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.