Humza Yousaf is gone after a year of rule. As usual, the resignation speech was an interesting document. I shall ignore all the insignificant reasons for his departure and notice only the significant utterances. One thing I should say is that, in general, the style was not as precious or pompous or rancorous as an equivalent speech in England would be. It is, of course, still flawed English (or Scottish). For instance: the sentence, “Let’s also acknowledge far too often, in our country hatred continues to rear its ugly head”, is quite funny, as if Yousaf is in the habit of acknowledging something far too often. (I can hear The Broons: “Och, Pa, dinnae acknowledge that agin: find summat else tae talk aboot.”)
In the speech he said the following:
People who looked like me were not in positions of political influence, let alone leading governments when I was younger. But we now live in a U.K. that has a British-Hindu prime minister, a Muslim mayor of London, a black Welsh first minister and for a little while longer, a Scots Asian first minister of this country. So for those who decry that multiculturalism has failed across the U.K., I would suggest that the evidence is quite to the contrary.
I find this sort of thing a bit odd. First of all, he gets his racial and his religious categories tangled up. The “people who looked like me” stuff is dull and old. Thomas Cromwell, son of a butcher, could have said the same thing: he probably did not have the high colour of an aristocrat. And eliding looking-like-something and believing-something is to go rather too fast, especially since, as we shall see, Yousaf is saying something rather important. I shall ignore the double negative. (Does he add ‘de-’ to ‘cry’ because he thinks it sounds more negative? ‘I cry’ but my enemies, ‘they decry’?) But let us go on, since he wants to add a bit of sermonising:
Each and every one of us must resist the temptation of populism at the expense of minorities.
This is very interesting. The word ‘populism’ is gradually becoming demonised: now classed together with ‘racism’, ‘fascism’, ‘imperialism’: when in fact it just means a-politics-of-appeal-to-the-people. (Populism is just what politicians do on a daily basis in a modern democracy. It is what you do, Yousaf.) I like and even admire the phrase, “the temptation of populism”: though I wonder why populism is inevitably opposed to minorities. It seems to me that one can also have a populism that involves a celebration of minorities: indeed, this is the populism of our age – even if it is not actually very popular below the level at which the political elites operate.
Yousaf of course throws in a slight reference to Gaza and the “horrific humanitarian catastrophe”: missing, apparently the fact (as reported by Peter Harris) that the war in Gaza has involved a rather low incidence of civilian deaths by usual standards (although he’s not alone in overlooking that, obviously). Then we get an admission of the way Scotland is stitched up by the political class:
We have an electoral system that is designed for no political party to have an overall majority. Devolution’s founding fathers and mothers, rightly in their wisdom, believed that no one loses out by politicians sharing wisdom, sharing counsel, sharing ideas.
Dubious reasoning (and odd prose, when read), but the trick is in the phrase “no one”. Aye, no politician loses out if they all have to share from the same plate. And that is about it. Fairly dignified. Not too bad. He adds that he is not willing to trade his principles, but this is just the standard cant of the retiring politician, whose clothes miraculously become whiter and hands cleaner as he is escorted out of the building.
What is the historical significance of Humza Yousaf? Well, he does get close to that significance, though he makes a mess of it by implying that his point is about race or culture. The historical significance of Humza Yousaf is that he was a Muslim. It amazed me that the press barely made mention of this in all his time as First Minister: though I am not exactly scouring the newspapers, I saw no serious analysis of it. For the last year England has been, in effect, ruled by a Hindu, while Scotland has been, in effect, ruled by a Muslim. This, by any standards, is remarkable: especially so, to anyone who knows any history.
The history is perhaps tedious for those of you who just want to focus on the present, but it is necessary. Our country was a church-state for over a thousand years. Indeed, for most of that time it was much more of a church than a state. Bede’s history, for instance, was of the English church. The formal influence of the Papacy of course complicated things, especially between the 12th and 16th Centuries, but some historians say that the English church was always relatively independent, even before the Reformation. From the Reformation until the early 19th Century everyone supposed that England was a church-state, and Scotland a kirk-state. Our equivalent of the French Revolution was delayed for a generation (1. because we were fighting the French, 2. because we had killed our king in 1649, and 3. because we had enjoyed a very different sort of revolution in 1688): but it occurred between 1828 and 1832 when we dismantled the church-state and erected, in its place – a mere state. For the first time, it was possible to imagine the establishment of a political order no longer dedicated to the truth of Christianity. It was no longer to be a requirement that all Members of Parliament be members of the Churches of England or Scotland or Ireland. John Keble declared that “National Apostasy” had taken place. Now it was possible for the state to believe something other than Christianity.
Matters proceeded slowly. Although Disraeli is famous for being a Jew, in fact he was a romantic if somewhat cynical convert to Anglicanism. Gladstone and Salisbury were stern and unbending Christians: though Gladstone of course capitulated to liberalism. Christianity mattered to Baldwin, Chamberlain and occasionally Churchill: also to many Labour leaders. Thatcher used Christian imagery, and Blair was the “Vicar of St Albion”, even if Alistair Campbell told everyone, including Blair, that New Labour “did not do God”. But it took almost two hundred years for the demise of the church-state to be crowned, so to speak, by a Hindu Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and a Muslim First Minister of Scotland – not to mention the Mayor of London, who is also Muslim. Modern Britain being what it is, I have seen barely any mention of this world-historically-significant sign of the times. One can only wonder what Alfred the Great, Edward the Confessor, Thomas Becket, Thomas More, Elizabeth I, John Milton, Samuel Johnson, Edmund Burke and John Henry Newman would have thought about it. None of them was a populist: but they might have believed the matter worth some thought.
There is more. Is it not remarkable that while Christian politicians have tended in recent times to obfuscate their religion, our recent rulers have done the opposite? Rishi Sunak wears a red string bracelet of religious significance. He left a statue of Lord Ganesh to watch over Boris Johnson when the latter was using the office of No. 11. And he lit Diwali candles outside the door of No. 10. Meanwhile, Yousaf led his family in prayers in Bute House, the official residence of the First Minister, on the very day he arrived there, and posted pictures of this event online. Consider. How would it have been received if Thatcher had worn a pectoral cross? Or if Churchill had made a Chi Rho with his hand (as the saints do in Byzantine icons) rather than the ‘V’ sign? Or if Blair had ignored Campbell and ‘done God’ by posting pictures of himself leading his family in Holy Communion in the Cabinet Room?
I only ask. Perhaps this is an awkward question, since these things are not meant to matter nowadays. But is it not remarkable that Christian politicians are made to be embarrassed about their Christianity, whereas Hindu and Muslim politicians, so far from being intimidated by having minority status, feel free to advertise their faith, and even carry out religious rituals in places of political significance, and do so as if what they are doing is simply charming? I am not sure about the Hindu rituals, but it is possible that there are some Muslims around the world who looked at the images of prayer in Bute House and thought that some sort of religious sovereignty was being asserted.
In 1790 Edmund Burke in Reflections on the Revolution in France wrote that if Christianity is overthrown “we are apprehensive… that some uncouth, pernicious and degrading superstition, might take the place of it.” Now, you may not be Christian, and you may not care about Christianity, but I’ll wager you are now convinced that some uncouth, pernicious and degrading superstitions have taken over our country. There is a war going on, beneath all these emollient phrases about diversity and multiculturalism and minorities. The pernicious superstitions obviously include the NHS religion of ‘health and safety’, the Protestor religions of Black Lives Matter, Just Stop Oil and From The River To The Sea, and the Government religions of Lockdown, Net Zero and Open Borders. All of this forms an incoherent set of creeds, and I suppose it is apt that for a while we had a Hindu and a Muslim presiding over it. But has anyone thought about whether, if, in ridding ourselves of Christianity, we have really wanted to have a vast complex of secular religions imposed on us in its stead, which are then decorated by the rites and prayers of other ancient religions? Burke warned us. Perhaps it has taken us two hundred years to see what Burke saw in 1790.
The most significant thing that Humza Yousaf did as a politician was to lead his family in prayer at Bute House.
Dr. James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
IWHT it depends whether there is in fact a God or not. The king was recently crowned and anointed in His name, even if the Archbishop made it obvious that the words he was reading over the king were not his own. AFAIK God has a dim view of hypocrisy.
It’s probably more meaningful to ask what the speaker means by the term.
Does it invoke an understanding, the wisdom of wanting to treat others in the same way that you want others to treat you, or is it a blanket, inflexible authoritarianism more suitable to centuries long gone?
The medical interventions, the NET Zero calamity, and the official Gender Confusion have been cases in point: the objection has been the rush to implementation, rather than use the relevant disciplines, like Science: especially the bit about informed discussion, to come to credible conclusions, with re-evaluation permitted. After all, each time, the public were presented with a fait accompli by supposed experts, through mass communication channels that are known to often have an appearance of being coordinated.
In these cases, and many more, we have had many of the most eminent voices suppressed, while the Legacy Media have persistently promoted a specific agenda: inflexible, inexplicable policies, looking like insanity to those informed by education and experience, over past decades.
Over comparatively recent times, the country has dispensed with unquestioning reverence. I just remember TW3, and there have been many similar programmes since. Even the blasphemy laws have been repealed, as no topic was deemed unreachable to ridicule.
And yet, by the backdoor, we find that topics, usually emanating from esoteric, uninformed beliefs, not considered even credible, even in the short term, are creeping in and destroying the culture that has made our country so attractive to newcomers, as well as ourselves.
We need to support those willing to promote new ideas, and have the ability to contribute to informed discussion, to have a future that we can look forward to experiencing.
“The person I hand my lanyard and company phone in to – white.
The person collecting my company car – white.
The guy interviewing me at the Job Centre – white
My P45- white”
The final words from Useless as he departs.
“So for those who decry that multiculturalism has failed across the U.K., I would suggest that the evidence is quite to the contrary.”
Well it’s bloody well failed me.
But then I’m white and indigenous and this used to be ‘my’ country.
Charles wanted to be known as defender of faiths.You can see how well that defence is going on Saturdays in London where the police threaten to arrest you for your faith.
He has an all-male family? Or am I assuming too much from appearances?
Don’t they (male and female) pray in separate rooms?
Yes. My point being that he only led half his family in prayer.
Over the years I have heard many of words uttered by Scots which are visceral hatred of the English. I hope the Useless legacy is a stop to this
Over the years I have heard it too, uttered by the politicians in Holyrood about England. Westminster and any Tory politician is apparently fair game for the SNP and their cult support , who then sadly also apply the principle to everyone from south of the border.
I think “In” should have gone in front of significance!!
Sunak and Khan are Anglo Hindu and Anglo Muslim which are very different to other Hindu and Muslim cultures because both have only two daughters and stay married to the one original wife something that would be unheard of in India or the Middle East except in the wealthiest homes.
Oh yes. Well done both of them!
Hindus having more than one wife is very rare in India; it is tempting to add if it occurs at all now. I must ask as I am presently there and so may find it is more common than I have been so far led to believe. Several decades ago it was an option, not now.
Muslims do have that option.
It has always been dependent being able to afford it. But divorce can be expensive.
Youseless divorced his first wife, white, for a Muslim woman of mixed race, whose father is Palestinian, and whose brother is on a criminal charge of abduction, extortion following the death of a man in Dundee who fell from a window in a block of flats.
The FM also made s payment of £250,000 to the discredited UN agency, against advice from the Scottish Office, and then miraculously his parents in law were permitted to leave Palestine in early November.
Aye, cultural enrichment right enough!
Populism is left-wing by its very definition.
Christianity affected custom, habit and law in Britain over many generations. It’s not clear if any of the prayers made in Bute House were answered.
I’m intrigued why you think ‘Populism is left-wing by its very definition’. Is Giorgia Meloni’s government left-wing? AFD is increasing in influence and I would describe it as ‘populist’ but not left-wing. Is there some definition that I’m missing or unaware of?
Many pray for miraculous intervention. In my opinion it would be far better to pray for fortitude and right judgement. Rather than pray that the hearts of your enemies will be changed, pray for the strength and conviction to convince and change them. Only he knows what he prayed for.
I’m intrigued why you think ‘Populism is left-wing by its very definition’.
Easy. It’s bad. Hence, to someone who considers himself a member of the political right, it must be “left-wing”. To someone who considers himself a member of the political right, it’ll obviously must be “right-wing” but since both involved parties really jusy want to accuse the other of some “evilism”, this doesn’t really matter.
Why all of the so-disposed people seem to believe that they’re actually recognizably different from each other is something I keep marvelling about.
Well we know how Tim Farron was treated as a Christian. I was listening to Naga that condescending bi?ch from Five Live (who loves the flag) talking about misogyny. Didn’t occur to her that a mass influx of Muslims might increase the problem.
Well, here’s the considered opinion of a group of English patriots on Islam in the UK:
RadioGenoa on X: ““Allah, Allah, who f*ck is Allah”, shout British patriots. https://t.co/lMrGUj9d8v” / X (twitter.com)
A Hindu as PM; a Muslim First Minister in Scotland; A Muslim London Mayor and the country’s wrecked. Nothing works.
(Wales has been wrecked by a succession of Labour First Ministers, so Gething’s faith is irrelevant).
Yup …. multi-faith / multi-culturalism is working out just wonderfully in the UK. Not.
Very perceptive article.
Just one quibble: Gladstone was indeed a stern and unbending Christian but he did not “capitulate to liberalism”. His liberalism arose directly from his religious faith. In fact it is Christianity that gave rise to liberalism in general, and liberal democracy itself.
With the decline of Christianity, Western liberal democracy has been undermined and weakened. If Christianity does not return, our country is unlikely to have a democratic future.
I am going to repeat, almost word for word, a comment I’ve just made under Dr McGrogan’s article above. I think Dr Alexander makes an extremely interesting point which it is extraordinary that others haven’t made (as it’s so obvious).
I always seem to comment long after everyone else, I suppose because I wait to get the articles via my DS email instead of going to their website each day.
Dr Alexander is good but often a bit too long (for my addled brain) and thus I tend to skim read his articles and quite often give up reading them altogether. However, I hung on in there this time (still only skim reading so obviously not taking everything in) and think that he highlights the key fact! I believe that the UK (actually probably the world) has abandoned God (certainly our leaders have) and that’s the basis of all our problems. In the Book of Judges, while there was a ‘good’ (one who followed the Lord) judge (or ruler), the people of Israel also followed the Lord. When a good judge died and there was a hiatus or interim, nearly always (if not always) the people turned to evil and worshipped other gods. This is what we are doing collectively. We cannot survive without God and we need to turn back to him.
But we cannot wholly blame our leaders – we all have our own individual responsibility towards God.
Of the ‘pernicious superstitions’ listed only one qualifies. Black Lives Matter. The rest are issues which require thinking while using logic which we failed and have failed to do, not least because in doing so we arrive at awkward conclusions.
Assumptions, tenets and premises once gauged can then accompanied by value judgement and an argument constructed.
Lockdowns were are prime example of how this process was ignored by the public and though Sunetra Gupta and Dawkins cannot bring themselves to contemplate the awfulness of it, by far most so called scientists who preferred to subject the population to unjustifiable measures thereby avoiding hard scrutiny of how the virus originated with the possible conclusion of irresponsible, potentially immoral scientific research.
The reason given now for not investigating the origin of the virus, for which the measures taken caused an unmeasurable quantity of death and loss of life years globally, is that it is too late.
The reference to ‘From the river to the sea’ is glib capitulation to the values of the insincere and intellectually incurious for what motive one can only guess at. There are facts in this subject also; some very basic ones which once acknowledged can only lead to a broader palette within which to weigh separate claims, not least the origin of the phrase lampooned in the article. Logic leads one to confront the consequences of un-thought-out positions.
I enjoyed the article rather as one might enjoy a tipsy tongue in cheek after dinner speech that strayed into the risqué by a speaker who judged the occasion inappropriate for a serious approach and thus knew he would not be taken too seriously.