Another guest post, this time from Andrew McFadyen, who has a PhD in politics. He used to work for the Scottish Labour Party and now earns his living as a journalist.Â
The last week has been depressing. The whistle has barely been blown for the kick-off, but already the debate about Scottish independence is showing all the subtlety of the crowd at an Old Firm match.
Standing behind the goal and waving her fist at the opposition, SNP MSP Joan McAlpine is giving a lesson in intolerance. Her comments in last Thursday’s Holyrood debate that “the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Tories are anti-Scottish†were daft and she should have known better.
What about Labour? Frankly, the constant repetition of negative phrases like “rigged referendum†and “separation†is giving me a headache. With a few honourable exceptions, like Malcolm Chisholm and Patricia Ferguson, the Labour Party is displaying a kind of knee-jerk Unionism that is out of step with mainstream Scottish opinion and its own traditions.
It’s worth recalling that Keir Hardie was a founding Vice-President of the Scottish Home Rule League. Labour politicians campaigned for a Scottish Parliament for over a century.
In the breakthrough election of 1922, Red Clydeside sent ten socialists to the House of Commons. Tom Henderson, the newly elected MP for Glasgow Tradeston, urged his colleagues at the victory rally in St Andrew’s Hall to “go to Edinburgh and take over the old House of Parliament and set up a government in this country.â€
The generation that built the Labour Party in Scotland believed that they could achieve more with a government in Edinburgh, than one in London.
Last May, I was among the shocked Labour activists in the SECC who watched as their work was undone. The cheers from jubilant Nats provided the soundtrack to a dreadful night that got worse as it went on.
All of the candidates in the recent leadership election spoke about the need for change. It is now time for them to show that they meant it.
Strathclyde University’s John Curtice pointed out in a recent article for The Scotsman that according to the Social Attitudes survey, three-fifths to two-thirds of Scots would like Holyrood to take on responsibility for taxes and welfare benefits. He added that, a recent Ipsos-MORI poll reported that as many as 68 per cent would vote in favour of “devo-max†should they be given the opportunity.
This is the ground that the Labour Party should be fighting on. There is no issue of principle that precludes adding a second question on ‘devo-max’ to an independence referendum. It is simply a matter of tactics.
In January 1978, Donald Dewar, George Robertson and Helen Liddell were part of a Scottish delegation to Downing Street urging the then Prime Minister Jim Callaghan to add a second question on independence to the following year’s ill-fated referendum on devolution. The plan was designed both to bolster the vote for devolution and deal with the question of independence for a generation. If Donald Dewar could support a second question then, why can’t Johann Lamont support a second question now?
The Conservatives are adopting an extreme position, as they did in the 1980s and 1990s, trying to polarize the debate and force Scots to make a hard ‘in or out’ choice. My advice is that Scottish Labour should regard the Tories in the same way that a budgie does a ginger tomcat. David Cameron and George Osborne should be kept at a very great distance. The party has much more to gain, and would be truer to its own values, by being the voice of reason.
#1 by Tommy on January 19, 2012 - 4:12 pm
Joan McAlpine didn’t say “the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Tories are anti-Scottish†– she referred to their *behaviour* on this particular issue as anti-Scottish.
A subtle, but very important difference.
#2 by cynicalHighlander on January 19, 2012 - 5:40 pm
Yes her actual quote was.
“The Liberals, the Labour party and the Tories are anti-Scottish in coming together to defy the will of the Scottish people and the democratic mandate that they gave us to hold a referendum at a time of our choosing.”
#3 by Alec on January 19, 2012 - 7:59 pm
That is factually true, but it aint a particularly attractive defense… no, guv’… whoops, sorry ~*switches to cod Viking*~… nae pal, Ah’m naw a pollytickal stammygaster’… sorry, I can’t keep this up…
… I aint a political thug who loathes people simply ‘cos of whichever political party they belong to. I quite like anyone who behaves properly, and it’s up to me to contemptuously decide what this good behaviour entails.
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
~alec
#4 by soosider on January 19, 2012 - 4:22 pm
It is difficult to see what Labour expect from their current position, it feels disjointed. How clear could it be that there is a massive desire for significant constitutional change, yet Labour deny this with there some extra power, sometime, when we think its right approach.
I suspect they are on a cleft stick as they know full well that only Westminster can deliver any change to the devolution settlement and that is not likely to happen at least not in the foreseeable future, partly because Labour in majority could be several elections away but also they would have to carry much of the rest of the UK
They have had eight months and not a lot has changed, new leader very similar actions.
God I had started this comment trying to be positive as I know many people in the party who are genuinely good people, but without radical change I fear that Labour are doomed to a slow lingering death. Remember that it is within living memory that the Tories were the largest party in Scotland, is this the direction for Labour? yes I fear so
#5 by Robert Blake on January 19, 2012 - 4:26 pm
Since the author commits an untruth in the second para, by repeating the misquoting of Joan McAlpine that Scottish Labour have been indulging in.
Given that, I am not sure he is as distanced from our Party as he would should be, if he is giving us the impartial advice of a journalist
The first thing we should do, is stop this nonsense
#6 by Jeff on January 19, 2012 - 4:41 pm
I have to admit, I don’t know if it’s a truncation (wilful or otherwise) or my memory but I don’t recognise that as the quote either.
UPDATE: I think the full quote that probably should have been used is this:
“”I absolutely make no apology for saying that the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Tories are anti-Scottish … in coming together to defy the will of the Scottish people, the democratic mandate the Scottish people gave us to hold a referendum at a time of our choosing.â€
But we won’t have this fine guest post rail-roaded into another topic. The objection has been raised.
#7 by Andrew on January 19, 2012 - 5:12 pm
First, Joan McAlpine’s use of the phrase ‘anti-Scottish’ was incendiary and unhelpful. And the words in quotation marks are accurate. Of course, I could have quoted her at greater length, but frankly it doesn’t change the meaning.
Secondly, and in answer to Robert, this is an opinion piece not a news report. I am addressing the Labour Party as a critical friend. It says at the top of the piece that I used to work for them and readers can make their own judgment about the credibility of my argument.
Of course, if this was a news report for, say, the BBC I would have a responsibility to keep my own opinions out of it. But it is not.
#8 by Jeff on January 19, 2012 - 5:18 pm
Fair enough. I do certainly agree that it was a proper bonkers thing to be saying, full quote or otherwise.
In terms of the crux of your post, I don’t see why Labour isn’t taking, or at least being seen to be trying to take, the SNP up on its offer of using that second question. I didn’t appreciate the history that the Labour party has in leading on these issues and, for me, you’re just missing that one big personality that can truly lead the party by taking it in in directions that are in equal parts uncomfortable but ultimately rewarding.
Scotland is being short-changed in having to choose between two extremes; hopefully there is still time to extend the options available. It seems it is the Lib Dems rather than Labour who are more likely to move on this though.
#9 by James on January 19, 2012 - 6:25 pm
I can’t believe people are still quibbling about what Joan did or didn’t say. Here’s Newsnet, which the cybernat massive ought to trust, providing two other examples.
#10 by Indy on January 21, 2012 - 9:47 am
You know James to be consistent you really ought to change that box on the Better Nation front page that says “We were voted the most Scottish blog of 2011” etc. Implies that other bogs may be less Scottish.
#11 by Alec on January 22, 2012 - 9:58 am
Haha.
#12 by forfar-loon on January 19, 2012 - 5:34 pm
With respect Andrew, quoting Joan McAlpine in full does change the meaning. It’s the difference between implying that she said that the 3 unionist parties are in general anti- Scottish to saying that they are behaving in an anti- Scottish way on this one particular issue. I agree that she should have phrased it differently though.
I enjoyed the rest of your article and was interested to learn of Labour’s approach in the 1970’s. I wonder if Henry McLeish might not be tempted to make a comeback, either inside or outside the Labour party…
#13 by Don McC on January 19, 2012 - 7:30 pm
Is there any difference between calling a party “anti-Scottish” and calling their actions “anti-Scottish”? Is one acceptable and the other not?
After all, Cathy Jamieson accused the tories of having an “anti-Scottish” agenda and, since her statement is still on the official Scottish Labour website, we can assume her assurance is, at the very least, endorsed by the Scottish Labour party:
http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/anti-scottish-tories-cant-be-trusted
But, this is very much a case of making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Labour’s faux outrage is laughable due to the hypocrisy involved.
The Labour party are still a bit lost at the moment and don’t know how to act at the moment. On the one hand, we have Milliband/Balls effectively endorsing tory economic policy and the sight of Milliband standing up at PMQs and saying “We on this side of the house are in 100% agreement [with David Cameron]” on the subject of Scotland’s constitutional future. On the other, we have Lamont basically saying she would rather Cameron decide Scotland’s future than the SNP.
As other’s pointed out, Scottish Labour could have stayed out this battle and kept their powder dry for the real fights. They’ve now left themselves nowhere to go except to get even closer to the tories.
#14 by Andrew on January 20, 2012 - 4:22 am
We will have to agree to disagree on Joan McAlpine.
With regard to Henry McLeish, I can’t see him making a comeback to frontline politics. But I have a lot of sympathy for what he has been saying about devolution.
#15 by Allan on January 19, 2012 - 7:42 pm
Ah, but it is conventional wisdom in the Central belt and the West of Scotland that the Tories are an Anti-Scottish party (Thatch was a self confessed English nationalist). McAlpine was trying to tie the Lib Dems and Labour to the Tories. The best thing Labour could have done to avoid this would have been to take the very good advice you propose in the above post.
#16 by Alec on January 19, 2012 - 8:08 pm
Backing-up Andrew… blogs are not news feeds or academic journals. If readers want some determined associated level of professionalism, they should turn bloggers from the amateurs that they are (in the sense of not getting paid for it) into professionals by offering pecuniary returns.
~alec
#17 by Robert Blake on January 20, 2012 - 7:22 am
With respect, and it is a good thing that you are up front about your affiliations, that is the argument Fox News uses
They say that anything in an opinion piece is a point of view, free speech and does not have to be true.
But as you are a journalist truth is important.
If I am reading you, as I believe I did yesterday on Al-Jazeeea, if I know you are going to selectively quote then how can I trust your word elsewhere?
It is not a matter of opinion WHAT she actually said. You may put your own interpretation on it, but the words he used are the words she used
#18 by Andrew on January 20, 2012 - 10:57 am
Let me take this head-on. In my view, broadcast journalism should aspire to be objective and impartial. We all pay the BBC licence fee and the corporation has a duty to reflect all sides of the argument in a fair way. The same goes for Sky and ITN.
This is what I attempted to do in the article that I wrote for Al Jazeera. Anyone who wishes can read it here:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/01/20121199386700637.html
In contrast, the best newspapers traditionally separate news reporting from opinion. A news story should deal with the who, what, where, when and why questions. In contrast, an opinion piece by its very nature represents a point of view.
The article published in this blog is the equivalent of an opinion piece in a newspaper – it is what I think. In my piece for Al Jazeera I made a conscious effort to keep my own thoughts out of it. That is the difference between straight reporting and opinion.
Next, if I was writing this blog again I would use the longer version of the McAlpine quote because this argument is distracting attention from the substantial point I was trying to make about the Labour Party and its stance on devo-max.
But I genuinely can’t see the nuance in the longer version that makes it more acceptable. There is a strand of opinion in the SNP that thinks you are not a ‘proper Scot’ if you don’t support independence. I may be being unfair to her, but this subtext is what I hear in her comments and I don’t like it.
#19 by Robert Blake on January 20, 2012 - 12:24 pm
Andrew
Thank you for taking the time
You are making my point very well. By truncating the quote you have turned your excellent article into a process story.
And, as all of us are pretending those Cathy Jamieson words don’t exist, and can’t see then when anyone makes reference to them then it hurts the strength of the argument.
You may be write about Joan McAlpine believing “anti-Independence = anti-Scots”. but that is not what she said, and until you can pin her on it it is purely supposition.
I agree with what substance of the actual words, trying to take control of a process that a majority voted for in Scotland is anti-democratic at the very least.
We should be supporting the right of Holyrood to hold the referendum, doing our level best to ensure that the nationalists put their views fairly, we make our case persuasively and that the vote is fair.
Seeming to “gang up” on the SNP is the wrong way to go and I hope the leadership take note of what you say
#20 by Alec on January 20, 2012 - 2:20 pm
That’s funny, Robert. You accuse Andrew of dishonesty based on a tortuously literal interpretation of half a sentence, then casually link him to [tactics of] a news broadcaster seen as a byword for disreputable broadcasting which hasn’t featured in the discussion.
McAlpine – and her defenders – are being too clever for their own good. Lettuce sea, and insist that she only was referring to the policies of every Party other than hers. and not their members.
Yessir, it’s only a badge pin or office-space hired by a Party she has a problem with. Apply the most charitable interpretation to her comments, demand the harshest possible standards of Andrew.
As I said above, pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
It’s not enough for her, you and others to disagree with Andrew and non-SNPers. You have to demolish their positions, you are to discredit them
Journalists can write opinion pieces. Whatever makes you think otherwise?
~alec
#21 by Alec on January 20, 2012 - 2:59 pm
Further to the above, journalists certainly are expected to report the _truth_. It’s chroniclers who are concerned only with _facts_.
~alec
#22 by Robert Blake on January 20, 2012 - 6:09 pm
Alec
Good on you for your vigorous defence of Andrew!
My point on what I had said regarding this statement by Andrew
“Secondly, and in answer to Robert, this is an opinion piece not a news report.”
Is that that is the defence used by Fox, which it is, so I think it is a worrisome distinction to make regarding the facts.
I accept that something can be true without being verifiable, and perhaps Andrew is correctin Ms McAlpine’s true feelings, but there is nothing in that set of words to verify that, but by selection of only a portion of them it is made to seem more clear cut.
Since that assertion is easily thrown into dispute, as it has been here, then that is a silly thing to do.
Which was my point
#23 by Alec on January 21, 2012 - 9:07 pm
Sorry, this is just pathetic. You set the tone of debate when you turned it into what you think of Andrew. No, before you say summat about how McAlpine is entitled to a fair defence, you just have made a non-committal admission that he may or may not be correct about her… so this _is_ your personal feelings towards him.
Thus, your trying to present me as an unctuous defender of Andrew reminds me of those lippy kids in the playground who single-out another kid for special ridicule, and then pour further ridicule on anyone who intervenes; with an added swagger to say that the original kid is a bit naff for needing someone to defend them.
Problem is this is an open blog. If you want to go hammer and tongs at Andrew without fear of interruption, take it to private e-mail.
I said no such thing. I said that truth and facts are not necessarily the same, and that a journalist is concerned with identifying the former, whilst it’s reporters/chroniclers who deal with only the former.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. So what? There is a difference of scale between a minor blog piece – even one by a PhD, who must therefore be super-duper clever – and a major trans-national broadcaster.
Especially one which hadn’t featured in the discussion until brought-up by someone claiming to be the arbiter of debating skills. It almost is as in you’re introducing an endless series of references and comparisons in an attempt to trip-up your opponent (also known as a conscious attempt to mislead)..
And I’m the Queen of Sheba. This is not a criminal trial, or even a internal investigation. It was a throw-away remark about a third party event which already had looked-at and discussed by the commentariat.
There are two possibilities… either you haven’t realized that individual newspaper articles, let alone blog pieces don’t have to be at the level of a thesis viva and that opinion is inescapable in party political pieces; and you shout at the screen when Party political broadcasts come on.
In which case, I would suggest checking-in to a nunnery.
Or, and I personally think this is far more likely, your outrage here is as lame as FDR’s legs. What? Too soon?
~alec
#24 by Robert Blake on January 22, 2012 - 12:12 am
Your analysis is fallacious.
I am trying to leave this aspect of the discussion, the “process story” side of it alone. However.
My comments have no view on Andrew as a person, merely that he erred in this instance. Since part of his stated motive is to advise Labour that the negativity isn’t the best way
” the constant repetition of negative phrases like “rigged referendum†and “separation†is giving me a headache”
Then an easily avoided error like this is, in itself, well worth avoiding.
I am mystified that you feel that Andrew has the freedom to advise on the tactics the Party should adopt, but it is wrong for me to do.
My comments on the vigorousness of your defence of Andrew is no reflection on him, but on you. It was very passionate. Passion is good.
I was pointing out a matter of ethics. I used the most obvious offender to make a point.
However since you and I are not going to agree on this, and since Andrew and I had finished with my observation let’s just leave it there and agree to leave each other of our respective Christmas card lists.
Deal?
#25 by Alec on January 22, 2012 - 1:50 pm
Says whom? You?
You have spent this thread trying to detract attention from an examination of McAlpine’s attitude and any hold it has within the SNP onto a tortuously literal interpretation of half a sentence from Andrew. Even when he acknowledged that his word choice could have been misconstrued and made clear his intended meaning, you carried on doggedly ridiculing his entire piece (and eliding the distinction between truth and facts).
This could have been an apposite objection when McAlpine first bloviated away. Her bloviation, however, has been discussed endlessly, so there aint much more to be added.
I’ve said no such thing. You’re the one who’s been trying to discredit Andrew’s approach in its entirety, up to comparing it to that of the Great Satan, Fox News.
You have been circumspect when saying that McAlpine’s comments may have been inappropriate, but unambiguous when it comes to expressing your view of Andrew’s piece. You’ve spoken in generalities and with platitudes for the position you espouse, and seizing on specifics when taking Andrew to task. That is, making it clear that this primarily _is_ about you and him.
This is one of the scourges of Internet discussion… where individuals are allowed immediate responses no matter how minor which are shown across the Internet, encouraging the attitude their views carry additional weight simply ‘cos they’re being shouted from the modern-day equivalent of a soap-box (yes, yes, I get the paradox in saying this from atop another soap-box).
~alec
#26 by Robert Blake on January 20, 2012 - 6:11 pm
By the way Alec
I’m a Labour man
Just so you know
#27 by Alec on January 21, 2012 - 8:21 pm
So this is a struggle for Labour’s soul, like something out of a James Jones’ novel?
Now, kindly point to where I said you weren’t. Hint, you won’t be able to without undermining any claim you have to be honestly evaluating McAlpine’s remarks, and – by extension – rubbishing Andrew’s evaluation of them.
~alec
#28 by Robert Blake on January 21, 2012 - 11:51 pm
Isn’t Andrew’s article kind of a “struggle for Labour’s soul” as you put it?
You said “It’s not enough for her, you and others to disagree with Andrew and non-SNPers. You have to demolish their positions, you are to discredit them”
There’s an implication there that you think me of the SNP.
It’s what I understood you to mean at any rate
#29 by Alec on January 22, 2012 - 2:01 pm
That was the basis of the James Jones quip.
Then again, above you’ve said that Andrew may be correct about McAlpine [1], so it does look as if it’s down to your personal objections. Your passion would be better spent showing-up any Labour supporters who still are defending Tom Harris.
(For the record, I don’t take any claims he was smearing Salmond as Hitler with a scintilla of seriousness. From rank ‘n file supporters or even low-ranking councilors, I would have seen it as a nothing. The fact that it came from someone in his position showed a lack of seriousness, though.)
~alec
[1] Or may not be, let’s not get ahead of ourselves and make it look as if you accept he has a point.
#30 by Indy on January 19, 2012 - 5:17 pm
I don’t really understand why Labour is taking the position it appears to be taking of opposing even a consultion on Devo Max or Fiscal Autonomy or whatever it is called.
Because they could participate in a debate about that with absolutely no consequences for themselves. The responsibility for this lies pretty much with the SNP. I would have thought Labour could afford to sit back a bit, listen to whatever arguments and suggestions come out of the SG consultation and then decide its position. I can’t see any advantage for them in lining up with the Tories and Lib Dems and considerable disadvantages for them in doing that.
It is a puzzle but we shall just have to wait and see how things pan out. Perhaps they will re-assess their position. That wouldn’t surprise me.
#31 by Nikostratos on January 19, 2012 - 6:11 pm
Joan McAlpine didn’t say “the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Tories are anti-Scottish†– she referred to their *behaviour* on this particular issue as anti-Scottish.
A subtle, but very important difference.
Yep so subtle only a Nationalist can see it let alone believe it.
Its open at any time for Holyrood to request, ask, negotiate for any additional powers there is no need to mix it up with
the snps vote for separation.
#32 by Indy on January 20, 2012 - 8:14 am
You see Nikostratos this is what I was talking about We heard Johann Lamont at FMQs last week saying that since all 4 parties preferred a yes/no vote on independence there was no need to muddy the waters with discussion of anything else Leaving aside the fact that there are more than 4 political parties in Scotland, it’s a mindset that indicates the only views that matter are those of political parties. It’s a very elitist point of view. And that’s what is so odd about Labour’s tack because that’s bound to annoy everyone who is not in a political party but still has a point of view and wants to have their say. There is a body of opinion out there in Civic Scotland which wants to look at the range of constitutional options and Labour is just saying No No No. It doesn’t make any sense to me because you could easily say yes OK we want to hear what you have to say, You don’t have to commit yourself to anything except listening really. But by refusing to do that, by lining up with the Tories and Lib Dems in saying there can be no discussion of this, you are alienating many who have been and possibly still are your natural supporters.
#33 by Alex Buchan on January 19, 2012 - 6:18 pm
All this talk about Labour as if they are just not realising what they could do here is a denial of reality. The Labour Party just as much as the Tories have given every indication that they want to polarise the debate.
I don’t know if it would have been any different if Ken Macintosh had won the leadership race but that’s bye the bye now. Labour politicians are seeing this almost solely in party political terms. They believe that they can do real damage to the SNP by joining the Tories in a polarised campaign and feel certain that they will be the electoral beneficiaries.
But what does this convey to the Scottish public, namely that Scotland is treated as a political football and that the three unionist party’s main allegiance is to Britain, Scotland will always come second. So even if the SNP loses the referendum it will probably along the way gain many recruits either as members or voters.
The real issue for Labour is that they can’t relate to the changed mentality of contemporary Scotland. Devolution has slowly changed Scots’ attitude towards themselves and towards their place in the world. Labour tries to peddle old tunes and might even win the referendum as a result, but it will have proved itself unfit to lead Scotland and a NO vote will not lead to a new equilibrium as the unionist parties assume, but to a profound crisis, leaving far more questions than answers in its trail.
#34 by Doug Daniel on January 19, 2012 - 8:10 pm
“a NO vote will not lead to a new equilibrium as the unionist parties assume, but to a profound crisis, leaving far more questions than answers in its trail.”
Absolutely, and the best case scenario we could hope for would be Scotland ending up becoming independent anyway, with the worst case scenario being the Tories deciding to exact a bit of revenge on us “subsidy junkies” by doing everything in their power to ensure the Scottish Government has to rescind on its policies of free universities and free health care etc.
#35 by Alex Buchan on January 19, 2012 - 8:53 pm
I said a profound crisis, I don’t treat that lightly.
We can argue who would be to blame; the SNP for recklessly pushing a referendum it couldn’t win, Labour and the LibDems for seeking party political advantage, rather than thinking about the interests of Scotland, but whoever we individually choose to blame it would not be a good outcome, but neither would it consolidate Britain, that now seems obvious.
Obvious because the SNP will not be damaged as much by a NO vote as Labour and others think and the atmosphere in Scotland will become more bitter and more acrimonious, while others outside Scotland will expect us to settle down and stop complaining. A total disaster, but one that over time will make the UK less stable as misunderstandings between Scotland and London increase rather than decrease.
The reason that the SNP will not be as damaged as others think is because the SNP’s reputation as the only party prepared to stand up to Westminster will if anything be enhanced and the campaign is already is acting as a recruiting sergeant for a whole new generation of SNP support who are seeing through the propaganda of the UK state. If the referendum had been held, say, in the last parliament this effect would not have been so great but Scotland seems on a trajectory now and a failed referendum won’t stop that it will only make it more twisted.
#36 by Allan on January 19, 2012 - 7:50 pm
Very good piece Andrew.
To answer your question on two question referendums, i suspect that it’s down to the British experience of referendum’s being related to one question and one issue, as opposed to the multi option referendums that occur in other countries. After all, we have only ever had two nation-wide plebicites (to go with the two referendums on devolution).
#37 by Doug Daniel on January 19, 2012 - 8:29 pm
To be honest, it’s a bit rich of you to criticise your (former?) fellow party members for their tiresome mantras of “separation” and “rigged referendum” when you’re doing exactly the same thing as them by half-quoting Joan McAlpine. As you’re a journalist I shouldn’t really have to do this, but here’s an example of how leaving words out can totally change the meaning of a sentence.
I hope you die after me, for I could not bear to live without you.
Now let’s do what people have been doing to Joan.
“I hope you die”
Now, according to you, the words in quotations marks are accurate. But clearly the entire meaning of the first sentence has changed. A bit more extreme than Joan’s perhaps, but it’s the same idea.
If you took just as much offence to the full version of her quote, then fine, quote her in full and we can disagree on the meaning. But to misquote her by cutting her off (and there was no comma, full stop or conjunction at the end of the part you quoted, so she has indeed been chopped off halfway through a sentence) completely ruins your argument. Context is everything. If she had said “Labour aren’t anti-Scottish at all” in a blatantly sarcastic voice, would you be saying “that’s fine, the words she said are all that matter”?
Shame really, because the rest of your article was alright. Although you seem to be in denial that Labour are now a completely different party from the one started by those great Scottish socialists many decades ago.
#38 by Andrew on January 20, 2012 - 4:41 am
A bit more extreme? So much more extreme the example is nonsense.
The key phrase in Joan’s quote is “anti-Scottish”. In this case, the words that follow don’t make it less offensive. Both sides in this debate need to have a hard look at the language they are using.
As for Labour, have you read Jim Sillars in The Case for Optimism? As he points out, the vast majority of Labour members are good people who work hard for their communities. It’s the same party today.
But Labour people are feeling bruised just now and allowing their position on the referendum to be defined by opposition to the SNP. The centreground in Scottish politics is some version of ‘devo-max’.
#39 by Alex Buchan on January 20, 2012 - 11:30 am
I think that’s right and Kenyon Wright and Henry McLeish are flagging up that this referendum in being polarised is not representative. The question is: if there’s only one question can the outcome of that process comand support. The SNP could go into negatiations with calls for a futher referendum on the result, or a NO vote could be greeted with a reaction of “we were robbed of a say on what we really want”. It’s not a very satisfactory situation.
#40 by Doug Daniel on January 20, 2012 - 1:46 pm
Well, you think it’s the key phrase because it’s the one you’ve chosen to focus on. I would say the key phrase was “defy the will of the Scottish people”, because I agree with her that this is what they have done. Although let’s be perfectly honest here, the real key phrase in terms of the stooshie that it triggered was the inclusion of the word “Labour”, because Labour are quite happy to label the Tories anti-Scottish as a party, with no reference to particular actions, and would have had no problem with what she said if she had only said the coalition were behaving in an anti-Scottish manner.
You are probably quite right about the vast majority of ordinary Labour members. However, they are not the ones that lead the party. They are not the ones that turned Labour into a centre-right party in government, and they are not the ones who are determined to keep them there while in opposition. But perhaps if they had a bit of that revolutionary spirit that people like John McLean had, they would do something about the tragic direction the leaders of Labour are taking their party. Look at the unions who have watched Labour turn its back pretty much completely for what it stood for in the first place. Their reaction? Just carry on pumping the money in and occasionally voice their displeasure without actually doing anything.
Perhaps if Labour in Scotland could start being more true to its origins, that would help them forget about defining themselves as anti-whatever-the-SNP-do a bit quicker?
#41 by Indy on January 20, 2012 - 4:46 pm
I don’t want to keep going on about this but the fact is that both SNP AND Labour have talked about the Tories as being anti-Scottish for decades and I don’t recall any Labour people getting upset about it. The Tories did but then they would, wouldn’t they?
But if you want to institute a new rule that no-one can use that phrase then fine. That applies to Labour as much as to the SNP. And let’s also apply it within Scotland.
So we’ll hear no more about the SNP being “anti-Glasgow” shall we?
#42 by Derick fae Yell on January 19, 2012 - 8:54 pm
It seems to me that the Scottish branch of Labour always defines itself by what it is against, rather than what it is FOR.
What is Labour for?
and how has and is this being expressed in policy positions.
genuinely – what is it for?
#43 by Iain Menzies on January 19, 2012 - 9:06 pm
So we are more than half way through January and still no sign of the cybernat tendency to calm down…
On the issue of a third option on the referendum. Well, isnt the mandate that was won by the SNP for an In/out referendum?
And anyway, I cant remember who said it but, well, isnt devolution supposed to be a ‘process and not an event’? You have the Scotland bill coming online, and it seems that the SNP’s main objection to it is that it doesnt go far enough, which is hardly surprising since anything short of independence wouldnt be far enough.
#44 by Observer on January 19, 2012 - 11:23 pm
I think it’s pretty daft to try & defend Joan’s Diane Abbott moment (why do politicians use twitter?). However I find myself increasingly perplexed at Labour’s position particuarly as it is bringing them into conflict with the STUC. I just don’t have a clue where they are coming from here & as far as I can see they are doing everything they can to alienate not just their vote but their activists.
#45 by Barbarian on January 20, 2012 - 12:01 am
It doesn’t matter if a quote is taken out of context, what sticks in the mind are certain words or phrases. “Anti-Scottish” is a powerful phrase that dimishes the true meaning of the quote.
Compare it to Tom Harris’ equally ill-advised attempt at humour. He didn’t actually compare Salmond to Hitler, so that will not have the same impact.
Like it or not, both McAlpine and Harris made mistakes. Anyone who has worked in relationship management will understand that you have to be extremely careful with the use of language, regardless of context. I know from personal experience, when I referred to someone is less than flattering circumstances. I was entirely correct that this person was incompetent in their job, but the use of two words was wrong, destroyed my argument and landed a written warning on my lap.
As to Labour, they are most certainly disjointed. They need to get some focus, but they are hindered by their leadership in Westminster.
But there are still two years to go, and the downturn of the economy may make people more cautious. Promises of an economic utopia will seem less convincing. There is a bit too much of how everything will be wonderful, rather than a bit of honesty. Labour is at their weakest for some time, yet they still polled a considerable number of votes.
It is too early to start writing off either side of the argument.
#46 by Robert Blake on January 20, 2012 - 7:40 am
I think the Party needs to stop confusing Internationialism with all having the same structure and opinion
There is nothing to stop us becoming more federal to deal with the needs of Scotland, the English Regions, Wales etc, but unifying together under an umbrella organisation for common goals
Hopefully what was started with Johann can continue and we can become more responsive to the local situation and have the public believe us again
#47 by Indy on January 20, 2012 - 8:32 am
I find the whole outrage at using the words “anti-Scottish” quite bizarre. Here are some things I have always considered to be anti-Scottish and still do.
1. The poll tax – specifically, introducing it in Scotland first.
2. The UK Government deciding the fishing industry was “expendable” in negotiations on entering the EU.
3. Cathy Jamieson’s comment about the Budget being anti-Scottish. I think she was bang on there.
Why do I think these things were anti-Scottish?
Firstly, they had (have) a detrimental effect on Scotland and the Scottish people.
Secondly, they were done against the wishes of the Scottish people. (Clearly in the case of fishing the UK Government at the time did not publicly declare the fishing industry was expendable – we had to wait 30 years to find that out – but had they done so there can be no doubt Scots would have opposed that).
To my mind the actions of the UK Coalition in pre-empting the Scottish Government referendum consultation with a hastily written one of their own and attempting to dictate the terms on which the referendum will be held satisfies both those criteria.
It is detrimental to Scotland and the Scottish people and it is done against the wishes of the Scottish people.
Those who say that Joan was wrong are therefore, in my view, arguing that the actions of the Coalition and Labour’s support for that, is not only in Scotland’s best interests but is what the Scottish people want to see. I have never seen any argument being made along those lines though. Perhaps Andrew could oblige?
Why is it in Scotland’s interests that Westminster dictates the terms of the referendum rather than the Scottish Parliament? And what evidence do you have that this is what the Scottish people want to happen?
#48 by Andrew on January 20, 2012 - 11:09 am
Indy – the substantial point of this article is that I think Labour is getting it wrong on the referendum. My reading of the opinion polls is that most Scots want a stronger Scottish Parliament with greater responsibility for taxation and social security. If the option was on the ballot paper in the referendum it would very probably win.
#49 by Alec on January 20, 2012 - 2:40 pm
It’s common practice for schemes – be it taxation or provision of public services – to be implemented in one area first. Scotland was a distinct administrative entity within the UK making staggered implementing conceivable, just as the disparity in size making it manageable.
Implementation elsewhere came so soon on the heels – less than one calendar year – to make it, for all intents, the same event.
Are you seriously suggesting that if Tyneside or Mersey could have received it before the rest of England, the Government wouldn’t have tried?
Given the manufactured objections to Andrew’s piece, I’d like to see the precise quotation. Not to mention to hear how you think the Grimsby, Cornish and other fishing fleets are Scottish.
~alec
#50 by Allan on January 21, 2012 - 1:36 am
Not that I wish to defend Thatch, but she & Forsyth do claim that there was demand up here for the introduction of the “Community Charge” from councillors.
Can I also point out that in the league table of “Anti-Scottish” acts (using your criteria above) the wholesale destruction of Scottish heavy industry & manufacturing would trump “The Poll tax” every time – yet not very many people think of this when discussing Thatch and how Anti-Scottish the Tories are.
#51 by Duncan on January 20, 2012 - 9:03 am
I think this is a good piece and the sort of common sense argument that I have been waiting for from the Labour Party.
I simply do not understand why their official response is to put knee-jerk opposition to the SNP ahead of what is a sensible and (they tell us) popular position on continuing devolution. They have been completely conned by the Tories on this, I think.
The SNP has a clear position – we want independence. But we recognise that there is a large and legitimate body of opinion that doesn’t. Some of that body wants more devolution. Fine. Bring forward that position and put it on the ballot paper, and let’s consult the electorate. Political parties that play small, tactical games in order to inflict defeat on the opposition more than they engage in big strategic arguments to deliver on what they themselves believe reveal their fundamental weakness and are unlikely to be rewarded at the polls.
And as an SNP member, I was deeply embarrasssed by Joan McAlpine’s outburst.
#52 by Indy on January 20, 2012 - 10:33 am
Why?
Let’s take things a bit further. We have heard Jim Wallace and various others kind of hinting that they might be prepared to go to court to stop the Scottish Parliament holding a referendum.
Now in my opinion that is mere political skirmishing but let’s imagine they did do that.
Would that qualify as “anti-Scottish” in that it would be a clearly politically motivated attempt to defy the will of the Scottish people and the democratic mandate that they gave the SNP to hold a referendum – or would everyone bend over backwards to say that it was a perfectly reasonable thing to do and in no way anti-Scottish, just in case saying that opened the door to accusations of McCarthyism, racism or whatever?
Or if you would see a legal attempt to derail the referendum as being something which could be legitimately described as anti-Scottish, why is a political attempt to derail the referendum not so?
#53 by GMcM on January 20, 2012 - 5:04 pm
Let me just extend your analogy of derailing of the referendum Indy (while also changing it to make sense in light of what is actually happening here):
Derailing the referendum would mean it would move nowhere. To suggest this means that you believe that the attempts of the opposition parties is in fact to stop the referendum altogether. Not so.
Now I don’t normally agree with the Tories or LDs but what they are trying to do is NOT derail the referendum but to make sure it arrives earlier and in a safer manner. If anything you could say the attempts to pass the legal ability to Holyrood as an upgrade to HS2.
No-one is trying to stop the referendum and no-one is trying to deprive the Scottish people the chance to vote on their future with regards to being inside or outside the UK.
All that is happening here is the govt in Westminster and the govt in Holyrood have a difference of opinion on the delivery of the service (referendum) and the best way to get a true measure of the public’s view on independence. Think of it as Shinkansen Bullet train sytem vs Linimo Maglev line.
The introduction of devo-max is like adding an extra 10 carriages onto the train and making the estimated arrival time (public opinion) harder to discern as the eaxtra carriages are dragging the train back a bit.
If you disagree: I insist you reply in locomotive terminology!! 😀
#54 by Indy on January 21, 2012 - 7:23 pm
Maybe derail was the wrong word. What I think happened was an attempt to take control. An attempt which has failed.
What gobsmacked me was that Labour went along with it. Because there is absolutely no possible justification for the UK Government attempting to impose conditions on a Scottish Parliament Bill. They have no right to tell the Scottish Government when they must legislate. They have no right to tell the Scottish Government what questions will be on the ballot paper. They have no right to issue a consultation paper on another parliament’s legislation. It would be the equivalent of the Scottish Government issuing a consultation paper on high speed rail in England or the voting system for the London Mayoral elections.
The excuses given for their actions are feeble. Firstly we were told that it was important to have the referendum because the uncertainty was destabilising the economy. That is factually not true – see the Channel 4 fact-check article on that. Then we were told that it was necessary for the UK Government to dictate the terms of the referendum because they had to ensure that it was legal. That again is untrue. If the UK Government wanted to ensure that there could be no possible legal challenge to the referendum they could have passed a Section 30 order without attaching any conditions. However, what they did was to set out their conditions and effectively say unless you agree to these, the referendum will not happen as we shall decree that it is not legal. A crude and bullying attempt to take control which has, as I said, failed.
Whichever way you look at it Labour made a big mistake iining up with the Tories and Lib Dems on this one. There is a very interesting article in the Scotsman today by Colin Kidd which looks at these issues. In it he says:” Indeed, Cameron is making a major-category error if he thinks that his aggressive jockeying with Salmond will win the approval of unionists in Scotland. Scottish unionists obviously do not carry as much “nationalist†baggage as their more ostensibly nationalist opponents in the SNP, but they do not like to see Scotland – or even Alex Salmond – bullied. Nationalism is a neglected – but crucial – ingredient in Scottish unionism. The irony of the current situation is that Cameron’s manoeuvring seems as likely to provoke Scottish unionist voters into venting their nationalism as nationalists. ”
That is bang on and it touches on something that I think is important and underlines what a major category-error Labour have also made – that it is not only nationalists with a big N who subscribe to the belief in popular sovereignty, it is also nationalists with a small n – many of whom are not natural SNP supporters, many of whom probably still identify with Labour.
#55 by Aidan on January 21, 2012 - 9:57 pm
I’m not a lawyer, but as I understand it the sovereignty of the Scottish People is vested at Westminster and then devolved to Holyrood. On reserved matters Westminster absolutely has a right to intervene.
#56 by Indy on January 22, 2012 - 6:55 am
It’s nothing to do with legality. It is to do with what most Scottish people belive. Most Scots are not – thank God – lawyers! They do not view the world in that way.
Commentators who view this as a legal matter are primariy lawyers – and they are putting the cart before the horse. That is another major-category error. This debate is not about process.
#57 by Aidan on January 22, 2012 - 12:05 pm
Governments are surely bound by the rule of law?
#58 by Alec on January 22, 2012 - 2:13 pm
Such comments really do need to be brought-up whenever the primacy of international law – or young brother human rights – is claimed.
Indy, unless you are going to call for 100% compliance with the 2011 Manifesto, your insistence on full SNP oversight over a referendum is purely your own ideology.
~alec
#59 by Indy on January 22, 2012 - 10:06 am
Looking again at wat you have said I guess legally Westminster does have that power. Technically Westminster could abolish the Scottish Parliament tomorrow if t decided to. It would spark off a massive political and constitutional crisis if it did but technically it could do that
But what we are really talking about here is the relationship between the electorate, the people they elect, and the power which elected bodies have and what they do with that power.
You could make a legalistic argument that Westminster has the power to interfere and either dictate the terms of a referendum or prevent a referendum happening.
But they do not have a mandate for that. That is not susceptible to argument surely.
On the other hand the Scottish Parliament does have a mandate to hold a referendum on independence. And the Scottish Government believes that it has the power to do that.
When the Scottish Government was first eleceted all the anti-independence Scottish opposition parties accepted that They have all now recanted – whether because they claim to have legal advice (that they will not publish) that the Scottish Parliament cannot authorise a referendum, whether because they claim (without a single shread of evidence) that it is causing economic problems etc or whether because they want to restrict the consultation to disallow those who support full fiscal autonomy for Scotland, while retaining some kind of formal status within the UK, to make that case.
Added to this we have all kinds of suggestions being made that the SNP are extremists, that the civil service in Scotland has “gone native” and can’t really be trusted any more, and suggestions that – somehow – although the Scottish electrate decided collectively to give the Scottish Government a mandate to hold a referendum they didn’t really mean it, they were probably voting SNP for other reasons, like the council tax freeze etc, and there is np great public clamour for a referendum. Not to mention unelected Labour peers in the House of Lords trying to add amendments so that everyone born in Scotland, irrespective of where they live now or where they have lived for the majority of their lives, can get a vote in the referendum.
These arguments are clearly very weak, which is why we are seeing them being rolled back as we speak.
I would like to think this has been a kind of phoney war,, an initial attempt at wrecking, but we are not going to get this nonsense continuing for the next 2.5 years.
#60 by John Ruddy on January 21, 2012 - 2:50 pm
I think it is absurd to equate “the will of the Scottish people” with “the will of the SNP”. Lets be quite clear, the SNP won the election in May – however, their views are not “the will of the Scottish people” under any circumstances. They got 44% of the vote. Not even a majority of those who voted, voted for the SNP.
What would be against “the will of the Scottish people” would be if a referendum clearly asked for independence, that Scottish politicians wanted to defy that. Which I am sure you would agree with me on. However, would it also be “anti-Scottish” to defy the will of the Scottish people if they also clearly vote “No” in such a referendum?
#61 by Indy on January 21, 2012 - 7:29 pm
I am sorry that is nonsense. Any goverment is elected as a consequence of the will of the people. That is the whole purpose of elections. This argument that Labour is developing that the SNP is somehow not a legitimate government because there wasn’t 100 per cent turnout etc and we did not get every single person to sign a declaration that they wanted a referendum which included an option on devo max in their own blood is quite preposterous. I remind you that the SNP, when in opposition, never ever questioned that Labour and the Lib Dems had a mandate to be in government. We certainly opposed some of their legislation but we never questioned that they had a right to bring forward legislation because they did not have a majority.
#62 by Aidan on January 21, 2012 - 10:05 pm
Nobody is questioning the SNPs right to govern. What is being challanged is the equivalence being drawn by the SNP between their policies and “the voice of the Scottish People”.
#63 by Indy on January 22, 2012 - 6:57 am
Yes you are. You just said a moment ago that in your view Westminster has a right to intervene with Scottish Parliament legslation.
#64 by Manny on January 20, 2012 - 10:35 am
After the 2007 election, it seemed to be accepted by Labour that the negative campaigning didn’t work. However, that didn’t stop them taking the same approach throughout the parliamentary term with the negative, shouty, angry, “add an alliteration soundbite at the end” performance week in, week out at FMQ’s.
Then after saying they realised that the negative campaign had failed in 2007, they went and did exactly the same thing in 2011.
After that it was time for a new leader, this time a leader of Scottish Labour, not just a team leader in Holyrood. Negativity was out, a positive case for the union was in. They said they’d learned from the mistakes of the past and it was time for change…
Then what? Then they went into overdrive with the negativity on the anti-independence campaign – the positive, pro-union campaign having failed to materialise.
Johann Lamont, despite being the new leader of Scottish Labour, not beholden to British Labour, then took the same stance as Ed Milliband on the referendum by saying she was right behind the Tories.
Then FMQ’s yesterday saw more of the negative, shouty, angry, “add a soundbite at the end” template that had failed so spectacularly for her predecessor.
They say they know the way they’ve been doing things isn’t working, they say they see the need for change, they say they will change but in the end, it seems the leopard just can’t change it’s spots.
#65 by JPJ2 on January 20, 2012 - 10:40 am
Andrew writes”Labour politicians campaigned for a Scottish Parliament for over a century.”
And that is the problem, why was it not achieved much earlier?-that exemplifies the ineffectiveness of Labour in fulfilling the needs of Scotland even though it was in government for many of those 100 years. One simply cannot trust the Labour Party to get the job done for Scotland.
One of the (many) comments of mine which Tom Harris refused to publish at “Labour Hame” was when I pointed the above out, and said that there was therefore clear evidence that any powers that Labour brought to Scotland were fueled by SNP petrol-I believe the truth of that is there for all to see.
#66 by cynicalHighlander on January 21, 2012 - 12:10 pm
Type your comment here
That is where Andrew is wrong as it was a Labour MP who proposed the 40% rule in 1979 under a Labour government.
Scottish devolution referendum, 1979
#67 by Robert Knight on January 21, 2012 - 3:32 pm
“exemplifies the ineffectiveness of Labour in fulfilling the needs of Scotland”
Exactly. Sums up everything you need to know about Labour in Scotland.
#68 by R.G. Bargie on January 20, 2012 - 8:59 pm
Let’s see if we can clear this up.
Has anyone here ever been drunk?
If so, have you ever done anything stupid?
If so, does that demonstrate that you’re capable of stupid behaviour?
And if it does, does that also prove that you’re stupid in general?
There, that was simple. Can we all grow up now?
#69 by Garry Byrne on January 21, 2012 - 1:47 pm
As long as Labour continues to ignore the opinions of what would appear to be a majority of the Scottish electorate, then they are causing themselves more damage. Surely they should learn from their election defeat and have a more positive campaign. Will they ever learn that negativity will not resonate with Scottish voters? Their newly elected Scottish leader is also, in my opinion, not up to the job. She appears to lack a sense of positivity and indeed played a key role in Labour’s defeat in the last election. Labour, as they stand today prove no threat to the SNP and unless they quickly reposition themselves and start ‘listening’ then they are doomed.
#70 by John Ruddy on January 21, 2012 - 2:47 pm
When this subject came up here last year, and I pointed out that the same thing had happened to fishing fleets across the UK, it wasn’t appreciated by those who seem to think that only Scotland has ever been damaged by policies of the UK Government. But that doesnt fit their world view, so they will dismiss it.
I think its really true to say that politicians (of all parties) have never really got fishing.
#71 by cynicalHighlander on January 21, 2012 - 4:29 pm
#72 by cynicalHighlander on January 21, 2012 - 4:33 pm
I don’t know what went wrong there!
#73 by ianbeag on January 22, 2012 - 12:16 am
This is what went wrong there.
I, together with four other SNP Parliamentary candidates spent four days in the European Parliament in 1978 and met with various officials including the Commissionaire for Fishing who confirmed that whilst re-negotiating the terms of UK membership of the EEC (a key promise by Harold Wilson in the election of October 1974) fishing was not put forward as an item on the UK’s agenda for discussion. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that our fishing industry went into severe decline because the spoils were divided up amongst the other members and the decline has continued ever since.
That’s what happened to our fishing industry and that’s also why Norway stayed out of the club.
#74 by James Macdonald on January 21, 2012 - 3:40 pm
Labour will never self-willingly support devomax to Scotland. It’s against their electoral interest.
#75 by Indy on January 22, 2012 - 7:03 am
Actualy it would be in their electoral interests to support it. Yiou could even argue that Labour has to show willing to support some form of change and progess it in order to stay relevant in Scotland and stay in the game in electoral terms. But, for whatever reason, they do not see it as being in their political interests to respond in a positive way to what the electorate wants.
#76 by Robert Knight on January 21, 2012 - 4:47 pm
Despite its decline the Scottish fishing fleet still lands twice the quantity of fish as English vessels do. The top 3 fishing ports in the UK (Peterhead, Shetland, Fraserburgh) are all in Scotland. Being that Scotland is a much smaller nation than England fishing plays a much more important role in Scotland’s economy than it does in England.
I agree with your point that it’s not just Scotland that is damaged by terrible decisions at Westminster, but at least Scotland can do something about it. Also, hardly a great advert for the Union.
#77 by Indy on January 22, 2012 - 7:07 am
And the underlying point is that for decades people like Winnie Ewiing and Allan Macartneywho were in the middle of the EU were saying that the UK Government had sacrificed the fishing industry in order to get concessions in other areas. That the UK Government could not be trusted to stand up for the fishing industry. And they were lambasted as narrow nationalists etc – when we now know, thanks to the 30 year rule, that they were factually correct.
#78 by Alec on January 24, 2012 - 11:53 am
That’s not what you said. You said it was a specifically anti-Scottish thing.
~alec
#79 by Galen10 on January 22, 2012 - 10:20 am
It would be nice to think that Scottish Labour will have a sudden attack of “reasonableness”…. but given what we’ve had to put up with from years of the nauseating New Labour project, and its lite version currently so keen to cuddle up with the Coalition, I doubt many of us will be hanging by the thumbs!
All the Unionists, whether in Westminster or Holyrood, have been playing into the hands of the SNP. Independence is more likely now after Cameron’s ill-advised intervention, and gains more support every time some Unionist has been opens their mouth to opine that it would be illegal/economically disastrous/dashed un-British.
If the Scottish Labour party had any credibility, any nous at all, it would be putting itself firmly at the centre of the movement to ensure that devo-max is properly defined and included as an option in the referendum. That after all is the overwhelming desire of the Scottish people. Instead, the Labour party in Scotland appear content to begin work on their own version of the longest suicide note in history. They may refuse to share a platform with the Tories and LibDems, but they are arguing essentially for the same thing; the Scottish people aren’t likely to forget it.
The much vaunted contribution of the Labour party to devolution through the ages is a chimera; it isn’t something they can or should be proud of… the scant results and long time period involved are an indictment, not a recommendation. The current level of devolution had to be dragged kicking and screaming out of them, and was specifically gerry mandered as “Lord” Robertson said to stop independence ever happening.
The supine, politically inept stance of Scottish Labour and their new found toxic Tory and LibDem friends, is actually making independence more, not less likely. The SNP may indeed fail to win a straight yes/no referendum, but unless somebody steps up to the plate in the next 2 years to make a positive case for devo-max, more and more people will look at the opposing options of the status quo vs independence and decide the latter is preferable.