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?

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.

 

Comments (15)

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published.

  1. John Robertson says:

    I’m a firm opponent of Kate Forbes but to bracket her with Elphicke is way off target.

    1. MrVertigo says:

      It’s only way off target if you have the privileged position of being a cis heterosexual

  2. Roland Chaplain says:

    I am particularly concerned about the removal of the ‘Wellbeing Economy’ remit not just from Mairi McAllan but indeed apparently from Scot Gov as a whole.
    Does this spell the end of the WEGo group of governments – a vital building block of international Scottish Independence support and eventual recognition?
    Indeed, might there even be a threat to the division of Scot Gov that is responsible for ‘Loss and Damage’ restorative climate justice ?
    How is this all going to go down with the hundreds of environmental, faith and civic society groups and organisations whose very reason for existence is to campaign on these issues ?

  3. MrVertigo says:

    Bravo!

  4. Satan says:

    I doubt that most people are in the slightest bit interested in stability levels in some political party, or a secretary for net-zero circular wellbeing (outsourced to KPMG). As far as I can make out, baldy has no plans to change anything of any note, whatsoever. The jury’s out on whether he even has a pulse. How did we get here? The alternative is an evangelical Christian fundamentalist with the same social beliefs as Sarah Palin, but probably with added creationism, like Scotland is some kind of US banjo state. Seriously?

    1. BSA says:

      Seriously ? Which cartoon is this you write for ?

    2. John says:

      I hope that made some sense to you Satan.
      It just read as the pointless, abusive trolling of a complete idiot to everyone else.

    3. Frank Mahann says:

      Incoherent.

  5. Innes K says:

    typo! (parachuting)

    1. Lindsey says:

      I guess Mike just dictated this piece to his phone then forgot to edit … it makes difficult reading with so many mis-spellings …

  6. John says:

    Like it or not the independence movement has to carry the majority support of Scottish people to achieve this aim. The SNP is the political wing of movement and as such has to be a broad church encompassing people of many varieties of personal moralities.
    Kate Forbes may be divisive to a section of Scottish electorate due to her personal views but so are many other MSP’s as GRA showed. The key question is whether KF’s views impact policy implementation.
    I personally consider her a valuable addition to SNP cabinet as she seems competent and will help engage a section of independence support currently disaffected with SNP. A possible future leader – probably not due to her naive performance in last year’s leadership election and I think media would eat her alive. I am willing to see how she performs in the DFM post before judging further.
    Neil Ascherson’s article was informative and thoughtful and many of the actions he suggested would not only advance cause of independence but prepare country for it. The only problem I see with these proposals is that they require the support of a majority of electorate of Scotland or they may be counterproductive. To get majority support you need support to be firmly above 50% which has not been achieved so far. This majority support is achievable and when it is reached and sustained a whole range of options to advance independence become possible. To achieve that sustained support, like it or not, the Scottish government has to implement policies that appeal to and benefit the majority of Scottish electorate. It also has to do this in the face of a frightened and antagonistic media, Westminster Parliament and variety of vested interests.

    1. Joe Middleton says:

      I think you’re right. A lot of the Yes movement seems to think the SNP should live up to their individual political agenda or give constant reassurance that they are fact still supporting independence. They’ve campaigned for it for 90 years ffs! John Swinney commands considerable loyalty in the SNP due to his long service so he is best fitted to lead the party. Kate Forbes is more popular with the public and most certainly is not a homophobe just a religious person who didn’t do the normal politician thing and avoid the question. I’m sure she regrets that answer re equal marriage and she apologised at the time. She also attacked the SNP’s record while while it showed she wasn’t afraid to go for the jugular it will have hurt her at the time as the SNP are intensely loyal. We have to remember that opinion polls are not election results and the actual election campaign will be what decides the results with the public. What the SNP is about is convincing people of the merits of independence. They have always been quite a broad church and they are united by that one objective and pushing Scottish interests. They tend to act in tune with what they think the public want. John Swinney says he’s on the centre left so he’s not going to always please environmentalists or socialists and if he moved too much in either direction he would be less attractive to the general public who don’t necessarily follow the ins and outs of policy as much as political anoraks do. What is required from him is to convert more of the public to independence. I think he has a plan to do so and part of that is being pleasant to other parties in parliament and projecting a listening attitude. Since we are a minority government we can’t do much else as our relationship with the Greens has soured somewhat. I would personally like a republican socialist Government and I will vote for that when we are independent. Until that point I will support and vote for the only party which is capable of mustering enough electoral support to make that happen.

      1. Taylor Slow says:

        The incoherent argument and slapdash presentation of the original article provoked some equally poor responses but thank goodness for John and Joe’s last two eminently sensible posts, which I’m not going to try to improve on.

      2. John says:

        Joe – it has always struck me as odd that opponents of SNP demand they give up on independence while some supporters question their commitment to independence. I am not a lifelong independence or SNP supporter but I always realised that this was the party’s primary rationale and that it was a legitimate aim.
        I am probably not entirely politically aligned with KF but recognise not only her potential value to SNP in persuading (as opposed to converting)the ‘soft No’s’ to independence. This is the section of electorate whose support is key to increasing support for independence to the level where it becomes the real settled will of majority at which point independence will actually be achievable.
        Independence is primarily about accepting that the Scottish electorate are the best people to decide how Scotland is governed. I also think that my personal political beliefs of wanting to live in a fairer, more socially just, climate aware, republican country are more achievable in an independent Scotland than being part of UK though that is ultimately up to the whole electorate in Scotland to decide.

Help keep our journalism independent

We don’t take any advertising, we don’t hide behind a pay wall and we don’t keep harassing you for crowd-funding. We’re entirely dependent on our readers to support us.

Subscribe to regular bella in your inbox

Don’t miss a single article. Enter your email address on our subscribe page by clicking the button below. It is completely free and you can easily unsubscribe at any time.