Ten years of SNP whining about how dreadful Westminster and the Tories are while doing precisely nothing to get Scotland out from under the heel of the Union. Yousaf seems not to comprehend the anger felt by those who put cause and country before party and personality when all they are offered is a constant wash of platitudes and banalities and glittering generalities.
Nor does he appear to understand that facilitating the exercise of our right of self-determination is his responsibility. It is the duty of the Scottish Government to ensure that we have the opportunity to choose the constitutional status of our nation and the form of government which best serves our needs, priorities and aspirations. It suits him and his colleagues very well to be able to blame the Tories and Westminster for all the ills of the recent past. By pretending they are powerless in the face of British imperialist obduracy, the SNP leadership suppose themselves relieved of all culpability for continued suffering. But let us not be deceived. The ten years of suffering he talks about was a political choice made by the SNP leadership. They opted for this rather than act to rescue Scotland from the depredations visited upon us by the political elites of England-as-Britain.
It was a choice made in 2015 at a time when Scotland’s cause was perfectly poised for the next stage of the fight to end the Union. All the pieces were in place. The Yes movement was ready and eager to defy the British state. The electorate was ready to at least listen to those pursuing Scotland’s cause. The SNP membership was ready to run with the momentum that existed in the wake of the 2014 referendum. Only the leadership of the SNP was not ready. They were not willing to do the hard stuff. They chose to hit the brake rather than the accelerator because they feared the repercussions of mounting a serious challenge to the ruling elites of the British state.
The things Yousaf refers to – austerity, Brexit etc. – must undoubtedly be ascribed to the ineptitude and corruption of successive UK governments. It was those governments which imposed these hardships on us. But it was the SNP leadership which chose to let them. They made that choice. And now they are terrified that they might be held to account for it.
Apologists for the SNP leadership will bleat that there was nothing the SNP Scottish Government could have done. That is a lie, of course. But supposing it was true, does it not immediately prompt questions as to why the SNP promised to do what it was unable/unwilling to do. The pleas of helplessness imply that the SNP leadership was lying when the party sought a mandate to do the things it now says it couldn’t do. Or they are lying when they say there was nothing they could do to honour the promises they made when their jobs were at stake. Either way, they are liars.
If the SNP leadership is – as they claim when it is expedient to do so – powerless to prise the burden of the Union from Scotland’s back, why should I vote for them? As someone committed to the restoration of Scotland’s independence, what possible reason might I have to vote for a party that insists on deferring to Westminster? Why should anyone who aspires to constitutional normality for Scotland vote for a party that promises to restore that normality while seeking political power only to then say they can’t deliver because Westminster won’t let them?
There is an argument for voting SNP in Holyrood elections. A party that is useless to Scotland’s cause can still be useful as a means to prevent the British parties taking over – truly a nightmare scenario. But what rational argument is there for voting SNP in Westminster elections when we know for an absolute fact established over more than a single decade that their presence in the British parliament does nothing more than provide a convenient target for the ridicule and disrespect of British politicians who regard Scotland with casual contempt increasingly shading into open animosity?
Given the decade that Yousaf describes and the fact that neither he nor his party nor any other politician or party has credible proposals for ensuring we don’t suffer further decades of colonial rule, surely it is time to consider whether better use might be made of the coming UK general election. Voting for any of those nominally pro-independence parties is pointless. It hardly needs to be stated that voting for any of the British parties is unthinkable. Which leaves two options – decline to vote; or spoil the ballot paper. I am increasingly persuaded that the latter is the best option for anyone committed to Scotland’s cause.
I would suggest that the best use that might be made of the coming Westminster election is as an opportunity to apply a goad to the backsides of Scotland’s own political elite. Ignore the matter of the UK government. There is no way voters in Scotland can influence the outcome of any UK general election. It would make no difference even if we could as there is no option which isn’t bad for Scotland. Focus instead on using this election as an opportunity to remind Scotland’s politicians that we, the people, are sovereign and that our will is the final word. This can be achieved with a mass campaign of ballot-spoiling. Imagine tens of thousands of ballot papers all spoiled with the same message. That message, an instruction to those politicians – #EndTheUnion!
Peter A Bell 
Happy to do that, Peter, though not sure what effect it will have as I am now living in England! Worth à try though, as no likely candidates or parties that I can vote for.
LikeLiked by 4 people
#EndTheUnion!
LikeLiked by 2 people
SNP politicians won’t recognise or engage with the frustration embodied in this piece. With every passing week they show themselves as deaf and blind to the frustration and apathy engulfing the electorate. Not a single lesson learned from 2014. They played and continue to play the Westminster game.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I share your frustration and despair at the SNP leadership ever listening to dissenting voices. But I am always mindful that the SNP has become quite adept at deploying the power of ignoring. They ignore us in the hope and expectation that those dissenting voices will just give up. I decline to do so. My last words will be dissent.
LikeLike
With you on that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” They chose to hit the brake rather than the accelerator because they feared the repercussions of mounting a serious challenge to the ruling elites of the British state.”
Yes indeed, Peter, and postcolonial theory confirms that the dominant national party in whom the people placed their faith “lacks the courage at the decisive moment” to proclaim independence; instead of breaking colonialism the party elite “come to a friendly agreement with it” (Fanon). This is what “sickens the movement” and has led to the present “rupture”, and it all lead back to the Sturgeon & Yousaf et al. door.
The SNP leadership, “lacking in any innovation” to free the people is therefore totally responsible for the fact Scotland’s people today still remain subject to colonial procedures; indeed, in line with postcolonial theory the leadership are fully signed up colonial administrators and thus become part of “the watchdogs of colonialism” in seeking to hold back the movement and oppress the people.
The national party leadership are rightly “condemned by their own hypocrisy” (Cesaire).
LikeLiked by 10 people
I was about to write that I wish I’d been aware of the content of postcolonial theory earlier. But I realise that I probably had to come to it by my own route. The foundations had to be laid. Apart from which, in terms of campaigning, postcolonial theory was not useful until quite recently. Too few people were prepared to listen. Minds must be partially decolonised before any radical ideas can gain access. People have to be ready to ask the questions before they can be ready to receive the answers.
LikeLiked by 5 people
When I was wee , my Ma used to send me on a message to the shops , a line was written and wrapped around some coins and off I would go to the shops and hand the line over to the shopkeeper , get the items and return home with them and , importantly, any change from the transaction.
If I had dawdled on the way there or back , lost the line and money , damaged the produce or spent the change on myself , there would have been hell to pay.
Why are so many so-called grown-ups incapable of running a message? Probably because there is no hell to pay, so how do we punish them is the question.
It’s tricky because we have been maneuvered into a situation where we are cutting off our nose to spite our face by not just our opponents but those that are meant to be our champions!
Somehow , we have to get every SNP candidate at that election to FAITHFULLY promise that this time they will get the message there and this time , get it back.
LikeLike
I will only reconsider my decision to spoil (repurpose?) my ballot in the 2024 Westminster election if the SNP and other Scottish parties adopt a common #ManifestoForIndependence.
LikeLiked by 5 people
We’ve ended up as a scene from Life of Brian , the odds on the SNP backing off from their suicide dash are nil.
A spoiled ballot has few compensations to us but if you want to , that is your prerogative. The message that their vote is not coming out will be loud and clear to the SNP pre election day.
Those troughers that have let us down so badly will be looking at a little well paid home-leave followed by a concerted effort to get themselves back at the Holyrood trough. God knows that the paucity of talent on the SNP benches there affords them good prospects of that.
If Alba /ISP are standing , I shall vote for them, otherwise I’m staying home.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a woman I always vote. I owe it to those who suffered in order to gain votes for women. I will spoil my paper if there is no Alba or ISP candidate standing in my constituency.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The maist o’ them are gaun tae ask ye whit’s a message? The present incumbents have demonstrated a contempt for the people who voted for them and the principle of Independence, There is mair chance o’ the Tooth Fairy first footin’ ye effter the bells the night than an SNP candidate wi’ a lump o’coal keepin’ ony promise tae deliver Independence!
In that they have been consistent!!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Peter, I think my support of #EndTheUnion was deleted somehow from the comments page. For avoidance of doubt I believe it is the only sensible option at the UKGE.
LikeLike
I think that may have been my fault. However, there were another couple of comments in the bin that I definitely didn’t delete. It seems Akismet is now putting comments straight into the bin bypassing the spam folder. It’s tiresome.
LikeLike
#EndThe Union won’t happen by itself. There needs to be a proper campaign. Out of interest even if spoiled ballot papers “won” 10% of the vote, would the nature of the message be made clear, or just buried under the total figure for spoiled papers ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course, we wouldn’t expect a ballot repurposing exercise to #EndTheUnion on its own. The point would be to send a message that cannot be sent by voting for any of the candidates. If enough people repurpose (spoil) their ballot in the same way, that is bound to be remarked upon. It is exactly the kind of ‘novelty’ the media latches onto. But it has to be a large enough number and the message must be the same in every case.
It won’t happen. There is absolutely no chance of getting the required number of voters to agree on a common message. Almost as soon as I suggested #EndTheUnion, I got responses arguing that it would be better to use this or that. Everybody thinks they know better. So, everybody chooses their own message. So, there is no identifiable campaign. #EndTheUnion was chosen because it is a sentiment that SHOULD be common to all independence supporters. But everybody wants to have their own campaign. There is no cumulative effect because there is no effect to cumulate.
LikeLike
They would just buried under the total figure for spoiled papers.
LikeLike
Not if there were enough of them with the same mark. This would be a novel phenomenon that the media would jump on. What do you have to lose, anyway. Your vote is meaningless no matter what party you vote for. As well to do something that will at least get you noticed.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Genuine question – does the message on the ballot paper have to include the
hash tag as in ‘#End thre Union’? I have no idea what that symbol means.
LikeLike
I’ve included the hashtag because it is used on social media to specify a topic. There are advantages in consistency of messaging. Think of it like a brand. Organisations have a single image which denotes them, with very little variation in that image if any at all. Basically, a message is stronger if it is consistent.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Narcissists typically dislike being ignored because it challenges their need for constant validation and control.” Can we agree that the current SNP are basically narcissists?
Spoiling your ballot always smacked of borderline crazy to me , a futile act of defiance that was ignored . If we start to spoil ballots wholesale then they get to be the victims of the press and us. It will also not be long before they are telling you “we told you so but …”.
The only way forward is a revolution in the SNP soon or this election has gone for Indy. Trying to force change hasn’t worked , maybe just casting them into irrelevance might wake them up.
LikeLike
Peter. You supported nicoliar beyond reason. You were actually the first person to bully me on twitter. You were a fat bastard then and you continue in other ways. Happy Neer…day. 😊
LikeLike
The only people who will see the spoiled votes are the counters at the election. The experienced ones are long past being surprised by deliberately spoiled votes. They are taken to one side, counted, and noted in the returning officer’s statement. There endeth the protest. Only the election staff know. Do you think the MSM will draw attention to it even if there are a lot? Just checked the dictionary on how to spell naive.
LikeLike
There will always be excuses for doing nothing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“The only people who will see the spoiled votes are the counters at the election.”
This is wrong. Every spoilt vote is offered to the candidates and / or their agents for inspection, as the intention is to use every vote if possible, and if it can be shown that even if a bit spoilt the ballot is unambiguous, the candidates can agree to allow the vote to stand rather than be rejected.
There are also indeed records of previous elections’ spoilt votes, and if that doubled or more in an election it would be noticed and therefore debatable.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Correct. And as I have already pointed out, a significant increase in spoilt ballots is exactly the sort of ‘novelty’ that the media latches onto. Especially if the overwhelming majority of the ballots are ‘repurposed’ in the same manner. This would be a phenomenon with great potential for interpretation and analysis. It would make for great headlines and excellent click-bait. It most assuredly would not be invisible.
People ask how we overcome the Unionists’ advantage in terms of the media. I say we exploit their inability to resist the lure of novelty and phenomenon. People ask how we get our message into the mainstream media. I say we frame and present that message in a way that makes it too tempting to be ignored. Sensation and titillation are food and drink to the media. Lay out a feast for them and they will gorge on it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The biggest ‘story’ of the 2007 Scottish/Holyrood elections reported by the media was the proportion of spoilt ballots (rather than the first SNP victory). Spoilt ballots constituted 2.9% and 4.1% of the constituency and regional votes, respectively. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Scottish_Parliament_election).
For comparison:
1999: 0.30%, 0.30% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Scottish_Parliament_election)
2003: 0.66%, 0.65% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Scottish_Parliament_election)
2011: 0.30%, 0.30% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Scottish_Parliament_election)
2016: 0.40%, 0.20% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Scottish_Parliament_election)
2021: 0.37%, 0.19% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Scottish_Parliament_election)
So spoiled ballots does make news.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The biggest ‘story’ of the 2007 Scottish/Holyrood elections reported by the media was the proportion of spoilt ballots (rather than the first SNP victory). Spoilt ballots constituted 2.9% and 4.1% of the constituency and regional votes, respectively. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Scottish_Parliament_election).
Brian Taylor of the BBC couldn’t talk about anything else during his commentary as the results came in and the printed media were no different (see https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/may/09/scotland.devolution).
For comparison at other Scottish elections the proportion of spoiled constituency and regional votes, respectively, were as follows:
1999: 0.30%, 0.30%
2003: 0.66%, 0.65%
2011: 0.30%, 0.30%
2016: 0.40%, 0.20%
2021: 0.37%, 0.19%
So spoiled ballots at elections does make news.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Quoting from the Guardian story:
“The decision to put both the first-past-the-post constituency vote and the proportional representation vote on the same ballot paper had been agreed by Labour, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats, he told MPs, while the Tories did not provide a response to the consultation on the idea.
Meanwhile, the decision to hold local elections on the same day as national ones in Scotland was taken by the Scottish executive – the former Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition – despite that ballot being held under a new, and different, form of PR.”
I remember that plus-sized Holyrood butterfly-ballot. It was a bad idea, and abandoned after just that one election. I knew the top-up list system, so it didn’t confuse me, but I knew it would cost many people their votes. “One X over here somewhere and X over there somewhere” is no substitute for two ballot papers for your two distinct votes.
Running that election on the same day as the first STV ballot I’d faced in all my life was another bad idea. For me, the STV council ballot was a bitter reminder of a better system we should use in Holyrood, too, instead of FPTP constituencies. I bet a lot of folk just slapped an X on that ballot too, instead of preferences.
So anyway, a valid story. Scots were faced with badly designed ballot papers that day. Would they notice another increase in the rejected ballot total? Or is a slump in turnout the clearer message?
LikeLike
The question of whether an increase in “rejected” ballots would be noticed is what seems to be exercising many people. Unfortunately, rather too many people are, through ignorance or malign intent, spreading the notion that ‘spoilt’ ballots are simply binned and disregarded. This, of course, is absolutely not the case. Ballots are only rejected after considerable scrutiny by numerous people including representatives of the political parties and other interested organisations as well as the returning officer’s staff. as is clear from the 2007 example, rejected ballots are counted and the numbers recorded along with the reason for rejection. The idea that there would be no information publicly available is nonsense. The question is whether and how that information would be presented in the media.
You correctly point out that the sharp rise in the number of rejected ballots at the 2007 election was due to dad design (Danny Alexander?) and not intentional repurposing. The media jumped on the story because it was a scandal. Or could easily be spun as a scandal. Scandal titillates. Scandal attracts the public attention that the media then sells on to advertisers. assuming it was done by a sufficient number of people and in a way that made it obviously an organised campaign, would a sharp increase in rejected ballots fail to attract the media as in 2007? Would such a campaign have lesser ‘news value’ than a cock-up scandal, or greater? would the establishment be better able to suppress such a story now than then – supposing they wished to do so?
The answer to such questions is, of course, it depends. It depends on numerous factors. The apparent assumptions of the naysayers is that we – the Yes movement – would have no influence over any of these factors. That we would be helpless in the face of establishment efforts to suppress or play down the protest. In large part, established power gets its power by convincing potential challengers that it is overwhelmingly powerful and therefore unchallengeable. So, it isn’t challenged. In fact, so long as the media are not rigidly state-controlled, it is always possible to manipulate them There are ways. Most of which rely on the fact that the media as a whole is a ravenous beast and these days a very lazy one. the beast cannot resist a free meal. So, present it with a feast it doesn’t have to go out and hunt for and it will be bound to gorge on it. No force would be able to prevent it.
The biggest impediment to popular direct action is not the power of the establishment, but the scepticism and complacency and plain idleness of the people needed to make direct action effective. Popular direct action is vastly more likely to be killed or rendered ineffective by the naysayers than by conventional power. Again, conventional power gets to be and remain established largely by deterring challenges, not by defeating them.
A campaign of repurposing ballots in the 2024 UK election could be hugely effective. It’s up to the people. So it’s probably not going to happen. The establishment wins by default again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
True. Inaction, or in other words: passive complicity, is the bedrock of every dictatorship, and arguably every power structure.
Until the “supreme” court ruling finally snapped my belief that Nicola was on Scotland’s side—she nobbled our case from the start for no good-faith reason whatsoever—I’d have held my nose again and voted SNP in the elections ahead, considering it a zero-sum game between independence and union. Losing seats to the Brits was an unacceptable cost, whatever the idea. It will still make me sad when the polls are proven right in May.
But my view now is that we’re further away than I thought. The party’s interest has diverged starkly from ours. I won’t be celebrating the losses, knowing who gains immediately from each and every one. But I will be watching very closely how the party reacts to the lightning-bolt that scunnered Scotland’s sent them. More of the same is not the answer we are looking for.
LikeLiked by 4 people
That is the kind of comment which persuades me this blogging lark might be worthwhile after all. It is a succinct statement of the predicament.
I too was until recently of the opinion that losing Westminster seats to the British parties was an unacceptable cost of delivering a much-needed slap to the SNP leadership. But I’ve been obliged to modify my thinking. (No attitude immutable. No conclusion final. No opinion humble.)
In part, this change was prompted by the near-certainty that the SNP will lose seats and the British parties gain seats regardless of anything I and others might say or do. Being pragmatic, I was forced to consider how to make the best of a bad situation entirely engineered by the SNP leadership. I had spent a lot of time and energy urging that SNP members and the wider Yes movement combine to force a change of approach to the constitutional issue. None of this had any effect. None of it reached inside the bubble. The SNP leadership was warned that it was steering the party to an electoral disaster. They chose to ignore all the warnings. Hell mend them!
I also used to think that an electoral ‘setback’ for the SNP would have necessary and necessarily bad, implications for Scotland’s cause. I still think that. But I must now conclude that the implications for Scotland’s cause would be no better if the SNP somehow turned things around and held onto all its seats. We know as a matter of absolute fact that having a massive majority of SNP MPs does nothing for Scotland’s cause. It has been ineffective in the past and nothing said by the party leadership has indicated that there might be a chance this could change any time soon.
In fact – and this may make you feel a bit better about not voting for them – a ‘win’ for the SNP in the UK election (i.e. holding all seats and maintaining vote share) could be distinctly bad for Scotland’s cause. If the SNP gets this ‘win’ it will be seen as an endorsement of their approach to the constitutional issue. An approach which we also know as a matter of incontrovertible fact, is totally ineffective.
In addition, I was obliged to ask myself how much worse it would be for Scotland’s cause if the Unionists were able to claim a victory. Which, as I think we all realise, is what they will do anyway. Remember the triumphalist celebrations of Ruthe Davidson’s supposed trouncing of the ‘nats’ in 2017? An election in which the SNP came out in exactly the same position as it went in despite the loss of a few seats. But ignoring that, what would be the impact on Scotland’s cause in practical terms. Thinking about it, I reckon we’d be no worse off. Sure! The cause is unlikely to progress under these circumstances. But it’s not going to progress even if the SNP leadership manages to fend off the humiliation that it has coming.
Thus, I come to the conclusion that Scotland’s cause would be better served by a campaign repurposing ballots to deliver a message to all the politicians. I say this fully understanding how unlikely it is that the fractured and factionalised independence movement will combine to make such a campaign happen and be effective. This doesn’t alter the fact that there is an opportunity there to be seized Or in accordance with tradition, squandered.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I hear you. We do what we can, however little it may be. If we share our reasoning and our goals, maybe just maybe we’ll not be alone.
Meanwhile, the Scottish Greens announced their part in the coming bloodbath:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24021974.scottish-greens-stand-candidates-next-general-election/
I wonder, which will be the harder explanation for the SNP to embrace? “We lost those seats because our vote didn’t turn out (and what was with all those spoiled ballots?)” or “we lost seats because our beloved coalition partners felt like splitting our vote.”
I have voted Green many times, but their rank incompetence in power has soured them completely. I don’t see breaking the coalition as a priority—in fact the SNP should be reaching out and working with others more not less, even within the party—but there’ll be bitter ex-MPs with an axe to grind, however little the Greens achieve this election.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“#EndTheUnion” is perhaps reminiscent of the inscription on broadswords used in the war of independence in 1715 which stated: “Prosperity to Schotland and no Union”.
https://www.abdn.ac.uk/actsofunion/case5.php
Scots knew then that the corrupt one-sided Union fraud would only diminish the nation and impoverish and enslave the people.
‘Inscribing’ #EndTheUnion on a ballot paper may therefore be viewed in today’s political context and where one might hope that “The pen is mightier than the sword”. It thus becomes our own national plebiscite as we wish to make it.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Ending the Union should and could be the common purpose around which the Yes movement coalesces. It is even more essential than the idea of restoring independence. Although the latter is important in terms of reframing the constitutional issue, the former expresses the most unambiguous and indisputable purpose of the independence movement. It is what the Yes campaign for the 2014 referendum lacked – a clear and specific purpose.
It is a fact that an effective single-issue campaign cannot be built around a contested idea. The idea at the heart of any single-issue campaign must be singular and common to all who participate in that campaign. Otherwise, you don’t have a single-issue campaign. You have a plethora of campaigns for different interpretations of the contested idea.
Independence is a contested idea. It doesn’t refer to anything specific and universal enough to form the core of an effective single-issue campaign. The referendum itself was not binary, as it absolutely needed to be. There were not two defined and fixed options. The implications of a No vote were never stated in a consistent way. In effect, a No vote meant whatever the winners said it meant after a win for No. A Yes vote, on the other hand, meant any of countless things depending on who you asked.
The No side had a massive advantage even before we consider the fact that it had access to all the resources of the British state. It gained an advantage from the fact that Better Together got to fight a single-issue campaign while Yes Scotland was maneuvered into campaigning as if it was an election rather than the constitutional referendum it was supposed to be. The Yes side was fighting on multiple fronts simultaneously while the No side got to concentrate its campaign on any point where it was strong or the other side was week.
Frankly, given the advantages the No side had, it’s surprising the result was as close as it was. This is, I think, explained in part by the sheer weight of numbers on the Yes side and the general unattractiveness of the No side. The Yes side was almost entirely people. The No side was almost entirely politicians.
It would all have been very different had the question concerned the Union rather than independence. That would have made it binary. It would have forced the No side to try and defend the Union rather than pick and choose among a range of points on which to attack the Yes side. Knowing how it could have been different then should be a lesson for how it should be next time. That lesson was never learned by either the SNP or the main players in the Yes movement.
Here I am, damn it! Starting the new year just repeating stuff I said last year and the year before that and the ye…
LikeLiked by 4 people
It’s worth the repetition, however frustrating and tiresome for you to have to do so, as it’s a very good point. Thanks for this blog, I’ve some useful stuff to reflect on as we begin the next stage of the rollercoaster.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It was a choice made in 2015”
Do you mean that they made the choice to put in their manifesto, got 50% of the vote and 56 MPs on the basis of that, and did their best to perform according to the manifesto? And that you think they made the wrong choice and should have made Independence the main thrust of that manifesto and risked getting much less than 50% of the vote and lost momentum?
Or that they should have ignored the manifesto on which they were voted in, and gone flat out at Westminster for Independence which was NOT the thrust of the 2015 manifesto, that they should have ignored the wishes of the electorate, and indeed ignored the purpose of a democratic election?
https://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/ukmanifestos2015/localpdf/SNP. pdf (remove space)
“My vow is to make Scotland stronger at Westminster.”
If you’re saying the 2015 manifesto was wrong, THAT is a fair argument.
LikeLike
The most urgent priority is that of freeing the people. In a colonial society the election of a majority of nationalists is de jure independence. The primary purpose of nationalist MPs in a colonial society is to declare independence. The first ever majority of Scottish nationalist MPs was squandered, wasted, as were the two further majorities since. Lets remember that colonialism is a crime and those helping to maintain colonialism are party to that.
A party manifesto merely contains a list of political aspirations, it is not a legal contract.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Wow. As Victor Meldrew would say “I don’t belieeeeve it”.
So you have 56 people who have stood for democratic election in 2015 on the basis of the SNP manifesto, who have written and distributed leaflets, and answered questions from their electorates, saying about their vote in that election on 7 May 2015:
“It is a vote to make Scotland’s voice heard at Westminster more loudly than it has ever been heard before. And it is a vote for more progressive politics
The SNP will use our influence at Westminster to help deliver positive change for the benefit of ordinary people, not just in Scotland, but across the UK
And it will help deliver new, better and more progressive politics at Westminster for everyone.
My vow is to make Scotland stronger at Westminster”
and after being elected by a total of 1,454,436 votes on that basis, you want those 56 MPs elected on those promises to stand up in the House of Commons or anywhere for that matter and say to those 1,454,436 people
“Ha ha, fooled you, took you for gullible numpties, we lied to you and now we’re going to cheat you dishonorably. Instead of our promises we are all going to declare Independence despite not having said we’d do that.”
And you expect anyone but a handful of undemocratic fanatics to agree?
The 56 recall petitions would be out and signed and acted on in days.
By far the most of the 2,910,465 people who voted in 2015 believe in democracy, warts and all, probably 99%+. You’re welcome to join us.
LikeLike
“It is a vote to make Scotland’s voice heard at Westminster more loudly than it has ever been heard before.”
You can’t get any stronger a Scotland voice than our elected national representatives telling Westminster the colonial hoax ‘Union’ is now ended.
“The SNP will use our influence at Westminster to help deliver positive change for the benefit of ordinary people, not just in Scotland, but across the UK”
By ending the ‘Union’ Scotland would also likely open the door to Welsh independence and Irish unification, as well as allowing England to reform itself, and that is surely ‘positive change’.
“And it will help deliver new, better and more progressive politics at Westminster for everyone.”
As above.
“My vow is to make Scotland stronger at Westminster”
You can’t get a stronger Scotland than one that declares its sovereign independence ‘at Westminster’.
As Scottish independence means Westminster no longer legislates for Scotland ‘recall petitions’ would not apply.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Sorry, I forgot this even more emphatic one from the 2015 manifesto:
“Delivering Home Rule for Scotland
The SNP will always support independence – but that is not what this election is about. It is about making Scotland stronger.”
That can not be misinterpreted in any way at all.
LikeLike
I would say that yesindyref2 has a point in that a vote for nationalist candidates must be a vote for independence UNLESS the party has chosen to explicitly state otherwise. Or to a lesser degree, where the ‘party of independence’ has muddied the waters around its purpose making it less certain that a vote for them is a vote for independence. Sturgeon was guilty of both. Subsequent to the 2014 referendum and Sturgeon’s elevation, a vote for the SNP has never been as unambiguously a vote for independence as it should always be.
Having said that, I would add that the SNP’s aims as stated in its constitution have not changed. So, it may well be true that a vote for the SNP has been “de jure” a vote for independence, but for the fact that the party gave itself wriggle-room enough to get out of actually implementing the will of the people. Or, more precisely, it used its manifesto to justify a shift of focus when in government away from (a) independence to (b) the furtherance of all Scottish interests. The latter conveniently being whatever the party says it is. Like GRR, for instance.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Total clarity and unambiguousness is vital.
Unlike the SNP Conference Resolution which is totally muddy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Westminster election wasn’t the only thing that happened in 2015. In fact, I made no reference at all to the election. You just made one of those big, foolish assumptions. Of course the SNP’s 2015 election manifesto was “wrong”, in that it utterly failed to capitalise on the momentum gained by the Yes movement in favour of seeking to establish the SNP as a Westminster party. But that is only one aspect of the decision to which I was referring. As I think is perfectly clear from what I wrote, I was meaning the bigger, broader choice to move Scotland’s cause onto the back burner.
Much of this is only visible – or plainly visible – with the benefit of hindsight. But it now seems perfectly evident that Nicola Sturgeon’s agenda as First Minister was principally focused on her personal advancement. That, and a degree of control-freakery / risk aversion that was extraordinary even for the SNP. In every choice and decision she made as both First Minister and party leader, the principal criteria all related to her image and her status and her international standing.
It’s not so much that there was no capacity for strategic thinking within the SNP leadership, as that whatever capacity existed was deployed in the service of Sturgeon and by necessary implication, the people in her orbit. It was then that the mould was cast for the SNP we have today.
At least as important as what was chosen are the options that were rejected. Had the capacity for strategic thinking been informed by the imperative to end the Union and restore Scotland’s independence, the priority in 2015 would have been to lay the groundwork for a new referendum at the earliest possible date. I calculated this to be September 2018. Had that decision been made in 2015, the potential of the period between then and 2018 would not have been squandered. Had the priority been independence rather than Sturgeon’s career this would have led to very different choices being made in everything, not merely the tone of the 2015 election manifesto. Most significantly, very different choices would have been made regarding the SNP / Scottish Government’s approach to the EU referendum and its aftermath.
It doesn’t take all that much imagination to see how different the 2017 election would have been if it had been fought as the prelude to a referendum in September 2018. And being able to imagine this is helpful. Because appreciating the mistakes of the past provides insights which are useful now. If Scotland’s cause is off-course now – and only dumb SNP loyalists and misty-eyed fantasists would say it isn’t – it is obviously helpful to know where, when and how it all went adrift.
We can’t change the past. But it has much to teach us about how we might change the future. We will not learn those lessons if we pick out a particular moment – such as the 2015 election – and concentrate on that. We have to map that trajectory over a much longer period to understand how we came to be where we are now. Understand that, and how that trajectory might have been different, is crucial to mapping a route from where we are no to where we want to be. We can’t turn back the clock and have that referendum in September 2018. But if we have a good grasp of how that referendum could have been brought about and how it could have been won, we can take from that the things that might usefully inform the choices we make now.
LikeLiked by 3 people
On the likes of Wings, the focus almost immediately after 18th Sep 2014 was to oust the Unionist politicians, first the MPs. They were seen as having held back Independence. Perhaps the SNP actually took note for a change and made it their priority, and they used Smith and the implementation as their strategy. It was very successful – short term.
But perhaps they should have taken courage in hand and announced, even before Smith or during it, that the GE 2015 would be a de facto vote for Independence. Two things could have happened:
either Smith would have actually been far more far-reaching like including FFA to head off that possibility
OR the SNP could have been elected with that full 56 MPs and declared Independence immediately. Less MPs would have done – they were coming from just 6 MPs.
As you say, it’s with the benefit of hindsight so we’ll never know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nationalist politicians are clearly lacking in knowledge as well as courage. Senior legal advice contained within previous Westminster reports proves the former, the national party’s ‘petrifaction’ confirms the latter (Fanon). The UK parliament cannot legislate for Scotland without Scottish representation.
The Articles of Union limit the power of the UK parliament as condition of the Treaty; the right to representation at Westminster from Scotland remains a fundamental condition of the Treaty; the UK parliament therefore remains subject to the superior (i.e. sovereign) power of the Treaty’s signatory parties, that is the sovereign kingdoms of Scotland and England; either of whom may permanently withdraw their representatives from the UK parliament, following which the Union Act would be repealed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But surely the repeal of the Acts of Union would require, on Scotland’s side, an Act of the Scottish Parliament. Not the Scottish Parliament as it is now, but as it would be after asserting its primacy in matters of Scotland’s constitution and law. As your explanation of the situation suggests, Scotland’s MPs would be withdrawn from the UK parliament. So that parliament would not be competent to repeal the the Scottish Act of Union. Only the Scottish Parliament could be competent to speak and act for the people and nation of Scotland in such circumstances. (It could easily be argued that it is the only parliament which may rightfully speak and act for the nation and people of Scotland even now.)
We may surely assume from the previous behaviour of the British state that it would seek to prevent the collapse of its precious Union. The very strong likelihood is that the British would continue to insist on the sovereignty of the UK parliament despite the absence of any Scottish representation. Or, should I say, the absence of the full quota of Scottish representatives. We may also assume that the British parties in Scotland would continue to attend Westminster. It would thereby be claimed that Scotland was not without representation and, to the extent that it was deficient in this regard, this was entirely due to the delinquency of the pro-independence contingent.
So, we would have the majority of Scotland’s MPs back in Scotland twiddling thumbs fattened by years of enjoying the largesse that the British state provides those who serve it well. Meanwhile, the British parliament would continue to legislate for Scotland (We should brace ourselves for some Draconian measures to knock us back in line.) The Scottish Parliament would continue to be an executive branch of Westminster and therefore obliged to enforce whatever legislation Westminster imposed. (OK! Maybe it’s not quite as simple as that. But this is an exercise in speculation, so some simplification should be permissible.) The point is that legally and constitutionally, the Scottish Parliament would continue to be a creature of the British state. And the British state we may further assume, would continue to insist that the Scottish Parliament does not have the competence to legislate in the reserved matter of the constitution. It could not ‘legally and constitutionally’ repeal the Act of Union.
It should also be noted that most of the apparatus of the state in Scotland would continue to be controlled from London – either directly or via Queen Elizabeth House and/or Holyrood.
As ever, it all comes back to the question of legislative competence. For independence to be restored – the Scottish Act of Union repealed – the Scottish Parliament requires the relevant legislative competence. And the only way to acquire that legislative competence is to assert it in defiance of the British state. There is no ‘route to independence’ which does not end up at this point. Truly, #ScottishUDI is the only way.
I have seen it claimed that the MPs on returning to Scotland might form the core of a national convention of some kind which would somehow repeal the Act of Union. (The political parties have seized on the ‘convention’ term to use as an electoral marketing device. But, characteristically, there is little or nothing behind the term as they use it. The do not, for example, propose a detailed remit for this convention. It’s just another word which, like ‘sovereignty’ and ‘independence’, are sufficient in themselves to secure the votes of those disinclined to think about things too deeply – if at all.)
Continuing to sketch our speculative scenario, we would then have two bodies claiming democratic legitimacy and the authority to legislate. Do I have to explain how that is likely to pan out? The convention’s claim to democratic legitimacy would be dubious, at best. Although the majority of Scotland’s former(?) MPs would be the substantial part of the convention, their democratic credentials relate to Westminster. They were elected to represent their constituents in the UK parliament. They were not elected to this convention.
So, on the one hand we have the convention with extremely weak democratic legitimacy and no access to the apparatus of government. On the other, we have the Scottish Parliament which has perfect democratic legitimacy and full access to the apparatus of government so long as it continues to be the executive arm of the British parliament. Some MSPs might be persuaded to leave Holyrood and join forces with the MPs in the convention. But, again, their democratic legitimacy derives from being elected to the Scottish Parliament, not the convention.
Now, the crucial question. Who is refereeing this contest between convention and parliament? Who else but the British state. Not exactly an impartial umpire.
It’s a guddle. And, like all the other constitutional guddles being bandied about, it only becomes unguddled when the Scottish Parliament asserts its legislative competence in matters of the constitution. A de facto unilateral declaration of independence. Our focus, therefore, should be on that process. The process I have, for reasons previously explained, termed #ScottishUDI. A process that utilises the space between ‘British’ law and international law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Others have written that Scotland’s MP’s ARE in effect the Scottish parliament currently sitting in Westminster, as per the treaty condition requiring Scottish representation there to enable the UK parliament to function as a legislature in Scotland.
As and when the majority of Scotland’s MPs finally depart Westminster they therefore take the Scottish parliament and hence Scotland’s legislature with them.
Holyrood remains merely a colonial set-up subject to UK law. UK law no longer applies in Scotland post independence/withdrawal of Scotland’s representatives hence what happens to Holyrood then becomes a matter for the returning Scottish parliament, i.e. Scotland’s MP’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmm! I’m looking at this from a political and practical point of view rather than simply a legal and constitutional perspective. There’s any number of things which are technically feasible, but break apart on the rocks of party politics and public perception. Human nature has a significant role to play in such matters. Also, those things that are technically feasible may, even when actually be practicable, are very likely to be, shall we say, outwith the skill-set of the average politician.
I’m trying to picture Humza Yousaf and his second-hand clique managing all of what you suggest. It’s not easy to imagine. Regrettably, I have to say the same of Alex Salmond and his team; who seem primarily interested in how any action might be used as an electoral weapon against the SNP.
Those MPs had a claim to being the Scottish Parliament ‘in exile’ up to 1999. The Scottish Parliament surely supersedes those MPs in terms of democratic legitimacy. I see almost inevitable conflict between what would as quickly become two tribes as did Alba and the SNP. Again, it doesn’t have to be that way. But tribalism can only be forestalled by effective management. I have no confidence in the current batch of MPs and MSPs. No confidence at all.
The biggest issue, however, is the fact that politically even if not technically, an Act of the Scottish Parliament and a proper constitutional referendum would be required to restore independence in a way that would be acceptable to the people of Scotland and not at all incidentally, international opinion. Don’t underestimate the importance of presentation.
Many years and much effort has gone into making Holyrood the locus of Scotland’s politics and ‘demoting’ Westminster in the minds of the Scottish public. That effort has been quite successful. It has to be said that a succession of British Tory governments has helped. Now, you suggest we effectively tell the people to forget all that stuff about the Scottish Parliament being the ‘home’ of Scottish democracy and accept instead that a contingent from Westminster is the true ‘voice of the people’. I’m not comfortable with that.
Why take chances when establishing the primacy of the Scottish Parliament is a relatively simple matter. The people of Scotland are sovereign. Therefore, the parliament elected by the people of Scotland is what the people of Scotland say it is. Westminster may claim it as their wholly-owned subsidiary. But the will of the people must outweigh and overrule the diktat of what is effectively a foreign parliament.
Use a de facto referendum to establish a mandate for the Scottish Parliament asserting its competence in all constitutional matters by having all Scottish parties adopt the #ManifestoForIndependence. Then get on with it. I’m even prepared to consider the proposition that Yousaf might be capable of handling the task.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your argument leaves open to challenge that Holyrood is the creation of and hence subordinate to the UK parliament, whereas Scotland’s sovereign MPs/representatives as joint creator of the Anglo-Scottish legislature remain superior to the UK parliament.
LikeLike
Holyrood is the creation of and hence subordinate to the UK parliament only until the sovereign people of Scotland say otherwise.
LikeLike
Anyways, Glenlivet 12 at the ready, last post of 2023 – a good year. May 2024 be even better when it comes after Tiffany’s heart beating 🙂
LikeLike