Losing Faith in the SNP?

     Yesterday, Darren McGarvey – known as Loki the Scottish Rapper – wrote an open letter to Nicola Sturgeon on STV in which he laid out his frustrations with the SNP and the independence movement, along with his intention to not vote for the party on Election Day in May.

     The letter consisted of McGarvey describing the harrowing details of his mother’s upbringing in Gorbals, one of the worst slums in Glasgow, and how she had to deal with alcoholic parents who could not look after their children – leaving McGarvey’s mother to take up the slack. He spoke of the disgusting filth and squalid conditions of their home, personal belongings sold off to purchase cigarettes or alcohol, the lack of privacy (in the old-fashioned way), the debt collectors, the drug dealers, and the disgrace of children being made to fight over scraps of food as a spectators sport for drunks.

     It was in short, not really a home so much as it was an “open-plan torture chamber where deprivation, in the truest sense of the word, was the absolute default position” and where “poverty had not only corrupted people, but left them grotesquely deformed.” There was no place to hide and no one to find for comfort.

     Without a support structure, McGarvey’s mother could not properly cope with life’s challenges, and would descend into her own bout of alcoholism following the birth of McCarvey himself. From here, he vividly described his own upbringing, which included being at the receiving end of her drunken sprees, watching her calm herself with drugs via needles, the abandonment brought upon him and his siblings, and generally living in a chaotic atmosphere.

     Eventually, he too would fall into a similar trap with alcohol and drugs which rendered him unable to look after his brothers and sisters as the family tore itself apart.

     Thankfully, he has come out of this, been sober for over a year, is back to being active in the lives of his siblings, and celebrated the birth of his first child. Unfortunately, his long-suffering mother passed on long ago at the tragically early age of only 36.

     McGarvey’s heart-breaking personal story is one that can repeated throughout multiple generations in Scotland, and it speaks to the sort conditions which have led to what he describes as a “desperation for change.” For him and many others, this was seemingly answered by the SNP and the idea of independence, and as he continues to speak to Nicola Sturgeon (as well as the rest of us), he tells of how he has been voting for the SNP since 2006 “because something radical needs to be done about poverty in this country” and saw independence as a means of “paying more than lip service to tackling the deep social inequality that creates the conditions for deprivation to thrive.”

     He explained that Sturgeon was the first politician he ever believed in, and now he finds himself disappointed in the some of the proposed policies of Sturgeon and the party going into the election only a month away – policies such as keeping tax rates the same as the rest of the UK and halving air passenger duty, which are “aimed at affluent communities who voted No in 2014” and “providing assurances more of the same awaits them should they throw caution to the wind and decide to vote Yes at the next referendum.”

     The result is that he wonders that if this is going to be the case in a devolved Scotland within the United Kingdom, what does the future hold should Scotland become – as he campaigned for in 2014 – an independent country? How can Sturgeon expect to get the well-off to pay more in taxes as an independent country when she, “the most powerful First Minister ever”, won’t ask them to do so now for fear that they will leave Scotland?

     He watches as the SNP pursues policies based on pragmatism and the need for votes from the middle classes, and he expresses his frustration at the party “cultivating a tolerance for low taxation coupled with moderate incremental reform, peppered with comforting social justice rhetoric that barely tweaks the status quo never mind challenges it.”

     For McGarvey, separation was not simply about “getting over the line”, but it was about achieving a new direction with new policies which spoke to urgency of dealing with poverty. With the new powers under the recently-passed Scotland Act, Holyrood under Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP – with a fresh mandate expected in May – is in a greater position than ever to act on many of Scotland’s generational societal ills in a way that the SNP (dubiously) claimed could not be done under the old constitutional arrangements. Separation may be desirable in the long-term, but it is not necessary now to achieve many of the goals of McGarvey and others like him who have “more than just a passing interest in social justice.” His life experiences have shaped who he is, and as far as he is concerned:

“There is no pragmatism where inequality is concerned. There is only action and inaction. If you can't make an argument for slightly higher taxes to a class of educated people who are fortunate enough to be doing well in a terminally unequal society then I already know what is required of me as a citizen.”

     He further laments that Scottish independence appears to be “an increasingly elastic notion” with no real substance behind it except aside from being all things to all people, which breeds centrist policies to maximize votes and not “scare the horses”, but which fail to even come close to the radical vision he and so many others bought into.

     For many of them who voted Yes in 2014 and for the SNP in 2015, McGarvey goes so far to say that the current circumstances present a dilemma; some – likely most – are so committed to the dream of independence, that they will look the other way and will continue support Sturgeon and the SNP in a “bold and unwavering fashion.” McGarvey believes that this dilemma must be confronted head-on, but in the absence of that, he does not believe that the SNP is worthy of his vote this year.

     His story and his view is one that is being repeated throughout Scotland: people who voted Yes because they believed that separation would bring the change they desired, and then voted for the SNP because they saw it as being the best party to deliver that change – in or out of the UK.

     They had believed that with separation and breaking up the UK, Scotland could pursue radically different policies than the rest of the UK. Indeed, they bought into the rhetoric that Scotland and the rest of the UK were so different in political and economic thought, that separation was necessary; they painted a vision of radical Scotland needing to free itself from the reactionary conservatism of Tory England.

     They had believed the rhetoric of the Labour Party being “Red Tories” who were too scared to offend the English middle classes with radical policies and higher taxes, and that Scotland was much more egalitarian and amenable to paying more in taxation to pay for more public services and reduce poverty. They believed that the actual Tories were the root of all evil (and all of Scotland’s problems – not to mention “anti-Scottish” in the words of Nicola Sturgeon herself), that the LibDems were lapdogs at one stage or another for both parties, and that the Union was incapable of delivering on progressive policies because the overall electorate was too “small-c” conservative and required the main parties to compromise and be pragmatic.

     Now they are discovering that Scotland is hardly as radical as they had believed, that the Scottish middle classes aren’t that different in temperament and political/economic values as their English counterparts, and that the SNP – when given the choice – will stick to the middle ground on a centrist platform which embraces pragmatism, you know, like most political parties which aspire to have power and achieve other political goals.

     For the SNP, their main goal has been and always will be separation and breaking up Britain, and they know that they will need moderate Middle Scotland to carry them over the line. So while it is convenient to use left-wing rhetoric to get votes from the Scottish Left and displace the Labour Party, the reality is that the SNP will not do anything to cost them votes where they matter the most. If anything, the SNP is doing what the Tories and Labour did during their periods of dominance in the 20th Century: appealing to where Scots are comfortable at, and that’s in the moderate middle, which again, is the same winning formula in most Western democracies – including the United Kingdom as a whole.

     These sort of points were made time and again throughout the referendum to combat that simplistic notion of left-wing Scotland vs. right-wing England, but it was a notion that proved intoxicating to many people, including Darren McGarvey. If anything, the SNP shamelessly used long-term tragic circumstances such as his to get votes for the independence cause based on the idea that only with independence could Scotland build the sort of fairer society where children would not grow up in dire poverty like McGarvey and his family.

     Again, this was countered by the fact that there is deep poverty in other parts of the UK – in Liverpool, Birmingham, Sheffield, Swansea, Manchester, Newcastle, Cardiff, Belfast, and London itself – and that it made more sense for the UK to stay together as a country in order to achieve progress together through common solidarity among the British people and the pooling and sharing of resources.

     The SNP slickly attempted to appeal to people’s fears and anxieties by telling them that independence would make it all better, and many – feeling they nothing to lose – voted Yes. Since then, they have stuck with the SNP, and as they watch to see the SNP make compromises to stay in power, some have become dismayed like McGarvey over tax policy. Others are concerned about the Named Person initiative, the lack of transparency in government, and more recently, the SNP cozying up to China. Increasingly, they are venting their frustration on social media, some are leaving the party, and prominent independence-sympathetic writers such as Iain Macwhirter and Kevin McKenna are warning the SNP to not forget the people and ideals they had brought to the fore in 2014. At some point, people may question the point of separation and ask whether it is truly worth it.

     But in the words of columnist David Torrance during the leaders debate on March 24th:

     That being said – and with Labour and the Liberal Democrats proposing tax increases – it is difficult to imagine the SNP not being in power once again – likely with another majority. However, there does seem to be a realization on the part of some people that the SNP and its vision for separation are not magic bullets that can solve anyone’s problems. The sooner this is realized by more individuals, the better, so that folks of all persuasions throughout the United Kingdom can join together to move forward to create the better society that everyone wants.

Misrepresentations and Remembrance of a Good Man

“This morning, I was saddened to know that Charles Kennedy passed away, and I must first express my sincere condolences to his family as they mourn his loss, which is our loss as well. Even though we disagreed on the issue of Scottish independence, Charles was a good man and a decent public servant, and especially with regard to the upcoming EU referendum, our political landscape is poorer without him.”

     This is what Alex Salmond, the former First Minister of Scotland – and now MP for Gordon – could have said in the wake of the untimely and tragic death of Charles Kennedy, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats and recently defeated MP for Ross, Skye, and Lochaber, at the relatively young age of 55.

Charles Kennedy in 2005
(Credit: Alison M. Wheeler via Wikimedia Commons cc)

     Alas however, while he did express condolence and sympathy like everyone else, he also managed to insert his cause of independence in the crudest fashion when he actually said this:

“Yes, he was an extremely generous human being. I have had one or two, but not many, people who had a bad word to say about Charles, and that’s very rare in politics. In terms of the independence referendum, I don’t think his heart was in the ‘Better Together’ campaign.
“His heart would have been in a pro-European campaign, that’s a campaign that Charles would have engaged in heart and soul. That is something he absolutely believed in.”

     Here, Salmond implied that that Kennedy was somehow not a supporter of the Union, and more so, was a closet supporter of independence. But as Alex Massie wrote in the Spectator:

“Charles Kennedy had ample opportunity to demonstrate his nationalist sympathies. To my knowledge he declined any and all such invitations. Perhaps because, jings, he wasn’t a nationalist. His heart and his head were Unionist.”

     Now Salmond said that Kennedy was actually a “federalist”, which is true in the sense that the Liberal Democrats tend to believe in devolution and federalism within the United Kingdom, but are nevertheless supportive in the basic notion of keeping the Union together. Allan Massie (Alex's father) attests to this in his Telegraph column, where he said “federalism is very different from Salmond’s Nationalism. Federalists seek to improve the United Kingdom, Nationalists to destroy it.”

     The use of the federalist label was merely Salmond’s attempt to drive a wedge between those who believe in a federal union and those who believe a unitary union, and to imply that federalism is somehow closer to independence in terms of political thought and ideology.

     Ahh, but you may say that Salmond said nothing about Kennedy’s support for the Union – just his lack of prominence in Better Together and his criticism of it. True, but this nevertheless implied that Kennedy didn’t really believe in fighting for the Union in contrast to being “engaged heart and soul” in the upcoming referendum campaign to retain Britain’s membership in the European Union, which as yet does not have an organization officially backed by the political parties.

     In reality, as Massie and others have stated, it was more likely that Kennedy’s health – long plagued by alcoholism – was the reason for his relative absence in the referendum campaign last year to keep Scotland as part of the UK. He may not have had the prominence of people such as Jim Murphy, Alistair Darling, Ruth Davidson, and Gordon Brown, but he did do his bit in speeches and other appearances to keep the UK together. To say the Kennedy’s heart was not in Better Together is like saying that Jim Sillars’ heart wasn’t in the main pro-independence campaign organization, Yes Scotland, because Sillars (more-or-less) carried out his own campaign take Scotland out of the UK, or that his heart isn't in the SNPbecause of his criticism of it as intellectually dumb and totalitarian under Salmond's leadership.

     Since yesterday, Salmond’s comments have attracted controversy for coming so soon after the announcement of Kennedy’s death, with Kennedy's successor as Lib Dem leader (and fellow Scot), Sir Menzies Campbell saying the Salmond's comments were “out of order.” In response, some of his and the SNP’s supporters have accused others of using Kennedy’s passing to score political points against Salmond and his party. However, I argue that Salmond was attempting to score political points by bringing up Kennedy’s involvement with Better Together (or lack thereof), which made it seem as though he didn’t really believe in keeping the UK together.

     Even if that was not the case, and Salmond was merely referring to Kennedy’s criticisms of the Better Together campaign, and not his commitment to the Union, there was no reason to bring that up so soon, and Salmond should have followed the magnanimous lead of the his new party leader and current First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who simply said on Twitter.

“Sad beyond words to hear the news about Charlie Kennedy. A lovely man and one of the most talented politicians of his time. Gone too soon.”

     Other tributes from across the political spectrum – expressed by Gordon Brown, Ruth Davidson, Willie Rennie, Jim Murphy, Sir Malcolm Bruce, Nick Clegg, Prime Minister David Cameron, and several others – were gracious in their thoughts on Kennedy and sympathies to his family. Probably the best tribute came from Tony Blair’s former press officer and adviser Alastair Campbell, who tackled his own issues with drinking and developed a friendship with Kennedy as they faced a “shared enemy.”

     To his credit, Alex Salmond did praise Kennedy for his opposition to the 2003 invasion and war in Iraq – calling it his finest moment – in the face of “enormous pressure” and for his personal connection to his constituents in the Highlands, which helped him to make decisions and keep his seat in Parliament for 32 years.

     However, by bringing up the referendum the way he did and (seemingly) questioning Kennedy’s beliefs, Salmond poured salt on the raw divisions still apparent throughout Scotland in the aftermath of the two year long campaign. Even in this unfortunate circumstance, he found a way to make what appeared to be a snide remark at a departed opponent and in the process, he made himself the story.

     With regard to Charles Kennedy himself, as a young teenager, I remember watching the broadcast of Prime Minister's Questions on C-SPAN in the US and watching him among the many people presenting questions to then Prime Minister Tony Blair. As leader of the Liberal Democrats (as an independent third force in British politics) at the time, Kennedy had a significant role in the political discourse of the Commons, and was almost always seen at some point during PMQ's.

     The first thing that stood out was the fact that he shared the same name as one of our most prominent families, including a beloved president.

     Second, like that president, Kennedy appeared to be a regular guy (or bloke, as is said in Britain) - with a way of talking which suggested that he did not come from an upper crust background. Indeed, it was an accent that was quite different from the other major party leaders, but I did not believe that this was indicative of him coming from another country - merely that he hailed from the same country as the others did, the United Kingdom - albeit perhaps, a different part of it. Nothing about Kennedy suggested anything other than this, and I treated it in the same way as I treat people with varying accents within the US, who are part of the same country, and in the UK itself, I knew there were many British accents.

     Eventually, I came to understand how the UK itself was a union of countries - a country in and of itself that had developed over time into what is now. It was not until later that I realized that Kennedy was Scottish, but this did not take away from the fact that he was the British leader of a British political party. Indeed, by the time of the 2010 General Election - after a period where I was not observing British politics so closely - I remember thinking that Kennedy was still leading the Liberal Democrats, only to find Nick Clegg and not knowing that Kennedy had been replaced long ago, and I certainly was not aware of the circumstances under which he stood down as leader.

     As time went on and I became more familiar with British politics, I also became more familiar with Kennedy - including the struggles with alcoholism which cost him his job as a party leader. However, I also gained an understanding of him as a decent man and talented political figure who stood for what he believed in, was authentic and had integrity, showed compassion, commanded the respect of his peers, and had a natural common touch and connection with people that many politicians envy (on both sides of the Atlantic).

     For these and other reasons, it was unfortunate that he did not lead the campaign to keep the UK together. Nothing against Alistair Darling (who has his own personal qualities which carried Better Together to victory), but people I have been in contact with believe that Kennedy - with his down-to-earth Highland roots - may have been a better communicator for the Union to the people of Scotland and more effective against Alex Salmond, for as some of my friends can attest, he was engaging as a speaker. Indeed, as Allan Massie said, people such as Kennedy were “actually expressing a stronger faith in the Union than those who preferred to dwell on the weaknesses of the case for Independence and the inadequacy of the SNP’s programme and arguments.”

     In researching for my book on the referendum, I found a video from 2012 which included Charles Kennedy making a remark that spoke of people who need not be political nationalists in order to be nationalistic Scots, so that support for independence and the SNP was not equated with pride in Scotland and being Scottish. This was something I found to be simple and true, and it is a sentiment that especially needs repeating today in the wake of the SNP landslide at the general election nearly a month ago that engulfed many pro-Union politicians, including Kennedy himself.

     His untimely death creates a hole in Scottish and British politics that will be hard to fill, if it is to be filled at all. Like that beloved American president with whom he shares a surname, he was - quite simply - taken away too soon.

     Rest in Peace, Charles Peter Kennedy.

UPDATE (11:00 PM, EDT):

Alex Salmond has stressed that he was not suggesting that the late Charles Kennedy was for independence, and was only referring to his criticisms regarding the Better Together campaign - saying that Kennedy “was one of the first unionist politicians to realise that the result would be close and said publicly that he felt that the actions of the No campaign were contributing to this.”

In light of this, the younger Massie has acknowledged on Twitter that his article (which was quoted here) had been“over the top”, and I must admit that my own tweets/retweets on the issue were just that - especially on the day when we should have been focused on honoring Charles Kennedy.

For that reason, I still believe that Salmond should have at least made it clear during his original comments that he was not questioning Kennedy's commitment to the Union, for it did sound as though he was, and he ended up becoming the story.

Nevertheless, he has clarified his statements, I understand what he was attempting to say, and all of us should move forward.