Conscience and calculation

Both camps – SNP and Alba – need to call a halt to the ghastly tribalism and take a moment to scrutinise the offers their squabbling over. The reality is that there is no significant difference in their respective offers. No difference in the approach that they adopt. Both prioritise the British government.

For all his brassy rhetoric about what he’d do in the first week Alex Salmond is still talking about seeking consent and cooperation from the British political elite. Exactly as Nicola Sturgeon does. Strip away the posturing bravado from Salmond’s seven-day plan and what you’re left with is just as vague and indecisive as the SNP’s manifesto ‘commitment’ to maybe do something not specified at some time yet to be determined or not depending on a range of factors as numerous and diverse as is expedient.

The SNP has no intention of moving to resolve the constitutional issue with the urgency which Salmond at least recognises. But the notion that Alba will be in any position to force the pace is fantastical. There almost certainly won’t be a supermajority and there definitely won’t be a supermajority that works the way Alba claims it will. The reality is that regardless of how many seats Alba Party wins it will have no leverage over an SNP/SG Scottish Government. Absolutely none.

It’s not just about the numbers. To get a true picture of what is possible it is necessary to factor in the provisions of the Scotland Act (1998), parliamentary procedures (standing orders) and party-political dynamics. I have tried to do this in two articles on my blog. In ‘Fantasy politics and problematic arithmetic’ I look at what a supermajority means in practice. Not very much, as it turns out. In ‘The observations of Mr Buzzkill’ I take a seat projection from recent polling and analyse the the likely implications for power relationships in the Scottish Parliament. The conclusion being that Alba has negligible power at best.

To date, nobody from Alba Party has offered any rebuttal or counter-argument. As with similar critiques of the SNP the only response is angry denunciation of my ‘negativity’ and ‘pessimism’ laced with condescending advice have ‘faith’ and/or a measure of personal abuse. Nobody has been able to refute the conclusions or off a credible explanation as to how Alba would do the things it says it would do in order to win votes.

I do not object to political parties talking-up their electoral prospects or exaggerating the rewards for giving them your vote. But as always, there is a line that should not be crossed. The line separating acceptable electioneering from seeking a mandate on a false prospectus. Parties should at the very least have some chance of delivering some of what they promise.

In all of this I approach the election and the campaign and the parties and politicians involved strictly from the perspective of someone who wants to see Scotland’s independence restored and someone who is painfully aware of the consequences of failure to take appropriate action as a matter of the utmost urgency. As I consider how to vote I am looking for the outcome that best serves Scotland’s cause. I find nothing that contributes to or is conducive to timely action to initiate the process by which our nation will be restored to its rightful constitutional status.

This is not the independence election it could have been. There is no way anybody can vote for immediate, bold, decisive action to remove the boot of the Union from Scotland’s neck and have a realistic hope of their vote producing the desired outcome. We can vote for promises of action. But we cannot expect to see those promises honoured. The SNP won’t. Alba can’t.

We all have to vote SNP on the constituency ballot. Not for the party or its candidates or its policies and certainly not for its woeful offering to those hoping to save Scotland from obscenely anti-democratic and coldly callous British Nationalism. We have to vote SNP on the constituency ballot for the sake of our Parliament. Whatever else we may think of the SNP, it remain the only thing capable of impeding the British Nationalist juggernaut already commenced to crushing Scotland’s democracy under its implacable wheels. It may not be much of an impediment. Nicola Sturgeon does not appear willing to confront the might of the British state. But the SNP is all we’ve got.

What you do with your regional ballot doesn’t really matter. If as expected the outcome is another term for the SNP – perhaps with support from the increasingly surreal Scottish Greens, the make-up of the opposition makes little or no difference. The SNP will follow Sturgeon’s agenda – perhaps with concessions to the Scottish Greens that don’t challenge that agenda. The opposition, including Alba will neither be able to stop them nor force them into any action. Anybody who tells you differently is misleading you. You would do well to subject their promises to intense scrutiny.

There is a harsh irony in the fact that in order to have some hope of saving our Parliament we are obliged to ensure that it won’t work as we wish it would. But them’s the breaks! The Scottish Parliament can be fixed if it survives the British Nationalist onslaught. There is little that can be done if it does not.

Regardless of their views on the constitutional issue NOBODY should EVER vote for ANY of the British parties. That leaves three options for those who want to keep their consciences reasonably clear and avoid being cursed by future generations. Ranked in order of preference, they are SNP, Alba, Scottish Greens.

SNP because it remains the best DEFAULT voting strategy. If in doubt, this is what you do – however reluctantly. Depart from this strategy only if you have good REASON to do so.

Alba because we can at least be sure it is a pro-independence party even if it can’t actually make good on it manifesto promises about “delivering independence”.

Scottish Greens because at least they are not a British party. More seriously, because it is important only ever to vote for a Scottish party.

Take this advice or not as you please. I offer it only because I have been repeatedly asked and now I have something such enquiries can be directed to. Vote according to your conscience. But only after some calculation. Endeavour to make an informed choice. To only slightly paraphrase Nelson Mandela, make your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears. But don’t totally discount those fears. And don’t raise your hopes beyond the reach of real-world politics.