Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Ian Blackford, SNP leader in the Commons has stepped down after lots of internal pressure from MPs. Probably not helped by his handling of the allegation of sexual harassment by the chief whip: the chief whip is still in place, the accuser has been forced out of the party.

But this from a Scottish journalist is interesting on what it means in the context of the SNP because they are the most disciplined, least rebellious political group in the UK so it's striking to see someone forced out like this - plus, as he says, wider revolts. Plus the stuff on bundling legislation and corruption - as ever with the SNP, whatever people accuse the Tories of, the SNP are normally doing exactly the same if not worse but with less scrutiny:

Ian Blackford's resignation shows Nicola Sturgeon's grip is slipping
The biggest danger facing the First Minister now is that all this upheaval could poison her legacy.
By Chris Deerin

Nicola Sturgeon and Ian Blackford. Photograph by TOLGA AKMEN/AFP via Getty Images.

The resignation of Ian Blackford is confirmation that Nicola Sturgeon's grip on her party is slipping. Maybe only a little, maybe a bit more than that, but it is slipping.

A dose of the Joanna Cherrys appears to be taking hold of the SNP both at Holyrood and Westminster. Cherry, the party's most formidably independent-minded MP and a regular critic of the First Minister, suddenly finds herself just one of a crowd. For so long the phrase "SNP rebel" has been almost an oxymoron, given the slavishly devotional nature of nationalist politics under Sturgeon – internally, she has had the easiest of rides since becoming leader in 2014. But a series of convulsions is breaking out which indicates that something is changing at last.

Blackford had been the SNP's leader at Westminster for five years, and last month only narrowly avoided a challenge for his post from Stephen Flynn, regarded as among the most promising of the younger MPs. Now it appears that pressure from the MP group has forced his hand, and he has quit just before the group's AGM on 6 December. Blackford, whose stolid performances at PMQs have made him something of a figure of fun in the chamber, has been supported by Sturgeon as a safe pair of hands and someone who is unlikely to test her authority. But friends say he has recently been flagging. And for some time now, members of the Westminster group – not just the temperamentally disloyal – have felt neglected and ignored by the First Minister. Flynn, if he is Blackford's replacement, is likely to want a more influential role.

There is also an ongoing SNP uprising over the Scottish government's gender reforms, which surfaced again on Wednesday. In any normal party, six MSPs going against the party whip would be a bit ho hum, a not uncommon occurrence among smart, principled people who are able to think for themselves. And while the numbers are certainly not enough to prevent this controversial and ill-considered legislation from going through, it is an insurrection on an unprecedented scale amid the ultra-faithful nationalist bloc at Holyrood. 

Ash Regan, who resigned as a minister rather than support Sturgeon's proposed self-ID for those who wish to change gender, again refused to vote with her leadership, this time in relation to an intervention in the debate by Reem Alsalem, the UN's special rapporteur on violence against women and girls. Alsalem has voiced doubts about the Scottish government's reforms and has called for them to be paused. The Scottish Conservatives wanted these concerns to be officially noted by parliament, while the nationalist leadership very much didn't. Regan, along with fellow SNP MSPs Ruth Maguire, Michelle Thomson, Stephanie Callaghan, Annabelle Ewing and John Mason, abstained rather than back Sturgeon's position. It might not seem like much, but even mutiny on this moderate scale will enrage the First Minister, who has shown no interest in compromising with or even listening to her critics on the issue. 

This also followed an event on Tuesday, where Sturgeon's speech about violence against women and girls was interrupted by a woman who shouted "shame on you". Before she was removed, the woman told Sturgeon: "You are allowing paedophiles, sex offenders and rapists to self-ID in Scotland and put women at risk. Women campaigning for women's rights is not against trans people... you're letting down vulnerable women in Scotland, not allowed to have their own spaces away from any male." The First Minister is not used to being confronted in this way.

That's not all, though. Sturgeon's plans for a National Care Service are also coming in for a pounding. This time, the critics are the members of Holyrood's finance committee, three of whose seven members are SNP MSPs. A fourth is a Green MSP, whose party is in coalition with the Nats. 

There is widespread concern among care professionals and councils as well as politicians and auditors at the way the care service legislation is being bundled through parliament, which is happening before proper costings have been made and decisions about its final shape have been taken. Sturgeon wants to push the Bill through and then fine-tune the care service at a later date through secondary legislation, which is less scrutinised and rarely debated. But Kenneth Gibson, the SNP MSP who chairs the finance committee, said that "major bills should not be implemented via secondary legislation... the significant gaps highlighted throughout our report have frustrated the parliamentary scrutiny process." There is particular worry that the government has grossly underpriced the cost of the new service, which Sturgeon sees as a key part of her legacy.

This comes on the back of the general unease that greeted Sturgeon's pledge last week to forge ahead with her strange wheeze to treat the next general election as a de facto referendum on independence. After decades of patient politicking by the SNP, some of her more thoughtful colleagues see this strategy as a mad dash for the barricades which is more likely to fail than succeed, substantially setting back the independence cause. Rather than allow her successor to continue the long game, Sturgeon's ego seems to demand a last charge at the big dream.

What should we make of all this? Certainly, it seems like Sturgeon's imperial approach to running the SNP is starting to chafe. Her circle of advisers has always been tiny – it includes her husband Peter Murrell, the party's chief executive. It is probably inevitable that as time has passed her largely unconsulted colleagues have grown weary of simply doing what they're told – there is a substantial amount of lobby fodder on the SNP backbenches, but there are some sparkier types too. And as Sturgeon's era draws closer to its end, it's also inevitable that her authority will start to wane as her colleagues look to the future. There are those who want her gone, and those who want her to feel some pain before she goes – that's what comes of ruling by fiat. She'll also be aware that in politics, rebellion can be infectious.

Perhaps the biggest danger facing the First Minister now is the risk that all this upheaval could poison her legacy. It is a loss of control that no one saw coming, as Sturgeon approaches the conclusion of her long reign.

For someone who grew up in Scotland in the 90s it is very striking to see a Ewing revolting. That's a hugely influential family in Scottish politics. Winnie Ewing was an MEP and and key during the huge fights in the 70s and 80s within the MSP between "tartan Tories" (very rural with some of the more extreme wings being basically almost fascist in wanting to focus on rural and "folkish" traditions) and hard social democratic style leaders (there was a big push for Scotland as a socialist republic) - she basically rallied the party around independence being the priority rather than getting into a trap of being left or right. It's still, I think how the SNP operate, they're basically populist, nationalist party of the centre that present themselves as more on the left than they are - a little bit like Fianna Fail in Ireland. Arguably a sign of her legacy - while she was republican herself - was the SNP ultimately wanting Elizabeth or Charles to stay on as Queen or King of Scots after independence because getting into a fight about the monarchy distracts from the core goal of independence.

After Winnie you have two of her children as MSPs (Annabelle and Fergus) as well as her daughter-in-law. It's a real dynasty within the SNP. Not sure how much influence they still have, but it's interesting to see that Fergus was fired from the Scottish cabinet last year and now his sister is openly rebelling too.

[Valmy]

Plus the new PC word Roma does a disservice to Gypsies who have been really there for centuries, some of them sedentary (nomadism to avoid taxes is the deep reason behind hostily to Gypsyà. Roma is mostly used for recent gypsy immigrants, mostly conflated with Romanians (sic) when they can be Bulgarian citizens for instance, worsening the situation at home.

Apples and oranges award Valmy.

I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about with this word salad.

I will call them gypsies if people want. I don't care. Plenty of other long standing minorities were treated as foreigners by Europeans in the past century or so. Use one of the other dozens of examples if that one doesn't work.

[Duque de Bragança]

Plus the new PC word Roma does a disservice to Gypsies who have been really there for centuries, some of them sedentary (nomadism to avoid taxes is the deep reason behind hostily to Gypsyà. Roma is mostly used for recent gypsy immigrants, mostly conflated with Romanians (sic) when they can be Bulgarian citizens for instance, worsening the situation at home.

Apples and oranges award Valmy.

I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about with this word salad.

I will call them gypsies if people want. I don't care. Plenty of other long standing minorities were treated as foreigners by Europeans in the past century or so. Use one of the other dozens of examples if that one doesn't work.

Then please allow me to enlighten you: there are now native gypsies in Europe : gitans or manouches (not the same group) in French, gitanos in Castilian (generic) ciganos (generic again) in Portuguese as compared to (recent) central/eastern immigrant gypsies often called Roma in the media.
Problem of the latter word is that most people conflate wrongly with ROMAnia, when they are not necessarily Romanian.
Better now?

I can use the Krystallnacht all over Europe hyperbolic style according as per your post if you will, but that won't make your post or mine look better.

Namely since in France violent anti-semitism is mostly the province of non-Europeans these days. Old-fashioned anti-semitism ended in 1945, I don't think the US is more different in that aspect (forbidden to Jews and dogs, remember? KKK also anti-Jewish not just blacks and catholics).
 Except no Fall Geld undertaken of course, which made a hell of a difference.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Note that Gypsies and Jews in part actively desired separation from their host nation cultures--it wasn't a one-way street of them being "othered", both communities have philosophical desires (theological in the Jews case) to be separate from the "outsiders." Obviously in both communities you have traditionalists and those who don't adhere to traditions--there have been significant numbers of quasi-secular or fully secular Jews in Europe dating back to the late 18th century (many of whom ended up Anglicizing or Germanizing etc depending on where they were located, and even converting to Christianity), but the traditionalists have always been desirous of being insular.

[Josquius]

I would agree that there is a slight trend for some to over-correct with calling travellers Romani despite most travellers in the UK not being Romani.
Kind of like the Inuit/Eskimo thing.
Surprised it happens in France too.

Note that Gypsies and Jews in part actively desired separation from their host nation cultures--it wasn't a one-way street of them being "othered", both communities have philosophical desires (theological in the Jews case) to be separate from the "outsiders." Obviously in both communities you have traditionalists and those who don't adhere to traditions--there have been significant numbers of quasi-secular or fully secular Jews in Europe dating back to the late 18th century (many of whom ended up Anglicizing or Germanizing etc depending on where they were located, and even converting to Christianity), but the traditionalists have always been desirous of being insular.

A lot of this is chicken and egg however.
They choose to be separate because they aren't accepted because they choose to be separate, etc...

[OttoVonBismarck]

I actually think it is a bit of a natural behavior for a very small diaspora community, though--particularly one that has major "contradictions" with the host culture. The more you are opened up to the host culture the more your own culture is at risk of erosion/cultural assimilation--which you may not want.

For some groups, like as an example Italian-American immigrants, they were initially pretty insular because Catholicism and speaking Italian weren't mainstream/accepted in America. They really had little issue with the younger generations learning English, but Catholicism was seen as key to their culture and they weren't willing to abandon it, in their case America just became more accepting of Catholics in the 20th century so that barrier to cultural assimilation disappeared.

Jews and Gypsies are kind of in that same boat, it's one thing to adopt the language of the host nation, but if you have a very different religion, losing that really kind of destroys what your culture was about. Many European Jews switched to primarily speaking the host nation language, but they typically tried to maintain adherence to Judaism--which essentially requires things like not marrying very much (and heavily discouraging it) to the out group and etc.

[Gups]

They are called Roma or Travellers here. Two distinct groups. They don't like being confused with each other and don't like being called gypsies.

[Valmy]

Note that Gypsies and Jews in part actively desired separation from their host nation cultures--it wasn't a one-way street of them being "othered", both communities have philosophical desires (theological in the Jews case) to be separate from the "outsiders." Obviously in both communities you have traditionalists and those who don't adhere to traditions--there have been significant numbers of quasi-secular or fully secular Jews in Europe dating back to the late 18th century (many of whom ended up Anglicizing or Germanizing etc depending on where they were located, and even converting to Christianity), but the traditionalists have always been desirous of being insular.

Yeah but you run into this exact issue all over the place in Europe. The Hungarians and Romanians in Transylvania are not eager to integrate with each other despite both being there for centuries.

The Hungarians could live in Transylvania for another hundred years and still probably be seen as kind of foreign by the Romanians. Just how it goes.

[OttoVonBismarck]

They are called Roma or Travellers here. Two distinct groups. They don't like being confused with each other and don't like being called gypsies.

Travellers aren't really an ethnic group, they are just a bunch of Irish criminals who live in mobile homes.

[Duque de Bragança]

Yet Hungarians in Romania get a better treatment than in Slovakia for instance, so I am not sure it is the best example.

[Valmy]

Yet Hungarians in Romania get a better treatment than in Slovakia for instance, so I am not sure it is the best example.

My point was not that all minorities are horribly treated, or even badly treated. Just that they are seen as foreign despite having lived there for centuries. 

[Barrister]

I would agree that there is a slight trend for some to over-correct with calling travellers Romani despite most travellers in the UK not being Romani.
Kind of like the Inuit/Eskimo thing.

WTF?

There is a definite, easily identifiable, group of people that have been called Eskimo/Inuit.

There has been some controversy over what to call that group of people.  Eskimo originally comes from I think an Algonquin/ojibway word, while Inuit comes from their own language, which is why Inuit has been the preferred term.

But there's no confusion about what group of people you're talking about when you use either term.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think Eskimo/Inuit situation is a pretty "testy" one especially for outsiders. Inuit is seen as a somewhat acceptable term for all Northern Indigenous peoples ranging from Alaska to Greenland, but that's with a major caveat that in the far West of Alaska where the Yupik peoples live, they do not like being lumped in with the term Inuit (because they are not Inuit.) In Alaska many of the indigenous people are comfortable with the Exonym "Eskimo" but in Canada many groups view the term Eskimo as racist. I've always felt like unless you really know what you're doing you should be careful with the use of all of these terms, at least in the company of such peoples.

[Barrister]

I think Eskimo/Inuit situation is a pretty "testy" one especially for outsiders. Inuit is seen as a somewhat acceptable term for all Northern Indigenous peoples ranging from Alaska to Greenland, but that's with a major caveat that in the far West of Alaska where the Yupik peoples live, they do not like being lumped in with the term Inuit (because they are not Inuit.) In Alaska many of the indigenous people are comfortable with the Exonym "Eskimo" but in Canada many groups view the term Eskimo as racist. I've always felt like unless you really know what you're doing you should be careful with the use of all of these terms, at least in the company of such peoples.

Fair enough - I know there are groups in Alaska that use and prefer the term "Eskimo".  This might have been my Canadianess showing.  I am fairly familiar with those terms, having gone to both Alaska and Nunavut.

That being said "Eskimo" is somewhat debatable in Canada too.  The local CFL club was until recently called the Edmonton Eskimos.  They did not use any indigenous imagery or symbols - just the name.  Edmonton is not traditional Eskimo/Inuit territory, but as Canada's largest, most northernest city, has lots of connections to the north.  Anyways, in those surverys, Inuit people were pretty much divided roughly 50/50 on whether they thought the name "Eskimos" was appropriate for the football team.  Plenty of them thought it was racist, but plenty of them thought it was an honourable name.  Eventually the team changed it's name to the Elks just because the controversy wasn't going to go away otherwise.

That being said I still don't know what Josquis was talking about when he brought them up.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah I mean we have somewhat the same with the term "Indian" a large % of Native Americans personally refer to themselves as Indian and even their activist organizations use the term, but a significant number of them also object to its use. It's a little sticky of a situation. FWIW I perfectly understand why many of them are fine with use of the word Indian--the vast majority of American Native Americans are primary English language only speakers, and while the origin of the word is an Exonym based on bad European understanding of geography 500 years ago, it is the normal / colloquial term in English (which is their first language), and what all of them grew up using.