In 1985, Neal Ascherson compared the different attitudes which the English and the Scots have to their national histories. When the English think of their past, he argued, they “are gazing from the terrace of a country house down carefully-landscaped perspectives of barbered lawns and positioned trees”. The eye is carefully guided towards a clear focal point: a single, national story, leading neatly up to the present and keeping the past safely organised in the past.
Scots, however, have a wholly different relationship to their inheritance. Instead of a clear linear narrative, Ascherson described Scottish history as “a scrapbook of highly coloured, often bloody scenes or tableaux whose sequence or relation to one another is obscure”. Without much context or perspective in the popular imagination, these scenes might as well have happened yesterday. Scotland’s past can never stay still; it is a black shadow that moves under the waves, looming up to the surface whenever blood is in the water.
Blood is in the water now, and the past is roaring back. When Humza Yousaf decided on 25 April to unilaterally end the Bute House Agreement between the SNP and the Scottish Greens, which guaranteed his government a majority at Holyrood, we must imagine him transporting in and out of time, flickering rapidly through centuries of national self-sabotage: there he is at Flodden in 1513, getting slaughtered by the English with James IV; in Darien, 1699, dying of malaria; shivering in a cave with Bonnie Prince Charlie, wondering where it all went wrong; then finally back to Bute House and its Disagreement, with that always-haunted look on his face like Banquo just walked in.
When the SNP-Green “co-operation agreement” was signed on August 2021, it seemed like a rare instance of genuine political optimism. By bringing the Greens into government after the 2021 Holyrood election, Nicola Sturgeon hoped to guarantee a stable majority and inject some new, youthful energy to her party’s 14-year reign. The Greens, boasting an increasingly professionalised operation of focus groups and well-aimed retail policies, were keen to demonstrate their credibility in office. This was not a coalition, they said; within the agreement were reserved areas, such as GDP growth and Nato membership after independence, where they could agree to disagree. But the Greens bagged themselves two ministerial posts and a lengthy shared policy platform, with a flagship Tenants’ Rights Bill that has only just begun its journey through Parliament.
The political risks of the deal to the SNP were clear from the start. The SNP’s big tent had already begun to bulge and tear, over Gender Recognition in particular, and the Greens are fierce supporters of trans rights. Once the Greens got started in office, new fissures emerged, especially over a deposit return scheme for glass bottles and the creation of Highly Protected Marine Areas, both of which were abandoned. These, alongside broader Green positions on economic growth and ending fossil fuels, neither of which were part of the Agreement, attracted frantic dissent.
Blah blah blah blah . Humza dumped the Greens because they are electoral poison . Now the greens will get their revenge by helping push him out the door . Not really sure what your complaint here is , that the SNP will replace Humza with someone you don’t like , or that the electorate will replace the SNP with someone you don’t like ? Either way , that’s democracy for you .
And by the way , this is Reddit , not a blogging site
Himza didn’t end the BHA unilaterally. The SGs were likely to end it themselves.
3 comments
In 1985, Neal Ascherson compared the different attitudes which the English and the Scots have to their national histories. When the English think of their past, he argued, they “are gazing from the terrace of a country house down carefully-landscaped perspectives of barbered lawns and positioned trees”. The eye is carefully guided towards a clear focal point: a single, national story, leading neatly up to the present and keeping the past safely organised in the past.
Scots, however, have a wholly different relationship to their inheritance. Instead of a clear linear narrative, Ascherson described Scottish history as “a scrapbook of highly coloured, often bloody scenes or tableaux whose sequence or relation to one another is obscure”. Without much context or perspective in the popular imagination, these scenes might as well have happened yesterday. Scotland’s past can never stay still; it is a black shadow that moves under the waves, looming up to the surface whenever blood is in the water.
Blood is in the water now, and the past is roaring back. When Humza Yousaf decided on 25 April to unilaterally end the Bute House Agreement between the SNP and the Scottish Greens, which guaranteed his government a majority at Holyrood, we must imagine him transporting in and out of time, flickering rapidly through centuries of national self-sabotage: there he is at Flodden in 1513, getting slaughtered by the English with James IV; in Darien, 1699, dying of malaria; shivering in a cave with Bonnie Prince Charlie, wondering where it all went wrong; then finally back to Bute House and its Disagreement, with that always-haunted look on his face like Banquo just walked in.
When the SNP-Green “co-operation agreement” was signed on August 2021, it seemed like a rare instance of genuine political optimism. By bringing the Greens into government after the 2021 Holyrood election, Nicola Sturgeon hoped to guarantee a stable majority and inject some new, youthful energy to her party’s 14-year reign. The Greens, boasting an increasingly professionalised operation of focus groups and well-aimed retail policies, were keen to demonstrate their credibility in office. This was not a coalition, they said; within the agreement were reserved areas, such as GDP growth and Nato membership after independence, where they could agree to disagree. But the Greens bagged themselves two ministerial posts and a lengthy shared policy platform, with a flagship Tenants’ Rights Bill that has only just begun its journey through Parliament.
The political risks of the deal to the SNP were clear from the start. The SNP’s big tent had already begun to bulge and tear, over Gender Recognition in particular, and the Greens are fierce supporters of trans rights. Once the Greens got started in office, new fissures emerged, especially over a deposit return scheme for glass bottles and the creation of Highly Protected Marine Areas, both of which were abandoned. These, alongside broader Green positions on economic growth and ending fossil fuels, neither of which were part of the Agreement, attracted frantic dissent.
Blah blah blah blah . Humza dumped the Greens because they are electoral poison . Now the greens will get their revenge by helping push him out the door . Not really sure what your complaint here is , that the SNP will replace Humza with someone you don’t like , or that the electorate will replace the SNP with someone you don’t like ? Either way , that’s democracy for you .
And by the way , this is Reddit , not a blogging site
Himza didn’t end the BHA unilaterally. The SGs were likely to end it themselves.