As regular readers will recall, I was in absolute despair when Humza Yousaf was narrowly elected SNP leader in controversial circumstances three months ago, largely because it brought to an end the SNP's eight-decade-long history as a party seeking to win independence. Yousaf's announcement about independence strategy at the weekend does to some extent reverse that process, and there's not much doubt that it's a genuine U-turn. The briefings to the press suggest that the parliamentarians who backed Humza for leader precisely to get rid of Nicola Sturgeon's de facto referendum plan, because they believed independence to be a drag on SNP support, have rapidly changed their minds because the polls in recent weeks have made them realise the complete reverse is true.
So the underlying reasoning is more cynical than we'd like, and it appears that the SNP leadership seem relaxed in the belief that they won't have to negotiate independence irrespective of the general election outcome. Does that bother me? Not as much as you might think, because I've always made the point that the value of a plebiscite election, or anything equivalent to one, does not hinge on whether it will automatically result in independence. People who ask the supposedly 'killer' question "and what do you do when Westminster ignores the result?" are only demonstrating that they are missing the whole point. No matter what strategy we adopt, we have no control whatever over how Westminster react to it. Our job is to get on with what is actually within our province. An outright mandate for independence is an absolute prerequisite if independence is ever going to happen. It is wholly within our power to bring such a mandate about, because it can be done via scheduled elections, but we have conspicuously failed to do so thus far. Putting that right has to be the priority, and if we manage it, the independence movement will progress into an entirely new sphere. For the first time in our lives, the Scottish people will have decided to become independent, and from then on the task will be to apply pressure on the UK government from every quarter to give effect to that decision. There'll be no guarantee of success, but that's the nature of the beast.
If Yousaf is true to his word and puts "a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence" as the opening words of the manifesto, it gives voters an opportunity to vote directly for independence in a way that we didn't think was going to be possible. It doesn't matter what the SNP's motivations are for allowing this, what matters is that the opportunity is there. So it seems to me that we as rank and file independence supporters now have three priorities we need to concentrate on -
1) Keep Yousaf to his word. We've seen countless promises on independence strategy broken by the SNP leadership since 2017, so the fact that Yousaf says he'll do something does not necessarily mean it will happen. The slightest sign of backtracking or watering down must be called out loudly.
2) Continue the pressure on Yousaf to step down if he fails to turn around the SNP's slump in the opinion polls, or to win the Rutherglen by-election. This one almost seems like a contradiction, because a change of leader could open up the question of the independence plan yet again and we could end up with something worse. But that's a risk worth taking, because the single most effective step towards garnering the needed votes for pro-independence parties would be for the SNP to install a more voter-friendly leader.
3) Take the fight to Labour. I have no time whatever for the notion that the purpose of the general election is to "target" particularly useless SNP MPs and divert enough of their votes away to smaller pro-indy parties to ensure that they lose their seats to Labour or the Tories. No matter whether the SNP keep Humza in place as leader (and as I've already said, they would be foolish to), seeing off the Labour threat will still have to be the absolute priority for the whole independence movement. My suspicion is that many voters are turning to Labour because of nothing more than a residual cultural pull. Most of us grew up surrounded by people who would say in sheep-like fashion "ah'm a Labour man because ma faither was a Labour man and his faither before him", and those kind of unthinking impulses don't, sadly, just vanish within a single decade. There's still this vague sense that Labour are "the good guys" from people who probably don't have a clue that Labour under Starmer are a right-of-centre party which passionately supports Brexit and opposes public ownership, and which would essentially represent a continuation of Tory rule under different personnel. We need to find innovative ways of confronting Labour-curious voters with some hard truths.
Definitely need to keep the pressure on Yousaf. I don't trust him - for now at least. Keep the pressure on the SNP too. The polls have seen their support drop and now they're behaving like born-again nationalists. Is it just more lip-service, with an increase in volume, towards independence?
ReplyDeleteIf a Rutherglen by-election happens I can't see the SNP winning, regardless of Alba involvement or not, unless the electorate have suddenly bought into Yousaf's sudden enthusiasm for independence. Yousaf will cling on even if the SNP gets stuffed. It may even see him getting even more vocal in desperation which might actually help matters if it results in rabid britnat overreaction.
At the moment it's more important for the britnats to bite the Yousaf bait than true independence supporters.
Have you changed your mind (with changing circumstances) over whether Salmond himself should stand himself as the alba candidate in the by-election?
ReplyDeleteNo. Although all I actually said was that *if* Alba take part in the by-election, Alex Salmond should be the candidate. They won't achieve anything by taking 2% or 3% of the vote with a candidate no-one has ever heard of, but 15% or 20% for Alex Salmond might just change the political weather.
DeleteRight. I can’t disagree with that: it’s either him or nobody. (Literally is preferable to figuratively.)
DeleteThe *if* remains the problem, though. So easy for Humza to blame the coming loss on others for splitting the vote. Labour could win big, and he and the National would still say it was all Alba’s fault, because it’s just what you do to save your blushes. To hell with basic arithmetic!
The SNP is either losing the seat to Labour in a great slump in turnout as scunnered Yessers stay home; or SNP lose the seat to Labour while Salmond takes a good share of the vote. Expect no love or thanks for anyone outside the SNP in either case, but surely one result carries more clout to shift the narrative.
Watch yer coat, Humza.
The chances of Scotland achieving independence in the next 10 years are exceptionally high.
ReplyDelete"1) Keep Yousaf to his word"
ReplyDeleteIndeed, and if his word is a bit muddied, then specify what we think he said - and keep him to that. What he said in that case was that the General Election would be fought on Independence and that in the case of a win for the SNP meaning a majority of seats from Scotland, the Scottish Government would immediately start to negotiation with the UK Government on Independence. Oh yes he did.
Point 2 I'd say not, if we can hold Yousaf's feet to the fire on his well understood promise of Indy negotiations the last thing we'd want is a new leader that thought differently.
And if Indy is the only policy in the manifesto, then point 3 about Labour - Labour themselves are irrelevant but what is relevant is the 30% of Labour voters, whatever of LibDems and the 5% of Tories who support Independence - and get their votes for the SNP in that de facto referendum general election. Attacking their parties might not be the way to win their votes.
Something to think of is this. With Yousaf firmly pinning the GE on the promise of immediately opening negotiation on actual Independence rather than some S30 voodoo (oh yes he did remember?), then if that save the SNP MPs from virtual extinction down to 6 MPs or even less, but if he then fails to follow through with his proise (remember?), then he'll get booted out in 2026 along with half of his fellow MSPs. Bye now.
So his absolute promise (oh yes he did, remember?), had better be genuine and followed through or he's looking for another job as someone whose word can't be trusted.
Good luck with that.
Wouldn't Alex Salmond's standing in such a by-election poison the chances of an all party independence slate for a future "de facto referendum" election? Isn't the continuity SNP loosing all by themselves the best and most likely outcome? I'd normally hope they'd win, but these are strange times I'd like to get through sooner than later.
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that a Labour gain in Rutherglen is so likely that a strong third place for Alex Salmond is just about the only thing that would prevent the reporting of the result being solely about momentum for Labour.
DeleteFair point, I don't actually disagree, momentum for Labour sounds just the ticket for MSM coverage. Saying that, I would not criticise Mr Salmond for passing on this contest, the media habitually overlook him and Alba.
DeleteI suppose I'm smitten with the idea of an all parties-and-none "Scotland slate" for a GE, and want a path leading there. That's partly because it invites more aboard the bandwagon, but also because I do not want to see SNP devolutionists doing rUK favours across the negotiating table. What helps us get a Scotland slate, an angry and aggrieved SNP lashing out at Alba, or an SNP that failed unhindered?
Keep up the good work, Rob
It's almost impossible to see how there's going to be an SNP-Green-Alba joint slate at the general election. The current SNP ruling faction have a pathological hatred of Alba, and that would trump even mutual self-interest. If Humza was deposed as leader, SNP-Alba cooperation might become theoretically possible, but then the Greens would refuse to be involved. What might conceivably happen is an SNP-Green electoral pact excluding Alba, although I think even that is only an outside chance.
DeleteThe people who back Humza do not care about Independence, that’s a fact. They wanted devolution to be heart and centre of the next Westminster election, this was a bad mistake for the SNP for two reason, 1 the Labour party was going to use devolution as a means to win over Scottish voters and as only Labour could deliver and the SNP couldn’t the SNP realised that this was a losing battle, 2 so by going back to something better than devolution (Independence) the SNP had no option than to go with the majority of public opinion and as the population is constantly being asked on the constitutional question and 50% not 45% want Independence, it only takes 50% + 1 to be Independent. Here is where the SNP might end up being a party that no one will vote for again in the future, if they don’t go into the next WM election as Scotland united and allow Scotland to remain in this union just because they couldn’t work with other Pro-Indy parties and they where only wanting to use Independence as a means of securing their jobs this will spell the SNP downfall.
ReplyDeleteDuring Sturgeon reign as FM her government governance of the country was extremely poor compared to the Salmond’s years when people knew he had governed the country well.
Labour voters and potential Labour voters need to be made aware of the consequences of voting Labour in Scotland: prescription charges of £9.65 per item; loss of free personal care; reimposition of university fees; loss of extra support for children in poverty; back to English standards of assessment for the disabled; and whatever other 'poor bashing' Tory/Labour measures are in the pipeline.
ReplyDeleteAgain, another good post and I agree with what you've written.
ReplyDeleteOT. I see YES is being urged to have a Vision. Pass the mushrooms. It also of course needs a Mission. And Purpose. And then Values, Goals and Objectives.
ReplyDeleteWith all this corporate googoo-gaga, pass the sick bucket.