The Dangers of the 'Big Tent'

John Mason’s motion on equal marriage has exposed the fragility of the SNP’s ‘big tent’.

A recent post by The Burd on the need for Scottish Labour to simplify its aims and message did an excellent job of highlighting one of the main reasons for the SNP’s success over Labour in recent years.

It pointed out that Labour’s core beliefs, while being admirable, are complex and difficult to articulate in a way that resonates across Scottish society. The SNP’s mission statement, on the other hand, is simple: ‘Independence for Scotland and the furtherance of Scottish interests’. This simple, somewhat populist message is easy to understand and easy to agree with, and it is this accessibility that has created what has been referred to as the SNP’s ‘big tent’.

Under the canopy of ‘furthering Scottish interests’, socialists can march beside arch-capitalists and liberals beside conservatives without needing to tear themselves apart. Those who support independence do so for a variety of different reasons, but all are happy to work together to achieve it.

In many ways it was predictable that the ‘big tent’ – which allowed the SNP to win May’s election so emphatically – could become a victim of its own success. Minority government was in many ways the perfect atmosphere for the SNP. Faced with an opposition that outnumbered them when united, they displayed a unity that won plaudits across the media. The leadership, all too aware that every vote counted, was careful to avoid alienating the left or right wings of the party.

During the election campaign, one of the most common appraisals of the SNP’s time in government was that they had been competent and effective, but hadn’t exactly ‘set the heather alight’ – an accurate analysis of a party that achieved a great deal through unity, but perhaps avoided doing a great deal more out of fear of jeopardising this. Even as the party began the fight for re-election, trailing labour in the polls and needing something exciting to grab the attention of the voters, controversial or divisive policy proposals were kept away from the manifesto in favour of ambitious but electorally safe options with a broad appeal. Once again, it paid off.

And so to majority government. The leadership had barely finished hammering in the final pegs of the freshly erected big tent (perhaps a marquee this time?) when up popped the Scottish Youth Parliament with a widely reported campaign for equal marriage. Vocal support for the campaign from MSPs Marco Biagi and Patrick Harvie attracted more headlines, and the issue was thrust to the front of the Scottish political stage. Enter John Mason, representing what could be seen as the ‘socially conservative’ wing of the party, with a motion calling for recognition of the range of views on the topic and a plea for nobody to be forced into approving of or being involved in gay marriage.

While I personally disagree with the motion and what it asks for, it did not strike me as an attempt to explicitly condemn homosexuality or gay marriage, but simply an appeal for recognition of all sides of the debate and a commitment not to force churches to do something against their will. Mason has said that he is ‘completely relaxed about gay marriage’, and it could be the case that his motion was just a poorly worded attempt to add an extra dimension to the debate. If that is the case, Mason must have watched with horror as the majority of commentators and parliamentarians came out against it, branding it homophobic at worst and irrelevant at best.

He did find some support, however, from three of his SNP colleagues – Bill Walker, Richard Lyle and Dave Thompson. I am not entirely familiar with every member of the parliament’s new intake, so I am going to assume – and correct me if I’m wrong – that these supporters would join Mason on the aforementioned ‘socially conservative’ wing of the party, along with a few others who stayed silent during the debate. The motion drew powerful condemnation, however, from those on the more liberal side of the party. MEP Alyn Smith appeared to describe the supporters of the motion as ‘small, angry bigots’, while MP Pete Wishart described it as a ‘nasty little motion’, which was ‘just plain wrong’. An amendment by Patrick Harvie to Mason’s motion, effectively changing the entire message, was signed by a number of SNP MSPs.

I believe that most SNP MSPs, supporters and members are tolerant, open-minded people, and the party has in recent years aimed to position itself on the progressive left of Scottish politics. The ‘big tent’, combined with the extent of May’s victory, could be putting this in danger. If the freshly swollen ranks of the party are capable of falling into disarray over a simple motion, what will happen when they begin to legislate? The furore over the sectarianism bill drew muted grumblings from the backbenches, and many staunchly nationalist commentators came out against it. The debate over gay marriage has further demonstrated the range of conflicting political views in the party. The leadership managed to stay out of it, disassociating itself from the motion and emphasising the manifesto commitment to consult on the issue. That consultation will, I hope, lead to legislation. Over the political term, there will be many points where the leadership is forced to pick one side of a fence, and that fence may just prove too high for some MSPs to climb.

I began writing this last week, as the debate was at its most heated. I had to temporarily abandon it to, rather fittingly, head off for a weekend’s camping in the small isles. On a rather rainy morning, six of us attempted to climb into one three-man tent to play cards. We learned the hard way that a tent can only take so many people before it gets more than a little uncomfortable, and if the SNP aren’t careful, they might discover the same thing too late. The unity that has won them so much support and praise may have come at the price of a more concrete and distinct ideology that will be required in the campaign for independence. While their broad appeal has survived so far, and has been immensely successful, it will be hard to articulate their vision for an independent Scotland if they all disagree on what that Scotland should look like. I’ll try and post again soon on what I think that vision should be, but for now I have to go and unpack some rather wet camping gear. In case you were wondering, we all left our cramped little tent as soon as the sun came out. I’ll leave you to make up your own mind about the potential symbolism there.