Trying to figure out WTF is going on Tommy Sheppard is correct to say that a major factor in the subduing of the independence movement relative to the high point of the 2014 referendum campaign is "that a substantial chunk of people who believe in independence no longer see how it can be achieved". But it's a bit more complicated than that. With all the customary caveats about the perils of generalisation, I shall attempt to explain. Twelve years ago, we thought we knew how independence would be restored. We believed it was a simple matter of securing a Yes vote and that everything else would just naturally follow from that. The details of the process were never discussed because the process was never discussed. We were just left to assume that voting Yes was the process. Many in the independence movement have since shed that naivety. We have lived the liberation struggle and learned from it. We now recognise that we were wrong to suppose we had a process that would restore independence back then. What we had was undoubtedly the best we could get in the then prevailing circumstances. But we now know that the Section 30 process can never lead to independence because it does not and cannot permit a proper constitutional referendum. That is to say, a referendum which is determinative and self-executing, and which meets a set of criteria for a democratic event which will stand as the formal exercise by the people of Scotland of our inalienable right of self-determination. We thought we knew the ‘how’ of restoring independence. We didn't ask for more information about the process because we were unaware that the information we had was incomplete and inadequate. We didn’t know what we didn’t know. Tommy Sheppard writes:
We certainly need a narrative to counter the idea that a 'no' from Westminster and/or the British Supreme Court is sufficient to prevent us exercising our right of self-determination. But why has this rather surprising narrative gained currency among people who profess to adhere to the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign? Surely such people cannot both hold that the people are sovereign and simultaneously accept that the people can be overruled by British institutions. But as Tommy notes, that is precisely the doublethink that pervades a large part of the independence movement. Why? What Tommy Sheppard neglects/declines to mention is that by far the single biggest reason people believe that their democratically expressed will can be legitimately vetoed by the British state is that the SNP has put a great deal of effort into persuading people that this is the case. The party and therefor the Scottish Government has consistently maintained for at least the past ten years that deferring to Westminster is the only way. It is the SNP/Scottish Government acting on our behalf which has surrendered to the asserted supremacy of the British parliament. It is the SNP/Scottish Government acting in our name which has insisted we must seek gracious consent and promised cooperation from the British state before we may exercise our right of self-determination. It is the SNP/Scottish Government acting on our behalf which sought and obtained that 'no' from the UK Supreme Court (UKSC). It is the SNP/Scottish Government which then told us this was the final word on the matter. That there was now no way the Scottish Parliament can legislate for even a sham independence referendum such as we had in 2014. It is the SNP/Scottish Government acting on our behalf which has surrendered to the asserted supremacy of the British parliament. People "no longer see how [independence] can be achieved" because the SNP/Scottish Government has told them that what they thought was the process, isn't, while refusing to even discuss what the process now might be. People cannot see how independence will be achieved because none of Scotland's nominally pro-independence politicians (not just the SNP) has made any effort to show them how it will be achieved. Worse! Many (most?) of those nominally pro-independence politicians continue to peddle the idea that the Section 30 process is the 'gold standard' of democracy and the only way we can have a referendum on restoring independence even though they must surely know by now that the Section 30 process is a British device by which the people of Scotland can be denied access to the exercise of our right of self-determination. I say all this not to lash out at the SNP and the rest of Scotland's political caste but because some understanding of the prevailing narrative and its origins is essential to the task of constructing a counter-narrative. It's not a problem that is difficult to summarise. If the narrative is "We cannae dae it!" the counter-narrative must "Aye, we can!". If people doubt that a thing is possible, they will inevitably have less enthusiasm for attempting it. If we want to rekindle their enthusiasm, we must show them that it can be done. We must show them how it can be done. We must set out and explain the process by which we may have the opportunity to fully and properly exercise our right of self-determination. If people doubt that a thing is possible, they will inevitably have less enthusiasm for attempting it. If we want to rekindle their enthusiasm, we must show them that it can be done. It is at this point that Tommy Sheppard falls into the kind of horrible error to which the colonised mind is prone.
If you are explaining that to the people of Scotland, then you trying to persuade them to share your fallacy. It is just not possible that UK law could be changed in such a way as to allow the people of Scotland an opportunity to fully and properly exercise our right of self-determination. I don't just mean it is impossible to imagine the British state doing this. I mean it is quite literally impossible for the British state to do this. It is rendered impossible by the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The power to legislate for a proper constitutional referendum not only isn't going to be transferred from Westminster to Holyrood, but it also cannot be transferred. Any power that is transferred cannot be the power to legislate for a proper constitutional referendum. The only power that can be transferred is the power to hold a Section 30-type referendum which we know cannot lead to the restoration of independence. The only way the power to legislate for a proper constitutional referendum can be acquired is by the Scottish Parliament taking that power in defiance of the British state. If we are to change the defeatist/defeated narrative fostered by Scotland's political elite, we must present a process for restoring Scotland's independence which is credible, feasible, and inspiring. We must show people a plan which is imaginative, bold, and inspired. Is anybody thinking of John Swinney as they read these words? Tommy Sheppard comes tantalisingly close to grasping the hard truth that there is no route to independence through the legal and constitutional framework developed over decades under the influence of the British state's imperative to preserve the Union. He is prevented from getting there by the inculcated default of the colonised mind which bids him continue to put Westminster at the centre of the constitutional issue where right the people of Scotland should be. If he could just break that debilitating habit of thought, he would surely see that #ScottishUDI is the only way forward for Scotland's cause. Might Tommy Sheppard be the first of Scotland's nominally pro-independence politicians to urge adoption of the Manifesto for Independence? You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
Monday, 14 April 2025
Tommy the first?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whistler’s Mother is in Paris and here’s why
… the painting that became an icon … ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
-
thealchemistspottery posted: " "I shall pass through this world but once.If therefore, there be any kindness I can sho...
-
The power pose of personal peace - with psychological benefits ... ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
-
petrini1 posted: " For Week 7, the theme of genealogist Amy Johnson Crow...
No comments:
Post a Comment