Effie Deans

Should Effie Deans pledge allegiance to an independent Scotland?


“How can we expect new arrivals to be loyal to our country if those who have been here for centuries have no loyalty, no patriotism and in the end no honour.” Effie Deans 26/08/16

According to Effie Deans, all of those campaigning for Scottish independence are disloyal, unpatriotic and dishonourable. As a way of reaching out to the other half (possibly by now more than half) of Scottish people, I’d say her line of argument is flawed. Below is my comment on her blog:

What sanctions do you envisage against those of your fellow citizens (or should that be subjects…?) who refuse to take this pledge of allegiance Effie? In the unlikely event of such a deeply foreign requirement being introduced, I like many others would not under any circumstances make such a pledge. My passport is British through an accident of birth as it were; I enjoy the rights and protections of any other citizen.

The fact that I’d prefer a Scottish passport, and to live in an independent Scottish republic doesn’t make me disloyal, unpatriotic or dishonourable Effie, it simply means I feel no affinity for, or desire to be part of, the United Kingdom of great Britain and Northern Ireland. I imagine millions of other people throughout history have been in similar situations: the inhabitants of multi-national empires like Austria-Hungary, Russia and Turkey pre world War 1, Balts & others in the Soviet Union, Irish people pre 1921.

Part of living in a democracy means allowing people choices. As someone on record saying that immigrants to Scotland who voted Yes in indyref1 were acting treacherously, you obviously have an axe to grind. I’m sure you are quite unapologetic about your views, but it will and should turn most reasonable people’s stomachs. I’m sure there ARE many immigrants in Scotland who feel British first and Scottish second or not at all. I know there are also many who feel passionately Scottish, and (treacherously in your view) campaigned for a Yes vote.

If there were an alternative to having a British passport (an EU passport perhaps…oh, wait…that isn’t going to work now either is it…?) I’m sure many in Scotland would avail themselves of the opportunity. From the little I know about the Ahmadiyya community, I’m sure they would have no problem advocating Scottish citizenship, and loyalty to an independent Scotland if and when it happens; why should they?

No doubt those in charge of previous multi-national states which fell apart considered those advocating secession traitors or perfidious, but that didn’t stop Czechs, Hungarians, Poles, Balts, Arabs, Irish etc., etc. campaigning for their independence.

In short, whilst we may indeed have much to learn from the Ahmadiyya community, the requirement for citizens to pledge their allegiance to a state they don’t believe in most definitely isn’t one of the lessons. In addition few of us would accept guidance on this issue from someone who is quick to label others traitors, call for future indyrefs to be banned, and who has expressed a preference for living in Putin’s Russia rather than an independent Scotland.

You may be viscerally opposed to independence for Scotland Effie, and refuse to accept that it is a “real” country, but please at least try to show a modicum of self-awareness and realise that many (and probably by now a majority) of your fellow Scots don’t share your views. In the event that independence does happen you’ll be free to retain your UK passport; I somehow doubt we’ll be requiring you to make an oath of allegiance to the new Scottish state. Perhaps that just shows our nationalism is more progressive and civic than yours?

(Effie’s latest missive “Should British citizens pledge loyalty to Britain?” can be found here: https://effiedeans.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/should-british-citizens-pledge-loyalty.html?showComment=1472298026725#c7777989577866735090 )



Brexit, intolerance and Effie Deans; lessons in strawman building.

Brexit may not have made Britain a more intolerant country, but it has certainly made expressing intolerance easier, as the shameful spike in reported in hate crimes in England and Wales has amply demonstrated. Closing the door to further immigration as a way of promoting further integration and helping us “get on better than before”, even if it could be achieved without harming future economic prospects, looks a lot like special pleading to me. If you dislike multi-cultural societies then reducing or severely limiting immigration is obviously an appealing policy. Whether people who have this view would be quite as keen where such a policy had a negative impact on their economic well-being and provision of services is another matter.

EU immigrants make up 10% of the NHS’s doctors and 4% of registered nurses. They constitute 5% of overall NHS staff, the last figure being the same percentage as they make up of the English population as a whole (figures from the independent charity Full Fact). 24% of doctors in the UK are foreign nationals; 36% of all doctors and 23% of GP’s qualified abroad. There is general agreement that immigrants contribute more to our economy than they take in benefits, so if ones concern is not financial or economic, presumably it relates either to issues of social cohesion or  a belief that the country is “full”? Some people genuinely don’t want immigration and fear multiculturalism. Such fears can of course be attributed to bigotry, lack of education or concerns (whether realistic or not) that mass immigration places intolerable strains on our public services and/or risks “swamping” the host culture.

I agree that one shouldn’t sneer at people who see uncontrolled immigration as something that changed their world and removed their “control”. It is of course easy for people with no direct experience of the pressures caused by a sudden influx of immigrants (whether on housing, schools, health services or jobs) to sneer at those complaining about such pressures, pace Gordon Brown’s “bigoted woman” debacle, BUT (…and yes, it is a big but!) it is also incumbent on those of us who support immigration and a multi-cultural society, especially one which welcomes refugees from war-torn areas of the world, to point out the positive aspects of immigration, and educate the public about many of the misperceptions surrounding the issue.

It has long been acknowledged that people in the UK routinely over-estimate the % of the population who are immigrants, often grotesquely so. The Guardian published an IPSOS-Mori poll in 2014 showing people thought 21% of the UK population were muslim, whereas the true number is 5%. Similarly people thought 24% of the population were immigrants when the true figure in 2011 census was 13%.

Such overestimation of the scale of the problem is if anything compounded by the fact that it is generally areas which are least diverse and least subject to immigration which are most strongly anti-immigration. People do perhaps fear what they don’t know, but given the widespread misapprehension about the scale of the problem, the financial impact and the role of immigrants (both EU and non-EU) in important public services, it is important to point out that Brexit isn’t the magic bullet that many of those who supported it primarily as a route to reducing immigration suppose. Brett will of course do nothing to reduce non-EU immigration, and of course we do not even know if May’s government will be able to negotiate a deal which squares the circle of reducing EU immigration by limiting the free movement of labour whilst retaining access to the single market. Noises from the EU don’t look encouraging so far, and it will be a brave government which accepts “hard” Brexit with no access to the free market if (when?) the EU tell them free movement of labour is non-negotiable.

The way to tackle the actual and perceived problems of large-scale immigration is by promoting equality, multiculturalism, the integration of the basic values underpinning a 21st century secular liberal democracy, education and toleration. Seeking to place stringent limits on immigration in general, and the specific Brexit “cure” prescribed to achieve this, look about as useful as King Cnut’s attempts to stop the tide from coming in.

Effie Deans in her recent blog (“Brexit Has Not Made Britain a More Intolerant Country” from 29th July 2016) as so often in the past assiduously builds straw men in an attempt to bolster her case. On closer inspection however, her examples don’t support the argument; her superficial understanding of the historical background exposes them for the tendentious misrepresentations they are. Many Latvians (and other Balts) have pretty good reason to be wary of the attempted Russification (and later “Sovietization”) of their countries. Their experience of being dominated by Russia in the 19th century, cycles of violence throughout the early 20th century, being subject to huge deportations of their own populations and introduction of huge numbers of mainly ethnic Russians post 1945, are hardly analogous to experience in Western Europe.

Similarly the unwillingness of countries like Poland and Hungary to countenance large-scale immigration (although in truth relatively few of the recent influx of immigrants show any desire to settle there) has much to do with their own recent histories of ethnic conflict, their relative poverty in comparison with the “old” EU, and their perception that they don’t want to see the kind of problems happening in their own countries that they see in places with large immigrant communities like France, Germany, the UK and others. It’s one thing to assert that Latvians who speak Russian aren’t considered to be Latvians, but quite another to draw from that assertion the conclusion that Pakistanis or Syrians or Poles in the UK won’t be considered British or Scottish. Large Russian minorities implanted in the Baltic states represented (and were positively conceived as) an existential threat to the nationalities they were implanted amongst. It is surely to the credit of such countries that they have offered such minorities full citizenship.

In the end Effie’s conception of preserving “the unique character” of her country, whether Scotland, the UK or anywhere else, looks a lot less like King Cnut trying to turn back the tide and rather more like the “no dogs, no blacks, no Irish” signs of yore. You don’t have to put the sign in your window to be recognised for sharing the same values.

Effie Does Cognitive Dissonance; indy bad, brexit double plus good?

Not for the first time I find myself marvelling at Effie’s level of sustained cognitive dissonance as she discusses her cunning plan to make the SNP’s life more difficult in her latest blog post (“How to make the SNP’s Task Still Harder” 22/07/16). After admitting she has no real counter to those Scots “fundamentalists” who want independence come what may, she opines that unlike in Catalonia or the Baltic States, Scotland lacks the mass movements present in those countries (which partly explains the defeat in the 2014 indyref) and further, that if the SNP had been honest about the probability of hard times ahead in the event of a Yes vote, the No majority would have been even greater. Of course this is not a new argument from convinced unionists; they insist the Yes campaign promised only a land of milk and honey, free of risk or hazard, whereas in their eyes at least independence was (and remains) a huge leap in the dark. Naturally the risks attendant on staying in the union are seen as minimal or denied altogether.
Interestingly however Effie, and many convinced unionists who share her outlook, were convinced campaigners for a Leave vote in the Brexit referendum on 23rd June 2016. They continue to be puzzled by, or downright hostile to, the overwhelming support for EU membership in Scotland. Now the truly breath-taking levels of cognitive dissonance is laid bare. Whilst Scotland leaving the UK is presented as a risk not worth taking, destabilising and potentially economically ruinous, the UK leaving the EU is viewed through the rose-tinted spectacles of regaining sovereignty, freebooting entrepreneurial free trade with the rest of the world, and a bracing alternative to over regulated undemocratic “Brussels rule”. Thus Brexit is presented in a uniformly positive light; the risks are minimised and the opportunities hyped. Scottish independence on the other hand (particularly as part of the EU) is painted as the politics and economics of the mad house.
Of course unionist wishful thinking aside, the Brexit result makes the case for the union much harder to make, not much easier. The success of a campaign as negative and odious as Project Fear during indyref1 in 2014, and again for the Brexit vote in 2016 will be much harder to repeat for indyref2 when it happens. Cassandra-like predictions of economic chaos will ring even less true than they did 2 years ago. Promises of voting No to remain in the EU, of economic competence and stability, are surely holed below the water line by the omnishambles that is Brexit.
Effie adjures her co-religionists to abandon the siren song of Project Fear; they should desist from being negative about Scotland, and point out the advantages of staying and disadvantages of leaving the UK; stability, continuity, promotion of multi-national co-operation and being part of a larger whole where the broad shoulders of the union and pooling and sharing will see us through are emphasised. Simultaneously whilst being relentlessly positive about the prospects for the UK outside the EU, the instability, discontinuity, rejection of multi-national co-operation and being part of a larger European whole attendant on Brexit are dismissed as prices worth paying, indeed they are lauded as the patriotic choice. For Effie, British nationalists can tell a better story than Scottish nationalists, because in the end “her” nationalism is an unalloyed self-evidently good thing, whilst “their” nationalism is a debased, unpatriotic oddity intent on swapping the benign sibling-like oversight of Westminster for the insufferable undemocratic jackboot of Brussels.
Perhaps it isn’t a case of rose-tinted spectacles for Effie, more of fervid “Alice Through the Looking Glass” simulacrum of the actual Scottish political environment from which she seems increasingly detached, and to which she and her followers appear increasingly irrelevant.

Dwelling in a land East of Eden

A response to Effie Deans latest missive in her long and increasingly desperate sounding series equating Scottish nationalism with unreasoning cultism:


Why are British nationalists so taken with the caricature of Scottish nationalism as an unreasoning cult? As approaches to political debate go it is as intellectually dishonest as it is insulting. It has about as much resonance with Scots as the Tory response to their Scottish electoral decline in the 1980’s and 90’s. The correct interim response is not to accuse electors of false consciousness and insist that if you only shout your message more loudly, they will start to accept the innate “rightness” of your views.

I doubt the majority of Scots, still less SNP supporters or members, actually want or advocate the socialist paradise you insist (on what evidence I wonder?) we are all obsessed with. Calling for a society that is fairer, more equal, which does not get involved in ill-advised and arguably illegal foreign wars isn’t indicative of being a cultist with impossible dreams Effie; it’s the aspiration of many ordinary folk who simply don’t accept that things have to be as they are.

Your claim that nationalist dreams will founder on what you see as the hard realities they avoid may of course be true. Obviously I disagree with both your caricature of the motivation of pro-independence voters and your continual carping that nationalists as a whole are incapable of rational analysis, being hooked on the morphia of idealistic socialism. Such generalisations are neither accurate nor helpful.

Your deeply flawed analysis does however explain a whole lot about why British nationalism in Scotland is facing an existential crisis in the face of the SNP surge. Your failure to understand why the majority of Scots people are disillusioned with all three British nationalist parties, even after rejecting independence barely a year ago, is symptomatic of the mind set which ensured the Scottish Tories haven’t recovered after Thatcherism, and that Scottish Labour won’t recover from Blairite New Labour and the negativity of Better Together.

We may never be able to make Scotland a new Jerusalem, but an increasing number of us are convinced that the only way to make it more like the kind of progressive, liberal, broadly social-democratic society we see in places like Scandinavia is via independence, not by remaining part of the UK. Reducing inequality and poverty whilst increasing general living standards is possible if we have the will to do it. Trying to paint Scottish nationalism as uniquely incapable of delivering better results, whilst simultaneously maintaining that British nationalism is the only way to do so simply demonstrates cognitive dissonance, not debate.

We’re not deluded or hoodwinked cultists or high on the soporific morphine of socialist utopianism Effie. We are pretty convinced however that there is no longer any positive case for unionism, or it would already have been made. Despite the claims of the Vow, that the status-quo wasn’t an option, here we are a year on from the referendum and vanishingly little progress has been made. THAT’s what explains your current situation; the fault doesn’t lie with the Scottish voters being hapless cattle led by the SNP, but with British nationalism for failing to deliver on the panicked promises of the Vow short term, and failing to deliver the kind of society we want long term.

Effie’s dream of Scotlandshire

In her recent blog “We must attack the SNP at its roots” the British nationalist blogger Effie Deans goes to some (sadly considerable) length to try and account for the extraordinary post referendum rise in SNP support, and suggest methods to defeat the forces of Scottish nationalism, the triumph of which would she asserts be a disaster for all of us. The passionate, not to say intemperate, tone of much of Effie’s anti-independence dialogue of course be nothing new to those who are familiar with her work. Read between the lines however, and what becomes clear is that the closer the General Election and the likely increase in SNP representation at Westminster comes, the more strident, desperate and indeed sinister, her proposed solutions appear.

Effie helpfully outlines a four-fold approach to rooting out the vigorous weed of Scottish nationalism:

  1. deny Scotland the status of a country;
  2. rule out further referendums for ever;
  3. refuse to work with the SNP under any circumstances; and
  4. promote a feeling of common UK identity (“as we devolve, so must we unite”).

It’s worth deconstructing these approaches in some detail to expose just how anti-democratic and politically regressive a significant section of the anti-independence movement within Scotland, and in the UK more broadly, has become.

  1. Scotland is not a country.

Effie’s line here is that since Scotland lacks what she identifies as the defining characteristics of “countryness”, sovereignty and independence, we cannot and should not allow that it is a “real” country at all. This argument is desperately ahistorical with respect to centuries of Scottish and wider British history. It is also profoundly at variance with available evidence of how the vast majority of modern Scots feel about the country they primarily identify with. This fundamentally flawed analysis also results in some rather startling conclusions, which may not sit particularly well with some Scottish unionists who could be expected to share Effie’s general outlook.

Since no other nation state allows its parts to have separate money or international football teams, Scotland would perforce have to surrender these attributes of “countryness”. The status of Scotland’s separate legal system, education system and reformed church don’t seem to figure in the list of attributes that Scotland should be stripped of, but the logic of the argument seems pretty clear; Scotland is no more entitled to the trappings of nationhood than is Lancashire. The UK, she airily insists, is one nation, indivisible. As a devotee of Walter Scott, it is hardly surprising that Effie Deans promotes a view of Scotland as simply “North Britain”. Scotlandshire is to be become coeval with Yorkshire or any other county; differentiated by no more than accent and the fact that unlike these other regions it had a history as an independent kingdom.

In Effie’s eyes we err in acting as though Scotland were entitled to even the limited attributes of “real” countries like its own money or international football team. Such pandering after all only encourages those pesky nationalists to want the whole shooting match; today the Tartan Army, tomorrow a Scottish Defence force. The gradual dissolution of a distinct Scottish identity inherent in Effie’s “dream of Scotlandshire” may not prove as big a draw as she hopes. She may speak for a small sub-section of Scottish unionism, but her assertion that Scotland isn’t even a country at all in any meaningful sense will strike the vast majority of Scots, and even many of her comrades in the anti-independence camp, as not just preposterous and deeply insulting, but quite simply historically, socially and politically autistic.

  1. Referendum no more…..

The Scots according to Effie are uniquely incapable of “doing” democracy. The indyref campaign, for all its faults, was widely regarded as an inspiration; a record turnout, huge levels of political engagement and energy, and even according to the Scottish Police remarkably little in the way of violence or trouble. Yet according to British nationalist opponents of independence, the correct interim response to this phenomenon is to concentrate on the negative, to accentuate political division and hint darkly: “Who knows where this would lead?”

In conjuring the ghost of potential chaos, Effie and her supporters in movements such as #SNPout on twitter, feel justified in openly advocating not only that future referendums be delayed but ruled out in perpetuity. This profoundly anti-democratic and authoritarian approach is justified with reference first to the rights of opponents of independence to live without a continual threat to the existence of their country, and secondly with reference to the legalistic argument that states are entitled to protect their territorial integrity and the absence of any right to secession under international law.

It is of course democratically illiterate to prioritise the protection of the rights of anti-independence Scots to remain part of the UK, over the rights of a future majority voting in favour of independence. Natural justice as well as international law demands that a people’s right to self determination be protected. Attempting to justify a perpetual ban on referendums with reference to the perceived instability they cause would be a very dangerous precedent to set. In the Scottish context we already have a precedent for the conditions under which a referendum will be held, and the process to be used. Any attempt to unilaterally change this approach by Westminster would cause outrage in Scotland, and place Holyrood and Westminster on a collision course.

Despite the pious hopes of British nationalists insisting that the ability to hold an independence referendum is contingent upon Westminster’s approval, there is no consensus, either academic or legal, that such approval is necessary. The Section 30 Order granted for the 2014 referendum was a sign of Westminster’s weakness, not an indication of its strength. David Cameron’s government knew quite well that a refusal to grant the order and take an analogous position that of the Spanish government in relation to a Catalan independence referendum would simply have fanned the flames of separatism. A unilateral declaration of independence was never on the cards, nor is it ever likely to be necessary in the UK context; thankfully this isn’t Spain!

Whilst it is true that international law recognises no absolute right to secession, it is equally true that it recognises no prohibition. The reason it is such an imperfect guide with respect to cases like Scotland, Quebec or Catalonia is that the long standing presumption favouring territorial integrity was debated almost exclusively with reference to former colonies of the imperial powers. British unionists (and their Spanish and Canadian counterparts) trust that territorial integrity and appeals to over-arching legalistic or constitutional prohibitions will always trump the right to self determination and the sovereignty of the people. It would however be a brave constitutional theorist or international lawyer who failed to take into account the implied duty of good faith recognised by the Canadian Supreme Court in its review of the Clarity Act. In the absence of good faith, such as the flagrantly anti-democratic steps advocated by Effie Deans, all bets are off. It is of course for that very reason that no sane UK government could ever countenance following Effie’s advice, and were there ever to be an administration unwise enough to do so, it will undoubtedly go down in history as the one which provoked Scots to vote for and take the independence which is theirs as of right, not bestowed by the gracious permission of Westminster.


Since the SNP represents an existential threat to the UK, they must according to the britnat discourse not only be resisted, but cast into the uttermost darkness. The SNP you see is not, in the faintly hysterical weltanschauung of Effie and her ilk, an ordinary fairly left of centre political party so beloved of its burgeoning membership. Rather it is a deeply regressive, repressive movement just like “all” other nationalist movements. There is no room for shades of grey here. Civic nationalism, even if it exists at all according to Effie, is simply a convenient façade for the more common or garden nationalism she experienced first hand in the Ukraine in the 1990’s. There is of course no coherent discussion; simply assertion that any form of nationalism, however benign must virtually inevitably lead to civil-war. The conjuring of the ghost of conflict a la Ireland, or the Ukraine, or the Balkan conflicts is of course nothing new in the Scottish independence debate. It is a convenient and intellectually lazy trope used by British nationalists to scare the undecided horses.

The SNP and other pro-independence supporters are for Effie and her supporters not just wrong, they are bad. As such, it is acceptable to “other” them at every available opportunity. They must perforce be held responsible for EVERY extremist on their side of the debate, and must provide detailed responses to every conceivable risk or economic question on independence, however implausible, whilst not being able to point out that there are risks with the status-quo, and that extremists exist on the anti-independence side too.

  1. Kraft durch freude

I imagine many “moderate” unionists and British nationalists will feel uncomfortable with Effie’s avowedly manichean prognosis. On the one hand she makes an appeal to overcome historical division and advocates a reinvention of a sense of British purpose in much the same way as she thinks Americans had to do post Civil War. On the other hand however, she baldly states that if you don’t feel particularly British, your only recourse is to join the SNP. Similarly, if you are one of those Scots who agree that Scotland is a “real” country, you really should be in the SNP. Note once again that there is no place for nuance or principled disagreement in Effie’s stark “you’re either with us or against us” Scotland; no place for well intentioned devolutionists, or those who want federalism or a continuation of the widely popular Holyrood system more or less as it is. You must either be a fully paid up SNP member, or a true believer in her Brigadoon fantasy-land of Scotlandshire as just another county of the UK with a funnier accent and quaint national dress.

Having marshalled her troops in serried rows of britnat certainty, Effie then opines that it is necessary for unionists to have a more attractive story to tell than the SNP, one which is positive and shows how much they love the UK and how it is a great country. Whether her profoundly undemocratic plans to ban future referendums, abolish Scottish international football teams and withdraw Scottish banknotes will encourage the majority of Scots to rally to he banner remains to be seen. Recent polls and the prospects of an SNP electoral tsunami overwhelming all three unionist parties in Scotland suggest not.

Effie is one of the leading lights of the #SNPout movement on twitter, whose chief purpose is to promote tactical voting by pro-union voters of all parties to stop SNP MPs being elected. Their particular focus is to keep Alex Salmond out of the Gordon seat, although current polling suggests that such is the scale of the SNP lead they will fail there and indeed everywhere else. Their “spinning wheel of tactical voting” certainly seems to represent a “hail Mary pass” attempt to stem an almost inevitable rout of Labour and LibDem MPs in Scotland. Scratch the veneer of reasonableness however, and some truly regressive and unpleasant views are on display amongst #SNPout supporters and activists. Advocating tactical voting is one thing, but calls to ban future referendums even if the Scots people overwhelmingly express a desire to have one are profoundly undemocratic and rather sinister. Effie ends her blog with the warning:

“They think they can use the Scottish Parliament to ferment division in the UK.  Some say they will use the Scottish Parliament to claim UDI. Show them that we are serious and will take all necessary steps to stop them.” 

It’s not clear how far Effie feels the steps necessary to stop Scottish nationalists should extend, but given her publicly expressed view that pro-independence Scottish immigrants were “treacherous”, I can’t be the only one who can see her brand of extreme British nationalism, her “othering” of any criticism however mildly expressed as vile abuse, and her unreasoning, visceral hatred of independence as lying firmly on a dystopian continuum which ends in mass arrests, prosecutions, internment camps and political re-education.

In conclusion, the answer to Effie’s question “Why are so many people voting for the SNP?” is clear enough; in large part it’s due to the hyperbolic anti-democratic hysteria espoused by individual British nationalist extremists and haters like her, ably assisted by the abject failure of the unionist political parties and elites to isolate such people and present a positive alternative vision of a coherent constitutional settlement short of independence acceptable to the majority of Scots.