Sunday, October 13, 2024

John Mason's ridiculous expulsion suggests the SNP have learned absolutely nothing from the Rutherglen debacle - you can't throw seats away like confetti and expect there to be no consequences

The SNP's decision to suspend the whip from John Mason a couple of months ago was interesting. They did it on the grounds that he had denied Israel was committing genocide in Gaza, which suggested to me that the party had moved an extraordinarily long way in a relatively short period of time.  It was only a few years ago, of course, that they were expelling Grouse Beater and suspending Neale Hanvey on very dubious allegations of anti-semitism, decisions that were followed by informal but pompous online seminars from the party's self-appointed enforcer of identity politics doctrines, Fiona Robertson.  She decreed that the SNP had to adhere to the IHRA definition of anti-semitism in full, because minority groups have the absolute right to determine for themselves what constitutes bigotry against them.  If the SNP had continued down that road, they would have ended up occupying exactly the same space as the Starmerites, and Mr Mason would not currently be getting expelled for denying the Gaza genocide, he would be receiving a medal.  I mean that absolutely seriously, because the claim of genocide is precisely the sort of criticism of Israel that the IHRA definition was intended to disallow and make unsayable.

So in a way Mr Mason's initial suspension had a kind of positive symbolism to it, if only because it was a demonstration that the SNP had decisively moved away from the Cult of Fiona, at least in one specific sphere.  But any upside of it only really applied if the suspension was going to be strictly time-limited, and initially the clear indication was that it would be.  To expel the guy from the party altogether is an absolutely shocking decision, and I think there's a warning here for everyone, no matter what your views or beliefs: if you celebrate a disciplinary process being abused against an individual because you disagree with his or her politics, it could easily be you or a friend of yours on the receiving end if the wheel turns and another faction ends up in power, or even if there's a more gradual evolution in the leadership's prevailing views, which is the case here.  Conversely, if you oppose disciplinary action because you can see that an individual is being targeted for their views, you really have to check yourself and make sure that you actually do oppose that abuse of procedure as a matter of principle, and not just because the victim is a fellow traveller of yours.  What we've seen in Alba over the last few months is almost unarguable proof that many people who blasted the authoritarianism of the Sturgeonite SNP are actually totes cool with authoritarianism as long as it's the supposedly "correct" views that are being heavy-handedly enforced, and the supposedly "wrong" views that are being cracked down upon and silenced.

Don't get me wrong, and I hope my Twitter history leaves no room for doubt on my views about the situation in Gaza.  I think Mr Mason's views were abhorrent, and seem to mainly reflect the weird obsession that evangelical Christians have with the Israeli state.  But the correct response to those views would have been to condemn them and face them down, not to try to expel them out of existence by expelling the man who expressed them.  Apart from anything else, this decision suggests the SNP have learned nothing from the debacle of the totally unnecessary Rutherglen by-election, which heavily contributed to Labour's momentum in Scotland in the run-up to the general election.  The obvious lesson should have been that you can't throw parliamentary seats away like confetti for virtue-signalling purposes, or at least not without suffering heavy consequences sooner or later.

As with Neale Hanvey in 2019, I wonder if the stated reason for Mr Mason's expulsion is not entirely honest and is a proxy for the real underlying reason.  In Mr Hanvey's case, it was disapproval of his gender critical views, and in Mr Mason's case it may be his views on abortion that have rendered him 'undesirable'.  He can't really be openly disciplined for his abortion stance because it would look like an attack on freedom of conscience for religious groups.

*  *  *

SCOT GOES POP FUNDRAISER 2024: I took a prolonged break from promoting the fundraiser during the general election period, but I'll have to make some serious progress over the coming days and weeks if the blog is to remain viable.  Many thanks to everyone who has donated so far.  Card donations can be made via the fundraiser page HERE, or direct donations can be made via Paypal.  My Paypal email address is:  jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

73 comments:

  1. John Mason outspoken views are well known and he almost welcomes the bad press. SNP members I know are sick of him. Who knows maybe he will move on to another party?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's already specifically said he won't do that.

      Delete
  2. Evangelical Christian Zionists who support Zionism 100% believe that Jesus Christ will only have his second coming when the Jews will fully occupy Palestine. At that point Christians will be raised up to heaven and Jews sent to hell. Disnae seem a good deal having these Christians supporting Israel to me but It all seems full on bonkers stuff from start to finish. Is Mason one of this lot where there are a lot more in the good ol USA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jesus wants them all for sunbeams.

      Delete
    2. Jesus wants them all for sunbeams.

      Delete
  3. Good post, by the way James. In politics, like sport, we all have a "tribal" tendency to revel in our opponents' suffering, but as you say: the bigger enemy is intolerance to the natural diversity of views. Sooner or later, the purge will come for you, and you, and you.

    Yesterday, I finally read Craig Murray's full written submission for his trial in 2022 for breaking the "jigsaw identification" order on Salmond's accusers. This evidence was summarily blocked from court, and he was of course convicted to a jail sentence. I was tired of all the empty flattery from Salmond's opponents yesterday and dug into the truth instead.

    Your writing made me think of this:

    23. The meeting concluded with Alex making the observation that he blamed himself for having established far too centralised a system of power in Scottish Government and the SNP, and not taking account of how far that was open to abuse by a person of ill-will.

    The irony of the process that has you in its jaws now, even after Salmond's untimely death, is downright sickening. When will anyone in power learn?

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/03/schroedingers-evidence/

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree, there should be room for a range of views on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There shouldn't, really, genocide denial is unacceptable, regardless of which genocide is being denied. However, apologism for Israel is so normalised in our society that it's odd to expel someone for it, and like Janes I suspect something else lies behind this decision.

      Delete
    2. It may not be correct, in fact it's not my view at all, but the application of the word genocide is not universally accepted and is not the view of the UK Govt, the opposition or the third party in Westminster as far as I know. I'm not even sure if the Scottish govt or any parties in our Parliament (apart from the Greens and Alba maybe?) state it's a genocide unequivocally? Do they?

      Delete
    3. How about slaughter and committing war crimes? Does that fit the perspective?

      Delete
    4. Quite possibly perhaps even probably. Doesn't answer the question about the use of the word by most mainstream parties.

      Delete
    5. Having read Mason's comments today on BBC I don't think he should have been suspended either. At no point is he condoning any deaths in any way. Merely the use of a word which few western governments use and are careful about doing so. To say it's either "genocide or your a heartless denier of death" is neither persuasive or correct despite the obvious goading.

      I think this is an overreaction.

      Delete
    6. I get the impression many commenting here have not read what he actually said. I disagree with him, but to expel him is as astonishing as it is stupid and shortsighted. No wonder SNP is in decline. WTAF?

      Delete
  5. Personal view is this politician does not belong in SNP.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But why? Why specifically? Genocide denial? Or his views on abortion, which are extremely common among religious groups? Or his alleged "transphobia"?

      Delete
    2. All of the above.

      Delete
    3. So you think nobody with anti-abortion views rooted in their religion has any place in the SNP? That's an extraordinarily intolerant position to take.

      Delete
    4. How far does your personal tolerance go, out of interest?

      Delete
    5. To the Andromeda galaxy and back. But that doesn't give anyone a blank cheque to breach this blog's clearly-stated moderation policy, if that's what you're getting at. The occasional deletion of blog comments is not equivalent to expelling someone from a political party, but nice try.

      Delete
    6. How about Holocaust deniers?

      Delete
  6. SNP should be a big tent. Okay to govern as a social democratic party but if someone supports independence, unless they're a racist or something they should have a place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why? ALBA won’t allow independence supporters in their party unless they toe the line. Currently trying to boot out members just now for alleged innocuous comments.

      Delete
    2. Hi there, what did my comment have to do with the Alba party?

      Delete
    3. Used as a reasonable example and current position of individuals holding particular views and getting removed. Mason has the whip removed can still return to the fold.

      Delete
    4. No he can't! He's been expelled from the party altogether. Unless he successfully appeals, he has no means of "returning to the fold".

      Delete
  7. Maybe John Mason conflates defence with offence. Although it seems clear to me and I suspect most everyone else, Israel's actions in Gaza are unacceptable in a civilised work. It's been going for a thousand years and more.

    But on the other side the Hamas attack killing over a thousand Israelis was utterly unacceptable.

    Without wishing to be trite the words of actor Sen Connery where he says if they use a knife, you use gun: if they put your man in the hospital, then you put their man in the morgue, is where we are. Israel is working on a forty for one basis. However the reality of course is a deeply divided apartheid landscape where the ability to reach mutual respect and accommodation is utterly absent.

    Intransigence beats distrust, beats hatred, beats a cycle of killing. But when does the merry go round stop. Not any time soon. The armaments industry has lot of money to make yet.

    So whilst I do not agree with John Mason's comments I do understand the context in which they could have been made.

    We, yes we, are as much to blame for the killing as the Israelis or the Hamas. We feed the holocaust. We allow, encourage it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Netanyahu's real enemy, all of his career, has been the two state solution and peace with Palestine. He was as decisive in the 1990s at scuppering that hope for all as Yitzhak Rabin's killer.

      Everything he does pushes the knife deeper in. It's the meaning of his life.

      Delete
  8. Stick to the psephology James. You're good at that and we all benefit from your insights. Your views on gender identity and foreign affairs seem a bit gammon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stick to the ferry fetish, "Professor". Your pronouncements on political matters are an embarrassment to yourself, your family, your former employer, your country, and frankly to humanity as a whole.

      If you oppose my views on foreign affairs, that by definition means you support the genocide in Gaza. I thought you used to pose as a man of the Left? A cover for your fascist belief system, it seems.

      Delete
    2. "a man of the Left"

      HOW DARE YOU MISGENDER ME JAMES

      Delete
    3. Yes, I gave up on reading Prof Robertson's blog a few years ago when it went a bit weird, but it's still a jolt to find him coming down on Netanyahu's side. What happened to you, John? Who got at you?

      Delete
    4. I wonder if Robertson realises that supporting Israel puts him in the same camp as Graham Linehan!

      Delete
    5. @10:59 There is no good guys camp on this issue, though. Like you, I’m utterly appalled by Israel's actions and want justice for Palestine. Like you, though, that rhetorically puts us on the same side as Islamic State and the Taliban. With vile bastards on both sides of the divide, there's nowhere to park a high horse…

      Delete
    6. I hope prof. John is having a laugh, because if Left/Right has entered the gender spectrum now, I’m going to get too dizzy to stand.

      Delete
    7. The WGD numpties rate you Prof Robertson.

      Delete
    8. Is he who he claims? Anyone can type any name here. It helps avoid the anonymous confusion but doesn't prove who anyone is .

      Delete
    9. Oh, I've no doubt it was him. The first of the two comments anyway. He's been doing this for years now - he randomly pops round every few months to insult me.

      Delete
  9. If Kezia Dugdale can call herself a professor it disnae do much for the credibility of professors.

    Another day more murders by the IDF. Biden giving Netahanyu another better missile defence system. He thinks the improved protection will make Netahanyu reign in his murder spree across the region. It won't it will embolden him to more murder and destruction.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Shocker from the Prof, didn't see that one coming. Did Netanyahu say something complimentary about CalMac or something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Israel impinging on our ferry service is the red line of all red lines!

      Delete
    2. Albeit the management do need the proverbial rocket up the arse.

      Delete
    3. He hasn't been a professor for years. His media persona is a lie.

      Delete
  11. Voting intention on Scottish independence, October 2024.

    Source: PABW

    Yes 57%
    No 43%

    Clearly not good for us Blighty Backers ☹️

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Get some new material man. Your shits getting old and boring.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, fed up with the "zzzzzzzz". Say something NEW and INTERESTING, for Gawd's sake.

      Delete
    3. And yet he got a response from you thickos. You must wear slip ons.

      Delete
  12. This latest poll from PollBangAndWe on independence is very very encouraging.
    Excellent news at this time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree too. I like agreeing with people. But I also like disagreeing with people who hang around libraries, chip shops and village halls. They sicken me like in my shoes.

      Delete
  13. How long before the SNP is as tolerant of different viewpoints as the Taliban. Taliban SNP has a certain ring about it. A ring of truth. You could see the direction of travel when Robertson produced her, how to spot and chuck out the party a transphobe, set of rules.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Literal translation of Taliban SNP is Students SNP

      Delete
  14. The SNP have been looking for an excuse to ditch John Mason for a very long time, and this has given them the opportunity to do it. I totally disagree with John Mason's views on the Israel / Palestine conflict, but I do believe he has a right to hold those views and a right to express them, just as anyone else should have a right to hold the opposite view. The fact that the SNP in recent years have no longer been a party where differing points of view are tolerated is the reason I resigned from the SNP a few years ago.

    You just have to wonder what sense this makes for the SNP politically? If John Mason were to resign as an MSP then this leaves the possibility of a by election, which the SNP would inevitably lose to Labour. Or what if John Mason decided to vote against the Scottish Government in any potential vote of confidence that may come up in the future? The SNP leadership really do not appear to be capable of thinking through the political consequences of their actions nowadays - or maybe this is all part of their plan?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The SNP is supposed to be the national party and gosh that may also include people from across the national policy of different views who believe in Scottish interests.

      The diminuation of the SNP into only one narrow type of politics is a strategic error

      Delete
    2. Strategic error? Depends on the goal of said strategy. If it’s to strengthen the union by acting in bad faith to their own supporters, every move by the party since 2017 or so has been superb.

      Delete
  15. Why would there be a bye election? MP’s MSP’ Councillors hang on for as long as they can get paid. If Mason voted for the unionist parties then the game would be up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the case of Jim Sillars financially supporting a unionist candidate (Jackie Baillie).

      Delete
    2. Er, Jim was supporting her because she was impressive on the committee that was dealing with Salmond. He did not want yet another pro-Sturgeon MSP.

      Delete
    3. Take another look at the footage, watch the phone on her right side and you'll see how wrong you are
      Baillie did nothing, she merely repeated the text messages she received from elsewhere, until she was told to leave her phone outside then her questions dried up

      Delete
    4. Gee. Jim Sillers or Anon 8.25? In whom do I trust?

      Delete
  16. Q: Do you agree that the PollBangAndWe troll posts are getting old and boring?

    Source: PABW

    Yes: 92%
    No: 1%
    DK: 7%

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll wait for Survation

      Delete
    2. Ra, rah, what up chaps? By Colonel Mustard’s condiment soaked jodhpurs, I’ve never half heard anything a lick as bona fide Scotch as you “pair” of fluffy codpiece nuggets. Oh how we laughed in the mean streets of picturesque Jockland. How our kilts positively split.

      /s

      Do try harder. How about taking on a yoots 4 da union persona? That’d be cringe.

      Delete
  17. Related news:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/oct/14/anti-zionist-beliefs-worthy-respect-uk-tribunal-finds-israel

    Is it possible for an MSP to sue their former party for unfair dismissal, I wonder? Or did he hold any paid position inside the party he could claim by? I’ve no idea if this is an England only precedent, but the timing is uncanny!

    ReplyDelete
  18. John Mason has long walked the line between unionism and Scotland because of his constituents, big Rangers vote in Ruglen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Mason is one of the relatively few SNP MPs I've seen taking part in independence marches.

      Delete
  19. How about pro Palestinian?

    ReplyDelete
  20. If the SNP expel people who express views that represent the 5% tails outside a normal distribution, leaving 95% of their members, then that distribution changes to adapt, and they'll have to expel another 5% leaving 90% of the original. Do that another 12 times and they're left with less than 50% of their original members.None of that allows for members leaving in disgust as the SNP become narrower and narrower and more and more bigoted.

    The bigot factor could rise similarly and becomes the norm, rather than a different tail of a normal distribution. Without bothering to work it out, it would probably rise to getting on for 50!

    Not a lot of people know that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Emily Thornberry, Labour government on C4 news tonight after watching the horrific pictures of murder and destruction by the IDF is asked is there anything Israel would do that would jeopardise the UK's support for Israel. She ignores the question and says that both sides are committing war crimes. She disnae seem to realise that the point the UK is supporting one of the sides in committing war crimes is not excused by the other side doing it.

    Labour and Tory voters have a river of blood on their hands.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Robin McAlpine An Orphaned Movement

    " It hurt him a lot. He gave an awful lot to an awful lot of people who gave nothing back when he needed it. It seems inconceivable to me that the awful stress and existential dread of the last seven years didn't contribute to his death.

    Rapprochement doesn't come from one side hounding the leader of another to their grave, it comes after the moment both sides feel like some justice has been done. For Salmond's supporters ( and there are many more than you may think ), there feels like no justice. We will not be able to move beyond Salmond; we must move beyond Salmond and Sturgeon.

    ( It is genuinely insulting to see some of the people who wrote some of the worst things about Alex now write that falling in line behind the people who led the lynch mob is 'what he would have wanted'. It is not. I suspect he'd have wanted Moira to issue a short list of people who are specifically not invited to the funeral - surely a Lady Dorian couldn't object to that ?)"

    ReplyDelete