Thursday, March 29, 2018

It's time to get up off our knees

Yesterday a junior minister in the UK government shocked people who believed "The Vow", by haughtily dismissing the Scottish Government as a body that is roughly equivalent to Lincolnshire County Council, and thus subordinate to herself.


And of course today Theresa May has done a "one year to Brexit" whistlestop tour of the four nations of the UK, boasting she will keep her "precious" country united - with the implication being that she will achieve that objective by coercion, having already broken last year with four decades of British government policy by decreeing that Scotland did not have an automatic right to democratic self-determination at a time of its own choosing.

Let's not forget also the Scottish Tories planting a fake story in the press a couple of days ago about supposed "proof" that the SNP are plotting a second independence referendum, allowing Ruth Davidson to let off a pre-prepared "sigh" on Twitter as she pretended to be spontaneously reacting to the "news" - as if this country making its own choice about its own future at a crucial moment in its history is somehow a tiresome prospect.



Make no mistake - we on the pro-independence side of the argument are playing our part in allowing this contemptuous treatment of Scotland to carry on, because until we get back to talking with much more confidence and clarity about our plans for a second independence referendum, the Tories will remain in the enviable position where just saying "no" and constantly "sighing" and "tutting" and muttering "gie us peace" will bring them a reward of sorts.   That sort of rubbish plays well with around 25% or 30% of the Scottish electorate, which is all the Tories need for now because they and their media allies have conveniently redefined "success" as meaning around 25% of the vote.  But as soon as a referendum is actually underway, the threshold for triumph reverts to being 50% of the vote - which is what nature intended, after all.  The Tories will suddenly remember to their intense discomfort that openly boasting about denying Scotland its democratic rights, and treating our country as nothing more than an English county council, carries a severe electoral penalty rather than a perverse reward.

I don't know about you, but I think it's high time we really gave Ruth Davidson something to "sigh" about.




This is actually incredibly simple.  The No campaign won a narrow victory in the 2014 referendum on the specific basis that Scotland would remain in the EU if it stayed in the UK.  There are countless on-the-record examples of them saying precisely that, and without qualification.  It doesn't really matter whether they were deliberately lying or whether they said it in good faith - all that matters is that many people voted No on a false premise.  Circumstances have changed beyond all recognition in the last three-and-a-half years, and Scotland now has a self-evident moral right to revisit its decision.  The arguments against that logic are incredibly contrived and unconvincing - for example Duncan Hothersall's claim that the No side only ever meant that a vote against independence would keep Scotland in the EU for the time being, and that there were never any guarantees offered about what would happen a couple of years down the line.  The only reason that sort of daft revisionist statement isn't universally ridiculed is that the SNP leadership have taken a break from forcefully pressing the case for a new referendum - mainly because of the psychological shock of losing a handful of former heartland seats as they completed their landslide victory in the general election last June.  But a year is more than enough time to get over that shock and to put the handsome mandate they received in its proper perspective.  It's getting close to the point where we really ought to be firmly back on the front foot about Indyref 2.

To her credit, Nicola Sturgeon has not rowed back from her timetable for making an announcement about a referendum (one way or the other) in the autumn of this year.  Some people even think she will preempt that at the SNP's conference in June.  Either way, we're getting very close to a fork in the road, which means that if we as individuals want to influence the decision, the time to speak out is right now, and over the next few weeks to come.  Some well-meaning people always say in situations like this that we should just "trust Nicola", but this is not really a matter of SNP internal loyalty - this is about our country's destiny, and it's something that all five million people who live here have a stake in.  There are influential voices in the SNP, such as Pete Wishart, openly arguing that the party should allow its hard-won mandate for a referendum to expire, which makes it all the more important that those of us who think such a course of action would be a catastrophic error are also heard, and equally loudly.

As you know, I disagree with Peter A Bell about there being any realistic chance of a referendum actually being held in this calendar year, which is why I don't feel able to use his #Referendum2018 hashtag.  But a referendum before the SNP's mandate expires in May 2021 is perfectly doable, and is an absolute moral imperative.  Indeed, the SNP entered into a solemn contract with the Scottish people last June by saying that if they won a majority of Scottish seats at Westminster, a referendum would follow.  Many people voted SNP on that basis, and they have a right to expect that contract will be honoured.  Those voters have won the right to the choice they voted for.  And that's what holding a referendum is ultimately all about - a free choice over Scotland's post-Brexit futureIt's not about tactical considerations of whether winning is already assured, as Pete Wishart would have us believe.  (Although, as it happens, the 48% Yes vote in the most recent opinion poll is probably just about the best platform any pro-independence campaign can realistically hope for going into a new referendum campaign.)

The Tories say that the polls show that people in Scotland don't want an early referendum.  That's categorically not true - polls actually show a contradictory picture depending on how the question is asked, and indeed depending on which firm asks the question.  But here's the thing - it wouldn't even matter if the Tories were right about the polls.  In this country (which can mean either Scotland or the United Kingdom) we don't decide electoral mandates by YouGov findings - we do it at the ballot box.  And the results of both the Holyrood and Westminster elections were absolutely clear.  The SNP have an impeccable 'triple lock' mandate for a referendum, and we should stop apologising for that and start implementing it.  There should be a referendum before 2021.  Ideally, it should be held with a Section 30 order.  If Westminster refuse, we should go ahead with a consultative referendum without a Section 30 order.  If the Supreme Court block such a vote, we should then use the next Holyrood election as a de facto referendum - a virtually foolproof backstop option that cannot realistically be vetoed, blocked or boycotted.

I would suggest #ScotRef #UseTheMandate as a more inclusive and constructive alternative to the #Referendum2018 hashtag.  I know some people might not be entirely comfortable with "Use The Mandate" simply because the Marmite figure of Tommy Sheridan has been using those words quite a bit recently, but he wasn't the first person to utter them, and he doesn't own them.

Independence is not the eccentric pursuit of a tiny minority.  It's the settled will of almost half of the population - a state of affairs that warrants rather more self-confidence on the Yes side than we're currently exhibiting.  Let's get up off our knees, and get on with the job.

57 comments:

  1. I agree. The mandate cannot be allowed to expire. It would lose the SNP the trust of some of their voters as well (therefore probably doing them more harm than good).

    I say this because you cannot keep going back to an electorate and saying 'just vote for us this once more and then we will give you what you want'. That's Labour tactics ('if you just vote for us again, we promise to really do something about poverty/the NHS/working conditions/whatever'). People in Scotland are more alive to this sort of thing now, and no party is ever going to away with for decades again.

    You might argue in response 'but who would they go and vote for? They aren't going to vote for unionists' and I'd agree. But the risk is always that, in despair, they will just stop voting at all (which may well be the reason an estimated 500,000 SNP voters stayed home last GE and which, in turn, might well explain many of the lost seats far better than it being any kind of 'indyref 2 backlash').

    A vote should be held in March 2019 at the latest, to account for the fact that EU citizens were promised that everything would be done for them...and to ensure that we do not leave any vote until after Brexit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scotland's referendum must take place before Brexit happens. That way we can argue that not only did we vote to remain in the EU, we voted again to remain while still in the EU. Our position must then be that we never left - and refuse to budge from it.

      If anyone attempts to quibble us to death, we must ignore and override and talk over them, and refuse to accept their arguments or necessarily dignify them with a response - impolite, I know, but turn about is fair play.

      We need to be able to say that we Scots never wanted to leave, that we Scots never voted to leave, that we Scots always voted to stay, and that - before Brexit - we Scots reaffirmed our will by public, democratic vote and by decision of our Parliament - while we were still in the EU.

      Our position then vis-à-vis the EU is that we never left, and the Westminster regime's view of the matter has nothing to do with anything as they do not speak for us now, if they ever did. We are in the EU. If they think otherwise, let them move to expel us, and see how far they get in opposing European public opinion.

      If the Westminster regime wishes to bring the matter before, oh, the International Court of Justice in The Hague, say, the best outcome for them would be for their lawyers to talk them out of trying it on. Because they would lose.

      Time to have the courage of our convictions. Time to stop asking for permission. Use the mandate!

      Delete
  2. The SNP lost seats at the last election due to a lacklustre campaign with no strong message and a fanatical Tory focus on rousing the "No Surrender" brigade. SNP voters probably also felt complacent. After all, how could anyone touch us on 56 seats?

    Were a new election to be held tomorrow I think SNP voters might be a lot more motivated, while there's also a chance a few folk may have soured on their thrusting new Tory MP. Who could feel any affection for Douglas Ross?

    My hope is that the referendum is announced at conference for a year hence. The vote should be held at or very shortly after "Brexit Day" as was always suggested.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oor Kenny wants independence and then sell oot tae ra unelected EU Brussel fascists. Wee knob you are independence means independence.

      Delete
    2. Definitely not. We don't want any long drawn out run up to an IndyRef2. Short and sweet campaign.

      Delete
  3. Spot on, James. I get the feeling people are just yawning and fed up of it all. Our Government needs to start making its presence felt. It's difficult in a country dominated by non-news outlets like BBC, but if the people of East Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosova, Montenegro, Macedonia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic could see through the drivel they were fed for decades, I think the Scots can too. But, Government, get your act together and represent us.

    Please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Iain, I bet you were a leftie Soviet appeaser in the auld days!

      Delete
    2. State of this.

      Delete
  4. Well said, Mr Kelly. The Scottish government should give the troops some live ammunition.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yeah get aff yer knees Jocks and work for a living. The English tax subsidy will end some time and the EU will treat you with contempt for your crawlin up their erses.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your obviously well versed in the art of crawling....up Westminster's 'erse',none so blind as those who refuse to see.

    ReplyDelete
  7. At least that is better than your usual three word reply nat si bhoy. However you do not deny crawlin tae the EU. Unlike you I crawl tae nae body. Up yer kilt fash bhoy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First time I have commented on here by the way :) you dont crawl ? Bending the knee and prefer to be ruled,being subserverient seems more your bag ...you sure your on the right site, there are a few adult sites that would cater better for your predilections.

      Delete
    2. I thought you were Anonymous the one and only. So there is more than one of you Anonymous knobends.

      Delete
    3. State of this.

      Delete
  8. I am not sure why there are so many calling out the SNP, when their processing of the independence question is pretty much exemplary.

    Given Brexit is both an opportunity and a problem in terms of timetabling any indy decisions. Folk should respect this, instead of clamouring for a 2018 referendum or hating on the SNP in various ways.

    I think it is true, that the SNP have been quite weak on ideas and management on the relationship between the grassroots and the their party. I might say, very weak.

    But they have been clear (to borrow a yoon term) on their timetabling. Nicola Sturgeon made the same statements on Marr, in January. That she intends to review the position in Autumn. She seemed to assume (to whatever degree) that there might be some clarity on the Brexit deal at that point, and that there should be some timetabling leeway in a "steady state" Transition Period. Note the use of the phrase steady_state. Seems to me, that is of importance and therefore a potential timetabling target for the SNP.

    From 6:12 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1LtENbjNd0&feature=youtu.be

    I don't feel that anyone should construe this extent of timetabling clarity, given the smog of Brexit, as dithering. And the implication that the SNP somehow don't intend to use their mandate, just because Wishart wishes it......isn't that realistic.

    For one thing. I would be obvious to the SNP that they may lose a substantial number of votes if they didn't pull the trigger this term and thus may not get the mandate next term.

    What alternatives is anyone complaining, offering?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris, who are you responding to? If it's a response to the blogpost, you've misinterpreted it.

      Delete
    2. Pete Wishart unfortunately likes Westminster now and he hasn't been saving up for his retirement so he's skint that's why he wants to wait which should make the rest of us a tad miffed at Pete

      Delete
    3. That's not fair at all, and if we do have a referendum before 2021, we should never forget that Pete's against-the-odds victory in Perth helped make it possible. We're all on the same side, regardless of disagreements about strategy.

      Delete
    4. I don't think that I have misinterpreted it.

      Trust Nicola is quite a simple consideration to accept.

      Your suggestion is that we should make our voices heard and loudly, prior to various potential SNP decision points. At conference and in the Autumn (once a notional Brexit clarity is garnered) and you further emphasise that the SNP have a duty to fulfil their mandate.

      Both of these emphases suggest a criticism or expectation that the SNP will let us down and not call a second referendum before term ends.

      This does tend to reflect similar clamour across some parts of the community......Namely a call by Tommy Sheridan to use the mandate and a major criticism of the SNP by Robin McAlpine and of course the insistence of Peter Bell for a 2018 referendum.

      I don't see your article as too distant from those other positions, as you suggest we need to make our voices heard loudly in order to somehow what? Influence SNP decision on the matter? Then you distrust the intentions of Nicola Sturgeon.....as I intimated.....to some, perhaps large, extent; due to the recalcitrance of Peter Wishart?

      Delete
  9. Its necessary to wait until Brexits works its EVEL magic. Only
    chaos in London and/or a weak minority government will allow
    Indyref2 to go ahead and even more importantly acknowledge the
    result allowing international recognisation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh Aye, Wait for the stars to line up and the perfect storm to brew. FFS we could wait forever!
      What Scotland needs is a decision this autumn when England/UK is still waffling and deceiving our people about a bonanza of powers.
      England feels entitled to rule over Scotland and will put all obstacles in our way.
      Nobody allows us an Indyref2.
      We are not an English possession
      or protectorate.
      When the Scottish Govt elected by the people with a mandate for a referendum, sets the date we the people will indeed be up off our knees. Bring it on!

      Delete
    2. Naw please do not wait forever, do it soon so we Unionists can kick you intoi touch for generations. GO on Go on.

      Delete
    3. State of this.

      Delete
    4. London is like Moscow, you only break with them when they
      are too weak to prevent it. Ask the Finns and the Poles and
      the Irish of course.

      Delete
    5. Thank goodness we off loaded the Irish. They would have out done the Jocks in welfare benefits. We even bailed them out during the 2008 banking collapse.

      Delete
    6. State of this.

      Delete
  10. I don't mean to be a naysayer but having tried the last time, and failed, next time needs to be different. Simply re-running the same contest does not give us the level of comfort or confidence that we should be aiming to start from. We (Yessers) should be aiming to pick a battle we will win and it needs to be with the overall aim of breaking the British State 'at some point'. Northern Ireland are about to be given a special deal; essentially as a result of their historic record as terrorists. Putting aside the 'we don't negotiate with terrorists' that put Thatcher on a pedestal, there is a realpolitik opportunity to exemplify in black and white, bold as brass terms how Scotland gets shafted by Westminster. The next time the Scottish Parliament decides to consult the people it needs to be doing so with the objective of demonstrating to the EU and Westminster that we have a collective mind and 'why shouldn't Scotland get NI deal?'

    Said it before. Two questions, yes or no. (1) Should Scotland retain access to EU Single Market and Customs Union in line with Northern Ireland? (2) Should the Parliament at Holyrood be able to determine the time and constituency of any future imdeindepend referendum without consent from Westminster?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Jock nat si real problem is when we brexit from the Fascist EU beaurocracy. How do they sell joining the EU and handing Scotland over to the Germans. And what about a currency!

    ReplyDelete
  12. James, you have a good suggestion if a section 30 order is refused. But I don't think it will be a flat out refusal. More a play for time - a ploy to delay and delay and run down the clock. May has already said "Now is not the time!". She will try it again.

    So the big question is what should the SG do if WM implies it is not refusing only "Now is not the time!".

    Delaying tactics are more difficult to deal with than a flat or refusal. But it seems to me this is what is going to happen. We must plan for this eventuality, otherwise we are stuck in limbo - just what WM would like to happen. The media will back the British government.

    What to do? How do we force the issue?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tell them that the '21 election will become a de facto referendum on independence if they try to stall that long.

      Delete
  13. "If Westminster refuse, we should go ahead with a consultative referendum without a Section 30 order. If the Supreme Court block such a vote, we should then use the next Holyrood election as a de facto referendum"

    How do we frame something that will cause the Supreme Court to strike it down? Because this seems like the ideal scenario.
    I don't think there's the realistic prospect of a co-ordinated Unionist boycott of the 2021 election. Just a question of getting everyone -- conservative Eurosceptics, RISE/RIC and Greens on board -- by creative use of the list system??
    As for current EU citizens in Scotland -- couldn't they be granted some kind of "most favoured" status in iScotland?

    ReplyDelete
  14. As consultative referendums have no legal force, why would the Supreme Court have anything to say in the matter? This isn't Catalunya, and the Westminster regime doesn't even have a flimsy constitutional excuse for gainsaying us.

    We in Scotland are in a quasi-colonial situation vis-à-vis England. Even if we were not, we would be entitled to argue, from first principles, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, that we have the right to national self-determination. We would not need rights, by the way, if they didn't inconvenience anyone: it is precisely because others may find our rights inconvenient that we need them!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Big Frank the Pope is now saying there is no hell. I disagree entirely, hell is the Jock nat sis remaining in power for decades if we leave the Union. Vote Naw and keep the fash oot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. State of this.

      Delete
    2. Big Franco is going senile. The Catholic Church said about 15 years ago there was no hell. Apparently they took a vote and that was it. Satan was raging - he didn't even get any redundancy pay.

      Delete
  16. James, just wondering if any nat sis protested against anti semitism outside Parliament.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. State of this.

      Delete
    2. Yes or No would suffice.

      Delete
    3. State of this.

      Delete
    4. Seems we have antisemitic nat sis on here. Join the Labour queue fascists.

      Delete
    5. Absolute bloody state of this

      Delete
    6. An absolute answer that you will not oppose antisemitism. Join the Labour Queue.

      Delete
    7. State of this.

      Delete
  17. Is Ruth still doing Scottish politics? Thought she was still hiding hoping the whole ghastly Brexit mess would go away.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Aye but she's a bit on the back foot and not looking so shiny.
    Probably would struggle to win a first past the post seat right now.
    Mind you the same applies to all the Scottish Tory MP's.

    ReplyDelete
  19. And Ian Blackford the Jock Nat si alleges the DUP may have misused funds for the EU leave campaign. The nat sis never ever raise any progressive suggestions in the Commons. It is a constant moan moan. It is of coarse not unexpected that the Joke nat sis would have a go at the opponents of their Sinn Fein IRA nat si pals.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A referendum has to be winnable. But the brexit transition puts any negative effects of brexit back to January 1st 2021. So unless the plan is squeeze the indyref into that small time window between January and May of 2021, it will be held while the UK is still inside the single market and customs union.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your nat si politicians are in no mood for a referendum. They are the modern Scottish fat cats lining their pockets. A few years in Westminster and a bulging wallet diminishes the conscience... At least the Enlightenment produced prosperity however the Nat sis produce nothing but wind.

      Delete
    2. Nat si? What is this 'nat si'? And what is a 'nat si bhoy'? I am studying Scotland as part of a project for school and am particularly interested in the bhoys and the nat si bhoys. Please elaborate further. Also, are the SNP national socialists and how do they keep control of Scotland? Is there a nat si bhoy youth or Scottish National Party militia that allows them to keep control of the population?

      Many thanks.

      Delete
    3. Don't encourage it. A simple "state of this" will do.

      Delete
    4. Bhoys are the opposite of ghirls although we now have ghirliebhoys. A natsi bhoy or ghirlie is a Jock who hates the English and thinks they are sumpremist.
      The Unionist Scottish British ensure the Nat si do not have militias and that our children are not brainwashed by the Nat si bhoys, ghirls or ghirliebhoys.
      The Jock nat sis are not socialist as they follow their Tory friends right wing capitalist policies... They are a wierd type of cult and not people you would want to meet socially. Hope this has been helpful.

      Delete
    5. Thank you GWC2. Most helpful indeed. I can now talk about ghirliebhoys in my school presentation and no doubt my teacher will be very impressed with me. He has a saltire in the back of his car so he should be very happy indeed that I am educating myself about Scotland. Good day to you, fine sir.

      Delete