Monday 14 May 2012

Nationalist Inarticulacy

For years I have been debating with Nationalists about their faith in Scottish "independence" as the cure for what ills us as a society. Their arguments fall into two broad categories: Scotland gets a raw deal from London and would be better off without England dragging us down, and Scotland is the 6th (or 4th, or 14th) richest country in the world and we don't need the English to "survive".

It can be seen that these are conflicting positions: either we are impoverished by the Union or we are so well off we can leave tomorrow morning at 8 o'clock with no adverse impact.

It's also notable that, in discussion with Nats you get lots of opinion but not a lot of fact. Emotion is never in short supply but argument and reason and logic are. And you find that the Nationalist appetite for debate fades the more hard facts impinges on the debate.

There is another, extremely popular, Nat position which is designed to remove facts from the discussion altogether:  "I refuse to explain, I don't need to and I will not indulge in any discussion, so there!".
 
Today, on this thread, I got an almost perfect paradigm of that aspect of the Nationalist mentality.

It was from someone calling themselves jarfun and it is a classic of its kind;

"I support Independence although I perhaps would not vote SNP in an Independent Scotland. I support the SNP at the moment because they are the main party proposing Independence.
I support Independence mainly because I have lived through the last fifty years of rule from London,both tory and labour and I feel,honestly that Scotland has been let down by both of them.
I have no desire to list the reasons i have for feeling this way as if you think Scotland has had a fair deal from what has happened over that period then we should just agree to disagree.
It seems to me that doing the same thing and expecting a different result seems kinda silly (as a very clever man once said)
There just comes a time when you have to grow up leave the nest and take your own decisions and ,yes,make your own mistakes and make the best job you can with what you have. Alternatively you could just stay 'safe' with mummy and daddy and not realise what it is to be a grown up person taking charge of your own future.
Don't be afraid 'BRAVEHEART'"
The preamble is common; I vote SNP but I'm not a Nationalist. I'm a Nationalist because everyone else has let me down. Already you can sense the illogic of the position, in fact the first three sentences are by way of being a preemptive defence against the charge of weakness they see coming. Anyone who has really lived through the last fifty years has seen many changes and improvements in British life. No doubt there have been disappointments, but since our Nationalist friends won't tell us what they think they are it's difficult to quantify the impact of these "disappointments". I have certainly seen great changes and many improvements in my life and that of my children. What is unarguable is that both improvements and "disappointments" have been equally and randomly distributed across the UK and are not the result of any malevolence against any country or region. But since these nameless "disappointments" are never detailed, it is not easy to refute them.

One conclusion is that leaps from this approach is that the "disappointments" are internal, they are failings of the individual and that feeling of inadequacy is assuaged and targeted against the "them" that stop us from achieving whatever it is we failed to achieve in life. Better to blame "the English" than blame ourselves.

In the next section jarfun get the heart of how so many Nationalists address (or refuse to address) the constitutional question: "I have no desire to list the reasons i have for feeling this way as if you think Scotland has had a fair deal from what has happened over that period then we should just agree to disagree". 

Nationalist Democracy


Vote for me, I have no desire to list 
the reasons for asking for your vote. 

This is known as the Monty Python and the Holy Grail argument; when faced with an argument you can't defeat issue the order....  "Run away! Run away!"

The implication is that us Nats, we're too lofty to indulge in mere explanation. We believe in "independence" and that's that. Why should we try to persuade the Scottish people? Who do they think they are to demand explanations? "independence" will solve all our problems and if you don't believe it, we don't care. Look at them with all their questions and concerns. Well, I know the answers they want, but I'm blowed if I'm going to waste my breath actually telling them why I think what I think...

Actually it's an admission that they have no defensible position. At least not any position based on reason and logic. Facts, who needs 'em? says jarfun. I'm convinced and that's good enough for me. I want to get involved in your argument (otherwise why post here), but not to the extent of actually saying anything meaningful. I'm above that (actually, that's beyond me).

Having based their position on illogic and evasion, the next step is to add a veneer of intellectual respectability.... "..It seems to me that doing the same thing and expecting a different result seems kinda silly (as a very clever man once said)"

Einstein did say such a thing (in many powerpoint presentations). But to call the scientific method in justification of "I have no desire to list the reasons i have for feeling this way" is a grotesque distortion and misunderstanding of the meaning of that method. Einstein, and indeed any scientist, would laugh out of court a petitioner who said ""I have no desire to list the reasons i have for believing that Gravity acts in this way or light does this or that in such and such a situation". In scientific terms it's a pathetic avoidance and a refusal to face the problem. Just as it is a pathetic avoidance in political terms when our Nationalist brethren claim "I have no desire to list the reasons i have for feeling this way"    It's too tempting to conclude that you have no desire to list the reasons because you have no reasons to list.

The rest is just rhetoric. Of course adults leave the nest. Adults also take responsibility for their actions and beliefs. No self respecting adult would say, apropos an important political and constitutional question, "I have no desire to list the reasons i have for feeling this way as if you think Scotland has had a fair deal from what has happened over that period then we should just agree to disagree".

That sort of avoiding the conflict is the very essence of adolescent barrack-room-lawyer-speak. Ha! Those adults, they think they're smart but little do they realise that they're up against the greatest intellect that ever failed an o-level. They think they can beat me but I'll just give them my enigmatic stare. That'll bamboozle them, and I'll follow it up with my unanswerable broadside...."I have no desire to list the reasons nananananana, see!". Retires to bedroom to play high intellect computer games.

It's interesting that this version of the higher inarticulacy is so widespread in Nationalist circles. It's more interesting that even the most prominent Nationalists, from Alex Salmond down, have no real factual argument in favour of "independence" that they deploy in any public forum that I have seen or heard. 

27 comments:

  1. You need to get out more - and perhaps get a grasp of logic!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks FFS....

    ... you are trying to prove my thesis...? Yes? right...?

    Good! Thanks.... Well done!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. To be honest I don't know why I bother reading your stuff. I'll attempt to avoid it in future.
    However....
    "It can be seen that these are conflicting positions: either we are impoverished by the Union or we are so well off we can leave tomorrow morning at 8 o'clock with no adverse impact."

    I don't know by whom 'it can be seen' other by you. The positions are not illogical in the least. The proposition is we generate more wealth than we are 'given back' back by Westminster- hence we would be better off keeping it! Is that too difficult for you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The proposition is we generate more wealth than we are 'given back' back by Westminster...."

      Is that so? How much more do we generate? Do you have the figures?

      "...hence we would be better off keeping it!"

      By how much would "we be better off? How long would it take? Do you have the figures? Analysis? Projections?

      Delete
  4. With the greatest respect, you really aren't very good at this Blog thing.

    Most of your rantings make you sound desperate,at times incoherent, with a shallow knowledge on the subject matter and more than a little strange.

    These are not attributes that are going to convert people in Scotland to unionism (which is what I assume you're attempting) I'd wager that you're achieving the exact opposite of what you hoped.

    I'm from New Zealand, a neutral on independence,so no axe to grind, but I'm following this closely as I have Scottish family.

    I really do get the impression that the unionists are losing the argument in the social media; a lot of blogs, faceboook pages, twitter etc come across as a little 'special' to say the least.

    This is a classic example.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting POV.

      What have I said that you disagree with?

      Why?

      Delete
    2. "These are not attributes that are going to convert people in Scotland to unionism (which is what I assume you're attempting) I'd wager that you're achieving the exact opposite of what you hoped."

      That's a strange way to put things, Peninsula.

      Given that there's never been any demonstrable majority support for Scottish independence surely it's for the Nationalists to convert people to independence rather than for the Unionists to convert people to supporting the status quo.

      Delete
  5. I'm going to jump in and defend Braveheart here, even if I am a cynical nationalist.

    Peninsula, go and read some of the nationalist blogs. Lots of ranting about the BBC and other nonsense. Lots of them display what you describe as "shallow knowledge".

    Well written blogs are most certainly not the preserve of the nationalist camp. I write a lot of crap at times, but with a blog the writer can say what the hell he likes, regardless of patronising claptrap.

    If you want to criticise, at least be constructive rather than coming out with the same crap that cybernats and unionistas use.

    "Convert people to unionism"? This ain't a flipping religion, although those that worship at the Temple of the Fundamentalist Wing of the Alex Salmond Appreciation Society think independence is.

    Sorry Braveheart for the rant, but the Kiwi asked for it!

    By the way, the article does make a lot of sense. To the critics, go and read some of the nationalist blogs which are saying the same thing about the SNP at present. Not everyone is blind to the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Logic! from a Labour member not possible when they jump into bed with the Tories throughout Scotland to cling to power. I see that Labour Hame has more in common with Tory Hoose these days in talking to itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tories in Dumfries and Galloway kept in power by SNP coalition deal.

      http://www.dumfriescourier.co.uk/news/tories-and-snp-take-control-of-council/3168

      Any comment? SNP betrayal? Parcel of rogues? Oooops? apologies?.....

      No?

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. Tories in Dumfries and Galloway kept in power by SNP coalition deal.

      http://www.dumfriescourier.co.uk/news/tories-and-snp-take-control-of-council/3168

      Any comment? SNP betrayal? Parcel of rogues? Oooops? apologies?.....

      No?

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry CH - Nationalism IS bigotry because it creates division and disparity.

      Delete
    3. Interesting how race crime is on the increase in Scotland -

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18102341

      I don't think that's a conicidence with the rise of nationalism in Scotland.

      From my own experience, the ammount of negative comments I hear and see has vastly increased, espcially since the nationalsit rhetoric has upped the skates on since the majority in the last Holyrood elections.

      Delete
  8. I think you are missing the point that the party with the most seats seeks alliances with smaller members rather than the other way round which is an affront to democracy. But if you are happy with 'Vote Labour get Tory both locally and at Westminster' so be it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CH, you're wriggling. The link I gave you shows that "IN A SHOCK move the Conservative and SNP groups have taken control of Dumfries and Galloway Council.

      The two parties have entered into a partnership agreement to form the next administration.

      In a joint statement the parties said that they would work with each other to do what was best for the region.

      The Labour group, who returned the largest number of candidates at the recent election.....,"

      You are missing the point, deliberately I think....so...

      Tories in Dumfries and Galloway kept in power by SNP coalition deal.

      http://www.dumfriescourier.co.uk/news/tories-and-snp-take-control-of-council/3168

      Any comment? SNP betrayal? Parcel of rogues? Oooops? apologies?.....

      No?

      Delete
    2. or here

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-18070305

      "The party which won most seats in Dumfries and Galloway Council elections will not be part of its administration.

      Labour took 15 places on the authority but a ruling coalition has been formed by 14 Conservatives and 10 SNP members.

      The move means that Tory Ivor Hyslop will return as council leader in a deal which the two groups said would work for the good of the area.

      However, the Labour group said the coalition agreement showed "contempt for local people".

      Its leader, Ronnie Nicholson, said: "The Tories lost the election, and the people of Dumfries and Galloway voted to kick them out.

      "But the dead hand of Tory rule has been given the kiss of life by the SNP."

      Delete
    3. CH, the bottom line is that as usual there's little difference between the parties on these matters, so no point in trying to construct a narrative of SNP exceptionalism in this regard.

      After all, the SNP proposed a 'progressive alliance' at Westminster to keep the largest party out.

      But I suppose that made a change from "hanging Westminster by a Scottish rope".

      Delete
    4. No not wriggling at all But Labour failed to reach an agreement with the SNP or the Conservatives. as your party was unwilling to work with others then there was only one other possible outcome.

      Delete
    5. Don't forget, CH - the SNP - who love Scotland and will do anything for their motherland - voted with the Tories in 79 to bring down the Labour government to inflict 18 years of Thatcherism on Scotland. How's that for a betrayal?

      Delete
  9. So.

    If Labour reaches an agreement with other parties (not the nats) it's betrayal.

    And if Labour fails to reach agreement with other parties (nats or not) it's betrayal.

    But if Labour reaches ageement with other parties (the nats) "http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-18088098" it's..?

    Really CH. facing two ways at once is child's play for you. It has to be three or more, or you're not interested...

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with you about the emotional side of the SNP argument.

    I consider myself a floating voter as I think political parties are all much of a muchness - just differently coloured rosettes.

    My main grump about Westminster politics is that from 1979 onward Scots oil was systematically plundered to help finance whatever dodgy policies were being implemented.

    The brutal irony with Thatcher being that Scotland's oil helped finance the high unemployment brought about by her dogmatic ideology.

    Labour used it as lubricant for a variety of reasons and no doubt a large dollop helped finance the illegal war in Iraq.

    I've got a long memory and still cannot forget the actions of the SNP voting in Westminster parliament to help Thatcher gain the reins of power over the UK.

    The final straw for the SNP with me was the revelation that Salmond would actually have lobbied for a media monopoly with a self serving agenda.

    A lot of this is emotional, I know, but I do attempt to justify it.

    I still don't have a scooby what I'll vote come referendum time, but the onus should quite rightly be on those who urge us to vote for independence.

    I think this is a good piece contrary to some of the other comments here.

    Keep up the good work. You strike me as someone committed to social justice and plurality.

    A lot of the SNP sites I've posted on inevitably result in squalid and unnecessary insults.

    You seem well aware of that already.

    NB: The SNP have allied with the Tories in East Ayrshire. So it's pots, kettles and tedious mudslinging all over again.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks ahdinnaeken.

    Agree with you about the tragedy of Thatcher's waste of the oil bonanza. A total and enduring disaster.

    The parties are not all the same, as the last two days of Tory anti-worker Beercroft

    http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/357771-employmentlaw.html#document/p2

    and pro-rich Taxpayers Alliance

    http://www.2020tax.org/2020tc.pdf

    reports show.

    Labour is not perfect.. but then who is -can any human operation be perfect? - but they are better than the others by a mile IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'll disagree with you about Labour - though they do, admittedly, at least pay lip service to the aspirations of ordinary people.

    Many moons ago I used to deal on a daily basis with a lot of list and constituency Scottish politicians.

    Some of them are on the front benches of the Scottish Parliament now.

    Of the lot, including MPs and MSPs, there was only one I could say I had genuine respect for as a politician and he was a Tory.

    Sadly, he's dead now.

    I think it's ingrained in me to hate Tories because of Thatcher, yet this guy was as close as I think you'd ever get to the real deal of a 'conviction politician'.

    All the Labour people, and I mean all, were wishy washy toe the line party lickers. Some of them I liked on a personal basis such as Irene Oldfather, but as a politician she was too nice and a bit of a washout.

    The Taxpayers Alliance scares me. There was a piece in Private Eye a few weeks back about - ironically - one of their founders not actually paying any tax due to some sophisticated tax avoidance jiggery pokery.

    It just scunners me. I could see myself voting for independence if I believed we'd be protected from these kind of people.

    Salmond's bourgeoise clique doesn't instill that confidence in me.

    I can't see myself voting for the status quo.

    Just now - in the absence of a Devo Max/whatever option - I guess I'll be spoiling my ballot paper.

    I've noticed some of your comment posts. You fight your corner well and never resort to moronic ad hominems.

    I don't either unless I'm attacked - which happens often. That's why this particular blog resonated with me.

    I first commented on Wings Over Scotland and ended up being called a barrelful of names starting with 'hate blinded idiot' ranging through 'really really stupid' to 'psychotically insane'.

    When that happens, I can't help myself, the gloves come off.

    I never resort to unjustified insult and try to avoid swearing at all costs (just in case someone who knows me reads the stuff).

    I've seen you take some heavy insults from this RevStu guy and still remain calm.

    How do you manage it?


    Regards

    NB: Do you mind if I put you on my blog roll?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ad hominem = lost argument IMO.

    RevStu is an idiot and he supports "independence". I'm never going to convince him of anything. But if I show that he's an idiot by giving him enough rope, others will see what's going on, therefore I win.

    Or to put it another way, don't get mad get even.

    Of course you can blogroll me. What's yours?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm not actually sure he supports anything other than his ridiculously over inflated ego.

    I've carried out a bit of research on him and can only conclude that he's morally repugnant and extreme as a matter of course.

    His style of argument follows a tediously predictable and ludicrous pattern. What surprised me the most though is that he's in his 40s. He acts like a deranged teenager.

    When I read this piece in your blog it brought him to mind. Though he is highly articulate.

    My blog is an attempt at parody.
    http://ahdinnaeken.wordpress.com/

    Don't expect it to make too much sense. Some of it might raise a chuckle.

    Regards.

    ReplyDelete