REELING THE CARROT IN

Regular columnist Mia reviews the latest “offering” from the SNP.

REELING THE CARROT IN

Yesterday morning I was pleasantly surprised by a headline in the National:

“John Swinney says SNP majority in UK election would be independence mandate”

The article said:

“Asked directly if a majority of SNP MPs at the next General Election would represent a mandate to begin independence negotiations with Westminster, the deputy FM replied: ‘That is correct, yes.’ “

At last! I thought. Nicola Sturgeon is finally using those pretty designer heels to take a step in the right direction.  About time too. After watching her flushing our pro-indy majorities down the tubesfor 7.5 years, this next general election might actually be the first one since Mr Salmond stepped down in 2014 where a vote for the SNP will be worth something…

But my elation lasted as little as the value of Sturgeon’s SNP majority in 2015.  In a matter of minutes I watched in slow motion how the juicy carrot of an MP majority had been swiftly reeled in.  A few minutes later, that lovely headline in The National became the latest SNP party pooper:

“UPDATED John Swinney backtracks on claim majority of MPs would be Yes mandate”

The article said:

“Sturgeon suggested a majority of votes would be required, as opposed to a majority of seats”

Suggested not confirmed. There we go. Throwing confusion around just like the Devo-Max vow cowboys did in 2014.  It was Devo max until you read carefully the tiny print. Then it became Devo minus.

The ink with the announcement Sturgeon made on Tuesday is not even dry yet and they are already airbrushing the best partof it.

Am I surprised? No. Sturgeon has been reeling out and in indycarrots for 7.5 years now. Reeling carrots has become her signature move.

A majority of SNP MPs as a mandate for independence was SNP policy until not that long ago and it was accepted by Thatcher, Major and many other denior political figures representing England.  A majority of SNP MPs as mandate for independence is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound, not like a maybe/maybe-not referendum with a flawed franchise, welded to England’s consent and with an undefined time frame that relies completely on our partner’s convenience.  With the first option, Scotland can restore its statehood at the next GE. Had this route been used in 2015, 2017 or 2019 instead of forcing us into taking a detour around the wonders of the S30 cul de sac, and Scotland would have been independent already for a few years.

Putting something achievable within a defined timeframe in our hands only to remove it a bit later is a massive let down and sends the message that you either are not serious about independence or you are a feartie.  What could be Swinney’s reasons to backtrack on something as high profile as this? I can think in some possibilities:

1. They never gave to this proper thought so they did not agree on the narrative.  In other words, using the GE as a plebiscite on independence was never really in the cards.

2. It is part of their long-standing strategy to alienate yes supporters and fragment the pro-indy vote

3. Nicola’s masters took the calculator, did the sums and got the runs when they realised the main arteries feeding Westminster were so clogged up that the union’s life expectancy with this route re-opened could be less than 3 years.  The union was subjected to an emergency bypass by means of another extra-large and democratically sounding obstacle, designed to block any attempt from Scotland to reclaim its right to power of attorney and issue a DNR form for the patient.

4. It was always part of a game where the only aim was to secure our vote without being expected to deliver independence and crush the other pro-indy parties in the process. 

5. Realising we can only be told “it is a once in a generation/lifetime” or “now is not the time” if the referendum route is followed.  Once the route of a majority of MPs is restored, it will be “the right time” at every general election.

6. Realising that re-opening that route means Sturgeon can no longer transfer to Westminster her accountability for failing to deliver indy.

Speaking as an ex-SNP voter who has given up on them because of their unforgivable procrastination, I couldn’t care less what was the reason why Mr Swinney backtracked.  The only thing that matters to me is that he backtracked from activating the most obvious and realistic route to exit this union, therefore increasing even more my scepticism on his party’s commitment to independence.

In the present context, I do not consider fair, realistic or achievable that a majority of the vote in a GEinstead of a majority of seats is a mandate for independence. Firstly because what determined Scotland’s entry in this political union in 1706 was not a majority of the popular vote.  It was a simple majority of MPs casting the vote. This majority was not pursued democratically either, as this quote extracted from the UK parliament website suggests:

“as Country party members were not ordered to attend and vote as was the case with the Court party, the latter was able to maintain a steady majority over its opponents”

In other words, the only reason why the pro-union vote won among MPs in 1706 is because those who opposed the union were not called to attend.

But those were not the only undemocratic aspects of the new union.  The most outrageous one, directly clashing with suggested demands of a majority of the popular vote, was that the first 45 Scottish MPs elected in 1707 were voted among themselves by the MPs in the Scottish Parliament.  Yup. They decided not to have a proper election because they were concerned huge opposition to the union among the Scottish people would lead to a majority of anti-union MPs.

This is an extract is taken from Andrew A. Hanham’s article in the “The History of Parliament” (accessed 29 June 2022):

“Members of the Scottish parliament who had opposed the Union pressed for a general election in Scotland to elect the 45 Scots MPs.  But it was agreed instead that the first Scots MPs should be chosen from, and elected by, the existing parliament in Edinburgh rather than run the risk of allowing Scotland’s small electorate an early opportunity to elect an anti-union majority.   Virtually all the peers and commoners selected had supported the Union and most could be counted on to support the Court in the new Parliament”

Towards the end of the 3^rd parliament of the UK, in 1713, there was the first serious attempt by Scotland’s MPs and Peers to terminate the union.  They took the initiative after watching how one of the articles of the Treaty of Union was violated by the UK parliament.  They did not stop and thought: “Oh wait!!  We cannot move to terminate the union because we don’t hold the majority of the Scottish vote”.  They simply acted upon it.

When the first Scottish MPs to sit in the union parliament were elected in 1707, Scotland’s parliament was not concerned about the percentage of the anti-union vote.  They were concerned about the people electing a majority of anti-union MPs.  If in 1707 and 1713 a majority of the popular vote was not needed to give Scotland’s MPs a mandate to terminate the union, so why should it be now?

Democracy has been, and continues to be, the last thing the union establishment cares about.  If they cared an iota about democracy, they would have reconvened Scotland’s parliament after the 1979 referendum instead of forcing an impossible high threshold; or they would have spontaneously started negotiations for dissolving the union on the 8^th May 2015 because Scotland did not hand 95% of its MP seats to a pro-indy party to preserve the union, but rather to do the opposite.

If democracy was the basis of this union, the establishment would have started dissolving the union the day after the EU referendum because at that point it was evident the political routes of England and Scotland were diametrically opposed and incompatible.

So, quite frankly, pretending Scotland can only terminate this union by imposing on us impossibly high standards of democracy is hypocrisy of the highest order.  When the way Scotland entered and has been kept in the union has been anything but democratic, to demand disproportionate standards of democracy to exit the union can only be interpreted as a self-serving absolute ruler demanding the democracy they will never bring themselves to entertain.

The idea of a referendum was made SNP policy at a time when having a majority of SNP MPs was seen as impossible.  In such scenario, the referendum route can be seen as something constructive, as opening a faster route to independence than what was available.  For example, without this referendum route, the movement towards independence by an SNP winning an absolute majority of the seats in Holyrood but not in Westminster, would have not been possible.

But since 2014 things have changed a lot. Firstly, a majority of pro-indy MPs, is no longer impossible. It is now the norm. Secondly, we have seen how it is practically impossible for Scotland to exercise its right to self-determination via a referendum when the franchise is flawed against the natives’ vote and when we are subjected to astronomical levels of interference and power abuse by our partner who cannot face losing control of our assets.

In this context, insisting on a referendum while maintaining all loopholes that allow direct interference from the British state, or handing them a veto in the form of S30, or imposing a majority of the vote rather than sticking to the majority of the seats as it has been traditionally, looks very much like steps designed to barricading us out from any fast route to independence. It is diametrically opposed to being constructive.

If the union started by the vote of a majority of MPs then it is only fit that the union ends with the vote of a majority of our MPs too. 

The second reason for which I consider unacceptable the imposition of a majority of the vote rather than seats, is that the UK of Great Britain is a parliamentary democracy.  It is the majority of the MPs and not the majority of the vote what determines what political party governs.  Actually, that applies only to England. For Scotland is neither seats nor vote what determines what party governs us.  Tories are governing Scotland today on 25% of the vote and a meagre 6 seats.  Scotland was forced out of the EU against its will not because a majority of the people of Scotland voted for Brexit, but rather because England MPs voted to self-award themselves a veto on Scotland’s vote and the right to impose their absolute rule on Scotland to force Brexit, steal its powers and main assets.

The third reason is that Scotland is following UK electoral rules, meaning that anybody from England, Wales or NI can easily relocate their postal votes here.  This is not a proper referendum where Scotland can control the franchise, the electoral registry and where there are systems in place to avoid external interference that may frustrate Scotland’s right to self-determination.  Imposing on this election the restrictive rules applicable to a referendum without applying the concessions, like controlling the franchise and being able to restrict external postal vote movement into Scotland, is not putting yes and no at the same level.  It is setting yes to fail.

The fourth reason is that we are trapped in a political union with an abusive partner who has a huge vested interest in continuing to exploit our assets and territory for its own benefit while claiming it is for ours. Raab’s words recently highlight this point beautifully (quote taken from Hansard – Engagements, volume 717: debated on Wednesday 29 of June 2022)

“There are huge assets right across Scotland, and that is why we think we are stronger together in delivering for the people of Scotland”

This plebiscite election must therefore not be about democratic virtue signalling.  It is a fight for the survival of our nation, its heritage, its resources and the future prospects of our children and grandchildren.

Our partner hasn’t given a shit about democracy for over 300 years.  The way the apparatus of the UK state conducted itself in 2014 to frustrate a yes vote was embarrassingly undemocratic, power abusive and plainly against our right to self-determination. This undemocratic attitude has continued ever since, therefore now insulting us with more virtue signalling on democracy when it can costs us the survival of our nation and the future of our children is not sensible.  It is stupid.  It is unfair. It is uncalled for. It is not democratic to demand from Scotland to do all sharing and compromise while England’s representatives continue to throw at us all the demands they want while they keep moving the goalposts further away each time we reach them. 8 years of Sturgeon’s democratic virtue signalling took us nowhere.  It lost us powers, rights, control of our assets, 8 years of oil and gas revenues and over 14,000 lives which we might not be mourning today should Sturgeon stopped the democracy virtue signalling and flexed Scotland’s sovereignty muscle by closing Scotland’s borderswhen every other country bar England was doing the same to stop COVID.

This virtue signalling on democracy is now losing many in Scotland the ability to put food on the table and heat their houses at the same time, because despite living in one of the most energy-rich countries in Europe, this misplaced virtue signalling on democracy that has stopped us exiting this union back in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and so far 2022 has allowed England MPs to impose on us outstandingly unfair high caps in energy prices so our energy flowing down to England for free while we are made pay a fortune for it.

The fifth reason is that we are in a colonial environment. Scotland is perceived by England’s grandees as England’s property.  Raab’s comment above illustrates this quite well.

In a context where fairness or democracy have never even made a dent in the way Scotland is kept in this union, and where we are force-fed every day the English convention mantra that Westminster is sovereign and that we as a nation cannot make decisions, there is nothing stopping the British statesending a couple of middle size vans full of “postal votes” and a few busloads of new civil servants, activists and army personnel to “correct” our vote and make it go “in the right direction”.

In other words, unless our partner, who holds control over all government structures, broadcasters, the voting franchise, the rules, the so called “supreme” court and keeps its hand secure on the UK purse, wants Scotland to deliver a majority of the vote for pro indy parties, Scotland’s official vote will neverbe for a majority of pro-indy parties. It will always be close, but not there.

However, with FPTP and the one party state in England in meltdown because the party of government and the one that is meant to be seen as opposition are as useless as the other and so close in policies that you could not even put a paper between them, sending the large number of vans full of postal votes and buses full of civil servants and army personal they would need to revert a majority of pro indy MPs in Scotland might be a bit trickier when the activists need to be manning the fort down south to contain the haemorrhage on the tory vote. 

There is absolutely no virtue in refusing to use a perfectly valid route to independence simply because it does not look democratic or difficult enough to deserve praise.  We are not looking for praise. We are looking for regaining the control of our country and protect the interests of our children and grandchildren.

After stalling independence for 7.5 years, to continue testing our patience with misplaced democratic virtue signalling, carrots and obfuscation is unacceptable.  Unless Sturgeon or whoever takes the driving wheel from her states categorically that A MAJORITY OF PRO INDY MPS is a mandate to terminate the union, I will not cast my vote in the next GE for the SNP.

Why should I? If for the SNP all what matters is the number of pro-indy votes rather than the number of pro-indy MPs, then I better give my vote and the chance of a seat to a pro-indy party more worried about putting my vote to use to achieve independence than wasting it for virtue signalling on democracy

MY COMMENTS

Mia is very good at examining an issue then raising a lot of reasons why it may not be all it appears at first or even second glance. I think the SNP have a major trust problem, not just with Mia but with large numbers of pro Indy folk. Verbal statements are no longer enough, folk need to see serious commitment, consistent effort and clarity. That will take time. For now, certainly as far as I am concerned the Jury is still out.

I am, as always

Yours for Scotland

BEAT THE CENSORS

Sadly some websites that claim to be pro Indy have turned out to be only Pro SNP sites and have sought to ban any websites that dare to question SNP Policy or tactics. They seek to avoid the public being aware that alternatives to waiting for Westminster to “grant” Scotland a Section 30 to hold a referendum exist. Issues like the flawed franchise, the Claim of Right route, the work of the SSRG and Salvo fill them with dread. As this blog promotes all routes, including alternatives I am banned from these sites and am therefore very grateful to my readers, who knowing about these efforts to ban and suppress go out of their way to subscribe and to share my articles far and wide. It is a good thing that attempts to restrict free speech and censor are defeated in this way.

FREE SUBSCRIPTIONS

Free subscriptions are available on this site from both the Home and Blog pages. This will ensure you will be notified every time a new article is posted. Each article already gets posted to many thousands of people, I hope you will come and join us. You will be most welcome.