Every once in a while there’s a headline in The National which lifts the spirits of even a curmudgeonly old cynic such as myself. More rarely than one would hope, that headline pertains to the SNP. So, it was that I was momentarily thrilled to read that SNP members were launching a bid to force debate on the party’s independence strategy at their conference in October. Then I made the mistake of reading the article.
The piece is built on quotes from an anonymous “insider”. But there is a jarring disjuncture between the headline’s talk of forcing a debate and the words of this unnamed source.
“We will not be using the words de facto,” the source explained.
“We’re trying to tone this all down so that it will be accepted.”
It’s understood that the phrasing will centre around “Scotland’s right to choose”, a term frequently used by First Minister John Swinney.
“The folk behind this amendment are not disruptors, they are not fundamentalists, they are moderates, gradualists, including staffers and loyal activists who are seriously concerned that independence is being shelved for this entire Holyrood term,” an insider told The National.
None of this tallies with the idea of anything being forced. It all sounds decidedly timid. Nor does it make much sense. The ‘rebels’ are trying to make their amendment acceptable to the conference committee, which has demonstrated that it is not prepared to countenance any discussion of the SNP’s ‘strategy’ for restoring Scotland’s independence. Or at least, no discussion which doesn’t end with a standing ovation resoundingly endorsing whatever John Swinney says.
John Swinney has no strategy for independence. The SNP has no strategy for independence. Perhaps worse, from what we know of them, the rejected resolutions didn’t amount to a strategy for independence. Now, there is nothing in what the National reports to suggest these ‘rebels’ have a strategy in mind. Not one they are prepared to ‘force’ onto the agenda, anyway.
The SNP has no strategy for independence.
Let’s not be fooled by talk of “Scotland’s right to choose”, whether from the First Minister or the ‘rebels’. What I take the phrase to mean is our right of self-determination. But that’s not what Swinney is talking about. It can’t be. Because our right of self-determination is not conditional on the approval of the UK government. It can’t be. Because the right of self-determination is an inalienable human right. It is incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another and cannot be subject to forfeiture.
If the ‘rebels’ were talking about asserting our right of self-determination, they would be “disruptors”. They would be radicals. They would be “fundamentalists”, at least in the sense of upholding the founding principles of the Scottish National Party.
If these ‘rebels’ end up moderating their amendment to the extent that it doesn’t contradict the leadership or clash with the leadership’s stated ‘strategy’ in any way, then they cannot be talking about a strategy for restoring Scotland’s independence. To put it another way, if they were seeking to force the conference committee to accept a resolution which outlined a genuine strategy for restoring independence, they would be disruptors by definition.
These ‘rebels’ seem to want to change the direction of the SNP without embarrassing the leadership.
The SNP needs disruptors. The independence movement needs disruptors. These ‘rebels’ seem to want to change the direction of the SNP without embarrassing the leadership. Which is a bit like trying to steer a supertanker by blowing on its side. They can’t get their party back to being the party of independence without embarrassing John Swinney because John Swinney is the embarrassment.
“I urge Members not to mistake our intentions. I say that because we have already received a few jibes. We do, of course, want self-government for Scotland. There is no secret about that."
“We come here not to disrupt but to be constructive. We come here to be good parliamentarians and to use the often arcane and antiquated processes that exist in this Parliament for the benefit of the people who elected us.”
Both of the above quotes are from Tommy Sheppard’s maiden speech in the British Parliament’s House of Commons on 20th May 2015. (Commons Chamber - Hansard - UK Parliament).
The National article you reference Peter has a tone and content that is completely in keeping with Sheppard's toe-curling, cap-doffing, forelock-tugging, grovelling, toadying, fawning address that set a new low standard for ingratiation.
The SNP leadership have been bowing down to their – not my – masters in Westminster for 12 years. Now the SNP membership are kow-towing to their – not my – rulers in the party.
It’s almost as if John Swinney has let it be known that he and his cabal might consider a ‘rebel’ amendment as long as it doesn’t change anything. A sort of false flag as a sop to the membership.
The SNP are fucked. And that's an actual de facto.
Brilliantly put we are going nowhere at breakneck speed.
DOWN with SWINNEY the champion of going NOWHERE.😳