3 December 2011

On Scotland for Marriage's fake populism...

You know the clip.  It has always acutely annoyed me. Brian Souter in 2000 on the abolition of section 2A (or 28, as it remains more commonly known across the UK). “We didnae vote fur it, and wur no huvin’ it”, with an emphatic thump of his tub to punctuate the point. Often, it’s only this snippet which is broadcast, but a recent edition of Newsnicht showed extended the footage from Souter’s “Keep the Clause!” press conference. It’ll soon have popped off iplayer, but the transcript captures neatly enough the point I want to make. He said:

“We will not stand back and allow a politically correct minority to undermine the important position of marriage in our society and determine morality for the majority. We didnae vote fur it, and wur no huvin’ it.”

The shift in tone in two sentences couldn’t be starker. The first was delivered in standard Scottish English, in a sort of short-bread-tin tone: polite, proper, mildly twee. In the second, Souter dusts off some throatier vowels to conclude his populist denunciation of the iniquities of homosexuality with something a little more plausibly colloquial. Hardly a dead spit for the Common Man himself, a little folksy Scots did the trick. Watch any of Souter’s other appearances in front of cameras. Heavy “u”s and “ae”s are not part of the man’s usual vocabulary and nasal delivery.

This much-quoted shift in tone is almost laughably vulgar and transparent. It says – “We” – The Plain People of Scotland – speaking in the plain, honest language of Scots – a tongue for uttering commonplace, douce morality never to be heard on the lips of the froufrou and the Anglicised, in the loose metropolitan banter of inveterate homosexualists and their louche chums. It makes a pitch for homophobia as the respectable conviction of an ordinary Scot, those cogitations are simple, direct and conclusive - and admirable for it. A crude costume it may have been, but as Gerry Hassan notes this morning, this little performance appealed to the abiding idea that here speaks the voice of a chthonic Scotland, whose vestigial half-forgotten authenticity Souter and his ilk are modest enough to assume they represent. It is a claim not to be conceded.

That was over a decade ago now. Yet the rhetorical tricks and populist fantasies of the self-appointed spokespersons of national authenticity and moral rectitude are again being played by the “Scotland for Marriage” campaign. The fakery begins with the title - “Scotland for Marriage” - presumably entailing that those of us sympathetic to the SNP’s proposals ought to christen our contrary campaign “Scotland against Marriage”. Beyond the name, the discourses being advanced by speakers at the group’s launch in Edinburgh repeat and repeat similar tropes, of the Plain People, their bemusement at the immoral projects of a political elite, debauched by mere politeness towards a tiny rump of the population, and heedless of the Common Man's opinions on the topic.  Let's be frank. This is a well-pitched compelling narrative, sure to appeal to those who feel that the currents and eddies of right and wrong are plain-sailing, who feel slighted, marginalised and morally assailed. 



Gordon Wilson’s opening speech is larded through with the unassuming claim that his prejudices neatly align with the nation, the people and the country. Quoth he, near the beginning of his address, “there is no demand from the Scottish people” for this proposal. No demand? None? Not a single voice? Being self-evidently bunkum, what the devil is Wilson contending? The logic, I’m sorry to say, is exceedingly ugly. First and foremost, it is simply hyperbolic gas-bagging to a sympathetic crowd. But secondly, he suggests a sheep-and-goats distinction be drawn, with those sympathetic to same-sex marriage literally expelled from the "real" mythic body of the nation, for whom Wilson presumes to speak.

This is no over-subtle or suspect interpretation of his sentiments. He discloses his opinions directly.  According to Wilson, Scottish politicians must apparently “choose between political correctness, and the people. We are on the side of the people!” Seasoning his peroration with a little Nationalist spice, Wilson concludes by invoking the imagery of that modern Babylon down south: “Scotland is not London, and as you will find, Scotland is for marriage!” Cardinal Keith O'Brien indulged in an even more eccentic argument along the same lines. Repeating his assertion that to redefine marriage would be – and I quote – a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”, the Cardinal continued…

“If the Scottish Government attempt to demolish a universally recognised human right, they will have forfeited the trust which the nation, including people of all faiths and no faiths, have placed in them and their intolerance will shame Scotland in the eyes of the world.”

But are the people on your side, and that of your recriminating coelacanth Scotland? Wilson and O'Brien's claims are particularly strange, with a passing knowledge of public opinion, which hardly confirms their fevered vision of politicians in thrall to a cabal of over-sensitive, over-polite hell-bound sodomites, dumb to the virtuous remonstrances of the Plain People of Scotland.  On Newsnicht, Wilson brushed aside the findings that a majority now support same-sex marriage, saying that “a lot” of it was simply “shallow”, being comprised of “people who may not be married, it comprises many people who may not intend to get married.”  Quantitatively, a majority may seem to support same-sex marriage, but they are frivolous, uncommitted, feckless and unattached, their views as nought compared to the zealous quality of the proposals' detractors and opponents.  The Scottish people may not really agree with Scotland for Marriage, but in the loop-de-doop nation where Wilson and the Cardinal dwell, the real, sturdy Scottish people endorse their campaign's, increasingly unattractively advocated goals.

Sunday Post Scotland lives! And what an ugly land it is. If this is the price of an independent Scotland, I'm buggered if I want anything to do with it.

Update

I'm afraid I made myself unintentionally obscure with my final paragraph, which Joan and Colin have rightly picked me up on the comments, questioning what precisely I mean by it.  As will be clear to those who watched the Newsnicht episode I linked to, I was alluding to Gordon Wilson's claim that if we want Scotland to be independent, the SNP leadership should buckle under the critique being advanced by Scotland for Marriage and others. I earnestly hope they don't - indeed I'd be appalled if they even countenanced the prospect, feart to take positions on spiky political topics. Wilson is cunningly appealing to internal fears within the party about rubbing parts of the population up the wrong way. If not, he suggests, the party will haemorrhage votes in the referendum. 

In a very limited sense, we should concede Wilson isn't entirely wrong. Voters cast their ballots for any number of reasons, and it is conceivable that a very limited number of voters may feel alienated by Nationalist-lead introduction of same-sex marriage. That this should find expression in opposition to independence seems to me to be deeply unconvincing, and I hope the parliamentary party shares that skepticism about Wilson's claim, and that no conservative, controversy-evading impulse spasms through the SNP leadership. 

18 comments :

  1. "Sunday Post Scotland lives! And what an ugly land it is. If this is the price of an independent Scotland, I'm buggered if I want anything to do with it."


    A wee bit unfortunate choice of words there given the subject natter. however did some wise person not once say that "Scotland will only be free when the last minister is choked to death with the last copy of the Sunday Post." To that I would add most of our newspapers.

    Souter and Wilson hardly represent main stream Scotland do they? They may have delusions of grandeur but they are a niche market, are they not?

    There are extremes of opinion on both sides of the homosexual argument, surely because we wish to be independent does not mean that we have to suddenly become in favour of homosexuality being taught to our children as if it is the norm in society.

    Surely it does not mean that we have to silence those who believe that they have the right to be heard even if they do not like homosexuality and find it abhorrent?

    Surely we also would give the right to those religious persons who so decided, that they are not legally compelled to condone homosexuality by taking part in a marriage ceremony that they find abhorrent?

    Surely we are mature and intelligent enough to have the debate, without casting aspersions on the desire of a growing number of Scots to live in an independent country?

    There are many who I know, who like me do not care what goes on between consenting adults, in the privacy of their own homes.

    However if as a proprietor of an establishment that offers accommodation and food and drink to the public, I am to be legally compelled to tolerate behaviour I may find abhorrent, then I think that is to far. I must be allowed to reserve the legal right to refuse service to those who offend me, perhaps my customers, and perhaps my religion.

    I do not think any of these matters make us unfit to govern our selves in an independent country.

    If however the debate is to be met with shrieking and wailing and attempts to close down the debate then that is a different kettle of fish altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your final paragraph is a bizarre conclusion to draw, given that the SNP government is consulting on equal marriage, that the FM has said he supports equal marriage and his deputy Nicola Sturgeon has made it clear that the cabinet is also inclined to support it. The SNP are bringing this forward, not the other parties. Polls show that Scottish people support it because most Scottish people, whatever their background, will have friends and family who are gay. Scotland has changed and moved forward, just as many other countrys have. The suggestion that Scotland is somehow more backward than the rest of the UK on social issues is not true and is an old favourite of those who seek too undermine our self-confidence for their own political reasons.

    Gordon Wilson does not speak for the SNP or Scotland on this issue. I have no problem at all condemning his views and the language he used to express them. No loving relationship should be described as tainted.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This conflates two separate issues: extreme religion which exists across the world and the right to freedom of speech which does not.

    The reality for Scotland's religious extremists is that they are becoming a sad pastiche of themselves. The decline in their 'flocks' speaks louder for their continuing relevance in Scotland than any tub thumping.

    To mix Brian Wilson's views as representative of SNP and the increasing numbers of Scots who support independence reveals a detachment in Peat Worrier's belief and understanding from what 'is' in Scotland.

    Scotland is no longer a country under the thrall of Presbyterian extremism. We are no longer the country where 'Holy Wullies' Like Souter, Wilson or the Cardinal have any sway or much influence. Modern Scotland is secular, outward looking and inclusive - just ask the people of different nations, politics and religious leanings who now live here.

    Peat Worrier less than 10% of Scots attend any church on a regular basis - the majority of this slice attend the Church of Scotland. Surely even you can put the annoying Souters and Wilsons into their real context, as extreme religionists, rather than the one the Scottish MSM would have you believe.

    The vote in the Scottish Indepndence referendum in 2014 will come down to what is best for Scotland, her future and her future generations of sovereign people yet to be born.

    In this, the real argument, religion has no part to play - it is far too important for that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mm. Goodness knows what any of this has to do with independence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Peter.

    The problem is not that... how shall we put this... people with religious fundamentalist tendancies (is that a tactful enough description of Conti, Souter or the Bishop of Paisley?) have an influence over the Scottish populace, but that enough people in positions of power and influence think that they do.

    Peat Worrier is right though. These people remind me of the Frankie Boyle joke about entering Scotland and seting your watch back by 25 years.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why would the voters take it out on the SNP and the Greens (and independence) for supporting gay marriage when:

    The Tories support gay marriage,
    The Liberals support gay marriage,
    Labour supports gay marriage and all support the union.

    Apparently Mr Cameron has a stated aim of legalising gay marriage by the time of the next election.

    Vote for independence and get gay marriage; vote for dependence and get... oh yeah, gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There's an old difficulty between politics and rational thinking which you find reflected in (eg) Plato and Aristotle: the need to persuade and convince masses of people is always going to be in tension with a need for a careful, rational dissection of the issues.

    What I find worrying about the current debate in particular is not that there is ridiculous rhetoric on both sides -that's inevitable in any popular debate- but that there is very little else. What should be a thoughtful and careful examination of the nature of the family, how we rear the next generation and the nature of intimacy (to list but a few of the issues involved) has quickly fallen into the pattern of most UK/Scottish politics: two sides trying to get one over on the other.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think most people don't give a monkey's about gay marriage being legalised.

    What is really annoying is the religious input. No one is saying that religions will be forced to carry out gay marriages in their buildings. The religions in Scotland are supposed to preach tolerance, not open their mouths every time something crops up. It's always sex or education that wakes them up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The State may legislate but this does not mean that religious faiths have to observe it. If faiths do not believe in same sex marriage then they do not need to permit it within their places of worship. Just because the State choose to legalise something does not necessarily mean that religions must adopt it. And being against same sex marriage within a religion does not mean anti-gay. If the State determines that same sex marriage is legal and permiits it, then fine let registry offices conduct the marriage, but if religious faiths choose not to then that is a matter for them, not the State.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Indeed Exiled_Fifer, the state ought to legislate and determine what is considered legitimate marriage whithin the state.
    Remove any such privilege from religious bodies, and we have the solution.
    Those whose marriages are legitimate in the eyes of the state can then be legitimised by the state.
    Those who want their union to be blessed by the agents of whatever entity they happen to believe, can have that union made special in whatever manner their doctrines tell them. They certainly have no business dictating what constitutes a legitimate marriage in the state.

    About time religion rediscovered that it ought to be private.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think it is pretty obvious that no-one in a position of power and influence thinks that Gordon Wilson's campaigning on same sex marriage will have any real impact, either on the SNP or independence. Otherwise they would have tried to stop him.

    In a way I wish the SNP leadership had tried to stop him because it's a slightly sad end to a political career. Although that's clearly a subjective judgement, just my personal opinion really. But I do find it sad that people may remember Gordon Wilson for this rather than for his achievements as an SNP politician.Of course some of those achievements were not noted for their wisdom - like expelling Alex Salmond for example!

    ReplyDelete
  13. As for how things are going to pan out - I think it's pretty obvious that there is no way that the two views of marriage that have emerged can be reconciled. But that doesn't mean that there has to be a perpetual conflict about it. There is an alternative to resolving two contradictory views by having one side "win" and one side "lose" - and that is to find a way in which both sides can co-exist.

    Clearly if we look at the extreme end of the religious argument they are not interested in finding that kind of solution, but if we look at the more moderate side, epitomised perhaps by John Mason, he has now made it clear that he is not interested in pushing his view onto the whole of society; rather, he is interested in protecting the rights of religious minorities and ending what he sees as the potential of equalities legislation being used to enable attempts to force religious bodies to accept same sex marriage.

    I don't actually agree with him about that, I think the equality act already protects religious minorities but since that is the caveat it would seem sensible to amend the equality act to put in a specific clause saying that no religious body could be challenged to perform same sex mariages.

    Of course that would need to be done at Westminster because it is reserved legislation, unless they agreed to a kind of reverse Sewel motion to allow Holyrood to amend the act. But since the UK Government is also going to bring in equal marriage, and they will probably decide that they need to do the same thing, that's really a detail that can be worked out without too much difficulty.

    And I would bet quite a lot of money that 5 years after the law is changed same sex marriage will no longer be a controversial issue in the same way that after section 2a was repealed everyone pretty quickly forgot about it and none of the consequences that were predicted by opponent of repeal came to pass.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "But are the people on your side, and that of your recriminating coelacanth Scotland? Wilson and O'Brien's claims are particularly strange, with a passing knowledge of public opinion, which hardly confirms their fevered vision of politicians in thrall to a cabal of over-sensitive, over-polite hell-bound sodomites, dumb to the virtuous remonstrances of the Plain People of Scotland. On Newsnicht, Wilson brushed aside the findings that a majority now support same-sex marriage, saying that “a lot” of it was simply “shallow”, being comprised of “people who may not be married, it comprises many people who may not intend to get married.” Quantitatively, a majority may seem to support same-sex marriage, but they are frivolous, uncommitted, feckless and unattached, their views as nought compared to the zealous quality of the proposals' detractors and opponents. The Scottish people may not really agree with Scotland for Marriage, but in the loop-de-doop nation where Wilson and the Cardinal dwell, the real, sturdy Scottish people endorse their campaign's, increasingly unattractively advocated goals."

    As usual LPW, beuatifully written and right on the button.

    I should warn you that I've copied the above para and, substituting "devolution" for "same sex marriage", I will use it the next time anyone claims a majority of Scots want "independence".

    As in...

    "But are the people on your side, and that of your recriminating coelacanth Scotland? The SNP's claims are particularly strange, with a passing knowledge of public opinion, which hardly confirms their fevered vision of politicians dumb to the remonstrances of the Plain People of Scotland. Salmond brushed aside the findings that a majority support Devolution, saying that “a lot” of it was simply “shallow”, being comprised of “people who may not be nationalists, it comprises many people who may not intend to become nationalists.” Quantitatively, a majority may seem to support Devolution, but they are frivolous, uncommitted, feckless and unattached, their views as nought compared to the zealous quality of the proposals' detractors and opponents. The Scottish people may not really agree with The SNP, but in the loop-de-doop nation where nationalists dwell, the real, sturdy Scottish people endorse their campaign's, increasingly unattractively advocated goals."

    Sorry. Hope you don't mind too much.....

    ReplyDelete
  15. joanmcalpine
    'The suggestion that Scotland is somehow more backward than the rest of the UK on social issues is not true. . .'

    It certainly used to be true, up until a few years ago - no English town in the 1960s had a headmaster querying the practice of local banks refusing to employ Catholics (as James Breen did in Coatbridge; see Tom Gallacher's The Uneasy Peace) ) and no English newpaper of repute in the early 1980s would have surprised a newly appointed editor with the news that he would not have got the job had he been a Catholic (as happened to Kemp at the Glasgow Herald).

    I think things are changing for the better, but Ms Mcalpine adds to the above words the worrying observation

    '. . . and is an old favourite of those who seek too undermine our self-confidence for their own political reasons. '

    There is an auld authoritarian strain in Scottish culture that surfaces in such jibes: surely one can express dissent to a party line without seeking to 'undermine' anyone's 'self-confidence'?

    Whichever way the eventual referendum goes it is clear that an awful lot of Scots are going to be disappointed. We need more mutual respect in our exchanges.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I love the linguistic analysis re the use of Scots. He is underestimating the folk of Scotland. It may have been more true back then, but not nowadays.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I love the linguistic analysis re the use of Scots. He is underestimating the folk of Scotland. It may have been more true back then, but not nowadays.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I really don't think we should beat ourselves up too much about it Edwin. Maybe no English town in the 1960s had a headmaster querying the practice of local banks refusing to employ Catholics but there were plenty of English businesses that had signs up saying No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish.

    And they will no doubt get the same backlash from religious bodies when the UK Government puts forward proposals on same sex marriage too.

    ReplyDelete