Yesterday we found that rational people make decisions about things based on the facts, not the personalities who might otherwise support or oppose those things. However, in the interests of balance, allow us to make the counterpoint.
Yesterday, the SNP defense spokesman in Westminster quoted the position of French frontline leader Marine Le Pen as he argued with someone who suggested that an independent Scotland should leave NATO.
We agree with McDonald about NATO membership. It would be pointless folly and an exercise in self-destructive virtues to leave an organization ready to militarily defend Scotland free of charge because of its strategic location, and it would be extremely unpopular with the Scottish public (including SNP voters). no matter how much the left wants something else.
However, his above considerations are a pathetic embarrassment.
McDonald is very right of the party, but typical of the SNP’s hyper-woke wing – a devout, puritanic fundamentalist who completely tolerates any dissenting opinion on a current fashionable topic.
And since the awakening is driven entirely by trends, they have no interest in facts and are about personalities, be it the cult of the leader or the merciless “lifting” of those who are considered unworthy.
McDonald’s view that “we can never be on the same side as the National Front” sounds instinctively good at first glance. Who would want to team up with a bunch of horrific racist thugs?
But the problem with a childlike policy of “whatever X is, I’m against” becomes apparent after five seconds of thought and is twofold.
Because as someone pointed out in the thread, Le Pen’s party has been against the death penalty since 2017:
And that means if you are also against the death penalty, like it or not You are on the same side as the French national front. For his position to have any logical consequence, McDonald would have to begin campaigning to get the hanging going again.
(When challenged, he usually insisted that this was not true, without making any attempt to back up the claim. As with so many other aspects of the current SNP, this is a mindset that is terrifying of 1984. )
The second problem is identified in the above words “since 2017”. Because THAT means that if the Front Nationale suddenly had an unlikely change of heart and supported immigration, the SNP would have to start opposing it, because McDonald’s mindless student philosophy requires the SNP reflexively to position itself as the diametrical opposite of the FN, for which Whatever the FN stands for on a particular topic, and therefore to change whenever it changes.
(In other words, Marine Le Pen can actually decide on the SNP policy.)
It is an attitude that is not appropriate for the primary school debating society: “Some people are just bad, so we have to be what they are not.” And we are not misrepresenting McDonald’s views there – they are his own Words unchanged: We can NEVER be on the same page as Marine Le Pen.
No qualifiers, no exceptions, no “on this particular subject”, no “as long as she has that view”. Just NEVER, NEVER, under no circumstances, because she is bad and he is good and the two must never occupy the same space as matter and antimatter. If it turned out she liked cheese’n’onion chips, McDonald would never be able to eat them again because cheese’n’onion chips would only have become fascist by association.
(Or less satirical, if they suddenly switched the FN to a pro-NATO stance, the SNP would have to be against it again according to McDonald’s logic, as it was the case until 2012. Since McDonald despises this side, it really should be Resist NATO membership on the grounds that we endorse it.)
We have no idea how such a pathetic intellectual void ever got to take a seat on the front bench of the SNP, except perhaps as a box-ticking exercise. But if McDonald is representative of the higher echelons of the party, then the independence movement is in more trouble than we can count.