Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

Good piece in the Herald on the Scottish side of the covid inquiry where Sturgeon is refusing to confirm or deny that she deleted WhatsApp messages (she claims this would breach confidentiality). Yousaf has said it is Scottish government policy to routinely delete messages, but he retained his in relation to the inquiry as did other leadership contender Kate Forbes. There is a wider piece to be written on the huge impact and role of WhatsApp in British politics (perhaps accelerated by covid). Concludes that the Tories were monstrous, cruel and disgusting, while the SNP were sleekit, rotten and overweening which sounds about right.

Also evidence by a political adviser of Johnson that Number 10 found it very difficult to deal with the Scottish government in particular because of a sense that they were always looking at it politically. Whatever measure No 10 proposed the Scottish government either wanted to announce it earlier or tweak it enough to make it a Scottish announcement which is something I think we talked about at the time. Incidentally this is also why I think Johnson was ultimately followinng the scientific advice he was receiving in the first wave - I think it's the only way to explain the SNP, Tories in England and Labour in Wales all basically making exactly the same decisions at exactly the same time. If there was any doubt or the advice from SAGE being overruled - Sturgeon would have made it a dividing line.

Part of the issue is Johnson. I don't think they've treated devolved administrations with anything like the appropriate level of respect. But I also think that the SNP and Scottish government especially were out to play politics/use it as a way of creating artificial divides between Scotland and England ("we're adopting a different approach - lockdown will lift ONE WEEK later than in England").

Of course means nothing to the people who died or their loved ones and it made no difference to that, as I believe Scotland actually ended up with a higher excess deaths than England. Can't help but feel the time and energy spent looking for how to make it distinctive/own it as a Scottish government could have been better spent on the actual pandemic.

But also reinforces my view that the Tories and SNP are basically mirrors - all the flaws of one, abundantly present in the other. I wonder if long term that will be the cycle of British politics: Labour UK and Scotland swinging to Tory UK and SNP Scotland.

[Sheilbh]

Mentioned in Israel-Palestine thread, but found this an interesting, reflective take from someone on the hard left. As I say I'm seeing people attack him (and Sanders) for being an opponent of the Palestinian cause - and I think that's people telling on themselves. I do not know how you can get there from this:

Jon Lansman: what the left gets wrong about Israel
The Momentum founder on his kibbutznik past, how progressives should respond to anti-Semitism and Jeremy Corbyn's mistakes.
By George Eaton


Photographed for the New Statesman by David Sandison

Jon Lansman was 16 when he first visited Israel in 1973 and worked on the Sde Boker kibbutz in the Negev, the desert region in the country's south.

"I was living in basically a shed with around 30 other people about a hundred yards from [Israel's founding prime minister, David] Ben-Gurion's house, picking peaches and pistachios," the lifelong socialist recalled when we met recently. "That was a radicalising experience, doing manual labour. I was enthused by the collectivism, though it was clearly being eroded."

This experience – Lansman's aunt lived in Be'er-Sheva and he has five cousins in Israel today – means he can offer a rare perspective on the left's fraught relationship with the country.

I met Lansman, who founded the Corbynite activist group Momentum in 2015 and led it until 2020, at his partner's townhouse in Highbury, north London. We spoke in his study, which features a 4-foot-high red statue of Karl Marx, a Gilbert & George print ("Are you angry or are you boring?") and a mini-library devoted to Labour history. Lansman, 66, who divides his time between London and his home in St Ives, Cornwall, appeared relaxed after several years away from the political front line, but he has been troubled by the left's response to Hamas's 7 October massacre in Israel.

"Most of all I feel sorrow and I find it difficult to relate to how much of the left responded," Lansman, who was raised in an Orthodox Jewish family in north London, told me. "There isn't an understanding, or there isn't much sympathy, for the feeling in Israel that they need to prevent such an attack again. And part of that is about how the left sees war, or in fact how all of us in Britain have seen war for a long time. We've seen a lot of unjust wars, Iraq most importantly.

"There isn't an understanding that there could be a just military response to horrific events. It's difficult for the left to adjust to that but I do think that it needs to adjust. I think that some level of response by Israel is justified – not all of it, by any means: I am horrified by the extent of civilian deaths in Gaza."

But in common with another Jewish socialist, the US senator Bernie Sanders, Lansman is wary of supporting an outright ceasefire in Gaza. "I want to see the violence stop as soon as possible... but calling for a ceasefire from the comfort of Britain? I can understand that Israelis need to ensure such attacks [by Hamas] don't happen again." The left, he said, "absolutely" needs to demonstrate greater empathy towards Jews and criticised the popular protest chant: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."

"The language you use at times when there are emotionally driven responses to violence on both sides matters. The Jewish community in Britain, understandably, sees the phrase 'from the river to the sea' as an attack on Israel's existence, people should understand that. Why not find another phrase?"

Lansman similarly rejects the description by some leftists of Israel as a "settler colonial state".

"It's not a characterisation I would make at all. Most Jews who've migrated to Israel have been refugees, they've been arriving recently from Ukraine. The reason for Israel's existence is the Holocaust, the fact that no other place would take them! Not Britain, not the US, who introduced immigration controls.

"In Britain's case it was ironically [Arthur] Balfour, who's treated as if he's some kind of hero for Israelis [for signing the 1917 declaration stating Britain's support for Israel's founding], but actually introduced the Aliens Act, which ended Jewish immigration, and for those who couldn't get in... it didn't end well."

Lansman harbours no illusions about the nature of the Israeli government, which includes extremist ministers and is led by Benjamin Netanyahu who is facing corruption charges. "It's a far-right government... they are encouraging terrible things while eyes are on Gaza – the persecution of Palestinians on the West Bank and in mixed cities in Israel is appalling."

It was as coordinator for Tony Benn's 1981 deputy Labour leadership campaign that Lansman came to political prominence. Benn, in common with much of the party's left, initially identified as a Zionist and admired Israel as a socialist experiment. After visiting it in 1956, Benn wrote in his diary of "the miracle of a home for Jews after 1,900 years of pogrom and ghetto" and mused that "perhaps the kibbutzim have the answer – stay rooted to the soil and pass it on more richly fertile than before to your sons and grandsons".

When did the left's relationship with Israel fracture? Lansman cited the 1967 war – when Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank – and the 1982 Lebanon war as key turning points, but also spoke of a wider political sea change. "It ceased to be a left that had grown out of a broad front between Labour and the Communist Party in the 1930s. The New Left didn't have a sense of the injustice that had been done to Jews who had migrated to Israel for that reason, they hadn't lived with Jews as a persecuted people."

The constituency in which I met Lansman – Islington North – has been represented by Jeremy Corbyn since 1983. If Corbyn, as expected, stands as an independent candidate at the general election, would Lansman support him?

"It's a mistake for him to stand as an independent. I do think that Jeremy has been unreasonably treated. He didn't handle anti-Semitism well but he is not an anti-Semite. He shouldn't have been put in this position but I don't think he should stand against the party." Has he had much contact with Corbyn since Labour's 2019 election defeat?

"I haven't. I bumped into him in parliament many months ago and spoke to him. I have no animosity towards him, but that's not to say I think he did a good job – I don't think he did a good job. But he didn't expect to win and none of us expected him to win at the start of that leadership campaign [in 2015]."

He added of Corbyn's handling of anti-Semitism: "He had a real problem talking to Jewish communal bodies. If what you do when you see the Board of Deputies or the Jewish Leadership Council is read out a statement that Seumas [Milne, Corbyn's director of communications] has written, it's not going to work – and it didn't."

Lansman was for decades regarded by many in Labour as an arch-sectarian. He has long argued for the mandatory reselection of MPs and the empowerment of local activists. But he also has a pragmatic streak and speaks more favourably of Keir Starmer than some of his former Corbynite allies. "Keir Starmer does not have the politics of Tony Blair... He talks too much to Blairites, he listens to them too much, but I don't think he is at heart a Blairite, he is a social democrat."

Once asked why he remained in the Labour Party throughout the Blair years, Corbyn recalled Benn's response to him: "You know what, comrade, we're just in it, aren't we?" Jon Lansman takes a similar view today. "I will be canvassing for the Labour Party at the next election. There is no alternative on the left to a Labour government. You can criticise it afterwards, you're not giving anyone a blank cheque. But I was deeply depressed at times during the Blair government. And if I could stick with the party then, I can stick with it now."

[Sheilbh]

On Jos' point on Islamophobia, which has also increased, there's been an absolutely disgusting piece by Douglas Murray (our poundshop Pim Fortuyn) in the Jewish Chronicle attacking Humza Yousaf. He was repsonding to Jewish Chronicle (and Times) columnist, Josh Glancy - I'll just leave his response:

Josh Glancy
@joshglancy
I'll say one thing about the Douglas Murray JC piece:

If I was critiquing a black or asian writer in their own community newspaper, for which they've been a longtime columnist, at a time of great distress, I might show them the respect of not blatantly twisting their words
I do not, once again and for the record, think everything is fine at the moment. I think it's a challenging and difficult and indeed appalling situation, all of which I've said.

I also think we should be wary of overplaying the dangers and cowering in fear.
My interest in this subject lies solely in protecting my own family, friends and community. Protecting them from hatred, but also from living with fear and anxiety.

I think Mr Murray sincerely supports Jews, but I also think he's being driven by ulterior culture war motives

But, separately, I thought this piece form this afternoon was important from the editor of Spectator (who is Scottish) on Yousaf's response. Not least because it's a right-wing mag that has previously published (and I imagine will continue to publish) Murray. I'd add that a lot of the comments here about Yousaf's response would also apply to Sadiq Khan in London:

In praise of Humza Yousaf's Israel response
    10 November 2023, 2:37pm


Humza Yousaf embraces a relative of Bernard Cowan, who was murdered by Hamas (Photo X/@ScotGovFM)

Humza Yousaf is one of the most prominent Muslims in public life. This is tangential to his being elected SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland, but has handed him an unexpected role during the recent Israel-Gaza crisis. It's one that he is taking seriously and, in my view, discharging well.

Yousaf doesn't discuss his faith often – few leaders do – but he takes it seriously and released a picture of himself praying with his family in Bute House on his first day in the job. At a time when politicians tend to cover up their faith, it was quite a move – he was saying (as his rival Kate Forbes has said) that faith does have a role in public discourse and politicians are allowed to 'do God'. Having a Hindu Prime Minister and (for now) a Buddhist Home Secretary underlines Britain's status as a multi-faith rather than secular democracy. There's a difference, and that difference is made when Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Christians in the public eye decide not to treat their faith as a dirty secret.

The Hamas atrocities and the ensuing events are personal for Yousaf, whose Dundonian wife, Nadia, has a Palestinian father. Both of her parents were trapped in Gaza as Israel retaliated following Hamas's attack on 7 October. The couple only managed to escape this week via the Rafah crossing into Egypt. So Yousaf talks with a personal connection about the plight facing the thousands embroiled in the war unleashed by Hamas. The couple have said they are 'heartbroken at the continued suffering of the people of Gaza'. At a time when neighbouring Egypt and Jordan are reluctant to accommodate the estimated one million displaced Gazans, Humza has offered Scotland's services. He has no remit to do so (asylum is reserved to the UK government) but tugging at the leash of the union is the job of an SNP leader.

Since entering Bute House, Yousaf has been mindful that his family connections could lead to questions about his feelings towards Jews and he has left no room for ambiguity. One of his first visits as First Minister was to Jewish leaders in Glasgow to assure them that 'in the fight against antisemitism, the Jewish community in Scotland should be in no doubt that they have an ally in me as First Minister'.

He has been as good as his word. Soon after the 7 October atrocity he joined mourners at a synagogue in Newton Mearns, outside Glasgow, and met the family of Bernard Cowan, a Scottish Israeli murdered by Hamas.

'Your grief is my grief. I stand here tonight to mourn with you all the innocent lives wasted in violence. I pray in solidarity with you all that the guilty are punished and the innocent protected. I want you to be in no doubt whatsoever that I, and the government I lead, stand with you and with all communities who are mourning the loss of innocent life.'

He then said something else, which I thought deserved more coverage than it got at the time:

'When I pray tonight I will not only be praying for my in-laws, but praying for Bernard Cowan, and for all those innocent men, women and children who have been killed or harmed – be they Israeli or Palestinian. May God have mercy on all of them.'

It's not often you hear any political leader in Britain using the words 'when I pray tonight' but Yousaf did – and made clear that, as a Scottish Muslim and husband to a wife of Palestinian heritage, he was praying for the Jewish victims of the Hamas atrocities. And he did so, he said, because Islam teaches the condemnation of the slaughter of the innocent: just as the Bible and Torah do. As he said:

'It says in the Quran, my Holy Book, that if someone kills one innocent person, it is as if he killed the whole of humanity. No religion on earth condones the killing of innocent men, women or children. To those who wish to return us to the darkest ages of religious hatred – I say, you will not prevail."

One of the problems with religion being largely absent from our national debate is that speeches like this are seldom reported. Social media algorithms flag up incendiary chants of idiots on marches, but the quieter acts of solidarity and respect go unnoticed. Yet its this cohabitation, not the conflict, that defines British society. At a time when many are seeking to promote a 'clash of civilisations' narrative – talking up the idea of Muslims as having values somehow hostile to British values – it's worth remembering that actual British tradition has been one of inter-faith unity on a scale other countries struggle to manage.

Last month, Yousaf issued a joint statement with Jewish leaders and imams:

'We express today our mutual respect and understanding, recognising our common humanity, and with love and compassion, knowing that our hearts are full of pain. We also acknowledge the suffering caused to innocent life as a result of recent events and wholeheartedly pray for the full recovery of the many injured and for those who have lost loved ones.'

I wish Yousaf nothing but failure in his ambition to separate Scotland from the rest of the UK. But since the outbreak of the war in Israel, he has conducted himself with dignity and courage and has been a voice for moderation, unity and solidarity with the Jewish community.

Written by
Fraser Nelson
Fraser Nelson is editor of The Spectator

I think this is also useful context to stuff about him on social media. He has been ahead of the national parties on calling for a ceasefire - but in that, he is in line with public opinion in Scotland and his party generally. As I think I said before I've no doubt it's sincere, but I think it is also a helpful dividing line for the SNP to try and shore up their numbers.

But I think that stuff which has portrayed him as taking a stronger line on this also needs to sit alongside this, which has not really received anywhere near as much coverage outside of Scotland. (Although I've mentioned before this is a bit of a norm in the UK I think because of slight queasiness around faith - leader visiting place of worship or speaking about religion tends to very much be a local news story only).

[Josquius]

In a depressing reminder that people just don't get it, seems the far right are set to be out in force looking for trouble against a peace march on remembrance day

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/10/counterprotest-groups-plan-to-confront-pro-palestine-marchers-say-met-police?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[Jacob]

Not sure if it's a question of branding and headline, but I don't know if we can treat "peace" (your wording) and "pro-Palestine" (the wording of the article) as synonyms.

IMO it's a bit of a stretch to frame a position supporting one side in a war - a side that has deliberately murdered children in a terror attack a little over a month ago - as being in favour of peace.

If I punch you in the face, breaking your nose and knocking out your teeth it's a bit rich of me to say "hey, let's not resort to violence" when you come at me looking to kick my ass. And bystanders saying "hey, no fighting! And by the way, it's totally understandable that Jacob hurt Josq" are not furthering the cause of peace and deescalation.

[Josquius]

Not sure if it's a question of branding and headline, but I don't know if we can treat "peace" (your wording) and "pro-Palestine" (the wording of the article) as synonyms.

IMO it's a bit of a stretch to frame a position supporting one side in a war - a side that has deliberately murdered children in a terror attack a little over a month ago - as being in favour of peace.

If I punch you in the face, breaking your nose and knocking out your teeth it's a bit rich of me to say "hey, let's not resort to violence" when you come at me looking to kick my ass. And bystanders saying "hey, no fighting! And by the way, it's totally understandable that Jacob hurt Josq" are not furthering the cause of peace and deescalation.

It's pro Palestine. Not pro Hamas. The Palestinians are the ones being actively killed and whom an end to fighting would save. Most of them have nothing to do with terrorism.

More you punch me and break my nose so I start shooting at your family in the hope of getting you. People saying "yeah that's not cool. His kids did nothing. " are totally right.

[Barrister]

More you punch me and break my nose so I start shooting at your family in the hope of getting you. People saying "yeah that's not cool. His kids did nothing. " are totally right.

You really can't make that sort of comparison when it comes to state-on-state violence (or whatever you want to call Hamas).

In your example people are working in some kind of organized society.  The victim can't start shooting at your family - but police and the courts will get involved.  There's a third party, the state, that upholds the monopoly on violence.

Israel vs Hamas there's no state, there's no monopoly of violence.  You're on a deserted desert island with no hope of being rescued.  Your attacked punches you, but when you go to respond your attacker is hiding behind his kid, all the while promising to break every other bone in your body when he gets the chance.

[Josquius]

More you punch me and break my nose so I start shooting at your family in the hope of getting you. People saying "yeah that's not cool. His kids did nothing. " are totally right.

You really can't make that sort of comparison when it comes to state-on-state violence (or whatever you want to call Hamas).

In your example people are working in some kind of organized society.  The victim can't start shooting at your family - but police and the courts will get involved.  There's a third party, the state, that upholds the monopoly on violence.

Israel vs Hamas there's no state, there's no monopoly of violence.  You're on a deserted desert island with no hope of being rescued.  Your attacked punches you, but when you go to respond your attacker is hiding behind his kid, all the while promising to break every other bone in your body when he gets the chance.

Arguable.
Even the current Israeli government cares about their international image a bit.
If the world spoke up that things had gone on long enough or that at the least that Israel needed to make clear just what they were planning to do.... I do believe this would have an impact.

[Barrister]

More you punch me and break my nose so I start shooting at your family in the hope of getting you. People saying "yeah that's not cool. His kids did nothing. " are totally right.

You really can't make that sort of comparison when it comes to state-on-state violence (or whatever you want to call Hamas).

In your example people are working in some kind of organized society.  The victim can't start shooting at your family - but police and the courts will get involved.  There's a third party, the state, that upholds the monopoly on violence.

Israel vs Hamas there's no state, there's no monopoly of violence.  You're on a deserted desert island with no hope of being rescued.  Your attacked punches you, but when you go to respond your attacker is hiding behind his kid, all the while promising to break every other bone in your body when he gets the chance.

Arguable.
Even the current Israeli government cares about their international image a bit.
If the world spoke up that things had gone on long enough or that at the least that Israel needed to make clear just what they were planning to do.... I do believe this would have an impact.

It's just - I'm going to bring this back to Ukraine.

It's kind of horrific what's going on, with Russian troops making these terrible "human wave" attacks and just being mowed down time after time by Ukrainians.  Those solders don't want to be there.  Many of them are conscripts, or were tricked, or were prisoners promised amnesty.  But they have to be killed.

(Now the difference there is that they're directly holding weapons, but I think the comparison is still useful)

[Admiral Yi]

Right before the Oct7 attack would have been a good time to call for a cease fire.

[Josquius]

It's just - I'm going to bring this back to Ukraine.

It's kind of horrific what's going on, with Russian troops making these terrible "human wave" attacks and just being mowed down time after time by Ukrainians.  Those solders don't want to be there.  Many of them are conscripts, or were tricked, or were prisoners promised amnesty.  But they have to be killed.

(Now the difference there is that they're directly holding weapons, but I think the comparison is still useful)

I don't see the analogy at all.
Just like the Russians the Israelis are attacking their neighbour and killing large number of civilians. Just like the Russians it's within their power to pack up and go home.
The two situations are completely different and if you must either side could be mapped onto either side really.

Right before the Oct7 attack would have been a good time to call for a cease fire.

Yes. Prevention is always better than cure. But this isn't minority report.

[Razgovory]

Think about this for a minute.
Why do you think westerners might protest a bit more about western democracies killing civilians than when disconnected autocracies do?
There's a much more sensible answer than anti-semitism.
Though I am curious why you think protesting the US' actions is anti-semitism.

Anti-Semitism is the most sensible to answer the question: "Why did the people who tried to eradicate Jews get upset when Jews fight back?"

[Admiral Yi]

Yes. Prevention is always better than cure. But this isn't minority report.

Hamas fired rockets into Israel on and off before Oct7.  A minority report wasn't necessary for people to say "stop firing rockets."

[Barrister]

Right before the Oct7 attack would have been a good time to call for a cease fire.

The last ceasefire was still in effect.

[Jacob]

It's pro Palestine. Not pro Hamas.

Pro Palestine, in this context, also equals anti-Israel, which is fine.

Pro Palestine is not synonymous with peace.

Another way to peace would be for Hamas to release the hostages and surrender unconditionally. I don't see anyone in these rallies calling for that course of action.

When folks chant "free Palestine" they're not prioritizing peace, they're prioritizing a specific political agenda that is separate from the pursuit of peace. When they chant "from the river to the sea" they're not talking about peace, they're talking about a specific political agenda.

The Palestinians are the ones being actively killed and whom an end to fighting would save. Most of them have nothing to do with terrorism.

I completely agree that Palestinian civilians are innocent and don't deserve to die, and that every innocent civilian death is a tragedy, but to say that they have nothing to do with the terrorists (Hamas) is incorrect.

The terrorists are hiding behind those civilians, the terrorists are in charge of the civilian's government, and those civilians are the people for whom the terrorists purport to fight. That is a pretty strong connection.

More you punch me and break my nose so I start shooting at your family in the hope of getting you. People saying "yeah that's not cool. His kids did nothing. " are totally right.

Okay, arguing by analogy is not going to work. It was worth a try.