I've never been remotely impressed by the oft-repeated Bath'ist fantasy that the SNP could have exploited their position in the 2017-19 hung parliament to cut a deal with Theresa May that would have paved the way for the delivery of Brexit in return for a second independence referendum in Scotland. No such deal was ever available or feasible - May would have rejected it out of hand for her own ideological reasons, but even if she hadn't, she would never have been able to sell it to her parliamentary party. So, no, the SNP couldn't have brought about independence via an unholy arrangement with the Tory government, but what they could and should have done was bring the issue of an independence referendum to a head before January 2020. They should have legislated for a vote, and if the Supreme Court had blocked it, they should have then moved swiftly towards the Plan B of using an election as a de facto referendum. Why didn't they? Because they were scared of their own shadows after the shock they received at the 2017 general election, which had been unexpectedly called just after Nicola Sturgeon "called a referendum" (sic). In fact, they gave every indication of having been psychologically broken by the 2017 election result, which was absolutely ludicrous given that by any objective standard the SNP had actually done exceptionally well. They had won a majority of seats for only the second time in their history, and the scale of that majority was roughly on a par with the Thatcher landslide of 1987.
Another key step along the way to my decision to leave the SNP and join Alba was the sacking and subsequent brutal treatment of Joanna Cherry in February 2021. That was a real moment of clarity for me when I realised the extent to which the SNP leadership faction had elevated their own identity politics preoccupations above the pursuit of independence. But there had also been a similarly eye-opening incident just over a year before that, during the 2019 general election campaign, when the SNP candidate for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath - Neale Hanvey - was instantly hung out to dry upon being accused of antisemitism on rather spurious grounds that mostly centred on a careless retweet. It was too late to remove him as a candidate, but instead they suspended him from the party, withdrew all support for his candidacy and left him to effectively run as an independent in the (wrong) belief and hope that this would inevitably lead to his defeat at the hands of Labour Shadow Cabinet member Lesley Laird. I expressed my intense exasperation with that decision at the time on this blog - I pointed out that if the SNP leadership were serious about using the election to deliver independence (which I now realise they weren't), every single seat was vital and they couldn't afford to chuck away crucial marginal seats like confetti in a virtue-signalling exercise. What they should have done was lived with a bit of transient discomfort and reaffirmed their support for their candidate.
Now here's the irony. A very similar situation has just cropped up for Labour under Keir Starmer. Their candidate for the forthcoming Rochdale by-election, Azhar Ali, has been accused of antisemitism, but it's too late to replace him. As with Neale Hanvey, the allegation is bogus, but at least what Ali did amounts to a bit more than a retweet. The pro-Israel lobby have reacted by demanding that Labour do to Ali essentially what the SNP did to Hanvey by suspending him and abandoning all support for his candidacy, even though that would effectively mean withdrawing Labour from the by-election. But remarkably, Labour have said no. They've criticised Ali's comment and said he was right to apologise, but other than that they've backed him to the hilt and reaffirmed their support for him as Labour candidate.
The current Labour leadership are noted for their obsessive 'zero tolerance' approach to antisemitism allegations, no matter how spurious or tenuous, but even they have felt able to draw the line in a politically more realistic way than the SNP managed when a crucial parliamentary seat was at stake. Retrospectively, that tells us something quite powerful about just how (un)serious the SNP leadership were about the pursuit of independence in 2019.
* * *
Before we finish, a reminder that the Scot Goes Pop opinion poll fundraiser urgently needs a boost - let's not leave it in limbo for months. It's important that not all Scottish opinion polling is commissioned by anti-independence clients - we need to make sure that occasionally questions are asked that Yes supporters want asked. Donations can be made via the fundraiser page HERE.
However if you have a Paypal account the best way to donate is via direct Paypal payment, because that can totally eliminate fees depending on which option you select, and payment usually comes through instantly. My Paypal email address is:
jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk
"No such deal was ever available or feasible - May would have rejected it out of hand for her own ideological reasons, but even if she hadn't,"
ReplyDeleteI've heard that May came to the table for a meeting with Sturgeon round this time with some options for a deal for Scotland (though not for a referendum). We'll never know if that's true and if so what they were because Nikla went into the meeting with a belligerent attitude, peed off May and the options (if they existed) were never aired.
Oh come off it. "I've heard" that Peter Rabbit popped round for tea at around the same time. People are forever "hearing" things.
DeleteTheresa May had no interest whatever in a deal with the SNP for very obvious reasons.
I would imagine that May had a vested interest in deals with everyone. Britain would be in a better place if the opposition partys had voted for her Brexit deal rather than wait for Boris'. But I guess that for politicians, stupid beligerance triumphs sense.
DeleteShe would have never have agreed to a deal with the SNP because of what you call her "belligerence", but in fact she didn't have a vested interest in it anyway - it would have been politically too costly with her own party. It would have potentially cost her her job.
DeleteAlso: making things better for BRITAIN is categorically NOT the purpose of the party of Scottish independence.
DeleteI bought Nicola’s appeals to constructiveness at the time as a tactical play to show herself (and us) as high minded, principled and pragmatic while Tories were fighting like cats. But as time has proved: it was both utterly ineffective and revealed to be her actual goal, not just a canny play on the path to independence.
If we wanted a British devolutionist party, we’d vote for one. Quit obstructing our path to independence!
"Theresa May had no interest whatever in a deal with the SNP for very obvious reasons."
Deletehttps://robinmcalpine.org/in-government-you-need-to-work-with-the-enemy/
The tories in Scotland fought the 2017 GE under the slogan, 'Stop Indy Ref 2', so any suggestion that May was coming up here to offer Sturgeon a 'deal' on a second referendum is absolute nonsense. With regard to how some individuals inside the SNP were treated, it is hard to disagree with what you've said and I share your opinion. The worst instance ( in my opinion) was that which was handed out to Michele Thomson, who did absolutely nothing wrong yet was treated as if she had. The difference, however, between Michele Thomson, Joanna Cherry and the elected politicians who defected to Alba is that Michele and Joanna refused to throw their toys out of the pram and go off in a huff. Had those people who've left for Alba stuck with the SNP and fought for internal change within it, then we would be in a far greater position politically to progress independence. I am not blaming those who left for Alba for feeling frustrated with the SNP but in my opinion they collectively made bad political decisions by doing so and the only beneficiaries have been the forces of unionism.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that's true unless you believe the people who left for Alba could have swung the balance and won Kate Forbes the leadership election, and from the rough sums I did at the time I'm pretty sure that's not the case. You have to remember that many Alba members were not SNP members immediately prior to joining Alba - many had left the SNP well before that, so wouldn't have had a leadership vote anyway. And strange though it may seem, I also know of some Alba members who would have ranked Yousaf ahead of Forbes.
DeleteI wasn't referring directly to the last leadership election although, had things been different, the Alba members could have been influential in altering the outcome. What I was referring to was pushing for change via the SNP National Council which has now been restored. The hiatus caused by the pandemic severely delayed this but now that its back there will be a push for change on more than a few things from ordinary members.
DeleteI don't think anyone seriously believes the current SNP leadership will ever allow change to occur via the party's internal "democratic" structures. The only viable mechanism for change is a leadership election itself.
DeleteAgreed here, too. (Another anon.) The party is as top down as can be. The one upside of that: a new leader has immense power to change things completely.
DeleteIt will be interesting to see the by election results when we wake up on Friday.
ReplyDeleteAnything short of thumping Labour wins at this point would be a shock.
DeleteAnon 3.59: could go either way.
DeleteThe Labour candidate has issued a very clear apology and this has drawn a line under the matter.
ReplyDeleteAre you that parody astroturfer? Doing it for Labour now instead of Humza?
DeleteLovely attitude. The voters, and only the voters, decide whether that’s the case.
DeleteI expect it’ll be a perfectly barnstorming result for Labour, in any case, because their opposition is in such exquisite disarray you could be mistaken that we’re suddenly back in the mid-1990s. Their candidate would have to do a lot worse to upset a tide as high as that.
@James. I think he’s a wannabe astroturfer, rather than a parody. It’s absurd but insufficiently ironic to be satire.
DeleteRobin McAlpine mentions a favourite phrase:
DeleteNow the SNP is going to face a serious setback at the UK General Election and a crunch moment will come.
I’d imagine Yousaf will try to cling to power like they all do. His people are currently briefing that he’s growing into his role (which, in case you don’t know how spinners talk, means ‘everything he’s done so far – just ignore that and he’ll get better’). But this isn’t a youth training scheme.
Keeping Yousaf there is what to do if you see the priority as factional control of the SNP. Replacing him (or forcing massive change on him) is a priority if you want to make progress on independence or any other issue. That is what we will learn
Anon-whose-comment-I've-just-deleted: I suspect I've said this to you before, but you are not welcome to post here in the manner you've just attempted. Do not abuse the lack of pre-moderation - either post constructively or go away.
ReplyDeleteWestminster hardly needs to knock the SNP down at the moment as they've done it all themselves but, if the SNP were to be offered a deal whereby Scotland is granted an S30 to hold an indy ref but it must hold a public vote on the GRR too, and the results of both MUST be adhered to by UK / Scotland, I'm pretty sure the SNP would turn the offer down as they know they would lose on the GRR and that's really what matters to them.
ReplyDeleteLabour has now withdrawn support for their candidate similar to SNP.
ReplyDeleteLabour's "support" for their Rochdale candidate didn't last very long - did it!
ReplyDeleteanother about face from Sir Keir, it had to happen.
ReplyDelete