Trying to figure out WTF is going on Every morning this week I have sat down at a computer resolved to write an explanation of #ScottishUDI and the Manifesto for Independence which would be so clear and concise as to defy both misunderstanding and misrepresentation. On each occasion, I've got about this far before being overwhelmed by a sense of futility. After all, isn't that exactly what I've been trying to do for the past five or six years? Surely if there was a form of words which could accurately and reliably convey the idea, I would have discovered it by now. It's not as if I'm new to this game. I must have picked up a few tricks of the trade over the years. Not enough, it seems. This morning, as I scrolled through social media posts by Alba Party, SNP and others, it dawned on me why I'm having this difficulty. It's because I prioritise the idea above the explanation. Whereas for the political parties te thought is slave to the word, I am seeking to make the words serve the thought. The professional politicians don't come up with big ideas because big ideas tend to be difficult to encapsulate in a soundbite or slogan. Over decades of dumbing things down for consumption by the dumb beast that is the electorate, any capacity the career politician might have possessed for developing big ideas has atrophied. As I realised this, it occurred to me that it fit perfectly with another conclusion I reached a long time ago. For decades now, politicians and political parties have been peddling messages moulded by focus groups, polls, surveys, and expert analysis of what voters find most and least appealing. Politicians don't find solutions because they are not looking for solutions that work to solve problems. They are looking for messages that work to make themselves and/or their parties look good because the message can appear to be about a solution. It's the message that must work for the politician' purpose and not the solution that must work for the people. Similarly, there are no 'big thinkers' among our political caste because big thoughts are not amenable to expression as simple messages. Big thinkers don't succeed in modern politics. They are weeded out long before they get anywhere near power. There is no modern equivalent of William Wilberforce or Samuel Plimsoll among today’s politicians. Who can imagine Sidney Webb or Beatrice Webb rising to a position of influence in a Labour Party that has Keir Starmer as its leader? I'm sure most of you are aware of the following moment when Noam Chomsky was being interviewed by Andrew Marr.
How did we know that Keir Starmer was lying his way through the 2024 UK election campaign? Because although what he was promising could hardly be called radical, we knew that an individual who was sincere about such 'reform' could never rise through the ranks of any British political party. That campaign illustrated like nothing has done before the total disconnect between message and intention. The message was formulated for the purpose of winning an election with no regard for what policy actually was. Starmer got the job on the basis of his ability to sell the message and not any ability as a political actor. The politics we have is what is left after the system has filtered out everything that might inconvenience established power. Inevitably, this has an effect on the public. Having been force-fed a diet of pap for generations, the ability to digest anything that isn't oversimplified to the point of inanity has been all but completely lost. A sweeping generalisation, of course. But what else can it be when we are talking about a population-level effect? It certainly explains why notions too vacuous to be called ideas are greeted as revolutionary while genuinely revolutionary ideas are left at the side of the plate. It explains why we have people furiously arguing the pros and cons of this or that utterly purposeless voting strategy as if it was a debate on ending slavery or providing healthcare free at the point of need, while the crucial matter of a process by which to restore independence is almost a taboo topic. When everything of significance has been filtered out of political discourse to let empty rhetoric rein, the trivial and banal readily take on the aspect of matters of the utmost earnestness. It is not uncommon in marketing for the brand to precede the product. An extreme - and very possibly apocryphal - example would be the well-known biscuit where somebody thought of a name then devised a recipe to go with it. One can easily imagine a marketing company keeping a list of neologistic brand names just waiting for the product or service that would look good in it to come along. For the most part, however, the brand may come first but it is accompanied by at least the first few cell divisions of the nascent enterprise. This is what seems to be the case with Liberate Scotland. (Not to be confused with Liberation.scot.) I was lately involved in an exchange on the Barrhead Boy blogsite comments section when I tried to discover what Liberate Scotland is and what it is for. This was my initial inquiry:
The first response was interesting. In it, Liberate Scotland asserts that its vision closely aligns with #ScottishUDI and the Manifesto for Independence. But it then goes on to talk of using the 2026 election as a de facto referendum on independence. which, as I sincerely hope most readers are aware, is completely contrary to what I have proposed. There were other discrepancies. But always the claim - or at least an attempt to give the impression - that Liberate Scotland was some kind of vehicle for #ScottishUDI. It isn't! At first, I thought this was just another case of somebody referring to the Manifesto for Independence without bothering to read and understand it. But since, the niggling feeling has grown in my mind that it was a deliberate attempt to associate Liberate Scotland with the Manifesto for Independence. Which would be very dishonest. All of this left me no wiser as to what Liberate Scotland is or what it's for. It purports to be an umbrella group under which all pro-independence parties can unite. I can see no possibility of it ever being that. But it does claim to have drawn together Independence for Scotland Party, Sovereignty, and Independents for Independence. Which doesn't amount to a lot in electoral terms. As far as I can make out, the intention is that these parties will stand candidates in the 2026 election on a "single-line manifesto" stating that "a 50%+1 vote and seat majority to initiate immediate steps toward dissolving the Union—a process akin to your #ScottishUDI". But none of this is formalised and as noted, what is described is very far from being "akin" to #ScottishUDI. I later asked - among other things - whether ISP had agreed to drop its entire 2024 election manifesto in favour of this "single-line manifesto". But it all got very evasive at this point, and I was told repeatedly that while there would be a plan made public in due course, I'd have to be patient and wait. Where have we heard that before!? My point here is not to have a go at Liberate Scotland. It hardly seems worth the effort. My purpose is to hold it up as an example of the sort of vacuous, insubstantial, half-thought nonsense that passes for serious political strategising in 2025. There is the name 'Liberate Scotland' and the word 'unity' and that's it! There literally is nothing else if we discount the dishonest claims about being aligned with #ScottishUDI. Yet a significant part of the independence movement is treating Liberate Scotland as if it was some kind of bold, radical new initiative. I wish to hell it was! But it just isn't. This is why the brick wall pictured has blood spatter where I've been banging my head off it. Because that's what it feels like when you try to engage the independence movement in discussion of a serious proposal for restoring Scotland's independence but find yourself blocked by the sheer mass of utter drivel that is swirling around like a turd that refuses to be flushed. A couple of times now I've rather half-heartedly broached the subject of a conference dedicated to discussion of the practical aspects of restoring our independence. If I am less enthusiastic than I might be, there are at least a couple of reasons. For one thing, I get little sense of there being a significant number of people who want to talk about a process for restoring independence. And my suspicion is that a lot of time would be wasted at such a conference by people wanting to talk some more about their vision for after independence rather than how we get there. As I write this, it occurs to me that a poll might be useful, to see how much interest there might be in such a conference. Meanwhile, if you have any thoughts on the matter, please let me know in the comments. Please note that I always read all comments and try to respond where necessary or appropriate. You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment