You're allowed to change your mind

If you're one of those folk who have been critical of the anti-democratic drift of the EU over the last 20 years or so, you’ll have been surprised /delighted /relieved (delete as appropriate) to find that some of the most quoted members of the chatterati are beginning to suggest that continued membership might not necessarily be in Britain’s best interests. Up until fairly recently, voicing that opinion in polite company (or, in the case of social media, impolite company) would have you labelled as a ‘xenophobic, immigrant-bashing little Englander’. So embedded is this tiresome cliché in the dusty attic of the bien pensant worldview that Alex Salmond recently felt emboldened enough to state that a possible ‘Brexit’ vote in the 2017 Euro referendum was one of the reasons that made another plebiscite on Scottish independence ‘inevitable’. In playing to his gallery, the former first minister would have been more honest to state that another referendum was inevitable ‘because of reasons’, because that is all that his followers require. He could have named a plague of frogs as a reason, or Jeremy Paxman’s beard or perhaps Zane Malik leaving One Direction; he doesn’t need an actual reason, because we all know what his party is after and what they’ll be doing over the next few years to further their aims.

In assuming, however, that his voters believe the EU to be an unequivocal force for good, he may just have miscalculated. True, there are still plenty of folk prepared to trot out the line that has been gospel since sometime in the mid-eighties. A few weeks ago, I was speaking with an acquaintance on the topic of the Euro referendum; this individual was very pro-EU and couldn’t understand why anyone could get worked up about what she described as "essentially just a trading block". This struck me as something more than just ignorance, more than just a stock phrase trotted out by someone who hasn’t been paying much attention to the news; it belonged somewhere in the realms of cognitive dissonance.

Yes, the EU was initially sold to the British electorate as a trading block (some readers may be old enough to remember when it was actually called the Common Market), but it has clearly metamorphosed into something that is bigger, more powerful and -as more and more folk are realising- quite unwilling to be swayed from its agenda by anything as tiresomely inconvenient as ‘democracy’.

And this is the point that can’t be made often enough to those who would trot out that party line about xenophobic, immigrant-bashing little Englanders: The EU is not Europe. The EU is a concerted attempt to run Europe from a central source. You can be in favour of increased co-operation, trade, labour movement and so on without being in favour of central planning and big, unaccountable government.

There will be plenty of opportunities over the next couple of years to discuss the merits (because there are some) and demerits (because there are some) of our EU membership but, with the interventions of people like George Monbiot, Caitlin Moran and Owen Jones, there are signs that the intellectual sands are shifting.

In a recent column in The Guardian, Jones said:

"Let’s just be honest about our fears. We fear that we will inadvertently line up with the xenophobes and the immigrant-bashing nationalists, and a ‘no’ result will be seen as their vindication, unleashing a carnival of Ukippery. Hostility to the EU is seen as the preserve of the hard right, and not the sort of thing progressives should entertain. And that is why – if indeed much of the left decides on Lexit – it must run its own separate campaign and try and win ownership of the issue.”

This is going to be difficult for some folk on the left to handle. So distasteful is the notion that they might be sharing some common ground with those xenophobic, immigrant-bashing little Englanders, that the 'progressive' possibility of leaving the EU has had to be given its own cute little name: Lexit. Did you see what they did there?

To get back to the point: how should you react to these developments if you’ve been one of the folk who have been critical of the anti-democratic drift of the EU over the last 20 years or so?

The so-called intelligentsia is always a few years behind the beat, so should you sit back and feel a bit smug about the fact that they are just beginning to understand something that you’ve known for a very long time? Should you rejoice in the possibility that there might now be a chance of a reasoned debate on the topic of EU membership without some nitwit comedian, singer or actor labelling you as a xenophobic, immigrant-bashing little Englander?

Or should you take the optimistic view that, if the likes of George Monbiot, Caitlin Moran and Owen Jones realise that they have been wrong about the EU that they might just consider the possibility that they could also be wrong about some other big issues?

I’ll stop right there.

I don’t want this blog to get too ridiculous.

Referendum Dictionary

The Scottish independence debate is getting a bit heated and I have little doubt that the temperature will rise even further between now and September 18^th. It’s only natural that folk get worked up about such a big subject, but as both sides continue to make claims and counter-claims, promises and counter-promises, it can be difficult to drown out the background noise and focus on exactly what is being said. Sometimes people say one thing when they mean another. And sometimes people say one thing without realising that they are actually saying something else. 

With this in mind, I thought it might be useful to provide a brief ‘strip-away-the-bullshit’ guide to some of the assertions that are made regularly during discussions and debates, both in the digital domain and in that much more civilised neighbouring state, the real world.

Debates are more interesting when the participants speak with clarity and passion, maintaining a respect for (and understanding of) the arguments of their opponents. There will be plenty of passion, but I’m not confident that ‘respect’ is going to thrive over the next couple of weeks. As for clarity, I hope that this modest attempt to decode some of the referendum bunkum, baloney and balderdash makes a small contribution to the debate. I should point out here that the views expressed in this blog are not necessarily those of the author, unless they are. 

What they say	What it means
‘It’s a no-brainer’	I am not prepared to give this subject much thought.
‘We need to address the democratic deficit’	I want the party I support to win every election.
‘After a no vote, there will be more powers for the Scottish Parliament’	You can have just as many Gaelic signs as you like.
‘Here’s a link to an interesting article’	Here’s a link to an article that supports my opinion, because I only read stuff that backs up what I’m thinking anyway.
‘After independence, we’ll be able to vote for whichever government we want’	After independence, we’ll be able to pick from two slightly different brands of ‘tax and spend’ socialism.
‘A report by a leading think-tank says that the oil might run out by 2018’	I really don’t have a clue about any of this.
‘An independent Scotland will have better public services, free prescriptions, no tuition fees and better retirement conditions for everyone’	I’m not very good at sums.
‘Such-and-such an actor from such-and-such a TV show has come out in favour of Yes /No’	I think that people who dress up for a living and then say stuff that is written for them by other folk are best placed to advise us on how to vote.
‘There was no clear winner in the first televised debate’	I’m voting Yes, no matter what.
‘The second televised debate was a bit of a shambles’	I’m voting No, no matter what.
‘I’m voting for the future of our children’	Anyone who doesn’t agree with me is a selfish unthinking bastard and probably not much better than a child abuser.
‘Anyone who votes Yes/No is selfish, unthinking or stupid’	Trapped within the dreary architecture of a limited imagination, I am unable to grasp the simple concept that other people might hold legitimate opinions which don’t coincide with my own, so I just settle for calling them names.
‘I don’t know’	No.
‘After independence, we’ll be able to make our own decisions’	I want the party I support to win every election.
‘There are some interesting arguments on both sides’	One side is as bad as the other.
‘It’s our pound, so we can use it if we want’	What does ‘lender of last resort’ even mean?
‘I don’t think an independent Scotland could pay its way’	I hate Alex Salmond.
‘This is not about Alex Salmond’	This is about Alex Salmond.
‘The likes of David Bowie and Eddie Izzard have no understanding of what the Yes campaign means in Scotland and about how  it represents progressive values.  If they lived here, I’m sure they would be Yes voters’	Fuck off back to Englandshire and mind your own business.
‘The media bias in this campaign has been astonishing’	I don’t like it when folk present views that don’t entirely accord with mine.
‘What do a bunch of public school toffs know about the real world?’	I hate Boris Johnson.
‘I hate Boris Johnson’	I have a sneaking suspicion that this man somehow possesses a broad popular appeal and that he might actually end up as British prime-minister.
‘Neither side has made it clear exactly what a Yes or No vote actually means’	I’m still not sure which side is offering the electorate the biggest bag of sweeties.
‘The artistic community in Scotland is right behind the Yes campaign’	The artistic community in Scotland is right behind the Yes campaign, except for the ones who are afraid to speak up in case they get crucified on the various social networks.
‘After independence, we’ll be one of the most progressive, forward-thinking, greenest nations on the planet with a commitment to social justice and international peace’	Pass the bong … this is some really good shit.
‘This article, by Professor Whoever from the University of Hot Air, demonstrates that Scotland will be mega-rich /flat broke after independence’	40% of statistics are based on firm evidence, 25% are based on subjective interpretations of selected data, 25% are based on subjective readings of anecdotal evidence and the other 17% are just made up on the spot.
‘Scotland has been betrayed by the quislings in the Labour party’	Lacking any sense of perspective, I have no appreciation that a casual use of the word ‘quisling’ might just be insulting to the memory of the Norwegian Jews who were sent to concentration camps in 1942 by Vidkun Quisling, the puppet dictator supported by the invading National Socialists.
’We’ve got an ageing population and being part of the UK means that we’ll be able to share the pensions burden across a much bigger demographic’	Vote independence and, by the time you’re old, you’ll be burning your own furniture and hunting scabby pigeons for your dinner.
‘This isn’t about being anti-English, it’s about being anti-Westminster’	Such is my hatred for the Tories, I’m happy -for the moment, at least- to go along with the SNP’s subtle re-branding of its chip-on-the-shoulder petty nationalism as a ‘principled stand against Westminster politics’.
‘I just hope we can all get on after September 18th'	If my side loses by a narrow margin, the campaign for a re-run will start immediately.

 

Let's not fall out over this

On a night out in Glasgow a couple of months ago, a friend-of-a-friend threatened to hit me because he perceived that my views on Scottish independence were somewhat at odds with his own. By 'somewhat at odds' I mean that I told him that I was undecided about how to vote in the referendum and presented some aspects of what I would regard as the case against independence (there are, of course, good arguments in favour of it, but since this chap was already making some of them quite forcibly, I felt obliged to present an alternative view). Sadly, my equivocation on this matter seemed to offend his braveheart sensibilities to the extent that he felt the best way to ‘win’ the ‘debate’ was to threaten violence. Yes, I mean actual physical violence. And this was an educated man in his forties. I was reminded of that old PG Wodehouse line about it not being difficult to tell the difference between a little ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance.

Now, I understand that this fellow's reaction was more about his personal issues than about his politics, but I do find this episode depressingly symptomatic of some of the grislier aspects of the referendum debate. You’ll often get the same kind of response (albeit without the threat of physical violence) on internet discussion boards if you express doubts about some aspect or other of the post-referendum Utopia envisaged by Yes campaigners. It’s as if people don’t want to hear the counter arguments and would rather shut the debate down when the ball isn’t rolling their way. The debate, such as it is, appears to have taken on some of the characteristics one would normally associate with discussions about religious faith, where the most important thing is not to win the argument; the most important thing is to have faith, because your faith that Scotland will be better off after a 'yes' vote over-rides any questions or doubts.

The SNP’s white paper set out a vision for Scotland as a modern, low tax, small-government, business-friendly wee country. But at the same time, it said that we're also going to retire earlier, have bigger pensions and have a bigger welfare blanket within a public sector-driven economy. Nobody has satisfactorily explained how that can possibly work. Is it that unreasonable to ask how the new Scotland is going to be able to ignore economic rules that apply to every other country? All of those questions about passports, jobs, currency, embassies etc. have to be addressed. It simply isn’t good enough to expect us to vote first and worry about the details later.
The No campaign, by way of contrast, tends to fall back on the "we’re all doomed!" line of argument, which is just as abject. We won’t get into the EU! We won’t have a proper currency! We’ll go bankrupt once the oil runs out! Businesses will flee in droves! There would clearly be hurdles to overcome, but I find it hard to believe that an independent Scotland couldn’t be made to work, one way or another. But before I commit, I’d like to have a clearer picture of what kind of country I’ll be living in after a 'yes' vote. Will it be significantly different to the one we live in now? Will we better off? How do we quantify the ways in which we will be better off? Will my children and their children and their children’s children be better off?

The overall standard of debate has been poor and both sides really need to up their game, but there is one crucial difference between the Yes and No campaigns. The ballot paper will be quite clear; come September 18th, we’ll have the option of independence or the status quo. The Yes team makes a lot of noise about their opponents not having a plan, but the truth is that the No campaign doesn’t need a plan, beyond pointing out the various downsides of breaking a 300-year old arrangement. A 'no' vote (or an abstention) is a vote for the status quo. And, all things being equal, the status quo will prevail if people think that change might make them worse off than they are just now. The onus, therefore, is almost entirely on the Yes campaign to convince the electorate that Scotland will be better off making that change.

In some ways, Mr Salmond is as cunning as a fox wi’ two heids, but he does give the impression that not only does he want us to vote for independence, he’d also like a say in how the rest of the UK gets to respond to that vote. It would be more dignified to accept that, if Scotland votes to break up the union, we’ll have made our bed and what’s left of the UK will then make whichever decisions it thinks are in its best interests. That ‘reduced’ UK will have no requirement to take into account anything that Scotland would like or wish for. And why should it? Former members of a club don’t get to have a say on what goes on in that club once they have left. The Yes team should stop making accusations about bullying and just stick to answering the questions. Apart from anything else, do we really want our country to be led by the kind of people who cry ‘bully’ when arguments don’t go their way?
And yes, I know that voting for independence is not the same as voting to be governed by the SNP, but since Mr Salmond is the sine qua non of the Yes campaign, it is not unreasonable to focus on his pronouncements. He needs to be able to address -and not just deflect- concerns that his version of independence looks a bit like a teenager choosing to leave home, but reserving the right to go back to mum and dad’s for meals, to get some washing done and maybe also tell them what they can watch on the telly.

I hope that we can keep this referendum focused on ideas and not on emotions because, whatever the outcome of the vote, we’ll all still be here on the morning after. So let’s acknowledge that we all care about the kind of country our children and grandchildren grow up in. Let’s appreciate that two people can review the same information yet reach entirely different conclusions.

And let’s agree not to hit each other if we don’t see eye to eye about the best way forward for our country.