Thursday, January 22, 2009

The essential difference between the SNP and Sinn Fein

Another year, another commemoration. But this year, in a final push towards the crucial date of 2049 (Gerry is now dealing in 40 year timespans rather than concentrating too much on that now inconvenient 2016) has also hit upon the idea of “galvanizing” the Irish Diaspora. Right, what a good original idea, that should provide the tipping force. And a few more bob to do sort out new patios for the Politburo’s summer “cottages” in Donegal.

The biggest danger to the Union hasn’t been brought about by Gerry’s boys blowing up restaurants or Remembrance day services, but by the forces of constitutional nationalism across the North Channel. Destroy the United Kingdom and obviously the job of “unifying” “Ireland” is much easier; if I were a Republican strategist, I wouldn’t be concentrating on the traditional sycophants with deep pockets and elastic consciences in places like Boston or Kilburn, but developing links with the SNP and, to a lesser extent, Plaid Cymru.

But they don’t. Why not?
A clue might lie with the SNP’s reaction when isolated nationalist terrorism emerged in Scotland several years ago:
Armed extremism exists only on the outermost fringes of Scottish nationalist politics. For that, the thoroughly constitutional Scottish National Party (SNP) can claim great credit. Its leader, John Swinney, was continuing a proud tradition when, on Saturday, he described the SNLA zealots as people who "have no interest in Scotland or the Scottish people". He concluded: "They are not nationalists, they are criminals plain and simple." The SNP leader makes a valuable point; when tartan terrorists do attempt outrages, their tactics usually define them as nutters, not guerrillas.

Whilst Sinn Fein continue to laud their erstwhile "armed wing" and their electorate seems content to conveniently forget their "occasional unfortunate mistakes", the SNP and their electorate took and takes a firm and principled stand against those attempting to murder for Scotland- that's the essential difference.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I remember in the run-up to the Spanish General election that Fraser Nelson got very excited about about the strategy of Anzar's Conservative Popular Party.

In an effort to fight the demands of civic Catalan and indeed Basque nationalists he tried to confuse them/mix them up with ETA. He said that all internal nationalism within Spain was the same, whether violent or using the democratic system. They had a common aim - to break up Spain. Therefore a vote for civic democratic Catalan nationalism was ipso facto a vote for the ETA campaign.

Nelson (this was in his then Scotsman column) suggested that Blair should use the same trick against the SNP by tarring them with SF/IRA, saying their aim was the same etc.

Of course history proved to be an inconvenience here. A week or so later the Madrid bombings took place and in their attempt to carry on the campaign (and downplay Spain's involvment in Iraq), the Popular Party hung on with the claim that the bombings were ETA's work when it became blindingly obvious it was not.

The Popular Party was thrashed at the elections over this issue of course. Some hardliners to this day still maintain ETA had a hand in the atrocity - in de Nile.

Nelson strangely never advocated such a strategy again.

The SNP has of course gone out of its way to boot out any violent elements. Most famously it chucked out the Paramilitariesc Siol na Gaedhal (Seed of the Gael) crowd.

Strangely there have been reports over the years, particularly in the 1970s of strange people turning up at party meetings and trying to incite "direct action". This would be rejected and the people would disappear again. It is thought these people might be working for the security services trying to act as Agent Provocaturs in an attempt to discredit Scottish nationalism.

The best example of "Tartan Terrorism" in recent times was in my native Aberdeen during the mid-1990s. One SNLA guy - Andy McIntosh - was sent down for 11 eleven years for conspiring to cause explosives and trying to force the government into giving Scotland independence by force of arms.

McIntosh was linked to extremist organisations NEEP (North East Ethnic Party) and Settler Watch which campaigned against English "White Settlers", many of whom had fled to the North East of Scotland during the 1990's recession due to Aberdeen being pretty much economically prosperous during that period.

McIntosh threatend to blow up a bridge in Aberdeen amongst other things.

Some members of Settler Watch were members of the SNP and when they were caught they were expelled from the party. Indeed the entire Aberdeen University SNP branch was expelled from the party for its links with Settler Watch. One of the Settler Watch members busted was German (who had adopted a Scottish name when she had taken British citizenship) who now is a middling light in the Scottish history academia.

McIntosh appeared from jail a broken man. However he was caught in Queensferry on the day that the Queen officially opened the Scottish Parliament building in posession of a gun. Whilst on remand for this he hanged himself.

Settler Watch is not to be confused with Scottish Watch, a more extreme organisation. It tried to hijack the SNP campaign in the 1995 Perth by-election and the candidate (and later SNP deputy leader) Roseanna Cunningham took an interdict (injunction) out against them and any open members of it expelled from the SNP.

Anonymous said...

Oneil

I'm sure that you would love SF to have a cosy relationship with the SNP but not for the reasons you give. I see that you are familiar with the quintessential British tactic of divide and rule.

I'd reckon that the SNP would steer well clear of pallying up with any Irish Republican or Nationalist type party for fear of re-awakening the monster that has been put to bed of late in Scotland. The monster of course being anti-Catholicism.

O'Neill said...

I'd prefer to believe it's a question of the SNP are taking the moral high ground.