One of the most important truths about life, which has been passed down from father to son and from mother to daughter over the centuries, is that you always know you've succeeded in getting right under Stew's skin when he starts calling you a "mouth-breathing imbecile" or an "Olympic-class moron". Yup, you've guessed it, he's written yet another novel-length rant about me on Wings today, and as per usual he hasn't mentioned me by name so he can later do his innocent spiel of "look, search for his name on my site, you'll see I barely even mention the guy!" So I've had to make do with the thrillingly exotic insults instead.
While I've been gathering my thoughts to write this brief reply, it's occurred to me that the frame of mind I've had to get into to do it is very similar to the one I would normally adopt if I was rebutting an argument from hard-core British nationalists about how Scottish independence is a perfectly preposterous idea. But you know what? It's not just "very similar", it's actually one and the same thing. Look at how Stew's propaganda since the election has totally converged with the hardline British Nationalist Sam Taylor of "These Islands" fame. Both men have been arguing that the record-breaking mandate for pro-independence parties last week was in fact not a mandate at all, and was instead somehow a ringing endorsement of Our Pweshus Union. Both men have argued that the synthetic controversy over Q Manivannan's visa status is somehow proof that Scotland is not capable of governing itself. Both men have stated that Scottish voters are simply not up to scratch and that it's not only necessary, but also a matter of tremendous comfort, that the British state has retained for itself the powers to overrule the democratic decisions made by the substandard Jocks.
These arguments are not 'adjacent to unionist arguments'. They are unionist arguments, plain and simple. They are coming out of Stew's mouth because he is now a unionist. I no longer have any intention of indulging the people who fatuously excuse him by saying "och of course he's still a Yesser, he's just going through a grumpy fascist spell". This is the guy who told you to either vote for anti-independence parties or abstain at the 2021 Holyrood election. He told you to vote for anti-independence parties at the 2024 UK general election. He told you to vote for anti-independence parties at the Holyrood election last week. He has said he would abstain if he had a vote in another independence referendum, and he has said *today* that he is opposed to another referendum taking place. It has now reached the point that if a tweet calls Stew a "pro-independence blogger", we should community note it. If a newspaper calls him a "pro-independence blogger", we should complain to IPSO under the "accuracy" clause of the Editors' Code. And if the BBC or STV call him a "pro-independence blogger", we should complain to Ofcom. The evidence is there, let's stop ignoring it, or giving others a pass when they pretend not to see it.
What's got Stew's goat this time is my statement that the Scottish Government must now act on the clear mandate that they and the Greens have just won, and move forward to using the next Westminster election as a de facto independence referendum if a Section 30 order is yet again refused. Stew's Brit Nat argument that the refusal of a Section 30 will be the upholding rather than the defying of democracy is very easily dealt with, because in a parliamentary democracy it's the number of seats in parliament that determines whether a mandate is there or not, and the SNP and Greens between them have 57% of the seats. If parliamentary democracy didn't work that way, we wouldn't talk about Labour's mandate to govern at Westminster, we would instead talk about how they had been overwhelmingly rejected by the British people by a 2-1 margin. Only 34% of the electorate voted Labour in the general election two years ago (that's four percentage points lower than the SNP on their own managed in Scotland last week), and 66% voted for other parties.
Stew pretends to only be opposed to using a Westminster election as a de facto referendum because he is "concerned" that we would lose it, whereas in fact he is terrified that we would win it and unleash a self-governing "Woke Scotland" in which his beloved Reform fascists will struggle to get elected. However, just for the hell of it, let's deal with his bogus "reasoning" for believing that using a Westminster election would be tactically foolish.
"The media coverage will treat Scotland as an afterthought because it's only 8% of the country"
What he's saying here is that the media will be preoccupied with the UK-wide election narrative - but what will that show? It might well show that Nigel Farage is days away from power, and I can hardly think of a better way of concentrating minds on a "vote for independence as your last chance to avoid Farage rule" message.
"and you'll lose the heavily indy-favouring 16/17-year-olds and EU citizens"
Labour are committed to introducing votes at 16 for the next general election. It remains to be seen whether they will keep that promise, but the fact that Stew doesn't even seem to be aware of it speaks volumes. It would obviously be preferable to have an electorate that incorporates EU citizens, but even at the time of the 2022 census they made up only around 4% of the Scottish population (it'll probably be lower now), so the difference that will make shouldn't be exaggerated.
"Using a UK election also prevents voters from separating the issues of the plebiscite and normal politics (because they only have one vote), whereas in a Holyrood vote you can say that the constituency vote is for independence and the list vote is for the actual election."
I'm sorry but that's gibberish. Probably the most powerful argument in favour of using a Westminster rather than a Holyrood election is that there is only one vote and there is no danger of getting an inconclusive outcome due to the constituency and list results contradicting each other. Using a Westminster election also prevents "normal politics" from muddying the waters earlier in the campaign, because the SNP will not be standing for re-election as the devolved government of Scotland and will not have to focus on setting out their stall for a new term in office.
"But secondly, you really do have to be an Olympic-class moron to imagine that the SNP are likely to be MORE popular in 2029 than they are now. They've been in power for 19 years already..."
That ignores the fact that the SNP's best ever election performance occurred in 2015 after eight years in power, and after they had been showing clear signs of losing popularity with the public (the 2014 European elections and the Cowdenbeath by-election, for example). As soon as voters became focused on independence rather than on "normal politics", the SNP suddenly found they had an almost 50% vote share at a Westminster election.
In any case, if a de facto referendum is done properly, it won't be the SNP trying to win on their own - ideally there would be an agreed slate of pro-indy candidates, or failing that it would at least be made clear that a vote for any pro-indy party would count towards the majority.
Excitingly, the fraudulent "47% graph" has survived into the Fascist Era at Wings, but I've already debunked that umpteen times.
"There is NO chance, not a ghost of a crumb of an atom of a hope, that the SNP can secure 50% of the Scottish vote in the 2029 UK election."
You know, that comment would really worry me if it wasn't coming from the same guy who told us that there was "zero chance, barring a nuclear war or an alien invasion" of the SNP and Greens winning a majority between them last week, or by the same guy who said "I'm calling it now, Humza has lost" in the middle of the 2023 SNP leadership election, or by the same guy who said "betting on Angus Robertson to win Edinburgh Central is FREE MONEY". As it is, the excitement and anticipation is now coursing through my veins.
This is really happening, guys. It seems to be nature's way of telling us that victory at the 2029 de facto referendum is nigh-on certain.
* * *