TORY leadership hopefuls Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss displayed their usual breath-taking arrogance and shocking ignorance of Scottish politics at the hustings in Perth this week, but many of the next day’s headlines diverted attention away from their many failings to concentrate instead on the bad behaviour of a handful of independence supporters outside the venue.
Their verbal abuse of BBC’s Scotland editor James Cook was a mistake on so many levels that it needs to be called out for the mindless stupidity that encouraged it.
Firstly, it was simply wrong; and not just because Cook is the stand-up sort of guy portrayed in so many of the countless tweets of support he received from independence activists and from senior SNP figures, including the First Minister herself.
I don’t know James Cook but I’m perfectly sure he is pleasant, affable, professional and committed to playing with a straight bat. That’s not why it was wrong to castigate him as a “traitor” and a “scumbag rat”.
Press freedoms are invariably one of the first targets when fascists achieve power to enact any of their vile policies. That’s not, of course, to suggest that those responsible for the abuse on Tuesday were fascists.
A more likely explanation is that they are among the increasing number of people getting ever angrier at the UK Government inaction on the terrifying cost of living crisis and its denial of democracy by blocking indyref2.
They may not be fascists, but they should understand that press freedom is fundamental to democracy and should therefore be protected by those who purport to support democracy. Undermining that principal to withdraw that protection from those with whom you disagree is a slippery slope.
That doesn’t mean journalists are beyond criticism and that news platforms, including the BBC, do not make mistakes. The BBC in particular has adopted practices that have called into question its impartiality and fairness in dealing with the independence question. Those practices have included “expert” panels loaded against independence and inviting anti-indy activists on to “representative” Question Time audiences.
The BBC has a duty to report impartially and when it fails in that task it’s perfectly reasonable to call out programme makers, executives and, yes, journalists involved. Journalists are often quick to criticise others and even quicker to take offence when they are criticised themselves.
None of this, however, excuses the personally abusive and derogatory attacks hurled at James Cook. Criticising specific reports and statements is a world away from calling a reporter a “traitor” because you don’t like what they write or broadcast.
There is, of course, much controversy surrounding the definition of a reporter’s job. For many it is simply to “tell the truth”, which begs the question: who gets to define what is “the truth”?
For some that simply means disseminating information which confirms their own beliefs, but it is rarely that simple. When a journalist reports statements made in, for example, the Tory leadership hustings, it does not mean they believe them to be true.
There is no time to fact-check every statement before publication and there is no responsibility to do so. If there was, it would make news reporting impossible.
Journalism does, of course, have a responsibility to place claims in their proper context and to point out when there is a conflict with known facts. It has a responsibility to check the claims politicians or others make. Its job is to attack fake news and establish the facts, where possible.
But a straightforward news report on a speech broadcast just minutes after it finishes is not “lies” because it has not yet been subjected to a rigorous fact-checking analysis.
It’s not clear exactly what “misdeeds” those throwing insults at James Cook believed he was guilty of. But when an argument descends into personal abuse it is already lost.
One of the most surprising aspects of the whole affair was that those who were hurling the insults posted a video of themselves doing so, obviously under the impression that the footage cast them in a good light. Let’s be clear. It did not.
I’ve spoken to lots of independence supporters about the matter. Not one supported the abusers.
Was it likely that a single person not yet converted to the benefits of independence would have their mind changed by that video? Isn’t it more likely that the invective and hatred on display would encourage them to run a mile?
Isn’t it more likely that seeing an independence supporter asking a Scottish journalist how long he had been in Scotland would have sounded all sorts of warning bells?
The effect of this abuse is not only that it deflects attentions from the real and terrible effects of Conservative actions but also that it is counter-productive. It actually scares people off connecting with the independence debate. It backs up unfounded claims by Union supporters keen to convince that talking about independence is divisive and hurtful.
My experience of the 2014 referendum campaign was overwhelmingly positive. People all over Scotland woke up to serious issues and engaged in mainly constructive dialogue about possible solutions. There was disagreement, yes. Sometimes it was impassioned, yes. But it was a brilliant example of democracy in action that embraced the progressive values that will surely form the pillars on which the new, independent Scotland will be built.
It was the opposite of exclusionary and nothing to do with any form of nationalism, which views those who moved to this country as somehow different or even a threat.
One of the most admirable aspects of the 2014 indie was the fact that everyone living in Scotland – no matter where they came from – had a vote and those Scots who had moved away from here did not. That seemed to me entirely fair and a welcome step away from ethnic nationalism.
Those same values have also been evident in many independence marches, and if such events do not necessarily bring converts to the cause they do bring together independence supporters in a way which encourages a sense of community and shows the wider public that the level of support for independence is significant.
But public abuse like that evident at Perth actively undermines the effectiveness of such marches. It will scare off people who might otherwise attend. It now sets us on the back foot by suggesting that new supporters might be questioned about their “Scottish credentials” and need a history degree to take part.
Several senior SNP members, including Nicola Sturgeon, posted on social media condemning the treatment of James Cook, quick to disassociate themselves from the actions. There was no proof that those taking part were SNP members and strong evidence that they were not.
The trouble is that the bad behaviour of a small minority of independence supporters will always be seized upon by opponents of independence as a stick to beat the entire movement with.
We can complain until we are blue in the face that this is unfair – and it is – but we all know how the situation will be portrayed. Those taking part in the abuse at Perth may not have been members of the SNP but they would have known that their behaviour would be used against the SNP and the Yes movement in general. The fact they did it anyway is deeply worrying, to put it mildly.
We are on the verge of a new campaign either for an independence referendum in October next year or for using the next general election as a de facto independence referendum. We need to begin planning that campaign and the last thing the Yes movement needs is to be portrayed as is abusive.
After a conference held by the Aberdeen Independence Movement earlier this year there was a kickback at the idea of a code of conduct for indy campaigners which emerged from the event.
Some people were uncomfortable at the principle of being told how to behave and unsure who exactly was laying down the rules.
Those reservations aside, a motion supporting such a code of conduct is reportedly under consideration for the SNP conference in October. There are strong arguments for and against. It’s true, for instance, that there is also abusiveness from pro-Union campaigners. It’s also true that the Yes movement is wider than the SNP and isn’t really under the party’s control.
But for me the deciding factor is that independence supporters are charged with the vital task of convincing swaying voters of the benefits of independence. We must surely do everything in our power to win and the onus is on us to conduct ourselves in a responsible, respectful manner.
If we are going to be held responsible for the abusive actions of the minority, we should certainly signal publicly that we do not stand with them and they do not speak for us. Then we can direct our anger at the right targets – those politicians determined to keep Scotland tied to a Union which strips us of our resources and our future and denies us any democratic control over it.
