Trying to figure out WTF is going on Credit where it is due. Much as I despise Tommy Sheppard for his grotesquely bigoted attitude to any analysis of the constitutional issue that doesn't have his party's logo plastered all over it, at least he recognises - however belatedly - that the first priority is to address the matter of legislative competence. Needless to say, however, he doesn't follow the logic of this to the point where it might invite the disapproval of the SNP leadership. If it's not cowardice that prevents him risking a radical thought, it's self-interest. Tommy Sheppard appears to have realised that all the things which claim to be 'routes' to independence converge on the question of legislative competence. Perhaps he's been reading my blog under the bed-covers where Papa Swinney can't see him. He recognises the significance of the fact that the British state and it's agents in Scotland assiduously avoid outright denial of our right of self-determination. They know that this is a human right and that to deny it would put them on the wrong side of international law. They know that this would be a gift to that part of the independence movement which knows how to use it. Maybe even to the leaderships of the nominally pro-independence parties such as the SNP and Alba. The British know that to claim the people of Scotland do not have the right to decide the constitutional status of our nation would be a serious mistake. What they do instead, is block our access to the exercise of this right. The British strategy to preserve the Union is to ensure the people of Scotland never have an opportunity to vote in a proper constitutional referendum. Tommy Sheppard may even have an inkling that his own party leadership has been complicit in this effort to block access to the exercise of out right of self-determination. Although he hasn't the guts to come right out and say it, nobody looking at the Sturgeon doctrine with a dispassionate eye could fail to see that its main feature was validation of the British state's asserted authority to control if, when, and how we vote on the question of Scotland's constitutional status. In short, the Sturgeon doctrine - which continues to define the SNP's approach to the constitutional issue - is all about deferring to Westminster. He is on the right track when he focuses on the question of legislative competence. But Sheppard is incapable of following that track all the way because to do so he would have to break ranks and depart from the Sturgeon doctrine. He would have to repudiate the Section 30 process. He would have to stop deferring to the British state. He would have to put the people of Scotland at the centre of the constitutional issue rather than Westminster. He would have to abandon any hope of continuing his political career with the SNP. Instead of letting the legislative competence question lead him where it wants to go, Tommy Sheppard drags it down the same dead-end road taken by his former SNP colleague, Ash Regan. Neither Sheppard nor Regan are bold enough to acknowledge that power is not given, but only taken. Both seek to sell the notion that powers transferred by Westminster can be the power the Scottish Parliament needs if we are to exercise our right of self-determination. This is just stupid! Other than stupid, there really is no way to describe the deluded idea that Westminster would or could give Holyrood full power over the constitution. And just as stupid is the notion that we could have a proper constitutional referendum using transferred powers which must of necessity be limited, provisional, and conditional. It is idiotic to imagine would or could make Holyrood its equal. The entire British apparatus is founded on the sovereignty of Westminster. Sovereignty is absolute and indivisible. There is no such thing as shared sovereignty. Sovereignty may be pooled. But it cannot be shared. there cannot be two sovereigns. There cannot be two ultimate authorities. Power over the constitution is sovereign power. Only the ultimate authority can set and amend the rules governing the distribution, use, and forfeiture of power. The British state (England-as-Britain) claims sovereignty over Scotland. The sovereignty of the English crown in the English parliament to which a few Scots are admitted. To concede that the Scottish Parliament has the power to authorise a proper constitutional referendum is to concede sovereignty to the Scottish Parliament. For the British to 'give' (stop withholding) full powers over the constitution to the Scottish Parliament they would have to be prepared to give up Westminster's claim to sovereignty. To expect them to do this is to expect them to vote the British state out of existence. It is not going to happen. The only kind of referendum there could be under transferred powers is a Section 30-type referendum. Because that is the limit of what the British can concede without effectively making Scotland independent. If you have full powers over the constitution, you have full powers over anything. Ergo, independent. The thing both Sheppard and Regan will not say is that if we want a proper constitutional referendum, we will have to take the necessary powers. Power cannot be given and what is given cannot be real power. The act of giving is an expression of the superior authority of the giver. The act of accepting that which is given is an affirmation of that superior authority. As is the act of requesting that which might be given. It is unlikely that either Tommy Sheppard or Ash Regan is actually so stupid as to suppose there could be a proper constitutional referendum using transferred powers. I don't accept that it is possible to get to the point of recognising the crucial nature of legislative competence in constitutional matters without being able to see that we cannot have that legislative competence other than by taking it. I can only conclude that both of them are choosing not to see this aspect of political reality. And that they are anxious to conceal the reality from voters lest voters demand that they deal with the reality instead of peddling toxic drivel about transferred powers. The way to get those 'Scottish independence abstainers' out to vote is to be honest with them both about what is at stake and what it will take to win. Just tell voters the truth! Invite your friends and earn rewardsIf you enjoy Peter A Bell, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.
|
Monday, 31 March 2025
Just tell voters the truth!
Sunday, 30 March 2025
Cross Fit for the Mind
|
|
|
|
Friday, 28 March 2025
The Cheesecutter
Trying to figure out WTF is going on My reading this morning included an article from Robin McAlpine about the distressed state of our democracy and one on Wings Over Scotland which was about Robin's article. What these articles share is a pervasive sense of despair. Robin's closing sentence gives a sense of this. It reads simply, "This is how democracies end.". That conclusion may seem shocking when presented in such a stark manner. But as you read the column, there is never any doubt that this is where it is heading. If Robin's analysis doesn't leave you downcast and disheartened, here's a thought that might. There is a place beyond anger where outrage decays into despondency and resignation. When activists such as Robin McAlpine seem ineluctably bound for that place, something essential is lost. It's a symptom. An indication that democracy's immune system is breaking down. The cells we rely on to keep the ravages of extremism and totalitarianism at bay are being overwhelmed. Whatever you think of Robin's views on this or that, his ideas are nourishment for our political discourse. Without this kind of input, that discourse withers. It becomes stunted and deformed. A shrivelled thing where only the most simplistic and rigid dogma survives. An organ no longer capable of producing the enlightened inspiration which resolves into progressive reform. An organ which instead oozes only bilious appeals to base human urges which corrode past achievements and prompt atavistic decline. Other than despair, what the two articles have in common is the finding that our politics is broken and our democracy ailing. Both hit on a similar solution. Here's Robin:
Stu Campbell on Wings Over Scotland takes that idea and runs with it in characteristically forensic fashion. Examining the possibilities and problems for this hypothetical new party, he reaches a few conclusions. Such as this:
Does that thought ring any bells, dear readers? Before taking that any further, however, we have to deal with an old party. Both writers exhibit similar disdain for the SNP. Referring to the Scottish Independence Convention gathering planned for next week with a "really strong lineup of thinkers", Robin states:
Explaining the fact that the constitutional issue has dropped down the public's list of priorities, Stu Campbell is even more scathing:
Robin is surely right. One of the most striking things about the SNP leadership is the way it has walled itself off from both the party membership and the public. It used to be so different. Arguably the biggest single reason for the SNP's early electoral success and effectiveness in government was the fact that at least relative to the British parties, it was extraordinarily responsive to the electorate. Most of the credit for this goes to Alex Salmond who operated on the basis of what I at the time called 'principled pragmatism'. That is to say, he would go for whatever solution worked unfettered by ideology and party tradition, but without crossing any red lines of principle. People liked that! I'm not sure what the opposite of principled pragmatism is, but John Swinney et al seem intent on defining it by example. People do not like this! Any semblance of responsiveness has gone from the SNP leadership. Other that is, than the way they react to any threat to their privilege. And, of course, arms, ears, and minds are always open to the blandishments of corporate lobbyists. Other than that, nothing gets through to them. Nothing touches them. Nothing affects them. The frustration this imperviousness induces in political activists is palpable. Talking to a brick wall is more rewarding than trying to get the SNP leadership to engage. At least with the wall you know something is there. You know your words are hitting something. Even if only to then bounce off without making a mark. With the SNP leadership, it's like yelling into the void between the stars. The trouble is, the independence movement still needs the SNP. If we regard the restoration of Scotland's independence as a matter of great urgency, as I insist we must, then we have to treat every national democratic event as if it is our last opportunity to progress Scotland's cause. That means it is imperative that we use the 2026 Scottish Parliament election as a device by which to progress Scotland's cause. Which in turn means we must ensure going into the election that what comes out of it is a government committed to pursuing a specified course of action on the constitutional issue and a parliament that is amenable to that course of action. For this to come about, the independence movement must use the leverage afforded by the election to make certain demands of the (nominally) pro-independence parties. We must combine in numbers sufficient to scare the shit out of those parties, for the purpose of demanding that they all adopt the same manifesto commitment to a specified course of action. Thus, the movement achieves unity of purpose. That purpose being to force the political parties to emulate our unity of purpose. This is what the Manifesto for Independence is all about. There is a reason the word 'all' is in bold above. Because the effort to force the parties to adopt the Manifesto for Independence must target every single one of those parties - including the SNP! It doesn't work without all of them on board. Like it or not, the SNP is going to be a presence in the next parliament. There is a good chance they will be the party of government, either alone as a minority administration or with support from other (nominally) pro-independence parties. If any course of action to progress Scotland's cause is going to succeed it will require the votes of all (nominally) pro-independence MSPs. There is simply no way it can be done without the SNP on board. Reading Stu Campbell's piece, I felt the dead weight of irony building inexorably. As he describes the new party he postulates in response to Robin McAlpine, what he describes sounds more and more like a party which already exists. The party which was created for the purpose of promoting the Manifesto for Independence and the course of action known as #ScottishUDI. It is the party which was launched with the intention that it become the model for a better kind of political party. It is a party which seeks to embody the new thinking on the constitutional issue. Because given that we can't (yet!) bin the SNP, we have no alternative but to bin their failed and futile approach to the matter of restoring Scotland's independence. The party Stu Campbell describes is the nascent New Scotland Party. Or it is the entity which has the greatest potential to be the party he refers to. Despite this, Stu Campbell appears to be totally unaware of what is at the very least a moderately interesting development in Scottish politics and the struggle to restore our independence. Yet it is completely ignored by two individuals who are immersed in Scottish politics and the independence movement. I couldn't help but smile ruefully when I read Robin's words:
That describes very accurately the response of the wider independence movement to the launch of New Scotland Party and the Manifesto for Independence campaign. Robin McAlpine is evidently appalled by the fact that the SNP leadership blankly ignores everything outside its own bubble of self-interest. As he puts it:
I have to tell Robin that it is not only the SNP that shuts out fresh perspectives and novel ideas. As I have discovered over the past few months, the independence movement as a whole is almost equally impervious to any kind of new thinking. It's not that they are opposed. It's that they just don't want to know. That is what I find shocking. It is this knee-jerk aversion to unfamiliar ideas which I find so dispiriting. It is this, I am convinced that, is causing people to step back from the independence movement. It's bad enough when the supposedly pro-independence parties won't listen. When people learn to expect only that they will be rebuffed by fellow activists, there is no incentive for them to put in any effort. There are exceptions, of course. I intend no disrespect to the people who have given their support to what New Scotland Party is trying to do. I am immensely grateful to those that are even just willing to listen. But these are the exceptions. For the most part, the only reward for trying to do something different is derision and abuse. No wonder Scotland's cause is failing to make any progress. Which brings me to the explanation for the title of this article and the image at the top of the page. I think the official name for the device pictured is a beam swing. It looks like some kind of medieval siege engine and was almost as likely to cause injury and death. When I was a youngster, we called it the 'Cheese-cutter!' on account of the way we used it. Or abused it, depending on your perspective. The rules of the 'game' were as follows. First, assemble every child in the neighbourhood. We were legion back in the 1950s. Next, 'persuade' this host of young people to climb onto the beam, find whatever space they might and if quick enough and fortunate enough, a secure handhold. This would be needed. We regarded terms such as 'Safe laden weight' and 'Maximum number of persons' as a challenge. A gauntlet thrown down by the adult world. Defiance was obligatory. Defiance had to be demonstrated in the most emphatic manner. So, we hung bodies on every part of the machine. Often using infants as packing where there wasn't room for a toddler. On a good day, we burdened the thing with the entire under-14 population of two villages. Then the 'fun' began. The persons standing at the ends of the beam were known as 'pilers'. Their job was to 'pile' the swing by alternately pushing with their feet while leaning back then switching to lean forward as far as possible so as to push in the other direction. Synchronicity was key, although physical strength and a callous disregard for human life were also valued attributes of the accomplished 'piler'. Psycopaths were particularly esteemed in this area of child-play. Or terrorism, as it would now be termed. Skilled 'pilers' could quickly get the massively overloaded beam moving to and fro through a shallow arc ever higher and ever faster until it reached the point where someone was heard screaming to get off. At this, the 'pilers' had to apply the brakes to let the individual concerned dismount to a chorus of jeering from the remaining fodder. And so it went as more and more victims were pared off like slices of cheese cut from a block of cheddar. Hence the name, 'Cheesecutter!'. Of course, as the beam was relieved of the weight of all those small, frail bodies, the efforts of the 'pilers' had ever greater effect. The object of the game at this point was to dislodge the last remaining passenger. To this end, the 'pilers' would attempt to build sufficient momentum that the hinge banged into the 'safety' stop. Thus, a device put there by stupid adults to prevent the swing dangerously exceeding design limits and/or making a mockery of Isaac Newton's fine work, was 'repurposed' to cause the entire mechanism to shake and judder in a way that any sane person would have found alarming but which obviously delighted a gathering of delinquents as thirsty for blood as any crowd at a Roman circus. As the hinge mechanism repeatedly crashed into the stops, the beam would buck like a particularly unaccommodating bronco; much to the dismay and eventual dislodgement of the numpty trying to impress an audience that wanted nothing more than to see them skidding face-down across the specially hard and abrasive surface the Cooncil used for children's play areas leaving a trail of blood and significantly altering their facial appearance.. And that, dear readers, is possibly the most lengthy and laboured analogy in all of history. It's all supposed to represent the way the independence movement is shaking off people who want to participate. Either that or it is just an old man's reminiscence used as a diversion from the depressing spectacle of Scotland's politics as all too accurately described by Robin McAlpine and Stu Campbell. You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
The wrong kind of 'unity'
If it were possible for the separate political parties to 'unite', they wouldn't be separate. ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
-
thealchemistspottery posted: " "I shall pass through this world but once.If therefore, there be any kindness I can sho...
