Imagine there’s no Union
While conducting an imaginary debate with myself in the mirror (not a euphemism), I struck upon an idea that I think is worth trying out on people who claim to be undecided about the referendum. You know the type – they ask you a question about how such and such would continue or otherwise if we become independent, and upon receiving a perfectly good answer, they then come up with another burning issue, and another, and another, etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
While some of these people no doubt have genuine issues of concern and just want some reassurance, I suspect a sizeable portion aren’t really interested in having these questions answered at all – they’re just asking them for the sake of it. The purpose of the question is not to find the answer, but to try to put independence supporters on the back foot and catch them out. They’re not looking to banish all the fears which are stopping them from voting Yes – they’re simply looking for an excuse to vote No.
Think about it. I’m sure I’m not the only person who sometimes just doesn’t want to do something, but rather than say “I don’t want to do it”, I rattle off a litany of reasons for not doing it. None of them are actually good enough reasons for not doing it, and all are just excuses to cover up the fact that my decision is not based on the conclusions of some logical thought process – it’s merely a feeling, an emotion. But I don’t want to admit that, because deep down I know if I simply say “I just don’t want to”, I’ll either get ground down and end up doing it anyway, or I’ll have to admit that I’m just saying “No” for the sake of it.
Similarly, if people had to admit that the lesser-spotted “positive case for the union” boils down to “I just don’t want to leave the UK”, there’s a chance that at worst they’ll have to concede their argument is rubbish, and at best they might actually think about it properly and change their mind. So they unleash a defensive barrage of questions to stop them having to face that admission.
So here’s my idea. Instead of spending time telling people why Scotland won’t get kicked out of the EU and forced to re-apply, only to then have to say why we won’t have to join the Euro, or Schengen, or put up border patrols, or whatever else people come out with, just say this to them:
“Imagine all those things just got magically cleared up. Pretend that none of it matters and whatever we decide, everything will just work out. Would you then vote for Scotland to be able to make all its own decisions?”
My theory is that this is when you will find out who the true undecided voters are, as well as the indy-leaners. We know from the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey which was published last year that there are conditions under which people would vote for independence by a ratio of 2:1. So there are people out there that are open to persuasion.The problem is they’ve been told by the media and everyone else that there are all these obstacles in the way of independence. They’ve been conditioned to feel the need to ask questions about things which never so much as enter their heads normally, and as a result, they’re not actually asking themselves the real question.
Rather than asking themselves if they agree Scotland should be an independent country, they’re asking if it could be. But if they were to flip it round, and settle the principle first before looking at the practicalities? That way, they’d come back to their “COULD Scotland be independent?” question with a new optimism and purpose, actually looking for the answer to be “Yes”. And from there it’s easy.
This referendum is not about the EU, the monarchy, the currency, tax rates, pensions or NATO. It’s not even about nuclear weapons. It’s about one simple, fundamental principle – who do we think is best placed to govern in Scotland’s interests? So rather than fighting through all these questions (and the ensuing sub-questions) in order to get to the only one that really matters, what if they were to imagine that there’s no need to worry about these things, because at the end of the day it’s in everyone’s best interests for whoever ends up in charge to get it all sorted out successfully?
After all, it’s pretty much the truth.
I think you are being the voice of Blair Jenkins?
I was going to put a reference to Blair’s thought experiment to point out the difference, but in the end it just made me go off on a tangent.
Blair is asking people to pretend we’re still independent and are being asked to join a union now. It’s a good way of reframing the question, but in reality it’s still the opposite of what we’re asking people to vote on.
What I’m saying is, pretend all those other questions you have are irrelevant and will be sorted out by A. N. Other. All you need to ask yourself now is do you think Scotland would be better off as an independent country?
People get themselves bogged down in side issues. They’re putting up barriers before they’ve even gotten to the real question. So we say “in a perfect world, would Scotland be independent?” And if they answer affirmatively (and I believe the majority would), then we say “right, well that’s all that matters because as long as we want that, everything else will follow.”
It’s basically what the EU are saying – “we’re not getting involved. Decide what you want first and then we’ll tell you if it’s possible.”
So I would say Blair’s and my question compliment each other, rather than being the same one.
That’s funny Doug, I was just thinking you were saying the same as the author and then I realised – you are the author. Yes, I agree, and will adopt it full time.
Up till now I’ve just been asking gently a bit, to try to find out why people would vote “NO”. Mostly “unimportant” things by the way. But this is better.
I could see a vague introductory remark with an answer of “I’ll have to get a new passport” or something, and the answer to that I’ll do is similar to yours:
“imagine your passport is still valid, no borders like now, in the EU on better terms, blah blah (looking to see if they’ve lost interest already!) …”. To which their answer would be somethng like “but we’ll have to reapply / surrender our passport / go through immigration at Heathrow / change currency before going shopping”.
To which my answer would be like: “so the papers and TV would have us believe, but we know how accurate they are. If the likes of the BBC told me it was cold, wet and windy outside, by which they mean on the roof of the London weather centre, I’d change into my shorts and T-shirt and rush out to get a suntan. So, do you think you’d vote YES to Independence if there were actually no problems at all, and everything was good?”.
Job done, but needs a bit of work 🙂
Things like “Jowly Eck is a smug git”, my answer is that I’m not fond of any politicians, but at least ours are nearer to throw rotten tomatoes at.
Enjoyed this piece Doug and I agree getting people to consider the principle of independence is by far the best method. I’ve asked the same question a number of times using a similar approach. The stock answer I tend to receive from truly undecideds is an unreserved yes to the principle of independence and an almost apologetic reference to natural caution and worries about benefits for self and families being the only fly in the ointment. No mention of Europe, Nato, currency, cross border social ties, just can we afford it and survive? This I have found is where the real conversation can start and you get the chance to make your pitch on resource to population maths, moneys saved on………, kids not going off to fight in interesting climes etc, etc, etc. The transformation is almost magical at this point.
Most everyday folks really couldn’t give a monkey’s about the so called big barriers we tend to read about, they just need to know that they and their families have the real prospect of a better future and their heads will follow their hearts.
Ha..Just come across this article…It would appear that we have been coming from similar directions today.
I have set up a challenge for Status Quo supporters,and the Don’t Knows to take, if the are up for it?
It basically asks them to consider what they would aspire for an Independent Scotland, if the vote turns out that way?
http://auldacquaintance.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/a-challenge-to-better-together-supporters-and-dont-knows/
That’s almost spooky Rod. 😮
Snap
Doug Daniel,
Thanks for the reply. I’ll try your ideas out. I, for one, do not really care- well only marginally – whether we are in the EU or EFTA or out of both of them. I would prefer us to make a complete break from the £, but I agree with Macart that neither of these things ought to be a barrier to voting yes.
But I would say that, wouldn’t I?
It seems to me that. for the genuinely undecideds out there, it all comes down to the economics. If we can persuade people that they will be better off, then we will win. Giving pensioners, for example, a guarantee that their pensions will be protected in an independent Scotland would probably, if the conversations I have had mean anything, swing that demographic around. I don’t see that as being a particularily difficult thing to do. Indeed, if we promised that their pensions were going to get better, with a costed case that showed that, then almost the whole elderly population would vote ‘yes’. Because there is probably not a pensioner – only on State Benefit – that feels they have been treated well by Westminster……
Interesting article Doug. It reminded me of my days as a poor high street banker (none of the yuppie fast cars for me, just ordinary people with ordinary problems!) When the bank started to ‘sell’ its financial services we were all taken on training courses which included the psychology of questions. (I left the bank shortly after this, it REALLY wasn’t what I wanted to be). The main “rebuttal” statesmen went something like, “If I could show you a way to overcome <problem> would you be interested in <product>’ (This is from memory, I am sure it was a bit more sophisticated than that).
So, If I could show you a way to overcome <the cost of Trident/the privatisation of the NHS/ the declining support to the welfare budget> would you vote for Independence?
And the answer to most of these ‘problems’ is having control over ALL our revenues and making our own priorities, And THAT of course, will only come with Independence.
@ Macart , I have to agree with you that the ordinary person doesn’t really care about EU treaties, constitutions and foreign policy. If we want to win the referendum , give them good news about wages, electricity and gas prices, how much petrol and diesel will cost, tell them that they are not going to have mortgage or rent prices double, food won’t end up being a luxury . All the wee simple things are the winners.
@Alex Mcl
Exactly Alex! I firmly believe that most people are behind the freedoms independence brings to any country on the planet. The average Joe or Jessie in the street wants to know the bare bolts of everyday existence – job, house, food, fuel, education, healthcare. Convince them that we will have actually more cash to dedicate to those things and a better more prudent and socially aware way of achieving it and Bob’s your wossiname.
If England decided to go independent tomorrow would Scotland survive….of course it would.
Alex Mcl & Macart – I don’t think people are really interested in stuff like the EU either. Remember that Scottish Social Attitudes Survey I refer to from last year which showed if people could be sure they would be £500 better off with independence, support for independence shoots up to 65% (with “NO” reduced to a mere 25% – so imagine how that would translate into a yes/no referendum!), and that even just reassuring them nothing will change financially, independence is favoured 46% to 32%. So, as ever, “it’s the economy, stupid!”
But people still ask the EU question – some because they’re told to worry about it, others because it’s a way of avoiding the real question. So, as I say here, neutralise it. Make them answer the real question about the fundamental principle of Scotland running its own affairs. Then you’ll know if they’re genuinely worried, or if they’re just trying to waste your time.
And once you get them thinking that “yes, if there were no other factors, I would want Scotland to be independent”, then they’ll start being more open to the answers to the side issues.
Put it this way, if you asked Jim Murphy, Anas Sarwar, Ruth Davidson, Willie Rennie or Jackie Baillie if, in a perfect world, they would want Scotland to be independent, their answer (if they gave it truthfully – ha!) would be a resounding “NO!” So there’s no point wasting time and energy even trying to convince them that the EU is not really a problem, or that we’ll still get to use the pound. They couldnae gie a fuck.
Interesting. I too believe that the way to independence is though principle and aspiration – in fact getting away from the coarse utilitarian pre-suppositions and hypocrisy that entirely pervade Westminster’s approach to everything would be one of the main benefits of Independence.
So yes, getting people to acknowledge that in principle they’d like an independent Scotland and that with independence there is an opportunity to have more social justice and less utilitarian exploitation is a good way to get people to think positively (something which it seems to me the Unionists are really afraid of).
Couldn’t agree more Doug. After a year or so of arguing debating online, you quickly learn to sift the truly curious from the trolls. Once the initial premise is settled, its fairly easy to leave a conversation with, at the very least, a ‘you’ve given me something to think about’ parting line.
Rod Macfarlane posed a simple question recently, which I’ve yet to see asked on any BBC ‘Big Debate’ or QT show. Do you agree with the principle of independence? I would dearly love to see that question asked of any panel on any of the debate shows, just to see the opposition squirm through their answer.
Doug, I think your observation that people use “reasons” as an excuse to support the status quo is spot on, particularly among the hard-core unionists (that 30% of the population) who are planning to vote NO, come hell or high water. It is interesting, however, that most of them feel required to prop up their unionist stance with a long list of excuses. It is almost as if they instinctively know that independence makes a lot of sense. They love being British but they cannot admit it. Has Britishness become a thing of shame in Scotland? Is it no longer socially acceptable? Why were no union flags flying at the Better Together launch? It seems that they are terrified of being seen as anti-Scottish.
@rod macfarlane – should that be status quo? Or are you talking about fans of 70s rock groups 🙂
I recently met a two Greek friends – one is currently working in Edinburgh and his girlfriend is hoping to join him. I explained that they would be eligible to vote in the referendum if living here and asked how they would vote. The answer was yes with a telling “why would anyone vote otherwise”.
If people from a country on the verge of bankruptcy see the value of independence, why on earth do our fellow Scots still need persuading. Unionist FUD and MSM?
Luigi – “It is interesting, however, that most of them feel required to prop up their unionist stance with a long list of excuses. It is almost as if they instinctively know that independence makes a lot of sense. They love being British but they cannot admit it.”
This is what is so frustrating. Putting aside all our joking about waiting for the positive case for the union (which we all know doesn’t exist), I just wish even ONE unionist would come out and tell the truth about why they want Scotland to remain in the union, because every answer they’ve given so far is utter rubbish.
It’s nothing to do with “uncertainty”, because nothing is more uncertain about the future than one where the spectre of Tory governments loom large at all times. It’s nothing to do with being “more secure”, because nothing is less secure than being part of an aggressive, militarised nation that insists on sticking its nose in where it’s not wanted. It’s nothing to do with “tough times”, because they support the union in good times and bad.
The basic truth of independence – that the best people to make decisions about a country are the people who live there – is absolutely flawless, because it underpins why we have 190+ independent nation states in the world, instead of one global state. So, once you remove the ones who support the union out of chronic fear (even these should be susceptible to a certain extent by the thought experiment I propose), you’re left with the ones who, as far as I’m concerned, don’t see the union as interfering with the fundamental principle of a country being able to make its own decisions.
In other words, they don’t consider Scotland to be a country at all. The UK is their country, which is why certain unionists go on about “drawing imaginary lines on a map”, because they simply don’t recognise the Scotland-England border as being a national boundary.
Everyone who thinks Scotland is a country wants, deep down, for Scotland to be independent. They just need the confidence to vote for it.
Luigi,
“Why were no union flags flying at the Better Together launch? It seems that they are terrified of being seen as anti-Scottish.”
Now that is an interesting question. Given that nearly a fifth of Scottish voters are Tory, it strikes me as a bit odd. Well, according to this:
http://scotgoespop.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/its-been-while.html
Luigi
You may have a point. How many people do you know that admit to being a tory and voting for them ? How many people do you know are happy with westminster? How many people do you know agree the disabled and unemployed should be targeted?
They know they are anti decency let alone anti scottish they won’t admit that inside is a nasty vindictive person who projects their failure, their fear and their frustration onto others. Enough of the psycho babble just saying:)
Doug Daniel,
“The UK is their country, which is why certain unionists go on about “drawing imaginary lines on a map”, because they simply don’t recognise the Scotland-England border as being a national boundary.”
My team lost a pub quiz because we thought the straight lines on a map were Alaska when they were, in fact, Libya. There has been no cartographer on the planet that has messed up natural countries as much as those burrowing their trade in 19th/20th c London. Quite a lot of battles have been fought over these decisions so it is not as academic as it sounds. Kashmir comes to mind.
“In other words, they don’t consider Scotland to be a country at all.”
Indeed. In over a year of arguing with Unionists, I’ve never been able to get any of them to accept the simple, perfectly legitimate fact that the UK is their country. They all insist on the absurd lie that you can have two countries at once, yet lock the principle at that exact number. They won’t extend the concept backwards (to, say, Strathclyde) or forwards (to encompass, say, Europe) – it’s two and two only. And yet, Strathclyde and Europe both have their own administrations, and are as much “countries” by any empirical definition as Scotland and the UK.
It’s absolutely massive cognitive dissonance, practiced I suspect as much against themselves as us. They insist conspicuously on being “proud Scots”, but don’t want Scotland to have control of its own affairs, which seems like a funny sort of pride to me. The ONLY rational explanation is that, as you say, they don’t in their hearts consider Scotland a country. It’s just their favourite region of their country. And that’s fine, it really is. Which makes it strange that they won’t admit it.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone who wasn’t an out-and-out unionist refer to themselves as a “proud Scot”, or even to the concept of “proud Scots” in general.
Everything from “proud Scots are too canny to fall for Salmond’s snake-oil”, through “Andy Murray is a proud Scot who was happy to wrap himself in the Union Jack” to “my family are all proud Scots who’ll be voting for the union”. You see it in comments threads all the time, and I don’t think I’ve ever come across a nationalist use the phrase.
@Douglas Clark
Indeed, if we promised that their pensions were going to get better, with a costed case that showed that, then almost the whole elderly population would vote ‘yes’.
Attention could be drawn to typical European pensions (i.e. double or triple our measly insults) along with a pledge to move in that direction.
Or how about 50p off petrol duty – we’re an energy-rich nation and this measure would give a massive boost to the whole economy.
Or how about even an “Oil Dividend” of say £1,000 a year paid out in actual cash to all on the voters register.
Scotland will definitely be considerably better off with independence. We need to get some ideas out there about what this could actually mean for the average Scot.
It seems to me, this is part of a process people who are not engaged with the independence debate need to start on. Its been my experience that some people are default no’s because that is what the press have been peddling and its sort of sunk into their psyche by default.
With that in mind, they need to be broken out of the union-as-default trance and encouraged to start questioning whats really going on.
Ironically, the unionist no campaign crowd with all their hysterical mithering about border control, passports and the world falling in around Scottish ears generally makes quite a lot of people start asking those question at which point, we can step in with the message from Doug, or Blair or the correct answers dependent on what we’ll think would work best.
Its actually quite elegant. Unionists make there own supporters doubt voting no because their own increasingly hysterical sounding spokes-people seem ever more worried that yes supporters might actually be onto something.
“The ONLY rational explanation is that, as you say, they don’t in their hearts consider Scotland a country. It’s just their favourite region of their country. And that’s fine, it really is. Which makes it strange that they won’t admit it.”
Stu, I was going to edit in exactly the same point into my last comment, but I was too late!
It’s perfectly legitimate for someone to think the UK is their country, rather than Scotland. Just as it’s perfectly legitimate for someone in Catalunya to think Spain is their country, or someone in Quebec to think Canada is their country.
But for some unfathomable reason, no one admits that they think this. That in itself is suspicious, because there MUST be people who think it, just like the Canadians, Spaniards and Belgians that live in parts of those countries that have independence movements, but who themselves want to remain part of the bigger nation.
This absolute refusal to admit it suggests they even doubt themselves that it’s a valid argument. And it’s perhaps why the unionist arguments are fundamentally dishonest – because they’re based on a false premise these people are telling to themselves.
Slightly off topic, but this is why journalism just annoys me. Foreign journalists who’re just lazy are the absolute pits.
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/743861.shtml
Salmond claims Scotland would take control of 90 percent of the North Sea fields after independence, helping it to become one of the world’s richest countries.
This is strongly disputed by the UK government, which argues that the fields were developed with British money, not Scottish. The Orkney Islands, the area closest to the oil fields, has also threatened to side with the UK.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard the UK government argue that one, nor have I heard anyone in an official position in Orkney “threaten to side with the UK”.
The SNP believes that younger people are more likely to vote “Yes Scotland” because they hate rules.
[citation needed], as they say on Wikipedia.
The referendum year of 2014 is significant as it is the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, a monumental victory for the Scottish forces of Robert the Bruce in a war popularized by the movie Braveheart, it is believed to be a time when Scottish nationalism is likely to be especially high, therefore increasing the chances of independence.
The next person who speaks or writes as if a crappy movie has anything to do with anything will be taken out and shot. (Who remembered that 11th September 1997, the day of the Devolution referendum, was the 700th anniversary of the battle of Stirling Bridge? Come to that, who remembered that 1st May 2007, two days before the Holyrood election when the SNP first took power, was the 300th anniversary of the actual Treaty of Union?)
“If Scotland were to become independent, it would have profound implications for the UK. Although less than 9 percent of the population, Scots have always played an important role in public affairs and enterprise; and the very concept of ‘British’ depends on the inclusion of Scotland. The country that remained would still be the UK, but it could not be Britain,” Chalmers added.
I think my head just asploded….
I think you are onto something there Morag….Most Scots who primarily see themselves as Scottish…would just say that they were a Scot.. No additive required.
Rod and Morag – this reminds me of something Chris Eubank once said, and it was the thing that made me realise that perhaps he’s not an idiot after all.
It was on a programme dedicated to celebrating black culture about 15 years ago, and they asked him a question expecting him to go “yeah, I’m black and I’m proud!” But instead, he said “I’m not proud to be black, because to say I’m ‘proud’ implies there is something to be ashamed of. I’m just black, it’s who I am.”
Well, he didn’t say THAT exactly, but it was words to that effect. The gathered crowd were stunned, unsure whether to boo or not. It was a bit like Ruth Davidson’s speech at the recent Stonewall awards, where she won Politician Of The Year and left the stage to boos for daring to question the wisdom of having a “Bigot of the Year” award. I dare say if Eubank had been on a stage instead of a studio, he’d have been booed also.
And this is just it. We’re not “proud Scots”, because we don’t see being a Scot as being anything to be ashamed of. We don’t think “yeah, that’s right, I’m Scottish. But you know what? I’M PROUD!!! I DON’T CARE WHAT YOU THINK!!!”
By calling themselves “proud Scots”, unionists like Jim Murphy are implying that, ordinarily, being Scottish is something to be ashamed of. The Scottish Cringe in all its glory.
AndrewfraeGovan said:
Attention could be drawn to typical European pensions (i.e. double or triple our measly insults) along with a pledge to move in that direction.
Or how about 50p off petrol duty – we’re an energy-rich nation and this measure would give a massive boost to the whole economy.
Or how about even an “Oil Dividend” of say £1,000 a year paid out in actual cash to all on the voters register.
Scotland will definitely be considerably better off with independence. We need to get some ideas out there about what this could actually mean for the average Scot.
I hope that’s on the “to-do” list for later in the campaign. I remember one nationalist of my acquaintance who said that if Britain adopted the Euro it would be the end of the union as Scots saw how badly off they were in real terms compared to other European countries.
I should have been retiring in a year’s time. Most of my life, I expected to get my state pension in 2013. However, that wasn’t a huge issue because I was building up a pension fund that should have provided pretty well anyway. Long ago, I actually had a realistic hope of retiring before 2013.
However, the low interest rates and poor stock market performances have crippled my private pension provision to the point where I can’t think of retiring without having the state pension as well. But Westminster has betrayed me and not only is the state pension a pittance, they recently wrote to me to say I wouldn’t se a penny of it until 2018.
It’s not that I’m pinning huge hopes on independence making things better for me, but I seriously don’t think it can be worse. A credible promise to bring the state pension up into line with the average in other European countries (in the same way Labour in 1997 realised they had to bring NHS funding up to the level it was in other European countries) would be a serious vote-winner.
Doug Daniel: your most recent response above here – “its nothing to do with etc.,etc…”.
could well be of benefit if precised into bullet point format. Ideal for the short cuff!
The unionist strategy code word is ENNUI. They will keep putting and repeating questions, of your “nothing to do” category. The answers they receive don’t interest them – they know the answers already. What is relevant is their strategy of wearing down the patience and resolve of the pro-independence people, and boring the public at large. i’ve noticed a few comments here and elsewhere of pro-independence supporters expressing impatience with No campaigners who “just won’t listen”.
That is their strategy, not to listen.Note Labour’s campaign mantra “We need answers”.
The Yes campaign meeting I attended did advise that “Flipper” Darling, leader of the Better Together had declined to have public debates with Blair Jenkin since he isn’t a politician. it would be interesting for the No campaigners to put forward their non-politician champion for a public debate with Blair Jenkins. Any takers STV?
i agree that the undecided Joes and Jessies will likely decide based around their domestic issues and assurances. i think that the evidence of SNP priorities towards protection of Joes and Jessies welfare is there to be seen by worked example. Remember mega-brain Alexander’s warning leading to the 2007 election that with an SNP government each family would be £5000 a year worse off? And husband an economics academic, Prof. Ashcroft!
Joe and Jessie didn’t buy that one.
Then we have Labour’s plea for “an honest debate”.
Honesty! Which type would they like. Bare faced honesty or Labour styled honesty.
I’ve an acquaintance who is a Tory and totally against independence. We’ve been through the arguments many times and although he will agree with me on many things his belief in the Union is seemingly unassailable. I’ve taken him up the ladder of logic but at the top he holds on and insists that the UK is his country. It’s quite interesting to see him agree with the reasoning and then refute the conclusion based on nothing but belief. I guess his UK identity is too wrapped up in his personal identity for him to consider doubting it.
Recently I’ve taken to asking the ‘proud Scots’ what exactly it is that they want from Scotland and from what I can gather it’s a slightly different version of England, and it seems to be the totemic symbols of Scottish identity which make this difference, kilts, bagpipes… the whole Macaboodle. As others have suggested, it does seem to be associated in some way with the Scottish Cringe, a way of coping with perceived inferiority by using these totems to allow themselves a sense of superiority over those they proclaim loyalty to. I’ve even heard anti English racism from ‘Proud Scots’ and that blows my logic circuits.
They’re odd people. Sometimes I’m not sure if they’re tourists in their own country or if they’re suffering from some sort of Stockholm syndrome.
“I’ve taken him up the ladder of logic but at the top he holds on and insists that the UK is his country. It’s quite interesting to see him agree with the reasoning and then refute the conclusion based on nothing but belief. I guess his UK identity is too wrapped up in his personal identity for him to consider doubting it.”
Fair play to your mate, Cuphook, at least he’s being honest – which is more than can be said for Labour folk who oppose independence. If I thought Scotland would be slightly worse off under independence, I’d still want it, just as Greeks would never think of giving up their independence despite the trouble they’re in. If he thinks the UK is his country rather than Scotland, then he’s being consistent with the idea that a country should govern itself.
As per usual, the actual Tories are far more honest than the ones who pretend to be socialists.
@Doug Daniel
If he’s being dishonest with anyone it’s himself. The UK is not the sort of country he wants to live in and he thinks it’s politicians are incompetent. It’s all rather contradictory: he’s a Tory who despises Tory politicians and although he has praised Salmond’s competence, even if he could consider independence, he wouldn’t vote for it as Salmond would be in charge ‘and then where would my taxes be?’.
What strikes me as odd is that he sees the world through the English based media. His country is too full to allow immigration, the bloody French are our closest neighbours etc. and he lives in rural Scotland.
The problem for British Unionists is that they keep saying referring to Britain as a country, and not as a state, which it is. Scottish Unionists do this as well. This is odd because the Treaty of Union itself was essentially a pact between two countries, or nations. The treaty effectively removed parliamentary sovereignty from Scotland and gave it to Westminster and the Scottish nation-state ceased to exist. I think it should be acknowledged that ever since unionists in Scotland effectively argue that Scotland ceased to be a nation in 1707. There is a problem with this though. Once again they confuse nation and state, thinking they are the same thing. They are not. Rev Stu is right, they will never admit they don’t think Scotland is a nation, but it is implicit in their arguments.
O/t, I read a Herald article about Labour Voters for Independence today. There is a revealing quote from Patricia Ferguson.
Other speakers at the meeting at Glasgow Caledonian University included Yes Scotland chief executive Blair Jenkins, trade unionist Tommy Brennan, and musician Ricky Ross.
But Labour’s constitution spokeswoman Patricia Ferguson said: “This really seems like desperate stuff from the Yes Scotland campaign. Trying to claim Ricky Ross as a Labour supporter when he was a founding member of Artists for Independence as far back as the 1980s is just absurd. It begs the question of how many other supporters of this group are really just SNP supporters.”
She explicitly says that you cannot be a Labour supporter and support independence! No matter that you could have been a diehard Scottish Labour supporter for decades, as is the case with the likes of Dennis Cannavan, Bob Thomson and Tommy Brennan. Also, Ferguson clearly thinks that all SNP supporters back independence… She obviously has been paying no attention to the polls that say a sizable proportion of Labour voters support independence and a small section of SNP supporters do not back independence. It is an extremely black and white view of constitutional matters. There is not even a hint of an acknowledgment that it is a complex political issue. More importantly, it also reeks of British nationalism.
I also think there is a lot to be said for this line of argument being put forward here and elsewhere (pace Lallands Peat Worrier in his recent 7th November piece) that if you link the individual issues to the concept of independence, then there is much progress to be made amongst undecided and/or devo-max supporters.
The actual “outcomes” people want (control of the economy, control of spending, getting rid of WMD’s, not paying billions towards WMD’s, protection of social services, no tuition fees etc.) can ONLY be secured by voting yes in 2014, because voting no means relying on the unionist parties to make good on their promises of “jam tomorrow”. Not only is there zero evidence that this is feasible even if they had the will to do it, there is ample evidence that voting no will be seen by many unionists as effectively killing the concept for at least a generation.
I happen to disagree that would happen, as in the event of a no vote, the desire for FFA/devo-max won’t disappear, and will simply lead to a strengthening of the case for independence when it becomes apparent that the unionists cannot make good on their promises to enact further devolution.
Galen10 – personally, I think if we reject independence now, the utter failure of unionist parties to progress devolution as far as people want will just lead to another SNP victory in 2016, this time with a campaign based around the idea of a snap referendum. Because if we do manage to lose in 2014, it won’t be by much, so it’ll be easy for the SNP to say “those who voted NO to get more powers have clearly been lied to – like we said in 2014, the only way to get the powers you want is through independence.” Snap referendum, overwhelming majority, job done.
And it’s the fact that we’ll just end up independent anyway that makes me hope we vote YES in 2014 – why put off the inevitable?
Cuphook says:
13 November, 2012 at 12:27 pm
I’ve an acquaintance who is a Tory and totally against independence. We’ve been through the arguments many times and although he will agree with me on many things his belief in the Union is seemingly unassailable. I’ve taken him up the ladder of logic but at the top he holds on and insists that the UK is his country. It’s quite interesting to see him agree with the reasoning and then refute the conclusion based on nothing but belief. I guess his UK identity is too wrapped up in his personal identity for him to consider doubting it.
As an atheist, when getting into a discussion with a religious person I ask:
“Obviously I can’t, but purely hypothetically, if I could prove to you without a shadow of a doubt that there is no omniscient, omnipotent God, would you lose your faith?”
It quickly sorts out who’s worth talking to and who isn’t.
Mind you, me being an argumentative bugger it doesn’t stop me – in the same way as I keep arguing with those who are ‘Not Open to Reason‘ on Twitter.
“I read a Herald article about Labour Voters for Independence today.”
Just about to put up a blog on that. Stand by.
@ Doug Daniel
I agree with you, and earnestly hope that the vote in 2014 is “yes”, though I am perhaps less sanguine than some that it will be so, or that it will happen quite as quickly as you believe; I do think that it is virtually inevitable however given the lack of quality of the unionist opposition, and the fact they have no coherent plan for increased devolution, and even less chance of having such a plan adopted and steered thru’ Westminster.
Still, 24 months to go, and all to play for. Though I won’t (sadly!) have a vote, I will still be doing my bit to convince people to support independence, and still having a Scottish passport!
It’s actually fun watching the forelock tugging unionists and Scottish uncle Tom’s puff and blow when I gently point out that I’m not anSNP member, or even particularly a supporter, but that I am totally convinced that independence would be good not just for Scotland, but for the rest of the UK too.
As Garve mentions above, for too many of them it is simply an article of faith, and they simply aren’t open to reason… the same old discredited meme’s come up: I had a twitter exchange this very morning when the same old chestnuts were produced – you won’t be able to support yourselves, you’d have to pay for all the RBS bail out, Scots everywhere should get the vote, Spain would veto EU membership, EU membership wouldn’t be automatic, Salmond is a big fat liar…. same old, same old! It can be fun pointing and laughing at them tho!
@Garve
When I wrote that comment I did think about similar experiences I’ve had with believers. I find belief, and the evolutionary steps which led to it, fascinating; but I’ve pretty much giving up on baiting religious types and now just tell them that “There are no gods. Fuck off”. My dad used to just call the dogs who would chase them down the garden and up the road. My dad would just go back to whatever he was doing but I enjoyed the event and am able to say that not one of those Christians had the faith of Daniel.
Anyway, this is one Tory supporter I’ve got two years to turn into a YES voter. I’m looking on it as a hobby.
I suppose we have to consider the flip side. If it were proven that independence would be bad for you, your family, Scotland and rUK, would you still vote Yes?
I’ve supported Indy since I was a kid, and it would take a lot to dissuade me. I guess, if I thought the process might result in bloodshed, that might put me off, and conversely, if there seemed a real possibility of the UK becoming a social-democratic federal state, with a reformed parliament and more equal geographic distribution of wealth, I might be persuadeable – but there’s no chance of that happening.
I have considered that before but keep coming back to the conclusion that regardless of what the hypothetical problem is it’s better that we sort it out for ourselves or in cooperation with others. I’m not much for nationalism (and have never waved a flag in my life) but Scotland is a distinct polity which should be able to deal with things effectively. After independence I’d like to see power devolved to local governments as I think that they’re capable of dealing with a lot of the regional concerns of life.
This is off the top of my head, but – Englishness is the UK default identity. The UK is England with the ‘Celtic Fringe’ attached. The UK government is mainly concerned with English issues (in the 305 years of Union whenever there has been a conflict of interest between the needs of Scotland and those of England how many times has the decision gone in Scotland’s favour?) and the media is the same. The UK identity hasn’t taken with me because I’m not English – I’m more concerned with Scotland’s future – and that’s what I find strange with Unionists, they will accept this blatantly skewed union, this Anglocentric union, if they get to wear a kilt, if their newspaper has a few Scottish pages and the TV news has a local opt out. I think that they’ve colonised themselves with someone else’s idea of who they are. And I might be rambling now so I’ll give it more thought.
There were people post-independence in India who pined for the days of empire too, despite the terrible things that were done to it by the British. Likewise for many states under the thumb of various powers across the globe. People are strange.