Executive chairman of Renaissance Care and co-founder of the pro-Union group Scottish Business UK, Robert Kilgour maintains that “there is no reason why a group of us in business shouldn’t challenge” proposed legislation enabling the exercise of Scotland’s right of self-determination. Equally, there is no reason why a group of consumers should not challenge those who use their economic power to thwart the democratic process.
If a number of wealthy people can combine to deny democracy why should not the less privileged combine to defend democracy? If businesses can issue threats such as Kilgour’s, why shouldn’t the customers and potential customers of those businesses respond in kind?
If it is legitimate for business people to form collectives for the purpose of pursuing a political aim then it must also be legitimate for others to collectivise in order to create a countervailing force. Democracy cannot long survive a substantial imbalance of power. If business interests are to be powerful actors in the political sphere then those whose interests are threatened must organise in their own defence.
Those whose sole or primary interest is private profit cannot be allowed to act with impunity. They must know that should they set themselves against the people then there will be a price to be paid. A penalty such as they will understand. A strike against their ‘bottom line’. They threaten our democratic rights. We threaten their profits. That seems only fair.
Not that the economically powerful are interested in fairness. The very business people who consider it perfectly proper that they should organise against Scotland’s cause will be the first to cry foul should the independence movement seek to organise in its own defence. That is the nature of privilege and a vaunting sense of entitlement.
If their weapon is money then ours is the capacity to choke off their supply of money. The boycott has an honourable place in the history of progressive reform. It is a potentially powerful weapon in the hands of the hands of those who would otherwise be powerless. But the potential of the boycott cannot be realised without what Alexis de Tocqueville called the knowledge of how to combine. Businesses have this knowledge. They have a ready infrastructure which facilitates combination. When their common interests are threatened they form cartels to defend those interests. We, the people, have lost the knowledge of how to combine.
That knowledge is not completely lost. We can and do still combine. But we rarely do so as effectively as we might. It’s as if we shy away from the power of effective combination. Perhaps it is right that we should be cautious. As someone once said, with great power comes great responsibility. It is fitting that we should be wary of the power that a mass movement can wield. The knowledge of how to combine must include the knowledge of how to control the power thus unleased.
It is in the area of control that we tend to fall short. Even when we have total agreement on how our combined power is to be directed we have great difficulty in deciding who will do the directing. We want the power to effect change. But we don’t trust ourselves with that power. We distrust power because we have learned to distrust the powerful. We have to get over that obstacle if we are to defend against those who are perfectly comfortable with power.
The boycott can be an effective weapon in the hands of consumers. But it demands a high degree of control. That weapon will remain available but unused until we find a way to control it. Until we find someone we trust to do the controlling.
Robert Kilgour and his ilk are betting that we never will.
If you find these articles interesting please consider a small donation to help support this site and my other activities on behalf of Scotland’s independence movement.
8 thoughts on “The finger on the button”
Kilgour’s company owns 15+ care homes in Scotland, employing abt 1200 people, maybe half of whom are independence supporters. Care home workers are in short supply, and jobs are readily available in other care homes. Care homes cannot operate below a certain staff : resident ratio. Hmm
LikeLiked by 5 people
I like your thinking. You should do it more often.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And as is well known, Care Home staffers, most of them, are paid peanuts!
They get paid low wages, often less than £10. per Hour, while the bosses take huge amounts off their residents, (or Govt) to pay for these places, but making sure the bosses get lots out of it.
Any wonder we routinely get more than a few complaints about levels of staffing and care provided?
Four Seasons Care, by the way, was forced to sell dozens of Homes after almost going bust in the past few years.
Care Home owners would do well to keep a low profile.
Especially as in the case of Kilgur and the company he built up, having nearly collapsed the way it did. (Note; not to be confused with the Canadian based Four Seasons Hotels, chain.)
As to those who would try stop Independence, they never give us a valid reason for their efforts.
That said, it doesn’t help when we have SNP “Leaders” go on and on about a “Legal” vote.
That plays into the hands of all those anti Scottish idiots.
It doesn’t help either, when ALBA is also demanding Section 30.
ALBA should be demanding we don’t go to London to ask “permission” of anything, we decide for ourselves, and if London doesn’t like it, too bad!
Ask what they gonna do?
As Putin does in Ukraine by any chance?
We throw it back at them.
ALBA is Not demanding a Section 30? Never has done.
See SSRG and https://salvo.scot/ Better still, attend on 03 July
ALBA manifesto local elections 2022
“Despite a renewed mandate for an Independence Referendum in 2021, the will of the people of Scotland,
as expressed in that Election has yet to be implemented. Indeed, the Scottish Government have yet to
even request the transfer of powers from Westminster, through a Section 30 Order, which is one way to
enable that Referendum to take place.”
ALBA manifesto Scottish Parliament elections 2021
“The Scottish negotiating position should include, but not be restricted to, a formal demand for a Section 30 Order.”
Reblogged this on Ramblings of a now 60+ Female.
Here! Here! Peter well said.
Tunnocks and Baxters spring to mind still don’t touch them today.
It was the minority with money and wealth that got us into this union. Let’s never forget and never allow again.
LikeLiked by 1 person