Why is it that every time the SNP pointlessly chuck away a precious parliamentary seat, they get patted on the back as if they've just done something really sensible and mature?

When it emerged that Stephen Flynn wanted to challenge a sitting SNP MSP for a place in Holyrood, but also wanted to retain his Westminster seat until the next general election if he was successful, I made the point that the one thing the SNP needed to avoid at all costs was a needless Westminster by-election in Aberdeen South.  In other words, there had to be one of two outcomes: either a) Flynn had to be persuaded to abandon his plan to switch to Holyrood and instead rededicate himself to his important role as leader of the fourth largest group in the Commons (by far the most preferable option), or b) his critics had to accept his temporary dual mandate through gritted teeth.

The SNP making strategic mis-steps has become such an established pattern in recent years that it's no great surprise to me that after only a few short days they've managed to end up with precisely the worst-case scenario I warned against.  They've persuaded Flynn to abandon his plan to have a dual mandate, but not to abandon his plan to switch to Holyrood.  That makes a by-election almost inevitable - unless of course Flynn fails in his bid for Holyrood selection.  But that seems highly unlikely, because we all know what this is really about - the leadership faction want Flynn in Holyrood so he can be the next leader.  I was asked last night how long I thought John Swinney would stay on as leader, and I said "at least two more years, because the ruling faction want him to hang on until they can replace him with Stephen Flynn, preventing Kate Forbes from becoming First Minister is the one thing they care about above all else".  And the person I was speaking to gave me a look of total bafflement and said "WHY?"  I had to think about that for a moment, but eventually I said "well, because she's an evangelical Christian, and because she has certain private views about abortion...", and then I sort of tailed off and thought to myself "yeah, this doesn't really make any sense, does it?"  The SNP have got to stop tearing their own house down for factional reasons.

What does surprise me, although it probably shouldn't, is that having needlessly got themselves into this by-election mess, the SNP are receiving a big pat on the back from certain sections of the independence movement.  "Stephen Flynn got this one wrong, but the important thing is he's accepted that and put things right."  Well, no, actually, he's now got things even more wrong than before.  Far, far more wrong.  It reminds me of when prominent independence supporters both inside and outside the SNP were enthusiastically urging people in Rutherglen to sign the recall petition against Margaret Ferrier.  "Here's a helpful map showing you where you can sign, and don't forget to wrap up warm, now!"  Those sterling "efforts" led to a landmark by-election gain for Labour, which in turn generated momentum that led to the SNP's defeat at the general election.

Make no mistake - if the SNP stupidly bring about a by-election in Aberdeen South, they're likely to lose it and see their representation in the Commons cut from nine seats to eight.  It's not a natural SNP constituency.  Flynn only held it in July because the unionist vote was split down the middle, but in a by-election context it's likely that unionist voters would coalesce more behind one party, possibly the Tories.  Heaven only knows what momentum that might generate and what the long-term consequences might be.

One of the many plus points of the ICC ruling is that it's exposed Stephen Daisley as an unhinged extremist who would happily tear down the entire international system just to prevent a war criminal he admires from facing justice

Part of Stephen Daisley's basic schtick is to present himself (in spite of his rather extreme right-wing views on many topics) as the voice of mainstream common sense and to make a great show of being amused by supposedly 'unsensible' people.  For example, when Nicola Sturgeon was at the height of her powers and SNP members and SNP-supporting commentators were tending to get a bit carried away and to show her excessive adulation, he wasn't shy about using the ironic #NotACult hashtag.  He regarded it as a great "hoot" that he unexpectedly got to see the "unelectable" Left in charge of the Labour party for a few years, having been too young to remember the last time around in the early 80s (although it's safe to assume he must have been shocked to his core that the 2017 general election result didn't resemble the 1983 result in the way he imagined was absolutely inevitable).  And of course he's a tremendous fan of lecturing the SNP on how they should concentrate on "the day job" and the delivery of public services, rather than constitutional obsessions that real people supposedly don't care about.

So it really is a rare old treat to see how the issuing of arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant has led him to instantly lose the plot utterly, and very visibly turn into exactly the sort of destructive ideological hothead that he professes to have such disdain for.  Even more delicious is that he seems gloriously unaware of what he's doing and how ridiculous it's making him look.  No, of course he doesn't want any sort of disproportionate reaction against the world's highest court for taking one decision he personally dislikes, he just wants it destroyed completely, if necessary by means of a US military invasion of the Netherlands.  He wants Trump's America to go full rogue state (not that they'll need much encouragement on that score) by freezing the ICC's bank accounts, preventing its staff from travelling, and forcing US allies to choose between rogue US leadership and the rule of international law.  In short, Daisley quite cheerfully wants to bring the whole international system crashing down because of his single-minded determination that two wanted war criminals must go free at all costs.

In defence of this barking mad prospectus, he runs through the stock points of pro-Israeli gaslighting - ie. Israel doesn't deliberately target civilians, it always issues warnings, it's responsible for lavish amounts of humanitarian aid reaching Palestinian civilians who are frankly living as princes.  It's almost pointless to try to take issue with such nonsense, because the entire purpose of Israel preventing journalists from reporting inside Gaza is to stop conclusive proof emerging that civilians are being targeted for intentional and industrial-scale racial extermination.  That conclusive proof has come out anyway, but Daisley and his ilk can pretend not to see it because it comes from the 'wrong' sources.  

But on one point he's just objectively and irrefutably wrong.

"The ICC has no jurisdiction over Israel, which is not a party to the Rome Statute."

The ICC is not claiming jurisdiction over Israel.  Its relevant jurisdiction is over the Palestinian territories, which is the geographical location where Israel has committed the war crimes.  

"A state can invite the court to rule on a matter related to its territory and volunteer to accept its jurisdiction, which the Palestinian Authority has done as part of a long-term strategy to gain a foothold in international bodies and use it to wage diplomatic warfare against Israel. However, the Palestinian Authority is not a state and exercises no meaningful sovereignty over Gaza, which is run by Hamas. The ICC has involved itself because doing so suits its institutional politics and preferences."

The Palestinian Authority may not be a state, but the State of Palestine is very much a state - the clue is helpfully contained within the name.  What the hell is a state if not an entity that declares itself to be a state within defined geographical boundaries and attracts international recognition for its declaration? The State of Palestine is currently recognised by 146 of the 193 member states of the UN, or just over three-quarters.  That number includes several western countries including Sweden, Spain, Norway and Ireland.  It doesn't matter a damn that there isn't yet 100% recognition, because a great many other countries are not universally recognised either.  Israel itself, for example, is not recognised by 28 UN states, around 15% of the total.  Some countries still do not recognise the People's Republic of China because they prefer to have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but no-one would seriously suggest that this means China is not a sovereign nation.

The UN finally accepted the State of Palestine as a non-member observer state in 2012, which put its status as a state beyond all dispute, and allowed Palestine to become a full member of many other international organisations including the International Criminal Court.  Palestine has not, as Daisley claims, "invited" the court to rule and "volunteered to accept its jurisdiction".  Palestine is simply a state party to the ICC on exactly the same basis as the UK and over 100 other countries, and the ICC's jurisdiction is therefore automatic within Palestine's sovereign territory.  The ICC is not "involving itself" due to its "institutional preferences", but because it is compelled to be involved by the terms of its founding treaty, which gives the citizens of all states parties, including the State of Palestine, exactly the same protections as each other.

Nor does the fact that the territory of the State of Palestine is illegally occupied by a neighbouring country detract from the rights and responsibilities of the government of the State of Palestine in international bodies.  If that was the case, the fact that 10% of the territory of Ukraine is occupied by Russia would put at risk Ukraine's membership of the UN, but that would be plainly ridiculous.  Daisley's subtext is that Israel's occupation of Palestine gives Israel a veto on Palestinian statehood, rather as if Israeli rule in the West Bank and Gaza were an international "mandate" like the one Britain used to enjoy in the same region.  But of course the opposite is true - numerous UN resolutions dating back to the 1960s stress that Israel has no legitimate right to be in the West Bank and Gaza and should leave immediately.

On one point I do half-agree with Daisley, though - it might be a good thing in the long run if Trump forces countries to make a straight choice between the US and the international system, because many US allies will choose the international system, no matter how painful they find it to be faced with such a dilemma.  We've already seen that with the likes of Canada.  Only a week ago, Trudeau was shamefully parroting Israeli propaganda about a "pogrom in Amsterdam", presumably because the US told him to, but as soon as the ICC actually issued the arrest warrants, there was no ambiguity - Trudeau swiftly made clear that Canada would abide by its international obligations and arrest Netanyahu if he set foot on Canadian soil.

Surely the Eurovision Song Contest (and FIFA, etc) have got to suspend Israel until such time as a new government is formed that isn't led by a wanted war criminal. That oughtn't be a controversial point.

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 23, 2024