Make it work!
A recurring theme in discourse on the constitutional issue is the notion that in order to make progress all that is needed is for all the pro-independence parties to ‘sit down round the table and thrash out their differences’. It’s all fallacy and fantasy, of course. But it sounds wise, so people keep trotting it out imagining they are being — or at least appearing — wise. You may recognise this as a variation on the ‘unity’ schtick also beloved of those hoping to appear mature and sensible but not prepared to put in the requisite thinking effort.
The underlying — and entirely false — premise is that there is always a workable compromise. You just throw all the different positions in a pot and the resultant broth will be delicious and satisfying. Crap!
The reason the ‘sit down round the table and thrash out their differences’ doesn’t work in the real world is the same as the reason the ‘unity’ thing hasn’t happened despite the fact that so many people think it to be a great idea. The one-word explanation is power.
If the nominally pro-independence parties sat down the table ostensibly to find a ‘common way’ forward, what would ensue is not cooperation, but competition. Each player would be trying to preserve and increase their own power relative to each of the other players. It would be a contest of concessions and compromises, with each player seeking to extract maximum concessions from others while themselves making as few compromises as possible. Preferably, none.
If the nominally pro-independence parties sat down the table ostensibly to find a ‘common way’ forward, what would ensue is not cooperation, but competition.
It would not be a fair contest. There would not be a level playing field. Some of the players would come into the game with more power than others. The power differential would give them an advantage in extracting concessions while also making more difficult for others to force them to compromise.
But that is not the worst of it. The objective of such a ‘round table meeting’ would not be to find the best solution. It would be to find the solution which met with the least disagreement. All players would wish to be able to present the exercise as a success. Subtly or otherwise, they would also wish to portray themselves as winners. Each would have their own version of what was agreed and/or their own interpretation of any document that was signed.
So, there would be no real agreement. Only the pretence of agreement for the purposes of the phot-op when the conference was over. Ten minutes later — OK! Maybe twenty minutes! — the pretence would collapse as every statement about the outcome by whichever player provoked the ire of one or more of the other players.
It gets worse still. Even if this ‘round table meeting’ were to succeed in its own terms — that is to say, if it came up with an agreed solution — that solution would be viable only by the wildest of coincidences. Every concession and compromise would tend to chip away whatever viability each proposal might have.
Any viable strategy for restoring Scotland’s independence is likely to have been formulated over a period of time and with a great deal of thought. A plan being a series of steps leading to a predetermined endpoint, it would have to be a cohesive whole, as each step is connected. Compromises and concessions would inevitably erode the connections. Dropping one of the steps would destroy the plan completely.
Take the only two strategies currently being proposed — #ScottishUDI and John Swinney’s proposal. (For the purposes of this illustration, I am being overgenerous in calling Swinney’s proposal a strategy.)
How can there be any compromise between these two positions? What would a ‘plan’ look like that purported to take the best bits of each and knit them together into a coherent solution? How might we both repudiate the Section 30 process and make it essential to the strategy?
A ‘round table meeting’ is emphatically not the way to find the best strategy for restoring Scotland’s independence. The way to do this is to assess each proposed strategy on its merits and adopt the one which rational analysis suggests will get the job done. Then, having adopted that strategy, stick to it! Make it work!
I am totally amenable to a round table as long as I can bring my Lchaber..pike...mills bomb...I'd even go for a folding table cos I could get to the foreign english/traitors even faster.
We know that the ONLY way is the Scottish UDI Manifesto....the fact that swiney turns his head away from it let's you know he is betraying us.
I don't think the quisling would want to sit down and thrash things oot wi' the likes o' me and others of similar homicidal inclinations towards traitors.
We produce so many quislings ..I wonder if there is something in the water that encourages growth of these parasitic organisms? ..but more importantly have we a cure....Let's ask the free Irish...
For OUR? Scotland and her weans.
The point made by Peter was that "the ‘unity’ thing hasn’t happened".
My point was that the Liberation Scotland multi-party (incl individual candidates) approach is an example of a unifying strategy. Whether it will work or not at this election, or what vote outcome is deemed likely based on polling evidence, is another matter.
The Liberate Scotland initiative signatories also better understand our colonial reality and the need for decolonization and liberation, compared with other parties claiming they support independence, hence the name 'Liberate Scotland'. This is a major shift in understanding compared to Peter's 'nominally' independence parties such as SNP, or Alba, who still do not understand far less communicate to/with the people the meaning of independence.
We also know from postcolonial theory that unity of and with the people is necessary to free them: "the leaders pursuit of unity is necessarily also an attempt to organize the people, requiring witness to the fact that the struggle for liberation is a common task" (Freire) for any oppressed group.