Trying to figure out WTF is going on Does Tommy Sheppard know something we don’t? Is he privy to undeclared aspects of John Swinney’s ‘thinking’ on the purpose of the Scottish Constitutional Convention proposed in the resolution in the names of Swinney and Keith Brown submitted to the SNP’s October conference? Tommy tells us that the resolution proposes:
Glossing over the evident disdain for this proposal, we note that the resolution itself says nothing about the convention pursuing “Scotland’s political independence“. The relevant passage from the full text of the resolution says only that the convention’s remit will be to “marshal support for Scotland’s right to decide“.
It seems that while Tommy Sheppard imagines the convention to be about pursuing independence, the SNP leadership’s plan is for it to endorse their ‘strategy’ of begging the British Prime Minister’s gracious consent to a sham referendum that can never lead to independence. In short, Swinney and Brown envisage the convention serving the SNP leadership and not Scotland’s cause. It seems that Tommy, like many others in the independence movement, saw the mention of a ‘convention’ and let his imagination do the colouring-in to get the picture he wanted. You’d think folk - and particularly professional politicians - would have learned by now that it is wise examine minutely what a statement says and not make assumptions informed by one’s own preferences and prejudices rather than the actual text. With Swinney and his accomplices, for example, it is never safe to assume that when they talk of ‘support for independence’ they mean just that. The words may say ‘support for independence’. But in the hive-mind of the SNP leadership these words mean only ‘support for us’! Support for the SNP and the treacherous troupe running it to ruin! Evidently, Tommy has no great desire to scrutinise his leader’s ‘strategy’. Who can blame him? He has been approved as a candidate for the SNP in the 2026 Scottish Parliament election. He would not want to be seeking selection having caused the leadership’s ‘strategy’ to evaporate by looking at it too closely. Or at all! His column in The National sets out to be an examination, instead, of “what is being canvassed as the principal alternative to that strategy“.
Like myself, he’s not keen on the idea. And for much the same reasons.
What he means is that an election is only a plebiscite to the extent that is declared to be such by those contesting it. It doesn’t need all the parties to agree. Indeed, it would be very surprising if the British parties did agree. But Tommy seems to suggest that there needn’t be agreement among all of the nominally pro-independence parties. If I have understood him correctly on this, then I have to disagree. A solitary one of what may be half a dozen nominally pro-independence parties might be portrayed as an ‘outlier’. But any more than that and the plebiscite idea crashes on take-off. Basically, what Tommy is saying is that the more commonality there is among the (nominally) pro-independence parties the more convincing the plebiscite will be as a vote on independence. This is important! Crucially important! I don’t think Tommy Sheppard appreciates just how important it is that when we vote on independence the process by which we do so should be impeccably democratic and the outcome conclusive. Lest I be accused of misrepresentation by overstating, I’ll say no more than that he appears to harbour some doubts about whether a plebiscite election as proposed by Kenny MacAskill and others can make the grade. I am certain that it can’t. Or to be more precise, I am firmly persuaded that it is unsafe to assume that a plebiscite election could be sufficiently authoritative for such a momentous purpose as restoring Scotland’s independence. As Tommy says:
Why, indeed? Why would we suppose the British state’s intransigence would melt just because a (probably small) majority of people in Scotland voted for disparate parties each more or less committed to their own version or understanding of Scottish independence? Why believe such a vote would have the heft to overcome the British state’s imperative to preserve the Union? That imperative is the proverbial immovable object. If there is a irresistible force that can push past it, it has to be something mighty. A wee vote in a pretend referendum just ain’t gonna do it! Why would we suppose the British state’s intransigence would melt just because a (probably small) majority of people in Scotland voted for disparate parties each more or less committed to their own version or understanding of Scottish independence? Tommy Sheppard goes on to refer to an article by Robin McAlpine which argues that the first and most important thing is to build verifiable support for independence. This is closely related to an argument that is common on social media. It was put to me just recently with the words:
To which I responded with somewhat less than the meagre glad tolerance for fools I’m known for.
I make no apologies for the forthrightness of my language. I reckon the response was entirely appropriate to the idiocy of the comment. Absent a plan, aspiration is mere frothy wishful thinking. If you cannot explain the process by which you intend to achieve an objective, no thoughtful person will be persuaded that you will achieve it. Why would they? You’d be asking them to adopt a faith position! Thoughtful people don’t do faith! Tommy Sheppard puts is rather well:
I am one of those people. I am immovably persuaded that restoring Scotland’s independence is a matter of fundamental justice and therefore the worthiest of ends in itself regardless of any other consideration. It is not a question of whether Scotland could survive as an independent nation, but whether Scotland can survive as a nation without independence. The Union is an ancient wrong imposed on this country. A wrong which daily diminishes us and which must ultimately destroy us. You may say I “believe” in independence. I find that term inadequate. It is not a question of whether Scotland could survive as an independent nation, but whether Scotland can survive as a nation without independence. Here’s what I find odd about Tommy Sheppard’s analysis. I get the distinct impression he is not greatly enamoured of John Swinney’s ‘strategy’. He clearly is highly dubious about “what is being canvassed as the principal alternative to that strategy” - a plebiscite election. Why then, is he not looking at other ideas? What looks like being his party’s official ‘strategy for independence’ is worse than useless as far as Scotland’s cause is concerned. The leading contender is little better. It beats the Swinney drivel only in that it… Nope! Can’t think of anything! So, why does he make no reference to the Newington Resolution and the radical rethinking of the constitutional issue which inspired it? There is an ‘alternative’ entirely missing from Tommy Sheppard’s analysis. I reckon that absence requires some explanation. 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