UnBrits and the Mirror World

In Naomi Klein’s Doppelganger we are asked to consider a ‘mirror world’ in which versions of ourselves stare back at each other in digital and paranoid confusion, trying, and failing to navigate a post-truth world. It was brought to mind as John Swinney announced his cabinet and Keir Starmer welcomed his new recruit Natalie Elphicke, saying: “I’m delighted to welcome Natalie Elphicke to the Labour party… She’s on the front line when it comes to the crisis on small boats.”

Labour and the SNP can be seen as mirror-parties in the Mirror World of British politics subject to many of the same forces at play, as we descend the final months of fourteen years of Conservative government, as Rishi Sunak’s party staggers towards political oblivion.

While Starmer has been on the receiving end of derision and contempt for his decision to accept Elphicke into the arms of his new Labour project (Natalie Elphicke is a hard-right Tory. Her defection sums up Labour’s contempt for progressive voters), John Swinney will be expecting plaudits for the appointment of Kate Forbes into the role of Deputy Leader of the SNP. But he shouldn’t expect the long queue of commentators to start penning his praise very soon.

As John Swinney ascends the thrown of First Minister promising be a “first minister for everyone in Scotland” he appoints a figure who is deeply divisive and reactionary. Consider how this response, to a very simple question sounds like its speaking to a “Scotland for everyone” agenda?

Kate Forbes has spoken openly about her personal views on LGBT issues, abortion, and same sex marriage. Those views are far more socially conservative than recent SNP governments.

She’s now deputy FM – what message does she have for the LGBT community in Scotland today? https://t.co/ojQOkCT7Pq pic.twitter.com/zfxcurSGgu

— Peter A Smith (@PeterAdamSmith) May 8, 2024

Swinney’s new cabinet is, at best, uninspiring and at worst, desultory. His attempt at talking the language of ‘healing, respect and reconciliation’ (variously) is undermined by the fact that these things only have meaning if they are rooted in an actual process of reality. But the efforts to buy-off contenders and slot Swinney into post – thereby avoiding the tortuous leadership contest of yesteryear that left blood in the water – does not speak to a party aiming to or able to engage in genuine reconciliation. The same powers that hated the Greens with a passion still exist, the same powers that couldn’t abide ANY political divergence within the Union still exists, the same tensions within civil society as well as political parties still exist, and the same Overton Window that talks of ‘competent government’ (code for neoliberal economics) still exists. Planting Kate Forbes in a powerful position doesn’t assuage those forces or make those issues go away, it just makes it clear that you are beholden to them.

It may well be that the Swinney anointment is good for the SNP. As Dani Garavelli has written Swinney “… is the man best placed to restore stability. He is the man most likely to minimise the damage inflicted by Scottish Labour and to steer the party towards the Holyrood elections in 2026.”

But, as everyone has noted long ago, the fate of the SNP and the future of the independence cause are not one and the same, in fact, the very qualities that John Swinney brings to play: safety, security, stability and moderation are fine ones, they’re just not the qualities that you need to bring about independence. Scottish independence, by definition is a rupture, it is breaking with the British state and creating a new one. Imagining that you do that by changing nothing at all is a perverse fantasy, not a political strategy.

In coronating Swinney the SNP have exposed and confirmed what we already new, that the party is deeply committed to a soft-centralism, and has no real intention of confronting structural power either in Scotland or in wider Britain. In this respect, while they performatively play-out the games of opposition and slinging doges abuse at each other, the SNP and Labour are at one. There is a veneer or policy difference, but both are subject to the pressures of what is politically acceptable. That window is slightly wider, or positioned slightly to the left in Scotland, but not by much.

If Swinney’s ‘safe pair of hand’s’ offers security for his party, it may offer sterility for the wider independence movement. How far away is it from the vision conjured by Neal Ascherson this week when he wrote of an alternate strategy he calls ‘As If’. In it he imagines a (far) more radical Scottish leadership:

“As if” means acting as if Scotland were already independent. It means marching ahead with legislation officially reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Acts and daring the UK government to intervene. The second strategy would mean simply refusing to execute UK laws or orders that Holyrood thought morally or practically wrong for Scotland. Examples: refusing police protection for Home Office snatch vans driving from England to seize asylum seekers for deportation (see previous crowd actions in Glasgow and Edinburgh to block the vans and free their prisoners).

Another: to refuse to apply anti-trade union measures from the UK government, such as the strike-breaking Minimum Service Levels Act. Both these are already popular causes. Flat-out and sustained confrontation with the UK government over such laws could end in sanctions against Holyrood or even the suspension of the Scottish parliament; a provoked crisis, but one that could shift Scottish opinion irrevocably towards ending the union. However, there’s not the slightest sign in the SNP of the fearlessness such “illegal’’ behaviour would require. So the wish for independence will survive, even though the vehicle to carry it sits on the hard shoulder with flat tyres.”

To see just wow far away we are from this vision today its worth noting that the following words and concepts are no longer in Scottish Government titles (hat-tip to Dr Hannah Graham): ‘Migration & Refugees’, ‘Europe and International Development’, ‘Planning’, ‘Fair Work’, ‘Community Wealth’, ‘Just Transition’, ‘Biodiversity’, ‘NHS Recovery’, ‘Active Travel’, ‘Innovation and Trade’, ‘Independence’.

As well as these words being removed from the frontline (not that many of them were ever really on the frontline) the post of Minister for Independence has been removed (it was held by Jamie Hepburn in case for some reason you hadn’t been aware of the full impact of his role).

As the commentator Jonathon Shafi has noted: “Scrapping the Minister for Independence role comes alongside a generally defensive approach. The SNP know the “yes movement” doesn’t exist as a social force in the same way and indy has reduced in electoral salience. So back to “competent managers” of economy within devolved context.”

In fact, a period of honest from the SNP in which they said “conditions have changed, we have no real route to independence” might be a good thing. A root and branch look at the prospectus for independence, an authentic look at the problems and issues at play and a historic (and long overdue) reflection on past failures would be the right things to do. That way the case could be rebuilt from the ground up and a re-boot with a basis grounded in 2024 could be conceived. Instead we can all see the reverting to type, the disjuncture between act and deed, and the fundamental dishonesty at play.

There’s a dark irony here. Despite the SNP’s failing, mismanagement and ability to conjure mass ennui, support for independence remains stubbornly at 50%, a sort of thrawn gesture of gallus defiance to the world. This is perhaps because, despite the failure of the political class, the Union itself lies in tatters: every single argument pushed out in 2014 is now an absurdist joke; the experience of living under the May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak regimes has confirmed every argument for self-determination. But most of all, as Ascherson concludes: “There’s a democratic problem, too. Ironically, by introducing democracy into the antique 1707 union, devolution showed why it no longer works. “Partnership” in a democratised union where 85% of the citizens belong to one member, England, can only be a fiction.”

As John Swinney rightly attempts to inject some much-needed civility into public discourse, the fact remains that such is the contempt with which Scotland, and Scottish representatives are held that the crisis of the SNP is used as a proxy for the whole nation being in disarray and open to dogs abuse. As Neil Mackay points out this isn’t symmetrical or part of a lively critical culture. He writes: “Sturgeon is subjected to staggering levels of hate and misogyny online, as are nearly all women politicians. However, with Sturgeon we never hear many complaints from the opposing camp. Her looks, her dress-sense – even the miscarriage she experienced – are all fair game for those from the fevered fringes of the right and unionism.”

“Would they be so quiescent if this was a woman from a political party they voted for? Humza Yousaf also endures intolerable attacks, specifically around race and religion. Again, almost universal silence from the right and the hard wing of unionism. Patrick Harvie of the Greens is targeted for grotesque homophobic abuse, with insults such as “groomer” thrown at him. There’s been disgraceful dog-whistles directed at Harvie by those with a public platform. Would this be tolerated for a Labour or Conservative figure?”

“The well-known comedian Janey Godley, seen as pro-independence and a supporter of progressive causes, suffers such appalling abuse online that it’s sometimes difficult to read. She has cancer, yet those who hate her hound Godley with undisguised sadistic glee.”

So what?

Well if doors look closed and roots to independence look shut down, the defenders of the Union are reduced to abuse. If we are ‘UnBrit’s’ so be it. I’ll take it thanks. Others are triumphant at what they see as a great reset, the world returned to as they were pre 2014 (see ‘Jack’s Back’). Still hankering for a Kate Forbes leadership, and published just before Swinney’s coronation the New Statesman wrote an editorial: “A leader such as Ms Forbes would deliver the hard truths the SNP needs to hear; wealth creation as well as wealth redistribution matters; public services require reform rather than simply more resources; and unreflective progressivism alienates Scotland’s moderate majority.”

Such political themes – wealth creation – ‘public service reform’ – and reference to a silent majority are direct echoes of Thatcher and strange to be voiced in a journal previously proudly of the Left. But Scotland has long been seen a sort of recalcitrant child, misbehaving for not following the line given from London.

The crisis of the SNP is a profound one unlikely to be papered over by parashooting in a new leader, but it is reflective of a wider and deeper crisis in British politics such that triumphalism at their state of play is unfounded as we stare into the mirror at the prospect of a Starmer government.