Trying to figure out WTF is going on There is much talk at the moment of Jeremey Corbyn's new venture, including a great deal of speculation regarding what position will be taken by the new party's branch in Scotland in relation to the constitutional issue. A piece in today's National is one example Corbyn-Sultana party clarifies Scottish independence stance. Contrary to what is implied by that headline, the story offers no clarification whatever. The 'official' Scottish spokesbladder for the part of this venture set in Scotland is a chap called Jim Monaghan. Rather than try to describe his non-clarification, it's probably easier if I quote him in full.
Monaghan goes on to talk about something called The Collective which is either part of something else called the Left Alliance or the latter my be part of the former. It's like a set of those nesting Russian dolls, one of which is whatever the new party will be called. By which I mean Jeremy Corbyn's new party and not the Left Alliance or The Collective. The Collective is, I think, intended to be a political party while the Left Alliance is a collective of several parties. The Corbyn-Sultana party-to-be is in there somewhere. So, a big vote of thanks to Jim Monaghan for straightening that out for us. In fact, there is a very simple answer to the question of what will be the position of the Scottish plook on the arse of Corby's new party. It will be whatever the arse says it will be. The arm of this new British political party located in Scotland will be no different from the Scotland branch offices of the other British parties. Parties are not permitted to have different positions in different parts of the UK. If the likes of Anas Sarwar tries to give the impression that 'Scottish' Labour has a position on any issue that is distinct from that taken by his boss, Keir Starmer, he is lying. Which will shock nobody. The same goes for the other British parties that are either squatting in Scotland's parliament or hoping to do so. None of them can possibly have a distinct position on the constitutional issue. It is impossible for Anas Sarwar to be in favour of a new referendum while Starmer is against it. Because it is all a single party. And Starmer is in charge. Sarwar is there to try and look as much like a real party leader as he can - no much! - so that the British media can go on promulgating the lie that Scottish Labour is (a) Scottish, and (b) a real political party. It is not Scottish, it is British. It is not a political party, it is a sham. It is part of the apparatus which provides the illusion of democracy and respect for Scotland's distinctiveness. It is all entirely false. The speculation about this new party's position on an independence referendum has nothing to latch onto. If that position is to be inferred from Jeremy Corbyn's stated attitude over the past few years, it is as plain as if it was the victim of one of Jim Monaghan's 'clarifications'. If I were to attempt to sum it up I'd say Corbyn is not - or tries to appear as if he isn't - as explicitly or fervently opposed to a referendum as many (most?) other British politicians. But now is never the time. That being his position, it is also the position of the bit of his party that calls itself 'Scottish'. If they tell you differently, they're lying like Sarwar. It is all irrelevant anyway. Because even when British politicians try to look as if they are not anti-democratic they are operating within a system which is inherently anti-democratic. As is the case throughout the discourse around the constitutional issue, people talk of a referendum but never define or describe it. As if this referendum could be only one thing and everybody already knows what it is so it doesn't need to be stated. Generally, what people have in mind is a referendum such as had in 2014. They have been 'conditioned' to think of a Section 30 referendum as the 'gold standard' of democratic events. It most emphatically is not! You are probably asking the obvious question. If a referendum held under 'powers' transferred from Westminster to Holyrood is not the 'gold standard' what is? Or perhaps you are wondering what precludes a referendum held under transferred 'powers' being a proper constitutional referendum. I shall attempt to address both these points. The following suggested criteria for a true constitutional referendum were first published in July 2023 as an appendix to the Stirling Directive. The Stirling Directive itself appears to be no longer available online. But the criteria were referred to and republished on this site in November 2024 (A true constitutional referendum). A true constitutional referendum
Summary
These criteria were not meant to be prescriptive. The intention was to provoke a discussion about the form of referendum Scotland's cause requires. Most of the criteria are, however, quite evidently essential. That the referendum must be binary. That the options be fixed and not permitted to change in the course of the campaign. Perhaps most pertinently of all in the present context, the stipulation that the referendum must be determinative and self-executing. A referendum held under transferred powers can never be determinative and self-executing because this would mean that the people had the final word on the matter and not Westminster. A proper constitutional referendum would acknowledge the people of Scotland as the ultimate authority, not Westminster. The British state not only will not transfer powers for a proper constitutional referendum, it cannot do so. It is literally impossible for it to do so. Supposing it was possible for the British state to transfer powers such as would allow a proper constitutional referendum, this would breach the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The doctrine which underpins the entire edifice of the British state. without ultimate political authority being vested in a parliament under the near total control of an executive whose clients are not the people but the ruling elites, the whole thing comes tumbling down. The three pillars of the British 'system' are
None of these pillars can exist in a political system which is truly democratic. If the people had the authority which the term 'democracy' implies, it is not believable that they would tolerate the structures of power, privilege, and patronage which define a British state which serves the few regardless of the cost to the many. A proper constitutional referendum is informed by the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the principle of popular sovereignty are mutually exclusive. They are incompatible and irreconcilable. Therefore, no British government could ever acknowledge the sovereignty of the people in any meaningful way. They may state it as a slogan. But they absolutely cannot give it political effect. It follows that, whatever rhetoric they contrive to make it appear otherwise, no British political party can ever support a proper constitutional referendum. The power to legislate for a proper constitutional referendum cannot be given in any case. Regardless of the compelling reasons why the British will not and cannot give that power, the power itself is inherently 'ungiveable'. The right of self-determination is inalienable. It is a human right and cannot be surrendered, transferred, forfeited, abrogated, or removed. It is as inherent to the people as life is to the person. If the power to exercise the right of self-determination is in the gift of another, this necessarily implies that it is not present in the people. But it is an inalienable right and cannot be other than present in the people. I hope this has gone some way towards explaining both why no British political party can ever genuinely support a proper constitutional referendum and why a referendum held under powers transferred from Westminster can never be a proper constitutional referendum. You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment