We need a different ‘Plan A’

Well, of course the amendment has been ruled out of order. It was, as the “SNP insider” said, having been assigned the task of feeding some information to The National in the hope of reducing the impact of the official statement when it comes, “completely incompetent”.

The amendment submitted by Angus MacNeil and Chris McEleny was bound to be thrown out, not only because it sought to take one resolution and turn it into another, but because the resolution it sought to shoehorn in was the same one as had already been rejected.

I am not surprised that the amendment has been ruled out of order. And I will not be joining the inevitable knee-jerk protests about the SNP supposedly ‘suppressing debate’. I do not strongly object to the amendment being thrown out for precisely the same reasons as I accepted the initial ‘Plan B’ resolution being rejected. It just isn’t a very good plan. Whether put forward as a resolution that was never going to get past the conference agenda committee or as an amendment that was never going to get past the conference agenda committee, the fact remains that ‘Plan B’ is deeply flawed – as I explained back in July.

I was not merely being negative about it. I also suggested an alternative course of action which would have achieved much of what was intended by the original resolution. What I proposed was that Angus and Chris table an amendment to the resolution in the names of John Swinney and Maree Todd – which is what they did; although it’s hardly likely that it was at my urging. But, rather than the somewhat clumsy way the pair went about trying to hijack that resolution, my idea was to submit an amendment which would hitch a ride on it.

I would like to have seen Angus and Chris table an amendment that fitted with the self-congratulatory tone of the Swinney/Todd resolution but added a plea for the Scottish Government to recognise the urgency of Scotland’s predicament and the need to be aware of all the ways in which the UK Government would seek to put obstacles in the way of Scotland’s journey to independence. It would have been very difficult for the committee to reject such a motion. And ‘Plan B’ could have been referred to in moving and seconding the amendment.

Of course, this would not be a debate on ‘Plan B’ that would lead to a vote by conference delegates. But that’s probably just as well. Because any debate would surely expose some or all of the issues identified in the article mentioned earlier. It is even possible that the resolution could have been voted down. Which would pretty much be the end of the matter.

Angus MacNeil is correct when he says,

The clock is ticking, but we still don’t have a plan to save Scotland from a no deal Brexit in just two months time.

He goes awry, however, when he adds that he and Chris support ‘Plan A’. Because that ‘plan’ is doomed. It is, if anything, even more flawed than the alternative which they proposed.

I find it incomprehensible that Nicola Sturgeon should have so resolutely committed to a process in which Scotland is the inferior party in every respect. A process which acknowledges the superiority of the British state and all its agencies. A process which puts Scotland’s cause totally at the mercy of the British state’s rules and apparatus.

She is unquestionably right to maintain that the UK Government’s continuing refusal to grant a Section 30 order would, under prevailing circumstances, be wholly unreasonable and definitively undemocratic. What she does not seem to realise, or stubbornly refuses to formally recognise, is that the requirement for a Section 30 is iself anti-democratic in that it imposes constraints on Scotland’s inalienable and unconditional right of self-determination.

We do not need a debate about an alternative plan. We need an urgent reexamination of the plan to which the First Minister has committed. We don’t need a ‘Plan B’. We need a ‘Plan A’ which relates to the situation as it is now, not as it was in 2012.

We need a plan which recognises that there is no route to independence which adheres to the rules made by those who are determined to preserve the Union at any cost. A plan which recognises that those rules must be broken if the Union is to be broken. A plan which recognises that there is no route to independence which does not involve direct and acrimonious confrontation with the British state – and which prepares us for that confrontation.

That must be ‘Plan A’. Because, if ‘Plan A’ fails then it is highly unlikely that there will be an opportunity to implement any ‘Plan B’. The British state is far from averse to closing down democratic routes to social and constitutional reform. It is now clear that it is determined to do so in order to lock Scotland into a Union which is unilaterally redefined to serve a British Nationalist ‘One Nation’ project. A project which requires that Scotland’s democratic institutions be dismantled; our distinctive political culture eradicated; and our public services readied for feeding to the hyenas of corporate America.

Right now, the Scottish Government looks like it is isn’t even trying to save Scotland from this fate. In fact, it gives the impression of being oblivious to the threat. Only the power of the Yes movement can change that. And only if the Yes movement unites to put pressure on the First Minister.



If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.

Donate with PayPalDonate with Pingit

One thought on “We need a different ‘Plan A’

  1. “…I find it incomprehensible that Nicola Sturgeon should have so resolutely committed to a process in which Scotland is the inferior party in every respect. A process which acknowledges the superiority of the British state and all its agencies. A process which puts Scotland’s cause totally at the mercy of the British state’s rules and apparatus…”

    I must admit to finding it less incomprehensible now, Mr Bell, that I have listened again to Ms Sturgeon’s comments in the recent YES/NO… programme on BBC I the other night. She expressed doubts and extreme caution at every point, from 2007, when the SNP won their first election, albeit as a minority government, right through to 2014, and now. Caution and doubt are her watchwords, although no one should doubt her commitment to independence.

    Recklessness is not what we want in a politician, particularly not in one who is leading the country, but we do need someone who is willing to take enormous risks in the right circumstances or when there is nowhere to go but up. I think that Ms Sturgeon, perhaps deliberately, perhaps inadvertently, let slip that the preservation of SNP governance would appear to be more vital than independence right now. I do understand where she is coming from here, because, without the SNP, there can be no independence, and the SNP is doing a sterling job on the domestic front. The problem is, of course, that the SNP might well win the 2021 elections convincingly again, but I suspect that would be its last, and certainly hers, because many in the independence movement as a whole would not vote for either the SNP or Nicola Sturgeon ever again, having been badly let down by both, as they would see it. In any case, a win in 2021 would just herald the start of another independence campaign, not the end of it. I have always believed that that commitment to holding a second indyref was the biggest mistake because it gave succour to the NO lobby and afforded them a legitimacy they did not, and do not, deserve: they are anti democratic. It also drove us up a cul de sac, making our path even more difficult, but – sigh – such is the Scottish way in all things. Our Calvinist past and present would appear to demand huge pain and misery, whether we are playing football or some other sport, or fighting for our independence.

    It really bothers me that there seems to be no impetus to get us out of the UK before Brexit, when it will become very much harder to extricate ourselves. No one should be in any doubt as to the speed with which the so-called ‘buffoon’ has been laying the foundations for that Tory One Nation State and our regionalization within it. The National has lots of uplifting articles about people changing from NO to YES, and I’m sure there are, but will there be enough of a shift even if we go for an advisory referendum without a S30 Order? This is exactly what the Quebecois believed, and they were disappointed a second time, and God knows, they were awarded even greater devolved powers, but the Canadian government is not the British government. We will be corralled all the tighter, I think, if we fail to capitalize and get a YES, no matter how narrow (and that’s another story: the forces of darkness are rallying for a 60% hurdle this time).

    I think we must accept that there is no way that we will be going quietly and there is no way they will let us go quietly. Yes, I believe that a majority, however thin, of English voters would vote for us to leave, to get out of their hair, but they are the hoi polloi and the ones who haven’t thought it through, The ruling elite must know that the loss of Trident, in particular, would finish the UK or rUK on the world stage, that it might influence the Americans into an even more predatory take-over and that it would weaken rUK’s hand in international affairs. If they were willing to stomach allowing us access to their colonial markets (they had, of course, strangled our European markets and proto colonial adventure in advance, just to add a little urgency to our elite’s signing of the Treaty) and open up their administrative services to us, in 1707, I wonder just how far they would go to retain Trident on Scottish soil and maintain our strategic importance to them, not to mention keeping the ‘back door’ closed on immigration. This is where it all falls down as far as I’m concerned. Pragmatism and reality demand that we acknowledge that, in the end, our Claim of Right and our right to self-determination, even a slim majority overall for YES, will be as nought compared to their arrogant ambitions. The fight for our future will be ratcheted up a notch, perhaps several notches. We must be prepared to meet the challenge or fall by the wayside. I cannot see any other way out of this post Brexit hell that awaits us.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.