Our opponents love nothing better than a good Quebec comparison, don't they? Over at PB today, Labour supporter Don Brind is drawing some small comfort from the total collapse of the formerly dominant Bloc Québécois, a development which is potentially opening the way for the social democratic NDP to take a share of power at federal level in Canada for the first time ever. But Labour supporters may want to look away now as I point out the less encouraging aspects of that comparison -
1) As spectacular as the Bloc's defeat in 2011 was, it only came about after the party had won an outright majority of Quebec seats in six consecutive federal elections - 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008. If the SNP remain dominant for a similar extended length of time, it seems highly probable that there will be a second independence referendum at some point.
2) The Bloc were eventually defeated by the NDP, a party that had previously been only a minor player in Quebec politics, rather than by the Liberals or the Conservatives. Even now that the Liberals have the immense Quebec-specific advantage of Justin Trudeau as leader, the province still seems set to stick with the NDP. So there's no evidence at all that, having broken the mould, voters are keen to go back to their old voting patterns. If anything, the lesson would appear to be that if the SNP are eventually beaten in a Westminster election, it may not be Labour that does it.
3) Part of the reason for the NDP's success in 2011 was the late Jack Layton's "French kiss" towards Quebec voters - including the promise, which none of the other pan-Canadian parties have made, that a simple majority in a referendum would be sufficient to secure Quebec independence. This would suggest that voters in Scotland can't be expected to "move on" from the constitutional debate until at least one unionist party has made major concessions on it. The equivalent for Labour might be support for Devo Max, or the unambiguous transfer to the Scottish Parliament of the power to hold a legally-binding independence referendum. Or, better still, both.
4) There's nothing inevitable about what happened to the Bloc. As Peter Kellner pointed out a few months ago, when unionist parties were defeated in Ireland, they NEVER recovered, even though Irish independence didn't occur for several more decades. When the Irish Parliamentary Party was eventually displaced in 1918, it was by the even more radical Sinn Féin.
5) It's entirely wrong to interpret the demise of the Bloc as representing the conclusion of the Quebec sovereignty debate. The first referendum in Quebec was held in 1980, over a decade before the Bloc was founded, and at a time when almost all sovereigntists voted for federalist parties at federal elections. The question of a future referendum will be decided at a provincial level, where the Bloc doesn't even stand. In the most recent provincial opinion poll, the sovereigntist Parti Québécois is level-pegging with its main federalist opponent - and the two largest sovereigntist parties between them have 47% of the vote. An independent Quebec is still very much on the agenda in the medium-term, regardless of whether the Bloc recovers.
6) Much - although admittedly not all - of the recent problems for both the Bloc and the Parti Québécois has been caused by uninspiring leadership. If we can keep Nicola Sturgeon in harness for at least a decade, and then ensure a smooth transition to someone of the calibre of Humza Yousaf, there must be a reasonable chance that we can avoid that problem.
Scotland was a sovereign country in the past, Quebec wasn't.
ReplyDeleteSimples.
The counter-argument is that Quebec is distinct from its neighbours in respect of language in a way that Scotland isn't.
DeleteAsk any Scot abroad what their nationality is, and I bet 100% will say 'Scottish', even the Unionists. Would that happen with Quebec?
DeleteMy simple point is that Scotland has a history of being a nation, just like Ireland. That will never change, and if my kids and their friends are typical, 20 something Scots seem to be more 'Scottish' than previous generations.
Except they all speak English. Quebec is less distinct from any other part of Canada than Wales is from England.
DeleteThey speak nothing but English in Ireland and yet they're supposed to be linguistically distinct.
Try again. Scotland is not and never has had any similarity living or dead with Quebec.
Apart from being invaded by the english.
James, I find it a wee bit worrying how easily you talk about ten years of Nicola and 'then ensure a smooth transition to someone of the calibre of Humza Yousaf,' .
DeleteNo doubting the potential caliber of those politicians (and others), but if Scotland is, after ten more years of 56 out of 59 and government at Holyrood WITHOUT gaining Indy, I will definitely be questioning their actual (not potential) abilities.
We are at the tipping point. There is honestly not much, outwith our own control, that I could add to our side of the equation to give us a better chance of winning Indyref2 in the short to medium term. If our politicians think waiting to be 'given' our country is going to work they are dreaming, and blase assumptions about possible decades more leadership of an Independence party 'within the union', while under the current (close to) optimal conditions for leaving that union, is of no help at all.
We need to be encouraging our party political leadership to resist the natural inertia of establishment created parliamentary electoral cycles and realise (and recognise) the reality of this outrageous and extra ordinary national situation, before the population gets normalised into living with 95% denial of democracy, just because you happen to be Scots.
We all need to keep pressuring our politicians into always remembering that five years for us is not index linked and expenses paid. We cannot afford to wait out the UK state, we never could. That's why it's always been the UK's best and only game plan (assuming sending in the Army was ever really taken off the table.)
We are living in incredible times. Don't piss them away thinking 'this is the new normal'. It won't be unless we act and build, now.
To me that is the one and only lesson to be learned from Quebec, and I suspect it's the one and only lesson that the UK State has taken from their studies, and will be doing their best to act upon it. Stall. Keep the Union and stall... Five year fixed terms at Westminster suits them fine.
braco
"Ask any Scot abroad what their nationality is, and I bet 100% will say 'Scottish', even the Unionists. Would that happen with Quebec?"
DeleteYes, from the polls I've seen, the strength of Quebec national identity is pretty similar to the strength of Scottish national identity. Of course, the minority English-speaking population would largely identify as Canadians.
Braco : As you know, I would be happy to have another referendum as soon as humanly possible. I'm open-minded about how long it will take in practice, but it would be naive to think that 10+ years isn't still a possibility.
DeleteI think another referendum within 5 years is a certainty. As this governments manifesto rolls out I foresee poll tax style civil unrest.
DeleteWhen asked what country are you from, I've never heard 'Quebec!', from a citizen of that state, and I've met a few. They have said they are Canadian, but wished otherwise.
DeleteThe sense of being a Scot is ingrained by those of us with a long history to the land, and newcomers seem happy to join into that community.
James, push for it then. Sounds like you're happy to sit around for ten or fifteen years letting someone else (or there successor) decide on the matter. You have put yourself into a position of some influence (through hard work and ambition) and you are not shy of using it (nor should you be). If you ' would be happy to have another referendum as soon as humanly possible.' Why not agitate for it? Or at least push in that direction instead of writing blase pieces about SNP accession of 'caliber' leadership politicians while in power within the Union they are in power to break. 10+ years if aimed for, will simply not happen. Every power in the UK is hell bent on ensuring it. We are strong NOW. They are at their weakest NOW. Push hard now and we might get somewhere in a year or two. If not, it's in the lap of the gods and mostly out our hands. We need some urgency, my salary, pension and expenses are not secure (let alone index linked) over the next five years and I don't know anybodies else's who are either.
Deletebraco
Oh Jesus, come on man, give me a break. I've said umpteen times that I'm in favour of the SNP pushing hard for constitutional progress now, rather than parking the issue. What the hell do you want me to do about it? I'm one member out of 115,000.
DeleteI know, it's murder. I'm not even a member! ;-)
Deletebraco
Ask any Scot abroad what their nationality is, and I bet 100% will say 'Scottish', even the Unionists.
DeleteYou just lost a bet.
By definition then Anon, you are a 'Brit'. I think Jute's bet still stands. ;-)
Deletebraco
The very essence of the "no true Scotsman" argument, braco? :)
DeleteAm I a Brit then even though I identify as a Scot? You do not want Scotland to have primacy as a nation. You choose primacy for Britain as a nation over Scotland.This makes you a Brit from Scotland. This is your choice.I am a Scot from Britain.This is my choice. Don't get all defensive over your own choices Anon. Cake and eat it much?
Deletebraco
If it helps the debate I'm a Scot from Scotland in the UK (for the time being). I am definitely not a "Proud Scot But .....".
DeleteLast time I hired a car when visiting Canada (2013) I was asked which part of England the Scotland was in; I explained to the lad behind the counter why he had just lost a sale and went to the next hire company. Given that the last time I taught in Canada (2010) the geography department still had East Germany on the map this is not as daft a question as it first appears.
Not defensive braco, hence the smiley face. I think this is kind of awesome. It's the first time I've ever seen the no true Scotsman argument used to actually refer to a Scotsman. It's worth a screenshot for Rationalwiki for sure.
DeleteObviously the logical counter is that it's possible to be more than one thing. I was born in Elgin so I *am* a Scot, irrespective of your preferences. And I *do* identify as British when working abroad, because that's what's on my passport. Now if you fancy trying to match up your passport with your Nigerian/Angolan/Congolese visa paperwork when it's got Scottish written on it, do let me know how it works out for you. (Hint : It goes very badly, I know people who've done it. Many bribes were required.).
So it's perfectly sane and reasonable to be a Scot who identifies as British, depending where and when you find yourself.
All that changes nothing of what I stated and it's logic. You are a Brit from Scotland. What's the problem? It's you that is choosing to identify yourself (when forced to choose) just as I choose to Identify as a Scot from Britain (when forced to choose). No one said either choice was unreasonable.
DeleteAll I said is that you have stated that you identify yourself as a Brit (not a Scot) when abroad. You want it both ways.
You have yourself acknowledged that in certain circumstances, due to my only passport option, I do not unfortunately get it 'both ways' with my identity prioritisation. Come a YES vote you will still be lucky enough to have it both ways... and for the first time in my life, so will I. What's not to like about that then Anon?
braco
All sounds very reasonable, no argument with any of that. Juteman is still wrong though, which was my only real point. He should have stuck to 99% ;)
Delete@Braco
DeleteI'm questioning their competence right now after the defeat of the Assisted Dying bill at second reading. No attempts to amend it, to fix perceived defects, just outright rejection. My MSP, Shona Robison voted against it. I call that moral cowardice and question whether such people are ready for the hard decisions of an independent country. I also question on what basis they vote against something polls consistently show a majority of the public want. So it is anti-democratic as well as moral cowardice.
I believe Scotland will end up more like the Irish position. Labour has been totally discredited and is widely seen even by unionists as a party which does not really support Scottish aspirations. HR16 and the Council elections later will show more clearly if it is going to remain a power in Scotland. My view is that Labour is finished in Scotland unless it makes fundamental changes to its policy. The SNP will be in power for years and should press hard for another Indy Ref within the next 5 or 10 years. If it doesn’t then like all parties it will eventually become comfortable with the status quo and decline in vigour. And If the SNP does start to be perceived as going soft on Independence then I foresee the more militant Indy supporters forming a new party (or taking over the old one) to push harder for Independence like in Ireland.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn’t have to be like that. The Labour Party or an independent Scottish Labour Party could decide to REALLY support Devomax, stop hating the SNP, and start to act like a grown up opposition party. And that would probably save its soul and some power in Scotland.
I agree with James Coleman. If the Scottish members of the Labour Party got their act together, they could probably save the Union with a proper Devo Max settlement. Thankfully, I can never see that happening.
DeleteJames Coleman, sorry but that dream is over. Labour have already chosen to drive over the cliff rather than get off the Union bus. And why not, they all lost their seats but seem to be just as regularly voicing off on political shows and newspaper articles as ever they did. Who needs to be elected?
DeleteIt's Independence in the short to medium term or both Scotland and rUK will normalise this undemocratic position. Scotland will then, for the first time, have become truly provincialised.
We are at the threshold, forward is Independence, stasis is backwards and not to what we always thought we were, but to what they always new we actually were. We have woken. You cannot go back to a dream once you are awake, only get up into reality. That reality will be decided (for our generation and the next) most probably in the next decade.
Exciting and onerous!
braco
The SNP can only push for a second referendum if there is a strong majority in favour of independence.
DeleteThat goes without saying.
DeleteRubbish. The campaign and manner of argument that will decide the issue. The SNP are, and known to be, 'first and foremost' the party of Independence. If they get elected and are at all able to deliver a referendum then they must. Simple as.
DeleteA decade ago, given 56 out of 59 and majority government, do you really think the SNP membership (or support) would allow the party to be only 'considering' putting a referendum in their manifesto?! That commitment has been central to every SNP manifesto (except the very one that they were obvious to win big on and be forced to deliver on. I.e The last one)
The refererendum was a mechanism which allowed the SNP to distance themselves from Independence on day to day political policy terms in order to get elected and then, as a governing party, let the country have the argument fairly in order to decide. They as a government were unfortunately unable to deliver 'fairly' and so the issue is still very much live.
Now we seem to be getting an argument that the SNP can't even promise a referendum in their manifesto unless 'there is a strong majority in favour of independence'! (For this read 'significant change of circumstances')
What would be the point of voting for them if they did not want to push an argument that might not yet be won? How could we have made the advances toward Indy that we have, if the party of Indy, the SNP, had refused to call a referendum because all the polls said YES was only at 30%!
Political parties are campaigning bodies, not electoral managers.
This is the kind of 'normalisation', self censoring and rewriting of history that I am so worried of and wrote about in my last posts Anon.
braco
I'm old enough to remember Thatcher saying that if we wanted independence, then we only needed to vote for a majority of SNP MPs for that to happen.
DeleteA referendum is a new invention, as it allows a mass propaganda offensive against the old and feart.
Me too Jute. In fact both my parents asked me why the SNP can't just declare negotiations open for Independence with their 'enormous majority'.
DeleteNow we seem to be getting a softening of even putting a commitment to a referendum in the manifesto! How do we get Indy if a massive majority party at Westminster won't put a an unequivocal commitment to a referendum in their manifesto? I know it's not happened yet and hopefully it won't, but the mood music does not sound good at the moment. So, should that commitment not be forthcoming for 2016 Jute, how is our aspiration for Independence to be democratically voiced?
braco
The SNP must seize the moment.
DeleteDeclare that a vote for them next year is a vote for Independence. If they get a majority, withdraw every SNP MP from Westminster, and bring them into Holyrood. Negotiate from there.
Totally agree, or at the very least commit unequivocally to Indref 2 in short order of re election. There's your mandate.
Deletebraco
There MUST be a committment to another Indy Ref in the forthcoming SNP manifesto. Not having such would mean SNP's committment to independence had weakened drastically. How the Unionists would crow. The major threat of Scotland leaving the UK resolved at a stroke. All SNP threats from there on meaningless. Members would desert in droves. I would. There is only one condition where I would agree to a 'watered down' committment to Independence in an SNP manifesto, and that would be a signed sealed and DELIVERED FFA. And what is going through WM at the moment is nowhere near that.
DeleteHow on earth do you know that droves of SNP members would leave if there was not a commitment to holding another independence referendum in the next 5 years? Those who want another referendum on independence in the next 5 years are compelled to answer questions on how we would deal with the currency issue, the pensions issue, how we are going to deal effectively with the MSM this time. You don't get to hold endless referendums on independence until you win one.
DeleteGreat to hear that being said James Coleman. Thanks
Deletebraco
@ muttley79 , James (C &K), and braco
DeleteIMHO we lost the last referendum from the moment we decided keeping the pound was a bright idea. Using Euros, Dollars (pick your variety), ScotsQuids (pegged or otherwise) etc any of these would have been, politically, better options than leaving the political union whilst retaining the monetary union - based on the doorstep responses I faced. So Muttley79 is absolutely right that we need rock solid answers to the points raised.
BUT I've been getting my fingers caught in letterboxes delivering SNP leaflets since the age of 4 and would find it almost impossible to describe how demoralising it would be if the 2016 manifesto did not at least contain a form of words that left the door open to calling a vote if the circumstances were right. E.g. brexit - although I'm not convinced that brexit will happen.
To be pedantic you do get to hold as many referendums as the electorate will allow you to - provided its in your manifesto that if you win a majority you will hold a referendum. Wether it's politically wise to do that is another question; and if you were going to put that in the manifesto why not go the whole hog and say that if we win a majority we start negotiating for the independence settlement.
*sigh*
DeleteNicola has already outlined the policy with regard to the Holyrood campaign and Indyref2.
Mebbes some folk should have a look at it before unilaterally making up SNP policy on the hoof for her. Jist a thought mind.
I've seen no mass desertions because of it, (in fact our membership is still fucking rising #clypegate :-D ) nor do I expect our membership to tank in the run up to 2016 or indeed after it.. It's just not going to happen, simple as that.
in my view Scotland is following in the footsteps of ireland but since events unfold much faster nowadays (thanks to Tv and social media) the SNP will not be at westminster for 30+ years like the pre-WWI irish national party.
DeleteI expect scotland will really push for independence within the next few years because events will gather momentum and the time seems right.
I hope the British establishment does not respond as it did in ireland. I think it would be hampered by modern EU and UN rules (which didn't exist 100 years ago when the standard of the irish republic was raised against the might of the british empire).
I wouldn't count on the british establishment abiding by these new international principles - see the messes they've made in many of their former colonies. In my opinion Scotland will really need to "keep the heid" over the next few years if she is determined to become independent.
Muttley.
DeleteI didn't say within 5 years. I said a referendum should be pressed for in next 5 to 10 years.
I have been of the view since last time that before another Referendum is actually called. SNP should be riding at 55%+ in polls, that two or more prominent newspaper groups should be wholeheartedly in support of Independence, and Scottish Labour if still a power in Scotland should NOT be against Independence and should preferably support it.
But all of that is a separate issue to a committment in their next manifesto to another Referendum 'soon'. We must beg to differ on who will stay with SNP and who will not, in the unlikely event that it does NOT include such a committment.
@James Coleman
DeleteYou said:
There MUST be a committment to another Indy Ref in the forthcoming SNP manifesto.
This is a reference to the period between 2016 and 2021 at the latest. That is five years. So yes you did say that. That is the time frame the next SNP manifesto will cover.
I would rather wait and see support rise for independence among the Scottish population to a significant extent, than blow our chances probably for ever with a second referendum so soon after we lost the first one. Independence fundamentalists forget that we got to the position we are in currently because of the gradualist strategy of Salmond, Sturgeon, Swinney etc.
ReplyDeleteWe got where we are today by the SNP getting a 'surprise' majority and (some say) being politically forced into running the referendum before they otherwise would have.
DeleteThe referendum campaign got us here and the SNP their membership surge. If the libs HAD been democrats we would not even have had a minority SNP administration as SNP wanted a coalition.
We are here because of the Scottish electorate. Not through masterminds within the SNP. The SNP have been absolutely instrumental in keeping Indy on the agenda and no one will ever forget that, but they are a political party, with party political outlooks. This in itself produces small c conservative instincts, especially when things in party political terms are at such a high for them at this moment.
'Gradualist' was a strategy to get into government. Government in order to deliver Indy. They are in Government and now they have been given an unheard of Westminster mandate also. They must produce a manifesto for 2016 that at least commits to delivering Indy via Indyref2 in the next parliament. How else do we give them a mandate for the central policy they have stood on their entire history?
Gradualism as a strategy has already worked. It's time to deliver.
braco
No, gradualism was not just a strategy to get into government. Salmond forced through the change in the SNP's policy in around 2000 so that an independence referendum on independence did not block the party from taking office. Gradualism was and still is about extending the powers of a devolved parliament in Scotland, while working for independence. Fundamentalists like Gordon Wilson were telling SNP voters and supporters not to vote for a Scottish parliament in 1997.
ReplyDeleteThe whole rationale of gradualism is that the more powers we secure for Holyrood the more likely we are to achieve independence. When the next Scotland Act is pushed through next year we will be on the third so-called devolution settlement since 1997. The SNP have a mandate for FFA, and should push for it via a phased introduction.
Phased introduction of what?! The SNP are in Government with a majority, they are in Westminster with 56 of 59. What more can electorally can they be given in order to prove that Scotland wants another Indy referendum ASAP? What mandate can the public give the party of Indy that will prove to that party that they want the policy they formed in order to deliver? We are talking a referendum Muttley, not UDI.
DeleteIf they don't include that commitment, who do you recommend that Indy supporters, who want an Indyref2 ASAP, vote for at the Holyrood elections?
How else do those voters get heard if the party of Indy will not put an unequivocal commitment to a referendum in their party manifesto while being so electorally dominant?
braco
Like I have said the SNP go for a phased introduction of FFA. That was in the SNP's manifesto for the general election. Braco, I get it that you support independence with a passion. So do I. But it was only last September that 55 per cent of the Scottish electorate said they were against it. There needs to be serious thought put in for a considerable period of time into how we are going to win enough of them over so that the British state has no choice but to accept independence. This kind of thinking has certainly not been done by those who want another referendum so soon after the first one. Some people want to push ahead without learning the lessons from the first one. That would be a disastrous mistake imo. Count me out. I would rather put my trust in Nicola Sturgeon, Stewart Hosey, Angus Robertson, Alex Salmond etc.
DeleteMuttley,
Deletethe mistakes made in the previous referendum were made by the folk you are happy to put our future in. Mistakes are human, normal and sometimes unforeseeable.
We have had the referendum now and we know in hindsight what most of those mistakes were.You yourself have listed them and there are many people in the Indy movement coming up with alternatives to the policies you have named,ready come the next Indyref.
I do not hear from the SNP, our government and the party of Independence, the changes they propose to counter those initial mistakes from Indyref1.
Only an Indyref2 campaign can rectify the 'pitch' made for Scottish Independence to the Scots electorate and win that remaining 5% +.
FFA is not Independence and is further from the actual political agenda than Independence is. You wait.... and wait......and wait. It's been tried already Muttley, 300 and odd years and counting. Phased FFA? Dream on.
We will get organised as an electorate (we already are) and democratically force the parties (if they will not) to act. Do you think 100 thousand joined the SNP after the NO in order to wait for a phased introduction of SFA and then wait a bit longer until The party of Independence thinks that this time, the electorate that votes for them as the 'party of Independence', wants another referendum on Independence?
Luckily I do believe that the SNP are far more politically astute than that and will include that commitment in their manifesto. If not, where to go electorally if you want Indy ASAP?
braco
To be honest I think the SNP will have to include at least a conditional "threat" of a referendum or face being pilloried for "giving up on their principles" as the unionists would describe it.
DeleteSomething (off the top of my head) along the lines of SNP majority at Holyrood => Holyrood control of absolutely everything except defence and foreign affairs or we call another referendum.
I first decided that I thought Nicola would be good for Scotland at a student politics event in round about 1989/90 when I naively asked who exactly it was that all these countries owed debts to #crushedbythewitofsturgeon ��. Even so during the GE15 campaign I was, and to some small extent still am, concerned that too gradual an approach could go horribly wrong and leave us locked in a CSU/CDU type arrangement with English Labour.
We simply do not have the longterm ability to control our own political weather. The leavers are all in the hands of the UK and their international clubs and allies.
DeleteWe have somehow miraculously managed to march ourselves up to the top of the hill, our generals have no choice now but to charge again, or send us all back down it again in the hope the next time we ever manage to get to the top again the prospects will seem better (to them).
We are not a professional army. We can't stand around. Our enemy is exactly that. They are a paid standing army that is always organised and always ready.
We need to take as many bites at the Independence cherry as it takes to eat it. That means Indyref2 campaign ASAP before they have a chance to fully regroup.
They now have NO leadership, No MPs, will have very few MSPs, terrible organisation, very few activists and those they do have are demoralised. Come on, it doesn't take a tactical genius ....
braco
I understand the desire to strike whilst the iron is hot so to speak, but I think a little restraint ir required. There's no good in going for Indyref2 until you have the people on your side. I calculate that demographic changes alone should give us a majority for independence in roughly 7 years. Add in the lessons learned from Indyref1 and a few more years of Tory rule from Westminster and I reckon it's in the bag. I'd therefore like to see a conditional commitment to a referendum in 2016, then an outright commitment in 2021, with Indyref2 before 2025.
DeleteTen years might seem a long time to wait, but we've waited over 300 years so far, so what's a few more?
That will require that the SNP stay in power and popular for up to 18 years of government, at which point they will embark on the most radical policy in UK political history? I don't think this is likely, never mind the 'safe' option that you are portraying it as.
DeleteThink of the political changes we have seen in the last 2 years and you feel confident planning ahead by another 10? Not to mention the global issues that might impinge on our arguments or abilities to make our arguments heard (eg. Grexit, Brexit and the global financial situation etc.)
Why wait when politically things might never be this good again. Time is against the SNP as a party of governance, just as it is against every party of governance that stays in power longer than two terms. We are sitting in the electoral sweet spot at the moment. That is just political reality.
braco
Braco, I think it is entirely possible that the SNP will remain popular for some time to come. Remember that all I'm suggesting is not declaring the intention to definitely hold a referendum in the 2016 manifesto. That declaration of intent could come at any point after that if it was deemed the right time, and Indyref2 could be as soon as six years away, if the SNP declared the intention to hold it straight after the 2021 election.
DeleteHeck, a conditional commitment in 2016 still leaves the door open. Removing our human rights sounds like a material change worthy of Indyref2, but there's no point in absolutely commiting to it until you are at least moderately confident of winning this time. Theoretically, we could hold a referendum every five years until we get the result we want, but in practise that's probably not the smartest thing to do.
So, what this comes down to is a matter of timing and the size of the window that we may or may not have. Personally, I think the early 2020s are the best bet. I reserve the right to change my opinion as events unfold, and of course your mileage may vary.
Yeah Wee Jock, it's all about timing and judgement. Think the best we as activists (and grass-root movement) can do, is try and keep as many options open for the SNP government (politically speaking) by engaging the electorate in the idea of Indyref2 as a 'probability' in the very near future as a ligitimate response to Westminster's abuse of the Scots' mandate and failure to deliver on their 'solemn vow' etc.
DeleteIt's all about options to act, as and when the real opportunity arises or is engineered.
braco
Another difference between Quebec and Scotland that they haven't taken into account is that Quebec have a relatively decent country to remain attached to while we have the brutal tories and the corrupt, elitist, paedophile-infested Westminster in charge of us.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure about that - the Canadian government under Stephen Harper has been pretty dreadful in a number of ways. Things might improve after this year's election.
DeleteHopefully the recent swing to the NDP will continue. From what friends and relatives in Toronto and Hamilton tell me Mulcair is having a good campaign and benefits from not being Harper while the Liberals C51 support for Harper has gone down very badly. The provincial Liberal troubles in Ontario aren't helping them either.
DeleteThe demise of the Bloc Québécois seems to bear an uncanny resemblance to the demise of Scotland's "Bloc du Numpties" at the recent general election.
ReplyDeleteIn other words it is simply another tedious example of selective perception: "If our party collapses we can always recover but if your party collapses you're finished forever."
"Schoolyard politics" barely begins to cover it.
"Bloc du Numpties" ...
Delete....ooh, that'll get _you_ on the list
James K.
ReplyDeleteYour piece has generated a very interesting discussion. One point I keep hearing not only on this blog but elsewhere is that the SNP made a good few mistakes during its Indy Ref campaign but I have yet to read anywhere that it has set up a group to consider where it went wrong and how it might be corrected. Surely it should be doing a bit of soul searching too?
An article from you might set the ball rolling. And for what it is worth I think the idea of using the £ as currency, while a very sensible idea practically, was the major mistake because it allowed the BT campaign and the UK Government to reject the idea and control the agenda. The second big mistake was to play it far too softly, softly and continually take the 'blows' without a vigorous riposte. Defensive tactics seldom win anything.
It must be remembered that the "failure" of the referendum saw a 30-point gap close to a 10-point gap within the space of two years despite nearly every newspaper, news channel, major business and Westminster party either officially neutral or officially for a No vote. It was a Pyrrhic victory for Better Together: they won in the end, but only after spending far more resources and losing a significant lead than their opponents.
DeleteI don't disagree that the Yes campaign made mistakes, but they must be contextualised within the truly immense opposition they had. Plus you have to consider indyref 2: say the Yes campaign decides to set up its own currency, and abandons the currency union. Would the Uk government then seriously just let that happen, knowing it would slash the value of the pound by 10% overnight, or would they attempt to convince Scotland to reconsider? Many of the "mistakes" of the Yes campaign - the pound, EU, etc - could end up being advantageous in a second campaign, if a different approach is made to show the utter duplicity of the UK government.
James Coleman, I think you make a very, very good point. We should always remember that the surge in membership came to the SNP through activist desperation at the failure to win the Independence referendum.
ReplyDeleteAs the leading lights of that campaign and the government behind the white paper policies that the official YES campaign was fought under, the SNP must take responsibility and set up official ways in which to remedy those mistakes made (and do it as a matter of urgency).
With this surge in membership and the subsequent Westminster triumphs I think many in the SNP have 'forgotten' that they actually failed in their primary goal as a party by not winning the referendum (the map of NO being a good example, SNP being unable to deliver in many of their 'heartlands').
A party that fails in it's primary goal (and in it's heartlands) does not usually get rewarded in the manner the SNP has been rewarded. We all understand the reasons and necessity behind the surge etc. but never the less, these events should not be allowed to mask that underlying truth.
It's essential therefore, that that failure not simply be 'brushed over', but examined closely and in detail in order to learn the lessons and divine the best way forward, policy wise, come the next Indyref campaign. And fast because we really do not know when another opportunity might show itself or what provocations from Westminster lie ahead and so we must be ready.
Let me stress that this is not about blame or scapegoats, it's really more along the lines of a detailed, officially sanctioned political debrief and reconfiguring of an imperfect running of an operation that must be learned from (and quickly).
braco
I find myself in agreement with a lot of what has been said above. I remember Braco saying previously that we had got this thing as far as teetering on the edge, and it would be sheer folly to accede in a roll back down the slope so that the whole long slog had to be started again from scratch in ten years or so.
ReplyDeleteTwo more excellent points have joined that one. One, that currently our opponents are surprisingly weak and we are surprisingly strong. Why resign ourselves to waiting until that state of affairs may no longer pertain? The other, that a significant proportion of the new SNP members probably did join in desperation after the loss of the referendum, not seeing any other way forward. They will be impatient.
I joined the SNP in the same mood, in 1992. The difference then was that I knew I was in it for the long haul. Salmond said something about "a window of opportunity throughout the 1990s" and my immediate reaction was, I hope you don't mean the window will close in 2000 and there will no longer be an opportunity, because I don't see it happening before then.
I've done the long haul, for the last 23 years. I'm persuaded that we might be in "one last push" territory. And paradoxically I think many of the new members may be feeling the same. My excuse is that I'm 23 years older and becoming impatient. Their excuse is probably that we're nearly there, come on guys.
At the same time though, it will be difficult to get another referendum. Cameron knows the last one was a near-death experience and he doesn't want to go there again. It will probably have to be an unauthorised, "advisory" referendum. The last thing we want to do is organise that, then lose it. I don't agree that we need Yes to be polling extremely high, but we do need a consistent and beyond-margin-of-error for Yes.
But look how fast the SNP surge came last autumn. Following on the Holyrood surge of 2011. It might not take as long as some people think. We have to be open to all possibilities and ready to act when the political weather is in our favour, as someone said. Not to decree in advance that we'll only move when certain arbitrary conditions are met.
Oh look. I think some people might be worrying unnecessarily.
ReplyDeletewww.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/28/snp-scots-could-still-go-it-alone
it's a pleasure to be in agreement again Rolfe! ;-) That's the power of our sides situation, scratch the surface and underneath tactical disagreements, everyone's really quickly back on the same page when it comes to the real issue. How to get Indy (and ASAP).
ReplyDeleteCome a sniff of Indyref2, the whole movement will swing in behind it bigger, stronger and better than before. That to me is where the real conversions will be made again, during the Indyref2 campaign, just as Taranaich correctly points out they were made during the first campaign. Folk need the pressure and power of imminent and real decision making, to fully engage in the arguments. Many just came too late to the debate to catch up in time before the vote, but they had moved in our direction. Just not far enough :-(
The organisation and networks are also already built from the first campaign. I think the grass-roots main task at the moment is to keep those networks alive and well oiled, ready to expand again at the drop of a hat, making an effective snap referendum a real tactical possibility for the SNP government (if required).
The first referendum campaign has given us so many new strengths and adavantages, if seen as the hard, hard jabs needed before the knockout punch is thrown. The punch still needs thrown though, and early enough to be felt as if it was just another follow up punch of the larger combination. That's why I really love the Indyref1 and 2 terminology. Keeps campaigns being seen as just a continuation of a series.Which is exactly what it is, but hopefully the end game of that long long struggle carried on by folk long gone and and that will never see it. I do not want to be part of another of those generations. There have been far too many already.
braco
I think those who doubt the SNP's fundamental commitment to a second referendum ASAP are misreading the situation, as the article I linked above indicates. It also chimes with what I've heard informally with conversations with various elected representatives. It's not good politics to shout this from the rooftops continually, but the behind-the-scenes determination is there.
ReplyDeletePB? wossat?
ReplyDelete"Political Betting". It's a forum, I think. It's inhabited by right-wing ideologues and often referred to as "Stormfront Lite".
DeleteYou get banned for being left-wing, or for being a supporter of Scottish independence, I gather.
Thanks!
DeleteI find the comparisons with Quebec fascinating. The Quebec situation seems to be constantly brought up as being as similar as possible to the Scottish situation and therefore some sort of golden apple to be used in forecasting everything.
ReplyDeleteI was actually in Canada this last week, albeit in Ontario, so i asked a few locals their thoughts. What is particularly interesting is that at least in Ontario 9and that is a lot like asking the English what is going on in Scotland), the independence movement is about culture and language rather than politics, which is so far away from what is going on here, where the debate is about how the country is run. If that is the case, all comparisons between Quebec and Scotland become irrelevant in my opinion! Two different reasons for arguing for independence would seem to mean that the groups would behave very differently!