I don't watch Channel 4 News very often these days, but I gather Ciaran Jenkins is reasonably highly regarded and believed to be fair and honest - which makes yesterday's incident all the more inexplicable. I'm not going to put it down to unionist bias or sloppiness - he just seems to have misunderstood a fundamental point and as a result he's gone down a completely blind alley. Almost every syllable of this question he posed to Nicola Sturgeon (presumably while picturing himself as a fearless seeker of truth) was misconceived and based on a totally false premise.
"First Minister, you have always said that a referendum must be lawful and legitimate. Do you now level with the Scottish people and accept that the de facto referendum you were proposing would not be lawful because the Supreme Court have ruled on legality and would not be legitimate because the opposing side do not give their consent?"
I mean, where to start? If Mr Jenkins had made that as a direct statement to camera rather than framing it as a question, there'd be an open and shut case for a complaint to Ofcom on the grounds of factual inaccuracy, and on two separate counts. Firstly, he's suggesting that the SNP putting an outright commitment to independence in their election manifesto (which is what a de facto referendum amounts to) would be literally against the law - an absolutely barking mad proposition in any parliamentary democracy. Good luck to him if he tries to call in the fuzz. Secondly, he's clearly asserting that the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday extended to elections used as de facto referendums, which is also categorically untrue.
The ruling was very specifically restricted to the limitations of the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The whole point about a plebiscite election is that it's got nothing whatever to do with the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Nicola Sturgeon is not attempting to use her powers as First Minister to turn a Westminster election into a referendum - she's simply stating what will be in her own political party's Westminster manifesto, which is ultimately a private matter for that party, and is certainly not within the province of the Scotland Act or of any court. The SNP could just as easily attempt to use an election to win an outright mandate for independence if they were not currently in power at Holyrood - just as Sinn Féin did successfully in 1918 when they were not merely an opposition party, but actually a complete outsider party.
And as for Jenkins' notion that the SNP can't put an outright mandate for independence in their manifesto because other parties don't "consent" to it, you'd have to begin to wonder if he's a bit of a novice in respect of general elections, because the principles are straightforward and generally well-understood. You put a proposition in a manifesto to find out if the people consent to it. If they don't, the proposition falls, but if they do, there's no veto by politicians on the losing side - unless you live in a sham democracy, of course.
The essence of the Supreme Court ruling yesterday was that the UK Parliament has exclusive control of matters pertaining to the constitution and the union between Scotland and England. But that parliament is directly elected by voters - including by voters in Scotland. Any suggestion that it is in any way "illegal" or "illegitimate" for a Scottish political party to ask Scottish voters to use a UK Parliament election to give a view on matters that are under the exclusive control of the UK Parliament is just the most hopelessly muddled thinking imaginable - and it's also (hopefully unwittingly) colonial thinking, because it presumably wouldn't even cross Jenkins' mind to suggest that parties standing in England can't put constitutional matters before English voters in UK Parliamentary elections.
There was a great deal of talk yesterday - from unionist politicians, journalists and even Nicola Sturgeon herself - about the absolute imperative of adhering to "the rule of law and democracy". But it's unfortunately a side-effect of the court ruling that those two concepts have now diverged to some extent, and that by adhering to one you may be undermining the other. That doesn't mean the rule of law isn't important and it certainly doesn't mean that democracy isn't important, but it's pointless to deny that there is now a tension in the United Kingdom between the two - and that's something both the Supreme Court justices and the framers of the 1998 Scotland Act will have to take ownership of. Although Jenkins was totally wrong in suggesting that unionist politicians have a veto on what goes into the SNP manifesto, it was only possible for him to make that mistake in the climate the Supreme Court and UK Government have now created, where the rule of law is about cracking down on democracy rather than upholding it.
Is it just me, or are unionist politicians reacting as if they've won a referendum, rather than just prevented people from voting? It's like they *literally* cannot distinguish between those two rather different concepts.https://t.co/rk5mYBRERf
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2022
I heard this and thought it was bizarre as well from a fairly even handed journalist.
ReplyDeleteIt was almost like he wanted to get "illegal" and "defacto" in the same sentence without actually thinking it through.
The supreme court did not opine that an Election is illegal so there's nothing for her to fess up to.
James, the quantity and quality of your articles since you posted you were thinking of having a break have been brilliant. With regards to Jenkins I do not share the anonymite's view that Jenkins is a fairly even handed journalist. The guy is a complete Britnat diddy as his question, which I remember hearing at the time it happened, fully illustrates.
ReplyDeleteThere has never been democracy in the UK for Scotland. There is only democracy for England as it continues on its old colonial ways. The fact Jenkins even thinks a court could tell a Scottish political party what is illegal to put in its manifesto is more a subconscious wish on his part.
There are no unionists left because in practical terms there is no union, only British Nationalists who are more than happy for England to rule over Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland.
The Britnats do not do democracy. They will claim a 51% vote is not enough. If it is 60% they will claim 70% is required.
James you said Sturgeon was a timid and cautious leader. Can this type of person deliver independence in this type of situation?
Rob here, don't want to be anonymous but can't seem to navigate to a name. Anyway, what was Ms Sturgeon's reply?
ReplyDeletedon't worry about it. I prefer my anonymity for my own reasons, it's ideas that matter.
DeleteI think i'm done with anti-sturgoenites now and can't be bothered persuading. We've now been taken to a place of a defacto referendum. We either back it or we don't. Nobody is holding anyone's hand. Either get on board the defacto indyref train or don't.
Sturgeon has brought us to 2024 decision time. It's upto Scotland now.
To the anonymite that is not Rob. I used to post on SGP that May 21 Scottish election should be a de facto referendum for independence and people like you called me a Unionist. Now Sturgeon says it you are all great brilliant idea. It is the wrong election if you want to maximise the chance of a yes vote but people like you just follow what Sturgeon wants like good little sheep.
DeleteYou know nothing about me.
DeleteLet me be clear, I've no intention of persuading you to do anything.
There will now be a vote to decide on 2024. Get on the train or don't. It's up to you.
Rob, Sturgeon's reply as follows:- " Eh no if you have listened to everything I have said a referendum is my preferred option for all the reasons I have set out but if a referendum is blocked there has to be another way for the Scottish people to have their say."
DeleteThe best way is for a de facto referendum using a Scottish Parliament election and that is my opinion. Others think otherwise.
Anonymous - you hide amongst the crowd of anonymous posters. I never asked you to persuade me of anything, hope that's clear for you.
Delete"There will now be a vote to decide in 2024" - so much certainty in that statement yet other people (perhaps you) were so certain that a referendum would take place in the first half of this Scottish Parliament term as promised by Sturgeon. Did Sturgeon say when she promised a referendum in the 2021 manifesto that she would go and get approval from a court in London first. No she did not yet you just blithely accept what she says once again as if politicians never break their promises.
The SNP is a party of home rule, not independence. Sturgeon is a Redmondite.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous your fellow anonymites who are Sturgeonites will probably not have a clue what a Redmonite is.
DeleteThat horrible Britnat Kirsty Wark on Newsnight once again showed the fake objectivity of the BBC. She has a professor on from Edinburgh Uni who tells us we are in a prison and we cannot leave. I'm not surprised he is from Edinburgh uni. I remember another academic from Edinburgh writing an article back in 2014 saying there will be no oil/gas left in Scottish waters within 5 years. Nothing but a paid Britnat liar rather than an academic. Our universities are full of these people.
ReplyDeleteAfter Keith Brown who did quite well Wark sees absolutely no problem in getting TWO Britnats on for interview. Labour back together with the Tories - the old Better Together mob - Labour never learn.
This is the anti independence of the BBC but we have an independence leader Sturgeon who thinks it is a key and valued institution. It is not it is a British state propaganda broadcaster and it is long overdue that the independence parties called it for what it is.
Hi James, Thanks for years of informative articles and election and polling guidance. Your hard work is much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you could give us your take on the role, if any, of the ICJ in the hostage situation Scotland finds itself in? I've not yet found any information on why it is not involved.
Can Scotland approach the ICJ with a view to getting international support for a referendum to find out whether Scots support independence or not. I believe the Supreme Court said Scotland has a right to self determination, Prof McHarg mentioned it, but being unable to get Scots' views on the matter we have no proof of independence support to take to the ICJ. Anne
You have to laugh at the WGD numpties after years of saying we were definitely going to get a referendum they now spin it as a Sturgeon strategic masterstroke that we cannae get one. One numpty even claims it is a great success to get clarity.
ReplyDeleteSee if Westminster should close Holyrood I wouldn't put it past them to say Sturgeon is a great strategist we have even more clarity.
Scotland is a colony with no democracy and Sturgeon is no independence leader. That's your clarity right there.
If you want an outlandish take on it you should have a listen to a Prof Tierney on Wed Newsnight. He basically said Scotland is a prisoner unless England agrees to release us. All dressed up in constitutional wiff-waff but his assertion is areas can't leave without permission. I hope someone has told Ireland, USA and all the others they are still owned by England.
ReplyDeleteI asked this once before, but didn’t see an answer from anyone. Is there anything to stop a private citizen with deep pockets, or perhaps good crowdfunding, from staging a referendum? Brian Souttar did it back in the day, albeit for less palatable reasons.
ReplyDeleteNo there is not but you have to consider who would actually take part.
DeleteThe big dug and a WGD numpty Capella argue that it must be a UK GE de facto referendum. They seem to think that the Supreme Court decision has made anything by the Scottish Parliament illegal - even an election manifesto that says a vote for us is a vote for Scottish independence. I disagree - I think they just follow what Sturgeon wants. They also think Britnats would boycott a Scottish election but not a UK GE. Not sure why they think that but sounds like they actually want people to vote against a mandate for independence. Muddled thinking on WGD but that is nothing new.
ReplyDeleteThe court said an independence referendum was illegal it said nothing about a legal Scot Parliament election. If you take the WGD view then you are on the same path as Jenkins from Channel 4 news.
Quite a take on what was written. It's an opinion that Westminster would just ignore the vote and claim Holyrood has no constitutional powers and that has been ruled so in law. It's also the opinion of Andrew Tickell, who is an independence supporter as far as I'm aware, the same cannot be said for many in that profession.
DeleteIt would be down to the international community if they decided to respect the vote or not, if they don't are the voters going to take the next vote seriously. When we go down the election route we need to be pretty sure it will work and not scunner the voters.
The London parties could boycott it, they have no real interest in Holyrood apart from it being a spoiler to independence. Would they in the end, who knows but it is a possibility the needs to be taken on board.
Anonymous if a Britnat court can dictate what the SNP can and cannot put in its election manifesto for Holyrood then we may as well shut up shop at Holyrood. Nobody ever escaped the clutches of Westminster by doing what they say and being nice to them. That is the current SNP leadership approach.
DeleteWe have only the rights and money that the English want to give to us and at any time any of it can be taken away, eg leaving the EU. That is colonialism.
" I am wasting my time here. It's a little clique." The words of the Bathtub Admiral about his fellow WGD numpties as they bully anybody who dares to post anything they think is not Sturgeon/SNP correct. WGD numpties - a small bunch of intolerant nicophants who are like a Scottish version of Trump supporters.
ReplyDeletePoor old Admiral is now getting his comments moderated on WGD. What with Irish Skier and his dodgy racist post things are falling apart btl on WGD.
DeleteAnd just to illustrate my point about intolerance on WGD here is the appropriately named Tam the Bam:- " Its patently obvious that some Alba/WOS/Yours for Scotland/BarrheadBoy subscribers to the political fatwah they wish imposed on Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are attempting to recruit here. Keep an eye on them Paul."
DeleteThe posts are as insightful as they ever were, but I remember when the comments used to be interesting and thoughtful too.
DeleteIain, clearly these interesting and thoughtful comments have subsequently evaded you. Please try harder.
DeleteDo you have your own blog post or do you derive your fame solely from commenting a tiny bit frantically on James's excellent site here?
DeleteIt's deliberately the wrong election as sturgeon and SNP have no intention of having a yes alliance which would be much more difficult to avoid using the list system at holyrood.. that way they can continue to dominate Scottish devo unionist admin.
ReplyDeleteThere are a quarter of a million EU citizens and over 150k 16-17 year olds not to mention the lower turnout at wm from the poorer yes voting sections of Scottish society without requisite photo id.
All that before the information and media hurdles of a wm one.
It equates to some 8-10% of the franchise the vast majority of which would vote yes.
We can't throw that away.
I also disagree with the premise that we can continually use elections to get indy. In theory we can but in practice UK won't recognise them so we're going to have to lobby internationally and go UDI..
The International community is not going to recognise a 52-48 holyrood win after a 44-56 wm defeat. The approach means we need to get it right first time. That's a holyrood yes alliance. Sturgeon s wm plan is cynical on so many levels:
1. It's there to send SNP for 5 more years.
2. It's harder to win but easier to exclude real yes Alba preventing them from getting a foothold and threatening their devo dominance.
3. It jeopardises future proper holyrood electoral plebs by making it less likely that the International community would recognise us having lost a wm one in the recent past.
Sturgeon is a cynical traitor to the independence movement.
I totally dispute EU voters will automatically be swinging towards yes. A great many of them have just spent a long time gaining special status and may not necessarily want the upheaval. Have they moved towards Yes, maybe. It doesn't make them a yes demographic.
DeleteThe 16 year olds now will be 18 in 2024.
I agree we may need a Yes alliance but do it at Westminster in their back yard. We are now in a new era where direct pressure on Westminster is the key driver, not Scottish democracy (unfortunately).
Also to add on point 2. there's no exclusion. you can either vote for a singular independence manifesto or you don't. If you're not willing to do it because it's SNP, then that's your problem.
DeleteOne of most annoying things said by Sturgeonites is that there is a plan. If there was a plan Sturgeon would have been prepared for the no decision and slapped on the table exactly what was going to happen next and when. Instead we got waffle and a promise to discuss the matter at an SNP conference sometime next year. So after many years of not debating independence there will now be a debate after Sturgeon has confirmed that there will be no referendum - a referendum she promised not once but who knows how many times. Any independence leader with integrity would resign. Any decent political party would force her to resign. It's academic anyway because Robertson would likely take over and it would be more of the same.
ReplyDeleteI think at times I have been not as nice as I could have been to the WGD numpties who keep calling me a Unionist so I would like to give them some advice that may help them going forward. Dig out all your old National newspapers count how many headlines said Indyref2 is just around the corner and then repeat "I won't get fooled again." by the same number.
ReplyDeletePS will the Bathtub Admiral also known as yesindyref2 now change his moniker to noindyref2. 😀
Och IfS......you seem a very perturbed wee irrelevant person.
DeleteOch anonymite you clearly do not read enough of my posts. I have told that other numpty Hamish100 plenty of times I am not wee. But I do plead guilty to your other comments. So what does another anonymous poster have to say about anything - SFA thats what. Do something useful and count the number of these Indyref2 headlines then post it on SGP.
DeleteYes okay I see what people are saying in that a Scottish government election on independence would be boycotted by unionists.
DeleteWhat makes you think a British general election on Scottish independence would not be boycotted by unionists in Scotland ?
We already know as do the unionists in Scotland that the votes in Scotland in a British general election count for nothing and never swing the result so unionists in Scotland boycotting the 2024 British general election would arrive at the same place as unionists boycotting a Scottish government election.
You forgot "tedious".
DeleteIain, I at least have the common sense to indicate who I am directing my comments to. Posters who fail to do this are quite tedious in their laziness. Over 50 headlines by the National telling its readers that Indyref2 is just around the corner is also pretty tedious and sadly tells us The National is not very good at political forecasting.
DeleteApologies. I forgot this was your blog.
Delete