Wednesday, August 31, 2022

Low Noon

It's testament to the fact that the 2014 independence referendum was a very, very long time ago, and not last week (as unionists would like us to believe), that when the media suddenly dredged up Stephen Noon's name a few days ago, I temporarily couldn't recall who he is, even though we used to talk about him on an almost daily basis.  The story was, of course, highly disingenuous on a number of counts.  If Mr Noon thinks independence supporters should, in the year 2022, essentially abandon their goal in return for some halfway-house compromise with unionism that would keep Scotland within the United Kingdom, then logically he should have thought exactly the same thing in 2014.  But he didn't.  A change has indeed occurred, but that change has been in the belief system of one man.  It's not a change in the strength of the case for independence - but of course you'd never know that from the media's reporting of his comments.

In fairness to Mr Noon, he was at pains to point out that the compromise he was calling for would pose just as great a challenge for unionists like Anas Sarwar as it would for Nicola Sturgeon.  But, again, that point was somehow evaded by the media reporting, which instead ludicrously implied that a compromise was somehow there waiting for Ms Sturgeon if she would only 'see reason'.

I do have a few criticisms of Mr Noon himself, though.  If there is quite simply no negotiating partner available, it's arguably a form of intellectual dishonesty to criticise a political leader for not seeking a compromise.  The Tories and Labour are currently both doubling down on hardline, no surrender unionism and there appears to be very little recognition of the reality of that situation in Mr Noon's comments.  I'm also troubled by his remarks about Quebec, which seem to suggest that if you encounter irrational anger and/or hatred towards people who legitimately seek democratic self-determination for their nation, your instinct should be to 'empathise' with that anger and hatred, and seek to compromise with it.  No.  What you do is point out to people that their proprietorial arrogance is unsustainable and urge them to reacquaint themselves with the basics of democracy.

It may surprise you to learn that as a matter of principle I don't actually disagree with Mr Noon's belief that a grand compromise in Scotland would be desirable.  Imagine if we were offered genuine Devo Max, meaning the devolution of everything apart from foreign affairs and defence, in return for accepting there would be no further constitutional change for a prolonged period - say ten or fifteen years.  Such a package would clearly be inferior to full independence, because we would still be lumbered with Trident and we could still be dragged into London's illegal wars.  But on a "bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" basis, it would make tactical sense to accept the offer.  After ten or fifteen years of this country governing itself, we'd be pushing at an open door in suggesting to the electorate that we should control our own foreign and defence policy too.

But that offer of compromise does not and will not exist, so there's no point wasting a moment even thinking about it.  Full independence is the only game in town, so let's get on with winning it.

*  *  *

We've already seen since Nicola Sturgeon's announcement that the overwhelmingly unionist mainstream media are attempting a 'shock and awe' campaign to try to kill off independence - and the misuse of polling is playing a key part in that.  If you'd like to balance things out with polling commissioned by a pro-independence outlet and which asks the questions we want to see asked, one way of doing that would be to help Scot Goes Pop's fundraising drive - see details below.

Scot Goes Pop General Fundraiser 

Scot Goes Pop Polling Fundraiser 

If you prefer another method, such as Paypal or bank transfer, please message me for details using the contact email address which can be found in the sidebar of the blog (desktop version only), or on my Twitter profile.

12 comments:

  1. Absolutely, he was overrated anyway. Far from the madding crowd, he theorised well, somtimes very well but he was too full of self-confidence to be brilliant and now he's blind compromise incarnate. Stephen now, has all the passion of a wet fish, dead on a table from a hammer blow and left to rot.

    Sorry Stephen, but your 'compromise' is a Brit answer to a Scottish problem and is a dilution not a solution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The time for compromising is after you've won, not before that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed - don't see the Brits compromising - Labour enabled devolution through diverse fears.

      Delete
  3. The way forward is for a party (thinking SNP or Lib Dem) to stand on Devo Max. It would be so popular and hard to ignore.

    Then the UK could be a Confederation, sharing services that the nations want to share (e.g. currency, defence) whilst having a huge and permanent level of autonomy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Lib Dems don't want Devo Max. The SNP have no way of delivering it.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous, your naivety is touching. Bless you, my sweet child.

      Delete
  4. I'd never agree to the compromise you describe (albeit one that you reckon is not ever going to be 'on the table').

    It would only ever be 'evolved back' by the next bunch of crazed right-wing British Nationalists.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The compromise that accepts a common currency and the Bank of England as our central bank means the UK Treasury are still in charge of spending in Scotland - that's a compromise too too far!!

    If you are not economically independent, you are tied to Westminster's apron strings - and we know where that leads,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite right George. No Westminster Gov of any party will ever grant any of the devolved nations full economic control: it would be unworkable for a start, but the Tries (and increasingly Labour now) are fully dedicated to Mammon, so control of money supply and fiscal and macro-economic policies will never be conceded.

      Delete
  6. This is probably going to go down badly here, but the very unionist website labourhame run by Duncan Hothersall had a great article on this subject written by Mark Lazarowicz, a past MP and former chair of the Scottish Labour Party. A lot of people do not like Duncan - Stuart Campbell being one - but I always found Duncan to be fair and open to serious debate around socialism and also independence. Indeed he allowed independence supporters to write articles promoting it to be published on his site. It's a shame the site has not been updated recently but I believe social media has taken the focus away from blogs. Anyway, this article is really worth a read, please have a look at it:

    https://www.labourhame.com/federalism-is-not-enough/

    ReplyDelete
  7. Meant to add, personally I'm for full independence. If a compromise had to be made a confederation is about the best I could swallow. I want Scotland at a table in the UN and in the EU or EFTA or anything that the people of Scotland want. Presently I have this 'iconic' blue passport I have to carry around - I want one with the Saltire not one from 'Her Britannic Majesty'. Time to leave.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Full independence is the only game in town, so let's get on with winning it.

    Couldn't agree more. Unless it's not being reported in the media, Sturgeon seems to be not doing much about it. Where's the attempt at gathering momentum? Hopefully it happens after October court case.
    Also, do comments here have to be on topic? For future reference

    ReplyDelete