Trying to figure out WTF is going on It is said that the most skilled debaters are able to argue equally well for either side of an issue. A good poker player will know with a high degree of confidence what cards will be played next. A chess champion will be aware of every move their opponent might make at every point in the match. By the same token, an effective political strategist or campaign manager will have a good idea how an opponent will behave in any given situation. They won’t do anything without first having considered how the other side will respond. Every project needs a niggler. Someone to play Devil’s advocate. A member of the team who is free to point out all the flaws in ideas put forward by others. The value of this should be obvious. If the flaws aren’t discovered and dealt with in ehatever way is appropriate at the early stages of a project, they are sure going to appear later and do some damage. So it is with any marketing campaign or political campaign - which are essentially the same. When planning he campaign or any action within it, due account must be taken of how the opposition is likely to respond. It is self-defeating, for example, to ask a question of the opposition if they have an answer that is better than the question, in terms of scoring points for the respective campaigns. Similarly, it is pointless making a big production number of demands if you know the other side can easily ignore or refuse those demands. All you do is emphasis your relative weakness and as a corollary, allow them to show off their power. I am often accused of ‘being negative’ about various initiatives and proposal in the contxt of the independence campaign. To which I respond in the affirmative. I am being negative. But FFS focus on the reason I’m being negative and not just the negativity. Condemning negativity for its own sake is stupid. As explained, there are many circumstances where negativity is a good or even an essential thing. Ideas, perspectives, and suggestions must be scrutinised. Proposals should be critiqued. Everything should be questioned. So, don’t tell me I’m being negative. I already know I’m being negative. I am doing it quite deliberately. The negativity is purposeful. If you see only negativity it’s because you’re too blinkered to see the purpose. Which brings me to the idea of making the 2026 Scottish Parliament election a plebiscite election on the question of independence. I maintain that this is a very bad idea. I do so knowing I will be castigated just for saying this by people who remain stubbornly, proudly ignorant of the reasons for considering it a bad idea. I know also that I will be told it is ‘only my opinion’ by those who seem to be under the impression I might offer someone else’s opinion. I will be told it is ‘only my opinion’ by those who imagine all opinions are equal. They take the fact that everybody has the right to hold and express an opinion to mean that one opinion has the same standing as another. This is nonsense, of course. Opinions informed by careful consideration of facts and reasoned arguments will inevitably be of greater worth than opinions that are merely the congealed mass of misinformation, pseudo-facts, proud ignorance, prejudice, and bigotry. In order to be able to judge whether an opinion is of any worth, one must first listen to it. It is necessary to know the content of an opinion so as to be able to properly assess it. To dismiss something a ‘just an opinion’ is a terrific way to mark yourself the worst kind of fool. I assess the proposal to make the 2026 election a plebiscite of independence as a very bad idea for reasons that I shall set out here. If you are still shocked at the negativity, you should probably stop reading now. If you can’t understand why somebody might be negative towards a proposal, then it is unlikely you will be amenable to comprehending the reasons. Or even recognising them as reasons. How do you go about making an election a plebiscite? How do you turn something that is inherently and ineluctably non-binary into something which must be binary? Those proposing that we make the 2026 election a plebiscite on independence either don’t address these questions at all, or do so inadequately. But asking and answering these questions is absolutely essential because doing so will reveal weaknesses that our opponents could exploit. And if they can, they will! The most specific proposal that I am aware of is to use the regional ballot as a referendum on independence. The idea is that all votes for any declared pro-independence party should count as a vote for independence. But can it? We can be certain that our opponents will take the line that this is not a real referendum. That it can’t be real because it is not binary. They will say that not only did they fight the election on a range of issues, so did the nominally pro-independence parties. They will point out that even on the constitutional issue, the nominally pro-independence parties took different positions. They will certainly enjoy making an issue of the fact that the largest of these nominally pro-independence parties isn’t even proposing independence. The SNP is proposing to plead for a Section 30 order. A vote for them is not, therefore, a vote for independence. It is a vote for a Section 30 referendum which cannot lead to independence. It is extremely likely that out of all the nominally pro-independence parties, the biggest chunk of the vote will go to the SNP on both the constituency and the regional ballot - even if the latter chunk is a lot smaller than the former. Therefore, Unionists can argue that this part of the vote should not be counted as votes for independence. Unionists might also raise question about whether a vote for Alba Party is really a vote for independence. In fact, a vote for Alba is a vote for negotiations with Westminster. As Westminster will not and cannot ‘negotiate’ Scottish independence, a vote for Alba cannot be a vote for independence. Strike all those votes as well as the SNP ones. The very fact that all the nominally pro-independence parties have different position - no matter how small the differences may be - provides Unionists with the basis to argue that the supposed plebiscite does not meet the criterion of being binary. Not all votes for nominally pro-independence parties are votes for exactly the same thing. As explained, some aren’t even votes for independence. This will be reason enough for the British state to discount the result completely and immediately. But let’s consider for a moment what an indisputable pro-independence vote would do if it was possible for there to be a Yes vote that couldn’t be disputed as previously described. what effect would it have? How could it have any effect at all? Well, this putative Yes vote could only have effect through the Scottish Parliament. This is where we encounter the point at which all ‘routes’ to independence converge - the matter of legislative competence. The supposed independence plebiscite will have taken place in the context of an election to a parliament which does not have the legislative competence to deliver that which has been voted for. People will have voted for something which cannot be delivered. They will have voted for the Scottish Parliament to do something which is currently outwith its capacity. Unionist will argue that the vote is therefore meaningless. That the plebiscite - even if it qualified as such - was pointless. As pointless as a vote on who should win Euromillions on Friday. The core point here is that the outcome of this proposed plebiscite election is questionable. It can be questioned, as has been demonstrated. It is vulnerable to questions. Therefore, it cannot be conclusive. The conclusiveness of the result is reduced by every question that can be asked of it. It doesn’t matter if you or I consider these questions invalid or just plain silly. Even daft questions can induce doubt in the public mind. And some of the potential questions identified here are far from daft. They are fundamental. When we vote for independence, the vote must be conclusive. It must be as far beyond doubt as it is possible to make it. The less conclusive the result, the greater and more problematic the divisions that remain after independence has been restored. It is often said that we must carry the people with us on our journey to independence. This is true. But it is essential that we be able to demonstrate that we have carried the people with us. The only way to do this well is a dedicated constitutional referendum. A pretend referendum simply will not suffice. Should the vote be No, however, or if the outcome is so questionable that the result can be ignored, we can be sure that the British state would then claim this was the second referendum we have been demanding. Again, you or I might scoff at such a claim. But to the public mind it might seems quite a reasonable claim given that we had promoted the election so hard as that second referendum. A plebiscite election on independence is clearly a bad idea. It’s the kind of idea political parties have when they are looking for good electioneering material rather than a way to restore Scotland’s independence. It is likely that at least one person will respond to my negativity by asking in the snidest of tones “Well, what’s your answer then!?”. As if my criticisms were somehow invalidated by not being served with a side dish of solution. Of course, I have offered a plan which avoids all or most of those associated with the plebiscite election idea. A plan which provides for just the dedicated referendum required to conclusively confirm majority support for the restoration of Scotland’s independence. But this is not the place to detail this plan. The point here was to highlight weaknesses in the plebiscite election proposal. It is to be hoped that people will address these weaknesses. I have explained the #ScottishUDI plan elsewhere. A basic web search will find lots of material. You're currently a free subscriber to Peter A Bell. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment