It has been a week of fun political stories for tweeters and bloggers to keep themselves entertained over and yesterday was no different with Nick Clegg quoted in The Scotsman as calling the SNP extremists.Â
To be an extremist is typically to be two things – to have all political parties to one side of you on a particular political spectrum and also to be seen to have a very small band of committed followers behind you.
The former is palpably the case for Nationalists when it comes to Scottish independence, as the SNP never tires of reminding us when they merrily lump the London unionist parties together.Â
The latter is something that is not true of the SNP with a majority Government and ~30% of the public backing them on independence.Â
It is well worth noting that the former is a logical extension of the word “extremism” and the latter is merely a perception. An extremist could have democratic support of 50%+ from the public, they all just might happen to really want significant change.
Nick Clegg did not liken the SNP to basque separatists, to IRA groups, to Italian fascists or some other such well known extremist organisation, his quote was “the extremists are those who think that we need to yank Scotland out of the United Kingdom tomorrow”. Â And he was accurate, and smart, to say so.Â
The SNP rattiness on Twitter speaks volumes about how rattled the Nationalists are about this accusation. They know, even if they don’t care to admit it, that they are the extremists of the independence piece and, righty or wrongly, this comes with a heavy disadvantage.Â
Think about this, if you asked 50 people to pick a number between 1 and 10, would 5 of them select 1 and 5 of them select 10? Not likely. There is comfort in selecting something from nearer the centre.Â
And that is why Nick Clegg’s positioning of the SNP is so astute. He is pushing the Nats to the side and freeing up some precious space in the centre for his party to find some much needed relevance. Alex Salmond (pictured above to the extreme right of some school girls) is, somewhat ironically, helping the Lib Dems out with this strategy. There is no middle ground for the Lib Dems to hold in a Yes/No referendum but the First Minister’s apparent insistence that there be a second question is a lifeline for the Lib Dems that they appear well placed to take with both hands.
Could the Lib Dems be on track for a revival? Well, not simply by calling the SNP separatists they aren’t, but positioning themselves as Scotland’s leading devolutionists in a period when Scotland may very well define itself for the next generation as committed to devolution will serve them well. Sure, the Lib Dems will get spanked at the local elections in May and probably at the Westminster elections in 2015 too but Holyrood 2016 should see a huge reversal of fortunes.
As the SNP licks its wounds and comes to terms with a No result, as Scottish Labour pointedly but purposelessly breaks away from UK Labour, as Tories continue to be Tories and as Greens struggle to get a look in, why wouldn’t the Lib Dems enjoy a resurgence in Scotland? Fees schmees and Clegg Schmlegg. Tim Farron and Willie Rennie freed from the shackles of a wrongheaded coalition standing in the spotlight with the shadow of independence removed for a generation. They could put on quite a show you know, but that’s still a long way away.Â
For now, the SNP perhaps had its first taste in a long while of how losing will feel when the referendum is held because it is choosing to have its own sharpest weapon used against it.Â
Almost all political parties want to be seen as radical but few wish to be seen as extreme. Why? What is the difference?
Perhaps the SNP should stand up and be proud of who they are, positive extremists who are brave enough to argue for the radical, relatively extreme change that Scotland needs, not opting to suffer more from the glacial progress that we are making as a nation within a sclerotic union.Â
The Nats ran for cover despite Nick Clegg pointing out the reality of the situation this weekend. Â They’ll need to do better next time, and the time after that, and the time after that, and so on if they are to have any chance of winning the Yes vote they so crave.
#1 by Tomo on January 8, 2012 - 8:50 am
It’s funny that night during the Nick Clegg twitter storm, everyone of the Nationalist on twitter were happy to say they were extremists in response to Cleggs remarks, I didn’t see many of them shying away from it, and if there had been it would have been very few.
#2 by BaffieBox on January 8, 2012 - 8:52 am
Utterly ridiculous language for a leading politician to use about a leading party. Rather than relying on pejorative language, the LibDems will need a heck of a lot more substance if their fortunes are to be turned around… like properly advocating Home Rule like they claim they do instead of running numerous commissions to stall for time. This is a policy which would also be classed more extreme than mainstream by Clegg’s and your analysis by the way.
I’m surprised anyone would need to point this out, but here’s Wikipedia’s take on extremism:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism
I repeat: utterly ridiculous language for a party leader to use about about another party, especially one carrying the democratic mandate of the country.
If my, and others, reaction to this is a supposed to be a sign that Clegg has us on the run in some way, I hope I’ll be feeling like this for a long while yet. It’s soundbite politics and indicative of a vacuous argument, and is demonstrated by the fact the some of the more outspoken critics of his comments have been Liberal Democrats telling him to keep his mouth shut.
I sincerely hope people think twice in future about using “extremism” to describe those who support radical change.
#3 by Johnmcdonaldish on January 8, 2012 - 9:56 am
Can’t believe you honestly believe what you have written.
I have been a supporter in independence for 40 years, I have a wife and child, hold down a responsible job and play a part in my local community. I find it offensive to be described as an extremist.
Get a grip!
#4 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 10:18 am
But you would agree that you are at one extreme end of the constitutional debate, and happy to be there? How does that not make a person, in one sense of the word at least, an extremist, in the same way that someone who wants modernisation is a modernist or someone who wants to keep the Royal Family a royalist?
#5 by itsyourself on January 8, 2012 - 10:24 am
I do not think you can rightly describe the SNP as extreme. They are the government in Scotland. All they want is to do take one step further along the road we have all travelled on so far. A logical step at that. One which is seen as “protection” from an “extremist” Coalition promising ever deeper austerity forever more.
#6 by Richard on January 8, 2012 - 10:43 am
Hi Jeff,
I don’t think it matters how you try to rationalise it, only taking the word at it’s literal meaning; the word “extremist” carries so many more connotations than simply being someone at the extreme end of a scale. It is heavily loaded with ideas of violence, unpredictability and even insanity.
It is therefore a highly inflammatory word to be using. Politicians should be very knowledgeable about words, they being the weapons of their trade, and Nick Clegg really should have known better.
Either he was fully aware of what he was saying and was intending to be inflammatory, or he didn’t have a clue what he was saying. Neither option would give a particularly good impression of our supposed Deputy Prime Minister.
I could accurately describe the guy in one word, but I doubt it would pass your moderation standards!
#7 by James Morton on January 8, 2012 - 11:15 am
Jeff, I think he is offended by the term as I would be due to the definition of the word and how it is perceived in modern democracies. The definition of the word is: “any ideology or political act far outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards”, that’s the political definition of the word, and I do not see my self as being outside of society for holding a belief in independence. Human nature being what it is, exonyms like the one he used and you repeated here, are always pejorative rather than complimentary, especially where there is a real or fancied difference in cultural level between the ingroup and the outgroup. Clegg used it knowingly to attack the position of those who hold the view that independence was the way forward. He did it, in my opinion to cast those that do as being outside the accepted norm. There is no positive way in which the term can be used.
As to your last point – Lib Dem resurgence in Scotland? I don’t see that happening. They’re own polling numbers in England suggest a bleak future for them, here is just the same. How to recover from that? Break away from what they did in power and disown it. Can anyone honestly see them doing this? Not me, more likely they will do what the Tories have done and retreat into a mythical land, were it’s all the fault of the Scots and the Scots press – they just need to band to same old drum a bit more loudly.
The reality here is that the argument is not one of “isms” but of positional issues versus valence issues. I would contend that current debate is positional as opinion is divided. But rather than concentrate on the positional argument, the unionist parties all to often and all to eagerly take needlessly confrontational stance. Just as you are by wanting people who believe in independence to be identified by label chosen for them by the side that opposes them.
#8 by Gaz on January 8, 2012 - 10:00 pm
I also think you are wrong to say that the SNP is at one extreme of the constitutional possibilities choices.
There are several parties that propose that Scotland is Independent outside of the EU – which using your logic is ‘more extreme’ than the SNP position.
The Orkney & Shetland Movement propose independent status for the Northern Isles. That could also be construed to be more extreme than the SNP position.
There are also several parties that propose that Scotland or the UK is ruled by a single ethnic class. That is patently more extreme – in both senses of the word – than the SNP.
Clegg’s problem is he doesn’t understand that average has several definitions; mean, mode and median. The SNP position will never be the mean but it is fast becoming the mode and the median is now tending towards this too. I would say, just to nail the ridiculousness of Clegg’s statement, that ‘mainstream’ equates most closely to the mode.
No wonder the unionists/devolutionists/federalists (or whatever they portray themselves as) are becoming ever more desperate in their language.
#9 by itsyourself on January 8, 2012 - 10:12 am
I think this is a sign of desperation. The SNP and Eck are not some specially extreme bunch of political Svengalis. They are merely competent and sane. If the rest of the UK had a similar option they would take it too. Sadly all they have is Labour (incompetent) and UKIP (insanely extreme). The LibDems will never be forgiven for what they have done. The Tories have a secure power base south of the Border. Labour is moribund. Scottish voters have no alternatives and with Cameron announcing this AM he will commit political suicide sometime this week over the referendum we may be leaving the UK sooner rather than later.
#10 by scottish_skier on January 8, 2012 - 11:21 am
If Scottish nationalists (wish Scotland to be a sovereign state) are extremists, then British Unionist ‘nationalists’ (wish the UK to be a sovereign state) must be too. I guess the French, Germans, Italians, Canadians… are also extremists as they wish their countries to be sovereign states also?
And where does this 30% for independence come from? That represents the very minimum that’s ever been polled, not the normal return.
Taking the average of all straight Y/N polls by quality polsters + in depth surveys (TNS-BMRB, ICM, Comres, SSAS) for 1998-2012 and you get:
Yes = 43%
No = 42%
The No has never really been above 50% (briefly in August 2007) while the Yes has (e.g. much of 1998). TNS-BMRB shows the general recent trend well, with the No falling:
http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/assets-uploaded/documents/press-release-independence-poll-aug-11_1315215048.pdf
And of course the ‘don’t knows/unsures’ wish independence, but are just not sure it’s sensible. These tend to vote Yes on the day if we use other historical referenda as precedents. Ergo, it is those fully against the idea of independence that have historically been in minority.
With the Lib Dems on 6% of the Scots vote at best, having outdone the Tories to become the most unpopular mainstream party north of the border, I think they’d best keep traps shut rather than come out with guff like this. On second thoughts, no; Keep it up!
#11 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 1:19 pm
Not at all. Do French nationalists even exist? France is already independent so wanting France to remain independent would be presumably on the very centre of the constitutional spectrum in that country. If the people of Normandy wanted to be independent from France, that would be extreme, but it’d still be a logical and valid argument to be making.
#12 by CW on January 8, 2012 - 3:13 pm
Of course they do, they’re surnamed Le Pen. They are somewhat like a more media friendly BNP, so are not comparable to the SNP. There are also varying degrees of cultural and political nationalism in Brittany.
#13 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 3:41 pm
See, this is preciselty where people are getting the wrong end of the stick. The SNP are extremists in the context that their vision of Scotland’s constitutional future is to one side of every other main party. The Le Pens are extremists because they have policies that border on racism (and some would dispute the ‘border on’ part of that sentence).
Just because they can both be classed as ‘extremist’, it doesn’t make them comparable.
#14 by An Duine Gruamach on January 8, 2012 - 4:41 pm
Jeff, this is the thing – the SNP’s independence is hardly extreme. An extreme version of the independence side might look like this:
UDI
English people kicked out
UDI from the EU
Certainly no retained monarchy
Tough immigration laws, aimed at reducing net immigration.
And more along those lines. That would be extreme independence.
#15 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 5:04 pm
I never said the SNP’s version of independence is extreme.
Please read the posts before commenting going forward 😉
#16 by CW on January 8, 2012 - 11:29 pm
Ah i thought I had made that clear. They are not comparable at all, of course. I was merely (perhaps pedantically) observing the existence of a kind of nationalism in France. They are nationalists but in an ENTIRELY different sense to the SNP, a dichotomy best expressed in Tom Nairn’s ‘Modern Janus’. I do apologise to anyone who though otherwise. I was simply making the point that the French have nationalists of the ethnic rather than the civic type, possibly as a consequence of the lack of a requirement for any serious or major constitutional rearrangement, as you indicated yourself Jeff.
#17 by Dr William Reynolds on January 8, 2012 - 11:40 am
Nick Clegg was not smart and accurate to refer to those who seek independence as being extermist.my Finnish wife,who supports the independence of her country is very surprised to learn that her very international husband who seeks what she regards as natural,to be an extremist.Clegg does not present any definition of extremism,nor he attempt to offer a rationale for his view,and Jeff’s attempts to justify him is very unconvincing. Cleggs strange outburst,sggests to me that he has lost the plot.If this is going to be the standard of debate from the opponents of independence,I think that they will lose the argument.
#18 by Caron on January 8, 2012 - 11:55 am
That’s not the article I expected to read when I saw it on Twitter.
I think a lot of what you say is bang on. Except, obviously, the bits about us getting whipped in May and 2015. I suspect that we will do better in the Council elections than expected because of the work that people are doing o the ground and the response they are getting on the doorsteps.
There’s no denying that independence is at the extreme end of the options on offer for Scotland, the other end being the option secretly favoured I’m sure by some Tories of getting rid of Holyrood altogether. There are different models and options in between which could best address the concerns of those who feel we need more control over our destiny and those who feel that there are massive economic, social, cultural benefits of and opportunities offered by the Union.
The union in its current form is not working the best it could be and could do with substantial change.
The other important thing that Nick did is to describe himself as devolutionist. Liberal Democrats like to give power away from the centre wherever possible. While the SNP talk about getting power to Edinburgh, they also want to take powers from local councils and centralise like mad. We want to give power back to local communities.
There is still a lot to be done to up the quality of the debate on Scotland’s future Government. The SNP need to start furnishing us with details as to how exactly the union would be broken up and what life in an independent Scotland would be like – real, evidence based details.
On the other hand, the other side need to start getting some real positivity and passion into the debate. I think we do pretty well out of the union and the union is better off with us in it. It’s slightly broke, but independence is unnecessary to fix it – the definite sledgehammer to crack a nut option.
Pingback: Wings over Scotland | To infinity and beyond
#19 by Don McC on January 8, 2012 - 12:26 pm
Eh, it’s perfectly possible to deny that independence is at the extreme end of the options on offer. It’s equally possible to deny that the status quo is at the other extreme end. After all, a scrapping of devolution is a more extreme option and there are many in our political ranks who would love to see that.
And that’s the problem with Clegg’s language. He could easily have said something to the effect of “at either end of this constitutional debate” but he chose to use the word “extremists” for political point scoring and, now that grenade has blown up in his hand, his defenders are trying to play it down.
#20 by Ben Achie on January 8, 2012 - 12:30 pm
Extremism would be a xenophobic “Little Scotland” mentality, which is certainly not what is associated with the Scottish National Party, but if you look a little bit further south…….One of the reasons perhaps why Murdo wanted to ditch the Tory title, although Clegg apears to have no qualms about having them as bedfellows. Any mainstream party covers a spectrum, but let’s just say, the Tories appear to have a dog with a rather large tail!
#21 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 1:09 pm
Extremism is not at all necessarily a Little Scotland mentality, it has many forms – many negative, some positive.
#22 by Colin Macleod on January 8, 2012 - 12:32 pm
Jeff by your logic anyone who is at the extreme end of any debate is classed as an extremist. If we are making sweeping generalisations then, an opinionated person like yourself must have fallen into this category at some point.. along with nearly everyone who reads this. Could you not argue that the SNP are Progressivists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
#23 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 1:08 pm
Yes, that is my logic and that is the logic that Nick Clegg used. I would say I am an extremist when it comes to income tax as I long to see a significant increase in rates. And if anyone called me an extremist I would calmly agree with them and explain why. I wouldn’t want to try to have it both ways, suggesting that I don’t hold the most extreme position but still wanting to come over a radical.
#24 by Douglas McLellan on January 8, 2012 - 1:39 pm
Although the SNP are on one side of the independence debate I would struggle to describe them as extremists as that has plenty of negative and unhelpful connotations. Extremists don’t generally embrace democracy as the tool to achieve their aim.
Perhaps the extremists on the independence debate would be a group like the Scottish National Liberal Army?
#25 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 1:55 pm
Is there a risk though Douglas that the SNP may end up looking like they want to have their cake and eat it? Not necessarily over the “extremist” word which is probably just flash in the pan but the unionist parties will continue to try to marginalise the SNP position and the SNP will continue to try to push their position to the centre. But if you have the most extreme view of a certain group but still claim to hold the centre ground, you’ll always struggle, whatever label one chooses to place on it.
#26 by Douglas McLellan on January 8, 2012 - 2:12 pm
I would argue though that one of the key aspects of the SNP strategy is (obviously) is to move the population of Scotland to see independence as the centre ground which then makes the extremist label seem excessive.
In fact the centre ground has moved to to where there is a majority for significant increases to the powers that Scotland should have. If the SNP are extremist then, frankly, so are most Tories and many in the Labour Party as well who are against increased powers to Scotland.
#27 by Barbarian on January 8, 2012 - 2:40 pm
I think the article is spot on, Jeff.
If you look at what Cameron is proposing as well, with regards to examining the legal and timing issues of the Referendum, it seems there is a combined approach to attack the SNP. And it might for once be effective.
They are not making personal attacks on individuals, but rather the party/government itself.
Both are designed to provoke a reaction from the SNP, Salmond and the more fundamentalist nationalists.
“Extremist” is a powerful and dangerous word to use, but Clegg has managed to avoid the pitfalls.
Cameron talks about the timing of the Referendum, and again a smart play on words, since he is not appearing to be against the Referendum, but rather making the SNP look indecisive.
Regular visitors to blogs need to remember that the majority of voters do not have the time or inclination for political analysis – they will see a headline, perhaps read a few lines, and make an opinion one way or the other. Then they will go and do something else.
#28 by Andrew Watson on January 8, 2012 - 2:58 pm
I think you’re being rather cheeky with how you use the word extreme here Jeff. If you want to be pernickity then sure, the SNP are on one ‘extreme’ of the independence debate but I don’t think for a second that Nick Clegg meant it that way.
I think he was trying to articulate his view that support for independence is dangerous and irrational-or at very least kooky and irrelevant.
#29 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 3:36 pm
We don’t need to speculate on what Clegg meant though, we have the quote. And he’s making it very clear that the extremists are those that favour independence and those that favour no change at all, precisely the same, clinical, cold definition that I am talking about in my post. It’s you (and others) that are choosing to put words in Clegg’s mouth with “dangerous and irrational-or at very least kooky and irrelevant.”
It doesn’t help the debate when one side has decided what the other side is trying to say and won’t be moved from that. As I said in the post, that Nationalists are so rattled by this that they feel they have to do this, well, it speaks volumes.
#30 by Daniel J on January 8, 2012 - 3:22 pm
Most people in my family (English side included) will scoff at the idea of Nick Clegg calling the SNP extremist. Their constitutional position may not be supported by a majority of people in Scotland but it is certainly no longer a fringe position.
#31 by Richard Lucas on January 8, 2012 - 3:42 pm
I’m really not seeing what the point of this post. How can wanting Scotland to be an independent like the huge majority of other European countries be described as “extremism”? And, if that is Nick Clegg’s view – well, who cares anyway? I don’t see any evidence of Nats being “rattled”. I see plenty of scorn for Clegg – “Nonentity spouts nonsense” isn’t much of a story or much to worry about.
#32 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 3:46 pm
Fair enough. And I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Scots aspiring to have a country that is the equal of every other across Europe (and the world). But within the narrow parameters of the independence debate within the UK, the Nationalists are at an extreme end of it. That in itself may not be so interesting but how other parties use that against the SNP and how the SNP reacts to those ‘attacks’ is, I think, very interesting. But you are of course perfectly entitled to disagree.
What can I say, it’s also been a slow news week.
#33 by Iain Menzies on January 8, 2012 - 4:04 pm
im not sure you can talk about a majority of other european coutries in this context.
certainly it doesnt take into account the various former states of spain…france….germany….
#34 by Iain Menzies on January 8, 2012 - 4:06 pm
just two points
1) most people will see the headline and move on….those that read the details will fall into two groups, the first, most people, will read and move on and not care….the second group….Nats, will read it and have a tizzy…see above 😉
2) after seeing the above comments i am no more convinced about the earlier post on the death of the cyber nats than i was when it first went up.
#35 by M G on January 8, 2012 - 4:52 pm
Jeff,the numbers been dropping on this site lately ? How can you possibly see a comeback of the Lib Dems to a position of power in Scotland ,unless we all have collective amnesia ?
#36 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 5:03 pm
Any position is a position of power at Holyrood as it stands, even Margo on her own could make or break deals in the 2007-11 term.
Anyway, I didn’t mention the Lib Dems returning to power.
#37 by Dr William Reynolds on January 8, 2012 - 5:09 pm
Okay Jeff,I have now noticed that you say that Clegg said that both pro-independence views and unionist views were extremist.I don’t agree with him,however,it would have been helpful if your heading had reflected that position.Something like:
“If the extremist shoe fits,then the nationalists and unionists should wear it.”
Unfortunately your heading and most of the content of your article hides this point,and for that reason is misleading.Little wonder that you have got several responses that have challenged the position alluded to in your heading,and much of your article.
Regarding the centre ground,I think that the SNP are way ahead of Clegg on that one.They are willing to consult the Scottish people on their preferences.That is unlike the Liberals who have been dragged screaming and kicking into making vague promises.Unfortunately for the Liberals in Scotland,people are not listening to them just now.
#38 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 5:32 pm
I’m not aware of a party that wants to stick with the status quo so that other extreme is largely irrelevant. And I thought the post was clear enough but I had the advantage of knowing what I was trying to say, whether it came out that way or not.
I would counter your point to say that many Nats have needlessly flown off the handle at this post; but we can agree to disagree before the hair-pulling and eye gouging starts 😉
#39 by scottish_skier on January 8, 2012 - 5:10 pm
Extremist
Pronunciation: /ɪkˈstriËmɪst, É›k-/
noun
chiefly derogatory
– a person who holds extreme political or religious views, especially one who advocates illegal, violent, or other extreme action: right-wing extremists [as modifier]: extremist groups
So no then.
@#10 by Jeff
Ha ha. You know fine well what I meant 😉
MY wife is French. The government of France are happy to permit me to hold a French passport/nationality. I am Scottish, the government of the UK wish to prevent me having a Scottish passport/nationality. They have a previous history of violent repression with respect to this issue in various other countries (e.g. Ireland, India) which they subjugated. They have also used covert action (MI5, Scotland Yard) to fight against Scots wishing to to express their national identity in the normal fashion through self-governance. Who are the extremists?
[whistles].
#40 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 5:28 pm
On the contrary, the SNP ‘do’ hold an extreme political view. They don’t fall into the “especially…” bracket but that doesn’t preclude them by being, albeit on a very clinical definition, extemists in a certain regard. I’m surprised so much time and effort is being wasted over arguing this very minute point. Who cares in the long run about a single word? It’s how the SNP can win a majority from the edges that’s interesting. I believe they can, but it’ll be difficult and they have a lot of work and positioning to do.
(The rest of your post I chose not to comment on. I find it difficult to believe that the Government will violently repress, assisted by the MI5, your right or otherwise to hold a Scottish passport if there is a Yes victory.)
#41 by Iain Menzies on January 8, 2012 - 5:33 pm
Ireland and India was ‘they’?
Go read Tom Devine and then see if you want to talk like the Scots didn’t have anything to do with Empire.
#42 by scottish_skier on January 8, 2012 - 6:13 pm
I don’t believe I said anything of the sort. Everyone knows that the British Government involves a proportion of Scots and that Scots were involved in the Empire in varying roles. This is irrelevant to the point I was making.
#43 by scottish_skier on January 8, 2012 - 5:44 pm
“Government will violently repress, assisted by the MI5, your right or otherwise to hold a Scottish passport if there is a Yes victory.”
I was of course speaking about past form. The UK government does have a history of this sort of thing and MI5/Scotland yard have been involved with respect to covert monitoring (and attempting to encourage some dodgy ‘bombing’ type stuff to smear them as violent) of the SNP in the past. I agree however that such tactics are unlikely today.
The view is only ‘extreme’ within the context of the UK, which is a very unusual political construct. To every other country in the world, independence is the norm. In fact, looking back over the past century, the huge number of ‘new’ countries (1 every 2 years on average) suggests this is the norm. But yes, a silly comment from a very unpopular politician; its very obvious what he was up to, i.e. playing on words with pejorative connotations.
Much more pertinent is Dave C’s suicidal talk about trying to take control of the referendum. That’s bound to go down really well in Scotland 😉
#44 by Dr William Reynolds on January 8, 2012 - 6:21 pm
Jeff,I think your point was buried.If you are defining extremism as:
1) the opposite end of the spectrum or,
2) A minority position,
your article (to be balanced) should have acknowledged that extremism belongs to everyone.For example both independence and unionism are minority positions at this moment in time.While all parties appear to be against the status quo,most of them are against the creation of equal parliaments within the British Isles (ie independence).Thus the SNP and the unionist parties view things through very different pairs of glasses.
The point that I have laboured to make is that your article overfocuses on the SNP.For that reason it is unbalanced, and likely to mislead.While the SNP may or may not be rattled by Cleggs speech,it is understandable that many decent people who hold legitimate aspirations,will find your article offensive.Your argument is interesting but very likely to be misunderstood.
#45 by Jeff on January 8, 2012 - 6:59 pm
I’m not defining extremism as a minority position. Read my post again for what I said. It is really quite clear.
#46 by Chris on January 8, 2012 - 7:07 pm
I think you are being a bit pedantic. Obviously extremism means more than just being extreme: it implies ruthlessness of method too.
It is similar to the offensive over-use of unionist to describe anyone who doesn’t agree with independence. The word has a wider connotation beyond its dictionary definition.
#47 by Gordon on January 8, 2012 - 8:22 pm
Must be time for the Blog Awards or some such counting of visits. A pedantic word-play exercise to gain some hits.
Just because the union and devolution has so distorted the Scottish political scene from most other countries does not make those on one side of the debate “Extremist”, unless you are removing the common definition of the word and substituting a dry, dusty classic meaning which no-one would recognise outside a lecture hall.
#48 by Indy on January 9, 2012 - 5:45 pm
This whole debate is so depressing.
There is nothing extremist about independence. Independence is the normal state for most countries in the world. The independent nation state is the basic building block of our political, social and economic world. Let’s start from that basis and then discuss whether we want Scotland to become independent or to stay as we are. But do so on a clear understanding that independence is the norm. It’s not something weird. It’s the norm, It’s actually our position as a country which is half independent and half not independent which is weird. We’re neither one thing or the other.
It’s such a Westminster-centric view of things to see independence as an extreme option. You can understand why government ministers feel that way because naturally they see everything from that perspective. Westminster is the centre of their universe and they can’t understand why anybody would want to voluntarily withdraw from that. They probably do genuinely believe at some level that we are mad and therefore also bad and dangerous to know.
But “real” people don’t have that view. They maybe support independence, they maybe don’t support independence, and there are quite a large number who actually don’t care because they don’t think it matters that much who is in government or where power is centred. But they don’t look at things from the point of view of Westminster politicians and therefore when people make comments like this I don’t think it really resonates with folk. The SNP is patently not an extremist party so it’s just another variation of the fascist slur. It’s quite pathetic really and it’s depressing that we are going to get a whole lot more of this kind of stuff as the campaign gathers pace.
#49 by Dr William Reynolds on January 9, 2012 - 7:29 pm
Well said Indy.You are spot on.This article is also trying to defend Cleggs outburst by drowning the dialogue in a semantic debate about the meaning of words.Yes Clegg is trying to position the Liberals in order to prevent political oblivion but smearing people who have alternative views is not the way to go.He should advance his arguments and avoid the rhetoric.