Wednesday, February 17, 2021

The SNP I joined was a broad church - let's not allow it to become a narrow sect

 

About ten or fifteen years ago, I read quite a bit about the Rwanda genocide of 1994.  One of the key points I learned was that by no means all of the killings were organised - to a large extent ordinary people were relied upon to spontaneously murder their Tutsi neighbours.  That was possible because they had been carefully conditioned to believe that Tutsis were subhuman or verminous, meaning that acts of barbarism that would previously have been unthinkable suddenly seemed acceptable or desirable.  The final step of the process was apparently an official radio broadcast that used "the language of genocide", and that triggered an unimaginable wave of killings.

Now, anticipating the cretinous comments that predictably appear on Twitter after a blogpost like this, I am categorically NOT suggesting that anyone in the SNP is doing anything remotely equivalent to preparing the ground for genocide.  That would be a ludicrous suggestion, I am not making that suggestion, and I hope that is abundantly clear. However, even when the desired outcome is a million times less extreme than genocide, and is merely to remove 'undesirables' from a political party, there are nevertheless similarities in some of the tactics employed.  

Think about what's been happening.  People like Joanna Cherry and Kenny MacAskill are mainstream politicians with mainstream views.  Indeed, Mr MacAskill occupied one of the highest offices in the land (Justice Secretary) for many years, and in international terms was arguably the most famous person in the Scottish Government due to holding the decision-making power over whether the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should be released. It ought to be unthinkable that people of that sort would ever be suspended or expelled by the SNP, and until very recently it was.  But if we're not very careful, we could be halfway down a path that leads to that outcome.

The ground has been prepared with constant reinforcement of the idea that certain radical feminist views are "transphobic", or the idea that the most popular pro-independence website is so "bigoted" that it must be treated as if it doesn't even exist.  Once enough people accept those claims as normal, you can then become bolder and start naming and shaming individuals whose prominence and popularity would previously have shielded them.  The next step in the process is to change the party's rulebook to at least allow for the interpretation that gender critical views, or a failure to disassociate completely from Wings, should be a disciplinary matter.  The final step is to initiate disciplinary proceedings and get good colleagues suspended or expelled.  And at that point the world really has gone mad, because anyone who takes a step back can see that sharing an article you happen to agree with, or expressing views on the immutability of sex that actually have a decent grounding in the accepted science, is not that big a deal.  By all means disagree with people who do those things, but concluding that you can no longer share the same political party with them is an insane over-reaction.

And even if you do, for some reason, feel that you can no longer work with people who hold alternative views or who conduct themselves in a slightly different way, why not be mature about it and say "no hard feelings, but let's go our separate ways"? Why the need to falsely tar people as "bigots", or as "not fit" for human interaction, and to feel self-righteous as you drive them out?

In truth, though, it would be far better if this madness ended and we all stayed under the same roof.  Remember during the independence referendum when under the Yes banner we had Women for Independence, Labour for Independence, English Scots for Yes, Radical Independence, etc, etc? On what planet was it a bad thing that we had such a broadly-based and united campaign? By the same token, it's a very, very good thing that the SNP contains both radical leftists and centrists, both gender critical feminists and trans activists, both Wings fans and Byres Road coffee collective Bella connoisseurs.  We should celebrate that diversity and make damn sure we don't lose it.  Instead, for some bizarre reason, we seem to be hurtling in the opposite direction.  One morning we'll wake up and find the SNP is a narrow sect, rather than the broad church that it used to be and for the moment just about is.

And, yes, I can already hear the chorus of people saying "so you want transphobes and non-bigots to have parity of esteem?" And that, my friends, is the language of intolerance.  It's the language of exclusion.  It's ultimately the language of expulsion, and that's what it's really been about from the word go.

When I made these points on Twitter last night and this morning, a number of people angrily said to me: "But James, didn't you SEE the Wings article? Don't you UNDERSTAND that it crossed a line?" The problem with that is I actually did read the article, and in spite of my own well-known issues with Stuart, I found it impossible to disagree with 80% of it.  The main thrust of the piece is that Neil Mackay has cynically misrepresented an opinion poll by claiming it proves beyond all doubt that the public back GRA reform and the sacking of Joanna Cherry.  And that's exactly what Mr Mackay has done. I made the point myself (indeed I made it 24 hours before Stuart made it) that the poll questions were hopelessly slanted and leading, and that the results contradicted earlier polling that showed substantial opposition to self-ID.

The main complaints about the piece relate to relatively small sections in which Stuart points out that Mr Mackay comes from a unionist-dominated part of Northern Ireland, and states that Mr Mackay "weaponised" something that happened to his daughter.  Frankly, it's nuts to suggest there's anything illegitimate about drawing attention to someone's place of origin, so I don't take that objection seriously.  When I first read the piece, I did wonder why Stuart was letting himself be distracted with a seemingly irrelevant comment about Mr Mackay's daughter - but "wonder" is the operative word.  I have literally no idea what Stuart meant by "weaponising", and as he didn't explain what he meant, I'm simply in no position to judge whether it was an illegitimate comment or not.  But he can fight his own battles on that one - and that's the nub of the issue.  Stuart Campbell is responsible for his words, not the people who share his articles, or who write other articles for his website.

60 comments:

  1. This is a great article, very well said!

    ReplyDelete
  2. new GB news channel will be going in hard , SNP ,Scotland, indyref2

    just judging on andrew neils daily tweets

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well said James

    The SNP thought police are out in force and it won’t end well

    From their perspective it is also very stupid (Streisand effect and shows those doing it in a bad light)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TBH, my thoughts only seem to be being policed by non-snp. Wings for example won't publish my posts.

      Delete
  4. Re: the Rwanda comment. WoS is engaged in demonising Campbell's enemies in this way every day.

    The fact that he can think that Neil MacKay is a) a loyalist secret agent, and b) somebody who would cynically use his daughter's sexual assault to score political points indicates that he sees his enemies as sub-human demons at this point. He's gone way off the rails. So, if we're aiming to reduce that kind of discourse, then we shouldn't be defending his blog. Anyone who shares the platform is unavoidably contaminated by what Campbell has become. Broad churches are good, but they don't survive when people in the pews are chucking anthrax grenades around. I don't particularly like either "side" but am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that order is better than ongoing carnage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. McKay wrote a disgusting article re Salmond and stuck in a large picture montage of some of the worst serial killers in history to back up his smearing of Salmond. I don't think that makes him a great guy. Is he a Britnat spy I don't know but he certainly writes disgusting articles that no decent person should put their name to.

      So commentor care to explain why McKay put his daughters experience in his paper. What reason did he have. Was this a good thing for his daughter.?

      Delete
    2. Excellent points commenter.


      I would also say that I can't understand why anyone would try to defend Campbell, per se, based on agreeing with one of the points that he makes in ONE of his articles. He's been firing out one propaganda article after another for months now tearing people to shreds. And no we're not talking about Unionists here either.

      Campbell's entire raison detre is clearly one of ruining our chances of getting our independence altogether now and if people can't see it a visit to Specsavers is long overdue. He's been working his way through his list of SNP politicians, etc, in an attempt to undermine them at every turn and in effect using his site to ''carefully condition'' his readers. Most of his articles are totally blatant in trying to destroy Nicola Sturgeon (but that's alright?) and others use little subliminal messages. You just have to look at the recent article ''More Wasted Days'' where he quotes from the Lady Dorrian judgement and links Nicola Sturgeon to the quote that he uses that is, ''the First Minister. The Crown Office has written to the applicant suggesting that the publication of the article may constitute contempt of court, in that if read along with other evidence which has already been published by the committee, it creates a risk of jigsaw identification of a complainer (etc)''.

      If he wants to include the FM in his quote it should have read, ''It is averred that the Salmond Submission was also addressed and submitted to Mr James Hamilton QC’s inquiry into a possible breach of the Scottish Ministerial Code by the First Minister. The Crown Office has written to the applicant suggesting that the
      publication of the article may constitute contempt of court (etc)''.

      You say James that, ''Once enough people accept those claims as normal, you can then become bolder and start naming and shaming individuals whose prominence and popularity would previously have shielded them'' and that's exactly what Campbell has been doing. You just have to look at the language that he uses when speaking of Nicola Sturgeon alone and then sits back and encourages his followers to post some hideous comments about her. And who's to say, or not, that he in fact is behind some of the Rwanda type threats that SHE has been receiving.

      And just to add that I don't agree with a number of SNP policies, however they can be dealt with after we get our independence, unlike Campbell.

      Delete
    3. Nobody has to "defend Campbell" to understand that it would be outrageous to start disciplining people for simply sharing his articles on social media.

      Delete
    4. You're probably right James. Then again is it a case now of anything goes? You can say what you like about people and that's alright?

      How can it be right, as an example, for him to find Nicola Sturgeon to be guilty of something before she's had her say? What's good for the goose (Alex) is good for the gander (Nicola), imo. If he keeps on the way he's going you can forget about us having any impact on his future, as the judiciary may take it on themselves to ''discipline'' him for outrageously slandering people and using his site to stir up hatred.

      I also wonder how it'll go down if the SNP perform dismally in May, or if we lose Indyref2, and when a poll is held Campbell is found to have negatively influenced the results through his site and the spinoff of such around social media?

      Delete
    5. At least Nicola will get her say on her terms. Everything including the kitchen sink is being thrown it to stop Alex Salmond getting a fair hearing or having his written evidence published. It is quite disgraceful and our Parliament should be ashamed it is being fixed in this way

      Delete
    6. @ JimA

      There's more than a hint of 'right-thinking people' about your post.

      Delete
  5. Is wings a pro-indy website these days?

    It did used to have pro indy stuff many years ago when it was popular.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes the site remains 100% pro Scottish Independence

      Delete
    2. I think that really is up to the individual to judge.

      The author isn't even a Scottish voter but an English unionists party voter.

      Delete
    3. "When it was popular"

      Interesting, would you say it was unpopular now?

      Delete
    4. Its readership has slumped a bit over the last couple of years. Hence the requirement to shoehorn in "controversial" non-sequiturs like the stuff about Mackay's place of birth. Patrick Harvie and co get points with their chosen demographic by complaining about it, and Wings gets traffic. It's a kind of symbiosis.

      Delete
    5. Some ridiculous comments, the SNP contested the Bath seat when? It is the best read political blog in Scotland with almost 1 million views in January. It is hugely successful, you may not like it but many do. In my opinion rightly so.

      Delete
  6. James, a very impressive and adult article once again. You are on a roll at the moment. I still miss your take on the pandemic mind you but hey don't take this as me telling you what to write about. Take it as a compliment.

    It seems too many people cannot look at the facts and evidence but judge on who the messenger is. A very immature approach.

    If it comes from A then it is good no matter how much mince it is and if it comes from B it must always be rubbish. A childish and immature approach.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Totally agree James, tolerance is key, and this wokery on steroids is destroying party unity because it is an inherently intolerant ideology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems to me the most intolerant group are the 'surgeon's trans pedo cult ate my hamster and tried to jail salmond' folks. If you don't believe in the great scotland-wide conspiracy you get a crap load more abuse than for saying you think gender identities are horse manure. That's certainly my experience, and I've had it from both sides. My abusive stalkers are all from the Somerset lib dem camp.

      Delete
    2. Smear of the Day.....

      from Smearer Skier (liar since 2014)- only Smearer mentions pedo and eating a hamster to try and belittle a major Inquiry and major corruption. Smearer has no arguments so resorts to smearing and playing the victim card when Smearer in fact dishes out abuse all the time.

      Delete
    3. I trust you will accept the findings of the committee and of James Hamilton QC IfS?

      I will.

      Delete
    4. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) - what - do you think they are going to consult you or even care about what a rock basher who posts on SGP thinks. You may be narcissistic enough to think that but normal people won't.

      Delete
    5. I've no idea what you are on about. Will you accept due process or do a Trump and call on the democratic parliamentary Salmond committee / Sturgeon standards advisor findings to be overturned?

      I respect democracy and will accept the findings just as I did the Salmond court cases.

      Delete
    6. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) - I have no idea what you are on about.

      Delete
    7. @Scottish Skier

      Given the Scottish government has twice refused, at the request of the Scottish Parliament, to release the legal advice they received do you think due process has been followed?

      Delete
  8. Good post, well said, nothing I can disagree with (I say this as someone who regularly news your blog and WoS as I think you both have positive things to offer)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Fact of the day....

    James Hamilton QC, the former Irish Director of Public Prosecutions and independent advisor to the Scottish Government currently tasked with investigating the First Minister's conduct (at her request) in the Salmond affair, was appointed to the post in January 2013 while Alex Salmond was First Minister.

    https://www.gov.scot/publications/ministerial-code-advisers/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hamilton_(Director_of_Public_Prosecutions)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Enlightening, not sure what relevance its has to do with anything though.

      Delete
    2. On the previous thread some from the 'Sturgeon ate my trans Salmond' camp seemed to be implying Hamilton was in on the whole conspiracy.

      I suppose he could be a sleeper agent.

      Delete
    3. Well, Nicola Sturgeon herself was originally appointed by Alex Salmond. I'm not really sure what difference that makes.

      Delete
    4. Someone seemed to be implying Hamilton was in on the whole conspiracy says Smearer Skier (liar since 2014).

      What a cad. Who is this person? What dastardly things were said. Where is the post?

      Or are you just making things up again?

      Delete
    5. I have not suggested there is any significance in who was FM when Hamilton was appointed. I just noted when he took up the post. He is an independent adviser who has served under both current and foreign FMs / parliaments.

      I think his 'international observer' status certainly stands in his favour.

      But then I'm Irish too, so biased.

      I must say I'm puzzled at the controversy of my very innocuous, factual post.

      I hope nobody is actually suggesting he's not fair and independent in some trump like way. If not, that's great.

      Delete
    6. Smearer Skier (liar since 2014) - just making things up again then - lying comes so so naturally to you.

      Delete
  10. Formal Public Notice

    I suffer from colour blindness and I find it very disabling. Therefore I am self idling as disabled. It is very difficult changing electric plugs - life threatening even - and making sure I get the correct colour of socks to wear in the morning can take hours. Don't even mention coloured bar charts or pie charts.

    Now any of you nasty types out there who keep abusing me you will be accused of abusing a disabled person. You know who you are.

    Or do I have to be an SNP candidate to do this? Anyway just bear this in mind next time you call me a Unionist. It's a disabled Unionist to you or you will be discriminating against me. Got it losers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Em....no we wont since you have just described yourself as ' self-idling'...and you know what?...I couldnt agree more!

      Delete
    2. Good spot Mr Bam - now use that great eyesight and find yourself a sense of humour.

      Delete
    3. Tip for Mr Bam - you won't find a sense of humour in that old folks home you normally reside in called WGD BTL. Only a bunch of miserable old bastards normally reside there so I guess you will feel at home.

      Delete
  11. What about something really radical.

    We campaign for an Independent Scotland.
    THEN
    Parties produce a manifesto
    THEN
    We Vote

    The makeup of Holyrood will reflect OUR vote.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Finally people were starting to see Campbell for what I seen 2-years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  13. All the decent Scots who tried to tell him calm down a bit. Have been blocked from his Twitter and website at the drop of a hat there must be thousands

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that, Hehe, is the language of intolerance, exclusion and expulsion. That's how Campbell deals with people who don't agree with him to the point that we've now been left with a bogus pro-independence site where the blog owner promotes BritNat media sources and the site is swarming with Union promoting posters.

      Delete
    2. JimA I'm not an expert on any of this stuff I'm a gravedigger from Easterhouse I believe independence may improve my communities life chances. I've got no loyalty to any political party or leader.

      I used to read wings for news stuff. A couple of years ago it started making me feel uncomfortable with the way he was talking about minority groups and people he didn't agree with. I believe in tolerance of others it's really quite simple for me.

      Delete
    3. Fake news. He's been thrown off of twatter by the woketard mob piling on with mass complaints. So you can't have been blocked from a non-existant source.

      Delete
  14. Do all “decent Scots” believe Ms Sturgeon should resign if found to have lied/misled parliament and or in breach of code of conduct despite being very popular. Simple yes or no will suffice and if no what does it say about us as citizens of Scotland

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read somewhere that Alex Salmond was found to have misled Parliament on 8 occasions and somehow managed to get away with it.

      Another little snippet is that he knew a number of the ''complainers'' well. In fact he worked closely with them, trusted them implicitly, and they in turn were passed onto Nicola Sturgeon. It would seem that he was duped big time by them, so why not Nicola Sturgeon?

      Delete
    2. Jim A do you have your little snippets with chips.

      Delete
    3. The infamous unsourced factlet.

      I remember Alex Salmond referred himself to independent adjudicators when accused of breaching the Ministerial code and emerged as an innocent man every time.

      Try harder with your smears and in a couple of decades you'll eventually become barely adequate at them.

      Delete
    4. JimA rivalling Smearer Skier for his crown as top Smearer.

      Delete
  15. The reality of the situation is that 'the other place' being as it was the foremost blog of it's sort in 2014 and for a few years later doesn't have the same buy in today. A huge number of activists who stopped finding it of any use since then. There isn't yet an outlet for those people in part because we're not yet in a second campaign. What part it choses to play is up to them. But it's clear that independence plays second fiddle to other concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  16. All this reminds me of a Councillor who stood up at a meeting and said "Allegations have been made against me - and I know who the alligators are"
    True story BTW.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Comment of the day Ramstam!"....lol....still holding my sides and trying not to laugh out loud so as to wake 'the neebors'.....lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Bam as you like to point out errors in posts - neebors is spelt wrong. Too difficult for you to spell properly.

      Delete
  18. Difficult as it will inevitably be for you to comprehend....'neebor' appeared exactly as I intended.Have a nice day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Bam - difficult as you may comprehend I understood that.

      Delete
    2. Hmmm....'difficult as you may comprehend I understood that.'
      It would appear you DONT understand basic sentence construction however.
      Allow me....'AS difficult as IT may BE FOR YOU TO comprehend'....
      You're welcome ... have another nice day.

      Delete
  19. Weel said Tam! Hou else wad ye spell neebors?
    Mind you if IFS is posting/trolling from South of the border Hmm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ramstam - GIRUY.

      How will that do. Don't mess with a Weegie arsehole.

      Delete