The most dispiriting aspect of the controversy surrounding Dave Doogan is that it's given the controversial Somerset-based "Stew" blogger an excuse to yet again trot out his barking mad fantasy about how the SNP supposedly turned down a chance to get an independence referendum in the 2017-19 parliament by refusing to do a deal with Theresa May to support her Brexit deal. To reiterate yet again, such a deal would have been completely impossible, because:
* The SNP couldn't have delivered the goods for May arithmetically. There were still many Tory MPs who were obeying the whip on Brexit votes at that point out of standard party loyalty, but for whom a deal with the SNP potentially paving the way for Scotland to become an independent country would have been the final straw. May would have been left with fewer votes for her Brexit deal, not more.
* It would never have got to that point anyway, because May herself would never have entertained a deal with the SNP. The sanctity of "Our Pweshus Union", as risible as it seems to us, was one of her few core beliefs and she would never have compromised on it.
To turn to the potential deal with Reform that Dave Doogan was asked about, it's true that we can't say the arithmetic wouldn't work this time because the question is predicated on purely hypothetical arithmetic. But even if a deal was arithmetically possible, think about what it would actually entail. It wouldn't be a 'once and done' affair of voting to install Nigel Farage as Prime Minister - paradoxically that's the one vote that wouldn't be necessary, because under the UK system Prime Ministers are appointed by the King, not elected by Parliament. It would mean SNP MPs voting day in, day out to implement Reform's far-right agenda for potentially three or four years, or however long it takes to hold an independence referendum and subsequently negotiate an independence settlement. Even a more limited confidence-and-supply deal would mean voting in favour of the main essentials.
Now, of course we all know why Stew is utterly baffled as to why there is any problem with that - he's gone full fascist and thinks implementing far-right policies is a completely normal thing to do and that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with it. But that's certainly not the centre of gravity in Scottish public opinion, and if in the run-up to any independence referendum the main party of independence becomes associated with implementing soft fascism...well, whisper it gently but that might just possibly have a detrimental effect on the Yes vote, because voters will make inferences about what the values of the politicians running an independent Scotland will be.
By the same token, the chance to escape an impending Reform government is one of the USPs of the independence movement at present (again, Stew may find that baffling but it's true just the same) and it's a statement of the obvious that the SNP failing to rule out propping up a Reform government would mean throwing that advantage away. So of course Dave Doogan has done the right thing by clarifying his remarks.
Tommy Shepherd says defacto referendum is not the way forward. It's obvious the only SNP plan is a Section 30. This is not a party of independence, surely everyone can see this now.
ReplyDeleteStu should create the Wings Party he promised and lead Scotland to freedom !
DeleteSNP should create a new party and lead Scotland to freedom like they promised. The present one don't want indy.
DeleteAnon 2:21 Go ahead, what's stopping ye ?
DeleteI'm no the SNP. I'm anon 2:21.
DeleteI think the only point at which the SNP had leverage to extract a deal to the advantage of Scotland was immediately before Boris Johnson’s “Get Brexit Done”, crash election. Johnson was still dependent on Theresa May’s deal with the Ulster Unionists. In reality, his “oven ready Brexit” depended on “putting a Customs barrier in the Irish sea”, at least that’s how the DUP and their fellow travellers regarded it and they were dead against it.
ReplyDeleteThere are four customs posts in the deal which was eventually signed. The EU are only concerned with large scale movement of goods, effectively HGVs etcetera, to deal with large scale smuggling, tariff evasion, phytosanitary and veterinary health concerns. Larne ferry terminal, Belfast docks, the Belfast airport which handles freight from the UK, and Warrenpoint container terminal.
Four customs points for the 1.9 million population of Northern Ireland equates to 2.1 customs point per million people.
A Scottish & Northern Ireland entity would have a combined population of 7.4 million. On a pro rata basis that would “entitle” it to 15 customs offices.
Northern Ireland wouldn’t require Larne anymore as it only handles HGVs originating in Scotland. That would leave 12 customs posts to cover the transit of goods from England to Scotland. Minus three possibly four airports and the Euro Central, rail freight terminal in Lanarkshire, that would leave 7 customs posts along the Solway Tweed border. There ain’t that many HGV suitable roads along that demarcation line.
We could have gotten the deal described by the Tories as the “best of both worlds”. Instead, Sturgeon stamped her wee feet and skqueeemed “No Brexit!”.
In any case, Johnson got his supermajority and railroaded the Northern Ireland deal through against the objections of the DUP etcetera.
If we had gotten the Northern Ireland “carve out”, folk would have become accustomed to the idea of a policed border between Scotland and England. It ain’t the big deal Unionists make it out to be. It’s perfectly normal for sovereign states and with a UK, Irish Republic free travel zone, a principle that massively predates even the Common Market, it would only apply to the commercial transit of goods. Margaret Curren widnae need a passport to visit her nephew in London after all.
getting what you want out of people you don't like and are your enemies - IS THE HEIGHT OF POLITICAL SKILL
ReplyDelete- if the devil himself was offering indy, you would be best to give him a hearing
if the english want to vote in reform to destroy their own country that is their democratic right
indy and indy alone restores our democratic right to have a government of our own choosing - never you mind what england wants to do to itself
Can't argue with that.
DeleteThe English vote Reform and we end up Farage. Nice one.
DeleteThat's what happens without independence. Got Burnham and only a handful of Mancunians voted for him
DeleteWhen have the SNP been afraid of voting through deeply unpopular policies? They spent the entire last term digging a massive grave for themselves over GRA reform.
ReplyDeleteThe GRA reforms were not some reckless culture-war crusade. They were a well-balanced initiative to simplify an intrusive, medicalised legal process in the transgender space while retaining a statutory declaration.
DeleteNor was this Nicola imposing her personal obsession. The final Bill passed Holyrood by 86 votes to 39, with support extending beyond the SNP to MSPs from other parties.
The reform transformed the lives of people. Nicola handled this bravely and with principle. A long-developed equality reform in the human rights space that Nicola rightly believed was right.
The situation is much more complex that the legislation voted on in Holyrood, and once it became clear it was going to be used as a basis for political point scoring the SNP should have embarked on a damage limitation exercise, on the basis that it was a matter that could be revisited shortly after Independence. Instead, they handed the unionists a never ending supply of ammunition that continues to this day. A complete shambles and so damaging. And please spare me the usual matter of principle/ high moral ground nonsense. The aims of the Holyrood legislation are further away now than ever. N S, in her private moments, realises this herself, thus her self imposed exile. The occasional public utterance is for self selecting audience consumption.
DeleteAh yes. The great strategic doctrine: only pursue principles until your political opponents start criticising you, then immediately abandon them and promise to be brave later. Apparently Nicola’s real mistake was failing to realise that the purpose of government is to deny the opposition “ammunition” rather than actually legislate for policies you believe in. And the claim that this poster knows what Nicola “realises in her private moments” is particularly impressive. Political analysis by a clairvoyant. Her withdrawal from frontline politics conveniently presented as proof of whatever argument happens to be required. The line that “the Unionists attacked it, therefore she should have surrendered” is hardly the critique of her leadership this apparently clairvoyant poster thinks it is. Nicola was and is far better than that.
DeleteOh dear. Touched a wee nerve have we? N S has already conceded the import of what I said. And no I am not leading you to it. Take off the blinkers and read for yourself. You explain so much about where the SNP and the move towards Indy are right now. You just do not grasp what you are doing. But hey, I’m sure you showed mummy your post and she is very proud of you.
DeleteOh my word, scraping the bottom of the barrel there alright. The old “Nicola definitely conceded my point, but I’m not telling you where do your own research” line. Devastating stuff. Nothing says command of the evidence quite like announcing that the evidence exists somewhere, refusing to produce it, and then confidently declaring victory. And apparently any SNP supporter disagreeing with your supposed great wisdom "explains” the current state of the SNP. Nicola really should have phoned you and just asked what to do. As for “take off the blinkers”, that’s especially delightfully exquisitely delicious coming immediately after some amateur mind-reading nonsense about what Sturgeon supposedly thinks “in her private moments”. Apparently we no longer need evidence when discussing Nicola: simply imagine what she secretly believes, announce that she agrees with you, and chastise everyone else for lacking objectivity. And finishing with the “showed mummy” line? Good gracious, when the evidence is overwhelming, naturally the so sophisticated political analyst abandons it entirely and heads straight for the primary-school playbook. Sorry, but I’ll stick with the unfashionable approach: judge Nicola on what she actually did and legislated for rather than the imaginary private confessions people conveniently write for her whenever reality refuses to cooperate with their argument. Nicola deserves nothing else.
DeleteIt is in her book you cretin.
DeleteOh my word, the “it’s in her book” line. Well, that certainly narrows it down. Only several hundred pages to search for the passage you apparently know well enough to cite, which vindicates the poster's dubious line, but mysteriously not well enough to quote or give a page number for. And naturally when asked for evidence, “you cretin” is the argument that the anti-SNP poster thinks finally settles the matter. Does the poster have any argument that argument progresses on from "you cretin"? No.
DeleteYou haven’t read it then? What a surprise. Give up. You attempted to be a smart arse and you have been handed your arse on a plate. I suspect you are the only person on here who doesn’t realise what a complete idiot your have made of your self. Unfortunately for you you come across as an incredibly stupid individual. If reading a book is too demanding for you try to listen to some of her interviews. And spare yourself further embarrassment. Come back on when you know enough to apologise.
DeleteGee. That’s an impressively long victory speech for someone who still hasn’t managed to provide the quotation, page number, interview or indeed any reference whatsoever showing that Nicola conceded your point. But by all means keep substituting insults for evidence. Nothing defends your claim quite like refusing to substantiate it.
DeleteI enjoyed seeing “NS realises this in her private moments” evolve into “it’s published in her book, you cretin.”
DeleteSome people just have a form of derangement syndrome when it comes to Nicola and to the SNP.
DeleteThere's absolutely nothing wrong with the SNP 'doing a deal' with UK Reform to get a referendum. If you won a referendum and UK Reform are in power, you'd have to 'do a deal' with them over the terms of independence anyway.
ReplyDeleteIndependence first. Then choose your politics.
Otherwise we'll keep getting the government England votes for.
Doogan was right the first time.
Can't argue with that either.
DeleteIf controlling one’s own borders from an invasion is right wing. Count me in
DeleteIs that you, MSP Kerr?
DeleteAnon at 3.16. You clearly haven't read Nicola's book.
ReplyDeleteTommy Shepherd says that James's idea of a defacto referendum is bonkers. His plan is to build support until it reaches some undefined level then - I suppose - ask for a Section 30 pointing out the massive support the SNP have built up. He sounds really enthusiastic about pushing for independence.
ReplyDelete