Gloves off?
A regular below-the-line commenter on this site lately brought to my attention a short article penned by John Swinney and published on the SNP website under the title There is a better future for Scotland away from Westminster control. This commenter then asks:
Are the velvet gloves coming off to expose an iron fist? Does this merit a PAB article?
They got the second bit right, although they may not like my answer to the first bit. The suggestion that Swinney’s article shows signs of him getting tough with Westminster is just the kind of deluded nonsense that SNP apologists peddle incessantly. To say that Swinney’s article is just empty rhetoric is to afford it far more substance than it deserves.
The suggestion that Swinney’s article shows signs of him getting tough with Westminster is just the kind of deluded nonsense that SNP apologists peddle incessantly.
In that 560-word article, Swinney mentions ‘Westminster’ around five times as often as he mentions ‘independence’ and about the same number of times as he mentions ‘Scotland’. There is neither call nor commitment to any action. Swinney says nothing about how he proposes to take Scotland away from Westminster control. Nor does he suggest anything readers of the article should do to hasten the dawn of that new era for our nation.
The gist of the article is that the power to shape Scotland’s future should be in the hands of Scotland’s people. A real no-shit-sherlock moment for Swinney, there!
But at the same time as he says power should lie in Scotland, he addresses Andy Burnham as if he had all the power. Which he does, of course. But there is an implicit acceptance of this by Swinney. Swinney’s article is a dire illustration of how he puts Westminster at the centre of the constitutional issue. He deplores the asymmetry of power that favours Burnham and the British state. But he looks to Burnham to fix this. He’s waiting for Burnham to do something about it. Swinney himself doesn’t propose to do anything. Or should that be proposes to do nothing?
Swinney’s article is a dire illustration of how he puts Westminster at the centre of the constitutional issue.
Swinney refers to the fact that the Scottish Parliament voted for a new referendum, even if only in a roundabout way. He claims popular support for independence. But then he passes the ball to Burnham, who promptly punctures it. Swinney just doesn’t get this popular sovereignty thing at all. If the people of Scotland are sovereign — which they are — and they have given Swinney and his party a mandate to act on the constitutional issue, then what follows should be action by Swinney. But Swinney does nothing. He offers no proposals for doing anything. He puts the whole matter in the hands of a British prime minister who has no mandate from the people of Scotland and a British parliament in which Scotland has only token representation.
Swinney just doesn’t get this popular sovereignty thing at all.
Where is the iron fist?
The true purpose of what Swinney writes is to give the impression that Andy Burnham and he are actively engaged on the constitutional issue when the truth is that Burnham has already brushed Swinney aside as one might shoo a pesky fly.
When the velvet glove comes off, all that’s revealed is a limp wrist.
The time to take John Swinney seriously as the de facto leader of Scotland’s independence movement will be when he can author a 560-word essay on the constitutional question without mentioning Westminster or Burnham at all.
on fist? Does this merit a PAB article?
They got the second bit right, although they may not like my answer to the first bit. The suggestion that Swinney’s article shows signs of him getting tough with Westminster is just the kind of deluded nonsense that SNP apologists peddle incessantly. To say that Swinney’s article is just empty rhetoric is to afford it far more substance than it deserves.
The suggestion that Swinney’s article shows signs of him getting tough with Westminster is just the kind of deluded nonsense that SNP apologists peddle incessantly.
In that 560-word article, Swinney mentions ‘Westminster’ around five times as often as he mentions ‘independence’ and about the same number of times as he mentions ‘Scotland’. There is neither call nor commitment to any action. Swinney says nothing about how he proposes to take Scotland away from Westminster control. Nor does he suggest anything readers of the article should do to hasten the dawn of that new era for our nation.
The gist of the article is that the power to shape Scotland’s future should be in the hands of Scotland’s people. A real no-shit-sherlock moment for Swinney, there!
But at the same time as he says power should lie in Scotland, he addresses Andy Burnham as if he had all the power. Which he does, of course. But there is an implicit acceptance of this by Swinney. Swinney’s article is a dire illustration of how he puts Westminster at the centre of the constitutional issue. He deplores the asymmetry of power that favours Burnham and the British state. But he looks to Burnham to fix this. He’s waiting for Burnham to do something about it. Swinney himself doesn’t propose to do anything. Or should that be proposes to do nothing?
Swinney’s article is a dire illustration of how he puts Westminster at the centre of the constitutional issue.
Swinney refers to the fact that the Scottish Parliament voted for a new referendum, even if only in a roundabout way. He claims popular support for independence. But then he passes the ball to Burnham, who promptly punctures it. Swinney just doesn’t get this popular sovereignty thing at all. If the people of Scotland are sovereign — which they are — and they have given Swinney and his party a mandate to act on the constitutional issue, then what follows should be action by Swinney. But Swinney does nothing. He offers no proposals for doing anything. He puts the whole matter in the hands of a British prime minister who has no mandate from the people of Scotland and a British parliament in which Scotland has only token representation.
Swinney just doesn’t get this popular sovereignty thing at all.
Where is the iron fist?
The true purpose of what Swinney writes is to give the impression that Andy Burnham and he are actively engaged on the constitutional issue when the truth is that Burnham has already brushed Swinney aside as one might shoo a pesky fly.
When the velvet glove comes off, all that’s revealed is a limp wrist.
The time to take John Swinney seriously as the de facto leader of Scotland’s independence movement will be when he can author a 560-word essay on the constitutional question without mentioning Westminster or Burnham at all.
They just keep peddling the same old shite...
Even if John Swinney possesses a well-hidden iron fist he'd have to be fighting fit and in the ring first before he can engage his opponent with any prospect of victory.
Swinney's not even been in the gymnasium yet.
Low grade trash talking is the limit of his abilities.