A guest post today from Craig Gallagher. Craig is a PhD Student in History at Boston College and a Graduate Fellow of the Clough Center for Constitutional Democracy. He studies early modern Scottish imperialism, such as it was, with a particular focus on the Darién project and how it fits into the wider narrative of Scots and Empire, on which he has blogged at Better Nation before.
The A-ha Paradigm
At Edinburgh University on Friday night, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Mike Russell MSP, gave the keynote lecture to the first British Scholar Society conference to be staged in Scotland, which was entitled “Scotland Transformed: Cricket, Passports and the resilience of the social union”. The central theme was Russell’s own diverse British background, having been born in England to a Scottish mother and a Welsh-English father, before marrying a Gael and learning the language over 30 years, which he presented as an eloquent and thoughtful example to refute accusations that Britishness is rigidly defined and, crucially, can be taken away without your consent.
By common consent amongst the academics assembled from 21 countries across the world, from as far afield as the USA and the UAE, Russell gave an absorbing speech entirely befitting the questions being asked at this conference, about post-imperial Britain and the possible reconfiguration of the Union of Parliaments, which contained very little partisanship and instead embraced the word “political” in its analytical, rather than subjective sense. Yet it was the Q&A that followed which proved most revealing to many in the audience.
Following on from a roundtable on Scottish Independence the previous evening for conference attendees – which had featured Alan Taylor of the Herald chairing a discussion between Professors John Curtice and Owen Dudley-Edwards, Dr. Catriona MacDonald and Joyce McMillian of the Scotsman – many of the American audience were moved to ask about the distinctive Scottish educational spirit Russell championed, as well as engage in a series of enquiries about identity and its relevance to the debate we’re having. One young Englishman currently studying in Arkansas asked, in a deeply considered manner, why as a unionist he should accept having to stand by and watch his United Kingdom dissolve without having a say. Yours truly pressed the Education Secretary on Scottish Studies and the Curriculum for Excellence, and how he responds to accusations of parochialism generally.
On both counts, Mike Russell was assured. In response to my question, (I’m paraphrasing) he stressed his belief that to be an internationalist, you have to first be a nationalist; to take your place on the world stage, you have to first know what place it is you are taking. On response to the Arkansas scholar, he countered with his assertion that identity is a malleable concept, that it cannot be taken from you any more by a state anymore than one can be imposed upon you. You are what you are. My American colleagues had some pretty thoughtful things to say about this argument – not least the fact that they can simultaneously be, say, a Tennessean and an American – but what struck me was their complete lack of suspicion in how they framed their questions. They were asking honestly, even sceptically, for Russell to justify his claims, but there was no hint of the inherit narrowed-eyes scorn that I think infects the discourse levelled at the SNP.
This has led me to offer a theory about Scottish unionism that I believe isn’t totally skewed by my own ardent nationalism, and instead has some empirical basis. Many unionists are driven by what I will term the “A-ha! Paradigm”. By this, I mean they are consistently, determinedly, obsessively looking for the inherent cravenness in the SNP’s push for independence that they believe must be there. They see Alex Salmond’s discussion of devo-max and think, “Aye, he just wants to have a fall-back option”. They see Mike Russell discuss the social union and think, “Aye, they’re just trying to make it seem like they’re not anti-English”. They see Alex Neil talk about a community-based campaign and think “Aye, but they’re funded by millionaires, so that’s all a smokescreen”.
Some examples of the “A-ha! Paradigm” include Ken MacIntosh’s insistence that Scottish Studies being added to the curriculum was an attempt by the SNP to brainwash schoolchildren, while Johann Lamont’s attacks on Salmond over Rupert Murdoch make it clear for all to see that she believes this was the secret to the SNP’s obviously-anomalous win in May last year. It betrays an attitude in unionist ranks that if they can just find a way to puncture the rhetoric of independence, they’ll reveal an empty shell underneath. The fact that this hasn’t really happened, despite recent bloviating on the SNP’s “lack of detail” on a post-independence Scotland, is illustrative only of these politicians – and political commentators – own craven assumptions about how government should be conducted.
Of course, this isn’t confined to unionists. Many nationalists – for example, Joan MacAlpine or James Kelly, in my opinion – also subscribe to this paradigm. Like most unionists, they present every tiny flaw in their opponents plans as somehow evident of a massive scam that is deceiving the Scottish people. But it’s definitely most prevalent in the Labour and Tory parties in Scotland, who seize on every little thing – from school dinners to the Dalai Lama – as the domino that, if toppled, will prove decisive. I mostly omit the Lib Dems because I see signs in Willie Rennie’s leadership that they’ve absorbed at least some of the lessons of 2011.
Mike Russell kiboshed a few of these on Friday, particular on the EU and on passports, questions asked by scholars from European nations, incidentally. But he made it clear his contempt for the constant, obsessive desire to find and expose the probably-there-if-we-shout-loudly-enough flaw in the independence argument. He instead insisted that it’s simply not credible to say independence wouldn’t work, that Scotland can’t do it, and that anyone who argues that should be treated derisively. I tend to agree, and would go further. There is no question that Scotland could be independent, and prosperously so. But there are questions as to whether it should, and definite flaws in some not-yet-fully-formed SNP positions on issues. Those should be fair game for critics, and treated as such. But it would be nice if such criticisms are devoid of the conspiratorial tenor of the “A-ha! Paradigm”.
#1 by Bambi on June 25, 2012 - 4:10 pm
Good, clear-eyed piece. It succinctly describes the rising & unvarying chorus of the Unionist, or more accurately the anti-SNP, parties.
It seems there’s literally a psychological inability to accept that the SNP and a large chunk of the Scottish population sincerely have the best interests of Scotland at heart, and think that would best be advanced by independence. There’s barely a shred of the ‘I respect your right to hold these views but strongly disagree with them’ principle which most political discourse at least pays lip service to nowadays. I wonder if it’s now become an absolute Unionist requirement; any weakening of the will to disparage, despise or revile would let in a flood of dispassionate analysis, the last thing they want.
I accept that many Nats are happy to return the derision with interest, but much of it seems reactive. I think you’re a little unfair on James Kelly. Though he has a taste for jumping into wasps’ nests and having the last word, he remains polite in the face of much provocation. Joan MacAlpine prehaps has less excuse; as a professional politician she should be more..err..political.
#2 by Craig Gallagher on June 26, 2012 - 1:03 pm
Thanks Bambi, I think you’re right regarding the “I’ll die to defend your right to say it” principle being absent from the current debate. There is so much vitriol flying around that bipartisan debate disintegrates as an ideal pretty quickly. Conspiratorial accusations are a longstanding feature of British politics, however, and to my mind underpin the idea of the House of Commons as “adversarial”, i.e. MPs regularly have to fend off completely unfounded accusations.
#3 by Chris on June 25, 2012 - 7:49 pm
Do you believe that people who are skeptical or against independence sincerely have the best interests of Scotland at heart?
To claim that one camp is worse at this than the other displays an astonishing myopia. You don’t get called traitor, quisling or servile or having a cringe for your views. Leading people on your side don’t get routinely described as discredited, you aren’t subject to lies told so routinely they become true by repetition e.g. Tony Blair on the parish council, or indeed subject to twisted fabrications like Donald Dewar and Bangladesh – a slander on a dead man which Kenny Gibson was willing to repeat only this month. You might call it provocation, but it has been going on for 20 years. What was your excuse then?
There is a lot of dull, dreary factionalism in Scottish politics which very few rise above: the party of McAlpine, Gibson, Russell and Salmond is not an exception. I wish all parties would address the issues, but playing the man, not the ball seems pretty common all round.
#4 by Craig Gallagher on June 26, 2012 - 1:11 pm
I think they do, and I think your post goes two or three steps beyond what I was trying to say. I would love, absolutely love, if you could provide an example of a single SNP politician or official who has ever used language like “quisling” regarding a Unionist politician or campaigner staunchly defending the Union. There’s plenty of “betrayal” language floating around, but mostly in regards to policy decisions by Westminster.
In many ways, your description of me as myopic rather proves my point. It seems impossible to imagine that both sides aren’t as bad as each other, that the SNP aren’t just as craven and unwholesome as Labour or other Unionist parties. I accept that what I’m saying could rankle as holier-than-thou, but what I’m really commenting on isn’t the “they’re just as bad as we are” argument in and of itself, but rather the obssessive way this infects ALL Unionist discourse, all comments on the Nationalists and all – I believe – policy decisions vis-a-vis how to overthrow the imagined Nationalist dictatorship.
And by the by, the idea that nationalists aren’t subject to “lies told so routinely they become true by repetition” flies in the face of pretty much the entire state of Scottish politics. I would direct you to Newsnight Scotland’s list of “Unionist Myths A-Z” for some examples.
#5 by Doug Daniel on June 27, 2012 - 12:35 am
Indeed, I recall someone on Twitter accusing “cybernats” of calling people traitors and accusing folk of betrayal… On the very same day that the NHS Reform bill was passed and Twitter was awash with people calling the Lib Dems traitors etc. Oh, and Quislings! But hey, it’s a good smear against nationalists, so why should unionists let the facts get in the way of a good wheeze?
#6 by Bambi on June 26, 2012 - 1:15 pm
If your reply is aimed at my post, I fully accept that Unionists can genuinely have the interests of Scotland at heart. I don’t think their aspirations are particularly well represented by their politicians however.
A discussion over who suffers the worst insults (Il Duce, fascists, El Presidente blah, blah) is sterile, but the essential difference is that your examples are not thrown out by mainstream politicians, mine are.
I genuinely don’t know what you’re referring to with Blair on the parish council or Dewar & Bangladesh – perhaps they’re a bit over inflated in your own perception?
#7 by Doug Daniel on June 25, 2012 - 10:56 pm
Interesting idea, and perhaps an unfortunate news day for it to be up on BN!
I’ve noticed this phenomenon too, particularly in things like Scottish Studies, where there is a definite suspicion on the part of some unionists that it’s just the SNP trying to indoctrinate young Scots, or the Homecoming celebrations, which are apparently just the SNP trying to fool people into supporting independence, rather than just a celebration of our culture. Part of this is perhaps mixed in with the old Scottish Cringe factor, and perhaps even a bit of subconscious guilt at not thinking to do such things themselves. But either way, there is an awful lot of cynicism, assuming that there MUST be an ulterior motive and that the SNP couldn’t possibly just be doing these things because they think they’re what a country should be doing.
Perhaps the most obvious example of this phenomenon is when people talk of independence as being Alex Salmond’s “pet project”, or a power grab, or simply a desire on Salmond’s part to become “President Salmond”. It doesn’t seem to occur to these people that those of us who call ourselves nationalists simply think independence is the best settlement for Scotland. It’s an ideal that people have fought for their whole lives, which in some cases can be measured in decades rather than years.
I’m not entirely sure why this is. They can’t all be cynical, careerist politicians who simply don’t understand the concept of fighting for a political cause because you believe in it, rather than because you think it’s your best way to getting elected. Some are perhaps people who used to believe in something when they joined their party (i.e. Labour, and in some cases maybe even the Lib Dems), but have had all the idealism drummed out of them thanks to successive abandonments of political ideals, to the extent that they no longer believe that there are politicians who have remained true to their original values. Others are perhaps just people who fall for that tired old cliche of “they’re all the same!” and assume Alex Salmond and other SNP politicians MUST be the same as people like Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, people who will say anything to win a vote and who are only in politics for themselves.
It’s a shame. WIthout wanting to incur the wrath of James, I feel the SNP are the last mainstream political party to actually stand for something, in Scotland anyway. With the complete abandonment of the working classes, small-N nationalism is perhaps the last great political cause with the power to bring large swathes of people together to fight for a common goal (you could argue environmentalism or anti-nuclear, but there are no specifically anti-nuclear parties anywhere in the UK that I know of, and environmentalism has been diluted by major parties trying to hijack it). The SNP, Plaid, Sinn Fein – these parties are fighting for causes above and beyond mere seats of power. I find it saddening that people try to debase their causes with cheap insults, and I feel it says more about the cynics that subconsciously subscribe to this A-ha! paradigm than it does about those idealists.
(Mind you, nationalists who accuse ALL unionists of just wanting a seat in the House of Lords can be guilty of the same thing – sometimes people really are just mortally scared of change.)
#8 by Craig Gallagher on June 26, 2012 - 5:11 pm
Without wishing to completely dismiss the credentials of other parties in terms of ideology (especially given how ideologically driven the Tory party is) I tend to agree that the nationalist causes imbue a bit more vision than simply changing what we have ever can do. And yes, I agree completely that this paradigm I’m proposing says more about its advocates than its targets. Thanks for your comments, Doug.
#9 by Douglas McLellan on June 26, 2012 - 3:26 am
This is a very interesting article but I would counter that the SNP themselves (in Scotland anyway) are the instigators of the A-ha Paradigm. Their very existence, the the idea of independence itself, is based on the idea that things will only be better for Scotland if Westminster not longer had control. Every social ill and every political decision made in London is treated in this way by the SNP.
The cravenness, if I can use your term, of both crying foul over potential changes to the armed forces based in Scotland whilst being unable to say an independent Scotland would be any different is a current example.
Although I try to keep an open mind on these things, and if asked tomorrow I would vote for independence on the principle of moving power to a more local level, the SNP do appear to me sometimes viewing Scotland through tartan tinted specs. Scottish Studies is a good idea but instead of our contributions to science, engineering and even, dare I say it, running the British Empire (without which Glasgow would be a shadow if itself) it is linked to things like school trips to Bannockburn and Culloden. Places, lest we forget, Scots fought Scots. As for the foisting of Gaelic everywhere, don’t get me started……
#10 by Bambi on June 26, 2012 - 1:52 pm
‘without which Glasgow would be a shadow if itself’
Glasgow is a shadow of its former self.
#11 by Douglas McLellan on June 26, 2012 - 2:53 pm
Oops. Indeed. Thanks.
#12 by Bambi on June 26, 2012 - 4:03 pm
I wasn’t correcting your spelling (plenty of beams in my own eye)! I just meant Glasgow IS sadly reduced from its former grimy glory.
#13 by Iain Menzies on June 26, 2012 - 6:24 pm
maybe he should have said glasgow wouldnt have had its former self to be a shadow to?
#14 by Craig Gallagher on June 26, 2012 - 5:14 pm
I think I agree that this has roots in the SNP, and more generally, the left’s marginalisation during the Thatcher years. When the political consensus of the 1950s, 60s and 70s broke down, suddenly everyone and anyone was fair game. The problem for those engaging with it now, however, is they seem not to remember that shrieking “conspiracy” from the sidelines was endemic of a party or a people with no idea of where to go next.
#15 by Zetland on June 26, 2012 - 8:36 am
Thank you Craig for the interesting piece.
Out of interest, are you able to paraphrase the questions and responses on the EU?
#16 by Craig Gallagher on June 26, 2012 - 8:43 pm
The question was simply along the lines of “As a Netherlander who has no quarrel with the EU, knowing that’s a minority opinion these days, what is your government’s position on Europe?” Mike Russell chose to take that as a question on Scotland’s admission to the EU and its future attitude to it, stressing the arguments about successor states and the assertion that Scotland is more determinedly pro-Europe than the rest of the UK on average.
The only other Scot in the room (bar Tom Devine) rubbished the whole “re-applying for EU membership” story as a preface to his next question as well, he asked Russell about SNP posturing on the Euro, to which Russell retreated slightly behind “it’s always been SNP policy to hold a referendum on that”. Didn’t give away much more than that.
#17 by Zetland on June 27, 2012 - 9:00 am
Thanks
#18 by Chris on June 26, 2012 - 9:42 am
IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH MY EARLIER POST WOULD THIS BE BETTER???
I think there is an astonshing myopia at work here. There are good, well motivated people in all mainstream parties and there are cynical careerists in all parties. One of the joys of Labour so badly screwing up in recent years is watching the careerists heading over to the SNP.
The ‘holier than thou’ claims from SNP supporters really do rankle with me as there has been decades of abuse towards opponents of independence at both the official and unofficial level. As I don’t actually believe the George Foulkes line that cybernattery is directed from some sort of nationalist mission control, we’ll just accept that this part of people behaving badly behind a computer screen. But the official attempts to play the man, not the ball, are far more serious and require SNP supporters to open their eyes a bit more.
As SNP press officer before being elected Mike Russell deliberately and repeatedly used the gross distortion of Tony Blair and the Parish Council. The myth of Donald Dewar and Bangladesh seems to have semi-official status, but at least the party itself, rather than merely its MSPs, don’t peddle that one.
The a-ha moment seems to befall anyone who disagrees with the SNP e.g. Arthur Midwinter becomes ‘the discredited Arthur Midwinter’ to avoid answering his arguments on council tax.
In the end those of us who want a Better Nation , whether nationalists, socialists, republicans, etc. are the ones who will lose the most from this deeply cynical political practice.
#19 by Jeff on June 26, 2012 - 12:47 pm
Apologies Chris, no problem with the earlier comment. Just me being slow with the moderating…
#20 by Craig Gallagher on June 26, 2012 - 5:20 pm
See my earlier reply for more detail, but in terms of the new info in this post, I think you’re missing my point. Cynicism is fine, skepticism is fine – in fact, desirable in a political system – but what I have a problem with is the insistent conspiratorial tone forever taken by most unionists and some nationalists when it comes to political commentary. I’ll use the most forthright example again: Johann Lamont and Labour have been deliberately, carefully, somewhat disingenuously trying to suggest for weeks that the reason the SNP won the last election was because of Murdoch. It can’t possibly have been because more people liked their policies, or even because Labour shot themselves in the foot. Instead, it has to be something underhand, something corrupt behind closed doors that gave the SNP power.
I’m not saying the SNP are whiter than white, far from it. What I am saying is that we could do without the constant suggestions that they’re all con artists who have unaccountably wrested the reins of government through conspiratorial means, and are in the process of whitewashing their true intentions behind positive, appealing and eminently reasonable rhetoric (which to someone like Lamont, has to be a trick).