Honest Nigel and Hollow John

Observing a moment of high-hypocrisy from the leader of the Scottish National Party during the 2024 UK election.

It is seldom, in these benighted times, that a politician tells the truth. Cases where the truth being told is outside the Overton Window, that narrow range of viewpoints deemed acceptable by the press and the political mainstream, are almost unknown in the contemporary political scene. The establishment's reaction to such truth-telling is as predictable as it is ruthless. The teller is characterised by one of a few slur-word labels. Sometimes it is “conspiracy theorist”, other times “racist”. Not infrequently, some form of mental defect or illness will be implied. But this week the practice of castigating anyone who dares speak accurately and courageously reached a new low. The word selected to silence truth was:

TRAITOR!

Telling the truth in a time of universal deceit

The truth-teller in this case was Nigel Farage, so often the bête noire of the political classes. The venue was an interview on the BBC’s flagship political programme Panorama with, journalist, Nick Robinson. What Farage said was this:

Right, I’ll tell you what you don’t know, I stood up in the European Parliament in 2014 and I said, and I quote, ‘there will be a war in Ukraine’.

Why did I say that? It was obvious to me that the ever-eastward expansion of NATO and the European Union was giving this man [pointing a a photograph of Putin] a reason to [go to] his Russian people to say, ‘they’re coming for us again’ and to go to war.

And then he said the plain truth all the more plainly:

We’ve provoked this war. Of course it is his [Putin’s] fault, but he used what we did.

He added:

By the way, I’m the only person in British politics that predicted what would happen, and of course everyone said I was a pariah for daring to suggest it.

George Robertson, former Labour cabinet minister, who went on to become the secretary general of NATO, has, in the last couple of weeks, said the war is a direct result of the EU expansion.

The mainstream response was as one would expect:

Nigel Farage is simply wrong about Vladimir Putin

I cannot vote for a man who, however unintentionally, has almost certainly given the Kremlin a ray of hope.

(Hamish De Bretton-Gordon, The Telegraph)

Nigel Farage’s claim that NATO provoked Russia is naïve and dangerous

It is also a wilful misreading of history

(The Economist)

[Mr Farage] is a bit like that pub bore we've all met at the end of the bar [and who often presents] very simplistic answers [to complex problems].

(Ben Wallace, former Defence Secretary)

[Mr Farage's comments made him] unfit for any political office in our country, let alone leading a serious party in Parliament.

(John Healey, Labour Defence Spokesman)

So, wrong, naïve, and dangerous: a pub-bore who is unfit for any political office — you get the idea. There was a great deal of such invective. But the only issue that matters is this: Is Nigel Farage right, or is he wrong?

The Key Facts

Wikileaks revealed a cable from William J Burns, then US ambassador in Moscow. This is dated 1st February 2008 and was directed to everyone who needed to understand the situation:

• The Joint Chiefs of Staff

• The NATO-European Union Cooperative

• The National Security Council

• The Russia Moscow Political Collective

• The Secretary of Defence

• The Secretary of State

It was titled:

NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES

The summary portion of this cable read as follows:

Following a muted first reaction to Ukraine's intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) at the Bucharest summit (ref A), Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic" issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene. Additionally, the GOR and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry, Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations generally. In Georgia, the GOR fears continued instability and "provocative acts" in the separatist regions. [emphasis added]

To further underline the gravity of the issue, Burns added this no-holds-barred overview in a memo to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

Burns further predicted that offering Ukraine NATO membership would

…create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

So the message was sent to Western governments loudly and clearly. NATO expansion into Ukraine would result in an inevitable and unpredictable Russian response. This would likely include action in Crimea and eastern Ukraine and could involve a substantial military counter to what was seen by Russian leaders as a strategic, and potential military, threat.

And how did the Western governments react? On April 3rd 2008, the Heads of State and Government, participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Bucharest issued the “Bucharest Summit Declaration”. Item 23 of this document reads as follows:

NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO.  We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.  Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations.  We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May.  MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership.  Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP.  Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications.  We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting.  Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.

The decision was made, prejudged if you will. Both Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO” and a Membership Action Plan (MAP) would be the next step for both nations.

So it is clear that the Western governments knew that the eastward expansion of NATO into Ukraine was the “reddest of red lines” for Moscow and therefore would likely trigger a major Russian geopolitical and military response. They proceeded in any case. The 2008 declaration that Ukrainian NATO membership was a done deal, an inevitable destination, entirely ignored Russian concerns. All risks in this strategy were either ignored, accepted or welcomed.

In short, Nigel Farage was, and is, correct.

Swinney Struts In

At this point in our story, enters second-rate Scottish political operator, John Swinney. Last in a long line of continuity candidates to lead the SNP, John has problems. The demise of Nicola Sturgeon’s political career over the vexed question of “what is a woman”, had been followed by a short and chaotic spell in nominal charge by her designated successor, the accident-prone Humza Yousaf. It is a bad time for the SNP. Cash is low, enthusiasm is low, and new ideas are nowhere to be found. After seventeen years of rule in Holyrood during which Scotland has declined economically, educationally and culturally, the SNP are widely seen as corrupt, out of touch, and overdue for replacement in government. With a resurgent Labour party threatening many SNP-held seats, Mr. Swinney is seeking every opportunity to limit losses. He has very little political (or financial) capital to expend.

He has therefore returned to the former Alex Salmond approach. This is a simple, three-fold strategy:

1. Always position the SNP to the left of the Labour Party

2. Repeat simple tropes such as “Scotland is best governed by the people who live here” and avoid detail, analysis or depth.

3. Use political opportunism to position the party leader at the forefront of whatever controversy might happen along.

This last item is done by making the most strident and clear statement on the issues of the day of any political leader. By this means, considerable attention is won in the press and on TV without having to think of anything original. This ruse is assisted by the likely lack of real responsibility for the issue involved and therefore a lack of political constraints on what can be said by the SNP leader.

Whilst this is not exactly a magnificent strategy, Alex Salmond was quite good at it. John, on the other hand, is no Alex Salmond.

This is what he said:

Vladimir Putin has voluntarily invaded a sovereign country and nobody provoked him to, nobody was a threat to Vladimir Putin.

Nigel Farage has confirmed what all of us have suspected of him – that he is a dangerous man. And that he is a traitor to the interests of the people of these islands, and the people of Ukraine.

So, first, he established a complete lack of knowledge of the subject area. Next, he called Nigel Farage “dangerous”, I suppose this is an attempt by the leader of a party dedicated to the breaking up of the state to paint continuity as a fearful prospect and so manipulate voters to risk the unknown. None of this is insightful or memorable. So finally Mr. Swinney went for the “money shot”, an appropriate metaphor for a leader who promoted pornography to schoolchildren I hope you agree. He called Farage a “Traitor!”.

Even this slur-word was strangely mishandled. Who is Nigel meant to be betraying?

…the interests of the people of these islands.

Not a nation. The nation is called The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In SNP-land, this is an unsayable phrase. So we got “these islands” whatever that means exactly we don’t know. Does it include the whole of Ireland for example? Then Mr Swinney claimed Mr. Farage was a traitor to:

… the people of Ukraine.

Why does Nigel Farage owe any allegiance or duty, loyalty or devotion to the people of the Ukraine? In reality, he does not, the only entity he can be a traitor to is the United Kingdom. Only in the hocus-pocus world of contemporary media does some form of duty to Ukraine get evoked and attached to British people.

So we have the sight of a politician who claims to be dedicated to the destruction of the United Kingdom, that is of the British State, claiming that another politician who defends and seeks to strengthen that state is a “Traitor” because they do not support a foreign state in their far-away war.

I’m sure Alex Salmond would not have left himself looking so foolish.

More On Mr Swinney

So what else was Mr. Swinney up to that same day (22nd June)? he was headlining at the Edinburgh Pride parade:

Here we see him with the Scottish National flag, the Saltire, Christian symbol defaced to represent the post-modern LGBTQIA2S+ movement. This is a movement that opposes and seeks to replace Christianity as a religious underpinning to society.

Is his not a betrayal of everything Scotland has historically stood for? This was “the land of the book” where God’s word was valued more than anywhere else. This was the land of Robert Murray McCheyne, John Knox, and Horatius Bonar.

In God’s word we are called to repent, to experience a changing of mind, and of heart. In Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians, this is summarised as follows:

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Cor 5:17)

This is a process of renewal, called conversion. Here we see Mr. Swinney walking behind the Scottish Trans banner calling for conversion to be made illegal. He is campaigning to make criminal the very idea that was the root of our nation, our national identity; and of our intellectual, educational, social, economic, and spiritual success.

Take heed that no man should deceive you

I suspect that I share only limited common ground with Nigel Farage. He does not, I suspect, share my Christian worldview. But on the matter of Ukraine and the causes of the war, he is telling the truth. Not the whole truth, or even a fully expressed truth, but truth nevertheless, and in a world of universal deceit that takes courage. It should be applauded and supported.

Mr Swinney instead sees Nigel’s truth-telling as a political opportunity. Mr Swinney, who rules in Scotland, betrays everything our nation once stood for. He makes his political calculation and smiles for the cameras. There is no substance to him, no solidity. He is Hollow John.

Difficult times lie ahead. Endurance, courage, and integrity will be needed; and will be sore-tested, Our Lord prophesied this time as follows:

And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Mat 24: 4-14)

We must discern the honest from the hollow. Support one and call out the other. This skill, and the courage to apply it, will be vital in the weeks, months, and years ahead. It will be crucial for retaining faith and fidelity and avoiding being swamped by fear and cravenness. So to keep match-fit for the trials ahead, I say this:

• Nigel Farage is speaking honestly about the war in Ukraine

• John Swinney is a hollow man, attempting to deceive.