Jenny Hjul: Treat her with the ridicule she deserves

Jenny Hjul is seemingly a columnist for the Sunday Times, one which I admit I was not aware of until I read someone mention her elsewhere and I decided to do so googling.  Having read through some of her opinion pieces I think I can fairly confidently confirm that she is misguided at best or deliberately misguiding at worst … bearing this in mind I’ve decided to take her latest Sunday Times offering to pieces … this is also what happens when papers fail to publish my entirely rational ripostes.  You can find the original here.

The timing could not have been worse. The Scottish nationalists launched plans to hold an independence referendum that nobody wants the day after being isolated by most of the parliament over the Lockerbie bomber.

It just starts wrong, “… an independence referendum that nobody wants …”, really?  Most polls have shown support for a referendum amongst the populace to be anywhere between 60% – 80%!

This stark reminder that they are a minority government, completely dependent on the votes of the other parties, should have had a sobering effect. A rational party leader might have concluded (on reading headlines such as “SNP has ruined Scotland’s reputation”) that the dream was unattainable in the current climate and persuaded his minions that abandoning it, though disappointing, was in their best interests.

I can accept this to a point, but it seems largely based on a an unfounded or at least one sided media frenzy based on  the notion that Scotland’s reputation can only be based on the rantings of a minority of Americans.  Indeed, in a period of American politics dominated by Obama’s health-care bill it seems that the fate of Megrahi doesn’t really rank as a priority.

Meanwhile in the rest of the world and most importantly to me, amongst those with whom relations really are dire, this was seen as a courageous and righteous decision in the face of unrelenting and unwarranted pressure from the Americans.

But the referendum is all Alex Salmond has left out of his big manifesto pledges; he has long been intent on introducing the bill in this session, and to exclude it from his new legislative programme would have amounted to a loss of face. Losing face is not an option for a politician whose career is built on hubris.

What the author fails to consider here is that the SNP is not like the other mainstream parties, they have a single aim and it’s not to be in power (although that’s got to help), the SNP exists to deliver independence and a failure to attempt to deliver a bill on the referendum would be a failure to pursue the parties main aim.  If this is hubris, I dread to think how Ms Hjul makes of the other party leaders.

So while the country battles through the recession, and while it struggles to rehabilitate itself on the international stage in the wake of the Megrahi affair, its ruling elite will not be focused on rebuilding prosperity or on restoring credibility. It will be diverted by a vanity project.

There is no widespread clamour for a referendum in Scotland, just as there is no clamour for breaking up the United Kingdom. Even the nationalists must know this. An SNP victory in the last Scottish elections has not been accompanied by a burgeoning of nationalist fervour. Quite the reverse, in fact. Support for independence has not risen above 33% since 2007 and has crumpled to just 28% in the past fortnight. But the nationalists are not about to let a little thing like public disapproval inhibit their ambition.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!  It is now a key plank of unionist propoganda that you cannot do A + B at the same time, we can’t deal with knife crime / alcohol abuse / education / health care / or any number of other issues andindependence at the same time.  That if you don’t deal with the problems before a referendum or before independence then you won’t be able to deal with them at the same time as you are persuing the independence referendum or indeed indepdence itself.

As Nicola Sturgeon — the normally sensible (for a Scottish nationalist) deputy leader — said herself, the opponents of independence might be in the majority but the SNP remains optimistic that its referendum bill would be passed. This disdain for popular (or unpopular, if you are a Scottish nationalist) opinion typifies SNP attitudes and is exactly why the unionist parties must stop the referendum nonsense in its tracks.

What can I say.  Popular opinion wants a referendum,  support for indepdence has been fluctuating between 30% – 40%, although it fluctuates so wildly from poll-to-poll that any real feel for where it is is largely impossible.  The only real way to test opinion in this matter is with a plebiscite.

There is growing pressure on the right, spearheaded by the former Scottish secretary Lord Forsyth, for a snap independence poll.

If Gordon Brown won’t allow a referendum on Scottish independence when he calls a general election, then David Cameron, once in No 10, should test the strength of the union in a plebiscite, or so the argument goes. The justification is that the separatists would be so convincingly defeated that they would slope off into the sunset and never dare raise the subject again, or not for a generation anyway. This is dangerous territory into which the Scottish Tories in Holyrood must not stray. Give Salmond an inch and he will manipulate it into a mile.

I sincerely doubt that those supporting independence would be soundly defeated, certainly not once the real debate was being had, and if the unionists continue with their attacks on the idea of Independence rather than putting together a credible defence of the union and manifesto for it’s future then those who are borderline unionists or are simply undecided may well swing to the sound of a positive independence campaign, indeed there’s plenty to be positive about … especially when we see further cuts and privatisation of public services under either a Conservative government or a worringly right-wing Labour party.

Already the language of the nationalists has taken on the idiom of freedom fighters. Those who oppose a vote are creating “roadblocks to democracy”, they are depriving the people of their voice. These are strange things to say in a country that has plenty of elections — too many perhaps — to reflect the electorate’s views, including its views on independence. There is no evidence of what the SNP believes is a democratic deficit.

Perhaps there aretoo many elections. or perhaps those elections are simply inadequate at properly representing the people’s views, or perhaps the parties themselves are at fault, particularly when you look at the two main Westminster parties, their political ideals being virtually indistinguishable.  There have been many protestations and calls for referendum on a range of issues, most notably in recent times these being on the EU Constitution (or Reform Treaty as Brussels would like to call it) and on the issue of independence.  As has been shown with the former in Ireland, even when such plebiscites are allowed for, ‘incorrect outcomes are not.

A referendum would provide not the people but Salmond with a fresh platform, for his propaganda and endless scope to say he is “speaking for Scotland”. Even though he will be speaking only for his party and its narrow agenda, his rhetoric has a way of hogging the limelight.

More Scots voted for the SNP than any other party, if anybody can claim the right to ’speak for the people’ then it’s them.  The agenda of independence is the most radical and progressive political view currently in the mainstream in this country and Scottish Nationalist movement has become possibly the most inclusive and progressive movement in politics in living memory.

He has said he wants a three-way ballot, which includes the option for more powers for the devolved parliament. Those unionists in favour of the Calman Commission’s proposals for an extended form of devolution must not be duped into supporting a Salmond poll, which will almost certainly be rigged to suit its progenitor’s purposes.

Britain rarely resorts to referendums.

The only way a referendum will happen under current circumstances is if it is rigged, for the only way it will be passed is if the unionist parties agree to it and they would beyond a shadow of a doubt wish to see a question that was absolutely loaded against Independence. 

What is required is a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ ballot with a simple question along the lines of “Do you wish Scotland to become an independent nation?”.  Simple and unambiguous.  It would then be for the elected Scottish MP’s and MSP’s to collectively negotiate a deal to see this happen.

The spectacle of Scotland in the throes of constitutional navel-gazing will do nothing to improve this small nation’s standing or attract foreign investors looking for stability. Furthermore, confusion surrounds the legality of a Scotland-only vote. Constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster and a decision taken here may not be binding.

There is no confusion surrounding a Scotland only vote, the responsibility for it may lie with Westminster although they would ignore calls at their peril both in terms of national politics and international standing … except in the minds of confused journalists like Hjul.

The reasons, then, for not holding a referendum are blindingly obvious, something all the opposition parties (except the two Green MSPs) agreed on when Salmond introduced his bill on Thursday. But it will not be enough to simply oppose it when it comes to the vote. Scotland is in for months of referendum talk, as its indefatigable leader criss-crosses the land placing “Scotland’s future as a nation at the heart of political and public debate”.

The opposition needs a strategy to deal with the increased level of independence activity. I recommend that they unite and adopt a uniform tone of their own. The Labour MSP Pauline McNeill came close on Thursday when she questioned the first minister’s motivation. The opposition to his bill does not come just from opposition politicians (few of whom bothered to turn up as it was unveiled), but from the public. There have been no petitions, no protests, no demand, mocked McNeill.

Actually there have been protests, there have been approaches via the petitions committee which has refrained from handling them as this was always going to be a matter introduced by the government.  On one point Hjul is correct, if the unionists wish to oppose the SNP quest for independence then they are going to have to articulate an arguement for the union, and as I keep saying, stop simply slagging of the idea of independence.

Ridicule and derision are effective tools to tackle the nationalists’ conceit that they represent a groundswell. They do not and this should be rammed home at every opportunity. There are many urgent issues for the Scottish government to attend to: crime, health, education, transport, housing. These are the chief concerns of the 85% of the total Scottish electorate who do not vote for the SNP and have never asked for a referendum.

Alas Hjul falls into the unionists trap believing that ridicule and derision are the way to tackle the growing support for independence, and it is growing and returns to the now common route of attack accusing the government of being unable to handle multiple issues at a time … how she must struggle to, you know, drive and listen to the radio.

Putting the constitution at the centre of the legislative programme during these rocky times, interrupting other parliamentary business and deploying civil servants to draft and redraft an unwanted bill, is not merely an indulgence but a misuse of public funds.

Unlike the EU Reform Treaty? or Nuclear Weapons?

Salmond has shown a lack of judgement in this, as in the other challenges (diplomatic, political and economic) he has encountered recently, exposing his leadership skills to uncomfortable scrutiny. If he continues to blunder on in this manner, misreading the Scottish mood, the union will be safe in his hands.

Alex Salmond is widely acclaimed as one of the most talented politicians of his generation and he’ll continue to run rings around Hjul’s political masters.