THE murder of three little girls in Southport last week was an act of unfathomable wickedness. The grief of their families will be unbounded, visceral, unimaginable.
So how is it that, at a time when the instinct of any decent human being would be to unite in grief and sorrow for the families concerned, hooded thugs instead took to destroying their own streets by attacking mosques, burning refugees out of hotels and looting people out of their businesses?
It is commonplace to cite social media as a vector for spreading disinformation and mistrust. And there is no question that malicious misinformation spread online in the aftermath was what triggered the clashes and copycat violence that followed across so many English towns and cities.
READ MORE: Seamus Logan: Much about GB Energy still isn’t stacking up
In this aspect, the finger of blame can be pointed firmly at the self-styled Tommy Robinson and his followers. In Scotland, we can take some comfort from the fact that his later attempt to incite similar hatred following a separate incident in Stirling failed to get any traction.
The far right – like a cold sore virus – has always been present in British politics, bubbling up unpleasantly from time to time before disappearing until its next opportunity. So, what is it that has emboldened so many to take to the streets this time?
It is understandable that some MPs have demanded a recall of Parliament. But while there is purpose in allowing MPs to scrutinise the Government response and to show local leadership by saying their piece in the Chamber, there is surely a huge elephant in the room for Westminster politics.
And that is the role politicians and their parties have played – wittingly and otherwise – in enabling and helping to give a veneer of legitimacy to the racism and Islamophobia currently fuelling the mob.
Like many of the UK’s political calamities of the past few years, it has its roots in senior Conservative Party politicians fearing the loss of votes to parties of the hard right.
It was his party’s fear of Nigel Farage (above) which drove David Cameron to unleash the Brexit referendum and all that has followed. It is what drove his successors to make migration and the Rwanda scheme such a touchstone of their re-election efforts.
And when these efforts floundered on commitments made in international law, such as the ECHR or the Good Friday Agreement, the response from too many Conservative politicians wasn’t one of pragmatism in power and honest dialogue with voters, but the kind of impotent, performative “anti-foreign” political rage that only fuelled the rhetoric of the “we want our country back” brigade lurking malevolently in shadows elsewhere.
But Labour have baggage here too, whether it is with their mugs boasting of “controls on immigration” or their increasing discomfort with any expression of multiculturalism which does not come suitably sanitised and wrapped in a Union Flag.
They, too, have responded to a threat of losing votes by pandering to the fears of those who think that it is immigration which has deprived people and their communities of status, opportunity and dignity, when they should have been persuading of the need to correct the policy choices of a failing UK state hollowed-out by rising poverty and inequality and by a decade-and-a-half of austerity.
And while social media has a case to answer for fuelling this atmosphere of fear and mistrust, so too does much of the traditional media.
Not just the platformed shills of GB News or the right-wing tabloids, but also the “serious” publications which try to put a bow and tie on their bigotry, and the mainstream “national” broadcasters which have spent years platforming the likes of Farage at a time when his party struggled to get more than a handful of councillors elected.
As Scots, we like to tell ourselves comforting stories about how tolerant and welcoming we are. Certainly, our own national story of immigration and emigration is one which should predispose us to opening our doors and our hearts to those who come here seeking safety or the opportunity to build a better life.
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf questions family's future in Scotland after far-right riots
But maintaining that demands that we always be able to offer people hope and a renewed sense of what it is we want to achieve together.
Which is why it was so invigorating to be among political friends and fellow travellers at last Saturday’s indy march in Elgin which, despite the many current differences in our movement, helped to serve as a timely reminder of all we continue to aspire to in common.
Years of out-migration deprived us of talent and vitality. Immigration, on the other hand, enriches us. We need politicians who are willing to say so unapologetically instead of forever triangulating to the mob.
And in articulating our case for independence. It is that kind of change for the future – in how we treat people; how we engage with our neighbours; how we engage with the world; how we prepare for the challenges of the years ahead – that will resonate most with those whom we still need to persuade.
Keir Starmer will doubtless do everything he can to ensure the rioters face the full force of the law. However, delivering any more fundamental change in our politics requires a level of leadership and courage that so far looks to be beyond his willingness or abilities to achieve.
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