THERE is a legitimate danger that when a political cause becomes so entwined with a political party, the sins of one become the downfall of the other. From my early days of chapping doors and running stalls ahead of the 2014 independence referendum, it was always important to me that a distinction be made between supporting independence and supporting the SNP. These should have been two distinct positions.
However, following a No vote six years ago, the SNP capitalised on the surge of political engagement and disillusionment with the traditional politics of the UK and named themselves as the only vehicle capable of delivering independence.
Thus the internal dramas of the leading political party in Scotland became inextricably twisted with the fate of the independence movement itself. Now, as internal factions move to oust the current leadership, SNP activists have found themselves unwittingly led along a path to a regime change that will cost the SNP its credibility – and with it, scupper our chances of a second referendum in the near future.
READ MORE: Stuart Cosgrove: What happened when I met Oscar Pistorius
The pitch to replace Nicola Sturgeon goes something like this: the current SNP leadership has been captured by a group of woke careerists hellbent on promoting minority interests over independence as the First Minister, more eager to maintain power than take decisive action on the constitutional question, sits on her hands while shutting down discussion of alternative routes to a referendum from true independence supporters.
This hits all the hallmarks of an effective political narrative: the threat of outsider influence, a convenient scapegoat and, at its heart, a saviour who can bring the SNP back from the brink. Politicians who have set their own sights on the throne are unsurprisingly the most vocal on pushing this narrative, relying on social echo chambers to repeat and reinforce it. It is, however, mostly a fabrication that has developed and spread like a fungus on the underbelly of the independence movement itself.
All good coups need a scapegoat and, luckily for any leadership hopefuls, there was an oven-ready target fresh from the trenches of the culture war who could be used as such; the transgender community. Institutional transphobia within the SNP has flourished over the last year, partly driven by bigotry, but also importantly by political convenience. Support for trans equality has been cynically portrayed as an unhinged, unpopular policy that will cost the SNP dearly in the polls and has itself become an existential threat to independence.
Yet the results in Scotland of the last General Election would appear to tell a different story entirely. Despite much gnashing of teeth from declining bloggers, the SNP increased their MP count by 13 in 2019. In fact, of the MPs elected, some were the most high-profile and outspoken supporters of trans rights. MPs such as Mhairi Black were actually returned to Westminster with an increased number of votes.
READ MORE: Caitlin Logan: Scotland needs a public health approach to prostitution
Since including GRA reform in their 2016 manifesto, the total extent of action taken by the party in four years has been to hold a public consultation on the subject, then delay any reforms to an undefined point in the future. That’s it.
Does that genuinely sound like a party who has put minority interests front and centre in its administration?
It should also be noted that the consultation in question found that a majority supported not only self-id for transgender people, but legal recognition of non-binary identities, which the SNP then dropped from its proposals.
The second premise of the bid to replace Nicola Sturgeon as leader comes from the belief that the First Minister isn’t truly capable of securing an independence referendum, and that someone else needs to take the reins to do so.
Bizarrely, this conversation takes place against the backdrop of 15 consecutive polls showing that support for Scottish independence has never been higher – an achievement in part attributed to the First Minister’s governance. I think it shows how deeply this political narrative has buried itself within some elements of the SNP that, in the face of surging support for both independence and the party itself ahead of next year’s Holyrood election, they can only see failure.
Obviously, that’s not to say the SNP leadership shouldn’t face criticism. Far from it. As the party of government, it’s a democratic imperative that their behaviour is fairly scrutinised, and there are plenty of criticisms to be made.
As a party, the SNP have collectively failed to tackle transphobic sentiment among their ranks and allowed it to take root.
READ MORE: Tories fighting for a lost ideal of Britishness firmly rooted in England
Questions around democracy within the SNP are also well founded. Recent party conference motions have been, by and large, back-patting exercises that congratulate the SNP on past achievements without holding them to future commitments.
However, the politicians and activists manoeuvering themselves into positions of power aren’t focusing on valid concerns. Instead, they have been using emotive, fictitious threats as a springboard to bolster their own support.
Party members should be wary of anyone trying to lead them into an internal battle based on such a shoddy premise with a convenient scapegoat lined up and ready to go.
Their goal may not be securing independence at all, but rather, in the words of SNP MP Kirsty Blackman this week, “so that empire building can happen within the SNP”. Activists need a reality check before they hand the reins of power to politicians whose ego far exceeds their popularity and ability. Because, unfortunately, if the SNP implode, so too do our chances of securing independence in the near future.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel