Where's the benefit?

Back in 1953, General Motors President Charles E. Wilson is reputed to have expressed the opinion that, “What’s good for General Motors is good for America”. As it turns out, he may not have said precisely those words. But I’d hazard that the attitude encapsulated in that aphorism is not at all uncommon in the ‘business community’ of any nation. Personally, I suspect one would be hard pressed to prove a positive correlation between the profitability of private business and the wellbeing of the population. I can live with being in disagreement with the likes of Charles E. Wilson.

It is not only in business that this attitude is to be found. In politics too, it is not at all uncommon. In fact, it is a perspective that is common to all who seek to rationalise self-seeking behaviour. But my interest here is the realm of party politics—particularly as this relates to Scotland’s constitutional issue.

When politicians ask for your support or your vote, they will invariably claim that the benefit which accrues to them personally or to their party is matched by a benefit to the community, the nation, or a popular cause. Pared down to its basics, the message from the SNP, Alba Party, and the rest is identical. They are all claiming that what’s good for them is good for Scotland’s cause.

It is easy to see how voting for Alba Party or one of its candidates could benefit both that individual and the party. It is not necessarily so easy to see how voting for Alba Party or one of its candidates makes the restoration of Scotland’s independence more likely; or brings it closer. I’m not picking on Alba Party here. Exactly the same can be said in relation to the SNP. They all claim that what is good for them is good for Scotland and/or the liberation struggle.

In all cases, neither the party concerned nor its supporters like to be questioned about this related benefit. Indeed, it often seems they do not expect to be questioned on the matter. Party supporters get quite irate when they are asked to account for the benefits that attend voting for their party. Perhaps for this reason, there is considerable reluctance to question them about such things. Claims are to be taken at face value. Express any doubt about the veracity of the claim and you will be accused of wanting whatever is the opposite of said benefit.

For example, you may have seen the claim that a voting strategy that has very evident benefits for a particular party also means more pro-independence MSPs in Holyrood. We are supposed to just accept that this is so and that it is a very good thing for Scotland’s cause. Question the likelihood of this strategy having the claimed effect or the extent to which it aids Scotland’s cause even if it succeeds, and you will immediately be denounced as wanting more Reform UK MSPs.

The common refrain from all the nominally pro-independence parties is that a vote for them will result in Scotland’s independence being restored. And a vote for anyone else is a betrayal of the cause. They all want us to accept as fact that doing as they ask will benefit us at least as much as it benefits them. Just don’t ask for evidence of this benefit.