Let's leave Yes Scotland to the politicians - It's time for an eggshell theory of independence.
Glistening in the eerie blue glow of the cinema screen behind them, the grinning ranks of Salmond's Scotterati linked arms and clapped along to 'One Great Thing', the 1994 hit from Dunfermline rockers Big Country. The song is fitting enough as a campaign anthem - the singalong chorus and the bagpipe guitars that defined the band's sound will add a patriotic backdrop to any events or TV spots from now on. The band, too, seem appropriate, although perhaps for the wrong reasons.
Pete Wishart, now the SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire, played keyboard in an early incarnation of the band, before he and his brother were jettisoned after a disastrous reception supporting Alice Cooper on tour in 1982. Apparently Cooper's hardened heavy metal crowds didn't take too kindly to Big Country's new romantic sound, and the experience put the brakes on the band's momentum until they found mainstream success in 1984. That episode is by no means exceptional in the music business - early failures to launch are almost mandatory rites of passage for ambitious young rock bands - but the lessons Wishart learned before his career took off (with Gaelic rock legends Runrig, no less) could have saved the SNP a few blushes on Friday.
This is perhaps the first time that the Scottish press will find themselves collectively compared to a roaring horde of sweaty, leather-clad metalheads (and hopefully the last, for their sakes), but like Cooper's fans jeering the relatively quiet and considered sound of Big Country, there was a clear disconnect between what they expected to see at the Yes Scotland launch and what they got.
First of all, let's not forget that this was to some extent a re-launch. The unveiling of the SNP's referendum consultation exactly four months ago aimed to energise activists and sieze the attention of the national and global press. It was widely seen as a success, with even arch-unionists like Kevin McKenna announcing that 'in five years' time, the union will be no more', as campaign director Angus Robertson confidently set out his roadmap to independence. That was the SNP machine in full, glorious flow, sweeping aside silly notions of policy detail and ideological consistency with a juggernaut of technological wizardry and organisational nous.
The Yes Scotland launch, on the other hand, has been pretty widely condemned for its style-over-substance approach. In The Scotsman, David Torrance points out that while they certainly attempted to repeat their usual glitz n' glamour tactics (which arguably worked to great effect in 2011), the tried and tested routine has begun to look and sound a little stale. Their celebrity cast is impressive, and their message - which can be boiled down to self-determination, pure and simple - remains hard to challenge, but the delivery seemed all wrong.
The referendum launch in January was arguably no more substantive in terms of vision and 'policy' than this, but there was something distinctly and unexpectedly underwhelming about the spectacle of Yes Scotland. Perhaps it was the dim, sickly blue wash that was cast over all and sundry (I know I'm repeating myself there, but it did look awful on telly), or the vague and often irrelevant nostalgia of the celebrity contributions, but there was nothing there that seemed capable of firing up Nats, worrying the No campaign or - most importantly - persuading the media that this is a force to be reckoned with.
Had the SNP not earned themselves such a reputation for first-class organisation and campaigning professionalism on previous outings, and had they not made it so clear that Yes Scotland is largely dominated by their people, the press might have been more forgiving. This is now the second time in a month that the party has failed to meet expectations that they themselves have built, and I would be surprised if there is not some serious soul-searching going on now at the highest levels. However, Ian Bell's piece in today's Herald offers a bit of much-needed nuance to the post-launch reactions:
Once we have that cultural confidence for autonomous self-rule, our options are pretty much open. Sure, with membership of NATO, the EU and sterling we might have to give up a bit of our freedom to have an exclusive say in all our decisions, but even that criticism betrays a misunderstanding of what independence really means. Independence is about the capacity to act autonomously - it means if the Scottish people want to be in Europe, we can be, and if we don't we can leave. It means if we want to create our own currency, we can elect a Scottish Government with the power to do just that. If, at any point after voting Yes, the Scottish people want to remove nuclear weapons from Scottish waters, we'll damn well vote for it and we'll damn well do it without anybody being able to stop us, thanks very much. It's ultimately about trusting ourselves to do what's right. The launch of Yes Scotland was an attempt to say yes, we can look after ourselves - it's that central logic that Brian Cox (sort of) summed up when he said:
The challenge for the leadership of Yes Scotland is a tricky one, because the choice they're asking people to make is going to be decided by two things that are often in competition: to put it crudely, the head and the heart. It's what behavioural economists like nobel prize-winner Daniel Kahnemann call the 'dual-process model' of the brain. We are driven by 'System 1' and 'System 2' ways of thinking: System 1 is fast, instinctive, non-rational and very difficult to control; System 2 is deliberative and slow, and we use it (or try to use it) for making difficult, complex decisions - but psychologist and moral and political theorist Jonathan Haidt argues that whether we like it or not, System 1 (or what he calls the 'elephant', while System 2 is the 'rider') tends to have the final say.
That's a pretty simplified explanation, but it sums up the dichotomous nature of most political campaigns. Politicians spend hours crafting policy and spending plans that will stand up to rigorous intellectual scrutiny, but spend millions of pounds on adverts and grandstanding events that set our pulse racing for when we eventually come to vote on what is often pure gut instinct. The independence debate, with its equal measures of intellectual nuance and patriotic emotion, is the finest example of this duality that there is in modern politics.
So far, Yes Scotland has had a clear focus on the emotional, instinctive side of their message - appealing to our cultural identity and our love of celebrity is not a rational argument for independence, and though the famous faces were often making smart, thoughtful arguments, that was really just an excuse to put them up there in front of the cameras. That is, of course, a legitimate course of action for the Yes campaign. As I've said, some basic self-confidence in our artistic and political culture is essential to making the Yes campaign and the independent nation that could follow it successful.
However, we also have an instinctive distrust of our politicians, and to see highly respected creative figures operating in apparent cahoots with our reluctantly elected representatives makes many people feel a bit uneasy. A star-studded cast is also a very effective way of making some pretty boring ideas seem a lot more exciting. Although my pulse quickened a little when Brian Cox started talking about democratic socialism, nobody really thinks that any of those people (with the hopeful exception of Patrick Harvie) will have any tangible input into the Official Vision For An Independent Scotland™.
I don't have much hope for the No campaign either. Or will it be Yes Britain? They'll be lining up their own celebrity endorsements right now, and you can expect them to jump right on board the jubilee bandwagon, Union Flag flying high. Expect plenty of appeals to 'national solidarity' alongside sob stories about the disintegrating welfare state and a couple of old, brutal wars that we're all very proud of for some reason. I'm biased here, but I find it hard to think of any rational case for the union - they may be able to cobble one together against independence, but that will have to go negative, leaving them open to the SNP's favourite line of attack.
If the two official campaigns are hijacking our Great Scots and going for gut instinct and assurances that everything will stay the same, who's making the radical case, and who's keeping the politicians at arm's length? By now, we should all be resigned to the fact that despite the undoubted intelligence and ability of many figures in the mainstream of politics and the press in Scotland, they're not going to have a proper debate. They'll want details, numbers and obscurities about precisely the wrong things. NATO, the EU, the pound - all of these are ideologically malleable, temporally specific and politically conditional. Independence is not. A nation is either sovereign or it isn't. I don't see the media spending the same time examining the suitability of the present political establishment to reduce the embarrassing levels of child poverty in this country as they will asking each other about how we'll exert influence over the Bank of England once we're spending sterling in an independent Scotland.
So it's time to make sure it's as easy as possible for everybody to ignore them. We should leave the SNP and Labour to treat the debate like it's just another general election, and for the media to cover it as such, while everyone else can get on with having a proper, thoughtful and intelligent discussion about whether Scotland's problems are best dealt with by a parliament in Holyrood or a parliament in Westminster. And no, that's actually not a leading question.
It's what anarchists call the 'eggshell theory of revolution'. You allow the establishment to continue functioning as usual, but build new institutions and a new way of cooperation that renders it obsolete. Once the legitimacy of the old order is hollowed out, it'll calmly and quietly collapse. There are plenty of alternatives to the press and politics that we're used to: Bella Caledonia, Better Nation, National Collective and even Labour Hame or Tory Hoose all offer commentary that reflects the realities and ambitions of modern Scotland far better than our ageing TV and print media. We have organisations and parties offering political alternatives across the ideological spectrum, from the Jimmy Reid Foundation and Reform Scotland to Occupy and the Scottish Greens (at no point did Harvie look comfortable on Friday, to his eternal credit).
If Yes Scotland is going to be the rather empty and misjudged celeb-fest that we saw at the launch, why not let an alternative Yes campaign emerge? Let the political and media elite use their money and experience to demonstrate that an independent Scotland would be perfectly capable of self-government and economic security, while the rest of us can argue about why that's needed and how we can use it. The former can give people an instinctive feeling of security in saying Yes that's clearly still missing, while the latter can excite people into saying Yes with their heads as well as their hearts.
The SNP have no monopoly on wisdom, nor should their campaign have the monopoly on Scotland's creative and artistic community that their launch implied. An eggshell theory of independence could give us an eggshell theory of Scotland, where the concentrations of wealth and power that define and damage politics both here and in the UK are hollowed out and replaced by the vibrant, engaging and truly radical future that Scotland is genuinely capable of. The SNP and the pro-union parties should be allowed to give the media what they expect. It's time for the rest of us to give Scotland what it needs: a proper debate.
Pete Wishart, now the SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire, played keyboard in an early incarnation of the band, before he and his brother were jettisoned after a disastrous reception supporting Alice Cooper on tour in 1982. Apparently Cooper's hardened heavy metal crowds didn't take too kindly to Big Country's new romantic sound, and the experience put the brakes on the band's momentum until they found mainstream success in 1984. That episode is by no means exceptional in the music business - early failures to launch are almost mandatory rites of passage for ambitious young rock bands - but the lessons Wishart learned before his career took off (with Gaelic rock legends Runrig, no less) could have saved the SNP a few blushes on Friday.
This is perhaps the first time that the Scottish press will find themselves collectively compared to a roaring horde of sweaty, leather-clad metalheads (and hopefully the last, for their sakes), but like Cooper's fans jeering the relatively quiet and considered sound of Big Country, there was a clear disconnect between what they expected to see at the Yes Scotland launch and what they got.
First of all, let's not forget that this was to some extent a re-launch. The unveiling of the SNP's referendum consultation exactly four months ago aimed to energise activists and sieze the attention of the national and global press. It was widely seen as a success, with even arch-unionists like Kevin McKenna announcing that 'in five years' time, the union will be no more', as campaign director Angus Robertson confidently set out his roadmap to independence. That was the SNP machine in full, glorious flow, sweeping aside silly notions of policy detail and ideological consistency with a juggernaut of technological wizardry and organisational nous.
The Yes Scotland launch, on the other hand, has been pretty widely condemned for its style-over-substance approach. In The Scotsman, David Torrance points out that while they certainly attempted to repeat their usual glitz n' glamour tactics (which arguably worked to great effect in 2011), the tried and tested routine has begun to look and sound a little stale. Their celebrity cast is impressive, and their message - which can be boiled down to self-determination, pure and simple - remains hard to challenge, but the delivery seemed all wrong.
The referendum launch in January was arguably no more substantive in terms of vision and 'policy' than this, but there was something distinctly and unexpectedly underwhelming about the spectacle of Yes Scotland. Perhaps it was the dim, sickly blue wash that was cast over all and sundry (I know I'm repeating myself there, but it did look awful on telly), or the vague and often irrelevant nostalgia of the celebrity contributions, but there was nothing there that seemed capable of firing up Nats, worrying the No campaign or - most importantly - persuading the media that this is a force to be reckoned with.
Had the SNP not earned themselves such a reputation for first-class organisation and campaigning professionalism on previous outings, and had they not made it so clear that Yes Scotland is largely dominated by their people, the press might have been more forgiving. This is now the second time in a month that the party has failed to meet expectations that they themselves have built, and I would be surprised if there is not some serious soul-searching going on now at the highest levels. However, Ian Bell's piece in today's Herald offers a bit of much-needed nuance to the post-launch reactions:
The important point is that in 2014 we won't be voting on, for example, an independent Scotland's relationship, if any, with the monarchy. We won't be deciding whether we can or should remain within Nato or the sterling area. The referendum is about the right to choose, not about the particular choices contained within anyone's "vision" of self-determination.Maybe, amid all the song and dance, this was the point that the Yes Scotland launch was trying to make. Independence is not really something that requires any concrete 'policy', as has been demanded by so many commentators since May 2011 and earlier. First and foremost, the case for independence requires the confidence of the Scottish people to govern themselves. That kind of confidence is far better galvanised by our arts and culture than by perpetually distrusted politicians. If I want to feel comfortable with my identity and the ability of my people to advance our standards of civilisation, I'll look to the quality of the citizens we produce as a society rather than listening to the pandering pleas of pampered politicians.
Once we have that cultural confidence for autonomous self-rule, our options are pretty much open. Sure, with membership of NATO, the EU and sterling we might have to give up a bit of our freedom to have an exclusive say in all our decisions, but even that criticism betrays a misunderstanding of what independence really means. Independence is about the capacity to act autonomously - it means if the Scottish people want to be in Europe, we can be, and if we don't we can leave. It means if we want to create our own currency, we can elect a Scottish Government with the power to do just that. If, at any point after voting Yes, the Scottish people want to remove nuclear weapons from Scottish waters, we'll damn well vote for it and we'll damn well do it without anybody being able to stop us, thanks very much. It's ultimately about trusting ourselves to do what's right. The launch of Yes Scotland was an attempt to say yes, we can look after ourselves - it's that central logic that Brian Cox (sort of) summed up when he said:
I think Scotland has earned the right to its own nation status. It has earned the right to control its own destiny. And it will certainly make a better job of it than that parliament (Westminster) which has not the foggiest clue about Scotland's cultural, economic and social needs.There's a problem, though, with Yes Scotland. In attempting to mix politics with culture, the SNP have blurred a line that they've spent decades trying to solidify. Since devolution, they've successfully cast off the stereotypes of tartan-clad braveheart-worship by proving themselves to be the most competent and sensible party of government. They (and, in some cases, other devolved governments) have brought a degree of confidence back into Scotland's political culture, proving that Scotland can make good and ambitious decisions for itself, while treating the artistic and creative community with respect but keeping their distance at the same time. Much of the scorn poured on the Yes campaign launch focused on the apparent recidivism of the event, as a campaign perceived to be dominated by the SNP slipped into the flag-waving sentimentality they've worked so hard to avoid.
The challenge for the leadership of Yes Scotland is a tricky one, because the choice they're asking people to make is going to be decided by two things that are often in competition: to put it crudely, the head and the heart. It's what behavioural economists like nobel prize-winner Daniel Kahnemann call the 'dual-process model' of the brain. We are driven by 'System 1' and 'System 2' ways of thinking: System 1 is fast, instinctive, non-rational and very difficult to control; System 2 is deliberative and slow, and we use it (or try to use it) for making difficult, complex decisions - but psychologist and moral and political theorist Jonathan Haidt argues that whether we like it or not, System 1 (or what he calls the 'elephant', while System 2 is the 'rider') tends to have the final say.
That's a pretty simplified explanation, but it sums up the dichotomous nature of most political campaigns. Politicians spend hours crafting policy and spending plans that will stand up to rigorous intellectual scrutiny, but spend millions of pounds on adverts and grandstanding events that set our pulse racing for when we eventually come to vote on what is often pure gut instinct. The independence debate, with its equal measures of intellectual nuance and patriotic emotion, is the finest example of this duality that there is in modern politics.
So far, Yes Scotland has had a clear focus on the emotional, instinctive side of their message - appealing to our cultural identity and our love of celebrity is not a rational argument for independence, and though the famous faces were often making smart, thoughtful arguments, that was really just an excuse to put them up there in front of the cameras. That is, of course, a legitimate course of action for the Yes campaign. As I've said, some basic self-confidence in our artistic and political culture is essential to making the Yes campaign and the independent nation that could follow it successful.
However, we also have an instinctive distrust of our politicians, and to see highly respected creative figures operating in apparent cahoots with our reluctantly elected representatives makes many people feel a bit uneasy. A star-studded cast is also a very effective way of making some pretty boring ideas seem a lot more exciting. Although my pulse quickened a little when Brian Cox started talking about democratic socialism, nobody really thinks that any of those people (with the hopeful exception of Patrick Harvie) will have any tangible input into the Official Vision For An Independent Scotland™.
I don't have much hope for the No campaign either. Or will it be Yes Britain? They'll be lining up their own celebrity endorsements right now, and you can expect them to jump right on board the jubilee bandwagon, Union Flag flying high. Expect plenty of appeals to 'national solidarity' alongside sob stories about the disintegrating welfare state and a couple of old, brutal wars that we're all very proud of for some reason. I'm biased here, but I find it hard to think of any rational case for the union - they may be able to cobble one together against independence, but that will have to go negative, leaving them open to the SNP's favourite line of attack.
If the two official campaigns are hijacking our Great Scots and going for gut instinct and assurances that everything will stay the same, who's making the radical case, and who's keeping the politicians at arm's length? By now, we should all be resigned to the fact that despite the undoubted intelligence and ability of many figures in the mainstream of politics and the press in Scotland, they're not going to have a proper debate. They'll want details, numbers and obscurities about precisely the wrong things. NATO, the EU, the pound - all of these are ideologically malleable, temporally specific and politically conditional. Independence is not. A nation is either sovereign or it isn't. I don't see the media spending the same time examining the suitability of the present political establishment to reduce the embarrassing levels of child poverty in this country as they will asking each other about how we'll exert influence over the Bank of England once we're spending sterling in an independent Scotland.
So it's time to make sure it's as easy as possible for everybody to ignore them. We should leave the SNP and Labour to treat the debate like it's just another general election, and for the media to cover it as such, while everyone else can get on with having a proper, thoughtful and intelligent discussion about whether Scotland's problems are best dealt with by a parliament in Holyrood or a parliament in Westminster. And no, that's actually not a leading question.
It's what anarchists call the 'eggshell theory of revolution'. You allow the establishment to continue functioning as usual, but build new institutions and a new way of cooperation that renders it obsolete. Once the legitimacy of the old order is hollowed out, it'll calmly and quietly collapse. There are plenty of alternatives to the press and politics that we're used to: Bella Caledonia, Better Nation, National Collective and even Labour Hame or Tory Hoose all offer commentary that reflects the realities and ambitions of modern Scotland far better than our ageing TV and print media. We have organisations and parties offering political alternatives across the ideological spectrum, from the Jimmy Reid Foundation and Reform Scotland to Occupy and the Scottish Greens (at no point did Harvie look comfortable on Friday, to his eternal credit).
If Yes Scotland is going to be the rather empty and misjudged celeb-fest that we saw at the launch, why not let an alternative Yes campaign emerge? Let the political and media elite use their money and experience to demonstrate that an independent Scotland would be perfectly capable of self-government and economic security, while the rest of us can argue about why that's needed and how we can use it. The former can give people an instinctive feeling of security in saying Yes that's clearly still missing, while the latter can excite people into saying Yes with their heads as well as their hearts.
The SNP have no monopoly on wisdom, nor should their campaign have the monopoly on Scotland's creative and artistic community that their launch implied. An eggshell theory of independence could give us an eggshell theory of Scotland, where the concentrations of wealth and power that define and damage politics both here and in the UK are hollowed out and replaced by the vibrant, engaging and truly radical future that Scotland is genuinely capable of. The SNP and the pro-union parties should be allowed to give the media what they expect. It's time for the rest of us to give Scotland what it needs: a proper debate.
Your kidding yourself on if you think the referendum will result in anything other than a crushing defeat. Your own analysis of how voters interact with politics should tell you that (which was really very good I hasten to add. With no convincing cast iron case FOR it, voters will be distrustful and opt for safety in the familiar. And that's before you get into Alex Salmond's "west of Scotland problem" that has emerged post council elections. Without winning one (possibly two if turnout it high) of the central, west and Glasgow regions the Yes campaign cannot win!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure you expected me to agree with that first point, but thank you for the otherwise kind words! I obviously do think there is a convincing case for Independence, although I'm less certain that there is a case for it that can both convince the majority of Scots to vote for it while also offering a starting point for a new and genuinely radical alternative Scotland. One of the points I make here is that the SNP still have a role to play in dissuading people from the silly notion that Scotland 'can't' be independent by using their considerable fortune and organisational capacity to create a bit more confidence in our institutions and our people. However, I think they will be less effective at articulating a genuinely exciting vision for a post-indy Scotland. Indeed, I think it would be wrong for the political and media elites to define the future of Scotland. After all, it was the concentrations of power and wealth that those elites represent that got us into this mess in the first place - it's up to those who reject those elites to get us out of it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNot sure how this comment system works - here's the complete effort.
ReplyDeleteHi Rory
Time for the non-politicians to get on with it then?
A while back (I would be embarrassed to say how long ago) I came across the idea of a people's
referendum i.e. bypassing politicians. I was devastated that such a simple idea hadn't occurred
to me before. The SNP's position in the past was that if they won a majority of Scottish seats in
the UK parliament, that would be a mandate for independence (I don't remember a referendum
being mentioned). This was very unlikely. For many general elections we went through the same
mill, and all that time we could have bypassed UK, Scottish politicians, the lot by the people running
a referendum for themselves. I tried, in the more recent past, to contact contact various individuals
about this idea - nil return.
What you are suggesting above (much of which I have said to friends for long enough) is the
same, in discussion terms, as a peoples referendum. Let's have a people's discussion. Politicians
are not entirely irrelevant in this process but they are nowhere near as important as they or, more
importantly, the media think they are.
However I disagree with your idea that we leave the media and politicians to warble on while the
rest of us have a conversation about the things that really matter. The 'rest of us' are you, me and
the like in our restricted bubble. Most people get their news and what passes for discussion from
the MMS while we discuss in great detail the intracacies of discussion.
Time for action.
Wayne Brown
jwainbroon@netscape.net
Hi Wayne, thanks for the feedback! I agree with you that I might be going too far in calling for us to ignore the political & media elite, for precisely the reasons you give. However, we're getting to a stage where the mainstream media and the blogosphere are becoming so symbiotic (as bloggers contribute more to newspaper and TV, and conventional journalism begins to take its lead more from 'amateur' online journalism and opinion than ever before) that a groundswell of innovation or a deep paradigm shift in one sphere can perhaps spill over into the other. The tides of opinion can flow both ways, of course, and what I'm suggesting is that the 'alternative' spheres of media and politics should be focusing on pulling the old establishment into the 21st century by offering radical and well-developed alternatives to the anachronistic mainstream consensus that we still have, rather than letting that consensus hold us back. Your point about our 'restricted bubble' raises another interesting point - is there an alternative 'elite' in the blogosphere that is equally disconnected from the lives of real Scots? I think that partly depends on how you define 'elite' and the kind of interaction one is expected to have with those 'outside the bubble', but it's important not to confuse heightened engagement with a kind of exclusive elitism.
ReplyDeleteHi Rory
DeleteJeez, tons to think about here – undoubtedly too much for my wee brain to get down on paper, but I’ll give it a go.
We agree that the upcoming referendum is a one-off. It’s not just any old referendum and it’s far more important than a general election, by miles.
We agree that the ‘discussion’ so far is underwhelming, to say the least, and is dominated by politicians and the MSM neither of whom are adequately equipped to deal with the situation. Both are stuck in ruts – politicians because they are hide bound by being in a party which must present a collective face – the media, either by choice, because it suits their agenda, or because they don’t recognise the uniqueness of the occasion and see no reason to up their game from their normal political coverage.
Where we disagree is in what to do about it. The eggshell theory is fine, but I get the impression that anarchists are happy to play a long game - we don’t have that luxury. Influencing mainstream thought by a sort of mental osmotic pressure is fine as far as it goes, but I think more proactive ideas will be required to achieve practical results in the time available.
Hence – Time for action (as opposed to lots of words in the blogosphere).