
English policies will cause a schism in Scotland
TOM GALLAGHER
If Alex Salmond were really confident that Scotland was a trendsetter in integrating people of Muslim faith or background, he would be more relaxed towards sceptics like me. He might even welcome my contributions to the necessary debate on how best to devise pathways for integration that will enable these new Scots to feel at ease here and their co-citizens to value their presence.
Even though some of my criticisms about the SNP's record in this sensitive field may have been provocative, it is not very sensible simply to brush me aside as "a daft professor", as Mr Salmond did at Bute House on July 31 at an event promoting togetherness.
This defensive attitude is a poor showcase for the kind of Scotland of which, presumably, he would like to be an architect, and it revives legitimate concerns that an
SNP-run Scotland would not have much room for nonconformist voices that challenged its agenda.
My principle concern is that Mr Salmond is establishing a partnership with religious figures and community activists, and not reaching out to Muslims as
individual citizens. This is a failed policy which, when tried out in England, backfired on Conservative Home Secretary Michael Howard and also on Tony Blair and Jack Straw. The only well-known figure continuing to pursue a radical multicultural agenda is London's Mayor Ken Livingstone, with
whom the First Minister had a well-publicised meeting last month.
Such Muslim dialogue partners often wish to advance a religious agenda that gives international loyalties primary consideration or else they hope to obtain special concessions, especially in the educational field.
To campaign like this is their entitlement but it does not necessarily assist those Muslims who wish to set down durable roots in Scottish society. My quarrel is not with Osama Saeed of the Muslim Association of Britain, whom the electronic media has turned into the chief spokesman of the 60,000 strong Muslim community in recent weeks, but with politicians who fail to see that ill-judged initiatives can prove disruptive inside that community.
| Young Muslims, especially, are pulled in different directions | |
|
It is a community in which young people, especially, are pulled in different directions. Besides the appeal of secularism, moderates attached to the Sufi tradition are locked in competition with Islamists who promote a purist form of belief influenced by austere Arabian norms. Some of the latter see salvation as emanating from a politicised form of Islam and, where appropriate, do not rule out violence.
It is right that public figures engage purposefully with the Muslim community, but they need to display a modicum of religious literacy and be aware that huge issues are at stake extending beyond the Scottish arena. Before Mr Salmond states that "we are ahead of virtually every other European country on this", he needs to inform himself of the balance of forces within the Muslim community and also what relations are like between Muslims and non-Muslims in particular localities.
The biggest concentration of Muslims is to be found in Glasgow and its environs, where the SNP, traditionally, has not prospered. I would recommend that he reaches out for advice to figures in other parties and the wider society who are knowledgeable about inter-ethnic relations and who know where the pressure points are. They would include politicians such as
Mohammad Sarwar, the MP for Glasgow Central whose determination to bring to justice the killers of Glasgow teenager Kriss Donald after they fled to Pakistan in 2004, was politics at its most principled.
Mr Salmond might also consult with Labour MPs in the north of England such as Ann Cryer and Shahid Malik who have got very worthwhile insights on how to prevent an enclave identity
growing up which plays into the hands of both white extremists and Muslim radicals.
As someone who has observed inter-communal relations in a
large north of England city with a growing Muslim population, I
would be happy to meet with him
if he feels such an encounter would be beneficial.
Some unenlightened Labour politicians in England have tried to monopolise the Muslim vote in their seats by colluding with clan politics and turning a blind eye to problems within the Muslim community that they wouldn't ignore in other settings. Community relations only suffer as a result.
The SNP needs to resist the temptation to court a narrow range of Muslim voices in parts of Scotland where the party's appeal is still limited, in the hope of obtaining electoral advantage. This means challenging self-styled Muslim leaders on occasion when their statements and actions fall short of expectations.
Otherwise, Alex Salmond will simply be replicating failed English policies and revealing that he
prefers soundbites and simplistic answers to tackling social challenges that will determine the face of Scotland whether under home rule or independence.
Tom Gallagher holds the chair of ethnic peace and conflict studies at Bradford University and has published several books on politics and religion in Scotland.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.

Posted by: Tony, Glasgow on 9:59pm Thu 2 Aug 07
I can't help feeling this is a job application...
I can't help feeling this is a job application...
Posted by: Scottish Politics on 10:14pm Thu 2 Aug 07
Tony, in job applications it's not really the custom to insult the person in charge! ;) I get what you mean about the tone of the article though.
Tony, in job applications it's not really the custom to insult the person in charge! ;) I get what you mean about the tone of the article though.
Posted by: ratzo on 10:28pm Thu 2 Aug 07
The info at the end on Gallagher is a bit misleading. He's not published 'several' books on politics and religion in Scotland. He's joint-edited two, and written one on religious division. None of them are noteworthy.
But in any case, this is just tired old rubbish. Gallagher has been obsessed with the SNP for decades. A daft professor is just exactly what he is, in this case at least.
The info at the end on Gallagher is a bit misleading. He's not published 'several' books on politics and religion in Scotland. He's joint-edited two, and written one on religious division. None of them are noteworthy.
But in any case, this is just tired old rubbish. Gallagher has been obsessed with the SNP for decades. A daft professor is just exactly what he is, in this case at least.
Posted by: Biffa on 10:42pm Thu 2 Aug 07
" it is not very sensible simply to brush me aside as "a daft professor"
Aye it is.
" it is not very sensible simply to brush me aside as "a daft professor"
Aye it is.
Posted by: Dougthedug on 11:06pm Thu 2 Aug 07
[quote]"If Alex Salmond were really confident that Scotland was a trendsetter in integrating people of Muslim faith or background, he would be more relaxed towards sceptics like me. He might even welcome my contributions to the necessary debate on how best to devise pathways for integration that will enable these new Scots to feel at ease here and their co-citizens to value their presence."[/quote]
Aye right. Mr. Gallagher's got a guid conceit of himself. If you want to start a dialogue with the SNP and Alex Salmond don't write articles in the Spectator saying things like,
"Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond will preside at the ceremony honouring Smeaton and the other heroes. This will only spoil the occasion because of the way the leader of the Scottish National Party and his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, have handled the terrorist attack."
[quote]"Even though some of my criticisms about the SNP's record in this sensitive field may have been provocative, it is not very sensible simply to brush me aside as "a daft professor", as Mr Salmond did at Bute House on July 31 at an event promoting togetherness."[/quote]
Not sensible. Very, very Sensible. Try reading the article folks. You can still get it on Google cache on:
http://64.233.183.10
4/search?q=cache:wIm
uf1jBttkJ:www.specta
tor.co.uk/the-magazi
ne/features/60806/th
e-snp-is-playing-a-d
eadly-game-with-isla
m.thtml
Professor Tom Gallagher holds the chair of ethnic peace and conflict studies at Bradford University. If the Spectator article was the start of his dialogue with the SNP he started well with the conflict part anyway. If the US wants a war with Iran, they should send Mr. Gallagher in as their chief negotiator. It will be quicker and easier than manufacturing some Gulf of Tonkin style incident
[quote]"This defensive attitude is a poor showcase for the kind of Scotland of which, presumably, he would like to be an architect, and it revives legitimate concerns that an SNP-run Scotland would not have much room for nonconformist voices that challenged its agenda."[/quote]
Defensive attitude? This is what Mr. Gallagher wrote in his Spectator article, "Due to their preoccupation with tribal politics, I contend that the SNP should stay away from the ceremony honouring the civic valour of the (Glasgow) airport heroes."
Whose concerns and who said they were legitimate? Maybe Prof. Tom Gallagher think he's a non-conformist but in both his Spectator article and this one he comes across as another Labour numpty to me. With lots of academic bull-**** bingo laden vocabulary thrown in to lard the pudding.
[snip] A lot of patronising waffle from Mr. Gallagher about moslems [snip]
[snip] A lot of patronising waffle about how Alex Salmond should seek proper advice from Labour MP's [snip]
[quote]"As someone who has observed inter-communal relations in a large north of England city with a growing Muslim population, I would be happy to meet with him if he feels such an encounter would be beneficial."[/quote]
I suspect that Alex Salmond would neither be happy to meet nor gain any benefit from a meeting..
[snip] More patronising advice [snip]
Tony, Scottish Politics:
It does look like a plea for work. Hasn't he worked out that Labour isn't in power in Scotland anymore and that bashing the SNP is not the route to riches?
"If Alex Salmond were really confident that Scotland was a trendsetter in integrating people of Muslim faith or background, he would be more relaxed towards sceptics like me. He might even welcome my contributions to the necessary debate on how best to devise pathways for integration that will enable these new Scots to feel at ease here and their co-citizens to value their presence."
Aye right. Mr. Gallagher's got a guid conceit of himself. If you want to start a dialogue with the SNP and Alex Salmond don't write articles in the Spectator saying things like,
"Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond will preside at the ceremony honouring Smeaton and the other heroes. This will only spoil the occasion because of the way the leader of the Scottish National Party and his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, have handled the terrorist attack."
"Even though some of my criticisms about the SNP's record in this sensitive field may have been provocative, it is not very sensible simply to brush me aside as "a daft professor", as Mr Salmond did at Bute House on July 31 at an event promoting togetherness."
Not sensible. Very, very Sensible. Try reading the article folks. You can still get it on Google cache on:
http://64.233.183.10
4/search?q=cache:wIm
uf1jBttkJ:www.specta
tor.co.uk/the-magazi
ne/features/60806/th
e-snp-is-playing-a-d
eadly-game-with-isla
m.thtml
Professor Tom Gallagher holds the chair of ethnic peace and conflict studies at Bradford University. If the Spectator article was the start of his dialogue with the SNP he started well with the conflict part anyway. If the US wants a war with Iran, they should send Mr. Gallagher in as their chief negotiator. It will be quicker and easier than manufacturing some Gulf of Tonkin style incident
"This defensive attitude is a poor showcase for the kind of Scotland of which, presumably, he would like to be an architect, and it revives legitimate concerns that an SNP-run Scotland would not have much room for nonconformist voices that challenged its agenda."
Defensive attitude? This is what Mr. Gallagher wrote in his Spectator article, "Due to their preoccupation with tribal politics, I contend that the SNP should stay away from the ceremony honouring the civic valour of the (Glasgow) airport heroes."
Whose concerns and who said they were legitimate? Maybe Prof. Tom Gallagher think he's a non-conformist but in both his Spectator article and this one he comes across as another Labour numpty to me. With lots of academic bull-**** bingo laden vocabulary thrown in to lard the pudding.
A lot of patronising waffle from Mr. Gallagher about moslems
A lot of patronising waffle about how Alex Salmond should seek proper advice from Labour MP's
"As someone who has observed inter-communal relations in a large north of England city with a growing Muslim population, I would be happy to meet with him if he feels such an encounter would be beneficial."
I suspect that Alex Salmond would neither be happy to meet nor gain any benefit from a meeting..
More patronising advice
Tony, Scottish Politics:
It does look like a plea for work. Hasn't he worked out that Labour isn't in power in Scotland anymore and that bashing the SNP is not the route to riches?
Posted by: Jam Tart on 11:50pm Thu 2 Aug 07
Ratzo you are right about Gallagher, the only thing anyone needs to know when reading anything he writes about Scotland is that he detests the SNP. This article was just a vehicle to have a go at Salmond using a subject on which he considers himself to be some kind of expert.
A far more interesting academic study would be " Why is Gallagher obsessed with the SNP? Is it just more tiresome British Nationalism or did Alex Salmond steal his teddy when he was small?"
Ratzo you are right about Gallagher, the only thing anyone needs to know when reading anything he writes about Scotland is that he detests the SNP. This article was just a vehicle to have a go at Salmond using a subject on which he considers himself to be some kind of expert.
A far more interesting academic study would be " Why is Gallagher obsessed with the SNP? Is it just more tiresome British Nationalism or did Alex Salmond steal his teddy when he was small?"
Posted by: suck england dry on 12:03am Fri 3 Aug 07
wow, little scotlanders are out in force tonight....
wow, little scotlanders are out in force tonight....
Posted by: Jam Tart on 12:15am Fri 3 Aug 07
comment at 12.03am Prime Minister! How was your trip?
comment at 12.03am Prime Minister! How was your trip?
Posted by: Karenisabitch, Somewhere and Nowhere on 2:18am Fri 3 Aug 07
This rubbish first appeared in the Spectator which says it all rilly...
This rubbish first appeared in the Spectator which says it all rilly...
Posted by: donald, glasgow on 7:10am Fri 3 Aug 07
Uncle Tom Gallagher. English University policies.
Uncle Tom Gallagher. English University policies.
Posted by: Brian W, Renfrew on 7:38am Fri 3 Aug 07
Dear Mr.Gallagher,
You want Alex Salmond to welcome your contribution to the debate?
As far as I can see you have not contributed to the debate you have slung mud at the SNP, thats not debating the issue at hand.
Why does he need your advise ? From the tone of your articles both here and in the Spectator you have your own agenda which streches back long before the present Executive had ever been in power. Scepticism isnt the word for what you are displaying towards the new SNP government, it's abject hostility , so remind me again why would Mr.Salmond welcome your contribution ?
Dear Mr.Gallagher,
You want Alex Salmond to welcome your contribution to the debate?
As far as I can see you have not contributed to the debate you have slung mud at the SNP, thats not debating the issue at hand.
Why does he need your advise ? From the tone of your articles both here and in the Spectator you have your own agenda which streches back long before the present Executive had ever been in power. Scepticism isnt the word for what you are displaying towards the new SNP government, it's abject hostility , so remind me again why would Mr.Salmond welcome your contribution ?
Posted by: K Wilson, UK on 7:42am Fri 3 Aug 07
There is not the remotest likelihood of Muslims ever being integrated into British society. Their loyalty is to Islam a totolitarian belief system encompassing all aspects of life. Their values are incompatible with democracy and Western society. They will never integrate to any significant degree and will be a permanent threat to the stability of the country. The political aim should be their expulsion from Western society. As a start, the cessation of further Muslim immigration and deportation of illegals should be implemented.
There is not the remotest likelihood of Muslims ever being integrated into British society. Their loyalty is to Islam a totolitarian belief system encompassing all aspects of life. Their values are incompatible with democracy and Western society. They will never integrate to any significant degree and will be a permanent threat to the stability of the country. The political aim should be their expulsion from Western society. As a start, the cessation of further Muslim immigration and deportation of illegals should be implemented.
Posted by: Harry, Glasgow on 8:53am Fri 3 Aug 07
What this posting reveals is that anyone that dares to challenge the SNP or, heaven forbid, Salmond himself is instantly dismissed by the frothing at the mouth SNP supporters who castigate any opposition.
Lighten up guys!
What this posting reveals is that anyone that dares to challenge the SNP or, heaven forbid, Salmond himself is instantly dismissed by the frothing at the mouth SNP supporters who castigate any opposition.
Lighten up guys!
Posted by: Mac, Dundee on 9:10am Fri 3 Aug 07
This message was brought to you by the Labour party.
56 days detention rules OK.
This message was brought to you by the Labour party.
56 days detention rules OK.
Posted by: Andrew, Edinburgh on 9:26am Fri 3 Aug 07
I agree with Gallagher. I don't know whther he is angling for a job or not, but his assessment is spot on.
Alex has done well so far, but he is barking up the wrong tree with this one. There is no case for treating unelected unaccountable activists as spokespersons for a whole community on little more grounds than that they are members of the same religion and have the same coloured skin.
The Muslim community (or communities) should only be represented by legally elected councillors MSPs and other represenatives. Religious spokesmen will always take the most reactionary view, as will many of the greybeards who currently take it upon themselves to speak "for the community". If this line is pursued muslim women, gays, those of liberal views, or those who decide that they do not wish to be muslim, will effectively be ignored at best and at worst left to the mercies of reactionaries in their own ethnic/religious grouping - and all with the blessing of the first minister. This will not do. We have seen enough of honour killings and the like that could have been avoided if individual human rights were put ahead of humouring interest groups among minorities.
Alex has done well so far, but in this instance he needs to take soundings on the experience of others in England and beyond. This is far too potentially serious for him to act cocky about.
I for one do not want to see young muslims in twenty years time telling us how their lives were blighted by policies that effectively left the muslim community to go its own way through a combination of laziness, ignorance and soft racism, just because it was the easiest option at the time.
I agree with Gallagher. I don't know whther he is angling for a job or not, but his assessment is spot on.
Alex has done well so far, but he is barking up the wrong tree with this one. There is no case for treating unelected unaccountable activists as spokespersons for a whole community on little more grounds than that they are members of the same religion and have the same coloured skin.
The Muslim community (or communities) should only be represented by legally elected councillors MSPs and other represenatives. Religious spokesmen will always take the most reactionary view, as will many of the greybeards who currently take it upon themselves to speak "for the community". If this line is pursued muslim women, gays, those of liberal views, or those who decide that they do not wish to be muslim, will effectively be ignored at best and at worst left to the mercies of reactionaries in their own ethnic/religious grouping - and all with the blessing of the first minister. This will not do. We have seen enough of honour killings and the like that could have been avoided if individual human rights were put ahead of humouring interest groups among minorities.
Alex has done well so far, but in this instance he needs to take soundings on the experience of others in England and beyond. This is far too potentially serious for him to act cocky about.
I for one do not want to see young muslims in twenty years time telling us how their lives were blighted by policies that effectively left the muslim community to go its own way through a combination of laziness, ignorance and soft racism, just because it was the easiest option at the time.
Posted by: Mac, Dundee on 11:13am Fri 3 Aug 07
Tom Gallagher's comments on this matter are an absolute disgrace.
The tone, the rhetoric, the wording from the outset, he has written quite extensively on this matter since the attack on Glasgow airport, has been to use the legitimate concerns expressed in the Muslim community in Scotland, specifically Glasgow, as a stick to beat the SNP, in particular Alex Salmond.
Tom Gallagher's comments on this matter are an absolute disgrace.
The tone, the rhetoric, the wording from the outset, he has written quite extensively on this matter since the attack on Glasgow airport, has been to use the legitimate concerns expressed in the Muslim community in Scotland, specifically Glasgow, as a stick to beat the SNP, in particular Alex Salmond.
Posted by: Mike on 11:18am Fri 3 Aug 07
This is a weird one right enough. I haven't heard of him before but Tom Gallagher does seem to have issues with the SNP which are clouding his judgement. I see he's listed as working in Bradford, anyone know if he is Scottish? I'm curious because most of the people who really hate the Nats are Labour supporting Scots.
This is a weird one right enough. I haven't heard of him before but Tom Gallagher does seem to have issues with the SNP which are clouding his judgement. I see he's listed as working in Bradford, anyone know if he is Scottish? I'm curious because most of the people who really hate the Nats are Labour supporting Scots.
Posted by: talorthane on 11:19am Fri 3 Aug 07
"If Alex Salmond were really confident that Scotland was a trendsetter in integrating people of Muslim faith or background, he would be more relaxed towards sceptics like me."
It seems a bit arrogant to state that the test of whether Alex Salmond is confident of Scotland's cultural integration is whether the First Minister is willing to engage with Professor Gallagher or not, regardless of what Professor Gallagher may say, how he interprets events, and how he communicates this through the media. Especially when the statement is made by Professor Gallagher himself.
Professor Gallagher's initiation of this debate, which he acknowledges here (partially) as not having been constructive, was not the writing of a sceptic on the matters in hand, but a politically motivated attack on the SNP, where numerous misrepresentations were made.
Sadly, whether as a result of arrogance, over-sensitivity or some other reason, he does so again here. Alex Salmond did not describe Gallagher as "daft professor", but said that "even respected professors could be daft sometimes", which was much less personal or critical than Gallagher's comments about Salmond.
If Professor Gallaghre wants to be respected as an academic, he needs to stop acting as a politician.
"If Alex Salmond were really confident that Scotland was a trendsetter in integrating people of Muslim faith or background, he would be more relaxed towards sceptics like me."
It seems a bit arrogant to state that the test of whether Alex Salmond is confident of Scotland's cultural integration is whether the First Minister is willing to engage with Professor Gallagher or not, regardless of what Professor Gallagher may say, how he interprets events, and how he communicates this through the media. Especially when the statement is made by Professor Gallagher himself.
Professor Gallagher's initiation of this debate, which he acknowledges here (partially) as not having been constructive, was not the writing of a sceptic on the matters in hand, but a politically motivated attack on the SNP, where numerous misrepresentations were made.
Sadly, whether as a result of arrogance, over-sensitivity or some other reason, he does so again here. Alex Salmond did not describe Gallagher as "daft professor", but said that "even respected professors could be daft sometimes", which was much less personal or critical than Gallagher's comments about Salmond.
If Professor Gallaghre wants to be respected as an academic, he needs to stop acting as a politician.
Posted by: talorthane on 11:22am Fri 3 Aug 07
Mike 11:18am
Professor Gallagher is credited with a great deal of research into the catholic migrations from Ireland to Scotland and the Labour Party in Scotland.
I presume he is Scottish. He certainly has a long standing attachment to the Labour Party.
Mike 11:18am
Professor Gallagher is credited with a great deal of research into the catholic migrations from Ireland to Scotland and the Labour Party in Scotland.
I presume he is Scottish. He certainly has a long standing attachment to the Labour Party.
Posted by: Richard Thomson on 11:44am Fri 3 Aug 07
Tom Gallagher is Scottish to the best of my knowledge. For what it's worth, he has managed to write with insight and sensitivity before on the subject of the SNP in a book called 'Nationalism in the Nineties', to which he contributed a few years ago. His, as I seem to recall, was a fantastic article - balanced, fair and critical to boot, but also quite respectful for someone who was clearly a Labour supporter.
That said, his insight and sensitivity seemed to desert him entirely in that Spectator article. I think Alex Salmond is smart enough to recognise that 'community leaders' don't always speak for everyone, and doesn't need someone like Gallagher to point that out, far less in the incendiary manner in which he chose to do so.
Seems to me as a Scot in London that race relations are quite different north and south of the border. Just because there's a received wisdom building down here that multiculturalism has failed, doesn't mean that's also the case in Scotland where the issues and personalities are quite different. That's not to big up Scotland necessarilly, but Gallagher should beware of viewing Scottish issues solely through a Labour party and predominantly southern prism.
Tom Gallagher is Scottish to the best of my knowledge. For what it's worth, he has managed to write with insight and sensitivity before on the subject of the SNP in a book called 'Nationalism in the Nineties', to which he contributed a few years ago. His, as I seem to recall, was a fantastic article - balanced, fair and critical to boot, but also quite respectful for someone who was clearly a Labour supporter.
That said, his insight and sensitivity seemed to desert him entirely in that Spectator article. I think Alex Salmond is smart enough to recognise that 'community leaders' don't always speak for everyone, and doesn't need someone like Gallagher to point that out, far less in the incendiary manner in which he chose to do so.
Seems to me as a Scot in London that race relations are quite different north and south of the border. Just because there's a received wisdom building down here that multiculturalism has failed, doesn't mean that's also the case in Scotland where the issues and personalities are quite different. That's not to big up Scotland necessarilly, but Gallagher should beware of viewing Scottish issues solely through a Labour party and predominantly southern prism.
Posted by: Tom Gallagher, Edinburgh on 12:17pm Fri 3 Aug 07
The most persistent complaints made about me in this forum is that I am a Labour supporter on a mission to damage the SNP.
Although there is no way of verifying it, let me place on record that I voted for the SNP on 3 May in the local elections and for Kenny McAskill and Margo McDonald, the Independent nationalist, for the Holyrood contest.
my reasons for voting in this way were straightforward ones. After over a quarter-of-a-century of Labour domination, i felt edinburgh desperately needed a change and I was deeply unimpressed by the Labour choices on offer for Holyrood; I also respected Margo McDonald for her commitment to public service and for reaching decisions not on the basis of party necessity but what best suited the voters..
It is not always the case that an academic must write and speak in obscure or neutral language. Sometimes, a polemical style is called for, especially in order to challenge a master of the media like Alex Salmond. I have written about troubling religious issues with restraint and a lack of bias but I feel that the simplistic approach of our First Minister, and also his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon towards Scotland's Muslims deserves a more robust approach. I notice that few contributors actually engage with the arguments I make or try to defend the SNP position on engaging with Muslims as a community rather than as individual citizens. Instead, they react with fury because I assail Alex Salmond and his competence in this area. Regrettably, it merely confirms a widespread impatience with alternative views within the SNP that bodes ill for independence if it comes. It suggests that Scotland will be a rigid and highly conformist place where 'speaking out of turn' will occur at a cost. This was how ireland was for several generations after it obtained its independence in the 1920s.
Ironically, one of the most prominent victims of the SNP's impatience of criticism was Alex Salmond himself whe he was expelled from the party in the 1980s because the leadership felt his republican views were too radical. This conformist spirit is not confined to the SNP but is also manifest in the Labour Party but not to the same extent.
Independent spirits like Frank Field and Gisela Stewart can keep their place in the Labour Party while in the SNP such people are often shown the door. I see myself as doing the SNP a favour by encouraging it to critically **** the value of some of Alex Salmond's policies. It will be the sign of a mature, self-confident party when it can accommodate the views of critics like me. Otherwise, if all hell breaks loose because Alex is taken to task for a policy i don't think he has carefully thought through, the party displays a very unflattering image and will not win over the army of doubters who lie between it and its Holy Grail of independence..
The most persistent complaints made about me in this forum is that I am a Labour supporter on a mission to damage the SNP.
Although there is no way of verifying it, let me place on record that I voted for the SNP on 3 May in the local elections and for Kenny McAskill and Margo McDonald, the Independent nationalist, for the Holyrood contest.
my reasons for voting in this way were straightforward ones. After over a quarter-of-a-century of Labour domination, i felt edinburgh desperately needed a change and I was deeply unimpressed by the Labour choices on offer for Holyrood; I also respected Margo McDonald for her commitment to public service and for reaching decisions not on the basis of party necessity but what best suited the voters..
It is not always the case that an academic must write and speak in obscure or neutral language. Sometimes, a polemical style is called for, especially in order to challenge a master of the media like Alex Salmond. I have written about troubling religious issues with restraint and a lack of bias but I feel that the simplistic approach of our First Minister, and also his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon towards Scotland's Muslims deserves a more robust approach. I notice that few contributors actually engage with the arguments I make or try to defend the SNP position on engaging with Muslims as a community rather than as individual citizens. Instead, they react with fury because I assail Alex Salmond and his competence in this area. Regrettably, it merely confirms a widespread impatience with alternative views within the SNP that bodes ill for independence if it comes. It suggests that Scotland will be a rigid and highly conformist place where 'speaking out of turn' will occur at a cost. This was how ireland was for several generations after it obtained its independence in the 1920s.
Ironically, one of the most prominent victims of the SNP's impatience of criticism was Alex Salmond himself whe he was expelled from the party in the 1980s because the leadership felt his republican views were too radical. This conformist spirit is not confined to the SNP but is also manifest in the Labour Party but not to the same extent.
Independent spirits like Frank Field and Gisela Stewart can keep their place in the Labour Party while in the SNP such people are often shown the door. I see myself as doing the SNP a favour by encouraging it to critically **** the value of some of Alex Salmond's policies. It will be the sign of a mature, self-confident party when it can accommodate the views of critics like me. Otherwise, if all hell breaks loose because Alex is taken to task for a policy i don't think he has carefully thought through, the party displays a very unflattering image and will not win over the army of doubters who lie between it and its Holy Grail of independence..
Posted by: talorthane on 12:31pm Fri 3 Aug 07
Professor Gallagher
I appreciate you comments here and the views put forward in this post. From your comments in the article about, I think you'll agree that the tone of your comments on this page are more cordial than your article in the Spectator.
I think that article got this debate off on the wrong foot due to some of the comments within it; such as the repeated use of "co-religionists" , that seemed to associate the likes of Bashir Ahmad MSP with the perpetrators of the attack on Glasgow Aiport, and the suggestion that Alex Salmond was against intervention in the Balkans (and therefore previously unconcerned about Muslim isses) when, in fact, his opposition was not to intervetion per se but to the bombing campaign of Belgrade that was proposed.
These misunderstandings may have more to do with the subsequent disagreements than the more considered views you have put forward here.
Professor Gallagher
I appreciate you comments here and the views put forward in this post. From your comments in the article about, I think you'll agree that the tone of your comments on this page are more cordial than your article in the Spectator.
I think that article got this debate off on the wrong foot due to some of the comments within it; such as the repeated use of "co-religionists" , that seemed to associate the likes of Bashir Ahmad MSP with the perpetrators of the attack on Glasgow Aiport, and the suggestion that Alex Salmond was against intervention in the Balkans (and therefore previously unconcerned about Muslim isses) when, in fact, his opposition was not to intervetion per se but to the bombing campaign of Belgrade that was proposed.
These misunderstandings may have more to do with the subsequent disagreements than the more considered views you have put forward here.
Posted by: Mac, Dundee on 1:13pm Fri 3 Aug 07
Professor Gallagher
You must be aware that your tone, your rhetoric, your wording in this article is not dissimilar in anyway from a torrent of articles highly critical of the SNP, and in particular Alex Salmond, that Scots have been witness to in the run up to the May elections, and the reaction to SNP victory since then, by various Labour politicians, Labour news hacks, academics and business leaders.
Objective criticism is one thing, invective based on a political viewpoint another.
Your article only damages your own credibility and represents a scholarly piece on 'what not to do' when academia enters the political arena.
Professor Gallagher
You must be aware that your tone, your rhetoric, your wording in this article is not dissimilar in anyway from a torrent of articles highly critical of the SNP, and in particular Alex Salmond, that Scots have been witness to in the run up to the May elections, and the reaction to SNP victory since then, by various Labour politicians, Labour news hacks, academics and business leaders.
Objective criticism is one thing, invective based on a political viewpoint another.
Your article only damages your own credibility and represents a scholarly piece on 'what not to do' when academia enters the political arena.
Posted by: ratzo on 1:38pm Fri 3 Aug 07
OK Tom so you got it wrong, no biggie.
OK Tom so you got it wrong, no biggie.
Posted by: Dougthedug on 1:44pm Fri 3 Aug 07
Professor Gallagher:
[quote]"let me place on record that I voted for the SNP on 3 May in the local elections and for Kenny McAskill and Margo McDonald, the Independent nationalist, for the Holyrood contest."[/quote]
OK so you didn't vote Labour, but going for the throat in your Spectator article, (and others), and then complaining that Alex Salmond won't talk to you is the action of the professional victim rather than a seasoned negotiator. What did you expect?
"It will be the sign of a mature, self-confident party when it can accommodate the views of critics like me."
In other words, until the SNP recognise me as important they're not mature. As I said, you've got a guid conceit of yourself.
You also wrote this in another article:
http://www.opendemoc
racy.net/conflicts/d
emocracy_terror/scot
land_islam
"A potent aspect of Salmond's ebullient political persona is his lack of shame, a quality reinforced by an amnesiac media who show no willingness to examine his record in relation to issues where Muslims have been centrally involved. In March-June 1999, for example, Britain was a leading participant in the war over Kosovo in the attempt to halt the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic's systematic repression of the (mainly Muslim) Kosovar Albanians. Salmond was a vehement opponent of the Nato campaign, and famously described the organisation's (so far) only military action on European soil as "an act of unpardonable folly". This capped a decade when he had remained silent throughout years of Milosevic-sponsored aggression against the Kosovars' co-religionist Bosniaks in former Yugoslavia."
Not only wrong but badly wrong.
The only control on the Serbian Army in Kosovo at that time was the presence of OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) Civilian Monitors. These were withdrawn on the 20th of March 1999 before the bombing campaign started on the 24th. However it was not till the 28th that the bombing was switched from Serbia proper to military targets inside Kosovo, principally because the Americans realised that they had now unleashed full scale ethnic cleansing in the province. Before this there were refugees from the fighting between the KLA and the Serbian Army but there was no ethnic cleansing, despite the subsequent media hype. As Alex Salmond warned, it was the bombing campaign and the withdrawal of the OSCE monitors that let the Serbian Army off the leash.
Only the year before the US special envoy for Kosovo, Robert Gelbard said, 'The UCK (KLA) is, without any questions, a terrorist group,' giving Serbia the green light to crack down on the KLA and ramp up the violence within Kosovo. The end result of the bombing campaign was to create a province which is now ruled by criminal gangs dealing in drugs and women across Europe and where the KFOR force is used to protect ghettos of the remaining Serbs.
So let's tick it off, you're personally abusive, your happy to regurgitate the disinformation of the Labour press as fact and you appear to be a professional victim.
I can't see anything suprising in Alex Salmond dismissing your views.
Professor Gallagher:
"let me place on record that I voted for the SNP on 3 May in the local elections and for Kenny McAskill and Margo McDonald, the Independent nationalist, for the Holyrood contest."
OK so you didn't vote Labour, but going for the throat in your Spectator article, (and others), and then complaining that Alex Salmond won't talk to you is the action of the professional victim rather than a seasoned negotiator. What did you expect?
"It will be the sign of a mature, self-confident party when it can accommodate the views of critics like me."
In other words, until the SNP recognise me as important they're not mature. As I said, you've got a guid conceit of yourself.
You also wrote this in another article:
http://www.opendemoc
racy.net/conflicts/d
emocracy_terror/scot
land_islam
"A potent aspect of Salmond's ebullient political persona is his lack of shame, a quality reinforced by an amnesiac media who show no willingness to examine his record in relation to issues where Muslims have been centrally involved. In March-June 1999, for example, Britain was a leading participant in the war over Kosovo in the attempt to halt the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic's systematic repression of the (mainly Muslim) Kosovar Albanians. Salmond was a vehement opponent of the Nato campaign, and famously described the organisation's (so far) only military action on European soil as "an act of unpardonable folly". This capped a decade when he had remained silent throughout years of Milosevic-sponsored aggression against the Kosovars' co-religionist Bosniaks in former Yugoslavia."
Not only wrong but badly wrong.
The only control on the Serbian Army in Kosovo at that time was the presence of OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) Civilian Monitors. These were withdrawn on the 20th of March 1999 before the bombing campaign started on the 24th. However it was not till the 28th that the bombing was switched from Serbia proper to military targets inside Kosovo, principally because the Americans realised that they had now unleashed full scale ethnic cleansing in the province. Before this there were refugees from the fighting between the KLA and the Serbian Army but there was no ethnic cleansing, despite the subsequent media hype. As Alex Salmond warned, it was the bombing campaign and the withdrawal of the OSCE monitors that let the Serbian Army off the leash.
Only the year before the US special envoy for Kosovo, Robert Gelbard said, 'The UCK (KLA) is, without any questions, a terrorist group,' giving Serbia the green light to crack down on the KLA and ramp up the violence within Kosovo. The end result of the bombing campaign was to create a province which is now ruled by criminal gangs dealing in drugs and women across Europe and where the KFOR force is used to protect ghettos of the remaining Serbs.
So let's tick it off, you're personally abusive, your happy to regurgitate the disinformation of the Labour press as fact and you appear to be a professional victim.
I can't see anything suprising in Alex Salmond dismissing your views.
Posted by: Euan, Glasgow on 3:21pm Fri 3 Aug 07
More nonsense from Mr Gallagher, this time he even contradicts himself in the space of a few paragraphs.
How can he chastise Alex Salmond for establishing relations with muslim community activists then recommend he establish relations with 'wider society who are knowledgeable about inter-ethnic relations'
Why does the Herald continue to print this dribble?
[quote]My principle concern is that Mr Salmond is establishing a partnership with religious figures and community activists, and not reaching out to Muslims as individual citizens[/quote]
[quote] I would recommend that he reaches out for advice to figures in other parties and the wider society who are knowledgeable about inter-ethnic relations and who know where the pressure points are.[/quote]
More nonsense from Mr Gallagher, this time he even contradicts himself in the space of a few paragraphs.
How can he chastise Alex Salmond for establishing relations with muslim community activists then recommend he establish relations with 'wider society who are knowledgeable about inter-ethnic relations'
Why does the Herald continue to print this dribble?
My principle concern is that Mr Salmond is establishing a partnership with religious figures and community activists, and not reaching out to Muslims as individual citizens
I would recommend that he reaches out for advice to figures in other parties and the wider society who are knowledgeable about inter-ethnic relations and who know where the pressure points are.
Posted by: Miss Priss, Glasgow on 3:57pm Fri 3 Aug 07
'The biggest concentration of Muslims is to be found in Glasgow and its environs, where the SNP, traditionally, has not prospered.'
Er. That would be in Govan constituency - which the SNP won - and Kelvin constituency - which the SNP came within 1,207 votes of winning. No points for observation.
I also note that Gallagher makes no reference whatsoever to the SNP's Asian MSP and councillors.
Has he done any research at all? For example, does he think that Alex Salmond doesn't know Mohammed Sarwar? Of course he does. They are both Scottish MPs who fought against the Iraq war and Sarwar and Nicola Stugeon are in the same constituency.
This I am afraid is a case of someone trying to impose his own interpretation of things on a country and people he does not understand.
He really is a daftie.
'The biggest concentration of Muslims is to be found in Glasgow and its environs, where the SNP, traditionally, has not prospered.'
Er. That would be in Govan constituency - which the SNP won - and Kelvin constituency - which the SNP came within 1,207 votes of winning. No points for observation.
I also note that Gallagher makes no reference whatsoever to the SNP's Asian MSP and councillors.
Has he done any research at all? For example, does he think that Alex Salmond doesn't know Mohammed Sarwar? Of course he does. They are both Scottish MPs who fought against the Iraq war and Sarwar and Nicola Stugeon are in the same constituency.
This I am afraid is a case of someone trying to impose his own interpretation of things on a country and people he does not understand.
He really is a daftie.
Posted by: Aunt Doris, La La Land on 4:07pm Fri 3 Aug 07
I really feel sorry for Professor Gallagher. Yes he seems to be conceited. Yes, the article is badly written. Yes, his arguments might seem conradictory and "daft". But he doesn't deserve the comprehensive battering he has taken in this comment section.
People should be allowed to speak out against the SNP without being struck down in thunder.
Professor Gallagher, some constructive criticism: you could have been so much more effective if you had got the tone of the article right.
I really feel sorry for Professor Gallagher. Yes he seems to be conceited. Yes, the article is badly written. Yes, his arguments might seem conradictory and "daft". But he doesn't deserve the comprehensive battering he has taken in this comment section.
People should be allowed to speak out against the SNP without being struck down in thunder.
Professor Gallagher, some constructive criticism: you could have been so much more effective if you had got the tone of the article right.
Posted by: Mark, Edinburgh on 4:41pm Fri 3 Aug 07
How deeply depressing. Are we not allowed to oppose Alex Salmond? Tom Gallagher's criticism of Salmond is excellent. I'm sure the SNP supporters wouldn't like it if they weren't allowed to disagree with Labour.
How deeply depressing. Are we not allowed to oppose Alex Salmond? Tom Gallagher's criticism of Salmond is excellent. I'm sure the SNP supporters wouldn't like it if they weren't allowed to disagree with Labour.
Posted by: Miss Priss on 5:23pm Fri 3 Aug 07
Mark you can oppose Alex Salmond all you like. But there is something quite nasty about this article. That is why people are annoyed.
Take this statement for example:
'Such Muslim dialogue partners often wish to advance a religious agenda that gives international loyalties primary consideration or else they hope to obtain special concessions, especially in the educational field. To campaign like this is their entitlement but it does not necessarily assist those Muslims who wish to set down durable roots in Scottish society.'
So is he saying that people who want Muslim schools for example do not have durable roots in Scottish society?
There are many opinions about denominational schools - I don't agree with them myself.
But I think if it was suggested that supporting the Catholic, Episcopalian and Jewish schools that already exist in Scotland would not assist Catholics/Episcopali
ans/Jews to set down durable roots in Scottish society' there would be a bit of an outcry don't you?
So why is it OK to say that about Muslims?
Mark you can oppose Alex Salmond all you like. But there is something quite nasty about this article. That is why people are annoyed.
Take this statement for example:
'Such Muslim dialogue partners often wish to advance a religious agenda that gives international loyalties primary consideration or else they hope to obtain special concessions, especially in the educational field. To campaign like this is their entitlement but it does not necessarily assist those Muslims who wish to set down durable roots in Scottish society.'
So is he saying that people who want Muslim schools for example do not have durable roots in Scottish society?
There are many opinions about denominational schools - I don't agree with them myself.
But I think if it was suggested that supporting the Catholic, Episcopalian and Jewish schools that already exist in Scotland would not assist Catholics/Episcopali
ans/Jews to set down durable roots in Scottish society' there would be a bit of an outcry don't you?
So why is it OK to say that about Muslims?
Posted by: Mike on 6:43pm Fri 3 Aug 07
Mark 4.41
I am a little concerned by your comment. You (and he for that matter) seem to be saying that Tom Gallagher should be able make a personal attack on Alex Salmond and the SNP with impunity .If people disagree with his article and many apparently do, it is "deeply depressing"
Why?
He should expect such distinctive opinions to come in for robust criticism. He seems, in his infinite academic wisdom to want to" tell us how it is " without the inconvenience of being challenged . Surely in this case it is Professor Gallagher himself who objects to people "speaking out of turn".
Mark 4.41
I am a little concerned by your comment. You (and he for that matter) seem to be saying that Tom Gallagher should be able make a personal attack on Alex Salmond and the SNP with impunity .If people disagree with his article and many apparently do, it is "deeply depressing"
Why?
He should expect such distinctive opinions to come in for robust criticism. He seems, in his infinite academic wisdom to want to" tell us how it is " without the inconvenience of being challenged . Surely in this case it is Professor Gallagher himself who objects to people "speaking out of turn".
Posted by: Not tellin on 7:18pm Fri 3 Aug 07
There's no need to swear Professor Gallagher ;-)
There's no need to swear Professor Gallagher ;-)
Posted by: MsJ, Glasgow on 8:51pm Fri 3 Aug 07
Tom............who are you exactly?
Tom............who are you exactly?
Posted by: Wee Fifer, Edinburgh on 3:05pm Sat 4 Aug 07
Dougthedug on 1:44pm Fri 3 Aug 07
The ubiquitous Professor Gallagher is not only an expert on Scotland, multiculturalism and all the rest of it, he is also the author of a number of awful books on politics in the countries of the Balkans, including countries in the former Yugoslavia that he knows nothing about. His 'books' on Romania are particularly awful. Thankfully for the inhabitants of the Balkan peninsula this nutcase never had much of a say in advising or otherwise down in that troubled part of the world, and hopefully he won't get any involvement up here. The idea that you have to be careful about talking to self-appointed "community leaders" is not a new one, and is not Gallagher's. On the other hand the idea that governments have to talk to "community leaders" in the service of good inter-communal relations is also nto a new one, and is not Salmond's. I do find Gallagher's position a bit of a turnaround given that he is himself the self-appointed spokesman for a number of minorities in the Balkans including the Hungarians of Romania who I am sure 59% of whom have never ever heard of him - who appointed him? It must be awful for him, to be so desperate for recognition (recognition that he doesn't enjoy in the academic world). Do us all a favour and get lost.
Dougthedug on 1:44pm Fri 3 Aug 07
The ubiquitous Professor Gallagher is not only an expert on Scotland, multiculturalism and all the rest of it, he is also the author of a number of awful books on politics in the countries of the Balkans, including countries in the former Yugoslavia that he knows nothing about. His 'books' on Romania are particularly awful. Thankfully for the inhabitants of the Balkan peninsula this nutcase never had much of a say in advising or otherwise down in that troubled part of the world, and hopefully he won't get any involvement up here. The idea that you have to be careful about talking to self-appointed "community leaders" is not a new one, and is not Gallagher's. On the other hand the idea that governments have to talk to "community leaders" in the service of good inter-communal relations is also nto a new one, and is not Salmond's. I do find Gallagher's position a bit of a turnaround given that he is himself the self-appointed spokesman for a number of minorities in the Balkans including the Hungarians of Romania who I am sure 59% of whom have never ever heard of him - who appointed him? It must be awful for him, to be so desperate for recognition (recognition that he doesn't enjoy in the academic world). Do us all a favour and get lost.
Posted by: joe90, Wishaw on 6:35pm Sat 4 Aug 07
Apparantly
topsy-turvy Tom heckled Osama Saeed at the recent 'Scotland United Against Terrorism' rally in Glasgow.
Osama has just posted an article on the matter 'The recent attacks on me'on his blog 'Rolled Up-Trousers'.
There are other good articles on Uncle Tom's usefulness to the British Establishment on Osama's blog.
Here is the address for the article I mention, but you will probably have to re-format it to get it to work properly
www.osamasaeed.org/o
sama/2007/08/the-rec
ent-atta.html#commen
ts
all the best folks!
Apparantly
topsy-turvy Tom heckled Osama Saeed at the recent 'Scotland United Against Terrorism' rally in Glasgow.
Osama has just posted an article on the matter 'The recent attacks on me'on his blog 'Rolled Up-Trousers'.
There are other good articles on Uncle Tom's usefulness to the British Establishment on Osama's blog.
Here is the address for the article I mention, but you will probably have to re-format it to get it to work properly
www.osamasaeed.org/o
sama/2007/08/the-rec
ent-atta.html#commen
ts
all the best folks!
Posted by: joe90, Wishaw on 6:38pm Sat 4 Aug 07
Apparantly
topsy-turvy Tom heckled Osama Saeed at the recent 'Scotland United Against Terrorism' rally in Glasgow.
Osama has just posted an article on the matter 'The recent attacks on me'on his blog 'Rolled Up-Trousers'.
There are other good articles on Uncle Tom's usefulness to the British Establishment on Osama's blog.
Here is the address for the article I mention, but you will probably have to re-format it to get it to work properly
www.osamasaeed.org/o
sama/2007/08/the-rec
ent-atta.html#commen
ts
all the best folks!
Apparantly
topsy-turvy Tom heckled Osama Saeed at the recent 'Scotland United Against Terrorism' rally in Glasgow.
Osama has just posted an article on the matter 'The recent attacks on me'on his blog 'Rolled Up-Trousers'.
There are other good articles on Uncle Tom's usefulness to the British Establishment on Osama's blog.
Here is the address for the article I mention, but you will probably have to re-format it to get it to work properly
www.osamasaeed.org/o
sama/2007/08/the-rec
ent-atta.html#commen
ts
all the best folks!
Posted by: rob4i, Scottish borders on 11:18am Sun 5 Aug 07
suck england dry, talks about "the little Scotlanders are out in force tonight" that is because the tiny little englanders and,or tiny little britishers have nothing important to say on the matter, isn't that correct you silly little suck Scortland drier!!!
suck england dry, talks about "the little Scotlanders are out in force tonight" that is because the tiny little englanders and,or tiny little britishers have nothing important to say on the matter, isn't that correct you silly little suck Scortland drier!!!
Posted by: phil on 12:34am Mon 6 Aug 07
[quote][bold]Tom Gallagher[/bold] wrote:
The most persistent complaints made about me in this forum is that I am a Labour supporter on a mission to damage the SNP.
Although there is no way of verifying it, let me place on record that I voted for the SNP on 3 May in the local elections and for Kenny McAskill and Margo McDonald, the Independent nationalist, for the Holyrood contest.
my reasons for voting in this way were straightforward ones. After over a quarter-of-a-century of Labour domination, i felt edinburgh desperately needed a change and I was deeply unimpressed by the Labour choices on offer for Holyrood; I also respected Margo McDonald for her commitment to public service and for reaching decisions not on the basis of party necessity but what best suited the voters..
It is not always the case that an academic must write and speak in obscure or neutral language. Sometimes, a polemical style is called for, especially in order to challenge a master of the media like Alex Salmond. I have written about troubling religious issues with restraint and a lack of bias but I feel that the simplistic approach of our First Minister, and also his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon towards Scotland's Muslims deserves a more robust approach. I notice that few contributors actually engage with the arguments I make or try to defend the SNP position on engaging with Muslims as a community rather than as individual citizens. Instead, they react with fury because I assail Alex Salmond and his competence in this area. Regrettably, it merely confirms a widespread impatience with alternative views within the SNP that bodes ill for independence if it comes. It suggests that Scotland will be a rigid and highly conformist place where 'speaking out of turn' will occur at a cost. This was how ireland was for several generations after it obtained its independence in the 1920s.
Ironically, one of the most prominent victims of the SNP's impatience of criticism was Alex Salmond himself whe he was expelled from the party in the 1980s because the leadership felt his republican views were too radical. This conformist spirit is not confined to the SNP but is also manifest in the Labour Party but not to the same extent.
Independent spirits like Frank Field and Gisela Stewart can keep their place in the Labour Party while in the SNP such people are often shown the door. I see myself as doing the SNP a favour by encouraging it to critically **** the value of some of Alex Salmond's policies. It will be the sign of a mature, self-confident party when it can accommodate the views of critics like me. Otherwise, if all hell breaks loose because Alex is taken to task for a policy i don't think he has carefully thought through, the party displays a very unflattering image and will not win over the army of doubters who lie between it and its Holy Grail of independence.. [/quote] [quote]I see myself as doing the SNP a favour by encouraging it to critically **** the value of some of Alex Salmond's policies./quote]
I am fascinated by the ****. Surely Professor G did not type f*ck? Could it be the word "assess", perhaps minus a terminal "s", Let's **** this conjecture.
Tom Gallagher wrote:
The most persistent complaints made about me in this forum is that I am a Labour supporter on a mission to damage the SNP.
Although there is no way of verifying it, let me place on record that I voted for the SNP on 3 May in the local elections and for Kenny McAskill and Margo McDonald, the Independent nationalist, for the Holyrood contest.
my reasons for voting in this way were straightforward ones. After over a quarter-of-a-century of Labour domination, i felt edinburgh desperately needed a change and I was deeply unimpressed by the Labour choices on offer for Holyrood; I also respected Margo McDonald for her commitment to public service and for reaching decisions not on the basis of party necessity but what best suited the voters..
It is not always the case that an academic must write and speak in obscure or neutral language. Sometimes, a polemical style is called for, especially in order to challenge a master of the media like Alex Salmond. I have written about troubling religious issues with restraint and a lack of bias but I feel that the simplistic approach of our First Minister, and also his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon towards Scotland's Muslims deserves a more robust approach. I notice that few contributors actually engage with the arguments I make or try to defend the SNP position on engaging with Muslims as a community rather than as individual citizens. Instead, they react with fury because I assail Alex Salmond and his competence in this area. Regrettably, it merely confirms a widespread impatience with alternative views within the SNP that bodes ill for independence if it comes. It suggests that Scotland will be a rigid and highly conformist place where 'speaking out of turn' will occur at a cost. This was how ireland was for several generations after it obtained its independence in the 1920s.
Ironically, one of the most prominent victims of the SNP's impatience of criticism was Alex Salmond himself whe he was expelled from the party in the 1980s because the leadership felt his republican views were too radical. This conformist spirit is not confined to the SNP but is also manifest in the Labour Party but not to the same extent.
Independent spirits like Frank Field and Gisela Stewart can keep their place in the Labour Party while in the SNP such people are often shown the door. I see myself as doing the SNP a favour by encouraging it to critically **** the value of some of Alex Salmond's policies. It will be the sign of a mature, self-confident party when it can accommodate the views of critics like me. Otherwise, if all hell breaks loose because Alex is taken to task for a policy i don't think he has carefully thought through, the party displays a very unflattering image and will not win over the army of doubters who lie between it and its Holy Grail of independence.. I see myself as doing the SNP a favour by encouraging it to critically **** the value of some of Alex Salmond's policies./quote]
I am fascinated by the ****. Surely Professor G did not type f*ck? Could it be the word "assess", perhaps minus a terminal "s", Let's **** this conjecture.
Posted by: phil on 12:36am Mon 6 Aug 07
Bingo! That's it folks. Now let's assess the thing properly spelt.
Bingo! That's it folks. Now let's assess the thing properly spelt.
Posted by: phil on 12:47am Mon 6 Aug 07
Assess passes the decency test. If the system's decency screener allows "****" or "****", provided quotation marks are used then its designers really are unmasked as a bunch od "****". Just in case it doesn't the first obscenity is f*ck, the second is c*nt (with the letter "u" omitted in both cases. The third is not an obscenity at all (or at worst a tame synonym for "arses" in American English) but "assess" less the termonal "s". In any event, all of this is preposterous. I know the Herald is owned by an American media giant but if they demand American spelling of our obscenities then they won't see the COLOR of my money much longer.
Assess passes the decency test. If the system's decency screener allows "****" or "****", provided quotation marks are used then its designers really are unmasked as a bunch od "****". Just in case it doesn't the first obscenity is f*ck, the second is c*nt (with the letter "u" omitted in both cases. The third is not an obscenity at all (or at worst a tame synonym for "arses" in American English) but "assess" less the termonal "s". In any event, all of this is preposterous. I know the Herald is owned by an American media giant but if they demand American spelling of our obscenities then they won't see the COLOR of my money much longer.
Posted by: phil on 12:54am Mon 6 Aug 07
There you have it. Within or without quotation marks, "arses" is acceptable but its US English equivalent is not. It is in the same category as f*ck and c*nt with the letter "u" replaced by an asterisk.
There you have it. Within or without quotation marks, "arses" is acceptable but its US English equivalent is not. It is in the same category as f*ck and c*nt with the letter "u" replaced by an asterisk.
Posted by: yawnyawn, falkirk on 7:16pm Mon 6 Aug 07
Mr Gallagher writes "independant spirits like Frank Field and Gisela Stewart can keep thier place in the Labour Party" what about Dennis Canavan and Ken Livingstone. These men were true Labour party members who were thrown out simply for disagreeing with with the control freaks Blair and Brown
Mr Gallagher writes "independant spirits like Frank Field and Gisela Stewart can keep thier place in the Labour Party" what about Dennis Canavan and Ken Livingstone. These men were true Labour party members who were thrown out simply for disagreeing with with the control freaks Blair and Brown
Posted by: David Alexander on 11:12pm Mon 6 Aug 07
Don't some of the posters on this page realise that this is an anonymous comments page?
People come on here to vent their feelings and, despite the very biased editorial slant punted by the Scotsman journalists, I feel that this is a reasonably restrained site that rarely gets really nasty.
The Professor said -
Even though some of my criticisms about the SNP's record in this sensitive field may have been provocative...
This is a story about the SNP and a self confessedly provocative academic so you will obviously get the SNP and Labour foot soldiers out.
Just enjoy the banter and chill.
I'm off for another Old Pulteney :)
Don't some of the posters on this page realise that this is an anonymous comments page?
People come on here to vent their feelings and, despite the very biased editorial slant punted by the Scotsman journalists, I feel that this is a reasonably restrained site that rarely gets really nasty.
The Professor said -
Even though some of my criticisms about the SNP's record in this sensitive field may have been provocative...
This is a story about the SNP and a self confessedly provocative academic so you will obviously get the SNP and Labour foot soldiers out.
Just enjoy the banter and chill.
I'm off for another Old Pulteney :)
Posted by: Robert Brown, Edinburgh on 5:06pm Wed 8 Aug 07
Although Prof. Gallagher was in this instance talking specifically about the SNP and Islamist support, he has managed to highlight the dangers of political leaders of any description attempting to garner support through religious issues.
The SNP have done this in the past. In conjunction with The Scottish Sun they attempted to secure the catholic vote in the west of Scotland by raising the act of succession and the attendant ban on the possibility of a catholic monarch as an issue. The Sun came out in support of the SNP while simultaneously producing pro-Celtic and anti-Rangers stories in their attempt to secure circulation.
The fact that Salmond et al were prepared to get into bed with Rupert Murdoch was bad enough, but for a pro nationalist party to attempt to alter the constitution and religious structure of a country from which they want to separate showed political guile where any alliance is acceptable, as long as you increase your own power.
In short, a cynical attempt to increase political support by stirring up sectarian strife in conjunction with a newspaper whose prime motive was profit. It was not a pretty alliance.
Gallagher’s has raised the issue of Ossama Saeed as an SNP candidate and his role as active representative of the MAB and (therefore also The Muslim Brotherhood / HAMAS). This alone does raise issues for discussion but not the McCarthyite slurs and insults that seem to count as debate on this forum. It does however fit with Mr. Saeed’s decision to refer to Gallagher as a drunk and a vagrant in his blog, an action which Mr Saeed should know is un-Islamic.
I suspect that somewhere in the depths of Macdonald Road, an SNP actuary has looked at voting patterns and realised that ‘The Muslim Vote’ is up for sale to the highest bidder and has set a price with Mr Saeed and The Muslim Brotherhood. I doubt it is coincidental that a similar situation is underway in Quebec.
The politics of 7th century Medina seem to have arrived simultaneously in Scotland and Canada and perhaps we should be asking ‘why?’
Although Prof. Gallagher was in this instance talking specifically about the SNP and Islamist support, he has managed to highlight the dangers of political leaders of any description attempting to garner support through religious issues.
The SNP have done this in the past. In conjunction with The Scottish Sun they attempted to secure the catholic vote in the west of Scotland by raising the act of succession and the attendant ban on the possibility of a catholic monarch as an issue. The Sun came out in support of the SNP while simultaneously producing pro-Celtic and anti-Rangers stories in their attempt to secure circulation.
The fact that Salmond et al were prepared to get into bed with Rupert Murdoch was bad enough, but for a pro nationalist party to attempt to alter the constitution and religious structure of a country from which they want to separate showed political guile where any alliance is acceptable, as long as you increase your own power.
In short, a cynical attempt to increase political support by stirring up sectarian strife in conjunction with a newspaper whose prime motive was profit. It was not a pretty alliance.
Gallagher’s has raised the issue of Ossama Saeed as an SNP candidate and his role as active representative of the MAB and (therefore also The Muslim Brotherhood / HAMAS). This alone does raise issues for discussion but not the McCarthyite slurs and insults that seem to count as debate on this forum. It does however fit with Mr. Saeed’s decision to refer to Gallagher as a drunk and a vagrant in his blog, an action which Mr Saeed should know is un-Islamic.
I suspect that somewhere in the depths of Macdonald Road, an SNP actuary has looked at voting patterns and realised that ‘The Muslim Vote’ is up for sale to the highest bidder and has set a price with Mr Saeed and The Muslim Brotherhood. I doubt it is coincidental that a similar situation is underway in Quebec.
The politics of 7th century Medina seem to have arrived simultaneously in Scotland and Canada and perhaps we should be asking ‘why?’
