 |
| Brian Wilson |
Recorded at a fringe event at the 2017 Scottish Labour Party conference, Mr Wilson said the following;
"By putting that tag on, and in the full knowledge of that connotation in an Irish context, they know exactly what they’re doing. It’s a very dangerous road they’re going down.”
“obviously mirror images Ireland, where the political divide is also about the constitution”.
“The word Unionist in Scottish politics is not a Scottish word. It is not Scottish Unionism.
“When Tory candidates stood [in the past] as Conservative and Unionist candidates in Scotland they were not talking about Scotland, they were talking about Ireland, and they were playing for the Orange vote in Scottish politics.
“That is the Unionist, that is Unionism, in Scottish politics.
“So when the Nationalists, when the whole thrust is to lump us together as Unionists... by putting that tag on, and in the full knowledge of that connotation in an Irish context, they know exactly what they are doing. And it’s a very dangerous road they’re going down.
“It’s a difficult thing to analyse, a difficult thing perhaps to see it happening. But it’s been happening over a long period and I think it’s really sinister.”
Brian Wilson denied that the term "nationalist" was the different side of the same coin. But of course you did, Brian.
By harking back to history of over 50 years ago, Brian Wilson is attempting a deliberate smear tactic upon the independence movement. He is quite correct that the unionists of the past sought to woo the 'orange vote'. Where he is incorrect in that is that it was not the Conservative and Unionist Party who did that, but rather the Unionist Party of Scotland, who did not merge with the Conservative Party until 1965.
But if he knew his political history a little better, Brian Wilson would know that the driving force of the Unionist Party of Scotland, which grew out of Scottish liberalism, not conservatism, came not from opposition to Irish autonomy, but rather from the fear that it could have a domino effect leading to the break up of the British Empire. Scottish unionists of that time had no problem with countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Newfoundland gaining independence, but retaining Dominion status within the Commonwealth. Because of this, some members of the Unionist Party of Scotland actually supported Scottish independence. Author of The 39 Steps and Greenmantle, John Buchan, himself a Scottish Unionist MP, once said "I believe every Scotsman should be a Scottish nationalist."
Mr Wilson should also be aware that the Unionist Party of Scotland enjoyed mass support because they had a Scottish identity, and the Scots electorate distrusted the centralist approach of the British Labour Party.
The Unionist Party of Scotland did eventually swing more to the right-wing and become more sectarian, but that in itself saw non-sectarian members leave, some of whom joined the National Party of Scotland, which in 1934 merged with the Scottish Party to form the Scottish National Party.
So, Brian Wilson is partially correct from a historical perspective, but if he is attempting some sectarian interpretation of the term "unionist" in modern Scottish politics, it is entirely of his own making.
Let us see what Chambers Dictionary has to say about the word "unionist";
unionist noun 1 an advocate or supporter of unionism, especially as a system of social or political organization... ...3 (sometimes Unionist) a before 1920: a supporter of the Union of all Ireland and Great Britain; b since 1920: a supporter of the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 4 a supporter of the continued political union between Scotland, England and Wales.
There it is; "an advocate or supporter of unionism, especially as a system of social or political organization... ...a supporter of the continued political union between Scotland, England and Wales." Dictionary definition, undeniable and undebatable. Whether Brian Wilson likes it or not, he is himself by definition a unionist. As all opponents of Scottish nationalism are.
Brian Wilson's comments do not even make sense from a political perspective. If we Scots nats were to even attempt to inject the sectarian element into the independence debate, just how well would that serve us? Although the 2015 Scottish Social Attitudes survey showed that 52% of Scots now count themselves as "not religious", Scotland remains a majority Protestant country, with most people being brought up in a culturally Protestant background. And do not forget two factors here; a) Scotland's brand of Protestant Christianity is the strictest form of such in the world, and b) it is culture which drives sectarianism, not faith. Roman Catholics by comparison remain very much a minority in Scotland, with the same report recording those describing themselves as practising Catholics at 15%, unchanged since the study started in 1999.
So, to imagine that Scots Nats were to ever play the sectarian card, pigeonholing all opponents as being 'orange' or even just Protestant could only ever be to the detriment of the independence movement. Such a move would have the potential to see supporters turn away in droves, potentially straight into the arms of the unionist camp.
Brian Wilson never mentioned the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, or the SNP as a whole, but obviously they cannot be ignored in this odious accusation. If Mr Wilson would care to do his homework, he would know that while the First Minister keeps her faith a closely-guarded matter, she does in fact come from a culturally Protestant background. Likewise, there are few SNP MSPs and MPs who are Roman Catholic. Some are in fact openly members of the Church of Scotland, and there are even some members of the Free Church of Scotland (the "Wee Frees" of "Free Kirk") among SNP ranks. Indeed, as a diehard secularist I have often voiced my concern about the number of "Holy Wullies" among SNP ministers.
Has Brian Wilson actually had a look at the views of some more conservative Roman Catholics towards Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP? He will soon find they are deeply opposed to them. Many Roman Catholic journals and organisations have lambasted the SNP administration in the Scottish Government for introducing same-sex marriage and the Named Person's Scheme. A comment in Catholic Truth Blog describes Nicola Sturgeon as "A Protestant First Minister in a Protestant Scotland". A farcical statement if ever there were one. I don't know if Nicola Sturgeon is a practising Christian, atheist, agnostic, or whatever - nobody does. But even the most objective observer would agree that if there is one thing the First Minister does not do it is let her personal religious beliefs cloud or affect her political judgement. Oh but if only more politicians exercised that degree of secularism - Theresa May (and Tony Blair) take note.
The independence movement as a whole has also come under attack from the same opposition. There have been many accusations that under independence there would be an end to state-owned Roman Catholic schooling, and that child benefit would be limited to two children. But who has been mostly responsible for spreading such utter drivel? Agents of the Labour Party, that's who. But then, these were the same people who on the other hand at one time were putting fears into Protestants by telling them "home rule means Rome rule".
We in the independence movement, whether they be members of the SNP or not (I'm not), have not nor would we ever court sectarianism in any way, shape, or form. Not only would it not be in our interests to do so, it is an odious evil we wish no part of. If we were, the facts certainly do not bear that out. In the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum, 57% of Roman Catholics made up the highest proportion of religious Yes voters. Equally, both the General Election of 2015 and the Scottish Parliamentary Election of 2016 saw the Labour bloc vote, once the strongest in the whole of the UK, utterly collapse, and Roman Catholics turning from Labour to SNP was a large contributory factor to that.
Meanwhile, in the run-up to the 2014 independence referendum, the largest pro-No vote event was organised by the Orange Order (which could not entice even half of similar pro-Yes events).
These things were not done by design of the independence movement, or the SNP, or by Yes Scotland. Those who voted Yes and voted SNP did so completely of their own choice, without being swayed by any sectarian arguments. Indeed, I doubt it would ever happen, but if any members of the Orange Order or other hardline Protestants (some of whom must have voted Yes in 2014 when you think about it) chose to join the independence movement, then I for one would welcome them. All I would ask is that they leave their religious bigotry at the door; it's neither wanted nor welcome. Our movement is a non-sectarian one, and that's the way we all like it. And should Brian Wilson or anyone else doubt that, then I suggest they go talk to those active in the wholly ecumenical Christians for Independence. I'm pretty sure their convenor, Dennis Canavan MP, would not take kindly to it being implied that he is sectarian.
But is there anything in the independence movement we need to be aware of careful about? Well, there's always room for caution. I saw a meme on Facebook of a spoof referendum ballot paper, with the question "Do you believe Scotland should be an independent country?" and two boxes, marked "Yes", and "Rangers". Now, I saw the joke of that and found it funny. My late Dad was a diehard bluenose - and a staunch Scots Nat, and he would have seen through it and had a laugh. Most pro-Yes Rangers fans would see the joke, and even most anti-Independence Rangers fans would laugh it off and disregard it. It is dangerous nonetheless; because there are indeed a few special snowflakes among Rangers fans who will take umbrage at it, and of course, there are always be people like Brian Wilson all too ready to jump on that, and blow it up completely out of proportion. Tread carefully, fellow Nats. Before you post anything, think on whether it may give the unionists any ammunition against us.
It seems to me therefore that with his spurious interpretation of Scottish political history, and his own personal understanding of the word "unionist", if anyone is attempting to inject sectarianism into the independence debate, it is none other than Brian Wilson, who is a unionist, and who I will continue to call a unionist; with absolutely no connotations to Irish history or politics, but purely due to his support for the continuation of the Union of Scotland with England.
But if he does not like the term "unionist", perhaps he would prefer "BritNat"?
Finally, in case anyone is wondering, and before I get the true sectarians calling me "Papist", "taig", "left-footer", etc, let me be so kind as to inform you all that I actually come from a Protestant background, and was actually at one time a Baptist (you don't get much more Protestant than that). I am now however a diehard atheist and strong secularist, and with regards to Scottish sectarianism, I consider it a poison upon my country, and if anyone supports bigotry on either side, I say a pox on BOTH your houses.
No comments:
Post a Comment