Trying to figure out WTF is going on It happens from time to time that something you are aware of at some level below conscious thought can be stated in a way that hits you like a slap in the face. Stu Campbells post on X putting numbers on the MSPs not standing for re-election next year was that kind of experience. I knew, of course, that Kate Forbes was only the most recent SNP MSP to announce that she was quitting. Her prominence brought the matter of these 'dropouts' into sharp focus. Even then, most of that focus was on one person Kate Forbes. I knew there were others. But it wasn't until I saw it expressed in stark numbers that I realised the enormity of what is happening to the SNP. As I write, the 21 SNP MSPs who have publicly stated they will not stand for re-election are:
As Stu Campbell notes, that's 39% of the SNP group in the Scottish Parliament - almost double the next highest percentage. No closing dates for candidates has yet been announced. But there are 274 days until the election. Any of those days could see another sitting MSP suddenly being overcome by the desire to spend more time with their family. My sense of the situation is that it will only get worse for John Swinney. Regardless of what reasons are given, the extraordinary dropout rate is bound to be seen as a comment on John Swinney's leadership of the party and of the independence campaign. It is a massive vote of no confidence. and who can blame them. To describe Swinney's 'strategy' for independence as lacklustre would be to flatter it to an extent that would surely come across as facetiousness. Despite all the hype about a 'three-point plan', it's really just a continuation of the Sturgeon doctrine which puts Westminster at the centre of the constitutional issue and sidelines the people of Scotland. Swinney openly admits that his 'strategy' is to submit yet another wheedling supplication for Westminster to graciously grant permission to hold a sham independence referendum that is really no more than a glorified opinion poll and cannot lead to the restoration of independence. We know as a matter of absolute certainty that a referendum granted by Westminster cannot lead to independence because if it could then it would never be granted. It not only wouldn't be granted, it couldn't be granted. Westminster cannot devolve powers that are greater than its own. A referendum which could lead to the restoration of independence would be one in which the people of Scotland had the final word. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty requires that Westminster always has the final say. John Swinney must be aware of this. Notwithstanding the impression he gives, the man is not entirely stupid. He must know that Westminster cannot devolve the power to overrule itself. We know that preservation of the Union is an overarching imperative for the British state. It is never going to devolve powers such as might put the Union in jeopardy. Therefore, it will only devolve powers to have a referendum on independence if it retains a veto in case of a Yes result. That is the reality of the Section 30 referendum John Swinney is seeking. If it is granted, a Yes result will be vetoed. If it is not granted, John Swinney has no idea what to do next. We know he is clueless about what comes next after Starmer uses Swinney's begging letter to wipe his arse because if he had any ideas other than a Section 30 request they would all but certainly be better. They could hardly be worse. Here, I suspect, we have the explanation for that 39% dropout rate. In a word, the reason is despair. The one thing all those dropouts have in common is that they joined the SNP because it was the 'party of independence'. Even if they were faux nationalists only jumping on the SNP bandwagon because it was a good way to get yourself a political career, they knew that the bandwagon was powered by the independence cause. Whether genuinely or opportunistically pro-independence, these people relied on the SNP being unequivocally the 'party of independence'. It was the cause that provided their career, not the party. Without the cause, the party is a toom tabard - an empty jaicket. An entity devoid of direction and any purpose other than its own survival. Asking why all these SNP MSPs are quitting is asking the wrong question. The pertinent question is, why would they stay? What's in it for them? The party no longer offers a sure gateway to a long and lucrative political career. Neither does it promise to fulfil the aspirations of committed nationalists. Where next? The situation can only get worse for John Swinney. Despair is infectious. I'd guess there are very few SNP MSPs who haven't had at least a passing thought about getting out. The more people who actually do - and the more high profile those people are - the more seriously are people going to consider their options. Not a few among the those who have not quit very probably envisioned a future in the party with Kate Forbes as leader - and themselves in some high office. Now that this is no longer in prospect, those people will inevitably be wondering if there is any reason to stay. They will not be looking to John Swinney to provide that reason. Where is the breaking point? How many sitting SNP MSPs have to quit before there is some kind of reaction within the party? what might that reaction amount to in practical terms? Suppose the 39% noted by Stu Campbell creeps towards 50% over the next few weeks. How might the October conference respond? There is already a rebellious mood evident among the party members. Admittedly, much of that rebelliousness struggles to deserve the name. But it is still more unrest than we are accustomed to witnessing. Throw an MSP dropout rate of 45% into the mix and it might be the catalyst for a real revolt. Which gives rise to a raft of further questions. No doubt I'll be asking - and attempting to answer - those questions at some point. You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment