Stephen Flynn has said that Rachel Reeves' rejection of an independence referendum in the event of an SNP overall majority "carries little weight", but if it really doesn't matter what the UK government think, what is the remaining argument against, say, using an election as a de facto referendum? It turns out that what Mr Flynn really meant is that Rachel Reeves' views don't matter because she won't be Chancellor for much longer, and Keir Starmer won't be Prime Minister for long either. That of course implies that Mr Flynn thinks the views of the next Labour leader and next Labour Chancellor very much *do* matter, and indeed will be far more decisive in determining Scotland's future than any decisions made by the people of Scotland themselves. In the video below, I explain why that's hard to reconcile with the SNP leadership's own campaign for "Scotland's right to choose", and I also suggest a way forward that would not require any direct reversal of the strategy agreed at the SNP conference two months ago.
* * *
Scot Goes Pop: The Final Fundraiser is underway (you can read more about why I anticipate it being the final one HERE) and it's already pretty close to halfway to its target figure of £1700. A million thanks to everyone who has donated so far. Card donations can be made at the GoFundMe page HERE, or if you prefer to cut out the middle-man, direct PayPal donations can be made to my PayPal email address, which is: jkellysta@yahoo.co.uk
Unfortunately fear IS the key to understanding the SNP leadership's wee verbal tangle as expressed by Mr. Flynn.
ReplyDeletePeople who have become comfortably middle class by the existing rules want to continue being so - dead simple. People like that don't lead rule breaking movements.
The UK has decided to make independence for Scotland a revolutionary demand i.e. one that can only be achieved by sustained breaking of 'rules'.
We've already discussed the only other possibility - that the UK state's economic and political contradictions lead it into some form of collapse where it is unable to enforce its rules.
This is where we are - a leadership which wont kick its way out and an inperial state that wont accept any alternative unless it is dead on its feet.
A revolutionary situation in which we have no revolutionary leadership with, at the recent conference, about 70% of the most active of SNP members voting for that non strategy.
We need to change the perspective of the party and then change its leadership. No small task !
One of the policies Jeremy Corbyn tried to progress while he was leader of the Labour Party was MPs compulsorily offering themselves up for re-election / deselection, in their constituencies in the run up to every election. Corbyn himself adhered to this principle.
ReplyDeleteAll parties are chock-a-block full of individuals who have settled down to a comfortable life in Westminster. SNP, Headquarters vetting of potential candidates exacerbated this. Frankly, most of the SNP, Westminster cohort from the glory years would never see that kind of financial remuneration in any other circumstance. £94k plus expenses is a hell of a salary for folk not previously employed in a managerial capacity. The exception would be the likes of Joanna Cherry who could earn considerable more in her previous career. It’s no surprise Jackson’s Entry tried to move heaven, and earth to get rid of Cherry (who they couldn’t exercise total control over).
I wouldn’t send Kirsty Blackman out to pick litter unsupervised.
At a “corporate” scale, the SNP accrued c. £1.3 million per year in British state, Short money, when they had 40 odd MPs.
With party democracy hollowed out (by Angus Robertson), the party is de facto, a small number of people employed at Jackson’s Entry. £1.3m pa provides comfortable sinecures when divided up between in the region of 20 folk. Headquarters extract tithes from MPs, and MSPs on top of this. The ability of some employees of the SNP to earn these kind of salaries elsewhere can also be questioned (check out Sue Ruddick’s CV, and yet she rose to be acting Chief Executive).
We have mediocrity by design at Westminster, and Holyrood. It suits Jackson’s Entry, and it suits the British state.
British state, Short money is the bait for the dependency trap.
Sinn Féin are well aware of this.