Until the debate on independence began, I rarely came across
the word “Scaremongering.” I knew what it meant, but it was the sort of word
that I read once or twice a year usually in some work of history. I doubt that
I had ever actually used the word myself. But now this word seems rather
popular. Nearly every time people, who are opposed to Scottish independence,
put forward arguments for why we think it is not a good idea we are accused of
scaremongering. Every time we suggest that Scotland’s future as an independent
state might not be quite as the SNP suggest we are again described as
scaremongers. But how is someone who supports the UK supposed to argue? To
believe that Scotland is better off remaining in the UK is to suppose that
there are advantages to the Union. But if there are advantages to remaining
within the UK, then consequently there must be disadvantages to leaving. But if
pointing out the disadvantages to leaving the UK amounts to scaremongering,
then supporting the UK amounts to being a scaremonger. Q.E.D. I am a
scaremonger. But is this really what our friends and neighbours in the SNP
believe? Do they really want to shut down debate in this way?
One
of the interesting things about political debate is the way in which we argue.
We like to give the impression that we believe X for Y and Z reasons. This
makes us all appear very rational and disinterested. But let’s look at some of
these reasons. Imagine if Scotland were to be very slightly worse off
economically if we achieved independence. If an SNP supporter knew this to be
so, or if having achieved independence he realised that it was so, would this
make him change his mind about independence? Of course it would not. People who
support independence, who have supported independence for years and years do so
because this desire for independence is fundamental to them. But they have to
try to persuade the rest of us and therefore they come up with all sorts of
reasons why independence will lead to this or that desirable outcome. But it is
vital to remember that they are not voting for independence in order to achieve
this or that, but because they desire it as an end in itself. It is for this
reason that the desirable outcomes sometimes change. For instance, at one point
Mr Salmond said that he desired independence in order that Scotland could join
the Euro. At another point he said that he wanted independence in order to
leave NATO. Now he no longer wants these things, but still wants independence.
Really the only thing he wants is independence and he will find whatever
reasons he can to persuade the rest of us. Mr Salmond therefore puts
forward whatever optimistic scenario he can come up with for the future of
Scotland in order to persuade those Scots who do not fundamentally believe in
independence in the way that he does. He then accuses his opponents of
scaremongering when they question this excess of optimism. But what is excess
of optimism but the mirror image of scaremongering? What he is doing is exactly
the same as he accuses his opponents of doing only from the opposite
perspective.
Let’s
look at the definition of what it is to be a scaremonger: According to the
Oxford English Dictionary a scaremonger is:
One who occupies
himself in spreading alarming reports; an alarmist. Hence as v. intr., to
spread alarming reports; scaremongering n. the action of a
scaremonger; the spreading of alarming reports; also as adj.
But
in order to be a scaremonger it clearly isn’t enough that someone should be
simply spreading alarming reports. Imagine that I notice a fire in a building
and I run around telling everyone that there is a fire and that they should
leave. Would I be a scaremonger in this context? No of course not, because
although my report might be alarming it would also be true. The fire would
really be dangerous and therefore people would need to leave. What would make
me a scaremonger in this context? I would be a scaremonger if and only if I had
not noticed a fire, but told everyone that the building was about to burn down.
Being a scaremonger then depends crucially on truth.
Now
let’s look at an argument between an SNP supporter and someone who believes in
the UK. The independence supporter might say that if Scotland becomes
independent we will keep the pound, while the UK supporter might say if
Scotland becomes independent we will lose the pound. The SNP supporter
immediately says that you are scaremongering. But logically the UK supporter
can only be scaremongering if what he says is false. But then we immediately
see that the SNP supporter’s argument is circular. He is assuming what he
is trying to prove. For how else can he immediately assert that his opponent's
position is false? The point of course does not depend on an argument about
currency. Whenever the SNP accuse us of scaremongering they are assuming that
their argument is true and our argument is false. But to assume in this way is
self-evidently a logical fallacy. Presenting circular arguments is not to
debate, but to attempt to shut off debate.
