Like many people in Scotland, I suspect, I have been struggling to come to terms with a seemingly inexplicable contradiction. I can illustrate the problem with a couple of comments culled from Twitter – both from Nicola Sturgeon. (Ignore the BBC Tweets as you would normally.)
I’ve made clear my view on this report. I’m not ‘enjoying’ or ‘embracing’ an ‘opportunity’. I’m just doing what I judge best in very difficult circumstances. That said, I understand the scrutiny that comes with it and accept Sarah’s clarification. For me, the matter is closed. https://t.co/AhJEd2Lcn3— Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon) May 19, 2020
It’s got nothing to do with the constitution…it’s about protecting people from a dangerous virus. And as a matter of fact, the ‘stay at home’ message remains in place in 3 of the 4 UK nations – Scotland, Wales and NI. https://t.co/UyC2tq7sEr— Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon) May 15, 2020
The first is a near-perfect political statement. The wording, the tone, the content, the entire package is almost flawless. I’d advise any politician to avoid phrases such as “I’ve made clear”. If you have made something clear then it should be clear and it must therefore be entirely redundant to state that you’ve made it clear. If you feel the need to state that you’ve made it clear then this can only be because you haven’t, in fact, made it clear at all. Or so people will tend to assume. It is one of those overused phrases which have come to suggest the very opposite of what it says. It’s the kind of thing people use when they want to caricature a generic politician. Unless you want to be that caricature, don’t say “I’ve made it clear”. You might as well end every statement with the words “Honest! Would I lie to you?”.
A textual analysis of that first post would strongly suggest an exceptionally astute politician and a very capable communicator. It’s hard to believe that the second example was authored by the same person. The words “It’s got nothing to do with the constitution” would be woefully naive enough coming from any politician. But from the leader of a party which has a fundamental constitutional issue at its very core, it is nothing short of jaw-droppingly stupid.
The leader of a party which has as its principal aim the restoration of Scotland’s independence should never be caught talking down the importance of constitutional matters. Their every instinct should be tuned to emphasising the overarching importance of the constitution. Because the constitution is about who decides. It is about where power lies and how it is used. It is about political legitimacy and authority. The constitution, and any issues or questions relating thereto, takes precedence over all matters of policy. It must do. Because the constitution defines, describes and delineates decision-making authority in all matters of policy. It is senseless to claim that anything has “nothing to do with the constitution” because the constitution has something to do with everything.
It is a doubly foolish remark on account of the angry denial of constitutional relevance being immediate followed by an observation which points up the relevance of the constitution as well as anything might. When Nicola Sturgeon says “the ‘stay at home’ message remains in place in 3 of the 4 UK nations” she is referring explicitly and directly to the constitutional issue of policy decision-making power. The contradiction is jarring. The statement as a whole speaks of a politician quite unlike the one revealed by the first Tweet. It suggests a politician who simply doesn’t understand the function and purpose of the constitution. How can the person who is so dismissive of the constitution possibly be the leader of a party whose constitution declares its first aim to be arguably the most fundamental constitutional reform there can be?
That is the nub of it. That is what I and others find both perplexing and disturbing. On the one hand we have someone who is all but universally acknowledged to be an outstanding politician. Someone who earns all the plaudits that come her way. Someone who deserves the trust that is placed in her by the public. Someone who, with due regard for her feminist credentials, is worthy of being described as ‘statesmanlike’.
On the other hand we have someone who bears ultimate responsibility for bringing the independence campaign to a grinding halt. It can readily and persuasively be argued that the cause of restoring Scotland’s independence has gone backwards under her stewardship. We look at Nicola Sturgeon’s record as First Minister and see mostly uncommon competence. We look at her record as de facto leader of the independence movement and see only serial misjudgement. We watch in admiration her handling of the current public health crisis. We watch in horror her handling of the constitutional issue. It’s as if we are looking at two different people.
Retiring SNP MSP James Dornan is also perplexed, it seems. If I understand aright from his column in The National, Mr Dornan is baffled by the fact that some people who in his opinion “should know better” are troubled by the ‘Jekyll & Hyde’ situation described above. He seems to be perplexed about why we are perplexed about the perplexing contradictions in Nicola Sturgeon’s comments and the curate’s egg of her performance.
In keeping with this incomprehension, Mr Dornan seems unable to distinguish between the SNP as an administration and the SNP as a political party. Not exactly a trivial distinction. He also appears to be a bit confused about the purpose of political campaigning. He is dismissive, if not disdainful, of those who maintain discourse in “their own bubble of like-minded people”. He neglects to explain how it can be both “their own bubble” and a bubble they share with “like-minded people”. More importantly, how and where does he imagine discourse relating to a particular issue might proceed other than in just such a bubble. Is it not to be expected that those involved in a campaign should be “like-minded”?
Contrary to what James Dornan seems to suppose, there is nothing at all wrong with ‘preaching to the choir’, as some would put it. How else might a campaign be developed and maintained other than by those involved talking to each other?
As if we didn’t already have a considerable surfeit of perplexity, I am unable to understand why the First Minister’s unquestionably laudable handling of the coronavirus pandemic would forfend criticism of Nicola Sturgeon’s performance in other areas. The good must be weighed with the bad. It might sensibly be argued that the good outweighs the bad. But it cannot reasonably be maintained that the good completely eradicates the bad. I recall being counselled by a very close friend who had a hard neck giving anybody relationship advice. He said that when a man sees a beautiful woman – poised, elegant, decorous – he should always bear in mind that she farts in bed. We all have our faults. Nobody is perfect. Although, if James Dornan is to be believed, Nicola Sturgeon comes very close. So long as we completely disregard the reality of what she has done to the independence campaign.
But, unsurprisingly, Mr Dornan agrees with Nicola Sturgeon that there should be no independence campaign at this time. We are all supposed to sit at home thinking about nothing else but Covid-19. We all must be totally and exclusively focused on coronavirus-related matters. To entertain so much as a passing thought on any matter other than the mono-crisis is to show callous disregard for those who have died, scant concern for those who may die and disrespect for the front-line key-worker heroes and angels who care for the suffering.
I exaggerate for effect, of course. James Dornan doesn’t go to such lengths. Although others certainly do. Nonetheless, his attitude is painfully reminiscent of the dour religionists who blighted many a childhood holiday on the Isle of Arran with the diktat proclaimed on behalf of a deity with too much time on her hands (she shouldn’t have made so much) that Sunday must be a day of profound and often inelegantly contrived inactivity. I well recall the swings and roundabouts ironically made equal in their uselessness by chains and padlocks. I still can hear the stern warnings from the Joysucker General’s deputies that to contemplate the kicking of a football on the Sabbath would result in consignment to a hell which to my child’s mind at least, could not possible be worse than the one I had to endure on a weekly basis.
One might wonder whether James Dornan is toying with damnation (inc. hellfire) by taking time out from his fretting over the virus to write a newspaper column. That, as they say, is between him and his conscience.
Similarly, Mr Dornan and those who populate his “bubble of like-minded people” take the view that all of politics and most of life has been brought to a halt by Covid-19. Which rather seems like conceding victory to the virus. This isn’t managing a crisis. It is being dominated by it. Managing a crisis is, almost by definition, keeping as much as possible as normal as possible under the circumstances. Which, incidentally, is what makes the First Minister’s management of the situation so admirable. She may not have been able to keep very much very normal, but she succeeds in persuading people that this is what she is striving for. And that the measures she has taken are normal under the circumstances.
I have to tell James Dornan that politics does not stop for a virus. Politics doesn’t stop for anything. All of life is politics. So long as there is human life there will be politics. Because politics is the management of power relationships – from the interpersonal all the way to the international and sooner than many imagine, the interplanetary. All human interactions are transactions conducted in the currency of power. From chimpanzees grooming in the forests of tropical Africa to ambassadors manoeuvring in the UN building in New York, it’s all politics. From the minute to the monumental, it’s all the power trades and trade-offs which allow society to function. Negotiations continue.
You can’t stop politics. Your involvement only ends with death. Sometimes not even then. You can opt out of certain aspects of the negotiations. But the politics goes on without you. And it may not be possible to catch up.
Here’s James Dorman,
Now, I’m a pretty tribal political animal but I would not be comfortable at all if our party was trying to put independence at the forefront of our thinking just now. Thankfully, outside of a few loud voices in Westminster and some activists online I think most of the party would agree with me.
Concentrate on seeing our people safely through this virus, get politics back to normal, or as normal as anything is going to be after this pandemic, and I have no doubt we will see the support for independence rise substantially.James Dornan: Why independence cannot be the SNP’s priority for now
I have some questions. I have so many questions!
Those loud voices at Westminster and online may be few, but does that make them wrong? Why are there no such voices in Holyrood? Why only Westminster and online? Isn’t the Scottish Parliament the place where we would hope and expect voices to be raised in defence of Scotland’s cause?
Has the public really suspended all concerns other than the virus? Does Mr Dornan suppose we think and talk about nothing else? Given that it ranged over a multitude of topics which could not even pretend to be coronavirus-related, how strongly would James Dornan have disapproved of the WhatsApp video chat I enjoyed (and I mean enjoyed!) with a well-known independence activist yesterday?
How can independence not be the SNP’s priority now and always? How can independence not be at the forefront of the party’s thinking now and always? Has Mr Dornan ever read the party’s constitution? Has the commitment to restoration of Scotland’s rightful constitutional status been removed?
Do any of of us need James Dornan to tell us that the public health crisis must be the Scottish Government’s priority right now? Would it not be more helpful if he used his column to explain why this necessarily means that the SNP and everybody else must cease and desist from all independence-related activity and even discussion until we’re told it’s OK to carry on?
Is James Dornan genuinely so ignorant of the real, on-the-ground effects of lockdown as to be unaware that there are thousands of people who are neither front-line nor key-workers but who are stuck at home abiding by our First Minister’s strictures and with little else to do but engage with others online? Is he truly oblivious to the opportunity that this affords the Yes campaign? Why is he so determined that we should not seize this opportunity? Why the intense effort by the SNP leadership to close down completely the entire independence campaign?
Does James Dorman seriously imagine that we will just be able to pick up where we left off? (Does anyone think that was a good place anyway?) Is he really pinning all our hopes for independence on a grateful electorate rewarding Nicola Sturgeon for her handling of the crisis – even when she herself has declared that “it’s got nothing to do with the constitution”?
Is James Dorman persuaded that the virus has stopped the forces of British Nationalism to the same extent as he hopes to stop the campaign for independence? Have his years in politics taught him nothing?
On one thing James Dorman and I agree. We are most certainly beset by “opportunists seeking to gain advantage, not for the cause of independence but for themselves”. We have the ‘cunning plan’ parties looking to exploit the very dissatisfaction with the SNP that he and his “bubble of like-minded people” have engendered. But what of those who are trying to silence Yes activists and put the entire independence campaign into a covid-induced coma? Should we not reckon on them having an agenda? Should we not suppose that they too are seeking advantage for themselves or something that is definitely not the campaign for independence?
If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.
8 thoughts on “I have questions”
I’ll avoid repeating my comments in other posts about “Questions”, Peter, However, I think we share an interest not only in what is being said, but also in what is not being said – and why – in both respects. Your comments as they apply to both Nicola Sturgeon and James Dorman are cases in point.
Beyond that however, what struck me in the piece by James Dorman was this sentence: ” … pretending that being found not guilty in a court of law is the same as your behaviour being acceptable.”
Given the overall content of the article, which is largely go to sleep until we need you to wake up for us – I find it interesting that one sentence was included. is that just me that considers it out of place – or am I correct in speculating that it was specifically included – for events yet to transpire involving one Alex Salmond?
LikeLiked by 5 people
Although I didn’t comment on it in the article – it was long enough FFS! – that sentence did jar with me as well. And prompted much the same thoughts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a 50+ Female.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think what we have is a naivety that is so massive that it eclipses anything I, personally, have ever come across before in the context of a country seeking its independence, and it is coupled with a laissez faire attitude to the independence question which borders on the seriously disturbing. No one at all is suggesting that the FM and her Cabinet should let the fight against the pandemic slide in any way at all. She must do the ‘day job’ as the Unionists say. However, we are autonomous human beings, and if we wish to continue the independence campaign on social media, etc., who the hell can tell us not to do so? It is as if the big issue in Scotland now is: the pandemic OR independence. In the name of the wee man, why does it have either or, but not both? It is easily seen in Nicola Sturgeon’s face (and in every leader’s face in the four parts of the UK) that the strain of the responsibility to take our nations through to the other end is enormous, and none of us would wish to place any more burdens on her at this time. However, why that should preclude individual members of the party or YES supporters, in general, from carrying on the fight against what is – let’s face it – a continuing low-level Unionist warfare coupled to the determination that Brexit should be done? The greatest memorial we can erect to our dead is to ensure that thousands more Scots do not die as a result of Tory policies, following Brexit. God knows, we have suffered far more than necessary, with the English, Welsh and NI, because of Westminster’s gung-ho attitude to a virus that cannot be detected by the naked eye, but which can enter our bodies through it, so why should we go on to more suffering, courtesy of Brexit – which the UKG refuses to lay aside for one moment? The utter hypocrisy of the Unionist/British/English Nationalists is compounded by the utter naivety and complacency of the SNP, and is quite astonishing. Well, maybe not, come to think of it.
On the face of it, the statement about the court findings, etc. might well be true, but it can be construed only as a sideswipe at Alex Salmond, and, as such, is rather tasteless. In the fullness of time, I have no doubt that something approximating the truth will emerge, and it may not be what anyone expects.
LikeLiked by 2 people
20 May 2020
Stop broadcasting – and listen / read ‘n learn;
Constitution of Scotland’s Independence Referendum Party
The Party shall be named SCOTLAND’S INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM PARTY.
The aims of the Party shall be:
Independence for Scotland; that is the restoration of Scottish national sovereignty by restoration of full powers to the Scottish Parliament, so that its authority is limited only by the sovereign power of the Scottish People to bind it with a written constitution and by such agreements as it may freely enter into with other nations or states or international organisations for the purpose of furthering international cooperation, world peace and the protection of the environment.
The furtherance of all Scottish interests.
2.3Fund-raising, campaigning and standing for elections in furtherance of the objective of Scotland becoming an independent democratic nation
Why don’t we have one each? It certainly seems like there will be enough independence parties to go around. Of course, this means each party gets just one vote. But, hey! What does that matter?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well …. here goes.
Nicola Sturgeon is not just leader of the SNP, she is First Minister of Scotland. The latter is by far the most important role she plays … especially right now. She has, so far, played a blinder in that role. If she had “politicised” the Scottish Government’s response both she and the cause of independence would have paid a heavy price in the polls. As it is though, her “depoliticising” of it has, in my opinion, been indirectly responsible for both a surge in support for the SNP and, in all probability, Scottish independence. It may not be spectacular but it is there. She has done the right thing in NOT putting independence front and centre right now. I believe the cause of independence will only benefit from this.
As to Mr Dornan, he appears to be demob happy. His upcoming retiral from Holyrood seems to have given him the idea he can take a swipe at those unhappy with progress towards independence with no adverse consequences for his political career. Which is fine from his point of view. He is wrong though. While the Scottish Govt cannot be seen to be campaigning for independence right now, it is imperative the non-Parliamentarian independence movement continue to keep it high on the agenda. It is important people are able to make a connection between the current Tory inflicted omnishambles and the Union, with the lifeboat of independence looking more and more appealing.
Someone talking sense. Thank goodness.