Trying to figure out WTF is going on A previous article - Doublethink and the colonised mind - has sparked a bit of a debate about whether the SNP is rightly regarded as a Unionist party or as a failed nationalist party. Politics anoraks - which surely includes anyone who is reading this - will be aware that it is now quite common to see the SNP being referred to as a Unionist party in social media posts and certain blogs. I dislike this. I see it as intellectually lazy as well as definitively wrong. Calling the SNP a Unionist party is definitively wrong because the party's constitution defines it as a nationalist party. The constitution of a political party is too important a document to be lightly disregarded. What it says about the purpose and aims of the party is what members identify with. The SNP is a nationalist party because the people who are members are nationalists. Nationalist join the SNP because it is a nationalist party. If both the constitution and the membership define the SNP as a nationalist party, calling it a Unionist party is more playground-level taunt than thoughtful analysis. On the other hand, it is argued that calling the SNP 'Unionist' is justified by the way the party acts regardless of how it defines itself or how it is regarded by members. The thinking is that there is a causal and purposeful link between the way the SNP behaves and the fact that the Union persists. Those who think this way make no distinction between perpetuating the Union and failing to end the Union. My reasoning is that there is an essential distinction being missed. To my mind, failing to end the Union and actively preserving and protecting the Union are two very different things. If the SNP is thought of as a Unionist party and the Union continues then the SNP is not failing. If the SNP is a Unionist party, then it is a very successful party. If it is a success, it is difficult to justify the criticism that calling it 'Unionist' is intended to imply. There is a purpose to insisting that the SNP is a failed nationalist party rather than a Unionist party. Other, that is, from the fact that the party's constitution defines it as a nationalist party. Calling the SNP a Unionist party is an easy way of dismissing it. One might say, an intellectually lazy way of thinking about it. Or avoiding thinking about it. Because if you think about it as a failed nationalist party then, unless you are devoid of intellectual curiosity, you are compelled to think about the how and why of how it has failed. This is important. Only by understanding as fully as possible the reasons for failure can we hope to avoid repeating the same mistakes. But gaining that understand requires effort. An effort many people evidently prefer to avoid. It is not my purpose here to examine the reasons for the SNP failing as a nationalist party. Although this is an essential topic - for politics anoraks, at least - my intention here is only to stress the importance of recognising the fact of failure. That this failure benefits the Unionist cause cannot be disputed. But it is nonsense to suppose the leadership of the party is motivated by a desire to aid the Unionist cause. Apart from the MI5 infiltrators we're told occupy influential positions in the SNP hierarchy, the individuals within the leadership are all motivated by a desire to restore Scotland's independence. The failure stems from their other motivations. The failure of the SNP is broadly stated as the independence motivation having lost in competition with these other motivations. You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment