Crass, insular and morally repugnant ...despite what they claim, the SNP don’t represent all of us
THE South of Scotland, the North of Scotland, the Central Belt – I represent all parts of this country and will do so as First Minister.
These were the words of Nicola Sturgeon in November last year, when she appeared determined to heal the deep divisions caused by the independence referendum.
That commitment fell apart in spectacular fashion last week, when the 54 Nationalist MPs all obeyed the instruction of party whips and rejected the plan for air strikes in Syria.
It is true that this display of unity presented a striking contrast with the disarray on the Labour benches, where 66 rebels – including nearly half the Shadow Cabinet – defied Jeremy Corbyn to back the UK Government.
But it is also painfully clear that the Nationalists did not ‘represent all parts’ of Scotland when they unanimously rejected the air strikes.
Rather, in their clone-like obedience to the party leadership, they showed naked contempt for the diversity of views that exists in Scotland on this most divisive of issues.
Most of us will have struggled to form a clear opinion on the wisdom of wading into bombing missions in Syria.
But all the evidence is that Scots are divided on the question – and there is certainly no tidal wave of opposition.
Rather than reflect that breadth of opinion, the SNP exploited the situation to further its separatism agenda.
East Dunbartonshire Nationalist MP John Nicolson crassly tweeted: ‘Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems #BombingTogether’ – implying that Nationalists somehow occupy a higher moral plane.
Ian Blackford, Nationalist MP for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, tweeted: ‘The Labour summing up has just been enthusiastically clapped and cheered to the rafters by the Tories. Better Together lives on.’
Mr Blackford is, of course, better known for the way in which his election helper, SNP official Brian Smith, cruelly hounded Charles Kennedy about his alcoholism in the run-up to his death.
Such selective moralising also sits uneasily alongside Alex Salmond’s assertion in 2013 that an independent Scotland would not have rejected the prospect of military intervention against President Assad in Syria, as the Commons did at that time.
Last week’s vote was a pivotal debate the SNP was determined to twist towards its own constitutional objective – attempting at every turn to reopen an argument it comprehensively lost in September 2014. How morally repugnant that this should be the party’s primary instinct, at a time when Western civilisation faces an existential threat.
The obedience to the party line within the SNP only served to highlight the disunity on the Labour benches, which further undermined Mr Corbyn’s rapidly unravelling authority.
But at least Labour MPs were free to vote with their consciences – as did some Tories, who voted against the Government line.
The SNP’s apparent belief that there is something intrinsically war-mongering about Unionism – when many committed Unionists oppose the Syrian intervention – is as offensive as David Cameron’s misguided claim that those who are against it are ‘terrorist sympathisers’.
Indignation
Most telling of all was the chorus of indignation from the SNP when shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn’s inspirational speech was greeted with applause from MPs, defying Commons convention. The Nationalists had been told off for applauding when they first arrived en masse on the green benches earlier this year – and could not contain their rage.
Rutherglen and Hamilton West MP Margaret Ferrier tweeted: ‘Oh so no clapping allowed in the Chamber – only when it suits! Tories just clapped Labour Hilary Benn.’
Mr Benn’s speech was widely praised across the political divide for its eloquence and principle – but the SNP could only heap cheap bile upon him.
Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse MSP Christina McKelvie said: ‘Hilary Benn in trying to prove he is not his father proved beyond doubt he will never be his father #Testosterone Politics.’
Paisley and Renfrewshire South MP Mhairi Black said she would ‘never forget the noise of some Labour and Tory cheering together at the idea of bombs falling’ – in reality, the cheers were for Mr Benn’s speech and the Aye result on bombing was heard in silence.
Never have the Nationalists sounded more desperately insular: their world view is as intellectually impoverished as their philosophy on domestic affairs.
Unable to look beyond the horizons of their separatist obsession, their perspective on Syria is moulded by the same bone-headedness they exhibited during the referendum.
‘Westmonster’ has oppressed Scotland for centuries – so runs the SNP’s narrative of grievance – and therefore how can Scots trust the UK Government when it tells us that air strikes are justified?
‘Bairns not bombs’ was the slogan bandied around by supporters of a Yes vote in the run-up to last year’s referendum. However sincerely meant, it was an example of student union politics which ignored the basic reality that the first duty of any government is defence of the realm.
Yet that sixth-form sentiment continues to inform the SNP’s foreign policy, such as it is, more than a year after Yes lost the vote.
Shamefully, the SNP is trying to disown this war on the grounds that it someone else’s problem.
This is England’s war, the party is effectively saying, and all that can be gained by backing it is sharing the risk of bloody terrorist reprisal (as if Britain and, indeed, Scotland had been somehow immune from such a threat until now).
But this cynical, blinkered strategy is underpinned by wilful ignorance of the history that binds us to our allies – ties that are simply non-negotiable. International diplomacy is not about running away, full tilt, from our friends and neighbours.
Whether air strikes on their own will be enough to defeat Islamic State (IS) is a question none of us can answer. But it seems highly unlikely that IS will be stopped in its tracks solely by bombing raids.
The cauldron of Middle East politics produces a huge number of variables, which make the outcome of any military intervention unknowable.
Indeed, the Libyan air strikes ordered by Mr Cameron in 2011 may have inadvertently helped IS to gain a foothold on Europe’s doorstep.
The organisation is now expanding into Libya – riven by a civil war that erupted after Colonel Gaddafi was deposed.
Frightening
But the frightening speed with which IS has developed, and continues to evolve, means inaction of the kind the SNP supports is simply not a realistic option.
A leaked IS manual yesterday showed the terrorist group has set about building a state in Iraq and Syria – complete with government departments, a treasury and an economic programme for self-sufficiency.
There has been a profound failure within the SNP to grasp these essential facts – and, in essence, this is a failure of leadership.
Mr Salmond – who missed a key debate on Syria to attend the unveiling of his self-portrait – has no credibility whatsoever on foreign affairs.
He infamously spoke out over the air strikes against Serbia in 1999, branding them ‘unpardonable folly’.
In fact, the British intervention in Kosovo ended what the United Nations later described as ‘a systematic campaign of terror’.
Yet the SNP’s myopic, insular approach to IS demonstrates that Mr Salmond and the SNP’s leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson, are in charge of shaping its foreign affairs policy.
For all Miss Sturgeon’s personal popularity, the question of Syrian intervention was a critical test, not only of her judgment but also of her leadership – and she flunked it.
At a time when a strong show of cross-Border unity was crucial, the SNP played its usual cynical game.
In the process, the party showed it is simply not capable of representing the ‘whole of Scotland’ – only its own narrow political interests.