Why? The ‘King of Questions’! We surely all can agree on the necessity of a good reason for any course of action.When assessing any proposal the first question asked has to be ‘Why?’. There is little point in proceeding to the ‘How?’, ‘When?’, ‘Where?’, ‘What if?’, ‘What then?’ etc. until and unless it has been determined that there is sufficient cause to be doing a particular thing. Although some preliminary consideration of the last of these – ‘What then?’ – may be involved in answering the question, ‘Why?’.
Why remove Boris Johnson? I mean, apart from the fact that he is a thoroughly odious individual. I find all British Prime Ministers objectionable. It is only a matter of degree. Johnson may be a particularly unpleasant example of the breed, but he is the product of the British political system. There seems no reason to suppose that the same system will produce something markedly better. Remove Johnson and all we get is a different kind of objectionable.
So, why remove Boris Johnson from his present position? For the satisfaction of humiliating him, perhaps? That does seem a bit petty. And does anybody who has observed Johnson over the last few years get the impression that he has any capacity for embarrassment? Might we reasonably expect that being thwarted in his ambitions would leave him feeling humiliated? Angry? Yes! Indignant? Certainly! A deep sense of injustice at being denied that to which he is entitled and feelings of contempt for those who have failed to discern his greatness? Absolutely! But humiliation? I don’t think there would be any room for that.
No departing tears on the doorstep of No. 10 for the bold Boris! Barely controlled rage and barely coherent ranting would be the order of the day. Demented railing against the fools and knaves who brought about his downfall would be his parting shot. All rounded off with a Schwarzenegger-channelling “I’ll be back!” that would seem like a cheering promise or a chilling threat depending on the politics of the listener.
Why remove Boris Johnson? I guess that depends on what you hope to achieve. What you priorities are. I, for example, want Scotland’s Remain vote honoured and Scotland’s rightful constitutional status restored. So, I have to ask myself how these ends would be served by removing Boris Johnson. After some reflection, I have to conclude that they would not be served in any way at all.
Brexit is going to happen regardless of who is British Prime Minister. Nobody who might revoke Article 50 is in line for the job. Anybody who proposed to revoke Article 50 either won’t get the job and wouldn’t be able/allowed to stop Brexit if they did. So, removing Johnson cannot result in Scotland’s democratic will being treated with anything other than the total contempt shown by the British political elite to date. Removing Johnson changes nothing in that regard.
Would removing Johnson do anything to help me see Scotland’s independence restored? I don’t see how. It is not Boris Johnson alone that is determined to lock Scotland into the Union. It is the entire British establishment. Remove Boris Johnson and he will be replaced with another British Nationalist. Because all the candidates for British Prime Minister that there are now or ever could be are British Nationalists.
Removing Boris Johnson doesn’t serve my purposes at all. I get nothing out of it. Scotland gets nothing out of it. The imposition of Brexit goes ahead. The denial of our right of self-determination continues. The anti-democratic abomination of the Union remains.
So, why does Nicola Sturgeon want Johnson removed? Obviously, her priorities cannot be the same as mine. She cannot be seeking to achieve the same things as me. We’ve seen that this is a forlorn and foolish hope. Whatever else she may be, Ms Sturgeon is most assuredly not foolish.
From the First Minister’s own comments and those of an SNP spokesman, it seems that the ‘Why?’ of removing Johnson is to put in place a caretaker PM who will “secure an extension” to the already ludicrously protracted Brexit process and then call a UK general election. Which is where the ‘What then?’ query kicks in.
This is all very well if your priority is, not to have Scotland’s democratic choice respected, but to put off for a while longer the major deleterious impact of our Remain vote being ignored. And only if the 27 real EU nations agree. There being not the slightest reason why they should, as the only ‘deal’ on the table will be no more acceptable to the British parliament with a new Prime Minister than it was with the previous two.
Our First Minister’s concern appears to be to avoid Scotland being dragged out of the EU without some kind of ‘deal’ and maybe to get some kind of a ‘deal’ that isn’t a ‘bad deal’. Although she will be allowed no role in negotiating this ‘not a bad deal’ even supposing the EU deigns to reopen negotiations. There being not the slightest reason why they should, as there is no discernible possibility of a deal which will be acceptable to both the EU members states and British MPs – who want nothing less than that the EU should abandon its very core principles to accommodate Little England’s xenophobic prejudices.
The problem I have is that there is no ‘deal’ – good, bad or indifferent – which negates Scotland’s Remain vote. The First Minister and her colleagues have put considerable effort into telling me how a No Deal Brexit is unacceptable and how a Bad Deal Brexit is unacceptable, but I have heard no attempt to explain to me how any kind of Brexit can possibly be acceptable when Scotland voted so decisively to Remain part of the EU.
Taking it for granted that I will meekly accept British contempt for Scotland’s democracy, the First Minister’s other objective in removing Boris Johnson is to bring about a UK general election. That may happen. But it would happen even without removing Boris Johnson. He wants an election. He is, with good reason, confident that the Tories will win that election. Or, at least, be in a position to form a government with the help of others determined to “get Brexit done”. The electoral arithmetic is, to say the least, problematic. But it seems certain that the only way an election might resolve anything is by returning enough Mad Brexiteers for them to be in a position to thumb their noses at the sane people.
If there is some credible permutation of the electoral numbers which leads,directly or indirectly, to Scotland getting what we voted for in 2016, I have yet to see it. Or imagine it!
Why remove Johnson? Maybe, and it’s a very big maybe, to get an extension. Maybe to stop a No Deal Brexit. although that is always the default and so, ultimately, unavoidable unless something unimaginable intercedes. The SNP gets more MPs in the election. But to do what? It’s undoubtedly better to have as many as possible actual Scottish MPs from an actual Scottish party. But what can 56 oreven 59 do at Westminster that 35 can’t?
Perhaps they might be in a position to force the new Prime Minister to concede a Section 30 order. But that is a remote chance, at best, given the generalised dominance of anti-democratic British Nationalism in British politics. And, as anyone who has thought about the matter will be aware, getting a Section 30 order may be only the start of the problems. But this is what Nicola Sturgeon wants.
Why remove Boris Johnson? From my personal perspective as a Scottish nationalist, it serves no purpose at all. From the perspective of the First Minister it may allow her to sweeten the toxic pill of an imposed Brexit with some kind of ‘deal’. And it may allow her to pursue her stubborn commitment to the Section 30 process regardless of the potential consequences and the gross insult to the sovereignty of Scotland’s people.
Can somebody explain to me how this constitutes progress? Can somebody explain why I am supposed to get excited about the prospect of removing Boris Johnson? Can somebody explain what I, or Scotland, gets out of this exercise? Or is it all worth it so that the opposition parties can squabble over who gets to wear Boris’s considerable scalp on their belt?
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.
Peter A Bell 
Absolutely agree, Mr Bell. From the moment that 2016 Leave vote was brought in, across the UK, there was no other recourse for Scotland but to become independent. Indeed, since Ms Sturgeon quickly grasped that particular nettle at the time, nearly four years ago now, she understood that only too well. What has happened since to change her mind? In truth, the die was cast in 2014 when the NO vote was brought in because that welded us into the UK which then went on to vote for Brexit. Having watched the utter pandering that NO voters have been soothed with all along the line, and all the while warning that it was the worst thing we could do, no one listened, supremely smug in their ‘we’re not racists; we’re not anti English’ muddle-headedness that they were too busy congratulating themselves for their inclusiveness that it never for a moment dawned on them that the real racism, the real anti was already there, except that it was anti Scottish racism. Only that can account of the sheer, overwhelming strength of the rUK NO vote. Don’t expect anyone in the SNP or YES movement to admit it, though – many can’t see it, and most will never admit it. That was a shock that the Scottish NO vote or even the EU NO vote were not, given the perfidy of the British State, really England.
Brexit became extricably linked to independence and, in 2016, there seemed to be no way through that conundrum because nothing else appeared to justify another indyref. However, that is not the case in 2019, not by a long chalk. So many anti democratic, veering on fascist, actions have been taken to try, on the one hand, to force through Brexit, and, on the other, to try and stymie it. I voted Remain, as did Scotland and NI, but both England and Wales voted Leave. It is not for us to prevent the English and Welsh from having their way on this issue, any more than it is theirs to force us out of the EU against our will. Independence, again, is the only route out of that political paralysis. No matter which way you turn, independence is the only viable option.
Now, accepting that that is, indeed, the case, why is resiling the Treaty being ignored in favour of an indyref that will either: a) never be allowed by way of a S30; b) that will be hamstrung and crippled before it even gets off the ground by some new constitutional spoiler; or c) we will lose it again. Yes, I would take the risk, whatever, for the simple reason that we cannot be anything other than worse off with any kind of Brexit. As with so much in politics, and in life, it is that which is not being said wherein the truth may be discerned. The SNP has been tossed around in the sea of anti independence and Brexit and has no answers that do not involve facing down the British State and, thereby, placing itself, the wider YES movement and Scotland in a position from which it cannot avoid damage, at the very least.
So, back to the beginning of my comment: Nicola Sturgeon and her circle do not wish to alienate rUK NO voters, in particular, many of who might conceivably, and probably would, take the part of the British State, forming a hard-line opposition within Scotland which rUK (England) would exploit and would continue to exploit, with the help of the British Nationalist supporters and parties who will back any opportunity to keep the status quo, even if that means destroying Scotland for the rest of us. Ergo she has to offer them choice morsels to keep them sweet, and try to persuade them. Had the SNP challenged the rUK NO vote, in 2014, on the grounds of its being an ethnic vote against any expression of Scottish sovereignty, citing the UN Charter, and appealing to the international community for support, it would be a great deal weaker now. Basically, we have created our very own NI along ethnic rather than sectarian lines, although some British Nationalists would not be above exploiting that, too.
I believe that is what keeps her and the SNP paralyzed: the fear of inflaming ethnic/sectarian troubles. If she either cannot shift that rUK NO/Leave vote (it is far more politically necessary to do so than to try and persuade Scottish NO voters) or she is not willing to risk resiling the Treaty in the International Courts, the future is entirely predictable: we will be swallowed up in that post Brexit One Nation State England; there will be no UK except, perhaps, in name only. As I have said before, this has happened hundreds, perhaps, thousands of times to other peoples throughout history. Their cultures are gone, but their DNA lives on, stubbornly, as a middle digit expletive to the world. Maybe that’s the best that we can hope for now and it is really is the real end of ane auld sang. I hope not. I hope, like Mr Micawber, that something will turn up – but preferably not a berth in the former colony, Oz, because I sunburn very easily.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do sometimes think that Ms. Sturgeon is jealous of the heads of state of bigger countries, like with her disgusting support for Hillary Clinton, despite that vile woman’s baggage. All of her ‘world first’ sociological policies stink of desperation, short (wo)man syndrome, and a wee budding Messiah Complex too. Or maybe I’m being too cynical. Thing is, I just don’t trust the woman’s judgement. She’d probably say that I would say that, cos I am male, and she clearly has no time for men, but the current political mess this country is in is a sick effing joke, frustrating and anger-making.
LikeLike
Firstly, Who, she is a woman and will almost always do things differently from a man. Sometimes, of course, men and women are remarkably similar in their approach to certain issues. I think her political instincts were correct in 2016 when she stated that Scotland would choose independence rather than be dragged out of the EU. She might just have got away with it in 2016, or shortly thereafter, but she feared, I think, taking Scotland out of the UK – even if she could – and rUK changing its mind and remaining in the EU. That is where her political instincts failed her and continue to fail her. No English MP will dare overturn that Leave vote because he/she knows that, not only would it be deemed to be undemocratic, but also very dangerous.
I believe she has the Scottish British Nationalists skewered in understanding where they are likely to come from, but she is unwilling to acknowledge the same about the English Nationalists in our midst and those in England. She refuses to make the connect between the two, and that, essentially, has been, and will continue to be, her greatest weakness. Her desperation to appear inclusive to one and all has blinded her to the history of the UK, to the historical dynamics between the four parts of the UK. That should have made her blood run cold, while, at the same time, alerting her to the need to do deals with our big and always dangerous neighbour which has done nothing in its entire existence that did not benefit itself and, simultaneously, imperil the rest of us. That does not mean that individual English people are our enemies, but that they will act in accordance with that ancient and historical dynamic – not all, by any means, as we know, but many, possibly most, will act in accordance with that principle wherever they settle, as the arguably insane Leave supporters in Spain and elsewhere have shown.
I was appalled to hear her tell English people to come north in numbers if they were unhappy with Brexit, without apparently thinking that invitation, made on our behalf, through to its logical conclusion. Why would the English people who abhor Brexit necessarily be pro independence? Some of the most vehement anti Brexiteers are also vehemently anti independence – both up here and down there. For every one rUK voter who voted YES in 2014, three voted NO. Let that sink in. Then ask yourself if you would venture south and tell them that you were going to encourage all those of Scottish origins to vote Remain? I don’t think many would, both on the grounds of wishing to remain in one piece and because that kind of arrogant assumption is anathema to most right-thinking Scots. So, why did the rUK NO vote reach such a level? Because, as we can see every day and in every circumstance, most do not have even an inkling that they are being arrogantly dismissive and borderline racist, not even the estimable Gina Miller, who never once mentioned the Scottish decision of the Court of Session, or Joanna Cherry and the others in Scotland who enabled the case to be heard. They see Scotland as part of the UK, really part of England, and rarely question that assumption.
Most emigrants I have spoken to from the former colonies manage to reconcile their origins with their new identity, and would never dream of trying to turn the clock back to return their new home to colonial status. Therein lies the real problem for the future of Scotland. We might well manage to mitigate it if we go soon, but, after Brexit, I think that will become harder and harder, and Scotland might well end up as the northernmost region of England, despite our best efforts. Anyone who seriously believes that that is a racist or anti English analysis, needs a brain transplant. Read the UN Charter. I think that Nicola Sturgeon wants us all to be good, decent human beings, and that is a laudable stance that shines through all of the policies she supports, but it is also her greatest weakness that others are only too willing to exploit for their own ends, in that she might be able to answer for her own conscience and even ours, to an extent, but she seems incapable of getting to grips with what others do who might not possess her scruples or deeper understanding of the better side of the human condition.
LikeLike
Nicola is now hooked on a pill called being liked and respected.
She now sees herself as the mother Theresa of the UK. The one that will stand apart and save England from itself . Everything she does and says is about emphasising her political correctness.
She became this person during the 2015 election. The SNP won 56 mps on the back of Stronger For Scotland. I am afraid independence is Nicola’s priority, not in the present. Instead in some distant future.
She wants to save the UK from Brexit right now. She thinks independence can come later.
She is wrong though. Its not her job to stop Brexit. She won’t stop it. But she could stop Brexit in Scotland, by delivering independence.
Nicola has completely lost her purpose. She is becoming established.
I have had enough of her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, grow up. This spoilt-child whinging serves no-one but the BritNat opposition. (But maybe that’s the purpose?) If you are serious, recognise the astute service being performed which has the opposition more worried sick than ever, and try to offer something positive and constructive in return.
LikeLike
Such as, grizebard? If the opposition are worried sick, what might they do to end that unhappy state? Or should we not contemplate anything negative? I am so glad we are not at war and following your lead. All good leaders contemplate losing. It is part and parcel of the fight. Scotland has just trounced Samoa in the Rugby World Cup after losing ignominiously to Ireland. How did they do that? They took on board that happy-clappy optimism and eternal smugness are defeating in themselves, and changed their tactics and strategy.
LikeLike
I no longer think of The Scottish National Party. Rather, I think of The British “Scottish National Party”, that dreams of independence, but is content with the dream, and does not want to wake up and achieve it.
LikeLike
What a site! Better still what a sight. Totally depressing and absolutely demoralising for the hundreds of thousands of people, and more, who want Scotland to become Independent. The site to come to if you detest Nicola Sturgeon / the SNP . The ONLY person and party capable of getting us our Independence and yet you castigate her / them at every turn. Strange one eh? Undermining them in line with the Westminster paid up front pro-Unionist MSM.
Who needs the TCity AM, Daily Mirror, The Herald, Scottish Daily Mail, Scotland on Sunday, Sunday Post, Sunday Telegraph, The Daily Telegraph, The Financial Times, The Independent, The Globe and Mail, The Guardian, The Morning Star, The Scottish Daily Express, The Scottish Sunday Express, The Scotsman, The Shetland Times, The Sunday Times, The Times, Western Mail, The Economist, The Spectator et al, when we’ve got you, Peter?
Thank God that you get little over a couple of dozen responses at most per article. Looks as though **someone** has managed to scalp a number of owners of so-called pro-Independence sites. I’d be doing so too if I were **them**.
We’ll get our Independence via Nicola Sturgeon and when we do you and your palaverous side-kick will owe her, and US, to say the very least an apology.
LikeLike
Or vice versa, Petra. Or vice versa. Mr Bell is not trying to undermine Nicola Sturgeon. He is trying to unravel the mess that is independence and Brexit. If it’s happy-clappy smugness you are looking for, just don’t think at all. Thinking can be a painful and unhappy experience.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said, Petra.
I enjoy Peters blog, but the 77th Brigade have colonised the comments.
LikeLike
What? Are you accusing long-time nationalists of being members of the 77th Brigade, Juteman? WTF do you want? Absolute uniformity? No criticism? Happy-clappy smug grinning idiocy? You need to take hallucinogenics to do that indefinitely, and not even the Hippy community managed that beyond the ’60s. Question, question, question. Think, think, think. New tactics and new strategy when the original fails to deliver. Going round in circles doing the same thing over and over make you a hamster, not a human being.
What will dethroning Johnson achieve? An extension? To do what? Can you even contemplate what the Brexiteers in England will feel about that? Do you not understand just how popular he is across England? Farage will back the right-wing Tories if another election is forced, but that will come at a price. What is the plan for indyref 2 if, as Nicola Sturgeon says, she will not contemplate calling one without a S30 Order? Anything else she does will entail facing down the British State, and she has ruled that out, so what will she do if a S30 Order is ruled out? In any case, as the eternally smug ones keep telling us, Westminster will find that it cannot refuse a S30 Order. Really? It has refused everything else and not one European country, or anybody else for that matter, has said or done anything to alter that. Spain is pulverising the Catalans as we speak.
Which unit of the cavalry do you think will ride to our rescue? Which Scottish constitutional principle do you believe Westminster will honour? The Claim of Right? The Declaration of Arbroath? Aye, so they will. The devolution settlement has already been undermined by the Supreme Court with parliamentary sovereignty (that is, English parliamentary sovereignty) re-established and set in stone; and they have just done it again with the prorogation ruling. You can be as naive as you like – and jeez, are you and Petra naive – but just because others are not, do not think for one moment that you have any right whatsoever to accuse them of trying to undermine anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would have thought that the strategy is fairly transparent. Remove Johnston and force a further extension so that the forthcoming (FPTP) general election will include the Faragistes as well as the Tories, both competing for the same votes. This could even destroy the Tory Party.
Divide-and-conquer needn’t just be a BritNat tactic.
LikeLike
Except that Farage will form an alliance with the far right of the Tory party. He has learned the lesson of UKIP: don’t fight over the same votes when you both want the same objective. The lesson for us is never try to out-perfidy the most perfidious nation on Earth.
LikeLike
I was discussing matters in the context of the fight to restore Scotland’s independence.
LikeLike