The Spectator Guide to opposing the SNP

Scottish voters aren't idiots. They aren't mad. Most ordinary Scots, like most folk, have a finely honed bullshit detector. This is why opposition politics is both simple and hard. It is simple, because it is about trying to achieve the straightforward objective of opposing the governing party. It is hard, because it is about doing so in a way that is credible and persuasive in the eyes of an electorate, which by definition, gave the other guys more votes last time round.

This is why I found Professor Adam Tomkins’ Spectator feature both entertaining and infuriating in equal measure. The first paragraph is best enjoyed by reading it out loud and pretending it is a dramatic voiceover for a movie trailer. The problem is that it is stylistically closer to B for Bullshit than V for Vendetta. The Spectator’s front cover, with its Orwellian overtones, is even more shrill and overblown.

Scotland has urgent problems in the delivery of its public policy, but we don’t live in a society on the precipice of becoming some sort of draconian dystopia. Police Scotland is in a right state, with serious fears about its operational effectiveness, and its accountability to local people. We’re quite some distance from living in an actual police state, however.

Professor Tomkins focuses particular attention on the Named Persons Bill, and its “ghastly Orwellian acronym Girfec (Getting It Right For Every Child).” There are convincing arguments that the Named Persons Bill will be ineffective, and impinges on parents. I understand that, but I also appreciate that it received widespread support from the children’s sector, who were concerned about protecting vulnerable children such as those in care. Right or wrong, let’s keep the issue in perspective. I don’t remember Winston Smith entering Room 101 to find out that he was going to work with children with a legally formalised duty of care.

The credibility of the article isn't helped by slamming the illiberal policies of the Scottish Government, invoking the Scottish Enlightenment, while also praising Theresa May. This is the same Home Secretary who threw chunks of red meat to the social conservatives of her party last week and is pushing through the snooper’s charter. Her immigration stance has restricted international student recruitment, and her hopes to cut incoming numbers by 25,000, would have a deleterious impact on the cultural diversity and financial sustainability of our university campuses. There is nothing liberal and enlightened about any of this.

The Spectator cover, though not in fairness the article, refers to Scotland as a one party state. China is a one party state. North Korea is a one party state. Cuba is a one party state. Scotland is a multi-party democracy, where one particular party has been particularly successful. In the unlikely event that Scotland gets a North Korean defector, I don’t think we would they convinced by the warning: “You think Pyonyang was rough for mass rallies, Nicola Sturgeon can sell out the Hydro!”

It might be the case that Scotland is emerging as a dominant party system, which has been observed at points in South Africa, Japan and Sweden for example. This generates serious concerns about effective scrutiny in our unicameral system. Legitimate concerns are lost however, when they are expressed by mock ups of the First Minister as Big Sister. Voters will roll their eyes and switch off.

It is those ordinary voters that Unionist politicians need to think about, not the “voluntary army of internet fanatics who seek out and shout down dissent.” There are probably thousands of cybernats on social media. Horrible as they are, they represent a tiny fraction of the membership of the SNP, let alone the block of voters that intend to vote for them next May. We should actually heed the words of the Prime Minister, who rightly identified that Britain isn't twitter. Scotland isn't either. We must beware the self-deception and confirmation bias it provides. Opposition parties need to speak to the vast majority of Scottish voters who either aren't on twitter, or don’t discuss politics on it.

The SNP are polling, at minimum, over fifty per cent for the next Scottish Parliament elections. This doesn't mean that the opposition should stop asking difficult questions. It means the opposition has to ask difficult questions in a tone that is congruent with the mood of the voters. It means urgently yet soberly raising policy challenges, not depicting some nightmarish Scotland that most do not recognise. There are some excellent points in Professor Tomkins’ article, but they are drowned by its most overblown elements.

I appreciate that I am probably overreacting. The article was likely geared towards Speccy readers, and the cover is partly tongue in cheek.

My sense of humour failure is probably because I am wound up by the invidious whining about a ‘one party state’. It highlights the worst characteristics of the Scottish opposition parties, bogged down in a morass of self-pity and bogus moral superiority,chirping on about the nationalist hordes. The SNP are winning because they are better at politics than the rest of us. It is that simple. Catching up will be hard.

Scottish voters aren't idiots. They aren't mad. They want effective opposition and it has often been sorely lacking. Under Kezia Dugdale, Scottish Labour is starting to become a more open and positive campaigning force. If we fall back into negativity and hyperbole, our free and fair elections will entrench SNP hegemony, and we’ll have nobody to blame but ourselves.