Saturday, November 26, 2022

A plea to delegates at the forthcoming SNP special conference: if you achieve nothing else, you must ensure that the plebiscite election is a *genuine* plebiscite election - which means completely closing down the Toni Giugliano / Mhairi Hunter narrative that it's nothing more than the latest chapter in the futile quest for a Section 30 order

The SNP leadership have promised that there will be a special party conference early next year to determine the details of the plebiscite election plan.  Now, I think everyone realises, and probably even the strongest SNP loyalists would privately accept this, that control-freakery has taken grip of SNP conferences in recent years, which means the scope for delegates to influence the plan will probably be quite limited.  As I said yesterday, the leadership seem to have decided that any discussion of switching from a Westminster election to a snap Holyrood election for the plebiscite vote is strictly off-limits - they've simply determined by decree that it's going to be a Westminster election and have no intention of telling us the real reason why.  (Which may mean that it's got more to do with partisan advantage than with maximising the chances of independence.) So it may well be that delegates who try to raise that issue will find themselves ruled out of order or shouted down by other means.

But hopefully the delegates can still have a positive influence at the margins, and I would suggest that one perfectly modest and realistic goal would be to definitively close down the Toni Giugliano / Mhairi Hunter narrative that the purpose of a plebiscite election is not to win independence for Scotland, but instead simply to gain a Section 30 order - in other words they think it's just another iteration of what the SNP have been doing, entirely ineffectually, at every major election since 2016 or 2017.  Their position really is a contradiction in terms - if all you're doing is trying to get a Section 30 order, it's plainly not a de facto referendum on independence.  At best it's a de facto referendum on whether there should be a referendum.  We've already had half a dozen of those recently and they've all proved utterly pointless.  It's categorically not what Nicola Sturgeon has promised us this time.

It might be worth pausing at this point to consider what the purpose of a genuine plebiscite election is, and what it is not.  At the most radical end of the Yes movement, there's a belief that the only possible purpose is to declare UDI immediately after a mandate is achieved.  That's clearly a non-starter - hardly any SNP parliamentarian would support it.  Elsewhere in the movement, including - perhaps surprisingly - centrists in the SNP, the thinking is that winning a mandate at a plebiscite election is all about impressing the international community.  But that's also largely a red herring, because Scottish independence will not receive international recognition without the UK government accepting it first.  Remember that not a single country in the world, including rogue states and anti-western states, recognised the independence of Catalonia.  There's enough antipathy towards the UK that I suppose it's just conceivable that a country like Russia might recognise a Scottish state as a mischief-making tactic, but to put it mildly that wouldn't actually do us any good.

So, if not either of the above, what is the purpose of a plebiscite election?  In a nutshell, it's to gain leverage that will help bring the UK Government to the negotiating table.  Imagine that the SNP win 51% of the popular vote in 2024 and the vast majority of Scottish seats, but the UK Government refuse to recognise that as a mandate for independence.  The SNP then retaliate by either completely withdrawing from the House of Commons or commencing an all-out campaign of parliamentary disruption, and making clear that they will only relent when the UK Government agree to open negotiations.  (I know it's hard to imagine the current SNP leadership going down that road, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it - ultimately instilling some resolve in them will be essential if the plebiscite election strategy is going to work.)

Although other countries will not interfere in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state, they might eventually, very tentatively, start commenting on it, by urging both sides to reach agreement in the best interests of the people of Scotland and the wider UK.  There would be increasing chatter in the press both at home and abroad about "the Scottish Question" or "the Scottish Problem".  There would be a recognition that doing nothing is not an option for the UK Government, because in the long run it's not sustainable for Scotland to remain part of the UK while not being represented in the Commons, or while its parliamentarians are only interested in disruption.  

The traditional maxim is that the only solutions to a political dispute are dialogue and compromise.  External actors would urge each side to show flexibility on their entrenched positions - the UK Government would be asked to accept that blanket rejectionism is no longer sustainable, while the Scottish Government would be asked to make concessions on their insistence that the only negotiation they want to have with London is on the terms of independence.  So it's possible to imagine that the shape of a negotiated settlement might involve an agreed referendum - but the point is that would be a massive concession on the part of the Scottish side, which until then would have been adamant that the plebiscite election provided the only mandate required, and that any suggestion of Scotland having to vote twice for the same thing is a democratic outrage.

In order to end up with a semi-acceptable compromise like that, you have to be resolute and unyielding in your stance until the very moment the negotiations open.  If before the plebiscite election even takes place, you're openly saying that the whole process is just a ruse and that the compromise of a Section 30 is all you're really looking for (as Hunter and Giugliano are doing), then you vastly weaken any leverage you might gain, and what you'll end up with further down the line is either a lesser compromise or no compromise at all.  So it's absolutely essential that this coming conference instructs the SNP leadership to ensure that the manifesto will state that the mandate being sought is an outright mandate for independence itself, that the only negotiations the SNP will be interested in thereafter are negotiations on an independence settlement, and that no further referendum will be required.

*  *  *

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

30 comments:

  1. Could not agree more.

    Maybe I've missed something but I didn't think Hunter's earlier position was her current one.

    If it is, I'm done.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Get our pro indy mps out or the Westminster cesspit now. Stay and we are rightly seen as scum

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another interesting article James. No stopping you these days. I have to say you truly are a glass half full type of person if you think the SNP are going to change now under the same leadership. All the evidence says they cannot be trusted to deliver what they promise. Starting to think there will not be a vote for independence and any vote will just be to keep the SNP MPs in London for another 5 years or so when they should be out of there right now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree - glass half-full is good and Jameq so often lifts one's beaten spirits - but I myself am both half-full and half-empty depending on the situation.

      Delete
  4. aye, your analysis is accurate and I believe your interpretation regarding the expectations of the "foot soldiers" of the SNP is sound ... but NS and her inner sanctum have such a grasp on the "Party of Independence", that there will be no "Plebiscite Election" in 2023 ... or any other time until the Party, I was a member of, man and boy, for 55 years dispatches this false Prophet & her acolytes / freeloaders ..... I still believe the "core" of the SNP are true to the cause of Independence .... it's the leadership that's treacherous.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Scotland is in trouble. Come the hour come the man. I give you SNP MP Stewart McDonald. Be nice to England is his solution. Don't upset them by using words like shackled - as in shackled to England - or shock horror prison - or even worse colony. How things change Westminster used to love boasting about its colonies all over the world now its offensive to use the word. Well Stewart it's too late for me to follow your rules I have been using them for a long time and I will continue to use them.

    He certainly is no freedom fighter is he. No modern day Wallace. The SNP is full of these pathetic creatures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Wallace and The Bruce were around today Sturgeon would have them on her blacklist.

      Delete
    2. An amendment to the original post. McDonald is a freedom fighter but for Ukrainians and the USA and not the people who voted him in to office.

      Delete
  6. The front page of the Sunday Times teams up with the Scottish Tories to run some purple pish, “SNP IndyRef spending may be unlawful”.
    Scottish Tories claim £1.5m pa is being spent preparing an Independence prospectus. This figure is derived from an foi release that 25 Civil Servants are working on the project. The Tories take the upper salary limit for the CS grade and multiply by 25. Why not the median salary for the grade? This is dire stuff.
    Also apparently A. Robertson (Constitution Minister) has a budget of £350m. A widnae trust that sleekit crook wi £3.50.
    Have the thicko Scottish Tories stopped to think how being seen to make even the notion of independence a “thought crime” will play out with the general populace? Sure, it’ll help them secure their place as the top dog of “muscular unionism”, but it will only help the cause of independence. We’re a thrawn lot, we dinna like being telt whit we can and cannie dae.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HeHe.
      Tories have the gall to even mention about illegal spending?
      They cheated at two General Elections and two Referendums.
      Unlimited Dark Money financing via their NornIrn loophole.
      Party slush fund courtesy of Russian Oligarchs

      jeezo.
      No Self awareness. No shame.
      same old Westminster. same old Tories.

      Delete
  7. I doubt if it is possible at all to see a clear route to independence from where we are now ?
    Perhaps we need to just feel our way forward on the constitutional issues as SALVO et al are trying ?
    Sometimes it's right to acknowledge that matters are so complex and confused that they have to be taken a step at a time. Oliver Cromwell's famous observation to Parliament, "...I can well tell you what I do not want. I cannot so well tell you what I do want." Is a classic example. We have always taken a 'knife to a gunfight' so far. We have used conventional parliamentary political methods in what is, increasingly clearly, a revolutionary situation.
    At the worms eye level as well as supporting the better looking attempts to challenge UK constitutional duplicity we could constructively focus our campaigning efforts on for example:
    * building inclusive, active YES groups in every area;
    * exposing and undermining the cabal of bureaucrats, careerists and political sectarians in the Sturgeon/Murrel, Dear Leader cult;
    * drawing still active members of the SNP into this work:
    * actively supporting groups of workers who are fighting the cost of living crisis.
    These are just a few examples but plenty for activists to be getting on with. Hammering keyboards also has it's place but it is no substitute, on it's own, for action in the community.
    Build now or repent at leisure perhaps ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Significantly most local activists are SNP members. If you are looking for groups of activists which don’t include the SNP they will be gie wee groups.

      Delete
  8. I do not believe that Mhairi Hunter, the FM's Glasgow SNP branch manager and close ally, or Toni Giugliano, SNP Policy Development Convener, would have said what they did without Nicola Sturgeon's say so.

    They are clearly the FM's outriders checking to see what the reaction is and whether they can get away with committing to do the absolute minimum with respect to Scotland's Cause.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The naivete of some of the SNP MPs/MSPs is amazing. They seem to work off the assumption that asking for a S30 order the 6th time is more likely to see it granted than the 5th time.

    Anyone who thinks that's how Westminster are going to play this needs their head examined. In reality it just looks weak on the SNP's part because they have nowhere else to go and nothing else to do, not Westminster's.

    ReplyDelete
  10. THE actual thing to worry about is the % win - we need at least 56% YES (it might happen) but MI5 will rig the postal ballots like they did last time. Nicola's no general but the indolents keeping it 50% / 50% need to be convinced, 'It's shte being British'. Maybe after a winter/spring in eat or heat, financially broke, isolationist, xenophpobic Global Bwittain will get us that % majority. One thing's sure, the current SNP won't manage it, maybe the new leader next year will generate the needed grist in the campaign - Nicola never could. Nicola might be more courageous and daring if YES were in the majority (might even stay on as leader) but she is tired and burnt out. We need some passion - the 2014 campaign was dull, rather dreary - Tommy Shepherd excepted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "we need at least 56% YES"

      No we don't. We need 50% +1 - that's democracy. Which is just as well, because we have no chance of getting 56%.

      Delete
    2. I say 56% because of 3 factors : the Brits proclaimed the 56% NO majority as a 'decisive victory'; MI5 will cheat via postal ballots and an actual 56% in the polls will become in reality of 50%+1; a narrow YES win will be ignored. If we can generate a good doorstep campaign we can win the 56% - the last campaign was poor in leadership terms; we need passionate, smart leadership. The arguments are won but a % needs to feel the best choice is YES. I think Robertson, Brown and Blackford can do that (if they quietly get strategic help from Smart Alec).

      Delete
    3. Stevie,
      you couldn't trust Robertson to organise a census if you gave him a a few million quid and several years to prepare Oh...
      Maybe he could ask his wife. She a has one of Scotlands very best little black books, don't you know?

      Keef Broon, did you see him on The Sunday Show? No effing Clue. :-(

      Blackford 'Scotland will not be blah blah blah'
      the humble Skye crofter/Banker ???
      geeze peace man.
      mibbies he'll get off his fat arse to ask his Westminster "FRIENDS" for advice eh?
      Jeezo. What a shower. :-( :-( :-(
      Have you been paying ANY attention ?

      Delete
  11. Perhaps the way forward is demonstrations against the SNP. Perhaps the YES movement have to start to hold the 'leaders' to account. I'm not saying don't vote for them, just let them know we've had enough of their crap.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Whilst I agree with you that a Holyrood election would be a preferable venue for a plebiscite for a good number of reasons, I think the SNP might be aiming for a Westminster election for legal and constitutional reasons. Like it or not, legally and constitutionally Westminster is the only place where our elected representatives have any legal say over constitutional matters. Using a Holyrood election has no more legal standing than using the local council elections as a plebiscite.

    If we get our 50%+1 our Westminster representatives should either walk out, or much more preferably cause serious and sustained disruption to the business of Westminster.

    Whatever happens, the time for no more mister nice guy is firmly in the past.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "legal/constitutional" point is entirely bogus - I addressed that a couple of days ago. A mandate from Scottish voters at a Westminster election carries no more legal weight than a mandate at a Holyrood election. It's the UK Parliament *as a whole* that has exclusive powers over the constitution - not the small Scottish component of it.

      Delete
    2. Stravaiger, what is to stop the Tories saying you only got (say) 5% of the vote for independence in a Westminster election. Stravaiger, I think you have been drinking too much ginger from that WGD site.

      Scottish MPs should just leave Westminster NOW.

      Delete
    3. IfS, to answer your question, ultimately nothing, but it just underlines the fundamental lack of democracy in the system and the fact that Scotland is essentially trapped in this 'Union'. My point is that it is the 'correct' forum for constitutional matters. A >50% result in the Holyrood elections can simply be dismissed by Westminster with a 'So? That's not what you were voting about.'

      Delete
  13. Based on Keith Brown's latest it seems the SNP strategy is to shout "CHICKEN! BOK-BOK-BOK" at Westminster and hope that goads them into some sort of reaction.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Its pretty simple - England rules - it was designed that way in 1707 when people like Sturgeon and Jack sold out their country.

    Today - England 593 MPS in Westminster
    - Scotland 59 MPs in Westminster.

    593 will always outvote 59 - even a WGD numpty can see that.

    Coming soon 10 more English MPs and 2 less Scottish MPs but the difference is so vast it makes no difference to the position we are in. We need to fundamentally challenge Westminster's right to rule over us. Asking an anti democratic state (UK ) that was created by giving Scotland absolutely no democracy to respect Scottish democracy is just plain stupid and that is Sturgeon if you believe she wants independence. I have never believed she is stupid.

    Just as nothing happened re the EU vote in Westminster until Johnston changed the MP make up in 2019 similarly any yes majority vote in a de facto referendum Westminster election can just be voted down in Westminster by all these English MPs who think they are democrats but they are nothing like democrats.

    Sturgeon is a time waster and we are on the road to nowhere with her gang and yes that's what they are a gang. We need a new and better leader and a new road.

    We have been captives since 1707 and you don't get out of prison by being nice to your jailers. People used to think we just get a majority vote and that's it we are independent. If only.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...we just get a majority vote and that's it we are independent...but IFS, that's the way it should be - and it can be that way if we want it. However, it won't be pretty, but independence from Britain never is pretty.

      Delete
    2. There was a member of the Scottish Parliament back in 1707 called Hamilton who was a strong advocate and leader for years for maintaining Scottish independence and resisting the union. At the last minute he completely changed his mind and helped swing the vote for the union. Was he pretending all the time and just holding out for a better deal from the English? I know who this reminds me of.

      Delete
  15. The Supreme Court has now agreed that the Scotland Act reserves anything that affects the Union as being a reserved matter. WM can change the Scotland Act anything it wants by a simple parliamentary vote, and it will do so if it thinks it needs to. So you won't get Independence that way, it needs to be taken not asked for. As all other roads have been shut by WM there remains only a UKGE. The system is that a majority of MPs gets to make the decisions, and as Margaret Thatcher proclaimed "All you have to do is get a majority of Scottish seats to gain Independence". That's the rule we should use to declare Independence. We can then have a new Holyrood election which is no longer a "child of WM". This Parliament can then organise a Referendum to rejoin the rUK, so democracy is respected.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The system is that a majority of MPs gets to make the decisions"

      But that's the majority of all MPs, not the majority of Scottish MPs.

      Delete
  16. As there is now not going to be an independence referendum I am sure an honest party like the SNP will shortly start refunding the people who donated money to the ring fenced referendum fund all these years ago. Murrell will be spending a lot of time de- weaving money from the accounts. Perhaps thats the key reason for why they would prefer to wait a couple of years for a UK election.

    ReplyDelete