Friday, November 25, 2022

The SNP leadership need to explain their strategy for overcoming the major disadvantages of using a Westminster election - as opposed to an early Holyrood election - as a de facto independence referendum

Having spent a fair bit of time recently debunking a large number of lies and intentional distortions published on Wings Over Scotland, I'll be scrupulously fair and point out that Mr Campbell is broadly correct today in his own debunking of a claim made by the former SNP councillor Mhairi Hunter.  Indeed I made essentially the same point myself on Twitter last night in a reply to Chris McEleny - 

Just to expand on the point, although there's a 'bug' in the rules that allows an alternative First Minister to be elected on a minority vote in the Scottish Parliament, any unionist leader (ie. Douglas Ross or Anas Sarwar) who exploited that bug would quickly find their new government losing a confidence vote, which would be decided by simple majority vote in a parliament with a clear SNP-Green majority.  In theory there could then be a prolonged period of 'ping-pong' with Ross or Sarwar repeatedly being voted into office and back out of office, but that wouldn't go on forever, because the Tories and Labour would take a big hit from being seen to hold devolved government to hostage with such obvious game-playing.  Where I would quibble with Mr Campbell's assumptions is that he thinks a resolution would hinge on unionist parties eventually crumbling and giving Ms Sturgeon her two-thirds majority for an early election.  I think much more likely is that they would just stop putting up candidates for First Minister, and when no government is formed within the timescale specified by the Scotland Act, an early election would automatically follow without a two-thirds vote ever occurring.

But what's more interesting than the fact that Mhairi Hunter is wrong about this is the fact that she'd clearly been briefed in advance - or had briefed herself - with a 'truthy' sounding excuse for shutting down any talk of using a snap Holyrood election as a de facto referendum in order to avoid the obvious and numerous disadvantages of using a Westminster election (16 and 17 years olds can't vote, other younger voters may be disenfranchised by photo ID rules, EU citizens can't vote, etc, etc, etc).  Other figures known to be close to the SNP leadership have similarly had ready-made legalistic-sounding explanations up their sleeve for why it supposedly has to be a Westminster election - ie. they've been praying in aid the Supreme Court's emphasis on the UK Parliament having exclusive control over Scotland's constitution, and arguing that this means only a mandate for independence achieved at a UK Parliamentary election will carry any legal weight.  But the reality is that *no* mandate for independence from Scottish voters will carry any legal weight - the judges recognised the exclusive right of the *whole* UK Parliament to decide, not just the relatively small Scottish component of that parliament.  So a mandate from Scottish voters in a Westminster election will be just as "advisory" and "non-self-executing" as a mandate at a Holyrood election.  That being the case, it clearly makes sense to select an election in which you have the greater chance of actually winning the mandate in the first place - and that means the home fixture of a Holyrood election.

What do we learn from the SNP leadership briefing its outriders with plausible-sounding but inaccurate reasons for the supposed impossibility of using a snap Holyrood election?  It suggests to me that their minds are firmly closed on the subject.  They've made a definite - if perverse - decision to use a Westminster election and they have no intention of telling us the real reason.  We may have to wait ten or twenty years for people's memoirs to appear until we find out the truth.  That being the case, we have to look at the situation as positively as we can and make very sure we maximise the chances of winning a majority of the popular vote in the 2024 general election.  

But it would also help to hear from the SNP what their strategy is for overcoming the disadvantages of the route they've chosen.  For example: where do they envisage finding extra votes to make up for the loss of EU citizens and 16 and 17 year olds?  How will they ensure that as few young people as possible are sent away from the polling stations due to a lack of "acceptable" photo ID?  Will they play hardball with the BBC, ITV and Sky to secure fair access to UK-wide leaders' debates that could make or break the whole plebiscite election strategy?  (The latter is probably the most important point of all.)

*  *  *

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

42 comments:

  1. The cynic in me suggests they don't really want to do a plebiscite at Westminster any more than they want to do it at Holyrood. But the Westminster GE is a potential two years away rather than a hypothetical very imminent Holyrood election (if they so chose to make it so).

    So in essence, do what the SNP do pretty well now - kick the can down the road a bit further and hope something else turns up in the short term.

    Perhaps I'm wrong though and there's a proper logic to it that only the top of the SNP are privy to. Though it doesn't feel like there's a plan.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another excellent article James. I know one thing, you won't get any sensible answers on WGD as to the SNP reasoning as they just do what Sturgeon says like little loyal, wee ginger dogs getting their tummies rubbed. So we wait two years or get caught napping by the Tories with a snap UK election. Not exactly what Sturgeon promised in May 2021.

    So the numpty that said on SGP that using the UK election is to expedite the matter is, well, a numpty. The benefit of a Holyrood election is that you can get on with it at a time of your choosing and all the focus is on independence - nothing else - that is the sole reason for the election. No need to discuss ferries etc. As a party that likes to think it is ultra woke it seems discriminating against certain groups ( EU citizens/youngsters/no ID) in society is ok when it suits them. So why does it suit them? My answer as follows:-

    1. No risk to Sturgeons position as FM. She gets to continue as FM for possibly another two years before even numpties start to question her. Top reason in my opinion.

    2. It could be two years away. That gives her time to get juryless trials for sex offenders with the potential to get her political rivals put away by asking her pals to do the business again.

    3. Harder to win a yes vote. Great if you are a devolutionalist.

    4. People like me forced to vote for an MP they have very strong reasons not to.

    5. At worst if the vote fails the SNP continue to get lots of MPs and loadsa short money from Westminster for another 5 years.

    6. The SNP do not want to interrupt their priority policies by collapsing Holyrood.

    7. Sturgeon hasn't got a scooby as to what to do next if it's actually a yes majority.

    All or none of the above may be correct - others may have other reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Has our old friend become Iranian Skier after the Welsh defeat? There are some cracking ski resorts in Iran, apparently -

    https://theguardian.com/travel/2008/feb/24/iran.skiing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come back to bed xxx ;)

      Delete
    2. No but he has become very evangalical about the rigt of blog owners right to delete comments on thier blog if they wish to. Which is ironic considering how he acted towards you when you did that to him.

      Delete
  4. Replies
    1. I've chosen to allow this because it's the Random Totty From Freedom Square being ironic. (She tried "England are s**** at football" a few minutes ago and I didn't allow that.)

      Delete
  5. Engerland Engerland NA NA

    ReplyDelete
  6. Some thoughts on the Westminster strategy:
    - if the SNP/Greens get 50%+ and Westminster drags things out, then the next Holyrood election in 2026 will become a focus for another anti-Westminster protest vote. The SNP/Greens will win by a landslide most probably
    - Using Westminster allows non or wavering SNP supporters to vote for them, as the SNP group do little at Westminster anyway in terms of real policy making. Giving a vote to the SNP at Holyrood if you don't really support them is a whole different matter
    - The Westminster election will happen. In a doomsday scenario Westminster can pull the rug from Holyrood with elections cancelled (although if this happened just before a Westminster election it's not exactly a good platform to stand on for a unionist party)
    - We shouldn't underestimate the focus the potential breaking up the UK would generate. NS would almost definately get a strong platform

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's always a mistake to underestimate the BBC's infinite capacity to ignore something we assume to be a massive story. Keir Starmer's wife's plans for new curtains in 10 Downing Street will be of more interest to them.

      Delete
  7. If SNP uses holyrood they need will need to form some kind of electoral pact with Alba to make it successful. This would give Alba increased credibility and mean that SNP could no longer dominate the pro-indy vote as easily with 🥕 dangling for the hard of thinking should the plebiscite lose.

    So, they'd rather use wm despite the up to 5-10 percentage point yes electorate disadvantage and the information and media exposure disadvantages.

    They will advocate SNP alone and if Alba stand when the plebiscite fails as it likely will, they will try to blame Alba for it.

    In other words they are prepared to do half arsed plebiscites that are highly likely to fail as long as it doesn't impact on their devo unionist dominance..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alba and "credibility" in the same sentence is pushing it a bit dont you think?

      Delete
    2. Sturgeon and independence leader in the same sentence is pushing it a bit don't you think.

      Delete
    3. In the 1960s when I was compaigning for the SNP I got that precision reaction - " The SNP? Don't make me laugh, lassie."

      Delete
  8. You have to laugh at the Britnats sometimes. They now have to defend the notion that they give Scots all this extra money (25% more than in England one Britnat claimed) but they won't give us a vote. Perhaps we should say just give us the same amount of money as England and the same number of MPs in Westminster as England.
    What a shithouse the UK is.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My concern around that would be that Westminster could as they have done in the North of Ireland could suspend Holyrood on the pre text that it was dysfunctional and only agree to restore it when all parties signed up to an agreement to accept the devolution settlement.
    Westminster ain't going to play fair

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rocksie, just let them do it. It will actually make it easier to actually then subsequently win a vote in a UK GE. Unless they then subsequently make it illegal for Scots to vote in a UK GE then the whole world will see with absolute certainty what the English are.

      Delete
    2. The reason there is no govt in N I is down to the DUP

      Delete
  10. The current SNP has no actual strategy - a strategy requires grit and readiness to fight - not concepts one associates with the Sturgeonista. The SNP is gutless and the Brits know it. The people of Scotland need to go 60% settled will YES. The SNP is not to blame for the weak spines the cowardly lion.

    ReplyDelete
  11. An alternative approach.

    If we have to go for a UK GE de facto.

    In 1707 the Scottish parliamentarians did not vote unaminously for the Act of Union. So let's just declare that if the same percentage, or more, of Scottish parliamentarians who voted to create the union declare in Westminster they want to end the union then its over. Seems fair to me. But sadly the Britnats never do fair. They do conquest and oppression.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The only reason I can think of to use a Westminster election is that the unionist parties will be focussed on England and won’t be able to throw all their resources at Scotland.

    With a Holyrood election they would be buying advertising left, right and centre and bussing up activists from south of the border like they did in 2014.

    I’d still prefer a Holyrood election to be used though.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Could London not use the situation to shut our parliament as they did with Stormont? They have the run of our useless media afterall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Our Parliament" - you really still think that. "Our FM" just bows down and says she respects the English law that says "Our Parliament cannae do what our people have mandated it to do. "Our FM" from "Our Parliament" also bows down to charley boy THE CROWN so much that her nose is almost scraping the pavement. The CROWN that keeps us in the prison called HMS Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Truly unbelievable the amount of the cringe that is still about and it comes right from the top "Our FM"

      " Our FM" says she respects a judgement that says Scots are not a people and have no right to self determination. So this is what passes for an independence leader in Scotland in 2022. James posted she was timid and cautious. She is worse than that. How can you expect someone to deliver independence who respects a judgement that says we have no right to self determination and Scots are not a people. Yet Sturgeon is happy to be FM of a non people Parliament. Go figure Sturgeonites. We are on the road to nowhere and that is down to Sturgeonites.

      We need a REAL parliament. An independent parliament.

      Delete
  14. Apparently Toni Giugliano, SNP Policy Development Convenor and yet another politics graduate that’s never had a proper job in their life, says the Plebiscite is just another terrif wheeze. A “tactic” to extract a “gold standard S30” for a REAL referendum. You could not make this shite up.
    Cozy feet Pete will acquire octogenarian status on the green benches yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's you are again James. What you forecast in a recent article might undermine the legitimacy of a UK GE de facto referendum being seen as an actual vote for independence - undermining by SNP people. The SNP have been time wasters leading us nowhere for years now but sadly numpties still believe in "OOR NICOLA" well I believe in "OOR INDEPENDENCE".

      Delete
  15. It must be galling for all these Imperial Britnats to see little Quatar spending £220 billion on a football tournament as if it's some loose change they found down the back of a sofa while they are going mental trying to fill a £35 billion black hole in the finances. I bet loads of them still wish Quatar was still British and part of the Empire so they could steal all that lovely oil money. Thieving British b******s.

    ReplyDelete
  16. One advantage of using the UK GE as the de facto referendum is the UK wide and internal media coverage associated with the event, it will attract more attention but probably yield a lower pro any percentage.

    The importance of the vote is paramount, the current unionist line, citing the 2014 result, is that the people of Scotland don't want independence or an other referendum. Winning this vote would seriously weaken Westminster's already feeble arguments for denying a S30.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If all you're doing is seeking a Section 30 order for the seventy billionth time, it's not a de facto referendum on independence. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

      Delete
  17. Robin McAlipine raises an interesting point in his latest blog regarding how the British State are likely to dismiss any outcome of a Plebiscite election advantageous to us.
    The turnout for IndyRef I was extraordinary high (84.6%) in comparison to a typical UK, GE (67.5%).
    Taking a typical turnout for a Westminster GE in Scotland, we would require to achieve 76% of the vote just to match the 2,001,926 No votes in 2014.
    “We won!”
    “Yeh, so what! More people voted No in 2014. Get back in your box Jocks.”

    Going for a Holyrood, Plebiscite would be more likely to expand the turnout by focusing on the constitution and avoiding the inevitable media chatter of an impending “Starmergeddon”. Also, the Holyrood franchise is greater.
    With increased focus and enthusiasm, we could push voter turnout from a typical Holyrood level (63% in 2021 was an all time high), closer to a referendum level.
    A 80% turnout would only require 58.5% of votes to match the 2,001,926 No votes in 2014.
    Conversely if we went for a Holyrood Plebiscite and didn’t manage to raise the turnout beyond 63%, we would require 74% of the vote to match the 2,001,926 No votes from 2014.
    Whatever way you look at it, Holyrood is the way to go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having to produce a voter ID in a UK GE will suppress the turnout. Marcia says get a postal vote. Well how many people who do not have ID will go to the bother of a postal vote. Also postal votes are easier to make disappear.

      Anyway Mr Kavanagh, the big dug himself, says Holyrood is finished as a credible place to have a vote. The London court rules according to the big dug. So that's it England tells us what we can and cannot do according to Sturgeon and WGD. Pathetic.

      Delete
  18. WGD numpty 'Jumpin' Jack Collatin praises Welsh Skier for posting the best comment of the month. So what does this great post contain. Some lowlights as follows:

    1. Well let's start with the cracker of a lie by Welsh Skier that proves beyond doubt that he is a Sturgeon propagandist and a liar.

    " What's interesting, is that baseline support for Indy just didn't move under Salmond"

    2. Or how about this comment. " But under Sturgeon , it's gone up nearly 20%......."
    You are a liar Skier - the opposite side of the same coin as Campbell of Wings. Producing dodgy graphs to fit what you want to say.
    Funny how all Skier's previous Ski slope graphs never showed this pattern. The reason being he had a different story (lie) to tell.

    3. He also comes out with the same old independence is a certainty due to younger generations. ".....we can be confident Scotland will leave an never consider coming back." More complacency. Remember this is the liar Skier who not that long ago was posting the Referendum bill is all prepared and ready to go live after a win in May 2021.

    4. Skier also says:- " Yes, he (Salmond ) went for the section 30 approach in the first instance of course, and, as you note life was easy for him as it was granted largely without question." More lies from Skier.

    Skier and Campbell both producing dodgy graphs to support what they want to say. Skier is worse in my opinion because he promotes complacency and all will turn out well under Sturgeon. It will not.

    Collatin being a WGD numpty loves the comment because it tells him what he wants to hear. Namely, Salmond did nothing for independence, Sturgeon massively increased yes% and all will be well Scotland will be independent.

    In summary a WGD numpty congratulating a liar and a Sturgeon propagandist.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The SNP and Alba MPs need to remove themselves from the Westminster cesspit now. Let the people react to that. No worries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree anonymous. It's nonsense to complain about the lack of democracy for Scotland but keep your MPs in the very place that is denying Scotland any democracy. However, they won't come out of Westminster. They just love the lifestyle too much. Come on Alba take the lead. SNP prove me wrong. I won't hold my breath.

      Delete
  20. So it's not a defacto referendum:
    https://news.stv.tv/politics/section-30-after-de-facto-referendum-would-honour-democracy-says-snps-toni-giugliano

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WT Even WGD numpty noindyref2 wants Toni Giugliano sacked and the usual subjects are on his case. Of course he won't be sacked as he is just doing Sturgeon's bidding - testing the reaction. Sturgeon could not have been clearer in June this year - a de facto independence referendum at the next General Election - no ifs no buts. Just how many promises can Sturgeon get away with breaking but still hold on to her support. It truly is quite remarkable. What an impressive politician but a shocking independence leader.

      Delete
  21. I understand the obvious concern about a UK GE meaning 16/17 year olds won’t be able to vote, but by waiting 2 years that generation will be of an age eligible to vote in late 2024.

    Equally, surely another 2 years of Tory rule will only continue to push more and more Scot’s toward independence? I don’t disagree that the SNP are selfishly slow-playing their promise of indyref2, but would you take an incredibly divisive 53% Yes tomorrow, or wait 2 years for a more definitive 59% Yes?

    I can’t defend the SNP. I’m just trying to remain positive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous are you for real? 14/15 years old today will NOT be able to vote in 2024 when they are 16/17.
      Where have you been - there is not going to be an Indyref2. How on earth do you think you know it will be 59% in 2024. Are you Irish Skier?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous swallows the whole specious youth yes effect argument..yes it is true but if you age the population you. Need to account for births, deaths and crucially migration. All that before participation rates and cohort ageing effects (a tendency for people to become more conservative as they age).

      Anyway, 40k English people are moving here every year and sturgeon wants to increase that by 10k..these folk have high longevity, families, large participation rates and are 75% no voters.

      Their impact is significantly bigger than the annual low participation rate youth yes effect which will fall over time anyway as scots have fewer children compared with middle class incomers

      Delete
    3. And this specious youth yes effect is central to the debate. Sturgeon is on record as saying time is on our side..given our population is being anglicised and as a result increasingly no voting what time is on our side... Robertson the heir apparent has talked of the youth yes effect as a reason for independence being an inevitability... he's heidie of progress Scotland the fake yes 'dont think' tank. They know this..


      This along with silencing plan b advocates, demonisation of alba with BBC and fake plebiscites using the wrong election and countless other derelictions of duty tell you all you need to know about sturgeon's snp.

      And errrrr that's why we're angry..cos you lot bury your head in the sand. The truth won't make you happy but it's the truth..


      Many Russians refuse to believe the narrative about Russia's war in Ukraine being aggressive for the same reason..it depresses them. It's easier to believe the thicko SNP narrative blaming wm. They're not stopping us. They're just not making it easy. Why should they? They're unionists.. we're the separatists as they like to tell us..so behave like it

      Delete
    4. I’m just pointing out an irrefutable fact. A snap Holyrood election today would see similar demographics voting compared with that in 2 years time at a UK GE.

      I too am at the end of my tether with the SNP. Their procrastinating is debilitating to the cause. Sturgeons need to go however indy supporters need to ride above the internal politics of the plan the SNP have - and push collectively for the end goal.

      Delete
    5. It's not procrastinating. It's deliberate. I'd prefer a holyrood 2026 yes alliance plebiscite over this wm nonsense..a wm lost plebiscite will endanger a UN recognised future pleb at holyrood so we should plan for one we will win .

      SNP plan for things that ensure their devo hegemony that's their priority.

      Delete