Monday, August 8, 2022

Our goal has to be to achieve independence by the earliest possible date - not to embark on a new 40 year project to do it the slow way

I'd always hoped this didn't need to be said, but I now realise it probably does.  Notwithstanding my involvement in the Alba Party, this blog continues to represent my own independent thoughts and analysis.  What I say here might be right or it might be wrong, or in some cases there may not even be any clear-cut right or wrong, but you can at least rely on me to be authentic.  If I was to constantly parrot the exact party line at all times, irrespective of whether I agree with it or think it's well-founded, it wouldn't actually do anyone any good, because people would quickly see through it and and no-one would have any reason to pay the slightest heed to what I say from that moment on.  If they want to read the exact party line, they know they can find it on the official website or Twitter page.  An echo adds nothing.

And I can only guess, but I would assume that when people were kind enough to vote me on to the Alba NEC last year, they did so because they wanted me to represent my distinct perspective on the NEC, rather than passively take home the central Alba perspective from the NEC and represent it on my blog.  There would be very little point in the party having a multi-member governing body unless multiple points of view were being contributed to it.  In any case, blogging is something wholly separate and I have always jealously guarded my independence as a blogger.  This is a pro-indy blog written by someone who happens to be an Alba member - it's not an "Alba blog".  So if sometimes my honest analysis isn't in total conformity with Alba messaging, that's a feature not a bug.

Over the past few weeks, I've been very straightforward and direct in saying that the Supreme Court is highly likely to strike down the plan for an October 2023 independence referendum and that the operative part of Nicola Sturgeon's recent statement is therefore the back-up plan of a plebiscite election, which is what we should be preparing ourselves for.  I wouldn't be treating readers as adults if I said anything else.  Nevertheless, the current preoccupation of Alba's messaging (as I understand it) is to continue to relentlessly hold the SNP to their promise of an October 2023 referendum.  That particular bird has flown in my view, because no such promise really exists anymore. The moment to blast the SNP for breaking their word was when the announcement of a reference to the Supreme Court was made and when the plebiscite election back-up was unveiled - if, that is, we really felt that the promise was being broken in a fundamental enough way to warrant cries of betrayal.  For my own part, I was just relieved that there was finally a hard commitment to hold an independence vote one way or the other, and I wasn't going to quibble about a few months' potential deviation from the originally promised date.  (The most likely date for the next general election is May 2024, and in the real world it's almost inconceivable that it'll be any later than October 2024.)

For a very long time, those of us who had moved on from the SNP criticised the Sturgeon leadership for a silly pretence that there was definitely going to be a referendum in 2023.  There's a very severe danger now that the only people keeping up that pretence will be ourselves!  The SNP certainly aren't singing the old tune anymore - they're explicit that a referendum is contingent on Supreme Court approval, and that a plebiscite election will follow if the ruling goes the wrong way.  Instead of flogging a dead horse by trying to keep the SNP to a referendum promise that is no longer a promise, I think we'd be far better advised to turn our attention to the plebiscite election (which really is the only game in town, whether people want to admit that to themselves or not) and start setting some red lines.  I'm not naive enough to think that the SNP leadership are incapable of backtracking on what they've pledged - after what happened in 2017, we know they can backtrack on almost anything.  So let's set out what would and would not qualify as a plebiscite election, so that we can recognise one when we see it, or indeed recognise the absence of one when it's not there. The key to it really is whether the SNP's manifesto is specific enough that a majority vote would constitute an outright mandate for independence and that negotiations on independence with the UK Government would be expected to follow, without any need for a further referendum.  It's also obviously vital that the SNP reflect any manifesto declaration in their actual campaigning - if they instead spend the run-up to polling day saying "independence would be lovely, wouldn't it, but let's talk about the minor mitigations we want the UK Government to make to the cost of living crisis", we'll know we're being fleeced.

It's not immediately clear to me why we would want to defer that discussion so that we can hype up a referendum that we all think isn't going to happen.  I don't know a single person in Alba who thinks the Supreme Court will allow a referendum - and crucially, that belief has been openly shared in public.  Alex Salmond, for example, memorably said that the reference to the Supreme Court was a "Hail Mary pass" with very little prospect of success.  Spending the next two months hypothesising on the success of a Hail Mary pass seems a curious focus for our energies, especially as that contradiction is unlikely to pass unnoticed by the people who the messaging is aimed at.  It's not something I plan to do on this blog.  The window of opportunity for talking up the fiction of an October 2023 referendum will be exceedingly brief in any case - the Supreme Court verdict isn't far off and will create new facts on the ground that all of us will have to swiftly adjust to.  

Could it be that there's a desire to delay confronting the prospect of a plebiscite election, because that will raise uncomfortable questions for Alba itself?  It may well do, but if the prize of independence is everything, the inevitability of experiencing discomfort along the way isn't something we should shy away from.  I joined Alba for one reason and one reason alone - to achieve independence by the earliest possible date.  I certainly didn't do it to slow things down even further by embarking on a new 40 year project to replace the SNP as the largest party and only then strive for independence.  People need to realise that when a plebiscite election is denounced as a sham and when we're urged to instead look towards the 2026 Holyrood vote as a chance to dislodge the SNP, a very long-term project is exactly what we're being urged to resign ourselves to.  Yes, if a plebiscite election fails or if it never even materialises, we'll just have to pick up the pieces as best we can, but that will be a sub-optimal outcome to put it mildly.  It's not something we should be impatiently waiting to get on with, not least because we're not passive observers and doom-mongering about a plebiscite election actually increases its chances of failing.  A much better idea is to seize the opportunity that is actually before us.  Let the drudgery of a post-defeat 2026 election take care of itself if it happens - for now, we have our national independence to win.  And even if you think a plebiscite election is somehow designed by the SNP to bury independence, the rational response is to thwart their dastardly plan by helping them win in spite of themselves.  That'll show 'em.

And let's be absolutely clear - the claims that a plebiscite election is a sham, and the eagerness for it to fail so we can get on with fighting the SNP in 2026, have been made firmly in the public domain by one or two people who hold senior positions.  There can be no double standard about this - if I'm going to be criticised for choosing the topics of analysis on this blog, it's entirely legitimate for me to express my own deep concerns about people who are going way, way 'off message' by publicly talking up a project of effectively sabotaging a plebiscite election.  We all know what's been going on - expectations have been raised sky high that Alba will be standing candidates against the SNP across the board at the general election, and there have been repeated spurious claims that this would somehow help us win an independence mandate, even though no serious person believes that to be actually true.  The real agenda is to settle old scores against the SNP's members of parliament at the least appropriate moment imaginable.

This is coming from individuals (albeit prominent individuals), let me stress, not from Alba itself as a party.  There's much in Alba's official analysis of the current situation that I wholeheartedly agree with - for example, I share the view that Nicola Sturgeon's negligence in selecting a Lord Advocate who was unwilling to certify a Referendum Bill as within Holyrood's powers has needlessly weakened the independence movement's position.  Every time I make that point, someone pops up in the comments section to claim that the Lord Advocate's stance is merely a tactic to facilitate the reference to the Supreme Court.  That's astoundingly naive.  There's ample evidence that it's the other way around, and that the reference to the court is being made out of necessity because the Lord Advocate would have refused to make the certification.

But while we can criticise the SNP's missteps and identify how their strategy could be better, Craig Murray was undoubtedly right a few weeks ago when he stated that we have to live in a world where the SNP gets to set the strategy as the pro-independence party which is actually in government.  It's for the rest of us to do our utmost to ensure the strategy succeeds.  And, actually, not all of the criticisms of the SNP are fully justified.  It's been suggested to me that Nicola Sturgeon is letting Westminster off the hook by not campaigning hard enough for a Section 30 order - and while I have no doubt that a Salmond-led government would be far better at keeping the heat on the London Tories, I think we have to be honest enough to say that the identity of the First Minister isn't the only variable that has changed over the last ten years.  It's now an article of faith in the Tory party that a Section 30 must be rejected under all circumstances - that simply wasn't the case prior to 2014.  I really struggle to imagine what a successful campaign to persuade the UK government to change its mind would look like, or how it would even begin to gain any traction.

*  *  *

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.

Direct payments via Paypal (the simplest and quickest method) - my Paypal email address is:   jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk

Scot Goes Pop General Fundraiser 

Scot Goes Pop Polling Fundraiser 

If you prefer a 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.

30 comments:

  1. Well said, James.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Country before party. [Every party]

    ReplyDelete
  3. And even if you think a plebiscite election is somehow designed by the SNP to bury independence, the rational response is to thwart their dastardly plan by helping them win in spite of themselves. That'll show 'em.

    This is the nub of it. If a 50%+ Yes vote is achieved and the SNP do nothing about it beyond bumping their gums, it would be a betrayal on an unprecedented scale. So if you're a sceptic, put them in that position. Once we actually have unambiguous majority Yes support in the bag, for the SNP to carry on as before becomes, to coin a phrase, unsustainable.

    And if they do turn out to be full of shit, it's going to be a decades-long project to replace them as the main independence party. In that context, the risk of wasting one electoral cycle seems a pretty small gamble when set against the prize that could be won.

    Incidentally, it's good to see an indy blog which is willing constructively to criticise its own "side". There aren't many out there. CM is the only other prominent one I'm aware of.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I know we disagree on this point, but I still don't agree that the SNP have "dropped the pretence" around the second referendum actually happening.

    Standing up in front of the Scottish Parliament and announcing a date for indyref2 isn't dropping the pretence. I grant you that the SNP have clearly accepted and called out that it is a possibility that it won't happen because the Westminster government continue to refuse and the Supreme Court will rule it is outside the Scottish Parliament's competence to legislate on, but that is still a long way away from dropping the pretence that it simply won't happen. They are still pretending it could happen, both to the wider country (who are not analysing the pronouncements the SG make to the finer level of detail we are - they're just taking the headlines "Sturgeon announces indyref2 date") and to SNP members (through email communications etc. which continue to ramp up towards an indyref2).

    Dropping the pretence of it not happening is very different from providing the first allusions to it not happening, which is to me all the SNP have done so far. So from that perspective I think it is right for Alba to keep making this point clear.

    The sooner the SNP stop talking about indyref2 in any way and start talking solely about plebiscite elections, the better. But I suspect we're only going to get to that stage post-Supreme Court hearing.

    Having said all that I do agree that the other pro-indy parties have to confront the prospect of a plebiscite election and what that means for them and for the wider movement. What the SNP's gradualist strategy has done is to turn off a proportion of hardcore Yes people who want indy but no longer trust the SNP with their vote because they continually backtrack, stall, fail to deliver meaningful progress on it, etc. (and that's BEFORE the numerous other reasons they no longer trust or wish to vote for the SNP). Whether it's a meaningful proportion in volume terms is unclear but its sufficiently meaningful for alternative parties to be created.

    It is clear that many of these people aren't naturally going to change their minds on their own even with a "proper" plebiscite vote-SNP-only-for-indy election. And so these parties have to decide now whether they are going to properly push the view to their members that they should put all that to one side for a temporary period, wait to see if the SNP fail yet again even with a plebiscite majority, then hold them to account, or if they have already decided the SNP have squandered their chance and they should be competing with them at every opportunity, regardless of the implications of that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I attended the Wee Alba Book event in Edinburgh on Saturday afternoon. Alex Salmond - as impressive as ever - was quite clear:
    1. Section 30
    The SNP should have used their leverage to disrupt Parliament a la MacAskill/Hanve a couple of weeks back, Salmond himself in 1988 during the then Chancellor Lawson's Budget speech and Charles Stewart Parnell's IPP in the late 19th and early 20th century.

    2. UK Supreme Court
    A pointless exercise. You should only ever appoint a legal advisor if the can and will ADVOCATE for your side.

    3. Plebiscite Election
    We must get behind it. But the condition has to be that it is not party politically based as that would undermine the process. So some kind of Scotland United / Yes Alliance front has to be formed with candidates standing on an 'Independence only' single platform. This is the only way that Yes would be able to obtain both a majority of seats and a majority of votes.

    I happen to agree with him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I absolutely agree with parliamentary disruption and rocking the boat wherever possible, but I'd have to repeat what I said earlier - I don't see how that would persuade the Tories to grant a Section 30 order by next year, because no force on earth would persuade the Tories to grant a Section 30 order by next year. You'd have more chance of persuading them to reverse Brexit.

      Delete
    2. Parliamentary disruption won't bring the Tories/British to heel. It will, however, draw attention to our situation - we need to publicise as much as possible in order to engage folk here at home and internationally.

      Delete
  6. I think, James, you should take a step beyond your current thoughts into what we should do, if we win the Plebiscite Election? Then what? London will ignore the result. Then what? Has the SNP every specified what they will do then? ALBA have suggested a Convention of all MPs and MSPs to repeal the Treaty of Union and/or proclaim the Claim of Right and/or present our legal case to UN and all countries and/or petition the UN de-colonialization committee, to ask them to organise a IndyRef under international rules (which exclude all financial and organisational input from the colonial power, i.e Tory, Labour and LibDem parties will be excluded from the no campaign) Regards Frank Buchan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I think, James, you should take a step beyond your current thoughts into what we should do, if we win the Plebiscite Election? What then?"

      I've already written a blogpost a few weeks ago discussing that issue. It can be found here -

      https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-snp-leadership-need-to-understand.html

      Delete
    2. Yes, action at Westminster. The UK Government is strongest there though. They are weakest in the court of international opinion and diplomatic action can embarrass and apply pressure.

      Delete
  7. As I see it the major problem with plebiscite election strategies is that we are only discussing who will get the seats and not how we grow the number of independence voters. As the parties advocating independence are socialist leaning, there will be a real barrier to say conservative voters voting SNP or Green or Alba. So the support is not going to differ much if we rely solely on existing parties. What we need is an independence supporting right wing party to include those voters in the total.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That might make sense if a plebiscite election was under a proportional representation voting system. But under FPTP you really do need to have one candidate per constituency.

      Delete
  8. This is a very astute analysis of the situation

    ReplyDelete
  9. Is this a moment of self realisation James? I hope so. The S C referral is part of a process, and always was. It was essential to avoid timelines being hijacked by the unionists that we make the referral. To have continued towards a Referendum based on existing powers would have seen that process halted by court action at the last possible moment by the unionists. I am glad you acknowledged the need for one Indy candidate per constituency. That is crucial. I still fear those more interested in SNP bashing than Indy will be our downfall but we must press ahead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Is this a moment of self realisation James?"

      You made me burst out laughing there. The answer to your question is of course no, because my position has remained consistent for many years - unlike the SNP leadership who were until very recently totally opposed to a plebiscite election and treated those of us who supported one as practically imbeciles. Their U-turn (and yours?) is hugely welcome, but what you're not going to get away with is the ludicrous pretence that the people who have completely changed their minds have been sticking to a plan, and that the people who have been in favour of a plebiscite election all along have "had a moment of self-realisation". A brazen attempt, I'll give you that, but nope, it's not going to wash.

      And neither is your nonsensical spin about the the Supreme Court referral being "part of a process, and always ways". Er, no. It suddenly became part of the process when Nicola Sturgeon realised she'd appointed a unionist as Lord Advocate.

      Delete
    2. Another anonymous numpty trying to rewrite history. They must think everyone has memory failure. What anonymous calls SNP bashing is actually holding the SNP leadership to account for their dismal leadership and potential criminal activities. Just another anonymous numpty who wants to keep their head stuck in the sand to infinity and beyond.

      Delete
    3. " .....Sturgeon realised she'd appointed a unionist as Lord Advocate."
      James, another possibility is that Sturgeon specifically wanted to appoint a Unionist Lord Advocate.

      Also I remember continually posting using Holyrood May 2021 as a referendum and getting no support btl. Where was this anonymous numpty then? Using a UK GE means 16/17 year olds being excluded compared to using Holyrood election in 2021.

      Delete
  10. fair point. What if as seems entirely likely given 3 things: 1. it's clearly the wrong election to use. Holyrood is the correct one. Any plebisicite election message will get zero media coverage being deliveraely drowned out 2. there is no Yes alliance and in its absence it'll be just an SNP reelected vehicle. 3. Immediately after the announcement Swinney said "a majority of seats wold suffice before correcting himself hours later. Angus Robertson on newsnight that night said "if we absolutely have to we will fight the next general election as the main issue". Mhairi Hunter tweeted if there's a snap election, then an SNP victory can force westminster's hand to grant a referendum".

    None of this is the language of an electoral plebiscite. It has to be clear in the minds of the electorate that it's a de facto referendum and SNP/Yes alliance would declare UDI on it if WM didn't recognise it. We'd need a huge working class turnout to get to 50% a figure SNP alone have never achieved at WM.

    So how do we punish the SNP id they renege upon it which most of us think they will do (replacing stop brexit with independence on this side of a bus doesn't constitute an electoral pleb). The most likely outcome is they get 45% like usual and 80% of the seats. Then WM goes on about having lost an electoral pleb ater the election having never mentioned it beforehand with a complicit media.

    To avoid that eventuality we need to see in advance of the electoral plebiscite the answers to quesrtions on i) a yes alliance or at a minimum a majority of yes votes agreed. ii) what makes this an electoral plebiscite - how will you engage the population on this? What wil lyou do if you get a majority of votes?

    If the answers are unsatisfactory I think real yes alba should stand in every seat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're definitively wrong about one thing: there does not need to be a promise of UDI for it to qualify as a plebiscite election. There would be no promise of UDI if it was an *actual* referendum, so why set the bar higher for a de facto referendum? It makes no sense, unless you're deliberately making the test impossible because you want them to fail it.

      Delete
    2. udi was just a catch all reference to circumventing wm if and when they ignore the mandate... the election must clearly be a de facto ref in the minds of the electorate, it needs to include the range of yes opinion not just snp amd there needs to be action to deliver indy on the mandate not just asking wm...if they don't state that up front, they're kidding on..which they obviously are anyway

      Delete
    3. And by action I mean demonstrable real action that will progress independence not fake section 30 requests or fake UK supreme court requests to rule on a bill they haven't even passed yet being put forward by an advocate who is anything but an advocate (conceding defeat in her actual bloody request saying it's outwith Holyrood competency). What actions will they take to pursue independence. If they can't say, it's a fake pleb and Alba should stand.

      Delete
  11. Mad Irish liar Skier bigging up all things Sinn Fein and IRA on WGD. Even thicko numpty Hamish100 calling him out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There's a lot of supportive chat about 60yrs of Jamaican independence around the bits of the BBC that I inhabit (6music); and I also remember Hazel Irvine of all people popping up for the commonwealth games opening and bigging it all up too. Fair play for Jamaica obvs but just gaslighting for us. This song from back in the day is a neat summary of the start of their 60yrs of solo flight: I particularly like the 'Manley called up a referendum'...

    Jamaica getting their independence
    And everyone is happy
    So I will now tell the story
    And please listen carefully
    Manley called up a referendum
    For you to make your own decision
    So the people voted wisely, now everyone is happy
    That there's no more federation

    Now, independence is good for the young and the old
    Also for me and you
    Yes, independence is great for the whole population
    Including Yorkshirean too
    So I believe that if we try our best
    It will be a great success
    So let us live in unity
    For progress and prosperity
    Let's go
    Independent Jamaica

    Manley went up to England
    To seek for independence
    And although Busta was late
    He still attend the big conference
    Although from two different parties
    It was very good to see
    How these two politicians were shaking hands
    When they gained victory

    Now, independence is good for the young and the old
    Also for me and you
    Yes, independence is great for the whole population
    Including Yorkshirean too
    So I believe that if we try our best
    It will be a great success
    So let us live in unity
    For progress and prosperity
    Swing it, daddy

    These two men came from England
    They came the very same day
    On two different planes
    That stopped at Montego Bay
    They separated back down to Kingston
    But still we are very pleased
    For they got independence, so let's rejoice
    They'll be the first in the West Indies

    Now, independence is good for the young and the old
    Also for me and you
    Yes, independence is great for the whole population
    Including Yorkshirean too
    So I believe that if we try our best
    It will be a great success
    So let us live in unity
    For progress and prosperity
    Swing it, daddy

    https://open.spotify.com/track/05vdIdaJoMINvADjpF0gWg?si=d87d7463a77f41a7

    ReplyDelete
  13. No gaslighting by the BBC featuring this album this week?
    Rise Jamaica Rise: Independence special https://open.spotify.com/album/5bWVlQm8C58iCrP0ixYRam?si=Ao7ktlLWRE6hkgd5o3uZKg

    ReplyDelete
  14. I see Sturgeon has declared she is a fan of James Cook, the BBC reporter who lied about her during the Carmichael lying scandal. She really does love the BBC. A true Britnat .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ex BBC man John Nicholson, SNP MP also declares his love for James Cook BBC reporter and liar extraordinaire. All these BBC Britnats always stick together. The SNP is rife with Britnats. Too many to list at this point in time but I do not know any independence supporter who thinks the BBC is a key and valued institution like Sturgeon has declared. I do not know any independence supporters who think like Nicholson that we have a " free press" in Scotland and reporters like Cook are neutral and objective.

      Delete
    2. WGD numpty Hamish100 says this today: " BBC Scotland your time is up. over 50% of us don't trust you."

      Well Hamish the 50% obviously does not include Sturgeon and her Britnat gang as they declare their love and admiration for the BBC time and time again. Sturgeon even gives the Britnat media millions of our money to rubbish Scottish independence, Scotland in general and Scots. Sturgeon an independence leader - you have to be mad to believe that.

      Delete
  15. The way things are shaping up, they are not going to let us go.

    ReplyDelete
  16. GERS

    Sturgeon's gang still producing this Britnat propaganda document despite promising to do something about it many years ago. An independence leader who produces a document telling the people of Scotland they have a massive financial annual deficit year after year. You would have to be mad to think Sturgeon is an independence leader.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Tory Doublethink

    1. Shutdown the Scottish Parliament and ignore the result of the 1997 Referendum.

    2. The 2014 Referendum result must be adhered to for all time.

    3. The 2016 Referendum result must be adhered to for all time.

    ReplyDelete