Trying to figure out WTF is going on In his letter to The National (An emphatic 2026 win for the SNP will mean no excuses for inaction, 12/08/25) Stan Grodynski makes some points that require a response. First, after pointing out that support for the Scottish Parliament is considerably higher that support for independence, Stan writes:
He is absolutely correct in this. It is a very important point in favour of the #ScottishUDI plan for progressing Scotland's cause. Most people who have been involved in the fight to restore Scotland's independence for any length of time will realise that our wins must be emphatic. However unfair it may be, it is a fact that our opponents only have to scrape through to prompt proclamations of glorious victory in the British media. The smallest success for Unionists is always some kind of 'blow' to the 'separatists'. Meanwhile, a win for the pro-independence campaign has to be quite extraordinary for the same media to so much as acknowledge it. That is just the nature of things when you're in a grotesquely asymmetric power relationship. And there is no more grotesquely asymmetric power relationship than that imposed on Scotland by the Union. The implication of this is that if the 2026 election is to be declared a de facto referendum, the smart thing is to make it a referendum we have the best chance of winning and winning emphatically. That means making the de facto referendum about the powers of the Scottish Parliament in relation to facilitating the exercise of our right of self-determination. Thus, we make a notable victory the most likely outcome while also taking the issue into the realm of human rights. Who wouldn't vote in favour of their human rights being respected? Apart from those intent on voting for Reform UK, obviously. Stan goes on to suggest:
Again, the first part of this clearly echoes the #ScottishUDI plan, which is for all pro-independence parties to include an identical commitment on the constitutional issue in their manifestos for the 2026 Holyrood election. This introduces a binary element which will make a positive result unambiguous and therefore more emphatic. As per Stan's earlier remarks, this commitment should be to restoring to the Scottish Parliament the legislative competence in constitutional affairs that rightly belongs with the parliament actually elected by the people of Scotland - and not with some foreign parliament. So far, so good! But then Stan veers disastrously off course when he writes "ensure that authority is granted to Holyrood". Granted, Stan!? Granted!? It seems that what Stan has in mind is transferred powers. That would be transferred powers as in a Section 30 order. Because that is the very most that Westminster conceivably would or could transfer. Westminster cannot devolve powers that supersede its own. That would be unconstitutional, as well as being - from a Westminster perspective - an act of political idiocy that would topple Brexit from the top spot. But it cannot happen. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty forbids it. As does fundamental logic. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty holds that Westminster has the final say in all matters. Were it constitutionally possible for Westminster to transfer to Holyrood the power to legislate for a proper constitutional referendum - determinative and self-executing - this would mean that the people of Scotland had the final word. Westminster would have given away the veto over the will of Scotland's people afforded it by the Union. Even if this could be done, we can be certain that it wouldn't be done. The power to hold a proper constitutional referendum can only be taken. It cannot be "granted". This is why the #ScottishUDI plan is for the Scottish Parliament to assert legislative competence in matters relating to the Union (that is to say, the constitution) stating as the primary, but not sole, reason that this is the only way the people of Scotland can be enabled to exercise their right of self-determination. The power to hold a proper constitutional referendum can only be taken. It cannot be "granted". Finally, there's this:
Stan Grodynski seems a bit confused here. In keeping with what was said earlier about our wins needing to be emphatic, this would also apply to an "SNP victory". We might well question whether it is possible for an SNP victory to be emphatic enough to prevent the party leadership rationalising inaction. But the real problem here is that while Stan is clear about who should enjoy this emphatic victory (that’s the SNP for those who haven’t been paying attention), he appears to be deluding himself as to what this would be a victory for. He seems to be associating an SNP victory in the 2026 election with the Scottish Parliament acquiring the power to hold a proper constitutional referendum. But that is emphatically not what John Swinney is proposing. John Swinney is proposing nothing other than a request for a Section 30 order to enable a referendum that is about as far from being a proper constitutional referendum as may be imagined. Moreover, submitting that request for a Section 30 order is an act of unforgiveable treachery. A vile betrayal of cause and country. A gross insult to the principle that is the very foundation of Scotland's constitution, democracy and distinct national identity - that the people of Scotland are sovereign is both a constitutional fact and an inviolable principle. By submitting this supplication in the name of the people of Scotland, Swinney legitimises the superiority of Westminster and confirms the subordinacy of Scotland within a political union so grotesquely asymmetric as to be the effective annexation of Scotland by England-as-Britain. A Section 30 request validates this annexation. This is indisputably an act of treachery. John Swinney has openly – even proudly – declared his intention to betray cause and country by denying the sovereignty of Scotland’s people and endorsing the alien doctrine of parliamentary (Westminster) sovereignty. An emphatic victory for the SNP sanctions this act of treachery. It is a mandate for betrayal. It is the sovereign people of Scotland consenting to denial of the fact that they are sovereign. It is yet another new name on that trophy for the most insane act of political self-harm. We would be mad to vote SNP! You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
Wednesday, 13 August 2025
We would be mad to vote SNP!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
petrini1 posted: " For Week 7, the theme of genealogist Amy Johnson Crow...
-
The power pose of personal peace - with psychological benefits ... ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
-
A fall, a faceplant, and getting back up again … ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
No comments:
Post a Comment