"The SNP are just tartan Tories" smear campaign

As the Scottish independence referendum grew ever closer, I began to notice the ever increasing desperation of the anti-independence comments appearing on the Another Angry Voice Facebook page. As it became clear that despite the overwhelming bias of the mainstream media the No Campaign were losing the argument, and that the Yes Campaign were surging in popularity, ever more Unionists showed up to rant about how Alex Salmond and the SNP are just "Tartan Tories".

Before I get to debunking the "Tartan Tories" smears, it's worth pointing out that smears like this are hopelessly poor debating tactics for another reason too. Scottish independence is not just about the success or failure of the SNP, it's about the entire future of Scotland. If Alex Salmond suddenly sprouts a Thatcher head and starts ruthlessly dividing Scottish society and selling off all the national silver that remains, the people of Scotland can vote him out in 2016. I've had to explain this point to so many ranting Unionists that I've reduced it to a simple formula:

Scottish Independence ≠ Alex Salmond.

Now onto the "Tartan Tory" accusations.

These accusations tend to come from supporters of the Scottish Labour party who have taken the absurd stance that the Scottish National Party were entirely responsible for Margaret Thatcher's first General Election success in 1979. It's like these people are stuck in the early 1980s, they refuse to see that Labour were to blame for the fact they lost power (Callaghan's gamble) and they refuse to see that politics has moved on an awful lot since Thatcher's rise to power, most notably the fact that Labour has turned into New Labour, which pursues a political agenda of "Thatcherism lite".

The absurdity of people who support a Labour party that is now completely riddled with Thatcherites whinging on that another political party are "Tartan Tory" is just laughable.

If we judge the political parties by their actual voting records in parliament (as I like to do) we find that since 2010 the Labour party has supported the Tories in parliament far more often than the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party (who are the real opposition to Thatcherism). 

There are many examples of the Labour party, or members of the Labour party colluding with the Tories, when the Scottish National Party voted against them. Here are some of the most notable examples:

Retroactive Law: In 2013 the Labour party colluded with the Tories to help them pass a retroactive piece of legislation designed to cover up Iain Duncan Smith's unlawful mistreatment of the unemployed. Ed Miliband allowed the Tories to rush the legislation through parliament in a single day (with barely any scrutiny at all) and ordered his MPs to abstain from the vote. All six SNP MPs sided with a small bunch of "Old Labour" rebels in opposing the bill. 

Secret Courts: Another example of Ed Miliband ordering his MPs to abstain in order to let horrible Tory legislation glide through parliament was the "Justice and Security" Bill which undermined the whole concept of justice by creating secret courts. When the Green MP Caroline Lucas tabled two last minute amendments to try to ensure that judges should at least consider "public interest in the fair and open administration of justice" before any secret court proceeding could be launched, the SNP MPs backed her amendments, a load of Labour MPs abstained, and some Labour MPs even sided with the Tories to vote against the amendments. 

DRIP: One of the most appalling examples of Labour siding with the Tories in parliament was the "emergency" DRIP legislation designed to allow the security services to continue trawling the communications data of millions of innocent people with complete impunity. The majority of Labour MPs voted in favour of it, all six SNPs were amongst the 51 who voted against it.

A look at the SNP record in the Scottish parliament also illustrates that they occupy political territory far to the left of the modern Labour party, and therefore, further away from the Tories. Thanks to the SNP, the Scottish NHS has been protected from the waves of ideological privatisations that were launched by New Labour and massively increased by the Tory led coalition in England, and Scottish students have been protected from the commodification and financialisation of higher education which was again introduced by New Labour and massively increased by the Tories.

The thing is that you don't have to trawl through parliamentary voting records (as if you're some kind of politics nerd like me) to understand that these days Labour are far closer to the Tories than the SNP are, you just need to look at the Labour politicians willingly sharing a political platform with the Tories during the Scottish independence debate.

The Labour party abandonment of socialism in order to pursue an agenda of "Thatcherism lite" hidden behind a thin veneer of pseudo-socialist window dressing has left the territory of the traditional left wide open for the SNP to take over. It doesn't matter whether you believe that the SNP are sincere or not in their social democratic stance, their voting record clearly shows that they are now way to the left of the Labour party.

The Scottish socialist politician Tommy Sheridan summed up this transformation very nicely when he said "The SNP won the 2007 election, a democratic election, they then won the 2011 election. Do you know why they won? Because they picked up the clothes that the Labour party has thrown away. They picked up the clothes of social democracy". It doesn't matter what your personal opinion of Tommy Sheridan is, he's hit the nail on the head with this explanation.

Of course I understand that the SNP are nowhere near as left-wing as I am. I abhor Alex Salmond's dalliance with people like Donald Trump, Brian Souter and Rupert Murdoch. But that doesn't prevent me from feeling revulsion at New Labour supporters using desperate, absurdly outdated smears against the SNP, when the evidence is absolutely clear that the New Labour party are much closer to the Tories than the SNP, so much so that they're now essentially just Tories with red ties.

In my view if anyone wants to go on a hunt for "Tartan Tories" the first place they should look is the Liberal Democrats, and Scottish politicians like Danny Alexander, a man who has gleefully helped George Osborne with his ideological mission to impose austerity on the masses, whilst allowing the super-rich to get richer at a faster rate than ever. Then, you need to look at Scottish Labour MPs like Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy, who are more than happy to share a political platform with the Tories in order to oppose self-determination for the Scottish people.

Finally, it's worth noting that it's no wonder that the Unionist campaign has floundered so badly as the Yes vote has surged in popularity, if with just days to go before the referendum, the best arguments they can come up with are ridiculous smears from the past, that reek so strongly of hypocrisy in the present. Imagine the incredible lack of self-awareness it would take to try to smear your political opponents as Tories, when you're actually sharing a political platform with the Tories, and supporting a "Better Together" campaign that is being bankrolled by wealthy English Tory party donors like Ian Taylor.

 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only sources of income for  Another Angry Voice  are small donations from people who see some value in my work. If you appreciate my efforts and you could afford to make a donation, 

it would be massively appreciated.

More articles from
ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE    
    
How Labour dropped the ball on Scottish independence
       
Margaret Thatcher's toxic neoliberal legacies
  
The "New Labour are left-wing" myth

The JP Morgan vision for Europe
     
The 51 MPs who voted against DRIP
   
BBC bias and the Tommy Sheridan interview

12 things you should know about the Tories and the NHS

The Tory ideological mission
      
Scottish independence: A tale of hope against fear

Why the Unionist campaign is falling apart
             

BBC bias and the Tommy Sheridan interview

I know that it isn't possible to extrapolate from a single interview the overall level of institutional bias in a broadcaster, so I'm making it clear that's not what I'm trying to do in this article. The fact is that studies have already shown strong levels of bias against Scottish independence in BBC coverage, so this article isn't intended to prove that the BBC is biased, it is to analyse how this bias presents itself.

The interview in question, from the Sunday Politics Show, was conducted by Andrew Neil (a former Tory party activist and editor of Rupert Murdoch's Sunday Times) and featured the Scottish socialist politician and Yes campaigner Tommy Sheridan. I'm no big fan of either man, but I see that they are proficient at what they do. Tommy Sheridan is undoubtedly a talented public speaker, and Andrew Neil does a more-or-less professional job of asking the questions he's supposed to. 



Even though I agree with Tommy Sheridan on Scottish independence, I'm always happy to see him asked questions about the subject, because he's great at articulating his vision for a better Scotland. I don't necessarily agree with him on all of it, and I find he occasionally fails to answer the question properly (find me a politician who doesn't when recording an interview), but he speaks with passion and backs up a lot of what he says with evidence.

So the problem with the interview wasn't the fact that Tommy Sheridan was asked questions, but the way the questions were asked.

The interview started out with the classic Unionist tactic of trying to conflate Scottish independence with the SNP. Sheridan eloquently rebuffed this stance, pointing out that the SNP are actually the elected government of Scotland, and will remain so until 2016 - no matter which way the referendum goes. Then he went on to explain that the Yes campaign is about the whole future of Scotland, not just the success or failure of the SNP.

One of the tactics used by Andrew Neil was to use a Trotsky quote to try to undermine the case for independence, but it came across more as a tactic to smear Tommy Sheridan as a "Trotskyite" than anything resembling a good faith attempt to learn anything about the socialist case for independence.

Neil refers to what he calls "Trotsky's famous dictum" that "socialism in one country is impossible" but the question betrays Neil's lack of even a rudimentary understanding of what Trotsky's work on perpetual revolution actually meant. There's no way that Trotsky ever intended the phrase to mean that socialism should never be attempted! That would be ludicrous. Socialism develops at different degrees in different countries, that's what Trotsky's work was about! There's a huge difference between taking the statement to mean that socialism cannot exist in a vacuum (that international solidarity is fundamental to the success of socialism) and trying to spin it to mean that socialism should never even be tried at the national or regional level.

The question was hopeless in it's own right because it relied on a misappropriated out of context quote, but from the BBC perspective it served the purpose of associating the Scottish independence movement with an extreme left word ("Trotskyite") that very few people understand the meaning of. A word which is far more often used as a crude insult-word to throw at "leftie types", than one with an actual meaning to be deployed in serious political debate over the merits of different branches of communist ideology.

Tommy Sheridan raised the subject of BBC bias several times during the interview, although he was too much of a gentleman to make it a personal accusation against his interviewer. One of his complaints was that a report predicting a Scottish oil and gas boom had had no BBC coverage at all since its publication.

The lack of coverage of this positive oil report contrasts sharply with the blanket uncritical publicity afforded to the scaremongering comments of Ian Wood the week before. Wood's comments were framed by the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media to make it seem that the SNP were overestimating the remaining Scottish oil reserves by some 50%, even though Wood's comments also implied that the projections from George Osborne's Office for Budget Responsibility had massively underestimated remaining Scottish oil and gas (by a much bigger margin than the SNP were supposedly over-estimating).

In their desperation to bash the SNP and fearmonger about the Scottish oil industry, the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media failed to even note the massive discrepancy between Ian Wood's projections and those of the Westminster establishment.

It was soon pointed out that the widely cited Ian Wood estimates of 15-16.5 billion barrels contradicted the findings of his own Woods Review on Maximising Oil Production report from February 2014, which cited the 24 billion figure used by the SNP numerous times. One can wonder why a man would want to abandon the conclusions of his own report, just six months after it was published, in order to feed different, much more specific (but apparently unsubstantiated) figures to the anti-independence campaign. What one doesn't need to wonder at, is the reason why the BBC and the rest of the mainstream media reported Wood's comments so uncritically, without subjecting his contradictory claims to any kind of scrutiny. They didn't scrutinise his claims because it was convenient to their narrative that "Scottish independence is a huge risk".

The contrast between the BBC reaction to the two different oil stories is telling. They reported one without even conducting the most rudimentary scrutiny, and they failed to even mention the other. One fit the news narrative perfectly so it was afforded uncritical blanket coverage, the other was completely ignored because it contradicted the news narrative.

The worst question of all in the interview was one of the last, and it was a complete stinker. The question relied on the assertion that "one of your 'comrades' on the yes side is Brian Souter ... another of your 'allies' would seem to be Rupert Murdoch".

If the debate is to be reduced to picking "bad people" who happen to agree with your stance on Scottish independence, then the tactic can easily be reversed by pointing out that extreme-right groups like Britain First vehemently oppose Scottish independence.

It's blatantly obvious that you can be pro-independence and have nothing to do with Brian Souter, just as you can be anti-independence and consider Britain First to be the abhorrent bunch of extremists that they are.

Smearing a left-wing supporter of independence by association with Brian Souter, is just as bad as smearing a left-wing Unionist by association with extreme-right unionist supporters like UKIP and Britain First. It's such an appalling debating tactic that it's an insult to children to describe it as "playground politics".

Only a complete idiot would be convinced by such a weak "tarnish by association" argument, and that's before we even get to the point that Murdoch has only just begun to allow a few pro-independence bits and pieces in his publications, because he famously hates to be seen to have backed a loser. If anyone should be expected to know all about Murdoch's hatred of appearing to back a loser, it should be Andrew Neil himself, who worked for Murdoch as the editor of the Times between 1983 and 1994. If Murdoch was really a strong supporter of Scottish independence, we might have expected his vast media empire to have taken up the cause at some point before the last few days of the campaign. 

In my view unionists should be extremely disappointed with this ridiculous "tarnish by association" line of questioning because the BBC has had years to come up with better questions than that. If that's really the final "big gun" question in an interview just days before the referendum, then the anti-independence BBC are clutching at straws.

The bias in BBC coverage of the Scottish independence debate has been plain for all to see, but the problem from the unionist perspective must be that bias alone is clearly not enough to win the debate. If even at this very, very late stage in the game the questions asked of leading Yes campaigners consist of the same old myths (Scottish independence = SNP), the same old Unionist fearmongering about the oil industry, and some ridiculous efforts to smear Yes campaigners by association with "bad people" (the interviewer's former boss!), it strongly suggests that despite their obvious bias, the anti-independence BBC don't have a single well formulated argument against independence at all!


 Another Angry Voice  is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only sources of income for  Another Angry Voice  are small donations from people who see some value in my work. If you appreciate my efforts and you could afford to make a donation, it would be massively appreciated.

MORE ARTICLES FROM
 ANOTHER ANGRY VOICE 
         
Scottish independence and the complacency of the Westminster establishment
           
Scottish Independence: We don't need your pity
                     
A letter to Scottish voters
       
How Labour dropped the ball on Scottish independence
                             
12 things you should know about Britain First 
                                         
Who is to blame for the economic crisis?
                          
"Bedroom Tax" - tax the poor to subsidise the rich
                
Asset stripping "bankrupt" Britain with Gideon & Dave
                      

The Tory ideological mission
                                
Margaret Thatcher's toxic neoliberal legacies