Are we radical yet?

George Kerevan reckons the First Minister needs “a wider range of radical thinkers” among her advisers. It’s a popular, not to say fashionable, term in Scottish political discourse – ‘radical’. We hear it a lot. Indeed, one of the more prominent groups in the Yes movement was/is the Radical Independence Convention/Campaign. It often happens that when words become ubiquitous we stop thinking about what they mean. We use the words casually. Even unthinkingly. It may even be that people throw the word into conversation or debate for no better reason than that it has vague associations with ‘different’. They use it to impress rather than to express.

Not that I’m suggesting George is guilty of such careless use of language. I mention this tendency for words to lose their power – and even their meaning – through overuse only to convey that it is often a good idea to refresh our understanding of terms such as ‘radical’. We think with words. If our appreciation of their meaning is diminished then so must be the clarity of our thinking.

It is particularly worth bearing in mind that words can often have more than one meaning. And that the sense of a word is contingent on the context in which it is used. When George Kerevan says the First Minister should surround herself with more “radical thinkers” he clearly intends us to understand that she should be open to opinions that are outwith the bounds of conventional thinking. That she should be receptive to ideas that are markedly novel and proposals that conceive of fundamental change. His reference to Common Weal’s Robin McAlpine and Andy Wightman MSP leave little room for doubt as to what George means by ‘radical’. It may well be thought that he could hardly have drawn a more stark contrast with Benny Higgins and Willie Watt – both prominent appointees who might blush at being described as radical.

But there is another sense of the term ‘radical’ which I would argue should inform our thinking as we consider the options for Scotland’s post-pandemic ‘recovery’. That is the sense of ‘radical’ as relating to the nitty-gritty of a thing. The kernel. The very nub of the matter. In linguistics, a radical is the form of a word stripped of all affixes. It is this idea of something pared to its essence that I suggest should be part of our thinking and a starting point for our planning for the post-Covid recovery. It is vital that we first define the issue. It serves our purposes and our interests not at all to think of recovery as a process of restoration. Rather, we must think of it as a process of renewal. It is as important to rid ourselves of the old as it is to contemplate the new.

Radical thinking begins with asking the right questions. Do we want to go back to where we were? Or do we want to go somewhere new? And if we choose to go somewhere new, what are we prepared to risk in order to get there? What really is the core issue here? How do we focus on that core issue and avoid the temptation to address symptoms rather than causes?

Are these the kind of questions Nicola Sturgeon is asking? How radical is she prepared to be? Come to that, how radical are we?

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.

Donate with PayPalDonate with Pingit

Yes boss

sic_cwBehold! The latest attempt to set up the Scottish Independence Convention (SIC) as the ‘official’ umbrella group for the Yes movement. All credit to Common Weal director Robin MacAlpine for his persistence. Congratulations also go to Max Wiesznewski (formerly of Common Weal), who seems to be in charge of this scheme to impose a management structure on the Yes movement.

Which is not the same thing as taking control, of course. However much it may look that way, we should not be deceived into thinking that waddling, quacking thing is a duck. Just because SIC/Common Weal is talking about setting up offices and employing staff, we shouldn’t take this to mean they intend to run the Yes movement. When they talk of “getting on the front foot with the media” we shouldn’t take this to mean that they plan on presenting themselves as the ‘official’ voice of the Yes movement. When they talk of providing a “strategic vision for the Yes campaign” we mustn’t assume that vision will tend to align with that of a particular group.

It’ll be fine!

If you’re concerned about the grassroots Yes movement being transformed into a hierarchical organisation, don’t be! I’m sure that’s not what’s intended at all. If you’re worried about the possibility of SIC/Common Weal harnessing the power of the Yes movement to a narrow policy agenda, relax! There’s a distinct possibility that won’t happen.

If you’re apprehensive about SIC/Common Weal diverting resources from the de facto political arm of the independence movement – the SNP – fear not! There’s a fair chance somebody is looking at that issue.

If you are in the slightest bit dubious about the motives of those setting themselves up as ‘leaders’ of the Yes movement, set aside those doubts and suspicions right away. Just look at the individuals and groups who have already signed up for whatever this turns out to be. The unity card has been played. You’ve been trumped.

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 campaign.

donate with paypal

donate with pingit