As far as I can gather, Jim Murphy's latest wizard attack-line goes something like this : Nicola Sturgeon has broken her promise that the independence referendum was a once in a lifetime event. An SNP landslide will set Scotland on an unstoppable course for a second referendum. Vote Labour so Ed Miliband can act like a despot and block a referendum even if the majority of Scots vote for one.
There are, however, just three small problems with this -
1) It's based on a cynical, deliberate, downright lie. Nobody in the SNP - not Nicola Sturgeon, not Alex Salmond, NOBODY - ever promised that the referendum was a once in a lifetime event. Nor did anyone in the SNP even promise that it was a once in a generation event. What did happen was that Alex Salmond stated that in his opinion constitutional referenda should be once-per-generation (defined as roughly 15 years), but he ALWAYS stressed that was only a "personal view", and not one that could bind the SNP or the people of Scotland. The only reference to "a lifetime" was the observation that it might be a once in a lifetime opportunity, which was a statement of the bleedin' obvious - ie. there was no guarantee that people would vote for a referendum again. How exactly that was supposed to constitute a "promise" is anyone's guess.
2) It's a direct contradiction. If a win for the SNP is supposed to make a referendum unstoppable, how can Miliband credibly promise to stop it regardless of whether the SNP win? (Not to mention the fact that, as we discussed last night, there isn't universal acceptance of the view that he even has the despotic legal powers he thinks he does to thwart the democratic will for a consultative referendum.)
3) If Labour are using an absurd distortion of what Alex Salmond said about timescales to claim that last year's No vote was a vote to prevent a future referendum, it's going to be remarkably easy for us to take what Labour are ACTUALLY saying right now, and make the following case after next Thursday : "Labour promised that a vote for the SNP in the 2015 election was a vote for a second referendum. Well, people voted SNP. Labour cannot now break that promise and try to block a referendum from taking place at a time of the electorate's own choosing."
I particularly like #3. Good point
ReplyDeleteI particularly like #3. Good point
ReplyDeleteLets face it if Murphy, Curran and co are punting this idea it is bound to come back and hit them like a fecking boomerang.
ReplyDeleteAlex Salmond gave his personal view on how often constitutional referendums came round. It was his viewpoint and committed no-one. If the debate had been conducted fairly on each side, the consequences of a Yes or No vote clearly understood, any "vows" honoured, and so on, then Salmond's view may have been reasonable. If something is settled, then there's no point in re-running it for a fair wee while - 15 years here seems about right. By no stretch of the imagination could the Westminster Establishment and British media be said to have run their side of the referendum debate fairly. Salmond's "15 years" is therefore academic. Labour are now running a series of shots of Nicola Sturgeon talking about the "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" during the referendum campaign, as if this was some sort of commitment not to hold another one, when clearly she was stressing the circumstances of last year's vote - we have a majority at Holyrood, we've managed to get a referendum on independence, this might not happen again...carpe diem and all that. It seemed that that might be the case then, and the chance of another referendum wouldn't happen for years - no-one could quite have predicted the disgust people across Scotland would have developed for the Labour Party and their complete collapse in public support. All we need now is either another Tory government at Westminster and Labour powerless and moving even further to the right to get the elusive middle England vote, or Labour in office relying on Tory votes to continue with austerity and Trident renewal, and the next referendum on independence will be a demand of the whole Scottish people, never mind just the SNP.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to the Bernard Ponsonby vs Murphy interview tonight. Do we think Murphy might crack-up?
ReplyDeleteIt'll be interesting.
DeleteI heard a bit of Murphy today although it was possibly pre 54% SNP poll, and I'm not one for dramatics, but he certainly sounded on edge, and less coherent than usual.
I'll wait until the 7th of May before predicting anything(esp after Sept)although this is very different as the polls are showing a clear/strong lead for the SNP, still I don't want to jinx things, but,
If Murphy loses his seat. And Labour are down to single digit MPs. Can he realistically stay on? I think he has the arrogance to do so.
It would seem that Murphy's "root and branch reform" of 'scottish' Labour - after Iain Gray crashed and burned to an SNP landslide - did in fact bear fruit.
ReplyDeleteMurphy has decided to copy Gray's campaigning 'success' since Gray banged on endlessly about an indy referendum during an election too.
Clearly, Murphy is a man of vision, in that he can't spot the obvious bloody mistake he's making. Long may it last. Well, several desperate panicky days worth at least. :-D
James is of course right. It was SLAB who were and still are hyping up their once-in-a- lifetime version of the process. Gordon Brown went even further on the eve of the Referendum vote suggesting it was going to be illegitimate to totally ever revisit the agenda:"....this is not a decision just for this time: this is a decision for all time. This is a decision that cannot be reversed or undone. This is a decision from which there is no going back. This is a decision when once it’s done, it’s done."
ReplyDeleteBroon should have put it in the form of a VOW.
DeleteThen it would really have meant something!
LOL
If we treat this latest Labour wheeze with the intellectual rigour it doesn't really deserve we would need to ask: how would voting Labour prevent a second referendum? The only credible scenario would be a Labour government refusing a future Section 30. However, the Tories could just as easily do that too so it isn't a unique "selling" point for Labour. The only other possible argument would be Labour having more MPs in Scotland than the SNP and therefore removing some legitimacy for having another referendum. If the polls are a true reflection of the outcome on May 7th that isn't looking likely. Furthermore, as pointed out by James in item 3 above the reverse situation would actually strengthen the case for IndieRef2.
ReplyDeleteThat only leaves the most logical explanation for this latest Labour wheeze: it is all a load of nonsense but some No supporters might believe it and cast their vote accordingly. If there are enough of them it might save a few Labour seats.
I have just had a newsletter delivered from the Lib Dems in the North East Fife constituency.
ReplyDeleteOn the front page is a graph headed "North East Fife too close to call, showing the Libs on 28.9% and the SNP on 27.7%. In very small print underneath North East Fife results for 2012 Fife Council election.
There is an even bigger lie inside. Comment by Ming Campbell, "bookmakers cant split the Lib Dems and the SNP. The SNP have been priced as marginal favorites at 1/4 with Tim Brett snapping at their heals at 5/2. What planet do the Lib Dems think we inhabit? They must think (or maybe they do not think) that we are as daft as them.
Pity there are no proper journalist left in Scotland who could question them about these lies.
In Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, Ashcroft's second poll has the SNP 2% ahead of the Tories and Labour nowhere. Even on his first poll it was neck and neck between the SNP and the Tories with Labour nowhere. All the pundit sites like Electoral Calculus favour the SNP for the seat. If you really want to see the back of Scotland's only Tory MP, an SNP vote is the only way to go.
DeleteLabour have sent out repeated leaflets displaying the 2010 result for the constituency (with the SNP in 4th place at about 14% of the vote), insisting that "the SNP can't win here" and declaring that only Labour can beat the Tory.
In effect, they'd rather see Mundell hold the seat than admit anything that could cause their voters to vote tactically for the SNP. They're prepared to lie to help Mundell hold. Red Tories.
Oh I just love point 3. I wish I had thought of it.
ReplyDeleteThis election is becoming far more enjoyable than Billy Smarts circus and it has another week to go.
ReplyDeletehttp://corecursion.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/latest-scottish-poll-of-polls-for-uk_29.html
ReplyDeleteLatest Scottish poll of polls. Plus a slightly less insane set of seat predictions.
The once in a generation language is used in the White Paper ("Scotland's Future") so it carries a bit more weight than just Alex's personal opinion. To my mind a far more fruitful line of attack is to go for the broken promises of Better Together. They won on the strength of last minute commitments which they subsequently failed to honour. They cheated. Given that they won by fraud their win is not valid and so we cannot be bound by our good faith pre-referendum undertaking. We're entitled to another referendum at a time of our choosing because the winners did not deliver on their promises the first time around.
ReplyDelete"The once in a generation language is used in the White Paper ("Scotland's Future") so it carries a bit more weight than just Alex's personal opinion."
DeleteIt was still only stated as a view, not a "promise". (And there was sure as hell no mention of the word "lifetime".) No government can bind its successors anyway, that's a fundamental constitutional principle.
I'm not disagreeing with the general point but governments bind their successors all the time. That's one of the difficulties of the EU, PFI, NATO, etc.
DeleteIt's an English fiction that governments can't bind their successors.
Well, in those examples the way a government would semi-bind its successors is by passing legislation or entering into treaty commitments that are difficult to get out of. There's no comparison with any of the casual musings about timing that the SNP made in the run-up to the referendum.
DeleteJust listening to First ministers questions,and this continual badgering by all three opposition parties(although I reckon they are really just one party branches of the Westminster Establishment party) now I'll get to my point,does Keiza Dugdale,Ruth Davidson and indigestion Willie, want to just write our manifesto for 2016? that is what I think Nicola should reply to them! Aye you can all use it and please share it if you think its a fair comment.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to the BritNat troll Cha-Cha, sans kilts and bare-naked arses jiggling and swinging into the night as electoral oblivion dismounts having reamed them:
ReplyDeleteAn appalling visual image even if metaphorical.
However, the poll-projected trend of their final huddle as they go whimpering and naked of principles into the last vestiges of the squalorous brothel of Westminster pseudo-democratic governance which they have pimped and pimp for is a welcome prospect.
The tar and feathering of them and their "legacies" will come later in the forensic sense by the historians (some even rump-UK orientated debauching their criminal incompetence as per imminent Daily Heil et al incoming headlines)
Swing your bare-naked and affronted arses, troops, as you swan off into utter, total, and complete irrelevance.
May the farcical be and go with you.
Ach and Hell's over-whitewashed teeth (the better to fleece you like a cheap TV ad actor - gender irrelevant).
ReplyDeleteWhen will Magrit and Hamish Murphy - and the rest of the SLABBERS poisoning our collective face - get settled down and comfy in their electoral coffins?
Ah've had enough, and am aching for a good old Scandanavian-Celtic burning boat send-off for these chancing opportunists:
Nae last minute interventionist absolutions.
Simply send them off to the opposite of Brit electoral Valhalla (the House of Lords?).
That is repugnant obscurity.