I can't find the passage, but if memory serves there's a moment in War and Peace when the assembled company is discussing Napoleon Bonaparte and marvelling at and quaking before the string of military victories he has won and how this spells doom for poor Russia when an old and ancient battle-weathered chap growls something to the effect of "Who has he beaten? Only Germans. Everyone has always beaten the Germans."
Well, not quite. But you get the point. This is something to keep in mind next time you hear someone worry about Alex Salmond. Take for instance my old friend Jenny Hjul, writing in the Sunday Times:
Really? Is Salmond truly some kind of political genius whose every move is touched with gold and luck? I doubt it. But this is the sort of thinking that leaves Unionism in a defensive crouch and, actually, leaves the field open to Salmond. And who, pray, has Salmond beaten? Only, representing Labour, Jack McConnell, Wendy Alexander and Iain Gray; the Tories' David McLetchie and Aunt Annabel Goldie plus, if you must count them, Lib Dems of the calibre of Nicoll Stephen and Tavish Scott. That is, generally speaking, a line-up of punch-shy, glass-chinned fighters Frank Bruno could have dealt with. And his mother owuld have won some of those bouts too. If only on points.If Gordon Brown won’t allow a referendum on Scottish independence when he calls a general election, then David Cameron, once in No 10, should test the strength of the union in a plebiscite, or so the argument goes. The justification is that the separatists would be so convincingly defeated that they would slope off into the sunset and never dare raise the subject again, or not for a generation anyway. This is dangerous territory into which the Scottish Tories in Holyrood must not stray. Give Salmond an inch and he will manipulate it into a mile.
Now it's true that Laboru ran a desperate - and dishonest - campaign in 2007 (surprise!) but that doesn't mean Unionism is destined to remain on the back foot. Commenter Oban rightly observes that too often the case for the Union is made in a negative sense. If Unionism is to prevail - in the long run - hat cannot continue.
So I think a post I wrote about about Cameronian Unionism last October still stands:
I think there's more to it than that. Campaigning in Fife, Cameron took a commendably broad-minded view of the Union. Of course, he said, an independent Scotland would not immediately or automatically be a basket-case:
"I don't think we'd ever succeed in saving the Union by frightening Scots to say you couldn't possibly make it on your own. That's not the way I approach it. The Union to me is about generosity – we're stronger together because we share so much together."
The contrast with the kind of sneering, boorish Unionism that stresses economics and presumes some kind of crippling inadequacy that renders Scotland unusually incapable of ordering things is a) significant and b) encouraging. I think it probable that you can win the Unionist argument on economic grounds, but doing so demands that you sour Scotland in order to save her. The country is unlikely to be at ease if the constitutional question is settled by scare tactics. The idea that independence isn't feasible is both infantile and, worse, infantilising. It breeds a chippy sense of resentment in a country already more than well-stocked with the stuff.
No, the case for the Union - and it's a perfectly strong one - needs to be made in terms of culture, not economics. It's a question of temperament, of history, of, yes, values and culture and all the other stuff that's bundled together and covered by the Union Flag. Three hundred years is a lot of water under the bridge.
I still think that's true. Salmond is a canny operator and there's a perfectly respectable case for independence. But it's not, at present, one that's supported by a majority of Scots. That may change, but there's no reason for Unionists - and Unionism - to cower or cringe or shrink from the battle simply because Salmond has previously run rings around a bunch of no-hopers. And if Unionism isn't prepared to make a case for itself then perhaps it doesn't deserve to prevail?
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (5)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Andrew Sullivan
Ben Smith
Charles Crawford
Chris Dillow
Claudia Massie
Dan Drezner
Daniel Larison
Dave Weigel
Ezra Klein
French Politics
Global Guerrilas (John Robb)
Henry Porter
James Fallows
Julian Sanchez
Kerry Howley
Kevin Drum
League of Ordinary Gentlemen
Marc Ambinder
Matt Zeitlin
Matthew Yglesias
Megan McArdle
More than Mind Games
Mr Eugenides
Norm Geras
Our Kingdom
Outside the Beltway
Radley Balko
Reason: Hit&Run
Rod Dreher
Samizdata
Scottish Unionist
SNP Tactical Voting
The American Scene
The Plank
Tim Worstall
Toby Harnden
Will Wilkinson
Charlotte Gore
Iain Martin
Hopi Sen
Liberal Vision
Left Back in the Changing Room
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Craig Strachan
September 8th, 2009 5:47pm Report this commentAlex: "Really? Is Salmond truly some kind of political genius whose every move is touched with gold and luck?"
Hardly. Remember "Free by '93"?
Craig Strachan
September 8th, 2009 5:53pm Report this comment(And let's not forget Eck's triumphs over internal rivals of the calibre of Jim Sillars and Margo MacDonald. Or how he brushed aside the Sturgeon/MacAskill dream ticket to return as leader of the SNP.)
ndm
September 8th, 2009 6:40pm Report this commentIn the great Google v Bing match up on the words "'war and peace' napoleon beaten germans" the 8th Google link was to the following:
-- Bonaparte was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He's got splendid soldiers. And besides, he began by attacking Germans. Only a sluggard could fail to beat Germans. Since the world began everyone has beaten the Germans. And they beat no one. Only one another. That's how he made his reputation.
The 6th Bing link was to the following:
-- There's a line in War and Peace in which an old Russian takes issue with Napoleon’s claims to greatness. Who, he wants to know, has the little Corsican ever beaten? "Only Germans" and "everyone beats the Germans". Something similar might be said of the Gipper: he beat the kind of liberals no sane American could stomach voting for more than once.
The 20th Century version of War and Peace was the awesome Life and Fate by Vassily Grossman who replaced the Russian aristocracy with Russian Jews and the Battle of Borodino with the Battle of Stalingrad.
Steve.W
September 8th, 2009 7:54pm Report this commentFor me the Alex Salmond remark that is prize worthy but not praiseworthy is “arc of prosperity”. This related to his idea that Scotland could tuck in behind Iceland as some kind of small but very rich nation with world influence.
Shortly afterwards Iceland went belly up, how was he to know that would happen? Well before being a politician he had worked for the Royal Bank of Scotland. Laughs all around as Salmond is very pro-EU, Iceland is an independent nation. He is also very republican by nature so I can only assume he cursed each time he banked his salary check from the 'Royal' bank. What a thicko!
Panenka's Chip
September 9th, 2009 12:46pm Report this commentHjul seems to have taken her British Nationalism to new levels with various recent articles. Also, her thinly veiled insults directed at the SNP, Salmond et al appear to have had the veil well and truly cast away. Perhaps she's getting desperate that the SNP are actually getting a bounce out of recent events and are the only party in Scotland setting an agenda. By all means, that agenda can be construed as flawed but it certainly shows ambition and a desire to reach beyond the internecine bickering that Scottish politics has become. What the hell else did she expect the SNP to do when it reached power? Just chuck it all in and decide the Ministerial Mondeos were enough?
As for Cameron, the problem comes from the fact that while you might laud his tone and direction, it comes from a man who is yet to be trusted and that Scots view with a deep cynicism, that makes Scots views of Tony Blair look positively radiant. I would argue that it will take Labour to espouse these views in a similar manner before a majority of Scots take notice. Out with certain blue 'pockets', there's still little trust of the Tories in Scotland - something that will take a while longer to fix - while the Lib Dems are fast becoming an irrelevance under Tavish Scott, who seems to be out of step with his membership on just about everything at the moment.
Back to top