What is genocide?

Like many of you, I've occasionally had exchanges on social media over the last few months with Israeli sympathisers who innocently claim to be bewildered and deeply offended by any suggestion that Israel is perpetrating a genocide in Gaza.  But these people, whether they realise it or not, rarely agree with each other on the exact reason they offer for what is happening not being a genocide, which may be a clue that they're not on the firmest of ground.  By far the weakest argument I've encountered is that a genocide is the destruction of a whole people, and because Israel isn't doing that, it can't possibly be committing a genocide. But in fact the UN's definition of genocide is much broader than that - 

"a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part"

Which is why the ICJ had no difficulty in stating that there were plausible grounds for believing genocide was taking place.  Even Hitler didn't kill the entirety of Europe's Jewish population - he killed just under two-thirds.  The current claimed death toll of Palestinians in Gaza since October is just under 30,000, which is almost certainly a massive underestimate.  The population of Gaza is around 2.4 million, and the population of the wider Palestinian territories is around 4.8 million (excluding residents of the illegal Israeli settlements).  That means if the target population for genocide is considered to be Palestinians as a whole, a minimum of 0.6% have been killed so far, and if the target population is considered to be Palestinians specifically in Gaza, a minimum of 1.2% have already been killed.  There comes a point where that can be considered a non-trivial "part" of the overall ethnic group, especially when no end to the killings is in sight and the numbers can only vastly increase, especially due to man-made (ie. Israeli-made) starvation.

But if the governor of New York had her way, Israel would already have taken the genocide much, much further.  Kathy Hochul said this - 

"If Canada someday ever attacked Buffalo, I'm sorry, my friends, there would be no Canada the next day"

On that analogy, she thinks Israel should have totally annihilated all 2.4 million people in Gaza, and possibly all 4.8 million people in the State of Palestine, on 8th October.  Presumably this would have had to be done with nuclear weapons, because there is no other realistic way of destroying an entire ethnic group of millions in a single day.  To make the analogy more exact, of course, she would have to assume that Canada's attack on Buffalo was in retaliation for decades of US military occupation of Canada, which would mean under international law that the Canadians have a right to self-defence against the US, but the US do not have a right to self-defence against the occupied peoples.  That does not imply what Hamas did on 7th October was a legitimate form of self-defence, but it does mean that Israel haven't got a leg to stand on in suggesting that mass killings and mass destruction of infrastructure are a legal self-defence response to the events of 7th October, because they quite simply have no legal right to self-defence in Gaza at all.

Ms Hochul is, grotesquely, not a gun-toting Republican nutjob, but an elected Democratic Party governor in one of America's supposedly most liberal states.  And yet she not only cheerleads for genocide but thinks it hasn't gone anything like far enough yet. As long-term readers of this blog may remember, I have a vote in US presidential elections, and it's been an almighty struggle to find a Democratic primary candidate who has even a vaguely human stance on the Gaza conflict.  There was a Congressman who I agreed with on almost every policy, but when I got to his view on Israel/Palestine, I discovered that he thinks it's all the fault of the dastardly Arabs and everything would be as right as rain if they would just leave poor old Israel alone (ahem).  To my relief, I did eventually find a candidate who is standing on an explicit pitch of stopping the war and ending arms supplies to Israel.

As there are suggestions that Keir Starmer would like the SNP to change their pro-ceasefire Commons motion so he can allow Labour to vote for it, could I urge the SNP to stand firm and refuse any request to remove the words "immediate ceasefire" or to put any conditions at all on the immediacy.

SNP motion on a Gaza ceasefire will flush out Starmer - and possibly expose Scottish Labour's sham autonomy

Credit where credit is due to the SNP under the Yousaf leadership - I don't know how much influence Fiona Robertson and her ilk still have within the party, but it at least appears to have its limits.  Back during the Grouse Beater and Neale Hanvey controversies, which both took place when Robertson was strutting around as if being Equalities Convener meant she owned the place, she sent out the absolutist/absurdist stricture that any minority group gets to define entirely for itself what constitutes bigotry towards it.  If that was still the SNP's approach as far as the question of antisemitism is concerned, they would currently be tying themselves up in knots in exactly the manner Starmer and co are, and refusing to condemn a far-right Israeli government for mass-killing Palestinian civilians on the grounds that all meaningful criticisms of Israel are a form of antisemitism.

Instead, they're taking the correct stance on Gaza from both a moral and strategic perspective.  By forcing a Commons vote on a ceasefire in November, they caused carnage within Labour due to a number of frontbenchers defying Starmer's instruction to abstain, and then inevitably resigning or being sacked.  By forcing another vote now, the SNP will flush Starmer out - have the horrors of recent weeks really made no difference to his refusal to unconditionally back an immediate ceasefire?

And if the answer to that question turns out to be "yes", the SNP will probably also be able to expose the sham autonomy of the Scottish Labour party.  The two Scottish Labour MPs, Ian Murray and Michael Shanks, both slavishly followed the London Labour whip in November and did not vote for a ceasefire.  If they do the same thing this time, the political consequences will be more severe, because they will not only be defying public opinion in Scotland, but also the express will of the Scottish Labour conference, which has just voted in favour of an immediate ceasefire.  There could hardly be a more vivid demonstration that Scottish Labour MPs will always be Starmer's men and women in Scotland, rather than Scotland's voices (or even Scottish Labour's voices for that matter) within a Labour government.

Could the independence movement possibly avoid the slow-motion version of shooting itself in the foot in the Western Isles?

Although the Find Out Now MRP poll the other day was unusually - and some would say unrealistically - positive for the SNP, one dark cloud it still showed on the horizon was the projection that Labour would narrowly gain Na h-Eileanan an Iar.  There's something rather poignant about that, because traditionally the Western Isles (as the constituency used to be known) was a seat the SNP often won even when they were doing badly nationally, rather than the other way around.  Indeed, the only reason we can say there has been continuous pro-independence representation in the House of Commons since the Hamilton by-election in 1967 is that the SNP gained the Western Isles in the 1970 general election while they were in the process of losing Hamilton back to Labour.  It was also one of only two seats they retained anywhere in Scotland during the wilderness years between 1979 and 1987.  Although they eventually lost it when Donald Stewart retired in 1987, they took it back with Angus MacNeil in 2005, at a time when they were only winning six seats nationally.  They held it in 2010 in a similarly unpromising national context.

For clarity, here is the exact projection for Na h-Eileanan an Iar from Find Out Now - 

Labour 40%

SNP 38%

Conservatives 10%

Greens 4%

Liberal Democrats 3%

Others 5%

So on the face of it, all is not yet lost, and it's a very tight race.  But the problem is that these numbers are not fully factoring in the division in the pro-independence camp, with Angus MacNeil now standing as an independent candidate (albeit loosely allied to Alba under the Scotland United banner), and the SNP idiotically insisting on splitting the Yes vote by standing against him.  The 5% for 'others' is unusually high compared to most other constituencies, so it can be assumed that a lot of that is support for MacNeil - however that will just be the tip of the iceberg.  MRP constituency projections work by 'topping up'  the answers of respondents from the constituency itself with answers of respondents from elsewhere, and assuming they would vote the same way irrespective of where they live - which of course is a bogus assumption in this particular case.  So the 38% for the SNP can be assumed to be significantly inflated due to the involvement of respondents from outside the constituency - but even to the extent that it's based on interviews inside the constituency, a lot of those people may not know or may have forgotten that Angus MacNeil is no longer the SNP candidate.

Given the importance of the personal vote in the Western Isles, it's actually pretty likely that Mr MacNeil will be the leading pro-independence candidate at the election and will thus be the only person with any chance of stopping Labour.  But if the SNP insist on standing, they're bound to attract non-trivial support too.  If we assume the pro-independence vote in the constituency is around 45%, and if it splits at around 27% for Mr MacNeil, 14% for the SNP, and 4% for the Greens, that's going to hand the seat on a silver platter to Labour's Torcuil Crichton, who based on past precedent might then hold the seat for the rest of his life, or until he decides to retire (or until independence if that comes first).

Before it's too late, the SNP have got to swallow their pride and give Mr MacNeil a free run.  They don't need to actively campaign for him - but just don't get in his way.

Astroturfing for Humza: he's supposed to have been "finding his feet" and "growing in sureness-of-touch" for longer than you might realise

When I switched pre-moderation off in the comments section of this blog a few weeks ago, my biggest concern about the decision was that it would allow comments from two very persistent trolls to become visible for the first time.  It may seem bizarre, but even though I wasn't publishing their comments and they therefore only had an audience of one (me), they weren't deterred and just carried on submitting comments regardless - and in the case of one of them, he continued doing so multiple times every day.

If you've been reading the comments section regularly, you'll probably have spotted the two individuals I'm talking about very easily.  One is a unionist troll who is naive enough to think he can drain the morale of independence supporters by constantly repeating lines like "time to forget this independence nonsense, it isn't happening".  He's almost certainly an Englishman who has spent very little time in Scotland, because his only reference point for this country appears to be "Nessie", which he mentions in around 20-30% of his comments.

But the second troll could not be more different.  He/she is a diehard SNP leadership loyalist whose sole mission appears to be to convince us that Humza Yousaf is "improving".  You'll have seen the stock lines that he/she has trotted out in recent weeks - Humza is "growing into the role", he is gaining "sureness of touch", and "we can all agree" on this.  Robin McAlpine mentioned in an article a few days ago that Yousaf's people are currently briefing that their man is "growing into his role" - and the use of those exact same words is a pretty obvious giveaway that our resident troll is astroturfing for Team Humza, perhaps on their direct instructions.

What you probably don't realise, though, is that it hasn't just been the last few weeks.  Before I switched pre-moderation off, exactly the same person had been regularly submitting comments with either the same or very similar stock lines, all the way back to last spring when Yousaf was narrowly elected leader.  I very rarely let those comments through, but I still have a record of them via email.  Here is a very small selection - 

30th April 2023: "It can. Humza has grown in sureness of touch."

26th May 2023: "Humza definitely finding his feet now. Excellent FMQs yesterday!"

24th June 2023: "Humza handled that heckler with stature and sureness-of-touch."

25th June 2023: "Humza was applauded to the rooftop yesterday and was excellent on Sky news this morning. He is growing in stature, standing and in sureness-of-touch."

17th October 2023: "Good speech by Humza - growing in stature and in sureness-of-touch"

17th October 2023: "Thought his speech was brilliant. He is growing in stature and sureness of touch."

18th October 2023: "Too negative on Humza. He made a great speech at conference and has steadied the ship."

So if this is an organised astroturfing operation by Team Humza, it was devised in the very earliest days of his leadership and has been ongoing ever since.  Question: if he was "finding his feet" in May last year, surely he would have well and truly found them by now?  If he was "growing in stature" in June last year, surely he would have attained his full height by now?

More analysis of the remarkable Find Out Now MRP poll showing the SNP on course for 40 seats at the general election

Just a quick note to let you know I have an analysis piece in The National today about last night's Find Out Now MRP poll - you can read it HERE, and it's also in the print edition.

There was some discussion in the last thread about whether a projection of 40 seats for the SNP can really be considered a "landslide" given that it would be a drop of eight seats, and whether a projection of 13 seats for Labour can really be considered a "flop" given that it would be a gain of twelve seats.  This is an example of how the expectations game changes the supposed "meaning" of election results.  The 2017 result was objectively excellent for the SNP by historical standards, but the media were able to treat it as a disaster because everyone was expecting better.  At present, expectations for Labour in Scotland have gone sky-high, and thus if they fall well short of becoming the largest party, it's going to look like abject failure.  Conversely, 40 seats for the SNP would now strengthen rather than weaken Humza Yousaf's position.  I still don't think that's at all likely to be the outcome, especially not after an 'away fixture' campaign dominated by London media coverage of London parties.  But there's no doubt that there's now a genuine and important difference of opinion between different pollsters on the current state of play in Scotland.

Find Out Now MRP projection suggests SNP will win landslide, Labour will flop in Scotland, and the Tories will be wiped out

GB seats projection for next general election:

Labour 452 (+249)

Conservatives 80 (-285)

Liberal Democrats 53 (+42)

SNP 40 (-8)

Greens 2 (+1)

Scottish seats projection:

SNP 40 (-8)

Labour 13 (+12)

Liberal Democrats 4 (-)

Conservatives 0 (-6)

Labour's Britain-wide lead drops to just 12 points in new Savanta poll - warning shot for Starmer, or rogue poll?

GB-wide voting intentions for general election (Savanta, 9th-11th February 2024):

Labour 41% (-5)

Conservatives 29% (+2)

Liberal Democrats 11% (+1)

Reform UK 8% (-1)

SNP 3% (+1)

Greens 3% (-)

The simple enough answer to the question I posed in the title of this blogpost is that the poll is more likely to be an outlier than anything of huge concern for Starmer, because most recent polls from other firms do not show a similar slump in the Labour lead. However, there is one partial exception - a More In Common poll conducted between the 7th and 11th of this month shows the Labour lead dropping to 11 points.  More In Common are on the Tory-friendly end of the spectrum, so such a result is not as significant as it would be from another firm, but nevertheless it'll be worth keeping an eye on GB-wide polls in the coming days to see if this might be the start of a new trend.

One thing I do find interesting about the Savanta poll is that Reform UK have more than twice the support of the Greens, which is very different from the pattern shown by many polls.  It points to a theoretical path towards a more telling Tory recovery, because if the Tories prove able to squeeze the Reform UK vote as polling day approaches, Labour wouldn't be able to offset that by squeezing the Green vote.

*  *  *

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

Rachel Reeves' boy thinks asylum seekers should be dumped like nuclear waste in the north of Scotland - but BBC Scotland doesn't think it's a news story

Don't worry, Chris, there'll be momentary concern and then relief when they realise the mainstream media are dutifully burying the story.https://t.co/z2Xqe5bbdc

— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) February 13, 

Too cynical of me?  Well, both yesterday morning and yesterday afternoon I checked the BBC News Scotland homepage.  Excluding sport, there were 26 news stories listed, and not one of them was the revelation that the director of a Labour think tank (which boasts about having been "built" by a grim Rogue's Gallery of Starmerite MPs including Rachel Reeves, Wes Streeting and Lisa Nandy) wants asylum seekers treated as human trash and dumped in the north of Scotland, in much the same way that a Tory government once wanted to dump nuclear waste there.  It's hard to think of any other democratic country in the world where a national broadcaster wouldn't deem such remarks to be one of the top 26 news stories of the day.

In fairness, other parts of the mainstream media haven't played along with the BBC in burying the story to save Labour's blushes - it's reported in, for example, the Times, the Scotsman, and the Herald.  And with the power of social media, the LBC tweet in which the actual video of Josh Simons' comment appears has been viewed 1.9 million times. With comical predictability, the Daily Record have tried to turn the story on its head by portraying Anas Sarwar as a Rambo-type figure "slapping down" Simons.  But anyone who thinks Sarwar carries more authority than Simons in the Labour party under Keir Starmer is utterly deluded.  Wikipedia describes Labour Together as a "highly influential group upon the current Labour Party, and [is] seen as an "incubator" of its next manifesto".

*  *  *

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

Would you like HIM to be the cat? Starmer's purity police may have just handed George Galloway a real chance of winning the Rochdale by-election

I said in a blogpost earlier today that Labour's decision not to withdraw support from Azhar Ali in the Rochdale by-election had made the SNP's decision to instantly suspend Neale Hanvey in 2019 look even more ridiculous and extreme.  I spoke too soon, because it seems Labour under Starmer will never, ever allow itself to be outdone as far as purity on the "antisemitism" question is concerned.  They've belatedly pulled the plug on Ali which effectively means - extraordinarily - that they're fully disengaging from a by-election in a Labour-held seat.  It's important to stress, though, that Ali will remain the Labour candidate on the ballot paper (just as Hanvey remained the SNP candidate in Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath) so the reports claiming he'll now be an independent candidate are technically inaccurate.  It's just that he'll have to campaign without official Labour support and presumably won't receive the Labour whip if elected.

The first question that formed in my mind when I heard the news was whether Gorgeous George Galloway may now have a genuine chance of returning as an MP.  His candidacy previously threatened to embarrass Starmer, but that embarrassment would perhaps have come in the form of a strong second or third place.  Few serious commentators really expected Galloway to win outright, but that may change if his star power (of sorts) no longer has to compete with a Labour campaign.  I've just checked the Betfair exchange, and he's currently odds-on favourite at 1.69.

*  *  *

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

The contrast between Labour's ongoing support for Azhar Ali and the SNP's instant withdrawal of support for Neale Hanvey in 2019 underscores how fundamentally unserious the SNP leadership were about pursuing independence five years ago

For me and a number of others who left the SNP to join Alba in 2021, there had been several steps along the way that made us realise that the SNP leadership were running away from the delivery of independence, and in its place were prioritising identity politics and virtue signalling.  Most obvious was the decision to allow Scotland to be dragged out of the EU against its will in January 2020, having repeatedly promised that was the one thing they would never allow to happen, and without any plan for urgent remedial steps in the months thereafter.  

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