We all know the rules are rigged against Scotland within "Our Pwecious Union" and the Palace of Westminster, but at least those long-standing rules are normally adhered to when we're being shafted. That's what made yesterday so unusual - even the rigged rules weren't enough for our imperial masters in the Labour party, so Keir Starmer told Lindsay Hoyle to change the rules just for him, Hoyle said "yeah OK", and there was nothing the SNP or anyone else could do about it. We might as well have been living in East Germany.
Understandably, many independence supporters have reacted to yesterday's events by saying "if that's how the SNP are going to be treated at Westminster, what's the point of them even being there", which raises the issue of abstentionism - ie. that pro-independence parties should follow the example of Sinn Féin by standing for election to Westminster but not taking up their seats if elected. I'll just reiterate what I've said in the past, which is that withdrawal from Westminster may at some point have a part to play in winning independence, but that differs from abstentionism because it's a card you play once and only in specific circumstances.
I don't think blanket abstentionism would work in the Scottish context, simply because it would prevent pro-independence MPs from being elected in the first place. Unionist parties would ask the killer question "if they're not going to bother to do the work and represent you as their constituents, why would you vote for them?" And Labour would also be able to point out that voting for an abstentionist party makes a Tory government more likely. "Only Labour will protect Scotland from Tory rule" would become a more accurate slogan than it is now.
By contrast, withdrawal from Westminster could be an effective tactic, but only after an outright mandate for independence has been secured, perhaps by means of using the 2026 Holyrood election as a de facto referendum. At that point it would be much easier to justify to voters, because there would be a specific reason for it. If the UK government refuse to acknowledge the independence mandate, withdrawing Scottish MPs could provide the leverage necessary to bring London to the negotiating table. Scotland going unrepresented in the UK Parliament would be regarded as a constitutional crisis that would have to be resolved one way or another. However, that card can only be played when the time comes if pro-independence MPs make up a clear majority of Scottish seats at Westminster, as they do now and as they have done since 2015, but as they may no longer do after this year's general election. That's one of the reasons why I'm so concerned about pro-independence parties standing against each other and splitting the Yes vote, and about Yes supporters threatening to spoil their ballot.
I broadly agree. Abstentionism is a bold move and should be played when the time is right, for maximum effect. A straight refusal to recognise Scotland's de facto vote for independence would be such a moment. A permanent walk-out pushes the crisis to a new level. A level where the UK's allies may well urge them to open negotiations with the goal of settling this properly with a binding referendum.
ReplyDeleteBut speaking of waiving the rules has me wonder this: who, technically, has the "constitutional" power to appoint members of parliament? I know the general public votes, and the winner of every seat is declared at a count run by the local authority. But whose power is this supposed to be, according to Westminster's interpretation of its own unwritten rules?
What I’m driving at is they could try to strong-arm us with wildly inappropriate bending of the rules.
For instance: force by-elections in all seats represented by Scottish abstentionists, which would be a sore test in that environment. The last thing we want is an indyref2 warped with FPTP distortions thanks to the vagaries of constituency boundaries.
Or, even worse, could they decree they have the power to appoint the runner up in every seat in question, so we're represented by collaborating unionists against our will?
I wouldn't put either trick past them. Yesterday was just a taste of how filthy they will play.
Recall petitions can bring an MP down against their will. They could use that mechanism.
DeleteWell, they would have to change the law for anything like that to happen. Appointing the runners-up would look ridiculous, I can't imagine them going quite that far. Forcing by-elections? Maybe, but what happens if the SNP keep winning? A by-election every month?
DeleteConstant by-elections? I'd like to see that!
DeleteBefore recall elections were introduced in recent years, I gather it was actually very difficult to remove a sitting MP outside of a general election. Technically, they can't even resign but have to take "The Chiltern Hundreds", which renders them ineligible to stand in parliament and removes them by a technicality.
Technicalities are just the kind of thing the Brits love best. As you saw yesterday: they don't mind looking like cheats at all. I can definitely see them try to undermine us if and when our representatives gather the courage to force the issue. As long as the Scottish people are on our side, we'll prevail. The Brits will try what tricks they can to test them.
Anon at 1:18, “as long as the Scottish people are on our side”. There lies the beauty of it bud, a majority of the Scottish people will always be on your side.
DeleteWhy do Britnats keep referring to other posters as 'pal' or is it just the same Britnat posting again and again.
DeleteWell anon the Britnat at 1.22pm if you are so sure you are in the majority why do your politicians keep desperately saying no to a referendum? Why don't you vote for a party that wants a referendum to prove you are right? Too scared? Is the Britnat lion really just a big fearty?
That's certainly what the parliamentary SNP believes, as well. I blame their appetite and their sloth as much as their fear, but that's a part of them as well. "More chapping doors", more "whatever % Yes is now + some more", always kicking the can down the road so they can fatten on the teet.
DeleteIf we do nothing, you, "pal", win by default. So we must take action. Sitting on our arses wins us nothing, not even MP's salaries, expenses and pensions.
Under the current laws, a recall petition can only be triggered after an MP is found guilty of wrongdoing. I presume abstentionism is not considered a form of wrongdoing otherwise Sinn Fein's MP would have been long since recalled.
DeleteSinn Féin's permanent abstention is no danger to British rule. Indeed, their MPs could have made all the difference in the 2017-19 parliament for Brexit's terms. Sad to say: an ineffective abstentionism plays _into_ the state's hands.
DeleteAnyone who thinks the Union can survive must be one of the few gullible fools who take Redfield and Wilton polls seriously 🤣🤣
DeleteGod yeah, those people are embarrassing!
DeleteAnon at 2:04, what’s really embarrassing is Nats somehow thinking independence can be achieved through Sturgeon’s brainwave the de facto referendum. Dear oh dear, absolutely bonkers.
DeleteAnonymous BRITNAT at 4.34pm - so please tell us how we should achieve independence as you are setting yourself up as an expert on the matter.
Delete“Independence for Scotland “, Do you seriously think anyone other than nationalists would accept it? Westminster wouldn’t, the wider global community wouldn’t and the substantial chunk of the Scottish population that don’t want independence certainly wouldn’t! It’s a complete nonsense and shows just how desperate Nats have become.
DeleteNae answer from BRITNAT anon as to how Scotland can achieve independence because he knows the Britnats see Scotland as an English possession - a colony. That's right isn't it. And therefore we have no rights. I have news for you BRITNAT the British Empire is over - move on. This Brexit global Britain stuff is just delusional nonsense. Most of the world cannae stand the colonial U.K.
DeleteIfs, what a nonsensical rant. Oh dear.
DeleteBritnat anon at 11.38pm - nae answer to my question. Says it all about you Britnats.
DeleteIfs, the simple answer to your question is Scotland can’t achieve independence.
DeleteIt's an English parliament and they have never, ever, really tried very hard to disguise that fact. A parliament that voted to say Scots have no right to self determination. Therefore:
ReplyDeleteITS NOT MY PARLIAMENT
Hey, get this: I never even voted for the guy in the jewels…
DeleteYousaf says today at FMQs:- " Isn't it about time Scotland's energy was in Scotland's hands. " Its long overdue Mr Yousaf but you and your boss Sturgeon have done nothing to achieve it over a long nine years of false promises. All you get from Sturgeon's gang are words and ZERO action.
ReplyDeleteLet me translate for him:
Delete"Isn't it about time we were given more powers over our own resources by our glorious imperial masters? Not total powers, of course, don't be silly. Our betters are better than us for a reason. We're too wee and poor to know what to do with them as well as intellectual giants like Michael Gove. Some powers, that is what we demand. No, sorry, that came out wrong. I’m not a nutter! Some additional small, purely symbolic powers, please, we beg you. And please stop calling us Nationalists, it's offensive."
Is that not because our own people can't be trusted to deliver the final democratic blow if our representatives pushed the red button and called a vote? If Yousaf called a wildcat referendum next month, what would happen? In a real country the pride of the people would facilitate it and push the independence view come what may. Here we'd be deliberating on how many will boycott it and whether even if we agreed why should we be listened to.. it's the meekness of the people that ties the hand. Let's lay blame where it is for goodness sake. It's not one mans fault our people are craven.
Delete"The problem with Scotland is it's full of Scots"
I thought Yousaf was excellent at FMQs today.
ReplyDeleteIt really is time people got behind him and the SNP.
In-grown role, touch-of-sureness much much. Agree can we all.
DeleteAs Jack Docherty and Moray Hunter might have put it, he has PLENTY much sureness-of-touch.
DeleteThere's a lassie in Westminster who knows all about that.
DeleteJamie - there is no room to get behind him. All the places have been taken by Britnats.
DeleteIndependence for Scotland, I was making a serious point!
DeleteIn the (possibly unlikely) event that you were making a serious point, you seem to be deliberately conflating the best interests of Yousaf with the best interests of the SNP. In practice it doesn't work that way - the SNP might do a lot better at the election with a different leader. So people might actually be doing the SNP a favour by *not* getting behind Yousaf.
DeleteJamie, I'l take your word you were making a serious point. So please take my word that I also was making a serious point.
DeleteI havent a clue how Yousaf did at FMQs but I've noticed a slight upsurge in his credibility due to Gaza amongst my friends , I think Labour are taking for granted and crowed a bit soon. For me it is time to back him and the SNP, even if I have my doubts.
DeleteYousaf does ok at FMQs. Sturgeon did better. So what! What have they done to progress independence - zero. What have they done to hinder independence - a lot.
DeleteJames, do you realistically expect a change in SNP leader before the GE? I certainly don’t. In which case shunning the SNP can only do damage
DeleteIf the SNP's parliamentarians behave as rational actors, they will replace Yousaf before the election. I have no idea whether they will behave as rational actors, but I certainly know what needs to happen, and I also know that fatuously cherlerleading for Yousaf doesn't make it any more likely to happen.
DeleteJames , if Hoyle does not “ step down” ( which I doubt as the English establishment parties will close ranks ), what is Flynn going to do ? Meekly accept that the fiercely & noticeably anti Scottish Hoyle continues to treat Scotland and our representatives with contempt? Or show some backbone and instruct his MP’s to forthwith return to Scotland as and until a GE date is set & thereafter unequivocally to stand for re election on a mandate to END THE UNION IMMEDIATELY ( if re-elected ). Any MP’s thus elected on this mandate could convene a second assembly in Scotland and be responsible for future policy as regards “ reserved powers” currently held in London . Under first past the post surely there must be a reasonable prospect of a majority of “ End the union” MP’s being returned . ?
ReplyDeleteIf not , we get what we deserve after all “ better together “ ( what a joke!)
What drivel.
DeleteThis poster has a point in my view, I don't think irs drivel at all. But we're not at that point yet. One day we may well will be.
DeleteAnon at 3.54pm - looks like you have a Britnat troll on your tail. The Britnat troll should ask himself is 19% poverty in Scotland the best Better Together can deliver. Better Together - better than who? Tibet, Bangladesh.
DeleteBoyle's law states that the volume of a gas is inversely proportional to its pressure at a given temperature.
ReplyDeleteTo put it in terms of Hoyle, gas expands to fill a space with gas.
We're gonna need more gas masks.
A fine speech by Alba man Kenny McAskill today in the Hof C re his Broadcasting Bill. It's only in a colony you have to beg the English colonial masters to let you watch your football team play in major tournaments. Although it was a fine speech it does not change my mind that I do not want to be represented in Colonial England's parliament. When England's parliament voted to say Scots have no right to self determination it provided conclusive proof that Scotland is indeed a colony.
ReplyDeleteAbstentionism is a legitimate point to make when our people unambiguously are being denied a desired independence referendum or Independence itself. The moral authority has to back up the action. Abstenionism should be played when and if the time is right , it's.not now. It's probably after a UK election where a majority of Scots have voted unambiguously for independence in votes and seats and we've been told to F off.
ReplyDeleteLike it or not, we lost the vote in 2014. Scotland is a part of the UK and our voice should be heard there whilst our people have not taken the step to independence. I recognise democracy in all its form, even when it's not to mu liking. We can and should remove ourselves potentially one day when the dial has shifted, but not now.
Anon at 5.46pm - your analysis is flawed. There is no democracy for Scotland. It was designed that way from the beginning in 1707. I also recognise democracy and it is yet to make an appearance in Scotland. The English parliament makes it clear we have no right to self determination - that confirms we have no democracy - no right to have an independence referendum. So just how do you think we will vote for independence. Oh I've got it you have placed your hopes in the Britnat SNP to hold a de facto referendum in the future. The same Britnat SNP who could have held a de facto during the last 7 years with a very good chance of a yes win but chose not to do so.
DeleteWhat you on about? If the SNP got 70% of the vote what do you think the outcome would be? There's no block to that other than ourselves.
DeleteNo one's stopping us voting for the pro Independence party in overwhelming numbers. We just don't have the gumption to do it. Stop pretending we're being blocked. We're far from it. Every Scot over 18 in the land can vote for the SNP/Alba/Green in the next election. There is no gun to our heads to vote Labour.
We need to do is put a cross in a box. In some counties they'd ban separatist (sic) movements out of sight. It's right there in black and white the option to vote for them. It's about time we took some bloody responsibility collectively and stop pretending it's Nicola, Yousafs, Santa Claus's fault. The option is there, if folk are that stupid not to vote for it, we can't complain.
Delete"If the SNP got 70% of the vote what do you think the outcome would be?"
DeleteYeah, but what if they got 51%? Do we live in a democracy or don't we?
We need to stop kidding ourselves that a de facto referendum is a realistic route to independence. It clearly isn’t.
DeleteWho knows James?? Maybe vote for them and find out. Doesn't change the fact there is a democracy and the dividing line is how many of us support the party(ies) putting forward independence as their obvious raison detre. We can talk about Westminster blockages til we're blue in the face but if Scots really want Independence we have a well known party, and others, for doing so. Nobodys stopping us from voting for them.
DeleteI cannot stand these folk blaming individuals for our own stasis. The box is right there, vote for it and find out.
To 6.49 I don't know what you mean. Clearly the only route to independence is if enough people disagree with your notion and vote for Independence parties at an election that it becomes inarguable the desire of the people. There is no other way. There is no other way to an official ref being consented, there is no other way to independence itself. It starts with people voting, and we're not stopped from doing so by MI5, Police Scotland or whoever is in no10. The electorate have it on their hands, they always have. Real politique changes things entirely.
DeleteAnon at 6.31pm - you cannae even make it clear who you are referring to in your post. If the SNP got 70% of the vote they would get 57MPs - one more than in 2015 when they got 56 MPs and did nothing about independence. So what are you on about.
DeleteAnon at 6.34pm says: " The option is there." What option and where?
DeleteAnon at 6.52 pm I cannae stand reading pish. The SNP have had multiple mandates for Indyref2 and did nothing but you seem to think voting SNP will miraculously make us independent.
DeleteIndependence for Scotland, what were these multiple mandates? The SNP have certainly had majorities in Holyrood and Westminster in regards to seats. What about percentage of the vote though? As far as I’m aware they’ve never had 50% of the vote.
DeleteIt's simple IfS, you're comment that we do not have democracy is mince. Everyone in Scotland knows a vote for the SNP/Green/Alba is a vote for independence. There is no gun to our head to vote for unionist parties. Moan all you want about blocks but if Scots had the hawmaws to vote overwhelmingly majority for these parties, we'd be in a different ball game. It would open up different avenues. We don't, stop blaming anyone but our own electorate.
DeleteThe option to vote for the pro independence candidates of SNP, Alba, Green will exist. The box next to it, a cross there. It's not complicated, a big vote for those parties would cause a response if our own people produce one that dictates it.
DeleteAnon at 8.57pm - well you don't know much - in 2015 - 50% of the vote and 56 out of 59MPs in Scotland. In the same election Cameron got 37% - let it sink in - 37% - as a mandate for him to hold his EU ref. So you don't need 50% of the vote to have a mandate for a referendum. So do your research before posting wrong info.
DeleteWhat, and let's be less polite for a change because IfS screeches at anyone that's in disagreement with him, a NUMPTYISH comment that is about a 70% vote meaning the same as 2015. Beyond hilarious and doesn't need further analysis.
DeleteThe bar set to convince is our own people, all they need to do is vote in those numbers or even much less for real change. But it's everyone's fault, Nicola, Salmond, Yousaf, Robertson surely but not the Scots themselves eh? Bored senseless by this constant baracking of individuals for us collectively failing to put differences aside and vote for pro independence parties in inarguable numbers. We are the moaners of the world, seriously. Need it spoonfed.
Anon at 9.04pm - the mince is what is between your ears. Sturgeon actually said in 2015 and 2017 that a vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence. Other elections she said it was a vote for Indyref2 of a stronger voice or other such rubbish. I won't be voting for Britnat parties but I would bet you are.
DeleteYou moan - yes you are moaning- that Scots do not have the courage etcetc - if your granny had balls she would be grandpa - oh wait it's the SNP perhaps not. 51% in a referendum in a democracy should suffice but people like you want to wait for a fantasy land.
560 English MPs against 57 Scottish MPs says England rules and Scotland has no democracy. Scoop the mince out of your head.
Anon at 9.23pm - you asked what the outcome would be. I told you my opinion. You thought it hilarious. You didnae say what you thought would happen. Seems to me you don't have a clue what the outcome would be or worse you have some hilarious outcome only a numpty would come up with. Well you slag of the courage of Scots but you cannae even work up the courage to tell us your outcome. Pathetic.
DeleteA 70% yes is fantasy land and the sort of stuff Britnats say we need ( Sure you ain't a Britnat troll.). We don't need 70% - 51% in a referendum is all that is needed.
The figure isn't the relevant point, the point being made is scots have a free and fair vote to elect pro independence MPs, if they did elect with a majority of votes independence MPs in more than say 49/51 a new front would open up. Obviously the larger the majority the larger the scope for demanding change.The first step is the electorate voting for it, though, and there isn't any legal mechanism to stop that from happening.
DeleteAnon at 9.46pm - you are moaning.
DeleteAnon at 10.06pm - the SNP MPs are not pro independence MPs.
Ifs, to say the SNP MPs are not pro independence is just ludicrous.
DeleteI have the feeling you’re on the sauce tonight.
Anon at 11.53pm - why is it ludicrous? They have had many many mandates for Indyref2 over the mast 9 years and did nothing. So tell me your reasoning for saying it is ludicrous. Nope didn't touch any alcohol last night and generally when people start that type of accusation it is because they have no decent argument to hand.
DeleteAnon: "Who knows James?? Maybe vote for them and find out. Doesn't change the fact there is a democracy and the dividing line is how many of us support the party(ies) putting forward independence"
DeleteYou're all over the place on this. You claim you know this is a democracy and you know people will get what they vote for, but then when challenged on whether a majority vote for independence will be respected, you literally reply "who knows?" It seems you do *not* in fact know whether the UK is a democracy or not. Let me give you a clue: it isn't.
I'm going to delete your later comment claiming that we've never had 51% in our lives, because that's factually inaccurate - in the 2015 election, for example, a little over 51% voted SNP or Green. Can't have you misleading people, can we? I strongly suspect you're KC playing games by posing as a "moderate Nat" yet again.
I have no idea who KC is or care to.
DeleteNoone "knows" for sure what would happen if Scots had the gumption to vote 50+1 for independence supporting parties these days, it's in the future.
What we do know are these
1) Pro independence parties exist, they are not illegal
2) Parties can put whatever they want in a manifesto
3) Scottish electorate can vote for them
4) everything after 50+1 has legitimacy as a vote
5) the strength of legitimacy is increased as the majority increases
6) There is nothing stopping the Scottish people increasing the legitimacy by voting for the parties in inarguable numbers.
If Scottish people, with no blocks whatsoever, want independence then unfortunately we're going to have to do it by showing this unequivocally that we are not a divided nation+1.
You can pretend all you want, London is putting a block on. It's upto our own people to vote in such numbers that it cannot be ignored. We are not blocked from doing so.
We have never voted 51% for independence, we have voted 51% once..for a referendum. Get it right.
I'm sick and tired of people blaming individual people like Nicola Sturgeon, Salmond, Harvie, the tooth fairy for Scots not carrying the day and making it obvious, like every other country would do, and vote accordingly for pro-independence parties in indisputable numbers. If Sturgeon or Humza thought for one minute our people would sieze the day with a referendum proposed by the Scottish Parliament tomorrow, I bet they'd call it. It's not them that's the problem, it's our own people who aren't there yet. And all these people splitting, sniping from all the parties and none are simply causing more issues. We need to get back to basics on this.
We are living in a position of realpolitque, between law and democracy at this point. Ultimately the people change the course.
Delete1) 50+1 probably isn't enough
2) Something might be
3) 70% would be
There's no magical figure but it has to be clear, obvious and settles the victor as well as pacifies the loser and bridges agreement. What none of these things involve is being given anything, it's upto Scots, and has been forever thus.
While withdrawal from Westminster could hypothetically be considered a viable strategy contingent upon securing an unequivocal mandate for independence, it's crucial to acknowledge the substantial influence the SNP has already exerted in the House of Commons.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, expecting the SNP to refrain from contesting elections against other pro-independence candidates is surely unrealistic given its entrenched status as the predominant and preeminent pro-independence party. Furthermore, adopting an abstentionist stance may inadvertently bolster Tory governance, thereby enhancing Labour's assertion of safeguarding Scotland from such political dominance.
Thus, while the notion of withdrawal may possess strategic merit under specific circumstances, its feasibility within the current political milieu is questionable.
You are elevating futility to a high art. There's nothing you can do to prevent the catharsis of spurious morality.
DeleteHear hear.
DeleteHi , Terence Callachan Dundee here , Withdrawal from Westminster has to be accompanied by some other action something thst causes disturbance of the normal workings of englands control of Scotland.
ReplyDeleteIn Northern Ireland we seen a withdrawal from parliament there and we also seen Westminster do nothing to deal with it.
I would love to see SNP MPs withdraw from Westminster but to be honest they are not people who are fighting for Scottish independence they are just mouthpiece politicians , useless .
We need a leader that causes disruption and joins in the marches and disruption and yes , risks arrest , protesters are always at risk of arrest in a country like UK , none of our political representatives have the mettle for it.
Being refused permission to hold a referendum on Scottish undependence by England who do they think they are ? our political representatives are weak , pathetic , not what Scotland needs.
Even Malta had to fight in the streets for its independence from England and that was only 60 years ago
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/A_view_of_shops_with_anti-British_and_pro-Independence_signs%2C_possibly_on_Kings_Street%2C_Valetta%2C_Malta_%285074435957%29.jpg
Correct Mr Callaghan.
DeleteIf you participate in the Westminster establishment you collaborate with the Westminster establishment, even if you kid yourselves you're some kind of political rebel or reformer.
ReplyDeleteThe Westminster establishment will assimilate you regardless. From day one you're required to take an oath of allegiance to the monarch and the so-called United Kingdom. Again you can kid yourself by metaphorically and physically crossing your fingers but from the very start the establishment has won.
Ireland's IPP wasted years trying to find ways to further the cause of home rule only for the establishment to change the rule book whenever it saw IPP making some little progress.
Today we are witnessing the same establishment tactic. Abstentionism won't immediately win back our independence but at least it will give the pro-indy public some hope, some pride and some reassurance their votes have not been wasted. As it stands today a SNP voter could not be blamed for thinking their loyalty has been abused.
Independence will be regained with a combination of head and heart. Never underestimate or relegate the heart.
Anon at 6.47pm - correct.
DeleteAnon at 6.57pm - what you recommend will be a long long long wait. Suits the Britnats doesn't it.
ReplyDeleteA 51% yes vote in a de facto referendum is a vote for independence. So why are we not having a de facto referendum?
Anon at 9.07pm - did you think Mars didn't exist until you heard about it?
DeleteAnon at 11.46pm - Why? If you don't explain why then it is just your assertion backed up by nothing.
DeleteAnon at 8.45am - Why? If you don't explain why it is just your assertion backed up by nothing.
I agree with IFS, surely they have to give us a de facto referendum soon, which will, of course, allow us to declare independence.
DeleteThough a lot of people have gone off Nicola Sturgeon a little, a lot of credit should be given to her for coming up with the de facto idea.
I really hope when the momentous day arrives our much loved great ex leader will be centre stage with Humza.
Hi, KC, great to see you've belatedly embraced democracy and accepted that the general idea is people getting what they vote for, not what they vote against.
DeleteKC - he is like a bad smell that keeps turning up. Nobody knows why or where it is but they know it smells like Britnat shit.
Delete🎶🎶🎶🎶give it up, baby give it up🎶🎶🎶🎶🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Delete