A couple of fallacies

Prompted by some recent comments on social media regarding various initiatives by different elements of the independence movement, I want to address a couple of fallacies which have long troubled me. The first is the contention that the constitutional issue is extremely complex and that the campaign to restore Scotland’s independence therefore requires input from a wide range of experts in fields such as economics, history, and constitutional law.

In fact, the constitutional issue in Scotland could hardly be simpler. It is a binary issue. There are only two sides. There are only two possible answers to the question at the heart of the constitutional issue. Regardless of how that question is framed, it’s always a yes/no question. Should Scotland be an independent country? Should Scotland withdraw from the political union with England? Do you have confidence that the people of Scotland are capable of managing Scotland’s affairs? Always, it ultimately comes down to a far from complicated choice.

Politicians and the scavengers that swarm around them hoping to pick up scraps of power like to portray matters of public policy as highly involved and themselves as the ‘experts’ who will take care of things so that the rest of us don’t need to worry our silly little heads about it. The constitutional issue has come to be treated as just another policy issue sitting alongside the economy, healthcare, defence, and all the rest. This suits Unionists as it opens up to them a vast range of opportunities for generating or aggravating doubt in the minds of voters. As I have often stated, the ‘Project Fear’ epithet attached to the anti-independence side in the 2014 referendum campaign missed the point. It would more aptly have been called ‘Project Doubt’.

The constitution is special. The constitution is the rule book for a state. It sets out the fundamental principles by which the state is governed, including the organisation of government and the rights and duties of citizens. It serves as the highest law, ensuring that power is exercised within defined limits.

Scotland’s cause has been purposefully burdened with matters that should not affect the constitution but rather should be affected by it. Policy is rightly contingent on the provisions of the constitution. The constitution should not be subject to policy. Economic circumstances should not inform constitutional provisions, for example. Assuming these to be democratic principles, if we are asking how much democracy we can afford, we are getting things entirely arse over elbow. Economic policy is formulated in accordance with the constitution. The constitution does not adapt to current economic policy. A constitutional question cannot be answered using a calculator.

The second fallacy I wish to address can be summed up by the idiom ‘the more the merrier’. Or ‘let a thousand flowers bloom’. It is the idea that the greater the number and diversity of initiatives, the more Scotland’s cause benefits. It’s the notion that there may be numerous ‘routes’ to independence and that all are similarly valid and worth pursuing. Unfortunately, diversity all too readily becomes division, and profusion tends to have the unintended consequence of diffusion.

Let’s take the profusion of initiatives first. It can be argued that there might be two or more ‘routes’ to independence. The problem arises when this is taken to imply that there must be more than one ‘route’, and possibly several. Once that assumption is made, all manner of candidates apply to be included in the catalogue of ‘routes’. It quickly gets to be that a proposition need only attach the word ‘independence’ to itself before demanding to be considered a valid and viable ‘route’.

Some of these candidates have no connection to the constitutional issue at all. Or at best a very tenuous one. One example of the former is a certain individual’s obsession with ‘taking Tony Blair to The Hague’. The argument is peppered with references to independence, but it is never explained how one relates to the other. In the category of things which may be thought to have a tenuous or tangential association with the constitutional issue, we have the proponents of Swiss-style direct democracy. The claim is made that the introduction of direct democracy through incorporation in Scots law of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) would enable us to have a referendum on independence. In the first place, incorporation of ICCPR is not happening any time soon because there is no political will. Secondly, incorporation of ICCPR would have no immediate effect. It would take years and quite possibly decades to set up the necessary machinery. Finally, incorporation of ICCPR would not amend the Scotland Act. The Union would remain a reserved matter. ICCPR would only allow for referendums in areas of devolved responsibility.

(Experience tells me that I must emphasise at this point that I am not saying ICCPR cannot be incorporated into Scots law. Nor am I arguing against incorporation. I am merely stating the reality of the matter.)

There is a plethora of initiatives claiming to be pertinent to Scotland’s cause. Many of them particular to a given locality, or tied to a particular policy agenda Each one of these absorbs a certain part of the independence movement’s energy and resources. As a consequence, we have a profusion of small, weak campaigns when what is called for is a single, coordinated national effort.

It may be unremarkable that there should be this profusion of (nominally) pro-independence initiatives given the failure of the SNP to provide the kind of leadership that pre-empts degenerative factionalism. What might perplex the disinterested observer is the fact that this dividing of forces continues long after its deleterious effect on the campaign has become plainly evident.