Thinking the unthinkable

Like most other commentators among the media professionals, Lesley Riddoch seems to have been surprised by The National’s poll hinting at higher levels of support for UDI than they would have expected. Which speaks to me of just how completely the SNP’s orthodoxy has excluded alternative accounts of Scotland’s constitutional predicament and approaches to resolving it. Away from the independence industry, UDI or more precisely #ScottishUDI, has been part of the discourse for several years. It has increasingly penetrated the mainstream discourse around the constitutional issue as more and more people have come to realise certain truths that Scotland’s political elite would prefer were not known and, if known, were not discussed.

Truths such as the fact that there is no ‘legal and constitutional’ route to independence through the legal and constitutional framework which has developed under the influence of an imperative to preserve the Union. Or that Westminster has no legitimate role in the exercise by the people of Scotland of our right of self-determination.

Increasingly, people have been coming to the realisation that there is a very good reason for the British state’s propaganda apparatus working so hard to make UDI unthinkable. It’s because they don’t want us to think about UDI. They fear us thinking about UDI. Because thinking about UDI calmly and rationally, it becomes apparent that there is not nearly so much to fear as we have been led to believe.

One of the ways the British propaganda works is by lumping all unilateral declarations of independence under the single rubric of UDI and then burdening that term with myriad negative associations -- largely drawing on the ‘Rhodesia crisis’ of the mid-1960s. Were it not for the fact that it has been rendered unthinkable, people would quickly realise that there are no points of comparison whatsoever between a white supremacist insurrection in an African colony six decades ago and Scotland now.

To those who have succumbed to the British state’s propaganda, UDI is UDI. The fact that UDI can take different forms never enters their heads because it might only do so were they to think about it. And it’s unthinkable, right?

Wrong! In fact, it is not at all difficult to think about UDI. Your head will not explode. Large men in long black coats will not come banging on your door at some ungodly hour of the morning to drag you off for a wee holiday in a re-education camp.

If we assume we’re agreed on what independence is and that a declaration is just informing people, we are left with ‘unilateral’ as the only candidate for a contentious term. But are not all declarations of independence unilateral? After all, who can declare a nation newly independent other than the nation in question?

So, there is nothing inherently scary about UDI. And tarring all unilateral declarations of independence with the ‘Rhodesia’ brush is pathologically shallow-minded.

#ScottishUDI is a proposal for a form of unilateral declaration of independence which is tailored to Scotland’s unique circumstances. There is no reason why it should not be part of the discussion other than the fact that it doesn’t emanate from the SNP or any other part of the independence industry.

Lesley writes:

UDI is a Gordian knot solution – slicing through a complex problem instead of unravelling it. With 99.5% of the population on your side, it might work.

No, Lesley. UDI could be a Gordian knot solution. But it is not necessarily so. #ScottishUDI certainly isn’t. And it is ridiculous to impose a 99.5% threshold on any solution. UDI is highly unlikely to achieve that level of support in Scotland. But neither is any other way forward. Done cleverly, UDI can achieve enough support to be conclusive. Done cleverly, UDI can be part of what increases support for independence. Because, as Lesley also observes,

On the other hand, we cannot sit like this forever. It’s hard to let go of the independence dream, but it’s also hard for volunteers to stay in permanent readiness, relegating the rest of our lives to second and third place. Yet we know what will happen if we give up. Even though Reform UK are dented, they forever sit in the wings, ready to prey on despair.

Indeed, we cannot sit like this forever. Something has to happen.

Perhaps counterintuitively, those of us who take the constitutional issue seriously rather than treating it as a mere electioneering device may have reason to be grateful to John Swinney. The contrast between what he was promising (or ‘guaranteeing’) prior to this year’s Scottish general election and what has transpired since is stark enough as to have shaken the faith of at least some of the party faithful. People who might previously have been expected to shout down anyone who departed from the ‘official’ line are now asking questions. John Swinney may yet be the great eye-opener Scotland’s cause so desperately needs.

In characteristically robust style, Lesley finishes:

I’m sure this poll will be ignored by the SNP leadership. It shouldn’t be. It should be a kick up the arse.

Because we desperately need muscular, ambitious action.

Right on both counts, Lesley. Or is that three counts? Or four? Right on all counts, Lesley. The SNP will ignore the poll and also everyone who wants to talk about it. Like all thinking on the constitutional issue other than their own shrunken, shrivelled, outdated ideas, the poll will not be permitted entry to the party leadership’s bubble. We might hope that it would be a “kick up the arse” for the erstwhile ‘party of independence”. But that is a singularly well-padded and impervious arse. No new thinking has penetrated in at least twelve years. It seems vanishingly unlikely that the poll would even be considered in the higher echelons of the party.

Can there be any question that Scotland’s cause needs “muscular, ambitious action“? Happily, that is another base covered by #ScottishUDI.