Read the words!

If I am cynical about British Labour it’s for good reason. This is a party of back-stabbers who have no qualms about turning their blades on voters should self-interest demand it. They betrayed Scotland for their precious Union before. They will do so again. They colluded with the Tories in the 2014 Scottish independence referendum campaign because of their mutual interest in maintaining the structures of power, privilege and patronage which constitute the British state. Those structures have not changed. Nor has the shared imperative of the British establishment parties to keep a political system which serves them well, even as it fails the people in all manner of tragic ways.

In an otherwise rather silly column which imagines British Labour supporting independence, Kevin McKenna notes that their operation in Scotland hasn’t changed since the British parties lost control of Holyrood. Discussing what he persists in calling ‘Scottish Labour’, McKenna observes that British Labour in Scotland (BLiS) “has been in retreat for 12 years”. It is a commonplace of Scottish political commentary that this retreat has been into a bubble of bitter resentment towards both the SNP and the voters who had the effrontery to rob BLiS of what they regard as their entitled status in Scotland. A resentment so corrosive that neither rational nor creative thinking can survive.

It’s difficult to know whether the resentment which has paralysed BLiS for all that time also infected the rest of the party, or whether the resentment is simply more concentrated in BLiS, them being more directly affected. What we can know for certain is that, in terms of policy, there is but one British Labour. If BLiS didn’t adapt to Scotland’s new political and electoral reality in 12 years, neither did British Labour as a whole.

The question that arises is why would British Labour change now. If, indeed, it has genuinely changed in the ways that many seem to suppose are implied by John McDonnell’s ‘promise’ that British Labour would not block a new Scottish independence referendum.

I look at this ‘promise’ with the jaundiced eye of my cynicism and I smell deviousness and duplicity. This is, of course, the hallmark stench of British politics. But the stink seems particularly strong around John McDonnell’s comments. My first thought is that this is a ploy to split the pro-independence vote in Scotland. A ploy which, were it effective, would serve both to undermine the independence movement and weaken the SNP. There is obvious advantage here for both British Labour and the British Nationalist ideology it shares with other British establishment parties.

So what! I hear some in the Yes movement say. If BLiS drops its dogmatic opposition to anew independence referendum this only strengthens the mandate to hold such a referendum. But that mandate requires no strengthening. It is already as strong as it needs to be – and then some. And British Labour are not in power at Westminster. They are not in a position to decide whether the British parliament should grant gracious consent allowing Scots to exercise the fundamental right of self-determination. So John McDonnell is giving us precisely nothing with his ‘promise’ not to block a new referendum even if we are naive enough to suppose that promise would be kept should it be put to the test.

McDonnell is aware that a large proportion of traditional British Labour voters in Scotland support the restoration of Scotland’s independence and that many of them have been ‘lending’ their votes to the SNP knowing that this is the only way to achieve that objective. He will know, also, that many of those people are itching to get back to voting as their fathers did and their fathers before them. They feel a certain loyalty to British Labour – or to the values which British Labour once represented – and they will seize on any excuse to return to the fold. John McDonnell’s ‘promise’ provides that excuse.

This still leaves the question of why McDonnell has decided to make this ‘promise’ at this time. But we’ve already seen that the ‘promise’ isn’t worth much even if taken at face value. And its value gets increasing dubious the more closely we scrutinise it. Let’s remind ourselves of his precise words.

The Scottish Parliament will come to a considered view on that and they will submit that to the Government and the English parliament itself.

If the Scottish people decide they want a referendum that’s for them.

We would not block something like that. We would let the Scottish people decide. That’s democracy.

There are other views within the party but that’s our view.

Note the final sentence. That’s a get-out clause if ever there was one. Who is he referring to when he says “our view”. How are we to be sure that view prevails against those “other views within the party “. Note what he doesn’t say. He doesn’t say that this is now official arty policy. His words can easily be interpreted, or portrayed, as implying that the matter is being debated within the party. There is nothing conclusive there. Nothing anybody should be clinging to.

Perhaps even more significantly, note the use of the future and future unreal conditional tense. The Scottish Parliament “WILL COME to a considered view”; “they WILL SUBMIT that to the Government”; “we WOULD NOT block something like that”; “we WOULD LET the Scottish people decide”.

At no time does John McDonnell acknowledge the existing mandate. At not time does he recognise that the Scottish Parliament has already “come to a considered view”. Nowhere does he mention that this “considered view” has already been submitted to “the Government and the English parliament [sic]”. To do so would be to respect the authority of the Scottish Parliament. Which no British Nationalist politician can or will ever do.

Nor will they respect Scotland’s people. John McDonnell also says,

“If the Scottish people decide they want a referendum that’s for them.”

He refuses to allow that the Scottish people have already made known their choice in this matter by voting for parties with a clear manifesto commitment to holding a new referendum.

It may be thought that John McDonnell is taking a bit of a risk with this ‘promise’ to break with British Nationalist dogma and respect democratic principles. What if British Labour does end up in power and all the conditions he stipulates are met? Wouldn’t that make it awkward for British Labour to renege? Which brings us, finally, to an answer to the question of why this ‘promise’ is being made now.

John McDonnell is a professional politician and so is not inclined to take risks where the cost would fall on himself or his party. Therefore, he must have reason to be sure that British Labour will never be put in the position of being expected to honour his ‘promise’. He would only make such a promise if he was confident that the Tories were about to apply a ‘final solution’ to the Scottish problem.

John McDonnell is undertaking to respect the Scottish Parliament. not now but at some unspecified time in the future, because he is as certain as he needs to be that there will be no Scottish Parliament by that time.

He is undertaking to respect the democratic will of the people of Scotland, not now but at some unspecified time in the future, because he is confident the Tories have a plan to ensure that the people of Scotland are prevented from ever deciding the constitutional status of our nation or choosing the form of government that best suits our needs.

John McDonnell is attempting to deceive the people of Scotland in the name of preserving the Union. Don’t be fooled!



If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.

Donate with PayPalDonate with Pingit

15 thoughts on “Read the words!

  1. “… they will submit that to the Government and the _English_ parliament itself.”
    There is currently no “English Parliament! afaik, so what does this ‘slip’ tell us of the writer’s mentality?

    Liked by 1 person

      1. That may be the case in practice, but in theory at least we have a British Parliament, formed when at the Union of Parliaments, the original Scots Parliament was closed and its members came south to sit at WM. (At least IIRC).

        Like

    1. What does it matter if “in theory,it is the UK Parliament”, but in practice, it is the English Parliament?
      It matters a great deal.
      And if the original Scots Parliament “got closed down”… what happened to the original English Parliament?
      Did it not too get closed down?
      The Speaker seems to think it didn’t cease,, as he could easily use an old House of Commons ruling, from the Century before the Treaty of Union.
      He made it clear by doing that, he is Speaker of the English Parliament.
      And it is this Parliament and it’s Government, that is attempting to stop Scotland from being Independent.
      And if it is the English Parliament, that means it in actual fact, the “UK” Govt, is the English Government, and any Scots supporting it, or being a part of it, are supporting that English Government, against Scotland.
      That point should be made more well known.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. It may be another ploy to get the staunch unionists within the labour party to switch votes to the only other party supporting the union, i.e. the tories. This way the can damage the SNP majority in a future General Election.

    Like

  3. A damning indictment of the British Labour Party and their acolytes in Scotland with a well set out
    description of their character i.e. back-stabbing, corrosive, and devious!

    The current cohort of Labour msps at Holyrood with the active support of on occasion, the GMB, UNISON and UNITE trades unions have sought to thwart at every opportunity progressive change beneficial to the people of Scotland and it beggars belief that the SNP membership and hierarchy could countenance such an alliance!

    The British Labour Party has no constitutional right to disburse or withhold the inalienable right of self determination to the Scots but I fear this may yet be another instrument to be conveniently used by the SNP suits to delay the process and in so doing accede the dilution of the vote in favour of a unionist party! If this comes to pass I believe we may have forfeited our opportunity!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I had the very same discussion with a colleague at work.

    He sad:” What do you think of John McDonnell’s comments” I said it is of little relevance or importance. He is an opposition MP with no majority in Scotland. We already have a mandate and we can have a referendum , as our parliament has already agreed that.

    He asked :” What if the Tories boycott the referendum”. Again I had to explain, that then it would come down to a numbers game. If more than 50 % of the eligible electorate vote yes. Then we have the vote recognised by the UN as a political majority. I don’t necessarily agree that more than 50% of eligible voters have to vote yes , but that would be a cast iron mandate. If only 60% actually vote then it would be difficult to claim a mandate unless 90% of that 60% vote yes.

    There are all sorts of possibilities when claiming a referendum to be legitimate. However I believe only 70% of the population of the UK voted in the EU referendum. It can then be argued that they have no 50% mandate. Or any election where less than 50% vote for a single party.

    The above is all hypothetical.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. When the chips have been down, Labour and its branches have proved their Unionist credentials to the core. That is all we need to know. There may well be many Labour people in Scotland who favour independence, but the party in Scotland favours the Union in its manifesto. It is as British Nationalist as the rest, as are Corbyn and McDonnell. If the SNP falls for this nonsense, they need their heads examined. Some of the worst damage done to Scotland has been under Labour: the hiding of the McCrone Report from the people of Scotland and the hiding of the true wealth of the oil and gas reserves; the hiding, too, until it was a fait accompli of the theft of over 6000 squ.miles of Scottish waters. Then, of course, there was the 40% rule in the first devolution referendum…need we go on?

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Peter,

    Another excellent forensic analysis of the state of politics today.
    Who need wield a hatchet when an epee does the job.

    Made my day – Thanks.

    Like

  7. I see McDonnell has now”clarified” his remarks , he believes -“an independence referendum would be an irrelevance”.
    Didn’t take long.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.