Regular readers can hardly have failed to spot that I've been unhappy with the Alba Party's direction of travel in recent months. I can actually pinpoint the exact moment that my concerns kicked in - it was just after Nicola Sturgeon announced the plan to go to the Supreme Court and then hold a de facto referendum on independence if the ruling went the wrong way. Prior to that, my only concern about Alba's approach had been the talk about possibly standing a few candidates at the 2024 Westminster election, which due to the first-past-the-post voting system would have split the pro-independence vote. That would not only have harmed the independence campaign, but it could also have seriously damaged Alba's reputation if any unionist MPs had been elected as a direct result. Beyond that, I was reasonably satisfied with our tactics - there was certainly nothing wrong with harrying the SNP leadership on independence strategy when they were ludicrously promising a 2023 referendum that they had made no preparations for and probably had no means to deliver.
But then suddenly, everything changed, and Nicola Sturgeon offered a credible way forward. The details weren't perfect, and they weren't the ones I would have chosen - I would have passed a Referendum Bill first and then let the UK Government be the ones to refer the issue to the Supreme Court, and I would have used an early Holyrood election as the de facto referendum, rather than next year's Westminster election. But nevertheless, there needed to be some recognition of the fact that no-one has a monopoly on wisdom as far as strategy is concerned, and that the leadership are the leadership and they get to make the final call on those points. The important thing was that we finally had a route-map towards independence within a reasonable timescale. I would have expected Alba to react positively to that news and claim it as a triumph for our own campaigning. I would have expected us to warn that we would still hold the SNP's feet to the fire if there was any sign of backtracking, but otherwise to get wholeheartedly behind this golden opportunity to win our country's independence.
Instead, we did pretty much the opposite. The message from senior Alba people on social media was about the Sturgeon plan being a sham, and about how we should sabotage it by directly standing candidates against the SNP in every single constituency in the plebiscite election, and about using the supposedly inevitable failure of the Sturgeon plan as an opportunity for Alba to pick up disaffected SNP votes at the 2026 Holyrood election. Preoccupying ourselves with the possibility of winning a handful of Alba list seats in 2026 when we could be winning independence itself in the intervening period seemed to me to be a bizarre failure to see the bigger picture. I couldn't understand why all of us had joined Alba in 2021 with a view to pressurising the SNP leadership into proper action on holding an independence vote if we were going to automatically dismiss absolutely any proper action the SNP leadership were pressurised into taking as a sham or a stunt. If our worldview really was that cynical, what was the point in us even having bothered? Weirdly, the closer the SNP got to holding a vote on independence, the angrier we seemed to get at them. It was as if we didn't really want what we had said we wanted, and that the real agenda was something else. Again, that seemingly destructive attitude not only harmed the independence cause, it also severely harmed Alba's reputation, because it looked as if we were not - and never had been - acting in good faith.
However, Nicola Sturgeon has now resigned, totally unexpectedly - and it has to be said some Alba people bear at least a little of the responsibility for any consequences that flow from that, given how hellbent they've been on bringing her down at all costs. We now find ourselves in a totally new situation where the person who has been wrongly referred to (including admittedly by myself) as the "continuity candidate" offers anything but continuity. He's not hiding his plans in any way - he would rip up Sturgeon's planned de facto referendum, and replace it with...nothing. For the first time in its history, the SNP would no longer be actively trying to win independence. It would remain nominally committed to independence as a long-term "aspiration", but in the absence of any route-map to the goal, that would be an utterly meaningless form of words. It would be roughly analogous to the Chinese Communist Party remaining nominally committed to the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of "moving beyond the primary stage of socialism" in about one hundred years' time. Although Yousaf has not specified a timescale of one hundred years, or the quarter of a century that would take us to Stewart McDonald's target date of 2050, he's made no secret whatever of the fact that he regards independence as being many, many years away. Worse still, because he's being so open during the leadership campaign about scrapping any attempt to win independence in the foreseeable future, he would actually have a cast-iron mandate from the SNP membership for his "do nothing indefinitely" agenda. Many of his supporters are probably genuine pro-indy folk who are so preoccupied by issues like the GRR and equal marriage that they haven't properly registered what they are about to endorse with their vote. A Yousaf triumph would, in short, be an unmitigated disaster for the independence cause, because it would mark the end of the SNP's long and proud history as a meaningfully pro-independence party.
What it reminds me of in certain respects is the story of recent years in Quebec, where the pro-independence governments of the past have been replaced by a supposedly "nationalist" government that is nominally neutral on the question of whether Quebec should remain part of Canada or become a sovereign state. Crucially, it is totally opposed to holding any further referendum on independence, and of course if you close off any means of actually winning independence, the question of whether you're officially in favour of independence or not becomes somewhat academic. That's the grim future Yousaf holds in store for Scotland. Of course he'll persevere with the fiction that he wants the SNP to build support for independence to such a high level that the UK Government won't be able to ignore it, but that's just a tactic to absolve himself of the blame for the fact that no progress is going to be made under his leadership. At the end of each year, when independence is no closer, he'll say that's because independence campaigners haven't succeeded in pushing Yes support high enough. When asked how he knows it's not high enough, he'll say it obviously isn't because if it had been the UK Government would have buckled by now. "No use looking at me, guys, if you want independence you'll just have to go out and pound the streets even harder." Not only is it an endlessly circular argument, it's an endlessly renewable excuse.
It shouldn't go without note that on the day after the UK voted to leave the European Union, Nicola Sturgeon announced that a second independence referendum was "highly likely". In every SNP manifesto since then, that referendum has been promised. A Yousaf win would mark a definitive dead end for that process, and a voluntary running up of the flag of surrender. The logic of his position is inescapably that Brexit was never a justification for independence or for a referendum, that Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its will is in fact wholly tolerable for an indefinite period, that no referendum should ever have been promised, that no mandate for a referendum should ever have been sought, that no mandate received for a referendum should be taken remotely seriously and certainly shouldn't be honoured, and indeed that even the 2014 referendum on independence shouldn't have been held because there was no sustained supermajority for Yes in the polls at the time.
Pretty much everything that Alba definitely shouldn't have been doing over the last few months would suddenly become entirely reasonable and justified from the date that Yousaf becomes leader. If the SNP are no longer trying to win independence, it's hard to see much point in avoiding splitting the pro-indy vote in first-past-the-post elections. I suppose there would still be an argument that the SNP leader is not the SNP itself, and there might be a post-Yousaf future in which the party would eventually revert to what it has been until now, and that maintaining a pro-indy majority at Westminster would thus be important to keep the flame burning until Yousaf is deposed. But on the other hand, the worse Yousaf does in elections, the earlier he's likely to be deposed, so it's a finely-balanced argument.
Although there would be nothing much left to lose for Alba or another pro-indy party in embarking on a potentially decades-long project to replace a Yousaf-led SNP, that's not a challenge I would relish, because the need for doing that would be a sign that we - collectively as a movement - have utterly failed. This disaster needs to be averted. Let's not get to the point where we're scratching our heads about how we can possibly reverse it, let's make sure it never happens in the first place. SNP members need to wake up to the danger and stop Yousaf. It's now or never.
Humza timetable for indy:
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) February 26, 2023
2024: Kickstart the campaign
2029: Rev up the campaign
2035: Fire up the campaign
2041: Revive the campaign
2049: Would definitely have been a referendum but a war/pandemic/blizzard intervened
2050: Roadshow to listen to ideas for the long path ahead
* * *
For me, the worst part is that the position that Humza (and also people like Stewart McDonald and Alyn Smith) have adopted - and are presently seeking party members acceptance for - is this: "We must accept that we can't choose independence unless Westminster decides to allow it. We must accept that Scotland DOES NOT have the right to self-determination."
ReplyDeleteThere's no way I can sign up to that. I won't vote for that. Scotland is a country and all countries have the right to self-determination.
Well said anonymous at 7.33am.
DeleteJames, Your timeline missed out:
ReplyDelete2045 Ramp up the campaign
Humza Yousaf describes himself as the 'stability' and 'continuity' candidate ... precisely what is NOT required.
ReplyDeleteHe is the devolutionist's devolutionist.
The SNP is a revolutionary party as its founding aim is to return Scotland to full self-government thus breaking the British Union.
Mr Yousaf should familiarise himself with that aim - it can be found in article 2a of the SNP's constitution.
Several of the SNP Hierarchy have latched on to the Media's ploy to highlight Kate Forbes religious views instead of concentrating on the real issues which affect the real public. The cost of living,NHS, Education and what is the candidates policy in Independence. They need to get real on what the electorate really care about and stop feeding the media on one individual religion.
ReplyDeleteWhen Labour abandoned its founding principles it was presumably because it was felt the socialist message wasn't winning elections. Blair, much like Starmer is now, said and did anything he thought would get Labour into office, and made the party a clone of the Conservatives on order to win.
ReplyDeleteWith a commitment to independence (whether believable or genuine or otherwise) the SNP have won every electoral event in Scotland bar one (2010 UK GE) since 2007. The party are in government in Scotland without an effective opposition and have a a vast majority of Scottish MPs. This is not a party in need of a move away from the founding principle, especially when public support for that principle polls at 46-51%.
I dread to think how far independence gets punted if the SNP members vote, or more likely Murrell- having not even looked at the votes cast- declaresYousaf as leader.
If Murrell is still in situ and/or no transparency over the process I forecast a legal challenge to the result. I would be happy to contribute to any fundraising for this purpose.
DeleteYou are spot on James there is a significant difference between Sturgeon and Yousaf. So what is it? Well they can both lie at the drop of a hat when required. So it's not that. Is one a bit more honest and the other is a blatant liar. No it's really quite simple. Sturgeon lied for 8 years about wanting to deliver Indyref2 and independence. Yousaf who will lie about anything even the bottle return scheme doesn't even think it is worth lying that he will deliver a referendum or independence. That is not his job he says.
ReplyDeleteThat is Sturgeons legacy - a leadership campaign where one of the candidates (Yousaf ) cannae even be bothered lying that he wants independence and another ( Forbes) who seems at best lukewarm to the idea and the third (Regan) who is strongest on independence is ignored.
So Sturgeon resigned and scuppered the chance of members voting for some form of de facto refrerendum. She was too tired she says. Sturgeon didn't resign because she was tired or because of Alba. Alba are an irrelevance - isn't that what we are told?
Sturgeon was NEVER going to deliver Indyref2/ de facto/ independence. Sturgeon was always a parasite on the yes movement and she ain't the only one. 8 years have been wasted through hoping Sturgeon might, against all the evidence, actually deliver a vote on independence. The responsibility for the wasted 8 years is on all of us but some can take a greater share of the blame.
"No use looking at me, guys, if you want independence you'll just have to go out and pound the streets even harder."
ReplyDeleteI read this in his voice
Well the big dug is back and surprise surprise he is still tired. It seems to be catching. No apology for telling his readers Sturgeon would definitely deliver a referendum. No apology for telling his readers that Sturgeon would deliver a de facto UK referendum. No apology for all the horrible things he said about Salmond particularly when he knew Sturgeon was behind all the persecution. No apology for The National's disgraceful monstering of Forbes. No apology for just being a charlatan.
ReplyDeleteNo surprise he is not revealing who he wants to be leader. A choice between two candidates whose religion can hardly be said to be favourable to gay marriage and one who is strong on independence. You might have thought it would be obvious who a gay twice married man who professes to want indepence might support. But hey if there is money to be made he will get behind whoever wins.
Sturgeon may be going but it seems like it will be the same old shit from the dogging site. But the WGD numpties can always provide a laugh.
Capella says this about Kavanagh's blog:- " Its the only vehicle for a broad range of views on what matters to independence supporters."
Well that's The National put in its place. A reminder to Capella Kavanagh's blog says:- " If you want to mouth off about how much you dislike the SNP leadership there are other forums where you can do that."
Perhaps Capella and others should have listened to a broad range of views and we might have been independent by now instead of the mess Sturgeon has left. Not one apology from any of the doggers.
"A broad range of views"!!! Oh my aching sides!πππYou should get a medal for reading that tripe IFS.
ReplyDeleteFelix
He doesn't only read it he misquotes it all as well
DeleteHe's a liar and always has been, even after Wings banned him
Another upset WGD numpty. Funny how these numpties never actually give any details of my misquotes or lies. Well here are lies for the numpty - Sturgeon lied about delivering Indyref2, Yousaf lied about not voting for same sex marriage, Kavanagh lied about Salmond's persecution, Peter Murrell lied in the Parliament Inquiry, the alphabetties lied in a criminal court case and a nasty SNP staffer who is part of Sturgeon's gang lied about J. Cherry bullying staff in London.
DeleteAre you one of the numpties still holding on to the hope that Sturgeon has a secret plan and resigning is all part of that? Or are you one of the numpties trying to figure out where we are on Mike Russells 11 point plan? No wonder there is a shortage of carrots .
I thought I was a pal of Wings - numpties cannae even get their story correct. Of course you are permitted by James to come on SGP and post your opinion but you just post abuse backed up by zero evidence.
I think you have your own stalker on here IFS. Obviously a deluded cultist still in shock over the demise of the Dear Leader. Like Skier, more to be pitied than laughed at (although it's hard not to laugh at Skierπ)
DeleteFelix
The majority of SNP politicians have been taking pro independence voters for granted for years now. It's not funny any more to say the majority of SNP MPs have succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome and it's not funny any more to say the majority of SNP MSPs have concentrated on mitigating the worst aspects of Westminster rule at the expense of fighting for independence - thereby in effect prolonging Westminster rule in Scotland since many voters in Scotland see Holyrood as a sort of protection mechanism allowing them to put off the risky business of ending the union.
ReplyDeleteSo am I saying it would be better for independence prospects if a right-wing Westminster was allowed to reek havoc on Scottish society unhindered? I am.
You're right about SNP members needing to wake up. It must be Forbes at least if not Regan.
I dissagree with your characterisation of the attitude of the ALBA Party to standing against the SNP in First Past The Post elections. I have been lobbying inside ALBA for candidates to stand in *ALL* elections against the SNP and have hit several brick walls. ALBA do not what to do that.
ReplyDeleteIsn't Alba's reluctance to stand in all constituencies primarily a logistical issue? I assume they would struggle to afford £20k+ in lost deposits
DeleteAlba has gone too hard on GRR the other way tho and sadly Salmond is a liability . I say this as a fan. I couldn't say out loud I vote Alba out of fear of being cast a bit of a loony. They need to get a new leader and have Salmond as an elder statesman and cool down the trans stuff a bit.
DeleteCraig Murray can often provide new insights and/or new information in his posts but I'm afraid there is no new insight when he says on WGD that Hamish100 is talking nonsense. I beat you to that insight a long long time ago Craig.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the well considered article James! It can’t have been an easy one for you to write given your reasons for joining Alba in the first place. Strange but it’s starting to look like Ms Sturgeon was the only one in the current SNP leadership that was remotely interested in actually doing something serious about achieving our independence even if we might not agree with her route. Not exactly enthusiastic about Kate Forbes words today on the topic. The least said about Hamsa on this the better.
ReplyDeleteBeing a regular visitor to the Scotland subreddit, which is heavily pro SNP and pro GRR, I've become extremely concerned to note comments that GRR should be the priority before independence. That is absolutely insane, given how things currently stand and anybody who believes that should be the order of things is bonkers. I really hope that is not indicative of party membership opinion at large; if it is then undoubtedly Yusaf will prevail and the hopes of independence will be dashed for many years to come.
ReplyDeleteOne benefit of the leadership election is that some of the de facto Britnats in the SNP are telling us who they are. Blowhard Blackford and Tommy Shephard supporting Yousaf. Both all talk no action. Both just love the Westminster lifestyle - why ruin it with independence.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy - we all just stop voting for them - what's the point if they're just sort of Labour. Throw them to the sharks, let them earn their living like we do. We can't chuck it when we get tired, we just gave to keep going. We've been conned.
ReplyDeleteHe is acting like a plant organised by Sturgeon to stop independence. Its not too far fetched to suggest the SNP are now actively trying to hold the Union together. If you were looking for a classic way to thwart a movement. You would do exactly as the SNP are doing. I used to think it wasn't possible , but look at the facts.
ReplyDeleteSturgeon tells voters in 2015 a vote for the SNP is not about independence.
She begs for a Section 30, makes it clear it is the only legal route. Its refused, she does nothing.
She then tries to stop England's Brexit. Perhaps hoping for a coalition place with a potential Labour government.
She goes after a former FM Alex Salmond. The biggest threat to the Union and her monopoly.
She offers a defacto referendum, then walks away.
Now she backs a candidate who wants to drop independence altogether.
Aye but numpties on WGD think Sturgeon has been marvellous - a great success. Kavanagh has a captured market there of idiots. If he can get away with punting Sturgeon for 8 years as the person to deliver independence and now all they are worried about is that poor Sturgeon and Kavanagh are tired.
DeleteThey should make it every Westminster election is a vote on Independence. I know, I know.. get the disadvantages but it effectively frees up the HR vote for day to day govt and WM for the "big question"..
ReplyDeleteFrankly why else vote SNP in Uk election but about making a point about Scotland's place in the union?
I think the revolution will start in March. A change is coming. I personally think independence will come in 2026.
ReplyDeleteThere will be some painful years to endure, but the end of this 300 year union is coming.
Skier being very nasty to Craig Murray on WGD at present. So how does Murray get to post on WGD but I don'tπ€ Could I possibly criticise the great leader oor Nicola more than Murray? No chance. Could I criticise the WGD numpties and the big dug himself more than Murray? Aha that's the answer.
ReplyDeleteDo you enjoy irony? Here's Skier addressing Craig Murray (on minimum unit pricing as it happens):
Delete"You know everything don’t you. We should bow to your superior armchair expertise on all subjects, as learned in two decades of UK Imperial diplomatic service."
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
DeletePerhaps Skier could itemise for us what his own qualifications are for the many and varied subjects he claims expertise on.
Craig Murray suggests Kavanagh will find a way to get the numpties to change from Forbes to Yousaf. Yesindyref2 retorts that there is nobody posting on WGD who is that easily influenced. πππThey have just been eating Sturgeon's carrots for the last 8 years and are still in denial.
ReplyDeleteIt's Sturgeon who has slammed the door shut on Indyref2 so change your moniker and stop making a fool of yourself. I suggest Bathtub Admiral.
Yesindyref2 says:- " Good grief, maybe you're that easily influenced, nobody else who posts here is."
Poor old Pension Pete Wishart he spends years rubbishing a de facto referendum then has to do a u turn and say it is a great idea. Now just as he has done all his work preparing articles on how it will all work superbly well his great leader dumps him in it again and sinks the de facto referendum. Just waiting for his next great article explaining how doing nothing to get independence is the best idea ever.
ReplyDeletePension Pete the perfect example of why we are not independent. Over 20 years troughing in Westminster.
WGD home of the numpties and land of the liars.
ReplyDeleteNow a WGD numpty claimed I was a liar on this thread but as usual gave no details of where and when.
I, however, will give you a WGD liar with the exact lies. I give you the poster James Scott also known as Dr Jim. In reference to Ash Regan's appearance on Scotland Tonight Jimbo says correctly that the Tory on the panel thought Unionists would fear Kate Forbes the most. Jimbo also said:- " and he pointed to her finance credentials business education and motivation to progress the independence debate in a more definite and joined up way, and considered that she was the best person to unite the YES movement and keep the Greens onside ........" LIE LIE by Jimbo - the Tory said none of that. If any WGD numpty wants to challege this then with James permission I will post the exact words the Tory said.
These numpties have the cheek to call me a liar when the liars are in their own midst and they keep supporting them.
Numpties like Hamish100, Old Pete and as you might expect Skier just accept this long post by Dr Jim ( calling himself James Scott ) as an accurate summary of the Regan interview. It was not and I can give other examples of inaccuracies/lies.
WGD - home of the numpties and land of the liars.
Ash Regan is hopeless, once she stops greeting when she comes last in the leadership contest don't be surprised if she tries to jump to Alba. How she ever was selected as an SNP candidate is beyond belief.
ReplyDeleteIf you really believe that, it begs the question of why Nicola Sturgeon appointed her as a minister in the Scottish Government and kept her there for four years.
DeleteWho knows why Nicola appointed her, not one of her better choices as she must have realised to late.
DeleteOld Pete WGD numpty replies to the lies of James Scott by saying: -" She sounds disjointed and incoherent." In other words you just accepted his account as being truthful and without bias and and that is why you Pete are a numpty.
DeleteAsh Regan is not leadership material.
ReplyDeleteAnd that begs the question of why her net approval ratings are so much better than Humza Yousaf's.
DeleteThe power of the media, plus the public's lack of knowledge on someone they know little off.
ReplyDeleteIt just 'as to be Ash. No-one else has got it.
ReplyDeleteAsh 1 Forbes 2
ReplyDeleteIt's not that long ago that if you said anything like what these WGD numpties are saying about Regan about any SNP politician they would immediately brand you a Unionist and hurl abuse. Pathetic people.
ReplyDelete