Nicola Sturgeon and the suspended SNP Renfrewshire Councilors

Counterproductive publicity stunt

Once I’d seen the @YouTube video that landed three Renfrewshire Councilors in so much trouble, I became less sympathetic to them. Even before seeing it I knew enough to know it was a significant tactical mistake. Having seen it, I have no doubt Nicola Sturgeon was right to be angry, and to express that anger to them in private, even to let the public know why she feels let down by their behavior.

Nicola Sturgeon was right to set up an investigation into what the SNP councilors did, and to have them suspended in the run-up to its findings, safeguarding their right to have their say, to say sorry, to offer mitigating circumstances, putting on record why they think the point of part of what they wanted to get across has been lost, possibly due to their own incompetence. Having conceded it was right to suspend them from their party, however, I think Nicola has been set up, and she has fallen into a trap by the enemies of Scotland’s self-determination, including the right-wing media such as BBC Scotland.

In politics, you can’t unsay things. Nor can you painlessly undo them. There will be consequences in a lowering of your prestige. But none of us are infallible and putting mistakes right in a damage-limitations exercise remains preferable to burying your head in the sand and hoping no one notices.

In my not-so-humble opinion, I think Nicola has made a mistake in her use of the word ‘condemn’ in relation to what the suspended councilors did. Condemning it is fine, so long as we are clear what they’re being condemned for. Let’s think this through.

Did the Renfrewshire councilors do anything worthy of condemnation? From the SNP’s perspectives, absolutely they did. Making this clear to them individually and collectively, even doing so publicly, is no bad thing – certainly not at the end of a fair inquiry that lets them speak for themselves. The rest of Scotland’s YES Alliance weighing in on the scales of condemnation is no bad thing neither. But let’s be clear what they did, and what they did not,  get wrong.

What the SNP councilors got wrong was pretty substantial from the point of view of their party colleagues, and from the perspective of our cross-party movement. We all need to debate this.

Nicola Sturgeon was absolutely right to be angry at these SNP councilors for implying that John Swinney and Patrick Harvie and the rest of the team signed their name to a document that delivers something that is in no respect an improvement on the status quo. That is simply untrue. It’s an insult to Nicola Sturgeon for implying that she, Alex Salmond and others are naive for not agreeing with them on this point. Condemn these councilors for that, by all means. And take disciplinary action against them for this.

Nicola is right to feel let down that three SNP councilors did their own thing without running it past their SNP colleagues in the council chamber. Colleagues were not consulted, and they might all pay an electoral price for a childish publicity stunt.

Nevertheless, Nicola is wrong to use the term ‘condemn’ in relation to these councilors that gives Willie Rennie and co exactly what they demanded. Symbolic burnings of things we don’t like does have an honorable tradition. Just because reactionaries also do it is no reason to condemn progressives who have done this. We can all differ on which of these symbolic acts expressed radical politics and which did not. And we can debate which symbolic burnings were justified and which ones were grossly over the top. That’s a judgement call. But burning per se is not the issue.

If Labour members hold a mass burning of membership cards to then immediately apply en masse to become SNP members, would Nicola Sturgeon tell them they’re not welcome because of their ritualistic burnings? I hope not.

The real issue is the nature of the Smith Commission report. What the SNP and the rest of the YES Alliance do cannot be set in stone at this stage. These councilors got it wrong. They jumped the gun because they denied it could trigger legislation that would be welcomed by Scotland’s cross-party movement for self-determination, not as the end of the process, but as a useful, if inadequate, stepping stone.

These suspended SNP councilors were wrong because their actions have helped Ed Miliband and David Cameron find an excuses to bin the Smith Commission. Both Labour and Tory MPs will, I am absolutely convinced, betray what is progressive in this document. Scotland, I am absolutely convinced, end up with nothing. The cause of this betrayal will be due to those who signed the Vow being unable to patch up irreconcilable differences over English Votes for English Laws, and a democratic reciprocity solution to the West Lothian Question.

It is inevitable, in my ‘humble’ opinion, that Tories and Labour will burn what they had not already, secretly, tippexed out of the Smith Commission. If I am right about this, how could it possibly be in the SNP’s interest to let them get away with this by suggesting they should help David Cameron and Ed Miliband betray even more of their promises? This tactical incompetence is what makes these SNP councilors worthy of ‘condemnation’. From the point of view of strategy and tactics their stance is sectarian and totally counterproductive.

Despite all this, the way to deal with any bill based on the Smith Commission is to amend it, appealing to voters to back the YES Alliance’s MP group. That’s the way to do it.

If a poor bill is all that can be voted through, then SNP and Greens MPs should do that, as something is better than nothing. However, if what is being proposed turns out to be a poisoned chalice, don’t drink it. The devil, as always, is in the detail. It is simply far too soon for the SNP or the rest of us to know if the tax powers on offer are a trap, and the price that’s being asked, the cutting of the Barnett Formula, will make Scotland’s situation even worse, accomplishing nothing more than helping restore the electoral fortunes of Scotland’s Tories and the most right-wing elements in the other parties, including in the SNP. This can’t be ruled out. Not yet.

That is why it is tactically wrong for the SNP to go over the top in its condemnation of these suspended councilors. At the end of the day, what they’ve predicted might become the collective decision of the entire YES Alliance.

Even if we don’t advocate burning the final bill proposed by Ruth Davidson’s chums at Westminster after the next election (assuming they propose anything at all, which is far from guaranteed), that is merely a tactical decision based on symbolism. Divisions on such matters should not lead to splits and acrimony. But that is what Iain Gray et al are provoking. This is the raw material from which Special Branch agent provocateurs will manufacture electorally damaging splits. Gonnae no dae that, Nicola?