 |
| Salmond: First Minister, Party Leader, Campaign Figurehead |
Amongst the dross that littered today's newspapers as they vied with each other to present the most negatively biased perspective on the launch of the referendum Yes campaign, there was one piece which stood out as being, if not a gem of political analysis, then at least a shiny bauble. Writing in The Herald, Ian Bell provides a timely reminder that what we are being offered in the forthcoming referendum is A vote for independence, not for Salmond's policies.
It may seem strange that such a reminder should be necessary. But, as one of our more astute political bloggers points out in a recent piece for The Caledonian Mercury, clarification is very much required. (Does anyone understand what a referendum is? - Reverend Stuart Campbell)
Straightforward enough, you might think. Glaringly obvious, even. But it is both striking and disappointing how often I find myself having to explain this very evident truth during discussions around the issue of the referendum campaign. Perhaps because referendums are such infrequent and unaccustomed phenomena, people seem to have some difficulty thinking outside the defining box of conventional party political electoral contests. And not just people! Political journalists - who are sort of people - all too often make the same error. At which point I have to restrain myself from launching into yet another little rant about the paucity of serious analysis in a mainstream media where journalistic commentary seems to be almost entirely agenda-driven, mind-numbingly banal and deplorably shallow.
Lest you missed it, that was me making a rather poor job of resisting the temptation to rant. Sorry!
It pains me to say that, for all the good sense he writes, Ian Bell has also fallen into the trap of thinking about the referendum campaign in party-political terms. He rightly describes as "myth" the notion that "in the autumn of 2014, or thereabouts, you will be invited to vote for or against a lot of things". Where he goes wrong, in my view, is in contending that this myth "suits the Scottish National Party and Unionists alike".
There is no doubt whatever that this myth suits the anti-independence lobby. It is an important strand of the unionists' project to make the whole process seem as dauntingly complicated and confusing as possible. Artificially generated fear and uncertainty are their principle weapons - possibly their only weapons - in the effort to preserve the union at any cost.
But does it suit the SNP? I don't think so! As yesterday's launch event for the YES campaign amply demonstrated, the priority - indeed, the imperative - for the SNP at the moment is to build a YES campaign that is as broad-based and inclusive as possible. Any kind of perceived association between the campaign and the specific policy positions of any party must surely run counter to this objective. The idea of the YES campaign is to present to the electorate as many different but positive visions of Scotland as possible, while avoiding internal conflict over things that are not at issue as far as the plebiscite is concerned.
It does not "suit" the SNP to have people discussing the referendum as if it was a vote on SNP policies, some of which are controversial even among party members and committed YES voters. It suits the SNP to have people talking in terms of the all the choices and possibilities that independence opens up. At least, that is what suits the party in relation to the independence referendum campaign. But it is crucial to any analysis of the Scottish political scene that we understand that the SNP exists as three different entities.
This "trinity" is perhaps best illustrated by looking at the different roles filled by Alex Salmond. He is, of course, the First Minister of Scotland, The head of government and Scotland's principal representative in all matters. Also, he is the leader of his party, with all the duties, authority and responsibilities that this entails. Nothing extraordinary about that, you may say. It is the way the party-political system works. But it gets more complicated for Salmond because he has an additional high-profile role as the de facto figurehead of the independence campaign.
These three distinct roles involve some pretty deft juggling as Salmond constantly switches hats. Wearing his First Minister hat his duty is to all the people of Scotland whose interests he must defend at all times while making delicate compromises among diverse interests. Wearing his party leader bunnet, he is primarily responsible to party members and is tasked with guiding the development of policy and its translation into effective legislation.
As the "voice" of the independence campaign his role is different again. And this is where confusion so often arises. As leader of the SNP he is required to seek every opportunity to explain and promote his party's policies to the widest possible audience. (Which, incidentally, is why it is plainly idiotic to criticise him for seeking the limelight.) But, as I have already pointed out, promotion of specific policies, other than the one concerning independence, has no place in his role in relation to the referendum campaign.
I have to insist that these are not mere hair-splitting distinctions. On the contrary, I would contend that an appreciation of such such nuances is absolutely essential to the kind of meaningful, rational political analysis I believe people actually want.
It may seem strange that such a reminder should be necessary. But, as one of our more astute political bloggers points out in a recent piece for The Caledonian Mercury, clarification is very much required. (Does anyone understand what a referendum is? - Reverend Stuart Campbell)
A referendum, by definition, is not a device for deciding multiple policies. An independence referendum resolves one issue and one issue alone: who elects the next government. In Scotland’s case, the referendum will determine whether from that point on it’s the people of Scotland who get to choose Scotland’s government, or (as at present) the people of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. But the policies of that government – and every one that follows it – will be decided by regular elections.Ian Bell makes the same point,
...a plebiscite is not a General Election. This vote, when it comes, will settle only one issue.He expands on this point thus,
The important point is that in 2014 we won't be voting on, for example, an independent Scotland's relationship, if any, with the monarchy. We won't be deciding whether we can or should remain within Nato or the sterling area. The referendum is about the right to choose, not about the particular choices contained within anyone's "vision" of self-determination.
Straightforward enough, you might think. Glaringly obvious, even. But it is both striking and disappointing how often I find myself having to explain this very evident truth during discussions around the issue of the referendum campaign. Perhaps because referendums are such infrequent and unaccustomed phenomena, people seem to have some difficulty thinking outside the defining box of conventional party political electoral contests. And not just people! Political journalists - who are sort of people - all too often make the same error. At which point I have to restrain myself from launching into yet another little rant about the paucity of serious analysis in a mainstream media where journalistic commentary seems to be almost entirely agenda-driven, mind-numbingly banal and deplorably shallow.
Lest you missed it, that was me making a rather poor job of resisting the temptation to rant. Sorry!
It pains me to say that, for all the good sense he writes, Ian Bell has also fallen into the trap of thinking about the referendum campaign in party-political terms. He rightly describes as "myth" the notion that "in the autumn of 2014, or thereabouts, you will be invited to vote for or against a lot of things". Where he goes wrong, in my view, is in contending that this myth "suits the Scottish National Party and Unionists alike".
There is no doubt whatever that this myth suits the anti-independence lobby. It is an important strand of the unionists' project to make the whole process seem as dauntingly complicated and confusing as possible. Artificially generated fear and uncertainty are their principle weapons - possibly their only weapons - in the effort to preserve the union at any cost.
But does it suit the SNP? I don't think so! As yesterday's launch event for the YES campaign amply demonstrated, the priority - indeed, the imperative - for the SNP at the moment is to build a YES campaign that is as broad-based and inclusive as possible. Any kind of perceived association between the campaign and the specific policy positions of any party must surely run counter to this objective. The idea of the YES campaign is to present to the electorate as many different but positive visions of Scotland as possible, while avoiding internal conflict over things that are not at issue as far as the plebiscite is concerned.
It does not "suit" the SNP to have people discussing the referendum as if it was a vote on SNP policies, some of which are controversial even among party members and committed YES voters. It suits the SNP to have people talking in terms of the all the choices and possibilities that independence opens up. At least, that is what suits the party in relation to the independence referendum campaign. But it is crucial to any analysis of the Scottish political scene that we understand that the SNP exists as three different entities.
This "trinity" is perhaps best illustrated by looking at the different roles filled by Alex Salmond. He is, of course, the First Minister of Scotland, The head of government and Scotland's principal representative in all matters. Also, he is the leader of his party, with all the duties, authority and responsibilities that this entails. Nothing extraordinary about that, you may say. It is the way the party-political system works. But it gets more complicated for Salmond because he has an additional high-profile role as the de facto figurehead of the independence campaign.
These three distinct roles involve some pretty deft juggling as Salmond constantly switches hats. Wearing his First Minister hat his duty is to all the people of Scotland whose interests he must defend at all times while making delicate compromises among diverse interests. Wearing his party leader bunnet, he is primarily responsible to party members and is tasked with guiding the development of policy and its translation into effective legislation.
As the "voice" of the independence campaign his role is different again. And this is where confusion so often arises. As leader of the SNP he is required to seek every opportunity to explain and promote his party's policies to the widest possible audience. (Which, incidentally, is why it is plainly idiotic to criticise him for seeking the limelight.) But, as I have already pointed out, promotion of specific policies, other than the one concerning independence, has no place in his role in relation to the referendum campaign.
I have to insist that these are not mere hair-splitting distinctions. On the contrary, I would contend that an appreciation of such such nuances is absolutely essential to the kind of meaningful, rational political analysis I believe people actually want.
Goos article Peter. I personally think that Alex should take a very low profile role in the campaign for exactly these reasons. the pro-dependency parties have nothing beneficial to offer, so their attacks will be negative, and (if I understand their "reasoning") based on ad hominem attacks on Alex salmons to the exclusion of anything else. You read it every day in the MSM, hear it on BBC Scotland radio, and see it on BBC Scotland TV. If you only took your view of Scotland from the media you could be excused thinking that Scotland really was a basket case, with massive unemployment, a hugely over weaning social / welfare sector, over-bureaucratic with significant underemployed civil servants.
ReplyDeleteOf course the truth is rather different, but I find it astonishingly difficult to get ANYTHING positive about Scotland from our own media. Why does the media in Scotland hate Scotland so much?
We have over two years to make the debate the real one. In that time we will be rested all the way by the Dependency parties and their lackies in the MSM. It will be a long, frustrating journey!
Good article Peter. I personally think that Alex should take a very low profile role in the campaign for exactly these reasons. the pro-dependency parties have nothing beneficial to offer, so their attacks will be negative, and (if I understand their "reasoning") based on ad hominem attacks on Alex salmons to the exclusion of anything else. You read it every day in the MSM, hear it on BBC Scotland radio, and see it on BBC Scotland TV. If you only took your view of Scotland from the media you could be excused thinking that Scotland really was a basket case, with massive unemployment, a hugely over weaning social / welfare sector, over-bureaucratic with significant underemployed civil servants.
ReplyDeleteOf course the truth is rather different, but I find it astonishingly difficult to get ANYTHING positive about Scotland from our own media. Why does the media in Scotland hate Scotland so much?
We have over two years to make the debate the real one. In that time we will be rested all the way by the Dependency parties and their lackies in the MSM. It will be a long, frustrating journey!
Who is the guy in the picture?
ReplyDeleteDid not reconise Alex with his mouth closed!