I was going to write something about last night’s very stimulating event in Brechin, but it’s now looking like I won’t have time to do that today. Instead, I’m posting video of the evening so readers can watch it for themselves should they wish to do so. It would also be good to get some feedback on what was said and take any questions people might have.
If after checking my sparse and scriblbed notes, some thoughts occur to me which I deem worthy of sharing, I shall return to this page to post them. There is, therefore, a possibility of edits and updates.
Those who trouble to read the comments will find what follows familiar. That’s because, as often happens, my thoughts arising from the event in Brechin were prompted by a remark by made by someone commenting on an article. On this occasion, it was a rather flattering comment by the estimable Professor Alf Baird. I have opted simply to reproduce my response in full here as it pretty much says everything I want to say. At least until another remark in the comments prompts further thoughts.
Please note that I have a rather busy day ahead – partly catching up with my regular routine disrupted by my sojour to Brechin. If I do not respond to comments immediately, it’ll either be because I’m occupied with real-world stuff or because the comment needs (or deserves) no response.
Would it be presumptuous of me to put Alf’s compliment in my bio?
I’m not sure about the “higher intellectual level”, Alf. But I did feel a bit like the odd ‘man’ out in the company. I don’t think that was because of my exceptional intellect. It was more to do with the fact that I was the only one there who was totally focused on the constitutional issue in everything that I said. For Eva, Kenny, Neale, and Sally it seemed that independence was an election issue. Much of what they said sounded – to my ears, at least – like electioneering. Allan, in turn, appeared to think of independence mainly, if not solely, as an instrument of social reform.
This is not a criticism of the other panellists. We were being asked questions about independence in the context of an imminent UK general election in which many on the panel will be involved as candidates. And the kind of social reforms Allan was talking about are hardly unworthy. It would be foolish to expect that, given an opportunity to address an audience of voters, professional or aspiring professional politicians wouldn’t seek to score some points. There is nothing wrong in this. Just as there cannot possibly be anything wrong with wishing to help those most affected by the impositions and iniquities of successive British governments.
If I was (am) different it is only in that I have no dog in the coming electoral fight. And I am psychologically, temperamentally, and maybe a wee bit intellectually equipped to detach myself and the constitutional issue from concerns about poverty, substance abuse, housing etc. Abstracting the constitutional issue in this way has been my habit and practice long enough that it would be surprising if I were not more proficient at it than others who may never have felt the need or desire to do so.
It’s not that I am unaware of other matters. I am ever conscious of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness (A N Whitehead), and the necessity of ensuring that what has been abstracted from the wider context for the purposes of study can be returned comfortably to that wider context once all the prodding and poking is done and conclusions are reached.
That said, I am firmly persuaded that this isolating of the constitutional issue is essential to developing a clear understanding of where we stand and to developing an effective strategy to restore Scotland’s independence. I am persuaded too that we must be prepared to accept some discomfort as we develop and implement this strategy. We may be obliged to temporarily set aside our personal ambitions and convictions or even to act against our own interests and/or those of a particular group. We should not stipulate that our goal may only be pursued and achieved on condition that there is no ‘collateral damage’.
Particularly since the constitutional issue entered the political mainstream and thereby the arena of party politics, the independence movement has been hampered by the idea that independence must make things better for everybody from the outset. Or at least, that this is how it should be presented to voters. Politicians don’t get elected by telling voters they are going to make them worse off. But independence is not properly a matter for electoral politicking. It should not be about individuals achieving elected office or parties gaining political power. Imposing the constraints of electoral politics on the constitutional issue alters the way we think about it and the way we campaign for it. And not for the better.
The constitution should rightly be an aspect of our politics about which we can be completely honest. When it becomes an electioneering device and/or an instrument of social reform there will inevitably be a powerful imperative to think and speak about the constitutional issue in ways that serve those other concerns. Or to refrain from speaking and thinking about independence in ways that may adversely impact those other matters. There will be an urge – perhaps unconscious – to embellish potential benefits and diminish the possible downsides. There will be perceived a justification for small dishonesties. Small dishonesties just naturally grow into full-blown misrepresentation and lies.
Only by divorcing the constitutional issue from politics-as-usual can we be completely honest when explaining it to ourselves and others.
Peter A Bell 
Bang on Peter, you told it as it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are at a far higher intellectual level, Peter. Everyone else is still struggling to figure out what independence means.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m not sure about the “higher intellectual level”, Alf. But I did feel a bit like the odd ‘man’ out in the company. I don’t think that was because of my exceptional intellect. It was more to do with the fact that I was the only one there who was totally focused on the constitutional issue in everything that I said. For Eva, Kenny, Neale, and Sally it seemed that independence was an election issue. Much of what they said sounded – to my ears, at least – like electioneering. Allan, in turn, appeared to think of independence mainly, if not solely, as an instrument of social reform.
This is not a criticism of the other panellists. We were being asked questions about independence in the context of an imminent UK general election in which many on the panel will be involved as candidates. And the kind of social reforms Allan was talking about are hardly unworthy. It would be foolish to expect that, given an opportunity to address an audience of voters, professional or aspiring professional politicians wouldn’t seek to score some points. There is nothing wrong in this. Just as there cannot possibly be anything wrong with wishing to help those most affected by the impositions and iniquities of successive British governments.
If I was (am) different it is only in that I have no dog in the coming electoral fight. And I am psychologically, temperamentally, and maybe a wee bit intellectually equipped to detach myself and the constitutional issue from concerns about poverty, substance abuse, housing etc. Abstracting the constitutional issue in this way has been my habit and practice long enough that it would be surprising if I were not more proficient at it than others who may never have felt the need or desire to do so.
It’s not that I am unaware of other matters. I am ever conscious of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness (A N Whitehead), and the necessity of ensuring that what has been abstracted from the wider context for the purposes of study can be returned comfortably to that wider context once all the prodding and poking is done and conclusions are reached.
That said, I am firmly persuaded that this isolating of the constitutional issue is essential to developing a clear understanding of where we stand and to developing an effective strategy to restore Scotland’s independence. I am persuaded too that we must be prepared to accept some discomfort as we develop and implement this strategy. We may be obliged to temporarily set aside our personal ambitions and convictions or even to act against our own interests and/or those of a particular group. We should not stipulate that our goal may only be pursued and achieved on condition that there is no ‘collateral damage’.
Particularly since the constitutional issue entered the political mainstream and thereby the arena of party politics, the independence movement has been hampered by the idea that independence must make things better for everybody from the outset. Or at least, that this is how it should be presented to voters. Politicians don’t get elected by telling voters they are going to make them worse off. But independence is not properly a matter for electoral politicking. It should not be about individuals achieving elected office or parties gaining political power. Imposing the constraints of electoral politics on the constitutional issue alters the way we think about it and the way we campaign for it. And not for the better.
The constitution should rightly be an aspect of our politics about which we can be completely honest. When it becomes an electioneering device and/or an instrument of social reform there will inevitably be a powerful imperative to think and speak about the constitutional issue in ways that serve those other concerns. Or to refrain from speaking and thinking about independence in ways that may adversely impact those other matters. There will be an urge – perhaps unconscious – to embellish potential benefits and diminish the possible downsides. There will be perceived a justification for small dishonesties. Small dishonesties just naturally grow into full-blown misrepresentation and lies.
Only by divorcing the constitutional issue from politics-as-usual can we be completely honest when explaining it to ourselves and others.
As often happens, Alf, this reply has turned into an account of thoughts arising from the Brechin event that I wanted to put in the blog today. So don’t be surprised if you see much of the above in a published article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah wid second that Alf. Ower mony are ay wedded tae the notion o’ the auld conversation, the new conversation as Peter presents it MUST be the wye forrit, nae compliance, outright defiance o’ oor colonial maisters ambitions!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well, this has been an eye opener of an event, Right right now the video is on a break, & although I am a HUGE fan of Eva & all other true Independentista candidates, It really has shown me once again, that my believe has always been we should not send candidates to WM as there is no point or benefit to Scotland in doing so.. The 56SNP MPs proved that.. I believe every candidate at this event is a true Independentista.
But Peter A Bell, is the one person who spoke the truth, for Scotland to be serious about Independence we should ALL true Independentistas be repurposing our ballot papers with #EndTheUnion or #NotMyParliament… And IGNORE WM altogether..
Neale said it like it is, this GE will NOT benefit Scotland, NO matter how many Indy candidates we might send whiter form parties or as Independents.. They can not change anything.. And the past 10yrs have proved that.. Yes we can go and create havoc, but that still does not get us closer to being free of WM. but it will keep those that take up seats pretty well off for the next 5yrs..
If Scotlands stands UNITED behind ignoring all elections for WM.. Then we would have a better reason & cause for Independence..
LikeLiked by 4 people
Some quick thoughts:
All were passionate and articulate.
Nobody recommended that Scotland be a ‘Tory-free Zone’ or ‘vote for me or it’s over for Independence’ or ‘we can do business with British/Scottish Labour’ or such other bollox.
Platitudes, if the existed at all, were kept to a minimum.
However, there were competing ideas referenced, even if they wasn’t a direct confrontation between them. In the main these were (in no particular order):
Regarding your own contribution I think the first segment i.e. “Old” Conversation v “New” Conversation came across very well indeed. As you warmed to the subject this raised a few cheers especially when you uttered the ‘defiance not a compliance’ approach.
I felt it was a pity that there was not more time to expand on the themes of #ManifestoForIndependence/#ScottishUDI and #RepurposeYourVote/#EndTheUnion as the rationale really does merit it.
Well done on making the effort to put across your thoughts.
LikeLiked by 3 people
OT – Yousaf’s ditched the iniquitous BHA, maybe there’s hope after all.
Now – can we go back to the previous YES flag please – the one which doesn’t contain irrelevant baggage?
KISS – Independence
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Would it be presumptuous of me to put Alf’s compliment in my bio?“
Alf is a very divisive person. He wants to divide Scotland from the rest of the UK !!?!!
How very dare he.
LikeLiked by 2 people