The capercaillie and the egg

At the outset I should make clear I am not actually going to say anything about capercaillies.

I was just contriving a suitably scotticised variant of the old chicken-and-egg paradigm as a way of describing the situation the Yes Movement finds itself in after the election last Thursday.

What comes first:

• Independence, which may then subsequently provide a platform to promote progressive or left wing ideas structurally marginalised in wider British politics, or 
• The advocacy of those ideas themselves, with self-determination relegated to being one among many ideas rather than as a prior condition for achieving them?

Supporters of Independence in the Yes Movement have included members of both camps. This worked fine during a referendum campaign which didn't pit them against each other. Not so well during an election campaign that did.

A certain amount of recrimination continues in relation to the outcome of the second vote last Thursday and accusations that tactical voting on the list would have either maximised pro-indy representation in parliament or preserved the SNP majority, being mutually exclusive outcomes each of which is desirable for various reasons.

• On the one hand there are those who still assert the SNP would have preserved its majority if only people had acted in the way they said, while 
• On the other there are those who continue to object to various atrocities of electoral arithmetic that saw left wing ideas cast aside and stronger pro-indy representation sacrificed. 

I made my own opinion abundantly clear on the morning of the election and on many previous occasions. But now we are in a reality altered by the outcome of that election. And the truth is no-one had a crystal ball prior to the count and we cannot castigate anyone on either side of the debate on the basis of the outcome. If continued discussion of the issue does not seem likely to yield a positive learning outcome for everyone concerned then I suggest we move on.

And there are many other good reasons to stop bickering about the second vote and many other things to be getting on with:

We need to talk about Labour

Labour in Scotland continue to peddle myths about devomax / federalism / home rule / whatever it's called this week. But they already sold us that carpet, even if they didn't deliver it. Some attention should be given to pointing this out to them, and gently nudging them further towards the disavowal of "The Vow" that remains unavoidable if they have ambitions of ever being taken seriously again. Deprive them of the straws they are clutching so they can finally embrace reality.

Rule Ruthania, Ruthania Rules the Airwaves

The inherent contradictions of almost every Tory position are now thrust into a new prominence as a result of the media taking every opportunity to declare Ruth the winner of the election (actual facts notwithstanding). This means it should be (even more) straightforward to mercilessly and forensically dismantle them, now that they are exposed to light and scrutiny as never before.

The wolf has shed his sheepskin. 

It is a few years now since we lost our innocence in relation to the conduct of the mainstream media, and the BBC in particular.

Now the outcome of the election means that the BBC can abandon the temporary convenience of its alliance with Labour in Scotland and revert to a position it is more comfortable and familiar with, and which it can now adopt consistently across the entire network: promoting a Tory UK establishment agenda. All bonds of blood and marriage, all midnight oaths of eternal fealty solemnly sworn on unsheathed steel beneath a waxing moon between Labour and the BBC in Scotland are forgotten in the blink of an eye now that the relative success of Ruth Davidson gives the network another stick with which to beat Jeremy Corbyn.

We have fewer popular illusions and deceptions to contend with.

And now the BBC, Ruth Davidson, David Cameron and the UK establishment are lined up like bowling pins for one single resounding strike.

"All politics is local"

In May 2017 the local government election will be contested in Scotland.

I have written at length previously about how we must encourage our democratic pluralism in order to ensure it is prepared and mature by the time the first election in an Independent Scotland is contested, while at the same time preserve a unity of vision and purpose regarding Independence to secure the circumstances of that election. The forthcoming local elections provide an excellent opportunity for those who share a commitment to Independence but have different visions of what that means to develop their positions without damaging the cause.

In a sense it is not fair to expect recently formed parties that emerged from the Yes Movement to contest a national election such as the one we just held with any great degree of success. Big parties succeed in big elections. But these big parties started off life as small parties and built their organisation and appeal quietly and effectively over many decades dealing at first with local issues.

Electoral success is directly correlated with the perceived relevance of policies to the daily lives of the electorate. A campaign based on genuinely listening to people's concerns on the doorstep and developing realistic local solutions can overcome disadvantages conferred by even the most adverse perception of a party nationally.

I propose that 2017 is the year RISE and the rest pay their dues, use the local elections to make themselves genuinely useful, and mature into the parties we want and need them to be by the time Independence arrives.