How innocuous is the phrase "London parties"?

Just how innocuous is the phrase “London political parties”? It’s a familiar rhetorical trope used by Plaid Cymru and the SNP to describe the totality of Tweedles dum, dee and dem. Three words, but in a Nationalist mouth, probably denoting a distinction between the three UK-wide parties and the SNP, currently emphasising an argument that the real choice is between the SNP and any of these parties, perhaps invoking the idea of “rule from London” as a distant and oppressive mode of governance without popular participation or check. For some, the phrase might dimly recall words of Sir Walter Scott, in a pointed section in the Heart of Midlothian ~

“I dinna ken muckle about the law,” answered Mrs Howden; “but I ken, when we had a king, and a chancellor, and parliament-men o' our ain, we could aye peeble them wi' stanes when they werena gude bairns - Bit naebody's nails can reach the length o' Lunnon.”

For others, this is the least of it. The funereal Jim Murphy sprung a pre-plotted sententious diatribe when Angus Robertson merely referenced the term on last night's brisk debate on STV. Its noteworthy that this popped up in the section on public finances and that Robertson was making an argument about party policy on Thatcherite-grade spending cuts all the while investing oodles of loot in new nuclear technologies. The only man in the room who took this as a hurtful goad at identities was Jim Murphy. I transcribe the whole of his spontaneous little speech.

“Angus spits this London Parties thing out. I'm not sure where he gets the insult from. I don't think any of us are from London, Angus. I'm a patriot. I'm proud to be Scottish. Don't try to capture this sort of politics of patriotism with the St Andrews flag as if you were Angus ... We're all Scottish and we're all proud to be Scottish, Angus. So don't spit this London thing out at us.”

Watching this last night, it struck me as a rather bizarre little hobbyhorsing riposte by Murphy - since it plainly wasn't warranted by what Angus Robertson actually said. Nobody mentioned patriotism but Jim. The crucial point about this is that the phrase London parties can't simply be chalked up with a single meaning. It doesn't necessarily mean that the SNP hate the English, Londoners or anyone south of the Tweed. I'm often surprised - but increasingly less so - at how the Labour party seem to yearn for a xenophobic SNP, how readily they reach for epithets which characterise us as spittle-flecked moonies, who dream fond dreams of border posts, army uniforms for our future military President and tartan apartheid for all Sassenachs found in the country after Independence Day. Its a curious question - one I've never been able to satisfy myself with a plausible answer to - why does the Labour party so desperately want the SNP to be racist? If you have a theory, do let me know.

Equally, it should strike us as immediately ironic that Murphy allegation of identity politics is itself a use of identity to scotch a legitimate ideological position. The SNP's argument is that Scotland should exercise self-determination, we should have a care for our own affairs from Edinburgh - and that England and Wales should be able to do likewise. London Parties don't fit into this picture of good governance for Scotland, by Scotland. Legitimate so far? Sure, you might disagree - but few folk would say that this is a radically unacceptable thesis in a modern democracy. So what does Jim do? Jim suggests that if you have a  problem with rule from London, this immediately equates with blood and soil nationalism. If you want to exercise self-determination, want to persuade the people of your argument - Murphy will shoot you down as greasy little Saltire-waving Chauvenist. An incredible position to adopt.

Or so I thought. Not incredible enough not to find an echo in Edinburgh's finest daily number. Rather than using their wits and wiles to unpack Murphy's toadstool diatribe, the Scotsman decided to take their cue from the cadaverous Secretary of State for Scotland, using this morning's editiorial to make this extraordinary claim of the SNP manifesto that it...

“Regrettably ... opened with an underlying tone of xenophobia with the SNP's main rivals – the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems – referred to as “the London parties,” a blatant and dishonourable attempt to re-write history and ignore the Scottish antecedence of the main UK parties.”

Helpfully, we've got a copy of the manifesto before us. So what particular opening reference to "London parties" got them in such an indignant wax? Surely some great horror to prompt the scribblers to scrounge up this pretty scandalous suggestion. Lets have a look at the Maximum Eck's introduction. Certainly, one can spot the reference to 'London Parties' - but look at the context. 

“This election is about ensuring a strong team of Scottish MPs in the House of Commons - a team of SNP MPs. Local champions, who will be there working hard for you, your community and Scotland. The London parties all offer the same thing - the wrong priorities for our nation. They aren’t talking about the issues that matter most to people or offering the solutions and ideas that will improve life here in Scotland. For them the needs of our families, neighbours and communities are a second thought. Scotland deserves better. The SNP cares about Scottish success. We are Scotland’s Party and here at home, and in the parliament in London we offer Scotland a stronger voice. When the SNP is successful, London listens.”

So, this sneaking tone of isolationism and racism detected by the sensitive lugs in the Scotsman - amounts to a statement that Westminster is in London, that the SNP want to participate in that institution in the short term, and what is more, that the parties aren't talking enough about ideas to improve life in Scotland. And who the devil mentioned history, anyway? Since when did the historical provenance of a movement become the agreed upon and final standard of reference? We might consider, for example, where the parties are based now - Manchester? Leeds? Oh no. Wait - the Labour Party Head Office is in Victoria Street, London. The Conservative Campaign Headquarters – formerly Conservative Central Office – is in Millbank tower in another SW1 address, while the Liberal Democrats’ headquarters are on Cowley Street, London SW1P 3NB. They are, in this sense London Parties. Does that make me a xenophobe for pointing it out? Or does it suggest that the phrase London Parties has none of the necessary evil which Murphy and his press cronies impute to it? Wouldn't it suggest that we should examine around the context of the remarks to understand what they denote? Wouldn't that require the press to actually find a killer, xenophobic quote - instead of resorting to the lazy tropes of all conspiracy theorists and flat-headed cynics? 

- The xenophobia is sort of in its tone, where they put that comma there - I can almost smell it - no, no, its nothing he said exactly, but I can see clearly that it is the case, despite the total absence of evidence and his strenuous objections to the contrary...