Politics - the Labour leadership contest and Scottish independence

-
So, at least two Labour leadership contenders (Phillips and Nandy) have come out against allowing IndyRef2 - and just yesterday, on the Andrew Marr programme, Ian Murray stated that he agreed with them 100%. All three stated that the way to beat nationalism was to elect a radical, left wing, Labour government to Westminster. Two points to make on that view.
Firstly, the N in SNP stands for NATIONAL - not NATIONALIST. There is a difference. Nationalist movements are, on the whole, ring wing and racist (promoting the rights of the indigenous population at the expense of incomers). Neither label can be applied to the SNP (although there are those seeking Scottish independence who hold such views - but they are a minority and the SNP quickly shut them up when they expound on such views). The SNP seek to remain, or rejoin, the EU and actively seeks people from anywhere in the world to move to Scotland. The SNP hopes for a left of centre Scottish government which will forever reject the right wing Tory policies too often coming out of Westminster. The SNP seek to take ownership of all of Scotland's problems so that, with full fiscal control, the country can start to address these. None of the above fit the label that Phillips, Nandy, Murray and all unionists try to pin on the SNP and the struggle for Scottish independence. The SNP is not a nationalist movement but, instead, a movement which seeks to see a fairer, socially just Scotland (which seems most unlikely while a part of the UK - and the recent general election only confirms that last point).
The second point is that electing a properly left wing, Labour government to Westminster does not look at all likely - and if that was to happen it is unlikely that they would stay in power long enough to bring about the changes to how the UK operates such that a Scottish government would be sufficiently empowered to fully deal with all those problems. The Labour Party has, time and time again, promised radical changes - and totally failed to deliver (apart from, that is, the Labour government which created the NHS and other major social changes). There is no guarantee that an independent Scottish government would fix all those problems - but it would stand a far better chance of doing so when freed of the constraints applied by Westminster.
So, for those in Scotland the choice is clear: Stick with, or revert to, the Labour party and see nothing change for the better, or support the drive for Scottish independence - which at least offers real hope for the changes most of us in Scotland want to see. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

COVID-19 - the rules and how they don't apply to Margaret Ferrier.

-
I see that Margaret Ferrier, the SNP MP who broke COVID-19 regulations without resigning, has resurfaced in parliament (although maybe only via video link). As an SNP supporter and member I feel I should comment. Firstly, it needs to be remembered that Ferrier actually had COVID-19 when she travelled between London and her home in Scotland (not to mention her other transgressions at the time) while, for example, Catherine Calderwood did not have COVID when she and her family travelled to Fife from Edinburgh (I believe it was). There was no chance Calderwood would have spread the virus unless someone in her party actually had COVID and the car they had travelled in had broken down and they had required road side assistance. Calderwood, admittedly after initial resistance, recognised her position was untenable and she fell on her sword. Ferrier, on the other hand, refused to do so - and still continues to do so. While the SNP acted quickly, and correctly, to remove the whip from her, she...
Read more

UK politics - Boris Johnson's performance and the potential ramifications for Scottish independence.

-
There has been a huge outcry in recent weeks about Boris Johnson, and other cabinet ministers, holding Christmas parties for staff last year while, at the same time, locking down the country and banning such parties for the ordinary citizens of the country. Worse was the fact that relatives of those dying were unable to visit their loved ones and be with them one last time. Even worse was the fact that the Tories seemed to have found this amusing and laughed about their own ignoring of the restrictions - while everyone else suffered. This was nothing but Tory privilege and disrespect showing it’s ugly face, once again. There is not much more that can be said about this, and better writers than myself have said all that needs to be said. What I want to consider are the possible outcomes of this behaviour. There are ramifications for the Tory party and there are also (I hope) ramifications for Scottish independence (which I’ll explore later). As David Cameron recently said, Johnson can g...
Read more

Politics - The Labour Party and anti-Semitism

-
Foreword. I am aware that the term ‘anti-Semitic’ is incorrectly used in what follows - but it has become the accepted term for anti-Jewish. The Jews, originally, were a Semitic people - but so are all the Arab peoples of the Middle East. The term anti-Semitic, therefore, applies to the Palestinians just as much as to the Jews, which makes the use of the term, when applied only to Jews, incorrect. But, as said above, it has become accepted that the term anti-Semitic also means anti-Jewish so I have resorted to using it, if somewhat reluctantly. To be clear, all references to anti-Semitic, in this post, should actually be read as anti-Jewish. I currently find myself rather confused over the position of the Labour party and anti-Semitism. For four years, under Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour party was increasingly accused of anti-Semitism - or, at least, failing to even attempt to eradicate anti-Semitism from within it’s ranks. I don’t know if this was true or not as I did not read more than a...
Read more