Mike Russell is a genial chap who, most of the time, is not much of a fool. Most of the time is not all the time, however, and this week he has, inadvertently, illuminated some of the reasons why the SNP struggles with what the Americans call “high-information*” voters. Mr Russell, the Scottish government’s education minister, became the latest senior SNP figure to accuse his opponents of being “anti-Scottish”. This is an increasingly tedious line of attack and one suggesting both a certain defensiveness and a bleak lack of imagination. There is also a Boy Who Cried Wolf problem: kneejerk suggestions that policy differences are motivated by anti-Caledonian spite or treachery diminish the salience of the real thing. Then again, ’tis always easier to impugn motives than grapple with the substance of the issue.
In this instance the issue is university funding. The Scottish government’s aversion to tuition fees is a respectable position. It comes at a price, however, and part of that price may be a squeeze on funding for further education colleges. Rather than admit this, however, Mr Russell worked himself into a bonny lather to complain:
Blah, blah and McBlah. So far, so witlessly normal. Then, alas, Mr Russell toppled into absurdity:The people of Scotland rejected it [tuition fees] absolutely in May and they would reject it again. It would be interesting to see if Labour has the courage to continue with their policy against paying for education or whether they are moving into that dreadful anti-Scottish, anti-educational block because the Scottish tradition is free education – and I stand proudly for it.
Oh come off it! The “unholy” coalition is “trying to destroy Scottish education”? Don’t. Be. So. Very. Silly. Sensible people hear this and think Why are you being such a wally? This is so even if they also harbour doubts about the Westminster government. Mr Russell demeans himself, his party and, yes, his country with this kind of talk. It makes it harder for the SNP to earn a fair hearing, far less the benefit of the doubt. No-one in their right mind thinks London is actively trying to “destroy Scottish education”.The spending review has been tough for colleges, the result of the unholy coalition which is trying to destroy Scottish education amongst other things.
In any case, there’s no need for them to do so when Scots are perfectly capable of doing that for themselves. It remains a grievous pity that the SNP and, to be fair, Labour before them, see no advantage to emulating the English academy and free school revolution. Why bother with that when there are Caledonian laurels upon which to rest? (Are there good schools in Scotland? Of course there are and many of them. Could many others be better? Undoubtedly.)
Be that as it may, this kind of desperate rhetoric does the SNP no favours. It is juvenile and unserious. It cheats voters too. Labelling certain views “anti-Scottish” chokes-off discussion and, actually, makes the Scottish government seem a smaller, pettier ministry than, in its better moments, it really is. It’s not a grown-up or productive type of reasoning. Nor is it open-minded or generous; instead it cultivates the impression of a narrow, mean-spirited, exclusionary type of nationalism that is at odds with how the SNP sees itself and, worse, is bound to make it harder for the party to enjoy a fair hearing on other matters. “Standing-up for Scotland” is fine but there’s a difference between doing so and slandering your opponents. Voters, especially high-information voters, appreciate this.
Meanwhile, Mike, I have a suggestion for you: spend a little less time accusing your opponents of “anti-Scottishness” and a little more time pestering Argyll & Bute cooncil to do something about the road on Jura. It must be the worst A-road in Britain and while it may be inconvenient it has this status it does and deserves to be repaired to meet even the standards of lowly B-roads on other islands.
*That’s a descriptive and neutral term and so is “low-information”. Neither is meant pejoratively.
Comments