by Christian Wright

Memo: To Andrew Rawnsley

 in a Guardian article on issue of indyref2 you wrote:

 

The SNP says that it is “entirely a matter for the people of Scotland to decide”. That isn’t true either unless they are proposing, which they are not, to hold a referendum on whether there should be another referendum.

Andrew, let me help you, and PAY ATTENTION because I’ll be asking questions later.

Whether or not there will be another referendum is up to the people of Scotland. They and they alone will decide that. Capisce?

The timing of the referendum within the tenure of the next Scottish Parliament will be decided by the Scottish Parliament.

Still not got it, huh?

OK . . .

If and only if the SNP manifesto contains a commitment to indyref2, AND the SNP secure another absolute majority at the next Holyrood elections in a proportional voting system, specifically designed to prevent that happening, will there be a second plebiscite.

The mandate to hold another referendum on independence will come from the vote of the people of Scotland in their general election, when they return the SNP for a third term, aware that front and centre marked by a blue flashing light, is the pledge to hold indyref2.

Let me bullet-point it for you Andrew:

1. Mandate for indyref2 comes from the reelection of a majority SNP government whose manifesto includes a commitment to a second referendum during the life of the new parliament

2. The timing of the referendum within the tenure of the new parliament will be a matter for the First Minister and ultimately, Scottish Parliament to decide. A majority will be required to pass enabling legislation. It cannot be actioned by fiat.

3. If and only if the People vote for independence in said referendum will Scotland dissolve its union with England and resume its status as an independent country.

Now Is there any part of that that you do not understand, Andrew?

o0o

Andrew Rawnsley:

One of their justifications for this volte-face [on foxhunting vote] was that “hundreds” of the English had begged the SNP’s MPs to use their votes to thwart the government. As excuses go, this was comically hollow. If hundreds of English voters wrote to the SNP demanding that they supported the restoration of capital punishment south of the border, would they oblige them?

Hard not to tire of this hackery. The overriding reason for the SNP intervention on foxhunting was the Unionists disgraceful behaviour during the second reading of the Scotland Bill days before, where they never attended the debate, but tripped out of the bars in their hundreds (arm in arm, Labour and Tory) to vote against SNP amendments. Amended legislation for which the SNP had an unambiguous parliamentary mandate from the Scottish electorate.

English MPs and the UK Government gave Scotland the middle finger. It became clear that it didn’t matter in the least what the Scottish electorate had voted for, they were going to get the legislation England wanted. It was the exercise of direct Rule from London.

When the amendments to this Scotland Bill were defeated the English MPs actually brayed, then returned to the Commons bars until the next vote. They treated Scots as vassals of a vassal state, that comprises the hinterland of England’s inner empire. That was the background and the impetus for the decision to interfere in the foxhunting issue.

Now I don’t think Rawnsley is being mendacious, I think he is simply clueless, with a cartoon understanding of the Scottish political dynamic borne of indolence and willful ignorance. This of course inevitably leads to his Mickey Mouse analyses that are frankly, laughable.

It never seems to occur to these geniuses to ask themselves why their predictions about the future of the SNP and Scottish nationalism, seldom pan-out. These numpties comprised the brains trust who assured you Blairite Jim Murphy was the guy to sort out the SNP, and that nationalist delight over his appointment as Labour’s branch manager in Scotland, was actually evidence of “separatist” panic and fear.

I mean, FFS.