With the SNP on the back foot last year over issues like the currency, membership of Nato and the whole EU debacle, it was perhaps predictable that the party would try to both twist all this round to suit its agenda, and also try to deflect attention in other ways.
Thus in the space of just a few days the Nationalists have made major announcements which seem breathtakingly hypocritical in view of their demonstrable lack of preparedness, doubts over integrity and generally inconsistent and opportunistic approach to the likes of the Bank of England, the EU and Nato.
So after being slapped down in the wake of the SNP's assumption that Scotland could have a representative on the Bank of England's monetary policy committee and rely on the bank as lender of last resort, the party's Yes Minister Nicola Sturgeon is now asking Westminster to enter into negotiations on a "transition plan" about how independence for Scotland would be implemented. Of course, they knew full well what the answer would be before even asking the question, and in view of their presumptuousness regarding the Bank of England, the EU and Nato this all demonstrates that it all amounts to little more than trying to shift the blame for their own inadequacies, and clearly if Westminster can be made to look the villain of the piece then it's a good old propaganda double whammy for the SNP!
Likewise Alex Salmond's announcement regarding a Scottish constitution yesterday, which as well as detracting from his difficult period towards the end of last year seems to be attempting to elevate SNP soundbites and rhetoric to the status of constitutional principles designed to presage some kind of new world order. Indeed, the first minister's suggestion that the constitution could feature a ban on weapons of mass destruction simply underlines his party's unprincipled and opportunistic attempt to claim that Scotland could hide behind Nato's nuclear deterrent while at the same time sermonising the rest of the world on the issue.
And, of course, as well as confirming the SNP as a party of moralising and posturing which effectively uses the constitutional issue to deflect attention from its lack of vision and competence in adequately utilising the Scottish Parliament's existing powers, this latest move underlines the increasingly inadequate Holyrood as an institution of moralising and posturing as well.
Alex Salmond may fancy himself as some kind of Caledonian cross between Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi. But if the public have generally given him the benefit of the doubt since his SNP administration started its journey to the Promised Land, surely they're now beginning to see through this McNero, who's desperate to spend years fiddling with constitutional issues while Scotland's myriad problems continue to burn.
10 comments:
surely they're now beginning to see through this McNero, who's desperate to spend years fiddling with constitutional issues while Scotland's myriad problems continue to burn.
He's their biggest asset and their biggest liability.
They'll not win indy with him, and they'll not win indy without him.
I fail to see how the barefaced episodes of false assertion can credibly carry him as a figure of trust.
He can't be written off of course, but given that Johann has switched to Nicola as her target of attack, to me, it clearly signals that Labour think their work is done for the time being on Salmond.
To the fundamentalists that doesn't matter. But there's only a limited number of that type in any country.
Despite whatever petty Highwayman's knot is tied into the referendum rigging, it's going to fail.
For the leap of faith required, you have to have faith in the vanguard of the leap.
Salmond's bolt is mostly shot.
The rest is just posturing.
Regards
"He's their biggest asset and their biggest liability.
"They'll not win indy with him, and they'll not win indy without him."
Sums things up excellently.
Of course, it isn't over until the fat controller admits defeat, but as things stand it's not looking good for forging our own destiny at the heart of the EU etc.
"given that Johann has switched to Nicola as her target of attack"
Indeed she has-a continuation of the personal abuse that appears to be the unionist stock in trade.
Whatever the succes with Salmond-and he seems to remain more popular than any major unionist politician in Scotland or the UK-that will definitely backfire as Nicola is not a "marmite" politician like Salmond.
Labour and unionism's pettiness is being exposed, and the "No" campaign has peaked a couple of years too soon
So if personal abuse is the "unionist stock in trade" then what's the Scots Nationalists?
Much the same I would say, indeed looking around the MacSocial Media I would say your side wins hands down. In fact I even noticed on cybernat threatening to kill a unionist last night.
Nice.
Stuart
I have no idea about this threat to kill, but I am afraid having witnessed the Sarwar nonsense at Westminster last week about the supposed absence of democracy and the supposed presence of dictatorship in Scotland, I prefer my analysis of events in Scotland to yours.
The unionists have correctly spotted that their biggest problem is that Scots trust the SG to be on their side far more than they trust Westminster.
The unionist game plan is to use any and every lie to attempt to destroy that trust, and their target has been first Salmond and now Sturgeon.
They will fail, as attacks on Sturgeon will not have traction, and will expose their overwhelming negativity to all in Scotland.
The "No" vote, always exaggerated by a compliant media, has bred unionist complacency-it is not well founded :-)
Your style is unique in comparison to other folks I've read stuff from. I appreciate you for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I will just bookmark this blog.
JPJ2, last week Salmond called Westminster "profoundly undemocratic" and George Kerevan called it a "dictatorship". But at least there's some proper debate down there and some dissent from the ruling parties' backbenchers, which is more or less absent in that two-bob parliament at Holyrood.
And Salmond wants to be at the "heart of Europe", which is an even bigger democratic joke than Holyrood.
Don't get me wrong, Westminster is a joke as well, but the EU and Holyrood are even worse.
By the way, Google 'elective dictatorship'. It's a well known concept in UK constitutional theory, and fits the SNP Government to a tee.
As for "overwhelming negativity", again the words pot, kettle and black come to mind.
Anon - thanks, I think!!
Stuart
Thanks for your response.
I note that you do not seem to be particularly enamoured of Westminster but you still prefer it to rule over Scotland rather than for Scotland to be governed in line with the people's favourite parties-Why?.
I can certainly, even in terms of "elective" dictatorship", make a reasoned claim that Holyrood is more democratic. Westminster nearly always produces an "elective dictatorship" because of FPTP-Holyrood, rarely. The current ciorcumstances in both places are unusual.
I also regard as deeply flawed democratically an unelectecd second chamber in which the likes of Forsyth, totally rejected in 1997, can still ramble on inflicting his unwanted views on Scotland-there is no Holyrood undead equivalent.
A further undemocratic aspect of Westminster is the Scottish Affairs Committee which ludicrously has more Tories (none elected in Scotland) than the single one actually elected in Scotland-again, no equivalent at Holyrood.
I do not see the equivalence that you see-not at all :-)
So, no, I do not see Westminster as being as democratic as Holyrood.
It is also worth noting that the abuse from unionists is often provided from the very top of unionism, whereas claims of abusive cybernats often refers to unelected paryt members or non-members.
I do not see an equivalence between abusive unionists and abusive Nats-the former is endemic and reaches the very top, the latter does not.
Hi JPJ2, thanks for the response.
"I note that you do not seem to be particularly enamoured of Westminster but you still prefer it to rule over Scotland rather than for Scotland to be governed in line with the people's favourite parties-Why?."
I don't particularly prefer one to the other, but consider that none of them represent my own personal interests. And Yes Scotland say independence is all about Scotland making decisions for itself, so no change there then from my perspective. Indeed, if Scotland votes Yes, by the time it all settles down I'll be dead anyway, assuming I even live that long!
And since the SNP wants the EU to "rule over" Scotland anway (to use your language) then surely you'd just be swapping one undemocratic institution for another, surely?
I can certainly, even in terms of "elective" dictatorship", make a reasoned claim that Holyrood is more democratic. Westminster nearly always produces an "elective dictatorship" because of FPTP-Holyrood, rarely. The current ciorcumstances in both places are unusual."
Ah, so you're conceding that the current SNP administration is an "elective dictatorship"? ;0)
"I also regard as deeply flawed democratically an unelectecd second chamber in which the likes of Forsyth, totally rejected in 1997, can still ramble on inflicting his unwanted views on Scotland-there is no Holyrood undead equivalent."
But perhaps an unelected second chamber is better than none at all? Ultimately the HoC has the final say, but the HoL has lots of experienced people and a less partisan and febrile approach.
And in any case, if the HoL was elected it would just be largely the same party appointees as in the HoC at present, and to that extent could just become a replicate of the HoC.
"A further undemocratic aspect of Westminster is the Scottish Affairs Committee which ludicrously has more Tories (none elected in Scotland) than the single one actually elected in Scotland-again, no equivalent at Holyrood."
I agree to an extent, but on the other hand that's like saying when Holyrood discusses Dundee then only Dundee politicians have any business discussing it.
"I do not see an equivalence between abusive unionists and abusive Nats-the former is endemic and reaches the very top, the latter does not."
Well you can argue the ins an outs of this till the cows come home, an I agree that there are excesses on either side. But, for example, if someone is abusing me online - calling me stupid merely because I disagree with the SNP line, for example - then I'm not really bothered whether or not they're a party member or not, or how far they are up the official hierarchy.
But on the whole I think the nationalists are worse than the unionists in this regard.
Post a Comment