Trying to figure out WTF is going on I am told that many people don't understand the #ScottishUDI proposal and that a more accessible explanation is required. This has always puzzled me as I don't see the proposal as at all complex. I'm not sure what might be found difficult to comprehend. I first considered the fact that this was because being the one who developed it, I was so intimately familiar with the idea. But even looking at the thing as objectively as I am able, I still see no great obstacle to comprehension. So, why are people having difficulty following the thinking involved? [Skip to the simplified explanation of #ScottishUDI] Responsibility for making material accessible rests mainly with the creator. Although the audience must also make a certain amount of effort for communication to be effective, it is wrong in principle for a writer to blame their readers when communication fails. In this instance, however, it may be that the fault lies with the readers. The greatest compliment I receive is when someone tells me I've put into words exactly what they are thinking. Or it might be when I'm told I've given a reader some fresh insight or new perspective. The point being that the mindset of the reader is a significant factor influencing their understanding of what they read. They bring their own prejudices and preconceptions. The mismatch between the mindset of the writer and the reader may cause distortion and result in miscommunication - or in severe cases, non-communication. With this in mind, I reconsidered the difficulty some people were having understanding the process set out in the six bullet points of the Manifesto for Independence. Then it occurred to me that the cause of the problem was right there in front of me. It's the word 'independence'. The mismatch that is causing the glitch is the fact that the reader's thinking is dominated by the term 'independence' while the writer's thinking is predominantly concerned with self-determination The mindsets are different enough to interfere with communication. In an odd coincidence, just this morning I received a comment on X which relates to the point I am trying to make.
When they say 'political' here they are using in the way that the term is generally understood. That is to say, relating to political parties and policy agendas. The constitution is political in a different sense as it is not about parties and their platforms or issues of public policy. The constitution is about power. It is the statement of principles and set of rules which apply to what power can be held; from where this power derives; in whose interests the power is exercised; accountability for the exercise of power; and the process by which power is relinquished or forfeited.¹ What the above comment refers to is the tendency to lump 'independence' in with all the things that are the province of what we might call everyday politics - economic policy, social policy, housing policy, health, education and all the rest. This is what happened in the course of the campaign for the 2014 referendum. That campaign came to be fought very much as if it were an election, with the two sides being analogous to the two main parties. What should have been a sober debate about the constitution very quickly turned into the all too familiar squabbling about things that were properly the concern of everyday politics. We were supposedly voting on a matter of much greater consequence than the hypothetical policies of governments in an independent Scotland. But the 'debate' barely touched on the constitutional issue we were - in theory - deciding on 18th September 2014. This resulted in the conception of the constitutional issue referred to in the above quote. A conception - I should say misconception - which has persisted and deepened over the 'lost decade' since the sham referendum of 2014. That comment doesn't mention power. Instead, it refers to self-determination - which is both the most basic expression of power and the most fundamental human right. Self-determination is most simply defined as "the freedom to choose for oneself". This applies at the level of the individual and their choices regarding their own person and their life. For most purposes - including ours - however, the term self-determination is used in relation to peoples and nations. Britannica explains it thus:
From this it can readily be seen that the principle of self-determination - the freedom to choose - is the key element of the constitution. It is the ultimate power as regulated by the constitution. Where everyday politics is about what is decided, constitutional politics is about who does the deciding and how choices are made. The right of self-determination and the power associated with it reside, not in any organisation or institution, but in the people alone. The constitution sits apart from and above all of everyday politics. It overarches all matters of policy. The word 'independence' refers to a crucial constitutional issue. But it is all too often framed as merely a component of everyday politics. Returning to my theme, the fact that some (many?) people come to the exposition of #ScottishUDI and the Manifesto for Independence with a mindset which frames independence as something to be thought of in the same way as fiscal or monetary policy, whereas it was formulated with a mindset which puts independence in its righful place as a constitutional matter, there is inevitably the potential for difficulty in properly conveying the concept. Another problem is the party-political rhetoric which commodifies independence - presenting it as a 'prize' to be gained, with each political party claiming to be the one that will deliver it in the same way as they promise to deliver other abstract 'prizes' such as prosperity and security. This fosters an attendant attitude among voters that 'independence' is the property of this or that party and leads to the kind of tribalism which now pervades the independence movement. The attitude which informs the #ScottishUDI concept could hardly be more different. There is no partisan aspect to it whatever. It is definitively non-party-political and also pan-partisan. Meaning it has no party-political preference but recognises the role that political parties in general necessarily play in the process of deciding constitutional questions and implementing the choice that is made. The right of self-determination is emphatically not vested in any politician or party. It is vested in the people. All the people. The nation's constitution applies to and is the ultimate resort of the people. All the people. The thinking behind #ScottishUDI takes 'independence' back to where it should have been all along - outside of and encompassing all of the associations into which people are driven to organise themselves. Every one of these parties, organisations, and groups is relevant. None is irrelevant. None is more relevant than others. Independence is a constitutional issue; therefore it is a national issue. It is not political in any of the senses of that term which refer to the various ways a nation is divided within itself. This is not a plea for 'unity'. Those internal divisions are natural and necessary for democracy. Politics is the management of power relationships across these divisions. Democratic politics is ideally a contest of ideas and principles in which all the divisions participate for the purpose of making informed choices. Division is good! Unity in the form of amalgamation is neither necessary nor desirable. Unity of purpose gets results. For the independence movement there is but one purpose. Or at least, there should be but one purpose. Unfortunately, that purpose has never been defined. We're back to the packaging of 'independence' as a commodity. Like any commodity, it has become something to squabble over when rightly it should be something to fight for. The #ScottishUDI concept is an attempt to de-commodify 'independence'. To give it it's rightful status as a constitutional issue. It is also an attempt to define a purpose around which the whole independence movement can coalesce. That purpose is broadly stated as the pursuit of a process by which Scotland's independence will be restored. Consideration of this process was informed not by partisan interest or personal ambition but by a rational and realistic appreciation of the situation from which this process must proceed. Which preamble brings us to the simplified explanation of this process. It has to be simplified not because people are stupid but because the issue has been wantonly dumbed-down by the politicians and parties using 'independence' as an electioneering device. Professional politicians and those advising them, tend to imagine voters as capable only of thinking in terms of slogan and soundbites. They suppose us incapable of understanding anything more complex than "What do we want? Independence!". In a way, this is justified. Because they are geared to fighting election campaigns, politicians and parties know they must get their message across to as big a chunk of the electorate as possible. Hence the tendency to dumb-down to the level of the lowest common denominator. Or if not the lowest, somewhere near that end of the scale. If people think of 'independence' in the same way the politicians do it is only to be expected that they will be discombobulated when they encounter a perspective which assiduously seeks to avoid the 'thinking' of professional political actors. Given a choice between 'just get it done' and 'follow these several steps to get it done', they'll not unexpectedly tend to favour the former. There is no way to package the #ScottishUDI process as 'one line' manifesto item. I thought I'd reduced it to its most simplified form possible with the Manifesto for Independence. But it appears something more is needed. Or should that be something less? I'll give it a go. Start by forgetting 'independence'. It is the electioneering device, not the issue. The issue is self-determination and the exercise thereof. It is fine if you never mention nor think of 'independence' again. The word has been hijacked by the professional political actors for their own use. Never lose sight of the fact that this is a fight to defend the most fundamental right of all - the right of self-determination. (Incidentally, I'm putting a link to the next bit at the top of this article so people can skip the preamble. Although I wish they would read it since I've put some effort into writing it. Maybe I should do a TikTok video.) The #ScottishUDI process simplified
Of course, I am happy to provide a more detailed explanation of any of these points. The best way to ask questions is in the comments. There is also a contact form and I can always be found on social media. You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
Friday, 20 June 2025
Forget independence!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whistler’s Mother is in Paris and here’s why
… the painting that became an icon … ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
-
thealchemistspottery posted: " "I shall pass through this world but once.If therefore, there be any kindness I can sho...
-
The power pose of personal peace - with psychological benefits ... ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ...
-
petrini1 posted: " For Week 7, the theme of genealogist Amy Johnson Crow...
No comments:
Post a Comment