Trying to figure out WTF is going on When career politicians like Toni Giugliano speak they don't care much whether what they say is relevant, true or accurate. They're not greatly concerned about whether their statements even make sense. Only one question is entertained by the career politician as they speak. Will what I say elicit a positive reaction from the target audience? Every utterance of a career politician must by the very nature of their chosen profession, be a sales-pitch. The product they are selling is first and foremost themselves, although they must also sell the party which is sponsoring their bid for elected office and the various rewards this entails. As a nominally pro-independence politician, Toni Giugliano will be well aware of the terms and concepts which appeal to his audience - pro-independence voters. The word 'independence' is only the most obvious of the trigger words deployed by nominally pro-independence politicians. Trigger words are terms which provoke a predictable psychological or emotional response. There are numerous types of trigger word - emotion-inducing, action-oriented, value-offering, urgency-creating, trust-building etc. Once you learn to recognise these trigger words, their power is diminished or destroyed. Other than 'independence', Toni Giugliano's statement is peppered with trigger words both positive and negative. The terms 'unity' and 'division' are used in conjunction because their power is enhance by the contrast and contradiction. The term 'pact' falls into the same category as 'unity' while 'division' and 'ignored' work in combination. The word 'key' suggests urgency and importance. Superficially conversational, this is language intended to manipulate an audience. It pays to be aware. It may be that there is a measure of sincerity in there. Equally, there may be none whatever. I tend to assume the latter. When I mentioned earlier that career politicians such as Toni Giugliano prioritise effect over logic in their utterances, I had in mind a particular phrase that we are all very familiar with by now - "split the pro-independence vote". Phrases such as this, and the concepts they represent, are drummed into our heads by repetition until we no longer think about what they mean. That is purposeful. Because if we think about the idea of splitting the independence vote at all we will surely recognise the inherent idiocy of it. There is only one 'independence'. A "pro-independence vote" is just that. It can be nothing else. That which is not a pro-independence vote is an anti-independence vote, or it is no vote at all. The only possible split in the vote is between pro-independence and anti-independence. Neither can be further broken down as each is absolute. To talk of splitting the pro-independence vote is to talk nonsense. But it is nonsense that triggers anxiety and fear. Which is what matters to the professional politician. As well as its manipulative value, the nonsensical notion of splitting the pro-independence vote is a useful diversion from what the politician is actually concerned about, which is splitting the party vote. What Toni Giugliano is seeking to prevent is a splitting of what his party regards as its vote. The same applies in the case of every other nominally pro-independence politician and party. The concept of splitting the pro-independence vote only makes sense if the entirety of the pro-independence vote is associated with a single party. Talk of splitting the pro-independence vote is not about Scotland's cause at all. It is all about partisan interest and advantage. Think about it some more! Ask yourself how this prioritisation of partisan interest and advantage sits alongside the idea of an "electoral pact" involving all the nominally pro-independence parties. Obviously, it doesn't. There is a grating mismatch. A genuine desire for the 'unity' of an electoral pact cannot coexist with the imperative of electoral success for any single party. A genuine desire for the 'unity' of an electoral pact cannot coexist with the imperative of electoral success for any single party. If Toni Giugliano is sincere in his desire that a vote for any of the (nominally) pro-independence parties should be a vote for a specified option (independence), then he must recognise that an ill-defined and inherently fragile 'electoral pact' won't do the job. It won't work because negotiating such a pact necessarily involves all parties being prepared to compromise their definition of the specified option. With the dominant party compromising least of all. The consensus required for an electoral pact can only be arrived at by less powerful parties sacrificing points and being sincere in their willingness to make the sacrifice. As often as not consensus is no more than everyone agreeing to disagree. Which means it is a sham. The consensus is false and therefore the pact is false. It is the mere appearance of unity. It is a performance. It will not survive the heat and pressure of an electoral contest in which partisan interest is paramount. An electoral pact will not work. It certainly will not work for Scotland's cause. If a vote for any of the (nominally) pro-independence parties is to be a vote for a single specified thing - and just as importantly, be seen to be the same across all parties - then there must be a single statement of that thing which is common to all the parties. Not unity in the sense of all the (nominally) pro-independence parties coming together in a manner that is purely performative, but unity in the sense of all the parties remaining distinct while committing to a single rigidly defined purpose. If every pro-independence party adopts the same Manifesto for Independence, every vote for any of those parties becomes a vote for that Manifesto for Independence while simultaneously being a vote for the party. The parties lose nothing. Scotland's cause gains a powerful mandate. Will Toni Giugliano be the first to acknowledge that the only form of unity that is achievable and potentially effective is unity of purpose? Will he be the first among career politicians to recognise that for the 2026 election to be a de facto referendum, there must be a binary element which stands separate from the party-political squabbles? Will he be the first to embrace the idea of the Manifesto for Independence? You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment