No More Heroes
Alex Salmond has died at the untimely age of only 69. He leaves a contested and complex legacy. There is no doubt that he carried the SNP and the wider cause of Scottish nationalism from a position of only three MPs in 1987 to returning to lead the SNP (2004), then forming the first SNP government (2007), then repeating it with a landslide majority (2011), negotiating a referendum and then bringing the forces of independence close to victory (2014). By any measurement, this was a remarkable political achievement.
It is difficult for younger people to realise the extent to which Scottish nationalism was a fringe political view as recently as the 1980s. Such is the dominance that the SNP have had electorally over the past twenty years, and so mainstream is the idea that Scotland should be an independent country, especially among people under 40, that it is almost unimaginable how rogue that view used to be. To a huge extent that is down to Alex Salmond.
But his success was born not just of charisma, energy and passion, as some accounts have over-emphasised, but also by strategic nous. Kenny Farquharson had written in The Times of his three great achievements.: “One, he dismantled the widespread belief that it was a Protestant party, befriending Cardinal Tom Winning, who would invite him for pasta dinners at his residence. Two, he built bridges between the SNP and Scotland’s Asian community, undermining the view that nationalism was always nativist and ethnic. And three, he defeated the fundamentalists within the SNP who saw devolution as a cul-de-sac. Salmond set the party on a gradualist path that would eventually lead to power.”
The tributes are flowing today, from a wide and (very) varied source of politicians and journalists. Some border on hagiography, others treat him as an idol and an icon. I think there are greater and deeper lessons to be learned here than the ‘Great Man view of history’. For me, the greatest lesson from 2014 was the experience of multiple points of leadership emerging from the campaign for independence. This was the emergence of a real movement, one that was brimming with ideas, energy and releasing pockets of previously unreleased potential in areas of society that had been oppressed or marginalised. The problem with idolising a figure such as Alex Salmond is not just that it airbrushes his own flaws, but it reduces an entire movement, and an entire period of history to the personal feuds between a few individuals.
The reality is that Salmond’s greatest attributes – his charisma and force of personality – had a shadow side – and to deny that is to deny complexity and to reduce him to a sainted martyrdom. This may be expedient for some – but it is worthless for anyone wanting either an understanding of human nature or a political strategy going forward.
Salmond’s passing is not, as some political opponents have hoped, the death of the case or the cause for Scottish independence. For, in reality, despite the massive contribution he made in the past, he has long since been a significant player in developing the argument for self-determination. The harsh reality is (and this can never be acknowledged by his followers) that his Alba Party would never have formed without him, but equally could never be a success with him at its helm. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree or not, the brutal reality is that what was revealed about his conduct was unacceptable behaviour to a great many people in Scotland.
It is difficult to tell whether Salmond’s passing will lead to groups and tendencies within the independence movement healing divisions or uncovering old wounds, I hope for the former but suspect the latter. The instinct for romanticism and re-writing of history to avenge perceived grievance will be very strong amongst some people.
I’m more with Dick Gaughan or Jean Jacques Burnel and Hugh Alan Cornwell on the issue of Heroes. The reality is people can be both inspiring and disappointing at different times, we probably all are. Ultimately the case for independence, to which Alex Salmond dedicated his life, is about treating ourselves as adults, as grown-ups with the responsibilities that come with such status. Adults don’t idolise individuals or reduce them to saints.
To eulogise Salmond without reference to his personal behaviour is to belong to a different era in time, when men’s conduct was brushed-over and condoned or ignored. It is not possible in the 21C to continue such commentary with any credibility. It is not possible to separate personal and political conduct.
Equally, while we may celebrate Salmond’s monumental political achievements, you can’t also examine his misjudgments. Alex Salmond has been getting the credit for shaping Scottish nationalism into a progressive left-wing movement. Yet he also has to take some responsibility for containing that same movement within some fairly strict constraints of neoliberalism, of constitutional monarchism and a very cautious and conservative approach to the currency question. As his colleague George Kerevan has written: “His was a personalised politics that – in the end – always placated the conservative elements of Scottish bourgeois and petty-bourgeois society.” His decision to use the Kremlin-backed RT channel for his own tv programme was a highly dubious one, and his more recent online programmes show an individual with diminishing returns, showcasing fringe characters and completing the descent into a nationalist subculture.
The great irony for those of his supporters who will froth and foam about Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership, is that all of the accusations against her: of control, centralisation, and iron-discipline she inherited from her mentor. All of the dire and debilitating aspects of her time as ‘Great Leader’ were learned directly from Salmond.
British and Scottish politics has gone through extraordinary changes in the years since 2007, and the era of charismatic politicians and parliamentary politics seems like from a different age. Salmond’s career shows the power of personality, charisma and sheer energy, but it also shows the limitations of parliamentary politics, the constraints of the independence movement and the dangers of believing in idols.
Unfortunately, human adults idolise, sanctify and demonise individuals, groups and imaginary entities all the time. Toxic fandom is not confined to pop music or politics.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2024/oct/11/stars-repentant-stans-toxic-fandom-tegan-sara-taylor-swift-chappell-roan
Even Bella’s pages regularly promote the Cult of the Artist. We need to understand the minionisation, addiction, superstition and parasocial relations of Homo Credens better in this Age of Self. And although the anarchist movement has regularly failed to live up to its principles, we can learn important critiques of leadership from it.
Good piece, i would not argue with anything you say here
Thanks Andrew
I agree, Andrew
Epitaph for Salmond:
“An honest man here lies at rest,
As e’er God with His image blest:
The friend of man, the friend of truth;
The friend of age, and guide of youth:
Few hearts like his, with virtue warm’d,
Few heads with knowledge so inform’d:
If there’s another world, he lives in bliss;
If there is none, he made the best of this.”
Alternatively,
” when he was good, he was very, very good. But when he was bad , he was horrid.”
Certainly a brilliant politician, but with flaws, and we all have flaws.
His contribution to the independence cause was stunning and has and will live on post his sad and premature passing!
In 2014, Salmond was not only up against his political foes, but also the press, the bbc, STV, the monarchy, some trade unions, decades of misinformation & lies and more shadowy figures that only the uk government has at its disposal.
What he achieved was stunning! He played westmister at its own game and almost won!
Discussions on the downfall and fate of Alba are for a later date, but I am sure we can all agree we have lost the greatest Scottish politician of modern times all too soon, I wish the best for his family and friends, he will be missed!
Lets not let his legacy whither, lets build on it to realise our and Alex’s ultimate goal, freedom for our country and people!
Ho-hum…what was done TO him was outrageously wrong,as was the conduct of the cabal, Copfs,msm,spooks, ad nauseam…
“To eulogise Salmond without reference to his personal behaviour is to belong to a different era in time, when men’s conduct was brushed-over and condoned or ignored. It is not possible in the 21C to continue such commentary with any credibility.”
This comment is a fucking disgrace.
No such thing as a not guilty verdict in some people’s eyes, apparently.
Alex Salmond was found not guilty, apart from one charge where he was found ‘Not Proven’. These are indisputable facts which i don’t doubt or challenge. The question is how his actions were judged by people. I don’t and didn’t make any of this up. The reality is in Alba’s woeful electoral record.
“These are indisputable facts which I don’t doubt or challenge.” Aye, right.
I 100% do. That’s not in dispute. You can be criminally ‘not guilty’ and still behave in a way that people find unacceptable. That’s not difficult to comprehend is it?
No, nor is the tenor of your article.
Oh well.
“His conduct was unacceptable”????
He was found not guilty of all the trumped up charges.
End of
This is very convenient now for the british establishment as the truth behind the conspiracy will never be told.
Willie Macrae all over again.
not sure if you remember how hyperbolic Mike went when Alba appeared on the scene, not surprised he had to bad wash it, with pre-emptive deflections’ we can get that stuff from times radio and the BBC as well. Cleared he was’ and priest he wasn’t, and he created bella as much as you mike remember that.
He created Bella? Huge if true.
The environment not literally of course, jeez oh Mikey!
I’m not sure if its compulsory to support Alba even if ou think its a really bad idea? is that how this works?
Oh – and look at this from Lesley Riddoch in the Guardian: “Three months ago, his Alba party lost both MPs in the UK general election – unsurprising since they were first elected under a Scottish National party flag, but marking the end of Alba’s brief presence at Westminster. The party also lost its deposit in every one of the 19 seats it contested.”
So this is what we’ve got to support for some bizarre arcane reason?
I was right.
It’s 3 years old, very few new party’s hit the ground running, the ISP is pretty small now too, but if they both avoid what happened to the SSP they could build or the next few year’s, they also launched when many had reached peak politics burnout in Scotland, they might have to merge? I’ll certainly vote ISP if there on the list, better than nothing. Sometimes it’s just about building an perseverance.
ISP ? That’ll be the party which received 57 votes at a local election in East Lothian a couple of years ago ?
That’s the ones. Get right behind them.
British establishment? That was and is, a Scottish made scandal, devised in the corridors of Holyrood by Sturgeon, Lloyd & co.
But Sturgeon was a British made scandal, she publicly state she identified as British, at least she admitted she had imposter syndrome!
Excellently composed article and pretty much expresses my own feeling as regards Alex Salmond’s sad and premature passing.
Balanced and truthful with a great dose of humanity. None of us are perfect but at times we all can be truly amazing?
Thank you, Mike Small- you did well and I mean that sincerely.
I wished that Nicola and Alex had not fallen out. I’m sure they both wished that too.
Nicola could grow things, but slowly through administrational excellence and thoughtful sensitivity and intelligence towards the population.
But, sometimes massive inspiration and drive beyond all debate and petty points of order is required. Alex could deliver that. He and Nicola ( whom I admire very much) had they remained allies, may have delivered freedom for us, by now.
Alex displayed the same faults, weaknesses and abuses that many men of his generation did. Some of our generation still?
I had a strong mother,still have five sisters who have drummed into my head over the decades that women are not men’s toys, not subservient, not owned, not a lesser sex of our species
I’m now in a place that when it comes to National/ International power and the abuse of power, that women are in the main, better placed to hold that power.
Though there are still very nasty women ( bonjour La France)
So Alex, yer awa. Ye did guid service tae yer folk. Munny will keep ye in mine fur a ye did tae tak us fae hatin urslells and noo weer startin tae believe we’re no saikent best tae the folks next door on our border.
Ye did wrang as well as guid, but wha husnae?
Rest in peace son, ye did mair than maist o us did for Lady Scotland and her kin.
A bid ye a kind farewell Alex
Thanks High King’s of Eire
Except for, NS didn’t do those things you credit her with having done; quite the opposite, in fact, as time has all too quickly told. And therein lies the problem. There has been altogether far greater unfounded cultish worship and idolisation for her than anything displayed towards the one who almost nobody, if anyone at all, argues was, and will always be, recognised as the real deal in the matter of historical account. But this is a loss which I suspect has taken us all by surprise, and in a sense we are all trapped in a brief disassocitive moment of not quite realising he has left the room, or the actual significance of that, and in a sense are still talking about the issues as if he was still here. Suddenly he is not. It has been too soon to be having any of this debate. We are still needing to take in the momentousness of what his loss represents, and the importance of what he was still representing even up to the last moments, if you take the trouble to listen to, and take in, his comments at that conference, and within the context of that conference, and even the reasons he was attending it at all, and was able to do so, and do so meaningfully… This narrative that he was a much dimished figure and a spent force, while superficially true at home, so to speak, and easy to make at this exact juncture, is a dangerous fallacy for any of us who share his cause, even if history in his case has grievously left what I am still failing to express here hanging.
It is not a question of heroes or idols as Mike Small asserts. It is a question of effective and successful political leadership, such as Alex Salmond demonstrated, particularly between 2004 and 2014. Anyone looking around the world today can see how rare such attributes are.
The ‘real movement’ to which Mike Small refers, proved entirely ineffective once Nicola Sturgeon decided she had no need of it.
One reason why unionists are being so gracious in their tributes is their belief – well-founded in my opinion – that there is nobody remotely comparable to him left in Scotland today.
I don’t think you have to worry Mr Small about people idolising you.
It’s not something that troubles me.
I have never idolised Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon.
Interesting that in death Salmond is blamed for the flaws of Sturgeon. As if women can’t be iron-willed or controlling without first having a male mentor? How progressive.
Sturgeon threw women under the bus – the demographic the YES movement needed
Dunno where you got that idea from – the transphobes chose their own rather noisy path
Mike – “what was revealed about his conduct”? So, what was revealed about his conduct? I really would like to know. If what you’re implying relates to this, what I do know is that in very dubious circumstances indeed, he was taken to court to face serious charges put by anonymous protected parties from a small coterie of females close to Sturgeon, which if he’d been found guilty would have put him in prison for years, yet not a single charge stuck. Have you considered that there might have been no merit in the claims made against him? Craig Murray acting as an independent reporter did end up in jail for supposed “contempt of court” writing about this matter and the abuses of process that got Salmond charged – a pretty chilling event – yet another abuse of process, and parallel to the one that got Assange jailed for years.
I think what this episode revealed was rather less about anything to do with Salmond’s behaviour, than the way politics in any country can be abused and misused by corrupt players to for personal or political gain and that the protections one likes to think are there for you are might be seriously wanting.
However you write informatively about Mr Salmond – useful for someone like me who isn’t closely involved in Scottish politics at this distance. So thanks for that.
I was very sorry to hear of Mr Salmond’s untimely sudden death. It would be worth reading Craig Murray’s own somewhat different take on the man, to whom Salmond is what you here criticise, a hero. Craig writes at the end “Alex was enormously good company and really enjoyed the finer things in life” that might in part at least, explain his sudden demise. .Condolences to his family and friends, and to Scotland, you will miss him. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2024/10/alex-salmond-always-my-hero/
I agree John. This sounds very much like the line Sturgeon took – yes he was found not guilty but that does not mean the things did not happen, they just did not reach the level of criminality. A classic case of how to condemn someone forever in the mind of the public despite being found innocent as charged. And of course that also ignores the fact that the most serious charge of rape was fatally undermined by the fact the accuser was proven to have lied at the trial about the meal preceding she was supposedly at but was not, as testified by others actually at the meal.
And we have not even started on the not unreasonable idea given the evidence, that he was actually criminally set-up by NS et al.
Salmond was also wiped from the SNP website presence, like he never existed yet now some of them are praising his legacy online. Hypocritical barely covers it. Sturgeon herself managed a few meaningless words (that offered no praise for the man) which is at least kind of honest.
Thanks to John Monro, Neimand and Ze Ze for balancing an article that started out promisingly, but descended into an ad hominem attack on a man who has just died, who was exonerated by a jury, over which prosecution there exists substantial evidence of conspiracy to jail a political rival and an innocent man, and all with British security state involvement.
The fact that the piece got unconditional support from Andrew Wilson (if it is THAT Andrew Wilson) tells me all I need to know about its quality of analysis.
It is important in serious political commentary that the author sees beyond any personal animus or distaste (s)he has for the subject of the piece. Sadly, in my opinion, this piece sadly that test.
Whatever faults he may have had (and who doesn’t have these) Alex Salmond WAS a great man.
“…the emergence of a real movement, one that was brimming with ideas, energy and releasing pockets of previously unreleased potential in areas of society that had been oppressed or marginalised”
All this is true, it was wonderful, and it almost gained our country independence. It involved many thousands of dedicated people the length and breadth of this land.
But none of that would have happened at that time, in this place, without Alex Salmond. And that was the measure of his greatness.
I have a great deal of time for this blog, and a great deal of respect for Mike Small.
I just have this terrible feeling that in this piece, Mike has betrayed several deep flaws of his own.
He was a “Great Man”. The piece is clear and not driven with personal animus but severe disappointment. The article ‘started out promisingly’ because you agreed with it. Disagreeing with me doesn’t equate to ‘personal animus’.
I think Mike here refers to behaviour that Salmond admitted to. Conduct unbecoming of a person in authority- although he was hardly unique in this regard, that doesn’t make it right.
Indeed. He was acquitted as Not Guilty on all but one charge, I don’t doubt that for a moment. People might not like that he was perceived to have acted improperly but that doesn’t make that go away.
Says the man who always offers a platform to women to allow them to voice their very real concerns around the erasure of their hard won sex based rights
He was acquitted.
Period.
Indeed
He was cleared of all charges which you conveniently forget. He was pursued by a number of state organisations and his ex colleagues gleefully joined the chase. He was under enormous pressure for years which no doubt contributed to his death. He was human, he made mistakes but he’s a hero in my eyes.
I didn’t (and don’t) forget that he was cleared of all charges. That’s not what I am talking about. But he’s a “hero in your eyes” so.
Yes, but you missed out those vital words——“Cleared of all charges”!!!!!
@ZeZe, if Yes won the 2014 referendum with a small margin, let’s say 52%–48%, that might have gone down as Scotland’s biggest political mistake since Darien.
Heroes are constructed for national myths and other reasons, but is voting reasonably, saying some things you like under parliamentary privilege, making a political party electable, is all that really heroic? John Pilger wrote a book called Heroes, about ordinary people coping with terrible conditions, trying to do the right thing. I think we need to have perspective (and obviously reject the Cult of the Leader).
https://johnpilger.com/heroes-2/
Good analysis, Mike. Salmond’s achievements were huge, and the recognition he received, not only in Scotland, as a skilful politician and statesman was justified. I hope his untimely death might act as a kick up the shirt to the wider independence movement.
I”m definitely a “no gods, no masters” and no-leaders kind of guy.
Salmond’s legacy for me was that he proved what those of us with our heads screwed on already knew
That the SNP are run by a corrupt careerist cabal, and that the independence movement is full of mindless followers who consider rumours to be allegations, allegations to be convictions, that you’re presumed guilty before and after you’re proven innocent, and who don’t care about the separation of the legislature and the judiciary. Nor do they value free speech or pluralism if it means having to listen to opinions they disagree with about topics they declare taboo.
These people have about as much grasp on fundamental liberal principles as Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin, and yet consider themselves “progressive.”
We now have a right wing Tory MP (David Davis) acting as the most important commentator on devolution.
It’s an absolute shame on us as a country.
“don’t care about the separation of the legislature and the judiciary”
But you all go on about how he was cleared of all charges? Do you have faith in the legal system or not? make your mind up!
Sorry Mike. A jury, not a system, delivered that verdict. The political system, on the other hand, is now working towards selective abolition of juries. There is no cognitive dissonance here between the grounds for trust and distrust; quite the opposite, sadly.
What is the reason for the plans to abolish juries for rape trials?
Thanks Mike. That’s a correct but different question. My point was simply that to be critical of important aspects of the legal system is not, of necessity, inconsistent with having faith in it where you believe it not to be broken, especially if this is together with the belief in the importance to society for it not to be broken. I hope it is valid to fear that insufficient separation of judicial and executive powers is a flaw. I guess it is also valid to believe that juries might require to be ablolished in certain cases, if one holds juries to be a danger, but I hope I am allowed to hope that I am living in a country where that might not be the majority of legal opinion. But yes, the second question, as to the various cited reasons for current legislation concerning juries, does certainly need to be rigorously investigated and debated.
When did Davis comment on devolution ? Regarding your last sentence, if you wish to wear a hair shirt, be my guest.
They will likely put his head on a spike on london bridge as they did with Wallace.
Same result, different tactics.
Yes, Salmond is very like William Wallace. Brilliant.
RIP, Alex Salmond, you will be much missed, even by your enemies… No one over came close to standing up for Scotland in Westminster as well as Salmond…
On the question of leadership / heroes, I understand the point Mike Small is making that there is something unhealthy about it, but it ought to be said that Podemos in Spain, when deciding on a winning strategy, opted, after careful analysis for “hiperliderazgo” or “hyperleadership” in the figure of Pablo Iglesia.
Their analysis was that the modern media world meant a concentration of attention on one or maybe two leaders was inevitable, outwith their control, and it was better to accept the reality and tailor a leadership profile to suit the modern – and deeply flawed . media world of our time. Otherwises said, to cut through, you needed a “personality”…
Iglesias very carefully selected the elements of his media projection: the pony tail for example…
The downside is that, Podemos began to decline steeply as soon as Pablo left the scene…
In our case, it’s not quite the same thing – national sovereignty is at stake after all, not just another government or political power.
But the leadership question is of some importance, and ultimately, my guess is that Podemos are right, the media world deals in heroes and villains – Salmond has been treated as both – and inevitably some of that sticks… It’s a hazard of the trade…
But leadership and being regarded a hero are not the same thing.
All political movements need good leadership and very likely a leading figure who can galvanise interest and support, and that means understanding how best to get messages across to the public. There is nothing wrong, unfortunate or flawed about that, it is normal. A good leader negotiates the media mores of the day while getting what they want across. When Salmond was at his best, he did this very well, and actually part of that was not bowing to pressure to conform to certain media expectations (or what some say they are, possibly wrongly), relying instead on simple and friendly messaging that appealed and persuaded. He was sincere. None of this has anything to do with heroes or hero-worship.
The irony here is that if you want to look at blind and damaging hero worship just look at those who idolised Sturgeon and where that led, and is still leading: nowhere. Salmond only became divisive when he was turned on by his own party – they made the divisiveness, not him, but it was able to happen because the shining light that was NS could, apparently, do no wrong.
Norman’s – Alex Salmond was generally considered ‘a marmite figure’ – which means he was always a rather divisive figure depending on whether you supported independence or not.
Since 2014 he has also become a divisive figure within independence movement. He was found not guilty but did acknowledge ‘less than perfect behaviour’ towards women which has made him unpopular especially with women. He also started up a new political party as an alternative to SNP. You can argue whether this was needed or beneficial but I find it difficult to say that this action wasn’t divisive.
None of this detracts from his massive achievements as outlined in article above and if I may add another – he was the antithesis of the typical Scottish politician we were used to who was rather apologetic about standing up for the people of the country where he came from. He could appear a bit pompous at times but he was utterly free from any trace of the ‘Scottish Cringe’ that is so prevalent amongst many in establishment (including politicians) in Scotland.
I am still not getting the divisive tag being applied especially to Salmond.
Political support for independence applies to all politicians wanting to achieve it so nothing special there.
Yes he admitted to some inappropriate behaviour but the way it was falsely mixed up with criminality, some very serious, that was all thrown out by the jury on the evidence presented (including proven accuser lies) made it far bigger than it should be, on the facts we actually know anyway.
After all that it was virtually impossible to remain in the SNP headed as it was by the person who spearheaded that process to get him put in prison for crimes he did not commit and with the deep suspicion it was a set-up, who then went on to continue to suggest he kind of was guilty anyway; and who was also a far more divisive figure than Salmond who has succeeded in half-destroying the party using the kind of her-worship, ‘she can do no wrong’ that allowed it, that is until it all, inevitably started unravelling. Alba was a response to all that and yet it failed anyway, drawing only a tiny number of voters’ support.
There is a tension here Douglas. Professional parties know that projecting the image of one single individual is highly electorally effective. Salmond learned this from Blair. The extent to which the SNP mimicked New Labour has been well documented, It’s the reason why the Green Party is derided for having dual leadership. But the effect of channeling everything through a single individual is a) it become all about them and their personality to the exclusion of much else and b) inevitably it concentrates power with them,
Charisma is over-rated.
I remember having to study the topic of public virtue and private vice as part of my history degree. I especially remember ELG Stones Professor of Medieval History asking us how he should judge a renowned archeologist whose work was pioneering when he discovered said archaeologist had groped his wife in the lift of the Boyd Orr building.
He then went on to cite numerous similar situations and asked how we dealt with this when passing historical judgment.
Thanks Mike, I thought this was a fair and thoughtful assessment of the man. Salmond’s death really does close the post-referendum chapter on independence. We need to move on and start writing the next one.
I absolutely agree Paddy. Unfortunately it appears a lot of the above posters are still fighting old battles happy in their comfort zone. I would hazard a guess that none of these posters are under the age of 50.
What’s that got to do with it?
Derek – Alex Salmond has not been such a major political figure since 2014. He was a major political figure in Scotland from the late 1980’s and the preeminent figure from 2007 until 2014. This inevitably means he was of more immediate importance to those who followed Scottish politics from 1980’s to 2014 which will be an older demographic. Many comments on here appear to come from people who have a significant interest and emotional investment in AS indicating that they have followed his career and are therefore in the over 50’s age group.
This observation in no way diminishes his importance to individuals or Scotland.
If people who are too young to remember Salmond in his heyday cannot understand why he matters much today, then those who do know (i.e those ‘over 50’) do a good thing by informing / reminding them, whilst at the same time not losing sight of the situation today that has moved on from Salmond, that the younger people may be more attuned to.
As Misty in Roots once said: ‘without the knowledge of your history, you cannot determine your destiny, and if you are not conscious of the present, you are like a cabbage in society’.
Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, Gen Z are all divisive tags that help no-one and the constant reference to age as a determining factor of the value of an adult human’s contribution to society, is regressive.
I agree that some of these tags are reductive. But it is an insight into different ages view of conduct here. One demographic simply can’t comprehend that a different generation finds certain behaviour completely unacceptable. This is a legitimate issue.
I make no personal judgement on Alex Salmond’s behaviour as I am not across all the facts. Unfortunately it may take his passing for younger people to understand what an important politician he was and how much he shaped the country Scotland has become. I hope it will bring an end to the infighting between supporters of Salmond & Sturgeon and a beginning to shaping a way forward for independence movement in particular and Scottish politics in general. I think this is what most people in Scotland, regardless of age, would like to see.
On the wider issue of personal conduct if the individual does not preach about morality their personal life is entirely their own business as long as it is consensual.
The problem arises if someone feels uncomfortable with someone else’s behaviour. This can be difficult where the people involved have different views on what is acceptable especially within the workplace where their one person may be in a less powerful position. I have seen cases of this in workplace environments where distress can be caused even when not intended.
“On the wider issue of personal conduct if the individual does not preach about morality their personal life is entirely their own business as long as it is consensual.”
Have I entered some parallel universe?
We go round in circles with what Salmond was actually guilty of (morally rather than in law where he has already been proven not guilty). We are in a situation where, at present, it is very difficult to determine how significant or extensive his inappropriate behaviour was.
One difference between current ways of seeing the world than the past is that we place far more store in people having behaved socially badly sometimes than we once did. Personally I feel very ambivalent about this when it comes how much we allow it to colour our view, of say, Salmond’s undoubted very important political achievements. People will draw there own lines, position their own bars but unless, or until new evidence comes to light about serious misconduct on his part, I consider his achievements to be what the focus should be.
@Niemand, there is a long list of British political scandals, here are just a few from the 1890s onwards, not all deal with social behaviour:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_scandals_in_the_United_Kingdom
I don’t think you can really say there is a new period of puritanism. Indeed, there might be more tolerance from some quarters in some respects. And we don’t really know how well scandals have been concealed from the public. We do have some recorded evidence on what top British politicians think of the British public, though (enemy number one, in some cabinet papers). What we don’t have is peak Cold War paranoia at the moment, which added another dimension to some previous scandals.
What any student of British politics might tell you is that politicians have generally always been held in low esteem by the populace. So, I guess bad or at least boorish behaviour has long been normalised in the political class. One new wrinkle has been the deselection procedure for MPs (how long did that take?!).
Sure political scandals are nothing new but beyond buying sex from prostitutes or being gay, I am not seeing much there that is relevant and even those examples are only tenuously linked. Most are about political corruption.
I think there is a new puritanism, or at least greater sensitivity about certain topics and social media has proven McLuhan’s prediction of the late 1950s that ‘the older traditional ideas of private, isolated thoughts and actions – the patterns of mechanistic technologies, are very seriously threatened by new methods of instantaneous electric information retrieval by the electrically computerised dossier bank – that one big gossip column is unforgiving, unforgetful and from which there is no redemption, no erasure in any sense’.
It is the no redemption, no erasure in any sense that worries me as it makes no allowance for human fallibility and offers no forgiveness. I don’t want to live in a world like that, it is awful. There are those who actually make a living out of digging the dirt and the more respected the figure so much the better. There aim is to hole them below the waterline, tainting them for evermore. I actually work with such people who in academia claim to be exposing the truth but really are simply trying to put themselves on the map and they trawl a person’s life to find the bad stuff, something you could do with almost anyone. Online, this sort of thing is commonplace.
@Niemand, Wikipedia just provides a selection, but variables include:
recency bias: what has happened just before (a mass exposure of sleaze has a measurable effect)
what happens in (Westminster) stays in (Westminster) (old boy networks etc): these break down under certain conditions, such as greater entry of women into a male-dominated sphere, at least until women catch up on sleaziness
public perceptions over who the nations’ role models should be at any given time (this is relative; if one group like clerics or thespians or sportspeople become especially tainted, other groups might ride a temporary wave)
rehabilitation (reputations once tarnished can be new burnished): sometimes a politician can rebound from serial scandals (like Peter Mandelson, for some reason)
exceptionalism: politicians may be able to win support by claiming they represent a socially-maligned group, with varying success, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_O%27Mara
There’s a whole slew of such variables, and political scientists and philosophers have presented evidence and postulated that corruption (and public tolerance of it) is cyclical, certainly not linear.
You’re right in highlighting the digital realm, but it isn’t in itself a game-changer regarding politician’s pasts which might resurface at any inconvenient moment.
However, since the Westminster elite might soon be locked up en masse for supporting genocide (even ecocide), I don’t know if these quotidian and habitual moral crimes will be of historical significance, and perhaps the legacies of comparable Scottish politicians will shine like thistles on a midden?
Alex Salmond’s passing is being used to settle scores and put the boot into the SNP by the usual culprits : Sillars, Ewing, McKenna and Cherry. To the satisfaction, I suspect, of the unionists.
Thanks Paddy.
Fine nuanced article. What is clear indeed is that the great line from Brecht’s play Life of Galileo is apposite here: “unhappy the land in need of a hero.”
Thanks Donald
machair &
air force abov
showrn down the luv
like bairns that canna decide
whithir tae ging fur a ride,
faithirs debate fa’s late,
fit tae pit oan the slate,
am thinkn ahl cook masel,
a pair ae socks
tae git rid ae the smell.
Coz crab cake fairly reeks
ae knobbly knees abov breeks,
Interestedly my comment on moderation and morals appears to have been, well “moderated” out of all existence yesterday. And I can’t think why: it was cutting, certainly, but it wasn’t rude.
Given this piece here it was perfectly reasonable to highlight why absolutely anyone’s private life should be considered just that, private. What the commentariat often appear to be using Alex Salmond’s apparent failings in that regard as a code or shorthand for inducing in a nudge-nudge, wink-wink insinuation because he mightn’t have gotten the result they were possibly hoping for at court (where he was judge by his – and their – peers). And to introduce the proverbial camels and needles-type metaphor for the author themselves in asking whether it might have been more appropriate to wait to indulge in anything like the above so close to the event of a persons passing and whilst the grieving had had no opportunity yet to process their loss – especially as this is politics and it’ll all be coming down the track anyway.
I’m all for moderation. Censorship of comments challenging the approach and tone of a piece is something quite different, though, no?
The problem Agustin is that the issues were not about “private life should be considered just that, private”.
Happy to discuss what the “issues” being alluded to were, then.
My point is that Alex Salmond was very publicly exonerated by the court and the only thing I could find suggested at then time after that was that he may not have been as pure an adherent to his matrimonial vows as he should have been. The first is a matter of simple fact, the latter a matter of moral judgement and perception – which again I fail to see the relevance of, especially at this time.
To the best of my knowledge he’d never been a political exponent of “family values”, the “nuclear, family”, “traditional” family values or even church philosophy in his professional utterances. Anything but. As a consequence it seems it’d be difficult to justify the relevance of any of this now.
So if it wasn’t anything I challenged, perhaps you could make clear what exactly it was in his personal sphere that you thought damaged his political legacy. The Irish patriot Charles Parnell, a figure Alex Salmond often returned to, wasn’t defeated by politics but by internal opponents and the collective commentariat deliberately exploiting a manufactured prurience about his domestic affairs. It’d be somewhat ironic (and deeply dissappointing) to have the same happen to a Scottish one and for the same reason more than a hundred years later.
Having heard some of the anecdotes, I wonder how much politicking is done drunk. Alcohol is very much part of the fabric of Westminster, so much so that they might as well change the portcullis symbol for one of these:
https://www.hse.gov.uk/chemical-classification/labelling-packaging/hazard-symbols-hazard-pictograms.htm
and it seems that Salmond-era Scottish politics resembled Westminster closely in various ways. Winston Churchill seemed to have spent most of WW2 pissed, and I’m not sure if he sobered up by the time the nuclear button was placed in his hands. Scottish euphemisms aside, I don’t distinguish between our political representatives swigging claret and champagne during meetings, snorting cocaine in a toilet cubicle beforehand, or sniffing glue together in an alley afterwards. It all binds the ruling class together and creates schisms between them and the public (and reality, one supposes).
The Venerable Eck, his positioning the SNP on the left side of acceptable politics, opening the party up to Irish Catholics and Asians, and just about completely changing the public perception of what the SNP is could only be been as a huge success. We must also considered that he done this while maintaining (and representing on a constituency level) an acceptability with largely anti-independence middle class types, it is a bit ironic that he enjoyed adversarial Westminster to consensual Holyrood. Political successfully, the accommodation did result in some pretty conservative cultural calculations that got found out in the post-referendum world- monarchism for example we can now see is frankly laughable for the SNP to support- how low support for the crown amongst party members and voters must be in this day and age! However, the accommodation as a whole really shattered during the ref debate and more so afterwards- the majority of Middle Scotland smelled radical change and redistribution and didn’t want anything to do with it, there’s no going back. Yes he was yesterday’s man and a very sad and reviled figure at the end of his life. As some have alluded to- conduct does not need to be criminal to be found unacceptable and off-putting, this is what made him demonstrably unpopular with the public and made ALBA seem like a bag of fanatics and lost-causers. He did not get the happy ending that fellow independence supporters like myself dearly wanted and that makes his passing sombre for me, despite finding his last years largely disgraceful. An immensely successful and very flawed political operator.