LET me paint you a picture, and as I’m doing it I want you to imagine the reaction to the incidents I describe. What would the public response be like? How outraged would our politicians be? How many front-page headlines would result?
Imagine an elected SNP official described Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson as a “drooling hag”. Imagine another called Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale a “poison dwarf”.
Consider what might happen if it emerged that an SNP official had links to extremist nationalist groups known for aggressive racism. And what if another had posted “jokes” on social media about black people, loin cloths, spears and cannibalism?
Furthermore, imagine yet another being caught using the term “tarrier” on social media – one of the most derogatory words used to bully and mock Irish Catholics – and joking about the Catholic church and child abuse.
We all know what the response would be. We’d hear instantly about the terrors of nationalism, and the danger it poses to society. We’d have an endless stream of commentary about the grave threat of racism and ethnic nationalism, and the scourge of bullying. We’d have condemnation and outrage not just against the SNP, but by default against the wider Scottish independence movement.
But these comments aren’t attributable to the SNP. Rather, they came from a batch of Tory councillors, and many of the remarks were aimed at First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
As is becoming expected of Ruth Davidson these days, she’s been pretty silent. Rather, she took to Twitter as criticism of her councillors grew and took aim instead at, of all things, Jeremy Corbyn and the IRA – a move that outraged a number of fellow tweeters with direct experience of the Troubles, who did not appreciate Davidson’s attempt to politicise it in the modern day for the sake of pandering to an ultra-unionist audience.
However after mounting pressure, the Scottish Tories eventually suspended two of the councillors caught up in this sorry affair – Stirling Council’s Robert Davies and Alastair Majury – but this toxic cloud continues to hang over the party.
Or does it? This is another of those times when I want to tear my hair out at the inconsistency in moral judgements from sections of Scottish society. Politicians and media outlets both inform and represent the views of the public, but when it comes to nationalism they’re all over the place.
It’s difficult to understand how much clearer the nature of the Scottish Tories’ nationalism needs to be before they are properly held to account for it. Ruth Davidson is a British nationalist so staunch that the image of her once proudly posing on a tank with a union flag has become iconic.
She recently stood shoulder to shoulder with fellow Tory and Scottish Secretary David Mundell as he delivered the news to Scotland that the will of our Parliament doesn’t really matter, we’ll get our second independence referendum if and when the Tories say so.
She hid behind a spokesman rather than face serious questions about her support of the UK Tory rape clause. She has blatantly failed to take a clear and strong stand against the bigotry and racism emanating from many of her newly-elected council officials. This tells us much about Ruth Davidson’s British nationalism.
It needs to be repeated as often as Theresa May says “strong and stable”: Scotland’s independence referendum was notable because of how peaceful and well-mannered it was. Despite constant unionist claims of division and disharmony, the evidence shows the opposite.
In fact, it was the Brexit campaign – with its xenophobic opposition to immigration from Ukip – that led to a disturbing act of violence in the murder of MP Jo Cox on a British street. Cox was a Remain campaigner who supported refugees. The British nationalism driving Brexit is the polar opposite of a civic Scottish nationalism which is pro-EU and pro-immigration.
Scotland’s nationalism debate has been a healthy, empowering journey for the country. That is at risk from a new wave of Scottish Conservatism determined to inject the worst elements of British nationalism into the mix.
Don’t be fooled.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel