The reason why the SNP lack the passion to do anything other than spout meaningless slogans – Brian Wilson
The triumph of nationalism is to form ‘sides’ based on identity rather than real issues like social injustice
That really was a huge result last Saturday. Nobody had expected Bulgaria to win the Eurovision Song Contest. But the week’s drama did not end there.
Next we had the appointment of a new Scottish Cabinet. The wily old tactician, John Swinney, stunned the Holyrood terraces by deciding that Jenny Gilruth had done such a great job with Scottish education that she should be put in charge of the nation’s sums.
It was out with the new and in with the old as Neil Gray replaced Angela Constance at health while Angela Constance replaced Neil Gray at justice. Mairi McAllan, who has hardly had a job outside politics, will bring her life experience to bear on educating the nation’s young.
If ever there was a statement of continuity mediocrity, this was it. As a democrat, I have no complaints. This is what 20 per cent of the Scottish electorate voted for and since that was more than for anyone else, they can do what they like. Which won’t, I fear, include much that involves original thought or political creativity.
READ MORE: Scotland's new Finance Secretary should realise soaring benefits bill is source of shame, not pride
House-trained civil servants
From my own geographic perspective, I noted that the nationalist tradition of making sure transport is in the hands of an MSP who lives as far away as possible from the beleaguered ferry network was largely maintained with Stephen Flynn appointed to the role.
And how about an islander getting the job of Islands minister, particularly with a shiny new Shetlander available for selection? Of course not. That’s clearly a job for a Perthshire farmer. Ministerial knowledge can be a dangerous thing in a government of low ambition administered by house-trained Edinburgh civil servants.
The rituals must be gone through and next week will bring us a motion to seek a Section 30 order which would allow the Scottish Government to hold a referendum on independence. At the last count, this is regarded as a priority by 10 per cent of the Scottish electorate while for 100 per cent of the Scottish Government, it is an obsession.
Or is it really? They know as well as anyone that this is a bone to throw to the flag-wavers who will assemble outside Holyrood on Tuesday with no basis of legitimacy or expectation of success. Why would it be otherwise?
An election is not a referendum and, unsurprisingly, the priorities of Scottish voters are the NHS and the cost of living. So making the first debate of the new parliament about a referendum is a performative diversion for the 10 per cent rather than indicative of respect for the rest.
Pro-independence or pro-planet?
Two years ago, Scottish voters overwhelmingly supported parties opposed to independence and another referendum. Nobody pretended then that their votes had been cast mainly on the issue of Scotland’s constitutional status. Nobody was then calling for a referendum.
At the recent election, the Scottish National Party’s main campaigning thrust was not independence or a referendum, but to “stop Reform”. It worked well but to claim every nationalist vote cast – 400,000 fewer than five years ago – as a demand for a referendum is clearly untrue.
The position of the Greens is equally ambiguous. They are now routinely referred to as a “pro-independence party” as if this was their primary raison d’être. I actually thought the Greens were supposed to be about the environment, saving the planet and so on. Most people who vote for them probably still do.
The best we can hope for is that having performed the ritual, our new/old Scottish Government will park it for the next five years and address itself to the multiple issues which feature higher than 10 per cent in the public’s priorities.
Devolution has led to a point which was far from unpredictable, based on experience elsewhere, in which nationalist parties can rule for pretty much ever without coming closer to the objective which attracted their original support.
Just keep playing the ‘national’ card at appropriate moments to keep the troops happy. Their permanent advantage is that there is always someone else to blame and every failure is attributable to those who are not – to quote another meaningless election slogan – “on Scotland’s side”.
Identity politics
The triumph of nationalism, wherever it arises, is to form “sides” based on identity rather than the will to address internal divisions of advantage and disadvantage, social justice and injustice. Which is why, for example, fundamental issues like meaningful land reform will never get a look in. That would involve choosing “sides” within Scotland itself.
Another consequence anywhere of a party holding power for so long is that it uses patronage to create a huge network of fealty. This has certainly happened in Scotland. There is no third-sector body dependent on Scottish Government funding which steps out of line, no quango which dares exert independent thought, and only the most independent-minded ‘creatives’ risk exclusion from the subsidy trough.
It also creates an environment which attracts a political class which doesn’t actually have much in the way of politics. They all tick the independence box, of course. But go beyond that and ask which member of the Scottish Cabinet has beliefs rooted in any cause that drives a passion for reform…?
In the last Holyrood session, this gap was filled for a couple of years by the Greens, Nicola Sturgeon and various pressure groups who certainly had a passion for reform – but unfortunately it was around issues which were far removed from the priorities of the Scottish public. And that all came to grief.
What will the next five years bring? Probably more of the same except worse. But believe me, in the interests of Scotland’s future, I’d love to be proved wrong.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.