I GATHER, from our SNP Westminster leader, that “the two major parties are imploding”. He refers to the seven (now eight) MPs who have left the Labour Party because its leader seems to accept the decision of the 2016 referendum to leave the EU.
Mark you those eight MPs were elected, in 2017, on a manifesto which accepted that referendum decision.
The latest implosion is in the Tory Party, where three Remainers object to PM May actually working to leave the EU, which she and the rest of the Tories in Westminster (including the three imploders) were elected on a 2017 manifesto to do.
The Liberals are not imploding. They remain totally committed to trying to remain in the EU, following the EU’s normal pattern of refusing to accept a referendum decision which it does not like.
According to a framed plaque I was given, I’m an honorary life member of the SNP. It was awarded by an NEC which chose to ignore the fact that the party constitution and rules does not allow for the existence of any such membership, so I remain a paid-up member.
My party is not imploding. It continues to remain committed to continued membership of the EU, while pretending that is compatible with its fundamental aim of restoring the sovereignty of the Scottish people. It has abandoned its belief in the sovereignty of the people by accepting, even insisting on, the sovereignty of parliament, ignoring the effect that could have on the outcome of indyref2.
It has accepted the argument that membership of the EU is more in the interests of the Scottish people than independence, by accepting the false idea that independence and EU membership are in any way compatible. It does this either by accepting the “jobs” case, which it explicitly denied in the 2014 referendum, by the proposition that “there is no such thing as an independent in this century”, or by the false assertion “aren’t France and Germany independent?”, as if those countries’ legislation is not subject to the European Court of Justice.
The SNP has remained committed to the conference decision in 1988 of “Independence in Europe” invented by Messrs Sillars and Neil who have both reversed from it. The EuroUnionist faction (members who honestly believe in the European Project as the most important political change of the last two centuries) have held the SNP to their position, by blocking any debate on the question for 30 years.
30 years ago the party’s former Senior Vice-President, Jim Fairlie, resigned after the 1988 conference decision was made since, he said then, “the party has abandoned independence”. Now I am being told that I should resign since I disagree with the party’s position on the constitutional implications of EU membership. I refuse to do so, being absolutely clear that the aim of the party, in its constitution, stands – “the restoration of the sovereignty of the Scottish people”. If that constitution was amended, by a motion in conference to add “which should then be followed by application to join the European Union” then I not only could, but would resign. That amendment to the SNP’s constitution will never be moved because the EuroUnionist faction do not believe it would carry and they fear the results of its failure.
The last few years have hardened my view of the meaning of the European Project, whose believers do not accept the right of nations’ peoples to self-determination, whose commission has never approved of referenda, nor accepted any result which they did not approve and who only negotiate on their terms, where “no deal” means the other side has to accept the “best”deal they are willing to offer. An honourable project, pursued by dishonourable and lying means, presumably on the basis that its end will justify them.
Gerry Fisher
Oban
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel