The quickness of the feet deceives the understanding...
Dazzling bit of footwork from Kezia Dugdale on BBC Radio 4 News today, on whether Sturgeon has a mandate to call for another referendum. Surely she has a mandate, the interviewer suggested, because the relevant SNP manifesto said that a material change in circumstances would justify another referendum, and Brexit is such a change?
Well, no, said Kezia, because that was only one line in their manifesto, and the line before said that there would need to be support from public opinion, which isn't there. Quite right, Kezia. The line did say that, and that support isn't there. But surely the change in circumstances is there, so we do have the right to a referendum? On the other hand, the public support *isn't* there, so we *don't* have the right to a referendum! My head's spinning, Kezia, with these contradictions - perhaps you can sort me out. No? It's beyond you too? Let's look at the manifesto itself, then. Here's the text:
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."
Ah, now I understand! It says that EITHER there must be public support, OR there must be a material change in circumstances. So if one condition is true, you don't need the other one - either will do. Bit of a porky-pie, then, Kezia, to tell us that if one condition isn't true then the mandate isn't there. Or perhaps the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party hasn't quite mastered the word 'or'.
Well, no, said Kezia, because that was only one line in their manifesto, and the line before said that there would need to be support from public opinion, which isn't there. Quite right, Kezia. The line did say that, and that support isn't there. But surely the change in circumstances is there, so we do have the right to a referendum? On the other hand, the public support *isn't* there, so we *don't* have the right to a referendum! My head's spinning, Kezia, with these contradictions - perhaps you can sort me out. No? It's beyond you too? Let's look at the manifesto itself, then. Here's the text:
"We believe that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will."
Ah, now I understand! It says that EITHER there must be public support, OR there must be a material change in circumstances. So if one condition is true, you don't need the other one - either will do. Bit of a porky-pie, then, Kezia, to tell us that if one condition isn't true then the mandate isn't there. Or perhaps the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party hasn't quite mastered the word 'or'.
Clarity expertly presented there!
ReplyDelete