SNP offer to put Nigel Farage in power shows nationalism's true colours – William Deans
SNP Westminster leader Dave Doogan may have tried to row back on his remarks but the callous mindset behind them is clear to William Deans
What will it profit a man if he should gain the whole world, but lose his soul?
“We’ll negotiate with anybody, we’ll help anybody into power” – as a political rallying cry, SNP Westminster leader Dave Doogan’s stance on working with Reform, set out in a recent interview, lacks a certain measure of moral clarity. Coming from a party that likes to play up its purity of ideals and its progressive credentials, it is quite a choice to openly position yourself as political mercenaries for hire.
Doogan’s offer to put Nigel Farage into 10 Downing Street should be a timely reminder of the moral vacuum within nationalism – and within its central premise that we should carve ourselves off from the rest of the UK.
This is what is known as a “Kinsley gaffe” – when a politician tells the truth, but a truth that he is not supposed to say out loud. Doogan, however, really could not have been much clearer in his intent. When the SNP Westminster leader was pressed on whether he would really be willing to put Reform into power for the sake of independence, he was emphatic. “Anyone means anyone.”
High-minded talk about evils of Reform
Just think for a moment about what that position really entails (however hastily Doogan reframed it once he felt the heat of public scrutiny). Apparently helping the far right into power is fine – as long as you are giving them power over other people, rather than yourself.
After all the high-minded talk of resistance, about the great evils of Reform and their politics, it turns out that those evils are a fine price for someone else to pay. It is a grotesque act of inverse solidarity.
The argument here seems to be that the far right are bad – bad enough that they are a reason that Scotland should leave the UK to escape them, no less – but not so bad that it would be wrong to empower them for cynical political gain. Doogan himself, in trying to walk back his strategy this week, repeated that it was the threat of a Farage government that justified Scotland leaving the UK – and yet if he had the chance, Doogan would be all-too happy to turn that threat into reality.
Perhaps, however, we should not be surprised. Doogan is merely following the same well-trodden path of his predecessor Stephen Flynn, who became notorious for his cynical political positioning over the miserable conflict around Gaza – taking a humanitarian disaster and treating it as a wedge issue to gain short-term advantage over rival parties. It is amazing what you can justify when you treat people as a means to an end.
There is also, however, a surprising naiveté to Doogan’s strategy – Farage is so odious that he is the reason for independence, and yet at the same time he is so dependable that he can be trusted with the levers of power and to bring Indyref2 to fruition. With enemies as benign as this, who needs friends?
The trouble with nationalism
All of this, however, should not distract from the basic callous cynicism of putting the far right into power across the UK in exchange for a chance that Scotland could have an opt-out – trading the opportunities and future of 60-odd million people with whom we share a country for those of five million in one section of it. It betrays an astonishing lack of empathy or solidarity with others.
You might well ask how could anyone see that as an acceptable way to treat and to view other people with whom you share a community? And you would be right. The trouble with nationalism is that it teaches people to treat those around them – even those with whom we have shared a political society for years, decades, centuries on end – not as “us”, but as “them”.
It is the central conceit of nationalism, whether in Scotland or anywhere else: define those within the in-group, and those in the out-group, and assign more value, more empathy and respect to one over the other. It is precisely why, whatever its pretentions to progressivism, nationalism will always be a narrow-minded and regressive form of politics – because it is based not on universal ideals, but on restrictive identity.
There is no political principle worthy of the name that can justify why people in Scotland are too “good” to elect or to be governed by far-right parties, but that people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are not. If you believe that far-right ideas are worth resisting then they are worth resisting for everyone, in all corners of the UK. If you see yourself as progressive, or simply recognise the danger of far-right politics wherever you stand on the political spectrum, that should be something on which we can all unite.
Of course, First Minister John Swinney was quick to slap down Doogan’s remarks and the prospect of any Reform quid pro quo. He is canny enough not to admit to any deal with Farage in advance – and yet the ease and candour with which Doogan set out his willingness to work with Reform suggests that this quiet alliance, tacit or explicit, may yet resurface given the right opportunity.
As Doogan himself put it, “if it unlocks the door to our independence future, then we will absolutely do whatever we have to do to deliver that”. They have the motive – what remains to be seen is whether they are given the means.
What will it profit a man if he should gain a referendum, but lose his soul?
William Deans is chief of staff to Alistair Carmichael MP
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.