Thanks, Wes!

I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in the British (English) parliament. That may strike readers familiar with my attitude towards people of this ilk, but I implore you to bear with me while I explain.

Yesterday afternoon (Sunday 12 April) I was on my usual news websites, loitering with intent to write something and intermittently attempting to denumptify the usual parade of below-the-line commentators on the Sunday National pages, being just ‘robust enough to keep the censors on their toes without crossing any of the red lines that are invisible to those with no more than the normal capacity for indignant outrage. It is dull, repetitive, frustrating work, but it has to be done.

[Excuse me a moment.]

Sorry about that! Monday always brings a significant amount of additional laundry to handle. Where was I? Ah, yes! The Sunday National!

One good thing about Sundays is that this is when the politicians queue up outside various TV and radio studios, waiting their turn to avoid answering far-from-probing questions put to them by some celebrity presenter with an impressive job title and a couple of unpaid interns to do all the actual work. The good thing about all this is that at least one of the interviewees can usually be relied on…

[Excuse me again! What is it? Sorry! Not you, dear reader! It’s my blog telling me that “usually be relied on” is verging on oxymoronic. She’s right. (For some reason I always think of her as female.) But I’m not writing a formal letter here or an academic paper. She (Ms Blog) calls it an error. I call it personal style. So, there’s an end to the matter!]

…to say something stupid or controversial. You'd think a cabinet minister saying something stupid would be controversial in itself. However, senior politicians frequently make foolish statements, so such occurrences tend not to leave the political landscape disrupted enough to warrant the media’s attention. Every once in a while, though, you’ll spot a wee gem in the torrent of vacuous dross that pours from professional politicians who take enormous pride in being able to speak for long periods—sometimes an entire career! —without actually saying anything. Yesterday, we got such a wee gem from the aforementioned Wes Streeting.

It's important to remember that the value of these wee gems may vary depending on the perspective of the observer and the context. Wes Streeting’s remark struck me as a valuable insight, particularly in the context of Scotland’s constitutional issue and an ongoing election campaign. In that context, it was a controversial remark.

I should also note that the statement needn’t be in the nature of a shocking revelation. Wes Streeting only told us what we already knew. Nor was he executing some policy U-turn, such as the current UK government has made its speciality. Wes Streeting merely re-stated a position that the current and previous UK governments have always held.

I should tell you what he said in case you missed the picture at the top of this page. I’ll quote from the Sunday National’s report.

When asked by LBC presenter Lewis Goodall how the SNP secure a referendum from the UK Government, Streeting replied, “we’re not giving [one]”.

He said: “The SNP would like to make this all about the constitution again to avoid their running, you know, on their domestic record.”

When asked again by Goodall, “So how do they get one?” Streeting replied: “We’re not having one”.

Before the Labour MP could finish, Goodall asked for a third time how the SNP would get a second referendum.

“They’re not having one,” Streeting simply replied.

There you have it! Plain speaking from a professional politician. That alone makes the remarks remarkable.

The reaction in the below-the-line comments was much as one might expect. There was indignation and condemnation aplenty. Some found the blank refusal to respect the democratically expressed will of the people of Scotland offensive, as it implied a denial of democracy. There were defiant comments insisting the Scottish people wouldn’t stand for such an affront to democracy. The bold defiance fell a bit flat if you thought about the fact that the Scottish people have been tolerating it for a very long time.

I won’t dwell overlong on these comments. You’ll probably have seen a lot of similar stuff on various social media platforms. The absence of one particular statement struck me more than the comments themselves. Skimming through the comments—as I write, there are 169 of them—I noted that nobody seemed to be relating what Wes Streeting said to John Swinney’s stated “strategy for securing a referendum”. I set about rectifying this omission and, in so doing, made myself even less popular with the SNP loyalists and the #WheeshtForIndy mob. I was scrutinising the SNP, and for some that is heresy.

Let’s think about this! On the one hand we have the First Minister of Scotland and leader of Scotland’s biggest political party and self-styled ‘party of independence’ saying he can “guarantee” a referendum if the voters give the SNP an overall majority as in the 2011 Scottish general election.

Asked by ITV in an interview at Bute House whether he could guarantee a majority will lead to a referendum, Swinney said: “Yes, because that’s what happened in 2011”.

This “guarantee” of a referendum is a central plank of the SNP’s election campaign. Swinney’s plan is to rerun the chunk of Scottish history that led to the referendum in 2014. His dearest wish is to outdo Alex Salmond. So, this is important. He hopes that by creating a mandate for what he undoubtedly considers effective action on the constitutional issue, which depends on an outright majority, he will win back some of the voters he has alienated from the SNP due to his prolonged failure to take what they view as effective action on the constitutional issue.

But then we have a senior cabinet minister speaking for the British government, saying there will be no referendum under any circumstances. Swinney says there will! Streeting says there won’t. How might this be resolved?

Actually, it is resolved effortlessly. Streeting outranks Swinney. The British government outranks the Scottish Government. Westminster outranks Holyrood. The Union is grotesquely asymmetric. The Union affords England-as-Britain a huge advantage over Scotland in all things and for all time. That is what it was designed to do, and this design has been revised, modified, and rendered more effective over a period of more than 300 years. There is no question as to who wins in this case. Wes Streeting wins. There will be no referendum. John Swinney’s fox is not just shot; it is fair riddled wi’ bullets! It’s a taxidermist’s nightmare!

With only 24 days until the referendum, John Swinney has had the rug pulled from under his feet. The response from SNP Depute Leader Keith Brown is the usual superficial defiance with no substance.

The Labour Party is sticking two fingers up at Scottish voters, and unwittingly making the case for independence, by arrogantly seeking to deny democracy.

The fact that senior Labour Party figures are telling Scottish voters their views and votes don’t matter is all the more reason to show them where to go on 7th May by voting SNP.

The fact is that it will not be Wes Streeting, Keir Starmer or any other Westminster politician who decide Scotland’s future - it will be the people of Scotland. And an SNP majority on 7th May will unlock the fresh start of independence.

This is the lamb screeching threats from the jaws of the wolf. It’s meaningless drivel. Keith Brown is like a coin-operated automaton spitting out pre-programmed gobbets of nonsense. AI could do better. I asked Quillbot to have a go.

The Labour Party's dismissive attitude towards Scottish voters is reinforcing the argument for independence. Senior Labour figures are undermining Scottish democratic input, prompting a call to vote for the SNP on 7th May. The decision regarding Scotland's future rests with the Scottish people, and a majority for the SNP will pave the way for a new era of independence.

Nothing has changed. Wes Streeting’s remarks are significant only because they were made during a Scottish general election campaign in which the party likely to win has made itself vulnerable by doing something monumentally stupid. That last sentence might serve as the SNP’s epitaph. John Swinney's decision to base his election strategy on a fundamentally false premise was simply foolish. The promise of a referendum was a blatantly obvious lie, yet some people chose not to acknowledge it.

Largely because of the timing, Wes Streeting’s remarks have served as a wake-up call for many people. It is hard to say whether this will significantly impact the outcome of the election. However, it has equipped the British parties in Scotland with a formidable tool and placed John Swinney in a highly vulnerable position. Every time he brings up the main item in his party's manifesto, he faces a challenging question: how? How does he propose to deliver a referendum when he has made delivery dependent on getting permission that he is definitely not going to get?

It is a question some of us have been asking all along. By asking for a Section 30 order he validates the British state’s claimed veto over the will of Scotland’s people. Keith Brown—as Depute Leader he is just John Swinney’s mouth on a different face—seems to deny that the permission is needed while the mouth on John Swinney’s face says it’s essential. As soon as John Swinney asks for a Section 30 order, it is he and not Wes Streeting who is “sticking two fingers up at Scottish voters“. He is taking the mandate granted by the sovereign people of Scotland and asking the British Prime Minister to countersign it. He is making the will of Scotland’s people contingent on the agreement of a foreign government. He is acceding to the alien doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty by putting Westminster above the people of Scotland.

People are now beginning to recognise the truly treacherous nature of Swinney’s strategy. Wes Streeting's words seem to have jolted them out of their trance. The next three weeks are going to be a hard slog for John Swinney. Rightly so. He has put himself in this seriously uncomfortable place. Hell mend him!