Have We Entered the Realm of Thoughtcrime?

Baden-Powell Statue

The death in the USA of African American George Floyd at the hands of white police officer Derek Chauvin has seen a number of responses under the banner of “Black Lives Matter”.  Not least of these has been a renewed call to remove the statues of those involved in slavery, and/or the oppression of people of colour, and even other minorities.

Protests have spread worldwide, and one such event in Bristol, England, saw the statue of Edward Colston, an 18^th century slave owner, being torn from its plinth by protestors, dragged through the streets, and dumped in Bristol harbour.  The place where Colston’s statue was dispatched to the harbour was Pero’s Bridge; named after an 18^th century slave, Pero Jones, who was a well-known character in Bristol in his time.  Whether the protestors were aware of the significance of the bridge, or whether it was a complete coincidence remains unknown.

Since then protests in other parts of the UK have taken place, as have statues being sprayed with graffiti.  In one protest in London, a statue of Winston Churchill was so attacked.  However, bizarrely was the Cenotaph, which is the central war memorial for the entire UK.  One man also set light to a Union Flag atop the Cenotaph.  It is true that Winston Churchill was an odious character; a racist, misogynist, anti-Semite, and class elitist, who was responsible for a great number of deaths of unarmed and innocent people.  But the attack upon the statue of the man many see as the victor of the Second World War, allied with the attack upon the Cenotaph, and setting the Union Flag alight, certainly set a great many people against the BLM movement and protests.

Some cities, including London, have responded by stating that they will either remove statues, or where they cannot be removed, plaques explaining the unsavoury past of the characters they represent, which is to be applauded.  At the same time, the authorities claim to have a “hit list” or targeted statues, and one among those was the statue of Lord Robert Baden-Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts, on Brownsea Island, Poole, where the first Boy Scout camp took place.

The reasons for Baden-Powell’s statue apparently being targeted were things he wrote during his lifetime.  He was blatantly homophobic in his lifetime, admired Adolf Hitler, once advised people to read Mein Kampf, and allegedly was seeking to ally the English Boy Scout movement with the Hitlerjugend in Germany.

Of course, the Scouts never were allied with the Hitler Youth, and had Baden-Powell, who died in 1941, known the enormity of the brainwashing and brutality of that organisation, or indeed the enormity of the horrors of the Nazi regime, which few knew until 1945, then he may well have thought very differently.  As to his homophobia, well it is a well-known phenomena that those who speak out loudest against gays are usually closet cases themselves, and that is almost certainly the case with Robert Baden-Powell, whom many online biographies say was a closeted gay man.

I am not a big fan of Scouting myself, but then, I am not a parent, and I am well aware that many children get a great deal from it, none less than my two dear little great-nephews.  Likewise a friend of mine not only has a son who is very active in the Scouts, but she is very active with the organisation herself.  And I think this is an important point here.  The Scouts of today are no longer the regimented, Empire loyalist organisation they were when I was a boy, and kicked out of the cubs for refusing to swear allegiance to God and Queen, but rather they are a modern, all-inclusive club, which helps to hone children’s social skills, encourages them to achieve, and where all are welcome, including LGBT+ children.

Therefore, to attack a statue of Robert Baden-Powell to me seems a bit silly.  The man himself was never personally responsible for the death or oppression of anyone, but merely wrote some highly questionable opinions.  And this makes me wonder if some protestors are going too far, and have we entered the realm of Thoughtcrime?

There are many people in history who wrote and said many questionable things, but that does not for one moment detract from the great many other things they said, wrote, or did.  During one protest in Edinburgh, a cardboard placard was put around the neck of a statue of David Hume, alleging he was a racist.  Hume, the foremost empiricist and sceptical philosophers of all time, probably did hold views which would be considered racist by modern standards, but given he lived mostly in his native Edinburgh from 1711 to 1776, his experience of anyone of any colour different to his own would have been extremely limited.  Even today, with a population of only 5 million, Scotland simply does not have a large number of ethnic minorities, and in Hume’s day, seeing a black face on the streets of Edinburgh would have been something of a sensation.  Can we then condemn Hume for holding views that could be construed as racist by holding a 21^st century candle up to them?  And do these views somehow suddenly invalidate all the great things one of the fathers of modern philosophy did say and write?

When we try to apply our modern mores to characters of the past, we open up a whole can of worms.  And those on the political left may find that some of their heroes are likewise hardly blameless.

Edinburgh was also the birthplace of Marie Stopes, pioneer of family planning, after whom there are now clinics across the UK, and around the world, which offer family planning information and resources, including abortion.  Therefore, many would see Marie Stopes as a champion of women’s rights, and of a woman’s right to autonomy over her own body, which she indeed was.  Yet Stopes was also a strong believer in and campaigner for Eugenics, and in her 1920 book Radiant Motherhood, she wrote, "inborn incapacity which lies in the vast and ever increasing stock of degenerate, feeble-minded and unbalanced who are now in our midst and who devastate social customs. These populate most rapidly and tend proportionately to increase and these are like the parasite upon the healthy tree sapping its vitality"  Marie Stopes’ answer to this was "when Bills are passed to ensure the sterility of the hopelessly rotten and racially diseased, and to provide for the education of the child-bearing woman so that she spaces her children healthily, our race will rapidly quell the stream of the depraved, hopeless and wretched lives which are at present increasing in proportion in our midst"  So in other words, Marie Stopes believed in the enforced sterilisation, “by X-ray”, of women she deemed to be “degenerate, feeble-minded and unbalanced”. and referred to as a “prolific depravity”.

But let’s up the ante here.  Marie Stopes read Mein Kampf, and as a result started a correspondence with Adolf Hitler, sharing views on Eugenics and the “master race”, and even sent him poems.  This admittedly was however before the Nazis actually outlawed family planning, closed down clinics first in Germany and later across Europe, and even executed doctors who offered family planning, contraceptives, or abortions.

Do we then take down the blue plaque on Edinburgh’s High Street that marks the birthplace of Marie Stopes?  Do we rename all of the Marie Stopes International clinics?  Or do we recognise that she had some very mistaken ideas, but ultimately her 1918 work Married Love was a seminal moment, which recognised that women did indeed enjoy sex, that they could enjoy sex without the worry of falling pregnant, and that Marie Stopes International has helped and continues to help educating and empowering countless women about bodily autonomy?

Eugenics was a product of its time, and grew out of mistaken ideas from the findings of Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species.  People such as Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, and the economist Herbert Spencer, first man to coin the phrase, “Survival of the fittest”, misunderstood natural selection to mean that only the strongest survive; a belief that became known as Social Darwinism.  Galton particularly became the father of Eugenics, and it had many followers across the political spectrum.  Another firm adherent of Eugenics was George Bernard Shaw, who in 1910 at a lecture for the Eugenics Education Society stated, "A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people's time to look after them."  Likewise, Bertrand Russell in ICARUS, or the Future of Science, wrote "But probably, in time, opposition to the government will be taken to prove imbecility, so that rebels of all kinds will be sterilized. Epileptics, consumptives, dipsomaniacs and so on will gradually be included; in the end, there will be a tendency to include all who fail to pass the usual school examinations. The result will be to increase the average intelligence; in the long run, it may be greatly increased."  H.G. Wells, in the American Journal of Sociology (Vol 10, 1904), wrote, "It is in the sterilization of failure, and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies."

Do we then take down the statues of George Bernard Shaw, Bertrand Russell, and H.G. Wells?   Do we discount all the great things they did write?  Should we indeed topple the Martian Tripod sculpture in Woking, which represents one of the alien spacecraft from War of the Worlds, by H.G. Wells?

These things are never easy, and it may surprise many on the left to discover that many of their heroes are just as guilty of questionable comments as those considered to be heroes of the political right.  Even Karl Marx is not immune.  A rabid anti-Semite who in his 1844 pamphlet On the Jewish Question, wrote, "What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. … Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist."  Marx also thought little of Mexicans, whom he considered lazy and feckless; “Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?”

In 1977 the band The Stranglers released one of their most successful songs, No More Heroes.  Songwriter Hugh Cornwell later said of the meaning in the song, “Don’t have heroes.  Be your own hero.”  The message of this is that whatever heroes we have will ultimately let you down.  This is a truth as much as it is for the left as it is for the right.  In recent years Mohandas Gandhi has been exposed as an abusive husband.  John Lennon likewise horribly mistreated firstly Cynthia Powell, and later Yoko Ono.  Both of these may mar forever the memory of these men, but it does not for one moment discredit their nonviolent philosophy.  And just how happy would the left be with someone pulling down a statue of John Lennon or Mohandas Gandhi?

Removing statues and plaques, and renaming streets is by no means a new idea.  Back to Edinburgh, there was once a statue of the 16^th century leader of the Protestant Reformation, John Knox, outside the New College of Divinity.  If you’ve seen the movie Chariots of Fire, you will have seen actor Ian Charleston, playing Eric Liddel, saluting it as he runs past on his way to his studies.  Today it is no longer there, but can still be seen inside St Giles Cathedral on the Royal Mile.  The statue was removed due to the venomous anti-Catholic views and actions, and which still fuel the sectarianism that is the scourge and shame of Scotland to this day.  Yet ironically, Knox himself was once exiled from Scotland, which at one time saw him serve on a ship as a galley slave.

I am all for removing statues, plaques, and street names of those whose actions have directly led to the suffering and death of innocents, and I am not for one moment convinced that retaining them would make us forget history.  The absence of statues of Hitler in Germany does not mean we have forgotten the Nazis of World War II.  But where a statue cannot be removed, then there should be plaques put up to tell the whole truth about the individual involved.  But this must be the truth, thoroughly researched, and absolutely accurate.

But it needs more than this.  There needs to be a more holistic approach, whereby children in schools are taught the whole truth.   For the UK, this means teaching children the absolute truth about British imperialism, including its deficits, as well as its benefits.  Too long children have been taught that Britain built an empire upon which the sun never set, where the white man went out and educated and civilised the “ignorant savages”.  Likewise, it is way past time that schools in the USA started telling the truth about their slave-owning Founding Fathers, or indeed, the genocide and continuing mistreatment of Native American peoples, which no president, not even mixed-race Barack Obama, has ever properly addressed.

But the moment we start discounting the artistic works of people who have not personally hurt others, we go down a dangerous road indeed.  We need to recognise that some people were a product of their times, and shared the uninformed ideas of those times, which we cannot condemn in the 21^st century, and even where some views have been objectionable, that does not detract from their other works.

And as Hugh Cornwell said, perhaps we need to stop having heroes - and start being our own heroes.

No People are Beneath Dignity - Except the Scots

I'll make a confession here.  I like LBC host, and founder of the Quilliam Foundation, Maajid Nawaz. On many subjects he is one of the clearest commentators and best minds I have ever encountered.  I like his tenet, "No idea is beneath scrutiny, no people are beneath dignity."

But when it comes to Scotland and Scottish politics?  Dear, oh dear.  Maajid does not know the first thing he is talking about, and often falls into the trap of accepting everything he reads about the Scottish independence movement at face value, while not scrutinising the facts, and adding his own sensationalist and inaccurate claims to stoke the fire.

So it was when he published an article on Unherd, he fell into exactly the same trap as other London-based commentators who understand neither Scotland nor the Scots, and demand a right to reply.

"the coronavirus is putting strain on the UK, as it is on other federations like the United States and Belgium"

Watch that word, "federation".  It will become important later.

"Yet it cannot be right that the Scottish National Party should subject the good people of these Isles to yet another nationalist, divisive, separatist “little Scotlander” referendum"

The view of most supporters of independence has never been a divisive one, but rather one which seeks to live side by side with England, with neither country interfering in the affairs of the other.  The word "separatist" is a deliberate smear, and one which Maajid should realise was first used by the Tories against the SNP.  As to "little Scotlander", nothing could be further from the truth.  There is an English Scots for Independence group, a great many English living in Scotland support and even campaign for English independence, and a great many people in England actually support an independent Scotland.  Are all these English people then "little Scotlanders"?

"kicking off a new round of an entirely unsolvable political bun-fight that will tear our country apart even further."

Firstly, it is not unsolvable; independence is the key.  And it will not tear "our country" apart, because the United Kingdom is not a country, but rather a collection of countries.  It is in fact a political federation.

"We’ve had the “once in a generation” referendum and the nationalists lost."

The "once in a generation" comments from Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon were their own personal opinions, nothing more.  There is nothing in legislation to set a time limit on any future referenda.  Besides which, the situation changed in 2016, when England voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU, and Scotland voted almost completely as one voice to stay in the EU, but is now being dragged out of the EU against our will.  Perhaps Maajid would like to explain how, when we won that particular referendum, it is in any way democratic that we are being pulled out.

"Should the SNP succeed next May, Westminster — Parliament for all the United Kingdom — should simply refuse to authorise it."

And I say if Westminster does that, you will never see a faster road to independence.  If there is one thing that Scots cannot abide, it's being pushed around and told what to do.  Besides, while the Westminster parliament is indeed the UK parliament, Maajid is patently unaware that in Scotland sovereignty rests solely with the people.  Therefore, if the SNP are successful next May, that would be the sovereign voice of the people of Scotland, and any attempt to ignore that voice would indeed be an imperialist move.

"Despite being a Remain-voting liberal, my views on a second referendum have attracted the sort of racism — from Scottish nationalists — that you would usually expect to receive from the far-right. In many exchanges with SNP supporters, I have learned that that Left-wing racism against people of colour is apparently acceptable, if we veer off an approved script."

Maajid supplies links to comments on Twitter, many of which are racist, which he claims to have come from SNP and independence supporters.  Some are indeed racist, and some are not.  And not all of them come from the Indy camp.  In fact, a search of those making the comments did show some were Scots.  And some were in fact English.  And some of them showed no evidence of being independence supporters.  See for yourselves:

https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1183798073300008962

I'll be the first to admit that some of the statements were indeed odious, and indeed racist, such as "trading on his religion and colour of his skin", "two bob arab" and "Uncle Tom" - and these rightly deserve to be condemned.  However, one person commented "go back to your cave", which Maajid is painting as a racist slur towards him.  In fact, the person who made that comment was replying to another Twitter user who calls themselves CaptCaveManPete.  References to Maajid being a terrorist, while inaccurate, are not racist, but rather are comments upon his own past, which he freely admits, when he was an Islamist extremist.  One person complaining that Maajid "slanders Corbyn" is hardly likely to be an independence supporter, as Labour were a unionist party under Jeremy Corbyn, and remain unionist to this day.  And references to imperialism are not racist either; by asserting that Westminster should refuse Scotland another referendum, I would suggest that Maajid Nawaz has indeed shown himself to be an imperialist.

"But, then, as surprising as English liberals may find it, Scotland is not the progressive paradise they like to believe — and  my anecdotal experience is borne out by wider concerns. Last year more than 80 public and professional figures signed an open letter warning that the struggle against racism in Scotland is “rolling backwards”, creating a climate of “resentment towards frank discussion of race and racism” that is threatening to undo progress on race equality.

It is significant that the signatories also highlighted a trend to “silence the voices of people in Scotland who face colour-based racism”. This letter came less than two months after Scotland’s national poet laureate Jackie Kay warned openly  that Scotland had to “grow up” as it was “decades behind” in its treatment of black and ethnic minority people."

There are actually few thinking people in Scotland deny we have a racism problem.  In fact, many of us in Scotland, both within and outwith the independence movemnt, have warned that the claim that Scotland "isn't a racist country" is dangerous.  And it is important to state this exists outwith the independence movement as well.  Maajid Nawaz tries to paint this as an SNP / Independence problem, when nothing could be further from the truth.  We in the Indy movement are ever cautious about bigotry, be it racism, anti-English bigotry, sectarianism, homophobia, transphobia, or whatever it may be, and contrary to what Maajid Nawaz claims, we act upon it quickly.

Take the example during the 2014 referendum campaign, when openly-gay Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson came under attack from an anonymous Twitter user with a tirade of homophobic abuse.  Despite the fact that many of us in the Indy movement disliked the politics of Ruth Davidson, we identified that individual within 24 hours, had him thrown out of both Yes Scotland and the SNP, and shamed him into phoning Ruth to apologise.  The message then was clear; we in the Indy movement do not approve of playing the man, not the ball, and we will act quickly to shame and distance ourselves from anyone who displays bigotry.

"Too often, when minority voices such as mine — children of the colonies, born in Britain — oppose the break-up of what we now consider our country, Scottish nationalists too readily seek to silence our voices by accusing us, instead, of being English “colonists”."

But as I have illustrated above, very few actually do so, and there is no proof that all of those making those accusations are SNP / Indy supporters.  For Maajid to generalise the entire Indy movement by a tiny minority is sensationalism worthy only of gutter press red top newspapers.

"Such rhetoric is not only overly antagonistic, it also displays a fundamental ignorance about why most ethnic minorities in Britain have expressed a preference for calling ourselves British over English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish."

And that is Maajid's choice.  Just as it is the choice of any ethnic minority person.  But there are equally a number of BAME people in Scotland who will call themselves Scots first.  And interestingly enough, Jackie Kay, whom Maajid mentions above, is one of those.  But another important point here is that even if Scotland were independent, he could still call himself "British", for in the broadest of terms, we are all "British", just as we are all "European".  Herein lies another important point; despite the 2016 EU referendum, despite Brexit being triggered, I still call myself a European, I always shall do, and I am proud to be such.  No referendum shall ever strip me of my right to call myself such.

"And while I embrace being both a non-Anglo-Saxon Englishman and a Brit, it is not easy for many of us to forget the nationalist-inspired violent racism levied against us growing up, and still present today."

Here Maajid Nawaz tries to equate the passive, nonviolent movement for civic nationalism to the aggressive, often violent nationalism of the political extreme right.  Trying to paint any such parallels is an absurdity.  If Maajid were to do his homework, he would actually find that those on the racist, nationalist extreme right are actually unionists, deeply opposed to Scottish independence, and have in fact at times used violence against peaceful Indy supporters.  Ask the 80 year old man who was pushed to the ground while campaigning for Yes, breaking his arm.  Ask the Bikers for Yes, who had tin tacks thrown across their route.  Ask the homeless woman in Glasgow who was kicked in the stomach by a Better Together speaker, who had ties to the BNP - while she was pregnant.  Ask the elderly man in a Yes cafe near to my home who had a bottle thrown at his head.  There are many, many more such stories of violence from the unionist far-right, which make ignorant comments on social media from a minority of Indy supporters pale into insignificance.

"For ‘progressive’ Scottish Nationalists to draw an equivalence between ethnic minorities who oppose their separatism and British colonialism, smacks of the very colonial privilege they seek to denounce."

Well, for a start the important phrase Maajid Nawaz uses here is "British colonialism", for Scotland is not a colony of England, and never was.  Scotland and England entered into an all-encompassing union of two nations in 1707, which was supposed to be a union of equals.  However, when one nation is much larger than the other, that was never going to be equal.  And for Maajid to use that phrase highlights his own ignorance of history and the constitutional position of Scotland within the union.  But then, so does his assertion that Westminster should refuse the sovereign voice of the Scottish people.  Whether he likes it or not, Maajid Nawaz has indeed condemned himself as a UK establishment imperialist.

"The fact of the matter is that Scottish colonists profited greatly from the creation of the British Empire. Scotland’s debt to Empire is her dirty little secret, seldom acknowledged but ever-present. The “tobacco lords” of Glasgow were enriched by slavery in the Americas and Africa, while a quick visit to the former North British Rubber Company in Edinburgh serves to disabuse most naysayers suffering under such a false sense of righteousness."

Actually, those of us within (and outwith) the independence movement in Scotland are painfully aware of the part that Scots played in the building of the British Empire.  But note here that the history mentioned by Maajid has absolutely nothing to do with the call for independence, and never did.  When Glasgow was the shipbuilding centre of the world, it was known as "The second city of the Empire" (after London).  I sincerely doubt that the rich and the gentry who ran those businesses would have ever wanted an independent Scotland, as it would have meant their gravy train hitting the buffers.  So for Maajid to labour this history is absolutely pointless.

Plus, let's add where the Scots suffered under the British Empire.  Before the Battle of Quebec in 1759, General Wolfe rode up to the only Scots regiment there, and stated, "We'll send you in first.  If you fall, it's no great loss."  There are many would argue that in most cases of conflict, Whitehall ever since has adopted a "General Wolfe mentality"; sending the Scots into battle situations first.  This is why you find evidence of Scots regiments all around the former British Empire.

"The pernicious narrative peddled by Scottish nationalists that England colonised Scotland, and then the rest of the world — and so England must even now be resisted in Scotland — sounds suspiciously like an act of whitewashing Scottish culpability, at least to the ears of this descendant of a former colony."

Except that nobody in the independence movement has ever said such, and if they have, I invite Maajid Nawaz to supply the evidence for such.

"This is not something SNP supporters like to hear, but SNP supporters have gained a reputation for intimidating critics."

A reputation which has been overplayed by the London-based media, which has generalised us all on the actions of a tiny minority.

"Recently, BBC News Scotland Editor Sarah Smith learned the hard way why Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has earned the nickname “Nippie Sweetie” for adopting the  “aggressive and adversarial approach of male politicians” early on in her career."

Maajid Nawaz supplies a link to a column in The Scotsman here, and had he chosen to read it, he would have found Nicola Sturgeon explaining why she adopts such an attitude; it is because she is a woman in politics, and as such has had to adopt a strong line to make herself heard.  Is Maajid perchance suggesting that Nicola Sturgeon, as a woman, should be subdued and passive?  Sexist much?  Maajid?

"Ms Smith had made the admitted error of accidentally describing Sturgeon as  “enjoying the opportunity” to shine during lockdown, instead of saying that she was “embracing” the challenge. Ms Sturgeon’s supporters were not happy to say the least, and an online pile-on inevitably ensued. Ms Smith, though, was quick to push into reverse gear, her resultant climbdown being perhaps the swiftest and most complete of any journalist in recent years, to my mind. Scotland’s BBC chief was so remorseful, in fact, that she felt the need to issue no fewer than four swift back-to-back apologies online to Ms Sturgeon, with one of them remaining pinned to her profile page for days. Ms Sturgeon regally confirmed that she accepted her apology."

Actually, what we objected to was yet another BBC reporter using biased, innacurate language, when the BBC is supposed to be unbiased.  It was not at all helped by Sarah Smith changing her wording from "enjoying" to "embracing", as that was no apology at all.  Nicola Sturgeon herself said she neither "enjoyed" nor "embraced" reporting the deaths of people on a daily basis.  And contrary to what Maajid Nawaz is suggesting here, when Sarah Smith did apologise properly, it was then, the same day, that Nicola Sturgeon tweeted that she accepted the apology, and for her the matter was closed.  After that it was only a tiny number of hotheads who tried to keep it going, but it fizzled out within days.

"So wouldn’t it be lovely if Nicola Sturgeon also apologised for, and investigated, the racism present among all too many of her online supporting trolls?"

Actually, the SNP and the wider Indy movement do in fact often expose bigots, and Nicola Sturgeon and others in the SNP have stated, many times, that there is no room for it.  It is the London-based media, including Maajid Nawaz and LBC, who fail to highlight or publish that fact.

"While it is true that Ms Sturgeon is not personally responsible for the behaviour of her supporters, such racism appears not to be a mere bug for the SNP, but may well be a feature. Indeed, just because a nationalist party identifies as being on the Left, it does not mean that an undercurrent of racism cannot be found beneath all the cuddly talk."

Indeed.  And were it actually a serious undercurrent, which drove the movement, then I would be first to condemn it, and would even stand against it.  But this is not the case.

"Historically, many nationalist parties and nationalists have started on the Left, from the French Revolution onwards; indeed one of the most famous of 20th century nationalists, Benito Mussolini, was on the National Directorate for the Italian Socialist Party, before he turned rightward to fan the flames of nationalism."

Here Maajid Nawaz tries the old trick of trying to equate the political left with the far right, and you'll notice he again tries to condemn nationalism, and thereby equate civic nationalism with racist nationalism.  I have heard him do the same on LBC, pointing out that the Nazis were "National Socialist", and that Oswald Moseley left the Labour Party to form the British Union of Fascists.  It is a disingenious distinction, worthy only of those with a childish grasp of political theory, which is completely unworthy of comment.

"Violent hostility to outsiders and critics is in the DNA of nationalists, whether on the Left and Right, as anyone who has debated with SNP can testify to. When that outsider has different colour skin the rage seems to be heighted."

But that is not the case in civic nationalism, and to try to equate us with the very people who are violently opposed to us, extreme right nationalists, simply does not hold up to one moment's scrutiny.  It is a derisory attempt to smear us along with the far right as "all nationalists are the same".  Would Maajid not agree that one of the biggest causes of bigotry is making sweeping generalisations - as Maajid has just done here?

"As party leader, it is Nicola Sturgeon’s duty — not mine — to make minorities feel safe from the racism of too many of her supporters. And until she can do so, do not be fooled by the progressive overtures of this SNP. For too long commentators of all persuasions have harboured a policy and ethical blindspot for Scotland’s nationalists, viewing them as polar opposites to English nationalists, rather than their counterparts."

There is a dictum which I embrace in my life, and that is that the burden of proof lies upon the claimant.  Maajid Nawaz has made claims here that minorities are not safe in the SNP, or by extension Scotland, and that we in the Indy movement are no different from extreme-right English nationalists.  Yet he offers absolutely not one shred of evidence to back up those claims.  And no, I don't mean a few hand-picked Tweets, not all of which came from Scots Nats, not all of which were racist, and not all of which in fact came from Scots.

"We should beware the kid gloves with which metropolitan opinion formers treat the SNP. Their party machine is curiously similar to Momentum, and much of what we would never tolerate from Corbyn now rules in Edinburgh. As such, they are riddled with all the trappings of power, while harbouring a nasty, illiberal and authoritarian streak."

I live in Edinburgh.  Essex boy Maajid Nawaz does not. The SNP are nothing like Momentum, and they are neither illiberal nor authoritarian.  The fact is the only reason that the SNP have been in power in the Scottish Parliament since 2007 is because the people of Scotland have voted consistently for them.  Just as out of the 59 MPs Scotland sends to Westminster, 47 of them are SNP, and of the six Scottish MEPs, 3 of them are SNP - because the Scottish people voted for them, which is their sovereign right to do so.  It's not Nicola Sturgeon's fault, not mine, and not through "a nasty, illiberal and authoritarian streak" that Maajid's party, the Lib-Dems, was beaten into fifth place, behind the Scottish Greens, at the last Scottish Parliamentary election.

"Alarm bells should be ringing now, lest after lockdown we enter blindly into yet another experience like the three years before the virus struck.

And if you thought Brexit Britain got bad, just wait until Scexit."

Except that Brexit was deliberately planned to create discord between people by Brexit supporters, and did indeed create a lot of ill feeling - even among families.  The 2014 independence referendum did not create the same sort of division, no matter what the London media would have you believe.  I have friends and even family members who are unionists, and the fact that we have differing political viewpionts does not stop me loving them any less.  In fact, if anything there is a much greater acceptance and tolerance of differing viewpoints here in Scotland.

And if Maajid Nawaz lived in Scotland, rather than bumping his gums from his home in London, he would know that, and a great deal more about things he patently had no idea of which he is talking about.

No people are beneath dignity, Maajid - including the people of Scotland.

Link to Maajid's article below:

https://unherd.com/2020/05/the-racism-lurking-behind-scottish-nationalism/