Accepting the unacceptable

The British government’s action in repealing the Fixed Term Parliaments Act may be “unacceptable”, but like so many such actions in the past, it will be accepted by the SNP. Brendan O’Hara will make just enough fuss to get his name in the papers so his constituents get the impression he’s doing something. But not so much fuss as to attract lasting attention as then his constituents might notice that yet again it is all pointless posturing. When push comes to shove, the British will do the shoving and Scotland’s representatives will be pushed aside with many a whine whimper, but nothing more.

SNP loyalists will loudly insist that such trampling of Scotland’s will and interests all helps build support for independence. Don’t dare ask for evidence of this, however, as you will immediately and vituperatively be branded a traitor to the cause. The last eight years have seen some of the worst British governments to have been imposed on Scotland in all the dire history of the Union. We have seen those governments inflict slight after spiteful slight on our nation and heap abuse upon ever more brazen abuse. All of which has ultimately been meekly ‘accepted’ on our behalf by the very people we elected for the purpose of putting an end to the constant insult to our dignity and democracy that is the Union. None of which, if the polls are to be our guide, has measurably increased support for the restoration of Scotland’s independence.

Yes has been polling within the margin of error either side of 50% for the entire period since Nicola Sturgeon became leader of the SNP and First Minister. Having been driven to that level by the 2014 referendum campaign and its immediate aftermath, the polls have since flatlined. Don’t take my word for it. Go do the math yourself. Wikipedia has a list of all the relevant polls. Calculate the average of the first dozen or so polls after the referendum then do the same for the same number of most recent polls. You’ll find no significant difference between the two results.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that support for independence correlates with the awfulness of the British government. If that were so, Yes would surely be polling at least ten points above current levels. The evidence indicates that Nicola Sturgeon’s approach to the constitutional issue has failed and continues to fail. Not the least of the reasons for this being that any boost Scotland’s cause gets from the likes of Brexit and the total disregard for the will of Scotland’s people is largely offset by the sense of helplessness in the face of such abuse prompted by the SNP’s abysmal failure to respond in any concrete way.

The policy – for such it most assuredly is – of allowing the British government free rein to do as it will with Scotland has totally backfired because every boost gained from the denial of our sovereignty is offset by the pervasive sense – engendered by the SNP – that there is nothing to be done about it. Nothing, that is, beyond objecting ineffectually to proposed abuse before it happens; complaining ineffectually about the abuse while it is happening; and protesting ineffectually against the abuse after it is done.

Not for the first time, one is reminded of the patterns evident in abusive personal relationships. The parallels are quite striking.

An intervention is required. But who will intervene? Who will both compel the SNP+SGP/Scottish Government to act and at the same time provide the incontrovertible evidence of public support that might give them the confidence to act? Who will tell Nicola Sturgeon she’s got it wrong and needs to rethink her whole approach to the constitutional issue? Who will rescue Scotland’s cause?

In a personal communication earlier today one of the regrettably inadequate number of people who recognise the reality of Scotland’s predicament wondered whether Nicola Sturgeon ever entertains moments of uncertainty about the wisdom of her policy of submitting to abuse in the hope that people will become aware of the abusive nature of the Union and flock to Scotland’s cause. Is she even aware of how badly this approach has failed? Or is she foolish enough to fall for the ‘never closer’ propaganda encouraged by the sycophantic applause of the clique which surrounds her forming a thick carapace that protects her from the harsh reality?

Day after day a British executive captured by rampant British Nationalism and corrupted by avarice accrues more and more power to itself. Very soon it will have the power to shut down any remaining democratic route to independence. This will, of course, be “unacceptable” to the SNP. But if the record of Nicola Sturgeon’s time as the de facto leader of the independence movement is anything to go by, this too will be accepted.

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 cause.


5 thoughts on “Accepting the unacceptable

  1. NS seems to be in the UK’s pocket. She never gets asked searching questions about her Indy Strategy such that for all we know she could easily have decided Indy is not for her or indeed us. We don’t know where she stands. She can take us all for fools and nobody can stop her. We’re not in a good place. She’s got us all sewn up. The question is what’s her game?
    The MSM won’t ask and the UK are enjoying unchallenged supremacy so they’re happy to leave her be for now. This is not good.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The media – as an entity – is not an intelligent beast. It wanders this way and that not at the behest of some directing power but according to the whims of public interest and competing political pressures. Everybody wants the big story. Nobody wants to rock the boat. That’s why the media love Boris Johnson. He provides stories AND does the boat-rocking. If we want the awkward questions asked then we have to ask them. And do so in a way that rocks boats and generates headlines.

      If there were large, noisy demonstrations at relevant locations that had a single and simple message, that would do it. Or if there was a prominent political figure making highly controversial statements, that would work.

      The media have this conceit of themselves as distanced and dispassionate observers. They cannot be seen to be making the news. Which would be a risk were they to ask awkward questions of their own volition rather than on behalf of the public they serve.


Leave a Reply to Peter A Bell Cancel reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.