It seems one of Tom Harris' latest posts has plumbed new depths. The ex-Minister has tried to take some of the European unpopularity of Sarah Palin and smear some of it on the SNP and Alex Salmond. Naturally, I took exception.My initial umbrage stemmed from Tom's blatant attempt to suggest the SNP are full of "hordes of hangers, gun nuts, homophobes, secessionists (give you that one) and government-haters".
From what I saw of the SNP at the weekend, this couldn't have been further from the truth. The SNP are a dynamic party bursting with ideas. Not all of these ideas may be correct and/or popular but the creativity and energy that they bring to the table is impressive. Devolution and the SNP have combined to provide an option that Scotland has lacked for 50-odd years.
Tom further dropped in my estimation with the following lines:
"if anyone dares criticise the SNP, why, that’s because they hate Scotland, they think the Scottish people are too stupid to run their own country."
"if anyone dares criticise the SNP, why, that’s because they hate Scotland, they think the Scottish people are too stupid to run their own country."
This would still be a childish remark even if it came from a teenager. The SNP think Scotland is best served if its governmental borders ended at Gretna (save for EU representation). Labour think Scotland benefits from being part of the United Kingdom.
From that beginning, an intellectual and stimulating debate should be able to grow. I don't believe Tom helped cultivate such growth with this recent post.
Another line:
"Yes, they love Scotland, but they hate their opponents much, much more."
Hate is a strong word, one which Tom seems to enjoy chucking around. It's clear the SNP have confidence in their arguments, enjoy the challenge of going up against unionists and there's no love lost between the parties but I don't associate the party with the word "hate". Maybe I'm biased but I think that of the two parties it is Labour more than the SNP that find their poise and logic distorted by a supposed "hate" for the opposition.
I decided I had to comment on this article but also tried to sidestep the potential brainless bunfight. I pointed out that the SNP constantly fight on issues and on logic rather than some misty-eyed stirrings of patriotism, using the fossil fuel levy rebate and free school meals as examples. I went out of my way to say the real debate between the SNP and Labour is not about patriotism but about simple reasoning.
I also offered Tom a chance to put a positive case for the union:
Tom, sorry, but this is base nonsense in my eyes…
Tom, sorry, but this is base nonsense in my eyes…
The SNP constantly fight on issues, on logic and on hard data. Not on some whimsical patriotism that you seem to have plucked out the blue air.
The £1bn the SNP are calling for is with good reason. The UK Government aren’t necessarily being ‘unpatriotic’ in withholding it but they do lack good reasons.
For free school meals, the policy is being backed by parents, teachers, poverty campaigners and the benefits are multiple and long-term. Labour are blocking it for political reasons because they want to break the historical concordat. So again, not "unpatriotic" but certainly not worthy.
I could go on and on but Labour, sometimes, need to just sit back and say "good job" to a Government doing just that.
PS As a fan of the SNP, I can assure you I am not a gun nut, homophobe, cecessionist and/or government-hater.
PPS In so many words, yes, Labour have been saying what Iain MacWhirter suggested for decades. What alternative reason do you have for Scotland being the only sizeable nation in Europe that isn’t independent?
The Labour MP's response was illogical, irrational and bizarre in the extreme. It also, tellingly, did not include a very detailed positive case for keeping the union. "Benefits both parties" doesn't really give us undecideds much to work with:
And there you go again - Labour don’t want independence, so therefore we must hate Scotland.
And there you go again - Labour don’t want independence, so therefore we must hate Scotland.
I want Scotland to stay within the UK for exactly the same reason that (most) Americans want Texas and California to remain in the Union: it benefits both parties. You may not agree with that analysis, Jeff, but please don’t tell me I’m anti-Scottish just because I believe Scotland is better off as part of the UK.
By the way - you certainly are a secessionist if you want Scotland to secede from the UK.
Pointing out that at no point did I call Tom Harris anti-Scottish, no point say that Labour hated Scotland and that I was undecided on independence, I was sure Tom's gas must have been put at a peep. He did try to concoct a fairly odd and circuitous argument to back up his assertion that I'd called him anti-Scottish but I am pretty sure it was seen by others the way I saw it, a rather desperate stretch to stay on top of the argument.
So I don't know, even though I've been backed up, maybe Tom did make some good points and I'm not giving the man enough credit but I always liked to believe that to be an MP you had to have something special, maybe a cast-iron logic, a soaring eloquence or a skill for debating that would leave mere two-bit bloggers like myself sitting back in admiration.
Sadly this seems far from the case.
Indeed, I'm forming a stronger and stronger opinion that the role of certain MPs could be taken by any Tom, Dick or Harry and noone would know the difference.
22 comments:
I think what lies behind this kind of non-political ranting is the fact that Labour's hegemony in Scotland has been broken and cannot be fixed.
If you had spent all your adult political life and career in Scotland as a Labour activist you would have grown accustomed to power and privilege in the public arena, from big things to small. That would include, safe seats, various useful contacts, maybe the odd quango role, an easy ride with the press, more money than your opponents to fight elections and all the rest.
West Central Scotland, certainly, until comparitively recently was one vast rotten borough( or burgh!)
When this goes, or is under serious threat, you are almost bound to be miffed.
Those responsible are therefore homophobes,hangers, fascists, whatever.
Its just not fair.
Agreed. Labour are incredibly bitter at losing power and haven't yet been able to see that their negativity in the period since May 2007 isn't winning them any voters.
Slightly off topic- but the accusation of homophobia in the SNP actually is so factually inaccurate it is embarrassing for those who make such an accusation. When I first joined the SNP I had a bit of a creeping fear when going to my conference that some how the SNP was some sort of homophobic organisation. Immediately I found that had fallen victim to Labour’s propaganda machine of losing every other argument so they just started throwing terms like homophobic around and relying on ‘commentators’ like Muriel Grey to parrot it.
What I found could not be further from the truth and I find it terrifying that a former Minister of the Crown to be relying on such petty insults. I could go on about the SNP’s LGBT credentials but to be honest anyone who tries to hit the independence movement with some homophobia bat, obviously has done not a shred of research or warps reality to suit insulting political attacks. Neither does LGBT rights any good whatsoever.
Who was the first Scottish Government Minister to open Gay Pride in Scotland? The dynamic Member for Glasgow Govan. And she got a much bigger cheer that Patrick Harvie (a most pleasant and admirable man).
Jeff, I've always liked your blog and I'd never call you a "two-bit blogger."
And if you are searching for a cast-iron logic, a soaring eloquence or a skill for debating... you probably shouldn't be looking at MPs or prospective MPs.
Maybe academia is where you should be going...
Some great points left here and a very good advert for why allowing anonymous comments is no bad thing.
Maybe I'm lucky to be young (or just simple) enough to not know of the supposed religious or homophobic bias in the SNP but I agree, it's so silly a suggestion that it's easily laughed off.
The points raised that Labour have got so used to power with so little effort is perhaps a good reason for them bringing the next generation through. Sadly, it doesn't seem to be happening just yet but once a good few seats change colour at the next election I suspect their hand will be forced and we can hopefully look forward to a better level of debate on independence and policy issues alike.
And Super Ted, academia is for cop-outs if you ask me (*private joke to my PhD-studying amigo before anyone takes offence*)
I bet he was reading your comment quite reasonably until he saw you refer to "the historical concordat"
At that point red mist came down - and he thought, "LOOK, IT ISN'T HISTORICAL OR HISTORIC JUST BECAUSE THEY TELL US IT IS. IT'S JUST A BLOODY AGREEMENT BETWEEN CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT - AND THERE HAVE BEEN LOADS OF THOSE OVER THE YEARS. IT'LL BE DECADES BEFORE WE DETERMINE IF IT'S REALLY HISTORIC OR HISTORICAL, OR JUST HYSTERICAL."
His stream of consciousness so consumed with despair at the way intelligent people can be brainwashed into trumpeting out the slogan Mr Harris let fly without thinking.
In these circumstances - and when so sorely provoked - I have every sympathy with him, and may have to resort to my thinly veiled threat of yesterday ;-)
Best wishes
Scott
PS - and I won't comment on the final line of your last comment. Some of us straddle both sectors, not like you civil servants ;-)
Jeff, I had to admit I could not believe you and had to go and read it with my own eyes. It's so sad the only reason I can think of is Tom's mourning because of his loss. I let my answer there, but here I would like very much if you host this:
I have very little patience for "nationalists" with an attitude defined as i.e. the Webster definition:
"Loyalty and devotion to a nation ; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups".
Which I agree is a tad puerile. But I have all the time in the world for the philosophycal attitude as defined by Stanton:
"The term “nationalism” is generally used to describe two phenomena: (1) the attitude that the members of a nation have when they care about their national identity and (2) the actions that the members of a nation take when seeking to achieve (or sustain) self-determination. (1) raises questions about the concept of nation (or national identity), which is often defined in terms of common origin, ethnicity, or cultural ties, and while an individual’s membership in a nation is often regarded as involuntary, it is sometimes regarded as voluntary. (2) raises questions about whether self-determination must be understood as involving having full statehood with complete authority over domestic and international affairs, or whether something less is required.
It is traditional, therefore, to distinguish nations from states — whereas a nation often consists of an ethnic or cultural community, a state is a political entity with a high degree of sovereignty. While many states are nations in some sense, there are many nations which are not fully sovereign states."
Which in my opinion is a most serious and grown-up perspective.
And what is the opposite to Nationalism?
Cosmopolitanism perhaps?
But surely if all the gays are voting tory (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7644851.stm) we should hate them? No? :P
Sorry, just joking. As someone's already said, logic and debate does not enter into the Labour psyche, north or south of the border.
This seems all one-sided so I might as well try and offer some balance!
There is an extent to which Labour don't like being in opposition - something which is hardly surprising.
This reality is true for all parties with realistic hopes of forming the government. It took the SNP a number of post-devolution years to develop a positive agenda, rather than simply endless calls that the 'minister must resign'.
There is however an adjustment period to life in opposition. It's likely that Labour will find it easier to get into power once their message is more positive. However there's a chicken-and-egg element to this debate too: this will probably only work once the public begins to grow tired of the SNP government.
I agree that it's too simple to just say that the SNP are anti- this that or the next thing. And it most cases it's not true because they - like Labour too - simply reflect the general public (or at least those which are political active).
However some of the statements here e.g. "logic and debate does not enter into the Labour psyche, north or south of the border" are equally vacuous. Equally there is at times a tendency to use the line that ‘Labour hate Scotland or say we’re too wee, poor, etc’ (not a charge I’m aiming at Jeff).
In other words there is a tendency on all sides to mindlessly attack the other side. And often these charges can stick even when there’s no proof (or at least not modern day examples of this). But it’s something that all parties at different times engage in.
Bob
Hmmm.
having read both your blog and Tom's - including the comments - I think it's clear to say you're got the wrong end of the stick.
The homophobe etc bit actually refers to Sarah Palin's mob, and I don't think there's much argument there. Those necks don't come much redder.
As for the central thrust of the piece - that the SNP hate their detractors more than they love Scotland - I don't think that's so easily dismissed.
You only have to read the comments section of both the Herald and the Scotsman to get a glimpse of the vitriol that exists behind some SNP supporters' tartan-tinted specs.
These are probably not the sort that go to the conference, I would hope, but as a snapshot of the grassroots support, it's pretty damning.
And wasn't there a Labour blogger who went offline because she was afraid that the SNP lot monitoring her site were just waiting for her to trip up so they could use it against her at some future point? Hardly the actions of the confident, upbeat political movement you describe.
At any rate, I believe that the accusation that if you're anti-SNP you're anti-Scottish has indeed become a weapon in the SNP's armoury - it's not true in the slightest, but that doesn't stop the line being peddled.
Frankly, it's a low blow, and one that's doing nothing but stifling the debate.
Sorry Anon (whoever you are),
I have to strongly disagree.
(1) Tom was clearly trying to link SNP supporters to that list of Palin supporters. You're entitled to take a different view but I think it's clear that was Tom's aim.
(2) This keeps coming up but saying people who leave comments on Scotsman boards are typical of the SNP would be like saying Rangers fans are typical of Unionist politicians.
The logic simply does not stack up when the commenters are anonymous. They are an irrelevance. (no offence, of course)
(3) I read recently that the SNP is almost 8% Born in England (sorry, can't remember where I read it). That's the same for Scotland as a whole.
It may be a convenient line of argument for Labour, but the SNP are not an anti-English party in my eyes. Certainly not at any level that matters.
(4) Why Kezia went offline is a matter for her. I am 99% sure I know the backstory and I am confident it wasn't because of SNP supporters that ultimately removed her, though I can see why Kez thought that given the brainless comments she was receiving.
Again, anonymous commenters should not be blindly taken as SNP standpoint.
Anyway, if you want to think that Tom Harris' comments are a welcome addition the independence debate then so be it, but given you are anonymous yourself, forgive me if I take your views with a very large pinch of salt.
Hi Bob,
Once again, your longer term and rather theoretical approach to the situation is well put and no doubt bang on.
I had my own fingers burned on a similar issue when I bemoaned the number of questions that George Foulkes was asking only to be pointed to how many the SNP asked when they were in Opposition. (just as many, if not more)
That being so, we are where we are and for my money none of the above excuses the fact that a high profile Labour MP has nothing to add to the independence debate other than some rather childish comments, a petty line of attack and an illogical response to reasonable objections.
I can accept that some of the arguments that were used last May by unionist parties were wrong and patronising but there are some nats who seem to believe that you hate your country if you support the Labour party which is palpable nonsense.
Yes, Tom Harris uses a bit of hyperbole and guilt by association with the more extreme element of the nationalist cause, for example, but that's just party politics, and is hardly confined to Labour.
For example, Jeff says:
"My initial umbrage stemmed from Tom's blatant attempt to suggest the SNP are full of "hordes of hangers, gun nuts, homophobes, secessionists (give you that one) and government-haters"."
This in turn seems a misrepresentation, since when I actually read Tom Harris's piece I couldn't really discern any attempt to associate the SNP with his anti-Palin diatribe except in respect of any opposition to them being deemed unpatriotic.
Indeed, while Tom may be as blinded by party loyalty as those who asscoiate themselves with any political party, he's surely astute enough to know that (despite the fact that the SNP is a broad church other than in relation to the pary's raison d'etre) that in general terms the SNP is too politically correct to fit his description of Palin's Republicans.
IoC's intelligent analysis above hits the nail on the head - if I'm paraphrasing him correctly, all parties are essentially the same!
Paranoia is also another cross-party trait and shortcoming ;-)
I disagree Stuart. The main point of Tom's article was to link Salmond to Palin.
The listing of who supports Palin and then "Salmond and his gang of supporters" was clearly a limp attempt at drawing comparisons.
Not that it's a big deal as it's a load of nonsense, as you say yourself.
And Stuart, my quoted text is neither an example of hyperbole nor "guilt".
Yousuf, there may be people who think that way but I hope we can agree that I am not one of them and for Harris to treat me as one is more than a little bit insulting.
Let's not forget the man is an ex-Minister and should have a certain calibre in his approach to debating and writing. A calibre that on this evidence is seriously lacking.
Jeff, OK, I wasn't accusing you of hyperbole or guilt, what I meant was that TH's case in respect of patriotism was hyperbolic and by 'guilt by association' I meant that he was tarring the whole SNP with the anti-Scotland jibe on the basis of the more extreme views associated with nationalism in Scotland with regard to patriotism (eg, if you disagree with an SNP policy then some of the CyberNats will call you a traitor or Quisling).
However, what I did say was that this was just a typical example of party politics, and that your response was also symptomatic of party politics in that it misrepresented what TH said, although I'm not necessarily suggesting that your misrepresentation was deliberate - that's where the paranoia comes in - ie paranoia in that it's thought that a particular attack is being made when it isn't ;-)
Considering your point in a more nuanced fashion, perhaps TH's accusation could be considered as:
1) Merely suggesting that Sarah Palin and Alex Salmond were similar in respect of suggesting that their opponents are unpatriotic;
2) Also suggesting that this puts AS in a bad light because SP is regared as an incompetent and lightweight.
3) Also suggesting that their similarity in relation to patriotim puts AS in a bad light because of the Republican association with hangers, gun-totting etc
4) Suggesting that the SNP IS full of hangers, gun-totters etc.
I think we're all agreed on 1, I also agree on 2 and perhaps 3 at a push, but I just can't construe what he said as amounting to 4, while 4 seems to be your own conclusion.
I think TH's jibe about the patriotism aspect is a bit unfair (although there's no doubt it exists, as you yourself acknowledge, but the extent that it can be associated with mainstream nationalism and/or AS is a question of degree), and to an extent he clearly tried to discredit AS by associating him with SP, and again it's a question of degree, but I refuse to agree that he effectively claimed that the SNP was full of homophobes etc - I'm sure he realised that if he did make such an explicit claim or strongly allude it then he would make himself look ridiculous rather than the SNP. I think he was just having a pop at the Republicans regarding the gun-totters rather than suggesting that that aspect had any real relevanc as regards the SNP 'gang'.
Jeff,
Your experience of the SNP, since becoming involved with them has clearly been a positive one.
For others, perhaps those of us a tad longer in the tooth, it is not the case. Quite the opposite in fact.
Going on my own personal experience, I actually have some sympathy with what Tom Harris says to be honest.
The gap between the nutters on the Scotsman and Herald comment boards and the SNP is not the yawning chasm that some would have us believe in my opinion.
Jim
Eloquently and neatly put Jim, thanks for that.
I am indeed short in the political tooth so I will keep my eyes more open for brainless nonsense on my chosen side of the political fence, as well as the other sides.
Much is made of the "cybernats" that flood newspaper forums with their invective and bile. But one tends to see less criticism of the "cyberunionists" (of all political persuasions) who do exactly the equivalent.
Which brings me neatly to the point.
I also find it worrying that some people maginify the comments left on newspaper forums, and give them the time of day (as it were) as being entirely representative of an overall community of people.
Just like to take Yousuf up on something.
I think you should have words with your pal Harriet Harman, who suggested thsoe who didnt back 42 days "didnt care" about stopping terrorism.
Nonsense from Tom, every party has bad people, the snp doesnt have them more than other
An easy thing to overlook, regardless of who these cybernat Scotsman commenters are, we're talking about an ex-Minister being reduced to their level.
It's all very well drumming up stories where one was harangued on the street by a Scottish nutter but if Swinney or Sturgeon came out with comments like these from Tom Harris, they'd get strung up in the press.
้ ๅบ็ถ็ดไบบ,
่ฒๆขต้ ๅบ็ถ็ด,
้ ๅบ็ถ็ด,
็ฆฎๆ้ ๅบไธ็ญ,
้ ๅบๅฐๅงๅ ผ่ท,
ไพฟๆ้ ๅบ็ถ็ด,
้ ๅบๆๅทฅ็ถ็ด,
ๅถๆ้ ๅบๅทฅไฝ,
ๅฐๆฅญ้ ๅบ็ถ็ด,
ๅๆณ้ ๅบ็ถ็ด,
้ ๅบๆๅๆๅทฅ,
้ ๅบๅฏๅๆๅทฅ,
้ ๅบ็ถ็ดไบบ,
่ฒๆขต้ ๅบ็ถ็ด,
้ ๅบ็ถ็ด,
็ฆฎๆ้ ๅบไธ็ญ,
้ ๅบ็ถ็ดไบบ,
่ฒๆขต้ ๅบ็ถ็ด,
้ ๅบ็ถ็ด,
็ฆฎๆ้ ๅบไธ็ญ,
้ ๅบๅฐๅงๅ ผ่ท,
ไพฟๆ้ ๅบๅทฅไฝ,
้ ๅบๆๅทฅ็ถ็ด,
ๅถๆ้ ๅบ็ถ็ด,
ๅฐๆฅญ้ ๅบ็ถ็ด,
ๅๆณ้ ๅบ็ถ็ด,
้ ๅบๆๅๆๅทฅ,
้ ๅบๅฏๅๆๅทฅ,
้ ๅบ็ถ็ดไบบ,
่ฒๆขต้ ๅบ็ถ็ด,
้ ๅบ็ถ็ด,
็ฆฎๆ้ ๅบไธ็ญ,
้ ๅบๅฐๅงๅ ผ่ท,
ไพฟๆ้ ๅบๅทฅไฝ,
้ ๅบๆๅทฅ็ถ็ด,
ๅถๆ้ ๅบ็ถ็ด,
้ ๅบ็ถ็ด,
่ฒ
ๆขต,
Post a Comment