Trying to figure out WTF is going on I haven't posted anything for a few days as I've been busy preparing for the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group (SSRG) conference this weekend (Friday 16 May to Sunday 18 May). I regard SSRG as one of the most prestigious groups within the independence movement. So, it is an honour and a privilege to have been invited to give a talk on the Manifesto for Independence as a lunchtime fringe event. I only have the room - and hopefully an audience - for an hour, and I want to make the most of this time. I shall be recording the proceedings, but I'm not yet sure if I'll be able to livestream. I don't want to be too preoccupied with the technical stuff. These periods of fairly intense preparation are quite beneficial to what remains of my sanity. In order to focus, I must force myself to ignore social media as well as news items that I would normally comment on. That is my excuse for having missed a wee stooshie that blew up over John Swinney's performance when interviewed by Martin Geissler on BBC's The Sunday Show (11 May). Said stooshie was driven by a couple of articles in well-known blogs - Wings Over Scotland and Barrhead Boy. The latter being a guest piece by Allan Petrie of Indy4indy/Liberate Scotland - a man I have cause to hold in regard whatever. His article is notable only for the fact that he has evidently read Stu Campbell's commentary on the interview and taken as fact that John Swinney had "moved the goalposts" yet again on the level of support required before he might take "decisive action" on the constitutional issue.
Where did Allan Petrie get that figure? The following is from the Wings Over Scotland article.
Stu Campbell then goes on to inform us that support for devolution in the 1997 referendum was 74%. (Not 75%. But let's not be pedantic.) However, Stu Campbell also informs us that his account of the interview above is not verbatim but his own 'translation and summary' of what was said. Which is fair enough. This is commentary, not reportage. He is interpreting the First Minister's remarks for the purpose of making a point. No person of normal intelligence having read the article in full could be in any doubt that those words are Stu Campbell's and not John Swinney's. Let's see what the latter actually said.  For the benefit of those who couldn't manage to stay awake for the entire 49 seconds, here's a transcript. JS: What I want to make sure is that I bring people together sufficiently so there's a compelling voice for independence in Scotland a compelling and demonstrable demonstration of support for independence. MG: What does that mean? 60% in the polls? What is a compelling and demonstrable display of support? JS: Well, if you look at the run-up to the 1997 election in Scotland when there was demonstrable, clear, consensus of opinion that Scotland should have its own Parliament within the United Kingdom. What I want to make sure is that I lead the debate in Scotland in a way that brings people together to reach that conclusion that independence represents the best way forward for Scotland and that we should have the right to choose that. Readers must decide for themselves if Stu Campbell's 'translation and summary' is a fair representation of what was said. What cannot be denied is that Swinney left himself wide open to such interpretation. It is to be hoped that people other than Allan Petrie would recognise that Campbell was taking some licence with his version of what was said and would take the trouble to check before dashing of an angry rant for Barrhead Boy. My own view is that fair or not, Stu Campbell's version is certainly one possible way of taking John Swinney's remarks. The point is that Swinney did not make himself clear. In fact, he responded to Martin Geissler's question as if he had never given the matter much thought. As if he hadn't come to any firm conclusion on what he considers the level of support for independence which might prompt him to do something. He is, of course, just as vague concerning what that something might be. Given that he has had all of 11 years to reflect on the matter, some people might be surprised that he evidently hasn't worked out even the broad strokes of a plan to restore Scotland's independence. Just for the LOLZ, I gave Swinney's response to an AI summariser to see what it came up with. Here it is:
Note the glaring contradiction between "ensure that Scotland is able to have its own Parliament within the United Kingdom" and "independence is the best way forward for Scotland". This surely proves just how confused and confusing Swinney's answer is. Then there's the often tautologous repetition that is the hallmark of a politician attempting to run down the clock on an interview they aren't comfortable with. Why else would they come out with something as foolish as "demonstrable demonstration"? Or "consensus of opinion"? This is gibberish! This is not the voice of a man who is on top of his brief. Which is rather disturbing given that the constitutional issue is by a considerable margin the most important 'brief' an SNP politician has. Even more so when they are the leader of the party and First Minister of Scotland. Party loyalists will, as ever, seek to rationalise Swinney's inability to answer what should be a straightforward question. They will try to divert attention by, for example, demanding to know what I would have said were that question put to me. Which is entirely beside the point as I am neither the leader of the SNP nor the First Minister. If I am unable to say what would trigger action on the constitutional issue and what action would be triggered, it is of no consequence whatever. The fact that the leader of the nominally pro-independence SNP and head of the nominally pro-independence Scottish Government is so pathetically lost for a sensible response is a matter of very great consequence indeed. Regular readers will not be surprised, however, to learn that I do have what I consider to be the most appropriate answer to Martin Geissler's enquiry. Because unlike John Swinney, I have given the matter a great deal of thought while he has been preoccupied with other matters. Were I to be asked about a 'threshold' for action on the constitutional issue I would say that the action must be a proper constitutional referendum and that whether such a referendum is warranted is entirely a matter for the judgement of the Scottish Government taking a range of factors into consideration. I would explicitly and forcefully reject any notion that the sole criterion should be the state of the polls and that there could be a specified level of polling support that would be required. Furthermore, I would be happy to expand on any aspect of this response. I would be prepared to say exactly what was meant by a proper constitutional referendum. I would be able to say what sort of criteria the government might take into account when deciding how to respond to calls for a referendum. What should be of profound concern to the entire independence movement is not only the fact that John Swinney - the supposed leader of our movement - has so evidently given no thought whatever to these matters. Aggravated by the fact that no politician from any of the nominally pro-independence parties could do any better. On his current showing, having John Swinney as leader would be a whole lot worse than having no leader at all. Invite your friends and earn rewardsIf you enjoy Peter A Bell, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment