I keep coming across Scots from both sides who think
the present dominance of the SNP is forever and that independence is
inevitable. Of course the nationalists have a strategy of talking up their
chances. It’s a good strategy too. But SNP optimism is no more grounded in
reality than the defeatism of some Pro UK people who should be defending their
country rather than helping their opponents. The truth is that we are not all
caught up in a Greek play where the tragic outcome is already determined. We
are free individuals and our actions determine the future. That’s why it is
uncertain and impossible to predict.
There was an election in Canada last week. A couple
of points are worth mentioning. Quebec separatists now poll 19%. Not very long
ago they had the support of nearly 50% of the population of Quebec. They came
within a whisker of winning a referendum on independence. They must have
thought it was inevitable. But no. It’s people who control what happens in the
future. Above all the people of Quebec have come to terms with the fact that
they are going to remain a part of Canada. Moreover they can be both Québécois and Canadians.
Of course they can.
The other interesting point is that the Liberal Party
in Canada did terribly in the election of 2011, but then came back to win this
time. It moved from 18% to 39%. Things change and a few years is a long time in
politics. So who knows who might win an election in the UK or in Scotland in a
few years’ time? Who knows what unpredictable events might intervene? Labour
might recover in Scotland. So too might the Lib Dems. So too might the Conservatives.
We all have one seat at Westminster. But if you believe in your party, campaign
for it. Perhaps few others do right now, but that doesn’t matter. Things
change.
I’ve recently come out in support of the
Conservatives. But that doesn’t mean I’m hostile to Pro UK people in Scotland
who disagree. Moreover even when we campaign for different parties, we can
still all and always campaign for the UK. But to change things around we need a
bit of a rethink. We need to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the Pro UK
position. We need to do the same for our opponent.
The Pro UK side is very strong on economics. The
case we all made during the referendum was clear and had reason behind it. The
argument that Scotland was economically better off in the UK was overwhelming.
That argument has become stronger since. From the perspective of rational
self-interest no-one would vote for the SNP. Why are they doing so well then?
The reason is obvious. While the SNP’s argument is weak in terms of the
rational, it is massively strong in terms of the emotional. Most people make
decisions not by coldly calculating self-interest. Rather to be human is to be
swayed by emotion. Patriotism is a very powerful emotion. It isn’t in my
rational self-interest to join the army and fight in a war. But we know from
history that frequently an appeal to patriotic emotion can overcome this. When
my heart says one thing I frequently will ignore what my head is saying, or
rather find facts that support my heart. It is for this reason above all that
so many nationalists object to anything in the “Mainstream media” that
contradicts what their heart is saying. It is for this reason that they seek
out alternative sources of information and alternative facts. These facts may have soared so high that they've taken wing from reality, but everyone likes to confirm their beliefs rather than contradict them. It's only when the wings get too close to the sun, that we find out what they are made of.
It is, of course, worth making economic arguments. But we made the case so forcefully that it
actually hurt our position. The nationalist head ignored our argument, or
rather preferred an alternative which confirmed what his heart was feeling. But
at the same time, the relentless economic arguments offended the nationalist
heart. Every time one of us wrote something about how awful Scotland would be
if we became independent, it got the nationalist backs up. We’ll show them,
they said. Much of what we wrote was dishonest anyway. I don’t oppose
independence because I think Scotland would be poorer. I would oppose it even
if I thought it would be richer. The reason for this is that I think Scotland
is an integral part of the UK. So why give economic arguments when they are not
the reason for my support of the UK? Economics is contingent. In the seventies Scotland
may have been better off financially with independence. Who knows what the
future would bring? In any event Scotland could prosper as an independent
country. But that is not the point. So too could California, or Bavaria.
So cease making relentlessly negative economic
arguments. They don’t help the Pro UK position, they hurt it. The same goes for
all the other negativity. We should never have said you can’t keep the pound.
We should never have said the EU won’t let you in. All we needed to say is that
these matters are uncertain. They are. Uncertainty is our friend, like a cheap
forties horror flick that can’t afford to pay for the monster’s costume, but
instead shows only shadows.
Where the nationalists are strong is on patriotism. The
problem we have is that patriotism trumps everything else. They have succeeded
in connecting Scottish patriotism with Scottish nationalism. Scottish
nationalism is the desire for independence. But huge numbers of patriotic Scots
now think that in order to be patriotic they have to support the SNP.
Patriotism as a force will crush nearly anything in its path. It will certainly
crush the idea that we are better together, or that we might be a bit poorer
for a while in the future. It was patriotism that crushed Labour in Scotland.
No other force could have done so. It is
for this reason also that the SNP are covered in Teflon. If they are the
patriotic party, what does a nationalist care how they run the country? The
answer is they don’t. They will keep voting for them, for they think it is
patriotic to vote for independence and therefore patriotic to vote for the SNP.
As I’ve said before. The SNP has only got one
argument for independence, but it is a very good one:
Scotland is a country,
Scotland is a country,
Countries ought to be independent,
Therefore Scotland ought to be independent.
Time and again I come across nationalists who
implicitly make this argument. It’s worth remembering that such arguments are
inevitably rather circular. What is contained in the premise implicitly will
come out in the conclusion. But the point of analysing such an argument is that
it can bring clarity to the meaning of the words we use.
The Pro UK person is left with a choice. Either we
deny that Scotland is a country, or we deny that countries ought to be
independent. The first is not very promising because everyone in Scotland
thinks Scotland is a country. I frequently argue that Scotland is only called a
country. What this amounts to is that Scotland was a country, until 1707 or
perhaps 1603. I think this may well be the truth, but again I will have a
problem convincing a patriotic Scot who fervently believes that Scotland is a
country. It is for this reason that they frequently react with such fury to my
logic.
Most Pro UK Scots would, I suspect, reject
challenging the first premise. After all isn’t this why Pro UK Scots continue to support
the Scottish rugby or football teams? They must think that Scotland is a
country, that’s why they support the team, but that we ought not to be
independent, for which reason they voted no. But do they really think that
countries ought not to be independent? What about France, or Japan? Is it
merely that although they think countries ought to be independent, they ought
not to be so if it would make me personally poorer. If that is the nature of your argument
it is very thin gruel indeed.
But I don’t think this need be the nature of the
argument. There are after all in the world such things as multi-nation nations.
There are rather a lot of these. They include Russia, the UK and Canada. What this
means is that someone can support two or more nations existing at the same
time. I can then support both Scotland and the UK and can describe them both as
my country. The difference between this position and the position that Scotland
is only called a country is very small indeed. But perhaps this position is more
persuasive. As multi-nation nations exist it is perfectly possible to argue
that Scotland is not merely called a country, but is in fact a country.
Some nationalists maintain that the UK is not a
country, but rather some sort of construct. This puts them into an unfortunate
position for two reasons. Firstly it denies that all sorts of places like China
and India are countries. You try telling that to the Chinese. Secondly if the
UK is not a country, then by definition Scotland is already independent. Why
then campaign for something that you already have?
The crucial point however, is that the existence of a
multi-nation nation is incompatible with the independence of its parts. If all the parts of a multi-nation nation
became independent the whole would, of course, cease to exist. It is therefore
logical for me to argue that not all countries ought to be independent, namely
those which are parts of a whole. There is nothing inconsistent with someone
from Quebec, being both patriotic about Quebec and about Canada. Far from being
consistent, this way of feeling is common all over the world.
It is this that Pro UK people need to work on. We
already have Scottish patriotism. There is a temptation to get into a
competition with the SNP over who is most Scottish. But this is to battle on
ground on which they are strong and we are weak. Rather we must change the
nature of the battle. Our task over the next few years is to point out the
truth that there is nothing incompatible about being patriotic about Scotland and
wanting the UK to continue. On this ground the nationalists are very weak
indeed. Each of us in fact is a British citizen. No matter how much a Scottish
nationalist denies this fact it nevertheless is true. But it is odd indeed not
to feel something that you are. If I am cold, it is strange indeed to say I don’t
feel cold. Likewise if I am British it is strange indeed to say I don’t feel
it.
There is a tendency in Scotland to deny our
Britishness. Which of us has not at some point or other corrected someone who
has called us British? I'm Scottish we maintain, even if we voted No. Well at some point we have to hear the cockerel crowing.
That point is now. We must be comfortable with our dual identity. We must live
it each and every day. Don’t think of our compatriots as somehow different. Don’t
think of Scotland as something separate. Think and act as a person with
two identities. Sure we have our own laws in Scotland, sure we have our own bank
notes and our own football teams, but that is not a reason to break up our
multi-nation nation it is an expression of it.
All over the world there are countries that are able
to express difference within a whole. If they were all to break up into their
various linguistic and ethnic groups there would be chaos. Quebec has got over
its bout of nationalism and has settled down into being a part of Canada.
People there can express their difference as well as their similarity. We in
Scotland are far more similar to our neighbours than a French speaking person
from Montreal and an English speaking person from Vancouver. Far less separates us in terms of language and in terms of distance. The nationalists in Scotland
will continue to deny that they are British. Their movement is not founded on
truth therefore and so will in time topple. We can bring that day nearer by
expressing both the fact that we are Scottish and that we are British. But
please put a little feeling into it. That is what our campaign has lacked for
too long. If we can win the emotional argument, we’ll need no other.