“I’ve been following the debate with interest, my intuition favours independence.” – Noam Chomsky
Scottish Rationalism
Empirical-rational theory says that providing knowledge is the most powerful requirement for change (Sullivan, 2012). The idea is that people are rational. That people will act in their own self-interest when they understand that change will benefit them. The 2014 Yes campaign failed because it didn’t convince enough people that independence would be a positive change for them.
Negative Campaigning
Instead, the Noes prevailed. They restricted debate and focused on older voters and prominent doubts. Arguing for big constitutional change proved too hard in a debate controlled by a UK media set powerfully against that change. And, of course, the same challenge remains, looming over a future Yes campaign.
Mapping a route to a different result
Ideas have consequences. People can accept or reject an idea based on what they feel the collateral damage to the rest of their world view & identity will be. Acceptance of a new idea sometimes requires reluctantly giving up another. New ideas that cause this discomfort can be reactively & defensively rubbished out of hand. Ideas that don’t are fine & interesting. You can’t change all minds. Don’t try. Rather stay cordial, relaxed & give your strongest argument. The productivity of hours spent on heated twitter exchanges is highly suspect.
Intuition & Deduction
Our opponents have all the money and the newspapers. Unionists set the agenda. They write the first few drafts of the narrative. Given less space to respond, we need to identify and surgically target the strongest arguments against independence as people see them.
Because there’s no escaping those headlines – the cumulative effects of years of such coverage is unmissable. The tropes, assumptions and accepted starting points for discussion that we almost never see challenged. The good news is that Unionism’s strongest arguments aren’t actually very strong. We should very much want to take these arguments further – to their logical conclusions.
Arguments invariably warning of bad economic consequences from leaving the Union. For example;
‘The GERS stats prove Scotland does well from the Union. Thanks to ‘fiscal transfers’ from London, Scots receive thousands of pounds more in public spending, per head, than the UK average’. ‘The rUK is our biggest market, how can separating from it make Scots richer? What currency would be as strong as the pound sterling?”
A good response targets the parochial, incomplete economic analysis behind these arguments. Their supporting comparison of various Scottish and UK statistics should be broadened out. The comparison should be of various UK regional (Scotland included), and international statistics.
The success of Scotland’s devolved place within the UK is not properly tested through comparisons of different bits of the UK. Especially not in the context of debate about independence. It’s tested by comparing the devolved parts of the UK with their independent neighhbours.
The more logical comparison shows devolution as a significantly inferior model to independence. Or, at the very least, casts doubt over Unionist claims. It demands an attempt at an alternative explanation from them.
The question people should be seeing and asking more often is something along the lines of:
why do devolved parts of the UK all do less well than their independent neighbours – on all of the important measures?
We don’t stop asking good questions because Unionists dodge them. The dodge is an answer.
* We can seriously include the ‘Union dividend’, ‘fiscal transfer’, ‘subsidy‘ or ‘your deficit’s too big’ argument, because many people take it seriously. This is despite the spectacle of it being expressed by the same people who ignored it in 2014 – when that ‘subsidy’ went the other direction. The same principles would apply. By comparing ‘generous’ Barnet public spending with our independent neighbours. All of them (see the slider above).
Overcoming system justification & partisan identity
Analysis & Conclusions
“Data and observations, in the sciences, have an instrumental character. They are of no particular interest in themselves, but only insofar as they constitute evidence that permits one to determine fundamental features of the real world… ” — Noam Chomsky, New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind
The ‘numbers don’t lie’ if you can take them far enough towards the final stage of analysis.
Can we confidently say that The Union really makes Scots richer at all? It seems to be a widespread view. ‘
Our biggest market, sharing a strong and stable currency, the ‘Union dividend’ of higher public spending’ while not having to deal with Scotland’s huge notional deficit etc… Sounds great but what’s the evidence the whole arrangement makes Scottish people richer?
The question that must be answered first is, ‘richer’ – compared to who?
Not the people of any of our independent neighbours. Not a single one and not even close. People in countries further away? That’d look daft and weak. People in other parts of the UK? That’d look daft too.
The answer seems to be richer… than themselves… in a Unionist politician’s imaginary independent Scotland. That cheery type of imagination we know so well. Given to projecting the very worst of their country’s capacities. Given a lot of space in print, or time on air, to do so.
A respectably sober, The Economist/Spectator magazine sort who says Scotland’s economy (currently smaller than each of its independent neighbours) would shrink still more.
The famous ‘positive case’ it is not. And, given the clear implications, an explanation should be sought. For the misuse of GERS figures too – by people conveniently forgetting they don’t show a picture of an independent Scotland. They show Scotland in the Union.
Do the numbers tell us everything? No, but do we find more truth from them than from the Goebbelsian UK media coverage? Seek direct sources of data, and we find our independent neighbours doing better. They have done so for a long time and the gap is growing. Add in Wales and NI and we can see a definite pattern.
The stats on the economy are actually unequivocal As are the stats on the effects on our society. Unionists ignore them rather than contest them. The unionist explanation should be demanded.
The numbers are there for anyone who wants them. They show Scotland is poorer. Has lower public spending and higher debt than its independent neighbours. The Yes side says we do better for ourselves. The No side says our, resource-rich, country does even worse… That’s the kind of contrast people might want to ponder
Because that kind of thinking needs explanation. The claims that independence would make Scotland poorer are constant. And, as if to prove Goebbels right, believed by so many. They should always be recast in this – so, an already smaller economy would become even smaller – context.
It should be a dangerous argument for a Unionist politician to offer up. But they do so confidently and often. It’s almost become an established fact for some – you hear it from news anchors beginning interview questions with mumbled clichés about tussles between proud Scottish hearts and sensible British heads.
If attention to logic should somehow at some point become the fashion in the debate about Scottish independence – they’d finally have to explain exactly… what it is that makes Scots, in particular, so incapable?
And then we get onto the things us Nats want to get onto, like separating Blair McDougall from his friends and family. Well, that or the importance of real democracy in repairing a society. Depending on your sources.
International comparison is the reason there is no ‘positive case’ for the Union.