Pages

Sunday 22 April 2018

Divisive

'Shall we have a second referendum on Scottish independence?'

'No!  Divisive!' comes the loud reply from supporters of the Union.

Divisive.  The reflex answer, without much thought going into it, parroted time and time again.  But what does that actually mean?

The dictionary definition of  'divisive' is 'tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people'.  On the surface I think both sides of the independence debate could agree on the 'cause disagreement' part.  The hostility seems to me to come more from the Unionist side, but I'm pretty sure they would argue that it mainly comes from the independista side.  Certainly it is always deployed by the Unionist side as a reason not to have another referendum, but I don't believe I've ever heard the independence side use it in any context.

If we dig a little deeper though, and look at the derivation of the term we find
Mid 16th century (as a noun denoting something that divides or separates): from late Latin divisivus, from Latin dividere (see divide).
Isn't division the very reason we have politics in the first place?  You're never going to get an issue that 100% of the population agrees on, so there are always going to be sides, and therefore division no matter what the particular issue under discussion is.  If you have an election, there are going to be two or more sides competing for the votes of the electorate in any democracy, and they may have wildly differing views on how best to run the country.  So why aren't General Elections viewed as divisive? To take another example, the Brexit referendum was a very close run thing, far more so than the one on independence.  Yet, when it's suggested that there should be another one before we actually leave the EU, you don't hear cries of 'divisive!' from the leavers or remainers.  Rather you hear from the leavers that the will of the people has been expressed and is therefore inviolate.

What makes the issue of Scottish independence uniquely 'divisive' then?

Some Unionists have argued that the previous referendum on independence resulted in fallings-out between friends and family members, causing wounds that have barely begun to heal.  I have to say that neither I nor anyone else I know has found themselves in the position of not talking to friends or family because they voted different ways.  Indeed, my experience was that, where opinions differed, there was a lot of friendly banter, but nothing serious.  This is not to say that this never happened, but I think it's not nearly as common as the Unionist side are claiming.  The same could also be said of the Brexit referendum.  At best this is a superficial reason.

Let's dig a little deeper.  Here in the UK we have two major parties and a number of minor parties who take part in Westminster General Elections.  The major parties are the Conservatives (Tories) and Labour.  During most of the twentieth century the Conservatives represented the interests of the property-owning classes, while Labour represented the interests of the working classes and had close ties to the trade unions.  Conservatives believe in minimal governmental regulation while Labour believed in more governmental regulation to prevent exploitation of the majority of the populace by the property-owning classes. In the 1990s, however, Labour under Tony Blair became much more 'business-friendly' and much less tied to the trade unions.  Nowadays the Conservatives and Labour have very similar core values, with some tinkering at the edges of governmental regulation, Labour being more inclined to have it and the Conservatives not as far as business is concerned, while both are becoming ever more draconian in their attempts to control what ordinary people do.  There is a third UK party, the Liberal Democrats, but most people would be hard-pressed to say how they differ from the Conservatives and Labour.  All three parties have in common that they support the status quo in the form of the monarchy and control by the Westminster parliament.

In Scotland the SNP have existed for seventy years, and for most of that time they were very much a tiny, special-interest party, held of no account by the Establishment.  However, since devolution in 1999 the SNP have seen a meteoric rise, resulting in the first independence referendum in 2014.  At that point the UK parties woke up to the fact that there was a real threat to the comfortable status quo where each of them had a turn at power to one degree or another and were free to do whatever they liked with Scottish resources.  The independence referendum made many people realise that there might just be an opportunity to run things differently from the UK model.

Here, I think, is the real root of the cry of 'divisive'.  The division is between those who are comfortable with the status quo and resent/fear being made to think about it and those who dare to dream that things could be very different. The fear from the Unionist side shows in their desperation not to have another referendum, since the last result was far closer than was anticipated and there is no guarantee that they would win another one.

So, next time the idea of a second independence referendum is met with the clarion cry of 'divisive', perhaps we should push right back and ask why division is a uniquely bad thing in the context of Scottish independence.  I think the Unionist side will be hard-pressed to explain it.

Thursday 12 April 2018

Alea iacta est

There continues to be a huge debate about the timing of a second Scottish independence referendum, although it would appear that most supporters of Scottish independence would prefer it to take place before the next Scottish elections in 2021.  However, it remains to be seen whether the Scottish government will do so, especially with stalwarts of the Yes movement like Jim Sillars proclaiming very stringent conditions to be met before calling one.

Nicola Sturgeon has proved herself an excellent administrator and statesman, as have others in her government.  This is not a bad thing at this stage, as it has given people a sense that Scots are more than capable of running their own affairs (albeit currently in a limited way), as well as a politics quite different from that elsewhere in the UK.  The Unionists will, of course, sneer that everything isn't perfect under the SNP, conveniently forgetting that everything hasn't been perfect under their parties of choice either.  Nevertheless, people who are not tied to a particular party will likely now have some confidence in our abilities to do things for ourselves.

How does this relate to the second independence referendum?  Essentially because I don't get a sense from Nicola Sturgeon that she has the bold streak that will be required to go for it.  Let's face it, there will never be certainty.  There are too many people who will decide on the day which way to vote.

Imagine the scene.  Julius Caesar and his generals approach the Rubicon, knowing that to cross it will start a civil war.  They cannot be certain that they will win it.  Nevertheless, Caesar crosses the Rubicon and utters the phrase 'alea iacta est' (let the die be cast).  He can't be certain of victory, but is willing to play the odds with the information he has.

Imagine the scene.  Robert the Bruce is contemplating a battle with the English at Bannockburn.  He almost calls it off, but is told that morale in the English army is poor, so decides to go ahead with it.  He can't be certain he will win, but thinks that his chances are good enough to at least try.

Imagine the scene.  Henry V is at Agincourt, about to face a much larger French army.  He believes his Welsh archers will give him the advantage, but he cannot be certain of victory.  Nevertheless, he is sufficiently confident that he can win the day to go ahead with the battle anyway.

As far as another indyref, we can never be certain we can win it.  The best we can do is start with as much support as possible and try as best we can to convince enough floating voters to our side.  It requires, however, a leader with a certain boldness, willing to go all-in if they were a poker player.  This I am not certain the current leadership has.

What if we lose?  We don't give up.  It may be the next generation that has to take on the fight.  Fear of losing should not prevent us from trying however.  The lesson of history is quite clear on this, and we would do well to heed it.


Sunday 8 April 2018

Ready, steady...

Recently there has been a big debate going on in the indy-supporting community as to the timing of a second referendum on Scottish independence.  This has been sparked by Pete Wishart MP, who urges caution on holding a second independence referendum unless it's all but certain it will be won.  This has provoked a strong reaction from people who believe that the mandate that the SNP and Greens won at the last Scottish Parliamentary Elections to hold another independence referendum in the event of a material change in circumstances should be honoured in the course of the current Scottish parliament, on the basis that the fact that Scotland voted to stay in the EU but it being taken out of it anyway constitutes that material change.

I am one of the many people who joined the SNP in the wake of the 2014 referendum.  Why?  Because, like it or not, the SNP are going to be the main vehicle that gets us to independence.  There are many other groups which support Scottish independence, each with their own agenda once we get there, and all have their part to play, but the SNP are the biggest group by far.  It therefore falls to Nicola Sturgeon, as leader of the SNP, to determine when the next independence referendum will be.


Initially Ms Sturgeon made all the right noises in the wake of the Brexit referendum result, which saw Scotland being taken out of the EU at the behest of the voters in England and Wales, even though every Scottish council district had voted to stay in.  However, many people feel that she has rowed back on that commitment (see here for example, from about six minutes in)

To a degree this is understandable.  Ms Sturgeon and her government have to walk a fine line between standing up for what Scotland voted for and not scaring the currently Unionist-voting people.

The current SNP strategy appears to be to show competence in government, whether that's at Westminster by standing up to the Tory government, both on behalf on Scotland and on wider UK matters, or at Holyrood by proving that they can run a country successfully using the powers they have (such as they are) to improve the lives of Scots.  In this they have been pretty successful, and Nicola Sturgeon in particular has shown real statesmanlike qualities.

However, those of Peter Wishart's belief tend to come across as being comfortable with the status quo and unwilling to upset the applecart, whether they mean to or not.  Pete Wishart's argument is that in his constituency he has had many people who voted for him tell him that they would favour the Tories in another election, and that this therefore implies falling support for independence or at least no guarantee that another independence referendum would be winnable, and that another referendum defeat would end the independence movement and mean that future generations would never forgive us.

With respect to Mr Wishart, however, Perth cannot be considered typical of everywhere in Scotland.  Perth and the surrounding area were represented at Westminster by Nicholas Fairbairn from 1974 to 1995, an arch-Tory if ever there was one.  This would tend to imply a vein of Toryism running through the electorate in Perth, which you are unlikely to find in other areas of Scotland.

The other side of the debate thinks that the Scottish government should hold a second independence referendum, certainly before the next Scottish parliamentary elections and for some before Brexit actually takes place.  There is some merit to this argument.  Nicola Sturgeon wants to wait until the terms of Brexit are crystal-clear, countered by the argument that we are already seeing the effects of Brexit on the UK and that things are not going to improve once Brexit actually takes place.  If anything they will be much, much worse.

If another independence referendum were called tomorrow, we would be starting off from a much better position than in the last one.  Current polling suggests that support for independence is holding steady at around 46%, compared with around 22% at the beginning of the last indyref campaign.  However, getting that extra 5% will take a lot of work in persuading previous No voters that Scottish independence will not make their lives worse and will conceivably make it considerably better, this in the face of a concerted campaign from the British Establishment to keep us in the UK.

Where do I stand on this? Discretion is often the better part of valour, and I can see where the SNP are coming from with their 'steady as she goes' philosophy.  However,  major changes like Scottish independence are not won by being cautious. There comes a time when you just have to cross the Rubicon and deal with whatever the outcome is. Pete Wishart's view is that future generations will never forgive us if we try again and lose. However, I don't think we should be held back by what future generations might possibly think. We can't tell what the future will be, we can only deal with what we have now. We are starting from a much better position than we were in 2014, and Brexit will, I think, give us additional support from people who believed in 2014 that remaining in the Union was the only way to retain EU membership. I do understand that some Yessers don't support EU membership, so it's important to make it clear that an indyref isn't tied to EU membership, which can be decided (possibly by another referendum) after independence is obtained. The SNP have their mandate for another indyref, and it would be unforgivable to refuse to use that mandate because you are afraid that you might not win. 

Faint heart never won fair maiden, as they say.