Trying to figure out WTF is going on Hagfish are notable for their slime-producing ability, which helps defend against predators. Easy as it is to think of the media as predators, it's just as easy to think of politicians as hagfish oozing slime as they wriggle and squirm to evade scrutiny. First Minister John Swinney was obliged to call on all his hagfish superpowers when questioned about the prospect of a pro-independence convention as mooted by Alba Party leader, Kenny MacAskill. Although, confusingly, he sometimes refers to a 'summit' rather than a convention. I'm not sure whether he thinks they are the same thing. It could be that he wants a summit meeting of nominally pro-independence party leaders to discuss holding a convention of pro-independence parties and organisations which would discuss holding a de facto referendum on whether to to start discussions with the UK government regarding the granting of a Section 30 order. Or something like that. So what? Politicians behaving like hagfish is hardly news. What makes John Swinney's wee slime-fest vaguely newsworthy, however, is the fact that less than a year ago the SNP's deputy leader, Keith Brown, was declaring that the party was totally supportive of the pro-independence convention idea. Bear in mind that as deputy leader, Keith Brown is supposed to march in lock-step with John Swinney. The question arises, therefore, as to which of them broke step. Did Keith Brown speak out of turn when he declared the SNP's support for the convention idea? Was he speaking without the consent and agreement of his boss? I don't recall Mr Swinney contradicting Mr Brown at the time. If the latter was breaking with the party line, why has it taken the former nine months to put the record straight? On the other hand, if Keith Brown was reflecting a position agreed within the party leadership, why has Swinney now apparently changed his mind? That's not enthusiasm he's oozing here:
Can't you just see all the girlie hagfish swooning over Swinney's performance? I like Keith Brown, to whatever extent the term 'like' is appropriate or relevant in such a case. I have long suspected that he is not wholly aligned with his leadership colleagues on the constitutional issue. I get the sense that he is less than comfortable with the party's approach. It is little more than a gut feeling, I readily allow. I can offer no real evidence to support my suspicion that only strained but strong loyalty prevents Keith from breaking ranks. But my sense of the man is such that I cannot entirely discount the possibility that he was going out on a limb to fly a kite (the mixed metaphor somehow works) for the SNP going along with the convention idea. I could be wrong - if you can even imagine such a thing. But the speculation does inject a bit of intrigue into what would otherwise be mundane politics-as-usual. And since I've taken it this far, I might as well add the further speculation that John Swinney's seeming reluctance to categorically contradict his deputy might be motivated by fear of pushing Keith Brown out of the tent, thereby reversing the flow of pish. This would also explain why Brown's leash wasn't tugged immediately. Be that as it may, it certainly looks as though Kenny MacAskill's call for a summit/convention will go the way of all such 'unity' proposals. The idea is dead! One might say it sleeps with the hagfishes, if one was not prone to embarrassment. It was never really a live idea anyway. Our political caste in Scotland only thinks of unity in terms of the political parties all gathered together in the one room holding hands and singing Kumbaya because they are incapable of stepping outside the confines and constraints of party politics. For them, everything is about their party, except when it's about themselves. A constitutional issue is not a party-political issue. The idea that progress can only be made by somehow eliminating the barriers that separate parties is one of the reasons no progress has been made. We are told incessantly that progressing Scotland's cause is contingent on unity in the sense of a kind of merging which is totally contradictory to the very nature of political parties. If the parties don't unite, Scotland's cause is immobilised. I can tell you that if this is so then Scotland's cause is never going anywhere. Wouldn't it be great if our politicians were able to think outside the party-political box? What if they could acknowledge that the parties uniting is neither possible nor necessary? Oh! I know it happened (sort of) with the Scottish Constitutional Convention. But that was then and this is now. A helluvalot has changed in the intervening 36 years. What was only just possible then is now as close to impossible as makes no difference. Which shouldn't matter. Because a convention isn't required. It could easily be argued that a convention isn't even desirable. The notion of a convention implies consensus. Which implies compromise. Which implies an outcome optimised not for effectiveness in progressing Scotland's cause, but for effectiveness in preventing one or more of the parties taking exception and walking away in a huff. Which in turn implies a 'solution' that isn't. Alternatively, there may be the pretence of agreement. A faux consensus that dissolves instantly in the viciously adversarial environment of an election campaign. The notion of a convention implies consensus. Which implies compromise. Which implies an outcome optimised not for effectiveness in progressing Scotland's cause, but for effectiveness in preventing one or more of the parties taking exception and walking away in a huff. What if instead of the political parties joining together to pretend to agree on a solution that almost certainly won't work, they all separately chose to adopt a 'third-party' plan for restoring independence that almost certainly would work. A solution, moreover, which is the only solution that can work. The parties maintain their individual identities and agendas while the constitutional issue is divorced from party politics. In campaigning terms, the parties have a virtual unity because they are all campaigning for the same plan even if they are doing so separately. It is possible if not probably that a virtual cooperation and coordination might emerge due the convergence. Which would be a bonus. Although my preference would be that a non-party-political entity emerge to lead the constitutional aspect of the election campaign. John "Hagfish" Swinney's evasiveness when questioned about a convention of pro-independence parties is symptomatic of the SNP's notorious control-freakery. He is terrified of anything that might undermine his party's asserted ownership of 'independence'. He is strongly averse to anything which so much as hints at loss of control. If only he had the imagination to see how the Manifesto for Independence offers him a way out. He can take the lead in establishing unity of purpose by adopting the Manifesto for Independence and go from hagfish to hero in one slimy swoop. You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
Thursday, 8 May 2025
Slippery as a bucket of hagfish
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whistler’s Mother is in Paris and here’s why
… the painting that became an icon … ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
No comments:
Post a Comment