Murdo's separatist agenda and other ironies

A few days ago the papers were reporting Murdo Fraser's Scottish Tory leadership bid as based on a "new Unionism" which would "kill independence and break the SNP". To which end the Sunday papers were then reporting that he was proposing to break his own Conservative & Unionist party with an independent, rebranded entity north of the border. Talk about separatism!

Indeed, today's Scotsman lead story is headlined "Tories at war over move to kill off party in Scotland". Which hardly seems the basis for a cohesive and positive campaign to save the union in the run up to the referendum. Indeed, there's always been a bit of a paradox between UK-wide political movements and devolution, and to that extent Murdo Fraser's proposal seems to lean a bit too far towards devolution being a "process, not than an event", or perhaps even coning off another slip road on Tam Dalyell's "motorway without exit" towards independence.

Meanwhile, for the SNP Pete Wishart has been lambasting Unionist use of words and phrases like "separatism" and "wrenched out" to describe Scottish independence, perhaps forgetting that he recently described as "nasty" and "just wrong" a motion on same-sex marriages promulgated by one of his party's MSPs.

Of course, no doubt Mr Wishart would posit that same-sex marriages would help promote the equivalent of what he calls his party's 'inclusivists' or 'togetherists' in relation to a reformulated notion of Britishness. But in his Scots Independent article he also claims it's the "Union that 'separates' Scotland from a proper and equal role in Europe", which seems to underline the old paradox about jumping from the United Kingdom sovereignty frying pan into the European Union sovereignty fire, particularly with the likes of Labour's Catherine Stihler MEP talking about an EU "Economic High Representative who can transcend nationalists agendas".

Which indeed perhaps echoes Duncan Hamilton's claim that a successful eurozone requires "proud nations accepting a European uniformity rather than responding to the instinctive desire to protect and promote their national interest", which would even militate against greater Scottish autonomy if we retained the pound sterling post-'independence'.

By the same token, an even more prominent SNP adviser seems to have got his sovereignty underwear in an uproar when asking "Who benefits from positive Unionism?", with the "clear" answer: "It is Westminster and certainly not the people of Scotland." The likes of which seems to assume that Westminster is like Washington vis-à-vis Scotland rather than akin to Holyrood vis-à-vis Dundee.

Indeed, Stephen Noon also plays the EU card, thus it's surely legitimate to ask, "Who benefits from positive (European) Unionism?" To which the answer would presumably be Brussels and certainly not the people of Scotland, to echo what he said in relation to Westminster.

Finally, poor old Kenny Farquharson's most recent Scotland on Sunday article hasn't gone down too well with the cybernats. His questions in relation to what degree of Scottish autonomy the SNP is aiming for and how they will approach that with regard to the referendum questions seems to have generated particular ire (was that one of the threads going on about Unionist "hoors" - not to mention a pejorative reference to KF's Dundee roots, which of course will never do! - and suchlike before the more vituperative comments were removed?).

Which seems strange, since another article a few days earlier from one of his Scotsman newpaper group stablemates seemed to answer many of the questions posed by Mr Farquharson, and indeed with a nod towards fiscal autonomy/Home Rule prima facie even more likely to engender cybernat abuse:

Alex Salmond is shouting through a political megaphone that he wants a referendum with three questions: the break-up of the UK, fiscal autonomy (de facto Home Rule), or the creaking status quo. Does anyone disagree on the likely outcome?

The SNP has stated unambiguously that in any constitutional settlement it will keep the pound sterling and share common (but non-nuclear) defence arrangements with England.

But which ironically doesn't seem to have attracted the same level of reaction as Kenny Farquharson's article, no doubt because the author was prominent Nationalist and former Newsnet Scotland board member George Kerevan.

But as Alanis Morissette nearly sang:

An old man turned ninety-eight
He won the lottery and died the next day
It's a black fly in your Chardonnay
It's the SNP's approach to sovereignty
And isn't it ironic...don't you think?