Tony Gates on the True Aim of the Scottish National Party

     Here I am  looking at him again. I have to say that whether or not you like his rather hoitty-toitty attitude towards heterodox criticism of mainstream macro, I just read some more political commentary of his that was spot on. In our earlier post I noted that he seemed to have some pretty spot on criticism of the new Syrzia government in Greece-they don't seem to know what they way, probably because they didn't expect to win right out but their indecision is going to hurt them with the Troika who will think it can bully them.

    http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2015/02/tony-yates-on-syrzias-victory-in-greece.html

    Now I think he really nails the crux of the Scottish Independent Party (SNP) and their true-rather than their stated objectives.

     "On the face of it, Nicola Sturgeon’s articulation of the SNP’s new position on UK fiscal policy ‑ which is to spend something like a further£180bn over the lifetime of the next Parliament relative to the Coalition’s current plans ‑ is a welcome relief from the relentless focus on deficit reduction of the other main parties."

    "However, here are some curmudgeonly thoughts explaining why I don’t think this intervention is entirely welcome."

     "To begin with, Sturgeon seems to miss the main point. The reason for easing fiscal policy is to postpone deficit reduction until the economy has convincingly escaped the zero bound on interest rates, and the risk of the economy being trapped in deflation has therefore abated. But in common with the other main parties Nicola Sturgeon does not grasp this (or perhaps judges this point to be beyond the grasp of voters). So, now, we have a full house of parties concealing one of the main issues in designing future fiscal policy from the electorate. How did it all come to this? Spanish politics is being subverted by a movement called “Podemos!” [We can!]. Perhaps the same could be achieved here with “We can ‑ explain macro!” Or perhaps not."

     "One must suspect that the point of making this speech is not what it seems. The SNP aren’t interested in delivering sound fiscal policy and enlightened capitalism in the Union. That risks convincing some Scots that they are “better together” after all. Instead, the SNP must hope to sabotage the government to tilt voters further towards separation. One conceivable strategy is to pick a deficit reduction trajectory that will set them up for permanent public fights with Labour, perhaps pulling Labour apart too. This would allow them to continue their ongoing shadow campaign for another referendum. And it would pitch the country into another election in a couple of years that the Conservatives would win. Labour would be tainted after two years of in-fighting and non-achievement. And, of course, another Conservative victory is what anyone fighting for Scottish independence wishes for, because it reinforces the view that the only way to have left-of-centre government is to break away."

     I think he touches on something that is always more or less true of 'radical leftist' politics: It's real enemy is never the Right but the Center-Left. On a tacit level the Far Right and Far Left work together to undermine the Center. This very same scenario is what we see the Firebaggers at places like Firedoglake wishing for. They approvingly quote Hunter S. Thompson's assertion that we won't have true progressive politics in the US until the defeat of the Democratic party. 

     When we think of the 1968 Chicago riots at the Democratic Convention, the true beneficiary of this was the Right-indeed, Pat Buchanan who was advising Nixon at the time watched it with relish. 

     Then we recall the effect of Nader in 2000. I tend to agree, that the impact of the SNP will not be for the better in Britain at least according to their stated aim-but their real name is what the Far Left always wants-implosion from within.