I rarely disagree with G A Ponsonby, but I do part company with him on his belief that it would be a strategic mistake to hold an independence referendum without Westminster granting a Section 30 order (although of course he does very much want a referendum and thinks the Scottish Government should press for a Section 30 next year). Basically he thinks that the unionist domination of Scotland's mainstream media would doom the referendum to delegitimisation and failure. I think that argument overlooks a few key points -
1) Just like in Catalonia, there absolutely must be a back-up plan if the state cuts off the most obvious route to an exercise in self-determination. There isn't much point in being a pro-independence Catalan if you accept the risible argument that voting for independence is illegal, and by the same token there isn't much point in being a pro-independence Scot if you're willing to accept that Westminster has the right to say "now is not the time, and the right time is never". Most of us agree that it would be preferable to hold a referendum with Westminster's agreement, but if we don't have a prepared answer to an insistent "no" we might as well pack up and go home.
2) It's not possible for the unionist establishment (both political and media) to delegitimise the referendum without also boycotting it. If there's a unionist boycott, a Yes victory in some form is assured. As in Catalonia, that will immediately create new facts on the ground - at the very least the anti-independence mandate from the 2014 referendum will no longer be unchallenged.
3) Unlike in Catalonia, the referendum will not actually be illegal. What we're talking about is legislation that is framed in such a way that the Presiding Officer's legal advisers, and perhaps the courts if necessary, will accept that a consultative referendum is within the Scottish Parliament's existing powers.
4) Irrespective of legality, the referendum will almost certainly not be disrupted by British state violence of the sort that we've just seen from Spain. The UK population just wouldn't stand for that sort of thing - witness the spontaneous disgust displayed towards Spain's actions by establishment figures such as BBC network newsreader Huw Edwards. That means the only limit on the number of Yes votes we can attract will be determined by the shortcomings of our own campaigning skills.
* * *
Now I'm back from my travels, I have a couple of things to let you know about. This year has seen a bumper number of visitors to this blog, culminating in the month leading up to the general election when Google Analytics recorded approximately 35,000 unique visitors - the second busiest month in Scot Goes Pop's nine-year history, outstripping even the month of the 2014 referendum. Part of the reason for that success is that I was made an admin (or editor, or whatever the correct word is) on one of the most popular pro-indy Facebook pages, and was encouraged to post links to my own content. I've no idea exactly what percentage of the blog's visitors were coming from that page, but my vague impression is that it was making a significant contribution. The page was recently taken down, seemingly due to a long-running dispute with Tommy Sheridan and his supporters. It's now back up again, but the creator has stepped aside, and it appears that as part of the shake-up I've been quietly removed as one of the admins. I briefly thought about querying that, but I quickly realised that a) I don't actually know who is in overall charge of the page now, and b) it's very unlikely that I would have been removed by mistake. I'll probably never know the reason why. This could obviously prove to be a big setback, so it's led me to think about alternative ways of promoting the blog on Facebook.
For many years Scot Goes Pop has had its own dedicated Facebook page, but it 'only' has 1780 followers, probably for the very simple reason that I spend a fair bit of time on Twitter and almost no time at all on Facebook. (And there are only so many hours in a day.) I'm wondering if a Facebook group might conceivably work better, because it would allow non-admin members to post their own content, and indeed to annoy friends by adding them directly. So just as a mad experiment, I've set up a group called Scottish Independence Required By Next Tuesday. There's probably a 95% chance it'll fall flat on its face, but let's give it a go and see what happens. If you have a Facebook account, you can join the new group HERE. Rest assured that if it takes off it'll be an anything goes funfair.
And the other little piece of information is that I have a new article in the October issue of iScot magazine. If you're not a subscriber to the print edition, a digital copy can be purchased HERE.
You would have to be very naive indeed to believe the British state would not use violence because 'the UK population just would not stand for it'. Could you perhaps furnish us with some examples of the UK population even protesting in any mass and effective way violence by the British state, let alone preventing or ending it?
ReplyDeleteThere are countless examples of British state violence against anti colonial movements throughout history. And none were met with public outrage in the UK.
Even when the British state used violence on ostensibly 'British' streets against civil rights protests in the six counties, up to and including mass murder of protesters by British troops, there was no mass objection or solidarity from the UK population. Quite the contrary, much of the UK population cheered it on.
Indeed much outrage has been, rightly, expressed at the Spanish state police use of plastic bullets against civilians.
So perhaps worthwhile remembering that plastic bullets were invented by the British specifically for use against nationalist protesters in the six counties, and 17 civilians were killed by the use there of such 'non lethal rounds. Eight of those dead were children.
The 'UK population' uttered not a peep of protest
Could it be the 6 counties civil rights was IRA sponsored. The poverty in the Republic was equally as bad as the UK 50s, 60s and 70s yet no killing of civilians or politicians... The UK still blocks websites for those loyalists who claim genocide by the IRA.
DeleteNo, the UK wouldn't use violence - anyone with a scrap of experience of how the UK handles Scotland would have to agree with that.
DeleteThere's a lot of wishful thinking from Wolfie Smith yesser types who would love Scotland to be in a simpler Spain/Catalonia type situation. (I would also like to be in a version of Scotland where there was majority support for independence though)
DeleteThe British government will use force if it wants to and I think it will want to 98 years ago tanks on Glasgow streets and bullets fired the marks on the waterworks walls to this day,yes they thought Scotland might do something.We will this time I believe,not me I'm decrepit and unless we have a wheelchair brigade no chance of this pensioner being there.
DeleteI saw at first hand the behaviour in Scotland of unidentifiable English police in riot gear and armed with batons etc during the miners strike in the 80's.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this was on smaller scale than events in Spain, it was equally nasty, and was cheered on by many in the press and public.
Peaceful pickets and bystanders were attacked without justification. Police state tactics were used against men Simla travelling elsewhere. News was manipulated by the BBC to show miners acting first by editing film of attacks by police where infact the police were initiating violence.
This is not hearsay. I witnessed this. They would do it again against independence supporters. To think they would not is kidding yourself.
I actually support what you say about holding a referendum whether or not "permission" is graciously granted, because it won't be, but the British government will be quite prepared to use violence, especially as the Unionists in Scotland contain some of Scotland's most vicious and violent people, and they will both support it and join in.
Be ready.
100% agree with this, BE READY
DeleteThe British State was up to its oxters in murder, directly and indirectly, agents provocateurs and paedophilia in N Ireland.
ReplyDeleteIt was a war declared by the IRA. The British were far too saft... They could have easily wiped out the IRA fascists... Jim Callaghan the Home Secretary was a sympathiser towards the Republic..
DeleteStench of this.
DeleteYer nose must be too near yer erse fash bhoy.
DeleteUnlike yours, wedged firmly inside your Tory masters' collective colon. Away back to your green ink letters before the Dreary Heil starts wondering what they pay you for.
DeleteI think one reason not mentioned for unwillingness to have a go-it alone referendum, is the fears over low turnout.
ReplyDeleteThe Yoons would boycott it certainly, but would 1.6 million YES voters turn up.
950k turned up on a rainy day in June, and about the same number last year.
The danger is that the importance of the referendum gets relegated to the level of a local council election.
For legitimacy you would need 2 million or bit less to vote YES.
It seems to me that the best course of action in an emergency might be for the Scottish administration to vote itself down and force an Independence Mandate election -- which would itself have a double-lock provision for fairness of a majority of seats (as it would still be a parliamentary election) and a majority of votes. (Unlike the recent Westminster election the two things shouldn't be very far apart.) Presumably it would be boycotted by the 19% who loathe Holyrood and want it abolished, but we could live with that figure or a wee bit more.
DeleteI predict that a referendum would be likely to be boycotted by around double that number. With the second option the Unionists could be tempted by the possibilities of installing Colonel Ruth or Richard Who in power and ensuring that the S.S. Great Britain continues on forever onwards and downwards.
The SNP and friends would really need to get a grip on the agenda, though.
One other point -- this would probably be in the context of a Hard Brexit. Given recent events, the existing argument for staying in contact with Europe via EFTA is strengthened. Given that the UK (or RumpUK or England) wouldn't be a good fit for EFTA and could be turned down because of the size of its population then this time we could make use of a little political judo to get the better of our larger opponent.
I have absolutely no faith in 'the people of Scotland' to face down the type of state enforced intimidation metted out by the Spanish authorities. I'm afraid they would simply hide away from taking to the streets in sufficient numbers and use excuses provided to them by the BBC and media. We know from Sept.'14 that there are huge chunks of seemingly intelligent people simply not interested in listening to or taking part in anything which is deemed 'against the interests of the state'. Very pessimistic but there you go. Scotland in 2017, more Tory MP's than in the last however many decades.
ReplyDeleteTo end on a slightly better note. IMO the answer is for the SNP simply to stand in 2020 and 2022 on a 'we want to vote' platform. See where the people throw their support. There can be no denying a valid referendum result, S30 order or not, in those circumstances (assuming a majority of MSPs and Scottish MPs are pro-indy) after both those elections, giving rise to IndyRef2 immediately after the next GE, after Brexit and the promise of elections immediately after Yes to negotiate whatever relationship with the EU Scotland wants - finally.
For the first time I am seriously worried about Scotland's future. I now think our Parliament is in danger of being watered down bit by bit and although I didn't take a Power Grab seriously, I am now really concerned. After what has happened in Catalonia, I think the red lights will be flashing in Westminster and they will be trying to put in place the means to prevent any such similar action in Scotland. It won't be reoirted in the media, rather it will be slow and incidious, chipping away at our power to eventually call a second referendum! Massaging figures to make it look like we are truly "too wee, too poor, too stupid". We all need to be on our guard and expose any attempt to compromise our Democratic rights!
ReplyDeleteAt present The British State is comfortable with its position and rule due to her media flunkies doing her bidding.I have no doubts whatsoever that the Brit State would resort to violence if Scotland's media were doing their objective job and support for Indy rose well beyond 50%.With regards to a consultative Referendum then Yes of course. Westminster will never grant a section 30 unless it believes it can win and it knows from experience that a No is not a definite. Finally,what is this act of Union and is it legal in the 21st century? Can our courts annul it ?
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteMy tech people installed an app that automatically posts all my tweets on Facebook. The result was a big increase in Facebook followers. Sorry I am not competent to tell you how you do it technically.
I think it's a reasonable assessment of how a "not agreed with WM" referendum would go. The thing that matters, as always, is support for independence. If support continues to not be there, the referendum might be a Yes, but with a low turnout that makes it ignorable. It would be a bit like the previous advisory Catalan referendum that was ignorable because Spain didn't royally fuck up by legitimising it with massive physical force.
ReplyDelete"If support continues to not be there"
Delete46% Yes in the last poll. I'm all for avoiding complacency, but irrational defeatism is another matter entirely. A referendum is clearly winnable with the right campaign.
As I understand it, the previous Catalan 'referendum' was more informal than the one we've just seen, so there's no real comparison.
Well, you're right in that WM would never try what the Spanish govt did. Because they wouldn't be so blatant with their violence.
ReplyDeleteThey'll be far more insidious. Orange Lodges will suddenly be given pots of funding, councils will grant them a march every weekend so that Scotland will look dangerously unstable with regard to sectarianism. Mercenaries and undercover agitators will suddenly attend Yes marches, and all sorts of social media sites will pop up proclaiming to have 'been a yes voter in 2014 but now I'm a no'...and so on. They're not agreeing to a Section 30 because they already shot their load in 2014 and there's really only violence left when you're that close to losing something England needs.
Mein Gott the bigoted anti Englander vorm hiz crawled oot the voodwork.
DeleteThere is a mistaken belief that the Tories have not agreed to a Sec 30. All they have said is "Now is not the time"! That is a different kettle of mixed message. ;D
DeleteErm.. didn't Teresa May say in her speech that a second independence referendum was, following the General election result, "DENIED"! In her dreams!!
DeleteThanks, better being in than out so joined faceache page. Don't think you'll disappoint us!
ReplyDeleteGood idea for a facebook page, but an over-the-top / jokey name might reduce the appeal? SIR seems more credible than SIRBNT.
ReplyDeleteMy experience is that understated names tend to get ignored, but we'll see. Although I'm not really sure what the benchmark for success and failure would be.
DeleteThe problem with 3) is even if a indyref2 without a Section 30 order is still entirely legal as a consultative referendum, what's to stop the establishment & media from lying about it? They already lie repeatedly about indy Scotland EU membership being vetoed, I think it's entirely likely they'll constantly push some fallacious line about the new referendum being "wildcat" and undermining its legitimacy. In short, they'll try to make the Scottish situation look as much like the Catalonian one as they possibly can, implying without outright saying that what happened to the Catalonians will happen to Scots if they dare defy mighty Westminster.
ReplyDeleteAs stupid as the UK Establishment is, I doubt they'll make the same mistakes Spain did.
Seems the friend of Nat sis Herr Junk er has been mentioned in tax dodging!
ReplyDeleteEvidence, troll? Links? No? Too bloody lazy as usual? Thought so...
DeleteRead the papers for a change and stay off Nat si websites. Knob. Fash Jocko fitba supporters had joined up Saltires with Catelonia Fash flags on West Nile Street tonight. Nazis bringing politics into soccer.
DeleteBe-baw-baggity.
DeleteI visited that Sagrada church building site in Barcelona a long while back. Paid my money to get in. Some cheeky chap had celotaped some pics and info on the walls about fascism and Hitler and Franco. I asked for my money back and got it.
ReplyDeleteCoatbridge suddenly declares it will declare independence from secular Scotland and has the support of the Vatican and Catelonia...Coatbridge demands that the British continue to pay DWP benefits and supply free walking sticks during its economic transition. A new gold, white and green flag will be hoisted above the toon hall. The new gov will demand free movement tae Parkheid every fortnight and cup games.
ReplyDeleteSeek professional help. Immediately.
DeleteAs explained James the other night James so could you edit to correct your post, i have put you back on but to be honest reading this seems you jumped in a wee bit without absolutely any information on the real reason so i'd appreciate an update and correction, cheers. An assumption about a dispute rather than what was clearly outlined as online abuse to myself.
ReplyDeleteJohn, with all due respect there was no jumping to conclusions in this post. I simply stated (correctly) that I had been removed as admin, that it was unlikely to have happened by accident, and that I didn't know the reason why. I indulged in no speculation beyond that. I'm grateful for our conversation the other night but this post was written before that.
Delete