Why John Swinney is a greater Kremlin asset than Nigel Farage

So what is the solution? A Government of National Unity, perhaps? Not quite yet. For starters, the good and great of the land are to be summoned to Edinburgh to unite in common cause, J Swinney presiding.

The gullible, as well as true believers, may have stood in awe of such statesmanship. Fortunately, Sir John Curtice was on hand to apply a more ‘Machiavellian’ analysis. “What I think Mr Swinney is trying to do is sow division in the unionist ranks”.

Oh dear, what a disappointment for the gullible. The more sonorous Mr Swinney sounds, the greater certainty that he is on low political manoeuvres. The more solemn his faux sincerity, the stronger the warning to flies that they should stay well clear of the spider.

A Convention of the Righteous

If, as Sir John suggests, the purpose of Mr Swinney’s appeal for unity is actually to “sow division” off the back of these troubled times for Europe and the world, then it deserves to backfire. It should be called out by decent Scotland, rather than legitimised in any way.

Let us deconstruct Mr Swinney’s comments. Is the threat from “the far-right” really such a big issue in Scotland that it requires clerics, politicians and “civic Scotland” – most of it in hock to the SNP – to turn up for a Convention of the Righteous?

Are the firewalls of democracy too weak, through the normal channels of argument and persuasion, to address the challenge of Reform UK which is ostensibly what Mr Swinney was talking about? If not, our democracy really is in a poor condition after 18 years of him and his crew running it.

In recent council by-elections, Reform have been polling between 10 and 20 per cent. That is an awful lot of Scots to “other” as adherents of some extreme doctrine which so threatens the fabric of our society that special measures are required. Maybe asking “why” would be more useful.

A complete chancer

Mr Swinney waxed lyrical about Nigel Farage as an asset to the Russian state, from whom delicate Scottish democracy must be protected. I happen to think Mr Farage is an awful man and a complete chancer. If others hold a different view, that is simply a political challenge to be addressed.

But then we come to the real intellectual difficulty for Mr Swinney. “There is,” he intoned, “a very live and active threat to our security from the aggression of Russia and I think Farage is an accomplice to the Russian agenda and an apologist for the Russian agenda”. Big allegations!

But what is the Russian agenda insofar as it relates to Scotland? All available evidence, from the 2014 referendum onwards, suggests it lies in promoting the break-up of the UK as part of a wider strategy of European disruption. In that scenario, and however reluctantly, it is Mr Swinney rather than Mr Farage who is promoting a “Russian agenda”.

If Mr Swinney is concerned about the “very lively and active threat to our security from the aggression of Russia”, there is an obvious course of action available to him – which would be to suspend activity aimed at destabilising or breaking up the UK for, let’s say, a decade until the “threat” can be re-assessed.

Spare us the cant

That is the logic of his own utterances though I do not expect him to follow it. Neither should he. It is his perfect democratic right to argue for the break-up of Britain regardless of the implications for European security and in the full knowledge that it is – through no fault of Mr Swinney’s – part of the “Russian agenda”. Just spare us the cant.

Mr Swinney then accused Mr Farage of “a fundamentally racist view of the world”, adding: “I reject that. I think migration is an advantage for Scotland." Mr Farage can look after himself but I suspect many Scots might question the assumption that holding different views to Mr Swinney’s on migration into Scotland makes them “fundamentally racist”.

Fortunately, we have recent polling evidence to enlighten us. Only 23 per cent of Scots, it suggested, want to see more immigration into Scotland. Thirty-four per cent wanted less and another third said it’s fine at its current level. That’s an awful lot of Scots to brand as “fundamentally racist”.

I count myself among the 23 per cent but I also know that the 34 per cent will grow, in Scotland every bit as much as elsewhere, unless there is housing, work and adequate public services to accommodate people who come in, as well as those who are here already. That is the way to address reasonable concerns about migration – not by calling people racists.

AfD firewall

Of course there are racists in every society, and Scotland is certainly no exception, and probably in every political party. It may be that Reform UK has more than its fair share since it comes from a long procession of post-war parties of the right – all of which have been seen off through the ballot box without the requirement for false unity among their opponents.

There are very good historic reasons for putting a “firewall” round the AfD in Germany in order to keep the far-right out of government. But there too, the firewall will not stop the drift of voters unless their concerns are addressed. The challenges which politicians have to grapple with will not be resolved by denunciation alone.

Meanwhile, anyone thinking of toddling along to the great unity fest in April should bear in mind the words of the blessed Sir John Curtice: “What I think Mr Swinney is trying to do is sow division.”