Saturday, January 7, 2023

Stewart McDonald is not just rewriting the past - he's rewriting the present as he attempts to downgrade Nicola Sturgeon's firm policy of a de facto referendum to merely "one option that has been widely covered"

If the future of our country wasn't in danger of being adversely affected, it would almost be funny to watch the succession of usual suspects from the SNP's "do nothing" faction queueing up to pen newspaper articles in which they use tortuously coded language in an attempt to coax Nicola Sturgeon into backing down on her plan to actually try to win independence.  Stewart McDonald's effort is even more cagy than Marcus Carslaw's, to such an extent that you might be forgiven for thinking for the first half of the article that he is actually expressing support for the Sturgeon plan.  However, this apparently loyal cheerleading is just waffle calculated to win a hearing for McDonald's real views, which all come in the second half, and which essentially amount to "independence should remain a safely distant ideal, rather than something that might actually threaten my Westminster career in the here and now".

Let's decode what he's actually saying...

"Any strategy on independence must be flexible..." - This seems to hint at a degree of resignation that the de facto referendum plan will at least be nominally adopted by the special conference, so instead he wants to sabotage it with some sort of get-out clause to pave the way for a U-turn further down the road - which of course he will be constantly demanding.

"...rooted in a keen understanding of public opinion and appreciate the need for loser's consent" - This appears to mean that he thinks (just like Carslaw) that if there is a narrow majority in favour of independence, the minority who oppose independence should have an absolute veto on the wishes of the majority being implemented.  Losers' consent is of course an important concept in any democracy, but the onus is generally on the losers to provide that consent, rather than on the winners to accept that they cannot govern in the absence of it (unless of course there's some sort of credible doubt over who has won and who has lost).  Put it this way: when Donald Trump and his followers failed to provide losers' consent after their 2020 defeat, that was certainly a problem, but the solution to that problem was not for Joe Biden to give up and say that he couldn't govern without Trump's "permission", which would never have been forthcoming.

"With the courage to lead generously, we can win" - Giving your opponents a veto on election results they don't like is, in fairness, a form of "generosity".  In fact, as generosity goes it's really rather excessive.

"One option that has been widely covered since the Scottish Government’s decision to go to the Supreme Court last year is that of a de facto referendum: using the next UK General Election as the platform to settle Scotland’s constitutional future. Such a departure from the referendum option that my party has long held would be a major one, and one that must not be taken lightly or birthed out of frustration" - That is really quite an astounding paragraph.  I've heard of politicians trying to rewrite the past, but McDonald seems to be trying to rewrite the present.  Nicola Sturgeon has already firmly announced a de facto referendum as her decided policy - in fact she did so several months before the Supreme Court announced its verdict.  But McDonald is insulting our intelligence by portraying the policy as just one of many "options", albeit one that has been mysteriously "covered" more than the others.  (My guess, Stewart, is that the coverage is because Ms Sturgeon has already announced it as policy.  Just a thought.)

"Indeed, the combination of the court judgement and Westminster intransigence must not force us into seeking an answer to the wrong question, or down paths that won’t ultimately allow independence to be lawfully delivered...For many years we have separated a vote for the SNP and a vote for independence. If we are to ditch that patiently crafted position - central to delivering 16 successful years in government and mainstreaming our cause - then we should do so only on sound, solid merit, not a throw of the dice. It will be difficult to get back if we lose" - I defy anyone to read these words and come to any other conclusion than that McDonald thinks there shouldn't be a de facto referendum, and that the SNP should maintain the strategy of using elections to seek a referendum.  However, elsewhere in the article McDonald openly states that a referendum, and I quote, "seems impossible".  It's rare for a siren voice to admit that it's trying to lure people onto the rocks, so McDonald should be commended for his refreshing honesty in admitting that he wants his party to reject a de facto referendum in favour of something that he knows to be "impossible".  Even more commendable would be to admit the real nature of his motivation for attempting to sabotage the independence campaign in this way.

"The independence movement’s overarching task remains the same as it was before Lord Reed declared the court’s unanimous verdict: building majority support for independence" - On an average of recent polls there already is a majority for independence, so McDonald's belief that "building" is still needed seems to hint at a supermajority requirement - something that Marcus Carslaw also wants to impose. That's just another form of the losers' veto.

*  *  *

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

19 comments:

  1. The SNP is like a creepy old haunted indy house with cobwebs and creaking doors, and every now and again a Boris Karloff-like phantom voice wails out, 'IndyRef2 is coming...' but the wailing soon fades to an indecipherable, almost whisper.

    ReplyDelete
  2. James, do you think we can trust the SNP anymore? This is a serious question. I will probably continue to vote for them but I hardly agree with anything they actually do these days.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What a sad state of affairs for a once proud party of Scottish independence to have people like McDonald in its ranks.

    The SNP are now a party of time wasting parasites. Britnats in all but name.

    The problem is people like WT who say they will continue to vote SNP even though they know they are now a British party. Anyone care to explain how voting for a party that is led by Britnats will deliver independence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi IFS you're probably right. I feel I have been led up the garden path for years now. The problem is that tendency to hope for one last chance. I think I've finally had it. I'm more Alba but they don't stand here. I actually think independence is getting further away under Sturgeon - the movement has been split and demoralised.

      Delete
    2. WT - in Jan 2020 - three years ago - Sturgeon declared in her formal speech that there would be no illegal referendum - no wildcat referendum. A supposed independence leader giving complete control of the matter to the British state. It was only a few months earlier in Nov 2019 that I heard her and all the others that stood on the stage in George square, Glasgow declare vote SNP in the U.K. GE in Dec 2019 for Indyref2 in 2020. Fast forward to 2022 and Sturgeon succeeds in getting a London court to declare it illegal for her to hold Indyref2. As if a U.K. Court created only 20 years ago by a U.K. Parliament is ever going to risk breaking up the UK after the near miss in 2014. Sturgeon has, of course now got her back up time wasting rouse in place a de facto UK GE election - this being the course of action she was always against - because she knew what the London court would say.

      WT you are correct the movement has been split and demoralised. The logical conclusion is to remove the leadership that has created this situation. Sturgeon knew that this time would come and has been carefully building up her control of the SNP from the day she decided to marry Murrell.

      Sturgeon's speech on Jan 30 was a clear declaration of surrender. As if any one in Westminster is ever ever going to agree a sec 30 again for Indyref2 but numpties like the anonymous pony below just keep on raising the possibility.

      No anonymous me bung pony, independence will not be dead just delayed by Sturgeon and her gang.

      Delete
  4. As far as I am concerned, SNP policy is to use the next Westminster GE as a self executing, de facto referendum on independence. As far as I am concerned, any "flexibility" in the process should be limited to either using a Holyrood GE as the de facto referendum (a mistake in my opinion) or accepting a S30 referendum from a back-pedalling Westminster Govt before the next GE.

    If Stewart McDonald is suggesting anything different he can just feck off (pardon the profanity). To me, accepting his mutterings as evidence of SNP policy is to succumb to a phenomenon espoused by the Rev before he went over to the dark side. That of the "some arsehole" theory. That is, a claim attributed to the SNP (or Indy cause in general) would ultimately be found to be just "some arsehole" on the fringes of the movement and in no way policy. While an MP is rather more than someone on the fringes, the principle is the same. He is just one guy, not the Party. A guy who needs a talking to.

    If he does turn out to be speaking for the Party, independence is as good as dead.

    Me Bungo Pony

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some aresehole claiming to speak on behalf of the SNP - I give you me bungo pony - a guy who needs a talking to - but probably won't listen.

      Delete
    2. I've never claimed to speak for the SNP. So you're just somebody making ad hominem attacks while making stuff up. Do you frequent WoS?

      Me Bungo Pony

      Delete
    3. Anonymous pony - your whole post is about what the SNPs policy is. I always find it mildly amusing when someone whose own post contains an ad hominem attack then complains about an ad hominem directed towards them.

      Delete
    4. Your comments are "about" SNP policy. Does that mean you speak for the SNP? And what ad hominem attack did I make? I simply referenced one of the Rev's old theories. You just appear to be making stuff up.

      Me Bungo Pony

      Delete
    5. Anonymous pony says:- " As far as I am concerned, SNP policy is to use the next Westminster GE as a self executing, de facto referendum on independence." That is you telling us what the SNP policy IS.

      Anonymous pony says:- " he can just feck off" that is you referring to McDonald. Most people would interpret that as an ad hom but perhaps you don't see it that way. If that's the case then please feck off with your nonsense.

      Delete
    6. As far as I'm concerned, it is Motherwell FC policy to win the Scottish Cup. It does not in any way mean "I claim to speak on behalf of" Motherwell FC.

      And as for your interpretation of an ad hom attack, it is defined as "in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining". My opinion of what Mr McDonald should do is very much dependent on the position he takes. Hence the part of the sentence you conveniently ignore; "IF Stewart McDonald is suggesting anything different ....".

      Your responses to me are purely personal and trollish and do not make any attempt to engage on the subject of the original article. Therefore, my initial statement stands ....  you're just somebody making ad hominem attacks while making stuff up.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous pony I am pretty sure you were one of those posters who just kept attacking people who said Sturgeon would not deliver Indyref2 - what was it you called them again - some ad hom comment wasn't it. Time you apologised Mr Pony for being wrong.
      Also you can't even accept the absurdity of your position re your post. You even try to speak for the whole independence movement when you say " independence is as good as dead." Just because you keep getting it wrong about the SNP.

      PS Motherwell are out the Scottish cup. I doubt that is their current policy.

      Delete
    8. More rubbish IfS. I have given my opinion, nothing more. As I keep saying, you are just making stuff up. For example, Motherwell FC play Arbroath in the next round of the Scottish Cup. One more thing you are wrong about.

      Me Bungo Pony

      Delete
    9. Anonymous pony - I apologise for getting it wrong about Motherwell. There you are Mr pony it's quite straightforward to apologise when you get things wrong. Decent people do it all the time. You got it wrong about Indyref2 and attacked people who said it wouldn't happen. Try apologising - what was it you called people - maladjusted or was it malcontents.

      Delete
    10. Don't know how long Mr Kelly will allow this pointless tennis match to go on but I might as well reply.

      I did not "attack" anyone. Disagreement does not equal attack. And I "defended" the Scottish Govt plan of having an indyref subject to the Supreme Court ruling with the "Plan B" of a de facto referendum if the ruling went against them. That Scottish Govt process is still extant so what, exactly, am I "wrong" about?

      As to the "malcontent" catch-all label I attached to the sundry denizens of the blogosphere calling for Sturgeon's head, it is not an ad hom. It is just a word. It is defined as "a person who is dissatisfied and rebellious". There is nothing insulting about it. At first I was bemused by the negative reaction to it. Then I found it funny that people did not appear to know what the word meant. Now I'm just bored with the ignorance. At least some seem to be embracing it now.

      And decent people don't stalk folk across the internet and troll them with made up nonsense.

      Me Bungo Pony

      Delete
    11. Anonymous pony - You defended Sturgeon long before June 2022. Rewriting your personal history can also be called lying and decent people do not do that.

      Delete
    12. And where have I claimed any different IfS? We were discussing Indyref2 and that is what I addressed. And the key word you use is "defend". "Defending" is the polar opposite of "attacking".

      Again, you're just making stuff up and continually moving the goalposts. Anyone reading this exchange (and that is likely to be the square root of nobody) can easily discern that.

      Delete
  5. Even if the SNP has become a solidly sell out party, which increasingly looks likely, then there may still be sound reason to vote for it - tactically.
    I lived for many years in England and was an apparently solid Labour voter. In reality I was voting against the tories.
    In a betrayed Scotland, which needed time to rebuild itself a party of independence, voting for the sellout, sometimes, might be needed to keep off the more rampant unionists and buy us some time.
    McDonald and his ilk are parasite ****s but the situation is as it is !

    ReplyDelete