Yo us af’ svi le attack on Tory ms p over gaza aid questions unjustified
◆ Making accusations of racism in response to an attempt to scrutinise a decision is outrageous, writes Murdo Fraser
Ifind it difficult to imagine how much anguish Humza Yousaf and his wife and family must have felt when his in-laws were caught up in the chaos of the conflict of Gaza. Contact with them was intermittent. A way to get them out of the warzone and back home safe was unclear. All of us of any decency felt for the plight of all of Gaza and Israel, and shared the anxiety of the First Minister and his family in particular. He decided to express Scotland’s concern by making a token donation of help – £250,000 is a life changing sum to most of us but it is of little consequence in terms of international aid.
Whether, considering the personal pressures he was under, he should have left the decision to another minister is one question. But the fact is he did not just take the decision himself, he reportedly decided to override the advice of his officials to give the money to Unicef and decided instead it should go to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).
In those circumstances, it is surely reasonable to question the First Minister’s judgment as my MSP colleague, Stephen Kerr – our party’s candidate for the marginal Westminster seat of Angus & Perthshire Glens – has done, and ask if he had a conflict of interests. If the report is accurate, why did he ignore Scottish Government officials’ advice? Why did he decide the money should go to UNRWA? Given his personal circumstances, was it appropriate for him to make the decision in the first place?
All of these, I firmly believe, are not just legitimate questions but they are necessary in a democracy. It is the opposition’s duty to challenge government.
Yet instead of explaining his decisions which he surely believes were reasonable, Mr Yousaf decided instead to launch the most vicious, sustained and vile attack on Mr Kerr.
To question his judgment is, according to the First Minister, an “outrageous smear”. Accusations of Islamophobia have been made as well as claims of links to “far-right groups”. A question of political judgment has now become a question of race, not by the actions of Mr Kerr, but by the First Minister.
We could dismiss this – methinks the First Minister is protesting too much. But Mr Yousaf ’s refusal to explain his decision, and instead accuse others of making him a victim merely by doing their job, demeans the standard of public discourse and, in fact, helps the racists.
I am proud we live in country where the Prime Minister is a Hindu whose parents were immigrants and the First Minister is a Muslim. It is proof that we, as a society, are living our principle that someone’s creed, colour or orientation should not matter. But when the First Minister decides not to answer legitimate questions, but instead, without foundation, claims racism, he dents that proud record.
How are we supposed to respond? Simply not to ask why the First Minister seemingly overrode official advice? Or should we instead take similar offence and, considering Stephen Kerr’s faith, accuse the First Minister of being ‘Mormonophobic’?
You can tell the SNP are in real trouble when Mr Yousaf sends out the SNP’S deputy leader, Keith Brown, to defend him.
This week he was the chosen arsonist sent to the scene of the fire on BBC Radio Scotland. Now it is fair to say that if the SNP was a school, it is unlikely
that Mr Brown would ever be dux. But his contribution this week reached new depths.
According to the SNP’S deputy leader, it was “despicable” of Mr Kerr to ask in a newspaper if the First Minister had a conflict of interest, but perfectly permissible for the First Minister to call his opponents “traitors” because it had appeared in a newspaper. That was him demanding that language be “dialled down”. Go figure.
Mr Brown also suggested that Mr Kerr should not be a Conservative candidate at the next general election, but to be fair he has also floated the idea that SNP MPS don’t turn up to do their jobs at Westminster – an intervention for which he was quickly slapped down by his boss, in humiliating fashion.
Yet there is little sign that Mr Brown’s intellectual rapier is to be sheathed. The false accusations of racism are continuing to come, while there are still no answers on how and why the First Minister came to his decision to donate a quarter of a million pounds to UNRWA.
There was a time when racist language and comment was part of everyday life affecting all our lives. You did not need to be a victim of it to be appalled by it.
But because we, as a united society, have stood against it, that is no longer the case. Yes, there is still a long way to go and we must always be vigilant, but racism is rightly no longer tolerated as it once was.
With that, we should all be more careful about when we make accusations of racism. Mr Kerr has every right, indeed a duty, to question the First Minister’s judgment in how he handled his donation to aid the people of Gaza. Just as I have every right to doubt the First Minister’s judgment in making the truly outrageous smear that my colleague was being racist in doing so.
Perhaps it is time not just for us to dial down the language, but for those making the decisions in Bute House to dial up the quality of their judgment.
You can tell the SNP are in real trouble when Mr Yousaf sends out SNP deputy leader Keith Brown to defend him