Kenny Farquharson: Six myths about the SNP and the independence referendum

Published on Sunday 29 January 2012 00:00

I LOVE lists. Lists of ingredients. Lists of books to read on holiday. Lists of songs on iTunes to match a particular frame of mind. Lists of things you really should be doing in the house but haven’t quite got round to yet – but, hey, it’s on a list so that’s something, right?

Lists are therapeutic. They unclutter the brain, impose order on chaos and allow room for more important thinking (which includes thinking about nothing in particular).

So today, after a momentous week in the history of the nation, I’m going to share with you my list of common misconceptions about Scottish politics that are hindering clear and uncluttered thought about the country’s future.

1. Holyrood’s voting system was designed to stop the SNP getting a majority.

A common one, this, which has almost become part of the received wisdom about Scottish politics. It is a cornerstone of the SNP’s persecution complex. And yet it’s entirely bogus. The party the system was designed to thwart was Labour. One of the main reasons the 1979 devolution referendum failed was the strong No vote outside the Central Belt. Dumfries & Galloway, Shetland, Orkney, the Borders, Tayside and Grampian all voted No. Why? Largely because they feared the Scottish Assembly would be dominated by the Labour Party, which then (and for decades afterwards) was completely dominant in the populous west of Scotland. The most common criticism was that an assembly or parliament would be “Strathclyde Council writ large”. It was to counter this that the Constitutional Convention agreed on proportional representation, so no one party could dominate. The SNP was barely a consideration.

2. A devo-max option would put Alex Salmond “in a win-win situation” in the referendum.

Let’s be clear: if Scotland votes against independence, Alex Salmond is dead in the water as a politician. Given the chance of giving his party what it has craved for 80 years, he will have failed, and set back the cause of independence for a generation. Trident will still be on the Clyde, and the Union flag will still fly above Edinburgh Castle. Salmond will have to resign, and the SNP will be forced into a long and difficult period of reassessment and reconstruction – and potentially a split. Moreover, putting devo-max on the ballot actually makes it harder for independence to win. This is a truism – every Nationalist I speak to accepts that’s the case. Salmond’s insistence, so far, on a devo-max option is therefore one of the most risky acts of his political career. It is aimed at ensuring that the day after polling day, in the event of a narrow defeat for the indy cause, we don’t find ourselves in the arid position of Scotland being no further forward, having wasted four precious years.

3. Devo-max requires a second question in the referendum.

There is a serious lack of lateral thinking at play here. Let’s say that Westminster intransigence means we are left with a one-question referendum. Devo-max could still be one of the choices. How? By making it the status quo. The means of achieving this are already in our hands: a Scotland Bill on extending Holyrood’s powers is currently in the House of Lords. It could be beefed up to produce a powerhouse Scottish Parliament within the Union, with control of most taxes, most welfare benefits and all private and criminal law. The referendum would then be a straight choice between this and independence.

4. Debate on more powers for Holyrood should be left until after the independence referendum.

A popular one, this, among Labour and Lib Dem politicians. And it really doesn’t wash. Imagine, if you will, Scotland in the aftermath of a referendum. Scots will have endured 1,000 days of appeals to patriotism, political posturing, arguments about oil revenues and the practicalities of nuclear weapons storage. They will be heartily sick of it. If Labour and the Lib Dems think the people will then welcome a new bout of constitutional wrangling, they have no grasp of how people actually think and feel.

5. Alex Salmond is a godlike political genius with superhuman powers who can do no wrong.

Surprising how many otherwise rational people, with sane views about politicians in general, seem to adhere to this view. Also some London-based commentators who seem to be in the First Minister’s thrall. As someone who has dealt with him over a long period of time, I can assure you Salmond is all too human. And in a leadership career spanning 20 years, he has spent three-quarters of that time losing elections, sometimes as a direct result of his own poor judgment. At the moment he is at the top of his game, but the mood among some SNP supporters of “Ach, who cares, Alex will sort it out” is alarmingly trusting. Discipline is one thing; blind faith and blind obedience is another. In politics you are allowed to question your own leader, you know.

6. The SNP speaks for Scotland.

Nope, the SNP is entitled to speak for the Scottish Government. Yes, the Nationalist party is a broad church, containing many conflicting viewpoints. But conflating the concepts of party and country is not only based on a falsehood, it is politically dangerous. It leads to the kind of mistakes we’ve seen recently about people being branded “anti-Scottish” for questioning ministers. The SNP is no more the true voice of Scotland than the Tory Party is the true voice of Britain. Both were elected to power on a minority of votes cast. In the SNP’s case, this was on a turnout of 50.4 per cent. The SNP seems to think it is a Caledonian version of the African National Congress. It ain’t.

Comments

There are 17 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 2

• 1
• 2
• Next >
• Show all

17

Caadfael

Thursday, March 29, 2012 at 05:22 PM

Pretty poor stuff Kenny, weak as a teaspoonful of tea to a gallon of water! Proper myth debunking is done par excelence by Paul T Kavanagh in News Net Scotland. Read and learn!

• Report Unsuitable

16

Dr. James Wilkie

Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 01:03 PM

#4, #11, #12: Of course the EU had absolutely nothing to do with devolution and the restoration of the Scottish Parliament. It was the Council of Europe (CoE), a totally different institution based in Strasbourg, that forced the issue under threat of international sanctions. The story, with backup references, can be read in the Scotland-UN Committee papers at: www.realmofscotland.com . …………………………………………………………………………… This is the reason why the English Attorney General suppressed a Freedom of Information application on the subject last week, not for the first time. It is a disgraceful story of corruption and double-dealing on the part of Tony Blair and his colleagues, who ostentatiously boycotted the opening of the Scottish Parliament to demonstrate their opposition to it. Blair's weasel words of ostensible support were uttered, firstly, because the Labour Party wanted to keep iron control from London of the unwanted new Scottish legislature, and secondly, because the entire foreign diplomatic corps in the UK was breathing down his neck to ensure that there would be no repetition of the 1979 manipulation.

• Report Unsuitable

15

housty45

Friday, February 3, 2012 at 03:10 PM

Clever hiding a deception within an article to expose myths. Truth though is you don't elect leaders for the SNP. You cannot make Alec Salmond resign. The truth is the SNP have been successful. simply by the creation of this debate. If the Scottish people do not accept the proposition then that's the end of that question. The SNP can immediately campaign with a different question. The issue of Scottish self determination and the SNP will not simply disappear. As each electorate changes with each new roll.

• Report Unsuitable

14

Onwards

Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 11:14 PM

#4 "If Labour and the Lib Dems think the people will then welcome a new bout of constitutional wrangling, they have no grasp of how people actually think and feel."............More likely, they know exactly how people would feel, and are pinning their hopes on kicking devo-max into the long grass..... With a few honourable exceptions, the Scottish Labour leadership doesn't want any further significant powers for Scotland. The UK Labour party must come first - not what is good for the Scottish people.

• Report Unsuitable

13

SiônJones

Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at 02:06 PM

If the SNP, with a good majority cannot claim to speak for Scotland, what gives Cameron, with his minority administration, the right to go to Europe and presume to speak for the people of the UK? Double standards all round.

• Report Unsuitable

12

bulkybill

Monday, January 30, 2012 at 12:15 AM

@11 Just because Blair campaigned for it does not mean that he believed in it I think you will find that I am not rewriting history. If you wish to believe tat then that is up to you, I wouldn't blame you as the truth has been buried deep and when the 30 year rule on this comes along I think you may be proved wrong. Remember that the Labour and Tories buried the McCrone report in order to decieve the people of Scotland.

• Report Unsuitable

11

John-R

Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 06:28 PM

@4 Stop re-writing history. Devolution had nothing to do with the EU, and Tony Blair campaigned strongly FOR it - he even said that if it DIDNT have tax raising powers, it would be like a parish council.

• Report Unsuitable

10

samcoldstream

Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 03:37 PM

The question the Scots Unionist politicians should be asking themselves is: "How on earth did we allow ourselves to reach this low point in our history?" The pariah Scots Tories have simply become unelectable, and the two LabourLib-Dem Scottish Executives were seen as a cosy political consensus? A remarkable event took place in May last year when the safe lead held by the Labour Parliamentary group in the polls completely vanished into thin air? Tens upon tens of thousands of Unionist voters took the extraordinary decision to cast their franchise for the Nationalist Party? Politics is a fluctuating game and the Scots Unionists who changed their allegiance to vote Nationalist will no doubt return to the party fold for the Referendum. It is inconceivable that the Nationalists can win. However, when they are defeated, the Scots Unionists should not fall into the same complacent trap again. The Nationalist threat will not disappear like snaw aff a dyke. There will be other ruthless Nationalists to come along and take Salmond's place. The Scots Unionist parties must ensure that Devolution becomes a successful form of government which keeps the Nationalist wolf from the door forever.

• Report Unsuitable

9

Gordon Hay

Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 02:16 PM

# 4 - Indeed. As another poster says, merely replacing one myth with another. I recall an authoritative article in this paper shortly after last May's election result that made it clear that Donald Dewar et al never believed the PR system would prevent a majority, they simply promoted it as such to get the Lib Dems on board.

• Report Unsuitable

8

Scotland stands up!

Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 01:11 PM

Kenny, comment 2 say's it all. Where is the balanced debate on the biggest issue to ever come up for the people and future of Scotland?

• Report Unsuitable

7

Pilrig.

Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 12:40 PM

6 - really ? We've heard that before...Salmond is leadin' the SNP tae an electoral meltdoon. What happened insteed ? The Nats won a majority o' seats at Holyrood !

• Report Unsuitable

6

True Scot

Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Interesting points. tbh it's apparent that increasingly it's the nats who have to worry about what salmond is doing and saying.

• Report Unsuitable

5

The Voice of Reason

Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM

"The SNP seems to think it is a Caledonian version of the African National Congress. It ain’t." They say speak your mind, but if that's your mind Kenny then you are one sick dude.

• Report Unsuitable

4

bulkybill

Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Kenny you are having a laugh. Myth 1 do you honestly expect me to believe that the labour party would allow any sort of voting system that would work against them, you obviously have not been following their history. Labour constantly claim that devolution was their creation in response to a demand by the Scottish people when in fact it was forced upon them be the EU,. In fact Tony Blairs government was fighting heavily against it. So to claim that they were so kind as to ensure that they would never get a majority is (as is often claimed of the SNP) living in cloud cukoo land.

• Report Unsuitable

3

florian albert

Sunday, January 29, 2012 at 11:04 AM

There is no point in setting out to demolish myths and creating new ones. Myth 3 Devo Max requires a second question in the referendum Kenny Farquaharson says that Devo Max could be created via the existing Scotland Bill. In theory, but in practice this is a non-starter. The idea of major constitutional change being added to a bill - with no external consultation - long after it has been introduced to Parliament, is a non-starter. Kenny Farquharson is crossing the line between political commentator and campaigner. We have, in the Scotsman and SoS, Joyce McMillan, Lesley Riddoch and, now, Kenny Farquharson all speaking up for Devo max; none of them convincingly.

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 2

• 1
• 2
• Next >
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.