One of the ongoing debates in Scottish politics is what happened to the 476,867 voters who voted SNP two years ago and didn’t on June 8th, with consequences feeding into the narrative of why.
YouGov’s post
election poll found it likely that those voters simply did not vote. The competing argument comes from Michael Ashcroft’s polling, which found that 12% of the SNP’s vote in 2015 went to
Labour (with half that voting Tory this time).
You pays your money and you take your choice, so to speak.
Kat Boyd:Welcome puncturer of complacent one eyed yesser perceived wisdom. |
We had seen this
argument before, with the blogger James Kelly aggressively promoting the “both
votes SNP” argument during last year’s Holyrood elections. His argument was that only both votes would
deliver a second SNP majority government – and aggressively by attempting to
run both the Scottish Greens and RISE (the post referendum re-branded Scottish
Scocialists and Radical Independence affiliates) off the road – and therefore
would mean a second Independence referendum being on the table when conditions
were favourable. Unsurprisingly RISE
failed to gain traction among voters (new party and a distinctly underwhelming campaign
being the key reasons), however the Scottish Greens gained list votes. As for the both votes strategy it was a
success... except it wasn’t. As the SNP
gathered their biggest votes ever for FPTP and beat Labour’s record for list
votes their success in the FPTP seats worked against them in the list seats
while the thing which lost them the cherished majority was, well SNP losses in
North East Fife, Edinburgh Western and Edinburgh Central which did for
them.
So thank you
RISE’s figurehead Kat Boyd (above) for reigniting this argument and for eliciting such
a response that I suspect that the Yes Movement is in a parlous place if such
ideological thinking is mainstream among the one eyed Yessers. Oh, and thank you as well for having the
balls to speak the truth too.
Boyd popped up in
a short film broadcast on the last pre-holiday Sunday Politics, Graham Stuart’s
film looked at the SNP’s result and drew parallels with their response to the
2005 result (which saw them fall behind the Lib Dems). Boyd called for the SNP to be more radical
whilst defending her decision to vote Labour (and for Corbyn) in June. This admission upset the one eyed Yessers and
confirmed Boyd and her party as ‘pretend’ nationalists. The fact that the SNP’s own policy platform has
undoubtedly moved to the right since the 2014 referendum seems to have bypassed
those Yessers. That move in itself
validates Boyd’s decision to vote for Corbyn.
Boyd’s appearance
provoked obviously a reaction from the one eyed Yessers and also an astonishing
response from the aforementioned Mister Kelly of the Scotland Goes Pop
blog. Astonishing, because the post to
all intents and purposes lays out a manifesto for an ideologically pure
pro-Independence drive for votes taking Independence and independence only as
the basis for your vote. There is no
concession to whether you agree with the SNP on, say, local authority funding,
education, taxation or relations with the EU, you vote SNP for
independence... or you are the enemy for
voting for a ‘Yoon’ party.
Kelly’s plot was
well and truly lost right at the start when he said that RISE were now
vulnerable, or as he put it “This episode
may also be helpful to the SNP on the list vote at the next Holyrood election,
because RISE (or whatever succeeds RISE) will find it even harder to pitch for
'pro-independence tactical votes' now that their commitment to independence has
been shown to be rather superficial.”
Quite how this
will assist an SNP which looks more and more Mac-New Labouresque as the days go
by, and look in some trouble is beyond me.
The Scottish Greens are capable of taking votes from the SNP should they
continue to drift rightwards, and this really should be RISE’s tactic too. However, the point missed by Kelly is that
RISE were canvassing for votes from the Radical Independence wing of the
Independence constituency, votes that would only go to the SNP tactically
anyway (in the same way that left of centre votes only went to the SNP because
of the Progress tendency within Scottish Labour). If people like Kelly are intent in destroying
parties offering different policies from the SNP but on the same page as the
SNP regarding Independence, then it does not bode well for the Yes coalition
does it, never mind Indyref 2.
Not that the
signs are encouraging anyway, judging by the First Ministers bad reading of the
post EU referendum landscape. However
that desire for a ‘pure’ Independence movement is causing strains which mean
that logically the next pro-Independence campaign must be a more ‘loose’
affair. Certainly not the SNP led &
managed affair that was in the offing.
There are real divisions there, and not just about policy. Last week’s question de jour was should the
pro-Independence coalition distance themselves from an English based homophobe
and his chimp like followers.
The cult of
Stuart Campbell raised it’s head once again last week as he took the leader of
Scottish Labour, Kezia Dugdale, to court.
Dugdale had called Campbell out for being Homophobic over tweets about
the Tory MSP (and son of the Scottish Secretary) Oliver Mundell during First
Ministers questions. That Campbell has
form for being misogynistic and homophobic seems to have bypassed the chimps in
their rush to attempt to defend the indefensible. That there is still a debate over Campbell
and his little man Trump tweets seems bizarre. Even more bizarre is that the
SNP have not sufficiently distanced themselves or condemned Campbell, in spite
of the damage that he and his followers are doing to the Independence cause. The Common Space’s Angela Haggerty compares
this episode to the fate of Tommy Sheridan, though personally I think the
parallels are more with the ex-Tory cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken. Like Aitken, Campbell is suing to salve
his bruised ego clear his name (though Campbell is only suing Dugdale,
Aitken pursued both ITV & The Guardian).
I don’t think there’s been a cringe worthy speech about using a “trusty sword of truth and the shield of British fair play” to cut out a cancer, but we can only hope.. sorry, what's that Skippy, he has said he's fighting against the "lies and smears from Unionist politicians". Well that is Aitken-esque levels of chutzpah. As for the other
parallels... we can but hope.
The counter
argument – that he is not a member of the SNP - is stuff of poppycock. SNP politicians regularly re-tweet and
favourite his tweets and promote his posts.
In this sense, Campbell/Wings is the SNP’s own creation and his ‘success’ is the reason we have been
lumbered with a second ‘personality’ providing off colour rants on social media. For all of the outrage about ‘Brian Spanner’,
he is essentially Wings for a pro-Union audience – you simply cannot criticise
one without criticising the other. Dapper Laughs is almost funny by comparison.
Alongside passing
so called “peak Nat”, we are now seeing that the SNP & the pro-Independence
supporters have now lost control of the narrative. Scotland has not (so far) turned to
Independence in droves whilst we are now seeing more critical evidence of the
SNP’s failure to get a proper grip on the task of government during their
second term. We are now also seeing the
breakdown of the ‘Yes’ coalition, driven by a drive for an ideologically pure
pro-Independence support to rally, unquestionably, behind the SNP. The problem with that is that it flies in the
face of the original impulse that differences were put aside in an attempt to
achieve the bigger goal. Now differences
are magnified and people who deviate from the central message are chastised for
doing so and ‘hurting’ the indy message.
Then again, that’s the problem with us and them. If ‘us’ develops unlikable tendencies then
criticism (however valid) will look to the hard liners as support for them.
For a party and a
movement who’s aims are not the majority view in the country, both the SNP and
the one eyed Yessers are failing in changing that state of affairs. They have ostracized people who voted to
leave the EU – dubbing them Tories (even if there is a perfectly sane &
sensible left wing case against the EU).
They are ostracizing left wingers and people who are attracted to
Corbyn’s Labour party whilst pandering to the Homophobic whims of their own
little man Trump. Even if laughably they
are planning to fly in the face of those actions and present a progressive
centre left version of Independence. After the past couple of weeks, good luck with that. If
this is the moment the Yes coalition crashed and burned, then Kelly’s somewhat
petulant & self indulgent post on Kat Boyd, alongside Stuart Campbell’s
Jonathan Aitken moment, should be seen as it’s suicide note.
4 comments:
Well: there is always a certain wave like nature to SNP / independence support.
That said - before the referendum support for independence was 'stuck' on c. 30%, now it is 'stuck' at c. 45%
In addition the political landscape is changing: there are now pro-indy but SNP-leery green and left movements.
The Tories are still Yoon of course - but every time May, Boris or Gove open their mouths the one-nation Sunday Post conservatives cringe.
Will Ruth take the pressure off by distancing herself from the strange Nasty Party in Westminster? Independence for the Scottish Tories as a first step to pro indy small c conservatives?
...and a couple of posts by James Kelly and Stuart Campbell (not even an SNP member) are an 'end of indy' suicide note? Just a teeny wee bit over the top? Wishful thinking Allan?
The inevitable factionalism. Generalissimo Franco will be smirking in his grave. Independence first,surely. Then Boyd, and whomever, can jump into the post independence political fray from out of their bag of hammers.
"That Campbell has form for being misogynistic and homophobic seems to have bypassed the chimps in their rush to attempt to defend the indefensible."
I'd be really awfully careful about what you say, Wolfie.
Post a Comment