CommonSpace columnist and Common Weal director Robin McAlpine says news of Andrew Wilson's appointment as chair of the SNP's growth commission is cause for alarm
I'VE been arguing and arguing that the independence movement needs more economics. It now appears that it also needs a decent dose of sociology too.
Because one of the key strands of sociology is about how communities hold together and function without falling into a hideous war of all against all. And basically, no matter the amount of power and control, the strength of ideologies and the effectiveness of institutions, communities do not survive very long without trust and respect.
Before I go any further I want to provide two personal notes. First, despite lazy assertions which are sometimes thrown around that I'm 'far left', 'hard left' or 'a Trot', that's never been true. I grew up in the SNP and, particularly, in the peace movement (I've never been associated with groups like the SWP).
Read more: SNP growth commission hit by secretive lobbying row
I was brought up with the peace movement ethos of understanding, cooperation, patience and forgiveness. Whether or not I always manage this, it remains a fundamental belief that has driven my politics.
There's none of us perfect, none of us beyond criticism. If we can't get past that and learn to work together, not because we agree on everything but despite the fact that we don't agree on everything, we're doomed.
The second note is that I always prefer to put forward positive solutions rather than negative complaints. There are a small group of people I chat to before writing a column. They would tell you that for weeks now I've been saying "right, that's it, I'm not writing another critical or negative column next week".
I'm frustrated that I've felt like I have to keep breaking this vow because the only relevant or important thing that I can think to write is critical in tone.
But when I do write something negative, I try my very best to make sure it is constructive and not harmful. I always get it read over. I ask people to flag up anything I've written which could be used by unionists or rightwingers to attack things I believe in.
If there is anything I think might be harmful, divisive and not constructive, I take it out or at least rephrase it. On one occasion, after advice, I pulled an entire column. I withhold a lot of information to which I have access.
It's absolutely not personal – Andrew Wilson is a personable chap and I don't doubt his commitment to independence.
I'm not tame, but I'm a 'good soldier', or I try to be. If we just do whatever we want, blurt out whatever is on our minds, pursue a route of action without so much as a thought about how it will affect others, we will sacrifice trust and respect and no longer be able to function in a community.
Which is why I'm so perturbed by the announcement that the new plan for Scottish independence is going to be written by Andrew Wilson, an appointment that I just can't see as anything other than inexplicably provocative.
It's absolutely not personal – Andrew Wilson is a personable chap and I don't doubt his commitment to independence. It's just that I really struggle to think of any other name which would be more likely more completely to antagonise large sections of the independence movement, including inside the SNP.
When it was announced, Mr Wilson was described as a 'former MSP'. It's just that quite a lot has happened in the 13 years since then. He established Charlotte Street Partners, a lobbying firm which has openly traded on its insider status and access to government.
Of what is in the public domain (Charlotte Street Partners is as secretive as it gets), perhaps most controversially it was one of the chief lobbyists for fracking in Scotland. We just don't know much else.
If some of the SNP loyalists out there are already hopping up and down wondering why I can't be more deferential, consider that the last time I was anywhere near the orbit of Charlotte Street Partners was when I was sitting in a parliamentary committee meeting trying to defend Scottish Government policy against an establishment group which was not only trying to defeat the government but also to give it a bloody nose in the process – a group that had been coached to do this by Charlotte Street Partners. For money.
It's just that I really struggle to think of any other name which would be more likely more completely to antagonise large sections of the independence movement, including inside the SNP.
Anyone who thinks that this firm is the SNP's representative in the corporate world has it all back to front.
It is important to be clear that nothing in this is illegal or in any way against the rules (though I really think much of it should be – and so does most of the public. It's not even that the 'revolving door' in politics is disgusting, embeds corruption, stinks to high heaven and is utterly ruining democracy.
These are not the point on this occasion. The point is that we all make choices in our lives – and those choices have consequences. For example, I have chosen to become a vocal advocate for progressive political causes. I therefore can't then present myself as some kind of neutral commentator. I knew my choice, I live by the consequence.
Mr Wilson chose to convert his contacts and access into substantial personal wealth. His political background became his personal commercial advantage (and since he was never a senior politician or held any kind of ministerial role, I don't really have any objection to that).
It's just that the consequence is that as a hired gun for corporate interests he sacrificed his right to convene public commissions and appointments – his tears at criticisms this week must surely be of the crocodile variety.
He established Charlotte Street Partners, a lobbying firm which has openly traded on its insider status and access to government.
In all my life I can't think of someone chairing a commission who has such clear conflicts of interest but who will refuse to disclose any of them. This is procedurally wrong. Really wrong.
If Wilson rules out 'unconventional gas' as a means of growing the Scottish economy, it could presumably harm his future business interests. If he does the opposite it simply looks way beyond dodgy.
I'm not advocating one outcome or another. I'm arguing that there is a very good reason why conflicts of interest should be avoided and always, always disclosed. Secrecy and trust are sworn enemies.
But much more to the point, Mr Wilson represents a politics which are very much alien to the vast majority of the independence movement, and he's not been afraid to make that clear. I mean, he's argued that one of the biggest economic problems facing Scotland is the lack of five star hotels. This seems somewhat disconnected from the concerns of, say, Women for Independence.
Of what is in the public domain (Charlotte Street Partners is as secretive as it gets), perhaps most controversially it was one of the chief lobbyists for fracking in Scotland. We just don't know much else.
Clearly the whole thing has been cobbled together in the last couple of weeks since there was no mention of it whatsoever when GERS was published. I've asked around and as far as I can discover, next to no-one in the party was informed never mind consulted (even I am surprised at whom I've discovered knew nothing about this and certainly it never went near the national executive where, procedurally, it should have been discussed). Genuine consultation often helps avoid obvious mistakes – which this was.
This is an open goal for the opposition parties. Lobbyists and corporations are mistrusted by the public (last year a poll showed 88 per cent of Scots believe that "lobbying poses a big or significant risk to the policy-making process". If Scottish independence is made to look like a corporate lobbyist project it will damage our case.
The Wilson move has has produced a very critical response from supportive voices like the Sunday Herald. The SNP is a minority party and needs Green votes to get a referendum bill passed. Is this encouraging a more trusting relationship with the Greens?
If the SNP is to achieve independence it must not take on Scottish Labour's mantle as an organisation which gives the appearance of being primarily about ensuring 'jobs for the boys (and girls)'.
Anyone who thinks that this firm is the SNP's representative in the corporate world has it all back to front.
There would be absolutely no shame whatsoever in Mr Wilson realising that his presence could be counterproductive and stepping down. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Trust and respect keep communities together. Communities win referendums in the way politics alone can't. The movement has to trust the SNP's leadership. For that to happen the SNP must treat the movement with respect.
Picture courtesy of Robin McAlpine
Check out what people are saying about how important CommonSpace is. Pledge your support today.
