Tom Gordon: Ukraine shows limit of SNP’s reflex pivot to independence

“There is no direct comparison between the situation in Scotland and the situation in Ukraine. They are facing a military invasion, we live in a democratic state,” he told ITV Border.

The reason these busy people were spending their time stating the blindingly obvious was that two of their SNP colleagues had been obviously blind to it.

First, Falkirk East MSP Michelle Thomson had tried to to join the dots between Ukraine’s emergency application for EU membership and Scottish independence on Monday.

“Delighted for Ukraine,” she wrote as shells whistled towards its cities. “It just goes to show what political can achieve. Remember this Scotland!”

The point being that Scotland might soon be applying for EU membership too, if only it has the will to leave the UK.

On reflection - meaning after lots of people had called her out online - Ms Thomson decided her tweet had been “insensitive”, deleted it and apologised if she had offended anyone.

SNP President Michael Russell then took up the gauntlet, and showed that Ms Thomson was not the only one who could blunder about on the subject.

In an article posted on the SNP website, the former MSP said Scotland’s right to choose its form of government could not be blocked by history, as things change, “whether that be rule from Moscow, or the result of an eight year-old referendum”.

The response to bracketing the conflict and the constitution was loud and swift.

“It is utterly crass to draw any parallels between what is going on in Ukraine to Scotland’s situation, when people in Ukraine are fighting and dying to avoid falling under the yolk of the Kremlin,” said Scottish Liberal Democrat Willie Rennie.

Neither Ms Thomson or Mr Russell are from the dafty wing of the Yes movement. They’re both smart cookies. Perhaps too fond of being smart to interrogate their own pronouncements. But nevertheless, not numpties. So why say it?

As Brian Wilson wrote in these pages yesterday, there is no comparison between Ukraine’s existential fight and Scottish politics, yet it was also inevitable that someone prominent in the SNP would try to make one. Why?

First, habit and training. The SNP automatically latches on to whatever it can to advance independence. Life is a conveyor belt of events to bend to its narrative that independence is always becoming more necessary and desirable and so is always getting closer.

There are no setbacks. Nothing ever damages the cause. Everything providentially helps it.

This is obviously not a very discriminating process. If everything is grist to the mill, there is no need to be too fussy about what goes into the mix. It is simply what the party does.

Nor is there any need to think too hard about whether a purported boost for independence is actually helping in reality. The main thing is to say that it is and to maintain the narrative.

The result is that endless parlour game of Scottish politics - trying to connect anything and everything to independence.

Some things are a good fit for the SNP narrative. Brexit, for example.

Brexit not only went against Scotland’s will, it laid bare the brute power dynamic between Westminster and Holyrood, and inflicted pain on parts of our economy.

Brexit has thus become a prime example of an event that, for the SNP, proves the need for independence and brings it inexorably closer.

Other things should be a manifestly bad fit for this narrative. But habit and training mean SNP politicians are going to try to shoehorn them in regardless, as that’s the job. The crisis in Ukraine, for example.

Hence Ms Thomson and Mr Russell reflexively trying to do their bit for the cause and doing it horribly.

Second, a lack of other things to talk about. If there was a genuine campaign underway, with a published prospectus and a vote at the end of it, the SNP could be happily talking about manner of independence issues, painting a vivid picture of a rich future over the horizon.

But there isn’t. There’s a vacuum.

The Yes movement knows in its guts that Indyref2 isn’t happening next year, whatever the First Minister may say. It’s either biding its time and saving its energy or forlorn and becalmed. You decide.

Likewise, the domestic agenda isn’t terribly rosy at the moment. Education, health, the economy, the backlog in the justice system. Rich pickings for the opposition, perhaps, but not the SNP.

So the party’s politicians keep circling back to independence, despite not having much new to say on the subject, leading leading to accusations of monomania. See Ms Thomson and Mr Russell again.

The other reason they spoke out, let’s be honest, is the other side are thinking about this too. All the parties must wonder if Ukraine’s fate will send unforeseen ripples over here, and some will be wondering about the independence debate.

They may not be saying it out loud, but such thoughts are part of their job too.

Note how quickly the Unionist parties were to seize on this week’s clumsy comments to score political points about SNP blinkers and independence, for instance. Or how Sir Keir Starmer at PMQs yesterday used the crisis to link Russian loot in London with Tory party corruption. Exploiting events, including crises, is what politicians do.

So while there’s been a fuss over SNP tactlessness, I wouldn’t get too exercised about it. In fact, I’d say it was reassuring. Our political battles are fought with words not weapons. Petulance not violence. Whining and snark. Playground stuff.

“There is no connection between a war in Ukraine and the support and campaign for independence in Scotland,” as the FM said. No, and thank God there isn’t.