxpayer is currently funding* to spin confidence as eccentricity, lunacy or even terrorism. As Bateman says, times have changed.
I have the feeling that the SNP’s recent success has been less due to its independence platform than with the wholly justifiable disenchantment with UK politics – increasingly shared by the English. The transition from hating Westminster to loving Holyrood is not yet complete. When it is (Osborne is your friend, so maybe when the English have had enough of him, too), is the time to return to the question of independence. Strategically, rather than tactically, speaking.
Festina lente. Meanwhile, for the record, continue to state your unequivocal intention to have independence, but for god’s sake don’t set any dates.
* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2880065/Osborne-s-aide-given-19-pay-rise-year-Wages-jump-95-000-bill-ministers-special-advisers-soars-1-2m-one-year.html
On 6 April 1320, the Declaration of Arbroath proclaimed Scotland to be an independent nation. It probably influenced America’s founding fathers and the United States Declaration of Independence.
On October 1 , 1948, the All-Palestine government declared an independent Palestinian state in all of Palestine region with Jerusalem as its capital. Israel responded with a genocidal campaign which continues to this day.
Here’s a sumMary of what they did on 15 December 2015:
Israeli Navy opens fire on Palestinian fishing boats
Israeli Army position opens fire on Gaza farmers
Israeli Army raids refugee camp: deaths, injuries, destruction and vandalism
Night peace disruption and/or home invasions in 4 refugee camps and 9 towns and villages
3 attacks (3 Israeli ceasefire violations)
23 raids including home invasions
4 beaten – 2 dead – 11 injured
3 acts of agricultural/economic sabotage
28 taken prisoner – 1 detained –
121 restrictions of movement
http://palestine.org.nz/phrc/index.php
There’s a bit more to come, Node. yesterday someone utterly destroyed a couple of square feet of Israeli waste ground with a rocket, so I guess that willtranslate (or already has) into the levelling of some residential properties and infrastructure in Gaza.
December 18th marks the birth in 1870 of Hector Munro (‘Saki’) – one of my literary heroes and not above a bit of brutality himself.
See that guy Peter A Bell? Everything he said in his first post! At conference Nicola Sturgeon told us quite plainly that a referendum would be called when there was a clear majority for yes. She then challenged all the delegates (and the wider SNP audience and all of the wider Yes movement) to talk to our no neighbours and persuade them (in a friendly, non-confrontational way) of the merits of the case for independence (WE DO believe that we are correct about indy – right?). Once we get serious about answering this challenge, the numbers of no voters will shrink (because we ARE right, aren’t we) and it will be time to call a referendum. THEN – Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP will use the constitutional powers that they have to lead us into independence. It really is as simple as that! 🙂
To rule both its colonies and the Homeland, CIA enforces strict functional specialization among parties to create a good-cop/bad-cop dynamic. One party attacks your rights. The other party promises to protect you, then betrays you. When continual treachery generates too much popular revulsion, CIA attempts to contain it by channeling popular movements into the neutralizing quicksand of electoral politics. In the Homeland, CIA is now running two synthetic movements: pretend insurgencies on the left (Sanders) and right (Trump). These movements are termed roach motels. They are baited containment traps.
The SNP is CIA’s roach motel.
The way forward is to reconstitute civil society around principles that are poisonous to both the SNP and British institutions. The deadliest toxin is rule of law. Craig’s idea of infiltrating the Scottish Human Rights Commission was ingenious. But within the Western bloc, the most subversive form of human rights is now the US Human Rights Network’s model of ‘people-centered human rights.’
So fuck the British institutions, they’re rotten to the core. Civil society should discredit and delegitimize them in terms of human rights chapter-and-verse. The international community will pitch in and help, from above and below, with formal review by treaty bodies and charter bodies, and with public solidarity.
Someone made a good, most telling point, missed their name – though Peter’s above covered important nuances and was compelling – on Derek Bateman’s Blog: right now and for the long forseeable future the SNP have unwavering, still growing already immense public support and goodwill, but they don’t seem to appreciate or deploy this gathering strength. Keeping them guessing it looks like, and on tenterhooks with fraying nerve.
Thin-stretched they cannot watch the crumbling edifice of the union monstrosity at every point round its base, reinforce its frailties and weak spots, they know the SNP with Scotland at their shoulder, encircle them, watch now at every turn, study the hold-out forces as they look out aghast at a stormy sea of hostility surrounding them.
We won convincingly, the unionist losers haven’t had the good grace to clear out or come to terms, yet, but their hold on power slipped already and is lost.
It’s ours, as it always was, for the taking.
If the SNP are really going for DevoMax (but can’t say it) then Westminster will still be in charge of defence. We will be forced to support the sort of atrocities that Node reminds us the biased BBC will not report.
A sure vote winner.
In passing, it seems to me that putting all the Indy eggs in the one basket of ‘England votes No to Europe while Scotland votes In’ is the real high risk strategy because the result is by no means certain
If bombing Syria illegally isn’t a material change then a UK wide In vote will finish Independence through peaceful means.
@Ba’al, seems like your pet Turks are pets again of your pet Hate;
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35128744
Funny how the BBC are not keen on providing details like;
Israel agreed to pay $20 million compensation to Turkey for the killing of 9 Turkish citizens during #Mavimarmara incident
Turkey agreed to deport some senior Hamas figures who have been seeking refuge in Turkey
Israeli company been granted a project worth 51 billion $$ by Erdogan gov without ever issuing a tender which is illegal by Turkish law
Turkey agreed to drop all charges and withdraw the lawsuit it had filed in in response to the killing of Turkish citizens by Israel
Israeli Airforce have been and still are using Turkish airspace for practicing & educating its pilots. Erdogan never stopped it
During the Israeli massacre of Gaza Radar installations installed in Malatya assisted Israel’i Iron Dome in taking out missiles from Gaza
Turkish opposition called on Erdogan to return Israeli medal after last Gaza massacres conducted by #Israel but he refused
Turkey & #Israel’s reconciliation included Turkey dropping its demand that Israel lift the blockade on #Gaza
Sanctions impl on Iran as result to its support for Palestine cost it 100 Billions$$, Turkey sold Palestine out for $20 million
(all from a Turkish twitter feed)
Peter A Bell @18 Dec, 2015 – 12:40 pm,
Great speech….are you a famous politician – or speech writer? I don’t agree – but that was a great use of words. Can you deliver them too?
Parnellie @18 Dec, 2015 – 3:33 pm
Highly perceptive. Thank you.