Wednesday, October 19, 2022

Some progress on those reflections...

So here's an irony for you - I deliberately didn't include any fundraising link in my previous post, because if there was a chance that I would be taking a prolonged break from blogging, it obviously wasn't appropriate to be crowdfunding anymore.  But three people spontaneously hunted down the link, and a total of £170 was donated as a result - which I'm pretty sure is the biggest amount in a single day for several months!  Although that isn't a silver bullet, it's obviously a bit difficult for me to completely vanish after that sort of money has been donated.  And of course I've read all your encouraging comments on the previous thread, and I took representations from The Random Totty From Freedom Square (always by far the most important part of the process).  I think what I might do is occasionally keep the blog ticking over, with posts whenever there's some big polling news or something like that.  In your comments yesterday, most of you seemed to value the polling analysis above all else, so there probably isn't that much of a need to "fill in the gaps" between polls anyway - although doubtless I'll still feel the burning desire to sound off about some random issue now and again.

At the bottom of each post from now on, there'll be an unobtrusive link to the general fundraiser only (I think part of the problem has been that the polling fundraiser has overshadowed the general fundraiser).  Please ignore it if you've already donated or if things are tight.  And if you do decide to donate, bear in mind that I'm not promising to post very often, so think more in terms of "buy me a coffee" or "buy me a croissant" rather than "buy me a luxury yacht" or "buy me a 15th Century castle like what Chris Law has got".  The next Scot Goes Pop poll will be along at some point, but I can't put any sort of timetable on it - just whenever the funds are 100% nailed down.

As for the second part of the equation, namely my involvement with the Alba Party, I've had a chance to think about that too.  In the previous post, I set out my three options: a) continue standing in internal Alba elections in the future, b) take the opportunity to revert to being a truly independent pro-independence blogger who doesn't have to self-censor, or c) have my cake and eat it by doing both.  I'm coming round to the idea that I'll probably attempt option c).  If it works the same way as last year, I presume there'll be elections to the non-NEC committees at some point over the next few weeks.  For the life of me, I can't remember what the nomination requirements are for those elections, but if it's feasible for me to get nominated, I'll try standing for at least one or two of those committees.

If I was under any lingering illusions about how difficult it's going to be for someone with my views to succeed in internal Alba elections in the future, the outcome of the NEC election a few days ago completely dispelled them.  (In a nutshell, my views are that Alba should not indulge in self-harm or harm to the independence cause by splitting the pro-indy vote at a UK general election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system - with the possible exception of the two constituencies currently held by Alba, because it's not unreasonable for incumbent MPs to seek re-election if they wish to do so.)  But Alba will not survive, let alone thrive, as a narrow sect.  Any prospering party will have to be a broad church to some extent.  So for as long as moderates like myself remain in the party, it's incumbent on us to keep plugging away by putting ourselves forward, regardless of the chances of success.

Over the last eighteen months, an unofficial 'in-house Alba media' has taken shape, consisting of both blog content and regular video content.  Frequent appearances from leading figures in the party have lended it legitimacy, and a very large proportion of the general 'chatter' in Alba circles is related in some way or other to that content.  In some ways it's a good thing that it exists, because it boosts morale and keeps members' focus on Alba talking points that the mainstream media ignores.  But there is also a downside, because it's created a sort of hermetically-sealed "Alba world" that has drifted away from the rest of the independence movement and also from undecided voters.  When Alba people are mostly listening and talking to each other, a reinforcement process takes place and it becomes increasingly easy to lose an instinct for how the rhetoric would sound to an outsider.  Here are a few examples of stuff that has become perfectly sayable in Alba circles but is going to (rightly) look a bit extreme to other people, including to the bulk of Yes supporters.

"We're only going to win a referendum if we stop English immigrants from voting."

"Covid outbreaks in Scotland are caused by English tourists."

"Remembering the victims of 300 years of the Union."

In fairness, the latter example is partly justified by the historical facts, because the Highland Clearances are recognised in many quarters as a form of genocide.  But most people in Scotland do not know their history, and if voters start laughing at you when you're making what you think is a deadly serious point, you've got a major problem.  For as long as I'm part of Alba, one of my aims will be to try to inject a touch of realism about what will and will not get us a hearing from the wider Scotland out there.

And I won't be self-censoring in future, or becoming part of an incestuous in-house media that reproduces press releases word-for-word and stays within the comfort zone of party messaging.  To be clear, this problem is not a figment of my imagination - when I was on the NEC, there were at least two occasions when it was indicated to me that I couldn't or shouldn't blog about certain topics or certain views that I held.  I wasn't entirely sure about the logic for that, because if you look at ruling bodies in other parties (most obviously Labour), they're often quite factional and disagreement is not in any way swept under the carpet.  But initially I could understand the view that there's a trade-off at play - an elected NEC member has the privileged opportunity to influence the direction of the party in private, even if they have to be circumspect about what they say in public.  Over time, though, I became less convinced that the relatively limited scope to express dissenting views in private was really sufficient to justify that trade-off, and now that I've come out of the other end of the tunnel (so to speak) I'm even less convinced.  So if I get the chance to stand in internal elections in future, it'll be firmly on the basis of "I'm an independently-minded blogger and freelance writer, I don't self-censor, take me or leave me as I am".  People may very well say "in that case I'll leave you", and that'll be absolutely fine.

I'd also just like to make the point that I still believe that the electorate for these internal votes is far too narrow - two or three hundred conference delegates for NEC elections, and maybe 100 or so for other committees elected at National Council.  My view is that all positions of significance should be elected by the whole party membership, and the fact that doesn't happen can probably be seen as an unfortunate carryover from the culture of the SNP, which has a long tradition of election-by-delegate - it wasn't all that many years ago that the general membership of the SNP weren't even allowed to choose their own leader.  And remember that Alba conference "delegates" aren't even actually delegates in the true sense - they're in fact the small minority of members who have essentially paid a premium to get voting rights.  I'm not sure that's a sustainable system in the long term.  All members of the party have a stake in choosing the people who make important decisions.  However, the rules are the rules, and until they're changed we'll have to work within them.

Lastly, if anyone has complained to IPSO about the Express article, could you let me know?  If by tomorrow I haven't heard that at least one person has done it, I might bite the bullet and do it myself.

*  *  *

If you'd like to help Scot Goes Pop continue in some form, donations are welcome HERE.

26 comments:

  1. ".....stop English immigrants from voting." I assume this comment refers to a Scottish independence referendum only.

    1. We need facts on this point and hopefully when Sturgeon finally provides us with the Census info the picture may be clearer if there really is a significant problem.
    2. Personally, I would like some sort of permanent residency requirement for all voters in a constitutional vote in the range of 5 - 10 years continuous. No more holiday home owners voting.

    It's all academic anyway at present because Sturgeon wouldn't change the franchise.

    The second comment about Covid is nonsense but I can understand why many people may have an antipathy towards the English.

    The third comment about victims of the union is not just historical. Plenty victims in present times. Surely part of the reason for independence.

    Good to see you back so soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It's all academic anyway at present because Sturgeon wouldn't change the franchise."

      No, the real reason why it's academic is that any referendum result is only going to have an effect if it's viewed as legitimate and credible from the outside. A Yes vote won on a dodgy franchise will be incredibly easy for the UK government to ignore, so it would be an utterly self-defeating exercise.

      People who demand a 'blood and soil' franchise are, paradoxically, talking as if we're already an independent country which possesses the absolute power to do things like this, no matter how discriminatory. But we're not and we don't. What's the point of taking the hit for making parts of the movement look racist when in the real world it's something we can't do anyway?

      Delete
    2. James, I hope you are not suggesting I am advocating a " blood and soil franchise" because I am not.

      However, in 2014 a significant part of the no vote were people in Scotland who were from the EU and other parts of the UK and who do not identify as Scots. Moving Nationals from the colonial power in to the colony, particularly in positions of influence and authority, is a standard tactic to retain control.

      Who decides if a franchise is legitimate and credible? What if the Britnats boycott a referendum even if the Britnat court says it is legal?
      With regards to a dodgy franchise has Sturgeon checked the franchise she would use with the UN? She has suggested using a UK GE as a de facto referendum which has a different franchise. Are both acceptable to the UK gov and external parties? Could the UK gov claim including 16/17 year olds invalidates a referendum.

      Sturgeon's management of this is a shambles and I believe she is doing it on purpose.



      Delete
    3. Stay in the party please James many of us think the same as you which is why I nominated you and voted for you.

      Delete
    4. "a significant part of the no vote were people in Scotland who were from the EU"

      Even from a purely tactical point of view, how would it help to strip the vote from EU nationals? They're probably the biggest swing vote from No to Yes.

      Delete
    5. James, it isn't and I am not advocating that specifically. I said a residency time period.

      By advocating a U.K. GE election as a de facto referendum Sturgeon is disenfranchising people compared to a referendum and not in a way favourable to a yes vote. EU citizens and 16/17 year olds will not be allowed to vote in a UK GE de facto referendum. So it is Sturgeon who is saying she will exclude EU citizens. Accidental - I don't think so. She could have had the same franchise as a referendum by using the Scot Parliament election in May 2021 as a de facto referendum but went for a both votes SNP approach to maximise Unionist MSPs.

      We have shitty Britnat politicians in Westminster and Holyrood.

      Delete
    6. How on earth would such a franchise be collated?

      Delete
  2. it is your considered analysis that we come here for.

    we often disagree on conclusion but 'the working out' is the really important part. (it shows how to do it if nowt else)

    we need open honest views expressed freely (option c).

    still, thanks for what you have done and we look forward to your future output whatever it is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nicola Sturgeon has nothing to do with the Census and when the information is release.
    There is justifiable criticism then there is silly paranoia and/or false flag attacks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Iain, she held it back for a year claiming Covid was the problem when the reason was they were still working on their trans questions. Covid was a lame excuse. Wales/ England/ NIreland did not delay their census.

      Delete
  4. I voted Alba in 2021, but don’t think I will again as the party descends into open racism and historical fantasy. It is a shame as I saw promise in the party when it first launched, but it has clearly failed to have any cut through beyond activist circles and a certain fringe of the Independence movement and now seems to be indulging the worst elements of both.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous - I would be interested to hear more about this historical fantasy.

      Delete
  5. A vote based on ethnicity. They used to have that sort of thing in South Africa.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Great news James! Look forward to reading your blogs as and when you feel appropriate. I also intend to make a small donation to your fundraiser, my first I’m embarrassed to say but will do my best to make it on a regular basis. Keith

    ReplyDelete
  7. You've put your finger on an issue: that the Alba Party is the stage-managed farce that many of its members accuse the SNP of being. Nomination thresholds were set so high that the only person prepared to challenge Salmond for leadership, wasn't able to.

    The same technique was used again this year to secure your office bearers and save them from facing a membership vote. Not content with that, they kept going and charged conference delegates a poll tax to vote for gelded NEC members(without a mandate from the membership, they're not in a position to overrule those office bearers - who also lack a mandate from the membership). And apparently there was a problem with the voting system, where users somehow did not realise that they had multiple votes to enter before saving just their first vote and locking themselves out.

    Make no mistake, you're off the NEC because Salmond, Macaskill and Hanvey don't like your position of not contesting the Westminster election. Why?

    They want to march their membership up the hill... again. Collect and spend all those donations. Surround themselves with a cocoon of clapping yes-people who keep telling them they're strategical geniuses and divinely anointed to lead Scotland to independence.

    So onwards we go. We'll eventually get to watch Macaskill and Hanvey blow 30 or 60 grand of Alba money trying to "hold" their seats - and not even get their deposits back. Maybe the big man himself will try standing too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Make no mistake, you're off the NEC because Salmond, Macaskill and Hanvey don't like your position of not contesting the Westminster election. Why?"

      I honestly don't think that's true. Everybody I've spoken to since the conference agrees that the candidates who gave speeches at conference had a massive in-built advantage in a system that only gives votes to the small number of people who attend conference. I don't agree with that system, I don't think it's democratic, and it ought to be changed as soon as possible, but it wasn't put in place specifically to stop me or anyone else. I presume Alex, Neale and Kenny do disagree with me on the folly of contesting Westminster elections, but that hasn't stopped them being very kind and courteous towards me on a personal level over the last year. It's nothing like the nastiness that goes on in the SNP. (And Neale in particular was amazing in getting mainstream media coverage for the most recent Scot Goes Pop poll, which I would have struggled to achieve on my own.)

      Delete
    2. The party's managers could have arranged for you and other absent candidates to give a pre-recorded video speech or come in live via zoom. Again, they could have devised a voting system which doesn't rely upon such a narrow segment of the Alba electorate, especially when they do theoretically have such a wider voting system in place for office bearers.

      I'm sure they're very kind and nice to your face while they discreetly manoeuvre you out of the way. They don't want you to react too negatively and turn fully upon them, but they weren't going to let you gain traction in case you ended up pulling them out of the next Westminster election after all.

      You can't have your cake and eat it. If you want to win those future elections, you'll have to endorse whatever Alba tries to do - fully and without reservations and to hell with the later consequences. Being a truly independent blogger is incompatible with any party-related ambitions.

      Please reconsider option B. Or even option D - I know the SNP is ugly sometimes, but that's the nature of a 100,000 member party. The logic of your position is that you're endorsing them at the next Westminster election anyway...

      Delete
    3. Anonymous - " I know the SNP is ugly sometimes." You mean like lying in a criminal court to try to send a fellow party member and former FM to prison. You may think that is ugly, personally I call that criminal behaviour. Not aware Alba has done anything like that.

      Delete
    4. "The party's managers could have arranged for you and other absent candidates to give a pre-recorded video speech or come in live via zoom. Again, they could have devised a voting system which doesn't rely upon such a narrow segment of the Alba electorate, especially when they do theoretically have such a wider voting system in place for office bearers."

      I don't disagree with any of that part. But as I said the other day, the Alba Party are no different from 95% of the rest of the world in pretending the pandemic is over, and having a system in place that just assumes everyone should be able to turn up in person as if it's still 2019.

      "The logic of your position is that you're endorsing them at the next Westminster election anyway..."

      I don't think I've run away from the logic of my position - I was pretty explicit in what I said the other day. But voting for another party's candidate is only against the rules if your own party has put up a candidate, and that remains to be seen. I would hope common sense will prevail and there will be just one pro-indy candidate per constituency. As Alex Salmond himself has said, it's inevitable that will mean SNP candidates in the vast majority of seats.

      Delete
  8. I'm glad you've decided to carry on, and yes, it's the excellent polling analysis that really brings me here, though the other stuff is interesting too.
    Interesting also to get a wee glimpse inside the Alba party. Whilst I hae ma doots about the SNP in many ways, Alba's flavour seems just a wee bit too rich for my tastes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. A few posters trying to paint the Alba party as full of extremists/radicals. Please note that Tasmina has an OBE - is this the sign of a radical?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IfS celebrating an Alba members trophy from the British Empire!
      Well I never!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous - no wonder you want to remain anonymous you cannae even read properly. There is nowhere in that post I am celebrating anything - you are obviously a WGD numpty - probably thicko Hamish100 and clearly 100 is not your IQ.

      Delete
  10. Truss couldn't even deliver a decent resignation speech.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hunt not standing for PM. Could they choose Suella Braverman - nothing about these Tories would surprise me - death wish 2022.

    ReplyDelete