Monday, December 29, 2014

Sorry, Kenny Farquharson, but your wish-fulfillment fantasy looks like a non-starter

Somewhere, deep down, we all have our own tailor-made wish-fulfillment fantasy.  Maybe it's that your ex who ran off with your best friend eight years ago will turn up at your door sobbing, and beg to be given a second chance.  Or maybe it's that your mysterious dinner guest will turn out to be the managing director of Hovis, and will find your home-made bread so irresistible that he'll offer you£250,000 a year to take over as head of quality control.

In the case of Kenny "Devo or Death" Farquharson, the long-nurtured fantasy seems to be that next autumn's SNP conference will turn out to be a Clause 4 moment, with Nicola Sturgeon confronting her party with the painful truth that it must grow up and forget about the idea of a second referendum over the next five-year parliamentary term, and instead get on with that blasted wonderful (not to mention mature) devo thing that has always been Scotland's manifest destiny.  There was a Scotland on Sunday editorial along those lines yesterday, and although it was anonymous, it bore all the classic Farquharson hallmarks.

As with almost all wish-fulfillment fantasies, I fear Kenny is going to end up bitterly disappointed.  Both Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond have laid so much groundwork for the argument that impending "Brexit" would re-open the debate on early independence, that I find it inconceivable that they even want the SNP's 2016 manifesto to totally exclude the possibility of a second referendum.  The most likely outcome is conditional language that makes clear that a referendum is only ruled out if certain circumstances persist - most obviously that Scotland remains part of the EU, and possibly also that sweeping powers are devolved to Holyrood.  There's also a chance that a consultative referendum on Devo Max, rather than on independence, will be proposed.

At any rate it's not hard to think of a range of options for the 2015 conference to choose from, all of which the gradualist and fundamentalist wings of the party would find little difficulty in uniting around, and certainly without the need for any gladiatorial blood-on-the-carpet theatre.  This is going to break Kenny's heart when the realisation dawns, but there's actually no need for Nicola Sturgeon to "slay the dragon of independence" in the way that Kinnock and Blair slayed the trade unions - not least because independence is even more popular than the SNP at the moment.  When did the SNP last get 1.6 million votes in an election?

30 comments:

  1. It seems to me that, this is a common unionist wet dream; would all yes voters crawl back beneath the rock, from which you came.
    The only answer is, no! I shall continue the struggle, for it is just and right.

    All the best in the new year. Jim.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If all those who voted Labour now realise that they lost and should never ask for another vote again,is that the way they want things? how many times does one try for freedom,or to liberate a country just the once? ask Bruce he watched the spider try and try again,as we shall.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's the reason I have a spider as my twibbon, of course.

    The unionists believed that all they had to do was get a No vote and that would be that. (I thought that too, I have to say.) Hence all the dirty tricks in the world could be pulled, and it wouldn't matter because nobody was going to declare the result null and void if purdah was broken or whatever (to name just the most obvious thing). Winning by fair means or foul was the goal, and they had no problem at all with "foul".

    But they were too obvious about it, and in particular Cameron's speech while the dregs of the count were still going on sickened a lot of people (and opened a few eyes I think). It's going to come back and bite them after all.

    That's why I think we need to try for another referendum in the reasonably near future. In 20 years or so all the dirty tricks will be forgotten. We need to go again while the memory of what they did is reasonably fresh, to make it a lot harder for them to do it again.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I love it when unionists plead with us to "move on". They just don't get it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This may be old news (to coin a phrase), but I see that Craig Murray has confirmed James' suspicion that the infamous Bedroom Tax question was put in the context of a possible coalition with Labour, not the Tories.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I 'd be surprised if anyone in the SNP or wider independence movement would be inclined to pay attention to Kenny Farquharson's wishes, given that he comes across as a Labour party/no campaign stooge like most of the MSM.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The idea of a referendum on a federal state/devo max in the SNP's 2016 manifesto is an interesting one. There would be huge risks with that commitment, as the SNP would be accused of wasting public money on an illegal power grab ect. But when Westminster inevitably launches a legal challenge or ignores the result, could it sway the opinion of soft no voters? If that was followed by the EU vote, either this term or the one after, could that also build momentum?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just think of how different the world would be if those who sought freedom for their countries had gone back into their boxes when told. Ghandi? Mandela?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What about the suffragettes? If they had meekly returned to their drawing rooms and kitchens women might have waited much longer for the vote.

      Delete
  9. Since we lost, we are meant to just ''move on''. I've heard a few times ''I'm so bored of politics'' by No people - it's not politics, it's the SNP goodwill and surge that they are bored of. :)

    The referendum on 'Devo Max' is fairly interesting. Poll after poll shows and although, you can only take so much from polls, but that a majority of Scots back this. We now have had 4 (I think) polls asking the independence question and 2 showed yes ahead, 1 had no ahead, but their follow up had level-pegging.

    All I think is the SNP have to do is govern as well as they can on the crumbs we have already in Scotland. And the Unionists will eat themselves inside out. It'll come tumbling down in the next few years.

    Independence will continue to grow in polls albeit with no direct affect, and the timeframe, that's the only thing I am unsure of, but I am 100% convinced that we'll be back voting in a second ref or a devo max one within the 5 years.

    And I was ''done with Scotland'' if it was a No.

    Scotland has changed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. SNP have just gone FAV in Aberdeen North. Now 8/11 to Labour's EVS. 100 bar.

    (Ladbrokes)

    ReplyDelete
  11. I see the possibility of a Devo max referendum for 2016 is being discussed. I like the sound of it. We were promised Devo max if we voted No by unionists and the MSM. It is also a popular option in the opinion polls. In addition, it would require Westminster to either reject it or give it their approval. If they reject it and there is a Brexit from the EU, then another referendum on independence is surely on the horizon. If Westminster backs a Devo max referendum and we get a Yes vote, which would seem likely given the polls, then we are a good bit closer to independence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they're taking the risk of a consultative referendum anyway, why not throw in a second question about Scottish sovereignty?

      Delete
    2. Devolution has been won, and will continue to be maximised as time goes on. No referendum is needed to know what public opinion is on the matter. All a referendum on Devo Max would achieve is to further delay a second referendum on independence.
      And you certainly don't combine the two, as Devo Max would win over Independence hands down!

      Delete
    3. I think it would be more difficult to justify a Devo Max referendum than an independence one. All it would do is express our preference, which could be ignored, as further devolution within the UK would have implications for the other constituent countries. What's to stop Westminster saying (with some justification): "Okay, you've said you'd like Devo Max. That's very nice. But you also voted in September to give us control over all constitutional matters, and we say forget it."?

      Delete
    4. Because when it is ignored it can be used to show that indepdence is the only way that Scotland can get the powers most people want.

      Delete
    5. Boab : A Yes vote in a Devo Max referendum would achieve one of two things - either a) Devo Max, or b) the democratic outrage of a mandate for Devo Max being ignored by the London government. Either way it brings independence closer.

      Keaton : I don't see what justification London has for denying our right to even take a view on the thing they promised in return for a No vote.

      Delete
    6. "But you also voted in September to give us control over all constitutional matters, and we say forget it."

      But that's what we did in September, sort of, and that's not relevant now. What mandate we give to Westminster in May 2015 is relevant now.

      I think you'll find the SNP 2015 manifesto is going to be very interesting. I fully expect a bill to enshrine Scotland's sovereignty, as the UK agreed was the case with the Edinburgh Agreement (Scotland is a country in union and free to leave if it wants - international community did you get that!). Likewise something on Scotland deciding it's future within the EU independently should it come to it. That and sovereignty over powers being transferred to Scotland, with it deciding what is transferred up to Westminster instead of the other way around. If agreements can't be reached here, then another iref..

      Such things have no effect on day to day life in the rUK (unless we tansfer more powers home and if the rUK for example doesn't like Scotland assuming control of oil and gas, the rUK is free to leave the union), so the SNP can just put them forward as bills and they should pass automatically if the SNP has a majority.

      Unless England planned to overule Scotland and say it's not an equal partner but a colony under London rule? That would be tricky and of course, as noted, would return us to an iref. Short of tanks being sent north anyway.

      As I've said before, all this talk of coalitions with the SNP is just a smokescreen. They just need a majority of Scots MPs to be in an extremely powerful position. They would be the 'Scottish Grand Committee'. Without a majority of Scots unionist MPs, the union lacks a mandate over Scotland.

      Delete
    7. "Without a majority of Scots unionist MPs, the union lacks a mandate over Scotland."

      You're a fcuking idiot.

      Delete
    8. @Anonymous

      That is a very convincing comeback, very persuasive. Hit a nerve did it?

      Delete
    9. Nice, well thought-out response. Getting nervous are we?

      Westminster has a mandate for now because we elected 53/59 British unionist MPs in 2010. They take UK party whips and vote largely as if they were, e.g. from Yorkshire or Essex (aside from e.g. the Scottish Grand Committee which is just advisory). If we elect a majority of Scottish nationalist MPs, the tables reverse.

      Unless you are suggesting Scotland is not one of the 'family of nations' ((C) better Together) and simply a colony which the English can overrule without negotiation? Should we e.g. expect concentration camps and massacres Kenyan style if we don't just accept direct rule?

      Going to be lots of fun if the SNP can pull off 30+ MPs.

      Delete
    10. I don't see what justification London has for denying our right to even take a view on the thing they promised in return for a No vote.

      They wouldn't have any justification for stopping us taking a view, but we (i.e. Scotland collectively) would have little justification for complaining if they ignored that view, having just rejected the opportunity to take decisions like this for ourselves.

      Delete
  12. @Boab and Keaton

    As James and Calum Findlay have said a Devo max referendum would either bring independence closer (through a Yes vote), or Westminster would either refuse to recognise the result beforehand or after it, thereby causing a constitutional crisis. If the latter happened then the promise not to hold another referendum on independence would obviously be rescinded/scrapped by the SNP and the wider independence movement. It would also mean that the electorate in Scotland would have a remaining choice between the status quo and independence. Unionists would not have the more powers option they used in September. A No vote in a Devo max referendum is fairly unlikely, given the fact 45 per cent just voted for independence, and around 60 per cent consistently seem to support it in the polls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, a Devo Max referendum might work as an indirect stepping stone towards independence. But the Scottish Government couldn't say that was the reason, so how would they answer the question: "In September, Scotland stated that it was content for control of its constitutional affairs to reside at Westminster. So what democratic obligation does the latter have to implement the results of the Devo Max referendum?"

      Delete
    2. You said it yourself. It was September. 19th in fact and now ages ago politically. There wasn't even a 5 minute period where that result bound the electorate to accepting a particular view / nor form of rule. Of course the next clear opportunity to express their views is May 2015. Their views now and in the future are not bound by how they voted in the past. That's how democracy works. Anyone suggesting otherwise will just lose votes and look like a fool as unionist parties are busy doing.

      Of course unionists are just struggling to accept the referendum is over and move on. It's only natural that they do this. They can't help but hark back to that brief period where you could say 'Scotland doesn't want independence' with some justification. That lasted a few days at most.

      Delete
    3. As I've said, I think a second indyref is a perfectly reasonable suggestion (and I hope there will be one). But until then, the result of the first one stands. There's nothing inherently wrong with Westminster saying "If you want to remain in the Union, no Devo Max."

      Delete
    4. Sure, and when I say an SNP majority in Westminster holds a lot of power, it does so ultimately with the threat of another iref vs how valuable Westminster sees Scotland as some part of a continuing union of some form (in terms of devo max anyway - another iref is Scotland's if it wants it). That covers everything from being a source of revenue, to currency strength and defence / justifying the UNSC seat etc.

      It's why we've already heard Nicola mention topics such as enshrining sovereignty, Scotland deciding independently on the EU if it comes to it...and of course trident which keeps the UK as one of the big boys. The stage is being prepared for a possible SNP MP majority and the show-down that will fallow.

      If the SNP do get a majority of MPs, it will be hard game. They need to be tough without being unnecessarily belligerent lest voters think they're going too far and don't want the hassle of it / start to panic. However, what we can rely on for sure, is Westminster making an erse of itself and pissing off Scotland even more. That is what most likely will lead to another iref. British arrogance in refusal to negotiate on what seems to voters perfectly reasonable; i.e. devo max.

      Delete
  13. We were promised Devo max if we voted No.

    ReplyDelete
  14. There's nothing inherently wrong with Westminster saying "If you want to remain in the Union, no Devo Max."

    What was The Vow' all about Keaton if it wasn't just Devo Max, but almost akin to Federalism'

    A bit of a twisted view you have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The Vow" doesn't use the terms "Devo Max" or "federalism". It mentions "extensive new powers", with the only specifics relating to stuff which already existed, such as Holyrood controlling the NHS.

      In answer to your question, it was a desperate attempt to keep the Union together and get a bit of publicity for the Daily Record. But just read it: it wasn't actually about anything.

      Delete