Yesterday on the BBC News programme Dateline London, the Daily Telegraph columnist Janet Daley described the Scottish National Party as an "external threat".
In itself, the moment, like the casually-delivered insult, was of no great significance, but it was symptomatic. Those who profess to care most for the Union have a strange, paranoid way of showing it.
Whether David Cameron is truly among their number remains to be seen. What is beyond doubt is that during the general election campaign the Prime Minister was content to define the SNP as that "external threat" to Westminster, to rouse English nationalism - in fact, chauvinism - against Scotland's nationalist party, and to treat a democratic choice as beyond the pale.
Where to begin? Perhaps by asking if Cameron paused once to wonder how his cheap rhetoric would affect the prospects of Scottish Conservatives. That's a small matter, perhaps, but a useful yardstick. Then you could inquire as to what remains, after this, of all those appeals to affection and unity we heard during the referendum. In essence, the Prime Minister was telling Scots that if push came to shove their MPs could be vilified, disqualified and dismissed.
That's not even the half of it. Enmity towards "the English" has no place in the language of the SNP. Those who share Ms Daley's weird world-view might dearly wish it otherwise, but both Yes campaigners and the Nationalist party have gone to great lengths to explain reality to those who are ignorant or mischievous. "Blood and soil nationalism" - another little gem from the Telegraph journalist - forms no part of the thinking of ordinary Scots. Yet members of the right-wing press, no doubt keen to defend Cameron's behaviour, have been peddling the slur relentlessly.
It's a dangerous game. First, it is a deliberate attempt to foment trouble where none has existed. What responsible Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would do that? Not one who means what he says when he otherwise hails the benefits of Union. One way or another, the Prime Minister has been dishonest with Scottish and English voters alike. Voters in Scotland who already treated Westminster with extreme scepticism (let's say) have been shown its ugliest face.
Secondly, there is, to be blunt, the question of stupidity. The arrival of 56 SNP MPs at Westminster ought to be proof enough that the political landscape has changed utterly. As Nicola Sturgeon has already told Cameron, Scotland's voice will henceforth be heard. Powers for Holyrood aside, there will have to be serious talking about the future structure of the United Kingdom and relationships within it if the UK is to have any future at all. Even Boris Johnson, of all people, has grasped that much. Yet Cameron has put everything at risk with tawdry provocations in a reckless attempt to stir up resentment.
The truly dangerous possibility, for honest Unionists, is that the Prime Minister doesn't care. His unexpected Commons majority has the benefit of a single Scottish MP and precious few Scottish votes. The avalanche of support for the SNP might have led him to believe that the Union will be gone sooner or later, that English nationalism - a handy counter to Ukip, after all - is the Tory future, and that "fear" of the Scots is an honest representation of English opinion. If any of that is true, Scottish Unionists might as well give up the fight now.
After all, they have a chilling truth with which to contend. In some parts of England, Cameron's loose talk certainly seems to have cost Labour votes. Ed Miliband endured a catastrophe thanks to no one but himself: that's evident from the results. But a disturbing number of English voters seem to have not a clue about how the Union and Westminster are supposed to work. The idea of a partnership in which all MPs, voters and nations are equal - the proposition defended by No voters last September - is lost on a remarkable number of people in English constituencies. They too believed there was an "external threat" to "their" parliament and, somehow, their country.
That's quite a verdict on three long centuries of Union. It also contains a verdict on Cameron. Had he been less of a hypocrite he would have been hard at work explaining the nature and virtues of the UK to English voters. Instead, he chose to alarm them. Sadly, we have not heard the end of this.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article