Sunday, January 15, 2023

A warning from the future

Fresh constitutional chaos as no-one can agree on whether Scotland has just voted for independence or not

by Pamela Molly Bannatyne

- Edinburgh, Friday 3rd May 2024

Hopes that yesterday's general election could resolve the long-running constitutional stand-off over Scottish independence took a knock early this morning as results came in.  The Scottish National Party (SNP) defied the expectations of many pundits by surging to 51 seats north of the border - even more than the 48 they won in their 2019 landslide.  They also increased their share of the Scotland-wide popular vote from 45.0% to 47.4%.  Crucially, two other pro-independence parties, the Scottish Green Party and Alex Salmond's Alba Party, grabbed 2.4% and 0.6% of the vote respectively, meaning that the combined vote for pro-independence parties slightly exceeds 50%. Since all three parties had declared the election to be a "de facto referendum on independence", First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is expected to claim later today that a mandate for independence has been secured, and to demand that the UK Government enter into immediate negotiations on an independence settlement.

However, unionist parties have already rubbished this claim.  Their objections are mostly centred upon the SNP's insistence prior to the election that votes for the Alba Party should not count towards the pro-independence tally.  This appears to have been intended as a tactic to deter independence-supporting voters from drifting away from the SNP in the small number of constituencies where Alba had put up candidates.  But it may have backfired badly, because Alba's modest vote effectively holds the balance, with the SNP and Greens alone only having secured a combined vote of 49.8%.  Pamela Nash of anti-independence group Scotland in Union was dismissive of what she described as "Nicola Sturgeon's attempt to shift the goalposts after the game is already over".  She pointed out that the plan to exclude Alba votes had been indirectly announced by the SNP's National Executive Committee as long ago as 14th January 2023.

But Mike Russell, President of the SNP, angrily retorted that the constitutional future of Scotland was not a game.  "Independence is a matter for the people of Scotland," he commented.  "It's not a private cricket match between a closed group of politicians who can decide 'the rules' between them.  There can be no credible doubt that the people who voted Alba yesterday intended to express their backing for independence, every bit as much as the people who voted SNP and Green.  That's what matters, not the minutiae of what individual politicians may or may not have said before the election."

There were also growing signs of recriminations from independence supporters who feel Nicola Sturgeon's vendetta against her predecessor Mr Salmond has led her to make a "catastrophic unforced error" which may have needlessly called into question what would otherwise have been a clear-cut mandate.  But some SNP parliamentarians seemed almost relieved that the UK Government may now have a ready-made excuse for disregarding the pro-independence majority.  One MP, who asked not to be named, said he hoped the election outcome would come to be seen as "a small but important incremental step in a long-term process that may eventually result in independence one day".  He added: "The last thing we should be doing now is forcing the issue.  Remember the tortoise beat the hare in the end.  Let's keep the heid!"

SNP activist Marcus Carslaw agreed.  "Gradualism has served the Yes movement extremely well over the last eighty years, and frankly I can't wait for the next eighty. Slowly slowly catchy monkey."

Controversial Wings Over Scotland blogger Stuart Campbell reacted furiously. "Women can't have beards," he thundered.

Meanwhile, many Scottish political commentators are speculating that independence will now be an issue settled by the 2029 general election.  "That's what we expected all along," said one prominent columnist, although his recollection was disputed by a colleague sympathetic to independence, who suggested that journalists had been predicting for several years that whichever election happened to be "the next but one" would be decisive.

15 comments:

  1. Wow. Can you tell me the lottery numbers for next week?

    ReplyDelete
  2. An excellent article James. One of your best that highlights the ridiculous situation the yes movement is in. It's not just Britnats that want to deny democracy.
    The SNP want to deny the votes of people who vote Alba or ISP for independence and deny the votes of 16/17 year olds and EU citizens.

    "Slowly slowly catchy monkey". - Irish Skier's favourite catchphrase for doing nowt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not to defend Skier, or Sturgeon for that matter, but what do you think would happen if the supposed Plebiscite Election returned SNP 49%, Greens etc. 5%? What Brit is going to unzip their trews and bend over for that?

      I’m no strategist, I’m just a pleb like the rest of us. But why not aim for 2 million votes? Why not make our target as a movement to beat the No vote tally of 2014 that’s still nailing Scotland to this fate? Why not talk of numbers over percentages, and encourage activism, engagement and getting bums off seats instead of all this?

      But like I said, I’m unpaid and uninformed so it’s just my opinion, man.

      Delete
    2. Because what you're arguing for is a supermajority requirement very similar to the notorious 40% rule in 1979. You're tacitly saying, for example, that if 54% of people vote for independence, and 46% vote against, the outcome should be Scotland remaining in the UK against its will. Whatever else that may be, it ain't democracy.

      By the way, I don't know what you mean by "instead of all of this" and thus I have no idea why you regard "this" as so objectionable.

      Delete
    3. I hear you. I’m against a percentage supermajority for the same reasons everyone cites against the rigged devo referendum of 1979. And I admit my argument is very likely flawed, as I’m no sage, blogger or even policy adviser with a political science degree working on a resume for my own election. I belong to no party, and like most Scots I have never entered one.

      Why I personally favour using the 2014 No vote as our target is because it alone is politically real. There’s nothing magical about 60%, 66.67% or any other percentage above 50. But that No vote in 2014 is what sustains the union. Like the Pope said: it was “settled” in 2014. To the outside world it really does look like that, until we overcome it.

      (I’m not catholic by the way, but he’s a good example of an uninterested, underinformed foreigner like the leaders of the nations we will rely on to recognise our independence.)

      Delete
    4. The Pope's comment was idiotic and offensive. I don't know if something got lost in translation, but if he meant it the way it sounded, there's just no excuse for what he said.

      Delete
    5. Well as I posted on a previous thread Robertson the Constitution secretary should write to the Pope clarifying the situation. It would be his chance to go down in history with a Declaration of Edinburgh.

      Delete
  3. Well the big dug may have ignored the HR23 option but the first numpties to comment on his article are revolting by raising the option.

    The Admiral says we risk losing control of Holyrood so HR23 is bad.

    Alex Clark says the opposite - that the Britnats will boycott it - so HR23 is bad.

    Capella on the other hand is all for HR23 - it doesn't happen very often but I have to praise a WGD numpty for showing some sense. Well done Capella.

    The Admiral and Alex Clark both nicophants who just want whatever Sturgeon wants but are presently not sure what that is and hate having to think for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, that's true, actually! It must be a problem for them. I'm not 100% sure whether Nicola Sturgeon still wants Westminster 2024 to be the de facto referendum or not.

      Delete
    2. By the way, the idea that unionist parties would boycott a Holyrood election is so ludicrous that it should be dismissed out of hand. They're not going to leave themselves with zero seats.

      Delete
    3. Yes James a boycott is just silly but that's these numpties for you.

      Delete
  4. Update - Hamish100, Stephen McKenzie and Fergus Malone on WGD all want HR23. Wow even Hamish is starting to think for himself - a novelty.

    Dr Jim however says Sturgeon " ...will have consulted our friends and future partners in Europe and the USA as to what method and outcome they will support..." so in essence whatever his great leader wants is ok with him but he isnae sure what that is - what a numpty nicophant.

    In summary, surprising amounts of common sense from some WGD numpties but Dr Jim will always support Sturgeon come what may. If Jimbo woke up one morning to find that Sturgeon was now in Switzerland having expensive lunches and spas with Baroness Mone he would still say it is all part of her secret plan for independence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Numpties are arguing the case against HR23 not knowing how easy it is for the Scottish Parliament to call an election. Finally, the Bathtub Admiral tells them the facts and says he is thinking of changing his mind. What they should be asking themselves is why was the SNP/Scotgov keeping this secret from them. Why were people like Wishart saying it would mean Dross as FM. Why did the big dug blank this option in his article.

      Delete
    2. Update : the Admiral comes straight out for HR23 as his preferred option. However, nasty numpty nicophant Dr Jim shows the closed mind of a true WGD numpty when he says he is against HR23 because Wings over Scotland is for HR23 therefore it must be wrong. Jimbo knows what he doesn't want but not what he does want. The classic state of mind of a cult/Borg - you wait until the great leader tells you what to believe/what you want.

      Delete
  5. Great article James, really enjoyed reading it and made me laugh.. and ponder. I’ve supported the SNP my whole voting life, 50 now and feels the same as when I was 18 - independence is right there within grasp, but just out of reach. The difference for me personally is 3 kids coming up to voting age who back independence, whereas up until now it’s been my vote doesn’t even cancel out the other. Never been a gradualist myself, but seems clear why they want to delay a few more years, which in the grand scheme of time isn’t much time at all. What are your thoughts on how much the bairns’ vote will influence the outcome in a few years’ time, compared to a vote maybe next year?

    ReplyDelete