Contemplating what to write about today as I trawled through news and social media I finally took inspiration from a post on Twitter/X and a comment on an earlier article. Each in their own way made me think about received (or conventional) wisdom. That is to say, the body of ideas, opinions and explanations which are generally accepted by the public or by the members of a particular group. The things that ‘everybody knows’. The things that should always be questioned, but seldom are.
The post on Twitter/X was fairly typical of the kind of thing we get from those who have never thought out of the box defined by the SNP and the old guard of the Yes movement.
It must immediately be pointed out that the first statement is wrong. It is not true to say that “50% of the Scottish electorate support the union”. It is true to say that according to polls, around 50% don’t support independence. But that doesn’t mean they are happy with the present constitutional arrangement. Some are, of course. Many (most?) will be indifferent. But there will also be those who are not pro-Union but who simply haven’t been inspired to move from the status quo.
An example of the received wisdom that urgently needs to be reviewed is the notion of the ‘soft No’ who only needs to be shown a glossy enough brochure advertising some sufficiently bright and shining vision of Scotland after independence, and they will switch to Yes with alacrity. Rather than as ‘soft No’, we’d do better to think in terms of the ‘inertial No’. The person who is stuck at a particular place by inertia. The person who needs a push rather than a draw. Or, to be more precise, a person who needs a push to break the grip of inertia so the pull of an attractive proposition can have an effect.
Which brings us to the second bit of received wisdom. The notion that it is necessary to “persuade many more to support independence before we can exercise that right” (my emphasis). If we regard the target group as ‘inertial No’ – which will include also a large proportion of non-voters – it becomes easy to conceive of action to facilitate exercise of the right of self-determination being the thing that overcomes inertia – or apathy. The idea that we must have the campaign won before we do anything is almost entirely self defeating.
Sometimes, leaders have to actually lead. In order to get the people to go to the place they want the people to go to they have to go there first. Or at least, take the first steps. They have to demonstrate their confidence in the cause. People don’t follow leaders who aren’t going anywhere because they’re waiting for the people to move first. Which is what our politicians do all the time. They devote massive resources to the effort to gauge which way public opinion is going so that they can head in a similar direction and pretend they’re leading. When the great social and political reforms of history were achieved, the tools for measuring public opinion that are ubiquitous now didn’t exist. If political leaders had waited until they could be certain of massive public support we would never have had an NHS. In the absence of reliable scientific polling, political leaders had to be bold. They had to be adventurous. They had to be courageous. They had to care more about the dream they sought to realise than their own advancement or their party’s advantage.
Our politicians don’t have dreams, they have policy advisers and focus-groups and polling companies. They are not courageous, adventurous or bold. They are cowardly, hyper-cautious and devoid of imagination. Is it any wonder they fail to inspire people? They are insipid. Vapid. If they were a colour, there would be endless debate as to whether it was beige or grey or greyish beige or grey with a hint of beige.
There are no leaders. Therefore, there is nobody to follow. Therefore, we go nowhere. Just like Scotland’s cause for the last ten years.
A decade ago, when the Yes movement was at its most potent, the received wisdom was that we didn’t need and shouldn’t have leaders. But it was all a sham. Because there were leaders everywhere they were needed. When things got done by the Yes movement they got done because leaders emerged locally who hade the imagination, adventurousness and courage to make those things happen. Alex Salmond was the closest thing we ever had to an inspirational overall leader of the independence movement. And half the fucking Yes movement devoted itself to trying to ensure that he couldn’t be that leader. Then there was Sturgeon. An individual who I still maintain had the potential to be the leader the independence movement requires, but who failed for reasons it’s not part of my purpose here to get into.
Now, we have nothing. No leadership whatsoever. We have machine politicians, most of whom aren’t even very good at being machine politicians. And we need that bold, adventurous, courageous leadership now more than ever. Sturgeon was very good at saying there would be action. She was even very good at getting people to believe there would be action. So good that many continue to believe there will be the promised action despite the objective and observable fact that no such action has happened in nearly ten years.
Still, the received wisdom that the independence movement needs no leader prevails. Still, we have fools insisting the independence movement is “non-political”. Still, we have idiots pontificating about ‘people power’ as if such a thing existed and assuring us that ‘people power’ alone will win Scotland’s cause despite the fact that it hasn’t, isn’t and shows no sign of ever doing so.
Still, the Yes movement is dominated by the received wisdom that winning is all about persuading enough people to go first so that the politicians won’t be quite so terrified of trotting along behind them shouting “Follow me!”.
Still we are lectured by those who claim to represent the biggest and most most effective part of the Yes campaign on the received wisdom that talking endlessly about being independent is infinitely more important than attending to the matter of how we become independent. We are told to shut up about process and talk about vision. We are told this despite the fact that talking about vision has had absolutely no impact since mid-2014 and possibly since 2013.
The received wisdom is that people are put off by talk of process. And that may be so. It may be technical and at times legalistic and many might find that tedious. But it would be quite different if they could actually see that process. If that process was identified and set out bofore them, thatis alone would inspire people. When you are askinf people to go somewhere it is essential to reassure them that the journey is actually possible; even before trying to convince them that you are the person to lead them on that journey.
Our politicians – and I don’t give a shit what party they represent – refuse to identify a credible process by which Scotland’s independence might be restored. Instead, they urge us not even to think about such matters. It’s above our pay-grade. We don’t understand these things. The reason being that if a credible process was identified then there’s a risk that the public might insist the politicians implement that process. And whatever the process is by which we break the British state we can absolutely certain the British state won’t like it and will come down hard on those in the vanguard of that process. Our politicians are paralysed with fear of this confrontation. Not least because not one of them is equipped to cope with the pressure.
Some time ago, I wrote about what, for want of a better term, I called the new thinking on the constitutional issue. As much as anything, that new thinking is about rejecting the received wisdom that has held back Scotland’s cause for so long. I urge all of you to question, scrutinise and challenge that received wisdom wherever you encounter it.
Peter A Bell 
And that, in a nutshell, is why the polls remain ‘static’; at best, marginally in favour of ‘Yes..’ In a political context, if you wish me to go with you, to follow you, to back you, to support you, to campaign for both you AND the cause, TO BELIEVE IN YOU, YOU MUST REPEAT MUST BE WILLING TO LEAD, TO TAKE THE INITIATIVE..
Were one of our so-called ‘leaders’ to do that, I venture to suggest ( and humbly so.. ) that the polls would quickly show a marked uptick, AND SUSTAINABLY SO..
“.. If you do not know where you are going, you will not know when you arrive..” G.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes Peter, your critical ‘new thinking’ highlighted a breakthrough, acknowledging that:
first an oppressed people must recognise their ‘condition’ as colonial;
that the only remedy for colonialism is liberation, and;
that UDI is a means of liberation
The process of decolonization was ever thus. Though as you imply, and as Fanon confirmed, the leaders of the national party lack understanding or courage at the decisive moment ‘and instead move ever closer to colonialism’.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Caribnat says:
“What is preventing us exercising that right is the unfortunate fact that 50% or so of the Scottish electorate support the union.”
Wrong!
Around 50% of people, according to opinion surveys, may not support self-government but that is not the same as being able to exercise our right to choose.
Caribnat also says:
“We must persuade many more to support independence before we can exercise that right.”
Wrong again!
We have the right at all times. We decide when and how often we exercise that right. That right is the right of self-determination. The right to choose our own constitutional arrangements. We must persuade a majority of the electorate in order to restore our independent statehood.
Peter A Bell says:
“When you are asking people to go somewhere it is essential to reassure them that the journey is actually possible; even before trying to convince them that you are the person to lead them on that journey.”
And that’s the truth.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That argument seems to make sense so, perhaps we could make start by asking how many people agree that we have a right to choose ans see where that gets us. Those who disagree with that suggestion will never support a vote for independence, however framed, so can be eliminated from those we need to convince. At least it might get people considering the question of Independence more seriously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The ‘legal tendency’ telling us ‘we’ have to convince so-called ‘soft no’s’ fail to understand the basis of the anti-independence vote in a colonial society.
According to census and voting intention data, possibly as much as 50% of the No vote (i.e. approx 1 million people) are not Scots. And of the remainder who are Scots, many suffer the effects of a ‘colonial mindset’. In effect, these group’s preferred or actual national identity is that of the colonizer.
This further suggests the abnormally high and sustained anti-independence vote is predominantly due to the along-term effects of colonialism.
The national party leaders are unaware of this and other important aspects of our ‘condition’ because they have never undertaken ‘a reasoned study of colonial society’ (Fanon).
LikeLiked by 4 people
“possibly as much as 50% of the No vote (i.e. approx 1 million people) are not Scots”
That reminds me of this article from WOS 2014 where Alistair Darling was asked about “blood and soil nationalism” by New Statesman, Better Together people later denied he accused the SNP of blood and soil nationalism, and certainly said it was not civic nationalism:
https://wingsoverscotland.com/what-alistair-darling-said/
Blood and soil nationalism is of course, from history, essentially evil – “Blut und Boden” and would certainly lose us any referendum which had it as the base of anyone with any apparent influence. Bye bye independence.
Personally I will have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything that seems to other any of Scotland’s myriad and welcome, Peoples.
I’m out.
LikeLike
It’s a matter of demographics, not ethnicity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The demographic issue is real. Of that there is no doubt. But I see no way around it. We can’t exclude ‘non-Scots’. There are no criteria for defining a ‘Scot’ that would not face enormous legal challenges. All we can do is build a campaign that wins despite the demographic issue. We know there are many English Scots on the Yes side of the constitutional divide. Also, Asian Scots and European Scots. So, we know that non-Scots can be persuaded. It’s a challenge. But it can be done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Secondary criteria agreed with the UN was used in the New Caledonia independence referendums. This removed 17% of voters, mostly recent arrivals who oppose independence.
We are already at 60% if the UN Franchise was used. – YOURS FOR SCOTLAND (wordpress.com)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t say there were no criteria. I said there were no criteria that would lead to protracted political and legal wrangling. Bear in mind that the resources of the British state would be deployed to ensure there was protracted arguing.
And this is only AFTER we’ve got the UN involved. It’s not clear how that can be done within the relevant time-frame. Mind you, it’s not at all clear how anything can be done. Even if we accept that the secondary criteria franchise was feasible, it would only be to identify yet another missed opportunity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dear God you’ve changed, and for the worse. Previously you said you would NOT support a franchise that excluded people who live, work, pay taxes and even raise families here. Now you consider it, but say it isn’t “feasible”. You’re easily led, and gullible to boot.
It’s ethnic nationalism, and by not allowing people to vote, totally fills this following definition of ethnic nationalism, especially the “second-class citizens”:
‘The central tenet of ethnic nationalists is that “nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry”. Those of other ethnicities may be classified as second-class citizens.’
Not in my Scotland, and I totally abhor the idea that anyone who lives here is denied the right of a citizen’s vote.
This is my last post in what I stupidly didn’t realise, is a xenophobic blood and soil blog.
LikeLike
I should hope I have changed. Only bigots refuse to modify their views in the light of new information or changed circumstances. In this instance, however, my views have not changed as much or in the way that your knee-jerk reaction implies. I perhaps understand the demographic argument better than I once did. Largely because, unlike yourself, I have been prepared to listen. And think. I can now allow that it is perfectly possible to make a ‘civic’ case for a second criteria franchise. One of the many problems, however, is that absent a considerable amount of thoughtfulness and goodwill, it is difficult to distinguish between the ‘civic’ and the ‘ethnic’ case. As you amply demonstrate, thoughtfulness and good will are not things we can take for granted.
Among bigotry’s siblings is tribalism. The unthinking binary attitude associated with tribalism oozes from your comment. The dumb ‘for-us-or-against-us’ attitude that is regrettably so prevalent today. No nuance is permitted. If someone isn’t singing precisely the same words from precisely the same hymn-sheet to precisely the same tune as yourself, they must be in the other of only two possible camps occupying fortresses on either side of a gaping gorge of proud ignorance.
In fact, as can be testified by those in the happy position of being able to read my comments undistorted by the cracked and greasy lens of bigoted tribalism, my conclusions on an ‘adjusted’ franchise remain as they always have been. I am opposed to the proposal. All I have done, regardless of what your fevered imagination tells you, is demonstrate that I have heard and considered the arguments before reaching that conclusion. Something you appear to be incapable of.
LikeLiked by 3 people
BTW – Before even thinking about going to the UN, you’d have to get this ‘revised’ franchise through the Scottish Parliament. That’s not going to happen with this Parliament. So, we’re at 2026 before there’s even the possibility of making a start on approving a new franchise for a referendum that no political party has any plans for.
Meanwhile, the British state will be beavering away on its own plans for its annexed territory to the north. Plans which aim to make the restoration of Scotland’s independence impossible.
I told you all the referendum should have been in 2018. Nobody would listen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scotland is not New Caledonia. Apart from anything else, the latter is on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories. Scotland isn’t. The circumstances simply aren’t comparable and, while the New Caledonia franchise proves a modified franchise is possible, it only proves it was possible in the circumstances which prevailed in New Caledonia.
It is also worth noting that the second criteria franchise did not lead to the constitutional issue being resolved. Despite the favourable special franchise, the pro-independence side has been unable to win. So, even where we have an example of a modified franchise, it doesn’t achieve what you hope it might in Scotland.
My thinking on the matter remains that a modified franchise is more trouble than it is worth. It is an extra complication that can only lead to further delay. We can’t afford any delay.
Scotland is not New Caledonia. We cannot simply import a (failed) ‘solution’ to the demographic issue from there. We need solutions tailored to Scotland’s circumstances.
LikeLike
After independence there will be many in Scotland who don’t want to be Scottish simply. They will be British forever.
If we can form our own Scottish government those people will need to decide who they have allegance too.
As in brexit EU countries provided a route to naturalisation for all residents. Many people chose jingoism and Britishness was inviolable and chose not to naturalise and had to leave the countries.of their choosing. Cest la vie.
That is normal. Many would have qualified purely by the length of time as residents.
Choices ehh
Having stated that it follows that the franchise has to follow rules recognising that there are those who are not citizens and should not be allowed to vote.
We will need a census before any vote on self determination to gather that data. Particularly because the british won’t allow us to see theirs.
We will need to follow recognised international rules on this.
all those living here now including newcomers are welcome to stay. Holiday homers from other nations may not wish to stay and should play no part in constitutional voting. Other reasonable rules will allow them to keep homes I should think. They should never have the voting franchise however. We are not allowed it in any European country or the US, Australia, New Zealand etc.
Why should Scots accept a lot of people NOT COMMITTED TO SCOTLAND.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That is academic, I know until we can organise it ourselves. UDI is the only way followed by a confirmatory vote.
LikeLiked by 5 people
This appears to be the case.
As Peter implies, a colonial regime will do all it can to block independence; which includes in one way or another boosting the numbers opposed to independence. Our demographic history tells us this has been a policy applied to Scotland for a very long period. Daeless national party leaders do not have any strategy to address this, indeed they appear to promote it.
Postcolonial theory and the history of decolonization more widely is interesting in this regard in that, after independence, colonialists tend to return to the ‘mother country’.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Extract from the Good Friday agreement – for info and consideration.
“The British and Irish Governments declare that it is their joint understanding that the term “the people of Northern Ireland” in paragraph (vi) of Article 1 of this Agreement means, for the purposes of giving effect to this provision, all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence.”
LikeLiked by 5 people
That seems a perfectly reasonable franchise.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Interesting extract from the Good Friday agreement Mike. And using the same wording this is how it might look as applied to Scotland:
“The British and Scottish Governments declare that it is their joint understanding that the term “the people of Scotland” in paragraph (vi) of Article 1 of this Agreement means, for the purposes of giving effect to this provision, all persons born in Scotland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Scotland without any restriction on their period of residence.”
This would seem a major improvement compared to what we have – i.e. an irregular local government election franchise being used to decide a national constitutional matter.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Why is the British government in there? What’s it got to do with them?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Perhaps the more important point here is that the definition of ‘a people’ in respect of Northern Ireland based on place of birth and parental descent (i.e. the international norm) is entirely at odds with the definition used in the Scottish independence referendum, the latter based on residence, i.e. a local government election franchise. The SNP Gov remain complicit in this deception which arguably cost us independence in 2014 and may do so again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The definition I think I could live with. It is definitions based on some notion of ‘Scottishness’ that I have issues with. And I definitely have issues with the idea of the British government having any say in what the franchise should be. That is a point I feel compelled to make even if it is judged to be less important.
LikeLiked by 2 people