THESE truths I hold to be self evident, though filtered through the lens of my own political journey.
The first is that the lazy characterisation of the current SNP situation as Sturgeonistas versus Salmondites, is hopelessly reductive and profoundly unhelpful.
There are, it’s true, people, especially on social media, who believe Nicola Sturgeon to be antithetical to gaining independence. Which is self evident mince. What they actually mean is that they are hostile to her gradualist, super cautious, lawyerly approach to achieving same.
Conversely, there are those hostile to Alex Salmond, particularly after the harassment charges, long resistant to his brand of relentless self confidence and bravado.
I venture to suggest there is a third cohort; less visible, less vitriolic, which harbours respect for both, although it’s beyond debate that the FM enjoys vastly better personal ratings than her predecessor. This third group includes indy supporters who are mindful of Salmond’s massive contribution to the cause, who also laud Sturgeon’s navigation of the post 2014 mine strewn landscape, and her subsequent shift tackling the pandemic.
It is also way too simplistic to imagine it is all men who loathe Sturgeon and all women who can’t abide Salmond. For what it’s worth, I don’t believe there was a massive inter-institutional conspiracy to bring Alex Salmond down and prevent his return to frontline political life. I do believe he was the inheritor of two sets of timelines.
For those of us of a certain generation, men in power behaving badly towards junior female employees was embarrassingly commonplace. This in no way excuses gratuitous touching and worse, merely to record that many workplaces, not least politics and the media, suffered from this sense of male entitlement. That behaviour should not have continued into a new century, but it seems old habits die hard, and old cultures become ingrained.
READ MORE: What will happen if Alex Salmond joins Niciola Sturgeon in the Holyrood chamber?
Alex Salmond cut his professional and political teeth in such a misogynistic culture. The second timing concerns the universal buy-in of women all over the world to the #metoo movement. It may have had its genesis on Hollywood’s casting couches, but there isn’t a woman alive who at sometime or other has not been the object of unwelcome male attention. The recent furore, and multiple confessions after the murders of young women in London, merely confirms this.
So the Scottish legislation which caught the former First Minister in its slipstream was born of a universal revulsion to the Harvey Weinstein story. I do not believe he was a particular target of that legislation, but, as several inquiries underlined, it proved badly flawed – if not in the drafting then certainly in the usage.
Sturgeon and Salmond both negotiated the recent committee grillings like the pros they are. And you don’t have to believe all their evidence to say so.
All of the above not only makes the upcoming election as vital as everyone agrees, but also vastly more complex than usual. Let’s start with that perennial conundrum of the D’Hondt voting system which makes our elections partly proportional.
It suits some people to pretend this is a process which passeth all human understanding. A sort of Scottish equivalent of the Schleswig Holstein question where only three people had the answer and one was deid, one was dotty, and the third had long syne forgotten it.
In truth it’s not that difficult. You get to choose a constituency MSP with your first vote, then a party with your second. The theory is that second vote is a counter balance to any party doing “too well” in the first. Current cries of the system being gamed give hypocrisy a bad name. It’s been gamed from the off, with Tories, Labour and Lib Dems having an ignoble tradition of voting for Hamish to keep Kirsty out or vice versa. Even now you can find Tories openly urging a vote for the Labour Leader to try and unseat the First Minister.
The reason pearls are being clutched now, of course, is the re-emergence of Alex Salmond’s Alba party, and his sales pitch of ditching SNP 1&2 in favour of SNP1-Alba2 in order to create, in his words, a “supermajority” for independence. There was, let us remember, already a party with similar intent which had announced a slate of candidates.
Alex Salmond preferred not to throw in his lot with Alliance for Independence, however, causing the latter to stand down its hopefuls. Its statement made clear they thought Alba had stolen the clothes off its back. In truth I don’t think Alex was ever attracted to a party helmed by someone else.
So my problem with this is not that the system is being gamed – everyone, including everyone in the SNP hierarchy – is well aware that outside of the South and the Highlands, the SNP will do well to gain a single list seat. The SNP view is that doing anything but SNP1&2 is way too risky. Yet there will many voters out there who have an appetite for a bit of risk; a palpable lack of enthusiasm for “steady as she goes”.
MY concerns are of a different order. The parties doing all manner of internal deals to rank wannabees knowing the chances of election too far down their slate are minimal rather offends me. I well remember when, as a result of constituency politics Michael Russell and Andrew Wilson were chucked down the list. So memorable was the candidate ranked number one I haven’t the foggiest who it was.
My more deep seated hesitancy is what happens if Alex Salmond wins a list seat and both he and Nicola Sturgeon wind up in the same chamber. There is nothing in Alex’s past, or his current demeanour, which suggests to me he hankers after a quiet life on the bank benches. In my view, Holyrood is not big enough for both of them.
I truly believe that once you resign you should leave the stage. Your successor will inevitably play the role differently, but that’s political life. I imagine Thatcher, having anointed John Major, probably spent the next few years impotently raging against his lower key demeanour.
Although I have great respect for what Alex did for the movement, I wish he could have brought himself to say different things in recent interviews. Not “I think all fairminded people will believe in the verdict of two court cases and three inquiries” but rather, “I’m truly sorry if my behaviour caused any of my colleagues unnecessary distress”. Sorry needn’t be the hardest word.
Although I have great respect for what Nicola Sturgeon has done for the movement, I wish she could have brought herself to take action against those who made a bourach of the judicial review, having repeatedly said the buck stopped on her desk. Fine words about what she will reflect on and do post election do not, as my granny was wont to observe, butter any parsnips.
I hope too that if she leads a new Scottish Government, she will broaden the decision making base beyond the current trusties.
THERE will be many people who choose to give their list vote to the Greens, although they managed to lose one of Holyrood’s real heavyweights when they arm wrestled Andy Wightman into a vote he later regretted. I’m glad he’s standing and I hope he makes it.
I hope too there will be few who support the increasingly ludicrous George Galloway – the man who so hates the Tories that he’s recruited them to his latest vanity project.
Again, this election really matters. Not just because it is a tipping point for independence, but because it becomes ever more urgent to decouple our country from the illiberal, inequitable and incompetent administration at Westminster, before that crew decouples Holyrood from the shilpit powers still available.
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