Trying to figure out WTF is going on There are sound arguments and a considerable amount of support for the idea of a 'None Of The Above (NOTA)' option on ballot papers. Some jurisdictions already provide this option in one form or another. These include France, Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain. In the UK, there has been an official campaign for NOTA (NOTA UK) since 2010. Mainly due to pressure from this organisation, the parliamentary Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee (PCRC) in its 2015 report recommended that the UK government should hold a public consultation on the matter. Nothing came of it and the PCRC was promptly abolished by the Conservative government. Which I think indicates the attitude of the British establishment. The Manifesto for Independence offers a novel twist on the NOTA idea; AOTA or 'Any Of The Above'. If the Manifesto for Independence Petition succeeds in bringing together a sufficient number of independence supporters, we could have a situation in which all the nominally pro-independence parties are forced to adopt the same commitment on the constitutional issue in their election manifestos. In effect, one could vote AOTA, at least as far as the pro-independence parties are concerned. This would not work in practice, of course, as pro- and anti-independence parties are not grouped separately on the ballot. But the notion of an 'Any Of The Above' option is useful in that it illustrates an important effect of the Manifesto for Independence. Just as the NOTA option says that all of the options are unacceptable, the AOTA option says that all of the options are equally acceptable. They are all the same. Voting specifically for any one of them is not necessary because voting for any of them has the same effect. Of course, voters may have party preferences for other reasons relating to particular areas of policy. But on the constitutional issue, they can comfortably vote 'Any Of The Above'. But the constitutional issue is effectively split from party politics. Or to put it another way, party politics is removed from the constitutional issue. Independence would cease to be a party-political matter. Isn't this what everybody in the independence movement wants? Everybody, that is, except the professional politicians, their parties, and others who put personal or partisan considerations before Scotland's cause. Therein lies the problem. Universal adoption of the Manifesto for Independence is good for Scotland's cause, in numerous ways. But the professional political class is unlikely to see it as being in their interests. Their main concern is not the timely restoration of Scotland's independence, but electoral success and the rewards that accompany electoral success. It suits the purposes of the politicians and the parties that they should continue to be able to use independence as an electioneering device. So long as they have reason to believe there is personal or partisan electoral advantage to be gained from talking positively about independence, they will want to keep the constitutional issue in the realm of party politics. The fact that the independence movement predominantly favours relieving Scotland's cause of the millstone of partisan politicking is irrelevant to politicians and parties driven by naked self-interest. This is why the Manifesto for Independence Petition is so important. The biggest obstacles to Scotland's cause lie within the independence movement. The petition is a way for the grassroots independence movement to combine for the purpose of overcoming one of these obstacles. Only the combined weight of the entire grassroots movement can be effective in clearing the blockage of adversarial party politics. You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment