Neal Ascherson (London and Argyll, author): The latest opinion poll shows the SNP with an unprecedented lead over Labour in Scotland by 48 to 32 per cent. At the same time it shows that the nationalists' core demand for independence lacks popular support by a similar margin, with 49 per cent against and 31 per cent in favour. So as we approach their first 100 days, how should we assess the new government in Edinburgh?
In November last year when the rise both of the SNP and of anti-Scottish sentiment in England were becoming part of the zeitgeist, John Lloyd wrote:
The nationalists I have met and observed, though politically astute, have been moulded into a posture of contempt for a state in which their fellow countrymen and women have lived for three centuries, to which they contributed greatly and whose both oppressions and freedoms they helped create, and profit from. I would not like to see such people run Scotland: they would be likely to recreate, of course in contemporary dress, the narrowness and cultivation of grievance which characterised the de Valera decades in Ireland, and from which the Republic has only shook itself free in the last two decades.
This prediction of narrowness and grievance-mongering has not yet been borne out. If Iain MacWhirter's claim that Salmond is on his way to being Scotlands first great political leader in 300 years seems excessive, here is a snapshot of the SNP's torrent of initiatives which helps explain its sharp rise in popularity: some are just proposals, others warnings of measures on the way. They include -
There remains the manifesto commitment to introduce into the Scottish Parliament a bill for a referendum on independence. As things stand, such a bill has zero chance of getting a majority in the Holyrood parliament. But even though a clear majority of the Scottish electorate do not at present support independence, nonetheless, when asked, most want a referendum so they can decide the matter for themselves. This suggests Salmond may currently be happy for the opposition parties to refuse the proposal, thus making themselves more unpopular while relieving him from what is still, for him at least at the moment, a premature encounter with Scottish opinion.
The SNP called its May manifesto It's Time to Look Forward. Currently, they are. By honouring their pledges the nationalists, whatever else you may think, seem committed to lead a Scotland, whether within or outside the Union, that skips the de Valera stage.
Comments
Tom, don't let the facts get in the way!
Ruaridh Nicoll's article is shrill, misguided and vaguely hysterical. Is this the direction the Unionist attack dogs are going?
If so I think they will fail worse than Michael Forysth's attempt to fob people off with the Stone of Destiny. Speaking of Forsyth, contrast this:
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=577122007
with this "Forsyth Backs SNP Poll" (I don't think the Sunday Times Scotland section is online) but basically its a report that outlines how MF is backing the multi-option referendum.
[...] Steel argues, then Salmond’s response is let there be a referendum about that too! Just as Neal Ascherson predicted here in OK, the opposition parties are making themselves unpopular by ganging up against a [...]
"the narrowness and cultivation of grievance which characterised the de Valera decades in Ireland"
Perhaps it's worth pointing out that the 'De Valera decades' began in the 1930s, when most most European countries turned inwards, and that Irish foreign policy under De Valera was always multilateralist.
Note this story from Ruaridh Nicoll:
Despite the calm delivery, Salmond's is fighting talk and it needs to be faced down. In what helplessly paranoid nationalist mentality are we not masters of our own fate? Gordon Brown, the man who is placing the good Scottish word 'dour' into global use, has just co-negotiated (with the French) an agreement to send a United Nations force to Darfur.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/scotland/story/0,,2147249,00.html
Which bears comparison with this story from Henry McDonald:
Irish government sources confirmed this weekend that up to 200 Irish soldiers would join the newly proposed UN multi-national force to a region of Africa which the United States and international aid agencies say is being subjected to genocide.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2141957,00.html
Over on the Observer today Ruaridh Nicol writes:
Professor Chris Whatley of the University of Dundee, an expert on the Act of Union, makes the point that there were unions taking place all over Europe in 1707, but the others came at the point of a bayonet. Salmond is trying - and so far succeeding - in achieving disunion without flag waving, nationalist cries and riots on the streets
This seems an important point. It could be argued that Salmond is reflecting a distinct Scottish tradition and that the anomalies in the latest polling evidence, between rising support for the SNP government accompanied by decreasing support for independence, can be seen as the working through of the logic of such a distinct tradition. I would suggest a greater understanding of what underlies that tradition could aid the current debate. As a starter, the following could be seen as important factors. During the Middle Ages Scotland landed an unexpected and decisive advantage. It managed to seal victory in the wars of independence with formal international recognition of its status as an independent kingdom, though gaining papal protection as a daughter of the church. This formal position always ran counter to the practical reality of sharing an island with a decisively more powerful nation. The Scots have over the centuries clung tenaciously to this formal claim and this can be seen as informing the negotiations in 1707. What was created was a unique compromise that was probably the best that could have been achieved in the circumstances in maintaining as much of that formal claim as possible. In keeping the institutions of Scottish civil life intact, however, it ensured that both Scottish and English national self-consciousness persisted. The guiding principle of such a tradition has been caution and wining concessions while never giving up this claim to self-determination. This could be seen as explaining Scottish ambivalence towards the union that the English find so hard to tolerate. However, what lies behind it is a desire to have the maximum level of self-determination within the constraints of the balance of forces. If Salmond can demonstrate that it is safe to do so then this Scottish tradition suggests the nation will follow him.
[...] August 12, 2007 at 2:38 pm | In Alex Salmond, SNP, Scotland | Gavin Yates (Edinburgh, GYmedia): As Neal Ascherson points out on OK, the first 80 days of the SNP administration has got off to a positive start. He [...]
It's as if stasis itself has been temporarily put on hold. I think Salmond would be well judged to wait until the inquiry into Labours election fiasco has reported and re-run the election to gain a working and thumping majority.
Its unfortunate that the question as its being penned is simplistic and not more visionary. But that's probably good politics. I can see Wendy (and her formiddable and much quoted intellect) having precisely zero impact on this situation as she is another London place-man for Labour in Scotland and will be ruthlessly exposed as such.
Post new comment