Moving the line

Galloway has become the first politician to utter the dangerous word “partition” in the context of Scottish independence.

George Kerevan: Why George Galloway should stop using words like ‘partition’

I have to correct George Kerevan on this point. Although he can be forgiven for failing to recall such an unmemorable politician, a certain LibDem named Tavish Scott latched onto the word “partition” well before George Galloway. I recall writing an article for the September 2017 issue of iScot Magazine celebrating the announcement of Scott’s impending departure from Holyrood and condemning his insanely reckless talk of “partition” as part of the British state’s deplorable anti-independence propaganda effort during the first referendum campaign. That article begins,

“Against very strong competition, one of the most disturbing facets of the British state’s propaganda effort during the first Scottish independence referendum campaign was surely the attempt by the failed leader of the British Liberal Democrats in Scotland, Tavish Scott, to raise the spectre of partition. Along with the odd party colleague and, if memory serves, an even odder member of the aristocracy, it was he who most fervidly peddled the notion of Scotland’s northern and western island communities being partitioned from independent Scotland to form exclaves of the rump UK.”

Tavish Scott: Goodbye! Good riddance!

George Kerevan is entirely correct, however, to point out the dangerousness of such talk and the fact that, like Tavish Scott before him, Galloway serves the British ruling elite by saying the things it is not politic for them to say. He and Adam Tomkins (see The Tomkins doctrine) may be attention-seeking British Nationalist fanatics. But the British state makes good use of such material. Their role is to insinuate into our political discourse ideas which have no place in rational debate around the constitutional issue. They seek to normalise inherently inane or insane notions. They make a space for madness.

We should not simply dismiss George Galloway’s talk of “partition” or Adam Tomkins’ proposal to bind Scotland by law to England-as-Britain. We should, rather, regard their purposefully outrageous utterances as portents of the British state’s intentions. It is not the rhetoric of the lunatic fringe of British Nationalism that need concern us, but the licence they afford the British political elite by moving the line separating political philosophy from political pathology.



If you would like to support this site then the best way to do so is by sharing as widely as possible any articles that you find interesting, informative, thought-provoking or especially irritating. Having said that, a wee bit help with the running costs disnae go amiss.

Donate with PayPalDonate with Pingit

5 thoughts on “Moving the line

    1. ” partitioning George Galloway from the rest of Scotland’s residents…”
      I think he’s already done that himself, now being resident in the Tory fox hunting and shooting retirement enclave of Dumfries and Galloway and best buds with Eton toff Jamie Blackett whose showing him the ropes on the shooting front…

      Liked by 1 person

  1. George Galloway must be the only guy to have been born in the Lochee slums that thinks unionism is good for Scottish well being.

    I think when George talks about partition he means Broughty Ferry should secede from Dundee in much the same way that the Israelis are trying to secede East Jerusalem from Palestine. Very frightening how he has diminished the Palestinian cause and others will be taking note of his hypocrisy.

    No wonder he couldn’t get a game for St Columba when he was a kid… youd you’d never what team he backed!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. George Galloway is not the first to suggest partitioning Scotland.

    Arch-Unionist, John Taylor, former deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) was made a life peer as Baron Kilclooney in 2001.

    In 2012, he wrote to The Scotsman newspaper suggesting Scotland be partitioned in the event of a Yes vote. “If, say, Strathclyde or the Lowlands prefer to remain in the UK then that decision should be honoured by a partition of Scotland,” he said.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.