Why the real winners from John Swinney's extremism summit were Reform

Fixing Scotland’s many problems, not ‘anti-extremism’ summits, is the best way to scupper the rise of Reform UK

For those who recognise a clumsy political stunt, the image of 50 sombre figures assembled in Glasgow’s Merchant House for an “anti-extremism summit” – some with one eye on their future Scottish Government funding – was a classic of the genre.

In terms even of its ostensible intention, it was probably counter-productive. “If the whole Scottish establishment is against us, then we must be doing something right,” quoth Nigel Farage in response to his party’s exclusion.

A non sequitur, of course, but still a pithy one-liner. The Farage analysis may have had marginally more resonance than Swinney’s bumblings about an existential threat from the “far-right” against which we must unite.

In February, when launching the wheeze, Swinney specifically linked that charge to Reform and claimed “our values are under threat from Farage”. This week, their exclusion sent the same message. They are cast as pariahs in an otherwise happy land of “shared values”.

Reform UK activists protest outside the Merchants House of Glasgow where John Swinney convened an 'anti-far-right' summit on Wednesday (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell) | PA

Scotland not divided by Farage

As a democrat who has no truck with Reform, I find this dangerous and distasteful. Branding people as “extremist” or “racist” or “far-right” in order to ostracise them has to be based on evidence far more substantial than anything which has been adduced.

Far from bringing people together, a script is being written for polarisation. Scotland, let’s be clear, is not threatened by the “far-right”. It has not been divided by Farage. Indeed, the two most divisive issues in recent times are ones with which Swinney is closely identified – the constitution and gender.

Certainly, stigmatisation didn’t do Reform any harm in a council by-election in Glenrothes on Thursday. The SNP held the seat but the striking figure was a 19 per cent vote for Reform, out of nowhere. Maybe a fifth of Glenrothes voters deserve better understanding than dismissal as “extremists”.

A fifth of the list vote would achieve significant representation at Holyrood. Mr Swinney’s posturing is more likely to enhance that prospect than repel it. Indeed, that may be his calculation on the basis that Reform will do more harm to opponents than to his own cause. So much for shared values!

Tories right to stay away

The presence of Patrick Harvie and Lorna Slater at the top table of anti-extremism scarcely enhanced its credibility. On the same day, their colleague Maggie Chapman was slandering Supreme Court judges as hate-filled bigots. First they came for the judges…

Then there was the Court of Session ruling that little boys and little girls should have separate toilets, no matter what the Scottish Government deems progressive. This “first of many” cost will run into millions and was entirely avoidable if Swinney had listened to legal advice. So who are the extremists?

I think the Scottish Tories got it right by staying away from Swinney’s stunt while Labour and the Lib Dems felt obliged to turn up out of respect for those who participated in good faith. Anas Sarwar did well to distance himself by exercising humility and understanding of why many – in Scotland as elsewhere – are looking for alternatives.

“The harsh reality,” he said, “is that people across our society feel as if government doesn’t work for them, the economy doesn’t work for them, public services don’t work for them. Unless we address those challenges, we will continue to see people pushed towards divisive rhetoric and divisive political parties.”

He added: “Many people are going towards that direction as an ‘FU’ vote because they are so scunnered with institutions, political parties, with governments.” The same applies in other parts of the UK and Labour, at the local elections next month, will probably be punished by it. And to be fair, that will be after ten months for Labour. Here, the SNP has had 18 years.

Mote in Swinney’s eye

There is a world of difference between Sarwar’s self-awareness and the smug avoidance of the same realities by Swinney. Recognising oneself as part of the problem is a lot more difficult than preaching. If many Scottish voters feel “government doesn’t work for them and public services don’t work for them”, then Swinney more than anyone should concentrate on casting the mote out of his own eye. He’s been around long enough.

Across George Square, there was a timely collision between rhetoric and reality. The number of asylum seekers reaching Glasgow is now “damaging social cohesion”, according to the city council, which has hitherto encouraged their arrival in line with the presumption that we are, by definition, more generous and welcoming than anywhere else (ie England).

Reform UK will undoubtedly trade on the council’s admission. Housing shortages will be linked to the disproportionate attraction of asylum seekers. Yet the Scottish Government cannot have it both ways. It hardly needs a soothsayer to foresee if you advertise yourself as more welcoming and generous, a lot of people will turn up. And eventually, “social cohesion” may be threatened.

Someone else’s turn

A letter from the SNP councillor in charge of homelessness to the UK minister does, of course, try to have it both ways. It says Glasgow’s situation is unique “because of Scotland’s world-leading homelessness legislation”. Then it demands more money from the minister “for the impact your decisions are having”. In other words, we’ll be the most generous people in the world – so long as you pay for it.

Such contradictions, you might say, are the rough and tumble of politics and I would agree. Just please do not dress them up in sanctimony about the “far-right” which avoids the need to boast less and govern better.

Start sorting the NHS, homelessness, education, and closing poverty gaps and attainment gaps instead of widening them, and there would be no need to worry about Reform. Mr Swinney and his colleagues have had 18 years to make progress. Maybe instead of hiding behind “anti-extremism summits”, it’s just time for someone else to have a go.