Latest news with #JimMonaghan
The National
7 hours ago
- Politics
- The National
Jeremy Corbyn's new outfit won't back indyref2. No British party will
'When that party launches, which I'm expecting to be later this month, will be the start of us getting serious in Scotland and finding out who the members are when they join and trying to get, we're looking at the end of August before we get any real meeting of what will be the new party in Scotland. Until then, we don't really have a position other than we are happy to take part in the coalition, electoral alliance talks in Scotland on that basis, on the basis of supporting a referendum.' So, a big vote of thanks to Jim Monaghan for straightening that out for us. In fact, there is a very simple answer to the question of what will be the position of the Scottish plook on the arse of Corbyn's new party. It will be whatever the arse says it will be. The arm of this new British political party located in Scotland will be no different from the Scotland branch offices of the other British parties. Parties are not permitted to have different positions in different parts of the UK. If the likes of Anas Sarwar tries to give the impression that 'Scottish' Labour has a position on any issue that is distinct from that taken by his boss, Keir Starmer, he is lying. Which will shock nobody. The same goes for the other British parties that are either squatting in Scotland's parliament or hoping to do so. None of them can possibly have a distinct position on the constitutional issue. It is impossible for Sarwar to be in favour of a new referendum while Starmer is against it. Because it is all a single party. And Starmer is in charge. Sarwar is there to try and look as much like a real party leader as he can – no much! – so that the British media can go on promulgating the lie that Scottish Labour are (a) Scottish, and (b) a real political party. It is not Scottish, it is British. It is not a political party, it is a sham. It is part of the apparatus which provides the illusion of democracy and respect for Scotland's distinctiveness. It is all entirely false. The speculation about this new party's position on an independence referendum has nothing to latch on to. If that position is to be inferred from Jeremy Corbyn's stated attitude over the past few years, it is as plain as if it was the victim of one of Jim Monaghan's 'clarifications'. If I were to attempt to sum it up, I'd say Corbyn is not – or tries to appear as if he isn't – as explicitly or fervently opposed to a referendum as many (most?) other British politicians. But now is never the time. That being his position, it is also the position of the bit of his party that calls itself 'Scottish'. If they tell you differently, they're lying like Sarwar. It is all irrelevant anyway. Because even when British politicians try to look as if they are not anti-democratic, they are operating within a system which is inherently anti-democratic. As is the case throughout the discourse around the constitutional issue, people talk of a referendum but never define or describe it. As if this referendum could be only one thing and everybody already knows what it is so it doesn't need to be stated. Generally, what people have in mind is a referendum such as had in 2014. They have been 'conditioned' to think of a Section 30 referendum as the 'gold standard' of democratic events. It most emphatically is not! You are probably asking the obvious question. If a referendum held under 'powers' transferred from Westminster to Holyrood is not the 'gold standard', what is? Or perhaps you are wondering what precludes a referendum held under transferred 'powers' being a proper constitutional referendum. I shall attempt to address both these points. The following suggested criteria for a true constitutional referendum were first published in July 2023 as an appendix to the Stirling Directive. Though no longer online, the criteria were referred to and republished in November 2024. In short, a true constitutional referendum must be binary: The options must be discrete, defined and deliverable – they must be two quite different options and not two variations on the same thing. Both options must be tightly defined at the outset and may not change in the course of the campaign. What is voted on must be what has initially been proposed. Both options must be deliverable, in that the winning option and the following actions must be implementable immediately and without further process. To satisfy the previous criteria, the referendum must be on the question of whether to end the Union with England-as-Britain. The legislation authorising and regulating the referendum must be determinative and self-executing. The outcome must be acknowledged as an expression of the democratic will of the sovereign people of Scotland and therefore binding on all parties. It should also be understood and acknowledged that the outcome of one referendum cannot preclude future campaigning for other constitutional change even where such change would alter or obviate the prior choice. The referendum process must be impeccably democratic. The franchise must be as wide as possible and based on strict criteria for residency within Scotland. Registering a vote must be made as easy as possible but with due regard for security and confidentiality. The referendum must be held under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament with oversight and services provided exclusively by Scottish institutions. Every effort must be made to eliminate or at least minimise external interference. For the purposes of a proper constitutional referendum on the question of the Union, Britain shall be classified as an external (foreign) power. For the purposes of a proper constitutional referendum on the question of the Union, political parties registered as such and headquartered other than in Scotland shall be regarded as agencies of the country where they are registered and headquartered. In summary, a constitutional referendum is binary, with options which are discrete, defined and deliverable. It must be entirely made and managed in Scotland by Scotland. It must produce a clear decision and not merely a result. It must meet internationally recognised standards for a democratic event. And the outcome is the undeniable expressed will of the sovereign people of Scotland. These criteria were not meant to be prescriptive. The intention was to provoke a discussion about the form of referendum Scotland's cause requires. Most of the criteria are, however, quite evidently essential. That the referendum must be binary. That the options be fixed and not permitted to change in the course of the campaign. Perhaps most pertinently of all in the present context, the stipulation that the referendum must be determinative and self-executing. A referendum held under transferred powers can never be determinative and self-executing because this would mean that the people had the final word on the matter and not Westminster. A proper constitutional referendum would acknowledge the people of Scotland as the ultimate authority, not Westminster. The British state not only will not transfer powers for a proper constitutional referendum, it cannot do so. Supposing it was possible for the British state to transfer powers such as would allow a proper constitutional referendum, this would breach the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. The doctrine which underpins the entire edifice of the British state. Without ultimate political authority being vested in a parliament under the near total control of an executive whose clients are not the people but the ruling elites, the whole thing comes tumbling down. The three pillars of the British 'system' are unchecked power, unearned privilege and unregulated patronage. None of these pillars can exist in a political system which is truly democratic. If the people had the authority which the term 'democracy' implies, it is not believable that they would tolerate the structures of power, privilege and patronage which define a British state which serves the few regardless of the cost to the many. A proper constitutional referendum is informed by the principle that the people of Scotland are sovereign. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the principle of popular sovereignty are mutually exclusive. They are incompatible and irreconcilable. Therefore, no British government could ever acknowledge the sovereignty of the people in any meaningful way. They may state it as a slogan. But they absolutely cannot give it political effect. It follows that, whatever rhetoric they contrive to make it appear otherwise, no British political party can ever support a proper constitutional referendum. The power to legislate for a proper constitutional referendum cannot be given in any case. Regardless of the compelling reasons why the British will not and cannot give that power, the power itself is inherently 'ungiveable'. The right of self-determination is inalienable. It is a human right and cannot be surrendered, transferred, forfeited, abrogated or removed. It is as inherent to the people as life is to the person. If the power to exercise the right of self-determination is in the gift of another, this necessarily implies that it is not present in the people. But it is an inalienable right and cannot be other than present in the people. I hope this has gone some way towards explaining both why no British political party can ever genuinely support a proper constitutional referendum and why a referendum held under powers transferred from Westminster can never be a proper constitutional referendum. Peter A Bell via email
The National
4 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Corbyn-Sultana party clarifies Scottish independence stance
Jim Monaghan is a member of the steering group Collective Scotland which is tasked with setting up the as-yet-unnamed party north of the Border and previously told The National it would be open to 'candidates and members' on both sides of the constitutional debate. He has now clarified the Corbyn-Sultana project's stance, saying: 'We're so far away now from having a position on that.' He added: 'When that party launches, which I'm expecting to be later this month, will be the start of us getting serious in Scotland and finding out who the members are when they join and trying to get, we're looking at the end of August before we get any real meeting of what will be the new party in Scotland and until then, we don't really have a position other than we are happy to take part in the coalition, electoral alliance talks in Scotland on that basis, on the basis of supporting a referendum.' Monaghan (above) said that in his initial interview with The National, he had been setting out the constitutional stance of another organisation he is involved with, the Left Alternative. This is a coalition of small, left-wing parties in Scotland including the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), the Socialist Workers' Party (SWP) and the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (Tusc). READ MORE: Insider lifts lid on workings of Corbyn-Sultana project in Scotland It will also be constituted as a party for the 2026 Holyrood elections, according to Monaghan. He said: 'It's not really [that] we're starting two parties.' There will be the Corbyn-Sultana project which will eventually become a party, he explained, and the Left Alternative coalition. (Image: Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire) The latter must be constituted as a political party and registered with the Electoral Commission to contest elections, Monaghan argued. 'The Left Alternative idea is several parties,' he said. 'The Collective as it's known now, or whatever the new Corbyn party's called, will be one of several parties who'll be part of this electoral alliance but they will be a party in their own right as well. Going forward in the future, after the 2026 elections, as to what strategy is taken forward in Scotland after that we're way, way, miles, we're not even discussing that.' He added: 'It's not as if we're forming two parties; we're forming a party and our party is going to join an electoral alliance that will have to, by law, register as a party for the election.'
The National
06-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
Zarah Sultana quits Labour 'to set up new party with Jeremy Corbyn'
Recent polling by More In Common suggested that a new Corbyn-led party would eat into Labour support and pick up as much as 10% of votes in a General Election. The poll most notably suggested such a party would finish first among 18 to 24-year-olds, on 32%. In a statement posted on X, Sultana, who represents Coventry South, said that the project would also involve 'other independent MPs, campaigners and activists across the country'. She said that 'Westminster is broken but the real crisis is deeper' and the 'two-party system offers nothing but managed decline and broken promises'. She added: 'A year ago I was suspended by the Labour Party for voting to abolish the two-child benefit cap and lift 400,000 children out of poverty. I'd do it again. I voted against scrapping winter fuel payments for pensioners. I'd do it again. Now, the Government wants to make disabled people suffer; they just can't decide how much.' She urged people to 'join us'. Meanwhile, Govanhill writer and poet Jim Monaghan wrote on Twitter/X that he is part of the "interim Scottish Secretariat" of the group. "It's on," he wrote. "Some of us have been holding on to this information as things have developed. "I am a member of the new party and part of the interim Scottish 'Secretariat'. Let's talk, let's build. Another country is possible." Sultana was one of seven MPs who had the Labour whip suspended last summer when they supported an amendment to the King's Speech which related to the two-child benefit cap. Four of the seven had the whip restored earlier this year but Sultana was not among them. READ MORE: Zarah Sultana hits out at Keir Starmer's Gaza genocide denial Corbyn led Labour from 2015 to April 2020, stepping down after the party's loss at the 2019 General Election. He was suspended from Labour in 2020 after he refused to fully accept the Equality and Human Rights Commission's findings that the party broke equality law when he was in charge, and said antisemitism had been 'dramatically overstated for political reasons'. He was blocked from standing for Labour at last year's General Election and expelled in the spring of 2024 after announcing he would stand as an independent candidate in his Islington North constituency, which he won with a majority of more than 7000.
