The cost of lies

I don’t customarily pay much attention to Paul Kavanagh’s column in The National. I had previously dismissed him as just another scribbler producing comforting content for the independence industry. But as I scoured the pages looking for inspiration, I found I’d started to read his piece today without realising who the author was. In one of those rare coincidences, some of his writing resonated with a thought that was already circulating in my mind.

With the general outcome of next month's election already known, I began to contemplate the aftermath. As expected, the SNP looks set to remain in power. Somewhat more unexpected is the fact that we are now talking seriously about the possibility of them winning an outright majority. As ever, I ask what the anticipated outcome implies for Scotland’s cause.

Firstly, however, I want to respond to the following:

The mere fact that we are even talking about the prospect of an SNP majority in next month’s election is a massive vindication of the leadership of John Swinney…

Superficially, it would seem so. But if we consider how Swinney achieved this feat, the implied praise looks less well-earned. Certainly, Swinney has navigated the SNP through turbulent times and stabilised it. That is no mean achievement given the mess it was in. However, the extraordinary awfulness of the other parties has made his task much easier than it might have been. It’s not that difficult to appear competent when you’re in the company of Sir Keir Starmer and his lackey in Scotland, Anas Sarwar. Almost anyone can look statesmanlike when compared to the grotesque political slapstick of Reform UK. None of the other parties that nominally support independence made Swinney’s life difficult either. Taking all these factors into consideration, Swinney’s success seems much less spectacular than his fans would have us believe.

Swinney doesn’t take risks. The entire leadership of the SNP is extremely risk-averse. As the party leader, Swinney has largely prevented the party from falling into a crisis by taking minimal action. He hasn’t made any massive blunders. But that’s because he hasn’t gone on any adventures. It’s much the same story with his role as First Minister. There’s much talk of the SNP’s achievements. But that list includes a lot for which Swinney himself can’t take personal credit. He has managed to borrow some of the shine from the successes of previous SNP administrations, dating back to the well-regarded minority government under Alex Salmond.

The other thing underpinning John Swinney’s moderate success is less benign. On the constitutional issue in particular, he has been less than totally honest. In fact, he has been downright deceitful. His talk of an SNP majority ‘unlocking’ the constitutional issue and even of being able to ‘guarantee’ a referendum is dishonest. Not that Paul Kavanagh will question it.

However, the brutal truth is that a pro-independence majority composed of the SNP and the Greens will not create the political conditions required to unlock the current constitutional logjam on the independence issue.

Only an SNP majority has the potential to achieve that goal, and winning the necessary majority is no longer as unrealistic as it seemed even a few weeks ago.

The party's stance is being dutifully upheld there!

If it was a “brutal truth” Paul Kavanagh was looking for, how about the ones he assiduously avoids? Consider the fact that an SNP/Greens majority only became inadequate when Swinney aimed to surpass Alex Salmond. What about the fact that John Swinney defined the "political conditions required to unlock the current constitutional logjam on the independence issue" to suit himself and his party? Then there’s the fact that an SNP majority does not “unlock” anything apart from having Swinney make a supplication to the British Prime Minister begging permission to have a sham independence referendum. How about these truths?

Even the way Swinney talks incessantly about independence is deceiving. It is meant to make people think that voting for the SNP means voting for independence. But nothing of what Swinney proposes leads anywhere near independence or even a proper constitutional referendum. It is a direct parallel with Starmer’s talk of ‘change’ prior to the 2024 UK general election. In fact, Swinney seems to have learned quite a few tricks from Starmer.

Perhaps the main lesson Starmer’s massively dishonest election campaign has taught Swinney is that there are no real consequences for winning by means of dishonesty and deception. Just about every word that came from Starmer’s mouth was a lie. Almost every promise he made he subsequently reneged on. But look! There he is, halfway through his term of office and still working with a huge parliamentary majority. Sure! The party will take a hit later. But that’s not a concern today. And there’s ample reason to suppose the hit won’t be as sore as polling indicates. All his successor needs to do is position himself/herself as the reformer who is going to sweep away all the dishonest dead wood and return the party to a pristine state. Voters still fall for that line.

If the ‘new broom’ tactic proves unsuccessful, the ’shield against something worse’ strategy is always available. Vote for us or the bunny gets it! In the British political system, rehabilitation is seldom impossible. Indeed, the time in the wilderness seems to shorten. It sometimes feels like the reverberations of a scandal have barely subsided and the politicians involved are making a comeback.

There will be no personal consequences for Starmer. He lied egregiously throughout the campaign which put him in No. 10 Downing Street. But he won’t be noticeably punished. He will undoubtedly retire to the House of Lords and live comfortably for the rest of his life. He may even get the rapid rehabilitation treatment that paints him as an elder statesman, supplementing his daily stipend from the House of Lords with media appearances and chairing inquiries. Or he could do as Tony Blair did and make a fortune on the speaking circuit. Although he would need a charisma transplant to pull that one off.

The point is that John Swinney can see what a forgiving thing British politics is. It used to be that only politicians in unelectable parties could say whatever they wanted because they’d never be called on to make good on their promises. Now, even front-runners get to do it knowing the cost will be small, if there is any cost at all.

Politicians and parties elected on a false prospectus may face minimal or no cost. But considerable cost falls elsewhere. That cost is paid in increasing disenchantment with and disengagement from the democratic process. It is paid in distrust of democratic institutions. It is paid in alienation and loss of confidence in the agency of the individual or the people.

I fear that John Swinney's mendacity on the constitutional issue will incur a heavy price. He has raised expectations, which he cannot fulfil. He is promising a referendum that he cannot deliver. He promises independence, but the referendum he proposes cannot deliver it. It’s all going to come crashing down. The only question is how long it will take. It will probably be a slow awakening initially, as people begin to realise how they’ve been misled. The realisation process will accelerate. There will be disappointment, frustration, and anger. There will be a backlash, which in all probability will damage Scotland’s cause more than it does the perpetrators of the deceit.

Tribalism has already crippled the independence movement. The internal conflict will grow more and more fractious as we approach a year into the new parliament and there is no sign of progress for Scotland’s cause. The agitation will be aggravated by apologists trying to defend the SNP, as it fails yet again to deliver on promises it could never have been in a position to honour.

As usual, those who tried to warn of this impending and inevitable failure will be accused of causing it. Then, another election will appear on the horizon, and the whole farce shall start again.