Trying to figure out WTF is going on Welcome to Peter A Bell!Peter A Bell recently moved you from another platform to Peter A Bell, hosted on Substack. New posts will be automatically delivered to you via email or via the Substack app. Regular readers will be aware of how disparaging I have been about the 'vision' approach to the constitutional issue. What I described as selling independence like a holiday destination. There are a number of reasons for deprecating this approach. I suppose the main reason is that it simply doesn't work. It was effective in the heady days of the early Yes movement when the whole idea of Scotland as an independent nation was being normalised. The 'vision' approach was appropriate then. It ceased to be appropriate or effective several months before the vote in September 2014. It hasn't been effective since then because the circumstances in which it could be effective no longer exist. Everything has changed. Everything except the 'prevailing 'thinking' of Scotland's nominally pro-independence politicians and leading activists. That 'thinking' is stuck in 2012. Polling on support for independence is stuck in 2014. New thinking on the constitutional issue has been developing over the period since the 2014 referendum. But little of this new thinking has impinged on the mainstream discourse - which is still dominated by the SNP and its offshoots, such as Alba Party as well as the 'old guard' of the Yes movement, such as Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp and others who may be described as being in the 'independence business'. There are other reasons for being dismissive of the 'vision' approach to the campaign to restore Scotland's independence. For example, those who cling to that approach tend not to talk in terms of restoring Scotland's independence. instead of portraying independence as some thing normal and 'natural', they talk of independence as if it were a prize or an award. They talk of independence as if it was something we had to win or qualify for. Which necessarily implies that independence is held by some external power - the British state. We have to win it from the British state by somehow persuading or forcing them to part with it. Or we hope to be awarded independence by the British state by passing some test set by them. The new thinking is that independence is something that we, the people of Scotland, must take. It is something that can only be taken. Having been taken is a crucial defining characteristic of independence. That which is in any way or to any extent given cannot be independence. What is given is devolution. It is simply adding a few links to the chains of colonial control. Power devolved is power retained. Devolution is colonialism disguised. It is not my purpose here to rail against the 'vison' approach to the independence campaign or denounce the attitude of deference to Westminster. What I want to make clear is that while I maintain that the constitutional issue must be dealt with in isolation from the matters of policy which inform the 'vision' approach, this doesn't in any way imply that I don't have a vision of the kind of country I want Scotland to be. It's just that my 'vision' is no more relevant than anyone else's. Which is to say, not relevant at all. Independence is an end in itself. It must be so, as restoring independence is righting an ancient wrong. It is a matter of justice. The Union is wrong for Scotland. It is unjust. It is unfair. It makes us less than we are entitled to be. If correcting this isn't an objective worth pursuing in and of itself, then justice itself is deprioritised. Independence is not about what Scotland should be. It is about where lies the power to decide what Scotland shall be. If that power is totally in the hands of Scotland's people, Scotland is an independent nation. If any of that power is placed elsewhere, we are not an independent nation. No nation exists in isolation, of course. It is inevitable that choices come with consequences. There will be times when compromise will be called for. But being independent means having the power to make choices in spite of the cost involved. It means having the power to decide what cost we are willing to bear in order to follow a particular course. As things stand, the people of Scotland have no meaningful say in the matter of what course is followed. And we are told what cost we must bear as a consequence of choices we have not made and never would. My 'vision' of future Scotland is bold and radical. Such visions get to be bold and radical. What would be the point of a vision that isn't bold and radical? Developing a vision is a matter of thinking the unthinkable. Or at least. the previously unthought or little thought. Visions push the envelope. Visions are ambitious and aspirational, or they are nothing. That's another reason for disparaging the 'vision' offered by those selling independence like a holiday destination. So much of it is distinctly unambitious. A large part of it is about being better at doing things as they are being done. It's not about changing things for the better. It's about being more successful in the system as we find it. With success being defined by that system. My preference is to break that system and build something that doesn't tend to blight or destroy everything and everyone it touches. But it is not my vision of future Scotland I want to refer you to. Rather, I would direct you to Robin McAlpine's latest blog article and his vision - which is certainly bold and radical. Here's a sample.
In fact, Robin's article is not about a detailed vision. It is more about how to formulate a vision. It's about the starting points and the mindset from the outset. Mainly, he explains why any worthwhile vision for the future of Scotland (or any other nation?) has to be informed by Foundational Economics. I am far from qualified to summarise Foundational Economics. I understand it as a reprioritising of different aspects of the economy, giving greater weight to "that without which we cannot live", as Robin puts it. The old/existing way of thinking is that if we prioritise the tradeable and the profitable, the essentials such as education and health-care will take care of themselves. Or will inevitably be taken care of. Foundational Economics starts from the rather obvious fact that for the many even if not for the few, the fundamentals of 'liveability' have been deteriorating for decades as the imperatives of (accumulative) capitalism have become more 'enthusiastically' pursued. As Robin puts it:
What's not to like? Unless you are one of the few who benefit from the existing system, the idea of Foundational Economics seems just plain good sense. The term 'well-being economy' is one of those glittering generalisations so beloved of politicians. But there is a good idea in there even if the politicians reduce it to a mere slogan. You might well ask, therefore, why such great ideas are not implemented in practice. Why do they remain 'visions' that are never realised? Let's assume that we all like the kind of thinking behind Foundational Economics. Let's assume everybody likes the idea of a 'well-being economy'. Does that mean change will follow? Do we even hope that change will follow? Or are we resigned to the fact that the best we can hope for is keep the level of liveability we have - even as reality demonstrates what a forlorn hope that is? Why doesn't it happen? If we all want it, why doesn't it come about? What is broke? What is lacking? What is failing? I would maintain that the reason we don't get the kind of change we desire is that our connection to effective political power has been broken. The component of our democratic political system which is supposed to form the connection between the people and the legislature (parliament) is the political parties. The people abide. The people are always the people. The legislature is also unchanging in its essential. The only thing that is susceptible to breakage or failure or usurpation is the party political set-up. Thus, we cannot have the change we desire unless and until we fix the party political element of our democracy. Before we can have a system that functions on the basis of Foundational Economics, we need a political system that operates on the basis of 'foundational politics'. That would be a system that prioritises that connection between people and parliament that has been so tragically eroded over decades. The political parties have become analogous to the "nail bars and American sweetie shops" that Robin McAlpine uses to represent the non-essential or at least less essential aspects of the economy. The people leading those parties are solely concerned with looking good and brandishing tempting morsels before the electorate. They have little or no interest in that most vital function of connecting the people to effective political power. It seems to this writer that there is little hope of any 'vision' of Scotland's future being realised to any extent unless we first restore the political parties to their proper function. To this end, there may be something in the idea of foundational politics that would be worth developing. You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment