Arts, Britain, Culture, Government, Politics, Scotland, Society

The life of Alex Salmond

1954–2024

THE death of Alex Salmond, 69, former First Minister of Scotland, marks not only the passing of a formidable man, but of a generation and a style of politics. Mr Salmond belonged to the postwar baby boom generation, and it showed. He mastered the art of television and was adept at delivering pithy quotes for newspapers, for those were the dominating news sources of his formative years.

He was also an avid parliamentarian, believing that what was said in the House of Commons mattered.

And he was a Nationalist. His political consciousness was formed in the late Sixties and Seventies when a nationalist spirit was in the air. Winning Ewing had won Hamilton in 1967, the North Sea had struck oil, and the SNP was climbing up the polls.

Mr Salmond had grown up in a nationalist-minded household, and it is perhaps here that his ideological instincts were formed. Whatever the case, the young man who turned up at St Andrews University in 1973 was a fully formed devotee of Scotland and the restoration of her national sovereignty.

It was as a student that he joined the SNP, but the Salmond of those times was a very different quantity to the political figure Scotland came to know and be led by.

Back then he was a fiery Left-winger and a member of the SNP’s fundamentalist wing, which was on the march to independence and impatient about the pace the rest of the party was taking.

He would eventually drift into the radical ’79 Group, which deemed the SNP too Right wing to win over the Scottish working classes and advocated a lurch to the Left that scandalised the leadership of the day. The ’79 Group was expelled but several of its members were later readmitted and went on to gain prominent careers in the SNP and its governments.

Political office was still some way off and Alex Salmond needed a career. After graduating from University, he took up a series of postings as an economist, first behind enemy lines in the Scottish Office, and then at the Royal Bank of Scotland.

But the man was too bright, too charismatic, and far too ambitious to dedicate his life to price indexes and market surveys, and in 1987 he stood for and won the constituency of Banff and Buchan, taming the famed “Buchan Bulldog”, Sir Albert McQuarrie, a Tory grandee thought unbeatable up to that point.

Just three years later, he was elected leader of the party. These were still the doldrum days of the SNP, not yet forgiven for its role in bringing down James Callaghan’s Labour government and hastening an election which put Margaret Thatcher in Downing Street. In Scotland, the Nationalists had a young and energetic figurehead, a smooth and competent talker capable of getting himself ejected from the Chancellor’s Budget statement and yet having his face plastered across every newspaper and evening bulletin in the process. The Tony Blair era was still a few years away but in some ways Salmond prefigured the man whose Iraq war he used to peel Scottish voters away from Labour.

Like Blair, he was a big personality, a ruthless strategist and tactician, a presidential-style leader, and an advanced practitioner of the dark arts of spin.

It was Blair who transformed Salmond’s fortunes and those of his party. By establishing a devolved Scottish parliament, he unwittingly built a new platform from which the SNP could flourish and advance its cause of independence.

Salmond quit as leader in 2000 after a decade in which he made a name for himself, and his party made modest but important gains.

While Salmond moved the party closer to the centre, aspects of his early radicalism occasionally broke through and revealed a politician of dubious judgment – none more so than his notorious description of NATO’s intervention against Serbia, then engaged in what many regard as an attempted ethnic cleansing of the Kosovar Albanians, as “unpardonable folly”. It was a quote that many people never let him forget.

Despite issuing a Sherman-esque statement in response to speculation that he would recontest the leadership – “If nominated I’ll decline, if drafted I’ll defer, and if elected I’ll resign” – he went on to throw his hat in the ring and, in 2004, returned to the top position in Scottish politics. With him he brought a protégé in the form of Nicola Sturgeon, who would become his deputy and later his fiercest enemy in politics.

By this point, he understood the opportunity that the Scottish parliament offered to the SNP and set about knocking his party into shape for the 2007 election. That poll produced a narrow victory for the SNP, which secured just one more seat than Labour, but the outcome represented a political earthquake. Labour had been defeated in its Scottish heartlands. Scotland was now SNP country.

As First Minister, Salmond set about governing in a populist fashion, prioritising police recruitment and a council tax freeze while passing on swingeing but not yet discernible cuts to local government and beginning a slide in Scottish education that continues to this day. His minority government convinced Scots that the SNP could be trusted to manage the country. In 2011, Alex Salmond was awarded a victory that will stand monumental in the history books.

Holyrood’s electoral system was designed so no one party would hold a majority of seats, making compromise necessary. Salmond, not one for compromise, let the electoral system know what he thought of it winning with 69 seats – an outright majority. It was a volcanic rupture of an earthquake.

Salmond was now at the peak of his power and political stature. He was not merely at the summit of Scotland’s politics; he was the mountain. No one dared challenge him. He was, in effect, a Scottish Louis XIV.

The hubris shown in these years would eventually contribute to his undoing, but for now Alex Salmond was calling the shots. The biggest shot of all was demanding, and securing, a referendum on the question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” Salmond was the architect of the Edinburgh Agreement.

He threw himself into the campaign with gusto, delighting his hordes of admirers but leaving critics despairing of his divisive rhetoric and abrasive manner, and how his campaign was setting Scot against Scot.

In the end, he fell short of the dream of independence but he got too close for comfort for many of his opponents. The additional powers heaped on the Scottish Parliament in the wake of the referendum revealed just how rattled Westminster had been by 45 per cent of Scots voting for the exit.

This left Scotland embittered, less at ease with itself, though if this ever troubled the former Banff and Buchan MP he never showed it. When he resigned in the wake of the referendum, he gave the impression of a man who thought his political career was not yet over.

We cannot chronicle Alex Salmond’s rise and his time at the top of public life without addressing the fall.

He did not take well to the removal of the robes of office. Shorn of power and position, an old king without a court, Salmond cut a sometimes-desperate figure, making ever-more outlandish interventions that were beneath him in dignity but which nonetheless kept him in the limelight.

Among the adventurously notorious were a fruity Fringe show replete with humour that would have been considered a bit too Seventies even in the Seventies, and a stint as a presenter on Kremlin-backed propaganda channel Russia Today (RT).

This is when relations with Nicola Sturgeon began to publicly disintegrate. He was becoming a distraction, his antics an embarrassment, but he remained intensely popular with party members and voters.

His return to Westminster only reelevated his public profile and put further strain on the relationship with Sturgeon. He may have been part of the class of 2015, the 56 Nationalist MPs elected to the Commons in a landslide, but there was no doubt Salmond represented and spoke for his own party: the Alex Salmond party.

Then the party came to an abrupt end. He was accused of sexual harassment by women he worked with during his time as First Minister and in 2018 the Scottish Government set up an investigation. But the probe itself came under scrutiny and was ruled by the courts to have been “unlawful”, “procedurally unfair”, and “tainted with apparent bias”, because the inquiry’s head previously had contact with the accusers.

Mr Salmond touted this as vindication. But just two weeks later, he was arrested and later charged with a string of offences. The courts, however, came down on his side, with a jury acquitting him on all charges.

There were dark mutterings from his supporters that he had been framed, but it was not until an inquiry into the Scottish Government’s handling of the matter that the man himself went on the record.

There had been, Mr Salmond said, “a malicious and concerted attempt to damage my reputation and remove me from public life in Scotland”.

He described “a deliberate, prolonged, malicious and concerted effort amongst a range of individuals within the Scottish government and the SNP to damage my reputation, even to the extent of having me imprisoned”.

The former first minister made yet another political return, which proved to be his last, in Alba, a breakaway party that stood against the SNP in the 2021 Holyrood election. While it made almost no electoral impact, it opened a fissure that had been running through the Nationalist movement since its defeat in the 2014 independence referendum.

Alba challenged the SNP on independence strategy, for Salmond believed his old party had become too timid. It dissented from Sturgeon’s embrace of gender ideology and identity politics more generally, with some women who had been long-time SNP members defecting in protest over the Gender Recognition Reform Bill (GRR).

Above all, though, Alba was Salmond personified, a party for a leader who could no longer lead the party he wanted to. While Alba is unlikely to survive him for very long, it will be remembered as a spirited attempt to revive a grassroots Nationalism divorced from the shiny, professional, poll-driven New Labour tribune act into which Nicola Sturgeon arguably turned the SNP.

In the days and weeks ahead, many words will be spilled over the passing of Alex Salmond, and there will be tears. Not all those words will be kind, not all those tears will be sincere. That is the way of it when a statesman of consequences dies.

For good or ill, he was the man who took Scottish Nationalism from the fringes to the mainstream and from there into government, the first time in its history that the SNP held executive power at Scotland-wide level. He not only renamed the Scottish Executive but redefined the rules of Scottish politics.

A devolved parliament set up by New Labour to “kill Nationalism stone dead” has helped make the SNP the natural party of government. Alex Salmond did that.

Scottish independence, once a cause limited to daydreaming, is the preferred constitutional outcome of roughly half of Scottish voters. Salmond did that.

All of Scotland’s political parties are more outwardly nationalist in their branding and positioning, eager to play up Scottish identity and patriotism. Salmond did that.

We live in a post-Salmond Scotland and will do for some time yet. How we think about his legacy might change but the legacy itself never will. He renewed a party, revived a movement, and remade a much fairer country.

Standard
Arts, Culture, History, Society, Technology

Deepfake technology and the rewriting of history

SOCIETY

THE PRACTICE of doctoring photographs can be a very wicked thing, as we shall see. But it can also be trivial. Many of us must wish that various pictures of us did not exist. That awful school photo from primary school, or other disastrous snaps from our early childhood.

Is it wicked for us to do what we can to keep other people from seeing them? The fashion desert of the 1970s, for instance, where countless couples were married, do not display their wedding photographs. And who can blame them?

And to the Royal Family. Many of us still have no idea what the Princess of Wales was up to in her recent family snapshot, and outrage should be far from our minds.

The public demands a lot of photographs of the Royal Family, and why not? Half its power comes from the fact that it is a family, rather than a gang, cabinet, or a board of directors.

But families, even Royal ones, are not always as cheerful, contented, or well behaved, as we wish they were. It would have been a cleverer thing not to have done whatever it was that they did.

Far worse, and much fishier, was the curious case of the Bullingdon Club images of David Cameron, Al “Boris” Johnson, and George Osborne, from their Oxford days.

David Cameron obviously detested these records of debauchery, not wanting the public to be reminded of his time in this alcohol-fuelled society of well-heeled brutes. Was it a mere coincidence that they were mysteriously withdrawn by the company which owned them in 2008, so newspapers had to stop using them?

As it happens, Coincidence Theory (the idea that things happen by accident far more often than by design) is often believable. But not in this instance.

Odd was the obviously doctored 1992 Bullingdon pictures, featuring, among others, George Osborne and his (now former) friend Nat Rothschild. At first glance, it appears normal, but look carefully, and you will see it is full of suspicious peculiarities.

To the left of the middle, there’s a mysterious gap where somebody ought to be standing but isn’t. Weirder still, there’s a patch of shirt-front and waistcoat there, with no person attached. The right trouser leg of Mr Rothschild has a white lapel on it, not usual even under the bizarre dress code of the Bullingdon.

On close examination, the three seated figures at the front appear to have been stuck in place after being moved from somewhere else.

But again, these are tiny things compared with the monstrous crimes which the truly powerful commit with photographs, when they can. In pre-internet days, they simply hacked up the old pictures and replaced them with new items. Only the tiny few with access to original archives could ever be sure that what they were seeing was true.

TWO

THOUSANDS of images of the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, sometimes standing near the Soviet demi-god, Vladimir Lenin, were wiped from Soviet history books, magazines, newspapers, and encyclopaedias, after Trotsky fell from favour.

In 1997, David King chronicled the photographic murder of the past, in his book “The Commissar Vanishes”. And it was murder. Those whose pictures were removed usually became dead soon afterwards.

The most poignant story of this kind is told by Milan Kundera in his Book of Laughter and Forgetting. It concerns the Czech Communist Vladimir Clementis. Clementis was standing beside the Czech Communist leader, Klement Gottwald, at a huge public meeting in Prague to mark their takeover of the country. It was snowing heavily, so Clementis lent his fur hat to the bare-headed Gottwald. Pictures recorded the comradely scene.

But four years later Clementis was purged for having the wrong view of Marx. He was hanged, cremated, and abused still further after death on the streets of Prague in a most barbaric way. And he was wiped from the images of 1948, leaving only his hat behind.

THREE

WHO knows what a future totalitarian regime might do, with the limitless powers provided by modern technology? This cannot only erase the past but can, through deepfake methods, create a wholly different past so convincing that only those who were actually there would be sure it was not a lie.

If human gullibility is anything to go by, even eyewitnesses of the truth might eventually fall in with the new altered version.

This was prefigured, as are so many evils of today, in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. The central character, Winston Smith, has the highly responsible job of cleaning up the paper archives of The Times, to make sure they do not clash with official lies. His discovery of a photograph, of three leaders of the ruling party – Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford – fills him with terror. Its obvious location and stated date show that official history is false.

He sends it swirling into the “memory hole” which leads to the great furnace where all inconvenient facts are burned to ashes.

But he is still not safe. What if someone else saw him as he looked at it? What if the surveillance cameras picked it up (as we learn later, they did)?

The mere fact that he has seen this picture puts him in danger. He knows what nobody should know. He can never forget it. He cannot unsee it. His actual existence is a peril to his totalitarian chiefs.

Orwell writes: “It was curious that the fact of having held it in his fingers seemed to him to make a difference even now, when the photograph itself, as well as the event it recorded, was only memory. Was the Party’s hold upon the past less strong, he wondered, because a piece of evidence which existed no longer had once existed?”

As it turns out, in the torture cellars of the Ministry of Love, Winston, amongst other humiliations of the mind, is compelled to affirm that the photograph never existed.

In the end, with tears in his eyes, he joins the great deceived multitudes who believe what the authorities tell them and who have no idea what the past was really like, even if – especially if – they lived through it.

It is that sort of thing, not a mildly doctored family snapshot trying to provide some cheer and happiness, that we need to be worrying about. Useful as it is to know that the technology exists to turn anyone with the right equipment into a potential liar and fraud, and to make us all open to monstrous deceit, of a kind that even Stalin never dreamed of.

The truth needs to be told.

Standard
Arts, Bible, Christianity, Culture

James urges Christians to live out their beliefs

NEW TESTAMENT

A narrative on James 1–5

IN a circular letter addressed to Jewish Christians scattered by persecution across the Roman empire, the apostle James has called for a faith that is visibly demonstrated by good works, controlled language, and steadiness under pressure. Writing in forthright terms, James warns rich landowners that they will pay dearly for hoarding their wealth and refusing to pay labourers.

He begins by encouraging faithfulness in the face of difficulty. He reminds his readers that the unchangeable God who gives wisdom to all is never the source of temptation. “The crown of life” awaits all who press on, he asserts.

Every Christian should listen carefully to, and consider, God’s truth – and then put it into practice, he says. Such practice includes treating people equally whatever their economic situation.

Wishing someone well who needs practical help is no help at all, he claims. Abraham was commended not just for believing God’s promise but for doing what God asked, and preparing to sacrifice his son Isaac.

A person’s speech is also a test of their faithfulness to God, says James. The tongue can be like a spark that sets a forest ablaze; one word out of place can do immense damage. And curses on people have no place in the mouths of those who praise God.

The root cause of all sin is selfishness and greed, he argues. Humility before God is the only safe way to live. God will judge others, and he will determine the number of someone’s days. So he urges his readers to bear in mind that Christ will return soon and not to boast, argue, or slander each other.

James concludes his letter with some practical instructions on praying for the sick and turning people back to God.

Standard