It can’t be done. And it wouldn’t help even if it could. Nobody – and I mean nobody – can stipulate or predict what Scotland will be like after independence is restored. Think about it for a moment. You want an “image” of future Scotland. Is this an image of Scotland the day after Independence Day? Or a week after? Or a year? Or a decade? Pick one!
Or do you want multiple images? One for each year after independence, perhaps? Or one for each week? Or each day? How about one for every 25th of a second? You’d have a movie of the future!
It’s all nonsense, of course. Nobody can predict or stipulate the entire future of a whole nation. And unless you can predict or stipulate the entire future, what’s the point? Even if your “image” for one day or one week or one month is spot on, all your other images might be totally wrong.
The future will be made by the people who live there. L. P. Hartley tells us the past is a foreign country. How much more foreign must the future be? The past has been visited. The future cannot be. It is a very imperialist attitude to suppose we may dictate how anything must be in a land that is not ours. And a very arrogant attitude to imagine we might foretell exactly – or even inexactly – what the people of that country will decide.
Our task is merely to ensure that, unlike this and preceding generations, the people of future Scotland have the capacity to decide.
And suppose it could be done. Suppose we had the ability to rattle off reams of facts and figures about future Scotland. Suppose we were even capable of convincing people we knew what we were talking about. It wouldn’t change minds. It wouldn’t even access 90% or more of them. Those minds it does access will in the main be unaffected. They will be left cold by all this information. They will not alter their attitudes one iota on the basis of this compendium of graphs and statistics.
People don’t vote on the basis of what they know. People vote on the basis of what they feel. For the most part, they vote on the basis of their existing prejudices and preconceptions. These are not susceptible to being altered by the application of facts and figures. Few will bother to look at the facts and figures. Far, far fewer than will claim to have done so. If the facts and figures don’t accord with existing prejudices and preconceptions, they will be rejected.
The ‘economic case’ for anything is not made in order to change minds. It is made in order that people can claim to have had a rational reason for a decision that had already been made by their gut
You don’t change people’s minds with facts and figures. You change their minds by making them feel differently about the matter in question. You manipulate their emotions, not their intellect. Only rarely is the intellect in play.
Peter A Bell 
While I do agree that what you say is obviously correct and that those who choose to do the opposite need to be confronted about WHY they are choosing to peddle some particular ‘vision’ as if it were a future that we could simply vote for then magically have granted. (we can’t)
Experience has however demonstrated that there do exist those who try to lock the current agenda into a particular course. Often a course that they calculate might be beneficial to them.
A random example might be, oh lets say the Charlotte Street influence peddlers insisting that Future Scotland must be chained to the Bank of England and the City of London.
Or those who listen to the British American Project insisting that we must sign immediately for the North Atlantic War Alliance.
Or those whose only concern seems to be winning general elections (which ‘only’ requires some 34 to 44 percent of the vote) Alienating that 8 to 15 percent of potential YES voters who understand that feeling historically and culturally European does not necessarily mean that we should be commiting to joining the EU or EFTA at all.
While it is obvious to anyone who considers these issues that the democratic option is to have extensive public debate followed by a society wide process of decision making AFTER independence, these bad actors do everything they can to avoid that scenario.
Call me an auld cynic if you must, but it does seems to me that this is what we are up against, and we must therefore act accordingly.
A suitable strategy is required to highlight WHY it is such a terrible idea that these people seek credence for their bad ideas.
We are highly unlikely to winā50% plus of the vote in a referrendum if large sub populations of the public are set against each particular issue.
Think of all those who voted for Brexit, or all those comitted to The Sax-Coburg-Goethe not-king of Scotland and multiply those by each major issue.
The anti war people. The anti-nuclear people. The economic Right Wingers. The “Free” marketeers. The “Libertarians”. The anti-neoliberals.
The more you think about it, the lists of alienated sub groups can grow and grow.
So I say to those reading here, please please understand that you must all put aside whatever your particular favourite Hobby Horse topic that you are wedded to.
If you insist on that then you are NOT increasing the chances of independence, you are working against it.
If you can’t see that the I urge you to go and have a quiet think about it.
And then, as well as trying to convert the unpersuaded public to YES, bear in mind that it is also important to try to influence those opinionated influencers that they could do better if they adopted a more circumspect approach.
I know, what a dreamer! š¦
LikeLiked by 3 people
You have described very well the reasons why those pursuing Scotland’s Cause must coalesce on the single lowest common denominator issue that we surely agree on, namely:
#EndTheUnion
LikeLiked by 2 people
So youāre not a fan of the Future Voices Project then?
LikeLike
The word would be indifferent.
LikeLike
“People vote on the basis of what they feel.Ā “
Correct, Peter. Postcolonial theory affirms that independence ‘is a cultural emotion’ and indeed ‘a fight for a national culture’.
Even Cambridge Analytica state that ‘people vote on the basis of their emotion’. How else would something like Brexit, with no plan for afterwards, have ever ‘got done’?
In a colonial society it remains difficult for the more assimilated native groups, i.e. especially the pampered elites and bourgeoisie, who have a ‘mindset’ challenge to overcome, the latter dominated by the ideology and values of the oppressor. Because of this they maintain a different (i.e. British) ‘identity’ given to them via ‘cultural imperialism’. As do many people coming to live in Scotland, most of whom come from the ‘mother country’ according to the census. Collectively both comprise the bulk of the anti-independence vote, which tells us that ‘culture’ and hence ‘identity’ and feeling of emotion in that regard is the key factor.
On the pro-independence side of the colonial divide the native masses experience oppression as an everyday part of colonial life, their lives subject to institutionalised ‘hateful racism’, thus largely obscured. They are the group who remain closest to thair ain cultur an thair ain langage, and hence closest to that essential national consciousness and ‘cultural emotion’ which drives the people toward liberation.
Two truisms therefore worth acknowledging in a colonial society and whenever ‘colonialism is imperiled’ are that: all peoples in self-determination conflict are linguistically divided, and; that an independence movement depends on the solidarity of the oppressed ethnic group.
As Fanon wrote, specifically in the colonial context:
“If culture is the expression of national consciousness, I will not hesitate to affirm that in the case with which we are dealing it is the national consciousness which is the most elaborate form of culture.”
Best of luck in Brechin!
LikeLiked by 4 people
I’ve not noticed anyone asking for an “accurate ‘vision’ of future Scotland,” although people like that might exist.
Personally, as a very simple starting point, I’d like to see a definition of independence.
Let’s face it, people have misused the word in the past.
People have talked about independence in Europe, presumably meaning the EU. There are no independent countries in the EU. The clue is in the name, European Union.
Alba favours membership of the EFTA and I recently spotted Pete Wishart talking about independence in the UK.
In 2014 some people thought they were voting for independence. The word appeared in the question. What was actually proposed was a negotiation on “monetary union” and an assumption that we’d keep the Bank of England and all that that entails.
With a definition, we could progress onto a plan, even a detailed plan, to be used both to convince non-believers and to avoid an omnishambles like Brexit. Remember ‘Brexit means Brexit’ and how we laughed at all the idiots voting for it when they clearly didn’t know what it was…
LikeLike
Pete Wishart just shouldn’t talk. Ever!
I long ago realised that making the question about independence was a mistake. Although, yet again, I have to stress that this is not a criticism of Alex Salmond. He had very little in the way of choice and did remarkably well with what he had. As you imply, independence is far too ill-defined a term to be the unexpanded subject of a referendum. When people tried to expand on the term, we ended up with a multitude of different and sometimes conflicting definitions.
It was wrong also because independence should never have been the contentious issue. It is the Union which is anaomalous. It is the Union that must be justified. Making the question about independence put the Yes campaign on the defensive from the outset. We never really got off that back foot. Largely because those directing the campaign – almost entirely the SNP – would not countenance any aggresiveness or even assertiveness. They had us taking a pillow to a sword-fight. With predictable results.
Neither should Salmond be blamed for the cautious nature of the content of ‘Scotland’s Future’. The document has to be viewed in the context of the state of our knowledge and understanding of the constitutional issue at that time. It is unjust to condemn Salmond for things that can only be seen to be wrong with that advantage of hindsight.
Alex Salmond tried to make independence look as undramatic as possible in an attempt to counter the British state’s portrayal of independence as the equivalent of venturing naked into the pits of hell. He really had no choice. We wouldn’t do it that way now. But back then, to take a more radical approach was just not viable. The ground had not been prepared for a more radical approach. Now, it has. Unfortunately, the entire SNP leadership and a large part of the Yes movement seem to imagine the ground remains unchanged.
We now know that we were really voting for nothing in 2014. Because nothing would have come of a Yes vote in a ‘strictly consultative and non-self-executing’ plebiscite. In that sense, it wasn’t an independence referendum at all. The Section 30 process can never give us a proper constitutional referendum. Again, that is something we know now that we did not realise in 2012. And even if someone – such as myself – had tried to warn about it not being a real independence referendum, who would have listened? Nodody!
If the lessons of the past have been learned, we will never go near the Section 30 process again. The lessons have very evidently not been learned by our political elite.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said in your latest post on this thread.
I’ll just clarify that I didn’t intend to imply any criticism of Alex Salmond. I read Scotland’s Future and the accompanying report on economic matters. I thought it was the best case possible at that time.
In 2014 I did argue that it wasn’t a case for independence. As I recall, it was actually a case for monetary union with Westminster / the Bank of England having oversight on the Scottish budget and approval on Scottish borrowing.
I could see Alex Salmond making a monetary union work. What I couldn’t see was anyone beyond Alex making it work. I felt all our eggs would be in one basket. I’m not saying that with the benefit of hindsight. I’ve never rated Alex’s closest colleagues, particularly Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney and Angus Robertson. I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them nevermind believe in their ability to create a new country or negotiate and manage a monetary union.
Where I think we do disagree is on a revised detailed plan and a revised case for independence. I think both are required. I can’t see any progress being made without them, especially when the most likely starting point for these items, a simple definition, is in itself a matter of ongoing debate.
Noticeably, in nearly 10 years, the SNP have not prepared a revised detailed plan or a revised case. Yet more evidence that they are confirmed, inveterate devolutionists. On some level you must know that the SNP will not convert to nationalism during the next 2 years, or 7 years, although the devolutionists remaining in government looks unlikely. When are you going to revise your thinking and give up on this failing party of government?
LikeLike
What I know is that the SNP will be the party of government for the next two years and probably the next seven. So, whatever any of us think of the party, we need them. We do not have a choice in this. And we sure as hell can’t afford to wait for two years. Because that will be two years under the most rabidly British Nationalist UK government any of us has ever experienced.
It’s not a case of us having two years to “convert” the SNP. The effort to put the party right should have started at least four years ago. I devoted a lot of time and energy to trying to persuade people of the inescapable necessity of getting the SNP back on track. Virtually nobody in the Yes movement would listen. They had given up on the SNP and for the most part, they were too proud to admit that we still needed the party. And/or they were too preoccupied with their own projects and/or their party’s efforts to win votes.
That is still the situation. The two biggest obstacle to progress are not the two governments. They are the SNP loyalists and the SNP haters. Both of these tribes are incapable of approaching the situation rationally and pragmatically. At some level, some of them must know we need the Scottish Government and therefore the SNP. But rationality and pragmatism cease to inform their judgement at this point, overwhelmed by their emotional response.
With every passing day, the likelihood of restoring Scotland’s independence diminishes. But the two tribes don’t care. Their devotion to or detestation of the SNP is stronger than their commitment to Scotland’s cause. And each will blame the other when their combined egos have fucked this nation.
LikeLike