I literally cannot believe what I've just seen on Twitter. At first I thought the suggestions that East Sussex County Council (run by a minority Tory administration) were planning to burn a giant effigy of Alex Salmond tonight for Bonfire Night were just the result of a piece of spectacularly ill-judged humour. But the photographic evidence, in which the effigy is sporting the words "Yes" and "45%" on his person, suggests otherwise. In other words, the Tory party are not only symbolically burning one of Scotland's two most popular politicians, but are also burning the 45% of the entire Scottish electorate who voted for independence (and presumably by extension the majority of the population who at least seriously considered voting for independence).
I initially thought Tommy Sheridan's suggestion of a second independence referendum as early as 2020 was a bit fanciful (barring a British withdrawal from the EU). With every passing day, I'm becoming less sure if that's true.
* * *
4.30pm : Update from Twitter as the Tories panic...
East Sussex County Council : Please note that the Alex Salmond and Nessie models were created by Waterloo Bonfire Society #LewesBonfire and have NO connection to ESCC
Scott Macdonald : Very well - it doesn't belong to you. Take down your tweet, and apologise for offence caused at the least. #socialmedia101
(The original tweet from the council read "A sneak preview of Alex Salmond and Nessie ahead of tonight's bonfire in Lewes - it just rolled up at County Hall", and was then followed by a photo of the giant effigy.)
* * *
UPDATE II : As a small minority of people are trying to defend the indefensible on Twitter, it might be worth pointing out that Carlisle council reversed their original plan to burn an effigy of Mary, Queen of Scots in their annual bonfire on Saturday night. Commenting on the change of heart, a Tory member of the council wisely noted -
"It comes at a time when we've just had a referendum on whether Scotland wished to leave the union or not. I don't think there would have been ever a good time to burn an effigy of Mary, Queen of Scots."
Given that burning an effigy of the living political leader of Scotland is about a thousand times more offensive in these circumstances than burning an effigy of our long-dead queen, you'd think that wise heads might have similarly prevailed in East Sussex. But apparently not.
The Lewes bonfire always includes people who have been in the news during the previous year. It just so happens that Salmond was in the news enough for him to be burned this year. They burned Angela Merkel one year...
ReplyDeleteThey burned Angela Merkel?! WHAT? Is this revelation supposed to make it OK?
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying it's okay, but that's what they do. I'm not entirely sure why they pick people who have been in the news a lot though.
DeleteI believe they used to burn the Pope every year, but they had to stop that...
"I believe they used to burn the Pope every year, but they had to stop that..."
DeletePerhaps that ought to have caused them to reflect a bit further.
They should've just done Guy Fawkes - who is supposed to be burnt...
DeleteSeems a bit odd what they do.
I've now seen a photo of the Angela Merkel effigy from a few years ago - she appears to be doing a Nazi salute. Someone has also claimed (and this seems highly plausible to me) that the council have to approve all effigies.
DeleteSeems unlikely given they set fire to Cameron and Clegg in 2011.
DeleteWho do you think regulates it, then?
DeleteI've now seen a photo of the Angela Merkel effigy from a few years ago - she appears to be doing a Nazi salute.
DeleteI...don't think there's a lot of ambiguity about it.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8067/8160662529_7ebe43bf10.jpg
I thought the Salmond effigies looked like a pretty harmless joke, and I quite admired the workmanship, but that image does give some insight into the minds we're dealing with here.
They burn all sorts of effigies - there are dozens of bonfire societies, most are independent and nothing to do with the council - some still burn the Pope & Guy Fawkes in memory of the 17 Protestants burned at the stake in Lewes by the Catholic Church
Delete"some still burn the Pope"
DeleteLovely. I guess that's like the British bonfires in NI where they burn effigies of Irish politicians / Irish flags? Also symbols of democracy like the 'Yes' logo. Just missing people marching KKK style with burning crosses. Oh, hold on, that's happing in Sussex tonight.
"there are dozens of bonfire societies, most are independent and nothing to do with the council"
DeleteI'm struggling to buy into this "nothing to do with the council" business. If the council don't regulate a large event like this, who does? At the very least, the council seemed very keen to promote it. What was the effigy of Salmond doing at County Hall anyway?
Why do we celebrate Guy Fawkes night in Scotland?
ReplyDeleteBecause they were trying to blue up Scotland's protestant king.
DeleteIncidentally the son of Mary who
Carlisle was going to burn....
Or because it was passed into law as a mandated thanksgiving (Observance of 5th November Act 1605) - an act which was only repealed 254 years later - and thus another tool of the state to quash revolution.
Deletecan't access the tweet with the picture - suppose it's been taken down.
ReplyDeleteNo surprise about effigy burning - you should see the Loyalist bonfires in northern ireland on 11th july night before the big orange order marches on the 12th http://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/quiz-a-quiet-12th-july-in-northern-ireland/
Maybe we should rename George Square as Guy Fawkes Square.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to understand why poor old Guy fawkes has been burnt for over 400 years - unless to display the message "we don't forgive and we don't forget"
DeleteTime to get him (and all other effigies) off the bonfires - even christ was only on the cross for 3 hours!!!
It's a good point - what are people actually celebrating? The thwarting of Fawkes's dastardly plot to destroy the glorious Mother of All Parliaments, or the idea of the rotten house being blown to smithereens? It has become a rather ambivalent commemoration (in so far as people actually think about it) which is no bad thing after 400 years.
DeleteThose who cooked up the idea, I would wager, will be unfamiliar with the real story of the grassed-up parliamentary bombers of yore For the driving motivation for it was precisely anti-Scottish at core - the plotters were really an early form of the EDF, who felt outrage at the the interloping Scots King James as their monarch. Sounds like the council's education system, especially with regard to history, isn't working too well either. Or maybe they are aware of this, but insist on being stupid anyway.
ReplyDeleteSeriously folks, I think the independence movement is in danger of disappearing up it's own fundament if it can't have a laugh at this annual tradition and the honour it has bestowed on Alex Salmond. Salmond's response was perfect - light hearted but with the sly point thrown in that "if the people of Lewes think I'm as much of a threat to Westminster as Guy Fawkes... they're right!"
ReplyDeleteThe independence movement is going to get nowhere if it is so self-righteous as to treat its politicians and leaders as somehow sacrosanct and above a bit of satirical ribbing by people at the far end of another country. It's not racist, it's not disgusting, it's the product of one of the bonfire societies in Lewes, NOT the local council, and it shows the serious impact that Salmond has had on British politics in the last year.
Numerous bonfire nights in former mining communities across the north of England and probably Scotland too for all I know have burned effigies of Thatcher over the years but I don't recall that eliciting any widespread howls of disapproval north of the border. If there was a report of an Alastair Darling effigy perched on top of a Dundee bonfire, what would your reaction be? Beware hypocrisy and self-importance - they will win you no friends.
I'm sorry, Fraser, I do appreciate that people's senses of humour can differ radically, but I'm struggling to see what you think there is to laugh along with here. The meaning of effigy-burning is absolutely clear. It's clear even when Guy Fawkes is burnt - it's only the fact that's been done ritualistically for four centuries that lessens the power of the act and renders it almost meaningless.
DeleteSuppose a large event had decided to burn an effigy of the Queen, turn it into a "fun family night" and the local council had approvingly tweeted a photo. Do you honestly think that people would have no right to feel offended or disturbed? Where does this "tradition" excuse end?
Forget about Alex Salmond for a moment and think about the Angela Merkel incident. If you had been a German in Lewes the night that happened, how do you think you would have felt? Uncomfortable at a minimum. Probably scared. I wouldn't be surprised if some Scots in Lewes feel the same way tonight, because at the very least this act is open to interpretation as contempt towards Scotland as a nation.
On your point about the council, as I said above I find it very hard to believe they have no role in this at all.
"If there was a report of an Alastair Darling effigy perched on top of a Dundee bonfire, what would your reaction be?"
What would your reaction be? What do you think it ought to be?
I agree partly, and I groaned when I saw some of the knee-jerk reaction today. But the Merkel effigy from the other year is quite explicitly racist, which I think casts the Salmond ones in a different light.
DeleteTend to agree with Fraser here. I know Scots who live down that way and their reaction was it's more of a compliment than anything. To me it's a silly prank by people disconnected from Scottish politics but definitely not anything sinister so I can't take offence. It does however portray even further how the concept of a United Kingdom is as alien to the people of Lewes as it is Scotland
DeleteKeaton: the Merkel effigy was not racist. Almost inevitably with any Nazi analogy it crossed the line from political comment on Germany's power within the EU into poor taste, but the stereotyping was in my view personal rather than national or racial. To call that racist is to misunderstand racism.
DeleteJames, we have had plenty of Thatcher effigies burned on miners' bonfires over the years and no doubt many of the citizens of places like Lewes have been offended by that. A dummy Darling going up in flames would similarly be taken as bad taste by many, but not by me. Why is a Salmond effigy something to be outraged by but not a Thatcher or a Darling one? We cannot have a monopoly of outrage at provocative satire or the expression of political opinion by our opponents. To me this episode seems no different to unionists squealing about vile cybernats at the most innocuous criticism fired at them during the campaign. We look as bad as them.
Once again it is not racist as many of the outraged have frothed. The view of Salmond presented by the effigy is one shared by a considerable number of Scots such as, regrettably, my own parents, and even some that probably voted Yes. Are they racist against their own people? No they're not, they simply have an antipathy towards a particular politician - quelle surprise. I have a great antipathy towards many politicians but it doesn't make me racist. The widespread cry of racism in this story is a ludicrous hyperbole. Altogether it makes the independence movement look pathetically oversensitive and humourless. Not, in my opinion, the way to win further supporters.
The "tradition" excuse ends at a point which is hard to define, as in all matters of taste or opinion. To me the line would be crossed by an effigy which unarguably ridiculed or demonised a racial or national or social group in its entirety. To read the figure of Salmond as representative of Scots or Merkel of Germans is gratuitous and unjustified.
"Seriously folks, I think the independence movement is in danger of disappearing up it's own fundament if it can't have a laugh at this annual tradition and the honour it has bestowed on Alex Salmond."
DeleteThat sounds dangerously close to "if women don't want to get the attention of men they should stop wearing revealing clothes - in fact, they should be flattered to get the attention" to me.
"Salmond's response was perfect - light hearted but with the sly point thrown in that "if the people of Lewes think I'm as much of a threat to Westminster as Guy Fawkes... they're right!""
Agreed on that, the FM's a class act.
"The independence movement is going to get nowhere if it is so self-righteous as to treat its politicians and leaders as somehow sacrosanct and above a bit of satirical ribbing by people at the far end of another country."
Here's the thing, though: for the past two years, the entire Scottish independence movement has been equated with Alex Salmond. Look at all the headlines saying "Blow for Salmond/Salmond's Dream in Tatters/Salmond Accused" when the matter of independence is brought up. Alex Salmond = Independence, Independence = Alex Salmond, so the paradigm goes.
Therefore, since everyone is so hell-bent on equating Alex Salmond with Scottish independence, what are we SUPPOSED to think when we see an effigy of Alex Salmond about to be burned on a bonfire? Note that this isn't JUST an effigy of Salmond - it has the 45%, a Yes sticker, even Nessie with a wee Tam O'Shanter hat. Why didn't they put a bulldog, a top hat and a cup of tea on the David Cameron effigy they made in 2010? Why didn't they have a wee badge saying "Tory Voters" on his lapel?
"It's not racist, it's not disgusting, it's the product of one of the bonfire societies in Lewes, NOT the local council, and it shows the serious impact that Salmond has had on British politics in the last year."
So the local council had no power over it? At all? They didn't have to approve it? They had no choice but to retweet it (before taking it down)? They were completely at the mercy of some wee community club?
"Why is a Salmond effigy something to be outraged by but not a Thatcher or a Darling one?"
Margaret Thatcher has caused demonstrable harm to countless communities, in addition to being a war criminal who had no issues in covering up massive scandals. Alastair Darling was complicit in the illegal invasion of Iraq, and was particularly responsible for the financial crisis which is still affecting millions of lives today. Please point me to anything Alex Salmond has done that is remotely comparable to those things, and maybe I'll view burning their effigies as remotely comparable. And, while you're at it, point me to effigies which play up Thatcher's Englishness/Darling's Scottishness to remotely the same extent they do to Salmond.
"Once again it is not racist as many of the outraged have frothed."
No, it's xenophobic. It's a subtle difference.
Outright racism and an attack on Scotland and still we have quisling central on every media site in Scotland telling us that we're too sensitive?!!
ReplyDeleteJust fuck tight off! Neo-Nazi english scum with every No voter in Scotland sticking out of their arses!
Thank you, Mr Too-Offensive-And-Cowardly-To-Post-Abuse-Under-His-Real-Name. I am Scottish, I support independence for Scotland, I despise everything that Westminster stands for, and I despise racism in any form. I also despise stupidity and self-importance so I don't think you and I would ever get along. It pains me to have people like you on the same side as me in the cause of Scottish self-determination.
DeleteIncitement to violence is one step away from the violent act itself, and is quite rightly illegal. Having your own domestic version of the KKK is a statement that it is okay to burn and lynch people - not just black people, by the way, but travelling people (they burnt a caravan one year with effigies of women and children in it and the word 'pikey' on the back), Catholics (that would be me, then) and this year anyone who voted Yes (that would be me, then).
DeleteThe fact that they don't go out and actually burn real people is not an excuse for them stating clearly by their actions that they would like to do it. It's a short step from that to Kristallnacht. Don't think it couldn't happen in the UK, because there was nothing about the Germans which made them especially morally corrupt. What made the Holocaust possible was the unwillingness of others to speak out against Nazism and stand up and be counted. Either they couldn't be bothered, or they were too cowardly, or they trivialised it like you do.
I'll say the same to you as I did to someone on Wings; defending freedom of speech is not the same as having a fence post rammed so firmly up your arse that you can't distinguish between right and wrong.
Thank goodness you are not the sole arbiter of what differentiates defence of free speech and fence sitting. Your hysteria betrays an unsuitability for the job.
DeleteIf they did indeed burn an effigy of 'pikeys' in a caravan one year then don't you think it's deeply sad that it raised barely a squeak of protest compared to the mass outrage over Salmond's likeness? THAT is offensive, and if you can't discern any difference between the two then your radar is buggered.
Would you mind explaining exactly what was hysterical about what I wrote? I find it interesting that you choose to level that particular accusation at me. Historically, such accusations have been directed at women by men as a means of discounting the validity of their point of view. After all, we know they're all silly little airheads who can't think rationally.
DeleteThe word 'hysteria' derives from the Greek 'hystera', referring to the womb, and one of the definitions in Chambers is "an outbreak of wild emotionalism". I hardly think that my argument about the factors which helped to create a situation in Germany in which people could turn a blind eye to mass murder was hysterical. Martin Niemoller made the argument long before I did, and given that he witnessed what happened, I think he was entitled to pass judgement on it.
As for 'if they did indeed' burn an effigy of travellers in a caravan, it took place in 2003. That should explain why it wasn't widely publicised; there wasn't anything like the same level of political awareness or use of social media 11 years ago as there is now. It's not a valid comparison.
We're talking about the Lewes Bonfire Parade and you leap in one swift bound straight to Kristallnacht and KKK lynchings - that is what is hysterical, and I don't give a toss what gender you are. I used the word because it best described the spread of irrational outrage and the exaggerated response to the effigy, amply illustrated by your own ready invocation of the holocaust.
DeleteFirst and hopefully last time I find myself cringing at one of your blogs, James.
ReplyDeleteLook into the history of these Lewes bonfires and you'll find they're always done in the satirical spirit of Spitting Image. The inclusion of AN IMAGINARY GREEN DINOSAUR should have told you this wasn't to be taken seriously.
You are a genuine hero of our indy cause, but this tabloid-style overreaction wasn't your finest moment.
Swastikas on Jewish gravestones are offensive. This comes nowhere close.
Plus God knows how many Noes stuff like this converts to indy.
"Look into the history of these Lewes bonfires and you'll find they're always done in the satirical spirit of Spitting Image."
DeleteLook into their history and you'll see they still fly "No Popery" banners and wear blackface. They're the Orange Order before there was a William of Orange. If it was indeed "the satirical spirit of Spitting Image" why on earth did they pull them? If there was no legitimacy to the complaints, then why didn't they stick to their guns?
"Satire" only works if it's actually good. On top of everything else, this just isn't very good satire: it's tired, unimaginative and done to death.
"The inclusion of AN IMAGINARY GREEN DINOSAUR should have told you this wasn't to be taken seriously. "
That's part of the problem, isn't it? That imaginary green dinosaur is part of our heritage and culture, and burning it has an obvious symbolic impact, as surely as if you burned a red dragon.
Oh, for heaven's sake, Sean. If by "IMAGINARY GREEN DINOSAUR" you mean Nessie, that was simply added in as another representation of Scottishness to burn.
ReplyDeleteWe'll just have to agree to differ about this - the idea that this blogpost is the problem, and not the burning of a giant effigy of Alex Salmond, is something I struggle to comprehend.
As for the swastikas, you might want to take a look at the Merkel effigy, if you haven't already.
Hopefully James we can agree that all we're disagreeing about is a matter of strategic political judgement and not about the end goal; that is, some of us are of the opinion that the level of outrage expressed about the Salmond effigies is counter-productive to maintaining the momentum and unity of the independence movement.
DeleteThe people who come on here attacking anyone who questions such matters of judgement or tactics can rant amongst themselves in their desperation to be offended. Meanwhile I and many others value your tremendous contributions to the movement. All me and Sean are saying is this isn't one of them ;^)
I've nothing against them burning an effigy of Salmond. It's a tribute to the impact that he's had on the Tory shires. Deep down they know that they will be reduced if Scotland left, in the only way they care about: financially!
DeleteThe thing I do object to is the twee, stereotypical representation of scottishness. That's the bit that's racist.
I've heard a lot about the Scots being racist to English people. I've seen a little of that, mainly when I was young but I've actually experienced a lot of a racist/xenophobic comments in England. The trouble is that the English are totally blind to it. They don't even realise that it's offensive. Switch jock to nigger and you can see it very clearly, not just in the word but in the tone and use of it.
I'm afraid that only independence will ever change this and that will only change years after independence if ever looking at how they treat the Irish.
The way I see it is that a political figure in itself is not offensive. Bad taste? Definitely. However, not offensive.
ReplyDeleteIt crosses the line though when symbols of the movement and symbols of the nation(however imaginary) are burned too. Of the two Salmond effigies that appeared on social media, one was offensive while the other was not. One crossed the line, while the other kept it to just Salmond.
Even the other one used Scottish symbols, to an extent (North Sea Oil, whisky, and of course the Scottish paraphernalia of the kilt itself). Definitely not like including the Yes and 45, but still another case of using Scottish tropes as a figure of ridicule.
DeleteWell said Natashia.
ReplyDeleteWhy exactly should anyone believe the name Petigrew is one's real name and make your comments any more legitimate than those adopting the recent 'tradition' of using an online persona? Frankly, i don't believe you Mr Petigrew.
Alex Salmond's response is as usual that of a true statesman, witty, inoffensive and a fair warning shot over the bows of an organisation wishing to burn a symbol representing nearly half the voting population of Scotland of every race, creed and colour ( how is that not racist or at the very least inciting hatred towards said 45%?) AND for including our dear innocent Nessie in their mocking denigration. Our Alex didn't complain the he was targeted ( Scots are the inventors of laughing at one's self and to suggest otherwise further raises my suspicions around you, Mr Petigrew) and I do expect Alex Salmond to shake the very foundations of an already very schoogily Westminster.
And Mr Petigrew, you know perfectly well that Margarget Thatcher hurt hundreds of thousands of people across the entire British Isles and her wicked legacy continues. Burning of effigies would not be my first choice, but i do get why her image is treated in that way.
If Scotland's very popular chosen leader, our Nessie and close to half of the people living in Scotland are equally disliked and reviled by even a very small number of people somewhere else within this glorious union then that is in itself is desperately sad and worrying and you Mr Petigrew and other apologists for the slighting of a neighbouring nation should not belittle that.
PeTTigrew. My mistake, I apologise.
ReplyDeleteHow many objections to the burning of something representing traveling folk were there? Do you have that statistic at your fingertips Mr Pettigrew? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE WHO MAKE THESE HORRIBLE DECISIONS? Does this pass for humour in that part of the world?
Ghillie, I would address your points if there was any clarity around what they actually were, but your expression is incoherent and your tone unnecessarily patronising, so I'll pass.
DeleteSo racism and bigotry is perfectly acceptable, only if you're English? I think not! Absolutely disgusted as a Scot, never mind Catholic. Absolutely shameful in this day and age that anyone believes this to be acceptable. This is not banter. It is wholly offensive behaviour...Better Together? A prime example of exactly why we are not
ReplyDeleteI wonder whether what the outcry would be if Dundee chose to burn a giant Union flag?
ReplyDeleteYou know, in a satire kind of way?
Satire by burning happens ALL the time.
Seems to be getting far too much press. Blotting out the view of the million mask march. Taking peoples minds off of how THAT is getting represented in the media.
ReplyDelete